Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan for Ohio by Cynthia Maves

Electric vehicle Readiness Plan For ohio

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Funded by: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Dennis A. Smith, National Clean Cities Director Linda Bluestein, National Clean Cities Co-Director Erin Russell-Story, Clean Cities Great Lakes Regional Manager Clean Fuels Ohio Sam Spofforth, Executive Director Cynthia Maves, Director of Grant Administration Charlene Brenner, Grants Coordinator AECOM Team Chris Brewer, Vice President Chris Stark, Senior Analyst Grace Troccolo Rink, Quercus Consulting, President Carolee Kokola, Quercus Consulting, Associate James Aloisi, KCUS, Inc., Senior Vice President Electric Power Research Institute Mark Duvall, Director, Electric Transportation and Energy Storage Dan Bowermaster, Senior Project Manager Morgan Davis, Senior Project Engineer Communica Chrissy Redrup, Senior Account Supervisor Pat Pencheff, VP Creative Director Julie Pompa, APR, Director of Public Relations Deanna Lawrence, Director of Data Integration Kevin Cesarz, Digital Strategy Leader Governing Dynamic Brett A. Sciotto, President and CEO Brice Civiello, VP, Policy Implementation The Ohio State University Center for Automotive Research Vincenzo Marano, Adjunct Fellow Ramteen Sioshansi, Associate Fellow; Assistant Professor, Integrated System Engineering Josh (Xiaomin) Xi, Graduate Fellow; PhD Candidate, Integrated System Engineering The University of Akron Ping Yi, PE, PhD, Department of Civil Engineering DISCLAIMERS This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0005554. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This document was prepared for informational purposes only, to serve as a resource and to assist the State of Ohio and electric vehicle stakeholders as they seek appropriate ways to plan for and implement EV technology and policies supporting such infrastructure. This report was prepared at a time when widespread adoption of EVs was in early stages and when policies and practices addressing electric vehicles and supporting technology have been evolving. The findings and recommendations included herein reflect this â&#x20AC;&#x153;snapshotâ&#x20AC;? in time, although every effort has been made to anticipate and accommodate evolving technologies.

Drive Electric Ohio | Acknowledgements and Disclaimers

Contents DEFINITIONS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i VEHICLES..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i

ELECTRIC VEHICLE REFUELING...........................................................................................................................................................................................i

OTHER TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................................................................................................................................ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

KEY FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 THE CASE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE OWNERSHIP.........................................................................................................................................................................4 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

The Commute: Yes, EV Can!........................................................................................................................................................................4

Ownership Cost: EV’s are Competitive..............................................................................................................................................5

PLANNING OHIO’S ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE...............................................................................................................................................11 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

Forecasting Total EV Ownership..............................................................................................................................................................11

Identifying Likely EV Owners.......................................................................................................................................................................13

OHIO’S UTILITY READINESS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20

Localized Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Grid....................................................................................................................20

Ohio Utility EV Preparation Efforts.........................................................................................................................................................23

ADVANCING ELECTRIC VEHICLES THROUGH CODES & PERMITS..............................................................................................................................26 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26

Drive Electric Ohio | Contents

Current Conditions and Local Leadership..........................................................................................................................................27

Codes & Permits: Regulatory Tools........................................................................................................................................................30

STATEWIDE ELECTRIC VEHICLE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................................37 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37

Incentivizing EV Ownership...........................................................................................................................................................................38

Revenue Considerations....................................................................................................................................................................................40 OHIO’S ELECTRIC VEHICLE MARKETING PLAN..............................................................................................................................................................................42 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................42

RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................42 RESEARCH................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Market Strategy..........................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Advertising/Media Plan.......................................................................................................................................................................................44

Public Relations (Earned Media)...................................................................................................................................................................45

Promotional Events................................................................................................................................................................................................47

Observation, Measurement and Re-engagement.......................................................................................................................47

RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................49

RESEARCH SOURCES.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................49

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................................................................................................50

Provided Under Separate Cover APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION: MODEL ORDINANCE AND POLICY TEMPLATES Communica: Consumer Research – Alternative Fuel Technologies, Initial Topline Summary Report Governing Dymanic: Ohio Survey of Local Governments The Ohio State University: Deployment of Public Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Stations in Mid-Ohio Region The University of Akron: PEV Demand Study and Charging Station Location Identification – A methodology study tested in the Greater Akron-Cleveland Area Studies by Sustainable Transportation Strategies

EV Charging for People with Disabilities

Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Drive Electric Ohio | Contents

Site Design for EV Charging Stations

DEFINITIONS Vehicles Electric Vehicle (EV), Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV), All-Electric Vehicle (AEV) Example: Nissan Leaf Electric vehicles are powered by an electric motor and battery alone. All-electric vehicles can travel farther on electricity than plug-in hybrids, but their range is more limited. All-electric vehicles never use gasoline and most models are designed to travel over 75 miles between charges.1 Except where otherwise noted, the term “EV” in this report refers to all types of plug-in electric vehicles. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Example: Chevrolet Volt Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are powered by a gasoline engine and electric motor, but its battery pack, which is larger than that of a hybrid vehicle, can be recharged from the grid. This combination allows the vehicle to use electricity, and enables the vehicle to continue driving indefinitely after the battery is discharged.2 After the electricity-only range is exceeded, the vehicle continues to operate as a hybrid vehicle. PHEVs can be configured to operate serially, or in a blended fashion. In a serial configuration, the vehicle runs on electricity alone at some points, like starting, and uses its other power source alone at others, for example, when accelerating. Alternatively, a plug-in hybrid may be configured for blended operation, with the battery and the conventional engine operating together. 3 Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) Example: Chevrolet Volt An extended-range electric vehicle (EREV) operates as a battery electric vehicle for a certain number of miles. After the battery has been discharged, a gas engine powers an electric generator for several hundred miles of ‘extended-range’ driving4. Hybrid Vehicle (Hybrid) Example: Toyota Prius Hybrids are powered by an internal combustion engine or other propulsion source that runs on conventional or alternative fuel and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery. The battery is charged through regenerative braking and by the internal combustion engine and is not plugged in to charge. Fuel Cell Vehicles Fuel cells offer an alternative to conventional vehicles which converts hydrogen gas into energy to power an electric motor. These vehicles were not considered as part of this study. Electric Vehicle Refueling Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Equipment used to transfer electric power from the grid or a solar panel to an electric vehicle, including the charging unit, its attachments and physical mounting infrastructure, such as the pedestal, barriers, and interface. In this report EVSE is also referred to as “charging stations.” The rate at which charging adds range to a vehicle depends on the vehicle, battery type, and type of EVSE. The following are typical rates5 for a automobile. • Level 1: 2 to 5 miles of range per hour of charging • Level 2: 10 to 20 miles of range per hour of charging • DC Fast Charging: 60 to 80 miles of range in 20 minutes of charging Level 1 Charging Level 1 charging uses a common 120-volt, single-phase outlet for a three-prong grounded (NEMA 5-15R) connector with ground-fault circuit interrupt6. Level 1 charging requires 8 to 14 hours to charge a fully depleted EV battery, depending on the EV and battery type, however, charging time can be much shorter for EVs with smaller electric battery size. All EVs come equipped with Level 1 charging equipment upon purchase. Level 2 Charging Level 2 charging requires 208-240 volts AC single-phase maximum nominal supply and 32 amps maximum continuous current with 40 amps branch circuit protection. Other required features for Level 2 charging include grounding or electrical isolation, personnel protection from shock, a no-load

Electric Power Research Institute. Plugging In: A Consumer’s Guide to the Electric Vehicle, Palo Alto, 2012 Ibid ‘Plug-In Hybrid,’ Electric Drive Transportation Association, 27 Mar 2013 4 Ibid 5 Alternative Fuels Data Center, “Fuels and Vehicles, Electricity” US Department of Energy 6 Pacific Gas & Electric. EV Infrastructure Installation Guide. n.d. 2 3

www.driveelectricohio.org

make/break interlock, and a safety breakaway for the cable and connector. When using Level 2 charging, a fully depleted EV battery can be charged in 4 to 6 hours, depending on the EV, battery type, and capacity. DC Fast Charging DC fast charging requires high levels of voltage and current to replenish more than half of an EV’s battery capacity in as quickly as 10 minutes. DC chargers use a 480-volt AC, 400-amp, three-phase electrical service. DC fast charging can provide 80% of a full charge in fewer than 30 minutes. The vehicle must be properly equipped to accept DC fast charge7. Inductive (Wireless) Charging8 Inductive (wireless) charging uses the electromagnetic field to transfer energy between two objects in close proximity. A charging station sends energy through inductive coupling to an electrical device, which stores the energy in the batteries. Battery Exchange Facility A service location similar to a conventional gas station where an electric vehicle can exchange a depleted battery for a fully charged battery. Such service stations have not yet entered the US market and were not considered as part of this study. Connectors and Plugs The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE International) released its new fast charging combo coupler standard (SAE J1772) for PEVs in October 2012. The preceding version of the standard, adopted in 2010, spelled out the specifications for the J1772 connector that is used for charging with AC power at comparatively lower levels. The connector is used by all OEMs except for Tesla (Tesla has rolled out the Tesla Supercharger – a high speed network that is only compatible with Tesla and free to their drivers). The revised standard, the combo connector, maintains all of the functionality of the previous version of the connector but includes two extra pins for the optional delivery of DC current for fast charging – so that one receptacle is on the vehicle. It has been adopted by European and US auto manufacturers. However, the Japanese OEMs (Nissan and Mitsubishi) use the legacy CHAdeMO connector, which requires a separate receptacle. Other Terminology Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Metropolitan statistical areas are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics. The general concept of an MSA is that of an area containing a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high degree of integration with that nucleus. The classification provides a nationally consistent set of delineations for collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas. The Cleveland, Ohio MSA includes the counties of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina. The Columbus, Ohio MSA includes the counties of Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, and Union. Early Adopter, Early Majority – See Technology Adoption Lifecycle below Technology Adoption Lifecycle A theory describing the use or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined groups, typically illustrated as a “bell curve.” Generally, the groups are defined as follows: •  Innovators – more educated, more prosperous and more risk-oriented •  Early Adopters – younger, more educated, may be community leaders •  Early Majority – more conservative but open to new ideas, active in community and influence to neighbors •  Late Majority – older, less educated, fairly conservative and less socially active •  Laggards – very conservative, lower overall wealth, oldest and least educated Everett Rogers Technology Adoption Lifecycle

7 8

Technologies, DC Fast Charging,” EVSEReady.com. n.d. Schneider, J. “Wireless Charging of Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles”

Drive Electric Ohio | Definitions

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Executive Summary

Eleven billion dollars ($11,000,000,000). That’s how much money Ohioans spend on gasoline every year9. If only 5% of Ohio’s gas-only vehicles were replaced with electric vehicles – even a combination of all-electric, plug-in hybrid, and extended-range electric – Ohio consumers would save nearly $600,000,000 annually. For every dollar spent on gasoline in Ohio, only 16.4 cents continues to circulate in the state economy, meaning that nearly 84 percent leaves Ohio immediately to pay for distributors, wholesalers, transportation, production, etc. Imagine what $600 million could do for Ohio if it were used to purchase or renovate homes, on entertainment, and education?

• The total economic impact per auto worker on the state is estimated at $1.31 million. • Saving 100 auto jobs in Ohio generates $83.6 million in direct economic activity and $47.7 million throughout the rest of the state economy, a total economic impact of $131.4 million. • For every 100 jobs added in the auto manufacturing sector, there are 275 jobs added in other parts of the state economy in support industries, service sectors, retail, etc.

Clearly, the economic benefit of electric vehicles to the State of Ohio will be much greater if they are not only purchased by Ohioans, but also The result of this study asserts that this scenario is quite possible for manufactured by Ohioans. The campaign to promote electric vehicles in Ohio by 2030, with many notable gains along the way. For Ohio to Ohio is not just about “selling it” to the average maximize the opportunities that electric vehicles consumer. It is about broader economic development present – skilled jobs , a manufacturing boom, regional The net change from and job creation on a statewide level, linked to the leadership – the state must encourage widespread adding 1,000 EVs to importance of Ohio’s automotive industry (3rd in the support and acceptance of this new technology, and nation12), including the manufacturers as well as Ohio is $1,320,000 in municipalities must prepare to serve their residential economic impact and suppliers who are embedded in communities across and commercial sectors which will soon embrace EV the state. ownership in significant numbers. supports 20

additional jobs paying BACKGROUND As electric vehicle penetration grows it will be essential Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO) is a statewide non-profit $508,000 in wages. for the statewide automotive assembly cluster10 organization dedicated to promoting the use of cleaner, (manufacturers of vehicles and parts) to adapt and domestic fuels and efficient vehicles to the Source: IMPLAN, AECOM support this evolving market opportunity. According to transportation industry, government, and the general AECOM’s analysis11, a renewed focus on Ohio’s auto public. The organization provides technical support to industry emboldened by electric vehicles could have a transportation professionals, advocates for sustainable transportation tremendous ripple effect throughout the statewide economy. energy policies, and serves as a resource clearinghouse for fleets, policy makers, and the public. CFO is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio and • For every $1,000,000 of economic output (i.e., sales) in automobile works extensively around the state in collaboration with local partners. manufacturing, the economy grows an additional $602,000 in ripple CFO developed the Drive Electric Ohio initiative to spur the growth, effects. adoption and deployment of electric vehicles and the electric vehicle • For every worker added to auto manufacturing in Ohio there is an industry in Ohio. additional $836,400 generated in sales/output. 9 10 11 12

Please see Table 1 in the appendix for the full calculation. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) as well as Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers The analysis used pre-recession (2007) data from IMPLAN to examine Ohio’s optimal performance scenario “The Auto Industry in Ohio,” Innovation Ohio.

Drive Electric Ohio | Executive Summary

In 2010, Clean Fuels Ohio and Ohio Department of Transportation began convening a statewide EV stakeholder group representing organizations engaged in diverse electric vehicle planning activities throughout Ohio. In September 2011, Clean Fuels Ohio was awarded $500,000, one of sixteen grants nationwide, under the US Department of Energy’s Clean Cities Community Readiness and Planning for Plug-In Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure program to conduct a study that would result in an electric vehicle readiness plan for the State of Ohio. The DOE’s objective for this program is to reduce U.S. petroleum dependence and build the foundation for a modern and resilient transportation system that responds to emerging innovations in mobility systems13. The Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan for Ohio is the culmination of over two years of collaborative work of a large coalition, led by Clean Fuels Ohio, that has grown to over 200 stakeholders including all major electric utilities, state agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, automobile manufacturers, industry representatives, local governments, universities and research firms. These stakeholders have been assembled to provide work, support, technical information and feedback necessary to complete a detailed statewide EV and EVSE readiness plan and supporting resources. The stakeholder group determined that the two primary priorities of the statewide plan were (1) infrastructure planning, and (2) education and outreach. The central focus of the Ohio EV readiness grant project involved creating a detailed EV readiness plan that would feature community readiness templates including those relating to permitting and zoning that can be readily implemented by communities of varying sizes and characteristics. This EV readiness plan has included work to evaluate EV market demand; assess grid and utility readiness; recommended updates to local zoning, code, and permitting policies that would streamline EV adoption; provide a targeted EV marketing plan, first responder safety training plan and educational activities for the general public and fleets. METHODOLOGY This report is the result of a full year’s worth of research, data analysis and stakeholder engagement. Specifically, the consulting firm AECOM (retained by CFO for this project) examined the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, and the I-71 corridor between them. While the figures in this report are specific to those areas, the process for deriving these results is intended to be replicable by other Ohio communities. A supplemental section also provides recommendations for municipal codes and permitting that are designed to be easily applicable to any Ohio community. Additional research incorporated into this report was conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Communica (a marketing firm), Governing Dynamic (a research firm), the University of Akron and the Ohio State University’s Center for Automotive Research (OSUCAR), all of which were also contracted by CFO for this study. The statewide stakeholder groups were consulted throughout the process and provided vital feedback in the development of this report. KEY FINDINGS • Driving Range: Over 70% of drivers in the study areas of Cleveland and Columbus commute less than 20 miles round trip each day, and over 80% of drivers commute less than 50 miles, distances which are well within the range limit of even the all-electric vehicles on the market today. 13 14

• Projected EV Ownership: By 2030, ownership of all types of plug-in electric vehicles in the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs is projected to number over 250,000. Figure 1: Projected Vehicle Ownership per MSA, EV and PHEV Combined 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

2015 2020 2025 2030 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

• Residential Charging Station Demand: By 2030, approximately 125,000 charging stations will have been installed at the homes of EV owners in the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs combined14. • Non-Residential Charging Station Demand: By 2030, the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs combined will need over 50,000 non-residential charging stations installed at workplaces and destinations15. • Likely EV Owners: Households with incomes $175,000 and above and fleet owners are likely EV candidates in the short term, with households in the $100,000 income range becoming EV owners by the early 2020s. • Grid Impact: Based on projections showing that electric vehicles will not constitute a majority of on-road vehicles, increased demand for electricity due to electric vehicles will not outpace production capacity or the ability of the existing grid infrastructure to deliver power. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Prepare municipalities to enable a proactive approach to permitting Focus funding and advocacy efforts on the communities predicted to have the highest number of early EV owners. Share the outcomes statewide to benefit all communities. 2. Modernize the utility grid Utilities should maximize planning opportunities over the next decade before EV ownership is widespread. The dawn of a new technology is a prime opportunity to examine transformer capacity and modernize the system.

By 2030, 60% of Gates Mills households may have EVs, resulting in over 500 vehicles, but Parma is predicted to have close to 5,000 EVs within only 12% of its households.

Some communities will see more rapid EV ownership than others, which may impact local transformer capacity.

“Clean Cities – Community Readiness Projects,” Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, US Dept. of Energy, 09 Sept. 2011. This forecast assumes that half of EV owners will install at least a Level 1 charging station at home, while half will plug their vehicle into an existing outlet without an additional charging station. www.driveelectricohio.org This forecast assumes a ratio of one non-residential charging station for every five electric vehicles.

3. Identify likely consumers Statewide EV adoption statewide figures will be significantly Replicate the demographic larger when MSAs other than analysis and EV adoption Cleveland and Columbus are projections in this report for taken into account. other Ohio MSAs including Cincinnati, Akron, Toledo, and Dayton, which will help prepare municipalities and support the utilities’ need for information relevant to their infrastructure. 4. Site charging stations EPRI has identified 140 strategically locations that would give Thoughtful and purposeful 95% of all Ohio residents placement of charging stations access to a charging station within metro areas and across the within 10 miles of home. state will encourage greater and faster EV adoption. Haphazard or unplanned deployment of charging stations could have the opposite effect, creating a chaotic approach that will deter an uninformed public wary to test a new technology. 5. Commission a statewide economic impact study of the EV market in Ohio Early indicators in this report demonstrate that electric vehicles can be a tremendous asset to Ohio’s economic engine. A study focused on the economic impact and potential of electric vehicles could further refine the goals introduced in this report, and enable policy makers to create an environment welcoming to EVs and their statewide impact.

CONCLUSION Ohio can realize significant short and long term benefits by accelerating the rate of EV ownership among its residents. In addition to helping advance the important national goal of energy security, the job creating opportunities are robust. As Ohio becomes more EV-friendly, and as adoption increases, the stage will be set for private sector investment in a variety of research, development and manufacturing opportunities that can leverage the range of Ohioans’ skill sets – from manufacturing electric vehicles and charging stations to installing over 200,000 charging stations throughout the state, from conducting research on new battery technology to manufacturing EV batteries and components, and even creating business opportunities when those batteries still have capacity but can no longer perform for EVs. Ohio’s jobs growth platform for the future will be based upon its ability to adapt to and embrace new technologies, and EVs are an important part of that platform. This is an exciting time for Ohio. Its economy is faring better than the nation’s, as is its employment rate16. The energy sector is experiencing a boom that includes Ohio, and the state is home to some of the best technical and automotive research institutions in the country, not to mention a legacy of automotive manufacturing expertise in virtually every community. Armed with the planning recommendations outlined in this report, Ohio’s municipalities, clean fuel advocates, industrial leaders and legislative visionaries can propel the state into the electric vehicle movement’s pole position.

6. Educate consumers on the true cost and benefits of EVs The results of the marketing study clearly demonstrate that while Ohioans are aware of electric vehicles, they are unaware of their competitive total cost of ownership and other benefits. Once consumers experience these vehicles and are provided tangible performance statistics, it is likely that more consumers will choose EVs for their next car. 7. Incentivize EV ownership The State of Ohio and its utilities are alone among the five neighboring states in not providing any tax incentives, grants or rebates within the EV sphere – for vehicle purchase, manufacturing, research or equipment – meaning the state is not taking advantage of the job-creating engine that EVs and their supporting infrastructure can be. To demonstrate leadership and attract the robust resources that accompany EVs, the state must bolster its offerings or risk losing growth opportunities to neighboring states with policies and incentives that encourage EV adoption.

16 17

According to a survey by Communica, 82% of commercial fleet managers say government incentives are necessary for transitioning to alternative fuel vehicles.

Cleveland-based Eaton manufactures Level 2 charging stations in North Carolina and DC fast charging stations in Oregon.17

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. December 2012 preliminary data lists Ohio’s unemployment rate at 6.7%, while the national rate is 7.9%. “News Releases,” Eaton Corp.

Drive Electric Ohio | Executive Summary

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

The Case for Electric Vehicle Ownership

Overview While it may appear that sluggish sales in Ohio’s EV market to date indicate a lack of interest among consumers, this study finds evidence otherwise: auto manufacturers are only just now releasing EV models into the state, and as their sales efforts increase, so will the purchases. The initial purchase price comparison between electric and conventional vehicles continues to weigh in favor of the conventional, but as consumers become aware of EVs competitive total cost of ownership, their attitudes toward electric vehicles will become more favorable. AECOM analyzed specific demographic metrics of the study MSAs to examine the existing characteristics and forecasted trends. Key metrics examined include population, households, income, age, educational attainment, commuting patterns, major employers, fuel impacts, vehicle makes and models, and geographic distribution throughout Ohio.

almost 70% of all commutes in the Columbus MSA and 54% in the Cleveland MSA. Further, in the communities with residents most likely to purchase EVs, over 80% of commutes are less than 50 miles round trip. • The total lifetime cost to own an EV is at least on par with today’s hybrid vehicles, and in most cases outperforms the ownership cost of a conventional vehicle. Battery costs are expected to drop and their efficiency will improve, further driving down the cost of EVs. • EV owners can expect significant fuel savings ranging from $1,400$2,000 per year depending on the price of gas, which is expected to continue to increase. • Shifting consumer spending away from gasoline has a tremendously positive impact throughout the economy, including an increase in jobs statewide.

KEY FINDINGS The pace of Ohio’s economic recovery from “the great recession” will impact its electric vehicle adoption rate, and economic indicators for Ohio are trending upwards. The total cost of owning an electric vehicle – from the purchase price to re-fueling and ongoing maintenance – is already close to even with hybrid vehicles and surpasses conventional vehicles. This is a key message that needs to reach Ohio’s consumers.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Focus initial EV awareness efforts on fleets and higher-income households.

• Unemployment rates have continued to fall since their peak, with the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs performing better than the state and national averages. Ohio’s GDP recovered in 2010 to above prerecession levels.

RESEARCH The Commute: Yes, EV Can! The EVs available in Ohio in 2013, primarily the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, are able to drive 9218 and 3819 miles respectively on a single charge, and the Volt can continue driving 380 miles when it switches to gas mode. AECOM examined the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs to determine which communities were within 25 miles of the downtown which would result in a maximum 50 mile round trip on a single charge, meaning that a vehicle likely would not need to plug in at its downtown location in order to return home. If an EV owner had access to a charging station at their destination (i.e., work), then the outer ring of EV-capable communities could be further away from the city center.

• Potential owners of electric vehicles do exist in Ohio, and in significant numbers. In the Columbus MSA, nearly 48,000 households fall within the income range that can afford an EV today and the Cleveland MSA is similar, with 47,000 households earning at least $150,000. There are close to 100,000 additional households in each MSA earning $100,000-$150,000, a group predicted to be considering EVs within the next 10 years. • The majority of daily commuting distances are less than 20 miles, 18 19

2. Conduct similar demographic studies on other Ohio MSAs to refine the statewide EV ownership estimates and identify communities and employers with leadership potential.

“Leaf Electric Car” Nissan USA n.d., 02 Feb 2013 “Volt Electric Car” Chevrolet n.d., 02 Feb 2013

Drive Electric Ohio | The Case for Electric Vehicle Ownership

In the Columbus area, a commuter could drive from as far out as the town of Delaware and still be within 25 miles one way of the city center. Similarly for the Cleveland MSA, a commuter could drive from as far east as Mentor and still be within 25 miles one way of downtown.

Figure 3: Chevrolet Volt Total Cost of Ownership, 2012

Ownership Cost: EVs are Competitive A total cost of ownership analysis was performed by EPRI for current plug-in electric vehicles in which the 2012 Nissan Leaf and 2012 Chevrolet Volt were examined to show how the two performed over the life of the vehicle. The two vehicles are shown compared to an average gas-only hybrid model and an average conventional vehicle. Vehicle purchase, maintenance, gasoline, electricity, and replacement costs (for days when the Nissan Leaf cannot complete the day’s driving on one charge) are compared across each vehicle. In the figure below, the average hybrid vehicle is based upon the average of four popular hybrid models: Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid, and Ford Fusion Hybrid. The average conventional vehicle is based off of four mid-size sedans, the Honda Civic EX, Chevrolet Cruze LTX, Ford Focus Titanium, and the Volkswagen Passat, which were picked because of their size and amenities. Fuel economy and price were averaged between each set to arrive at two ‘average’ cars. The Nissan Leaf is shown to have a total cost of ownership of $37,28820, lower than both the conventional vehicle and the hybrid. The replacement cost for the Nissan Leaf’s battery factors into the cost of ownership. The chart shows the clear impact of gasoline on the cost of vehicle ownership and the trend of gas price increases will continue to improve the ownership cost relationship of EVs. Figure 2: Nissan Leaf Total Cost of Ownership, 201221 The Chevrolet Volt’s total cost of ownership is shown in the figure below, and similar to the Nissan Leaf, the vehicle is shown to be

These two total cost of ownership comparisons highlight that the alternatives to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles already can compete over the life of the vehicle. As the cost of fuel continues to increase and the purchase price comes down with declining battery costs and manufacturing efficiencies, they will become even more competitive for consumers. In spite of this positive comparison, EV sales will face the same challenges as other vehicles: in 2010, Midwest spending on new vehicles was the lowest of any region. Today’s Ohio households are focused more on saving than on spending, and Midwest households generally keep cars in service for more years than other areas of the country22. These points indicate that motivation for purchasing any new vehicle, let alone an electric vehicle, may be slower in Ohio than in other states. The Battery: Cost will come down In the figure below, cost projections for lithium-ion batteries on a $/kWh has been developed by both EPRI23 and McKinsey24. By 2020, both project that battery costs will decline to approximately $200/kWh, a significant decrease from current levels (ranging from $366-$550/kWh). Figure 4: Battery Cost Projections

competitive to other vehicle types. The significantly smaller portion of total cost allocated to gasoline is a clear advantage of the vehicle, and offsets some of the increase in the initial purchase price.

This number is based on the 2012 pricing of the Leaf. The purchase price fell by over $4,000 for the 2013 model, as production has increased in scale and moved to Tennessee. The total cost of ownership of the Leaf is expected to fall significantly. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Total Cost of Ownership for Current Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1025848 22 See Appendix for research detail 23 Electric Power Research Institute. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Lithium-Ion Battery Cost and Advanced Battery Technologies Forecast. Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1023094 24 www.driveelectricohio.org Hensley, R., Newman, J., Rogers, M. (07/2012) Battery technology charges ahead. McKinsey Quarterly 21

Battery prices are continuing to improve as well as efficiency and range as EV technology progresses. One example of this is the 2013 Chevrolet Volt versus the 2012 Chevrolet Volt; the 2013 model had a roughly 10% increase in EPA rated range, with the same sized battery pack. The increase comes from efficiency gains and battery cell performance improvements. Tax Credits: Cutting the purchase price Plug-in electric vehicles qualify for between $2,500-$7,500 in federal tax credits25 depending on range. Longer range vehicles such as the LEAF, Volt, and Focus BEV qualify for $7,500 in federal incentives and lower range vehicles such as the Ford C-Max Energi qualifies for $3,750. The Prius Plug-in qualifies for $2,500. These credits are scheduled to be phased out as electric vehicle sales increase, specifically until 200,000 vehicles are sold per manufacturer. With most manufacturers introducing EV models over the coming years, each with its own 200,000 EV model limit for the federal tax credit, it is unclear how long the tax credit will last. At this time, there are no state-sponsored incentives in Ohio that would reduce the cost to purchase an EV. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 5, Statewide Electric Vehicle Considerations. Charging: The cost to fuel up The vast majority of EV charging will be conducted at home or in the fleet yard. The cost of installing a charging station depends upon the type of charging station that the EV owner decides to install, a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station, or simply plugging into an available outlet. The costs include the charging station itself, cost for an electrician to install it, and any necessary wiring or panel upgrades. An EV owner could simply plug in to an available socket using the cord set that comes with the vehicle to achieve Level 1 charging with no additional cost for equipment or electrical work. Alternatively, this same owner may have to pay an electrician for electrical work (i.e., running conduit to a garage without power) and may choose to purchase a Level 1 charging station which generally costs between $500-$1,000, plus installation. Installing a Level 2 charging station is more expensive than Level 1 because they require an electrician for site inspection and installation, additional voltage (240V) and the equipment is more expensive. The charging stations themselves can cost up to $2,800 and, if additional circuitry is needed, an electrician can cost an average of an additional $1,500 or more depending on the complexity of the project. Based on Ohio’s Once an EV owner is able to charge at home (or a fleet parking facility), the cost to charge is simply the same rate the owner pays for electricity. In Ohio, the average electricity rate is $0.06 per kWh26. On an empty battery charging at Level 2, a Volt would require four hours to

residential rate of $0.06/ kWh, the average EV owner could expect to pay only $11 extra per month to charge their vehicle27.

United States. Internal Revenue Service. Notice 2009-89. IRS Dec. 2009 “Apples to Apples Rate Charts” The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. 04 Feb 2013 EPRI/AECOM calculation 28 “News – United States” General Motors. 12 Sept. 2012 29 Motavalli, J., “‘Plug-In Ecosystem’ Available at Indiana Mall,” New York Times, 02/05/13 26 27

Drive Electric Ohio | The Case for Electric Vehicle Ownership

Lordstown, Ohio Solar Canopy Station - http://www.cleveland.com

charge for a total of $0.96, and a Leaf would need seven hours for a total cost of $1.44. However, most EVs will only need to “top off” daily, and some owners may only charge a few days per week. EPRI has found that nationwide, the average EV owner is currently adding around 3,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) to their normal annual household electric bill. Another option for locations offering multiple vehicle charging is a solar canopy EV charging station . Numerous manufacturers currently offer different designs, and generally include the following components: multiple parking spaces for electric vehicles to sit while charging, an overhead canopy of solar panels to generate electricity, and charging stations to plug in the EVs. A solar canopy could be an ideal option for fleets that not only have multiple electric vehicles, but also desire to offset the electrical costs through the use of solar power for energy generation. GM has already installed solar canopy EV charging stations at two Ohio facilities in Lordstown and Parma28, and a mall in Indianapolis29 has installed a solar canopy that includes both Level 2 chargers and DC fast chargers. Vehicle Fuel By choosing an EV, the consumer removes (for all-electric vehicles) or reduces (for PHEVs) the volatility of gasoline prices, which are likely to continue rising for the foreseeable future. An estimate of the savings from using electricity instead of gasoline is provided below, comparing an all-electric vehicle over the course of a year to a conventional vehicle of similar size. For this example of fuel savings, a 2012 model Nissan Leaf is compared against a comparably sized Chevrolet Cruze to illustrate the difference in fuel consumption. According to the DOE, the average car is driven 15,000 miles per year; for the Chevrolet Cruze that equates to approximately 500 gallons of gasoline using the vehicle’s standardized MPG rating. For the Nissan Leaf, an equivalent in electricity consumed uses the Ohio average of $0.06 per kWh for calculating the cost for one year of charging. Given that gasoline prices fluctuate regularly throughout the year and over time have been rising, the analysis provided below gives three hypothetical examples at the $4.00, $4.50, and $5.00 price for a gallon of gasoline. The figure below shows the difference in spending for one year of driving using an EV at those price points for gasoline. At an average of $4 per gallon, over the course of the year, the EV would save its owner just under $1,600. For each $0.50 increase in the average cost of gasoline that savings increases by $250 over the course of a year. 6

Figure 5: Annual Fuel Savings Comparison $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500

$1,944

$1,694

$1,000

$2,194 $2,250

$2,000

$2,500

$500 $306

$306

$4.00

$4.50 Leaf

$5.00

Cruze

Sources: U.S. DOE, AECOM

Worldwide Demand for Gasoline Current gas prices are low enough to possibly be a disincentive to EV ownership, and the increasing fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles further exacerbates this competition. However, worldwide demand for fuel is expected to increase year after year, which will result in gas price increases in the US. The following is a simple example of this pending demand. Total vehicle ownership in the United States is relatively stable (80% of the population are car owners), whereas in China and India, car ownership is very low but growing rapidly. In China, only 8% of the population currently owns a car, but its vehicle sales are increasing 16% per year, and its total population far exceeds that of the US. A similar trend is occurring in India. The chart below illustrates how many additional vehicles would be on the road if 15% and 25% of the current population in China and India had gasoline-powered vehicles. This simple exercise – which does not account for the other 140 nations of the world – demonstrates that with only 15% of these two countries owning a car, their demand for fuel would far outpace that of the US. Figure 6: Vehicle Ownership Projections, U.S., China and India 400,000,000 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0

Today

15% of Population China

India

25% of Population

U.S.

Sources: U.S. Census, The World Bank, AECOM

Consumer Spending: Less Gas = More Jobs The entire Ohio economy benefits as users move from conventional vehicles to EVs. Over the life of the car, users will save money on gasoline and maintenance costs. Although their electricity cost rises, this is more than offset by the savings. The following economic impact analysis determined that for every EV added in Ohio, the economic impact to the State is $1,300.

The following analysis uses 2011 Consumer Expenditure Survey The net change from data for Midwest residents from adding 1,000 EVs to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ohio is $1,320,000 in Spending was adjusted to reflect economic impact and changes associated with owning supports 20 additional an EV; costs associated with gasoline were removed and jobs paying $508,000 maintenance costs were lowered. in wages. The calculation assumes that these “new” dollars would be spent elsewhere in the economy on retail, household expenses, entertainment, etc. The analysis then used 2007 economic multipliers for the State of Ohio from IMPLAN (a software program for economic impact analysis) to determine the economic impact from the shift in spending, considering both the negative change occurring from the decreased gasoline/ maintenance spending, as well as the positive change from that spending occurring elsewhere in the local economy. The economic multipliers found in IMPLAN measure the re-spending of dollars in an economy and are used to calculate indirect and induced impacts, i.e., the ‘multiplier effect.’ Table 1: Economic Impact of Shift in Spending for 1,000 EV Owners Output

Jobs

Wages

Value Added

Change in spending patterns

$2,005,000

$754,000

$1,216,000

Loss of gasoline impacts

-$685,000

-10

-$246,000

-$454,000

Net change $1,320,000 20 $508,000 $762,000 in impact Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, IMPLAN, and AECOM Fleets The business case for institutions with fleet vehicles to lead the way in establishing viable economic models for the installation, operation, maintenance and delivery of charging services is perhaps the most significant opportunity presented to Ohio to enable widespread EV preparedness. Fleets offer the type of scale that enables them to take a strong posture in negotiating with EV and EVSE providers. Many state and municipal agencies and school systems, as well as large institutions like universities and hospitals, and employers offering large scale taxi or delivery services, will assess the benefits of transitioning away from conventional gasoline power, and realize significant cost savings over the long term by investing in EVs and charging infrastructure. Benefits include: • Infrastructure costs spread over a large pool of vehicles • Reduced fuel costs for short route and routine trip vehicles • Removes volatility of fuel prices from long-term operations planning • Reduced maintenance costs

www.driveelectricohio.org

Municipal Fleet Fuel Use Reduction30 Nearly 50% of local governments in Ohio indicate they are actively considering introducing alternative fuel vehicles into their fleet, however there is no strong consensus on what types should be included. Natural gas, hybrid and electric vehicles are the top contenders, although nearly half of officials admit they just aren’t sure what types to consider as of now. Cities show the most interest, with 68% actively considering changes to their fleets, while only 23% of townships are presently focused on the issue. Hybrids are currently the vehicles of choice for the 20% of jurisdictions that report they have already incorporated alternative fuel vehicles in their fleet. While only 1% of responding jurisdictions indicate they currently utilize electric vehicles in their operations, 49% believe doing so would save money over time and 41% believe EV integration should be a priority. Overall, 62% of local governments believe the integration of alternative vehicles in their fleet would serve as a cost saving measure. Moreover, 57% of local government officials statewide, 75% of cities and 70% of counties believe integrating alternative fuel vehicles into their fleets should be a priority.

Considerations and advantages for specific types of fleet owners are discussed below. • Government: EVs in public fleets not only reduce operational costs, but also demonstrate the viability of EVs to the general public. Larger vehicles such as snowplows, garbage trucks and heavy equipment are more likely to utilize alternative fuels such as natural gas, but smaller vehicles used for daily short-distance trips such as code enforcement, inspections and para-transit services are ideal for the EV switch. The City of Indianapolis recently set an ambitious goal of transitioning its entire non-emergency vehicle fleet from conventional fuels to alternative powertrains, which will include plug-in hybrid and allelectric vehicles31. The City calculates that this switch would save taxpayers over $10 million, and the City is also hoping to work with an auto manufacturer to develop the first plug-in hybrid police vehicle which would save an additional $10 million.

infrastructure in both public areas like garages and lots, and private areas designated only for campus vehicles. Similar to public agencies, the volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic makes visibility of the EV infrastructure a strong ‘green’ marketing piece and shows the forward thinking nature of the campus. • Emergency Services: Non-emergency vehicles are early candidates for EVs, such as those used for code enforcement, ticketing, and non-emergency healthcare trips. Standard emergency vehicles, such as squad cars, fire trucks and ambulances, have a unique set of requirements to ensure public safety and efficient, reliable service; EV technology is still emerging in this sector. • Car Sharing: Car-sharing fleets are businesses that provide vehicles to members for short periods of time, often for trips of less than a few hours, and locate vehicles in small clusters throughout a geographic area. These fleets can disperse the infrastructure costs among vehicles if the incorporation of EVs is well executed. Electric vehicles may be ideal for car-sharing as the majority of trips are short distances and time, well within the range of most EVs. Currently, there are no car-sharing firms in Ohio except for a handful of systems that serve specific university campuses. • Car Rentals: Rental fleets are likely to lag other commercial entities in EV adoption as their business model involves driving distances that can exceed the range of existing EVs and the regional charging infrastructure to support distance driving does not yet exist. As that network expands, rental companies can spread the infrastructure costs among numerous vehicles as is the case with other fleets. Avis recently acquired Zipcar, indicating an interest in the car-sharing model of vehicle rentals, and Hertz offers EVs in its car sharing program in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. • Delivery Businesses: PepsiCo, FedEx and UPS have large fleets which travel a fixed area throughout the day, with generally lower speeds, frequent starts and stops, and idle time overnight. The shock of a volatile oil market on fleet operational costs is significant, which is why FedEx is dramatically shifting its fleet of delivery vans and heavy trucks to more electric vehicles. The delivery van fleet will shift to all-electric vehicles, which FedEx Founder and CEO Fred Smith says “will operate at a 75 percent less per-mile cost than an internal combustion engine variant,” a significant cost savings for fleet operations. The vehicles will be able to recharge overnight, reducing the electricity costs and putting less strain on the electrical grid32.

