Michael R. Peevey is the assigned Commissioner and Regina M. DeAngelis is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. If the utility obtains timely notification that an Electric Vehicle will be charging in its service territory, the utility can address potential reliability problems, keep infrastructure costs down, and assist, as appropriate, with ensuring that Electric Vehicle owners have positive experiences with their vehicles.
2. The goal of single meter Electric Vehicle rate design is to structure a simpler, cost-based, time-of-use rate that bypasses the disincentives for Electric Vehicle use associated with tiered rates but still recover, at a minimum, the incremental cost to serve Electric Vehicles.
3. SDG&E and SCE offer residential Electric Vehicle rates that are opt-in, non-tiered, and time-of-use. In contrast, PG&E's E-9b rate is a separately metered, opt in, time-of-use rate, that is tiered.
4. A demand charge as a rate component for residential Electric Vehicle rates could reflect the higher costs placed on the electric system by Electric Vehicle customers charging on-peak or at higher voltages.
5. Inter-utility billing could cause some utilities to over-collect and others to under-collect because costs to serve customers and wholesale energy prices differ between service territories.
6. In the residential setting, Electric Vehicle service providers should be eligible for existing residential rates that are time differentiated to encourage off-peak charging, preserve equitable cost of service treatment and maintain a level playing field between utilities and third party electric vehicle service providers.
7. In the near-term, charging equipment located at non-residential customer premises is eligible for the non-residential rates for which that customer would otherwise qualify, for PG&E's Schedule A-1(A) and A-1(B).
8. As a result, quick charging facilities place a considerably higher kilowatt demand on the electric system than even the fastest Level 1 or Level 2 charging.
9. It is expected that quick charging will most commonly be available at non-residential sites or electric vehicle service equipment charging spots and will function similarly to a gasoline filling station.
10. No need exists to develop rates specifically for customers with quick charge facilities because existing rates are characterized by a number of design features and eligibility requirements that serve to ensure that electric vehicle service providers bear the costs appropriate to their impacts on the electric system.
11. In approximately 2013, Electric Vehicle rate design should be revisited because additional information will exist about Electric Vehicle charging load profiles, the costs and benefits of Electric Vehicle charging and information concern how consumer charging behavior responds to Electric Vehicle time-of-use price differentials.
12. A metering policy should allow customers to identify options that best serve their needs and ensures that consumer experiences with Electric Vehicles are positive.
13. A metering policy that achieves adequate technology functionality is important so that meters meets specific minimum standards and for the smooth integration of Electric Vehicle charging into the electric grid.
14. Promoting Innovation in metering functionality with flexibility to take advantage of emerging Electric Vehicle technologies is important but requiring stakeholders to accommodate future data needs is speculative.
15. A metering policy that encourages off-peak charging could reduce overall costs associated with Electric Vehicle adoption.
16. Despite benefits of single metering in terms of keeping initial equipment costs low, utilities should continue to make available all existing metering options to customers as it is importance to preserve customer choice in Electric Vehicle meter arrangements at this early market development stage as a means of promoting customer satisfaction, encouraging technological advancement, and creating a level playing field for electric vehicle service providers.
17. Electric Vehicle submetering is not yet available for residential customers.
18. Submetering issues at MDU and workplaces requires additional evaluation to determine what protocols and policies, if any, are needed to support this option.
19. Further requirements on the integration of Electric Vehicles and PV metering at this time is not necessary because PV customers should be able to choose from a range of metering options to accommodate their data requirements and existing metering options can meet PV data requirements.
20. In the case of single and separate Electric Vehicle metering, the meter will generally be designated on the utility-side of the customer-utility boundary.
21. Customer-ownership of submeters is consistent with the Electric Vehicle metering policy goals, especially those policy goals related to customer choice, technological advances, and minimizing cost.
22. Certain benefits of utility ownership of electric vehicle service equipment may exist, but these benefits are speculative and do not outweigh the competitive limitations that may result from utility-electric vehicle service equipment ownership.
23. A need exists for an Electric Vehicle submeter protocol to determine rules for customer-owned meters and create a framework that can incorporate new emerging metering technologies and encourage innovation.
24. Electric Vehicle load is designated as new and permanent load under Tariff Rules 15 and 16 and customers should be afforded the standard Tariff Rule 16 allowance to cover the costs of any required customer specific facilities upgrades.
25. In some instances, the costs of residential upgrades to enable Electric Vehicle changing will exceed the allowances provided under Tariff Rules 15 and 16.
26. Value exists in tracking and differentiating costs for all Electric Vehicle load in an effort to inform future revenue allocation and rate design.
27. Utilities have a role in education and outreach consistent with their primary responsibilities and the State is environmental goals.
28. While it is currently unclear whether sufficient need exists for and the feasibility of an incentive-based smart charging program, intelligent load management and smart charging have the potential to lower costs for all customers and facilitate the integration of renewable energy.
1. Given the priority we place on avoiding adverse impacts to the electric system, ensuring safety, and efficiently managing the grid, the proposals for a notification system could prove to be a long-term solution to the challenge of efficiently assessing grid reliability and safety in areas of Electric Vehicle growth, provided privacy concerns are adequately addressed
2. We deny the requests by SCE, PG&E and SDG&E to authorize additional funding through this decision to cover the costs of the notification system.
3. Utilities are not precluded from seeking recovery of reasonable costs of any utility notification systems in future rate cases but our expectation is that utilities will not require incremental funding to develop and participate in a notification system at this time.
4. With limited exceptions, the existing residential Electric Vehicle rates which include time-of-use rates with relatively higher prices during daytime, peak periods and relatively lower prices during off-peak periods are sufficient for the early Electric Vehicle market.
5. Residential customers on single-meter service should be able to choose which Electric Vehicle rate best suits their needs and should be offered an opt-in (i.e., voluntary) time-of-use, non-tiered rate. Staying on the pre-existing, non-Electric Vehicle rate is also an option.
6. The rates for Electric Vehicle residential separately metered customers should be opt-in, non-tiered and time-of-use.
7. The Commission should revisit the suitability of the utilities' Electric Vehicle residential rate schedules in 2013-2014.
8. Adding demand charges to residential Electric Vehicle rates would be too great a change to residential rates at this time but each utility should re-evaluate the feasibility and benefits of an Electric Vehicle residential demand charge in its next review of rates.
9. It is premature for the Commission to direct the utilities to implement inter-utility billing.
10. With limited exceptions, existing residential Electric Vehicle rates should apply to electric vehicle service providers operating in the residential setting.
11. Charging equipment located at non-residential customer premises is eligible for the non-residential rates for which that customer would otherwise qualify, except for PG&E's Schedule A-1(A) and A-1(B).
12. Existing rates are adequate for customers with quick charge facilities.
13. To put the review of Electric Vehicle rate design on approximately the same schedule for all three electric utilities, PG&E should include Electric Vehicle rate design proposals in its 2014 General Rate Case, and SCE and SDG&E should to file Electric Vehicle rate proposals in Rate Design Window applications in 2013, as provided for and in accordance with the schedule in D.89-01-040.
14. In these rate design filings, each utility should to include an analysis of Electric Vehicle charging load profiles, the costs and benefits of Electric Vehicle integration and charging, and consumer response to Electric Vehicle time-of-use price differentials.
15. Metering policy should support customer choice, adequate data and technological functionality, innovation, common technology standards, and minimization of costs. These goals are generally consistent the broader goals of the California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative's strategic plan.
16. Utilities should continue to make available all existing metering options to customers.
17. The Electric Vehicle submeter protocol process should address, among other issues, submetering issues at MDU and workplaces.
18. To the extent that the implications of the use of PV with various Electric Vehicle metering and tariff rate structures is unclear, these issues may be appropriate in a distribution generation-related proceeding.
19. To remain generally consistent with existing metering policies on the ownership of single and separate meters, single and separate Electric Vehicle meters should be designated as on the utility-side of the customer-utility boundary.
20. The benefits of utility ownership of electric vehicle service equipment do not outweigh the competitive limitation that may result from utility ownership, with the exception of electric vehicle service equipment used to charge their own electric vehicle fleets or provide workplace charging for utility employees.
21. Utilities should cooperate with other stakeholders to form a working group to develop a Electric Vehicle submeter protocol to be adopted as revisions to the utilities' electric tariffs.
22. Designating Electric Vehicle load as new and permanent load under Tariff Rules 15 and 16 reflects the State's goal under AB 32 to encourage the electrification of the transportation sector as a means of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions, even though increased Electric Vehicle penetration will raise electricity consumption and most likely increase electric demand.
23. For service upgrade costs resulting from Electric Vehicle charging that exceed the residential allowance, a special interim cost treatment is appropriate in light of the directive in § 740.2 to reduce barriers to Electric Vehicle adoption, to avoid discouraging early adopters, and given that Electric Vehicle load is expected to help the State achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
24. Collecting more load and behavioral data is necessary before making a number of longer-term policy decisions regarding the integration of large numbers of Electric Vehicles onto the electric grid.
