The EcoBlock concept aims to decarbonize neighborhoods by providing flexible, sustainable, and low-cost mobility options that complement existing transportation systems, which make up the single largest source of carbon emissions in California. Recent innovations in renewable energy systems and electric and non-motorized mobility are advancing the possibilities for community-based decarbonization. These efficient strategies can help lower utility costs for residents while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Although the Oakland EcoBlock pilot was not able to implement the candidate mobility strategies, the results of our analysis and investigation, as well as documentation of the challenges we ran into, will be useful for future community decarbonization programs.
- Strategies Considered for the Oakland EcoBlock
- Electric Vehicle (EV) Carshare
- Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS)
- Permanent Curbside EVCS
- EV Metering
- Permitting & Interconnection
- Temporary EVCS
- In-Home EV Charging Circuits
- Electric Scooters & Bicycles
- Lessons Learned
Strategies Considered for the Oakland EcoBlock
While the team tried to prioritize the most effective strategies for the Oakland EcoBlock, the strategies below represent additional possibilities for future projects, depending on available resources and project context.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Carshare
The original EcoBlock concept included a provision for neighborhood shared EVs to permit residents (especially low-income) to access low-carbon vehicles without needing to purchase, insure and maintain an expensive EV on their own. For the Oakland EcoBlock pilot, the team investigated installing a single, shared-use EV on the block with the possibility of adding a second EV, such as a pickup truck or small SUV, in the future. The availability of these low-carbon vehicles would allow households to eliminate their second car or defer a new or used vehicle purchase.
The shared EV was intended to be available to participating residents on a reservation basis and for an hourly fee that covered the costs of operation, maintenance, and insurance while generating modest revenue for the block. The EV would be managed by a third-party carshare program whose membership-based model would allow residents to reserve and pay for the EV through a dedicated mobile app; those without access to a smartphone would sign up through a separate Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) card system.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS)
Permanent, Curbside EVCS
The shared-use EV would be powered by a curbside EVCS, which would improve overall charging accessibility for the block.
Initial Design
The team planned to install a dual-port, Alternating Current (AC) Level 2, curbside charger in front of one of the participating EcoBlock properties. The selected model was visually appealing, cost-effective, and would provide sufficient power for the block. The vendor also offered a data plan that tracks EV usage and provides a monthly data report based on user IDs to facilitate billing for charging and revenue sharing for the EcoBlock Community Association.
Final Design
Due to budget and permitting constraints around EVCS metering and installation, the team later pursued a single-port, “bring-your-own-cable,” AC Level 2, curbside charge solution. Unlike typical EV charging systems, which incorporate the charging cord with the charger, this option keeps the charging cord with the vehicle, minimizing the potential for vandalism and visual impact on the block.
The proposed charger would be located at the curbside in front of one of the participating properties; and would be fully owned, installed, and operated by the vendor, at no cost to the EcoBlock property owner. Although the charger would be powered by a dedicated electrical circuit from the host property, the power for that circuit would be sub-metered and the resident would be reimbursed by the vendor for the cost of the power to charge the EV. The EV charging rates would cover installation and insurance costs, as well as generate profit for the block; there would be no fee structure (hidden or later costs) for the homeowner. The vendor’s business model was designed to assume low EV utilization in the first few years of deployment and net out as adoption grows.
EVCS Access & Use
The original plan was to limit EVCS access to the EcoBlock participants. However, since the EVCS would be installed in the public right-of-way, it was important to adhere to the City of Oakland’s requirements around “public” use. As such, the team considered expanding EVCS access and implementing differential rates for different groups (e.g., EcoBlock participants vs. non-participants; all EcoBlock residents vs. non-EcoBlock residents). The team also looked into the credit card reader capability of the selected charger—this is technically required under the California Air Resource Board (CARB)’s Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Standards Regulation, and pending approval of Assembly Bill (AB)-591, may involve stronger enforcement. At any rate, the team planned to directly compensate the EcoBlock Community Association for the additional energy use associated with the EVCS.
EV Metering
Initial Design
The curbside EVCS would be powered by an EV meter that connects to PG&E’s distribution system. The team evaluated several designs, including installing a new EV meter either in the public right-of-way (ROW) or on private property. However, the team chose not to pursue these options due to the potential for vandalism, high trenching costs, and technical constraints involving installing underground wiring for the EVCS beneath existing overhead distribution lines.
Final Design
Due to budget and permitting constraints, the final design involved installing a new, dedicated submeter on the existing electrical panel at a participating property, trenching to the street, and installing a bring-your-own-cable, single-port, AC Level 2 curbside EV charger in the public ROW.
The vendor would install an outdoor-rated enclosure for the submeter. With respect to the increased electric service required to accommodate the charger, the vendor’s business model streamlines the process by eliminating the need for direct utility coordination; the vendor conducts a panel inspection with a licensed electrician to ensure compliance instead.
Using the customer’s utility account number, the vendor would pay the additional submeter costs to PG&E directly, eliminating any notion of an “outlay” of costs from the customer, who would not see an increase in their monthly electricity bill. The revenue share associated with EV charging would come in either as a direct deposit or credit on the customer’s bill; the vendor would work this out with PG&E. For the Oakland EcoBlock, the aim is for the solar generation credits under the NEM 2.0 tariff to cover the participants’ bills. In this case, the revenue share would likely come as a direct deposit payment rather than additional credits allocated under NEM 2.0.
