Examination of Transit Agency Coordination with Electric Utilities (2024)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 3 Transit Agency-Utility Collaboration Survey This chapter describes the results of a survey designed to capture the current state of collabora- tion between transit agencies and electric utilities that goes beyond the basic relationship of the agency as an electricity customer. Types of Electric Utility Programs That Support BEB Deployment Table 3 shows the programs and policies identified by the author and the expert panel that an electric utility could potentially offer to support a transit agency’s deployment of BEBs. Survey respondents were asked whether any of these programs or policies were already in place, were not in place, or were under discussion. (Please note that the survey did not include the definitions in the interest of keeping the survey concise and minimizing the time to respond.) In addition to asking about utility programs, the survey asked respondents to indicate • Whether their BEB program is in the planning, pilot, or beyond pilot stage • How many buses they have • How many and what type of chargers they have • Whether they are under a mandate to transition to ZEBs • If they have a ZEB transition plan The survey also asked some open-ended questions, including whether respondents had any agreements or contracts with their electric utility to formalize their partnership and if they had included the utility in their Low-No grant application. Finally, the survey asked for basic information on the size of the agency; the climate conditions of their service territory; and whether the service is urban, rural, or suburban. These elements help to ensure that the respondents represent a mix of demographic, regulatory, and climate conditions. These were then used when selecting the case examples, again to ensure that they would represent a range of conditions. The complete survey is provided in Appendix B. Survey Responses The survey was sent to 85 agencies and garnered 34 results, as shown in Table 4. The results represent a cross-section of agencies encompassing a range of geographic and climate condi- tions, fleet size, and BEB program maturity. There was less diversity in the service environment of the respondents, which tended to be in “urbanized” environments. The agencies in this survey 23 

24   Examination of Transit Agency Coordination with Electric Utilities Table 3.   Programs and policies that an electric utility may potentially offer to support a transit agency’s deployment of BEBs. Types of Utility Programs Definition Capital Funding/Financing Financing of charging equipment The utility would directly fund, in part or whole, the EVSE installed by the agency in its facility. Financing of construction The utility would fund construction that occurs “behind the meter” such as conduit to the switchgear or trenching. Financing of engineering/planning The utility would offer, at no cost to the agency, engineering, and planning services for the infrastructure deployment. Make-ready program Full funding of the infrastructure up to the charger Equipment leasing Leasing the charging equipment Charging as a service The utility pays up-front costs for installation of charging equipment. The agency then pays these costs back through its monthly utility bill. This service may or may not include the operation and maintenance costs as well. The utility may retain ownership of the charger, or it may become the property of the agency once it is paid for through the monthly bills. On-site energy storage/microgrid Energy storage such as battery storage to provide emergency backup solution power or to even out power demands; microgrid is a distributed energy resource that enables the agency to generate electricity independently. Operational Financial Support Special EV rate structure Rates that support electric vehicles’ usage patterns and reduce demand charges, including lower EV rates or time-of-use rates Managed charging/load management Tools to manage the BEB load to optimize off-peak rates and lower costs Advanced metering/net metering Separate meter for the BEB fleet and/or metering that provides more granular usage data such as 15-minute interval data Renewable electricity sourcing Providing renewable energy subscription plans Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) Bidirectional charging that allows the utility to “buy back” energy from an EV battery Planning Support and/or Grant Funding Support Help writing transition plan Partnering with the agency in writing its ZEB Transition plan Power capacity evaluation Providing engineering and analysis services to assess power capacity needs for BEB fleet Help with route design/planning Providing engineering and analysis services to help determine BEB route deployment based on range and power availability Help with charging strategy Providing services to develop a charging strategy to manage energy use and incorporate BEB fleet into existing transit agency service and routes Help with energy management Providing services to develop an energy management strategy strategy Table 4.   Survey results showing fleet size. Number of Survey Percent of Survey Agencies Agencies Small: Fewer than 100 peak fixed- route buses operated in maximum 15 44.12% service Mid-size: 100 to 499 peak fixed- route buses operated in maximum 9 26.47% service Large: 500+ peak fixed-route buses 10 29.41% operated in maximum service Total 34 

