9. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the assigned Commissioner Nancy E. Ryan in this matter was mailed to parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on June 10, 2010 by CARE and NCRA, Clean Energy, DRA, EDF, the EV Service Provider Coalition, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), NRDC and FOE, PG&E, SCE, SEU, and TURN, and reply comments were filed on June 15, 2010 by DRA, the EV Service Provider Coalition, NRDC and FOE, PG&E, SCE, SEU, and WSPA.
Several parties including CARE and NCRA, DRA, NRDC and FOE, PG&E and TURN commented on the decision's analysis of § 216 and related sections. The decision has been revised in response to parties' arguments.
DRA, NRDC and FOE, and SCE contend that the decision needs to state that the Commission retains jurisdiction in a number of areas that will be important to protect consumers and the environment and ensure a successful expansion of electric vehicle use. In response, we have added a new Section 4.3, which lays out important sources of regulatory authority that the Commission will consider using as we develop policies in Phase 2.
Other revisions have been made to the body of the decision in response to comments. Below we discuss comments that are not addressed elsewhere.
Clean Energy believes the Commission should prohibit utilities from putting in ratebase investments to provide home refueling and recharging services. We decline to address Clean Energy's request in this decision. As indicated in Section 7, the Commission will address the appropriate utility role in the provision of electric vehicle charging services to the public and with respect to home refueling equipment in Phase 2.
The EV Service Provider Coalition asks that the Commission clarify that the sale of electric vehicle charging services does not constitute a retail sale of electricity. We concur and have made clarifying revisions.
LADWP is concerned the decision does not consider the scenario where a municipality has not opened up its service territory for retail sales by other entities. This decision, however, is limited in scope and does not address the rights or obligations of municipalities.
NRDC and FOE request that the Commission explicitly acknowledge the linkages between alternative-fueled vehicles, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission's belief that the growth of electric and natural gas transportation can help to reduce the environmental impacts of energy use in California is a primary motivating factor for initiating this rulemaking.36 The decision has been revised to explicitly state this and emphasize that the Commission will continue to implement applicable environmental laws and regulations as electric transportation expands in the state.
NRDC and FOE also emphasize that vehicle charging must be properly managed to fulfill the Commission's statutory obligations to ensure safe and reliable electric services. We agree. Ensuring that electric vehicles do not have adverse impacts on our electric system in terms of reliability and safety is one of the primary objectives of this rulemaking.37 Section 4.3 above describes some of the sources of regulatory authority that could be important as we develop policies in Phase 2 of this rulemaking.
PG&E is concerned that the decision could be used by parties to argue against a utility's provision of electric vehicle charging equipment and services. We cannot predict what arguments parties will make in the future; however, we clarify that this decision does not address the utilities' role with regard to vehicle charging. That issue will be taken up in Phase 2.
SCE agrees that electric vehicle charging services should not be regulated as public utilities but requests that we address whether electric vehicle charging providers are covered by the load cap adopted in Senate Bill 695.38 We clarify that a charging provider would not be subject to the cap unless the charging provider is an electric service provider or is otherwise purchasing electricity at wholesale to supply to customers.
SCE is concerned that the decision is disclaiming jurisdiction over sales of electrical vehicle charging services would result in the utility being required to separately meter electricity going toward charging and electricity going to other purposes. First, SCE is incorrect that this decision is disclaiming jurisdiction over sales of electricity for use as a motor fuel. On the contrary, this decision is only finding that selling electric vehicle charging services does not make an entity a public utility. The Commission retains jurisdiction over an investor-owned utility's sale of electricity to a charging provider or any other utility customer, even if the electricity is subsequently used as a motor fuel. Second, nothing in this decision requires that an investor-owned utility meter charging load separately from other end uses. Metering policy will be examined in conjunction with rate policy in Phase 2.
SCE requests clarification that the decision's findings only relate to
light-duty electric vehicles. As indicated in this decision, all references to the term "electric vehicles" refer to light-duty passenger plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles, thus the findings only relate to light-duty electric vehicles.
36 OIR at 2-3.
37 Id. at 2, 12-14, and 23-24.
38 Codified as Pub. Util. Code § 365.1.
