2. Balancing Decision Verified marketing Several parties suggest SCE should effectiveness and set aside a percentage of the rebates promotion of ET to go to customers in DACs. As in DACs. Green Power Institute and One of the Community Environmental Council important note: objectives of the EV policies are designed first and transportation foremost to promote EV adoption and electrification mitigate climate change… where it program as makes sense to include DAC memorialized in carveouts or a DAC focus in order to statute by SB 350 enhance EV adoption, we fully is that the support such policies. But we don’t program should support shifting the focus of EV benefit DACs. policy to economic development of There are a DACs when that is not the intention variety of of legislators or the Commission in compelling this proceeding (footnoted to 7/10/17 reasons to target GPI/CEC Reply Brief). these projects at pg. 48.] DACs, not the Fast Charge conforms to the least of which is September 14, 2016 ACR that instructions to leverage non-utility funding by requiring the site host at transportation, all sites located outside of especially from disadvantaged communities to cover medium and the entire cost of the DCFC heavy-duty equipment, network services, O&M. vehicles, is a Lowering up-front installation costs major source of through utility investment in and air pollution in ownership of make-ready DACs. On the infrastructure improves the business other hand the case for investment in DCFCs. As early stages of the PG&E make-ready commercialization states, “[u]tility investments will amplify the scale of of new future charger deployments by technologies are allowing public and private funding more likely to to be repurposed toward more occur in chargers instead of make-ready costs, markets, providing for even greater access for which presents a As described by GPI/CEC, dilemma. The drivers.” by subsidizing only the make-ready GPI made a infrastructure, will substantial PG&E’s program
2. Balancing marketing effectiveness and promotion of ET in DACs. One of the important objectives of the transportation electrification program as memorialized in statute by SB 350 is that the program should benefit DACs. There are a variety of compelling reasons to target these projects at DACs, not the least of which is that transportation, especially from medium and heavy-duty vehicles, is a major source of air pollution in DACs. On the other hand the early stages of the commercialization of new technologies are more likely to occur in markets, which presents a dilemma. The GPI made a substantial Decision Several parties suggest SCE should set aside a percentage of the rebates to go to customers in DACs. As Green Power Institute and Community Environmental Council note: EV policies are designed first and foremost to promote EV adoption and mitigate climate change… 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 (footnoted to 7/10/17 GPI/CEC Reply Brief). pg. 48.] Fast Charge conforms to the September 14, 2016 ACR instructions to leverage non-utility funding by requiring the site host at all sites located outside of disadvantaged communities to cover the entire cost of the DCFC equipment, network services, O&M. Lowering up-front installation costs through utility investment in and ownership of make-ready infrastructure improves the business case for investment in DCFCs. As PG&E states, “[u]tility make-ready investments will amplify the scale of future charger deployments by allowing public and private funding to be repurposed toward more chargers instead of make-ready costs, providing for even greater access for drivers.” As described by GPI/CEC, by subsidizing only the make-ready infrastructure, PG&E’s program will Verified
237694314.docx