HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7301
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7301)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/24/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve LCFS
Program
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve
the Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the use of
Revenues From the Sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that the
City Council approve the proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program (Attachment A),
including the use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits.
Executive Summary
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the LCFS program in compliance with AB
32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation
fuels used in California by 10% by 2020. Electric utilities that provide electricity to charge
electric vehicles (EVs) are eligible to receive LCFS credits. Since April 2014, when the City began
participating in the program, CARB has been allocating LCFS credits to the City. The credits
accumulated in the past two years are currently valued at about $600,000. The value of future
credits is expected to be $500,000 to $1 million per year through 2020 as the number of EVs
increase in Palo Alto.
These credits will be sold to providers of transportation fuel in the state. The regulations
require the City to use all proceeds from the sale of LCFS credits received for EVs to benefit
current or future EV customers, educate the public on the benefits of EV transportation, and
provide rates that encourage off-peak charging to minimize grid impacts. The City must also
provide CARB an annual compliance report.
The CARB regulations also allow dispensers of compressed natural gas (CNG) to earn LCFS
credits. Since the City dispenses CNG at the Municipal Service Center, it is eligible to receive
LCFS credits worth about $30,000 per year.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The City’s proposed LCFS program complies with CARB’s regulatory requirements and is
designed to direct revenues from the sale of the LCFS credits for the benefit of EV and CNG
vehicle owners. The program includes rebates for EV chargers, discounts to utility connection
fees, the exploration of discounts for off-peak charging, encouragement of flexible charging,
education and outreach.
At its June 1, 2016 meeting, the UAC unanimously supported staff’s recommendation and made
additional suggestions regarding ways to use the LCFS funds, which staff has incorporated into
the proposed program. On September 20, 2016, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to
recommend Council approve the proposed LCFS Program.
Discussion
After engaging with industry and community stakeholders, staff explored a number of
programs for using the LCFS funds, and screened the options based on the following criteria:
Cost and simplicity of program administration;
Breadth of EV customer segments to which program would be applicable;
Impact on the rate of EV adoption; and
Potential funds that could be utilized in the program option.
The staff report to the Finance Committee (Attachment B) provides detail on the programs
examined and their relative merits.
The proposed program (Attachment A) includes four primary elements:
A. Use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits for EVs to provide customer rebates,
discounts or funding to encourage EVs;
B. Use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits for CNG vehicles to facilitate CNG vehicle
adoption;
C. City Manager authority since the rebate amounts and funds allocated to individual
programs depends on funds available from the sale of LCFS credits; and
D. Program terms and reporting requirement specify that the program will be in place until
the end of 2020 and that annual reports to the Council will be provided.
Committee Review and Recommendation
The UAC reviewed the proposed LCFS program at its June 1, 2016 meeting and voted
unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the proposed LCFS program and the use
of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits. The final minutes of the UAC’s June 2016 meeting are
provided as Attachment C.
The Finance Committee reviewed the recommendation at its September 20, 2016 meeting. The
committee members discussed the proposed program and asked for clarification on what is
eligible under State law. Staff clarified that new buildings that are required to install EV
chargers would not be eligible for the rebates. Staff also clarified that the City Manager would
revise the program depending on actual LCFS revenues since the revenue depends on the value
City of Palo Alto Page 3
of the LCFS credits, which has been relatively volatile. Committee Chair Filseth summarized that
CARB’s guidance is to: 1) help offset the cost of EV infrastructure; 2) benefit existing EV owners;
3) benefit future EV owners; and 4) benefit EV commuters. The committee voted unanimously
(4-0) to recommend that the Council approve the proposed LCFS program including the use of
revenues from the sale of LCFS credits. The draft action minutes from the Finance Committee’s
September 20, 2016 are provided as Attachment D.
Resource Impact
The revenue generated by participating in the State’s LCFS program is currently estimated at
$400,000 to $800,000 per year. Staff time of approximately 0.25 FTE will be required to
administer this program; existing staffing resources will be utilized for this effort. Funds from
the program revenues may be allocated to hire temporary staff to manage tasks related to
encouraging EV adoption.
Policy Implications
The City’s proposed LCFS program complies with CARB’s regulatory requirements and is
designed to direct revenues from the sale of the LCFS credits for the benefit of EV and CNG
vehicle owners. The program meets the State’s objective of reducing the carbon intensity of
transportation fuels and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goal of reducing the
City’s carbon footprint by 80% by 2030. The recommendation is also consistent with City’s 2011
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Policy.
Environmental Review
The Council’s approval of a program to utilize LCFS revenues does not meet the California
Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a “project” under Public Resources Code Section
21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental
activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Palo Alto LCFS Program (PDF)
Attachment B: Finance Committee Staff Report 7128--Approval of Low Carbon Fuel
Standard Program (PDF)
Attachment C: Excerpted Final Minutes from the UAC Meeting of June 1, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment D: Excerpted Draft Minutes from the FC Meeting of September 20, 2016
(PDF)
Attachment A
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO PROGRAM FOR USE OF REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF LOW CARBON
FUEL STANDARD CREDITS
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits are allocated to the City of Palo Alto by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) based on the estimated amount of electricity used by electric
vehicles (EVs) served by City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
dispensed at the Municipal Service Center for CNG-fueled vehicles. The City’s Program for the
use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits outlines the types of programs the City intends to
promote to meet state’s objective of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, in
compliance with the state’s LCFS regulations1.
A. Use of Revenues from the Sale of LCFS Credits for Electric Vehicles
The City may use revenues from the sale of LCFS credits to provide customer rebates,
discounts or funding for the following purposes:
1. Provide rebates for the installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) at non-
single family residential buildings and parking areas.
2. Discount the Utilities Connection fee related to the installation of EVSE in single-family
and multi-family residential buildings.
3. Discount off-peak time electricity rate of residential customers, with registered EVs, who
elect to be on the time-of-use electricity rate.
4. Pay EV owners who provide CPAU access to information related to their EV charging
patterns and are willing to be part of CPAU’s voluntary demand response program.
5. Fund CPAU programs designed to lower the cost of electric utility services for EV
charging or to enable EVs owner to modulate charging patterns to lower charging cost.
Support pilot-scale programs to expedite EV adoption.
6. Educational and Program implementation outreach activities to accelerate EVSE
installation and EV adoption.
B. Use of Revenues from the Sale of LCFS Credits for CNGVs
The City may use the LCFS credit sales revenues to facilitate CNG vehicle adoption in the
following order of preference:
1. Fund capital and maintenance costs associated with the CNG station at the Municipal
Service Center to facilitate expanding the CNG vehicle customer base.
2. Fund activity to dispense carbon neutral CNG (e.g. use of certified environmental off-
sets or renewable natural gas supplies).
3. Reduce the CNG retail rate charged for vehicles.
1 Currently set forth in Title 17 of CA Code of Regulations, Section 94580, et. seq.
Attachment A
2
C. City Manager Authority
1. The actual rebate and discount amounts and individual program budgets shall be based
on funds available and shall be determined by the City Manager. The CNG retail rate,
including the discount offered based on available LCFS sales revenue available, shall be
determined by the City Manager.
2. The City Manager is authorized to:
a. Annually make changes to the programs and implementation details to optimally
utilize the revenues to benefit of EV and CNG vehicle owners.
b. Suspend the rebates if funds are depleted or if a program is found to be ineffective
at meeting stated program goals or regulatory requirements.
D. Program Term and Reporting Requirements
1. This Program shall be in place until December 31, 2020, unless revised by Council.
2. The Council shall be provided annual reports on the sale revenues and expenditures
associated with the LCFS program and this policy.
3. The rebate amounts and related detailed guidelines shall be published on the City’s
website.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7128)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Approval of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program
Title: Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the Finance
Committee Recommend the City Council Approve the Proposed Low Carbon
Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the Use of Revenues from the Sale of
Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) request that the Finance Committee recommend
that the City Council approve the proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program
(Attachment A), including the use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits.
Executive Summary
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the LCFS program in compliance with AB
32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation
fuels used in California by 10% by 2020. Electric utilities that provide electricity to charge
electric vehicles (EVs) are eligible to receive LCFS credits. Since April 2014, when the City began
participating in the program, CARB has been allocating LCFS credits to the City. The credits
accumulated in the past two years are currently valued at about $600,000. The value of future
credits is expected to be $500,000 to $1 million per year through 2020 as the number of EVs
increase in Palo Alto.
These credits are intended to be sold to providers of transportation fuel in the state. The
regulations require the City to use all proceeds from the sale of LCFS credits received for EVs to
benefit current or future EV customers, educate the public on the benefits of EV transportation,
and provide rates that encourage off-peak charging to minimize grid impacts. The City must
also provide CARB an annual compliance report.
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The CARB regulations also allow dispensers of compressed natural gas (CNG) to earn LCFS
credits. Since the City dispenses CNG at the Municipal Service Center, it is eligible to receive
LCFS credits worth about $30,000 per year.
The City’s proposed LCFS program complies with CARB’s regulatory requirements and is
designed to direct revenues from the sale of the LCFS credits for the benefit of EV and CNG
vehicle owners. The program includes rebates for EV chargers, discounts to utility connection
fees, the exploration of discounts for off-peak charging, encouragement of flexible charging,
education and outreach.
At its June 1, 2016 meeting, the UAC unanimously supported staff’s recommendation and made
additional suggestions regarding ways to use the LCFS funds, which staff has incorporated into
the proposed program.
Background
CARB’s LCFS program aims to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in
California by 10% by 2020. The primary method for reducing the carbon content of
transportation fuels is by blending standard fuels with fuels such as cellulosic ethanol or
biodiesel which have lower carbon intensities than traditional fuels. Electricity and CNG are also
recognized as low carbon intensive transportation fuels.
CARB adopted the most recent version of LCFS regulations in September 2015, effective
January 1, 2016. Electric utilities that provide electricity to charge EVs are eligible to receive
LCFS credits based on the number of EVs registered in their service territory and the amount of
electricity dispensed.1 CARB approved the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) application to
participate in the LCFS program in April 2014, and has been allocating LCFS credits to the CPAU
since then. Under CARB’s formula, Palo Alto received 1,855 credits in 2014, 3,311 credits in
2015, and anticipates receiving 4,500 credits in 2016. As of March 2016, approximately 1,300
EVs were registered in Palo Alto.
CNG related credits are based on the amount of CNG actually dispensed at the City’s CNG
fueling station. In 2016 the City anticipates dispensing approximately 12 million cubic feet of
CNG and receiving about 270 credits.
At the prevailing market price of $116 per credit, the sale of credits allocated in 2014 and 2015
is expected to yield $600,000. Revenues from the sale of 2016 credits are expected to be
$500,000. With projections of 3,000 to 5,000 EVs in Palo Alto by 2020, the revenue from LCFS
sales credit could range from $800,000 to $1.2 million per year by 2020. The value of credits
related to CNG is projected to be $30,000 per year and projected to stay relatively flat through
2020.
1 CARB’s LCFS program overview is provided here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In March 2016 Council approved a master agreement template to enable the City to sell LCFS
credits to transportation fossil fuel providers in California (Staff Report #6489). Staff anticipates
using this template to make the first credit sale in late spring 2016 in order to fund the
programs described in this report. These projected revenues and costs are included in the fiscal
year (FY) 2017 budget request.
Discussion
Use of EV Related LCFS Funds
Electric distribution utilities like CPAU that receive LCFS credits must comply with the regulatory
requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations Sec. 95483(e)(1) in order to receive
credits, including:
(A) Use all credit proceeds to benefit current or future EV customers;
(B) Educate the public on the benefits of EV transportation (including
environmental benefits and costs of EV charging, or total cost of
ownership, as compared to gasoline);
(C) Provide rate options that encourage off-peak charging and minimize
adverse impacts to the electrical grid; and
(D) Include in annual compliance reporting the following supplemental
information: an itemized summary of efforts to meet requirements (A)
through (C) above and costs associated with meeting the requirements.
