May 19, 2017 Advice Letters 5020-E and 5020-E-A

Transcription

1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor May 19, 2017 Advice Letters 5020-E and 5020-E-A Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C San Francisco, CA SUBJECT: Summary of the Approved Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program and Details of the Rate Options to Site Hosts Pursuant to Decision Dear Mr. Jacobson: Summary Energy Division has determined that Pacific Gas and Electric s (PG&E) Advice Letters (ALs) 5020-E and 5020-E-A are consistent with Decision (D.) Accordingly, Advice Letter (AL) 5020-E and AL 5020-E-A are effective February 13, Background On December 21, 2016, the California Public Utilities Commission issued Decision approving a program that modifies a proposal from PG&E to deploy light-duty, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and conduct associated education and outreach. 1 PG&E is authorized to recover through rates up to $130 million in costs associated with the approved program, which can support up to 7,500 level 2 (~220 volt) EV charging points in workplaces, disadvantaged communities and multi-unit dwellings. The decision provides for PG&E to own up to 35 percent (2,625) of the total charging points installed. PG&E will install, own and operate the make-ready infrastructure for all of the EV charging points, but it will only be able to also own and operate the EV service equipment (EVSE) at sites that are at multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) and/or located in disadvantaged communities (DACs). The utility cannot own the charging equipment at workplaces that are located outside of disadvantaged communities, and must give all site hosts the opportunity to own the charging stations. 2 D sets a target for PG&E to deploy at least 20 percent (with a stretch goal of 50 percent) of the charging infrastructure to serve MUDs, 3 and at least 15 percent (with a stretch goal of 20 percent) in DACs. 4 1 D is available at 2 D , Ordering Paragraph 1 3 D , pg D , pg. 78

2 Erik Jacobson May 19, 2017 Page 2 Where PG&E owns the charging stations, site hosts must pay a participation payment; where the site host owns the charging stations, PG&E must provide a rebate. 5 PG&E is required to conduct a request for proposal process to establish a base cost for level 2 EVSE to calculate the rebates and participation payments, based on the lowest-cost EVSE model qualified through a request for proposal process. Both the participation payments and the rebates are tiered based on customer type: PG&E Participation Payment Site Host Type Participation Payment Rebate MUD in DAC Selected EVSE cost less Base Cost 100% * Base Cost MUD outside of DAC 50% * Base Cost plus difference of selected and Base Cost 50% * Base Cost Workplace in DAC 50% * Base Cost plus difference of selected and Base Cost 50% * Base Cost Workplace outside of DAC N/A 25% * Base Cost PG&E must qualify vendors and models of EVSE through a rolling qualification process, update its list of qualified vendors at least quarterly, and make that list available to all site hosts. Site hosts that choose to own their EVSE must choose from the list of qualified vendors and models. Site hosts will be able to choose between two time-of-use (TOU) rates. Under the TOU rate-todriver option, PG&E serves electricity to the site host or its service provider, who passes the TOU price signals directly to the EV drivers charging at the stations. The TOU rate-to-host option would send TOU price signals to the hosts, which would be able to propose alternative pricing and load management tactics. PG&E is required to select operations and maintenance vendors through an RFP process, in conjunction with its PAC, and must cover the operations and maintenance costs for all sites where the utility owns the EVSE. 6 The decision directs PG&E to establish a Program Advisory Council (PAC) to provide guidance and feedback as the utility implements its EV program. The PAC is to include representatives from local and state governments, industry, labor and other stakeholders, and ratepayer and environmental advocates. The PAC will advise PG&E on the criteria necessary for load management plans, but PG&E is ultimately responsible for approving a site host s load management plan. Non-market participants of the PAC will provide guidance on PG&E s procurement of EV charging stations for the sites where the utility owns the charging equipment. 7 PG&E must file quarterly progress reports with the CPUC and the PAC, and serve those reports to all parties participating in relevant proceedings. These quarterly reports are to provide updates on all aspects of program implementation, including costs, site selection and progress on vendor 5 D , Ordering Paragraphs 1, D , Ordering Paragraphs D , Ordering Paragraphs 2, 6, 16, 17, and 20

3 Erik Jacobson May 19, 2017 Page 3 qualification. 8 In addition to these quarterly reports, PG&E is required to collect and report data and metrics as set forth in Appendix B to the Settlement filed on March 21, Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 19 of D , PG&E filed Advice Letter 5020-E to summarize the approved program described above and detail the two TOU rate options that will be provided to site hosts under the program. 10 Protest and Reply On March 6, 2017, ChargePoint submitted a protest to PG&E Advice Letter 5020-E. In its protest, ChargePoint argued that PG&E s summary included language that does not reflect the approved program, is not appropriate for a program summary, or lacks clarity. Many of ChargePoint s proposed changes request the utility to clarify ambiguous language to better reflect what was included in D PAC non-market members advisory review and confidentiality ChargePoint protests PG&E s intent to limit its consultation regarding setting the EVSE base cost to non-market participants of its PAC. ChargePoint also raised concerns about the information that PG&E may share with the non-market participant members of its PAC, and asked the commission to ensure confidential information submitted by market participants is adequately protected in PG&E s RFP process. Utility EVSE procurement ChargePoint protested PG&E s proposed Section 11 establishing the RFP process PG&E will use to qualify vendors and EVSE models and suggested modified language. It particularly opposed PG&E s intent to conduct a one-time RFP to select the vendors and EVSE models PG&E will procure to install at sites where it will own and operate the EVSE. On March 13, 2017, PG&E responded to ChargePoint s protest and largely accepted the proposed edits therein. PAC non-market members advisory review and confidentiality PG&E states that D largely adopted its PAC proposal, with only four modifications, none of which address the limitation that only non-market participants will be consulted on the process of setting the EVSE base cost. It agrees with ChargePoint that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure confidential, competitively sensitive information and trade secrets are not directly or inadvertently disclosed and states that this underscores its intention to only discuss the RFP process with non-market participant members of the PAC. Utility EVSE procurement response PG&E did not accept ChargePoint s proposal to have the utility conduct quarterly or more frequent procurement of EVSE for the sites at which PG&E will own the EVSE. While D modified the process for qualifying eligible vendors and EVSE models available to site hosts selecting their own EVSE, it did not directly address the process through which PG&E would procure the EVSE it will own and operate at sites that choose to have the utility be the 8 D , Ordering Paragraph 20 9 D , Ordering Paragraph 22, Settlement Appendix B available at 10 D , Ordering Paragraph 19

4 Erik Jacobson May 19, 2017 Page 4 EVSE owner. PG&E states that it would be administratively burdensome and costly to conduct quarterly RFPs for equipment it will procure. Instead it intends to conduct a single RFP through which it will enter contracts with multiple third parties for multiple EVSE operating systems, network services, associated hardware and operations and maintenance services. Sites where hosts choose to have PG&E own the EVSE will be able to select their equipment from the vendors that PG&E contracts with through the RFP. Supplemental Advice Letter 5020-E-A On April 14, 2017, PG&E filed a supplemental Advice Letter 5020-E-A, to modify Advice Letter 5020-E to incorporate the clarification and editorial changes ChargePoint had requested. In response to ChargePoint s protest regarding its procurement of EVSE, PG&E still intends to conduct a one-time RFP to procure the EVSE and associated services and software to install at sites where it will be the EVSE owner and operator. PG&E added that it may conduct an additional RFP if consultation with the PAC and Energy Division staff reveals that significant cost savings or technological improvements could be achieved through a new round of procurement. Protest of Advice Letter 5020-E-A On May 4, 2017, ChargePoint filed a protest to PG&E s supplemental Advice Letter 5020-E-A, again contesting PG&E s intent to conduct a one-time RFP process for the EVSE and associated systems and services to be installed at sites where the utility will own and operate the EVSE. PG&E has elected not to respond to ChargePoint s protest. Discussion Energy Division notes that these Tier 1 advice letters are not intended to be an opportunity to reopen issues that were decided in D , but instead intended to serve as a summary of the program approved in that decision. Utility Procurement of EVSE D requires PG&E to conduct a rolling qualification process for vendors and EVSE models for site hosts that choose to own their equipment, and directs the utility to update its list of qualified vendors at least quarterly. The decision does not directly address how PG&E will procure the EVSE for sites where it will own and operate the equipment. Utility procurement processes are administratively time consuming and can be costly for the utility, and participating in multiple utility procurement RFPs for a three-year, limited budget pilot program is not the best use of stakeholders time and finances. PG&E will select multiple vendors to contract with through its RFP, so site hosts will still have choices on EVSE model and associated services even in cases where the utility owns and operates the EVSE. Site hosts that seek a larger variety of EVSE make or vendor to choose from can elect to own the equipment themselves and receive a rebate from the utility for most of the cost of the equipment. If the technology for EVSE progresses, or if the cost of EVSE decreases, significantly over the three-year period of the pilot program, PG&E may be directed by the PAC and the Energy Division to conduct another RFP to ensure it is installing the best available technology at sites where the utility owns the EVSE.

