Here's another example of the study's methodology. The paper makes the case that charging an EV takes longer than an internal-combustion-engine vehicle. This is true for anyone who can't charge at home—and it is undeniably a real issue—but then, in order to calculate the dollar cost of the extra time it takes an EV driver, the authors assume an annual salary of $70,000. According to the
Social Security Administration, though, the national average wage index for 2020 was just over $55,000.
ZipRecruiter says the average annual pay for a national in the United States is just over $74,000 a year, but also says that the "average pay range . . . varies greatly (by as much as $52,500)."
In any case, by using the higher estimated wage, the study authors are able to show that EVs "cost" more because they assume that each minute of time it takes to charge is worth more money than if they had used a lower annual salary.
Then let's look at how the study authors deal with "free" public chargers. They admit that these options exist, but then say that they "recognize that ['free' chargers] involve a cost that must be paid, and which may be embedded in property taxes, tuition, consumer prices, or investor burdens." Their solution? They simply "price [the free chargers] using commercial rates." Well, isn't that convenient? And you can probably guess how they deal with the various free charging bundles that some automakers offer with the purchase of a new EV. That's right. Instead of counting it as zero cost, they price it like other commercial rates.
