California utilities urge CPUC to reconsider proposed EV framework

Published on March 20, 2020 by Jaclyn Brandt


Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /var/www/dailyenergyinsider.com/wp-content/themes/dei/single.php on line 31

Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /var/www/dailyenergyinsider.com/wp-content/themes/dei/single.php on line 36
© Shutterstock

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed a new framework for the electrification of transportation in the state, but electric utilities are not yet on board with the idea. The CPUC plans to hold a teleconference to discuss the topic on March 23.

The proposal requests 10-year plans from utilities explaining how they plan to invest in electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. The framework would allow the CPUC to stop applications by individual utilities, who would now have to follow the overarching process for infrastructure investments. The utilities would file their 10-year plans for investments and EV growth, the first of which would be due in 2021. The formal applications would then be due in 2023.

The state’s current goals would put 1.5 million zero-emission electric vehicles (ZEV) on the road by 2025, five million ZEVs by 2030, and 250,000 public charging stations by 2025.

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) filed a response to the proposal that said the limitations on the size, scope, and duration of transportation electrification (TE) applications that can be filed before the Commission approves utility transportation electrification plans are restrictions that are so severe they act as an effective five-year freeze on TE infrastructure projects.

SDGE’s response also said the proposed framework is more likely to hinder the efforts in California than help them.

“SDG&E supports many of the goals presented in the draft Transportation Electrification Framework (TEF), including streamlining the regulatory process and examining the appropriate level of utility support needed to grow the clean transportation market,” said Jessica Packard, communications manager with SDGE. “However, there are concerns that this proposed framework will actually slow down the market. It creates a five-year or longer freeze to significant utility investments, is overly prescriptive, creates a time-intensive and cumbersome processes, and discourages innovation. To remedy these significant concerns, the commission should grant a Motion to Stay the proceeding, a request made by over two dozen entities ranging from utilities (including SDG&E) environmental groups, and automakers, to labor and market participants.”

Southern California Edison (SCE) voiced similar concerns in its filing. The company said it appreciated the CPUC’s effort to increase the electrification of the state, but that “time is running out and comprehensive long-term planning will not matter if our climate and air quality goals, and the EV adoption targets needed to support them, slip out of reach.” SCE added that the proposed framework would not allow for EV infrastructure pace and scale development, and would hinder the ability to meet the state’s goals and “will most certainly slow down the progress the state has made in transportation electrification in the last few years.”

Many utilities filed motions to stay the proposal so that alternative ideas could be discussed.

“If the draft TEF is adopted as proposed, it will limit the ability for utilities to timely propose robust applications to meet state and local goals until perhaps 2025. Investments in publicly accessible charging stations will either be delayed or minimized in scale and scope. It will also limit flexibility and innovation. Utilities will not be able to respond to market, local and policy needs in a timely manner,” Packard said. “Further, the proposed draft TEF process has already created uncertainty in when new proposals will be final and what they will include. This uncertainty undermines third-party markets and investments in electric vehicles by consumers.”

SDGE’s response said that the formal applications submitted in 2023 would likely not be given approval until at least 2024. Packard added that “an alternative framework should include a five-year strategy combined with a funding mechanism to implement programs and deploy infrastructure.”

“Consistent with the draft TEF’s goals, certain components of infrastructure to support electric vehicles should be treated as core utility business. Specifically, the commission should deem the design, construction, and maintenance of electrical infrastructure that transports electricity from the distribution system to the utility meter as core utility business,” she said. “Constructing this infrastructure is the kind of basic utility work done by SDG&E every day, and this kind of work has not been the subject of much debate in prior electric vehicle infrastructure proposals. Treating utility-side infrastructure as core utility business will create a level playing field for those who want to deploy charging stations responsive to customer demand.”

SDGE, SCE, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund all filed motions asking for a stay on the proposed framework. Because the formal transportation electrification applications would be due in 2023, it would mean utilities would not be able to implement any of their plans until then.

“SDG&E supports the Motion to Stay the proceeding and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to offer alternative frameworks,” Packard explained. “This motion is supported by a vast majority of parties across the spectrum of stakeholders including environmental experts, the charging industry and automakers, environmental justice advocates, labor, and utilities. SDG&E looks forward to the opportunity to collaborate with stakeholders to develop an alternate proposal that can better meet the state’s goals and streamline a potentially protracted regulatory process.”

The CPUC will hold the first in a series of workshops to receive comment on the framework on March 23.