Only in its Joint Motion for Adoption of the Proposed Settlement Agreement dated March 21, 2016 did they add using the DRP and ICA for site selection purposes, citing Decision 16-01-045 as rationale for doing so: Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (39E), Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Center for Sustainable Energy, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Greenlots, The Greenlining Institute, Marin Clean Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Plug In America, General Motors LLC, Sierra Club, and Sonoma Clean Power Authority: “Section 7 provides that, consistent with the guidelines in D.16-01-045, PG&E in its site selection criteria will coordinate with and leverage the utility’s Distribution Resources Plan (DRP) and related programs, including PG&E’s DRP Integration Capacity Analysis, for integrating distributed energy resources onto PG&E’s grid at optimal locations.” (p. 13) And further: “The Settlement Agreement is based on the prepared testimony of the Settling Parties as well as the Commission’s decision and Regarding San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s Vehicle-Grid Integration Pilot Program Application, (Proposed Settlement) as described in Ordering Paragraph 1. a. The alternative terms acceptable to the Commission for a VGI pilot program is described in this decision, and is summarized in Attachment 2 of this decision.” Attachment 2, Modifications To SDG&E’s VGI Framework: (p. 4) “5. SDG&E’s site selection in the 2016 VGI Pilot Program should coordinate and leverage the work being performed in R.14-08-013.”
Opening Brief of Vote Solar, June 17, 2016: “If the Commission deems utility ownership of EVSE is necessary, then it should be limited to the underserved markets of MUDs and communities.” (p. 6) Ordering Paragraph 21: (p. 88) “Cost savings associated with Phase 1 shall be used to fund the bridge period (if necessary) and reinvested in future phases.” D.16-12-065: “Vote Solar concedes that “[i]f the Commission deems utility ownership of EVSE is necessary, then it should be limited to the underserved markets of MUDs and low-income communities.” (P. 36) Ordering Paragraph 1: (p. 84) “PG&E shall not own EVSEs installed in workplaces in the non-Disadvantaged Communities segments” Issue C. Grid Integration/ Load Management Opening Brief of Vote Solar, June 17, 2016: “PG&E also says in the Settlement Agreement that they will “aim to leverage existing or planned load management pilots and programs,”1 including the PG&E/BMW iChargeForward pilot and the Electric Power Research Institute’s “Open Vehicle Grid Integration Platform.”2 PG&E further says it will adopt an “Advanced EV Grid Support” program for Phase 2 of the program.3 This language is simply too vague D.16-12-065: “For the time being, we will adopt the Program Advisory Council proposal submitted by the Settling Parties, with the following modifications. First, the Program Advisory Council shall provide input on criteria to assess the load management plans of site hosts…” (pp. 69-70) Ordering Paragraph 17: (p. 87) “The Program Advisory Council may suggest criteria by which to assess the load management plans of site hosts, but the responsibility to approve the load management plans remains with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).” (p. 87) Verified
ORDER Vote Solar shall be awarded $40,382.50 Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall pay Vote Solar the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning May 07, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Vote Solar’s request, and continuing until full payment is made. The comment period for today’s decision is waived. This decision is effective today. Dated __________________, at San Francisco, California.