25. The utilities' role in Electric Vehicle education and outreach is part of their broader responsibilities but utilities should also not express preferences, consistent with D.05-05-010 and § 740.2 and the earlier enacted legislation set forth in §§ 740.3 and 740.8.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall collaborate with stakeholders to prepare an assessment report that sets forth the notification options to track the location and re-location of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle charging on the electric grid, the merits of each option, the projected costs of these options, and implementation scenarios. The assessment report must also recommend a preferred option going forward. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall jointly file the assessment report in this proceeding within 150 days of the effective date of this decision. During this 150 day period, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall seek the involvement of the Commission's Energy Division Staff and provide regular updates to Energy Division Staff on a schedule to be determined by Staff. The filing of this report will be a compliance filing in this proceeding.
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall file an advice letter to modify Electric Rates Tariff Schedule E-9(B) to eliminate the tiers but retain time-variant pricing. This advice letter shall be filed as a Tier 2 advice letter within 60 days of the effective date of today's decision.
3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall file a plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle rate design proposal in the rate design phase of its 2014 General Rate Case. San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company shall file plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle rate design proposals in Rate Design Window applications in 2013 as provided for and in accordance with the schedule in Decision 89-01-040. These plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle rate design proposals shall include an analysis of plug-in hybrid and Electric Vehicles charging load profiles, the costs and benefits of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle integration and charging, and consumer responses to plug-in hybrid and Eectric Vehicles time-of-use price differentials. These rate design proposals shall also include an evaluation of the feasibility and benefits of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle demand charges in the residential and commercial context.
4. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall form a working group to develop a plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle submeter protocol and are directed to cooperate with stakeholders to form this working group. This working group shall develop a submeter protocol to be adopted by the Commission as revisions to the Electric Tariffs of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall include in the working group, at a minimum, Commission Staff, California Department of Food and Agriculture, automakers, and electric vehicle service providers and shall hold at least one publicly noticed workshop with a report documenting the workshop. The report shall be filed in this proceeding within 15 days of the workshop. The filing of the report will be a compliance filing in this proceeding. To facilitate the development of a comprehensive protocol, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall jointly submit to the Commission on or before October 31, 2011 a report that will allow the joint implementation of a comprehensive protocol by July 31, 2012. The report will detail how the protocol will be informed by relevant ongoing standard development processes and include, at a minimum, the following specific issues:
a. Support the use of submeters in various locations, such as in electric vehicle service equipment or mobile detachable meters, as described in San Diego Gas & Electric Company's comments on the Utility Role Staff Paper.
b. Determine the technical performance requirements for submeters.
c. Identify minimum communication functionality and standards.
d. Describe how submeter data management will support and protect the security and privacy of plug-in hybrid and Electric Vehicles user data collected by utilities and third party entities.
e. Provide a methodology for settling disputes.
f. Identify and adhere to all existing and applicable national standards for measurement and communication functions.
g. Develop rules for incorporating subtractive billing into submetering tariffs.
5. Between the effective date of this decision and June 30, 2013, all residential service facility upgrade costs in excess of the residential allowance shall be treated as common facility costs rather than being paid for by the individual plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle customer. This policy shall not apply in the non-residential context. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall propose a policy and procedural mechanism to address these residential upgrade costs in the January 1, 2013 reports regarding load research to be filed in this proceeding.
6. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall jointly prepare a load research plan and undertake load research to accomplish the following:
(1) Track and quantify all new load and associated upgrade costs in a manner that allows PEV load and related costs to be broken out and specifically identified. This information shall be collected and stored in an accessible format useful to the Commission.
(2) Evaluate how metering arrangements and rate design impact PEV charging behavior.
(3) To the extent relevant, determine whether participation in demand response programs impacts PEV charging behavior.
(4) Determine how charging arrangements, including metering options and alternative rate schedules impact charging behavior at MDU.
(5) Evaluate whether distribution costs are increased by different charging levels, i.e., Level 1, Level 2, and quick charging, in public locations.
(6) Separately track costs associated with PEV-related residential service facility upgrade costs and treated as "common facility costs" between the effective date of this decision and June 30, 2013, and propose a policy and procedural mechanism to address these residential upgrade costs going forward.
7. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall complete the load research required by the preceding Ordering Paragraph by January 1, 2013. The load research shall include a publicly noticed workshop. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall provide the Commission staff with regular updates, at least one per quarter, on the substance and the progress of the research. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall file their load research as a report in this proceeding by January 1, 2013. The filing of this report will be a compliance filing in this proceeding.
8. The following principles and requirements apply to the education and outreach of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company (herein "utilities") regarding plug-in hybrid and Electric Vehicles (herein "PEVs").
a. Each utility has an obligation to use funds to provide its customers with information regarding the choices available for metering arrangements, rates, demand response programs, charging equipment, installation, safety, reliability, and off-peak charging.
b. Each utility has an obligation to use funds for targeted PEV education and outreach to educate customers about the environmental and societal benefits of PEVs consistent with the state's policy goals related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions set forth in AB 32.
c. Due to the potential for conflicts of interest, the types of information described in (a) and (b) must be communicated in a competitively neutral manner without value judgments or recommendations.
d. Regarding safety, reliability, and off-peak charging, utilities may present information and make value judgments and recommendations. The neutral communication requirement does not apply because safety and reliability are primary utility responsibilities, and information on safety, reliability, and off-peak charging is unlikely to raise conflicts of interest or anti-competitive behavior.
The Commission's Energy Division shall identify and bring to the Commission's attention any examples of utility violations of these principles.
9. If Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company did not addressed in their March 1, 2011 demand response applications, Application (A.) 11-03-001 (PG&E), A.11-03-002 (SDG&E), and A.11-03-003 (SCE), how any utility requested ratepayer funding for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle demand response programs does not "unnecessarily duplicate research currently, previously, or imminently undertaken by other electrical or gas corporations or research organizations," the utility should seek the approval of the presiding officer assigned to their demand response application to submit supplemental testimony in their application proceedings addressing this matter. The requests to the presiding officer should be made within 15 days of the effective date of this decision. Supplemental testimony should be submitted 30 days after approval is obtained unless otherwise determined by the presiding officer.
10. Rulemaking 09-08-009 remains open.
This order is effective today.
Dated July 14, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
MICHEL PETER FLORIO
CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL
MARK J. FERRON
/s/ MICHEL PETER FLORIO
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ MARK J. FERRON
Commercial and Industrial Rates
(END OF APPENDIX 1)
Concurrence of Commissioner Michel Peter Florio on Item 46 [D.11-07-029]
Phase 2 Decision Establishing Policies to Overcome Barriers to Electric Vehicle Deployment and Complying with Public Utilities Code Section 740.2
I will vote in favor of Item 46, a decision which cements this agency's support of air pollution and greenhouse gas emission reductions through increased electrification of the transportation sector.
This decision provides a thorough, careful approach to electric vehicles in California, reducing barriers to entry for consumers while positioning utilities to efficiently serve the new load.
The advantages of electric vehicles, such as GHG reduction, reduced air pollution in urban areas, decreased dependence on foreign oil, and making use of low-cost off-peak energy have been well documented for many years, and I will not venture to restate all of them here. I am sure that many of you have seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" My goal is that this Commission will be featured in a new documentary: "Who Saved the Electric Car?"
However, I did wish to point out one morsel of information presented by the California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative in their recent report, "Taking Charge:"
Electric vehicles have the potential to save Californians a substantial amount of money at the pump. Assuming $3 per gallon for gasoline and average fuel efficiencies, it costs consumers roughly $11 dollars to travel 100 miles in a conventional vehicle. Using a plug in electric hybrid vehicle fueled in part by electricity that costs 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, the cost is reduced to $5.75. If we can persuade customers to charge off-peak when 10 cents a kWh is realistic and the cost to not participating customers is negligible, this fuel will provide participating Californians substantial savings relative to conventional fuels. This is a critical advantage that we must not overlook as we consider the costs and benefits of supporting EV's through our regulatory policy.
Speaking of the costs, I did have one primary concern on the question of who should pay for basic service upgrades or extensions to accommodate electric vehicle charging in the residential setting.
The upgrades and extensions that we're talking about here include distribution transformers, service panels, and other equipment needed to facilitate vehicle charging.
Such upgrades are typically governed by the Commissions Rule 15 and 16. According to Rule 15, an upgrade to equipment serving multiple customers is generally considered a utility expense and the associated cost is borne by the general body of ratepayers.
The cost allocation of upgrades to equipment serving a single customer, which is governed by Tariff Rule 16, is more complex. For equipment upgrades due to increased electricity usage designated as "new and permanent load," the customer is provided an "allowance" to offset the costs of the upgrade. Generally, upgrade costs up to the dollar amount of the allowance are paid for by the general body of ratepayers, and any costs in excess of the allowance are paid for by the specific customer served by the equipment.
