To: From:

TLC Commissioners Ashwini Chhabra, Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning Omar Quintero, Policy Analyst Rodney Stiles, Policy Analyst Dawn Miller, Director of Research and Evaluation Greg Gordon, Policy and External Affairs Analyst 12/31/13 Nissan-TLC Electric Taxi Pilot Program 4-Month Report

Date: Re:

Electric vehicles (EVs) provide an exciting opportunity to "green" the taxi fleet because they produce zero tailpipe emissions and, even after accounting for emissions created while generating electricity, they produce lower overall emissions than gas-powered vehicles. Replacing a NYC gas-powered taxi with an EV taxi is equivalent to replacing 8 NYC personal vehicles with EVs, so the opportunity to improve NYC's air quality and carbon footprint through electric taxis is great. However, operating electric taxis requires some behavioral changes on the part of drivers and owners, so testing these vehicles in a real-world setting is essential to understanding what it would take to have a taxi fleet with a larger share of electric vehicles. In October 2011, the Commission approved a pilot program to test all-electric Nissan LEAF vehicles as NYC taxis. Through this program, up to six Nissan LEAF vehicles would be put into real NYC taxi service for up to one year. The goal of the pilot, which is ongoing, is to enable TLC, the taxi industry, and Nissan to discover the advantages and challenges of using electric vehicles as taxis. In addition to testing electric vehicles, the pilot is an opportunity to learn more about the charging infrastructure necessary to support not only electric taxis, but also to encourage individual EV ownership in New York City. In April 2013 (Earth Day), TLC announced the pilot launch. The first participant hit the road in June 2013. Currently, two owner-drivers remain engaged in the pilot program, and a third driver is in the process of having his home charger installed so that he can join the program. This report provides an explanation of the pilot implementation process thus far and provides some early pilot results. Background on Electric Vehicles and Chargers The Nissan LEAF is a fully electric vehicle. Unlike hybrids, which contain both an internal combustion enginefueled by gasolineand a battery to assist and extend the range of the vehicle, the LEAF operates solely on the electric battery and engine, with no internal combustion engine. The battery in the LEAF is much larger than those in hybrids, since the battery is 100% responsible for propelling the vehicle. The LEAF battery can store 24 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy. This energy is enough to give the vehicle a typical range of 75 miles.1 Range varies depending on a variety of factors, including weather, road conditions and how the vehicle is driven. This pilot has offered an opportunity to test an EV's range when the vehicle is put into regular operation as a NYC taxi.

http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/charging-range/

Instead of filling up with gasoline, the EV is powered by re-charging its large battery at designated EV charging stations. The driver plugs a nozzle from the charger into the electric vehicle, and energy transfers from the electrical grid to the vehicles battery. These stations are currently available in two main varieties: Level II Chargers: These chargers can charge a LEAF from empty to 100 percent in approximately 8 hours. For the pilot, each owner-driver and fleet participant received a complimentary Level II charger for at-home, overnight charging DC Fast Chargers: These chargers can charge a LEAF from empty up to 80 percent in about 30 minutes.2 In the pilot, these have been essential to enabling drivers to re-charge during their shifts.

Pilot Program Implementation Process Participant Selection: TLC assisted Nissan by advertising the pilot program to the taxi industry. This included holding information sessions at TLC's Beaver Street and Woodside facilities, sending out emails and industry notices, messaging drivers through the TPEP system, and posting on TLC's social media accounts. Interested applicants (which could be fleet owners or owner-drivers) submitted application forms to Nissan's LEAF pilot team, which they used to evaluate each candidate for program eligibility and select participants. TLC and Nissan offered various support to incentivize medallion owners to join the pilot program. This included: A new, fully hacked-up Nissan LEAF to use for free for one year A retirement extension on the medallion owner's existing taxi vehicle The opportunity to keep an existing taxi vehicle a Stand-by-Vehicle (SBV) so that the owner would be able to maintain revenue if the EV went out of service. This also enabled drivers who double-shift their vehicles drive the EV while allowing their 2nd-shift drivers to drive alternate shifts on the regular taxi vehicle. An exception to TLCs service refusal rules that allows drivers to decline to transport passengers (e.g., those with far destinations, such as Newark Airport) when doing so would lead them to run out of charge. A small stipend to owner-drivers to cover miscellaneous expenses incurred during the EV pilot. Charging credit to cover the costs of quick charging the LEAF for the first few months of the pilot program.

Although hundreds of drivers expressed interest initially, the population that was actually eligible to participate was much smaller. The relatively small number of applicants who were eligible was driven by (1) the requirement that the applicant own a medallion (many drivers without medallions applied), (2) the need for the applicant to have an off-street parking space where Nissan could install a level II charger, and (3) the need for the applicant to live close enough the Manhattan that he or she would not expend too much of his battery before he began picking up passengers.
2

Quick charging is only designed to recharge a battery to 80%. After the battery reaches an 80% state of charge, quick charging becomes very slow. EV drivers therefore rarely continue to remain at a quick charger after their EV batteries have reached an 80% state of charge.

