STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application 17-01-021 Application 17-01 … · 2020-02-01 · SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Proposed Costs ..... 35 Table 8. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902E) for Approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals.

Application 17-01-020

And Related Matters.

Application 17-01-021 Application 17-01-022

JOINT INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES’ INTERIM REPORT

ON PRIORITY REVIEW PROJECTS

ANNA VALDBERG ANDREA L. TOZER

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6713 Facsimile: (626) 302-6693 E-mail: [email protected]

Dated: January 31, 2020

1


STATE OF CALIFORNIA





JOINT INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES’ INTERIM REPORT

ON PRIORITY REVIEW PROJECTS

In compliance with D.18-01-024, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) hereby

submits this interim report on the status of Priority Review Projects, on behalf of itself, San

Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),

referred to collectively as the investor-owned utilities or IOUs.1 The report is attached hereto as

Appendix A.

1 Pursuant to Rule 1.8(d), representatives for PG&E and SDG&E have authorized SCE to sign and

submit this report on their behalf.

2

Respectfully submitted, ANNA VALDBERG ANDREA L. TOZER

/s/ Andrea L. Tozer By: Andrea L. Tozer

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6713 Facsimile: (626) 302-6693 E-mail: [email protected]

January 31, 2020

Appendix A

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION PRIORITY REVIEW

PROJECTS INTERIM EVALUATION REPORT

SB350 Transportation Electrification

Priority Review Projects

Interim Evaluation Report

January 31, 2020

California Transportation Electrification Priority Review Projects January 31, 2020 Interim Evaluation Report

Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Evaluation Scope ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................... 15

1.3 Organization of Report ............................................................................................................ 19

2. San Diego Gas and Electric Company ......................................................................................... 21

2.1 Fleet Delivery Services ............................................................................................................ 21

2.2 Green Shuttles......................................................................................................................... 38

2.3 Airport Ground Support .......................................................................................................... 53

2.4 Port Electrification .................................................................................................................. 62

2.5 Electrify Local Highways .......................................................................................................... 74

2.6 Dealership Incentives .............................................................................................................. 82

3. Southern California Edison ........................................................................................................ 98

3.1 Port of Long Beach Rubber Tire Gantry Crane ........................................................................ 98

3.2 Port of Long Beach Terminal Yard Tractors .......................................................................... 108

3.3 Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready Program ............................................................................ 118

3.4 Urban DC Fast Charging Clusters .......................................................................................... 128

3.5 Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program ............................................................... 146

4. Pacific Gas and Electric ........................................................................................................... 162

4.1 Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project – Pittsburg Unified School District ..... 162

4.2 Bus Fleet Demonstration – San Joaquin Regional Transit District ........................................ 180

4.3 Idle Reduction Technology Project – eTRUs at Albertsons Distribution Center ................... 204

4.4 Home Charger Information Resource Program .................................................................... 217

Three SMJU Priority Review Project Status Update ......................................................................... 221

Priority Review Project Cost Status Summary ................................................................................. 224

Compilation of Lessons Learned to Date ......................................................................................... 227

Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 231


Page ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Fleet electrification off-road EV charging infrastructure summary PRP summary ......................... 7

Table 2. Fleet electrification medium- and heavy-duty EV charging infrastructure PRP summary ............. 8

Table 3. Public access stations PRP summary ............................................................................................. 10

Table 4. Electrification promotions PRP summary ..................................................................................... 12

Table 5. Example sources of evaluation data ............................................................................................. 15

Table 6. Types of evaluation data by PRP grouping .................................................................................... 16

Table 7. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Proposed Costs ..................................................................... 35

Table 8. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP costs as of September 30, 2019 ............................................ 35

Table 9. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Benefits ................................................................................. 36

Table 10. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP proposed costs ................................................................................ 49

Table 11. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP costs as of September 30, 2019 ...................................................... 50

Table 12. SDG&E Green Shuttle PRP benefits ............................................................................................. 51

Table 13. Banks of chargers at SDIA for SDG&E Airport GSE PRP ............................................................... 55

Table 14. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP proposed costs ................................................................. 59

Table 15. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP costs as of September 30, 2019 ....................................... 60

Table 16. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP Benefits ............................................................................ 61

Table 17. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP proposed costs .......................................................................... 69

Table 18. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP costs as of September 30, 2019 ................................................ 70

Table 19. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP benefits ..................................................................................... 71

Table 20. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP proposed costs ................................................................. 79

Table 21. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP costs as of September 30, 2019 ....................................... 80

Table 22. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP benefits ............................................................................ 80

Table 23. Comparison of program activity and region characteristics ....................................................... 89

Table 24. SDG&E Dealership Incentives PRP costs ..................................................................................... 93

Table 25. PlugStar site traffic (program areas and national) ...................................................................... 94


Page iii

Table 26. SCE POLB RTG Crane PRP costs as of November 2019 .............................................................. 105

Table 27. SCE POLB RTG Crane PRP benefits summary ............................................................................ 106

Table 28. SCE POLB Terminal Yard Tractor PRP costs as of November 2019 ........................................... 115

Table 29. SCE POLB Terminal Yard Tractor PRP benefits summary .......................................................... 116

Table 30. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP costs as of November 2019 .................................... 125

Table 31. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP benefits ................................................................... 126

Table 32. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP Costs as of November 2019 ...................................................... 143

Table 33. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP benefits ..................................................................................... 144

Table 34. SCE Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate program PRP costs as of November 2019 ......... 150

Table 35. PUSD PRP costs as of October 2019 .......................................................................................... 174

Table 36. Summary of issues with project equipment and associated resolution ................................... 176

Table 37. Relevant electric bus specifications .......................................................................................... 188

Table 38. Summary of PG&E project costs through October 2019 .......................................................... 194

Table 39. RTD unanticipated challenges and maintenance issues ........................................................... 199

Table 40. Unanticipated challenges and maintenance issues encountered by Albertsons ..................... 214

Table 41: Summary of PG&E Project Costs through October 2019 .......................................................... 215

List of Figures

Figure 1. PRP timeline and current status at time of this report .................................................................. 3

Figure 2. High-level three-phase evaluation approach ................................................................................. 4

Figure 3. Potential PRP co-benefits ............................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4. PRP groupings ................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 5. Fleet electrification projects .......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 6. Public access station projects ........................................................................................................ 9

Figure 7. Electrification promotion projects ............................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. PRP research questions ................................................................................................................ 14


Page iv

Figure 9. Individual PRP section organization ............................................................................................. 20

Figure 10. UPS BTC Power L2 EVSE from Greenlots .................................................................................... 23

Figure 11. UPS custom overhead EVSE installation with a variety of charge session activation options .. 24

Figure 12. UPS San Marcos overhead EVSE installation ............................................................................. 24

Figure 13. UPS San Marcos EVSE supporting infrastructure ....................................................................... 25

Figure 14. UPS Chula Vista EVSE supporting infrastructure ....................................................................... 25

Figure 15. UPS San Diego EVSE supporting infrastructure ......................................................................... 26

Figure 16. Lightning Systems Electric Ford Transit cargo van conversion .................................................. 27

Figure 17. SDG&E Fleet Delivery PRP timeline as of September 2018 ....................................................... 28

Figure 18. SDG&E fleet delivery services PRP timeline as of December 2019 ............................................ 29

Figure 19. SDG&E Green Shuttles participant use cases ............................................................................ 40

Figure 20. GreenPower EV Star all-electric mini electric bus specifications ............................................... 41

Figure 21. GreenPower EV Star model ....................................................................................................... 41

Figure 22. SDAP site with two GreenPower EV Stars .................................................................................. 42

Figure 23. SDAP site with two 62.5 kW DCFCs paired for 125 kW and a new transformer ....................... 42

Figure 24. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP timeline as of September 2018 ..................................................... 44

Figure 25. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP timeline as of December 2019 ...................................................... 45

Figure 26. A variety of available electric ground support equipment charging at a California airport ...... 53

Figure 27. SDG&E Airport Ground Support Equipment PRP timeline as of September 2018 .................... 55

Figure 28. SDG&E Airport Ground Support Equipment PRP timeline as of December 2019 ..................... 56

Figure 29. SDIA airside GSE charging – preliminary infrastructure inventory (November 8, 2016) ........... 58

Figure 30. Metro Cruise Webasto chargers and electric forklift................................................................. 64

Figure 31. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP timeline as of September 2018 ............................................... 65

Figure 32. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP timeline as of December 2019 ................................................ 66

Figure 33. Histogram of Metro Cruise electric forklift charging durations ................................................. 72

Figure 34. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways installation sites ..................................................................... 75


Page v

Figure 35. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP timeline as of September 2018 ....................................... 76

Figure 36. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP timeline as of December 2019 ........................................ 76

Figure 37. Locations of participating PlugStar dealerships ......................................................................... 84

Figure 38. Percent of claims submitted by trained salespeople – San Diego ............................................. 87

Figure 39. Percent of claims submitted by trained salespeople – Sacramento.......................................... 87

Figure 40. Comparison of PlugStar activity in Sacramento vs. San Diego .................................................. 88

Figure 41. Dealership claims with payment status by month for San Diego .............................................. 88

Figure 42. Original customer release form excerpt .................................................................................... 92

Figure 43. Modified customer release form excerpt emphasizing TOU rates ............................................ 92

Figure 44. Pier J electric RTG crane project site layout .............................................................................. 99

Figure 45. Linear trench being cut and configured for the connection cable .......................................... 101

Figure 46. Enclosure removed from RTG crane engine compartment to begin conversion .................... 102

Figure 47. SCE POLB RTG crane PRP timeline ........................................................................................... 103

Figure 48. POLB Pier G electric yard tractor project site location ............................................................ 109

Figure 49. BYD model 8T electric yard tractor, BYD 200 kW charger, and Cavotec automated charger arm . 110

Figure 50. SCE POLB terminal yard tractor PRP timeline .......................................................................... 112

Figure 51. SCE factsheet pages for the Electric Transit Bus PRP ............................................................... 119

Figure 52. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP timeline ................................................................. 121

Figure 53. Victor Valley Transit Authority charging station installation ................................................... 124

Figure 54. SCE make-ready electrical infrastructure for the Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot .......................... 128

Figure 55. Map of area surrounding Corona Sun Square ......................................................................... 131

Figure 56. Corona Sun Square DCFC installation ...................................................................................... 132

Figure 57. Map of area surrounding Global Partners in Garden Grove .................................................... 133

Figure 58. Global Partners in Garden Grove ............................................................................................. 134

Figure 59. Map of area surrounding AAA in Upland ................................................................................. 135

Figure 60. AAA DCFC installation in Upland .............................................................................................. 136


Page vi

Figure 61. Map of area surrounding AAA in Artesia ................................................................................. 137

Figure 62. AAA site in Artesia where 2 DCFCs were installed ................................................................... 137

Figure 63. Map of area surrounding 7-Eleven in Pomona ........................................................................ 138

Figure 64. Plug-in ceremony at 7-Eleven in Pomona with 7-Eleven branded charger ............................. 139

Figure 65. 7-Eleven DCFC installation in Pomona ..................................................................................... 139

Figure 66. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP timeline .................................................................................... 140

Figure 67. Participant and application data .............................................................................................. 148

Figure 68. Rebate influence on EV purchase ............................................................................................ 151

Figure 69. Rebate influence on L2 charger purchase ............................................................................... 151

Figure 70. EV purchase description........................................................................................................... 152

Figure 71. EV influence on travel behaviors ............................................................................................. 152

Figure 72. Charging and cost changes from TOU rate .............................................................................. 153

Figure 73. Number of additional trips per week ....................................................................................... 154

Figure 74. Motivation for Purchasing an EV ............................................................................................. 154

Figure 75. Benefits experienced as a result of EV purchase ..................................................................... 155

Figure 76. Participant experience with application .................................................................................. 156

Figure 77. Participant experience with contractor ................................................................................... 157

Figure 78. Participant experience with rebate ......................................................................................... 157

Figure 79. Participant experience with communications ......................................................................... 158

Figure 80. Participant experience with TOU transition ............................................................................ 158

Figure 81. Overall participant satisfaction with TOU rate ........................................................................ 159

Figure 82. Diagram of PUSD onsite energy resources .............................................................................. 164

Figure 83. Schematic of the installed project infrastructure at PUSD ...................................................... 165

Figure 84. PUSD PRP project timeline ....................................................................................................... 167

Figure 85. Evaluation criteria for PRP participants ................................................................................... 183

Figure 86. RTD Site 1 diagram ................................................................................................................... 184


Page vii



Figure 89. RTD PRP comparative project timeline .................................................................................... 186

Figure 90. Comparison of monthly mileage per bus, January to April 2018 ............................................ 189

Figure 91. RTD daily demand at DTC by 15-minute interval ..................................................................... 196

Figure 92. RTD demand plot from September 2018 through August 2019 .............................................. 196

Figure 93. Demand charge average value before and after implementing software management ........ 197

Figure 94. Albertson’s facility showing location and placement of eTRU ports ....................................... 207

Figure 95. eTRU PRP comparative project timeline .................................................................................. 209

Figure 96. Protocol when a compatible trailer is parked at an electrified dock to load .......................... 211

Figure 97. SafeConnect ports in use at staging area, with protective mounting system ......................... 214


Page 1

1. Introduction

Meeting the state’s electrification and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals is a critical step toward the

state’s long-term climate commitments set forth in the California 2005 Executive Order S-3-051, 2006

Assembly Bill 322, and 2016 California Senate Bill (SB) 323. In support of the widespread transportation

electrification goals of SB 3504, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) issued a Decision 18-01-

0245 in January 2018, authorizing the three large investor-owned utilities—Southern California Edison

(SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E)—to launch 15

pilot demonstrations of transportation electrification investments with combined budgets of $42

million. In September 2018, CPUC Decision 18-09-0346 authorized three small and multi-jurisdictional

utilities (SMJU)—PacifiCorp, Bear Valley Electric Service (BVES), and Liberty Utilities (Liberty)—to spend

up to $7.2 million on seven additional priority review projects (PRPs). The two decisions required the

utilities to select a third-party evaluator to assess the success of each PRP and determine whether and

how each PRP could be scaled for the future. In response to this mandate, the utilities issued a request

for proposals for consultants to fulfill this role. The utilities selected an evaluation team led by

Energetics and supported by the Cadmus Group, Idaho National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy

Laboratory, and DavEnergy Solutions.

The PRPs were intended to be short-term investments (no longer than 12 months), with none exceeding

$4 million and each utility PRP portfolio limited to $20 million. As approved, the PRPs were anticipated

to take 12 months for design, construction, and commissioning, followed by 12 months of data

collection. Based on this anticipated timeline, the evaluation report for all PRPs was required by

December 31, 2019.

However, these innovative transportation electrification investments were of a complex nature, and as a

result, most PRP timelines were extended. In January 2019, the utilities issued PRP interim reports,

1 State of California, Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Executive Order S-3-06, June 1, 2005,

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/549885d4e4b0ba0bff5dc695/t/54d7f1e0e4b0f0798cee3010/142343830474

4/California+Executive+Order+S-3-05+(June+2005).pdf. 2 State of California, Assembly Bill No. 32, Chapter 488: “Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global

Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” September 27, 2006,

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB32. 3 State of California, Senate Bill No. 32, Chapter 249: “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions

limit,” September 8, 2016, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32. 4 State of California, Senate Bill No. 350, Chapter 547: “Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015,” October

7, 2015, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. 5 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Decision 18-01-024: “Decision on the Transportation

Electrification Priority Review Projects,” January 11, 2018,

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M204/K670/204670548.PDF. 6 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Decision 18-09-034: “Decision on the Priority Review and

Standard Review Transportation Electrification Projects,” September 27, 2018,

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M231/K030/231030113.PDF.


Page 2

documenting challenges to securing site host commitments for participation. Several PRPs were delayed

due to the timing of the acquisition of electrified vehicles or equipment that was not funded by the

utilities and therefore out of their direct control. Only two PRPs, containing rebates and outreach, were

on schedule for completion by the end of 2019, while a number of PRPs involving construction were just

commissioning the electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure installations at this time (see Figure 1 for

current status of large utilities PRPs). In June 2019, based on a joint utility request, the CPUC approved

extending the final evaluation report to January 2021 while adding an interim evaluation report in

January 2020 to summarize accomplishments and findings to date. Most of the large utility PRPs should

have 9–12 months of operational data on the use of the installed charging infrastructure for the final

evaluation report in January 2021.

PacifiCorp, BVES, and Liberty received approval to launch their PRPs nine months later than the three

large utilities and issued a joint interim report in September 2019. Given this recent update

documenting the status of their PRPs and noting challenges similar to those of the large utilities in

launching their PRPs, the SMJU PRPs will be evaluated only in the final report. All three SMJUs have PRPs

that involve infrastructure installation, none of which was completed in 2019.


Page 3

Figure 1. PRP timeline and current status at time of this report

Destination Make-Ready Rebate Pilot (Bear Valley)

Demonstration and Development Program (PacifiCorp)

Outreach and Education Program (PacifiCorp)

Customer Online Resource (Liberty)

Small Business Charger Installation Rebate (Liberty)

Residential Charger Installation Rebate (Liberty)

DCFC Project (Liberty)

Home EV Charger Information Resource (PG&E)

Idle Reduction Technology (PG&E)

Electric School Bus Renewables Integration (PG&E)

Medium/Heavy Duty Fleet Customer Demo (PG&E)

Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program (SCE)

Urban Charge Ready DCFC (SCE)

Charge Ready Transit Bus (SCE)

Port of Long Beach Terminal Yard Tractor (SCE)

Port of Long Beach Rubber Tire Gantry Crane (SCE)

Dealership Incentives (SDG&E )

Electrify Local Highways (SDG&E )

Port Electrification (SDG&E)

Airport Ground Support Equipment (SDG&E )

Green Shuttle (SDG&E )

Fleet Delivery Services (SDG&E )

Large Utilities 12-month Report Interim Evaluation Report

Series1 Planning Implementation Data Collection


Page 4

1.1 Evaluation Scope

The PRPs are intended to test new approaches to overcoming barriers to transportation electrification,

as well as to gather data on the approaches’ implementation and outcomes. As such, it is anticipated

that certain projects will be more successful in reducing barriers and accelerating transportation

electrification than others. Therefore, it is important to identify those that can be scaled up immediately

and those that would need modifications or technology improvements before they are ready to be

scaled up. The evaluation seeks to uncover robust, conclusive, and actionable lessons learned that can

be applied to the utilities’ transportation electrification standard review projects (SRPs), as well as other

future electrification efforts.

The three main steps of the evaluation approach are presented in Figure 2.. First, the relevant research

questions for each PRP are identified based on the transportation electrification goals and market

intervention approach. Next, data sources are identified, data are collected, and appropriate analyses

are conducted. Finally, the collected project information and analysis results are integrated to answer

the research questions and draw conclusions to evaluate each PRP’s success and potential for scaling up.

Figure 2. High-level three-phase evaluation approach

The PRP evaluation will quantify, as possible, direct project benefits, such as reductions in fossil fuel

usage, criteria pollutants, and GHGs, along with economic impacts based on available data. The

evaluation will also strive to measure co-benefits and identify the beneficiaries of those co-benefits to

portray a comprehensive picture of the project’s successes and use those insights to inform future

efforts.


Page 5

Figure 3. Potential PRP co-benefits

The PRPs comprise a diverse range of projects targeting different markets (e.g., vehicle class and

customer type). As such, the evaluation team categorized the 22 approved PRPs into three groups,

shown below, for commonality in the analysis and comparisons.

Figure 4. PRP groupings

Fleet electrification projects include known vehicles and operators using the installed EV charging

infrastructure. Available operational data includes the charging session data collected by the utilities and

vehicle or equipment telematics to the extent available to the evaluator by the fleet customers. These

data can be used to validate the fuel savings with either the vehicle mileage or vehicle operating hours

and the electricity dispensed by the charging stations. In addition, the vehicle operating practices are

typically known prior to project implementation and will serve as a baseline. It should be relatively

straightforward to determine the potential for the participating fleet to scale up their adoption of

electrified vehicles or equipment based on the available information from fleet electrification PRPs. A

brief summary of Off-Road Fleet Electrification PRPs is presented in Table 1, and a summary of Medium-

and Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification PRPs is presented in Table 2.

• Known vehicles utilizing the installed EV charging infrastructure

Fleet Electrification

• Installed EV charging infrastructure that will serve a broad array of vehicles

Public Access Stations

• Strategies to address education- and awareness-related barriers to EV adoption

Electrification Promotions

Disadvantaged Community

Impact

Improved Grid Load

Factor

Operational Improvements

Maintenance and Fuel Savings

Time Savings (HOV Access)

Worker Health and Safety


Page 6

Figure 5. Fleet electrification projects

Priority Review Project (Off-Road EV

Charging Infrastructure)

Priority Review Project (Medium- and

Heavy-Duty EV Charging

Infrastructure)

Airport Ground Support Equipment

(SDG&E) Green Shuttle (SDG&E)

Port Electrification (SDG&E) Fleet Delivery Services (SDG&E)

Port of Long Beach Rubber Tire Gantry

Crane (SCE) Charge Ready Transit Bus (SCE)

Port of Long Beach Terminal Yard Tractor

(SCE)

Medium/Heavy Duty Fleet Customer

Demo (PG&E)

Idle Reduction Technology (PG&E) Electric School Bus Renewables Integration

(PG&E)


Page 7

Table 1. Fleet electrification off-road EV charging infrastructure summary PRP summary

PRP Description Proposed Deployment Approved Budget

Current Status

Airport Ground Support Equipment (SDG&E)

Phase I - retrofit existing chargers, assess charging behavior, and develop a load management plan (grid conditions, onsite solar generation) Phase II - additional charger installations if warranted

Phase I - 16 charging ports (8 dual head chargers) retrofitted with American Airlines Phase II - up to 45 additional charging ports based on 6 months of Phase I data analysis

$ 2,839,738 Phase I - 16 charging ports retrofitted (data collection started in December 2019)


Support electric MD/HD vehicles and forklifts to promote the development of EVs in this market segment. Analyze how grid integration for the MD/HD and forklift EV market segment can be implemented and optimized.

30-40 charging stations, data loggers and load research meters for electric trucks and forklifts. San Diego Port Tennant customers: Pasha Automotive, Metro Cruise, Dole and Four Seasons

$ 2,405,575 3 direct current fast chargers (DCFCs) installed for Pasha (3 Class 8 electric trucks) and 9 Level 2 (L2) (10 kW) chargers for 9 Metro Cruise electric forklifts; no other participants; data collection started in May 2019


Make-ready infrastructure for 9 rubber tried gantry cranes (grid-tied)

Installation of electrical supply for 9 Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes converted to electric

$ 3,038,000 Utility upgrades completed, SSA terminal modifications and first eRTG conversion by end of the first quarter (Q1) of 2020


Make-ready infrastructure to support 20 charging stations for electric yard tractors

Electric infrastructure for 20 charging stations (200 kW) for Class 8 BYD electric yard tractors; ITS deploying 7 EVSE initially

$ 450,000 3 BYD electric trucks delivered, 6 BYD 200 kW and 1 Cavotec automated 100 kW charger installed Dec 2019


Demonstrate idle-reduction technologies (for transport refrigeration units) and develop a handbook for other fleets based on lessons learned

25 electrified receptacles for eTRU connection (10 at docks, 15 at staging area), 15-17 kW each

$ 1,719,400 System constructed and commissioned, just starting in-use operations


Page 8

Table 2. Fleet electrification medium- and heavy-duty EV charging infrastructure PRP summary


Current Status

Fleet Delivery Services (SDG&E)

Support electrification of fleet delivery vehicles by installing, owning, operating, and maintaining the charging infrastructure for up to 90 medium-duty EVs

63 L2 (17 kW) chargers at three UPS locations, 16 L2 (17 kW) chargers at Amazon location

$ 3,690,749 All chargers installed (78), all 15 Amazon EVs in operation, UPS awaiting 60 EVs (expected Q2 2020)

Green Shuttle (SDG&E)

Charging infrastructure (L2 and/or DCFC) for 1 or more shuttle companies. May incorporate solar/storage, as well as offering public charging

2 DCFCs (50kW) for San Diego Airport Parking (2 EVs), Aladdin (4 EVs), and San Diego International Airport (4 EVs + public access); 6 L2 chargers for Illumina (6 EVs), solar energy and energy storage at one site

$ 3,157,805 San Diego Airport Parking completed, Aladdin and Illumina in construction (Q1 2020 anticipated completion). Not pursuing 4th location, public access, solar energy & energy storage


Make-ready Infrastructure at transit agency sites, plus rebate for charging equipment

7 depot DCFCs for Victor Valley Transit (7 electric buses), 10 depot DCFCs for Porterville (10 electric buses), and 13 depot DCFCs for Foothill Transit (14 electric buses)

$ 3,978,000 Victor Valley complete (7) and operational, awaiting Porterville (10) and Foothill (13) charger installations


Demonstrate—with utility assistance of make-ready infrastructure and charger rebates—a lower total cost of ownership for MD/HD fleet EVs

Five 60 kW depot chargers, demand management and battery energy storage for existing high-power overhead chargers for San Joaquin Regional Transit District (17 EVs)

$ 3,355,000 Depot chargers installed, demand management implemented, battery storage on order, testing underway


Deploy make-ready infrastructure, chargers, and control management for electric school buses to test managed charging to consume electricity during peak renewables generation periods

9 Level 2 (19kW) chargers and charge management software to integrate onsite renewables

$ 2,209,500 3rd of 4 experimental test phases underway


Page 9

Public access station projects provide data on the electricity dispensed by the installed EV charging

infrastructure, many of which are direct current fast chargers (DCFC) at public locations, but do not yield

all the data needed to calculate reduced petroleum use. Displaced fossil fuel can be approximated based

on utilization of the PRP-deployed stations. Some electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) providers

may share information about their users, such as an identification number, vehicle type, and zip code of

residence, which helps determine the number of different users and their potential routes and

destinations. With the known location of the station, it is possible to make some reasonable estimates

of which geographical area is benefiting from reduced emissions, but it is not as precise as with a known

fleet vehicle. Surveys of users may provide some insights on the PRP’s impact on driving patterns and

behaviors, including baseline behavior before the charging station was available. A brief summary of

public access stations PRPs is presented in Table 3.

Figure 6. Public access station projects

Priority Review Project

Electrify Local Highways (SDG&E)


Destination Make Ready (BVES)



Page 10

Table 3. Public access stations PRP summary


Current Status


Study the charging patterns from installations, and test the standards for public charging signage, rate display, and general retail EV fuel dispensers. Stations will use a dynamic grid integrated rate.

20 L2 (6.6 kW) and 2 DCFC (50 kW) chargers each at 4 Caltrans Park and Ride locations (88 charging ports total)

$ 4,000,000 Construction started at all 4 sites with expected commissioning by end of Q1 2020


Make-ready Infrastructure and charging station rebate to serve up to 50 new DCFC ports at 5 locations

5 locations with up to 50 DCFCs planned. 5 site host agreements resulted in 14 DCFCs.

$ 3,980,000 All 5 sites completed and 14 DCFCs commissioned in Nov and Dec 2019


Deploy DCFC clusters in sites with high utilization. Procurement, installation, and maintenance of the DCFC stations, as well as the electric infrastructure upgrades and conduit as well as the DCFC charging stations would be covered by the utility

5-9 DCFC sites are expected with 1 to 4 dual port stations per location

$ 4,000,000 Developing program website and framework for early 2020 launch

Destination Make-Ready Rebate Pilot (Bear Valley)

Rebate for make-ready EV charging infrastructure (for up to 5 L2 chargers per site) with requirement to enroll in a separately metered EV TOU rate when it becomes available

50 L2 charging stations for commercial customers

$ 607,500 Contracted a program implementer, developed program website and materials, launched in Dec 2019


Page 11

Electrification promotion projects target barriers to EV adoption by private owners, from challenges

installing EV home charging solutions to poor dealership experiences when purchasing EVs, so the main

data sources are the vendors and participants. While PRP participant data and information about the

accomplished effort provide good insights, there are no direct measurements of electricity dispensed to

EVs or their operations to calculate direct fuel use reductions or emission benefits. Sales data could

potentially indicate whether these PRPs influence the market, but most of these evaluations will rely on

surveys and interviews to determine success and the potential for scaling up. A brief summary of

electrification promotion PRPs is presented in Table 4.

Figure 7. Electrification promotion projects

Priority Review Project

Dealership Incentive (SDG&E) Demonstration and Development Program

(PacifiCorp)

Charge Ready Home Installation (SCE) Residential Rebate Program (Liberty)

Home EV Charger Information Resource (PG&E) Small Business Rebate Program (Liberty)

Outreach and Education Program (PacifiCorp) Customer Online Resource (Liberty)


Page 12

Table 4. Electrification promotions PRP summary


Current Status

Dealership Incentives (SDG&E)

Education and training for EV salespeople; incentives of $500 split between dealership and salesperson if customer sign up for EV TOU rate

Enroll and train 200 salespeople and issue 1,500 incentives

$ 1,790,000 Program closed on December 31, 2019; final rebates processing and program reporting in Q1 2020


Rebates for make-ready and permitting to install home EV Level 2 charging infrastructure. Must enroll in whole-house TOU or install a dedicated EV submeter.

Approximately 5,000 participants

$ 4,000,000 Program closed on May 31, 2019; final rebates processing and program reporting in Q4 2019


Develop an EVSE installation checklist, translate it into Spanish and Chinese; develop website with an installer tool to help customers find qualified contractors and streamline the bid process

Enhanced EV information on website, checklist for EVSE and contractors, installer tool

$ 500,000 Rescoped (budget reduced to $200k) to reference external EVSE installer selection tools; updated web resource development in Q1/2 2020

Demonstration and Development Program (PacifiCorp)

Offer grant funding for make-ready, hardware, installation and upfront software purchase costs for EV charging stations.

On a quarterly basis for 15 months administer grants for non-residential customers to propose EV charging infrastructure projects

$ 270,000 One project selected for award in program's 3rd quarter

Outreach and Education Program (PacifiCorp)

Test the effectiveness of different education and outreach tactics through four distinct components

(1) customer communications (2) self-service resources/and tools, (3) technical assistance, and (4) community events

$ 170,000 Program running in parallel with and to support PacifiCorp Demonstration and Development PRP

Residential Charger Installation Rebate (Liberty)

The rebate is designed to incentivize the installation of home EV chargers by offsetting the costs of hardware, permitting, and installation costs

1,000 rebates of $1,500 $ 1,600,000 Developing program website and framework for early 2020 launch

Small Business Charger Installation Rebate (Liberty)

Rebates incentivize the installation of EV chargers by providing an offset for the hardware, permitting, and installation costs of the EV charger

100 rebates of $2,500 $ 300,000 Developing program website and framework for early 2020 launch

Customer Online Resource (Liberty)

Build-out the current website to include a web-based information resource focused on EV-related information - Customer Online Resource portal

Educate customers on EVs, charging requirements, charger locations, rebate programs, and TOU rates

$ 240,480 Developing program website and framework for early 2020 launch


Page 13

Cross-Cutting Research Questions

Each PRP requires slightly different targeted evaluation approaches, and the evaluation includes PRP-

specific questions and data collection requirements. However, Figure 8 includes the overarching

research questions applicable to all projects, as well as a set of targeted questions that apply to each

PRP group. For comparison purposes, these cross-cutting questions are being analyzed across multiple

PRPs to draw conclusions about various transportation electrification technologies and approaches to

implementing charging solutions. The evaluation team reviewed the available PRP information and held

discussions with the utility staff relevant to each PRP to understand the objectives and what specific

barriers each PRP was designed and approved to investigate. Overarching research questions, as well as

specific PRP group and individual PRP research questions that the evaluation will attempt to answer,

were developed by the evaluation team and reviewed by the utilities staff.


Page 14

Figure 8. PRP research questions


Page 15

1.2 Evaluation Approach

The evaluation of each PRP involves specific data collection tasks, identification of data sources,

collection of the data, and the analysis to evaluate success. The evaluation requires regular dialogue

with the utilities’ project managers and the PRP hosts regarding implementation progress and available

data, which the evaluation team has facilitated.

1.2.1 Data Sources

Table 5 summarizes the types of data the evaluator is relying on for the evaluation, categorized by the

source of each data type—i.e., whether data are gathered by the utilities and implementation partners

or by the evaluator via direct PRP interactions and/or from secondary data sources. Data from PRP

participants or customers either flow through the utilities or are provided directly to the evaluation

team.

Table 5. Example sources of evaluation data

Gathered by Utilities and Implementation Partners Gathered or Accessed by Evaluator

Partner/customer/vendor contact information

Advanced metering infrastructure data/submeter data (ideally submetered at charger level)

Vehicle/equipment inventory (project-related and customer total)

Operational changes or project phase testing modifications

Costs (initial and ongoing, for the utility and partner, project elements, and baseline)

Downtime and maintenance/repair of equipment

Electricity rates and costs (project-related and customer total)

Customer surveys conducted by utilities

Data in project dashboards (not accessible to evaluator)

EV charger data (EVSE network service providers)/vehicle telematics (on-board data loggers, fleet dashboard, or vehicle manufacturer)

In-depth interviews (IDIs) and surveys with project stakeholders

Intercept/online surveys

Data in project dashboards (access provided by PRP vendors)

Market data

Benchmarking (baseline data and for similar technology deployments)

Evaluations or assessments from other deployments or studies related to the PRP

The CPUC Data Collection Template7 (May 8, 2018 version) includes data fields relevant to analyzing the

impacts created by the PRPs, such as charging events, project and electricity costs, equipment

specifications, and locations served. The evaluation team is working with the utilities to compile this

information as it becomes available throughout the project. The types of data available and those

relevant for each PRP group differ, as summarized in Table 6.

7 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442457045


Page 16

Table 6. Types of evaluation data by PRP grouping

Fleet Electrification Public Access Station Electrification Promotion

Quantitative Data

Charging station use

Utility meter data

Facility load data

Vehicle/equipment routes and scheduled operations

Current fleet size and composition

Vehicle/equipment telematics or usage (miles or hours)

Maintenance records

Charging station use

Utility meter data

Vehicle/user information (unique ID, vehicle type, ZIP code if available)

Website analytics (if available)

Number of participants using the service (rebate or bid tool)

Qualitative Data: IDIs and Surveys of the Following Stakeholder Types

Fleet operators

Energy managers

Maintenance personnel

Drivers

Riders

Equipment suppliers

Drivers

Site hosts

Equipment suppliers

Website users and participants

Dealership personnel

1.2.2 Data Collection

In general, the data collection within each specific PRP section includes a combination of PRP

information (facts and particulars that do not change after implementation or during a test phase), PRP

data (updates, findings, and figures that are collectively gathered as the project progresses), market

research, IDIs, and surveys. Since PRPs differ, even within a PRP group or within a PRP where there are

multiple customers, not all types of data are available for each PRP.

PRP Information

The evaluation team requested key information about the project, technology, and partners during the

PRP planning and installation phases. This helped inform the market research, IDIs, surveys, and

analysis. Some examples of this information are historical data (used to establish a baseline) on the

application that is being electrified, vehicle/equipment functions (routes, duties, etc.), electricity rates,

and historical facility electricity and fleet fuel use. Specific to the PRP, the evaluation team is collecting

expenses by the utility and partner (broken out by cost categories), specifications for any project

hardware (charging stations, make-ready infrastructure, and vehicles), and details on the structure of


Page 17

the PRP’s execution. While some information needs updating based on project changes, most should

not change after the 12-month test period begins.

PRP Data

During the 12-month PRP demonstration period following implementation, some data are being

collected on an ongoing basis to quantify the vehicle/equipment operations. Depending on the project,

these data come from utility meters, charging stations, vehicles/equipment, maintenance records, and

customer utility bills. While some of these data streams are duplicative (the utility meter, charging

station, and vehicle might all record energy transfer and time for each charging session), having these

data resources provides a back-up and can yield additional insights (such as the efficiency losses at each

stage). Each source can also provide additional useful data, such as the actual fuel efficiency of a vehicle

based on its data; using these data streams produces more accurate results than relying on

manufacturer or industry averages. For the Electrification Promotion PRPs, metrics include the number

of participants, duration of processes, and total rebates or applications processed.

Market Research

Market research on the technology and application is needed to calculate the resulting emission

benefits and to understand the potential for scaling up. Some of this information was collected by the

utilities or partners when developing these PRPs or during the decision to implement a transportation

electrification solution. The evaluation team is also conducting additional research into previous tests

and studies that have fuel rates, emission factors, and other information needed to quantify the

benefits. The project partners were asked to provide information about their inventory of vehicles or

equipment similar to what was electrified under the PRP, assuming those vehicles or equipment could

be electrified in the same manner. Where available, similar information from the utilities about this

inventory for their entire service territories will be used. The evaluation team is supplementing this

information with market research to understand the potential of scaling up each PRP across the utility

service territory and the entire state.

In-Depth Interviews

IDIs are a key aspect of the evaluation. Qualitative information from various stakeholder experiences is

invaluable, as these projects involve a variety of new technologies, applications, and decision makers.

The evaluation team identified the interviewees and the number of interviews for each PRP, as well as

the purpose for each. An experienced member of the evaluation team drafts the interview guide and

questions (primarily open-ended and designed to probe various issues), which are reviewed by the

respective utility, prior to conducting the interviews.

Surveys

Surveys allow information-gathering from larger populations, such as website users or public access

charger users. The evaluation team is working with utilities to identify the population, target sample

size, and purpose for each survey. For several PRPs, existing utility or implementer surveys are reviewed

and adapted by adding additional, evaluation-specific questions. Surveys are primarily administered

online, with in-person intercepts used only when needed. The evaluation team developed draft guides


Page 18

for 1) administering the surveys or 2) adding questions to the utility surveys. The team is working closely

with the utilities to finalize the approach.

1.2.3 Analysis and Evaluation Reporting

The evaluation team has created a preliminary data analysis model to calculate quantitative results to

support the PRP evaluations. The data analysis model continues to be refined using PRP data collected

from each demonstration. At least two months of operational PRP data, along with the collected PRP

information, are entered into the data analysis model to obtain preliminary results. As additional

operational data are received, results are updated. When possible, 12 months of operational data will

be collected. Seasonal shifts in weather may affect heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

operations and battery charging efficiency which impacts vehicle or equipment energy use. Data

collected during all seasonal variations are critical to assess the overall effectiveness of the PRPs.

As part of the evaluation report, the evaluation team is identifying PRP co-benefits through IDIs and

surveys and, where possible, quantifying these benefits. For the fleet electrification projects, the

evaluation team will show disadvantaged community (DAC) benefits by documenting 1) the locations in

which the vehicles operate and 2) each location’s relationship to DAC boundaries. It is a challenge to

accurately predict maintenance savings for the life of the vehicle or equipment, since the PRP

demonstration period only covers the first year of operation, when scheduled maintenance is minimal.

Noise reduction can be quantified through the collection of decibel measurements. Long-term worker

health and safety benefits from reduced contact with toxic chemicals such as oils and petroleum fuels

are difficult to quantify during this evaluation period, but if such benefits are mentioned during IDIs or

surveys, the observations will be noted.

For public charging infrastructure projects, specific metrics are used to measure use patterns among the

various installations. The evaluation team is closely examining electrical power metrics, such as plug-in

times and durations, peak power draw, and total energy consumed, to determine system performance

along with fuel and emissions offsets.

The team is using a combination of information to better understand why charging stations might have

different utilization and charging patterns. Also, the team is assessing EV and EVSE use and will include

additional factors in analysis as appropriate, such as population density, geographical region, setting in

which the charger was installed, charging station location within a property, cost for charging, presence

of signage, and EVSE brand and network. Metrics used in the analysis can include time-of-day and day-

of-week variations, population density or the type of functions near the installation (residential,

commercial, or industrial), parking setting variations (parking garage, open lot, or curbside), location

setting variations such as cluster types (e.g., retail, workplace, leisure, or residential), and seasonal

variations. Our analyses integrates multiple metrics where appropriate (for example, the time-of-day

and day-of-week variations could be determined for different geographical settings). The performance

of individual EV charging stations can be compared to the entire group of PRP-funded charging stations

to identify which are the best and worst performers. When the PRP scope includes demand response,

the analysis includes evaluation of charging events that occur during demand response participation,

thereby determining the program’s effects on those events or the users’ charging experience.


Page 19

The last step in the evaluation is to draw conclusions based on all data collected and analysis of those

data. As appropriate for each PRP and PRP grouping, key performance indicators are assessed to

determine the true impacts of those activities and their potential for scaling up. CPUD developed a

standard data collection template8 and reporting template9 for each PRP which will be used by each

utility. The evaluator report shall complement these individual PRP reports, but also incorporate aspects

to compare PRPs within their grouping. Evaluation reporting for the individual PRP begins after the data

collection and analysis have been completed.

1.3 Organization of Report

This interim evaluation report documents the PRP accomplishments through December 2019 and

highlights any lessons learned based on the input collected for these pilot demonstrations of

transportation electrification interventions. For most PRPs, this report summarizes the progress from

conception to construction/implementation but does not yet include data or feedback on the first 12

months of operations following commissioning. The final costs incurred by the utilities to complete

these PRPs or the final project metrics have not been collected/assessed since the projects are on-going.

A few of the electrification promotion projects are nearing completion but still lack all the information

needed to assess success and potential for scale up.

To the extent possible, each of the following PRP sections (grouped by utility) are organized in a similar

manner as shown in Figure 9, although the uniqueness of individual projects will occasionally require

deviations to present all information that was collected and analyzed. Some subsections will not be

completed until the final evaluation report. The final report will use the same format as the interim report

unless otherwise directed by the CPUC.

8 CPUC SB 350 TE Data Collection Template.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442457045. 9 CPUC SB 350 TE Report Template. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442457046.


Page 20

Figure 9. Individual PRP section organization


Page 21

2. San Diego Gas and Electric Company

2.1 Fleet Delivery Services

2.1.1 Project Narrative

Overview, Objectives, and Barriers Being Addressed

SDG&E has partnered with delivery service businesses to support the electrification of fleet delivery

vehicles by providing electrical infrastructure upgrades and by installing, owning, operating, and

maintaining the EV charging infrastructure. Decision 18-01-02410 approved $3,690,749 in direct costs to

provide charging infrastructure to support up to 90 medium-duty electric delivery vehicles at

approximately six locations. The provided charging infrastructure will support both the regular operation

of the electric delivery vehicles and increased average daily vehicle utilization. The fleet delivery

businesses are responsible for procuring the electric delivery vehicles.

Program fleet delivery partners will use an existing time-varying rate that encourages off-peak charging.

The rate has the potential to reduce electric service costs by encouraging charging during off-peak

times, when possible. Off-peak charging improves electric system utilization. SDG&E has worked with

the fleet partners, who will develop a load management plan to efficiently integrate the new vehicle

charging loads with SDG&E’s grid. This will benefit the fleet and generate benefits to all ratepayers

through grid optimization.

This project encourages, supports, and accelerates the electrification of regional delivery vehicles by

eliminating barriers to installing charging infrastructure, including its associated cost. Fleet delivery

trucks are utilized by a wide range of businesses in the goods and services markets for their day-to-day

operations and are found throughout SDG&E’s service territory, the state of California, the nation, and

all around the world. It can be expected that the number of local delivery trucks will continue to

increase with the expansion of e-commerce.

Fleet delivery trucks are likely good candidates for transportation electrification because they operate in

urban centers, have stop-and-go driving cycles, spend a significant amount of time idling, have

predictable daily routes, and are centrally maintained and fueled. The goals of the Fleet Delivery

Services project are to:

• Prove that regional fleet delivery vehicles can be electrified without impeding their daily mission

and operations.

• Determine the charging infrastructure needs for fleet delivery vehicles with regard to utility

infrastructure and the associated number of chargers and their power levels.

10 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Decision 18-01-024: “Decision on the Transportation




Page 22

• Collect data on charging utilization and costs to allow operators to minimize their electric

charging costs.

• Analyze data collected with vehicle data loggers to evaluate the performance of the vehicles,

their charging patterns and needs, and impacts on the fleet’s overall energy use.

• Assess the grid impacts from the specific fleet demonstration, including impacts at the site and

local levels.

Sites and Participants

Recruitment Process

SDG&E secured the participation of the United Parcel Service (UPS) early in the process and included the

delivery company as a participant in the original application filing. To maximize the project’s reach, the

CPUC directed SDG&E to conduct additional outreach when selecting other fleet delivery business

partner(s) to identify locally owned, minority-owned business enterprise or woman-owned business

enterprise (MBE/WBE) delivery business fleet(s). Two separate fleet delivery forums were held in

January and February 2018 to educate customers, vendors, and EV manufacturers about the program. In

February 2018, communications were sent to over 125 local businesses to promote the program.

Knowing that Amazon is very interested in transportation electrification, SDG&E reached out to

company management and informed them of the Fleet Delivery PRP opportunity to fund charging

infrastructure for EVs. Amazon often contracts with local small businesses under their Delivery Service

Partner program to provide the trucks for local Amazon package deliveries. Amazon would likely have

done a pilot like this eventually, but the PRP accelerated the timeline, enabled electrification of more

vehicles, and influenced the location of the pilot (a DAC in San Diego).The outreach also resulted in a

small local catering company (Brother’s Catering) expressing interest in participating in the program, but

the caterer decided not to move forward because of vehicle availability, costs, and operational risk.

Lesson Learned: Significantly more effort, investment, and EV availability and reduced EV costs will be necessary to sufficiently support locally owned MBE/WBE delivery business fleets in transportation electrification projects. Often, such businesses do not have the knowledge or resources to secure the grants necessary to finance this effort (upfront costs for electric delivery trucks is a barrier) or the available staffing to navigate the challenges of operating new technology. Further, smaller local companies generally do not have robust financial resources to make investments in new technologies.

Participants

SDG&E’s primary fleet partner is United Parcel Service (UPS). Three UPS locations in the San Diego

region (Chula Vista, San Marcos, and San Diego) will operate 60 electric delivery vehicles. Two of the

locations (San Marcos and San Diego) are in designated DACs based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 for SDG&E

territory. SDG&E’s original plan was to deploy 20 alternating current L2 charging stations and one DCFC

at each UPS location (i.e., a total of 60 L2 charging stations and 3 DCFCs). Based on UPS needs, SDG&E

installed only L2 charging stations—33 at the San Diego location and 15 each at Chula Vista and San

Marcos, with one more charging station installed than the number of EVs at each location at the sites’


Page 23

vehicle maintenance area. The charging stations are 70 A (16.8 kW) BTC Power units (EVP-2001-70-W-

001) that use Greenlots as the network service provider. A custom solution was designed to position

chargers in an overhead position. UPS plans to procure Workhorse all-electric E-100 delivery trucks

(specifications: 123 kWh battery pack for a range up to 100 miles with a 22 kW onboard charger). UPS

has expressed interest in installing energy storage at one location. Calstart is assisting UPS with vehicle

and charging station data collection and investigating charge management needs.

Figure 10. UPS BTC Power L2 EVSE from Greenlots

Source: Evaluator team


Page 24

Figure 11. UPS custom overhead EVSE installation with a variety of charge session activation options


Figure 12. UPS San Marcos overhead EVSE installation



Page 25

Figure 13. UPS San Marcos EVSE supporting infrastructure


Figure 14. UPS Chula Vista EVSE supporting infrastructure



Page 26

Figure 15. UPS San Diego EVSE supporting infrastructure


SDG&E has also partnered with a second fleet, Amazon, to install charging infrastructure at the

company’s sorting facility in National City (two different sorting facility locations were initially

considered), which is in a DAC. Package delivery is carried out by Amazon-contracted delivery service

providers, the majority of which are locally owned small businesses. The delivery service providers are

operating the electric delivery vehicles, while Amazon is providing charging at the company facility

overnight. A total of 16 L2 charging stations were installed at the Amazon facility. As with the UPS

installations, these charging stations are BTC Power 70 A units that use Greenlots as the network service

provider. Amazon arranged procurement of 15 Lightning System Ford Transit EVs for this project.

Currently Amazon is on SDG&E’s Schedule TOU-M rate (for 20–40 kW loads) but will likely move to

ALTOU (when the EV charging causes energy use to exceed the TOU-M limit) until SDG&E can offer the

high-power EV tariff (HP-EV TOU), which was filed with the CPUC early in 2019 and is pending approval.

Greenlots is providing Amazon with a Flex Charge Manager (FCM), a computer running a Linux kernel,

which will implement load limits on the collective group of chargers (i.e., 0% during on-peak hours,

100% during off-peak hours, or a different percentage during a certain established period). The FCM is

expected also to have the capability to modify load limits per day ahead of critical peak price events.


Page 27

Figure 16. Lightning Systems Electric Ford Transit cargo van conversion

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project


Page 28

Timeline and Status

At the Program Advisory Council (PAC) meeting on September 25, 2018, SDG&E reported that all legal

documents to proceed with the project were signed and returned by UPS and Amazon. SDG&E expected

no other project partners, having received no additional commitments from fleet delivery companies in

response to the recruitment efforts that started eight months prior. SDG&E construction staff had also

completed the site walks, and the initial designs were sent to UPS and Amazon for their review and

approval. These milestones enabled the SDG&E team to develop and share the following anticipated

project timeline, accounting for a construction freeze during the holiday season.

Figure 17. SDG&E Fleet Delivery PRP timeline as of September 2018

Source: SDG&E Q3 2018 PAC

Site design approvals, along with the selection of the charging station manufacturer and network service

provider, progressed as planned. However, UPS’s and Amazon’s selection and procurement of EVs has

taken longer than expected owing to unavailability of suitable EV models and delays in available EV

production schedules. Therefore, the construction of the charging infrastructure was pushed back

slightly to better align with the arrival of the vehicles. Construction started at Amazon in May 2019, and

the site was in service by August 2019. Amazon’s Lightning System EV deliveries started in September

2019, and the last of the 15 trucks was received the first week of December 2019. UPS was informed

that the Workhorse electric delivery trucks would not be available until the second quarter of 2020.

SDG&E started construction at the UPS Chula Vista facility in May 2019, while work at San Marcos and

San Diego facilities started in June 2019. All three sites were ready for service in October 2019.

Lesson Learned: The electric delivery vehicle market is growing and maturing but has relatively limited options. Some small manufacturers to first enter the market (e.g., Smith Electric) struggled to succeed and had to cease operations. These PRPs are procuring some of the first production vehicles from the selected manufacturers, which can have an impact on production and delivery times. Supporting the EV manufacturers, providing a market for their products, and examining vehicle performance will help advance the transition to EVs.

There should be about 10 months of operational data from the Amazon location to evaluate for the final

PRP evaluation report scheduled for January 2021, but the data from the UPS locations will be much

more limited—only 6 months of operational data or less, depending on delivery and start of in-service

operation of UPS electric trucks.


Page 29

Figure 18. SDG&E fleet delivery services PRP timeline as of December 2019

Source: SDG&E

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

Selected Methods and Rationale

In addition to the evaluation questions that apply to all PRPs and those specific to the Fleet

Electrification PRPs, the evaluation questions listed below will be examined for this PRP.

• What instructions/training were drivers provided for using the EV charging stations?

• Were operational and technology opportunities to better manage charging identified, how were

they implemented, and were they effective?

• What is the appropriate ratio of charging ports to EVs?

The data sources utilized to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP information from the approved decision,

project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on delivery vehicles

and early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country, 3) PRP data

from vehicle and charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with vehicle drivers.

Data Sources

Some PRP information has been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions: the PRP kick-

off meeting (SDG&E and evaluator), quarterly PAC update meetings, weekly PRP updates (SDG&E and

evaluator), site visits (UPS), and other periodic calls or emails. Currently, the evaluation team has the

following information from this PRP: charging station hardware specifications, electricity tariff details,

some site photos after installation, project costs, and some high-level information on the acquired

vehicles and intended use. Over the next few months, the evaluator expects to receive more details

about several items where only high-level information was previously provided, along with construction

site plans and designs.


