New NASEO, Cadmus policy impact guide allows jurisdictions to assess plug-in electric vehicle policies

Published on March 03, 2021 by Chris Galford


Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /var/www/dailyenergyinsider.com/wp-content/themes/dei/single.php on line 31

Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /var/www/dailyenergyinsider.com/wp-content/themes/dei/single.php on line 36
© Shutterstock

To kick off the month, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and consultancy firm Cadmus teamed up to create the Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Policy Impact Rubric, a self-assessment tool on which jurisdictions can weigh their PEV policies.

“The PEV Policy Impact Rubric is a helpful tool that State Energy Offices and others can use to assess the suite of light-duty PEV policies within their state, and identify what combination of PEV policies may be right for them,” David Terry, NASEO Executive Director, said. “We are pleased to offer this resource to states as they explore different ways to support electric vehicle adoption and work to advance their energy, climate, and economic development goals.”

The rubric was created to showcase the effects of PEV policy on larger adoption efforts. It organized PEV policies into 13 categories, further divided into three tiers based on their impact on light-duty PEV adoption. Tier 1 is the most impactful and direct policies: vehicle purchase incentives and adoption standards. Tier 2 and Tier 3 policies include policy approaches like support for charging station installation and education campaigns. Tier 1 brings the most to the table, but the others can still contribute to PEV adoption.

The point is to show policymakers that there is a wealth of paths and combination approaches for them to take for their own communities. State Energy Offices, local governments, utilities, and other stakeholders are all part of the target audience.

This report is an updated version of a rubric first released in 2018, modernized to reflect changes in PEV policy design. As they were not the focus of the report, it notably excludes other considerations often important to policy design: cost-effectiveness, political practicality, and co-benefits.