Upload
asafselinger
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
1/84
ENHANCING THEFEASIBILITY OFELECTRIC VEHICLES IN
NEW YORK CITY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRSMPA IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
2/84
FACULTY ADVISOR
Professor Steven A. Cohen
MANAGEMENT
Todd Miner, ManagerAndrea Karpati, Deputy Manager
TEAM
Lena BansalWini Chen
Luke Clause
George GattaAndrea KarpatiJoseph Katz
Alison MillerTodd Miner
Asaf SelingerDmitriy Shvets
Janelle SommervilleMichelle Thompson
REPORT EDITORS
Wini Chen, Chief Editor
Luke Clause
Alison MillerDmitriy ShvetsMichelle Thompson
REPORT DESIGN
Dmitriy Shvets
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
3/84
Preface
This report is the culmination of the Workshop in Applied Earth Systems PolicyAnalysis, a core course for the Master of Public Administration in Environmental
Science and Policy (MPA ESP) at Columbia Universitys School of Internationaland Public Affairs. The MPA ESP program provides students with the theoretical
knowledge and practical skills necessary to address environmental policy andmanagement issues. The core curriculum focuses on innovative, systems-basedthinking to environmental issues, encouraging students to think systemically andact pragmatically. In the fall and summer semesters, students acquire the skills
necessary to analyze an environmental problem and create an implementation
plan to address the issue. In the spring semester, students apply these skills byconducting policy analysis on environmental or management issues for clients ingovernment and non-profit agencies. The NYC Mayors Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability requested a study of electric vehicle deploymentand methods enhancing electric vehicle feasibility in New York City.
This document contains some copyrighted material for educational purposes.These materials are included under the fair use exemption of U.S. Copyright Law
and are restricted from further use. Please note that this document has been
prepared on all All Care and No Responsibility basis. Neither the authors norColumbia University make any express or implied representation or warranty asto the currency, accuracy or completeness of the information contained in thisdocument.
Acknowledgements
This report would not have materialized without the guidance and support of
our advisor, Professor Steven A. Cohen. We would like to acknowledge David T.Saeger for his assistance with the GIS program and spatial analyses. We wish to
express gratitude to Ari Kahn and the Mayors Office of Long-Term Planning andSustainability for this tremendous opportunity to help New York City becomesustainable.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
4/84
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Background: New York City and Electric Vehicles ................................................... 4Purpose of the Report .......................................................................................................... 4The Environmental Problem: Vehicle Traffic in New York City .......................................... 4The Solution: PlaNYC and Electric Vehicles ....................................................................... 4Environmental Benefits of Electric Vehicles ....................................................................... 6Electric Vehicle Early Adopters .......................................................................................... 6
Barriers to Adopting Electric Vehicles in New York City ........................................... 6Charging Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 6
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure ........................................................................... 7High Electricity Rates ........................................................................................................... 7
Electric Vehicle Off-Peak Charging Rate ......................................................................... 7
Study Methodology ...................................................................................................... 8Phase 1: Literature Review................................................................................................... 8Phase 2: Expert Interviews .................................................................................................. 8Phase 3: Study Analyses ...................................................................................................... 8
Charging Infrastructure Analyses Findings ............................................................... 10Spatial Analyses Findings .................................................................................................. 10Maps 1 & 2: Educational Attainment and Median Household Income Maps .............. 10Map 3: Job Density Map ................................................................................................... 11Map 4: Vehicle Availability Map ...................................................................................... 11Map 5: Hybrid Vehicle Registration Density Map ............................................................ 11Relative Distribution of Electric Vehicle Charging Units .................................................. 12Potential Locations of Future Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure ......................... 12Further Research ................................................................................................................ 17
Additional Variables ........................................................................................................... 17Implement Parking Facility Survey .................................................................................... 17
Utilities Best Practices Findings................................................................................... 20Utilities Best Practices ........................................................................................................ 20
Best Practice #1: Electric Vehicle Time-of-Use Rates .................................................... 20Best Practice #2: Consumer Education & Outreach .................................................... 21Best Practice #3: Collaboration and Partnerships ......................................................... 22Best Practices #4: Complementary Programs ............................................................... 22
Best Practice #5: Electric Vehicle Data Collection and Smart Charging .................. 23Barriers to Applying Utilities Best Practices in New York City ......................................... 24Recommendations for Applying Utilities Best Practices in New York City .................... 25Next Steps for Future Analysis ........................................................................................... 25
Electric Vehicles Cost Analysis Findings................................................................... 26Electric Vehicle Costs ........................................................................................................ 26Cost Model Analysis .......................................................................................................... 27Cost Model Analysis Conclusion & Recommendation ................................................... 30
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
5/84
Summary of Recommendations for New York City ................................................. 30
Electric Vehicles and the Northeast Corridor........................................................... 34
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 38
Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 1: New York Citys Home and Public Parking Spots .............................. 41
Appendix 2: Expert Interview Questions................................................................... 42
Appendix 3: Summary of Expert Interviews.............................................................. 47
Appendix 4: Existing Policy ........................................................................................ 48Federal Policy Efforts .......................................................................................................... 48State Policy Efforts .............................................................................................................. 48New York City Efforts .......................................................................................................... 48Private Sector Efforts ........................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 5: Current Electric Vehicle Charger Infrastructure................................. 50Appendix 6: Spatial Analyses Methodology............................................................ 53
Connecting ........................................................................................................................ 53Hybrid Vehicle Ownership ................................................................................................ 53Socio-Economic Factors ................................................................................................... 53Job Density ......................................................................................................................... 53Households with More than Two Vehicles ........................................................................ 53Conducting Spatial Analyses ............................................................................................ 53
Appendix 7: Traffic Analysis ....................................................................................... 56
Appendix 8: Sample Questionnaire for Parking Facility Representatives ............. 60
Appendix 9: Spatial Analysis Maps........................................................................... 61
Appendix 10: Electric Vehicle Cost Model Assumptions ........................................ 67
Appendix 11: Quick Matrix of Utilities Best Practices .............................................. 68
Appendix 12: Geographically Weighted Regression.............................................. 69
Appendix 13: Utility Case Study: Michigan .............................................................. 73
Appendix 14: Infrastructure Case Study: Seattle ..................................................... 74
Image Sources ............................................................................................................ 75
Works Cited ................................................................................................................. 76
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
6/84
1
Executive Summary
New York City recently incorporated electric vehicle adoption into its strategy to fulfill
the objectives of PlaNYC 2030, NYCs long-term sustainability plan. Electric vehicles
contribute to PlaNYCs sustainability goals by improving local air quality, reducing thenegative environmental and health effects of congestion, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions contributing to global climate change.
Despite New York Citys goal of facilitating electric vehicle use, the City faces uniquebarriers that may prevent its widespread adoption. While auto-makers market electricvehicles to homeowners with access to personal garages and driveways for recharging,
nearly half of New York City drivers depend on street parking. Additionally, New YorkCitys electricity rates are among the highest in the nation, reducing the fuel cost
savings that are critical to inducing customers to purchase an electric vehicle over aconventional gasoline or hybrid vehicle. In this setting, the Mayors Office of Long Term
Planning and Sustainability commissioned a report to examine two issues: (1) how ConEdison, New York Citys electric utility, should form electric vehicle policy, and (2) wherethe City should encourage the installation of public electric vehicle charginginfrastructure in order to meet future consumer demand.
The report divided its analyses, findings, and subsequent recommendations into two
primary segments: (1) geo-spatial analyses identifying areas with anticipated electricvehicle public charging demand and (2) utilities best practices encouraging electricvehicle use.
Within the geo-spatial analyses, key demographic variables associated with electric
vehicle ownership were identified: education, income, hybrid vehicle ownership,ownership of more than one vehicle, and job density. Using these variables, ouranalyses identified targeted hotspots for public charging infrastructure in Northwest
Brooklyn, North Brooklyn, and Western Queens. These areas are expected to showsignificant interest in electric vehicles but lack fundamental access to home garages
for charging. Therefore, in these hotspots, we recommend electric vehicle chargingstation installations in public parking garages for potential owners to park overnight forrecharging. While other locations in New York City also exhibit hotspots for electric
vehicle demand, a robust public charging infrastructure is already developingthroughout Manhattan. Additionally, areas in Staten Island and Eastern Queens havesubstantial access to home charging. Therefore, New York City can focus its planning
efforts on the identified areas within Northwest Brooklyn, North Brooklyn, and Western
Queens. Public charging infrastructure should be implemented quickly, within the nextfew years, to take advantage of federal funding for free charging stations.
