appendix - Clean Energy Coalition

plug-in ready michigan

APPENDIX

sponsored by:

version 1.0

//appendicies//

appendices //

p.2

//plug-in ready michigan

p.3

aaappendix // section a first responder training

p.4


First Responder Training Every Michigan first responder should be fully trained on plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) technology and the associated infrastructure so they are prepared in the unfortunate, but inevitable, case of an accident. The state of Michigan is commonly slated as the an early launch market for PEVs and Michigan’s public streets and highways are frequently used by automakers as a testing ground for new vehicle technology. Simultaneously, PEV charging stations are being installed in parking lots and garages throughout the state to support this new market. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not believe that PEVs pose a greater risk of fire than gasolinepowered vehicles.i Moreover, charging stations must comply with rigorous electrical codes and industry standards prior to and during the installation process. Nevertheless, PEVs are a new technology that may be unfamiliar to firefighters, police and other personnel responding to an emergency. Potentially dangerous situations can arise from unfamiliarity with vehicle technology but comprehensive training for first responders can prevent an automobile accident from turning into an even more dangerous situation. Some of the risks first responders face related to PEVs include electric shock from severing high voltage wires in the vehicle during extrication, unexpected vehicle movement (PEVs are extremely quiet and the responding personnel may mistakenly believe the vehicle is turned off), fire extinguisher considerations for electrical fires, and choosing the correct personal protection equipment (PPE) for the situation.

p.5

by the Bureau of Fire Services - Office of Fire Fighter Training (OFFT) and the Michigan Fire Fighters Training Council (MFFTC). The Office of Fire Fighter training will act as the enforcement agency for approved policies and procedures through the MFFTC. The office prepares and publishes training standards, establishes courses of study, certifies instructors, establishes regional training centers, cooperates with state, federal, and local fire agencies to facilitate training of fire fighters, and develops and administers mandatory certification examinations for new fire fighters. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs General Industry Safety Standards for Fire Fighting requires that an employer “Provide training to an employee commensurate with the duties and functions that the employee is expected to perform. The training shall be provided before the employee is permitted to perform emergency operations.” (Department Of Licensing And Regulatory Affairs, 2001) Advanced vehicle technology training is a rapidly evolving field and to develop or purchase, as well as continuously update, this information can be a large expense for the OFFT. First responder training should not just cover fire fighters. Training on how to handle the intricate issues that may arise when dealing with an electric drivetrain should be given to emergency medical technicians (EMT), police, and even tow truck drivers.

TRAINING RESOURCES National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium

Several Michigan fire departments have undergone voluntary classroom or online PEV training sponsored by National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), or Chevrolet. Although, the State of Michigan does not require alternative vehicle or alternative fuel training for its fire fighters.

The West Virginia University NAFTC developed first responder workshop and training materials for many varieties of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, including PEVs. The NAFTC curriculum was developed under a grant from the DOE.

The training and certification requirements the State of Michigan’s 1,071 fire departments and 31,825 fire fighters and officers is overseen

NAFTC Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle First Responder Safety Training are workshops designed specifically for first responders

//toolkit//

when responding to accidents involving vehicles powered by natural gas, propane, and electricity. These workshops are organized by Michigan’s Clean Cities coalitions and regularly offered at Community College’s throughout the state. Workshops are restricted to certified first responders, like firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians. NAFTC also provides a free quick reference guide (QRG) in the form of a smart phone or tablet app. The app is designed to provide emergency personnel critical information about advanced technology vehicles at the scene of an accident. The app has detailed vehiclespecific information including identification mechanisms, disconnect procedures, and other special concerns. This app is not limited to PEVs. It also contains information on hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles, as well as vehicles powered by alternative fuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas, propane, and hydrogen. The app has the potential to be extremely useful for conveying timely information to first responders.

Works Cited Department Of Licensing And Regulatory Affairs. (2001). General Industry Safety Standards: PART 74. FIRE FIGHTING. Director’s Office. Lansing: State of Michigan.

Footnotes i. http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/ Press+Releases/2012/NHTSA+Statement+ on+Conclusion+of+Chevy+Volt+Investigati on retrieved 05/10/12

National Fire Protection Association Additionally, NFPA offers PEV safety training, news, and events on its website www. evsafetytraining.org. This website also contains downloadable emergency response guides and other safety information that has been obtained directly from the hybrid and PEV manufacturers. The website contains safety information and guides for all of the following vehicle manufacturers: Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Lexus, Tesla Motors, Cadillac, Buick, Sa turn, GMC, Infiniti, Azure Dynamics, Lincoln, Mercury, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Kia, Mazda, and Fisker Automotive. The NFPA also offers an online training resource that was created specific to the Chevy Volt that can be accessed through this website: http:// nfpaevresources.gvpi.net.

p.6

p.7

aaappendix // section b michigan municipal survey

p.8


Research Design Respondents Michigan Local Government Officials

Interviewing dates March 8 – April 23, 2012

Type of survey Web-based

Number of completed interviews 101

Average length 15 minutes

Margin of error + /- 9.48% with 95% confidence The statewide survey conducted from March 8-April 23, 2012 was designed to solicit Michigan Local Government officials’ opinions about the use and installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The survey questions were developed by Governing Dynamic consultants in collaboration with OHM and the Michigan Clean Energy Coalition. In general, surveys of this type are intended to take a snapshot of public opinion at a specific time and on specific issues. The survey results provide a conduit for public opinion to be considered in planning and communications initiatives. It is important to note that respondents react to questions with top-ofmind responses and are not privy to in-depth supporting information nor do they have the luxury of debating the questions with experts. Therefore the survey results provide general guidance for planning purposes, but should not be interpreted as a referendum on complex policy and planning decisions. Local government officials throughout Michigan were emailed invitations to take the web-based survey throughout much of March and April.

p.9

101 unique survey responses were received over the allotted time period and results are statistically sound within a 9.48 percent margin of error 95 percent of the time. The survey was 45 questions in length and took the average respondent 15 minutes to complete. The following report presents the results of the survey. Due to rounding, the values indicated may not necessarily add up to 100 percent.

//appendicies//

Participants in the 2012 Survey of Local Governments in Michigan

Brampton Township

City of Leslie

Gratiot County

Canton Township

City of Madison Heights

Green Charter Township

Cass County

City of Marquette

Houghton County

Cheboygan County

City of Marshall

Imlay Township

City of Adrian

City of Marysville

Ingham Township

City of Alma

City of Mason

Jackson County

City of Alpena

City of Melvindale

Jefferson Township

City of Ann Arbor

City of Midland

Kalkaska County

City of Auburn

City of Mt. Morris

Lapeer County

City of Auburn Hills

City of Mt. Pleasant

Little Traverse Township

City of Bad Axe

City of Niles

Manchester Township

City of Bay City

City of Norton Shores

Marquette County

City of Berkley

City of Owosso

Mason County

City of Birmingham

City of Petoskey

Meridian Charter Township

City of Bloomfield Hills

City of Pontiac

Penn Township

City of Cadillac

City of Roseville

Scio Township

City of Charlevoix

City of Saline

Shiawassee County

City of Cheboygan

City of South Haven

Suttons Bay Township

City of Coldwater

City of Southfield

Torch Lake Township

City of Detroit

City of St Johns

Village of Bellevue

City of DeWitt

City of St. Clair Shores

Village of Berrien Springs

City of Eastpointe

City of Swartz Creek

Village of Beverly Hills

City Of Eaton Rapids

City of Traverse City

Village of Blissfield

City of Escanaba

City of Trenton

Village of Dundee

City of Farmington HIlls

City of Vassar

Village of Franklin

City of Ferrysburg

City of Woodhaven

Village of Grass Lake

City of Fremont

City of Yale

Village of L’Anse

City of Gaylord

Clay Township

Village of Lawrence

City of Gladstone

County of Gladwin

Village of Paw Paw

City of Grandville

Delhi Charter Township

Village of Pigeon

City of Hastings

DeWitt Township

Wakefield Township

City of Hillsdale

Fraser Township

City of Holland

Fremont Township

City of Houghton

Garfield Township

City of Ionia

Genesee County

p.10


Geographic Distribution of Respondents

p.11

//appendicies//

profile of responding jurisdictions

p.12


Introduction A statewide survey was conducted to solicit Michigan local government officials’ (cities, townships, and counties) opinions about the use and installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The responses offer a snapshot of what is happening with PEV infrastructure across the entire state and across different types of governments. The survey consisted of 45 multiple-choice questions and some open-ended questions that took the average respondent 15 minutes to complete. More than 100 Michigan cities, townships, and villages responded to the survey from across the state. The survey questions were developed by the planning team, and in part were guided by the questions and issues raised by stakeholders during a number of strategic planning workshops. The goal of the survey was to better understand opinions about the use and installation of electric vehicle charging stations by local governments, and to ensure this Plan directly addresses local government officials’ perceived issues and opportunities. As a result of the survey, the Plan was able to be structured to provide unique Michiganspecific tools and guidelines developed in response to the feedback of participating local governments.

Appendix A illustrates all results when weighted by the proportional number of actual jurisdictions of that type. These weighted results offer a deeper understanding of how each type of jurisdiction views electric vehicles.

The task force also held four workshops with key stakeholders to educate them about the development of the Plan and gain valuable input. The workshops were centered on one of four topics of PEV infrastructure: utilities; outreach deployment, barriers, and forecast; building code and permitting; and planning and zoning. Participants included representatives from utility companies, code enforcement agencies, planning departments, law enforcement and the automotive industry. The participants offered valuable insight and posed questions that contributed to the writing of the Plan. Individual interviews were also conducted to gain a more in-depth knowledge of PEV infrastructure with representatives from utility companies and cities that are on the cutting edge of implementing PEV infrastructure. These individuals were able to offer expertise based on first-hand knowledge of working with EVSEs.

Local government officials throughout Michigan were e-mailed invitations to take a web-based survey asking their opinions about the use and installation of PEV charging stations. Overall, the survey respondents represented a variety of geographic areas, populations, and local government types. Of the respondents, 29.7 percent identified their communities as suburban, 41.6 percent as rural, 12.9 percent as urban, 5.9 percent as exurban, and 9.9 percent as a mixture. Most (37.6 percent) of the respondents estimated the population of their jurisdiction to be less than 5,000 while 9.9 percent estimated 50,00099,999. The predominant forms of parking in respondent’s jurisdictions were on-street parking without meters and free public surface parking lots.

p.13

Figure 7B.1 - Responses to teh question: “What form of government best describes your jurisdiction?”

//appendicies//

Key Findings aa The survey results indicated that respondents have familiarity with EVs but little experience with them. aa Although most respondents are not currently working toward the development of PEV infrastructure in their communities, a majority are interested in advocating for EVs and believe they can be a viable alternative to traditional vehicles. aa Many leaders indicated they would like flexible sample zoning and planning language, and observed that most of their master plans do not address PEV infrastructure. aa The significant factors preventing communities from having PEV infrastructure is the cost and a majority of respondents indicated they would like matching-money grants to help, followed by public-private partnerships.

