Details for: 4433-E (Part 1 of 1).pdf


Click on the image for full size preview

Document data

Gary A. Stern, Ph.D.
Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations

March 4, 2021
ADVICE 4433-E
(U 338-E)
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY
DIVISION
SUBJECT:

Southern California Edison Company’s Charge Ready 2 DCFC
Site Prioritization Criteria, Updated Budget, Port and Site
Count Targets

PURPOSE
In compliance with Decision (D.) 20-08-045, Ordering Paragraph (OP) 15 and OP 16,
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) hereby submits this Advice Letter (AL) to
provide information about SCE’s Charge Ready 2 Make-Ready Expansion program,
Direct Current Fast Charge (DCFC) Site Prioritization Criteria, Updated Budget, and
DCFC Port and Site Count Targets.
BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2020, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission or
CPUC) issued D.20-08-045 (Decision), authorizing SCE’s Charge Ready 2 (CR2)
Infrastructure and Market Education programs. The Decision authorizes $436 million in
funding to support EV charging infrastructure, rebates, marketing, education and
outreach, and evaluation of the CR2 infrastructure and market education programs.1
In OP 15, SCE is directed to submit, prior to program implementation, a Tier 3 AL with
the Commission’s Energy Division detailing the site prioritization criteria.2 The Decision
further specifies that the advice letter should reflect the lessons learned to date from the
Urban DCFC Clusters pilot approved in D.18-01-024, and, at a minimum, must also
include: (a) a plan and criteria of how to site DCFCs at short-dwell locations to maximize
utilization; (b) a plan and criteria for siting 30 percent of ports in disadvantaged
communities (DACs); (c) a plan and criteria for siting 25 percent of ports to serve
residents of Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUDs), including definitions for how to define areas
that are dense with MUDs; (d) input from and plan for continued collaboration with local
community-based organizations (CBOs) on siting criteria; and (e) an assessment of

1
2

Decision, p. 2.
Decision, OP 15, pp. 147-148.