For the utility analyses, a set of five best practices were developed from interviewing
utilities with advanced electric vehicle programs. These five guiding principles broadlyapply to New York City as well as other municipalities:
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
7/84
2
Given the significant emphasis on reduced electricity rates, a subsequent cost analysis
demonstrated the role of electricity rates impacting lifetime costs of vehicles: reducingNew York City electricity rates significantly impacts the lifetime cost of an electricvehicle. After applying tax credits, the purchase price of an electric vehicle is over
$3,000 more than a hybrid. For electric vehicles to be cost-effective, the annualsavings, from maintenance and fuel costs, must recoup that purchase premium. Thecost analysis found current New York City electricity rates require eight years to recover
the premium, while a reduced electricity rate significantly lowers this payback period.These findings suggest that Con Edison should implement an electric vehicle-specific
rate, separate from its regular Time-of-Use rate.
Implementation requires policy changes from New York City to allow installation ofsecond electric meters, enabling Con Edison to bill the electric vehicle at its own rateseparate from the rest of the home. Second meters are currently prohibited to prevent
illegal apartments, it is recommended that New York City review and considerchanging this building code to allow for an electric vehicle exception. In the meantime,Con Edison is researching smart dual channel metering to allow two rates within a single
primary meter, cutting costs and complexity. We recommend the City help Con Edisonin moving forward with an EV-rate and new metering technology for approval by the
New York State Public Service Commission.
Throughout the research process of this analysis, experts from all ends of the market
continually stress the importance of collectively engaging market participants and awide variety of stakeholders to enable broad adoption. With the ultimate goal of
moving beyond early adopters, local governments working with utilities and otherstakeholders can effectively encourage electric vehicle adoption through strategiccoordination. Similarly, an electric vehicle partnership between Boston, Philadelphia,
and New York City demonstrates an approach for municipalities to share information,lessons learned, and resources to support the electric vehicle movement across theNortheast.
(1) Offer customers a range of electric vehicle rate options including time-of-use rates,
which provide reduced prices overnight and higher prices during the day;
(2) Focus on consumer education and outreach to increase consumer understanding
of electric vehicle technology and create a resource for electric vehicle information;
(3) Participate in partnerships and collaboration with other market stakeholders to
share knowledge and operate more efficiently;
(4) Offer complementary programs, such as the option to purchase 100% renewable
energy, to further incentivize potential consumers and;
(5) Encourage electric vehicle data collection and smart charging as a means of
understanding future demand distribution and to make necessary upgrades to the
electric grid.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
8/84
Background:
New York Cityand Electric
Vehicles
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
9/84
4
Background:New York City and
Electric VehiclesPurpose of the Report
Both rising gasoline prices and
growing environmental concernsattribute to the increasing availability
of electric vehicles (EVs) offered by
major automakers. EVs offer NewYork City (NYC) an opportunity to
reduce vehicle exhaust emissions,improving local air quality while
minimizing the citys impact on
global climate change. Whilesignificant technological
improvements brought EVs into themainstream automobile market,
barriers to its widespread adoption
remain. In NYC, many residents lackaccess to home garages where EVs
are intended to be recharged.Additionally, NYC residents are
subject to high electricity rates
rendering other types of vehiclesmore cost-effective than EVs. Toovercome these two city-specificbarriers, NYC Mayors Office of Long-
Term Planning and Sustainability (the
Mayors Office) seeks answers to acentral question: How can New
York City promote the adoption of
electric vehicles throughout the fiveboroughs? The purpose of the
report is identifying strategies toovercome barriers relating to (1)
charging infrastructure accessibilityand (2) electricity rate structures.
The Environmental Problem:Vehicle Traffic in New YorkCity
With widely accessible public transit,it is not surprising that only 23% of
New Yorkers own automobiles.1However, NYCs traffic congestion is
one of the worst in the nationexacerbating the regions air
pollution.2 As on-road vehicle
exhaust deteriorates local air quality,it also poses global implications
comprising 17% of NYCs greenhouse
gases (GHG) emissions.3
The Solution: PlaNYC andElectric Vehicles
In 2006, the Mayors Office launched
PlaNYCa sustainability strategy forNYC, which includes the goal of a
30% reduction in its GHG emissions(relative to 2005 levels) by 2030. The
PlaNYC Initiatives and Goals
PlaNYC uses a portfolio of initiatives to
achieve sustainability goals. Theseinitiatives are categorized by ten
general goals: Housing and
Neighborhoods, Parks and PublicSpace, Brownfields, Waterways, Water
Supply, Transportation, Energy, AirQuality, Solid Waste, and ClimateChange.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
10/84
5
plan also calls for significant
improvements in local air qualitythrough the reduction of smog
causing pollutants. PlaNYC employsa portfolio of initiatives to fulfill this
objectiveincluding a 44%reduction in transportationemissions.4
As zero-emission passenger vehicles,the Mayors Office considers electric
vehicles as a strategy for achievingPlaNYCs air quality and climate
change goals. Solely operating on
electricity, plugging the EV into an
electric vehicle supply equipment(EVSE or charging unit) or an outletrecharges its batteries. In
comparison, hybrid and plug-in
hybrids vehicles use conventionalinternal combustion engines,distinguishing them from EVs.
Electric Vehicle SupplyEquipment (EVSE) ChargingLevels 1 3
There are three levels of EVSEcharging time capability:*
Level 1 uses a 120 volt AC circuit froma standard wall outlet and extension
cord to power the vehicles onboardcharger. Level 1 is the slowest of thecharging levels, taking 20 hours to
recharge a fully depleted Nissan Leaf.
Level 2 uses a 240 volt AC circuit,
requiring EVSE installation in facilitiesequipped to provide this level of
power. The charge time is faster thanLevel 1, typically charging a fully
depleted Nissan Leaf battery in 6 8
hours. It is well-suited for an overnightrecharge. Level 2 EVSE can be used
for both public charging infrastructureas well as at home charging.
Level 3 is the fastest charging optionusing 400 500 volt DC power to
recharge the battery. Depending onthe battery depletion, recharging
ranges from 15-30 minutes. Level 3
charging has the potential to rapidlycharge EVs but there are battery-related limitationssuch the extent itcan fully recharge (80%) and the
reduction in battery life from frequent
use.
*While it requires time, most EVs will not
recharge from fully depleted batteries. The
extent of battery depletion impacts charging
time.
Source: "FAQ. Plug In America: We Drive
Change. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.
Mayor Bloomberg
Unveiling New York Citys firstpublic electric vehicle
charger in Manhattan onJuly 15, 2010.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
11/84
6
Environmental Benefits ofElectric Vehicles
Converting 75% of batteries
chemical energy into power, electricmotors in EVs offer drastic energy
efficiency improvements overconventional gasoline vehicles
which converts only 20% of
gasolines potential energy.5
Figure 1: Wheel-to-Well EmissionsComparison for Combustion Engineand Electric Driving in New York City6
In a wells-to-wheels comparison(Figure 1), EVs emit roughly 25% of
conventional vehicles total carbondioxide emissions. This value is not 0%
because emissions-producingelectricity grids power EVs. Carbonneutral sourcessuch as nuclear
and hydro-electric powergenerate40% of NYCs electricity,7 and the
addition of more such energyresources would reduce EVs wells-
to-wheels emissions. Along withcarbon dioxide emissions, other airpollutants will experience a net
reduction.
Electric Vehicle EarlyAdopters
Comprising only a segment of NYCs
new car buyers, early adopters areeager to purchase EVs.8 As
aficionados for new technologies orgreen products, EV early adopters
have a higher willingness-to-pay
than other market participants.Additionally, they play an importantrole by shaping non-early adoptersviews on EVsinfluencing further
adoption into the mainstream
market. However, key obstacles must
be overcome to effectivelyencourage non-early adopters topurchase EVs.9
Barriers to AdoptingElectric Vehicles inNew York City
EVs are designed for recharging
overnight in a home garage duringoff-peak electricity hours, taking
advantage of reduced electricityrates. However, NYC does not fit thismodel, posing two specific barriers:1) most residents lack access to
personal garages for home
charging, and 2) high electricityrates reduce the cost-effectivenessof EVs.
Charging Accessibility
A sizable percentage of NYC
residents lack access to personalgarages. Roughly 50% of vehicles
park on streets or public parking lots
Source: IEA, IAEA, AG Energiebilanzen, U.S. Dept. of
Energy, McKinsey, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
12/84
7
throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx.10 (SeeAppendix 1: New York Citys Home
and Public Parking Spots fordetailed statistics on NYC parking.)