Page 30

The following sources for market research have been identified:

U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center: Average Fuel Economy of Major

Vehicle Categories (2018)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Field Evaluation of Medium-Duty Plug-in Electric

Delivery Trucks (2016)

California Hybrid, Efficient and Advanced Truck Research Center: Battery Electric Parcel Delivery

Truck Testing and Demonstration (2013)

Green Biz and UPS: Curve Ahead: The Future of Commercial Fleet Electrification (2018)

SDG&E will provide PRP operational data from the utility service meters (one utility meter at each

deployment site for all charging stations at that site) for 15-minute interval data and monthly costs,

while network service provider Greenlots will provide monthly CSV files for charging station session

data. Third-party data loggers for medium-/heavy-duty (MD/HD) EVs were found to be much more

expensive than anticipated, so SDG&E is relying on vehicle manufacturer telematics systems for

collection of vehicle operational data. It is expected that the project participants will provide high-level

data on vehicle utilization and maintenance, along with any necessary maintenance of the charging

stations.

The evaluator held IDIs with representatives from the SDG&E PRP management team, SDG&E

construction staff, and Amazon to further understand the background on this project and gather lessons

learned based on progress to date. Additional IDIs with the SDG&E staff, UPS, and vendors are

scheduled during the upcoming year as the EVs are put into operation. A survey or focus group

discussion facilitated with the EV drivers may also be completed.

2.1.3 Evaluation Findings

Since Amazon EVSE installations have been completed and all 15 electric trucks have been delivered

(UPS EVSE installation were completed, but their electric truck deliveries are not expected until Q2

2020), the evaluation team conducted IDIs with Amazon and therefore, most of the information and

learnings presented under this PRP for the interim report are specific to Amazon deployment.

Project Baseline

While the state governments have begun setting mandates on electrifying light-duty vehicles, there has

not yet been a government-led mandate on delivery fleet electrification. In 2019, California is proposing

the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, which will require half of all MD/HD vehicles to be zero-

emissions by 2030.11 This regulation will be the first of its kind and will require cooperation between

manufacturers, fleet owners, and utilities to achieve the mandate.

11 CARB, Proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, December 12, 2019,

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/advancedcleantrucks?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.


Page 31

The electrification of commercial fleets is not only becoming more viable, thanks to market and

technology evolution, but also can be more cost-effective in reducing fuel expenses. EV battery prices

have dropped 79% since 2010. On top of that, the energy density of these batteries has increased 5%–

7% each year from 2010 to 2017.12 Along with increased storage and therefore electric range, the added

fuel efficiency can improve the economics. Compared to a typical diesel delivery vehicle, an EV’s MPG

could improve by over 200%, increasing from 7.6 MPG to 24.1 MPGe.13 Although the technology

continues to improve, there are still significant barriers that need to be addressed for successful

implementation. The initial purchase price, adequate charging infrastructure (and power level available),

and more vehicle options have each been identified as requirements for fleet electrification.

Cooperation and commitment from local utilities, who are a needed partner for electricity and

infrastructure support, will be important, as electrifying an entire 200- to 300-vehicle fleet could require

an order of magnitude more electricity on site as a diesel-operated fleet.14

Amazon distribution centers typically support 100–150 routes per day. There may be different delivery

structures for each Amazon distribution center, but they often fall into one of two groups:

1) independent delivery companies that contract with Amazon as well as other companies, and

2) Amazon delivery service partners that are more integrated into Amazon operations by using Amazon-

branded vehicles that meet established specifications and may be acquired through exclusive deals set

up by Amazon.

Amazon has a long-term strategic plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040. Under its

Shipment Zero program, the company has set a 50% net zero carbon goal by 2030, with an eye to

eventually eliminating carbon from its shipping. As a step toward these objectives, Amazon wants to

learn the right feature set for the charger infrastructure and vehicles. Amazon has been operating EVs in

Europe since 2015, with more than 150 to date, because there have been and still are more electric

options available there. Amazon has conducted some initial tests with pre-commercial electric delivery

vans at a limited number of locations with shorter routes, and the company is currently enacting a series

of small-scale deployments to understand EV and charging capabilities. Most importantly, Amazon

wants to discover unanticipated issues in these small deployments to better prepare for larger-scale

deployments.

The availability of suitable electric delivery vehicles has limited Amazon’s pursuit of transportation

electrification initiatives in the United States. The parking lot layout at distribution centers can also limit

the number of chargers that can be installed. Some delivery service partners have new conventional

vehicles and are not currently interested in getting any new vehicles, including electric ones. The length

of routes also influences which locations are best suited for EVs, as some serve more rural areas that

require far more daily miles per route. Amazon has initially placed EVs on shorter routes to test the

12 Green Biz and UPS, Curve Ahead: The Future of Commercial Fleet Electrification, 2018,

https://sustainability.ups.com/media/UPS_GreenBiz_Whitepaper_v2.pdf. 13 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Field Evaluation of Medium-Duty Plug-in Electric Delivery Trucks,

December 2016, https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/field_evaluation_md_elec_delivery_trucks.pdf. 14 Green Biz and UPS, Curve Ahead: The Future of Commercial Fleet Electrification, 2018,

https://sustainability.ups.com/media/UPS_GreenBiz_Whitepaper_v2.pdf.


Page 32

vehicle range. Lightning Systems is working closely with Amazon to collect vehicle operational

information and find the most suitable routes while at the same time optimizing vehicle energy

efficiency. Amazon selected the National City location because of a good relationship with the landlord,

relatively shorter route lengths, and DAC classification aligned with SDG&E’s preferences. Based on the

site layout for the charging infrastructure, only 15 EVs were feasible for this location. Amazon currently

uses Ford Transit E250 diesel cargo vans in its National City delivery vehicle fleet.

Implementation Process

Customer education through outreach materials and staff interactions will be a key aspect for successful

similar future fleet electrification efforts. Very limited EV availability in Classes 2b through 4 is a

significant barrier. Most fleets are waiting to acquire EVs that have been successfully commercialized

with a number of fleets and see first commercial vehicle deliveries as a significant risk from a reliability

perspective, as the vehicles are the core element of their business. Most discussions with fleet

management regarding the possibility of acquiring EVs are at the basic level of whether they can meet

requirements and be reliable. Potential early adopters are interested in charging requirements and the

impact on electricity rates and costs. Only after these concerns are addressed might fleets be able to

calculate the anticipated cost per mile as compared to conventional vehicles. At this point, SDG&E does

not have enough information based on real-world use to help provide cost-per-mile information,

although this project will start providing data to develop that information. Larger entities’ adoption of

medium-duty EVs, and the successful integration of these EVs into operations, will help reduce concerns

of businesses that are not first adopters.

Based on this project’s experience, SDG&E acknowledges that it is necessary to engage with the

customers early and often to understand their intended EV use and any operational constraints that

would impact the charger location, charging logistics, and EV operation. This kind of engagement will

result in EV charging infrastructure solutions that will enable the customers to take full advantage of EV

capabilities and realize maximum benefits of EV operation. While the electrical infrastructure and

construction processes were relatively straightforward and did not present any significant challenges,

understanding how the fleets will use the vehicles and chargers is important to both the design and to

operational cost management. Had SDG&E included a field construction advisor early in the design

process to participate in the initial site walk instead of just reviewing the designs, several minor and a

few major change orders could have been avoided during the construction period.

Lesson Learned: Include field construction advisors early in the design process, and have them participate in the initial site walk to better understand the customer site and therefore be better able to accommodate anticipated EV operational needs.

As the fleets are starting to operate the vehicles and charging them when needed, the partners are

discovering that their charging choices can have a significant impact on their electricity costs (i.e.,

plugging them all in at once rather than spreading out their charging or charging during peak electricity

periods unnecessarily). This is new to the fleets whose priority is to ensure the vehicles are fully charged

when needed; this focus does impact the bottom line and is a factor when determining whether EVs can

be a cost-effective option. Therefore, it is important for the utility to work closely with the customer,


Page 33

especially during the first few months of EV deployment, to monitor electricity use and suggest

strategies for optimizing it (e.g., TOU rates and managed charging).

Greenlots, the network service provider for this PRP, provided a dedicated representative to SDG&E for

this pilot. The representative is very knowledgeable about the chargers and handled charger

commissioning and any calls related to chargers installed under this PRP, which has been very helpful in

quickly resolving any issues and corresponding with SDG&E staff. This action was in response to a lesson

learned from the SDG&E Power Your Drive Pilot; during the pilot, challenges arose because Greenlots’

general help line representatives were not familiar with the program details, so having a dedicated

representative helped avoid similar issues.

SDG&E did not specify the charging station manufacturer for this PRP but did require that the

manufacturer be pre-approved in the Power Your Drive Pilot (Greenlots and ChargePoint were the two

options). Amazon staff conducted their own research based on the company’s duty cycle requirements

for any EV that might be added to the fleet. The company selected Greenlots chargers because of the

higher available power (16 kW vs 6.6 kW). Amazon had previously determined that a simple non-

networked charging station would likely suit its needs, but none were available under this PRP. The

Greenlots unit is larger and more sophisticated (LED screen) than Amazon would have likely chosen if

not participating in this PRP, but the unit will provide an opportunity to investigate authentication and

different payment methods.

Since Amazon did not know which EV model would be acquired, management requested that the design

use single-port chargers that would be placed in the center of the front of each parking space. This

placement would allow the most flexibility for the charging cord to reach the vehicle’s charging port,

regardless of its location. The proposed design also placed the new transformer and switch gear in an

existing smoking area, but Amazon was willing to move the smoking zone. The initial timing was charger

installation completion in 2018, but vehicle availability challenges delayed deployment until mid-2019.

The scope of this PRP required that customers get new meters for the charging stations rather than

using existing meters. Amazon felt it might be more advantageous to add the charging load to an

existing meter. Most of the company’s distribution centers have sufficient capacity to add the new

charging load to existing services, which would allow for energy demand management across the entire

facility. Because of the potential demand costs, Amazon requested energy management features from

Greenlots’ Sky platform to allow Amazon to manage charging. Amazon acknowledged that the charger

installation might have been more difficult if connected to the existing meter but believes that ongoing

costs would be lower using that approach.

Lesson Learned: If charging station installation programs can be made more flexible, customers may prefer the option to use either a new or existing meter—particularly those customers knowledgeable of and actively involved in energy management practices.

The charger locations were able to accommodate Amazon’s EV charging port placement, as Amazon

requested long charging cords for this purpose, and SDG&E was able to provide them. Some additional

complications arose during construction because SDG&E contractors, rather than Amazon’s direct hires,


Page 34

were doing the work. This added an additional layer of authority and made it difficult to communicate

and coordinate the times when the facility power was shut off for new transformer installation. The

contractor tried to be accommodating but did not understand the level of detail that Amazon requires

to maintain its business-critical operations. All power outages affect Amazon operations, as distribution

centers are staffed 24–7 and need to prepare accordingly. (Providing advance notice of a power outage

in 15-minute increments instead of 4-hour blocks would have been helpful.) However, other than these

few concerns, Amazon felt that the construction went very well overall.

Although the PRP acquired only 15 EVs, finding a manufacturer with an EV that met Amazon’s needs and

could be delivered on the PRP timeline was challenging. Since the National City location has very limited

parking, vehicles have to be short to park and charge. Amazon selected Lightning Systems, which has the

smallest available package delivery electric vehicle in North America. (Amazon has not worked with

Lightning Systems before.) Lightning Systems also provided a larger battery option (86 kWh) to allow for

more route coverage. While the EVs come with only a 6.6 kW on-board charger, it should be sufficient

for the selected Amazon routes. Amazon’s plan going forward is to include the optional DCFC capability

on the Lightning Systems product as a backup charging option.

While some delivery fleets like Amazon have expressed interest in DCFC option, in addition to overnight

depot L2 charging, this would require added customer side and utility infrastructure and therefore

increase the overall cost of the project. Almost all electric truck offerings on the market today come

standard with L2 charging; however, there is an increasing number of manufacturers who are starting to

offer DCFC capability as an available option (can be as much as $5,000 extra). DCFC is of interest to some

fleets as it provides a redundancy for charging in case there are issues with the L2 chargers or a vehicle

does not receive a sufficient charge overnight but needs to be charged quickly in the morning to still be

able to on its route.

To offset the high EV purchase costs that remain a barrier to adoption, CARB’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission

Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) funding was used to purchase EVs. Amazon is the

responsible party for HVIP reporting, while the vehicles are registered to delivery service providers.

Amazon has access to the vehicle operational information from the Lightning Systems telematics;

however, some of the information is business confidential, such as individual routes and vehicle

efficiency. A high-level summary of operational information may be available for the evaluation.

Amazon has been provided with information about how to use Greenlots’ Sky platform, specifically the

managed charging software capabilities. Lightning Systems has provided safety, inspection, and

classroom training for Amazon drivers. Lighting Systems is also actively involved in monitoring the

vehicle operational data to advise and support Amazon.

Costs

The approved PRP had an anticipated total direct cost of $3,690,749, consisting of $3,231,963 in capital

and $458,786 in expense, as shown in Table 7.


Page 35

Table 7. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Proposed Costs

Capital Costs O&M Expenses Total PRP Costs

Transformer and Install $ 248,625 $ 3,731 $ 252,356

Electrical Service $ 829,323 N/A $ 829,323

EVSE Costs $ 1,531,215 $ 35,055 $ 1,566,270

Purchased and SD Software $ 622,800 N/A $ 622,800

Measurement & Evaluation N/A $ 200,000 $ 200,000

Charging Equipment Maintenance N/A $ 15,000 $ 15,000

Billing Support N/A $ 80,000 $ 80,000

SDG&E Clean Transportation PM N/A $ 100,000 $ 100,000

First Year O&M Service Calls N/A $ 15,000 $ 15,000

First Year O&M for Charging Equipment N/A $ 15,000 $ 15,000

$ 3,231,963 $ 425,000 $ 3,695,749

The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled $1,316,472 out of a budgeted $3,695,749, as

shown in Table 8 (presented in categories reported by the utility).

Table 8. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP costs as of September 30, 2019

Actual Capital Costs

Budgeted Capital Costs

Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Construction $ 630,075 $ 1,356,363

Engineering Design $ 119,079 $ 161,175

Chargers, Meter Pedestals, Transformer, and Other Materials

$ 316,554 $ 1,091,625

Internal SDG&E Labor (Program Management and Support)

$ 16,306 $ 62,257 $ 379,800

IT Costs $ 116,629 $ 622,800


Page 36



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Customer Engagement and Outreach

Other $ 52,519 $ 52 $ 78,786

Direct Costs $ 1,251,162 $ 3,231,963 $ 65,310 $ 458,586

Non-Direct Costs (Indirect, AFUDC, and Property Taxes)

$ 1,232,606 $ 1,726,530 $ 67,924 $ 200,614

Total Costs $ 2,483,768 $ 4,958,493 $ 133,233 $ 659,200

Benefits

The planned/anticipated benefits in Table 9 reflect 83.3% of the benefits stated in the original testimony

because the final expected number of electric delivery trucks supported by this PRP’s charging

infrastructure has been reduced from 90 to 75.

Table 9. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Benefits

Anticipated in Testimony

(90 vehicles)

Anticipated as Planned

(75 vehicles)

As Implemented

As Optimized

Petroleum Reduction

203,000 GGE per year 169,167 GGE per year TBD TBD

GHG Emissions 894 MT of CO2 per year

745 MT of CO2 per year

TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants

0.81 MT of NOx per year


TBD TBD

DAC Impact 66% (2 of 3 UPS sites), plus same DAC portion with 3 more sites

80% (60 of 75 delivery trucks have a base location in a DAC)

TBD TBD

Operations, Maintenance, and Fuel Costs

2,946 MWh of electricity per year


TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits

Improved net load factor (if charging is properly managed)

Improved net load factor

TBD TBD


Page 37

Operational Impacts of Project Equipment

No significant electric delivery vehicle operations under this PRP were completed as of this interim

report. This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained

before November 2020.

Stakeholder and Customer Feedback

No significant electric delivery vehicle operations under this PRP were completed as of this interim

report, so this feedback has not yet been captured. Feedback pertaining to the initial implementation of

this PRP is captured in the Implementation Process section of the Evaluation Methodology. This section

will be completed for the final report using all information and data obtained before November 2020.

2.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Findings

Without significant electric delivery vehicle operations to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s

success, which will be documented in the final report. However, some preliminary findings, in addition

to the lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below:

The restriction to add only new project locations for locally owned, MBE/WBE delivery business

fleets prevented this PRP from recruiting more participants, despite several outreach methods

(forums and direct contact). The final expected number of electric delivery vehicles supported

by SDG&E charging infrastructure is only 75 of the initially proposed 90. Flexibility in pilot and

program deployment is essential to allow for accelerated EV adoption.

For these specific deployments, electric delivery vehicles and fleet operations did not require

DCFCs, so only L2 stations were deployed.

The PRP successfully installed 79 L2 charging stations, with the supporting electrical

infrastructure, at four different locations. Through this effort, SDG&E has attained relevant

installation experience, along with more accurate cost information, to help support more

delivery vehicle fleets with electrification.

Given the likely electrical infrastructure upgrade requirements for significant fleet

electrification, utilities are needed partners for electricity and for infrastructure support.

Utilities are learning alongside customers how best to integrate EVs into their fleets and

operations, as neither utilities nor customers have this experience.

Third-party onboard vehicle data loggers are preferred for independently monitoring vehicle

performance, but to reduce costs, the project will rely on the fleets to provide vehicle

performance data through use of vehicle-manufacturer-installed telematics systems.

Significantly more effort, investment, and EV availability and reduced EV costs will be necessary

to sufficiently support locally owned MBE/WBE delivery business fleets in transportation

electrification projects. Often, such businesses do not have the knowledge or resources to

secure the grants necessary to finance this effort (upfront costs for electric delivery trucks is a

barrier) or the available staffing to navigate the challenges of operating new technology.

Further, smaller local companies generally do not have robust financial resources to make

investments in new technologies.


Page 38

The electric delivery vehicle market is growing and maturing but has relatively limited options.

Some small manufacturers to first enter the market (e.g., Smith Electric) struggled to succeed

and had to cease operations. These PRPs are procuring some of the first production vehicles

from the selected manufacturers, which can have an impact on production and delivery times.

Supporting the EV manufacturers, providing a market for their products, and examining vehicle

performance will help advance the transition to EVs.

Include field construction advisors early in the design process, and have them participate in the

initial site walk to better understand the customer site and therefore be better able to

accommodate anticipated EV operational needs.

Including field construction advisors early in the design process and having them participate in

the initial site walk to better understand the customer site is beneficial to the implementation of

these projects as they will be better able to accommodate anticipated EV operational needs.

If charging station installation programs can be made more flexible, customers may prefer the

option to use either a new or existing meter—particularly those customers knowledgeable of

and actively involved in energy management practices.

Next Steps

A recommendation pertaining to this project’s potential for scale-up and conditions under which it

would be recommended cannot be determined at this time but will be included in the final report.

2.2 Green Shuttles



SDG&E’s PRP filing proposed a partnership with taxi, shuttle, and transportation network companies

(TNCs) interested in the electrification of their fleets. SDG&E sought to support them with grid-

integrated charging facilities, including DCFC and L2 EVSE, and a grid integrated rate. The CPUC decision

approved only fixed-route shuttle applications. SDG&E may also install solar and energy storage at one

project location. SDG&E will work with the participating shuttle companies to determine whether

additional EV drivers, such as taxi, vanpool, or TNC drivers, can use the same charging infrastructure.

SDG&E may offer its new Public Grid Integrated Rate at the charging stations it owns. The utility

originally proposed to install, own, operate, and maintain up to five grid-integrated charging facilities

(“project charging facilities”), which will include one DCFC and two L2 EVSEs per facility, to address the

fueling needs for the EVs with rapid-charging DCFC capabilities, as well as applications that do not

require these capabilities.

This project creates the opportunity to learn important aspects of this market to inform Commission

policy as well as improve advancement from a pilot project to program scale, if deemed beneficial. The

following are key learning objectives of this project:

Utilization Optimization – The optimal charging facility-to-vehicle ratio to achieve high utilization

rates without creating inconvenience for the vehicle drivers.


Page 39

Location Optimization – The extent to which charging facility locations for shuttle fleets are

easily accessible, convenient, and sufficient in volume and types of chargers to meet the

operational requirements of the other potential markets (i.e., taxi, vanpool, and TNC).

Impact of the Grid-Integrated Rate – The extent to which the proposed grid-integrated rate

works to encourage off-peak charging, as well as the extent to which these operations will have

the flexibility to select those hours of the day with the lowest energy prices.

EV Adoption – The degree to which driver exposure to EVs influences EV interest and adoption

within the broader taxi, shuttle, and rideshare community. Gathering data to help inform the

total cost of ownership for fleet electrification is also key to EV adoption.

This project is an opportunity to implement system efficiencies that provide benefits to ratepayers,

while also maintaining a safe and reliable level of service. The PRP aims to provide increased exposure

to, and experience with, electric shuttle bus applications:

• SDG&E will partner with two or more shuttle companies to purchase up to four electric shuttles,

with the utility providing a financial incentive of $10,000 per electric shuttle, with no more than

two incentives per shuttle company, for agreeing to participate in the project.

• The shuttle companies will enroll in SDG&E's grid-integrated rate offering as a means to reduce

fueling costs; the shuttle company will be notified in advance, facilitating scheduling of charging

times during lower-priced, off-peak hours.

The customer educational component will help potential participants develop an understanding of the

grid, fuel cost savings benefits and advantages of charging off-peak under a grid-integrated rate (where

feasible), how the rate works at project charging facilities, SDG&E billing, and other project benefits.

Customer engagement for this project includes customer outreach with potential site hosts, outreach

through company representatives, and an overarching program-specific communication and education

campaign (e.g., using social media, web and web tools, and co-sponsored educational events and

collateral). Other forms of customer/driver engagement and education will take place in collaboration

with relevant taxi, shuttle, and TNC marketing programs, should a charging location be available to these

markets.


Recruitment Process

SDG&E account executives, shuttle manufacturers, and other resources were used to conduct outreach

to potential program participants. In January 2018, SDG&E held an external stakeholder conference for

vendors, EV shuttle manufacturers, and local customers that fit the decision requirements. As a result,

SDG&E engaged many customers and went into serious discussion with 17 customers about the

program. Customer operations included schools, workplaces, airport shuttles, and hotel shuttles.

Unfortunately, many customers could not participate in the program because of the following factors:

The procurement cycle did not align with the program (30%).

The cost of the electric shuttles was too high (20%).

The customer operations do not operate on fixed routes (10%).


Page 40

In the originally proposed budgets, the conduit and trench lengths were estimated on a per-site basis.

Some locations have significantly longer conduit and trench lengths than the estimated average, which

has excluded some potential customers from participating.

Participants

SDG&E received interest from four fixed-route shuttle companies to help electrify their fleets, including

two offsite airport parking shuttle fleets (San Diego Airport Parking [SDAP] and Aladdin Airport Parking

[Aladdin]), one onsite airport parking shuttle fleet (the San Diego International Airport [SDIA]-operated

fleet), and a workplace employee shuttle (Illumina, which has buses operated by ACE Parking). These

shuttle fleet project participants indicated that the originally proposed charging infrastructure

configuration of two L2 and one DCFC per site would not meet their needs. L2 charging stations are not

a suitable operational fit for the airport shuttle operations, and multiple DCFCs may be needed. The

workplace shuttle operations, on the other hand, have longer opportunities to charge outside of the

workday; however, there is no easy solution to the need to rotate the vehicles through a single DCFC, so

this workplace shuttle operation would require a one-to-one ratio of L2 charging stations to shuttle

buses. These use cases are shown in

Figure 19. SDG&E submitted an advice letter to the CPUC in Q1 of 2019 allowing for two DCFCs for three

airport shuttle sites, for a total of six DCFCs and six L2 charging stations at one workplace shuttle site;

the CPUC approved the proposed system.

Figure 19. SDG&E Green Shuttles participant use cases

Source: SDG&E Q4 2018 PAC Meeting

SDAP runs an off-site airport parking lot and shuttles its customers to and from the airport. SDAP is also

participating in SDG&E’s Power Your Drive Program (10 L2 charging ports were installed). Shuttles

operate on an eight-mile loop from the parking area to the airport and back, which takes approximately

30 minutes. Shuttles operate based on demand, up to four shuttle buses can be running during peak

time, and only one runs in off-peak hours. The shuttle buses are parked when the airport is shut down

between 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM (although delays often keep them running until 1:00 AM). In 2015 and

2016, SDAP operated three Zenith EVs with three 14 kW L2 chargers, but the vehicles experienced

significant operational issues and could not replace the operation of the diesel shuttles. For this PRP,

SDAP acquired two GreenPower electric shuttle buses. SDAP planned to use 50 kW BTC Power DCFCs

managed by Greenlots, but the GreenPower electric shuttle’s voltage requirements (800 V battery


Page 41

packs) necessitated a switch to a ChargePoint CPE 250 DCFC charging station and the ChargePoint

network. While SDAP was open to having other fleets use the chargers, the site is for private use and will

not be publicly available.

Figure 20. GreenPower EV Star all-electric mini electric bus specifications

Source: CARB Hybrid Truck and Voucher Incentive Program

Figure 21. GreenPower EV Star model

Source: CARB Hybrid Truck and Voucher Incentive Program (left) and Evaluator Team (right)


Page 42

Figure 22. SDAP site with two GreenPower EV Stars

Source: Evaluator Team

Figure 23. SDAP site with two 62.5 kW DCFCs paired for 125 kW and a new transformer


Aladdin also runs an off-site airport parking lot and shuttles its customers to and from the airport. The

customer has about five L2 charging stations that it uses as a “value added” service to customers.

Aladdin considered Phoenix electric shuttles, but those were too tall to enter the parking garage; the

company instead placed an order with Briton for 4 Lightning System Ford E450 electric shuttles. Two

62.5 kW ChargePoint CPE 250 DCFCs will be installed to charge these vehicles. The site is for private use

and will not be publicly available.


Page 43

SDIA is working on procuring four electric shuttles for an inter-terminal route. The initial site evaluated

by SDG&E was the current taxi/rideshare/shuttle lot, which would have allowed charging infrastructure

at this location to be open to other taxi/rideshare/shuttles, as well as the new shuttles purchased by

SDIA. Unfortunately, this initial site will undergo major reconstruction in the near future, so installing

charging infrastructure is not feasible. Alternative locations were investigated, but no other options

were suitable; therefore, SDIA will not be a Green Shuttles PRP site.

Illumina provides shuttles to its employees to go around the main campus (5200 Illumina Way, San

Diego, California 92122), back and forth to the north campus (0.9 miles from the main campus at 4795

Executive Dr.), and back and forth to University Town Center mall (1.3 miles from the main campus at

4545 La Jolla Village Drive). Illumina is also participating in SDG&E’s Power Your Drive Program. ACE

Parking operates Illumina’s shuttle service and placed an order with Briton for 4 Lightning System Ford

E450 electric shuttles for this project. The construction plan specified BTC Power 70 A L2 charging

stations, which will be managed by Greenlots. The site is for private use and will not be publicly

available.

SDG&E investigated potential sites where EV chargers could be integrated with renewable (solar

photovoltaic [PV]) energy and an energy storage system (battery) to examine how these technologies

can be used to manage energy use and demand charges. The utility issued a request for bids to perform

the solar and storage installation and integration, and two companies responded. However, the

contractors lacked experience, and the proposed costs were high. SDG&E explored the option to

facilitate this effort using internal staff. SDAP offered the company site to demonstrate the integrated

PV and battery system, which would provide a significant opportunity to examine the interaction with

electric shuttle bus charging. System design, component specifications, and pricing led SDG&E to

determine that the integrated PV and battery system would not be cost-effective to implement. Utility

management plans to study this option by modeling the expected PV and battery system contributions

and benefits against the actual shuttle bus charging use.

Lesson Learned: The integration of a PV and battery system with EV charging could be a valuable solution to managing electrical demand. While PV is a mature technology that has been widely deployed, the integration with battery system and EV operations is new. The technological challenges associated with implementation and significant costs were likely key reasons for the limited response SDG&E received to its request for bids. Given the current costs and risks, SDG&E decided to instead model this solution. Should this prove valuable at a reasonable price point for implementation, a future deployment may be warranted (outside of the PRP).

Timeline and Status

With four potential project partners identified and the design in progress for three of those sites, SDG&E

shared the anticipated project timeline (combined for all shuttle sites) shown in Figure 24 at the

Q3 2018 PAC meeting. That timeline estimated the design, along with component specification and

procurement, would take about four months, and construction would be completed about two months

following that, so that the sites could be energized by March 2019.


Page 44

Figure 24. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP timeline as of September 2018

Source: SDG&E Q3 2018 PAC meeting

However, the type of chargers deployed at each site (and hence the PRP scope) changed, which required

discussion with the PAC, submission of an advice letter, and approval from the CPUC. This process

concluded in Q1 2019. Further challenges were experienced during the execution of project partner

contracts, which took several months longer than anticipated. The result was a significant delay to the

project timeline.

As of early December 2019, only two DCFCs at SDAP have been energized and commissioned. SDAP is

also the only project partner to acquire electric shuttle buses, with the two GreenPower EV Stars being

delivered in July 2019. These vehicles have been charging on the existing L2 chargers, but the duty cycle

requirements (up to 200 miles per day) did not allow for a diesel shuttle to be fully replaced until the

DCFCs were commissioned in December 2019. Construction at SDAP was scheduled to begin in May

2019, but when the SDIA site was found infeasible, SDG&E entered into discussions with SDAP about a

potential combined DCFC and energy storage system. However, utility management ultimately decided

not to change the proposed design. Thus, construction at SDAP started in June 2019 and was completed

within two months. When the SDAP charging infrastructure was complete and commissioning was under

way, the DCFCs installed were discovered to be incompatible with the higher 800 V battery system in

the GreenPower EV. The only approved alternative that would meet the PRP timeline was the

ChargePoint CPE 250 DCFC. Procuring and installing the new chargers took a few additional months. CPE

250 DCFCs allow for a combined output of 125 kW when connected with an optional 1,000 V pairing kit,

which SDG&E and SDAP agreed to install for this site. While the construction to accommodate the

charger pairing was completed quickly, there was a several-week delay while awaiting delivery of the

pairing kit.

Lesson Learned: EVs in smaller market segments, such as shuttle buses, are often supplied by several smaller manufacturers that are attempting to fill a market need (more established manufacturers target larger market segments). The specifications of these EVs may be unique to each manufacturer, and it is critical to verify compatibility with the planned charging infrastructure.

The contract with Aladdin was executed in May 2019. Construction began in November 2019 and is

scheduled for completion by the end of January 2020. The contract with Illumina was executed in

September 2019, and EV charger installation is scheduled for completion by the end of Q1 2020. As of

December 2019, neither partner had acquired its EVs. Based on the projected dates that the EVs with

Illumina (expected by April 2020) and Aladdin are in operation, only six months of operational data may


Page 45

be available for the final evaluation of performance for those PRP sites. The SDAP site should provide

nearly a year of operational data for evaluation.

Figure 25. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP timeline as of December 2019

Source: SDG&E





• What instructions/training were drivers given about using the charging station?

• Were operational and technology opportunities to better manage charging identified, how were

they implemented, and were they effective?

• What is the appropriate charging level and ratio of charging ports to vehicles?

• How might the integration of PV and batteries with DCFC on site affect this use case? What

different charging optimization scenarios were modeled, and what were their outcomes?

The data collection sources utilized to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP information from the approved

decision, project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on shuttle

vehicles and early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country,

3) PRP data from vehicle and charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with

vehicle drivers.


Page 46

Data Sources



evaluator), site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. Currently the evaluation team has the following

information from this PRP for one project site (SDAP): charging station hardware specifications, EV

specifications, electricity tariff details, site photos, project costs, and historical usage of non-EVs in the

fleet. In Q1 2020, the evaluator expects to receive more details on construction site plans and designs,

several items mentioned where only initial high-level information was provided, along with all

information for the other project sites (Aladdin and Illumina).


National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Analysis of Fast Charging Station Network for Electrified

Ride-Hailing Services (2018)

Calstart: Hybrid Shuttle Bus Testing and Demonstration ARBOC “Spirit of Mobility” (2014)

CARB: Economic Analysis for the Proposed Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation (2018)

CARB: Transit Fleet Cost Model (2017)

There are also several ongoing electric bus deployments at the following airports (some of which are

shuttle buses, but most use larger transit bus models): Los Angeles, Raleigh–Durham, Newark Liberty,

LaGuardia, Kansas City, John F. Kennedy, Indianapolis, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta, San Francisco,

Sacramento, Ontario, Oakland, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose, Long Beach, John Wayne, and Hollywood

Burbank.

SDG&E will be providing PRP operational data from its utility service meters (one utility meter at each


while the network service provider is expected to send monthly CSV files for charging station session

data. Third-party data loggers for MD/HD EVs were found to be much more expensive than anticipated,

so SDG&E is relying on vehicle manufacturer telematics systems for vehicle data. It is expected that the

project participants will provide high-level data on vehicle utilization and maintenance, along with any

necessary maintenance on the charging stations.

The evaluator held IDIs with representatives from the SDG&E PRP management team and SDG&E

construction staff to further understand the background on this project and gather lessons learned

based on progress to date. Additional IDIs with the SDG&E staff, project participants, and vendors will

take place in 2020 as the EVs are put into operations. A survey or a facilitated focus group discussion

with the EV drivers is also planned.


Project Baseline

Promoting the development and use of zero-emission airport ground transportation will help CARB

achieve the emission reduction strategies outlined in the Mobile Source Strategy, State Implementation

Plan, and Sustainable Freight Action Plan. Vehicles such as airport shuttles that operate on fixed routes,


Page 47

have stop-and-go operations, maintain low average speeds, and are centrally maintained and fueled are

ideal candidates for targeting zero-emission electric technologies.15

The Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation, which CARB adopted in June 2019, requires that airport

shuttle operators transition to 100% zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies. Airport shuttle operators

must begin adding zero-emission shuttles to their fleets in 2027 and complete the transition to ZEVs by

the end of 2035. The regulation applies to airport shuttle operators who own, operate, or lease vehicles

at any of the 13 airports regulated under the rule, shuttles with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,501 or

greater that transport passengers to and from the regulated airports, shuttles with fixed routes that

stop at rental car facilities, on-airport or off-airport parking, hotels or other similar locations, and

shuttles based within 15 miles of a regulated airport that have round-trip routes of 30 miles or less.16

SDAP currently operates four diesel shuttle buses: three Mercedes Sprinters (one 6-cylinder and two

4-cylinder) and one Ford Transit. The company fuels them with renewable diesel to meet SDIA’s

requirement for alternative-fueled shuttles. The station for this is 14 miles round trip from SDAP, and

the shuttle buses will go there at least every other day, if not every day (during the busy season). SDAP

tested Zenith electric shuttle buses in an attempt to replace the diesel shuttles but experienced many

issues. The maintenance shop across the street that the company used for the diesel shuttles helped

support those Zenith shuttles and has staff who are knowledgeable about EVs to service the new ones

(no change in current vehicle maintenance operations).

Electric shuttle bus manufacturers and therefore EV shuttle options are currently very limited, and there

are not many active demonstrations of the technology. BYD offers a 30-foot electric shuttle bus for sale

in North America. Although specific vehicle sales figures are not readily available, BYD is the largest zero-

emission bus (ZEB) manufacturer in the world, and its North American operation employs over 750

workers in its 450,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Lancaster, California. GreenPower Motor

Company manufactures and sells two battery electric shuttle buses; the 36.5-foot Synapse shuttle bus

and the 25-foot EV Star (the EV Star is available in three trim levels, including an ADA accessible version).

The company reports strong sales and earnings, particularly in regard to the EV Star, at least two of

which were sold to SDAP. In addition to the sale of two Synapse school buses and one EV 350 transit

bus, GreenPower reported Q2 sales of 24 EV Star vehicles. Lightning Systems is a Colorado-based

manufacturer of zero-emission all-electric powertrains with offices in Loveland, Colorado, and San

Diego, California. Lightning Systems claims to improve a fleet’s operating costs while providing safety,

environmental responsibility, and advanced technology. The company offers all-electric powertrains for

the Ford Transit 350HD passenger and cargo vans, Ford E-450 shuttle bus and cutaway models, Ford F-

59 step/food van, Ford F-550 cargo trucks and buses, Chevrolet 6500XD Low Cab Forward model, and

30-foot, 35-foot, and 40-foot transit buses.

15 CARB, Zero Emission Airport Shuttle webpage, 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-

airport-shuttle/about. 16 California Air Resources Board, Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation Factsheet (2019) LINK:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/asb_reg_factsheet.pdf


Page 48

Interviews have not yet been conducted with Illumina and Aladdin, and therefore the interim report

includes no information about their current vehicles.


The initial installation design for SDAP incorporated PV and energy storage. SDG&E issued a bid for these

systems, but all received quotes were much higher than expected and allocated in the project budget.

SDG&E decided to leverage the internal team to design these systems and then investigated the costs

for the individual components from known suppliers. Even with this approach, the equipment and

installation costs were still very high. SDG&E looked into some older assets that could potentially be

repurposed for this project to lower costs, but even this approach proved to be costly. SDG&E staff then

ran a model to determine the potential impacts of these systems and found very limited electricity

savings (~$1,500 per year). The cost differential for this application was so far off that it could not be

justified. Instead, SDG&E plans to simulate the expected impacts from PV and energy storage for this

DCFC installation and calculate the benefits if it was implemented as planned.

Lesson Learned: PV and energy storage technologies are well developed, and their application to supporting grid services has been proven. However, the integration with EV charging is entirely new, and no off-the-shelf system exists (except for limited applications of an off-grid PV, battery, and L2 charger system). On their own, these components need to be optimized to provide a positive return on investment, and the complexity of combining these into one solution adds costs and challenges the optimization strategy for maximizing benefits.

SDG&E investigated several options for an open access charging station among the potential

participants. Several had very complicated parking lot access that would have made allowing public

access challenging, and most sites rely heavily on the availability of these chargers when the batteries

get depleted, so those locations could not risk having the chargers occupied at those times. Staff were

able to identify a site that could allow public access, but unfortunately, it was the SDIA location that is

scheduled to undergo major construction. SDG&E has found that many shuttle bus operations are

interested in electrification, but it is very new to them, so they could not commit to vehicle purchases

that aligned with the PRP timeline. However, many of these customers are planning to pursue

electrification through SDG&E’s MD/HD SRP. SDG&E has found that ongoing programs are much more

helpful in recruiting new customers. Limited, short-term programs can work only for those who already

have plans to electrify their fleets, whereas long-term programs inspire more customers to take the

necessary steps toward planning for electrification so that they are ready to install charging stations in a

year or two. The PRP has created a “pipeline” of potential customers that the SRP can now support.

The ChargePoint CPE 250 DCFC EVSE comes with a 12-foot cord, but SDG&E and SDAP learned that

length is tip to tip, while the cable positioning around the vehicle and the angle to plug the cord into the

vehicle’s charging receptacle make the usable length significantly less (see Figure 23, with the EV parked

very close to the bollards).


Page 49

Costs


and $1,010,918 in expense, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP proposed costs


Transformer and Install $ 75,100 $ 2,073 $ 77,173


EVSE Costs $ 1,317,522 $ 1,845 $ 1,319,367


Customer Engagement N/A $ 200,000 $ 200,000

Measurement and Evaluation N/A $ 410,000 $ 410,000



First-Year O&M Service Calls N/A $ 15,000 $ 15,000

First-Year O&M for Charging Equipment N/A $ 10,000 $ 10,000

$ 2,338,887 $ 818,918 $ 3,157,805

Little to no costs were originally associated with design, engineering, and permitting. SDG&E had

originally estimated these costs would be less than $10,000 per site (some estimates did not even

account for any additional costs for this). SDG&E is finding that the actual design, engineering, and

permitting costs average about $30,000 per site.

The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled $713,069 out of a budgeted $3,157,805, as

shown in Table 11 Table 11. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP costs as of September 30, 2019(presented in

categories reported by the utility).


Page 50

Table 11. SDG&E Green Shuttles PRP costs as of September 30, 2019



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Construction $ 763,455



$ 113,994 $ 842,882


$ 6,342 $ 86,305 $ 590,000

IT Costs $ 408,202 $ 622,800


$ 200,000

Other $ 18,829 $ 28,918

Direct Costs $ 626,764 $ 2,338,887 $ 86,305 $ 818,918


$ 1,305,332 $ 89,386 $ 264,238

Total Costs $ 626,764 $ 3,644,219 $ 175,691 $ 1,083,156

Benefits

The originally designed PRP estimated benefits based on the addition of 4 EV taxis, 4 electric shuttles,

and 54 taxis/TNC vehicles. The current expected impact of this PRP is 12 electric shuttles. It is not

confirmed whether the SDAP charging infrastructure would be accessible by taxis or TNC EVs. The

reduced anticipated benefits for the PRP as planned utilize the factors listed in Appendix A of SDG&E

Direct Testimony [pertaining to SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals] – Chapter 8 Air Quality

Impacts and Cost Effectiveness.


Page 51

Table 12. SDG&E Green Shuttle PRP benefits


(4 shuttles and 54 taxis/TNC EVs)


(12 shuttles)

As Implemented As Optimized

Petroleum Reduction

114,000 GGE per year

59,000 GGE per year TBD TBD



TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants

0.19 MT of NOx per year; 0.14 MT of VOC per year


TBD TBD

DAC Impact SDIA is adjacent to DACs

All three sites are in DACs around SDIA

TBD TBD


996 MWh of electricity per year


TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits



TBD TBD


No significant electric shuttle bus vehicle operations under this PRP were completed as of this interim

report. This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained

before November 2020.


No significant electric shuttle bus vehicle operations under this PRP were completed as of this interim

report, so this feedback has not been captured. Feedback pertaining to the initial implementation of this

PRP is captured in Implementation Process section of the Evaluation Methodology. This section will be

completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Page 52


Findings

Without significant electric shuttle bus vehicle operations to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s


to the lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below:

Shuttle bus operations have distinct use cases that dictate specific charging infrastructure, and it

did not make sense to install both L2 and DCFC at each location.

Most shuttle bus companies have private facilities that are not equipped to allow other EVs to

charge at company sites.

Electric shuttle bus options, especially in Classes 2–4, are very limited, and there can be long

lead times for procurement. Partners had a hard time getting the EV manufacturers to commit

to vehicle delivery.

Shuttle bus companies have established procurement cycles, and offering charging

infrastructure was not enough incentive for companies to commit quickly to purchasing electric

shuttle buses had they not already had plans to do so.

Third-party onboard vehicle data loggers would be ideal for independently monitoring vehicle

performance, but they were cost-prohibitive; the PRP will instead rely on the fleets to provide

vehicle performance data through use of vehicle-manufacturer-installed telematics systems

where available.

The integration of a PV and battery system with EV charging could be a valuable solution to

managing electrical demand. While PV is a mature technology that has been widely deployed,

the integration with battery system and EV operations is new. The technological challenges

associated with implementation and significant costs were likely key reasons for the limited

response SDG&E received to its request for bids. Given the current costs and risks, SDG&E

decided to instead model this solution. Should this prove valuable at a reasonable price point for

implementation, a future deployment may be warranted (outside of the PRP).

EVs in smaller market segments, such as shuttle buses, are often supplied by several smaller

manufacturers that are attempting to fill a market need (more established manufacturers target

larger market segments). The specifications of these EVs may be unique to each manufacturer,

and it is critical to verify compatibility with the planned charging infrastructure.

PV and energy storage technologies are well developed, and their application to supporting grid

services has been proven. However, the integration with EV charging is entirely new, and no off-

the-shelf system exists (except for limited applications of an off-grid PV, battery, and L2 charger

system). On their own, these components need to be optimized to provide a positive return on

investment, and the complexity of combining these into one solution adds costs and challenges

the optimization strategy for maximizing benefits.

Next Steps




Page 53

2.3 Airport Ground Support



This PRP is intended to encourage, support, and accelerate electrification of ground support equipment

(GSE) at SDIA, also known as Lindbergh Field. SDG&E proposed to increase the number of electric GSE

charging ports at SDIA by up to 45 (Phase 2), as well as retrofit 16 existing charging ports (Phase 1). The

Airport GSE Project will help incorporate additional electric charging load from electric GSE in a manner

that mitigates impacts to the grid. This project will also include integration and utilization of SDIA’s

5.5 MW PV system to the fullest extent possible. A major component of this project is SDG&E’s data

collection and analysis to better understand GSE charging load patterns and support electric GSE, as well

as the related impacts of conversion from internal combustion engine GSE equipment to electric GSE

equipment.

Electric GSE that will be supported by this project includes baggage tractors, cargo belt loaders,

pushback tractors, forklifts, and other equipment, given market availability. SDG&E will also install load

research meters and enabling technology, such as communicating chargers, to closely track

consumption patterns and allow for future managed charging and grid integration. Upon collection of

data, SDG&E will be able to better understand the increased load resulting from the adoption of electric

GSE, the time of day of the additional charging load, and the appropriate ratio of charging ports to

vehicles. With this analysis and knowledge, SDG&E can better collaborate with SDIA and airport tenants

to operate and charge electric GSE at times that are beneficial rather than detrimental to local

distribution circuits and the electric grid in general.

Figure 26. A variety of available electric ground support equipment charging at a California airport



Page 54

The key learnings from this project include a better understanding of the impact of electric GSE adoption

through data collection and analysis and education of stakeholders interested in electrifying GSE. Data

collection and analysis will allow stakeholders to better understand the ideal ratio of chargers to

vehicles, the ideal time to charge vehicles to avoid on-peak charging, the potential need and areas for

training employees, and other operational best practices. A comprehensive employee training program

using the equipment can demonstrate safe and easy operation of the GSE and supporting charging

stations, as well as demonstrate the importance of using grid-integrated technology to mitigate both

electricity costs and grid impacts. Emphasizing safety and electric charging protocols and discussing the

overall benefits of electrification will be key focuses of this project’s education and outreach efforts. In

addition, SDIA’s onsite solar provides a unique opportunity to examine the interaction between onsite

solar and electric GSE charging. Increased visibility of the impacts of electric GSE adoption will benefit all

stakeholders. These key learnings will enable expansion beyond SDG&E’s service territory.


Recruitment Process

SDG&E worked closely with SDIA during the application process. The strategy around the GSE

electrification project was based on a collaborative effort with SDIA. As part of Phase 1, SDG&E was

authorized to retrofit existing ports. After conducting outreach to SDIA tenants, including locally owned

and minority-owned businesses, American Airlines was selected as the candidate for those retrofits

because the airline’s existing charging equipment is outdated and less efficient and provides no data to

help guide users as to when they need to charge.

In November 2018, SDG&E spoke at the monthly airlines meeting at SDIA. SDG&E reviewed the project’s

goals, presented Phase 2 EVSE installation potential, and asked the airlines to respond to a survey. The

survey was designed to understand the airlines’ different needs, barriers, and goals of electrifying their

GSE fleets in the future. Survey results showed that infrastructure, procurement cycles, and available

electric GSE were the main barriers. SDG&E and SDIA plan to work with SDIA’s tenants to pursue funding

sources for new electric GSE, as described in SDG&E’s application and supporting testimony. These

efforts contribute to the Phase 1 goal, which is to understand whether there is a need for further

charging infrastructure at SDIA.

Participants

From 2006 to 2014, the electric GSE fleet at SDIA has seen an increase, but the total growth has not

increased at a significant rate. The technical maturity and operational capabilities of electric GSE on the

market allows for higher penetration than has been implemented at SDIA. The most recent electric GSE

charging port was installed at SDIA in 2013. SDG&E’s proposed project removes the barriers of

construction and electric GSE charger procurement from multiple airport tenants that operate at SDIA.

In Phase 1 of this PRP, SDG&E will install, own, operate, and maintain 16 charging ports and the

necessary equipment to efficiently integrate to the grid at the SDIA for American Airlines. These existing

charger retrofits will allow for the introduction of new features such as data collection and more

efficient charging. Load research meters were installed for each bank of chargers, although there is

some uncertainty regarding the reliability of the devices and their ability to communicate effectively


Page 55

since they are on the restricted airside of the facility, so these meters will rely on EVSE provider

(Webasto) for charging session data.

Table 13. Banks of chargers at SDIA for SDG&E Airport GSE PRP

Terminal 2 Location Configuration Ports

Between gates 33 and 23 3 dual-port chargers 6



Timeline and Status

At the PAC meeting on September 25, 2018, SDG&E shared the anticipated timeline shown in Figure 27.

At this time, SDG&E had secured buy-in from American Airlines to retrofit existing equipment, and most

of the drawings for the planned work were submitted to the airport for review.

Figure 27. SDG&E Airport Ground Support Equipment PRP timeline as of September 2018


It took several months to work through contractual concerns over ownership (SDG&E owns the EV

chargers) and liability. Unfortunately, that process delayed the potential start of construction until June,

when SDIA and American Airlines entered a busy time of the year. Construction began in September

2019, and the charging stations were energized and commissioned in November 2019. The six months of

data collection and analysis on these 16 retrofitted chargers is expected to conclude in May 2020. This

will allow the results from Phase 1 of this project to be included in the final evaluation report.

Depending on the timing of the filing and approval of the Tier 2 advice letter that is required before

Phase 2 can commence (installation of up to additional 45 new charging stations), it is very unlikely that

there will be any results from Phase 2 included in the final evaluation report.


Page 56

Figure 28. SDG&E Airport Ground Support Equipment PRP timeline as of December 2019

Source: SDG&E





• Were opportunities to better manage charging identified, how were they implemented, and

were they effective?

• What integration with the SDIA solar array and any battery storage was done, and what impact

did that have on the electrical grid?

• What is the appropriate ratio of charging ports to electric GSE?


decision, project updates, and other available documentation, 2) market research on ground support

equipment and early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country,

3) PRP data from vehicle and charger operations, and 4) IDIs with project partners.

Data Sources



evaluator), site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. SDG&E has provided some project costs to date

and basic charging station specifications. The evaluation team has not yet received but is expecting to

soon get the following information from this PRP: more details on charging station hardware

characteristics, electricity tariff details, site pictures before and after installation, project costs, list of

equipment using the charging stations, construction site plans and designs, and historical use of similar

conventional equipment.


Page 57


National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Electric Ground Support Equipment at Airports (2017)

International Energy Agency’s Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program: Aviation

Infrastructure (2011)

U.S. Department of Energy: Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport

Ground Support Equipment - Development and Results (2007)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Athena project at

DFW airport (ongoing)

The Webasto charging stations collect session data to track utilization using cloud-based access to the

charger data. SDG&E will be collecting PRP operational data from onsite electricity data loggers,

provided the connectivity is sufficient on the airside of the terminal to transmit the data. Electricity costs

will be simulated based on the data logger data since these charging stations are not on a separate

SDG&E service. SDIA has a single SDG&E meter, and the chargers and the supporting infrastructure are

installed behind that meter. It is expected that the project participants will provide high-level data on

electric GSE utilization and maintenance, along with any necessary maintenance on the charging

stations.

The evaluator held IDIs with representatives from the SDG&E PRP management team and construction

staff to further understand the background on this project and gather lessons learned based on progress

to date. Additional IDIs with the SDG&E staff, SDIA, airport tenants, and vendors are planned in 2020 as

chargers begin to be utilized.


Project Baseline

The electrification of GSE is an especially attractive option for airports across the globe. Electrified GSE

offers fuel security to airports that are already vulnerable to the price volatility of petroleum, as well as

lower maintenance costs and better performance. The number of airports electrifying GSE has been

increasing over the last decade. In 2016, 22 major airports had major electrified GSE projects in place.17

More recently, John F. Kennedy International Airport and Jet Blue have installed 118 charging ports for

the baggage tugs and belt loaders that have been electrified.18 The availability of GSE is also improving:

as of 2017, there were eight manufacturers providing various electrified GSE for airport applications.

