Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric Vehicles Findings from the Largest Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Demonstration in the World

Home , Charging station

Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric Vehicles Findings from the largest plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure demonstration in the world

Building the Laboratory

Widespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) has the potential to significantly reduce our nation’s transportation petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Barriers to PEV adoption Chevrolet Volts and more for researchers to collect remain, however. One of than 300 Smart ForTwo and analyze data from their the most commonly cited Electric Drive vehicles in home charging units and barriers is the need for places Car2Go car-sharing fleets their PEVs. Data also was for PEV drivers to plug in their were enrolled in the project. collected from publicly vehicles. How many and what accessible charging stations kind of charging stations are This project was not just installed at a wide variety needed? Where and how about installing charging of venues in and between often do PEV drivers charge? infrastructure; the pur- metropolitan areas around pose was to build a living the United States. To answer these questions, laboratory to study its use the U.S. Department of and learn. Data collected from vehicles Energy launched The EV and charging infrastructure Project and the ChargePoint To accomplish this, Idaho over the 3-year project America project. Combined, National Laboratory part- period captured almost 125 these projects form the nered with the Blink Net- million miles of driving and largest PEV infrastructure work, ChargePoint, General 6 million charging events, demonstration in the world. Motors and OnStar, Nissan providing the most com- Between Jan. 1, 2011, and North America, and Car2Go prehensive view of PEV and Dec. 31, 2013, this com- to collect and analyze data charging usage to date. bined project installed from the electric vehicle nearly 17,000 alternating charging stations and vehi- Through partnerships with current (AC) Level 2 charging cles enrolled in the project. states, municipalities, elec- stations for residential and tric utilities, local business commercial use and over 100 Private vehicle owners owners, and numerous other dual-port direct current (DC) participating in the project stakeholders, The EV Project fast chargers in 22 regions had an AC Level 2 (240-volt) and ChargePoint America across the United States. charging unit installed in installed charging stations in More than 8,000 privately their residences. In return, 22 regions across the United owned Nissan Leafs and they gave written consent States, shown in Figure 1.

1 THREE Years 8,300 EVs 22 Regions in the U.S. Figure 1. 125 Million Miles of driving Areas where public charging infrastructure was installed and Primary project partners vehicles were enrolled in The EV Project and Million charging events ChargePoint America.

Seattle, 6 Memphis, TN Tacoma, WA Chicago, IL Nashville, TN Portland, Michigan Salem, Eugene, Corvallis, OR Boston, MA New York City, NY Philadelphia, PA San Francisco, Sacramento, CA Washington, DC

Los Angeles, CA Knoxville, TN Chattanooga, TN San Diego, CA

Atlanta, GA Phoenix, AZ Public AC Level 2 charging Tucson, AZ stations installed Florida Public DC fast chargers installed Austin, Houston, TX San Antonio, TX Chevrolet Volts enrolled Dallas, Ft. Worth, TX Nissan Leafs enrolled

2 What Have We Learned? With gas stations seemingly stations can be installed stations in a wide variety away-from-home charging on every block, it would where gas stations cannot – of locations, including locations, and one or more seem logical to expect at people’s homes, work- homes, workplaces, stores, of these locations was at that a similarly ubiquitous places, and destinations restaurants, gas stations, work for some drivers. network of public charging where their cars spend and many other venues, stations would be needed a long time parked. The to allow researchers to This is not to say that public to refuel, or rather, recharge project installed AC Level observe where PEV drivers charging stations are not PEVs. However, charging 2 and DC fast charging charge. Would they plug in necessary or desirable. Many DC fast chargers (all This study is the largest plug-in electric vehicle of which were accessible to the public) experienced infrastructure demonstration in the world. heavy use to support both in-town and inter-city around town at the nearest driving. Also, a relatively charging station, following small number of public AC the pattern they followed Level 2 public charging with the gas-powered cars sites saw consistently high they grew up with, or would use. This begs the question: they adopt a new refueling what is it about the small paradigm and charge at the number of highly used few places where they park charging sites that led to their cars for the longest their popularity? periods of time? There was some correlation The answer was clear: between public charging despite the installation of location characteristics and extensive public charging utilization. Public Level 2 infrastructure in most of the charging stations installed project areas, the majority in locations where vehicles of charging was done at were typically parked for home and work. About half longer periods of time the project participants often were, in fact, among charged at home almost those most often used. exclusively. Of those These locations included who charged away from shopping malls, airports home, the vast majority and commuter lots, and favored three or fewer downtown parking lots or Photo courtesy of ChargePoint

