Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telematics Protocols topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Telematics vendors press for telematics pathway in non‑rate programs; EPRI testing and NIST standards proposed as next steps
Summary
Industry groups and telematics vendors told the CPUC workshop that vehicle telematics are already being used effectively in managed‑charging programs, urged the CPUC to permit telematics in non‑rate programs like ELRP, and proposed accuracy and geotagging guidance to support long‑term use for rates and billing.
Telematics providers, auto industry representatives and managed‑charging platforms told the CPUC workshop that telematics already supports successful load‑management pilots and should be explicitly permitted — and standardized — for program use while a longer‑term, scalable protocol for billing is developed.
“Most of today’s telematics capabilities were not purpose built for revenue‑grade use cases,” said Zack Wiggin of the Vehicle Grid Integration Council (VGIC), describing EPRI’s recent testing effort as a useful step. He noted the EPRI work developed a testing protocol and found variability across configurations; however, in at least one test case the telematics‑derived readings closely tracked reference meters.
“We want to be able to make sure there’s an easy way to enroll customers and measure performance for these programs,” Wiggin said. He urged the CPUC to allow telematics participation in non‑rate program pathways and recommended the Early Load Reduction Program (ELRP) explicitly permit telematics enrollments so that program administrators can use the approach while a long‑term protocol is developed.
Authorized vs. unauthorized integrations
Matthias (WeaveGrid) and other telematics platform speakers emphasized a distinction between authorized OEM integrations (documented APIs or custom partner integrations) and unauthorized approaches that rely on customer credentials or reverse‑engineered endpoints. “Direct authorized is very different,” a WeaveGrid presenter said, explaining authorized integrations enable more reliable data streams and facilitate improved enrollments and operational controls.
Speakers proposed near‑term and long‑term steps: near term, CPUC clarification allowing telematics in non‑rate programs (for example, ELRP subgroup A5) and pilot testing; long term, adoption of an accuracy standard (VGIC suggested aligning with NIST Handbook 44’s revenue‑grade thresholds: roughly 1% lab / 2% field) and a geotagging approach (CARB/LCFS precedent for 110‑meter home/220‑meter nonresidential geofences) to assign charging to locations for billing. Vendors argued that once a clear accuracy target exists, automakers and telematics providers can converge on solutions.
Ending
Telematics proponents urged the CPUC to treat telematics as a complementary pathway to EVSE‑based submetering: allow immediate program use where appropriate, fund testing to characterize accuracy across makes/models, and adopt clear technical and accuracy milestones that automakers and platforms can target.