After engaging with industry and community stakeholders, staff explored a number of
programs for using the LCFS funds, and screened the options based on the following criteria:
Cost and simplicity of program administration;
Breadth of EV customer segments to which program would be applicable;
Impact on the rate of EV adoption; and
Potential funds that could be utilized in the program option.
Outlined below is a list of the program options identified and their relative merits based on the
criteria. A presentation of the relative merits of the options is provided in Attachment C.
The following options may be considered in the future, but were determined to be not ready
for implementation in the initial phase of the program:
1. Discount Development Center permit fees related to EV charger installations. Such a
program would waive or discount the permit fee related to EV chargers which currently
range from $160 for residential chargers to $560 for commercial Level 3 chargers. This
option was initially found to be administratively burdensome.
2. Provide cash rebates to EVs registered in Palo Alto. This would likely require EV owners to
apply online with their vehicle registration information. The rebate could be one-time or
annual. The large investor-owned utilities in California and the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District are contemplating this type of a program. Since this option was administratively
City of Palo Alto Page 4
burdensome and could consume the bulk of the funds available, it is not recommended at
this time. Staff feels that the funds could be better utilized in other LCFS program options
and that such a rebate would not be a significant influence for those contemplating an EV
purchase.
3. Discount or provide free charging at public EV charging stations. This option was found to
be suboptimal for Palo Alto because free charging may attract EV owners that casually take
the opportunity since charging is free, an impact that crowds out EVs that need to charge
and are willing to pay for the service.
The following options were determined to be the best ones for CPAU’s initial LCFS program:
1. Rebates for the installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE, or chargers). Staff
determined that providing rebates for EVSE installations at underserved segments of the
market would be valuable. Those market segments include public and non-profit buildings
as well as at private buildings with multiple tenants, such as multi-family or mixed use
buildings or on corporate campuses. The landlord, property owner, or tenant would own
the EVSE, not the City of Palo Alto.
2. Discount electric utility fees associated with upgrading electric services due to the
installation of EV chargers. The utility connection fees are periodically required if the
installation of chargers at homes requires a utility service upgrade2. Such upgrades have
been triggered a dozen times the past year. The related fees ranged from $400 to $9,000,
with an average fee of $1,300. This use of the LCFS funds was identified as a preferred
option. Utility Rate E-15 and related Utility Rules and Regulations may have to be modified
to reflect this discount.
3. Discount off-peak electric rates for residential customers to encourage off-peak EV
charging. Though this option has many implementation hurdles, the option was identified
as an option that merits further investigation for possible implementation in the future.
4. Provide a payment to customers who provide CPAU access to their EV charging patterns via
the telematics in their EV or their charging equipment. This information will assist CPAU
better assess impacts of such charging systems on the distribution grid and seek EV
customer interest in various EV-related Utilities programs. This was identified as a preferred
option, though all elements related to harnessing the information provided are not yet fully
defined.
5. Fund programs designed to lower the cost of electric utility services for EV charging or to
enable EVs owner to modulate charging patterns to lower charging cost. Support pilot scale
programs to expedite EVSE installation and EV adoption.
2 When a customer wishes to install EVSE at home, an upgrade to their home’s electric service may be required.
Per CPAU Utilities Rule and Regulation 18: “The Customer is responsible for all costs associated with relocation or
modification of Utility Service.” The costs are determined based on Utility Rate Schedule E-15 and periodically
EVSE projects require the preparation of a cost estimate. Customers are invoiced for the labor and material costs,
excluding the cost of the transformer itself.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
6. Fund education and outreach efforts. This is a key element to enable EV adoption at a rapid
clip and was identified as a preferred program to fund. This may include the cost of
temporary staff resources, a third-party program manager or administrator, or direct
marketing to support program implementation.
Initial EV Related LCFS Program Details
Based on staff’s analysis of program options, the following rebate/discount amounts are
proposed for inclusion in CPAU’s initial LCFS program. The City Manager will determine the final
details and make any modifications, as necessary, to respond to changes in technology, funds
available and costs for various program components. Detailed eligibility and guidelines for each
of the programs will be provided on the City’s website. The initial program and designation of
funds by program area is summarized below and more detail is provided in Attachment B.
LCFS Program Area Funds
Expended
Annually
Rebate of up to $3,000 for the installation of EVSE at non-single family
residential buildings and parking areas.
To ensure that funds are dispersed over many locations, a limit of 3 EVSEs per
location is recommended for non-public locations.
Similarly, allocation to all Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) locations is
recommended to be limited to $30,000 per fiscal year for EVSE installations.
$225,000 to
$375,000
Discount the Utilities Connection fee related to the installation of EVSE in single
family and multi-family residential applications for up to $3,0003.
$30,000 to
$60,000
Discount off-peak electricity rate of residential customers with registered EVs
who elect to be on the time-of-use electricity rate.
$40,000 to
$150,000
Rebate of $300 for EV owners who provide CPAU access to information related
to their EV charging patterns.
<$30,000
Fund programs designed to lower the cost of electric utility services for EV
charging or to enable EVs owner to modulate charging patterns to lower their
charging cost. Support pilot-scale City, Utility, and Community programs to
expedite EVSE installation and EV adoption.
$50,000
Fund educational and outreach activities to facilitate early adoption of EVs at
$20,000/year, $20,000/year to fund related staffing needs, and additional direct
$40,000/year for marketing cost to promote EVSE installations in multi-family
homes.
$80,000
Use of CNG Related LCFS Funds
While EV related LCFS credits account for more than 90% of the funds, LCFS credits related to
dispensing CNG will generate approximately $30,000 annually. CARB’s regulations do not
3 Modifications to the Utility connection fee schedule (Utilities Rate Schedule E-15) are needed to incorporate this
program.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
impose specific requirements for how regulated parties must use revenues earned from the
sale of CNG-related LCFS credits, but staff’s proposal is to use the funds to expand the use of
CNG vehicles. Staff’s primary recommended use of these funds in FY 2017 is for the installation
of a credit card reader at the pump to expand the number of CNG vehicle owners that could
use the station. In subsequent years, the funds could be used for annual service and
maintenance costs for the public CNG station, and if funds remain, they could be used to
explore purchasing carbon neutral CNG (e.g. using certified environmental off-sets or
renewable natural gas supplies) or reduce the CNG retail rate charged.
Reporting Requirements
The current LCFS regulation extends through 2020, but it is expected to be extended. Hence,
staff recommends revisiting the LCFS Program in 2020. As required by the regulations, staff will
file various quarterly reports to CARB to claim credits, and annually report on the use of funds.
Staff will report to Council annually on the progress and impact of the LCFS and may request
changes to the LCFS Program if additional or alternative uses of funds are identified. A
balancing account will be maintained to smooth out short-term fluctuations in annual revenue
and expenses.
City Manager to Manage Program
The City Manager may change the rebate amounts annually or suspend them based on funds
available. Under the program, the City Manager may make changes to the programs and
implementation details to optimally utilize the revenues to benefit EV and CNG vehicle owners.
Commission Review and Recommendation
The UAC reviewed the proposed LCFS program at its June 1, 2016 meeting. Commissioners
generally supported the proposed program and noted that schools would be an ideal place for
EV chargers since teachers would have an incentive to purchase EVs if they could charge them
while at work. Another idea discussed was to provide funds for research and development or a
pilot program to provide an incentive for direct DC charging or for new vehicle-to-grid
technologies. The UAC also expressed support for educational and outreach activities.
The UAC voted unanimously (6-0 with Chair Cook, and Commissioners Ballantine, Forssell,
Johnston, Schwartz and Trumbull voting yes and Vice Chair Danaher absent) to recommend that
the Council approve the proposed LCFS program and the use of revenues from the sale of LCFS
credits and requested that staff explore the suggestions the UAC discussed for the program.
Subsequently, staff modified the proposed program to add the fifth initial program element
(pilot programs to expedite EVSE installation and EV adoption) and to make additional funds
available for marketing the program, espeically to multi-family homes. The draft minutes of the
UAC’s June 2016 meeting are provided as Attachment D.
Timeline
Upon Council approval of the Program, the Program is expected to be implemented by January
2017. Systems installed after July 1, 2016 will be eligible for the program’s rebates and
City of Palo Alto Page 7
incentives since Utilities customers have already started installation projects in anticipation of
the availability of these incentives.
Resource Impact
The revenue generated by participating in the State’s LCFS program is estimated to be $500,000
to $1,000,000 per year. Staff time of approximately 0.25 FTE will be required to administer this
program; existing staffing resources will be utilized for this effort. Funds from the program
revenues may be allocated to hire temporary staff to manage tasks related to encouraging EV
adoption.
Policy Implications
The City’s proposed LCFS program complies with CARB’s regulatory requirements and is
designed to direct revenues from the sale of the LCFS credits for the benefit of EV and CNG
vehicle owners. The program meets the State’s objective of reducing the carbon intensity of
transportation fuels and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goal of reducing the
City’s carbon footprint by 80% by 2030. The recommendation is also consistent with City’s 2011
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Policy.
Environmental Review
Approving a program to utilize LCFS revenues does not meet the California Environmental
Quality Act’s definition of a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus,
environmental review is not required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Palo Alto LCFS Program (PDF)
Attachment B: Outline of Proposed LCFS Program Implementation Details (PDF)
Attachment C: Analysis of the Relative Merits of Options (PDF)
Attachment D: Excerpted Final Minutes from the UAC Meeting of June 1, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment A
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO PROGRAM FOR USE OF REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF LOW CARBON
FUEL STANDARD CREDITS
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits are allocated to the City of Palo Alto by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) based on the estimated amount of electricity used by electric
vehicles (EVs) served by City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
dispensed at the Municipal Service Center for CNG-fueled vehicles. The City’s Program for the
use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits outlines the types of programs the City intends to
promote to meet state’s objective of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, in
compliance with the state’s LCFS regulations1.
A. Use of Revenues from the Sale of LCFS Credits for Electric Vehicles
The City may use revenues from the sale of LCFS credits to provide customer rebates,
discounts or funding for the following purposes:
1. Provide rebates for the installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) at non-
single family residential buildings and parking areas.
2. Discount the Utilities Connection fee related to the installation of EVSE in single-family
and multi-family residential buildings.
3. Discount off-peak time electricity rate of residential customers, with registered EVs, who
elect to be on the time-of-use electricity rate.
4. Pay EV owners who provide CPAU access to information related to their EV charging
patterns and are willing to be part of CPAU’s voluntary demand response program.
5. Fund CPAU programs designed to lower the cost of electric utility services for EV
charging or to enable EVs owner to modulate charging patterns to lower charging cost.
Support pilot-scale programs to expedite EV adoption.
6. Educational and Program implementation outreach activities to accelerate EVSE
installation and EV adoption.
B. Use of Revenues from the Sale of LCFS Credits for CNGVs
The City may use the LCFS credit sales revenues to facilitate CNG vehicle adoption in the
following order of preference:
1. Fund capital and maintenance costs associated with the CNG station at the Municipal
Service Center to facilitate expanding the CNG vehicle customer base.
2. Fund activity to dispense carbon neutral CNG (e.g. use of certified environmental off-
sets or renewable natural gas supplies).
3. Reduce the CNG retail rate charged for vehicles.
1 Currently set forth in Title 17 of CA Code of Regulations, Section 94580, et. seq.
Attachment A
2
C. City Manager Authority
1. The actual rebate and discount amounts and individual program budgets shall be based
on funds available and shall be determined by the City Manager. The CNG retail rate,
including the discount offered based on available LCFS sales revenue available, shall be
determined by the City Manager.
2. The City Manager is authorized to:
a. Annually make changes to the programs and implementation details to optimally
utilize the revenues to benefit of EV and CNG vehicle owners.
b. Suspend the rebates if funds are depleted or if a program is found to be ineffective
at meeting stated program goals or regulatory requirements.
D. Program Term and Reporting Requirements
1. This Program shall be in place until December 31, 2020, unless revised by Council.
2. The Council shall be provided annual reports on the sale revenues and expenditures
associated with the LCFS program and this policy.
3. The rebate amounts and related detailed guidelines shall be published on the City’s
website.
