additional chargers (should use data from initial deployment warrant this). [GPI Brief, 6/17/16, pg. 4.] GPI has made the case in our opening brief that pilot should be PG&E’s distinguished by the degree to which it includes DCFCs as well as L2 chargers, acknowledging the fact that PG&E has more pure EVs in its territory than the California average as well as the surprisingly robust preorders for the pure EV Tesla Model 3 to be provided to customers starting in late 2017. We reiterate this position here and note that no parties have raised concerns about the specific anti-competitive potential of an increased focus on DCFCs and we feel that this is the case because market participants realize that there is likely to be a booming need for DCFCs in light of many new affordable long-range EVs coming to the market in the next couple of years. [GPI Reply Brief, 7/8/16, pg. 1.] Verified Education and Outreach: Decision PG&E proposed $5 million for Section 15 of the Settlement Agreement that was in “equity programs” provides a $5 million set-aside for addition to the base level of equity programs supporting E&O activities proposed. GPI Disadvantaged Communities. The expressed concerns about the Settlement Agreement states that PG&E vagueness of this $5 million will with the Program Advisory “consult proposal, and urged that the Council to and identify priority areas” Commission require significant to increase access to “advance strategies additional detail before EVs in low and moderate income approval. Our key stated We find this proposal communities.” concern was whether the focus overly broad; it has no stated objectives on DACs was warranted given or specifications of program the overarching goal program’s requirements. Given this limited record, of promoting EV adoption. we are not able to assess whether the set The GPI was the only Party aside would yield any ratepayer to comment on this particular benefits. We reject the $5 million topic in proposal. PG&E’s set-aside for equity programs. The GPI expressed opposition [Decision, pg. 55.]
additional chargers (should use data from initial deployment warrant this). [GPI Brief, 6/17/16, pg. 4.] GPI has made the case in our opening brief that PG&E’s pilot should be distinguished by the degree to which it includes DCFCs as well as L2 chargers, acknowledging the fact that PG&E has more pure EVs in its territory than the California average as well as the surprisingly robust preorders for the pure EV Tesla Model 3 to be provided to customers starting in late 2017. We reiterate this position here and note that no parties have raised concerns about the specific anti-competitive potential of an increased focus on DCFCs and we feel that this is the case because market participants realize that there is likely to be a booming need for DCFCs in light of many new affordable long-range EVs coming to the market in the next couple of years. [GPI Reply Brief, 7/8/16, pg. 1.] Education and Outreach: PG&E proposed $5 million for “equity programs” that was in addition to the base level of E&O activities proposed. GPI expressed concerns about the vagueness of this $5 million proposal, and urged that the Commission require significant additional detail before approval. Our key stated concern was whether the focus on DACs was warranted given the program’s overarching goal of promoting EV adoption. The GPI was the only Party to comment on this particular topic in PG&E’s proposal. The GPI expressed opposition Decision Section 15 of the Settlement Agreement provides a $5 million set-aside for equity programs supporting Disadvantaged Communities. The Settlement Agreement states that PG&E will “consult with the Program Advisory Council to identify priority areas” and “advance strategies to increase access to EVs in low and moderate income communities.” We find this proposal overly broad; it has no stated objectives or specifications of program requirements. Given this limited record, we are not able to assess whether the set aside would yield any ratepayer benefits. We reject the $5 million set-aside for equity programs. [Decision, pg. 55.] Verified
183657111.docx