P.O. Box 800

8631 Rush Street

Rosemead, California 91770

(626) 302-9645

Fax (626) 302-6396





- Page 1 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -2- March 4, 2021 behind-the-meter (i.e., customer-side make-ready) infrastructure ownership and an assessment of appropriate DCFC power level.3 In OP 16, SCE is directed to submit a Tier 3 AL, consistent with Section 4.5.8 (DCFC) of the decision, with an updated budget based on the updated rebate model and program modifications.4 The Decision also requires SCE to describe how many ports and sites SCE will target through the DCFC component of the Make-Ready Expansion program. Section 4.5.8 requires this Tier 3 AL to be filed prior to program implementation. Pursuant to OP 6, SCE is combining the requirements in OP 15 and 16. OP 6 states that “SCE may combine Advice Letter filings as required by this decision so long as: (1) the Advice Letter tiers are the same; (2) the combination does not result in the late filing of any advice letter(s); and (3) the combined advice letter filing includes all of the requisite information as detailed in Ordering Paragraphs 7 through 33 of this decision. SCE must consult with the Commission’s Energy Division before combining advice letter filings.”5 On January 22, 2021, SCE notified Energy Division staff of its request to combine requirements for the two Tier 3 Advice Letter submissions, mandated in OP 15 and 16, as both advice letter submissions are required prior to program implementation. Additionally, both advice letters focus on the DCFC component of the CR2 Make-Ready Expansion program. On January 28, 2021, SCE received an email from Energy Division staff advising SCE to move forward with its request.6 DISCUSSION Consistent with OP 15 and 16, SCE submits this combined Tier 3 AL to provide information about about the DCFC component of SCE’s CR2 Make-Ready Expansion program, which includes site selection, updated rebate model and budget, and port targets. Lessons Learned from SCE’s Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot The Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot, also known as the Charge Ready DCFC Pilot, was a source of lessons learned that contributed to the CR2 DCFC site selection criteria detailed in this AL. There are some key differences in the pilot’s site requirements that should be noted. Customer site costs represented a significant source of learning in the Charge Ready DCFC Pilot. While SCE originally believed that customers may be willing to install up to 10 DCFC stations, in practice, three out of five sites installed two stations and two sites installed four stations. The majority of applicants were hesitant to install more than two stations due to cost concerns associated with purchasing the stations, concerns with DCFC stations needing larger installation footprints potentially creating larger losses of parking stalls at sites compared to L2 charging stations, and a lack of experience 3 4 5 6 Decision, pp. 84 – 86 and pp. 147 – 148, OP 15. Decision, p. 148, OP 16. Decision, p. 145, OP 6. Email from Audrey Neuman on January 28, 2021.
- Page 2 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -3- March 4, 2021 operating and maintaining the stations. In CR2, SCE may experience similar challenges in finding sites that will be open to installing more than 4 ports. The five pilot sites were also required to be within 1.5 miles of a DAC and near multifamily dwellings. Customers solicited for the program had concerns about low EV adoption and charging station utilization in their neighborhoods. These findings will be used to shape how SCE designs outreach strategies to customers directly in DACs and near MUDs so that customer concerns are addressed. Charging station utilization data from the five pilot sites also showed that two sites located in retail shopping centers had significantly higher utilization than other sites having only one store or business. In particular, the most highly utilized site has a grocery store, bakery, restaurants, and other retail outlets sharing the same parking lot. In CR2, SCE may focus efforts on short-term dwell sites with higher pedestrian traffic. Site Prioritization Criteria A. Plan and criteria of how to site DCFCs at short-dwell locations to maximize utilization An expansion of the availability of DCFC stations will result in the ability of EV drivers to recharge a typical EV battery in a much shorter timeframe than a Level 2 (L2) charger provides, shortening the duration for EV charging to about 30 minutes. The ability to recharge a vehicle more quickly will encourage EV adoption in communities without access to home or work charging and enable greater corridor distance travel. To align the benefits of DCFC charging with potential site locations, SCE will seek to site DCFC stations at or near short-term dwell locations where the expected parking time is two hours or less. This will provide drivers with ample time to complete a charging session and help maximize port utilization by increasing charging station availability to a greater number of users. SCE will review all incoming Make-Ready Expansion program applications and categorize each into short and long-term dwell types. Those considered to be short-term dwell sites will be further evaluated for potential DCFC site qualification. Candidate sites may include, but are not limited to mixed-use retail shopping centers, libraries, community centers, and grocery stores. During the early stages of the program, co-location of L2 with DCFC sites that conform to SCE’s siting criteria will likely occur when and where colocation makes sense. This may help to reduce utility side and customer side make-ready infrastructure costs and help to increase the availability of charging ports at those select sites. SCE will consider four primary criteria for DCFC solicitation and siting. These include: (1) the project’s estimated costs, (2) DAC status, (3) proximity to and saturation of MUDs, and (4) ability to meet code compliance. After evaluating sites that meet these initial criteria, several secondary factors will also be considered. Secondary variables include, but are not limited to: (1) the potential number of visitors that might frequent the general site location, (2) the number and type of other destination sites within close
- Page 3 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -4- March 4, 2021 proximity, (3) vehicle traffic on adjacent streets, and (4) proximity to existing DCFC stations. B. Plan and criteria for siting 30 percent of ports in DACs SCE will target siting a minimum of 30 percent of DCFC ports in DACs. SCE plans to actively identify charging sites that have the potential for high DCFC utilization. Like the Charge Ready Pilot and Charge Ready DCFC Pilot, SCE will perform outreach to high potential sites to educate site owners on the benefits on installing charging. High potential sites will include DAC customers who have expressed interest in the Charge Ready Pilot or Bridge programs but chose not to participate due to minimum port requirements or funding challenges. Additionally, SCE will perform marketing analysis to develop a high propensity model to identify DAC properties that are targets within SCE’s territory. SCE will conduct program-specific marketing, education, and outreach (ME&O) to generate interest in the program. This will include developing online webpages with information about SCE’s programs and EV tools, direct email marketing, webinars, informational events, and targeted online marketing. SCE will also determine if those DAC sites that choose to participate in CR2 for L2 installations, would be potential candidates for co-located DCFC ports in the early phases of the site assessment process. C. Plan and criteria for siting 25 percent of ports to serve residents of MUDs, including definitions for how to define areas that are dense with MUDs SCE will target siting at least 25 percent of DCFC ports to serve residents of MUDs. SCE defines a qualifying MUD serving site as being located within a 2-mile radius of one or more residential multi-family dwellings. SCE will attempt to target those sites with a higher density of MUDs, compared to other eligible sites, and attempt to prioritize those higher-ratio sites to maximize the exposure and potential use of the DCFC stations. Sites serving MUD residents can span a variety of business types, from retail centers, to grocery store lots, to other locations providing public access. SCE will determine MUD density using real estate data analytical / database tools. SCE will also conduct program-specific ME&O. This will include direct email marketing, webinars, and online marketing to perform outreach more specifically targeting high potential candidate sites. SCE may also target select sites choosing to participate in CR2 for the installation of L2 charging if it is determined they might also be strong candidates for co-located DCFC ports. D. Input from and plan for continued collaboration with local Community Based Organizations on siting criteria On December 3, 2020, SCE hosted a webinar conference with local community based organizations (CBOs) and environmental justice organizations (EJOs) from SCE’s
