Data story: Key signals in EVs & charging ecosystems — city pilot results

Cities lead the EV transition, but approaches vary dramatically. Los Angeles deployed 10,000 public chargers through utility partnerships. Amsterdam achieved 90% home charging access through streetlight integration. Shenzhen electrified its entire 16,000-bus fleet in five years. Five data signals reveal what's working — and what other cities can replicate.

Quick Answer

Municipal EV programs succeed when they match infrastructure strategy to local conditions. Dense cities with limited parking (Amsterdam) prioritize on-street charging. Sprawling cities (Los Angeles) require corridor networks. Transit-first cities (Shenzhen) can electrify fleets faster than personal vehicles. Common success factors: utility partnership for grid planning, right-of-way access for deployment, and usage-based pricing to ensure sustainability.

Signal 1: Los Angeles — Utility-Led Public Charging

The Data:

• Deployed chargers: 10,000+ public ports (2024)
• LADWP investment: $85 million in infrastructure
• Charger utilization: 18% average (above breakeven)
• EV registrations: 320,000 in LA County (8% of vehicles)

What It Means:

Los Angeles demonstrates the utility-led model, where the municipal utility (LADWP) owns and operates charging infrastructure as a regulated asset.

Program Structure:

• Utility ownership: LADWP owns chargers, recovers costs through rates
• Site selection: Focus on equity zones and high-traffic corridors
• Pricing: $0.30/kWh for L2, $0.45/kWh for DCFC
• Grid integration: Managed charging with time-of-use incentives

Results:

• Fastest charger deployment among US cities
• 25% of chargers in disadvantaged communities
• 15% reduction in charging costs vs. commercial networks
• Grid integration avoiding $20M in infrastructure upgrades

Replicable Elements:

• Utility ownership enables rate-based cost recovery
• Equity requirements built into deployment targets
• Grid-aware site selection reduces infrastructure costs
• Managed charging shifts load to off-peak periods

Limitations:

• Requires municipal utility (not applicable to IOU territories)
• Public charger utilization lags private networks
• Customer experience complaints about payment and reliability

Signal 2: Amsterdam — On-Street Residential Charging

The Data:

• Public chargers: 12,500+ in city (highest density globally)
• Residents within 250m of charger: 90%+
• EV market share: 35% of new registrations
• Average utilization: 22%

What It Means:

Amsterdam solved the "no home charging for apartment dwellers" problem through systematic on-street deployment.

Program Structure:

• Demand-driven installation: Residents request chargers; city installs within 18 weeks
• Streetlight integration: Chargers integrated with lighting infrastructure
• Interoperability: All chargers accessible via any network operator
• Pricing: Market rates with competition among providers

Results:

• 90% of residents can charge within 5-minute walk
• No range anxiety barrier for apartment dwellers
• Private investment follows public infrastructure
• EV adoption rate 3x higher than Dutch average

Replicable Elements:

• Demand-driven model ensures utilization
• Right-of-way policy enabling curb access
• Interoperability requirements preventing lock-in
• Integration with existing street infrastructure

Limitations:

• High upfront public investment required
• Slower charging speeds (mostly L2)
• Ongoing maintenance and management burden

Signal 3: Shenzhen — Fleet Electrification Leadership

The Data:

• Electric buses: 16,000+ (100% of fleet)
• Electric taxis: 22,000+ (100% of fleet)
• Charging infrastructure: 40,000+ public chargers
• Deployment timeline: 5 years (2015-2020)

What It Means:

Shenzhen demonstrates that fleet electrification can precede and accelerate personal vehicle adoption.

Program Structure:

• Mandate-driven: City policy required 100% electric fleet
• Manufacturer partnership: BYD headquartered in Shenzhen
• Centralized charging: Depot-based charging for buses
• Financial support: Central and local subsidies covering 60% of vehicle cost

Results:

• World's first fully electric bus and taxi fleet
• 48% reduction in transport emissions
• 1.35 million tonnes CO₂ avoided annually
• Demonstration effect accelerating global bus electrification

Replicable Elements:

• Fleet mandates create guaranteed demand
• Depot charging simpler than distributed infrastructure
• Procurement power enables price negotiation
• Demonstration reduces technology risk perception

Limitations:

• Heavy subsidy dependence (not sustainable long-term)
• Manufacturing concentration created local advantage
• Command-economy approach not replicable in all governance models

Signal 4: Common Success Factors Emerging

The Data:

• Utility partnership: 85% of successful city programs involve utility coordination
• Right-of-way access: Cities with streamlined permitting deploy 3x faster
• Usage-based pricing: Programs with cost-reflective pricing achieve 40% higher utilization
• Equity requirements: 60% of US federal funding requires disadvantaged community deployment

What It Means:

Despite different contexts, successful city EV programs share common elements.

