Electric Vehicle Charge Ready Program

1September 20, 2015

Agenda

• About SCE

• The Charge Ready Initiative

• Depreciation Proposals of The Charge Ready Initiative

• Challenges

• Outcomes

September 20, 2015 2

• One of the nation’s largest electric

utilities:

‒ Nearly 14 million residents in service

territory

‒ Approximately 5 million customer

accounts

‒ 50,000 square-mile service area

• Significant infrastructure

investments:

‒ 1.4 million power poles

‒ 700,000 transformers

‒ 103,000 miles of distribution and

transmission lines

‒ 3,200 MW owned generation

About SCE

3

The Charge Ready Initiative

• Multi-Phase program aimed at promoting transportation electrification goals necessary to achieve California emissions objectives

September 20, 2015 4

Capital Investment

• Increase Availability of EV Charging Infrastructure

Outreach and Education

• Educate and Advise Customers on Benefits of Fueling from the Grid

Charge Ready – Why Now?• California climate objectives require green house gas to

80% below 1990 levels

• Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV’s) adoption is a critical necessity of achieving target by 2050

September 20, 2015 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Ca

lifo

rnia

PE

Vs

Mil

lio

ns

Cumulative California PEVs Necessary from 2010 to 2050 to

Achieve Climate Goals

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV

Scenario

United Nations Pathways to Deep Decarbonization

(E3)

CARB 2050 Compliant ZEVs

CARB ZEV Most Likely 2050 Adoption

Rapid Adoption is Critical to GHG Reductions

September 20, 2015 6

0

10

20

30

40

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Tho

usa

nd

s

Cumulative California PEVs

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV Scenario

Average of Eight Expert Forecasts

United Nations Pathways to Deep Decarbonization (E3)

CARB 2050 Compliant ZEVs

CARB ZEV Most Likely 2050 Adoption

Governor's Target (infrastructure to support 1M ZEVs)

• 150,000 units sold in past 5 years

• 7,300 charging stations in service across state

• Governor's target of 1M units by 2020 requires acceleration of market

So How does Charge Ready Help

• Accelerate the adoption of battery powered ZEVs by increasing availability of charging infrastructure in long-dwell time locations

• SCE has adopted a two-phased approach:

September 20, 2015 7

Phase 1 - Pilot

Installation of up to 1,500 Charging Stations

Inform and refine design and cost estimates for phase 2

Evaluate market strategies, customer interest, load impacts etc.

Phase 2

Installation of additional 28,500 units (up to 30k)

Apply lessons learned from Phase 1 to cost assumptions and Education and Outreach to increase efficacy

Market Acceleration Support for Up to

30,000 charging stations

SCE’s Proposed Implementation

• Objective: provide approximately one-third of units necessary to realize California ZEV adoption by 2020

September 20, 2015 8

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Ch

arg

e P

ort

s/P

ark

ing

Sp

ace

sT

ho

usa

nd

s

SCE Charge Port/Parking Space Needs to Support PEVs

Charge Ready Proposed Deployments

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs 2050 PEV Scenario

Average of Eight Expert Forecasts

Other Components of the Program

• Focus on Long-Dwell Time Locations– Includes: multi-use dwellings (MUD’s), workplaces, destination

locations

– Excludes: Single family dwellings (MUD’s are installed by HOA’s, site-owners, etc.)

• Provide Rebates to Site-Owners to Encourage Adoption– Initial proposal was to provide 100% of base cost to all

customers (upgrades available for a fee)

– Settlement included a tiered rebate structure for customer groups

– Minimum of 10 Sites per location

• Additional Support for Disadvantaged Communities– 10 percent of funds to be used in disadvantaged communities

– Meet all women, minority, and disabled veteran business enterprises

– Reduction of minimum sites to 5 in certain situations

September 20, 2015 9

Expected Benefits of the Charge Ready Program

September 20, 2015 10

• Avoid on-peak charging

• Mitigate issues from renewable integration

Improving and Optimizing Utility Asset Utilization

• California’s preferred resource for meeting new generation capacity demand

Demand Response

• Reduction of GHG’s

• Improvement of Air quality

Environmental/Other Benefits

• Attract new load into the system and spread fixed costs over more kWh sales

Incremental Load

• Specific allocations of cost to communities facing higher barriers to adoption

Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities

• SCE’s request for vendors may stimulate new technologies in the charging market

Innovation

Program Costs

September 20, 2015 11

Capital Costs

(Excludes escalation and loaders)

(in $000) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Utility-Side Costs 3,354$ 6,707$ 11,178$ 19,003$ 26,828$

Customer-Side Costs 7,586$ 15,173$ 25,288$ 42,990$ 60,691$

Charging Station Rebate 5,850$ 11,700$ 19,500$ 33,150$ 46,800$

Other Capital Costs 146$ 262$ 416$ 687$ 958$

Capitalized Labor 564$ 676$ 719$ 855$ 975$

Total Capital Costs 17,499$ 34,518$ 57,102$ 96,685$ 136,252$

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

MIL

LIO

NS

Phase 2Pilot

Ratemaking

• Submitted advice filing at same time as application to include in tariffs amounts associated with the program in a Charge Ready Program Memorandum Account (CRPMA)

• Requested that if program costs were below estimate that Commission find the costs reasonable and be adopted

• Upon approval, costs would be transferred to Charge Ready Program Balancing Account (CRPBA)

• Costs incremental to SCE’s General Rate Case filing

September 20, 2015 12

Depreciation Rate Proposals

September 20, 2015 13

System Overview

• System is comprised of traditional and non-traditional infrastructure

• Proposal included rebate costs as a capital component of the case

September 20, 2015 14

Depreciation Proposals

• Customer side costs were modeled after services account (FERC Plant Account 369) and recorded to FERC Plant Account 371 – Customer-Side Infrastructure

• Charging Stations were proposed to last the program life of 10-years and be recovered as a regulatory asset

September 20, 2015 15

• Traditional Utility Infrastructure would be captured in SCE’s existing accounts and be included to it’s group depreciation rates

Depreciation Proposals - Summary

September 20, 2015 16

Average

Service Remaining Net Depreciation

Account Description Life Life Salvage % Rate

360.2 Easements 60 60 0% 1.67%

368 Line Transformers 30 20.9 0% 3.68%

369 Distribution Services 40 28 -85% 4.76%

370 Meters 20 19.4 -5% 5.35%

Composite 4.23%

371 Customer-Side Infrastructure 40 40 -85% 4.63%

182 Charging Stations (Reg Asset) 10 10 0% 10.00%

Customer Side Infrastructure

• Includes the panel and wiring components from the meter to the charging station

• Recorded to FERC Plant Account 371

• No current investment in account – requiring use of Average Service Life

September 20, 2015 17

Account Net Salvage Percent Average Service Life

369 -85% 40

Annual Accrual Rate = (100%-Net Salvage Percent)

Average Service Life

= (100% - (-85%)

40

Account 371 Accrual Rate = 4.63%

* Uses 2012 GRC authorized parameters from FERC Plant Account 369 as assets will have

similar life and salvage characteristics to Account 371.

Account 371- Installations on Customers' Premises- Rate Calculation

Charge-Ready Rebates - Justification

• SCE proposed to capitalize the costs of the rebates into a regulatory asset (FERC Account 182)

• The cost recovery schedule was set to be consistent with the program life and customer commitment requirements of 10 years

• Recent CPUC Decision (D.14-03-021) established that SCE could own and maintain behind-the-meter assets

• ASC 980 Establishes that the “Rate actions of a regulatory can provide reasonable assurance of the existence of an asset.”

September 20, 2015 18

TURN Challenges to SCE’s proposals

September 20, 2015 19

•Site owners should have “skin in the game”

•Removal of rebate still subsidizes 70% of

customer costs

No rebate on charger

•GAAP states rebates should be expensed

•Capitalization is inconsistent with regulatory

policy

Rebate should be

expensed

•Accurately reflects the lower risk SCE faces

with handing out free rebatesCapitalized rebate

should receive return

on debt

•No financial incentive for site host to maintain

and optimize system use

Capitalized charger

should be owned by

SCE

SCE Rebuttal

• Regulatory Asset treatment of

charger rebates create equitable

ratemaking

• GAAP gives regulators authority to

grant regulatory asset treatment

• Mobile-home Park OIR provides

precedent for unowned assets to

receive regulatory asset treatment.

• SCE believes rebate is necessary

for turn-key solution

Phase 1 Status

• SCE and intervening parties entered an all-party settlement in June 2015

• SCE agreed to expense costs associated with rebates in Phase 1 of the program

• Rebates were reduced from 100% of cost for all customers to varying rates depending on market segment

• Commission has not adopted settlement and currently requires additional fact finding

September 20, 2015 20

• Assembly Bill 32 (2006) – reduces State

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels

by 2020

(~16% reduction)

• Cap and trade program basics:

‒ State-wide cap in 2013 – decreases over time

‒ Compliance met through allowances, offsets, or emissions reductions

‒ Excess allowances sold, or “banked” for future use

‒ January 2014 – merger with Quebec cap and trade program

• SCE received 32.3 million 2013 allowances vs.

10.4 million metric tons 2012 GHG emissions

• Allowances sold into quarterly auction and

bought back for compliance

‒ SB 1018 (2012) – auction revenues used for rate relief for residential (~93%), small business, and large industrial customers

AB32 Emissions

Reduction Programs

Cap & Trade22%

Other23%

Low Carbon Fuel

Standard19%

RPS14%

Energy Efficiency

15%

High GWP Gases

7%

California Climate Change Policy

September 20, 2015 21