Figure 1: Running Tallies from Sample of Utility Progress Reports

0 out of 112
Programs Reviewed of Total Approved Programs
0
Dollars Spent (millions)
0
Level 2 Ports Installed
0
DC Fast Chargers Installed
0
MDHD Chargers Installed (inc. School Bus Chargers)
0
School Bus Chargers Installed
0
Multi-Unit Dwelling Chargers Installed
0
Workplace Chargers Installed
0
Chargers Installed for Fleets
0
Customers Enrolled in an EV Rate

Since 2012, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in the United States have been approved to invest in 112 electric vehicle (EV) programs across 31 states. Atlas has been able to find and review utility reports on the implementation of 50 of these programs across 17 states1. Figure 1 above shows running tallies of some key metrics Atlas is tracking in these reports. The sample of reports further reveals:

  • At least six out of 16 programs that reported charger deployments in underserved communities are exceeding their commitments, in many cases by more than 100 percent. California programs make up more than 95 percent of the reported chargers in underserved communities.
  • Utilities reported average hardware and installations costs of more than $8,000 per Level 2 port, with about $15,000 per Level 2 port for California programs. These costs are significantly higher than ICCT’s estimated costs of $6,000 per Level 2 port, possibly due to differences in the costs included in the utility reports and the ICCT report, or the timing of the charger installations (the California programs were approved earlier than many of the other programs included in this sample of reports).
  • Programs in the sample have reached 37 percent of their targeted charger deployments and are, on average, 60 percent through their program terms. Figure 2 illustrates this information, plotting percent of target installations against the percent of program term complete.

Figure 2: Installed Chargers (Percent of Approved Target) by Program Term Complete (Percent of Years)

This figure shows investor-owned utility (IOU) program progress toward reaching EV charger installation targets (y-axis) compared to how much of the program term is complete (x-axis). Each dot represents an approved IOU program, and the color of the dot corresponds to the U.S. Energy Information Administration region of the IOU’s service territory. Programs in the sample have reached 37 percent of their targeted charger deployments and are, on average, 60 percent through their program terms. (Note: Program terms greater than 100 percent indicate that the program has continued beyond the term established in the approved program.)

This sampling of utility programs in the United States covers the deployment of more than 279 DC fast chargers and at least 18,564 Level 2 charging ports, representing 22 percent and 54 percent, respectively, of the planned totals in the corresponding approved programs. For some reference, Electrify America, the nation’s largest non-Tesla fast charging network provider has installed around 2,800 DC fast chargers since 2017 and ChargePoint, the nation’s largest Level 2 network provider, has installed more than 43,000 Level 2 ports over the last 14 years. In terms of spending, the utilities in this sample have spent at least $323 million on transportation electrification initiatives, representing about 28 percent of planned funding in the corresponding approved programs. And again for context, Electrify America will invest $2 billion over a 10-year spending requirement from the Volkswagen Settlement and the recent bipartisan infrastructure bill that was passed by the Senate (H.R. 3684) includes $7.7 billion for EV infrastructure.

Within the sample of programs reviewed, utilities have made significantly more progress toward reaching charger deployment targets for Level 2 chargers than for DC fast chargers. Specifically, utilities have supported the deployment of 54 percent of approved Level 2 ports compared to only 22 percent for DC fast chargers. On an individual program basis, for both DC fast chargers and Level 2 ports, these percentages vary widely, ranging from less than one percent to more than double the approved target. Importantly, most of these programs are not yet complete and will therefore ultimately support more chargers. Table 1 summarizes the number of installed chargers by charger type in the sample of utility reports reviewed along with the share this equipment represents of the planned totals in the corresponding approved programs. The table at the end of this story provides a program-level summary of chargers installed by charger type.

Table 1: Installed Utility-Supported EV Chargers by Type

Charger Type

Average Project Completion

Installed

Approved

Percent of Approved

DCFC

56%

279

1,278

22%

L2 Charging Ports

64%

18,564

34,665

54%

MDHD Chargers

47%

196

15,751

1%

Off-Road Vehicle Chargers

54%

44

93

47%

Other/Multiple

41%

102

Not specified 

N/A

Total

 

19,185

51,787

37%

This table summarizes total installed chargers by charger type in the sample of utility reports reviewed. More than 19,000 chargers have been installed, representing 37 percent of the planned totals in the corresponding approved programs. The “Approved” column only includes approved chargers associated with programs for which Atlas was able to find reporting on installed chargers. For example, for an approved program that targets 100 DCFC and 200 Level 2 ports, if Atlas was only able to find reporting on the number of Level 2 ports installed, the 200 Level 2 ports would be included in the “Approved” column but the 100 DCFC would not be included in the Approved column. This allows an apples-to-apples comparison of the “Installed” column to the “Approved” column. Project completion is calculated as the time period between a program approval date and the date of the most recent report for that program divided by the approved program term.

Atlas identified 16 utility reports that included information on the number of chargers deployed in underserved communities. Within these reports, 31 percent of installed chargers have been in underserved communities. At least six of these 16 programs are exceeding their commitments, in many cases by more than 100 percent. Table 2 summarizes the number of chargers installed in underserved communities and compares these numbers to the targets established in the approved programs. Notably, California programs make up more than 95 percent of the reported chargers in underserved communities.

