The Honorable Alex Padilla

April 22, 2013

The Honorable Alex Padilla

Chair

Senate Energy, Utilities and Communication

State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE:SB 454 (Corbett) EV Charging Station Host - Unfunded Mandate

POSITION:OPPOSEUNLESS AMENDED

Dear Senator Padilla:

On behalf of ECOtality and ChargePoint, we want tocommend Senator Corbett for seeking to ensure openaccess and interoperability for electric vehicle charging in California. However,the provisions in SB 454 (as amended on April 16, 2013) do not achieve their stated objectives and could have unwanted negative consequences on the EV industry in California.

We have three major concerns with the bill and recommend amendments to address these issues.

First, the legislation will exacerbate the issue of inadequate EV charging infrastructure by making it more expensive and cumbersome for our customers to deploy.The requirements of the regulations imposed by this bill will create an unfunded mandate for charging station owners that will unintentionally dissuade people from deploying infrastructure.If the provisions of this bill are to be enacted, the State should set aside funds for EV charging service providers and their customers in order to comply with the unfunded and retroactive mandates of Section 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d).

Second, the bill creates new authority for the California Energy Commission to regulate charging services that is unnecessary, not appropriate and contrary to the Governor’s EV Action Plan.

The Governor’s ZEV Action Plan, which is authored by the Governor’s Interagency Working Group in February of 2013, was subject to both public comment and in-depth workshops to provide market, technology and consumer input. The Plan provides as a “Specific Strategy” to “Enable Universal Access to Zev infrastructure for California” arecommendation “to encourage industry efforts to develop interoperability standards for electric vehicle charging stations that enable PEV drivers to locate and reserve public charging stations and be billed regardless of drivers’ memberships or subscriptions to a network electric vehicle chargers.” This recommendation is clearly to support industry efforts and not to impose regulation. Voluntary industry efforts are already underway and are moving quickly toward establishing national standards and private sector solutions. It is inappropriate and unnecessary for increased government regulation on a burgeoning industry, especially when the market is expeditiously cooperating and working together to address market gaps in a timely manner.

Government intervention and control of foundational industry functions, like mapping and interoperability standards as specified in this bill will not only add the cost of providing services, but is not warranted. Providing for government regulation in this market, the largest and most important in the United States is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent.

There is already a substantial and growing EV market that is competing to provide network software, mapping and roaming services to support EV drivers. Many of these companies are headquartered in Silicon Valley. The role of the legislature should not be to step between this development and market innovation, but rather support industry as the Governor’s EV Action plan provides. We recommend deleting section 2(b) and 2(d) of the amended version of the bill April 16, 2013.

Third, while we support the general direction of the bill to ensure easy access to electric vehicle charging for electric vehicle owners in California, the ambiguity of the definitions clouds clarity in the intention to exempt private property owners. We suggest clarifying amendments (below) to reflect common industry language and common business practices in order to ensure workplace and private investment in charging infrastructure.

Background

Our companies manufacture Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) and provide charging services to EV drivers worldwide. We operate networks that collectively provide the broadest coverage of public car charging stations in the United States and together have nearly8,000 stations deployed in California. Both companies are headquartered in California.

Providing the best consumer experience for EV drivers is a top priority of EV charging service providers andis critical to the survival and market growth of the burgeoning EV industry. As such, competitive forces of free market economies drive private enterprises to vigorously compete for market share by providing more robust and innovative offerings to satisfy customer demand and encourage adoption of EVs and related technologies. The issue of open access to charging equipment for drivers is critical to enable market growth of electric vehicles.

However, while we believe the intentions of SB 454 may be good, the ambiguity and direction of this attempt to regulate our customers is unprecedented and detrimental to industry growth and will have a chilling effect upon the adoption of EV charging stations in California.

The issue of regulating open access is unnecessary at this time. The goal of all EV charging companies is to maximize EV usage at public charging locations, which is why theover 90% of all charging stations in California (and quickly increasing) already comply with the open access provisions of this bill.

Government intervention and control of foundational industry functions, like mapping and open access as specified in this bill, is inappropriate as there are already privately funded companies that are competing to provide these services.

To preemptively mandate interoperability in the absence of funding assistance or applicable national standards is premature. Further, industry efforts are activelyunderway to establish national standards for interoperability of charging stations which addresses the underlying rationale of the bill and makes this legislation unnecessary.

