and others who will be making matching investments, especially in the vehicles themselves.” As PG&E notes, if demand for their standard review projects “is less than the approved revenue requirements during the five-year period of the respective program, PG&E will return in rates any unspent funds to customers pursuant to guidance from the Commission.” For market sectors where there is no standard charging equipment, SCE proposes that customers could participate in the program, but would be responsible for the full cost of buying and installing the proprietary or madetoorder EVSE. SCE suggests it would help such customers evaluate what equipment the customer may need. This is an appropriate safeguard of ratepayer funds because proprietary or made-to-order technologies are generally not scalable and may result in stranded assets if the company that manufactures them goes out of business or decides to change their technology significantly. We adopt this participation approach for both utilities, and encourage SCE and PG&E to explore options for standard EVSE connectors wherever possible. We agree with TURN that ratepayers should not fund charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of only one electric vehicle, as proposed by SCE and PG&E, however we will allow the utilities to commit funds for that site host’s participation contingent upon the site host’s commitment for procurement of at least two new EVs or electrification of at least 2 existing vehicles. TURN suggests that host sites that commit to adopting a higher number of EVs in the near- and medium-term should be prioritized for program participation, and we agree. Participating customers should be required to fully participate in the program, including financially, as much as they are able to, and those that are able and willing to transition to electric vehicles in the near-term should be given a priority for participation.
and others who will be making matching investments, especially in the vehicles themselves.” As PG&E notes, if demand for their standard review projects “is less than the approved revenue requirements during the five-year period of the respective program, PG&E will return in rates any unspent funds to customers pursuant to guidance from the Commission.” For market sectors where there is no standard charging equipment, SCE proposes that customers could participate in the program, but would be responsible for the full cost of buying and installing the proprietary or madetoorder EVSE. SCE suggests it would help such customers evaluate what equipment the customer may need. This is an appropriate safeguard of ratepayer funds because proprietary or made-to-order technologies are generally not scalable and may result in stranded assets if the company that manufactures them goes out of business or decides to change their technology significantly. We adopt this participation approach for both utilities, and encourage SCE and PG&E to explore options for standard EVSE connectors wherever possible. We agree with TURN that ratepayers should not fund charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of only one electric vehicle, as proposed by SCE and PG&E, however we will allow the utilities to commit funds for that site host’s participation contingent upon the site host’s commitment for procurement of at least two new EVs or electrification of at least 2 existing vehicles. TURN suggests that host sites that commit to adopting a higher number of EVs in the near- and medium-term should be prioritized for program participation, and we agree. Participating customers should be required to fully participate in the program, including financially, as much as they are able to, and those that are able and willing to transition to electric vehicles in the near-term should be given a priority for participation.
215783846.docx