LIGHT-‐DUTY PEV FORECASTS PEV Forecasts – Three Scenarios represen4ng range of adop4on 7,000,000 Forecated Cumulative PEVs in California • ZEV Program with 50% Compliance from FCVs: Compliance with the Zero Emission Vehicle Program and modifying the most likely compliance scenario to achieve 50% compliance from FCVs. • ZEV Program “Most Likely Compliance Scenario” from CARB: In the development of the Zero Emission Vehicle Program, CARB staff developed a most likely compliance scenario. There were some modifica4ons to this scenario to reflect recent PEV sales data. • ZEV Program Scenario x 3: This scenario is a factor of three larger than the ZEV program’s most likely compliance scenario. 6,000,000 ZEV x3 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 ZEV Most Likely Compliance 2,000,000 1,000,000 ZEV, 50% FCVs 0 Year 1 LIGHT-‐DUTY PEV FORECASTS Energy Consump4on VMT eVMT Energy Consump7on (kWh) Vehicle Type Daily Annual Daily Annual PHEV10 PHEV20 41.0 14,965 PHEV40 BEV 29.5 10,768 Daily Annual Res NonRes Total Res NonRes Total 10.0 3,650 2.8 0.7 3.5 1,022 256 1,278 20.0 7,300 5.6 1.4 7.0 2,044 511 2,555 30.6 11,169 8.6 2.1 10.7 3,127 782 3,909 29.5 10,768 8.3 2.1 10.3 3,016 754 3,770 Developed modifica7on for each scenario whereby the eVMT for each PEV-‐type is increase by one mile per day per year, not to exceed 39 daily VMT. Addi7onal charging is assumed to happen on commercial circuits. 2 RESULTS – TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION Electricity Consump4on 3 MARKET GAPS AND BARRIERS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Main Areas of Focus (1 of 2) Market Gaps and Barriers Poten7al Solu7ons Consumer Costs • Increased publicity and con4nued availability of exis4ng incen4ves • Crea4ve use of u4lity LCFS credits or u4lity • Upfront vehicle costs • Upfront charging infrastructure (EVSE) costs developed programs (e.g. bajery second • Vehicle opera4ng costs; need for life) to reduce the upfront vehicle or EVSE compe44ve charging rates for PEVs and shih costs • Improved PEV charging rate structures to in tradi4onal billing paradigm increase the reduced fuel cost benefits for drivers Charging Infrastructure • Lack of informa4on available to single family homeowners seeking to decide between Level 1 and Level 2 charging installa4on • Engage MDUs/HOAs, employers and • Lijle to no progress made in deploying workplace parking providers as a trusted charging at mul4-‐dwelling units; MDU advisor regarding op4mal and cost-‐effec4ve installa4ons are par4cularly challenging due EVSE solu4ons to technical and logis4cal issues • Lack of investment in workplace charging infrastructure to date 4 MARKET GAPS AND BARRIERS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Main Areas of Focus (2 of 2) Market Gaps and Barriers Poten7al Solu7ons Sustainability of Third-‐Party Ownership of EVSE Networks • Sustainability of revenue model is frequently • Alterna4ves to addi4onal public investment challenged and has not been convincingly in charging infrastructure demonstrated • Revisi4ng the CPUC ruling regarding u4lity • Demand for non-‐home charging is unclear investment in charging infrastructure due to several factors: vehicle purchasing • Improved evalua4on of charging behavior, consumer willingness to pay for infrastructure deployment charging, and charging needs/behaviors Consumer Educa4on and Outreach • General lack of PEV awareness and knowledge • Total cost of vehicle ownership is poorly understood • Disparate efforts to improve PEV educa4on • The u4lity ac4ng as a trusted advisor in the PEV market • Engage with PEV ecosystem partners • Limited vehicle offerings in marketplace • Modifica4ons to the ZEV program to incen4vize the development of PEVs outside of tradi4onal market segments (e.g. subcompacts or midsize sedans) Vehicle Features 5 CPUC Codes and Tests GRID IMPACTS MODELING • Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) – measurement of ratepayer benefits • Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) – total present value costs & benefits including private expenditures for new vehicles & fuel cost savings • Public U7lity Code 740.3 and 740.8 describes direct benefits that are "interests" of ratepayers to be valued when considering ini4a4ves promo4ng low-‐emission vehicle infrastructure and adop4on: – Providing safer, more reliable, or less costly gas or electrical service – Promo4ng energy efficiency – Reducing health and environmental impacts from air pollu4on and greenhouse gas emissions and – Increased use of alterna4ve fuels. • “740.8” Societal Cost Test (SCT) – TRC test plus environmental and societal benefits outlined in “740.8” 6 GRID IMPACTS MODELING TRC and “740.8” SCT Results TRC Test Results “740.8” SCT Results § “740.8” SCT represents a combina7on of CARB and CPUC cost-‐effec7veness methods § Present value net benefits for TRC and “740.8” SCT of $4.7 Billion and $5.8 Billion with ZEV Most Likely vehicle adop7on 7
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
