Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Cleaner Transportation -Save the Sound


Cleaning Our Transportation Sector

Transportation accounts for nearly 40 percent of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions, more than double the share of electricity generation, heating and cooling buildings, or any other sector. Reducing dependence on private cars and transitioning to cleaner vehicles are essential to meet the state’s climate targets and laws—and to protect our health.

Increasing access to bus and train service, revitalizing our communities with transit oriented development, ensuring urban streets include bike lanes and sidewalks, and moving from gas and diesel engines to electric and zero emission vehicles are all part of the solution.

The Transportation and Climate Initiative, CT’s Clean Air Bill

Air pollution is a regional affair, and so are the solutions to it. The Transportation and Climate Initiative is a regional cap-and-invest program that Connecticut and New York have helped develop along with 12 other jurisdictions. It would cap and reduce pollution from the transportation sector, and generate investment for clean transportation options. Polling shows more than 7 in 10 voters support the project, as do many major employers.

Connecticut now must pass a bill to enact TCI. This would not only cut climate emissions and air pollution that causes asthma, but also provide job-creating investment—with 50 percent of proceeds going to communities overburdened by pollution and underserved by transportation!

Learn more and take action at CtTransportationFuture.org.

Connecticut’s Commitments to Cleaner Cars

Electric vehicles (EVs) are a win for the environment. Even counting electricity used to charge them, they’re more than 70 percent cleaner for the climate than conventional cars.

Save the Sound has worked tirelessly at the legislature and agencies to ensure you have cleaner transportation options. From bringing California’s strong vehicle emissions standards to Connecticut to creating a program to label automobiles with their emissions score, we’re building a bridge from the cars of the past to the cars of the future.

We now co-lead the Connecticut Electric Vehicle Coalition with other environmental, health, and labor groups. Together we’re pushing for electric vehicle infrastructure, education and incentives, grid modernization, and wise use of the state’s funds from the Volkswagen air pollution settlement.

These vehicles not only cut climate pollution, but also the health impacts and costs of local air pollution. And going electric saves money! The switch to an electric vehicle saves over $770 per year for the average driver.

Improving Connecticut’s Public Transit System

Congestion causes 64 million hours of delay annually in the state’s three largest urban areas and costs Connecticut $1.3 billion a year. Additionally, lack of transportation is the largest single barrier to employment. Transit ridership has increased in Connecticut and Metro-North is now the most used rail line in the country. But because state and federal investment has not kept pace, delays and other problems are now part of the daily commute.

It shouldn’t be that way.

Public transportation is good for the environment and the economy. Riding a bus instead of driving alone for a 20-mile round trip commute can save 4,800 pounds of CO2 per person per year. For every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 is generated in economic return. And for every $1 billion invested in public transportation, 36,000 jobs are created and supported.

Save the Sound advocates for public transportation improvements through an alliance with Transit for Connecticut. The coalition of 33 business, human service, regional planning, environmental, transportation, and civic organizations advocates for cost-effective, comprehensive investments in bus transit. We use community gatherings, press conferences, legislative advocacy, and meetings with legislative leaders to build support for transportation infrastructure.

Healthier and Safer Communities

To cut transportation emissions and increase quality of life, Connecticut should commit to transit oriented development and complete streets—policies that prioritize walkable, bikeable, livable, sustainable communities around major transit lines. These approaches lower emissions by reducing the need for cars: if more people walked or biked instead of using their car on trips under a mile, it would cut climate pollution by up to  22 million metric tons a year.

Connecticut passed a complete streets law back in 2009, but implementation has lagged. Save the Sound advocates in municipalities and at the state legislature to continue make progress on these critical climate and health strategies.

Learn More

Saturday, October 15, 2022

Notice of Request for Information (RFI) Connecticut Electric Bicycle (E-Bike) Incentive Program Summary

 


The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued a request for information on July 6, 2022 and held the response period open until July 27, 2022.


In all, twenty-one (21) responses were received. This document summarizes all responses received and is organized by questions outlined in the Request for Information.





Question 1: What are the best practices from other E-bike incentive programs? Including, but not limited to:

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Chris D’Antonio, Dante Pace, David Gutelius, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Paul Wessel (Greater New Haven Clean Cities Coalition (GNHCCC)), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART).


  1. Application processes (both on-line and in-person)
    • Seven respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) indicated that the least burdensome application process would be structured as a point-of-sale or instant rebate at the point-of-purchase particularly for purchases made at local bike retailers. A post sale or post-purchase rebate and/or voucher was discussed by several respondents for online E-bike retailers.
    • Four respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) also recommended building and maintaining relationships/partnerships with E-bike retailers (local and online), shops, and companies (such as electric scooter manufactures) already operating within the state.


  1. E-bike Applicability
    • Four respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen) indicated support for all types and forms (i.e. cargo, leisure, e-Mountain Bikes) of E-bikes and/or those that are categorized into the three class system (Class 1-3) as defined in Public Act 18-165.
    • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Kate Rozen) mentioned either a fluctuating or the removal of an E-bike MSRP cap. (NOTE: MSRP cap is set by statute)
    • One respondent (Dante Pace) discussed the benefits of ancillary program considerations such as a state e-bike registry, offering annual checkups/tune-ups, allowance of third-party modifications, and incentivizing future E-bike technology improvements (i.e. hybrid gas/electric fuel technology).


  1. E-Bike retailer selection and inclusion
    • Four respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Kate Rozen, Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) stated support for the inclusion of locally based as well as online retailers and shops.
    • One respondent (Dante Pace) specified a desire for the fair inclusion of “low” and “high” end retailers.
    • One respondent (Kate Rozen) provided a link to the Denver E-bike program retailer registration application. (https://us.openforms.com/Form/7fbe0485-f015-42c7-b236- 5ea98bdfdb2a).


  1. Opt-in for customers to authorize contact by E-bike vendors



    • One respondent (Dante Pace) expressed discomfort with intrusive solicitation without explicitly opting-in through a DEEP mailing list, a local bike retailer or optional state registry.
    • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) supported contacting individuals that are categorically eligible through their participation in state programs (i.e. Operation Fuel) and or residents of Environmental Justice Communities (EJCs). The respondent recommended DEEP collaborates with other state agencies (Department of Social Services, Department of Children and Families) to inform and enroll eligible individuals in the E-bike program.
    • One respondent (Kate Rozen) supported the communication opt-in as a means to inform program participants of recalls.


  1. E-bike Incentive levels
    • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) recommended that “DEEP announce as soon as possible that EJC residents, Operation Fuel clients, and other categorically eligible residents can qualify for an E-bike voucher up to $1000, compared to the standard benefit of

$500.”

    • One respondent (Kate Rozen) recommended “$500 for everyone, $750 for non-income qualified residents in environmental justice communities, and $1,000 for low-income individuals who qualify.”
    • One respondent (Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) stated in part that “one approach could be a tiered structure with one pathway for income-restricted applicants that funds a larger share of the E-bike, and a separate pathway with no income cap and a lower voucher amount.”


  1. LMI income verification
    • Three respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) indicated support for the use of categorical eligibility based on participation in state or federal assistance programs. In conjunction, one respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) supports compliance checks to ensure self-reported income aligns with income eligibility requirements.
    • Two respondents (David Gutelius, Kerri Provost) recommended the use of state of federal income tax returns for income verification.
    • One respondent (Dante Pace) supported using an individual’s most recent paycheck to verify income.
    • One respondent (Kate Rozen) stated that any income verification process used should be as easy as possible with few steps required.


  1. Participant surveys.
    • Four respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) were supportive of using surveys to gather information on programmatic effectiveness.
    • One respondent (Dante Pace) suggested the use of additional incentives to encourage survey participation.



    • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) recommended the use of app-based data collection with the caveat of mitigating for possible flaws in self-reported information.


Question 2: How should DEEP determine the air quality benefit from program participation?

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART), Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress).

