The URL can be used to link to this page

sr-110811-4aCity of City Council Report Santa Aianica City Council Meeting: November 8, 2011 Agenda Item: 4 -A To: Mayor and City Council From: Dean Kubani, Director, Office of Sustainability and the Environment Subject: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Study Session Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Review and comment on efforts to expand electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure throughout Santa Monica. 2. Direct staff to proceed with draft EV charger installation guidelines for renters, and with the facilitation of numerous viable charging options at commercial and public locations. Executive Summary The expanding plug -in electric vehicle (PEV) market presents infrastructure challenges to accommodate the electric charging needs of residents, visitors, and local employees. This report describes the City's current charging capacity and upcoming installation projects for public places, describes the permitting process for EV chargers in existing buildings, describes plans for future policy development for EV chargers in existing buildings and in new construction, and discusses obstacles to expanding charging capacity in existing multi - family rental buildings. Staff will return to Council at a later date with specific policy recommendations and cost estimates based on Council direction. Background With the release of the Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt in 2010 and plans by several other major automobile manufacturers to release PEVs in 2011 and 2012, PEVs are expected to capture a growing share of overall vehicle sales in the coming years. Southern California is identified as one of the primary test markets by car manufacturers for the launch of these vehicles. While the ultimate size of the market for PEVs is currently unknown, studies project that Southern California Edison's service territory will 1 be the largest market for PEV sales in the United States over the next six years, with sales of about 100,000 PEVs in the Los Angeles area by 2017. With PEVs becoming more prevalent in the area, the demand for public and private charging facilities for these vehicles is expected to increase as well. This report summarizes the efforts by staff to address the anticipated need for more PEV charging infrastructure throughout Santa Monica on both public and private property. Electric vehicle chargers are necessary for recharging the battery banks in dedicated electric vehicles and plug -in gas /electric hybrid vehicles. It is anticipated that a network of EV chargers in public spaces, such as parking structures, and private spaces such as residences and businesses, will be necessary to support the expected growth in PEV sales in the near future. During the first wave of commercial PEV sales in the late 1990s and early 2000s vehicle manufacturers developed a variety of conductive and inductive EV charging systems, with different types of chargers and electrical connectors required for different vehicles. In 2009 vehicle manufacturers agreed to use a common EV conductive charging system with a standard electrical connector for all PEVs sold in North America. This standardization facilitates the installation of EV charger infrastructure that will be able to charge all makes and models of PEVs moving forward. There are three classifications of EV chargers. Level 1 chargers operate on a standard 120 -volt single phase plug and can slowly charge a PEV overnight in about 12 to 18 hours. Level 2 chargers use a 240 -volt split phase plug and can charge a vehicle in about four to eight hours. Level 3 chargers use a 480 -volt plug and can charge a vehicle in about 30 minutes. Residential installations typically use Level 1 and 2 chargers as 480 volt power is not normally available in residential settings. Level 2 chargers are also used in public parking garages and in commercial settings. Level 3 E chargers are just becoming commercially available and are expected to be used in commercial fueling stations; analogous to gas stations for PEVs, in the near future. Table 1 (below) provides information on some of the PEVs that are currently available or soon -to -be available in Santa Monica. Whenever EV- charging equipment is considered for installation, the main electrical system must be evaluated for adequate capacity. This applies to all EV- chargers for new and existing facilities, residential and commercial occupancies, and private and public infrastructure. Southern California Edison (SCE) is promoting Level 1 charging at workplaces since it is much less costly to install and workers typically keep their cars parked at work for extended periods of time, long enough to get an appreciable charge from a Level 1 charger. Level 2 chargers require a dedicated 40 amp circuit. Some buildings may have electrical panels with extra capacity and will be able to install one or two additional 40 amp circuits without much expense. Other buildings will need to have higher capacity electrical panels installed. Assessment of the electrical system in existing rental property, multi - family residential and commercial, is especially critical due to limited capacity of most older electrical systems. Evaluation of the existing electrical system load will determine if sufficient capacity is available or if an upgrade to the electrical system is required. Upgrades would require the services of a licensed electrician, consultation with the Building and 3 Battery capacity Charge Time Level Charge Time Level Electric -only Range Gas Engine? Available Quick Charge Capable? Nissan Leaf 24 kWh 20 hours 8 hours 73 mi N Now Y Chevy Volt 16 kWh 10 -12 hours 3 hours 35 mi Y Now N Ford Focus 23 kWh 6 -8 hours 3 -4 hours 112 mi N Q4 2011 N Toyota Prius 5.2 kWh 3 hours 1.5 hours 13 mi Y Q12012 N Toyota RAV 4 37 kWh 24 hours 12 hours 100 mi N Q1 2012 N Mitsubishi i-MiEV 16 kWh 14 hours 7 hours 62 mi N Q1 2012 Y Whenever EV- charging equipment is considered for installation, the main electrical system must be evaluated for adequate capacity. This applies to all EV- chargers for new and existing facilities, residential and commercial occupancies, and private and public infrastructure. Southern California Edison (SCE) is promoting Level 1 charging at workplaces since it is much less costly to install and workers typically keep their cars parked at work for extended periods of time, long enough to get an appreciable charge from a Level 1 charger. Level 2 chargers require a dedicated 40 amp circuit. Some buildings may have electrical panels with extra capacity and will be able to install one or two additional 40 amp circuits without much expense. Other buildings will need to have higher capacity electrical panels installed. Assessment of the electrical system in existing rental property, multi - family residential and commercial, is especially critical due to limited capacity of most older electrical systems. Evaluation of the existing electrical system load will determine if sufficient capacity is available or if an upgrade to the electrical system is required. Upgrades would require the services of a licensed electrician, consultation with the Building and 3 Safety Division to ensure compliance with the City's Electrical, Building, and Fire Codes, and approval by field inspection. SCE customers are encouraged to schedule an EV home assessment with an electrician as soon as they reserve their EV at the dealer to assess the customer's existing electric service panel and the charging requirements of the PEV or EV purchased. Additional cost will be incurred if the electrical panel needs to be upgraded or a dedicated second EV panel installed. SCE offers three EV rate options to residents: 1) continue to use the existing residential meter and be charged for electricity on the current tiered residential rate structure, 2) install a time -of -use (TOU) meter for the house and EV charging and pay according to SCE's time -of -use rate structure, and 3) install a dedicated TOU meter for EV charging only and pay a discounted rate for off- peak charging. To ensure grid stability, an SCE Planner will evaluate the transformer and power lines servicing the customer and examine the electrician's plan to upgrade the house panel and /or install the second panel to service the EV. Discussion Impact of PEVs on the Electric Grid SCE is confident that it will be able to satisfy the electrical demand of PEVs on its distribution system. It is anticipated that most PEV charging will take place at home at night when there is an excess supply of electricity. However, neighborhood distribution systems may need to be upgraded to handle the extra load of PEV charging. Edison has asked that all PEV drivers contact the utility to allow them to upgrade local distribution circuits as necessary. SCE is supporting cities' efforts to streamline the permitting and inspection process for electric chargers, providing consumer information on preparing for home charging on its EV Readiness website pages, and identifying federal and state incentives and funding opportunities. During periods of extremely high electricity demand utilities rely on inefficient, polluting 'peaker plants' to satisfy demand. These plants are expensive for utilities since they are V only used a few times a year. PEVs being charged during summer weekdays would contribute to increased peak demand on the electric system. However, in the future utilities are planning to allow PEV drivers to sell excess stored battery charge back to the utility, providing energy storage that utilities can use to satisfy peak demand without the need for peaker plants. Current PEV Infrastructure in Santa Monica The City currently supports 20 publicly - accessible Level 2 chargers. Four Level 2 chargers are installed at Santa Monica Place in parking structure 7, seven at the Civic Center Parking Garage, three on the parking deck at the Santa Monica Pier, three at the Solar Port at the Civic Auditorium, one on Montana Avenue, and two at Santa Monica Airport. In addition to these chargers the City has nine inductive chargers that were installed prior to 2009. Four of these older chargers will be replaced in the coming months with standardized Level 2 conductive chargers including three at Virginia Park, and one at Santa Monica Place in parking structure 7. This will provide the City a total of 24 publicly - accessible Level 2 chargers in the near future. Funding for these latest installations came from a grant from the California Energy Commission. The City currently has $100,000 in AB 2766 funding (Department of Motor Vehicles registration fee subvention funds directed at air pollution reduction) which is available to fund additional public EV infrastructure in Santa Monica. In addition, the Conditions for Approval for Parking Structure 6 require a minimum of 30 electric vehicle charging stations be installed and infrastructure for more to be installed at all inner columns of the parking structure where feasible. The public does not currently pay for the electricity used to charge at City locations based on previous Council policy established on January 22, 2002, but does pay for parking while using the chargers. All of these Level 2 chargers can be programmed to charge users for electricity should Council revise its policy. Currently the City pays between $50 and $85 per month for the electricity used at the publicly - accessible EV chargers that it maintains. 6" In the private sector, Toyota Santa Monica has installed three public chargers, Nissan has installed four, Lexus has plans to install two chargers within the next two months, and Fiskar Santa Monica has installed one. All of these are located at the respective auto dealerships. The Ralphs store on Cloverfield Blvd. has two legacy inductive paddle chargers. To date, the City has issued 61 permits for installation of private EV chargers at residential properties in Santa Monica (42 at single family residential properties and 19 at multi - family properties), and 11 permits for installations at commercial properties. Current Public PEV Infrastructure in California and Future Plans As of August 2011 there were approximately 1000 public /commercial EV charging stations in California, with almost half of those located in Los Angeles County. Most of the stations in California are first generation (pre -2009) public chargers, however the State is working to upgrade these chargers to meet the new standards. The City of San Francisco is installing 80 charging stations in locations including city -owned garages and San Francisco Airport by the end of this year. Electricity will be free through 2013 to build the local market for electric vehicles. Funding for the $500,000 project is coming from federal grants, the regional air district, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the airport authority. The City of Los Angeles is planning to upgrade or install 350 chargers and is also participating in the Department of Energy's EV Project which offers incentives for in -home and public chargers and collects data on charging behavior. The City of San Jose currently has 13 public charging stations and has received an Energy Commission grant to fund the installation of 55 more. San Diego County is currently evaluating a proposal from ECOtality to install 1500 chargers throughout the County within the next three years. Tesla Motors Inc. and SolarCity have installed four solar - powered charging stations along highway 101 between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Google Inc. has installed more than 200 EV chargers at its facilities in California for the use of its employees. And large retailers such as Wal -Mart, Walgreens and Ikea have announced plans to install hundreds of EV chargers at their stores by 2012 for use by their customers and employees. Looking to the future, large California cities are in varying states of "readiness" for PEVs and EVs. San Francisco, San Jose, Riverside and Los Angeles have focused on public charger infrastructure planning, permit streamlining, and public education. These cities have pledged to install thousands of chargers in public spaces using Federal and State grant funds. Most relevant to Santa Monica, the City of Berkeley addressed several cases of unsafe and illegal EV connections by developing and adopting a policy and guidelines for residents in residential areas adjacent to or within the public right -of -way who do not have access to off - street parking. Berkeley determined that dedicating street parking spaces exclusively for EV charging is against the law, and adopted the following priorities: 1. Berkeley should encourage off - street charging stations in public and commercial parking lots. 2. For properties where off - street parking does not already exist, every attempt should be made to identify or create new off - street space for EV charging on -site. 3. Informational materials should be made available to PEV and EV dealers that buyers should carefully consider their charging options before purchasing an EV. 4. Berkeley should encourage PG &E (their electric utility) and /or contract with private vendors to deploy commercial chargers, including residential areas. 5. Develop an EV site on the City's website that lists public charging stations. Future Planning to Address EV Charging Infrastructure in Santa Monica In February 2010 staff began meeting with SCE staff to discuss collaboration and partnership opportunities to prepare the City and the region for the expected increase in PEVs in the coming years. In February 2011 an interdepartmental EV Infrastructure Planning Group (EVIPG) including representatives from the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Rent Control, and the Public Works, Finance and Planning and Community Development departments, was created to coordinate the development of policy for the installation of EV chargers and infrastructure throughout the City. The EVIPG is focusing on the following three primary areas: 7 1. Public Infrastructure: Installation of EV chargers in public places and/or publicly - accessible chargers or charging stations 2. Development of policies for EV chargers in new construction 3. Development of policies and procedures for EV chargers in existing buildings Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below. Public Infrastructure The EVIPG is currently addressing the following issues related to the development of publicly - accessible EV charging infrastructure: • Identifying and prioritizing future locations for EV chargers on City property and in the public right -of -way, including parking structures, city buildings, parks, City streets, and other possible locations. • Establishing protocols for the ongoing operations and maintenance of existing and proposed public EV chargers • Evaluating policy options regarding proposals from private firms to install EV chargers on public property on a for - profit basis • Evaluating policy options for the payment of electricity costs at public EV chargers in light of expected increased EV usage • Investigating ways to encourage private businesses to install Level 3 "fast charger" stations to locate in SM as a way to increase the availability of charging stations for the public. Staff will return to Council as necessary for the adoption of policies as they are developed. Requirements for New Construction In the coming year, staff will be releasing a draft Zoning Ordinance for public review and comment, and as part of this process EV readiness requirements for both multi - family and commercial uses will be proposed. Staff has evaluated requirements from other cities to use as possible models. Rolling Hills Estates requires all residential new construction and any additions larger than 50% of the floor area of the property to install a dedicated 220 -volt outlet in the garage. The City of West Hollywood requires that all covered parking areas and outdoor parking areas with 25 spaces or more provide a separate meter panel and conduit installed for future electric vehicle charging. 