Proposed Rulemaking for Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Public Space
Sierra Club Comments
Summary
Sierra Club is excited to see DDOT continuing to engage in the area of vehicle electrification. Meeting the District’s ambitious climate goals will not only require consumers to transition to electric vehicles (EVs), it will also necessitate a transition in public infrastructure that can accommodate these vehicles. The District is becoming a national leader in its path to a clean energy future. That is why rulemaking around the issue of installation of EV charging stations (EVCSs) is so important to the members of Sierra Club’s DC chapter.
In a city where many residents rely on on-street parking, widespread, affordable, and convenient curbside chargers are essential to EV adoption. We are hopeful that DDOT will introduce rules that facilitate affordable and stress-free overnight and work time charging for residents without garages. Unfortunately, as written, the rule could make owning and charging an EV in the District onerous and unduly expensive. By disallowing EVCSs on blocks with Residential Permit Parking (RPP) restrictions, the proposed rule would make it difficult for residents in RPP neighborhoods to own EVs. The requirements that vendors install one station outside the Central Business District (CBD) for every two inside the CBD creates unnecessary barriers to entry for new ECVS vendors while failing to guarantee the long-term needs of the District’s Wards. Finally, the structure of fees and penalties outlined in the proposed rule would impose overly burdensome costs for charging EVs while unnecessarily blurring the line between paying for parking and paying for electricity.
This proposed rule could do much more to encourage the transition to EVs and meet the District’s goals under the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act. Sierra Club requests that DDOT revises the rule to better encourage District residents to participate in DC’s push toward a clean energy future.
EV Charging In Residential Areas
Section 2406.22 of the proposed rule imposes several restrictions on EVCSs. Part (c) of this section suggests that EVCSs not be “located on blocks with Residential Permit Parking (RPP) restrictions.” This overbroad restriction does not serve the public interest because it would discourage the transition to EVs in many District communities.
Neighborhoods with RPP restrictions tend to have less off-street parking. Many vehicle owners in these areas rely solely on on-street parking. Disallowing EVCSs on streets with RPP restrictions could require residents to park their EVs far away from their homes when they need to charge. Instead of creating a blanket ban on EVCSs on RPP streets, DDOT must come up with a more nuanced solution. One possible fix could be to leave the decision about whether to allow EVCSs to local Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners (ANCs). ANCs are better equipped to understand the needs in their respective neighborhoods and can be petitioned individually by EV owners who want on-street EVCSs.
A person should be able to own and charge their EV no matter where they live in the district. A blanket restriction on EVCSs on RPP streets in the proposed rule would interfere with the transition to EVs.
EVCSs Outside the CBD
Sections 2406.24 and 2406.25 of the proposed rule impose a requirement on vendors to install EVCSs outside the CBD. For every two installations inside the CBD, a vendor must install one EVCS outside the CBD, until the vendor has installed 15 charging stations. This requirement is a step in the right direction in that it provides some incentive to vendors to build EVCSs outside the CBD, but it could be strengthened to better meet the needs of the District.
The requirements of vendors to build outside the CBD create a steep ramp for new vendors to climb, making the market difficult to enter at first. Once this ramp is cleared, however, requirements for equity between districts disappear after the 15th installed EVCS. This would create an immediate disincentive for new EV vendors without ensuring long-term equitable access to EV chargers across the District.
Sections 2406.24 and 2406.25 of the proposed rule could be bolstered to ensure that DC’s Wards receive an adequate number of EVCSs. A better set of requirements would scale up more slowly, but continue beyond the 15th EVCS, requiring vendors to cover areas outside the CBD without creating such high costs of entry to the EVCS market.
Fees and Penalties
Finally, section 2406.29 of the proposed rule would make charging at EVCSs in public spaces cost prohibitive, especially for those who wish to charge their vehicles overnight or while they are at work. Part (c) imposes a 4-hour daytime limit on charging an EV at an EVCS and part (e) charges EV owners a fee for using the EVCS on top of the fees imposed by the vendor. While these fees and penalties might serve to free up EVCSs for cars that need to charge, they do so at too high a price to EV owners, which in turn may cause the chargers to be underutilized.
Under this scheme, an EV owner could rack up absurd costs for engaging in routine parking behaviors. After the EV reaches a full charge, the latter fee would increase tenfold. If the owner exceeded the 4-hour time limit during the day, they would need to pay an additional $30. These fees and penalties would make it cost prohibitive for EV owners to charge their vehicles at night or during the day without leaving work in the middle of a shift or waking up in the middle of the night. Additionally, different EVs charge at different rates and have different battery capacities. The proposed rule would require owners to accurately estimate exactly how long their cars take to charge or suffer a heavy fee.
Sierra Club recognizes that without proper fee structures EV owners will use EVCS spots to park their vehicles without charging. A better incentive structure to keep ECVS spaces open for cars that need to charge could involve minimum charging times. For example, in a two-hour parking zone, any EV that charges for less than half an hour could be assessed a fine. This charge-time minimum could increase to longer periods of time in longer-term parking spaces and during night hours. A minimum charge time of two or three hours for overnight charging would only incentivize drivers that require a more substantial charge time to refill their car, without burdening drivers with undue hassle and stress. Equally importantly, this structure would not punish drivers for leaving their car overnight, when realistically the spot will not be used by another driver again until the morning.
For nearly any time-based rate structure, an accurate gauge of how long a recharge will take would be a helpful feature. DDOT should require ECVSs to display an estimated time until full charge. This will better allow EV owners to use ECVSs only as much as they need to.
Additionally, the proposed rule appears to mix the costs of parking and the costs of electricity together. Sierra Club believes that these costs should remain separate and easily distinguished by consumers. The cost for using the parking space should follow the charges and fines for parking meter rates, with the only additional cost being the electricity charge from the EVCS. The EVCS should only receive money related to the usage of their charger; all parking fees should go directly to the District. The EVCS would be allowed to collect the fee for when a user falls under the minimum charge time.
As written, the penalties and fees in the proposed rule are excessive, especially when the utilization rates of EVCSs are still unknown. DDOT should err on the side of over-incentivizing EV usage rather than penalizing it. A revised version of the rule can better accommodate routine parking behaviors while striking a balance between simplicity for consumers and efficient use of EVCSs.