aimp2.apec.org Docs/3218/Completio… · Web viewIn 2014, APEC economies agree to promote EV use,...
30
APEC Project Completion Report SECTION A: Project profile Project number & title: CTI 12 2017A – Implementing the APEC Electric Vehicles Roadmap Workshop Project time period: Aug 1 2017 – Sept 30 2017 Date submitted: Jan 22 2018 Committee / WG / Fora: Automotive Dialogue Project Overseer Name / Organization / Economy: Ann Katsiak, US-ATAARI Todd Peterson, US Department of Commerce SECTION B: Project report and reflection 1. Project description: In 3-4 sentences, please describe the project and its main objectives. In 2014, APEC economies agree to promote EV use, production, and trade throughout the region through several mechanisms, one of which is the APEC Roadmap for International Electric Vehicle Standards. Under this initiative, US- ATAARI held a one-day training bringing together policymakers and industry-level participants to identify technical areas where alignment could be achieved to facilitate trade and investment in the APEC region. As a follow-on activity, the U.S. implemented a one-day training, attended by 97 public and private sector representatives from fifteen APEC member economies, aimed to discuss the establishment of the APEC Interoperability Center and identify further opportunities for collaboration with industry, including the development of a list of priority standards for promoting widespread usage of electric vehicles in the region. 2. Meeting objectives: Describe how the project met each of its proposed objectives. Please outline any challenges you may have encountered in delivering the activity. The main objective of this activity was to pursue technical coordination to support harmonized standards and regulatory approaches in the region for both electric vehicles and their parts, including interoperability between vehicles and their charging infrastructure, with a view to avoiding and reducing regulatory and standards divergence. In this regard, this workshop provided an opportunity to discuss technical coordination and identify areas for future APEC engagement related to electric vehicles. The workshop opened with an overview of the 2016 workshop, which included a discussion of the APEC Electric Vehicles Roadmap and potential areas for alignment. The following session reviewed updates to ongoing international efforts to create Global Technical Regulations on EVs, including an update on
Transcript of aimp2.apec.org Docs/3218/Completio… · Web viewIn 2014, APEC economies agree to promote EV use,...
APEC Project Completion Report
SECTION A: Project profile
Project number & title: CTI 12 2017A – Implementing the APEC Electric Vehicles Roadmap Workshop
Project time period: Aug 1 2017 – Sept 30 2017 Date submitted:
Jan 22 2018
Committee / WG / Fora: Automotive Dialogue
Project Overseer Name / Organization / Economy:
Ann Katsiak, US-ATAARITodd Peterson, US Department of Commerce
SECTION B: Project report and reflection
1. Project description: In 3-4 sentences, please describe the project and its main objectives.
In 2014, APEC economies agree to promote EV use, production, and trade throughout the region through several mechanisms, one of which is the APEC Roadmap for International Electric Vehicle Standards. Under this initiative, US-ATAARI held a one-day training bringing together policymakers and industry-level participants to identify technical areas where alignment could be achieved to facilitate trade and investment in the APEC region. As a follow-on activity, the U.S. implemented a one-day training, attended by 97 public and private sector representatives from fifteen APEC member economies, aimed to discuss the establishment of the APEC Interoperability Center and identify further opportunities for collaboration with industry, including the development of a list of priority standards for promoting widespread usage of electric vehicles in the region.
2. Meeting objectives: Describe how the project met each of its proposed objectives. Please outline any challenges you may have encountered in delivering the activity.
The main objective of this activity was to pursue technical coordination to support harmonized standards and regulatory approaches in the region for both electric vehicles and their parts, including interoperability between vehicles and their charging infrastructure, with a view to avoiding and reducing regulatory and standards divergence.
In this regard, this workshop provided an opportunity to discuss technical coordination and identify areas for future APEC engagement related to electric vehicles. The workshop opened with an overview of the 2016 workshop, which included a discussion of the APEC Electric Vehicles Roadmap and potential areas for alignment. The following session reviewed updates to ongoing international efforts to create Global Technical Regulations on EVs, including an update on the UNECE WP 29 1998 Agreement, as well as a discussion of the APEC Delegation visit to Argonne National Laboratory. Subsequent sessions focused on standards development, related commercialization issues, and experiences from economies in the region, including the Philippines, Viet Nam, New Zealand and Malaysia. Speakers from the American Automotive Policy Council, the Society of Automotive Engineers and the CHAdeMO Association also provided an overview of regional standards and regulations. Finally, a panel session discussed priority standards for promoting widespread usage of EVs in the region, which include emergency response, recycling, interoperability, personal data, and 2- and 3-wheeled vehicle related standards (including connectors and guidelines). Additional issues identified for possible future APEC engagement during this session included heavy EV charging and minimum battery specifications, noting that the workstream should not be limited exclusively to EVs, but should also include related topics such as connected vehicles, future mobility, and autonomous vehicle technologies.
3. Evaluation: Describe the process undertaken to evaluate the project upon completion. (e.g. evaluation through participant surveys, peer reviews of outputs, assessments against indicators, statistics demonstrating use of outputs etc.). Provide analysis of results of evaluations conducted and where possible include information on impacts on gender. Evaluation data needs to be included as an appendix.
Please see the attached evaluations provided during this event. The Project conducted a series of evaluation surveys with all workshop participants. The evaluations measured participants’ knowledge before and after the workshop in areas of key competencies. In addition, the survey asked participants whether the topics covered in the workshop were relevant to their current job responsibilities. We will also be following up again one year from the implementation of this workshop to get feedback on if and how participants have applied the knowledge gained.
4. Output indicators: Describe the main project outputs below. This may include workshops, tools, research papers, reports, recommendations, best practices, action plans..
Indicators (Edit or Insert rows as needed)
# planned # actual Details or notes
# workshops / events 1 1# participants (M/F) n/a 73/23 Total of 96 participants; 7 participants under
APEC funding# economies attending
n/a 15
Chile; People’s Republic of China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Philippines; Russia; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States; and Viet Nam.
# speakers engaged n/a 14 2 speakers under APEC funding
Comments: n/a
5. Outcomes: Describe any specific medium-term changes to policy, processes or behaviour that can be attributed to result from this activity. Please include details on: What indicators were used to measure medium-term impact? (Example indicators: type/number of
policies/ regulations/processes changed, % of businesses conforming to new standards, change in sector’s commercial activity, # individual action plans developed, # agencies using resource or tools etc.)
Monitoring plans in place and proposed indicators to measure impacts, including any impacts on gender. Please summarise relevant information.
In terms of outcomes of the workshop, participants agreed during discussions that: • Roadmap was a misnomer for the APEC EV Roadmap due to the limited standards focus which also limited
the ability to address broader related issues;• Priority standards depend on the level of commercialization;• The Automotive Dialogue (AD) offers a unique public/private sector avenue to discuss and address ideas
brought up under the Roadmap. The work might occur in other international fora such as the WP.29, ISO, etc. but it was important to continue to have discussions in the AD to ensure the regions issues are addressed;
• Future workshops and discussions can address emergency response, recycling, interoperability, cybersecurity, personal data, and 2- and 3-wheeled vehicle related standards (including connectors and guidelines);
• Additional issues might also include heavy EV charging and minimum battery specification however work should not be limited to EVs but also include connected vehicles, future mobility and autonomous vehicle technologies;
• Finally, cross-fora collaboration is needed with the Energy, Transportation and other APEC working groups.
At the end of the workshop, participants filled out feedback forms administered by the project organizers. In addition, feedback was also gathered pre and post training to specifically gage participants’ knowledge gained. Responses to the endline questionnaire clearly illustrated a gain in immediate knowledge and understanding following the workshop. Whereas a majority of respondents had rated their understanding of the current status of the Global Technical Regulation of EVs as ‘none’ or ‘limited’ at baseline, 88% of respondents rated their knowledge as ‘medium’ to ‘high’ at the workshop conclusion. Respondents rating their knowledge of the opportunities offered by the Interoperability Center as ‘medium’ or ‘high’ increased by 21% (from 43% to 64%). Of note, almost all respondents indicated they had a ‘medium’ or ‘high’ understanding across all categories at endline.
6. Participants/ Speakers Summary Table (compulsory for events): Must be gender-disaggregated.
Economy(Insert rows as needed) # male # female Total
Chile 2 0 2
China 3 1 4
Indonesia 3 2 5
Japan 8 0 8
Republic of Korea 5 0 5
Malaysia 9 5 14
New Zealand 1 0 1
Papua New Guinea 1 0 1
Peru 1 0 1
Philippines 3 2 5
Russia 0 1 1
Chinese Taipei 3 1 4
Thailand 10 7 17
United States 9 1 10
Vietnam 7 3 10
Other 8 0 8Total 73 23 96
Comments: What was the approach undertaken for participant nomination/selection and targeting? Please provide details. What follow-up actions are expected? How will participants/beneficiaries continue to be engaged and supported to progress this work?
APEC members were encouraged to nominate participants for the workshop and strongly encouraged to consider participants who are considered electric vehicle experts who understand the standards, processes, and structure of EV usage and commercialization, as well has the authority to advance related policies in this space. On a practical level, since this workshop took place on the margins of the Automotive Dialogue, many private sector participants who planned to attend AD meetings also attended this workshop.
There are no specific follow-up actions to be expected. If, however, there is a follow-on workshop, we would expect participants to attend and continue to be engaged in this line of work.
7. Key findings: Describe 1-3 examples of key findings, challenges or success stories arising from the project (e.g. research or case studies results, policy recommendations, roadblocks to progress on an issue, impacts on gender).
As a major takeaway, both government and private sector participants recognized the unique role of this forum to provide a space for industry and government dialogue to share and exchange information on relevant trade issues. Workshop presentations and discussions led to the recognition that economies are in varying stages of the commercialization of electric vehicles and that there is a widespread need for a minimum requirement for safe and reliable products. Also, as a result of the varying stages of commercialization in APEC economies, the group recognized that the interoperability center may not be immediately feasible, contrary to the initial thinking behind the APEC EV Roadmap. The group also stressed the need for continued cross-fora collaboration on this issue across APEC Working Groups. Next steps based on the workshop’s dialogue and recommendations include determining regional needs specifications and working to advance these needs in relevant international standards bodies. Already identified needs include for connectors, charging stations, batteries and heavy EV charging, maintaining protection and management of electricity supply networks, and fostering further connectivity among various relevant APEC working groups on the issue.
8. Next steps: Describe any planned follow-up steps or projects, such as workshops, post-activity evaluations, or research to assess the impact of this activity. How will the indicators from Question 5 be tracked? How will this activity inform any future APEC activities?
The US is exploring the possibility of expanding upon APEC’s work by updating the 2014 literature review of EV standards and identifying areas of progress in the region. The US is also planning to submit a concept note to hold another workshop on the margins of 2018 AD 2 to continue these discussions and line of work.
With regards to post-activity evaluations, as mentioned above we will be following up with participants one year from the implementation of this workshop to get feedback on if and how participants have applied the knowledge gained.
9. Feedback for the Secretariat: Do you have suggestions for more effective support by APEC fora or the Secretariat? Any assessment of consultants, experts or other stakeholders to share? The Secretariat examines feedback trends to identify ways to improve our systems.
APEC Secretariat’s support was integral in successfully implementing this workshop, especially with regards to travel support for participants.
SECTION C: Budget
Attach a detailed breakdown of the APEC- provided project budget, including: Planned costs: (using most recently approved budget figures) Actual expenditures Variance notes: An explanation of any budget line under- or over-spent by 20% or more.
All Figures in USDAPEC Funding
APEC Funding
APEC Funding Notes
Budgeted Actual%
Variance
Travel (Speaker, Experts, Researchers)
Per diem (incl. accommodation and “75% additional payment”)
$1,780 $874.50 -50.9%
Airfare $16,000 $9,330.02 -41.7%
Travel for Participants (from travel-eligible economies only. Active participants only)
Per diem (incl. accommodations and “75% additional payment”)
$6,188 $2,186.25 -64.7%
Airfare (restricted economy class)
$29,000 $4,665.48 -83.9%
Other items
Hosting (provide breakdown, e.g., room rental, stationery)
$7,064 $5,924 -16.1%
Total: $76,098 $22,980.2
All Figures in USDAPEC Funding
APEC Funding
APEC Funding Notes
Budgeted Actual%
Variance
5
SECTION D: Appendices
Please attach the following documentation to the report. Note that the contact list for participants/ experts/ consultants is a mandatory requirement for all Project Completion Reports.
Appendices NotesParticipant contact list, including name, email address, gender, organization (mandatory)Experts / consultants list, including name, email address, gender, organization (mandatory)Event AgendaReports, websites or resources created: links or soft copiesPost activity survey or other evaluation data (raw and/or aggregated) Other information or resources
FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLY APEC comments: Were APEC project guidelines followed? Could the project have been managed more effectively or easily by the PO?
Appendix 1: Participant contact list
Economy NameGender (M/F)
Institution Email
US William Gouse M SAE International [email protected]
US Keith Hardy M Argonne National Laboratory
MY Wong Kok Kiong M Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water
Speaker Makoto Yoshida M CHAdeMO Association
NZ Andrew Campbell M Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
US Nick Coutsos M American Automotive Policy Council
CN Lan Hao M China Automotive Technology & Research Center (CATARC)
MY Noranis Binti Sadikun
F Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water
MY Mohd Yusop bin Mohamad
M Ministry of Transport [email protected]
MY K Talagavathi F Ministry of International Trade and Industry
MY Norfadhilah Tan F Ministry of International Trade and Industry
MY Aishah Shaikh Admad
M Malaysia Automotive Association
MY Goh Cheng Meng M Malaysian Automotive Component Parts Manufacturers Association
MY Lim Yoke Cheong M Malaysian Automotive Component Parts Manufacturers Association
MY Law Zhe Jean F Malaysian Automotive Component Parts
Economy NameGender (M/F)
Institution Email
Manufacturers Association
MY Mohamad Madani Bin Sahari
M Malaysia Automotive Institute
MY Ahmed Zaki Bin Abdul Rashid Moten
M Malaysia Automotive Institute
VN Pham Minh Chi F SMEDEC2-STAMEQ
MY Bakri Bin Alias M Malaysia Automotive Institute
MY Murfarhana Binti Helme
F Malaysia Automotive Institute
MY Dennis Chuah M Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation
PG Jeffrey Noro M PNG Research, Science, and Technology Council
PE Jose Reynoso M Ministry of Transport and Communications
PH Ferdinand Raquelsantos
M Electric Vehicle Association of the Philippines
PH Edmund Araga M Electric Vehicle Association of the Philippines
[email protected]; [email protected]
VN Luong Duc Toan M Ministry of Industry and Trade
VN Phan Le Hoang Linh M Ministry of Industry and Trade
Other Tin Maung Win M Yupa Theikdi Industries Co. Ltd
Other Myo Zarni Win M Ministry of Industry [email protected]
TH Ong-ang M AIC
Other Kyaw Myo Htun M Yupa Theikdi Industries Co. Ltd
Other Ye Kyaw Moe M Yupa Theikdi Industries Co. Ltd
Economy NameGender (M/F)
Institution Email
Other Ven Keahak M General Department of Industry
Other Sok Chea M Ministry of Industry and Handicraft
US Steven J Rogers M World Resources Institute
TH Piengjai Keawsuwan M Thailand Automotive Industry Association
JP Muraoya M Honda
JP Yasuo Aoki M JAMA
JP Tmohiro Yoshida M JAMA
JP Tadashi Toya M JAMA-S
VN Vutkang Nguyet Minh
F SAPEC [email protected]
TH Sutarat Boonyapinyo
F TAIA
TH Wilawan Rittikarn F OIE
US Dermot Heron M AAPC
TH Radjarin Leelamongphanidi
F TAIA
US Michael Ralshy M GLOBALGR
VN Pham Anh Tuan M VAMA
TH Supawaw P F TARA
ID Arieska F Indonesia
VN Le Huyen Nga F MOIT
JP Masuto Enomoto M Toyota
JP Yukio Otani M Toyota
JP Tacsuru Irinamihira M JAMA
JP Yujiro Uchiela M JAMA
CN Hong Shi F CATARC
VN Pham Tuan M
Economy NameGender (M/F)
Institution Email
KR Lee Kun Stu M Hyudar
TH Khanchit M THI
TH Parinya M Thailand Automotive Industry Association
Other Henry ekha M
TH Rachanida Nitipathanapiraic
F Thailand Automotive Industry Association
KR Baek-Haeng Lee M KATECN
PH Ma Corazon Dichosa
F BOI-DTI
Other J. Rowland M Ford [email protected]
TW Hsieh, Shen-Jung M VSCC
TW Hsin Ju Huy F CARTC
TW Chien Chiang Tung M MOEA
TW Liu, Hsin-Hung M MOTC
TH Theeraphat K. M TAIA
TH Pattamaporn Praipue
F OIE
TH Jatuportn Upalakalin
F TAIA
KR Lee Jaewon M
KR Ti N. Kim M
KR Minchul JJ M
TH Atthavit Techawaboonnoy
M
TH Metha Panunampa M
CN Wen Lixing M
CN Zhang Skujia M
RU Anne F F
PH Mills V Cenoje M Phil Auto Federation [email protected]
VN Dinh Quang Vu M Viet Nam Register [email protected]
Economy NameGender (M/F)
Institution Email
TH Suwat Sopakandecuakul
M TAIA
US Thomas Cavgill M General Motors [email protected]
CL Alex Chaparro M Ministry of Foreign Affairs
VN Le Minh Vu M Mitsubishi Mortor VN [email protected]
ID Davy Jeffry Tuiland M Jaikimdo [email protected]
ID Andi Komare M Ministry of Industry [email protected]
TH Jalesura Vataneiputi M TAJA [email protected]
US Charles Utians M AAPC
US Matt Mobbs M General Motors [email protected]
US Tran Thanh Tra F Ford Motor Co. [email protected]
TH Trakarn Chindavijak M Ford Motor Co. [email protected]
PH Jasmin Nagera F Toyota Motor Philippines Corp.
CL Galton Fernandez M DIRECON [email protected]
ID Patiaj Monangdo M Ministry of Industry [email protected]
ID Benawati ABA F Gaikimodo
VN Vu Tan Cong M SOPEC Ltd [email protected]
Appendix 2: Agenda
Attachment 3: Evaluation Forms
Appendix 4: Evaluation Data
Attendee ProfileAs noted above, the workshop was designed to provide capacity building and facilitate a dialogue on common challenges and key elements to success for clean energy procurement in the region. The workshop drew a total of 97 attendees from a range of public and private sector stakeholders including high level technical officials from energy and finance ministries, as well as experts from international organizations (see participant profile in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Profile of Attendees (N=97)
Attendee SatisfactionData presented in this section were collected anonymously through the paper-based workshop feedback forms administered at the end of the workshop. Forty-five participants, or 46% of the total workshop attendees, completed the questionnaire.
Responses indicated that participants largely held positive perceptions of the workshop, with nearly all respondents selecting ‘excellent’ (30%) or ‘good’ (64%) ratings for the overall quality of the workshop (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Workshop Overall Rating and Feedback
With regard to participant views on the workshop’s delivery and format, 44% of respondents strongly agreed and 51% of respondents agreed that the trainers were knowledgeable about the training topics. 96% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the workshop was well prepared. 89% of respondents also strongly agreed or agreed that workshop objectives were clear and were met. In terms of participation by attendees and interaction among trainers and participants, 40% of respondents strongly agreed and 49% of respondents agreed that the workshop structure successfully encouraged such communication. Figure 3 below presents further detail on the respondents’ perceptions as to the workshop’s delivery and format.
n=45
Figure 3: Specific Aspects of the Workshop
Respondents were also asked to provide their feedback on the usefulness of the various sessions of the workshop. Detailed results are shown in Figure 4. Most topics covered in the training sessions were rated highly with respect to their usefulness. In particular, respondents identified the first session on harmonizing global technical regulations for EVs as especially useful.