After not finding enough eligible applicants in the first round of recruitment, TLC continued to reach out the industry to find additional applicants. After several rounds of recruitment from September 2012 to July 2013, one fleet medallion owner and two medallion owner drivers entered the program. Another owner-driver appears to be a promising applicant, and Nissan and TLC are working to bring him into the program. At this time, despite significant effort by both Nissan and TLC, not all 6 vehicles are assigned to medallion owners. Charger Installation: The EV taxis could not be put on the road until the necessary charging infrastructure was installed and operational. Nissan, the US Department of Energy , and TLC partnered to install level II and DC quick chargers to support the pilot. Installing level II chargers at each participant's home or fleet garage was a relatively straightforward process. Most homes and fleet garages can accommodate a level II charger. The greater challenge was finding sites for quick chargers. The difficulties TLC and Nissan experienced in installing quick chargers drove the long lag period between the Commission's approving the pilot program and pilot program launch. TLC, Nissan, and Con Edison worked together to identify possible site hosts for DC Fast Chargers based on location, available space, and adequate power supply. The overall goal was to find locations that would be close to where the majority of taxis perform trips, which is mostly in Manhattan south of Central Park. However, it was difficult to find properties that were convenient for drivers, met technical site requirements, and whose owners were interested in participating. After a lengthy site host recruitment and site evaluation process, we identified two viable sites with willing property owners: the Seward Park Co-op in the Lower East Side and Related Management (which owns the Manhattan Plaza Garage on West 42nd Street). Once the host sites had been identified, negotiations commenced between Nissan and the potential host sites. Formalizing legal contracts to host the chargers took much longer than initially anticipated, lasting over six months. Since electric vehicle charging is new to NYC, we believe that the additional time necessary to complete the contracts was due to issues of unknown liability issues and unknown costs related to installation, de-installation, and maintenance. However, the TLC was not directly involved in the negotiations between Nissan and two of the charger hosts (Seward Park and Related). TLC did serve as a liaison to help solve issues that were explained to the TLC when the negotiations stalled. Eventually, Seward and Nissan reached an agreement in October 2012, began construction, and installed the quick charger in January 2013. Related and Nissan reached an agreement in January 2013, with construction finishing in March 2013. Pilot Launch We ceremonially kicked off the pilot on Earth Day, April 22, 2013. One of the LEAF drivers picked up Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Yassky at Gracie Mansion and dropped them off at Rockefeller Center, where reporters were then able to photograph the mayor, interview the electric taxi driver, and speak with members of the pilot project team from Nissan. In the weeks following the official announcement of the pilot, the TLC played the role of liaison between the drivers, Nissan, TPEP providers, and insurance companies to make sure that the participants met all of the requirements, such as an operational TPEP system and vehicle insurance, to put the LEAFs into taxi service. The first owner-driver entered taxi service on June 12, 2013, followed by two fleet-owned vehicles later that month and a second owner-driver in July.

Participant Response to Pilot Throughout the pilot TLC has talked with participants about their experiences. Here is a summary of the feedback they have provided to us: Participant 1 (the first owner-driver to hit the road) He has been remarkably enthusiastic about operating an electric taxi and about participation in the pilot. He has received a great deal of attention from the media and passengers and has compared himself to a "billboard on wheels" generating buzz and excitement.3 He uses the LEAF as his primary taxi, rarely using his original conventional vehicle since starting the pilot. He has noted that the added attention from residents and passengers has translated into a noticeable an increase in tips.4

Participant 2 (owner-driver) He began driving in mid-July and has used the electric taxi as his primary vehicle, while using his conventional gas vehicle as a backup vehicle to supplement the number of miles he can drive in a shift. He enjoyed driving the electric taxi and sought to recruit two of his family members who are also taxi drivers to participate. Unfortunately, he has been out of operation since early August after a collision in the LEAF. Nissan is working to provide him with another LEAF so he can resume participation in the pilot. His return to the pilot has been further delayed by renovations he performed on his home that disrupted his home charger installation and will require re-installation work.

Although overall both owner-driver participants have had a positive experience thus far driving an EV taxi, they note some issues with the vehicle and adjustments they have had to make to accommodate this new type of vehicle: Sensitivity to weather: Drivers found that the use of air conditioning during particularly high temperature days does have some negative impact on the range of the LEAF. This is anticipated and consistent with normal operation of the vehicle. Limited range: As was anticipated by pilot program rules, the drivers have had to refuse passengers with farther destinations due to the limited range of these vehicles and the lack of a citywide quick charger network. In a broader EV rollout, we would need to have a larger network of chargers to enable drivers to fulfill typical service requirements. Dead-head trips: On the occasions when an electric vehicle does drop off passengers outside of Manhattan, the need to conserve vehicle range means that the driver is more likely to go straight back into Manhattan without a fare rather than risk losing range by looking for a passenger in the outer boroughs.

3 4

Communications between Nissan and the TLC. June 28, 2013. Ingram, A. (2013). One New York Cabbie Loves his Nissan LEAF Electric Taxi. Green Car Reports, Retrieved from http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085908_one-new-york-cabbie-loves-his-nissan-leaf-electric-taxi

Lack of customer service support from chargers: Chargers can break and malfunction. Although these incidents are rare, the times they have occurred during the pilot underscore the need for a charging network in which drivers are not reliant on just two quick chargers. In a broader EV rollout, we would need to implement a seamless protocol for alerting drivers when chargers are down and directing them to others that are nearby.

Both participants made behavioral changes to adapt to the EV, such as: Opting for local roads to increase the amount of energy generated from engine braking (which recharges the EV's battery). Avoiding steep roads and bridges to reduce energy spent. Waiting at street corners for fare opportunities to reduce cruising mileage. Starting shifts later in the day on hotter days to reduce energy draw from the A/C. Returning immediately to Manhattan after dropping off in the boroughs to reduce cruising. Swapping the LEAF vehicle with a conventional gas vehicle when charge runs low, reducing time spent waiting for vehicle to charge (only 1 driver does this).

Participant 3 (fleet owner and drivers) While the owner-drivers were able to adapt successfully the use of the electric vehicles as taxis, the fleet participant, which began providing electric taxi service in late June, found it more difficult to integrate the electric taxis into its operations and has left the pilot program. The fleet received two Nissan LEAF vehicles. Because Nissan did not want the LEAF double-shifted, we envisioned that the fleet could still double-shift its medallion (and therefore maintain revenue) by having the two LEAF vehicles "share" a medallion. We imagined that each vehicle would operate for one 12-hour shift per day, quick-charging mid-shift as needed, and then level II charge in between shifts. Interestingly, the fleet drivers adopted a different behavioral pattern. When a vehicle ran low on power, instead of quick-charging, the driver returned it to the quick charging station and swapped it for the other vehicle. They never returned the vehicle to the fleet garage for level II charging, relying exclusively on quick charging. Although the drivers liked the smoothness of the ride and the owner appreciated the reduced maintenance associated with an EV (e.g., no oil changes), the drivers and the fleet owner had the following comments on the vehicle and pilot: Drivers did not like waiting for the vehicles to charge. Of course, quick-charging is only meant to bring a vehicle to an 80% charge. However, not all drivers understood this initially and they were disappointed by how long it seemed to be taking to get to a 100% charge. The battery charges fairly quickly up to 80%, but after that point the speed of charging decreases. Driver education could help remedy this concern. Drivers did not like the limited range and would have preferred if the vehicle could complete a whole shift without recharging. They did not like having to turn down farther away fares, such as to airports, when the power level was too low to do the trip and return to a charger. The owner found it difficult to lease the vehicle out to drivers with the same regularity as conventional gas vehicles or hybrids. We think this is because whereas the owner-driver participants had made personal commitments to learning how to optimize use of the EV, fleet

drivers were understandably concerned about each shift's net revenue. They had less invested in the program, so when faced with an initially-steep learning curve, they were more inclined to revert to using a regular vehicle. Although they were saving money by not paying for fuel, it was not sufficient incentive for any of the drivers to go through the learning process necessary to become a successful EV operator. There were various mechanical issues, such as repeated replacements of the smaller battery that powers the TPEP system and other accessories that added to the fleet owner's workload. These were due to this being the first time TPEP firms had to work with fully electric vehicles. Proper installations have now been documented and should remove these issues going forward.

The fleet owner's assessment was that for EVs to work as fleet-operated taxis, ranges would need to be longer than those in the LEAF and charging would need to take place more quickly. Because vehicles with longer ranges and faster chargers are both available, there is reason for optimism. A different EV model that offers a longer range, coupled with a larger, faster charging network, could make this technology more workable in the NYC fleet taxi business model. Early Quantitative Findings from Pilot TLC has a wide variety of data sources, including TPEP trip-sheet data, charging station data, and Nissan vehicle logger data, to draw upon to evaluate the pilot program. In this preliminary report, we rely most heavily on Owner-operator #1, who has been participating in the pilot for the longest and has the most available data, and bring in information from other participants when possible. Based on analysis of data available from the first quarter of the pilot program, we have some preliminary findings: Vehicle Range: An EV's range is how far it can travel before needing to recharge. The owner-operators experienced a typical vehicle range of about 67 miles using 80% of the battery. This means that when a driver charges at home and starts with a battery with 100% charge, he can typically travel 71 miles before reaching a 15% state of charge and needing recharge. Owner-driver #1 typically needs to charge about 4 hours and 22 minutes into his shift. This range varied throughout the pilot. For example, during the hottest week the summer, which had an average daily high temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit, his range was typically 13 miles lower than it was in other periods. The best daily range he experienced was 80 miles using 80% of the battery. Conversely, the worst range experienced was 47 miles. Over the course of the pilot so far, his range has not appeared to improve. For example, his range was typically 71 miles per 0% to 80% charge in June whereas in August it was 67 miles. Time Spent Charging: Owner-operator #1 has the most consistent charging pattern. He typically charges overnight at his home on a level II charger and begins his shift with a full battery. Then he typically charges once per shift for 31 minutes. Only 4 times did he charge more than once in a shift. The fleet drivers did not remain in the pilot long enough to develop consistent patterns. However, in total they quick charged 74 times for an average duration of 23 minutes. The length

of charge and amount of energy per charge they consumed were lower than we see with the owner-drivers. This may reflect fleet drivers' range anxiety and tendency to return the vehicle to the quick charging station before its battery had drained significantly. Cost of Charging: Owner-operator #1 reports that he typically spends $4 per day on home electricity costs to charge his EV. Quick charging currently costs $7. Therefore with a pattern of charging once at home and once at a quick charger each shift, his typical fuel expenses are $11 per day. The cost of quick-charging was set at this rate as part of agreements between Nissan and the charger hosts. We do not currently know what a true market rate for charging would be. Range Anxiety: We have two primary indicators of range anxiety: driver willingness to leave the Manhattan Central Business District (where the quick chargers are located) and driver willingness to let the battery drain to relatively low levels. Driver willingness to leave Manhattan and perform long trips. TLC made an exception to its service refusal rules for the pilot by permitting drivers to refuse service based on destination if they could not drop the passenger off and return to a charging station without running out of charge. There is evidence that that the drivers did experience some trepidation about leaving the CBD. Whereas in comparable non-pilot periods Owner-operator #1 typically dropped off 17% of his passengers outside the Central Business District of Manhattan, during the pilot he only dropped off 7% in these areas. Whereas prior to the pilot his average trip length was 2.5 miles, during the pilot program, it was 2.1 miles. Patterns were similar for Owner-operator #2. Whereas prior to the pilot he dropped off 22% of his passengers outside the Central Business District of Manhattan, during the pilot he only dropped off 16% in these areas. Before the pilot his average trip length was 2.9 miles. During the pilot it was 2.4 miles. Driver willingness let the battery drain. On average, owner-operator #1 typically allowed his battery to drain to 18% state of charge (after driving approximately 68 miles) before quickcharging. However, the level to which he has allowed his battery to drain has varied. In June he typically allowed his battery to reach 23% state of charge before re-charging; however, in July he allowed it to reach 15%. We will continue to monitor his driving patterns to see if this is a reflection of reduced range anxiety as he became more accustomed to the vehicle. Owneroperator #2 typically allowed his battery to drain to 19% state of charge before quick-charging. We will continue to monitor his driving patterns to see if his range confidence increases over time. Driver Revenue: One important question to consider is whether drivers appeared to be able to earn an equivalent amount of revenue with the EV as they did with their non-EV taxis. Owner-operator #1 typically completed 2.2 trips per hour worked with his EV. In comparable periods when he was driving his regular taxi, he typically completed 2.35 trips per hour. Owner-operator #2 typically completed 2.4 trips per hour worked with his EV. In comparable periods when he was driving his regular taxi, he typically completed 1.8 trips per hour.

Due to the September 2012 fare increase, a straight comparison of revenue between pre- and post-pilot periods is not valid. By inflating pre-fare-increase revenues by 17% to make them more comparable with pilot period revenues, we find that per-hour revenues for Owneroperator #1 were approximately $32.50 per hour in the non-EV as compared to $31 per hour in the EV. For Owner-operator #2 the comparison was $28 in the non-EV as compared to $31 in the EV.

Next Steps TLC staff have identified several next steps for the EV pilot program: 1. Continue to support existing program participants as issues arise. 2. Continue to work with Nissan to try to on-board a 3rd owner-driver. 3. Work with Nissan to get Owner-driver #2, whose vehicle was in an accident and whose charger was disrupted during home renovation, back into the program. 4. Continue to collect quantitative and qualitative information, in cooperation with Nissan and the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Labs, to enable further evaluation of the pilot. The pilot will conclude by the end of August, 2014. Once we have obtained necessary information from our partners, we will compile a more comprehensive set of findings based on full-year data and will share them with you.