According to the Global Airport Ground Support Vehicles Market Forecast, the GSE market is anticipated

17 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Electric Ground Service Equipment at Airports,” NREL/FS-5400-70359,

December 2017, https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/egse_airports.pdf. 18 Business Wire, “Jet Blue Introduces Largest Electric Ground Service Equipment,” September 26, 2019,

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190926005676/en/JetBlue-Introduces-Largest-Electric-Ground-

Service-Equipment.


Page 58

to grow over 7% between 2019 and 2024. This report states electrified GSE will play a key role during

this growth period, particularly for baggage tugs and tractors.19

Figure 29. SDIA airside GSE charging – preliminary infrastructure inventory (November 8, 2016)

Source: San Diego International Airport


SDG&E has encountered challenges in the PRP due to restrictions on how much access and control

SDG&E has on the airside of the terminal. This was anticipated but continues to create occasional

challenges when issues arise. This factor will restrict SDIA participation in the SDG&E Medium- and

Heavy-Duty SRP, and therefore the Phase 1 results are important to determining whether Phase 2 will

be considered under this PRP. The goal for Phase 1 is to utilize the collected charging session data and

develop a business case for GSE electrification. A positive business case result would be the best

justification to promote electrification to other tenants at this airport and elsewhere.

19 Business Wire, “Global Airport Ground Support Vehicles Market, Forecast to 2024,” December 2, 2019,

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4523881#ixzz68g8F6FSQ.


Page 59

After the new chargers were installed, the airport did not immediately remove the outlets that were

previously used for charging. This ended up being very helpful when one of the charging stations was

damaged by GSE. Other SDG&E installed chargers remain operational while one is undergoing repairs.

Lesson Learned: Many initial EV deployments do not include redundancy in charging equipment, but this can be key to project success because the vehicles rely on functioning chargers for continued operation. It is very important to factor in charging redundancy for electrification deployments to ensure resilience.

SDG&E has experienced some challenges with acquiring data on these chargers because they are

located on the airside of the SDIA terminal where access is very restricted. For projects that require data

collection, SDG&E now realizes that some sort of enforcement is needed to ensure data flows. It is also

important to select technology with an established remote data access (ideally through a variety of

communication means in case circumstances, such as limited cellular reception, render one approach

infeasible).

SDIA inspectors were always available during construction and were helpful in addressing questions

regarding special construction manuals and standards that needed to be met (a requirement that was

not discussed during the planning and design review). The delays were encountered when SDIA project

manager input and approvals were required; every issue needed to be documented in detail and

required confirmation that it had been addressed.

Costs



Table 14. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP proposed costs


Transformer and Install N/A N/A N/A


EVSE Costs $ 1,493,265 $ 22,140 $ 1,515,405

Purchased and SD Software N/A N/A N/A






Page 60



Total Costs $ 2,405,598 $ 434,140 $ 2,839,738

The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled $580,238 out of the budgeted $2,839,738, as

shown in Table 15 (presented in categories reported by the utility).

Table 15. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP costs as of September 30, 2019



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Construction $ 1,101,258



$ 200,513 $ 1,215,240


$ 14,783 $ 85,328 $ 380,000

IT Costs $ 116,629

Other $ 110,262 $ 12 $ 54,140

Direct Costs $ 494,898 $ 2,405,598 $ 85,340 $ 434,140


$ 62,681 $ 1,098,365 $ 88,512 $ 191,676

Total Costs $ 557,579 $ 3,503,962 $ 173,851 $ 625,816

Benefits

The planned/anticipated benefits in Table 16 reflect the PRP’s Phase 2 benefits resulting from the

electrification of 90 airport GSE (17 belt loaders, 47 baggage tractors, 9 forklifts, and 17 push back tugs)

due to the installation of 45 new charging stations. The 16 retrofitted charging stations in Phase 1 are

only upgrading existing chargers that support current electric GSE so no additional benefits are expected

unless new chargers enable increased utilization. Phase 1 is collecting and analyzing data from existing

operations for a better understanding of the impact of electric GSE adoption – no suggested

modifications in behavior are expected unless SDG&E identifies opportunities for SDIA to improve

charging management.


Page 61

Table 16. SDG&E Airport Ground Support PRP benefits


(45 chargers for 90 eGSE)


(Phase 1 – 32 existing eGSE)


Petroleum Reduction

281,000 GGE per year

None TBD TBD

GHG Emissions 1,174 MT of CO2 per year

None TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants


None TBD TBD

DAC Impact SDIA (100% of this PRP) is adjacent to DACs

SDIA (100% of this PRP) is adjacent to DACs

TBD TBD




TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits



TBD TBD


No significant electric GSE operations with the retrofitted chargers under this PRP were completed as of

this interim report. This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data

obtained before November 2020.


No significant electric GSE operations with the retrofitted chargers under this PRP were completed as of

this interim report, so this feedback has not been captured. Feedback pertaining to the initial

implementation of this PRP is captured in Implementation Process section of the Evaluation

Methodology. This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data

obtained before November 2020.


Page 62


Findings

Without significant electric GSE operations with the retrofitted chargers to date, it is too early to

determine this PRP’s success, which will be documented in the final report. However, the following are

some preliminary findings, in addition to the lessons learned shared previously:

Airside equipment installations have restricted access that can have an impact on the ability to

make repairs or troubleshoot issues. It is critical to have reliable equipment.

Ownership and liability concerns arose with the airport, potentially due to the complicated

relationship with a separate owner (SDIA) and operator (American Airlines).

Many initial EV deployments do not include redundancy in charging equipment, but this can be

key to project success because the vehicles rely on functioning chargers for continued

operation. It is very important to factor in charging redundancy for electrification deployments

to ensure resilience.

Next Steps



2.4 Port Electrification



Consumption, charging, and operational data for MD/HD EVs or electric forklifts are currently

insufficient for utilities to determine how to efficiently integrate this type of charging into the electric

grid. There are some existing and grant-funded deployments of these transportation electrification

technologies within the San Diego Unified Port District (“Port District”) tidelands, but none have load

research meters that allow utilities to analyze how grid integration for the MD/HD and forklift EV market

segment can be implemented and optimized.

SDG&E proposed to install, operate, maintain, and own EV charging infrastructure, load research

meters, and data loggers for 30–40 installations within the Port District tidelands. The original intent was

that each charging infrastructure installation supporting grant-funded MD/HD EVs or electric forklifts

could include a combination of some or all of the funded components.

The primary goal of this project is to obtain a consumption, charging, and operational dataset to

facilitate development of an optimized grid integration solution for electrification of MD/HD vehicle and

forklift applications. Load research meters will collect consumption and charging data to evaluate energy

consumption relative to time and demand. Data loggers will provide operational data such as operation-

specific and EV-specific charging patterns. This information will aid in determining how to optimize grid

integration, as well as electric fuel economy, to determine optimal vehicle energy storage size and EVSE

power level.


Page 63


Recruitment Process

In conjunction with filing the application, SDG&E provided support and technical expertise to the Port of

San Diego and the San Diego Port Tenants Association for several transportation electrification grant

applications that would benefit various port tenants. Upon approval of this Port Electrification PRP,

SDG&E targeted the tenants, including locally owned and minority-owned businesses, that would be

recipients of grant-funded MD/HD vehicles and electric forklifts, to provide charging infrastructure

support. Additionally, SDG&E conducted outreach through various channels, including presentations at

the Port of San Diego maritime meetings, San Diego Port Tenant Association board meeting and funding

presentations, and the Regional Energy Working Group. The smaller tenants were much more hesitant

to try new technologies, and it was difficult for them to understand the economics of electrification

(costs, rates, etc.). Interest is starting to grow among the port tenants now that they see what the PRP

participants have done and learned from their experience.

Ten port tenants applied to participate in the program. While SDG&E had a targeted list of port tenants

who were designated as recipients of grant-funded vehicles, timing was an issue. A total of 20% of the

tenants received their vehicles prior to PRP approval and chose to install the infrastructure on their own

(they were content with a simpler and more temporary charging solution for the duration of the grant,

which was typically one year, rather than signing a contract to commit to the infrastructure for five

years). Another 20% of the tenants chose to install the infrastructure outside of Port Tidelands, making

them ineligible for the program. The biggest obstacle was negotiating with the customers on signing an

easement/license agreement, resulting in 30% of customers opting out of the program. There is

additional complexity for all the customers because they are tenants of the port and therefore do not

have jurisdiction of the land.

Lesson Learned: Construction projects at the port can be very challenging and costly. Concrete can be several feet deep, which complicates trenching, so it was essential to identify sites that required minimal or no trenching to align with the approved budget. The estimates also failed to account for environmental costs, which for one potential project was forecasted to be around $150,000 owing to the hazardous risk of the site; the cost precluded the site from participating in the PRP.

Participants

This PRP was conducted with Port District tenants. SDG&E has pursued installations with four

participants: Port of San Diego Cruise Ship Terminal, Pasha Automotive (Pasha), Dole Foods, and Four

Seasons. The Port of San Diego Cruise Ship Terminal and Pasha were onboard early in the PRP because

they already had plans underway to install charging infrastructure and either had, or had already

ordered, electric equipment/vehicles.

The Port of San Diego B Street Cruise Ship Terminal (Metro Cruise) uses forklifts that transfer food and

goods on and off cruise ships docked at the terminal. Metro Cruise had previously acquired the nine

electric forklifts. These were charged by regular building electrical outlets, which provided no capability

to monitor or optimize the charging behavior. Webasto (formerly AeroVironment) PosiCharge ProCoreTM


Page 64

10 kW chargers were installed by SDG&E under this PRP. Metro Cruise also has five smaller electric carts

(jack pallets), which have their own chargers, but these did not qualify for the SDG&E PRP and were

installed separately by Metro Cruise.

Figure 30. Metro Cruise Webasto chargers and electric forklift

Source: Port of San Diego

Pasha, which imports over 400,000 vehicles annually, transfers new vehicles between the Port District,

where they are arrive on a ship, to a satellite storage location in Otay Mesa, California. Pasha acquired

two BYD electric drayage trucks and one BYD electric yard tractor through a California Energy

Commission (CEC) grant. Through the CEC project, Carbon BLU instrumented the three trucks with

dataloggers to report on utilization. The vehicles require proprietary BYD chargers. Three different

chargers were installed (power levels of 40, 80, and 100 kW) because the drayage trucks are different

generations of designs and the yard tractor has a different charger (100 kW) because of its very different

duty cycle. Pasha has used several small electric forklifts, but these BYD trucks are the company’s first

real EVs.

Dole Food Co. (Dole) is one of the Port District’s largest tenants, bringing in approximately 50,000

refrigerated containers a year. Dole was conducting a year-long test of two Transpower demonstration

electric trucks for its operations to determine how they work, and the company was considering

purchasing 30 electric trucks if the test was successful. During this demonstration, Dole used only

temporary chargers for the vehicles, and after a few months in operation, the vehicles were returned to

Transpower because the cost to retain the vehicles was higher than Dole was willing to invest. Dole also

received two electric yard tractors from BYD in August 2018 for a 12-month demonstration project. The

tractors were equipped with a 217 kWh battery pack powering a 180 kW motor, which delivers

1,106 lb-ft (1,500 N·m) of torque for 10+ hours of operation. Uncertain electrification plans beyond the

CEC demonstration projects, both of which were short-term, and challenges associated with addressing


Page 65

the legal risk factors stalled the negotiation process with SDG&E, resulting in Dole’s being unable to

participate in this PRP. Four Seasons (for which Dole would also be the customer of record) conducts

similar activity at the Port District and was also looking to pilot one Transpower electric truck. After

several months of discussions, Four Seasons was unable to sign a contract for reasons similar to Dole’s.

Timeline and Status

In September 2018, following the program’s initial recruitment efforts, three customers were enrolled. A

contract was signed for the Cruise Ship Terminal installation, and preliminary installation designs were

sent to Dole and Pasha. Based on these milestones, SDG&E shared the anticipated schedule in Figure 31

at the quarterly PAC meeting.

Figure 31. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP timeline as of September 2018


The installation at the Cruise Ship Terminal was completed by the end of 2018, but the chargers were

not commissioned until March 4, 2019, when they started to be used in regular operations. The Pasha

installation was completed in January 2019 (there were some weather delays) and commissioned on

March 15, 2019. Negotiations and contract execution ended with Dole in November 2019 without

pursuing an installation. Contract discussions with Four Seasons, who expressed interest in the program,

progressed did not result in a contract. The EVs and EVSE at the Cruise Ship Terminal and Pasha have

been generating operational data, with Pasha’s truck usage limited because of operational challenges

and a technical issue with one of the vehicles. It is expected that 12 months of normal operating data

will be collected from those locations for the final evaluation.

Lesson Learned: Evaluating in-use performance of EVs in a new application for 12 months will most likely produce less than 12 months of operational data because of unexpected issues. Early commercial vehicle deployments tend to experience reliability issues, resulting in vehicle downtime to facilitate repairs. Deploying all of the EVs in regular operation can take from a couple of weeks to several months, as the fleet needs to adapt driving and charging operations to accommodate EVs.


Page 66

Figure 32. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP timeline as of December 2019

Source: SDG&E





• Did some EVs, equipment, or charging equipment perform better than others?

• Would similar supporting electrical infrastructure at other locations in the Port District be more

expensive? Is there a limit to the available power?

• Could these electrification efforts be economically feasible without the grants for the vehicles/

equipment and SDG&E support?

• Were opportunities to better manage charging identified? If so, were they implemented, and

were they effective?

The data collection tasks utilized to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP information from the approved

decision, project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on port

vehicles and early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country,

3) PRP data from vehicle and charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with

vehicle drivers.

Data Sources



evaluator), site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. Currently the evaluation team has the following

information from this PRP: charging station hardware specifications, electricity tariff details, some site

photos after installation, project costs, and some high-level information on the acquired vehicles and

intended use. Over the next few months the evaluator expects to receive more details on several items


Page 67

mentioned where only high-level information was provided, construction site plans and designs, and

some historical operation of the conventional-fueled vehicles used previously.


CARB: Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities Project Methodology for Determining

Emission Reductions and Cost-Effectiveness (2018)

Business Wire: Commercial Vehicle Electrification, 2019: To Charge or Not to Charge (2019)

CEC and CARB demonstration project reports on Transpower and BYD electric yard trucks are

also expected to be published in 2020.


deployment site for all charging stations at that site) for 15-minute interval data and monthly costs.

Metro Cruise charging station session data (not 15-minute interval data) is retrieved manually (via

Bluetooth) by SDG&E during periodic site visits while Webasto is developing a remote, cloud-based data

access. Pasha’s BYD chargers do not have the capability to track session data, but data logging of the

vehicles (which will include charging information) is conducted for the CEC grant. Unfortunately, this is

facilitated by a third-party vendor that will be sharing a complete set of data after the completion of the

12-month demonstration. While the vendor manually downloads the data from vehicle dataloggers,

additional post-processing is required to translate the data into a format usable for analysis. It is

expected that the project participants will provide high-level data on vehicle utilization and

maintenance, along with any necessary maintenance on the charging stations.

The evaluator held four separate IDIs as of writing this report with representatives from the SDG&E PRP

management team, SDG&E construction staff, Port District, and Pasha to further understand the

background on this project and gather lessons learned based on progress to date. An initial IDI with

Metro Cruise is expected early in 2020, with additional IDIs with the SDG&E staff, Port District, Pasha,

Metro Cruise, and vendors planned for mid-2020 to discuss the data findings and lessons learned

following several months of in-use operation. A survey or a facilitated focus group discussion with the EV

drivers is also planned to gauge operator satisfaction.


Project Baseline

Pasha operates an 18-hour shift per day with its drayage trucks, while the use of the yard tractor

depends on the vessel(s) in port, which for some periods may require several eight-hour shifts in a row.

The first-generation BYD drayage truck has a smaller battery and can complete only one 42-mile round

trip to the storage facility before the truck needs to recharge for the second trip. The second-generation

BYD drayage truck can complete two of these 42-mile round trips and has been regularly used since it was

put in service at the end of Q3 2019. Pasha had similar-sized diesel vehicles operating in the fleet prior to

replacing them with electric trucks. The company is using this project to determine whether electric

models can meet operational requirements. Pasha recognizes that battery technology will need to

improve and vehicle acquisition costs decrease before electrifying the entire drayage truck operation,


Page 68

which includes long-haul trucks that travel nationwide. However, this specific “shuttle” application is a

good starting point to test electric technology and work through some early adoption challenges.

Metro Cruise operates forklifts to serve loading and unloading needs of large cruise ships that dock at

the port. Several cruise ship operators have San Diego-based ships that will go on multi-day cruises and

return to San Diego, where they need to unload waste generated from the prior excursion and load

supplies for the next one. The loading and unloading requires several back-to-back eight-hour shifts over

the course of a few days, followed by several days before servicing the next ship. Metro Cruise was

operating propane forklifts to support these services prior to acquiring electric forklifts a couple of years

ago.


SDG&E and participants for this PRP were able to use some strategic contracting strategies to simplify

the process. SDG&E used participation (licensing) agreements rather than easements to expedite the

contracting process, which was modeled after SDG&E’s Power Your Drive Program. The Port District was

also able to execute a simplified contract that did not have as many requirements because three

agreement is for less than five years (it would have otherwise needed to follow a more complicated

process with additional approvals). Had this project been a longer-term project, that would have

complicated the contracting process further. However, even despite these simplified contracting

processes, certain clauses in the agreement sparked controversy and needed to be discussed before

execution. This included indemnity and risk, particularly what happens to the equipment after five years

and who gets the environmental credits. These clauses delayed contract execution for six months, but

they are necessary in these agreements. There do not seem to be any clear regulatory requirements for

what happens to project equipment after five years, so the terms must be discussed after the initial

agreement is signed. In many cases, the EVs supported by charging infrastructure funded under this PRP

are part of a first-time customer trial, and the customers are uncertain of their future electrification

plans and charging needs.

The PRP participants, both Pasha and the Port District, appreciated SDG&E’s taking a lead on these

projects. Both participants had experience with similar efforts that required coordinating with

contractors and the utility, and both stated that SDG&E made the installation process relatively smooth.

The PRP participants noted that SDG&E’s communication regarding the construction and installation

was very good and resulted in minimal impact on terminal operations.

Design specifics can be complicated for certain locations and customers that have complex management

structures or approval chains. Trenching is a particular concern for projects at the port because of the

thickness of the concrete, which makes construction more difficult and costly. In addition, construction

could involve digging up hazardous materials, which would require costly mitigation strategies.

Installations that do not require trenching are ideal and significantly lower cost. For example, the Metro

Cruise installation needed only duct work (bollards needed to be anchored to the pavement), no

trenching, so that made the work much easier. Initially, an option was considered to provide service

from a higher electrical capacity transformer that would require trenching; however, it was determined

that the existing electrical service could meet the charging station needs. These projects can serve as a

model for others to replicate and have provided valuable experience for SDG&E. However, based on the

two implemented projects and several others that were considered for this PRP, every charging station


Page 69

installation will have unique aspects that will require custom design and construction to some extent.

Despite that, SDG&E will continue to improve its design and construction approach based on these

experiences.

For Pasha’s project, while the availability of electric Class 8 trucks is limited, the CEC grant further

restricted the selection of electric truck manufacturers to BYD and Transpower. The PRP does not

provide funding for EVs, but they are a requirement for customers to participate in the projects, so often

grant funding is used to acquire the vehicles. While the manufacturers consider these EVs commercial

models, they are often very early in production, and customers often consider them to be

demonstration vehicles since they have not been deployed in significant numbers and are likely to

experience some operational issues. The BYD electric trucks came with their own proprietary charger

(which differed based on the version of the truck and date acquired), so Pasha did not have a choice;

however, it is advantageous to use the same manufacturer for the vehicle and charger to minimize

potential interoperability issues (and have one manufacturer to contact when issues arise). Pasha’s BYD

chargers were installed next to the transformers to minimize the necessary trenching. Once the

equipment was installed, the customer discovered that the chargers were facing away from the vehicles.

It was also determined that longer charging cables were needed to reach charging receptacles on the

trucks.

If SDG&E had been allowed to proceed with the company’s interpretation of the approved PRP scope

(fund and collect information from data loggers and research load meters without installing new

charging infrastructure), the PRP could have monitored the demonstration vehicles at Dole (and possibly

other Port District tenants that received EVs under the CEC grant) and gathered more EV charging and

utilization data. However, because of the CPUC’s interpretation of the Decision, dataloggers and

research grade load meters could only be used alongside charging stations installed under this PRP.

Costs



Table 17. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP proposed costs


Transformer and Install N/A N/A N/A $


EVSE Costs $ 991,005 N/A $ 991,005

Purchased and SD Software N/A N/A N/A


Education and Outreach N/A $ 110,000 $ 110,000


Page 70






$ 1,840,575 $ 565,000 $ 2,405,575

Little to no costs were associated with design, engineering, and permitting. SDG&E had originally

estimated these costs would be less than $10,000 per site (some estimates did not even account for any

additional costs for this). SDG&E is finding that the actual design, engineering, and permitting costs

average about $30,000 per site.

The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled $811,311 out of the $2,501,798 budget, as

shown in Table 18, (presented in categories reported by the utility).

Table 18. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP costs as of September 30, 2019



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Construction $ 163,976 $ 966,045

Engineering Design $ 98,299


$ 270,659 $ 874,530


$ 10,971 $ 94,041 $ 430,000

IT Costs $ 116,629


$ 4,050 $ 110,000

Other $ 52,650 $ 35 $ 25,000

Direct Costs $ 713,185 $ 1,840,575 $ 98,126 $ 565,000


$ 326,353 $ 948,313 $ 97,912 $ 253,717


Page 71



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Total Costs $ 1,039,538 $ 2,788,888 $ 196,038 $ 818,717

Pasha’s BYD chargers were paid for by the CEC grant, and SDG&E covered the installation costs. The CEC

grant for $900,000 covered the three vehicles and chargers.

Benefits

The planned/anticipated benefits in Table 19 were calculated based on 13 EVs (modeled as forklifts)

replacing diesel, gasoline, and propane vehicles. The final expected number of EVs supported by this

PRP’s charging infrastructure is 8 electric forklifts and 3 MD/HD electric trucks (leveraging calculation

factors used for fleet delivery vehicles).

Table 19. SDG&E Port Electrification PRP benefits


(13 Forklifts)


(8 Forklifts and 8 MD/HD EVs)


Petroleum Reduction

38,000 GGE per year 41,000 GGE per year N/A N/A



N/A N/A

Criteria Pollutants



N/A N/A

DAC Impact Majority of the Project is in a DAC

Both sites are in SDG&E DAC

N/A N/A




N/A N/A

Other Co-Benefits



N/A N/A


Page 72


Initial operations data from Metro Cruise (Webasto charger manual session data retrievals and utility

bills) and Pasha (smart meter data and utility bills) provided some insight into operations, although the

periodic use of the EVs resulting from vehicle issues (Pasha) and off-season cruise schedules (Metro

Cruise) affected the amount of data available. In March and April (2019), each forklift charged between

20 and 24 times in this 61-day span, and the average energy transfer was 17.5 kWh. However, from May

through August (2019), the forklifts charged only 1 to 7 times each over a 123-day span. Most charging

events were shorter than one hour, as shown in Figure 33.

Figure 33. Histogram of Metro Cruise electric forklift charging durations

Source: SDG&E Metro Cruise charging session data

Utility bills for Metro Cruise and Pasha revealed very high costs per kilowatt-hour delivered to the EVs

during months with very low utilization. The chargers are designed to accommodate high utilization of

these vehicles by providing shorter charging times, but this often results in high demand costs. Even

during low utilization periods, when a faster charge is likely unnecessary, the equipment was still

drawing the maximum charge level and triggering high demand costs. More frequent charging will result

in more electricity usage without any additional demand charges and lower the overall cost per kilowatt-

hour. However, until that occurs, and even to accommodate periods of low utilization, charge

management or alternative electricity rates could help reduce consumer costs (which were too high to

justify the conversion to electricity during these months). Operational behaviors, such as limitations as

to when the vehicles are plugged in (which for some Port District tenants with union labor might be the

responsibility of someone other than drivers) can also affect the cost effectiveness of electrification.

Such operations rarely account for higher on-peak costs for electricity or accommodate the staggering of

charging across a longer period.

Additional analysis and the tracking of these initial trends over time will be completed for the final

report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Page 73


Feedback on the electric forklift and MD/HD vehicle operations will not be captured until later in the

project. Feedback pertaining to the initial implementation of this PRP is captured in the Implementation

Process section of the Evaluation Methodology. This section will be completed for the final report

utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Findings

Without significant forklift and vehicle operations to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s success,

which will be documented in the final report. However, some preliminary findings, in addition to the

lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below:

Charging infrastructure for nine forklift chargers and three BYD electric trucks was successfully

installed, at two separate locations within the Port District, which has provided SDG&E

additional experience in installing EV charging, along with more accurate cost information. This

experience will help SDG&E to support future electrification of Port District tenants.

Port operations and tenant locations regularly change to accommodate consumer trends and

the always-changing import/export businesses. This concerned several port tenants that were

uncomfortable committing to the program requirements, and even one of the participants,

Pasha, needs to relocate the chargers (at the company’s cost) because of tenant changes.

Several port tenants park vehicles overnight at their off-site location because of space

constraints at the port. Since the PRP requirement was to install charging stations within the

port tidelands, these tenants were unable to participate. Even if they could accommodate

parking the vehicles at the port to charge overnight, drivers might have to be shuttled back to

the warehouse at shift end (to retrieve their personal vehicles).

Third-party onboard vehicle data loggers would be ideal for independently monitoring vehicle

performance, but they were cost-prohibitive. Instead, the project will rely on the fleets to

provide vehicle performance data through other means such as vehicle maintenance records

and third-party dataloggers collecting data for other grant reporting purposes.

Construction projects at the port can be very challenging and costly. Concrete can be several

feet deep which complicates trenching. While this was not the sole disqualifying factor for

participation in the PRP, it is essential to identify sites that required minimal or no trenching to

align with the approved budget. The estimates also failed to account for environmental costs,

which for one potential project was forecasted to be around $150,000 owing to the hazardous

risk of the site; the cost precluded the site from participating in the PRP.

Evaluating in-use performance of EVs in a new application for 12 months will most likely

produce less than 12 months of operational data because of unexpected issues. Early

commercial vehicle deployments tend to experience reliability issues, resulting in vehicle

downtime to facilitate repairs. Deploying all of the EVs in regular operation can take from a

couple of weeks to several months, as the fleet needs to adapt driving and charging operations

to accommodate EVs.


Page 74

Next Steps



2.5 Electrify Local Highways



The 2016 Governor’s ZEV Action Plan tasked California’s Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) with

installing DCFCs at some of its locations throughout the state, and Caltrans’ 2016 Sustainability

Implementation Action Plan prioritized the installation of EV charging stations on Caltrans-owned park-

and-ride facilities.

According to testimony in SDG&E’s application for approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification

Proposals, at one of the first installations of EV charging stations at a park-and-ride facility, Caltrans

found that (1) drivers often park their cars for up to 11 hours at a time while they take mass transit or

carpool to continue their trips, and (2) the DCFCs provide charging for approximately five cars per day.

From this, Caltrans recognizes that the park-and-ride locations are good for both long-duration parking

and charging, as well as quick stops for DCFC use. However, the Department does not want to be in the

business of owning, operating, and maintaining EV charging stations; a third-party end-to-end solution

could be the best option for providing a positive customer experience.

SDG&E testimony also states that Caltrans has expressed concerns that the Department does not

currently have the resources to take on this effort and that the Department has not been able to find

the right charging installation programs that would provide an end-to-end solution through a third

party, which could take on the installation, ownership, customer service, billing, maintenance, and

operations efforts altogether. Therefore, SDG&E proposed partnering with Caltrans for this PRP to

install, own, maintain, and operate L2 and DCFCs at four Caltrans-owned park-and-ride locations. As part

of this collaboration, Caltrans would provide land rights, parking spaces, and expertise to help

streamline the design, permitting, and installation efforts.

SDG&E will study charging patterns and share the usage data for modeling charging infrastructure at

these park-and-ride locations. SDG&E will also test hourly pricing in the public domain, as well as test

the standards for public charging signage, rate display, and general retail EV fuel dispensers. This will be

the first time that SDG&E will test how to easily communicate a time-of-use (TOU) rate to the public at a

charging station.


Recruitment Process

SDG&E worked closely with Caltrans during the application process for this PRP. Most of the sites were

identified prior to the application, and SDG&E collaborated with Caltrans on site design and permitting.

This PRP had a set charging station deployment goal with a specific partner and was not established as a


Page 75

project that would recruit additional partners or solicit participation by small, locally owned, minority-

owned, and women-owned businesses.

Participants

Caltrans supports more than 60 park-and-ride locations in

the San Diego region and owns 33 of these locations. Of

the 33 state-owned park-and-ride locations, Caltrans

initially identified four locations for this project, each

located within or adjacent to a DAC:

Pala: Located across the freeway from a large

DAC at the northwest corner of the I-15 freeway

and Highway 76 in northeastern San Diego

county

Oceanside Transit Center: Located across the

street from a DAC at 235 South Tremont Street in

Oceanside (northwestern San Diego county)

National City: Located within a DAC at 2300

Sweetwater Road in National City (just south of

downtown San Diego)

Chula Vista: Located on Palomar Street within a

DAC off the I-805 freeway in Southern San Diego

county

The sites in National City and Chula Vista remained in the

project implementation plans, but Pala was replaced by a

park-and-ride at 13516 Camino Canada in El Cajon off I-8, and the Oceanside location was moved from

the Transit Center to a nearby park-and-ride at 1928 South Moreno Street off I-5. Each of these park-

and-ride sites are located along major freeways within SDG&E’s territory, as well as within or adjacent to

DACs.

ChargePoint was selected to provide the EVSE and the network services following the completion of

DCFC meter testing requirements. Twenty 7.2 kW L2 stations and two 62.5 kW DCFCs (compatible with

the CHAdeMO and Combined Charging System [“CCS”] standards) will be installed at each site. SDG&E is

working with skilled contractors (affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) for

the installation and maintenance of the charging equipment.

Timeline and Status

The anticipated PRP installation schedule shown in Figure 35 was presented at the quarterly PAC

meeting in September 2018. SDG&E had completed the initial designs for each selected site and

preliminarily selected a vendor to supply the EVSE and network services.


Figure 34. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways installation sites


Page 76

Figure 35. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP timeline as of September 2018


The project was then delayed for various reasons, and construction did not begin until November 2019.

SDG&E had to perform penetration (security) and meter testing on the DCFCs to ensure they would

meet requirements, and a contract was executed with ChargePoint in April 2019. The longest delay was

contracting land rights with Caltrans, which required involvement of several internal departments.

During the process, Caltrans brought up questions about the site designs, with specific concerns about

complexities and potential disruption to operations. Securing the necessary permits was also more

complicated than anticipated, particularly for the National City site, which required more extensive

trenching to bring power to the charger location. If the charging stations are energized and

commissioned by early Q1 2020 as expected (construction should be relatively straightforward), then at

least seven months of data should be available for analysis and inclusion in the final evaluation report.

Figure 36. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP timeline as of December 2019

Source: SDG&E


Page 77



In addition to the evaluation questions that apply to all PRPs and those specific to the Public Access

Station PRPs, the evaluation questions listed below will be examined for this PRP.

• How do customers respond to TOU pricing?

• Given the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) incentive for EVs, will EV drivers still be motivated to

come to the park and ride? SDG&E theorizes that many commuters use the park-and-ride lots to

gain HOV access.

• How does utilization compare between the L2 and DCFC?

• Is EV occupancy of the charger after being charged preventing others from accessing the

charging stations?

• Do some sites perform better than others, and if so, what was the reasoning behind the

difference?


decision, project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on DCFCs


from charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with vehicle drivers.

Data Sources

PRP insights have been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions: the PRP kick-off

meeting (SDG&E and evaluator), quarterly PAC update meetings, weekly PRP updates (SDG&E and

evaluator), site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. Since the construction on the four sites had not

yet commenced in November 2019, little information has been available for this PRP other than the

selected sites and charging station hardware specifications. In the first quarter of 2020, the evaluator

expects to receive more details on the station characteristics, construction site plans and designs,

electricity tariff details, some site photos before and after installation, and construction costs.


SCE: Urban DCFC Clusters PRP

National Renewable Energy Laboratory/Idaho National Laboratory/Argonne National

Laboratory: Analysis of Fast Charging Station Network for Electrified Ride-Hailing Services (2018)

Idaho National Laboratory: What were the Cost Drivers for the Direct Current Fast Charging

Installations? (2015)

Idaho National Laboratory: Considerations for Corridor and Community DC Fast Charging

Complex System Design (2017)

Center for Sustainable Energy: California Air Resources Board Clean Vehicle Rebate Project,

Rebate Map (2019); VEIC’s Electric Vehicle DC Fast Charging on Vermont Highway

Corridors (2017)


Page 78



while network service provider ChargePoint will send monthly CSV files with charging station session

data.

The evaluator will hold initial IDIs with representatives from the SDG&E PRP management team to

further understand the background on this project and gather lessons learned during the planning and

construction phases. Additional IDIs with the SDG&E construction staff, Caltrans, and vendors are

planned for 2020 after all four sites are commissioned. A survey of the EV drivers is also planned in

collaboration with SDG&E and ChargePoint to gauge customer satisfaction.


Project Baseline

After the initial 2016 ZEV Vehicle Action Plan was announced, Governor Brown raised the bar and

increased the target number of ZEVs on the road and public EVSE across the state with the 2018 update.

Adding to the initial goal of 1.5 million ZEVs registered, the 2018 update sets an additional target of

5 million total ZEVs by 2030. This even more ambitious goal will likely require more public EVSE to be

brought online than the original target of 250,000 public stations by 2025. Of the total EVSE goal, at

least 10,000 are to be DCFC.20

Since 2016, ZEV sales have continued to increase. In 2018, ZEV sales reached about 8% of the total

market share, or about 410,000 vehicles. Early reporting for 2019 totals shows total ZEV registration up

to 655,000.21 To reach the 2030 vehicle goals, ZEV sales will need to reach 40% of the market share.

There were an estimated 18,000 public chargers (L2 and DCFC), averaging about 225 L2 stations installed

and 90 DCFCs installed per month. At the start of 2019, DCFCs made up about 15% of the total public

EVSE and were a quarter of the way to reaching the 2025 goal of 10,000 chargers.22


Three of the four sites do not have any existing TE infrastructure. One site was recently constructed and

was built with TE make-ready by a contractor hired by CalTrans. This was done prior to the

commencement of this PRP. Unfortunately, the make-ready that was put in place was not sufficient to

meet the needs of the chargers and was not sufficiently protected from the elements after construction.

This make-ready will be replaced.

20 2018 Zev Action Plan Priorities Update, Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles,

http://www.business.ca.gov/Portals/0/ZEV/2018-ZEV-Action-Plan-Priorities-Update.pdf. 21 EV Sales in California on the Rise, LA Times, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-01/electric-

vehicle-sales-in-california-on-the-rise-but-is-it-enough-to-reach-the-5-million-goal-by-2030 22 CEC, ZEV Tracking Progress, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/electric_vehicle.pdf


Page 79

Lesson Learned: All make-ready infrastructure for future charging station installations should be upsized to account for larger power supplies and properly protected to ensure longevity.

Traffic control costs may be much higher than the $2,000 planned budget for the National City site if

open trenching is required. This site will also require paving and striping on a county road. This site also

had complications with the right-away permit. The National City site is unique as the construction is

planned in Caltrans, National City, and the San Diego County right-of-way (trenching across Sweetwater

road).

Costs



Table 20. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP proposed costs


Transformer and Install $ 147,000 $ 3,316

$ 150,316 $ 150,316


EVSE Costs $ 1,757,728 $ 32,472 $ 1,790,200


Customer Engagement N/A $ 200,000 $ 200,000






$ 3,309,212 $ 690,788 $ 4,000,000

The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled $1,652,298 out of the budgeted $4,000,000, as

shown in Table 21, (presented in categories reported by the utility).


Page 80

Table 21. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP costs as of September 30, 2019



Actual O&M Costs

Budgeted O&M Costs

Construction $ 1,285,097



$ 870,276 $ 1,044,403


$ 10,666 $ 120,153 $ 430,000

IT Costs $ 408,202 $ 845,112


$ 200,000

Other $ 36,833 $ 106 $ 60,788

Direct Costs $ 1,532,040 $ 3,309,212 $ 120,259 $ 690,788


$ 158,534 $ 1,720,132 $ 125,137 $ 246,693

Total Costs $ 1,690,573 $ 5,029,344 $ 245,396 $ 937,481

Benefits

SDG&E’s initial estimate of vehicle usage for each Caltrans site is one charge per day for L2 charging

stations (60% battery electric vehicles and 40% plug-in hybrid electric vehicles), and 5 charging sessions

per day for each of the DCFC stations (all battery electric vehicles), which is a total of 120 vehicles

charged per day among the four sites. The anticipated benefits from the testimony are identical to those

expected from the installations, as the same number of charging stations will be deployed.

Table 22. SDG&E Electrify Local Highways PRP benefits


(120 charge events per day)




Petroleum Reduction

23,000 GGE per year 23,000 GGE per year TBD TBD


Page 81








TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants



TBD TBD

DAC Impact 2 sites within a DAC and 2 sites adjacent to a DAC

2 sites within a DAC and 2 sites adjacent to a DAC

TBD TBD




TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits



TBD TBD


No EVSE has been installed under this PRP as of this interim report. This section will be completed for

the final report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


No EVSE has been installed under this PRP as of this interim report, so this feedback has not been

captured. Feedback pertaining to the initial implementation of this PRP is captured in the

Implementation Process section of the Evaluation Methodology. This section will be completed for the

final report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Findings

With no EVSE installed to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s success, which will be documented

in the final report.

Next Steps

A recommendation pertaining to this project’s potential for scale-up and conditions under which it would

be recommended cannot be determined at this time but will be included in the final report.


Page 82

2.6 Dealership Incentives



SDG&E’s Dealership Incentives PRP involves a turnkey program called PlugStar offered by Plug-In

America (PIA), an EV advocacy organization. The PRP goals23 are to (1) increase EV sales by up to 1,500

units, (2) provide dealerships within SDG&E’s territory the opportunity to participate (3), enroll 200

salespeople, (4) emphasize EV sales in DACs, (5) educate dealerships and their salespeople on EV

information and best EV sales practices, and (6) educate new EV owners to sign up for SDG&E’s

residential EV-TOU rate.

PlugStar works with new car dealerships and shoppers to incentivize EV sales (over an internal

combustion engine vehicle) by addressing these barriers:

Low retail satisfaction

o PlugStar improves the EV buying experience by (1) informing shoppers with a shopping

assistant website and (2) educating dealership staff on meeting the needs of EV buyers.

Poor salesperson knowledge of EVs

o PlugStar provides training for dealership staff and an EV sales tool. These trainings differ

from original equipment manufacturer (OEM) product trainings in that they address the

larger issues in the EV eco-system, such as charging.

Low commissions and profits ($150–$200) on EVs relative to extra work required

o A bonus of $500 per EV sold will be provided (split between dealership and trained

salesperson) at participating San Diego area dealerships. Sales by untrained staff at certified

dealerships result in an incentive of $125 for the dealership.

o Promotional events to drive EV sales will be held.

In 2019, the PlugStar program was offered in several markets (Los Angeles, St. Louis, New Jersey, San

Diego, Sacramento, and Boston). Only Sacramento and San Diego (this PRP) offered dealership

incentives; the others provided educational services only. SDG&E rolled out the PlugStar program as a

pilot from August 31, 2018, through January 31, 2019, with the full program incorporating lessons

learned and running through the end of 2019.

SDG&E selected PIA to implement the program through a competitive solicitation.

23 Barriers and goals taken from SDG&E’s application for approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification

Proposals, accessed December 6, 2019,

https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/Direct%2520Testimony%2520Chapter%25203%2520-

%2520Priority%2520Review%2520Projects.pdf.


Page 83


The program manager, PIA, recruited dealerships, including several with whom PIA had existing

relationships. PIA also conducted outreach through trade associations, vehicle manufacturers, and other

channels. Five dealerships participated in the initial pilot, with 15 participating in the full-scale program.

PIA received 47 dealership applications for the SDG&E PlugStar Program. PIA went through a formal

selection process using these criteria: whether the dealer had EV inventory, onsite charging

infrastructure, and the dealer’s commitment to EVs. PIA accepted 15 dealers through the formal

selection process.

Recruiting dealerships near DACs was seen as desirable, but PIA noted in an interview that a more

comprehensive strategy for helping vehicle purchasers in DACs would be to also provide options to

purchase used vehicles, since many members of these communities have lower budgets and look to the

secondary market more often. PIA emphasized that the secondary market presented even greater

barriers for shoppers and would benefit from support in a future project; however, this PRP is focused

entirely on new EV sales.

Lesson Learned: Programs targeted to DACs will need to support secondary market transactions.


Page 84

Figure 37. Locations of participating PlugStar dealerships

* Indicated dealerships that participated in the initial pilot phase

Source: SDGE Q1 2019 PAC Meeting

Timeline and Status

CPUC Decision 18-01-02424 approved the SDG&E Dealership Incentives PRP in January 2018. In response

to concerns submitted by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the CPUC modified SDG&E’s proposed



http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M204/K670/204670548.PDF


Page 85

program by requiring the EV buyer/lessee to enroll in an EV-TOU rate before the dealership incentives

could be paid.

During the pilot phase, it became apparent that this program modification caused a delay in the

incentive processing and significantly reduced the number of claims paid (only 16% of claims were

approved). Some customers may be ineligible for EV-specific rates because they live in multi-unit

dwellings, and some may face higher costs on an EV-specific TOU rate than they would on other

available rates, such as California Alternate Rates for Energy or Family Electric Rate Assistance Program.

Because these and other similar factors are beyond the control of car dealers and salespeople, the

potential program participants did not feel adequately equipped to advise EV purchasers/lessees on

which utility rate would be most beneficial. PIA further commented that “the TOU requirement created

uncertainty around whether a dealer's effort would be rewarded, thereby reducing the impact of the

incentive. Moreover, due to the highly individualized nature of home energy use and costs, dealers are

not in a position to guarantee savings but rather must connect the customer with the utility to make

such a determination. Lastly, SDG&E, as well as utilities throughout the state, were already embarking

on shifting customers to TOU rates.”

Because of these limitations, SDG&E filed a Tier 2 advice letter25 in February 2019 to waive the

requirement that customers enroll in an EV-TOU rate before paying the dealership incentive. CPUC

issued Resolution E-5006 on August 1, 2019, approving this and a few other modifications, including a

modified customer release form for reaching out to purchasers/lessees for evaluation and education

follow-up. The modification was intended to emphasize to purchasers the need to contact SDG&E to

discuss whether an EV-TOU rate would be beneficial. Just as before the Tier 2 advice letter, SDG&E uses

the customer information to contact the purchaser to discuss electricity rates. Although the EV-TOU rate

waiver applied to purchases starting March 14, 2019, and after, the waiver was not formally approved

until release of Resolution E-5006. More than two-thirds of the program period had elapsed before this

issue was addressed.

In the resolution, CPUC stated concerns that this change to the PRP might not serve the interests of

ratepayers, as EV charging without enrollment in an EV-TOU rate “could cause adverse grid impacts and

ultimately increase peak load, resulting in additional ratepayer costs.” As such, the evaluation will

examine whether SDG&E is following up with vehicle purchasers to conduct education about EV-TOU

rates.



To determine the effectiveness of the PRP, the evaluation is currently procuring data about how the

program overcomes barriers to reach its goals. The evaluation will also examine other benefits of the

PRP and how SDG&E is educating and encouraging customers to choose EV-TOU rates.

25 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Advice Letter 3344-E, August 8, 2019, http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/3344-E.pdf.


Page 86

Data Sources

Data sources used in evaluation will include the following:

Interviews – One round of formal interviews with SDG&E program staff and PIA staff was

completed in 2019. The evaluation team will conduct a second round of interviews in 2020 after

the conclusion of the PRP. This next round of interviews will investigate additional research

questions such as the persistence of training impacts given sales staff turnover and how the

removal of the EV-TOU rate requirement affected claims after Resolution E-5006 was released in

August 2019.

Surveys – The evaluation team is working with PIA to develop surveys for dealership staff and EV

purchasers/lessees. Since PIA holds the relationship with these entities and has existing plans to

gather data on the PIA program in winter 2019–2020, the evaluation team is collaborating on

these data collection efforts to minimize the burden on customers and dealership participants.

o Dealership staff interviews will be conducted by PIA staff in person.

o Purchaser/lessee surveys will be conducted online with all customers who signed consent

forms at the time of their EV purchases.

Primary data – The evaluation team will obtain final data from PIA and SDG&E on program

activity after the PRP ends.

PlugStar.com use and traffic – PIA will provide the evaluation team with data on online activity.

Other – The evaluation team and PIA are in discussion with IHS Markit to purchase sales data

that would allow a market lift analysis comparing participating and non-participating dealership

EV sales.


Claims

In 2019, there were two PlugStar programs that provided dealership incentives, one in Sacramento and

this PRP in San Diego. The program in Sacramento did not require customers to adopt an EV-TOU rate

for the dealership to receive the incentive. Furthermore, the incentive in Sacramento was $300,26 with

$200 of that going to the trained salesperson and $100 to the dealership (slightly lower than the San

Diego program, which provides $250 for the trained salesperson and $250 for the dealership). In both

programs, since January 2019, claims submitted by PlugStar dealerships for sales by untrained

salespeople receive only half the incentive amount. As a result of that policy, the percentage of claims

from trained salespeople (Figure 38 and Figure 39) rose dramatically starting in January 2019.

26 In September 2018, the Sacramento incentive was doubled ($600), which explains the high number of claims in

Sacramento for that month.


Page 87

Figure 38. Percent of claims submitted by trained salespeople – San Diego

Figure 39. Percent of claims submitted by trained salespeople – Sacramento

Figure 40 shows monthly PlugStar claims activity in Sacramento and San Diego (from PIA as of

December 6, 2019). Sacramento, despite being less than one half the size of the San Diego market and

having a smaller incentive, had nearly twice as many claims as San Diego; it remains to be seen whether

removing the EV-TOU rate requirement will change the trend for San Diego after August 2019, when the

resolution was released.


Page 88

Lesson Learned: The program in Sacramento was able to achieve greater total claims at lower incentive levels, likely because it did not have an EV-TOU requirement.

Figure 40. Comparison of PlugStar activity in Sacramento vs. San Diego

Figure 40 includes all claims submitted. The number of paid and unpaid claims for San Diego as of

August 23, 2019, is shown in Figure 41. There remain 83 unpaid claims because they were submitted

before March 14, 2019.

Figure 41. Dealership claims with payment status by month for San Diego

Source: SDG&E PAC Meeting Slides August 23, 2019


Page 89

Table 23 shows a comparison of PlugStar program activity and regional characteristics from the U.S.

Census Bureau for Sacramento and San Diego counties. Most claims in Sacramento (74%) and San Diego

(63%) were submitted by trained sales staff. Although Sacramento had far greater numbers of claims on

an absolute basis, the number of claims per trained sales staff is similar for both programs. PIA believes

the number of claims per trained sales staff could be changed with increased marketing, driving more

shoppers to participating dealerships.

Lesson Learned: Trained sales staff submit claims at a greater rate (about four times greater) than untrained sales staff.

Both regions have similar mean travel times to work and levels of educational attainment, while San

Diego’s median household income is slightly higher than Sacramento’s. The population of San Diego

county is more than twice that of Sacramento county, so the potential exists for twice as much program

activity in San Diego.

Table 23. Comparison of program activity and region characteristics

Source Item Metric Sacramento San Diego

PIA Claims (Aug 31, 2018 – Oct 31, 2019*) 547 289

A Trained Claims 406 183

B Untrained Claims 141 106

C Participating Dealerships 19 15

D Trained Staff 207 87

E Total Staff 470 290

Calculated C/D Trained Staff/Dealership 11 6

D/E Percent of Staff Trained 44% 30%

(A+B)/C Claims per Dealership 29 19

A/D Claims per Trained Sales Staff 1.9 2.2

B/(E-D) Claims per Untrained Sales Staff 0.5 0.5

(Claims per Trained)/(Claims per Untrained) 3.6 4.3

Census Bureau

County Median Household Income $60,239 $70,588

Mean travel time to work (minutes) 26.9 25.7

High school graduate or higher, % of persons 25+ 87% 87%

Population July 1, 2018 1,540,975 3,343,364

*Dealerships are still submitting claims for November and December. The average lag between the sale date and

claim submission date is 9.5 days for San Diego dealerships.


Page 90

Sacramento has a greater number of trained sales staff per participating dealership and as a percentage

of dealership staff. While there are many factors that could contribute to this difference, PIA theorizes

there is less interest in training at San Diego dealerships due to “a much longer history of

unpredictability, and therefore unreliability, in payment of the dealer incentive claim” (as a result of the

EV-TOU rate requirement). Participating Sacramento dealerships have received incentive funds on a

consistent basis because it is not dependent on the customer signing up for the EV-TOU rate and those

sales teams have requested and received more EV training. Training rates are twice as high in

Sacramento as in San Diego (11 staff per dealership versus 6), and a much larger number of sales staff

are trained overall (207 versus 87).

Using the results in Sacramento as a proxy for the performance of the program had there not been the

EV-TOU rate requirement in San Diego, the San Diego program potentially would have achieved 2 or 2.5

times as many participating dealerships as Sacramento (based on higher population, higher incentive

level, and higher median income), with a greater number of claims per dealership.

19 dealerships in Sacramento * 2.5 * 29 claims per dealership = 1,378 potential claims

Thus, the PRP’s original goal of up to 1,500 additional EV sales appears to be an aggressive, yet

achievable, target based on a design that did not include the EV-TOU requirement.

Project Baseline/Market Lift

Market lift analysis will be completed for inclusion in the final evaluation report upon receipt of baseline

market data from IHS Markit.


In interviews, PIA staff described typical challenges programs experience when engaging with

dealerships. To make an incentive program attractive for dealerships, the program must demonstrate it

makes the salespersons’ job of selling new EVs easier, which moves product faster than would otherwise

be the case. Dealerships have “evolved to rely far more on volume sales—selling the maximum number

of cars in the shortest amount of time—and manufacturer incentives to maintain profitability selling

new vehicles. Doing so presupposes the customer is already familiar with the product and that a reliable

fueling and support infrastructure is in place to support them. EVs, by contrast, require more time and

effort from dealers—largely to address familiarity, fueling and support concerns associated with this

new technology. Profits associated with EVs are also not fully understood.” In summary, dealerships are

a high-paced and numbers-driven business; inserting EVs into this environment results in more work for

the dealer for “too little reward.”

Understanding this business model, PIA designed PlugStar to address dealership needs through:

Training and resources (online tool and collateral) to help answer customers’ questions,

Rewards (incentives),

Customer leads (through the online tool and EV events), and

Recognition through awards ceremonies (such as for top dealership, most improved, most

community engagement).


Page 91

PIA’s recruitment strategy was to get buy-in from management by engaging them through trusted

channels, such as auto manufacturers and trade associations. Dealership trainings took place either in

three-hour multi-dealership sessions or one-hour sessions in a dealership’s location. The program also

requires at least two sales staff to attend the three-hour session for certification training of EV

specialists.

Once a participating dealership’s staff completed training, claims could be submitted for any EV sold.

Purchasers sign a consent form to provide their contact information to SDG&E during the transaction.

SDG&E staff said the utility sends a follow-up email to purchasers to provide information about EV-TOU

rates.

Communication of Program Goals and Expectations to PIA

PIA viewed the PRP’s goal of 1,500 additional EV sales as a cap on the number of incentives that PIA

could not exceed. PIA indicates that while 1,500 is an ambitious goal, it is possible that the recruited

dealerships could have achieved this result “absent the insertion of an EV-TOU requirement” with the

PlugStar training and incentive program. The EV-TOU requirement may have caused key dealerships to

decide against increasing EV supply, which would have further decreased the potential for EV sales.