8 Existing Buildings — Single Family Residential The City's current permitting practice for installations in existing single - family residences is a same -day permit issuance where a homeowner or licensed contractor obtains a permit over - the - counter. The proposed plans are reviewed by staff for compliance with code requirements for clearance and sight lines prior to issuance of a permit. An inspector is typically dispatched to verify compliance with the building code the next day following a request for inspection. Staff is currently evaluating the approval process to determine the feasibility of future online permitting for EV chargers. The cities of San Francisco and San Jose issue EV charger permits instantly online. Both cities do require a field inspection to verify compliance with building codes. The City of Los Angeles applied its existing online Express Permit system to EV charger installations. The system enables applicants to receive a permit automatically /instantaneously and start using their charger immediately after installation. Inspection follows within 24 hours. Existing Buildings — Multi - Family Residential and Commercial The issue of EV chargers in condominium development was addressed by the Legislature in SB 209 signed into law by Governor Brown in July, 2011. The new law does not require charging stations; it merely requires that they be allowed if homeowner wants them; and it relates only to condominiums, not to rental property. Specifically SB 209: 1. Declares void any condition in condominium governing documents that would prohibit a homeowner from installing an EV charging station in condominium common areas; and 2. Allows the condominium development's homeowners' association to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the homeowner's right to do the installation, such as requiring the homeowner to be responsible for installing and maintaining the charging station and make the homeowner liable for any damage to persons or property resulting from the station's installation, existence, or maintenance. The 9 homeowner wishing to install a charging station can be required to obtain up to $500,000 in insurance to safeguard against any liability resulting from the charging station's installation or operation. Retrofitting existing commercial buildings with EV chargers may raise issues related to parking. The EVIPG is evaluating options in anticipation that this issue will arise. Any EV charging program that would displace existing parking spaces would require further analysis and a Zoning Ordinance amendment in order to be code compliant. Additionally, a mechanism would need to be, created for the City's Transportation Management office to review installations in both commercial and residential locations to ensure clearance and visibility. Existing Construction — Multi- Family Rental Housing Current law does not allow the City to require a multi - family building owner to allow the installation of an EV charger by a tenant on the owner's property. The desire by tenants in rent - controlled apartment buildings to install EV chargers also raises a number of difficult issues, including location of the charger, payment for the electricity and building upgrades, and ownership and liability for the charger. A June 2011 report by the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation titled "Addressing Challenges to Electric Vehicle Charging in Multifamily Residential Buildings" provides more background on many of these issues and is included as Attachment A to this report. These issues are also addressed in more detail below. If a tenant's existing parking space is not in a location convenient for the installation of a charging station, the tenant may have to be assigned a new parking space. This could result in the displacement of other tenant parking from that location. Rent Control staff and the City Attorney's office indicate that if the tenant whose parking is displaced believes that any new parking space is inferior, he or she may be entitled to apply for a rent decrease. This may not only add an unanticipated (and unwelcome) cost to the owner, but could also create tenant -to- tenant conflict, especially in buildings in which 10 parking is already in short supply. It is also potentially problematic to require apartment owners to dedicate some part of the common area to a charging station for the benefit of a single tenant who may leave at any time. There is also the question of cost. In many older buildings, electrical upgrades are necessary to make charger installation feasible, and the costs of such upgrades can easily exceed $10,000. The Luskin Center report identifies cost as the primary barrier to installation of EV chargers in multi - family housing. It is unlikely that a building owner would agree to bear this expense given that the tenant who owns the EV may move at any time, and it is unlikely that many tenants would be willing to bear such an expense themselves. If the owner was required to bear the cost, current law does not allow him or her to recoup the expense by means of a pass- through to tenants and in the current economic environment any proposed change in the law to allow for it would likely meet with stiff resistance. In order to track the electricity use from the EV charger a separate meter would need to be installed, raising the cost of the installation, and a billing system would need to be developed to pass the cost on to the resident using the charger. In order to do this the Rent Control Board would need to amend its regulations which do not currently allow the building owner and the tenant of a unit that has been rented at, market rate to enter into a separate agreement for this type of additional cost. Other questions that would need to be resolved would be ownership of and liability for the charger in the event that a tenant moves. Would the tenant be required to indemnify the building owner for any problems related to the charger while it is installed and operated at the building? Would the tenant be required to obtain liability insurance for the EV charger, similar to the requirements for ASB 209 for condominiums? Would the tenant be free to remove the charger or would it be owned by the building owner once installed? If the tenant chose to leave the charger at the building after moving out would the owner assume liability for it? Some of these questions would be moot if a tenant were requesting access to an electrical outlet to conduct Level 1 charging (rather than requesting the ability to install a Level 2 charger) on the property, however the issues 11 regarding metering and charging for common -area electricity use would still need to be resolved. So far, only one rent - control jurisdiction has attempted to grapple with these issues. In September 2010, a rent - control tenant in Berkeley asked the Safe and Sustainable Housing Committee (SSH, a sub - committee of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board) to consider their case in which their property owner refused to grant them permission to install a charger despite their willingness pay for all related costs. After hearing the testimony, the Committee concluded that they supported and wished to encourage the use of alternative -fuel vehicles but could not compel the property owner to make (or permit) the requested improvements because the tenant's request represented improvements beyond the minimum code requirements. In October 2010, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board as a whole adopted a resolution that affirmed its support for electrical vehicles but concluded that it had insufficient data to enact a new regulation governing the installation of EV charging stations. The resolution therefore encouraged owners and tenants to attempt to mediate any conflict concerning the installation of charging stations and authorized the Rent Stabilization Board's hearing examiner to memorialize any resulting agreement in writing. Notably, however, the resolution does not compel any particular outcome, and does not say what will happen if mediation is unsuccessful. The Luskin Center report notes that internal negotiations between tenants and building owners "should be the first step in any EV charging station investment ". In light of the complexity of the issues regarding EV installation in existing multi - family rental housing, the limited ability of the City to require building owners to allow installation of chargers on their property, and the small likelihood that many tenants will be willing to bear the large expense required to install an EV charger in an existing building, with regard to existing multi - family rental housing staff recommends: 12 1) The City draft guidelines for use by renters and building owners to help them reach an agreement for the installation of chargers 2) Address the needs of multi - family tenants through facilitation of numerous viable charging options at nearby commercial and public locations The EVIPG will continue to address the various issues related to EV charger infrastructure described above, will monitor new developments in the field and will return to Council for policy direction and adoption as necessary. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate budget associated with this recommended action; however, expanding EV charger infrastructure throughout the City may require some level of City financial support in the future. Prepared by: Dean Kubani, Director, Office of Sustainability and the Environment Approved: Dean Kubani Director, Office of Sustainability and the Environment Attachments I7TaRFTi 003E oTe%1r i to Rod Gould City Manager Attachment A: Addressing Challenges to Electric Vehicle Charging in Multifamily Residential Buildings 13 UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Luskin Center FOR I9R NOVATION Addressing Challenges to Electric Vehicle Charging in Multifamily Residential • • About the Study The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the challenges and opportunities . for charging electric vehicles in multifamily residential buildings. The study draws on case studies from Southern California, and most of the analysis is applied to the City of Los Angeles. The author is a second year UCLA Department of Urban Planning graduate student who completed the project as part of his capstone requirement. About the Author David Peterson is a 2011 graduate of the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs master's degree program in Urban Planning. Acknowledgements I would like to thank J.R. DeShazo (Luskin Center for Innovation), Donald Shoup (Department of Urban Planning), and Juan Matute (Luskin Center for Innovation) for their advice and support. I would also like to thank the following people for sharing their insights about electric vehicles, . charging stations, and how to put them together in a multifamily residential building: Maureen Bekins (Southern California Edison), Len Fein (Clipper Creek), Dirk Foster (211 Spalding), Chuck Fredericks (The Azzura), Laura Page (Coulomb), Sarah Potts (Clinton Climate Initiative), Cortney Seeple (Towbes Group), Paul Scott (Plug -In America), Peter Suterko (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), Lim S. Szeto (Southern California Edison), Russell Vare (Nissan), and Osama Younan (Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety). About the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation The Luskin Center for Innovation, founded with a generous gift from Meyer and Renee Luskin, unites the intellectual capital of UCLA with forward - looking civic leaders to address pressing issues and translate world class research and expertise into real -world policy solutions. Research initiatives are supported by teams of faculty and staff from a variety of academic disciplines. The Luskin Center supports these initiatives by funding original research, scholars, conferences, technical internships and solution- oriented speaker series. For More Information For more information on this study and the UCLA Luskin Center's Electric Vehicle research programs, contact David Peterson (davidneterson @ucla.edu or 650- 477 -4883) or Juan Matute (i matute@ucla.edu or 310- 267- 5435). Electronic copies An electronic copy of the report is available at httn: / /Iuskin.ucla.edu /ev. Cover photo The front cover photo was provided courtesy of AeroVironment, Inc. (www.avinc.com). Table of Contents Table of Contents ............... ..............1 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... ..............................3 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... ..............................3 1.2 Level 1 & 2 EV Charging Stations are Preferred for Residential Charging . ..............................4 1.3 Cost is the Primary Barrier ............................................................................. ..............................5 1.4 EV Charging Station Cost Drivers .................................................................. ..............................6 1.5 Proposed Solutions ........................................................................................ ..............................7 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................ ..............................9 3. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations ............................ ............................... 3.1 EV Charging Station Typology ............................ ............................... 3.2 Charging Stations and Financial Incentives ..... ............................... 3.3 Alternatives to Charging Stations ...................... ............................... 4. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings ................. .. .............................10 .......... .............................10 .......... .............................13 23 ........ ............................... 14 ........ ............................... 15 4.1 Infrastructure ................................................................................ ............................... 9 4.1.1 Parking .................................................................................................. .............................17 4.1.2 Electrical ............................................................................................... .............................21 4.1.3 Costs ................................................................................................... ............................... 23 4.2 Existing Buildings: Management, Tenancy Status and Costs ................. ............................... 30 4.2.1 Management & Tenancy .................................................................... ............................... 30 4.2.2 Incentives for Existing Buildings .......................................................... .............................31 4.2.3 Case Studies ......................................................................................... .............................32 4.2.3.1 The Azzura .......................................................................................... ............................... 32 4.2.3.2 211 Spalding ......................:............................................................... ............................... 34 4.2.3.3 The Towbes Group, Inc ........................................................................ .............................36 4.3 New Construction ....................................................................................... ............................... 37 4.3.1 New Construction Rates ...................................................................... .............................37 4.3.2 New Construction Incentives ............................................................... .............................38 4.3.3 Case Study: Ralston Courtyards .......................................................... .............................38 5. Opportunities to Increase EV Charging Station Access ................................... ............................... 40 5.1 Identifying "Fair" EV Parking Access Solutions ........................................ ............................... 40 5.2 Utilizing Public Infrastructure ...................................................................... .............................40 5.3 Real Estate Transactions as an Opportunity ............................................ ............................... 42, <Table of Contents 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ .............................43 ..............................4 7. Appendix ............................................................................................................... .............................45 13 7.1 City of Los Angeles Green Building Code - EV Sections ................................... ...................... 45 7.2 Charging Station Cash Flow Models ........................................................... .............................47 24 8. References ......................................................................................................... ............................... 51 Figures 28 Figure 1. Monthly Fixed Cost for a Low Cost Installation ($3,600) ............................ ..............................5 .........:...................29 Figure 2. Monthly Fixed Cost for a High Cost Installation ($11,600) ......................... ..............................5 29 Figure 3. City of Los Angeles Multifamily Residential Parking Constraint Index ........ ..............................7 Figure4. SAE J1772 .................................................................................................. ............................... 11 Figure 5. Conductive Charging Station (AeroVironment's Pedestal Mounted Charging Dock) ............ 11 Figure 6. Inductive Charging (A model from Plugless Power) ................................... .............................12 Figure 7. Level Charger from Coulomb Technologies ............................................. .............................12 Figure 8. Better Place Battery Swap Station ............................................................ ............................... 15 Figure 9. City of Los Angeles Housing Stock, 2009 (U.S. Census Tracts) .............. ............................... 16 Figure 10. Age of Los Angeles Housing Stock through 2009 (U.S. Census Tracts ) .............................. 18 Figure 11. Concentrations of Multifamily Residential Buildings by U.S. Census Tract, City of Los Angeles..............................................................................:........................................ ............................... 18 Figure 12. City of Los Angeles Multifamily Parking Constraint Index ..................... ............................... 20 Figure 13. Monthly Fixed Cost for a Low Cost Installation ($3,600) ...................... ............................... 26 Figure 14. Monthly Fixed Cost for a High Cost Installation ($11, 600) ................... ............................... 27 Figure 15. New Residential Construction Permits, City of Los Angeles 1990- 2009 ............................ 37 Figure 16. City of Los Angeles Parking Lots and Multifamily Parking Constraint Index .......................41 Figure 17. Annual Residential Real Estate Transactions, Los Angeles, 2002 - 2010 ........................... 42 Tables Table 1. Charging Times for Different Vehicle Battery Capacities and Voltage ......... ..............................4 Table 2. Charging Times for Different Battery Capacities and Voltage .................. ............................... 13 Table 3. History of Los Angeles Residential Parking Requirements ....................... ............................... 17 Table 4. LADWP Standard Residential Electricity Rates (Dollars per kWh) ............ ............................... 24 Table 5. LADWP Time -of -Use (TOU) Rates (Dollars per kWh) .:................................ ............................... 25 Table 6. Nightly and Monthly EV Charging Electricity Costs .................................... ............................... 28 Table7. Hourly Fixed Costs ......................................................................................... .........:...................29 Table 8. Total Hourly Charging Cost (Fixed Cost + Average Electricity Cost) .......... ............................... 29 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Electric vehicle charging in multifamily residences (i.e. apartments and condominiums) may be one of the primary obstacles to expanding the electric vehicle market in large urban centers around the world.' Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), or electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, are installed with relative ease in single family residences, whether with attached or detached garages. An insufficient number of parking spaces, constrained electrical room capacity, expensive installation costs, and multiple EV charging station users are examples of some of the issues facing multifamily residential buildings. Since much of the world's urban population lives in some form of multi -unit residential building, EV owners in these buildings will want to find inexpensive and reliable ways to charge their EVs.2 In Tokyo, where practically the entire city lives in multifamily dwellings, some real estate developers have decided to circumvent these thorny issues by building new apartments equipped with EV charging stations .3 This approach works for new construction, but does not address EV charging station installations in existing buildings. In December 2010, the City of Los Angeles adopted a Green Building Code, mandating that all new single family and multifamily construction be equipped with the necessary electrical infrastructure and designated parking spaces to accommodate electric vehicles. However, the Green Building Code does not address the existing housing stock that will need to be modified to accommodate electric vehicles. Property managers and homeowner association (HOA) boards (the governing bodies of most condos) are uncertain how to respond to tenant requests for installing EV charging stations. One anonymous property manager stated the following: Bottom line, given a level- headed board of directors and a good management firm, I don't see any issues with owners being able to have an electric vehicle parked on common grounds'with a charging station attached to it, as long as the owner is willing to pay for the costs to do so.