    • Six respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) favored the use of applications (apps), surveys, or other self-reported means used, voluntarily, by program participants to compile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to determine air quality benefits. Additionally, one respondent (Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) recommended collaboration with modeling experts from TRECH (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c- change/subtopics/trechproject/) to help determine air quality and health benefits.
    • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) advocated collaborating with local organizations and measuring the air quality difference between using cars and replacing cars with e-bikes with a focus on EJCs (Waterbury, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford).


Question 3: How many manufacturers produce E-bikes with a base MSRP of $3,000 or less? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

  • Three respondents (Dante Pace Jim Head, Kate Rozen) provided the following manufacturers: Alien Rides Aventon, Blix, Canondale, Hurley, Juiced Bikes, Lectric, Rad Power, Santa Cruz, Surfas, Trek, Velowave.
  • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) stated that local bike shops and their owners/staff are key stakeholders that should be engaged and encouraged to participate.
  • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) commented that “Brompton Bicycle produces two Electric bike models – the C Line Electric and P Line Electric. The C Line Electric has an all-steel frame at $3,850 MSRP and P Line Electric has a titanium rear frame at $4,700 MSRP.”


Question 4: How many E-bike retailers are there in Connecticut? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Three respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) provided the following Connecticut based E-bike retailers: Best Buy, BiciCo, Bloomfield Bicycles, Central Wheel, College Street Cycles, Devils Gear Bike Shop, New Canaan Bicycles, REI.
    • One respondent (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes)) stated that a collaborative approach with retailers and asking retailers to register for the program as participants would provide contact information at each retailer.




Question 5: How many E-bike retailers are there in on-line? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Two respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Kate Rozen) supported including all retailers who are interested in participating in the program.
    • One respondent (Jim Head) mentioned ordering an E-bike from RadPower and considering Juiced Bikes.
    • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) provided the following link to Brompton Bicycles: www.us.brompton.com.


Question 6: What is the industry standard E-bike warranty?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head) mentioned that warranties may vary from one to three years and by manufacturer, component, and/or batteries.
    • One respondent ((Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) stated the following. “Our standard Brompton warranty for e-bikes is a 7-year unlimited mileage warranty against manufacturing and material defects for the main frame components, commencing from the date of sale. Other non-wearing parts on the bicycle (e.g. crank arms, brake calipers, mudguards, etc.) are covered by a 3-year warranty against manufacturing and material defects. Full warranty terms and conditions are here (https://trade.brompton.com/Uploads/Content/Customer_Service/Warranty/Warranty%20Ter ms%20and%20Conditions.pdf).”



Question 7: What is the best industry E-bike warranty?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head.

    • One respondent (Dante Pace) stated that Pedego has a 5-year warranty on their bike and components and a three-year prorated warranty on their batteries. Relatedly, one respondent (Jim Head) mentioned a one-year warranty with RadPower .

Question 8: What other E-bike customer experiences should DEEP take into account? (e.g., return policy? Battery reuse or recycling programs)

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Robyn Marquis (CALSTART), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Respondents touched on a number of issues for consideration listed in part and in no particular order:
      • Return/refund policies, infrastructure, car/bicycle parking, speed of traffic, proximity to amenity/attractions, battery recycling, bicycle operating safety, weight of e-bikes,



bike racks on public transit, quality and safety of e-bikes, customer accessories, a single point of contact, etc.


Question 9: How often are E-bike purchases financed?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head) did not finance their e-bike purchases but are aware of the financing options available at certain retailers (i.e. Bloomfield Bicycle reportedly has a 12-month interest free financing option). Additionally respondent (Dante Pace) mentioned that insurance policies (personal injury, property damage/theft) may be available.
    • One respondent (Kate Rozen) spoke of her experience purchasing an E-bike from Radpower Bikes and using Affirm to finance her purchase. Respondent Rozen also mentioned a local credit union Connex that offers e-bike financing that includes the purchase of accessories.
    • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) stated that Brompton “has implemented Klarna financing in June 2022, we’ve noticed 29% of sales are from our Electric bikes.”