• School Districts: School buses traditionally travel a daily fixed route to deliver students to and from school and are otherwise idle during the day and overnight, providing plenty of opportunity for charging. All-electric school buses are also appealing to educators and parents because of zero tailpipe emissions. Some school bus fleets have converted to propane, compressed natural gas and hybrid. All-electric school buses are just entering the market and incremental costs are high at present, though costs should come down as battery costs come down and battery efficiency increases. • Universities: Vehicles used for maintenance, distribution, campus police, and shuttle transit which stay on campus or within close proximity will not have issues of range anxiety, benefit from low speed areas found on many campuses, and can have a dispersed EV

30 31 32

Ohio Survey of Local Governments, 11/09/12, Governing Dynamic Basich, Greg. “Indianapolis to Require Plug-in Hybrid or EV Purchases for Its Non-Police Passenger Vehicle Fleet.” Government Fleet 12 Dec. 2012. Digital edition. Ydstie, J. “Oil Scare Turns FedEx on to Energy Efficiency.” Morning Edition. National Public Radio. 02 April 2012. Radio

Drive Electric Ohio | The Case for Electric Vehicle Ownership

Case Study: Frito-Lay速 DESCRIPTION: Frito-Lay, A Division of PEPSICO employs a combination of people, processes and technologies to achieve long term sustainability goals. Alternative fuels and alternative vehicles are a key plank in the Frito-Lay sustainability program. Long term goals include reducing fuel consumption by 25% per pound of product and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% before 2020. As part of the ongoing sustainability program, the Frito-Lay Columbus Ohio Broughton Ave. location served as one of three sites launching the Electric Vehicle platform (EV). PEPSICO and Frito-Lay, in partnerships with Clean Cities programs across the nation, continue to expand the EV platform in its business with a total of 230 electric vehicles in daily use with 275 expected in use by June, 2013. LESSON LEARNED: For Frito-Lay, the EVs are not only a key solution in our sustainability strategy, but are expected to deliver positive financial returns. However, the people impacted by the EV adoption will determine the ultimate success or failure of the program. Strong partnerships between sales, operation, and maintenance teams are required for the successful integration of any alternative fuels program. In the case of EVs, issues such as range/distance anxiety requiring understanding, empathy, and long term focus are lessened by effectively supporting the user (Driver). Incorporating commercial EVs into an existing business will require an advanced level of engagement from all groups to ensure success. Having a dedicated Project Manager is recommended to monitor, track and address issues with the manufacturer. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) communications and commitment to product support and education is necessary and prudent to ensure customer satisfaction is maintained. Retail delivery and service within the 100 air mile radius is within our currently basic operations. Access to existing customer docks and inbound supply chain operations is no different from when we began our EV operations two years ago. Success is a matter of EV commitment and customer (driver) support. Ability to achieve both commitment and customer support in daily business will ensure success in efforts to advance an electrical vehicle solution for your business. To learn more please visit http://www.afdc.energy.gov/case/404. CONTACT INFORMATION: Glenn Reynolds Frito-Lay glenn.k.reynolds@pepsico.com

www.driveelectricohio.org

Tailpipes vs Smokestacks: Are EVs Really Green? The environmental argument in favor of electric vehicles came under fire in 2012. An influential report by the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted the finding that pollution caused by an electric vehicle in Ohio was equivalent to that of a conventional vehicle that gets 42 MPG. The finding is based on the fact that the majority of electric power in Ohio is produced by coal-fired power plants that produce harmful air pollution,. Therefore power consumed by electric vehicles indirectly causes air pollution, just as a vehicle burning gasoline directly causes air pollution. The Team researched and discussed this issue at length and developed two important observations. The first is that the nation’s electrical grid is consistently getting cleaner due to regulations and technological innovations. During the same period of time that this study examined, through 2030, Ohio’s grid will likely produce less air pollution through these conventional changes, and by the addition of cleaner sources of power, notably natural gas, wind and solar. The second observation is that it is a far simpler proposition to manage the air pollution produced by Ohio’s 10 power plants than from its 10 million tailpipes. Communities desire less direct air pollution within their borders, as evidenced by anti-idling campaigns, and emissions from vehicles have an immediate, direct, and negative impact on local air quality. The promise that electric vehicles hold is that more vehicles will be zero-emissions at the point of use. The indirect emissions from 100,000 electric vehicles can and will be reduced by improving and cleaning power plants, the primary source of their energy in Ohio.

Methods for Selecting EV Charging Locations This report provides general suggestions for how Ohio’s municipal and regional planners and developers can most effectively select locations for non-residential EV charging stations. During this same study period, Clean Fuels Ohio funded two additional efforts to develop more specific methods for siting charging stations. The Ohio State University: Center for Automotive Research TITLE: Deployment of Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Mid-Ohio Region AUTHORS: Xiaomin (Josh) Xi, Ramteen Sioshansi, Integrated Systems Engineering, OSU; Vincenzo Marano, OSU Center for Automotive Research DESCRIPTION: The project’s goal was to identify locational demand of public EV charging stations in the mid-Ohio region, and to determine the impact of various location plans to understand the level of service produced and cost implications. METHODOLOGY: The study took data from Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), the U.S. Census, major retailers, employers, and detail parking supply to generate a model that examined the flow of vehicles between different TAZ and associated data to understand how consumer behavior differed between geographic locations. The resulting characteristics were then used to examine the various models related deployment costs and objective goals in order to determine the best coverage of EV charging infrastructure that would be able to serve the population under the scenario constraints. RESULTS: The analysis shows that siting charging stations at workplaces is best if the goal is for the driver to fill the vehicle’s battery to capacity, while siting charging stations at shopping venues provides the most access to the greatest number of vehicle trips. While locations will vary based on the primary outcome goal, with a limited budget for installing charging stations the recommended locations are generally similar. For the mid-Ohio region the study suggests that the majority of charging stations should be located at sites that are either in downtown Columbus or within the I-270 beltway.

University of Akron TITLE: PEV Demand Study and Charging Station Location Identification – A methodology study tested in the Greater Akron-Cleveland Area AUTHORS: The University of Akron PEV Research Group DESCRIPTION: The study focused on Level 3 Fast Charging EV infrastructure locations for non-residential charging and sought to determine best distribution of locations to cover the greatest possible population using a methodology similar to how consumers access gas stations. METHODOLOGY: Using demographic and socioeconomic data from the U.S. Census and vehicle ownership data from Polk, the study sought to determine PEV demand in specific geographic areas and to forecast future demand. Future demand scenarios took into account variations in vehicle price, the cost of gasoline, battery capacity, incentives and the ability of the consumer to charge their vehicle at home. RESULTS: By assuming that home charging would be best served through Level 2 charging stations, the study focused upon providing Level 3 charging infrastructure in a model similar to gas stations by distributing the stations throughout the greater Akron area. The study shows general locations which serve the greatest number of population, and also determined that the capacity of substations will limit the locations in which Level 3 charging stations could be located. Drive Electric Ohio | The Case for Electric Vehicle Ownership

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Planning Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Overview This is where “the rubber meets the road.” In the previous section, the report confirmed that there is a sizable population in Ohio who will consider purchasing an electric vehicle in the coming years. This section of the report further identifies this population, specifically, where they live and work. This data will help municipal planners determine how quickly they need to address related codes and permits (discussed in the next section) and tell advocates and the providers of charging stations where to focus their efforts and funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Conduct similar demographic investigations of Ohio’s other MSAs to develop a clear projection of EV adoption rates statewide and identify additional likely Early Adopter and Early Majority communities. 2. Proactively manage the siting of charging stations on a regional basis with stakeholder representations, rather than leaving the process unmanaged.

RESEARCH Forecasting Total EV Ownership If municipal planners and EVSE operators are two sides of the EV infrastructure triangle, then the third is the utility provider. The population Using the new vehicle sales shares for hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles developed by EPRI at the county level, data will be of critical importance to the utilities as well. By identifying AECOM developed an MSA average that was then applied to vehicle where the largest usage may be concentrated in the future, utilities can sales forecasts to generate an annual new vehicle volume by type. focus their efforts and funds on system upgrades and consumer education. The table below shows the share of annual new vehicle sales. KEY FINDINGS • The data in this study indicates that by 2030, ownership of all types of plug-in electric vehicles in the two study areas will number over 250,000, a fifty-fold increase from the 2015 anticipated number of EVs on the road of just over 5,000.

Table 2: Percent Share of Annual New Vehicle Sales by Vehicle Type 2015

2020

2025

2030

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Extended Range Columbus MSA

0.90%

3.40%

7.20%

11.40%

• Assuming a ratio of one non-residential (workplace and public) charging station for every five EVs, there will need to be roughly 50,000 publicly accessible charging stations in the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs by 2030, or an average installation of almost 3,000 charging stations per year (in addition to residential chargers).

Cleveland MSA

0.80%

3.40%

7.20%

11.40%

Corridor

0.60%

3.00%

6.80%

11.00%

0.30%

1.10%

2.50%

3.90%

• As large as these figures may be, this study only accounts for the greater metro areas of Cleveland, Columbus and the I-71 corridor. The actual numbers of plug-in electric vehicles, and the corresponding number of non-residential charging stations needed to serve them, will be significantly larger once Ohio’s other major cities are taken into account.

Cleveland MSA

Drive Electric Ohio | Planning Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

All-Electric Vehicles Columbus MSA Corridor Source: EPRI, AECOM

0.30%

1.10%

2.40%

3.90%

0.20%

1.00%

2.30%

3.70%

New vehicle sales for PHEVs and EVs in 2015 are forecast to number just over 2,000 across the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs and the

corridor. By 2030 these figures are forecast to grow to over 33,000 PHEVs and EVs combined.

2020

2025

2030

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Extended Range

4,000 3,500 3,000

Columbus MSA

770

3,250

7,360

12,600

Cleveland MSA

670

2,990

6,570

10,720

440

1,030

1,740

1,520

6,680

14,960

25,060

Corridor

5,000 4,500

Table 3: Number of Annual New Vehicle Sales by Type 2015

Figure 8: Annual Vehicle Sales, Electric Vehicles

2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

All-Electric Vehicles Columbus MSA

260

1,080

2,450

4,200

Cleveland MSA

220

1,000

2,190

3,570

150

340

580

510

2,230

4,980

8,350

2,030

8,910

19,940

33,410

Corridor

Total EV/PHEV Annual Sales Source: EPRI, AECOM

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Total Vehicle Ownership While the annual vehicle sales (the number of vehicles sold in a given year) for PHEVs and all-electric vehicles is a small share of the overall vehicle market, over time total EV ownership (the number of vehicles on the road at a given time) in these markets will grow to be a significant number of vehicles. This is the key factor for determining the number of charging stations that will be needed to serve the state (discussed in more detail later in this section).

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Table 4: Total EV/PHEV Ownership, Cumulative PHEV annual sales volumes are forecast to grow rapidly in comparison to all-electric vehicles, contributing 75% of all new EV sales annually. The 2015 2020 2025 figure below includes the forecast growth in annual PHEV sales, showing Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Extended Range that in 2030, over 12,000 PHEV vehicles are expected in Columbus, nearly 11,000 in Cleveland, and close to 2,000 in the corridor. Columbus MSA 1,950 12,620 40,570 Figure 7: Annual Vehicle Sales, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Cleveland MSA Corridor

14,000 12,000 10,000

92,850

1,720

11,490

36,740

82,010

210

1,580

5,470

12,740

3,880

25,690

82,780

187,600

2015

2020

2025

2030

All-Electric Vehicles

8,000

Columbus MSA

650

4,210

13,520

30,950

6,000

Cleveland MSA

570

3,830

12,250

27,340

4,000

Corridor

2,000 0

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Electric Vehicles Sales of all-electric vehicles are forecast to number 500 annually for the combined study markets in 2015, growing to over 8,000 vehicle sales in 2030. The individual MSAs will contribute most of those with over 4,000 for Columbus and over 3,500 for Cleveland through 2030, with the corridor accounting for nearly 600 vehicles.

2030

Total EV/PHEV Ownership Source: EPRI, AECOM

530

1,820

4,250

1,290

8,570

27,590

62,540

5,170

34,260

110,370

250,140

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles PHEV ownership (including extended range EVs) through 2020 is going to be relatively small in terms of total vehicles owned, with close to 13,000 vehicles in Columbus, and over 11,000 in Cleveland, but is forecast to grow to over 30,000 vehicles in Columbus in 2030, and over 27,000 in Cleveland. Ownership of PHEVs in the corridor is forecast to be nearly 13,000 vehicles by 2030.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 9: Total Vehicle Ownership, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

2015 Columbus MSA

2020 2025 Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Electric Vehicles All-electric vehicles through 2020 will be a small number of total vehicles owned, less than 5,000 in each MSA. By 2030 growth in EV ownership is forecast to reach 31,000 in Columbus and 27,000 in Cleveland, with over 4,000 EVs in the corridor. Figure 10: Total Vehicle Ownership, All-Electric Vehicles

Identifying Likely EV Owners Consumer adoption of new technology proceeds in phases. These categories are important as they describe the key consumers who will be the first to purchase or consider purchasing EVs, whose charging habits will influence the utilities as they upgrade the grid, and whose education and understanding of EVs will help spread adoption. A “bell curve” illustration of this technology adoption lifecycle is shown below, and is used in this report to identify likely owners of electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. • The Innovators are willing to take many steps to make the technology work and are more likely to view technology issues as a challenge to overcome. They constitute the majority of EV owners to date. • The Early Adopters see themselves as pioneers or trendsetters willing to pay a premium for new technology. These consumers have begun purchasing electric vehicles. • The Early Majority consumers will purchase when the EV market starts to flourish and adoption becomes widespread. These consumers have a more practical outlook on the technology and expect it to provide tangible benefits, and will begin purchasing EVs in small numbers now, with a greater number of consumers purchasing EVs by the early 2020’s. • Late Majority and Laggards are resistant to change and the costs of technology adoption. These consumers are the least likely to purchase electric vehicles.

35,000 30,000 25,000

This study is based on the understanding that EV purchases to date have been by the “Innovators” for whom cost is not an object, the “Early Adopters” have begun to enter the market and will be the dominant EV consumer for the next five to seven years, followed by the “Early Majority” who will carry EV purchases into the 2020’s and beyond.

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Figure 12 Technology Adoption Lifecycle

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Lastly, the figure below combines all PHEV/Extended Range and all-electric vehicles into a single unit, per MSA, clearly showing the strong projected growth in EV/PHEV ownership. By 2030, there will be nearly 124,000 such vehicles on the road throughout the Columbus MSA and 109,000 in the Cleveland MSA. Including the corridor, ownership of EVs is projected to grow an average of 29 percent annually from 2015 to 2030, adding 245,000 EVs in these market areas. Figure 11: Total Vehicle Ownership per MSA, EV and PHEV Combined 140,000

Source: Everett M. Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation

120,000 100,000

AECOM examined consumer demographics as identified by the auto industry and other experts,and applied these with economic and demographic data specific to Ohio to determine who will be its most likely EV owners, the Early Adopters and Early Majority. The following characteristics for Ohio’s likely EV consumers are on par with industry expectations:

80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

2015 2020 2025 2030 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Drive Electric Ohio | Planning Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Ohio Early Adopter • Young Baby Boomer or young, very high income individuals • Median household income in excess of $150,000 • Previous hybrid owners • Owns more than one vehicle • College Educated • Homeowner with garage in urban core or suburbs • Drives less than 50 miles per day Ohio Early Majority • Median household income of $100,000-150,000 • Middle-aged households between 40-44 years • More likely to be male • Homeowner with garage in urban core or suburbs • Drives shorter distances, closer to 20 miles per day Knowing the characteristics of these potential EV households helps identify the communities in which they live. There are two ways to identify these communities, by the percentage of households which meet the demographics, or by the total number of households which meet the demographics. Both are illustrative; communities with a high percentage of likely EV-owning households are wise to prepare even though the total number of vehicles may currently be small, while those with high numbers of potential EV-owning households should definitely prepare, specifically educating front-line staff (permit offices, inspectors) and examining their codes and permit processes (as described in Section 4, Advancing EVs Through Codes and Permits). The tables below identify each MSA’s communities in which likely EV consumers live, both by the total number of households and by the percentage of households in the Early Adopter and Early Majority categories. Table 5: Columbus MSA Early Adopters & Early Majority Communities By Total Number of Households Early Majority (Income $100K+) Columbus

Total

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

29,915

9.00%

13,101

3.90%

43,016

12.90%

Dublin

3,261

21.40%

4,150

27.20%

7,411

48.60%

Westerville

2,955

21.20%

2,248

16.10%

5,203

37.30%

Upper Arlington

2,394

17.30%

2,684

19.30%

5,078

36.60%

Gahanna

2,506

19.10%

2,001

15.30%

4,507

34.40%

Hilliard

2,134

20.80%

1,264

12.30%

3,398

33.10%

Grove City

2,327

16.50%

1,052

7.50%

3,379

24.00%

Reynoldsburg

1,913

13.30%

634

4.40%

2,547

17.80%

Powell

1,036

26.80%

1,416

36.60%

2,452

63.50%

Delaware

1,794

13.60%

589

4.50%

2,383

18.00%

Total 50,235 Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

Early Adopter (Income $150K+)

29,139

79,374

www.driveelectricohio.org

By Total Percent of Households Early Majority (Income $100K+) Powell

Total

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

1,036

26.80%

1,416

36.60%

2,452

63.50%

399

16.00%

885

35.50%

1,284

51.50%

18.50%

30.90%

136

49.50%

New Albany Shawnee Hills Dublin

Early Adopter (Income $150K+)

3,261

21.40%

4,150

27.20%

7,411

48.60%

Riverlea

22.00%

22.40%

44.40%

Granville

296

19.80%

265

17.70%

561

37.60%

2,955

21.20%

2,248

16.10%

5,203

37.30%

167

28.00%

9.10%

221

37.10%

2,394

17.30%

2,684

19.30%

5,078

36.60%

776

16.40%

945

20.00%

1,721

36.40%

Westerville Choctaw Lake Upper Arlington Bexley

Total 11,384 Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

12,782

24,166

Table 6: Cleveland MSA Early Adopters & Early Majority Households By Total Number of Households Early Majority (Income $100K+)

Early Adopter (Income $150K+)

Total

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

# HH

% HH

Cleveland

6,047

3.70%

2,361

1.40%

8,408

5.10%

Strongsville

3,407

19.60%

2,442

14.00%

5,849

33.60%

Mentor

3,308

17.20%

1,402

7.30%

4,710

24.50%

Westlake

2,208

15.70%

2,365

16.80%

4,573

32.50%

Parma

3,164

9.20%

1,070

3.10%

4,234

12.30%

Shaker Heights

1,619

13.80%

2,353

20.10%

3,972

33.90%

Solon

1,623

19.40%

1,960

23.40%

3,583

42.80%

Cleveland Heights

2,061

10.30%

1,513

7.60%

3,574

17.90%

North Royalton

2,089

16.10%

1,007

7.80%

3,096

23.90%

Lakewood

2,194

8.70%

890

3.50%

3,084

12.30%

Total

27,720

17,363

45,083

By Total Percent of Households Early Majority (Income $100K+) # HH

Early Adopter (Income $150K+)

% HH

# HH

% HH

Total # HH

% HH

Bentleyville

7.90%

159

54.80%

182

62.80%

Gates Mills

152

16.90%

399

44.30%

551

61.20%

Hunting Valley Pepper Pike Waite Hill

6.70%

138

51.10%

156

57.80%

253

11.50%

1,017

46.10%

1,270

57.60%

10.80%

42.80%

104

53.60%

Moreland Hills

160

12.60%

513

40.30%

673

52.90%

Kirtland Hills

15.50%

34.50%

126

50.00%

South Russell

261

18.90%

403

29.20%

664

48.20%

Orange

232

17.50%

399

30.20%

631

47.70%

Bainbridge

310

24.50%

286

22.60%

596

47.20%

Total 1,469 Source: U.S. Census, AECOM Drive Electric Ohio | Planning Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

3,484

4,953

During the course of this study, stakeholders debated how best to allocate limited resources for efforts to raise consumer awareness, examine local codes, etc. The data in these tables clearly indicate that focusing efforts on communities with a higher number of households meeting the potential EV owner demographic will impact significantly more consumers than focusing on communities with a higher percentage of potential EV owners. However, working with a few communities with the higher percentage of potential owners would be appropriate for scaling the permit review and code process for lower population townships and villages.

Figure 14: Distance to the City Center, Cleveland

The figures below demonstrate that in both MSAs, most of the Early Adopter and Early Majority communities are located within 25 miles of the city center. This further supports the point of focusing advocacy and planning efforts in these areas; the residents not only can afford electric vehicles, but also the single-charge driving range is likely to meet the needs of their daily activities. Figure 13: Distance to the City Center, Columbus

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, AECOM

EV Charging Away from Home

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, AECOM

This study estimates that by 2030, the Cleveland and Columbus MSAs combined will require over 50,000 charging stations to serve EV drivers away from home. These “non-residential” charging stations will be located at workplaces, shopping centers, entertainment venues, schools, and many other places where people drive. EPRI developed the following map showing a model network where charging stations should be located in order to provide 95% of Ohio’s population access to a charging station within 10 miles of home, and 100% of the land area within a 20 mile radius – based on city centers and traffic along major roadways. EPRI’s map also indicates where DC fast chargers should be located to provide maximum access between destinations. The locations on the map do not indicate how many charging outlets should be provided at each location.

www.driveelectricohio.org

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( !! ( ! (

! ( Figure 15: Ohio’s EV Charging Network33

! (

( !

( !( !! ( (! ! ( ( ! (! ! (

! (!(

! ( ! (

! (! (!(

! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (!( ! (

! (

! (! ( ( !

( !

! (

! ( ! (!(! (

! (

(!!! ( !!

( ! ((( ( (! ! Detroit! ! (! ! (! ! ( ( ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! Ann Arbor ( ( ! (

! (

Selection Results: - 175 Additional EVSE Locations --- 35 DC Fast Chargers In-state --- 17 DC Fast Chargers Out-of-state --- 123 L2 EVSE - 100% of state (by area) is located within 20 miles of an EVSE location - 94.6% of state population is located within 10 miles of an EVSE location (US Census data)

! (

Erie ! (!(

! ! (

! (

South! ( ! ( Bend

! (

! ( Toledo

! (

! !

! ( ! (

! !

! (

Fort Wayne

Lorain--Elyria

! ( ! ( ( ! ! (! ! (( ! ! (! (( ! ( ! ( Indianapolis ( ! ( ! ! ( !( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! ! (( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (

! (

! !

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! !

! (

Existing L2 EVSE

! ! (

! (!

! (

Cincinnati

! ( ! (

! (

! !

! ( Huntington

! ! ( !

! ( Louisville ! (

4-7 8 - 12

! (

13 - 18

! !

( !

! (

( !

! (

DC - Out of State

! (

AADT ! (

! ( ! (

! (

Charleston

! (

No Data

! (

1 - 50000

! (

Evansville

( !

! (

Major Highway Network

! (

2-3

Urban Area

0-1

Within 10 miles of EVSE

! (

Additional EVSE Network

! ! (

! (

! ( !! (

! ( ( ! (!

!!(

! (

! (! ( !!( (

Pittsburgh

! ( ! (

! (

! !

! (

( !

Dayton

! (!(

! Columbus ( !( !

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! !

! ( ! (

! (

! !

! !! ! ( ( ! ( ((

! (

Canton ! (!(

Youngstown

! (

!! (!

Town Network Preliminary Selection Criteria: - US Census: Designated Places dataset - At least 2,000 populatuion (year 2000) - Not located within an urban area with at least 100,000 population (year 2000)

! (

Akron !

! !

! (

! !

! ( ! ( !

! !

! (

! !

! (

! (! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ! (

! ( Cleveland

! (

( ! ! (!(! (

! !

! ( ! ( (! ( ! (!

! ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

Chicago ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ! ( (

! ( ! (

! ( ! Kalamazoo (

( !

! (

! (!(!(! (

! (

( ! ! (! (! ( ! (! ! (!(!((!(! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

(! !(!( ! ( !(! ! ( ( ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ( !( ! ! (!( (!( !(! ( ! ! ( ! (! ! (! ! (! ( ! (( ! ( (!(!(!( ! ( ! ( !(! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !(!(! ! (( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ! (! ! ! (! ! ! ! (! ( ( (!(( ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (!( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! (( ! ( ! (

( !

! ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ( Ohio PEV Charging Network ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (!(

! (

Lexington-Fayette

80 Miles

50001 - 100000 ! (

100001 - 165000

! (

Non-Residential Charging Station Location Options As municipal and regional planners consider how best to establish a convenient, efficient and effective network of EV charging stations, they should examine the location types available within the community or region. The following summary describes many types of locations which could each be prime candidates for siting EV charging stations.

will include a survey of employers in Ohio that have already installed chargers or are investigating workplace charging. The goal of the survey is to better understand the primary barriers and needs of the local market. The analysis and results of the survey will set the baseline and provide information from early adopters of workplace charging in Ohio and identification of the barriers that need to be addressed to speed up

Large Employers A region’s largest employers focus a considerable amount of activity and commuting into given areas of an MSA. In fields where the educational level and incomes of employees are higher, there will be more Early Adopters and Early Majority individuals, and these employees are likely to be the first to request workplace charging from their employers. In addition, large employers located further from the regional center will face greater demand as employees must travel further, and therefore use more battery energy than those working in centralized locations. In the Columbus MSA, large employers outside the city center include Baker and Hass, JC Penney Store Support Center, VA Medical Center, Glatfelter Co. and Kenworth Truck Co., each with over 1,000 employees at a single location and are likely to see higher demand from employees for workplace charging. Similarly in the Cleveland area, the Ford Motor Co. Assembly Plant, Baldwin-Wallace College, and Ohio Farmers Insurance may see this same demand.

On February 7 the US Department of Energy announced the Workplace Charging Challenge, a collaborative effort to increase the number of U.S. employers offering workplace charging tenfold in the next five years. Employers who join as partners commit to assess workforce PEV charging demands, and then develop and implement a plan to install workplace charging infrastructure for at least one major worksite location. The inaugural group of partners includes 3M, Chrysler Group, Duke Energy, Eli Lilly and Company, Ford, GE, GM, Google, Nissan, San Diego Gas & Electric, Siemens, Tesla, and Verizon.

Clean Fuels Ohio will be working with CALSTART in 2013 and 2014 to address workplace charging in Ohio. The workplace charging initiative 33

! (

Citation: “EV Everywhere Charges Up the Workplace,” U.S. Dept. of Energy. 07 Feb. 2013

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 2013

Drive Electric Ohio | Planning Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

adoption of workplace charging. Clean Fuels Ohio will host a regional workshop for employers interested in workplace charging. The survey results will be presented at the workshop and key workplace charging issues will be addressed. Office Parks Office parks are larger than individual offices so their infrastructure capacity and concentrations of office workers who meet the Early Adopter and Early Majority profiles may be greater. Office parks are often managed by larger institutional/commercial property owners, an advantage for EV infrastructure planning; one owner can coordinate purchases, installation, and communication with utilities on behalf of multiple properties. Hospitals Hospitals employ a significant number of people at a single location, many of whom are highly educated and with greater than average incomes, likely in the Early Adopter/Early Majority demographic, and have significant visitor traffic. Road signage already provides directions to hospitals, so if EV owners are aware they are able to use these charging stations, hospital-based charging would serve as a reliable safety net for EV users. Outlying hospitals should be considered prime opportunities to extend the EV range and provide an element of re-fueling “peace of mind” to EV owners. Colleges and Universities Similar to hospitals, colleges and universities have an educated workforce

likely meeting the early EV owning demographics, a large number of employees and students in a concentrated area, and are often host to public events (sports, culture) attracting additional visitors. In addition, some universities including The Ohio State University, Bowling Green State University, Northwest State Community College, and the University of Toledo are using charging station projects to educate students on the technology. Government Buildings Government buildings offer high visibility and demonstrate the commitment of a given agency to supporting EV adoption. By being early implementers of EV infrastructure, municipal, state, and federal agencies will be the first to understand and overcome the challenges involved in implementation and can help streamline the process for future users with regards to permitting, coordination with utilities, and managing associated costs. Attractions Regional attractions are locations that draw visitors from throughout the region and beyond, such as sports stadiums, museums, parks, convention centers, theatres, aquariums, and zoos. These venues often include large parking facilities and visitors usually stay for two hours or more on a single visit. Event-based venues will have a volatile demand for EV charging stations based on the event schedule. Other venues such as museums, parks and zoos will have a more consistent demand for EV charging based upon

Case Study: EV Charging Stations at the Ohio Statehouse DATE INSTALLED: October 2011 DESCRIPTION: The Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (CSRAB), the management agency that oversees Ohio’s Capitol Square complex, installed six Level 2 charging stations in the facility’s underground parking garage, located in the heart of downtown Columbus. The charging stations are conveniently located on the first level of the parking facility, and cost users $0.50 per hour to charge their vehicle. The Ohio Statehouse was the first statehouse in the continental United States to provide charging stations for public use. FUNDING: The charging stations were made possible through a grant from Clean Fuels Ohio and the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as contributions from Honda of America, General Motors, the Eaton Corporation and Professional Supply, Inc. No state funds were used to install the Ohio Statehouse PEV charging stations. LESSONS LEARNED: CSRAB recommends conducting basic market research to forecast the number of electric vehicles operated in a particular service area and to better understand the number of parking spaces taken out of regular service to develop an appropriate ratio of PEV charging stations to electric vehicles. CSRAB also recommends exploring the technology in its entirety prior to installation. The Ohio Statehouse parking facility is underground, therefore the PEV charging stations could not utilize the standard satellite technology that is available for credit card charging. Alternate methods needed to be realized after the PEV charging stations were put into service. CONTACT INFORMATION: William E. Carleton Executive Director Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board wcarleton@csrab.state.oh.us

www.driveelectricohio.org

hours of operation. These present different demands and challenges for venues that install EV charging infrastructure as the availability of charging stations to EV drivers varies in each case. Retail Venues Commercial locations such as shopping centers and individual retailers are generally local in nature, serving a relatively compact customer base within a few miles of the consumer’s residence. As such, the economic viability for installing EV charging stations can vary based on the type of retailer, length of visitor stay, and geographic location of the business. A number of retailers have begun implementing pilot programs to test out EV charging infrastructure including Walgreen’s and Wal-Mart ,each have charging stations at Ohio stores. There are multiple reasons why a retailer may choose to include EV charging stations on their property, such as cultivating a green image, assistiong in LEED certification, and enticing higher-income customers to shop at and remain in their stores longer. Large shopping centers, malls and strip malls may be prime candidates for EV charging stations. With large volumes of daily traffic and shoppers staying for an extended period of time as well as pulling consumers from a wider geographic area, these locations offer convenience for users and benefit the retailers by encouraging drivers to leave their vehicles for longer periods than at individual retail outlets. At the time of this writing, Simon Property Group has two charging stations installed at five mall properties in Ohio, including The Mall at Tuttle Crossing in Dublin. The business case for retail-based EV charging stations is still being built. For many retail locations, the consumer is not in the store long enough to provide much time for notable charging, and the return on investment for the retailer is unclear. However, the benefits of “being first,” supporting sustainability, and attracting higher-income consumers

Drive Electric Ohio | Planning Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

are quickly being calculated by the retailers who are experimenting with EV charging. Tollways, Interstates and State Highways Charging stations along state and interstate highways can facilitate the EV owner’s desire to travel to destinations outside of the single-charge range. The demand for this type of EV charging and the supporting infrastructure needed is different than other destinations, as the driver wants an immediate charge and a return to the road as fast as possible. A DC fast charging station can provide this service – generally in 30 minutes or less – but both Level 1 and Level 2 charging stations fall short. The types of service amenities provided at rest areas vary widely; the I-71 rest areas (one at either end near the two cities and one off the highway near Mansfield) are un-staffed buildings featuring only restrooms and vending machines, whereas I-80/90 features grand traveling “oases” rest stops offering shops, restaurants, and fuel. Drivers travelling along routes with only basic rest areas will appreciate the convenience of a DC fast charge outlet, but will find their 30-minute wait less engaging than the amenities available at the larger rest stops. The basic rest areas may not have the power capacity to offer DC fast charging without significant service upgrades. Identifying where likely EV owners live is important for community readiness, and it is also important to identify where non-residential charging stations should be located. Strategic placement of charging stations within metro areas and across the state will encourage more and faster EV adoption, whereas haphazard or unplanned deployment of charging stations could have the opposite effect, creating a chaotic approach that will deter an uninformed public wary to test a new technology.

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Ohio’s Utility Readiness

Overview Ohio’s electricity is generated by a handful of large utilities, and power is supplied to customers through scores of local and regional public agencies and private firms. The large utility corporations are actively studying electric vehicles and the impact they may or may not have on the capacity of Ohio’s grid. The average consumer simply wants to be able to buy their electric vehicle, plug it in at home and enjoy the ride. However, as EV adoption grows, the utilities need to know where EVs are plugging in so their infrastructure can perform without compromising the safety and comfort of all customers. The utilities are already on a great start with their internal initiatives – experimenting with EVs in their own fleets, collecting data from employee users, collaborating with municipalities and advocates like Clean Fuels Ohio – and with superior data collection specific to the Ohio communities they serve, the utilities can play a strong and vital role in smoothing the road for EV adoption. Specifically, utilities and municipalities should collaborate to identify site-specific concerns and understand the transformer capacity of older communities which may not have been upgraded for many years. KEY FINDINGS • Research indicates that Ohio’s electrical grid will be able to accommodate electric vehicles without disrupting regular service to customers well into the future.

2. Use the resulting research to improve the power capacity in those areas with any necessary upgrades. 3. Coordinate with the electric power providers, specifically on consumer education efforts. 4. Encourage consumer and community notification of EVSE installations to electric utilities so that transitions are smooth. RESEARCH Localized Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Grid Utilities, in general, have the generation capabilities to handle EV charging. However, informing the utility of charging high-power EVs (i.e., Tesla Model S) or the installation of Level 2 and DC fast charging equipment is important so that any necessary upgrades can occur. This segment briefly examines the impact that EV charging may have. Plug-in electric vehicles have the unique ability to do most, if not all, of their refueling at home. Additionally, most vehicles drive short distances, arrive home in the evening, and remain parked for the remainder of the night. Vehicles then have a large block of time to charge and generally are not completely drained of battery power when the charging begins. As a result there are two options for home refueling: (1) charge at a higher power with a shorter duration, or (2) charge at a lower power with a longer charge duration.

There are two levels at which vehicles currently can charge at the home. Level 1 is 1.44 kW, or about the same power as a hair dryer. Level 2 is between 3 and 8 kW; the low end of Level 2 is comparable to a clothes dryer which typically runs about 3 to 4 kW, whereas a central air conditioner is closer to the higher end Level 2 charging. The chart below RECOMMENDATIONS shows the average house loads for several cities across the country, and 1. Assess transformer capacity in the communities where the Early compares them to EVs charging at varying powers; different vehicles Adopter and Early Majority households live and work, as described in have different charging capabilities, however most vehicles are limited to Section 2, Planning Ohio’s EV Infrastructure. 3.6 or 7.6 kW. • Contrary to popular assumption, stringent time-of-use rates are likely to have an adverse impact on the utility grid, whereas allowing EV owners to charge at-will results in a more even distribution of grid demand throughout the day, at least in the near term.

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Utility Readiness

Figure 16: Average Peak Summer Demand per Household (kW)34 PEV - (240V@80A) - 19.2 PEV - (240V@32A) - 7.68 PEV (240V@15A) - 3.6 PEV (120V@12A) - 1.44

Feeders

San Francisco, CA - 3.00 Berkeley, CA - 3.50 Hartford, CT - 4.31 Dulles, VA - 4.57 South Bend, IN - 6.01 Fresno, CA - 6.20 San Ramon, CA - 6.50

Orange = kW consumption by electric vehicles charging at different levels of power. Blue = kW consumption of the average house in different metro areas.

Springdale, AR - 7.73 As this chart illustrates, electrical consumption by EVs (with the exception of the Tesla Model S and Roadster) are all within the range of a house. These loads, from a utility perspective, are all very manageable. If utility loads from EVs are all manageable, then the next element to understand is whether or not there is a benefit to placing consumers on a charging schedule, such as a time-of-use (TOU) rate. TOU rates are structured so that consumers pay less for electricity during off-peak periods (generally at night), and pay more during times of high demand (mid-day to early evening). TOU rates can be very beneficial in areas with frequently high-peaking loads, such as air conditioning loads in the South or in manufacturing districts where equipment can be operated at different times. Vehicles arrive home at a fairly even distribution throughout the day. This is shown in the following figure. Figure 17: Distribution of Home Arrival Times by Day Type35

Electric Power Research Institute. Understanding the Grid Impacts of Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PEV): Phase 1 Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Distribution Impact Case Studies. Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1024101 Electric Power Research Institute. Transportation Statistics Analysis for Electric Transportation. Palo Alto, CA: 2011. 1021848

www.driveelectricohio.org

Because of this distribution, if vehicles simply begin charging as soon as they arrive home, the additional load is actually quite small â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a fraction of the actual charge power. These results vary slightly by season, as vehicle energy consumption changes throughout the year36. The following figure shows the results (average kW load per vehicle) of uncontrolled charging at 1.44 kW (Level 1) and 6.6 kW (Level 2) for weekday driving. Figure 18: Average Power Demand per Vehicle37. Left: Level 1, 1.44 kW; Right: Level 2, 6.6 kW

The results presented here are the average power demand per vehicle so it is representative of the entire energy consumption averaged over the entire population of vehicles. These values are quite manageable from a utility perspective. The higher charge power has charging ending early in the morning, while if a lower charge power is used, some vehicles may still be charging (specifically all-electric vehicles which drive long distances) in the early morning. However, if a TOU rate is applied, and vehicles are encouraged to delay charging, there is actually a second peak that occurs, and it has nearly all vehicles beginning charging at this time. The next figures show the same two charge powers, for weekdays, on a TOU rate.