5 Erik Jacobson May 19, 2017 Page 5 PAC non-market members advisory review and confidentiality D also approved PG&E s proposal for a PAC with only four modifications, none of which addressed the proposal to make PG&E s procurement of EV charging equipment and services to be subject to advisory review by non-market participants of the PAC. 11 Therefore, review of PG&E s procurement of EV charging equipment and services by non-market participants is authorized by D , and this issue will not be revisited through this advice letter. Disposition Energy Division approves Advice Letters 5020-E and 5020-E-A. Sincerely, Edward Randolph Director, Energy Division cc: ChargePoint 11 D , pgs

6 Erik Jacobson Director Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C P.O. Box San Francisco, CA Fax: February 13, 2017 Advice 5020-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Subject: Summary of the Approved Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program and Details of the Rate Options to Site Hosts Pursuant to Decision Purpose Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (OP) 19 of Decision (D.) , Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submits this advice letter to summarize its approved Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (Charge Smart and Save Program) incorporating modifications as approved by the Decision and provide details on the rate options to site hosts under the program established by the Decision. 1 Background On February 9, 2015, PG&E filed Application (A.) seeking approval of its Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program. On March 21, 2016, PG&E, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Center for Sustainable Energy, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Greenlots, The Greenlining Institute, Marin Clean Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Plug In America, General Motors LLC, Sierra Club, and Sonoma Clean Power Authority (collectively, the Settling Parties ) filed the joint motion for adoption of Settlement Agreement regarding PG&E s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program Application, A (Settlement Agreement). On December 21, 2016, the Commission (Commission or CPUC) issued D ( Decision ), effective December 15, 2016, which rejected the Settlement Agreement 1 D , OP 19: [PG&E] must file a Tier 1 Advice Letter that: summarizes the approved program, in the same level of detail as in the Settlement Agreement, but incorporates all aspects of the program as modified and approved in the decision; and, details the rate options that will be provided to site hosts under the hybrid EVSE ownership program established by this Decision.

7 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 but authorized PG&E to implement its Electric Vehicle and Education Program ( Charge Smart and Save Program ) based on the Settlement Agreement and other proposals in the record as modified by the Decision. Summary of the Approved Program As required by OP 19, PG&E summarizes below the approved Charge Smart and Save Program, in the same level of detail as in the Settlement Agreement, but incorporating all aspects of the Program as modified and approved in the Decision. Accordingly, PG&E s summary follows the same headings and structure as Sections 2 through 20 of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, as required by OP 19, an overview of the rate options for each site host is provided in the Rate Options section below, and in Attachments A and B. Section 2. Guiding Principles Charge Smart and Save implementation will be guided by the Guiding Principles provided in Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement, which are comparable to those approved for the San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Phase 1 programs. Section 3. Definitions Charge Smart and Save implementation will use the definitions used in Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement, which are comparable to those used for the San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Phase 1 programs. Section 4. Budget and Structure The Decision provides that PG&E may deploy the service connection and supply infrastructure (make-ready infrastructure) to support up to 7,500 Electric Vehicle Level 2 charging ports at workplaces and multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) located in PG&E s service territory. Total program cost will not exceed $130 million. PG&E may own up to 35 percent of total Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) ports projected to be installed through the pilot at workplaces located in Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and MUDs located within and outside DACs. PG&E will not own EVSEs installed in workplaces in non-dac segments. Where PG&E owns the make-ready infrastructure and EVSE, the site host shall pay a participation payment as described in Section 8 below. PG&E will own the make-ready infrastructure regardless of who owns the EVSE. PG&E will present all customers with the option to own the EVSE. See Attachment A for an overview of the decision process for site hosts participating in Charge Smart and Save. The Decision provides that PG&E will recover the costs of Charge Smart and Save through a one-way balancing account in accordance with the cost recovery and rate design proposal in Chapter 7 of PG&E s February 9, 2015 prepared testimony. Additionally, the revenue collected from the participation payments will be credited against O&M costs, consistent with D The Decision provides that the cost of EVSE rebates will be treated as expenses in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the costs of which are recovered from customers in the year the expense is incurred. The authorized funding

8 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 of $130 million includes the costs of the rebates. Charge Smart and Save will extend for a three year period following initial construction, and unexpended funds remaining at the end of the three year period may continue to be expended to install and operate additional infrastructure during the pendency of Commission consideration of PG&E s Phase 2 application, subject to the 7,500 cap. If PG&E does not file a Phase 2 application, it will file an advice letter specifying the ratemaking treatment of any unspent funds. Section 5. Number of Level 2 and DCFC Charging Stations Charge Smart and Save will aim to deploy infrastructure to support up to 7,500 Electric Vehicle Level 2 charging ports, including ownership of up to 35 percent of total EVSE ports projected to be installed through the pilot. PG&E will not install DCFCs as part of Charge Smart and Save. PG&E will aim for 50 percent of charging stations to be installed at MUDs, and commits to deploy at least 20 percent of charging stations at MUDs. Section 6. Fuel Savings, Load Management, & Renewables Integration The Decision provides that the site host will be PG&E s customer of record in all instances. Pricing for EV drivers at each site will be determined by the site host using load management strategies in PG&E s Rate-to-Driver or Rate-to-Host pricing options. Site hosts can select to participate in the default Rate-to-Driver option, in which the site host utilizes time-of-use (TOU) price signals as a load management tactic, or the Rateto-Host option, in which the site host determines alternative pricing for EV drivers and develops its own load management plan. PG&E will consult with the Program Advisory Council to develop guidelines for appropriate load management plans for site hosts that choose the Rate-to-Host option. Additional details on the rate options are provided below in the Rate Options section of this Advice Letter. Section 7. Site Selection Criteria The Decision provides for baseline site selection criteria, as listed below. PG&E will work with the Program Advisory Council to finalize the site selection criteria consistent with the Decision: Date of indicated interest (first-in-line priority); Current and expected volume of EV drivers; Number of charging stations desired; Segment (MUD, workplace, disadvantaged community); Nearby transformer available capacity; Distance between transformer and new service point; Site conditions related to construction feasibility (i.e., trenching surface, EVSE mounting surface, condition of facility); Land and property ownership; If leasing, term and conditions of lease; Existing/available Americans with Disabilities Act accessible parking and compliance; Distribution Resources Plan Integration Capacity Analysis; and

9 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 Identified sites that not only meet the CalEnviroScreen definition of Disadvantaged, but also meet the spirit of the definition. Section 8. Site Host Participation Payment The Decision provides for PG&E to consult with the non-market participant members of the Program Advisory Council to establish the base cost for the Level 2 chargers, which is the price of the lowest qualified EVSE bid selected through the RFQ process. The resultant base cost will be used to determine rebate and participant payment amounts. Table 1 below summarizes the participant payment and rebates. TABLE 1 Summary of Participation Payment and Rebates Segment MUD located in DAC MUD located outside of DAC and Workplace located in DAC Workplace located outside of DAC EVSE Ownership Participation Payment by Customer Rebate to Customer PG&E Differential between N/A actual cost of EVSE selected by customer and base cost 2 Site Host N/A 100% of EVSE base cost 50% of EVSE base cost N/A plus differential between PG&E actual cost of EVSE selected by customer and base cost 3 N/A 50% of EVSE Site Host base cost N/A 25% of EVSE Site Host base cost Section 9. Selection and Choice of Level 2 Equipment and Services Providers Site hosts may choose Level 2 EVSE and services from a list of pre-qualified options that meet the goals of Charge Smart and Save, including providing for base charging functionality and load management capability, a positive driver experience, and prudent expenditure of ratepayer funds. Section 10. Changes in Site Host In the event that ownership or control of a site changes, the new site host shall have the option to select a billing and rate plan, consistent with current utility tariff and billing practices. 2 Participation Payment of a MUD located in a DAC = (EVSE base cost) (actual EVSE cost) 3 Participation Payment of a MUD & workplace in a DAC = 0.5 (EVSE base cost) + (actual EVSE cost-evse base cost)

10 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 Section 11. Competitive Pre-Qualification of Equipment and Service Providers PG&E will contract with third parties to provide EVSE operating systems, network services, related hardware, and operations and maintenance (O&M) to implement Charge Smart and Save. The Decision directs PG&E to qualify vendors and EVSE models through a quarterly Request for Qualification (RFQ) process and make a list of qualified vendors and models available to all site hosts. For the charging stations that will be owned by PG&E, there will be a one-time Request for Proposal (RFP) process consistent with Appendix C of the Settlement Agreement to select the PG&E-owned equipment. For the RFP and RFQ processes, it is PG&E s aim to specify what is required to be achieved per the objectives of Charge Smart and Save, and not how these requirements are met. This approach is intended to leverage the EVSP market expertise and foster innovation. PG&E plans to work in conjunction with the non-market participants of the PAC in the procurement process. The price of the lowest qualified EVSE bid selected through the RFQ process will be the base cost used to determine participation payment and rebate amounts. Section 12. Cooperation and Coordination Among PG&E, CCAs and Third Party Service Providers Third party EV charging equipment and service providers prequalified by PG&E for the Program, in coordination with PG&E customer contact personnel and CCAs (where applicable), will market and sign up potential site hosts to participate in Charge Smart and Save in the targeted customer segments, and in any other customer sub-segments identified in the Settlement Agreement (e.g., Disadvantaged Communities). Responses to the RFP should reflect this requirement. Competitively neutral descriptions of Charge Smart and Save will be prepared by PG&E and shall be used by third parties; third parties shall be permitted to develop and utilize their own marketing materials at their own expense, consistent with and subject to PG&E s Cobranding Policy and approval process. Marketing conducted for the Charge Smart and Save program, whether by PG&E or any third party, will not discriminate against or adversely impact CCA programs or their customers pursuant to CCA rules and regulations. In order to create and maintain a positive customer experience with the program, the third parties will be required to describe how they will share the initial and ongoing customer relationships with PG&E, the resident CCA (where applicable) and the site host, operator and EV driver. Vendors will be permitted to contract directly with site hosts for services as long as these services do not interfere with the objectives of Charge Smart and Save (as stated above). For EV charging equipment and service deployment efforts within communities participating in CCA programs, PG&E staff will collaborate and coordinate with the corresponding CCA to further enhance these deployment efforts within these communities. Furthermore, any marketing efforts to promote Charge Smart and Save within such communities will be presented in a manner that highlights the collaborative efforts of PG&E and the resident CCA. Section 13. Vendor and Contractor Safety Construction, installation and maintenance contractors will have Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) certification, and PG&E will require that all construction, installation and

11 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 maintenance of charging stations that is not performed by employees of PG&E shall be performed by contractors signatory to the IBEW who hold a valid C-10 contractor s license, as defined in the governing labor agreement between PG&E and the IBEW. Consistent with D , requiring that, all of the construction and installation of the EV charging infrastructure will be performed safely, and to code, by licensed electrical contractors with EV infrastructure training certification meets the interest of ratepayers as defined by Public Utilities Code Additionally, as required by the Decision, as part of its planning for each EV site installation, PG&E will prepare design and engineering, including electrical load calculations, and submit that to the local permitting agencies as required to obtain the necessary permits. PG&E also, as part of its RFP processes, will consider and reasonably ensure that metering data, and other data, transmitted from the EVSE is secure. Section 14. Vendor and Contractor Diversity The Charge Smart and Save program will be included within PG&E s WMDVBE goal. As such, the Charge Smart and Save program and contracts will request a subcontracting plan that meets PG&E s goal of reflecting the diversity of the communities it serves. Section 15. Disadvantaged Communities and Coordination with SB 1275 Goals and Programs At least 15 percent of charging stations by the number of ports shall be installed in the top quartile of Disadvantaged Communities identified by the latest version of CalEnviroScreen on a PG&E service territory basis; and PG&E shall pursue an additional 5 percent stretch goal that can be met with a combination of the same areas that qualify for the 15 percent minimum requirement and areas identified in the settlement that have a high concentration of customers eligible for PG&E s CARE program. PG&E will consult with the Program Advisory Council to identify priority areas of focus for EV infrastructure development, education and outreach (e.g., EV ride and drive events) and related activities, as well signing-up site hosts for participation in Charge Smart and Save. In addition, PG&E will work with the Program Advisory Council, including representatives from automobile manufacturers, to advance strategies to increase access to EVs in low and moderate income communities. These strategies will complement and coordinate with federal, state and locally funded Programs, such as those being developed by the Air Resources Board pursuant to SB 1275, that are expected to grow the demand for EVs in Disadvantaged Communities (e.g., EFMP Plus Up, Low and Moderate Income Clean Vehicle Rebate Project rebates, Financing Assistance, EV car-sharing services, etc.). Section 16. Hiring for Disadvantaged Communities All Charge Smart and Save contractors shall use their best efforts to reflect the communities PG&E serves in their hiring practices, including utilizing best practices to ensure maximum outreach and opportunities to disadvantaged communities to increase the pool of eligible candidates for employment for EV projects, including considering first-source hiring for projects in Disadvantaged Communities. The Program Advisory Council will also monitor and provide recommendations to contractors or subcontractors associated with the increase

12 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 of hiring from Disadvantaged Communities, including best practices for hiring in Disadvantaged Communities. Section 17. Program Advisory Council: Improving Cost Effectiveness and Increasing Access to Charging PG&E will solicit the participation of a broad and diverse stakeholder advisory group (the Program Advisory Council or PAC ) in planning and implementing Charge Smart and Save. The PAC s participation may include reviewing progress reports by PG&E on actual costs and deployment and opportunities to improve the cost effectiveness of the program and increase access to EV charging. The Charge Smart and Save PAC will include representatives from local and state government (including representation from the Energy Division and Community Choice Aggregation programs), industry, labor and other stakeholder participants, ratepayer and environmental advocates, and representatives of DACs. PG&E shall consult on a confidential basis with Non-Market Participant members of the PAC on the procurement of EV charging stations and related equipment from third-party EVSE suppliers. PG&E is responsible for approving load management plans, however the PAC may provide input on the criteria for the assessment of the load management plans. 4 The PAC may request PG&E to modify data collection parameters as it sees reasonable. Failure to meet this request in a timely manner will require PG&E to forward the request and a refusal statement to the PAC and the Energy Division. PAC should meet at least quarterly during the first-year of the program and two of those meetings should be held in person in San Francisco. Section 18. Program Changes With guidance from the Program Advisory Council, PG&E may make programmatic changes as needed during the course of Charge Smart and Save if consistent with the requirements of the Decision and in line with the Guiding Principles. PG&E also may request Commission approval of programmatic changes requiring modification of the Decision in accordance with the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section 19. Schedule for Phase 1 Program; Bridge Funding Charge Smart and Save will extend for a three year period following initial construction, and unexpended funds remaining at the end of the three year period may continue to be expended to install and operate additional infrastructure during the pendency of Commission consideration of PG&E s Phase 2 application, subject to the 7,500 cap. If PG&E does not file a Phase 2 application, it will file an advice letter specifying the ratemaking treatment of any unspent funds. Section 20. Quarterly and Interim Progress Reports In order to provide an assessment of Charge Smart and Save consistent with the Guiding Principles, PG&E will file quarterly progress reports with the Commission and the PAC as described in PG&E s supplemental testimony. PG&E also will file and serve an Interim Progress 4 D , page

13 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 Report at the end of the second year following the beginning of construction. The progress reports will include data collected and monitored as described in Appendix B to the Settlement Agreement and a description of any programmatic changes implemented by PG&E prior to the date of the report. The data collection will also include the following additional metrics as required by the Decision: Comparison between actual and projected installation and infrastructure costs, and an explanation for any significant differences. A list of issues PG&E has encountered in pilot implementation, and a resolution or lesson learned for each issue. Progress or status on vendor qualification. Parties will be permitted to file informal comments and reply comments on the progress reports. Education and Outreach Plan The Decision provides that PG&E will work with the PAC to propose a revised Education and Outreach (E&O) plan. Upon PAC feedback, PG&E will file its new E&O plan via a Tier 1 Advice Letter with specific cost information within six months of the effective date of the decision. Additionally, PG&E plans to develop a geographic information system (GIS) tool to track the locations of installations, consistent with requirements adopted in the SDG&E and SCE infrastructure pilots. 5 Rate Options Pursuant to OP 19 of D , PG&E provides additional details on the rate options that will be available for site hosts. PG&E will serve electricity to site hosts, who will be PG&E s customer of record in all instances on either Schedule A-6 (if less than 75 kilowatts) or Schedule A-10, which are commercial, TOU rates. Site hosts will pay each monthly bill to PG&E, and the EVSP will collect payment from EV drivers for the site host. Pricing at each site will be determined by the site host using TOU price signals or other load management strategies. Site hosts can select to participate in the default Rate-to- Driver option, in which the site host utilizes TOU price signals as a load management tactic, or the Rate-to-Host option, in which the site host determines alternative pricing for EV drivers and develops its own load management plan consistent with the program Guiding Principles adopted by the Commission in D PG&E will work with the PAC to develop guidelines for appropriate load management plans for site hosts that choose the Rate-to-Host option. 5 D , page 71.

14 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 In the event that ownership or control of a site changes, the new site host shall have the option to select its own billing (Rate-to-Driver or Rate-to-Host) and rate plan. Under the default Rate-to-Driver option, PG&E s TOU price signals will serve as a load management plan. PG&E will serve electricity to site hosts, who will then pass the TOU energy rate directly to EV drivers. The use of TOU price signals will encourage charging when there is spare capacity in the grid and provide the opportunity to realize fuel savings relative to gasoline. In order to recover any additional charges associated with the TOU rate schedule, the site host will have the option to include a Rate Adder with the energy price per kilowatt-hour (kwh) passed on to EV drivers. The Adder should represent the non-energy additional charges associated with the applicable rate (i.e. the customer charge for Schedule A-6, or the customer charge and the demand charge for Schedule A-10) converted into a volumetric price per kwh by distributing the charges among all EV charging projected for the given billing period. If a site host decides to use an Adder to recover the additional charges on their rate schedule, then EV drivers will pay the applicable TOU price per kwh for their energy use, plus the Adder (an additional price per kwh) to cover their contribution to the site host rate schedule s nonenergy charges. PG&E will provide a tool that site hosts can use as a guideline for estimating the appropriate Adder as a price per kwh based on the projected utilization of the chargers at that site. An example of the information used in the tool is provided in Attachment B. It is the responsibility of the site host to recalculate the Adder periodically to ensure the additional charges associated with the applicable rate are not over or under collected. Usage patterns and site host determined fees will be tracked and used to inform Commission policy. Alternatively, site hosts in the Rate-to-Driver option do not have to pass on the non-energy charges to drivers with an Adder and can instead cover these costs themselves. If a site host does not select the Rate-to-Driver option, the site host will develop alternative pricing for its charging stations using other load management strategies in the Rate-to-Host option. Consistent with D , where the site host selects the Rate-to-Host pricing plan, the site host will be required to submit to PG&E the load management tactics it will implement at its charging stations, including the prices or fees that it intends to levy on EV drivers, and any communication methods to be used to implement the load management tactics. Site hosts that do not submit load management plans consistent with the Guiding Principles and guidelines established by PG&E in consultation with the PAC, will be asked by PG&E to revise accordingly and will be ineligible to participate in the program until PG&E determines that the load management plan is consistent with the Guiding Principles. Load management tactics may include, but are not limited to, charging curtailment during peak system usage, communications with drivers to voluntarily avoid or limit charging during peak system usage, or integration with other demand-management technologies (such as stationary energy storage). PG&E expects this will foster innovative approaches by site hosts and service providers to develop and propose load management plans under the Rate-to-

15 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 Host option. Participation in the Rate-to-Host option will not be unreasonably withheld. As with site hosts that opt for the Rate-to-Driver pricing plan, site usage patterns will be monitored and site host determined prices or fees will be tracked and reported. These data will be used to inform Commission policy and will be available to the Commission to resolve any customer complaints regarding the pricing. Program network and equipment solicitation requirements will include system load management capability. EV load management will focus on facilitating the integration of variable renewables and supporting the electric distribution system. Tier Designation Pursuant to OP 19 of D , this advice filing is submitted with a Tier 1 designation. The filing would not increase any current rate or charge, cause the withdrawal of service, or conflict with any rate schedule or rule. Effective Date This tier 1 advice letter will become effective on the date filed, February 13, Protests Anyone wishing to protest this filing may do so by letter sent via U.S. mail, facsimile or , no later than March 6, 2017 which is 21 days 6 after the date of this filing. Protests must be submitted to: CPUC Energy Division ED Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue, 4 th Floor San Francisco, California Facsimile: (415) EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov Copies of protests also should be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division, Room 4004, at the address shown above. 6 Because the final date of the protest period falls on a weekend, PG&E has moved the date to the following business day.

16 Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017 The protest shall also be sent to PG&E either via or U.S. mail (and by facsimile, if possible) at the address shown below on the same date it is mailed or delivered to the Commission: Erik Jacobson c/o Megan Lawson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box San Francisco, California Facsimile: (415) PGETariffs@pge.com Any person (including individuals, groups, or organizations) may protest or respond to an advice letter (General Order 96-B, Section 7.4). The protest shall contain the following information: specification of the advice letter protested; grounds for the protest; supporting factual information or legal argument; name, telephone number, postal address, and (where appropriate) address of the protestant; and statement that the protest was sent to the utility no later than the day on which the protest was submitted to the reviewing Industry Division (General Order 96-B, Section 3.11). Notice In accordance with General Order 96-B, Section IV, a copy of this advice letter is being sent electronically and via U.S. mail to parties shown on the attached list and the parties on the service list for A Address changes to the General Order 96-B service list should be directed to PG&E at address PGETariffs@pge.com. For changes to any other service list, please contact the Commission s Process Office at (415) or at Process_Office@cpuc.ca.gov. Send all electronic approvals to PGETariffs@pge.com. Advice letter filings can also be accessed electronically at: /S/ Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Attachments cc: Service List A

17 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ADVICE LETTER FILING SUMMARY ENERGY UTILITY MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed) Company name/cpuc Utility No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (ID U39 E) Utility type: Contact Person: Annie Ho ELC GAS Phone #: (415) PLC HEAT WATER and EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE ELC = Electric GAS = Gas PLC = Pipeline HEAT = Heat WATER = Water (Date Filed/ Received Stamp by CPUC) Advice Letter (AL) #: 5020-E Tier: 1 Subject of AL: Summary of the Approved Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program and Details of the Rate Options to Site Hosts Pursuant to Decision Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance, Agreements AL filing type: Monthly Quarterly Annual One-Time Other If AL filed in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #: D Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: No Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: Is AL requesting confidential treatment? If so, what information is the utility seeking confidential treatment for: No Confidential information will be made available to those who have executed a nondisclosure agreement: N/A Name(s) and contact information of the person(s) who will provide the nondisclosure agreement and access to the confidential information: Resolution Required? Yes No Requested effective date: February 13, 2017 Estimated system annual revenue effect (%): N/A Estimated system average rate effect (%): N/A No. of tariff sheets: N/A When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting). Tariff schedules affected: N/A Service affected and changes proposed: N/A Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: N/A Protests, dispositions, and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days 1 after the date of this filing, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to: California Public Utilities Commission Pacific Gas and Electric Company Energy Division EDTariffUnit 505 Van Ness Ave., 4 th Flr. San Francisco, CA EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov Attn: Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations c/o Megan Lawson 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box San Francisco, CA PGETariffs@pge.com 1 Because the final date of the protest period falls on a weekend, PG&E has moved the date to the following business day.

18 Attachment A Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017

19 ATTACHMENT A Overview of Site Host Ownership and Rate Options

20

21 Attachment B Advice 5020-E February 13, 2017

22 ATTACHMENT B Rate Options Provided to Site Hosts: Rate-to-Host Option Site hosts will receive the TOU price signals, and will be able to propose alternative pricing and load management tactics consistent with Program Guiding Principles. This approach allows the site host flexibility to receive the offered rate from PG&E and make a decision, based on their unique site, as to whether or how to pass that rate onto drivers or to modify the rate to drivers in a way that best meets their site s energy management plan. Rate-to-Driver Option and Sample of Online Tool Provided by PG&E to Estimate Appropriate Rate Adder Under the Rate-to-Driver option, PG&E will serve electricity to site hosts, who will then pass the TOU energy rate directly to EV drivers. The use of TOU price signals will encourage charging when there is spare capacity in the grid and provide the opportunity to realize fuel savings relative to gasoline. In order to recover any additional charges associated with the TOU rate schedule, the site host can choose to pass on non-energy charges (e.g. customer charge, demand charge) associated with their rate schedule (A-6 or A-10) to drivers with the TOU energy charges. PG&E will provide a tool that site hosts can use as a guideline for estimating the appropriate Adder as a price per kwh based on the projected utilization of the chargers at that site. It is the site host s responsibility to determine the value of the Adder and to update the Adder as needed based on actual site utilization. Sample site host inputs in online tool: Site host inputs Rate Schedule: A-6 Number of chargers: 10 kw of each charger: 7.2 Utilization (number of daily 6 hours each charger is used): Season: Summer Based on the site host inputs selected above, the tool would estimate that the appropriate Adder for this site is $ per kwh (see selected cell in table below). This Adder would be added to the TOU energy charges per kwh for each charging session in the given time period. The site host should update its utilization input to the

23 tool periodically based on actual utilization of the charging facility to calculate the appropriate Adder for each billing period and avoid over or under collecting. Sample tool output: Rate Schedule: A-6 A-10 Number of chargers: 10 chargers 20 chargers Utilization: Summer Adder Winter Adder ($/kwh) Summer Adder Winter Adder ($/kwh) ($/kwh) ($/kwh) Low $ $ $ $ (2 hours per day) Medium $ $ $ $ (6 hours per day) High (10 hours per day) $ $ $ $0.0347

24 PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV AT&T Don Pickett & Associates, Inc. OnGrid Solar Albion Power Company Douglass & Liddell Pacific Gas and Electric Company Alcantar & Kahl LLP Downey & Brand Praxair Anderson & Poole Ellison Schneider & Harris LLP Regulatory & Cogeneration Service, Inc. Atlas ReFuel Evaluation + Strategy for Social SCD Energy Solutions Innovation BART G. A. Krause & Assoc. SCE Barkovich & Yap, Inc. GenOn Energy Inc. SDG&E and SoCalGas Bartle Wells Associates GenOn Energy, Inc. SPURR Braun Blaising McLaughlin & Smith, P.C. Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Schlotz & San Francisco Water Power and Sewer Ritchie Braun Blaising McLaughlin, P.C. Green Charge Networks Seattle City Light CENERGY POWER Green Power Institute Sempra Energy (Socal Gas) CPUC Hanna & Morton Sempra Utilities California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assn ICF SoCalGas California Energy Commission International Power Technology Southern California Edison Company California Public Utilities Commission Intestate Gas Services, Inc. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) California State Association of Counties Kelly Group Spark Energy Calpine Ken Bohn Consulting Sun Light & Power Casner, Steve Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. Sunshine Design Center for Biological Diversity Linde Tecogen, Inc. City of Palo Alto Los Angeles County Integrated Waste TerraVerde Renewable Partners Management Task Force City of San Jose Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power TerraVerde Renewable Partners, LLC Clean Power MRW & Associates Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. Clean Power Research Manatt Phelps Phillips TransCanada Coast Economic Consulting Marin Energy Authority Troutman Sanders LLP Commercial Energy McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Utility Cost Management Cool Earth Solar, Inc. McKenzie & Associates Utility Power Solutions County of Tehama - Department of Public Modesto Irrigation District Utility Specialists Works Crossborder Energy Morgan Stanley Verizon Crown Road Energy, LLC NLine Energy, Inc. Water and Energy Consulting Davis Wright Tremaine LLP NRG Solar Wellhead Electric Company Day Carter Murphy Nexant, Inc. Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) Defense Energy Support Center ORA YEP Energy Dept of General Services Office of Ratepayer Advocates Yelp Energy Division of Ratepayer Advocates Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Electricity Planning and Policy B