Accessing alternative chargingoptions is crucial for encouraging EVusage. NYC offers few options,
presenting a serious obstacle for EVadoption and reflecting the need forpolicy intervention.
Electric Vehicle ChargingInfrastructure
Installing public charging units withinparking facilities is one solution to the
charging accessibility issue. Asrecharging requires several hours,overnight parking (near EV owners
homes) and workplace parkingpresent potential charging spots. To
effectively entice EV adoption, it isnecessary to strategically locatepublic chargers in the vicinity of
demand. Other potential charging
unit locations include traditional gasstations and government parking
lots.
High Electricity Rates
In November 2010, the average U.S.electricity rate was 9.6 per kWh.11
With volatile gasoline prices, this rate
incentivizes EV adoption as it costs
less to operate than conventionalvehicles. Varying by location,however, NYCs current electricityrate is 27.0 per kWh12rendering
EVs more expensive to operate thanhybrid vehicles.
Electric Vehicle Off-PeakCharging Rate
To become cost-competitive in NYC,a reduced rate for recharging EVs is
necessary. Con Edison, NYCs
Range Anxiety
The range limitations of EVs, coupledwith sparse public charging options,cause many consumers to believe EVswill run out of power before returning
home for recharging. This is known asrange anxiety, and it complicatesEV adoption initiatives. Under optimalconditions, most EVs today have amaximum range of roughly 100 miles
per charge. Variables, including
driving speed, terrain and roadconditions, cold weather and airconditioner usage cause the range tofluctuate. In some conditions, the
range could decrease to 50 miles per
charge. Although range limitationsare important, the majority of
commuters in the U.S. drive only 20total miles in a day. As this distance is
within the EVs range, the misinformed
perception of range requirements isthe underlying cause of range
anxiety. This perception is likely todissipate once a greater number ofpeople drive EVs, demonstrating that
range anxiety fears are unfounded.
Source: NYC Mayor's Office. PlaNYC. Exploring
Electric Vehicle Adoption in New York City.
New York: City of New York, 2010.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
13/84
8
electricity supplier, currently does not
offer EV-specific rates. However, anoptional Time-of-Use (TOU) rate or
reduced off-peak (overnight) rate isavailable. Using the TOU rate
exclusively for EV charging (while thestandard rate applies for all otheruse) potentially resolves the high
NYC electricity rate barrier.
Study Methodology
The study methodology comprises
three phases: Literature Review
(Phase 1), Expert Interviews (Phase
2), and Study Analyses (Phase 3). TheStudy Analyses consists of two partsto evaluate the two barriers facingelectric vehicle adoption.
Phase 1: Literature Review
Conducting an extensive literature
review developed the broadunderstanding of the EV industry,
relevant stakeholders, and pertinentpolicy issues. Additionally, researchinformed and shaped the analyses
methodology.
Phase 2: Expert Interviews
Key informant and expert interviewsembody the second phase of the
study. Using a uniform interview
guidecontaining general as well asindustry-specific questions
interviewers gathered qualitativeinformation in a standardized (See
Appendix 2: Expert Interview
Questions and Appendix 3:Summary of Expert Interviews.)
Analyzing interview summaries
unveiled patterns and data relevantto the Study Analyses (Phase 3).
Phase 3: Study AnalysesTrack 1: Charging Infrastructure
Relevant case studies from the
Literature Review (Phase 1)structured the ChargingInfrastructure Analyses. Employing
geo-spatial methods, severalpotential EV adoption patterns
emerged from juxtaposing current
NYC charging unit locations with fivedemographic datasets. The
demographic dataset selection isbased upon frequently cited socio-
economic variables predicting EVadoption.
Track 2: Utilities Best Practices
The Utilities Best Practices Analysesdraws from case studies ascertainedin the Literature Review (Phase 1)
and expert interview summaries
(Phase 2). Comparing andcontrasting the EV-focused efforts of
utilities nationwide unveiledcommon practices encouraging EVadoption. Additionally, this exercise
sheds light on obstacles for utilitiesimplementing EV initiatives. Lastly,
employing a cost model
demonstrates the different variablesimpacting the payback period of
the EVs purchase premium relativeto hybrid and conventional gas
vehicles.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
14/84
Charging
InfrastructureAnalyses
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
15/84
10
ChargingInfrastructure
Analyses FindingsAs the market expects additionalEVs, municipalities are mobilizing toestablish charging infrastructure. Toaccelerate adoption, the
government provides financial
incentives for EV purchases andcharger installation (See Appendix4: Existing Policy Efforts). Funding the
majority of NYCs existing publiccharging infrastructure, Federal
stimulus money is availablethoughlimitedfor additional units (See
Appendix 5: Current Electric VehicleCharger Infrastructure) The limitedfunding emphasizes the importance
of installing subsequent chargers inareas most effectively encouraging
adoption. The ChargingInfrastructure Analyses aims toidentify such locations. As
infrastructure development is time-sensitive, the recommendations are
meant for implementing within the
next five years.
The Charging Infrastructure Analysesdraws upon studies commissioned by
other municipalities preparing for EV
demand. The Greater London
Authority,13 Puget Sound RegionalCouncil,14 and the VictoriaDepartment of Transportation15
identified similar demand predictors
based on demographic information.The recurrent socio-economicindicating variables include
education, income, hybrid vehicle
ownership, multiple vehicleownership, and job locations (See
Appendix 6: Spatial AnalysesMethodology for variable details.)
The following five datasets form thebasis of the spatial analyses: (1)education level, (2) median
household income, (3) job density,(4) households with 2 or morevehicles, and (5) hybrid-vehicle
registrations.
Based on key informant interviews,
most NYC public charging unit
installations occur in response toparking garage owners requests.Thus, demand shaped most of NYCs
existing charging infrastructure. The
study juxtaposes theaforementioned datasets with theselocations to reveal any patterns orhotspots (SeeAppendix 6: Spatial
Analyses Methodology.)
Spatial Analyses FindingsPlease refer to Appendix 9
for Maps 1-5.
Maps 1 & 2: EducationalAttainment and MedianHousehold Income
The distribution of individuals with at
least a bachelors degree closelymirror that of median householdincome levels. Highest levels of
income and educational attainmentappear in downtown and midtown
Manhattan. Areas in Brooklyn and
Queens (directly across the EastRiver from Manhattan) show similarly
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
16/84
11
high levels for both variables.
Additional hotspots are distributed inbands running from northern to
southern Brooklyn, and from westernto eastern Queens. Within Queens,
the areas bordering Nassau Countyalso show high education andincome levels. Staten Island exhibits
a band of higher median householdincome levels, bisecting from thenortheast to the southwest. However,
a similar counterpart band foreducation levels does not appear in
the same area. Additionally, Staten
Island appears more homogeneous
than the other boroughs. The lowerresolution level from larger areacensus tracts could explain this issue.
The hotspots in the northwestern and
eastern portions of the Bronx are lessprevalent than other boroughs.
Map 3: Job Density
The highest job density areas appearin downtown and midtown
Manhattan. A small section ofdowntown Brooklyn displays thesecond highest job density.
Relatively low to medium job densityspots are scattered throughout areasof Queens and Brooklyn, closer to
the East River and directly acrossfrom Manhattan. Of all the
boroughs, Staten Island displays thelowest job density.
Map 4: Vehicle Availability
Manhattan shows the lowest levels
of vehicle availability per housingunit. Vehicle availability increases
while moving outward from
Manhattan. Eastern portions of
Queens and the Bronx, and the
southern portions of Brooklyn displaythe highest levels of vehicle
availability per housing unit. As anentire borough, Staten Island exhibits
the highest vehicle availability levels.The distribution of vehicle ownershipdata mirrors that of education and
income level data, with theexceptions of Manhattan anddowntown Brooklyn.
Map 5: Hybrid VehicleRegistration Density
Hybrid vehicle registration indowntown and midtown
Manhattan, downtown Brooklyn,and western Queens exhibit greaterdensities. The pattern of hybrid
vehicle registration densities closelymirrors educational attainment levels
and median household incomelevels in areas near downtown andmidtown Manhattan, downtown
Brooklyn, and western Queens.
Hybrid vehicle registration densitiesdecline the further the distance from
these areas. The low populationdensities associated with the city
outskirts could explain this trend.
A caveat with Map 5 regards the
dataset used. The hybrid vehicledata contains some addresses withmultiple hybrid vehicle registrations
perhaps a fleet owned by agovernment agency or business.
