CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric (TDU) Says Texas PUC Should Consider, "Direct Utility Investment In Public EV Charging Stations"

Tesla Says PUC Should Determine Operators Of Commercial EV Charging Stations Are Not Retail Energy Providers

February 4, 2020

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

In comments in response to questions in a Texas PUC project concerning electric vehicles, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CEHE) said that the PUC should, "consider encouraging direct utility investment in public EV charging stations in areas where competitive market forces may not reach."

CEHE said in its comments that, "In light of the uncertainty regarding the pace and impacts of future EV development, the Company recommends that the Commission allow utilities to begin implementing pilot programs now not only to identify and remove potential impediments to increased competitive market investments in the commercial EV charging stations that might be needed when EV penetration ramps up, but also to better anticipate the utility infrastructure impacts of having potentially ubiquitous private and commercial charging stations within their respective service territories."

CEHE said in its comments that, "In addition to promoting awareness and education, the Commission should also consider encouraging direct utility investment in public EV charging stations in areas where competitive market forces may not reach but where it may nonetheless be in the public interest for EV charging stations to exist, such as along hurricane evacuation routes and in economically depressed communities."

The REP Coalition filed comments stating that, "We urge the Commission to approach the issues regarding deployment of EVs in ERCOT from the perspective that, where possible, cost-effective competitive market solutions should be relied upon to resolve issues regarding deployment of EVs in Texas."

"Market participants in the retail, generation, or competitive energy services sectors are likely to be the appropriate sectors for integrating widespread adoption of EVs in ERCOT, rather than subsidized through a utility-owned and -operated asset that is included in rate base paid for by REPs (and ultimately the REPs' end use retail customers). In ERCOT, transmission and distribution utilities ('TDUs') will have a very important role to play in building and operating the backbone infrastructure that will support the integration of EV loads into the grid. But any TDU participation in or subsidization of customer-facing competitive energy services such as public EV charging would result in unintended adverse consequences for the competitive markets in ERCOT," the REP Coalition said

The REP Coalition said that the deployment of EVs in ERCOT raises three important policy considerations that the Commission should evaluate in deciding whether and how to adopt rules to accommodate widespread deployment of EVs: (1) the cost of commercial charging and associated utility tariff implications (e.g., demand charges and customer class creation or assignment); (2) retail structural determinations such as where the meter ends and the retail relationship begins; and (3) customer protection and disclosure requirements.

Tesla, Inc. filed comments asking the PUC to determine that EV charging service providers are not retail electric providers nor public utilities

Tesla said that, "One area that the Commission should evaluate further and that can help facilitate a more seamless charging experience for commercial EV stations is determining that third-party owners of EV charging infrastructure are not public utilities or retail energy providers and should not be regulated as such. Tesla believes that the fairest way to bill customers for charging services is on a $/kWh basis because the driver is paying for the energy they receive. The predominant alternative approach to billing for charging services is on a $/minute basis. The pitfall of the $/minute approach is that two drivers that are parked for the same duration will be billed the same amount, yet they can receive two completely different quantities of kWh in that time because the rate of charge is dependent on a variety of factors. These factors include the vehicle's charging capabilities, state of charge, battery temperature, and others. However, given the regulatory uncertainty as to whether non-utility charging operators are authorized to bill drivers on a $/kWh, drivers tend to be billed on a $/minute basis in Texas."

"Tesla therefore recommends that the Commission further evaluate and seek additional written comments on this topic in this docket, with the goal of issuing guidance about the Commission's treatment of third-party charging operators in its recommendations and findings to the Legislature for consideration," Tesla said

Project 49125

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Senior Consultant - Competitive Energy Markets -- Houston
• NEW! -- Channel Relations Manger -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Customer Service Representative -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Renewables and Energy Trader -- Retail Supplier