TP on market barriers.  However, attributing changes to the ARFVTP is  complicated by
the fact that there are a number of other factors, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard ( LCFS) ,
Renewable Fuel Standard ( RFS), zero-emission vehicle (ZEV ) pro


ere are aspects of it that are
informed or con strained by other factors that extend beyond the scope of our evaluation.
In particular, by design, the program supports the development of multiple alternative fuel
types.  We take this position as


pacts of ARFVTP on the barriers to market
viability in the five fuel types —hydrogen, electricity, diesel substitutes, gasoline substitutes,
and natural gas and biomethane, respectively —drawing bot h on the survey results and on other
information


P ) and solicits
applications and makes awards.  It also examines CEC performance in administering awards.
Understanding the process can both help shed light on the results of  the outcome evaluation
and help identify recommendations for improvin


d other directives.
For instance, Executive Order S -3-0518 sets a long -term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and Executive Order B -30-1519 sets an interim goal of
reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40 pe


program ’s barrier reduction goals.23 In 2011 , AB 1314 clarified that each year’s plan can be an
update on earlier plans.24 Thus, while CEC  must publish a plan every year , it need not start the
planning process anew each time.
According to CE


n shall create and consult with an advisory body as it develops the
investment plan and that the commission shall approve the plans.25 Typically, there are 25
advisory board members who represent the  viewpoints of consumer, industry, and stakehold


isory committee meeting and p ublic workshop
April 8, 2015 : Energy commission business  meeting
November 12, 2014 : Advisory committee meeting and p ublic workshop
2016– 2017 November 6, 2015 : Advisory committee meeting and p ublic workshop


ojects. While a systematic evaluation of the merit review process was beyond the scope of
this report, interviews suggest that the workshops have produced lessons CEC staff and others find valuable.
The metrics we use— number of participants and n


29 For a ll survey items, we tested for differences by fuel type, stage in the RD&D cycle (production,
research, other) , and point in the supply chain (fuel production/development, fuel charging infras tr


ding to interviewees, one of the most important adaptations over time is that the investment strategy has become increasingly focused and ambitious as the state gets closer to
the year 2020, when the first set of air quality goals should be accompli


tration
and the  use of mass transit to track the need for additional investment in particular
communities.  Others mentioned monitoring price differentials between alternative and
conventional fue ls and vehicles as an indication of successful c


 the
opportunity to participate in the program, including small businesses, women, minorities, and
disabled veterans, as well as disadvantaged and underrepresented communities from a diverse
range of geographical regions.33
Review of program docu


wn  as other CEC programs.  Still, this
awardee believed that “outreach is quite good.”  However, another awardee in the electricity area
believes there are many local agencies and small private companies that are not yet aware of
the program and


propriate balance between
making the application process user -friendly while eliciting enough information to determine
whether applicants’ ideas can succeed and whether applicant organizations would be
responsible stewards of state funds.
Based


dvanced Vehicle Technology), for which applicants
requested almost 15 times the amount authorized.
The PONs with the lowest subscription rates we re PON -09-608 (0.95) and PON -12-606 (0.88) ,
which  were for hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Several


or  Reviewing Proposals and Executing
Awards

SOURCE : Authors .
2.7.1 Evaluators
Applications are evaluated by teams of evaluators comp rising CEC staff.  Evaluation teams often
solicit reviews from staff in other agencies and from contractor


 that the
criteria vary considerably from PON to PON.  However, most PONs include criteria related to
project team qualifications, project readiness, cost -effectiveness, appropriate cost share, the
plausibility of the project implementation plan


s for natural gas and
biomethane ( 42 percent ), and the lowest were multifuel  and other  (13 percent) and hydrogen
(16 percent) .
Table 2.9. Proposal Success Rates
Fuel Type Number of
Successful
Proposals  Total Num ber of
Proposals  Perce


llion or less, but a 40 -percent match share for $2 million projects, a 50 -percent match share
for $3 million projects, and a 60 -percent match share for projects that cost more than $3
million.
Table 2.10 shows actual match shares (i.e., match c


ed match share was available.

2.9 Time to Review Applications and Execute Agreements
Selecting applicants marks the beginning of project execution.  Here, the challenge for CEC is to
revie w applications with enough care to ensure that propose


 test, p < 0.001 .
b Kruskal -Wallis test, p = 0.02

We now turn to the time to award a contract (i.e., NOPA to agreement start date); o verall , the
average time elapsed is  approximately 8.5 months  (255 days ; see first row of Table 2.12 ), wi


ents to assess invoicing burdens.  Perhaps not
surprisingly, 5 6 percent of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement
“CEC’ s reporting and invoicing requirements for this grant were burdensome” (Figure 2.6).
However, g ive


ayments may
be delayed) and on the need for awardees to have access to some sort of cash reserve to cover
temporary shortfalls resulting from the delays.
Finally, we also asked respondents to provide feedback on the practice  of wit hholding
10


staff advance to new positions or leave the agency. But too much turnover can  clearly
cause problems.  A small number of interviewees raised concerns about turnover . One called
turnov er “a big problem,” and another recounted spending a considera


ted with
federal grants.  Howe ver, respondents were more critical of financial reporting templates, which
many regarded as excessively detailed.
A few recounted difficulties getting approval for what they regarded as minor changes in the details


ndents were more ambivalent about the program, with only 30
percent answering yes to this question.  But 70 percent said maybe, and none  said no,  which
does not suggest a clear rejection of the program.  One respondent allowed that some of the
a


the transition was going slow ly.
A second documentation issue we noted is that we believe that CEC could do a better job of facilitating a more systematic approach to collecting and transmitting project data by the
awardees.  Currently, there is


 t o fully assess the financial and
operational capacities of applications.  A bigger concern for stakeholders was the amount of
time required to review applications and execute agreements relative to their perceptions about the speed at which oppo


nd
to sum outputs of similar types of projects to report portfoliowide outputs.  While CEC does
these things now, it is challenging to extract the necessary information from the existing
documents and probably requires additional communication wit


ated  0 0 —
Unsuccessful applicants 7 3 43%
Potential applicants  n/a 8 —
Total  — 43 —
SOURCE : RAND survey.
  45 Second, this chapter relies on documentation from awardees on their projects, available from
CEC as of spring 2015.  These inclu


rogen oxides.

36 U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Hydrogen Basics,” undated .
37 ARB, 2016 Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and


e vehicle -fueling system and
vehicle- fueling interface.  Specifically, the transition  since 2003  to 70 -megapascal (MPa)
hydrogen storage pressures from  the previously dominant 35 -MPa systems allows more
compressed  hydrogen to be stored onb


e tanks is a function of the cost of carbon fiber, and design optimization to lower costs
without increasing weight or compromising storage capacity is ongoing.
DoE has funded R&D  focused on material -based storage, including metal hydrides, chem


nsumer concerns about the safety of onboard hydrogen storage
• Potential changes to the ZEV mandate that might reduce automaker incentive to
develop FCEV s
SOURCE : Academi c literature .
3.3.1 Feedstock Barriers
As noted, most hydrogen product


 viable options in the near term.
45
3.3.2.2 High Cost of Onsite Generation
As an alternative to the costly transport of hydrogen fuel  (described below) , some envision the
possibility of onsite hydrogen generation —likely through SMR but potent


compressed  gaseous hydrogen in high -pressure tanks and as liquid hydrogen stored
cryogenically in insulated tanks.  Both options require specialized transportation equipment for
delivery.  Also, because hydrogen has a low volumetric energy densi


This can be a challenge in obtaining the
permits necessary to proceed with stations.
3.3.3.4 Standards
A final distribution barrier issue is that to ensure the compatibility of hydrogen fuel and
vehicles, standards or specifications are needed


 system and storage tank testing and design to ensure
operational and post -crash safety in the interest of avoiding hazards during refueli ng and if  a
fuel system breach occurs during a vehicle crash.53 Another example is the National Highway
Tr


ociated with this
durability question.
3.3.4.5 Onboard Storage
High-pressure storage remains a high- cost component on a n FCEV .
3.3.4.6 Regulatory Context
One additional  potential threat to the growth of the market for FCEV s in the United


spondents who did indicated a shortcoming in the lack of hydrogen vehicles.
Another noted a lack of funding for hydrogen production, market data, and demonstration
projects.  A final respondent describ ed the lack of onsite generation as a barrier


rogen Funding Allocations, Solicitations, and Award Amounts, 2009 –2015
Date  Plans and Amounts
Allocated  Solicitations and  IAs Additional Notes
2009 2008– 2010 Investment Plan
originally allocated $40 million
for hydrogen -fueling
infrastr


awarded a total of $63.7 million to develop new stations and upgrade existing ones.  In
addition, PON -14-603 supported hydrogen readiness planning and PON -13-604 supported the
demon stration of hydrogen fuel cell buses and vans.  There were also


rollout of alternative fuels and vehicles.  For
example, the awards can help local government agencies develop strategic plans for electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE), establish best practices for PEV -ready building and public works guideline


targeted that barrier.  As we discuss later, those two awards were adequate for
addressing that barrier.   58 Consistent with the earlier analysis of awards, this breakdown shows that CEC’s awards
overwhelmingly addressed the infrastructure barrier


ted other barriers that respondents identified.  Four of the 31 awards
(13 percent) were station -development awards that involved onsite hydrogen generation, and
there were no awards principa lly aimed at fuel- production barriers.  CEC awards did


oing. The last
two column s of Table 3.7 show the amount awarded and the amount of invoices paid according
to project status, including the four awards for participation in the CFCP.  It shows that
essentially 100 percent of invoices have been pai


ents
7 Fully met  7 Fully
2 Minimally met  2 Minimally
17 In  progress 17 In  progress
11 Not  yet started  1 Fully m et
3 In progress
6 Not  yet started
1 Dropped
49 Unknown 10 Fully
1 Minimally
36 In progress
2 Unknown
Total: 86 te


inimally achieved.

