01/05/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDER NO. PSC-2020-0512-TRF-EI DOCKET NO. 20200170-EI PAGE 5 EVgo, a competitive supplier of EV charging infrastructure, filed comments on October 5, 2020. EVgo contends that FPL's petition is premature as there has been no forum in Florida to discuss the appropriate role of utilities in owning and operating EV infrastructure. EVgo stated that, given that the role of the utility in owning and operating fast charging infrastructure has not been debated, FPL's proposed UEV tariff should be evaluated in FPL's next rate case. Finally, EVgo states that the proposed $0.30 per kWh rate creates an uneven playing field if the utility is granted the ability to recover costs of its public charging infrastructure. The Florida Petroleum Marketers Association, Inc. (FPMA) filed comments on November 10, 2020, objecting to FPL's petition. Specifically, the FPMA states that the Commission does not have the authority to approve pilot programs and does not have authority to permit tariffs for EV charging stations by public utilities. Furthermore, the FPMA asserts that the Commission should not adopt rates that are unfair and biased and that all ratepayers should not have to subsidize the EV infrastructure used by on a small minority of EV owners. FPL asserts that one of the goals of its petition is to learn more about EV driver needs and gather more specific usage and cost data to allow FPL to develop cost-based rates for EV charging services. The proposed UEV tariff is not cost-based, but based on a"market-rate." Fast charging rates vary by provider, by location, and the level of charging offered. We find FPL's calculation of the proposed UEV rate to be appropriate for the limited purpose of this pilot and that traditional cost-of-service based rates can not be accurately calculated at this early stage of utility-involvement in the EV market. We find that FPL's proposed market-based rate is reasonable in the limited context of approving pilot tariffs with the specific goal to collect cost and usage data for utility-owned fast charging stations. Section 339.287(2)(c)1, F.S., emphasizes the Legislature's intent for an adequate supply of reliable EV charging stations to support and encourage a competitive market. The proposed UEV tariff appears to be consistent with the legislative objectives of Section 339.287, F.S. Allowing FPL to participate in the EV infrastructure build-out in Florida by offering a utility- based rate as an option to EV customers during this nascent stage of EV adoption and the EV charging market development, promotes the public interest and should provide value to EV customers. We find that FPL's proposed tariff will facilitate the development of the competitive EV charging market by allowing the utility, together with other providers, to offer fast charging EV services. The increased availability of EV chargers will remove a barrier to adoption of electric vehicles in Florida. FPL is not seeking approval of the costs associated with the EVolution pilot in the instant docket. We are not prejudging recovery of the EVolution investment and we retain full discretion to evaluate FPL's request in the next rate case for recovery of its EVolution investment and its impact on the general body of ratepayers, including the benefits, if any, to the general body of ratepayers. FPL explained that the utility will work with the site hosts to determine which fast charging stations installed by FPL under the EVolution pilot will utilize the proposed UEV tariff. Any revenues collected pursuant to UEV tariff would be used by FPL to offset the revenue requirement associated with the EVolution facilities. For any FPL EVolution fast charging