Critical Success Factors:

1. Grid Planning Integration: Cities that involve utilities early avoid costly grid upgrades. Los Angeles saved $20 million through coordinated site selection. Amsterdam's streetlight integration leveraged existing electrical capacity.

2. Streamlined Permitting: Permitting delays add 6-18 months to deployment timelines. Cities with dedicated EV permitting pathways (Seattle, San Francisco) deploy 2-3x faster than those without.

3. Interoperability Requirements: Proprietary networks fragment the market. Amsterdam's open access requirements ensure any driver can use any charger. California's new interoperability rules follow this model.

4. Pricing Sustainability: Free charging attracts users but isn't sustainable. Programs transitioning to cost-reflective pricing (including demand charges) maintain utilization while covering costs.

The Next Signal:

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) integration in city programs. Los Angeles and Amsterdam piloting V2G to use EV batteries for grid services — creating revenue streams to offset infrastructure costs.

Signal 5: Equity and Access Metrics Maturing

The Data:

• NEVI equity requirement: 40% of federal funding to disadvantaged communities
• LA equity deployment: 25% of chargers in disadvantaged areas
• Access disparity: Low-income neighborhoods have 60% fewer chargers per capita
• Multi-unit dwelling gap: 70% of apartment renters lack access to home charging

What It Means:

EV infrastructure risks replicating existing transportation inequities without intentional intervention.

Equity Dimensions:

• Geographic access: Charger proximity in all neighborhoods
• Affordability: Pricing accessible to low-income drivers
• Housing type: Solutions for renters and apartment dwellers
• Vehicle access: Used EV availability and financing

Leading Practices:

• LA Clean Tech Incubator: Community-based charging hubs in underserved areas
• New York City: Curbside charging prioritized in EV-light neighborhoods
• Minneapolis: Equity scores in charging site selection

Metrics to Track:

• Chargers per 1,000 residents by census tract income
• Average distance to nearest charger by neighborhood type
• Utilization rates in low-income vs. high-income areas
• Pricing as percentage of median household income

Action Checklist for Cities

• Assess existing charging infrastructure and gaps by neighborhood
• Engage utility on grid capacity and coordinated site selection
• Streamline permitting processes with dedicated EV pathways
• Establish interoperability requirements for public charging
• Set equity targets for charger deployment in underserved areas
• Evaluate fleet electrification opportunities (buses, municipal vehicles)
• Develop sustainable pricing strategy balancing access and cost recovery
• Plan for V2G integration in new infrastructure investments

FAQ

Which model is best for my city? It depends on housing density and parking availability. Dense cities with limited parking should prioritize on-street charging (Amsterdam model). Sprawling cities need corridor networks (LA model). All cities can pursue fleet electrification regardless of density.

How do cities fund EV infrastructure? Federal programs (NEVI, CFI) provide significant funding. Municipal utilities can rate-base investments. Private developers often co-invest with site hosts. Some cities use parking revenue or congestion pricing to fund infrastructure.

Should cities own chargers or rely on private networks? Hybrid approaches work best. Public ownership ensures coverage in underserved areas. Private networks serve high-demand locations profitably. Interoperability requirements ensure seamless user experience across both.

How do we ensure reliability? Establish uptime requirements in contracts or permits (target 98%+). Require real-time availability data reporting. Implement maintenance response time standards. Consider performance-based contracts with penalties for downtime.

Sources

1. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. "EV Charging Infrastructure Report 2024." LADWP, 2024.
2. City of Amsterdam. "Electric Mobility Implementation Plan." Amsterdam Municipality, 2024.
3. Shenzhen Transportation Bureau. "Electric Bus Fleet Performance Report." Shenzhen, 2023.
4. International Council on Clean Transportation. "City EV Infrastructure Comparison." ICCT, 2024.
5. US Department of Transportation. "NEVI Formula Program Guidance." DOT, 2024.
6. Rocky Mountain Institute. "Urban EV Infrastructure Blueprint." RMI, 2024.