Permitting & Interconnection
The team submitted the design for the curbside EVCS and meter to the City of Oakland’s Department of Transportation (OakDOT). However, the permit review was put on hold as the city was developing codes and processes around EVCS implementation in the public ROW. As such, any associated applications, including the PG&E new electric service application for the dedicated EV service meter, were paused as well.
Temporary EVCS
The team considered powering the shared EV with a temporary EVCS until the permanent, curbside EVCS was available. An energy management system would connect the interim charger to the existing main electrical panel at a participating EcoBlock property; the charger itself would be installed in the homeowner’s garage and be available for all participants to use. There would be no need to install a new electric meter, and the team would compensate the homeowner for additional electricity use associated with the charger.
In-Home EV Charging Circuits
In addition to constructing a dedicated curbside EV charging station, the EcoBlock team also explored the option of pre-wiring circuits for EV chargers in each of the homes, to provide future charging capability in the garage or driveway of that home. To accommodate this option, an EV charging circuit was assumed in each home’s electrical load calculation, which was performed to determine the need for a main panel upgrade. The EV circuit was assumed to be 8,000W with a 30-amp breaker at 240-volt service, with no load management.
In many cases, the addition of the EV charging circuit required an upgrade to the main load panel. To avoid this impact in the future, there are more options now in the National Electrical Code (NEC) to allow load management for EVs, either through smart modulation of the EV charge current or through circuit sharing, where the EV charger can be completely interrupted when a shared load (such as a dryer) is operated. These circuit sharing devices can be configured either as hardwired devices at the panel, or as plug-in devices at the load end of the circuit. In many homes, the appliances that would be good options for circuit sharing are not located nearby, which often requires the hardwired option for circuit sharing. Another approach to mitigate the impact of EV charger circuits on the main panel is to use a smaller circuit, either 15 or 20 amps, which provides somewhat slower charging at lower peak loads.
Electric Scooters & Bicycles
E-scooters and e-bikes are powered by an electric motor and run on batteries that need to be charged regularly, either in special charging stations or through off-site charging if rented through a private company. ck.
The EcoBlock team explored several options for installing e-scooters and e-bikes on the block:
- Option 1: Publicly available e-scooters and e-bikes would be rented from private companies. The company would visit the EcoBlock neighborhood and pick up the bikes for servicing, such as for charging and maintenance of a flat tire.
- Option 2: A private e-charging station that is only open to members of the Oakland EcoBlock would be installed on the block.
- Option 3: An open-access e-charging station with designated docking space would be installed on the block.
The team considered several locations for the e-scooter and e-bike docking and charging station that had a minimal impact on existing parking on, and traffic to, the block. Possible sites included (1) an existing corner parking lot or (2) the front of an existing commercial property toward the front of the block.
The team decided to no longer pursue this strategy as there was no suitable curbside space for an e-scooter and/or e-bike docking station on the block. Furthermore, as of 2022-2023, the City of Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT) was already working with three permitted operators—LINK, VeoRide, and Lime—to provide shared e-scooters throughout the city.
Lessons Learned
- City and utility policies need to be clarified and streamlined for curbside EV chargers.
- Oakland requires a “major encroachment” permit for doing any work (such as trenching) or adding an EVCS in the public right-of-way, which led to significant costs and delays.
- The project had difficulty determining who should control the meter and pay the electric bill (i.e., an individual property owner, the block association, or the EV rideshare company).
- The owner of the EV charger is responsible for maintaining the electrical lines between the meter and the charger, so the distance between these two devices affects the cost of installation and possibly future maintenance costs. This distance also raises a concern about how to mark the lines in the public right-of-way to avoid disruption from future construction.
- It is not currently financially viable to operate a shared-use EV limited to use only by block residents.
- Third party EV operators cannot profitably operate small numbers of vehicles with a small pool of potential customers.
- The alternative of one to two EVs managed by the block residents without a dedicated vehicle operator is also challenging because of the insurance issue—regardless of the ownership arrangement, the car has to be insured by some entity, which is then exposed to all of the risk for a shared-use arrangement. There is not currently a model for a homeowner’s association to carry liability insurance for a shared vehicle.
- Uncertainty about the future usage of a shared use EV(s) made it difficult to forecast the car-share revenue and how well this would cover system costs.
- Additional study is needed to assess the viability of shared EVs in different settings (such as neighborhood density and resident income levels) with different revenue models, and with varying levels of public subsidy for low-income residents.
- EcoBlock residents had mixed opinions about hosting a shared-use EV on the block.
- When surveyed, a majority of EcoBlock residents said they were willing to give up their second household vehicle if a shared EV were easily available, which indicates a real potential to reduce carbon emissions with this strategy.
- However, there are several barriers to creating a system for easily parking and charging a shared EV. Residents on the block are reluctant to give up parking spot(s) for a shared EV charging place, given the limited street parking in the neighborhood. At the same time, municipal rules around public right of way parking spots prevent reserving a spot adjacent to a curbside charger for exclusive use of the shared EV.
- More experience with shared EVs is needed so block residents can better understand the tradeoffs involved with this form of mobility.
- Low-power electrification strategies should be used to avoid main panel upgrades caused by in-home EV chargers.
- As described above, a new, full-power EV charging circuit was often the trigger that caused a panel upgrade to comply with the electrical code. By using low-power strategies, such as circuit splitters or load management controls, it would have been possible to avoid many of the panel upgrades that were needed in the pilot EcoBlock.
Additional Resources
Explore other EcoBlock strategies:
