Least-cost truck charging infrastructure to benefit all stakeholders

Energy and vehicle regulators in Massachusetts and California have two things in common: (1) both require manufacturers to sell an increasing number of zero-emission trucks to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and (2) both have average residential electricity rates nearly 90% higher than the national average. So, there’s a tension. While truck manufacturers assert that utilities aren’t building charging infrastructure fast enough, greater scrutiny of electric bills is forcing sometimes difficult conversations about how to fund critical investments.

A general rate case proceeding for Southern California Edison illustrates this well. Southern California Edison serves the region that’ll have the highest demand for truck charging of any in the United States by 2030, according to the ICCT’s estimates. State policy requires state and local fleets to purchase 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2027, transit agencies to purchase 100% zero-emission buses by 2029, and as much as 75% zero-emission truck sales by 2035, depending on the vehicle group. The utility has proposed that it proactively invest in the grid to serve these future transportation electrification loads, but consumer advocates represented by the Public Advocates Office of the California Public Utilities Commission and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) oppose the proposal. These groups question the methodology used to estimate heavy-duty vehicle charging needs and call on the California Public Utilities Commission to reject spending proposals related to truck electrification.

We think common ground exists between those who need truck charging infrastructure and those who want to keep utility rates down. It lives at the intersection of information that both groups need to achieve their goals. This is information about the costs of truck charging infrastructure, the options that exist to lower those costs, and the kinds of commitments utilities can make to energize the most charging infrastructure at the lowest cost.

​​​To explore this, the ICCT contracted with Black & Veatch (BV), an electric vehicle charging and utility engineering and construction firm. The company used data from its experience to produce estimates of the costs of designing and constructing truck charging facilities. For example, BV provided costs for a prototypical public corridor charging facility and Figure 1 is a schematic of the site design. This 7.67-acre facility with a combined nameplate capacity of 15.6 MW has thirty pull-in spots served by twenty 240-kW dual-port chargers and ten 480-kW single-port chargers, as well as five pull-through stalls each served by a 1 MW charger.

Figure 1. Layout of corridor charging facility prototype by Black & Veatch

Figure 2. Distinction between front-of-the-meter and behind-the-meter infrastructure and scope of analysis

Major distribution grid upgrades cost more than $10 ​​million—that alone is the cost of a 115 kV greenfield substation—and take years to build. That’s a large front-of-the-meter cost and it’s much different in a project that only requires adding a substation bank to an existing substation, as that costs the utility only around $1.5 million. For sites like the prototype in Figure 1, if they can access existing substation capacity, that’s a clear opportunity for lower costs. Utilities can facilitate buildout in these locations by proactively communicating to potential commercial charging customers where substation capacity already exists and easing the process for them to utilize it.

This is important because the truck industry is investing in electrification. Daimler, Volvo, and Cummins are constructing a 21 GWh battery production facility in Mississippi (launch date in 2027) and Tesla is building a 50,000-unit Semi tractor factory in Nevada (to come online in 2026). New businesses providing charging services to electric trucks that have launched in just the last 5 years include WattEV, Forum Mobility, Terawatt Infrastructure, Greenlane, Voltera, EV Realty, and Zeem Solutions. And public policies at the local, state, and federal levels are providing incentives and setting requirements for fleets to transition to zero-emission technologies.

Utility regulators can help meet the needs of both truck charging developers and utility ratepayers by establishing common ground for a discussion about what it takes to meet the needs of truck charging facilities, and that requires transparency and data about ​​costs. By engaging with data showing what these facilities would likely cost, options for minimizing the costs ultimately shouldered by ratepayers, and actions that streamline the deployment of least-cost solutions, all stakeholders can come away confident that their interests have been served.