Figure 4: Usefulness of Training Sessions
Workshop participants’ opinions were also sought on other training features, including technical level, relevance to work and applicability to participants’ jobs. Most respondents (70%) indicated that the training level was ‘just right,’ while 30% reported that the training was ‘too technical.’ In terms of relevance to job responsibilities, most respondents (82%) expressed that the training was either very or somewhat relevant to their work. Moreover, 93% of respondents confirmed that they would be able to directly apply content covered under the training ‘often’ or at least ‘occasionally’ in their work. From a broader perspective, most respondents (76%) considered the workshop topic, namely EV regulation harmonization and the Interoperability Center concept, to be a ‘top priority’ or
n=45
‘important priority’ for their respective economies. Of note, a high percentage of participants were walk-ins from other SOM 3 events, which demonstrates that the topic is of high interest to APEC, but also may have contributed to a number of participants entering the event with limited familiarity towards the workshop topic.
Figure 5: Additional Training Features
Knowledge GainedIn order to gauge whether respondents increased their capacity as a result of the workshop, two distinct hard copy questionnaires – for ‘pre-training’ and ‘post-training’ – were administered during the first and second days. Participants completed the questionnaires by rating their knowledge of specific workshop topics at the start (pre-training) and at end (post-training) of the workshop.1 Questionnaires that were less than 75% complete, or that did not have a ‘match’ – that is a corresponding completed pre- or post-training questionnaire – were discarded and excluded from the analysis.2 Thirty-five participants, or 36% percent of the total workshop attendees, responded to
1 Closed-ended questionnaires are circulated pre-training and post-training at workshops asking participants to evaluate, on a five-point scale, their level of knowledge on the subject matter before (baseline) and after (endline) the training.
both the pre- and post- training questionnaires. The figure below summarizes responses to the baseline and endline questionnaires.
Figure 6: Respondents’ Knowledge (Baseline vs. Endline)
As to self-reported knowledge of training subject matter prior to the workshop, a majority of respondents rated their knowledge as ‘none’ or ‘limited’ across most categories. More than 57% of respondents rated their understanding of the opportunities offered by the Interoperability Center as ‘none’ or ‘limited’ at the outset. While the audience on average self-reported at least some familiarity with the subject matter at baseline, participants clearly could benefit from discussion of issues of possible EV regulatory harmonization in the APEC region.
Responses to the endline questionnaire clearly illustrated a gain in immediate knowledge and understanding following the workshop (see Figure 6Figure 7). Whereas a majority of respondents had rated their understanding of the current status of the Global Technical Regulation of EVs as ‘none’ or ‘limited’ at baseline, 88% of respondents rated their knowledge as ‘medium’ to ‘high’ at the workshop conclusion. Respondents rating their knowledge of the opportunities offered by the Interoperability Center as ‘medium’ or ‘high’ increased by 21% (from 43% to 64%). Of note, almost all respondents indicated they had a ‘medium’ or ‘high’ understanding across all categories at endline.
Figure 7: Average Respondents’ Knowledge (Baseline v. Endline)
2 Due to a lack of matches, there were 16 discards for Form #3a Knowledge Gained Pre-Training; and 16 discards for Form #3b Knowledge Gained Post-Training.
n=35
n=35
As illustrated in Figure 7, workshop participants as a group did on average self-report considerable knowledge gain across the training topics. With respect to by how much the respondents on average increased their capacity, Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of respondents stating their capacity has increased by at least 10 percent. Most respondents (71%) rated their capacity as having increased by 10% or more. Of 19 male respondents to the knowledge gained forms, eleven (92%) indicated that their capacity increased by at least 10 percent (see Figure 9). This compares to 4 of the 6 female respondents (75%).
Figure 8: Self-Reported Knowledge Gain (≥10% Knowledge Gain)
Figure 9: Self-Reported Knowledge Gain (Sex Disaggregated)
70% 75%of male respondents reported their capacity had increased by 10% or more.
n=25
n=19 n=6
of female respondents, reported their capacity had increased by 10% or more.
VS.
