Electric Vehicle Charge Ready Program -...
Transcript of Electric Vehicle Charge Ready Program -...
Electric Vehicle Charge Ready Program
1September 20, 2015
Agenda
• About SCE
• The Charge Ready Initiative
• Depreciation Proposals of The Charge Ready Initiative
• Challenges
• Outcomes
September 20, 2015 2
• One of the nation’s largest electric
utilities:
‒ Nearly 14 million residents in service
territory
‒ Approximately 5 million customer
accounts
‒ 50,000 square-mile service area
• Significant infrastructure
investments:
‒ 1.4 million power poles
‒ 700,000 transformers
‒ 103,000 miles of distribution and
transmission lines
‒ 3,200 MW owned generation
About SCE
3
The Charge Ready Initiative
• Multi-Phase program aimed at promoting transportation electrification goals necessary to achieve California emissions objectives
September 20, 2015 4
Capital Investment
• Increase Availability of EV Charging Infrastructure
Outreach and Education
• Educate and Advise Customers on Benefits of Fueling from the Grid
Charge Ready – Why Now?• California climate objectives require green house gas to
80% below 1990 levels
• Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV’s) adoption is a critical necessity of achieving target by 2050
September 20, 2015 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Ca
lifo
rnia
PE
Vs
Mil
lio
ns
Cumulative California PEVs Necessary from 2010 to 2050 to
Achieve Climate Goals
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV
Scenario
United Nations Pathways to Deep Decarbonization
(E3)
CARB 2050 Compliant ZEVs
CARB ZEV Most Likely 2050 Adoption
Rapid Adoption is Critical to GHG Reductions
September 20, 2015 6
0
10
20
30
40
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Tho
usa
nd
s
Cumulative California PEVs
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV Scenario
Average of Eight Expert Forecasts
United Nations Pathways to Deep Decarbonization (E3)
CARB 2050 Compliant ZEVs
CARB ZEV Most Likely 2050 Adoption
Governor's Target (infrastructure to support 1M ZEVs)
• 150,000 units sold in past 5 years
• 7,300 charging stations in service across state
• Governor's target of 1M units by 2020 requires acceleration of market
So How does Charge Ready Help
• Accelerate the adoption of battery powered ZEVs by increasing availability of charging infrastructure in long-dwell time locations
• SCE has adopted a two-phased approach:
September 20, 2015 7
Phase 1 - Pilot
Installation of up to 1,500 Charging Stations
Inform and refine design and cost estimates for phase 2
Evaluate market strategies, customer interest, load impacts etc.
Phase 2
Installation of additional 28,500 units (up to 30k)
Apply lessons learned from Phase 1 to cost assumptions and Education and Outreach to increase efficacy
Market Acceleration Support for Up to
30,000 charging stations
SCE’s Proposed Implementation
• Objective: provide approximately one-third of units necessary to realize California ZEV adoption by 2020
September 20, 2015 8
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Ch
arg
e P
ort
s/P
ark
ing
Sp
ace
sT
ho
usa
nd
s
SCE Charge Port/Parking Space Needs to Support PEVs
Charge Ready Proposed Deployments
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV Scenario
Average of Eight Expert Forecasts
Other Components of the Program
• Focus on Long-Dwell Time Locations– Includes: multi-use dwellings (MUD’s), workplaces, destination
locations
– Excludes: Single family dwellings (MUD’s are installed by HOA’s, site-owners, etc.)
• Provide Rebates to Site-Owners to Encourage Adoption– Initial proposal was to provide 100% of base cost to all
customers (upgrades available for a fee)
– Settlement included a tiered rebate structure for customer groups
– Minimum of 10 Sites per location
• Additional Support for Disadvantaged Communities– 10 percent of funds to be used in disadvantaged communities
– Meet all women, minority, and disabled veteran business enterprises
– Reduction of minimum sites to 5 in certain situations
September 20, 2015 9
Expected Benefits of the Charge Ready Program
September 20, 2015 10
• Avoid on-peak charging
• Mitigate issues from renewable integration
Improving and Optimizing Utility Asset Utilization
• California’s preferred resource for meeting new generation capacity demand
Demand Response
• Reduction of GHG’s
• Improvement of Air quality
Environmental/Other Benefits
• Attract new load into the system and spread fixed costs over more kWh sales
Incremental Load
• Specific allocations of cost to communities facing higher barriers to adoption
Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities
• SCE’s request for vendors may stimulate new technologies in the charging market
Innovation
Program Costs
September 20, 2015 11
Capital Costs
(Excludes escalation and loaders)
(in $000) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Utility-Side Costs 3,354$ 6,707$ 11,178$ 19,003$ 26,828$
Customer-Side Costs 7,586$ 15,173$ 25,288$ 42,990$ 60,691$
Charging Station Rebate 5,850$ 11,700$ 19,500$ 33,150$ 46,800$
