PSC lays over Superior Water, Light & Power commercial EV charging pilot for more data

Superior Water, Light & Power’s (SWLP) request to implement a three‑year commercial electric-vehicle charging pilot tariff (EVC-1) was laid over by the Public Service Commission on Sept. 25, 2025, and commissioners directed staff to request additional information before taking a final vote. SWLP proposed a pilot aimed at commercial and industrial customers that would apply a demand‑cap mechanism (40% demand cap) and eliminate off‑peak demand charges to encourage charging outside of peak hours.

Why the commission paused: commissioners said the pilot concept is reasonable as a learning tool for a utility with no existing public or fleet charging in its Douglas County service territory but identified several unresolved design and consumer‑protection questions. Those include the appropriate eligible customer classes and maximum kW size for participation, the interplay between a demand-cap and the time‑of‑use demand windows, the absence of a defined program budget, and whether the tariff would create undue cross‑subsidization risk for non‑participants. Commissioner Nieto summarized the applicant’s proposal and staff’s review, then said: “there’s a pathway here to work with this proposal and work with the utility here to get to a decision today that allows the utility to move forward with an option to meet its customers’ needs,” but added that modifications and additional data would be needed.

Key program points and questions - Program design: SWLP’s filing proposed a three‑year pilot for commercial and industrial customers with separately metered EV loads; the tariff uses a 40% demand cap (modeled on a Minnesota Power pilot) and defines on‑peak windows where demand charges would continue to apply, while off‑peak demand charges would be set at zero. - Eligibility and size: the utility initially limited eligibility to services with demand above 25 kW and below 10,000 kW; commissioners proposed tighter starting eligibility aligned to existing rate classes (for example EC‑3/EP‑1) or a more conservative upper bound to reduce potential cross‑subsidy risk. - Reporting and monitoring: commissioners asked for clearer reporting requirements, including itemized program spending, the utility’s cost‑to‑serve for pilot participants at representative kW ranges (excluding charger installation costs where those are customer‑funded), measured load‑shifting results and an assessment of system benefits from any off‑peak charging shift.

Next steps and rationale Commissioners directed staff to prepare a data request based on the issues raised in the meeting so the utility can provide the needed clarifications and additional analysis. The goal is to preserve a path for SWLP to pilot charging rates while protecting nonparticipating customers and ensuring reporting adequate for later evaluation and tariff refinement. Commissioners noted the pilot could be re‑scoped (for example, to exclude public charging or to limit eligibility to fleet accounts) to reduce potential rate‑cross‑subsidization while still delivering operational lessons.

Local context SWLP serves Douglas County in northern Wisconsin; the utility told the commission that it currently has no public or fleet charging infrastructure and viewed a pilot as a first step to understand customer needs and the local charging market. Commissioners noted the relatively small size of the utility and the smaller universe of potential pilot participants as a factor mitigating risk, but said further data is required before approving a tariff.

What the commission did not decide No vote was taken to approve a tariff. The commission’s decision to lay the application over was procedural: commissioners asked staff to obtain the additional information identified in the public discussion and signaled the commission’s willingness to consider a modified pilot after receiving that information.