Thus, residential hybrid vehicleregistration may not be accuratelyreflectedpossibly comprising Map
5s ability to anticipate potential EVdemand.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
17/84
12
Relative Distribution ofElectric Vehicle ChargingUnits
Public charging units are primarilylocated in downtown and midtown
Manhattanan area of higherincome, education, and job density.
These three variable patterns alignwith current charging spots,
supporting their relationship with
potential EV demand. On July 14,th2010, this area housed NYCs first
public EV charging station at 451 9th
Avenue Edison Properties.16 Sincethen, surrounding parking facilities
installed their own Coulomb
charging stationsresulting in the
cluster of EV charging stationsdisplayed today. On the contrary,
the locations of charging spots in theBronx, Queens, and Brooklyn do not
display any particular pattern. Thesecharging spots are located atseveral participating Nissan
dealership locationsscatteredthroughout these outer boroughsexplaining the absence of any
patterns. The borough of StatenIsland does not have any public EV
charging stations.
Potential Locations of FutureElectric Vehicle ChargingInfrastructure
Although Manhattan contains the
majority of NYCs public chargingunits, the EV market is merelybudding. The increasing EV demandwill likely expand public charging
infrastructure to the other four
boroughs in similar installationpatternslocating to areas of higher
income, education, hybrid vehicledensity, multiple vehicle density, and
job density.
Indicated by dark green areas in
Map 6, downtown Brooklyn(neighborhoods of DUMBO, Brooklyn
Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens,
Gowanus, Park Slope, ProspectHeights, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene,
Boerum Hill and DowntownBrooklyn), northern Brooklyn(neighborhoods of Greenpoint and
Williamsburg), and western portionsof Queens (neighborhoods of Long
Island City, Hunters Point, Sunnyside,
A CoulombCharging Station
Stations like this are currentlyinstalled in Manhattan garages.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
18/84
13
and Woodside) appear to be prime
candidates for the next wave ofpublic EV charger units.
Downtown Brooklyn contains a high
number of parking facilitiesofferingopportunities for housing additionalEV charging stations. These areas
both address the demand of localresidents and individuals commutingto downtown Brooklyn. Exhibiting the
highest vehicle availability levels,more residential and sprawled areas
(light blue and dark blue areas in
Map 6) are likely to fulfill initial EV
demand by installing charging unitsin home garages.
As the demand grows and
installation costs fall over time, publicinstitutions, office parking lots,shopping districts, and transportationhubs are likely to install charging
unitsjoining the expanding EV
charging network. Additionally,innovative approaches, such as
private-public partnerships cangarner support to encourage EV
adoption. Seattle demonstrates the
effectiveness of private-publicpartnerships in the role of
encouraging EV adoption (SeeAppendix 13: Infrastructure Case
Study: Seattle.)
Providing chargers to individuals
without access to home garages orparking facilities remains a challenge
in enhancing widespread EVadoption. On-street chargers could
resolve this obstacle but the option iscostly. Additionally, concerns withvandalism and liabilities arise from
damaged charging units. Whilethere is no clear solution,technological innovations will
probably resolve this issue over time.This could render on-street units safer
and financially feasible. For now,
individuals without access to
charging infrastructure aremarginalized in the EV adoptionmovement, and equity issues to
access will need to be addressed.
As early adopters are associatedwith higher incomes andeducational levels, locating
charging sites to these "hotspots"
inherently precludes residents oflower incomes and educational
levels. Over time, a market for usedEVs will eventually emerge and
become accessible to individuals of
all socio-economic backgrounds.Partnering with local environmental
justice groups and engagingcommunity members is one
approach to ensure an equitable EV
charging infrastructure.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
19/84
14
Map 6: General Trends and Recommendations
To interpret Map 6, the subsequent tables include descriptions andrecommendations for each zone.
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Parking Facilities
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Nissan Dealerships
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
20/84
15
Zone 1 (Light Green): Midtown and Downtown Manhattan
Education/
IncomeJob Density
Vehicle
AvailabilityHybrid Density
Medium to High Medium to High Low Medium to High
Description: Zone 1 exhibits most characteristics associated with EV early adopters:medium to high levels of education, income, and hybrid density. Having medium
to high job density, Zone 1 is ideal for installing charging units to service EVcommuters. While Zone 1 exhibits low levels of vehicle availability, the presence ofnumerous charging units reflects the areas demand for such infrastructure. Given
the existing charging infrastructure, it is likely Zone 1 will continue to experiencedemand for additional charging units.
Policy Focus: With the high job density and existing charging units, Zone 1 shouldcontinue to develop charging infrastructure in parking facilities. Incorporating the
demand of Zone 1s residents and commuters (parking in garages, lots, or off-street parking) into planning charger locations is key.
Zone 2 (Dark Green): North Brooklyn, Northwest Brooklyn, and WesternQueens
Education/Income Job DensityVehicle
AvailabilityHybrid Density
Medium to High Low to High Low Medium to High
Description: While exhibiting similar characteristics with Zone 1, the factors in Zone2 are lower in magnitude. Zone 2 possesses lower job densities and lacks chargingunits.
Policy Focus: Prioritizing the installation of charging units throughout Zone 2 is
important. One method is encouraging parking facility companies, with chargingspots in Zone 1, to apply the EV charger business models to their (if any) Zone 2facilities. This approach assumes that the needs of Zone 2 EV users are similar asthose in Zone 1.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
21/84
16
Zone 3 (Light Blue): Select Areas in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx
Education/Income Job DensityVehicle
AvailabilityHybrid Density
Low to Medium Low to Medium Low to Medium Low to Medium
Description: All four EV adopter indicators exhibit relatively low to medium levels inZone 3. With only low to medium levels of education, income, vehicle availability,and hybrid vehicle density, the EV demand in Zone 3 will likely be lower than other
zones.
Policy Focus: Facilitating home charger installation in Zone 3 is the predominantstrategy for expanding charging infrastructure. Launching pilot programs
enhances this strategy by installing charging units at shopping centers, businessimprovement districts, cultural and government institutions throughout Zone 3.
Zone 4 (Dark Blue): City Outskirts
Education/Income Job DensityVehicle
AvailabilityHybrid Density
Low to High Low to Medium Medium to High Low to Medium
Description: Possessing relatively medium to high levels of vehicle availability, Zone4 has relatively higher levels of income and education than areas in Zone 3. Thehigher levels of vehicle availability suggest this zone is better suited for adoption of
EVs than those in Zone 3. Families owning more than one vehicle are likely topurchase an additional vehicle for limited range driving.
Policy Focus: Zone 4s policy strategy is similar to Zone 3.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
22/84
17
Further Research
Additional Variables
Introducing additional variablescould strengthen the spatialanalysisimproving its capacity toanticipate areas of greater EV
demand. Possible variables include
new-vehicle-purchasing consumerbehavior, average daily commute
distance, parking accessibility (i.e.,street parking, home garage parking
or non-home garage parking, etc.),
degree of environmental interests,
and dedication to owning the latesttechnology. Conducting a thoroughfield survey of each neighborhoodcould verify the model. Additional
research could explore distinguishingfactors of each neighborhood,
developing more effective
recommendations catered to
specific locations.
Implement Parking FacilitySurvey
Surveying representatives of parkingfacility companies could provide
insight on the supply side of charginginfrastructure. A survey would aim to
understand parking companiesstance on EV charger installation in
their facilities. Additionally, the surveyseeks to identify potential challengesfor developing EV charging
infrastructure from the perspective ofparking facility companies.
A sample questionnaire that may be
used to conduct this research isincluded in the report (seeAppendix 8: Sample Questionnairefor Parking Facility Representatives.)
Transportation for London: Success depends on stakeholder buy in
While New York and London are different in many ways, the two cities wish to compete
for the title of EV capital of the world, EVs are a good fit for Londons system, from oursurveys we see that most drivers drive about 10 miles a day, which is in perfect EV range.
The bigger issue is charging, since many residents do not have home charging access.This was the prime issue we targeted, since if you have a car and no where to plug it into,
what good does that do? Said Sean Conroy, Stakeholder & Partnership Manager at
Transportation for London (TFL), the city agency responsible for the London EV project.
The key to unlocking the charging issue was to bring in the business sector, such as retail
stores where you will spend more than two hours, or public garages that serve bothresidents and commuters. Since the majority of these locations, are located off street, TFL
has focused on creating a large-scale awareness campaign, which includes exposing allthe incentives available to EV customers, We believe that price and range anxiety are
the two biggest barriers, and were working on both fronts. Today, charging infrastructure
is subsidized by the central government to increase the number of locations. On theincentives side, EV drivers will be exempt from the congestion charge, as well as other
discounts. For instance in some boroughs of the city reduced parking rates are offered tozero emission vehicles, and these savings do add up.