Transit Agency-Utility Collaboration Survey   25 represented a total of 540 BEBs in service. They also reported having a total of 2,019 BEBs on order, although half of that number is at a single agency. • Agency Size. The survey asked agencies the peak number of fixed-route buses they operated in maximum service as a determinant of the agency size, as shown in Table 4. This metric is com- monly used in the U.S. transit industry. The agency respondent pool was fairly evenly divided between small, medium, and large agencies, with small agencies somewhat overrepresented at 43% of respondents. • Agency Operating Environment. Twenty-six respondents (77%) said they operate primarily in an urban environment, while five (14%) operate in a suburban setting and three (9%) in rural areas. • Climate Conditions and Geography. The 34 agency respondents represent 20 states across the United States. Table 5 shows the percentage of agencies that indicated they experience the indicated climatic condition some of the time. (Agencies experience more than one climate condition, so the percentages add up to more than 100%.) • BEB Fleet Size. The survey first asked respondents to identify whether they were in a plan- ning stage, defined as no BEBs in service; the pilot stage, defined as having 10 or fewer BEBs in service; or beyond the pilot stage, defined as having 11 or more BEBs in service. Half of the respondents report being beyond the pilot stage, 35% were in the pilot program stage, and just 15% were in the planning stage. The majority started their BEBs in service in the last five years, but there are several that have been in service from six to 10 years, as shown in Table 6. Agencies were also asked specifically how many BEBs they had in service and how many were on order. Most agencies reported having five or fewer BEBs in service, as shown in Table 7. • Charger Technology. The survey asked respondents what type of chargers they are using: DC fast chargers, AC chargers, overhead conductive chargers, or wireless chargers, as shown in Table 8. They were also asked whether the equipment was for depot-based charging or on-route charging. The types and locations of charging equipment used have implications in terms of the level of utility coordination required to install the equipment; for example, AC chargers are low-power chargers, typically under 50 kW, so they are less likely to require sig- nificant upgrades by the utility. This may also have implications for the level of support that a utility program offers for any facility upgrades. Table 5.   Survey results showing climate conditions. Climate Conditions Number of Survey Percent of Survey Agencies Agencies That That Experience These Experience These Conditions Conditions High temperatures (over 90 degrees) 29 85.29% Cold temperatures (below 35 degrees) 27 79.41% Service has temperate climate 8 23.53% Hurricane conditions 6 17.65% Other notable climatic condition 8 23.53% Note: Respondents could indicate more than one condition. Table 6.   Survey results showing status of BEB programs. Status of BEB Program Percent Number of Survey Agencies Planning stage only 14.71% 5 Pilot stage: 10 or fewer BEBs 35.29% 12 Beyond pilot stage: 11 or more BEBs 50.00% 17 Total 34 

26   Examination of Transit Agency Coordination with Electric Utilities Table 7.   Survey results showing how many BEBs were in service and how many were on order. Number of Battery Electric Buses in Percentage Number of Survey Service at Survey Agency Agencies 0–5 29% 10 6–10 20% 7 11–15 14% 5 16–20 14% 4 21–35 14% 5 50–81 9% 3 Total 34 Table 8.   Types of charging equipment in use by survey agency. Charging Option Percentage of Number of All Agencies Agencies DC chargers for depot charging 79% 27 AC chargers for depot charging 9% 3 Overhead charging on route 29% 10 Overhead charging for depot charging 9% 3 Wireless charging 15% 5 Note: Respondents could indicate more than one condition. Most agencies who responded are using depot-based DC chargers: 27 of the 34 agencies surveyed have DC chargers for depot-based charging. Three agencies reported using AC chargers for depot-based charging, and three are using overhead charging in their depot. Ten agencies have on-route charging. Although wireless charging is still a relatively new technology, five of the agencies who responded to this survey reported that they were deploy- ing wireless charging for their BEB fleets. • Mandates and Transition Plans. Eleven agencies, or about one-third of the agencies that responded, reported that they are mandated to purchase zero-emission buses. The types of mandates ranged from several agencies under a state mandate such as in California or Hawaii, a county-level mandate, or a mandate from the agency board. A majority—28 or 80 percent—of respondents have a ZEB transition plan in place. Of the six respondents that do not, a few are the agencies still in the planning stage. However, several agencies that reported being in the planning stage do have ZEB transition plans. The broad adoption of ZEB transition plans is likely a combination of the requirements by states with mandates and the recent requirement by the FTA that agencies applying for zero-emission bus and facility funding under the Buses and Bus Facilities grant program must include a transi- tion plan with their application. State of Agency-Utility Collaborations • Capital Funding or Financing. The tables below show the percentage of respondents who indicated that the program listed is established, in discussion, or is not available. Overall, capital funding or financing programs or policies are relatively uncommon according to these survey results, found in Table 9. The most common is a “make-ready” program, which 26% of respondents said is available through their utility. Financing of charging equipment and engineering/planning services are the next most common services offered. Charging as a service and on-site energy storage/microgrids are uncommon, 

