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

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.