201 N. Washington Square Suite 910 Lansing, Michigan Telephone 517 /

Transcription

1 0 N. Washington Square Suite 0 Lansing, Michigan Telephone / - Timothy J. Lundgren Direct: / -0 tjlundren@varnumlaw.com July, 0 Ms. Kavita Kale Michigan Public Service Commission 0 W. Saginaw Highway P.O. Box 0 Lansing, Michigan 0 Re: MPSC Case No. U-0 Dear Ms. Kale: Attached for electronic filing in the above-referenced matter, please find the Direct Testimony of James Ellis on behalf ChargePoint, Inc., as well as Proof of Service. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, VARNUM Timothy J. Lundgren TJL/kc c. ALJ Parties 0_.docx Grand Haven Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Lansing Metro Detroit

2 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ************************** In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, for ) the generation and distribution of ) Case No. U-0 electricity and for other relief ) ) OF JAMES ELLIS ON BEHALF OF CHARGEPOINT, INC.

3 I. Introduction and Background Q: Please state your name and address A: My name is James Ellis. I reside at Robin Hill Rd in Nashville, Tennessee. Q: Please describe your background, experience, and expertise. 0 0 A: I am currently the Director of Utility Solutions for ChargePoint, Inc. In this role, I advise electric utilities and other key stakeholders in many parts of the country on electric vehicle market engagement and investment, and support the development of policies and programs to accelerate the adoption of EVs and EV charging equipment and services. Prior to joining ChargePoint, I served as the Director of Electrification and Electric Vehicles for Pacific Gas and Electric Company with a focus on developing products and programs to support customer needs in the fastest growing EV market in the United States (US). During this time, I also served as a board member for the California Electric Transportation Coalition supporting advocacy for low carbon fuel standards, vehicle and infrastructure incentives and supported policies for an increased utility role in transportation electrification. I also served as board member for the California Plug-In Vehicle Collaborative, working with government and industry stakeholders to identify and advocate for accelerated transportation electrification through education and outreach initiatives. Before PG&E, I was the EV Regional Manager for Nissan North America in the Corporate Planning and Sales and Marketing organizations. At Nissan, I was responsible for market acceptance activities including strategy

4 0 development and implementation for EV infrastructure in key markets to support the 00% battery electric LEAF. During this time, I developed financial tools and strategies that enabled the deployment of hundreds of DC fast chargers in the US. I also served as Senior Manager for Transportation and Infrastructure at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), leading research and development activities related to clean transportation technologies, utility plug-in readiness activities across the 0,000 square mile service territory and worked on carbon reduction strategies to enhance economic, environmental and societal benefits. I hold a Master of Business Administration degree from the Massey School of Business at Belmont University and a BS degree from Appalachian State University. Q: On whose behalf are you testifying? A: I am testifying on behalf of ChargePoint, Inc. Q: Are you sponsoring any exhibits? A: No. Q: What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? 0 A: The purpose of my testimony is to address the proposal from Consumers Energy Company ("Consumers"), as presented by witness Morales, to install electric

5 0 vehicle ("EV") charging infrastructure using ratepayer funding. This proceeding is of interest to ChargePoint because it will determine whether or not a regulated monopoly utility will be able to enter into a currently competitive market, offer products and services at no cost to customers in that market, own and operate equipment on the customer s premises, and usurp the roles currently played by the network service providers and site hosts. The Commission's decision on this proposed program will significantly impact the future of the EV charging market in Michigan. In our view, the Consumers plan to use ratepayer money to enter into and inundate the EV charging market space could slow rather than accelerate adoption of EVs in the near and long term in Michigan. Q: Please describe ChargePoint's expertise in the EV charging market. A: ChargePoint is a leading manufacturer of electric vehicle charging equipment and services. Using ChargePoint products and services, our customers operate more than 0,000 charging locations and 0 express charging spots. These charging locations have enabled,000 drivers,, of whom are in Michigan, to fuel their electric vehicles with more than. million charges and drive more than million electric-fueled miles. 0 ChargePoint designs, develops and deploys home and commercial Level (L) and DC Fast Charging (DCFC) electric vehicle charging stations, software

6 applications, data analytics and related customer and driver services aimed at creating a robust, scalable, and grid-friendly EV charging ecosystem. 0 ChargePoint was the first company globally to launch and deploy a network in support of EV charging, and is dedicated to providing a constant stream of innovation and advancements. ChargePoint has more than 0 patents awarded to date. ChargePoint was included on the CNBC Class of 0 Disrupter 0 list of innovative companies, an honor shared with Uber, SpaceX, Dropbox and Airbnb. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change honored ChargePoint with a Momentum for Change award at the annual Conference of Parties (COP) in Paris, France in December of 0. ChargePoint was one of Lighthouse Activities selected for its innovative and scalable approach to tackling climate change, and one of only two companies highlighted from the United States. ChargePoint received this award for its partnership program with BMW and Volkswagen to create Express Charging Corridors along both coasts of the United States. Q: What is ChargePoint s business model? 0 A: The ChargePoint business model is to engineer, manufacture, and sell the equipment and network services necessary for EV charging station owners to 0_lighthouse_activities.pdf