36 37

This occurs in conventional vehicles as well; consumption changes seasonally. Electric Power Research Institute. Transportation Statistics Analysis for Electric Transportation. Palo Alto, CA: 2011. 1021848

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Utility Readiness

Figure 19: Average Power Demand per Vehicle on a TOU Rate38.

TOU rates produce a much higher peak than uncontrolled charging. TOU rates also encourage consumers to charge at a higher power because they have a shorter amount of time to charge. For the lower power case, almost all vehicles are still charging by the end of the off-peak period, whereas most vehicles have finished charging by the end of the off-peak period at a higher charge level. Consumers have control over the charge power in the sense that they are able to choose whether or not to install a higher capacity circuit. The vehicle may limit the input power based on specifications (for instance, the 2012 Nissan Leaf was only able to charge at approximately 3.3 kW but the 2013 Nissan Leaf is able to charge closer to 6.6 kW).

Ohio Utility EV Preparation Efforts Ohio is served by a wide array of utility providers, and strategies for smart grid integration and electric vehicles will require significant preparation. The primary utility providers for the Cleveland MSA are the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison, and the LorainMedina Rural Electric Cooperative. The Columbus MSA is served by more providers with less distinct boundaries, including Columbus Southern Power, Ohio Power, Licking Rural Electrification, South Central Power Company, Union Rural Electric Cooperative.

This method of charging can present a problem at the transformer level which could have a negative impact on the utility because it condenses the demand to a shorter period at a higher power. If EV owners are allowed Charging at a higher power is like adding another home to a transformer in an area. If a lower charge to charge at a lower power is used, vehicles arrive home from daily power upon arrival, the driving and can still charge before departing the average grid impact is next day. Additionally, if there are multiple EVs on lower than the total one transformer it can add â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;clusteringâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; effects and charge power with a require upgrades that otherwise may not need to happen. time-of-use rate.

In this scenario, the peak period is from 7 AM until 9 PM.

www.driveelectricohio.org

In Ohio, electric power is provided by seven investor owned utilities and through a website for each operating company that explains EV 25 rural electric associations. Of these entities, the overwhelming technology. AEP will also use the new, innovative rates and customer majority of Ohio’s electric power is generated by four major utility feedback to better understand which programs help reduce grid companies: American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, Duke Energy, and impact and save customers money. Through this education campaign Dayton Power and Light. Combined, these four utilities cover every major and research on best practices for reducing impact to the grid, AEP metropolitan area in the state, including the cities of Toledo, Cleveland, has begun to gather data necessary to understand ways to minimize Akron, Canton, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. The following sections effects of charging on peak loads. detail the steps taken by each of the four major utilities to date • Utility & Grid Upgrades Plan regarding: AEP has begun to plan for utility and grid upgrades through the partnerships gained throughout Ohio, research on provisions and • Rate structures or provisions and billing protocols for the charging of billing protocols and public education and feedback. plug-in electric vehicles • Analysis of potential impacts to the grid • Plans to minimize the effects of charging on peak loads • Plans for making widespread utility and grid upgrades American Electric Power (AEP) AEP Ohio has worked internally and collaboratively with various Ohio stakeholders to create policies and plans for accommodating the deployment of plug-in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Its major activities, as of mid-2012, are described below. • Provisions & Billing Protocols for EV Charging AEP Ohio offers several rate options EV drivers. Any AEP Ohio customer can utilize an existing residential time of use rate to obtain lower pricing on off-peak electricity usage. The rate is 8.93 cents on peak (7 am – 9 pm) and 1.17 cents off-peak (9 pm – 7 am + weekends/ holidays), excluding riders. Additionally, customers participating in the smart grid demonstration project located in the northeast part of central Ohio can take advantage of several experimental rate options to lower the cost of charging their vehicle. Those rate options include two tier, three tier plus critical peak pricing, and real time pricing. More information on those rates can be found on AEP Ohio’s website. • Analysis of Grid Impact AEP has assembled a team of roughly 25 people from across the company, both from its corporate office and from various regional operating companies, to prepare its business and electrical system for EV adoption. In Ohio, AEP has been working collaboratively with groups such as Clean Fuels Ohio, Ohio DOT, Ohio State University, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the National Electric Contractors Association to better understand the usages and impact of EV charging. As part of a smart grid demonstration project in Columbus, partially funded by the DOE, AEP plans to deploy 11 EVs and 19 Level 2 chargers. Eleven chargers will be located in employee participant homes while the others will be installed at four AEP workplace locations in Columbus, Gahanna, and Groveport. AEP will also install up to four chargers in two public, retail locations in the northeast quadrant of Columbus. AEP also plans to make Level 1 outlets available at each of the above work locations. AEP will collect driving and charging behavior as well as track installations and document lessons learned to better understand how to prepare for EVs. Through this team effort, preliminary analysis of EV charging impact on the grid has begun to emerge, though a formal grid impact study has not yet been developed. • Minimizing Peak Loads AEP recently launched a customer service and outreach campaign

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Utility Readiness

Dayton Power and Light (DP&L) DP&L has an internal team that has been following developments with EVs since 2008 with a multi-dimensional focus on the subjects described below. • Provisions & Billing Protocols for EV Charging DP&L has begun to explore rate structure alternatives for EV charging. DP&L has developed partnerships with the goal of developing provision and protocols for EV charging. Through participation and partnership with SMART@CAR at The Ohio State University, DP&L has begun to research proper protocols and procedures associated with EV charging. In addition, DP&L has conducted a third party study to predict EV market penetration on the DP&L system through 2020. • Analysis of Grid Impact DP&L has conducted a preliminary distribution residential transformer loading study of pad mounted transformers to determine capability to handle the additional loading as a result of EV charging. DP&L studies and research suggest that there will be no appreciable adverse grid impact under any expected EV roll-out scenario for the next decade with the possible exception of some residential transformers and service drops. • Minimizing Peak Loads DP&L conducted an EV charging study of a small number of EVs in service and charged at the owner’s residence to determine charging characteristics including time-of-charge and coincidental charging. DP&L is committed to using this data to develop a strategy to minimize the load on the grid during peak hours. • Utility & Grid Upgrades Plan DP&L has purchased an EV and has commitments to purchase others to gain firsthand experience with EVs and their charging. DP&L is committed to using the information gathered from firsthand experience to plan for upgrades for the utilities and grid. DP&L has also begun working with customers and local groups to educate them about EV charging. From this education campaign, DP&L plans to gather feedback and responses to plan for future upgrades to utilities. Duke Energy Duke Energy has a variety of current and planned activities related to EV readiness and planning for all five of its jurisdictions. Duke is utilizing its gained knowledge and lessons learned across jurisdictions in the subjects described below. • Rate structures or provisions and billing protocols Duke Energy has several initiatives underway with a strategy of initially

collecting charging station data without influencing customer behavior. Duke is establishing a baseline understanding of when customers charge, where they charge, and how often they charge under its current rate structures. Once customer behavior is understood, Duke will have a more informed view of potential grid impact as EVs become more common in Ohio. Duke has discussed developing and testing customer offers that mitigate potential grid impact while providing the best possible charging experience for EV owners, although the details of such offers have not yet been fully developed. Duke Energy is participating in several pilots: • Duke Energy in conjunction with GM and the DOE has developed and launched an EV pilot to study the grid impacts of charging as well as charging infrastructure interface with grid technology. • Duke Energy was approved for a 150 EVSE residential customer in pilot in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke has completed the installation of all the equipment and are continuing to collect data on these units. • Duke Energy is participating in Project Plug IN in Indiana where to date 60 residential units have been installed with an additional 26 more by the end of 2012, and 18 commercial units at retail facilities, work place charging and local cities/municipalities (with an additional 18 more by the end of 2012). • Dodge Ram and Chrysler Mini Van Project – North Carolina: Participant of the DOE and Chrysler “Advancing Transportation through Vehicle Electrification” program to test pilot Dodge Ram EV prototype trucks and Chrysler Mini Van EV prototype vans. Duke has eight Chrysler EV Mini Vans, 10 Dodge Ram EV Trucks, and 16 Chrysler-owned charging stations. • Duke Energy is completing initial internal testing on three customer programs: Demand Response, Pre-program charging and time of use rates. These tests are focused on testing the technology to provide enhancement to the products and understand behavioral preferences. • Duke Energy is participating in two projects to assist EVSE manufacturers in fulfilling the DOE requirements of (1) reducing by 50% the cost of EVSEs and (2) assuring the high penetration of EVs does not degrade power quality and reliability in the distribution power grid. In all of these pilots the primary purpose is to collect the necessary data to assess distribution impacts on the grid and Duke Energy’s ability to manage those impacts. All of this data will be critical in determining the appropriate demand response and demand shifting programs to offer its customers that will effectively mitigate the impact of on peak EV charging while also maintaining a positive charging experience for Duke’s EV owning customers. • Analysis of Potential Impacts to the Grid In addition to those pilot projects, Duke Energy has developed a grid impact model that reinforces the conclusion that the company does not anticipate issues with the power grid based on current forecasted EV adoption levels, which are also supported by feedback from early adopter locations. Duke Energy does not see a need for widespread upgrades to the grid in the short term based on current adoption forecasts. Duke Energy’s near term strategy is to use the data collected through piloting to effectively manage on-peak charging to mitigate the need to make widespread grid upgrades in the near term.

FirstEnergy (FE) FirstEnergy has been involved in electric transportation R&D through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) since 2005 and has been an active participant in Ohio’s Plug-in Electric Vehicle (EV) Stakeholder Task Force since 2010. Through this collaborative, FE has supported various EV readiness initiatives, including public education and outreach with local project partners including The University of Akron (UA), the City of Akron, The Ohio State University (OSU), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Clean Fuels Ohio and various automotive companies and tier 1 suppliers. FirstEnergy has also conducted research through EPRI on grid infrastructure, economic development and the environmental aspects of EV technology. • Provisions and Billing Protocols for EV Charging Through R&D partnerships with EPRI, OSU SMART@CAR, the University of Akron, and other organizations, FirstEnergy has been researching EV charging procedures to balance consumer needs and grid compatibility. Through these research studies, the company has collected charging station data to better understand consumer charging patterns under current rate structures and developed EV market penetration scenarios through 2030. FirstEnergy continues to monitor rate options, including those across other states in its territory. Future alternatives for rate structures and billing protocols for EV charging will be evaluated as vehicle deployments reach larger levels. • Analysis of Grid Impact FirstEnergy has been performing EV distribution impact studies through EPRI and OSU SMART@CAR, sharing these analysis insights with the Ohio project partners. In addition, FE is sponsoring a number of technology demonstrations with its collaborative research partners to further understand grid implications and develop solutions for future integration of these vehicles. These tech demos have included installation and evaluation of Level 2 chargers (available for public use) in conjunction with the City of Akron and Clean Fuels Ohio, and vehicle-grid evaluations using MINI E electric vehicles, Chevy Volts and soon, PHEV Vans as part of DOE-EPRI smart charging assessments. • Minimizing Peak Loads Developing “smart charging” technologies, which could manage when and how EVs are charged, will be important to the successful adoption of these vehicles and grid integration in the future. FirstEnergy continues to work with EPRI and local research partners, The University of Akron and OSU SMART@CAR, to evaluate the best approaches and smart charging practices to minimize impacts to the electrical system during peak hours. • Utility and Grid Upgrades Plan FirstEnergy is performing grid infrastructure studies with EPRI and regional and corporate distribution planning personnel to evaluate future loading impacts from projected EV charging, and will develop smart charging options to address these potential impacts. Based on these studies and current adoption rates, FE does not see an immediate need for EV-related grid upgrades beyond the normal load-growth planning process. FE’s technology pilots will help to effectively manage on-peak EV charging to optimize requirements for grid upgrades as FE customers use more electric vehicles in the future.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

Overview Ohio municipalities can effectively encourage adoption of electric vehicles through their permitting rules, zoning codes and building codes. This section describes local government regulations, policies and processes that will, at the least, allow electric vehicles and, at best, actively encourage them. These levels of engagement are described as occupying the “slow lane,” “middle lane” or “fast lane” of the EV adoption highway. Put simply:

Columbus collects data on whether an electrical permit involves EVSE to track permit volumes and help the City respond as interest increases. Columbus also has a clear permitting process, issuing minor electrical permits where a dedicated circuit is needed and requiring a full permit with inspection only when panels need upgrades.

•

Fast Lane communities actively develop permit processes, codes, policies and programs that accelerate the ownership of electric vehicles and infrastructure development by their residents, businesses and governmental fleets.

FACILITATE ALLOW FACILITATE

codes to make EV ownership • Columbus is off to a strong start planning for electric vehicles and can easy, and may provide some serve as a resource for other municipalities. visible but low-cost incentives • Cleveland’s EV planning is in the early stages, typical for most that encourage EV ownership. jurisdictions nationwide.

ALLOW

• Slow Lane communities review their permitting processes and codes to ensure that there are no significant barriers to EV ownership, and adjust where needed.

ENCOURAGE ENCOURAGE FACILITATE ENCOURAGE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE • Middle Lane communities adjust ENCOURAGE their processes and

A supplemental section to this report, Codes and Policies to Advance Electric Vehicles, provides model codes and policies that are specific enough to address the needs of municipalities and electric vehicle owners, yet broad enough to be adapted by municipalities according to their own needs and existing processes. KEY FINDINGS • Over 40 Ohio municipalities , arge and small, already offer at least one public charging station.

FACILITATE ALLOW FACILITATE

ALLOW

Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

RECOMMENDATIONS Ohio’s communities have an opportunity to learn from recent examples and experiences in cities that are further along in the EV preparedness process and adapt these to their particular circumstances and goals. Regardless of size, municipalities can join the statewide EV readiness movement through these specific actions: 1. Evaluating existing codes and procedures to identify, and then address, barriers to EV adoption. 2. Building upon the baseline of allowing EV infrastructure toward facilitating policies and practices that support EV implementation. 3. Becoming a leader in EV planning by actively encouraging policies and practices that support EV implementation. 4. Participating in Clean Fuels Ohio’s EV stakeholder group activities and begin local task force. RESEARCH Current Conditions and Local Leadership This analysis is designed to evaluate current practices addressing electric vehicle readiness, with particular focus on the cities of Columbus and Cleveland as well as the I-71 corridor linking them. Important elements of this evaluation are the identification of real and perceived regulatory barriers to installing EVSE infrastructure, and the consideration of how strategic policy changes can overcome these obstacles, streamline the approval process, and establish a strong platform for EV preparedness. Columbus The City of Columbus is off to a strong start in planning for electric vehicles. Since January 2011, the City has been a member of Project Get Ready, an initiative of the Rocky Mountain Institute, whose benefits include EV planning and resource-sharing with other cities and access to a network of strategic partners. Since joining Project Get Ready, Columbus has undertaken several initiatives to encourage electric vehicle implementation. Ohio municipalities can look to Columbus as a strong EV readiness model. The City has taken preliminary steps to facilitate permitting and other regulations which will encourage consumer interest, and is forward-thinking in seeking opportunities to encourage planning and installation of infrastructure. Columbus has potential to become a national leader with further efforts to set the stage for electric vehicle implementation. • General Sustainability Planning and the Municipal EV Strategy Columbus has advanced a variety of sustainability efforts, notably through the Get Green Columbus initiative, which includes transportation recommendations and strategies for incorporating alternative fuel vehicles into the municipal fleet. The ongoing implementation of its Green Fleet Action plan won Columbus several awards including the Government Green Fleet’s award for #1 Green Fleet in North America in 2011 and #3 in 2012. To date, the City’s fleet strategies have focused on compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and right-sizing vehicles, with inclusion of electric vehicles on the horizon. The City’s Environmental Steward is actively involved with the planning and installation of EVSE, and the City’s website provides information for EV owners. Columbus has also purchased two Ford Focus Electric sedans for fleet use and at the time of this report is waiting for delivery.

• Code Guidance To prepare for and document anticipated interest and inquiries, the City’s electric permit application tracks whether the scope of work includes installation of an EV charging station. The data collection will track EVSE installations and serve as a resource for inventorying chargers within both the public and private realms. The data is available upon request to outside agencies and utility companies (no requests have been made yet). The City has also hosted meetings between electrical inspection staff and AEP to facilitate service needs. The Columbus Department of Building and Zoning Services provides educational outreach to electricians, and it provided information about the permitting process for EVs in a “Winter School” educational session for local electricians in early 2012. • Institutional Resources and Support Columbus benefits from institutional synergies and collaboration through local research and advocacy organizations which are advancing electric vehicle technologies and implementation. Clean Fuels Ohio is based in Columbus and has a substantial network of EV stakeholders. The Ohio State University’s Center for Automotive Research (OSUCAR) hosts a program called SMART@CAR (SMART is an acronym for Sustainable Mobility - Advanced Research Team), which focuses on plug-in EVs and charging technologies and is widely considered a preeminent electric mobility research center nationwide. • Existing Public Charging Stations As of February 2013 there are over 30 charging stations in Columbus proper with more in the surrounding area and in the planning stages. Publicly accessible charging stations are located at the Statehouse parking garage, the Electrical Trades Center, and Ohio State University, as well as at retail centers and hotels. Two of the City’s public charging stations are within the right-of-way at two pilot sites: (1) downtown in the Gay St. District and (2) in the Short North near Goodale Park, both of which were funded in part by Clean Fuels Ohio. Cleveland The City of Cleveland does not specifically promote electric vehicle planning and implementation at this time. Sustainable Cleveland 2019, a 10-year initiative addressing a different topic each year, has designated 2016 as the Celebration Year for Sustainable Mobility, and it is anticipated that alternative fuel vehicles will be addressed within that framework. The Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force, an initiative of Cuyahoga County, is actively planning for EV readiness and implementation, which impacts not only Cleveland but many other municipalities in the MSA. • General Sustainability Planning and the Municipal EV Strategy The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability manages sustainability efforts within City government. It is currently evaluating energy efficiency initiatives for Cleveland’s vehicle fleet and has assisted other branches of government with navigating the code requirements for installing EV charging stations at various municipal sites. Cleveland Public Power plans to install EVSE at three separate sites around Cleveland in 2013. • Code Guidance The City Department of Building and Housing does not currently provide specific guidance for installing electric vehicle charging stations and does not formally track charging station installations through its permit applications. In keeping with requirements for installing major appliances, an electrical permit would be required for

www.driveelectricohio.org

Case Study: The Electrical Trades Center DATE OF INSTALLATION: March 2012 DESCRIPTION: Five Level 2 charging stations were installed at the Electrical Trades Center for public charging and training purposes. Three GE units, one Eaton unit and one Clipper Creek unit were chosen for the project. All five are pedestal mount and located in parking spaces near the entrance of the building. LESSONS LEARNED: It is imperative that a load calculation be performed on the existing electrical system to determine if EVSE can be safely added to the system. In this case, the existing system had to be upgraded to support the additional load or demand that would be placed on the infrastructure. The ETC was able to do this by installing a new load center or panelboard. CONTACT INFORMATION: Trent Parker The Electrical Trades Center 947 Goodale Blvd. Columbus, OH 43212 614.463.5282 parker@electricaltrades.org

Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

Case Study: Akron, Ohio DATE INSTALLED: November 2012 DESCRIPTION: The City of Akron installed one Level 2 charging station in each of five parking decks within the city. These five EVSEs allow for visitors, residents and downtown workers to recharge their vehicles while at work, shopping or visiting the downtown amenities. Installing the charging stations directly supports the vision and goals of Greenprint for Akron, the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability plan, first introduced in 1999. Use of electric vehicles and other alternative forms of energy are being reviewed and implemented within the city with primary focus on achieving this goal, and the City fleet has one Chevy Volt. FUNDING: Funding for the project was provided through a U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Program grant through Clean Fuels Ohio and a 50% match was provided by the City of Akron. The project began in August 2011 and the EVSEs were open for charging in January 2013. The design and installation of the stations were completed using City of Akron personnel. The table below describes the specific costs. Project Expenses Expense Category Equipment

Total Project Cost

Local Match

Federal Funding

$15,028

$7,514

Design and Construction

$33,187

$16,593.50

Total Direct Expenses

$48,215

$24,107.50

LESSONS LEARNED: Since the market for electrical cars is still in its infancy the City of Akron is not expecting a large use upfront, but gradually over time these units will be beneficial for the public as the City continues its green initiative. CONTACT INFORMATION: Bradford A. Beckert, P.E., P.S. Development Engineering Manager Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office of Economic Development 166 S. High Street, Suite 202 Akron, OH 44308 330.375.2133 BBeckert@akronohio.gov 29

www.driveelectricohio.org

installation of EVSE, and evaluation of the permit application would be based on the specific installation/equipment proposed. For zoning purposes, charging equipment would be treated as an accessory use with evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

Codes & Permits: Regulatory Tools Consumer adoption of electric vehicles will be triggered by events and activities largely beyond the control of Ohio municipalities. State and federal financial incentives; the availability, quality, and price of electric vehicles; the price of gasoline; and national imperatives to improve • Institutional Resources and Support energy independence are, and will continue to be, major influencers on In Cleveland, major institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University are on the forefront of advancing electric consumer behavior. This does not mean that local governments are powerless to effect or facilitate the inevitable transition away from vehicle implementation, in keeping with the national trend of higher vehicles powered exclusively by fossil fuel. Municipalities that play an education and research entities exploring EV infrastructure. Other stakeholders interested in implementing electric vehicle infrastructure early and active role in focusing discussion and achieving local “buy-in” for a more sustainable transportation system will be include Cleveland 2030 District planning effort, prepared to meet the needs of a new generation of which is focusing on downtown as well as Streamlining permit vehicle owners who are increasingly drawn to vehicles neighborhood planning initiatives. The Northeast applications and using more sustainable technologies and which, over Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium may also the life of the vehicle, are less expensive to operate addressing consumer be a strategic partner, with its regional coordination and maintain. of sustainability initiatives, though it is not specifically exploring electric vehicle planning. • Existing Public Charging Stations Over 20 charging stations have been installed in the Cleveland metropolitan area, and more are known to be in the planning process. Almost all of the charging stations are located on the grounds of a university or medical facility and, as is common throughout Ohio, at auto dealerships.

choices through codes and procedures is good public policy generally, and need not be tied exclusively to EV preparedness.

The Interstate 71 Corridor It appears that specific promotion and support of electric vehicle planning has not yet begun in municipalities or county governments along the I-71 corridor. This interstate corridor could become an important regional facilitator of EV adoption, taking lessons from the Interstate 5 “West Coast Green Highway” initiative in Washington State. The entirety of this Interstate, linking Ohio’s three largest cities, can become an important way to ease range anxiety by offering destination charging options strategically placed to serve existing and emerging travel patterns.

More importantly, if the recommendations included in this report are implemented, residents will receive additional benefits even if they do not own an electric vehicle. In particular, streamlining permit applications and addressing consumer choices through codes and procedures is good public policy generally, and need not be tied exclusively to EV preparedness. Business owners will benefit from clear permitting processes and code requirements as they consider the implications of making improvements that accommodate EVs. To complement the policy and procedural strategies, additional opportunities should be explored to address the needs of Early Adopters and the Early Majority, reduce range anxiety for all potential EV owners, and develop approaches for encouraging or incentivizing local action. Some communities, such as Cleveland Heights, have conducted code reviews to ensure other sustainability efforts do not face barriers, such as installations of wind and solar power. It is wise to add EV considerations to such projects as well.

There are three specific approaches that municipalities can take to Other Local Leaders establish policies and practices that promote EV readiness. The best In addition to Cleveland and Columbus, several other Ohio cities are practices included in this analysis are organized by the following advancing policies that address EVs and installing charging stations. approaches: Cincinnati offers a convenience incentive that allows free parking to all-electric vehicles at four downtown 1. Slow Lane: Evaluating existing codes/procedures to City-owned parking facilities and at any parking meter identify barriers to EV adoption, thereby allowing within City limits. Launched in 2008, this incentive is policies and practices supporting EV implementation. ENCOURAGE administered via a brief application, verification of the ENCOURAGE 2. Middle Lane: Building upon the baseline of allowing vehicle as “all-electric” (excluding both hybrids and EV infrastructure and facilitating policies and practices plug-in vehicles with an alternative source of power, supporting EV implementation. including Volts), and issuance of a parking sticker FACILITATE designating that the car meets the eligibility FACILITATE 3. Fast Lane: Taking a leading role in EV planning by requirements. Aside from seeking extension of this actively encouraging policies and practices supporting policy beyond its three-year pilot period, the City of EV implementation. Cincinnati is not currently pursuing other EV incentives.

ALLOW

Bowling Green and Akron (a Project Get Ready city) are both piloting EVSE installations in City-owned parking facilities. Bowling Green has installed three public charging stations in the downtown shopping district, and Bowling Green State University has installed three additional EVSEs available to the public. The City of Akron has installed five charging stations for public use in parking garages. Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

ALLOW

The best practices discussed in this section are considered appropriate precedents to inform code and policy recommendations that can be tailored to individual Ohio municipalities of varying sizes.

Permitting and Inspection Processes Particularly in the early phases of infrastructure roll-out, electric vehicle owners will require access to charging equipment at home. Installation of EV charging equipment should be particularly straightforward for EV owners with access to off-street parking, which comprise the majority of residents in the study area, but many challenges exist and must be addressed. For example, permitting and installation processes are currently being addressed on a case-by-case basis, creating the potential for inconsistent approaches to permitting and inspection. Older houses may require wiring upgrades in order to accommodate charging equipment, adding to the complexity of the permitting process and upfront costs. The more significant challenges will arise from multi-family residential properties and other settings involving shared parking facilities. Although Level 2 equipment is anticipated to be the near-term standard for non-residential charging needs, Generally, Level 1 charging will satisfy home charging needs for many EV owners and should be considered a viable option for home charging. Level 1 charging does not require installation of any special equipment and is extremely effective for overnight charging. However, many new EV owners, particularly those with all-electric vehicles, may desire Level 2 charging equipment to enhance the overall technology experience. Municipalities and energy companies should anticipate installation of the more energy-intensive equipment as the potential preference for Early Adopters. The highest priority policy opportunity in the community readiness process will be a clear and straightforward municipal permitting process for home chargers, given the degree to which EV owners will rely on charging equipment at home. An electrical permit is the first and often only step that a new EV owner will need to take in coordination with their municipality. Due to the importance of reliable charging ability at home, non-residential permitting will likely be a secondary priority. Permit Approval Timeframe For cities currently considered EV planning leaders, particularly Portland, Raleigh, Houston, and various cities in California, the permit approval process for residential chargers is typically within 48 hours once any necessary electrical upgrades have been completed. This timeframe is an appropriate goal for Ohio municipalities to strive for as part of an overall effort to facilitate EV adoption. Electric vehicle purchasers will expect a clear and simple process to charge their new cars at home; however, an expeditious process understandably must be balanced with the assurance of a safe installation that will not stress the electrical capacity of the home.

ENCOURAGE

The following are examples of Slow Lane permit and inspection processes that allow implementation:

FACILITATE

ALLOW

FACILITATE

• Columbus, OH and Sonoma County, CA both issue minor electrical permits where a dedicated circuit is needed, and require a full permit/inspection only when panels need upgrades.

ALLOW

• In Normal, IL, there is no special procedure for processing permits associated with EV charging equipment; based on the typical volume of electrical permit

applications received, the turn-around tends to be within a day or two for all electrical permits, regardless of type.

ENCOURAGE

The following are examples of Middle Lane permit and inspection processes that facilitate implementation:

• Los Angeles, where permit volumes and turn-around times are a concern, established an electric vehicle division and identified specialists within the inspection department to ensure quick permit decisions and to serve as a resource as the technology expands.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

FACILITATE

ALLOW

• Columbus collects data on whether an electrical permit involves EVSE to track permit volumes and help the department prepare as interest increases. To increase effectiveness, this process requires training staff and outreach to electricians to ensure that the data provided are accurate. Reporting approved permits or otherwise collaborating with utility providers may help coordinate service needs. The following are examples of Fast Lane permit and inspection processes that actively encourage implementation:

ENCOURAGE

• Raleigh, NC has eliminated plan review by training electrical field inspectors on the new technology and allowing them to grant permits on-the-spot.

ENCOURAGE

• Licensed, certified electricians in San Francisco can have permits issued instantly online or over the counter with an inspection within 48 hours of request.

FACILITATE

• For electrical contractors in good standing, Oregon requires only a small sample of charging stations to be inspected. Public Information Informed staff that are knowledgeable about the technology and can appropriately field inquiries is critical, as is public outreach to prospective EV owners. Education and outreach will be particularly important for those responding to questions from the public as well as staff in other departments who may handle general inquiries. Raleigh, NC and San Francisco, CA provide a clear process required for the EV permitting process, including anticipated timeframes, and make the information easy to find online. Raleigh also posted videos to YouTube including background information to assist with the permitting and installation processes for residential and non-residential EVSE charging equipment.

ALLOW

Zoning and Related Ordinances/Codes Existing codes do not typically prohibit the installation of EV charging stations or equipment, but clarification could ease implementation and avoid confusion. Locally-appropriate revisions to zoning codes and related regulations may include design standards for charging stations, regulatory signage, and attention to accessibility standards.

ALLOW

Cincinnati offers free parking to qualified electric vehicles at Cityowned parking facilities and street parking.

www.driveelectricohio.org

On-street signage and parking enforcement, which are not addressed within zoning codes, also require the designation of specific practices and design through right-of-way standards and/or additional provisions that address right-of-way features, such as subdivision codes.

• Oregon and Washington have approved consistent regulatory signage applicable statewide, and it is under consideration in Michigan. • California has specified standards for accessible parking spaces, and its interim guidelines have been adopted throughout the U.S. Additionally, Clean Fuels Ohio and Virginia Clean Cities collaborated to produce “EV Charging for Persons with Disabilities,” published by Sustainable Transportation Strategies.

Development-specific covenants, typical of home owners associations and condominium boards, may pose additional obstacles to EV implementation and would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the governing authority. Complications to EVSE installations could The following is an example of a Fast Lane policy that actively arise in the following scenarios: encourages implementation: • An EV owner may prefer to park in a driveway or side yard rather than in an adjacent garage; in some jurisdictions, zoning codes may not permit parking in these locations. • Locations for EV owners to charge where off-street parking is unavailable.

ENCOURAGE

• Multi-family units with shared parking facilities. • Planning for ADA access, particularly when installing EVSE into existing parking facilities. • Determining how parking ratios are affected when an existing non-residential use retrofits parking facilities to include EV charging stations. • Specifying what land uses are appropriate for siting different levels and types of charging equipment. • Establishing consistent signage for identification and directional purposes. • Enforcing regulatory signage at charging in commercial or public settings.

ENCOURAGE

• Installing EVSE within public right-of-way which may be limited by the location of existing infrastructure and a public perception of a “wasted space” if the charger is not in constant use.

ENCOURAGE

Best Practices The following is an example of a Slow Lane policy that allows implementation:

FACILITATE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE

• The State of Washington requires all local governments to allow electric vehicle charging stations and/or battery charging stations in specified zoning categories.

ALLOW

The following are examples of Middle Lane policies that facilitate implementation:

ENCOURAGE

• The Puget Sound Regional Council has created standard terminology and definitions to encourage consistent application within policies adopted regionally and statewide, and it has been recommended for adoption statewide. The Council also provides guidance to assist local governments with zoning and related policy issues.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

FACILITATE

ALLOW

Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

FACILITATE

• The State of Washington has prioritized EV policy planning, as well as infrastructure improvements, within municipalities with populations over 20,000 and/or located along the key highway corridor of Interstate 5 (the West Coast Green Highway).

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

Summary Planning and regulatory tools will be useful to guide policies that further the goals of Ohio municipalities. Model zoning and other development regulations should be easily tailored to the needs of a particular community, while encouraging consistency among jurisdictions for clarity and ease of interpretation statewide. Regulations affecting private development sites, through zoning codes and private covenants, as well as standards addressing the public right-of-way, should be considered for evaluation.

ALLOW

Building and Electrical Codes Building and related construction codes are regulated by the State of Ohio; larger cities may have supplementary building codes, but many small municipalities and unincorporated areas in Ohio rely on the state codes without amendment. Currently, there are no provisions within the Ohio Building Code that specifically address electric vehicle charging stations. However, some state standards refer directly to national provisions, such as the National Electric Code, which does address EVSE. Cities with their own codes addressing new construction and reconstruction/renovation, such as Cleveland and Columbus, can augment State building codes by adding their own provisions intended to facilitate the installation of EVSE. Nationally, jurisdictions leading in EV

First Responder Safety Training Under the Ohio Revised Code Section 4765.55, the executive director of the state board of emergency medical services, with the advice and counsel of the firefighter and fire safety inspector training committee of the state board of emergency medical services, is responsible for establishing, maintaining and amending the requirements for all fire service training programs in Ohio. Currently, there are no requirements that first responder receive any safety training in advanced electric drive vehicles in Ohio.

First Responder Safety Training (continued) However, there are some excellent opportunities for first responder safety trainings for electric vehicles available to interested first responders. In July 2012, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) unveiled its online Electric Vehicle Safety Training for firefighters and first responders. NFPA’s Electric Vehicle Safety Training project is a nationwide program designed to help firefighters and other first responders prepare for the growing number of electric vehicles on the road in the United States. (The NFPA project, funded by a $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, provides first responders with information they need to most effectively deal with potential emergency situations involving electric vehicles.) The online version of the NFPA classroom sessions allows first responders from all over the country to participate in this valuable training regardless of their location. The self-paced online training program provides first responders with the knowledge they need to safely handle emergency situations involving EVs, hybrids, PHEVs and charging stations. The online curriculum includes information about the newest technology and safety systems found in the growing number of hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. This course is recommended for anyone who may respond to incidents involving electric or hybrid vehicles, including fire service and law enforcement, emergency medical service technicians, and tow and salvage personnel. Continuing Education Credits are available for many first responders upon completion of all five modules verification with professional board before attendance. In December 2012, National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC) at WVU was awarded nearly $1 million to spearhead first responder training by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Among other things, the grant will provide 8,500 scholarships to firefighters in remote locations across the U.S. so they can take the Advanced Electric Drive First Responder Safety Training online course. The project also includes a reconfiguring of the NAFTC’s Quick Reference Guide for access by computers on fire apparatus and emergency equipment vehicles. The QRG tool will provide emergency personnel with information about alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, including EVS, hybrids and PHEVs, at the accident scene. The QRG tool is currently available as a free IPhone/Android app or as a hard copy.

readiness feature either voluntary or mandatory measures for incorporating EVSE into new construction or renovation projects. For example, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) includes voluntary measures recommending EV infrastructure readiness for non-residential development, and the Green Homes Program in Vancouver, British Columbia, mandates installation of EVSE infrastructure for new single- and two-family homes. The National Electrical Code (NEC), administered by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), is an advisory resource commonly adopted by states and municipalities to ensure safe and standardized electrical installations. State and local jurisdictions may adopt the NEC with or without amendments. Although the NEC is updated every three years, the current version in general use in Ohio is 2008. NEC Article 625, Electrical Vehicle Charging System, provides standards for EVSE installation in both the 2008 and 2011 versions. However, the 2011 NEC version includes updates reflecting technological advancements and safety improvements for EV battery charging. In addition to adopting the most recent version of the NEC, municipalities can further prepare for implementation of EV technology with fire and emergency responder training to address EV and charging station safety. The NFPA has developed programs and resources that are available for safety training purposes. Best Practices The following are examples of Middle Lane building code provisions that facilitate implementation:

39 40

• Michigan is evaluating and updating state codes to modify the National Electric Code, allowing rapidly evolving technologies between the three-year updates. • The California Building Code recommends wiring or capacity with appropriate conduit for dedicated EV parking spaces39. • Vancouver, British Columbia requires all new single- and two-family homes to include a cable raceway running from the electric panel to the garage40. Sovereign Homes, a developer in the Columbus area, has implemented this policy voluntarily. The following are examples of Fast Lane building code provisions that actively encourage implementation: • Vancouver also requires 20% of parking spaces serving multi-family residences to include a receptacle to accommodate electric vehicle charging equipment. • Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have adopted building codes requiring all new buildings and parking facilities to be wired for EV charging infrastructure, providing capacity for one charging station for every 1-50 spaces, two charging stations for 51-200, and four for larger parking areas (incorporating voluntary guidelines of CALGreen within City code). Summary Ohio municipalities look to the State of Ohio for guidance on adopting certain national codes intended to provide enhanced EVSE readiness and safety protocols. Beyond adoption of the most up-to-date national standards, the State may consider evaluating existing codes or

State of California, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), 2010. Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for British Columbia, July 2009.

www.driveelectricohio.org

establishing voluntary policy steps to serve as a resource for communities wishing to further EV planning. Municipalities can consider voluntary or mandatory steps within their own code frameworks to enhance EV infrastructure planning. Complementary Strategies Several strategies which complement the policy and procedural aspects of EV readiness are discussed below; most of these strategies are already being pursued by Clean Fuels Ohio. Strategic Plans A rapidly growing number of municipalities, regions, and states have created or are in the process of developing strategic plans to evaluate existing conditions and guide infrastructure implementation. Clean Fuels Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Drive Electric Ohio effort is intended to serve as a strategic plan for the State and will provide a resource to individual municipalities and regions desiring to develop more EV specific strategic plans. Task Forces Advisory task forces involving utility providers, electrical contractors and inspectors, auto manufacturers and dealerships, local governments, businesses, and nonprofits are helping guide EV readiness planning in several states, including Connecticut and Michigan, as well as in municipalities including Atlanta. Similarly, Clean Fuels Ohio manages an active and diverse task force interested in advancing statewide electric vehicle infrastructure planning from a variety of angles.

Please see Section 6 of this report, Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EV Marketing Plan, for a detailed discussion about promoting electric vehicles in Ohio. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) provides training and certification for people installing electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). As a voluntary collaboration of electrical industry organizations, EVITP supports developing electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure for residential and commercial markets. The US Department of Energyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Clean Cities program works with EVITP to address technical requirements, safety imperatives, and training needs for electric vehicle industry partners and stakeholders. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program offers training around the United States at community colleges and electrical training centers. Training is open to licensed electricians in compliance with requirements of state or municipal jurisdictions. Training on local requirements supplements core training when appropriate. EVITP collaborates with industry organizations to develop curriculum to train and certify electricians. This training teaches industry best practices in electric vehicle infrastructure installation, commissioning, and maintenance. For more information, visit EVITP at www.evitp.org/.

