Scaling charging for parking-constrained customers

Key Findings

Demand Is Present; Charging Access Is the Constraint

Survey findings indicate a strong interest in EV adoption among PCCs, but the lack of practical near‑home charging options is a significant barrier. For example, among PG&E customers surveyed who do not yet own an EV, 72% indicate their next vehicle will likely be electric. This interest remains strong among those without dedicated off-street parking, with 65% reporting the same intention. Where near‑home options exist (multifamily‑oriented solutions, neighborhood public charging, or charging hubs), PCC adoption barriers can be meaningfully reduced.

The Largest PCC Need Is Concentrated in Multifamily Property Types

Parking constraints are most commonly associated with MFH and condo properties, which means that solutions targeted at MFH properties are central to scaling. In PG&E’s service territory, more than 17% of light‑duty vehicles (LDVs) are associated with MFH, and nearly all PCC‑driven vehicles, about 98%, are tied to MFH residents, concentrating the charging‑access challenge in apartments and condos rather than SFH. In addition, over half of high‑PCC households (those with no on‑site parking) are located in low‑income census tracts, elevating both equity and affordability challenges.

Equity Gaps in Charging Access Persist and Should Guide Future Siting and Design

Disadvantaged and low‑income communities often face compounded barriers, lower feasibility of home charging, fewer convenient public options, and greater sensitivity to price and reliability. Equity outcomes improve when projects explicitly prioritize these areas and track whether benefits (e.g., sessions, access, pricing) are reaching intended residents. The studies summarized in this report show that disadvantaged community (DAC) neighborhoods have 64% to 73% fewer public charging stations per capita than non‑DAC areas, experience lower reliability and longer wait times, and depend more public DC fast charging, which is typically more expensive than residential EV charging rates (approximately 66% higher than home charging), because home charging is rarely available.

Soft Costs and Process Uncertainty Frequently Determine Speed to Deployment

Across interviews and benchmarking, soft costs, particularly permitting, design iteration, PROW approval pathways (including dual permits), ADA integration, and multi‑agency coordination, are the primary drivers of delay and cost escalation, making process improvements as important as infrastructure investment. Staffing constraints, non‑standardized permitting processes, and lengthy energization reviews further contribute to schedule risk. Variations across more than 40,000 AHJs and more than 3,000 utilities across the U.S. lead to inconsistent permitting and interconnection timelines, while PG&E energization timelines, especially under EV Power Ready (Rule 29), often define the critical path.

No Single Solution Fits All PCC Conditions

Solutions vary meaningfully by built environment, power availability, total cost to deploy and operate, community needs, and governance context, as outlined below. While multiple technology solutions can serve parking‑constrained customers, smart outlets are generally best suited for medium‑constrained settings, whereas the remaining solutions, while applicable to some medium‑constrained cases, are most critical for serving high‑constrained customers without access to on‑site parking.

• EV charging smart outlets: Smart outlets are intelligent, network‑connected sockets that let MFH property owners offer controlled, metered, and user‑friendly level 1 (L1) and/or level 2 (L2) charging without installing full EV charging stations. These smart outlets often provide the lowest cost solution. In medium‑PCC MFH settings, smart outlets can share circuits/daisy‑chain to defer panel upgrades and expand access with less design and permitting friction. Sites may still need make‑ready work, especially when attempting to electrify beyond a small handful of parking spots and must address bring your own cord (BYOC) interoperability, California Type Evaluation Program (CTEP) certification, and basic operations and maintenance (O&M)/parking policies.
• Streetlight charging: Defined as pole‑mounted L2 charging drawing power from existing streetlight circuits, provides near‑home access for medium‑ and high‑PCC customers by reusing poles and electrical service, often avoiding trenching and new utility service work. When circuit voltage, ownership, tariff design, and metering align, it can be the lowest‑disruption, most cost‑efficient PROW option; however, scalability is highly condition‑dependent in PG&E service territory due to non‑standard voltages, fragmented ownership, metering/tariff constraints, PG&E Greenbook requirements, ADA siting needs, and O&M/vandalism risks. Early programs in other jurisdictions demonstrate feasibility at scale within their unique market conditions (e.g. LADWP as a municipal utility and the UK’s Highways Act of 1980 mandating local authority responsibility for the streetlight system), as Los Angeles has deployed approximately 750 pole‑mounted chargers, and UK lamppost schemes (ORCS/LEVI) have expanded rapidly, but remain untested in PG&E’s service territory.
• Curbside charging: Involves pedestal-mounted L2 chargers installed in the PROW, can be fed from either an adjacent building’s service (this is rare, as many buildings will not have excess capacity to support EV charging in the PROW) or a new dedicated utility service (the more common solution), extends near‑home access in dense areas, and is often the only practical option for high‑PCC neighborhoods without on‑site parking. When delivered through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) or other concession‑style models, which refer to delivery approaches where public agencies grant private entities the right to finance, install, and operate charging infrastructure, typically with defined performance, pricing, and equity requirements over time, curbside charging can improve equitable coverage but typically carries higher costs than streetlight charging due to the often-necessary PROW make‑ready infrastructure. Similar to streetlight charging, curbside charging also often entails dual permitting (e.g., electrical and encroachment permits), ADA requirements, multi‑agency coordination needs, metering and enforcement challenges, and O&M/security issues.
• Community charging hubs: Neighborhood‑scale clusters of L2 and/or high‑power direct current fast chargers (DCFC) placed near everyday amenities offer reliable, 24/7, near‑home options for medium‑ and high‑PCC areas where on‑site charging is limited, serving as anchors for equitable access in PCC‑dense corridors. Compared with streetlight or curbside solutions, hub-based deployments concentrate throughput and simplify operations but typically require higher upfront capital. These costs are driven by to-the-meter (TTM) upgrades, including potential distribution capacity upgrades, and the need for enhanced security. As a result, soft costs and EV Power Ready (Rule 29) energization timelines often define the critical path. Recent examples, including IONNA’s San José Rechargery (eight DCFC, up to 400 kW), Revel’s Mission District site in San Francisco (12 DCFC, up to 320 kW), and Gravity’s NYC DEAP center (24 stalls, up to 500 kW using building capacity), demonstrate feasibility and user appeal while reinforcing the need for standardized designs, PPP/concession‑style agreements, and clear utility‑AHJ workflows to scale.

Equity Considerations Must Guide PCC Charging Deployment

In the absence of near‑home charging options, PCCs disproportionately rely on public DC fast charging for their primary charging needs, which is substantially more expensive than home charging and more prevalent in non‑DAC areas, undermining affordability and equity and eroding the total cost‑of‑ownership advantage of EVs. Historic redlining, zoning, and infrastructure disinvestment have concentrated PCCs in DACs, where environmental burdens and health risks are already highest. These neighborhoods also tend to have older building stock and outdated electrical infrastructure, which increases make‑ready costs and complicates MFH retrofits relative to SFHs. At the same time, DAC residents rely most on public charging yet remain the least served, facing fewer chargers per capita, lower reliability, and longer wait times, which elevates cost and undermines confidence in EV ownership.