program that incorporates portions of - D.16-12-065, p. 13. various parties’ proposals, including, but not limited to, TURNs recommendations to remove DCFCs from the program and limit utility - D.16-12-065, p. 30. ownership to sites located in multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) and disadvantaged communities (DACs). The Commission also agreed with TURN that the Settlement Agreement had potential anti-competitive impacts. Size of Program Verified PG&E originally proposed a very large program of up to 25,000 charging - D.16-12-065, pp. 7-8. stations. As will be discussed in the - D.16-12-065, p. 10. phasing section below TURN was successful in convincing the - Borden Direct Testimony, Commission to significantly scale back November 30, 2015, p. 25 this proposal. PG&E then proposed its (recommending dual-port enhanced proposal of 7,430 level 2 (L2) technology) charging stations and 100 DCFC. PG&E then reached a settlement with some parties for a program consisting of 7,500 - TURN Opening Brief, June 17, L2 charging stations and 100 DCFC. 2016, p. 13 & 28-29. TURN recommended that the - TURN Opening Brief, June 17, Commission adopt a modified version 2016, p. 19. of PG&E’s compliant proposal, with up to 5000 L2 charging ports and 10 - D.16-12-065, p. 46, FN. 109. DCFCs. TURN also advocated for the use of multi-port L2 chargers. The - D.16-12-065, p. 60 & p. 79 FOF Commission agreed that the programs #30. proposed in the Settlement Agreement and in PG&E’s enhanced proposal were too risky and adopted a modified version that utilizes dual port technology for up to 7,500 L2 ports and declined to include any DCFCs. Need for a Phased Approach Verified PG&E originally proposed a very large - D.16-12-065, pp. 7-8. program of up to 25,000 L2 charging stations and 100 DCFCs with a cost of over $650 million. On June 16, 2015, the ALJ issued a ruling requesting comments from parties regarding
program that incorporates portions of various parties’ proposals, including, but not limited to, TURNs recommendations to remove DCFCs from the program and limit utility ownership to sites located in multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) and disadvantaged communities (DACs). The Commission also agreed with TURN that the Settlement Agreement had potential anti-competitive impacts. - D.16-12-065, p. 13. - D.16-12-065, p. 30. Size of Program PG&E originally proposed a very large program of up to 25,000 charging stations. As will be discussed in the phasing section below TURN was successful in convincing the Commission to significantly scale back this proposal. PG&E then proposed its enhanced proposal of 7,430 level 2 (L2) charging stations and 100 DCFC. PG&E then reached a settlement with some parties for a program consisting of 7,500 L2 charging stations and 100 DCFC. TURN recommended that the Commission adopt a modified version of PG&E’s compliant proposal, with up to 5000 L2 charging ports and 10 DCFCs. TURN also advocated for the use of multi-port L2 chargers. The Commission agreed that the programs proposed in the Settlement Agreement and in PG&E’s enhanced proposal were too risky and adopted a modified version that utilizes dual port technology for up to 7,500 L2 ports and declined to include any DCFCs. - D.16-12-065, pp. 7-8. - D.16-12-065, p. 10. - Borden Direct Testimony, November 30, 2015, p. 25 (recommending dual-port technology) - TURN Opening Brief, June 17, 2016, p. 13 & 28-29. - TURN Opening Brief, June 17, 2016, p. 19. - D.16-12-065, p. 46, FN. 109. - D.16-12-065, p. 60 & p. 79 FOF #30. Verified Need for a Phased Approach PG&E originally proposed a very large program of up to 25,000 L2 charging stations and 100 DCFCs with a cost of over $650 million. On June 16, 2015, the ALJ issued a ruling requesting comments from parties regarding - D.16-12-065, pp. 7-8. Verified
185070055.docx