NEWS
Intelligent Utility: "EV Charging in the Golden State: Preserving Customer Choice & Innovation for California"
June 23, 2016 by Damon Conklin
June 23, 2016 by Damon Conklin
CT Viewpoints: "Connecticut must cut red tape to unleash the electric vehicle revolution"
May 9, 2016 by Damon Conklin
May 9, 2016 by Damon Conklin
San Francisco Chronicle: "Put the spark in EV charging"
Unfortunately, PG&E’s latest plan to roll out charging stations in its service area falls short. Again.
Unfortunately, PG&E’s latest plan to roll out charging stations in its service area falls short. Again.
March 21, 2016 - Don’t Give PG&E Control over Northern California EV Charging by Damon Conklin
PRESS RELEASE, Jan. 14, 2016 - CPUC Approval of SCE Program
PRESS RELEASE, Jan. 14, 2016 - EVCA Response to CPUC Approval of SCE Program
PRESS RELEASE - Electric Vehicle Charging Leaders Announce New Trade Association, Release First Annual Report on California's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
EV Charging in the Golden State: Preserving Customer Choice & Innovation for CaliforniaConnecticut must cut red tape to unleash the electric vehicle revolutionDon’t Give PG&E Control
|
June 23, 2016 by Damon Conklin
Interest in electric vehicles has never been greater, especially when you consider that 400,000 people signed up for the Tesla Model 3, and Norway just imposed a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles going into effect in 2025. Northern California, today, is home to the most competitive EV charging market in the world. It rightly is and should be a test-bed for new EV products, business models and innovation. And it should include a robust and competitive EV Charging market, with a diverse range of EV charging options for drivers and site hosts alike. But, all this could change if a proposal on EV charging from PG&E is adopted by the CPUC. In southern California, the region’s leading utilities – Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric -- worked successfully with the California’s EV charging companies to expand EV charging in a way that promotes innovation and customer choice. However, in filing now under consideration by the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E once again seeks effective control over EV charging in the northern part of the state. The EV charging industry shares the same goal as PG&E – a vast network of charging stations throughout northern California. This network will help electrify our transportation system, strike a blow against greenhouse gas pollution, and encourage the adoption of high-performance electric vehicles. In fact, our industry has already installed more than 20,000 EV charging ports in the state. But how we achieve this goal is critically important. Today, there is a rapidly-growing EV charging market, with a diverse range of options for drivers and site hosts alike at the lowest costs available. The private sector has spurred a highly competitive and innovative marketplace that continues to grow. However, PG&E’s proposal would be unprecedented and insert a utility in the heart of the EV charging system. We believe that PG&E’s revised proposal is not the right fit for Northern California. It is too large and fundamentally hinders the ability of the private sector to innovate. In this latest proposal, PG&E is seeking 7,600 charging stations for the region. Yet, the CPUC, directed PG&E to limit its proposal to 2,500 stations when it rejected an earlier version of the plan. Additionally, PG&E’s cost per port is significantly higher (3 times) than the average cost per port of the private sector, and far more expensive than the pilot programs launched by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. More importantly, PG&E leaves open major unanswered questions about the program design, including responsibility for network management, the ability of site hosts to implement innovative pricing models, PG&E’s ability to impose burdensome, annual pre-screening on vendors before they can participate in the market. In fast charging, PG&E would select a single vendor. By restricting choice in equipment and services for customers, PG&E would be picking winners and losers in the market, and negatively impacting a thriving 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 (PG&E Settlement, Page 15). That is an improvement, but these requirements should be strengthened. For example, San Diego Gas & Electric will be installing at least 40% of its stations at multi-unit dwellings as part of its EV charging program. PG&E should do at least as much. 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, but let’s do it right. 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. The Commission should look to the proposals of non-settling parties for ways to foster private investment and deploy EV charging with less risk to ratepayers. The EV charging industry wants to work with PG&E on this, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the ultimate program supports innovation and competition, and doesn’t harm ratepayers. We call on the CPUC to reject or substantially revise this proposal to ensure that northern California has an EV charging program that allows for innovation to flourish. May 9, 2016 by Damon Conklin
The electric vehicle revolution is upon us. If there was any doubt, the forthcoming 200-mile range Chevy Bolt and 400,000 pre-orders for the Tesla Model 3 in the midst of record low gas prices shows that consumers around the country are embracing the technology. In 2013, Connecticut joined seven other states’ aggressive commitments to put at least 3.3 million zero emissions vehicles by 2025 on the road, and now must take steps to ensure the state has a charging network capable of supporting the future. Creating a robust and sustainable EV charging infrastructure in Connecticut requires engaging private businesses. The House of Representatives just passed File No. 745, previously known as HB 5510 on electric vehicles, which does not go far enough to support the state’s EV market. A handful of key changes would provide private businesses with the tools they need to spur sustainable and scalable growth in Connecticut’s EV and EV charging markets. Currently, one of the biggest impediments to private businesses installing charging stations on their own properties is that Connecticut’s existing laws could subject them to being regulated like a public utility if that site charges drivers a fee for the charging service. Removing this burdensome regulation gives businesses the flexibility to incentivize the most efficient use of each EV charging station. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to fully clarify this legal issue by only exempting site hosts from being considered as three of the five statutorily defined types of public utilities. Exempting EV charging stations from being considered all five types of public utilities will eliminate any legal gray area. In other states, removing this regulatory red tape has led to a surge in business investment in charging stations and experiments with new business and charging models. For example, retailers and shopping malls can offer subsidized charging rates for a certain amount of time to incentivize shoppers with EVs to spend that time at their stores and then move their cars when they are done shopping. Employers can create graduated pricing for charging to encourage more efficient use of workplace charging stations. Other parking lot operators may offer pricing that includes a combination of charging for the electricity used as the station as well as an hourly parking fee. This site host choice in establishing a price for the charging service will help businesses make the most of their investments, can lower the cost of owning an EV for Connecticut drivers and ensure access to and the maximum utilization of available charging infrastructure. File No. 745 can be strengthened to further encourage – rather than hinder - charging station installations to help Connecticut meet its EV adoption goals. In addition to expanding the exemption for being regulated as a utility to all types of public utility, clarifications are needed on requirements for charging stations owners to disclose data from their privately-owned charging stations. Importantly, a first-of-its-kind requirement in this legislation requiring charging station owners to pay a yearly fee for inspections must be studied before prematurely setting a price per port that disincentives public stations. Connecticut has an opportunity to continue its leadership toward a clean transportation future. Passing this important legislation with the changes mentioned above will create the right environment for EVs to take off. Damon Conklin is a member of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 21, 2016 by Damon Conklin, EVCA (Sacramento, CA)--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. |