3 garages with easy access highly utilized charging locations that did not to a variety of venues. Also, sites in almost every region experience much use. not surprisingly, public and at venues that did not charging station utilization seem to be well-suited for In the end, it is apparent was higher in regions with charging. Conversely, there that the exact factors that higher PEV sales. However, were also many charging determine what makes a there were examples of sites in seemingly ideal public charging station popular are predominantly To support PEV driving, charging infrastructure should be community-specific. More research is needed focused at home, workplaces, and in public “hot spots” where to pinpoint these local factors. Nevertheless, to demand for Level 2 or DC fast charging stations is high. support PEV driving, the

4 project demonstrated that host, but when they were drivers of the Chevrolet The next section of this charging infrastructure used, they provided a vital Volt, an extended-range report provides the basis should be focused at home, function to the driver. electric vehicle, tended to for these conclusions by workplaces, and in public charge more frequently summarizing what we have “hot spots” where demand Regardless of motiva- and to more fully deplete learned about… for Level 2 or DC fast tion for installing public their vehicle’s battery than • PEV driving patterns and charging stations is high. charging infrastructure, the drivers of the Nissan Leaf, charging preferences Public and workplace charging infrastructure enabled • Away-from-home charging for range drivers to increase their electric driving range, although extension most drivers did not charge away from home frequently. • Workplace charging • Public charging station Naturally, there are excep- project found that public a battery electric vehicle. use tions to this rule. There charging stations were This allowed the overall • Charging at home may be reasons for an more expensive to install group of Volts studied to organization to install than residential and work- average nearly as many • Charging infrastructure public charging stations place units. Installation electric vehicle (EV) mode installation costs. even if they are not used, costs also varied widely miles traveled as the Leafs such as to attract a certain by region and by venue. in the project. Finally, based The final section of this customer demographic, This further emphasizes on observed charging report provides examples communicate a “green” the benefit of focusing the patterns, the project found of how the findings of this image, or encourage PEV bulk of charging infrastruc- that there are opportunities project have helped organi- adoption. The project did ture at home, work, and to use pricing structures zations promote or prepare not study the effectiveness strategic public charging and other policies to for PEV adoption. of charging infrastructure locations. manage demand for PEV in meeting these goals. charging, both in terms of Additionally, DC fast char- The project shed light on charging station through- gers along travel corridors other facets of PEV use. put at charging hot spots were found to effectively It found that public and and electricity demand on enable long-distance range workplace charging infra- the electric grid. extension for battery elec- structure enabled drivers to tric vehicles. These chargers increase their electric driv- were not typically used ing range, although most frequently so their value is drivers did not charge away hard to quantify from the from home frequently. It perspective of the charger was also discovered that

5 What have we learned about PEV driving patterns and charging preferences?

By focusing on data Volt drivers averaged only vehicles like the Leaf and collected in 2012 and 6% fewer EV miles per year range-extended electric 2013 from over 4,000 Leafs than Leaf drivers, despite vehicles like the Volt, which and 1,800 Volts across the having less than half as has an internal combus- United States, the project much battery energy stor- tion engine that allows provided insights into how age capacity. There were the vehicle to continue PEV early adopters drove two reasons for this. First, driving after the battery and charged their vehicles. Volt drivers tended to fully Volt drivers averaged only 6% fewer EV miles per year than Leaf drivers, despite having less than half as much battery 6% energy storage capacity. Volt drivers averaged slightly deplete their batteries prior is depleted. Second, Volt more miles traveled annually to recharging, whereas Leaf drivers plugged in more than the 2013 national aver- drivers favored recharging often than Leaf drivers. age, while the Leafs studied with significant charge Volts were charged an were driven noticeably less left in their batteries. This average of 1.5 times on than the national average is an expected difference each day the vehicle was (see Table 1). between pure electric driven, whereas Leafs were charged 1.1 times per day driven, on average. Much Table 1 of the difference between National Leaf and Volt charging fre- 1 Leaf Volt Average quency is attributed to the Average annual vehicle fact that Volts were charged miles traveled 9,697 12,238 11,346 more often during the day Average annual electric at home. vehicle miles traveled 9,697 9,112 –

1Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, “Highway Statistics 2013-Table VM-1,” January, 2015, www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ statistics/2013/vm1.cfm

6 Average driving distance seasonal variation in and charging frequency average monthly distance were consistent over time traveled for the last 15 as the number of vehicles months of the project. reporting data increased, Charging frequency (not with only slight seasonal shown) followed the same variation. Figure 2 shows up-and-down trend.