Private-Sector Partnerships with OEMs Several municipalities have developed partnerships with auto manufacturers to advance strategies for facilitating the installation process and locating sites for EV charging stations. Nissan has formed partnerships with a number of cities, including Raleigh and Seattle, for testing and EV infrastructure planning support. Houston and Austin are partnering with Ford and local energy providers for readiness planning as well as outreach and education. Mitsubishi, which has a manufacturing facility in Normal, IL, is collaborating with the municipality in an effort called EVTown. Normal has incorporated EVs into its fleet, installed approximately 50 charging stations and offered grants for businesses and institutions to install additional chargers. The number of chargers installed in Normal is significant given the municipal population of 52,500, and makes the municipality a national leader for providing public charging stations. Outreach and Education The most successful EV readiness plans are typically complemented by strong outreach and education initiatives geared to the consumer, dealerships, and electrical contractors and inspectors. In particular, Raleigh has implemented exceptionally creative EV outreach strategies, through the public information tools developed to facilitate the permitting process as well as by working with local partners to develop training and educational programs. Similar courses have been developed in Ohio at the Electrical Trades Center in Columbus and IBEW in Cincinnati to address installation requirements and provide training in electric vehicle charging station installations. Further, Raleigh has plans to provide contact information of contractors who complete this training to auto dealerships, to develop local referral lists for consumers.

Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

Case Study: Columbus, Ohio “Electric vehicles result in less pollution and more job potential for our residents,” Mayor Michael B. Coleman said. “With these initial charging stations, we can help support the market and our residents, making the choice to switch to an electric vehicle that much easier.” DATE INSTALLED: March 2012 DESCRIPTION: The City of Columbus is committed to becoming the greenest, most sustainable city in the nation. Use of electric vehicles and other alternative forms of energy are being reviewed and implemented within the city with primary focus on achieving this goal. Mayor Michael B. Coleman also has a vision for Columbus to serve as the center of economic development opportunities in the supply chain for energy storage, EV, EVSE and smart grid technologies. In late 2010, Columbus was designated as the Ohio Energy Manufacturing Solutions Hub whose objective is to focus on energy manufacturing solutions and technologies related to energy storage. Columbus is also home to the award winning Ohio State University’s Center for Automotive Research, whose focus is on advanced automotive research and development. These two Level 2 EVSEs reduce range anxiety and allow for visitors, residents and downtown workers to recharge their vehicles while at work, shopping or visiting Goodale Park and the Beacon Building. Users pay the regular parking meter rate of $0.75 an hour for up to six hours. FUNDING: Funding for the project was provided through a U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Program grant through Clean Fuels Ohio and a 50% match was provided by the City of Columbus. Project Expenses Expense Category

Total Project Cost

Partner Contribution (Your Match)

Federal Funding Requested

Equipment (2 EVSE Units by Eaton)

$8,179.80

$4,089.90

Design

$11,827.24

$5,913.62

Construction

$22,898.64

$11,449.32

Total Direct Expenses

$42,905.68

$21,452.84

LESSONS LEARNED: The City found it is most cost effective to tie into an existing meter (Gay St.), but there are drawbacks with that approach if the intent is to know exactly how many kWh have been used. The usage at both stations is about the same, yet the electricity costs for the Goodale site include a $71.00 monthly service charge to monitor the kWh that is not charged at the Gay Street site because it is tied into the adjacent building’s meter. For future sites, the City would prefer an EV charging station that provides detailed data about each unit, including electricity usage, in operation, via web-based software. In addition, EV units could be added to this system as the demand grows. It is also important to plan for both electrical and street occupancy permitting and inspection by the appropriate local authorities as well as including a line item in the project budget for these fees. Just because it is a local government project doesn’t mean that fees associated with permits and inspections will be waived. Plan ahead and discuss the project early on with the inspection team to avoid delays and to prevent hold-ups in the completion schedule. CONTACT INFORMATION: Erin Miller Environmental Steward City of Columbus 90 W. Broad Street, 2nd floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.645.0815 EMMiller@columbus.gov

www.driveelectricohio.org

Drive Electric Ohio | Advancing Electric Vehicles Through Codes & Permits

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Statewide Electric Vehicle Policy Considerations

Overview If Ohio wants to become a leader in the nation’s move toward new technology vehicles, it will need to consider how it can incentivize EV ownership to accelerate the rate of purchase. Ohio is alone among its five neighboring states in not providing grants or incentives for the EV sector, either for EV owners, auto manufacturers, EVSE manufacturers, research and development, planning, or related job training. Ohio’s utilities also are not providing any EV incentives, even when subsidiaries of the same company in adjoining states are providing such incentives. The current EV-focused research and incentive programs in Ohio are funded by universities and non-profits through grants from federal agencies. If Ohio relies only on its higher income households and private fleets to spur the market, then Ohio will lose out to states that are more aggressive in their self-funding, such as Michigan, and states that have more high income residents, such as the East and West Coast states. These states already have and will continue to maintain the attention of direct job-creating entities including the manufacturing sector (cars, charging stations, and batteries), research money that could be directed to universities and institutions, and the indirect job creation opportunities of installing and servicing charging stations and electric vehicles. KEY FINDINGS • The transition to EVs will impact state sales tax revenues – which will increase – and fuel tax revenues – which will decrease. The majority of the loss of fuel tax revenue in Ohio will be driven by the volume of increasingly fuel efficient conventional vehicles already hitting the market, not by electric vehicles. • Ohio offers no incentives for EV ownership, research or manufacturing. Michigan – the state and its utilities – leads the region in providing incentives for EV development, offering 10 different programs.

• During the course of this study, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) released a statement confirming its position that the sale or provision of electricity through an electric vehicle charging station is not a regulated action under its purview, specifically:

“Electric vehicle charging station owners are selling access to electricity, which is a service to consumers, not a commodity. As such, the Public Utilities Commission lacks jurisdiction over charging station owners or hosts because such services are not construed within the definitions of an electric light company, a competitive retail electricity supplier, or an electric distribution utility under section 4905.03 of the Ohio Revised Code. Accordingly, the Commission would not have the authority to regulate how a charging station owner recovers costs for providing charging as a service, and an owner or host will be allowed flexibility in characterizing the nature of such a service and pricing model. For example, owners can treat charging as a customer amenity or characterize it as a cost for a parking space, assess a monthly subscription cost, charge a flat rate and even charge per kWh used, as justification for recovering costs.”

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Encourage the state’s electric utilities to offer incentives that promote EV ownership, such as introductory offers for home charging stations (i.e., short-term reduced rates, a set number of rebates); especially encourage those utilities who already offer EV incentives in their service areas outside of Ohio. 2. Offer incentives at the state level aimed at each critical group: EV consumers, research institutions, and manufacturers. The incentives could be in the form of tax credits, rebates, grants, fee reductions, and other creative funding strategies. 3. Conduct a statewide EV economic impact study to confirm the direct link between electric vehicles and job creation. Oregon recently completed such a study concluding that the state’s “electric vehicle cluster has created more than 1,500 jobs and fired $266.5 million in economic activity.”41

Williams, C. “Electric vehicle industry drives $266.5M economic impact in Oregon,” Sustainable Business Oregon, (02/05/2013)

Drive Electric Ohio | Statewide Electric Vehicle Policy Considerations

Funding for EV Infrastructure42 The question of who exactly should fund the infrastructure is largely unanswered. Private industry (24%), utilities (20%) and consumers (16%) were the top three identified groups government officials believe should be tapped to pay the bill for EV stations. While 11% believe the federal government and 8% believe the state government should fund the infrastructure, only 5% believe local governments should be stuck with the bill. Seventy-five percent of officials believe the utilities should play an active role in advancing EV infrastructure in the state.

to be critical elements of an effective EV preparedness program. Across the nation, federal and state incentive programs, combined with targeted private sector incentives, are easing the way for individuals and business innovators to move toward advanced energy vehicles like EVs. Incentives should be consistent with the overall public policy benefits arising from increased new energy vehicle adoption – i.e., lower GHG emissions and improved mobility and land use. A combination of incentives such as tax credits, equipment rebates and “convenience” incentives (preferred parking, reduced registration fees), is likely to be the best approach to tip the decision scales in favor of choosing an electric vehicle. The following segment highlights programs that are available through the Federal Government and the State of Ohio, and compares the activities occurring in the surrounding states.

Research Federal Incentives Section 1, The Case for EV Ownership, established that the total cost to For Owners own an electric vehicle is nearly equal to a high-performing gasoline • Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Tax Credit – This tax hybrid at current gas prices, and is less expensive to own than a current credit applies to purchase of new plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. gasoline-only vehicle. That calculation accounted for the federal tax Credit ranges from $2,500-$7,500, based upon battery capacity and credit, which is the only financial incentive available to Ohio consumers at vehicle weight rating. Longer electric range vehicles such as the Leaf, this time. The figure below illustrates that if Ohio offered an additional Volt, and Focus BEV qualify for $7,500 in federal incentives and lower financial incentive, such as a cash rebate or a tax credit, the EV owner’s electric range vehicles such as the Ford C-Max Energi qualifies for return on investment would be even better, and could lead to an $3,750. The Prius Plug-in qualifies for $2,500. The credit will phase out accelerated pace of adoption. beginning in the fiscal quarter when the manufacturer sells a minimum of 200,000 qualified vehicles in the United States. Figure 20: Impact of Financial Incentives on Total Cost of Ownership For Research and Development $36,000 • Advanced Energy Research Project Grants – Established by the DOE, $34,000 the Advanced Research Project Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) is tasked $32,000 with funding projects that “develop transformational technologies” $30,000 that reduce energy imports, greenhouse gas emissions, or improve $28,000 energy efficiency. Projects can include vehicle technologies and $26,000 energy storage. $24,000 $22,000 $20,000

Year 1

Year 2 EV Fed Incentive

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

EV State & Fed

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Conventional $4/gal

Sources: U.S. DOE, AECOM

As with the earlier calculations, this one assumes that gas prices increase at a rate higher than that of electricity, and accounts for the increased maintenance cost of conventional vehicles, in this case over an ownership duration of eight years.

• Improved Energy Technology Loans – Through the DOE, the Loan Guarantee Program funds projects focused on reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gases, as well as emerging commercial technologies such as biofuels and alternative vehicles. The funds must be used for project implementation, not for R&D. These loans can fund up to 100% for eligible projects. For Manufacturing • Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) Manufacturing Incentives – The DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program allows direct loans to private industry for up to 30% of costs

The analysis indicates that an EV will need to have an MSRP of less than $28,000 to compete with a similarly sized conventional vehicle at an MSRP of $17,000. Ohio can reach this price point if it offers its own incentive in addition to the federal tax credit. As with the structure of the federal incentive. Ohio’s tax incentive could also be structured to phase out over time, as EV purchase prices fall due to technological advances. Incentivizing EV Ownership Incentives have historically been a necessary component of the introduction of new technology, particularly as new technology usually requires consumers, both individuals and businesses, to accept some measure of risk and pay some incremental price premium especially in the early stages of adoption. Meaningful incentives are and will continue

Ohio Survey of Local Governments, 11/09/12, Governing Dynamic

www.driveelectricohio.org

associated with re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the US focused on production of either the ATV themselves or components for ATVs. Hybrid electric and fully electric vehicles meet this standard for ATV. Ohio Incentives There are currently no grants, tax credits, or loan incentives being provided by the State of Ohio or its electric utilities for EV charging stations or for EV purchases. This is a matter of some significance, given that many of Ohio’s neighboring states are using such incentives to welcome consumers and businesses who are interested in electric vehicles. The Ohio Development Services Agency is developing the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program. This is a state program that improves air quality through financial assistance to businesses, nonprofit organizations, school districts, or local governments for the purchase and installation of alternative fuel refueling, blending, or distribution facilities and terminals and fleet vehicle conversion. Alternative Fuels will be defined by the Ohio Revised Code.

Motor Vehicles & Parts Manufacturing Employment The auto manufacturing industry – including parts suppliers – has a strong history in both Ohio and Michigan. Employment in the auto industry plummeted during the recession, but both states have experienced an increase in jobs in this sector since 2009. However, auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan have increased by 6% compared to 3% in Ohio. If Ohio began to offer competitive incentives throughout the EV auto manufacturing supply chain – for research and development, and manufacturing the vehicles, batteries and charging stations – perhaps the state could capture the attention of national and foreign auto makers. The chart below shows the combined impact of the motor vehicles and parts manufacturing industry in both states. Figure 21: Michigan and Ohio Auto Industry Employment44

Neighboring State Incentives43 Each of Ohio’s neighboring states offer at least one incentive to promote electric vehicles, either from the state or through its utilities. Indiana For Owners • Duke Energy provides residential and commercial customers with Level 2 charging infrastructure, up to $1,500 of installation costs, and services the equipment for two years. • The Indianapolis Power & Light Company provides Level 2 EV charging stations and metering equipment at no cost to the first 150 customers seeking special plug-in EV charging rates. This program covers the cost of EV charging station installation, and participants can use public EV charging stations for a flat fee of $2.50/session. For Research & Development • The Indiana 21st Century Research and Technology Fund provides grants and loans for projects that promote economic development in high technology industries, including alternative fuel technologies and vehicle production. For Manufacturing • Tax credits are awarded by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation for manufacturing and assembly of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles. Funds can be used to cover up to 15% of qualified investments. Kentucky Incentives For Owners • The Kentucky Utilities Company provides grant funding for procurement of EVs for fleets of government and quasi-government entities. The grants will cover the incremental cost of those vehicles, as well as a DC fast charging station for selected applicants. The total grant amount is $250,000 with $3,500 covered per DC fast charging station. • Louisville Gas & Electric is running a pilot project for time-of-use electricity rates. The program is for residential customers with an EV, 43 44

plug-in hybrid, or natural gas vehicle. Michigan For Owners • Qualified alternative fuel vehicles can be exempted from personal property taxes if the vehicle is new to Michigan, meets federal safety standards, local emissions standards, and has not been previously taxed. • Alternative fuel vehicles are exempt from Michigan emissions inspection requirements. • Coulomb Technologies offers EV charging stations at no cost to EV owners for home charging stations in specified areas in southern Michigan. • Residential EV owners who install a Level 2 EV charging station on a separate meter are eligible for rebates of $2,500 from Indiana Michigan Power. Customers must also sign up for its EV time-of-use rate. • Consumers Energy offers rebates of $2,500 for purchase, installation and wiring for Level 2 EV charging stations. • DTE Energy offers a reduced electricity rate or a flat rate option to qualified residential customers for charging all-electric and plug-in

“State Laws and Incentives” Alternative Energy Data Center, US Department of Energy. Dec 2012. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industry: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, Series ID SMU39000003133610001, 05 Feb 2013.

Drive Electric Ohio | Statewide Electric Vehicle Policy Considerations

$7,000,000

For Manufacturing • The state’s Advanced Vehicle Battery Manufacturer Tax Credits is available through 2015; manufacturers of battery packs in Michigan can receive tax credits that are based on the kilowatt hours of the battery capacity. The battery must also be installed in a plug-in vehicle that qualifies for the federal tax credit.

$6,000,000

• Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Research, Development, and Manufacturing Tax Credits – “Qualified taxpayers may claim a non-refundable credit for tax liability attributable to research, development, or manufacturing of qualified alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs).” Businesses within an Alternative Energy Zone may claim credit for qualified payroll amounts. Eligible taxpayers and businesses are certified by the Michigan NextEnergy Authority.

$2,000,000

• Alternative Fuel Development Property Tax Exemption – This is a tax exemption for industrial properties involved in high-technology including electric and hybrid electric vehicle manufacturers. The exemption is certified through the Michigan State Tax Commission. Pennsylvania For Owners • PECO (the electric utility) offers a $50 rebate provided to residential customers purchasing an EV West Virginia For Owners • The Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Tax Credit is an income tax credit available to eligible taxpayers who convert a vehicle to operate exclusively on an alternative fuel or purchase a new original equipment manufacturer dedicated or bi-fuel AFV. The value of the tax credit is up to $7,500 for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) up to 26,000 pounds (lbs.) and up to $25,000 for vehicles with a GVWR greater than or equal to 26,000 lbs. • The Alternative Fueling Infrastructure Tax Credit is an income tax credit for purchasing and installing alternative fueling infrastructure of up to 50% of total costs. EV charging stations are eligible but only for residential use, while infrastructure for natural gas, propane, hydrogen, and coal-derived liquid fuels are eligible for private and publiclyaccessible fueling station installations. Revenue Considerations In addition to policies and programs that will incentivize EV ownership, Ohio should also consider the revenue implications on traditional sources of transportation funding, namely the gas tax.

$8,000,000

$5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000

Ohio

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

$1,000,000 2014

For Research & Development • R&D projects pursued by Michigan taxpayers can qualify for the Michigan Business Tax credit equal to 3.8% of wages, salaries, fees, bonuses, commissions, and other payments in a taxable year, not to exceed $2 million/year.

2013

• For the first 2,500 customers to purchase EVs, DTE Energy will provide a $2,500 rebate for the purchase and installation of EV charging stations that have a separate meter. Customers must also enroll in the DTE plug-in EV rate.

By definition, EVs pay no gas tax because they do not use gasoline and plug-in hybrids will use very little. Study data estimates that Ohio’s fuel tax revenues will decrease by $7 million from 2013-2020, but the majority of that loss is due to the majority of gasoline-only vehicles becoming more efficient, with only a small portion of the loss due to EVs. The state should consider alternatives to generate necessary and appropriate transportation revenue from all vehicles regardless of fuel type. It is important not to penalize early adopters of EV.

2012

hybrid electric vehicles during off-peak hours.

Federal

Sources: U.S. DOE, U.S. DOT, API, AECOM

Figure 22: Cumulative Fuel Tax Loss due to Increased MPG

Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee Charging motorists for their actual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on certain roads and highways establishes a pure user fee approach to raising transportation revenue. The VMT User Fee, which has been tested in several pilot programs, notably in Oregon, would require a reliable means of monitoring the daily miles each driver travels on designated roads and highways, typically through GPS, and then sending each driver a bill that corresponds to this amount. Mileage monitoring could be added to annual vehicle license plate renewals and/or to annual air emissions checks. While privacy concerns have been raised about the tracking mechanisms used for a VMT, the Oregon pilot demonstrated that a VMT system could be developed so as not to capture or maintain origin and destination data, thus protecting personal privacy. According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, “A consensus view of many transportation experts and economists is that a system of taxes on vehicle miles traveled should be viewed as the leading alternative to fuel taxes as a source of funding for highways.”45 While experts view this method of highway funding positively there has been little political will to pass this sort of legislation. That may change when decision makers, faced with the need to raise transportation revenue, realize that the gas tax is no longer the robust and reliable revenue source it had been during the 20th Century. Annual EV Fee Legislators in a number of states have discussed imposing a tax or fee

United States. Congressional Budget Office. Alternative Approaches to Funding Highways. 2011

www.driveelectricohio.org

on electric vehicles to substitute for their lack of fuel tax contributions, and at the time of this report, the Virginia legislature has passed a bill mandating one. The Virginia legislation charges a $100 road use fee for all “highway capable electrified vehicles” which “includes hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, as well as natural gas, propane, and hydrogen-fueled vehicles.”45 As noted earlier, more revenue will be lost to efficiency gains in conventional vehicles than will be lost to electric vehicles. A vehicle type fee would only serve as a punitive measure for the EV owner, and would not generate noticeable revenue for the state. EV incentives should be carefully calibrated to avoid establishing potentially dangerous precedents that may undermine sound public policy. For example, as vehicles become more energy efficient, the gas tax will diminish as a reliable transportation funding source. It is likely that user fees (tolls, or a fee tied to vehicle miles traveled) will be used to replace the gas tax. As a result, incentives that offer free or discounted tolls may be highly undesirable, as it will be politically difficult to impose user fees once motorists become accustomed to driving in a fee-free environment. In addition, incentives that provide exemptions to use high occupancy lanes, or free or discounted parking, can run counter to the larger effort to reduce GHG emissions by encouraging more vehicle miles traveled and discouraging use of alternative transportation. Incentives must be considered not simply for their short term impacts, but also for their long term impacts, particularly since political leaders may find it difficult to end popular incentive programs when EV adoption is more commonplace.

46 47

Case Study: AEP EV Ownership Pilot47 DATE INSTALLED: September 2011 DESCRIPTION: As part of its smart grid demonstration project in northeast Columbus, Ohio, AEP Ohio introduced Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) into a smart grid pilot area. The vehicles are being used in various utility and employee/customer/utility applications to determine the suitability, benefits, and challenges of the technology. Specifically, the vehicles are helping AEP Ohio and the U.S. Department of Energy to better understand the impacts of fleet and employee/customer charging and by utilizing the smart grid and home area network technologies deployed in the area. In total, AEP deployed 11 vehicles and over 37 charging spots into the demonstration area. The vehicles are driven by employees living in the demonstration area and charging locations are installed at the driver’s homes, workplaces, and a few public locations. FUNDING: The project was funded by AEP and the U.S. Department of Energy. LESSONS LEARNED: Installation costs can vary significantly among locations. Careful consideration and selection of the charger, installation location, and installer can help keep costs reasonable. CONTACT INFORMATION: Chris Schafer American Electric Power cmschafer@aep.com

Loveday, E. “State of Virginia Approves $100 Annual Road-Use Tax for All Electrified Vehicles.” Inside EVs (02/25/2013) Provided by AEP

Drive Electric Ohio | Statewide Electric Vehicle Policy Considerations

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Marketing Plan Drive Electric Ohio

Overview The overall strategy for the 2013 Ohio Electric Vehicle Marketing Campaign, Drive Electric Ohio, is to educate consumers about EVs by encouraging them to seek information which will help lead to sampling (test-driving) and supporting the Ohio EV initiative. The Drive Electric Ohio campaign is designed to build awareness of and preference for EVs. By changing perceptions about range anxiety, cost, and reliability with educational messages touting numerous EV benefits, the market development campaign will encourage consumers to take action – get information, learn about EVs, and ultimately, to buy a vehicle. This information will empower consumers and position EVs positively in their minds, leading to sampling and evaluating how an EV would fit into their lifestyles. The sampling and evaluation will eliminate lingering doubts, leading to anticipation of anything from lower costs and more choices, to government incentives and utility support. The final step is adoption, which will accelerate with increased manufacturer, legislative, business and social support. KEY FINDINGS • In Ohio, the top five criteria for purchasing an EV, in rank order, include48 -- Vehicle Price -- Reliability -- Convenience to charge -- Cost to charge -- Fuel costs • Ohio consumers have a high level of awareness for electric vehicles versus all others forms of alternate fuel technologies, but a low familiarity with all alternative fuel technologies except hybrid. • Among Early Majority consumers, environmental concerns and reducing dependence on foreign oil are also important.

• Consumer driving behaviors are aligned with EV single charge driving range, however, their range expectations required before they will consider purchase are not. • Consumers expect an EV to cost $15,000 - $35,000. • The message – that electric vehicles cost less to drive and maintain, are safe and dependable, increase US energy independence, benefit the environment, and create domestic jobs – tested well overall and even stronger among consumers who fit the criteria for the early majority. All of this information indicates that education is the key to driving preference for EVs in Ohio. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Develop a marketing campaign with the following objectives: • To build consumer and legislative awareness and preference for plug-in electric vehicles. • To educate consumers and legislators about the benefits of EVs. • To build awareness, preference and educate secondary audiences (fleets, city officials/planners, business leaders, policy makers, and the media) about EVs. 2. Implement the marketing campaign with the following strategies: • Build a brand strategy that shapes and integrates all messages. • Use mass media to reach consumers throughout the state. • Utilize social media to expand and shape the conversation around key messages. • Get consumers to take an action (get information, learn about EVs, buy a vehicle, etc.). • Empower brand ambassadors to represent geographic areas around the state.

Clean Fuels Ohio, Consumer Research, Alternative Fuel Technologies, Communica, May 2012

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Marketing Plan

Opportunities & Challenges49 While local officials are largely divided as to whether or not EV charging stations would provide their community with an economic advantage, they do believe being environmentallyfriendly, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and promoting their community’s image are all advantages of integrating electric vehicle charging stations. Cost is by far the most significant perceived obstacle to integrating EV charging stations followed by concerns about public education, installation, public opinion and enforcement. To overcome the cost barrier 44% of governments indicate they will require matching-money grants, 39% would seek public-private partnerships and 33% would like preferred loan programs. Governments also require technical assistance, however it is public education and outreach that topped the scale with 70% of cities, 82% of counties and 90% of villages desiring public education and outreach efforts. They also believe they will have to be creative to incentivize the private sector to build EV charging stations. Thirty-two percent believe tax breaks or waived fees will be necessary, while others believe shared expenses or reduced parking requirements would have to be considered. • Use the web as the central resource with sections of information for key target audiences; general public, policy makers and media. • Educate media and build network of media partners in various cities to help promote/support local events. • Leverage relationships with universities, city leaders, utility companies. RESEARCH Background Communica worked collaboratively in discussion forums with key stakeholders to shape plan development, provide context, generate ideas and share suggestions before developing the consumer marketing plan. The comprehensive Marketing and Branding Strategy includes the following elements: (a) the identification of target audiences through market research, (b) design of tactical program elements (including developing an advertising and promotional strategy that maximizes limited marketing funds, web and social media campaigns), (c) a media relations plan, (d) a special events plan, (e) a direct marketing plan, (f) partnership and promotional strategies (identification of potential partners and their level of support and involvement, including but not limited to targeted academic and medical institutions), (g) a proposed timeline, and (h) budget for implementation of the Plan. Specific methodology, sampling and analyses included: • Quantitative web-based in-depth survey. • Target audience criteria and consumer respondent profiles: -- Ohio resident -- 400 completed responses from metro markets, 100 completed from rural

-- Registered voter -- Age 25+ -- 67% of the sample with household Income >$50,000 -- Education: 67% of sample has a college degree or higher • Data was cross tabulated to identify statistically significant differences across demographic criteria. Marketing Strategy The overall strategy has been developed to educate consumers about EVs by encouraging them to seek information, which will lead to sampling (test-driving a vehicle) and support for the initiative. The campaign is designed to build awareness and preference for EVs. The goal is to change perceptions about range anxiety, cost and reliability with educational messages touting the benefits of EVs. The campaign will encourage consumers to take some action (get information/learn about EVs, buy a vehicle, etc.) This information will empower consumers and position EVs positively in their minds, leading to sampling and evaluating how an EV would fit into their lifestyles. The sampling and evaluation will eliminate lingering doubts, leading to anticipation of anything from lower costs and more choices to government incentives and utility support. The final step is conversion, which will accelerate with increased manufacturer, legislative and business support, as well as the support and encouragement consumers receive in their social circles (what they read and hear). Tactical Plan The research conducted by Communica indicated that a majority of respondents (57%) are familiar with EVs, but they are not familiar with the specific technology and initially, are only mildly interested in learning more about them. But when given details about the technology involved, respondents were more likely to consider purchasing one of these vehicles. Information is a very powerful incentive, and if applied in innovative, persuasive ways, can be a critical component in driving acceptance of and support for EVs in Ohio. Information about a highly technical subject, such as alternative vehicles, must be presented in a way that is easy to understand and streamlined. The most successful approach applies data and arguments that appeal to the issues (identified most important in the research) in making a decision to purchase or not purchase an alternative vehicle. This EV marketing program will provide Ohio residents with the critical knowledge necessary to support the State’s effort, and ultimately to make the decision to buy an EV. The information will be delivered in a way that is entertaining and personal, and in which consumers are co-creators of the experience. This EV marketing program is indeed a journey for Ohio residents – and CFO will facilitate and support what will be a paradigm shift in thinking about transportation. When people participate in this process, it will trigger a strong emotional value – an endorsement of the campaign. This co-creation will support lasting connections, create successful dialogues and accelerate continuous learning – while encouraging the evolution of ideas.

Ohio Survey of Local Governments, 11/09/12, Governing Dynamic

www.driveelectricohio.org

The EV marketing program will be centered on a strong source for information about EVs and support as consumers begin to shift their thinking about EVs. The source for this program is the Drive Electric Ohio website, hosted by Clean Fuels Ohio – a versatile location for:

The website will also feature: • Aggregated feeds from our channel communications (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) to run on the home page and provide real-time updates of the social conversation.

• State news and industry trends.

• Badges and other awards consumers can earn, which they can pass along to friends.

• Practical information on buying an EV and charging it around the state. • Stories about people who own and love EVs. • Continuously updated social conversations. The Drive Electric Ohio website will be the hub of the EV marketing program. All of the other tactical programs – advertising, ambassadors and communities, media relations, social media and events – will direct consumers to the website for additional information, to participate in events and activities and to join the EV community.

• Items consumers can vote for – relating to content, contests and events. • Calculators consumers can use to compare vehicle costs, fuel expenses, maintenance charges and other elements of EV ownership. • Running measures of the number of charging stations around the state. • Live steaming of events and streaming of consumer-generated video about EVs.

The website will be a changing, dynamic location for updated Initiative Website information, personal experiences and support. It will offer several The Drive Electric Ohio Buzz Hub will be the centerpiece of the avenues for two-way communication, and encourage utilization of the informational program, and carry consumer-experience information about voice of the consumer in future communications activities. all aspects of EVs: Advertising/Media Plan • How they work. Communica will develop a creative strategy, designed around key messages determined from the branding workshop. The creative • How they compare to gasoline powered vehicles (cost, performance, execution will ask consumers to take an action – anything from getting etc.). more information, supporting the initiative, to buying a vehicle. • Buying and maintaining an EV. • News about the EV market. • Benefits, cost calculator, personal experiences, etc. The Buzz Hub will be the living content resource for the EV marketing program, with a format that is narrower than the Clean Fuels Ohio primary website. The website will be populated with original information that addresses the issues of most concern to consumers, including cost, range, reliability, charging, sustainability and future developments. The campaign will also curate applicable information (including data and documentation from our resources) to make the website truly a one-stop source for learning about and sharing personal experiences with EVs. The information will be provided in an easy-to-understand format, and the website will offer the opportunity for consumers to ask questions about what they’re reading and participate in the conversation about EVs. The site will contain a range of social embedded sections that display and encourage an emotional experience: • Our news (here’s what’s happening with our event program around the state). • Your stories (your personal experiences at our events). • Your EV experiences (as consumers learn more about EVs they’ll be able to share that information here). • Along the Road (blogs from Clean Fuels Ohio and consumers learning about EVs). • Images and Videos (provided by Clean Fuels Ohio and by all our participants).

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Marketing Plan

CFO has a large geographic area to cover, so it is important to not spread its resources too thin by trying to spend a little bit on all mediums. The strategy is to narrow our focus and “own” a medium. This tactic will include use of outdoor billboards in the top four markets to reach the public. Communica will execute the creative strategy, developing 3-4 outdoor billboard designs and 3-4 banner ad designs. In addition, Communica will write radio scripts to promote the promotions and events going on in each city. • Execute this strategy into an advertising campaign in the form of 3-4 outdoor billboard and banner ad designs. • Develop media plan using outdoor billboards and online ads to reach masses of people in Columbus, Cleveland/Akron/Canton, Cincinnati and Toledo. These major markets are the areas with the highest population and target household incomes. • Utilize radio to promote the local events going on in each area. • Communica recommends the following as a basis for the media buy: -- Outdoor billboard -- Online- combination of general and specific sites • Flight the campaign over many weeks. Signage at future charging station locations Communica recommends developing a sign or display, using the charging station icon, to indicate where all future charging stations will be located. This will help to build awareness as people are out driving in their environment, making them realize how they will interact with these stations throughout their daily activities, reducing range anxiety.

PSA Funding Strategy Non-profit organizations struggle to get the most out of every dollar spent. Recognizing that, many media outlets allow for a reduced rate (discounted column inch rate in print) or special offer (free color for a print ad, bonus outdoor billboard). Another way to maximize value is to leverage all paid media buys with PSAs. There are multiple strategies for PSA plans, and Communica recommends the following: • The purpose of the PSA plan is to boost the media buy’s total reach and frequency. • When buying the media, Communica will require that 20% of the total dollars spent are PSAs. • Communica will allow the media outlet the flexibility to put the PSAs anywhere into their schedule (the more flexible, the more likely they will be to participate in the buy). • Print PSAs are based on the individual publications goals and objectives. Communica will work with editorial boards, community service directors and publishers to get free space when possible. In addition to PSAs, Communica can leverage relationships with existing stakeholders’ media buys to get exposure. For example, if a manufacturer has an outdoor billboard campaign, they could give CFO space on one of their boards for a month, or in the case of a digital billboard buy, they could give the campaign a slot in the rotation. Utility partners can reach their customers through utility “bill stuffers” or other direct mail. Communica will develop a plan around these opportunities and develop the associated creative elements. Public Relations (Earned Media) Consensus Building Identification and nurturing of early adopters of EVs around the state will provide the support and validation necessary to successfully market the concept to Ohioans. Additionally, having these “ambassadors” all over the state offers the local credibility and experience that will resonate with residents. Communica will identify these local experts, enthusiasts and other stakeholders (including those already identified by Clean Fuels Ohio), and begin a grassroots campaign to prepare them for mobilization as the Drive Electric Ohio campaign begins. Activities will include: • Identifying all possible ambassadors from among Ohio’s universities and colleges, local governments, business leaders (including auto dealers), legislators, researchers, etc. • Introducing the brand and key messages of the campaign to the groups in personal presentations by Clean Fuels Ohio representatives. • Engaging the groups through online social communities where we can pose discussion topics and offer information, and where they can communicate with one another.

Policymakers and Legislators In addition, CFO will identify and build relationships with other supporters who would mutually benefit from EV growth in Ohio: • Automakers and suppliers. • Utility industry participants. • “Secondary” Ohio-based companies that encompass a sustainability philosophy and could be a good partner to the EV program. • Government bodies in each key city across the state that would also benefit from increased statewide focus, such as tourism. Communica and Clean Fuels Ohio will establish contact with these groups (similar to the communication plan established with our ambassadors) to invite their participation in the campaign, and to seek out their involvement in PSAs and other activities. Influencing Thought Leaders Communica and CFO will also research, monitor and build relationships with thought leaders with the following data collection in mind: • Who is writing and speaking about EVs? • Who are the supporters and who are the detractors (what is their reasoning for their positions, and who is listening to them)? • Who are considered experts in a particular area of EVs, such as vehicles, costs and maintenance, sustainability, etc.? In addition, the campaign will identify the thought leaders from among legislators and other political leaders, the media (both Ohio-based and national), bloggers and all other social media channels (where EV-related conversations are taking place). The ambassadors, supporters and thought leaders will provide information, insight and an emotional perspective on EVs. Statewide Media Relations Communica and CFO will create a statewide media strategy for identifying the top media and reporters across the state – those who have written about EVs, those who view EV development in Ohio favorably, those who have already worked with Clean Fuels Ohio on stories and programs and those whose readership / viewership reaches our primary audiences. With the details from this research, Communica and CFO will establish a program for regular contacts throughout the campaign and beyond, including: • A city-by-city media tour to introduce the campaign. The tour will feature Clean Fuels Ohio representatives, as well as local ambassadors (when possible and appropriate). • Statewide distribution of news releases as any news breaks (new charging stations, supplier-state relationships, grant announcements, etc.).

• Providing an ongoing schedule of events, along with various local or national issues as they would arise, so they can serve as spokespersons or local experts with media (if needed).

• Development of an editorial calendar of feature (evergreen) stories that can be used statewide, along with stories that can be developed to address specific issues on a city-by-city or region-by-region basis across the state.

• Seeking out their participation across all marketing, public relations and social media vehicles.

• An online media kit containing background stories, bios and a list of applicable story ideas that can be distributed to media.

www.driveelectricohio.org

• Editorial contacts with weekly and monthly state-focused or regional publications to encourage feature coverage. • News conferences as warranted (in conjunction with news announcements as well as with the statewide events). • A full schedule of news releases and interview placements to coordinate with the statewide event (detailed below). • Subject matter podcasts to key media from industry thought leaders (stored and promoted through the website). • YouTube videos produced with industry thought leaders will be made available to media as background and feature material. • Social Media Social media will be a prominent element of the communications effort as a way of pushing out information and beginning to engage fans and followers in two-way conversation as a result. Communica and CFO will create content that will inspire a cycle of sharing, and monitor all channels for sentiment, need and ideation. From this information we can define the emotional triggers prompted by the content and prepare any necessary responses. This strategy will include the effective use of hashtagging and optimization that will best reach all audiences. Content Creation Content will be developed and placed based on the overall messaging of the program and the specific news of the day. Communica and Clean Fuels Ohio will develop a scheduled series of posts that will incorporate the flexibility for updated information, breaking news or to respond to followers. And CFO will also utilize our ambassadors, partners and thought leaders to participate in personal interactions with visitors and fans. Communica and Clean Fuels Ohio will create and post a daily selection of messages that can include: • News as it’s distributed around the state. • Teasers, updates and real-time news about events around the state. • Links to stories of national interest. • Posts about individual EV stories in Ohio, and links to video, photos, etc. and information on the website. • Educational questions about EVs that consumers can answer. • Trivia information about EVs in Ohio. • Information and links from our ambassadors and supporter communities. • Announcements as new vehicles are introduced, new charging stations are opened (with links to maps). • Photos and videos of all the events and activities happening around the state. Social Channels Communica recommends using a wide range of channels for distributing news and engaging in conversations with the public. And, in order to best reach the specific audiences as they grow, CFO will continue to explore new social channels and develop a process for active listening and response, throughout all channels, to better draw consumers into the conversations.

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Marketing Plan

Day in the Life Program Communica recommends a “Day in the Life …” online program that will feature Ohioans (representing a range of demographic and geographic areas) who will document their experiences with their EVs over a specific time period. Owners will create video and written journals of their experiences, and participate in live chats and webcasts (when appropriate), all of which will be shared on all the social channels and live on the Buzz Hub website. Communica and Clean Fuels Ohio will work with media in the communities in which the participants live, developing stories that chronicle their progress and perhaps riding along from time to time. The campaign will also include them in any statewide events occurring in their communities. Re-engagement Through this program of listening and responding to social conversations (in addition to content generation), we support any social connections as they are created. The program seeks out more than likes, clicks and impressions. It will: • Identify receptivity – what followers are open to social connections? • Place both original and published content to seed social dialogues. • Engage followers in discussions about EVs by providing information, supporting enthusiasm and dispelling erroneous ideas. • Utilize influencers to deliver messages and build relationships. • Define points where content can lead to immediate actions (channeling back to the website). Search Engine Optimization Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is critical in helping our messages reach far broader audiences. By utilizing keywords in outward-bound material the campaign will rank higher in searches and assure that the messages are reaching more people. Throughout the marketing campaign we’ll incorporate SEO into website development and optimize news releases, social media posts, video, blog posts and online advertising. SEO will also be very important in encouraging backlinks to the Buzz Hub website. Mobile Communications Mobile communication is a significant contributor to the effectiveness of the messaging,and a natural element of this very “mobile,” statewide program. It will also be a source for a great deal of the data that will be critical in measuring the effectiveness of the overall campaign. • Events and activities throughout the campaign will be very locationfocused and include special programs, badges, etc., on location apps such as Foursquare, as well as with any apps developed specifically for the campaign. • The campaign will work with partners, such as automakers and utility companies, to participate in their EV mobile programs, such as apps and text message campaigns, particularly as they would pertain to statewide events. • Communica recommends that Near Field Communication (NFC) enabled charging stations be utilized throughout the state as a means of pushing messages and information, and for data extraction and re-engagement.

Promotional Events EV engagement is both an intellectual and emotional decision. In order to create this emotional connection, CFO will hold a series of events that will kick off in the spring of 2013 and run periodically for several months. These events will draw Ohioans in for a personal experience with EVs, meet the people who know and drive them, and learn more about how EVs can become part of their lives.

Associated Activities at Events Communica will work with Clean Fuels Ohio to host Ride and Drive programs in each of our event cities. In connection with the Ride and Drive programs, Communica will:

Drive Electric Ohio Kick-off Week Our event program will kick off in the spring of 2013 with a week of events around the state to bring attention to the growth of EV use and the state’s current infrastructure. To create awareness for the kick-off we plan to coordinate several activities in the city to deliver these messages. For example, we’ll link with city leaders in the top four Ohio cities (when possible) to offer a few blocks of free parking specifically for EVs. The campaign will feature a cover for the meters that indicates the free spaces, and offers a message tied to saving ¬– saving cash, saving on your commute, saving the Earth. The covers will draw attention and will make a great visual to generate news coverage and visitor interest.

• Involve local car dealerships for cars to include in the Ride and Drive, with potential additional visits to nearby recharging stations (to give visitors a feel for the entire EV experience).

Piggyback Existing Affinity Events The EV marketing schedule of events will be designed to be a part of already-scheduled events around the state. Communica and CFO will research all of the statewide affinity events during this period, and identify those that will best meet our criteria: EV use and enthusiasts, existing (or near potential) infrastructure, active vehicle dealerships, etc. We will then work with those organizations to include our event along with their activities. For example, baseball games are a perfect venue for these events, major and minor league baseball games will be taking place in most of the large and mid-size cities around Ohio. The campaign will present the EV messages in the community spirit of each local event – it will be an added feature of what will already be a fun day. The campaign will promote each of these events well in advance using radio advertising and media contacts, so that the excitement will build around the state. Campaign schedules will be coordinated with other state energy initiatives to avoid conflicts or to take advantage of opportunities to form partnerships for these events, when possible. For the very first event, a news conference will be held that can be broadcast statewide and live-streamed to the website. Communica will also provide b-roll video of charging stations and other related materials.

• Visitors participating in the Ride and Drive will be able to answer EV trivia questions (a la the E-tour EV below) and earn an entry into the EV drawing, which will take place later in the year. Media will be contacted well in advance of these events to provide background information and arrange for personal interviews and other special activities during the event: • Reporters and other local officials (and legislators) can participate in the Ride and Drive, with TV stations doing live reports and reporters providing real-time blogs or other reports. All reports will be live streamed or posted to the Buzz Hub website. • If the event is presented in conjunction with Clean Fuels Ohio news, Communica will hold a news conference during the event. • Local ambassadors will be present during the event and available to talk with visitors, be interviewed by media and participate in some of the activities. E-Tour EV Communica proposes developing an E-tour EV that would travel around the city during each event day. The E-tour EV will be a logoed vehicle (provided by an automaker or large dealer for the duration of the program) that will operate as a take-off of the popular “Cash Cab” television program. In this case, the E-tour will take residents on a short trip in the area of the event while they are asked questions about EVs and are videotaped giving their answers. For correct answers they will be entered into a drawing (taking place at the end of 2013) for a large EV related prize (i.e. possible a year lease of an EV, etc.). The E-tour is a great educational “vehicle” for the public, an enjoyable time and another way for consumers to get a personal experience in an EV.

• Professional and minor league sporting events (baseball, football, hockey) – these attractions draw the Clean Fuels Ohio demographic groups.

Observation, Measurement and Re-engagement Observation and measurement is an integral part of the marketing program as it helps to determine the emotional triggers that most resonate with Ohioans. Communica and CFO will continuously employ these and a range of other programs to track and respond to communications activities, and re-engage participants in deeper conversations.

• Ohio State Fair, major county and local fairs – fairs are especially appropriate for the educational value of an event.

By observing the conversations taking place among all our social communities, Communica will be able to:

• College football games around the state – offer the opportunity to involve our university partners around the state, and can also feature college mascots (a big draw for students).

• Determine the awareness and reach of our messages.

Each city’s event will be unique, building on the local activities and people that could be involved. For example, we recommend coordinating the event with activities happening throughout the state:

• Marathons across the state – offering a festive, outdoor setting, marathons will also attract the Clean Fuels Ohio target audience.

• Have a display area where EVs from the major manufacturers will be available (and potentially which will include incentives, deals and representation from local dealers).

• Establish keywords that will help to accelerate adoption of EVs. • Determine the barriers to adoption. • Identify trends (based on original and professional content).

www.driveelectricohio.org

• Target participants and messages by lifestyle, sentiment, etc. • Create a valid picture of participants via contextual views. As mentioned in the social media discussion, Communica and CFO will utilize search engine optimization (SEO) in all communications activities to drive recognition and visibility among all audiences. Communica will monitor conversations and comments in all social media channels. Communica will also monitor conversations about EVs and other related topics, and the thought leaders influencing these conversations. The monitoring program will feature a rapid response strategy to answer questions, reply to concerns, correct errors and curate the general feedback of the program. With the data collected from social communities, traffic and activity on the website, data from mobile communications programs and measurement of traditional media placements and dialogues, Communica and CFO will be able to gauge the impact of the campaign’s messages on the tangible goals of the program. It will help CFO to determine where the messages are resonating (by demographic and geographic group), what messages need to be refashioned and where new emphasis should be placed.

Drive Electric Ohio | Ohio’s Electric Vehicle Marketing Plan

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Resources

Research Sources This study began in the Fall of 2011, and over the past year and a half the electric vehicle world has been rapidly evolving, sometimes on a daily basis, with manufacturer and industry forecasts fluctuating from idealistic to dismal, and new technologies being discussed that will find their way into the EVs of the future. In addition to the studies and articles cited in this report, the Team kept a hand on the pulse of EV innovations and consistently monitored many sources of information. The following list of agencies, think tanks, universities, industry experts, and news organizations were crucial to developing the understanding necessary to write this report. Government Agencies Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Transportation Statistics City of Palo Alto EvTown Executive Office of the President Federal Highway Administration: National Household Travel Survey Greater London Authority Jobs Ohio National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Energy Information Administration News Media Arizona Capitol Times Associated Press Automotive News AutoObserver Business Week CBS News Chicago Tribune Cleantech News and Analysis

Drive Electric Ohio | Resources

CNNMoney Crainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Electric Vehicle Update Engadget Inhabitat LA Times National Public Radio New York Times PluginCars.com Politico Sacramento Business Journal The Atlantic The Christian Science Monitor The Cleveland Plain Dealer The Columbus Dispatch The Detroit News The Economist The Toledo Blade Wall Street Journal Washington Post Wired Yahoo Autos Research Institutions Accenture American National Standards Institute Battelle Energy Alliance Brookings Institution Center for Automotive Research, multiple states Clinton Climate Initiative Community Research Partners Deloitte Edison Electric Institute Electric Drive Transportation Association

Electric Power Research Institute Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation Ernst & Young Gallup Illinois Electric Vehicle Advisory Council Massachusetts Institute of Technology McKinsey Quarterly Natural Resources Defense Council Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Pike Research Policy Matters Ohio Price Waterhouse Cooper Rocky Mountain Institute Solar Journey USA State Smart Transportation Initiative, University of Wisconsin-Madison The Boston Consulting Group The PEW Charitable Trusts Union of Concerned Scientists University of Vermont Transportation Research Center Wards Automotive

• Community Planning Guide for Electric Vehicles - Advanced Energy 2011 www.advancedenergy.org/transportation/resources/ Community%20Planning%20Guide.pdf • Charging Station Installation Handbook for Electrical Contractors and Inspectors - Advanced Energy 2011 www.advancedenergy.org/ transportation/evse/Charging%20Station%20Handbook%20Rev2011. pdf • Prepping for Plug-In Vehicles at Condos, Townhomes and Apartments - San Diego Gas & Electric 2011 www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/ documents/Prepping%20for%20EVs%20Condos.pdf?nid=3105 • EV City Casebook -Project Get Ready from Rocky Mountain Institute 2012 www.rmi.org/Content/Files/EV_City_Casebook_2012_1.2.pdf • Site Design for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – Sustainable Transportation Strategies 2012 http://www. sustainabletransportationstrategies.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/09/Site-Design-for-EV-Charging-Stations-1.01.pdf • EV Charging for Persons with Disabilities – Sustainable Transportation Strategies 2012 http://www.sustainabletransportationstrategies.com/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EV-Charging-ADA-Version-1.0.pdf

Additional Resources Provided web links were active as of March 15, 2013.

• Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – Sustainable Transportation Strategies 2012 http://www.sustainabletransportationstrategies.com/ wp-content/uploads/2012/05 Siting- EV-Charging-Stations-Version-1.0.pdf

Research and Reports • EV Everywhere Grand Challenge Blueprint – US Department of Energy 2013 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/electric_vehicles/ pdfs/eveverywhere_blueprint.pdf

Websites: • Alternative Fuels Data Center(AFDC) - US Department of Energy www. afdc.energy.gov/

• Hybrid and Plug-in Electric Vehicles - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/51017.pdf

• FuelEconomy.gov - US Environmental Protection Agency www. fueleconomy.gov/

• Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Consumers - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/51226.pdf

• Drive Electric Ohio – Clean Fuels Ohio www.driveelectricohio.org/

• Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Electrical Contractors - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51228. pdf

• Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), www.electricdrive. org/

• Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Fleet Managers - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/ pev_handbook.pdf

• Go Electric Drive, www.goelectricdrive.com/

• Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Public Charging Station Hosts - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.nrel.gov/docs/ fy12osti/51227.pdf • Plug-In Electric Vehicle Community Readiness Scorecard - US Department of Energy Clean Cities www.afdc.energy.gov/ pev-readiness • Charging While You Work, A guide for expanding electric vehicle infrastructure at the workplace – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2012 http://www.energyinnovationcorridor.com/page/wp-content/ uploads/2011/01/charging-while-you-work-guide-8.5-11.pdf

• Plug-In America, www.pluginamerica.org/

• PEV Collaborative, www.evcollaborative.org/ • Project Get Ready from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), www.rmi.org/ project_get_ready • Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), www.epri.com/Pages/Default. aspx • Edison Electric Institute (EEI), www.eei.org/Pages/default.aspx • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), www.nfpa.org/index. asp?cookie_test=1 • National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC), www.naftc. wvu.edu/ • National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), www.necanet.org/

• 2013 Vehicle Buyers Guide - US Department of Energy Clean Cities http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/55873.pdf • PEV Collaborative Community Readiness Toolkit - PEV Collaborative 2012, http://www.pevcollaborative.org/sites/all/themes/pev/files/docs/ toolkit_final_website.pdf • A Guide to EV-Ready Communities – Ready, Set, Charge http://www. baclimate.org/impact/evguidelines.html

www.driveelectricohio.org

Drive Electric Ohio | Resources

530 West Spring Street, Suite 250 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 884-7336 cynthia@cleanfuelsohio.org www.driveelectricohio.org

Electric vehicle Readiness Plan For ohio

Supplemental Section: Model Ordinance and Policy Templates

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

DISCLAIMERS This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0005554. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. The Model Ordinance and Policy Templates are designed to provide general guidance to be tailored specifically to needs of a given jurisdiction. Interpretation or adoption of any policy recommendations shall be done in accordance with the guidance of a jurisdictionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corporation counsel or city/county attorney, to ensure that recommendations conform with other municipal codes and policies and meet the goals of the jurisdiction. The adopting jurisdiction will be responsible for ensuring that any recommendations adopted in whole or in part shall meet all other code requirements, even if not specified or referred to herein, to reflect the procedures of the jurisdiction. Adoption or other use of these recommendations will require monitoring of related policies and updates as needed to reflect advancements of related codes and findings of other standard-setting organizations or federal policies, including but not limited to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Electric Code, or any other organizations with jurisdiction over codes and standards who may be developing guidelines to address EVs. Excerpts of existing codes or standards are not included in this guide, to ensure that this resource is not made obsolete by future updates to referenced codes as well as to facilitate incorporation by communities that have not adopted the latest version of a code or standard. When adopting policy recommendations, jurisdictions may wish to specify any federal or state codes or other references that dictate the standards for EVSE installation, as well as other municipal regulations that apply, for ease of reference.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Acknowledgements and Disclaimers

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Contents CODES AND POLICIES SUPPORTING ELECTRIC VEHICLES.................................................................................................................................................1

GENERAL APPROACHES TO USING THE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................2

DESIGNING A SPECIFIC STRATEGY: A MENU OF OPTIONS FOR CUSTOMIZING EV POLICIES...............................2

MODEL PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROVISIONS................................................................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE........................................................................................................................................................................................4

MODEL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS................................................................................................................................................................................4

CALIBRATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................................................................9

MODEL ZONING CODE PROVISIONS.........................................................................................................................................................................................................11

USE REGULATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions..............................................................................................................................................12

Calibration of Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................12

PARKING REGULATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................12

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions..............................................................................................................................................12

Calibration of Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................14

MODEL RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDARDS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................15

SIGNAGE REGULATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions..............................................................................................................................................15

Calibration of Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................16

DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ON-STREET ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS..........................................................17

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions...............................................................................................................................................17

Calibration of Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................18

MODEL BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................19

MODEL ORDINANCE AND POLICY PROVISIONS..................................................................................................................................................19

CALIBRATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................................................................20

HANDOUTS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21

EV RESIDENTIAL READINESS CHECKLIST...................................................................................................................................................................22

EV PERMIT APPLICATION AND INSPECTION PROCESS..................................................................................................................................24

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Contents

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Codes and Policies Supporting Electric Vehicles

Introduction Regardless of where they currently stand in terms of electric vehicle (EV) adoption levels, local jurisdictions throughout Ohio will benefit from engaging EV preparedness on multiple levels. Plug-in electric vehicles are no longer a concept of the future. They are currently available as real options to consumers across the country, well beyond the cities and metropolitan areas that have been considered established leaders in the planning and implementation processes. The impulses that are contributing to the growth of EV adoption, including the strong national desire to reduce reliance on foreign oil consumption, will continue to energize the movement away from fossil fuels and toward hybrid and all-electric vehicles. The templates offered in this section provide a tool kit for Ohio municipalities seeking to prepare for this ongoing transition. This is an excellent time to establish clear policies, or to evaluate and revise existing strategies to remove obstacles to Ohio residents choosing EVs. Even those jurisdictions that aren’t ready to specifically encourage EVs can benefit from the ordinance and policy templates in this document, which are designed to not only provide specific recommendations but also serve as guidance to remove real or perceived barriers to existing policies. Whether a municipality considers itself an EV champion with an existing EV infrastructure network and strong momentum to expand, or more of an observer watching to see how EV adoption and readiness strategies evolve in similar communities, the following recommendations will provide the tools to get a community where it wants to go for EV preparedness and policy. Just as no two municipalities will have exactly the same goals, there is no one right path to to EV readiness. This document is structured to tailor a customized path based on the goals and preferences of a local jurisdiction and its stakeholders. The preferred strategies will be selected from a broad menu of options that reflects the spectrum of policy and implementation choices. Complementary strategies are also included to guide local jurisdictions with their decision-making processes and with

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Codes and Policies Supporting Electric Vehicles

tracking increases in EV adoption. This document is also designed to allow local jurisdictions to revisit their strategies and facilitate establishing a more aggressive policy strategy as EVs gain further momentum and as local adoption increases. Overview of the Templates This chapter contains model ordinance language and policy templates addressing the following four topics: • Permitting and inspection processes, including procedural recommendations as well as a residential readiness checklist for potential EV owners, to prepare consumers for the required interaction with their jurisdictions. • Zoning provisions addressing two topics: use and parking standards. Also mentioned in this section are issues that may arise within covenants for homeowner associations and condominium boards that regulate beyond municipal ordinances. • Right-of-Way provisions addressing two topics: signage and design standards. • Building Codes, addressing opportunities to integrate EV readiness into local building codes.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has launched a new tool to help local and regional leaders assess the readiness of their communities for the arrival of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). Available online at DOE’s Alternative Fuels Data Center (“https://www.afdc.energy.gov/pev-readiness” www. afdc.energy.gov/pev-readiness), the PEV Scorecard walks users through a variety of PEV readiness topics, including permitting and inspection processes for charging equipment installations, incentives and promotions, education and outreach, coordination with utilities, likely PEV adoption rates, and long-range infrastructure planning. 1

These topics are presented in order of anticipated priority for implementation. Residential inquiries for electrical permits for residential charging equipment will likely serve as the first indicator a municipality will receive for increased interest in EVSE installation. Therefore reviewing and updating permitting and inspection processes to ensure that the procedure is clear, and to enable permit tracking will generally take the highest priority. A jurisdiction may then wish to use zoning, right-of-way, and building standards as guidance, with formal amendment upon increasing EV adoption rates that signal demand for implementation.

Selecting an Approach

General Approaches to Using the Recommendations

• Other municipalities demonstrating commitment or whose residents and other stakeholders are expressing interest or meeting other factors determined in the market study component of this report. Examples would include high existing rates of hybrid vehicle adoption, presence of employers or institutions with EVs in their fleets, and average local vehicle miles traveled of less than 50 miles a day.

A Tool for Evaluation: Ensuring EV Infrastructure is Allowed (removing any existing barriers) During the first steps in the readiness process, a municipality may conduct an informal policy audit using these recommendations to determine whether any current policies impede EV implementation and should be targeted for revision. Input from a broad section of stakeholders, ideally serving as an ongoing, advisory EV Task Force, will be useful during this process to ensure that any policy or code revisions will appropriately reflect and support the community’s goals. At a minimum, it is recommended that all Ohio jurisdictions use the ordinance and policy templates to evaluate their existing policies. Population centers, jurisdictions with known EV registrations or infrastructure installations, and other municipalities with interest in facilitating EV adoption should then move beyond this step and begin the process of integrating appropriate provisions within their regulations as guidance or code. Policy Guidance: Facilitating EV Infrastructure As an interim step while EV adoption rates increase, a jurisdiction may apply the ordinance and policy templates as general guidance as situations arise. Initially, a jurisdiction may use the recommendations as guidelines for implementation while EV adoption increases; in particular, a jurisdiction may apply select recommendations as design guidelines or as special requirements for projects seeking public funds. Then, after the recommendations have been tested locally as guidelines, the municipality can consider formally adopting or codifying key provisions. It is recommended that all Ohio jurisdictions interested in facilitating EV readiness, and any Ohio jurisdiction that has received interest or inquiries about EVs, use these ordinance and policy templates as guidance, at a minimum, and consider taking the next steps of formally adopting key provisions. Adopting Policy Provisions: Actively Encouraging EV Infrastructure Municipalities with momentum or strong interest in EV infrastructure planning are likely to benefit from formal adoption of the ordinance and policy templates. For any provisions that are adopted or codified, conformance would be required upon substantial redevelopment, use changes, or in accordance with other triggers as determined by the community’s codes/ordinances. It is recommended that all Ohio jurisdictions interested in actively encouraging EV readiness, and any Ohio jurisdiction that has received interest or inquiries about EVs, should focus on adopting the ordinance and policy templates in whole or in part, calibrated to the approach which supports the goals of the jurisdiction.

Generally, it is recommended that the following jurisdictions be considered priorities for actively encouraging EV implementation; they should take an assertive approach for policy and code revisions. • Cities that are already actively planning for EV implementation such as Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Akron, and Bowling Green; • Jurisdictions along interstate corridors that are anticipated to be midpoint recharging opportunities between population centers; and

A jurisdiction need not choose a single approach and feel compelled to stick to the track initially deemed appropriate. An increased local adoption rate taking place over the coming months and years will be a factor in determining when and how aggressively a jurisdiction should act;. A municipality with limited EV interest or readiness plans in place today may transition to an EV champion tomorrow. Jurisdictions should anticipate ongoing evaluation and amendment of EV planning strategies as needed to reflect market realities over time;. In the meantime, the Model Ordinance and Policy Templates will help local jurisdictions plan for these next steps. Designing a Specific Strategy: A Menu of Options for Customizing EV Policies Recognizing that EV policies and strategies are not one-size-fits-all, the recommendations included within the model ordinance and policy templates are designed to provide a menu of options to be tailored to the specific needs of a given municipality. Each topic should be considered for use separately, and each recommendation should be calibrated separately, as not all provisions will apply to all municipalities. For example, the recommended zoning provisions include two sections: 1) Use Regulations, and 2) Parking Regulations. A jurisdiction may determine that Use Regulations are not applicable if existing code interpretation permits Level 1 and 2 charging stations as of right and there is no anticipated need to incorporate requirements for higher levels of charging infrastructure. That same jurisdiction may see a need for adopting provisions that address Parking Regulations. In this instance, the jurisdiction can adopt the specific provisions in the Parking Regulations section, in whole or in part, to allow, facilitate, or actively encourage specific provisions, depending on the goals of the jurisdiction. The following components are included for each topic in the four model ordinance and policy templates below: Background and Rationale This section provides a brief explanation of why the topic is important and identifies the contexts for which the recommendations will be most useful.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions This section includes the actual policy and code provisions to be considered for adoption by the jurisdictions and addresses related considerations as appropriate. Italicized text is provided for clarification purposes and/or indicates placeholder text to be customized to the jurisdiction. In the Permitting and Inspection Process policy template, this section is called “Model Procedural Provisions” since its focus is on establishing a streamlined process rather than a specific policy or ordinance. Calibration of Recommendations The recommendations are organized to assist a jurisdiction with customizing the provisions framed out in the Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions. Different “lanes” are identified to guide a local jurisdiction with the policy revision process and ensure that the choices made will meet the goals of the jurisdiction. Recommendations are organized and designated with the use of graphic symbols for ease of reference; the calibration is described as follows: Slow Lane: Recommendations included in this track ensure that policies and practices supporting EV implementation are ALLOWED. This minimum level of recommendation allows local jurisdictions to identify real or perceived barriers to EV adoption and serves as a tool to remove them. Although this may be considered the “slow lane” of EV readiness, it represents getting on the road, therefore resulting in progress. It is appropriate for local jurisdictions that envision themselves as followers in terms of EV planning, who are cautious about readiness preparations but recognize the need to plan for the eventual local adoption of the technology.

Fast Lane: This track ensures that policies and practices supporting EV implementation are actively ENCOURAGED. It includes the most aggressive recommendations appropriate for the levels of EV adoption currently underway in Ohio, and it can be considered the most assertive for setting the stage for widespread adoption. The Fast Lane is appropriate for local jurisdictions that envision themselves as current or future champions or leaders of EV implementation. All Lanes: Other symbols included in the recommendations will reflect choices appropriate for multiple lanes. For example, the adjacent symbol indicates that a policy decision is appropriate for all municipalities, regardless of how aggressively they wish to plan for or encourage EV readiness. The recommendations are calibrated with sufficient flexibility to take a more aggressive approach to policy changes determined to be immediate priorities, while allowing a “lighter touch” for lower priorities. For example, a municipality with strong momentum that is eager to be an EV leader may choose the Fast Lane for permitting and zoning purposes, but the Middle Lane or even Slow Lane for Building Codes if it does not foresee a need to exceed existing standards.

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE ALLOW

Middle Lane: Recommendations included in this track ensure that policies and practices supporting EV implementation are FACILITATED. It builds on the policy guidance of Slow Lane and moves beyond it by promoting the advancement of EV technologies. The Middle Lane is appropriate for local jurisdictions that envision themselves as fast or aggressive followers in terms of EV readiness and planning.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Codes and Policies Supporting Electric Vehicles

ENCOURAGE

Definitions In the sections addressing model ordinances and policy provisions, all terms that refer to a specific definition are defined in the Appendix. Municipalities adopting recommendations as either guidance or code should consider including applicable definitions within the sections adopted.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions

Background and Rationale Given the degree to which early adopters will rely on charging equipment at home, establishment of a clear and straightforward municipal permitting process for home chargers ought to be a high priority focus for municipalities. Recommendations in this section are intended to assist a municipality with reviewing and enhancing its existing permitting process as applicable to EV charging stations. They are also designed to assist municipalities with effectively informing the public of the requirements and setting their expectations for the process. Model Procedural Provisions The Model Procedural Provisions, which include the Residential Readiness Checklist for Potential EV Owners and the Permit Application and Inspection Process, form a two-pronged approach to informing potential EV owners about their options for charging and the impact of these choices on the local approval process, while clarifying the overall procedure for the jurisdiction itself. Used together, these provisions will create a tool that facilitates the process from the perspective of both the EV owner and local permitting and inspection bodies. It is recommended that these provisions are developed simultaneously and made readily available on a jurisdictionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website, both on the page of the department with jurisdiction over the review process as well as via intuitive keyword searches. Step 1. Residential Readiness Checklist for Potential EV Owners The Residential Readiness Checklist for Potential EV Owners is intended to serve as a resource to inform a potential electric vehicle buyer of typical preparations that will facilitate coordination with the appropriate municipality and power company. This checklist focuses on considerations to guide informed decisions about an EV purchase and evaluation of personal charging needs, while laying the groundwork on appropriate expectations regarding municipal and utility requirements.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions

Ideally, this Readiness Checklist will be publicized and available to consumers before the electric vehicle is purchased. Outreach to auto dealerships by municipalities or regional planning organizations may be an opportunity to proactively clarify expectations and requirements for charging equipment in a residence, which can benefit both the jurisdiction and the dealership by enhancing the expertise of the sales force.

Level 1: A Viable Alternative to Home Charging Stations Level 1 charging remains an important and viable option for EV owners who plan to charge overnight at home, a strategy that should be strongly considered especially for single-family homeowners who will be parking in garage spaces that are already wired. A dedicated standard AC circuit within the garageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing electrical service may be determined to be appropriate for use for regular Level 1 charging. A Level 1 charging cord set is typically provided with the purchase of an EV, so the EV owner would not need to purchase additional charging equipment, and there would be minimal effect to the electrical service of the surrounding neighborhood due to the slower power draw, especially during off-peak usage times.

Figure 1: Residential Readiness Checklist

Interested in buying an EV? Gather Info; Obtain Resources Evaluate Your Home No EVSE Installation; Charge with Level 1

Check Codes & Other Requirements Appointment with Contractor

Yes

Service Sufficient?

Level 1

Assess Charging Needs Level 2

Contractor Recommends Scope of Work Optional: As Needed to Meet Power Requirements Service Upgrade Required?

Yes

No Contractor Provides Quote

Appointment with Utility Provider

Assess Service Upgrade Requirements

Consumer Approval

Yes Responsibility Homeowner Contractor

Confirm Permit Application Process Purchase EV & EVSE

Utility Provider

Move on to Step 2: Permit Process

www.driveelectricohio.org

Step 2: Permit Application and Inspection Process The Permit Application and Inspection Process builds off the preparatory steps completed by the prospective EV owner in Step 1, outlining the recommended permitting and inspection procedures themselves. This resource is designed to assist municipalities as they evaluate their existing procedures, identify opportunities for efficiencies, and tailor the procedures as needed in accordance with the goals and staffing capacity of the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions should tailor the model template to include their own contact information, website links, utility information, timeframes, and costs. Once established, the process should be publicized to inform the public of the procedures and requirements.

Considerations for Home Owners’ Associations and Multi-Family Residential If your home is part of a home owners’ association (HOA), condominium association, or other residential agreement, you will need to consider whether your charging accommodations will require coordination with or approval from management of your residence. Or, if you are involved with management and enforcement of private residential covenants, you may need to evaluate your organization’s requirements or your property’s configuration to determine how best to address EV charging. In both situations, the considerations can assist with decision-making to address this new technology, if a current or prospective resident is interested in home charging for an electric vehicle, or proactively to address future demand. Conflicts between existing agreements and the recommendations mentioned below may create obstacles to the consumer choice of purchasing an EV, so any overly or inadvertently restrictive policies should be evaluated for potential revision or waiver. Check your covenants or residential agreements to see whether the following points are addressed: • Charging within a private, dedicated garage should be permitted by right. Any improvements would be the responsibility of the homeowner. • Charging within a shared garage or parking lot should be accommodated by designating a space for the EV charging station close to existing electrical service to reduce infrastructure costs. -- Usage agreements should designate whether the managing organization or the EV owner would own any charging equipment installed at the site; raceway and panel upgrades would be retained at the site. -- Costs such as panel or service upgrades, separate metering, and installation may be shared to reflect the long-term investment in the amenity and short-term use by the interested EV owner, or as otherwise negotiated between managing organization and the resident. • Requirements that restrict parking in side yards, driveways, or public drives are likely appropriate to remain without revision; charging infrastructure in such locations is less preferable than designated parking areas. Carefully evaluate all governing provisions, particularly those addressing parking and use of electrical equipment, and check with your building management or governing board to ensure that your plan for EV charging will not conflict with covenants or other agreements. With collaboration and advance planning, there should be opportunity to accommodate the EV pioneer in any residential context.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions

Figure 2: Recommended Permit and Inspection Process

Complete Step 1: Readiness Checklist

Readiness Checklist Complete?

Yes Submit Permit Application

Amend Application

Deny

Permit Evaluation & Decision Approve Service Upgrade Required ???

Optional: As Needed to Meet Power Requirements Yes

Utility Appointment per Service Upgrade

No EVSE Installation

Fail

Inspection

Panel Upgrade & EVSE Installation

Pass Use EVSE Responsibility Homeowner Contractor Utility Provider Local Jurisdiction

www.driveelectricohio.org

Related Considerations Types of Permits Jurisdictions should review requests for residential or non-residential EVSE installations through their existing standard electrical permit process. Permitting would be required for all installations of Level 2 and, in non-residential situations, DC Fast Chargers, as well as for Level 1 charging only when service must be extended to an unwired garage. Complex projects involving a scope of work beyond that of a single or stand-alone electrical permit would be handled in a broader construction/development review. For communities that differentiate types of electrical permits based on level of work required, the following permit scenarios would apply: Minor/Limited Electrical Permit A minor or limited electrical permit would allow the installation of a single outlet in a garage with existing adequate service and the connection of a charging station into that outlet, and it would typically involve a single inspection visit. In most cases, the permit would be obtained by a State-licensed, locally registered electrical contractor, in coordination with occupying owners of a dwelling, although some jurisdictions may allow the owners to apply and perform the work themselves. Full Electrical Permit A full permit allows partial and full upgrades to a home’s electrical service. This could include improvements to accommodate extra power used by the charger, to add or improve service to a garage, or to install a charger on a separate meter if requested by the utility or home owner. Enhancing the Permit Application and Improving Data Collection Enhancements to a jurisdiction’s permit application will facilitate the review process through a more complete application, and enable a municipality to track local interest and adoption and to plan effectively for community-wide readiness as EV usage increases. Enhancements to the Electrical Permit Application In addition to standard information required on a typical electrical permit application, several items are recommended for the permit application form or as an attachment to the application. At a minimum, a check box should be included on permit applications indicating whether the application involves installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, spelling out the term in text rather than abbreviating. A brief worksheet may be developed as a separate attachment instead of adding the list of items to the electrical permit application itself. A local jurisdiction may also choose to include the Residential Readiness Checklist as a cover page to the worksheet. Item for addition to existing permit applications: • Does the scope of work include installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment; if yes, also complete EVSE worksheet and submit with this application (yes/no check boxes, added below description/scope of work or similar item) Items for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment worksheet: • Type of Supply Equipment: Level 1, Level 2, DC Fast Charger (as check boxes) • Manufacturer and model number

• For publicly available charging stations, provide information on the station’s geographic location • EV charging station will be located indoors/outdoors (as check boxes) • Is an upgrade to existing service required? (yes/no check boxes) • Name of electricity provider • Date utility notified of work completed (Include if utilities request the information to track approvals) • Date of installation; date of activation (for completion by Inspector) Additional Opportunities for Data Collection Data captured from electrical permits will provide a good start to understanding local EV adoption rates. However, municipalities should consider additional opportunities to track usage patterns because Level 1 home charging will not trigger an electrical permit, thereby excluding information on EVs relying on Level 1 usage from the data collection process. Methods for encouraging all EV owners to report basic information about their vehicles or charging needs will improve the local jurisdiction’s ability to plan for community-wide readiness. Providing nominal perks to residents in exchange for basic reporting on EV usage is a common strategy for benefitting the EV user as well as the local jurisdiction. Allowing free parking for plug-in electric vehicles at municipal parking facilities, including garages, lots, and on-street parking spaces, is a low-cost benefit involving a simple application process, with monitoring via a window sticker to qualifying vehicles. Specifically, the benefit should be extended to “plug-in electric vehicles” to ensure that all EVs are included, even those with gasoline-powered range-extending technology. This incentive attracts participation by new EV adopters as well as owners of converted vehicles, the latter of whom are less likely to rely on Level 2 charging or public infrastructure but are important in the broader context of EV usage. Partnering with utility companies to raffle a Level 2 charging station for home use may be another option for enhancing data collection. This strategy is particularly effective when, in exchange for the charging station, the winner is required to grant permission for the utility and municipality to collect and analyze charging data, in addition to data on the vehicle and building type in which the EVSE is installed. Establishing a Review and Approval Timeframe In addition to recommending a clear review and inspection procedure for home EV chargers, this process provides a framework for implementing a 48-hour approval process, in keeping with current expectations nationwide for expediting the approval process. Even those municipalities that are able to process electric permits within this timeframe under their current procedures and workloads are encouraged to set an anticipated turn-around time and emphasize the quick review and approval process for EVSE installation. This will assure residents that, should they choose to purchase an EV, they will be able to charge their vehicles and get on the road quickly. Permit expediting is recommended for municipalities with longer review processes, in accordance with a jurisdiction’s capacity, as well as its permitting and planning requirements. Recommendations are provided for streamlining the process, in keeping with national precedents.

• Building type: single-family home/townhome, condo, apartment, mixed-use, commercial, industrial, civic/public (list appropriate building types, as check boxes) Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions

Calibration of Recommendations The permitting and inspection process should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options.

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

All Lanes: Allowing/Facilitating/ Encouraging EV Infrastructure The following recommendations apply to all local jurisdictions. The goal is for communities to evaluate existing policies and establish tools that will guide all EV readiness activities. FACILITATE

ENCOURAGE

Establish an advisory Task Force comprised of members of the local municipal and/or ALLOW county permitting and ALLOW inspection team; electrical contractors; utility providers; EV dealerships; regional entities, businesses, or non-profits seeking to advance EV implementation; and other identified stakeholders. Input from the Task Force will be useful for the following activities: -- Consider all the partners and steps required within the community and ensure that all interests are represented on the Task Force. -- Review and test the existing permitting and inspection process that would apply to electrical permits for EVSE. -- Establish how a municipality would handle straightforward as well as complicated requests, such as permits for complementary technologies such as a solar canopy powering the EVSE. -- Determine potential barriers to implementation and use recommendations as a tool to facilitate the permitting and inspection process. -- Refer also to the recommendation for an advisory Task Force in the Model Building Code Provisions, which is proposed to address related concerns. • Enhance information sharing about permitting and inspection procedures, regardless of whether the process is revised, for both municipal/inter-departmental and customer service purposes. Strategically promote the established procedures through the local jurisdiction’s website and other avenues deemed appropriate.

experience is demonstrated such as completion of pertinent courses/training and subsequent successful installation of charging stations.

ENCOURAGE

-- Eliminating plan review (as applicable, if required by current practice); train inspectors on EVSE technology and allow them to grant permits on-the-spot.

FACILITATE

-- Issuing permits instantly to licensed, certified electricians over-the-counter or, if available, online.

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE stations and adopt accordingly.

FACILITATE ALLOW submittal to inspection.

Slow Lane: Allow EV Implementation Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above. Clarify the permitting and inspection process to ensure that it is appropriate for EV charging

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

Middle Lane: Facilitate EV Implementation Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above. Streamline the permitting and inspection process with the goal of meeting a 48-hour review and approval timeframe, from application

FACILITATE

ALLOW

Fast Lane: Encourage EV Implementation Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above. Streamline and expedite the permitting and inspection process, prioritizing EVSE permit application processing and inspection scheduling, with the goal of meeting a 48-hour or faster review and approval timeframe, from application submittal to inspection. Consider incentives such as waiving permit and inspection fees for installation of residential EVSE.

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

ALLOW

• Train inspectors on specialized procedures as adoption increases, in accordance with the capacity of the local jurisdiction. Considerations may include: -- Establishing an electric vehicle division; a specialized division can assist when permit volumes increase, to meet goals for processing times. -- Designating specialists within the inspection department, to meet the anticipated permit volumes. • Explore alternative options to facilitate the process as permitting for EV technology becomes more commonplace, such as the following: -- Requiring inspection for a designated sample of charging stations installed by an electrical contractor, after sufficient

www.driveelectricohio.org

Key Resources and References • Advanced Energy, Community Planning Guide for Plug-In Electric Vehicles, 2011. • A lternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center, Permit for Charging Equipment Installation, Dec. 2011. • Friends of the Earth, A Survey of Bay Area Permitting Procedures for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Feb. 2010. • Puget Sound Regional Council, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State, July 2010. • City of Columbus, OH, Residential EV Charging Station Permitting, 2012. • City of Raleigh, NC, EVSE Installation Process for Single-Family Homes, 2011. • National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 70: National Electric Code (NEC). 2007.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Model Zoning Code Provisions

Two separate topics are addressed in the recommended model zoning code provisions: Use Regulations and Parking Regulations.

supplementary language is italicized and may be appropriate for inclusion in parking lot standards or design guidelines.

It is anticipated that, for code purposes, many jurisdictions will address new EVSE for private use in accordance with the established process for permitting new wiring to support a first-time installation of a major appliance such as an electric stove or dryer. This would require an electrical permit but otherwise be allowed as of right for zoning purposes. In this instance, only the provisions addressing publicly accessible infrastructure need be considered for incorporation into codes. Parking Regulations will become more important for a jurisdiction to address as EV adoption increases. However, Accessible Parking Requirements will apply to most non-residential settings and Design Requirements are strongly recommended for use as guidelines. Further, the Parking Regulations section includes additional guidance typically not appropriate for formal incorporation into a zoning code; this

Use Regulations Typically, Level 1 and Level 2 chargers used in a private residence are allowed in zoning codes as of right by many municipalities. However, zoning codes may need to be revised to address more intensive uses such as DC Fast Charging and other uses supporting EV infrastructure, such as battery exchange stations. Specifying EV uses in zoning codes explicitly allows particular types of EV-related uses in designated districts either as a primary or accessory use. Municipalities should consider use issues within the context of their zoning codes, but it may be appropriate to wait to adopt provisions until EV adoption advances to the point that there are inquiries about DC Fast Charging, battery exchange stations, or similar services to the department with jurisdiction over electrical permits.

Table 2: Accessory Uses EV Use

General Zoning Classification Residential: Low/Med Density

Residential: Med/High Density

Mixed-Use; Neighborhood Retail

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Public/Civic

Level 1 or 2 Charging Stations

DC Fast Charging

Battery C P Exchange Facility (or similar) P = Permitted as of right; subject to compliance of all other municipal regulations C = Conditional or Special Use; subject to additional review or restriction (as determined by municipality) - = Not permitted Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Zoning Code Provisions

The recommendations use general zoning designations to establish continuity among jurisdictions. These general terms must be tailored to match the specific districts adopted by the municipality. Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions Primary Uses Any electric vehicle charging station, battery exchange facility, or similar facility serving as a primary land use shall meet the requirements of an auto service station per the requirements of this code. Add “Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Battery Exchange Facilities” to appropriate Use category, if needed. Accessory Uses Any electric vehicle charging station, battery exchange facility, or similar facility serving as an accessory use shall be permitted as follows (see Table 2 above): Related Considerations • Jurisdictions whose codes permit Level 1 and Level 2 charging stations for private or residential uses as of right do not need to adopt provisions for these technologies, provided they do not function as a primary land use. • EV chargers in low-density residential districts are allowed only for private ownership and use; publicly shared charging stations may be installed as an amenity, similar to car-share spaces, in all other districts.

ENCOURAGE

Calibration of Recommendations Zoning provisions addressing use regulations should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

ALLOW

FACILITATE

Slow Lane: Allow EV Implementation If Levels 1 and 2 are allowed as Accessory Uses in all zoning districts as of right, no amendment suggested; otherwise, adopt Accessory Use provisions addressing Levels 1 and 2.

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

Middle Lane: Facilitate EV Implementation Adopt all applicable Accessory Use provisions.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

Fast Lane: Encourage EV Implementation Adopt all applicable Primary and Accessory Use regulations.

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE ALLOW

Parking Regulations As EV adoption increases, municipalities will benefit from guidance and, over time, adopting regulatory language to establish parking regulations that address EV charging stations. In keeping with the current trend for providing this amenity, clear guidelines will also assist business owners who are considering installing charging stations as a service to their customers and employees, . This section addresses parking lot configurations, including recommended layout and location of spaces, signage, and other features. Although directional signage is standardized in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, federally adopted regulatory signs addressing electric vehicles have not been established. Recommended regulatory signage adapted from existing federal standards is provided (refer to Right-of-Way standards within for signage examples). The provisions recommended within the zoning code are specific to application within a private site. Consideration of requirements for EV charging station design under the Americans with Disabilities Act is needed, as there are currently no federally mandated requirements guiding compliance for parking spaces incorporating EVSE under the ADA. However, the State of California has developed standards that interpret general guidance of the ADA provisions to EV charging stations, which several states have adopted. The recommendations provided herein also follow this existing policy precedent, and additional guidance for preferred site layout is included in EV Charging for Persons with Disabilities (Sustainable Transportation Strategies, 2012). Further, parking facilities accessible for persons with disabilities shall be in compliance with or better than the most recent standards of the accessibility provisions of the Ohio Building Code, including number, dimensions, location, and related features. For the near-term, until EV ownership and use become more commonplace locally, these provisions will be useful to municipalities as guidance rather than mandatory regulations that are adopted into codes. These model parking regulations are designed to apply to both new construction and retrofits. Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions Ratio / Minimum Requirements No minimum number of EV charging stations is required for new construction or redevelopment. Any parking space accommodating an EV charging station shall meet all requirements applying generally to parking spaces, per other provisions of the Zoning Code, including but not limited to side yards, setbacks, and driveways, as applicable by zoning district. The first of any EV parking spaces shall be accessible in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act; refer to Accessible Parking Requirements below for information on required ratios and design. Considerations for Calculation of Parking Ratio Parking spaces dedicated for EV charging shall be included in the calculation for minimum required parking spaces that are required pursuant to other provisions of code. Additional Guidance: Existing policy precedents currently in place allow an EV charging station to be included in the calculation for minimum

www.driveelectricohio.org

Future Considerations: As adoption levels increase, determine ratio of parking spaces to be EV-ready for multi-family residential, commercial, or specific uses such as office, hotel, or municipal uses. The ratio should be determined in keeping with experiences of other communities with established code provisions, although the ratio will depend on market conditions and demand specific to a municipality or region. Current practice amongst EV leaders in the U.S. is for the market to guide the provision of EVSE and EV-ready parking spaces, and it is recommended that this practice continue until such time that EV adoption rates are significant enough to warrant mandating infrastructure planning in every development. required parking spaces, since the primary function of the parking space is for parking, rather than charging. If anticipated demand for the charging station is expected to be limited in the near term, a jurisdiction may choose to either exclude a charging station from the minimum required parking spaces or allow parking, rather than specifically charging, at a space served by EVSE associated with new construction. However, for retrofitted parking lots, installation of a charging station should be permitted in existing spaces, although restriping to add spaces is encouraged for parking facilities that experience significant parking demand during regular business hours.

Additional Guidance: Directional signage may otherwise be required by the Zoning Administrator for large development sites or Planned Developments. Directional signage conforming with the standards included herein may be installed at the discretion of the property owner. b. Location and Visibility Location of parking spaces designed for EVSE access shall meet all applicable requirements of this code, including required setbacks, yards, and other provisions as required by zoning district. Additional Guidance: EVSE may be sited at any location within a parking facility. Spaces need not be prioritized adjacent to the destination unless required to facilitate electrical service. Instead, consideration should be given to the physical security and visibility of the charging station. c. Pedestrian Access i. The use of bollards or curbs to protect the equipment should not unduly restrict access to the EVSE or create clutter.

Additional Guidance: Integration of the EVSE into design features that can physically protect the equipment is recommended. Refer to Figure 3 for an option to protect the EVSE installed adjacent to a curbed landscape island.

Figure 3: Recommended Parking Lot Configuration1

ii. For locations where a charging station is planned for installation adjacent or within a public or private pedestrian route, EVSE shall be sited to provide as much pedestrian clearance as is feasible. Refer also to Accessible Parking Requirements below where a charging station is planned adjacent to a designated accessible route.

For municipalities with codes that establish a maximum number of parking spaces for a specific use, this clause may be revised as needed to reflect related code provisions. Design Requirements All parking spaces accommodating EVSE shall include the following design features: a. Signage

i. Regulatory Signage Each space accommodating EVSE shall be designated with signage specifying that the space is for electric vehicle parking only while charging. Any time limits and tow-away provisions should be clearly designated on the signage.

Note: refer to recommended Right-of-Way Standards for regulatory and informational signage examples that conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Supplementary pavement markings shall indicate â&#x20AC;&#x153;Electric Vehicle Onlyâ&#x20AC;? for standard, non-accessible charging stations; lower edge of the last word should align with the bottom of the stall striping to be visible beneath a parked vehicle.

e. Shelter Any structures designed to shelter the EVSE shall be in accordance with Additional Guidance: Refer to Figure 1 for illustration of accessory use provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable provisions recommended locations for signage and pavement markings. of the prevailing Building Code.

ii. Directional Signage for Site Orientation For parking lots with charging stations sited in more than one location or area within the parking lot, directional signage shall be installed at each parking lot entrance and at appropriate decision points to effectively guide motorists to the charging station. 1

d. Lighting Adequate site lighting shall exist per (refer to Lighting provisions in existing code), unless EVSE is at a location accessible during daytime hours only.

Identification and Information Requirements Appropriate identification shall be listed on the EVSE, including vendor, voltage, amperage levels, fees, safety information, and customer service contact information.

Adapted from Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for British Columbia.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Zoning Code Provisions

Accessible Parking Requirements Where electric vehicle charging stations are provided for public use, accessible parking spaces with EVSE shall be provided as follows. Refer to Figure 4 for a sample configuration. a. Ratio Accessible electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided in the ratios shown in Table 3 (below). The first EV parking space shall be designed to accommodate van access. Although the charging station must meet accessible design standards, the parking space is not for exclusive use by persons with disabilities.

1-50

ii. Standard accessible spaces may also include an informational sign which reads “Additional Accessible Parking Available at Electric Vehicle Charging Station”.

ENCOURAGE

Required ADA-accessible charging stations

FACILITATE

ENCOURAGE

each additional increment of 50 1 additional ADA-accessible EVSE EVSE Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State, July 2010. Figure 4: Sample Configuration: Accessible EV Charging Station

FACILITATE

Slow Lane: Allow EV Implementation Adopt Section B5, Accessible Parking Requirements within existing parking provisions. Adopt all remaining provisions as guidance.

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

ALLOW

Fast Lane: Encourage EV Implementation Adopt all provisions. Where design requirements to screen or buffer auto uses are already established, jurisdictions should extend applicable requirements to chargers that are installed outdoors, such as to buffer sidewalks or property lines. Adopt italicized Additional Guidance provisions into applicable existing guidelines or standards for the jurisdiction.

ENCOURAGE

Accessible charging stations shall be located as close to the destination entrance as feasible. For charging stations in indoor garages, or in retrofits of existing parking facilities, the accessible charging station need not be sited immediately adjacent to the destination or to other accessible parking spaces, due to the interpretation of the accessible space served by EVSE as a charging facility rather than a parking facility.

FACILITATE

Middle Lane: Facilitate EV Implementation Adopt all provisions. Where design requirements to screen parking areas are already established, jurisdictions should extend applicable requirements to chargers that are installed outdoors, such as to buffer sidewalks or property lines.

ALLOW

b. Dimensions Accessible parking spaces shall measure a minimum of 9’ wide by 18’ deep (or as otherwise established per the existing code; include appropriate reference). One in every eight accessible charging stations thereafter, including the first EV parking space provided, shall be van-accessible and include an eight-foot access aisle; additional charging stations shall be accessible with a five-foot aisle.

ENCOURAGE

Calibration of Recommendations Zoning provisions addressing parking regulations should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options.

ALLOW

Table 3: Ratio of EVSE to ADA Spaces Number of charging stations provided

FACILITATE

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

Key Resources and References • American Planning Association, Zoning Practice: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, July 2010.

ALLOW

• County of Sonoma, General Services Department, EV Charging Station Program and Installation Guidelines, July 2011 • Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for British Columbia, July 2009. • Puget Sound Regional Council, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State, July 2010.

• State of California, Department of General Services, Division of the c. Usage and Signage State Architect, California Access Compliance Policy 97-03, Interim i. Accessible EV charging stations are not reserved exclusively Disabled Access Guidelines for Electrical Vehicle Charging, June 5, 1997. for the use of disabled persons and shall not include signage • Sustainable Transportation Strategies, EV Charging for Persons with as required for an accessible parking space. Where more than Disabilities, Feb. 2012. one charging station is provided, an informational sign shall be posted which reads, “Parking for EV (Charging) Only; This • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, December 2009 version, Space Designed for Disabled Access; Use Last.” with revisions May 2012.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Model Right-of-Way Standards

As charging stations for public use become more readily available, municipalities will benefit from guidance and, over time, adopting regulatory language to establish standards for design features to be installed within the public right-of-way. This section addresses directional signage to guide drivers to the EV charging station, regulatory signage examples, and design guidance for on-street charging stations. Signage Regulations Standard regulatory signs will be needed to provide information on designating parking spaces for EV charging and for establishing time limits. Although federal standards do not currently address regulatory signage for EV charging and parking, the recommended regulatory signs are adapted from existing federal standards. Regulatory signs provided herein are appropriate for charging stations both within the public way as well as in private parking facilities.

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions 1.

Regulatory Signage

Designation of Parking Spaces as EV Charging Stations Each space served with EVSE shall be designated with signage specifying that the space is for electric vehicle parking only while charging.

b. Provisions Any time limits and tow-away provisions should be clearly designated on the signage.

Anticipated demand should be determined for communities or businesses installing regulatory signage, and time limits should reflect anticipated peak charging demand time to reduce perception of â&#x20AC;&#x153;wasted space.â&#x20AC;? Initially, a space may not have time limits established until the host of the charging station can determine the demand for charging. As long as electrical access is not compromised, dedicated EV spaces can be located in non-prime areas of the parking lot (i.e., further from the entrance) which may reduce incidents of conventional vehicles parking in EV spaces. Directional signage sited within the right-of-way will serve as wayfinding devices to assist drivers with locating EV charging stations. Directional signage examples addressing electric vehicles are included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; however, the recommended signage is an approved alternative that has been adopted in several states due to its clarity beyond the federal example.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Right-of-Way Standards

Directional Signage

Directional signage shall be installed at the discretion of the Department of Transportation, City Engineer, or other appropriate authority to guide drivers from major thoroughfares to publicly available charging stations. A directional arrow shall be provided when used at decision points such as highway exits, intersections, or parking lot entrances. Additional Considerations: Directional signage is recommended for installation at strategic locations within the public way to guide drivers to charging stations. Strategic locations for directional signage placement may include downtowns, highway exits, or corridors adjacent to large parking facilities with EV charging stations, such as shopping malls. Local agencies with jurisdiction over transportation planning may wish to develop a comprehensive strategy for siting and financing EV signage in partnership with owners/operators of charging stations. Note: Although the MUTCD includes a text-based sign to designate charging stations (MUTCD, FHWA Sign D9-11bP), the graphic sign designated is recommended for enhanced legibility and uniformity for directional signage within both highway and low-speed contexts, as well as for informational signage identifying a parking space designated for EV charging only. Additionally, the alternate D9-11b sign is recommended over the standard version because it emphasizes the plug, further differentiating it from other types of fuel that are based on the standard pump symbol, particularly the E85 symbol (D9-11c). The alternate version may be adopted by a State or local jurisdiction in accordance with the Conditions of Interim Approval; several states including Washington, Oregon, and Michigan have been approved to use the sign at the State and local level.

Informational Signage

Standardized informational signage shall be used to designate a specific parking space as a charging station, using FHWA D9-11b (alternate) as shown in figures below.

ENCOURAGE

Calibration of Recommendations Right-of-way standards addressing signage should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options.

FACILITATE

Slow Lane: Allow EV Implementation Statewide recommendation: Ohio Department of Transportation should apply to adopt the alternate D9-11b sign, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Conditions of Interim Approval. Alternatively, jurisdictions would need to apply individually for local use.

ALLOW

Local recommendation: Adopt all provisions as guidance, following designated Slow Lane options in italics. Include italicized “Additional Considerations” text only as appropriate for clarification. Apply to adopt the alternate D9-11b sign, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Conditions of Interim Approval, if ODOT is not pursuing statewide adoption.

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE ALLOW

Figure 52: EV-Only Parking

ENCOURAGE

Figure 63: Sample time limit sign

ENCOURAGE

Middle Lane: Facilitate EV Implementation Adopt all provisions as guidance, following designated Middle Lane options in italics. Include italicized

FACILITATE

ALLOW

Figure 74: EV Fueling Location

Adapted from MUTCD Sign R8-3a for guidance only, pending MUTCD-approved standards. Appropriate for siting within public right-of-way or private parking facility. Adapted from MUTCD Sign R7-108 for guidance only, pending MUTCD-approved standards. Appropriate for siting within public right-of-way or private parking facility. FHWA D9-11b (alternate), U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. May be used as informational signage or with directional arrow; sample arrow M6-1 shown. 3

www.driveelectricohio.org

“Additional Considerations” text only as appropriate for clarification. Apply to adopt the alternate D9-11b sign, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Conditions of Interim Approval, if ODOT is not pursuing statewide adoption. Fast Lane: Encourage EV Implementation Adopt all provisions as guidance, following designated Fast Lane options in italics. Include italicized “Additional Considerations” text only as appropriate for clarification. Apply to adopt the alternate D9-11b sign, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Conditions of Interim Approval, if ODOT is not pursuing statewide adoption.

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

Design Standards for On-Street Electric Vehicle Charging Stations For jurisdictions anticipating electric vehicle charging station installations as an amenity for on-street parking spaces or otherwise within the public right-of-way, the standards included herein will be useful to guide signage and design criteria for on-street charging stations. These standards may be integrated within a municipality’s street and sidewalk regulations or other standards as appropriate for the given jurisdiction.

ALLOW

Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions On-street electric vehicle charging stations shall incorporate the following features:

c. Multiple Spaces on a Block Multiple charging stations provided along a single block face shall be installed to serve adjacent spaces.

Equipment EVSE sited within the right-of-way shall include a cord of an appropriate length to accommodate connectors on all sides of a vehicle. The equipment serving the charging station shall include a retractable cord or shall accommodate storage of the cord off the sidewalk or surface upon which the EVSE is installed. No cords or other EVSE equipment installed on a private site shall be permitted to cross or otherwise obstruct the public right-of-way.

Considerations: Siting a charging station at the beginning or end of a block facilitates ramp access at crosswalks, increases visibility of identification signage, and benefits from street lighting at a corner. However, siting EVSE within the public way may depend on the location of the electrical service; therefore, location of an on-street charging station may be more appropriate elsewhere to reduce the distance from the power source. In such cases, attention should be given to ensure that accessibility requirements are met and that signage and lighting are enhanced.

6. Signage Individual spaces shall be designated with regulatory and informational signage in accordance with the Signage provisions outlined above.

1. Dimensions An electric vehicle charging station may be accommodated in a standard parking space. 7. Identification and Information Requirements Appropriate identification shall be listed on the EVSE, including 2. Clearance vendor, voltage, amperage levels, fees, safety information, and EVSE shall be installed or otherwise mounted as close to the customer service contact information. curb as feasible to facilitate pedestrian clearance of 36 inches or greater, while maintaining a minimum of 24 inches from the Figure 8: On-Street EV Charging Station5 face of the curb. 3.

Accessibility EVSE installed on a sidewalk or otherwise adjacent to an on-street parking space shall not conflict with the provisions of the Ohio Accessibility Code.

Location Where feasible, the first or last parking space along a block face shall be priority locations for an electric vehicle charging station serving an on-street parking space. The EVSE shall be installed near the front of a parking space.

a. Parallel Parking For one-way streets with parallel parking configurations, a charging station shall be sited on the side of the street adjacent to the passenger side of the vehicle, where feasible.

b. Angled or Perpendicular Parking For angled or perpendicular parking configurations, wheel stops shall be installed to provide additional protection for the charging equipment. Signage shall specify whether back-in parking is permitted.

Adapted from Puget Sound Regional Council, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Right-of-Way Standards

ENCOURAGE

Calibration of Recommendations Right-of-way standards addressing on-street charging stations should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE ALLOW

FACILITATE

Slow Lane: Allow EV Implementation Adopt all provisions as guidance.

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE Middle and Fast Lanes: Facilitate/ Encourage EV Implementation Adopt all provisions within right-of-way or other applicable development standards.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

Key Resources and References • City of Davis, California, Municipal Code Section 22.16.080 Electric Vehicles: Violations/Penalties. • Puget Sound Regional Council, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State, July 2010. • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, December 2009 version, with revisions May 2012 • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Memorandum: MUTCD – Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Alternative Electric Vehicle Charging General Service Symbol Sign, April 2011. • Sustainable Transportation Technologies, Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, April 2011.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Model Building Code Provisions

The purpose of the Model Building Code Provisions is to ensure that codes addressing new construction and renovation support the operation of plug-in electric vehicles. Any code issues and recommended revisions to national or state codes should be evaluated and proposed by an advisory Task Force of licensed electrical contractors, municipal/county inspectors, and other safety professionals. Model Ordinance and Policy Provisions Option A. Provide Capacity for Electric Vehicle Charging 1.

Option B. Provide Wiring for Electric Vehicle Charging 1.

Residential Uses For new single- and two-family homes with dedicated garage parking, install wiring from the service panel to the garage and provide appropriate receptacle to accommodate electric vehicle charging equipment.

For new multi-family homes with a common parking area, install wiring from the service panel to the parking area and provide appropriate receptacles to accommodate electric vehicle charging equipment for a minimum of 2% of parking spaces.

Residential Uses For new single- and two-family homes with dedicated garage 2. Non-Residential Uses parking, provide electrical capacity with appropriate conduit For new non-residential construction, install wiring from the from the service panel to the garage. service panel to the garage and provide appropriate receptacles to accommodate electric vehicle charging For new multi-family construction with a common parking equipment for a minimum of 2% of parking spaces. For each area, including mixed-use with residential as a component, space with electrical service, provide the following: provide electrical capacity with appropriate conduit from the service panel to the parking area, appropriate for future • One 120V 20 amp and one 208/240V 40 amp grounded AC outlet installation accommodating a minimum of 2% of parking OR spaces. • Panel capacity and conduit to accommodate a minimum of Level 2 2.

Non-Residential Uses For new non-residential construction, provide electrical capacity with appropriate conduit from the service panel to 3. the garage, appropriate for serving a minimum of 2% of parking spaces. For each space with electrical service, provide the following: • One 120V 20 amp and one 208/240V 40 amp grounded AC outlet OR • Panel capacity and conduit to accommodate a minimum of Level 2 charging, to facilitate future installation of charging stations.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Model Building Code Provisions

charging, to facilitate future installation of charging stations.

Related Considerations Installation of the EV charger must comply with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), Article 625, Electric Vehicle Charging System (and/or applicable electrical code adopted and enforced by the jurisdiction). The most recent version of the NEC is the 2011 Edition; this version and past editions may be found at www.nfpa.org/70. The next edition of the NEC will be released in 2014 and is anticipated to address discrepancies

that have arisen due to advancement of technology, such as ventilation requirements that may not apply to new vehicles.

Contractors should be referred directly to the applicable edition of the NFPA for the requirements for installing charging stations. Municipalities should ensure that any related codes/requirements specific to their jurisdictions are easily available to contractors/homeowners. Additional resources available through the NFPA include the Electric Vehicle Emergency Guide (2012) and emergency responder training.

Calibration of Recommendations Building codes and standards should be calibrated to reflect the goals of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the following options. All Lanes: Allowing/Facilitating/ Encouraging EV Infrastructure An advisory Task Force involving local, regional, and state entities is recommended to evaluate applicable codes from the perspectives of electrical contractors and FACILITATE inspectors and consider FACILITATE whether revision of codes at the State level is appropriate. Given that the 2008 version of the NEC is still in general use in ALLOW Ohio,ALLOW the State should ensure that applicable provisions from the 2011 version (and, upon release, the 2014 version) are considered for special adoption within State codes. See also the recommendation for an advisory Task Force in the Model Permitting and Inspection Provisions, which is proposed to address related concerns.

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

Fast Lane: Encouraging EV Implementation Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above; adopt Option A (Provide Capacity for Electric Vehicle Charging) as a requirement for all new construction and substantial redevelopment. Apply the provisions in Option B (Provide Wiring for Electric Vehicle Charging) as guidance for new development as appropriate; for example, a local jurisdiction may wish to require developers to meet these requirements for projects relying on public funding.

ENCOURAGE

FACILITATE

Key Resources and References ALLOW

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

ALLOW

• Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for British Columbia, July 2009. • State of California, California Building Code, Section 406.7 (Electric Vehicle), 2010. • State of California, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), 2010. • USGBC, LEED 2009 for New Construction and Renovations Rating System, 2009.

ENCOURAGE FACILITATE

Slow Lane: Allowing EV Infrastructure Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above. Ensure that building codes do not restrict the provisions outlined within Option A (Provide Capacity for Electric Vehicle Charging), above.

ALLOW

ENCOURAGE

Middle Lane: Facilitating EV Implementation Follow recommendations for All Lanes, above. Follow Option A (Provide Capacity for Electric Vehicle Charging) as guidance for all new construction and substantial redevelopment. Apply the provisions in Option A as guidance for new development as appropriate; for example, a local jurisdiction may wish to require developers to meet these requirements for projects relying on public funding.

FACILITATE

ALLOW

FACILITATE

ALLOW

www.driveelectricohio.org

Sample Handouts

The following flyers have been provided for use by municipalities. Editable InDesign files can be obtained from Clean Fuels Ohio (please e-mail cynthia@cleanfuelsohio.org). There are two handouts, one each addressing electrical requirements and permitting, and two versions of each are provided: a single-page version and a two-page version. While the basic content is the same, the versions with more text provide more detailed information.

Model Ordinance and Policy Templates | Sample Handouts

Title Here

Step 1 Residential Readiness Checklist for

Option11 Sample

1Single-Page Page Handouts

Potential EV Owners in (Anytown)

Are you thinking about buying a plug-in electric vehicle? Follow this readiness checklist, which will take you through important steps to prepare your home and facilitate coordination with the (Anytown) and (specify power company). This checklist is not an exhaustive list of considerations for your EV purchase, but it will complement your research on vehicles and charging infrastructure and help you understand any requirements for charging equipment in (Anytown). To help you get ready for your purchase and get your EV charging without delay, complete the steps outlined in this checklist before you buy your electric vehicle. 1. Gather information from a variety of resources including auto dealerships. Be sure to ask about the following: •• Specifics on charging requirements for the car, including manufacturer’s charging specifications, information to help you decide whether Level 1 or Level 2 charging is more appropriate for your situation •• Support for getting set up with home charging equipment, such as recommended siting of a home charger, assistance coordinating with your municipality. •• Recommendations for electrical contractors familiar with home chargers. •• Lead time between electric vehicle purchase to delivery. 2. Evaluate your home for compatibility with your charging needs, giving attention to the following considerations: •• Where will charging take place? Does your parking area already have electrical service or will you need to expand your service? Based on your research, do you expect your home to accommodate the charging level you are considering? •• Do you have a private garage or parking space? If you have shared parking, consider whether you will need a designated parking space close to existing electrical service. If you have a carport or unsheltered parking space, consider locations that will be best protected from the elements. •• When will charging occur? Consider whether you can time the charging to take place at night to ease loads on power grid and possibly pay lower rates. Check your the electric utility website for resources addressing EV chargers.

3. Check your home’s zoning designation and any applicable requirements to ensure that anticipated improvements do not conflict with the provisions of the zoning code or any other requirement. •• Potential restrictions may include where you are allowed to park and, therefore, charge. For example, you may find it convenient to install a charger outside your garage, but zoning or requirements of a home owners’ association (HOA) may not permit the associated parking space in a driveway or side yard. •• Consider whether you will need approval from an HOA, condo board, or building manager to install a charging station, or even to charge at home using a Level 1 cord set. If so, investigate this process right away, to confirm whether you are permitted to charge. 4. Contact a licensed electrician to evaluate your electrical service and recommend a scope of work if needed. •• Confirm whether Level 1 or Level 2 will be most appropriate for your electrical capacity and vehicle charging needs. •• Determine whether service upgrades are required for your preferred charging configuration, and whether/when you need to request a service upgrade assessment from your the electric utility. •• Request an estimate for any work required 5. Contact the (Anytown) Permit Department to confirm the permit application process and timing: •• Verify whether there are any other considerations or coordination required. 6. You are ready to purchase an electric vehicle and charging station equipment. Once this checklist is complete (you have addressed any anticipated issues and understand your municipal and utility requirements and timeframes) you can charge forward with your EV purchase and coordinate the installation of your charging station (including any required electrical upgrades). You are ready to move on to Step 2, the Permit Application and Inspection Process for (Anytown).

www.driveelectricohio.org

Title Here

Step 2 Permit Application and Inspection

Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment in (Anytown)

Thinking about buying an electric vehicle? The (name of jurisdiction and applicable department) has prepared this resource to inform residents about the permitting and inspection process required when planning for installation of a Level 2 charging station. Before you get started, make sure that you have completed the preliminary planning process outlined in Step 1, the Residential Readiness Checklist for Potential EV Owners in (Anytown) (provide link). Remember, not all charging equipment requires a permit or electrical upgrade; be sure to evaluate your anticipated charging needs and your existing home electricity service, to determine whether

Level 1 or Level 2 charging is most appropriate for you and whether your home will need improvements for your charging needs. The following steps are required for permitting and inspection involving a Level 2 charging station. The homeowner is responsible for coordinating with the contractor, the electric utility, and local jurisdiction; close coordination will reduce the likelihood of delays.

Typical Cost Estimates Low Estimate

Typical Estimate

High Estimate

Permit/Inspection Fee

$50

Varies

$200

Level 2 Home Charging Equipment

$750

$1,500

$4,000

Complexity of equipment and special options; programmable Level 2 home chargers are readily available for under $1,500.

Installation

$300

$1,200

$3,500

Presence of existing, sufficient wiring vs. running service to an unwired parking space and/or panel upgrades.

$1,000

Varies

$10,000

Complexity of existing service, age of home and existing wiring, etc.

Expense

Service Upgrade (optional; as needed)

1. Contractor/Homeowner: Prepare and submit electrical permit application, including: •• Completed application, available at (provide link and/ or department with jurisdiction). •• (Specify equipment specs, plan set, or other requirements) 2. (Name of jurisdiction and applicable department): Review and decision on permit application. Decision will be to approve, deny, or request modification of permit. •• Approvals move forward to next step; set time for inspection, if no service upgrade required. •• Denials or modifications require re-submittal and review.

Cause for Variance Fees vary by jurisdiction; some differentiate between limited and full scopes. Additional fees may apply for re-inspecting installations that fail initial inspections.

3. The electric utility and contractor: Coordinate power interruption for service/panel upgrade, if required; set time for inspection if not previously scheduled. 4. Contractor: Install charging station. 5. (Name of jurisdiction and applicable department): Conduct inspection; schedule a follow-up inspection if needed. 6. EV Owner: Initiate use of charging station per manufacturer’s instructions.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Title Here

Step 1 Residential Readiness Checklist for

Option 2 2-Page Handouts

Potential EV Owners in (Anytown)

Are you thinking about buying a plug-in electric vehicle?

Follow this readiness checklist, which will take you through important steps to prepare your home and facilitate coordination with the (Anytown) and (specify power company). This checklist is not an exhaustive list of considerations for your EV purchase, but it will complement your research on vehicles and charging infrastructure and help you understand any requirements for charging equipment in (Anytown). To help you get ready for your purchase and get your EV charging without delay, complete the steps outlined in this checklist before you buy your electric vehicle.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Title Here

Step 1 - Residential Readiness Checklist 1. Gather information and obtain resources from a variety of resources including auto dealerships. Be sure to ask about the following: •• Specifics on charging requirements for the car, including manufacturer’s charging specifications, information to help you decide whether Level 1 or Level 2 charging is more appropriate for your situation •• Support for getting set up with home charging equipment, such as recommended siting of a home charger, assistance coordinating with your municipality, or even complementary installation of a Level 2 charger. •• Recommendations for electrical contractors familiar with home chargers. •• Lead time between electric vehicle purchase to delivery. 2. Evaluate your home for compatibility with your charging needs, giving attention to the following considerations: •• Where will charging take place? Does your parking area already have electrical service or will you need to expand your service? Based on your research, do you expect your home to accommodate the charging level you are considering? •• Do you have a private garage or parking space? If you have shared parking, consider whether you will need a designated parking space close to existing electrical service. If you have a carport or unsheltered parking space, consider locations that will be best protected from the elements. •• When will charging occur? Consider whether you can time the charging to take place at night to ease loads on power grid and pay lower rates. Check your the electric utility website for resources addressing EV chargers.

3. Check your home’s zoning designation and any applicable requirements to ensure that anticipated improvements do not conflict with the provisions of the zoning code or any other requirement. •• Potential restrictions may include where you are allowed to park and, therefore, charge; for example, you may find it convenient to install a charger outside your garage, but zoning or requirements of a home owners’ association (HOA) may not permit the associated parking space in a driveway or side yard. •• Consider whether you will need approval from an HOA, condo board, or building manager to install a charging station, or even to charge at home using a Level 1 cord set. If so, investigate this process right away, to confirm whether you are permitted to charge. 4. Contact a licensed electrician to evaluate your electrical service and recommend a scope of work if needed. •• Confirm whether Level 1 or Level 2 will be most appropriate for your electrical capacity and vehicle charging needs. •• Determine whether service upgrades are required for your preferred charging configuration, and whether/when you need to request a service upgrade assessment from your the electric utility. •• Request an estimate for any work required 5. Contact the (Anytown) Permit Department to confirm the permit application process and timing: •• Verify whether there are any other considerations or coordination required. 6. You are ready to purchase an electric vehicle and charging station equipment.

Once this checklist is complete (you have addressed any anticipated issues and understand your municipal and utility requirements and timeframes) you can charge forward with your EV purchase and coordinate the installation of your charging station (including any required electrical upgrades). You are ready to move on to Step 2, the Permit Application and Inspection Process for (Anytown).

www.driveelectricohio.org

Title Here

Step 2 Permit Application and Inspection

Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment in (Anytown)

Are you thinking about buying a plug-in electric vehicle?

The (name of jurisdiction and applicable department) has prepared this resource to inform residents about the permitting and inspection process required when planning for installation of a Level 2 charging station. Before you get started, make sure that you have completed the preliminary planning process outlined in Step 1, the Residential Readiness Checklist for Potential EV Owners in (Anytown) (provide link). Remember, not all charging equipment requires a permit or electrical upgrade. Be sure to evaluate your anticipated charging needs and your existing home electricity service, to determine whether Level 1 or Level 2 charging is most appropriate for you and whether your home will need improvements for your charging needs. The permitting and inspection process involving in installing a Level 2 electric vehicle home charging station are outlined in Step 2. The homeowner is responsible for coordinating with the contractor, the electric utility, and local jurisdiction. Close coordination will reduce the likelihood of delays.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Title Here

Step 2 - Permit Application and Inspection Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment in (Anytown) Typical Cost Estimates Low Estimate

Typical Estimate

High Estimate

Permit/Inspection Fee

$50

Varies

$200

Level 2 Home Charging Equipment

$750

$1,500

$4,000

Complexity of equipment and special options; programmable Level 2 home chargers are readily available for under $1,500.

Installation

$300

$1,200

$3,500

Presence of existing, sufficient wiring vs. running service to an unwired parking space and/or panel upgrades.

$1,000

Varies

$10,000

Complexity of existing service, age of home and existing wiring, etc.

Expense

Service Upgrade (optional; as needed)

Cause for Variance Fees vary by jurisdiction; some differentiate between limited and full scopes. Additional fees may apply for re-inspecting installations that fail initial inspections.

www.driveelectricohio.org

530 West Spring Street, Suite 250 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 884-7336 cynthia@cleanfuelsohio.org www.driveelectricohio.org

Electric vehicle Readiness Plan For ohio

Appendix

www.driveelectricohio.org

Drive Electric Ohio | Acknowledgements and Disclaimers

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Contents REGIONAL ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................................................................................................................................1

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT...............................................................................................................................................................................................1

PER CAPITA INCOME......................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

EMPLOYMENT.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

CONSUMER SPENDING.................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

VEHICLE SALES..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE............................................................................................................................................................................................................4

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP IN OHIO.............................................................................................................................................................................................5

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

POPULATION INDICATORS.......................................................................................................................................................................................................10

CAR BUYING HABITS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

HYBRID AND EV OWNERSHIP FORECAST.................................................................................................................................................................15

LOCATION AND COMMUTE PATTERNS OF LIKELY EV OWNERS.................................................................................................................................19

EARLY ADOPTER AND EARLY MAJORITY CHARACTERISTICS IN STUDY AREA MSAS.................................................20

TOP EMPLOYERS AND COMMUTING PATTERNS.................................................................................................................................................21

EARLY ADOPTER CONCENTRATIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................26

WORKPLACE CHARGING DEMAND..................................................................................................................................................................................28

PUBLIC CHARGING STATIONS...............................................................................................................................................................................................30

STATE TAX REVENUE..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37

FUEL TAX REVENUE .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................37

REPORTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER Communica: Consumer Research – Alternative Fuel Technologies, Initial Topline Summary Report Governing Dymanic: Ohio Survey of Local Governments The Ohio State University: Deployment of Public Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Stations in Mid-Ohio Region The University of Akron: PEV Demand Study and Charging Station Location Identification – A methodology study tested in the Greater Akron-Cleveland Area Studies by Sustainable Transportation Strategies

EV Charging for People with Disabilities

Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Drive Electric Ohio | Contents

Site Design for EV Charging Stations

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Regional Economic Perspective

AECOM analyzed the current data reflecting the ongoing recovery from the 2008/2009 Recession. The study considered data reflecting national economic conditions as expressed by (1) the condition of financial institutions, (2) consumer borrowing, (3) home prices, (4) employment, and (5) retail spending, and then focused on metrics specific to Ohio. AECOM analyzed economic metrics to determine how Ohio and the study areas have performed and recovered since the recession began in 2007. Regional gross domestic product, wages, employment and consumer spending provide context for the economic security and purchasing strength of consumers.

• Ohio GDP grew at 3.4 percent going into the recession. Since 2007 Ohio GDP has grown at 0.6 percent • Cleveland MSA grew at 3.3 percent going into the recession. Since the recession annual GDP growth has been 0.6 percent • Columbus MSA grew at 3.8 percent going into the recession. Since the recession annual GDP growth has been 1.6 percent • Ohio GDP shrank from 2008 to 2009 but in 2010 recovered to above pre-recession levels at $477 billion • Cleveland MSA GDP growth declined from 2008 into 2009 but recovered above pre-recession levels to $105 billion in 2010

Key Findings about Ohio’s economy include:

• Columbus MSA GDP growth slowed in the recession but it did not decline

• The Columbus MSA’s gross domestic product grew at a faster rate than that of Ohio.

Figure 1: Gross Domestic Product by MSA ($ Millions) $500,000

$105,000

$480,000

• Ohio lost significant employment during the recession, losing 387,500 jobs from 2006 to 2010 or 8 percent of total employment. Columbus fared better losing 38,000 jobs from 2007 to 2010 or 4 percent of total employment. Cleveland has been shedding jobs since 2001, losing 126,000 jobs through 2010, 11 percent of total employment.