Attachment B
1
Outline of Palo Alto’s Initial (FY 2017) LCFS Program Implementation
(To be updated annually by the City Manager as appropriate)
1. Rebate for the installation of EVSE
A. Multi-family residential, mixed use, and commercial building garages and parking
areas
(1) EVSE must be installed in a shared parking location not assigned or dedicated to
particular tenants or owners, but available to any tenant, owner, employee or
guest.
a) Service panel upgrade and cost of installing conduits will be rebated,
irrespective of the location of the EVSE.
b) In a rental apartment building, assigning a space to an EV owner is allowed.
(2) Information about EVSEs receiving a rebate shall be posted on public EV station
locaters on the internet, and to the extent possible, made available to the public.
(3) Rebates may cover up to 75% of the total cost of the installation including the
cost of the EVSE, electrical wiring, and all capital costs related to the installation.
(4) Rebate limited to $3,000 per EVSE installed up to a maximum of 3 chargers per
service address.
B. Public buildings and not-for-profit organizations
(1) Information about EVSEs receiving a rebate shall be posted on public EV station
locaters on the internet and made available to the public.
(2) Rebates may cover up to 100% of the total cost of the installation including the
cost of the EVSE, electrical wiring, and all related capital cost.
(3) A rebate shall be $3,000 per EVSE installed, with a maximum rebate of $9,000
per service address with the installation of 3 chargers. This limit may be waived
for large apartment buildings (> 10 units) depending on funding availability.
C. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Facilities
(1) Allocate up to $30,000 per fiscal year towards EVSE installations in PAUSD
facilities.
(2) Rebates may cover cost of electrical wiring, cost of EVSEs and all related cost for
up to 100% of the total cost.
(3) The anticipated reimbursement per EVSE is $3,000, but in no event shall it
exceed $5,000 per EVSE installed.
(4) If networked EVSEs are installed, PAUSD shall provide access to the EVSE
charging information to CPAU.
D. Additional requirements for EVSE receiving rebates:
(1) All EVSE rebates above are based on Level 2 EVSEs with 30A circuits or larger. In
the event Level 2 EVSE is suboptimal for a location, to claim a $3,000 EVSE
rebate, the City requires the installation of two units of Level 1 EVSE with 20 A
circuits. All EVSEs for which rebates are requested are encouraged to be
equipped with a J1772 plug.
(2) Physical signage for easy identification of EVSE location.
Attachment B
2
(3) The three EVSEs per service address limit may be increased for a publicly
accessible parking location if applicant can demonstrate need.
(4) The rebates for EVSEs may not be provided to install EVSEs already required by
the City’s Building Code.1
2. Rebate for Utilities Connection Fee
A. Provide a rebate on the utility connection fee to residential single- and multi-family
customers, when the installation of an EVSE triggers the need for a utility service
upgrade.
B. The rebate could cover the full cost of the fee2 for up to $3,000 per utility service
address.
3. Discount night-time electricity rates
A. Investigate the merits of providing a night-time electricity use rate discount of
about 5 cents per kWh for EV customers, with the objective of lowering the adverse
impact of EV charging on the distribution grid and lowering the charging cost to the
EV owners.
B. If found feasible and desirable, bring a time-of-use electricity rate proposal to
Council for consideration and approval.
4. Rebate for EV owners who provide CPAU access to their EV’s charging system
A. Provide a rebate to EV owners who are willing and able to provide CPAU access to
their networked charging systems and are qualified to participate in CPAU’s
Voluntary Demand Response (DR) programs3.
B. The rebate this activity shall be a one-time payment of $3004.
1 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.14.420, Ordinance 5324
2 Utility Service Connection Fee is in accordance with Council approved Utility Rate Schedule E-15. Historically, such
fees, when triggered, average $1300, but the actual fee could vary widely.
3 Conditions to be qualified to participate in the Voluntary DR program: a) the EV must primarily charge within City
of Palo Alto; b) ability for EV owner to communicate and control vehicle charging system remotely; c) EV owners
must agree to provide connectivity to the charging system via the EV owner’s charging system service provider;
and d) CPAU must have agreements with charging system’s service provide. Access to the connected and
communicating charging system may be provided either through vehicle onboard telematics or through the
customer EVSE system. Note: CPAU’s voluntary DR programs are and will be designed to reduce the adverse
impacts of EV charging on the electrical grid and assist California better integrate intermittent renewable
resources.
4 In return for the $300 payment, the expectation is that the EV owner will participate in CPAU’s DR program on a
voluntary basis over a 3 to 5 year period. The participation is limited to no more than 15 days per year. Notification
will be provided to the EV owner to voluntarily reduce or stop EV charging during specified time periods between
noon and 6pm on hot summer days. For details see: Staff Report 3454 of February 2013
Attachment B
3
5. Support related projects:
A. Support programs designed to lower the cost of electric utility services such as
enabling EVs owner to modulate charging patterns to lower the cost of charging.
B. Support pilot-scale programs, including those designed to test new and emerging
technologies, to expedite EVSE installation and EV adoption.
6. Fund educational and outreach activities to facilitate early adoption of EVs
A. Support community and stakeholder generated initiatives to advance goals of the
LCFS program
B. Utilize up to $20,000 per year to fund educational and outreach activities related to
facilitating early adoption of EVs. An additional $20,000 may be used per year to
fund staffing needs related to the programs.
C. Funds may be utilized to pay CPAU’s efficiency service contractors who directly
enable the installation of EVSEs in multi-family homes and cross promote efficiency
programs and EVSE installation.
Attachment C
1
Relative Merits of Program Options to Return LCFS Credit Value to Current & Future EV Owners in Palo Alto
Annual LCFS credit value of $500,000 in 2016 and increasing to $1 million by 2020 (CY 2014 & 2015 credits worth $600,000)
Objective of Programs: To encourage EV adoption by residents and commuters, and minimize adverse impacts on the electrical grid
Criteria for Evaluating →
Customer Program Options
↓
[A]
Simple
and Easy
to
Admin?
[B]
Serve large
segments
of EV
customers?
[C]
Spur
new EV
Buyers?
[D]
# of EV or
EVSE owners
served/year
[E]
Cost per
Customer
Served/
year
[F]
Anticipated
Cost/
year
[G]
Merit of
Program
through
2020
[H]
Segment
of current
and future
EV owners
served
Notes
1. Rebate installation of EVSE
at public & non-profit
buildings and at private
buildings with multiple
tenants (multifamily, mixed
use)
25 -50 EVSE
per year $3000/EVSE $75 to $150k Mainly
commuters
Public and non-profits are
an underserved segment
of the EVSE market
50 -75 EVSE
per year $3000/EVSE $150k to
$225k
Multi-
family
residents,
commuters
Multi-family buildings
are an underserved
segment of the EVSE
market
2. Discount CPAU fees for
upgrading customer’s
electrical service
connection, triggered by
EVSE installation
10-20 $3k $30-$60k
Easy to
administer;
valued by
customer
Single- and
Multi-
family
residential
Small number of
customers; but reduce
uncertainty
3. Use LCFS funds to
lower/rebate off-peak
electric rates for EV-TOU
customers
250 to 1000
@5¢/kWh
discount,
$150/yr
$40k to
$150k
Long lead
time to set-
up
Mainly
Single-
family
residential
Attractive long term
solutions, requires
smart meters to
implement
4. EV owners provide CPAU
access to their charging
system
50-100 $300, one
time < $30k
Residential
and
commuters
Assist CPAU manage
electrical loads through
Demand Response
5. Fund related pilot scale
projects - - - $40k TBD TBD
6. Education/Outreach and
staffing N/A N/A $80k
All
Education & outreach:
key to program success
Attachment C
2
Criteria for Evaluating →
Customer Program Options
↓
[A]
Simple
and Easy
to
Admin?
[B]
Serve large
segments
of EV
customers?
[C]
Spur
new EV
Buyers?
[D]
# of EV or
EVSE owners
served/year
[E]
Cost per
Customer
Served/
year
[F]
Anticipated
Cost/
year
[G]
Merit of
Program
through
2020
[H]
Segment
of current
and future
EV owners
served
Notes
1. Discount EVSE Permit Fee
for homes, schools &
businesses
100-300 $400 $40 to $120k
Residents,
businesses
Difficult to implement;
long term option
2. Annual or one-time rebate
for EVs registered in Palo
Alto
1,200
existing, 500
new EVs per
year
$200 to
$500
$100k to
$300k
High Admin
residents
Preferred option for CA
utilities; not supported
by most PA community
EV advocates, high
admin
3. Discounted or free EV
charging at public chargers
in Palo Alto
20-40 EV
chargers
$1,500
/charger if
made free
$30-60k
Would not
make big
difference
Mainly
commuters
Do not recommend
making EV charging free
long term, perhaps
discounted by 50%.
Level of merit denoted by
Recommended programs highlighted in green
EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1, 2016
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 3. ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
the City Council Approve the Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the
Use of Revenues From the Sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits
Senior Resource Planner Shiva Swaminathan summarized the written report. He said the overall
proposal is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by increasing the use of Electric Vehicles
(EVs) both by residents and by commuters. He noted that the majority of the City’s GHG
emissions are related to transportation. He said the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
regulations emanate from the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32 in 2006 and aims to reduce
the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Staff projects that the electricity used to charge
EVs in Palo Alto is less than 1% of the total electricity used in the City currently, but is expected
to grow to about 5.5% of total citywide use. These projections are based on the 1,300 EVs
currently in the City (or 3% of the City’s vehicles) and the expectation that EVs will comprise 30-
60% of the total number of vehicles by 2030.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the City gets the numbers of EVs from the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV). Swaminathan replied that the City gets the numbers from the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), which gets them from the DMV so the City gets a total number of
EVs registered in the City, but does not know where they are located. Swaminathan said that
the number can also be obtained from the number of vehicles that got rebates from the State
and that this is public information and available on the web.
Commissioner Forssell asked if the number of EVs includes both plug-in hybrids and all electric
(battery) vehicles. Swaminathan said that the numbers include all EVs that plug in.
Swaminathan says that the value of the LCFS credits for EVs is about $500,000 in 2016 and is
estimated to grow to $1 million per year in 2020. The credits for CNG use is expected to stay
flat at about $30,000 per year. Swaminathan showed the usage of the City-owned 30 EV
chargers noting that they are used by 4 to 6 charging sessions per year per charger and that the
total cost to the City for the electricity is about $40,000 per year, but that the charging is
currently provided for free.
Commissioner Ballantine noted that the 30 City-owned chargers do not serve very many EVs.
Swaminathan agreed and added that there are about 400-600 privately-owed chargers at
businesses and other locations in addition to all the chargers in private residences.
ATTACHMENT D
Commissioner Forssell asked if there is a time limit for parking at the City-owned charging
stations. Swaminathan confirmed that there is a time limit.
Swaminathan stated that the revenues from the sale of LCFS credits must be used to benefit
current and future EV owners. He discussed the options examined for using the revenues.
Several options were evaluated and the ones that are not preferred include providing a
discount for permit fees for chargers, cash rebates to EV owners, and providing free electricity
at the City’s charging stations. He noted that most of the investor-owned utilities including
PG&E and also the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District are planning to provide one-time
cash rebates directly to EV owners.
Commissioner Schwartz said that she did not support providing a rebate to EV owners and
asked if there was any justification for such a proposal. Swaminathan said that justification used
by those utilities who are planning to provide rebates is that the credits were generated by
those EV owners. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye added that the proposal is not to provide
these rebates, but the regulations require that the funds be used to benefit EV owners and
rebates do exactly that, which is why PG&E plans to do—a one-time rebate to EV owners who
generated the credits. Commissioner Schwartz said that more EV chargers would benefit EV
owners and it doesn’t make sense to give the money to those who already have made a
decision to buy an EV. Swaminathan added that the community stakeholders also did not
support the proposal to provide rebates.
Chair Cook clarified that the money is supposed to benefit both current and future EV owners
so there is some reason to consider rebates. Chair Cook doesn’t necessarily support the idea,
but understands that it is a viable option.