^ Certainlythere wouldn't be a problem from the building management's perspective if the user paid for all of the costs, but in some cases installing an EV charging station in a multifamily building can be cost prohibitive for a single user. Installation costs can range anywhere from $2,000 for a low - cost multifamily installation, to $10,000 for an apartment building requiring trenching to install a 1 htpJ www. cutube.coni ser lu inamerica? feature= mhu1NO /u /0 179ShT3YUVVA. Accessed February 2011. 2 http:Z /www.npr.or 201110>�16L_36282258 automakers- try -to- convince- chinese -to- drive - preen. Accessed May 2011. 3 Schmitt, Bertel, "EVs Encounter Condo Conundrum," The Truth About Cars, January 13, 2011. ° Zipp, Yvonne, "Getting Away from Gas," New England Condominium, March 15, 2011. (Bolding is my emphasis). Executive Summary new conduit, a new circuit, and electric meter. In one case, an electrician assessed an EV charging station installation to be $35,000.5 1.2 Level 1 & 2 EV Charging Stations are Preferred for Residential Charging Charging stations come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from a Level 2 charging station that can replenish a battery in several hours, to a Level 3 "fast" charging station that can fill up a battery in a fraction of an hour. Only charging stations that meet the requirements of vehicles used for urban or regional travel are discussed herein. These include charging stations applicable to models like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt. Of the three voltage levels, Levels 1 (110/120 Volts) and 2 (220/240 Volts) are best suited for residential applications given current commercially available technology. Level 3 charging (480 Volts) may be a viable future means of charging, but it is currently cost - prohibitive for most residential applications (approximately $35,000) and goes beyond the charging needs of most city drivers s.7 Los Angeles commuters travel an average distance of 19 miles, one way, and depending on how much additional travel is tacked on to that number, most EV drivers should be able to replenish their batteries on a nightly or bi- nightly basis .8 EV charging frequency is a function of the distance driven, electricity prices, driving style, load, and external conditions (e.g. wind resistance), in addition to the vehicle's body and battery characteristics. Table 1 shows battery charging times for the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt. Table 1. Charging Times for Different Vehicle Battery Capacities and Voltage Sources: (1) http: //www.nissanusa.com /ieaf- electric- car /faq/ view /97# /leaf - electric- car /faq /view /97 (2) http: / /www.chevrolet.com /volt / #technology Drivers who are depleting the battery on a daily basis need to charge nightly. But if drivers deplete 1/3 of the battery per day, they may only want to charge every two or three days. Also, drivers charging at work and at businesses that offer EV charging, may not be required to charge as frequently. The combination of all of these factors influences the decision of whether or not to invest in a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. A Level 1 charging station might be more suitable for vehicles with smaller battery sizes similar to the Chevrolet Volt's battery, but a.Level 2 charging 5 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. 6 Taylor, Dean. "The Differences and Similarities between Plug -In Hybrid EVs and Battery EVs," EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Norway, May 13 -16, 2009. htUr / /cta ornl Gov /TRBenerev /trb documents/ 2010 /Santini %20Session %20538.odf. Accessed May 2011. s hit /www calaoa.or /attachments files 1305/The Lonflest Mile.pdf. Accessed May 2011. Executive Summary i Hours to Fully Charge Battery from Vehicle Model Battery Empty Capacity Level 1(110/120V) Level 2(220/240V) Nissan Leaf (1) 24 kWh 20 7 Chevrolet Volt (2) 16 kWh 10 4 Sources: (1) http: //www.nissanusa.com /ieaf- electric- car /faq/ view /97# /leaf - electric- car /faq /view /97 (2) http: / /www.chevrolet.com /volt / #technology Drivers who are depleting the battery on a daily basis need to charge nightly. But if drivers deplete 1/3 of the battery per day, they may only want to charge every two or three days. Also, drivers charging at work and at businesses that offer EV charging, may not be required to charge as frequently. The combination of all of these factors influences the decision of whether or not to invest in a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. A Level 1 charging station might be more suitable for vehicles with smaller battery sizes similar to the Chevrolet Volt's battery, but a.Level 2 charging 5 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. 6 Taylor, Dean. "The Differences and Similarities between Plug -In Hybrid EVs and Battery EVs," EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Norway, May 13 -16, 2009. htUr / /cta ornl Gov /TRBenerev /trb documents/ 2010 /Santini %20Session %20538.odf. Accessed May 2011. s hit /www calaoa.or /attachments files 1305/The Lonflest Mile.pdf. Accessed May 2011. Executive Summary station is typically more suitable for larger batteries, like the one in the Nissan Leaf, which can substantially reduce charging times .9 1.3 Cost is the Primary Barrier The primary barrier to EV charging station installations is their cost. HOAs, building managers and building owners are opposed to installations because most are unwilling to pay for the upfront capital costs, and if they are, they anticipate the charging station will be underutilized. If the building's management invests in a charging station, they may or may not want to earn a profit on their investment. For example, as a non - profit, an HOA will likely want to break -even, but a building managed by a real estate investment trust (REIT) might want a profit. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show how break -even monthly fixed costs vary with interest rates for low cost ($3,600) and high cost ($11,600) installations, assuming a 7 -year loan term, with and without financial incentives. The 7- year term is arbitrary, and was chosen to illustrate the cost scenarios, and a longer term would reduce monthly debt service, and therefore monthly fixed costs. The fixed cost includes the price of a Level 2 charging station ($1,500), a city permit ($100), and low ($2,000) or high ($10,000) installation costs. Figure 1. Monthly Fixed Cost for a Low Cost Installation ($3,600) $110 $100 x u° $90 9 x $80 LL 1 V$70 L N $60 $50 $40 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Annual Interest Rate - -- Monthly Fixed Cost with Incentives —. Monthly Fixed Cost without Incentives Figure 2. Monthly Fixed Cost for a High Cost Installation ($11,600) 9 http: / /www.socalev.org /plu in1char in .htm. Accessed April 2011. Executive Summary 0 u s v LL L C 0 9 $345 $325 $305 $285 $265 $245 $225 0% 2% 4% 6% '8% 10% Annual interest Rate ® ® ° Monthly Fixed Cost with Incentives - Monthly Fixed Cost without Incentives Charging station users will also need to pay for the electricity consumed to charge their EVs. Using Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) time -of -use (TOU) rates, and including the LADWP EV charging discount, average monthly electricity costs are roughly $30 for seven -hour bi- nightly charging and $75 per month for seven -hour nightly charging, assuming a 24kWh battery and a Level 2 charging station. Total monthly costs, including electricity and fixed costs could range from slightly more than $75 to more than $400 per month. Apartment owners and managers could pass on the costs in the form of charges to users, but because of the transient nature of renters, and the small number of EV owners currently living, or wanting to live, in apartments, this would be difficult. 1.4 EV Charging Station Cost Drivers The main capital cost drivers are the charging stations, electrical upgrades and the EV parking space. A residential Level 2 charging station typically costs between $1,000 and $2,000 and government incentives can cover the cost in many instances. For example, The City of Los Angeles has a $2,000 rebate program for residential Level 2 charging stations. Electrical upgrades may be necessary and the cost is directly related to the location of the parking space where the EV will be charging. Electrical upgrades external to the building might include a transformer upgrade if the EV's power needs exceed the transformer's capacity (NB: transformer capacity is usually 10 to 15 percent of peak building demand). Internal upgrades could include adding a new circuit, adding a new electricity meter, and conduit installation for the 220/240 Volt line connecting the charging station to the electrical panel. These costs could be as low as a few hundred dollars and can escalate to several thousand. Parking access considerations are a crucial determinant of charging station installation costs. Installations are typically less expensive for parking spaces located a short distance from the electrical panel, and more expensive for parking spaces located farther away. Running a line from the electrical panel to the charging station can be the most difficult step in assuring power delivery to an EV. The crux of the problem lies in whether or not there is an existing conduit from the panel to the parking space. Even if the parking space is three levels below ground, and the electrical panel is located at ground - level, there shouldn't be a problem running a line if a conduit exists. However, if a Executive Summary conduit does not exist, the farther away the charger is from the panel, the more creative, and the more expensive, the solutions become. 1.5 Proposed Solutions Residents and building management must find creative ways to arrive at the lowest cost solution possible. Building management should facilitate parking space agreements and transactions among residents. Individuals can come to mutually agreed upon arrangements in order to secure a low -cost EV parking space. Additionally, building management could devise management tools uniquely tailored to residents' needs, in order to avoid costly installations. Internal negotiations should be the first step in any EV charging station investment. For residents of multifamily buildings who must park on the street or in off - street parking lots, the barrier to EV access is less about cost, and more about ensuring reliable access to a an EV charging station. Residents in these situations, and owners and managers of buildings with limited on -site parking availability, must look to low -cost alternatives. Figure 3 displays potential parking constraints for multifamily buildings in the City of Los Angeles by U.S. Census tract. Each tract contains a minimum of 50 percent multifamily buildings, and is weighted by the period within which the building was built (for all residential building types), which I use as a proxy for the parking space- to-residential unit ratio required for new construction in practice at the time. 11 Figure 3. City of Los Angeles Multifamily Residential Parking Constraint Index Residential Parking Cons High Parking Space- to-unit Somewhat Constrained Constrained Very Constrained - Low Parking space -to -unit 0 5 to I � Sources: Whittemore, 2010; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2009. Executive Summary Utilizing public and private parking lots for night -time EV charging can address the charging needs of drivers living within close proximity to a public or private lot. However, in cases where such lots are unavailable, installing curbside charging infrastructure could be an option. Publicly accessible . charging stations present a revenue opportunity for both types of lot owner, and serve the needs of residents without access to private charging stations. Expanding the electric vehicle market has become the focus of public policy with both the President of the United States and the Mayor of Los Angeles having expressed their desires to see EVs become a viable long -term transportation alternative. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama established a goal of "putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015," and since the 2009 Climate Summit for Mayors in Copenhagen, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa has been committed to eliminating obstacles to EV adoption in Los Angeles to the furthest extent possible.l°,11 Given this political support, the City of Los Angeles could require the installation of charging stations in multifamily buildings whenever a property (either the building, or units within the building) is sold. From 2002 to 2010, approximately 3,000 multifamily real estate transactions took place per year. This kind of policy would encourage HOA's, building managers, building owners and tenants to find low -cost EV charging solutions. The difficulties associated with installing EV charging stations in multifamily residences are not unique to Los Angeles, but are faced by almost every building owner, manager or tenant living in one the world's urban centers. As the world's population continues to grow and urbanize, adopting viable alternatives to petroleum -based transportation is central to ensuring motorized mobility in an increasingly natural resource - constrained world.12 Electric vehicles offer one such alternative, and enabling their adoption in multifamily buildings increases their potential effectiveness by appealing to a broader user base. 1° "One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015," U.S. Department of Energy, February 2011 11 http ,./ /mayor.lacity.orVPressRoom /Press Releases /LACITYP_007622 12 Sperling, Daniel, and Deborah Gordon. "Two Billion Cars," Oxford University Press, 2009. Executive Summary 2. Introduction Electric vehicle charging in multifamily residences (i.e. apartments and condominiums) may be one of the primary obstacles to expandingthe electric vehicle market in large urban centers around the world.13 Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), or electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, are installed with relative ease in single family residences, whether with attached or detached garages. An insufficient number of parking spaces, constrained electrical room capacity, expensive installation costs, and multiple EV charging station users are examples of some of the issues facing multifamily residential buildings. Since much of the world's urban population lives in some form of multi -unit residential building, EV owners in these buildings will want to find inexpensive and reliable ways to charge their EVs.14 In Tokyo, where practically the entire city lives in multifamily dwellings, some real estate developers have decided to circumvent these thorny issues by building new apartments equipped with EV charging stations.15 This approach works for new construction, but does not address EV charging station installations in existing buildings. In December 2010, the City of Los Angeles adopted a Green Building Code, mandating that all new single family and multifamily construction be equipped with the necessary electrical infrastructure and designated parking spaces to accommodate electric vehicles. However, the Green Building Code does not address the existing housing stock that will need to be modified to accommodate electric vehicles. Property managers and homeowner association (HOA) boards (the governing bodies of most condos) are uncertain how to respond to tenant requests for installing EV charging stations. One anonymous property manager stated the following: Bottom line, given a level- headed board of directors and a good management firm, I don't see any issues with owners being able to have an electric vehicle parked on common grounds with a charging station attached to it, as long as the owner is willing to pay for the costs to do so. 16 Certainly there wouldn't be a problem from the building management's perspective if the user paid for all of the costs, but in some cases installing an EV charging station in a multifamily building can be cost prohibitive for a single user. Installation costs can range anywhere from $2,000 for a low - cost multifamily installation, to $10,000 for an apartment building requiring trenching to install a new conduit, a new circuit, and electric meter. In one case, an electrician assessed an EV charging station installation to be $35,000.17 13 httD' / /www Koutube com/ user /pluginamerica? feature= mhum #p /u /0 /79ShT3YUVVA. Accessed February 2011. 14http: / /wwv.nDr.or2 /2011/0 5/16/ 13 6 2 8 2 2 5 8 /automakers- try -to- convince- chinese -to- drive- reen. Accessed May 2011. 16 Schmitt, Bertel, "EVs Encounter Condo Conundrum," The Truth About Cars, January 13, 2011. 16 Zipp, Yvonne, "Getting Away from Gas," New England Condominium, March 15, 2011. (Bolding is my emphasis) 17 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011 Introduction Expanding the electric vehicle market has become the focus of public policy with both the President of the United States and the Mayor of Los Angeles having expressed their desires to see EVs become a viable long -term transportation alternative. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama established a goal of "putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. "18 The primary reasons forthis policy push are threefold: (1) reducing reliance on petroleum as an energy source for vehicles; (2) environmental stewardship; (3) and creatingjobs and improving economic growth through the emergence of EV and EV charging station innovation, design, engineering, manufacturing, and related services. Since the 2009 Climate Summit for Mayors in Copenhagen, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa has been committed to eliminating obstacles to EV adoption in Los Angeles to the furthest extent possible.19 In May 2011, the Mayor and U.S. Secretary of Energy Chu, celebrated the success of federal EV programs in Los Angeles 20 In a similar vein, this report aims to analyze the issues surrounding charging station installations in Los Angeles, and its intended use is as a tool to help clarify charging station issues for anyone living in, managing, or working with charging station installations in multifamily residential dwellings. Section 3 defines EV charging stations, discusses the different types currently available, and mentions some alternative means of recharging. Section 4 discusses the parking, electrical infrastructure, and cost issues with installing and operating charging stations in apartments and condos, followed by specific discussions and case studies on the issues facing existing buildings and new construction. Section 5 puts forward some new ways of thinking about resolving EV charging station installation difficulties in Los Angeles, and the report concludes with some final thoughts on the future of electrical vehicles in Los Angeles in Section 6. 3. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Electric vehicle charging stations, otherwise commonly referred to as Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from a Level 2 charging station that can replenish a battery in several hours, to a Level 3 "fast' charging station that can fill up a battery in a fraction of an hour. Since this report is focused on vehicles used for urban or regional travel, only charging stations that meet the requirements for these kinds of vehicles will be discussed. For example, these would be the types of charging stations applicable to models like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt. 3.1 EV Charging Station Typology Charging stations are marketed at three levels of power delivery, ranked from one to three. Level 1 .delivers 110/120 Volts at 15 or 20 Amps, and is the same as plugging the EV into a common electrical wall socket. At this low voltage level, the charger is typically installed on the vehicle and the electricity delivered with a standard 3 -prong plug, or the now standard, SAE J1772 Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler (Figure 4). 18 "One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015," U.S. Department of Energy, February 2011 19 htto: // mayor. lacity_ qLyPressRoom /PressReleasesLLACITYP 007622. Accessed November 2010. 20 htto: / /www.enerPY. o yews /10331.htm. Accessed June 2011. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Figure 4. SAE J1772 Source: http : / /tennesseevalleyenergy.com /services- tve.html Level 2 charging delivers 220/240 Volts at 40 Amps, and can charge a battery at a much faster rate than Level 1. There are two types of Level 2 charge, conductive and inductive. Conductive chargers require metal -to -metal contact, whereas inductive chargers do not require it. Most Level 2 charging stations being installed today are conductive, such as AeroVironment's pedestal mounted charging dock (Figure 5). Figure 5. Conductive Charging Station (AeroVironment's Pedestal Mounted Charging Dock) Source: http : //www.avinc.com/media -gallery /Images /ev_charging/ For inductive charging, electricity is transferred through the magnetic field generated by the on -board vehicle receptor coming into a close range with the power delivery source installed in the parking space (Figure 6). Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Figure 6. Inductive Charging (A model from Plugless Power) Source: http: //www.wired.com/autopia/ 2011 /03/google- installs -a- wireless -ev- charging- station/ Level 3 charging delivers 480 Volts and does not require an onboard charger. Level 3 charging is intended for "fast' or "quick" charging that can replenish a vehicle's batteries in a matter of minutes. Level 3 charging is more apt for publicly available charging or commercial installations, but is not well- suited to residential needs, in single family or multifamily residences. Figure 7. Level Charger from Coulomb Technologies Source: http: / /www.coulombtech.com /blog/tag / level -3- fast - charging/ Of the three levels, Levels 1 and 2 are best suited for residential applications given current commercially available technology. Level 3 chargers may be a viable future means of charging, but they are currently cost - prohibitive for most residential applications (approximately $35,000) and go Electric Vehicle Charging Stations beyond the charging needs of most city drivers.21,22 Los Angeles commuters travel an average distance of 19 miles, one way, and depending on how much additional travel is tacked on to that number, EV drivers may, or may not, need to charge every day.23 EV charging frequency is a function of the distance driven, electricity prices, driving style, load, and external conditions (e.g. wind resistance), in addition to the vehicle's body and battery characteristics. Table 2 shows charging times for the Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt for Level 1 and Level 2 charging. - Table 2. Charging Times for Different Battery Capacities and Voltage Sources: (1) http: //www.nissanusa.com/ leaf - electric - car /faq /view /97N /leof- electric- car /faq /view /97 (2) http : //www.chevrolet.com /volt /#technology The Chevrolet Volt has a relatively small battery capacity (16 kWh), and requires less time to fully charge from empty, whereas the Nissan Leaf's larger battery (24 kWh) requires a longer charge time. Drivers depleting the battery on a daily basis need to charge nightly. But if drivers deplete 1/3 of the battery per day, they may only want to charge every two or three days. Also, if drivers are charging at work and at commercial locations offering EV charging, then they may not be required to charge as frequently. The combination of all of these factors influences the decision of whether or not to invest in a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. A Level 1 charging station might be more suitable for vehicles with smaller batteries, and a Level 2 charging station is typically more suitable for EVs with larger battery capacities, which can substantially reduce chargingtimes.24 3.2 Charging Stations and Financial Incentives There are federal and local financial incentives that apply to Los Angeles residents and businesses. The Federal Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit is, "available for the cost of alternative fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2005," and covers up to 30% for equipment placed into service in 2011, up to $30,000.25 The tax credit differentiates between "service station owners" and "consumers ", stating that consumers who purchase refueling equipment are only eligible for a maximum tax credit of $1,000, while service station owners who install equipment at 21 Taylor, Dean. "The Differences and Similarities between Plug -In Hybrid EVs and Battery EVs," EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Norway, May 13 -16, 2009. 22 13ttp: cta oral gov /TRBenergy / /trb documents/ 2010 / Santini ° / "20Session °/ "20538.odf. Accessed May 2011. 23http;/Lw.calana.org /attachments /files /1305LThe Longest Mile.adf. Accessed May 2011. 24I ?t:: wwwsocalev.or2/Dlugin/charHin .htm. Accessed May 2011. 2ehtt �yww.afdc.ener2y.2oy /afdc /laws /law /U- 351. Accessed May 2011. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Hours to Fully Charge Battery from Vehicle Model Battery Empty Capacity Level 1(110/120V) Level 2(220 /240V) Nissan Leaf (1) 24 kWh 20 7 Chevrolet Volt (2) 16 kWh 10 4 Sources: (1) http: //www.nissanusa.com/ leaf - electric - car /faq /view /97N /leof- electric- car /faq /view /97 (2) http : //www.chevrolet.com /volt /#technology The Chevrolet Volt has a relatively small battery capacity (16 kWh), and requires less time to fully charge from empty, whereas the Nissan Leaf's larger battery (24 kWh) requires a longer charge time. Drivers depleting the battery on a daily basis need to charge nightly. But if drivers deplete 1/3 of the battery per day, they may only want to charge every two or three days. Also, if drivers are charging at work and at commercial locations offering EV charging, then they may not be required to charge as frequently. The combination of all of these factors influences the decision of whether or not to invest in a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. A Level 1 charging station might be more suitable for vehicles with smaller batteries, and a Level 2 charging station is typically more suitable for EVs with larger battery capacities, which can substantially reduce chargingtimes.24 3.2 Charging Stations and Financial Incentives There are federal and local financial incentives that apply to Los Angeles residents and businesses. The Federal Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit is, "available for the cost of alternative fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2005," and covers up to 30% for equipment placed into service in 2011, up to $30,000.25 The tax credit differentiates between "service station owners" and "consumers ", stating that consumers who purchase refueling equipment are only eligible for a maximum tax credit of $1,000, while service station owners who install equipment at 21 Taylor, Dean. "The Differences and Similarities between Plug -In Hybrid EVs and Battery EVs," EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Norway, May 13 -16, 2009. 22 13ttp: cta oral gov /TRBenergy / /trb documents/ 2010 / Santini ° / "20Session °/ "20538.odf. Accessed May 2011. 23http;/Lw.calana.org /attachments /files /1305LThe Longest Mile.adf. Accessed May 2011. 24I ?t:: wwwsocalev.or2/Dlugin/charHin .htm. Accessed May 2011. 2ehtt �yww.afdc.ener2y.2oy /afdc /laws /law /U- 351. Accessed May 2011. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations multiple sites are allowed to use the credit at each location. Electricity qualifies as an alternative fuel. The credit expires December 31, 2011. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established two EV charging station incentive programs through Coulomb Technologies and ECOtality. The programs offer charging stations "at no cost to individuals or entities," provided they are publicly accessible and located in "high use" areas. Individuals can qualify for free residential charging stations if they own an electric vehicle, but they must pay for installation costs in most instances. Coulomb's project, ChargePoint America, and ECOtality's project, the EV Project, operate in overlapping, and in some cases, separate geographic markets.26 Both ChargePoint America and the EV Project are operational in Los Angeles. As of Spring 2011, the State of California and regional governments in the Los Angeles metropolitan area do not have any incentive programs for charging station installations, and the only incentive program complementing federal efforts is the City of Los Angeles' rebate program. The program covers up to $2,000 in costs for purchasing and installing a charging station.27 Applicants are required to purchase or lease an EV, purchase a Level 2 charger, and install a time -of -use meter at their home. The rebate makes clear that this offer applies to EV drivers in single family and multifamily residences. The program expires June 30, 2013. 3.3 Alternatives to Charging Stations Battery swapping is an alternative to conductive and inductive charging, and is currently being championed by Better Place. Better Place's battery swap program is being introduced in several countries and cities, most notably in Israel, where a country-wide system of battery swapping stations has been installed, and will be ready to launch in late 2011.28 For its Israeli launch, Better Place has partnered with Nissan - Renault to produce the Fluence Z.E., a sedan compatible with the battery swapping station, in addition to Level 1, 2, and 3 charging stations 29 26 http7 / /www.afdc.enei�v oov /afdc /lawsf IgJCA/8631; http,//www.afdc.ener>ry p,ov /afdc /laws /law /CA/8621; http•/ /www char2epointamerica com /; httl),//www.theevprojecteomLii)de_L.Dhp; Accessed May 2011. _ - 27 http7 / /www ladwl) com /Iadwp/cros/Iadwp002056.m); Accessed June 2011. 28 hl tp www bettel'place com /the -COmpan .�I25SrOOm- preSSreleaSeS- detail index /id/ Better°'° 20PIace% 20introduces %20tlie %20first %20mass %20market. Accessed June 2011. 29 htttD7//www.renault.coiii/eii/vehicules renaulapa es fluence- ze.aspx. Accessed June 2011. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Figure 8. Better Place Battery Swap Station Source: http://www.fastcompany.com/ 16983381 better - place- bringing- switchable- battery- electric - tax(- program -to- the- bay -area 4. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Approximately half of Los Angeles' residents live in a multifamily dwelling, which could pose significant barriers to widespread EV adoption. Estimates for 2009 show that approximately 51 percent of Los Angeles' housing stock was composed of multifamily residences, 46 percent was single family residences, three percent was duplexes, and less than 1 percent was RV's, motor homes, and other forms of shelter.30 Installing charging stations in single family residences is rarely a problem because the parking space is private. Owners of the parking space have exclusive rights to park there, and ca_ n prevent others from using the space. This facilitates making changes to the parking space, such as adding charging stations, since no other users will be affected by its installation. Additionally, most parking spaces for single family homes are driveways that are at- grade, or slightly below ground level, which makes supplying the garage or driveway with the necessary electrical upgrades fairly simple and relatively inexpensive. 30 U.S .Census American Community Survey, 2009. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Figure 9. City of Los Angeles Housing Stock, 2009 (U.S. Census Tracts) Duplex, 3% Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2009. Parking in multifamily dwellings is legally and physically more complex, complicating charging station installations, and thus presenting a potential barrier to EV adoption. Unlike most single family homes where an exclusive private parking space is required, this is rarely the case in Los Angeles, where old buildings without any private parking availability mix with new luxury high rise apartments with several levels of underground parking. Accompanying the parking supply issue, are the legal and regulatory hurdles, and sometimes high costs, associated with installing charging stations and the related electrical infrastructure. Section 4.1 documents the physical infrastructure challenges of installing charging stations as it applies to parking supply and electrical infrastructure. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 place existing buildings . and new construction under the microscope for a fine grain look at the enabling and constraining factors involved with charging station installations, with both sections delving into the details of specific case studies. 4.1 Infrastructure Parking supply and electrical capacity are the primary non - financial factors affecting whether or not charging stations can be installed from an infrastructure perspective. Los Angeles' housing stock may not be as old as many European or U.S. East Coast cities, but a significant portion of the housing stock dates from periods when personal -use light -duty vehicles were not as widespread as they are today, and thus developers didn't build parking in multifamily dwellings. However, as adoption of light -duty vehicles increased, city building and zoning codes changed to accommodate this growth and incorporated parking spaces into its building requirements. Similarly, electricity requirements have changed substantially over the years, moving from periods where household electricity consumption was minimal, to a period when nearly all household appliances are powered by electricity. Therefore, both parking supply and electrical capacity will vary greatly from building to building. The analysis would be remiss without a discussion about infrastructure costs, and a simple financial model provides some insight in section 4.1.3. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings 4.1.1 Parking City of Los Angeles parking requirements have changed substantially over the years, resulting in a great disparity between buildings' parking supply. Whittemore (2010) has documented the changes in the city's parking requirements from the 1930s to the present (Table 3). What can be gleaned from the table is an increasing intensity of parking as a residential development requirement, starting with at least 1 space per unit for buildings over 20 units in the 1930s, to a more refined range of 1 to 2 spaces depending on the number of rooms in the unit, which dates from 1965 and is still implemented today. Table 3. History of Los Angeles Residential Parking Requirements Year Regulation 1930s At least 1 space per unit for buildings over 20 units 1934 1 garage space for all units in any multifamily building on the same lot' 1948 R3 zone, 1 space per unit 1948 R4 zone, 4 spaces forevery 5 units 1948 R5 zone, 2 spaces forevery 3 units 1958 1:1 parking:unit ratio, citywide 1958 1.25:1 ratio on lots where more than 6 units exceeded 3 rooms 1965 1space per unit of one or two habitable rooms 1965 11.5 spaces per any unit of 3 habitable rooms 1965 12 spaces for any unit overthreerooms 1970 Kitchen as a habitable room to be factored into parking requirements Source:Whittemore, 2010 Making a conjecture about the parking supplyfor a given unit of analysis based on the table above, and combiningthe age of Los Angeles' housing stock in 2009, could provide some indication about parking supply. Figure 10 displays the age of Los Angeles' housing stock by dividing it into five categories. . EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Figure 10. Age of Los Angeles Housing Stock through 2009 (U.S. Census Tracts) Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2009. The five periods were selected to correspond with changes made to Los Angeles' parking requirements. For example, 34 percent of Los Angeles' housing supply was built since 1970, indicating compliance with the parking regulations put in place since 1965 and 1970. Since multifamily residential is the focus of this report, Figure 11 displays concentrations of multifamily housing by U.S. Census Tract for 2009. Figure 11. Concentrations of Multifamily Residential Buildings by U.S. Census Tract, City of Los Angeles N � r" L v t i 1 Multifamily Share of Total Tract Housing Stock -I Leas than 25 -A 25% to 50% 50% to 75% l� More than 75% F� - —A 1 0 5 10 20 Miles f'� �(F; , EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2009. The census tracts were divided into four categories, displaying concentrations of multifamily housing per census tract: less than 25 percent, 25 percent to 50 percent, 50 percent to 75 percent, and above 75 percent. These data were then combined with the housing age data into an index that could predict which census tracts might have a shortage of parking. Only census tracts with 50 percent multifamily housing located within them were selected for the index. The index number for each Census tract is the ratio of the percentage of buildings constructed during periods when parking requirements were less than the number of residential units in the structure, to the percentage of buildings constructed during periods when parking requirements exceeded, or were equal to, the number of residential units in the structure (Equation 1). Equational. Multifamily Parking Shortage Index Number Index Number (Percent built 1950 to 1959) + (Percent built 1939 or earlier) = (Percent built 1960.to 2009) + (Percent built 1940 to 1949) Due to the limitations of U.S. Census data, the periods of low parking requirements (the numerator in Equation 1) are an approximation of the actual periods as documented by Whittemore (2010) (see Table 3). The period 1950 to 1959 is meant to capture multifamily buildings constructed between 1948 and 1957, and the period capturing all buildings built through 1939 is meant to represent structures built prior to 1934. The resulting map identifies potential Census tracts where parking may be undersupplied, relative to the official regulations (Figure 12). EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Figure 12. City of Los Angeles Multifamily Parking Constraint Index Residential Parking Constraint al•' High Parking Spce-to-Unft Rain 'I somewhat constrained a .0 ve� constrained Low Parking Space-to-Unit Rabo 0 5 10 20 Miles ti Sources: Whittemore, 2010; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2009. The index results suggest potential parking undersupply in the Census tracts surrounding downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, parts of the Westside, and the eastern portions of the San Fernando Valley. The darker census tracts will typically have an older housing stock and a higher percentage of multifamily buildings as a percentage of the total housing supply within that Census tract. A high percentage of older multifamily buildings indicates limited private parking, and most parking is probably curbside or in off - street lots in those areas. However useful the index may be in identifying potential multifamily parking undersupply, there are many caveats associated with the analysis. The Census tract is too aggregated to be a useful unit of analysis for making investment or policy decisions, but it does serve as an indicator of potential parking complications. Secondly, a large assumption is made regarding the age and number of parking spaces in multifamily buildings. Since the parking regulations are minimum regulations, it could very well be the case that developers provided more parking than was required. Additionally, it is possible that multifamily buildings are the newest housing in a given census tract, and that the oldest structures are single family homes, thereby skewing the results toward the older homes, and thus invalidating the results. Athorough analysis would require compiling parcel data for each building, indicating the building's age, number of parking spaces, and the number of units. Lastly, EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings the analysis assumed every unit would require a parking space, and that fewer parking spaces per unit, as compared to the city's parking regulations, would indicate a shortage. In reality, not everyone in Los Angeles owns a car and requires a parking space. It is possible that a building where only half of the residents own a vehicle, can find adequate curbside parking, and don't have a parking shortage at all. Parking access is as much a problem as is parking supply when considering charging station installations. Bundled and unbundled parking spaces can affect parking access, depending on whether the unit is a condo (i.e. the unit is for sale or owned) or a rental unit. A bundled parking space is included in the rent or sale price of the unit, and an unbundled space is not, and is paid for separately. Unbundled parking spaces can be assigned on a first -come first -serve basis, or they can be unassigned. In condos, bundled spaces can be deeded to the unit, meaning they are bought and sold along with it. Additionally, the configuration of the parking spaces can affect access. Single, side -by -side, parking spaces offer unobstructed access, but are sometimes an inefficient use of space. Tandem parking spaces, where two cars park, one in front of the other, makes more efficient use of space, but one car will always be obstructed. Parking access considerations are a crucial determinant of charging station installation costs. Installations are cheaper for parking spaces located a short distance from the electrical panel, and more expensive for parking spaces located farther away. Section 4.1.2 discusses the relationship between parking and electrical upgrades in further detail. 