contribution to allow third parties and site owners to Decisions rapidly build out DCFCs where it and makes the most sense to do so. by [D.18-05-040, pg. 71.] characterizing the Pleadings dilemma, and We also highlight below the need to suggesting not focus only on DACs for approaches to education and outreach, as for maximize DAC example PG&E currently proposes, benefits from the because this is not a substantial part various projects of the potential market for EVs in the approved by the near or mid-term. We also highlight Decisions while below projects that are particularly taking maximum good use cases for investing in DACs advantage of and urge PG&E to consider our market dynamics. recommendations. [GPI/CEC The Decisions Opening Brief, 6/16/17, pg. 4.] embrace our approach. Rather, EV policies are designed first and foremost to promote EV adoption and mitigate climate change. In sum, where it makes sense to include DAC carveouts or a DAC focus in order to enhance EV adoption, we fully support such policies. But we don’t support shifting the focus of EV policy to economic development of DACs when that is not the intention of legislators or the Commission in this proceeding. [GPI/CEC Reply Brief, 7/10/17, pg. 6.] GPI/CEC support the focus on PD’s TE pilots taking place in DACs where such an emphasis is likely to improve data gathering and the effectiveness of the proposed pilot project; we do not, however, support such an emphasis when an exclusive focus on DACs will likely diminish data gathering and effectiveness, as is the case with urban cluster SCE’s DCFC pilot. [GPI/CEC Comments, 12/12/17, pg. 2.]
contribution to Decisions and by characterizing the dilemma, and suggesting approaches to maximize DAC benefits from the various projects approved by the Decisions while taking maximum advantage of market dynamics. The Decisions embrace our approach. allow third parties and site owners to rapidly build out DCFCs where it makes the most sense to do so. [D.18-05-040, pg. 71.] Pleadings We also highlight below the need to not focus only on DACs for education and outreach, as for example PG&E currently proposes, because this is not a substantial part of the potential market for EVs in the near or mid-term. We also highlight below projects that are particularly good use cases for investing in DACs and urge PG&E to consider our recommendations. [GPI/CEC Opening Brief, 6/16/17, pg. 4.] Rather, EV policies are designed first and foremost to promote EV adoption and mitigate climate change. In sum, where it makes sense to include DAC carveouts or a DAC focus in order to enhance EV adoption, we fully support such policies. But we don’t support shifting the focus of EV policy to economic development of DACs when that is not the intention of legislators or the Commission in this proceeding. [GPI/CEC Reply Brief, 7/10/17, pg. 6.] GPI/CEC support the PD’s focus on TE pilots taking place in DACs where such an emphasis is likely to improve data gathering and the effectiveness of the proposed pilot project; we do not, however, support such an emphasis when an exclusive focus on DACs will likely diminish data gathering and effectiveness, as is the case with SCE’s urban cluster DCFC pilot. [GPI/CEC Comments, 12/12/17, pg. 2.]