2022-05-19 Leeward Exh B (Item 2 Council Bill No 120 PL-CC-2022-000001)

Home

Recommendation number 11, under section 25-4-54.2(a), consider including a ratio, formula, or equivalency table to compare the charging capacity between alternating current Level 2 chargers and direct current fast chargers. So again, this is the section that allows the Director the authority to kind of make a decision on whether, or using fewer fast charges as long as it meets the same capacity level. The reason we are requesting this is the tool will help the Planning Director determine charging capacity between those two different charger types. Under Section IILC. of the proposed amendments that was addressed by proposing the ratio allowing one DC fast charger to replace six Level 2 plugs as long as there's at least one other Level 2 plug to accommodate EVs that cannot charge on a DC fast charger. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. And finally, Recommendation number 12, while Section 25-4-54.2(b)(1) allows for an exemption to the requirements of 25-4-54.1 if the location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate infrastructure to provide sufficient electrical current for EV charger implementation, there is no similar exemption if internet access is unavailable. So the reason for this is the bill requires both alternating current Level 2 chargers and direct current fast chargers to be networked or network-capable, respectively, but there is no requirement in the bill for an internet connection to track charger use or to be remotely accessible. Consider clarifying whether an internet connection is a requirement for implementation of this proposed, or this section of the proposed bill. And so those are the Director's 12 recommendations and some of the proposed changes that kind of address the recommendations from the Councilmember. In addition, in her amendments there were some additional proposed amendments, and they are as follows: She proposes to delete Section 25-4-54.1(g), which states that"Every parking facility that meets the size criteria must comply with the requirements of this section regardless of ownership, except as otherwise provided" in the exemption section. The reason for this is the section contradicts the aggregation privilege provided in HRS 291-71, which allows owners of multiple parking facilities within the State to designate and electrify fewer parking spaces than required in one or more of their owned properties, provided that the scheduled requirement is met for the total number of aggregate spaces on all their owned properties. So the example here is UH, University of Hawaii, right; so if they've got, if they meet their requirement for all their EV parking spaces on Oahu, they can be exempted from adding EV parking spaces here on Hawaii Island. And as we understand it, because this is a privilege allowed under HRS, our bill cannot delete that privilege or run counter to that privilege. So in that case, the Director agrees to the proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. The second additional proposed amendment is under section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicle charging stations and electrical vehicle charging systems, add with the appropriate item lettering, "Electric vehicle charging stations shall only be required to be available for use by the public during such times as the place of public accommodation is also open for public use." There was a comment that we received, saying, well, if, you know, the gates are locked the bill, the language of the bill as currently written might require people to be able to come and still 7 EXHIBIT B