- Page 4 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -5- March 4, 2021 Clean Air Access Working Group and members of SCE’s Government Advisory Panel.7 Feedback received during discussions at this meeting regarding this topic and SCE’s proposed approach was met with general support. Participants in those discussions shared their view that the selection process should leverage various variables to provide a more holistic site evaluation process as opposed to establishing firm quantitative metrics. The webinar provided participants with an introduction to CR2 and solicited their input on SCE’s proposed DCFC siting criteria. SCE presented detailed information about CR2, DCFC site eligibility and criteria, and the overall goals of the program. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about the program and provide feedback about SCE’s proposed siting criteria. The overall tone of the discussion during the meeting was supportive. In particular, CBOs expressed the need to ensure that stations were sited at locations that could provide the highest potential utilization. Participants also agreed that using a 2-mile radius of which encompasses several MUD locations was appropriate and would help to ensure a selected site could in fact serve MUD residents. SCE plans to continue collaborating with local CBOs and other relevant stakeholders through future program advisory council (PAC) meetings and targeted CBO meetings. SCE will distribute program materials about CR2 to CBOs who are interested in encouraging DCFC station adoption in SCE’s service area. During the December 3rd webinar, several local CBOs and government representatives expressed an interest in partnering with SCE to perform program participation outreach to their constituents and others within the communities they serve. SCE will work with these stakeholders to provide any needed resources to support their engagement efforts. E. Assessment of behind-the-meter or customer-side make-ready infrastructure ownership necessity The Decision finds that “[e]ncouraging SCE to target a portion of the Make-Ready Expansion for site-host ownership on the customer-side of the meter reduces the capitalization of customer-side infrastructure, because the equipment will be owned by the site-host and not the utility.”8 Accordingly, the Decision directs SCE to offer customers the choice to manage and pay for the installation of the customer-side 7 8 Participants included representatives from various cities and counties, as well representatives from: CPUC Low Income Oversight Board; American Association of Blacks in Energy/FCI management; Breathe LA; East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice; FCI Management/Ujima; GRID Alternatives; KIGT; PACE/A3PCON Environmental Justice Committee; Social Justice Learning Institute; Village Solutions Foundation; Youth Action Project; Southern California Association of Governments; Climate Resolve; APIFM; and others. D.20-08-045, FOF 36, p. 136.
- Page 5 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -6- March 4, 2021 infrastructure and receive a rebate of up to 80 percent of the installation costs as part of the Make-Ready Expansion Program.9 SCE anticipates that customers installing DCFC infrastructure will have limited interest in a site-host ownership option, as the customer would be required to agree to (1) take on the additional work of managing the customer-side infrastructure installation, (2) a rebate of only up to 80 percent of installation costs, which could potentially translate into higher installation costs for the customer, and (3) accept the responsibility and risk for maintaining and ensuring operation of the customer-side make-ready infrastructure and equipment for the 10-year commitment period.10 SCE does not believe the additional costs and risks are likely to appeal to most participants, as evidenced by the lack of participation in the self-installed customer-side make-ready rebate option included in the Charge Ready Transport program. The Charge Ready Transport program which supports medium and heavy-duty vehicle charging infrastructure also offers a site-host installation and ownership option. In that program, 34 of the 35 participating sites, representing 97 percent of the current projects selected to have SCE perform the customer-side make-ready work, while only 1 program participant has elected the sitehost ownership option, which provides the 80 percent rebate. It is also interesting to note that of the 35 current projects, about half of those include DCFC installations. Because DCFC installations are much more complex than L2 installations, and include a combination of AC/DC infrastructure, site participants may not find the 80 percent rebate option appealing due to the higher associated costs and decade long maintenance and repair obligation. For these reasons, SCE believes it will be difficult to establish specific targets for customer adoption. SCE agrees that the option for customers to receive an 80 percent rebate for self-installation of the customer-side make-ready should be offered and will provide full support and assistance to any participants that choose that path. However, setting and achieving specific adoption rates for this option will be extremely difficult to achieve absent a more compelling customer facing value proposition. Assessment of Appropriate DCFC Power Level SCE will continue to collaborate with customers to best understand their DCFC power level needs. Among other factors, SCE will assist customers with considering (1) the customer’s charging objectives, (2) time-of-use (TOU) rate fluctuations and demand charge impacts, (3) manufacturer discounts, (4) DC equipment costs and (5) the inability for some commercially available light duty EVs to accept higher power charging. Participants will be informed of the pros and cons of lower and higher DCFC power level charging stations. Participants will have the opportunity to work with SCE 9 10 The Make-Ready Rebate is intended to offset up to 80 percent of the costs that SCE would otherwise incur for performing the work. Every Participant will have the choice to perform this work themselves and receive the rebate, or to have SCE perform the work at no cost to the Participant. CR2 participants will be required to ensure EVSE are maintained and operational for at least a period of 10 years. D. pp. 97.
- Page 6 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -7- March 4, 2021 subject matter experts to help assess appropriate power levels that might best serve their site’s individual needs. SCE will offer a single port level rebate for DCFC electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) during the first year of the program and will evaluate the rebate level(s) each year thereafter. SCE will perform the annual evaluation with its Program Advisory Council (PAC).11 Any proposed rebate level adjustments will be based on direct customer feedback, participation rates, and the level of remaining program funds. Updated Rebate model and Budget Based on the Program Modifications EVSE Base Cost Methodology The base cost methodology developed and implemented for the Charge Ready Pilot used an approach to identify the “best value” pricing offered for a charging station and its installation within each defined charging power level. The rebate amount developed by using the “best value” approach focused on the pricing associated with the lowest cost, pedestal mounted unit within each power level. The lowest price point set the base cost, which served to establish various rebate amounts for Level 1 (L1) and Level 2 (L2) based on port configuration. SCE will continue to use the base cost methodology but plans to move from the “best value” method to instead use the median price point within each power level for establishing base costs for EVSE rebates. SCE is proposing to transition to a median price point, as this approach will better account for new, enhanced, and different features that enter the marketplace, as well as adjustments to unit pricing that will continue to occur. Table 1 provides a comparison between base cost values using a best value, and median price approach. SCE’s Advice Letter 4414E provides additional information on proposed rebate amounts and budget levels for L1 and L2 EVSE. Table 1 – Comparison of EVSE Base Costs Using a Best Value vs. Median Price Approach Ref 1 2 Base Cost Methodology Base Cost - Best Value Base Cost - Median Price L1 $1,396 $2,200 L2 $2,390 $2,900 DCFC N/A $40,200 Differentiated rebate amounts for L2 that are discussed in Section 4.5.5. The Decision requires that SCE set rebate levels at 100 percent for sites located in designated DACs, 50 percent for non-DAC multi-unit dwelling (MUDs) sites, and 25 percent for all other market segments.12 These same levels will also be applied to 11 The 12 CR2 decision directs SCE to work with its TE Advisory Board on various programmatic issues, such as determining if incentive and rebate levels reflect an appropriate amount (see OP 10). SCE refers to its TE Advisory Board as the Program Advisory Council or PAC. Decision, section 4.5.5 Rebate Levels, page 69.
- Page 7 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -8- March 4, 2021 DCFC. Additionally, the Decision states that “SCE should be flexible to move rebate levels up or down as the program is implemented, so that site hosts who are willing to contribute more to installation costs be allowed to do so.”13 The initial rebate values SCE plans to include in the roll-out of CR2’s Make-Ready Expansion program for DCFC are included in Table 1.14 Table 2: Charging Station Rebate Amounts DAC L1 L2 DCFC Multi-Family Others (Excluding Fortune 1000) (non-DAC) (Including Fortune 1000) $2,200 $2,900 $40,200 $1,100 $1,450 $20,100 $550 $725 $10,050 As required by the Decision, SCE presented and discussed the rebate levels with the PAC on September 25, 2020. After SCE performed extensive outreach to obtain updated pricing from previously approved EVSE suppliers, the PAC was also notified of the proposed revisions to the rebate levels (shown in Table 2) through an email communication that was sent out on January 27, 2021. EVgo, Greenlots, and Green Water and Power provided feedback on SCE’s proposed DCFC rebates. Green Water and Power requested that SCE increase the incentive for DCFC rebates. EVgo and Greenlots proposed that SCE consider offering rebate tiers based on DCFC power levels. SCE agrees that more exploration on how to appropriately incentivize highpowered charging would be useful. Accordingly, SCE is proposing to offer a single rebate for the first year of the program, in order to gain additional insights regarding the customers’ DCFC operational and power level needs. SCE will then consider the need for incorporating a tiered rebate structure that may offer higher incentives to reduce the costs associated with procuring higher power DCFC EVSE. SCE will include DCFC rebates in its annual evaluation of all rebate levels with its TE Advisory Board. Any proposed adjustments will be included in the CR2 annual program report. DCFC Updated Budget based on program modifications The decision (D.20-08-045) included several program modifications impacting the DCFC component of the Make-Ready Expansion program. These include: • SCE is expected to build at least 205 ports with the authorized budget. • The budget spent on DCFC installations is limited to $13.9M, with at least 30 percent of the ports located in DACs and 25 percent of the ports serving MUDs. Decision, pp. 69-70. 14 SCE anticipates that these values will be subject to change, as the Decision (on p. 70) directs SCE to perform an annual evaluation of incentive and rebate levels with its TE Advisory Board to ensure the amounts are appropriate. 13
- Page 8 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) -9- March 4, 2021 • A two-port minimum for DCFC site installations. • DCFC sites will be required to include at least one CCS and one CHAdeMO connector to ensure accessibility and optimize usage. • Site hosts will be required to operate and maintain the EVSE for a minimum of 10 years. • DCFC rebate levels will follow the same discounting prescribed for L1 and L2. These include: o 100 percent rebate for DAC o 50 percent rebate for Non-DAC MUDs o 25 percent rebate for all other • SCE will annually evaluate rebate levels with its TE Advisory Board to ensure the amount is appropriate. The Decision authorized an overall budget for SCE’s DCFC component of the Make Ready Expansion portion of CR2 in the amount of $13.9M. The Decision’s approved rebate portion of the budget was $5.5M. As shown in Table 2, the proposed per port rebate for DCFC at the 100 percent level for DACs is $40,200. Using this base rebate value and a minimum of 205 port installations, and considering a mix of DAC, non-DAC, multi-family and other site type / port targets as prescribed in the decision, a resulting initial surplus of $1.09M arises, as shown in Table 3, and will be treated as a program contingency. This contingency will provide the ability to adjust DCFC rebate values as the program matures and new APL approved products enter the marketplace. It will help to support increased base cost values, created by price changes for existing APL-listed equipment, and support the ability to later pursue a tiered rebate offering based on power levels, if appropriate. Table 3: Revised Budget based on DCFC Rebate Levels. DCFC Rebates SCE's Filing Commission Decision SCE's Revised/Adjusted Budget Rebate Contingency Total Budget $ 5,539,326 $ 5,539,326 $ 4,452,150 $ 1,087,176 Ports (minimum) 205 205 205 Program participants choosing to install DCFC under the program will be required to have a separate (dedicated) meter installed to measure EVSE load. They will also be required to take service under a time-of-use (TOU) rate plan and enroll in a demand response (DR) program. Participants will also be required to share related usage and pricing information with SCE for no less than 5 years.
- Page 9 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) - 10 - March 4, 2021 The Number of Ports and Sites SCE will target through the DCFC component of the Make-Ready Expansion program The Decision directs SCE “to build at least 205 ports,” with the authorized budget and a minimum of 2 ports per site.15 This translates to a maximum of 102 sites, assuming each of those sites install just two DCFC ports. Some participants may choose to install a greater number of ports, therefore reducing the site count. Pursuant to the decision, SCE has set a goal to install a minimum of 205 ports but has not targeted a specific site count. SCE will plan to leverage the DCFC rebate contingency reflected in Table 3, as described above. Assuming there would be no changes to the rebate level, and a similar distribution of DAC, non-DAC MUDs and other sites, the contingency may support the ability to install up to an additional 50 ports, representing a maximum of up to 25 additional sites. TIER DESIGNATION Pursuant to OP 15 and OP 16 of D.20-08-045 this advice letter is submitted with a Tier 3 designation. EFFECTIVE DATE This advice letter will become effective upon Commission disposition. NOTICE Anyone wishing to protest this advice letter may do so by letter via U.S. Mail, facsimile, or electronically, any of which must be received no later than 20 days after the date of this advice letter. Protests should be submitted to: CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 E-mail: EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division, Room 4004 (same address above). In addition, protests and all other correspondence regarding this advice letter should also be sent by letter and transmitted via facsimile or electronically to the attention of: 15 Decision, p. 85.
- Page 10 -

