Electric Vehicles Policies:
Deployment and Grid Impacts  



In August 2009, the CPUC issued the Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Rulemaking in order to support California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals as set forth in Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The CPUC's goal was to develop consistent statewide policies and standards to guide and encourage development of electric vehicle metering, home electric vehicle charging infrastructure, tariff schedules, and if advisable, incentive programs.   

In August 2010, the CPUC issued a Decision finding that providers of electric vehicle charging services are not subject to CPUC regulation as a public utility.  

In July 2011, the CPUC issued a Decision establishing policies to overcome barriers to electric vehicle deployment and directing compliance with state laws, including:

  • EV rates that may result in adverse bill impacts.
  • EV metering options in residential and multi-unit dwellings to measure EV charging. 
  • Lack of EV market growth data to determine the location of grid upgrades required to connect EV chargers.
  • Develop a Load Research Report which provides utilities with a survey of grid impacts attributed to EV charging.

This Decision also determined that investor owned utilities would not be allowed to own charging stations unless they could serve unmet EV market demand. (NOTE: The CPUC has since updated its position to determine ownership on a case-by-case basis in its Rulemaking to set policies for Electric Vehicles Charging Stations, Grid Integration, and Rates). 

In November 2013, the CPUC issued a Decision ordering the utilities to develop a pilot project Roadmap in order to better understand the costs and benefits of electric vehicle submetering.


ORA Policy Position

The CPUC’s July 2011 Decision addressed many of ORA’s recommendations, including:

  • Residential customers on single-meter service should be able to choose which Electric Vehicle rate best suits their needs and should be offered an opt-in (i.e., voluntary) time-of-use, non-tiered rate. 
  • Residential charging upgrades would be treated as common facility costs rather than being paid for by EV drivers since they will assist in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions goals.
  • Metering policy should support customer choice, adequate data and technological functionality, innovation, common technology standards, and minimization of costs. 
  • Utility ownership of EV charging infrastructure could dampen cost reducing innovation and opted to restrict the delivery of EV products and services to third-party EV market providers (but was later updated  to be addressed on a case-by-case basis).

See ORA's October 21, 2013 Opening Comments.

See ORA's October 28, 2013 Reply Comments.


Proceeding Docket

The Proceeding is Closed.

See the Proceeding docket.