We respectfully propose that the following issues be addressed by the author and this policy Committee:

ENERGY COMMISSION REGULATION OF CHARGING SERVICES IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND UNWARRANTED

Section 44268.2(b) of the legislation requires EV Charging Station hosts to disclose station geographic information, fees schedules and methods of payments to the California Energy Commission. This provision creates a new regulatory burden for station hosts under the authority of the California Energy Commission that is open ended. Furthermore, geographic information and pricing information is already accessible to EV drivers through software applications and mapping services provided by EVSE Network providers and software application developers. Charging Station hosts have the ability to utilize an authorized and certified proxy agent, including Charging Station Service Providers that already disclose this information to the public.

Pricing at ChargePoint stations is set by customers. Requiring customers to communicate to the Energy Commission whenever they change pricing or location will unduly obstruct their business. Furthermore, the information is considered proprietary to those businesses and so sharing that information with other companies should not be controlled by the Energy Commission

In addition, this section contemplates a role for the Energy Commission to maintain mapping services. Here again, the role of the Energy Commission is not appropriate and would be duplicative of services already provided in the market. The Energy Commission is not a clearing house for mapping information and is not equipped to maintain or service this information. The data management capability anticipatedin this legislation would cost millions of dollars in software development that has already been invested by private capital, and should not be duplicated in a government agency.

Suggested Amendment: Eliminate Section 44268.2(b)

STANDARDS ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OR PROTOCOLS

Section 44268.2 (d) would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, on or after January 1, 2015, to adopt interoperability standards for network roaming payment methods for electric vehicle charging stations, and would require, if the commission adopts standards, all electric vehicle charging stations to meet those standards within one year.

This puts the California Energy Commission in a regulatory role of enforcing a standard that it has adopted. Currently interoperability bill standards are in development at national standards bodies including ANSI, NEMA and NIST. Those standards are making timely progress. To have the Commission adopt a local standard and then enforce it will result in a unique standard for California that will cost millions of dollars per year to enforce.

The requirement of a statewide standard is not appropriate and would conflict and undermine the national standards being developed today by National Electrical Manufacturers Association(NEMA), the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The interoperability standards adopted by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission must be based on national recognized industry standards or protocols in order to not create confusion in the industry or add additional costs to products for the California marketplace.

The implementation of the regulations in Section 44268.2 (d) will also penalize all pioneering EV companies to spend millions on forced and retroactive compliance.

Suggested Amendment: Section 44268.2(d) should be eliminated.

EVSE SERVICE PROVIDERS MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE, INVESTIGATE AND CURE COMPLAINTS BEFORE PUBLICIZED BY A STATE AGENCY

Section 44268.2 (e) would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect “consumer complaints about electric vehicle charging stations from electric vehicle owners or drivers…and make the summary available to the public.” It is critical to have appropriate checks and balances that assess the validity of a complaint prior to a state agency publicizing this information in a manner that may directly affect the reputation and ongoing business of an electric vehicle charging station manufacturer or service provider. Any complaints should first be delivered to the responsible electric vehicle charging station manufacturer and service provider to investigate the validity of the complaint and provide appropriate rectification. An electric vehicle charging station manufacturer or service provider should not be notified of any and all complaints through a State-sanctioned public venue without the ability to first verify a complaint and cure any wrongdoing. Further, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee recommended deleting this section.

Suggested Amendment: Section 44268.2(e) should be eliminated.

DEFINITIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND DO NOT REFLECT COMMON INDUSTRY LANGUAGE or BUSINESS PRACTICES

Definitions in the legislation should be amended to reflect common industry language as defined by industry operating rules, standards agencies, and current federal tax laws. Definitions in Section 44268 that should be amended include:

• Definition(b), the term, “Battery Charging Station,” should be replaced with the national industry term of “Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” ;
• Definition (c), the term, “Electric Vehicle,” should be defined as a light duty highway legal passenger vehicle;
• Definition (d), the term, “Electric vehicle charging station,” should be called a “Public Electric Vehicle Charging Station,” and should be defined as aparking location that is meant to be accessed by the general public and is directly located with Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and used solely for the intent of charging a vehicle.” The current definition of “Electric vehicle charging station,” indicates it is comprised of “public parking spaces,” which is incorrect and can create substantial unwanted consequences as all electric vehicle charging stations are not inherently intended for general public use and access, especially EVSE located on private property or in residences.
• Definition (g), the term, “public parking space,” needs further clarification to avoid intrusion into private property owner rights. The property owner should retain the ability to determine if the property can be used by the public. New language should be accepted: “Public parking space means a parking space that has been designated by its owner to be available to and accessible by the public.”
• It must be clear that this provision will not allow everyone to use charging stations paid for by employers to be used exclusively for their employees and customers. The language that specifically states, “… designated visitor parking spaces in a private business parking lot,” will allow anyone to freeload on the private investments made to specifically benefit those employees and customers The term “designated visitor parking spaces” should be stricken from the definition..

• Definition (e) “interoperability standards” should be eliminated as unnecessary due to national standards development.

ABSENCE OF FUNDING MECHANISM

• The absence of a funding mechanism to support interoperability creates an unfunded mandate that is a burden to the EVSE manufacturers, network service providers and private sector customers that seek to install EVSE on their private property. This bill should be amended to provide this funding; otherwise, provisions should be eliminated and not be adopted by the Legislature. Simply stating in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee that EVSEs or charge station hosts may apply for AB 118 funds, does not compensate them for this unfunded state mandate. AB 118 funding, or some other funding source, must be earmarked and in amounts sufficient to cover the costs of the mandates in this bill.

Industry Efforts

In an ongoing effort our companies announced last year the creation of an independent entity,Collaboratev, LLC, that will enable interoperability forall charging stations and eliminate the need for EV drivers to carry multiple access cards and hold numerous accounts with charging networks.

Collaboratevhas thus far been privately funded by ChargePoint and ECOtality to provide a flexible, innovative and scalable solution for the EV industry to enable network interoperability and a centralized clearinghouse for locational information. Collaboratev is actively in discussions with all major EV charging companies, utilities and automotive manufacturers to join this effort and responseshave been extremely positive. The payment issues as well as the mapping requirements of this proposed legislation will be addressed by Collaboratev in a sustainable manner that accommodates innovative business models across the EV value chain.

In addition, ChargePoint and ECOtality are leading the industry effortsof NEMA, an industry funded trade group representing electric equipment companies, to develop hardware and software specifications and protocols to enable interoperability, authentication, and financial reconciliation amongst charging networks. If adopted, they will enable Collaboratev to work seamlessly across multiple disparate platforms.

The California market is the most critical market in the United States for electric vehicle adoption and has exemplary policies that provide for an open marketplacethat encourages private investment in EV infrastructure. We support the Governor’s approach in the EV ACTION plan to support industry efforts to address the interoperability of charging infrastructure. SB 454 unless amended is ambiguous, unwarranted and premature and willresult in a chilling effect on the EV charging market in California.

Most importantly, the unfunded mandate created by this legislation creates a burden to the EVSE manufacturers, network service providers and private sector customers that seek to install EVSE on their private property and a new regulatory burden on the California Energy CommissionCalifornia’s EV infrastructure is not yet robust enough to support the predicted growth of EV adoption in the state. Charging station infrastructure expansion is necessary, but would be been slowed by the unnecessary regulation and unfunded mandates of this legislation.

We respectfully request your No Vote on SB 454UNLESS AMENDEDto eliminate unnecessary regulation of interoperability and mapping services by the California Energy Commission and clarifying amendments to support open access that is relevant to common industry practices and private property exclusions. Further, this measure needs to pay for the mandates it imposes.

With these amendments, the legislation will address the ability of EV Drivers to access public charging infrastructure in a cost effective and practical way that does not undermine private property rights, innovation, and the private capital needed to grow the market in California.

Sincerely,

By: ______/s/_ Richard Lowenthal____

Richard Lowenthal

Founder and Chief Technical Officer

ChargePoint, Inc.

1692 Dell Ave.

Campbell, CA 95008

US Toll Free: +1-877-370-3802

Tel: +1-408-370-3802

By: ______/s/_ Colin Read______

Colin Read

Vice President, Corporate Development

ECOtality, Inc.

One Montgomery Street
Suite 2525
San Francisco, California 94104

Phone: 415-992-3000

Fax: 415-992-3001

cc:The Honorable Ellen Corbett

Members, Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

1