Figure 3. 2. Extent Objectives Achieved, b y Project Status

SOURCE : RAND survey.
NOTES: Percentages in each category (completed, ongoing, and canceled /terminated) sum to 100 percent;  n = 6
objectives in 6 completed proj


wn).  In 77 percent of the delayed awards (23 of 31), the CAM and awardee assessments of
delay durations matched; the remaining eight  awards (13 percent) were reported as being more
delayed by awardees than was noted by the CAM.
Figure 3. 4. Sch


6,
they had constructed and opened 14 of those stations, with two additional to be opened by
79%

57%

36%

36%

7%
  7%
  7%
  7%

36%

0%
   20%
   40%
   60%
   80%
   100%
  Delay
  in
  gecng
  required
  permits


portance and uniqueness of this
program, nearly 40 percent indicated they would not have sought other outside funding, and 55 percent said they would not have sought internal funding.   67 Figure 3. 6.Whether Hydrogen Awardees Would Have Proceeded W


d on 31 respondents.

Fifteen of the 31 awardees noted other impacts of the award in comments they made.  All
comments but one are positive.  Awardees noted that the award did the following:
• increased their knowledge ( four comments)
• allo


er awardee to
rapidly develop a large number of hydrogen- refueling stations.  This latter awardee, in turn, is
using its skills in making rapid agreements with station owners, permitting, and construction to
help accelerate its competitors’ deplo


1% 45%
Insufficient pool of labor familiar with alternative fuels and vehicles  32% 29%
SOURCE : RAND survey.
Table 3. 11 summarizes the impact of the program on barriers.  Our assessments fall into one of
four categories:
• There is evidence


(if
indirect) consequence of developing fueling stations
High vehicle -production cost  No evidence of reduction
Limited vehicle -production capacity  No evidence of reduction
High vehicle lifetime operating and maintenance cost No evidence of


ight not have gone forward without CEC
funding.  This collectively suggests that government support to overcome this barrier is both
neede d and working.

61 These data are largely but not per


iers across the
industry  (e.g., through a hydrogen pipeline).  Instead, the program may have helped overcome
this challenge for specific developers.  One project, for example, upgraded a central hydrogen
fill station and developed delivery trucks


tation  76 also applies to passenger vehicles.  The attention to bus and van technology is helpful, but there
is no evidence yet to suggest the barrier has been reduced, given that these projects are still in
progress.  There is also no evidence to


 more firms are entering the

63 California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project,  “CVRP Rebate Statistics,” last updated June 1, 2017 .
64 From March 29, 2016, to October  31, 2016, this rebate increased


ly [by fuel type or market
segment]?” Thirty percent of survey respondents (13 of 44) did not have comments (data not
shown).  Of the 31 responses, the most -common comments were that more investment should
be made in hydrogen in general (14 per c


oping a network of hydrogen- refueling stations economically feasible and an insufficient network of hydrogen-
refueling  stations to make consumers’ use of hydrogen vehicles practical. While other barriers
to widespread hydrogen use exist, solving


 allow
hydrogen to be sold to consumers at retail locations.  Finally, the program has made a few
smaller investments in other areas (e.g., developing nonpassenger hydrogen vehicles and
hydrogen readiness plans), although the impacts of these effo


cle production, deployment and
demonstration (PD&D) ( three  awardees); charging infrastructure deployment ( four awardees);
and development of regional plug- in vehicle readiness plans ( one awardee).  The goal of these in -
depth reviews was to g


s the state increases the share of electricity it draws from renewable sources.
Government policies are attemptin g to stimulate the commercial success of BEVs and PHEVs,
both federally and in individual states.  Revisions to the state’s zero-emis


ion Agency (EPA) –estimated range -per-charge of 238 miles.  The future availability of
more BEV models with higher range and at lower cost are expected to mitigate the barriers to
adoption that have accompanied the range limitations of recent BEVs


ler
• In-vehicle power conversion, charging
speed limited by the onboard charger  4–8 hours  10–20 miles per
hour of charging  At home,
workplace,
public access
Level 3 (DCFC)  • 480-volt, up to 400 amp, up to 240 kW (~50
kW typical), requiri


BEVs in the 1990 s that translates
to constructive solutions today.  For example, several OEMs have recently established
nationwide processes to ease the burden experienced by BEV purchasers in upgrading  their
single -family home garages for char


ransition to more advanced types of electric -drive vehicles.  In addition, given that
many HEV components are also used with more advanced types of EVs, policymakers have also
promoted HEVs as a means of speeding the development of and reducing th


 sources in particular , as well as reductions in GHG emissions.
Considerable progress has occurred in improving BEV performance since the mid -1990s ,
primarily because of the transition to Li -ion batteries, which have much higher energy density


cles most closely connected to your awa rd, application, or
organization?”  Respondents were allowed to select all barriers that applied; the results reflect
the perceived barriers at the time the survey was completed in September 2016.  As shown i


  permits
  for
  si5ng
  fueling/
Lack
  of
  industry
  standards
  for
  fueling/charging
  interface

Insuﬃcient
  bulk
  fuel
  distribu5on
  infrastructure

High
  fuel
  produc5on
  cost

Limited
  fuel
  produc5on


 styles.  This necessitates DCFC stations being built with one of each type of
plug.   91 Table 4.4. Revised Barriers for Using Electricity as a Transportation Fuel Grouped by Criticality
Market
Segment  Level of
Importance  Barrier Description


t work when available.  For
example, the Idaho National Laboratory analyzed data from more than  6 million “charging
events” carried out by over 8,300 PEVs (Nissan Leafs and Chevy Volts) and participating Blink
charging stations throughout the Uni


$179.1  100%
SOURCE : CEC administrative  data as updated by survey respondents.

The map in Figure 4.2 shows award s as circle s with size s based on the amount of funding
approved, plotted by the zip code of the recipient.  The largest award


iar with alternative fuel
and vehicles  • Prepare regional plans to establish
tailored guidelines for EV readiness
building codes, permitting requirements, inspection processes, local agency roles, and EVSE
deployment priorities in residential,


acts in
barrier reduction that do not scale with the amount of funding approved because they help lay
the groundwork for standardizing regional planning, building codes, and permitting for
accommodating PEVs and because the resulting plans can be


m the program. The ARFVTP has contributed
$24.5 million of the $369.2 million spent on the CVRP to date.
77
It is worth noting t hat the two cancel ed projects in the fuel infrastructure RD&D project type
may seem out of place in the fueling infra


Percentages calculated separately and add to 100 for each of the four groups.

The ten  canceled projects account for 7.5 percent of the 133 funded projects.  The following
three projects in the fueling infrastructure category were canceled:  4%


4.5.2 Technical Performance
In this section, we first examine the extent to which technical objectives were achieved for the 54 completed electricity projects to date.  We then turn to prospects for achieving the technical
objectives of the 68 on


 of the table ), even assuming that no stations were installed in those cases
where the number of stations actually deployed cannot be determined.

79 We were unable to verify the number of statio


o the SAE
J1772 standard (aka "Reconnect
California Project")`  500 760c
ARV- 12-023 AeroVironment, Inc.  Cal Electric: Resid ential EVSE
Deployment Program— California -wide 1,425  1,758
ARV- 12-017 AeroVironment, Inc.
 Car2Go Fleet EVSE Pr


   103 Table 4.9. Vehicles Planned and Delivered by Complete d Projects
Project ID  Awardee  Project Title  Number of
Vehicles
Proposeda Number of
Vehicles
Produced or
Demonstratedb
Actual Number Less  Than Number Proposed
ARV- 10-034 SMU


oing electricity projects ( projects ongoing as of September 2016).  Not surprisingly, the
bulk of technical objectives remain s in-progress.  However, as shown in Figure 4.6, awardees
were confident that nearly all these technical objectives would


extent to which s tations are operable, and experiences and lessons learned from their use.
We initiated each visit by contacting the awardee to explain the objective of the visit and, if necessary, arrange access to the site. In some cases, the a


sinesses, university 0
ARV- 13-032 California EV Alliance  4 9 Benicia,
Napa, Yountville,
and Novato  Commercial businesses  0
ARV- 10-001 Clipper Creek, Inc. 11 19 Davis  Commercial
businesses, government, and
university  1
ARV- 12-023 AeroVi


ne day.  One approach is
to restrict parking times, typically to four hours.  Several sites took this approach, as indicated
by clear signage posted with the EVSE.  Another appr oach is to locate an EVSE so that it can
reach multiple parking space


ch identified numerous reviews of home EVSEs, we found no
reviews of commercial EVSE systems.  Based on users' experiences, it appears that an
independent review of commercial EVSE would be quite helpful to organizations plan ning EVSE
installatio


mand w hen utility prices are lowest.
Our verification included s everal installations in private homes.  The 27 users that agreed to
participate in a verification visit were uniformly  pleased with the program and were thankful to
be included.  N


e Behind Schedule ( Percentage of Projects)
Project Type  Number
of
Projects Ahead  On
Schedule  1–6
Months
Behind 7–12
Months
Behind 13–24
Months
Behind 25+
Months
Behind Unknown
Fueling Infrastructure
Completed  25 20 32 4 20 16 4 4


ey would have had
they received ARFVTP funding.

  48%
  5%
  6%
  6%
  8%
  15%
  14%
  18%
  24%
  29%
  41%

0%
   10%
   20%
   30%
   40%
   50%
   60%
  Other
  Delay
  in
  securing
  matching
  funds
  CEC


nding.

No major patterns emerge for difference  in the findings by project type.  Unsuccessful
applicants for fueling infrastructure awards said they had not proceeded with only 50 percent of the projects (Table 4.12), suggesting that these proj


For 101 awardees who completed the survey, excluding canceled or terminated projects .
4.6.3 Market Prospects for the Product or Technology Funded by the Award
One indicator for whether the product or technology funded by the award will have ongoin


sments are subject to the
three limitations discussed in Chapter 1.  First, clearly attributing market changes to the
ARFVTP is challenging because it is impossible to unequivocally determine what would have
happened in the market without the ARFV


ons Funded by the ARF VTP
and Total Charging Stations in California
 Stations Funded by ARFVTP
Station Type Charging Stations
Installed by 24
Completed Projects  Charging Stations
Planned by 43
Ongoing Projectsa Total Installed
and Planned


actually
reduced. It is also important to remember that the hashed  bars show how ma ny respondents
perceived  themselves  to have reduced a given barrier at all.  They do not indicate how much
particular respondent s think their projects reduced


have
  reduced
  each
  barrier
   118
infrastructure” and “difficulty in obtaining permits for siting” may largely reflect the smaller
number of vehicle PD&D and RD&D projects compared with infrastructure PD &D projects.
In-depth project re


ees responding to the survey indicated that their projects have reduced or will reduce a
broad range of vehicle -related barriers to the market viability of EVs (Figure 4.11).  Barriers
reduced include high vehicle- production cost, inadequate vehi


Project  4 Could not be
determined
ARV-09-011 Parker -Hannifin Corporation  Series Hydraulic Hybrid Drivetrain
Implementation in Coke Beverage Delivery
Tractor  4 Could not be
determined
ARV-11-014 CALSTART, Inc.  California CLEAN Truck Demon


ector rather than as a way of increasing vehicle sales.  It is also possible that, without rebates, the manufacturers wou ld
need to charge less to sell their vehicles, or else only market the vehicles to higher -income
consumers.  Hence, the rebat


rnative
fuels and vehicles was one of the most commonly cited barriers by survey respondents.  It was
also the barrier most frequently indicated as reduced, with 65 percent of electricity awardees indicating that their projects had reduced or would


 ﬁve
  years

ago,
  the
  number
  of

organiza5ons
  compe5ng
  with

your
  organiza5on
  has

increased

15%
   15%
  28%
  31%

9%

2%
  10%
  15%
  34%

28%

11%

2%

0%
  5%
  10%
  15%
  20%


g stations is
viable f or the foreseeable future without being dependent on government grants, but that 3%
  16%
  41%
  54%
  55%
  66%
  73%
  78%
  84%

0%
   10%
   20%
   30%
   40%
   50%
   60%
   70%
   80%
   90%
  None


hane

Less
  on
  hydrogen-‐fueling
  infrastructure
   125 of the 102 respondents).  Respondents often called out which specific station and location types
they thought should be targeted, specifically primarily resi dential multiunit dwell


ions that were claimed to be installed were in
fact inst alled and operational.
Projects did tend to run behind schedule.  Only about one -half of projects completed to date
have been completed on schedule , and only 35 percent of ongoing project


ased sales or were primarily a way to share the cost of complying with
CARB regulations between the public and private sectors.  127 The most common advice of EV stakeholders on allocating funds for electricity projects was
that charging station de


an fue l vehicles seven to eight
times faster than Level 2 stations and greatly reduce the time needed to restore driving capability for long -distance trips.

   128 CHAPTER 5:
Impact of Program on Barriers to Market
Viability of Diesel Subst


e oil.  Biodiesel is produced using a transesterification process.  Although
biodiesel is relatively easy to manufacture, close attention must be paid to product quality to
avoid performance problems in customers’ engines.
Common commercial biodi


enforcement commences in 2018, requiring detailed
testing of most blends above B5 and all blends above B10. This will most likely limit biodiesel
blends to B5.
5.2.2 Renewable Diesel
Renewable diesel is fuel compris ing long-chain hydrocarbons t


ss expensive than vegetable oil, but its supply is limited, and its quality is
more varied.
Researchers and innovators are experimenting with production processes using second -
generation feedstocks for diesel substitutes, including such options


nes in Figure 5.1 show the illustrative LCFS compliance scenario developed by CARB in April 2015.  In this scenario, biodiesel consumption levels off at 190 millions of gallons
per year ( mgy) (the lower dotted line), which is abo ut 5 percent of co


93ARB, Appendix B: Development of Illustrative Compliance Scenarios and Evaluation of Potential
Compliance Curves,  2015.
94Biodiesel Magazine, “U.S. Biodiesel Plants, ” 2016.  The ARFVTP began in 2008; how ever


Carbon Fuel Standard with Renewable Diesel Fuels, ” Diesel
Fuel News , Vol. 15, No. 37, September 26, 2011 .
96Phone conversation between Stillwater Associates and Marshall Bell of AltAir Fuels , June 14, 2016.  0
   1
   1
   1
   2
   2


traditional outlets as CARB diesel.  However, the Federal Trade Commission requires that diesel
fuel containing more th an 5 percent biodiesel must be labeled.98 CARB’s ADF rule may well limit
biodiesel blends to 5 percent, and if so, there will


fairly evenly distributed between Northern and
Southern California, with most of the concentration on the coast and in high -population areas.
Figure 5.6 summarizes the locations of California public  biodiesel retail stations. Note that this
fig


ticality and costs of such modifications.  Because renewable and FT
diesel  are drop -in fuels, there are no vehicle- related barriers to their use.
5.3.5 Consumer Barriers
In the past, there have been significant product quality problems with bi


 expanded terminal storage and fuel blending facilities for biodiesel.  These awards  were
followed by awards to develop and produce diesel substitutes (PON -09-604 and PON -11-601).
Many of these projects were research, development, and demonstra


1.1
2013 PON- 13-601:
Commercial Scale Advanced Biofuels
Production Facilities  Commercial scale production
facilities  $9.3 for
all fuels N/A 2 $9.9
2013 PON- 13-603:
Alternative Fuel
Readiness Plans  Alternative Fuel Readiness Plans  $2.1 N


Inc. (BIODICO) December 27,
2010 886,815 Complete Demonstrate biodiesel production using
algae and brine shrimp
West Yost
Associates Canceled
before start  50,709 Canceled Determine whether Stockton wastewater
ponds can grow algae with useful


 CEC administrative data as updated by survey respondents .
     NOTE: NOPA = Notice of Proposed Award .   144 5.4.1 Barriers Targeted by Diesel-Substitute Projects
The diesel -substitutes projects funded by the ARFVTP targeted most of the barriers


itutes.  Production at greater scale and using the up -to-date technology installed in the
expansions can help reduce production costs.  The greater automation in larger -scale production
can help improve the consist ency of biodiesel quality.
On


l Substitute Awards as of September 2016
Project Status in September 2016  Number of
Projects Amount
Awarded
($ M)  Invoices P aid
Though Dec 2016
($ M)
Completed  10 13.8 13.6
Canceled or terminated  4 2.9 0
Ongoing  10 38.5 24.5
Total


objectives have been met.  It shows results for completed projects for which the comparison
between the RAND and awardee assessments can be made.  The primary difference between the
two assessments is that the RAND assessment has more “unknown” an


shown in Figure 5.13, the match obligation was
obtained in nearly 90 percent of the completed projects that required a m atch.  For ongoing
projects, 50 percent have obtained the match obligation so far, with the percentage likely to
increase as t


nent during the project
• shortage of capital because of a s hift in market conditions and increased infrastructure
costs . 0%
  70%

0%
  20%

0%
  10%

0%
   0%
  50%

0%
  20%
  30%

0%
   0%

0%
  20%
  40%
  60%


ld have proceeded with the project had they not received the award.  As shown in the last
row of Table 5.9, 13 percent believed they would have proceeded , and many more said they
might have proceeded.  Fuel RD&D projects, which are typically less


et, Install, or Produce Product or
Technology After Completion of the Project
Project Type  Number of
Completed
Projects Continued to Develop, Market, Install,
or Produce the Product or
Technology Funded by the Award?
Yes No
Fuel RD&D  5 3


part by the ARFVTP.  Recall from Figure 5.2 that biodiesel
production capacity was an estimated 84 mgy in 2010 and that it increased to 134 mgy by 2015.  Table 5.11 shows that 24.6 mgy of the 134 mgy (18 percent) was cofunded by the
ARFVTP.  What i


le 5.11, Community Fuels, which opened in 2008, lists
its nameplate capacity at 25 mgy;  however, the fac ility’s actual production in 2015 was about 5
mgy.112 On the more productive side of the spectrum, Crimson Renewable Energy’s facility in
Bak


116California Biodiesel Alliance , website, undated.
117These imports arrived from Canada, South Korea, and Argentina.  See Ron Kotrba,  “Importing to Meet
California Demand ,” Biodiesel  Magazine, March  25, 2016.   157 to secure some of the matc


one barrier.
5.7.1.3 Observations of Impact of ARFVTP on Production Capacity
The ARFVTP has facilitated the construction of a substantial amount of biodiesel production
capacity in the state.  Capacity in place or under development now approache


itional production capacity should closely follow trends in the utilization of existing
capacity.
5.7.2 Impact on Production Cost
The ARFVTP has funded multiple projects that could reduce production costs.  These include
projects that increase p


as
substantially higher than expected, and prospects for commercialization are not
promising.  It is not clear what the long -term prospects for commercialization are for
algae grown using municipal wastewater.
• One project demonstrated how FOG


gh the responses do not distinguish between biodiesel and renewable
diesel.  Expanded ret ail outlets are not necessary if biodiesel and renewable diesel blends are
kept to B5 and R5, respectively (no labeling is required).  Higher biodiesel blends


sagree
   Somewhat

disagree
  Neither
  agree
  or

disagree
  Somewhat
  agree
   Strongly
  agree
   Did
  not
  answer
  Currently
  there
  are
  many
  private-‐sector
  investors
  (i.e.
  non-‐governmental
  funder


onable (45 percent of the 13
respondents who answered the question) —with a few respondents believing that the program
should have spent more on RD&D and a few believing it should have spent less.
We finally asked diesel- substitutes stakeholders


consumed in the state.  The existence of such a
subsidy could allow in -state producers to obtain the financing to construct production capacity
on their own.  It would also relieve CEC of the responsibility of picking which firms should
receive s


e for a public -sector portfolio.

   167 CHAPTER 6 :
Impact of Prog ram on Barriers to Market
Viability of Gasoline Substitutes
In this chapter, we analyze the impact of the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program  (A


g water and was soon replaced with
ethanol.  Use of ethanol in gasoline was further supported by the RFS.  Today, nearly all the
gasoline sold in the United States contains ethanol.122 In 2015, about 13.7 billion gallons of
ethanol were added to g


ne Is Blended with 10%
Ethanol ,” 2016.
127 Air Resources Board  (ARB) , “Data Dashboard,” 2017;  National Research Council: Committee on
Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels, Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels,  2013.   169 e


the ARFVTP.

128 EPA, “ What Is a Fuel Pathway? ” 2016.
129 EPA, “What Is a Fuel Pathway? ” 2016.
130 DoE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data —


outh, it is
possible to rotate sweet sorghum with sugar beets.
The availability  and price of cellulosic feedstocks can be unpredictable. Cellulosic feedstocks
are susceptible to extreme weather and can rot or combust in storage.  Many of these f


e yet to find an economical and effective way to separate the lignin
and hemicellulose from the feedstock.  Second, researchers have been unable to develop
enzymes or organisms that efficiently chop the cellulose into smaller pieces of glucose for


However,  cost aside, the use of E85 appears to be
limited in California by the low availability of E85 fueling stations.  There were an estimated 1
million flex-fuel vehicles in California by 2016,142 but only 99 E85 fueling stations.143 For a sta


the most commonly cited barriers are fuel  related. Fueling
infrastructure, in particular, was a frequent concern.  The most commonly cited barrier was
“difficulty, cost, and delay in obtaining permits for siting fueling/charging stations ,” and
“


d awards in
the areas of gasoline substitutes.  Note that several of the solicitations cover more than just
gasoline substitutes.  When available, the table breaks out the funding amount allocated for
gasoline substitutes.  Only awards associated


1.5 M)
2013 PON -13-601 Commercial Scale
Advanced Biofuels
Production Facilities  $9.3 M 0 1
($5 M)  1
2014 PON -13-609 Pilot-Scale and
Commercial -Scale
Advanced Biofuels
Production Facilities  $9 M for
gasoline
substitutes  3
($9 M)


lly infeasible. In general, the gasoline -substitutes projects are
targeting most of the current barriers identified in Table 6.2.
   178 Table 6.4. Barriers Targeted
Market Segment  Primary Barrier
Targeted  Types of Projects
Funded Number o


lly been grown in California for sugar
production.  As that market contracted, producers have begun exploring the use of sugar beets
to produce ethanol.  These two projects were to support a cooperative of nine sugar beet
farmers in what is intend


ion Project to Begin Next Month,” Business Journal , November 18,
2014.
146 Biofuels Digest, “California Energy Commission Cancels Deal with Mendota Bioenergy,”
biofuelsdigest.com, December 10, 2015.
147 CEC, Alternative and Renewable Fuel and


n or canceled.  However, we know from documentation and discussions
with CEC that three of these withdrawals or cancelations occurred before any work on the project had begun.  One awardee withdrew because of inability  to raise the required match


 Been Met

SOURCE : Authors’ analysis and RAND survey.
NOTE: For 37 technical objectives from seven projects that had been completed by the time of the survey
Figure 6.6. Extent to Whi ch Technical Objectives in Ongoing Gasoline Substitutes


.
NOTE: Based on 1 2 in-progress technical objectives from four ongoing gasoline -substitutes  projects.
6.5.3 Financial Performance
Most ARFVTP awards require the awardee to fund a portion of the project through matching
funds.  Although the r


nd nine ongoing projects.

Respondents from seven of the delayed projects provided reasons for the delay (Figure 6.10).
Respondents could provide multiple reasons.  The sample is very small, making it difficult to
know how generalizable the cit


set of questions explored is the extent to which ARFVTP funding helped the knowledge
and capabilities of organizations that it funded. A series of three related questions asked
project awardees about the extent to which ARFVTP funding allowed them


stages of development; none are licensing, purchasing or installing, or scaling up production.
Figure 6.15 . Steps Taken by Organization to Develop, Market, Install, or Produce
Gasoline Substitutes Product or Technology Funded by Award

SOURCE


we focus only on whether a barrier has been reduced and do not attempt to assess the amount by which it has been reduce d. Finally, while RD&D projects are often necessary to lay
the groundwork for subsequent commercialization, it is difficult to de


0
  60
  80
  100
  120

2003
   2009
   2010
   2011
   2012
   2013
   2014
   2015
   2016
  Number
  of
  sta5ons

Year
   193 Figure 6.18 .Growth in California E85 Annual Consumption
SOURCE : Elam et al., E85: A California


 The program
has, however, facilitated the tran sition from corn grain to lower- CI feedstocks.  The three major
California ethanol refineries are beginning to use some sorghum in their operations.  Sorghum
ethanol that achieves a 50 -percent  red


evelop a precommercial
plant using corn stover.  While this demonstration project was technically successful, the costs
are too high for commercial production.  Cellulosic ethanol production in California remains
minimal.
Overall, the ARFVTP is h


there are many private investors in their industry, responses were mixed (Figure 6.21).  Twenty -eight percent strongly agree or somewhat
agree, 32 percent are neutral, and 32 percent somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with this view.  Views on


ARFVTP funding portfolio.  Respondents were asked to comment on the funding allocat ions in
terms of fuel type and market segment (fueling infrastructure, fuel production, vehicles) and in terms of development stage (RD&D projects versus PD&D projec


echnology companies; i ntegration of mobile technology with
transit systems; development of off-road alternative fuel equipment; consumer education ; more
emphasis on production; more focus on carbon intensity; access, equity, and co -benefits; mor


and conversion are relatively fundamental and require more research -
oriented work to resolve.   200 Most projects are still ongoing, so it is difficult to definitively summar ize the performance of
gasoline -substitutes projects under the ARFVTP.


y about whether it will ever be technically feasible at a
competitive cost , it make s sense to  suspend building out the E85 infrastructure and concentrate
resources on research to develop cellulosic ethanol production.  If and when that investmen


l  142 98 68
SOURCE : RAND survey.   202 7.2 Technical Overview of Natural Gas and Biomethane  as
Transportation Fuels
Natural gas and biomethane are both methane -rich gases (typically more than  90 percent)
derived from different sources. Natu


, Vol. 55,
No. 8, September 2014, p. 60.
169 DoE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy , “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Natural Gas Vehicles,”
undated .
170U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use (Data Seri


CNG and LNG under the LCFS are about 77 percent and 83 percent, respectively.174
7.2.3 Biomethane
Biomethane is produced either biologically, through anaerobic digestion , or through
thermochemical gasification.  Both approaches use well- establ


 has been further enhanced because of their potential to reduce GHG emissions and because, in heavy -duty applications, of their ability to reduce operating costs given the large
historical difference between the costs of natural gas and diesel fuel


and discussed in more detail in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2. Barriers Identified for Using Natural Gas and Biomethane as a Transportation Fuel
Market
Segment  Barrier Description
Feedstock  • Feedstock acquisition, collection, and transportation
Fu


es the need to invest in equipment to upgrade the biogas to
biomethane and to compress or liquefy the biomethane.  The emphasis on electricity is also a
result of historical government incentives focused on reducing GHG emissions from ele ctricity


nd dispensed at –260°F,
which requir es more safety considerations and precautions.
7.2.2.4 Stringent Quality Requirements for Pipelin e Injection
An important barrier to developing a robust biomethane -fueling infrastructure is the stringent
qua


 fugitive methane emissions cuts across the specific barrier categories but is
listed under fueling infrastructure for c onvenience. Fossil natural gas emits about 25 percent
less carbon dioxide than diesel and gasoline on an energy -equivalent bas


gh -pressure storage vessels on NGVs may also raise safety concerns, or at
least perceptions of safety issues , among potential consumers.  It should be noted that there are
also safety concerns with gasoline, and it may be that NGVs are safer than


three provided explanations, two of which cited high costs for pipeline injection. In general, the most commonly cited barriers identified by surv ey
respondents agree with those in Table 7.1.  One marked exception is the emphasis on
insufficient c


009 Cost Share  $43 M
for methane
vehicles,
fueling
stations, &
production
plants  2 ($14.5  M)
 18
($50.7  M) PON -09-003 Biomethane
Production  $21.5M  5a
($27.5  M)
PON -09-004 Medium - and
Heavy -Duty
Advanced Vehicle
Technology


$8.3 million for vehicle projects, $3.7 million for fuel -production projects, and $0.36 million for
fueling -infrastructure projects.  The high award allocation to the vehicle projects is driven by
three large incentive program projects ($21 mill


s  13 1 $3.3
Upgrade of 1 LNG station  1 0 $0.49
Upgrade of one CNG/LNG station  1 0 $0.1
CNG station ( project details
unknown) 1 1 $0.2
Subtotal  50b  8 $17.9
Vehicles  Safety concerns
Limited vehicle models Higher cost than
gasoline or di


aste -hauling trucks.  Using bio methane
with a tethered fleet does not require interconnecting with the natural gas pipeline grid.  While
some project descriptions mention the possibility of injecting excess biomethane into the pipeline, we are no


signed specifica lly to target safety and
technical design barriers.
Two of the CNG station development awards are to develop fueling stations colocated with an anaerobic digester to dispense bio -CNG.  One facility generates bio -CNG from a biore


 ssed in the
engineering design and deployment but are not specifically outlined in the technical objectives.
7.5 Awardee Performance
7.5.1 Project Status
The statu s as of September 2016 of the 77  projects funded as of January 2015 is shown i


  41%

6%
  11%
  82%

2%

0%
  10%
  20%
  30%
  40%
  50%
  60%
  70%
  80%
  90%

Minimally
   Par5ally

   Fully
   Unknown

RAND
  evalua5on
   As
  updated
  by
  awardees
   219 Figure 7.6. Extent to Which


f completed projects  were on time or ahead of schedule, 36 percent were
one to 12 months behind schedule, and 3 percent were more than one  year behind.  More of the
ongoing projects are behind schedule, with only 33 percent on or ahead of schedul


ncertain.
Figure 7.11 .Whether Unsuccessful Applicants for Natural Gas and Biomethane Projects
Proceeded with Project

SOURCE : RAND survey .
NOTE: Based on 35 unsuccessful applicants.
46.4%
  3.6%
  7.1%
  7.1%
  7.1%
  7.1%
  10.7%


jects.

Respondents of completed projects were also asked if they had continued to work on the
technology funded by the ARFVTP project after the funding expired.  The vast majority (86
percent) of completed projects  confirmed they are continuin


The hatched bars show the barriers that survey respondents
said they are reducing with their ARFVTP projects. Figure 7.16 indicates that, according to the
awardees, ARFVTP projects appear to be reducing all but one of the barrier options provided i


2%
  47.3%
  56.0%

0%
   10%
   20%
   30%
   40%
   50%
   60%
  Other
  Insuﬃcient
  pool
  of
  labor
  familiar
  with
  alterna5ve
  fuels
  and
  vehicles
  Insuﬃcient
  customer
  awareness
  of
  and
  knowledge


 without the
ARFVTP funding (Table 7.5).  This result is consistent with observations that biomethane
production capacity is quite limited nationwide.192 Taken together, these findings indica te that
these projects would not have been undertaken w


 from CARB, which they can then sell to other fuel
producers that sell fuel in California to allow them to meet their LCFS requirements.  In this
way, California supported the production of 68 million DGE of biomethane nationwide in 2015, but actua


ten  private stations are planned (data not
shown).
As of January 2015, CEC funded the development of 19 new public CNG stations, 19 new
private stations, and the upgrade of seven stations.  The 19 new public stations represent 22
percent of the


 ARFVTP Projects
The ARFVTP has had some impact on the number of vehicle models available.  The program has
funded the development of four HDV engines in three awards (with one additional award made
but withdrawn before the project began):
• the


197 DoE, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,  “Alternative Fuels Data
Center: Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Search,” undated.   232 ARFVTP also helped encourage the adoption of NGVs through thr


Natural Gas Vehicle Incentive Project (NGVIP) , August 3,
2015).

198Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, “ Natural Gas Vehicle Incentive
Funding Status,” 2015


30%

Strongly

disagree
  Somewhat

disagree
  Neither

agree
  or

disagree
  Somewhat

agree
  Strongly

agree
  Did
  not

answer
  Currently
  there
  are
  many
  organiza5ons

compe5ng
  with
  your
  o


ked the question, “Based on your understanding of how CEC allocates funds, how do you
think CEC should allocate funds differently [by fuel type or market segment]?”  Forty -one
percent of survey respondents (43 of 104) did not have comments (data n


compared with gasoline - and diesel -powered ones.   237 Several of these barriers are being targeted by a wide range of ARFVTP -funded projects.  The
program has funded 77 projects addressing fuel production, fueling infrastructure, and
vehicles


attractive and hence deserves significant
credit for the growth.
A final area of impact is on NGV deployment.  The program  helped develop several heavy -duty
natural gas engines that make up a significant fraction of the engine models in heavy -


dicates that the barrier was targeted by awards made by the ARFVTP, although it does not show how intensely the barrier was targeted.  For example, considerable resources
were allocated to expanding hydrogen retail fueling infrastructure, while only


te; and fats, oil, and grease (FOG) from municipal wastewater (diesel substitutes).

Electricity  projects related to electric vehicles (EVs) targeted all the major barriers to market
viability that existed when the program began.  As with hydrog


M $93 M $179 M $55 M $62 M $160 M
SOURCE : CEC admin istrative  data.
NOTE: Excludes three  workforce projects and ten multifuel projects.

Overall, RD&D funding as a percent age of total funding ranged between 24 and 34 percent
between 2010 a


ng the prevailing wage, because of problems wi th
the technology, and because of market conditions that had changed since the project proposal was submitted to CEC.
In most cases, projects were canceled because they were withdrawn by the awardee p


 the assessment as
updated by survey respondents is that objectives have moved from the “u nknown” category to
the “ fully” category.
Table 8. 6. Extent to Which Technical Objectives Were Achieved for Completed Projects
by Fuel Type ( Percentage


f the main technical objectives for the ongoing projects are in progress.
Awardees were confident that they would ultimately achieve these in -progress objectives,
reporting that it is highly likely that more than  80 percent would be achieved (Ta


ess in Obtaining Matching Funds , by Fuel Type ( Percentage
of Projects That Require  Matching Funds)
Response All Fuel
Types Hydrogen Electricity  Diesel
Substitutes Gasoline
Substitutes Natural Gas
and
Biom ethane
Completed Projects
Matc


ardees reported that they had been able to reduce the tim e needed to place a
hydrogen- fueling  station from 18 to 24 months to 12 to 18 months and that the delays for
ongoing hydrogen projects are now more in line with the delays for other types


ts
On or ahead of
schedule  29% 9% 35% 9%
1 month to 2 years
behind schedule 60% 83% 59% 27%
More than 2 years
behind schedule 3% 0% 5% 0%
Could not be
determined 8% 9% 2% 64%
Number of projects  145 23 111 11
SOURCE : Data provided by CEC


 percent of unsuccessful applicants who completed the survey had not
yet proceeded with the project.  With the exception of hydrogen projects, the responses are
similar across fuel types, with between 49 percent and 62 percent reporting that they h


5%
Has not proceeded  53% 58% 58% 0%
Did not answer  6% 4% 5% 25%
Number of pro posals 98 50 40 8
Awardees
Would have proceeded without the
award 25% 26% 26% 10%
Might have proceeded without the
award 52% 62% 48% 70%
Would not have proceede


  an
  area
  in
  which
  you
  already
  had
  some
  exper5se
  or
  capacity.

The
  grant
  allowed
  your
  organiza5on
  to
  gain
  knowledge
  or
  experience
  that
  will
  be
  useful
  in
  developing
  produ


 into the following four categories:
• Yes: There is solid evidence the projects funded by the program helped reduce this
barrier.  The extent to which the barrier has been reduced is not differentiated.  Major
reductions and reductions that are


.
The program also had significa nt impact on the lack of standards for fueling infrastructure.
Consumer rebates through the CVRP for purchasing FC EVs may have reduced the price of
FCEV s, but few vehicles were purchased during the period cover


ntensity ( CI) feedstocks (algal
oil) or producing alternative diesel from different types of feedstocks (e.g., dairy waste and fats,
oil, and gas in municipal wastewater); however, there is no indication that the projects have
taken significant s


s on in the future.  Relevant to the discussion is the
health of alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle  technology ( ARFVT) industries.  Lack of
private- investor interest or an inadequate number of firms in the industry suggest an ongoing
ne


government involvement continues to be necessary for the market viability of alternative fuels and vehicles.  Only 3 percent of respondents believed that
no government involvement is necessary (Figure  8.3). The percentages for awardees,
unsuccessf


urchase
  subsidies
  Grants
  for
  demonstra5on
  and
  deployment
   259 Table 8. 19. Stakeholder Views on Investment Priorities for Their Own Fuel Type
Fuel Type Views on Investment Priorities
Hydrogen  • No need for major  adjustments


he
most part across all fuel types and also secured the proposed matching funds.  Completing
projects on schedule has been and remains a challenge for all types of awardees.
Findings were similar on  the proportion of projects that would not have


abilities.