7 0 effectively provide charging services to drivers that visit their properties. In almost every case, ChargePoint does not own the hardware. ChargePoint sells charging equipment to families via our home stations, or to a site host for our commercial products. The site host sets the price for EV drivers that use the charging station on their property. ChargePoint does not set the pricing to drivers at any station and we do not collect any revenue directly from EV drivers. We sell the site host network services to manage its charging infrastructure using cloudbased software tools. We also provide merchant services to the station owners that enable them, if they choose, to generate revenue from charging sessions at their site. ChargePoint also provides services to drivers, free of charge, which allow them to easily find and access the EV charging infrastructure provided by station owners through a mobile app, in-vehicle navigation and our website. We also provide a call center to support EV driver and infrastructure site host queries. Q: Does ChargePoint require drivers to pay a fee to plug in to an EV charging station? 0 A: No. ChargePoint does not impose any requirements on site hosts to levy fees for EV charging services. We believe that those decisions should be made by the site hosts themselves, who are best suited to create incentives to maximize use of the EV charging stations in a way that aligns with their own specific business models. Currently 0% of ChargePoint stations are free for at least some period of time. Q: What are the products and services that ChargePoint offers to the market?

8 A: ChargePoint offers a complete line of Level (L) and DC fast charging (DCFC) products and services, including the CT000 family of Level charging stations for public and workplace charging, ChargePoint Home, ChargePoint Multi- Family, ChargePoint Fleet and both kw and 0 kw DC Fast Charging stations. 0 For drivers, ChargePoint provides a single mobile and web application for all aspects of their public, workplace, and home EV charging. ChargePoint drivers have access to real time information, payment and support services through the information available on the screen of the charging station, in their mobile app, via and text notifications, or on the ChargePoint website. For station hosts, ChargePoint provides subscriptions to our cloud-based platform. This provides the station host with everything needed to manage EV charging operations, including online management tools for data analysis, billing and payment processing, load management, and access control. We connect stations to ChargePoint over a secure, payment card industry (PCI) compliant, cellular data network allowing station owners to manage all their charging operations from a single dashboard. 0 Maintenance and customer service are a priority for our company. ChargePoint offers a comprehensive set of support services for both EV drivers and station hosts, including: a // hotline for drivers, the industry s first parts and on-

9 site labor warranty, site qualification, installation and validation services and help line for site host specific questions. Q: Where does ChargePoint operate? A: ChargePoint operates worldwide, and currently has charging spots with stations in out of 0 states in the US, including ports in Michigan alone. Q: Consumers has claimed that the EV charging market is stagnant, or failing, do you agree? 0 A: No, Consumer claim that the EV charging market is stagnant is unfounded. Q: Who are ChargePoint s customers? A: ChargePoint has more than,00 station owners as customers. Our customers are workplaces, governments, hotels, colleges and universities, hospitals, electric utilities and other energy companies, parking garages, airports, multifamily housing, auto dealerships and other businesses. Customers in the Consumer s service territory include Michigan State University, Meijer, among others, including Consumers. 0 Q: Why do charging station site hosts invest in EV charging?

10 0 A: EV charging station site hosts choose to invest in EV charging for a wide range of reasons. Each site host has its own business model for providing charging services. For many but not all employers, it's a low cost benefit provided to employees to encourage adoption of clean transportation technologies that support corporate sustainability. Apartment building owners may provide charging as an amenity and will typically charge for the service as they do for a coin operated laundry. Cities and counties may charge cost-recovery fees in order to avoid giving away charging services at taxpayer expense. Some sites offer these services for free, some include them in rent, for some they are pay per use and some are modified to elicit desired driver behavior and cause the highest utilization of the charging asset. 0 The benefits to site hosts are equally varied. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (CES) found in a study conducted for the Washington State Legislature s Joint Transportation Committees that there are a number of direct financial benefits that accrue to entities that invest private funds into installing EV charging stations. CES writes: In addition to user fees, EV charging stations may also generate other types of indirect revenue streams for businesses. Because these revenue streams are not captured by the charging station itself, operators may ignore them. However, some businesses may choose to bear the costs of offering charging services based on the value of these indirect revenue streams and other benefits. For example, offering EV charging at retail locations may

