Committee backs design guidelines for multifamily EV charging; staff aims to pilot financing model

The Palo Alto Climate Action & Sustainability Committee voted 3‑0 Sept. 19 to recommend that City Council adopt new design guidelines for a successor multifamily electric vehicle (EV) charging program. Staff described the guidelines as a shift from per‑charger rebates toward scalable financing models, managed charging and site‑appropriate installations to expand access across the city’s multifamily housing stock.

Rachel DeFranco, utilities program services manager, summarized the limits of the city’s current EV rebate program (EV‑1) and the rationale for new guidance. Since 2017, the program has installed charging at 26 multifamily properties with a total of 325 chargers serving 1,324 residential units, DeFranco said; Palo Alto has roughly 11,000 multifamily units citywide. DeFranco said the city has spent about $1.5 million in incentives under the current program and that, if the existing incentive model were scaled to reach all ~577 multifamily properties of three or more units, it could cost an estimated $25–34 million.

To scale with limited incentive funds, staff proposed a “charging as a service” approach that pairs city support with commercial financing and possible on‑bill repayment so capital can be repaid by beneficiaries (drivers and property owners) over time. Staff flagged an exception for affordable housing: projects serving low‑income residents would remain eligible for direct subsidy rather than full repayment.

DeFranco and staff said the successor program will emphasize several design elements: flexibility to allow separate EV meters or use of existing house meters when appropriate; managed‑charging systems to avoid expensive transformer upgrades; prewiring and “make‑ready” infrastructure where feasible; preapproved equipment packages to streamline permitting; and pilots for curbside charging or EV hubs to serve properties where on‑site options are impractical. Staff also described existing permitting checklists and outreach pilots and noted that utilities engineering will treat verified managed‑load systems as a factor in transformer sizing to reduce mandatory upgrades.

Committee members and staff discussed pilot timing, permitting changes and funding. Jonathan (staff modeler) said the FY26 budget includes $3.1 million in Low‑Carbon Fuel Standard funds to support program roll‑out; staff described that budget as sufficient to pilot financing approaches and continue the existing pipeline of pending incentive applications while the city transitions toward the successor model. DeFranco said some pending projects will continue under the current rebate program, others may opt into the new financing model, and staff aims to phase the transition to avoid an abrupt cutoff.

On technical and regulatory issues, staff reported strong contractor feedback that managed charging and the ability to use residential‑style panels for certain EV circuits can reduce costs. Staff also noted an existing city requirement for an emergency power shutoff on EV installations and said they are reviewing whether and how to simplify implementation. Staff said they are coordinating with PG&E, reviewing curbside pilots in San Francisco and Alameda, and exploring partnerships with financing providers such as Go Green Financing for on‑bill or interest‑buydown structures.

Public comment for the item was not received. The committee approved the staff recommendation to forward the design guidelines to City Council for adoption; roll call recorded: “Council member Luke? Yes. Chair Vanke? Yes. Council member Burke? Yes. Motion carries 3‑0.”

Ending: Staff will pursue pilots (charging‑as‑a‑service, curbside hubs, managed‑charging deployments), refine permitting checklists and report back to council with implementation details and performance metrics as pilots proceed.