BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1435
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Steven Bradford, Chair
SB 1435 (Padilla) - As Amended: June 17, 2010
SENATE VOTE : (vote not relevant)
SUBJECT : Electric vehicles: electric and plug-in hybrid
vehicles: charging stations.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to adopt rules that are applicable to each facility that
supplies electricity for use to power electric vehicles or
plug-in hybrid (PHEV). Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings that a well-planned electric and PHEV charging
infrastructure can shift a significant amount of charging to
off-peak times, and states that the PUC should exercise
limited jurisdiction over third-party electric and PHEV
charging providers to ensure effective load management.
2)Requires the PUC to adopt rules that are applicable to each
facility that supplies electricity for use to power electric
vehicles or PHEVs, which is located within the service
territory of an investor-owned utility (IOU) to achieve
minimizing negative impacts to the distribution grid, shifting
a significant portion of PHEV charging to off-peak periods,
encourage the integration of intermittent renewable generation
resources, and promoting the use of PHEVs.
EXISTING LAW :
1)The State Constitution permits the PUC to fix rates and
establish rules for all public utilities and includes the
furnishing power as a public utility, subject to control by
the Legislature.
2)Includes electrical corporations in the definition of "public
utility."
3)Requires the PUC to evaluate policies to develop
infrastructure sufficient to overcome any barriers to the
widespread deployment and use of PHEVs and EVs, and adopt
rules by July 1, 2011.
SB 1435
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the author, the PUC has an open
proceeding (R.09-08-009) to consider the impacts of the
electrification of vehicles on the grid and how to manage those
impacts. A proposed decision in that proceeding concludes that
entities selling electricity at retail for electric vehicle
charging are not public utilities within the meaning of PUC
Section 216. The author agrees that businesses providing the
service to fuel electric vehicles should not be held to the same
rigor as a public utility. Consequently, this bill codifies
that decision. But if these entities are not public utilities
then what authority does the PUC have to manage the grid impacts
of those vehicles? It appears that the PUC does not have that
authority.
The author states that this bill addresses that issue by
requiring the CPUC to adopt rules to ensure that the demand
created by EVs is properly managed and integrated with renewable
generation. Effective load management, when coupled with
environmental programs and policies, can result in improved
environmental performance of the system, including opportunities
for increased integration with renewables and reduced greenhouse
gas emissions. However, if not properly managed electrification
of the transportation sector could result in the construction of
more conventionally fueled power plants to meet increased peak
demand loads
Every time an electric vehicle is plugged in for fuel, the
service affects all ratepayers. If that service is not managed
it will also cost all ratepayers in the form of higher rates and
increased emissions.
PUC Rulemaking : Last year, the PUC opened a rulemaking
(R-09-08-009) to consider infrastructure, rates, and policies to
support EVs. The rulemaking also addressed the requirements of
SB 626 (Kehoe) Chapter 355, Statutes of 2009, which requires the
PUC, in consultation with the CEC, the ARB, electrical
corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate
policies to develop infrastructure sufficient to overcome any
barriers to the widespread deployment and use of PHEVs. SB 626
requires the PUC to adopt rules by July 1, 2011.
On May 21, 2010, Commissioner Ryan issued a proposed decision on
SB 1435
Page 3
Phase I of the rulemaking. The commissioner ruled that the
ownership or operation of a facility that sells electricity at
retail to the public for use only as a motor vehicle fuel and
the selling of electricity at retail from that facility to the
public for use only as a motor vehicle fuel does not make the
corporation or person a public utility within the meaning of the
Public Utilities Code. This decision implies that the
commissioner considers retail electricity for use as a vehicle
fuel as a competitive industry. This consideration may exempt
the investor-owned utilities from being required to invest in
public recharging facilities meters. If the utilities are
required to invest in the charging infrastructure, the PUC often
allows the utilities to allocate costs across its customer base,
regardless of which customers would use the infrastructure.
However, the commission did not render a decision on the
utilities' cost-recovery methods in this phase of the
rulemaking.