1,200 Volt average monthly VMT Figure 2. Average monthly vehicle miles 1,000 traveled varied seasonally Leaf average monthly eVMT but was otherwise consistent 800 over time. Volt average monthly eVMT 600

400

200

Average distance driven per month (mi) per month driven distance Average 0 Jan 2013 Oct 2012 Oct 2013 Feb 2013 Feb Dec 2012 Mar 2013 Dec 2013 July 2013 Nov 2012 Nov 2013 Nov Aug 2013 Aug May 2013 May Sept 2013 June 2013 April 2013

7 Preference for charging Over the weekend, daytime spread their charging across frequency and location charging preference for many locations, but most Overall, Leaf and Volt both Leafs and Volts shifted had just a few favorite drivers performed most slightly from away-from- places to charge outside of of their charging at home home locations to at home. home (see Figure 4). Many (see Figure 3). Nearly all Overnight charging pat- drivers performed a vast overnight charging was at terns remained the same on majority of their away-from- home. Daytime charging weekdays versus weekend home charging at only one was split between home days, with both groups of location. Much of this can and other locations, includ- vehicles averaging a charge be attributed to workplace ing work. nearly every night. charging.

Drivers of 5% of Volts and Away Away 13% of Leafs only ever 16% 13% Leaf Volt charged at home, and about half the drivers charged away from home Home 84% Home 87% less than 5% of the time. Of the drivers that charged away from home, some

Figure 3. Leaf and Volt drivers performed most of their charging at home.

92% Number of away-from-home locations where drivers did most 77% of their charging Figure 4. Volt drivers Leaf drivers 92% of Volt drivers and 77% of Leaf drivers did most (at least 80%) of their away-from-home charging at three or fewer locations.

14% 6% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3 or fewer 4 5 More than 5

8 Preference for charging of using any charging Each driver used a different stations. For Leaf drivers equipment equipment available to mix of charging equipment charging away from home Both the Leaf and the them. types when charging away in areas where DC fast char- Volt come with AC Level 1 from home, depending on gers were installed, some charging cords. They are For the Volts collectively, their preference and what chose to only charge using also compatible with AC about half of away-from- was available. Some Volt Level 1 or Level 2 charging Level 2 charging stations home charging was done drivers chose only Level 1 equipment, some mixed that use SAE J1772- using Level 2 equipment. charging, which includes Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast compliant connectors. The other half was Level 1 standard 120-volt outlets, charging, and a small num- All Leafs enrolled in the charging using a dedicated while others chose a mix ber of drivers only charged project also were capable charging station or a stan- of Level 1 and Level 2 using DC fast chargers (see of charging using DC fast dard 120-volt outlet. charging. Some only ever Figure 5). chargers with CHAdeMO- used Level 2 charging compliant connectors. All For Leafs, 8% of away-from- project participants had home charging events a Level 2 charging unit was performed using DC installed in their homes. fast chargers. The rest was When charging away from AC Level 1 or AC Level 2 home, they had the option charging.

VOLT LEAF 6% 54% 40% 63% 36% 1%

Level 1 only Level 1 and Level 2 only Level 1 or Level 1 or DCFC only Level 2 Level 2 only Level 2 and DCFC

Figure 5. How Volt and Leaf drivers charging away from home chose between charging equipment types.

9 What have we learned about away-from-home charging for range extension?

PEV drivers who plugged in away from home tended to drive more EV miles (see Table 2). In fact, drivers who frequently used away-from-home charging stations averaged Away-from- Away-from- 72% more daily miles on electricity alone than drivers homewho charging home charging never charged away from home. Table 2 Tendency to charge away from home: Never Sometimes2 Frequently3 Most of the75% time4 Leaf average daily driving 25 31 43 32 distance (mi) 75%Volt average daily driving 25 29 40 26 distance in EV mode (mi) 20% 2>0 to 30% of all charging events 3>30 to 60% of all charging events 4>60% of all charging events 20% All vehicles studied However, most drivers did not charge away from home frequently (see Table 3), so the overall contribution to EV All vehicles miles traveled was small. studied Table 3 Figure 6. Tendency to charge away A small fraction of vehicles were 2 3 4 from home: Never Sometimes Frequently Most of the time responsible for the majority of Percent of Leafs 13% 69% 14% 4% away-from-home charging. Percent of Volts 5% 81% 13% 1% 2>0 to 30% of all charging events 3>30 to 60% of all charging events 4>60% of all charging events All vehicles studied Overall, 20% of the vehicles studied were responsible for 75% of the away-from-home charging. Much of this away-from-home charging can be 20% attributed to workplace charging (see Figure 6). 75%

