The Global Climate Action Summit was held Sept. 12-14 in San Francisco, CA drawing vast commitments from governments and businesses to promote a low-carbon transportation future. The goal of the summit was to “join forces to step up climate action ahead of 2020—the year when global greenhouse gases need to peak and fall sharply thereafter to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
The meeting included leaders from businesses, cities, states, regions, and investors. The outcomes were a range of commitments in five specific challenge areas: Health Energy Systems, Inclusive Economic Growth, Sustainable Communities, Land and Ocean Stewardship, and Transformative Climate Investments.
Here are some of the commitments and happenings in the transportation sector that came out of this summit below.
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:
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:
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.