EVCA BLOG

Governor Brown Signs EVCA Support Bills

9/21/2018

At the end of August California wrapped up its 2018 Legislative Session and it was a busy year for Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicle Charging.
Here is a chart that lists all EV and EV charging station legislation from the 2018 legislative year as well as EVCA’s position and the current status of each measure. In all there were 18 bills on EVs and EV Charging taken up by the Legislature. Last week Governor Brown signed multiple ZEV and Environmental bills that EVCA supported including:

SB 1016 (Allen) prohibits homeowner associations from unreasonably restricting an owner's ability to install or use an electric vehicle time-of-use meter and modifies current liability policies.
SB 1014 (Skinner) directs the state to develop emissions reduction targets for ride-hailing services, which represent a growing element of California’s transportation sector. This bill will help ensure that work the Governor has set into motion to increase adoption of zero-emission vehicles in public and private fleets throughout the state continues.
SB 1072 (Leyva) establishes a regional climate collaborative program to assist under‑resourced communities with accessing statewide public and other grant money for climate change mitigation and adaptation‑related projects. The bill also requires the Strategic Growth Council to develop technical assistance best practices that state agencies may use and identify state grants that could benefit from technical assistance best practices.

You can find the press release here. In addition to the legislation EVs and EV Charging fared pretty well in the state’s budget:
EV Charging

$135M to the Energy Commission's Advanced and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program for charging infrastructure.
The Department of Transportation can also spend up to $20M on zero-emission vehicle fueling infrastructure (this includes hydrogen and charging) upon authorization from Department of Finance
$245M was allocated to ARB to reduce criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants from mobile and stationary sources. One of the eligible projects types with this funding is "zero-emission charging infrastructure with a priority towards infrastructure that supports medium- and heavy-duty vehicles".

EVs

$200M to the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, of which $25M is for low-income customers
$180M for clean trucks, buses, and off-road freight equipment
$75M for light-duty equity projects, which includes Clean Cars 4 All, financing assistance, and more.

Don't Give PG&E Control Over Northern California EV Charging

3/21/2016

Northern California, the home to the most robust and competitive EV charging market in the world, rightly is and should be a test-bed for new products, business models and innovation. Today, it is a rapidly-growing EV Charging market, with a diverse range of EV charging options for customers and site hosts alike.

But PG&E, in a new filing submitted to the CPUC, is once again asking for broad control over EV charging in the northern part of the state in a way that will cost ratepayers, inhibit innovation, and limit customer choice. Earlier today PG&E filed a revised proposal with state regulators which raises significant concerns to the EV community:

High-Cost. PG&E’s cost per port is nearly triple the cost per port of the private sector, and significantly more expensive than the pilot programs launched by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. This is not a good use of ratepayer dollars.
The size of the program. The Commission instructed PG&E to start with a Phase 1 program “limited to a maximum of 2,510 charging stations.” PG&E has put forward a proposal that calls for nearly three times as many as the Commission originally called for, increasing risks to ratepayers and competitive EV charging companies.
Program design. The proposal leaves open significant unanswered questions about the program design, including responsibility for network management, the ability of site hosts to implement innovative pricing models, the ability of PG&E to pick winners and losers in the market, and impacts to a competitive marketplace.

On the positive side, the proposal does call for 15% of charging stations to be located within disadvantaged communities including multi-unit dwellings. That is an improvement but these requirements should be strengthened. For example, SDG&E will be installing at least 40% of its stations at multi-unit dwellings.

PG&E’s proposal, in seeking substantial control over the EV Charging market in northern California, will stifle innovation and limit customer choice, while forcing ratepayers to foot the bill.

There is no disagreement about the importance of expanding EV Charging in PG&E territory. The only question is what kind of program it should be. We are interested in collaborating on a program that is a good fit for the most successful market in California. Along with many other parties not supporting this settlement, including both of the main ratepayer advocate groups, we feel that PG&E could do much better and the Commission should look to the proposals of non-settling parties that would foster rather than jeopardize private investment and deploy EV charging with less risk to ratepayers.

The CPUC should reject or substantially revise this proposal to ensure that northern California has an EV charging program that allows for innovation to flourish.

BLOG

Governor Brown Signs EVCA Support Bills

Don't Give PG&E Control Over Northern California EV Charging

Archives