Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Charging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears ICCT analysis: mix of charger types and utilization drive cost effectiveness
Summary
The commission received an ICCT cost‑benefit analysis showing no single charger type fits all needs: utilization and grid costs determine 10‑year levelized costs, SFPUC/PG&E interconnection rules and fire‑sprinkler requirements raise local costs, and SFMTA will lead a curbside feasibility study and pilot.
The San Francisco Environment Commission on Dec. 4 heard a cost‑benefit analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and the city—nvironment Department examining which types of electric‑vehicle chargers offer the most cost‑effective way for the city to reach its electrification goals.
Nicole Appenzeller, senior clean transportation specialist at the Environment Department, and Logan Pierce, an Electric Vehicles associate researcher at ICCT, said the study found the city needs a mix of chargers — residential off‑street level 2, residential curbside level 2, public level 2, workplace chargers and DC fast chargers — and that utilization rates are the dominant factor determining the 10‑year levelized infrastructure cost per unit of electricity.
"We found that utilization is key to cost effectiveness and enabling a return on investment," Appenzeller said, summarizing the analysis's central conclusion that chargers used more frequently yield substantially lower per‑unit costs over a 10‑year lifespan. ICCT found capital and grid upgrade costs for DC fast chargers can be more than ten times higher than for level‑2 installations and that trenching and site‑specific grid work can materially change project economics.
The presenters flagged several San Francisco‑specific cost drivers. Sites served by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) must go through PG&E for grid upgrades, which can increase costs and limit eligibility for ratepayer‑funded incentive programs. Appenzeller also noted new Fire Department sprinkler safety requirements for charging in enclosed garages that can increase costs and in some cases prompt charging providers to drop projects.
Commissioner Gabe Sullivan asked about enforcement and how other cities handle curbside EV parking and misuse. Appenzeller pointed to other citiesuse of fines and ticketing for non‑EV vehicles occupying EV curbside spots and said the city will study enforcement and education as part of the curbside feasibility work.
The department outlined next steps: SFMTA will lead a curbside‑charging feasibility study with a design for a pilot that is expected to wrap up next summer and feed directly into installation pilots; the department has also worked with an EV service provider, Revel, on a proposal to install as many as 30 fast chargers at SFMTA—ifth & Mission Garage, pending SFPUC grid‑upgrade cost estimates.
Members of the public offered mixed reactions during public comment. An unidentified speaker criticized vehicle electrification and raised questions about grid generation and battery lifecycle. Jim Moyer, a member of the public, praised parking incentives used elsewhere and asked whether solar panels will be incorporated into charging stations.
The commission did not take formal action on the ICCT report. Staff said they will continue cross‑agency work with SFMTA and SFPUC and collect cost data from industry stakeholders to inform grant applications and pilot designs.
