Key findings from 2024 California transportation electrification programs report

Discover program impacts, challenges, and opportunity areas

Read more about Cadmus’ evaluation of the utility-led charging infrastructure programs across California.

These efforts evaluate nearly $750 million in investments—making this the most comprehensive look yet at how utility programs are helping move the state toward widespread EV adoption.

The report presents a comprehensive review of program performance, key outcomes, lessons learned, and recommendations to strengthen future deployment efforts. It spans technical and financial analysis, offering a roadmap for how to align EV charging infrastructure advancement with California’s ambitious climate, air quality, and transportation goals.

What’s next?

This blog post features a series of key findings from the latest evaluation report. Stay tuned for more highlighted topics in the coming weeks.

And many thanks to our supporting partners at NREL, UC Davis, ZMAssociates, and Energetics.

About our dataset

Our findings are based on a robust dataset that includes:

  • 3 utility programs (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E) investing nearly $700M in MDHD charging infrastructure (2018–2026)
  • 219 activated MDHD sites as of Dec 2024, with sites ranging from 40 kW to 12,000 kW of installed capacity and 2 to 258 ports
  • 3,540 ports with full 15-minute charger (AMI) data allowing us to understand charging patterns
  • Monthly customer bills for all sites allowing us to estimate an effective $/kWh
  • 95% in-person site visit coverage allowing us to understand fleet decision making, site design, and vehicle operations
  • Fleet manager surveys, site host interviews, withdrawal site interviews, and 10 Delphi panels with 8–12 experts each allowing us to triangulate findings
  • ~2,000 deployed vehicles across school buses, transit, eTRUs, medium-duty delivery, heavy-duty freight, drayage, and forklifts

Topic 2: Roadblocks to MDHD vehicle electrification

Summary

Of the ~2 million Class 2b-8* commercial and government fleet vehicles in California, 13,000 were fully electric at the end of 2024—0.7% of all vehicles in the stateThis number includes vehicles like work trucks, delivery vans, school buses, transit buses, and forklifts, but excludes household vehicles (see Class 2b sidebar below on why). So, what’s holding back medium-duty and heavy-duty (MDHD) electrification? We addressed this question in our recent Evaluation Report of the three large utility make-ready programs in California.  

Please reach out to our team if you would like to find out more or share your insights on barriers to MDHD electrification. 

Background 

Each year, about 100,000 new Class 2b-8 vehicles are sold in California. MDHD electric vehicle (EV) sales took off in 2022, corresponding with the rise of Class 2b EVs like the Rivian R1T, Rivian R1S, and Ford F-150 Lightning. Fast forward to 2024 and you see a continued rise across all vehicle classes, but especially Class 3-8. Overall, the state saw a 6.5% EV sales share among Class 2b-8 in 2024.

What we found 

Is the 13,000 cumulative MDHD EV sales a success for the Golden State? When you look back at goals set 5+ years ago, fleets in the state are behindIn 2018-2019, a goal was set for three major utility programs to provide make-ready infrastructure for 1,800+ sites by 2026As a result of supply chain issues, COVID and other factors, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has since revised the site goal down to a total 1,175, which still may not be achieved – though some individual utilities are on pace to meet targets.  

This begs the question: what’s hindering EV adoption among MDHD fleets?  Here are a few reasons we explore in our latest Evaluation Report: 

  • Program design  California utility make-ready programs require fleets to electrify at least 2 vehicles. We estimate that 84% of fleet vehicles in California are in fleets with 2+ vehicles, thereby ruling out 16% of vehicles. Additionally, based on interviews with utility staff and fleet managers, some fleets do not adopt EVs because the programs require union laborEVSE must be selected from the approved product lists, and an agreement for fleets to maintain the chargers for at least 10 years. 
  • Land ownership barriers  Many fleet operators do not own their facility, causing difficulty in installing charging. A 2020 survey conducted by CARB on MDHD fleets (limited to those under the Advanced Clean Fleet rules) estimated that 44% of fleets leased the facility at which they parked their vehiclesOf those with leases, 50% of fleets had leases for less than 10 years, reducing the fleet’s appetite to invest in new charging infrastructure.  
  • Private residence parking  The 2020 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Vehicle in Use Survey (VIUS) shows that about 10-15% of vehicles in the Class 4-8 categories are parked at private residences overnight. This means those vehicles would need charging infrastructure at home and makes them ineligible for traditional fleet-oriented make-ready programs.  
  • Uncertainty around the longevity of OEMs and EVSE firms Multiple fleet manager interviewees stressed that long charging projecdevelopment and energization timelines pose a financial risk to their organization because of the high number of charger and vehicle suppliers who go out of business. In our latest Evaluation Report, we showed that energization timelines are around three years between when a site applies to the utility program and when the chargers are activated 
  • Uncertainty around regulations – In fleet manager surveys conducted during our evaluation, many survey respondents reported being in a “wait-and-see” mode as the Advanced Clean Truck regulation is litigated. Knowing how and when compliance will be required is a major influence on fleet manager behavior. 
  • Economic barriers  We show the cost of purchasing electric MDHD vehicles is still much higher than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles—ranging from about 50% to 200%—with smaller size classes being closer to parity 
*What are Class 2b vehicles?

Class 2b vehicles can be a confusing vehicle categoryThese vehicles—defined as 8,501 to 10,000 lbs.include larger pickup trucks and vans, such as the Ford F-150 Lightning Extended Range, Ford F-250Chevy Silverado 2500, and the Tesla CybertruckThe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) calls them light-duty vehicles, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls them heavy-dutyIn California, Class 2b vehicles account for about 30% of all MDHD vehicles, so they are important as electrification strategies as designedThe big caveat with Class 2b is that an estimated 50% of them are household vehicles and park in a garage or driveway instead of a depot or other fleet-owned parking spotThis means the types of utility and government-led charging programs can vary widely. 

Topic 1: Costs of installing medium/heavy-duty depot charging

Summary

Electric trucks and buses are rolling out across the U.S.—from rural package delivery hubs to busy urban transit depots. However, few reliable sources assess the costs of installing the charging infrastructure for these fleets—costs that are born by either the electric utility, site host, and/or fleet. That’s where our work comes in.

Cadmus and Energetics lead the largest 3rd-party evaluation in the country of medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle charging—an evaluation that encompasses over 60% of California’s Class 3 to 8 electric vehicles as of the end of 2024.

What we found

In our latest report, we analyzed data from 150 MDHD charging sites across California. These sites vary widely in size, location, and vehicle type. Here are some key takeaways:

  • Cost per kW decreases as site capacity (in kW) increases along a predictable curve (see graph)
  • MDHD charging sites cost an estimated $800,000 to $1,000,000 per site, including labor and equipment for utility-side upgrades, customer-side upgrades, and EVSE.
  • Small sites with limited upgrades are as cheap as $35,000 per site. The largest sites with 5+ MW of capacity can be $3 to $4.5 million per site.
  • As shown in the graph, L2 and DCFC chargers follow similar cost curves for utility-side upgrades (left graph) but diverge on the customer side—DCFC ports are generally cheaper per kW to install.
Utility-side (TTM) Upgrade Costs
Customer-side (BTM) Upgrade Costs