Other Capital Costs 146$ 262$ 416$ 687$ 958$
Capitalized Labor 564$ 676$ 719$ 855$ 975$
Total Capital Costs 17,499$ 34,518$ 57,102$ 96,685$ 136,252$
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
MIL
LIO
NS
Phase 2Pilot
Ratemaking
• Submitted advice filing at same time as application to include in tariffs amounts associated with the program in a Charge Ready Program Memorandum Account (CRPMA)
• Requested that if program costs were below estimate that Commission find the costs reasonable and be adopted
• Upon approval, costs would be transferred to Charge Ready Program Balancing Account (CRPBA)
• Costs incremental to SCE’s General Rate Case filing
September 20, 2015 12
Depreciation Rate Proposals
September 20, 2015 13
System Overview
• System is comprised of traditional and non-traditional infrastructure
• Proposal included rebate costs as a capital component of the case
September 20, 2015 14
Depreciation Proposals
• Customer side costs were modeled after services account (FERC Plant Account 369) and recorded to FERC Plant Account 371 – Customer-Side Infrastructure
• Charging Stations were proposed to last the program life of 10-years and be recovered as a regulatory asset
September 20, 2015 15
• Traditional Utility Infrastructure would be captured in SCE’s existing accounts and be included to it’s group depreciation rates
Depreciation Proposals - Summary
September 20, 2015 16
Average
Service Remaining Net Depreciation
Account Description Life Life Salvage % Rate
360.2 Easements 60 60 0% 1.67%
368 Line Transformers 30 20.9 0% 3.68%
369 Distribution Services 40 28 -85% 4.76%
370 Meters 20 19.4 -5% 5.35%
Composite 4.23%
371 Customer-Side Infrastructure 40 40 -85% 4.63%
182 Charging Stations (Reg Asset) 10 10 0% 10.00%
Customer Side Infrastructure
• Includes the panel and wiring components from the meter to the charging station
• Recorded to FERC Plant Account 371
• No current investment in account – requiring use of Average Service Life
September 20, 2015 17
Account Net Salvage Percent Average Service Life
369 -85% 40
Annual Accrual Rate = (100%-Net Salvage Percent)
Average Service Life
= (100% - (-85%)
40
Account 371 Accrual Rate = 4.63%
* Uses 2012 GRC authorized parameters from FERC Plant Account 369 as assets will have
similar life and salvage characteristics to Account 371.
Account 371- Installations on Customers' Premises- Rate Calculation
Charge-Ready Rebates - Justification
• SCE proposed to capitalize the costs of the rebates into a regulatory asset (FERC Account 182)
• The cost recovery schedule was set to be consistent with the program life and customer commitment requirements of 10 years
• Recent CPUC Decision (D.14-03-021) established that SCE could own and maintain behind-the-meter assets
• ASC 980 Establishes that the “Rate actions of a regulatory can provide reasonable assurance of the existence of an asset.”
September 20, 2015 18
TURN Challenges to SCE’s proposals
September 20, 2015 19
•Site owners should have “skin in the game”
•Removal of rebate still subsidizes 70% of
customer costs
No rebate on charger
•GAAP states rebates should be expensed
•Capitalization is inconsistent with regulatory
policy
Rebate should be
expensed
•Accurately reflects the lower risk SCE faces
with handing out free rebatesCapitalized rebate
should receive return
on debt
•No financial incentive for site host to maintain
and optimize system use
Capitalized charger
should be owned by
SCE
SCE Rebuttal
• Regulatory Asset treatment of
charger rebates create equitable
ratemaking
• GAAP gives regulators authority to
grant regulatory asset treatment
• Mobile-home Park OIR provides
precedent for unowned assets to
receive regulatory asset treatment.
• SCE believes rebate is necessary
for turn-key solution
Phase 1 Status
• SCE and intervening parties entered an all-party settlement in June 2015
• SCE agreed to expense costs associated with rebates in Phase 1 of the program
• Rebates were reduced from 100% of cost for all customers to varying rates depending on market segment
• Commission has not adopted settlement and currently requires additional fact finding
September 20, 2015 20
• Assembly Bill 32 (2006) – reduces State
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020
(~16% reduction)
• Cap and trade program basics:
‒ State-wide cap in 2013 – decreases over time
‒ Compliance met through allowances, offsets, or emissions reductions
‒ Excess allowances sold, or “banked” for future use
‒ January 2014 – merger with Quebec cap and trade program
• SCE received 32.3 million 2013 allowances vs.
10.4 million metric tons 2012 GHG emissions
• Allowances sold into quarterly auction and
bought back for compliance
‒ SB 1018 (2012) – auction revenues used for rate relief for residential (~93%), small business, and large industrial customers
AB32 Emissions
Reduction Programs
Cap & Trade22%
Other23%
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard19%
RPS14%
Energy Efficiency
15%
High GWP Gases
7%
California Climate Change Policy
September 20, 2015 21