11 0 increase sales revenue by drawing EV drivers to the destination and by increasing the time customers spend parked at these locations. EV charging infrastructure deployment may accelerate sales of EVs, potentially increasing expected revenues for automakers as they work to drive down costs for these advanced technology vehicles. Offering EV charging stations may also provide other sources of value for businesses that are not tied to specific revenue streams, such as employee engagement and retention benefits or marketing and brand-strengthening opportunities of offering EV charging. And, over a longer timeframe, technology and infrastructure development may enable EVs to provide Vehicle to Building (VB) and Vehicle to Grid (VG) power services. Any of these businesses may invest in charging infrastructure to realize these benefits. VB and VG are terms used in the concept of treating EVs as a grid resource where the utility can call on the EV load and are able to elicit electricity stored in batteries of vehicles to be put back on the grid during high electricity demand periods. II. Summary of CMS Proposal Q: What does CMS propose to do in the EV charging station market? A: On March, 0, Consumers filed an application proposing revised rate structures, cost allocations, and proposing new rates and tariff changes that affect Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Business Models for Financially Sustainable EV Charging Networks 0.

12 all of its customer classes. Contained in that application is a Plug-in Electric Vehicle Program ( PEV Program ), which would result in the following: 0 Consumers owning and operating 0 L charging stations and 0 DC fast chargers (0 ports) at to-be-determined locations throughout the lower peninsula of its service territory; and Consumers customers being offered a $,000 rebate for a home EV charger. Q: Would the EV charging site hosts have any control over the charging stations under Consumers' proposal? A: No, site hosts would be precluded from participating in the active management of the EV charging station. They would, however, be responsible for all costs associated with the energy used during charging sessions on their premises. III. Principal Policy Concerns with the Consumers PEV Pilot Q: Should the Commission be considering utility investment in EV charging infrastructure? 0 A: We believe that there is a need for the Commission to consider the full range of roles for a regulated monopoly that will help support and encourage the near-term accelerated deployment of smart EV chargers in Michigan. Electricity as a transportation fuel provides utilities with a beneficial use of their primary product; however, investments should be thoughtful, deliberate and risk averse to help 0

13 0 develop a robust and sustainable EV market that promotes grid benefits for all rate payers. We also support testing new rate structures and load management policies that will support integration of EVs into Michigan s electrical grid including residential time-of-use (TOU) rates for EVs and new volumetric rates for commercial charging services to reduce high operating costs of DC fast charging stations in the early years of the EV market due to traditional demand charge cost recovery mechanisms. Utility program design should focus investments on removing barriers to help get the needed smart charging infrastructure in place while creating long-term grid benefits of accelerating EV adoption, including limited rate payer cost exposure and enabling a competitive market for the charging equipment and services. The underlying question that should be considered is how best to accomplish these near-term goals while also setting Michigan on the longer-term path for sustainable and scalable growth in the EV and EV charging services markets. ChargePoint strongly believes that accomplishing these near- and longer-term goals does not hinge on the Commission authorizing Consumers to develop a new business model and install a utility-procured, owned and operated network of EV charging stations that would limit EV market growth all at ratepayer expense. 0 Q: What steps does ChargePoint recommend the Commission take to assist Michigan in expanding its EV charging infrastructure?

14 A: Reviewing a utility's unilaterally submitted proposal, such as Consumer proposed Plug-in Electric Vehicle ("PEV") Program, is not the only role that the Commission can play. In the early days of EVs, the MPSC hosted a statewide working group to examine the challenges facing Michigan s budding EV market. This workgroup consisted of a range of public and private stakeholders from across policy areas and industries. ChargePoint recommends that the Commission open a separate docket to determine a coordinated strategy for how public, private, and regulated entities can collaborate to achieve robust, sustainable, and scalable growth in Michigan s EV and EV charging markets. 0 Q: Should the utilities be playing a role in the EV charging market? 0 A: Utilities are well situated to help address some of the obstacles currently preventing wider deployment of networked EV charging equipment, especially at multi-unit dwelling (MUD) locations and in underserved communities. The Commission should authorize strategic, risk averse activities and cost effective ratepayer-funded infrastructure investments that will help accelerate expansion of EV charging and EV adoption in Michigan. In doing this, the utilities role should be clearly defined and relate to the utilities core strengths and competencies. At the same time, such authorization should preclude utilities from engaging in anticompetitive activities and from making unjustified expenditures of ratepayer money.

15 0 And while utilities have a very important role to play in meeting the state s transportation electrification goals, the utilities role should not be understood only in terms of potential ownership and operation of customer-side equipment. Utilities can play a role by providing rebates and programmatic incentives treated as regulatory assets, making it easier and less expensive for homeowners, businesses, property managers and employers to deploy EV charging equipment and maintain visibility into unplanned EV load growth. Utilities should not be permitted to leverage rate payer funds to take over the role currently played by competitive businesses selling EV charging equipment and services, or the role of site hosts as investors in charging stations and providers of EV charging to EV drivers. A competitive EV charging market is the best means of achieving Michigan s aspirations for economic growth, jobs, technology leadership, sustainable transportation, and help address the challenge of climate change. Utilities have a role in supporting customer education for those considering EV choices or purchasing EV charging stations. However, there are limits to the manner in which regulated utilities should be permitted to leverage ratepayers dollars so as to have a deleterious impact on competition in markets. Utilities are experts in electricity, not in the EV marketplace. 0 Q: Will the PEV Program have an impact only within Consumers service territory, or throughout Michigan?