$100,000

$460,000

$95,000

$440,000

$90,000

$420,000

$85,000

$400,000

$80,000

$380,000

$75,000

$360,000

$70,000

$340,000

$65,000

$320,000

• Nationwide, and in Ohio, consumers are saving more of their income than they did in 2000. Gross Domestic Product Gross domestic product (GDP) for Ohio and the MSAs grew over the last decade. Utilizing data provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the analysis shows growth into the recession and then the impact of the recession on GDP.

Drive Electric Ohio | Regional Economic Perspective

(MSA GDP)

$110,000

$60,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cleveland

Columbus

(State GDP)

• Unemployment peaked at 9.6 percent in Q1 2010 before falling below 8 percent by July 2011.

$300,000

Ohio

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Per Capita Income The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) annually compares per capita income. The following chart shows per capita income growth into the recession and how it has declined and then recovered from the recession.

• Going into the recession, the per capita income nationally was growing at an annual rate of 3.7 percent, but since 2007 the rate has been 0.4 percent. • Pre-recession income growth in Ohio was 3 percent, and postrecession growth is 0.9 percent. • In Cleveland, pre-recession income growth from 2000-2007 was 3 percent. Since the recession growth has been 1.1 percent. • Incomes in Columbus were growing at 2.6 percent pre-recession, while post-recession growth has been 0.6 percent.

Unemployment Unemployment following the onset of the recession in 2007 has been a significant problem across the nation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides monthly unemployment rates. The following chart shows historic unemployment rates and the recession’s impact on metro region unemployment rates since 2006, prior to the majority of job losses occurring during the recession. • Both the Cleveland and Columbus MSA unemployment has followed the statewide trends • Unemployment peaked in January and February of 2010

Figure 2: Per Capita Income

-- 11.6 percent for Ohio in January 2010

$43,000

-- 10.2 percent for Cleveland MSA in February 2010

$41,000

-- 9.6 percent for Columbus MSA in January 2010

$39,000

• Unemployment rates have continued to fall since their peak, with the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs performing better than the state and national averages.

$37,000 $35,000 $33,000 $31,000

Figure 4: Unemployment Rates

$29,000 $27,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ohio

Cleveland MSA

Columbus MSA

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Employment Employment is crucial to determining the economic vitality of a State or local economy. The following analysis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) examines how employment has changed since 2001. The impact of the recession was significant for Ohio employment. • Employment in Ohio and the study area MSAs declined from 2001 to 2010. -- Ohio employment declined by 500,000

Figure 3: Ohio & MSA Employment (thousands) 4,700

MSA Employment

4,400

950

4,300 4,200 4,100

State Employment

4,500

1,000

800

2006

2007

2008 Ohio

2009 Cleveland

2010

2011

2012

Columbus

• Income after taxes in the Midwest peaked at $59,793 in 2008 and has since declined to $56,918 in 2010, a reduction of 4.8%

4,600

850

• The Midwest annual expenditures increased through 2007 but have decreased following the recession’s start

4,800

900

Consumer Spending The Consumer Expenditure Survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides context for Midwest and national consumer spending and the impact of the recession. The following chart compares the average annual expenditures versus the income after taxes. The key trends are:

• While the past ten years resulted in decreased employment, from 2010 to 2011 both MSAs and Ohio experienced growth in employment.

1,050

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

-- Columbus MSA employment declined by 16,000

1,100

-- The Cleveland MSA saw the greatest decline in employment share, losing 126,000 jobs

1,150

Unemployment Rate (%)

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May

$25,000

• The gap between how much consumers are spending and income after taxes has been widening both regionally and nationally, indicating greater rates of saving

4,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cleveland

Columbus

3,900

Ohio

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 5: Consumer Income and Annual Expenditures $65,000 $60,000 $55,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Avg. Annual Expenditures

Income After Taxes

National Expenditures

National Income

2010

Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey

The following calculation was used to determine total spending on gasoline in Ohio by individual owners and private fleet vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks). Table 1: Total Gas Spending in Ohio, Private and Commercial Autos Total

Private and Commercial Automobiles*

11,788,000

6,427,000

11,300

133,209,000,000

72,621,000,000

5,792,000,000

3,157,000,000

Average price per gallon of gas, Ohio 2012

$3.61

Total spending on gasoline

$20,908,000,000

$11,398,000,000

Ohio vehicle registrations, 2011 Average miles per year, U.S. autos Total miles Average miles per gallon, U.S. autos Total gallons

* Includes commercial vehicles, excludes publicly owned vehicles Sources: Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy

Drive Electric Ohio | Regional Economic Perspective

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Vehicle Sales

National Perspective Data obtained through Wardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Automotive for national vehicle sales highlights the small share held by alternative fuel vehicles in the total U.S. vehicle market. In 2011, 12.7 million cars and trucks were sold. Of those, 271,000 (2.1 percent) were hybrids and 9,754 (0.1 percent) were EVs. Annual vehicle sales have been declining in the U.S. since 2000 when 17.3 million vehicles were sold. Sales had declined annually by one percent from 2000 through 2007 but the recession saw an annual decline of 20 percent from 2007 through 2009. In 2009, sales volume hit bottom at 10.4 million vehicles sold. Sales in 2011 recovered to 12.7 million vehicles sold. Figure 6: Annual U.S. Vehicle Sales 20,000,000

The 2011 sales volume of electric vehicles is not necessarily an indication of weakness in this segment as 2011 represents the first year that EVs made a push onto the scene with 9,754 units sold. These vehicles are targeted at a similar consumer segment as hybrid vehicles. The following chart looks at the combined sales volume of hybrids and EVs and indicates a small uptick in sales occurring in 2011. Figure 7: Annual Hybrid & EV Sales Volume 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

18,000,000

100,000

16,000,000

50,000

14,000,000 12,000,000

10,000,000 8,000,000

Hybrid + EV

Source: Ward's Automotive

6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 -

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Source: Ward's Automotive

The figure below shows hybrid penetration for the car and truck market as opposed to sales volume. This figure illustrates the minimal share which these markets have had since 2000 but also how, until the recession, they were growing rapidly.

Annual Sales

The adoption of hybrid vehicles has been touted as a leading indicator for EV demand forecasting. 2000 was the first year of sales in a measureable volume for hybrids with 9,350 vehicles sold. Until the recession the segment was growing rapidly by 68 percent annually from 2000 through 2007 to 352,862 vehicles. Sales volume has declined each year following 2007 to the 2011 sales volume of 270,859. As a share of total sales hybrids represented 3.7 percent in 2007, grew to 4.4 percent in 2009, and declined to 4.1 percent for 2010 and 2011.

Figure 8: Hybrid & EV Penetration 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Drive Electric Ohio | Vehicle Sales

Source: Ward's Automotive

Car

Truck

Vehicle Ownership in Ohio Polk is an automotive data firm which aggregates vehicle ownership for the state of Ohio and provides a snapshot of specific dates for ownership totals. The data from Polk allowed AECOM to examine the localized penetration rates for various vehicle types, specifically hybrids, to be able to more accurately forecast local adoption of EVs. Ownership data is calculated at the county level by fuel type and vehicle segment. This section utilizes the definitions developed by Polk when referring to fuel and vehicle types. The fuel types focused on are gas, gas/electric (hybrids), and electric. These fuel types were then analyzed by vehicle segment. For the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs and the I-71 corridor, the variations at the county level are illustrated below. Statewide Trends The statewide analysis provides the backdrop for the local trends in vehicle ownership. In 2000, there were 9.25 million vehicles owned and in 2011, 10 million, for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.8 percent. Three of the 10 largest counties are part of the study area: Franklin County for the Columbus MSA, and Cuyahoga and Lorain counties for the Cleveland MSA.

CUYAHOGA

2011

CAGR

999,850

991,481

-0.1%

FRANKLIN

865,819

963,476

1.0%

HAMILTON

638,061

676,124

0.5%

MONTGOMERY

428,540

454,566

0.5%

SUMMIT

428,938

445,796

0.4%

LUCAS

356,018

355,118

0.0%

STARK

331,243

351,005

0.5%

BUTLER

255,403

307,306

1.7%

LORAIN

224,156

252,967

1.1%

216,310

220,933

0.2%

MAHONING Source: Polk

The breakdown in vehicle ownership statewide, by fuel type, can be found in the following table. In 2000, gasoline accounted for 97 percent; as other fuel types gained hold that share has decreased to 92 percent in 2011. Alternative fuels grew but still account for less than 1 percent, though flex fuel vehicles grew to 4.3 percent. Gas/electric vehicles, (i.e. hybrids) while growing from 171 vehicles in 2000 to 49,003 in 2011, only account for 0.5 percent of total vehicles in Ohio. Electric vehicles are new to the market and only limited vehicle models are available in Ohio, specifically the Volt and Leaf.

Gas

2000

2011

CAGR

8,948,833

9,291,013

0.3%

95,449

159,306

4.8%

297

11,702

39.7%

68,503

434,234

18.3%

171

49,003

67.3%

266

37.5%

137,891

131,584

-0.4%

9,251,152

10,077,108

0.8%

Diesel Alt Fuel Flex Gas/Electric Electric Unknown Total Source: Polk

For gas/electric vehicles in 2011, 67 percent were Basic Economy (car), 14 percent Upper Midsize (car), 9 percent sport utility, and 5 percent mini sport utility. Table 4: Gas/Electric Vehicles by Segment BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

Table 2: Ohio Counties with Largest Vehicle Ownership 2000

Table 3: Vehicles by Fuel Type

2000

2011

32,971

67%

UPPER MIDSIZE (CAR)

7,079

14%

SPORT UTILITY

4,625

MINI SPORT UTILITY

2,299

BASIC SPORTY (CAR)

655

FULLSIZE UTILITY

453

LOWER MIDSIZE (CAR)

451

MIDDLE LUXURY (CAR)

303

PRESTIGE LUXURY (CAR)

FULLSIZE PICKUP

171

49,003

UNKNOWN (CAR/TRUCK) TOTAL Source: Polk

When the vehicle type segments are broken down for electric vehicles, 242 (91 percent) are listed as low speed vehicles (golf carts and similar vehicles capable of speeds up to 25 mph). The remaining 24 electric vehicles which are not low speed vehicles are predominately roadsters, which are open two-seat cars such as the Tesla Roadster. The lack of vehicles of this type does not indicate a lack of demand necessarily, but is due in part to the fact that Ohio has not been a primary market of focus for auto manufacturers (whose primary efforts have been focused on the East and West coasts), and current EV models have not yet been released in any meaningful way to consumers in Ohio. In the coming years more EV models will be available for purchase in Ohio.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Table 5: Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

LOW SPEED VEHICLE

242

91%

ROADSTER (CAR)

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

COMPACT PICKUP

FULLSIZE VAN (CARGO)

266

MINIVAN (PASSENGER) Total Source: Polk

Vehicle Ownership in the Columbus MSA The Columbus MSA grew from 1.33 million cars owned in 2000 to 1.57 million cars owned in 2011, an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. Gasoline remains the dominant fuel type with 92.9 percent in 2011. The gas/ electric fuel type accounts for 0.7 percent with 10,416 total vehicles. Electric vehicles account for even less with 47 total vehicles. Table 6: Columbus MSA Vehicles by Fuel Type 2000 County

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Flex

Delaware

89,949

1,071

868

Fairfield

105,450

1,586

841

Franklin

841,466

7,369

7,071

Licking

123,178

1,813

859

Madison

30,090

593

209

Morrow

28,480

589

146

Pickaway

39,998

694

233

Union

37,765

598

273

1,296,376

14,313

10,500

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Flex

Total

Electric Gas/Electric

Unknown

Total

1,476

93,368

1,842

109,724

9,834

865,819

2,157

128,015

457

31,350

543

29,761

755

41,681

588

39,226

17,652

1,338,944

Electric Gas/Electric

Unknown

Total

2011 County Delaware

138,632

2,024

6,194

1,401

1,730

150,001

Fairfield

120,813

3,036

144

5,271

684

1,739

131,688

Franklin

903,605

7,887

899

36,427

6,762

7,862

963,476

Licking

143,837

3,541

167

6,508

736

2,216

157,008

Madison

32,168

1,083

1,786

145

520

35,754

Morrow

30,979

1,173

1,430

531

34,244

Pickaway

43,919

1,375

2,154

156

730

48,399

Union Total Source: Polk

45,604

1,315

1,873

448

609

49,881

1,459,557

21,434

1,417

61,643

10,416

15,937

1,570,451

In 2000, gas/electric vehicles were just entering the market in the Columbus MSA with only 37 vehicles. In 2011 gas/electric represents a growing segment with 10,416 vehicles, 68 percent of which are basic economy (car) and 14 percent which are upper midsize (car).

Drive Electric Ohio | Vehicle Sales

Table 7: Columbus MSA Gas/Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

7,047

UPPER MIDSIZE (CAR)

1,483

SPORT UTILITY

946

MINI SPORT UTILITY

443

BASIC SPORTY (CAR)

199

FULLSIZE UTILITY

114

LOWER MIDSIZE (CAR)

MIDDLE LUXURY (CAR)

PRESTIGE LUXURY (CAR)

FULLSIZE PICKUP

UNKNOWN (CAR/TRUCK) Source: Polk

Electric vehicles followed a similar trend to the state with the majority of the existing vehicles being low speed vehicles (golf carts), with three roadsters and one basic economy. Table 8: Columbus MSA Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

LOW SPEED VEHICLE

ROADSTER (CAR)

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

COMPACT PICKUP Source: Polk

Vehicle Ownership in the Cleveland MSA The Cleveland MSA grew from 1.62 million cars in 2000 to 1.69 million cars in 2011, an annual growth rate of 0.4 percent. The largest county in terms of vehicle ownership, Cuyahoga, actually decreased in total vehicle ownership from 999,850 vehicles in 2000, down to 991,481 in 2011. Even with this loss Cuyahoga represented 62 percent of total vehicles in 2000 and 59 percent in 2011. Gasoline vehicles represented 97 percent of vehicles in 2000 and 93 percent in 2011. The next largest fuel segment was flex fuel vehicles which grew from 0.9 percent of total vehicles in 2000 to 4.4 percent in 2011. Gas/electric vehicles represented 0.6 percent of total vehicles in 2011.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Table 9: Cleveland MSA Vehicles by Fuel Type 2000 County Cuyahoga

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Flex

977,269

4,035

8,187

Geauga

Electric Gas/Electric 21

Unknown

Total

10,289

999,850

71,746

941

739

1,265

74,699

187,899

1,165

1,610

2,457

193,147

Lorain

215,971

1,876

2,586

3,718

224,156

Medina

124,004

1,461

1,542

2,045

129,059

1,576,889

9,478

14,664

19,774

1,620,911

Electric Gas/Electric

Unknown

Total

Lake

Total

2011 County Cuyahoga Geauga

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Flex

928,679

5,080

1,271

40,435

6,225

9,775

991,481

78,302

1,721

102

6,210

676

1,563

88,577

Lake

191,148

1,824

228

8,848

866

3,053

205,972

Lorain

231,870

2,980

319

12,234

1,229

4,330

252,967

Medina Total Source: Polk

142,319

2,560

197

7,689

855

2,745

156,369

1,572,318

14,165

2,117

75,416

9,851

21,466

1,695,366

Gas/electric vehicles, which represent 0.6 percent of total vehicles in 2011, are predominately basic economy with 68 percent of gas/electric vehicles falling into this category. The next largest vehicle type is Upper Midsize with 15 percent of total share, followed by Sport Utility with 10 percent. Table 10: Cleveland MSA Gas/Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

6,515

UPPER MIDSIZE (CAR)

1,465

SPORT UTILITY

977

MINI SPORT UTILITY

518

BASIC SPORTY (CAR)

106

FULLSIZE UTILITY

LOWER MIDSIZE (CAR)

MIDDLE LUXURY (CAR)

PRESTIGE LUXURY (CAR)

FULLSIZE PICKUP

UNKNOWN (CAR/TRUCK) Source: Polk

Drive Electric Ohio | Vehicle Sales

As in Columbus, the majority of the Cleveland MSAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 33 electric vehicles are low speed vehicles with six being roadsters and one being basic economy in 2011. Table 11: Cleveland MSA Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

LOW SPEED VEHICLE

ROADSTER (CAR)

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

MINIVAN (PASSENGER) Source: Polk

Vehicle Ownership in the I-71 Corridor The I-71 corridor counties of Ashland, Richland, and Wayne grew at an annual rate of 0.8 percent from 246,051 cars in 2000 to 268,405 in 2011. Similar to the MSAs which it connects, gasoline remained the dominant fuel type but decreasing in total share from 97 percent to 91 percent. Flex fuels grew from one percent to five percent while gas/electric vehicles represented 0.3 percent.

Table 12: Corridor Vehicles by Fuel Type 2000 County

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Flex

Ashland

41,180

580

279

Electric Gas/Electric 0

Unknown

Total

707

42,748

Richland

107,300

1,062

631

1,802

110,797

Wayne

89,019

1,430

659

1,393

92,506

TOTAL

237,499

3,072

1,569

3,902

246,051

County

Gas

Diesel

Alt Fuel

Electric Gas/Electric

Unknown

Total

2011 Flex

Ashland

45,015

1,213

2,412

108

815

49,634

Richland

105,746

1,778

172

6,896

312

1,540

116,448

93,182

2,756

124

4,488

344

1,429

102,323

243,943

5,747

366

13,796

764

3,784

268,405

Wayne TOTAL Source: Polk

Gas/electric vehicles grew from three unknown vehicles types in 2000 to 764 vehicles in 2011, of which 531, or 70 percent, are basic economy cars. The next largest segment is upper midsize car which represents 11 percent of gas/electric vehicles. Table 13: Corridor Gas/Electric Vehicles by Segment 2000

2011

BASIC ECONOMY (CAR)

531

UPPER MIDSIZE (CAR)

SPORT UTILITY

MINI SPORT UTILITY

BASIC SPORTY (CAR)

LOWER MIDSIZE (CAR)

FULLSIZE UTILITY

MIDDLE LUXURY (CAR)

PRESTIGE LUXURY (CAR)

FULLSIZE PICKUP

UNKNOWN (CAR/TRUCK) Source: Polk

The corridor has five electric vehicles registered in 2011 with four being low speed vehicles and one being a roadster. Table 14: Corridor Electric Vehicles by Segment LOW SPEED VEHICLE ROADSTER (CAR) Source: Polk

2000

2011

www.driveelectricohio.org

Population Demographics

This study examined Census data identifying changes and trends in a variety of categories between 2000 and 2010. Key findings, discussed in detail in this section, include:

Table 15: Population Change United States

2000

2010

CAGR

281,421,906

308,745,538

0.9%

11,353,140

11,536,504

0.2%

• Between 2000 and 2010, Ohio’s population grew slower than the nation

Ohio

• Between 2000 and 2010 the Columbus MSA’s population grew faster than Ohio’s

Cleveland MSA

2,148,143

2,077,240

-0.3%

Cleveland

478,403

396,815

-1.9%

1,612,694

1,836,536

1.3%

711,470

787,033

1.0%

• 70 percent of housing stock in Columbus is single unit, attached or detached • 68.4 percent of housing stock in Cleveland is single unit, attached or detached • Columbus MSA median household income is higher than that of Ohio • Columbus has a significant share of population between 20-29, at 21.1 percent

Columbus MSA Columbus Source: U.S. Census

• Ohio’s population grew at 0.2 percent annually from 2000 to 2010, slower than the national growth rate of 0.9 percent, adding 183,000 residents

• The vast majority of commuters in the study areas travel less than 25 miles each way to get to work

• Cleveland had an annual population decline of 1.9 percent, approximately 17 percent of its total population over 10 years while the MSA lost 3 percent of its total population over the same period

• Education, healthcare and government are the largest regional employers

• The Columbus MSA grew annually at 1.3 percent while the City grew at 1 percent

• Spending on vehicles, new and used, is down compared to past years

Population projections were created by the Ohio Department of Development in 2005 which produced estimates at five year intervals at a county level for the State of Ohio and were based on the 2000 Census figures for population. While the projections do not match the actual 2010 Census figures they still provide a trend for growth in the region. The following chart shows the projections for the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs from 2000 to 2030.

Population Indicators The U.S. Census released the 2010 population figures for the nation, State, MSA and City. The following table shows the annual rates of population growth between 2000 and 2010.

• The Cleveland MSA is projected to maintain the current levels of population • The Columbus MSA is projected to grow by 100,000 every five years • The Columbus MSA population will overtake the Cleveland MSA by 2025

Drive Electric Ohio | Appendix

Figure 9: Ohio Population Projections

Figure 11: Vehicles Owned by Household

2,300,000

100%

2,200,000

90%

2,100,000

80%

2,000,000

70%

1,900,000

60%

1,800,000 1,700,000

50%

1,600,000

40%

1,500,000

30%

2000

2005

2010

Cleveland MSA

2015

2020

2025

2030

Columbus MSA

Source: Ohio Department of Development

20% 10% 0%

Households Households for the MSAs and their largest cities are shown in the chart below. • The City of Cleveland contains 20 percent of the MSA households • The City of Columbus contains 43 percent of the MSA households • Cleveland lost 1 percent of its households annually • The Columbus MSA grew annually at 1.2 percent while the City grew at 0.7 percent • Average HH size was 2.4 in the Cleveland MSA and City

1969 No vehicle

1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 2009 One vehicle Two vehicles Three or more vehicles

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

Housing Units The 2010 American Community Survey lists housing units in metro regions and characteristics of residents. These characteristics identify residents who may have access to at-home charging stations and homeowners who may be more inclined to invest in the cost of home charging stations. Single unit homes, both attached and detached, are more likely to have parking available, in a driveway or garage. • In both MSAs, the majority of housing units are single-unit

• Average HH size was 2.5 in the Columbus MSA and 2.3 in the City of Columbus

-- 671,922 single-units in the Cleveland MSA (68 percent of all housing units)

Figure 10: Households

-- 542,296 single-units in the Columbus MSA (70 percent of all housing units)

900,000

• 12 percent of housing units are vacant in the Cleveland MSA and 10 percent are vacant in the Columbus MSA

800,000 700,000

Table 16: Housing Profile

600,000 500,000

Cleveland

400,000

Columbus

MSA

300,000

Total Housing Units

955,798

200,000

Occupied Units

840,929

88.0%

707,956

89.3%

100,000

Vacant Units

114,869

12.0%

85,074

10.7%

Cleveland MSA

Source: U.S. Census

Cleveland 2000

Columbus MSA 2010

Columbus

Change in Vehicle Ownership by Household Household vehicle ownership has changed over time, with more households having a greater number of cars. Figure 11 presents vehicle ownership by household using data gathered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through its National Household Travel Survey. The share of households that own more than one vehicle increased through the 1990’s and has since stabilized with approximately 60 percent stating that they own two or more vehicles.

MSA

793,030

Homeowner Vacant

2.3%

2.7%

Renter Vacant

9.9%

9.8%

1-unit, detached

623,046

65.2%

483,505

61.0%

1-unit, attached

48,876

5.1%

58,791

7.4%

273,028

28.6%

233,173

29.4%

10,848

1.1%

17,561

2.2%

Multi-unit Non-traditional Occupied housing units

840,929

Owner-occupied

568,859

707,956 446,235

63.0%

Renter-occupied 272,070 32.4% 261,721 Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2010

67.6%

37.0%

www.driveelectricohio.org

Household Income and Wages A breakdown of income by geographic region shows where income groups are concentrated. • In Columbus, 87 percent of households earn less than $100,000 compared to 80 percent for the MSA

• Household incomes in the Cleveland MSA grew at 2.3 percent with a 2010 median household income of $53,755 • Household incomes in Cleveland grew at 2.4 percent, to $32,974 in 2010

Age • 28 percent of the Columbus MSA’s household incomes over $100,000 Variations in age categories can indicate unique characteristics and needs live in the City for the given population. The following comparison looks at the United States, Ohio and the two MSAs and their primary cities and compares • In Cleveland, 94 percent of households earn less than $100,000 their populations over 20 years of age in 10 year intervals. compared to 83 percent for the MSA • 7 percent of the Cleveland MSA’s household incomes over $100,000 live in the City

• United States age segments for 20 to 59 ranges between 13 and 14 percent of total population

Figure 12: Household Income by Region

• The City of Columbus’ 20-29 age group is 21 percent of the population

The following chart looks at the median household income.

• The Cleveland MSA has greater shares of older population segments over the age of 40

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 14: Age Breakdown by Region 25% 20% 2000

2010

2000

Cleveland MSA

2010

Cleveland

<$25,000 $50,000-$99,000 $150,000 - $199,999

2000

2010

2000

Columbus MSA

2010

Columbus

$25,000-$49,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $200,000+

15% 10%

Source: U.S. Census

Figure 13: Median Household Income

$60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0

United States

Ohio 20-29

Cleveland

30-39

40-49

Cleveland MSA 50-59

Columbus

60-69

Columbus MSA

70+

Source: U.S. Census

Median ages increased from 2000 to 2010. • The Cleveland MSA was older at both the City and MSA level than the Columbus MSA • The Cleveland MSA and City grew older at a faster annual rate than the Columbus MSA Table 17: Median Age

2000

2010

Source: U.S. Census

• Ohio’s median household income was $40,998 in 2000 and grew at an annual rate of 2.4 percent to $52,047 in 2010

2000

2010

CAGR

Cleveland MSA

37.3

40.0

0.7%

Cleveland

33.0

36.3

1.0%

Columbus MSA

33.7

35.6

0.5%

31.0

32.2

0.4%

Columbus Source: U.S. Census

• The Columbus MSA had a higher median household income than Ohio at $58,099 in 2010, growing annually at 2.6 percent • Household incomes in Columbus grew at 2.7 percent, to $49,302 in 2010

Drive Electric Ohio | Population Demographics

Educational Attainment Educational attainment helps describe differences in population and highlights where EV users may be more likely to live. The following chart shows the share of the population over 25 by their educational attainment from a high school education or less through a graduate/ professional degree. • Cleveland MSA residents with a college degree account for 28 percent of the population while in the City 14 percent of residents have a college degree • The Cleveland MSA has 153,000 graduate degree holders but the City only has 9 percent of those residents • Columbus MSA residents with a college degree account for 33 percent of the population; this percent is the same for the City • The Columbus MSA has 136,000 residents with a graduate degree with 39 percent living in the City Figure 15: Educational Attainment

Cleveland

55,300

158,500

Cleveland MSA

105,800

303,200

629,200

15,800 23,400 13,400

240,300

153,000

Columbus

187,200

96,200

30,100

99,800

53,200

Columbus MSA

475,600

233,700

82,200

246,600

136,200

Source: U.S. Census

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

High School Graduate or Less

Some College, No Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/Professional Degree

70%

80%

90%

100%

Associate Degree

Car Buying Habits The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a national comparison of household spending on vehicles. The following figures look at the spending variations between regions and educational attainment, discussed earlier in this report as an indicator of early adoption of EVs. Regional Variations The Midwest region, as seen in the figure below, either matches the average household spending on new vehicles nationally or is slightly lower (please note that these figures account for all households, not only households which purchase a vehicle in a given year). Households in the West region spent significantly more than other regions from 2004 through 2007 but have since come back in line with national spending rates. Southern household spending has trended with national spending. In 2010, Midwest spending on new vehicles was the lowest of any region, an average of $978 per household compared to a national average of $1,219 per household.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 16: Average Household Spending on New Vehicles $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

2000

2001

2002

Northeast

2003

2004

Midwest

2005 South

2006

2007

West

2008

2009

2010

All Consumers

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Available data indicates that households in the Midwest historically spend more on used vehicles. As gasoline spending began to climb, the overall vehicle spending in both categories has declined with 2010 spending levels on new vehicles being the lowest yet, below $1,000 per household. Figure 17 : Midwest Vehicle Purchases vs. Gasoline $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $-

2000

2001

2002

2003

Vehicle: New

2004

2005

Vehicle: Used

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Gasoline Spending

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Educational Variations Looking at the Consumer Expenditure Survey by education provides another facet for the spending potential. The following chart shows the total average annual household expenditures on vehicle purchases by educational attainment. The spending for those without a college degree is less than for those with a degree but total spending with a degree does not vary depending on the level of degree. Figure 18: Vehicle Purchases, Net Outlay (by education) $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

All Consumers

Total, Less than College Grad

Total, College Grad

Bachelor's Degree

2010

Master's, Professional, Doctorate Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Drive Electric Ohio | Population Demographics

Buyers with less than a college education spend significantly less on new cars than those with a degree. Additionally, the trend shows that among buyers with advanced degrees, spending on new cars had been growing faster than other categories but already was decreasing from 2005 prior to the recession and remained lower in 2010 and below 2000 spending levels. Figure 19: Vehicle Purchases, New (by education) $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

All Consumers Total, College Grad Master's, Professional, Doctorate

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total, Less than College Grad Bachelor's Degree

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

When household spending on new car purchases is compared against spending on gasoline there appears to be an inverse relation between the spending amounts on new cars and the amount spent on gas. For those with a college education the trend is less pronounced, but still appears to indicate that the cost of gasoline places a constraint on new car purchases. Figure 20: New Vehicle Purchase vs. Gasoline Spending (by education) $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

2000

2001

2002 2003 All Consumers Total, College Grad

2004

2005

2006 2007 2008 Total, Less than College Grad

2009

2010

Gasoline Spending

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Hybrid and EV Ownership Forecast Methodology AECOM developed the EV demand forecast model using data from partner organizations, expert opinion on industry development, and a number of baseline assumptions on market conditions impacting EV adoption in the Ohio vehicle market, specifically the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs and the I-71 corridor connecting them. The projected forecasts use a number of metrics and key assumptions, drawn from the existing demographic and economic conditions in the study MSAs, national trends in vehicle shares/sales, local vehicle ownership, and industry expertsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; forecasts. These conditions informed the share of electric vehicles forecast in each market.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Data sources used for this analysis include U.S. Census, Polk Automotive, EPRI, Ward’s Automotive, and industry expert opinions. • Forecasts of overall vehicle ownership relied on historic ownership rates, determined on a county by county basis from Polk, tied to population growth in order to determine future vehicle ownership. • Specific share targets for new vehicle sales were tied to EPRI estimates and forecasts.

Table 19: Number of New Vehicle Sales 2015

2025

2030

Hybrid Vehicles Columbus MSA

31,470

51,700

62,750

64,410

Cleveland MSA

32,800

50,920

58,310

56,350

5,270

8,320

9,680

9,500

Corridor

• Hybrid, EV, and EV shares are calculated at an MSA level. MSA shares are averages of county level new vehicle sales created by EPRI.

2020

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV)

This section presents AECOM’s findings for the potential total vehicle ownership by type and the annual vehicle sales by type. These represent forecasts based on existing conditions.

Columbus MSA

770

3,250

7,360

12,600

Cleveland MSA

670

2,990

6,570

10,720

440

1,030

1,740

Annual Vehicle Sales Using the new vehicle sales shares for hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles developed by EPRI at the county level, AECOM developed an MSA average that was then applied to vehicle sales forecasts to generate an annual new vehicle volume by type.

Electric Vehicles (EV) Columbus MSA

260

1,080

2,450

4,200

Cleveland MSA

220

1,000

2,190

3,570

150

340

580

The table below shows the share of annual new vehicle sales. Hybrid shares of new vehicle sales are expected to increase at a significantly higher rate of adoption than will plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or electric vehicles. Hybrids are expected to grow in share to 60% of all new vehicle sales through 2030, while PHEV (including extended range) and EV shares will grow to approximately 15% of all new vehicle sales in 2030.

2015

2020

2025

2030

37.6%

57.0%

63.8%

60.1%

Figure 21: Annual Vehicle Sales, Hybrids

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) Columbus MSA

Corridor Source: EPRI, AECOM

Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid vehicle sales are forecast to grow significantly through 2030, with numerous vehicle makes and models in auto manufacturer lineups being offered with hybrid components. The figure below shows the annual sales volume in each study area. The Columbus and Cleveland MSAs are forecast to have similar shares of hybrid sales through 2025, at which point Columbus is projected to begin having a larger number of hybrids sold annually than Cleveland. The I-71 corridor is forecast to grow to nearly 10,000 hybrids sold annually by 2030.

Table 18: Percent share of Annual New Vehicle Sales by Vehicle Type Hybrid Vehicles

Corridor

70,000 60,000

0.9%

3.4%

7.2%

11.4%

50,000

Cleveland MSA

0.8%

3.4%

7.2%

11.4%

Corridor

0.6%

3.0%

6.8%

11.0%

Columbus MSA

0.3%

1.1%

2.5%

3.9%

20,000

Cleveland MSA

0.3%

1.1%

2.4%

3.9%

10,000

0.2%

1.0%

2.3%

3.7%

Electric Vehicles (EV)

Corridor Source: EPRI, AECOM

New vehicle sales for PHEVs and EVs in 2015 are forecast to be approximately 2,030 vehicles across the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs and the corridor. Hybrids during this same time period are forecast to be nearly 70,000 vehicles. By 2030 these figures are forecast to grow to 33,410 PHEVs and EVs, and 130,000 hybrid vehicles.

Drive Electric Ohio | Population Demographics

40,000 30,000

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles PHEV annual sales volumes are forecast to grow rapidly in comparison to pure EVs, contributing 75% of all new EV sales annually. The figure below includes the forecast growth in annual PHEV sales, showing that in 2030, 12,600 PHEV vehicles are expected in Columbus, 10,720 in Cleveland, and 1,740 in the corridor.

Figure 22: Annual Vehicle Sales, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Table 20: Total Vehicle Ownership 2015

14,000

10,000 8,000

112,990

339,870

635,750 954,250

Cleveland MSA

118,350

346,550

627,800

913,310

18,110

55,160

101,570

149,420

Columbus MSA

1,950

12,620

40,570

92,850

Cleveland MSA

1,720

11,490

36,740

82,010

210

1,580

5,470

12,740

Columbus MSA

650

4,210

13,520

30,950

Cleveland MSA

570

3,830

12,250

27,340

530

1,820

4,250

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

4,000 2,000 2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Electric Vehicles All-electric vehicles are forecast to contribute 500 annual vehicle sales for the study markets in 2015, growing to 8,350 vehicle sales in 2030. The individual MSAs will contribute most of those with 4,200 for Columbus and 3,570 for Cleveland through 2030, with the corridor accounting for 580 vehicles. Figure 23: Annual Vehicle Sales, Electric Vehicles 5,000 4,500

Corridor Electric Vehicles

Corridor Source: EPRI, AECOM

Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid ownership will be the greatest of the three categories examined, growing to slightly fewer than 1,000,000 vehicles in each of the MSA markets, with Columbus forecast to have nearly 954,250 and Cleveland to have 913,310. The corridor as well is forecast have a modest number of vehicles with 149,420. Figure 24: Total Vehicle Ownership, Hybrids

4,000 3,500

1,000,000

3,000

900,000

2,500

800,000

2,000

700,000

1,500

600,000

1,000

500,000

500

400,000 2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Total Vehicle Ownership While the annual vehicle sales (the number of vehicles sold in a given year) for PHEVs and pure EVs is a small share of the overall vehicle market, over time total EV ownership (the number of vehicles on the road at a given time) in these markets will grow to be a significant number of vehicles.

2030

Columbus MSA Corridor

6,000

2025

Hybrid Vehicles

12,000

2020

300,000 200,000 100,000 0

2015 Columbus MSA

2020 2025 Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

www.driveelectricohio.org

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles PHEV ownership through 2020 is going to be relatively small in terms of total vehicles owned, with 12,620 vehicles in Columbus, and 11,490 in Cleveland, but is forecast to grow to 30,950 vehicles in Columbus in 2030, and 27,340 in Cleveland. Ownership of PHEVs in the corridor is forecast to be 12,740 vehicles by 2030. Figure 25: Total Vehicle Ownership, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Electric Vehicles All-electric vehicles through 2020 will be a small number of total vehicles owned, less than 5,000 in each MSA. By 2030 growth in EV ownership is forecast to reach 31,000 in Columbus and 27,000 in Cleveland, with 4,250 EVs in the corridor. Figure 26: Total Vehicle Ownership, Electric Vehicles 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

2015 2020 2025 Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

2030 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Drive Electric Ohio | Population Demographics

This page left intentionally blank

www.driveelectricohio.org

Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

AECOM has developed a profile of Early Adopter and Early Majority characteristics in Ohio based on an analysis of demographic and economic data specific to the MSAs, and a review of profiles generated by car manufacturers and industry experts. Early Adopters and Early Majority Characteristics, by Deloitte Deloitte’s study1 examining EV adoption identified the following characteristics for their EV early adopters and early majority segments.

• College level education • Drives less than 50 miles per day • Plugs their EV into the charger at home every day • Are likely to have previously owned a hybrid vehicle

• Own one or more vehicles

Ohio Early Adopter/Early Majority Characteristics, by AECOM AECOM has taken these industry identified characteristics, paired with economic and demographic data specific to Ohio, to determine the range of individuals who will fit the Early Adopter and Early Majority characteristic in this state. Early Majority consumers share many of the traits of Early Adopters, but with more modest household incomes. Another difference is that Early Majority commuters tend to drive shorter distances over the course of a week. The following represent general ranges:

Early Majority • Households with an income between $100,000 to $150,000

Ohio Early Adopter • Young Baby Boomer or young, very high income individuals

• 44.9% of men vote, 44.5 % of women vote

• Median household income in excess of $150,000

• Men represent 67% of this segment

• Previous hybrid owners

• 13.4% of men have an income of at least $100,000

• Owns more than one vehicle

• Urban and Suburban residents with garage

• College Educated

• Drive less than 100 miles per week

• Drives less than 50 miles per day

• Age between 40 to 44

• Has a single-family home with garage or available parking

Early Adopters Characteristics, by Nissan2 Nissan has similarly identified an Early Adopter with the characteristics listed below for its Nissan Leaf. Note the age difference between the Nissan and Deloitte profiles.