Question 10: How should DEEP define “maximum income eligibility” for e-bikes?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Jim Head, Kate Rozen.

    • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Kate Rozen) supported an approach that is an inclusive as possible.
    • Two respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head) mentioned favoring a mechanism similar to what exists for CHEAPR or other EV income eligibility requirements. One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) also supported an uncomplicated income verification process.


Question 11: Should DEEP seek to protect LMI participants from unfair or abusive finance terms? If so, how should DEEP do this?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Two respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen) supported coordination with the Department of Consumer Protection.
    • One respondent (Dante Pace) supported a broad protection structure inclusive of all participants and not limiting protections to LMI participants.
    • One respondent (Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) suggested the use of a contract/charter that prohibits deceptive practices.
    • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) shared alternative models that Brompton Bicycle offers (i.e. lease, subscription, inclusive servicing and repair packages).



Question 12: If DEEP utilizes a voucher program, what length of time should be selected for the voucher expiration date?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress).

    • Four respondents (Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan- Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) offered that a period of six (6) to twelve (12) months for voucher expiration would be sufficient. Additionally, two respondent (Dante Pace

,Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) recommended a reapplication process for unused vouchers.

    • One respondent (Dante Pace) also suggested a seasonal (fall/winter, spring/summer) voucher expiration period.


Question 13: How should vouchers be authenticated?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • Respondents offered numerous pathways for voucher authentication including:
      • a voucher database,
      • point of sale physical vouchers,
      • online voucher codes,
      • e-bike inventory/service vouchers,
      • non-authentication due to admin costs and lack of fraud,
      • QR codes,
      • through company workplaces, public sector, retailers, etc.


Question 14: What other data/information would inform the development of an E-bike incentive program?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, David Gutelius, Ethan Heywood, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Michael Romero, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

    • One respondent (Dante Pace) offered responses that generally touched on determining the universe of bike, e-bike, and public transportation users. Additionally, (Dante Pace) this response mentioned infrastructure considerations (i.e. car-centric development, minimum parking requirements, up-zoning of residential/commercial areas).
    • One respondent (David Gutelius) discussed offering a pathway for an automatic “opt-in” registry process for bikes/e-bikes into bike theft registries. The following registries were offered as examples: 1)https://bikeindex.org/ 2)https://project529.com/garage.
    • One respondent (Ethan Heywood) commented that, based on experience with CHEAPR, a more user friendly application and voucher receipt process with a step-by-step walkthrough would be beneficial and add transparency. Additionally, providing a resource to verify reputable e-bike retailers.



    • One respondent (Jim Head) encouraged the inclusion of e-cargo bikes (rentals, rent to own options) in conjunction with making bike storage facilities available. Also, e-bike maintenance programs (i.e. Velofix, AAA) should be considered.
    • Two respondents (Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost) emphasized that communication and feedback with individuals, customers, EJ communities, and retailers should be clear, concise and proactive to encourage program participation.
    • One respondent (Michael Romero) mentioned that e-bike conversions should be considered since many people have existing bikes that have the potential to be converted. A number of programs throughout the country offer similar incentives for conversions including Colorado, Vermont, and California (https://www.qualisports.us/blogs/news/ebike-rebates-and- incentives-programsin-the-usa). Additionally, he is a proponent of UL 2849 certified E-bikes as they a required to meet a more strict fire safety standard.
    • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) emphasized a focus on equity by making benefits either directed100% towards low income or utilized a sliding scale for the incentive by income.
    • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) offered that Brompton Bicycle is a participant of the UK Cycle to Work Scheme (i.e., program), a government initiative which offers a tax-free benefit as the most cost-effective way to purchase a bike. Although this was not applied to e-bikes at the time, regular bikes were incentivized for purchase by employees. Employees do not have to pay tax or national insurance on their bike purchase, which creates a discount, and this deducted from their paycheck over a 12 - 18 month period.


Additional Questions and Responses Related to E-Bike RFI

    • One respondent (Dante Pace) questioned whether a focus on economic rather than environmental justice obscures the real goal of programs similar to the E-bike program which is to get more people out of cars.
    • One respondent (Jan Tanner (Benidorm Bikes)) noted that in their capacity as a bicycle retailer they observe that e-bikes have been purchased for recreational as opposed to transportation use by customers. Additionally, customers have not indicated a need for an incentive and perhaps a focus on improving infrastructure to encourage more e-bike use for that purpose.
    • One respondent (Jay Gherlone) shared their experience that the likely location of e-bike users in areas that are unfriendly to bicyclists without designated bike lanes should be of concern. Though supportive of the e-bike program, efforts should be made to coordinate with DOT and local Police to increase automobile driver awareness of bicycles as well as e-bike owner safety awareness.
    • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) provided a number of resources for DEEP to consider from K Shankari, Chris Cherry, Dillon Fitch, and Josh Sperling.
    • Five respondents inquired about the current availability of e-bike rebates in response to the RFI.

Thursday, October 13, 2022

FHWA Awards Nearly $9 Million for Tribal Transportation Safety Improvements and Announces Additional $120 Million Available Thanks to President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

he U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announced that 51 Tribes will receive $8.9 million for 58 projects from FHWA for Fiscal Year 2021 to improve transportation safety. This new grant announcement comes in addition to $120 million to assist tribes in the coming years through the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund, made possible by the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and now available for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026. This combined funding will help fulfill the goals laid out in the Department’s National Roadway Safety Strategy announced earlier this year, which comes amid a troubling spike in roadway deaths of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists, particularly among Native Americans.

“At a time when Native Americans are more likely than any other group in our country to lose their lives in roadway crashes, these funds from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will help improve safety in Indian Country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

“There are projects that we know are the most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries and this historic funding opportunity aims to improve transportation safety in Tribal areas,” said Deputy Federal Highway Administrator Stephanie Pollack. “Simple changes like adding rumble strips, better lighting, or clearer stop signs can and will save lives in communities across the country. FHWA is ready to assist Tribal leaders in their work to make travel safer in Indian Country.”

The complete list of grant recipients for FY2021 is available at TTPSF FY2021 Grant Recipients.

The recipients announced today include 11 Tribes that have not previously participated in the program and will receive funding to develop their first-ever transportation safety plans.

Among the FY 2021 grant recipients are:

  • The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota will receive a $268,000 grant for lighting at 40 high-risk intersections.
  • The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation in South Dakota will receive $500,202 to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians by adding rumble strips, more permanent street markings, more pronounced stop signs with LED lights, and roadway departure countermeasures at two high risk locations.
  • The Navajo Nation in Arizona will receive a $981,402 grant to add safety features that can prevent drivers from driving off the road on high-risk routes.
  • The Native Village of False Pass in Alaska will receive a $12,500 grant to develop the Tribe’s first transportation safety plan.
  • The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Connecticut will receive a $7,500 grant to update its 2018 transportation safety plan.

This funding opportunity builds on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s efforts to improve the safety of our nation’s roadways for all road users, including through the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary grant program that will provide $1 billion in Fiscal Year 2022 to support regional, local, and Tribal plans, projects and strategies that will prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The Safe Streets for All program supports the Department’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and the goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on our nation’s roadway.

The President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides the largest funding ever in the history of the Tribal Transportation Program, which includes the safety fund, by increasing the total authorized from $2.4 billion under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act to $3 billion for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026.

Reflecting feedback from Tribal transportation leaders, under the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund program, Tribes can apply for funding at 100% federal share with no matching requirement to implement projects in four categories: transportation safety plans; data assessment, improvement, and analysis activities; systemic roadway departure countermeasures; and infrastructure improvements such as intersection safety improvements, shoulder widening and pedestrian or bicyclist safety improvements.

The TTPSF Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) announced today can be found at TTPSF Fiscal Years 2022-2026 NOFO. Additional information on how to apply for the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund NOFO and answers to frequently asked questions can be found at Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

To further assist the 574 federally recognized Tribes in addressing their transportation needs, FHWA has developed Transportation Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations, a brochure that provides information on new highway programs created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as existing highway and bridge transportation funding programs. Additionally, Tribal Bridge Program Questions and Answers are available online at TTP Bridge Q&A.


