Alternative-fueled Vehicle Tariffs, Infrastructure and Policies (R.09-08-009)
What’s this? This rulemaking will consider tariffs, infrastructure and policies needed for California investor-owned electric utilities to ready the electricity system in a consistent, near-term manner for the projected statewide market growth of light-duty passenger plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ( PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) throughout California.
What’s new?
On April 16, ECOtality, Inc., filed a Motion for public review of a $120 million dollar settlement between the CPUC and NRG Energy, Inc., announced on March 23. The settlement with NRG stems from California’s energy crisis, resolving ten-year-old claims against a subsidiary of Dynegy Inc., then a co-owner with NRG of the portfolio of power generating plants currently owned by NRG in California, for costs of long-term power contracts signed in March 2001. The settlement will fund the construction of a statewide network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles ( ZEVs), including at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations across the state. $100 million from the settlement will fund the fast-charging stations and the installation of the plug-in units and electrical upgrades, at no cost to taxpayers, with the remaining $20 million directed to ratepayer relief. In its motion, ECOtality contends that the structure of the settlement raises three inquiries of state policy that must be answered by the CPUC before the settlement can be submitted for FERC approval: (1) Does the settlement maximize benefits to California ratepayers, the intended beneficiaries of the litigation, or are there more constructive alternatives that preserve the public policy intentions for EV infrastructure market development in California; (2) Will the settlement maintain a level playing field in California’s EV charging infrastructure market, or does it carry the potential to impair competition among different developing business models; and (3) Does the settlement negatively impact establishment of EV charging infrastructure currently underway in California in response to CPUC policies? Responses to the motion are due May 1.
| Next > |
|---|