4.1.2 Electrical Multifamily dwellings face electricity infrastructure challenges when installing charging stations. As most building owners, electricians, and charging station installers will agree, every building is unique and over - arching statements about electrical upgrades are difficult to make. Nevertheless, this report attempts to shed as much light as possible on the main electrical issues. Supplying Power to the Building Most transformers that convert electricity from high voltage for transmission to low voltage for residential use, have been upgraded over the years, thus rendering it difficult to make any meaningful inferences about building age and transformer capacity. The introduction of new technology has often been followed by increases in transformer capacity, such as the introduction of air conditioning, and washers and dryers - appliances that consume large amounts of electricity. Large scale adoption of EVs will inevitably require increases in transformer capacity. The most recent city -wide transformer upgrade effort for the City of Los Angeles occurred in the early 2000s.31 Transformers supplying multifamily buildings typically have 10% to 15% excess capacity, or overhead, which is enough to sustain a few electric vehicles, but is insufficient to sustain a full conversion of the vehicle fleet to electric power.32 Transformer size is dictated by the amount of energy required to sustain the building's population with 10% to 15% overhead. For example, in the case of a 450 -unit condo called The Azzura (see Section 4.2.3.1 for a case study), the transformer 31 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. 32 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings supplying the building was at 75% utilization, which allowed for the potential installation often Level 2 charging stations (which is determined by assessing the number of EVs that could charge during peak periods), according to a LADWP assessment. Additional EV charging stations would require the installation of a new transformer, but 50% utilization of the new transformer would need to be demonstrated in order to justify its installation 33 New transformer installations are not a major ordeal from the utility's perspective, and all additional infrastructure costs for supplying power up to the building are absorbed by the LADWP.34 Supplying Power to Charging Stations within the Building Once enough power is being delivered to the buildingto sustain EV charging stations, the next problem is how to transport that electricity to the EV that needs it. The most common problems associated with this are a lack of electrical panel capacity, small electrical rooms, and the location of the EV parking space It isn't uncommon for a building's electrical panel to be fully utilized and not have any room to add new circuits. This problem can be overcome by adding panel capacity, which requires a permit from the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety ( LADBS). Adding more than 400 Amps will trigger a plan review, meaning the applicant will incur higher costs. Each new circuit requires a permit from LADBS at a cost of $100 per circuit.35 Adding electrical panel capacity may seem like an easy fix, but electrical room space can be a limiting factor. In apartment buildings, panels are usually located in electrical rooms, which are also where electricity meters can be located, although most are usually located on a building's exterior. Adding another panel could be issue for some buildings that have small electrical rooms. Additionally, if the building decides to meter a circuit separately (i.e. sub - metering), then a new meter would have to be provided by the LADWP. One could imagine the space limitations of the electrical room when 10, 20 or 30 charging stations are installed, resulting in a corresponding number of electricity meters, essentially placing a limit on the number of charging stations that can be installed. Running a line from the circuit in the electrical panel to the charging station can be the most difficult step in assuring power delivery to an EV. If the EV parking space, and therefore the charging station, is located close to the electrical panel, costs of running a line should be fairly low. The crux of the problem is whether or not there is an existing conduit from the panel to the parking space. Even if the parking space is three levels below ground, and the electrical panel is located at ground - level, there shouldn't be a problem running a line if a conduit exists. However, if a conduit does not exist, the farther away the charger is from the panel, the more creative, and the more expensive, the solutions become. Building Code Changes (Green Building Code) . The City of Los Angeles Green Building Code (Chapter IX, Article 9, of the Los Angeles Municipal Code), adopted on December 14, 2010, mandates newly constructed "low- rise" (single family 33 Interviews with Azzura HOA Board Member, Chuck Fredericks, March 2010. 34 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. 35 Ladbs.org/permits /feeschedule /electrical permits EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings residences, duplexes, and townhouses) and "high- rise" residential buildings to be charging station - ready.36 For low -rise buildings with private parking, either a 208/240 Volt 40 Amp outlet must be installed for each unit, or panel capacity and conduits for future installation of a 208/240 Volt 40 Amp outlet. All outlets must be located "adjacent to the parking area." For low -rise buildings with common parking, the following options are available: • A minimum number of 208/240 Volt 40 Amp outlets, equal to 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces, to be located within the parking area; or • Panel capacity for the future installation of 208/240 Volt 40 Amp outlets, equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces, with a conduit terminating in the parking area; or • Additional service capacity, space for future meters, and conduit for future installation of electrical outlets, equal to 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces, with the conduits terminating in the parking area. High -rise buildings are required to provide 208/240 Volt 40 Amp outlets equal to 5 percent of the .total number of parking spaces, with the outlets located in the parking area. The Code also mandates high -rise buildings to provide designated parking for "low- emitting, fuel - eff icient, and carpool /van pool vehicles according to a fixed schedule 37 It is unclear whether or not this part of the code applies to electric vehicles. The Green Building Code's EV -ready specifications only apply to new construction, and not to building remodels. Peter Suterko, Fleet Services Manager at the LADWP, is developing a proposal to mandate that remodels require a certain percentage of electricity to be set aside for electric transportation, but this is yet to be formalized 38 4.1.3 Costs EV owners living in multifamily dwellings need to overcome a number of hurdles in order to ensure the availability of EV charging in their building's parking spaces. From the tenant's perspective, owning a charging station, even if obtained at subsidized rates through government incentives, doesn't resolve the fact that a new circuit needs to be added to tine panel, a new meter installed, and a line run to the charging station. Problems stem from two sources: capital infrastructure costs, and operations and maintenance (0 &M) costs. How much capital infrastructure costs are, and who pays for them, drives the argument in both rental units and condos. Unless the entire building's management is in agreement, the question of Who should bear the capital costs of installing charging stations is a contentious issue. Common cost items include the following: • Level 2 Charging Station • Permits 36 See Appendix 7.1 37 See Appendix 7.1 38 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings • Electrician Assessment • Electrical Panel Upgrade • Electricity Meter • Installation Having the user pay for these capital costs seems like an equitable solution, but what if the user is a renter? What if the installation costs are so high that it would be unreasonable for a single EV owner to pay for them? If the EV parking space in question is not located near an electrical panel, then the costs can be very high, depending on the vertical and horizontal distance (and the building materials, or lack thereof, that lie in between). For example, a building that has sufficient panel capacity, and a conduit running from the panel to the EV parking space, will likely only incur charging station, permit, and electrician installation /assessment costs, possibly totaling $5,000. On the other hand, a building without excess panel capacity,, no conduit, and a parking space located very far from the electrical panel, will likely incur very high costs, possibly several times the amount of the previous example. In one instance, total costs for installing a charging station in a remote parking space in a Los Angeles apartment building were assessed to be $35,000.39 The 0 &M costs vary depending on how the charging station is managed. 0 &M cost components are usually only the electricity costs for charging the EV, but other costs, such as a cost for processing bills for multiple users, may exist if the charging station is utilized by more than one user. Charging stations require little maintenance and they are covered by a warranty should they malfunction. Generally, there are two different electricity rate structures: (1) flat rate; and (2) time -of -use (TOU) rate. The flat rate charges a single rate per the amount of electricity consumed. The TOU rate varies with the time of day and the time of year, and the price is directly related to the demand for electricity throughout the day during that time of year. TOU rates are highest during peak periods in the summer (June to September for the LADWP), and lowest during off -peak periods in the fall, winter, and spring (October to May for the LADWP). No matter the season, peak electricity demand usually extends from mid - morning to late afternoon, and off -peak periods are in the evenings, nights and weekends. The LADWP offers the following rates:40,41 Table 4. LADWP Standard Residential Electricity Rates (Dollars per kWh) Zone 11 Tier 1 <350 350<Tier2 <1050 Tier3 >1050 Zone 2 Tierl <500 ISW<Tier2<1500 Tier3 >1500 June -Sept $0.132 $0.147 $0.181 Oct -May $0.132 $0.132 $0.132 ' Zone 2 is the San Fernando Valley, and Zone 1 is all other areas. Source: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 39 Interview with Peter Suterko, LADWP, March 2011 4ohttp : / /www.Iadwpnews.com /externa I/co ntent/d ocu ment/1475 /952931 /1 /EV %20Incentive %20and %20Rat es %20Final.pdf 41 The LADWP currently offers an off -peak TOU discount of 2.5 cents per kWh, which equates to a discount ranging from 11 percent to 24 percent of the TOU rate, and it is not shown in the TOU rate schedules. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Table 5. LADWPTime -of -Use (TOU) Rates (Dollars per kWh) Time AM PM Midnight 11121314151617181911011.111.2 111213141516171819 110 11 June -Sept $0.108 $0.143 1 $0.222 1$0.1431 $0.11 Oct -May $0.127 Source: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power These rates may, or may not, be available for the charging stations depending on how electricity is managed in the building. More often than not, electricity provided in parking garages and other common areas is not billed to individual users, and is instead billed to residents through HOA fees (the periodic fees paid for by residents of HOA- managed buildings) or rent. Common areas are typically not subscribed to TOU rates, meaning the price of electricity consumed for EV charging could be high or low, depending on when the EV was charged (e.g. if the TOU rate is less than the flat rate, then the EV owner is needlessly spending more money than necessary). , It is important to consider how capital and 0 &M costs affect the investor and the end -user of the charging station. Investors in charging station infrastructure seek to recover their investment within a reasonable amount of time. Users, on the other hand, want to access this infrastructure for as little cost as possible. Different investment and user -fee scenarios are analyzed below. Financing EV Charging Stations Most charging station installations in multifamily buildings will be financed by some entity representing the building's ownership. For example, an HOA would finance the purchase and installation of a charging station in a condo, and a building owner would finance it in an apartment building. In both cases, the investing entity will pass costs onto users, and some entities might want to earn a profit. EV charging station users can pay a fixed cost to service the loan and pay for taxes. Payment can be made on a monthly basis, similar to the payment cycle for rental apartments and HOA fees, or it can be made incrementally during each EV charging session, with a fee assessed on a time -basis (e.g. by the second, minute or hour the EV is charging). Most HOAs are tax - exempt entities and wouldn't normally seek to earn a profit, but an apartment building managed by a real estate investment trust (REIT) might want a profit. For purposes of estimating a monthly fixed cost paid for by charging station users, I assume the investing entity is tax - exempt, and is not profit- seeking. Capital costs are presented under high and low cost scenarios, differing on the installation costs. A low cost installation is assumed to be $2,000, the amount typically quoted for installing a Level 2 charging station in the garage of a single family residence. A high cost installation is assumed to be $10,000, and is indicative of what it might cost to install new electrical panel capacity, a new electrical meter, and run a line through a new conduit to a parking space located several hundred feet from the electrical room. There is high variability in costs, and these numbers are only useful as a means of illustrating the two scenarios. The capital cost assumptions are as follows: EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings • EV Level 2 Charging Station price: $1,500 • Installation Costs: o Low Cost: $2,000 o High Cost: $10,000 • LADWP permit for 1 new circuit and meter: $100 • LADWP Charging Station Rebate: up to $2,000 The financial incentive assumed is the $2,000 LADWP rebate for the charging station. As a tax - exempt entity, the investor does not qualify for the Federal Infrastructure Tax Credit. 0 6M costs are assumed to be minimal, except for an $8 monthly fee assessed by the LADWP for TOU billing. Charging station maintenance costs are expected to be negligible, and complications with the unit should be covered by a service warranty. The principal amounts are $3,600 for the low cost installation and $11,600 for the high cost installation, including the EV charging station price, LADWP permit, and the respective installation cost. The principal amounts are reduced by $2,000 if the LADWP Level 2 charging station rebate is included. It is possible that an investor will not seek external financing, but I assume a loan term and an annual interest rate. Monthly debt service payments are lower with a longer loan term, but for the purposes of estimating a monthly fixed cost, I assume a 7 -year loan term. In addition to monthly debt service payments, the fixed cost includes the $8 monthly LADWP TOU fee. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the break -even monthly fixed cost for the charging station installation for different interest rates. They also show the monthly fixed cost with and without the rebate for both high and low installation cost scenarios. Figure 1.3. Monthly Fixed Cost for a Low Cost Installation ($3,600) $110 $100 U 590 a x $80 l� s $70 e $60 $50 $40 0% 2% 4% 6% S% 10% Annual Interest Rate — ° Monthly Fixed Cost with Incentives EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Monthly Fixed Cost without Incentives Figure 14. Monthly Fixed Cost for a High Cost Installation ($11,600) $345 $325 N O a a X $285 L 0 $265 $245 $225 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 30% Annual Interest Rate - -- Monthly Fixed Cost with Incentives �-� Monthly Fixed Cost without Incentives Assuming the interest rate is based on what a financial institution, such as a bank, would presumably charge for a loan to finance the purchase and installation of a charging station, an 8 percent interest rate is a reasonable assumption. The Seven -Year U.S. Treasury Note had an interest rate around 2.5% in the first half of 2011- the "risk- free" rate for a seven -year investment42 - and I assume the bank would want to be compensated an additional five to six percent to account for the additional risk associated with EV charging stations.43 An 8 percent interest rate is probably higher than what a bank would charge for an asset of similar risk, but taking into account EV market uncertainty, a conservative number is appropriate for this analysis. The monthly fixed cost with an 8 percent annual interest rate for the low cost installation is $52 with the rebate and $107 without it. Monthly fixed costs for the high installation cost are $272 and $327, with and without the rebate, respectively. Financial incentives can significantly reduce capital costs, thereby making EV charging stations more affordable. Financial incentives reduced monthly fixed costs by 51 percent under the low capital cost scenario, and 23 percent under the high,capital cost scenario. Fora single charging station user, these monthly fixed costs could represent a doubling of their HOA fees, or a large addition to their monthly rent. If the costs are spread among more charging station users, or more tenants, then they can be further reduced. For example, if a 20 -unit building spread the fixed cost under the high capital cost scenario among all tenants (EV charging station users and non - users), the cost would be $14 to $16 per month. Bundling Fixed Costs with Electricity Costs The monthly fixed cost does not include electricity consumption, which is a marginal cost. EV charging frequency is a function of the distance driven, electricity prices, driving style (e.g. city streets with many stops versus highway), load, and external conditions (e.g. wind resistance), in addition to the vehicle's body and battery characteristics. Therefore, electricity costs can differ 42 U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds are considered "risk- free" because of the low probability of the U.S. government defaulting. 43 http .,/ /www.treasury.gov / resource - center /data - chart- center / interest - rates /Pages /default.aspx EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings substantially. Daily and monthly electricity costs for a battery and vehicle similar to the Nissan Leaf (24 kWh) are shown in Table 6, and assume three -hour and seven -hour charging sessions during off - peak TOU periods with a Level 2 charger. Table 6. Nightly and Monthly EV Charging Electricity Costs ' One month is equivalent to 30 nights. 