Save the Sound and the EV Club of CT respectfully submit the following written comments as part of the Annual Review of the Electric Vehicle Charging Program

Save the Sound and the EV Club of CT respectfully submit the following written comments as part of the Annual Review of the Electric Vehicle Charging Program – Year 2 in response to the Notice of Request for Written Comments issued by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on August 5, 2022. 

1. Provide comments on the EDCs’ proposed Level 2 EVSE Lease Program at MUDs, filed as Motion Nos. 3 and 4 in this proceeding, including but not limited to, each Companies’ established program parameters, pricing methodologies and proposed charges, and pricing for underserved customers. 

The United Illuminating Company (UI) proposes to establish a 5-year minimum leasing period, with an option to renew for a second 5-year term. At the end of a second consecutive lease term, ownership of the EVSE will revert to the customer. The schedule of monthly charges for various EVSE configurations is identical for baseline and underserved customers. Eversource has also proposed a lease program consisting of two consecutive 5-year leasing periods, with ownership reverting to the customer at the end of a second 5-yer lease. Unlike UI, Eversource proposes a lower monthly leasing rate for “underserved” customers installing EVSE located greater than 50 feet but less than 75 feet from electric service and for installations with four charging ports. 

 We recommend that the Authority investigate the opportunities available to United Illuminating to also offer a discounted rate for EVSE installations in underserved communities, as this serves one of the four main objectives of the EV Charging Program. Specifically, the Authority has stated that among the goals of the EV Charging Program is to “achieve an equitable transition to wide-scale EV deployment across all communities in Connecticut.”1 Providing additional support to encourage the deployment of EVSE at MUDs in underserved 

2. Provide comments on Eversource’s and UI’s Motion Nos. 8 and 9 in this proceeding, which include the following program proposals pursuant to Order No. 12 of the Final Decision: a. Proposed solution for offering an EV-only tariff within the Residential MUD Level 2 Charging Program that adopts a model similar to San Diego Gas & Electric’s “Power Your Drive” program; 

As noted by both Eversource and United Illuminating, the original design of the SDG&E “Power Your Drive” program relied on a complex rate mechanism tied to day-ahead hourly energy prices that did not provide substantial benefit over a less complex EV TOU rate structure to encourage off-peak vehicle charging. After an evaluation of the program, the California PUC made the following modifications to the PYD EV charging program: 

 EVSE only owned by the utility if the MUD is in an underserved community. 

 Site hosts pass the underlying time-variant price signals to customers, with the option to offer customized pricing.

  “Rate-to-Host” EVSE owners offering customized pricing to drivers were ordered to work with the utility to ensure desired charging behaviors and to reduce adverse impacts to the grid.

It is unclear what a “customized pricing” option would look like in Connecticut and what ultimate price drivers might be charged for a session. If the goal is to ensure that vehicles are charging during off-peak periods, allowing a custom pricing arrangement (without parameters or guardrails) could easily frustrate this purpose. Generally, the simpler the program is for customers to understand and access, the more successful it is likely to be. Under a MUD managed charging program there would also seem to be some need for caution in permitting MUD site hosts to set pricing for EV charging. This discretion could both negate other price signals encouraging off-peak charging or seek to charge unreasonably high rates to MUD residents as a “captive” market for the on-site EVSE, negating the benefit of convenient “at-home” access to charging.