16 0 A: The PEV Program will have a large impact throughout Michigan s competitive EV charging market. Michigan currently has about 00 public EV charging stations listed in the US Department of Energy s Alternative Fueling Station Locator. If Consumers were to deploy 0 charging stations, the EV charging market would experience 0% growth. The scale of this program would flood the competitive EV charging market, and the impacts of this investment would necessarily spill over beyond the borders of Consumers' service territory. As noted in the testimony of Julio Morales, one of the goals of the PEV Program (and an unrelated demand response program) are to create benefits to our customers and the state of Michigan. Q: Should the transportation electrification policy course for Michigan be set through a pilot program in a general rate case? A: Given that these decisions will have far reaching impacts, the state of Michigan would be best served by developing statewide strategies in the context of a publicprivate workgroup that would bring together stakeholders from across the state to identify appropriate utility engagement and develop pilots to test engagement and assess grid benefits and market impacts 0 IV. Principal Programmatic Concerns with PEV Program Q: Does ChargePoint have a position on the Consumers PEV Program?

17 A: Yes. ChargePoint supports some aspects of the PEV Program, opposes others, and has identified several critical EV charging policy issues that Consumers has failed to consider as part of its proposed PEV Program. Support: ChargePoint supports a rebate for home charging stations; however, rebates should be provided only if the home charging station can communicate to provide data and load management tools to the utility. More constructive and deliberate program design is warranted. 0 Oppose: ChargePoint opposes the scale and scope of the PEV Program s own and operate (O&O) L and DCFC investments that preclude competition, impede innovation, and eliminate customer choice. Q: What are the critical design issues for any utility EV charging infrastructure program? A: It is critical that the design of any utility EV charging infrastructure program considers the following: 0 Risks associated with investments; Right sizing and functionalities to create long-term grid benefits ; Appropriate rate structures to lower barriers of EV adoption, e.g., TOU EV rates and volumetric rates for DC fast charging;

18 0 Capabilities that the utility can leverage and prove to be successful in implementing in a lean and agile manner; Costs and rate-payer impacts; Benefits to the grid and rate-payers ; Infrastructure sighting, and, locational and market impacts for the following use cases: o Workplace charging; o Multi-unit dwellings (MUDs); o Public and private fleet charging; o DC Fast Charging; Addressing underserved communities; Leveraging private capital investments; Future-proofing; and Load management & demand response capabilities. Q: Please explain why you support the PEV Program s home charging station rebate. 0 A: ChargePoint supports the PEV Program s home charging station rebate for two primary reasons: First, a rebate is a simple financial transaction that is easy to implement and creates value to the utility by providing visibility into unplanned EV load growth. This consideration lowers the total cost of ownership of an EV, creating an incentive for utility customers and helping accelerate adoption. The majority of

19 0 EV charging takes place at home. By increasing access to charging at home, EV drivers will more easily be able to take advantage of TOU rates, which decrease costs for refueling the vehicle and can reduce stress on the grid during peak times. Furthermore, providing the rebate for smart, connected charging stations in the home, the utility can create access to new load management tools to create grid benefits, including integrating renewable generation and performing demand response. This rebate structure could very effectively be expanded and tailored to incentivize increased deployment of workplace charging, which is the other primary location for EV drivers to charge their vehicles, and expand grid benefits while limiting the costs and risks of Consumers owning and operating L charging stations. Second, the mechanism of a rebate to incent consumer behavior is consistent with promoting innovation, competition, and customer choice in the EV charging market. The utility can qualify equipment to meet functional capabilities and provide a list of qualified charging stations to its customers to simplify the learning curve associated with buying, and refueling, an EV. A rebate reduces a barrier to EV adoption, while leaving the homeowner to determine which equipment and services best meet their interests, and builds a sustainable EV marketplace. 0 Smart, John. Lessons Learned about Workplace Charging in The EV Project Idaho National Laboratory. 0.

20 However, Consumers should be careful to design their rebate program to require these home units be smart; capable of communicating through a network to provide data and load management tools and capabilities. Networked stations will allow the utility to monitor and utilize the EV as a resource on the grid so this new load can be a benefit to all utility customers. Q: Please explain why you oppose the PEV Program s proposed deployment of 0 L charging stations and 0 DC fast chargers. 0 0 A: Utility programs should not pick and choose beyond-the-meter end-use technologies like the commodities they procure at the lowest cost because it prohibits competition in the market and increases investment risk. Alternatively, utility programs should qualify and incentivize capabilities and characteristics of end-use technologies to accelerate access to tools that create grid benefits. Rather than accelerate the EV charging market, procuring and deploying 0 L stations and 0 DC Fast Chargers that are owned and operated by Consumers could lead to market stagnation in Michigan. A program of this magnitude will drive EVSE vendors out of Consumers service territory, as competing with free is very difficult. Rate-payers benefit from a robust and competitive market as they have access to the latest advancements in charging technologies and services in the quickly evolving EV market. Technology is advancing too quickly for utilities to keep up with, and, a utility procurement would lock down a technology available today for a decade or more with a product feature set that was selected

21 for the EV driver by the utility (who has very little experience in the EV industry) - increasing rate-payer risk of the investment and limiting potential grid benefits. Specifically, the PEV Program as proposed would have a negative impact on competition, innovation, and customer choice and will not enable scale and build a sustainable EV market. Q: Why is it important for site hosts to have a choice in the type of EV charging equipment and services? 0 0 A: Site hosts have preferences regarding the hardware and services related to EV charging. The Yale Center for Business and the Environment reviewed a range of EV charging equipment and business models and concluded that [n]o single technology or business model available today is exactly right for all charging scenarios. There are pros and cons to each alternative, depending on the location and the driver base that the charging station aims to serve. The range of choices in EV charging goods and services is a strength indicating that the quickly evolving market is meeting the varied needs of its wide range of consumers. Site hosts are able to tailor the particular options for station fees, driver authentication, accessibility, payment collection and other transaction capabilities, advertisement, and how to configure and manage an array of data (e.g., energy, station usage, and environmental benefits). Site hosts are also the best suited to make choices about the number of charging stations needed on their site. This is especially true when Yale Center for Business and the Environment, 0, Financing Electric Vehicle Markets in New York and Other States page.

22 site hosts participate in the purchase of the charging station, which will help ensure that charging stations are deployed efficiently and in places where they will get the most use. 0 Another critical set of choices that site hosts benefit from are those around pricing and access controls. There is an inherent link between the site itself and the behavior of the drivers that park there. Having the capabilities to communicate to EV drivers charging on their premise through innovative apps and product offerings, site hosts can best manage their property to ensure higher utilization of the charging assets and support their core businesses. However, the PEV Program severs this link with the EV driver by eliminating the site host s control of the station affixed to their property. Q: Why should site hosts have the ability to control pricing for the EV charging stations installed on their premises? 0 A: ChargePoint strongly believes that EV charging station site hosts must be allowed to control pricing, as well as access, to ensure that charging stations meet both the EV site host and driver needs. Empowering businesses with the flexibility to provide access to charging at variable pricing helps the site host best utilize its property and incentivize drivers to use what they need and then move on to allow other EV drivers to plug-in. With the ability to make decisions about EV charging stations and services, site hosts will be able to incorporate more efficient energy use on their property and thus produce a beneficial load to the grid. 0

23 Restricting a site host s ability to influence the access to the site can affect security issues on the site, as well as limit the ability for site hosts to incentivize driver behavior. Preventing site hosts from having input on pricing limits their ability to offset the cost of providing charging services, as well as their ability to incentivize drivers to move their vehicles after charging is complete increasing risk by creating low asset utilization and dissonance in the EV market amongst drivers or intenders, potential adopters of EV technologies. 0 Without control over pricing to affect driver behavior, retail site hosts would be unable to take advantage of the EV charging station to attract new customers. Some retailers provide completely free charging at their own expense to attract customers for their core business. Other retailers will offer free charging for a set amount of time and charge a fee thereafter to ensure maximum utilization of the charging station, or offer free charging during certain hours to incent customers to come at those times. The site host, not the utility, is best suited to take site specific actions to ensure optimal use of the charging assets affixed to their property. 0 Q: Can you provide examples of how site hosts might set a price for charging services?

24 A: Some examples how a site host might set a price for charging services include: 0 0 A free charging session; A fixed rate for the session, for which the driver pays a set fee for the entire session; An energy rate, for which the driver pays for the energy consumed on a per kilowatt-hour (kwh) basis; An hourly rate, for which the driver pays per hour, similar to how a parking meter operates; Length-of-Stay pricing, for which one price is charged during the first x hours and another price is charged for every hour afterwards; Time-of-Day pricing, for which one price is charged during peak hours and another during off-peak hours. A minimum and/or a maximum fee per session; A combination of the above, in which, for example, a flat session fee followed by an hourly rate, an hourly rate followed by per kwh pricing, a minimum session fee followed by an hourly rate, or a free period of time followed by per kwh pricing; and Driver groups, for which station owners may set unique policies for different classifications of drivers (e.g. employees vs. visitors) using the options above. Q: Can Michigan site hosts currently use all of the pricing models listed above for EV charging services? A: No, site hosts in Michigan are not able to set the price of charging services by energy rate (kwh).

25 Q: Is pricing by kwh currently permitted in states besides Michigan? A: Yes, states and the District of Columbia currently permit pricing for charging services by kwh. Each state takes its own approach to authorizing per kwh pricing of EV charging services. For example, Connecticut provides a blanket exemption for owners or operators of EV charging stations from falling under the state s definition of a public utility. West Virginia takes a different approach by explicitly identifying that its public service commission has no jurisdiction over the sale by non-utilities of any alternate fuel used for motor vehicles. 0 Q: Why should there be an exemption for third-party providers of EV charging services from being subject to regulation by the Commission as a public utility? A: Third-party owners and operators of EV charging stations do not generate, transmit, distribute, or sell electricity to end users. Instead, third-party owners and operators use electricity to provide EV charging services to their customers. This use of electricity is incidental to the provision of EV charging service with a privately owned charging station. Whereas utilities transmit and distribute electricity over system wires or circuits, EV charging service providers deliver services by a cord and a connector. 0

26 0 Transactions between an EV service provider and an EV driver have nothing in common with a traditional sale of electricity by a utility to a consumer. Moreover, third-party owners and operators of EV charging services are retail customers themselves that purchase electricity from a regulated utility. The electricity so purchased to provide for charging services will in most cases include granting the user access to the charging station, use of related metering and communications software, participation in a network, billing, and various other options. The relationship between EV charging service provider and EV driver is much closer to that of a cell phone battery-charging kiosk at the airport than with a regulated public utility operating a grid and selling electricity to local businesses and households. 0 The Commission should determine that a third-party owner or operator of an EV charging station is not an electrical corporation or a public utility as defined by Michigan law. In light of this, the Commission does not have role in regulating the sale of EV charging equipment or services by non-utility providers. However, as discussed below, the Commission can play a very important role in ensuring that the regulated utilities support the expansion of EV charging infrastructure in a manner that is cost effective and supportive of competition, innovation and customer choice. The Commission also has an important role in guiding the development of tariffs that support and encourage beneficial use of electricity as fuel for electric vehicles.

27 Q: By what rationale did public utility commissions determine that EV charging equipment should not be regulated like a public utility? 0 A: Regulatory commissions across the country have determined that companies purchasing electricity at retail from regulated utilities and using it to provide charging service to EVs (regardless of the business context) are not performing the function of an electric utility or an electricity supplier, and should not be subject to regulation as such. Explicitly exempting non-utility EV charging services from the statutes defining and prescribing rules applicable to public utilities and competitive suppliers of electricity will remove regulatory uncertainty about the jurisdictional status of EV charging services, and foster innovation, competition and private investment. For example, in California, one of the first states to take up this question, the public utilities commission ( California PUC ) determined that: 0 Facilities that are solely used to provide electricity as a transportation fuel do not constitute electric plant pursuant to Pub. Util. Code. Thus, an entity owning, controlling, operating, or managing electric vehicle charging facilities is not an electric corporation pursuant to Pub. Util. Code and not a public utility pursuant to Pub. Util. Code, unless an entity falls under Cal. Pub. Util. Code, (I); Colo. Rev. Stat. 0 0.(); D.C. Code 0, ; Fla. Stat..; Haw. Rev. Stat. (); Idaho Code ; 0 Ill. Comp. Stat. / 0(C), / 0; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit., A, 0(), 0( B); Md. Code Pub. Utils. 0(J)(), 0(X)(); Minn. Stat. B.0 (Subd. ); Or. Rev. Stat..00()(B)(G); Utah Code ()(C), ()(J); Va. Code Ann..:; Wash. Rev. Code 0..0; W. Va. Code D.

28 and for other reasons. As such, the Commission would not have regulatory authority regarding the price that an electric vehicle charging facility operator charges for charging services or other aspects of the operation of such facilities unless the charging facility operator is a public utility by reason of its operations other than providing electric charging. 0 The New York Public Service Commission ( NYPSC ) ruled that EV charging stations are not utility plant, and charging services are not subject to its jurisdiction, by distinguishing between the nature of the sale of electricity and charging services: 0 Charging Stations do not fall within the definition of electric plant because Charging Stations are not used for or in connection with or to facilitate the generation, transmission, distribution, sale or furnishing of electricity for light heat or power. Instead, and as urged by several commenters, Charging Stations are used to provide a service, specifically, charging services. This service requires the use of specialized equipment and allows the customer to do only one thing, charge a PEV s battery. The primary purpose of the transaction between Charging Station owners/operators and members of the public is the purchase of this service and the use of this specialized equipment. While the customer is using electricity, this is incidental to the transaction. Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Alternative Fueled Vehicle Tariffs, Infrastructure and Policies to Support California s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Goals, Assigned Commissioner s Scoping Memo at (P.U.C. Rulemaking No , filed Aug. 0, 00). In the Matter of Electric Vehicle Policies, Declaratory Ruling on Jurisdiction over Publicly Available Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at (NYPSC Case No. E 0, issued Nov., 0)

29 Furthermore, the NYPSC held that the method of calculating the transaction fee, specifically, the use of a per kwh price, will not confer jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. 0 The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities ( MA DPU ) followed the same rationale and found that EV charging equipment does not constitute a distribution facility, because the equipment component of EVSE used to supply the electricity is in the nature of a connector or cord, not a line and ownership or operation of EVSE does not transform an entity that otherwise is not a distribution company into a distribution company. 0 The MA DPU also found that EVSE owners or operators are not selling electricity within the meaning of the Massachusetts public utility statute, because 0 an EVSE owner or operator is selling EV charging services, i.e., the use of specialized equipment EVSE for the purpose of charging an EV battery. EVSE allows the customer do to only one thing, charge an EV battery. This result is true regardless of the business model the EVSE owner/operator uses to charge customers for charging services, even if the charge is by a per-kilowatt hour basis or other volumetric energy basis. The MA DPU also found that the practice does not constitute submetering, because submetering involves a re-sale of electricity, not the sale of a service; in Ibid. 0 Investigation by the Department of Public Utilities upon Its Own Motion into Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicle Charging, Order on Department Jurisdiction over Electric Vehicles, the Role of Distribution Companies in Electric Vehicle Charging and Other Matters (Mass. D.P.U. A, issued Aug., 0) Id. at

30 this case, EV charging service. For the same reason, the MA DPU found that EVSE owners/operators are not competitive suppliers of electricity. Q: Would permitting Michigan site hosts to price charging services by kwh support the continued growth in the EV and EV charging markets? A: Yes. The ability to price charging services per kwh is an invaluable tool for site hosts to incentivize the most efficient and equitable use of EV charging stations. 0 Flexibility in setting pricing supports innovation in the EV charging market. Maintaining direct or indirect limitations on how a provider may charge customers (i.e., precluding kwh pricing) constricts customer choice and discourages innovative and customer-friendly approaches to packaging and billing for EV charging services. 0 In addition, limiting pricing options to either free or flat hourly rates does not allow site hosts to take into account the wide array of power needs across the EV market. The battery capacity and rate of charge of EV models vary greatly, from the. kwh of the 0 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid to the. kwh of the Chevrolet Volt to the 0 kwh of the forthcoming Chevrolet Bolt. By failing to take battery capacity and rate of charge into account, a Prius Plug-In would be Id. at

31 charged the same flat hourly rate as a Chevy Bolt, while getting approximately half of the energy during the same period. Q: Why should potential site hosts not have the option to minimize their involvement in EV charging products and services, as proposed by Consumers? 0 A: Potential EV charging station site hosts should have the ability to choose any EV charging solution that best fits their need. Many site hosts prefer to leverage the range of tools offered by our networked stations, but some site hosts do prefer to have minimal involvement with the charger or its management after installation. These site hosts have the choice to sign a preventative maintenance contract with ChargePoint for the oversight and maintenance of the EV charging station health and customer services, or can choose to obtain such services from one of ChargePoint s competitors. Thus, a utility program is not needed to meet these site hosts' needs. 0 What matters most is that customers be allowed that choice. The PEV Program would crowd out competition and limit the choices available to potential site hosts on the assumption that they have no vested interest in maintaining any control over equipment that is installed on their property.

32 Q: Does the PEV Program require the site host to contribute to the cost of the EV charging equipment? A: No. Under the PEV Program, site hosts contribute to neither the equipment cost nor its associated installation costs. Q: Do you support fully subsidizing EV charging equipment as proposed in the PEV Program? A: No, we do not support this aspect of the PEV Program for the following reasons: 0 First, covering all of the equipment and installation costs is yet another way to remove the site host from having an active role in the EV charging station, which is a fundamentally flawed idea. From ChargePoint s experience in deploying 0,000 charging spots, site hosts that make a financial contribution to the charging station are far more likely to actively support the successful installation and ongoing preventive maintenance of the charging station because they have skin in the game. 0 Second, fully absorbing all of the equipment and installation costs limits any benefits of the investment, locks in technology capabilities in a quickly evolving market, and would be an inefficient use of ratepayer funding as the same grid 0

33 0 benefits can be created with reduced investment and risk. Historic and projected growth in the EV charging market show that private dollars are increasingly flowing into the market. And, cutting out private funds entirely will force Michigan to lose out on an opportunity to leverage capital investment, reduce its risk of engagement and extend the value of every ratepayer dollar invested in an EV charging program. Reducing the risk of investment by limiting the scope of the utility engagement to either incentivizing the installation costs of a makeready through a programmatic rebate mechanism or subsidize make-ready work in exchange for private investment in smart EV charging equipment is a better EV program design. The value of the program would increase, be more sustainable and create a bigger positive impact on deployment of EV charging infrastructure by spreading incentives to a greater number of customers. This approach is also scalable to future market needs including electric buses and other transportation technologies increasing the value to the grid by creating more beneficial use of electricity as a transportation fuel to put more kilowatt hours through the system and reducing fixed grid costs. This puts downward pressure on rates over the long-term and creates benefits for all ratepayers. 0 Q: Should there be any exceptions for requiring site host contribution to EV charging equipment? A: Yes, there should be exceptions made for MUDs and underserved communities, which I will expand on below.

34 Q: How would the PEV Program impact innovation in Michigan s EV charging market? 0 A: The entrance of a regulated monopoly into the EV charging market in the manner proposed through the PEV Program would have a chilling effect on innovation. Non-utility actors attempting to sell equipment and services for a market based price would be unable to compete directly with Consumers and its rate payer funded PEV Program, which will be giving away equipment and services at no cost to the site host. Non-utility actors would begin responding to utility defined product specifications in the PEV Program, rather than from EV market signals. Instead of harnessing the innovative capacity of the competitive market which is bigger than Consumers Energy, Michigan will be limited to the imagination of a utility procurement process. Again, utility programs should not pick and choose beyond-the-meter end-use technologies like the commodities they procure at the lowest cost because it prohibits competition in the market and increases risk. Q: Could Consumers owning and operating of all 0 stations have a negative impact on the efficiency of the PEV Program? 0 A: Yes. In order for Consumers to install, own, and operate 0 L and DCFC stations on private property, it will be necessary for Consumers to obtain perpetual easements. Not only will Consumers have to identify willing site hosts, lengthy negotiations will ensue, adding complexity to the program, stressing

35 customer relations and ultimately slowing the deployment or preventing it all together should the site host refuse the terms of the easement. 0 Additionally, it would be up to Consumers personnel (account representatives) to sell the program to its customers. While these account reps are skilled at what they do, they are ill-suited to begin selling a highly technical product for a new industry to their large commercial customers. Consumers would not be able to leverage market resources to make the deployment more efficient and less costly to its rate payers. An open program that allows competition would set the stage for competing industry experts, well versed in the variability of individual site host challenges, who are highly motivated and experienced to help customers adopt EV charging to their specific site characteristics and thereby ensure the program s success. Q: Are there unique challenges associated with increasing access to residential EV charging in dense, urban environments? 0 A: Yes, there are many challenges associated with increasing access to residential EV charging in urban environments. One of the key areas of multi-unit dwellings (MUD), where two or more families reside, including high-rise mixed use apartments, sprawling apartment communities and condominiums. In these cases, the homeowner does not own the property and cannot directly engage in EV

36 charging program incentives due to the cost and complexity of getting a station installed on someone else s property. There is usually a land owner, a property manager, sometimes a homeowner association and the tenet all requiring coordination and agreement to put in charging stations. This complexity remains a barrier to adoption of those that live in MUDs. Q: Will the proposed $,000 home rebate be sufficient to overcome the unique barriers to increasing access to residential EV charging in urban environments? 0 A: ChargePoint provides products and services for MUD locations, but MUD business is approximately % of our business. My observation is that this is due in part to the often higher cost and complexity of this use case. The experts who have studied MUDs have similarly concluded that the primary barrier to EV charging installations at MUDs is the cost of the installation and the ability to recover those costs from tenants. Property owners, home owner associations and building managers resist paying the high up front installation costs that are attributed to the building s electrical infrastructure or parking space location, especially when these costs only benefit a small percentage of the tenants. A utility program that provided a second make-ready service drop and a rebate to University of California Los Angeles, Luskin Center for Innovation, Addressing Challenges to Electric Vehicle Charging in Multifamily Residential Buildings (0) p.. challenges electric vehicle charging multifamilyresidentialbuildings ibid.

37 offset installation costs of deploying charging stations for this population segment would go a long way to allowing this important segment to gain access to charging infrastructure and adopt plug-in electric vehicles. 0 Segments of the residential market, such as MUDs, which are as important to address as single family homes, but more challenging to address for the competitive market, are ideal for involvement by regulated monopolies. In these segments, landlords and property management companies are often unwilling to assist with costlier electrical upgrades or are limited by the existing capacity of their electrical facilities on the site. Q: Will the PEV Pilot program result in charging sites that will be able to efficiently and effectively respond to continued growth in the EV charging market? A: No. Today s investments in EV charging infrastructure must take the continued electrification of transportation into consideration. Cumulative EV sales in the US have increased by over 00% between 0 and 0, and Navigant Research projects that there will be million EVs on the road by 0. Many factors are Electric Vehicle Market Forecasts: Global Forecasts for Light Duty Hybrid, Plug In Hybrid, and Battery Electric Vehicle Sales and Vehicles in Use: 0 0. Navigant Research, 0.