ALJ/SL5/MLC/lil Date of Issuance 6/6/2018 Decision 18-05-040 May 31, 2018 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902E) for Approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals. Application 17-01-020 And Related Matters. Application 17-01-021 Application 17-01-022 DECISION ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION STANDARD REVIEW PROJECTS
greenhouse gases (GHG) and the related programs and charging and propulsion infrastructure investments to enable and encourage this use of electricity. Statutory and Commission Guidance In § 740.12(a)(1), the Legislature found, among other things, that widespread TE is needed to achieve the goals set forth in the Charge Ahead California Initiative, and to reduce emissions of GHG “to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050….” The Legislature also found that “[a]dvanced clean vehicles and fuels are needed to reduce petroleum use, to meet air quality standards, to improve public health, and to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals,” and that widespread TE “requires electrical corporations to increase access to the use of electricity as a transportation fuel.” The Legislature recognized the impact of TE, and found at § 740.12(a)(1), in part: (C) Widespread transportation electrification requires increased access for disadvantaged communities, low- and moderate-income communities, and other consumers of zeroemission and nearzeroemission vehicles, and increased use of those vehicles in those communities and by other consumers to enhance air quality, lower greenhouse gases emissions, and promote overall benefits to those communities and other consumers. (F) Widespread transportation electrification should stimulate innovation and competition, enable consumer options in charging equipment and services, attract private capital investments, and create high-quality jobs for Californians, where technologically feasible. (G) Deploying electric vehicles should assist in grid management, integrating generation from eligible renewable energy resources, and reducing fuel costs for vehicle drivers
and others who will be making matching investments, especially in the vehicles themselves.” As PG&E notes, if demand for their standard review projects “is less than the approved revenue requirements during the five-year period of the respective program, PG&E will return in rates any unspent funds to customers pursuant to guidance from the Commission.” For market sectors where there is no standard charging equipment, SCE proposes that customers could participate in the program, but would be responsible for the full cost of buying and installing the proprietary or madetoorder EVSE. SCE suggests it would help such customers evaluate what equipment the customer may need. This is an appropriate safeguard of ratepayer funds because proprietary or made-to-order technologies are generally not scalable and may result in stranded assets if the company that manufactures them goes out of business or decides to change their technology significantly. We adopt this participation approach for both utilities, and encourage SCE and PG&E to explore options for standard EVSE connectors wherever possible. We agree with TURN that ratepayers should not fund charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of only one electric vehicle, as proposed by SCE and PG&E, however we will allow the utilities to commit funds for that site host’s participation contingent upon the site host’s commitment for procurement of at least two new EVs or electrification of at least 2 existing vehicles. TURN suggests that host sites that commit to adopting a higher number of EVs in the near- and medium-term should be prioritized for program participation, and we agree. Participating customers should be required to fully participate in the program, including financially, as much as they are able to, and those that are able and willing to transition to electric vehicles in the near-term should be given a priority for participation.
Any costs associated with an incentive mechanism for San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (SDG&E) Residential Charging Program will be considered per se reasonable provided: (1) the adopted performance incentive is no more than 10 percent of the total expense budget approved for SDG&E in Table 10; the incentive mechanism is agreed to by at least one of the ratepayer advocate groups with party status to this proceeding; and (3) does not go into effect until SDG&E provides evidence of at least 10,000 installations of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment in relation to the Residential Charging Program.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company must utilize the current template available on the Commissions’ website () under the “reporting requirements” section of this page. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company must ensure that it reports, or helps a site host to report, all publicly-accessible charging stations to the United States Department of Energy’s Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations mapping tool. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company must coordinate evaluation efforts with PacifiCorp, Liberty Utilities, and Golden State Water Company (Bear Valley Electric Service Division) to capture economies of scale for purposes of evaluating the approved Standard Review Projects. After coordinating evaluation efforts, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company must submit a joint Tier 1 Advice Letter to the Commission’s Energy Division providing a status update on implementation of and data available from the authorized standard review projects within one year of the date of this decision. No later than 18 months after the effective date of today’s decision, the sponsoring utility for each standard review project must file a Tier 1 Advice Letter containing an attestation signed by the Project Manager describing their efforts to comply with the Safety Requirements Checklist applicable to standard review programs approved in this decision made available at . The sponsoring utility must maintain all compliance documentation available should the Commission determine an inspection or audit is necessary.
Non Infrastructure Subtotal $40,350,837 $100,551,200 $140,902,037 Program Total $241,610,552 $101,045,670 $342,656,222