Swaminathan stated that each EV owner generates 2 credits per year and that each credit is
worth from $100 to $120 so about $200 per year is generated by each EV registered in Palo
Alto. He said that another idea evaluated, but determined not be the best way to use the
proceeds, is to provide the energy at City-owned chargers for free.
Swaminathan described the items that are being proposed for the implementation in the near
term. These include providing rebates for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSEs, or
chargers) for locations other than single-family residences, discounted Utilities fees related to
any required service upgrades, discounting off-peak rates, incentives to EV owners that provide
access to charging information, and education and outreach programs.
Chair Cook asked if the City would be eligible for these rebates for EVSEs since it would benefit
EV owners to have more chargers and noted that employment locations such as the schools
would be good places for charger installations since employees would be able to charge while
at work and that would encourage them to purchase an EV. Swaminathan said that these
would eligible and that the initial program restricts the rebates to 3 chargers per site, but that
for schools, since they have many campuses, the initial program would allow schools to get
EVSE rebates of up to $30,000 per year. He said that the schools indicated that EV chargers are
viewed by the schools as a way of attracting good teachers since they may not live in Palo Alto.
Swaminathan described the proposal to provide discounted Utilities fees related to any
required service upgrades since sometimes, a new transformer may be required in a
neighborhood as a result of a new EV charger being installed.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if this would apply when the next EV charger installation would
require a transformer upgrade. Swaminathan confirmed that this is exactly the situation that
would trigger this upgrade and the proposal is to partially fund the additional cost. He agreed
that this situation may be more prevalent in the future as the number of EVs rise.
Swaminathan described the idea to use LCFS funds to give a larger off-peak price discount for
EVs to charge at night. He said that there are billing issues with this, but it is an idea that will be
explored more in the future.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why we would want to discount non-solar electrons to
encourage charge EVs at night since the carbon content of the electricity should be a
consideration. Swaminathan said that the “off-peak” timing may change over time, but there
could also be impacts on the distribution system that call for encouraging off-peak charging. He
noted that the last customer installing a charger may trigger the need for a distribution system
upgrade that could be avoided by shifting charging to night-time, or off-peak hours. He said
that energy storage is also coming and could assist in effectively moving solar energy to off-
peak hours.
Commissioner Johnson said that if a discount for off-peak energy use was provided, how would
the utility know if the energy used off peak was for EV charging, or for any other energy use
such as a clothes dryer used at night. Swaminathan acknowledged that the utility would not
know that, or try to determine that, and it would consider the point when designing the
discount. Swaminathan said that the utility does not want to install a separate meter for EV
chargers.
Swaminathan said that another idea is to provide an incentive to EV owners who are willing to
share information about their EV charger profile.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if interval meters would be provided to access that type of data.
Swaminathan said that the information would come directly from the charger itself and interval
meters would not be needed.
Commissioner Johnston asked if a rebate would be provided for those buildings that are
required to install EVSE. Swaminathan said that those would not be eligible for rebates.
Commissioner Johnston asked if a building owner was required to put in 10 chargers, but
decided to put in more, could the owner get the rebate for the additional chargers.
Swaminathan said that additional chargers beyond what is required would be eligible.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if there was any consideration to providing an incentive to
direct DC charging, or at least providing some funds for research and development for such
activities as vehicle-to-grid infrastructure. Swaminathan said that staff has not considered this
for these funds, but there may be some funds for that type of work in the evaluation of storage
alternatives that is currently being done. He added that there are a number of storage systems
being installed at residences with the potential to use DC power.
Swaminathan said that LCFS credits are also available for compressed natural gas (CNG)
vehicles. Staff proposes to use those funds to fund improvements at the City’s CNG station or
subsidize the CNG dispensed.
Commissioner Johnston said that there is the potential to dramatically increase EV adoption
with more chargers available.
Commissioner Ballantine said that he likes the idea of supporting infrastructure build-out and
providing more EV chargers where employees are.
Commissioner Forssell supports the rebates for the EVSEs, especially for multi-family, mixed-
use and commercial buildings. She asked if a requirement for receiving a rebate for chargers be
that they be communication enabled to allow collection of data since it is important to
understand EV charging patterns. Swaminathan noted that the cost for a “dumb” charger is
about $200 and the cost for “smart” (communication-enabled) chargers is $2000 so we didn’t
want to require them. Also dumb chargers, or even Level 1 chargers, may be very appropriate
in some situations such as a workplace or school where employees park and can charge all day
and do not need Level 2 chargers. Commissioner Forssell said that discounting night-time rates
for charging may not be the best message if off-peak times change since people have a
tendency to learn a behavior once and there may be difficulty if the message about the optimal
time to charge changes. She added that she supports educational and outreach activities.
Commissioner Schwartz said that the rebate offered for providing information may be
unnecessary as most people would volunteer that information to the City to be helpful. She
said that people will most likely do this if asked and would not be motivated to do so by a
rebate and that the City can just appeal for the information and likely would receive it. She said
that the money could be better spent on additional chargers for schools and non-profits
organizations that could use them for their fleet vehicles.
Chair Cook said that it may be difficult to spend all the money in a year’s time and expects that
staff will return with additional ideas to spend the money generated. He suggested a group-buy
could be used to reduce the cost of chargers for multi-family facilities, schools, etc.
Swaminathan said that the underlying assumption is that the Utility will take a hands-off
approach and does not intend to buy or own the chargers, unlike what PG&E plans to do by
using ratepayer money to get into the business of building charger infrastructure. Chair Cook
agreed that the City could facilitate the purchase of EVs without owning them.
ACTION:
Commissioner Trumbull made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council LCFS program
and the use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits and requested that staff explore the
suggestions the UAC discussed for the program. Commissioner Johnston seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Chair Cook, and Commissioners Ballantine, Forssell,
Johnston, Schwartz and Trumbull voting yes and Vice Chair Danaher absent.
ATTACHMENT C
EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1, 2016
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 3. ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
the City Council Approve the Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the
Use of Revenues From the Sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits
Senior Resource Planner Shiva Swaminathan summarized the written report. He said the overall
proposal is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by increasing the use of Electric Vehicles
(EVs) both by residents and by commuters. He noted that the majority of the City’s GHG
emissions are related to transportation. He said the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
regulations emanate from the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32 in 2006 and aims to reduce
the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Staff projects that the electricity used to charge
EVs in Palo Alto is less than 1% of the total electricity used in the City currently, but is expected
to grow to about 5.5% of total citywide use. These projections are based on the 1,300 EVs
currently in the City (or 3% of the City’s vehicles) and the expectation that EVs will comprise 30‐
60% of the total number of vehicles by 2030.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the City gets the numbers of EVs from the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV). Swaminathan replied that the City gets the numbers from the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), which gets them from the DMV so the City gets a total number of
EVs registered in the City, but does not know where they are located. Swaminathan said that
the number can also be obtained from the number of vehicles that got rebates from the State
and that this is public information and available on the web.
Commissioner Forssell asked if the number of EVs includes both plug‐in hybrids and all electric
(battery) vehicles. Swaminathan said that the numbers include all EVs that plug in.
Swaminathan says that the value of the LCFS credits for EVs is about $500,000 in 2016 and is
estimated to grow to $1 million per year in 2020. The credits for CNG use is expected to stay
flat at about $30,000 per year. Swaminathan showed the usage of the City‐owned 30 EV
chargers noting that they are used by 4 to 6 charging sessions per year per charger and that the
total cost to the City for the electricity is about $40,000 per year, but that the charging is
currently provided for free.
Commissioner Ballantine noted that the 30 City‐owned chargers do not serve very many EVs.
Swaminathan agreed and added that there are about 400‐600 privately‐owed chargers at
businesses and other locations in addition to all the chargers in private residences.
Commissioner Forssell asked if there is a time limit for parking at the City‐owned charging
stations. Swaminathan confirmed that there is a time limit.
Swaminathan stated that the revenues from the sale of LCFS credits must be used to benefit
current and future EV owners. He discussed the options examined for using the revenues.
Several options were evaluated and the ones that are not preferred include providing a
discount for permit fees for chargers, cash rebates to EV owners, and providing free electricity
at the City’s charging stations. He noted that most of the investor‐owned utilities including
PG&E and also the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District are planning to provide one‐time
cash rebates directly to EV owners.
Commissioner Schwartz said that she did not support providing a rebate to EV owners and
asked if there was any justification for such a proposal. Swaminathan said that justification used
by those utilities who are planning to provide rebates is that the credits were generated by
those EV owners. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye added that the proposal is not to provide
these rebates, but the regulations require that the funds be used to benefit EV owners and
rebates do exactly that, which is why PG&E plans to do—a one‐time rebate to EV owners who
generated the credits. Commissioner Schwartz said that more EV chargers would benefit EV
owners and it doesn’t make sense to give the money to those who already have made a
decision to buy an EV. Swaminathan added that the community stakeholders also did not
support the proposal to provide rebates.
Chair Cook clarified that the money is supposed to benefit both current and future EV owners
so there is some reason to consider rebates. Chair Cook doesn’t necessarily support the idea,
but understands that it is a viable option.
Swaminathan stated that each EV owner generates 2 credits per year and that each credit is
worth from $100 to $120 so about $200 per year is generated by each EV registered in Palo
Alto. He said that another idea evaluated, but determined not be the best way to use the
proceeds, is to provide the energy at City‐owned chargers for free.
Swaminathan described the items that are being proposed for the implementation in the near
term. These include providing rebates for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSEs, or
chargers) for locations other than single‐family residences, discounted Utilities fees related to
any required service upgrades, discounting off‐peak rates, incentives to EV owners that provide
access to charging information, and education and outreach programs.
Chair Cook asked if the City would be eligible for these rebates for EVSEs since it would benefit
EV owners to have more chargers and noted that employment locations such as the schools
would be good places for charger installations since employees would be able to charge while
at work and that would encourage them to purchase an EV. Swaminathan said that these
would eligible and that the initial program restricts the rebates to 3 chargers per site, but that
for schools, since they have many campuses, the initial program would allow schools to get
EVSE rebates of up to $30,000 per year. He said that the schools indicated that EV chargers are
viewed by the schools as a way of attracting good teachers since they may not live in Palo Alto.
Swaminathan described the proposal to provide discounted Utilities fees related to any
required service upgrades since sometimes, a new transformer may be required in a
neighborhood as a result of a new EV charger being installed.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if this would apply when the next EV charger installation would
require a transformer upgrade. Swaminathan confirmed that this is exactly the situation that
would trigger this upgrade and the proposal is to partially fund the additional cost. He agreed
that this situation may be more prevalent in the future as the number of EVs rise.
Swaminathan described the idea to use LCFS funds to give a larger off‐peak price discount for
EVs to charge at night. He said that there are billing issues with this, but it is an idea that will be
explored more in the future.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why we would want to discount non‐solar electrons to
encourage charge EVs at night since the carbon content of the electricity should be a
consideration. Swaminathan said that the “off‐peak” timing may change over time, but there
could also be impacts on the distribution system that call for encouraging off‐peak charging. He
noted that the last customer installing a charger may trigger the need for a distribution system
upgrade that could be avoided by shifting charging to night‐time, or off‐peak hours. He said
that energy storage is also coming and could assist in effectively moving solar energy to off‐
peak hours.
Commissioner Johnson said that if a discount for off‐peak energy use was provided, how would
the utility know if the energy used off peak was for EV charging, or for any other energy use
such as a clothes dryer used at night. Swaminathan acknowledged that the utility would not
know that, or try to determine that, and it would consider the point when designing the
discount. Swaminathan said that the utility does not want to install a separate meter for EV
chargers.
Swaminathan said that another idea is to provide an incentive to EV owners who are willing to
share information about their EV charger profile.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if interval meters would be provided to access that type of data.
Swaminathan said that the information would come directly from the charger itself and interval
meters would not be needed.
Commissioner Johnston asked if a rebate would be provided for those buildings that are
required to install EVSE. Swaminathan said that those would not be eligible for rebates.
Commissioner Johnston asked if a building owner was required to put in 10 chargers, but
decided to put in more, could the owner get the rebate for the additional chargers.