   261 CHAPTER 9:
Impact of Program on Employment and
Workforce Capabilities
Workforce development is a natural complement to the technology investments discussed in
the previous chapters.  To realize the investments in alternati


nomics of Private Sector Training: A Survey of the Literature,” Journal of Economic Surveys , Vol. 19, N o.
1, February 2005, pp. 91– 111; and Edward P. Lazear, “Firm-Speciﬁc Human Capital: A Skill -Weights
Approach,”  Journal of Political Economy,


l education programs, such as those offered for individuals enrolled in college
degree and certificate programs.  The rationale of human capital runs as follows:  The recipients
of that general education can tran sfer their knowledge and skills vir


skill development.
Turning specifically to the ARFVT industry, the RAND survey provides evidence that some
public intervention in industry -specific (and possibly firm -specific) skills develo pment has been
warranted.  Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3 sh


ing analyses by
senior professionals in the field.  That process is iterative, repeating itself as the field evolves
with new equipment, materials, and techniques. Thus, the proc ess of creating effective
development strategies can be lengthy and


ous chapters, these awards continued year after year, with periodic
increments of funding, and each was performed through networks of sub awardees , which
reached across the state.
Table 9.2. ARFVTP  Awards  (Interagency Agreements) for Workforce


e Award s
Barrier  Targeted by
EDD  CCCCO ETP
Limited understanding of the industry’s education and
training needs  X X
Limited capacity to train workers  X X X
Limited interest in new careers  X X
Limited coordination within sectors to pla


while to undertake specific efforts to collect baseline and trend data.
According to our interviews, the U.S. Department of Labor was working to develop a
classification of green jobs for national statistics during this period.  However, that effo


gion based on the data
and stakeholder engagements.  Each team was told to develop a workable plan for action that
included defined roles and specific commitments from all the key parties taking part.  The five
ARFVT regions chosen for RICO awards


k a series of analytical stu dies concerned with
alternative fuels and workforce development.  The first of these was a 2010 survey of employers
that owned or worked with alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.  The survey asked  270 emplo


ther to
identify colleges that might benefit most from funding to meet the training needs of the
employers in their region.  Each college had particular needs, and its funding requests were
approved jointly by CCCCO and the CEC. Providing the trai


• Focused on CN G curricula, professional development,  and creating “train the trainer”
programs to expand the reach of the newly created curricula
• Used local funds to upgrade facilities and house equipment purchased for its training
programs


taff assist companies in learning about the opportunity, preparing
their applications, and identifying their needs and potential training providers.  Once a contract
is approved, ETP staff monitor the performance of the contract, including in -pers


chnical training directly supporting the development and
deployment of alternative fuels technologies. As a result, the ETP agreements approved under
the ARFVTP were initially more restrictive that t hose under ETP’s core program.
As an example o


even
contracts were closed without any expenditure.  As a result, ETP awarded 36 contracts that were
performed.  In the remainder of our analysis, we will consider only these 36 contra cts.
ETP also awarded a few contracts that were initially inte


us, there are 22 completed contracts that originated between 2010 and 2014.  Table
9.8 provides a summary of the experiences of the full set of 36 contracts and of the 22
complete contracts.  The completed contracts permit  analysis of their outcom


ees were not able
to use the funds they were awarded.  In total, only a little over half the intended trainees have
actually been placed on the completed contracts.  Because of this lower placement amount,  the
corresponding funds are being recycl


Es.  Virtually all the awardees that reported
employment supported by the award have employment in California. A much smaller number
of awardees report employment outside California at locatio ns of their own firms:  10 percent in
the United State


appears that the effects of the
award ending were felt much more by the subcontractors than by the awardees .
9.5 Award ee Perceptions of Labor Market
On the survey, we asked all awardees except those who had not yet started and those whose
proj


e 9.6. Award ee Perception of Employee Skills

SOURCE : RAND survey .
NOTE: Based on 220  awardees . Bars do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

such deficiencies did create a significant barrier.  So, while skill deficiencies did n


en Transportation Jobs Reports
In early 2008, following the enactment of the federal Green Jobs Act of 2007, the California
EDD’s LMID  began a study of California’s green economy. EDD had a strong interest in
understanding the nature of the green


irms were shrinking, they were shrinking less
than firms on average .
9.6.2 Collaborative Economics’ Core ARFVT Employment (RICO Regions and
Industries)
COECON worked closely with the California Workforce Investment Board  (later CWDB)  to
imple


.
219Total establishments and employment derived from U.S. Census Bureau, “Business Dynamics Statistics:
Establishment Characteristics Data Tables,” undated.  142
  260
  504

0
  100
  200
  300
  400
  500
  600

2001
   2006
   2


on establishments that have the majority of their effort in AR FVT. This core employment is about one -tenth of the overall AR FVT
employment that EDD estimated.  An advantage of COECON’s work is that it generated custom
data over a decade -long pe


 quality of
efforts undertaken or their value to stakeholders in the industry.  Many of the records we were
able to use consisted of activity reports with little attempt to evaluate the results of the activities. ETP relies on employers to determin


utcomes be
retained for a considerable period (such as ten years) following the completion of each award
activity to support future evaluations.
Consider funding data infrastructure to measure the AR FVT workforce.  Consistently
collected and re


ions from the process evaluation and then tur n to those from the outcome
evaluation, before concluding with observations on priorities for future ARFVTP investments.
10.1 Conclusions from the Process Evaluation
10.1.1 Has the Process for Develo


ferent market segments:  feedstocks, fuel production, fueling infrastructure, vehicles, and
consumer s. We also identified barriers to the development of the workforce needed to staff
growing alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology (A


h  only one -third of
applicants applying more than once.  There is considerable competition for awards, with only 26
percent of applications successful overall.  The success rate is modest across all fuel types,
varying from 16 percent for hydrog


e than 60 percent of awardees who answer ed a survey
question on the CEC process for approving project modifications either somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that the process was burdensome, and more than  one-quarter of those believed
that t he d


equested project modifications did not answer the
question.  We thus restricted our attention to only those who answered the question.   294 achieve all the project technical objectives or that the project ended up costing less than
expected.
10.


ctives for the ongoing projects remain in progress,
but awardees told us in their answers to our survey that they are confident that a high
percentage of their technical objectives will be fully achieved.  We also found that the success in


entatively  conclude  that roughly one -half of the projects funded by
the ARFVT P would not have proceeded otherwise.  However, the ability to proceed absent
ARFVTP funding rests on the availability of other government and private funding sources.


elop and demonstrate different types of electrically powered v ehicles.  It is likely that
projects to expand production lines and to design and demonstrate advanced EV components
will contribute to reducing vehicle cost, but few data to confirm su


methane transportation market in  California. ARFVTP fu nding has approximately doubled
the biomethane fuel -production capacity in the state, adding about 5.5 million diesel gallon
equivalent s per year in capacity at 11 facilities since 2009 . Si


on factors to
consider in making investment decisions.  These observations concern how investments within a
fuel type might be modified.  Suggestions for adjustments of investment across fuel types are
beyond the scope of this study.
10.3.1 Obse


top political goals, the ARFVTP should consider providing incentives rather than continuing to invest in biodiesel production capacity. The existence of such a subsidy
could allow in -state producers to obtain the financing to construct production c


r lack of access to  300 customers.  It appears that all the biomethane that is used to comply with the LCFS is produced
in other states.  Continued award funding for research to help drive costs dow n appears
warranted, and the ARFVTP should consi


t.
10.3.8 Observations on Research, Development, and Demonstration
The proportion of program resources spent on RD&D dropped substantially in 2014, the last year that awards were made for the projects covered in this evaluation.
223 It is too soon


  DC fast charging
DGE   d iesel gallon equivalent
DoE   U.S. Department of Energy
E
E10    10 percent ethanol fuel blend
E15    15 percent ethanol fuel blend
E85    85 percent ethanol fuel blend with 51 percent to 83 percent ethanol
EDD


uccessful Applicants, and Potential
Applicants
In this appendix, we expand on the shorter discussion of the web -based survey in Chapter 1 and
discuss the questionnaire design, sample selection, survey implementation, and survey
respo nse rates.


ey have  no evaluation questions).  As
such, the survey was used in both the process and outcomes evaluation, as well as to get at
opinions of the respondents to ARFVTP ’s investment portfolio and to the need for government
policy interventions.


, we asked the respondent
to verify that assessment for each technical objective —whether it was fully, partially, or
minimally achieved . If an objective was not fully achieved, we asked a follow -up question to
understand why.
This approach me


ate investment (e.g., nongovernmental
funding from angel investors, venture capital, strategic investors, and banks) has increased.”
A.1.3 Respondent Views
Closing questions in the survey sought to query respondents on t heir views on the role of


fore identified potential applicants (i.e. , organizations that are active in
Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology [ARFVT] industries) from
various sources, including membership lists of relevant industry groups, various lists of p


onsidered  how questions might be rephrased
• revised survey questions as appropriate
• programmed survey for Web administration.  The software platform used was the
Computer -Assisted Survey Execution System (CASES).225
A.3.2 Survey Fielding


ne e xception is workforce, which had a response rate of 100 percent, but this was
because there was only one unsuccessful applicant  in the sample.
For the potential applicants, response rates by fuel type are not reported here because t he types


represented on
the basis of awards rather than organizations.

   317 Appendix B:  Procedures for In -Depth Project
Reviews and Protocol
In this appendix, we discuss the procedures for the in -depth project reviews and the protocol
used for


e on p roject o bjectives
1. What are the technical objectives of the project?
a. How do you measure progress towards these objectives?
2. Were objectives modified during the course of the project?  Why?
3. Have the objectives been met thus fa


e capabilities represent a
notable barrier to your progress?
C. Market prospects for products or t echnologies developed under award
1. For RD&D projects
a. How long until your technology is operational?
b. How long until your product reaches


raining in Imperfect Labour
Markets,” The Economic Journal , Vol. 109, No. 453, 1999, pp. F112 –F142.
Aemetis, “Aemetis Achieves Milestones in Advanced Feedstock for Biofuels,” September 28,
2015. As of March 20, 2017:
http://www.aemetis.com/a


nitiative: Defining the Future,” calrecycle.ca.gov, May 16,
2017. As of March 20, 2017:  http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75Percent/
California Air Resources Board, “California HVIP,” undated. As of June 11, 2017:
https://www.californiahvip.org/def


shboard/dashboard.htm
———,  Final Regulation Order, Regulation on Commercialization of Alternat ive Diesel Fuels ,
November 15, 2015. As of March 21, 2017: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/adf2015/adffinalregorder.pdf
———, “Low Carbon Fuel St


EC -600-2009-0 08/CEC -600-2009- 008-
CMF.PDF
———, 2010– 2011 Investment Plan for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program , CEC -600-2010- 001-SD-REV2, April 2010. As of June 21, 2017:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010public


of June 20, 2017: http://www.coecon.com/assets/rico_su mmary_2014.pdf
“Computer -Assisted Survey Execution System (CASES) ,” undated. As of March 29, 2017:
http://cases.berkeley.edu/index.html
Cox, Brenda G., David A. Binder, B. Nanjamma Chinna


 No. 37, September 26, 2011 .
Hatry, Harry P., Performance Measurement: Getting Results , 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute Press, 2006.
Howell, Steve, “Summary of FTC Regulations Regarding Signage/Labelling,” May 20, 2014. As of
M


my , Vol. 117, No. 5, October 2009, pp. 914 –940.  330 Leuven, Edwin, “The Economics of Private Sector Training: A Survey of the Literature,” Journal
of Economic Surveys, Vol. 19, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 91 –111.
Mathews , John A., and Hao Tan, “


troduction.pdf
Oil Price Information Reporting Service, RIN p rice database, accessed January 2017.
Pacific Biodiesel, “Biodiesel Benefits —Why Use Biodiesel,” undated. As of May 30, 2017:
http://www.biodiesel.com/biodiesel/benefits/
Pacific Et


:
https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html
U.S. Census Bureau, “Business Dynamics Statistics: Establishment Characteristics Data Tables,”
undated. As of March 20, 2017:
http://www.census.gov/ce s/dataproducts/bds/data_estab.html
———, “2014 SUSB


 of June 1, 2017:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
———, " Fuel Cell Technologies Office Closed Funding Opportunities,” undated. As of March 22,
2017:
https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel -cell-technologies -office -closed -funding


y Use for Transportation,” May 17,
2017. As of March 20, 2017:
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation
———, “Natural Gas: Natural Gas Consumption by End Use,” May 31, 2017. As of May 25, 2017:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/


Countering Threats to Correctional
Institution Security
Identifying Innovation Needs to Address Current
and Emerging Concerns
Joe Russo, Dulani Woods, John S. Shaffer, Brian A. Jackson
On behalf of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
the Prio


greater awareness of cyber threatsand information technology–related risks and needincreased capacity to address these risks.
•Best practices are needed to balance inmate access totechnology for reentry purposes with security concerns.
•Best practice


nd into correctional facilities (Hennigan, 2018). Inmates require increased access to technol -
ogy and the internet in order to prepare themselves for suc -
cessful reentry, but this access introduces significant risks that must be managed (Tolbert


l phones or misuse or
manipulation of technology to conduct criminal acts, make threats, or coordinate activities.
• Contraband  includes the possession of drugs, weapons,
tools, cash, and other unauthorized items (regardless of the method of entry


rado Department of Corrections
Ronald Repasi
Federal Communications Commission
Barry Roska
Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Office Brigitta Rubin
The Mitre Corporation3outlined the goals of the workshop and presented the results
from the pre-w


re 1. Pre-Meeting Questionnaire Rankings of the Importance of Security Threats
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of participants assigning high rank
NOTE: High rank is defined as a score of 7, 8, or 9. All 17 participants responded to this


 team sought to include a broadly representative group of participants, it is likely that a different group would produce somewhat dif -
ferent results. The following sections summarize the workshop discussions and recommendations, organized by five


; inmate movement; pro -
gramming needs; and statutory, contractual, and agency policy requirements), differences among institutions have limited the success of those efforts.
Research is required to develop better models to account
for these diffe


tronic information distribution).
There is insufficient national-level guidance on staffing ratios, particularly for adult institutions.
• Conduct research to determine optimal staffing ratios and the impacts from having more or less than the optimal


e correctional officer. A rebranding of sorts is required because many job seekers may not be attracted to a profession they perceive to be custodial in nature. Rather, in addition to the public safety and security aspects, the job should be mar -
ke


empty posts. Furthermore, many institutions lack the requisite number of supervisors. This often results in an unmanageable span of control; supervisors who are respon -
sible for too many officers can become overwhelmed and are rendered ineffective.


romise, the group argued that the adequacy of this training is questionable. Research is needed to determine the most effective training modalities and approaches that can be leveraged to reduce staff misconduct.
Although more-effective training woul


rding to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Noonan, 2016a; Noonan, 2016b). There is also evidence that many more deaths are associated with these drugs than are reported in the official statistics (Kennedy, 2018). Although all types of drugs may be in


loped and promulgated.
Ultimately, the solution may include banning all physical,
non-legal mail from entering a correctional facility, a policy
Although all types of drugs
may be introduced into a correctional institution, the group identified s


roblem has been well understood by the corrections sector for decades, but it has become so widespread in the past few years that the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stated that, “In the hands of an inmate, a cell phone is a weapo


e the device. Each of these approaches has advan -
tages and disadvantages, but none is a silver bullet, which is why institutions typically employ a combination of approaches incorporating a mix of technologies, policies, and practices. To help agen


ctions agencies; and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.11this, the group called for the development of a research, testing,
and evaluation center empowered with the authority or blan -
ket permission required to evaluate potential solutions as the


echnologies (e.g., radar) emit energy and detect any reflection that indicates that a drone is operating in a controlled area. These technologies are relatively expensive, and their effective -
ness is unknown. Once a drone is detected, however, resp


ted the vulner -
abilities of institutional IT systems. Ohio inmates assigned to a program to recycle computers were able to build two computers out of parts. These computers were used to access the prison’s IT network to create passes to move freely


ccording to the participants in our workshop.13make these staff information security experts but to help them
recognize that cyber threats are just as critical and potentially dangerous as physical threats. Furthermore, greater apprecia -
tion for t


 employment, etc.).
• Conduct research to determine best practices to manage the risks.
Institutional leaders (e.g., chiefs of security, wardens) are often not up to date on institutional threats that arise in the cyber realm.
• Develop best practice


ng frequent pass -
word updates. Furthermore, agencies need best practices with respect to third-party vendors, many of whom require network access to perform services. Protocols should be implemented to properly vet these contractors in order to min


 may incorpo -
rate anger management and other cognitive-based interventions designed to improve decisionmaking skills and identify alterna -
tives to violence.
Existing research on the effectiveness of these strategies
is limited, and the results o


lized skill staff attrition negatively affects the institution’s knowledge base and effectiveness.
• Conduct research into the impact of incentives for officers who maintain STG specialization and expertise.
STGs are a persistent threat to criminal a


r disrup -
tive activities may be coordinated by inmates in different parts of the country. Agencies should leverage existing platforms for information-sharing, such as the National Joint Task Force’s Corrections Intelligence Initiative, the Regional


and retain a high-quality workforce. High vacancy and turnover rates contribute to understaffing and an increase in the number of inexperienced officers. Furthermore, compromised staff are a major problem with respect to contraband intro -
duction. I


ility of correctional institutions to adapt to such shifts in threats and to adjust secu -
rity and staffing strategies over time. Furthermore, a perpetual lack of empirical data hampers efforts to effectively develop interventions to address threats


d panelists to anonymously vote using a handheld “clicker” (specifically, the ResponseCard RF LCD from Turning Tech -
nologies). Each panelist was asked to individually score each issue and its associated need using a 1–9 scale for the following dime


were given an opportunity to adjust their vote by voting a second time on the same question. This second round vote was optional, and any vote cast by a panelist would replace the vote they provided during the first round. This process was repeated f


 the panelists’
round 3 responses and applied those votes to produce a final prioritized and tiered list. To adjust the EVs using the up and down votes from the third round of prioritization, we assigned a value to each vote based on the range in EV


rs of needs EVs had someseparation between them—just getting into the score rangebetween two tiers was not enough to move two full tiers.
As a result of the third round of voting, 24 needs did not
change their position, two needs fell one tier, and


h the latest approaches (best practices for duration, location, delivery, etc.).2
Tier 3
Issue:  STGs are a persistent threat to criminal activity both inside and outside of
institutions.
Need:  Increase awareness of the benefits and risks of using


 Computers in Prison,” CNN, April 12, 2017. As of July 6, 2018: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/us/ohio-jail-computers-trnd/
index.html
Darby, Chris, “Allen County Sheriff Working to Protect Jail After
Hazmat Incidents,” Wane.com, June 7, 2018. As


on, RR-1255-NIJ,
2016. As of May 10, 2019: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1255.html Johnson, Kevin, “Exclusive: As Federal Prisons Run Low on Guards, Nurses and Cooks Are Filling In,” USA Today , February 13, 2018. As
of July 6, 2018:


. As of July 6, 2018:  https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/
PLC-White-Paper_Newman_Rad_Strauchs_July22_2011.pdf
Noonan, Margaret E., Mortality in Local Jails, 2000–2014—
Statistical Tables , Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice St


7, 2018: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/prison-test-shows-micro-jamming-may-counter-criminal-threat-contraband-cell-phones
———, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons’ Contraband Interdiction Efforts , June, 2016. A


poration that seeks to actively improve the health and social and economic well-being of populations and communities throughout the world. This research was conducted in the Justice Policy Program within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being. The progr


g ways to address institutional security concerns in the corrections sector. This report and the results it presents should be of interest to planners from corrections agencies, research and operational criminal justice agencies at the federal level,


CORPORATION
Wearable Technologies for Law
Enforcement
Multifunctional Vest System Options
Richard Silberglitt, Andrew Lauland, Michael Watson, Christopher A. Eusebi,
Jesse Lastunen
This report is part of an ongoing research program,
led by the RA


odate their unique challenges and opportunities.Key Findings
already in use by the wider community. In addition to
ubiquitous fitness monitoring devices and various modes of wearable connectivity to electronic devices, research-ers and industrial wo


ic system makes use of off-the-shelf commercial or near-commercial technologies from the emerging smart clothing and e-textiles market and builds on advances in the use of electronics in entertainment and costume design, as well as the availability o


eceiver.Advanced SystemThe advanced system incorporates features that are in the development stage or that are not currently widely avail-able from commercial vendors. These include integration of biometric monitoring into the garment that makes up t


the bulk, weight, and flexibility of carried equip-ment—major incremental improvements are available today using currently available commercial technology. However, law enforcement agencies need to think about how to engage with manufacturers now to


. Law Enforcement Needs and Wearable
Technologies
Law enforcement officers are required to perform difficult, and
increasingly complex, duties under challenging and unpredict-able circumstances. As technology has changed and evolved, law enforcemen


r ballistic protection, departments are also increasingly wary of adopting an overly militaristic appearance, which may cause concern among the public. Unfortunately, the mere presence of multiple pieces of equipment and the clothing and devices comm


t, much of which
is carried on the belt
• the pres
ence of multiple devices with batteries that need to
be recharged
• the need f
or mounting and docking systems for electronic
devices, such as BWCs
• the need f
or comfort and flexibility while we


sure them, and how to access and use the data, as well as decisions associated with how to access or create a mesh network and protocols for its use. Some compo-nents for the advanced system will not be off the shelf but will instead require technica


c research in the area has also been growing in
recent years, focusing, for example, on the impact of BWCs on response-to-resistance incidents and external complaints (see, e.g., Jennings, Lynch, and Fridell, 2015; Ariel, Farrar, and Sutherland, 201


st, weight, and energy density constraints of this application make the type of Li-ion batteries used in most mobile devices the appropriate choice for the vest system.
4
While Li-ion batteries are commercially mature, the
technology continues to im


where in the officer’s patrol car, allowing electronics to recharge any time an officer is seated in the car. The benefits from wireless charging are significant:
•
 no wear an
d tear to connectors
• no conne
ctor port providing entry for contaminan


ut technologies relevant to such functions, which are described briefly in this section.
Mesh networks.  In the enhanced and advanced systems,
WiFi mesh networks that can connect moving nodes could be used to provide officers on foot with informatio


t for traf-fic flow monitoring, security, and other purposes. The product alternatives here are plentiful: Data can be read and controlled on laptops, tablets, or mobile phones or even through acces-sories, such as watches, glasses, or head-up displa


ables. Some of the related products are applications specifically designed around public safety and security. For example, Cana-dian CommandWear Systems has developed a software plat-form that integrates location and biometric data from devices to pr


 such as temperature, producing real-time feedback—e.g., in the form of electrical stimuli. Three distinct “generations” of textile wearable technologies can be identified (see, e.g., Cientifica Research, 2016):
1.
 produc
ts in which a sensor is att


to integrate into the vest system properly, but the basic technology is off the shelf. This basic integrated vest or shirt system will provide information collec-tion, energy storage, and charging technology. The informa-tion collection technology in


ts to enhance such properties as frame size and sensitivity, are available from multiple vendors.
7
The benefits of embedding the BWC in the vest, rather
than wearing it on the chest or helmet, include the elimination of the mounting or attachment


R2012-3.2
13
phones, these sounds can be processed to potentially identify
distance and direction. While the distance over which this triangulation is effective may be limited for a single officer, linking microphones on different officers—for examp


s. Taking these battery cells and placing five to ten on either side of the vest, similar to a ribcage, creates a natural feel that could greatly benefit the mobility and overall wellness of the officer. Such battery systems could power all of the cu


omposed of off-the-shelf solutions. The components discussed previously are all inexpensive, readily available from commercial vendors, and easy to embed using current technol -
ogy. Figure 3.3 shows a possible representation of a basic vest that inc


nters or can take the form of real-time data streamed to all officers in a spe-cific geographic area to increase officer safety and awareness. In addition, information can be streamed from officers in the field into central locations for monitoring.


ition for the shared channel.
Recent research on mesh network construction addresses
these issues (Abolhasan, Lipman, and Hagelstein, 2015). Figure 4.1 shows a schematic example of a mesh network to which an officer wearing the enhanced vest system


es. In the case of officer safety, key applications include all aspects of officer situational awareness, for example, as discussed in the previous section, as well as the addition of technology capable of detecting certain types of physical injuries


 a signal to a linked radio or other receiver.
12
10  For a review, see Gandhi and Wang, 2014. For descriptions of the
latest highly rated technologies, see, e.g., Duffy and Colon, 2016, or
Tucker, 2016.
11  See, for example, Majcher, 2015; Gao et


s two properties that provide opportunities for integration of biometric monitoring into the vest system itself: onboard processing and an electrically connected garment.
5.1.1. Onboard Processing
Onboard processing allows biometric information to be


mmercial systems exist to generate electricity from either type of energy (for example, see Tellurex, 2016, and Ampy, 2016). A multi-university research program sponsored by the National Science Foundation is developing nanotechnology-enabled wearabl


ype of analysis could be per-
formed on information about passengers in a vehicle obtained
16  Several different organizations provide such services. For example,
see Kairos, 2017b; Face++, 2017; and Microsoft, 2017.by shining a facial imaging flas


imulate a cellphone network to capture the flow of traffic through a net-work, it is an open question whether the government requires a warrant to capture electromagnetic signals that are continu-ously emitted into the environment.
Low-cost Arduino-b


lable today at reasonable cost. More-sophisticated wearable technologies are under develop -
ment and rapidly improving. Earlier chapters of this report used currently available technologies for the components of a basic integrated vest system and te


 result in lost opportunities or, perhaps worse, confusion and information overload.
•
 Wearab
le health and safety technology is improving
rapidly and represents a challenge and opportunity for law enforcement.  The law enforcement community shoul


here is no reason for law enforcement to wait for wear-
able technologies that can provide improvements in the bulk, weight, and flexibility of carried equipment—major incremen-tal improvements are available today using currently available commercial


2.7 kg –20°C to 60°C
(–4°F to 140°F)31.0 x 18.5 x 6.0 cm
NOTES: A = ampere; Ah = ampere hour; C/5 denotes a discharge rate of 0.2C; V = volt; Wh = Watt hour; Wh/kg = Watt hours per kilogram; Wh/l = Watt hours per liter.22Table A.3. Key Technologies


for mobile devices and smartwatches to work with its Bluetooth connection and sensor data.
Globe A U.S.-based company developing smart fabrics to measure the extreme physiological stress that can be experienced during the course of an individual’s d


n purpose of such solutions in commercial products is facilitating offsite monitoring of vital signs. Cityzen Sciences’ wearable physical activity monitor with GPS and Interactive Wear’s combined Global System for Mobile Communication and GPS chip in


. 29, No. 4, July–August 2015, pp. 32–38.
Adafruit, “Arduino,” undated(a). As of June 26, 2017: https://www.adafruit.com/category/17
Adafruit, “Cosplay/Costuming,” undated(b). As of June 27, 2017:
https://www.adafruit.com/category/290
Adafruit, “Min


wear.com/
Corda, V., “How to Add Wireless Charging to Any Device,” Qi
Wireless, November 29, 2014. As of June 26, 2017: http://www.qiwireless.com/add-wireless-charging-device
DataSoft, “AID: Automatic Injury Detection,” 2015. As of June 27,
2017:


oskin.com
Hollywood, J. S., J. E. Boon, R. Silberglitt, B. G. Chow, and
B. A. Jackson, High-Priority Information Technology Needs for Law Enforcement , Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-737-
NIJ, 2015. As of June 26, 2017: http://www.rand.o


stice , Vol. 42, No. 6, 2014,
pp. 549–556.26Jennings, W. G., M. D. Lynch, and L. A. Fridell, “Evaluating the
Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) on Response-to-Resistance and Serious External Complaints: Evidence from the Orlando Poli


 Devices Powered by Human Motion,” Nano Energy , Vol. 30, 2016, pp. 649–657.
Lux Research, “Wearables and Bioelectronics Need Better Energy Storage,” Electronic Specifier, 2016. As of June 26, 2017: http://www.electronicspecifier.com/around-the-indus


ciently-converts-body-heat-electricity
Nuruzzaman-Cornell, Farhan, “Smart Fabrics: Transistors from
Cotton,” Futurity, October 28, 2011. As of June 27, 2017: http://www.futurity.org/smart-fabrics-transistors-from-cotton/
Ossia, “Ossia Granted 4 U.S


-D),” undated.
As of August 30, 2017: http://www.six-15.com/ard
Smith, A., “U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015,” Pew Research Center,
April 1, 2015. As of June 26, 2017: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015
Stables, J., “Optical


y 21, 2017a. As of June 26, 2017:
https://www.rdmag.com/article/2017/02/
nanoclusters-help-improve-lithium-ion-batteriesWalter, K., “Battery Pioneer Debuts New Fast-Charging Battery,” R&D Magazine , February 28, 2017b. As of June 26, 2017:
https:


 their enthusiastic support of the
research underlying this report and thank both of them, as well as Brian Jackson of RAND, for many interesting and helpful discussions. We are also especially grateful to our peer reviewers, Scott Savitz of RAND an


ilities, and what might be considered to take advantage of technologies that are still in development and could provide even greater capabilities. This report will be of interest to law enforcement practitioners and academics, as well as individuals