While site-hosts should be compensated for the costs of installing and maintaining EVSE (to the extent not covered by program incentives), the Authority should consider if the pricing for the charging itself should be the mechanism to recover that. Perhaps MUD residents who wish to access the EVSE could pay a small monthly or annual fee to access that particular amenity, with the charging itself being a straight pass-through cost based on the utility-set TOU rate. Equity concerns should also be considered with respect to the management of EVSE at MUDs in underserved communities. b. Proposed key program parameters and a suggested timeline for implementation of a managed charging program at participating MUDs; and Given the above considerations, and potential variety in approaches even under the MUD managed charging proposal set forth by the CT EDCs, it would seem that the suggestion of beginning with a managed charging pilot program to field test site host capabilities and tenant charging behavior is sound. We would suggest, however, that such a pilot be implemented as soon as possible in order to be able to apply lessons learned in a timely and effective manner. Specifically, and in contrast to the recommendation by the EDCs, we would urge that the pilot program be implemented prior to the second half of 2023.


CONTACT SAVE THE SOIND FOR THE REST OF THEIR COMMENTS 

Saturday, October 8, 2022

ACES UP - Electric Vehicle Opportunities for School Districts



ACES Up is a peer-to-peer school bus electrification support offered by Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES), the regional education service center for 25 school districts in south central Connecticut.  
ACES UP is rolling out a network of dedicated EV chargers, and provides grant application, design & installation, and solar & storage solutions for school districts across Connecticut to support the statewide deployment of electric school bus transportation.

FISCAL YEAR 2022 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE PROGRAM WIDE FUNDING


This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) seeks research projects to address priorities in the following areas: the cost-effective deployment of EV charging for those without easy home charging; innovative solutions to improve mobility options for underserved communities; community engagement to accelerate clean transportation options in underserved communities; batteries and electrification; materials technologies; energy-efficient commercial off-road vehicle technologies; medium/heavy duty vehicle corridor charging and advanced engine and fuel technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions.

DOCUMENTS

APPLICATION FORMS AND TEMPLATES

The following forms and templates may be used as part of the application submission. Note that these forms and templates do not necessarily constitute all the documents required for a complete application. Please refer to the 'Application and Submission Information' of the published announcement to learn more about the required application content requirements.

View Application Forms and Templates

CONTACT INFORMATION

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)

Responses to questions are posted to the FAQs webpage.

SUBMISSION DEADLINES

  • Concept Paper Submission Deadline: 9/1/2022 5:00 PM ET
  • Full Application Submission Deadline: 11/9/2022 5:00 PM ET
  • View Full Application Reviewer Comments Period: 11/9/2022 5:00 PM ET – 1/25/2023 5:00 PM ET

Thursday, October 6, 2022

CT Political Leaders Power Up for 10th Anniversary of State’s Premiere EV Charger Installer


-Lamont, Blumenthal and VIP’s Recognize Contributions of CT Electric Car Charging Systems-

WHO?: Ed Ingalls, owner of CT Electric Car Charging Systems, Governor Ned Lamont, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, State Senator Mattew Lesser, State Representative Gary Turco, State Representative Kerry Woods, Congressman John Larson’s representative and Newington Town Council Members, along with dignitaries from United Illuminating, Eversource and Capitol Clean Cities of Connecticut

WHAT?: Celebrate the 10th anniversary of Connecticut’s first electric vehicle (EV) charging station showroom and the company’s contributions to the growth and success of the state’s green energy industry. The star-studded lineup of legislators will discuss the past, present and future vision of an EV infrastructure, including:

  • Official ribbon cutting ceremony in conjunction with the Newington Chamber of Commerce and public announcement of the new company name and brand identity- CT Electric Car Charging Systems
  • Citation presentation
  • Updates from Connecticut’s two power companies – Eversource and United Illuminating
  • Extensive display of various EV models, including an electric van, and the ease of charging them with accelerated rapid-charge technology systems
  • Hamburgers, hotdogs, popcorn, cotton candy and other family-friendly refreshments

WHERE?: 72 Pane Road, Newington, CT

WHEN?: Saturday, October 22, 202211 AM to 1 PM

WHY?: Since its inception in 2012, CT Electric Car Charging Systems has installed more than 1,000 EV chargers for both home and business owners, as well as multiple municipalities, state agencies, colleges and universities and police departments. The pioneering company’s support is crucial to increase the number of stations across the state as part of the national goal to create a coast-to-coast charging network. For more information, visit www.ctelectriccar.com.

-###-