MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CALEPA HEADQUARTERS BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2019 9:08 A.M.
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 A P P E A R A N C E S BOARD MEMBERS: Ms. Mary Nichols, Chair Ms. Sandra Berg, Vice Chair Dr. John Balmes Mr. Hector De La Torre Mr. John Eisenhut Supervisor Nathan Fletcher Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Phil Serna Dr. Alexander Sherriffs Professor Daniel Sperling Ms. Diane Takvorian
STAFF: Mr. Richard Corey, Executive Officer Ms. Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Steve Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel Ms. Veronica Eady, Assistant Executive Officer Ms. Annette Hebert, Assistant Executive Officer Ms. Amanda Amoruso, Air Pollution Specialist, Statewide Truck and Bus Enforcement Section, Enforcement Division(ED)
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
STAFF: Ms. Analisa Bevan, Assistant Division Chief, Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division(STCD) Mr. Greg Binder, Branch Chief, Vehicle, Parts & Consumer Products Enforcement Branch, ED Mr. Steve Brisby, Branch Chief, Stationary Source Enforcement Branch, ED Mr. Mike Carter, Assistant Division Chief, Mobile Sources Control Division(MSCD) Mr. Ian Cecere, Attorney, Legal Office Mr. David Chen, Manager, Advanced Emission Control Strategies, MSCD Mr. Joshua Cunningham, Branch Chief, Advanced Clean Cars Branch, STCD Mr. David Eiges, Air Resources Engineer, Advanced Emission Control Strategies Section, MSCD Mr. Rhead Enion, Senior Attorney, Legal Office Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Branch Chief, Citations and Registration Enforcement Branch, ED Mr. Cody Howard, Manager, Specialized Fleet Enforcement Section, ED Ms. Elise Keddie, Manager, ZEV Implementation Section, STCD Mr. Jack Kitowski, Division Chief, MSCD Mr. Aron Livingston, Assistant Chief Counsel, Legal Office Mr. Femi Olaluwoye, Manager, Incentives Development Section, MSCD Ms. Stephanie Palmer, Air Resources Engineers, ZEV Implementation Section, STCD
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
STAFF: Mr. Anthony Poggi, Air Pollution Specialist, Alternative Strategies Section, MSCD Mr. Scott Rowland, Branch Chief, Incentives and Technology Assessment Branch, MSCD Mr. Todd Sax, Division Chief, ED Ms. Tess Sicat, Branch Chief, Heavy-Duty Off-Road Strategies Branch, MSCD Mr. Mark Stover, Branch Chief, Field Operations Branch, ED Ms. Sydney Vergis, Assistant Division Chief, MSCD
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Anna Alvarado, City of San Jose Mr. Will Barrett, American Lung Association Mr. Sam Bivins, Siemens Mr. Bill Boyce, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Mr. Timothy Blubaugh, Truck and Engine Manufacturer's Association Mr. Cory Bullis, Electric Vehicle Charging Association Ms. Mei Mei Collins, CALPIRG Mr. Cameron Demetre, TechNet Mr. Neal Desai, National Parks Conservation Association Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets Mr. Jay Friedland, Plug in America, Open Access Coalition Ms. Claire Garcia, The Lion Electric Company Ms. Katherine Garcia, Sierra Club of California
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Hannah Goldsmith, California Electric Transportation Coalition Mr. Tony Gonzalez, Electrify America Mr. Brad Groters, EV Connect Ms. Jenna Hahn, City of Sacramento Mr. Frank Harris, California Municipal Utilities Association Ms. Kelly Hitt, CompTIA Ms. Obrie Hostetter, Hubject Mr. Gary Hughes, Biofuel Watch Mr. Erick Karlen, Greenlots Mr. Ryan Kenny, Clean Energy Ms. Megha Lakhchaura, EVBox Mr. Kent Leacock, Proterra Ms. Alexandra Leumer, ChargePoint Mr. Jim Lites, California Airports Council Ms. Lisa McGhee, San Diego Airport Parking Company Mr. Adam Mohabbat, EVgo Mr. Marc Monbouquette, eMotorWerks Mr. Mile Muller, Natural Resources Defense Council Mr. Jimmy O'Dea, Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Elias Rodriguez, Earthjustice Mr. Rocky Rushing, Coalition for Clean Air
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Scott Saffian, FLO Services USA, Inc. Ms. Paige Samblanet, Earthjustice Mr. Rajiv Shah, FreeWire Technologies Ms. Heidi Sickler, Silicon Valley Leadership Group Mr. Alex Solis, Comite Civico Del Valle Ms. Francesca Wahl, Tesla Mr. Joseph Wiedman, Peninsula Clean Energy Authority Mr. Josh Winkler, Blink Charging Company
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 I N D E X PAGE Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance 1 Opening remarks by Chair Nichols 1 Roll Call 2 Item 19-6-1 Chair Nichols 5 Executive Officer Corey 6 Staff Presentation 7 Mr. Blubaugh 16 Ms. Claire Garcia 19 Ms. McGhee 20 Ms. Wahl 22 Ms. Goldsmith 23 Board Discussion and Q&A 28 Motion 32 Vote 32 Item 19-6-2 Chair Nichols 33 Executive Officer Corey 34 Staff Presentation 36 Ms. Claire Garcia 45 Mr. O'Dea 45 Ms. Samblanet 47 Mr. Barrett 49 Mr. Lites 51 Mr. Leacock 51 Ms. Sickler 53 Ms. McGhee 54 Mr. Rushing 56 Ms. Collins 58 Mr. Kenny 59 Ms. Katherine Garcia 60 Ms. Goldsmith 62 Ms. Leumer 63 Board Discussion and Q&A 64 Motion 64 Board Discussion and Q&A 64 Vote 70
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 I N D E X C O N T I N U E D PAGE Item 19-6-3 Chair Nichols 70 Executive Officer Corey 71 Staff Presentation 73 Senator Corbett 88 Ms. Alvarado 93 Ms. Hahn 93 Mr. Harris 95 Ms. Lakhchaura 98 Mr. Saffian 104 Mr. Monbouquette 106 Mr. Winkler 108 Ms. Sickler 110 Mr. Bivins 112 Mr. Groters 114 Mr. Bullis 116 Mr. Muller 119 Mr. Friedland 120 Mr. Demetre 125 Mr. Rodriguez 127 Mr. Wiedman 129 Mr. Mohabbat 131 Ms. McGhee 135 Mr. Rushing 136 Ms. Hitt 139 Ms. Wahl 140 Ms. Goldsmith 143 Ms. Leumer 147 Mr. Karlen 150 Mr. Gonzalez 152 Mr. Shah 155 Ms. Hostetter 157 Mr. Boyce 159 Board Discussion and Q&A 160 Motion 197 Vote 197 Item 19-6-4 Chair Nichols 198 Executive Officer Corey 199 Staff Presentation 199 Ms. McGhee 219 Mr. Solis 220 Mr. Edgar 221 Board Discussion and Q&A 223
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 I N D E X C O N T I N U E D PAGE Public Comment Mr. Desai 227 Mr. Hughes 230 Adjournment 234 Reporter's Certificate 235
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning. 3 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. If people 4 will find their seats, we're ready to get started. 5 I want to welcome everybody to the June 27th, 6 2019 public meeting of the California Air Resources Board. 7 And before we get underway, we will begin with the Pledge 8 of Allegiance to the flag, if you'll please, rise. 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited in unison.) 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I'll read the 12 mandatory announcements and then I have another little 13 digression from our published agenda. So first of all, I 14 want to make sure that everybody knows that there's an 15 emergency exit in the rear of the room. And in the event 16 that you hear an alarm, we're required to exit from the 17 back there or the Board can leave the dais and go out the 18 exits on either side of our little area up here. We have 19 to evacuate the building by going down the stairs and out 20 in the front, and then stay out there until we hear the 21 all-clear signal. 22 We also request that anybody who wants to testify 23 fill out a request to speak card. These are available 24 either in the lobby outside the Board room or from the 25 clerk. And we ask that you turn it in to a Board
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 2
1 assistant prior to the commencement of the item that you 2 want to speak on. In other words, we'd like to try to 3 collect as much as we can before we begin the item, so we 4 know how many speakers to prepare for. 5 We will be imposing a three-minute time limit on 6 speakers. We appreciate it if you'd give your name and 7 come up to the podium and then speak in informally, if at 8 all possible rather than reading your prepared testimony, 9 especially because if you have written testimony, it will 10 be entered into the record. 11 With that, I think we have -- oh, sorry. We have 12 to do a roll call, before we can actually do any work. 13 Okay. Let's begin with a roll call to show that we have a 14 quorum. 15 Would you please call the roll. 16 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Dr. Balmes? 17 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Mr. De La Torre? 19 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Mr. Eisenhut? 21 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Here. 22 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Supervisor Fletcher? 23 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Mrs. Riordan? 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 3
1 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Supervisor Serna? 2 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Here. 3 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Dr. Sherriffs? 4 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Oh, yeah. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIR NICHOLS: He's here. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Good morning. 9 Professor Sperling? 10 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 11 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Ms. Takvorian? 12 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Here. 13 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Vice Chair Berg? 14 VICE CHAIR BERG: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: And Chair Nichols? 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: Here 17 BOARD CLERK DAVIS: Madam Chair, we have a 18 quorum. 19 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. We seem to have gone 20 into summer mode here. 21 (Laughter.) 22 CHAIR NICHOLS: It's great. 23 As I think my fellow Board members and staff all 24 know, this has been a busy time since we last met. A lot 25 of things happening in our world, including a hearing in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 4
1 front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last 2 week; the signing of an MOU with Canada regarding vehicle 3 emissions programs aligning yesterday; and simultaneously 4 the release of a new video by our friends and colleagues 5 at Veloz who have worked with Arnold Schwarzenegger, our 6 former Governor, and a great fan and friend of electric 7 vehicles, to produce a video, which is now in the process 8 of going viral on all kinds of social media. 9 And you may not be able to escape it, even if you 10 want to, but I thought that it would be nice if everybody 11 had a chance to see it this morning before we got started. 12 So I believe we have cued it up and here we go. 13 (Thereupon a video was played.) 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: So that's it. 15 (Laughter.) 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: It's not your typical public 17 service commercial. It was something that we really felt 18 was going to succeed in sparking interest among people who 19 are potential car buyers, but not necessarily tuned into 20 the idea of electric cars. It obviously features no one 21 single brand. Although, you see quite a few different -- 22 different brands flashing on the screen. 23 And so I think we will be able to monitor what 24 the traffic is like to the website and see if it's 25 actually working. But so far, it's got a lot of -- a lot
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 5
1 of attention, and especially in the advertising world as 2 just something -- something different. 3 So I'm excited about it. Okay. So to get on to 4 the work of the morning. Our first item is number 19-6-1, 5 the proposed alternative certification requirements and 6 test procedures for on-road heavy-duty electric and 7 fuel-cell vehicles and proposed standards and test 8 procedures for zero-emission powertrains, otherwise 9 referred to as the Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification 10 or ZEPCert regulation. 11 The first hearing for this proposal took place in 12 February. The proposed regulation would create an 13 optional certification program for battery electric and 14 fuel-cell heavy-duty vehicles that would encourage 15 industry best practices while supporting upcoming 16 zero-emission regulatory effort and financial investments. 17 As a complement to other measures, this 18 certification program is intended to help accelerate the 19 development of the heavy-duty zero-emission market and 20 Californians transition to more zero-emission 21 technologies. 22 There were a number of comments made at the last 23 hearing by public -- members of the public and Board 24 members. As a result of which, the staff has made 25 modifications to the original proposal and they hopefully
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 6
1 will address many of the remaining issues and concerns. 2 Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this item? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair. 4 Staff will present its final proposal for the 5 Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification or ZEPCert 6 regulation as you noted. 7 The proposed regulation would establish a 8 certification framework that addresses key barriers 9 hindering the growth market-ready on-road heavy-duty 10 emission vehicles available today, while still promoting 11 innovation in the more cutting edge technology 12 applications of tomorrow. 13 And as noted, the proposed rule would also 14 support CARB's other upcoming efforts geared towards 15 increasing deployment of zero-emission technology in the 16 mobile source sector. At the previous hearing, staff had 17 proposed several modifications to address concerns from 18 stakeholders received during the 45-day comment period. 19 Following the hearing, staff continued to work with 20 stakeholders and made a number of additional modifications 21 to the proposal. 22 What staff will present to you today is a 23 culmination of those efforts, a more refined final 24 proposal with restructured warranty reporting and recall 25 provisions, as well as other flexibilities that reduce
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 7
1 compliance costs without reducing the overall 2 effectiveness of the regulation. 3 Staff is recommending that the Board adopt the 4 proposed Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification 5 Regulation. 6 I'll now ask David Eiges of the Mobile Source 7 Control Division to begin the staff presentation. 8 David. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 presented as follows.) 11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: Thank you, Mr. 12 Corey. Good morning, Chair Nichols and members of the 13 Board. This is the second of two hearings on the proposed 14 Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification, or ZEPCert 15 regulation. 16 In the first hearing back in February, staff 17 presented the original proposal, as well as a number of 18 planned modifications to be made through the 15-day change 19 process. 20 The Board adopted Resolution 19-7, directing 21 staff to return to the Board to present responses to any 22 comments raising significant environmental concerns and to 23 present the final regulatory proposal for consideration 24 for adoption. 25 Today, I'll be recapping the proposed regulation,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 8
1 providing a summary of the 15-day changes, and discussing 2 the environmental analysis. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: The proposed 5 ZEPCert regulation is intended to promote the development 6 of effective and reliable on-road heavy-duty electric and 7 fuel-cell vehicles. It would assist in the transformation 8 of the heavy-duty sector by establishing a framework -- 9 certification framework that could be used to protect 10 consumers purchasing such vehicles as part of future 11 technology-forcing zero-emission measures and incentive 12 programs. 13 Although we have seen tremendous growth in the 14 deployment of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles over the 15 past few years, certain fleets that have adopted such 16 vehicles have had less than perfect experiences. Some 17 fleets received products with poor workmanship, some 18 experience extended downtime, while others did not have 19 access to consistent product support. These bumps in the 20 road, however, were not unexpected as this was and still 21 is a new and emerging market. 22 That said, the technology itself is ready for 23 greater deployment, and as such, staff is moving towards 24 fleet rules that require the purchase of zero-emission 25 vehicles as well as greater investment sin heavy-duty
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 9
1 zero-emission technology. But new market issues are still 2 a concern, so additional safeguards are now appropriate to 3 protect fleets from purchasing products that could poison 4 the well as well as to continue providing good stewardship 5 over public funds. 6 The proposed ZEPCert regulation would establish 7 such safeguards through a balanced certification framework 8 that includes robust requirements that could be used to 9 help strengthen the market for more mature applications, 10 while still allowing cutting edge newer applications to 11 continue to be certified through the less stringent 12 certification process that currently applies today. 13 Ultimately, fleets need these vehicles to work. 14 If they don't, fleets will return to using fossil fuel 15 vehicles instead. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: In December 2018, 18 the Board approved the Innovative Clean Transit 19 Regulation, which represents the first regulatory step in 20 a broader statewide strategy to transition the heavy-duty 21 sector to zero-emissions technology. Additional measures 22 to support the continued growth of the heavy-duty 23 zero-emission industry are just around the corner. The 24 first of these measures is the Zero-Emission Airport 25 Shuttle Proposal, which will be presented to the Board for
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 10
1 consideration later today. 2 A number of other items are slated to be brought 3 before the Board in the next few years. The growth and 4 successful adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs, which will lead to 5 reductions in mobile source emissions, are critical to 6 California meeting its air quality and GHG reduction 7 goals. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: To date, ARB has 10 administered over $500 million to fund on-road heavy-duty 11 zero-emission vehicles. And that number is expected to 12 continue to grow. The money has come from sources 13 designated to provide cleaner transportation, such as 14 Cap-and-Trade, and the Goods Movement Emission Reduction 15 Program. Funding has gone towards commercially available 16 heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles through first-come 17 first-served programs, as well as a variety of other 18 projects designed to fund zero-emission trucks and buses 19 in their pre-commercial stages through pilot and 20 demonstration programs. 21 The State is at a point now, where it is 22 appropriate to have a process, such as the one that would 23 be established by the proposed ZEPCert regulation that 24 could be used to ensure that investments prioritize 25 well-supported zero-emission vehicles.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 11
1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: Current 3 certification requirements for heavy-duty vehicles with 4 zero-emission technology are minimal and provide little 5 assurance that manufacturers will provide adequate support 6 for their products. The proposed ZEPCert regulation would 7 modify the existing certification process for heavy-duty 8 vehicles and establish certification conditions consisting 9 of expected industry best practices for battery-electric 10 and fuel-cell heavy-duty powertrains and vehicles. 11 Although the ZEPCert proposal would be an 12 optional process, upcoming zero-emission regulations could 13 make it mandatory as part of their specific measures. 14 Similarly, if appropriate, future incentive programs could 15 also incorporate the proposed ZEPCert process. 16 In addition, even as an optional process, some 17 manufacturers may voluntarily choose to certify through 18 ZEPCert as a selling point to instill more confidence in 19 consumers looking to purchase their product. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: I'm now going to 22 provide a short recap of the proposed regulation. 23 The ZEPCert proposal would establish separate 24 processes for certifying powertrains and vehicles, 25 analogous to the way heavy-duty combustion engines and
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 12
1 vehicles are certified today. 2 The powertrain certification would cover the 3 electrified portions of the propulsion system, including 4 components such as the battery and the motor. The vehicle 5 certification, on the other hand, would cover the 6 mechanical components found in a typical internal 7 combustion vehicle downstream of the powertrain. 8 These components, collectively referred to as 9 vehicle integration components, would include the 10 driveshaft, transmission, and axles. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: The ZEPCert 13 powertrain requirements are designed to ensure consumers 14 are provided with consistent, transparent information that 15 could be used to inform fleet purchase decisions, assess 16 operating efficiency, and evaluate the condition of the 17 battery. In addition, the proposed regulation would 18 require manufacturers to provide and facilitate effective 19 product support by making available repair and diagnostic 20 information and tools to third-party repair facilities, 21 providing powertrains with a minimum warranty and 22 recalling powertrain models if pervasive and severe 23 problems are identified. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: The ZEPCert
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 13
1 vehicle requirements largely share the same objectives as 2 those being proposed for Zero-Emission Powertrain 3 Certification. They are designed to ensure that 4 information regarding the vehicle performance and warranty 5 is clearly and consistently communicated to fleet 6 purchasers and that manufacturers provide and facilitate 7 greater product support for electric and fuel cell 8 vehicles. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: While being 11 proposed as an optional process, staff chose to complete a 12 conservative cost analysis using the assumption that all 13 vehicles and HVIP, the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and 14 Bus Voucher Incentive Project, a program designed for 15 commercially-ready zero-emission products would certify 16 through the ZEPCert process. 17 The cost for reporting, testing, labeling, and 18 preparation of certification applications were included in 19 the analysis under the assumption that these were 20 requirements above and beyond common industry practice. 21 However, tasks like developing an owner's manual or 22 diagnostic and repair manual were considered actions 23 manufacturers would already be taking to produce a road -- 24 a robust product, so those costs were not included in the 25 ZEPCert proposal's cost analysis.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 14
1 In total, the estimated cost of the proposed 2 ZEPCert regulation would be $720 per vehicle and would 3 cost California businesses approximately $250,000 during 4 the first five years of the program. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: As indicated at 7 the previous public hearing, staff continued to work with 8 stakeholders and released modified language for public 9 comment through a 15-day change process that started on 10 May 13th and ended on May 28th of this year. 11 The modifications included clarifying the intent 12 of the recall requirements, streamlining the warranty 13 reporting and recall requirements by removing redundant 14 provisions, and adding flexibility in how the diagnostic 15 information is obtained from vehicles. 16 Lastly, staff made other small editorial updates 17 to add clarity and eliminate redundancy. Staff believes 18 these changes would reduce the overall compliance burden 19 of the proposal without impacting its effectiveness. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: The proposed 22 ZEPCert regulation was included in a joint Environmental 23 Analysis with the proposed Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle 24 Regulation. The draft Environmental Analysis concluded 25 that implementation of the proposed projects could bring
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 15
1 beneficial impacts to energy demand, greenhouse gases, and 2 long-term air quality. This analysis also analyzed and 3 disclosed several potentially significant and unavoidable 4 environmental impacts associated with the Zero-Emission 5 Airport Shuttle Regulation component, primarily related to 6 short-term construction activities. 7 However, there were no comments raising 8 environmental issues on the ZEPCert components of the 9 draft Environmental Analysis during the 45-day comment 10 period, the previous Board Meeting, or the 15-day comment 11 period. 12 The draft Environmental Analysis was released for 13 a 45-day comment period that began on January 4th, 2019 14 and ended on February 19th, 2019. 15 While staff previously circulated the proposed 16 15-day regulatory modifications for public review that are 17 before you today, those modifications do not change the 18 regulatory proposal in any way that is anticipated to 19 affect the conclusions of the Environmental Analysis. 20 The written responses to the comments on the 21 draft Environmental Analysis were posted on CARB's website 22 on June 24th. And the final Environmental Analysis was 23 also posted on June 24th. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER EIGES: Staff recommends
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 16
1 that the Board approve Resolution 19-15, which would 2 approve the written responses to environmental comments, 3 certify the Final Environmental Analysis, and adopt the 4 required CEQA findings and staff's final regulatory 5 proposal. 6 This concludes my presentation. Thank you for 7 your consideration. 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. We have four 9 witnesses who've signed up to speak on this item. So why 10 don't we hear from them first beginning with Timothy 11 Blubaugh from EMA. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning. 13 MR. BLUBAUGH: Good morning. My name is Timothy 14 Blubaugh and I am with the Truck and Engine 15 Manufacturers -- 16 Hi. 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: Hi. 18 MR. BLUBAUGH: Tim Blubaugh with the Truck and 19 Engine Manufacturer's Association. 20 First, I would like to thank ARB staff for the 21 constructive dialogue we have had on these proposed 22 certification requirements. We sincerely appreciate 23 staff's willingness to listen and make changes to try to 24 accommodate our concerns. 25 Specifically, we support the important changes to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 17
1 the original proposal that were in the 15-day notice. 2 However, even with the constructive dialogue since the 3 original proposal, the ZEP Certification requirements are 4 complicated and extensive. They won't pose costs and 5 burdens on the emerging zero-emission commercial vehicle 6 market -- zero-emission commercial vehicle marketplace 7 that are well in excess of the estimates in the Initial 8 Statement of Reasons. 9 Manufacturers will need to make significant 10 investments to redesign products, to adjust service and 11 after-market procedures, and to put in place certification 12 compliance reporting procedures and processes needed to 13 meet the new requirements. 14 There is no doubt that it will cost the 15 manufacturer significantly more to achieve the 16 certification of one ZEV family than the $10,000 estimated 17 in the ISOR. That amount would not even cover the cost of 18 one certification engineer for one month. 19 Although the ZEP Certification requirements are 20 identified as optional, this is misleading. The 21 requirements -- as staff noted, the requirements will 22 become mandatory with the Airport Shuttle Regulation, and 23 they most likely will become mandatory sooner by the 24 essential ZEV incentive programs that are required to sell 25 the product.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 18
1 Due to the extensive upfront work manufacturers 2 must complete to ensure compliance with the new rules, the 3 requirements should remain optional until 2023 at the 4 earliest. 5 To provide adequate lead time to manufacturers, 6 we ask that ARB change the applicability of the new 7 requirements to model year 2023 or later. Additionally, 8 ARB should be prepared to revisit the rules as 9 manufacturers uncover issues during initial 10 implementation. 11 This novel rule went through extensive changes 12 during a compressed rulemaking schedule, and the 15-day 13 notice included 51 substantive changes to the original 14 proposal. We believe that more modifications inevitably 15 will be needed to make the rule workable and implementable 16 and not overly burdensome to the ZEV market. 17 Accordingly, we ask that ARB commit to revisiting 18 the ZEP Certification requirements as needed with a 19 subsequent rule. 20 EMA and its members look forward to working with 21 ARB and staff to make the ZEP Certification Rule as 22 workable and as implementable as possible for the 23 zero-emission commercial vehicle market. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 19
1 Claire Garcia. Just come on down when your -- 2 when it's your turn. 3 MS. CLAIRE GARCIA: Hello, Chair Nichols and ARB 4 Board members. My name is Claire Garcia and I'm part of 5 the Lion Electric Company. We appreciate the opportunity 6 today to support the proposed zero-emission -- or ZEPCert 7 regulations. 8 As a background, Lion is a leading provider of 9 all electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including 10 zero-mission shuttle, buses school buses, and heavy-duty 11 zero-emission trucks. We have over 200 electric school 12 buses in operation in North America that have been safely 13 carrying kids to and from school every day for the past 14 three years with over two million miles of service. 15 Building on the success of our zero-emission 16 school bus, our zero-emission shuttle bus utilizes the 17 same powertrain, loader, and batteries. Our team 18 specializes in zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle deployment 19 and are one of the few manufacturers in North America to 20 dedicate its production entirely to zero-emission 21 fully-integrated heave-duty vehicles. 22 We support the ZEPCert regulation today as it 23 will promote consistency and reliability for medium and 24 heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles. 25 We look forward to continuing to work with ARB to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 20
1 deploy more zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles across 2 California. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 MS. McGHEE: Good morning. My name is Lisa 6 McGhee with San Diego Airport Parking Company. 7 And I do want to thank this Board for coming up 8 with a measure to support the zero-emission powertrains. 9 They do speak to the fact that there have been problems in 10 the industry and fleets have been taking the risk 11 associated with this particular technology and it is at a 12 cost. And without some type of standard and measure, then 13 we're not going to get where we need to get to with this 14 technology. And we're spending thousands and millions of 15 dollars on taxpayer's money. 16 So I do want to say thank you wholeheartedly for 17 creating the standard and a regulation moving us forward 18 towards the future. It really is addressing problems that 19 we've already experienced from lessons learned. 20 I do have concerns as it relates to several 21 things within the measure, which include the fact that the 22 Class 2b and 3 vehicles, which are on your HVIP and are 23 commercial heavy-duty vehicles are being -- are not 24 included in this measure. And ARB -- and the air shuttle 25 buses are 40 percent of those vehicles.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 21
1 And so I'm concerned with that. And more 2 importantly on the CFR code 16, part 309, it addresses the 3 aftermarket kits that go into these 2b/3 vehicles, which 4 are completed vehicles. And when you install a kit that's 5 electric onto an existing vehicle before it's ultimately 6 sold to the purchaser, it's considered to be the 7 manufacturer's responsibility. 8 And so without creating the same types of 9 procedures and benchmarks for these vehicles, we're still 10 going to have the same gap and the same problems. For 11 example, you know, I've witnessed literally in my battery 12 modules wood at the ends of each side of the module just 13 to pack it, you know, right next to things that have high 14 voltage. These types of things need to stop. 15 These are risks that we're taking when we're 16 driving these vehicles, which is no different than air 17 quality. So I'm employ to make sure you take a deeper 18 dive into why are you separating this vehicle out or that 19 class of vehicle out? 20 Best practices should be included for all 21 commercial motor carriers. We are held to high safety 22 standards and we have motor carrier operating permits. 23 And we have CHP inspections every six months to one year, 24 and we have mandatory inspections that we have to provide 25 written reports every 90 days. And those are -- those are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 22
1 things that we're held to the safety standards within 2 those vehicles. And defaults, any failures all have to be 3 written, and a receipt to fix that vehicle before it can 4 go back on the road. 5 And so these types of real on-the-ground issues 6 are the things that I'm concerned about. And the 7 repairability is just another thing that we won't have 8 support without having standards for this particular class 9 of a vehicle. 10 So thank you. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 12 MS. WAHL: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 13 members of the Board. My name is Francesca Wahl and I'm 14 here today on behalf of Tesla. 15 Similar to some of the previous speakers, we 16 greatly appreciate staff's efforts over the past year to 17 really work with stakeholders and modify the original 18 45-day language in the proposal to incorporate our 19 stakeholder feedback. And we look forward to continuing 20 to provide feedback as it moves forward. 21 We believe the modifications that have been made 22 to many of the initial proposals in the certification 23 better reflect the current state of the industry. And 24 again, we believe that those can continue to be refined as 25 the market moves forward. So we look forward to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 23
1 continuing to work with the Air Resources Board on the 2 ongoing efforts underway to incorporate this proposal and 3 other programs, and to make sure that we are able to 4 remove the barriers that made California a home for 5 light-duty zero-emission vehicles, and can also help grow 6 the heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle market here in this 7 state. 8 So we thank you for your leadership on this 9 effort and we look forward to continuing to work with 10 everyone in the implementation phase. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 12 And we do have one more witness who signed up 13 after the first list. 14 Hi. 15 MS. GOLDSMITH: Hi. Good morning, Chair Nichols 16 and members of theBoard. My name is Hannah Goldsmith and 17 I'm with the California Electric Transportation Coalition. 18 Thank you for revising the list to let me speak. 19 So we've been coordinating an internal working 20 group of around 20 manufacturers over the course of this 21 proceeding to provide feedback that includes both 22 traditional manufacturers as well as those that produce 23 only zero-emission technologies. 24 CARB staff have put in a lot of time to work with 25 us on this on proposal and we appreciate their commitment
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 24
1 to taking our feedback seriously and their willingness to 2 work with us on amendments. We're pleased to say that 3 we're neutral on the proposal as revised by the 15-day 4 modifications. However, we do have one recommendation, as 5 you heard before, from Mr. Blubaugh from EMA. 6 Given that the proposed regulations would require 7 many changes to current warranty recall documentation and 8 reporting practices for medium- and heavy-duty 9 zero-emission vehicles starting with model year 2021, we 10 do think that they should remain voluntary, as currently 11 drafted, until model year 2023. 12 The regulations will sill result in substantive 13 changes to current practices and add costs to the 14 manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles. We believe that 15 keeping certification optional for this two-year period 16 will allow for manufacturers, fleets, and stakeholders, 17 and CARB staff to work together to implement the 18 certification process to refine the regulations, if 19 necessary, to ensure they support the objectives of the 20 regulations and accelerate and promote ZEV deployment. 21 By voluntary, we mean that the regulations would 22 not be required as eligibility criteria for any funding 23 program like HVIP, or the VW NOx Mitigation Fund, or 24 regulation until model year 2023. 25 We also recommend that staff report back to the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 25
1 Board on the implementation of the regulations once 2 adopted and amended, and before the regulations are made 3 mandatory through a funding program or regulatory action. 4 This review could be similar to the direction that was 5 provided in the resolution for the Innovative Clean 6 Transit Rule. 7 This is a particularly challenging ZEV market 8 segment and one that CalETC believes is essential to meet 9 the State's clean air, climate change, and economic goals. 10 We recognize that a balance must be struck between the 11 objectives of this certification program and promoting and 12 accelerating zero-emission vehicle deployment. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Could you stay up for 15 just a minute. I don't necessarily think you are required 16 to speak on behalf of your entire industry or all your 17 members, but I actually have questions about how this is 18 going to work and specifically about your recommendation 19 in making it voluntary. 20 Because as with many things in this area, this 21 whole electrification effort that we're embarked on, we're 22 trying to provide some level of consumer protection 23 frankly and assurance to the public, at the same time, we 24 are responsible for helping to make this whole industry 25 viable more rapidly than it is now. So there's a little
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 26
1 bit of tension around those things. 2 But it doesn't seem to me that just saying you 3 don't have to do it until the 2023 model year is going to 4 get us where we need to go in terms of having those who 5 have equipment that should get certified actually come in 6 and learn how to do it. I've been thinking about this 7 ever since I, you know, spoke with you and representatives 8 of your organization a week or so ago, and wondering why 9 we couldn't have a system where everybody is required to 10 apply for certification, but we don't necessarily have the 11 requirement that you have succeeded in getting a 12 certification, you know, before a somewhat later period? 13 And so I'm looking for a compromise here, whereby 14 every -- everybody is learning as you say. There will be 15 changes. I think there's just no doubt about it, that, 16 you know, as we go along we'll learn some things and 17 everybody will learn some things about how this equipment 18 actually functions and how the certification needs to 19 work. 20 But at the same time, just putting it off for a 21 couple years doesn't get us where we need to go. So I'd 22 really like to hear from you some suggestion about 23 something more than just, you know, extending the deadline 24 as to how we could collaborate, frankly, because this 25 really is a partnership at this point and I'd like to keep
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 27
1 it that way, how we could make this work more effectively 2 and not just wait. 3 MS. GOLDSMITH: Yes. No, I agree with what you 4 said. I think what I've learned from our members as well 5 as other manufacturers that we've worked with is that they 6 would want to come in starting with model year 2021 to get 7 certified. 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm. 9 MS. GOLDSMITH: The concern is that there may be 10 hiccups in that process that could slow down the market 11 and would result in a delay in rolling out vehicles under 12 HVIP or something if it were tied to that program. It's 13 not that we would want the regulations as drafted for that 14 model year 2021 to change to model year 2023. We really 15 just are looking for a commitment from the Board that once 16 it starts to be implemented and manufacturers are coming 17 in, and complying, and getting certification, if there are 18 issues starting with model year 2021 or 2022 that need to 19 be worked out, we would like to see that worked out before 20 it's tied to a funding program. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm. 22 MS. GOLDSMITH: The concern is really that we 23 would adopt the regulation today, and then in October, or 24 soon after, say, okay, this is now required for HVIP 25 starting with model year 2021 before we have experience
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 28
1 implementing the program and jumping through any hurdles 2 or fixing things that may need to be fixed. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Right. 4 MS. GOLDSMITH: I hope that helped. 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, thank you for that 6 clarification. And I don't know if other Board members 7 have questions or comments about how to deal with this 8 situation or if the staff wants to respond to the question 9 at this point. 10 Maybe, staff. 11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION ASSISTANT CHIEF 12 CARTER: Sure I could start. Everything you said, Mary, I 13 couldn't -- I couldn't have said it better. I mean why 14 wait the two years. And if you take a worst case, for 15 example, if a certain incentive program or regulatory 16 program required this as 2021, those issues that Hannah 17 raised would be brought before this Board for that 18 particular measure. If there is something unique about a 19 measure or regulatory -- incentive program or regulatory 20 measure, those issues would be raised at that time. 21 But to delay it two years when you may have 22 manufacturers that want to use the procedure in '21, it 23 makes no sense. Some of the manufacturers want to use it, 24 even as Hannah said, for marketing purposes or whatever. 25 So we see no reason to delay.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 29
1 VICE CHAIR BERG: So I'd just like to follow up 2 on that. So what I'm hearing though from industry is a 3 confusion of what does it mean to start. So if people are 4 coming in and starting the process of getting certified 5 for 2021 and 2022, and they're in that process, does that 6 mean they're in compliance and will be able to apply for 7 funding programs? 8 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION ASSISTANT CHIEF 9 CARTER: If the particular funding program requires this 10 procedure, then yes. But it would depend -- it would 11 depend on the specific funding program, if they require 12 this procedure. 13 VICE CHAIR BERG: Okay. So what I'm hearing from 14 you then is that those -- those programs that are going to 15 require, it would come back to the Board and it would be 16 part of a new discussion, and timing, and other concerns 17 would come up at that time for us to be able to readdress 18 it. There's nothing today that goes into effect after we 19 vote by 10:00 o'clock that says as of 10:00 o'clock today, 20 there is something in effect that they have to apply -- 21 that does affect them today? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Vice Chair, 23 Berg, if I may. This is a voluntary certification. It 24 will be required as part of other programs. So 25 eventually, we expect that it would be included in any of
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 30
1 those funding programs, the incentive programs like HVIP. 2 And the Board would then consider the start date that 3 these -- this voluntary certification would be required as 4 part of that future program. 5 What you will hear today - the next item is the 6 airport shuttle bus - will tie this voluntary program to 7 the requirements for airport shuttle bus. So it's true 8 that this is voluntary and you will be considering, after 9 you vote on this, the Airport Shuttle Bus Regulation, 10 which then would require the certification that is used 11 here for that program. 12 VICE CHAIR BERG: But we'll be able -- 13 CHAIR NICHOLS: And out of the box, they're going 14 to say we're not ready, because they haven't lived with it 15 yet. 16 VICE CHAIR BERG: So we'll be able to discuss 17 timing though -- 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: That's correct. 19 VICE CHAIR BERG: -- when we talk about that at 20 the airport shuttles? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: That's exactly 22 right. And for any -- 23 VICE CHAIR BERG: Okay. Thank you. 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: -- future 25 program, such as HVIP, new -- a new proposal would have to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 31
1 come in front of you to change those rules for that 2 program. 3 VICE CHAIR BERG: That helps me. I'm 4 comfortable. Thank you. 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: And so I understand that this 6 needs to be free-standing approach, because it has its own 7 set of technical requirements and that you will be able to 8 continue working on it. But I think it's important that 9 everybody understands that this is going to be a 10 work-in-progress, and that -- I mean, from my point of 11 view, it's not that I'm unwilling to be updated on how 12 things are going. I would love to be. But, you know, if 13 there's going to be 51 technical changes in the 14 documentation every time there's a new application for a 15 funding program, I'm really not sure that that needs to be 16 coming to the Board. I'd like to think that that -- that 17 those changes could be made by the staff on an ongoing 18 basis. And if we need to take some action to direct that 19 that happen, I think -- I think we should do that. 20 VICE CHAIR BERG: And I would agree with that, 21 Chair Nichols. And on top of that, when we do have 22 hiccups and problems, they send -- they tend to make their 23 way to the Board. 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm. 25 VICE CHAIR BERG: And there also are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 32
1 opportunities through public testimony at the end of every 2 Board meeting to bring problems back to the Board. So I 3 would agree that the details we would really like to have 4 the staff work through and understand that we all are on a 5 learning curve. So don't be so tied to what you perceive 6 outcome is, keep open, because there's going to be lots of 7 changes and lots of learning. And so we're counting on 8 you, staff, to be the leaders in recognizing when changes 9 need to be made and truly be proactive in that. 10 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 11 Any other comments or questions at this point. 12 If not, I can ask for a motion and call the question. 13 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: So moved. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Motion 15 VICE CHAIR BERG: Second. 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: And a second. 17 All right. I think with the direction that 18 you've heard, all in favor, please say aye? 19 (Unanimous aye vote.) 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: Opposed? 21 Any abstentions? 22 Okay. Thanks. Onward. 23 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: Chair Nichols, I think you 24 closed the record, but I just want to confirm that the 25 record is closed. I mean, you had the vote, but the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 33
1 record was closed and then you voted, is that correct? 2 CHAIR NICHOLS: I'm sorry? 3 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: I just wanted to confirm on 4 the record that the record was closed before -- 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, I did not formally announce 6 that the record was closed. 7 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: I'm not sure that you did. 8 We were having that other discussion -- 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. 10 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: -- and you might have. I 11 just missed -- 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: No, I didn't actually say those 13 words. I just kind of said we're done and let's get the 14 discussion under way. So we did formally close the 15 record -- 16 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: Thank you 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: -- before we voted. 18 Okay, on to 19-6-2, the proposed Zero-Emission 19 Airport Shuttle Regulation. The first hearing for this 20 proposal took place in February. This regulation was 21 developed to help transition one important element of the 22 heavy-duty sector to zero-emission's technology. And it 23 would also fulfill a commitment in the 2016 State 24 Implementation Plan for airport shuttles to complement 25 existing programs to achieve NOx and greenhouse gas
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 34
1 reductions. 2 During the February hearing, there were a number 3 of comments by members of the public and Board members. 4 As a result, staff modified the original proposal to 5 address these concerns. And the staff and interested 6 parties have worked together during this process to make 7 sure that the transition to a zero-emission future goes as 8 smoothly as possible and that airport shuttles continue to 9 be as reliable and clean as possible. 10 So we're now moving on to the actual application 11 of what we just talked about. 12 Mr. Corey. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair. 14 Staff, as you noted, will present its final 15 proposal for the Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. 16 The proposed regulation is identified in the 2016 State 17 Implementation Plan to help contribute to CARB's air 18 quality and climate goals while providing a bridge towards 19 zero-emission pathways in other sectors. Previously, as 20 noted, the Board identified this sector as one that would 21 aid the expansion and implementation of zero-emission 22 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 23 During the February Board meeting, many of the 24 public and the Board supported the overall goals of the 25 regulation. However, there were also comments that
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 35
1 expressed concern about various aspects of the proposal. 2 These concerns included the need for language to address 3 emergency use, as well as a public process to assure 4 transparency for any requested compliance flexibility. 5 The proposal that will be presented today has 6 been modified accordingly and includes added language that 7 clarifies and addresses these issues. 8 With almost 1,000 airport shuttles in operation, 9 the proposed regulation is expected to reduce greenhouse 10 gas emissions by 500,000 metrics tons and result in a 11 corresponding beneficial impact of about 30 million. 12 These enhancements to the proposal will encourage 13 fleet owners to convert to cleaner technology, ensure that 14 airports and other shuttle operators will have a 15 sustainable economic path forward, and that operators will 16 continue to have access to federal and State incentive 17 funding during a majority of the transition period. 18 The updated proposal will also ensure that public 19 and private airport shuttle fleets will be able to provide 20 reliable, efficient zero-emission services for California 21 airport travelers. 22 Staff is recommending that the Board adopt the 23 proposed Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. With 24 that, I'll now ask Anthony Poggi from our Mobile Source 25 Control Division to give the staff presentation.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 36
1 Anthony. 2 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 3 presented as follows.) 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Thank you, Mr. 5 Corey. Good morning, Chair Nichols and Board members. 6 Today, I will present for your consideration our 7 Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. This is the 8 second of two hearings on this item. In the first hearing 9 in -- back in February, staff presented the original 10 proposal and recommended modifications based on 11 stakeholder comments. Additional changes, which were made 12 available during a 15-day comment period are responsive to 13 Board direction and additional stakeholder comments, and 14 are reflected in the updated proposal we are bringing to 15 you today. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: In this 18 presentation, I will review why zero-emission vehicle, or 19 ZEV, technology is a good match for the airport sector and 20 present a recap of staff's Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle 21 proposal along with the proposed 15-day changes. I will 22 also present the results of the final Environmental 23 Analysis and staff's recommendations to the Board. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Staff developed
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 37
1 this proposal to fulfill a commitment in the 2016 State 2 Implement Plan, or SIP. The SIP called for an airport 3 shuttle measure to complement existing programs to achieve 4 reductions of greenhouse gases and oxides of nitrogen 5 through the use of zero-emission technology. 6 By transitioning airport shuttles to 7 zero-emission technology, the regulation will help expand 8 the reach of the first wave of this technology in the 9 heavy-duty sector. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Airport shuttles 12 present a great opportunity for this expansion. Shuttles 13 operate up to 200 miles per day on short, fixed routes 14 with low average speeds and stop-and-go operation. ZEVs 15 have an advantage over internal combustion vehicles in 16 terms of energy and fuel efficiency as well as maintenance 17 costs when operating in this type of duty cycle. 18 Airport shuttles are centrally maintained and 19 fueled, which presents opportunities for overnight and 20 mid-day charging. As the technology evolves, costs and 21 performance will continue to improve furthering the 22 transition to ZEVs in the airport sector. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: In fact, ZEV 25 shuttles are already operating or on order at 10
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 38
1 California airports. This includes shuttle purchases 2 announced since our February Board hearing by San 3 Francisco International Airport and San Diego 4 International Airport. 5 In addition to the 48 ZEVs currently operating, 6 nearly 100 additional zero-emission shuttles have been 7 ordered. Combined, on order, and in-use ZEV shuttles 8 represent over 15 percent of all airport shuttles in 9 California. This is a significant portion, but continued 10 adoption is needed to meet our air quality and climate 11 goals. 12 Outside of California, major airports in New York 13 City, New Jersey, Atlanta, Kansas City, Indianapolis, and 14 Raleigh, North Carolina have adopted zero-emission 15 shuttles. These projects further demonstrate the 16 technological and market readiness of ZEVs for airport 17 operations. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: The cornerstone 20 of our proposal, which will drive the transition, is the 21 in-use fleet ZEV requirement. In addition, we are also 22 proposing reporting requirements and a no backsliding 23 provision. 24 Beginning in 2022, fleets will be required to 25 report the details of their zero-emission shuttles.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 39
1 Starting in 2023, if fleets are replacing a ZEV shuttle, 2 the replacement vehicle must also be a ZEV. Beginning 3 with model year 2026, heavy-duty shuttles must comply with 4 the Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Regulation in 5 order to be counted towards compliance with the 6 Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. 7 The in-use fleet requirements are phased in from 8 2027 through 2035 as shown here. This schedule is 9 designed to allow fleets to remain eligible for incentive 10 funding during a majority of the transition period, use 11 their current shuttles for the remainder of their useful 12 life, and provides adequate time for infrastructure 13 planning and installation. 14 Throughout the transition period, CARB staff will 15 work together with airport shuttle operators and 16 stakeholders of other CARB zero-emission regulations to 17 facilitate the sharing of technological information and 18 implementation strategies. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Since the 21 previous Board hearing, staff has continued to work with 22 stakeholders while developing the 15-day changes. The 23 changes made, include refining the language concerning 24 compliance flexibilities of the proposal, which ensures 25 service continuity throughout the transition period.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 40
1 As discussed during the February Board hearing, 2 staff has added language to exempt emergency usage 3 situations. Staff has also added flexibility by allowing 4 on-line verification and removing the three-year record 5 keeping requirement. 6 In response to comments from the Board during the 7 February hearing, staff also added language to clarify 8 compliance dates for fleets containing one or two shuttles 9 and added a 30-day public comment period to the compliance 10 extension applications for greater transparency. 11 Staff has also continued discussions regarding 12 the various incentive programs available to airport 13 shuttle operators. Communication with the Federal 14 Aviation Administration has reinforced that federal 15 incentive funds will remain available to California 16 airports. And, as the 2019-2020 funding plan continues to 17 take shape, we'll use our listserve to alert our 18 stakeholders to any new or changing incentive 19 opportunities. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Economically, 22 the switch to zero-emission vehicles will result in 23 long-term savings. Staff has prepared an economic 24 analysis detailing potential economic impacts. This 25 analysis shows that zero-emission airport shuttles, like
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 41
1 most new technologies, may have a higher upfront cost, but 2 they have lower operating costs than their internal 3 combustion counterparts. 4 Overall, our analysis estimates that the proposal 5 will yield cost savings of $30 million to airport shuttle 6 operators from the year 2020 to 2040. These savings are 7 due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs and include the 8 use of Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits for electricity. 9 Although, each shuttle fleet is different, we've 10 found that zero-emission airport shuttles have a positive 11 payback over their useful life and overall savings begin 12 to weigh -- outweigh the overall costs in eighth year of 13 operation. This payback occurs even in the absence of 14 available incentive opportunities that can reduce or 15 eliminate much of the upfront costs of ownership. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Staff previously 18 prepared a Draft Environmental Analysis, or Draft EA, for 19 the proposed regulation and released it in January for a 20 45-day comment period. The Draft EA concluded that 21 implementation of the proposed regulation could bring 22 beneficial impacts to energy demand, greenhouse gases, and 23 long-term air quality. 24 It also concluded there could be several 25 potential -- potentially significant adverse impacts
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 42
1 primarily related to short-term construction activities. 2 While staff previously circulated proposed 15-day 3 regulatory modifications for public review that are before 4 you today, those modifications do not change 5 implementation of the regulation in any way that is 6 anticipated to affect the conclusions of the Environmental 7 Analysis. 8 Staff prepared the written responses to all 9 comments raising environmental issues on the Draft EA. 10 These comments were received during the 45-day comment 11 period, the previous Board meeting, and a 15-day comment 12 period. The written responses were posted on CARB's 13 website on June 24th as was the Final EA. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: The analysis 16 shows that the proposal will contribute to air quality 17 improvement throughout the State, including low income and 18 disadvantaged communities, especially those in proximity 19 to major airports. The results of the analysis included 20 statewide emission reductions of 138 tons of NOx and a 90 21 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from the airport 22 shuttle sector by 2040. Although the total tons of 23 reductions are not high, the proposal yields additional 24 important benefits. 25 The deployment of ZEVs will also reduce reliance
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 43
1 on petroleum fuels and support job creation from the 2 manufacturing of ZEVs, and the installation of fueling 3 infrastructure. It will also support the SIP goal to 4 increase adoption of ZEV technology in the heavy-duty 5 sectors. By requiring ZEP certification, not only will 6 shuttle purchasers benefit, but the proposal will also 7 encourage increased manufacturing and elements like 8 workforce training and maintenance expertise. We are 9 committed to partnering with stakeholders to augment these 10 processes, which will increase consumer confidence in 11 zero-emission vehicles. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: I'd also like to 14 note that this proposal is only one of several efforts to 15 reduce emissions associated with airports. South Coast 16 Air Quality Management District is working with their 17 airports on memorandums of understanding to achieve 18 addition -- additional emission reductions. They hope to 19 finalize that process later this year. 20 Additionally, the recently approved Senate Bill 21 1014, authored by Senator Skinner, requires transportation 22 network companies to reduce greenhouse gases and 23 transition to ZEVs in California. Staff plans to bring a 24 proposed regulation with annual reduction targets to the 25 CARB Board in 2020. This Clean Miles Standard regulation
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 44
1 will require emission reductions for ride-hailing 2 companies, including those that operate on and around 3 airports. 4 Staff is also developing a proposal that would 5 achieve emission reductions by requiring zero-emission 6 airport ground support equipment. 7 Finally, it should be recognized that airports 8 have also implemented other efforts, such as electric rail 9 and links to public transit, that may reduce their 10 reliance on airport shuttles. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST POGGI: Staff recommends 13 that the Board approve the resolution, which would include 14 approval of the written responses to comments, the 15 certification of the Final EA, adoption of the required 16 CEQA findings and the adoption of the proposed regulation. 17 Moving forward, we will keep monitoring the 18 status of zero-emission shuttles and market developments. 19 We will also continue to work with airports, businesses, 20 and other stakeholders to implement the Zero-Emission 21 Airport Shuttle Regulation. 22 This includes my presentation. Thank you. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 24 We have a good list of witnesses here, so let's 25 get started, some of them testified on the earlier item.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 45
1 Welcome you back. 2 MS. CLAIRE GARCIA: My Chair Nichols and ARB 3 Board members again. I'm still Claire Garcia with the 4 Lion Electric Company. 5 I don't need to go over background again, but I 6 would like to thank you for the opportunity to support the 7 Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. We support this 8 regulation and believe it is a practical approach to allow 9 airports time to plan and procure zero-emission shuttle 10 buses, while maintaining the State's strong environmental 11 goals and policies. 12 We strongly support continued funding of 13 incentive programs as available throughout the entire life 14 of the regulation. We look forward to continuing to 15 working with ARB, as well as the airports across 16 California, to deploy zero-emission shuttles. 17 Thank you 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 19 Good morning. 20 MR. O'DEA: Good morning, Chair Nichols, Board. 21 Jimmy O'Dea, Union of Concerned Scientists. On behalf of 22 our members across the state, we support this standard. 23 And just want to point out a few points -- you know, it 24 might seem like a smaller standard, 1,000 vehicles, and we 25 have, you know, 1.9 million trucks and buses across the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 46
1 state. 2 I just want to point out what this standard means 3 from a policy standpoint. It's one of the strongest 4 policies I can identify to date on electric vehicle 5 transition. A 2035 goal is at least five years ahead of 6 what the Transit Bus Standard that the Board passed in 7 December will achieve. So I think the Board has a lot of 8 reasons to be proud about advancing the technology in 9 these areas that are most suitable at a quick rate. 10 Second, of course, I just want to point out that 11 for every heavy-duty vehicle you replace, there's a lot 12 more bang for buck -- your buck than on the light-duty 13 side. So even, you know, 1,000 vehicles on the bus side 14 is about 7,500 vehicles on the car side from a GHG 15 perspective. 16 So a good bang for their buck. And finally, as 17 staff pointed out, this regulation is for shuttle buses. 18 But all you have to do is look at what a shuttle bus is. 19 And, you know, you see a Hilton logo on a Mercedes 20 Sprinter van, and that's the same vehicle as an Amazon 21 delivery van, just with a different logo and maybe 22 different interiors. 23 So I think that this standard will really set a 24 precedent for manufacturers to start thinking about 25 vehicles that they make, not just for shuttle buses for
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 47
1 the much larger truck sector. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 4 Yeah, it's a nice fleet demonstration program, a 5 good size, and in a sector where there's a lot of 6 emissions as well, so thank you. 7 MS. SAMBLANET: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 8 members of the Board. My name is Paige Samblanet, and I'm 9 here today on behalf of Earthjustice. 10 On behalf of the Right To Zero team at 11 Earthjustice, I'm here to support moving forward with the 12 Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. 13 Climate change is one of largest threats we face 14 today, and greenhouse gas emissions are a major driver of 15 this threat. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not 16 only suggested but necessary in order to prevent the 17 global temperature from increasing past 1.5 degrees 18 Celsius and changing life on earth as we know it. 19 California has always led by example by creating 20 regulations and strategies to combat climate change and 21 reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cutting edge 22 innovative ideas. With such bills as the 2016 SB 32 and 23 plans such as the 2016 Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan, it only 24 makes sense to create a regulation such as this that will 25 turn our airport shuttle industry into a zero-emission
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 48
1 model. 2 The Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation 3 helps to achieve necessary emissions reductions that 4 California has promised in its State Implementation Plan, 5 while doing so in a way that makes the process streamlined 6 and produces numerous benefits. 7 The 2027, 2031, and 2035 benchmarks and the 8 funding and grant opportunities provide the requested 9 flexibilities for the industry, but also ensure the 10 ultimate destination of a zero-emission airport shuttle 11 fleet is actually realized. 12 Zero-emission shuttle technologies are also 13 currently available, which further bolsters the fact that 14 the transition is feasible. Currently, there are already 15 roughly 110 zero-emission airport shuttles that are either 16 in-use or on order in California. And numerous shuttle 17 operators have already expressed their recognition of 18 zero-emission vehicles being a good fit for this industry. 19 And this just reaffirms the appropriateness and 20 practicableness of this regulation. 21 And additionally, while regulations such as this 22 that have clear greenhouse gas emissions reductions that 23 will decrease California's emissions from the 24 transportation sector, there's also one additionally 25 extremely important benefit, and that's healthier air near
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 49
1 the airport communities. 2 And the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 3 and being in compliance with federal air quality standards 4 is only truly realized by looking at the communities that 5 benefit from the improved air quality and the improvement 6 of community health in and around the airport shuttles. 7 The airport shuttles run constantly and emit air 8 pollution along these routes. And this regulation will 9 help to decrease transportation emissions and show these 10 communities that their lives are important and that 11 California will continue to go green, not just to reduce 12 greenhouse gas emissions, but to improve lives. 13 Earthjustice supports moving forward with this 14 regulation and continuing advancing zero-emission 15 technologies. 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 17 MS. SAMBLANET: Thank you. 18 MR. BARRETT: Good morning. I'm Will Barrett 19 with the American Lung Association speaking in support of 20 the rule today. The Airport Shuttle Rule provides the 21 most recent example of CARB's Dedication to protecting 22 public health in California through the transition to 23 zero-emission technologies. We appreciate the dedication 24 of your staff to this important effort over the last year 25 to two years.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 50
1 This proposal keeps the SIP commitments to 2 protect public health and to meeting our climate 3 standards, and we appreciate you moving this forward 4 today. 5 This week over 70 health organizations across the 6 United States released a call to action on climate, 7 health, and equity. One of the clear statements and calls 8 to action that we made in that document was supporting the 9 rapid transition reduction of petroleum and natural gas in 10 the transportation sector and the transition to 11 zero-emission technologies. 12 Earlier this year in California, health 13 organizations issued a similar call that was specifically 14 referencing the airport shuttle segment as ready for 15 zero-emission technologies. 16 So we do encourage you to move forward with rule, 17 make sure that this proposal spurs that transition we need 18 zero-emission technologies to protect public health from 19 combustion emission sources, especially in our most 20 disadvantaged communities like the previous speaker noted. 21 The airports are going to collect a lot of that local 22 source pollution and this rule will really help to 23 alleviate that. 24 So we do look forward to working with the Board 25 and the staff going forward to make sure that as more of
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 51
1 these targeted very strong zero-emission technology 2 standards come forward, that the public health community 3 is ready to work with you to ensure that they move forward 4 as quickly as possible to protect public health through 5 cleaner air and a stable climate. 6 So thank you very much. 7 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 8 MR. LITES: Good morning. Jim Lites, Executive 9 Director of the California Airports Council. 10 California airports are indeed already moving 11 forward with electrification, as the staff report showed. 12 In fact, the San Jose Airport is pretty much finished with 13 the process, and Sacramento and several others not far 14 behind. So we've been encouraged by the work with the 15 staff and in particular conversations that will examine 16 airport progress on complete electrification, as we do 17 approach a date where our FAA funding eligibility for 18 California airports for this purpose will potentially or 19 effectively become in question. And so we look forward to 20 those conversations as we go forward. 21 Thank you very much. 22 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 23 MR. LEACOCK: Good morning, Chair Nichols -- 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning. 25 MR. LEACOCK: -- and the rest of the Board. I'm
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 52
1 Kent Leacock. I'm with Proterra, a leading manufacturer 2 of zero-emission buses in the U.S. And rather than repeat 3 over and over again, I will say that we have successfully 4 deployed zero-emission buses at San Jose Airport. We will 5 be deploying zero-emission buses at Sacramento Airport, 6 and we will be deploying zero-emission buses at San 7 Francisco Airport. So the technology is ready. It's 8 here. The airports are implementing them. 9 And so we'd just like to congratulate the staff 10 and thank them for their hard work over the last couple of 11 years. This is a process that has moved very efficiently 12 and I think it will work out well for all parties 13 involved. 14 In the interests of efficiency, I didn't sign up 15 to speak about the ZEP Certification. I know how you love 16 efficiency, Chair Nichols. So my given time, I will also 17 say that we support and congratulate your positive vote on 18 the certification regulations, because we think that 19 despite the fact that electrification is a nascent sort of 20 industry, those types of certifications are necessary for 21 the end consumer to ensure that the State's valuable 22 dollars are being used to support technology that is safe 23 and reliable. So we look forward to engaging with CARB 24 and staff as we move forward in progressing the 25 certification process and look forward to supporting the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 53
1 growth of zero-emission in the heavy-duty sector for 2 airports. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 5 Good morning. 6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 7 Presented as follows.) 8 MS. SICKLER: Good morning, Chair Nichols. Heidi 9 Sickler with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank 10 you for allowing me to show this PowerPoint presentation. 11 If you'd please advance it to slide 2. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. SICKLER: Silicon Valley Leadership Group is 14 proud to be in strong support of this regulation. I want 15 to thank you and your staff for all your hard work on it 16 as my colleague Kent Leacock just commented. We've seen 17 tremendous success so far at San Jose Airport, where 18 they've deployed ten zero-emission buses along with 10 19 interoperable charging systems, one for each bus. And I 20 want to take the next two and a half minutes to show one 21 of our -- Proterra's success story with San Jose Airport. 22 We're very proud of their work and they're one of our 23 member companies. 24 So thank you for your consideration and in your 25 leadership on this rulemaking.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 54
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Than you. One of the things that 2 doesn't get highlighted enough I think is how quiet 3 electric shuttles are. 4 (Thereupon a video was played.) 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. 6 (Laughter.) 7 CHAIR NICHOLS: Amazing. 8 (Laughter.) 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Was that built into the video? 10 (Laughter.) 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: It should be. Thanks very much. 12 That was great. 13 MS. McGHEE: Good morning. San Diego Airport 14 Parking Company. Lisa McGhee. 15 San Diego Airport Parking really does appreciate 16 this measure. However, I am concerned with two of the 17 items associated with the measure. The kilowatt hour used 18 as fuel for commercial use is not reflected based on 19 real-world use. Kilowatt hour prices change by time of 20 day, by season, or hourly. The electric prices are an 21 average of the California market for facility and 22 residential uses. This does not reflect its use as fuel 23 for commercial vehicles that are exposed to high demand 24 fees. 25 SDG&E trends since 2005 is 9 percent higher than
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 55