17
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
23/84
18
Charging InfrastructureRecommendations
Drawing upon the findings of thespatial analyses, we propose the
following recommendations toenhance the EV adoption in NYC:
1. Prioritize the installation of publiccharging infrastructure in
Northwest Brooklyn, North
Brooklyn and Western Queens
Current efforts for public charging
infrastructure have been focused on
lower Manhattan, and should
continue to be encouraged, butfuture efforts should prioritize thetarget areas in Brooklyn and Queens.
These target areas should expect
similar demand for electric vehicleas lower Manhattan and currentlyhave no charging infrastructure.Other areas, on the periphery of
New York City, where electric
vehicle ownership is predictedshould be areas where consumers
will have personal-private parking.
2. Encourage the installation ofchargers at major transportation
hubs for EV drivers parking at train
or bus stations for their daily
commute.
3. Run a pilot program installing EVchargers at shopping centers,
business improvement districts,
cultural and governmentinstitutions.
The Mayors Office shouldencourage local businesses and theEV private sector to launch pilot
programs within the recommended
target areas. Parking garage
companies, shopping centers,
business improvement districts are allviable options for potential pilot
programs. The Mayor could takeadvantage of his visibility to launch
pilot programs in each of the targetareas. This recommendation is basedon Manhattan garages requesting
charging stations after seeing theMayor launch a program. Hopefully,this will stimulate demand from
parking garages in the same manneroccurring in lower Manhattan.
4. Focus policy on facilitating theplacement of chargers in parking
facilities within the center of thecity and home garages around
the outer areas of the city.
5. Share information with primarystakeholders
Share the findings with both privatesector actors installing EV charginginfrastructure as well as garage
owners within these target areas.
The goal is connecting these twoactors, so parking garages receivefree EV charging infrastructure whilefederal stimulus money is still
available.
6. Track EV registrations to identifydemand patterns and meet EV
adopter needs.
7. Conduct a voluntary study tocollect data on thecommuting/charging patterns of
participating EV owners.
8. Partner with counties in the NewYork metropolitan region to
create a comprehensive regional
wide plan to integrate EVs.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
24/84
Utilities
Analyses
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
25/84
20
Utilities BestPractices Findings
The Utilities Best Practices Analysesused findings from expert interviews
(See Appendix 2: Expert InterviewQuestions and Appendix 3:Summary of Expert Interviews.)
Key informant interviews provided in-depth qualitative information to
develop the study approach in theutilities analyses. Additionally,
information gathered from theinterviews established the followingUtilities Best Practices (SeeAppendix 11: Quick Matrix of UtilitiesBest Practices.)
Utilities Best Practices
Widespread EV adoption not only
impacts the transportation sector but
also electric utilities. Anticipatingthese effects, several utilities arepreparing for EV usage. To maximizeinfrastructure efficiency while
maintaining customer relations,
these utilities are mobilizing EV-focused efforts. Launching these
initiatives, some utilities are alsointroducing complementary
programssuch as smart-grid
technologies. Without preparation,utilities risk overtaxing grids
potentially causing blackouts.17
As several major automakers beginto sell EVs, several utilities nationwide
already established EV-specificprograms. Based on key informant
interviews, the following bestpractices demonstrate how utilities
are preparing for electric vehicles.
These guiding principles enableutilities to engage in EV adoption.
Best Practice #1: ElectricVehicle Time-of-Use Rates
Instead of standard flat rates forelectricity usage, time-of-use (TOU)rates are associated with a specifictime period. A TOU rate incentivizes
Grid Impact
A cause for concern with EV use in NYCis increased electricity loads demanded
of EV charging, and its impact on NewYorks grid. EVs have the potential o
increasing a households energdemand by 10-20%, and such aincrease may lead to system failures i
certain neighborhoods. If communitie
of early adopters rechargesimultaneously, the increased demandmay result in sub-station failures
According to Con Edison, simulationhave shown that 230,000 EVs chargingoff the grid will create supply shortage
impacting all of New York. Whileaddressing this issue is important to
ensuring reliable electricity delivery iNYC, it is less likely to influence
consumers decisions when consideringEVs. The issue may, however, influence
the utilities decision whether to offereduced electric rates for EV owners. Asuch, the potential impacts on theelectric grid may be viewed as a barrie
to adoption that must be addressed
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
26/84
21
EV charging during off-peak periods,
when electricity demand is low, byreducing rates. On the contrary,
peak hours have higher rates todiscourage use during increased
demand. Off-peak periods typicallyoccur between midnight and6:00AM. While most EV customers
have the option to remain entirelyon the standard rate, some utilitiessuch as Californias PG&Emandate
TOU rate usage.
For most utilities offering EV-specific
rates, there are generally two
options for customers. The first optionis a whole-home TOU rate whereTOU rates apply to the entire homes
electricity usage. Designed to
encourage broad energy savings,the whole-home TOU option benefitscustomers with the majority of theirenergy consumption occurring
during these off-peak periods.
The second option is an EV-only
TOU rate requiring the installation ofa separate meter for billing EV
electricity usage under TOU rates.
Initial installation costs and effortsuch as permitting and other related
upgradesare higher under thisoption. However, unlike the whole-
home TOU rate, the EV-only metering
option provides flexibility by applyingthe standard rate for all other
electricity use. This alternative isappealing for customers reluctant to
commit their entire electricity
consumption under TOU rates.
It is difficult to generalize if utilitiesprefer the whole-home TOU rateoption or the EV-only metering TOU
rate option, as no clear pattern
emerges. Utilities may prefercustomers using the whole-home
option to improve energy utilization.Other utilities may prefer EV-only
metering rates to obtain data aboutEV charging behavior. Utilitiesoffering free EV charging
infrastructure, such as Michigan-based DTE Energy and ConsumersEnergy, require customers to use a
separately metered rate option (seeAppendix 12: Utility Case Study:
Michigan.)
Best Practice #2: ConsumerEducation & Outreach
Nearly all interviewed utilities
consider consumer education a
crucial component in the role ofutilities in the EV market. Many utilities
developed websites, brochures, callcenters, and online chat functions to
engage consumers on EV issues.
Outreach efforts include educatinglocal dealerships about special utility
rates to direct involvement with
automakers. The following describesthree common areas of focus for
utilities consumer education andoutreach efforts:
Electric Vehicles 101
Utilities websites often provide basic
information about electric vehicles,including the different categories ofEVs (PHEV, BEV, etc.), chargingprotocols, available incentives, and
the installation and permitting
process. Many include external
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
27/84
22
sources of information, providing
users with additional resources.
Rates and Options
Utilities primary role as an educatoris making rate options clear andhelping customers decide which
rate plan is most appropriate. Onemethod is direct interaction withcustomer representatives. Another
approach is providing energy or rate
calculator tools on a website,allowing potential EV owners tounderstand the vehicle fuel costsand to determine which rate is
suitable for their electricity use.
Environmental & Social BenefitsSome outreach efforts focus on thesocial and environmental benefits of
electrified transport. For example,this may include information about
how off-peak charging enables thesystem to avoid building new power
plants. Another environmentalbenefit discussed could be theadvantage of wind energy and its
evening optimization. This type ofinformation is particularly enticing toearly adopters and market
participants motivated primarily byenvironmental concerns.
Best Practice #3:
Collaboration andPartnerships
Collaborations, partnerships, andtask forces are widely cited by
interviewees as successfulapproaches for initiating utilities EV-
programs. These collaborations are
noted for their importance in datacollection, outreach, and
knowledge of regulatory issues.Further, partnerships are increasingly
important as customers movebetween utility boundaries.Stakeholders such as local
municipalities, automakers, chargingunit manufacturers, andenvironmental groups are working
closely with their respective PublicUtility Commission, utilities and their
other partners to successfully
expedite charging infrastructure
processes and establish EV ratestructures. Examples of successfulstatewide partnerships include the
Michigan Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Preparedness Taskforce and theCalifornia Plug-In Electric VehicleCollaborative.
Best Practice #4:Complementary Programs
Utilities across the U.S. are offering
complementary programs to
advance EV adoption. Theseprograms especially help utilities that
are unable to lower rates or offerfinancial incentives. The followingdescribe some of the program
options utilities offer:
Financial IncentivesSome utilities provide financial
incentives for EV consumers. Forexample, Consumers Energy and
DTE Energy both offer $2,500
reimbursements toward Level IIhome charging stations for up to
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
28/84
23
2,500 participants18. Their programs
require participants to sign up for aseparately metered rate19. Lansing
Board of Water & Light, amunicipally-owned utility in
Michigan, offers a program to matchthe federal incentive up to $7,500and provides two free charging
stations to each participant: one forthe home and one for theworkplace. Their program requires
participants to answer surveys andcollect charging data for 3 years.