Phase II of the rulemaking will consider the appropriate utility
role in the provision of electric vehicle charging services to
the public; the appropriate utility role with respect to
charging equipment on the customer's side of the meter; and cost
allocation, including a consideration of the circumstances in
which the costs of any distribution system upgrades should be
borne by an individual customer or be recoverable from all
customers, in addition to other related issues. The PUC may or
may not address the information required by this bill. If the
Phase II decision requires the utilities to include the
information required by this bill in their Internet web sites,
the PUC would only require the information from the utilities it
regulates, the investor-owned utilities.
More power over power : This bill would make a finding that the
PUC should exercise limited jurisdiction over third-party PHEV
providers to ensure effective load management. Currently, the
PUC does not have jurisdiction over third-party electricity
providers and in its proposed decision, has determined that
third-party providers are not public utilities.
This committee may wish to discuss whether providing the PUC, a
constitutional entity with very broad powers, with additional
jurisdiction over a competitive industry, or whether this
committee should more clearly define "limited jurisdiction" to
retain the industry's relative autonomy in order to facilitate
the deployment of PHEV and not thwart deployment of recharging
SB 1435
Page 4
stations and PHEVs.
This committee may wish to, on Page 5, line 15, after
"providers" insert, "Limited jurisdiction, as used in this
Section, is limited to ensuring".
This will permit the PUC limited jurisdiction only over the
manner in which these charging providers affect the reliability
of the grid. This limited jurisdiction, in no way, provides
explicit or implicit authority over the business practices of
the recharging facilities. Limited jurisdiction would allow the
PUC to adopt a separate tariff structure for the investor-owned
utilities to apply toward third-party recharging facilities that
achieve the goals and objectives defined in (e).
Joint hearing : On May 24, 2010, the Assembly Transportation
Committee and this committee held a joint hearing to explore the
requirement that manufacturers produce and deliver electric
vehicles for sale in California as a greenhouse gas reduction
method. Some of the questions and concerns raised included: (1)
are we shifting greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector to the electricity generation sector, (2) how will the
needed infrastructure to re-power EVs be developed and by whom,
(3) how will rates be set to encourage the efficient use of the
electricity infrastructure when recharging EVs, and (4) how can
California address a market for retail electricity at remote
public or private re-charging stations.
The CEC testified that California has 413 charging stations with
1,300 public access electric charge points. Many of the existing
charging stations need to be upgraded to charge the new PHEVs,
however, the CEC did not address how these would be funded. The
CEC reported that it has already issued about $15.3 million in
grants for charging stations.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District testified that the EV
owner pays for an additional meter that must be installed at the
residence with a dedicated EV charging outlet. SMUD's EV
charging rate is approximately half the regular residential
rate, or about $0.04 per kWh for off-peak charging to recharge
an electric vehicle.
Southern California Edison stated that that PHEVs are available
with different options for charging, some of which may require a
home electrical panel upgrade in addition to a dedicated 240
SB 1435
Page 5
volt circuit. If the customer wants to be able to install
faster-charging Level Two capability, the customer may need an
upgrade to the home electrical panel at the customer's cost.
The hearing revealed that some companies are currently providing
electricity for PHEV owners to re-charge at non-residential
based locations. For example, Coulomb Technologies, Inc.
provides networked charging stations throughout the U.S. and
some European locations. Each station is embedded with an
on-board computer, a fluorescent display, a radio-frequency
identification (RFID) reader, and a utility-grade meter that
provides precise, bi-directional energy measurement. The
customer scans his or her RFID card to re-charge, and can access
their energy usage and communicate over the network for
demand-side management, preferred pricing incentives, and other
mechanisms. Another company, Better Place, provides charging
points and battery-exchange stations. In November 2008, the
mayors of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, signed up Better
Place to deliver the charging infrastructure to the Bay Area.
Their goal is to have 250,000 charging ports, 200
battery-exchange stations and a control center to service Bay
Area electric car drivers. The cost is estimated at $1 billion.
They started work in January 2009 and hope to have full
commercial availability of the electric cars by 2012.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Clean Power Campaign
Friends of the Earth (FoE) (if amended)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (if amended)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (if amended)
San Diego Gas & Electric (if amended)
Sempra Energy (if amended)
Opposition
Better Place
Coulomb Technologies
ECOtality, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Gina Adams / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083