Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mdma Business Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MDMA vendors say commercial submetering can save fleets; NEM exclusion and certification costs hinder wider adoption
Summary
Meter data management agents and charge‑management vendors told the CPUC workshop that submetering offers meaningful savings for commercial and fleet customers but that the CPUC decision’s exclusion of net energy metering customers, high certification/sampling costs and uncertain MDMA revenue models are blocking scale.
MDMA representatives and commercial charge‑management vendors described use cases where submetering delivers clear value for fleet, workplace and commercial hosts, but warned that policy and certification choices are shrinking the feasible market.
“Customers want to be able to reduce their electricity costs,” said Zack Lee, director of research and development at PowerFlex, which manages large, commercial charging portfolios. Lee presented portfolio examples showing annual energy‑cost savings of about $72,000 (roughly 65%) for a workplace customer and about $55,000 for a fleet customer. He argued these savings create a commercial case for submetering at medium and large sites and suggested MDMA business models should route a large share of the per‑kilowatt‑hour benefit to drivers while preserving a portion for site hosts and MDMA operators.
David Myers of GridTractor described the practical hurdles his company faced becoming the first MDMA through the approval processes. “It took us a year from our first inquiry,” he said, describing long lead times to find an approved external submeter and to integrate with utility systems. Myers emphasized that the ecosystem for external submeters is not mature the way utility meter supply chains are, creating procurement and testing frictions.
NEM exclusion and device certification
Multiple MDMA speakers urged the CPUC to review the decision that currently excludes customers on net energy metering (NEM) tariffs from submetering. GridTractor and others said the NEM exclusion prevents many otherwise‑eligible sites — particularly those with solar or storage — from participating even when a technical subtraction of a submeter’s export/charging data is feasible.
Vendors also criticized certification and sampling requirements. MDMA representatives said utilities’ requests for annual field sampling and certification create high recurring costs; by contrast they said CTEP (third‑party metrology oversight) typically uses a 10‑year recertification interval for sealed meters. MDMA speakers said utilities’ current sampling plans are appropriate for very large meter populations but impose onerous per‑device costs when MDMA meter counts are small.
Business models and partnerships
PowerFlex and GridTractor both outlined partnership models: MDMA software or a charge point operator can operate the submeter account, bill drivers directly or share savings with site hosts. Vendors said embedded‑meter (EVSE‑integrated) approaches could reduce hardware cost and retrofit complexity but that existing chargers and platforms may lack the full set of data fields MDMA platforms need. They called for a CPUC working group to align device, reporting and metrology requirements — and to clarify whether NEM/exclusion rules can be modified for specific, well‑defined cases.
Ending
MDMA operators and charge‑management vendors told the CPUC that commercial customers represent a near‑term market where savings justify investment, while residential applications remain marginal unless hardware, certification and MDMA cost structures change. Vendors urged a targeted review of NEM exclusions, certification frequency, and a national‑level, or at least statewide, alignment of device and data standards to lower barriers and speed adoption.