Table 2: Utility-Supported Chargers in Underserved Communities

Utility

State

Filing Identifier

Charger Type

Chargers in Underserved Communities

Number Chargers Installed

Underserved Communities (%)

Commitment in Approved Program

Southern California Edison

CA

A1701021

MDHD

30

30

100%

40%

Southern California Edison

CA

A1701021

Off-Road

16

16

100%

none/unknown

San Diego Gas & Electric

CA

A1701020

MDHD

64

79

81%

67%

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CA

A1701022

MDHD

10

15

67%

25%

San Diego Gas & Electric

CA

A1701020

Level 2, DCFC

44

88

50%

none/unknown

Southern California Edison

CA

A1410014

Level 2

1,272

2,755

46%

67%

San Diego Gas & Electric

CA

A1701020

Off-Road

12

28

43%

none/unknown

Southern California Edison

CA

A1701021

DCFC

6

14

43%

100%

Puget Sound Energy

WA

UE-180877

DCFC

2

5

40%

none/unknown

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CA

A1502009

Level 2

1,747

4,504

39%

40%-50%

San Diego Gas & Electric

CA

A1910012

Level 2

853

3,040

28%

10%

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CA

A1807020

Level 2

53

230

23%

40%

Duke Energy

FL

20170183-EI

Level 2

79

504

16%

10%

Puget Sound Energy

WA

UE-180877

Level 2

6

46

13%

none/unknown

Duke Energy

FL

20170183-EI

DCFC

4

37

11%

10%

Southern California Edison

CA

A1701021

Level 2

187

2,670

7%

50%

Total

 

 

 

4,385

14,061

31%

 

This table summarizes the number of chargers installed in underserved communities and compares these numbers to the targets established in the approved programs.

Several utility reports Atlas reviewed included installation cost information. Among these reports, for Level 2 hardware and installation, utilities spent on average about $8,000 per port, with costs ranging from $1,423 per port for residential chargers in Baltimore Gas & Electric’s service territory to $17,892 per port for chargers at workplaces and multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) in Pacific Gas & Electric’s service territory. Installation costs for residential chargers were the least expensive with all three of the lowest reported per port costs coming from residential programs.

For a point of comparison, the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) estimated Level 2 hardware and installation costs for public and workplace chargers to be around $6,000 per port, about 25 percent lower than the average from the utility reports reviewed2. Level 2 costs were highest in California, with an average reported cost of $15,453 per port for non-residential chargers. Among non-California programs, the average reported cost for non-residential chargers was $7,125 per port. It is worth noting that the California programs that reported per port costs were all approved in 2016, whereas several of the programs from other states were approved more recently, ranging from 2016 to 2019. EV charging installations in the early days of the market were likely more expensive than they would be now. In addition, while Atlas aimed to only include per port costs that included utility-side make-ready infrastructure, customer-side make-ready infrastructure, and EVSE hardware, it is possible that some of the California programs included some costs that other programs or the ICCT did not. For example, the PG&E program that reported $17,892 per port included site design and it is not clear whether other programs or the ICCT included this element. In addition, across utility reports, it was not always clear whether costs such as general and administrative overhead were included. The Rocky Mountain Institute notes that these costs can contribute 20 percent or more to total costs, so if some reports included these costs and others did not, that could help explain some of the differences across reports.

For DC fast chargers, reported costs were closer to the ICCT’s estimated hardware and installation cost of about $115,000 per DC fast charger, ranging from just under $46,000 per charger in Duke Energy’s Florida service territory to $167,000 per charger in Hawaiian Electric Company’s service territory and averaging $115,000 per charger. Even excluding the $46,000, which was significantly lower than the reported costs in other programs, the average cost per DC fast charger was $129,600 per charger, not too far off from ICCT’s estimated costs. Table 3 summarizes reported installation cost data for DC fast chargers and Level 2 chargers from the sample of programs reviewed.

Table 3: Reported DC Fast Charger and Level 2 Charger Installation Costs

 

DC Fast Chargers

Level 2 Ports

Average Reported Cost per Port

$115,645

$8,084

Lowest Reported Cost per Port

$45,872

$1,423

State with Lowest reported cost

Florida

Maryland (home chargers)

Highest Reported Cost per Port

$167,415

$17,892

State with Highest reported cost

Hawaii

California (Workplace, MUD)

Installed Ports in Sample

107

8,480

This table summarizes reported per port cost data found in the sample of utility progress reports reviewed. The costs include installation and equipment costs.

Stay tuned in the coming months for a new EV Hub dashboard that will incorporate all of this data and more that Atlas has collected from its utility report tracking efforts. If you know of a utility report that is not included in Table 4 at the bottom of this page that we should add to our tracking efforts, please let us know.

1 Atlas finds and reviews reports associated with approved investor-owned utility transportation electrification programs. Not all approved utility programs have issued public reports and not all reports include the same information (e.g., not all reports include cost data or charger deployment data) so the information in this data story does not represent a comprehensive summary of implemented utility transportation electrification programs.

