Michigan Tests a Blueprint for Apartment EV Charging

New grants fund 201 chargers at 31 multifamily properties, but the real story is how the program is structured

Michigan is putting real money behind a question that has dogged EV adoption for years: where do renters plug in?

This month, Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) was awarded $1.84 million to install 201 Level 2 chargers at 31 multifamily properties, most of them in the Detroit suburbs.

A Modest Grant With Big Ambitions

The grants are part of the Clean Fuel and Charging Infrastructure (CFCI) Program, a one-time $30 million appropriation launched in 2024 to expand equitable charging access and move Michigan toward its MI Healthy Climate Plan goal of supporting 2 million EVs on state roads by 2030. The awards cover a portion of hardware, installation and make-ready costs.

Property owners are expected to contribute the rest, and at least 40 percent of total program funding is reserved for disadvantaged communities, a design choice meant to ensure that low-income renters are not left to compete for whatever public chargers happen to show up nearby.

On its face, $1.84 million is a sliver of the state’s infrastructure needs. But for landlords and public agencies, the way Michigan structured this first wave may matter more than the headline number.

Why Apartments Are So Hard to Electrify

Nearly one-third of U.S. households live in multifamily housing, but they are far less likely to have access to convenient, affordable EV charging than homeowners with driveways. A 2024 analysis by Energy Innovation found that 84–94 percent of EV drivers in single-family homes can charge at home, compared with less than half of apartment dwellers. The reasons are familiar to anyone who has tried to retrofit a mid-century apartment building:

• Parking is often shared, unassigned, or physically distant from electrical rooms.

• Panels and feeders may lack capacity for multiple 40-amp circuits without expensive upgrades.

• Landlords shoulder up-front capital costs, while tenants capture most of the day-to-day benefit.

• Billing and access controls are non-trivial when residents come and go.

A 2024 study of multifamily charging in the journal Electricity found that owners face “significant financial constraints” when retrofitting older properties, especially when they cannot roll costs into rents or tap dedicated incentives. Guidance from groups like the Urban Sustainability Directors Network and Atlas Public Policy adds that there is “no single solution” for multi-unit dwellings, given the wide variety of building types and parking arrangements. Against that backdrop, Michigan’s CFCI program tries to make one piece of the puzzle easier: closing the capital gap for Level 2 chargers in long-dwell parking.

How Michigan’s Model Works — and How It Compares

According to EGLE, the first two CFCI rounds focus exclusively on multifamily properties, with reimbursement grants that cover a share of project costs for tenant-only or shared residential charging. CleanTechnica reports that the average award works out to roughly $9,000 per charger, though actual amounts vary by site. The state’s goals are explicit:

• Expand overnight charging where residents typically cannot install their own equipment.

• Prioritize disadvantaged and low-income communities for at least 40 percent of total funding.

• Align with the MI Healthy Climate Plan and the MI Future Mobility Plan, which call out EV infrastructure as a pillar of economic development and decarbonization.

In that sense, Michigan is joining a growing club. California’s Communities in Charge and REACH 2.0 programs, backed by the California Energy Commission, offer up to $8,500 per Level 2 port for multifamily projects, with at least 50 percent of ports required in underserved or low-income communities and equity-weighted scoring rubrics for awards. A recent CEC-backed project by SWTCH Energy and Greystar will deploy 306 smart chargers across 34 California multifamily properties using a $3.8 million grant — numbers strikingly similar to Michigan’s first wave. The common pattern: target Level 2, focus on overnight tenant use, and lean on equity metrics to determine who goes first.

Still, Michigan’s program has limits. 201 chargers across 31 properties is a start, not a full solution, especially if each site has dozens or hundreds of parking spaces. The program is also funded as a one-time appropriation, not a standing line item, which raises questions about what happens after the first $30 million is spent.

Questions for Owners and Planners to Ask

For multifamily owners, public housing authorities and local governments, Michigan’s example suggests a set of practical questions:

• Is this a tenant amenity or a shared public asset? The CFCI grants are aimed at residents, but some properties may want a mix of tenant-only and public or guest chargers. That choice affects hardware, access control and revenue potential.

• Who owns and operates the chargers long term? Grants can cover installation, but someone has to handle software subscriptions, maintenance and customer support. Will the owner run the network, or will a third-party CPO manage it under a Charging-as-a-Service model?

• How are costs and benefits allocated? Can capital and ongoing costs be recovered via modest rent increases, parking fees or usage-based charging — and is that compatible with affordability restrictions at subsidized properties?

• Are we solving for today’s tenants or future adoption? Installing conduit and panel capacity for more ports than you need on day one may be cheaper than retrofitting again later. Programs like CFCI can help, but only if projects are scoped with future demand in mind.

• How does this align with zoning and right-to-charge policy? Nine U.S. states now have “right-to-charge” laws requiring landlords or HOAs to allow residents to install EV chargers under certain conditions. State and local codes may soon require EV-ready parking in new construction as well.

As more jurisdictions roll out similar grants, owners who have thought through those questions will be better positioned to capture incentives without getting stuck in one-off, bespoke projects at each property.

A Small Pilot With Outsized Stakes

In policy terms, Michigan’s $1.84 million in multifamily awards is a rounding error. In political terms, it is a tangible down payment on the state’s promise that renters will not be left behind in the EV transition. Whether the program is remembered as a blueprint or a one-off will depend on the next moves: if the state and utilities build on this model with additional funding rounds, and if owners and residents see the chargers as reliable, fairly priced and easy to use. If they do, Michigan’s experiment may help answer one of the hardest questions in transportation electrification — and show apartment landlords that “where do renters charge?” is a solvable problem, not a permanent excuse.