Swaminathan said that additional chargers beyond what is required would be eligible.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if there was any consideration to providing an incentive to
direct DC charging, or at least providing some funds for research and development for such
activities as vehicle‐to‐grid infrastructure. Swaminathan said that staff has not considered this
for these funds, but there may be some funds for that type of work in the evaluation of storage
alternatives that is currently being done. He added that there are a number of storage systems
being installed at residences with the potential to use DC power.
Swaminathan said that LCFS credits are also available for compressed natural gas (CNG)
vehicles. Staff proposes to use those funds to fund improvements at the City’s CNG station or
subsidize the CNG dispensed.
Commissioner Johnston said that there is the potential to dramatically increase EV adoption
with more chargers available.
Commissioner Ballantine said that he likes the idea of supporting infrastructure build‐out and
providing more EV chargers where employees are.
Commissioner Forssell supports the rebates for the EVSEs, especially for multi‐family, mixed‐
use and commercial buildings. She asked if a requirement for receiving a rebate for chargers be
that they be communication enabled to allow collection of data since it is important to
understand EV charging patterns. Swaminathan noted that the cost for a “dumb” charger is
about $200 and the cost for “smart” (communication‐enabled) chargers is $2000 so we didn’t
want to require them. Also dumb chargers, or even Level 1 chargers, may be very appropriate
in some situations such as a workplace or school where employees park and can charge all day
and do not need Level 2 chargers. Commissioner Forssell said that discounting night‐time rates
for charging may not be the best message if off‐peak times change since people have a
tendency to learn a behavior once and there may be difficulty if the message about the optimal
time to charge changes. She added that she supports educational and outreach activities.
Commissioner Schwartz said that the rebate offered for providing information may be
unnecessary as most people would volunteer that information to the City to be helpful. She
said that people will most likely do this if asked and would not be motivated to do so by a
rebate and that the City can just appeal for the information and likely would receive it. She said
that the money could be better spent on additional chargers for schools and non‐profits
organizations that could use them for their fleet vehicles.
Chair Cook said that it may be difficult to spend all the money in a year’s time and expects that
staff will return with additional ideas to spend the money generated. He suggested a group‐buy
could be used to reduce the cost of chargers for multi‐family facilities, schools, etc.
Swaminathan said that the underlying assumption is that the Utility will take a hands‐off
approach and does not intend to buy or own the chargers, unlike what PG&E plans to do by
using ratepayer money to get into the business of building charger infrastructure. Chair Cook
agreed that the City could facilitate the purchase of EVs without owning them.
ACTION:
Commissioner Trumbull made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council LCFS program
and the use of revenues from the sale of LCFS credits and requested that staff explore the
suggestions the UAC discussed for the program. Commissioner Johnston seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously (6‐0) with Chair Cook, and Commissioners Ballantine, Forssell,
Johnston, Schwartz and Trumbull voting yes and Vice Chair Danaher absent.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
1
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Special Meeting
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Chairperson Filseth called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. in the
Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Filseth (Chair), Holman, Schmid, Wolbach
Absent:
2.Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend That the Finance
Committee Recommend the City Council Approve the Proposed Low
Carbon Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the Use of Revenues
From the Sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits.
Chair Filseth: We will proceed to the Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC) recommendation regarding disposition or use of revenue from low
carbon fuel credits.
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits.
Chair Filseth: Cap and Trade Credits.
Ed Shikada: Well, not exactly.
(crosstalk, background noise)
Ed Shikada: This is actually credits generated by the sale of natural gas
within our jurisdiction. No, got it wrong. Okay, try again. Credits generated
by…
(crosstalk, background noise)
Mr. Shikada: Go ahead.
ATTACHMENT D
EXCERPT MINUTES
2
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities: I’m Jane Ratchye, Assistant
Director of Utilities. I have Hiromi Kelty with me who helped develop this
program. So I’m just going to quickly go through the slides and try to get to
your questions. I’m actually a substitute presenter tonight. The program
manager is actually at a meeting elsewhere. So first we will go over what is
the low carbon fuel standard, what is this regulation. This is actually, should
be good news and a happy story here and, hopefully, noncontroversial. This
is kind of free money to us and the decision here is a policy on how to spend
these revenues that we get. So I’ll explain what the regulations, the value of
the credits generated and we’re generating them both for Electric Vehicles
(EV’s), and for compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles,. And then I’m going
to go over what we’re asking, what we will be asking Council to approve, the
program on how we spend the revenues. You’ve seen some of this before at
the Council, the Council approved a template for selling our low carbon fuel
standard credits already, so that we can monetize these credits that we do
receive, and then we will go into the timeline. So there is a State goal to
reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020
and this is a program that the California Area Resources Board developed to
try to achieve that goal. So transportation fuel companies are required to try
to reduce the carbon intensity somehow of their fuel, and they are going to
do it either by trying to get more efficient processes to extract and refine the
fossil fuel, they are going to try to make the actual fuel they deliver have
less carbon intensity by mixing in something that has a lower carbon
intensity to it, or they will buy these low carbon fuel standard credits from
somebody like us. So these are allocated to us at no cost or to providers of
low carbon intense fuels. Compressed natural gas is a low carbon intensity
fuel and so is electricity. So we get a certain amount of these credits and
they are granted to us based on how many electric vehicles are in Palo Alto,
and we know that because the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) tells us
how many there are. It doesn’t tell us where they are exactly, but we know
how many there are, and so we have agreed with CARB, California Area
Resources Board of a formula. For each EV in town you get a certain number
of credits and also we get additional credits for electricity that is delivered at
EV charging stations that the City owns. So that’s based on how many
kilowatt hours are delivered of our energy. Unfortunately, we only get to use
the California average carbon intensity of the electricity. They wouldn’t let us
get even more credits because we’re carbon neutral on electricity. We tried
that.
Chair Filseth: Actually, I wanted to ask that. It doesn’t matter even if we
were generating our electricity from coal, it would be the same number of…
Ms. Ratchye: Yes, yeah.
EXCERPT MINUTES
3
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Chair Filseth: So they are really crediting EV’s not renewable energy.
Ms. Ratchye: Right. Yeah, we made an argument there and it didn’t go. Also,
so the value of it is how many credits we have and what the market value of
the credits are and the market value, I’ll show a chart here later, has been
very volatile. But just a few facts and figures, so as of March 2016 we had
1300 EV’s registered in Palo Alto. We project that that number is going to
increase a lot in the future. So right now the value of the credits is, we
think, this number of half a million dollars might actually be a bit high for
2016, just because the value of the credits have actually dropped lately, so
we may not get that much money. But with additional EV’s in town we do
expect this to be a substantial revenue source, so that’s why we need a
policy how can we spend it. But we can’t spend it on anything we want. The
regulations are very clear on how you can spend it and I guess I don’t have
that in the presentation, but it has to be effectively to the benefit of EV
owners, that’s the primary consideration for the EV credits. For the CNG
vehicles it’s effectively the same thing, to the benefit of them.
Chair Filseth: Nobody just wants to give them a rebate.
Ms. Ratchye: What?
Chair Filseth: Nobody wants to just give them a rebate.
Ms. Ratchye: That’s what Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is doing and that is
an option. It’s very easy, it’s very direct, it definitely benefits the EV owners.
PG&E has something like, give them $500 at one time amount. But we kind
of felt we have this money, we can maybe kind of give an incentive for new
people to get new EV’s and try to expand the EV’s in town, so we didn’t
propose that. But I will get to that a little bit later. So this chart shows, the
blue bars shows what the volume of the transactions in this market have
been, so it’s you know, the volume has picked up a bit. The bars are two
different sort of market measurements of where these, the value of these
(inaudible) low carbon fuel standard credits have been. When we began this
we signed up for this program in early 2014 and we were looking at a price
around $50 a credit and then we saw them go way up. In fact, I was looking
here in the report it says the prevailing price is $116 a credit. Well it has
gone down since August. It is now $80 so the amount we get is going to be
variable. So this, just to show you the program we’re proposing has different
options and it has sort of delegates to the City Manager exactly for that year
how the money would be spent, so the policy is, you can spend it in these
areas and the City Manager will determine, okay, well this is how much
money we actually got and there is interest in this part and not that part and
this is how the money will be spent, how we will try to spend the money this
EXCERPT MINUTES
4
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
year. So we looked at a lot of different options, including some things that
look reasonable for now, some things that are maybe not great at the
moment, but we still included them in the program and we may want to
implement those in the future. Let me go through the, kind of the reverse of
this slide. The ones that we’re looking at for the near term in the initial year
of the program will be rebates for the installation of EV, that’s Electric
Vehicle Supply Equipment. That’s basically chargers. And the other idea was
to try to, for people with electric vehicles, when they, because we have a
tiered rate structure, they’re adding new electric load often will be bumped
into the second tier, all the energy that they use to charge their car will be in
the second tier. So is there a way for us to use this money to provide a
discount or subsidy somehow for the electric costs associated with charging
their EV’s. So that’s one idea. We have a pilot Time of Use Rate Program and
we could expand that. A lot of the EV owners are on that Time of Use Rate
Program and we may be able to use these funds to further discount off peak
price and use the money that way. Of course, our rates have to be compliant
with Prop 26 and based on the cost of service, but we can, these are
additional funds beyond that that can be used to provide that subsidy. Also,
there is another, if EV owners are willing to share with us information about
how their EV’s are being used and perhaps we can communicate with them
and tell them, please charge now or don’t charge now, and we can optimize
and maybe use that for a demand-response program in the future or
somehow a grid interactive type of information. We sort of provide incentive
for people to share that data with us. And finally, and this is a component of
the regulation, they want us to spend money or to provide education and
outreach programs around EV’s, and so there is work to be done in that area
to try to make sure people understand everything about EV’s and their value
and their cost and how easy it is to connect in Palo Alto. Other ideas that we
have discarded for the first year of the program that but are part of the
policy and may be implemented in the future are to discount development
center permit fees. That turned out to be just administratively difficult, so
we’re not proposing that at the moment. Providing cash rebates, that’s a
very, there is some administrative headache with that. Finding exactly the
guy and who owns it and are they a utility customer, is it only utility bill and
we cut them a check. Also, it felt like it was not, it’s probably not, the guy
didn’t buy an EV because he was expecting to get a $500 check from the
utility, so that probably didn’t really influence his decision to buy an EV. So
that, and that idea of the cash rebate did not get very good support at all
from the UAC. They thought the money could be better spent on these other
programs that we proposed. The other idea is providing free charging at the
public EV charging stations and we actually think that’s not a very good idea
because it kind of makes, people will just use the free chargers for free and
they will clog them up and they aren’t available, and what our point is, is to
try to have chargers available for people and actually by charging money to
charge, that actually makes a lot more chargers available to people and
EXCERPT MINUTES
5
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
that’s what we want. We want people to feel like when the get an EV there’s
going to be a spot where they can charge them when they need to. So we
kind of picked the bottom ones there. And I just have a couple of slides to
show you, some projections about where we see EV charging right now and
in the future. This shows that, how many EV chargers we expect or how
many EV’s we expect for the people who live in town and the people who
commute into town. Basically the point of this slide is we see EV charging
and EV ownership, both by residents and commuters growing over time
substantially. This is a picture of, the City does own some level 2 and sort of
fast charger. You can see the blue line in the top chart shows how many of
these chargers the City owns over the past several years, so we don’t own
that many. It looks like we have six, and you can see the red line shows how
many EV’s charge daily per charger. So that’s just kind of statistics for you.
Then the bottom is how much total electricity is dispensed through the City-
owned chargers. Again, that is how, that is one way we get additional of
these Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits. So we, based on what we
think we will get in terms of just revenue from selling these LCFS credits,
we, our initial program is, and there is a lot more detail in the Staff report,
this is sort of a summary, that we would provide first of all rebates for
people putting in chargers and up to three rebates or three chargers per
address, and we’re really trying to target multifamily dwellings and sort of
the underserved area first. We think those are more difficult.
