Well both questions are flawed, both rely on weak premises, and both center on all or nothing ideologies.
The need for a public charging network will always be great even with 200 mile EVs clogging the streets. Why is that you ask? Unlike gas, one can leave home with a full 200 mile range meaning any charging network that would be needed would be something following the freeways, right?
Well, no... not even close. There are several factors at work here and the biggest factor is the assumption that people will see the immediate value of an "affordable" EV in the $35,000 range (which would be true on the TCO over a relatively short period of time) and flock to them instead of buying the much referred to new $32,000 gasoline car. Well saving money is always a big consideration but emotions generally play the biggest part of an automobile purchase which means if you filter out trucks (average selling price over $40,000) sports cars, full sized SUVs, etc. you quickly find the selling price of the market that a 200 mile EV would be siphoning from is basically two segments; the car priced in the mid 20's. The next segment would be the "bargain, commuter only" car in the high teens and low 20's. Now we have a $10,000-$15,000 price difference to explain away. And yes, compelling offers in the EV arena will siphon sales from all categories but we are just sticking with general trends.
It is this reason why the 100 mile EV is here to stay and stay for a long time. Now a few things to understand here. No amount of innovation will drive the price extremely low so compromises will need to be made. Nissan had a GREAT idea when they released a stripped down LEAF. This is a very viable niche. Supply a 100 mile EV (using the 30 kwh pack) at a price starting in the mid 20's and you WILL have a hit on your hands. This is a niche car for sure but a niche that a huge majority of households have. The 2nd car primarily used during the week to drive back and forth (usually alone) to work!
Wait! you say. The S Trim is currently in the low 30's without the 30 kwh pack so how we gonna get it to the mid 20's with the pack? Well, remember the $7500 fed credit is still in effect and if in WA, you are saving another $3,000 by not paying sales tax so that actually brings it to the low 20's! Now the only thing to work on is lowering costs between now and the time the Fed Credit ends, which is not an insurmountable challenge by any means. (the State Credit is in until 2019) Either way, one thing that is very clear and that is not supplying the 30 kwh battery to the S Trim was a monumental mistake on Nissan's part. I fully expect that to change for 2017 but because of the fed credit wind down (made famous by Tesla's goal of milking for as much as they can) Nissan and others probably have at least 2 more years to get the price right.
The credit remains at 100% until the quarter after the quarter in which the sales figure is reached. The sales limit is 200,000 per manufacturer so suppose Nissan hits that number the first day of a new quarter say July 1st for example. They would have the full credit for the remainder of the quarter plus the next quarter ending Dec 31, meaning the first reduction to 50% of the credit would not happen until Jan 1st of the next year.
Either way, more choices, more range, more EVers means one thing; our current, already inadequate public charging system is not going to work. Right now its common to have to wait for someone to finish their charge before you can start yours. During 3 day holiday weekends, popular stations (which in the public charging world means "working and the only option for 50 miles!") can have 3 or 4 cars waiting.
So public charging needs a shot in the arm, a HUGE one. What is needed is a "Moonshot" effort to get the network built as soon as possible. But waiting on private industry to do it has simply not worked. We have several networks that are here and there that provides bare bones coverage in most areas. (We still have VERY desirable locations unreachable by LEAF)
So why is this happening? In most areas, charging companies are now pretty much on their own to expand their networks. Federal assistance has all but dried up. New installations now are usually due to a benefactor AKA host willing to pay for nearly everything. NRG made a big splash in the Pacific Northwest early Summer of 2015 announcing fast charger placements at 4 major malls. The speed in which they were installed gave everyone hope that NRG was a motivated player who was "all in" for us!
Well, that was not the case. In reality the likely story was a single company, Simon Malls who put up the money for the initial installs. Unfortunately, there are only 4 Simon Malls in Western Washington so additional expansion, though ongoing, has been painfully slow. The ongoing issue of providing access to the Washington Coast is still completely unresolved. Add to the fact that NRG has a subscription requirement for decent pricing which complicates the matters because nearly no one is in a position to access these far flung locations on a regular basis, making the subscription model, the one year contract requirement, and early termination fee very undesirable. In defense of NRG; I do know two people who terminated their subscriptions early without penalty. Now both had very valid reasons so maybe NRG simply did the right thing instead of not holding fast to the policy. Now, I am not familiar with NRG's newer installs in the area but guessing it was due to hosts stepping up and paying for most of the costs and why do I think this?
Demand charges are a monthly fee added to an electricity bill if a draw exceeding a predetermined level is maintained for a period of time. (15 minutes in some cases) The charge is levied once per month and is for each KW over the threshold. This can add hundreds of dollars to the monthly bill and some localities only apply the demand charge based on the highest usage for the previous year meaning one poorly timed fast charge could have a year long consequence!
Now one could argue that demand charges can be mitigated by having multiple meters at one location but most utilities have that covered as well. Several schedules have very large basic monthly fees. I went thru EVERY schedule Puget Sound Energy offered and looks like this would be the best option. Now, even the busiest location is not likely to use anywhere near this much power during the month.
Now Puget Sound Energy has dozens of schedules for billing customers and here is one example. Here demand charges don't start until the instantaneous usage exceeds 50 KW which is actually fairly generous compared to several utilities in the region. So imagine a "bare bones" charging station consisting of a single fast charger and 2 L2's. Keeping in mind that only a brief time at high power usage is all that is needed to create a demand charge, we could see a 30 kwh LEAF at 45 KW along with 2 other LEAFs each pulling 6 KW or a total of 57 KW. Now we are seeing a demand charge "starting" at $42.14 to $63.14. (7 times the applicable demand rate) The problem is that there will be other power needs present including lighting and connectivity needs. Also keep in mind; these are somewhat "low ball" figures considering that charging speeds will only be going up.
Unfortunately these "favorable" rates are not everywhere. In Washington, the Pacific Coast is a highly desirable location especially for simply spending the day walking (or driving) along beach. But there is no real charging network located there. Yes, there is one at a lodge past Ocean Shores (unreachable by a 24 kwh LEAF) and an L2 at the Chevy Dealership in town but on a day trip, only fast charging will allow the trip to happen. A quick glance at Grays Harbor PUD business rates quickly reveals why this is likely true.
In my travels for work I talk with a lot of business and franchisee owners including a business owner in Aberdeen, WA who drives a Chevy Volt. He was mulling the idea of putting in charging stations at his 3 business locations but was hesitant over the cost. This was back in 2012 and I was completely unfamiliar with what businesses had to deal with and I thought demand charges was something only high cost Californians dealt with. Imagine my shock when I look at his bill and realized it STARTED at $500 BEFORE any usage costs were added in. Now to be fair, he had gas pumps (which he did not pay any of the cost of including the electric bill) and his one other location that had no gas was a bargain where the bill was roughly "only" $300 before any usage charges were added.
With these kinds of obstacles, it becomes very clear that governmental intervention is needed. Puget Sound Energy is regulated by Washington Utilities and Transportation (WOW if that is not an EV marriage dream come true!!) Commission (UTC) and I think this (http://www.utc.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx) is where we need to start. Unfortunately, this is only a start and it doesn't even address the horrors of being a business customer of Grays Harbor PUD. So what is the right answer?
Maybe a requirement to allow fast chargers to get demand fees waived. Or perhaps require certain amount of fast chargers to be installed in a county based on EV registrations. Either way, there is no perfect solution and only State law can force privately owned public utilities to comply.
Currently WA State is in the process of launching a new program funded by the increase in EV registration fees that will earmark one million dollars to encourage private investment in charging stations. The ideology is the hope that grants and other financial incentives will lower the start up costs and attract local businesses. But with ongoing demand fees, I am afraid areas like Grays Harbor will find very few takers.