Update on Electric Vehicle CPUC Decision and Other Related Legislation

electric-car-2545290_960_720

Transportation electrification is moving ahead in California with the adoption of a CPUC decision and several important bills moving through the legislative process.  This blog will briefly discuss the CPUC decision and provide a short summary of related bills.

Yesterday, the CPUC unanimously (see agenda item # 42) approved a revised Decision on the investor owned utilities (IOUs) SB 350 Transportation Electrification Standard Review Projects.  SB 350 (de León) (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) required the CPUC to direct the IOUs to file application for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification.  The estimated costs of the projects total approximately $739 million with $29.5 million earmarked for the evaluation of projects. A summary table is below:

Table 1

Under the revised Decision, SDG&E’s Residential Charging Program (RCP) is now a three-year program that denied utility ownership of charging infrastructure on the customer-side of the meter and instead requires a rebate and utility run marketplace to deploy chargers and related equipment. The program is now non-mandatory because, as the CPUC stated “[w]hile we find tremendous value in testing and learning from the approved RCP, it is unclear whether SDG&E and other parties also find value in this program.” SDG&E may file an Advice Letter (AL) to withdraw the program in the future. Consequently, the program will operate as an up-front rebate program for up to 60,000 electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) and EVSE installation with the customer owning the EVSE.  This reflects the existing market place where residential EV owners own and maintain the charging equipment.  The CPUC summarized the program in the following Table:

Table 2

The CPUC also approved PG&E’s DC Fast Charging Make-Ready program with a scope of 52 sites and all customer-sided make-ready infrastructure support a minimum of 150 kW charging equipment.  Sites located in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) will be eligible for a maximum rebate of $25,000 (not to exceed the full cost of the EVSE and installation) to be applied to each EVSE purchase and 25% of the sites hosts located in or adjacent to DACs.

The CPUC adopted SCE’s and PG&E’s medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging programs. The Table below summarizes the budget and assumptions:

SCE:

table 3

PG&E:

table 4

The CPUC also determined that these programs will be considered per se reasonable provided they meet the following:

  • For PG&E, a minimum of 700 make-ready installations are fully contracted for by 2024 and 6,500 additional vehicles are electrified that are directly attributable to the authorized program achieved by site hosts procuring at least two EVs or converting at least two diesel fueled vehicles to electric;
  • For SCE, a minimum of 870 make-ready installations are fully contracted for by 2024 and 8,490 additional vehicles are electrified that are directly attributable to the authorized program achieved by site hosts procuring at least two EVs or converting at least two diesel fueled vehicles to electric;
  • a minimum of 15 percent of the infrastructure budget serves transit agencies (in each service territory);
  • a maximum of 10 percent of the infrastructure budget serves forklifts (in each service territory);
  • a minimum of 25 percent of the infrastructure budget serves vehicles operating at ports and warehouses in SCE’s territory;
  • a minimum of 40 percent of the infrastructure budget results in installations in DACs in SCE’s territory;
  • a minimum of 25 percent of the infrastructure budget results in installations in DACs in PG&E’s territory;
  • rebate levels for transit and school bus EVSE are established in consultation with the utility’s respective PAC. Rebate levels should not exceed 50 percent of the charger cost;
  • rebate levels for EVSE installed at sites in DACs are established in consultation with the utility’s respective PAC. Rebate levels should not exceed 50 percent of the charger cost; and
  • a maximum of 10 percent of the infrastructure budget is spent on program administration (by each utility).

Finally, the CPUC approved SCE proposed commercial EV rate with modification.

On the legislative side of the coin, the following bills related to charging infrastructure also hit major legislative deadlines to remain active:

SB 1000 (Lara): Addresses local government prohibition for chargers and disproportionate deployment of charging station infrastructure.

AB 2127 (Ting): Addresses statewide assessment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support 5 million EVs.

AB 2145 (Reyes): Addresses charger deployment, funding, and medium- and heavy-duty transportation electrification.

SB 1434 (Leyva): Addresses transportation electrification rate design.

