The Money for Charging Moved From the Tax Code to Your Utility Territory

By Keith Reynolds | Publisher & Editor, ChargedUp!

Home | All Stories

Federal tax credits for charging equipment have sunset. The funding did not disappear, it relocated. State grant programs and utility infrastructure programs now carry most of the subsidy, and both are administered locally. That changes a practical thing: whether a charging project pencils is now determined largely by which utility serves the property and which state it sits in, rather than by federal policy. Two identical shopping centers 40 miles apart can face very different numbers. City halls, fleet depots and libraries are drawing on the same programs, which makes municipal projects both a competing claim on the same money and the most readable guide to what these deals actually look like.

The Charger Is the Small Part of the Bill

The first thing worth correcting is the assumption that a charging project is an equipment purchase. On most commercial sites it is an electrical construction project that happens to end in a charger.

The costs that dominate are the ones behind the wall. Conduit and trenching across a parking field. A new panel. In many cases a larger transformer, and sometimes a utility service upgrade that requires the utility to build new infrastructure to reach the site. Industry practice has a name for all of that work: make-ready. It refers to everything required to bring adequate power to the point where a charger gets bolted down.

This matters because make-ready is where the subsidy money is concentrated. Programs that pay for chargers are competing for attention with programs that pay for, or directly install, the electrical infrastructure underneath them. On a site that needs a service upgrade, the second kind is worth considerably more.

Utilities Became the Largest Funder Almost Quietly

Utility programs are the layer most property owners overlook, partly because they are invisible from a national vantage point. In California alone, state regulators authorized $738 million in utility infrastructure investment for transportation electrification under a single 2018 proceeding, including $210 million through Pacific Gas and Electric's fleet program, $343 million through Southern California Edison's Charge Ready Transport, and roughly $107 million through San Diego Gas and Electric. A separate authorization directed $52.2 million toward roughly 2,822 charging ports at apartment buildings, workplaces and public destination sites.

Those programs are funded through utility rates rather than through the federal tax code, which is why they survived the changes that removed the federal credits. They are also structurally different from a grant. In many territories the utility does not reimburse the owner; it builds and owns the infrastructure up to a defined point, frequently the meter or a stub near the parking area, and the owner takes it from there.

Because these programs vary by service territory, there is no national answer to what is available. The Department of Energy maintains a utility program finder within its Alternative Fuels Data Center specifically so that owners and fleets can identify what their serving utility offers, which typically includes make-ready infrastructure, commercial charging rates and technical assistance. That lookup is the correct first step on any charging project, and it comes before selecting equipment.

The Federal Corridor Program Came Back, and Changed Shape

The federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, known as NEVI, went through a disruption worth understanding because the version that emerged is more useful to commercial property than the original. The Federal Highway Administration suspended the program on February 6, 2025, revoking all prior guidance and halting new obligations. Seventeen states sued. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction restoring roughly $1 billion, the Department of Transportation issued new guidance in August 2025, and a January 2026 ruling by Judge Tana Lin found that the agencies had unlawfully prevented states from accessing the funds. The $5 billion program is operating again, with $885 million apportioned for fiscal 2026.

Two changes in the 2025 guidance matter for site owners. The requirement that stations sit within 50 miles of one another along designated corridors was removed, and site eligibility expanded beyond those designated corridors. States may also now use the funds for medium and heavy-duty charging once light-duty buildout is addressed, which opens the program to freight corridors and fleet facilities that were previously outside it.

The other relevant fact is how little of the money has been spent. States had awarded just over $670 million as of mid-2025, roughly 16 percent of the total, and 384 charging ports had been built through the program by late 2025. A program with most of its funding unobligated and newly broadened site eligibility is an unusual combination, and it favors owners who are ready to move rather than those waiting for the market to settle.

California Shows What the State Layer Now Looks Like

The clearest current example of state money is the California Energy Commission's announcement of $55.2 million through its Fast Charge California Project. The relevant detail for owners is the structure: the window running October 7, 2026 through January 14, 2027 offers incentives covering up to 100 percent of eligible installation costs for direct current fast chargers, up to $100,000 per charging port. The prior window awarded $54 million for more than 1,200 ready-to-build ports across 35 counties.

Full coverage of eligible installation cost is a materially different proposition from a partial rebate, and the phrase that governs is ready to build. These programs reward sites that have already resolved their electrical questions. An owner who begins the utility conversation when the funding window opens will generally miss it.

The state is running federal corridor money in parallel. The Energy Commission has opened successive NEVI solicitations including a $79 million round for light-duty corridor charging and a separate $79 million round for medium and heavy-duty corridor charging in Southern California, the latter reimbursing up to 80 percent per project to a maximum of $8 million and requiring at least 3 megawatts per site. Three megawatts is a substantial electrical service, comparable to a large industrial facility, which is a reminder that freight charging is an infrastructure project rather than a parking amenity.

Cities Are Solving the Same Problem, in Public

Municipal charging is usually discussed as a public service question. For a private owner it is more useful as a source of information and as a competing claim on the same resources.

Start with the scale difference inside municipal projects themselves. A handful of chargers serving visitors at a library is a parking lot job. A police fleet, a public works fleet or a school bus depot is not. Dozens or eventually hundreds of vehicles returning to the same facility every evening and charging in the same overnight window creates a concentrated electrical load that can rival a small industrial plant. At that point a city is not buying chargers. It is planning energy infrastructure, and it faces the same questions a warehouse owner faces: service capacity, demand charges, whether to add storage or onsite solar, and software to control when vehicles draw power so they do not all pull at once.

New York runs the largest program of this kind. Its Joint Utilities Make-Ready Program carries a total budget of $1.243 billion, with more than $885 million allocated to make-ready work and $372.5 million required to directly benefit disadvantaged communities, supporting both Level 2 and fast charging installations. A separate state program, Charge Ready NY 2.0, adds rebates of up to $4,000 per port at workplaces, hotels and multi-unit buildings, and it is open to public, private and nonprofit applicants alike.

Massachusetts restructured its approach in an October 2025 order from the Department of Public Utilities, creating a make-ready program with close to $400 million across Eversource, National Grid and Unitil, with National Grid holding the largest allocation at $206 million. Colorado takes a different route, requiring regulated utilities to file transportation electrification plans with the Public Utilities Commission every three years. Public Service Company of Colorado furnishes participating sites with make-ready infrastructure across multifamily, fleet, workplace and public segments, including secondary infrastructure at no cost and provisions to size that infrastructure beyond the chargers currently planned. The state layers on Charge Ahead Colorado, covering up to 80 percent of project cost at $4,500 to $50,000 per port, with a separate program for fleet charging.

The Range Between Utilities Is Enormous

The more useful way to read that list is as a spread rather than as a set of examples, because what a given property can get varies by an order of magnitude and the variable is the serving utility rather than the state.

At the generous end, Duke Energy covers 100 percent of make-ready electrical costs for commercial customers across its six-state territory, including panel upgrades, conduit and trenching, and adds a fleet advisory bonus of up to $12,000. National Grid offers up to 100 percent make-ready funding in Massachusetts and New York. Dominion Energy in Virginia covers 50 percent, rising to 100 percent for facilities in designated disadvantaged communities. Further down the range, ComEd in Illinois pays up to $3,750 per Level 2 port capped at $30,000 per site, Georgia Power pays $150 to $250 per kilowatt installed capped at $60,000 per entity per year, and NV Energy pays up to $5,000 per Level 2 connector.

Programs also cross state lines in ways that do not follow political boundaries. A single Tennessee Valley Authority program reaches seven southeastern states. Entergy runs a program spanning Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Meanwhile many rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities have no program at all.

The practical consequence is that two otherwise identical properties, in the same state and the same asset class, can face a difference between full coverage of the electrical work and none of it. That is not a detail to confirm after selecting a vendor. It is the first number in the model.

These programs also close. The upstate New York make-ready program for Level 2 and fast charging stopped accepting new applications in April 2026 while other tracks continued. Program cycles end when budgets are committed, which rewards owners who are prepared when a window opens rather than those who begin preparing because one did.

Public Sites and Private Sites Are Not the Same Deal

Cities and private owners draw on the same utility programs and frequently the same state grants. What differs is everything around the funding: how quickly a decision gets made, which financing tools are available, and what obligations attach.

Read across those rows and the trade becomes clear. A city's advantages are the cost of its capital and its automatic standing for public-access grants. A private owner's advantages are speed and a set of financing tools a public entity cannot use. Neither position is better; they are suited to different projects, which is one reason the partnership structures described earlier keep appearing.

Where C-PACE Fits

Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy financing, known as C-PACE, is the clearest example of a tool available only on the private side. It lets an owner finance eligible improvements through a fixed-rate assessment collected with property taxes, typically covering up to 100 percent of eligible cost over terms reaching 20 to 30 years. The obligation transfers with the property on sale, does not accelerate, and requires no personal guarantee. Enabling legislation is active in most states.

The reason it does not work for a city is mechanical rather than political. C-PACE is repaid through the property tax bill, and a tax-exempt public entity does not receive one. Municipalities finance the same work with tax-exempt debt instead, which is generally cheaper anyway.

Three qualifications matter before an owner counts on it for a charging project. First, eligibility for charging specifically varies by state program. Many statutes are written around energy efficiency, renewable generation and water conservation, which means charging often qualifies as part of a broader project rather than on its own, and that should be confirmed with the program administrator before design work begins.

Second, C-PACE is not an escape from current interest rates. Pricing generally tracks the 10-year Treasury plus a spread, so it moved with the rest of the debt market this year. What it provides is a fixed rate over a term far longer than a commercial mortgage, and no refinancing risk on that portion of the capital stack, which in the present market can be worth more than a lower coupon.

Third, the assessment is senior to the mortgage, so the existing lender must consent, and because it is collected as a property tax it is recorded above net operating income. Stated income declines by the amount of the annual assessment even as the traditional mortgage coverage ratio appears unchanged, and lenders test a combined ratio that adds it back. The test worth applying is whether first-year savings exceed the first-year assessment. Where a utility covers most of the make-ready cost, that test gets considerably easier to pass, which is the practical argument for sequencing the utility program first and the financing second.

Municipal Practice Moved Through Three Phases

Municipal charging has changed shape twice in roughly a decade, and understanding the arc explains why city files are useful now in a way they were not before.

The first phase was demonstration. Cities installed a few Level 2 chargers at city hall or a library, bought a handful of sedans, and paid for both with grants. Charge Ahead Colorado has been running since 2013 and has funded more than 1,000 charging stations. Settlement money from the Volkswagen emissions case funded a similar wave nationally. These projects were small, visible and largely symbolic, and they taught cities almost nothing about electrical infrastructure because they rarely strained it.

The second phase was mandates. Thirty-three states now have zero-emission vehicle policies, and state fleet procurement targets became common, with schedules such as 50 percent of state-purchased light-duty vehicles electric by 2026, 75 percent by 2028 and 100 percent by 2030, and separate timelines for medium and heavy-duty fleets extending to 2040. New York City set its own target through Local Law 140. Targets forced planning, but they also produced procurement driven by deadline rather than by suitability.

The third phase, which is contemporary practice, is total cost of ownership. As federal support receded, the Electrification Coalition observed that long-term growth in municipal fleet electrification will increasingly depend on sound procurement strategy and effective application of total cost of ownership analysis rather than on subsidy. That shift changed the questions cities ask, and it is the phase private fleet and property owners are entering now.

What Contemporary Practice Looks Like

Five habits distinguish how cities run these projects today from how they ran them five years ago.

They analyze duty cycles before buying anything. Roughly 70 percent of government fleets have deployed telematics, which means a city can examine how far each vehicle actually travels, when it returns, and how long it sits before deciding what to replace. That data layer is what makes a credible total cost of ownership analysis possible, and it is why utility advisory programs begin with a suitability assessment rather than a charger count.