The DOE provides funding each of
these programs.
Green Power
A major impetus for purchasing an
electric vehiclefor potential EVowners and especially the early
adoptersare the associated
environmental benefits. Providinggreen electricity options enhances
this choice. For example, New YorksCon Edison offers customers the
option to buy 100% renewableenergy from the New York region20.
Fleet Demonstrations
Many utilities are committed to EV
fleet purchases or participating inautomaker demonstration programs.
By 2020, Duke Energy commits tohave all new vehicle purchases beelectric vehicles.21 Progress Energy,
located in Florida, is a participant in
both the Ford Escape PHEV andChevy Volt Demonstration projects.22
Best Practice #5: ElectricVehicle Data Collectionand Smart Charging
Utilities are participating in a numberof deployment and demonstration
programs to gather data about EVconsumers charging behavior as
well as anticipated locations ofclustering. This information allows
utilities to prepare for grid investment
as adoption spreads to other citiesand regions. With a $200 million
grant from the DOE, Progress Energy
will deploy hundreds of smartcharging stations to gather real-
world data in preparation for large-scale adoption of EVs.23 This datacan help utilities leverage their
involvement in the EV market into asmart grid. Utilities incorporating
smart charging may be betterequipped in avoiding future gridproblems while retaining greater
information and control of
infrastructure upgrades.24 Smartcharging issues undergoinginvestigation and pilot projects
include:
Distributed Intelligence
Communications are embeddedalong the distribution chain allowing
for charging management. Forexample, a transformer could
control when the connected EVs
charge, avoiding overloading andfailing.25
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
29/84
24
Advanced MeteringInfrastructure (AMI) Integration
Allows the utility to break-out EVcharging from the primary meter.
Utilities can use AMI data to predictlocal reliability issues, and help
utilities forecast future demand.26
Demand Response (DR)Integration
A utility can adjust the electricityload by lowering air conditioners orstopping EV charging as needed.27
The California Public UtilitiesCommission and the Michigan PublicService Commission both launched
studies to explore the utilitiespotential role in this type of demand
management.
Barriers to Applying UtilitiesBest Practices in New York
CityOur analysis found five nation-wide
best practices for Con Edison, NYCselectricity provider, to adopt and
fully engage in the EV market. While
some best practices are alreadyimplemented, two NYC-unique
barriers prevent Con Edison from fullyadopting the identified best
practices.
Barrier to Adoption: NYCBuilding Code
Current building codes in NYCprohibits the installation of a secondmeter to prevent illegal apartments
in the city. Additionally, this
prohibition prevents landlords fromcharging different electricity rates to
different units within a building.Unfortunately, this restriction also
prevents utilities like Con Edison fromoffering an EV-only rate.
Barrier to Adoption: New YorkState Public ServiceCommission (NYSPSC)
Regulated utilities require approval
by their State Public Utility
Commission (PUC) or Public Service
Commission (PSC) before changingtheir rates or implementing meteringchanges. Regulators must balancethe interests of utilities with
ratepayers. Rate requests mayrequire substantial time and financial
resources on the part of the utility.Furthermore, initially obtaining acorrect rate may be critical in
obtaining approvalas defendingrates or re-filing rate requests often
subjects utilities to greater regulatoryscrutiny.28 Utilities obtaining approval
for EV rates found the process similarto other rate requests, takingapproximately 4 10 months.
In addition, some utilities notecurrent or impending restrictions oneducation and outreach efforts bytheir Public Utility Commission. In
these cases, education is limited tooff-peak charging and rate optionsinformation, excludingenvironmental and social benefits.Since ratepayers fund these
educational programs, the restriction
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
30/84
25
stems from concerns with ratepayers
subsidizing EV programs.
Recommendations for
Applying Utilities BestPractices in New York City
Recommendation to NYCGovernment: Change BuildingCode for Second MeterException for Electric Vehicles
The New York City governmentshould amend the local building
code restriction on second meterinstallations. Utilities from other statesnote that second meters do not
pose serious problems as they areeasy to monitor: the load from an
electric vehicle is drastically different
from an apartment loadmaking itdetectable when the second meter
is inappropriately used. Requiring anEV proof of purchase for a second
meter permit should reduceinstances of illegal use.
Recommendation to ConEdison: Invest in Dual ChannelSmart Meter Technology
Some utilities including, Con Edison,
are researching dual channel
meters. These are advanced
technology smart meters allowing forseparate billing for the EV within theprimary meterremoving the need
for a second meter. These dual
channel meters are expected to bemore cost-effective than second
meterscosting a few hundreddollars instead of thousands of
dollars. Currently, there are no
approved dual channel meters.Utilities are conducting studies and
piloting these meters, but thetechnology requires further research
and development beforedeployment begins. Moreover, thesemeters require the Public Utility
Commissions approval. Con Edisoncould pursue this option while alsoworking with NYC on the second
meter building code change.
Recommendation to both NYCGovernment & Con Edison:
Collaborate on RegulatoryEfforts with NYSPSC
Collaborative efforts by Con Edison,
the NYC government, and other
relevant stakeholders provide addedresources and allies in the regulatory
approval process for an EV-accommodating rate structure and
dual channel meters. This partnership
could collectively appeal to theNYSPSC to approve of utilitiespractices accommodating EV use.
Next Steps for FutureAnalysis
In addition to the NYC-specific
recommendations derived from the
best practices analysis, key
informant interviews also unveiledadditional findings. These findingspose additional questions to beaddressed before EV adoption
occurs beyond early adopters.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
31/84
26
Notification Standardization
Utilities do not have a standardized
notification system to track theircustomers purchasing EVs. In some
areas, electricians are required tonotify the utility when any upgrade
or new load is added to a home. In
other areas, utilities are notified bycustomers on a voluntary basis.
Sometimes automakers provide dataon new EV owners to utilities. Whileadequate for now, these notification
modes are neither sustainable norefficient with the anticipated sales of
EVs. Utilities prioritize standardizingthis process as it enables them toprepare adequately for load
increases. With customer privacyconcerns, utilities such as PG&E
ensure that the information obtained
is solely used for grid preparation,not for marketing purposes.
Third-Party Charging StationRegulation
Public Utility Commissions areinvestigating and discussing
regulations of third-party charging
station operators. A primary concernfocuses on operators re-sellingelectricityan action prohibited
throughout most of the country.Entities selling electricity are subject
to utility regulation. The California
Public Utilities Commission issued apreliminary ruling that these
operators are not utilities and will notbe regulated. According to several
interviewed utilities, a way toovercome this issue is making explicit
business models, such that the
charging station operator is not
selling electricity. Instead, theoperator is selling parking or
charging services, for whichcustomers pay a separate fee. The
electricity price and all other feesassociated with the chargingoperator are delineated clearly in
the receipt.
Electric Vehicles CostAnalysis Findings
Electric Vehicle Costs
Currently, electric vehicles cost moreto purchase than comparable
hybrid and conventional vehicles.However, in comparison to its
alternatives, electric vehicle usagepresents substantial annual savings intwo ways: (1) lower vehicle
maintenance costs and (2) fuelsavings. A vehicles lifetime cost is
probably considered during the
decision-making process surroundingits purchase. For electric vehicles to
be cost-effective its annual savingsmust recoup the purchase premium
or the extra initial costs paid.
Discovering that an EV-only TOU rateis a best practice amongst utilitiesnationwide, the analysis
subsequently examines the impact
of a reduced EV rate in NYC. A cost
analysis model is used to illustratehow different variables, such aselectricity price, gasoline price, and
miles traveled, impact the payback
period of the purchase premium. Thisanalysis also illustrates the sensitivity
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
32/84
27
of variable changes in comparison
to hybrid and conventional vehicles.
Cost Model Analysis
The electric vehicle in this model is astandard 2011 Nissan Leaf, the hybridvehicle is a 2011 Toyota Prius II, and
the conventional vehicle is a 2011
standard Toyota Camry. Allassumptions in the model aredetailed in Appendix 10: ElectricVehicle Cost Model Assumptions.
