deployment of non-light duty EVs, creating a direct link between projects funded by the program and accelerated adoption of EVs. Consistent with the Commission’s guidance in its Phase I EV decision, D.16-12-065, we find that PG&E has focused FleetReady on make-ready infrastructure that include costsharing and collaboration with non-utility EV service equipment providers. As Clean Energy Fuels points out, the proposed program and vehicle mix, for both PG&E and SCE’s programs, is based on a number of studies “including the ICF International TEA study and studies prepared by the CARB and California Energy Commission. These forecasts are then scaled by PG&E’s roughly estimated share of each sector.” Clean Energy Fuels argues that this approach makes the forecasts highly generalized, and aggregated across sectors with very different cost estimates. We agree that the proposed programs do not include the normal level of detail that provides us comfort that an upfront reasonableness determination, for the scale of the programs proposed, is appropriate. Because the utilities have not surveyed customers for market interest or provided utility specific forecasts for uptake in particular sectors or vehicle vocations, we adopt substantial modifications to the proposed programs to ensure value to ratepayers while simultaneously accelerating investment in transportation electrification. However, in consideration of the longer MD/HD EV procurement cycles, we do not find the short term program approaches proposed by TURN and ORA will result in substantial transportation electrification, so we establish a five-year program for both utilities. Appendix C details the assumptions and calculations we use to establish program budgets for PG&E and SCE.
deployment of non-light duty EVs, creating a direct link between projects funded by the program and accelerated adoption of EVs. Consistent with the Commission’s guidance in its Phase I EV decision, D.16-12-065, we find that PG&E has focused FleetReady on make-ready infrastructure that include costsharing and collaboration with non-utility EV service equipment providers. As Clean Energy Fuels points out, the proposed program and vehicle mix, for both PG&E and SCE’s programs, is based on a number of studies “including the ICF International TEA study and studies prepared by the CARB and California Energy Commission. These forecasts are then scaled by PG&E’s roughly estimated share of each sector.” Clean Energy Fuels argues that this approach makes the forecasts highly generalized, and aggregated across sectors with very different cost estimates. We agree that the proposed programs do not include the normal level of detail that provides us comfort that an upfront reasonableness determination, for the scale of the programs proposed, is appropriate. Because the utilities have not surveyed customers for market interest or provided utility specific forecasts for uptake in particular sectors or vehicle vocations, we adopt substantial modifications to the proposed programs to ensure value to ratepayers while simultaneously accelerating investment in transportation electrification. However, in consideration of the longer MD/HD EV procurement cycles, we do not find the short term program approaches proposed by TURN and ORA will result in substantial transportation electrification, so we establish a five-year program for both utilities. Appendix C details the assumptions and calculations we use to establish program budgets for PG&E and SCE.