1 PG&E and SCE. It is higher than the Consumer Price Index. 2 Please consider an accurate kilowatt hour price analysis 3 in San Diego, as operators in San Diego will face the 4 burden of higher kilowatt hour cost when driving ZEVs. 5 Number two, again, the Class 2b and 3 vehicles 6 will not fall within this measure. 19,500 active vehicles 7 exist in ground transportation operators at LAX, San 8 Francisco, and San Diego and results in 10.7 million trips 9 annually. However, only 752 vehicles, or 4 percent, are 10 incorporated by this measure out of the 19,500 ground 11 transportation vehicles. 12 What is interesting, 4.4 million trips out of the 13 10.7 million trips annually could potentially be ZEV miles 14 if the Class 2b and 3 vehicles were part of this measure. 15 However, due to the fact that Class 2b and 3 are 16 not included, this will continue to make these adopters of 17 this class as taking risk without a ZEP certification. 18 This also eliminates an opportunity of 1.8 19 million annual trips, which is 300 vehicles or 40 percent 20 of the on- and off-airport vehicles. Please, consider 21 supporting all classes of the on- and off-airport vehicles 22 to reduce another 1.8 million annual trips to ZEV miles at 23 the large California hub airports. 24 Use cases by airport operators. Just as an 25 example, San Diego Airport Parking Company has -- you
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 56
1 know, we're parking close to 700 to 1,000 vehicles every 2 day. We're parking those vehicles for the customers that 3 go to the airport and they stay for an average of three to 4 five days. These are opportunities that we have to 5 continue to impact electrification. 6 In addition to that, our fleet miles traveled are 7 600 miles a day. And we're a small operator. So we all 8 are using a lot of miles daily running at 24/7 operation, 9 which continues to find ways that we could support 10 electrification, if you can continue to find ways to help 11 support this measure for us. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 14 Sorry. Do we have Vincent? 15 If not, we can move on to Mr. Rushing. 16 MR. RUSHING: I am not Vincent. 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: Who are you? 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. RUSHING: Good morning, Madam Chair and Board 20 Members. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Hi. 22 MR. RUSHING: My name is Rocky Rushing. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Hi, Rocky. 24 MR. RUSHING: I'm representing the Coalition for 25 Clean Air.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 57
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 2 MR. RUSHING: CCA ports the Zero-Emission Airport 3 Shuttle Regulation and thanks staff and stakeholders for 4 the hard work that has brought this proposal before you 5 today. Converting California's airport shuttle to 6 zero-emission is one factor in a many faceted equation to 7 meet our state's air quality, greenhouse gas reduction, 8 and public health targets. 9 The transportation sector is California's hard 10 nut to track when it comes to combating climate change and 11 meeting federal air quality standards. 12 In the South Coast Air Basin, home to about half 13 of California's population, more than 80 percent of 14 smog-forming NOx can be attributed to mobile sources. 15 Statewide, they're responsible for 50 percent of GHG 16 emissions. As others have mentioned, this regulation was 17 included in the 2016 SIP, so we're happy to see it reach 18 the Board for a final vote today. 19 The timeline for total fleet transition to 100 20 percent zero-emission by 2035 will give airports and fleet 21 operators ample time to plan and seek incentive dollars 22 before the first fleet requirements take hold in 2027. 23 In addition to the air quality improvement, this 24 regulation will bring the communities surrounding 25 airports. Moving California's airport shuttle buses to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 58
1 zero emission will assist other medium- and heavy-duty 2 players in the transportation sector to make that 3 transition as well. 4 The emission benefits of this and similar 5 regulations, coupled with our electrical grid moving to 6 100 percent renewable by 2045 will move California closer 7 to a carbon free future. 8 Thank you for your consideration. 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 10 Ms. Collins. 11 MS. COLLINS: Hi. Good morning. My name is Mei 12 Collins, and I'm a current college student in support of 13 the proposal on behalf of CALPIRG and Environment 14 California. 15 We are thankful for the steps that California has 16 taken to state at the forefront of climate action by 17 committing to carbon-free electricity by 2045. This 18 measure is yet another step to achieve that goal and is 19 especially important to protect the health of 20 Californians. 21 Activity at airports produces significant amounts 22 of ozone and other harmful chemicals contributing to a 23 lack of attainment to federal ozone standards in many 24 portions of the state. 25 Transitioning to zero-emission airport shuttles
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 59
1 means that the millions of travelers arriving in 2 California will have the confidence of a breath of fresh 3 air upon landing in the Golden State. 4 Thank you for your time. 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 6 Mr. Kenny. 7 MR. KENNY: Hi. Good morning, Chair Nichols, 8 members of the Board. My name is Ryan Kenny with Clean 9 Energy. We are the nation's largest provider of renewable 10 natural gas transportation fuel. 11 And I come before you in the spirit of 12 collaboration. As you may recall, our company and 13 industry was concerned about this moving forward. And 14 some of the issues that we have with it is that we do 15 believe it's overly optimistic, based on timeline and 16 cost. We are concerned that it does underestimate the 17 potential public health and economic cost to society, and 18 not incorporated in the overall strategy, both on a 19 short-term and near-term timeline. 20 We also are concerned that it's not as cost 21 effective by having an overall strategy with both 22 near-zero and zero, and that we also provide immediate 23 solution, whereas this may take some time to be 24 implemented. We're also a non-fossil solution with the 25 renewable natural gas.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 60
1 That being said, with this very likely moving 2 forward this morning, the near-zero industry is ready to 3 support our customers should there be any issues with 4 implementation. We also would like to be considered a 5 partner with ARB to ensure that no backsliding occurs in 6 or around the airport facilities. 7 So please take that into consideration as this 8 moves forward. I'd like to make one also -- one point 9 also, that there is a general sentiment that if this does 10 not move forward as planned, as far as implementation, 11 that ARB could just amend this at a later date. And I 12 think that might be a sentiment across other programs and 13 rulemaking as well. 14 But I would like to add that market certainty is 15 important. Business investment is important. And the 16 signals provided to the business community are heard loud 17 and clear. So as this moves forward and near zero is 18 phased out, those decisions will be made. So we'd like, 19 you know, the Board to take that into consideration as 20 well in a more long-term strategy with the business 21 community. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate your 24 comments. 25 MS. KATHERINE GARCIA: Good morning, Chair
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 61
1 Nichols and Board members. I'm Katherine Garcia, Policy 2 Advocate for Sierra Club California. And on behalf of our 3 400,000 members and supporters statewide, we strongly 4 support the proposed Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Bus 5 Rule. 6 California has made adequate funding available 7 through incentive programs to assist airport shuttle bus 8 fleet operators in paying for the capital costs for 9 transitioning to zero-emission shuttle buses. 10 It is noteworthy that the additional revenues 11 received from these grants, the total cost of ownership 12 becomes even less, producing more savings for operators. 13 This proposed rule is both economically feasible and cost 14 effective. 15 The Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Bus Rule offers 16 many benefits, including reductions in criteria pollutants 17 especially in disadvantaged communities, reductions in 18 greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change, 19 growth of the California economy, creation of good -- 20 excuse me, good paying jobs, improvements in worker 21 health, and long-term financial savings for airports and 22 shuttle operators. 23 California is offering a model for the nation and 24 the world on how airports can successfully transition to 25 zero-emission vehicles.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 62
1 Thank you to the CARB staff for working on this 2 project. Sierra Club California urges CARB to approve 3 this measure today. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 And last, CalETC. 6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Hi. Hannah Goldsmith with the 7 California Electric Transportation Coalition. And I will 8 briefly say that Vincent Wiraatmadja let me know that he 9 had to run. He's here on behalf of BYD and they support 10 the measure. 11 So we also support the proposed measure. And we 12 particularly support the proposed regulation achieving 100 13 percent zero-emission airport shuttle fleets in California 14 by the end of 2035. This measure is an important step to 15 transition the state's fleets to zero-emission vehicles 16 and realize our climate change and clean air targets. 17 We believe the proposed regulatory timeline is 18 appropriate. It allows for about seven years of planning 19 time before the first regulatory purchase requirements 20 kick-in at the end of 2027. 21 We hope that this timeline will encourage fleets 22 to take advantage of both vehicle and infrastructure 23 incentive opportunities in the near term. And I will note 24 that we are comfortable with the link in this rule to the 25 Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Program, because it
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 63
1 does not start until 2026. 2 We appreciate staff's commitment to involve us 3 and other stakeholders throughout the development of this 4 proposed regulatory concept. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 7 And we do have one card that just came in from 8 ChargePoint. 9 MS. LEUMER: Thank you, Chair Nichols and members 10 of the Board. My name is Alex Leumer and I'm here on 11 behalf of ChargePoint to provide strong support for the 12 Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. 13 This rule builds on the policy framework that 14 CARB established through the Innovative Clean Transit 15 Regulation and will support the adoption of clean electric 16 transportation at airports throughout the state. 17 At the -- as the largest electric vehicle 18 charging network, ChargePoint looks forward to working 19 with airport fleet operators to help fuel this new fleet 20 of zero-emission shuttles and to help our airports 21 continue to be leaders in sustainability. 22 I would like to thank the staff and the Board for 23 your leadership on supporting the electrification of the 24 medium- and heavy-duty sector. And I respectfully ask for 25 your aye vote.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 64
1 Thank you. 2 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. And that does 3 concludes the list of witnesses. Does staff have any 4 comments that they want to make? I think you've got 5 nothing but support here. So I'm not sure that you need 6 to respond to anything, but if you feel like you do. 7 No. 8 Okay. Any questions? 9 Yes, Supervisor Serna. 10 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you, Chair. 11 I'm certainly prepared to move the item at the 12 right time after my colleagues have their opportunity to 13 make their comments. But I guess I wanted to just issue a 14 statement or perhaps form it as a question for our staff. 15 And that is, given the fact that airports naturally kind 16 of have the, you know, appropriate characteristics for the 17 deployment of zero-emission shuttles, what, if anything, 18 are we doing to look at, for instance, our public 19 campuses, our university systems here in the state of 20 California? It seems to me that that presents an even 21 greater opportunity for us to take advantage of kind of 22 the right environments for fixed route, to deploy even 23 more zero-emission shuttle vehicles. 24 So I don't know if there's an answer to that. 25 But if there's some comments that staff want to offer in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 65
1 that regard, I'd like to hear that. 2 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF KITOWSKI: 3 Certainly, Supervisor. This is Jack Kitowski. 4 You may remember in the transit area, I think your point 5 is right on, the campuses were some of the leading people 6 even before the transit agencies in utilizing 7 zero-emission shuttles. So we have worked with them. 8 We've provided funding with them. 9 In regard -- and we've done outreach and 10 coordination with them. In terms of regulatory aspects, 11 there -- they were not part of the transit rule. They're 12 not part of this. They don't quite fit. But they will be 13 part of the broader Advanced Clean Truck Rule -- truck and 14 bus really. 15 You know, we've talked at this Board about sort 16 of the Google shuttles as well. And so a preview of what 17 you'll be getting in December, we're going to be coming in 18 December with a proposed rule that will be targeted at the 19 manufacturers to make sure they start building a certain 20 number of these vehicles over time, as well as a second 21 part of that is going to be a reporting requirement by 22 fleets throughout the state, so we can better assess how 23 to target sort of the second stage of that. And then 24 we're going to come back in a couple of years with 25 appropriately structured fleet rules. And so the campuses
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 66
1 would be part -- wrapped into that part of it. 2 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Great. Thank you. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Other comments? 4 Starting down on the end. Ms. Takvorian. 5 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Thank you. 6 I just wanted to express my appreciation for the 7 staff and the work that you've done to bring us to this 8 point and the 15-day changes. I think that you've been 9 really responsive to the comments in the hearing that we 10 had previously. 11 I also want to appreciate all of the folks in the 12 community and the industry who have come forward and 13 worked with you. It's -- I think it's a huge step that 14 we're taking and one that we should really notice as very 15 important. I was particularly pleased with the emergency 16 response -- or the emergency utilization provision that 17 you included. And I also appreciated the incorporation of 18 the impacts on disadvantaged communities. And while we 19 noted that airports are often adjacent to or in 20 disadvantaged communities, I also wanted to note that both 21 storage yards and maintenance facilities for these 22 shuttles are often in disadvantaged communities as well. 23 So I think we're having an impact as we electrify 24 these vehicles as we go forward. So I'm happy to second 25 Supervisor Serna's motion when he makes it.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 67
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Well, we can have a 2 motion on the floor at this time and still have any 3 comments from Board Members who would like to comment 4 further. 5 Dr. Sherriffs. 6 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. 7 Great presentation. Appreciate all of the 8 testimony. So already 15 percent of the shuttles overall 9 are electrified. We've got examples like San Jose that 10 are 100 percent. And we have a couple of other airports 11 that look like within the next year or 18 months are going 12 to be 100 percent. What percent of those have we 13 incentivized? Do we have California climate investments 14 or other -- any guess? 15 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF KITOWSKI: 16 Actually, surprisingly maybe, very little of 17 those. They've been available. Our funding has been 18 available to them, but they've gone either -- they've gone 19 other routes to get funding for those programs. We're 20 starting to see a little bit of interest through the HVIP 21 Program now. 22 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Okay. Great. You know, 23 looking at the timeline and hearing about the successes 24 already, you know, boy, eight years to double the percent 25 that are currently electrified going from 15 to 30, 33
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 68
1 percent, 16 years to go to full electrification. In some 2 ways, it seems like a long time given the demonstrated 3 success. And I guess I would also recognize one thing, 4 because I know staff has worked very hard with the 5 stakeholders on this, obviously, it's more difficult than 6 that, and one size doesn't fit all, different solutions 7 for different airports. And it is a complex problem. 8 But I guess I also look and think about the 9 success. And looking 16 years to 100 percent, boy, I 10 think we need to think about the things we can do to help 11 people get there quicker, because clearly it's quite 12 feasible, technologically it's feasible. It's not a big 13 leap. 14 So I want to be sure that it's not, okay, great 15 job. There's great agreement. Done. Onto the next 16 thing. 17 No, I think there's still a lot of work to do 18 with this. And lots of the benefit, I think, will come 19 from us helping people adopt well before 2035, because 20 that is -- that is so possible. 21 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF KITOWSKI: 22 Yes, Dr. Sherriffs. I would agree with you. 23 Similar to our strategy on transit, we are going to be 24 taking the implementation of this very seriously in what 25 we can do. And I can envision a scenario where we reach a
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 69
1 tipping point and it moves faster than the regulation in 2 front of us, and that's a great thing. 3 But I think the regulation is set in a sort of 4 sound methodical way. There are real issues in terms of 5 infrastructure to work through, workforce training, you 6 know, sort of a build-up that, you know, we need to make 7 sure it's done right and don't take the market. But I'm 8 in complete agreement with your comment. 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thanks. 10 Anybody else? 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair? 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, Ms. Riordan. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: One of the things that 14 occurs to me is we are moving forward on this, which is a 15 great program, great opportunities. We also in terms of 16 transit, we're moving forward on that. 17 I think we need to always be in touch with the 18 producers of these vehicles to make sure that they are 19 able to fill what may be many, many orders. And that if 20 there are things that we need to do to monitor that 21 capability, we've certainly had the support of our 22 buildings, but there may be some constraints there truly, 23 which will be exciting, but albeit maybe delaying some of 24 our accomplishments. So I would just suggest staff remain 25 pretty close to those builders.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 70
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good point. 2 If there are no further comments or questions, 3 why don't we call the question. 4 I will close the record at this time and remind 5 everybody that this is the second of two votes on this 6 item. So this is the -- this is the final vote. And once 7 we act, it will -- the rule will be sent off and go into 8 effect. 9 So without further ado. 10 All those in favor, please say aye? 11 (Unanimous aye vote.) 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Opposed? 13 It passes unanimously. Thank you very much and 14 good work. Congratulations. 15 Okay. We're moving quickly through our agenda 16 this morning. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Good for us. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good for us, yes. 19 The next item, as people are beginning to take 20 their seats, is the public hearing on Electric Vehicle 21 Supply Equipment Standards, which was developed in 22 response to Senate Bill 454. And I would note that we're 23 not in compliance with the original timeline, but I think 24 there's a good reason, which is that this has proven to be 25 somewhat more difficult than was originally expected.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 71
1 So this law requires the payment hardware, 2 labeling, and an interoperable billing standard. The 3 proposal is intended to provide the greatest possible 4 access to public charging for public -- for plug-in 5 electric vehicles drivers regardless of whether they're a 6 member of any particular group that has sponsored that 7 particular charging station. 8 The proposed regulation establishes requirements 9 for payment hardware, consumer labeling, and interoperable 10 billing or roaming standards, and data reporting. 11 It's an important regulation for removing the 12 barriers to ZEV adoption. We know that current ZEV owners 13 already express frustration with the situation when it 14 comes to being able to use charging stations that look 15 like they're publicly available. And we know for a fact 16 that as we move beyond the early adopters into the realm 17 of what you might call normal consumers, people are going 18 to expect an experience which is something closer to what 19 they have today with the existing system with fueling. 20 So it's important that we're taking steps to 21 simplify this consumer fueling experience and improve 22 access to the charging infrastructure that California is 23 now building out with a considerable investment of public 24 as well as private dollars. 25 Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this item?
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 72
1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair 2 Nichols. 3 We routinely area that varying access and payment 4 methods at existing public charging infrastructure 5 confuses and inconveniences plug-in electric vehicle 6 drivers. If a driver is not a member of a given network, 7 they may not be able to initiate a charging session. If 8 they are successful, they may still encounter unclear 9 charging session pricing. 10 In 2013, the California Legislature adopted 11 Senate Bill 454, the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 12 Open Access Act. This legislation established a series of 13 requirements for public charging stations, including 14 payment methods, pricing disclosure, and location 15 reporting. 16 Staff assessed progress by charging 17 infrastructure provided -- or providers over the past 18 several years and believe regulatory requirements are 19 appropriate and necessary for meeting the statute's 20 intent. 21 Staff's proposal creates a minimum standard of 22 access for public electric vehicle charging, 23 facilities[SIC] roaming agreements between charging 24 infrastructure providers, creates a more complete database 25 of charging station locations and pricing information for
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 73
1 consumer use, and ensures transparency in the price of a 2 charging session. 3 These requirements will provide all electric 4 vehicle drivers greater confidence in accessing charging 5 infrastructure in California. 6 I'll now ask Stephanie Palmer of the Sustainable 7 Transportation and Communities Division to begin the staff 8 presentation. 9 Stephanie. 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 presented as follows.) 12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Thank you, Mr. 13 Corey. Good morning, Chair Nichols and members of the 14 Board. I am here today to present staff's proposed 15 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment standard. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: The requirements 18 presented today affect manufacturers and operators of 19 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment or EVSE. This slide 20 provides examples of the fueling infrastructure for 21 electric vehicles. And EVSE is similar to the pump at a 22 gas station. Fueling sessions are initiated and ended by 23 users, and the unit controls the flow of electricity to 24 the vehicle. 25 The connector or charger on an EVSE is like the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 74
1 nozzle at a pump. Connectors plug into a vehicle and 2 enable electricity flow from the EVSE to the vehicle. The 3 hardware and software requirements of this regulation 4 pertain to the EVSE and not to connectors. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: California's need 7 for plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure is well 8 recognized. In conjunction with the 2017 Climate Change 9 Scoping Plan, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order in 10 January 2018 directing California's State agencies to work 11 with the private sector and other appropriate levels of 12 government to spur the installation of 250,000 plug-in 13 electric vehicle chargers, including 10,000 direct current 14 fast chargers by 2025 to support the State's goal of over 15 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025. 16 The Executive Order also established a target for 17 five million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030. 18 The proposed regulation will facilitate consumer access in 19 use of this needed and anticipated infrastructure. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: California 22 currently has approximately 5,200 station locations with 23 1,159 public direct current fast charger EVSE and 24 approximately 8,800 hundred public Level 2 EVSE. These 25 two categories represent approximately 20,600 publicly
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 75
1 accessible electric vehicle charging connectors to serve 2 light-duty vehicles. 3 A larger number of charging connectors are 4 located in non-public spaces, such as private residences, 5 multi-unit dwellings, and private workplaces or fleet 6 yards, which are not accounted for in the public connector 7 account shown here. 8 Just like at gas station pumps EVSE may have 9 multiple connectors refueling a vehicle at the same time. 10 Of the station locations that are fee-for-service, there 11 are 566 locations that are installed in disadvantaged 12 communities. CARB staff worked with the National 13 Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, Alternative Fuels 14 Data Center staff, to obtain this EVSE count. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: A variety of 17 methods are used to access public networked EVSE. Drivers 18 may use an RFID card issued by a network, a mobile 19 application tied to a singular network, a mobile 20 application that reads QR codes, or in limited cases a 21 credit card to initiate a charging session. 22 Use of RFID cards and mobile apps require drivers 23 to sign up for a membership with a network service 24 provider. Membership includes, but is not limited to, 25 registering with a cell phone number, email address,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 76
1 credit or debit card, agreeing to be assessed a monthly 2 fee, having funds reserved on a credit card by the network 3 service provider, and loading a set amount of funds into 4 the membership account, which may auto reload. 5 Many drivers become members of several charging 6 infrastructure networks in case they need to use an EVSE 7 in that network. Staff developed this proposed regulation 8 in response to Senate Bill 45 by Senator Corbett to ensure 9 easy access to EVSE. 10 Staff's proposal is intended to achieve that goal 11 by ensuring that consumers have a similar experience 12 fueling plug-in electric vehicles as they have fueling 13 gasoline vehicles. Under the proposed regulation, drivers 14 will be able to drive up to an EVSE, see a ubiquitous and 15 easy-to-recognize payment method, and quickly initiate a 16 charging session. 17 Under Senate Bill 454, drivers would not have to 18 become a member of any network service providers. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Senate Bill 454, 21 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Open Access Act was 22 signed into law in 2013 and requires the following: 23 Drivers wishing to use any public EVSE shall not 24 be required to pay a subscription fee or become a member. 25 Drivers shall have the choice of paying with a credit card
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 77
1 or mobile payment or both. All fees that are assessed at 2 the EVSE shall be disclosed at the point of sale. All 3 publicly available EVSE shall report the station location 4 to the Alternative Fuels Data Center. And lastly, the 5 adoption of an interoperable billing standard will 6 facilitate driver roaming between networks. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Improved driver 9 access to charging infrastructure has many benefits. 10 Current plug-in electric vehicle drivers will have greater 11 confidence in using public infrastructure resulting in 12 greater utilization of the infrastructure and therefore a 13 higher usage of electric vehicles. 14 Drivers will have payment options that do not 15 require membership in a network or providing personal data 16 to network providers. Lastly, new plug-in electric 17 vehicle drivers will have an easier time fueling their 18 cars in public with consistent and familiar payment 19 methods. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: CARB staff worked 22 with stakeholders representing charging network providers, 23 infrastructure manufacturers, utilities, automakers, and 24 environmental organizations individually and collectively 25 for nearly two years to develop the proposed regulation.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 78
1 Two stakeholder working group meetings were 2 convened to discuss which different payment methods would 3 be the most ubiquitous. Public workshops and webinars 4 were held to discuss regulatory concepts and proposed 5 requirements 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: The proposed 8 regulation has six parts: payment methods with proposed 9 modification, roaming standards, display of fees, 10 labeling, consistent, reporting with proposed 11 modifications, and penalties. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Staff's proposed 14 payment method requirements are based on the Senate Bill 15 454 requirement that an electric vehicle charging station, 16 which requires a payment of a fee, shall allow a person 17 desiring to use the station to pay via credit card, or 18 mobile technology, or both. The proposed minimum form of 19 payment hardware required for EVSE that assesses a fee for 20 use is the EMV chip reader and a Near Field Communication 21 reader that accepts mobile wallet payments. 22 Network providers will also need to comply with 23 industry data security standards. Payment hardware may be 24 located on the individual EVSE or a kiosk. This 25 flexibility allows the network providers and site hosts to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 79
1 choose which method better suits their needs. These 2 images show the EMV chip on the left and the NFC symbol on 3 the right. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Credit and debit 6 cards are the most common form of payment available to the 7 largest consumer base. The payment industry has pushed to 8 have the Euro MasterCard Visa chip, or EMV chip, as a 9 minimum standard for data security reasons. It is 10 ubiquitous for consumers. 11 Near Field Communications, or NFC, is used to 12 enable mobile payment solutions for driver choice. These 13 payment methods are important because drivers should have 14 the choice to become a member of a network if that fits 15 their needs, not as a requirement to use an EVSE. 16 All drivers -- not all drivers have smartphones 17 nor should that be a requirement for using public EVSE. 18 Lastly, payment methods that do not rely on cell 19 phone service are important, because even in this age of 20 advance technology, the are plenty of parking locations 21 that have poor to no cell reception. 22 Staff appreciates all of the stakeholders' 23 comments submitted during the 45-day comment period. 24 Stakeholders have stated that the EMV chip technology is 25 outdated, costly, and especially should not be required
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 80
1 for Level 2 EVSE. 2 Stakeholders have also stated that roaming 3 agreements will eliminate the need for the credit card 4 requirement as drivers with a single membership will be 5 connected to most, if not all, publicly available EVSE. 6 While staff is encouraged by the announcements 7 from the network providers regarding roaming agreements, 8 the details and timelines for full implementation have not 9 been released. Staff proposes to keep the EMV chip 10 requirement, because it is the most ubiquitous payment 11 method available to drivers. It should be available on 12 Level 2 EVSE as well as DC fast chargers, just as other 13 services that are in similar locations as public charging 14 infrastructure already deploy EMV chip readers. 15 An example is curbside parking meters as shown on 16 the right. These meters are remote, incorporate network 17 communications, and are used in varied environments. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: The new hardware 20 installation compliance dates and the publicly released 21 staff report are July 1, 2020 for DC fast chargers and 22 July 1, 2023 for Level 2. 23 The staff report presents a five-year phase-in 24 period for hardware compliance based on the existing EVSE 25 open date. Existing DC fast chargers must meet payment
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 81
1 hardware requirements by July 1, 2020 or five years from 2 their open date, whichever is longer. Existing Level 2 3 EVSE must meet payment hardware requirements by July 1, 4 2023 or five years from their open date, whichever is 5 longer. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Since issuing the 8 Initial Statement of Reasons, staff has continued to work 9 to address a number of issues raised by stakeholders. 10 It has been brought to staff's attention that 11 infrastructure contracts may have an automatic 12 noncompliance issue. This is due to the amount of time it 13 takes to design, permit, construct, and interconnect an 14 EVSE. Staff is recommending modifications to extend the 15 new DC fast charger new installation compliance date to 16 January 1, 2022. 17 This will give sufficient time for current 18 projects under contract or committed under government 19 funding programs to complete installation before new 20 hardware requirements come into effect. 21 Stakeholders have also commented that the useful 22 life of an EVSE is 10 years. Staff recommends compliance 23 with the payment hardware requirement upon replacement but 24 no later than July 1, 2033 for all existing DC fast 25 charger and Level 2 EVSE.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 82
1 The above-recommended modification ensures that 2 an expected 10-year useful life will be available to all 3 existing EVSE and preserve the investments made by the 4 State, private parties and industry. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Senate Bill 454 7 states if no interoperability billing standard has been 8 adopted by a national standard organization by January 1, 9 2015, the State Board may adopt interoperable billing 10 standards. Staff proposes that all network providers 11 install and maintain the California Open Charge Point 12 Interface Test Procedures for networked EVSE. The test 13 procedures codify Open Charge Point Interface 2.1.1, an 14 open source communications protocol widely used in Europe. 15 The timeline to implement this standard is one 16 year after the effective date of the regulation. 17 Additional communication protocols, such as Hubject's Open 18 Intercharge Protocol, may be used as well. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Drivers currently 21 sign up for a membership with a network provider to use 22 the public EVSE associated with the network. Each network 23 maintains its own membership. As a result, drivers often 24 have multiple apps and RFID cards to carry around if they 25 expect to be using multiple networks to meet their public
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 83
1 charging needs. Adopting a standard lays the foundation 2 for networks to enter into roaming agreements using a 3 singular common standard. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Senate Bill 454 6 states, "the total actual charges for the use of an 7 electric vehicle charging station, including any 8 additional network roaming charges for non-members, shall 9 be disclosed to the public at the point of sale". 10 It is important that drivers know the full extent 11 of what they are paying when initiating a charging session 12 to avoid any unexpected fees. The sale of electricity as 13 a transportation fuel must be displayed in dollars per 14 kilowatt hour or the dollars per megajoule to be 15 consistent with the California Department of Food and 16 Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards 17 requirements. The display of fees must also include a 18 parking fee, non-member, and general plug-in fees, if 19 applicable. 20 The implementation timeline for this requirement 21 follows the proposed timeline for the payment methods, 22 July 1, 2020 for all new DC fast charger and July 1, 2023 23 for all new Level 2 EVSE. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Senate Bill 454
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 84
1 states electric vehicle charging stations shall be labeled 2 in accordance with Part 309, Title 16 of the Code of 3 Federal Regulations. This label is useful to drivers 4 because it confirms the EVSE will dispense electricity, 5 the rate and amperage of which the EVSE is capable of 6 dispensing electricity, and the manner in which the 7 electricity is dispensed, conductive or inductive. 8 All publicly available EVSE shall have this label 9 installed by July 1, 2020 for DC fast charger and July 1, 10 2023 for Level 2 EVSE. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Staff is 13 proposing modifications to extend the timeline for 14 implementation of the consumer information and labeling 15 requirements for DC fast charger to January 1, 2022. 16 This change aligns the labeling requirements with 17 the proposed modified payment hardware compliance date. 18 It is important to align with hardware requirement 19 implementation dates, so network providers will not have 20 to make more than one site visit. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Senate Bill 454 23 states that, "the service provider of electric vehicle 24 service equipment at an electric vehicle charging station 25 or its designee shall disclose to the National Renewable
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 85