In general, surveys of this type are intended to take a snapshot of public opinion at a specific time and on specific issues. The survey results provide a conduit for public opinion to be considered in planning and communications initiatives. It is important to note that respondents react to questions with top-of-mind responses and are not privy to indepth supporting information nor do they have the luxury of debating the questions with experts. Therefore the survey results provide general guidance for planning purposes, but should not be interpreted as a referendum on complex policy and planning decisions.

aa Since most cities are currently not working toward PEV infrastructure implementation, the Plug-In Ready Michigan Plan has the opportunity to serve as a how-to manual for PEV infrastructure, educating and helping municipal leaders from the beginning of the process.

p.14


Alternative Fuel Vehicles & Fleets Most respondents have little experience with alternative fuel vehicles, as evident by the survey results. Only a small portion of respondents answered that they have alternative fuel vehicles in their fleet, with bio-diesel being the most popular and natural gas being the least (see image 2-A). Forty-eight percent of respondents indicated their jurisdiction was not considering the future use of alternative fuel vehicles in their fleet. Eleven percent of respondents indicated they were considering EVs, while 25 percent were considering their options but were not sure which types. Eight percent of respondents currently have publicly-maintained PEV charging stations in place while 91 percent do not, indicating the Plan could help guide the development of PEV infrastructure in many communities. Although most respondents do not currently use alternative fuel vehicles, 56.4 percent somewhat or strongly believe integrating them into a fleet could be a cost saving measure over time, and 47.5 percent believe the same of electric vehicles.

Issue Awareness

Sixty-six of those polled agree that EVs are currently a viable alternative to petroleum-fueled cars and trucks, and that percentage increases to 71.2 percent when the same question is asked in the long-term. Even more, 56.4 percent of these officials support the use of public funds to build infrastructure (i.e. charging stations) to facilitate the use of EVs and 58.4 believe their communities should take a leadership role by integrating electric vehicle charging stations.

to 71.2 percent when the same question is asked in the long-term. Even more, 56.4 percent of these officials support the use of public funds to build infrastructure (i.e. charging stations) to facilitate the use of EVs and 58.4 believe their communities should take a leadership role by integrating electric vehicle charging stations. However, it should be noted that a smaller percentage, 17.8 and 16.8 percent, respectively, strongly support or believe these statements. This indicates more education is necessary, which the Plan can provide.

Many respondents, 77.2 percent, are familiar with the currently produced line of electric vehicles, but less, 51.4 percent, were familiar with the federal government’s electric vehicle initiative to facilitate a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Approximately 37 percent of respondents were familiar with the PEV efforts of local governments, indicating the Plan can help share what has already been done and learned. With most communities not having any PEV charging stations available for public use (88.1 percent of respondents), this Plan can help those seeking guidance in the future.

Current Beliefs Although few communities have PEV infrastructure available for public use, public officials hold positive beliefs about EVs and their future. Sixty-six percent of those polled somewhat or strongly believe that EVs are currently a viable alternative to petroleum-fueled cars and trucks, and that percentage increases

p.15

Figure 7B.2 - Response to the question: “Does your jurisdiction currently operate any of these vehicles or use any of the following alternative fuels in its fleet?”

//appendicies//

Priorities Fifty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they somewhat or strongly believe that integrating alternative vehicles into their fleet should be a priority, with EVs lower at 43.6 percent. Almost half somewhat or strongly believed integrating PEV infrastructure like charging stations in their community should be a priority and roughly one-third said their jurisdiction would be willing to launch a pilot program for EVs.

Planning and Zoning Over 65 percent of public officials who took the survey answered that their community’s master plan does not currently contain language that would support the incorporation of electric vehicle charging station, but approximately forty percent said their current zoning code would allow for the installation of PEV charging stations. For both questions, a substantial percentage answered no or that they didn’t know. Almost three-quarters of respondents said they believe their government would be somewhat or very willing to integrate PEV charging stations in the community if sample master plan and language was provided to them. Three-quarters said if they were to adopt language into their code they would like it to be flexible and accommodating of PEV infrastructure rather than aggressive or restrictive. For this reason, the Plan provides different options for master planning and zoning code language so that communities can customize their language.

Funding Overall, the results of the survey indicated a positive response toward EVs and related infrastructure amongst local government officials; however, they also indicated they felt they should not primarily be responsible for funding PEV charging stations. Many (40.6 percent) felt that private industry should be responsible followed by the federal government and consumers (both 11.9 percent) and automobile makers (9.9 percent). Almost seventeen percent said they did not know who should be responsible for funding. Sixty-five percent of respondents answered that they are somewhat or very willing to personally advocate

for the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations in future development plans for their communities. Respondents were roughly evenly split between yes, no and don’t know when asked if they perceive an economic advantage for their community by deploying electric vehicle charging stations.

Obstacles and Opportunities As with any proposed change in a community, there are both obstacles and opportunities that must be considered when implementing. Although this survey indicated there is support for public PEV infrastructure in communities, some hurdles do exist with the largest being cost. Lack of education and outreach and installation round out the top three concerns, as shown in image 3-A. When asked about the advantages of promoting electric vehicles respondents ranked environmentally-friendly as the biggest advantage to integrating EVs followed by promoting community image, reducing dependence on foreign oil, economic development and revenue source. In a similar open ended question, respondents indicated public relations, economic development, and tourism as advantages. For incentives or assistance required to publicly build PEV charging stations participants showed strong support for matching-money grants and public-private partnerships. More than a third answered that they did not know what they would need, which could indicate a barrier to implementation that the Plan could help them resolve. Additionally, officials indicated a wide variety of technical assistance they would need to help support the integration and promotion of electric vehicle technologies in their communities (see image 4-A).

Private Sector and PEV Development In addition to the public sector, the private sector also plays a key role in the promotion and integration of electric vehicles. Many responding officials (45.5 percent) did not know what types of financial and legislative tools their jurisdiction would need in order to incentivize the private sector to build PEV charging

p.16


Figure 7B.3 - Response to the question: “When thinking about integrating electric vehicle charging stations into your community, pleasae rate how significant you consider each of the following obstacles to be with 1 being of little significance and 5 being an extremely significant obstacle.” stations. Others indicated they may need tax breaks (14.9 percent) and shared expenses (16.8 percent). Although many local government leaders did not know what type of financial tools they would need to incentivize the public sector to build PEV stations, the cost of PEV stations was shown to be a major concern, as evident through several open-ended questions in the survey. Respondents also answered that the lack of EVs was a concern, especially in more rural areas. In response to what organizations or agencies they would have to work with to integrate PEV charging stations in their community, respondents listed a wide variety with the most common answers being electric utilities, downtown development authorities and state inspectors. The Plan also incorporated input from a wide variety of sources, with the goal of serving as a guide to education and implementation. The last open-ended question asked for other thoughts participants would like to communicate with the task force creating this Plan. Most concerns

p.17

were about money; fiscal constraints, wasting money if EVs fail, EVs costing too much, and the lack of PEV car sales leading to a lack of stations. Other responses included the need to educate elected officials and that PEV infrastructure is an urban area only issue or should be done.

Figure 7B.4 - Response to the question: “What kinds of technical assistance would you require in order to integrate electric vehicle charging stations in your community?”


p.18

//appendicies//

p.19


p.20

//appendicies//

p.21


p.22

//appendicies//

p.23


p.24

//appendicies//

p.25


p.26

//appendicies//

p.27


p.28

//appendicies//

p.29


p.30

//appendicies//

p.31


p.32

//appendicies//

p.33


p.34

//appendicies//

p.35


p.36

//appendicies//

p.37


p.38

//appendicies//

p.39


p.40

//appendicies//

p.41


p.42

//appendicies//

p.43


p.44

//appendicies//

p.45


p.46

//appendicies//

p.47


p.48

//appendicies//

p.49


p.50

//appendicies//

p.51


p.52

//appendicies//

p.53


p.54

//appendicies//

p.55


p.56

//appendicies//

p.57


p.58

//appendicies//

p.59


p.60

//appendicies//

p.61


p.62

//appendicies//

p.63


p.64

//appendicies//

p.65


p.66

//appendicies//

p.67


p.68

//appendicies//

p.69


p.70

//appendicies//

p.71


p.72

//appendicies//

p.73


p.74

//appendicies//

p.75


p.76