Based on the model, the electricvehicle has a purchase premium of$3,330 over the hybrid and $6,560
over the conventional vehicle, after
adjusting for eligible tax credits. Thecalculations for these premiums are
detailed below:
Leaf: $32,780 (base price of Leaf29) +$2,200 (charging unit estimate30) -$7,500 (tax credit) - $1,100 (tax
credit) = $26,380
$26,380 (Leaf) - $23,050 (Prius31) =
$3,330 Purchase Premium over Prius
$26,380 (Leaf) - $19,820 (Camry)32 =$6,560 Purchase Premium overCamry
Table 1 illustrates the various
payback periods associated with
differing electricity prices, gasolineprices, and driving distances. This
exercise reveals that loweringelectricity prices substantially lowers
the payback period. In fact, withouta TOU or reduced rate in NYC, it
would take over 13 years for an EV
owner to recover the upfront costs,
relative to the Prius (at a gasolineprice of $3.50/gallon). However, with
a discounted rate of 13.5 cents/kWhand $4.00/gallon gasoline, the
payback period reduces to less than4 years, approximately the averageturnover period of a new vehicle.
Another cost model result supportsthe finding of electricity pricesensitivity and payback periods.
While maintaining the current priceof 27 cents/kWh but lowering the
gasoline price to $2.50/gallon, it still
costs more to fuel the EV in NYC than
the hybrid car.
By comparing NYC, Boston, and
Philadelphiathe three largest cities
of Northeastern United StatesNYCfaces high electricity prices.However, Boston and Philadelphiamay not find electricity prices as
barriers to EV adoption since their
electricity rates are fairly low.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
33/84
28
Table 1: Payback Period for EV Premium in Northeast U.S. Cities
New York City - Flat Rate
$0.27/kWh
Comparison to
Hybrid Vehicle:
EV Premium: $3,330
Comparison to
Conventional Vehicle:
EV Premium: $6,560
Electricity
Price
Cost per Gallon
Gasoline
Miles Driven
per Day
Cost
Savings
per Year
Payback
Period (Years)
Cost Savings
per Year
Payback
Period
(Years)
$0.27 $3.50 40 $255.18 13.05 $1,567.15 4.19
$0.135 $3.50 40 $728.22 4.57 $2,040.19 3.22
$0.0675 $3.50 40 $964.74 3.45 $2,276.71 2.88
$0.27 $4.00 40 $398.32 8.36 $1,898.97 3.45
$0.135 $4.00 40 $871.36 3.82 $2,372.01 2.77
$0.0675 $4.00 40 $1,107.88 3.01 $2,608.53 2.51
$0.27 $2.50 40 ($31.09) N/A $903.51 7.26
$0.135 $2.50 40 $441.95 7.53 $1,376.55 4.77
$0.0675 $2.50 40 $678.47 4.91 $1,613.07 4.07
$0.135 $3.50 20 $463.76 7.18 $1,115.34 5.88
$0.135 $3.50 40 $728.22 4.57 $2,040.19 3.22
$0.135 $3.50 80 $1,257.14 2.65 $3,889.87 1.69
Boston - Flat Rate
$0.07718/kWh
Comparison to
Hybrid Vehicle:EV Premium: $3,330
Comparison to
Conventional Vehicle:EV Premium: $6,560
Electricity
Price
Cost per Gallon
Gasoline
Miles Driven
per Day
Cost
Savings
per Year
Payback
Period
Cost Savings
per Year
Payback
Period
$0.077 $3.50 40 $931.45 3.58 $2,243.42 2.92
$0.0385 $3.50 40 $1,066.36 3.12 $2,378.32 2.76
$0.077 $4.00 40 $1,074.59 3.10 $2,575.24 2.55
$0.0385 $4.00 40 $1,209.49 2.75 $2,710.14 2.42
$0.077 $2.50 40 $645.18 5.16 $1,579.78 4.15
$0.0385 $2.50 40 $780.08 4.27 $1,714.69 3.83
$0.077 $3.50 20 $565.38 5.89 $1,216.96 5.39
$0.077 $3.50 40 $931.45 3.58 $2,243.42 2.92
$0.077 $3.50 80 $1,663.61 2.00 $4,296.34 1.53
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
34/84
29
Philadelphia- Flat Rate
$0.0999/kWh
Comparison to
Hybrid Vehicle:
EV Premium: $3,330
Comparison to
Conventional Vehicle:
EV Premium: $6,560
Electricity
Price
Cost per Gallon
Gasoline
Miles Driven
per Day
Cost
Savingsper Year
Payback
Period
Cost Savings
per Year
Payback
Period
$0.0999 $3.50 40 $851.21 3.91 $2,163.18 3.03
$0.050 $3.50 40 $1,026.06 3.25 $2,338.03 2.81
$0.0999 $4.00 40 $994.35 3.35 $2,495.00 2.63
$0.050 $4.00 40 $1,169.20 2.85 $2,669.85 2.46
$0.0999 $2.50 40 $564.94 5.89 $1,499.54 4.37
$0.050 $2.50 40 $739.79 4.50 $1,674.39 3.92
$0.0999 $3.50 20 $525.26 6.34 $1,176.84 5.57
$0.0999 $3.50 40 $851.21 3.91 $2,163.18 3.03
$0.0999 $3.50 80 $1,503.12 2.22 $4,135.86 1.59
1 http://www.coned.com/customercentral/calculators/EC_res_Appliance_Calculator.html
2 http://www.nstaronline.com/residential/rates_tariffs/basic_service.asp
3 http://www.papowerswitch.com/shop-for-electricity/shop-for-your-home/by-distributor/peco-energy/rs/
Con Edison: EVs are a clear opportunity.From a utilities perspective electric vehicles present a clear opportunity forincreased efficiency and a gateway to a smart grid age. For us EVs present aclear advantage in terms of load management, energy efficiency and smart
metering, states John Shipman, head of Con Edisons EV program, If a
substantial fleet of cars plugs into the grid, we believe we will see a reducedneed for capital investment, which means we can save our rate payers money.
In order to promote use of EVs, Con Edison, is currently developing a special EV
rate, that allows customers to enjoy a low overnight charging rate, We want to
incentivize this behavior, of charging at night. In our calculations we see thateven without smart charging were the grid can handle the excess EV load until
about 2018, and with smart charging we can go even further out.
Since Con Edison, is a regulated utility, any rate change requires approval from
the Public Utilities Commission, which we believe should be coordinated with citypolicymakers. In terms of city government policies, the biggest stumbling block to
EV implementation is the ban on second meter, which inhibits the ability to getthe aforementioned EV rate.
29
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
35/84
30
Cost Model Analysis Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on these findings, a reduced
electricity rate is essential to thewidespread adoption of electric
vehicles as the lifetime cost likelydictates the purchase decision-
making. This finding supports therecommendations for Con Edisonand NYC government to collaborateand implement an
EV-charging solution for NYC
residents. Whether a second meterbuilding code amendment or dual
channel meter, enhancing thefeasibility of EV adoption depends
on electricity rate structure optionsavailable to NYC residents.
Summary of Recommendations for New York City
Charging Infrastructure
1. Prioritize installation of public charging infrastructure in Northwest Brooklyn,
North Brooklyn and Western Queens
2. Encourage the installation of chargers at major transportation hubs for EV
drivers parking at train or bus stations for their daily commute.
3. Run a pilot program installing EV chargers at shopping centers, business
improvement districts, cultural and government institutions.
4. Focus policy on facilitating the placement of chargers in parking facilitieswithin the center of the city and home garages around the outer areas of the
city.
5. Share information with primary stakeholders.
6. Track EV registrations to identify demand patterns and meet EV adopterneeds.
7. Conduct a voluntary study to collect data on the commuting/chargingpatterns of participating EV owners.
8. Partner with counties in the New York metropolitan region to create acomprehensive regional wide plan to integrate EVs.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
36/84
31
Utilities Best Practices
1. Change building code for second exception for electric vehicles.
2. Invest in dual channel smart meter technology.
3. Collaborate on regulatory efforts with New York State Public Service
Commission.
The recommendations provided inthe utility and infrastructure analyses
are intended to be actionable nextsteps in removing the barriersidentified through this research.
Developed through our literaturereview and key informant interviews,
below are noteworthyrecommendations that dont fall
under the Utilities Best Practices orCharging Infrastructure categories.
1. Coordination of ElectricVehicle Policy and Progress
Taking significant steps in bringingtogether governmental actors,market participants, andstakeholders, New York City is
coordinating and organizing electricvehicle initiatives. The Department of
Planning, Department of
Transportation, CitywideAdministrative Services, the
Department of Buildings, and Con
Edison are key participants indeveloping a robust electric vehicle
policy. The participation of Ecotality,Coulomb, Clipper Creek, variouslocal EV charging station distributors,and parking garage owners is vital
for bringing electric vehicles to the
mainstream market. The Mayors
Office of Long-Term Planning andSustainability is developing an
electric vehicle website to serve as aportal for different sectors providingresources and information.
2. Organize and StreamlineElectric Vehicle PurchasingProcess for Consumers
Purchasing an EV and installing the
charger at home may require moretime and effort than desired.
Minimizing the costs and processes
relating to electric vehicle purchasesmay incentivize selecting an electric
vehicle over a hybrid-electric.Another approach in organizing
electric vehicle purchases isdeveloping a database of
customers managed by Con Edison:
Develop process for auto-manufacturers or the
Department of Motor Vehiclesto collect electric vehicle
registrations;
Develop standard proceduresfor permitting, installation and
inspection process for EVchargers;
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
37/84
32
Possibly grant second meter
waiver to electric vehicleowners upon vehicle
registration.
3. Promotion of Electric VehicleFleets for Government Sector
We recommend that the Cityconsider purchasing electric vehicles
as it replaces older fleet vehicles,which total over 26,000 vehicles.33
Currently, NYCs fleet includes 339electric vehicles. The Department ofCitywide Administrative Services
(DCAS), the agency charged withimplementing a cleaner fleet,
committed to purchasing at least 60additional electric vehicles andinstalling 42 chargers with DOE
funding.34 We advise the City tocontinue and expand these efforts.
The City receives its electricity fromNew York Power Authority (NYPA), a
New York State public agency, at a
discounted rate. This reduced ratesignificantly lowers the cost of
owning and operating an EV fleet.However, municipal government
purchases are not typically eligiblefor tax incentives offered by the
federal government, which would
increase the EV payback period.More analysis on the paybackperiod should be conducted as the
City also receives a reducedgasoline price.
Nevertheless, the public sector istypically more willing to accept a
longer payback period than private
consumers. Even without the tax
credits, municipal fleets are still anoption for EV adoptionespecially
since nearly all fleet vehicles havepre-determined parking lots or
garages to park overnight. Thisprovides the ideal matchup ofcharging accessibility with low
electricity pricesan option NYCsprivate car owners do not have. Cityagencies with substantial fleets
include:
Department of Transportation
Department of Sanitation
NYC Taxis & Limousines
New York Police Department
New York City HousingAuthority
Chevrolet Volt in Times Square
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
38/84
North East
RegionalVehicle
Partnership
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
39/84
34
Electric Vehiclesand the Northeast
CorridorThe public and private sectors agreethat cities and municipalities mustplay a vital role in expediting electricvehicle adoption into the
mainstream. Major cities create
partnerships around shared policygoals, such as electric vehicles, tolearn from common best practices
advancing solutions effectively andefficiently. Policy consortiums, like
the Urban Sustainability DirectorsNetwork, seek to formalize
partnerships between cities and todefine the Northeast region as thenations sustainability leader.
This study provides a thorough
analysis of the key issues New YorkCity faces in becoming better-suitedfor electric vehicles. Other large U.S.
cities face similar barriers ineducating their citizens and bringing
EVs onto their roads. Furthermore,
New York Citys policies affect itsneighbors and vice versa. Increased
demand for electric vehicles createseconomies of scale, leading to
reduced costs and more extensive
charging infrastructure. Thus, EV
policies in one city potentially aidadoption in neighboring cities. NewYork City recognizes this potential
and released an updated PlaNYC
2.0 in April 2011, announcing apartnership with Boston andPhiladelphia known as the
Northeast Regional Electric Vehicle
Partnership (NREVP).
Due to their proximity, comparablegeography, demographics, and
infrastructure, Boston, Philadelphiaand New York City must considersimilar issues with EV feasibility. Each
city should address how localelectricity prices affect vehiclepayback periods and how drivers
can charge electric vehicles withouttheir own parking spots or driveways.
These problems differ across the
cities in frequency and in degree,
but not in kind. With the sharedvision of the NREVP, the analysiscompleted for New York City can
apply to Boston and Philadelphia,
and facilitate EV adoption in eachrespective city.
Boston
Charging Infrastructure
The greater Boston metropolitanarea is estimated to haveapproximately 4.5 million residents,35
of which roughly 600,000 are located
within Boston-proper. The majority ofresidents are located within an areasurrounding Interstate 95, and a lessdense population within the
boundary of Interstate 495.
Residents living in the greater Boston
area generally have private parkingspaces attached to their housingunit, thus the city will not require as
much public charging infrastructure
when compared to New York City.However, Boston has its share of
residents that park on the street, who
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
40/84
35
could not easily drive an electric
vehicle. As this study hasdemonstrated, Boston should seek to
understand location and drivingneeds of these residents. As
previously concluded, high incomeand education are stronglycorrelated with EV interest. In Boston,
high income and education aremost prevalent along Interstate 9036(The Massachusetts Turnpike) in a line
that ends in the downtown Bostonarea. Census data showing housing
units with attached parking may be
plotted geographically showing
where income, education and lackof parking for housing units correlate,more accurately predicting where
public charging infrastructure should
be focused. Hybrid vehicleownership data37 generally supportsthe conclusion that downtown areasare likely to have high demand for
electric vehicles but lack charging
options in parking facilities; theseareas should be primary target areas
for public infrastructure. There arealso pockets of hybrid ownership in
Jamaica Plain, Allston/Brighton,
Roslindale and the South End; theseareas should be secondary target
areas for charging infrastructure.
Utility Policy
Bostons electric utility, NSTAR, offers
a flat rate for electricity of $0.077 perkWh, which is almost a one-fourth ofthe rate offered in New York City.
Although currently there is no Time-Of-Use rate offered for individual
households, as of March 2010, NSTARhas partnered with Tendril38 to build
the capacity to use smart metering,
and is exploring dynamic rates. As
the cost model shows, and assumingan average of 40 driving miles per
day, the $0.077 per kWh rate willalready offer electric vehicle
consumers a payback period of 3.58years over a hybrid and 2.92 yearsover a comparable gasoline vehicle.
Should NSTAR cut the electricity ratein half and offer $0.038 per kWh, and
assuming gasoline prices remainhigh, the payback period of an EV
over a hybrid is only 2.75 years,
which is well within the policy
window to incentivize consumers.That reduced rate also offers apayback period of 2.42 years over a
comparable gasoline vehicle. There
are no known restrictions of secondmeters, but approving dual meteringtechnology will ease electric vehicleelectricity rates.
The current major policy initiative forelectric vehicles is a promotional-
pilot program of electric vehiclechargers outside City Hall in
downtown Boston. It is
recommended that the citycollaborate with colleges and
universities in the greater Bostonarea as well. Boston is well poised to
increase the rate of electric vehicle
adoption, leveraging commercialentities as they are already receiving
reduced electricity rates between$0.037 and $0.058 per kWh.
8/7/2019 EV Final Report Final Version
41/84
36
Philadelphia
Charging Infrastructure
The greater Philadelphia area has
roughly 6.1 million people, withapproximately 1.5 million living withinthe proper city boundaries.39 As with
Boston, it appears that Philadelphiahas fewer areas in need of public
electric vehicle charging. Much ofthe greater Philadelphia population
has parking attached to housingunits. This census data needs to beplotted, along with hybrid ownership,
in order to confirm this projection.High income and education
converge in an east-west swath inCenter City along Market, Chestnutand Walnut Streets. The highest
convergence of income andeducation occurs along the eastern
waterfront area and in Old City.40Public charging infrastructure shouldfocus on these three streets in Center
City and along the waterfront.
Utility Policy
PECO, Philadelphias electric utilityoffers a flat rate of $0.163 per kWh,but does not offer a Time-Of-Use rate
to either individuals or commercial
entities. Assuming an average of 40driving miles per day, the payback
period for the premium of an electric
vehicle, over a hybrid, is 5.28 yearsand for a comparable gasoline
vehicle is 3.38 years.
As part of the Exelon 2020 programand following Pennsylvaniaregulations, PECO will begin offering
a Time-Of-Use rate in 2012. Currently
there are no plans to establish a ratespecific to electric vehicles.
Assuming the Time-Of-Use rate is halfof the current flat rate, a rate of
$0.081 per kWh will decrease thepayback period of the electricvehicle premium over a hybrid to
3.64 years. Using Time-Of-Usepricing, the payback period for acomparable gasoline vehicle would
decrease the payback period to2.94 years. Using this model, current
and projected pricing for electric
vehicles will not incentivize early
a