ADVICE 4433-E (U 338-E) - 11 - March 4, 2021 Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-9645 Facsimile: (626) 302-6396 E-mail: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com Tara S. Kaushik Managing Director, Regulatory Relations c/o Karyn Gansecki Southern California Edison Company 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 San Francisco, California 94102 Facsimile: (415) 929-5544 E-mail: Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com There are no restrictions on who may submit a protest, but the protest shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is based and must be received by the deadline shown above. In accordance with General Rule 4 of GO 96-B, SCE is serving copies of this advice letter to the interested parties shown on the attached GO 96-B and A.18-06-015 service lists. Address change requests to the GO 96-B service list should be directed by electronic mail to AdviceTariffManager@sce.com or at (626) 302-4039. For changes to all other service lists, please contact the Commission’s Process Office at (415) 703-2021 or by electronic mail at Process_Office@cpuc.ca.gov. Further, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public is hereby given by submitting and keeping the advice letter at SCE’s corporate headquarters. To view other SCE advice letters submitted with the Commission, log on to SCE’s web site at https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/regulatory/advice-letters. For questions, please contact Melodee Black at (626) 302-4728 or by electronic mail at Melodee.Black@sce.com. Southern California Edison Company /s/ Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. GAS:mb:jm
- Page 11 -

ADVICE LETTER SUMMARY ENERGY UTILITY MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed) Company name/CPUC Utility No.: Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) Utility type: ELC GAS PLC HEAT ELC = Electric PLC = Pipeline WATER Contact Person: Darrah Morgan Phone #: (626) 302-2086 E-mail: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com E-mail Disposition Notice to: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE GAS = Gas WATER = Water HEAT = Heat (Date Submitted / Received Stamp by CPUC) Tier Designation: Advice Letter (AL) #: Subject of AL: Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance AL Type: Monthly Quarterly Annual One-Time Other: If AL submitted in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #: Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: Confidential treatment requested? Yes No If yes, specification of confidential information: Confidential information will be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement. Name and contact information to request nondisclosure agreement/ access to confidential information: Resolution required? Yes No Requested effective date: No. of tariff sheets: -0- Estimated system annual revenue effect (%): Estimated system average rate effect (%): When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting). Tariff schedules affected: None Service affected and changes proposed1: Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: None 1 Discuss in AL if more space is needed. Clear Form
- Page 12 -

Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this submittal, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to: CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov Name: Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. Title: Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations Utility Name: Southern California Edison Company Address: 8631 Rush Street City: Rosemead Zip: 91770 State: California Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx: (626) 302-9645 Facsimile (xxx) xxx-xxxx: (626) 302-6396 Email: advicetariffmanager@sce.com Name: Title: Utility Name: Southern California Edison Company Address: 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 City: San Francisco State: California Zip: 94102 Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx: Facsimile (xxx) xxx-xxxx: (415) 929-5544 Email: karyn.gansecki@sce.com Clear Form
- Page 13 -

ENERGY Advice Letter Keywords Affiliate Direct Access Preliminary Statement Agreements Disconnect Service Procurement Agriculture ECAC / Energy Cost Adjustment Qualifying Facility Avoided Cost EOR / Enhanced Oil Recovery Rebates Balancing Account Energy Charge Refunds Baseline Energy Efficiency Reliability Bilingual Establish Service Re-MAT/Bio-MAT Billings Expand Service Area Revenue Allocation Bioenergy Forms Rule 21 Brokerage Fees Franchise Fee / User Tax Rules CARE G.O. 131-D Section 851 CPUC Reimbursement Fee GRC / General Rate Case Self Generation Capacity Hazardous Waste Service Area Map Cogeneration Increase Rates Service Outage Compliance Interruptible Service Solar Conditions of Service Interutility Transportation Standby Service Connection LIEE / Low-Income Energy Efficiency Storage Conservation LIRA / Low-Income Ratepayer Assistance Street Lights Consolidate Tariffs Late Payment Charge Surcharges Contracts Line Extensions Tariffs Core Memorandum Account Taxes Credit Metered Energy Efficiency Text Changes Curtailable Service Metering Transformer Customer Charge Customer Owned Generation Mobile Home Parks Name Change Transition Cost Transmission Lines Decrease Rates Non-Core Transportation Electrification Demand Charge Non-firm Service Contracts Transportation Rates Demand Side Fund Nuclear Undergrounding Demand Side Management Oil Pipelines Voltage Discount Demand Side Response PBR / Performance Based Ratemaking Wind Power Deposits Portfolio Withdrawal of Service Depreciation Power Lines Clear Form
- Page 14 -