| Independently Powered Energy News

The California Public Utilities Commission is examining two thorny questions central to the expansion of electric vehicles: How long should investor-owned utility ratepayers keep paying for the installation of new charging stations? And how long should the private utilities dominate the installations? The questions were the focus of an April 20 workshop.

Intertwined with the matter is the role of competing charging companies and community choice aggregators.

Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric have been authorized by the CPUC to spend more than $2 billion of ratepayer money on EV infrastructure.

CPUC staff is grappling with how much to open this emerging market to competitors and when.

“Ratepayers should be last source of funds for EV infrastructure,” said Eric Borden, The Utility Reform Network energy policy analyst.

He pitched an alternate funding mechanism for electrification infrastructure, one he said would help control costs upfront. He suggested a rebate program similar in concept to the CPUC’s successful solar initiative program instead of putting costs in the ratebase over the long term. His idea got no traction, with critics pointing out unknowns of how the emerging EV market will develop.

Private utilities spend far more per light duty charging port than public agencies, up to more than $20,000, compared to roughly $5,500 respectively.

UTILITY Light Duty Infrastructure Programs Average Costs per Port (L2) Average Costs per Site PG&E EV Charge Network $17,956 $287,296 (16 ports per site) SCE Charge Ready $13,430 $204,637 (15 ports per site) SDG&E Power your Drive $23,000 $275,000 (10 ports per site)

Source: CPUC Staff Transportation Electrification Framework

Factoring in variable costs of installing ports, including because of site specific issues, the cost disparities are still significant. The Sacramento Municipal Utilities District Level 2 chargers are $5,500 per port. Also, according to the California Energy Commission’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project, the San Joaquin Valley Incentive Program’s cost per port is $4,000. It is $6,500 per port in the Northern California Incentive Program, the EV project states.

TURN does not dispute having customers fund the utility side of the charging infrastructure and associated distribution costs to advance the market. It objects to them also paying the costs of installing EV infrastructure on the customer side. The latter includes trenching and installing conduits to support EV chargers, which are the bulk of the costs. These customer costs are put into private utility rate bases for 30-40 years and collect a double-digit return on that capital investment.

Borden pointed out that ratepayers are charged for electric vehicle charging infrastructure over the long term on the customer side even when it is under used or discarded. For example, a large company installs several charging ports and then discontinues using them–either because of having most of its workers telecommute or going out of business. Ratepayers will continue to pay the cost of the infrastructure supporting those chargers for 30-40 years regardless.

To reduce the likelihood of stranded assets, PG&E requires its customers participating in some of its EV infrastructure programs, including its EV Fleet and EV Fast Charge programs, to commit to five-year contracts for the chargers, said the utility’s Patrick Heningan.

The electrification of transportation is expected to be the biggest potential growth area for the power industry in the decade ahead.

The private utilities “have and will continue to play a critical role in [transportation electrification] infrastructure deployment, whether through strategically-designed ratepayer-funded programs, or the IOUs’ core business of delivering electricity,” according to the CPUC Transportation Electrification Framework Draft underlying Monday’s panel discussions.

Under the proposal, the private utilities are to submit 10-year EV investment plans.

The electrification of cars, light, medium- and heavy-duty trucks is key to cutting climate pollution. SB 350 requires an 80% cut in the state greenhouse gases by 2050. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 50%, compared to the power sector, which produces about 20%, and is the second-largest emissions producer in California.

Charging infrastructure so far falls far short of what is needed to meet the state target of 5 million zero emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and 250,000 public chargers. According to the Energy Commission, a big scale up of non-public charging at multi-unit dwellings and workplaces to support a nearly tenfold increase in EVs is needed by 2030.