Great to get more electric vehicle charging stations installed. I drive electric, so selfishly think this is a great way to help enable more drivers to choose electric, too.
And, I am not opposed to car registration funds going to help install these chargers.
But, left out of this article is mention of who pays for the electricity to charge the cars. I see cars already plugged in overnight at Mountain View High School that I doubt are teachers topping up while they are working. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding the actual charging. Can this detail be researched and added to the article?

Great news. Gasoline-powered drivers need to see stations around town before adoption of electric cars goes truly mainstream. They need to be as easy to find as gas stations before skeptics would give it a try. (Speaking as a former skeptic, who now has a charging station at home).

The obvious place for charging stations for EVs are where people are going to spend a great deal of time. Places where people work are an obvious choice. However, what happens when there are more people wanting to charge at a work place than chargers available. Will it be a first come, first served situation, or will those lucky enough to be the first there have to leave class when their charge is full to remove the cars so that someone else can get their charge?

Congratulations LASD organization. Along with their 'parking lot sun-heat-shade/solar-panel initiative, they are also doing this.

So sad that no money from the MVWSD facilities Bond was invested in this type of 'zero fuel emission' technology. The past board-majority/administrations of MVWSD were not at all interested in investing public facilities revenues in GREEN specific facilities projects. (that is not an absolute of course, the large new collaboration buildings at the middle schools are "solar ready".)

[ 'zero' 'cause Chris C., I understand that the energy-cost-of-production & installation is not 0 for any type of 'green' technology ]