2 The ICCT’s installation costs include labor, materials, permits, taxes, and utility upgrades.

This data story was supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council

Related Content on EV Hub

You must be logged in to view this content.

Learn More

 

 

Table 4: Program-Level Summary of Installed Utility Supported Chargers by Charger Type

Utility

State

Filing Identifier

Program Term Complete (as of Most Recent Report Reviewed)

Reported Costs

DCFC Chargers Installed

Level 2 Chargers Installed

MDHD/Off-Road/Other

Total

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

California

A1502009

152%

$110,800,957

 

4,504

 

4,504

San Diego Gas & Electric

California

A1404014

96%

$69,779,484

 

3,040

 

3,040

Southern California Edison

California

A1410014

85%

$43,913,465

 

2,755

 

2,755

San Diego Gas & Electric

California

A1701020

41%

$11,578,492

4

6

195

205

Southern California Edison

California

A1701021

66%

$9,857,031

14

2,670

46

2,730

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Maryland

9478

41%

$8,409,273

19

58

14

91

Puget Sound Energy

Washington

UE-180877

41%

$8,322,638

5

46

 

51

DTE Energy Company

Michigan

U-20162

42%

$7,959,460

88

637

44

769

National Grid

Massachusetts

17-13

89%

$6,552,591

1

446

 

447

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

California

A1701022

66%

$6,351,464

8

 

24

32

Duke Energy

Florida

20170183-EI

61%

$5,684,324

37

504

 

541

AEP Ohio

Ohio

16-1852-EL-SSO

38%

$3,995,000

32

321

 

353

Avista Utilities

Washington

160082

174%

$3,851,125

7

432

 

439

Hawaiian Electric Company

Hawaii

2013-0000

135%

$3,815,521

17

   

17

Consumers Energy

Michigan

U-20134

29%

$2,687,600

 

298

 

298

Potomac Electric Power Company

Maryland

9478

41%

$2,114,225

1

193

 

194

Rocky Mountain Power

Utah

16-035-36

24%

$2,000,000

       

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

16-E-0060-263

124%

$1,834,618

       

Xcel Energy

Minnesota

M-15-111

 

$1,731,995

       

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation

New York

17-E-0459

88%

$1,718,262

       

Potomac Edison

Maryland

9478

41%

$1,430,220

2

12

 

14

Duquesne Light Company

Pennsylvania

R-2018-3000124

26%

$1,142,442

 

98

2

100

Indianapolis Power & Light Company

Indiana

44478

29%

$1,130,000

 

450

 

450

Puget Sound Energy

Washington

131585

196%

$996,500

       

Delmarva Power

Maryland

9478

41%

$975,317

 

4

 

4

Xcel Energy

Minnesota

M-18-643

63%

$968,534

   

10

10

Xcel Energy

Minnesota

M-17-817

103%

$648,836

 

320

 

320

National Grid

Massachusetts

18-150

32%

$637,003

       

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

California

A1807020

86%

$570,000

 

230

 

230

Ameren Missouri

Missouri

ET-2018-0132

63%

$522,443

10

45

 

55

Portland General Electric

Oregon

UM-1811

9%

$310,500

24

12

4

40

Xcel Energy

Minnesota

M-19-186

41%

$218,546

 

142

 

142

Liberty Utilities

California

A1706033

51%

$183,481

       

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

19-E-0065

28%

$173,000

       

Bear Valley Electric Service

California

A1706034

51%

$75,000

       

Pacific Power

California

A1706031

255%

$73,790

       

Potomac Electric Power Company

District of Columbia

FC1130

40%

$67,701

 

4

 

4

Hawaiian Electric Company

Hawaii

36220

26%

$19,518

       

LG&E and KU

Kentucky

2015-00355

74%

   

24

 

24

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

14-M-0101

59%

     

3

3

National Grid

New York

17-E-0238

110%

   

1,313

 

1,313

Southern California Edison

California

A1807022

81%

         

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

18-E-0138

29%

 

3

   

3

Orange and Rockland Utilities

New York

18-E-0138

29%

 

3

   

3

Minnesota Power

Minnesota

19-337

34%

         

Hawaiian Electric Company

Hawaii

2018-0422

8%

 

4

   

4

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

18-E-0138

9%

         

Orange and Rockland Utilities

New York

18-E-0138

9%

         

Consolidated Edison Company

New York

14-M-0101

43%

         

Total

       

279

18,564

342

19,185

Atlas has been working over the past several months to find and review reports associated with approved utility transportation electrification programs. Not all approved utility programs have issued public reports and not all reports include the same information (e.g., not all reports include cost data or charger deployment data) so the information in this data story does not represent a comprehensive summary of implemented utility transportation electrification programs. Atlas searched for reports for all approved utility programs for which the commission approval indicated reporting was required. If you are aware of a publicly-available report that we have not included, please let us know. The column “Program Completion as of Most Recent Report Reviewed by Atlas” is the time period between the program approval date and the date of the most recent report divided by the approved program term.