Hiromi Kelty, Program Administrator: So I can talk about the program a little
bit. So it’s actually a maximum of six chargers per service address because
what we’re finding is there are all these new types of chargers where it has
one pillar with like octopus arms and those are a lot cheaper to install, so we
would like to see as many chargers as possible. But with EV charging in
public places, it’s not the cost of the charger itself. Those you can buy, a
single one you can buy for $5,000 to maybe $2,000. It’s the infrastructure
work, so with our program we have it divided into two, actually. One for
multifamily residences, like Jane said, and those would target apartments,
townhouses, condominiums, mixed-use buildings and commercial buildings.
Then the second part of the program would be for the school district, the
public sector and nonprofit organizations, and we have two separate sets of
requirements that we think would be a good idea. For the commercial side
we’re saying rebates of up to $3,000 with a maximum of six chargers, and
we’ll pay up to 75 percent of the total project. So we’re imagining we’ll be
paying mainly for infrastructure costs, but at the end we want proof that
they actually used, that they actually put all the conduits and everything in
for an EV charger, so we have to at least be able to see one charger there at
the end. Because some of these projects, they’re going to spend over
$10,000 just laying all the conduit to make their buildings EV ready. And we
have a various set of rules, for example, like in an apartment building it
can’t be any parking space dedicated to one person, it has to be for a shared
EXCERPT MINUTES
6
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
parking location. This is something talking to a lot of the facility managers
and the property managers of apartments and condominiums, they are
really struggling with this because there is a huge demand from their
residents asking for EV charging. The EV charging companies are coming up
with a lot of great options on how to charge a fair rate, so each person will
pay for the electricity they use, but they are not paying for their neighbor
charging their car. So there are a lot of systems that are coming out. We are
hoping most people will put in Level 2 chargers. Like Jane said, those are the
faster ones. The Level 3 are the super chargers, like what the Tesla
supercharging stations have. Level 2 tends to be the ones that are faster, so
you could charge a car in maybe four hours and they use like a dryer, so
220 volt, 240 volt outlet, so it’s, for each of these places the big thing is
where are they going to install this. So we’ve also decided we will do a pre-
inspection and a post-inspection for each site before approving any rebates.
Then for the schools and other nonprofit organizations and the public sector,
we’re thinking rebates of up to $5,000 per Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
(EVSE) installed with a maximum of six EVSE’s and in this case the rebates
can cover up to 100 percent of the total installation cost. The reason for this
is, for example, at the schools the biggest cost is going to be the trenching
because, if you think of the school parking lot or a church parking lot, there
isn’t electricity right in those larger parking spaces, whereas at an apartment
complex, electricity is pretty close to a pole. So a lot of the cost is going to
be getting that infrastructure in place.
Ms. Ratchye: So I think a lot of these details she is talking about are in
Attachment B of the Staff report. I don’t know how much more detail you
want or are interested in going through these. I kind of already explained
just lightly before, generally what these five areas are, so let me just move
on. Also, remember, we do have the compressed natural gas station that is
used by schools and other people with CNG vehicles, including the City, so
we do get some credits for that. The value for this is a lot less than the
credits for the EV’s. This is only maybe $30,000 a year, but we do have a
proposed policy for using those funds as well, and there are some
improvements that the City is looking at to upgrade that CNG station and
that would be the first area we would like to devote those funds to. Then, if
there is extra money after that, we were looking at potentially making that a
carbon-neutral gas supply for that CNG and then if there is any extra money
after, actually reducing the rate that is charged for the CNG to make it even
more beneficial for CNG driver. So basically this is what we’re recommending
that you approve the program. We expect this to come back to Council in
November and we would like to start this program in 2017.
Chair Filseth: Thank you very much. At this point why don’t we see if there
are any questions from the public. If there are no public questions, let’s
EXCERPT MINUTES
7
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
move on to Council question and comments. I think, why don’t we ask a
round of questions first, because I have one and you have one, but
comments is going to sort of (Inaudible). Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: So I have a couple, three questions. So three
percent now, six to eight percent by 2020, the number of EV’s in our district,
and 30 to 60 percent by 2030. That’s a big range.
Ms. Ratchye: A lot of that is driven by if we’re going to try to meet this 80
percent by 2030 goal, it’s got to be focused on mobility, because that’s the
biggest part of estimations by far.
Chair Filseth: That’s a need-driven number as opposed to (inaudible)
number.
Ms. Ratchye: Well, it doesn’t really affect the policy in front of you anyway.
Council Member Holman: Just curiosity.
Mr. Shikada: But it is intended to facilitate the growth.
Ms. Ratchye: It’s a huge…
Mr. Shikada: Major market shift.
Council Member Holman: You sort of have access (in audible) like part of the
projections…
Ms. Kelty: That we’ll all have at least one EV.
Council Member Holman: By 2030.
Ms. Kelty: No, um, you know, I think one of the things is the price and as
prices for EV’s come down, and I recently saw an email saying that there
was a lease for like the Chevy Spark, $29 a month, which I looked into for
my daughter. I mean, it’s a no-brainer, so I think like Jane said (crosstalk). I
do think people will implement them, not just Palo Alto residents, but those
commuting into Palo Alto, I think will say, you know, if I can charge at work
I can go with a car that doesn’t have a 200 mile range. I do think more
people will be driving EV’s.
EXCERPT MINUTES
8
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Council Member Holman: So another question which is related, but not the
same, you said that, when was it the rate was $116 and now it’s $80?
Ms. Ratchye: I think, yeah, when we wrote this (crosstalk) I think it was July
or June.
Council Member Holman: And it’s already gone to $80.
Ms. Ratchye: You can see the volatility of that.
Council Member Holman: Yeah, so I guess the question is, is it volatile or is
it going down? I mean, how do we…
Ms. Ratchye: You know, we don’t know. I don’t know if it’s a trend going
down and it’s going to go way down. We didn’t see that it was going to rise
when we started and we saw that they were worth $50, we thought well let’s
still joint the program. And then it went up a lot and we thought wow.
Council Member Schmid: When did we join?
Ms. Ratchye: We joined the program in early 2014. So I don’t know if it’s
going to go back up or if it’s going to continue falling or if it’s setting at $80.
I don’t know.
Council Member Holman: So is the evaluation of the program going to be,
like how frequent, because you know, we’re looking at spending money and
there is this volatility or trend.
Ms. Ratchye: We will spend the money after we monetize it, so we’ll get the
credits, we’ll sell the credits, and then we will know how much money we
have. Then the next year we will sell the next year’s credits. Now we haven’t
spent anything so we have all the credits from when we joined the program
in 2014. So we have some money to spend right now.
Council Member Holman: So it will be sort of like, it will be sort of like a
regular utility rebate in a way, just to use the term rebate generally loosely
here. So people are going to understand the volatility it’s a trend
downwards, then, you know, people won’t be married to…
Ms. Ratchye: We might have to restrict it at some point and say, you know,
we only have… I don’t know if we want to reduce the rebate from $3,000 to
something less if we have less money, or just say, you really need $3,000
EXCERPT MINUTES
9
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
and so we’re only going to have one per address or something like that. But
we’ll find a way to, you know, implement it. So each year we’ll know how
much we have and we’ll have to modify the program to meet that budget.
Mr. Shikada: I think to you point to Council Members that the volatility of
the pricing suggests this is not a funding source we would want to create
more of an ongoing expectation. That the money will be there because of…
Ms. Ratchye: There’s a chance this entire program might end. That’s a clear
possibility these days when, this has come up recently actually that they
might say, well this LCFS Program, we’re done with it. We were anticipating
that it would go through 2020 and it may not even do that.
Council Member Holman: That’s why I was sort of equating it to a utility
rebate. Sort of like, you know, we’re out of money for your washer and dryer
upgrade, so just wondering if it’s kind of …
Ms. Kelty: So for our other rebates that Utilities offers, there is the
recognition that as long as funds last and I think that would be the case with
this.
Council Member Holman: Okay.
Chair Filseth: Questions? Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I have a couple of questions. Let’s see, on Slide 8,
the chart at the top shows the number of Level 2 EV chargers that our City
owned in blue, correct?
Ms. Ratchye: Yes, just six now.
Council Member Wolbach: So that’s 30.
Ms. Kelty: 30 on the right-hand side.
Council Member Wolbach: And I said a couple of questions. One, I can’t
remember what our plans are to expand that over the next few years. It was
neat to see the projections from the prior pages. I was kind of hoping to see
a projection on that. Is that still a policy decision that is really going to come
to Council?
EXCERPT MINUTES
10
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Mr. Shikada: To a certain extent. On Monday the Council will be discussing
the EV chargers, sorry, solar in City garages. As part of that project there is
in conjunction with our private partner, the plan to add 80 additional
chargers in the four garages.
Council Member Wolbach: So we’re going from 30 to 110, cool. And the
previous line of questioning may have answered my next question, which is,
do we want to dedicate some of these funds to that or towards even more
expansion, but given this money is not very dependable, it sounds like we
don’t want to count on it in order to plan financing infrastructure
improvements, including EV chargers. Is that kind of what Staff was
thinking, that it would be risky to count on this as funding coming in, and so
we don’t want to plan to use this for, of the proposals presented here by
Staff, helping fund construction of more City-owned EV chargers is not one
of the options, correct?
Ms. Kelty: I just want to say, like Jane said, there are funds from 2014, ’15
and ’16, and I think the prices are coming back up again after they dropped
quite a bit from that $116 price and…
Ms. Ratchye: I think the question is, will the funds be used for City-owned.
Council Member Wolbach: Yeah, so let’s start with that.
Ms. Ratchye: If you look at our Attachment B, which is the program, what
we’re trying to target with this program is the multifamily, the mixed use,
commercial building garages and parking areas. We don’t really say we’re
going to give this money to ourselves, the City, so we’re trying to increase
EV charging available where it’s kind of been an underserved area now, is
the first goal to try to get it beyond. And we are expecting, hopefully, these
new chargers that will come along with the solar on the four garages too, so
we aren’t, there’s nothing really in here that doesn’t allow us to do that, but
that is, wasn’t the first place that we were going to concentrate.
Council Member Wolbach: Okay, and then you said up to six chargers per
address, correct? Would that include your larger, you know, places with a lot
of parking, such as big grocery stores, Town and Country or Charleston
shopping or Midtown or, you know around Cal Ave, I guess that’s more City
owned, or Stanford Shopping Center, where you have a large big parking lot
and lots of people driving there on private property, would the cap still be
six?
Ms. Ratchye: For now I think we’re thinking six per address.
EXCERPT MINUTES
11
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Council Member Wolbach: Is that just because we don’t want a single
employer to tap out…
Ms. Kelty: We want to spread it out across the City as much as possible.
Stanford Shopping Center, or let’s say Tesla says we want to put in a bunch
of chargers…
Council Member Wolbach: They could drain the whole (inaudible).
Ms. Kelty: We can’t say no, but, right.
Council Member Wolbach: If we didn’t have the cap.
Ms. Kelty: We want to spread it out as much as possible.
Council Member Wolbach: We don’t want anyone to monopolize the funds.
That makes sense.
Mr. Shikada: I think also part of the rationale here is, as Jane pointed out,
the untapped market or perhaps another way of saying this is, it’s the seed
market that we see as key to the future growth of the EV say volume within
Palo Alto. So the area in particular of multi families, multifamily
developments, because of the duration of the parking, but also being
consistent with the ability to charge versus let’s say a grocery store, where
the stay would be relatively short as one of the key growth areas to meet
our Sustainability Plan of Action goals.
Council Member Wolbach: And then on Slide 10, it looks like compressed
natural gas vehicles, I don’t know if it was the shorthand used for the
ballpoint, I wasn’t really clear on the first ballpoint on your item 1, is that
expanding the number of compressed natural gas vehicles?
Mr. Ratchye: Right. The point of it is to make it available to more CNG
owners, CNG vehicle owners.
Council Member Wolbach: So is the goal to make the clean natural gas
station available to more natural gas vehicle owners, or is the goal to
expand the number of compressed natural gas vehicle owners?
Ms. Ratchye: Well that is the goal, probably both.
EXCERPT MINUTES
12
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Council Member Wolbach: Okay. I actually have kind of mixed feelings. I
didn’t have a chance to go in depth through the UAC comments about this. I
don’t know if it was discussed there. I don’t think I’m alone in having kind of
mixed feelings about whether we really want to encourage more compressed
natural gas vehicles in Palo Alto, or if we should really put more of our focus
on EV’s.
Ms. Ratchye: Right, but with the funds, with the revenue from the LCFS
credits that you get from dispensing compressed natural gas, it has to go to
the compressed natural gas owners, or to encourage those or to reduce their
cost. You can’t take the revenues from that and use it for EV’s. We’re going
to get, the value of this is much, much smaller. It was $30,000. Maybe with
the falling value of the credits, it’s maybe like only $20,000 to $25,000. So
it’s not a whole lot anyway.
Council Member Wolbach: So basically we shouldn’t worry about it too much.
Mr. Shikada: It’s not going to have a big impact on the market.
Council Member Wolbach: Okay, I’ll leave that one alone then. Thank you.
That’s it for my questions, Chair.
Chair Filseth: Council Member Schmid, questions?
Council Member Schmid: Well, a couple of questions, some just to
understand. We are selling these credits to someone who does not then
have to reduce greenhouse gas?
Ms. Ratchye: Right, this is the cheapest way for them to do it.
Council Member Schmid: Right, so it’s the cheapest way, but does it mean
our savings that we are achieving by buying electric vehicles doesn’t happen
in the State, at no net effect on the State?
Ms. Ratchye: Well, they still have to pay, right, so they don’t get these for
free, so they’re trying to make a decision, should we increase the efficiency,
can we, at what cost, or should we just buy these credits, and maybe that’s
another reason that the value of the credits has gone down. Maybe people
are finding that they can do other things more cheaply than the credit, but
at some point, I mean the fact that they have to buy this for $80 or $100 or
whatever it is, rather than zero, adds a cost to the (crosstalk) high carbon
intensity.
EXCERPT MINUTES
13
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Council Member Schmid: So does one cent, one-tenth of a cent change in
the gas price have an impact on greenhouse gasses?
Ms. Ratchye: Well, if it, if that one-tenth of one cent is used to encourage
EV’s or CNG’s or low carbon intensity fuels, that’s the whole point of this
program, so you know, if you question that you question the intent of the
entire program.
Council Member Schmid: Well, yeah.
Ms. Ratchye: I mean it’s basically, it’s kind of like Cap and Trade in its own
way (crosstalk).
Council Member Schmid: … to buy out and maintaining a bad practice, not
necessarily a (inaudible). Okay, just a background question. Let me ask
questions on your recommended program areas. You have seven times the
amount going to large rental properties or non-single family homes as going
to individuals, so it’s a big bias towards these groups.
Ms. Ratchye: And you’re looking at Page 5 of the Report, the chart there?
Council Member Schmid: Yes, that’s what I’m looking at. Tell me a little bit
how this works in apartment buildings. Suppose you have an apartment with
ten units and you have ten parking places and all of the parking places are
open and you have five of them having electric vehicles and they all come
back from a long commute at 7:00 P.M. at night. Who gets the charger that
you just put in?
Ms. Kelty: That is the tricky part and that is something that when I talked to
property managers, is one that I think each community is going to have to
figure out. For example schools, the same thing, the teacher that commutes
and they really need to charge to get home. If you look downstairs at our
parking garage, those chargers are rarely ever empty and what I’ve seen my
colleagues do is, everyone knows who has an EV and there is a buddy
system where after their three hours is up for charging, they call their
colleague or whoever and says, okay, I’m done, and then they’ll switch.
Council Member Schmid: Okay, that’s at work where you have eight hours
and colleagues. When you’re in the apartment after a long day at work and
commuting, does it mean someone goes down there at 1:00 A.M. in the
morning?
Mr. Shikada: (Crosstalk).
EXCERPT MINUTES
14
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Ms. Ratchye: I mean it’s going an issue I think the landlord and the tenants
are going to have to work out and if there is a problem like that that
persists, I would hope the landlord would have some sort of incentive to
build more chargers.
Council Member Wolbach: We’re not going to solve that one here tonight.
Council Member Schmid: Right, but the issue is that it’s hard to create
incentives for EV’s if you don’t know if you’ll be able to take care of it when
you get home, because that’s always the worry. Okay, let me just go to the
economics of the deal. Instead of going to the EV buyer, the individual who
has laid out the money, who can come from any part of the City, it’s going
instead to apartment owners as an infrastructure issue because they aren’t
getting the subsidy on their infrastructure, and it’s a rental property, not an
owner property, so it doesn’t go to the residents, it goes to the owner,
property owner. So why do we have seven times the subsidy to property
owners than to those who are actually buying the EV’s. That would seem to
me to argue a real case, let’s get it to the people who just laid out money to
buy an EV. Why give it to property owners to enhance their infrastructure at
no cost?
Mr. Shikada: It really reflects the ability to then leverage that into future
purchases. Again to incent the market the availability for other users. For a
single family it really wouldn’t be available to anyone else.
Council Member Schmid: Yeah, that goes back then to if I’m one of ten, can
you guarantee me that I can do it before 2:00 AM.
Mr. Shikada: A future policy discussion for the Council will be the charging
rates and how to design a rate that creates an incentive to get off the
charger after a certain number of hours.
Council Member Schmid: Yeah, but it would seem to me the incentive, the
individual incentive would be much stronger if we just write a check. You
buy an EV, we send you check.
Mr. Shikada: If you could depend on that check, and again recognizing the
volatility of the rebate or the funding source as we were just describing, if
you were immediately making, let’s say in the next several weeks or even
months, a decision to buy an EV based upon the existence of this program,
then perhaps it has that impact, but if you’re looking at it as more of a, let’s
say, you’re planning a future buy, this program may not be here, so I think
the investment, or the City’s, the utilities’ decision to make it available at a
EXCERPT MINUTES
15
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
multifamily dwelling or development makes it more likely it would be
available for some future user who hasn’t either moved in or hasn’t
purchased the EV.
Council Member Schmid: Okay, but the dynamic of the market right now is
every person that has a car does repurchase and that repurchase date is
ever moving closer, so if you had the clear incentive out there now it might
be enough to tip the balance for a number of people and then you get more
EV’s in town and that’s what we want.
Chair Filseth: A follow-up question Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: Just kind of picking up on that, I actually think
that you raise, Council Member Schmid raises a couple interesting points
that kind of relate to each other, which is, one of the reasons why we want
to incent the construction providence of additional chargers throughout the
City is so that it’s more likely when you come home from work you’re going
to find a charger at home or when you go shopping, near where you’re going
shopping you’ll find a charger there, or if you’re working in town and
commuting from say our neighborhood in Paloverde, you work in the
Stanford Research Park and you commute over there, you’re more likely to
find a charger there. And, you know, speaking from personal experience,
one of the reasons why I haven’t bought an EV myself yet is I’m waiting a
couple of years until the charging infrastructure is more robust and I can
more guarantee that I’ll be able to plug my bike in when I get to my
destination, so anecdotal one personal experience, but I think those two
questions really do tie together. I actually think that the spread is pretty
good here, so…
Chair Filseth: I have a question. Do you have a question?
Council Member Holman: I have a curmudgeon questions.
Chair Filseth: I don’t see anywhere that it says curmudgeon.
Council Member Holman: Well, Yahweh used to say that I think like an
auditor, so with that, so at this stage, you know, there is talk of…
Chair Filseth: This is a question, right?
Council Member Holman: Yes it is. Charging, you know, a tax on electric
vehicles as a part of the registration fee because they don’t pay a gas tax
anymore, but yet they use the roads, so that’s the background for my
EXCERPT MINUTES
16
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
curmudgeon question here. So right now, we have, to use the numbers in
this presentation, 1,300 residential vehicles, and that 1,300 cars we’re
allowing the use of $12,000 worth of City electricity, if I’m understanding
this correctly, so if that number of... Isn’t that right?
Ms. Ratchye: Let me see.
Council Member Holman: Electricity consumed by City-owned Smart EV
chargers.
Ms. Ratchye: Those are just the electricity by the City-owned chargers, so a
lot of the EV’s are being charged at people’s homes.
Council Member Holman: No, I understand. Yeah, so we’re on the same
page. So this is, the City is basically subsidizing the $12,000 of electricity.
Now currently, I told you this is a curmudgeon question so bear with me, so
that’s with 1300. If we’re looking to go to 2020 to have, you know, whatever
the six percent would be (crosstalk), 2,600 so, you know, let’s just say use
that number, that’s double, that’s $24,000 worth, and you go up to 30,000,
that’s ten times, so it’s $120,000 worth. And let’s just pretend for purposes
of conversation, because we don’t know, let’s just suppose that the value of
the credits goes away totally, so the City is then subsidizing, I’ll just make
up a number, $200,000 worth of electricity to EV drivers. And that’s so…
Ms. Ratchye: I mean, that’s an issue that we would probably, we’re trying to
solve separately with, have been trying to find a way to not have the City
even chargers, have it be free, but charge a fee. So that’s separate from this
program. In fact, one of the ideas was, let’s imagine that we’re in the future,
a couple years, and we are charging and not, as you say, subsidizing and
providing this energy for free. One of the ideas was, why don’t we make it
free or cheaper and that was one of the ideas we said, no, that’s not a good
idea. I just don’t think the incentive is right, if you provide something for
free people will go and just sort of sit because it’s free, and they’re there
and they don’t necessarily really need it and they don’t leave the space and
the charger open for people who actually do need to charge their car. So
you’re right, we’re subsidizing and providing this for free and I don’t know
how long that’s going to persist, but that’s not the plan to do that forever.
(crosstalk) The plan is to stop doing that for the reasons you described.
Council Member Holman: And you don’t anticipate, you know, ATM’s used to
be free and they started charging for it, but it’s like, (inaudible)
EXCERPT MINUTES
17
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Mr. Shikada: It’s interesting, you know, some of the resident feedback we’ve
gotten, maybe curmudgeon feedback, was the inability to get on a charger
because others are sitting on there. So we expect that by implementing a
charge or fee for charging, again, to create the incentive to get off the
charger.
Council Member Holman: I hope you appreciate the question and maybe it’s
not so separate that it shouldn’t come to the Council. Anticipate the question
at the Council. I won’t bring it up again.
Ms. Ratchye: It’s a good question and it’s something we need to solve.
(crosstalk).
Chair Filseth: So I have a couple of questions. The first one is, so this
portfolio, we have so much towards this bucket and so much towards that
bucket. How often does that get adjusted? I mean, what’s the process by
which that sort of gets changed over time?
Ms. Ratchye: The program that we’re asking you to recommend approval is
Attachment A, and that includes sort of delegating to the City Manager how
the program would be run with the available dollars annually, so the City
Manager would adjust these each year as we figure out how much we
actually have. So it’s well this year we have $2 million, let’s do whatever and
then the next year we only have $500,000 or whatever. So that’s part of the
program is that the City Manager will have authority to annually review the
program. So what we’re kind of showing here is not what you’re being asked
to approve, but just the sort of initial proposal for the initial year of the
program.
Chair Filseth: Got it. Okay. Because the reason I ask is the amount of money
this year is pretty small. So how big of a mistake can we make, right. But on
the other hand, if it grows over time, then… If it doesn’t get cancelled like
you said, right. If it grows and becomes in the millions of dollars then
(inaudible). So my other question is, what is the intent of the legislation?
That is, what kind of guidance have we been given on how to utilize these
funds. I mean, obviously, as you point out, we’re not allowed to take the
compressed natural gas and use it on EV’s. That’s a constraint.
Ms. Ratchye: The guidance is on Page 3 of the Report. Those are the
regulations.
Chair Filseth: What’s your interpretation of the intent?
EXCERPT MINUTES
18
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Ms. Ratchye: I think the intent is to try to reduce the carbon intensity of
transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020. This is a program to meet that
objective.
Chair Filseth: I understand that, but they’re going to give us, I mean,
they’re going to allow us to sell these credits. What’s they’re guidance on
how we should use the money.