Away-from-home charging

10 What have we learned about workplace charging?

A subgroup of project charging events either at home. This increased use participants was identified home or work and only 2% of public charging on the that had access to both at other locations. Charging weekend suggests that home and workplace at work was free for many public charging still plays a charging. Consistent with of these drivers, which may role in these drivers’ travel conventional wisdom, Leaf have been one reason why routines. and Volt drivers with access they frequently charged to home and work charging there. performed the vast majority of their charging at those On weekends and other locations (see Figure 7). days when they did not go to work, Leaf drivers Considering only days averaged 8% of their 98% when drivers went to work, charging events at locations Of charging events were the effect is even more other than home and Volt performed at home and work pronounced. PEV drivers drivers averaged 11% of performed 98% of their their charging away from on work days.

Other Other 4% 3%

Figure 7. Work Work Volt (left) and Leaf (right) 39% 32% drivers with access to home and workplace charging performed nearly all of their charging at those locations. Home Home Volt 57% 65% Leaf

11 Range extension from On days when Leaf drivers Workplace charging as workplace charging had to charge at work in a substitute for home Workplace charging was order to complete their charging found to be an effective daily commute, workplace About 30% of drivers only range extender, allowing charging provided an charged at work on most some Leaf owners to drive average of 15 miles of range days. This shows that their Leaf to work even on extension required to make workplace charging could days when their round-trip it home. The entire daily make PEVs viable for people commute exceeded the commute on these days, without access to home vehicle’s range based on which averaged 73 miles, charging. home charging alone (see arguably was enabled by below). workplace charging. Management of workplace charging Volt drivers saw similar PEV drivers demonstrated electric range-extending that they adjust their % benefits from workplace charging habits based OF DRIVERS DROVE A LEAF TO WORK EVEN charging. On days when on conditions, such as THOUGH THEY COULD NOT MAKE IT BACK Volt drivers’ commutes were fees and rules for use. HOME UNLESS THEY CHARGED AT WORK. long enough to require a Not surprisingly, drivers 6 charge at work in order to were less likely to plug complete the commute on in at work if they had electricity alone, workplace to pay to charge or if % charging provided an addi- they were required to OF LEAF DRIVERS COULD COMPLETE THEIR DIRECT COMMUTE WITHOUT CHARGING AT tional 18.5 miles of EV driv- move their vehicle after WORK, BUT THEIR ROUTINE ON MOST DAYS ing, on average. On these charging (and that rule 8REQUIRED THEM TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL DIS- days, round-trip commutes was enforced). PEV drivers TANCE, WHICH NECESSITATED CHARGING AT averaged 62 miles, with 57 also showed a willingness WORK IN ORDER TO MAKE IT HOME. miles of EV range. to use communication tools, such as social Leaf and Volt drivers with media, to coordinate the known access to workplace use of charging stations % charging in this study aver- with other employees. aged 23% and 26% higher At work sites studied, annual EV miles traveled there also was a culture 40OF LEAF DRIVERS RELIED ON WORK- than the overall groups of common courtesy and PLACE CHARGING ON AT LEAST ONE DAY of vehicles in the project, willingness to follow local A MONTH TO COMPLETE THEIR DAILY respectively (see Figure 8). practices, such as a driver COMMUTES. plugging in a neighboring

12 car after unplugging his vehicle. In many cases, this self-management by employers led to exceptionally high charging station utilization and opportunity for a large number of employees to charge regularly.

Photo courtesy of Facebook

14,000 Figure 8. 13,759 VMT Volt and Leaf drivers with 12,000 12,238 access to home charging and VMT 10,000 workplace charging (WPC) had considerably higher 9,697 11,882 9,112 11,448 11,346 8,000 eVMT eVMT eVMT eVMT VMT annual electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT) than the overall 6,000 project averages, and their eVMT exceeded the national average 4,000 annual total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Annual vechicle miles traveled vechicle Annual 2,000

0 All Leafs Leafs with All Volts Volts with National WPC WPC average5 access access

5 O ce of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, “Highway Statistics 2013-Table VM-1,” January, 2015, www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/vm1.cfm

13 What have we learned about public charging station use?

Public Level 2 charging for an average of 8.6 hours station usage (excluding per charge cord per day. workplace charging units) The average time vehicles was low overall. The median were plugged in for each charging frequency per individual charge event site was 1.4 charges per ranged from 4 to 42 hours, week, with 75% of the with a median plug-in time 2,400 public Level 2 sites of 22.6 hours per event. nationwide averaging four These types of locations are or fewer charging events prime candidates for slower, per week. However, popular lower cost Level 1 charging public Level 2 sites saw very equipment. high usage. Well-designed charging sites at retail stores, especially shopping The most highly utilized DC fast chargers tended to be malls, and parking lots and garages serving multiple located close to interstate highway exits. venues demonstrated the potential to support from 7 DC fast chargers were used local vehicles as much or is needed to fully charac- to 11 charges per day. much more frequently than more than they were used to terize public charging “hot most public Level 2 stations, recharge vehicles traveling spots” and develop rules Charging sites at venues with a median use frequency on the interstate. of thumb for identifying where vehicles are parked of 7.2 events per week, public charging locations for long periods of time, based on averaging each Public charging station with potential for high like airports, ride-share fast charger’s use over the usage varied significantly utilization. parking lots, or parking lots course of the entire project. by region, with average at public transit stations, A quarter of the fast chargers utilization rates generally should not be measured averaged over 15 events per tracking with regional by the number of events week, and one unit aver- PEV sales. However, highly per week, but rather by the aged 70 events per week. utilized individual public time vehicles spent con- The most highly utilized DC charging sites were found nected to charging stations fast chargers tended to be in most regions, proving in a day or week. In the located close to interstate that public charging station project, these kinds of sites highway exits. Interestingly, utilization is dependent on had vehicles connected these units were used by local factors. More research

14 How did public usage Blink DC fast chargers 19.5 minutes. When the Blink change over time? were initially free and Network began charging As mentioned, overall usage usage increased quickly. a per-session fee to fast of public Level 2 charging However, usage dropped charge, the average time stations was low, but it dramatically when the Blink spent charging increased slowly increased over the Network implemented a by 20%. Drivers presumably course of the projects, with usage fee in the summer stayed connected longer to usage of ChargePoint units of 2013. Data provided by get their money’s worth. increasing at a faster rate the Blink Network after the than Blink units on average end of the project showed nationwide (see Figure 9). that average Blink DC fast The cost to use public Level charger usage bottomed 2 charging stations varied out in early 2014 and then from site to site. Most Blink steadily increased, reaching public units charged a fee 2.4 charging events per day 19.5 after September 2012. Many by the end of 2014. ChargePoint public stations The average number of minutes in were free through the end Prior to the onset of fees, a Blink DC fast charger session prior of the project, but the exact Blink DC fast charger number is not known. sessions lasted an average of to the onset of fees.

4.0 Figure 9. Blink DC Fast Chargers 3.5 Blink DC fast charger usage fell ChargePoint Public Level 2 dramatically in the middle of 3.0 2013, coinciding with the onset Blink Public Level 2 of fees for use, but increased 2.5 again in the second half of 2014. 2.0

1.5 per station day per station 1.0

Number of charging events Number of charging 0.5

0 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

15 What have we learned about charging at home?

When do they charge? or their home charging unit charge delay setting when PEV owners have the option to delay charging. Of those they plug in away from of delaying the start of who chose to delay their home during the day. charging electronically, charging using these tools, allowing them to plug in about half programmed Participants in the project their vehicle at a convenient their charging unit and half left their vehicles plugged time but not start consum- programmed their vehicle. in at home overnight for ing electricity from the grid Some customers chose to an average of 12 hours until later, such as when program their charging per charge. The vehicles electricity prices are lowest. unit, rather than their always required less than Project participants could vehicle, to avoid needing 5 hours to fully charge at program either their vehicle to override the vehicle’s home using the Level 2 charging units, and usually The vehicles always required less than 5 hours to fully only took 1 to 3 hours to charge completely. This charge at home using the Level 2 charging units, and means that even though most vehicles were plugged usually only took 1 to 3 hours to charge completely. in for the night by 10 p.m.,