Transit Agency-Utility Collaboration Survey   27 Table 9.   Capital funding or financing programs offered by agency utility. Yes No In Discussion Make-ready program 9 19 6 Financing of charging 8 20 6 equipment Financing of 8 20 6 engineering/planning Financing of construction 6 19 9 Equipment leasing 5 27 2 On-site energy 3 16 15 storage/microgrid solution Charging as a service 2 26 6 Note: N = 34. which aligns with their status as fairly new and somewhat untried solutions. However, the on-site storage/microgrid option had the highest number of responses that agencies were in discussions about. This result seems to align with the case example conversations in which some agencies said they were considering either backup power, a microgrid, or both. • Operational Support. Overall, it seems that more agencies are receiving some kind of oper- ational support than up-front capital funding support. Table 10 shows special rates and renewable electricity sourcing as the most commonly offered solutions under Operational Support. The author looked up the utility of respondents who said they received electric vehicle (EV) rates and determined that the utilities cited as offering EV rates were NV Energy, Minnesota Power, Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison. With 44% reporting they are in discussions about special rates, it seems that this is becoming a more widespread practice among utilities. Only one agency mentioned vehicle-to-grid as an established option, demonstrating that this technology solution remains fairly outside the mainstream for transit agencies. The FTA is investing in a project that will explore how to use electric bus batteries for a backup power source, Table 10.   Operational financial support offered by agency utility. Yes No In Discussion Special EV Rate structure 10 9 15 Renewable electricity 10 16 8 sourcings Managed charging/load 7 13 14 management Advanced metering/net 7 16 11 metering Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) 1 28 5 Note: N = 34. 

28   Examination of Transit Agency Coordination with Electric Utilities which would require utilizing a vehicle-to-grid technology option, but this is still in an early stage. In addition, TCRP is developing a guide under TCRP Project H-61, “Guide for Resilient Zero-Emission Transit Bus Fleets.” • Planning or Grant Support. Table 11 shows that Planning or Grant Support is the most commonly offered service, which aligns with the fact that utilities are able to offer this service without having to file a docket with the state PUC or other regulatory body. Power capacity evaluations are at over 50% among this respondent list; this service is the most similar to a utility’s existing offerings to customers that request significant new load and aligns well with a utility’s in-house expertise. Utilities are also offering help with charging strategies—which may be due to the utilities’ interest in managing new loads and preventing the need for costly power upgrades. Finally, Low-No Grant support is reasonably widely available; since 2022, Low-No grant applicants have been required to demonstrate engagement with the relevant energy provider—whether a utility or hydrogen provider. Table 11.   Planning or grant support from agency utility. Yes No In Discussion Power capacity evaluation 18 10 6 Support in Low-No Grant 13 20 1 application Help with charging strategy 11 20 3 Help writing transition plan 8 26 0 Help with energy 8 17 9 management strategy Help with route 6 27 1 design/planning Note: N = 34.