They triage by vehicle type instead of converting fleet-wide. Light-duty sedans, pickups and forklifts are treated as straightforward replacements, while snowplows and certain heavy public works equipment are deferred because suitable models do not yet exist. Madison, Wisconsin assigned its first electric vehicles to departments with predictable travel patterns and upgraded charging infrastructure in phases, expanding as drivers gained confidence rather than converting at once. Purpose-built vehicles are beginning to close the remaining gaps, including the first all-electric police pursuit vehicle.

They consolidate charging at depots rather than scattering it. King County Metro in Washington now procures electric buses exclusively and is building a charging hub that begins servicing 120 electric buses in 2026, following a contract for nearly 400 buses. Concentrating load at one facility is harder electrically but far cheaper than building service at many sites, and it is the same calculation a logistics operator makes about depot charging.

They phase the electrical work ahead of the vehicles. Because service upgrades run on utility timelines rather than budget cycles, the infrastructure sequence now leads the procurement sequence. This is the reversal of early practice, when chargers followed vehicle purchases.

And the leaders operate at genuine scale. New York City now runs nearly 10,500 electrified fleet units, including 5,825 fully electric vehicles, and has surpassed 1,000 electric vehicles in law enforcement service. Its sanitation department, parks department and enforcement fleet are scheduled to fully electrify by 2030, five years ahead of the citywide target. Scale is not confined to large cities. Beverly, Massachusetts, with roughly 40,000 residents, is converting its entire 27-bus school fleet, and Iowa City has deployed 16 electric vehicles through a procurement model built for a smaller budget.

The pattern across all five habits is that cities stopped treating this as a vehicle purchase and started treating it as facility planning. A private owner reading a municipal file today is reading the output of that shift, which is why the files are worth more now than the early ones were.

Municipal Procurement Is a Public Record You Can Read

The practical advantage most private owners overlook is that cities buy in the open. Requests for proposals, vendor responses, staff reports, council presentations and executed contracts for municipal charging projects are generally public records. Private charging agreements are not.

That means an owner weighing a charging proposal can read what a nearby city actually negotiated: the revenue split, the term length, who paid for the electrical service upgrade, what uptime the operator committed to, what happens to the equipment at expiration. Council meeting materials frequently include the staff analysis explaining why one structure was chosen over another. It is the closest thing to comparable transaction data that exists in this market, and it is free.

Cities are also becoming counterparties rather than only comparables. Utility plans increasingly contemplate community charging hubs developed in partnership with municipalities and community organizations, which pair public land or public co-investment with private operation. A commercial site adjacent to a municipal facility, a transit stop or a public parking structure may fit a program that neither party could access alone.

There is a competitive dimension worth stating plainly. Utility make-ready budgets are finite and allocated by program cycle. Interconnection queues and transformer supply are constrained everywhere. When a city electrifies a fleet of several hundred vehicles, that project consumes make-ready dollars, a queue position and equipment from the same pool serving private projects in the same territory. Being early in a program cycle is worth more than being certain about equipment selection.

For planners and municipal executives, the reverse also holds. The building codes and zoning provisions a city adopts now, requiring conduit or panel capacity in new construction and major renovation, determine how expensive private charging will be for the next thirty years. Installing capacity during construction costs a small fraction of retrofitting it, and every commercial project approved without it becomes a more expensive problem later.

Free Installation Is Not the Same as Free

A growing share of charging projects arrive as offers rather than purchases. A charging operator proposes to install and own equipment on the property at no capital cost to the owner, in exchange for a term, site control, parking spaces and a revenue arrangement. Utility programs, state grants and private capital are frequently stacked inside a single such proposal.

These structures can be genuinely good for an owner with limited capital. They also carry obligations that outlast the enthusiasm that produced them, and the terms deserve the same scrutiny an anchor lease receives.

Four provisions decide the outcome. Who pays for the electrical service upgrade, and who owns the upgraded capacity afterward, since service capacity has value beyond charging. Who carries the risk if the chargers are not used, which a revenue share places on the owner and a fixed fee places on the operator. What instrument conveys the rights, because a ground lease creates an interest that can complicate a sale or a refinancing in a way a license or easement does not. And what happens at the end, including whether the operator must refresh obsolete equipment during the term and remove it and restore the pavement afterward.

Grant-funded projects add a further condition. Public money generally carries public access, uptime and reporting requirements. NEVI-funded stations, for instance, are held to a 97 percent uptime standard. An owner accepting grant funds is accepting an operating obligation, not only a check.

What to Do

1. Identify your serving utility's transportation electrification program before selecting equipment or a vendor. The Department of Energy's utility finder is the fastest route. What the utility will build determines the size of the problem you are actually solving.

2. Establish your electrical baseline. Know the property's existing service capacity, its current peak draw and the available headroom. That single number decides whether a project is a parking lot job or a utility project, and it is the first question any program will ask.

3. Get ready before the window opens. Programs that cover most or all of installation cost prioritize projects that can build immediately, and permitting and utility coordination take longer than application periods stay open.

4. Ask what your state is running now, not what federal policy says. Corridor funds, fleet programs and school bus charging money are administered at the state level with their own deadlines and their own site criteria.

5. Read what your city or county negotiated. Municipal charging contracts, staff reports and council presentations are public records, and they show real terms on revenue splits, service upgrades, uptime commitments and end-of-term obligations.

6. Ask the utility to size the make-ready work beyond your current charger count. Several programs allow it. Trenching conduit for future ports during the initial installation costs a fraction of coming back later.

7. Underwrite the upgraded electrical service separately from the charging revenue. Added service capacity supports future storage, solar or tenant loads, and in a market where new capacity takes years to obtain, it may be the more durable asset.

The Bottom Line

The funding did not go away when the federal credits did. It moved to state agencies and utilities, and both administer locally. That makes charging economics a function of geography in a way they were not five years ago, and it puts the serving utility, not the equipment vendor, at the center of the decision.

It also completes a longer shift, and cities are traveling it on the same schedule. Charging began as a transportation amenity bolted onto a parking lot. It has become part of a property's electrical infrastructure, evaluated alongside service capacity, demand charges, storage and eventual onsite generation. A municipal fleet depot and a distribution warehouse are now solving the same problem with the same tools, drawing on the same utility programs and competing for the same queue positions.

The useful question is no longer how many chargers to install. It is what electrical service this property will need in ten years, and which of these programs will help pay to build it now. The cities in your market are answering that question in public, which makes their files the cheapest research available.

Sources

• https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-utility-finder

• https://www.act-news.com/news/the-united-states-of-nevi/

• https://www.climatepolicydashboard.org/policies/transportation/public-fleet-evs

• https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/transportation-electrification/charging-infrastructure-deployment-and-incentives

• https://www.cspdailynews.com/technologyservices/federal-court-lifts-nevi-funding-freeze-opening-door-c-store-ev-charging

• https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/28730-colorado-puc-approves-xcel-energys-transportation-electrification-plan/

• https://drivecleancolorado.org/xcel-energy-fleet-electrification-support/

• https://electrificationcoalition.org/electrifying-municipalities/

• https://electrificationcoalition.org/resource/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-nevi-program-updated-guidance/

• https://electrificationcoalition.org/resource/total-cost-of-ownership-for-public-fleets-how-cities-are-saving-money-by-going-electric/

• https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2026-05/california-energy-commission-announces-over-55m-expand-public-ev-fast-charging

• https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/federal-ev-infrastructure-programs

• https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/c-pace

• https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/charge-ahead-colorado

• https://evsavingshub.com/ev-charger-incentives-in-massachusetts-2026/

• https://www.gao.gov/products/b-337137

• https://jointutilitiesofny.org/ev/make-ready

• https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/2025/06/26/the-national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-nevi-program-current-status-and-outlook/

• https://www.nyc.gov/site/dcas/news/008-26/city-new-york-plots-future-fleet-electrification-latest-clean-fleet-transition-report

• https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/electric-vehicle/maximizing-electric-vehicle-incentives-a-state-by-state-guide/

• https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/filings/transportation_electrification_plan/

Frequently Asked Questions

Is federal money for EV charging still available?

Yes, through different channels than before. The NEVI corridor program is operating again with $885 million apportioned for fiscal 2026 after a suspension and subsequent litigation, and it is administered by states rather than distributed directly. Federal tax credits for charging equipment have sunset.

What is make-ready?

The electrical work required to bring adequate power to the point where a charger is installed, including conduit, trenching, panels, transformers and any utility service upgrade. On most commercial sites it costs more than the charging equipment itself.

Why does the serving utility matter so much?

Utility transportation electrification programs are funded through rates and administered by service territory, so what is available differs from one utility to the next. In many territories the utility builds and owns the infrastructure up to a defined point rather than reimbursing the owner.

What is California offering right now?

The California Energy Commission announced $55.2 million through the Fast Charge California Project, with a window from October 7, 2026 to January 14, 2027 covering up to 100 percent of eligible installation costs for fast chargers, to a maximum of $100,000 per port. Separate NEVI solicitations fund corridor charging for light-duty and for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

What should an owner check in a no-cost charging proposal?

Who funds the electrical service upgrade and who owns the added capacity afterward, who carries the risk if utilization is low, whether the rights are conveyed by license or ground lease, and what obligations apply at expiration for equipment refresh, removal and site restoration.

Why should a private owner care what a city is doing?

Two reasons. Municipal charging contracts are public records, so their terms show what these deals actually look like before you negotiate your own. And municipal projects draw on the same utility make-ready budgets, interconnection queue positions and transformer supply as private projects in the same territory.

What does a utility make-ready program typically cover?

It varies by territory. In Colorado, Public Service Company's program furnishes participating sites with make-ready infrastructure across multifamily, fleet, workplace and public segments, including secondary infrastructure at no cost to the customer and provisions to size that infrastructure beyond currently planned chargers.

How is municipal fleet charging different from public charging?

A few chargers serving library visitors is a parking lot project. A police, public works or school bus fleet returning to one facility and charging overnight creates concentrated load comparable to a small industrial plant, which turns the project into energy infrastructure planning involving service capacity, demand charges, storage and load control software.

How has municipal charging changed over the years?

It moved through three phases. Demonstration projects funded by grants and settlement money, then mandate-driven procurement as 33 states adopted zero-emission vehicle policies and fleet targets, and now total cost of ownership analysis as federal support receded. Contemporary practice leads with duty-cycle data and infrastructure sequencing rather than vehicle purchases.

What does current municipal practice look like?

Cities analyze telematics data before buying, triage by vehicle type rather than converting fleet-wide, consolidate charging at depots, and phase electrical work ahead of vehicle procurement. New York City now operates nearly 10,500 electrified fleet units including 5,825 fully electric vehicles.

How much do utility make-ready programs vary?

Enormously, and by utility rather than by state. Duke Energy covers 100 percent of make-ready electrical costs across its six-state territory and National Grid offers up to 100 percent in Massachusetts and New York, while ComEd caps at $30,000 per site and Georgia Power at $60,000 per entity per year. Many rural cooperatives and municipal utilities have no program at all.

Can a city use C-PACE for charging?

No. C-PACE is repaid through an assessment collected on the property tax bill, and a tax-exempt public entity does not receive one. Municipalities generally finance the same work with tax-exempt debt, which is usually cheaper.

Does C-PACE cover EV charging?

It depends on the state program. Many statutes are written around energy efficiency, renewable generation and water conservation, so charging frequently qualifies as part of a broader project rather than on its own. Confirm with the program administrator before design work begins.

What is the main C-PACE caution?

It is not cheaper because rates rose. Pricing generally tracks the 10-year Treasury plus a spread. The assessment is also senior to the mortgage, requires lender consent, and is recorded above net operating income, so stated income falls by the annual assessment. Test whether first-year savings exceed the first-year assessment.

Do grants come with operating obligations?

Generally yes. Public funding typically carries public access, uptime and reporting requirements. NEVI-funded stations are held to a 97 percent uptime standard, which is an ongoing operational commitment rather than a one-time condition.