Ohio Early Majority • Median household income of $100,000-150,000

• Young Baby Boomer approximately 45 years old

• Homeowner with garage in urban core or suburbs

• Average income of $125,000

• Drives shorter distances, closer to 10 miles one way for commute

Early Adopter • Young, very high income individuals, such as high-profile celebrities • Previous adopters of hybrid vehicles • Household incomes in excess of $200,000

• Middle-aged households between 40-44 years • More likely to be male

• Owns their home with garage space for the Leaf’s Charger

1 2

Unplugged: Electric vehicle realities versus consumer expectations; Deloitte, 07/27/2012 Gordon-Bloomfield, N. Just Who is a Typical 2011 Nissan Leaf Buyer? We Find Out. Green Car Reports, 09/10/2010

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Early Adopter and Early Majority Characteristics in Study Area MSAs Using the benchmark characteristics defined for Early Adopters, there appears to be a segment of the population in the study area MSAs that fit a number of the criteria. The following provides high level characteristics of these two adopter groups for the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs. Columbus MSA Considering only the household incomes in the Columbus MSA, less than 50,000 households meet the threshold of Early Adopter incomes, though nearly twice that number of households fall within the income range for the Early Majority. The total pool of potential EV owners falling into the Early Adopter and Early Majority categories is nearly 150,000 households, though only 40,000 live in the City of Columbus. The majority of Columbus’ residents and workers live within the ranges of the EVs currently on the market, driving less than 50 miles daily, with almost 70% driving less than 20 miles. Early Adopter Characteristics • 7% of MSA households earn over $150K, 25% live in Columbus proper • 68% of housing units in the Columbus study area are single-family • 82% of Columbus area workers commute less than 25 miles (each way)

Early Adopter and Early Majority Cities AECOM analyzed the cities in the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs outside each City proper to determine which had the largest number of households that met the income for the Early Adopter and Early Majority. For each MSA analyzed, the first table shows the top five communities by Early Adopter households while the second shows the top five communities by Early Majority households. While some communities appear on both lists, others have a higher share in one category than the other, indicating at which adoption phase greater attention should be focused on them. The tables also show the share of each city’s population that is represented by the Early Adopters and Early Majority. Columbus MSA In the Columbus MSA cities, there are approximately 100,000 households with incomes over $100,000, and 36,000 over $150,000. This means that 69% of the region’s potential Early Majority lives within incorporated areas and 78% of the Early Adopters do. Seventeen percent of the Early Majority lives in the top five communities (by income) listed below and 27% of the Early Adopters do, meaning that focus on those communities will be needed to serve a significant portion of the Early Adopters and Early Majority. Table 21: Columbus MSA Cities with Early Adopter Households Over $150,000

• 67% of Columbus area workers commute less than 10 miles (each way) • 33% are college graduates, 33% of those live in Columbus proper • 12 % have graduate/professional degrees, 11% live in Columbus proper Early Majority Characteristics • 20% of MSA households earn over $100K, 28% live in Columbus proper • 14% of MSA households earn between $100,000 and $150,000, 30% live in Columbus proper • 67% of Columbus area workers commute less than 10 miles (each way) Cleveland MSA In the Cleveland MSA, 46,000 households earn more than $150,000 while 100,000 households earn between $100,000 and $150,000, making the total potential Early Adopter and Early Majority pool 146,000 households. Fewer than 7% of those households live in the City of Cleveland. Eight-three percent of workers commute less than 50 miles daily, and 54% commute less than 20 miles daily. Early Adopter Characteristics • 6% of the MSA earns over $150K, 6% live in Cleveland proper • 70% of housing units in the Cleveland study area are single-family • 83% of Cleveland workers commute less than 25 miles (each way) • 54% of Cleveland workers commute less than 10 miles (each way) • 28% are college graduates, 14% live in Cleveland proper • 11% have graduate/professional degrees, 5% live in Cleveland proper Early Majority Characteristics • 17% of MSA households earn over $100K, 7% live in Cleveland proper

Dublin

4,200

27.2%

Upper Arlington

2,700

19.3%

Westerville

2,200

16.1%

Gahanna

2,000

15.3%

1,400

36.6%

Powell Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

Table 22: Columbus MSA Cities with Early Majority Households Over $100,000 #

Dublin

7,400

48.6%

Westerville

5,200

37.3%

Upper Arlington

5,100

36.6%

Gahanna

4,500

34.4%

3,400

33.1%

Hilliard Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

Cleveland MSA In the Cleveland MSA cities, there are approximately 120,000 households with incomes over $100,000, and 44,000 over $150,000. This means that 82% of the region’s potential Early Majority lives within incorporated areas and 92% of the Early Adopters do. Sixteen percent of the Early Majority live in the top five communities (by income) listed below and 20% of the Early Adopters do, meaning that focus on those communities will be needed to serve a significant portion of these consumers.

• 12% of MSA households earn between $100,000 and $150,000, 7.5% live in Cleveland proper • 54% of Cleveland workers commute less than 10 miles (each way) 20

www.driveelectricohio.org

Table 23: Cleveland MSA Cities with Early Adopter Households Over $150,000 #

Strongsville

2,442

14.0%

Westlake

2,365

16.8%

Shaker Heights

2,353

20.1%

Solon

1,960

23.4%

1,513

7.6%

Cleveland Heights Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

Table 24: Cleveland MSA Cities with Early Majority Households Over $100,000 #

Strongsville

5,800

33.6%

Mentor

4,700

24.5%

Westlake

4,600

32.5%

Parma

4,200

12.3%

4,000

33.9%

Shaker Heights Source: U.S. Census, AECOM

Top Employers and Commuting Patterns Where the Early Adopters and Early Majority Live and Work Large regional employers in the Columbus and Cleveland MSA represent concentrations of employees. These employers are found within the central business districts as well as the surrounding MSA. These employers represent the following sectors: healthcare, government, education, financial activities, and manufacturing. Cleveland’s top 10 largest employers contribute 85,000 jobs, and Columbus’ contribute 140,000 jobs. Cleveland Largest Employer Characteristics The following represent the characteristics of the 10 largest employers in the Cleveland MSA. • 8.6% of Cleveland’s total employment • Healthcare represents 5.2% of total employment • Manufacturing represents 1.1% of total employment Table 25: Cleveland 10 Largest Employers, 2012 Rank

Company

Sector

Employees

1 2

Cleveland Clinic Health System

Hospitals

39,088

Giant Eagle

Food grocery

12,216

Summa Health System

Health care hospitals

10,000

The Progressive Group of Insurance Cos.

Insurance

8,900

Swagelok Co.

Valves and fittings

3,686

Sherwin-Williams Co.

Manufacturing and retail

2,996

Southwest General Health Center

Health care hospitals

2,600

Kaiser Permanente

Nonprofit

2,187

The Lubrizol Corp.

Industrial goods

2,087

Eaton Corp.

Industrial equipment

Total

1,716 85,476

Source: The Plain Dealer Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Columbus Largest Employer Characteristics The following represent the characteristics of the 10 largest employers in the Columbus MSA. • 15.4% of Columbus’ total employment • Government represents 4.6% of total employment • Education represents 4.2% of total employment • Financial Services represents 3.1% of total employment • Healthcare represents 2.7% of total employment Table 26: Columbus 10 Largest Employers, 2012 Rank

Company

Sector

Employees

The Ohio State University

Education

29,685

State of Ohio

Government

22,030

JP Morgan Chase

Financial Activities

16,975

Ohio Health

Health Care

16,000

Nationwide Insurance

Financial Activities

11,235

United States Government

Government

10,800

City of Columbus

Government

8,653

Columbus Public Schools

Education

8,611

Mt. Carmel Health Systems

Health Care

8,448

Honda of America

Manufacturing

7,400

Total

139,837

Source: City of Columbus AECOM analyzed the commuting patterns for Columbus and Cleveland to determine concentrations of employment and where employees live in relation to where they work. The following analysis uses the US Census’ OnTheMap data for 2009 to examine key municipalities from which employees commute, the age and incomes of employees and the market sectors they are employed in to determine how these commuting characteristics will influence infrastructure needs. Columbus Commuting Patterns The table below looks at the top 10 cities where Columbus workers live and highlights the fact that 39 percent of people who work in Columbus live in Columbus. For those living outside the City limits and commuting in, the population is dispersed in terms of where people live. • For Columbus residents, 54 percent work in Columbus • For Columbus workers, 39 percent live in Columbus • Dublin is the next largest City employing residents of Columbus • Upper Arlington is the next most common area of residence for Columbus workers • There are residents of Columbus that work in Cleveland or Cincinnati

www.driveelectricohio.org

Table 27: Where Columbus Workers Live and Residents Work, Top 10 Cities Where Residents Work Columbus

163,195

Dublin Westerville

Where Workers Live 53.6%

Columbus

163,195

39.1%

14,202

4.7%

Upper Arlington

8,612

2.1%

8,680

2.9%

Gahanna

7,966

1.9%

Grove City

5,720

1.9%

Dublin

7,599

1.8%

Worthington

4,970

1.6%

Westerville

7,579

1.8%

Hilliard

4,768

1.6%

Reynoldsburg

6,948

1.7%

Gahanna

3,806

1.2%

Hilliard

6,582

1.6%

Whitehall

3,778

1.2%

Grove City

6,546

1.6%

Upper Arlington

3,274

1.1%

Whitehall

4,089

1.0%

Cleveland

2,958

1.0%

Lancaster

3,732

0.9%

2,587

0.8%

Delaware

3,724

0.9%

Cincinnati Source: U.S. Census

The figure below outlines distances traveled each way to and from the City of Columbus for commuters. â&#x20AC;˘ 82.6 percent of Columbus residents travel less than 25 miles to their place of employment -- 61.2 percent travel less than 10 miles â&#x20AC;˘ 73.5 percent of Columbus workers travel less than 25 miles from their place of residence

In all five cities, between 80% and 87% of residents drive less than 25 miles to work. At 76%, Upper Arlington has the most residents who drive less than 10 miles to work. Gahanna is second with 61% of residents commuting fewer than 10 miles to work. The remaining communities of Dublin, Westerville, and Powell have approximately 43% - 45% travelling fewer than 10 miles. Table 28: Top Five Cities, Columbus MSA Under 10 Miles

-- 48.5 percent travel less than 10 miles Figure 27: Columbus Commute Distance 70% 60% 50%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Less than 10 miles

Source: U.S. Census

10 to 24 miles Live

25 to 50 miles

Greater than 50 miles

Upper Arlington

11,221

76.0%

1,552

10.5%

86.5%

10,391

60.5%

3,616

21.1%

81.6%

Dublin

7,943

45.1%

7,054

40.1%

85.2%

Westerville

7,666

45.0%

6,097

35.8%

80.8%

1,694

43.5%

1,503

38.6%

82.1%

As indicated in the table below, the primary destination for commuters in these five cities is Columbus, and for every city, excluding Powell, the home city represents the second largest employment destination. For Powell, Dublin and Westerville are top destinations for commuters after Columbus, with Powell itself coming in fourth. Table 29: Primary Commute Locations, Top Five Cities, Columbus MSA

Work

Commuting Patterns of Top Five Early Adopter Cities In order to understand the commuting patterns of the Early and Majority adopters in the region that live outside the City of Columbus, AECOM analyzed the top five secondary cities in the region that have the highest number of potential Early Adopters by income. The table below shows the distances traveled by residents of the top five secondary cities identified with concentrations of potential Early Adopters, identifying how far these residents travel to get to work and if an EV would be viable for their commute.

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

% of Total

Gahanna

Powell Source: U.S. Census

40%

10-25 Miles

Columbus

Home City

Upper Arlington

58.4%

6.7%

Gahanna

49.9%

7.4%

Dublin

45.1%

16.9%

Westerville Powell Source: U.S. Census

45.7%

11.1%

44.5%

2.7%

Cleveland Commuting Patterns The following section examines the commuting patterns of Cleveland residents and workers, highlighting the places where they commute to and from as well as the distances they travel to their place of employment.

Commuting Patterns of Top Five Early Adopter Cities In order to understand the commuting patterns of the Early Adopters in the region who live outside the City of Columbus, AECOM analyzed the top five secondary cities in the region that have the highest number of potential Early Adopters by income. The table below shows the distances traveled by residents of the top five secondary cities identified with concentrations of potential Early Adopters to identify how far these residents travel to get to work and if an EV would be viable for their commute.

• Compared to Columbus, Cleveland has a smaller share of its workers who live within the City limits, with more coming from the surrounding suburbs • There are a number of workers who are commuting from Columbus to Cleveland • Those that live in Cleveland are more likely to work in Cleveland than outside the City • Parma was the most common place of residence for those working in the City but living outside, and is also the most common employment center for Cleveland residents to commute for work

In all five cities, over 80% of residents commuted less than 25 miles to work, with three of the five at nearly 90% of workers. Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights had 77% and 80%, respectively, commuting fewer than 10 miles to work, and commutes between 10-25 miles at 12% and 10% respectively. The remaining three cities of Westlake, Solon, and Strongsville have approximately 44-46% of commuters traveling less than 10 miles.

Table 30: Where Cleveland Workers Live and Residents Work, Top 10 Cities Where Cleveland Workers Live Cleveland

62,713

Where Cleveland Residents Work 27.1%

Cleveland

46.20%

Parma

9,531

4.1%

Parma

3,557

2.60%

Lakewood

8,284

3.6%

Independence

2,262

1.70%

Cleveland Heights

6,989

3.0%

Beachwood

2,233

1.60%

Euclid

5,586

2.4%

Solon

2,071

1.50%

Strongsville

4,271

1.8%

Euclid

2,055

1.50%

Shaker Heights

4,163

1.8%

Westlake

2,050

1.50%

North Olmsted

3,873

1.7%

Brooklyn

2,026

1.50%

Westlake

3,559

1.5%

Middleburg Heights

1,802

1.30%

Garfield Heights

3,095

1.3%

Lakewood

1,788

1.30%

Columbus Source: U.S. Census

2,958

1.3%

Cleveland Heights

1,746

1.30%

The following chart shows the distance which commuters who live or work in Cleveland travel each way. • 88.4 percent of Cleveland residents travel less than 25 miles each way for work -- 69.8 percent travel less than 10 miles each way • 82.7 percent of Cleveland workers travel less than 25 miles each way for work -- 53.4 percent travel less than 10 miles each way Figure 28: Cleveland Commute Distance (one way) 80% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Table 31: Top Five Cities, Cleveland MSA Under 10 Miles

10-25 Miles

% of Total

Cleveland Heights

13,553

76.6%

2,083

11.8%

88.4%

Shaker Heights

8,786

80.0%

1,040

9.5%

89.5%

Westlake

5,979

43.6%

5,481

40.0%

83.6%

Solon

4,405

45.6%

4,332

44.8%

90.4%

1,694

43.5%

1,503

38.6%

82.1%

Strongsville Source: U.S. Census

Cleveland represents a primary commute destination for all five cities with their home cities representing the second most common destination. In Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights, 44% and 47% (respectively) of their commuters travel to Cleveland with 7% to their home city, the second most common destination. Westlake, Solon, and Strongsville have fewer commuters traveling to Cleveland but it still represents the most common destination, followed by the home cities.

60%

62,713

Less than 10 miles

Source: U.S. Census

10 to 24 miles Live

25 to 50 miles Work

Greater than 50 miles www.driveelectricohio.org

Table 32: Primary Commute Locations, Top Five Cities, Cleveland MSA Cleveland

Home City

Cleveland Heights

43.70%

7.50%

Shaker Heights

46.70%

7.10%

Westlake

30.40%

14.20%

Solon

23.10%

15.00%

24.60%

12.50%

Strongsville Source: U.S. Census

Figure 30: Columbus Core Population Density by Census Tract

Population Density Population density is important over the long term for EV infrastructure development because when the EV is financially viable or advantageous to the wider consumer market, communities with the greatest density will see the highest demand on utility infrastructure. Columbus MSA The majority of Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; population density occurs within Franklin County, with the remaining outlying counties in the MSA having density of less than 500 persons per square mile, except around the smaller cities in the region. Figure 29: Columbus MSA Population Density by Census Tract

Source: ESRI Cleveland MSA The Cleveland MSA has a dispersed population with density focused in the downtown core in Cuyahoga County, along the lakefront communities, and down the I-71 corridor. Outside the MSA, along I-77 there are greater population densities in the Akron and Canton areas. Figure 31: Cleveland MSA Population Density by Census Tract

Source: ESRI The following figure examines the dense core of the Columbus MSA to show further that the most dense census tracts in the region, containing more than 5,000 persons per square mile, occur within the I-270 ring roads.

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Source: ESRI

The following figure examines the core of the Cleveland MSA to determine where population density is the greatest. In the eastern area the population density is greatest around the Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights outside the core. South of Cleveland the Parma area has the greatest density. Figure 32: Cleveland Core Population Density by Census Tract

The data is presented in two segments, the first being those households with a household income over $200,000 annually, as these will be the households least impacted by the price premiums of existing EVs. The second set of maps examines households with income between $150,000 and $200,000, the next group of potential Early Adopter households based on the affordability criteria. Columbus MSA In the Columbus MSA, the earlier segment examining Early Adopters and their commuting patterns identified a number of cities that fell into the category of Early Adopter cities, specifically Upper Arlington, Gahanna, Dublin, Westerville, and Powell. Household Incomes Over $200,000 When the number of households with incomes over $200,000 is compared by Census tract, the Census tracts in areas outside of Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; I-270 and north of I-70 have the highest number of total households, with some clusters of Census tracts located elsewhere. These clusters of high income households correlate with the communities of Upper Arlington, Dublin, Powel, Westerville, and Gahanna. Figure 33: Columbus MSA HHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s with Incomes over $200,000, by Census Tract

Source: ESRI Early Adopter Concentrations While over the long term the goal is to spread EV infrastructure throughout each metro region, the initial focus for encouraging EV adoption will be to target the Early Adopters and Early Majority. In this segment the geographic distribution of those characteristics will be examined to highlight clusters of individuals that meet those criteria in order to develop targeted strategies such as marketing, ease of purchase, home charging infrastructure implementation and other issues relevant to EV ownership. In addition, the Early Adopter and Early Majority concentrations are important for the utility companies to identify, as these will be the areas where the electric grid is first impacted by EV home charging. Household Incomes Household incomes are a major determinant for Early Adopters as the ability to purchase the comparatively more expensive EVs will be a major hurdle to overcome. The following segment examines Census tracts that have high concentrations of upper income households, as these areas are likely to see higher early adoption demands. This does not mean these locations should be focused upon exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the regional EV infrastructure system.

Source: ESRI Household Incomes $150,000-$200,000 By income, the households earning between $150,000 and $200,000 are still considered to be in the Early Adopter range. For this group, vehicle premiums may be possible to overcome but may see slightly less demand initially than those in the highest income category. In the Columbus MSA, those households follow the density of incomes

www.driveelectricohio.org

seen in the previous section with more households in the outlying areas of the MSA, representing the more exurb locations. In this income range, Pickerington, a community to the south and east of I-270 and I-70, joins the previously identified higher-income communities.

Figure 35: Cleveland MSA HHs with Incomes over $200,000, by Census Tract

Figure 34: Columbus MSA HHs with Incomes $150,000-$200,000, by Census Tract

Source: ESRI

Source: ESRI Cleveland MSA In the Cleveland MSA, the earlier segment examining Early Adopters and their commuting patterns identified a number of cities that fell into the category of early adopter cities, specifically Strongsville, Westlake, Shaker Heights, Solon, and Cleveland Heights.

Household Incomes $150,000-$200,000 Trends in this income category closely followed that of the highest income households. The Census tracts east of I-480 have even more households with incomes within this range, extending further towards the MSA boundary. West of Cleveland, the Census tracts around Avon contain the greatest number of households, and south follow similar Census tracts as found with households over $200,000. Figure 36: Cleveland MSA HHs with Incomes $150,000-$200,000, by Census Tract

Household Incomes Over $200,000 The Census tracts in the Cleveland MSA with household incomes over $200,000 are most heavily concentrated east of the city. The Census tracts correspond to communities east of I-480 and I-90, such as Solon. In the south of the Cleveland MSA, there are a number of Census tracts between I-71 and I-77 south of I-80 with greater numbers of high income households. Along Lake Erie east of Cleveland there are a number of Census tracts meeting the income criteria, roughly corresponding with the communities of Westlake, Avon, and Avon Lake.

Source: ESRI Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Workplace Charging Demand Workplace charging represents the second leg of the EV charging station planning. As stated in the introduction to the broader discussion of charging locations, the focus of this section is to identify the concentrations of employees within the region, key employers, and office parks in order to target the needed infrastructure support as well as to highlight the viability of the EV for commuters traveling to those locations.

Figure 37: Distance to the City Center, Columbus

In this analysis, AECOM considered the city center of each MSA and used the data provided in the previous section on commuting patterns of employees in the region, resulting in the conclusion that the majority of employees worked within 10 and 25 miles of work. AECOM further looked at the regional employers based on the number of employees to identify those employers who had a significant employee base and whose involvement in workplace EV charging could serve the greatest number of individuals while also spreading awareness for the technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viability to a broader audience. Finally, AECOM looked at the location of office parks throughout the region to highlight trends in clusters of office space where similar advantages can be leveraged. Commute to the City Center To demonstrate that the viability of utilizing a EV to commute for work, AECOM has developed two maps that show the distance from the city center. The maps illustrate the amount of the MSA communities that are within 10 and 25 miles of the city center. As identified in the section of the report examining commuting patterns, the majority of workers in the region work within that distance, well within the range of EVs. Columbus MSA From downtown Columbus, a commuter could drive from as far out as Delaware and still be within 25 miles one way of downtown. The figure below shows a 10 and 25 mile ring from the city center in order to demonstrate the amount of the MSA that is within the viable commuting distance of EVs currently on the market. To further highlight the case, Early Adopter and Early Majority cities, identified previously based on their household incomes, are displayed to show that those communities are generally located along I-270 and generally within 10 miles of the city center.

Source: ESRI Cleveland MSA From downtown Cleveland, a commuter could drive from as far east as Mentor and still be within 25 miles one way of downtown. The figure below shows a 10 and 25 mile ring from the city center in order to demonstrate the MSA communities that are within the single charge range of EVs currently on the market. To further highlight the case, Early Adopter and Early Majority cities, identified previously based on their household incomes, are displayed to show that those communities are spread throughout the region. Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, and Parma are all within 10 miles of the city center.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 38: Distance to the City Center, Cleveland

of employers with between 500-1,000 employees around the intersection of I-71 and I-270. For a list of large employers in the Columbus MSA, please see Table 26. Figure 39: Largest Regional Employers, Columbus MSA Cleveland MSA

Source: ESRI Largest Employers A regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest employers focus a considerable amount of activity and commuting into given areas of an MSA. This section examines where the 10 largest employers are located in each MSA to gain greater understanding of the impact that EV adoption may have. In fields where educations and incomes of employees are higher, the likelihood that there will be Early Adopters and Early Majority individuals is increased as is the overall number of employees who may request workplace charging. The maps in this section consider employment locations by number of employees to show where the largest employers are located. The largest are those with over 1,000 employees, followed by employers with 500-1,000 employees. Columbus MSA In Columbus, the largest employers are in the fields of education, government, healthcare, financial services, and manufacturing. The Columbus MSA is dominated by a number of large institutional entities that are concentrated in different sections of the MSA. The example of a concentrated employer would be the United States government which has a significant presence in downtown Columbus. In contrast, the Columbus Public School system is also a major employer, but its employees are dispersed throughout the metro area.

The largest employment fields in the Cleveland MSA include healthcare, manufacturing, retail, insurance, and nonprofit firms. Certain employers, such as Giant Eagle, have multiple locations and a dispersed employee footprint, while other employers have a more limited number of locations thereby concentrating their employee footprint. A difference seen in the table below, compared to the Columbus MSA, is that government and educational employers do not have as large of a portion of total employees, while a variety of manufacturing is more dominant. The following figure shows that the largest employers in the Cleveland MSA are distributed throughout the region. There is a cluster of the largest employers in the downtown, with the rest being in the outlying suburbs of the MSA in a roughly semi-circle pattern. The employers with 500-1,000 employees were similarly disbursed throughout the region. For a list of large employers in the Cleveland MSA, please see Table 25.

The following figure shows that the largest employers are concentrated in and around Columbus with a few exceptions in outlying areas. The employers with over 1,000 employees are generally located within a short distance of the downtown core, or along I-270. There is a cluster

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Figure 40: Largest Regional Employers, Cleveland MSA

Source: InfoUSA Office Parks Office parks are larger than individual offices so their infrastructure capacity and concentrations of office workers who may meet the Early Adopter and Early Majority profiles are potentially greater. Another possible advantage of office parks for coordinated EV infrastructure adoption is that they are often managed by larger institutional/ commercial property owners. The following figure shows the office parks located within the Columbus MSA. The key finding is that outside the downtown core, the majority of office parks are located in the north along the I-270 corridor. These office parks are conveniently located in near proximity to the Early Adopter and Early Majority cities previously identified.

Figure 41: Columbus MSA Office Parks

Source: Columbus Business First Public Charging Stations Hospitals Hospitals, like office parks, offer an ideal location for charging infrastructure. Like office parks, they employ a significant number of people at a single location, many of whom are highly educated and with greater than average incomes, meaning they could meet the profile of Early Adopters. Hospitals also have significant visitor traffic that could take advantage of charging infrastructure. As a tangential benefit, road signage already provides directions to hospitals so if EV owners are aware they are able to use these charging stations, hospital-based charging would serve as a reliable safety net for EV users. Utilities may need to examine the grid infrastructure for hospital-based charging. Hospitals traditionally have a large demand for electricity themselves and the additional demand of highly used EV charging stations may strain the local transformers serving the facility. Columbus MSA In contrast to office parks in the Columbus MSA, which are located along the I-270 ring road, hospitals in the region are more dispersed to better serve the population. Hospitals throughout the region fall into three general groupings. Outside the core of the MSA, there is approximately one hospital per county, located in population centers along US and state highways. A second segment of hospitals are those located along the

www.driveelectricohio.org

I-270 ring and outlying suburbs. Finally, a concentration of hospitals can be found in the core of Columbus.

Figure 43: Hospitals, Cleveland MSA

EV charging infrastructure in the more densely concentrated central area of the MSA will serve the greatest number of people, the outlying hospitals should be considered prime opportunities as well, as these locations extend the EV range and provide an element of re-fueling “peace of mind” to EV owners. Figure 42: Hospitals, Columbus MSA

Source: InfoUSA Colleges and Universities Colleges and Universities have a number of factors making them attractive locations for EV charging infrastructure. The factors include: • an educated workforce, which corresponds to Early Adopter and Early Majority characteristics • a large number of employees in a concentrated area Source: InfoUSA

• an employee and student base present on campus for hours at a time, enhancing the viability of Level 2 and, especially, Level 1 charging • able to leverage grant funding available to public institutions

Cleveland MSA Hospitals in the Cleveland MSA are well distributed throughout the region with the majority of hospitals located surrounding the urban core of the MSA along the interstates. Hospital coverage for Geauga and Lorain counties is more spread out as these counties are less dense than other counties such as Cuyahoga.

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

• often host to public events (sports, culture) that bring in people who are not affiliated with the University Columbus MSA There are a number of colleges and universities throughout the Columbus MSA, with the most significant concentration on the Ohio State University campus. Most colleges and universities are located either within or in near proximity of I-270.

Figure 44: Colleges and Universities, Columbus MSA

Figure 45: Colleges and Universities, Cleveland MSA

Source: InfoUSA

Cleveland MSA The colleges and universities in the Cleveland MSA are mostly in the inner ring suburbs surrounding Cleveland, though the largest cluster is the area around Case Western Reserve University which is in the City proper. The second largest cluster is in the area of the Cuyahoga Community College Eastern Campus.

Government Buildings Government buildings offer high visibility and demonstrate the commitment of a given agency to supporting EV adoption. By being early implementers of EV infrastructure, the municipal, state, and federal agencies that install the infrastructure will gain understanding of the challenges involved in implementation and can help to streamline the process for future users with regards to permitting, coordination with utilities, and managing the associated costs. For EV charging infrastructure installed at government buildings, the importance of visibility is greater than at private locations. The visibility will help to increase public awareness of the EV charging network and, similar to hospitals, will create the connection in the EV driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mind that they can seek out most government buildings when needing a charge. For non-emergency government fleets, the use of EVs should allow the agency to decrease the volatility of operating costs that occurs due to fluctuations in fuel prices and take advantage of potential cost-savings created by a dedicated charging source for multiple vehicles. Columbus MSA The Columbus MSA has the unique characteristic of being the State Capital so in addition to the collection of county, township, and municipal government facilities there are also a number of State and Federal government facilities located throughout the region, with the majority being in downtown Columbus. Outside the MSA core, facilities are sparse and represent the local government buildings with clusters such as around Newark.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 46: Government Buildings, Columbus MSA

Source: InfoUSA Cleveland MSA The governmental buildings in the Cleveland MSA are spread throughout Cleveland and the nearby suburbs with the greatest density of government buildings in the outlying area in lakefront communities as well as in Elyria and Medina.

Figure 47: Government Buildings, Cleveland MSA

Source: InfoUSA Destinations Destinations are defined in this report as regional attractions (such as amusement parks and zoos), commercial locations (such as shopping malls), and rest areas. Destination charging is different from home and workplace charging in that the needs of the user are less consistent than in the other EV charging locations. Destinations may have shorter parking times, less predictable demand, and unique constraints due to ownership location or the commercial viability of charging station business models. This section highlights general characteristics of a number of potential destination charging locations and examine the differences, advantages, and disadvantages each destination location type may possess. Attractions Regional attractions are locations that draw visitors from throughout the region and from even further in some cases. Venues may include sports stadiums, museums, parks, convention centers, theatres, aquariums, and zoos. These venues often include large designated parking facilities and visitors usually stay for at least two hours, and often more, on a single visit. Some venues, such as theatres and stadiums, are event based and will have a demand for EV charging stations that is highly volatile based on the event schedule. Other venues such as museums, parks and zoos will have a more consistent demand profile for EV charging use based upon hours of operation, and will likely exhibit a demand schedule similar to

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

the incoming and outgoing flows of visitors over the course of the day. These two scenarios exhibit a different set of demands and challenges for venues that install EV charging infrastructure as the availability of charging stations to EV drivers varies in each case.

Figure 49: Amusement and Cultural Attractions, Cleveland MSA

Demand for EV charging stations at destinations will likely be low through 2015. Over time as EV ownership and vehicle range increase, the demand for EV charging stations at destinations will also increase. Figure 48: Amusement and Cultural Attractions, Columbus MSA

Source: InfoUSA

Source: InfoUSA In the Cleveland MSA the cultural attractions are well distributed throughout the region while the amusement type attractions are concentrated in the southwest suburbs.

Commercial Locations Commercial locations such as shopping centers and individual retailers have similarities to regional attractions in that people will travel further to go to them, but the majority of retail establishments are local in nature, serving a relatively compact customer base within a few miles’ distance from the consumer’s residence. As such, the economic viability for installing EV charging stations can vary based on the type of retailer, length of visitor stay, and geographic location of the business. Individual Retailers A number of retailers have indicated an interest in implementing pilot programs to test out EV charging infrastructure at their locations including Walgreen’s, Macy’s, Kohl’s and Best Buy. There are multiple reasons why a retailer may choose to include EV charging stations on their property, such as cultivating a green image, furthering commitments to environmental policies, to assist in the LEED certification of new construction, and to keep customers in their stores longer. Shopping Centers In addition to retailers who have shown an interest in EV charging infrastructure for their individual stores, large shopping centers, malls and strip malls offer an additional location for potential charging stations. With large volumes of daily traffic to and from these locations and with

www.driveelectricohio.org

shoppers staying for an extended period of time, these locations provide an opportunity for EV charging stations to be conveniently located in areas where users are encouraged to leave their vehicles for longer periods than at individual retail locations. â&#x20AC;&#x192; Columbus MSA In the Columbus MSA, there are numerous shopping centers of various sizes, ranging from 40,000 square feet to 4,200,000 square feet, with the majority of locations spread throughout the region along the I-270 ring road. The largest mall to the southwest of downtown is the Westland Mall, and the Eastland Mall is the largest to the southeast. The Mall at Tuttle Crossing is a collection of centers in the northwest, and the Easton Town Center is the largest collection to the northeast. North of I-270 along I-71 is the Polaris Fashion Place. There are few very large shopping centers in the downtown area over 250,000 square feet, most tend to be in the outlying suburbs.

Figure 51: Cleveland MSA Shopping Centers over 40,000 sq. ft.

Figure 50: Columbus MSA Shopping Centers over 40,000 sq. ft.

Source: InfoUSA Rest Areas The figure below shows the locations of all rest areas in Ohio. For the I-71 corridor connecting the Columbus and Cleveland MSAs, there are rest areas just north of Columbus in Delaware (mile marker 129), and truck-only locations outside of Morrow (mile marker 149), Wayne (mile marker 196), and Medina (mile marker 224). At first glance there would also appear to be a rest area midway between the two MSAs in the town of Mansfield, but this station is actually located a few miles off the interstate, meaning the prime location for EV charging between the two MSAs is less accessible.

Source: InfoUSA Cleveland MSA The Cleveland MSA has a mix of large and very large shopping centers distributed throughout the MSA. One of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest shopping center is the South Park Shopping Center in Strongsville.

Drive Electric Ohio | Location and Commute Patterns of Likely EV Owners

Figure 52: Ohio Rest Area Locations

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) In the table below, the characteristics of the three pairs of rest areas are compared, as well as the truck only site in Morrow. The locations with car parking are modern facilities with between 28-32 spaces for cars and 12-28 for trucks. The amenities vary with the Wayne rest areas having the most. Table 35: I-71 Rest Areas Parking County

Route

Dir.

Mile Marker

Amenities

Car

Truck

Location Type

Delaware

I-071

128

Vending, Drinking Water

Modern

Delaware

I-071

129

Vending, Drinking Water

111

Modern

Morrow

I-071

149

Truck Only

Morrow

I-071

149

Truck Only

Wayne

I-071

197

Vending, Family Restroom, Drinking Water

Modern

Wayne

I-071

197

Vending, Family Restroom, Drinking Water

Modern

Medina

I-071

224

Drinking Water

Modern

Medina Source: ODOT

I-071

224

Drinking Water

Modern

www.driveelectricohio.org

State Tax Revenue

Sales taxes are collected on vehicle purchases and are determined by the county in which the vehicle is purchased. The following section outlines potential sales tax revenues generated by the sale of new PEVs in the study areas using sales forecasts and averages of county sales tax rates for each area. The forecast goes through 2015 as these are years where the decrease in battery costs can be more accurately projected and therefore decreases in vehicle costs more reasonably estimated. In the figure below, the sales tax revenue generated by new sales of all-electric vehicles in each of the MSAs and the 1-71 corridor are shown annually through 2015. Total revenues would increase from approximately $465,000 in 2012 to $1 million in 2015. The combined revenue over the time period is $3.3 million. Figure 53: Projected All-Electric Vehicles Sales Tax Revenue

Figure 54: Projected PHEV Sales Tax Revenue $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000

$1,200,000

$400,000 $200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

2012

Cleveland MSA

$600,000

2013

2014

Columbus MSA

2015 Corridor

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

$400,000 $200,000 $0

The next figure shows that the sales tax revenue for PHEV will be greater than that of all-electric vehicles. This is due to a larger number of sales of these vehicles during those years. In 2012, combined revenues could be as high as $632,000, reaching $2.9 million by 2015, for a combined total over the time period of $7.2 million.

2012

Cleveland MSA

2013

2014

Columbus MSA

Sources: EPRI, AECOM

Drive Electric Ohio | State Tax Revenue

2015 Corridor

Fuel Tax Revenue As in the comparison for fuel savings, the 2012 Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Cruze have been used in this comparison to illustrate the difference in revenue that a single electric vehicle would have on fuel tax revenues collected in the State of Ohio. The following table illustrates a challenge facing fuel tax revenue. As fuel efficiency in cars improves, the amount of fuel tax revenue that all cars generate decreases; over time fuel tax revenue reductions are not caused by electric vehicles alone.

Table 36: Annual Fuel Tax Revenue per Car 30 MPG Consumption (gallons per year)

40 MPG

50 MPG

500

375

300

$92

$69

$55

State ($0.28 per gallon)

$140

$105

$84

Total

$232

$174

$139

$736

$552

$442

Annual Fuel Tax Federal ($0.18 per gallon)

Total Fuel Tax for 8 Years Federal ($0.18 per gallon) State ($0.28 per gallon)

$1,120

$840

$672

Total

$1,856

$1,392

$1,114

Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, American Petroleum Institute (API), AECOM Over the eight year life of owning a 2012 EV, the driver will have been saved from purchasing 4,000 gallons of fuel, meaning that they would not have paid a cumulative $1,856 in federal and state fuel taxes (assuming no increase in those gas tax rates). Figure 3 shows the decreasing tax loss that arises from increasing CAFE standards, as they are now legislated to average over 50 MPG by 2025, with lighter/smaller vehicles (similar to marketed EVs in size) in some cases already with MPG ratings in excess of 40 MPG. Figure 55: Cumulative Fuel Tax Revenue Equivalent for MPG Ranges: 30, 40, 50 MPG $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3 30 MPG

Sources: U.S. DOE, U.S. DOT, API, AECOM

Year 4 40 MPG

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

50 MPG

The magnitude of fuel tax losses then decreases as the comparable vehicles become more fuel efficient. In the next figure, the impact of the cumulative impact of lost fuel tax revenue is calculated for EVs in the study areas. Equivalent MPG ratings are considered to be 30 MPG through 2015, at which point they grow to 40 MPG, then in 2020 to 50 MPG. As there are some conventional vehicles already rating 40 MPG, this trend could be accelerated due to auto manufacturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; innovations in vehicle technologies.

www.driveelectricohio.org

Figure 56: Cumulative Fuel Tax Loss

Figure 57: State Fuel Taxes

$14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

$2,000,000

Sources: U.S. DOE, U.S. DOT, API, AECOM

Fuel Tax Structure EVs do not require gasoline, and plug-in hybrids require significantly less gasoline. Consequently the owner either pays no fuel tax, or a smaller fuel tax. This poses a challenge for road infrastructure funding as those taxes have traditionally been used to pay for the new construction and upkeep of roads, which an EV will still use. The following analysis looks at the existing fuel tax structure, as well as the potential alternatives to the existing fuel tax. The fuel tax at the federal level is 18.4 cents per gallon of unleaded gas and 24.4 cents for diesel which is meant to pay for roadway maintenance, improvement and expansion. The federal fuel tax rate was last raised in 1993, and is not adjusted for inflation. In addition to the federal fuel tax, States also individually tax gasoline sales. States either have a fixed flat rate per gallon or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;variable-rateâ&#x20AC;? which ties the tax to inflation. The fixed rate is more common among the States. In Ohio, the fixed rate tax levied by the State is 28 cents per gallon. In addition to the fuel tax some states include gas in their sales tax, inspection fees, and underground storage tank (UST) fees. A challenge facing the fuel tax is that as the fuel efficiency of vehicles improves through the increasing CAFE standards, the amount of gas used decreases while vehicle miles and infrastructure degradation remains the same, and may increase, exacerbating the gap between transportation revenue and transportation funding needs.

Drive Electric Ohio | State Tax Revenue

530 West Spring Street, Suite 250 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 884-7336 cynthia@cleanfuelsohio.org www.driveelectricohio.org