1 Energy Laboratory the electric vehicle charging station's 2 geographic location, a schedule of fees, accepted methods 3 of payment, the amount of network roaming charges for 4 non-members, if any". 5 The purpose of having networks report to NREL's 6 Alternative Fuels Data Center is to have a single public 7 repository of data that drivers can access. The 8 information that is reported to the Alternative Fuels Data 9 Center will also be used for compliance tracking by staff. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Reporting 12 requirements include station location reporting to the 13 National Renewable Energy Laboratory and initial and 14 annual reports to CARB. Service providers must report new 15 and retired station location information at least on a 16 monthly basis to the national lab. 17 The initial reporting will begin 45 days after 18 the effective date of the regulation. Initial reporting 19 will be used to create a baseline database of existing 20 EVSE and identifies a single point of contact for the 21 network provider. 22 The first annual report will be due March 1st, 23 2021 for calendar year 2020. The annual reporting 24 requirement includes a listing of new, retired, and 25 decommissioning EVSE and pricing payment and uses metrics
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 86
1 reported per EVSE. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Staff is 4 recommending modifications to the annual reporting 5 requirements in response to stakeholder comments received 6 during the 45-day comment period. 7 Stakeholders have indicated that the annual 8 report requirement for total number of charging sessions 9 started with each payment type is difficult to do per 10 EVSE. Staff recommends that the total number of charging 11 sessions started with each payment method be reported in a 12 statewide aggregated number instead of per EVSE. 13 The first report will be moved to be due March 14 1st, 2022 for calendar year 2021. The proposed 15 modifications also clarify that EVSE not requiring fee for 16 use are not subject to annual reporting requirements 17 pertaining to payment. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: If a service 20 provider fails to comply with the proposed regulation, 21 they may be assessed a penalty per violation. Failing to 22 meet the labeling requirement may result in a $300 fine. 23 Failing to meet the payment method requirement may result 24 in a $600 fine. Failing to implement the roaming standard 25 may result in a $1,000 fine. Failing to comply with
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 87
1 reporting requirements may result in a $600 fine. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Staff conducted 4 an economic analysis of the proposed regulation and 5 completed a Standard Regulatory Impact Assessment report 6 that was filed with the California Department of Finance. 7 For the given time frame from 2020 to 2030, the 8 baseline regulatory cumulative costs are estimated to be 9 $115 million. The estimated hardware cost for the payment 10 methods is $379 per EVSE. 11 The cost estimate for the hardware is 12 conservative and is expected to drop over time. The 13 majority of the projected costs arise from the rolling 14 five year phase-in requirement for existing EVSE. With 15 the proposed modifications presented today, the estimated 16 costs are expected to decline to approximately half of 17 what was estimated in the public staff report. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Staff recommends 20 that the Board approve the proposal with staff's 21 additional modifications to standardized public charging 22 infrastructure consumer access. Staff will continue to 23 work with stakeholders throughout implementation and will 24 continue to monitor payment, hardware changes, and any 25 growing market trends that promote consumer access to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 88
1 EVSE. 2 We are committed to revisiting the regulation in 3 the future, if we determine that the credit card 4 requirements become obsolete or no longer serve the goals 5 of the regulation. 6 This concludes my presentation. 7 It is now my pleasure to introduce Senator Ellen 8 Corbett the author of Senate Bill 454. Senator Corbett 9 represented California's 10th District in the California 10 Legislature from 2006 through 2014 and served as Senate 11 Majority Leader in 2010 through 2014. 12 Senator Corbett. 13 SENATOR CORBETT: Thank you very much. It's a 14 pleasure to be invited to be here today. As the person 15 introduced me, I was the author of SB 454. And it's 16 really great to see the regulations being put together 17 today. 18 I'm sure you want me to tell you a little bit 19 about the intent of the measure. And obviously, if I 20 could sum it up in one word, it's "access". There's a 21 reason that the bill was called the Electric Vehicle 22 Charging Station Open Access Act. 23 One of the most important things we wanted to do 24 was to create consumer confidence in the use of electric 25 vehicles. And clearly, individuals who were starting to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 89
1 purchase electric vehicles, it was a newer technology six 2 years ago and people had questions about how far can this 3 vehicle take me? Can it take me to work and back? 4 We wanted to make sure that this legislation 5 created a situation that it was just as easy and common as 6 understandable as pulling into the gas station and fueling 7 your car. 8 Obviously, the staff report has talked about how 9 the bill is interested in ensuring that there are easy 10 payments -- easy payment methods, that there's an 11 opportunity for the posting of prices, and obviously, that 12 there is location information. 13 We wanted to make sure that people had a 14 knowledge of the costs, they knew once they got in the car 15 where the could fuel up along the way, and obviously, most 16 importantly, the form of payment needed to be very easy 17 and accessible to all. That's why the requirement for 18 card leaders. And I don't think need to talk any -- 19 anybody -- anymore about those details, because the staff 20 report has very clearly talked about the importance of 21 that. 22 So I would encourage you to pass regulations 23 today. I think it is very important if we're going to 24 reach our goals. The Legislature has had many 25 conversations in the Governor's office, many conversations
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 90
1 about the important of reaching our goals, and all of the 2 benefits that that brings to us, including doing what we 3 can to stop global warming. So I will be available for 4 any questions that you may have. 5 But once again, very clearly, this intent is all 6 about access. And it was not a bill that was introduced 7 to create barriers for charging of electric vehicles, but 8 to a allow for very, very easy access just as simple as 9 gassing up your car. 10 So thank you all very much and look forward to 11 any questions you may have. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you for coming and sharing 13 your experience on this issue with us. It's really good 14 to see you. 15 Thanks. 16 SENATOR CORBETT: Thank you so much. And the one 17 last thing I would just say, I very much hope that 18 whatever regulations are adopted today, they can move 19 forward as quickly as possible. I understand that there 20 have been conversations to try to make sure that we listen 21 to both sides on this issue, but the sooner the better. I 22 think it's very important. And after all, this bill was 23 signed in 2013, so I think it's time to move forward. 24 Thank you very much. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: It's time. Thank you. Thank you
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 91
1 very much. 2 Excuse me. Oh, we have question from Dr. 3 Sherriffs 4 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yeah. I had one little 5 question. Access was the intent. 6 SENATOR CORBETT: Yes. 7 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Regardless if it's -- 8 the ambiguity potentially of some of the language, but 9 access is the intent, as easy, and simple, and could I add 10 as familiar -- 11 SENATOR CORBETT: Absolutely. 12 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: -- as what we do -- 13 SENATOR CORBETT: As familiar as possible. 14 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: -- for fueling our 15 vehicles? 16 Okay. Thank you. 17 SENATOR CORBETT: It's the same mindset you would 18 have when you jump in the car in the morning and you know 19 you might need to get some fuel on the way to work, you 20 would have all the information you need, cost, location, 21 and you'd have your debit card in your pocket, so you 22 could pay. 23 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. 24 SENATOR CORBETT: You're welcome. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 92
1 Okay. We do have substantial list of witnesses. 2 The first page has just arrived. I understand we've got 3 more on into a second page. And it appears as though 4 they're actually fairly evenly split between supporters 5 and opponents of the proposal, so that will make it 6 interesting. 7 And I think we should just get started. I would 8 note though that with that many witnesses, this is going 9 to take a lot of time and we want to really be able to 10 listen. So I think we should plan on taking our break 11 somewhere in the middle and not trying to finish the item 12 up. That would be my thought. 13 So if that's the case, I think if you'll agree 14 with me, that we should try to go to 12:15 or so, 12:15? 15 VICE CHAIR BERG: I just checked with the court 16 reporter and if we could go till 12:00 o'clock. 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: Is the court reporter ready to -- 18 VICE CHAIR BERG: No, 12:00 o'clock he said. 19 CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, 12:00 o'clock. Okay. Fine. 20 Then we'll continue until 12:00 and then take a break. 21 (Laughter.) 22 CHAIR NICHOLS: We work for the court reporter. 23 (Laughter.) 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: He is more essential than any of 25 us. Okay. Thanks. That will be great.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 93
1 Let's get started then with Anna Alvarado from 2 San Jose. Good morning. 3 MS. ALVARADO: Good morning, Chair and members. 4 Anna Alvarado with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the City 5 of San Jose. The San Jose supports the Board's goal to 6 increase access to EV service equipment, but do have some 7 concerns and three recommendations for the Board. 8 One, that the Board allow local agencies to 9 grandfather current charging stations and only apply the 10 proposed rulemaking when stations are upgraded with new 11 equipment. Two, for ARB to be cognizant of the 12 innovations surrounding payment in this space to prevent 13 obsolescence and stranded assets. And three, encourage 14 ARB to work with statewide and local agencies in 15 developing the proposed regulations with CALeVIP, which 16 will help limit redundant data, collection, and reporting. 17 And I'd also like to reiterate the importance of 18 extending the compliance timeline for all existing EVSE to 19 the time of replacement, but no later than 2033. So we 20 really look forward to working with you all and thank you 21 for your time. 22 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 23 MS. HAHN: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 24 members of the Board. My name is Jenna Hahn and I'm here 25 with -- on behalf of the City of Sacramento.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 94
1 I'm here to express the City of Sacramento's 2 strong support for the proposed extension to the 3 compliance timeline that CARB staff presented today. We 4 commend staff for their hard work on this complex issue, 5 and we appreciate the ongoing engagement we've had over 6 the past year. 7 Sacramento is committed to becoming the ZEV 8 capital of California with programs and policies dating 9 back to 1994. We currently operate 54, mostly grant 10 funded, public Level 2 EVSE, and we are working to 11 dramatically increase public charging installations, 12 aligning with our EV strategy and goals. 13 Public agencies like ours have been leaders in 14 providing public charging for years, filing market gaps to 15 provide charging access to our communities. The 16 associated impact analysis only looked at public chargers 17 that were reported through LCFS, or assuming only 29 18 public chargers are operated by public agencies. As 19 noted, the City of Sacramento operates 54 alone. 20 A five-year compliance timeline would be an 21 unfunded compliance mandate for which we have no 22 resources. Public agencies like ours would be penalized 23 for being early adopters and providers of public chargers. 24 This could result in unintended consequences, including 25 the removal of existing infrastructure before the end of
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 95
1 its useful life to avoid compliance costs, delaying 2 installation, or disincentivizing participation in 3 incentive programs like CALeVIP. Extending the compliance 4 timeframe is a critical revision to ensure public agencies 5 are able to continue operating public Level 2 charging. 6 We highlight two more points. Firstly, it is 7 critical for CARB to coordinate with CALeVIP incentives. 8 $14 million is currently available in Sacramento alone, 9 but none of the Level 2 chargers eligible for those 10 rebates currently meet the proposed standards. We 11 strongly urge the Board to amplify State funded EVSE 12 programs like CALeVIP. An extended timeline can mitigate 13 that issue, but we urge the Board to grandfather or exempt 14 equipment funded by CALeVIP. 15 Lastly, we recommend that CARB staff continue to 16 assess the impacts of monitoring and compliance on local 17 governments. Resources put into compliance would be 18 dollars taken away from investment in new EVSE. 19 To close, we strongly urge the support of the 20 extended timeline, we think CARB staff recommended changes 21 are necessary to allow local agencies like ours to 22 continue operating public Level 2 charging and we look 23 forward to continued collaboration. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 96
1 MR. HARRIS: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 2 Board. My name is Frank Harris. I'm with the California 3 Municipal Utilities Association. I appreciate the 4 opportunity to comment on this item. 5 I'm particularly pleased that Senator Corbett was 6 able to come here and speak about the enabling 7 legislation. CMUA's member electric and water agencies 8 own public EV charging stations. We provide incentives 9 for our customers to install charging stations, and 10 strongly support transportation electrification, and the 11 State's clean transportation goals. 12 CMUA agrees that access to EV charging is a 13 critical point in the deployment of electric 14 transportation. We were initially concerned with some of 15 the rules in the 45-day language, but CMUA fully supports 16 the change in the language that staff has proposed to 17 phase in the regulatory requirement over the equipment's 18 expected useful life. 19 Although, we do share the idea that -- we share 20 the position that we would prefer to have existing, that 21 is EV charging equipment that has already been deployed to 22 be fully grandfathered, we believe that by extending the 23 phase in to 2033 this will allow for the bulk of the 24 currently deployed stations to run through their expected 25 useful life.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 97
1 In addition to the change that staff has made, 2 CMUA supports the staff's intent to follow the development 3 of the technology, so that the standards could be updated 4 to reflect the state of roaming and other technology. 5 We'd like to see that somehow reflected in the regulation, 6 so that perhaps regular check-ins could be made, so that 7 we could ensure that the regulation doesn't sort of 8 inappropriately or uselessly lock in technology that's no 9 longer being used. 10 It may seem like a relatively small thing, but 11 I -- the card -- the chip technology and the ability to 12 physically access the card as opposed to other methods 13 does actually add cost. And my members are telling me 14 that any additional cost could slow this down. 15 We are -- I agree with some of the comments the 16 City of Sacramento made. I'm not sure where some of the 17 data came from. I've heard from multiple members that 18 have more than double the number of publicly available 19 fee-based charging stations than what was listed in the 20 SRIA for the entire state. So I think that the costs 21 might be a little bit higher than what has been reflected. 22 But in generally -- generally, CMUA fully 23 supports electric transportation. We believe that the 24 changes that staff has made to the 15-day package address 25 many of our concerns, so that we can continue to deploy
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 98
1 charging and grow the state's clean transportation goals. 2 Thank you very much. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 4 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 5 Board. Megha Lakhchaura on behalf of EVBox. EVBox is a 6 manufacturer of EV charging stations ranging from 7 residential chargers to ultra DC -- ultra DC fast 8 chargers. We're headquartered in Amsterdam and we have 9 currently over 75,000 installations in 55 countries. And 10 these stations are not equipped with credit card readers. 11 We are concerned with how this regulation will 12 impact the deployment of future charging stations in this 13 state. And part of this comes from the way we do business 14 with two things in mind, one is future proofing and the 15 other is keeping costs low. 16 Parties have repeatedly articulated at recreating 17 the gas station experience for EV drivers at charging 18 stations. Why? Fumes, credit card readers that don't 19 work, and even bad coffee. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Instead, we should focusing on 22 creating a pleasurable charging experience for EV drivers, 23 quick and functioning payment systems, in clean ambiance 24 where someone can get over with the payment quickly and go 25 ahead and get a decent cup of coffee.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 99
1 Plenty is -- will be spoken about, you know, the 2 current state of regulation and some changes have been 3 made. I want to talk about the future. This regulation 4 will adversely impact the future of EV deployment in 5 California. 6 First, this added cost undermines how much more 7 infrastructure can be deployed. We saw the $110 million 8 number here. But by -- sensitivity analysis says that the 9 estimates can range between 110 to 400 million dollars. 10 $400 million will get you 67,000 charging stations out 11 there, double port. And even if you were looking at 110 12 million, 16,000 double ported charging stations out there. 13 Also, more importantly, no one has answered a 14 fundamental question. For 110 to 400 million dollars, how 15 many more drivers will have access to charging stations, 16 if we didn't install these EMV chips? 17 And as someone who works closely with, you know, 18 the business, we can tell you this, the business case 19 demonstrates that the cost of the chip reader cannot be 20 absorbed by the site host. This will lead to two 21 consequences, either the site host will shut down the 22 charging station or will massively raise the price of 23 charging. 24 The will disproportionately impact the low income 25 population and lead to shut down of stations in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 100
1 disadvantaged communities, because that is where 2 utilization is the lowest. 3 Also, since card readers are external to charging 4 stations, weather elements can lead to malfunctions to the 5 detriment of a reliable charging experience. In Europe, 6 public charge -- public chargers do not have displays and 7 card readers and they're up 99.7 percent of the time. 8 We're not going to see that here. 9 There are better ways to do businesses. We are 10 open to other payment options, including contactless 11 cards. More importantly, as an industry, we have signed 12 roaming agreements with each other, whereas a customer can 13 access 100 percent of charging stations with a single RFID 14 card. 15 And furthermore, CARB further specifies certain 16 roaming standards. Are we carving out California as its 17 own island with its own standards for payment and roaming 18 protocols? If we are -- for these reasons, we urge you to 19 vote against this regulation. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Since your the first one up, I'm 22 just going to ask you this question. So you don't like 23 this proposal, because you think it will slow down your 24 investment in new charging stations. There's a lot of 25 other people out there who are building charging stations.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 101
1 MS. LAKHCHAURA: But the -- it slows down the 2 investment. But for a site host or so the economics of it 3 just don't make sense. After you pay for the cost of 4 electricity, and if your utilization is two hours or so or 5 four hours, you're left with almost $300 to $600 a year. 6 And CARB's own estimate says that, you know, the cost of 7 this is $270 a year. How much are you left with to 8 recover your reinvestment, to cover any kinds of O&M cost, 9 to cover anything? Most likely, you're going to shut down 10 the station or just make it private. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: But we're talking about new 12 stations, not old ones. I mean, the two -- I thought you 13 were making a distinction there. You were saying the new 14 stations wouldn't get built because there'd be a 15 requirement that you'd have to make them accessible. 16 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Yes. Like for the Level 2 17 stations, we can -- you know, that could be a major case, 18 because for a private business owner, it just doesn't -- 19 the economics it won't add up, if an EMV chip reader is 20 installed. 21 And I can't speak of this from, you know, 22 experience. I can only speculate, because we don't have, 23 you know, charging stations with EMV readers. In Europe, 24 between Rotterdam and Amsterdam, we have close to 5,000 25 public Level 2 stations, none of them has a credit card
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 102
1 reader on it. We use RFID cards and we use roaming 2 agreements. And 70 percent of our customers are not our 3 customers, they come from other networks. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm. Okay. Thank you. 5 Question. Yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: I just have a question on 7 this. How -- and I think we've all probably taken a 8 countless number of meetings on this. And I just have a 9 question about how -- how is it possible that the vending 10 machine I can by a coke in is able to take a credit card 11 when a -- and figure out how to make that work, when the 12 charging station -- it doesn't seem like an insurmountable 13 task. When I look at the variety of things in every 14 aspect of my life that I use a credit card to deal with. 15 I'm struggling to understand why it's an insurmountable 16 task for a charging station. 17 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Well, first off, you know, 18 charging stations are, you know, subject to more external 19 environments. They could be out in the desert. They 20 could be out in the sun. You know, they're subject to 21 weather conditions. 22 The problem with the EMV chip reader is it's 23 external to the charging station. If you used a 24 contactless one, it would still be inside the casing and 25 protected. This thing is external. When it's external,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 103
1 as charging companies, we don't have a lot of control over 2 it, we don't know how it's used, and we don't, frankly, 3 know how to repair and, you know, operate it. So it's 4 really, you know, dependent on -- you know, because it's 5 out there in the external environment. 6 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: But I feel like I use 7 external ones quite a -- quite a bit as well. So I 8 just -- I'm kind of struggling to understand. I 9 understand it would be a cost to folks and folks would 10 rather not do it. I do understand. 11 I just don't -- I'm not convinced that it's an 12 insurmountable task. And then the second point you 13 mentioned about you would have the need to close down 14 charging stations in low-income communities. We don't 15 have any charging stations in low-income communities, so 16 there's really nothing to close down. 17 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Well, we do have -- 18 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: I mean, I could show you 19 the map of our communities. It's not -- you know, I just 20 don't know that's your strongest argument. 21 MS. LAKHCHAURA: Well, it might not be. I 22 concede to that. But what I do want to say is that, you 23 know, if we have charging stations that are in 24 disadvantaged communities or low-income communities, which 25 aren't being used a lot, like say two to four hours, the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 104
1 economics just don't make them sustainable to operate. So 2 I was trying to, you know, link the fact that, you know, 3 if chargers are in low-income communities, they aren't 4 used enough to cover the cost. 5 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: So it's not because of 6 the credit card. 7 MS. LAKHCHAURA: No. 8 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Thank you. 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks. 10 Next. 11 MR. SAFFIAN: Good morning, Board members and 12 members of Board staff. My name is Scott Saffian. I'm 13 general manager for the Western United States for FLO. 14 FLO is owned by AddEnergie, which was founded in 19 -- in 15 2009 and now the largest Canadian EV charging station 16 manufacturer. 17 AddEnergie and FLO are an integrated charging 18 solutions provider, meaning we manage the stations on the 19 FLO charging network, which is the largest Canadian EV 20 charging network. We've recently launched both our 21 network and our charging solutions here in the United 22 States and are currently selling both our residential and 23 commercial charging solutions in California. 24 We currently have approximately 160 employees, 25 all based in North America, which includes our
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 105
1 manufacturing facilities team members. 2 I'd like to thank Board staff for their work on 3 this and other issues related to EV charging. We 4 certainly appreciate the significant work that has gone 5 into staff's recommendation's today. 6 As a new entrant into the California charging 7 market, we considered our involvement in this rulemaking 8 process carefully. We believe strongly as a company in 9 the benefits that are possible when State and local 10 governments work to advance electrification. And very few 11 places in the world can claim to have had as much positive 12 impact on the advancement of EVs as California. 13 Following our review of the proposals here today, 14 we felt that it may be helpful to share our perspective on 15 mandatory EMV chip reader installations requirements as a 16 company that is both the market leader in charging station 17 manufacturing and network operations in Canada and at the 18 same time a new entrant into the California market, for 19 which requirements regarding installation of EMV chip 20 readers in DCFC Level 2 public charging stations will have 21 significant impact. 22 We strongly support new features that support the 23 uptake of electric vehicles and provision of reliable, 24 affordable, and convenient charging services to users and 25 are always looking for features that will help meet these
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 106
1 objectives. 2 As a general principle, the addition of new 3 features typically involves a balance between usefulness 4 of the feature to end users, on the one hand, and any 5 safety and security concerns and affordability on the 6 other. For example, our company is very supportive of 7 roaming agreements with other secure, well-run networks 8 that expand user convenience across North America and we 9 have entered into these agreements with ChargePoint. 10 CHAIR NICHOLS: Your time is up. 11 MS. SAFFIAN: Am I done? 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: That's it. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. SAFFIAN: Sorry, you had three minutes, yeah. 15 MR. SAFFIAN: Thank you all. 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: Have you submitted your written 17 testimony? 18 MR. SAFFIAN: Thank you. 19 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 20 VICE CHAIR BERG: And as our next speaker is 21 coming down, if you could keep your eye please on the list 22 and come up. We're running both stations here. And we 23 could move along a little quicker. Thank you. 24 MR. MONBOUQUETTE: Thank you. Good morning, 25 Chair Nichols and fellow Board members. My name is Marc
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 107
1 Monbouquette and I represent eMotorWerks and electric 2 vehicle charging technology provider. 3 We appreciate the effort of staff and 4 stakeholders to implement the provisions of SB 454 and 5 support the principles of open access to public EV 6 charging stations. However, we oppose three aspects of 7 the proposed regulations as written, which we believe will 8 work at counter purposes to the State's transportation 9 electrification goals. 10 First off, we believe it is inappropriate to hard 11 code EMV chip readers as the only acceptable method of 12 credit card payments for public EVSE. Credit card 13 payments technology is evolving rapidly, and other forms 14 of payment, such as contactless credit cards, will 15 increase in ubiquity over the coming years and are cheaper 16 to implement for hardware providers. The regulations will 17 impact charging hardware decisions for years into the 18 future and we should not bind ourselves to a 2015 19 technology. 20 Second, while we appreciate staff's proposed 21 revision this morning to extend the grandfathering period 22 for existing EVSE, we still believe any requirement to 23 retrofit EVSE in good working order is profligate given 24 the hundreds of million of public dollars that have been 25 invested to deploy public charging infrastructure.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 108
1 Existing EVSE should be upgraded to the new 2 requirements when deemed appropriate by the EVSP, or EV 3 service provider, or the site host. 4 Finally, annual data reporting to CARB on the 5 payment methods used to initiate charging sessions goes 6 above and beyond the statutory requirements. And despite 7 staff's propose revisions presented today would still 8 represent a considerable burden on EVSPs in terms of time 9 and cost. Such data are not necessary for CARB staff to 10 deem compliance with the regulations and we would instead 11 propose that CARB request such data, in the event that 12 they revisit the payment requirements in these regulations 13 down the line, as mentioned would be -- they would 14 potentially do in this morning's presentation. 15 So for these reasons, I respectfully urge the 16 Board to strike these elements of the regulation and would 17 point to eMotorWerks written comments for further 18 discussion on these points. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. WINKLER: Good morning. My name is Josh 21 Winkler and I am from Blink Charging. We are an EVSP. 22 And I would like to speak in opposition of some of the 23 items within the standard as also aforementioned here 24 today. 25 While we appreciate the fact that CARB is
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 109
1 desiring to support open access and support roaming an 2 interoperability, we are strong supporters of that as 3 well. We also echo the concern related to the requirement 4 for the EMV reader, since it is an outdated technology and 5 within the next five to ten years could be replaced by 6 other more innovative technologies, including more 7 reliable methods like contactless readers. 8 Also, our concern is related to having to 9 retrofit existing infrastructure that has been deployed. 10 And because of the number of systems that have already 11 been deployed, it could represent an impact to a single 12 company of a double digit millions of dollars in order to 13 retrofit the readers out there. 14 Also, California is a leader in the United States 15 in terms of setting precedent. So other states are likely 16 to follow the standards that are being set for California, 17 which could also impact installations in other states. 18 So we urge CARB to reconsider the requirements 19 for retrofitting existing infrastructure, and also we urge 20 CARB to reconsider the requirement for EMV readers. We 21 are not opposed to credit card readers, since we believe 22 that does support open access, as well as other 23 authorization methods. But to require a specific 24 technology like EMV for payment is definitely not 25 future-proofing this industry and products as a whole.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 110
1 Thank you. 2 VICE CHAIR BERG: Mr. Winkler. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Excuse me. 4 VICE CHAIR BERG: Mr. Winkler, could I just ask 5 you a quick question. Are you in disagreement with CARB's 6 understanding that these chargers have about a 10-year 7 useful life? 8 MR. WINKLER: No, we are in agreement that the 9 useful life is 7 to 10 years. 10 VICE CHAIR BERG: Okay. Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Could I ask something 12 too? Did I understand you to say that if -- or interpret 13 what you said, if the requirement was either contactless 14 or a chip card, then you would support the requirement as 15 opposed to only contact? 16 MR. WINKLER: Correct. 17 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Okay. 18 MR. WINKLER: So contactless is a future-proofed 19 technology. 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks. 21 Okay. Please, come down. 22 MS. SICKLER: Good morning, Chair Nichols and the 23 Board. Heidi Sickler again with the Silicon Valley 24 Leadership Group. 25 We appreciate the work that staff has done to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 111
1 ensure the goals of wanting to expand access to EV 2 charging stations across the state in order to support 3 California's ambitious climate goals. We respectfully 4 urge the Board to request modification in the regulation 5 in order to not require EMV chip readers, but rather allow 6 chargers to accept credit card payment in the method of 7 the EVSE's choice, whether that be contactless credit card 8 or EMV chips cards per SB 454. 9 This would provide adequate flexibility to 10 charging station providers to choose a payment technology 11 they prefer without jeopardizing consumer access to 12 charging stations. This will save tens of millions of 13 dollars in retrofit costs for existing stations and 14 reflect the direction payment technology is going. Within 15 the next year or two, contactless credit cards will be the 16 industry standard. 17 Additionally, chip readers significantly increase 18 maintenance costs and heightened risks of credit card 19 fraud. We worry this will be a disincentive for site 20 hosts to invest in publicly available stations. Given 21 California's EV deployment goals and desired expanded 22 access, we believe giving industry the flexibility to 23 respond to customer choice and technology innovation will 24 better serve these goals rather than mandating a little 25 used and soon to be outdated payment method.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 112
1 Thank you, Chair Nichols and Board members for 2 your leadership on zero-emission vehicles and EV 3 infrastructure deployment. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks. 5 MR. BIVINS: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 6 members of the Board. My name is Sam Bivins and I'm here 7 on behalf of Siemens. Siemens employs over 4,000 8 personnel across 82 locations in California, and among 9 other things manufacturers EV chargers and electrical 10 make-ready equipment to connect charges to the grid. 11 Siemens is grateful for the opportunity to 12 express its support for staff's proposed regulation in 13 order to adopt the new Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment 14 standard, even though we're disappointed by the delay in 15 the compliance dates. 16 Siemens maintains its preference for an earlier 17 implementation date for new DCFC and Level 2 chargers, 18 specifically July 1st, 2021, because the requisite charges 19 with readers are already available in the market and July 20 of 2021 provides enough time to account for grant programs 21 and regulatory proceedings that the CEC and the CPUC have 22 initiated. 23 The fundamental goal of SB 454, the bill 24 authorizing staff's development of the proposed 25 regulation, was to ensure that EV drivers could seamlessly
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 113
1 charge their vehicles at any public charging station by 2 requiring universal open access. The proposed regulation 3 would eliminate the current access problem in which EV 4 drivers must do the following to be able to use a public 5 charger: have a smartphone, have reliable cellular 6 coverage, download a proprietary app, give private 7 information to the charging provider, provide credit or 8 debit card data online, or call a 1-800 number and provide 9 the payment information manually. 10 None of these payment steps are required to fill 11 gas at a Shell or a Chevron station. So why are EV 12 drivers being penalized for opting to fuel with clean 13 electrons at charging stations, many of which were 14 installed using public funds? 15 It is the customer who should have the choice of 16 the payment method and not be dictated to by a list of 17 predetermined payment options. 18 Turning to technology. We would like to address 19 the major arguments being made against the draft 20 regulations requiring an EMV chip card reader, which also 21 handles debit and prepaid cards making it truly universal. 22 It is alleged that the card reader is insecure 23 and would increase fraud. But on the contrary, according 24 to MasterCard, introduction of EMV chip cards has reduced 25 fraud by 75 percent since 2015, and 40 percent of the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 114
1 fraud has since shifted to the type of online payment that 2 is currently being used to pay for EV charging. 3 It is also alleged that physical cards are 4 becoming obsolete. However, only 16 percent of Americans 5 have ever used a digital wallet or contactless card, 6 according to JP Morgan. And the Federal Reserve reports 7 that debit cards are the number one payment choice. 8 On March 25th of this year, Apple announced its 9 own physical credit card. Why would the world's most 10 innovative company launch a product that is supposedly 11 obsolete and old technology? 12 Finally, on the cost impact of the regulations, 13 our focus is on the going-forward costs, because new 14 chargers will quickly overtake the installed base as EV 15 adoption grows. Siemens estimates that the cost increase 16 per new charger is de minimis, well under four percent for 17 Level 2 chargers and less than one percent for DC fast 18 chargers in the context of the total installed cost. 19 In conclusion, we stand for open universal access 20 to public chargers for all Californians, especially for 21 chargers that will be funded by public dollars. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 MR. GROTERS: Thank you, Chair Nichols and the 25 Board for having the time to have us here today. And I
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 115
1 also want to thank the CARB staff who's had on open 2 dialogue and a collaborative process with us. 3 Despite that dialogue, I am still here to oppose 4 the regulation today as proposed. 5 I'd like to open by stating that we all have, 6 every EVSE company in this room, the State's climate goals 7 and CARB's goals as well are all aligned to advance 8 deployment and access to EVSE technology. It's in our 9 direct business interest to do so. 10 But we're opposed for two main reasons. One is 11 the EMV chip reader mandate. We have several concerns 12 there. One of them is largely fraud, which some members 13 of other hit on already -- or some previous speakers. 14 Credit card fraud is a growing pervasive issue. The U.S. 15 Secret Service has been working and doing task force to 16 stop this. 17 Hear a lot of people talk about the gas station 18 model when they're using their card. A gas station is a 19 well attended, well lit, observed station. And most EV 20 charging stations are not. They are in parking lots that 21 are not well lit, that do not have attendants, and will 22 make it easier for a credit card frauder to attach a 23 skimmer to read someone's card and take their data. 24 Just two weeks ago, a new report was released on 25 this specifically about the risk for EV drivers.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 116
1 Eighty-three percent of the tax credit recipients for the 2 electric -- federal electric vehicle tax credit are 3 $100,000 income household or above, creating a high-value 4 target for credit fraud. We also have the same issues 5 with maintenance and upkeep that some others have 6 referenced before. 7 Our main reason that we're opposed to this is the 8 access piece. The former Senator and original sponsor of 9 SB 454 came up here and said that access is the number one 10 key issue to this regulation. And this regulation will do 11 the opposite. Many have mentioned that site hosts will be 12 forced to make a choice neither to comply, take their 13 network private, or completely take their network offline. 14 That's something that our company strongly 15 believes will happen and have already started 16 communicating to our clients about the potential harm of 17 this regulation. This reg will not increase public access 18 to charging, and, in fact, it will do the opposite. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. BULLIS: Good morning, Chair and Board 21 members. Cory Bullis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle 22 Charging Association. 23 EVCA is comprised of companies that design, 24 manufacture, install, and operate EV charging products and 25 services. Many of our members are headquartered here in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 117
1 California. We recognize that the rollout of 2 infrastructure has not always been a perfect process or 3 experience. EV drivers are having to rethink what it 4 means to drive and fuel their car, which is no small feat. 5 Issues like interoperability for EV drivers, 6 which is a primary goal of this regulation, have taken 7 longer to solve than we hoped. But it's important to note 8 that the industry has been solving for it with tremendous 9 progress in the last 6 to 12 months alone. You've heard 10 it before earlier today, but I'll say it again, is that 11 many -- with many of the roaming agreements that have been 12 announced in that time frame, drivers will have access to 13 over 90 percent of publicly available charging stations 14 from one account or one card. This gets at that access 15 issue in our view that we keep talking about today. 16 So interoperability is not some distant future. 17 It is being achieved now. This is the standard in Europe 18 and Canada, and it will soon be the standard here as well. 19 However, should the Board adopt a requirement for 20 EMV card readers, we believe this will negatively impact 21 station deployment as you have heard today, as well as 22 reliability, which is not good for the consumer 23 experience, and it's not good for EV deployment in our 24 view. 25 EMV readers can create reliability issues for the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 118
1 operability of stations because of weatherization. The 2 State wants to deploy 250,000 charging stations by 2025, 3 and if we're going to get to 5 million EVs by 2030, that 4 number is going to need to ramp up significantly more 5 beyond 250,000. 6 But just to give you a sense of comparison, 7 California only has 8,000 gas stations. The demands of 8 maintaining such a vast network will inherently be more 9 complex, if we have to maintain an EMV reader as well. 10 There is no data to show that EMV readers will 11 have high utilization rates on stations. And, in fact, 12 you'll hear testimony later today showing the opposite, as 13 it relates to charging stations. 14 The payment industry has already started 15 replacing EMV chip cards with contactless cards. And this 16 is an international trend. And while the U.S. might be a 17 few years behind compared to the rest of the world, big 18 banks have already been issuing contactless cards to 19 replace their EMV cards. 20 In the end, full-scale EV deployment requires a 21 robust and reliable infrastructure to support it. And we 22 believe that roaming agreements paired with contactless 23 credit cards will enable a seamless and reliable charging 24 experience without the reliability and cost issues that 25 you keep hearing about today.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 119
1 So in light of this, we respectfully ask your 2 consideration to remove the EMV -- or to reconsider the 3 EMV reader mandate. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. MULLER: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 6 members of the Board. My name is Miles Muller speaking on 7 behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Here in 8 support of the proposed regulations. I'd like to start 9 off by thanking ARB and staff for their work on these 10 regulations, which are aimed at addressing a critical 11 barrier that has beleaguered many EV drivers in California 12 for several years. 13 To meet California's statewide goals of creating 14 a mainstream market for electric vehicles and increasing 15 access to those vehicles for low income households, and 16 for residents in disadvantaged communities, it's 17 imperative that all drivers have convenient and reliable 18 access to electricity as a transportation fuel where they 19 live, work, and play. 20 Senate Bill 454 was enacted by the Legislature to 21 accomplish exactly this. And ARB's proposed regulations 22 appropriately align with the vision of SB 454 by setting 23 EVSE performance standards that provides drivers 24 convenient and simple payment methods for charging. 25 The proposes regulations would promote reliable
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 120
1 access by requiring stations to accept credit card payment 2 in the forms that most align with customer expectation and 3 open access, in addition to mobile payment technology. 4 Customers should be able to pay for charging at these 5 stations, just as they would expect to be able to at gas 6 stations or parking meters, not resigned to the 7 alternative payment methods which many customers may lack. 8 The proposed regulation set out standards that 9 are aligned with both the present and the future of 10 customer charging needs ensuring equitable access to 11 charging as electric vehicle adoption expands to a broader 12 and more diverse base of drivers. 13 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 14 proposed regulations and look forward to working with ARB 15 on continuing to promote the achievement of California's 16 climate, air quality, and equity goals. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 19 MR. FRIEDLAND: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 20 ARB Board members. My name is Jay Friedland and I'm a 21 Senior Policy Advisor for Plug In America. We're a 22 non-profit advocating for hundreds of thousands of EV 23 drivers. I also represent today a broad coalition, which 24 includes EV charger manufacturers, EV charging networks, 25 environmental groups, and consumer groups. As we -- and
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 121
1 we also speak for a broad organization or broader group, 2 who -- of people who wish to become EV drivers, especially 3 those in disadvantaged communities. 4 We were the original sponsor of Senator Corbett's 5 SB 454 in 2013. We've been working on the consumer 6 protection issue for more than seven years, including two 7 with ARB staff. They have tried hard to balance the 8 concerns of all the stakeholders. It's almost there and 9 it's in your hands today. And we actually think that some 10 of the compromises that have been proposed really move 11 there. And I think you'll see that many of our 12 organizations are willing to say, yes, these compromises 13 are legitimate. And I think you'll see that some of the 14 EV charging companies are not willing to comprise at all. 15 Imagine how you would feel if you pulled into a 16 gas station and you didn't know if it would take your 17 credit card for payment or how much the fuel costs? And 18 then in order to fuel, you had to download an app, or call 19 an 800 number, or join a club just to fill your car? 20 SB 454 was created to eliminate that, to make 21 sure that that didn't happen. Card readers are the most 22 basic way to solve the issue of never leaving any driver 23 stranded at a public charger. Consumers will buy more EVs 24 if we eliminate this barrier and make fueling a familiar 25 experience.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 122
1 We have three core principles. One, to ensure 2 open and universal access to publicly available charging 3 stations, especially since many of them were deployed 4 using public funding; to ensure that such open access 5 takes into consideration the needs of disadvantaged 6 communities, many of whom do not possess smartphones, 7 credit card, or even bank accounts; and to protect the 8 existing investment that California has made so far in 9 building public EV infrastructure. 10 We suggest changing the staff's proposed 11 modifications to find the best compromise in terms of 12 timing and preventing the issue from being relitigated 13 again just two years from now. 14 One, protect existing infrastructure eliminate 15 the retrofit requirement on L2 chargers installed prior to 16 January 1, 2020, but retain the retrofit requirement for 17 card readers on the 566 chargers that are publicly 18 available in disadvantaged communities. 19 And then for all L2 chargers add a requirement 20 that a toll-free number, which accepts credit, debit, and 21 prepaid cards be available. This is something everybody 22 should do now. 23 In order to send a strong signal to the market, 24 ARB should encourage incentives to reward early adoption 25 of card readers prior to the implementation date,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 123
1 especially in disadvantaged communities. Again, it's a 2 small number. And we think that this could really be done 3 both via ARB internal programs and working with other 4 State agencies like the CEC and the CPUC. The regulations 5 opponents you'll here from today, and you've been hearing 6 from, want you to believe that the cost to add card 7 readers will place an extreme burden on them and previous 8 installations will be ripped out. But these numbers have 9 been inflated out of proportion and the costs are modest, 10 especially if you do the grandfathering as staff has 11 proposed. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Your time is up. 13 MR. FRIEDLAND: Thanks very much. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Appreciate your testimony and I 15 know we have something in writing from you as well. 16 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Can I ask a quick 17 question? 18 MR. FRIEDLAND: Sure. 19 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Sorry. 20 (Laughter.) 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Go. Yes, go ahead. Of course. 22 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: I have to ask her first, 23 but yes. 24 (Laughter.) 25 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Sorry.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 124
1 Can you tell us more about how you -- for your 2 recommendation number 1 in regards to eliminating the 3 retrofit requirement for those chargers installed prior to 4 January 1, 2022, can you tell us a little bit about why 5 you selected that date? 6 MR. FRIEDLAND: Sure. Basically, what we tried 7 to do is balance the dates. So the original staff 8 proposal, I believe, had 2021 and then the new staff 9 proposal has 2023. So we just wanted to pull it in by a 10 year. 11 We also think that it -- one of the changes you 12 could make would be on manufacture dates. So, for 13 example, you could say all EVSE manufactured by this date. 14 That would not necessarily preclude it from being 15 installed, because the installation issue is an important 16 one, and it does take time for permitting and provisioning 17 and all those kind of things. So we think that there's 18 probably a working way to make this happen sooner rather 19 than later, particularly looking at a manufacture date. 20 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Thank you. 21 MR. FRIEDLAND: Sure. Thank you. 22 CHAIR NICHOLS: Dr. Sherriffs. Wait we have one 23 more questions also? No. 24 Were you not -- were you asking? Oh, I'm sorry. 25 You were just pointing. Never mind. We have a little
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 125
1 confusion here. We don't have a button system that really 2 works. 3 MR. FRIEDLAND: No problem. And again, thank you 4 for all your work on this and the staff's work. 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 6 We'll get there. 7 MR. DEMETRE: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 8 Board members. My name is Cameron Demetre. And I work 9 for TechNet. 10 Two key areas of TechNet's portfolio are 11 electrification of transportation and financial 12 technology. TechNet is unique in that we are able to see 13 innovation in these two fields and the intersection 14 between new technology innovations in these fields. 15 The financial technology market is quickly 16 evolving to meet the needs of consumers and provide 17 consumers with new, secure, and reliable payment systems 18 and financial tools. 19 Innovation in this market, including mobile 20 payments and contactless cards, has accelerated due to the 21 issues presented by swiping or dipping plastic debit and 22 credit cards. TechNet is concerned that a mandate for 23 credit card readers would not only increase the cost of 24 charging stations and hinder growth in the field, but 25 could also open consumers up to increased fraud.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 126
1 Contactless cards and Near Field Communication, 2 NFC, chips are cost effective to deploy and operate in the 3 charging station industry and result in quick and secure 4 payment transactions for consumers. 5 Additionally, TechNet requests the Board consider 6 amending the proposed definition of NFC reader. The 7 definition should accurately capture NFC readers that 8 accept credit card enabled NFCs and allow this technology 9 to qualify as a type of credit card reader. 10 NFC chips stocked inside credit cards enable 11 contactless payment, which is commonly understood by the 12 industry credit as a credit card payment method, not a 13 mobile payment. A contactless card can provide credit 14 card access to charging stations without the cost impact. 15 Consumer protection issues and technology obsolescence 16 associated with chip readers and swipe machines requiring 17 electric vehicle service providers to retrofit existing 18 stations and prospectively include credit card readers 19 will increase costs. 20 This will hamper ESVP's ability to allocate 21 resources to research and deploy new innovative payment 22 technologies and will also take critical existing charging 23 stations out of operation. Thank you for your time and we 24 appreciate ARB's continued efforts to electrify the 25 transportation sector and support innovation in achieving
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 127
1 our long-term climate goals. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 4 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 5 members of the Board. My name is Elias Rodriguez. And 6 I'm here on behalf of Earthjustice. 7 For the following reasons, Earthjustice supports 8 the Air Resources Board's measures to make publicly 9 accessible Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment available to 10 all users. 11 First, opening up Electric Vehicle Supply 12 Equipment to non-remembers and requiring credit card 13 readers ensures not only uniformity of service, but 14 critical access to infrastructure that users from local 15 communities may be lacking. 16 Second, bringing common billing standards to all 17 suppliers provides consumers with less confusion and ease 18 of access. 19 And finally, transparent fees and energy 20 capabilities ensure clarity to users and safe use of 21 potentially dangerous equipment. 22 So making clean energy infrastructure, such as 23 EVSE, accessible to all users is an important step in 24 California's goal to become emission free. These efforts 25 are crucial to expand the use of electric vehicles,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 128
1 because they will influence the decisions of drivers who 2 do not currently own electric vehicles. Consumers are 3 more likely to use products that have -- that provide ease 4 of use. 5 Earthjustice supports CARB's measure -- excuse 6 me, CARB's adoption of these common sense proposals to 7 make sure electric vehicle charging is available to a 8 broader swath of the public. 9 Thank you 10 VICE CHAIR BERG: So in doing our planning, we'll 11 have you be our last speaker. And then Madam Chair -- 12 last speaker before lunch. Thank you. We didn't mean 13 last speaker for the item. So thank you, Dr. Balmes. 14 (Laughter.) 15 VICE CHAIR BERG: As everybody is going "Wait". 16 And, Madam Chair, if I could make a comment 17 before we go to lunch. I'm been asked to do a little 18 double duty this afternoon. And I do have very strong 19 feelings about this and I don't know that I'm going to be 20 back prior to the vote. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, okay. 22 If you would like to make a statement now, that 23 would be fine. 24 VICE CHAIR BERG: After our speaker. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: I do want to say that we're only
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 129
1 taking a half hour break. 2 VICE CHAIR BERG: Oh, we are. Okay. Then I'll 3 wait. Then I'll wait. A half hour break would be great. 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. 5 VICE CHAIR BERG: Please, go ahead. 6 MR. WIEDMAN: Thank you, Chairman and Board. My 7 name is Joseph Wiedman. I'm the Director of Regulatory 8 and Legislative Affairs for Peninsula Clean Energy 9 Authority. We are the community choice aggregator serving 10 San Mateo County. We were formed in February 2016 by a 11 unanimous vote of the -- all city councils in San Mateo 12 County and the Board. So that's the first time in 165 13 years those politicians have agreed on anything 14 unanimously. 15 (Laughter.) 16 MR. WIEDMAN: But the mission of PCE, that's why 17 they voted, was to help the county and assist in 18 decarbonization. And the biggest source of carbon 19 emissions in the county is transportation. So within 20 first two years, we are moving to adopt a $20 million 21 programmatic effort on EV transportation. That includes 22 ride and drives, it includes new and used EV incentives, 23 and it also includes a major charging infrastructure 24 program for over 3,500 chargers. So we are here today to 25 talk about these regulations. We've submitted extensive
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 130
1 comments on the regulations, so I'll be brief. And I know 2 we're all waiting for the break. 3 So we have three main recommendations to the 4 Board. The first would be to clearly grandfather all 5 existing chargers until they are upgraded. 6 The second would be we strongly support 7 flexibility in standards to avoid technology obsolescence. 8 And then three, we encourage the Board to 9 collaborate with the Center for Sustainable Energy and the 10 Energy Commission to support the CALeVIP program, and 11 align this program with any proposed regulations coming 12 out of today's vote. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks for those recommendations. 15 It is noon and I think we can take a break at this time. 16 And we'll try to reconvene at 12:30 or as close to that as 17 possible. 18 Thank you. 19 (Off record: 11:59 a.m.) 20 (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.) 21 22 23 24 25
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 131
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 (On record: 12:40 p.m.) 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: We're ready to get back to work. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. We are looking for 6 Adam Mohabbat. Has Adam made it back yet from EVgo? 7 How about Lisa. 8 Oh, okay. There is Come on down. Yes, and then 9 Lisa, and then Rocky. 10 Okay. 11 MR. MOHABBAT: All right. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good. 13 MR. MOHABBAT: Good afternoon, everybody. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Good afternoon. 15 MR. MOHABBAT: Thank you so much for the break. 16 I enjoyed a great pita. My name is Adam Mohabbat. I'm 17 here today representing EVgo. We did submit a public 18 comment letter. I appreciate you all taking the time to 19 hear me speak today as well. EVgo is the nation's largest 20 public electric vehicle fast charging network with more 21 than 1,200 DC fast chargers operating across the nation. 22 This includes many legacy L2 chargers on our network as 23 well. Approximately, half of our network is here in 24 California. 25 We share CARB's mission for a seamless and
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 132
1 accessible customer experience. You do not need a 2 membership to access our chargers. We are also committed 3 to ensuring equity and accessibility and electric for all 4 with 40 percent of California network of ours in 5 low-income communities. 6 EVgo shares the State's goal of 250,000 chargers 7 in the state by 2025, that includes 10,000 fast chargers. 8 And we're actually currently on track to have more than 9 1,350 operating DC fast chargers in the state. By the end 10 of the summer. 11 Here, today to tell you that the SB 454 12 rulemaking as proposed puts many of these chargers at risk 13 and that we respectfully oppose. EVgo has engaged with 14 CARB throughout this process. We also engage with other 15 stakeholders. We echo their recommendations and 16 appreciate some of the recommendations that were 17 accommodated into the regulations. So thank you for that. 18 But I do want to share two additional points 19 today. The first is that EVgo has credit card readers on 20 our existing infrastructure. And that the reality is 21 these credit card readers are used less than one percent 22 of the time. This number has not increased throughout the 23 years that we've been operating. In fact, our data 24 demonstrates the opposite. As we expect to see increased 25 payment sessions from mobile payments including Apple and
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 133
1 Google Pay. 2 (Phone ringing.) 3 MR. MOHABBAT: I'm going to keep rolling here. 4 We also recently launched auto charge for Maven 5 drivers which enables a session without a credit card or 6 any swipe or tap option. We're going to be rolling this 7 out to our chargers -- our CCS capable chargers by the end 8 of the year. And we've shared this one percent credit 9 card usage figure with staff and have not seen any data 10 from CARB that would demonstrate that credit card usage by 11 drivers would increase over time. 12 We heard earlier that this requirement may 13 increase utilization of chargers. We'd argue that it's 14 difficult to make policy based on a feeling and that 15 regulations should be data driven. 16 The second point is to in -- is that the increase 17 of roaming agreements that have come to fruition since 18 this legislation was originally written. When SB 454 was 19 passed back in 2013, there was virtually no industry-wide 20 interoperability ability. 21 However, we're living in a different reality now. 22 With so many of the largest EV service providers, 23 including EVgo, having announced bilateral 24 interoperability agreements. It's important to note that 25 these agreements will have zero extra cost to drivers.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 134
1 And I can tell you that there are more interoperability 2 agreements coming along. 3 Thank you for your time. We respectfully oppose. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, may I ask 5 just a quick question? 6 And I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, but -- okay. 7 We know you have about a one percent for credit cards. 8 What's the spread with the others or do you separate out 9 those? 10 MR. MOHABBAT: Absolutely. So we see a large -- 11 a vast majority of payment -- or of sessions being started 12 with RFID cards. And then we're seeing an upward trend 13 with mobile payments. So we're anticipating that that's 14 going to be kind of where the future is at. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank 16 you for the clarification. 17 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: I'm sorry, but aren't 18 your mobile payments backed up by a credit card? 19 I mean, in order to get into your system, people 20 have to have a credit card, so how do you count those? 21 MR. MOHABBAT: I believe so. So I mean, what 22 that one percent number is strictly talking about credit 23 card readers. So the physical reader on the 24 infrastructure itself. 25 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yeah. But you're using
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 135
1 credit cards in your system. 2 MR. MOHABBAT: I believe -- so I don't want to 3 speak totally off the top of my head here, but you can use 4 a credit card or like a debit card. So it's just like 5 whatever monetary account you'd be using, yeah, in 6 general. 7 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Right. Okay. Thanks. 8 MS. McGHEE: Good afternoon. Lisa McGhee, San 9 Diego Airport Parking Company. 10 EVSEs and EV technology needs to advance towards 11 performance standards and improve reliability as such. 12 SDAP supports this proposed standard with the following 13 modifications and comments. 14 Forty percent of existing Level 2 EVs -- EVSEs 15 are not owned by the EVSE providers. They are owned by 16 small private retail sites or workplace likely only at one 17 site. The life of an EVSE is ten years. These private 18 and small entities could support public charging in the 19 future, and it is reasonable to allow grandfathering. 20 Otherwise, this cost would be a burden and/or 21 these sites my not participate in future public charging, 22 and thereby it will take them out of operation. 23 SDAP appreciates today's amendments, which 24 preserves the life, but requests grandfathering. 25 Additionally, not all EV drivers have mobile access or a
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 136
1 smartphone. Only 58 percent have smartphones. Others may 2 not have a credit card. We don't know what the future 3 innovative payment will be. Payments by cash should be 4 available, so all public EV drivers have open access. 5 The price of a kilowatt hour should incorporate 6 all fees, taxes, user fees, and so forth that are tied to 7 the quantity of the sum of the kilowatt hours that are 8 purchased. This would be the adjusted kilowatt hour or 9 the out-the-door kilowatt hour place. This presents -- 10 this prevents the need for engaging in mathematical 11 calculations at the dispenser and aligns with other 12 conventional fuel pricing by the gallon, which already 13 includes the taxes. 14 Kilowatt hours disclosed. SDAP appreciates 15 disclosure and would like to request for consideration on 16 the actual throughput of the dispensed kilowatt, as line 17 loss and distance will impact the kilowatt throughput, 18 thereby testing the field after installed will true-up the 19 kilowatt disclosed for every installed EVSE. 20 And lastly, the response time to failures by the 21 OEM EVSPs needs to be documented and enforced to avoid 22 excessive downtime as some equipment is proprietary. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. 25 MR. RUSHING: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Board
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 137
1 members. Rocky Rushing with the Coalition for Clean Air. 2 Just in reference to an earlier speaker, I just want to 3 say for the record, some of America's greatest triumphs 4 was fueled on bad so coffee. So I think all know that and 5 we can move on. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. RUSHING: CCA supports the proposed Electric 8 Vehicle Supply Equipment standard. We'd like to thank 9 staff for its diligent work on this matter and we -- which 10 we think will be far reaching in giving all EV drivers 11 reliable and equitable payment options. California faces 12 a pressing need to accelerate the transition from the 13 internal combustion engine to zero-emission 14 transportation. 15 We have the dirtiest air in the nation. We have 16 a climb and air quality crisis and our dependence on the 17 internal combustion engine shares a large part of the 18 blame. We must step up our emission reduction efforts and 19 that means making zero-emission vehicles accessible to the 20 greatest number of drivers. 21 SB 1275 of 2014 envisioned a market for EVs not 22 just for the tech savvy or the well-heeled, but for low 23 and moderate income households and those living in 24 disadvantaged communities. 25 The stage for SB 1275 was set in 2013 with the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 138
1 passage of SB 454. SB 454 provided the framework so EV 2 charging stations could be, as Senator Corbett earlier 3 referenced, just as simple as gassing up your car. If 4 approved today, the proposed resolution before this Board 5 would realize the spirit of SB 454 by setting performance 6 standards for charging stations that provide convenience 7 and easy payment methods. Drivers can fill up at gas 8 stations with a charge card and they should be able to do 9 so at charging stations. 10 If we are striving for a transition to 11 emission-free vehicles that is as seamless as possible, 12 limiting payment methods to RFID tags, a 1-800 number, or 13 other contactless methods is certainly not the way to get 14 there. California leads the nation in EV adoption. We 15 surpassed a half million in the market in sales last year. 16 Our sights are set one 1.5 million by 2025 and 5 17 million by 2030. To achieve these goals, public charging 18 can either be inconvenient or confusing. This Board has 19 before it a resolution that recognizes the needs of 20 consumers today, and what will certainly be the practices 21 of consumers in the future. 22 To ensure charging access for all EV drivers, we 23 urge the passage of the proposed electrical -- Electric 24 Vehicle Supply Equipment standards. 25 Thank you so much.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 139
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 2 MS. HITT: Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Hitt 3 from the Computing Technology Industry Association, also 4 CompTIA. CompTIA is a non-profit trade association 5 serving as a leading voice in the technology industry that 6 supports technology innovation. We very much appreciate 7 the work that the Board and staff has done to date on 8 these regulations and share the goals of wanting to expand 9 access to EV charging stations across the state, in order 10 to support California's climate goals. 11 However, we urge the Board to request a 12 modification in the regulation to not require EMV chip 13 readers, but rather allow chargers to accept credit card 14 payment in the method of the EVSE's choice. While the 15 enabling legislation SB 454 provides an option to pay via 16 credits cards, it does not mandate that physical credit 17 card readers be installed in all stations. 18 Specifically, it states, "An electric vehicle 19 charging station that requires payment of fees shall allow 20 a person desiring to use the station to pay via credit 21 card or mobile device technology or both". This would 22 provide adequate flexibility to charging station providers 23 to choose a payment technology they prefer without 24 jeopardizing consumer access to charging stations. 25 For the past 10 years, the Energy Commission has
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 140
1 invested approximately $50 million in publicly available 2 EV charging stations. If this regulation goes into effect 3 as is, not only will existing investments happen in vain, 4 but future investments from ratepayers and the State will 5 only go as far -- half as far, undercutting the amount of 6 infrastructure the State could deploy. 7 Given the scope of the climate crisis before us, 8 and the immense need for infrastructure to support the 9 State's transportation electrification goals, this is not 10 a good use of State and ratepayer resources for charging 11 infrastructure. 12 The State needs to rapidly increase 13 infrastructure deployment to meet its greenhouse gas 14 emission reduction goals and ensure electronic vehicle 15 service providers continue to innovate and provide a 16 consumer-friendly charging experience. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 18 MS. WAHL: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 19 members of the Board. Francesca Wahl again on behalf of 20 Tesla. First, we'd like to recognize staff for their 21 dedication and hard work on the development of the EVSE 22 standards. 23 As a California based manufacturer of electric 24 vehicles with a significant California and global charging 25 infrastructure network, including over 1,500 supercharger
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 141
1 or fast charging stalls and over 2,200 Level 2 charging 2 stations in California, Tesla recognizes the importance of 3 providing access to charging infrastructure to help spur 4 the deployment of electric vehicles in California. 5 Providing a seamless and transparent customer 6 experience has been and continues to be one of Tesla's key 7 objective in developing both our supercharger and 8 destination charging network. Per the language provided 9 in the statute and the proposed regulation, this 10 regulation applies to all publicly available EVSE, which 11 does not include EVSE provided by producer of electric 12 vehicles as a service to its customers. 13 Tesla appreciates staff recognition that per the 14 statute this regulation is not applicable to the 15 supercharger or destination charging networks. Because 16 charging services are provided to our customers directly 17 and integrated with the vehicle user interface, Tesla has 18 been able to provide access to convenient and affordable 19 charging infrastructure providing a seamless experience. 20 Nonetheless, we have an interest in the 21 development of this regulation, given Tesla vehicles and 22 our customers represent a significant portion of the EV 23 market in California today. To that end, we submitted 24 written comments earlier this week, where we articulated 25 two different points.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 142
1 One was on the payment mechanisms, where we 2 articulated that we agree that there should be some level 3 of flexibility maintained within the regulation, and at 4 this point, we do not support a straight out mandate of 5 credit card readers on all new charging stations. 6 We're worried about the impact that this will 7 have on the charging industry and the lack of data that 8 has been utilized to determine that this requirement is 9 necessary to overcome barriers to charging infrastructure 10 deployment, given no direct correlation has been provided 11 and how credit card readers will in turn make access to 12 charging stations easier for all EV drivers. 13 There are a number of payment mechanisms, as 14 others have articulated, that are starting to provide more 15 flexibility to drivers. I will not go through all of 16 those currently, but roaming options are also available 17 today. And we've already seen this as a reality across 18 the industry. 19 Finally, as I've mentioned already Tesla is not 20 subject to this regulations, given that we are providing 21 charging as a service to our customers. We really built 22 our network to install our drives with the confidence of 23 owning an EV and being able to have long-distance travel. 24 And since then, we've continued to invest a significant 25 amount of funds into that network.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 143
1 However, we've also stated publicly that we are 2 open to allowing other automakers to access the network if 3 certain conditions are met. The current proposed 4 regulatory framework provides a significant disincentive 5 for opening the network to non-Tesla drivers by making it 6 a much more costly proposition that could significantly 7 impact the driver experience. 8 Therefore, we thank you for considering this as 9 you are considering the regulation before you today. 10 MS. GOLDSMITH: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 11 members of the Board. It's rare that I have the privilege 12 to speak to you three times in one meeting. 13 My name is Hannah Goldsmith. I'm with the 14 California Electric Transportation Coalition. As I failed 15 to mention before, CalETC is a nonprofit industry 16 association and our members include utilities, 17 manufacturers of light-, medium- and heavy-duty electric 18 vehicles, as well as a few charging station providers and 19 others that are supportive of transportation 20 electrification. 21 I first just want to thank staff for their 22 efforts to understand and incorporate our feedback during 23 the course of this rulemaking. Our primary 24 recommendation, although we submitted more detailed 25 comments on the 45-day language, is to include an
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 144