Ms. Ratchye: That’s on Page 3. So this is verbatim from the regulations and
this is for the EV’s. “Use all credits to benefit current or future EV customers,
educate the public”, so that’s why we have that education piece in there, “of
the benefits of EV transportation. Provide rate options that encourage off-
peak charging or minimize adverse impacts to the electric grid. Include an
annual compliance report”. So we have an obligation because of getting
these credits to report annually to the CARB how we did spend the revenue.
So we’ll have to report and in fact, one of the other parts of what we’re
asking Council approval for includes a program reporting requirement. So
that’s basically it, and it’s less sort of prescriptive for the natural gas fee of
goal revenue, but it’s effectively the same.
Chair Filseth: But it’s tiny and will shrink. Okay, I understand. Okay, with
that, any comments? Are we already done with the comments? Council
Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I’d like to move the Staff recommendation.
Council Member Holman: Second.
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to recommend the City Council approve the proposed Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, including the use of revenues from the sale
of LCFS credits.
Chair Filseth: So I have some comments. It seems to me…
Council Member Schmid: Is there a Motion on the floor?
Chair Filseth: There is a Motion on the floor.
Council Member Schmid: And it has been seconded?
Chair Filseth: It has been seconded.
EXCERPT MINUTES
19
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Council Member Holman: Yes. But the maker didn’t get a chance to speak to
his Motion.
Chair Filseth: Do you care to speak to your Motion?
Council Member Wolbach: I actually think we hashed out most of this. I am
happy to hear the other comments from the Chair, but I think that Staff
seems to have really done their homework, understanding the context of EV
use in Palo Alto, doing our best to try to project that for the future,
understanding what we’re allowed to do under the regulations and trying to
make best use of that for us. So I think it’s a sound recommendation. If
anyone has friendly amendments, I’d be open to them, but I think it’s
largely heading in the right direction.
Chair Filseth: Council Member Holman, care to speak to your second?
Council Member Holman: I think Staff’s done a good job laying this out,
curmudgeon factor aside. And I think you said it’s not like we’re risking a lot
of money here.
Chair Filseth: Greg, want to comment on that?
Council Member Schmid: I’d like to hear your comments. I have no extra
comments.
Chair Filseth: So it seems to me, given their guidance, that the high level
use of this kind of funds kind of falls into three buckets that seem to be
sensible to me. One is because the intent is to proliferate EV usage, let’s just
speak about the EV now, so one kind of investment we can make is to help
the City offset the cost of investing in the EV infrastructure to support that
kind of mobility, right, which I think makes sense. There’s a second bucket
which is to the benefit if existing EV owners, and there’s a third bucket which
is to the benefit of future EV owners, those people who haven’t bought one
yet but might buy one in the future. And there’s a fourth bucket, actually,
which is EV drivers that aren’t from Palo Alto, because if I look at how the
money, how we get it, it’s attached to the fact that there are EV drivers in
Palo Alto so…
Council Member Schmid: Living in Palo Alto.
Chair Filseth: Living in Palo Alto, and it’s coming in because of that.
Ms. Ratchye: Or that’s dispensed by the City owned.
EXCERPT MINUTES
20
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Chair Filseth: Or that’s dispensed by the City owned, correct, so the
argument that it should go to existing EV owners, because they already
made their decision, I’m troubled by that argument, okay. At least that
some of it shouldn’t go there, right. Because, let’s say Karen owns an EV, so
we’re going to get $200, $232 right, this year because Karen bought an EV.
So if we take the $230 that’s coming in because of Karen and we give it to
Greg to buy an EV, then we’re basically, it seems off to me, okay. It seems
like a transfer, okay. I mean, it’s not actually what that is, right, but it sort
of seems that way. So it seems to me that Karen ought to get some of it.
Now, City investing in EV infrastructure benefits everybody, so that one’s
easy. City providing incentives to future EV customers, that seems to be
consistent with the intent of the program, right, and what they want to do.
You know, governments have the right to tax and distribute. Again, step
aside for a second, and allow the caveat that the numbers here are so small
that how much engineering does it make sense to do. But then one other
category is, people that don’t live in Palo Alto, right, but drive their EV’s in to
charge. So to me that’s another reason why the City shouldn’t give out free
electricity at City-owned charging stations, because the vast majority of
those are going to go to people who have commuted in. Because your data
shows that 80 percent of EV charging is done by people at their home, right,
which is how I do it. I’ve had an EV for eight years and I think I’ve charged
it less than four times at some other place. So it seems to me that those
three buckets ought to be, ought to guide our thinking in how to spend the
money. So, for example, to offset the cost of installing EV charging facilities
in apartment buildings, that sort of makes sense to me, because they are
going to be used by Palo Alto residents, because it’s people who are living
there, it’s not people who drive from San Jose and so forth. And it goes
towards maybe existing EV owners, although if there’s not a charging station
at your apartment building, maybe you probably don’t have an EV.
Council Member Wolbach: Or you may be in Greg’s situation where you got
in tight with your neighbors.
Chair Filseth: …you have to que up at 3:00 A.M. in the morning or
something. So none of this is to reject Council Member Wolbach’s Motion,
which I’m going to support too, but I think as we go forward we ought to be
thinking about that. That some of it should go, I mean, having this funding
City infrastructure stamp makes a lot of sense and a lot of it should go
there. I think some of it needs to go back to existing EV owners, so to the
extent there are programs that benefit existing EV owners and future EV
owners together, like reducing the cost of charging at night, you know, and I
saw that and I thought, boy that makes a lot of sense now but what about in
2024, when 35 percent of our electricity comes from solar and it only shows
up in the nighttime, you don’t want people to charge in the daytime, so that
EXCERPT MINUTES
21
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
kind of makes sense. But if you went through that filter again, and it would
line up with yours, that you know, free electricity at City EV chargers
probably doesn’t rank high on the prairie and the other thing that I’ve looked
at this and I think it makes sense is that we should spend a little bit on
education and outreach, but I would hate to see us spending millions of
dollars on education and outreach, because my sense is that people in Palo
Alto, they’re not going to be influenced too much by this stuff, right, so I
mean, but they may be influenced by apartment buildings with chargers and
so forth. So, yeah, so that would be my two bits on that.
Council Member Holman: I did have one question and really good comments,
I want my $252. But I did have a question, 32, I’m sorry. But I did have one
question I neglected to ask is, are we talking about apartment buildings that
are new construction or how feasible is it to retrofit?
Ms. Kelty: This is just retrofits, because the Building Code…
Council Member Holman: Just retrofits, okay.
Ms. Kelty: Yes, because Building Codes today say (crosstalk).
Council Member Holman: That’s right.
Ms. Kelty: So in that case they do not qualify for the rebate. This is just for
existing buildings that do not have any…
Council Member Holman: I knew that. Thank you for the reminder. I knew
that.
Chair Filseth: That goes to some of my comments, programs that benefit all
EV owners are preferable to those that just benefit new ones, like paying to
install chargers, because Karen had to install a charger too, right, and she’s
getting some of that credit because she installed a charger. Council Member
Schmid.
Council Member Schmid: I thought Eric made some great points. The key
qualifications I would add is that the early users of EV’s already have their
reward for being smarter than others and (crosstalk), the best way to build
an infrastructure is to increase the number of EV users, therefore, I propose
an amendment to the Motion that the majority, half the funds go to rebates,
at least half of the funds go to rebates to new buyers.
Ms. Ratchye: Rebates to new buyers?
EXCERPT MINUTES
22
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
Chair Filseth: New buyers only?
Council Member Wolbach: I will not accept that as a friendly amendment.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “with at least half the revenues going
toward rebates for new EV buyers.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Ms. Kelty: Just food for thought, there is also a request by early adopters
that places in public spaces, like certain churches and buildings that put in
EV chargers that are free to the public that have been there for a while, that
they should get something, and so there are a lot of groups that could
potentially get some of the funds.
Ms. Ratchye: I had another comment on the giving to existing EV owners.
We don’t know who these owners are and we know the number, but the
administrative issue with trying to find out who they are, whether they still
own it, and then, you know, having them to come forward and register and
how many of them are going to do that, and it turned out it was actually
fairly expensive to give the money away, and it didn’t feel like a very good
use of the money. And then, if you did an annual amount, because we get
the money annually based on the value of what we sell it for, then you have
to continue to check with them, do you still own that car, and you know, a
lot of them don’t necessarily want you to know that they own it or where
they live and all that stuff, and they may not be a utility customer, so it’s a
different type of relationship we would have with them, and it turned out to
be, just thinking through it, it felt like, wow, that is probably not worth it.
Chair Filseth: Thank you very much for that and I, you know, that makes
perfect sense. I don’t mean to sort of argue that specifically literally the City
should start sending out checks to existing owners. I think we should weigh
the administrative efficiency into all this stuff as well. Only that principal
that, you know, the existing owners did what they did because what they did
and should be out of the equation. I find that problematic. I think we should
design programs that benefit all EV owners. I didn’t mean to say sort of
literally we should send out checks. Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I like the whole concept inspired by the comments
of my colleagues. The, kind of the fourth bucket of, that was identified by
Chair Filseth, you know, helping or providing some kind of service or
spending in a way which benefits EV users who do not live in Palo Alto. I
EXCERPT MINUTES
23
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
would actually not argue that we should eliminate or limit that bucket. I
actually think that is a tremendously important bucket, as it is exceedingly
difficult for people to live in Palo Alto and it’s not likely to become easier for
those people to become Palo Alto residents any time soon, yet they do have
to commute to Palo Alto for their jobs and given not just Palo Alto, but
regional housing costs, sometimes those commutes are stretching further
and further away. In order for them to have a successful commute without
severe range anxiety or really pushing beyond the range capabilities of EV’s,
having a place for them to charge when they get to their job or come to Palo
Alto to spend their money and help our sales tax base, when they come to
Palo Alto for them to have a place to charge, even, whether it’s for a couple
of hours while they are shopping here or having dinner downtown or when
they’re at work here, before they go home to whatever community they live
in, I think that is important and pursues the goal of Palo Alto. Not just the
State goal, which is to, you know, make it easier and thus encourage people
to buy EV’s and to use EV’s, but also pursues our goal of being a great City,
as was mentioned earlier, the lion’s share, the big opportunity for us to
reduce our net greenhouse gas is in transportation, and considering that we
can’t just think about the greenhouse gas impacts of Palo Alto residents, we
have to think about the greenhouse gas impacts of Palo Alto, and that
includes the car trips that we facilitate, encourage, require by having people
come to and from Palo Alto from other communities. I just wanted to
emphasize, you know, it doesn’t sound like we’re going to have a debate
about it as motions tonight, but you know, if it does come to future decision
making by City Manager or the Council, it sounds like there might be some,
my preference would be to make sure that group is not left out of the
equation.
Chair Filseth: I actually think that’s a separate discussion, and maybe a
valuable discussion in its own right. It’s really an issue to what extent do we,
does the City of Palo Alto want to invest in regional stuff, right. That is, you
know, the City of Palo Alto, for example, could say, you know we’re going to
take one percent of revenues and put it into regional emissions reductions,
right, and that’s going to be, we’re going to provide charging stations for
people that drive in, we’re going to provide charging stations, we’re going to
help fund charging stations in San Jose, and Cupertino and other places too.
It’s a regional action kind of thing, and I think that it’s potentially, it’s a
worthwhile discussion, but I think what you’re describing sort of fits on that
axis, not specifically this one.
Council Member Wolbach: What I’m taking about…
Chair Filseth: Because you can make the same argument, you know, people
who work in San Jose. I mean, maybe we should say, maybe we should
EXCERPT MINUTES
24
Finance Committee
Excerpt Minutes
September 20, 2016
subsidize park space in San Jose because they live in San Jose, right, but
they work in Palo Alto, you know. Do we have an obligation to help them
with their life. You can make the argument. It seems to me the same kind of
argument, but like you said, it’s not material to the Motion tonight. I thought
what to do about the discretion of the City Manager on an annual basis
makes sense. Further comments. All those in favor. Motion carries 4-0.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Filseth: Thank you.
Council Member Schmid: If I could make a comment, I found it very helpful
that the UAC minutes were more detailed than then traditionally have been.
It makes a world of difference to be able to see these rather perspectives
and points of view.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 P.M.