Furthermore, PIA says that it was not clear at the outset of the program that the EV-TOU adoption was

considered the CPUC’s key metric for gauging success. After discussion with CPUC in early 2019, PIA took

several actions to support EV-TOU adoption:

1) Amending the customer release form to emphasize TOU rates (see before in Figure 42 and after

in

2) Figure 43)

3) Implementing an EV Customer Support Program (call center), which provides general

information on TOU rates and directs customers to SDG&E for more information

4) Advising on specific activities for the program and SDG&E to take more proactive steps to

convert buyers

5) Working with SDG&E to file an advice letter with CPUC to waive this program-hindering

requirement

6) Providing even more detailed training on TOU rates for dealers

7) Updating PlugStar.com with more detailed rate information, including TOU rates

8) Providing TOU rate collateral to dealers for their information and to hand to customers at the

dealership


Page 92

Figure 42. Original customer release form excerpt

Source: PIA

Figure 43. Modified customer release form excerpt emphasizing TOU rates

Source: PIA

Costs

The approved PRP has an anticipated total direct cost of $1.79 million (all as O&M expense). Of that,

$750,000 was reserved for incentives, and the remaining budget was allocated for program education,

outreach, and SDG&E project management. The PRP direct costs as of September 30, 2019, totaled

$786,195 out of the $1,790,000 budget, as shown in Table 24.


Page 93

Table 24. SDG&E Dealership Incentives PRP costs

Actual Costs Approved Budget

Customer Engagement and Outreach $ 694,123 $ 1,603,400

SDG&E Clean Transportation PM $ 92,072 $ 186,600

Direct Costs $ 786,195 $ 1,790,000

Non Direct Costs (Indirect, AFUDC, and Property Taxes)

$ 98,090 $ 351,786

Total Costs $ 884,285 $2,141,786


Dealership Review Survey

PIA deployed an online dealership review survey from August to October 2019. It received 12 reviews

for PlugStar dealerships in San Diego with an average rating of 4.75 out of 5 stars, all from EV shoppers

who completed a purchase or lease of an EV.27 Four out of twelve customers indicated they switched to

an EV-TOU rate plan after interacting with the dealership; the other eight customers have not switched

for the following reasons:

Customer already on a rate plan that costs less to charge (2)

Customer waiting for SDG&E to contact them to discuss EV-TOU rate options (2)

Customer wanted to further investigate the EV-TOU rate plan

Customer does not charge at home

Customer does not pay the power bill

Customer served by a community choice aggregator (CCA), with no available EV-TOU rate

Dealership and Sales Staff Survey Results

Initial feedback from dealership staff indicates that the training and education resources provided by the

PlugStar program were helpful. PIA surveyed participating dealership staff during the pilot phase and

27 PIA also sent the dealership review survey to their larger email list to obtain dealer reviews from non-PlugStar

dealers. PIA found the average PlugStar dealer rating for both San Diego and Sacramento was 4.6 out of 5 stars (32

respondents). This was higher than the national non-PlugStar dealer rating of 3.5 out of 5 stars (86 respondents).


Page 94

found that 100% would recommend the PlugStar training. Furthermore, PIA found that salespersons felt

more confident about various aspects of EVs after taking the training, including:

Electricity rates, including EV-TOU rates

Government incentives

Directing customers to qualified electricians for home charger installations

EV charging costs

PlugStar.com Web Traffic

PlugStar.com offers EV buyers information to support their EV-buying experience, including a list of

makes and models available, a vehicle cost calculator with incentives added, energy provider rates and

cost calculations to charge their EVs, a list of locally trained EV dealerships, and more. Table 25 shows

the PlugStar.com site traffic by month.

San Diego is one of the most highly trafficked regions on PlugStar.com (including traffic from

Sdge.PlugStar.com). PIA collects data from customers on visits to PlugStar.com from the customer

release form during the sales process. In San Diego, about 12% percent of EV buyers visited

PlugStar.com prior to purchasing an EV from a PlugStar dealership from August 31, 2018 – October 31,

2019.

Table 25. PlugStar site traffic (program areas and national)

Date San Diego Sacramento Total (National)

18-Sep 532 399 13.9k

18-Oct 386 389 13.8k

18-Nov 370 397 11.8k

18-Dec 631 550 13.6k

19-Jan 495 478 12.7k

19-Feb 782 508 15.8k

19-Mar 787 614 18.3k

19-Apr 983 1,063 22.6k

19-May 1,358 1,089 25.6k

19-Jun 1,244 1,060 26.9k

19 - Jul 673 747 10.4k


Page 95

Date San Diego Sacramento Total (National)

19-Aug 779 725 13.1k

19-Sep 949 803 17k

19-Oct 866 1,248 14.9k

Cumulative 10,835 10,070 230k

Anecdotal Evaluation Team Member Experience

The dealership review survey results were augmented by direct experience of a team member to further

evaluate the sales process and other program aspects. In May 2019, a team member leased an EV from

a participating PlugStar dealership and signed the consent form to share contact information with

SDG&E. An SDG&E representative called in October 2019 about switching to an EV-TOU rate but was

brief and referred the EV lessee to the SDG&E website for more information. The EV lessee asked

whether SDG&E offered tools to help the customers determine whether there would be any savings

under the different EV-TOU rates based on a review of the previous 12 months of usage data. The

SDG&E representative said no such tools were available to offer this kind of service at the time.

Sales Staff Interviews

PIA will conduct sales staff interviews after program completion in Q1 2020, and a summary of the

results will be included in the final evaluation report.

EV Buyer Survey Results

PIA will conduct an EV buyer survey after program completion in Q1 2020, and a summary of the results

will be included in the final evaluation report.

EV-TOU Requirements

The original goal of the PRP was to increase EV purchases in SDG&E territory with sales staff and

dealership incentives, in addition to educating dealership staff and customers. The EV-TOU requirement

in Decision 18-01-024 added a complication to the PRP’s planned activities and the desired outcomes.

Based on interviews with SDG&E and PIA staff, there are several reasons why it is not desirable to have

salespeople explain the EV-TOU rate to shoppers and require a switch to this electricity rate for an

incentive to be issued:

Some shoppers do not plan to or are unable to charge their vehicles at their residences.

Some shoppers do not have an SDG&E account because someone else pays for their electricity.

Dealerships do not want to assume liability for providing EV buyers incorrect information, such

as which rates would save money or which buyers are eligible for which rates.

Rates are complex and difficult for salespeople to understand and then explain to customers.


Page 96

SDG&E has specialized staff to consult with customers about the best rate plan.

Analysis by SDG&E indicated that not all customers purchasing EVs would benefit from switching

to an EV rate plan.


Based on the information and feedback collected to date, some preliminary findings, in addition to the

lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below. More market data is required to determine

whether expectations should be revised (e.g., determine what is baseline market activity), the project

should be discontinued or scaled up, or the project should be refined to focus on areas of strength (e.g.,

dealer education). The market data will be captured and analyzed in the final evaluation report.

Dealers can be trained and motivated via monetary reward to deliver simple, distilled messages

to customers about the potential to save money through enrolling in an EV-TOU rate. Beyond

this, the highly individualized nature of household energy use makes it more appropriate for

SDG&E staff to follow up with customers about whether an EV-TOU rate would result in savings

and the anticipated amount of the savings that might be realized.

Although SDG&E is following up with customers purchasing EVs, the stakeholder feedback

suggests there is a lag in this follow-up and that the information provided is generic and directs

customers seeking more information to the SDG&E website.

o Recommendation: SDG&E could augment its existing EV buyer outreach (which includes

point-of-sale/glovebox materials) by running eligibility checks for EV-TOU rates and by

providing customized analyses of purchasers’ usage under their existing rates compared to

the EV-TOU rate. This would identify customers who would benefit financially from

switching, and those customers could be sent personalized postcards or emails explaining

how changing their rate plans could result in savings, along with steps on how to switch to

the EV-TOU rate.

o Recommendation: SDG&E could take advantage of the PlugStar.com and sdge.plugstar.com

portals to provide prospective EV buyers with personalized estimates of EV-TOU savings.

The portal currently uses default EV (off-peak) rates for the user’s zip code to determine the

cost of charging; however, it does not calculate the cost difference between the EV-TOU

rate and the non-EV-TOU rate.

Given positive dealership staff survey results and customers’ high rating of participating

dealerships, it appears the education goals of the PRP are being satisfied. Additional data from

dealership surveys will be available for inclusion in the final evaluation report.

In both Sacramento and San Diego, there is a notable difference in the rate that trained and

untrained salespeople submit claims, with more claims submitted by trained salespeople.

The EV-TOU requirement substantially hindered the performance of the San Diego program,

when compared to Sacramento, and would be a barrier to scaling up the program.

The program did not meet its target of training 200 salespeople (it achieved 87 trained

salespeople); however, the results in Sacramento (200+ trained salespeople) suggest the

program may have achieved this goal had the EV-TOU requirement not been added.


Page 97

Program design requirements set by CPUC decisions, while well intentioned, should be

considered carefully for possible negative impacts on program effectiveness. Instead of

prescribing specific requirements, it would likely be more effective to state expectations of what

would constitute success (e.g., increasing EV sales while avoiding peak grid load increase due to

EV charging) and allow the program implementers to determine how to best proceed.

The implementer, PIA, was responsive to CPUC concerns once the company became aware of

them.

Programs targeted to DACs will need to support secondary market transactions.

The program in Sacramento was able to achieve greater total claims at lower incentive levels,

likely because it did not have an EV-TOU requirement.

Trained sales staff submit claims at a greater rate (about four times greater) than untrained

sales staff.


Page 98

3. Southern California Edison

3.1 Port of Long Beach Rubber Tire Gantry Crane



The Port of Long Beach (POLB) Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG) Crane Electrification Pilot will deploy make-

ready infrastructure to serve nine cranes at Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) Marine Terminal J.

SCE will design, install, own, and maintain the electric infrastructure, including two new distribution

substations that will serve nine new electric motorized RTG cranes.

The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 2017 Update, which was adopted by the joint Long Beach

and Los Angeles Boards of Harbor Commissioners in November 2017, builds upon previous successful

efforts to help reduce air emissions and support sustainable freight movement. The strategies in the

2017 Update are some of the boldest yet, and they will require a significant amount of cooperation from

the goods movement industry, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders. The 2017 Update set new

goals, including a goal of 100% zero-emissions terminal equipment by 2030. The POLB has

acknowledged that this is an incredibly aggressive goal, given that not all of the necessary technology

exists yet.

The pilot supports the state’s Sustainable Freight Strategy to “reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and

criteria pollutant emissions from compression ignition mobile cargo handling equipment that operates

at ports and intermodal rail yards in the state of California.” Electrifying RTG cranes will improve air

quality and reduce GHG emissions for the communities surrounding the port, which are mostly DACs.

RTG cranes are the second-largest source of NOx emissions at the terminal, and the technology could

have a significant impact on emissions if adopted by other port operators in California.

The POLB’s zero-emissions goal stems from influence at both local and state entities. The port wants to

be ready when requirements are in place to mandate zero-emissions equipment. The POLB tries to

secure grants and outside funding to help tenants address higher costs, while also providing assistance

as needed. It is necessary to secure support for larger-scale demonstrations that really test the

equipment in revenue service to determine durability of the equipment. Projects such as this PRP aim to

prove out the use of these technologies so others will have more confidence about adopting them. SCE

support to this electric RTG project came after the CEC award was received; however, discussions

between SCE and the POLB on this project were ongoing. This RTG project might not have happened

without SCE funding, or it would have had to be scaled down significantly. SCE’s support was critical to

the success of the overall project to electrify the RTGs.

Traditional RTG cranes have electric lift and propulsion drives, with electric energy generated by on-

board diesel reciprocating engines. SCE’s proposed project will support a customer pilot for a grid-

connected electric conversion system that removes the diesel engine and adds power transformation

and electronics fed by a motorized electric cable mechanism. The cable connects to a stationary grid-

connect mechanism that allows the RTG crane to disconnect from the cable when it needs to transfer to


Page 99

the maintenance shop (using power from a temporary mobile battery system). The grid-connection

mechanism ties to a high-voltage utility connection (4,000 volts).

To support the electric RTG crane project, SCE upgraded existing facilities and installed the following

new equipment and supporting structures:

Pad-mounted switches

New 12 kV circuit (Beluga 12 kV) wharf substation

Four new 12 kV/4 kV distribution substations

One padmount capacitor bank

Four 2500 kVA 12 kV/480 V transformers

Conduit and cable

New vaults

All supporting civil and foundation structures

The new distribution substations transform the 12 kV to 4 kV and then distribute the 4 kV circuits to four

termination points—one for each RTG stacking run—for a total of four 4 kV termination points, as

shown in the figure below.

Figure 44. Pier J electric RTG crane project site layout

Source: POLB


Page 100


Recruitment Process

The project supports SSA Marine Terminal J at the POLB in accelerating the conversion of the port’s

current RTG cranes to electric power by deploying the electric infrastructure necessary to serve the new

electric RTG cranes. The PRP was designed specifically for this application and customer, with no

additional recruitment of participants planned.

Participants

SCE is providing the electrical infrastructure to support the electric RTG cranes, and the POLB secured

funding for the electric RTG cranes through part of a $9.7 million grant from the CEC, as well as port

money and in-kind contributions from the private sector. Converting an RTG from diesel power to

electricity costs about $585,000. SCE’s estimated cost for the make-ready infrastructure to support the

nine RTGs is $3,038,000, or $337,556 per RTG. M.S. Hatch Consulting is assisting the POLB with

management of the RTG conversion project, including data collection and analysis for the CEC grant. As

SCE is not providing a rebate for the charging equipment in this PRP, Stevedoring Services of America

(SSA) Marine will qualify vendors, products, and services.

SSA Marine will work with technology vendor Cavotec to repower nine diesel-electric RTG cranes by

removing the on-board auxiliary diesel engines—which generate electricity for the electric lift and

propulsion drives—and replacing them with a grid-connected electric conversion system. The system

will enable disconnection from the grid and, by use of a container with an electrochemical battery pack,

enable block changing during normal operations and easy movement to the maintenance shed when

needed. A single battery container will be used to support transfer of all nine cranes and will be stored

and charged by the maintenance shed. SSA Marine will connect the electric RTG cranes to the grid at

SCE’s four 4 kV termination points. Sight, a company out of San Diego, will provide a laser guidance

system using reflective tape—the first time such a system is used in an RTG crane application.

Timeline and Status

SCE estimated the PRP portion of this project (supporting electrical infrastructure) would take

approximately 12 months to complete. The pilot was implemented in Q1 2018, with the following key

milestones to date:

Final engineering design for SCE’s new and upgraded infrastructure was completed and received

approval for construction (Q2 2018).

The POLB issued the Harbor Development Permit (November 2018).

Wharf 66/12 kV Substation upgrades were completed (Q4 2018).

SCE completed all its civil construction (Q1 2019).

The POLB installed the switchgear pads on the north side, and SCE completed the placement of

their electrical equipment (Q3 2019).

South-side switchgear pads and SCE electrical equipment were installed (October 2019).

All switchgears and equipment disconnects were energized (November 2019).


Page 101

This PRP is highly dependent on the POLB and SSA Marine’s onsite work to electrify the RTG cranes. SSA

Marine requires RTG cranes in their everyday operation and needed to ensure that everything was

ready for the conversion before taking them out of service. The Cavotec parts for the conversion came

from overseas and took several months to arrive. The system must lay the electrical connection cable in

a trench that has a clearance of only two inches, so SSA Marine needed an automatic steering system.

Once that was completed, work began on cutting the approximately 7,000 feet of linear trenching that

will be needed for all the electric RTG cranes. This effort took several months, with scheduled

completion in Q1 2020. Before converting the first electrical RTG, the battery system needed to be

procured and brought onsite so that RTG could move independently of the power cable system if

needed. The battery system is scheduled to arrive in January 2020. With all supporting components in

place and SSA Marine completing a mock-up of the conversion (discovering that a larger enclosure

would be needed), the conversion of the first RTG crane to electric started in mid-November 2019 and is

expected to be completed in Q1 2020.

Figure 45. Linear trench being cut and configured for the connection cable

Source: POLB

Rubber connection

cable trench covering


Page 102

Each electric RTG conversion is expected to take up to two months to complete (initial ones may take a

little longer as the conversion process is being developed) and will occur sequentially. Therefore, the

first electric RTG may be put into operation by the end of February 2020 and could provide

approximately eight months of operational data to evaluate its performance, while the last electric RTG

conversion may not be completed until November 2020 and may not contribute data to the final PRP

evaluation report. However, the RTGs have similar operations, and the analysis of one can be

extrapolated to calculate the expected benefits from all nine electrified RTGs once they are operational.

Figure 46. Enclosure removed from RTG crane engine compartment to begin conversion

Source: POLB


Page 103

Figure 47. SCE POLB RTG crane PRP timeline

Source: POLB CEC Grant weekly construction meetings





• Did the technology (contained with a battery pack) adequately accommodate moves among the

berths?

• Was there wear in the cables or other issues that might limit the electric RTG crane’s useful life

more than traditional diesel-powered ones?

• Could this be economically feasible without the CEC grant and SCE support?


decision, project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on RTGs


from RTG crane operations, 4) IDIs with project partners (SCE, POLB, SSA Marine), and 5) surveys with

RTG crane operators.

Data Sources

Some PRP information has been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions, including a

PRP kick-off meeting (SCE and evaluator), quarterly SCE Transportation Electrification Program Advisory

Committee meetings, periodic PRP updates (SCE and evaluator), monthly CEC project updates, site visits,

and other periodic calls or emails. Currently, the evaluation team has the following information from

this PRP: a data collection plan for the CEC project funding the electric conversion of the RTGs,

infrastructure and electric RTG specifications, electricity tariff details, and some site pictures. Over the

next few months, the evaluator expects to receive additional information on project costs, historical RTG

use, and RTG status at the time of electric conversion.


Page 104


POLB: Electric Vehicle Blueprint, Identify and Plan for a Zero-Emissions Future (2019)

Papaioannou et al.: Analysis of energy usage for RTG cranes (2016)

Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI): Evaluation of Electric Rubber-Tired Gantry Cranes

at the Port of Savannah (2014)

Knight et al.: A Consumption and Emissions Model of an RTG Crane Diesel Generator (2011)

EPRI: Electric Cable Reel Rubber-Tired Gantry Cranes: Costs and Benefits (2010)

California Air Resources Board (CARB): Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities Project

Methodology for Determining Emission Reductions and Cost-Effectiveness (2018)

Expected PRP operational data for this project includes utility service meter 15-minute interval data (one

for each bank of RTG connection), power analyzer data for an individual electric RTG test, monthly

electric consumption data for each converted RTG, monthly facility electricity bills, periodic hour-meter

readings for the electric RTGs, and maintenance records.

The evaluator held an IDI with POLB representatives to further understand the background on this

project and gather lessons learned to date. Additional IDIs with the SCE construction team, SCE project

managers, and vendors, as well as an operator survey, are scheduled for 2020 as the electric RTGs

become operational.


Project Baseline

The RTGs take deliveries of containers from yard tractors and place them into stacks in the container

yards, where they await delivery to street trucks. Currently, all RTG cranes at the POLB are configured

with a diesel-fueled engine, driving an electric generator, which powers the RTG crane’s propulsion and

lift functions. Each 1,000-horsepower RTG burns approximately 10 gallons of diesel fuel per hour during

more than 2,000 hours of service each year. RTG cranes comprise 5% of the total heavy-duty equipment

operating at the POLB; however, because of the engine sizes and operating schedules, the cranes

represent approximately 20% of the POLB cargo-handling equipment emissions. RTGs have a useful life

of about 30 years. There are 64 RTG cranes at the POLB, and they represent a significant source of

criteria pollutant emissions. The mean annual NOx emissions from these 64 cranes is 111.3 tons. The

combined mean PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are 2.1 tons. The mean carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)

emissions for the 64 cranes is 11,776 tons.

SSA Marine operates a total of 15 RTG cranes at the POLB, and 28 RTG cranes statewide (including the

Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Oakland). There are a total of 118 RTG cranes located at the three

largest ports in California (Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach). A successful demonstration could

lead to opportunities to introduce electric RTG cranes and subsequent reduction of a significant amount

of emissions in California. If this electric technology is adopted at all three of these major ports, it could

reduce 708 tons of NOx, 35 tons of particulate matter, and 24,780 tons of CO2 annually, which would be

equivalent to reducing more than 5% of non-road diesel NOx and PM emissions in Los Angeles County.


Page 105


One of the key challenges for customers electrifying their fleets is the initial research and project

development phase. During the project development phase, the collaboration with the POLB, SSA

Marine, and Cavotec contributed significantly to a successful project kickoff and continued into the

execution phase. However, the newness of this technology made it challenging to acquire the desired

components for all nine cranes in a timely manner.

This project and other electrification projects from SCE demonstrate a clear path that customers can

take not only to collaborate with their local utilities but also to engage with equipment providers to

create an outcome that is beneficial for business, the environment, and the community. Ports outside of

SCE’s service territory have been in communication with SCE and the POLB on the strategies leveraged

to allow for duplication of efforts at their respective facilities. SSA Marine is now planning to implement

similar projects at its terminals in Oakland and Seattle.

Costs

The proposed total cost for the PRP make-ready infrastructure provided by SCE was $3,038,000. This

comprises capital costs entirely, as SCE does not capture the site assessment, design, and permitting

costs for the utility side, only for the customer side. Additionally, the POLB covered the cost of

switchgears and installation for the electric RTG project (~$2.84 million) and overall has spent much

more in match (CEC grant requirement) than anticipated. The SCE-incurred PRP costs as of November

2019 totaled $2,470,417 (not including the POLB-covered costs), as shown in Table 26, based on data

available to SCE.

Table 26. SCE POLB RTG Crane PRP costs as of November 2019

Cost Category Actual Costs Budgeted Costs

Site assessment, design, and permitting N/A N/A

Rebate amount paid N/A N/A

EVSE procurement N/A N/A

EVSE installation N/A N/A

Make-ready infrastructure (utility side) $2,470,417 $3,038,000

Make-ready infrastructure (customer side) N/A N/A

Other construction costs N/A N/A

Project management N/A N/A

Customer outreach (labor) N/A N/A

Outreach and education materials N/A N/A


Page 106

Cost Category Actual Costs Budgeted Costs

Other program costs N/A N/A

Total Cost $ 2,470,417 $3,038,000

Benefits

This project offers many potential environmental benefits. The Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling

recognizes the potential for improvement in this transportation segment, stating, “Mobile emission

sources at ports and truck stops located in the service territories of the large three electric utilities are a

concentrated source of emissions that could be well served with targeted programs.” Accelerating

transportation electrification adoption at the POLB improves air quality and reduces GHG emissions for

all neighboring communities. These communities immediately surrounding the POLB are considered

DACs, as defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

SSA Marine’s nine RTG cranes fueled by diesel are the second-largest source of NOx emissions at the

terminal. Annual emission reductions per crane will be approximately 6 tons of NOx, 0.3 tons of PM, and

210 tons of CO2. The POLB and SSA Marine will operate the electric RTG cranes for a period of at least

10 years. The CEC-approved funding for this Sustainability Freight Transportation Project, consisting of

nine electric RTG crane conversions, estimated the emissions benefits slightly differently. The approval

stated the project would reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 1,140 MT of carbon dioxide equivalents

(CO2e), 24.14 MT of NOx, 1.43 MT of reactive organic gases (ROG), and 0.39 MT of PM per year.

Table 27. SCE POLB RTG Crane PRP benefits summary


(9 RTG Cranes)

Anticipated in CEC Application

(9 RTG Cranes)

As Implemented

As Optimized

Petroleum Reduction 180,000 diesel gallons per year

N/A TBD TBD

GHG Emissions 1,890 tons of CO2 per year

1,140 MT of CO2 per year

TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants 1,140 MT of CO2 per year

24 MT of NOx per year; 0.4 MT of PM per year; 1.4 MT of ROG

TBD TBD


Page 107


(9 RTG Cranes)

Anticipated in CEC Application

(9 RTG Cranes)

As Implemented

As Optimized

DAC Impact POLB is adjacent to DACs

POLB is adjacent to DACs

TBD TBD


N/A N/A TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits N/A N/A TBD TBD


As of this interim report, no electric RTG operation has taken place, as the first crane is scheduled to be

retrofitted in Q1 2020. This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all the available

information and data obtained before November 2020.


As of this interim report, no electric RTG operation has taken place to capture this feedback. Feedback

pertaining to the initial implementation of this PRP is captured in Section 0. This section will be

completed for the final report utilizing all the available information and data obtained before November

2020.


Findings

Without any electric RTGs converted, there is no electric RTG operation to date; it is therefore too early

to determine this PRP’s success, which will be documented in the final report. However, some

preliminary findings, in addition to the lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below:

Customers tend to be very cautious when working on equipment that is critical to their

operations. While SSA Marine might have been able to accelerate the project timeline by doing

multiple actions in parallel (procuring the conversion components, installing the switchgear

pads, ordering the battery module, and cutting the trenches), the company chose to verify each

activity was completed before progressing to the next.


Page 108

Next Steps


would be recommended cannot be determined at this time. Recommendations based on operational

data and stakeholder IDIs will be included in the final report.

3.2 Port of Long Beach Terminal Yard Tractors



The POLB Clean Air Action Plan sets aggressive goals to accelerate transportation electrification

technology development. To help drive the transition to zero-emissions, the port proposed that all

terminal equipment must be zero-emissions by 2030. Through this PRP, SCE will deploy the electric

infrastructure necessary to serve charging stations for new electric yard tractors, which move

intermodal containers around the facility. To accommodate the originally proposed load for 24 charging

points, SCE needs to upgrade its distribution infrastructure, including additional pad-mounted switches,

capacitor bank, and transformers. SCE will design, deploy, own, and maintain this electric infrastructure.

However, SCE will not establish technical requirements on charging equipment, as the utility will not

provide a rebate to cover these costs. The total estimated costs for this project are $450,000 for the

deployment of the infrastructure.

The objectives of the pilot are to demonstrate proposed vehicles/technologies for 12 months, convene a

Zero-Emission Port Workforce Development group to improve existing workforce development and

training programs in support of port equipment electrification, and establish the proposed technologies

as cost-competitive purchase options through development of estimates of future costs versus baseline

technology costs. The project will also support the state’s Sustainable Freight Strategy to reduce diesel

PM and criteria pollutant emissions from compression-ignition mobile cargo-handling equipment that

operates at ports and intermodal rail yards by demonstrating the feasibility of replacing diesel drive

tractors with electric drive tractors.


Page 109

Figure 48. POLB Pier G electric yard tractor project site location

Source: POLB


Recruitment Process

The PRP was specifically developed and approved to deploy make-ready infrastructure that serves the

International Transportation Service (ITS) Terminal’s fleet of yard tractors, currently fueled by diesel

engines. The ITS Terminal has a fleet of 120 diesel-powered yard tractors at the POLB and plans to

expand the fleet to 132 by 2020. The ITS Terminal has two areas where yard tractors are parked; the

main area accommodates 100 tractors, and a second, smaller area accommodates 24 tractors. ITS

management has selected this second area on the west side of Pier G for the pilot because of its

proximity to the pier electrical substation. The PRP supports the first of a two-phase plan by ITS to install

some initial chargers as a test. If proven successful, a Phase 2 plan will target up to 80 more chargers.

Participants

The POLB has received funding from the CEC for 12 pre-commercial terminal yard tractors. However, the

funding does not cover the supporting electric infrastructure, so this PRP will provide that for the

project. Initially, during the timeline of this PRP, ITS will deploy seven BYD Motors Inc. (BYD) electric

yard tractors, six BYD chargers, and one automated charger from Cavotec. SCE will deploy

infrastructure to serve up to 20 terminal yard tractor charging stations. The additional five electric yard

tractors in the CEC project will be demonstrated at Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT), which is not

associated with SCE’s PRP. LBCT terminal recently underwent a significant renovation and therefore has

sufficient electrical capacity that the terminal does not require SCE upgrades.


Page 110

Figure 49. BYD model 8T electric yard tractor, BYD 200 kW charger, and Cavotec automated charger arm

Source: BYD (left and middle pictures) and Cavotec (right)

Six of the new battery electric yard tractors will use 200 kW charging stations from BYD. These high-

power chargers will enable ITS to overcome one of the key barriers to widespread market adoption of

zero-emissions technologies: the ratio of charge time to operating time. With a lower-power charger, ITS

might be forced to limit use of the new yard trucks to a single shift per day—a condition that would be

considered a failure right from the very start of the project. By deploying 200 kW chargers, ITS

anticipates being able to use the yard trucks for two shifts per day, meeting the real-world minimum

requirements of the marine terminal. One BYD yard tractor will include compatibility with an innovative

and automated “smart” yard tractor charging system from Cavotec to support a more convenient large-

scale charging system that is necessary to transition its fleet to zero-emissions.

To serve the estimated load for the 20 charging points (200 kW each), SCE will upgrade its distribution

infrastructure, including additional pad-mounted switches, a capacitor bank, and transformers. SCE is

responsible for the planning, design, and construction of the make-ready electrical infrastructure at both

the utility side and customer side for the ITS demonstration. The following equipment and supporting

structures are included in SCE’s design:

Two sets of pad-mounted equipment (PME): (PME 10 and PME 9)

Two 3,000 A switchgear

Meter cabinet

Pad-mounted capacitor bank

Two 2,500 kVA 12 kV/480 V transformers

Distribution conduit and cable

All supporting civil and foundation structures

480 V charging station infrastructure terminating in seven make-ready positions

Ducts and structures to support an additional 13 future EVSE installations

The customer-side electrical infrastructure will be constructed by one of SCE’s approved general

contractors under SCE’s supervision. The POLB has a consultant, Starcrest, overseeing the data

collection requirements for the CEC grant.


Page 111

Timeline and Status

SCE estimated that designing and deploying the infrastructure for this project would take about

12 months. The SCE installation of the electrical infrastructure under this PRP ended up taking

approximately 18 months, with the following major milestones:

The PRP was implemented in Q1 2018, following the CPUC decision in January 2018.

Final engineering design for SCE’s make-ready infrastructure was completed in Q4 2018.

The POLB and ITS reviewed and approved the design plans in November 2018.

The POLB issued the Harbor Development Permit for construction in November 2018.

The plans were submitted to the City of Long Beach Building & Safety for review and permitting

in November 2018.

Construction of the electrical infrastructure was completed in Q1 2019, with structural, fire, and

electrical approvals of completion received by the end of March 2019.

The electrical infrastructure was energized following the installation of the chargers in Q3 2019.

While this PRP was strictly supporting SCE electrical infrastructure at the POLB for this ITS yard tractor

demonstration, the project’s impacts are not realized until the equipment is fully operational. Future

SCE transportation electrification projects may involve charging equipment installation, so there is value

in observing that process at ITS through the CEC grant. BYD brought a demonstration yard tractor to ITS

in June 2019 to conduct maintenance personnel training. ITS took delivery of the first three BYD yard

tractors by the end of August, with a fourth sent to get the Cavotec funnel (which guides the automated

charger arm) installed. There was miscommunication on the required height of the automated charger

arm, which created multiple interactions about the tractor funnel’s specifications and later some

adjustments to the height of the charger itself (ultimately, the height of the mounting pad had to be

changed). Neither BYD nor Cavotec chargers were listed by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory

(NRTL). As a result, BYD pursued onsite TÜV SÜD product certification for the 6 BYD chargers, and

Cavotec pursued ETI Conformity Services Field Evaluation for the Cavotec charger. The initial inspections

of both listed several concerns: enclosure not meeting National Electrical Manufacturers Association

(NEMA) 3R requirements, some individual electrical components and cables were not NRTL-listed, and

some electrical components were not rated the meet the potential power levels. In addition to finding

solutions to these issues, ordering the replacement parts, and properly installing them, follow-up

inspections were required that necessitated the coordination of the inspector, equipment

manufacturers, the POLB, and ITS. A delay of four or more months is expected from when the chargers

were first installed (August 2019) to when they will be approved for use (anticipated in December 2019).

Lesson Learned: Field certification of equipment that is not already NRTL-listed can add significant complication to a project and should be expected to delay completion by several months while any issues found in the initial inspection are being corrected. For cutting-edge transportation electrification technology, this is sometimes unavoidable but should be limited to projects classified as pre-commercial demonstrations (which the CEC grant supported) and not for commercial deployment programs.


Page 112

Figure 50. SCE POLB terminal yard tractor PRP timeline

Source: POLB CEC Grant Weekly Construction Meetings





• Did electric yard tractors and charging equipment perform as expected?

• How did the automated charger use compare to other chargers? What were the benefits, and

were there any downsides to the automated charger use?

• Would similar supporting electrical infrastructure at other locations in the port be more

expensive? Is there a limit to the available power?

• Could this be economically feasible without the grants for the tractors and SCE support?

The data sources used to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP information from the approved decision,

project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on yard tractors and

early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country, 3) PRP data from

vehicle and charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) a potential survey of the tractor

operators.

Data Sources

Some PRP information has been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions: a PRP kick-off

meeting (SCE and evaluator), quarterly PAC update meetings, periodic PRP updates (SCE and evaluator),

weekly PRP construction calls, biweekly CEC grant data collection calls, site visits, and other periodic

calls or emails. Currently, the evaluation team has the following information from this PRP: the data

collection plan for the CEC project funding the electric yard tractors, electric yard tractor characteristics

and hardware specifications, and details from other electric yard tractor efforts at the POLB through the

CEC grant and a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study in support of the POLB Port Community

Electric Vehicle Blueprint. Over the next few months, the evaluator expects to receive additional


Page 113

information on project costs, pictures from the site, all specifications for the charging stations, and

historical yard tractor use.


SDG&E: Port Electrification PRP

Transpower: Electric Yard Tractor Demonstration Project (2015)

OrangeEV: Making Electrification Work: How to Successfully Deploy HDEVs – A Yard Tractor Case

Study (2018)

San Pedro Bay Ports: Zero/Near-Zero Emissions Drayage Truck Testing & Demonstration

Guidelines (2016)

Heavy Duty Trucking: Regional Haul, Yard Tractors Are Well-Suited for Electrification (2019)

Expected PRP operational data for this project includes utility service meter 15-minute interval data (one

single meter for electrical infrastructure supporting 20 connections [seven active stations]), charging

session data from the Cavotec charger, yard tractor data from two GeoTab telematic devices (one for

the tractor with the Cavotec funnel and one other BYD tractor), and productivity data from SSA Marine

at a very high level. The evaluator also expects to receive maintenance data on the tractors and

chargers, as well as monthly electricity bills.

The evaluator held an IDI with a representative from the POLB to further understand the background on

this project and gather lessons learned to date. Additional IDIs with the SCE construction team, SCE

project managers, vendors, and operators are scheduled during the upcoming year as the yard tractors

are added to revenue service. A survey or facilitated focus group discussion with the drivers of the

electric yard tractors is also planned, if ITS can arrange for it.


Project Baseline

At the POLB, yard tractors, which may also be referred to as terminal tractors, utility tractor rigs, yard

trucks, yard goats, or yard hostlers, are the most common cargo-handling equipment used in on-

terminal container movement. According to the 2017 Air Emissions Inventory, yard tractors account for

approximately 46% of total cargo-handling equipment at the POLB. The total number of yard tractors

operated within the port exceeds 650 vehicles. Over 86% of these yard tractors are currently equipped

with non-road diesel engines, making them high polluters.

Yard tractor activities in marine terminals generally fall into three main categories: ship work, rail work,

and dock work. Ship work involves the loading and unloading of containers onto and from container

vessels. Rail work comprises loading and unloading containers to and from cargo trains, while dock work

consists of moving containers within a terminal yard, such as the consolidation of containers (sometimes

referred to as housekeeping). There are approximately 1,745 diesel yard tractors located at the three

major California ports (POLB, Port of Los Angeles, and Port of Oakland). If these three major ports

convert this equipment from diesel to electric power, it would result in emissions reductions of over

4 tons of PM and nearly 300 tons of NOx annually. Learnings from this project can benefit future

electrification projects across all ports in California.


Page 114

This project is driven by the POLB’s Clean Air Action Plan goals to go to zero-emissions, which is

influenced by expected state and local regulations on this topic. Working toward these goals will require

a good deal of new equipment implemented in partnership with terminal operators. The operators want

to test out to see if this technology works for port operations, can pull the loads required, and is durable

enough, as port equipment is often driven into the ground. There have been smaller, short-term

demonstrations, but this is the first time a project of this scale will enter revenue service with the

intention of staying with the terminal operator for its lifetime. Such projects are needed to bring

technologies closer to commercialization for other operators to adopt and to quantify the business case

for electrification.


The pilot’s ongoing success was a direct result of the collaboration between all the partners and

stakeholders during the development stage. The execution of large-scale electrification projects with

multiple stakeholders across a number of industries can be challenging. Early collaboration is critical to

success. The POLB began its electrification plan with a goal to ensure that all stakeholder groups were

involved in developing the pilot execution plan. This ensured that all parties were aware of the timeline

during each planning stage.

Procuring the electric yard tractors and installing the charging equipment was beyond the scope of SCE’s

PRP, but these efforts have a significant impact on the success of the overall goal to deploy

transportation electrification technology for emission reductions. Almost all complications and delays

associated with this project were attributed to the newness of technology available and selected for this

demonstration pilot. The process undertaken to field-certify the charging stations revealed NRTL Listing

requirements and Short Circuit Current Rating (SCCR) capacity issues that necessitated modifications to

the already installed equipment. In addition to the time for determining a solution, ordering

replacement components, and performing the correction, there are added complications for scheduling

and site access because the equipment was already at the customer location. The POLB would require

that, for future installations, any certifications are done prior to installation to minimize work and

disruptions at the customer site.

Another concern discovered post-installation was that the charging cable weight was difficult for the

equipment operators to handle. As charging powers increase, the cords quickly become heavy and

difficult to maneuver, particularly if liquid cooling is required (in this case, it was not). The length of

charging cord based on the charger positioning and location of the port on the vehicle may also affect

the weight. Some form of cable support was necessary for this installation (and will likely be needed for

many similar installations). The POLB also noted that the electrical infrastructure, charging stations, and

protective bollards took up more space than initially anticipated, which presented equipment parking

site configuration layout challenges. Several concrete pads were also very large and posed potential

tripping hazards, so post-construction modifications were necessary.

The POLB also noted that it would be helpful to determine roles and responsibilities for each project

team member early in the project. Regularly held calls helped work through any confusion or concerns,

but concerns could have been addressed more easily if roles and responsibilities were clarified at the

beginning of the project. The POLB also suggested binding agreements with all project stakeholders and

equipment end users for similar future projects.


Page 115

Costs

The approved total PRP cost (which is made up entirely of capital expenses) was $450,000. Customer-

side costs are estimated at $1 million and will not be included for recovery as part of this pilot. The PRP

costs as of November 2019 totaled $1,586,125 (which may not include all participant costs), as shown in

Table 28, based on data available to SCE.

Table 28. SCE POLB Terminal Yard Tractor PRP costs as of November 2019

Cost Category Actual SCE Costs Budgeted SCE Costs

Site assessment, design, and permitting

$ 38,814 N/A

Rebate amount paid N/A N/A

EVSE procurement (subject to change)

N/A N/A

EVSE installation (subject to change)

N/A N/A

Make-ready infrastructure (utility side)

$ 698,989 $ 450,000

Make-ready infrastructure (customer side)

$ 848,323 N/A


Project management N/A N/A


Outreach and education materials

N/A N/A


Total Cost $ 1,586,125 $ 450,000

The forecast for the customer-side construction costs was inadvertently omitted from the initial

application. The actual customer-side construction costs of approximately $900,000 were recorded to

Shareholder O&M.

The assumptions used for the original $450,000 forecast for the utility-side construction costs were

based on single-meter switchgear and standard installation conditions using PVC conduit between all


Page 116

SCE structures. Cost overruns of approximately $250,000 were also recorded to Shareholder O&M and

primarily due to the following:

Load requirements on the customer side required that two-meter switchgear be installed, as

opposed to the single-meter switchgear in the original assumptions.

Customer-imposed space constraints and an asphalt cross-section that was substantially thicker

than expected resulted in higher-than-anticipated construction labor costs.

More expensive concrete cable trenches had to be custom-built at the site because of tighter-

than-expected equipment placement, which made traditional conduit placement from

transformers to the meter switchgear impossible.

Benefits

The project accelerates electrification of a key transportation segment in SCE’s service territory, with

potential for additional future conversion of yard tractors. On average, the yard tractors annually

produce 5 pounds of PM and 341 pounds of NOx. Converting yard tractors to electric drivetrains will

improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions for all neighboring communities, in particular for DACs, as

they are the most severely affected by current levels of criterial pollutants and GHG emissions.

Table 29. SCE POLB Terminal Yard Tractor PRP benefits summary


(24 charging ports)


(7 charging ports)


Petroleum Reduction

N/A N/A TBD TBD

GHG Emissions N/A N/A TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants

120 pounds of PM per year; 8,184 pounds of NOx per year

35 pounds of PM per year; 2,387 pounds of NOx per year

TBD

DAC Impact POLB is adjacent to DACs

POLB is adjacent to DACs

TBD TBD


N/A N/A TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits

N/A N/A TBD TBD


Page 117


Electric yard tractor testing will comprise three primary phases:

1) Electric Yard Tractor Acceptance Testing – completion of specified testing parameters

(completed in July 2019 by BYD in Lancaster, California)

2) Controlled On-Terminal Testing – completion of typical single-shift duties

3) Revenue On-Terminal Demonstration – completion of typical operations for 12 months

No significant electric yard tractor operations under this PRP were completed as of this interim report.

This section will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained before

November 2020.


Electric yard tractors have not entered SSA Marine revenue service as of this interim report to capture

this feedback. Feedback pertaining to initial PRP implementation is captured in Section 0. This section

will be completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Findings

Without any electric yard tractor operations to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s success,

which will be documented in the final report. However, some preliminary findings, in addition to the

lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below:

SCE’s construction of the electrical infrastructure was straightforward and completed in a timely

manner once the design was approved and permits were secured. Complications and delays

were caused by the chargers and tractors, which are beyond the project scope.

Electrical infrastructure and charging equipment can require significant space and need ample

protection, which can create a challenge for the site configuration layout. The layout must also

consider driver behavior, such as parking orientations, to best account for minimal disruptions

to current operations.

It is important to determine and clearly define roles and responsibilities for each project team

member early in the project to avoid potential complications. Where possible, secure binding

agreements with all project stakeholders and equipment end users.

Field certification of equipment that is not already NRTL-listed can add significant complication

to a project and should be expected to delay completion by several months while any issues

found in the initial inspection are being corrected. For cutting-edge transportation electrification

technology, this is sometimes unavoidable but should be limited to projects classified as pre-

commercial demonstrations (which the CEC grant supported) and not for commercial

deployment programs.


Page 118

Next Steps



3.3 Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready Program



Electric bus technology is maturing, with several companies offering a range of commercially available

vehicles suited to the needs of transit agencies, with standard-based charging systems. However, the

costs and complexities associated with electric buses are significant. From siting and deploying charging

infrastructure to operational impacts (e.g., downtime for charging and training maintenance

technicians), transit agencies must overcome new challenges when they convert to operating electric

buses.

The Electric Bus Make-Ready Program, also known as the Charge Ready Transit Bus Program, will deploy

make-ready infrastructure to serve charging equipment for electric transit buses operating in SCE’s

service territory. SCE will also provide a rebate to participating customers to offset the cost of the

charging equipment and its installation.

The program will encourage system safety and reliability, as SCE will work closely with participating

customers to site, size, and deploy electric infrastructure in accordance with SCE’s transmission and

distribution standards and applicable building and electrical codes, using licensed contractors. The

objective is to help transit agencies expand the number of electric buses in operation in SCE’s service

territory.

SCE will target transit agencies operating in its service territory and solicit them for participation in the

program through SCE’s business customer division. The program was open on a first-come, first-served

basis to non-residential customers that meet the following requirements:

• Qualify as a government transit agency,

• Own or lease the participating site, or be the customer of record associated with the premises

meter (likely the property management company or the building owner or tenant), where the

charging equipment for the buses would be deployed,

• Provide agreement by the participating site’s owner to grant SCE appropriate real property

rights and continuous access to the customer participant site infrastructure,

• Acquire at least one new electric or plug-in hybrid bus used to provide transit service to the

public,

• Commit to and provide acceptable proof of qualified charging equipment and vehicle purchase

(together with actual pricing information) prior to deployment by SCE,

• Agree to take service on an eligible TOU rate, and

• Agree to participate in the pilot for its entire duration, including maintaining the charging

equipment in working order and participating in surveys and data collection.


Page 119

SCE estimated that the program will cost $3,978,000 to complete, including deployment costs to serve

up to 20 charge ports and customer rebates to offset the costs of qualified charging equipment and

installation.


Recruitment Process

An informational session was conducted on May 21, 2018, to solicit feedback from transit agencies and

equipment providers on the program. The Electric Bus Make-Ready Program was then launched on

June 4, 2018. The program fact sheet, participation informational package, and program application

were made available online for viewing and download. Applicants were instructed to fill out the

application and submit via email. The SCE business customer division’s account managers were also

available to guide the applicants through the submission process.

Figure 51. SCE factsheet pages for the Electric Transit Bus PRP

Source: SCE Charge Ready Website

The Electric Bus Make-Ready Program received six applications. All program applicants submitted

proposals for in-depot charging stations. The number of ports per site in applications ranged from 3 to

14. During the application review stage, SCE reviewed the applicant’s proposed site, number of charging

ports requested, proposed charging equipment, and presence of DAC routes. Further site visits were

performed to obtain cost estimates to install infrastructure at the site. The customer was also required

to submit information about its EVSE network and equipment providers to ensure that they meet the

program’s technical requirements.


Page 120

The program had to reject two applications, as the applicant’s charging equipment (Complete

Coachworks) did not meet technical requirements and could not be changed. One applicant with plans

to acquire 14 electric BYD buses did not move forward under this PRP because the fleet has to make

modifications to the buses to enable using ChargePoint stations (BYD chargers are not NRTL-listed), but

the applicant may apply to the Charge Ready Transport, which is SCE’s standard review program. A

seventh potential customer withdrew from the program citing procurement timing and also plans to

apply for Charge Ready Transport.

Lesson Learned: The program experienced a challenge in qualifying equipment proposed by the applicants. Because of the rapidly changing nature of the transit bus EVSE market, some EVSE providers could not meet the program technical requirements, such as the requirement that the equipment be recognized by a NRTL.

Participants

The Electric Bus Make-Ready Program resulted in agreements with three transit agency customers with

a collective total of 30 ports supporting 31 electric buses.

Foothill Transit has a fleet of 373 buses (30 of which are electric, the rest compressed natural

gas [CNG]) that has plans to go all-electric by 2030. The first deployment of electric buses was in

2014 (first fast-charge electric bus line in the United States), with an extended-range electric bus

added in 2017 and an all-electric double-decker bus in 2018. Infrastructure to support 14 new

Proterra electric buses consists of twelve 60 kW chargers and one 125 kW charger.

Porterville Transit has a fleet of 20 buses. GreenPower Motor Company will deliver 10

GreenPower EV350 40-foot zero-emission all-electric transit buses for deployment on all nine

Porterville Transit routes. Eleven 200 kW BTCPower chargers will be installed at the

maintenance facility and transit center for a total purchase price of approximately $9 million.

Victor Valley Transit Authority will be acquiring its first battery electric buses to move forward

on the agency’s commitment to operate an all-electric fleet by 2040. Victor Valley will deploy

five 35-foot and two 40-foot New Flyer Xcelsior XE models that are charged by seven 62.5 kW

ChargePoint stations.

Timeline and Status

SCE estimated that the program would take approximately 12 months from launch to completion.

Following the CPUC decision in January 2018, SCE launched the program on June 4, 2018, and executed

agreements with the three eligible transit agencies in the fourth quarter of 2018. Electrical

infrastructure designs were completed in the first quarter of 2019, with design approvals by the

participants and local permits obtained in the second quarter of 2019. SCE completed the majority of

the make-ready at each transit agency in the third quarter of 2019 (Foothill was the last to be

completed, in mid-October). Individual participants are responsible for completing the installation of the

charging stations and acquiring the buses:


Page 121

Victor Valley’s charging infrastructure was installed and operational by the end of September

2019. Two New Flyer electric buses had been delivered, with five more on the way.

Porterville has received all ten GreenPower buses but still needs to finish the installation of the

charging stations (to be completed with parking lot re-pavement in January 2020).

Foothill is also still working to complete charging station installation (expected in January 2020)

but has several Proterra buses onsite already.

Figure 52. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP timeline

Source: SCE




Electrification PRPs, the evaluation questions listed below will be examined for this PRP:

• Did some electric buses or charging equipment perform better than others?

• Could operations have benefited from on-route charging or faster charging?


decision, project updates, and other available documentation, 2) market research on transit buses and

early deployment efforts from other similar electrification projects across the country, 3) PRP data from

vehicle and charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with vehicle drivers.

Data Sources

Some PRP information has been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions: PRP kick-off


site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. Currently the evaluation team has electric bus

characteristics and hardware specifications for each site. Over the next few months, the evaluator

expects to receive additional information on project costs, station characteristics, site layout, site


Page 122

pictures before and after the construction work, electricity tariff details, bus route information, and

historical bus usage throughout the fleet.

In addition to the information from PG&E’s Medium and Heavy Duty PRP (San Joaquin Regional Transit

District with Proterra buses and chargers), the following sources for market research have been

identified:

Columbia University: Electric Bus Analysis for New York City Transit (2016)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Field Evaluations

(2017)

MJ Bradley & Associates: Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit

Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance (2013)

CARB: Transit Fleet Cost Model (2017)

Green Tech Media: 3 Trends Making the Case for Bus Electrification (2019)

Fast Company: Battery Electric Buses: the innovative technology that’s re-energizing urban mass

transit (2019)

Expected PRP operational data sources for this project include utility service meter 15-minute interval

data, charging station session data, monthly facility electricity bills, bus telematics, operational

summaries, and maintenance records. The evaluator plans to facilitate IDIs with the SCE construction

team, SCE project manager, participating transit agencies, and vendors during the upcoming year as the

electric buses are placed into revenue service.


Project Baseline

As of December 2018, approximately 12,000 transit buses were in operation throughout California, an

inventory that has remained relatively constant over the past decade. Public and contract bus service

employment has decreased over the same period, down to about 22,100 in 2016 compared to 26,200 in

2006. Ridership over the period from 2007 to 2017 decreased from 1,000,300,000 to 802,900,000.28

Effective October 1, 2019, the Innovative Clean Transit regulation is part of a statewide effort to reduce

emissions from the transportation sector. The regulation, a replacement of the Fleet Rule for Transit

Agencies (S.2023), mandates that each of the state’s public transit agencies submit a rollout plan to

CARB to transition to an all-ZEB fleet by 2040. Starting in 2029, all transit agencies will be able to

purchase only fully electric buses. Rollout plans are due in 2020 for large transit agencies and 2023 for

small agencies. As of December 2018, eight of the ten largest transit agencies in the state were

28 California Transit Association, Interactive Repository of Facts and Figures on California Public Transit, 2019,

https://caltransit.org/about/transit-data/.


Page 123

operating ZEBs.29 The regulation’s mandate to transition to an all-zero-emission transit system is

projected to dramatically increase the inventory of ZEBs from an estimated 153 at the time of passage

to 1,000 buses in 2020.30

Several bus manufacturers are offering electric models, with some recent companies being formed to

serve this market exclusively. New Flyer offers CNG, hydrogen fuel cell, and battery electric buses in its

Xcelsior line, introduced in 2010, with the battery electric model introduced in 2012 and commercially

available in 2014. New Flyer has provided buses to transit fleets across North America, with 1,600 ZEBs

in service as of December 2019.31 Proterra, originally headquartered in Colorado, moved to South

Carolina in 2010 and then to the City of Burlingame, California, in 2015 when the CEC awarded the

company a $3 million grant to fund the design, development, and construction of the company's battery

electric transit bus manufacturing line. Proterra reports sales of more than 800 ZEBs to 100 communities

across 43 U.S. states and Canadian provinces.32 Chinese ZEB manufacturer BYD has a U.S. manufacturing

facility in Lancaster, California. BYD reports having nearly 40,000 ZEBs in service around the world, with

the vast majority of those sales in China.33 The company reported sales of about 722 ZEBs in the United

States as of May 2018, with anticipated growth to 1,500 annually in subsequent years.34 GreenPower

Motor Company is a Canadian ZEB manufacturer with manufacturing facility in Porterville, California.

GreenPower offers five models of battery electric transit buses, along with electric school buses and

shuttle vehicles.35 GreenPower is a relatively small manufacturer compared to New Flyer, Proterra, and

BYD, but the company increases the electrified options in an industry segment that is projected to grow

significantly over the next decade.


The Electric Bus Make-Ready Program had a short timeline between the decision approving the

program, program launch, and the need to enroll customers and complete construction before program

closure. Electric transit buses have a long procurement timeline, often 12–18 months from when a new

electric transit bus is first ordered to its delivery. While many of SCE’s transit agency customers were

interested in participating in the program, their procurement schedules did not align with the PRP’s

timeline. In addition, some potential transit agency customers have electrification goals that exceed the

budget of the Electric Bus Make-Ready Program and were better suited for SCE’s Charge Ready

Transport Program.

29 CARB, Innovative Clean Transit, accessed 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/innovative-clean-

transit/about. 30 CARB, California Transitioning to All-electric Public Bus Fleet by 2040, 2019,

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-transitioning-all-electric-public-bus-fleet-2040. 31 New Flyer Industries Canada ULC, “About Us,” accessed 2019, https://www.newflyer.com/company/about/. 32 Proterra, “Our Story,” 2019, https://www.proterra.com/company/. 33 BYD North America, “About BYD,” 2019, https://en.byd.com/about/. 34 Green Biz, The World’s Biggest Electric Vehicle Company You’ve Never Heard Of, 2018,

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/worlds-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-youve-never-heard. 35 Greenpower, Inc. (2019) LINK: https://www.greenpowerbus.com/news/


Page 124

The program experienced a challenge in qualifying equipment proposed by the applicants. Because of

the rapidly changing nature of the transit bus EVSE market, some EVSE providers could not meet the

program technical requirements, such as the requirement that the equipment be recognized by a NRTL.

This resulted in delays to qualify the applicant, as SCE needed to work with the applicant’s EVSE provider

to explain the purpose behind the requirements listed in the program’s technical requirements document.

When performing site design for these PRP installations, SCE learned that there were non-EV

developments or bus retrofits occurring, or in the design phase, at some customer facilities. In some

cases, these activities directly interfered with the proposed EV deployment. For future infrastructure

programs, a question about current and planned facility upgrades or retrofits should be included in the

program participation package.

Figure 53. Victor Valley Transit Authority charging station installation

Source: SCE

SCE developed an EVSE Technical Requirements Document instead of an approved product list as there

were not many set charging stations dedicated for bus charging and the time of PRP development and

launch. This document was available as part of the original customer collateral online and through SCE

account managers. SCE staff met with applicants and their EVSE providers to discuss products and

review the PRP EVSE technical requirements. SCE was open to customers and vendors submitting new

products. One transit agency selected EVSE and signed the contract with SCE, but upon inspection, it

was discovered that the EVSE was not NRTL-listed, and the installation could not proceed.

SCE account manager reported that all three transit customers were very happy with the work of the

SCE project management and construction teams. In addition, they were very interested in the new

rates due to the recent removal, for a period of five years, of early demand charges.

No significant issues arose during the design and construction process that would require scope-of-work

changes. A minor filed change occurred when Foothill requested one large charger (125 kW instead of

62.5 kW) to charge a double-decker electric bus, which Proterra will soon deliver. The change was made

fairly late in the construction process, but SCE managed to accommodate it without any significant

delays in construction completion. Costs came in as expected within the original estimates.


Page 125

Victor Valley installed a self-contained EVSE unit with DC power and dispenser combined, while

Porterville and Foothill installed a control cabinet with remote dispensers. Foothill already had an on

route high-power overhead charger, in parallel with PRP installed an overhead gantry charging system at

the depot and is considering installation of solar generation onsite.

Costs

The approved PRP had an anticipated total cost of $3,978,000, consisting of $2,731,000 in capital and

$1,247,000 in expense. The PRP costs as of November 2019 totaled $1,325,869 (which may not include

all participant costs), as shown in Table 30, based on data available to SCE.

Table 30. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP costs as of November 2019



$ 120,992 N/A

Rebate amount paid 0 $ 900,000


N/A N/A


N/A N/A


$ 592,868 $ 939,575


$ 456,998 $ 1,647,425


Project management $ 96,742 $ 406,991

Customer outreach (labor)

N/A N/A


$ 58,268 N/A

Other program costs N/A $ 84,009

Total Cost $ 1,325,869 $ 3,978,000


Page 126

Site assessment, design, and permitting was budgeted under the customer-side capital expense for

make-ready infrastructure. The O&M non-labor and contract budget was budgeted under other

program costs.

Benefits

The program will help increase transit agencies’ adoption of electric commuter buses. A typical diesel-

powered commuter bus travels 36,000 miles per year at an average fuel economy of 4.8 miles per diesel

gallon. During this operation, the bus emits 2,000 g/mile of CO2, or roughly 80 MT per year, plus 0.4 MT

of NOx and 6.4 kg of PM from its tailpipe annually. Each new fully electric bus will reduce tailpipe GHG

and criteria pollutant emissions by 100% throughout its lifetime.

As a part of the application process, applicants were required to submit proof of any DAC routes that

they serve. Applicants with DACs routes and depots were prioritized in program participant selection. All

three program participants are located and have routes in DACs. Once the charging stations installed

through the program are in operation, SCE will survey participants about the percentage of routes

travelling through DACs and the number of electric miles served by buses that use these charging

stations.

Table 31. SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready PRP benefits


(20 ports/buses)


(30 ports & 31 buses)


Petroleum Reduction

150,000 diesel gallons per year

232,500 diesel gallons per year

TBD TBD

GHG Emissions 1,600 MT of CO2 per year

2,480 MT of CO2 per year

TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants

8 MT of NOx; 0.13 MT of PM

12 MT of NOx; 0.2 MT of PM

TBD TBD

DAC Impact Designed to maximize electric transit bus routes in DACS

Locations and routes in DACs for all three transit partners

TBD TBD


N/A N/A TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits

N/A N/A TBD TBD


Page 127


No significant electric transit bus operations with the SCE-supported make-ready for EV chargers under

this PRP were completed as of this interim report. This section will be completed for the final report

utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


No significant electric transit bus operations with the SCE-supported make-ready for EV chargers under

this PRP were completed as of this interim report, so this feedback could not be captured. Feedback

pertaining to the initial implementation of this PRP is captured in Section 0. This section will be

completed for the final report utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Findings

Without significant electric transit bus operations with the PRP installed chargers to date, it is too early

to determine this PRP’s success, which will be documented in the final report. However, some

preliminary findings, in addition to the lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below.

The make-ready construction planning, design, and execution went smoothly, with only a minor

field change order to add a higher power charger. Make-ready costs and construction durations

were within expected budget and timelines. The infrastructure installation process was similar

to the DCFC PRP, as very similar charging equipment is being used.

The program experienced a challenge in qualifying equipment proposed by the applicants.

Because of the rapidly changing nature of the transit bus EVSE market, some EVSE providers

could not meet the program technical requirements, such as the requirement that the

equipment be recognized by a NRTL.

This PRP provided the make-ready charging infrastructure capacity only for the number of EVSEs

to be immediately installed by the three transit customers. Future electrification plans were

discussed with the customers to understand their potential make-ready charging infrastructure

needs, but serving those potential future needs was not within the project scope and would

need to be addressed under SCE Charge Ready Transport or another future program, if

available.

Next Steps

A recommendation pertaining to this project’s potential for scaling-up and conditions under which it



Page 128

3.4 Urban DC Fast Charging Clusters



DCFC installations to date tend to support long-distance travel near highways. (Approximately 75% of

the DCFC stations in SCE’s territory are located within 0.5 miles of a major highway.) Many residential

customers do not have access to overnight off-street parking or home charging, and DCFC in urban areas

could help such a customer adopt an EV and quickly charge it near his or her home. Lack of overnight or

home charging is especially problematic for customers in multi-unit dwellings (MUDs), who could

benefit from this pilot. DCFC located in densely populated areas away from highway corridors could also

prove useful for EV drivers participating in rideshare programs.

Through the Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot, SCE will deploy and operate five DCFC sites, clustered in urban

areas. Each site may include up to five dual-port charging stations, for up to 50 DCFC ports total. SCE

intends to install, own, and maintain make-ready infrastructure (illustrated in Figure 54) at participating

customer sites. Participating customers will have the opportunity to select DCFC charging stations

qualified by SCE and receive a rebate to cover the base cost of charging stations deployed through the

pilot, including hardware and installation. Approved vendors include MaxGen (using ABB hardware and

Greenlots for networking), Greenlots (using one of several hardware options and the company’s

network), and ChargePoint (using its own hardware and network). Participating customers will be

required to provide public access to the charging stations deployed through the pilot but can determine

EV charging fees at their discretion.

Figure 54. SCE make-ready electrical infrastructure for the Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot

Source: SCE

The pilot will help determine whether urban DCFC charging stations provide a solution for customers

who do not have access to home charging. Over the course of five years, the pilot will collect customer

usage data to help develop future pilots and programs that address the EV charging needs of urban

communities. SCE intends to promote the pilot with potential participating customers, such as cities,

public parking lot operators, and EV service providers, and invite them to participate in this effort.


Page 129

The pilot requires participation in a demand response (DR) program and will track the DR event

participation levels. The DCFC charging stations can receive and execute real-time instructions to

throttle and/or modify the end-user pricing of EV charging load. Pilot participants will be incentivized to

participate in two types of DR events:

Load shift DR events, in which customers receive a discounted rate for charging during a time of

high solar generation and potential negative prices by shifting charging from early morning to

midday

Traditional DR events, in which customers receive incentives for consuming less energy during

peak times or during periods of steep ramping of energy demand on the grid

SCE is planning to monitor charging event details and load profiles for 12 months after installation, with

an additional three months for review and reporting.


Recruitment Process

For the Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot participants, SCE targeted non-residential customers that may meet

the pilot’s requirements. SCE’s business customer division reached out to these customers through low-

cost channels such as emails and other customer communications. SCE also solicited expertise and

proposals from EV service providers on potentially eligible sites. Non-solicited customers also had the

opportunity to apply to the pilot, which SCE promoted on its website. The website’s Charge Ready

landing page was one of the main resources for potential customers to learn about this pilot and submit

their applications. The landing page provided potential customers with a participation package and fact

sheet that explained the overall pilot and provided copies of the application, easement template, and

program agreement. Eligible site host customer requirements included the following:

Be a non-residential customer.

Own or lease the participating site, or be the customer of record associated with the premises

meter where the charging stations will be deployed.

Provide an agreement by the participating site’s owner granting SCE appropriate real property

rights and continuous access to the customer participant site infrastructure that is to be

installed, owned, and maintained by SCE.

Identify a site in or near (< 1.5 miles) a DAC with MUDs nearby.

Commit to and provide acceptable proof of qualified charging station purchase, and price paid,

prior to SCE deployment.

Agree to take service on an eligible TOU rate and participate in applicable DR program(s).

Agree to participate in the pilot for five years, including maintaining the charging stations in

working order.

Contract with a qualified EV charging network service provider to provide transactional data to

SCE.


Page 130

The pilot received 50 applications from 18 unique customers. To determine the most qualified

candidates for the pilot, SCE developed quantitative scoring criteria (up to 1.0 point for each of the

following for a maximum score of 4.0), based on 1) the site’s proximity to a DAC, 2) EV adoption in the

selected area, 3) population density, and 4) proximity to MUDs. Results from the initial selection process

to rank customers who applied to the pilot were as follows:

12%, or 6 sites, were located outside DAC areas and were not eligible to participate.

26%, or 13 sites, scored <3 and were deemed less than ideal to participate.

8%, or 4 sites, withdrew from the pilot.

54%, or 27 customers, met the scoring criteria.

Of the 27 customer sites passing the initial selection process, 16 customer sites were selected for the

feasibility analysis, which included preliminary engineering to determine feasibility of the site, develop

conceptual drawings, and estimate the project cost. To further narrow the list and identify the top five

sites to participate in the pilot, SCE performed a qualitative review of each site, examining (a) distance

from major freeways (further is better, as many DCFC charging stations are located along highways),

(b) site cost, (c) permitting requirement(s), (d) ease of construction, and (e) need for ADA requirements.

Participants

SCE selected five initial sites for participation in this PRP. All sites selected the 50–62.5 kW ChargePoint

DCFC (CPE 250) to install. As with SCE Charge Ready Pilot, the DCFC program had an approved product

list, and vendors could apply for inclusion on the list. The customers had to select an approved DCFC

charging station from the approved product list to participate in the program. The agreement requires

the site host to keep the charging stations operating for five years and submit charging session data to

SCE.

Two locations are shopping centers, and the other three are stand-alone businesses close to other

shopping centers and retail businesses. A total of 14 DCFCs were installed among these five locations.

SCE provided the infrastructure to the make-ready position. For the DCFC project, the make-ready is a

service disconnect adjacent to each EVSE power cabinet. The customer scope was installing the EVSE

and any required conduits/wiring/mounting fixtures and connecting to the energized service disconnect

provided by SCE.

Corona Sun Square, at 1380 West 6th Street in Corona, installed four 50 kW CPE 250 DCFCs. The Corona

Sun Square project utilized an existing transformer. The voltage of the existing transformer (208 V) was

not correct for selected DCFC installation; thus the EV infrastructure includes a 208 V to 480 V step-up

transformer. The charging fee, which is set by Corona Sun Square, was $0.50/kWh in December 2019.


Page 131

Figure 55. Map of area surrounding Corona Sun Square

Source: Google Maps

Nearby MUD neighborhoods include Meadowood Apartments, Las Casitas Apartments, Village Grove

Mobile Home, Lincoln Park Apartments, Summerwood Village Apartments, and Corona Del Rey

Apartments. Nearby retail outlets include Walmart Neighborhood Market, CVS, and several restaurants.


Page 132

Figure 56. Corona Sun Square DCFC installation


Global Partners in Koreatown Shopping Center, located at 8901 Garden Grove Boulevard in Garden

Grove, installed four 50 kW CPE 250 DCFCs from ChargePoint. The charging price is $0.25/kWh, as set by

Global Partnership, LLC.

The shopping center has 21 restaurants and retail shops, such as Paris Baguette, an international

premium bakery-café chain, and Kaju Soft Tofu, a Korean comfort food restaurant. Nearby MUD

neighborhoods include Meadowbrook Garden Apartments, Franciscan Garden Apartments, and Walden

Apartments. Nearby retail outlets include H Mart, an Asian grocery store, and several other restaurants.


Page 133

Figure 57. Map of area surrounding Global Partners in Garden Grove

Source: Google Maps

SCE held a plug-in ceremony on October 17, 2019, in the H Mart Shopping Center in Garden Grove.

Garden Grove Mayor Steven R. Jones, CNT Properties President Charles Lee, and Korean American

Chamber of Commerce of Orange County President Ho-El Park attended, in addition to SCE staff.


Page 134

Figure 58. Global Partners in Garden Grove

Source: SCE Press Release and PlugShare (bottom right)

AAA – Automobile Club of Southern California, at 1021 East Foothill Boulevard in Upland, installed two

50 kW DCFCs from ChargePoint (CPE 250). The AAA Upland site utilized the existing transformer

structure but required a new upsized transformer (300 kVA, from 12 kV to 208 V). The AAA intends to

make this site free for public use. As of the end of November 2019, the SCE scope for make-ready and

customer scope for EVSE installation had been completed; however, the station was not yet available for

use and did not show up on the EV charging apps.

Nearby neighborhoods include Upland Meadows mobile home park. Nearby retail outlets include King’s

Pharmacy and a few restaurants. A YMCA is located across the street.


Page 135

Figure 59. Map of area surrounding AAA in Upland

Source: Google Maps


Page 136

Figure 60. AAA DCFC installation in Upland


A second AAA – Automobile Club of Southern California location, at 18642 Gridley Road in Artesia,

installed two 50 kW DCFCs from ChargePoint (CPE 250). The AAA Artesia site required a new dedicated

transformer and structure. According to SCE, AAA intends to make this site free for public use, as with

the Upland location. As of the end of November 2019, the SCE scope for make-ready and customer

scope for EVSE installation had been completed; however, the station did not yet appear to be available

for use on the EV charging apps. There are nearby MUD complexes on 186th Street and a large mall

across the street, with several restaurants in the area.


Page 137

Figure 61. Map of area surrounding AAA in Artesia

Source: Google Maps

Figure 62. AAA site in Artesia where 2 DCFCs were installed

Source: Google Maps

A 7-Eleven convenience store at 806 Indian Hill Boulevard in Pomona installed two Charge Point Express

62.5 kW 250 DCFCs with a 1,000 V pairing kit, allowing for charging up to 125 kW when only one vehicle

is connected. The charging stations are the very first to be owned, operated, and branded by 7-Eleven.

The charging costs are set by the 7-Eleven for energy use and range from $0.24/kW to $0.40/kW.

Nearby MUD neighborhoods include Pama Management, Keystone Court Apartments, Vista del Cielo

Apartments, and San Antonio Vista Apartments. Several restaurants are nearby.


Page 138

Figure 63. Map of area surrounding 7-Eleven in Pomona

Source: Google Maps

7-Eleven and SCE held a plug-in ceremony on November 21, 2019, to celebrate the project’s completion.

The event was attended by Pomona Mayor Tim Sandoval, Pomona Chamber of Commerce’s Monique

Manzanares, Pomona Councilwoman Elizabeth Ontiveros-Cole, and Pomona Mayor Pro Tem Victor

Preciado, in addition to 7-Eleven and SCE staff.


Page 139

Figure 64. Plug-in ceremony at 7-Eleven in Pomona with 7-Eleven branded charger

Source: SCE News Release

Figure 65. 7-Eleven DCFC installation in Pomona


Timeline and Status

SCE estimated that planning and implementation (enrollment and deployment) for the Urban DCFC

Clusters Pilot would require approximately 12 months. Data collection will require 12 additional months

at each site, with 3 more months for review and reporting. SCE launched the Charge Ready Program on

June 29, 2018. The application and selection period was completed by November 2018. All five site


Page 140

assessments were executed by February 2018. The design and permitting phase began after each site

host provided proof of EVSE procurement. The design phase followed SCE’s design standard review

process, which allowed participants the opportunity to review the 50% design and the 100% design for

approval. After the final design was reviewed and approved by the pilot participant, SCE submitted the

design to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for review and permitting. SCE also submitted the

easement agreement to each pilot participant for execution prior to starting construction. Obtaining

design approval and securing permits took 3–4 months for these five sites; some site construction began

in June 2019. SCE’s construction phase took six weeks or less per site. The customers and their

contractors began EVSE installation after SCE completed the make-ready infrastructure and released the

site. The first location was energized in October, and all five were operational by early December.

Pending any issues, nearly 12 months of operational use will be analyzed for the final evaluation.

Figure 66. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP timeline

Source: SCE



In addition to the evaluation questions that apply to all PRPs and those specific to the Public Access

Station PRPs, the evaluation questions listed below will be examined for this PRP.

• Does the rebate cover all eligible costs?

• Did applicants who were not selected continue with EVSE installation?

• Are utilization patterns different in the urban setting from those for highway installations?

• Did some sites perform better than others, and what was the reasoning for any differences?

• Did the sites’ participation in DR benefit the utility? Did it negatively affect the customers?

The sources for data collection used to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP information from the approved

decision, project updates, site visits, and other available documentation, 2) market research on DCFCs


from charger operations, 4) IDIs with project partners, and 5) surveys with vehicle drivers.


Page 141

Data Sources

Some PRP information has been collected through numerous PRP participant interactions: PRP kick-off


site visits, and other periodic calls or emails. Currently the evaluation team has selected locations,

charging station hardware specifications, and some site pictures for each site. Over the next few

months, the evaluator expects to receive additional information on project costs, station characteristics,

site layout, electricity tariff details, and program selection details.


SDG&E: Electrify Local Highways PRP

National Renewable Energy Laboratory/Idaho National Laboratory/Argonne National

Laboratory: Analysis of Fast Charging Station Network for Electrified Ride-Hailing Services (2018)

Idaho National Laboratory: What were the Cost Drivers for the Direct Current Fast Charging

Installations? (2015)

Idaho National Laboratory: Considerations for Corridor and Community DC Fast Charging

Complex System Design (2017)

Center for Sustainable Energy: California Air Resources Board Clean Vehicle Rebate Project,

Rebate Map (2019)

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation: Electric Vehicle DC Fast Charging on Vermont Highway

Corridors (2017)

Expected PRP operational data sources for this project include utility service meter 15-minute interval

data, charging station session data, monthly facility electricity bills, parking lot occupancy rates, and

maintenance records. The evaluator plans to facilitate IDIs with the SCE construction team, SCE project

manager, participating host sites, and vendors during the upcoming year. A survey may also be

facilitated with EV drivers that charge at the PRP DCFC locations. SCE was directed by the decision

approving the PRPs to work with the evaluator to develop a survey on whether DCFC clusters support EV

adoption for MUD residents and those without access to home charging. SCE and evaluator have

engaged in early discussions about the survey plans. Any survey results will be included in the final

evaluation report.


Project Baseline

Since the initial 2016 ZEV Action Plan was announced, Governor Brown has raised the bar, increasing the

target number of ZEVs on the road and public EVSE across the state with the 2018 update. Adding to the

initial goal of 1.5 million ZEVs registered, the 2018 update sets an additional target of reaching 5 million

total ZEVs by 2030. This even more ambitious goal will likely require more public EVSEs to be brought


Page 142

online than the original target of 250,000 public stations by 2025. Of the total EVSE goal, at least 10,000

are to be DCFC.36

Since 2016, ZEV sales have continued to increase. In 2018, ZEV sales reached about 8% of the total market

share, or about 410,000 vehicles. Early reporting for 2019 totals shows total ZEV registration up to

655,000.37 To reach the 2030 vehicle goals, however, ZEV sales will need to reach 40% of the market share.

There are an estimated 18,000 public chargers (Level 2 and DCFC), averaging about 225 Level 2 stations

installed and 90 DCFCs installed per month. At the start of 2019, DCFCs made up about 15% of the total

public EVSE and were a quarter of the way to reaching the 2025 goal of 10,000 chargers.38


SCE originally planned for up to five dual-port DCFCs at each site (up to a total of 50 ports); however,

most of the applications asked for two or four ports because of the reluctance to lose parking spots. To

electrify two ports, site hosts may need to give up three or four existing parking spots (since one spot

must be ADA compliant). Retail customers requested only two ports, as they were unable or unwilling to

allocate more than two or three parking stalls for the pilot. Customers that owned or managed the

property were able to allocate more stalls but still typically requested only four ports. In future projects

with similar target audiences, SCE should consider targeting a total number of ports for the program

without defining the number of sites. This will allow the program flexibility to maximize the budget and

support increased adoption with more sites and the potential for higher port count.

Another issue SCE discovered along the way was that since many of the applicants were tenants, SCE

needed to work with the property owner to obtain an easement to install the make-ready infrastructure

and maintain the equipment and service line. This added an additional step in securing the agreements,

if all went well. Some customers were not able to obtain the necessary approval from the property owners

or property managers for their sites to participate in the pilot. Three sites withdrew from the pilot during

the agreement stage because the property owners refused to sign the pilot agreement and were unwilling

to provide the required easements. For similar future efforts, SCE should consider doing additional

outreach to target property owners and property management companies of retail shopping centers. By

targeting both property owners/management and retail businesses, SCE would likely see fewer

rejections for qualified sites and an increase in adoption and higher numbers of ports at these locations.

A senior director of Energy, Engineering and Store Planning for the 7-Eleven convenience store giant

provided a testimony of successful customer partnership: “Our collaboration with SCE through Charge

36 Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles, 2018 Zev Action Plan Priorities Update,

http://www.business.ca.gov/Portals/0/ZEV/2018-ZEV-Action-Plan-Priorities-Update.pdf. 37 Rob Nikolewski, “California electric vehicle sales are up,” LA Times, December 1, 2019,

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-01/electric-vehicle-sales-in-california-on-the-rise-but-is-it-

enough-to-reach-the-5-million-goal-by-2030. 38 CEC, ZEV Tracking Progress, December 18, 2018, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-

05/electric_vehicle.pdf.


Page 143

Ready is a win–win for everyone. Fast chargers mean added convenience for EV drivers who visit our

store and cleaner air for the surrounding community.”39

According to the SCE construction manager, there were no surprises during the design and construction

phases beyond the minor field changes that are normal for construction scope. Construction costs were

within expected budget, and SCE construction of all sites was completed in six weeks or less. Upon

accounting for all PRP costs, the SCE construction team will prepare a list of lessons learned that will be

reviewed and summarized in the final evaluation report.

Costs

The approved PRP had an anticipated total cost of $3,980,000, consisting of $3,788,000 in capital and

$192,000 in expense. The PRP costs as of November 2019 totaled $865,413 (which may not include all

participant costs), as shown in Table 32, based on data available to SCE.

Table 32. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP Costs as of November 2019



$ 181,086 N/A

Rebate amount paid $ 0 $ 1,495,000


N/A N/A


N/A N/A


$ 214,854 $ 525,625


$ 334,808 $ 1,489,016

Other construction costs

N/A N/A

39 Paul Griffo, “EV Drivers Can Now Get a Fast Charge With a Slurpee at Pomona 7-Eleven,” Energized by Edison,

November 21, 2019, https://energized.edison.com/stories/ev-drivers-can-now-get-a-fast-charge-with-a-slurpee-

at-pomona-7-eleven


Page 144



Customer outreach (labor)

$ 0 N/A


$ 8,627 N/A

Other program costs N/A $ 74,833

Total Cost $ 865,413 $ 3,980,000

Site assessment, design, and permitting was budgeted under the customer-side capital expense for make-

ready infrastructure. O&M non-labor and contract budget was budgeted under other program costs.

Two sites are located in a DAC (one is adjacent to a DAC), resulting in 39% ($274,000) of the reported

capital costs to date spent in DACs.

Customers are responsible for the cost to acquire, install, and maintain the EVSE, including energy cost

and network communications for up to five years. The pilot provided a rebate to offset the base cost of

the EVSE and installation only. Customers set the rate that drivers pay to use the charging stations.

The total amount of rebate that will be paid to each customer will be based on the model, type, size, and

number of EVSE ports the customer selects. Customers will receive a rebate after SCE installs and inspects

the EVSE and the customer provides the required documentation for cost verification. The EVSE and

installation base cost for the five sites is $521,970, amounting to a rebate of approximately $37,000 per DCFC

port including installation based on 14 ports installed. No rebates have been paid to the customers yet.

Benefits

The pilot provides new charging options in certain urban areas for EV drivers, while requiring

participation in a DR program to limit grid impacts. DR is a preferred resource for meeting new

generation capacity demand in California under the state’s Energy Action Plans. The pilot also offers

potential environmental benefits. The pilot aims to increase EV adoption, which potentially increases

alternative fuels, improves air quality, and reduces GHG emissions.

Table 33. SCE Urban DCFC Clusters PRP benefits


(up to 50 DCFC ports)


(14 DCFC ports)


Petroleum Reduction

N/A N/A TBD TBD


Page 145


(up to 50 DCFC ports)


(14 DCFC ports)


GHG Emissions N/A N/A TBD TBD

Criteria Pollutants

N/A N/A TBD TBD

DAC Impact N/A 3 sites in a DAC, 2 within 1.5 miles of a DAC

TBD TBD


N/A N/A TBD TBD

Other Co-Benefits

N/A N/A TBD TBD


No EV charging under this PRP was provided as of this interim report. This section will be completed for

the final report, utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


No EV charging under this PRP was provided as of this interim report, so this feedback could not be

captured. Feedback pertaining to initial project implementation is captured in Section 0. This section will

be completed for the final report, utilizing all information and data obtained before November 2020.


Findings

With no EV charging under this PRP being provided to date, it is too early to determine this PRP’s


to the lessons learned shared previously, are mentioned below.

The make-ready construction planning, design, and execution seem to have gone smoothly.

Make-ready costs and construction durations were within expected budget and timelines. With

the exception of higher power levels for DCFCs, the infrastructure installation process was

similar to the Charge Ready Pilot with which SCE has much experience based on more than

1,000 installed ports.


Page 146

Next Steps

A recommendation pertaining to this project’s potential for scaling up and conditions under which it


3.5 Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program



SCE staff designed the Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program (CRHIRP) to help new EV drivers

offset the electrical and permitting costs of installing an alternating current L2 home EVSE (commonly

referred to as a “charging station”). Eligible electrical costs included the installation of a new 240 V

circuit and breaker, along with a new or upgraded electrical panel if needed, but excluded the cost of

the L2 charging station itself.

Staff identified a lack of access to reliable daily charging stations as a key barrier to EV adoption.40 By

lowering the cost of installing L2 home charging stations, the CRHIRP should encourage more residential

customers to purchase EVs. Staff also sought to learn about L2 home charging needs, costs associated

with home EV infrastructure upgrades, customer behavior after installing L2 home charging, and

customer satisfaction with residential TOU rates.

Through the CRHIRP, SCE offered two levels of rebates to eligible customers. To be eligible for either

rebate, customers had to be California-registered EV drivers who purchased or leased an EV listed on

the HOV Eligibility List41 within six months prior to submitting their rebate applications. In addition,

customers had to have a dedicated parking space for the vehicle. Finally, for either rebate, customers

had to provide copies of all required permits obtained and receipts for the installation of the charging

station by an electrical contractor with a C-10 license or licensed electrician. Finally, each customer had

to agree that SCE may complete random spot checks at the customer residence to confirm that the work

was performed.

Once eligible, SCE customers could apply for one of two rebates:

$500 for customers who enrolled in SCE’s whole-home TOU program.

$1,500 for customers who installed a meter specifically for the EV charging station to participate

in SCE’s TOU-EV-1 rate (applied only to the EV charging) for at least 24 months.

SCE contracted with a third-party administrator, the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE, or the Center),

to manage application processing, rebate distribution, major marketing activities, customer support, and

40 “Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Pilot 2018 Interim Report.” Issued January 31, 2019, by Anna Valdberg

and Andrea L. Tozer, attorneys for Southern California Edison Company. 41 The HOV Eligibility List can be found on https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/carpool-stickers. Note: electric bikes,

motorcycles, scooters, and neighborhood vehicles are not eligible for the rebate.


Page 147

an online application portal. CSE provided regular updates to SCE (weekly during the launch and

beginning of the program, then biweekly thereafter) regarding program participation statistics

throughout the PRP duration (May 2018–May 2019).

Participation

Recruitment Process

Because CSE also manages the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP),42 staff easily cross-promoted

CRHIRP to CVRP participants who opted in to receive more information about EV rebates. Each of these

opt-in CVRP participants received at least one email about the CRHIRP. Over the course of the CRHIRP

period, 57% (26,709 out of 45,697)43 of opt-in CVRP participants opened these emails, and 676

submitted rebate applications. The Center considered the email outreach to be the single most

successful recruitment process for the CRHIRP.

As another primary CRHIRP marketing strategy, CSE staff set up information booths at local events

within SCE territory where potential EV owners were likely to attend. These events included auto shows,

home improvement shows, large community events or festivals, and Earth Day events. In particular, the

Center prioritized events that would have attendance by a higher proportion of residents living in DACs.

At each of these events, CSE staff held conversations with individuals in English and Spanish and

distributed program materials. By the end of the program period, CSE marketed at 71 events, 56% (40

out of 71) of which were in DACs.

In addition to managing the direct email outreach to CVRP participants and attending local events, CSE

also conducted outreach to electricians, labor unions, car dealerships, automakers, and DAC property

managers. Outreach also included focused targeting of car dealerships within DACs. Overall, CSE staff

found these initiatives to be less effective. CSE staff also reported that DAC property managers indicated

that their residents had higher-priority concerns than EV adoption.

Finally, SCE completed some minor outreach through its general marketing efforts to promote EV

adoption and installation of home charging stations.

Participants

In total, SCE received 4,128 applications over the course of the program period. The applications for the

increased $1,500 rebate closed on February 28, 2019, because SCE discontinued the TOU-EV-1 rate.

Participants already enrolled in the rate will continue to be enrolled for the duration of their agreements

(24 months). CSE approved 2,670 of those applications, providing a 65% approval rate. A total of 17%

(713 out of 4,128) of the applications were considered ineligible, and 18% (745 of 4,128) were cancelled

by customers.44 Applicants reported average permit costs of $191 and average installation costs of

42 The CVRP allows California residents to receive up to $7,000 for the purchase or lease of a new eligible zero-

emission or plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicle (https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng). 43 Source: CSE Marketing tracking data. 44 Metrics are as of August 30, 2019.


Page 148

$1,190. Other application deals—including DAC status, resident type, and EV make—are presented in

Figure 67 below.

Figure 67. Participant and application data

Source: CSE Final Dashboard (Application) Data. Percentages do not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Timeline and Status

The CPUC approved the CRHIRP in January 2018. In March 2018, SCE contracted with CSE to develop the

marketing plan, application processing operations, website, and online application portal. The online

application portal opened to the public on May 30, 2018, and the pilot accepted applications through

May 29, 2019. As of November 2019, the program was still waiting to wrap up while the final participant

checks were cashed.



In addition to the evaluation questions that apply to all PRPs and those specific to the Education and

Outreach PRPs, the evaluation questions listed below will be examined for this PRP.

• Are customers aware of permitting requirements?

• At what stages do customers drop out, and what causes customer attrition during the

application process?


Page 149

The data collection sources utilized to evaluate this PRP include 1) PRP documents and application

dashboard data, 2) SCE and implementer interviews, and 3) the SCE participant survey.

Data Sources

The evaluator collected PRP information through numerous interactions, including the PRP kick-off

meeting, quarterly PAC update meetings, and other periodic calls or emails. In addition, the evaluation

team examined the following data sources: application dashboard data (e.g., days accrued between

steps taken in the application process and the number of applicants at each stage), presentations and

interim reports, marketing activities executed by the third-party administrator, and the SCE participant

survey results.

The evaluator also conducted IDIs with representatives from the SCE PRP management team and the

implementer to further understand the background on this project, identify roles and responsibilities,

assess stakeholder (SCE and implementer) experience in program delivery, and gather lessons learned.


The evaluation findings presented in this interim report are based on the SCE and CSE staff interviews, SCE administered participant survey, and program document and data review. 


To execute the program, CSE managed the marketing, application, and rebate distribution processes

with SCE assistance and oversight. CSE created the program webpage and custom online application.

The Center also processed the submitted applications and verified that all eligibility requirements were

met before issuing the rebate check. If an applicant failed to provide any information, CSE staff followed

up to notify the applicant about what was missing and to offer help, if needed.

CSE provided biweekly status updates to keep SCE up to date on the program’s progress. To provide

transparent data to SCE, CSE staff members developed the program’s online dashboard, which delivered

key information to SCE. SCE staff could access the dashboard on demand to view details about the

number of applications at each stage (e.g., approved, check sent, canceled), average processing times,

residence types, percentage of DAC participants, and types of vehicles.

Overall, CSE staff indicated that program implementation went well. However, extensive application

requirements caused delays throughout the implementation process. SCE considered all application

requirements necessary to ensure participant safety and legality during the installation of the L2

charging stations. However, SCE staff recognized that the six-month time limit to submit an application

following an EV purchase or lease may have limited the number of eligible participants, given that an

individual may need more time to determine whether he or she needs or wants a home charging

station.

The application required six to nine separate documents (depending on applicable requirements such as

Homeowners’ Association (HOA) approval), with specific details for each kind of document. For example,

the invoice from the electrician had to have the C-10 license number listed. This delayed applications for

some applicants who had to request new invoices from their electricians. Similar problems arose for


Page 150

individuals who did not need permission from their HOA or housing jurisdiction to install the charger but

were still required to provide formal documentation of HOA exemption. Occasionally, an applicant had

charging station costs embedded in the price of the vehicle and was unable to provide a separate receipt

for the cost of the charging station. SCE staff noted that these application requirements may have also

contributed to the program’s higher-than-expected drop-out rate (18%, 745 out of 4,128). Anecdotally,

CSE and SCE staff reported receiving feedback from customers who chose not to participate because

they did not use C-10 licensed electricians or did not have the proper permits.

Additionally, the application required that customers enroll in an active TOU rate plan. This meant that a

participant could not complete the application until his or her bill reflected the TOU rate. The delayed

application submission combined with some SCE processing staff limitations (including waiting for the

TOU rate to be in effect) to cause a one- to two-month delay in application approval.

Costs

Comparison of Actual and Forecast Costs

The approved PRP had an anticipated total cost of $3,999,000, consisting of $79,000 in capital and

$3,920,000 in expense. The PRP costs as of November 2019 totaled $2,113,420 (which may not include

all participant costs), as shown in Table 34, based on data available to SCE. The outreach and education

materials category includes O&M non-labor and third-party administrator contract cost.

Table 34. SCE Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate program PRP costs as of November 2019


Site assessment, design, and permitting N/A N/A

Rebate amount paid $ 1,399,533 $ 2,880,000

EVSE procurement (Subject to change) N/A N/A

EVSE installation (Subject to change) N/A N/A

Make-ready infrastructure (utility side) N/A N/A

Make-ready infrastructure (customer side) N/A N/A




Outreach and education materials $ 608,034 $ 856,932


Total Cost $ 2,196,106 $ 3,999,000


Page 151


Addressing Customer Barriers to Electrification

SCE and CSE staff reported that the program was successful at overcoming the cost barrier for installing

charging infrastructure. Two data sources support their statement. In the rebate application, 70% (2,661

out of 3,785) of all applicants who answered the question indicated that the rebate had an influence on

their decision to purchase an EV.45 In the survey, 44% (474 out of 1,072) of respondents indicated the

rebate was important to their decision to purchase an EV. (Note the different population and different

wording and see Figure 68 for the survey question results.)

Figure 68. Rebate influence on EV purchase

Source: Participant Survey Question 6: “How much did this rebate influence you to purchase an electric vehicle?”

(n= 1,072)

Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of the statistics provided in this section refer to responses from

the participant surveys. A total of 93% of survey respondents (998 out of 1,071) indicated that the

program had at least some influence over their decision to install an L2 home charging station (Figure 69).

Figure 69. Rebate influence on L2 charger purchase

Source: Participant Survey Question 7: “How much did this rebate influence you to install an L2 home charging

station?” (n=1,071)

45 As noted above, the applicants include successful rebate recipients, dropouts, and ineligible customers.

14%

42%

26%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not at all

Was nice to have but only helped a little bit in my EVpurchase decision

Helped a fair amount to convince me to purchase an EV

Was very important in my EV purchase decision

Percentage of Survey Respondents

7%

21%

32%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not at all

Was nice to have but only helped a little bit in my EVpurchase decision

Helped a fair amount to convince me to purchase andEV

Was very important in my EV purchase decision



Page 152

Perceived Net Impacts

As shown in Figure 70, survey respondents commonly reported that they replaced an existing gasoline

vehicle (71%, 627 out of 877) or added an EV to the household (19%, 164 out of 877), which reduces the

number of miles they drive in their other vehicle(s) fueled by gasoline. Three of the eight survey

respondents who answered Other to this question already had at least one EV and were adding another.

Figure 70. EV purchase description

Source: Participant Survey Question 26: “Which of the following best describes your EV purchase?” (n=877)

Many survey respondents reported that they always take their EVs on local (58%, 494 out of 852) or

long-distance (41%, 348 out of 858) trips that they would have previously taken in their gasoline

vehicles. In addition, customers indicated to SCE and CSE staff that increased flexibility and convenience

in charging (being able to charge at home with the L2 charging station) has allowed them to use their

EVs more often. However, as shown in Figure 71, many survey respondents also indicated they used EVs

for local or long-distance trips that they previously would have taken using another mode of transportation,

such as walking, biking, public transit, carpool, or flying, which may have either a positive or negative

emissions impact.

Figure 71. EV influence on travel behaviors

Source: Participant Survey Question 27: “How often are the following statements true about your household

travel?”

1%

3%

6%

19%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other (please specify)

Adds a vehicle to my household, and is my onlyvehicle

Replaces an existing EV owned within my household

Adds a vehicle to my household, and reduces theamount of miles I drive my other gasoline vehicle(s)

Replaces an existing gasoline vehicle owned within myhousehold


15%

17%

41%

58%

12%

15%

30%

29%

6%

8%

12%

5%

14%

18%

15%

6%

52%

43%

3%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

We would have taken the local trips (<40 miles) someother way (e.g. transit, bike, walk, carpool) that we now

take in our EV (n=828)

We take long distance (>40 miles) trips in our EV thatwe would previously have taken some other way (e.g.

transit, carpool, inter-city rail, fly) (n=833)

We take long distance (>40 miles) trips in our EV thatwe would previously have taken in a gasoline vehicle

(n=858)

We would have taken the local trips (<40 miles) in agasoline vehicle that we now take in our EV (n=852)

Never Some of the time Half of the time Most of the time Always


Page 153

Installing an L2 charging station can affect a customer’s charging and driving habits. Because the

program requires the applicant to enroll in a TOU rate, charging timing and cost can also change. Most

survey respondents (57%, 520 out of 911) strongly believed that enrolling in the TOU rate allowed them

to charge their EVs for less than under their old non-TOU rate. Additionally, survey respondents

reported that they pay attention to the TOU period (peak versus off-peak) when they charge their EVs

(94%, 803 out of 926; Figure 72).

Figure 72. Charging and cost changes from TOU rate

Source: Participant Survey Question 11: “Please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about the Time-of-Use (TOU) rate you are on.”

Most survey respondents reported taking an increased number of trips in their EVs after installing their

L2 charging stations (52%, 447 out of 862). Of those who increased the number of trips, most added one

to five additional EV trips (70%, 283 out of 405) per week (Figure 73).46,47

46 Though this question was only asked to individuals who indicated they take additional trips in their EVs, when

asked to specify, 25 (6%, 25 out of 430) indicated they take zero additional trips. These individuals have been

excluded from the total numbers and percentages in the text above. 47 Six individuals noted that they take more than 60 additional trips per week. The evaluation team hypothesizes

these individuals could be drivers for ride-share services.

17% 19%

7%

57%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The TOU rate allows me to charge my EV cheaper than myold (non-TOU) rate (n=911)

I pay attention to what Time-of-Use period (i.e. Peak vs.Off-Peak) it is when I charge my vehicle (n=926)

Disagree Strongly - 1 2 3 4 Agree Strongly - 5


Page 154

Figure 73. Number of additional trips per week

Source: Participant Survey Question 31: “How many additional trips in your electric vehicle per week do you take

now? Please enter a numerical response.” (n=405)

Perceived Co-Benefits

SCE staff, CSE staff, and survey respondents all recognized that the program promoted several co-

benefits, such as lowering the cost of installing a charging station, imparting education about at-home

charging, and providing the convenience of charging at home.

Within the application, applicants were asked to identify one factor that described why they acquired

EVs. Figure 74 shows that most applicants wanted to save money on fuel costs (32%, 1,278 out of 3,995)

or decrease their environmental impacts (29%, 1,159 out of 3,995). Note that this statistic is associated

with the overall applicant pool, rather than the survey respondents.

Figure 74. Motivation for Purchasing an EV

Source: Application Data (n=3,995)

70%

12%4%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 to 5 10 to 15 20 to 30 60+

Perc

enta

ge o

f S

urv

ey

Resp

ondents

Number of Additional Trips per Week

2%

3%

3%

7%

8%

17%

29%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Convenience of charging

Energy independence

Vehicle performance

Carpool lane access

Driving new technology

Saving money overall

Environmental impact

Saving money on fuel costs

Percentage of Applicants


Page 155

Survey respondents reported the benefits they experienced from a list of seven co-benefits that could

result from purchasing an EV (Figure 75). Most survey respondents experienced six of the seven:

decreased fuel costs (91%, 806 out of 882), smoother driving with no gear shifts (80%, 708 out of 882),

faster acceleration from stop (79%, 695 out of 882), decreased vehicle maintenance costs (78%, 692 out

of 882), decreased vehicle-related noise (78%, 684 out of 882), and increased ride-share lane access

(65%, 577 out of 882). “Other” reported benefits included increased safety or advanced technology

features (19 survey respondents), better overall driving experience (17 survey respondents), creating

less pollution/having a positive environmental impact (16 survey respondents), and fewer trips to gas

stations (9 survey respondents).

Figure 75. Benefits experienced as a result of EV purchase

Source: Participant Survey Question 28: “Have you experienced any of the following as a result of purchasing your

electric vehicle?” (n=882, multiple responses allowed)

In addition to participant co-benefits, SCE staff designed the program to prioritize benefits to individuals

living in DACs. The PRP had a goal of 50% of the rebate funds going toward applicants in DACs. To

achieve this, CSE staff prioritized DAC marketing tactics, including attending events with English- and

Spanish-speaking staff and talking to businesses, property managers, and contractors within DACs.

Despite these efforts, only 7% (278 of 4,128) of all applications came from individuals living in DACs. SCE

and CSE staff found that many individuals within DACs live in MUDs. These individuals often do not have

dedicated parking spaces or may not pay their electric bills directly, both of which were requirements

for rebate eligibility. Additionally, CSE staff received feedback from DAC property managers indicating

that “residents have bigger problems than EVs.”

Stakeholder Experience

CSE staff expressed an overall positive experience working with SCE staff. Additionally, Center staff

appreciated that SCE was open and receptive to feedback and solicited input, as appropriate,

throughout the program period.

However, in their final lessons learned memo, CSE staff identified some program challenges, such as

difficulty transitioning applicants to the TOU rate, especially the TOU-EV-1 rate, which was discontinued

7%

48%

65%

78%

78%

79%

80%

91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Free parking/charging

Increased ride-share (HOV) lane access

Decreased vehicle related noise

Decreased vehicle maintenance costs

Faster acceleration from stop

Smoother driving with no gear shirts

Decreased cost of fueling your vehicle



Page 156

in the middle of the program. CSE reported that it was difficult to provide customers with accurate

status updates regarding their TOU rates because the Center did not have a specific point of contact at

SCE for such questions and because the Center did not have direct access to customer data. Additionally,

CSE indicated that information relayed to customers about the program’s timeline and requirements

was sometimes “lost in translation” with the SCE customer call center. In an attempt to minimize the

impact of this “translation” issue, SCE staff instructed customer call center employees to refer

customers inquiring about application requirements directly to CSE.

Customer Program Experience

Overall, from the perspectives of CSE and SCE staff, as well as from the survey respondents themselves,

customers were generally satisfied with the program. However, CSE staff reported that the permitting

process often confused applicants. Requirements from cities and towns could be unclear, and CSE had

limited resources to help assist applicants from all the numerous jurisdictions. Additionally, issues with

inconsistent invoicing and receipts from car dealerships and electricians, permission inquiries to HOAs,

and lag time for TOU rates to go into effect made it difficult for applicants to complete their applications

in a timely manner. It should be noted, however, that most of the applicants with whom CSE staff

directly interacted were more likely to be the ones with problems because those were the applicants

reaching out to CSE for assistance.

Survey respondents answered several questions about their satisfaction with the program and individual

components of the program on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Most survey respondents reported

having a positive experience with the program overall (92%, 1,030 out of 1,128). A small minority of the

dissatisfied respondents cited specific drivers of their dissatisfaction, the most common being the

complexity of the application process (14 survey respondents). Other issues stemmed from customer

service (8 survey respondents), lengthy rebate delivery time (5 survey respondents), length of time to

switch to the TOU (2 survey respondents), and an increase in the electricity bill since the start of

program participation (1 survey respondent).

Within the application process, most survey respondents had an excellent experience creating an

account (69%, 738 out of 1,072), filling out the application with personal information (66%, 695 out of

1,060), uploading documents for the application (57%, 614 out of 1,070), and the overall application

experience (57%, 612 out of 1,068) (see Figure 76).

Figure 76. Participant experience with application

Source: Participant Survey Question 2: “How would you rate the following aspects of applying for the rebate?”

8%

11%

7%

6%

32%

26%

26%

24%

57%

57%

66%

69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall application experience (n=1068)

Uploading documents for the application (n=1070)

Filling out the application personal information(n=1060)

Creating an account (n=1072)

Poor - 1 2 3 4 Excellent - 5


Page 157

The majority of survey respondents also found most aspects of their electrical upgrade contractor

experience to be excellent: timeliness of the upgrade work (67%, 686 out of 1,020), competence of the

contractor (65%, 667 out of 1,026), and overall contractor experience (59%, 601 out of 1,022); however,

respondents did identify some room for improvement with price (Figure 77).

Figure 77. Participant experience with contractor

Source: Participant Survey Question 3: “How would you rate the following aspects of your electrical upgrade

contractor experience?”

In addition, survey respondents reported as excellent the amount of the rebate (49%, 530 out of 1,086)

and the timeliness of receiving the rebate (37%, 398 out of 1,082). Overall, almost half of survey

respondents (49%, 523 out of 1,079) had an excellent rebate experience (see Figure 78).

Figure 78. Participant experience with rebate

Source: Participant Survey Question 4: “How would you rate the following aspects of the rebate itself?”

More than half the survey respondents found all aspects of the communication process to be excellent:

accuracy of communications (60%, 617 out of 1,022), timeliness of communications (55%, 564 out of

1,026), amount of communications (53%, 550 out of 1,029), and the overall communications experience

(57%, 576 out of 1,014) (see Figure 79). Additionally, the majority of survey respondents had excellent

experiences with SCE’s customer service (60%, 353 out of 588).

7%

8%

21%

8%

7%

31%

32%

25%

24%

59%

39%

65%

67%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall contractor experience (n=1022)

Price of the upgrades (n=1026)

Competence of the contractor (n=1026)

Timeliness of the upgrade work (n=1020)


6% 9%

12%

18%

16%

36%

30%

29%

49%

37%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall rebate experience (n=1079)

Timeliness of receiving the rebate (n=1082)

Amount of the rebate (n=1086)



Page 158

Figure 79. Participant experience with communications

Source: Participant Survey Question 5: “How would you rate the communications throughout the process?”

Most survey respondents transitioned to the TOU rate as a part of the application process. Of those that

did transition, 51% (411 out of 813) had excellent experiences with the ease of transition and the

accuracy of billing after the transition (50%, 403 out of 810). Many survey respondents also had

excellent experiences with the timeliness of the transition (48%, 382 out of 804) and the overall

transition experience (47%, 381 out of 814) (see Figure 80). Overall, survey respondents reported being

satisfied with their TOU rates, with 62% (601 out of 967) providing a rating of 8 or higher on a scale of 1

(extremely dissatisfied) to 10 (extremely satisfied) (see Figure 81).

Figure 80. Participant experience with TOU transition

Source: Participant Survey Question 14: “How would you rate the following aspects of the transition to a Time-of-

Use rate (TOU) as part of the rebate process?”

11%

13%

13%

10%

28%

29%

27%

26%

57%

53%

55%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall communications experience (n=1014)

Amount of communications (n=1029)

Timeliness of communications (n=1026)

Accuracy of communications (n=1022)


6%

5%

13%

14%

13%

14%

31%

29%

28%

28%

47%

48%

50%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall transition experience (n=814)

Timeliness of the transition (n=804)

Accuracy of the billing since the transition (n=810)

Ease of the transition (n=813)



Page 159

Figure 81. Overall participant satisfaction with TOU rate

Source: Participant Survey Question 15: “Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the Time-of-Use rate

plan your household is on?”

Finally, most survey respondents reported that it was easy to find a qualified electrician to install the

charging station (70%, 638 out of 908) and complete the permitting process (58%, 524 out of 901).

However, when asked what SCE could do to help address their difficulties with these aspects of the

program, 30% (65 out of 218) of survey respondents complained that city permitting is an arduous,

expensive process that is not always necessary when work is done by a licensed electrician, and they

requested relaxed permitting requirements. A total of 14% (30 out of 218) of survey respondents

indicated that providing a preferred list of contractors by area would have been helpful when they were

looking for trustworthy electricians. Finally, some individuals with HOAs would like to see more flexible

HOA requirements (14%, 31 out of 218). CSE staff and eight survey respondents noted that HOAs were

often confused by survey respondents’ requests because charging stations were installed inside garages,

where HOAs typically do not have jurisdiction. Some survey respondents provided feedback on other

aspects of the program, such as providing better program communication (12%, 27 out of 218), improving

the TOU rate (11%, 25 out of 218), increasing the amount of the rebate (5%, ten out of 218), delivering

the rebate faster (4%, eight out of 218), or making it easier to upload the application (2%, four out of 218).

Overall, the responses to these questions show that most survey respondents responded positively to

each aspect of the program evaluated (more than 50% giving a 4 or 5 out of 5 rating), including their

experience with the application process, their electrical upgrade and contractor experience, the rebate

process, SCE communications through the process, the TOU rate transition, and the program overall.


Findings

Throughout the last year, SCE and CSE staff identified successes and critical lessons that may be applied

to similar future endeavors. These successes and lessons are presented below as preliminary

conclusions, with supporting findings and recommendations.

3.60%1.30% 1.20%

2.60%

7.90% 6.80%

14.40%

19.90%

13.70%

28.60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Perc

enta

ge o

f R

esp

ondents

Satisfaction Rating


Page 160

Although customers who successfully completed the rebate process were generally highly

satisfied with the program, the necessary requirements may have limited participation. In

particular, some application requirements were challenging for participants to complete

correctly and for the implementer to monitor. For example, requiring documented proof of a

waiver for HOA permission or city permitting created roadblocks for applicants who did not

need those documents. Other documentation, such as a separate receipt for the charging

station or C-10 license numbers on electrician invoices, caused problems for applicants who

needed special invoices printed for the program. In addition, both CSE and SCE staff reflected

that the six-month time restraint on purchase/lease date of a new EV may have limited

participation because it can take EV adopters more time to understand their charging needs.

Recommendation: If SCE explores a similar program in the future, the utility might consider

structuring requirements in a simpler format. For example, individuals who do not have HOAs or

whose cities do not require permits to install an L2 charger could potentially click a box on the

application form and sign to confirm, relieving SCE of any liability while also reducing application

processing time. Similarly, if the C-10 license number of the electrician is not already on the

invoice, an applicant could include this number on the application form itself. Finally, because

this program is not rebating the cost of the charging station, requiring proof of the charging

station cost may not be necessary, especially as applicants are required to submit other forms of

proof of the charging station installation, such as a photo and receipt for the infrastructure

work.

Despite regular communication between CSE and SCE staff, program requirements (e.g., TOU

rate) necessitated the need for greater coordination within SCE departments, as well with CSE.

During the program, SCE and CSE staff met at least biweekly to review program status, and SCE

and CSE staff both expressed general satisfaction with the communication throughout the

process. However, both also noted that there were times that additional up-front planning and

coordination were needed. For example, CSE was not able to successfully engage stakeholders

such as electricians or MUD managers, who could have become champions of the program.

There were also several unforeseen issues with validating applicants’ TOU rates during the

process, causing delays in application processing time. For example, the TOU-EV-1 rate ended in

the middle of the program, which led to internal SCE misunderstandings about how soon an

applicant had to switch to a TOU-EV-1 rate before the rate was shut off to any additional SCE

customers. CSE also noted a disconnect in the information that applicants were receiving from

SCE call center staff, though SCE did make efforts to minimize this issue by directing applicants

to contact CSE directly.

Recommendation: If offering a similar future program, SCE may consider designing a marketing

trategy that includes more lead time to meet with key stakeholders—such as electricians, MUD

property managers, and city officials who will be helping applicants with their permits—before

program launch. Educating these stakeholders to encourage them to become “champions” of

the program could help increase participation while simultaneously making it easier for

applicants to complete the process.

Recommendation: If offering a similar future program, SCE may explore greater internal

coordination within the departments at SCE (such as the rates, information technology, and

program departments) when there are program processes (such as the validation of customers


Page 161

switching to a TOU rate) that depend on the efforts of multiple departments. This coordination

may also include any future third-party administrator who will be working with customers

individually to ensure that all data request, or status update, needs are being met.

The program successfully reduced barriers to EV adoption by providing a financial rebate for

home charging infrastructure, which resulted in positive impacts for participants. However, as

currently designed, MUD residents continued to face challenges with L2 charging station

installations. The program successfully encouraged the installation of home charging stations

and spurred residential customers to purchase EVs, as evidenced by the 70% (2,661 out of

3,785) of all applicants who indicated that the rebate had an influence on their decision to

purchase an EV. Additionally, participant feedback corresponded with SCE and CSE staff

feedback, indicating that participants now benefit from more flexible, convenient charging in

their homes. The program, as piloted, also helped confirm that at-home charging is actively

desired by EV owners. However, the implementer struggled to engage individuals living in DACs

and/or MUDs, despite targeted marketing efforts. With the program requiring an applicant to

have a dedicated parking spot for the EV for 24 months and to switch to a TOU rate, two items

that many MUD residents cannot ensure, most of the individuals in DACs or MUDs who might

have been interested in buying EVs were ineligible for this program. Additionally, despite having

Spanish-speaking individuals at marketing events and Spanish turnkey documents, there was

not a Spanish language option for the application itself.

Recommendation: If offering a similar future program, SCE may want to explore alternative

requirements and/or engagement approaches in the program design to address MUD and DAC

customer barriers and speak to key participant motivations.

Marketing effectiveness may be enhanced through more robust tracking. Although CSE

documented several marketing and outreach efforts (including sending out CVRP emails,

attending events, and visiting car dealerships), other efforts did not appear to be tracked. In

particular, conversations or meetings with other key stakeholders—such as MUD property

managers or electricians—were not tracked with sufficient detail to be thoroughly reviewed.

Recommendation: The program should include metrics for all marketing and outreach strategies

and evaluate effectiveness to ensure marketing investment focuses on the most effective

strategies.

Next Steps

As of November 2019, SCE staff were working with CSE to officially close out the program. Although SCE

staff indicated that they do not intend to scale up this program, they will continue to support EV

adoption through other initiatives and incorporate lessons learned from this program. If SCE considers

launching a similar program in the future, educating key players who would play crucial roles in the

program (such as electricians and city permitting offices) may ease the path for customer participation.


Page 162

4. Pacific Gas and Electric

PG&E’s PRPs comprise three infrastructure projects for MD/HD vehicles and one customer outreach and

education project. This design spread the utility’s investment across the light-, medium-, and heavy-duty

market segments. According to interviews with PG&E staff, PG&E conceived of its infrastructure PRPs as

a portfolio that would enable the utility to gain experience in the major market sectors the staff

expected to work most closely with during the SRPs. The intent was to use the PRPs to conduct

exploratory research in key market segments to understand how fleet customers are using their assets,

what the major challenges were for electrification, and whether a case could be made that

electrification was a cost-effective investment that would meet operational needs while reducing total

cost of ownership (TCO). As much as possible, PG&E aimed to have these projects demonstrate how

fleets could function as controlled loads and serve as grid assets. As such, PG&E selected three sectors

considered particularly ripe for electrification for the three infrastructure PRPs: school buses, transit

buses, and electric transport refrigeration units (eTRUs). As of Q3 2019, the top two categories of

applications to PG&E’s EV Fleet SRP were school districts and transit agencies, demonstrating the value

of PG&E’s approach to using the PRPs to develop lessons learned in how to work with such customers.48

eTRUs rank fifth, behind miscellaneous MD/HD vehicles, demonstrating that they were also an

important sector in which to develop early experience.

Additionally, PG&E’s PRPs were designed to prove the viability of concepts where existing solutions had

not yet reached full maturity and to provide positive customer experiences among early adopters.

Providing these positive customer experiences could be achieved only by more extensive assistance

through the process and was believed to be important to enhance interest in future PG&E programs,

such as the EV Fleet program. For instance, without charging management, some fleet customers were

paying substantially more per mile to operate electric buses than they would have paid for diesel

hybrids, and PG&E was in a unique position to help customers reduce charging costs. Similarly, some

fleets experienced challenges finding the right technologies to charge their buses or selecting the best

equipment and software. The hands-on approach that the PRPs enabled has provided an opportunity for

PG&E to develop knowledge and capacity to better serve future customers as they electrify their fleets.

4.1 Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project – Pittsburg Unified School District



The objective of this pilot is to work with a school district to understand how electric school buses can

align charging with peak periods of renewable energy generation. Electrified transportation is seen as a

promising approach to addressing the glut of electricity supply at midday and subsequent ramping

needs in the afternoon. The duty cycle of school buses, with their predictable routes and midday break

48 PG&E Q3 2019 PAC meeting presentation.


Page 163

period, is well-suited to match this supply curve. There are some market programs in place that might

incentivize school bus fleet operators to provide these balancing services to the grid, such as the Excess

Supply Demand Response Pilot (XSP), and this pilot explores how well these programs fit the context of

electric school buses in practice.49 Likewise, the school district facility is equipped with both solar and

wind generators, creating a ripe environment to explore integration with onsite renewables.

This pilot was designed to address several barriers to widespread adoption of school bus electrification.

For one, this pilot aims to investigate uncertainty around technological readiness of vehicles (capacity,

range, torque, etc.) and chargers (software/hardware configuration, communication with charge

management system, ease of use, etc.). Another challenge is that school districts may not have staff

with sufficient technical expertise to make informed decisions related to procurement and

implementation of novel renewable and electrified transport infrastructure. There is also the question of

whether school bus fleets have enough operational flexibility and economic incentive to adjust their

loads dynamically and strategically to integrate renewable energy generation.

The objectives of this project are to (1) demonstrate reduced TCO by minimizing infrastructure and fuel

costs, and (2) demonstrate the ability of electrified school bus fleets to support the integration of

renewable generation from both onsite and grid resources. Managed charging and a new rate structure

can help school districts avoid charging during expensive times and capitalize on new value streams.

This evaluation is an interim report covering stages of the PRP that have been completed: scoping and

customer acquisition, project design and preparation, construction, and commissioning. The project is

now actively operating, and data collection is under way. Analysis of these data and concluding lessons

learned will be covered in the final evaluation report.


Recruitment of Site Host

PG&E aimed to partner with a school bus district that already had an electric bus or had received grant

funding and was in the process of purchasing an electric bus. By engaging both internal (PG&E’s Business

Energy Solutions Team) and external (A-Z Bus Sales) partners, PG&E was able to identify which districts

met these criteria.50

Site Host

The site host in this PRP, Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD), is a K-12 school district serving over

11,000 students at 13 school sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. The district operates a fleet of 30 buses

49 XSP tests the capabilities of price-responsive demand-side resources to shift or increase load as a service to the

grid during times of anticipated excess supply of renewables generation and/or negative wholesale energy prices.

Depending on market conditions, participants may be asked to increase their usage during certain hours of the day

(https://www.pge.com/en_US/large-business/save-energy-and-money/energy-management-programs/energy-

incentives.page). 50See a more detailed description in PG&E’s Interim Priority Review Report:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?DocFormat=ALL&DocID=285086006.


Page 164

including ten type-C (large) diesel school buses, fourteen type-A (smaller) propane-fueled buses

dedicated to transportation of special education students, three gasoline buses, two eLion type-C

electric buses purchased in 2018, and one Blue Bird type-D electric bus delivered in October 2019. Buses

are used daily for student commutes to and from school, as well as for student activities such as athletic

events and field trips. PUSD did not have any electric buses or onsite renewables before the initiation of

the project, though the district did have grant funds secured for the acquisition of electric buses.

Site

The electrical infrastructure associated with this PRP is located in the single bus yard at 3200 Loveridge

Road (Pittsburg, California), adjacent to the district’s main high school and nutrition services

department, as well as an elementary school. PG&E installed nine Clipper Creek CS-100 chargers on site.

The CS-100 chargers are behind a locked gate and can be accessed only by PUSD staff. PUSD bus drivers

are expected to plug in the electric buses when they park on site. Since there is no need for payment or

other advanced features, PUSD opted for the low-cost CS-100 chargers. District staff were particularly

interested in minimizing ongoing network costs associated with more complex networked chargers.

Given that many other districts may also opt for low-cost chargers, this site provides extra value by

partnering with vendors to test the concept of managed charging with low-cost, non-networked

chargers. Another unique aspect of the site is that PUSD built a learning center for students to engage

with the project. The district’s experience with the learning center may provide useful insights to PG&E

going forward.

An overview diagram of PUSD’s onsite energy resources is provided in Figure 82, and a satellite image of

the site with charger locations is provided in Figure 83.

Source: PG&E 2018 Interim Report

Figure 82. Diagram of PUSD onsite energy resources


Page 165

Figure 83. Schematic of the installed project infrastructure at PUSD


Recruitment of Implementers and Additional Vendors

In addition to PUSD, there were several other parties involved in the project that have provided

engineering, installation, charging services, and equipment. EVSE was provided by Clipper Creek, Liberty

Plugins provided a hardware/software solution that networks all the Clipper Creek chargers at a central

control box, and Olivine, Inc., provided optimization, volunteered geographic information (VGI)

guidance, and additional software services.

These additional charging management services were needed because the district chose to install non-

networked chargers, which could not otherwise have been used for the energy optimization and

renewables integration. PUSD and PG&E identified key requirements against which nine potential

solutions were evaluated. After product presentations were made by the vendors, PUSD and PG&E

selected Olivine and Liberty Plugins. Although Olivine and Liberty Plugins responded to the solution

separately, PUSD believed the best value came through requesting an integrated solution that involved

both vendors in the following roles:

Liberty Plugins was selected as the load management system because of its certification through

the Open Automated Demand Response (OpenADR) 2.0b protocol (which demonstrates they

can receive and act upon automated demand response messages), cost-competitiveness, and

experience working on MD/HD vehicle projects with Clipper Creek Chargers.

Olivine, Inc., offers software-as-a-service that integrates with Liberty Plugins to provide an

energy optimization platform. Olivine was selected for its experience administering PG&E’s XSP


Page 166

program, OpenADR 2.0b experience (as a Demand Response Platform Provider), affordability,

and incorporation of user interface components desired by PUSD (e.g., a web widget).

Timeline

Original Planned Timeline

Figure 84 below illustrates the original timeline (pale blue fill) and the achieved timeline (medium blue

fill) for the PUSD PRP. This divergence reflects a variety of disruptions and challenges, many of which

were unforeseeable by PG&E or the site host.


Page 167

Figure 84. PUSD PRP project timeline


Page 168

The original timeline for the PUSD PRP design and construction period was planned so one calendar year

would remain for data collection and determining lessons learned prior to project completion in 2020.

Project milestones included site enrollment, finalization of the design, completion of construction, and

commissioning of the chargers. Chargers were operational on January 12, 2019.

Explanation of Notable Timeline Alterations

There were some instances in which the actual project timeline diverged from original plans. For one,

while conversations about the project were initiated in April 2018, the project could not commence until

the contract received approval from the PUSD school board, which meets only once or twice per month.

Approval from the school board was conveyed in mid-June, slightly behind the original timeline. External

factors then caused more substantial delays. The date on which the PRP project was scheduled to be

energized was pushed back three months when PG&E resources were redirected to fire restoration

efforts. Additionally, tests of managed charging protocols that were scheduled for completion toward

the end of the 2018–2019 school year needed to be delayed an extra three months because of summer

break. This delay reflects how the unique governance and operational characteristics of schools may

constrain project implementation timelines.

Lesson Learned: Contracting, construction, and implementing test protocols with schools may require planning extra time as a buffer to reflect their unique contracting processes and seasonal operational patterns.

Planned PRP Activities and Current Status

Current Status

Currently PUSD operates three battery electric school buses. Two eLion buses were procured first and

have been owned and operated by the district since March 2018. These are 64-passenger versions of the

LionC, a Type C school bus. Initially the buses were charged on 7.2 kW AC L2 chargers that were installed

for light-duty EVs. With the commissioning of the Clipper Creek chargers in January 2019, the buses have

been served by 19 kW AC L2 chargers, and all future electric buses will use these chargers in the bus

yard. These chargers are paired with load management software and energy optimization services.

The third electric bus is a Blue Bird, which was delivered in October 2019. Another Blue Bird electric bus

is scheduled for delivery in January 2020. These vehicles are the 78-passenger Blue Bird model T3RE

3904, a Type D school bus. PUSD had planned to add an additional seven vehicles spread across four

manufacturers (Lion Electric Company, GreenPower, Blue Bird Corporation, and TransTech) to allow for

comparison. However, the district has since concluded that the Blue Bird models best suit its needs

because they have larger student capacity and longer range. Given the need for maximizing operational

flexibility, PUSD has therefore determined that it will procure the remainder of the buses from Blue Bird.

Construction Update

All PRP construction activities are complete. Construction included procurement and installation of nine

19 kW Clipper Creek CS-100 chargers. This involved putting in a new transformer, switchboard, and


Page 169

electrical conduit. The project also included laying conduit for cables that would carry data from

chargers to the Liberty Plugins Hydra charge management system.

The onsite renewables generation projects are not part of the PRP, but their progress affects the

proposed PRP test phases. Both the solar and the wind systems were installed in the spring of 2019 but

have faced interconnection delays. Because of concerns about exceeding the hosting capacity on the

existing PG&E transformer, only five PV inverters for approximately 130 kW AC total were connected on

conditional Permission to Operate as of August 1, 2019, with a remaining 30 kW AC connected as of

December 3, 2019, once these concerns were resolved. The wind energy system (40 kW) is also waiting

on interconnection approval because of an issue with the certification of its inverters. The wind is not

expected to be interconnected until early 2020.

Ongoing and Upcoming Tests

Test phases have been planned to investigate how well the project can meet the PRP goals. Because the

objectives include understanding the level of complexity in charge management that can be achieved

even when employing very simple charging hardware, the tests are mostly additive in their sequencing.

Phase 0 – Baseline (Conducted January–April 2019): Once chargers were installed and commissioned,

the uncontrolled charging phase commenced. Buses began charging immediately upon being plugged in,

and there was no application of any load management practices. The purpose was to set a baseline

against which performance during the subsequent phases could be measured.

Phase 1 – Static Scheduled Charging (Conducted May 2019): This phase began by testing the integration

of the Olivine and Liberty Plugins systems. Olivine’s software platform managed bus charging according

to static schedules that were designed to align with the TOU off-peak period. During this phase, the

primary goal was to ensure that the bus energy needs were met while minimizing electricity costs, and

to further analyze the opportunity for charge flexibility in a real-world environment.

Phase 2 – Excess Supply Demand Response Pilot (XSP) Participation (Conducted August–November

2019): This phase added demand response functionality. The approach tested PUSD’s ability to

dynamically shift load to instances of consumption that would provide higher value to the grid, such as

when there is excess wholesale electricity supply. These load-shift events were announced at 5:00 PM

on the day prior to each event, triggering a signal to the charge management software directing an

adjustment to the static charging schedule that served as the default.

Phase 3 – Renewables Self Consumption (Planned for December 2019–January 2020): This phase will

focus on adjusting the static charging schedules to optimize consumption from the onsite renewable

generation. The time interval of optimization will be determined during system analysis.51 The

optimization will still retain the over-arching goal of minimizing PUSD’s electricity bill.

51 Olivine will likely target optimization over 30-minute intervals because of observed interactions between the

buses and charging hardware. In the future, Olivine envisions optimization intervals of 15 or 5 minutes, if the

hardware supports it.


Page 170

Phase 4 – Renewables Optimization (Planned for February–April 2020): This phase combines the

previous phases and determines whether PUSD can both charge during periods of excess onsite

renewables and also respond to XSP events. The results will help with assessing whether the district can

further lower its costs and provide more value to the grid than it did in either Phase 2 or Phase 3.



The evaluation team has been collecting a wide range of data types to answer the evaluation questions.

For this PRP, in addition to the research questions that apply to every fleet electrification PRP, the

evaluation seeks to understand the challenges and innovations associated with implementing charge

management, providing grid services, and optimizing both onsite and grid-generated energy.

Because the electric school buses have been operating only for a limited period of time and the fleet is

still implementing the test phases described above, drawing conclusions from an analysis of the charging

patterns and operational costs incurred by the fleet to date would be premature, and formal analysis

has been deferred until the final evaluation report.

Data Sources

In-depth interviews were used to better understand the decision-making process and reasoning behind

this project. PG&E staff and PUSD staff were interviewed following the installation of the nine depot

chargers to collect lessons learned on the implementation process and early operations. The evaluation

team also interviewed staff at Olivine with a focus on integrating the load management software and

energy optimization processes. The evaluation findings presented in this interim report are based

primarily on these interviews.

In addition to interviews with key actors involved in the project, the evaluation will conduct a driver

survey in 2020 to collect information on perceived co-benefits, differences between driving an electric

bus and a conventional bus, satisfaction with new electric buses, charging protocols, and necessary

changes to driver behavior.

The evaluation of this project will also incorporate assessment of quantitative data that analyzes usage

patterns and costs related to the PRP. This will include maintenance and fuel records, mileage records,

operational details such as bus assignments to routes, PG&E electricity bills, PG&E meter interval data,

PG&E’s costs to implement the PRP, equipment out-of-service dates, and many other items.

In addition to continuing to collect these types of data through the conclusion of the PRP, the evaluation

team will also conduct market research on comparable fleets. Resources discussing the state of electric

school bus technology, literature detailing TCO estimates, analyses of vehicle fuel economies and

emissions, and other relevant references will provide a baseline and context for the fleet data collected

as part of the evaluation.


At this time, the project has had both successes and challenges. PG&E and PUSD worked well as a team

to overcome many challenges through each stage from planning to early operation of the buses. By


Page 171

design, PG&E selected a nascent market and expected to be closely involved to guide the project. The

buses have been underutilized relative to expectations because of a combination of challenges that can

be expected from the early stages of deploying new products and other extraneous factors. Most of

these challenges have been related to the buses; in other words, they do not reflect on the quality of

the PRP efforts, but they do limit the ability of the project team to implement its test phases on the

schedule originally anticipated.

PG&E helped PUSD design a project that had low carrying costs and outlined a pathway to effective

operations going forward. Because the electric school bus industry is young, there are few well-vetted

options for charge management systems, which was known when the project was approved. This

environment of limited charge management options meant that substantial investment was required to

perform the integration that enabled the district to test its project objectives around grid optimization

and renewables optimization.

Initial feedback from PUSD suggests the buses have been quite popular among students, parents, and

bus operators because of their quiet operations. The school board is very supportive and proud of the

pilot because it aligns with the board’s environmental values and furthers the educational mission.

These benefits are expected to increase with higher utilization of the buses and associated

infrastructure as the project progresses.

Project Baseline

A major question for the evaluation is whether PG&E’s efforts caused or have the potential to advance

the electrification of school buses by addressing key barriers. To address this question, it is important to

look at the baseline of industry uptake and innovations developed through the project that possess the

potential to be applied broadly. As noted in the project narrative above, PG&E intentionally chose a

partner that already had plans to procure electric school buses, so the impact of the project is primarily

associated with operational innovations and lower TCO. PUSD staff communicated that their

participation in this PRP accelerated the district’s procurement schedule for subsequent vehicles.

The broader context of the project has been shaped by a multi-decade effort to reduce school bus fuel

consumption and emissions, driven by both regulatory requirements and financial incentives. Although

there is no regulatory requirement to electrify school buses, there are several funding programs aimed

at shifting the school bus market and technology adoption trends. This includes $130 million in

Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Funds for transit, school, and shuttle bus electrification, from which

districts can receive up to $400,000 per electric bus. There is also the Low Carbon Transportation

Investments program and the Air Quality Improvement Program through CARB; these programs support

the deployment of advanced technology and clean transportation. They are accompanied by local

funding programs through regional air districts. Cumulatively, grant programs can help school districts

address the upfront incremental cost of battery electric buses compared to diesel, gasoline, or propane

buses.

Furthermore, while electric school bus models have higher initial costs relative to their diesel

counterparts, they are expected to produce cost savings over the buses’ operational lifetimes and are


Page 172

eligible for grants such that they can often reach parity with diesel buses on a TCO basis.52 School

districts that have procured electric school buses, such as Twin Rivers Unified School District, have found

their operations and maintenance needs to be about half those of their diesel counterparts; this

translates to significant savings in California’s expensive labor market.53

The PUSD PRP is representative of the situation in which many school districts may find themselves:

they have obtained funding for bus electrification but must still navigate the procurement and

installation of infrastructure, management of multiple behind-the-meter energy resources and loads,

and operational optimization. Therefore, the innovations and lessons learned from this project can be a

pathway to scale deployment of electric school buses in PG&E’s territory faster and more effectively

than districts would have achieved without PG&E’s involvement.


Subsequent to the official commissioning of the charging system, time was set aside to test the system’s

integrations and set a baseline. Between January and April 2019, the following issues had to be addressed.

Faulty Breaker

The electrical infrastructure was installed with one breaker serving each Clipper Creek charger and a

breaker serving Liberty Plugins’ Hydra charge management system. One of the chargers had a faulty

breaker on the panel feeding the charger, but since the breaker was not tripping physically, it was very

hard to diagnose. Troubleshooting this issue was especially challenging because the problem could have

been associated with any of the unique equipment and software components provided by the many

vendors serving the project. This issue is not something that could have been anticipated but was

eventually resolved.

Software Compatibility

Software communication between Olivine and Liberty took more development effort than initially

anticipated, despite efforts during the procurement process to ensure compatibility between the two

systems. A key feature required of the load management system was the ability to manage charging

port activity, so the procurement specified that the solution be compliant with the OpenADR 2.0b

standard. However, there are many functionalities that can be enabled under the OpenADR standard,

and operators do not need to support all functionalities to be deemed compliant with the standard.

Olivine and Liberty were able to work through the issues and build a robust OpenADR compliant

interface and a capable charge management system.

52 “Benefits of Electric School Buses” Webinar, presented by Jim Reynolds (President & CEO, Adomani) and Robert

Lupacchino (Chief Operating Officer, First Priority GreenFleet). 53 Conversation between Michelle Levinson (Cadmus Group) and Raymond Manalo (Twin Rivers Unified School

District) on November 19, 2019.


Page 173

At project initiation, much thought and effort were needed to set up the onsite communications. Because

cellular capabilities were expensive and Wi-Fi did not work at the one possible device location, the Olivine

team implemented a hard-wired ethernet solution, utilizing the district’s internet. Data were relayed from

the utility meter through a smart energy monitoring device installed by the Olivine team.54 This is an

example of the adjustments necessary throughout the implementation process to address challenges.

The selected Clipper Creek hardware does not permit electrical power throttling, but Olivine was able to

develop a workaround by modulating the duration of charging to achieve the same effect, so there was

no impact on the project. Future deployments should consider using this modified approach since power

throttling at the charger is not necessarily needed to achieve the benefits of managed charging.

More generally, Olivine and Liberty needed to collaborate to initiate the project and ensure all

infrastructure was effectively integrated. This effort can now be leveraged and repeated in future

projects, as Liberty and Clipper Creek are now able to be integrated in a quasi-turnkey way. In the

future, cooperative procurement or an approved vendor list from PG&E could be methods for school

districts to make informed procurement decisions, which would be a valuable resource for staff who

may have limited expertise in EV charging.

Lesson Learned: PG&E was insightful in scheduling a significant block of time after commissioning during which project operators could iron out issues with project hardware and software integration. The challenge of identifying the cause of issues can be compounded when there are several distinct systems integrated in a single project.

Costs

In the CPUC’s 2018 PRP decision, PG&E was approved $2.21 million for this project, consisting of

$510,000 in capitalized costs and $1.70 million in expenses. For this report, PG&E provided the total

project expenditures through October 2019. These records show that the project is on track to stay

within the allocated budget of $2.21 million.

The following categorization of costs applies to Table 35:

Design includes site assessment, electrical design, and estimating; no permitting costs were

reported.

Behind-the-Meter (BtM) infrastructure includes the following customer-side costs: charger

installation, materials, construction labor, internal labor, and burdens on costs.

To-the-Meter (TtM) infrastructure includes the following utility-side costs: materials,

construction labor, internal labor, inspection, and burdens on cost.

Chargers includes the procurement of nine Clipper Creek CS-100 chargers and the Liberty

Plugins Hydra charge management system.

54 https://rainforestautomation.com/our-products/


Page 174

Outreach and Education primarily includes costs associated with the learning center.

Other Program Costs includes work conducted by Olivine and Liberty Plugins to enable integration

of their systems. Work conducted by Olivine includes design and build of real-time metering

communications, design and build of a school-bus-centric e-fleet website portal, integration with

the on-board vehicle telematics systems, modeling, design and build of a variety of charge control

optimization strategies, management and execution of test phases, operations, and support.

Project Management includes PG&E’s activities on customer outreach, planning and direction of

the implementation process, oversight for troubleshooting, budget tracking and processing of

customer reimbursements, data review and analysis, management and planning of test phases,

and coordination of stakeholders. This category also includes project management for the

design and construction of PUSD’s chargers.

Table 35. PUSD PRP costs as of October 2019

Cost Categories Amount

Design $ 49,510

BtM Infrastructure $ 78,200

TtM Infrastructure $ 192,845

Chargers $ 43,255

Outreach and Education $ 19,025

Other Program Costs $ 233,010

Project Management $ 322,919

Total $ 938,764


Full project costs are pending as the project is ongoing. When considering recorded costs to date, there

are some deviations from forecasted costs across the cost categories detailed above, but not relative to

total approved levels for capital and non-capital costs.

Capital costs (including infrastructure, make-ready, and project management associated with the

construction components of the PRP) are on track to remain within the approved ceiling of $510,000. As

of October 2019, PG&E’s reported total capital spend was around $500,000, and no additional

capitalized costs are anticipated. Non-capital costs (including additional project management, charge

management solution development, outreach and engagement/learning center, billing and technical

support, charger incentives, load shift incentives, and O&M of make-ready infrastructure) are on track to

remain within the approved ceiling of $1.7 million.

Ongoing Operational Costs

Ongoing operational costs are bucketed within non-capital costs, covering things like O&M for behind-

the-meter infrastructure or site utility bills. As of October 2019, no such O&M costs have been incurred,

but low amounts may be required in future years. The site has incurred electricity costs associated with


Page 175

operation of the project, paid for by the school district through a separate meter that is exclusively

dedicated to the chargers.

Lesson Learned: When facing procurement choices, some customers may be drawn to the simplest, least expensive technology options available. On the other hand, more advanced and costly technology options may possess features that allow for more versatile future uses. Decision makers should consider opportunity costs and the value of future-proofing their procurements so that sites are well-positioned to benefit from new markets and future value streams.

Benefits

In the CPUC’s decision authorizing this project, the Commission laid out anticipated benefits related to

technology cost reductions, improved use of existing electric infrastructure, and potentially accelerated

adoption of clean energy technologies in the MD/HD sectors. Additionally, the CPUC highlighted the

benefit of reduced exposure to particulate pollution.

The PRP’s preliminary data are too limited to understand the project’s effect on the TCO for PUSD when

comparing diesel versus electric buses. Likewise, the increase in electric load related to the project is

minimal at this point, so it is unlikely to have had a material effect on costs. While it is premature to

quantify the impacts of this project definitively, stakeholders have identified some preliminary benefits.

District officials have noted the lower decibel of EV operations has created a more pleasant environment

for both students and bus drivers. Anecdotally, PUSD described several benefits during the interview,

including an observation that students on the bus are quieter when the bus itself is quieter and that kids

and parents were excited about the buses.


Because this project involves deployment of nascent technologies in novel applications, it is to be

expected that issues with project equipment might have impacts on operations. Some characteristics of

the selected equipment disrupted operations in unanticipated ways, as described below and

summarized in Table 36. For example, the two eLion buses are smaller models (64-passenger) and do

not have enough seating capacity to be heavily incorporated into the district’s regular routine. Because

of driver shortages, the district sends out its larger vehicles that can serve more students on a single trip.

Additionally, the district has not gained enough comfort with the bus ranges to send these buses on

longer field trips or athletic events. This does not mean the vehicles are performing poorly, but when it

comes to assessing the project’s impact on TCO, low mileage means the additional upfront costs of

electric buses are not getting offset by substantial fuel cost savings during operations.

Lesson Learned: School districts and other early fleet adopters may not be able to adjust operations to optimize utilization of new electric buses or access new value streams associated with participation in distributed resource markets. Versatility of selected electric buses should be carefully considered during procurement (e.g., passenger capacity, range); otherwise, expectations for utilization (number of days in use and overall mileage) should be appropriately tempered.


Page 176

The project also faced setbacks due to bus delivery delays and bus malfunctions. The first Blue Bird bus

was scheduled for delivery in August 2019, but it was not available until mid-fall. Maintenance issues

included a door problem with one of the eLions and HVAC issues on both the eLions. The door issue

went unresolved for three to four months, leaving only one bus available to participate in Test Phase 1.

While this ended up being a simple issue to resolve once it finally was addressed, PUSD was frustrated

with the manufacturer’s customer service. The HVAC issue requires both eLions to be brought to

Sacramento for repairs; one was repaired from early September to November 2019, and the other is

expected to be sent for the same repair soon. During the repair of the first bus, the maintenance shop

providing repairs did not have an appropriate charger on site to keep the bus powered on for

maintenance and diagnostics. The workaround involved towing the buses across Sacramento multiple

times. The Blue Bird was also sent to Sacramento for a repair in December. These problems reflect two

themes that may carry over to similar contexts:

Vehicle technicians and maintenance workers are still developing familiarity with electric school

buses.

The industry is going through growing pains as manufacturers transition from focusing on sales

to meeting the service needs of customers with vehicles in operation.

Table 36. Summary of issues with project equipment and associated resolution

Technology Issue Result/Resolution

Buses Low utilization because of relatively small passenger capacity of eLion buses

Blue Bird buses selected for subsequent procurements have larger capacities and are likely to integrate better into normal fleet operations.

Buses Mechanical issue with eLion bus door

This issue was resolved after three to four months through collaboration with customer service.

Buses HVAC systems on eLion buses not functioning properly and repair shop lacks appropriate charging infrastructure

This issue was resolved after about two months at the repair shop in Sacramento and a tow to a facility with adequate charging equipment.

Buses The ability to support delayed charging not included in bus specifications

For eLion buses, the project team developed a workaround using a “trickle charge” to keep the bus from electrically disconnecting. No solution has been found for the Blue Bird buses.

Lesson Learned: The electric school bus industry is experiencing growing pains, which affects equipment operations and maintenance.


Page 177

PRP Innovations to Date

As noted above, the deployment of electric buses poses new challenges for school districts,

underscoring the value of a hands-on approach to PG&E’s implementation of this PRP. The main

innovation of this PRP is to develop approaches that enable sophisticated charge management on school

buses with low-cost non-networked EVSE and enable the buses to be responsive to scheduled charging,

load control programs, and optimization with onsite renewables. This required working creatively to

address challenges.

Models of electric school buses are not often designed to accommodate delayed charging. For instance,

neither the eLion buses nor the Blue Bird buses are capable of managed charging because they both

electrically disconnect after a period of time when a charge cable is plugged in but no power is present.

This interfered with the intended approach to have an automated system take care of energy

management after the bus driver plugged in the vehicle. A workaround that solved the issue for the

eLion buses was to employ a version of the Clipper Creek firmware called “Maintenance Mode,” which

supplies a steady 1.3 kW “trickle charge” at all times.55 This adjustment means there is marginally less

SOC available for optimization or TOU arbitrage, but still enables the eLion buses to be available as a

managed load. However, this fix does not work for the Blue Bird buses, and it is not anticipated that a

solution for these buses will be developed before the end of the PRP.

Additionally, the rate of charge that electric school buses accept is relatively low, and therefore

participation in the XSP required an exception be made to the requirement of achieving 30 kW of load

increase. 56 The eLion bus power conditioning hardware is currently configured by the manufacturer to

accept only approximately 13 kW of power, even though the Clipper Creek chargers can provide 19 kW.

Because of the specific characteristics of these technologies and the limitations in their combination, the

two buses can accept a total of only around 26 kW when utilizing the vehicles as dispatchable load.


The project looks to be on a path to meeting customer needs as initially scoped. Some insights have

been drawn from in-depth interviews and project meetings conducted with the participants and

implementors of the project.

Hurdles have included the imperfect substitutability of electric buses as one-for-one replacements for

diesel buses, primarily because of range limitations, rider capacity, and staffing constraints. Currently,

the district is accommodating this difference by assigning vehicles strategically based on their

capabilities but has not been able to fully assess options because of extraneous resource constraints.

55 This is a 6 A 220 V flow, about equivalent to 1.3 kW. This relatively low flow of power ensured the eLion buses remained active as charging resources whenever the vehicles were plugged in, so they were available to receive signals from the energy management system to dynamically adjust power demand. 56 PG&E, “Business energy incentive programs,” accessed 2019, https://www.pge.com/en_US/large-business/save-

energy-and-money/energy-management-programs/energy-incentives.page.


Page 178

As discussed earlier, initial feedback to site hosts from bus operators, parents, students, and

administrators emphasizes the value they place on the quiet and clean operation of the electric buses.

The decision makers at PUSD were motivated to participate in this project because they felt it was

aligned with the values of their community. They were interested in improving air quality, recognizing

the relationships between air quality, student respiratory health, and school attendance. PUSD aims to

be a green innovation leader and is committed to “walking the walk” when serving the community.

While the leadership is interested in capturing any potential savings the project may generate, finances

were not a driving motivation for pursuing the project.

4.1.4 Conclusions

Based on the information collected to date, the evaluation team drew several preliminary findings.

Additional data will be analyzed for the final report. This PRP illuminated several lessons that will

contribute to the success of future school bus electrification projects.

Two primary innovations are being tested in the PUSD PRP in support of the objectives of providing

reduced TCO by minimizing infrastructure and fuel costs and demonstrating the ability of electrified

school bus fleets to support the integration of renewable generation from both on-site and grid

resources. It should be noted that this PRP is a forward-looking effort, given that most school districts

likely do not currently need such an advanced approach (either because they do not have as many

behind-the-meter renewable resources or because they do not have the same scale of existing and

anticipated electric bus purchases as PUSD). However, these innovations are important proofs of

concept to move the market forward in a state-wide context in which it is expected that many more

school districts will be increasing their investments in both behind-the-meter renewables and electric

buses in the near future.

The first innovation being tested is using school buses to facilitate the integration of intermittent

renewable generation, both in the context of on-site solar and wind and in response to excess wholesale

electricity supply during high renewables events on the grid. Thus far, the PRP has demonstrated the

feasibility of using school buses for such purposes and has also demonstrated the complexity of

establishing such a project and obtaining the degree of participation hoped for from the bus

manufacturers. For one, the on-site renewables were not within PG&E’s purview for the PRP itself, and

delays in installation of some of these resources affected the ability of project implementers to maintain

the protocol test schedule originally envisioned. Additionally, operational issues with the buses and

driver staffing constraints reduced the district’s ability to fully utilize them, which limited the magnitude

of their ability to act as controllable load to date.

The second innovation tested through this PRP is the feasibility of combining low-cost, non-networked

EVSE and DER technologies to achieve this goal. When selecting system technologies, some customers

may be drawn to the simplest, least expensive options available. Thus far, the PRP has successfully

demonstrated feasibility. But joining together several distinct technology solutions that were not built

with the intention of integration can have a multiplier effect for the complexity of troubleshooting.

Furthermore, the experience has demonstrated that even when existing standards are in place (e.g.,

OpenADR), procurement of equipment and software vendors must still be explicit about the necessary

functionalities to ensure compatibility.


Page 179

The remainder of the PRP will provide insights into how well these two innovations function now that

several of the initial issues are resolved and more electric buses are available within the PUSD fleet.

These findings will help with the consideration of the value, costs, and replicability of approaches similar

to those deployed in this project.

More generally, pilot projects like this one help the industry build key technology integrations. This

project surfaced and resolved inevitable integration issues between buses, chargers, and charge

controllers that will be resolved more quickly in future applications than had the project not happened.

Such integrations require significant investments of time and expertise and will likely need to be

revisited for different combinations of bus models, charger models, and control hardware and software.

To the extent that industry players are watching this pilot and others like it, they may have increased

awareness of the importance of working toward integrated solutions. To the extent that school districts

are observing innovations put into action at PUSD, there is also the potential for market pull/increased

demand for these solutions. As more of these technology integrations are implemented, the low-cost

offerings should improve and become more “out-of-the-box.”

Additionally, this PRP provides insights about implementing such projects with school district customer–

partners. School districts are first and foremost concerned with serving their operational needs, which

may not allow as much flexibility in route assignment or charging patterns as would be needed to

optimize for cost. The value of participating in programs such as XSP may be less substantial and more

challenging to unlock than anticipated. Testing and refinement of protocols may require extra time

because of the annual school year cycle, since operations are substantially different during summer and

holiday months. At the same time, several attributes of school bus electrification make it a promising

target for scaling innovation: the alignment of the times that school buses are available to charge with

low-cost/cleaner time periods for the grid, the availability of incentive money that is funding bus

replacements and infrastructure, and the eagerness of these districts to work as partners. Sharing the

lessons learned and innovations demonstrated in this PRP has the potential to 1) streamline the process

for future customer–partners, 2) help school districts establish realistic expectations associated with

their electrification strategies, and 3) increase the value and cost-effectiveness of deploying electric

school buses. However, more time and data are needed to understand the full impacts of the program.

Lessons Learned

Contracting, construction, and implementing test protocols with schools may require planning

extra time as a buffer to reflect their unique contracting processes and seasonal operational

patterns.

PG&E was insightful in scheduling a significant block of time after commissioning during which

project operators could iron out issues with project hardware and software integration. The

challenge of identifying the cause of issues can be compounded when there are several distinct

systems integrated in a single project.

When facing procurement choices, some customers may be drawn to the simplest, least

expensive technology options available. On the other hand, more advanced and costly

technology options may possess features that allow for more versatile future uses. Decision

makers should consider opportunity costs and the value of future-proofing their procurements

so that sites are well-positioned to benefit from new markets and future value streams.


Page 180

School districts and other early fleet adopters may not be able to adjust operations to optimize

utilization of new electric buses or access new value streams associated with participation in

distributed resource markets. Versatility of selected electric buses should be carefully

considered during procurement (e.g., passenger capacity, range); otherwise, expectations for

utilization (number of days in use and overall mileage) should be appropriately tempered.

The electric school bus industry is experiencing growing pains, which affects equipment

operations and maintenance.

4.2 Bus Fleet Demonstration – San Joaquin Regional Transit District



Overview

As described in CPUC Decision 18-01-024, for this PRP, PG&E sought a partner who operates an MD/HD

fleet to assist in deploying EVs by leveraging the utility’s resources and expertise. Prior to the PRP,

customers seeking to build out charging infrastructure for fleet electrification would need to submit

plans to PG&E, pay for the necessary upgrades themselves, and learn on their own how to manage

charging for their new EVs. For PG&E to help the MD/HD fleet electrification market grow, it needs to

support the early adopters and ensure they have positive experiences. By supporting early adopters,

PG&E can not only develop innovations and best practices but also shape the narrative about the

processes and benefits of deploying electric MD/HD vehicles. This PRP aims to achieve a broad positive

effect on the market by discovering and showcasing best practices in infrastructure and management of

MD/HD fleet electrification.

With this pilot, PG&E proposed a dedicated “hands-on” approach, featuring extensive collaboration with

the customer, vehicle and charger manufacturers, and other partners. The project also is intended to

provide lessons learned to inform long-term, widespread MD/HD transportation electrification,

including development of PG&E’s SRP, the EV Fleet program.

With this collaborative approach, PG&E was responsible for designing and building the make-ready

infrastructure to support the new electrified fleet. The utility worked directly with the customer to find

efficiencies in site planning and infrastructure sizing for the expected load. To manage charging costs on

existing rates and to reduce peak demand use, PG&E will work with the customer and other third parties

to incorporate technology solutions—primarily charge management software and energy storage.

This evaluation is an interim report covering PRP stages completed thus far: scoping and customer

acquisition, project design and preparation, construction, and commissioning. The project is now

actively operating, and data collection is under way. Analysis of these data and concluding lessons

learned will be covered in the final evaluation report.


Page 181

Objectives

The project’s primary goal is to demonstrate how, with utility assistance, the TCO for MD/HD electric

fleets is lower in comparison to fossil fuel alternatives. This demonstration will help inform other

utilities, fleet operators, site hosts, and customers considering EV deployments. Specifically, the PRP will

accomplish the following:

Deploy utility-owned, make-ready infrastructure to serve expected growth in EV charging.

Provide an incentive to deploy EV chargers.

Provide technical assistance, including rate optimization, and demand management technology

to minimize operating costs of EVs.

Produce a summary handbook of lessons learned to inform fleet and other MD/HD EV

deployments.

PG&E will also look to use its non-electrification resources (such as energy efficiency, distributed

generation, and demand response products and programs, along with rate analysis) to evaluate

additional opportunities for energy management and customer bill savings. The most appropriate

customer candidate for this project is a public transit agency, given the sector’s maturity in commercially

available electric buses, external funding sources for vehicles and charging infrastructure, and EV

adoption goals. With CARB releasing its Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation in December 2018, all

public transit agencies will be required to develop plans to procure electric buses and/or fuel cell buses

and transition their existing fleets by 2040.57 ICT requires transit agencies to substantially rethink their

operations, particularly as these solutions and innovations affect their traditional finance models.

This project also provides an opportunity for PG&E to gain experience working directly with transit

agencies and to capture insights that will inform implementation of the EV Fleet Program, an SRP under

SB350, and involves extensive coordination with operators of MD/HD fleets to advance fleet

electrification.

Barriers

Utility investment in MD/HD fleet electrification can address two key barriers: upfront electrical

infrastructure costs and ongoing electrical charging costs. This demonstration aims to reduce these

barriers and to provide a model for how utilities can support fleet electrification projects, providing a

case study of successful transit electrification.

To maximize PG&E’s success in future collaborations with transit agencies, those agencies must have

confidence that cost savings can be achieved when operating an electric fleet. On the current rate

structure most transit agencies use, demand charges have posed a challenge, and ongoing operational

costs have not always decreased following adoption of EVs. To this extent, PG&E has separately filed

57 CARB, “Innovative Clean Transit,” accessed 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/innovative-clean-

transit.


Page 182

and gained approval for a commercial EV (CEV) rate, which will mitigate many challenges that transit

agencies will face in managing their charging costs.58

The learning curve for planning and operating an electric fleet poses another barrier for transit agencies

that PG&E can address. Most agencies do not know the best way to provide adequate charging

infrastructure for electric buses. Additionally, they do not have experience with the new operational

challenges associated with deploying electric buses, including understanding capabilities and limitations,

and how to effectively integrate electric buses into their regular operations. Guidance from the utility

for such implementation projects will prove crucial to advancing the MD/HD fleet electrification market.



PG&E created a list of over 50 transit agencies and contacted several to track electric bus interest and

planned procurements. PG&E wanted to partner with a transit agency that already used electric buses,

as this would likely result in a smoother design and construction process for charger installation to meet

the January 2019 target completion timeframe.

PG&E then used the criteria outlined in Figure 85 to create a short list of potential transit agencies for

the project. By early February 2018, PG&E had identified the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD)

as an ideal candidate for the pilot as it met all desired criteria; it had an existing fleet of 12 electric

buses, had new buses on order, and had announced a goal to electrify 100% of its fleet operating within

Stockton city limits by 2025.

58 CPUC Decision 19-10-055, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M318/K552/318552527.PDF


Page 183

Figure 85. Evaluation criteria for PRP participants59

Source: PG&E SB350 PRP Interim Report

Site Host

Prior to this project’s start, RTD was already operating two generations of legacy electric buses. These

included two 2013 prototypes from Proterra and ten 2016 Proterra electric buses with 30–50 mile

ranges that RTD began operating in September 2017. Because of their limited battery capacity, these

buses had to use on-route 500 kW overhead chargers to complete their routes; relying on overnight

depot charging was not an option.

Prior to the PRP, RTD was experiencing high electric bus costs per mile resulting from demand charges

and uncontrolled charging practices. RTD is currently a PG&E customer on the A-10 TOU rate. The A-10

TOU rate includes a demand charge (per kilowatt) and an energy charge (per kilowatt-hour).60 PG&E’s

new CEV rate, to be implemented in 2020, supports transportation electrification for commercial fleets

and has the potential to help manage costs for RTD.

In early 2018, RTD began taking proactive measures to reduce future electrical charging costs by

procuring five new electric buses with longer nominal ranges (~250 miles) that could take advantage of

overnight charging. RTD staff had not, however, yet developed a clear plan for how to charge and deploy

these buses; discussions with PG&E through this PRP enabled them to pursue a demonstration targeting

lower TCO.

59 From PG&E’s Interim Priority Review Report:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?DocFormat=ALL&DocID=285086006 60 Full tariff details are provided here: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_A-10.pdf


Page 184

RTD also has a goal to operate all routes within the City of Stockton exclusively with battery electric

buses by 2025. It seeks to better understand the requirements for scaling up and what collaboration

with PG&E is needed to upgrade its behind-the-meter and make-ready infrastructure to accommodate

RTD’s increasingly electric fleet.

Sites

This PRP involved three sites at RTD. At Site 1, the Regional Transportation Center (RTC), five 60 kW

depot chargers have been installed to charge the five longer-range electric buses overnight. Figure 86

shows a diagram of Site 1’s setup, which became operational in May 2019. A key question associated

with this site is whether the TCO for a depot charger configuration is reduced relative to the baseline of

diesel hybrid buses on the same routes.

Figure 86. RTD Site 1 diagram

Note: T = Transformer and M = Utility Electric Meter


Site 2, the Downtown Transit Center (DTC), is the largest transit hub in Stockton and at the center of

RTD’s system. This is where RTD installed its original pantograph chargers (overhead fast chargers that

automatically couple with an apparatus on the roof of the bus when the bus pulls into its parking space

at the transit center). These two 500 kW Eaton overhead fast chargers serve electric buses operating on

four short routes. Figure 87 is a diagram of Site 2’s configuration. Although the chargers existed prior to

the PRP, PG&E deployed charge management software in October 2018 at this site to address high

demand costs. RTD is trying to determine whether managed charging will reduce electricity bills while

still serving the operational needs for electric buses on these routes.


Page 185




Site 3, Union Transfer Station (UTS), is where a new Siemens overhead fast charger was installed (paid

for by RTD) and where this PG&E PRP plans to add a battery electric storage system (BESS). UTS is

located at the intersection of two key RTD bus rapid transit routes, the Metro Express Airport Corridor

and the MLK Corridor, both of which now use electric buses. A diagram of Site 3 is shown in Figure 88. A

key question here will be the degree to which energy storage can reduce operational costs.





Page 186

Timeline


The graph below (Figure 89) illustrates the original timeline (pale blue fill) and the achieved timeline (medium blue fill) for the MD/HD PRP. This

divergence reflects a variety of disruptions and challenges, many of which were unforeseeable on the part of PG&E or the site host.

Figure 89. RTD PRP comparative project timeline

Note: Open diamonds indicate original milestone date.


Page 187

The original PRP plan was to have the depot chargers operational and the BESS integrated by January

2019 to collect a full year of operational use data, prior to the original timeline for the PRP’s conclusion

in December 2019. As CPUC approved a request to extend the final evaluation report to January 2021,

PG&E will be able to obtain more than 12 months of data for demand management and depot chargers,

and several months of data should be available for the BESS solution in the final evaluation report.


Depot chargers were delayed by about a month as a result of changes in the to-the-meter design

relative to the project manager’s schedule. The construction duration was extended because of an

increased scope of work. The project team planned to access a PG&E transformer located on a

neighboring property. It was determined, however, that a new transformer, vault, and primary riser

would offer the best option to mitigate the need for an easement. This resulted in a slight delay to the

original schedule.

To mitigate further delays, behind-the-meter construction commenced while the to-the-meter design

was revised to accommodate the change in scope. With the changed scope, four out of five chargers

were operational on March 21, 2019. The final charger, which required repair by the manufacturer, was

activated on May 4, 2019.

The BESS has been delayed substantially, with the full extent of delay still unknown, as this project

component is not yet completed. Several factors contributed to the delays. RTD and PG&E needed time

to identify the preferred location for the BESS. According to interviews with the RTD project manager,

DTC was originally RTD’s preferred location because of the large number of electric buses that charge

there and the known need to manage demand charges. Concerns emerged, however, about space

availability at DTC and the need to disrupt DTC services during the BESS installation (DTC is the busiest

bus station in RTD’s system).

PG&E recommended that the BESS installation be shifted to UTS, a greenfield site under development

for a new transit hub, with ample distribution system capacity and space for future expansion of

batteries and solar. The addition of solar falls outside of this PRP’s scope but could integrate well with

BESS in the future. The grand opening of UTS did not occur until late February 2019, and some time was

needed to operate the new station before planning the BESS installation. Before focusing on the BESS

installation, RTD had many other priorities to balance within this PRP, including managing existing

electric buses, setting new charging thresholds at DTC, constructing depot chargers at RTC, and

integrating the new electric buses into service.

A few factors also accelerated the project timeline, without which the delays would have been more

substantial. First, RTD already had longer-range electric buses with depot-charging capability on order,

so the design started immediately after signing the contract to participate in the PRP. Second, RTD could

sole-source Proterra chargers, as the district had already procured Proterra buses. If a sole-source

procurement had not been possible, RTD would have needed to issue a solicitation, which could have

added a month or more to the timeline. This efficiency could have saved even more time if RTD had

intended to use Proterra chargers all along. Originally, RTD staff expressed interest in ChargePoint

chargers because of their demand management capabilities, but ultimately Proterra equipment was


Page 188

selected, which mitigates the complexity of resolving charging issues, as a single company would be

responsible for addressing these.


Current Status

Currently, RTD operates three different models of Proterra electric buses, as detailed in Table 37,

charging at the three sites described above. PG&E’s construction and implementation activities have

concluded at Sites 1 and 2, with only the installation of the BESS at Site 3 remaining to complete the

PRP’s infrastructure installations. Hence, the project is shifting toward testing and advising RTD; PG&E

can learn about the bus fleet capabilities paired with the implemented charging solutions. PG&E has

worked with RTD to develop several tests of operational protocols to compare the charging costs with

diesel hybrid buses on Route 49—the route on which the new long-range Proterra buses are

being deployed.

Table 37. Relevant electric bus specifications

Manufacturer Proterra

Model BE35 Catalyst Fast Charge

Catalyst E2 Long-Range

Buses

Quantity in RTD Fleet

2 10 5

Battery Size (kWh)

78 105 440

Nominal Range (miles)

49 62 251

Charging Protocol

DC Roof-Mounted Pantograph

DC Roof-Mounted Pantograph

DC SAE Combo and DC Roof-Mounted Pantograph (can be configured for both)


Frequently, technical and maintenance issues have prevented the electric buses from being utilized as

extensively as the fleet’s diesel hybrid and diesel buses. As shown in Figure 90, a typical diesel hybrid

bus accrues over 1,800 miles per month. As of Q1 2018, before the new long-range buses were

procured, electric buses across RTD’s fleet were averaging 1,558 miles per month. That average mileage

dropped to 1,035 per electric bus throughout 2018, rebounding to 1,348 per bus per month from

January to October 2019.


Page 189

Figure 90. Comparison of monthly mileage per bus, January to April 2018

Source: PG&E Q1 2019 PAC meeting

The evaluation team’s interviews with RTD staff revealed issues with the electric buses and charging

infrastructure. For instance, the overhead chargers at DTC and UTS were down for multiple months in

summer 2019. RTD also reported that the five new buses did not have sufficient range to operate all day

on a single charge. The buses did not come close to their advertised nominal range and have been pulled

from service when they reach a 20% state of charge [SOC] so that they do not become stranded en

route. These types of issues are not surprising, given the relative early stage of electric bus deployment.

The need to address these issues underscores the value of ongoing coordination and collaboration

between PG&E and RTD.

Other issues occurred with the chargers that did not affect operations but that also needed to be

resolved. For instance, PG&E had to diagnose a problem with the RTC overnight depot chargers, as they

went down regularly during the mid-afternoon—an issue that did not affect current operations but still

needed to be fixed. PG&E determined that the problem was a power quality issue, rather than a

problem with the chargers themselves, and took corrective action.

Another example of beneficial collaboration is PG&E’s staff continuing to elevate the importance of

addressing RTD’s needs with Proterra, particularly in helping line up the buses early for the upgrade in

Proterra’s telematics system to more rapidly obtain useful data on fleet operations. Additionally, PG&E

has been able to advise RTD on rate structures, test designs, and collecting lessons learned, which will

help with planning for the expansion of the district’s electric fleet.


Page 190

Construction Update

As noted, Site 3 (the UTS) is the only site where PRP construction activities remain incomplete.

Construction at this site is slated for completion in mid-2020. As of November 2019, a preliminary single-

line diagram was completed for the BESS system, but the detailed design has not been completed.

Outside the scope of the PRP, RTD is installing solar and a second overhead fast charger at UTS. The

second charger is expected to be installed in February 2020, and the BESS is expected to be completed

in summer 2020.

Ongoing and Upcoming Tests

At the RTC

PG&E and RTD intend to test several options for managing the charging costs of the five new long-range

electric buses. The tests aim to answer the following two key questions:

Can the new long-range electric buses be fully charged every night at the depot and meet their

daily route needs?

o RTD verified that the electric buses can be fully charged at night, during the normal period

between daily operational times. During summer, the actual range of the buses is

substantially less than the nominal range, likely due to challenging operating conditions

associated with summer heat. Through the summer, RTD pulled buses off the route each

afternoon (typically before they depleted to less than 20%–30% SOC). Additional testing will

determine whether the buses can operate for a full day of service during the mildest

conditions with the least heating or cooling demands.

Can the fueling cost per mile be reduced through different charging protocols, and how does

this compare with diesel hybrids on the same route?

o To address this question, the buses’ fueling costs under different charging protocols are

being established over multiple electric billing periods: 1) charging only at the depot,

2) charging by overhead only (at UTS), and 3) charging at both the depot and UTS overhead

chargers.61 During all test periods, a diesel hybrid will be running simultaneously with the

electric buses on the same route for a direct cost-per-mile comparison.

At the DTC

PG&E and RTD intend to gather further information about the performance of demand management.

Can the demand management software reduce operation costs of 12 legacy electric buses

relative to uncontrolled charging and still meet RTD’s route needs?

o The demand management software is substantially reducing RTD costs when demand is

capped at 300 kW (see Benefits section under Evaluation Findings). However, this comes

61 It is not clear whether each of these protocols will prove feasible at all times of the year, and for some of these

charging protocols, spare buses may need to be pulled in midday if the SOC dips too low.


Page 191

with uncertainty about whether the demand management software could cause any electric

buses’ SOCs to fall too low and disable them from completing their routes (Proterra

provided guidelines to the fleet that stipulate not regularly operating the buses below 20%

SOC). Rather than throttling charging to only 300 kW, the software is designed to provide

full power charging until meeting the 300 kW demand limit across the current 15-minute

period. The system will then prevent buses from charging until the next 15-minute window.

RTD and PG&E are interested in reviewing this strategy to determine whether there might

be a better way to prioritize charging for buses that cannot afford to miss a charging session

(based on their current SOC).

At the UTS

When the BESS is interconnected, PG&E and RTD intend to answer the following questions:

To what extent can the BESS reduce charging costs at the UTS?

Do the additional savings make a BESS economical for this application? In what scenarios might

it offer benefits?



The evaluation team has been collecting a wide range of data types to answer the PRP evaluation

questions. For this PRP, in addition to the research questions that apply to every fleet electrification

PRP, the evaluation seeks to understand the challenges and innovations associated with implementing

charge management, overnight charging, and coupling the BESS with an overhead fast charger.

Data Sources

Data collection has included in-depth interviews, maintenance and fuel records, mileage records,

operational details (such as bus assignments to routes), PG&E electricity bills, PG&E meter interval data,

PG&E’s costs to implement the PRP, equipment out-of-service dates, and many other items. In addition

to continuing to collect these types of data through the conclusion of the PRP, the evaluation team will

conduct market research on comparable fleets and survey RTD bus operators.

Operational protocols and bus assignments are still being adjusted, and the fleet is designing and

implementing tests on the feasibility and cost of various operating protocols. Therefore, drawing

conclusions from analysis of charging patterns and operational costs incurred by the fleet to date would

be premature, and the formal analysis has been deferred until the final evaluation report.


Project Baseline

A major question for the evaluation is whether PG&E’s efforts caused or have the potential to accelerate

electrification of vehicles in this application by addressing barriers. To address this question, it is

important to look at the baseline of industry uptake and the innovations developed through the project

that potentially could be applied broadly. As noted in the project narrative above, PG&E intentionally


Page 192

chose a partner that already had plans to procure electric buses, so the project’s impact is primarily

associated with the charging innovations it demonstrates. With the new ICT regulation requiring all

agencies to plan for ZEB transitions, the innovations of this project offer a pathway to scale electric bus

deployment in PG&E’s territory more effectively than transit agencies would have achieved without

PG&E’s involvement.

Several factors in California have made electric buses more financially attractive to transit agencies. One

factor is the availability of grant programs, such as those offered through CARB, the CEC, the VW

Environmental Mitigation Trust, and others. Another potential benefit is the anticipated maintenance

savings achieved over the life of the vehicle, a particularly salient feature in a state with high labor costs.

Currently, the electric fleet must be heavily managed, which is a function of being new, but labor hours

are expected to decrease for this as well. Another factor is the ability to capture Low Carbon Fuel

Standard (LCFS) credits, which become even more valuable when agencies generate solar energy to

offset their electrical usage. When the PG&E CEV rate becomes available, that rate structure will also

make transit electrification more cost-effective for many agencies.

Transit buses present good opportunities for electrification because of their high utilization rates, fixed

routes, and return-to-base at night operations. Nonetheless, many barriers persist, including upfront

cost premiums, costly infrastructure, time-consuming processes for procurement and permitting, range

limitations for the most energy-demanding routes, resilience concerns in areas prone to power shutoffs,

and HVAC requirements in extreme weather conditions. Nevertheless, California is the leading region for

electric buses in the United States, and as of August 2019, 964 transit buses have been delivered to

agencies across the state.62 Many agencies are actively watching the results of this project and other

deployments to inform their own electrification plans.


What Went Well

The recruitment process aligned well with PG&E’s goals, as RTD met all criteria that PG&E wanted in a

partner: had new electric buses on order, served DACs, had experience running electric buses, had a

demonstrated need to implement better charge management protocols, and was keenly interested in

learning and developing operational best practices to support its ultimate goal to electrify 100% of its

fleet by 2025. Having buses on order enabled an early start to the design process, and prior electric bus

experience addressed some common operational challenges in switching to this technology.

Areas for Improvement

One area for improvement is to encourage partner agencies to coordinate with PG&E as early as

possible, ideally prior to acquiring buses. This will enable PG&E to help the agencies understand their

options and determine the best charging and bus configurations. By design, PG&E partnered in this pilot

with an entity that already had made decisions about its electric bus procurement, so this was not

62 CALSTART webinar for California Transit Association:

https://caltransit.org/cta/assets/File/Webinar%20Elements/CTA-CALSTART%20Webinar%201.pdf


Page 193

possible. It is, however, a recommended best practice to strive for moving forward. RTD could have

benefited from talking with PG&E earlier, as the district was not even aware that depot charging was an

option with the new electric buses. With PG&E, RTD could find the right configuration of chargers to suit

its needs.

Another challenge arose in obtaining and monitoring data when the new long-range electric buses were

first acquired. The utility meter did not operate properly for the first six months, resulting in an

electricity consumption data gap from January 18 to June 10, 2019. This prevented RTD from receiving

valuable information about the amount of electricity buses consumed and how much it would have cost.

Another issue was that Proterra’s data loggers were not able to keep up with the massive amounts of

data on its servers (a result of their significant market growth), resulting in PG&E’s and RTD’s being

unable to track real-time or historical data covering the period between early summer 2019 and late fall

2019. These issues have been resolved, and the improved access to data for the remainder of the PRP

will enable collection of more robust lessons learned.

Finally, the project’s BESS delay could have been shortened by making key design decisions for the BESS

earlier to meet PG&E interconnection application requirements. Examples include operating

requirements, requirements for the single line diagram, and inverter certification. As described in

Section 2.1.3, some delay was unavoidable because of the importance of aligning with RTD on key

decisions (e.g., site selection) for this project component. However, PG&E and RTD should have ensured

that all interconnection documentation was in place well before the intended construction start. PG&E

assisted RTD in submitting an interconnection application between late July and early August 2019, but

the complexity increased when RTD informed PG&E that it also planned for solar at the site, making it

more difficult for PG&E to expedite the application. Earlier interconnection approval could have enabled

alignment of the construction schedule for BESS installation as well as installation of the planned second

overhead charger, which had the potential to reduce disruption at the site during construction. The

construction has not yet been completed for either component.

Lesson Learned: Early partnership between the utility and transit agencies will provide opportunities for transfer of knowledge and best practices. The utility brings unique insights and can support agencies with the expertise utility staff have developed through implementing programs and projects throughout the territory.

Costs

Project Costs

Upfront project costs were incurred for each of the three sites in the PRP. As the work at Site 3 is not

complete, no budget updates are available for the BESS. The following cost categorization applies to

Table 38:

Design includes design, estimating, and permitting.


Page 194

Chargers includes procurement of the five 60 kW depot chargers (Proterra PCS), a five-year

warranty, and sales tax. The chargers were originally procured by RTD, who was then fully

reimbursed by PG&E.

Behind-the-meter (BtM) infrastructure includes the following customer-side costs: charger

installation, materials, construction labor, internal labor, and burdens on costs.

To-the-meter (TtM) infrastructure includes the following utility-side costs: materials,

construction labor, internal labor, inspection, and burdens on cost.

Table 38. Summary of PG&E project costs through October 2019

Design Chargers BtM Infrastructure TtM Infrastructure Total

Site 1: DTC Demand Management

In-kind from

Proterra N/A N/A N/A N/A

Site 2: RTC Depot Chargers

$ 53,020 $ 285,280 $ 147,734 $ 242,789 $ 728,824

Site 3: UTS BESS

TBD N/A (RTD paid

for its own charging)

TBD TBD TBD

Project Management Costs

$ 201,274

Total $ 53,020 $ 285,280 $ 147,734 $ 242,789 $ 923,167

It appears that the project is on track to stay within the proposed $3,355,000 estimated budget

approved by the CPUC. Based on the PG&E-provided estimates for remaining costs to close out the

project, the total forecasted cost for the project is expected to be about 60% of this budget.

In addition to costs covered or reimbursed by PG&E, other project partners have provided valuable

in-kind contributions. For instance, Proterra developed the demand management software that RTD

implemented at the DTC at no cost to RTD or the PRP. Additionally, RTD invested the administrative and

project management time of a special projects manager as well as investing the time of its core facilities

and operational staff for installing the depot chargers and implementing demand management. The

value of this leveraged labor, which RTD expected to provide, has not been quantified.

Benefits

The PRP evaluation will include an assessment of petroleum usage reduction, GHG emissions reduction,

criteria pollutants reduction, benefits to DACs, benefits to the fleet (e.g., operational cost savings from

fuel and maintenance), and any co-benefits. As data collection for this project will continue into 2020,

no final conclusions about the PRP benefits can currently be drawn. However, since preliminary data are


Page 195

available on charging profiles and associated electricity costs, preliminary data on the PRP impact for

RTD’s ongoing fuel costs is provided below.

Ongoing Costs to RTD

While a full evaluation of the TCO for all electric buses deployed in RTD’s fleet falls outside the scope of

this evaluation, this evaluation seeks to quantify fueling cost savings between how RTD charged its

buses prior to PG&E’s involvement and how it did so afterward, with a particular focus on the new long-

range electric buses. There are additional sources of ongoing costs and savings that do not relate to

PG&E’s involvement, so these costs will not be assessed in depth (e.g., changes to vehicle operator

wages, maintenance costs, LCFS credits, warranty costs, end-of-life salvage values). PG&E’s PRP will

affect RTD’s fueling costs in three main ways: 1) advising RTD on rate structures; 2) modified charging

patterns at the RTC and the UTS (including battery storage at UTS); and 3) managed charging demand at

DTC.

Impact of Advising RTD on Rate Structures

During 2020, the evaluation team intends to shadow-bill RTD on the forthcoming CEV rate and provide a

comparison of RTD’s actual costs with its theoretical costs on that new rate. To take advantage of the

CEV rate, RTD will need to confirm the connected load for each of the accounts is exclusively for vehicle

charging. This is likely the case for DTC and UTS, although there may be a few minimal loads still

connected to these meters, such as a fare-vending machine, while by design RTC chargers were installed

on their own meters.

Impact on Charging Patterns at UTS and RTC

PG&E is currently designing tests that will help RTD determine whether it should operate its buses on

overnight charging at RTC, on the fast charger at UTS, or some combination of these. In addition to the

BESS (planned for UTS, which is funded by this PRP), there are plans for both RTC and UTS to have solar

interconnected in 2020, which is not included in this PRP’s budget. With this addition, the optimal

charging protocol may need to account for solar generation credits as well as for the impact on the LCFS

credit value.

Impact on Charging Patterns at DTC

PG&E noted that, prior to this PRP, RTD was routinely incurring higher costs per mile for its buses

charged via the extreme fast chargers at DTC. Preliminary data analysis shows that the software

intervention to institute demand caps at DTC was effective in reducing costs per mile for those buses,

provided that the fleet also maintained a high level of charger utilization. Figure 91 and Figure 92 show

the effectiveness of demand management in the first few months and subsequent six months,

respectively.


Page 196

Figure 91. RTD daily demand at DTC by 15-minute interval

Source: PG&E Q1 2019 PAC meeting

Datapoints highlighted in red are time intervals in which demand exceeded 300 kW. One month after

the demand limiting software was implemented, it was determined that the initial threshold of 250 kW

was too restrictive and affected the ability to adequately charge buses for their duties, so the threshold

was increased to 300 kW.

Figure 92. RTD demand plot from September 2018 through August 2019

Note: Datapoints highlighted in red are time intervals in which demand exceeded 300 kW.

Source: PG&E meter data


Page 197

As shown in Figure 92, RTD successfully stayed under its demand management cap from October 2018

to June 2019. It appears it overrode the demand management cap at DTC in July and September 2019

for operational reasons, resulting in higher costs for those months. Despite the limitations associated

with managing bus charging patterns while attempting to maintain maximum utilization of these

resources, demand charge savings are clearly documented through RTD’s electric bills. As shown in

Figure 93, the average monthly demand charge for winter months (defined in the tariff as November

through April) dropped by 35% between winter 2017–2018 and winter 2018–2019. The same

comparison for summer months shows a 20% drop. Under the approved CEV rate, RTD can expect even

greater monthly savings, thanks to the rate structure, and can opt to subscribe to a lower kilowatt

threshold because of this software, reducing overall costs.

Figure 93. Demand charge average value before and after implementing software management

Source: PG&E utility bills


RTD has been carefully tracking operational impacts of the electric buses and their chargers to gather

insights for scaling its electric bus deployment to reach its intracity fleet electric bus deployment goal by

2025. The district has dynamically modified its route assignments to learn about how it can increase the

number of miles driven on the electric buses and manage charging costs. The electric buses and charging

infrastructure have been affecting operations in three major ways: 1) their ability to meet route needs

for daily service, 2) the difference between expectations and actual capabilities for interoperability, and

3) maintenance considerations and net changes in uptime relative to the diesel hybrid buses that the

electric buses replace.

Ability to Meet Route Needs

Demand Management Software

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

Pre Post

Summer month average demand charge Winter month average demand charge


Page 198

Achieving the aforementioned cost savings at DTC from implementing the demand cap has required that

RTD carefully manage electric bus performance in coordination between the bus operators and the

control center. As demand management means that not all buses can charge as a matter of standard

operation, every bus operator must confirm that the SOC is sufficient to complete the next lap on the

route. When necessary, drivers now call the control center for approval to continue operating without

charging, and supervisors in the control center must manage these routes much more closely. Prior to

demand management, the operators simply pulled in and charged their buses without involving the

control center or worrying about range.

Nominal Versus Real-World Range

RTD has found the new Proterra Catalyst E2 buses are not achieving the ranges originally anticipated.

RTD staff are surprised and disappointed that the effective range is so much lower than the advertised

nominal range. In addition to expected impacts from extreme summer and winter temperatures, terrain,

and passenger loads, RTD has found that the effective range in revenue service is limited by two

additional factors: 1) the manufacturer’s recommendation not to deplete the battery below 20% SOC on

a regular basis and 2) the non-revenue service miles accrued driving the bus to the route from the depot

(and the return trip). RTD has found that the trip from the depot to the route can deplete the SOC more

than anticipated. Therefore, the district can use only 60%–70% of the battery on productive revenue

service miles after accounting for the 20% buffer and up to 10% loss before and after revenue service.

Stockton is in a climate that experiences temperature extremes, including an average high above 90°F in

July and August, which could explain the effective range being lower than anticipated. Further

information on bus performance on this route will be available in the final report.

Expectations for Interoperability

RTD staff indicated that they first learned of two interoperability limitations after they purchased buses

and installed chargers. First, after some of the initial communications between RTD staff and Protera,

RTD staff believed the 2016 short-range Catalyst FC buses would be able to use depot chargers installed

as part of the PRP, which was not the case. Although this may not have resulted in a major operational

impact, the lack of interoperability could affect future flexibility to respond to disruptions such as power

outages at other sites.

Second, when RTD deployed its 2018 long-range Catalyst E2 buses (originally configured to use depot

charging) on a route with an overhead fast charger, staff learned that the rate at which the buses

accepted an overhead fast charge was limited by the battery chemistry of the higher-capacity batteries

on the Catalyst E2 model. Particularly when the SOC fell below 45% or rose above 67%, the rate of

charging slowed substantially below the rated power of the selected charger. RTD staff do not recall

knowing about this prior to the purchase of the E2 buses in 2018 (a handout is currently available

describing the issue). The degree to which the Catalyst E2 model’s charging speeds may affect RTD’s

optimal charging protocol for these buses has yet to be determined.

This report will not verify what information and communications RTD received about interoperability

during procurement, but regardless of how the mismatch in expectations arose, this experience points

to the need for more OEM guidance, as well as careful review of specifications on the part of the

purchaser.


Page 199

Lesson Learned: The complexity of managing the charging protocol of multiple generations of buses with a mix of overhead fast charging and depot charging warrants more guidance from the bus manufacturer and requires sophisticated management from the transit agency.

Maintenance

RTD has observed that the percentage of days that electric buses have been available for service has

been lower than that of the diesel hybrids. In addition, the on-route chargers have frequently failed and

required maintenance. Statistics on the frequency of these challenges will be provided in the final

evaluation report after more data have been collected.

Table 39 summarizes the challenges associated with deployment of the 2018 long-range electric buses

and the charging infrastructure. The table does not provide a comprehensive depiction of all issues;

rather, it is simply a list of salient factors that RTD identified. It must be noted that adverse impacts from

these issues may diminish over time as Proterra and RTD learn more about the equipment and improve

their ability to prevent and/or to quickly diagnose problems. A full comparison of the frequency of

maintenance issues between the electric buses and the diesel hybrids does not fall within the scope of

the interim report, but preliminary information provided by RTD indicates that issues with the diesel

hybrid fleet arise approximately once per week and most frequently include issues with the following:

1) the dual power-inverter modules, 2) the hybrid energy storage systems, 3) the fuel system, 4) exhaust

gas recirculation system problems, and 5) issues with bus systems (such as doors, fareboxes, HVAC, and

radios). A more robust comparison will be provided in the final evaluation report.

Table 39. RTD unanticipated challenges and maintenance issues


Buses The steering column specification changed without warning.

The steering column required replacement on brand new buses.

Buses The SOC depletes faster than RTD expected under certain conditions because bus batteries did not properly interface with chargers.

Proterra recommended replacement of fans that cool the batteries (a $15,000 expense). This did not fix the problem, which ultimately was determined to be related to balancing of the batteries.

Buses The 2018 model year buses cannot charge faster than 0.7% of the battery capacity per minute on an overhead fast charger except when between 45%–67% SOC.

RTD has incorporated this knowledge into its plans for operating the 2018 buses.


Page 200


Buses There is latency between when vehicle telematics data are recorded and when they become available in the real-time tracking software (new data were unavailable between early summer and late fall).

Proterra dispatched technicians to replace its first-generation telematics system with a new system, which enabled shorter latency.

Overhead chargers

Bus operators must avoid turning too soon after disengaging with the chargers; otherwise, they will knock the paddles on the charger out of alignment.

Driver training is required.

Overhead chargers

RTD was required to change the pilot brushes monthly using in-house labor.

Proterra changed the charge head style, eliminating the need to change the pilot brushes.

Overhead chargers

PG&E’s meter was wired incorrectly and did not register RTD's usage until six months after it was in operation.

PG&E remedied the problem.

Overhead chargers

Compressors that power the pneumatic controls on the chargers failed.

Condensation was identified as a possible issue in the winter. The original compressors were exchanged with a different make and model, which significantly reduced this issue.

Overhead chargers

Previously, the charger model required frequent brush replacements.

The new design resulted in using new brushes that should last longer.

Overhead chargers

Outages in Stockton (due to fires) caused three grid areas to go offline and affected two overhead charger sites.

Spare buses were used to ensure service was not interrupted.

Depot Charger

Power quality must be high enough; otherwise, the chargers interpret this as a fault and shut down (routinely failing in mid-afternoon).

PG&E modified the supply to remove the shutdowns.

Demand management

No off-the-shelf solution was available.

RTD had to ask Proterra to develop a solution for them at DTC.

Despite this list of challenges, RTD was able to maintain its operations by having a higher-than-usual

spare ratio, which was created by delaying bus retirements. Due to these spares, RTD had available non-

electric buses to use as replacements when issues arose with the electric buses or their chargers. As the


Page 201

electrification of RTD’s fleet scales up, higher reliability will be required, which may come with maturing

of the electric bus market.


RTD PRP stakeholders and their management teams were interviewed individually and in a group

setting. Interviewees indicated that, in addition to the substantial financial incentive associated with this

PG&E PRP for the make-ready and the chargers, a significant participation motivator was to understand

what it would take to upgrade behind-the-meter infrastructure and make-ready infrastructure to

accommodate electrification of their fleet. Interviewees wanted to learn about working with PG&E and

the timelines involved, particularly the amount of lead time needed for PG&E to help with the make-

ready investments.

Ultimately, RTD wanted to understand how to scale the pilot to electrify 100% of its intracity fleet by

2025, in alignment with the district’s existing goals. Despite frustrations with the electric buses and

chargers, RTD staff are very satisfied with the support that PG&E has provided throughout the project,

and they note that the implementation process went as smoothly as one would expect for this sort of

infrastructure project.

Vehicle operators have been providing feedback to RTD management. Some operators try to avoid

being assigned to the electric buses, as they do not like the auto-docking process at the overhead

chargers, which slows the bus down and takes control out of the driver’s hands. Some passengers may

be anxious about timed transfers, and if the first attempt to dock fails, the bus must go around the block

and try again. When this happens, it also cuts into the operator’s scheduled break. Operators also

indicated they do not like the uncertainty associated with the SOC and not knowing whether they will

make their entire route. RTD believes operators will not mind the electric buses as much once the

district transitions to more depot charging.

These observations are only anecdotal, as reported by RTD staff to date. The evaluation team will gather

formal feedback from vehicle operators for the final evaluation report.

4.2.4 Conclusions

Below are a few preliminary findings based on the information collected to date. Additional data will be

analyzed for the final report.

Early customers in the electric bus market need more hands-on support than equipment providers are

prepared to provide. PG&E’s PRP fills this gap well, but it remains to be determined whether the amount

of support PG&E is providing RTD can be scalable to all EV Fleet program partners. From a planning

perspective, the manufacturers appear too busy meeting product demand to provide extensive fleet

advising. This has been evident, as RTD took time itself to understand the capabilities and limitations of

its new buses and chargers. RTD experienced manufacturer issues related to the electric drivetrain or

charging, along with changes in product specifications (e.g., changes to the steering column).

Furthermore, RTD was surprised by the actual range of its buses in real-world conditions. The nominal

range may lead prospective buyers to assume buses can complete routes not feasible for that bus

model, as the range in real-world conditions (and when maintaining a sufficient SOC buffer) is


Page 202

substantially less. The fleet intends to emphasize realistic estimates of the real-world range during

future procurements.

From an equipment reliability perspective, the need for more hands-on support is apparent because

more problems surfaced than RTD expected, and it was not clear who was responsible for addressing

the issues. RTD originally believed the overhead chargers would be nearly maintenance-free. However,

experience revealed issues with vehicle operators knocking the paddles out of alignment, issues with

compressors for the pneumatic controls, and a need to switch to a new charger brush style, as well as

items which RTD cannot repair without Proterra’s assistance.

RTD feels it is learning in parallel with Proterra, which is slightly disconcerting. In summer 2019, all

overhead chargers at UTS and DTC were out of commission for more than a month, preventing the

shorter-range 2016 fleet from staying in service. The 2018 electric buses were still partially operational

using depot chargers but had to be pulled from their routes by mid-afternoon because of insufficient

range. Transit agencies that intend to retire diesel buses one-for-one when they purchase electric buses

will need quick resolutions to their maintenance problems, or they must maintain adequate redundancy

in buses and charging infrastructure. RTD has been fortunate in having sufficient non-electric spare

buses to operate without major interruptions, despite the reliability issues with some buses and

chargers.

The depot chargers at RTC were routinely shutting down for some period between 4:00 pm and

8:00 pm, and Proterra could not diagnose the problem. Eventually, it was diagnosed as a power quality

issue and not a problem with the chargers.

Custom solutions are still needed for each electric bus deployment. No off-the-shelf charging

management software was available for Proterra chargers when PG&E launched the PRP. Proterra was

able to develop a custom solution for the DTC site, but it does not plan to support the integration of

charging management at UTS, because of that site’s increased complexity with the BESS. Important

considerations in the development of custom solutions for each charging site include the following

factors: the ratio of buses per charger, demand charges and tariff TOU periods, other distributed energy

resources on the site, and the capabilities and configuration of the electric buses. An important

consideration is the solution’s simplicity—RTD emphasized the imperative of eliminating as many risks

as possible to maximize the chance of successful and reliable charging on every charging cycle.

Additionally, customers should expect to encounter limitations when trying to use charging system

combinations. As detailed in the Operational Impacts of Project Equipment section, RTD experienced

two unanticipated limitations to interoperability between the multiple generations of buses and

chargers in its fleet. This points to the inherent complexity of managing the charging protocol for

multiple generations of buses with a mix of overhead fast charging and depot charging. This complexity

warrants more guidance from the OEM and sophisticated management from the transit agency.

As a result of this PRP, additional knowledge and capacity is being built that will enable better

management of electric buses and related assets at RTD. Management of electricity costs is challenging,

particularly given the limited flexibility transit agencies have in their routes and operations, especially in

cases where many buses share charging across several sites, as at RTD. Shifting from managing diesel

expenses (long-term contracts can be locked in) to electricity (prices can fluctuate over the course of a


Page 203

day, and a single anomaly can result in substantially higher costs) requires careful planning and

sophisticated management. Because such a high percentage of the monthly electric bill is determined by

demand, the cost per mile can be very high if buses are not heavily utilized, which was a motivator

behind development of PG&E’s approved CEV rate.

Prior to the PRP, RTD incurred high demand charges so this project implemented demand management

software. This step successfully capped demand and reduced total electricity expenditures. This is

important for PG&E because, if operational cost savings are not realized, more transit agencies may

begin to reevaluate their compliance pathways for the CARB ICT and consider a different balance

between battery electric buses and alternatives such as fuel cell buses. The test phases of this project

are enabling RTD to understand the capabilities and limitations of its buses and chargers, so it will have

more knowledge and flexibility to deploy buses in the future while managing on-time performance,

demand charges, and peak TOU periods. This knowledge will remain helpful, even as PG&E introduces

its CEV rate that significantly reduces the cost of monthly demand, which should also make

electrification more compelling for transit agencies. For agencies that do not have the benefit of

participating in a PRP that enables sophisticated charging management, this rate will be critical to

support their transition from gasoline or diesel to electricity.

Additional challenges for RTD in its future planning include the following: 1) determining the cost per

mile for a specific route, given specific charging sessions may not be easily traced back to specific buses

on specific routes; 2) determining the optimal ratio of buses to overhead chargers and depot chargers;

and 3) allocating costs (both upfront and ongoing) and optimizing charging in context with a system

using BESS, renewable generation, and multiple charging options for buses of several different vintages.

The next year will provide opportunities to evaluate these new factors once construction at UTS is

complete, now that metering issues and Proterra data availability limitations have been resolved.

The challenges encountered by RTD are not an indication of failure or improper project delivery by PG&E

and project implementors. Rather, they point to the value of the approach that PG&E proposed in its

PRP, which anticipated the need to have more extensive collaboration after installation of the physical

infrastructure. Given the relative nascency and fast growth of the battery electric bus industry, growing

pains are expected, and the utility can act as a partner to help provide positive experiences for early

adopters. The collaboration through this project to date indicates that such hands-on involvement has

provided substantial value to RTD in troubleshooting day-to-day issues, managing costs, and enhancing

its ability to gather the information necessary to effectively plan the expansion of its electric fleet.

Lessons Learned

Early partnership between the utility and transit agencies will provide opportunities for transfer

of knowledge and best practices. The utility brings unique insights and can support agencies

with the expertise utility staff have developed through implementing programs and projects

throughout the territory.

The complexity of managing the charging protocol of multiple generations of buses with a mix of

overhead fast charging and depot charging warrants more guidance from the bus manufacturer

and requires sophisticated management from the transit agency.


Page 204

4.3 Idle Reduction Technology Project – eTRUs at Albertsons Distribution Center



In its January 11, 2018 order (D.18-01-024), the CPUC approved $1.72 million for PG&E to pursue an Idle

Reduction Technology Project among its PRP efforts.63 A May 2018 advice letter (Advice 5279-E) further

detailed PG&E’s intention to focus on eTRU market.64 This interim report covers the stages of the PRP

that have been completed thus far: scoping and customer acquisition, project design and preparation,

construction, and commissioning. The project is now actively operating, and data collection is under

way. Analysis of these data and concluding lessons learned will be covered in the final evaluation report.

An eTRU is a hybrid model with electrically driven refrigeration components that can be powered by an

onboard diesel generator or through electric power, if plugged in. The objectives of the eTRU pilot

include 1) demonstrating a lower TCO for the technology through minimizing fuel and infrastructure

costs, 2) developing lessons learned that can be shared with other distribution facilities supporting

PG&E’s EV Fleet Program, and 3) reducing emissions of harmful pollutants from diesel engines.

The pilot was designed to address several barriers that may be limiting uptake and full implementation

of eTRU technology. The 2018 advice letter cited findings from CARB that “limited fueling infrastructure

exists and fueling infrastructure costs are significant.” These, along with research from EPRI, formed the

basis for PG&E’s selection of key barriers to addressed with the project:

High up-front capital costs of infrastructure and capital constraints on the part of fleet owners/

facilities

Lack of awareness and misconceptions about the return on investment of the technology

This application is a good candidate for transportation electrification because eTRU technology is

broadly available. Additionally, shifting from diesel to electric energy is expected to generate valuable

fuel cost savings and air quality improvements at distribution centers that are likely to be located in or

near DACs. The pilot aims to demonstrate the benefits of using standby electric power for eTRUs relative

to the status quo practice of idling diesel engines. It also aims to share learnings that will help other

fleets implement similar projects. The success of this PRP will pave a pathway for refrigerated

distribution centers to comply with anticipated eTRU regulations from CARB (discussed further in the

Project Baseline section of Evaluation Findings for the PRP) and for broader deployment of the

technology across the state.



http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M204/K670/204670548.PDF 64 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Advice Letter 5279-E, May 24, 2018,

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_5279-E.pdf.


Page 205



As first proposed, the PRP scope covered a variety of potential site host types, including truck stops as

well as small, medium, and large warehouse and distribution facilities. PG&E collaborated with CARB to

generate a list of eTRU fleet owners that could be approached to host the project.

A few key factors drove the final decision to partner with the Albertsons Distribution Center in Tracy,

California:

Internal capacity: Albertsons was able to dedicate sufficient institutional resources to meet the

data collection, project management, and scoping requirements of pilot participation.

Capital flexibility: As a larger company, Albertsons has more flexibility to absorb shifts between

capital and operating budgets relative to small- or medium-sized businesses.

Rebate option: Albertsons is a transmission-level customer that had enough capacity available

on its existing service infrastructure to pursue the project completely on the customer side of

the meter, which allowed PG&E to test out a rebate approach for make-ready infrastructure.

This is an option that will be available in PG&E’s EV Fleet program, as part of its SRPs.

Aligned incentives: Unlike truck stops and smaller distribution centers, which often serve fleets

that are not owned by the same owner as the facility, the vehicles served at the Albertsons

distribution center are not owned by third-party operators. Therefore, the savings on fuel costs

over the lifetime of the project are captured by the same entity that paid for the upfront capital

expenditures. Albertsons’ operations encompass all aspects of the project value chain, ensuring

aligned incentives that encourage utilization of the infrastructure.

Streamlined implementation: As the single owner and operator for both the facility and fleet,

Albertsons presented a simplified project. There was no need to arrange a payment mechanism

for electricity supplied to eTRUs or coordinate with multiple stakeholders representing

separately owned fleets that might utilize the infrastructure.

Site and Site Host

Albertsons is a large grocery company that operates a food distribution service center in Tracy,

California. Located in a DAC, the 2.2-million-square-foot facility has 313 dock spaces and more than 400

staging spaces where loaded trailers wait until their delivery time. Albertsons is a sophisticated

electricity consumer because the distribution center requires significant energy to regulate the facility’s

temperature. Unrelated to the PRP, Albertsons hosts two 1 MW wind turbines at this site and acts as a

Direct Access customer subscribed to a unique electricity rate. In fact, Albertsons’ electricity

consumption at the Tracy facility is so significant that the facility’s staff at the site expect the load

impacts of the 25 eTRU ports to be imperceptible relative to total facility consumption.65

65 The SafeConnect plugs selected for the pilot are each capable of delivering 14–17 kW, although on average, an

eTRU would not consume the full amount of power available.


Page 206

As a company operating within a very competitive industry with narrow margins, Albertsons’ approach

to the PRP is different from that of public-sector fleets. Albertsons is supportive of helping to advance

transportation electrification technology for this application but must protect its business interests at

the same time. For instance, while Albertsons has indicated that it will be collaborative in sharing

information, staff have requested extra levels of review and approval before disclosing operational data

or inviting others for site tours.

Albertsons may also differ from the other PG&E PRP partners, as Albertsons had the capacity to manage

the engineering and construction process entirely internally. Albertsons managed the project, paid for

expenses as they arose, and received reimbursements from PG&E on a milestone completion basis.

A schematic of the site with charger locations can be seen in Figure 94.

Lesson Learned: Private-sector facilities and fleets may be sophisticated electricity consumers. This makes them valuable partners that can implement projects quickly, but also poses challenges associated with collecting operational data and compiling lessons learned that can apply to other site hosts.


Page 207

Figure 94. Albertson’s facility showing location and placement of eTRU ports

Source: PG&E SB350 2018 Interim Report66

Recruitment of Implementers and Additional Vendors

The eTRU pilot required fewer third parties to serve as implementers and vendors than PG&E’s other

PRPs, as this project has less focus on charging management or other additional features. This is

responsive to Albertsons’ needs and interests at this time, which are focused on how to install and

operate the infrastructure. Furthermore, PG&E did not need to invest substantial effort in guiding

Albertsons through the design and construction process. This was primarily because Albertsons is a

transmission-level service customer and had sufficient power available on the company’s existing

service to supply the entire power needs of this PRP. Albertsons desired to power its eTRU infrastructure

using the internal switchgear and electrical system rather than pulling a new service from PG&E. This

eliminated the need to coordinate with PG&E on to-the-meter construction.

66 From PG&E’s Interim Priority Review Report:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?DocFormat=ALL&DocID=285086006


Page 208

The two external vendors used for the project supported the construction and equipment needs.

Albertsons engaged Hansen Rice, a contractor, who had extensive experience working with the company

at that site. The contractor did not have eTRU experience, but that was not deemed to be a major

hurdle. After agreeing to participate in the PRP, Albertsons determined that SafeConnect was the

vendor best suited to provide the charging ports and receptacles. SafeConnect’s six-pin plug was

deemed satisfactory from a safety standpoint, and at the time of project initiation, SafeConnect was the

most mature vendor offering this type of product.

Another unique aspect of this PRP is that the site host owns and maintains the infrastructure. This

means that Albertsons could conduct internal coordination to deploy the project and was motivated to

wrap the project up efficiently because the company was reimbursed upon task completion. On the

other hand, PG&E faced the risk that, if the project were not a priority for the site host, implementation

could be delayed because PG&E would not have control over the schedule. This risk was mitigated by

structuring the incentive to Albertsons in milestones, releasing incentive payments after completion of

critical steps in the project, such as charger procurement, finalization of design and engineering, and

close of construction. The utility did not actively manage the design and construction of this project,

which may have limited lessons learned. However, PG&E’s engineering and construction teams were

involved in reviewing the project design and inspecting the installed equipment prior to release of

incentive payments. The utility was able to leverage these steps to mitigate the loss of insight into the

design and installation of eTRUs without actively managing the project. Ultimately, this PRP required

relatively little coordination with additional partners and vendors.


Page 209

Timeline


The table below illustrates the original timeline (pale blue fill) and the achieved timeline (medium blue fill) for the eTRU PRP. This divergence

reflects a variety of disruptions and challenges, many of which were unforeseeable on the part of PG&E or the site host.

Figure 95. eTRU PRP comparative project timeline

Note: Open diamonds indicate original milestone date.


Page 210

The original timeline for the eTRU PRP design and construction period planned for commissioning in

May 2019. Project milestones included site enrollment, finalization of the design, completion of

construction, and commissioning of the charging equipment. The project was commissioned in

November 2019.


In some instances, the actual project timeline diverged from plans. Albertsons lost nearly two months

because of an issue with its switchgear. The switchgear, which already existed at the site, was rated with

sufficient electrical capacity to serve the additional load. However, a key component of the switchgear

(a safety interlock) was found to be non-operational, and the part necessary to replace it was no longer

available on the market. This caused a two-month delay as the legacy part was fabricated. Had

Albertsons’ staff tested the legacy equipment at the start of the implementation process, the issue may

have been detected early on.

The permitting process with the local AHJ also took a month longer than expected. The AHJ was

unfamiliar with this technology, which prompted additional back-and-forth between the county staff

and Albertsons. While permitting delays are likely to be out of the hands of both PG&E and site hosts, it

may be effective for state agencies such as CARB to work with AHJs to inform them of eTRU technology

to help streamline the permitting process for future eTRU projects. This could be strategically focused

on AHJs where food distribution centers are located to more effectively target permitting processes.

Albertsons estimates that, if the company were to do the project again, the timeline of the construction

process would be closer to four months rather than the seven to eight months it took this time.

Lesson Learned: Legacy equipment may not be in sufficient condition to be relied upon for new electrification infrastructure; equipment should be analyzed, and its condition should be tested. Additionally, projects can benefit from strategic sequencing of required phases or activities to reduce delays overall.


Current Status

The 25 ports were electrified and ready for operational use on November 18, 2019. There are 15 ports

at loading docks and 10 ports at parking spaces used for staging. Albertsons is still reviewing preliminary

data from the first few weeks of operation and ensuring that its submeters are correctly configured.

In parallel with the decision to build the infrastructure, Albertsons prepared 270 of its newest eTRU

trailers with a SafeConnect compatible plug. Notably, these 270 are only about a third of all the trailers

operating at the site (total on site is approximately 900). Rather than retrofit the remaining older

trailers, Albertsons has decided to specify that any new trailer will be compatible with the charging ports

every time an older trailer is retired and a new one is procured.

The docks that were electrified are on the loading (outbound) side. The busiest loading docks were

selected for electrification, which enables Albertsons to maximize the amount of time that eTRU trailers


Page 211

will be able to be plugged in. The protocol for when compatible eTRUs are parked at electrified docks is

shown in Figure 96.

Figure 96. Protocol when a compatible trailer is parked at an electrified dock to load

The selection of the dock for each trailer is driven by food distribution logistics. This process cannot be

adjusted to ensure that the trailers compatible with the SafeConnect system are placed at the electrified

docks. While adjusting the process would help increase electrification utilization, it would introduce too

much operational complexity to be feasible, according to Albertsons staff.

However, the selection of parking locations in the yard to stage the loaded trailers will be responsive to

the electrified parking spaces. Yard hostler operators have been instructed to park compatible trailers

(which have a large sticker on them indicating compatibility) at an available electrified space to

maximize electric usage. The amount of time a loaded trailer is parked in the staging area can be

significantly longer than the time parked at a loading dock, so this protocol is expected to have a bigger

impact.

Construction Update

All PRP construction activities are complete. Construction included procurement and installation of 25

SafeConnect eTRU ports, including replacing switchgear and running wiring and conduit to 15 docks,

running wiring and conduit across the parking facility to the staging area for 5 additional SafeConnect

dual-port units (which required 300 feet of trenching), installing protective mounting systems for the

units in the staging area, installing Eaton Power Xpert Multi-Point submeters, and commissioning the

system.

Current Learning Objectives

PG&E is using this PRP to learn more about eTRU operations and how to implement supporting electrical

infrastructure. While PG&E expects eTRUs to be a key market segment for transportation electrification,

staff hope to determine the extent of customer demand and to understand how customers are using the

technology. Since cost-effectiveness is expected to be a major driver of demand, the pilot is focused on

Empty trailers are are parked at electrified

loading docks and plugged in

eTRU runs on electricity until temperature is at

setpoint

eTRU is turned off while product is loaded

(~one hour)

Loaded trailer is moved to electrified staging area and plugged in

eTRU runs on electricity as needed to maintain

temperature while waiting for truck and

driver

Trailer heads out for delivery


Page 212

reducing TCO. While PG&E originally considered investigating whether eTRUs can be leveraged as grid

assets, it is not currently anticipated that the pilot will address this question. Furthermore, interviews

with Albertsons staff have indicated that they are primarily interested in protecting their cold products,

schedules, and logistics and are therefore not interested in demand management if there is a chance

that such actions could interfere with these business priorities. Demand management that would not

affect logistics would likely require expensive additions to the project (e.g., energy storage) or switching

temporarily to diesel when needed (which would be contrary to the PRP goals).

Participation in the PRP provides Albertsons the opportunity to learn about eTRU technology and

consider its impacts on the facility’s operations. A primary goal is to learn how to do this while

protecting the “cold chain” that is the cornerstone of this business. Albertsons wants to understand how

fueling and maintenance costs differ when running eTRUs on electricity versus diesel. Likewise,

Albertsons is monitoring and addressing potential impacts on employee productivity and safety as well

as reception of the project by key staff, including fueling staff, hostler drivers, and distribution drivers.

Finally, in recognition that there will likely be future requirements in California to run eTRUs on

electricity, Albertsons is motivated to understand how to scale implementation in the future.



The evaluation team is collecting a wide range of data and information to answer the evaluation

questions set forth in the evaluation plan. For this PRP, in addition to the research questions that apply

to every PRP and each fleet electrification PRP, the evaluation seeks to understand how projects driven

entirely by the site host differ from those in which the utility has a more active management role.

Because the eTRUs at the site have been operating on electricity for only a very limited period, drawing

conclusions from an analysis of the charging patterns and operational costs incurred by the fleet to date

would be premature, and formal analysis has been deferred until the final evaluation report.

Data Sources

In-depth interviews were used to better understand the decision-making process and reasoning behind

this project. An interview with PG&E staff collected lessons learned on the implementation process,

discussed data collection, and confirmed the partner outreach and selection approach. Following

commissioning of the electrical connections, Albertsons’ staff were interviewed during a site visit and

then afterwards by phone. These interactions involved the management personnel that oversee

engineering, transportation, and distribution center operations. These conversations captured an

understanding of the barriers, expected savings from idle reduction, lessons learned from planning and

construction, seasonality of eTRU deliveries/activities, and how best to gather feedback from the staff

affected by the PRP (e.g., fueling staff, hostler drivers, distribution drivers, and maintenance staff). After

the eTRU electrical ports have been operating for several months, a survey will be fielded, and

Albertsons will help gather feedback from these stakeholders.

The evaluation of this project will also incorporate an assessment of quantitative data on usage patterns

and costs. Because the project was recently commissioned (in November 2019), the evaluation findings


Page 213

presented thus far are based only on the completed interviews and information about the construction

process.


Project Baseline

A major question is whether PG&E’s efforts caused or have the potential to advance the electrification

of equipment in this application by addressing critical barriers. To address this question, it is important

to look at the baseline of industry uptake and innovations developed through the project that have the

potential to be applied broadly.

The broader context of the PRP is that eTRU deployment is quite prevalent, but it is extremely rare that

the units are plugged in to utilize electricity. According to Albertsons staff, even salespeople

representing the leading eTRU manufacturers were uncertain about the necessary specifications of

charging ports to plug in these units. CARB is currently considering a suite of regulations covering

transport refrigeration unit (TRU) facilities, truck TRUs, time limits on idling, and the operation of

internal combustion engines to power TRUs.67 These various regulatory programs are aimed at shifting

the refrigerated transportation market and technology adoption trends. The Albertsons PRP is

representative of a situation—one likely to be increasingly common in the near future—in which

warehouses and distribution centers must meet a requirement to electrify but have little experience

managing the process, including procurement, installation, and operation of infrastructure. Therefore,

the potential value of this project is to provide lessons about the pathway to scale deployment of eTRUs

in PG&E’s territory faster and more effectively than facilities would achieve without PG&E’s

involvement.


During the planning, design, and construction phases of the project, Albertsons and PG&E reviewed

available technologies and developed solutions that may provide useful lessons for future eTRU

projects. First, they needed to mitigate the risk that drivers would pull vehicles away from ports without

properly disconnecting chargers.68 After researching available options, Albertsons’ staff found that

SafeConnect had safeguards to mitigate this pull-away risk. Second, there is no consistent standard for

eTRU connectors. After selecting the SafeConnect system, the eTRUs needed to be retrofitted with the

SafeConnect connectors. Albertsons chose to retrofit 270 of their trailers, placing a SafeConnect

receptacle at the rear on the driver’s side so that when the vehicle is at the dock, the receptacle is close

to the plug-in point. Finally, for the staging area location, Albertsons designed a protective mounting

system comprising 4” thick steel posts driven deep into the ground on all four sides of the equipment

67 CARB, TRU Meeting & Workshops, accessed 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/transport-

refrigeration-unit/tru-meetings-workshops. 68 The arc that could be created if a driver pulled away while connected to an energized 6 to 18 kW charger could

pose a significant safety risk and damage equipment.


Page 214

(Figure 97). This was done to ensure the SafeConnect equipment was shielded from unintended

impacts.

Figure 97. SafeConnect ports in use at staging area, with protective mounting system

Source: Albertsons staff

Lesson Learned: Project implementers should know in advance there is not a standard for eTRU connectors and receptacles, so retrofitting equipment may be necessary. Utilities should support the establishment of an industry-wide eTRU connector standard to simplify future deployments. Likewise, design guidelines and installation best practices are needed and should be shared broadly.

Table 40. Unanticipated challenges and maintenance issues encountered by Albertsons


Switchgear Legacy equipment failure Custom manufacture of replacement part over a two-month period


Page 215

Costs

In the CPUC’s 2018 PRP decision, PG&E was approved $1.72 million for this PRP, consisting of $870,000

in capitalized costs and $850,000 in expenses. For this report, PG&E provided total project expenditures

through October 2019.

Project Costs

Table 41: Summary of PG&E Project Costs through October 2019

Cost Category Capital Expense

Project management (PG&E)69 N/A $ 80,919

Preliminary engineering and design $ 12,619 N/A

SafeConnect materials

Stations at 15 docks and 10 staging spaces

$ 73,959 N/A

Switchgear materials

Does not include switchgear repair costs Albertsons incurred

$ 47,572 N/A

Construction and installation $ 334,154 N/A

General liability and markup $ 12,822 N/A

Project total $ 562,045

The rebate was proposed to be broken into payments to be made upon completion of established

milestones:

completion of construction design,

procurement of charging equipment,

completion of construction, and

commissioning of charging equipment.

69 Albertsons’ project management costs were not funded by the PRP and are therefore not included in this

update.


Page 216


Full project costs are pending as the project remains under way. It appears that the project is on track to

come in under the PRP budget of $1,719,400.

As the host has a transmission-level account, there were no utility-side make-ready infrastructure costs

(“to-the-meter” costs). Future projects may have a substantially different cost profile. Additionally, while

PG&E’s original filing suggested implementation of charge management and potentially even energy

storage, the project was scoped based on the site host’s specific needs and interests, and as a result,

these elements were not included. Costs are not expected in those cost categories, and thus the project

will come in under the approved budget.

Lesson Learned: For customer-owned and -operated projects, the utility could continue to consider ways to ease the customer’s upfront outlay of funds. (PG&E made reimbursements payable upon achievement of milestones rather than at the conclusion of the project.)

4.3.4 Conclusions

This project is still early in its lifecycle. Robust data are not currently available to support conclusions

about project benefits, metrics associated with eTRU operations on the site, or stakeholder satisfaction.

However, information has been collected about Albertsons’ motivations, the upcoming regulatory

context, and the design and construction process. Albertsons was interested in participating in the

project to gather learnings that would help it comply with the forthcoming CARB regulations.

Anticipating needs for future regulatory compliance, rather than securing an economic payback, is the

principal driver for Albertsons’ experimentation with this technology; it is likely this will be the primary

motivation for future program participants as well.

The impact of the PRP to date appears to be that it motivated Albertsons to move forward and install

and test the electrical connections in collaboration with PG&E, an action company management

intended to complete but had not prioritized. The anticipated impact of the remainder of the project is

providing lessons learned for similar fleets. In 2020, PG&E will be developing a handbook to document

the process and share lessons learned with other fleets. Considering likely future requirements in

California to run eTRUs on electricity and the limited availability of eTRU electrification case studies, this

handbook could be very valuable, particularly for operations like Albertsons. Additional considerations

will need to be explored to determine how these lessons can be extrapolated to other types of eTRU site

hosts, such as medium and small customers, customers that do not own the fleets and trailers that

operate at their sites, and customers with a lower level of energy management knowledge and

attention. Nonetheless, this project provides important lessons that can be applied to future eTRU

electrification efforts.

Lessons Learned

Private-sector facilities and fleets may be sophisticated electricity consumers. This makes them

valuable partners that can implement projects quickly, but also poses challenges associated with

collecting operational data and compiling lessons learned that can apply to other site hosts.


Page 217

Legacy equipment may not be in sufficient condition to be relied upon for new electrification

infrastructure; equipment should be analyzed, and its condition should be tested. Additionally,

projects can benefit from strategic sequencing of required phases or activities to reduce delays

overall.

Project implementers should know in advance there is not a standard for eTRU connectors and

receptacles, so retrofitting equipment may be necessary. Utilities should support the

establishment of an industry-wide eTRU connector standard to simplify future deployments.

Likewise, design guidelines and installation best practices are needed and should be shared

broadly.

For customer-owned and -operated projects, the utility could continue to consider ways to ease

the customer’s upfront outlay of funds. (PG&E made reimbursements payable upon

achievement of milestones rather than at the conclusion of the project.)

4.4 Home Charger Information Resource Program



PG&E staff initially proposed the Home Charger Information Resource (HCIR) Program to develop a web-

based resource that would help customers research their options on the level of EV charging best

matched with their driving patterns, help customers understand the process to install EV charging, and

provide a list of certified electrical contractors who could safely install residential EV charging

equipment. This webpage was intended to complement the new EV savings calculator provided by

PG&E. To promote the webpage, PG&E also planned to conduct outreach to customers who had

recently purchased EVs.

PG&E staff intended the webpage and outreach to help customers overcome informational barriers to

EV adoption by making it easy to learn about home EV charging needs, educating prospective EV

purchasers about available charging options, and advising EV owners about whether a faster charging

option makes sense. PG&E also planned to provide information to help customers understand whether

Level 1 charging could meet their typical daily mileage needs if charging exclusively off-peak, and how

the customer’s choice of Level 1 or Level 2 charging could affect ongoing customer costs of overnight

charging under the current PG&E TOU periods.

However, the CPUC’s review of the initial program design revealed multiple existing home charger

installer tools already available in the marketplace (Angie’s List, Home Advisor, Porch, and Amazon),

which fulfilled most of the functions originally proposed for PG&E’s tool. Therefore, understanding the

CPUC’s intent not to have the utilities duplicate existing tools, PG&E submitted an advice letter70

outlining a modified program objective to focus on exposing residential customers to these existing

70 Advice letter 5621-E, August 16, 2019, https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_5621-E.pdf.


Page 218

market resources and presenting comprehensive information about home chargers and the installation

process.

PG&E staff are currently enhancing the EV information previously provided on the utility website. This

includes information to help customers know what to look for when purchasing a Level 2 charging

station and resources to connect customers to EVSE installation contractors. This website will be

translated into Spanish and Chinese to foster greater engagement with customers in DACs. Ultimately,

this effort intends to engage disadvantaged and minority communities, provide education on home

charger installation, and make the installation process more convenient.

Participation

PG&E is currently updating its website with plans to launch the webpage and outreach activities in early

2020. Therefore, the customer engagement process and participation are not evaluated in this report.

Timeline and Status

The CPUC approved the HCIR Program in January 2018. PG&E completed additional program scoping, as

requested by the CPUC, between April and July 2019. PG&E filed an advice letter in August, which the

CPUC approved in September 2019. PG&E intends to complete the website and launch the program

early in 2020.



The evaluator initially sought to address the common PRP evaluation questions that apply to all PRPs

and those specific to the Education and Outreach PRPs. The data collection tasks utilized to evaluate this

PRP include information review and a PG&E staff interview.

As part of revising the PRP, per the final advice letter, PG&E staff also conducted secondary research to

determine whether the content intended for the new website was already offered elsewhere. This

research considered 15 CCAs and utilities and focused on four key components:

Did the content connect readers directly to EVSE installers?

Did the content provide targeted information on home charger installation?

Was the content offered in multiple languages?

Was the content easy to understand?

PG&E’s research found that although there is well-developed content related to the availability of home

charging, no CCA or utility currently provides a comprehensive source of the content PG&E intends to

develop through this PRP.71

71 Q3 2019 Clean Transportation Program Advisory Council Meeting Presentation, October 16, 2019.


Page 219

Data Sources

Working closely with PG&E, the evaluation team modified the evaluation approach to reflect the

changes to program design and launch timing. The team reviewed all program-related materials.

In November 2019, the team interviewed key PG&E staff to gain insight on the progress to date for the

HCIR Program. The interview covered these topics:

Initial program design (and changes)

Electrification barriers to be addressed by the HCIR Program and what PG&E will do to address

these barriers

Future availability of analytics (number of installers listed on each home service tool, number of

installation jobs completed as a result of traffic directed from PG&E’s resource page, etc.) and

information about customer groups who completed charger installation (single-family, renter,

DAC, etc.)

Areas of success, challenges, and lessons learned from the program (including possibility of

scaling)


The interim evaluation findings for the HCIR Program are based solely on the PG&E staff interview since

there are no program data to evaluate.

Stakeholder Feedback

PG&E staff reported a collaborative and positive atmosphere in pursuing the modified HCIR Program.

For example, staff noted the possibility of collaborating with the low-income and general marketing

teams within PG&E to take advantage of existing outreach activities in combination with the translation

of the website into Spanish and Chinese.

Staff said the webpage will be completed by early 2020 and will direct customers to market resources

that identify certificated installers, such as Angie’s List, Home Advisor, Porch, and Amazon. Staff noted

that the completed website will also provide customers with tools such as a savings calculator and a

checklist that includes common questions to ask an electrician. Other key information the webpage will

include is how to select the right rate plan and what level charger best suits a customer’s need. Staff said

the goal is to empower customers by giving them the knowledge and confidence to transition to an EV

and engage with technical professionals for help with the charging installation process.

Currently, PG&E staff are working with possible market resource vendors to learn what types of data are

available to track, such as the number of certified installers per market resource (e.g., a website such as

Angie’s List) and the number of customers who move from the PG&E website to the market resources

and then actually complete an installation. In addition, staff intend to track the number of visitors to the

HCIR Program website and to the translated pages. PG&E staff are also exploring other possible data to

collect, such as customer locations to identify DAC engagements with the program resources.


Page 220

Once the website is launched, staff will explore how to apply these new customer resources in other

PG&E programs and collect customer feedback to understand how people use the resources and what

improvements could be made.

4.4.4 Conclusions

Though the HCIR Program underwent a significant design change, which delayed its launch, PG&E staff

experienced successes and can apply lessons learned as the program moves forward.

Successes and Lessons Learned

The ability to adapt to changing market conditions is essential for any innovative program. PG&E

responded to requests from the CPUC to review the initial program concept by investigating current

market offerings. The proposed modifications maintained the objective to provide suitable information

to DAC customers in three languages (English, Spanish, and Chinese). The HCIR Program will provide

customers with resources to identify EV charger installers, comprehensive information about EVs and

charging options, questions to ask electricians, and access to a savings calculator.

PG&E can continue to revise the program after its launch, basing adjustments on the data collected

about customer responses regarding the usefulness of the new resources.

Next Steps

PG&E staff are currently working on completing the website, which will launch in early 2020. At that

time, staff will also conduct outreach to DACs to promote the website and increase EV awareness. This

outreach will include both a digital presence and hard copy materials in English, Spanish, and Chinese.


Page 221

Three SMJU Priority Review Project Status Update

In June 2017, PacifiCorp, BVES, and Liberty filed an application with the CPUC proposing seven PRPs to

promote transportation electrification. The CPUC approved the proposed programs in September 2018

as part of Decision 18-09-03472. That decision included a requirement to use the same third-party

evaluator selected by the three large utilities in support of their transportation electrification projects.

The SMJUs launched these PRPs well after the large utilities’ PRP start dates; therefore, this interim

evaluation report provides only a brief status update on the seven PRPs.

PacifiCorp Outreach and Education Program ($170,000)

This program was designed to promote awareness of EV ownership options to address an educational

barrier for ownership. The objective was to increase residential and commercial customers’ comfort

with, and acceptance of, electric transportation through engagement and affect current market

baselines. This would reduce a barrier to transportation electrification by improving customer

awareness of EVs and EVSE.

In April 2019, PacifiCorp began sending education emails to residential and commercial customers

through this Outreach and Education PRP. In May 2019, PacifiCorp launched, with the support of the C2

Group, the technical assistance portion of the program, and in September 2019, utility staff started

participating in community outreach events with the support of Forth Mobility (Forth). The marketing

portion seeks to address customers’ perceived barriers of operating and owning an EV by providing

information on home charging, fuel savings, emissions reduction, and available federal tax credits. The

project focuses on intervention-based activities to increase awareness and knowledge, as well as

address technology perceptions and support EV purchasing decisions. As part of this effort, EVs were

brought to community events for test drives. Online and traditional mail marketing was used to

encourage residential customers to consider EVs and commercial customers to install EVSE on their

property. The marketing materials also encourage commercial customers to apply for grant funding

provided by the PacifiCorp Demonstration and Development PRP.

The program also offers self-service resources and tools that help customers better understand total

lifecycle costs and savings potential by examining vehicle options, utility bill impacts, and incentives. In

addition, commercial customers may request technical assistance, provided by the C2 Group, to

complete feasibility assessments for customers’ EVSE projects. Each assessment involves a desk review

and an onsite tour of the property. Every customer receives an assessment report when the site review

is complete.

72 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Decision 18-09-034: “Decision on the Priority Review and

Standard Review Transportation Electrification Projects,” September 27, 2018,



Page 222

PacifiCorp Demonstration and Development Program ($270,000)

This program was designed to provide competitive grant funds to non-residential applicants for

installing EV charging stations on their property. The program helps commercial customers overcome

up-front cost barriers and empowers them to develop projects that addresses additional barriers, such

as lack of awareness, lack of public EVSE, and limited EVSE access for low-income and underserved

communities. The program allows commercial customers to apply for grant funding to cover some or all

upfront costs for installing EVSE. Applications are accepted quarterly, and a webinar is held halfway

through the grant submittal period to answer any questions applicants may have before submitting their

applications. Qualifying applications are scored by Nexant, which supports the Demonstration and

Development PRP as the grant evaluator. Nexant also recommends to PacifiCorp which applicants

should receive grant funding.

After an initial ramp-up period, PacifiCorp fully launched the Demonstration and Development program

in the second quarter of 2019. During the 2019 fourth quarter grant cycle, the first grant was awarded,

and the grantee will have one year to complete the EVSE installation project.

Liberty Residential Charger Installation Rebate Program ($1.6 million),

Liberty Small Business Charger Installation Rebate Program ($300,000), and

Liberty Customer Online Resource Project ($240,480)

Liberty will offer $1,500 rebates for residential customers (up to 1,000) and $2,500 for small business

customers (up to 100) to pay for networked EV charging equipment and installation by a certified

electrician. An online application portal for residential and small business rebate programs has been

developed. The portal utilizes the PowerClerk platform, which Liberty also uses to administer its Solar

Incentive Program. Outreach will be conducted via the Liberty email list, bill inserts, community forums,

local media, and an EV summit. There has been considerable interest in the program from both

residential and small business customers.

Liberty DC Fast Charger Program ($4 million)

Based on the estimated cost of make-ready infrastructure, Liberty anticipates construction of

approximately nine project sites, with rebate funding available ($1.8 million approved) to support

numerous EVSE per project site. A request for proposals was issued in September 2019 to gather current

pricing on EVSE qualified for the program. This will be used to set the base cost for rebates and

participation payments. Respondents provided price quotations by power output tier (50–99 kW, 100–

149 kW, and 150+ kW), following prescriptive requirements for qualifying equipment.

The existing A-1 small commercial rate (with no demand charges) will be used for the DC fast chargers

installed under this program. This is proposed as a bridge solution until Liberty submits an application

for a commercial EVSE rate, which is currently under development. Potential site locations have been

gathered, with numerous site hosts actively considering installations. Host agreements are under

development. The City of Portola will be the first site considered under the program. An online

application portal for Liberty’s DC Fast Charger Program, very similar to the one used for residential and

small business charger installation programs, is under development.


Page 223

BVES Destination Make-Ready Program ($607,500)

BVES will install, own, and operate the make-ready infrastructure needed to install up to 50 L2 charging

stations at destination centers in its service territory. Out of all participating sites, the goal is to have

20% of them be small businesses, so BVES is planning to reach out to the small businesses in Q1 2020 to

encourage them to apply for the program. All participants are required to maintain the charging stations

in operating condition for at least 10 years. This program is applicable to commercial customers and

works in conjunction with EV-TOU tariffs. The commercial program would provide rebates for the

infrastructure construction needed in order to install 1-5 L2 charging stations per property. Commercial

customers are required to purchase a networked L2 charging station and provide BVES with the charging

session data for at least the first 2 years of operation.

BVES has contracted with CSE to coordinate transportation electrification program outreach and

implementation. Outreach program is performed by BVES’ customer service team with the assistance of

regulatory affairs staff regarding the applicable tariffs. The required program documentation has been

completed. These documents include the application, license agreement, terms and conditions, website

landing page, interest form, program handbook, and a Bear Valley licensed C-10 electrician list. BVES

also conducted an EV survey in July 2019. The program was launched on December 11, 2019, by holding

community outreach and contractor meetings for electricians and commercial customers. The program

is anticipated to run from January 2020 through January 2022 or until funds are exhausted.


Page 224

Priority Review Project Cost Status Summary

Note: Costs to date are as of Q4 2019 when the PRPs were at different stages of completion and therefore not many PRPs have all costs

accounted for yet.

PRP Proposed Deployment Approved Budget

Current Status Costs to Date

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Fleet Delivery Services (SDG&E)

63 L2 (17 kW) chargers at three UPS locations, 16 L2 (17 kW) chargers at Amazon location

$3,690,749 All chargers installed (78), all 15 Amazon EVs in operation, UPS awaiting 60 EVs (expected Q2 2020)

$1,316,472

Green Shuttles (SDG&E)

2 DCFCs (50kW) for San Diego Airport Parking (2 EVs), Aladdin (4 EVs), and San Diego International Airport (4 EVs + public access); 6 L2 chargers for Illumina (6 EVs), solar energy and energy storage at one site

$3,157,805

San Diego Airport Parking completed, Aladdin and Illumina in construction (Q1 2020 anticipated completion). Not pursuing 4th location, public access, solar energy & energy storage

$713,069

Airport Ground Support Equipment (SDG&E)

Phase I - 16 charging ports (8 dual head chargers) retrofitted with American Airlines Phase II - up to 45 additional charging ports based on 6 months of Phase I data analysis

$2,839,738 Phase I - 16 charging ports retrofitted (data collection started in December 2019)

$580,238


30-40 charging stations, data loggers and load research meters for electric trucks and forklifts. San Diego Port Tennant customers: Pasha Automotive, Metro Cruise, Dole and Four Seasons

$2,405,575

3 direct current fast chargers (DCFCs) installed for Pasha (3 Class 8 electric trucks) and 9 Level 2 (L2) (10 kW) chargers for 9 Metro Cruise electric forklifts; no other participants; data collection started in May 2019

$811,311


20 L2 (6.6 kW) and 2 DCFC (50 kW) chargers each at 4 Caltrans Park and Ride locations (88 charging ports total)

$4,000,000 Construction started at all 4 sites with expected commissioning by end of Q1 2020

$1,652,298


Page 225



Dealership Incentives (SDG&E)

Enroll and train 200 salespeople and issue 1,500 incentives

$1,790,000 Program closed on December 31, 2019; final rebates processing and program reporting in Q1 2020

$786,195

Southern California Edison


Installation of electrical supply for 9 Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes converted to electric

$3,038,000 Utility upgrades completed, SSA terminal modifications and first eRTG conversion by end of the first quarter (Q1) of 2020

$2,470,417


Electric infrastructure for 20 charging stations (200 kW) for Class 8 BYD electric yard tractors; ITS deploying 7 EVSE initially

$450,000 3 BYD electric trucks delivered, 6 BYD 200 kW and 1 Cavotec automated 100 kW charger installed Dec 2019

$1,586,125


7 depot DCFCs for Victor Valley Transit (7 electric buses), 10 depot DCFCs for Porterville (10 electric buses), and 13 depot DCFCs for Foothill Transit (14 electric buses)

$3,978,000 Victor Valley complete (7) and operational, awaiting Porterville (10) and Foothill (13) charger installations

$1,325,869


5 locations with up to 50 DCFCs planned. 5 site host agreements resulted in 14 DCFCs.

$3,980,000 All 5 sites completed and 14 DCFCs commissioned in Nov and Dec 2019

$865,413


Approximately 5,000 participants $4,000,000 Program closed on May 31, 2019; final rebates processing and program reporting in Q4 2019

$2,113,420

Pacific Gas and Electric


9 Level 2 (19kW) chargers and charge management software to integrate onsite renewables

$2,209,500 3rd of 4 experimental test phases underway $938,764


Page 226




Five 60 kW depot chargers, demand management and battery energy storage for existing high-power overhead chargers for San Joaquin Regional Transit District (17 EVs)

$3,355,000 Depot chargers installed, demand management implemented, battery storage on order, testing underway

$923,167


25 electrified receptacles for eTRU connection (10 at docks, 15 at staging area), 15-17 kW each

$1,719,400 System constructed and commissioned, just starting in-use operations

$562,045


Enhanced EV information on website, checklist for EVSE and contractors, installer tool

$500,000

Rescoped (budget reduced to $200k) to reference external EVSE installer selection tools; updated web resource development in Q1/2 2020


Page 227

Compilation of Lessons Learned to Date

Program Design

If charging station installation programs can be made more flexible, customers may prefer the option to

use either a new or existing meter—particularly those customers knowledgeable of and actively

involved in energy management practices. (SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services)

Evaluating in-use performance of EVs in a new application for 12 months will most likely produce less

than 12 months of operational data because of unexpected issues. Early commercial vehicle

deployments tend to experience reliability issues, resulting in vehicle downtime to facilitate repairs.

Deploying all of the EVs in regular operation can take from a couple of weeks to several months, as the

fleet needs to adapt driving and charging operations to accommodate EVs. (SDG&E Port Electrification)

Programs targeted to DACs will need to support secondary market transactions. The dealership

incentive program in Sacramento was able to achieve greater total claims at lower incentive levels that

the San Diego program, likely because it did not have an EV-TOU requirement. Trained sales staff submit

claims at a greater rate (about four times greater) than untrained sales staff. (SDG&E Dealership

Incentives)

DCFC applications asked only for two or four ports because of the reluctance to lose parking spots. To

electrify two ports, site hosts may need to give up three or four existing parking spots (since one spot

must be ADA compliant). In future projects with similar target audiences, utilities should consider

targeting a total number of ports for the program without defining the number of sites. This will allow

the program flexibility to maximize the budget and support increased adoption with more sites and the

potential for higher port count. (SCE Urban DC Fast Charging Clusters)

Consider structuring requirements for rebates in a simpler format for alternative situations (e.g.,

individuals who do not have HOAs or whose cities do not require permits to install an L2 charger or

allowing applicants to write in the electrician’s C-10 license number if not on an invoice) to reduce some

administrative burden on utilities and staff for addressing these items. A marketing strategy that

includes more lead time to meet with key stakeholders—such as electricians, MUD property managers,

and city officials who will be helping applicants with their permits—before program launch might be

useful. Also helpful would be greater internal coordination within the utility departments (such as the

rates, information technology, and program departments) when there are program processes (such as

the validation of customers switching to a TOU rate) that depend on the efforts of multiple

departments. (SCE Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program)

PG&E was insightful in scheduling a significant block of time after commissioning during which project

operators could iron out issues with project hardware and software integration. The challenge of

identifying the cause of issues can be compounded when there are several distinct systems integrated in

a single project. (PG&E Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project)

Early partnership between the utility and transit agencies will provide opportunities for transfer of

knowledge and best practices. The utility brings unique insights and can support agencies with the


Page 228

expertise utility staff have developed through implementing programs and projects throughout the

territory. (PG&E Bus Fleet Demonstration)

For customer-owned and -operated projects, the utility could continue to consider ways to ease the

customer’s upfront outlay of funds. (PG&E Idle Reduction Technology Project)

The ability to adapt to changing market conditions is essential for any innovative program. (PG&E Home

Charger Information Resource Program)

PRP Participant Recruitment

Significantly more effort, investment, and EV availability and reduced EV costs will be necessary to

sufficiently support locally owned MBE/WBE delivery business fleets in transportation electrification

projects. Often, such businesses do not have the knowledge or resources to secure the grants necessary

to finance this effort (upfront costs for electric delivery trucks is a barrier) or the available staffing to

navigate the challenges of operating new technology. Further, smaller local companies generally do not

have robust financial resources to make investments in new technologies. (SDG&E Fleet Delivery

Services)

Private-sector facilities and fleets may be sophisticated electricity consumers. This makes them valuable

partners that can implement projects quickly, but also poses challenges associated with collecting

operational data and compiling lessons learned that can apply to other site hosts. (PG&E Idle Reduction

Technology Project)

Electric Vehicle/Equipment Availability

The electric delivery vehicle market is growing and maturing but has relatively limited options. Some

small manufacturers to first enter the market (e.g., Smith Electric) struggled to succeed and had to cease

operations. These PRPs are procuring some of the first production vehicles from the selected

manufacturers, which can have an impact on production and delivery times. Supporting the EV

manufacturers, providing a market for their products, and examining vehicle performance will help

advance the transition to EVs. (SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services)

EVs in smaller market segments, such as shuttle buses, are often supplied by several smaller

manufacturers that are attempting to fill a market need (more established manufacturers target larger

market segments). The specifications of these EVs may be unique to each manufacturer, and it is critical

to verify compatibility with the planned charging infrastructure. (SDG&E Green Shuttles)

Field certification of equipment that is not already NRTL-listed can add significant complication to a

project and should be expected to delay completion by several months while any issues found in the

initial inspection are being corrected. For cutting-edge transportation electrification technology, this is

sometimes unavoidable but should be limited to projects classified as pre-commercial demonstrations

(which the CEC grant supported) and not for commercial deployment programs. (SCE Port of Long Beach

Terminal Yard Tractor)

The program experienced a challenge in qualifying equipment proposed by the applicants. Because of

the rapidly changing nature of the transit bus EVSE market, some EVSE providers could not meet the


Page 229

program technical requirements, such as the requirement that the equipment be recognized by a NRTL.

(SCE Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready Program)

When facing procurement choices, some customers may be drawn to the simplest, least expensive

technology options available. Decision makers should consider opportunity costs and the value of

future-proofing their procurements so that sites are well-positioned to benefit from new markets and

future value streams. (PG&E Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project)

The electric school bus industry is experiencing growing pains, which affects equipment operations and

maintenance. (PG&E Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project)

Project implementers should know in advance there is not a standard for eTRU connectors and

receptacles, so retrofitting equipment may be necessary. Utilities should support the establishment of

an industry-wide eTRU connector standard to simplify future deployments. Likewise, design guidelines

and installation best practices are needed and should be shared broadly. (PG&E Idle Reduction

Technology Project)

Project Implementation

Including field construction advisors early in the design process and having them participate in the initial

site walk to better understand the customer site is beneficial to the implementation of these projects as

they will be better able to accommodate anticipated EV operational needs. (SDG&E Fleet Delivery

Services)

PV and energy storage technologies are well developed, and their application to supporting grid services

has been proven. However, the integration with EV charging is entirely new, and no off-the-shelf system

exists (except for limited applications of an off-grid PV, battery, and L2 charger system). On their own,

these components need to be optimized to provide a positive return on investment, and the complexity

of combining these into one solution adds costs and challenges the optimization strategy for maximizing

benefits. (SDG&E Green Shuttles)

The integration of a PV and battery system with EV charging could be a valuable solution to managing

electrical demand. The technological challenges associated with implementation and significant costs

were likely key reasons for the limited response SDG&E received to its request for bids. Given the

current costs and risks, SDG&E decided to instead model this solution. Should this prove valuable at a

reasonable price point for implementation, a future deployment may be warranted (outside of the PRP).

(SDG&E Green Shuttles)

Many initial EV deployments do not include redundancy in charging equipment, but this can be key to

project success because the vehicles rely on functioning chargers for continued operation. It is very

important to factor in charging redundancy for electrification deployments to ensure resilience. (SDG&E

Airport Ground Support)

Construction projects at the port can be very challenging and costly. Concrete can be several feet deep,

which complicates trenching, so it was essential to identify sites that required minimal or no trenching

to align with the approved budget. The estimates also failed to account for environmental costs, which


Page 230

for one potential project was forecasted to be around $150,000 owing to the hazardous risk of the site;

the cost precluded the site from participating in the PRP. (SDG&E Port Electrification)

Existing make-ready infrastructure at one location was expected to simplify implementation but

unfortunately it was not sized properly or sufficiently protected from the environment and was

therefore unusable. Any future make-ready infrastructure should be upsized to account for larger power

supplies and properly protected to ensure longevity. (SDG&E Electrify Local Highways)

Customers tend to be very cautious when working on equipment that is critical to their operations.

These partners often chose to verify each activity was completed before progressing to the next (e.g.,

don’t want to start any construction work, including scheduling, until all equipment is procured to

ensure there are no delays once starting that might disrupt operations longer than necessary). (SCE Port

of Long Beach Rubber Tire Gantry Crane)

Contracting, construction, and implementing test protocols with schools may require planning extra

time as a buffer to reflect their unique contracting processes and seasonal operational patterns. (PG&E

Electric School Bus Renewables Integration Project)

School districts and other early fleet adopters may not be able to adjust operations to optimize

utilization of new electric buses or access new value streams associated with participation in distributed

resource markets. Versatility of selected electric buses should be carefully considered during

procurement (e.g., passenger capacity, range); otherwise, expectations for utilization (number of days in

use and overall mileage) should be appropriately tempered. (PG&E Electric School Bus Renewables

Integration Project)

The complexity of managing the charging protocol of multiple generations of buses with a mix of

overhead fast charging and depot charging warrants more guidance from the bus manufacturer and

requires sophisticated management from the transit agency. (PG&E Bus Fleet Demonstration)

Legacy equipment may not be in sufficient condition to be relied upon for new electrification

infrastructure; equipment should be analyzed, and its condition should be tested. Additionally, projects

can benefit from strategic sequencing of required phases or activities to reduce delays overall. (PG&E

Idle Reduction Technology Project)


Page 231

Acronyms and Abbreviations

A Ampere(s)

AC Alternating Current

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

AFUDC Allowance for Funds Used During Construction

AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction

BESS Battery Electric Storage System

BtM Behind the Meter

BVES Bear Valley Electric Service

BYD BYD Motors Inc.

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCA Community Choice Aggregator

CEC California Energy Commission

CEV Commercial Electric Vehicle (rate)

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

CPUC California Public Utility Commission

CRHIRP Charge Ready Home Installation Rebate Program

CSE Center for Sustainable Energy

CSV Comma-Separated Values (computer spreadsheet-type file)

CVRP Clean Vehicle Rebate Project

DAC Disadvantaged Community

DC Direct Current

DCFC Direct Current Fast Charging/Charger

DR Demand Response

DTC Downtown Transit Center

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

eTRU Electric Transport Refrigeration Unit

EV Electric Vehicle

EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment

FCM Flex Charge Manager

g Gram(s)

GGE Gasoline Gallon Equivalent


Page 232

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GSE Ground Support Equipment

HCIR Home Charger Information Resource

HDEV Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle

HOA Homeowners' Association

HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

HVIP Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project

ICT Innovative Clean Transit

IDI In-Depth Interview

ITS International Transportation Service

kg Kilogram(s)

kV Kilovolt(s)

kVA Kilovolt-Ampere(s)

L2 Level 2

LBCT Long Beach Container Terminal

LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard

MBE Minority-Owned Business Enterprise

MD/HD Medium- and Heavy-Duty

MPG Miles per Gallon

MPG3 Miles per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent

MT Metric Tonne(s)

MUD Multi-Unit Dwelling

MW Megawatt(s)

MWh Megawatt-Hour(s)

N·m Newton Metre

NOx Nitrous Oxide(s)

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRLT Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OpenADR Open Automated Demand Response

PAC Program Advisory Council

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PIA Plug-In America

PM Particulate Matter


Page 233

PME Pad-Mounted Equipment

POLB Port of Long Beach

PRP Priority Review Project

PUSD Pittsburg Unified School District

PV Photovoltaic(s)

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

Q Quarter

ROG Reactive Organic Gas(es)

RTC Regional Transportation Center

RTD San Joaquin Regional Transit District

RTG Rubber Tire Gantry

SB Senate Bill

SCCR Short Circuit Current Rating

SCE Southern California Edison

SDAP San Diego Airport Parking

SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric Company

SDIA San Diego International Airport

SMJU Small and Multi-Jurisdictional Utilities

SOC State of Charge

SRP Standard Review Project

SSA Stevedoring Services of America

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

TNC Transportation Network Company

TOU Time of Use

TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit

TtM To the Meter

UPS United Parcel Service

UTS Union Transfer Station

V Volt(s)

WBE Woman-Owned Business Enterprise

XSP Excess Supply Demand Response Program

ZEB Zero-Emission Bus

ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle


STATE OF CALIFORNIA





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of JOINT INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES’ INTERIM REPORT ON PRIORITY REVIEW PROJECTS on all parties identified on the attached service list(s) for A.17-01-020, et al. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below:

Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address.

Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by US Mail to the offices of the Commissioners(s) or other addresses(s).

ALJ Sasha Goldberg CPUC 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Executed January 31, 2020, at Rosemead, California.

/s/ Sandra Sedano Sandra Sedano Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770

CPUC Home

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONService Lists

PROCEEDING: A1701020 - SDG&E - FOR APPROVAL FILER: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: DECEMBER 10, 2019

Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files

Back to Service Lists Index

Parties

JAY FRIEDLAND NORMAN HAJJA ZERO MOTORCYCLES RECARGO, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: ZERO MOTORCYCLES FOR: REGARCO, INC.

JOE HALSO EDWARD L. HSU ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY SR COUNSEL SIERRA CLUB SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 1536 WYNKOOP ST., STE. 312 555 WEST 5TH STREET, GT14E7 DENVER, CO 80202 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 FOR: SIERRA CLUB FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

ADRIANO MARTINEZ THOMAS ASHLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW VP - GOVN'T AFFAIRS & PUBLIC POLICY EARTHJUSTICE GREENLOTS 800 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1000 925 N. LA BREA AVE., 6TH FL LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 FOR: EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR FOR: GREENLOTS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

KATHERINE STAINKEN MINH LE POLICY DIR. GEN. MGR. - OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY PLUG IN AMERICA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 6380 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 1000 1100 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 LOS ANGELES, CA 90063-3200

Page 1 of 13CPUC - Service Lists - A1701020

1/31/2020https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servicelists/A1701020_84073.htm

FOR: PLUG IN AMERICA FOR: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TERRY O'DAY JESSALYN ISHIGO VP ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OFF. EVGO SERVICES LLC AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 11390 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD 1919 TORRANCE BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 TORRANCE, CA 90501 FOR: EVGO SERVICES LLC FOR: AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

MAX BAUMHEFNER WAYNE NASTRI ATTORNEY EO - MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 111 SUTTER ST., 21ST FL. 21865 COPLEY DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 91404 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-0940 FOR: NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FOR: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

ANDREA TOZER DONALD KELLY SR. ATTORNEY EXE. DIRECTOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE / PO BOX 800 3405 KENYON ST., STE. 401 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR: UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK (UCAN)

LISA MCGHEE DESMOND WHEATLEY OPERATIONS MGR. CEO SAN DIEGO AIRPORT PARKING CO. ENVISION SOLAR INTRERNATIONAL, INC. 2771 KURTZ ST. 5660 EASTGATE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FOR: SAN DIEGO AIRPORT PARKING COMPANY FOR: ENVISION SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

JOHN W. LESLIE, ESQ JOHN A. PACHECO ATTORNEY SR. COUNSEL DENTONS US LLP SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY 8330 CENTURY PARK CT., CP32 EMAIL ONLY, CA 92121 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FOR: SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA (US), FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY L.P.

SACHU CONSTANTINE STEPHEN G. DAVIS DIR. OF POLICY CEO CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OXYGEN INITIATIVE 9325 SKY PARK COURT, SUITE 100 65 ENTERPRISE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 FOR: CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (CSE) FOR: EXYGEN INITIATIVE (FORMERLY KNGRID)

MICHAEL CHIACOS TADASHI GONDAI DIR - ENERGY PROGRAMS DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION 26 W. ANAPAMU ST., 2ND FLR. 15 SOUTHGATE AVE., STE. 200 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 DALY CITY, CA 94015 FOR: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL FOR: THE NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION AND THE NATIONAL DIVERSITY COALITION



DAVID SCHLOSBERG MILA A. BUCKNER DIR - ENERGY MARKET OPER ATTORNEY EMOTORWERKS ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 846 BRANSTEN ROAD 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FOR: ELECTRIC MOTORWERKS, INC. FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES

AUSTIN M. YANG ELISE TORRES DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STAFF ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PL, RM 234 785 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4682 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 FOR: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR: TURN

JAMES BIRKELUND CHRISTOPHER WARNER PRESIDENT & GEN. COUNSEL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES 77 BEALE STREET, B30A 548 MARKET STREET, STE 11200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR: SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES

LARISSA KOEHLER NORA SHERIFF, ESQ. SENIOR ATTORNEY COUNSEL ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 123 MISSION STREET, 28TH FL. 55 SECOND STREET, STE. 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FOR: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND FOR: CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION (CLECA)

EVELYN KAHL DANIEL ROCKEY ATTORNEY PARTNER BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3493 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CLEAN ENERGY FUELS FOR: LYFT, INC.

IRENE K. MOOSEN BEAU WHITEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW SR. MGR., EV INFRASTRUCTURE LAW OFFICE OF IRENE K. MOOSEN TESLA MOTORS, INC. 53 SANTA YNEZ AVENUE 3500 DEER CREEK ROAD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94112 PALSO ALTO, CA 94304 FOR: LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABLE FOR: TESLA, INC. ENERGY COALITION (LGSEC)

CHRIS KING A J HOWARD GLOBAL CHIEF REGULATORY OFFICER OLIVINE, INC. SIEMENS SMART GIRD SOLUTIONS 2010 CROW CANYON PLACE, STE. 100 4000 E 3RD AVE., STE. 400 SAN RAMO, CA 94583 FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 FOR: OLIVINE, INC. FOR: SIEMENS

HOWARD V. GOLUB JIMMY O'DEA, PH.D



ATTORNEY VEHICLES ANALYST BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2001 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 500 12TH STREET, STE. 340 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 OAKLAND, CA 94607 FOR: CITY OF LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA, A FOR: UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

JOEL ESPINO ALEX J. MORRIS LEGAL COUNSEL SR. DIR., POLICY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE 360 14TH STREET, 2ND FL. 2150 ALLSTON WAY, SUITE 400 OAKLAND, CA 94612 BERKELEY, CA 94704 FOR: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR: CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE (CESA)

GREGORY MORRIS RYAN SCHUCHARD DIRECTOR POLICY DIR. GREEN POWER INSTITUTE CALSTART 2039 SHATTUCK AVENUE, STE 402 501 CANAL BLVD., NO. G BERKELEY, CA 94704 RICHMOND, CA 94804 FOR: THE GREEN POWER INSTITUTE FOR: CALSTART

CHRISTINA JAWORSKI JAMES HALL SR. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER GENERAL MOTORS LLC SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSP. AUTHORITY 1115 11TH STREET 3331 NORTH FIRST ST., BLDG B-2 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FOR: GENERAL MOTORS LLC FOR: SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)

MICHAEL PIMENTEL SCOTT BLAISING LEGISLATIVE / REGULATORY ADVOCATE ATTORNEY CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C. 1415 L STREET 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FOR: CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION FOR: MARIN CLEAN ENERGY AND SONOMA CLEAN POWER

SCOTT BLAISING STEVEN P. DOUGLAS COUNSEL SR. DIR - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C. ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 1415 L STREET, STE. 1190 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FOR: CITY OF LANCASTER FOR: ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

TANNER KELLY TOVAH TRIMMING DEWEY SQUARE GROUP, LLC CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1020 16TH STREET, SUITE 20 LEGAL DIVISION SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 300 Capitol Mall FOR: ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING Sacramento, CA 95814 ASSOCIATION (EVCA) FOR: PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE (FORMERLY ORA)



LYNN HAUG LAURA FERNANDEZ ATTORNEY ATTORNEY ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. 2600 CAPITOL AVE., STE. 400 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 SACRAMENTO, CA 95822 FOR: CHARGEPOINT, INC. FOR: SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY

Information Only

ANGIE BOAKES BARBARA R. BARKOVICH ELECTRIC MOBILITY GENERAL MGR. CONSULTANT SHELL INT'L. PETROLEUM CO., LIMITED BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

BONNIE DATTA CAMILLE STOUGH SR. DIR - AMERICAS & ASIA PACIFIC ASSOCIATE SIEMENS ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

CATHERINE BUCKLEY COLEY GIROUARD PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ASSOCIATE, PUC PROGRAM EMAIL ONLY ADVANCED ENERGY ECONOMY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

CURT BARRY DAVE PACKARD SR WRITER / EDITOR CHARGEPOINT, INC. INSIDE WASHINGTON PUBLISHERS EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

DONALD LIDDELL EBCE REGULATORY DOUGLASS & LIDDELL EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

ETHAN SPRAGUE JOHN SAVAGE FREEWIRE TECHNOLOGIES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, AA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

JUSTIN REGNIER KAVYA BALARAMAN EXE. DIV STAFF WRITER / REPORTER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

KINSHUK CHATTERJEE MARISSA WILLIAMS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST / ECARS



EMAIL ONLY CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

PAUL D. HERNANDEZ RACHEL KELLER PUBLIC POLICY & GOV. RELATIONS CASE COORDINATOR ENVOY TECHNOLOGIES INC. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPLANY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

REGULATORY CLERK SAM HOUSTON BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, PC CLEAN VEHICLES ANALYST EMAIL ONLY UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

TONY RAFATI MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC POLICY MANAGER- CLEAN TRANSPORTATION EMAIL ONLY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP EDWARD LOVELACE, PH.D EMAIL ONLY CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 XL HYBRIDS 145 NEWTON STREET BOSTON, MA 02135

JONATHAN ARNOLD GREGORY REISS DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. CENTENUS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LP 60 WALL STREET 437 MADISON AVENUE, SUITE 19B NEW YORK, NY 10005 NEW YORK, NY 10022

JAMIESON WARD JOSEPH LOPES CENTENUS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LP PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT 437 MADISON AVENUE - SUITE 19B DNV GL - ENERGY NEW YORK, NY 10022 15 GLEN STREET, SUITE 201B GLEN COVE, NY 11542

CATHERINE M. WILMARTH KAY DAVOODI ATTORNEY ACQ-UTILITY RATES AND STUDIES OFFICE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND HQ 803 7TH ST NW, SUITE 300 1322 PATTERSON AVE.,SE-BLDG. 33. STE1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20001 WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5018 FOR: ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE FOR: FEA MANUFACTURERS

LARRY ALLEN DAN FENG DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SR. ENGINEER 1322 PATTERSON AVE., SE STE. 1000 DNV GL WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5018 1560 WILSON BLVD., STE. 800 FOR: FEA ARLINGTON, VA 22209



JASON SYMONDS BLAKE ELDER DNV GL CLEAN ENERGY SPECIALIST 1560 WILSON BLVD., STE. 800 EQ RESEARCH ARLINGTON, VA 22209 401 HARRISON OAKS BLVD., STE. 100 CARY, NC 27513

MAURICE BRUBAKER JOE MOCK BRUBAKER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PO BOX 412000 555 W. FIFTH ST., GT14D6 ST LOUIS, MO 63141-2000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

MEGHA LAKHCHAURA BREA CHILDS DIR LITIGATION ASSISTANT EVBOX INC. EARTHJUSTICE 525 S HEWITT STREET, LACI 800 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

SARA GERSEN LUJUANA MEDINA STAFF ATTORNEY MANAGER EARTHJUSTICE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 800 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 1000 1100 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 LOS ANGELES, CA 90063

CASE ADMINISTRATION CASE ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800 8631 RUSH STREET, GO4, 2ND FL. ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

LISA MAU COURTNEY COOK REGULATORY PARALEGAL / OFFICE ADMIN. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. 3405 KENYON STREET, SUITE 401 ROSEMEAD, CA 91773 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

DAVID CROYLE EDWARD LOPEZ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE DIR UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK UTILITY CONSUMERSâ€™ ACTION NETWORK 3405 KENYON STREET, STE. 401 3405 KENYON ST. SUITE 401 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

JANE KRIKORIAN SEPHRA NINOW, J. D. MGR - REGULATORY DIR - REGULATORY UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 3405 KENYON STREET, STE. 401 3980 SHERMAN ST., STE. 170 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

SAN DIEGO AIRPORT PARKING COMPANY JOE KAATZ 2771 KURTZ ST. STAFF ATTORNEY SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW 5998 ALCALA PARK SAN DIEGO, CA 92110-2492 FOR: ENERGY POLICY INITIATIVES CENTER



MARCIE MILNER CHRISTOPHER A. SUMMERS VP - REGULATORY AFFAIRS REGULATORY BUSINESS MGR. SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA (US), L.P. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 4445 EASTGATE MALL, SUITE 100 8330 CENTURY PARK CT., CP32F SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

DEAN A. KINPORTS JENNIFER WRIGHT REGULATORY CASE MGR. REGULATORY CASE MGR. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

RANDY SCHIMKA JEREMY WAEN SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY MGR. - REGULATORY AFFAIRS 8674 CENTURY PARK CT, MS CP42K PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 2075 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061

SUE MARA MARC MONBOUQUETTE CONSULTANT SR.MGR - REG & GOV'T AFFAIRS RTO ADVISORS, LLC ENEL X NORTH AMERICA, INC. 164 SPRINGDALE WAY 846 BRANSTEN ROAD REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070

STEVE TABER MARC D. JOSEPH ENERGY MARKETS ATTORNEY AT LAW EMOTORWERKS ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 846 BRANSTEN ROAD 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES

RACHAEL KOSS BILLY BLATTNER ATTORNEY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CORDOZO 601 VAN NESS AVE., STE. 2060 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080

ANTHONY MANZO DANIELLE DOOLEY CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LEGAL DIVISION ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH ROOM 5125 AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JOSHUA HUNEYCUTT SARAH OWENS CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PRESIDENT BATJER COMMISSIONER RECHTSCHAFFEN AREA ROOM 5200 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

ERIC BORDEN MARCEL HAWIGER ENERGY POLICY ANALYST ATTORNEY



THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 785 MARKET STREET, STE. 1400 785 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

MILES MULLER BENJAMIN ELLIS ATTORNEY ATTORNEY NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 111 SUTTER STREET, 21ST FL. 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

BUCHALTER DOCKET JOHANNA FORS BUCHALTER REGULATORY AFFAIRS 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 77 BEALE STREET, B10A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

KAREN SHEA LISA M. RAYMOND CASE MGR., CUSTOMER PROGRAM BUCHALTER PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 77 BEALE STREET, B9A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

MICHAEL ALCANTAR MICHAEL CADE ATTORNEY AT LAW ANALYST BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LILLIAN RAFII 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 ATTORNEY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 55 SECOND STREET, STE. 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3493

FRANCESCA WAHL ADENIKE ADEYEYE SR. POLICY ASSOCIATE, BUS. DEVELOPMENT SR. RESEARCH & POLICY ANALYST TESLA, INC. EARTHJUSTICE 444 DE HARO STREET, STE. 101 50 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

MALOU SANA PAUL R. CORT BRYAN CAVE LLP EARTHJUSTICE THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 7TH FLOOR 50 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: LYFT, INC.

THOMAS W. SOLOMON RACHELLE CHONG ATTORNEY AT LAW COUNSEL WINSTON & STRAWN LLP LAW OFFICES OF RACHELLE CHONG 101 CALIFORNIA STREET 345 WEST PORTAL AVENUE, STE. 110 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127

RITA LIOTTA CASE COORDINATION



FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 AVENUE OF THE PALMS, STE. 161 EMAIL ONLY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94130 EMAIL ONLY, CA 94177 FOR: FEA

SARAH VAN CLEVE HOWARD V. GOLUB ENERGY POLICY ADVISOR ATTORNEY TESLA, INC. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 3500 DEER CREEK ROAD 2001 NORTH MAIN STREET, STE. 390 PALO ALTO, CA 94304 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 FOR: CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF PORT OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

DONNELL CHOY MELISSA BRANDT DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY SR. DIR - PUBLIC AFFAIRS & GEN. COUNSEL PORT OF OAKLAND EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY 530 WATER STREET, 4TH FL. 1111 BROADWAY, STE 3000 OAKLAND, CA 94607 OAKLAND, CA 94607

PAUL NELSON PAUL D. HERNANDEZ CONSULTANT POLICY MGR. BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PO BOX 11031 426 17TH STREET, STE. 700 OAKLAND, CA 94611 OAKLAND, CA 94612

RACHEL GOLDEN DAVID MARCUS SR. CAMPAIGN REP. 1541 JUANITA WAY SIERRA CLUB BERKELEY, CA 94702 2101 WEBSTER, STE. 1300 FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY OAKLAND, CA 94612 EMPLOYEES

TAM HUNT C. C. SONG CONSULTING ATTORNEY REGULATORY ANALYST 2039 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 402 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY BERKELEY, CA 94704 1125 TAMALPAIS AVE. FOR: THE GREEN POWER INSTITUTE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 FOR: MCE

PHILLIP MULLER JOHN NIMMONS SCD ENERGY SOLUTIONS COUNSEL 436 NOVA ALBION WAY JOHN NIMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 175 ELINOR AVE., STE. G MILL VALLEY, CA 94941

ANNE SMART ANTHONY HARRISON VP, PUBLIC POLICY DIR - PUBLIC POLICY CHARGEPOINT, INC. CHARGEPOINT 254 EAST HACIENDA AVENUE 254 E. HACIENDA AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CAMPBELL, CA 95008

NEWONDA NICHOLS RENEE SAMSON PROGRAM MGR., UTILITY SOLUTIONS DIR - UTILITY SOLUTIONS



CHARGEPOINT, INC. CHARGEPOINT, INC. 254 EAST HACIENDA AVE. 245 E. HACIENDA AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CAMPBELL, CA 95008

ART DOUWES JAMES WILHELM OPERATIONS MGR. SR. MECHANICAL ENGINEER VTA BUS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING VTA BUS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING 3331 NORTH FIRST STREET, BUILDING B-1 3331 NORTH FIRST STREET, BUILDING B-1 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 SAN JOSE, CA 95134

STEVEN S. SHUPE AUDRA HARTMANN GENERAL COUNSEL PRINCIPAL SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY SMITH, WATTS & HARTMANN 50 SANTA ROSA AVE., 5TH FL. 925 L STREET, SUITE 220 SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

DELANEY L. HUNTER JOHN SHEARS MANAGING PARTNER RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES GONZALEZ, QUINTANA, HUNTER & CRUZ, LLC THE CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 915 L STREET, STE. 1270 1100 11TH ST., SUTE. 311 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FOR: SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION FOR: CEERT AUTHORITY

ANDREW B. BROWN RONALD LIEBERT ATTORNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP 2600 CAPITOL AVE., STE. 400 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, STE. 400 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

CATHIE ALLEN ELI MORRIS DIR - REGULATORY AFFAIRS PACIFICORP PACIFICORP 825 NE MULTNOMAH, STE. 2000 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST., STE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97232 PORTLAND, OR 97232

ETTA LOCKEY SR. COUNSEL PACIFICORP 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST., STE. 1500 PORTLAND, OR 97232

State Service

MATTHEW WILLIAMS ALAN BACH AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH EMAIL ONLY AREA EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

AUDREY NEUMAN BENJAMIN GUTIERREZ CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION



PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND OVERSIGHT BRANC ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ROOM 4-A AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

CAROLYN SISTO CHLOE LUKINS CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND OVERSIGHT BRANC ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH AREA ROOM 4102 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

DAVID PECK FIDEL LEON DIAZ CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PRESIDENT BATJER ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH ROOM 5215 AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JENNIFER KALAFUT JOSEPH A. ABHULIMEN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ENERGY EFFICIENCY BRANCH ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH ROOM 4002 ROOM 4209 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JUNAID RAHMAN LIAM WEAVER CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RISK ASSESSMENT & SAFETY ADVISORY ENERGY SAFETY & INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH AREA AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

NATHAN CHAU RICK TSE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ELECTRIC SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH AREA AREA 2-D 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 FOR: ORA

SARA M. KAMINS SASHA GOLDBERG CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND OVERSIGHT BRANC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION AREA ROOM 5021 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

TIM G. DREW NOEL CRISOSTOMO CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AIR POLUTION SPECIALIST ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION AREA 4-A 1516 9TH STREET 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214



TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS



Documents

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application 17-01-021 Application 17-01 … · 2020-02-01 · SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services PRP Proposed Costs ..... 35 Table 8. SDG&E Fleet Delivery Services