1 appropriate phase-in period for existing charging stations 2 of at least 10 years to recognize the useful life of these 3 stations. 4 The State of California, utilities, and other 5 entities have spent millions of dollars putting in the 6 current network of charging stations and we must 7 drastically increase the amount of charging stations in 8 order to meet the ZEV targets, our air quality targets, 9 and our climate change targets. 10 Spending public, ratepayer, or other limited 11 funds to replace or retrofit existing stations before the 12 end of their useful life, instead of installing new 13 stations will hinder these State goals. We are pleased to 14 see in the proposed 15-day changes that were shown by 15 staff in their presentation that this is part of the new 16 proposal. And with that change, we are neutral. 17 As detailed in our letter, we do also recommend 18 that staff evaluate the regulations at designated 19 intervals after implementation begins to ensure that the 20 regulations are not hindering the zero-emission vehicle 21 market and are achieving the intended benefits. 22 And just to say staff have been very up front 23 with us about their intention to do this. It was also 24 included in the presentation and we're very appreciative 25 of that. So we look forward to continuing to work with
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 145
1 you as you formalize the 15-day modifications. 2 Thank you. 3 VICE CHAIR BERG: Madam Chair -- 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. 5 VICE CHAIR BERG: -- as the next speaker comes 6 up, if you wouldn't mind, if I could just give a couple of 7 comments before I leave. 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, please. I know you have to 9 leave for a bit, so please go ahead. 10 VICE CHAIR BERG: Yeah. I have the privilege of 11 going over to the California Climate Cup and they're going 12 to be awarding a $25,000 winner to an innovative company. 13 I'm excited to represent ARB. 14 But I do feel very strongly about this 15 regulation, both personally, as an EV owner, and being in 16 a situation of needing to be able to charge, and also 17 looking at the choice that we have as policy -- as people 18 that develop policy and looking out for the consumer. So 19 I'd just like to make two quick observations that I'd like 20 to offer to my fellow Board members. 21 It just appears to me on the technology issue 22 that there is more opportunity to take a look at what 23 types of payments and how we should structure this in the 24 future to pass a regulation that has -- appears 25 one-size-fits-all, meaning it would have to come back to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 146
1 us in order to change anything might be a little bit 2 narrow. 3 So I'd like to offer for your discussion that you 4 might consider that we would direct and give the authority 5 to the Executive Officer the ability to do technology 6 reviews, and be the decision maker on how this technology 7 should change. There could be hybrids between chip 8 readers and contactless. There's all sorts of interesting 9 things coming out in the future. And it seems to me that 10 we have a staff that would be very competent through our 11 Executive Officer to be able to broaden their thinking, 12 understanding that we want to be a combination of what's 13 right here right now, but also having an eye on the trends 14 in the future to minimize a wholesale changeover. 15 I personally don't know what that should be 16 today, but I really believe that you all are very capable 17 and I would support some language within the resolution 18 that directed and gave the authority to the Executive 19 Officer for that. 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. 21 VICE CHAIR BERG: Secondly, if I was here, I 22 would ask about the implementation date. I am absolutely 23 in favor of those things that are in the works from 24 conception through ready to be plugged in that we should 25 be coordinating with our sister agencies. But also, are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 147
1 we making sure that things that are an idea are going to 2 the new standard? 3 So I would ask if -- I don't know about the 4 clarification, are -- is that additional time frame that 5 staff is asking, are we making sure that brand new 6 projects that haven't been conceived yet really should 7 go -- especially in the DC fast chargers should go under 8 the new standard? That's the question I would ask. 9 So I know I'm leaving this in very capable hands. 10 Those are my couple of thoughts. Good luck. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 12 VICE CHAIR BERG: And I'll go and celebrate with 13 the winners of the Climate Cup. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: The Climate Cup is From the L.A. 15 Cleantech Incubator, so it's my home folks. 16 VICE CHAIR BERG: As well as mine. 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: And yours to. 18 Okay. Thank you. Fine. 19 We'll go to Alex. 20 MS. LEUMER: Thank you, Chair Nichols and members 21 of the Board. And congratulations on the award. My name 22 is Alex Leumer. I'm the Director of Public Policy at 23 ChargePoint, the world's leading network of electric 24 vehicle charging stations. 25 ChargePoint shares the goals of ARB staff in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 148
1 wanting to expand access to EV charging for all income 2 levels in order to help Californians transition to 3 zero-emission vehicles and to help us -- excuse me -- 4 reach our GHG reduction goals. 5 However, we do not support the proposed rule as 6 written and are worried about the unintended consequences. 7 As a global company with more than 65,000 ports across our 8 network, including 29,000 here in California, ChargePoint 9 is greatly concerned about the proposed mandate for an EMV 10 chip read on existing and new stations, and the creation 11 of a California specific roaming standard. 12 The majority of stations on ChargePoint's network 13 are independently owned and operated by workplaces, retail 14 stores, colleges and universities, and public agencies. 15 The cost to replace stations with ones that have chip 16 readers and to maintain those new stations with higher 17 maintenance, data, and security costs will fall on these 18 businesses, many of whom have previously received public 19 or utility funding to deploy their stations. This will 20 lead to fewer stations deployed or kept operational, 21 significantly setting back our State's number of publicly 22 available charging stations, rather than increasing it. 23 ChargePoint urges the Board to request a 24 modification to enable charging providers to offer credit 25 card payment in the method of their choice including those
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 149
1 currently offered by our companies without requiring 2 membership, including contactless cards, payment through 3 an 800 number, and mobile payments for bank cards or 4 credit cards using Near Field Communication. 5 The proposed rule would also create a 6 California -- California-only standard and testing 7 procedure for roaming between charging networks. This 8 could have the unintended effect of setting back existing 9 roaming agreements and making it more difficult for new 10 charging networks to enter into California. ChargePoint 11 has already signed pee-to-peer roaming agreements with 95 12 percent of the industry using a global standard under 13 development called OCPI. 14 We have used the same standard in Canada to 15 implement roaming with FLO, as we have in Europe with 16 EVBox and in the U.S. with EVgo, Electrify America, EV 17 Connect and others. 18 Each one of these agreements requires business 19 discussions, legal documentation, and engineering to make 20 sure that the back end of both networks can provide a 21 seamless charging experience for drivers without any 22 additional roaming fees. Staff proposed California-only 23 standard does not support existing roaming agreements, nor 24 does it provide any additional guidance to streamline or 25 encourage new agreements to be in place.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 150
1 ChargePoint remains committed to working with all 2 the networks, small and large, to establish roaming 3 agreements. But we must warn the Board that this proposed 4 rule may delay our progress on implementation. It will 5 also exposure our customers to propose $1,000 fine per 6 port for compliance that we feel will strongly discourage 7 public stations from being installed or operated. 8 Given California's EV deployment goals and desire 9 to expand access, we believe giving industry the 10 flexibility to respond to customer choice, developments in 11 technology, and global payment trends will better serve 12 these goals. California leads the nation in climate 13 action as well as developing technology. 14 Let us continue to lead. Thank you. 15 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 16 MR. KARLEN: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, 17 members of the Board. My name is Erick Karlen and I 18 represent Greenlots. Greenlots is a leading provider of 19 electric vehicle charging and software based in Los 20 Angeles. Greenlots has been actively involved and engaged 21 in growing the market for electric vehicles and 22 transportation electrification across California. And 23 we're involved in a variety of charging with special 24 deployments across the state. 25 Six years ago, Greenlots was a very vocal
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 151
1 advocate of Senate Bill 454 and its ambition to create an 2 open and equitable access to charging infrastructure for 3 all Californians, while easing barriers to the adoption of 4 electric vehicles and establishing a more sustainable 5 foundation for the growth of the industry. 6 Today, our support for the goals of legislation 7 and the regulatory process to implement remains strong. 8 During this process, we've shared a perspective on some of 9 the implementation details of the proposed regulation, 10 including the potential effects of some of the retrofit 11 provisions and that making sure we don't adversely devalue 12 or compromise existing investment -- investments. 13 Greenlots is encouraged by staff's proposed 14 modifications to address these concerns. However, some of 15 the modifications may be too accommodating, but we're 16 appreciative and supportive of staff's efforts to find a 17 compromise. 18 Separately, Greenlots is supportive of staff's 19 modifications to clarify the definition of publicly 20 available and in refining some of the data collection and 21 reporting requirements. We'd also be supportive of some 22 sort of technology review as others have alluded to here 23 today. We'll provide more detailed comments on these 24 proposed modifications during the 15-day period. 25 Greenlots is excited about the growth of this
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 152
1 industry and helping the industry reach its 2 sustainability. We recognize that CARB's involvement is a 3 reflection of the growth of the industry and that the 4 topics addressed by this regulation are important elements 5 in maturing this market. 6 While the State has set aggressive goals, we're 7 now seeing local jurisdictions taking leadership roles to 8 further accelerate towards an electrified future, 9 including the vision contained with City of Los Angeles's 10 sustainability plan. The adoption of consumer protections 11 and standards is critical in supporting the growth -- this 12 growth in meeting driver needs. 13 And for these reasons, Greenlots proudly supports 14 CARB's actions and the adoption of this regulation as 15 modified in the staff's proposed amendments. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 18 MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 19 members of the Board. I'm Tone -- excuse me. I'm Tony 20 Gonzalez. And I'm here on behalf of Electrify America, 21 LLC. 22 First, I would like to thank and acknowledge the 23 work of the staff in developing this proposal. We've 24 spent a lot of time together over the last almost two 25 years, and I appreciate -- we appreciate their effort.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 153
1 Electrify American is an EV charging provider 2 investing $800 million in California with -- we've 3 developed -- or have in development 120 ultrafast public 4 DR fast charging stations open or coming soon in 5 California today and will begin work on Cycle 2 6 investments in July. 7 Electrify America is committed to 8 driver-friendly, accessible charging stations. All 9 publicly -- all public Electrify America charging stations 10 include multiple payment options, including credit and 11 debit card readers. And all Electrify America stations 12 also support OCPI 2.1 interface to communicate with other 13 networks and Open Interchange Protocol to connect roaming 14 platforms. 15 Therefore, Electrify America's public stations 16 comply with the requirements of this proposed regulation 17 today and we support CARB proceeding with a few minor 18 modifications. 19 Electrify America values the ongoing commitment 20 of CARB staff to conducting stakeholder engagement around 21 the proposed regulations. And Electrify America would 22 like to thank CARB for it's proposed modifications brought 23 forward today, which dramatically improve the proposal. 24 In particular, Electrify America appreciates that 25 CARB is committed to clarify the definition of workplace
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 154
1 charging. SB 454 explicitly exempted workplace charging 2 from this regulation. Electrify America's vendors, 3 Greenlots, SemaConnect, and EV Connect are installing 4 approximately 1,000 Level 2 chargers at workplaces across 5 California on Electrify America's behalf. 6 We respectfully request that CARB Board members 7 confirm at this hearing that workplace charging stations 8 installed by our vendors will not be subject to reporting 9 and credit card reader requirements. 10 Electrify America also appreciates that CARB has 11 reduced the reporting requirements. We -- but the 12 regulation would still require reporting that is 13 burdensome on industry. We urge that reporting of 14 transaction type be made voluntary and mandatory reporting 15 be limited to the reporting to NREL referenced in SB 4. 16 Electrify America has determined that compiling 17 the annual report of transaction types will require 18 Electrify America to integrate multiple data reports from, 19 one, it's network provider, and two, its credit card 20 processor. 21 To meet an auditable standard of accuracy 22 Electrify America will need to make new ZEV infrastructure 23 investments in reporting capacity and capability. If CARB 24 does plan to proceed with the reporting requirements of 25 transaction types, Electrify America urges CARB to clarify
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 155
1 its definitions of payment types. 2 For example, Electrify America would appreciate 3 knowing whether a credit card transaction made using tap 4 Near Field Communication technology should be considered, 5 A, a credit card purchase, or two, an NFC purchase. 6 And lastly, if I may, Madam Chair Nichols. 7 Electrify America appreciates the opportunity to comment 8 and looks forward to work -- to continuing to work with 9 CARB charging providers and EV drivers to build a robust 10 system for electric vehicles. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. When did you begin 12 installing charging stations? 13 MR. GONZALEZ: About a year ago. Yeah. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. So you don't have any of 15 the old Level 2 chargers out there at all? 16 MR. GONZALEZ: We are installing level 2 chargers 17 now. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: You are installing Level 2s 19 though? 20 MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. Yes. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. 22 MR. GONZALEZ: Absolutely. Thank you. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 All right. Hi. 25 MR. SHAH: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, members
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 156
1 of the Board and ARB staff. My name is Rajiv Shah, and I 2 am the Director of Regulatory Affairs at FreeWire 3 Technologies. FreeWire is a California start-up based in 4 a disadvantaged community in San Leandro. We are a LACI 5 portfolio alumni. 6 And we are supportive of the spirit and intent of 7 the legislation in implementing regulations, but have some 8 concerns about whether this might, you know, hinder 9 innovation and the rapid deployment that is necessary to 10 meet the State's ambitious EV goals. 11 I'll just make a couple brief points on some of 12 our specific concerns and not kind of go through a lot of 13 the comments that have been well summarized by some of the 14 other manufacturers and providers in this space. FreeWire 15 manufacturers battery-integrated charging equipment. We 16 have a mobile unit that can be flexibly deployed anywhere. 17 And it is capable of not just providing EV charging, but 18 also serving as a power source to replace traditional 19 fossil fuel based generators. 20 Under the proposed regulation, as I understand 21 it, chargers that are offered free of charge would be 22 subject to certain reporting requirements. And we think 23 that this would create a burden, you know, and really keep 24 people from installing and offering charging as a free 25 service and amenity.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 157
1 But then I think the other -- the other aspect 2 here that's a little troubling for us is that our mobile 3 unit does not have an EV chip -- or a credit card chip 4 reader installed on it. And in our current deployments in 5 California, a lot of them are in sort of a concierge 6 charging model, where people -- primarily used in 7 workplace. But in these workplace settings, you're having 8 a driver drive anywhere in the parking lot, access an app, 9 drop a pin, requesting a charge, and our mobile unit is 10 manned by an attendant who delivers the charging to them. 11 We envision that this could be also deployed in 12 public parking facilities, like parking garages. In that 13 situation, the EV driver would never be interacting with 14 the charger. And so this requirement that they pay via 15 credit card on -- located on the charger at -- or at a 16 kiosk just wouldn't really apply to us. 17 In that case, what if the -- what if the EV 18 driver was trying to pay a human attendant located at the 19 facility? We just think that, in short, that this 20 regulation really doesn't think about the evolution and 21 potential innovation that could occur in the EV charging 22 industry. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 I believe this is our last witness. 25 MS. HOSTETTER: Thank you, Chair Nichols and
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 158
1 members of the Board. I'm Obrie Hostetter with Hubject. 2 And we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and 3 comments on the implementation of SB 454. We strongly 4 believe that open access to EV charging will help 5 California meet its goal of five million zero-emission 6 vehicles on the road by 2030. 7 And just to give a tiny bit of background. 8 Hubject's missions is seamless EV charging for everyone 9 everywhere. We were founded in 2012 to solve the issue of 10 consumer anxiety about access to public charging stations, 11 meaning we do roaming. 12 To date, we've connected over 100,000 charge 13 ports in more than 26 countries and over 300 14 business-to-business partners. 15 We utilize a communications protocol called the 16 Open InterCharge Protocol, or OICP, which is the most 17 widely adopted and implemented protocol worldwide. The 18 Open InterCharge Protocol is inclusive of all market 19 participants, regardless of the size of their network and 20 enables an easy and cost effective connection via one 21 interface and one contract. 22 We understand that ARB staff is currently 23 recommending proposing to require the installation of a 24 different protocol, which is the Open ChargePoint 25 Interface, or OCPI, because it was the only available
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 159
1 protocol that was truly open source at that time. 2 However, we are proud to let members of the Board 3 know that the Open InterCharge Protocol, or OCPI, has 4 recently been made freely available and is now truly open 5 source, meaning OICP is free and publicly available either 6 in a hub based or peer-to-peer network connection. 7 So first, we want to thank staff for recommending 8 the use of additional interoperability protocols which 9 would include OICP. And we very much thank the staff 10 today, including Stephanie Palmer for mentioning that 11 today. However, with the opening of this protocol, we 12 would like to respectfully request reconsidering OICP as a 13 listed protocol in SB 454 and be included in the 15-day 14 language. 15 So we thank for the opportunity to partner with 16 ARB staff on the successful implementation of SB 454. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. We do have one more card 19 that was submitted Bill Boyce from SMUD. 20 MR. BOYCE: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank 21 the Board and Chair Nichols for opportunities to make some 22 quick comments. 23 Primarily, our comments are with regards to the 24 longer timeline for compliance and also the aggregated 25 reporting. There's a large slug of charging
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 160
1 infrastructure going in in Sacramento over the next year 2 to 18 months and we thought that the extended timeline 3 would be necessary to allow useful life of that equipment 4 as that deployment goes forward. 5 Those were reflected in the latest version with 6 staff so we support that. We want to thank staff for. 7 And that, I'll conclude my comments 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 9 So your -- your particular concern was satisfied 10 by the staff agreement. 11 Okay. That concludes the list of witness that we 12 have. And so I will close the record for this hearing at 13 this point. Although it may be necessary to come back 14 again for further 15-day changes, if changes are needed. 15 But I think it's time to enter into some 16 discussion here. I find this -- there's a lot of 17 dissonance in this area shall we say. But despite the 18 protestations about interest in seamless charging and all 19 working together, I'm really not hearing any constructive 20 proposals at this point coming from most of the people 21 who've spoken on behalf of this industry. 22 And I'm hearing a lot of things that don't strike 23 me as very plausible, like the argument about how, you 24 know, credit card readers are subject to fraud, unlike any 25 other kind of payment method, of course, you know, or
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 161
1 other arguments that just don't seem to me to carry a lot 2 of weight. 3 So on the other hand, there's -- however many 4 hands I have, I'm troubled by the -- particularly by the 5 fact that it's true that we're in a dynamic, fast-changing 6 world, and we're dealing with an industry that's changing. 7 The business model that they had doesn't seem to work 8 anymore and they're trying to figure out how to change it 9 themselves with all these new agreements between the 10 different companies. 11 But from the perspective of the Air Resources 12 Board, if I try to bring it back to what our 13 responsibility is here, on behalf of the State, and we do 14 have other State partners here too, because the funding 15 that's gone out in grants to subsidize both the new ones 16 that are coming online soon and some of the old ones 17 primarily came through grants that were -- that were done 18 through the Energy Commission. And so we have to be 19 working in partnership with them on whatever it is we do. 20 And to the extent that we're dealing with electricity 21 providers, we have the PUC to deal with as well. 22 I also am an electric vehicle driver. I'm on my 23 second electric vehicle. And I have had the experience, 24 and almost everybody I talk to, once you start the 25 conversation, has had the experience, of trying to get
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 162
1 charging when you were very low and worried about it 2 having to abort a trip, or stand in a parking lot in the 3 dark, in the rain, in scary place, you know, trying to 4 figure out how to be allowed to charge. 5 And the situation doesn't seem to me to have 6 gotten better in, you know, just the last few weeks. So I 7 think that implementing the legislation, at least, you 8 know, starting from anything going forward, we just have 9 to. I mean, there's just -- there's really no excuse for 10 not setting out criteria that would at least prevent State 11 money from going to putting in charging stations that are 12 automatically going to become unaccessible, you know, from 13 the moment that they're put in. 14 But, beyond that, I know other people have 15 different concerns or issues that they'd like to raise. 16 And so I think I would just like to open it up for 17 discussion on the part of the Board. I started there the 18 last time. I going to go down this side the next time. 19 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Thank you. Thank you, 20 Madam Chair. I spent four years, prior to coming here, at 21 a technology company. And so I'm acutely aware of how 22 fast things change in today's world. I'm also very aware 23 of the fact that when you're in a business, your primary 24 motive is to make money. That is your business model. 25 And so you will do the things that give you an
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 163
1 advantage for yourself. And so if you are in this 2 business, and you can have an app, and folks can only use 3 your charging stations, you build up brand loyalty, you 4 build customer loyalty. That is -- that is in your 5 business model. That makes sense to me. I understand 6 that. 7 When it comes to having to change things, or 8 change your model, or add things, that is a burden to you. 9 That is something that cuts into your potential profit 10 margins. I understand why -- why one would oppose that. 11 But our obligation is different. Our obligation 12 is to build out a system that ensures that we can meet the 13 goals we need to meet, that the adoption of electric 14 vehicles can be easy, can be seamless, can be integrated, 15 can be regional. And we have to take actions for what 16 would do that. 17 If at the early days of the gas station, they had 18 allowed there to be 17 different nozzles, and every 19 company that did it could do their own, there would be 20 tremendous outrage about why didn't have a unified 21 seamless system to do this. And so we're at a point now 22 where I think -- I think we have to take action. 23 I just want to point out, this is an area that's 24 seen considerable public investment. And a lot of folks 25 we heard from today joyfully take that public investment,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 164
1 which I believe is needed, and I'm certainly supportive 2 of. But when there is a public investment, there is a 3 public obligation to make sure that there's access, and to 4 make sure that there's interoperability, and to make sure 5 that there is equity in terms of how this is happened. 6 And it was wonderful to see Senator Corbett, who 7 I had the pleasure of serving with in the Legislature, 8 here. And I want to point out that we are talking about 9 something that was passed and signed into law in 2013. So 10 in 2013, this was State law. And so everything that has 11 happened from 2013 to today, absent the regulatory 12 framework, was still incompatible with State law. 13 And so to act like it's a surprise that CARB, six 14 years after State law, said this is what's going to happen 15 would be putting in place rules surrounding this as if 16 it -- I mean, it shouldn't come as a surprise that this 17 was coming. 18 And so I spent a considerable amount of time on 19 this. And I just haven't been convinced of a lot of the 20 arguments and opposition. One of those said this will 21 lead to less chargers. Well, okay, I don't know that 22 that's how supply and demand works. I think that the 23 number of chargers that will be in the market in 24 California will be somewhat proportional to the number of 25 electric vehicles that are in the market in California,
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 165
1 not a fixed amount of what payment method is accepted. 2 Now, it might be less convenient to put those 3 chargers out there, but I don't believe that there will be 4 less chargers because of this. I think that the number of 5 chargers will increase in some commensurate number to the 6 number of electric vehicles that are out there. 7 When it comes to the chip readers, as the Chair 8 mentioning, we have the magnetic strips. The reason that 9 you have chips is because they're more secure. That has 10 been the mass adoption that has happened, why is we've 11 seen a 75 percent reduction in fraud with the adoption of 12 the chips. The chips are exponentially more secure than 13 the other forms. 14 Now, it is true that markets are changing. And 15 we hear that -- you know, where I've read that we're 10 to 16 15 years behind the European market when it comes to 17 adopting a contactless thing. This has been written on 18 extensively. There was a very long piece in the financial 19 times talking about why America is behind the European 20 Union and other places. We have a much more fragmented 21 financial market. It's more difficult to have widespread 22 adoption of changes in the financial industry. 23 But if we assume we're 10 to 15 years behind, we 24 can't assume that we should not move forward with where we 25 are now, because it's going to change tomorrow. I don't
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 166
1 think that it will change tomorrow. 2 When you look at where we are today, over five -- 3 only five percent of credit cards are contactless today 4 and only 0.18 percent of credit card transactions are 5 utilized via a contactless system. I don't know that we 6 can adopt a standard for 0.18 percent of credit card 7 transactions. 8 I am open to the notion of giving some 9 flexibility. Because if this market were to rapidly 10 change, then we would want to be able to change as well. 11 But the notion that we have to wait for a future 12 technology that may come at some point in the future when 13 we don't know when that will be, I can promise you we 14 could wait 10 years and if in 10 years we're contactless, 15 then we would be sitting in this same room and we'd say, 16 no, you can't do contactless, because there's a new thing 17 that's coming and we have to wait for that thing. 18 And you can't future-proof anything. You have to 19 move forward in the world that you're in with the payment 20 method that the overwhelming majority of folks use. And 21 if it changes, then we as an entity have to be flexible 22 and adaptable in how we would change that. 23 I also, in wrapping up, think that there are very 24 real equity issues here. And we have real challenges in 25 air quality in disadvantaged communities. And there are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 167
1 financial barriers to entering the market in electric 2 vehicles, and we're all working to try and address that. 3 But we cannot compound that by adopting a payment system 4 that only a small fraction of the most privileged and 5 elite will most likely have access to. 6 And then finally, one point that was raised that 7 did get my attention said that these things are in unsafe 8 areas that are not well lit and so you're more likely to 9 have fraud. And if that is true, we certainly do not want 10 people to be unsafe. And so perhaps we should look at 11 further guidance around lighting and safety around 12 electric vehicle charging stations, because I hear the 13 concern. If these are unsafe, then I think we all want to 14 move to try and make them as safe as possible. 15 And then in closing, I'll just say we can't 16 provide choice. We talk about consumer choice. There 17 cannot be choice if the choice that the overwhelming 18 majority of consumers would make today is not available to 19 them, then there is no -- there is no choice. 20 In the building where I work every day, I met 21 with a group of electric vehicle advocates, folks on the 22 vehicle side, folks on the charging side, folks on all 23 sides this week at the County of San Diego as we develop 24 an electric vehicle roadmap and charging station. And I 25 heard horror stories of our own charging stations in our
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 168
1 own parking garage, which is underground, about you cannot 2 use them, because there is no cellular connectivity down 3 there. 4 (Laughter.) 5 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: And so they cannot 6 download the app in our own building for the facilities we 7 put in to come to the meeting about what the future of 8 charging stations would be. 9 And so I'm not unsympathetic to the folks' 10 concerns, and I understand where you're coming from, and I 11 realize it would be easier to continue the way they're 12 going, but we simply can't -- with the goals we have as a 13 state, we cannot have a fragmented system that is not 14 accessible to the most amount of folks. 15 And so I'm open to the notion of flexibility. 16 But I think given where we are today with what the market 17 looks like today, I'm supportive of moving forward with 18 this. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 21 Any other comments here? 22 Do you want to go next, Dan? Okay. 23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So this is a real -- to 24 me, this is a really difficult one. One the hand to -- 25 you know, what Chair Nichols said in the beginning, on the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 169
1 one hand, you know, we're committed to accelerating the 2 technology and the investment, on the other hand, looking 3 out for the interests of the users and the consumers. 4 And, you know, how much you weight each one is 5 difficult. And I kind of think of it as we're at the 6 early stage, so I'm a little more inclined to support, you 7 know, the focus on innovation, and technology development, 8 and new business models. And so, you know, I respect the 9 idea that, okay, if you look at it from a business 10 perspective, you know, you think of it one way. 11 But another way of thinking about it is that this 12 is not a normal business. No one makes money from selling 13 electrons. You know, if you just think about it in a very 14 simple way, you know, say, a big battery, 50-kilowatt 15 hours, times $0.10 or $0.20, you know, you're talking 16 about $5, $6, $7, $8 at most where as a gas -- and if it's 17 fast charging, you get that in 30 or 45 minutes. If it's, 18 you know, level 2, that's many hours. And you compare 19 that to a gasoline stations where in five minutes, you 20 know, you sell $80 worth of gasoline. 21 And so it's a very different situation. And so I 22 think about it in terms -- and we're at the very early 23 stage. So I keep hearing the stories about different 24 kinds of businesses models and different circumstances. 25 You know, the last one about the parking lots and having
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 170
1 kind of a mobile service in a parking lot. And it seems 2 like there's a lot of opportunity for innovation. 3 And so I support -- you know, so the staff laid 4 out a number of changes. And I think all of them -- I 5 didn't delve deeply into all of them, but they -- you 6 know, the idea of -- or the requirement for roaming 7 standards, fees -- display of fees, labeling, consistent 8 reporting, they all make a lot of sense. It's real -- I 9 think we're all here -- I think the debate is mostly about 10 requiring a credit card. 11 And I guess I -- so one way I think about it is, 12 okay, there's Level 2 and level -- and fast charging. 13 Fast charging I'm much more comfortable with this idea of 14 requiring a credit card and however that evolves. There's 15 more revenue. It's more of an opportunity charging 16 situation. And you want that kind of compatibility. 17 With the Level 2, you know, this is an experience 18 where it's several hours. You know, it's not a gasoline 19 type purchase. It's a very different kind of thing. And, 20 you know, I know, yes, they're going to have to sell the 21 lattes to, you know -- go back to our earlier story. 22 They're going to have to sell -- just like gasoline 23 station -- even gasoline stations with all that revenue, 24 you need to do other things. 25 And so all these charger companies are making
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 171
1 money only by having a workplace subsidize it or the city 2 hall subsidize it, or the retailer subsidize it. And so 3 if we kind of restrain innovation and -- and we see it, 4 it's innovation in terms of the technology as well as the 5 business models, it worries me a little, because it's 6 already an uphill battle to get these chargers out there. 7 You know, we have to -- someone was to subsidize 8 them for them to happen. And so by making it more 9 difficult and more expensive, you know, we are slowing it 10 down. 11 Now, what troubles me is we don't really know 12 what the future is. We don't even have good analysis of 13 even how these chargers are used today, never mind in a 14 few years. So I'm kind of -- I come down -- you know, so 15 I come down to the idea, okay, a little flexibility. 16 How -- what would that mean? You know, you raise the 17 question flexibility. 18 And so I think, at a minimum, what we're doing 19 with -- you know, requiring roaming arrangements and 20 making sure that, you know, when you roam, you're not 21 paying some big premium. I don't know if that's part of 22 the regulation, but that would be something to think 23 about. Make sure there's no abuse going on. 24 And, you know, making these 800 numbers really 25 work. So, I know, you can call these 800 numbers and they
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 172
1 say, you know, go -- get on our website and enroll, you 2 know. And that's pretty lame. So that's not acceptable. 3 CHAIR NICHOLS: Right. 4 (Laughter.) 5 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: And almost everyone on 6 this Board has a bad experience. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So maybe -- okay. So one 9 thing is the technology. You know, as Vice Chair Berg 10 says, I support something like what she said where we need 11 to be agile in appreciating how the technology is 12 changing. And I support that idea of the Executive 13 Officer and the staff, you know, reviewing that. 14 But I do -- I'm having a lot of trouble with the 15 idea of having credit cards for the Level 2. It does 16 increase cost for something that doesn't have a good 17 business model to start with. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, except that that's what 19 Electrify America is actually doing. I asked the question 20 and that's what he said. And they're in this to make 21 money. They're not doing it for the subsidies. 22 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah, they kind of are in 23 an awkward situation, but, okay. 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Well. 25 (Laughter.)