16 overnight charging at home the cheapest time to charge time” scheduling function typically could be delayed was between midnight and is helpful for the electric until the early morning 5 a.m., most PEV owners grid, because it essentially hours when overall demand programmed their charging randomizes the charge start on the electric grid is the to start at midnight or 1 a.m. time from household to lowest. In fact, many electric (see Figure 10). household, thus preventing utilities offer reduced home all vehicles from initiating electricity prices during The Volt and Leaf both offer charging at the same time, off-peak times to incentivize a charge scheduling option such as the start of the off- their customers to shift that allows the owner to tell peak period. electricity consumption the vehicle what time they off peak. PEV owners in plan to depart on their next 12 noon 12 midnight 0.06 MW 0.7 MW the project in areas where trip. The vehicle chooses 11 p.m. utilities offer cheaper rates what time to start charging, 0.16 MW at night showed a willing- based on how empty the 2 a.m. 1.0 MW ness to delay charging at battery is and how much home until these off-peak time it calculates it needs 9 a.m. 0.05 MW 3 a.m. 0.7 MW periods. In San Diego, where to charge. This “depart-by 9 p.m. 0.19 MW 3 p.m. 0.1 MW

4 a.m. 0.3 MW 1.2 5 p.m. 0.15 MW

1.0 6 a.m. 0.03 MW 6 p.m. 0.18 MW

0.8

0.6

0.4 Figure 10. The total power drawn over the 0.2 course of a day by all EV Project Home Charging Demand (MW) Charging Home vehicles charging at home on a 0 typical weekday in San Diego. 6 a.m. 12 p.m. 6 p.m. 12 a.m. Time of Day

17 What have we learned about charging station installation costs?

RESIDENTIAL LEVEL 2 AVERAGE INSTALLATION Installation cost for residential, workplace, and public charging stations was documented for the Blink stations installed in the project. Residential Level 2 unit installation cost ranged from a few hundred dollars to over $8,000. The average residential installation cost was $1,354. This aver- $1,354 age was driven up by expensive installations that required upgraded electrical service, which was often necessary in WORKPLACE LEVEL 2 AVERAGE INSTALLATION older homes. Cost varied regionally based on electrician labor wages and permitting fees.

The installation cost of public Level 2 charging stations $2,223 ranged from $600 to $12,660, with an average cost of $3,108. Cost primarily depended on the distance from the PUBLIC LEVEL 2 AVERAGE INSTALLATION facility’s electrical panel to the charging station location, and varied regionally due to labor costs.

Workplace Level 2 charging unit installations averaged $2,223, or 28% less than the average public Level 2 unit $3,108 cost. This difference was attributed to workplaces having more flexibility in choosing the locations of their charging BLINK DC FAST CHARGER AVERAGE INSTALLATION stations and the type of equipment to be installed. However, employers that installed additional charging stations often found the second round of installations to be more expensive because the inexpensive locations had $22,626 been taken already. Blink DC fast charger installation cost in the project ranged from $8,500 to over $50,000, with an average cost of $22,626. This average actually may be artificially low, because installation proposals that exceeded a spending limit were turned down. Many DC fast charger installations required the addition of electrical service to support the chargers’ 60-kW power rating and requirement for 480-volt 3-phase power. This significantly increased the installation cost. As with Level 2 units, costs varied regionally depending on permitting requirements and labor costs.