2 The cost is equivalent to 317 of the 7 -hour charge, and may not reflect the exact cost for a 3 -hour charge. 3 Current LADWP EV charging discount of $0.025 per kWh. Different cost scenarios are presented based on charging station utilization rates. Two charging station utilization rates are assumed: (1) seven -hour nightly EV charging (29 percent charging station utilization based on 24 hours); and (2) three -hour nightly EV charging (13 percent utilization). Seven hours is the time it takes to fully replenish a depleted Nissan Leaf battery with a Level 2 charging station, and three hours represents a scenario where the driver only needs a few hours to fully charge the battery. Assuming someone drove 30 to 40 miles per day, they could charge nightly (the three hour scenario), or bi- nightly (the seven hour scenario). Instead of a monthly fixed cost, investors could charge users during an EV charging session on a time basis. For example, fixed costs could be paid during a charging session while the EV simultaneously draws -down electricity, and could be paid by the second, minute, hour, or any other fraction of time. The amount paid would depend on the EV charging station's utilization rate - the more drivers that use the charging station, the lower the fixed cost paid by each driver. This kind of payment method is useful for charging tenants, guests of tenants, and other EV owners who can access the charging station. I assume an hourly fixed cost based on a single EV charging for three or seven hours (similar to the previous examples). Table 7 shows hourly fixed costs, and Table 8, bundles the hourly fixed cost and average hourly electricity cost. The fixed cost assumes an 8 percent interest rate and a 7 -year loan term. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Monthly Cost' Averarge Rate Season Cost per 3 -Hour 7 -Hour I[$ h) Hour Nightly Nightly Charge' Charge June to September $ 0.108 $ 0.37 $ 33.33 $ 77.76 October to May $ 0.127 $ 0.44 $ 39.19 $ 91.44 June to September with Discount' $ 0.083 $ 0.28 $ 25.61 $ 59.76 October to May with Discount' $ 0.102 $ 0.35 $ 31.47 $ 73.44 ' One month is equivalent to 30 nights. 2 The cost is equivalent to 317 of the 7 -hour charge, and may not reflect the exact cost for a 3 -hour charge. 3 Current LADWP EV charging discount of $0.025 per kWh. Different cost scenarios are presented based on charging station utilization rates. Two charging station utilization rates are assumed: (1) seven -hour nightly EV charging (29 percent charging station utilization based on 24 hours); and (2) three -hour nightly EV charging (13 percent utilization). Seven hours is the time it takes to fully replenish a depleted Nissan Leaf battery with a Level 2 charging station, and three hours represents a scenario where the driver only needs a few hours to fully charge the battery. Assuming someone drove 30 to 40 miles per day, they could charge nightly (the three hour scenario), or bi- nightly (the seven hour scenario). Instead of a monthly fixed cost, investors could charge users during an EV charging session on a time basis. For example, fixed costs could be paid during a charging session while the EV simultaneously draws -down electricity, and could be paid by the second, minute, hour, or any other fraction of time. The amount paid would depend on the EV charging station's utilization rate - the more drivers that use the charging station, the lower the fixed cost paid by each driver. This kind of payment method is useful for charging tenants, guests of tenants, and other EV owners who can access the charging station. I assume an hourly fixed cost based on a single EV charging for three or seven hours (similar to the previous examples). Table 7 shows hourly fixed costs, and Table 8, bundles the hourly fixed cost and average hourly electricity cost. The fixed cost assumes an 8 percent interest rate and a 7 -year loan term. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Table 7. Hourly Fixed Costs Capital Cost Scenario Low Capital Costs High Capital Costs Nightly Charging Station Utilization (hours) Three Seven Three Seven Fixed Cost without incentives ($ /hour) $1.19 $0.51 $3.64 $1.56 Fixed Cost with Incentives ($ /hour) $0.58 $0.25 $3.23 ' $1.30 Change in Fixed Cost ($ /hour) _ $0.61 $0.26 $0.40 $0.26 Percent Change in Fixed Cost: 51.5% $0.53 Table 8. Total Hourly Charging Cost (Fixed Cost + Average Electricity Cost) - Fixed Cost +Average Electricity Cost ($ /hour) With Incentives Average Electricity Cost ($ /hour) Low Capital Cost Scenario High Capital Cost Scenario Three Hours Seven Hours Three Hours - Seven Hours June to September $0.37 $0.95 $0.62 $3.60 $1.67 October to May $0.44 $1.01 $0.68 $3.67 $1.73 June to September with Discount' $0.28 $0.86 $0.53 $3.52 $1.58 Octoberto May with Discount' $0.35 $0.93. - $0.60 $3.58 $1.65 Without Incentives June to September $0.37 $1.56 $0.88 $4.01 $1.93 October to May $0.44 $1.62 $0.94 $4.07 $1.99 June to September with Discount' $0.28 $1.47 $0.79 $3.92 $1.84 October to May with Discount' $0.35 $1.54 $0.86 $3.99 $1.91 'Current lADWP EV chorging discount of $0.025 per kWh. With such a broad range of costs, one can see the importance of assuring high charging station utilization rates and keeping capital costs as low as possible. Financial incentives help decrease fixed costs, but they can be outweighed by high capital costs and low charging station utilization rates. It should be noted, though, that the majority of fixed costs will only need to be paid for a limited period of time (seven years in this example), or until the charging station needs to be replaced (replacement costs were not considered in this analysis). The simplified payment structure used herein is driven by charging station utilization rates and the'type of financing obtained, and doesn't assume any profit. Certainly, more sophisticated payment structures could be developed, but this is beyond the report's scope. Lastly, billing for EV charging station use is possible using a stand- alone computer program, but in many cases the billing is outsourced to an external EV charging station management company. Coulomb Technologies is one such company offering direct billing to EV charging station users, and assesses additional fees for providing this service (see the boxed text on Coulomb's billing services). EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Coulomb Technologies, Inc. Coulomb's EV charging stations use radio frequency identification (RFID) to track charging station users in a voluntary program that bills users for electricity consumption.and provides them with reports informing them of their greenhouse gas emissions and charging behavior. If charging station owners opt into this program, users will be charged a fee of $0.50 per session, plus a percentage of the price of the total amount of electricity consumed during that session. Additional fees, such as a fixed cost, can be assessed in this manner as well. Coulomb is not the only company that can provide this service, and many charging service providers are adding this functionality to their charging stations. Source: Interview with Laura Page, Coulomb Technologies; www.coulombtech.com 4.2 Existing Buildings: Management, Tenancy Status and Costs Existing multifamily buildings in Los Angeles will undoubtedly encounter difficulties related to the lack of parking, the difficulty of locating a parking space near a 220/240 Volt conduit or outlet, and electrical capacity issues. To complicate matters, building governance practices and tenancy (e.g. owning versus renting) pose an additional set of hurdles that must be overcome. The following section discusses management and tenancy issues, followed by a discussion of incentives to install charging stations or provide EV parking in, existing buildings, and concludes by illustrating these issues in the context of three case studies. 4.2.1 Management & Tenancy The governance status of the building and whether or not the tenant requesting the charging station lives in a condo or rental unit affects the process and the costs of installing a charging station. For simplification purposes, it is assumed that all condo owners are governed by an HOA, and rental apartments are managed by individuals or property management companies. Realistically, different governance structures exist, but most buildings should fall into one of the two aforementioned categories. HOA's, which fall under the more general category of common interest developments (CIDs), are a type of building governance structure where the tenants own the units and have a percentage interest in the common areas 44 A governing board is elected from among the HOA members, and the board drafts and implements the rules for the HOA. Common areas often include parking spaces, hallways, and lobbies, among others. Common area maintenance is paid for through HOA fees, which are usually paid on a monthly basis. 44 Gordon, Tracy M., "Planned Developments in California: Private Communities and Public Life," Public Policy Institute of California, 2004. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Installing charging stations in an HOA- managed building could be difficult for many reasons. First, and foremost, the HOA may simply not allow tenants to charge an EV on the building premises. Discrimination on these grounds is legal, and poses an obstacle to EV adoption. Board resistance is a second potential obstacle. Board members may not understand what a charging station installation entails and are uncertain how to approach the issue. If installed in common areas, the charging station will likely draw on common area electricity, and without the appropriate metering technology, all the HOA members would be paying for the EV's consumption. Secondly, if a costly installation is required, the EV owner will likely be unwilling to bear 100 percent of the costs, and may approach the HOA board for financial support. The HOA might be able to formulate a plan creating a win -win situation for all parties, but getting to that stage in an expedient manner might prove difficult. Renters and property managers in rental apartments are faced with similar installation constraints as condos, but are possibly more financially constrained. Because the condo unit is owned by someone, that person perceives the charging station installation as a property improvement from which they can benefit, or an improvement that will (hopefully) positively affect the resale value of their unit. In rental apartments, a property manager is less inclined to install charging stations unless current or prospective tenants are willing to pay for the installation costs - an unlikely scenario, even if all the tenants owned an EV, since the electrical upgrades are immobile (i.e. they remain with the building) and would therefore not follow the tenant to their next place of residence. Property managers are faced with the situation of either being a first -mover and installing charging stations with the hopes of differentiating themselves from competing apartments, or to wait until demand for EV charging reaches a critical threshold and makes economic sense to install them. 4.2.2 Incentives for Existing Buildings Few incentives targeting EV charging in multifamily residential buildings exist, apart from federal and local financial incentives. For existing buildings, the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) building certification program is arguably the single biggest non - monetary incentive for adding charging stations and preferential EV parking to existing buildings. USGBC LEED Points for EVs Although there aren't any mandates at the state or city levels for EV charging infrastructure in existing buildings, the U.S. Green Building Council awards points through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification program. The program certifies environmentally sustainable buildings as Platinum, Gold, Silver or Certified, based on a point system. Installing charging stations can earn points for multifamily buildings in the following categories:45 • LEED Existing Buildings, Sustainable Site Credit 4.0: Alternative Commuting Transportation (3 -15 points) • LEED New Construction & Major Renovations, Sustainable Site Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (1 point) 45 www.usgbo.org/LEED/` EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Additional LEED points can be earned for providing preferential parking for EVs under the following category. • LEED New Construction & Major Renovations, Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (1 point) 4.2.3 Case Studies Three case studies attempt to bring to life many of the issues facing existing buildings in Southern California. The Azzura and 211 Spalding are examples of buildings with owner - occupied units. For renter occupied units, anecdotes from the Towbes Group, Inc. highlight the decision - making process behind deciding whether or not to install charging stations in existing buildings. The specific case of the Towbes Group's Ralston Apartments, a building that was designed with charging stations at the outset, is elaborated upon in the section describing new construction. 4.2.3.1 The Azzura The Azzura is a 450 unit residential apartment in the Del Rey neighborhood of Los Angeles, and the building's HOA is considering installing charging stations. The owner of a Tesla Roadster had previously obtained permission from the HOA to.install a 220 Volt outlet in his parking space, but this experience taught the HOA a valuable lesson: its members did not want to periodically record electricity meter readings to determine how much electricity the Tesla Roadster had consumed, and then manually bill the owner. Additionally, they discovered that the Tesla's charging requirements had nearly eliminated the excess panel capacity, thereby increasing the marginal cost of adding new EV chargers. Not long after the Tesla charger was installed, the tenant passed away, and the excess panel capacity was inadvertently restored. Thinking it had rid itself of this problem, the HOA did not have the prescience to anticipate the increasing interest in electric vehicles, and soon found itself confronted with a tenant who recently purchased a Chevrolet Volt, and another tenant with a Nissan Leaf on order. Building Characteristics The Azzura is a high -rise residential condo completed in 2003. Each unit is assigned two tandem parking spaces, resulting in 900 tenant spaces and 10 guest spaces. The parking garage is four levels: two above - ground and two below - ground, and there isn't any street parking. Electricity provided in the parking garage, which is designated a "common area ", is paid for through HOA fees by all of the building's tenants. Each unit's electricity consumption is individually metered, with the meter located on the same floor as the unit. The LADWP delivers electricity to the building. EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Case Study: The Azzura. Los Angeles, California Building: • 450 Condo Units • Year built: 2003 Parking: • 900 spaces (2 tandem spaces per unit) • 10 guest spaces (0.01 per unit) • 2 levels subterranean; 2 levels above - ground • No street parking Electrical: • All original electrical work (2003) • Constrained by transformer size • HOA fees pay for common area electricity • Individually metered units located on each floor Management: Home - owners association (HOA) EV Charging Stations The owner of the Chevrolet Volt is on the HOA's board committee tasked with researching charging station installations, and his first step was to contact the LADWP. The LADWP assessed the building's electrical capacity and determined peak transformer capacity to be 75 %, meaning approximately ten Level 2 charging stations could be installed (assuming all of them were in use during peak periods). Additional peak power could be provided, but it would necessitate the installation of a second transformer. To install a second transformer, the HOA would have to demonstrate a 50% utilization rate of the new transformer's capacity during peak periods, in addition to payments for fees and permits. The LADWP representative suggested the individual charging stations be connected to the tenants' respective electrical meter located on the same floor as their units, but this seemed highly impractical given the expensive electrical work required to run a wire to the 17th floor from one of the subterranean parking spaces. After the LADWP visit, an electrician was invited to provide a cost assessment of installing the 10 chargers, including the electrical work to add new circuits to the panel and run the wire to the parking space. Excludingthe capital cost of the charging stations, the electrical work was estimated to be $20,000 for all ten chargers. After obtaining the estimate for the electrical work, two EV charging station service providers were consulted to provide information about capital and 0 &M costs. Coulomb Technologies and AeroVironment, Inc. are two of the most popular service providers. AeroVironment is Nissan's EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings preferred EV charging station service provider, and Coulomb's ChargePoint charging stations are being installed in select U.S. cities as part of the federally- backed ChargePoint America program. According to the HOA committee member, capital costs for the charging stations were similar, but he was displeased with the 0 &M costs. Both companies charge $0.50 per charging session, and assess an additional fee of 7 to 9 percent of the total cost of electricity consumed during the session, adding approximately $30 to each EV owner's monthly electricity bill, above the price of the, electricity itself. Building Management & Decision- Making Process The opinion of the HOA board is EV charging station users should pay for the capital costs for charging station Installations and 0 &M costs. Additionally, HOA members seek to exert the least amount of effort possible to accommodate tenants who own EVs. The cost for having the convenience of charging in one's place of residence can be expensive, and EV owners are willing to pay for that convenience up to a point - but exactly where that point is unclear. Spreading $20,000 in costs for electricity upgrades among two tenants is a significant burden, and costs could be greater if external financing is sought. Current tenants are not satisfied with paying a charging station management company $30 per month in addition to the capital and electricity costs they will directly incur. Lastly, the HOA board committee member is apprehensive about committing to a long- term contract and being "locked -in" the fixed fee structure offered by the charging station service providers Parking spaces in the Azzura are deeded to the unit, meaning tenants can only use the spaces that have been assigned to them to park their vehicles. The deeding of parking spaces places limits on the building's flexibility to re- assign spaces since the parking spaces are legally bound to the unit's titles. This makes it difficult to guarantee the lowest possible installation costs. Various forms of parking space swaps have been considered, but none seriously pursued. Lastly, thus far, residents have been unable to take advantage of financial incentives for charging . stations since their installation is dependent upon the HOA's policy vis -a -vis EVs. An additional constraint is the type of incentive offered, which seems to target single family residential homes and commercial operations, leaving multifamily charging unaddressed. 4.2.3.2 211 Spalding 211 Spalding is the Beverly Hills address of an 84 -unit apartment building completed in the mid - 1970s. The building's HOA and manager have been considering upgrading the apartment complex to accommodate EVs since Fall 2009, but the high cost of electrical upgrades, coupled with the lack of adequate financial incentives and no immediate demand from residents for EV charging, has resulted in no action being taken by the HOA board. The board currently has one EV enthusiast, but he will likely be charging his EV elsewhere if residents' opinions on installing high -speed Internet cable for all units are a predictor of the difficulties that could lie ahead for installing charging stations; a survey found that only 50 percent of the building's residents have computers, with a smaller percentage actually using them, resulting in a majority "against" vote to install high -speed Internet connections in all units. Nevertheless, the building manager understands that high unit EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings turnover in the near future is likely given the elderly age of most of the building's tenants, and a charging station could bean attractive amenity to attract future prospective owners. Building Characteristics The building's parking is subterranean and street parking is unavailable, unless for temporary purposes, in which case a permit must be obtained from the City of Beverly Hills. The 2 -level subterranean garage has 168 assigned spaces (2 per unit) and 39 guest spaces. Although the spaces are technically not deeded to the units - they are assigned - they are treated as if they were deeded to the unit's title. Furthermore, the HOA board decided that the parking spaces assigned to units cannot change. The parking spaces on the lower level are tandem. The single spaces on the upper level command a $50,000 premium per space. Case Study: 211 Spalding, Beverly Hills, California Building: • 84 Units to own • Year built: 1975 Parking: • 168 spaces (2 per unit) • 39 guest spaces (0.46 per unit) Subterranean (Level 1 is partially underground; Level 2 is fully underground) • Assigned, but not deeded • Street parking requires a temporary permit Electrical: • All original electrical work (1975) • Constrained by small electrical room size for additional meters • Level 2 charging requires major changes to building • Individually metered units • HOA fees pay for common area electricity Management: Home - owners association (HOA) EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings EV Charging Stations The primary constraints for installing a charging station at 211 Spalding are the distance from the garage to the electrical room, electrical room capacity, and the reluctance of residents to change parking spaces. The building manager estimates installation costs to be upwards of $6,000, but Southern California Edison, the electric utility servicing the building, has riot yet comprehensively ascertained what all the required changes would be. The electrical room is not located near the garage, and running a line from the electrical panel to the garage will be costly (the manager assumes $6,000 to $7,000). Additionally, the electrical room is small, making it very difficult to install more than one new meter for monitoring charging station usage. Lastly, the cost savings between running a line to the parking space closest to the panel and to the parking space farthest from it, easily amounts to several thousand dollars. However, the parking space located close to the electrical room has the most convenient pedestrian access, and the owner of that space will be highly reluctant to relinquish it. Building Management & Decision - Making Process The building manager and HOA are considering installing charging stations, but will not act until costs decrease, or demand for EV charging increases. In addition to the capital cost decision, the HOA does not want to be bothered with billing tenants for charging station use, and wants to exert minimal effort for managing charging equipment. Currently, all electricity delivered to the parking garage is paid for by tenants through HOA fees, and ironically, some tenants were "free- riding" by having plugged in 12 industrial -sized freezers in the garage, resulting in $220 per month in electricity payments ($32 per unit per year). Once this was discovered, all outlets in the garage were shut -off, thus saving the entire building $2,640 per year - roughly the capital cost of one commercial charging station. 4.2.3.3 The Towbes Group, Inc. The Towbes Group, based in Santa Barbara, develops and manages residential properties throughout Southern California, and has begun the process of installing charging stations in its existing residential buildings. With its long -term ownership of buildings, Towbes Group is interested in building improvements that add significant value to its properties, and it sees adding charging stations as an important amenity. Many of its residential buildings are located in Ventura County, and the company's vice president described the county's residents as being "green" and "environmentally conscious ", thereby substantiating the community's high interest in electric vehicles. However, Towbes is not willing to move beyond the "quick and easy" installations until it sees more demand for EV charging. Towbes made a corporate decision to install charging stations in new residential construction, but did not make the same commitment for its existing buildings because of their comparatively higher installation costs. A 200 -unit rental apartment building in Goleta, California, was outfitted with two charging stations, but that was because installing them was easy and relatively inexpensive. The property's two at -grade parking spaces were located adjacent to a heated swimming pool, and therefore had easy access to 220 Volts for installing Level 2 charging stations. Users pay for electricity use and fixed costs when charging, as well as fees associated with EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings Coulomb's billing services. Additionally, Towbes Group has taken full advantage of the Federal Infrastructure Tax Credit to help pay for its charging stations. 4.3 New Construction With the adoption of the Los Angeles Green Building Code in December 2010, all new residential structures, both single family and multifamily will have to be EV- ready. Whether this proves to be an empty bureaucratic requirement, or a prescient decision in anticipation of an electric transportation revolution, remains to be seen. If the former is true, then the EV -ready mandate is another consideration increasing the time and money costs of development projects. However, if the latter is proven to be true, then Los Angeles will have buildings that are EV ready. 4.3.1 New Construction Rates New residential construction in the City of Los Angeles will be one of the primary sources of EV -ready buildings due to the construction mandates in the city's Green Building Code. History may not be a perfect indicator, but the graph in Figure 15 displays construction permits for the city between 1990 and 2009. The drop in construction permits from 1990 to 1992 reflects the recession of the early 1990s, and the rapid growth in construction from roughly 1999 to 2007 is the "housing bubble" that burst around the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008. Figure 15. New Residential Construction Permits, City of Los Angeles 1990 -2009 16,000 N 14,000 a 12,000 0 10,000 Id 8,000 c Y 6,000 0 3 4,000 z 2,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year � Multifamily - -- Total Residential Source: Construction Industry Research Board Average annual construction permits for multifamily housing between 1992 and 1998 were roughly 1,600 per year, and between 1999 and 2007 were approximately 9,500 per year. Without delving into the specific details of the real estate market during these periods, and without making any forecasts, if the post- recession period from 1992 to 1998 represents a stable construction rate, then one can infer that approximately 1,600 new EV -ready buildings per year will start construction EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings under stable market conditions. Whether these buildings will have tenants that own or lease EVs will remain to be seen. 4.3.2 New Construction Incentives Apart from the Los Angeles Green Building Code mandates, and federal and local financial incentives, the USGBC's LEED building certification program awards points for EVs and charging stations in new construction. Developers can earn points in the following categories:46 • LEED New Construction & Major Renovations, Sustainable Site Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (1 point) • LEED Core and Shell, Sustainable Site Credit 4.3: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles (1 point) •_ LEED for Homes Multifamily Mid -Rise, Sustainable Site Credit 7.3: Parking Capacity /Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (1 point) Additional LEED points can be earned for providing preferential parkingfor EVs under the following categories: • LEED New Construction & Major Renovations, Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (1 point) LEED Core and Shell, Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (1 point) 4.3.3 Case Study. Ralston Courtyards The Towbes Group, Inc. made a corporate decision to include at least 2 charging stations in every new residential development. The first of these developments to have installed charging stations is the 108 unit Ralston Courtyards in Ventura, California. According to Towbes Group's vice president, the company sensed "there was a coming" of electric vehicles based on news articles they had read, and felt that providing EV charging was going to be an essential amenity in the Oxnard and Ventura areas, especially due to the paucity of publicly available charging stations. Based on their market research, Towbes Group felt that providing EV charging would be a valuable amenity for the building's target demographic of 25 to 35 -year old "echo boomers ". Building Design & Construction Although local building codes did not mandate EV charging station installations, adding 2 charging stations at a cost of approximately $3,000 per unit was seen as minimal compared to the $18 Million to $20 Million development cost for Ralston Courtyards. The additional resources required to run extra conduit from the electrical panel to the location of the future charging stations was negligible, both in time and out -of- pocket costs. As a rental property, the residential units do not have deeded parking spaces, but instead have assigned spaces. Each unit is allocated one car port (108 car ports), and the remaining 54 spaces 46 www.usgbc.org/LEED/ EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings are assigned on a first -come first -serve basis. The charging stations occupy two of the remaining 54 spaces. All parking spaces are located at- grade, and the charging stations are in highly visible locations. The charging stations contributed one point to the building's required minimum of 52 points for its USGBC LEED Silver certification. The contribution to LEED points was an afterthought since its contribution was minimal, and Towbes Group reasoned that it could have earned the point elsewhere. Towbes Group did take advantage of the Federal Infrastructure Tax Credit, but stated that they would have invested in charging stations without the federal discount. Case Study: Ralston Courtyards, Ventura. California Building: 108 rental units Parking: • 162 spaces (1.5 per unit) Parking spaces are not deeded - all units have 1 space; remaining 54 are on a "first come -first serve" basis EV Charging Station: • 2 Coulomb chargers installed • Designed for 10 additional charging stations • Located at -grade and near swimming pool electrical supply • TOU Rates Electrical: Parking spaces designed for Level 2 charging stations Management: Home - owners association (HOA) EV Charging Station 0 &M The charging stations have been operational since November 2010, and nobody has used them. To encourage their use, and enhance the Ralston Courtyard's marketing, Towbes Group partnered with local Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt dealerships and contacted current and prospective EV owners to notify them of the availability of EV charging at Ralston Courtyards. As of March 2011, this effort has yielded them one prospective tenant specifically looking for a residence where she could charge her EV. Towbes Group wants the charging stations to pay for themselves and possibly become a future revenue source. To achieve this, Towbes Group partnered with Coulomb Technologies to develop the appropriate pricing structure. Towbes Group charges 10 percent of the total cost of electricity consumed during a charging session based on TOU rates. In addition, Coulomb charges $0.50 per EV Charging Stations and Multifamily Residential Buildings session and a percentage of the session's total electricity cost. Towbes Groups' 10 percent fee was based on.a charging station utilization rate of 100 hours per month. 5. Opportunities to Increase EV Charging Station Access When considering whether or not to install charging stations, all parties need to consider how to increase charging station access given current constraints. As the case studies illustrated, each building faced a unique set of constraints, whether physical, management, or otherwise. Three possible approaches, among many, are discussed here to stimulate discussion around how to effectively provide EV charging for residents of multifamily dwellings. 5.1 Identifying "Fair" EV Parking Access Solutions Property managers and building owners of rental apartments have the final say as to whether or not charging stations are installed, but installment decisions at condos are made by HOAs and individual EV owners. As illustrated by the case studies, HOAs can restrict installations, and they have the prerogative to do so, but they inadvertently slow EV adoption rates in multifamily buildings. HOAs should foster "fair" parking space access arrangements among residents. Electrical. capacity issues aside, some of the highest costs associated with charging station installations can be avoided by relocating the EV parking space to a location closer to the electrical panel where the new circuit will be installed. As documented in the 211 Spalding case, parking spaces with the highest pedestrian accessibility are often the closest to the electrical room, and are also the most sought after. Should an EV owner own one these sought after parking spaces, then many problematic ownership issues are avoided, and the installation costs are minimized. However, should the EV owner not have access to a lowest possible cost parking space, then all avenues leading to an alternative low -cost option should be explored. As representatives of a building's common spaces, and as forums for residents to voice private interests, HOAs should facilitate EV parking access solutions to the greatest extent possible. Parking spaces are negotiable and have a price - it is simply a matter of what concessions each party is willing to make, and what prices are deemed acceptable. The transaction could be between individuals, or between the HOA and individuals. For example, EV owners desiring a specific parking space might be willing to pay for it, or swap spaces with the owner of the parking space in question, if acquiring the space lowers the total cost of installing charging stations. If several EV owners are interested in sharing a single space, the HOA, or even a new third party entity, could purchase the space, and recover costs by charging EV charging station users. Opportunities to make "fair" transactions should be explored first in order to minimize EV charging station installation costs. 5.2 Utilizing Public Infrastructure Apartment renters and owners who own EVs, but who do not have access to a parking space in the building, park curbside, or park in off - street lots, will have to think creatively about where to charge their vehicle. Allowing EV owners to use charging stations installed in public lots, or installed Opportunities to Increase EV Charging Station Access curbside, is one possible solution. The City of Los Angeles' 116 public parking lots could be utilized in the evenings, when most charging would occur, by local residents who own EVs. A map showing the locations of the city's public parking lots is overlaid onto a map displaying Census tracts that have a majority of multifamily buildings. The Census tracts are ranked according to an index . indicating tracts with a low parking space to residential unit ratio, to tracts with a high parking space to unit ratio (Figure 16). I Figure 16. City of Los Angeles Parking Lots and Multifamily Parking Constraint Index Residential Parking Cons City of LA Parking Lot j� High Parking Space -0o-Unil Somewhat Constrained Constrained ® Very Constrained - Low Parking Space- to-Unit Source: Whittemore (2010); U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2009; City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. _ This proposal can also be applied to private parking lots, such as those belonging to schools, religious institutions, and businesses. The primary limitation to this proposal is the proximity of publicly -owned and privately -owned parking lots to multifamily buildings with a parking shortage, or prohibitively high EV charging installation costs. The city may want to consider installing curbside infrastructure in cases with severe parking constraints, but there should be sufficient demand tojustify installing curbside charging. What that critical number of EV owners will be is unclear for the moment. By providing charging stations in public or private lots, parking lot owners are not only contributing to improving local ambient air quality, but are also creating a new, and presumably reliable, revenue stream. Opportunities to Increase EV Charging Station Access 5.3 Real Estate Transactions as an Opportunity If left to market forces alone - without any monetary or non - monetary incentives - the EV market might never really take -off among residents in multifamily buildings. Many EV owners living in condos could be perceived by HOA boards as anomalies to be resisted - especially in situations with high capital costs. HOAs faced with inexpensive installations will likely go forward with charging station installations because of the available financial incentives and ability to charge users for access. However, many HOA boards will not be receptive to creating a designated parking space close to the electrical room, or making any other kind of change to accommodate EVs that would appear to be unfair to other HOA members. To incent building owners and HOA boards to consider the most affordable way to accommodate EV's in existing multifamily buildings, the City of Los Angeles could mandate the installation of charging stations when the building, or units in the building, are sold. Shoup (1996) proposes regulating land use when a property is sold as a "pragmatic, low cost method to improve older neighborhoods and stimulate local economic development. "47 Shoup's examples focus on private investments that create neighborhood public improvements. Private investment in charging stations would encourage EV adoption which has public benefits, such as reduced dependence on petroleum fuel sources and improved local air quality. Between 2002 and 2010, multifamily real estate transactions constituted an average of 22 percent of total residential real estate transactions, or roughly 3,000 annual sales (Figure 17). Figure 17. Annual Residential Real Estate Transactions, Los Angeles, 2002 -2010 18,000 16,000 0 14,000 0 i 12,000 w 10,000 m 8,000 6,000 ~ 4,000 m � 2,000 Q n 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Condos /Townhouses All Residential Source: DataQuick News 47 Shoup, Donald. "Regulating Land Use at Sale: Public Improvement from Private Investment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 3, Summer 1996. Opportunities to Increase EV Charging Station Access Almost 3,000 charging stations could be installed in multifamily buildings annually throughout Los Angeles if EV installations were required in order to. sell a property. Financial subsidies could be made available to help with the cost. If installing charging stations in a building was truly cost prohibitive, then it could be considered exempt from the regulation, but assuming the number of EV owners continues to increase, building owners will eventually want to install a charging station, even if costly, because it puts their building in the growing market for potential tenants with EVs. 6. Conclusion Nearly half of Los Angeles' residents live in some sort of multifamily dwelling, with most residing in rental apartments or condos. Not all multifamily residents own vehicles, but if EVs are going to be adopted among apartment and condo dwellers, safe, convenient and reliable charging access needs to be guaranteed. This report is an attempt to shed light upon the difficult issues facing many key decision - makers, namely building owners, property managers, HOA boards, and prospective and current EV owners, when assessing whether or not to install EV charging stations, and to bring to life many of the related issues by presenting several case studies. Some possible solutions were proposed, but these, and many more, need to be studied in greater detail, assessing the costs, benefits, and political expediency of each. Unfortunately, there isn't a one size fits all solution to EV charging stations, making installation a difficult, and attimes very costly, decision. The primary barrier to EV charging installations is the cost of the installation and the ability to recover those costs. The opposition to installing charging stations from HOAs, and building managers and owners, is based on their unwillingness to pay for them. Depending on how capital costs are financed, and whether or not financial incentives are included, can affect the monthly fixed cost charged to users. High utilization rates can further reduce monthly fixed costs, but high installation costs (attributed to the building's electrical infrastructure or parking space location) can render improvements in utilization rates unimportant, since monthly fixed costs will only be slightly lowered. Residents and building management must find creative ways to arrive at the lowest cost solution possible. Building management should facilitate parking space agreements and transactions among residents. Individuals can come to mutually agreed upon arrangements in order to secure a low -cost EV parking space. Additionally, building management could devise management tools uniquely tailored to residents' needs, in order to avoid costly installations. Internal negotiations should be the first step in any EV charging station. investment. For residents of multifamily buildings who must park on the street or in off - street parking lots, the barrier to EV access is less about cost, and more about ensuring reliable access to a an EV charging station. Residents in these situations, and owners and managers of buildings with limited on -site parking availability for residents, must look to low -cost alternatives. Utilizing public and private parking lots for night -time EV charging can address the charging needs of drivers who live within close proximity to a public or private lot. However, in cases where such lots are unavailable, installing curbside charging infrastructure could be an option. Publicly accessible charging stations present a Conclusion revenue opportunity for both public and private parking lot owners, as well serving the needs of residents without access to private charging stations. Taking into consideration the political support for EV's from the U.S. President and the Los Angeles Mayor, the City of Los Angeles could require the installation of charging stations in multifamily buildings whenever a property (either the building, or units within the building) is sold. 48.49 From 2002 to 2010, approximately 3,000 multifamily real estate transactions took place per year. This kind of policy would encourage HOA's, building managers, building owners and tenants to find low - cost EV charging solutions, and would guarantee the EV- readiness of Los Angeles' multifamily buildings. The difficulties associated with installing EV charging stations in multifamily residences are not unique to Los Angeles, but are faced by almost every building owner, manager or tenant living in one the world's urban centers. As the world's population continues to grow and urbanize, adopting viable alternatives to petroleum -based transportation is central to ensuring motorized mobility in an increasingly natural resource - constrained world.50 Electric vehicles offer one such alternative, and enablingtheir adoption in multifamily buildings increases their potential effectiveness by appealing to a broader user base. 48 "One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015," U.S. Department of Energy, February 2011 49 http ,.// mayor. lacity. org/ PressRoom /PressReleases /LACITYP_007622 50 Sperling, Daniel, and Deborah Gordon. "Two Billion Cars," Oxford University Press, 2009. Conclusion 7. Appendix 7.1 City of Los Angeles Green Building Code - EV Sections ORDINANCE NO.."' 18100 An nrdlnanoe amending Chapter lX ergot Los Angeles Munildpel Cede by aiding a new Article 9 to incorporate various provisions at the 2010 California Green Building Standards Cods (CALGreen Code)_ THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN As FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter IX of the Las Angeles fdunicipal Code is amended by adding a now Article a, Green Building Cade, to read as folluws: ARTICLE 9, DIVISION 4 MANDATORY MEASURES FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED LOW -RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 99.64.106.6. Electric Vehicle Supply Wiring. 1. For one- or two- family dwellings and townhouses, provide a minimum of. a. One 2081240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlet, for each dwelling unit; or In Panel raparity and Conduit for the future installation of a 2581240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlet, fof each dwelling unit, The elecrical cutlet or conduit termination shall be located adjacentto the parking area. 2. For olhor recidentiat ocoupanofee where there is a cowman parking area, provide one of the follotving: a. A minimum number of 2081240 V 40 amp, grounded AG outlets equal to u percent of the total number of parking spaoos. The ovtlgta shall be located within the parking aura; or U. Purist wpavily and uutn uit fur future iralallaliun of electrical outlets. The panel capacity and conduit site shall be designed to accommodate the future installation, and a6uw its sirliuhanevus airurgiug, of a minimum number of 208!240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlets, that is equal to 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces. The conduit shall terminate within the parking area; or C. Additional service capacity, space for future meters, and conduit for futuro installation of electrical outlets. The service capaoky and conduit size shall be designed to accommodate the future installation, and allow the simultaneous charging, of a minimum number of 2081240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlets, that Is equal to 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces. The conduit shall terminate within the parking area. When the application of the 5 percent re sults in a fractional space, round up to the next whole Inulnber. Appendix ARTICLE 9, DIVISION S FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED. NONRESIDENTIAL AND HIGH -RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 99.05.106.5,2 Designated. Parking. Prasd'e designated parking, by means of permanent mailang or a sign, fur am/ combination of Im"Mitting,!teal- ancient, Ord carpoollven pool vehicles as fnllcw : Table 8.106.51: Total Number of Pawking Spaces Numberof Required spaces 09 0 lo-za t 2 &50 3 51 -70 6 7&100 6 101.150 11 151 -200 16 - 201 and ow At ImM 0 percent of total' 'When IM applkel of Ui4 Mpllation rvYVrs hO+o regAkcrr ntefafnwlbnal spau,raard ,.p tq 6a naxi Ylho°e number. ' 99.05.1005.11. Elecibic Vehicle Supply4Yiring. Plovldsa mInlmum nt1Mber of 208240 V dg ship. greundad AC dutial(s). thdi It 640116 5 pelt nt df thb W01 number of parking spaces, rounded up to the next v/nole number. The oultet (s)L shalt be Imated In the parhln0 aree. I heroby w rlify tlhal !into ordinance Ymo pve otd by Oro 01MAe9 c I ft City Of Loa Angels%, at Re meeling of RS6 1 A. 1014 JUNE LAGWY. City Clerk df �� Deputy DEC 16 2010 AppfovW itay6r Appendix 7.2 Charging Station Cash Flow Models Low Cost Installations with Incentives Assumptions (Annual) W. Capitol - $ Charging (Finance Payments) $ Principal �$ 1,600 EVSE Unit price $ 1,500 Capital Rate 8% Daily Charging Hours O% - 3 7 I irradiation cost $ 2,000 Capital Annual Payment ($307.32) Annual Charging Hours 229 $ NPV years 0.7 1,095 ($25.61) IADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 1 2 13% 5 6 MDWP Rebate $ (2,M) Capitol Infrastructure Tax Credit 0% Capital Loan Principal �$ 1,600 LADWPTOUAdmin Fee $ (96)0 &M Rate 8% Discount Rate O% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal + CA State) 0% Annual Payment ($307.32) Monthly Payment ($25.61) Cost Recovery Payment $ 0.58 per hour of charging Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cash Flow Fee $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 (Finance Payments) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) (IADWP TOU Admin Fe e) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) Before Tax Cash Flow $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ - Taxable Income - $ 228.57 $ 229 $ - 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 Tax Payable $ - $ r $ - $ - $ $ - $ - After Tax Cash Flow �$ (11600) $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229', NPV(Years O -7) $ 0 Assumptions (Annual) Charging EVSE Unit price $ 1,500 Capital Daily Charging Hours 7 Installation cost $ 2,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 2,555 IADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 29% _ IADWP Rebate $ (2,0301 Capital Infrastructure Tax Credit W. Capitol loan $ 632 $ (Finance Payments) $ Principal �$ 1,600 IADWPTOUAdmin Fee $ (96) O &M Rate 8% Discount Rate O% - Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal + CA State) B% $ Annual Payment ($307.32) r$ (1,600) $ 229 $ NPV years 0.7 Monthly Payment ($25.61) Cost Recovery Payment $ 0.25 perhourofcharging Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cash Flaw 632 $ 632 $ Fee $ 632 $ (Finance Payments) $ (307) $ (IADWP TOD Admin Fee) $ (96) $ Before Tax Cash Flow $ 229 $ (I ofrastructure Tax Credit) $ - Taxablefncome $ 228.57 $ Tax Payable $ - $ AfterTax Cash Flow r$ (1,600) $ 229 $ NPV years 0.7 $ 0 229 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 $ 632 (307) $ (300) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) $ (307) (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 $ 229 Appendix Low Cost Installation without Incentives Assumptions (Annual) $ 1,302 Charging $ 1,302 EVSE Unit price $ 1,500 Capital Daily Charging Hours 3 Installation cost $ 2,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 1,095 IADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 13% IADWP Rebate $ - Capital $ (96) $ (96) Infrastructure Tax Credit $ (96) 051. Capital Loan 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 Principal r$ 3,600 tADWP TOU Admin Fee $ (96) O &M Rate g% Discount Rate 091. Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (FedeI+ CA State) $ 0%. Annual Payment ($691.46). $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 Monthly Payment ($57.62) Cost Recovery Payment $ 1.19 per hour ofcharging $ - $ - Year $ - 0 1 2 3 4 _. 5 6 Fee $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 (Finance Payments) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) (tADWPTOUAdure Fee) $ (96) $ (96( $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) Before Tax Cash Flow $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 _ $ 514 $ 514 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ - - EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent Taxablelnrome $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 Tax Payable $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - After Tax Cash Flow �$ (3,600) $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 NPV(Years 0 -7) $ (0) Assumptions (Annual) Charging EVSE Unit price $ 1,500 Capital Daily Charging Hours 7 Installation cost $ 2,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 2,555 LADWP Permit $ 1W Capital - EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 29% IADWP Rebate Capital Infrastructure Tax Credit 09% Capital Loan , ' Principal �$ 3,6W IADWPTOUAdmin Fee $ (96) O &M Rate By. Discount Rate /IRR 0% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal +CAStam) 0% Annual Payment ($691.46) Monthly Payment ($57.62) Cost Recovery Payment $ 0.51 per hour of charging Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cash Flow Fee $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 $ 1,302 (Finance Payments) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) $ (691) (LADWPTOUAdmin Fee) $ (96( $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96( Before Tax Cash Flow $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ - 514 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) �$ - Toxoblelncame $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 Tax Payable $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - After Tax Cash Flow �$ (3,600) $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ 514 $ - 514 IN PV Years D-7) Appendix High Cost Installation with Incentives Assumptions (Annual) $ 3,540 $. Charging 3,540 $ EVSE unit price $ 1,500 Capital Daily Chargi ng Hours 3 Installation cost $ 10,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 1,095 LADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 1391. LADWP Rebate $ (2,000) Capital (96) Before Tax Cash Flow Infrastructure Tax Credit 11600 $ -30% Capital Loan 11600 $ 11600 $ 11600 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) Principal $ 91600 LADWPTOUAdmin Fee $ (96) O&M Rate B% Discount Rate $ 0% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal +CA State) 11600 $ 0'% Annual Payment 1$1,843.90) - $ - $ - $ - $ Monthly Payment ($153.65) Cost Recovery Payment $ 3.23 per hour of charging - $ 11600 $ 1,600 $ 11600 $ 11600 $ 11600 $ Y.- N PV (Years 0-7 ) D 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fee $ 3,540 $. 3,540 $ 3,540 $ 3,540 $ 3,540 $ 3,540 $ 3,540 (Finance Payments) $ (1,844( $ 11,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) (IADWPTOUAdmm Fee) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) Before Tax Cash Flow $ 11600 $ 11600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 11600 $ 11600 $ 11600 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ (3,450) Taxableincome $ - $ 11600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1160D $ 11600 $ 11600 Tax Payable $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - After Tax Cash Flow r$ (91600) $ - $ 11600 $ 1,600 $ 11600 $ 11600 $ 11600 $ 11600 N PV (Years 0-7 ) 0 Assumptions (Annual) Charging - EVSEUnitprice $ 1,500 Capital Daily Charging Hours 7 Installation cost $ 10,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 2,555 LADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 29% LADWP Rebate $ (2,000) Capital - Infrastructure Tax Credit O% Capital Loan Principal$ 9,600 LADWP TOUAdmm Fee $ (96)0 &M Rate 8% Discount Rate 0% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal + CA State) 0% Annual Payment ($1,843.90) - Monthly Payment ($153.66) Cost Recovery Payment $ 1.30 per hour of charging Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cash Flow Fee $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 (Finance Payments) $ 11,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ (1,844) $ Nil") $ (1,844) (.ADWP TOU Armin Fee) $ (96) $ (96) $ - (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) Before Tax Cash Flow $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ - Taxableincome $ 1,371.43 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 Tax Payable $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ " After Tax Cash Flow r$ (91600) $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 $ 1,371 NPV(Years O-7) $ (0) Appendix High Cost Installation without Incentives AssumpHOns(Annual) $ Fee Charging (Finance Payments) EVSE unit price $ 1,500 Capital Daily Charging Hours 3 Installation cost $ 10,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 1,095 LADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 13% IADWP Rebate $ - Capital 1,657 $ 1,657 $ Infrastructure Tax Credit 1,657 $ 0'A Capital Loan 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ Principal �$ 11,600 LADWP TOU Armin Fee $ (96)0 &M Rate 8% Discount Rate 0% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal + CA State) 1,657 $ 0% Annual Payment ($2,228,4) Monthly Payment ($185.67) Cost Recovery Payment $ 3.64 perhourvbcharging v...., n a a 3 4 5 6 Cosh Flow $ Fee $ (Finance Payments) $ (LADWP TOU Admin Fee) $ Before Tax Cash Flow $ (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ Taxable Income $ Tax Payable $ After Tax Cash Flow �$ (11,600) $ NPVIYea.0- $ 0 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ - (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 Assumptions (Annual) $ (Finance Payments) Charging (LADWP TOU Admin Fee) EVSE Unit price $ 1,500 Capital - Dally Charging Hours 7 Installation cost $ 10,000 Capital Annual Charging Hours 2,555 LADWP Permit $ 100 Capital EVSE Utilization Rate Equivalent 29% LADWP Re bate $ - Capital 1,657 $ 1,657 $ Infrastructure Tax Credit 1,657 $ V. Capital Loan 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ Principal r$ 11,600 NDWP TOU Admin Fee $ (96) O &M Rate 8% Discount Rate 0% Term 7 Effective Tax Rate (Federal + CA State) 1,657 $ 0% Annual Payment ($2828,4) Monthly Payment ($185.67) Cost Recovery Payment $ 1.56 per hourofcharging Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cost Recovery Payment $ (Finance Payments) $ (LADWP TOU Admin Fee) $ Before Tax Cash Flow $ (Infrastructure Tax Credit) $ Taxablelncome $ Tax Payable $ AfterTax Cash Flow �$ (11,600) $ NPV (Years P7) $ 10) Appendix 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 $ 3,981 (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) $ (2,228) (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) $ (96) 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 $ 1,657 S. References "Changing the game: Plug -in electric vehicle pilots," Accenture, 2011 Davies, Jamie, Kenneth S. Kurani. "Households' Plug -In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Recharging Behavior: Observed variation in households' use of a 5kWh blended PHEV- conversion," Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 2010. Gartner, John, Clint Wheelock. "Executive Summary: Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment: Charging Stations, Grid Interconnection Issues, EV Charging Business Models, and Vehicle -to -Grid Technology: Market Analysis and Forecasts," Pike Research Clean Market Intelligence, 2010. Li, Xuping, Joan M. Ogden, Kenneth S. Kurani. "An Overview of Automotive Home and Neighborhood Refueling," EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, May 2009. Lin, Zhenhong, David L. Greene. "Promoting the Market for Plug -in Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles: The Role of Recharge Availability," Transportation Research Board 2011 Annual Meeting, October 19, 2010. Markel, T. "Plug -in Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: A Foundation for Electrified Transportation," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S Department of Energy, April 2010. Morrow, Kevin, Donald Kamer, James Francfort. "Plug -In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Review," U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program - Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity, U.S. Department of Energy, November 2008. "One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015: February 2011 Status Report," U.S. Department of Energy, February 2011. Shoup, Donald. "Regulating Land Use at Sale: Public Improvement from Private Investment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 3, Summer 1996. "Taking Charge: Establishing California Leadership in the Plug -In Electric Vehicle Marketplace," California Plug -In Electric Vehicle Collaborative, December 2010. Whittemore, Andrew. "The Regulated City: The Politics of Land Use Regulation in Los Angeles, 1909- 2009," Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles Department of Urban Planning, 2010. References UCLA Luskin School (j/'Public Affairs Luskin Center for Innovation 3323 SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS BUILDING BOX 951656, LOS ANGELES, CA 90095 -1656 310. 267.5435 TEL • 310- 267 -5443 FAX W W W.LUSKIN.UCLA.EDU