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 173
1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So, you know, I've not 2 heard -- so I guess I'll leave it there, is that -- 3 (Laughter.) 4 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I would support the idea 5 of -- I would personally prefer that for the time being we 6 said roaming arrangements required with some kind of 7 oversight of those 800 numbers required, where they 8 actually, you know, work. And I'd probably be comfortable 9 with the credit cards for the fast chargers. But the 10 Level 2, I just -- it just makes me very apprehensive 11 that -- 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: How about if we put a sticker on 13 every station with your phone number on it -- 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIR NICHOLS: -- and it says if you didn't have 16 a good experience, call this number? 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Because we're going to get to 19 that point soon the more cards that are out there. 20 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: You know, there is one 21 question to staff I had. And that is that what do we 22 really know about reliab -- you know, the reliability od 23 these credit cards? Because, you know, the argument 24 that's made is that if it's in a exposed area -- and so I 25 know that I had a charger and it was left outside for a
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 174
1 few years, and it did go bad, and that was supposed to be 2 impervious to the weather. So a credit card I know is a 3 lot more vulnerable. 4 So is there data or evidence about the 5 reliability of credit card readers that are exposed, 6 number one. And number two, this idea -- this problem of 7 what they call skimming, you know, fraud -- and I know 8 fraud is already high with credit cards. And I have been 9 hearing a lot of stories about how, you know, credit card 10 readers that are left relatively unattended are especially 11 vulnerable to this skimming. And can you explain what 12 skim -- how that really works by the way? We're not -- 13 we're note -- most of us here are not involved in these 14 criminal activities. 15 (Laughter.) 16 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: That I know of. 17 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: All of us are not 18 involved in this. 19 (Laughter.) 20 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: What are they talking 21 about? How does that really work? And is that really 22 relevant? 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. 24 Eisenhut, we skipped over you. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, sorry. Staff wanted to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 175
1 respond. Okay. Please go ahead. 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: Hi. This is 3 Stephanie Palmer. In response to the reliability of the 4 EMV chip reader, we have actually looked at parking 5 meters, specifically curbside parking meters and their 6 reliability, because we know they're being used today. 7 It is my understanding that when the parking 8 meter does have issues, it is actually not because of the 9 EMV chip reader. It is primarily because of vandalism 10 from outside sources. 11 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: And on the 12 question of fraud, our investigation of how fraud happens 13 with EMV chip readers with mag swipes and with Near Field 14 Communication, mag swipes are the most vulnerable and 15 that's why we've moved to the EMV chip. The credit card 16 companies, Visa, has told us that EMV chip readers and 17 Near Field Communication have similar and equal 18 vulnerabilities in terms of fraud and all the concerns 19 over security. 20 In the case of the EMV chip reader, what might 21 happen is something like shimming, where a device is 22 placed inside the reader and it isn't actually getting 23 information necessarily from the chip. It may be getting 24 that from a mag swipe as it goes by. The way the chip 25 works is it's a small computer that fires up when it comes
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 176
1 in contact with the reader, and it transmits information 2 about the credit card number, and its expiration date, and 3 a dynamic CVV number, that three digit number that you 4 would place when you're entering a credit card on a 5 computer. It uses a dynamic number in the case of a 6 reader. 7 The same can happen with Near Field 8 Communication. There can be a Near Field Communication 9 reader that's placed on surreptitiously on the device, 10 which takes the same information. The only difference 11 between an NFC and a chip reader is the NFC has an 12 antenna, so that it's wirelessly communicating with the 13 device, the point of sale. 14 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: I have a follow-up 15 question on that. 16 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, go ahead. 17 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Have you seen the -- 18 because I think the parking meter is a good analogy or 19 comparison. In San Diego, we just went not to the kiosk 20 model. I mean, the kiosk model is one model that perhaps 21 I think could be adopted under these. But ours in San 22 Diego, we converted the individual parking meters for each 23 stall all take a credit card. 24 And so are you aware of any -- obviously, they 25 were able to make that work in a tiny little parking
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 177
1 device. And it would seem if a tiny little parking device 2 could make the electric credit card reader work, a massive 3 charging station that has the capacity to connect to a 4 grid and move significant amounts of electricity could do 5 it. But have you seen any significant problems or 6 challenges in the parking meter market in response to 7 this? 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: In response to 9 the EMV chip? No, actually, major cities within the State 10 of California are actually deploying that today. 11 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: And they're still 12 deploying that today. 13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: The EMV chip 14 reader, that is right. 15 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Right. Right in parking 16 meters. 17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER PALMER: In the curbside 18 parking meters. That is correct. 19 BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Okay. Thank you. 20 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN. And we are 21 offering the option of installing a kiosk, if there's a 22 back of chargers, so that's also envisioned within the 23 regulation, a single kiosk for a number of stations. 24 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: I'm carefully sandwiched 25 between two people on this Board whose opinions I very
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 178
1 much respect -- 2 (Laughter.) 3 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: -- and who now differ. 4 I have one very focused question. I believe that 5 the most fungible commodity are dollars. And I'm assuming 6 that a prepaid card, one that you could obtain from Amazon 7 or Walmart, satisfies the requirement of the proposed 8 regulation? 9 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Correct. 10 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: I just want to verify 11 that. 12 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Yes. So a 13 prepared credit card that you can load funds onto can 14 typically be used in an EMV chip reader. That's -- as we 15 talked with visa, they explained that rollout of new 16 technology -- new reader technology tends to start with 17 traditional credit cards, then it moves to debit cards, 18 and finally it gets to EM -- to prepaid credit cards. 19 So we finally see today that if you go to Target 20 or you order a card on Amazon, a prepaid Visa, they now 21 have chips. And that's one of our concerns with adopting 22 Near Field Communication as the -- as an option to EMV, is 23 that we don't foresee Near Field Communication technology 24 being rolled out on prepaid credit cards until after we 25 see it rolled out on traditional credit cards and debit
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 179
1 cards. And that may take some time. 2 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Okay. Thank you. To me, 3 that's a critical component of our -- of the environmental 4 justice community's access is that device. I would be -- 5 I am supportive of the staff recommendation for a variety 6 of reasons, which we don't bear repeating. But -- and 7 I -- I am very sympathetic to what I'll call the Berg 8 amendment, which I think might somewhat split the 9 difference between may neighbors. I say that. I'm not 10 looking for affirmation. 11 (Laughter.) 12 BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: And I realize I would -- 13 if we do head in that direction, I would encourage those 14 of you in the audience who are advocates not to rush to 15 the CEO's office, because I think those exceptions will be 16 handled out -- handed out sparingly. And this topic, 17 while I was not part of the process, was -- came through 18 the Legislature with, I assume, very much the same 19 discussion, very much from the same group of advocates. 20 And there's a legislative backing to the action 21 that we're taking that's now five years old. It's time 22 for that adoption. It's time to move forward. And so I 23 think that's -- those are my comments. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 180
1 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you. 2 I want to, first of all, say that I agree with 3 Supervisor Fletcher's comments. And thank you, Senator, 4 for being here. If I had written a bill and six years 5 later it hadn't been implemented, I'd be right there too. 6 (Laughter.) 7 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: So that's for 8 starters. 9 Second - and these will be just very brief - 10 implementation dates of '20 and '23. There's time here. 11 Number two, we are driving this market. The 12 State of California is driving this. Our dollars are 13 funding the stations. Our dollars are supporting the 14 vehicles. We are absolutely pushing this. And one area 15 that I discussed that we -- that hasn't come up here today 16 that I want to see us do more on is the secondary market, 17 electric vehicle secondary market. That is something that 18 we absolutely have to do if we want to get into 19 underserved communities. We're going to figure something 20 out in that space as well. As we do that, this issue is 21 going to become even more important. So that's what I'm 22 looking at. 23 To that point, one of my calls with one of the 24 interested parties, they told me with pride that about 80 25 percent of the people have smartphones with capability to
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 181
1 get into one of these programs -- one of these electric 2 charging programs. I said what about the other 20 3 percent? 4 Well, they can -- you know, over time, they'll 5 all -- well, as members of this Board, we represent 100 6 percent of Californians. We don't represent the 80 7 percent that have this or the whatever percent that have 8 some other contraption. We represent everybody. And that 9 is where we're going with this legislation. I know that's 10 what the Senator was thinking when she wrote it. 11 As we move forward, the next steps -- and I know 12 there's some transparency measures here -- the next steps 13 for us are going to be about transparency and cost. We 14 have to get -- we, as a state, not just this Board -- PUC 15 will have something to say about. The munis will have 16 something to say about it, et cetera. We have to get to 17 some clarity of what this costs. We cannot be pushing 18 this as much as we are and then have sticker shock at the 19 end for the consumer. 20 We're not there yet, but I absolutely am 21 supportive of moving in that direction after we take care 22 of this piece. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 25 Ms. Riordan.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 182
1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, one of my 2 concerns I think has been resolved, which is the early 3 adopters. I never want to penalize early adopters and 4 who -- people who have helped us in this process. So I 5 think that is resolved. 6 And I would certainly support as what has been 7 referred to as the Berg amendment. I think technology is 8 moving. And I don't think it's something that needs to 9 come back to this Board. I think it can easily go to 10 staff and to make the adjustments. So I am very 11 supportive. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 13 Now, headed down in this direction. I'll just go 14 in order. Go ahead. 15 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. 16 Yeah, once again, we are between encouraging 17 technology and being sure we're not setting up barriers. 18 But the public interest and access it's huge. You know, I 19 was thinking about my wallet, and I was thinking about, 20 you know, I don't have anything contactless in my wallet. 21 You know, it's all credit cards. And I think that speaks 22 to what's out there. And we're -- we are looking for a 23 system of access. We're looking for the -- I don't -- I 24 didn't buy any EV so I could have a new charging 25 experience --
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 183
1 (Laughter.) 2 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: -- a new fueling 3 experience. No. No. You know, it was enough of a change 4 to get an EV. I wanted the world to look as much the same 5 as possible, in terms of convenience, and ease, and all of 6 this. And maybe, you know, part of the unpredictable 7 future that would answer some of these worries about fraud 8 and safety, well, I still envision the fueling station of 9 the future. And it's everything under one pull-up. You 10 know, all the fuels are there. You can get your hydrogen 11 and you can get your electricity, you can get your 12 petroleum products, you can get your renewable natural gas 13 in and one place. And that would answer a lot. 14 I don't know what the future is going to look 15 like, but it always seems to me that -- that model might 16 be important. 17 But I also then realized, wait a minute, I do 18 have a contactless reader in my pocket. And it's a BART 19 card. And let me tell you, when I go to San Francisco and 20 use my BART card, I really feel like I've arrived. I'm -- 21 you know, I'm really 21st century. 22 (Laughter.) 23 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: And why do I have a BART 24 card? Because I'm a senior. 25 (Laughter.)
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 184
1 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Okay. And it was worth 2 going down to the Ferry Building and getting the BART card 3 as a senior, because, you know, it discounts the travel. 4 And so that's another suggestion. 5 Hey, you know, you -- the -- these providers 6 want, for whatever reason, the consumer to use their card. 7 And I'm assuming, what little I know about Silicon Valley, 8 you get information that you're not going to get out of a 9 credit card or a debit card. And I understand that's the 10 model. 11 But BART made it worth my while to get their 12 card. And so I got that contactless card. And I presume 13 that's really the way they'd like us all to behave in the 14 future. But it comes in steps. And right now, most of 15 the public is going to use their credit card or a debit 16 card, and especially communities we worry about. We want 17 to be sure that these things are accessible to 18 disadvantaged communities, to communities in the Valley, 19 the Inland Empire, who -- you know, the statistics tell us 20 are not the leading change agents the way people in the 21 Bay Area and South Coast. 22 So I want to be sure we have access. I want to 23 be sure it looks as much like the current experience. And 24 I have great confidence in the staff and their 25 flexibility, paying attention to how things are rolling
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 185
1 out and whether what we're doing is really being a barrier 2 to implementing new technologies. And if it is, we 3 consistently hear about it, and we think about another way 4 to approach and encourage it. 5 So I don't know about the Berg amendment. 6 Somebody is going to have to explain it to me again before 7 I'm into that one, because I think staff has done a good 8 job, and has made some, you know, major adjustments that 9 answered a lot of -- a lot of the questions for people. 10 And I'm quite satisfied with that. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Mr. Serna. 12 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you, Chair. 13 So a lot of this has already been said about 14 what's in front of us. And I won't belabor a lot of that. 15 I do agree with a lot of the comments that my colleagues 16 have already issued. 17 For me, this is not as complicated as it may 18 seem. When you look down the list of oppose, neutral, 19 support, and you have X's in the boxes of the entire 20 field, you might think, well, this is -- this is, you 21 know, a somewhat complicated matter before this Board. 22 But I go back to the genesis of why we're here. And I'm 23 thankful to the Senator for really giving us the -- I 24 think, the appropriate context for us to consider this and 25 for the public that has taken the time to provide
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 186
1 testimony to consider this. 2 And it really has to do with an Executive Order 3 that lays out a very bold ambition for the state of 4 California. And it comes down to the intent that was 5 articulated about access. And so when I look at those two 6 objectives, for this Board member, it's -- this is not -- 7 I won't call it a no-brainer. It's never a no-brainer. 8 There's always room for improvement and productive 9 discussion in terms of amendments and whatnot. 10 But that's really the lens that I'm looking 11 through. But with that said, we heard from one particular 12 interest, Electrify America, who, as was noted, is very 13 busy trying to increase charging access across the State 14 of California, and most notably here in the county that I 15 represent as a supervisor. 16 They did provide in writing a couple of questions 17 or need for clarification on two matters. So I would like 18 staff to respond as best they can to the workplace 19 charging definition question, and also the reporting 20 question that Electrify America brought up in their 21 testimony. 22 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Okay. This 23 is Analisa Bevan. On the question of workplace charging, 24 we do explicitly exempt workplace charging in the 25 regulation, so long as it's not open to the public. If it
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 187
1 is open to the public after hours or even during the work 2 hours, then it is considered public. 3 We're -- we did have a lot of comments from 4 different providers who wanted to exempt those stations 5 that were at workplaces that might be open at specific 6 hours, apart from their regular business hours, to be -- 7 to not have to have the credit card reader. We are being 8 consistent with Department of -- sorry, Department of 9 Measurement Standards, and their definition of public, 10 which is if the public sees the charger and they have to 11 pay, then it is public, and it would have to comply with 12 the requirements associated with public chargers. 13 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Okay. And reporting? 14 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: And on the 15 reporting, so we are not particularly excited about making 16 reporting voluntary. Some of the questions raised or some 17 of the concerns raised by the providers was that we didn't 18 have data, and it wasn't for lack of asking. And 19 additionally, we were told that they didn't have the data. 20 So we want to make sure that they're actually collecting 21 data about how chargers are being used, what payment types 22 are being used, and that we can have access to that on a 23 statewide aggregated basis, so that we can assess how 24 technology is changing and how technology is being used. 25 I'm check -- I have a copy of the written
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 188
1 comments, so I'm checking the other question. 2 CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, if there was software on 3 the chargers, it would probably be directly accessible to 4 us without having to have it be collected by them. We 5 could just set it up, so that we could get the data 6 directly without having to go through the owner of the 7 charging station. 8 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Okay. Yes. 9 The other thing with clarifying payment types, and we will 10 make sure that the language that we have in the regulation 11 is sufficiently clear to delineate the different between a 12 credit card -- sorry, a transaction started with a credit 13 card using an EMV chip versus NFC, and then separately 14 using the -- a mobile payment, and then separately using 15 an RFID cards that's part of the network, or the app that 16 a network might have. 17 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you for that 18 clarification. 19 One last question. I think we're all familiar 20 with the fact that -- you know, there's been a lot said 21 today that what we're considering should be somewhat 22 analogous to the ease with which we're accustomed to using 23 standard gas stations. We know that in many cases gas 24 stations will have a separate pricing structure for cash 25 versus credit cards. Is there anything in these standards
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 189
1 that prohibits charging service providers from having a 2 different price structure depending on payment type? 3 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: There is 4 not. There was nothing in the bill that spoke to 5 different price structures. And that's one of the reasons 6 that we think it is so important that those price 7 structures be communicated to drivers before they initiate 8 a charging session, so that they know what they're paying, 9 either using a credit card or using the network price, and 10 if there are roaming costs, or connection fees, or a 11 different fee for using a credit card versus the network. 12 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: So claim's that there might 13 be additional expense because there's not an optimal 14 payment type, you know, claimed by a particular electric 15 charging service provider, they could roll the dice, take 16 their chances with the market and consumers, have an 17 increased price structure to try and recoup those costs, 18 and that's -- you know, that will help them with their own 19 bottom line, correct? 20 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Right. 21 There's nothing in the regulation that speaks to that. 22 BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Okay. Thank you. 23 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 Ms. Takvorian. 25 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Lastly and briefly. A
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 190
1 lot has been said. I just wanted to express my 2 appreciation to Senator Corbett for your leadership and 3 foresight and for your patience, not only for the last six 4 years, but today. I appreciate it. 5 (Laughter.) 6 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: And I think that you 7 said it all when you talked about access. And I think 8 that's our job. And I think we're making good progress 9 and I'm prepared to support the proposal. 10 I wanted to just say a couple things. One is 11 it -- and I think this has been said before, but from 12 public support, not only for the establishment of these 13 charging stations but for the whole industry of charging 14 stations, really comes because of the leadership of our 15 Legislature and because of the leadership here at CARB. 16 So this whole infrastructure and charging 17 business model wouldn't exist if we didn't have the 18 leadership that we have in the state of California to push 19 forward electric -- electrification of vehicles. 20 So you're welcome for that, and -- because I 21 didn't hear anybody thanking the Legislature or CARB for 22 having done that, and for having created all these 23 business. And so, yeah, I'm a little cranky about now 24 complaining about these publicly supported institutions 25 that are now having to come up to speed to be accessible
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 191
1 to at least part of the population. And I really want to 2 underscore Mr. Eisenhut's and Assembly Member Garcia's 3 thoughts about ensuring that we are accessible to all 4 members of the communities. And I appreciate the fact 5 that we can use these prepaid cash cards or credit cards, 6 which may be more accessible for disadvantaged 7 communities. And I think I would be thrown out if I said 8 we hope that there -- they could accept cash as well. 9 (Laughter.) 10 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: That's a joke, along 11 with the coffee. 12 But really, if we're talking about access, that 13 would be -- that would be another step that we would -- 14 that we would take. 15 So I just -- my question is, in all seriousness, 16 it sounds to me like the rule is really setting a floor 17 and not a ceiling for technology. So if a company wants 18 to roll the dice with another technology, they need to 19 incorporate the technology that we're requiring in this 20 proposal, but they could use contactless or other kinds of 21 technology, if that's what they thought the market would 22 bear, is that correct? Am I understanding that correctly? 23 STCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF BEVAN: Yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Okay. So go for it, 25 right --
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 192
1 (Laughter.) 2 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: -- is partly what I 3 would say is folks can take chances with that and see if 4 that's what the market would bear. And I agree I think 5 with the Berg amendment that says that if we have proper 6 reporting, then CARB can track that and see how that's 7 working, so that in the future we can make those 8 amendments and revisions that would be appropriate to make 9 the rule more applicable in the future. 10 Thank you for all your hard work and for everyone 11 who was here today. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Coming back to this Chair, 13 I -- I've just been looking at the resolution while 14 listening to my fellow Board members' comments. And I 15 think it's open to the interpretation that the Executive 16 Officer can make modifications as he goes along. But if 17 we're -- if we want to be clear on some sort of a regular 18 assessment of the situation, and the action by the 19 Executive Officer that doesn't have to come back to the 20 Board, I think we may need to do some -- a specific 21 amendment to the resolution. 22 The only other thing I would like to say is 23 having heard many of the comments both from the speakers 24 and from the Board members on this topic, we need to 25 broaden our involvement in this whole issue of the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 193
1 charging stations, and the deployment, and the 2 accessibility, of course, but also looking at whether 3 there are new solutions. 4 I have to admit when -- I guess it was Dr. 5 Sherriffs who wanted his experience to be just like having 6 a gasoline car. I actually do not. One of the reasons 7 why I love my electric car is that I don't ever have to go 8 to a gas station. I -- my gas station is at home and it 9 makes my life so much easier. It saves me time and it was 10 never really all that enjoyable of an experience. 11 And recently, when I had an opportunity to 12 address the Board of a very large international oil 13 company, and said something about -- we were talking about 14 hydrogen delivery and going through gas stations, I 15 mentioned that, you know, I would -- used to go take -- 16 when I had a hydrogen car, used to go to a gas station 17 that had a hydrogen pump. And the comment was, well, we 18 don't make any money selling gasoline at these stations 19 either. You know, there is no -- the business model, the 20 retail store where they sold the gas at the pump, and they 21 made the money on the gas does not exist anymore. They 22 make all their money off of the chewing gum and the donuts 23 or whatever it is that they're selling you, right? 24 (Laughter.) 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: So, I mean, it's -- I mean, this
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 194
1 is not even a change in terms of going from gasoline to 2 electric. It's just a change in the way people buy things 3 period. 4 Anyway, having said that, I do feel that we have 5 an obligation to move on here and to pass something. But 6 I just want to make sure that we've got an agreement from 7 the staff, and I guess I'll ask Mr. Corey or you can 8 delegate this comment if you want to, but, you know, how 9 you propose to respond to the direction that I think 10 you're hearing pretty clearly from the Board about wanting 11 to increase the level of knowledge, awareness, and 12 involvement really in making sure that the infrastructure 13 is rolling out here in a way that supports the kind of 14 market that we want to see. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yeah, a few things. 16 One is the coordination with CEC and the PUC, the 17 utilities, and local utilities as well that are making 18 agencies oversee the utilities both POUs and IOUs making 19 significant investments in this play -- in this space. 20 Our coordination with them is tighter than it's ever been. 21 We need to do more in terms of our advisory role with 22 those agencies. That plays a significant role. Even our 23 coordination on this regulation with the CEC, the PUC has 24 been pretty significant. It needs to improve. 25 We think that's a key area in terms of data
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 195
1 exchange with those agencies in terms of the data we 2 collect under this program, the data they're collecting as 3 part of the distribution of the networks, the users of 4 those networks, and the associated information. 5 And I really think this -- this reg, in terms of 6 the data collection is going to represent a pretty 7 significant step change, because there's a lot of 8 questions, several of which the Board members asked, about 9 the nature of charging, the type of charging, the time of 10 the charge, the distribution of those charges, this data 11 will be super useful in terms of the penetration going 12 forward. 13 So I think a key step really is the data 14 collected under the implementation of this regular, as 15 well as enhanced coordination with the PUC, CEC, and the 16 reporting of that data in different metrics, including the 17 station access, station usability and so forth. So we 18 think that's an initial step on this. 19 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. So as far as assuming that 20 we're going to act on the resolution at this meeting, 21 are -- do we need to make a change here to deal with the 22 phase-in issue? I mean, I would like to make sure that 23 we're not forcing people to retrofit things that don't 24 make sense to retrofit, if they're either just about to go 25 out of business or -- I mean, if they're -- if they -- the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 196
1 equipment is about to replaced or if they're just getting 2 started with a grant that the State itself has given them, 3 that seems to me to be a special circumstance and 4 certainly something that would be disruptive. 5 Do we need language here to make that effective? 6 A conference is taking place. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Chair, Nichols, 8 the way that the resolution is constructed it would direct 9 us to put in place the 15-day changes that staff proposed 10 in the presentation. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: So that's already -- it will come 12 back after the 15 -- that's automatically -- 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Yes. 14 CHAIR NICHOLS: -- included? Okay. 15 So based on the conversation that we've had here, 16 do you feel like you've got sufficient direction as to 17 what should go into the 15-day changes? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: We do. I believe that 19 the changes laid out in the Board presentation -- 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: -- which had multiple 22 elements that were discussed amongst Board members 23 provide, based on the direction here, sufficient clarity 24 for moving forward. 25 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. So again, this will come
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 197
1 back to the Board following the changes being proposed, 2 and there will be another 15-day public comment period 3 before we take final action? 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No, I don't think so. 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: No. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Is that right? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: No. This would be a 8 vote by the Board with direction to the Executive Officer 9 to execute on the 15-day changes. 10 CHAIR NICHOLS: You would make the changes. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Correct. 12 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Good. That sounds fine. 13 That's consistent with what Ms. Berg was recommending. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Yes. 15 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. In that case, do we 16 have -- 17 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: So moved. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Do we have a motion? 19 We have a motion. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I'll second. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: And a second. All right. 22 All in favor please say aye? 23 (Unanimous aye vote.) 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: Opposed? 25 All right. Motion carries.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 198
1 Resolution passes. Are you clear on what we're 2 doing? 3 No. 4 (Laughter.) 5 CHAIR NICHOLS: I'm worried by the conference 6 that's taking place here. 7 (Laughter.) 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Are you comfortable with the 9 discussion? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. All right. Thank 12 you. Great. We did it. Thank you, Senator, for coming 13 and encouraging us. Thanks to all who participated. This 14 is not the end, but it's moving in the direction of 15 getting an improved process for dealing with charging 16 stations and making consumers lives much easier. 17 Our final item today is a report on the 18 enforcement plan -- enforcement program. 19 We've got a new team here coming up. 20 So the last item here is the 2018 Enforcement 21 Report. Every year, the Enforcement Division publishes a 22 report highlighting its CARB-wide enforcement efforts to 23 ensure compliance with our regulatory programs. The 2018 24 Enforcement Report is now available on our website. And 25 today, the staff will be presenting highlights from that
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 199
1 report. 2 Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this item? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair. 4 We protect public health and the environment by 5 developing and implementing regulations that reduce 6 emissions. These programs are only effective because 7 regulated parties meet requirements. Most in industry 8 these requirements, but some don't. Enforcement programs 9 help bring noncompliant entities into compliance, create a 10 level playing field across industry, and ensure emission 11 reductions envisioned when regulatory programs were 12 adopted or achieved in practice, especially in 13 disadvantaged communities, where emission reductions are 14 needed most. 15 Ill now ask Amanda Amoruso of the Enforcement 16 Division to give the staff presentation. 17 Amanda 18 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 19 presented as follows.) 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Thank you, Mr. 21 Corey. 22 Today, I will be reviewing the 2018 Annual 23 Enforcement Report. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In today's
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 200
1 presentation, I will start with an overview to describing 2 our goals, actions, and highlights from the report. Then 3 I will review how we enforce certification requirements, 4 describe compliance rates in the trucking industry, talk 5 about our enforcement efforts in disadvantaged 6 communities, provide an overview of our supplemental 7 environmental projects, review our current programs, and 8 discuss what to expect in the coming year. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Our goal is to 11 achieve compliance in every regulation we enforce, and in 12 doing so, protect public health and the environment and 13 ensure a level playing field across industry. 14 Enforcement efforts strengthen our programs by 15 bringing companies into compliance and by identifying 16 areas to improve development, implementation, and 17 enforcement of regulations. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: The 2018 20 Annual Enforcement Report highlights many achievements. 21 In the 2018 report, you will learn about our enforcement 22 of defeat devices, trucks, and other programs; our efforts 23 in disadvantaged communities; and our Supplemental 24 Environmental Projects Program. 25 --o0o--
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 201
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Next, I'll 2 review enforcement of certification requirements for 3 vehicles, engines, fuels, and consumers products. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Regulations 6 determine product specifications that must be met before 7 that product can be legally offered for sale or sold in 8 California. Manufacturers of vehicles, engines, parts, 9 fuels and consumer products must meet these requirements. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Certification 12 requirements apply to manufacturers of light-duty, 13 heavy-duty, on- and off-road engines, and vehicles 14 intended to be sold in California. 15 Following the discovery of defeat devices in 16 Volkswagen vehicles, staff developed new procedures and 17 test cycles designed to find violations of certification 18 requirements. Currently, there are multiple manufacturers 19 under investigation. 20 Violations may Include failing to report complete 21 information, using noncompliant procedures during 22 certification tests, or improper use of, or failure to, 23 disclose software that may increase on-road emissions, 24 such as devices used to defeat emissions controls. 25 --o0o--
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 202
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: CARB tests 2 identified alleged defeat devices in Fiat Chrysler 3 Automobiles, or FCA, diesel vehicles. During standard 4 certification testing, these vehicles appeared to meet the 5 emissions certification requirements, but when staff used 6 newly developed test cycles, we found these vehicles 7 exceeded NOx emissions limits. FCA settled with CARB and 8 the U.S. EPA for a nationwide settlement for a total of 9 $500 million. California's portion of the settlement 10 includes $45.8 million in penalties, $19 million to fund 11 mitigation programs to offset NOx, and $13.5 million to 12 the Attorney General's office for consumer law violations. 13 FCA agreed to recall and fix all of their 14 vehicles containing the illegal defeat software. The 15 mitigation and penalty funds have been deposited in the 16 Air Pollution Control Fund to be appropriated by the 17 Legislature. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: California's 20 anti-tampering laws prohibit manufacturers of aftermarket 21 parts, wholesalers, and retailers from installing, 22 selling, offering for sale, or using parts that modify 23 engines or vehicles from their originally certified 24 configuration unless those parts have been exempted by 25 CARB in part-specific Executive Order.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 203