The decision finds it appropriate to designate electric vehicles as "new and permanent load," entitling participating customers to the corresponding service extension allowance. But it doesn't stop there. As an interim policy this decision also allows upgrade costs which exceed the allowance to be borne by the general body of ratepayers. This interim policy will be in place until at least June 30, 2013.
In my view, the assertion that an electric vehicle is "permanent" new load is a stretch. And, even if it weren't, the amount of load required to power an electric vehicle would normally not be sufficient to justify, on a future distribution revenue basis, a full residential line extension allowance. I think we're shoehorning electric vehicles into the existing line extension rules and the fit leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, the penetration of EVs in the next few years covered by this decision is not expected to be so large as to create an excessive cost burden on ratepayers due to the provision of this modest incentive for early EV adopters. Indeed, by making it a little cheaper to own and operate an EV, we hopefully will make possible for more people with moderate incomes to become early adopters themselves.
Going forward, I am planning to introduce an Order Instituting Rulemaking that will reconsider Rules 15 and 16. Currently those rules effectively encourage consumption of energy, by awarding larger allowances for greater expected end use loads. I believe that a better approach would be to award larger allowances for more efficient and/or GHG reducing facilities, and smaller or no allowances for those that do not exhibit enhanced efficiency or GHG reduction features. This would provide an incentive for developers to install more efficient buildings in the first place, and could additionally be structured to reward zero net energy structures or those employing rooftop solar panels with greater allowances. GHG reducing technologies, such as EV charging capability, would be granted larger allowances under this approach
Like the elimination of declining block energy rates over 35 years ago, this type of reform to our line extension rules will modernize an outdated policy that is inconsistent with the needs of the 21st Century. Because the Proposed Decision's treatment of line extension costs for residential EV charging is consistent with my longer term energy and environmental policy vision, I am comfortable supporting it today despite my reservations regarding its interpretation of the current line extension rules.
Dated July 14, 2011 at San Francisco, CA.
/s/ Michel Peter Florio
Concurrence of Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon on Item 46 [D.11-07-029]
Phase 2 Decision Establishing Policies to Overcome Barriers to Electric Vehicle Deployment and Complying with Public Utilities Code Section 740.2
I concur with this decision as a necessary step towards the sensitive balance of reliability and competition in the support of a specific mode of alternative fuel vehicles, the electric plug-in vehicle, plug-in hybrid and the critical infrastructure of the competitive vehicle charging market. This decision also moves California closer to our national energy security obligation of reducing dependence on foreign oil and bringing our state closer to the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32 Nunez/Pavley).
This is a concerted effort of many segments of this burgeoning industry, including electric vehicle service providers, auto makers, automobile dealers, academic research institutions, government agencies and investor owned utilities. This collaboration should give the impetus to a swift and orderly deployment of the designated electric alternative fuel vehicles. What the decision lacks is any meaningful treatment of other alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas, compressed natural gas and bio fuel alternatives. It begs the question as to whether this decision picks a winner in competing technologies. I am sympathetic to this concern and urge my fellow commissioners to grant equal time to the evaluation and recognition of a diversity of consumer vehicle choices, including the environmental and performance benefits of natural gas and biofuel powered vehicles, which have greater benefits on reducing California's carbon footprint42. California is better served if these clean vehicular technologies are incorporated into our smart grid infrastructure.
I note the concerns of certain utilities that they have been banned from the recharging market. I consider this a simplistic exaggeration. I take this position because the decision instructs the detection of market failures as a prerequisite to market entry. This balanced approach will allow new entrants to a marketplace leveled by a market mechanism necessary to prevent market failures previously experienced in the natural gas fueling Decisions43. While I am sensitive to the concerns expressed by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)44 and the Natural Resource Defense Council45, I recognize their efforts with the University of California San Diego on the Smart City San Diego Initiative reflect investments made before this Decision as addressed by Commissioner Ferron and President Peevey. These parties should follow course and demonstrate how SDG&E's participation will not act as a barrier to competition, but as an effort to prevent a recognized market failure. Otherwise, we will spoil another opportunity to promote retail choice in the California energy markets.
Accordingly, I concur with this decision and will determine if a separate proceeding is required to capture other critical transportation technologies.
Dated July 14, 2011 at San Francisco, CA.
/s/ Timothy Alan Simon
42 Decision 91-07-018 at 12; Decision 93-07-054 at 13.
43 Decision 95-11-035 at 68-73
44 Comments by San Diego Gas & Electric to the Proposed Decision, Apr. 5, 2011, at 2-9.
45 Comments by the Natural Resources Defense Council to the Proposed Decision on Phase Two Issues, Apr. 5, 2011, at 5-8.