18 How have the findings of this project helped organizations promote or prepare for PEV adoption?

Project staff had the goal National policy makes recommendations to Analysis of data collected of disseminating as many recommendations the federal government and from PEVs and charging findings as possible from Project researchers provided others on actions to take or stations in Washington was the project to help other the National Research avoid to enable the adoption performed for the organizations in their Council of the National of PEVs by the mass market. Washington State efforts to accelerate PEV Academy of Sciences with Department of adoption. Researchers at numerous presentations State infrastructure Transportation (WSDOT). Idaho National Laboratory and reports to help them planning decisions WSDOT incorporated were specifically assigned prepare the recently released The California Air Resources findings of this work into to regularly publish reports report “Overcoming Barriers Board, the California Energy the Washington State and present results to key to Deployment of Plug-in Commission, and the Electric Vehicle Action Plan. government and industry Electric Vehicles.” This 204- California Public Utilities The plan details WSDOT’s stakeholders. Here are some page report is the result of Commission solicited expectations and plans to examples of the organi- an intensive 2-year study information from project achieve the Washington zations and efforts that conducted by the National researchers about away- governor’s goal of 50,000 benefitted from the project: Research Council for the U.S. from-home charging electric vehicles on the road Department of Energy and observed in The EV Project in the state by 2020. and ChargePoint America in California to guide develop- Regional electric utility ment of sustainable public planning charging infrastructure PEV charging patterns were for the growing number analyzed and presented to a of PEVs in California. The group of seven electric utili- information provided ties based in the Northeast, assisted the California called the Regional Electric Energy Commission in Vehicle Initiative. The validating model assump- work analyzed diversity tions used in its Statewide patterns and coincidence PEV Infrastructure Plan, and of PEV charging with utility ultimately fed into the PEV system loads. The utilities Infrastructure Assessment requested this information that was presented to the to guide decisions regard- Air Resources Board in ing system planning, rate October 2014. design, and development of Photo courtesy of ChargePoint rate/program strategies to mitigate system impacts.

19 Vehicle regulation from five automakers (Ford, Numerous organizations were provided with special reports As an independent third GM, Nissan, Honda and or presentations to aid their research, planning or policy party, Idaho National Toyota) were included. decisions related to electric vehicles and charging infra- Laboratory performed anal- structure design, promotion and environmental impact. ysis of PEV driving data from Other partners and These groups include the following: the project and additional beneficiaries data sets and presented Analysis results and findings • Argonne National Laboratory • National Academy of Sciences results to the California Air published over the course • Arizona Public Service Committee on Overcoming Barriers Resources Board to support of the project have been • California Air Resources Board to EV Adoption deliberations between used by a host of other • California Energy Commission • National Renewable Energy the Air Resources Board organizations, including • Cardiff University, UK Laboratory and automakers about the standards development • Center for Climate and Energy • Oak Ridge National Laboratory redefinition of zero-emis- committees, other auto Solutions (formerly the Pew Center • Oncor Electric Delivery sion vehicle credits. A companies and electric on Global Climate Change) • Pacific Gas & Electric revision to this regulatory utilities in the United States • City of Chattanooga, TN • PacifiCorp framework applied to and abroad, PEV charging • City of Knoxville, TN • PECO Energy Company cars sold in California, the equipment manufacturers, • Clinton Foundation - • Portland General Electric largest market in the United facilities management Clinton Climate Initiative • Public Utility District No. 1 of States, would potentially companies, PEV advocacy • Colorado State University Snohomish County shift billions of research groups, and federal and • Columbia Hospitality • Puget Sound Energy and development dollars state government agencies • Commonwealth Edison Company • Sacramento Municipal Utility at various auto companies. to inform PEV and charging • Delaware Valley Regional Planning District The study was performed infrastructure design and Commission • Salem Electric on a data set of 158,000,000 deployment decisions, elec- • Electric Drive Transportation • Salt River Project miles from 21,000 vehicles tricity grid load forecasting, Association • San Diego Gas & Electric operated throughout the cost/benefit analyses, and a • Energy & Environmental Resources • Seattle City Light United States. Eight models variety of other endeavors. Group, LLC • Seattle University • Eugene Water & Electric Board • Southern Company • Harvard University • Tucson Electric Power For more information about The EV • International Energy Agency • Union of Concerned Scientists • Georgia Power • University of California - Davis Project and ChargePoint America, • Green Mountain College Institute for Transportation Studies • London Hydro, Inc. • University of Central Florida including publications detailing • Los Angeles Department of Water • University of Georgia additional findings and lessons & Power • University of Texas Austin • Memphis Light Gas & Water • Vermont Energy Investment learned, visit avt.inl.gov/evproject • Middle Tennessee Electric Corporation Membership Corporation • Wall Street Journal and avt.inl.gov/chargepoint. • Nashville Electric Service • Washington State Department of Transportation

20 About Idaho National Laboratory

Idaho National Laboratory is one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 10 multiprogram national laboratories. The laboratory performs work in each of the U.S. Department of Energy’s strategic goal areas: energy, national security, science, and the environment. Idaho National Laboratory is the nation’s leading center for nuclear energy research and development. Day-to-day management and oper- ation of the laboratory is the responsibility of Battelle Energy Alliance.

21 For more information about INL, visit www.inl.gov.

INL/EXT-15-35584

15-50317