1 Pep Boys is an auto parts, repair, and service 2 chain that sells aftermarket parts online and in stores. 3 Staff found Pep Boys sold aftermarket parts that were not 4 approved by CARB, including catalytic converters and 5 intake kits. 6 Another company, AZAA investments, also violated 7 the aftermarket parts regulation. AZAA was not 8 cooperative initially in the settlement process, and the 9 California Office of the Attorney General was brought in 10 to help resolve the case. 11 We settled both cases and the companies agreed to 12 stop illegal sales. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Staff in the 15 Consumer Products Enforcement Program purchased chemically 16 formulated products, composite wood products, and indoor 17 air cleaning devices and submit to the laboratory for 18 testing. Enforcement action is taken if analysis 19 identifies violations. CARB staff found Mothers Polishes, 20 Waxes, and Cleaners Incorporated sold metal polish 21 products that contain volatile organic compounds exceeding 22 the allowed limit. 23 CRC Industries, Incorporated sold electrical 24 cleaners that contained toxic air contaminants. 25 And Provenza Floors, Incorporated sold laminate
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 204
1 wood flooring that contained excess formaldehyde emissions 2 and also failed to take precautions to ensure they sourced 3 only compliant materials. Through settlements, these 4 companies paid penalties and agreed either to reformulate 5 their products for sale in California or to stop sales in 6 the state. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Staff enforces 9 California's gasoline requirements, which reduce emissions 10 from evaporation and burning of gasoline by conducting 11 inspections and reviewing information reported in 12 databases. 13 Through a routine inspection, staff found GE 14 Warren, a petroleum product supplier, imported 11 million 15 gallons of noncompliant fuel and Shell Oil Company sold 16 the fuel to local gas stations in California. This would 17 be about 60 percent of the daily fuel used in Southern 18 California. Working collaboratively with CARB, Shell 19 halted all sales of noncompliant fuel, reblended it to 20 CARB standards, and began selling the compliant fuel to 21 gas stations. A portion of this settlement went to fund 22 eight different Supplemental Environmental Projects. 23 The Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or LCFS, Program 24 incentivizes innovative fuels to reduce greenhouse gas 25 emissions. The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company was
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 205
1 found in violation of misreporting significant volumes of 2 fuel to the LCFS reporting tool and settled with CARB 3 improving its software to ensure errors do not reoccur. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In this next 6 section, I'll review current Board programs pertaining to 7 the trucking industry; provide our assessment of 8 enforcement to date and compliance challenges; and 9 describe the actions the Board is taking to improve 10 programs to address these challenges. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Assessing 13 compliance rates allows enforcement staff to understand 14 what is happening and how we can improve implementation of 15 our programs. The report highlights four programs, but 16 today I'll focus on trucks. 17 We focused on the trucking industry as a whole in 18 2018, due to the challenges of achieving compliance with a 19 variety of programs, including the Truck and Bus 20 Regulation, DMV registration requirements, engine 21 technologies, and in-use emission standards. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: The Truck and 24 Bus Regulation is the most important regulation related to 25 diesel engines applying to over 1.4 million diesel-powered
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 206
1 vehicles in California. The regulation has significantly 2 reduced emissions of particulate matter and oxides of 3 nitrogen, which negatively impact human health and the 4 environment. 5 Currently, about 80 percent of California 6 registered vehicles subject to the regulation are 7 compliant, with 80,000 being noncompliant. More than half 8 of those vehicles are owned by small fleets having three 9 or fewer vehicles. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In 2017, we 12 began implementing a streamlined process to address 13 noncompliant vehicles in California. 14 As of June 24th, 2019, staff issued notices of 15 noncompliance on nearly 35,000 noncompliant vehicles, 16 completed enforcement on over 25,000 vehicles, placed DMV 17 registration holds on more than 19,000 vehicles, 18 collecting a total of $3.8 million in penalties. 19 Our goal is to complete enforcement on 35,000 20 vehicles by the end of this year. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Owners must 23 demonstrate compliance of their diesel vehicles to be able 24 to register with the California Department of Motor 25 Vehicles starting January 1st, 2020. This could impact up
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 207
1 to 80,000 vehicles by 2020 and up to 200 -- 200,000 2 between 2020 and 2023. 3 CARB is providing $50 million to support the 4 Truck Loan Assistance Program to help owners finance 5 compliance. Financial assistance information can be found 6 on CARB's website and the TruckStop website. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Program staff 9 is continuing to conduct extensive outreach to ensure 10 every operator is aware of compliance requirements. This 11 includes outreach to bilingual audiences, by website, 12 one-stop events, billboards, rado, and television. 13 Additionally, messaging on video displays at the DMV and 14 notices on gas station pumps have been implemented. 15 In addition, between now and the end of this 16 year, Enforcement staff is sending targeted warning 17 letters to vehicle owners facing a compliance requirement 18 in 2020 that informs them how to comply. Given the 19 extensive outreach in multiple languages in the last five 20 years, all owners should understand their compliance 21 requirements. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Operators are 24 also responsible for keeping their vehicles and engines 25 well maintained. This is necessary because malfunctioning
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 208
1 engine and emissions control components can lead to 2 creating high emitting vehicles. CARB studies have shown 3 that a small fraction of trucks are responsible for the 4 vast majority of all emissions from trucks. Modern 5 after-treatment controlled engines are more complex and 6 require training to maintain and repair. 7 Several years ago, we began distributing 8 Pamphlets to truck operators to educate them about 9 preventative maintenance, which may reduce downtime and 10 operating costs. 11 Implementation of new car regulations will help 12 further incentivize proper maintenance. Beginning January 13 2020, we will enforce new lower opacity limits for 14 filter-equipped vehicles and we will implement new 15 inspection procedures that incorporate these new limits in 16 on-board diagnostics. We will also use the STEP process 17 to enforce the periodic smoke inspection program 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Another reason 20 engine and emissions control components malfunction is 21 because they are not as durable as they should be. CARB 22 studies show that some makes and models of trucks have 23 higher emissions than we would expect. Our analysis of 24 warranty claims, which is documented in our report, 25 supports the idea that poor durability is a reason for
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 209
1 higher emissions. CARB investigates certification and 2 warranty violations. If staff identifies defective parts 3 or certification violations, we can issue a recall or 4 initiate enforcement action. 5 Beyond these immediate enforcement efforts, new 6 regulations under development will provide the tools we 7 need to encourage manufacturers, owners, and operators to 8 do their part to minimize emissions from trucks. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Now, I'll 11 discuss the Board's focus in disadvantaged communities, 12 which is done in conjunction with the other boards, 13 departments, and offices of the California Environmental 14 Protection Agency. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: We are 17 committed to reducing emissions in communities within 18 California that are adversely impacted by poor air quality 19 and pollution. Our efforts include increasing enforcement 20 in these affected areas. In 2018, staff conducted 60 21 percent of its more than 28,000 inspections in or near 22 disadvantaged communities. 23 In response to transportation refrigeration unit, 24 or TRU, complaints, we conducted more than 700 inspections 25 in targeted areas and issued over 200 citations.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 210
1 Enforcement at ports included more than 1,000 inspections, 2 resulting in 18 notices of violation to companies for 3 multiple violations of requirements. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: We 6 participated in two environmental justice initiatives, one 7 in Imperial Valley other in South Stockton. Staff worked 8 directly with the community members to gather a better 9 understanding of their enforcement needs and discuss 10 potential violators. We then increased frequency of 11 inspections within the designated area to address these 12 concerns. 13 We are also developing programs to reduce 14 exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution in 15 response to Assembly Bill 617, which established the 16 Community Air Protection Program. CARB and air district 17 staff are partnering to develop an enforcement plan to 18 address specific community issues while building on 19 current enforcement efforts. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In this next 22 portion, I'll review the purpose of Supplemental 23 Environmental Projects, or SEPs; discuss current funding 24 of projects; highlight two specific projects; and discuss 25 the implementation of the new SEP policy.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 211
1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: During the 3 settlement process for a violation of environmental 4 regulations, violators are given the opportunity to fund a 5 project that complies with CARB's SEP Policy. 6 A SEP is a project not otherwise required by law 7 that positively impacts air quality by reducing emissions, 8 reducing exposure to air pollution, or preventing future 9 air quality violations. SEPs improve public health, 10 reduce pollution, increase environmental compliance, and 11 bring public awareness to disadvantaged communities most 12 burdened by environmental harm. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Since 15 transitioning to the new program, 41 SEPs are listed 16 eligible, 22 are fully funded, and 3 are partially funded. 17 Last year, 20 violators funded 18 SEPs totaling almost 18 $2.2 million. 19 Prior to implementing the new program in 2017, we 20 offered three long-standing SEPs. CARB hired a consultant 21 to audit these projects. The audit found expenses were 22 consistent with program objectives and funds were used 23 appropriately, but there was no consistent system at CARB 24 to hold those recipients accountable. Many audit 25 recommendations had already been addressed when the new
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 212
1 program launched. 2 In addition, we have developed a new tracking 3 system to hold recipients to a higher standard, ensure 4 funding is spent appropriately, and establish contractual 5 and tracking procedures to ensure SEP recipients meet 6 requirements. These new requirements are being 7 implemented now. The audit, and the results, and the 8 steps we're taking to implement recommendations are 9 described on our website. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: The 12 BreathMobile is SEP which partners with local community 13 groups, visits health fairs and schools, and offers health 14 screen and educational resources on indoor and outdoor air 15 quality. It is a free mobile asthma clinic staffed by 16 in-house and per diem medical specialists that visits 17 pre-school and K through 12 aged children, ranging from 18 three months to 18 years old, who are diagnosed with 19 asthma. 20 This multi-year project is using over $500,000 in 21 SEP funds to increase BreathMobile services in Contra 22 Costa County and Alameda County, including visit -- visits 23 to Cherryland Elementary School in Hayward and 10 24 additional schools. 25 Health and education services provided by the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 213
1 BreathMobile help reduce the number of medical visits and 2 school absences. The BreathMobile has seen a total of 283 3 patients. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Another SEP we 6 are highlighting today is the installation of air 7 filtration systems in schools. The South Coast Air 8 Quality Management District is implementing a SEP that 9 provides funding for the installation and maintenance of 10 high-performance air filtration systems in schools within 11 communities most impacted by toxic air contaminants. 12 They partner with IQAir for installation of air 13 filtration systems and work with the local community and 14 school district on mitigating the impacts of air 15 pollution. Placer County Air Pollution Control District 16 has also implemented a similar project. 17 Air filtration systems in schools are designed to 18 remove a range of particulate matter, diesel exhaust 19 toxics, and wood smoke. Health studies have determined 20 that fine and ultrafine particulate matter, including 21 diesel particulate matter present the greatest air 22 pollution health risk to sensitive receptors in 23 disadvantaged communities. 24 By September 2018, air filtration systems were 25 installed at 76 schools in South Coast and four schools in
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 214
1 Placer County. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Finally, I 4 will present a high level review of our programs and share 5 our plans for 2019. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: The Board's 8 Enforcement Policy defines CARB's enforcement process. 9 Staff updated the Enforcement Policy in 2017 in an effort 10 to provide additional transparency to our Enforcement 11 Program. Staff is continuing to implement the updated 12 Enforcement Policy pertaining to minor violations, 13 voluntary disclosure, and updating the range of per unit 14 penalties to provide additional transparency and 15 deterrence. 16 Appendix J of the 2018 Annual Enforcement Report 17 displays a table showing the minimum and maximum penalties 18 assessed between January 2014 and December 2018 for each 19 regulation or program. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Minor 22 violations generally have little to no impact to the 23 functioning of the regulatory program and no emissions 24 impacts. To be eligible, the responsible party provides 25 complete cooperation and resolves the problem quickly. In
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 215
1 2018, staff focused on the application of its minor 2 violation program in the Truck and Bus Regulation and the 3 Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program. 4 Staff identified over 4,000 trucks that were 5 compliant with the Truck and Bus Regulation, but failed to 6 report to CARB as required. Staff waived penalties in 7 each of these cases as the responsible party was 8 essentially compliant with all aspects of the regulation 9 except reporting. 10 Staff resolved over 100 Refrigerant Management 11 Program cases without penalties, where the facility had 12 met technology requirements but failed to report its 13 compliance status. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: With the 16 implementation of the updated Enforcement Policy, staff 17 has reduced penalties for violations which are voluntarily 18 disclosed. In 2018, staff resolved eight voluntarily 19 disclosed cases. The actual percent reduction for 20 voluntarily disclosed cases varied from 25 to 88 percent, 21 which is generally consistent with our policy. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: We are 24 expanding our Stationary Source Enforcement Program, 25 including increasing enforcement of the Landfill Methane
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 216
1 Regulation that reduces methane emissions from municipal 2 solid waste landfills. We are working with districts to 3 enforce this regulation. 4 We're also initiating new programs to review 5 district activities, policies, and regulations to ensure 6 they meet applicable State and federal requirements and to 7 determine potential areas for improvement. 8 Currently, we are working with the California Air 9 Pollution Control Officers Association to update our 10 training plan to address specific enforcement challenges 11 identified by CARB staff and the air districts. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: Later this 14 year, we will be transitioning from the STEP process to 15 more field enforcement. Our efforts will focus on trucks 16 registered in other states to provide a more level playing 17 field relative to California trucks subject to 18 registration requirements and in disadvantaged communities 19 looking for high emitting and/or potentially tampered 20 vehicles. 21 To support these efforts, CARB staff developed 22 and will begin field use of the Portable Emissions 23 Acquisition System, or PEAQs, pictured here. We will 24 deploy a similar unit at the California Department of Food 25 Agriculture facility in Needles as part of a new
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 217
1 enforcement process focused on out-of-state vehicles. We 2 will also focus additional enforcement on TRUs and 3 diesel-fueled off-road equipment. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In order to 6 help the general public better understand CARB's 7 enforcement efforts and to facilitate the development of 8 community emissions reductions program, staff developed 9 the Enforcement Data Visualization System to provide an 10 intuitive way to visualize CARB's enforcement actives 11 across the State, including field inspections and case 12 settlements on an interactive interface. 13 This interactive tool provides results and 14 locations of every inspection over the past three years 15 displayed at a detailed spatial resolution and is now 16 available to the public on our website. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: In summary, in 19 2018, we resolved the FCA case in which Fiat Chrysler 20 recalled and fixed over 13,000 vehicles equipped with 21 defeat devices and paid over $78 million in penalties in 22 mitigation to California. 23 We conducted over 28,000 vehicle, marine, 24 equipment, and consumer product inspections with 60 25 percent in disadvantaged communities.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 218
1 We addressed over 11,000 complaints. 2 And we assessed $13 million in penalties 3 including 93 case settlements, about 1,500 STEP 4 settlements, and more than 1,700 field citations. 5 We provided training to about 5,000 students and 6 allocated $1.5 million to SEPs benefiting disadvantaged 7 communities. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: CARB 10 enforcement programs are a crucial component of our 11 effort -- efforts to protect public health and the 12 environment. We are embedding a culture of continuous 13 improvement. We measure our programs and then adjust for 14 improved efficiency and effectiveness. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AMORUSO: The 2018 17 Annual Enforcement Report is available on our website at 18 the location shown here. 19 Thank you. We would be happy to answer any 20 questions you may have at this time. 21 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 22 I think we should hear from those who've come to 23 speak about this issue. We have three witnesses. Lisa 24 McGhee who wins the endurance award for the day -- 25 (Laughter.)
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 219
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: -- followed by Alex Solis, and 2 Sean Edgar. 3 MS. McGHEE: Good afternoon. Lisa McGhee with 4 San Diego Airport Parking Company. 5 ZEVs have no tailpipe emissions and thereby no 6 enforcement or penalties exist for this advanced 7 technology. The warranties for heavy-duty emission 8 vehicles range from 150,000 miles to 400,000 miles for 9 expensive components. Hybrid light-duty vehicles get 10 150,000 mile warranty. ZEVs have no requirements or 11 benchmarks. And the new ZEV defects or recalls can't go 12 through the federal process, as a dropdown or recall must 13 be repeating in volume and most of the new ZEV OEMs do not 14 exist on the VMF -- the VM VSSA as a listed OEM. 15 It is not just about the components. It is about 16 the integration, lack of experience, and oversight. 17 Proprietary vehicles should have enforcement when 18 malfunctions are not responded to. Legal issues and 19 disputes should be allowed to create a burden -- should 20 not be allowed to create a burden on the purchaser to be 21 out of state. All disputes for ZEVs should required to be 22 handled locally and in this state. 23 SDAP continues to remind this Board there is no 24 lemon law for commercially registered vehicles. The ZEV 25 OEM market is primarily made up of small OEMs, and are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 220
1 receiving credits for each vehicle produced, and these 2 credits have monetary volume. 3 Please create an enforcement provision for ZEV 4 technology that is sold in California. This aligns with 5 all another technologies and this procedure should be the 6 standard. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 9 MR. SOLIS: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is 10 Alex Solis. I'm here on behalf of Comite Civico Del 11 Valle. 12 Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, members of the 13 Board. On behalf of Comite Civico Del Valle, we thank the 14 Board, and Executive Officer Richard Corey, and CARB staff 15 for taking our concerns into serious consideration and 16 correcting the course. We also thank Todd Sax and his 17 Enforcement team for their diligence in reaching out to 18 disadvantaged communities throughout California to raise 19 awareness about the SEP program and on this new direction. 20 We are satisfied with the outcome of the audit 21 and the new direction which is more aligned with AB 1071. 22 In closing, Comite Civico would also respectfully ask CARB 23 to commit to redistributing more penalty dollars to 24 disadvantaged communities. 25 Thank you.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 221
1 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 2 MR. EDGAR: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 3 Board members. Last but not least. Pleased to be in 4 front of you this afternoon. Sean Edgar. I'm the 5 Director of Clean Fleets. 6 Just a few quick words relating to the 7 Enforcement Division report and then talk about a few 8 challenges going forward. I'd characterize a visit to the 9 Enforcement Division as kind of like going to the dentist. 10 It's something that you don't really look forward to. 11 I've had that occasion to be sitting across the table on 12 several occasions this past year. Dr. Sax and his team 13 are thorough I think in looking at documentation for some 14 of the fleets that we assist. It's been a challenging 15 experience on occasion, but ultimately it's also helped 16 to -- help course correction where 100 percent compliance 17 isn't there. So I'll say thank you for that. 18 There are key future programs like AB 617 19 implementation that the prior speaker spoke about or the 20 EV charging -- the charge -- the discussion you had before 21 this item relative to how complicated the infrastructure 22 side will be for advanced clean local trucks. And I just 23 want to touch on two program challenges that Enforcement 24 Division, over the next year or two, will need to deal 25 with that we in industry are looking at.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 222
1 First, on the PSAP regulatory changes, the smog 2 check for heavy-duty trucks, the new opacity standard goes 3 into effect next week. It's nice the program staff sent 4 out an email earlier this week to affected industry that 5 there are a few key programs challenges there, 6 specifically in the areas of equipment in order for 7 industry to implement the test. So there's a new 8 calibration standard or there should be a new calibration 9 standard to have key equipment be able to reflect what the 10 new standard is. 11 In talking with program staff, I have not seen a 12 lot of enthusiasm for them to inform the manufacturers of 13 the equipment that is required to perform the test, that 14 they need to make not only durable equipment but they need 15 to make changes to the equipment to make sure that the 16 operators of that equipment get accurate results. 17 So that's one item that being involved in smog 18 check for over 20 years, it's a key deficit and going to 19 become a future problem for enforceability. 20 In the time I have left, I'll just reference the 21 advanced clean local trucks effort briefly and I'll 22 indicate that in my 20 years before the Board it's been a 23 team sport, so you all at staff level and program staff 24 are working to engage industry, but key industries are 25 nervous, especially the refuse industry that we do a lot
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 223
1 of work with. 2 Last October, you fixed the HVIP issue. So thank 3 you for that. You recognized that the refuse industry has 4 been an A team in implementing clean vehicles. And when 5 it comes to hundreds of million of dollars in investment 6 in natural gas technology, a little bit nervous about what 7 the forthcoming ZEB fleet reporting and purchase mandate 8 will be. 9 So I'll just wrap-up by saying, dentistry 10 sometimes isn't fun. Staff has been firm, but relatively 11 fair where documentation is there. And these key program 12 challenges, AB 618 -- 617, ACLT, advanced clean local 13 trucks, and the PSIP rollout are going to be key things 14 that we're watching with the idea that making sure 15 industry has good information and good ability to hit the 16 future targets. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 19 Any comments from Board members down this item? 20 It's a good report. It's comprehensive. It's helpful. 21 I'm glad we're doing it. 22 I don't think I have any additional concerns or 23 comments at this point. I don't sea any. So just thank 24 you. Keep doing it. Appreciate that you've really turned 25 this into, I think, a much more communicative document
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 224
1 than it used to be. 2 Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you. Yes. 4 Great work. One thing that, when I was being briefed, we 5 talked about was these collaborations with other 6 jurisdictions, cities, counties on regulations that we 7 have that can be converted into ordinances by them, much 8 like our truck idling ordinance -- 9 CHAIR NICHOLS: Right. 10 BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: -- to identify other 11 opportunities like that that we can work with local 12 jurisdictions to magnify our Enforcement team up and down 13 the state. So whenever -- you know, no urgency on that. 14 But whenever you can identify those opportunities, those 15 regs that can be used in that way, where we can share 16 maybe some of the citation revenues with the local 17 jurisdiction, just to have more eyes and ears up and down 18 the state. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIR NICHOLS: That's great. 21 Yes. 22 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: And I just -- I want to 23 thank you all for the work that you do and the challenge 24 of being enforcement. "Hi. I'm from enforcement. I'm 25 here to help you".
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 225
1 (Laughter.) 2 BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: But it -- so, well, you 3 help us absolutely. And you do help the compliant people 4 to level that playing field and be sure everybody is 5 coming up to snuff. And none of these regulations would 6 work if we couldn't be assured that things are performing 7 as we -- as the models would imply. So it really is 8 critical. 9 One question that comes up over and over in terms 10 of enforcement is public involvement and getting the 11 public involved and the comments about getting other 12 agencies working together. I think obviously CAPCOA would 13 be an important partner in this, thinking about -- you 14 know, as we think about trucking, smoking trucks, you 15 know, that -- that five percent who fail the opacity test 16 or 95 percent of the black carbon that's coming out of 17 trucks at least. So it's a really important and critical 18 piece to catch. And I think the public probably can play 19 an important role in that. 20 But I think air districts have certain 21 ambivalence about getting the public involved and being 22 sure that they're closing the loop in terms of that it's 23 reported and how do you share with the public that this is 24 taken seriously and something has been accomplished. 25 So it's complicated and I think there are
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 226
1 different solutions for different districts. So CAPCOA 2 may be a very productive place to think about that issue. 3 BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: So one last thing. 4 Thank you also. It's a tough job and I'm glad you're 5 doing it. So thank you for that. And I also wanted to 6 give a shout-out. After our briefing, you sent me the 7 visualization tool, which I played around with, and I know 8 you featured it on one of the slides today. I just want 9 to encourage everyone to take a look at it. It's really 10 an amazing tool and one that I think sets a real good 11 template for what we can do in the future to display all 12 kinds of information, but it's really, really helpful. 13 And particularly because it's at the community 14 level, I wanted to give a congratulations to you for that. 15 It's really easy. If I could use it, then you've got it. 16 So I can be your guinea pig on that any time you want to 17 test stuff, but it really works well. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 20 We have -- I think we're concluded with this 21 item. 22 I do think we have two requests to speak at the 23 open comment period. Thank you all very much and 24 appreciate the good work. 25 It really is at the heart and soul of the program
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 227
1 to have a good Enforcement Program. And, as you can see, 2 it feeds back into the regulatory process, because they 3 spot weaknesses in the regulations when they're trying to 4 enforce them. 5 All right. Let's hear from our two open comment 6 speakers. First Neal Desai from the National Parks and 7 Conservation Association and then Gary Hughes. 8 Hi. 9 MR. DESAI: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and the 10 Board. My name is Neal Desai with the National Parks 11 Conservation Association. NPCA has been advocating for 12 the protection of our National Parks for the past 100 13 years. And I'm here to provide comment on the status of 14 the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan. And thank you for this 15 opportunity to comment. 16 NPCA is interested in this issue, not only 17 because of the impacts to the National Parks in the 18 region, such as Yosemite, and Sequoia, and Kings Canyon, 19 and all of our public lands in that area, but also because 20 of the human health impacts to our members and the 21 communities that we live and work in. 22 So at the time when the PM2.5 plan passed by this 23 Board in January, advocates cautioned that the plan relied 24 too far heavily on emission reductions from roughly $5 25 billion worth of State funding for incentive-based
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 228
1 programs and not enough on regulatory measures. And I'm 2 sorry to stay that I think our concerns have -- appear to 3 be confirmed now based on the budget that has just passed 4 through the Legislature, which falls far short of the $500 5 million that -- for valley-specific incentives that the 6 CARB staff identified as being necessary. So not just 7 sort of could be nice, but necessary for 2019. 8 And then we all know about the challenges with 9 funding and receiving funding and -- but that's precisely 10 why we had concerns about the format. 11 This funding shortfall occurred despite lobbying 12 efforts by both industry, stakeholders, and clean air 13 advocates like MPCA asking legislators to fully fund 14 programs, including the FARMER incentive. With the 15 incentive funding needs outlined in the plan set to go 16 to -- up to over $800 million for each of the next five 17 years, it's clear to us that the CARB and the valley air 18 district need to move beyond this over reliance on this 19 funding mechanism, which have failed to materialize, as 20 many have pointed to, and come up with a viable plan B to 21 reach the attainment by the 2024 and 2025 deadlines. 22 Throughout the valley's PM2.5 rulemaking, we 23 proposed a number of regulatory actions that should be 24 taken to close this gap. These strategies include review 25 of the largest stationary source polluters, reviewing the
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 229
1 district's agricultural burning program, assessing ammonia 2 reduction programs, reducing potential NOx emissions from 3 soil and fertilizers, accelerating mobile source measures, 4 like the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. 5 So these are just a handful of strategies that we 6 hope you will look at, because the staff is coming back in 7 September and we already know where things are headed. So 8 let's get to work this and we would love to work with you 9 on it. 10 Thank you for this opportunity. 11 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. 12 Mr. Karperos, do you have any comment on this? I 13 know this is just a comment item and no action is called 14 for, but you want to respond in terms of the timing. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARPEROS: Right. As 16 the commenter mentioned, we will be back in September with 17 a report to you on implementation of the San Joaquin 18 Valley plan. That was identified as a step, because of 19 the reliance on incentives, plus all the regulatory 20 actions that fall to this Board and to the local board. 21 Specifically, on the incentive issue, after the 22 budget came out, ARB staff was meeting with the district 23 staff on trying to figure out how you could reprogram the 24 funds, and what other pots of money might be available. 25 So there is sort of already in place a process to assess
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 230
1 and how to go forward now that we know what the budget is. 2 CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, I think it certainly 3 behooves us to move quickly and not wait around, so keep 4 us posted. 5 Okay. Gary Hughes. 6 MR. HUGHES: All right. Thank you, Chair 7 Nichols, members of the Board. My name is Gary Hughes. 8 THE COURT REPORTER: Turn the mic on. 9 MR. HUGHES: Thank you, Chair Nichols and for the 10 direction here, members of the Board. 11 My name is Gary Hughes. And I'm currently 12 working with a small international organization called 13 Biofuel Watch. And I appreciate this moment in the open 14 session to draw attention to a letter that our 15 organization with 20 or more groups sent to Chair Nichols 16 and the Governor last week regarding the California 17 Tropical Forest Standard a climate impacts from aviation. 18 Aviation is long recognized as a severe climate 19 polluter and the problem is only getting worse. As a 20 matter of fact according to the ARB emissions inventory, 21 international aviation emissions have spiked dramatically, 22 rising by nearly 40 percent to climb to an all time record 23 eye. This reality cannot be ignored. 24 Even though emissions from international aviation 25 are outside the regulatory scope of California's State
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 231
1 authorities, great care must be taken in how this climate 2 threat is addressed to avoid unleashing a chain of 3 unintended consequences that will threaten communities and 4 the climate. 5 The California Tropical Forest Standard is a 6 tropical forest based carbon offset protocol that the Air 7 Resources Board has explicitly proposed to endorse for use 8 with the International Civil Aviation Organization Carbon 9 Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International 10 Aviation. 11 The two key mechanisms of CORSIA are carbon 12 offsetting and alternative aviation biofuels. The 13 proposal for global aviation to rely on offsetting to 14 address climate impacts from future emissions growth is 15 highly controversial. 16 Another major concern with CORSIA is the focus on 17 alternative aviation fuels, primarily aviation biofuels. 18 Research shows that palm oil is the only economically and 19 technically feasible feedstock for large-scale aviation 20 biofuels, based on existing technologies. 21 Given the extremely weak standards proposed for 22 CORSIA, the scheme is highly likely to allow palm oil 23 derived biofuels to be characterized as sustainable 24 aviation biofuels, thus creating a large new global demand 25 for palm oil.
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 232
1 The Air Resources Board, by considering endorsing 2 an offsets protocol for use in CORSIA and thus putting a 3 stamp of approval on CORSIA itself, could be unwittingly 4 unleashing forces that instigate a spike in demand for 5 palm oil derived biofuels. 6 So I ask for your consideration of this letter 7 and the information that we share with this. 8 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 9 presented as follows.) 10 MR. HUGHES: In the nature of the open session, 11 just to really rapidly draw attention to what's happening 12 in California's forests, because I know that the Air 13 Resources Board and other agencies have made, you know, a 14 real priority of forests, but right now on Rainbow 15 Ridge -- and I hope everyone remembers that name -- that 16 place name of Rainbow Ridge. This is a place where for 17 several decades there's been a lot of activist focus on 18 protecting the old forest on Rainbow Ridge. 19 This is property that belongs to the Humboldt 20 Redwood Company. And it's being logged right now. There 21 have been arrests. Kids have been arrested, but as well 22 there was an elders protecting elders action. 23 And so I just ask folks to take a look at what's 24 happening in California's forests, and let's make a 25 priority of protecting California's forests. Thank you
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 233
1 for your time today. 2 And really amazing stamina that you all can make 3 it through this day. 4 Thank you. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate that. And 7 I do have your letter and have read it. And it's been 8 circulated. And I think before any other actions are 9 taken on that, others will have given a thorough -- a 10 thorough look as well. So thank you. 11 I believe that is it all the business to come 12 before the Board for today -- for this month actually. 13 I do want to do one thing which I omitted to do 14 earlier, and that is to introduce our newest member of the 15 executive team and that's our legislative representative 16 who's sitting in the audience there. This is David Garcia 17 who was escorting Senator Corbett earlier. And he has 18 joined us from the staff of the Senate. And he was a 19 former science fellow in the Legislature. One of the -- 20 the second one that we've hired. The first one was 21 Ryan -- what was his name? Oh, yeah, Ryan McCarthy, a 22 wonder -- 23 (Laughter.) 24 CHAIR NICHOLS: -- and wonderful staff member. 25 And we're just delighted to welcome him. So
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 234
1 stand up and say hello. Welcome. 2 You'll be seeing more of him. Thanks. 3 (Applause.) 4 CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. I think that's it. We can 5 be adjourned. 6 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting 7 adjourned at 2:55 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171 235
1 C E R T I F I C A T E OF R E P O R T E R 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 4 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 5 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 6 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 7 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and was 8 thereafter transcribed, under my direction, by 9 computer-assisted transcription; 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 4th day of July, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25
J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171