Additional information on related transportation electrification bills and other bills we track can be found on our Legislative Center website.  A full update will be forthcoming next week with an assessment of bills that remain active after today’s statutory deadline for bills to pass their house of origin.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Cost of a CAP Part 6: Limitations

Main

Part of understanding climate action plan (CAP) cost analyses results includes identifying what is not incorporated into the analyses. CAP implementation cost analyses (ICAs) and benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) described in earlier posts have inherent limitations that can create a level of uncertainty. This post concludes our CAP cost analyses series by identifying key limitations as they relate to: data availability, benefit and cost ranges, scope of the analysis, timeframes considered, and GHG methodologies.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cost of a CAP Part 5: The Cost (or Benefit) to Participate

Main

How is this CAP going to impact my constituents? Jurisdictions who are in the process of adopting or updating their climate action plans (CAPs) are concerned with more just the budgetary impacts and overall cost-effectiveness of CAP measures. There is a great deal of interest in understanding who will be directly impacted by a measure and how. In a previous post, I discussed EPIC’s benefit-cost analysis (BCA) framework for CAPs. This post will address the second of the two questions asked in a BCA: what are the financial impacts to those who participate in CAP measure activities? It will discuss who the participants are in CAP measures, how to identify them and their respective benefits and/or costs, and what results are best to show.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Cost of a CAP Part 4: Emissions Bang for Your Buck

Main.png

Which measures should we include in our City’s CAP? Should we prioritize some over others? Which measures are, in terms of cost, the best for us to implement, while still achieving our GHG reduction goals? However jurisdiction staff phrase the question, what they are really hinting at is: how cost-effective are climate action plan (CAP) measures at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? The previous post in this series provided the general framework for climate action plan (CAP) benefit-cost analyses (BCAs). Here, we take a deeper look at the first component of a CAP BCA – evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CAP measures. This post will discuss what cost-effectiveness results mean in the context of a CAP and its target years, best-practices for viewing results, and challenges when comparing results between multiple CAPs.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Cost of a CAP Part 3: The Benefits and Costs of CAP Measures

Main Photo

What measures will get us the biggest emissions bang for our buck?  How much will these measures cost residents and businesses in our city? These are the two questions we hear most often. A climate action plan (CAP) benefit-cost analysis (BCA) addresses both of these questions, providing insights into the cost-effectiveness of CAP measures and the financial impacts to those who are directly involved in CAP activities. This is the third post in our series of CAP cost analyses; the first post provided an introduction to CAP cost analyses and, in the second, EPIC director Scott Anders provided greater details on CAP implementation cost analyses. Here we will discuss an approach to CAP BCAs developed by EPIC, including: perspectives to consider, types of benefits and costs to include, and metrics to calculate.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Cost of a CAP Part 2: How Much is This Climate Action Plan Going to Cost Our City?

City Hall

More and more, local jurisdiction staff, decision makers, and stakeholders are interested in the cost of implementing climate action plan measures and actions. We are often asked by local jurisdiction officials some form of the question: how much is thing going to cost us? The first post in this series by EPIC Technical Policy Analyst Marc Steele presented an overall summary of climate action plan (CAP) cost analyses and outlined three questions we are trying to answer. This post focuses on the implementation costs analysis (ICA), which answers the first of those questions: What is the budgetary impact to a local jurisdiction to implement CAP measures? It begins by defining the ICA and then discusses the types of costs evaluated, when an ICA can occur in the climate planning process, and considerations for evaluating CAP implementation costs.

Continue reading

Posted in Greenhouse Gas | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Cost of a CAP: Monetary impacts of local GHG reduction measures

Main

More and more cities in California are developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs). During our climate action planning work with cities, we repeatedly hear questions from the public and city staff about costs. How much is this climate action plan going to cost the city, and by extension taxpayers? Which measures get us the biggest emissions bang for our buck? What’s the bottom line? What are the financial impacts to homeowners and businesses? These questions have merit—after all, it is important to understand who will be financially impacted by a city’s policies and actions. In response, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), in partnership with the San Diego Association of Government’s Energy Roadmap Program, has developed a method for evaluating the cost implications of CAPs. This post, the first in a series to describe these methods, summarizes the basics of CAP cost analyses and provides context for the material covered in future posts.

Continue reading

Posted in Greenhouse Gas, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments