10 MR. AUSTIN: That's a different conclusion than 11 other people reached. And the reason, the conclusion I've 12 come to, is different is listed on this slide. Other 13 analyses of this issue have totally ignored the effects of 14 battery life on using the vehicle for vehicle to grid 15 power transfer.

16 In addition, the analyses that you've seen from 17 others have used the current peak electricity crisis as 18 the basis for the economics of this process in the future.

19 Finally, there's been an insignificant 20 attention  inadequate attention paid to the overlap 21 between peak electricity demand period and peak travel 22 demand period.

23 And, finally, there's been no attention paid to 24 the infrastructure and importantly administrative costs 25 associated with the vehicle to grid power transfer.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 97 1  o0o

2 MR. AUSTIN: Battery life does not exceed the 3 vehicle life in electric vehicles. And so shortening the 4 battery life with additional charge/ discharge cycles must 5 be accounted for. There have been projections from 6 battery producers that the cost of nickel metal hydride 7 batteries in high volume may come down into the range of 8 $ 250 per kilowatt hour as the wholesale price to an OEM.

9 That will translate into roughly a $ 500 per 10 kilowatt hour retail price for replacement battery to the 11 owner of electric vehicles. You've also heard people talk 12 about nickel metal hydride battery life being in the range 13 of thousands of charge/ discharge cycles.

14 If you want to look at what the damage, economic 15 damage, to the battery is associated with extra 16 charge/ discharge cycles, you merely have to divide the 17 cost per kilowatt hour by the cycle life and it translates 18 into 50 cents per kilowatt hour as the additional battery 19 cost the owner will end up incurring if the vehicle is 20 used for vehicle to grid power transfer.

21  o0o

22 MR. AUSTIN: Charging/ discharging losses are 23 another factor that adds to cost. To send a kilowatt hour 24 back to the grid, you're going to have to use more than a 25 kilowatt hour drawn from the grid to charge the battery.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 98 1 Charging/ discharging losses are typically about 30 2 percent. That means to send a kilowatt hour back to the 3 grid it's going to be necessary to purchase 1.4 kilowatt 4 hours.

5 If you look at the current prices being charged 6 by Southern California Edison for off peak recharging,

7 which are eight cents per kilowatt hour, that means it's 8 going to cost 11 cents for every kilowatt hour if it's 9 transferred back to the grid.

10 And accounting for transmission losses it also is 11 going to translate into higher greenhouse gas emissions 12 associated with the electricity supply, because of the 13 fact that we end up using more fossil fuel to provide the 14 electricity with vehicle to grid transfer as part of the 15 process.

16  o0o

17 MR. AUSTIN: This graphic shows the practical 18 problem associated with the concept, where I have 19 overlaying on the same graph the current marginal cost of 20 electricity that's experienced by Southern California 21 Edison showing that for summer weekday conditions, the 22 price of electricity, the cost of electricity, peaks at 23 about 3: 00 p. m., which is precisely the beginning of the 24 afternoon commute period.

25 So any vehicle that's used to sell electricity PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 99 1 back to the grid when it's most economic to do so, will 2 end with a depleted battery and not be available for use 3 during the p. m. travel period.

4  o0o

5 MR. AUSTIN: You have to account for what would 6 be called the opportunity cost of not having the vehicle 7 available for use during normal commuting periods. I've 8 done a first order approximation of what that might be by 9 assuming in this example that someone rents another 10 vehicle for summertime weekdays in order to dedicate the 11 electric vehicle for use by the grid.

12 If you do that, we end up with the opportunity 13 costs being $ 1.67 per kilowatt hour for the cost of coming 14 up with the replacement transportation if the vehicle is 15 going to be tied up providing power back to the grid.

16  o0o

17 MR. AUSTIN: The next slide please. Also, most 18 of the analyses that others have published in this area 19 use current electricity costs, but current costs of 20 electricity are truly an aberration. By 2002 our estimate 21 is that the cost of electricity during peak periods is 22 unlikely to exceed 15 cents per kilowatt hour. That's 23 because there are many new energy efficient power plants 24 coming on line.

25 The electricity production costs from these power PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 100 1 plants is going to be well under ten cents per kilowatt 2 hour, even if natural gas prices are on the high side.

3 And unless there are significant new disincentives imposed 4 on energy producers by the government, we think supply and 5 demand is going to be back in balance within the next 6 couple of years.

7 And the long range forecast for what the value 8 might be of electricity sold back to the grid is going to 9 be way down from the 50 to 60 cent per kilowatt hour 10 numbers that are consistent with what current prices have 11 been.

12  o0o

13 MR. AUSTIN: Here's a summary of what the math 14 looks like. The 50 cent per kilowatt hour prices that 15 we've seen recently are not going to be with us in the 16 future. I think a more realistic projection of the value 17 of power transferred back to the grid during peak periods 18 is about 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

19 Then if we look at the elements of cost to the 20 vehicle owner associated with providing electricity back 21 to the grid, we see that battery life reduction is in the 22 neighborhood of 50 cents per kilowatt hour, the cost for 23 recharging the battery is about 11 cents per kilowatt 24 hour.

25 And the opportunity costs for not using the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 101 1 vehicle could be $ 1.67 per kilowatt hour, if you want to 2 look at rental car costs as the replacement for a total 3 cost per kilowatt hour of $ 2.28.

4  O0o

5 MR. AUSTIN: Our conclusions are that if you 6 account for the opportunity costs of not having the 7 vehicle available for the afternoon commute period, the 8 cost to the vehicle owner of providing electric power back 9 to the grid exceeds by more than a factor of ten the 10 likely value of that electricity and the compensation the 11 owner could conceivably obtain.

12 And even if you ignore the opportunity costs of 13 not having the vehicle available, if you assume this is 14 only being done by people who for some reason don't need 15 to drive their car in the afternoon during summer days,

16 and if you use current electricity prices, it's still not 17 economic because of the damage that's done to the battery 18 when it goes through additional charge/ discharge cycles.

19 And when you consider what the cost of 20 electricity is likely to be in the near future when supply 21 and demand come back into balance, the economics of this 22 concept don't even come close to working. You can look at 23 the assumptions that I've used. You can change them by 50 24 percent or 100 percent and you're still not going to come 25 close to showing that this makes economic sense for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 102 1 vehicle owners.

2 So for that reason, we see this concept as 3 providing no justification for a design requirement for 4 conductive charge systems.

5 Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks, Tom.

7 Yes, Dr. Friedman and then Mr. McKinnon.

8 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I need to better 9 understand this opportunity cost of vehicles out of 10 service. What is your assumption? Are you assuming that 11 people are charging their batteries at peak commuter 12 times?

13 MR. AUSTIN: No. For this concept to generate 14 maximum revenue

15 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: You gave us a 16 graph and you showed us from 3: 00 to 5: 00 o'clock the cost 17 is the highest. And what does that have to do with when 18 people charge their cars and have you factored in how many 19 people don't travel more than 100 miles in a day?

20 MR. AUSTIN: Just to be clear, I'm not assuming 21 that anyone is charging their car during that period.

22 That's the period when the value of the electricity in the 23 vehicle's battery is the greatest. That's the period when 24 you want to send it back to the grid to get the maximum 25 economic value out of this concept.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 103 1 What I'm showing you here is that that is 2 precisely the period when the vehicle is needed for the 3 p. m. commute period, and so if we're going to use the 4 vehicle to send power back to the grid, the vehicle is not 5 going to be available for normal commute activity.

6 This concept doesn't come close to working if 7 you're talking about sending power back to the grid early 8 in the morning or overnight, because the marginal cost of 9 electricity is so low that you can't justify the 10 inefficiency of charging the battery and discharging it.

11 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I guess I 12 understand that. But on the one hand you're talking about 13 the cost back to the vehicle owner and you're telling me 14 that that's the $ 1.67, that the vehicle  that's your 15 cost as a vehicle owner from vehicle to grid transfer,

16 $ 1.67 per kilowatt hour.

17 Now, how in the world does that  I own one of 18 these cars let's say, how do I see that $ 1.67?

19 MR. AUSTIN: Let me explain it to you. That is 20 if you assume that the vehicle is tied up sending power 21 back to the grid and can't be driven, but the owner still 22 needs transportation.

23 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I understand all 24 that. My car is being charged at night, and where  I 25 don't see that $ 1.67 anywhere.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 104 1 MR. AUSTIN: My analysis assumes the car is 2 charged at night. The point is in order for this concept 3 to work economically or to come as close to working as it 4 can, you have to discharge back into the grid in the 5 mid afternoon and late afternoon.

6 That means you can't be driving the car. If you 7 need the car for transportation, that $ 1.67 per kilowatt 8 hour is the cost of providing transportation with some 9 other vehicle, like a rental car that you might use only 10 on summer weekdays, where there's a high demand for 11 electricity.

12 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, maybe that 13 works for you, but I still can't imagine any need for me 14 to drive any other vehicle or to give a damn about what 15 goes on in terms of my sending power back to the grid at a 16 time when I want to use the car.

17 I mean, it just, in the real world, makes no 18 sense to me for you to add $ 1.67 to $ 2.28 and tell me 19 that's what it really costs.

20 MR. AUSTIN: What makes no sense is to assume 21 that people are actually going to be willing to send power 22 back to the grid in the afternoon when it's needed the 23 most when the primary purpose of the car can't be 24 provided. You can't use it for transportation and send 25 power back to the grid.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 105 1 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: The primary 2 purpose of the car is not to fortify the energy 3 requirements of the State of California. 4 MR. AUSTIN: Exactly.

5 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Whoever said it 6 was. The amount  what the amount of electricity used 7 for X thousand cars is a tiny blip on  it's a pimple on 8 the nose of what the energy requirements are for the State 9 of California.

10 MR. AUSTIN: I'm not disagreeing with that, but 11 when the staff report says there's this big economic value 12 to owners to send power back to the grid, I'm saying well,

13 that doesn't make sense because you can't send power back 14 to the grid and use the car for commuting. If you're 15 going to tie the car up in that service, you have to look 16 at was that a good investment, what's the opportunity cost 17 of letting the car stay tied up connected to the grid as 18 opposed to having it available to drive.

19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I understand.

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks, Tom.

21 Mr. McKinnon.

22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. First of all, I 23 want to assure you that I'm not going to decide this issue 24 and this resolution today based upon this particular 25 benefit or not benefit or whatever. It's nice if it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 106 1 works. If it doesn't, that's not what the major thrust of 2 the decision is about today.

3 But I do have some questions about the numbers 4 you used. And I'll give you a concrete example. I drive 5 four miles to work every day. I have a battery that's got 6 100 mile range that I drive surface streets actually 30,

7 35 miles an hour. So that 100 mile range is pretty real. 8 That's a good number.

9 So there's 96 miles of that range I don't need 10 every day. I get real world conditions of Sacramento.

11 It's hot, and they're saying we might have rolling black 12 outs in the southern part of the city today around 3: 00 or 13 4: 00 in the afternoon.

14 I get off work at 6: 00 o'clock at night, if I'm 15 lucky, okay. I drive to work. I plug in. I program and 16 I say I'm willing to give up 50 percent of my battery. I 17 only need four percent of it, but something might come up 18 today, whatever, I'm going to give up 50 percent of my 19 battery. For people that drive further back and forth to 20 work, maybe they only give up ten percent or 20 percent or 21 whatever.

22 Are you calculating  I mean, are you looking at 23 it as if people 100 percent discharge their battery at 24 that 3: 00 p. m.  prior to 3: 00 p. m. or during the 3: 00 to 25 7: 00 period or whatever? Is your calculation based upon PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 107 1 100 percent discharge?

2 MR. AUSTIN: No. The numbers I used are not 3 simply tied to 100 percent discharge. If in the example 4 you used, if you were going to cough up 50 percent of your 5 battery charge back to the grid during the afternoon peak 6 period, because you still have enough to drive home, my 7 analysis indicates that that still would not be in your 8 long term economic interests, because it's going to 9 shorten the life of your battery and the cost to you or to 10 the subsequent purchaser of that vehicle is going to 11 substantially exceed the return you're going to get by 12 selling that power back to the grid.

13 Batteries have a life, which is related to the 14 number of charging/ discharging cycles they go through. If 15 you decide to spend some of that life having your vehicle 16 committed to this type of a system, you have to be 17 prepared to replace the vehicle earlier than it otherwise 18 requires replacement.

19 And when you just run the simple economics of how 20 much will it cost me to replace the battery earlier 21 because I'm sending power back to the grid, it doesn't 22 pencil out. That factor alone is enough to make it 23 uneconomical.

24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, okay, then let me 25 broaden this question to staff too. Is an occasional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 108 1 discharge unrelated to driving of 50 percent or 20 2 percent, does that have the same kind of  how do you put 3 this  do I lose battery life as if I was fully 4 discharging the vehicle for having the cycle  having to 5 recharge the 50 percent or the 20 percent?

6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I think 7 if you discharge the battery  the life of the battery is 8 related to the discharge, so directionally, yes, you would 9 lose some life, if you did this a lot.

10 But unfortunately the issue that's being 11 discussed is not relevant to where we saw the potential 12 advantages of vehicle to grid. We did a study that went 13 out and looked at how could battery vehicles help our 14 electric system become more efficient. And one of the 15 things was well, gee, when you run out of electricity in 16 the afternoon at some peak period, could we have all these 17 batteries dump, you know, their energy back into the grid,

18 the lights stay on.

19 And I think our conclusion was that that's not a 20 very good way of doing things for some of the reasons that 21 Mr. Austin set forth. But what we did find was that there 22 was another vehicle to grid opportunity that wasn't 23 discussed here, and that is in the area of power 24 regulation.

25 The State pays $ 800 million a year to power PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 109 1 plants from the Independent System Operator to have them 2 spun up and be just sitting there sort of idling ready to 3 put a little bit of energy in here, take a little bit of 4 energy out there, because this whole system has to stay in 5 balance. As you can guess sometimes there's too much 6 juice over here and not enough here and voltages aren't 7 quite right, et cetera. So they pay power plants to be 8 spun up and ready to regulate the quality of the power and 9 the system.

10 And that's where electric vehicles might be a 11 really good match, because if they're plugged in, and not 12 all of them have to be plugged in, but it's going to occur 13 during all times of the day, but when they're plugged in,

14 they can be asked to put a little bit of juice back in to 15 help balance off, you know, a shortage of voltage or a 16 little bit of flow of electricity in one area and put it 17 back in a little bit later, and you wouldn't be going 18 through these 50 percent discharges, you'd be using all of 19 them as a way of kind of an accumulator or a buffer to the 20 system.

21 And that's where we think, because there's a huge 22 amount of money we spend on doing that in the electric 23 system today, that maybe battery vehicles could do it more 24 effectively. Maybe the utilities could ultimately end up 25 paying for part of electric vehicles to provide that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 110 1 service instead of paying it to a power plant to be spun 2 up and ready to generate electricity when it doesn't need 3 to be.

4 And so the issue here, I think, we pretty much 5 don't think it's a particularly attractive approach 6 compared to this other one. And we've, you know, rated 7 whatever value you want to give to the potential of having 8 electric vehicles play a part of regulating our 9 electricity system is more likely to be on the one I 10 described than the one that Tom Austin described.

11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: It's because the prices 12 end up much, much higher.

13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, it's 14 not so much the price. It's that the system has to pay a 15 power plant to be up when it didn't need to be up for an 16 example. And when that occurs, that's a fairly expensive 17 item. And if some of that money could go to subsidizing 18 electric vehicles to do the same approach, maybe giving 19 you free electricity, for example, when you're plugged in,

20 it would end up being  we think it could end up being a 21 lot cheaper way to go for the State as a whole.

22 MR. AUSTIN: I'm familiar with the concept that 23 Mr. Cackette is describing. I focused on the analysis 24 that the Board has seen in the past. I've done some 25 analysis of his other concept as well. It also doesn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 111 1 pencil out, the potential value to the owners of electric 2 vehicles is pennies. The total cost the State incurs in 3 doing this per electric vehicle in the future is not 4 sufficient to justify the administrative costs and the 5 time involved for people to plug their vehicles in when 6 they normally wouldn't plug them in.

7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any other questions?

8 One other comment, Tom. On your first overhead,

9 the second highlight you had, "... while vehicle to grid 10 power flow from inductive chargers is possible, it would 11 be cost prohibitive," from the staff report. You didn't 12 address that comment.

13 MR. AUSTIN: Well, the only point in raising that 14 is this was the rationale given in the staff report for 15 why the conductive option had more appeal. And I'm not 16 disagreeing with this statement about it being more 17 difficult to do, vehicle to grid power transfer with 18 inductive. It is possible. I've not analyzed in detail.

19 I'm just saying the basic concept doesn't pencil out, so 20 it's not a reason for doing this.

21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm sure we'll hear some more 22 of this when I think that  in the comments later on so 23 maybe we have some more questions.

24 Bob.

25 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 112 1 quickly, the question of battery life and its connection 2 to depth of discharge was sort of left floating. And I 3 think Mr. McKinnon brought it up. I think that if you 4 discharge a battery very modestly, that has much less 5 impact on its life than if you go to the full 80 percent 6 that we consider ending.

7 So I think that that's the connection to what Tom 8 was saying which is that if they're floating along and 9 doing small charge/ discharge cycles, that's not a terribly 10 significant impact on the battery life.

11 MR. AUSTIN: That is true. But in Mr. McKinnon's 12 example, if you're then using the battery to get home, and 13 discharging it more fully, the net effect is the same for 14 this concept as my analysis indicates.

15 If you only draw it down 40 or 50 percent to send 16 power back to the grid, but you still have to use it that 17 day to get home you're going to end up drawing it down 18 closer to 80 percent and the effect on cycle life is going 19 to be identical to what I've assumed in my analysis.

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, but he goes four miles.

21 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: It 22 goes from 50 to 60 percent.

23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So as I understand your 24 argument, and I think it probably comes pretty much to a 25 wash, but if this kind of approach becomes a reality, then PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 113 1 it's probably going to behoove all of us to educate people 2 on where those lines are where they work and where their 3 battery works harder. 4 In other words  you know, I might decide to 5 only give up 30 percent instead of 50 percent, based upon 6 some set of knowledge of what it's going to do to my 7 battery life.

8 And so I think you raise real good points. And I 9 don't know that what you raise is even a factor in the 10 decision before us today. It was in the report and you're 11 addressing that and I understand that. I don't know if 12 it's a huge one for me.

13 But it certainly is one that anyway we go, if we 14 get involved in this grid transfer business, we better 15 consider it and we better think about how people's battery 16 life is affected and give people good data as far as 17 making good choices along the way.

18 Because if I found out, instead of giving up 50 19 percent, I could give up 30 percent and not  and 20 maximize the efficiency of my battery, help out with the 21 power problem and get paid for it, then that would be the 22 choice I would make.

23 MR. AUSTIN: I understand that. And I think what 24 you'll find is that any really careful credible analysis 25 of this issue will show you why the utilities don't use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 114 1 batteries for this function now.

2 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, Tom, I need 3 to apologize to you for being too dense in the beginning 4 to understand where you're coming from on the transfer 5 issue.

6 It seems to me, though, that if we are going to 7 depend in any way, shape or form on electric vehicles to 8 solve the energy crisis in the year 2005 or 6, then I'm 9 living in the wrong State. I mean, you know, to me it's a 10 way that I can't imagine that that's going to be the 11 successful route to dealing with what we're trying to deal 12 with for the future in terms of energy supply and demand.

13 MR. AUSTIN: We agree on that.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think the good news you 15 had  we're going to have plenty of electricity for next 16 year, so that was good news for all of us.

17 ( Laughter.)

18 MR. AUSTIN: We're permitting a lot of power 19 plants right now.

20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I had one quick 21 question. You're assuming lead acid battery?

22 MR. AUSTIN: No, nickel metal hydride is what I 23 used in my analysis.

24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So when I follow the 25 principle of discharging batteries as fully as possible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 115 1 before recharging them, I'm pursuing a bad principle?

2 MR. AUSTIN: That's a good principle for nickel 3 cadmium batteries, if you want to have the maximum power 4 available. But a lot of the new technology batteries do 5 not require a deep discharge to have the maximum power 6 available after recharge.

7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And lead acid and 8 nickel metal hydride are the same in that respect?

9 MR. AUSTIN: Yes.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Lead acid you don't want to 11 discharge, as Bob mentioned. 12 MR. AUSTIN: Don't have the same memory problem 13 on that as NiCads do.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks, Tom.

15 We have Greg Hanssen, then Craig Toepfer and 16 David Packard.

17 MR. HANSSEN: Good morning, almost afternoon. I 18 didn't really intend to speak on vehicle to grid, but just 19 one quick note, if you have to jump through half as many 20 hoops as I had to jump through to get permission from 21 Edison to connect my solar array to the grid, then they've 22 got a ways to go, in my opinion. I hope they can resolve 23 that.

24 My name is Greg Hanssen. I'm the co chairman of 25 the Production Electric Vehicle Drivers Coalition. I'd PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 116 1 like to say here that my views here do not  are not 2 unanimous amongst the group, but I do speak on behalf of 3 many of the members, and actually one infrastructure 4 installer.

5 I should also note that I have a vested interest 6 in this, because my company is about to get some RAV4 EVs 7 and so we are investing in some more magna chargers.

8 And Toyota has said that they'll build as many as 9 the market can take. It's unfortunate that they're 10 limiting it to fleets right now, because I know a lot of 11 people who are still trying to get one.

12 For the record I am pro conductive and I am 13 pro inductive. I'm here to basically argue for duel 14 standards or at least some relaxed method of achieving 15 your goals, you know, without all the harsh endings. 16 I do not support General Motors. As a matter of 17 fact, I've spent much of my time and energy fighting 18 General Motors in the Legislature and we're preparing to 19 fight them in the court if need be.

20 But it's funny, some of the stuff here in this 21 staff report. They say, " The proposed infrastructure 22 regulation will have several positive effects for EV 23 drivers and ultimately cleaner air for all of California."

24 I say, wow, that kind of reminds me of the sinister mirror 25 to mirror version of the GM lawsuit, which says that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 117 1 cost of the ZEV program will raise the cost of new cars in 2 California. And the people who hold on to their old cars 3 will create more pollution. Because it creates more 4 pollution it goes against these federal laws and State 5 laws and ARB rules and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

6 It's basically a house of cards that falls apart 7 if you don't buy into the silly assumption. I don't 8 believe that this main issue here is that public 9 perception is going to be dramatically changed by going to 10 a single standard. I think if you're worried about public 11 perception in the EV market, there are probably a dozen 12 much more critical issues that you really need to be 13 handling before you talk about whether consumers are 14 worried about inductive or conductive chargers.

15 You know, what is the range of the vehicles, is 16 it fast enough to go on the freeway, is it  where do I 17 plug it in, how much does it cost to plug in, et cetera,

18 et cetera, et cetera?

19 I mean, if you've driven the vehicles, you've 20 been asked these questions. So you know where the public 21 misperceptions are.

22 The duel charging standard isn't really that 23 critical of an issue. As a matter of act, as an EV1 24 driver it's not an issue for me at all, because in 25 southern California anywhere I want to plug in they've got PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 118 1 an inductive charger.

2 I mean, there aren't conductive chargers at all 3 the sites, but just about every site has an inductive 4 charger. So as a big paddle EV1 driver I'm doing okay 5 there.

6 The staff report mentions that the perception 7 issue could cause someone with the duel standards to be 8 confused about whether or not they get an inductive or a 9 conductive system for their garage. But I have to ask is 10 that really better than the inductive driver who gets an 11 inductive vehicle and knows that his new charger is going 12 to be a doorstop in five or six years? I mean, it sounds 13 to me that's a bigger negative there.

14 I'd like to go into the funding for the public 15 infrastructure. I have to ask, we all know that GM for 16 all of its faults has put a lot of effort into the 17 inductive infrastructure right now and maintaining that 18 infrastructure.

19 If we select conductive as the standard, do you 20 really think Nissan, Toyota or General Motors is going to 21 put a penny into the conductive Avcon infrastructure?

22 Chrysler is not, because they're just building NEVS. Ford 23 has told me that they have no intention of supporting 24 public infrastructure because most of their vehicles are 25 fleet vehicles. And Honda, so far, has a less than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 119 1 perfect record of supporting the conductive 2 infrastructure.

3 So if you mandate conductive, it seems to me that 4 all of the burden of adding these chargers will fall on 5 the public. It would be public money or just very 6 generous shopping store owners or something like that.

7 And then we also get into the maintenance issue.

8 GM has also been very good about maintaining their 9 chargers, even out of warranty chargers they've replaced.

10 I've been told by some of the installers from Clean Filed 11 Connection that, at one point, the issue was so bad with 12 EV1 that they were told not to repair, not to pull out the 13 bad conductive chargers in the field, because they simply 14 weren't being reimbursed for these costs.

15 Now, I mean you can't blame them. They're a 16 small company. I mean, I'm sure they would grow 17 tremendously under this regulation, but there is something 18 to be said for a big company with deep pockets buying the 19 infrastructure and supporting the infrastructure and 20 maintaining it. And so I think that's one point where 21 this rivalry of conductive, inductive is actually kind of 22 healthy.

23 In the staff report they mentioned the effect on 24 employment in California. And somehow they know that 25 conductive is going to be better for employment in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 120 1 California and not that we're talking great numbers of 2 people here, but the last time I checked more people work 3 at GM in accordance with the inductive system.

4 And the last thing I'd like to say is that for 5 the last couple of years I've been working my butt off 6 trying to make the electric vehicles market a success.

7 And I beg of you, please do not mandate a regulation here 8 that could have detrimental effects on the infancy of the 9 EV market.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks, Greg.

11 Ms. D'Adamo.

12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff respond to the 13 witness' concerns about the manner in which this would 14 affect public infrastructure.

15 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Well,

16 I'll give us a short answer to start and maybe somebody 17 else will come in.

18 And the comment by Mr. Hanssen that General 19 Motors has, in fact, supported public infrastructure is 20 entirely true. They've probably supported it more than 21 any other manufacturer. That is not necessarily meaning 22 going forward, whether we standardize or don't 23 standardize, that General Motors is a panacea out there 24 for public infrastructure.

25 We haven't any indication that they're going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 121 1 have long term commitments to expanding and continuing to 2 support that long term infrastructure. Public 3 infrastructure is a serious issue that we are  we have 4 established a stakeholder group on, that we want to work 5 with all the parties on what is the best mechanism, you 6 know, how many sites, how do we handle warranty issues,

7 who pays for them? We're very committed to doing what's 8 necessary to get out the adequate number of public 9 infrastructure.

10 We do need the cooperation of all the parties and 11 really it's a serious issue mostly outside the 12 standardization issue. If anything, the standardization 13 does help because then you're dealing with one simpler 14 lower cost infrastructure item as opposed to two, and one 15 of them being higher cost.

16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Has staff given Mr.

17 McKinnon's suggestions that he made earlier a thought in 18 terms of rewarding those that convert systems that are out 19 there, including these public infrastructure systems, for 20 example, if GM wanted to maintain its commitment, some 21 sort of subsidy to encourage them to still be involved in 22 the public infrastructure side of this?

23 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: We have given that 24 some thought. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect 25 answer on it. Part of the difficulty is that it's very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 122 1 difficult and very expensive to convert a car. And so 2 it's probably unlikely that any cars would be converted.

3 To the extent that public charging is converted, for 4 example, from inductive to conductive, what it really 5 means is simply replacing that particular charging unit.

6 We can look at some way of trying to incentivize 7 that, if, in fact, the manufacturer wanted to go that way.

8 But what I think we're going to have to do is essentially 9 look at this whole issue of a transition between a duel 10 standard and the Board then going to a single standard,

11 and how we basically make sure that we don't have, at 12 least, some level of obsolescence or some level of market 13 concern about the fact that people who currently own 14 vehicles are losing the opportunity to charge those 15 vehicles for the future.

16 Part of the way we try to address that is with 17 the start date. When we were looking at 2006 as a 18 reflection of the timeframe, that will give manufacturers 19 the chance to put new systems in place, put new vehicles 20 in place and therefore minimize the number of vehicles 21 that would be out there that would be subjected to this 22 potential obsolescence.

23 At the same time, you don't want anybody in 2006 24 to suddenly have a vehicle that they can't essentially 25 charge, and so we do need to figure out how we're going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 123 1 move in that direction, and that's what we'll continue to 2 look at.

3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What would be your 4 recommendations today, if we act on this regarding the 5 transition period?

6 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think the key is 7 going to provide some level of incentive for the existing 8 vehicles that are out there and to look at, you know, what 9 the transition period of time will be between what we 10 currently have in the marketplace and when we would 11 actually see vehicles that are produced that are 12 essentially a single charging standard.

13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I should have been more 14 clear. Would it be your recommendation and then staff 15 would come back  first of all, the staff is recommending 16 that we adopt this, but that staff would come back with 17 recommendations for the transition period say in six 18 months or something of that nature?

19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think that in terms 20 of coming back to the Board with a transition plan, I 21 think what we would like to do is simply try to develop 22 that plan and then figure out whether we should bring it 23 back to the Board and what the timeframe would be on that.

24 Actually, I can't give you a real direct answer on that 25 today.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 124 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I was going to say we may 3 find out down the road that the cars that are left out 4 there, so to speak, stranded, are old enough that people 5 aren't using them anymore, that kind of thing. I mostly 6 wanted to let Greg respond to this transition issue,

7 because I'm real interested in what an owner thinks that 8 bought  you drove EV1s for quite a while.

9 MR. HANSSEN: Yeah, I've got a Gen 1 Magna 10 Charger which has survived four years and a trip to 11 Florida. And it's still holding up great. And now 12 because of the transition to the small paddle, we're going 13 to have to get a small paddle charger for the RAV4, which 14 we're willing to do, that is my company, which is just 15 three us.

16 But I know others who have expressed concern 17 about this. My friend Bob Seldon who has been a long time 18 EV1 driver was seriously looking at a RAV4 EV also and had 19 gotten the paperwork signed up to do all this, but  and 20 he was ready to buy the charger too, because of course it 21 would work on either of his vehicles, the EV1 or the RAV4,

22 but when ARB announced that they were pursuing this course 23 of mandating conductive charging, he basically had to 24 rethink it, do I really want to get another $ 2,000 box for 25 this vehicle. How valuable is it to me to have this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 125 1 vehicle?

2 I was actually kind of surprised, because I would 3 have thought that he would have just gone for it, because 4 what's $ 2,000? But for a lot of people I think who might 5 be looking at EVs in the first couple years here,

6 especially from, you know, like the Toyota products,

7 buying a charger that they know is going to be a door stop 8 in a couple of years is just unsettling. Just from an 9 efficiency standpoint, it doesn't sound right. You don't 10 have to invest in that and know that it's going to have a 11 limited appeal.

12 I mean, if you could somehow pull this regulation 13 off as a trick and kind of throw it on people at the last 14 minute and say oh, surprise, by the way, this is 15 happening, you know, then it wouldn't be  you wouldn't 16 have all this problem. But as it is right now, anyone 17 who's going out to look at an inductive car, and I guess 18 right now the RAV4 is the only thing out there really 19 available, they have to ask themselves do I want to invest 20 in a charger for this, or should I wait several years 21 before I get, you know, some other vehicle.

22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You know, the thing that 23 worries me is us tricking people by letting a bunch of 24 cars being built and down the road making this decision

25 MR. HANSSEN: I realize the staff has actually PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 126 1 put some thought into this. They're not proposing 2 actually getting rid of any inductive infrastructure until 3 2010, post 2010. So you know, in all likelihood, they 4 would support infrastructure as long as the vehicles are 5 out there.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bob, do you want to comment?

7 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 8 think, though, that one of the things to recognize is that 9 right now the fleet of vehicles that's existing out there 10 that uses inductive is leased. And in many cases leases 11 are coming due, some of them are being renewed, in most 12 cases they're being renewed, some aren't.

13 And the only vehicle that is currently on the 14 market that's inductive is the RAV4, which is also leased.

15 And it would seem to me that if there is a good time to 16 change it's now, when there  when a product that was 17 made with inductive is several years old. There's not 18 that many going out that are inductive right now.

19 And another generation of ramping up volume is 20 going to happen in the reasonably near future. So it 21 seems to me that the problem that we are talking about,

22 the longer we wait the worse they get. 23 MR. HANSSEN: But you're not changing now, you're 24 changing in 2006. I mean there could potentially be a lot 25 of vehicles that come out here in the next few years.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 127 1 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: But 2 if you knew the standard was conductive it would be less 3 likely that there was two standards.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we've got to cut this 5 off unless there's any more questions from the Board?

6 Greg, thank you very much.

7 I'm going to, basically, after the next witness 8 hold everybody to five minutes. We've got a number of 9 people that have been added to the list and we are going 10 to lose a quorum in the early afternoon, so since it's a 11 regulatory item, I wanted to move ahead.

12 But the next person is Greg Toepfer from Ford,

13 and I'd like to give him due time, but then after that 14 then limit people to five minutes and that's for David 15 Packard, Thomas Dowling, Michael Coates, et cetera.

16 MR. TOEPFER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board,

17 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this 18 morning. For those of you that I've had the pleasure of 19 meeting in the past, hello. For those of you who have not 20 met me before, I'd like to introduce myself a little bit 21 and tell you why I'm here.

22 For the past ten years, I've been an employee of 23 Ford Motor Company, a technical specialist responsible for 24 electrical codes and standards development. In that 25 capacity, I've served in several leadership positions,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 128 1 Electric Power Research Institute, Infrastructure Working 2 Council. I'm the chairman of the SAE Committee that 3 created both the inductive and conductive recommended 4 practices. I represent the SAE on the National Electric 5 Code. I'm the Secretary of the International Electro 6 Technical Commission, Technical Committee Number 69,

7 Electric Road and Industrial Vehicles, and I'm also 8 Secretary of a Joint Steering Committee between ISO and 9 IEC.

10 I will try to focus my comments on the discussion 11 that we've had on standards this morning. I respectfully 12 disagree with the points made, and in toto believe them to 13 be either incorrect or inaccurate. I think if you're to 14 discharge your duties and responsibilities as board 15 members, you need to have the facts, and I hope that 16 you'll understand those as we go forward through my 17 presentation.

18 First of all, a couple of opening statements are 19 important. Who is the International Electrico Technical 20 Commission? What is the role that standards play in our 21 society? And I'd like to address those.

22 The International Electrico Technical Commission 23 is the sibling organization to the International Standards 24 Organization located in Geneva, Switzerland. IEC as it's 25 called is responsible for developing all electrical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 129 1 standards for all equipment worldwide.

2 ISO on the other hand, handles international 3 standards for all nonelectrical equipment including 4 automobiles.

5 The IEC has 60 member countries, including all of 6 the industrialized nations and many of the emerging and 7 industrializing countries around the world.

8 The IEC consists of 107 technical committees,

9 four advisory committees, which we call super committees,

10 that deal with environmental aspects, safety, electro 11 magnetic compatibility and telecommunications.

12 We have ten sister committees, which is similar 13 to our FCC, it regulates radio interference and 14 communications, and 17 joint committees for information 15 technology. We are tied in with virtually every other 16 standards organization whether regional or national or 17 around the world.

18  o0o

19 MR. TOEPFER: Earlier this morning I passed out 20 an information packet that describes a little bit about 21 the work of international standards organizations to the 22 facilitators here and I also passed out some information 23 from the Society of Automotive Engineers technical 24 standards for their governance policy.

25 Let me clarify what a standard should do.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 130 1 According to the IEC, it should meet the requirements of 2 the global market efficiently. It should ensure privacy 3 and maximum worldwide use of the standards and conformity 4 assessment schemes, assess and improve the quality of 5 products and services covered by its standards, establish 6 the conditions of interoperability of complex systems, 7 increase the efficiency of industrial processes,

8 contribute to the improvement of human health and safety,

9 and contribute to the protection of the environment.

10 A shorter thing that I'd like to say about 11 standards is we establish the safety and functional 12 requirements necessary to bring technology from the 13 laboratory into the commercial marketplace, that is our 14 sole purpose. We are not designers of equipment.

15 Secondly, the activities of these standards 16 committees are regulated by consensus agreement. In the 17 United States, the American National Standards Institute 18 has that responsibility. In other countries, similar 19 organizations perform the same function to ensure that 20 people that are directly and materially affected by our 21 work are considered into the process as an open process.

22  o0o

23 MR. TOEPFER: Now, with respect to international 24 standards, Europe, their regional body satellite and their 25 national standards bodies or the member countries normally PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 131 1 recognizes and adopts IEC as a mandatory, regulatory 2 product requirements for anything introduced into the 3 European union.

4 IEC Technical Committee 69 has, over the past six 5 years, developed, under the consensus process, a final 6 draft international standard for electric vehicle 7 conductive charging. My committee has 31 member 8 countries, 16 of them participating or voting members, 15 9 of them are observer countries that are interested in our 10 work and are kept abreast of our work through the 11 communications network that we have established.

12 It was approved by a hundred percent of the 13 voting members and published in the first quarter of this 14 year. I have copies of the standards here.

15 Secondly, the inductive standard, which we took 16 on as a new work item proposal nearly seven years ago, has 17 been through four project leaders, two product changes,

18 and the project leader didn't even show up at the last 19 meeting when the comments that were submitted by all of 20 the countries were to be considered.

21 I hope they will show up at the next meeting,

22 because that is where the standards were that represents 23 the interests of the marketplace and the consumers really 24 should take their place.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I am a little bit concerned.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 132 1 I was chopping people to five minutes. I didn't think you 2 were  how much longer are you going to go.

3 MR. TOEPFER: I have two slides.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay, good.

5 MR. TOEPFER: I think I covered the good stuff 6 already.

7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Slides isn't always a good 8 indicator of how long it's going to take.

9  o0o

10 MR. TOEPFER: Now, in the United States we put in 11 installation rules effective with the 1996 National 12 Electric Code. They were modified slightly in ' 99 and 13 they were modified slightly in 2002, which is another 14 important aspect of standards development as all of these 15 organizations have mechanisms in place for review and 16 updating of the standards to ensure their relevancy on a 17 continuing basis.

18 In the United States Electrical Products 19 Standards are developed by Underwriters Laboratory a not 20 for profit private organization that has the same impact 21 of national standards bodies in other countries.

22 Through the development process, we have 23 developed three products standards. UL 2202 is a basic 24 generic EV charging system equipment standard. UL 2231 is 25 a personal protection system for EV supply circuits which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 133 1 insists on protecting people against shock and fire 2 hazards.

3 UL 2251 covers the test requirements to assure 4 conformity with the functional requirements of plugs,

5 receptacles and couplers for EVs. It covers the 6 conductive connector for vehicle inlets. There is no 7 similar standard for inductive. It may be a proprietary 8 tie standard located in somebody's offices.

9 And finally, the Society of Automotive Engineers,

10 as you know, has passed two recommended practices for 11 electric vehicles, one for conductive, one for inductive.

12 At this point in time, both of those documents are being 13 circulated for approval or in the case of conductive a 14 second time. In the case of inductive a third time.

15 As you know, we've had Gen 1. We developed a 16 standard for it, and it was replaced by Gen 2. We 17 developed a standard for it. Another communications 18 system wasn't functioning properly so they made some 19 revisions to it. We will send that out to ballot 20 simultaneously with 1772.

21 1772 in its original form was passed, and it had 22 two connectors, the Yazaki connector and the Avcon 23 connector referred to in an Appendix. Since that time,

24 the 26 voting members of my committee have agreed, by a 25 substantial majority to settle, based on the technical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 134 1 information available to us, on the Avcon as being a 2 superior design.

3 We are in the process of moving that information 4 into the body of the report, and with Mr. Wolterman's help 5 will even try to make it more like the built to standard 6 that he insists on. But it's not really a requirement, if 7 you read the SAE information that I provided to you.

8 The other thing that we've done in the second 9 version of 1772 is that we've improved the part of the 10 system, the control pilot that regulates the safety and 11 management. There were a few misinterpretations of the 12 information, but I think we've clarified that.

13 We did not change out the connector, modify 14 anything, obsolete any equipment or do anything else that 15 would affect the vehicles that are on the road today.

16 I think we've done an outstanding job in setting 17 up a series of standards, not only industry standards but 18 national standards and international standards that we 19 very, very efficiently together rely on and complement 20 each other perfectly.

21 My conclusion is I know it's a difficult job 22 making all of the conflicting information on this. I 23 think the staff has done a magnificent job trying to make 24 sense of it, differing opinions, technical data that may 25 be limited or based on assumptions of some kind, and come PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 135 1 up with a very solid reasonable recommendation to you.

2 I support their recommendation. I think you 3 should go forward with it. Failure to do so will have a 4 detrimental effect on the electric vehicle industry.

5 Number one, I believe that the debate over this 6 system or that system is an effective barrier to EV 7 commercialization. If you believe that EVs are important,

8 and I personally do, it's time to make a decision.

9 Secondly, we talked about some costs. Do we 10 postpone this or study it for a year or debate it 11 continuously, I may retire by the time we get there.

12 So the people that have cars, the people that 13 will be buying cars in the future need that assurance that 14 a single standard that best represents their interests 15 will be in place in California, so that we can get on with 16 it and not create or compound the problems that we've 17 heard about this morning.

18 So thank you very much for your attention. I 19 hope you do the right thing.

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Greg. Thanks for 21 clarifying some of the issues here.

22 Any questions from the Board?

23 Thank you very much. We have David Packard,

24 Thomas Dowling, Michael Coates, Tim Hastrup.

25 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 136 1 presented as follows.)

2 MR. PACKARD: Hi. David Packard. I'm director 3 of business development of EVI. I want to thank you, Mr.

4 Chairman and the Board for allowing me to present today.

5 EVI is a conductive power control manufacturer.

6 Second slide, please.

7  o0o

8 MR. PACKARD: We're located in Auburn,

9 California, and we're on our eighth generation product 10 since our inception in 1994. We have shipped close to 11 5,000 power control stations, EV charging stations, in 12 that time, and about 3,000 of those have been our ICS 13 model, which makes up the bulk of the conductive 14 infrastructure in California.

15 We have three distinct products that we're now 16 offering that we brought to display today. And in 17 addition to that we have the DCS 55 model exclusively for 18 the United States Postal Service, that we're working in 19 conjunction with Ford on.

20 We'd like to think we can do all this, come out 21 with all these different products for different 22 applications because we're just such a great company. But 23 really I think it's a testament to conductive charging,

24 how easy it is to implement a safer public product that 25 people can handle and charge their vehicles.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 137 1  o0o 2 MR. PACKARD: We appreciate the hard work staff 3 has done. We can't imagine having to do something like 4 this and the difficulty to make the decision and also the 5 difficulty which it will impose on the automakers for 6 complying with this.

7 However, we support the staff's determination 8 that now is the time to standardize not only for the cost 9 savings show, but really because this is an ancillary 10 product. We don't want to lose the focus of the market on 11 selling zero emission vehicles, because that's really what 12 it's all about. And people are not buying charging 13 stations, they're buying vehicles. We'd like to think 14 they're buying cars because of our stations but really 15 they're buying the vehicles. What comes with it, comes 16 with it.

17 We also support staff's decision to go with 18 conductive charging, because on board conductive charging 19 is a product that is going to allow us to really reduce 20 the cost of the market and give us a flexible technology 21 that's reliable, efficient and safe and keep pace with 22 changes in the battery size, battery voltage, battery 23 chemistry on board the vehicle.

24 Additionally as we've had various competitors 25 over the years, it seems that conductive is very conducive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 138 1 to competitors entering and leaving the market, and these 2 are competitors who have had no relationship whatsoever,

3 who have come into the market at various times.

4 Next slide.

5  o0o 6 MR. PACKARD: Our current product offering is 7 shown here as well as over there. On the left our 8 flagship ICS 200B is really a high end specialty product.

9 Some of the users still prefer that, but it's got a lot of 10 features that really aren't needed by the majority of the 11 market. When we originally designed it, we had to 12 accommodate every possibility, and that added to the cost.

13 It has some features that work in extremely harsh 14 environments. It can log battery charging profiles and on 15 and on and on. So we've cost reduced the product and then 16 we came out with DS 50, which is really low cost 17 residential and fleet unit, and the DS 200 DL, which is a 18 duel unit, able to charge two vehicles at the same time.

19 The interesting thing about that product is it 20 also slashes installation costs, which on a cost per port 21 basis rivals the cost of the hardware. By putting two 22 units in one, we are able to cut that cost potentially in 23 half. And also you can see that we go through a pretty 24 rigorous approval process with all the listings we have to 25 get.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 139 1 Change the slide please.

2  o0o

3 MR. PACKARD: Conductive technology, as we've 4 heard, has been around for over 100 years. We've all been 5 using it all our lives. In fact, there's even some 6 conductive contacts within the inductive unit itself.

7 The plastic component of the Avcon connector has 8 been changed to a much more durable unit. And nobody 9 feels the pain of breaking those connectors more than we 10 do, because we have to go out and change them out.

11 However, there has been no change to the contacts 12 within the connector, the important part, where we 13 transfer the electricity. And of all the units we've 14 shipped, over 5,000 units over the past six years or so,

15 we haven't seen any failures in those pressure butt type 16 contacts.

17 Next slide, please.

18  o0o

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dave, can you

20 MR. PACKARD: I'm going to skip a bunch of 21 slides.

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay.

23 MR. PACKARD: One of the favorite terms we hear 24 about is in volume, where the price is going to be in 25 volume, and in significant volume, because we know we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 140 1 promise anything and we'll worry about it when we really 2 get there. But as far as quality and pricing go in every 3 year since 1995, we have reduced the price to the market 4 by reducing the part count within the product, with 5 innovation and by improving the quality of the product.

6 We think our track record bears testament to what 7 we expect in the future. Mind you, we've been able to 8 accomplish all of this without the in volume or 9 significant volumes in any single year. And our price 10 reductions have all been due to the market pressures from 11 competitors in conjunction with new engineering designs.

12 You can skip the slide 9.

13  o0o 14 MR. PACKARD: The future  I'm sorry, that's 15 eight. Here we go.

16 We're coming out with a 110 volt product for use 17 in the US, city EVs, NEVs, a 220 volt product for Europe,

18 which is essentially all conductive. And also our ICS 19 300, which is really the one I wanted to point out, that 20 we've designed. The design is complete, which will 21 operate up to 200 amps for AC Level 3 charging 22 incorporating the conductive on board charger with the 23 controller to get higher charge rates on board the 24 vehicle.

25 And all our products are compatible for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 141 1 vehicle to grid charging.

2 Change the slide, please.

3  o0o

4 MR. PACKARD: In summary, we support staff's 5 determination. We think it's in the best interests of the 6 market to choose a standard that is  we think the best 7 choice is conductive, because it's a safe, reliable,

8 flexible technology. It's efficient and it allows us to 9 stay with one technology for the next hundred years.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.

12 Of course, I'd be very surprised if you said 13 others would, since you make the systems there.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. PACKARD: I'm trying not to be biased.

16 ( Laughter.)

17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 MR. PACKARD: Any questions?

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.

20 Next, we have Thomas Dowling, Michael Coates, Tim 21 Hastrup.

22 MR. DOWLING: Good afternoon. My name is Tom 23 Dowling. I'm an EV1 owner, and a Ranger EV owner. I've 24 driven EV1s for about 60,000 miles and the Ranger EV for 25 about 10,000 miles, so I've got a lot of  I've done a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 142 1 lot of public charging all over northern California.

2 Actually I've rented a RAV4 in southern California and 3 have done public charging down there, too. So I'm quite 4 familiar with the public charging infrastructure and have 5 had a lot of experience with it. I've made a lot of trips 6 back and forth to the Bay Area and other such places, so 7 I've used it a lot.

8 At the present time, I have two inductive 9 chargers at home and a conductive charging station as 10 well. So I'm quite familiar with them.

11 I'm not here to debate the merits of one versus 12 the other. They both work. They both could be improved.

13 My position is that we really already have a standard, the 14 duel standard that we have works. It could be improved 15 too, but I don't think we should change it now or a year 16 from now or any particular time, unless the cars are not 17 there, you know.

18 I think the charging standard, as even Mr.

19 Packard said, is secondary to the cars. What people are 20 buying are cars not chargers. I don't think people are 21 confused by different charging standards now. I do think, 22 however, that if we do discontinue either standard, we'll 23 make it harder, specially in the short run, for people to 24 get cars. The availability will be impacted. People will 25 not want to buy a car, if they were aware of it, if they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 143 1 knew that the charger was going away, or lease the car.

2 And we know that Toyota is delivering cars now.

3 There are substantial incentives in the regulations for 4 early deliveries. I think we're doing significant 5 short term damage if we discontinue either one of the 6 current standards. Who would want to buy or lease a 7 vehicle if they knew that that standard was going away.

8 That would really make it harder to move 9 vehicles. And as Toyota said, they don't feel comfortable 10 with the conductive standards. They would be forced to 11 put parts on their cars that they don't really like. So 12 there's going to be a real long time before they're going 13 to be ready to change, I think.

14 So the current standard, I think, it works and I 15 think we should leave it alone and see what cars are 16 manufactured. And if one of the other kind of cars stops 17 being manufactured, then the decision is made. And that's 18 really where the marketplace decides, not at the charger 19 level but at the vehicle level.

20 Even today, you'll see that most places have both 21 conductive and inductive charging stations in the same 22 place. EVI, in fact makes a pedestal, which is installed 23 in several locations where you can mount one of their 24 conductive charging stations and a Gen 2 inductive charger 25 on the same mount back to back. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 144 1 You see that at several  El Dorado Hills park 2 and ride is an example of that. There's a picture of that 3 on EVI's web page.

4 So anyway, in conclusion I think we have a 5 standard that works. It could use improvement. We should 6 continue to improve it. People are buying vehicles and 7 not charging stations, and we want to make it easier for 8 people to buy or lease vehicles. That's what the 9 regulation is all about.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Nice to 12 have someone with experience in both systems there.

13 Next, we have Michael Coates, Tim Hastrup, Steve 14 Heckeroth.

15 MR. COATES: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and Board 16 Members. Thank you for allowing me to speak very briefly 17 this morning. I'm Michael Coates. I'm speaking as a 18 board member of the Green Car Institute, an independent 19 nonprofit organization dedicated to research and education 20 on automobiles and the environment. We're a fuel neutral 21 organization. We're not an advocate for electric vehicles 22 or any specific fuel system or company.

23 We do strongly support the CARB's regulatory 24 approach and move to set a single charging standard. We 25 think such a standard, from our view of the industry, is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 145 1 critical for the industry to move forward with its future 2 research and development and ultimately with this 3 marketing. We might even suggest a shorter time limit for 4 implementation.

5 However, we do have one concern that we wanted to 6 add to this public record. During the next two years, our 7 research indicates there may be 20,000 to 30,000 8 neighborhood electric vehicles introduced to the 9 California market. These would probably be the dominant 10 electric vehicles on the market. And while the staff is 11 focused on charging the city and full function EVs the 12 infrastructure demand is going to be very strong on these 13 Level 1 chargers as well.

14 And so we recommend that any future 15 infrastructure development include this level of charging 16 as well.

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.

19 Tim Hastrup, Steve Heckeroth and Ken Smith.

20 MR. HASTRUP: Good afternoon. Good to see you 21 all again. I'm Tim Hastrup. I live in the Sacramento 22 area out in Granite Bay. As you may remember from our 23 earlier testimony, our family, we've had the pleasure of 24 leasing a Honda EV Plus. We are one of the first ones 25 since May ' 97, so we've had some experience with that and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 146 1 we continue to love it and it's still going strong. My 2 wife is out probably driving as we speak.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Have you talked to Ben?

4 ( Laughter.)

5 MR. HASTRUP: And we also have an EV1. We 6 started out with a Gen 1 that got recalled. We have a Gen 7 2, which I drove down here. And so, you know, we've been 8 happy with them. We've had a good opportunity to live 9 with both systems. Our thoughts are that, gee, you know,

10 they both work great. They're easy to use. When we got 11 the Honda back in ' 97, our son, Carson, was two and a half 12 at the time, didn't last many days. He was able to plug 13 the car in and continues to love to do that.

14 I'd like to think that that's because, boy,

15 another engineer in the making, and just like his big 16 sister, they'll be just like their dad and they'll be 17 electrical engineers. But I hate to admit it, it's 18 probably because it's just fairly easy to use.

19 We've had good performance from both of them.

20 They've worked. We've never really had any problems.

21 We've always felt from Day 1, gosh, why don't we just have 22 a single standard? Why did we have to go with all of that 23 complexity? And we still feel that way today. We think 24 they're both fine. They're both safe. I mean, our house 25 hasn't burned down with either system. Garages are still PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 147 1 standing. If we were going to make a nod towards either 2 one of them we'd probably go with conductive for a couple 3 of reasons.

4 One, I think it's a lot simpler. It's a lower 5 cost solution. In my business in manufacturing as an 6 engineering manager, low cost, is something you appreciate 7 and think a lot about. It's more efficient and especially 8 at the lower power levels when you're pulling less than 9 full power, it's easier to deal with. And as we all know 10 these days, as I've been teaching all of my friends,

11 efficiency does count. And it makes a big deal. And then 12 another small thing, I think it's just easier to come out 13 with new vehicles or if you have a conversion to adapt to 14 a conductive standard.

15 I've had a conversion. I've made that work with 16 the conductive standards. There's really no practical way 17 that I could do that with an inductive.

18 So the bottom line for us is the most important 19 is a single standard. We think that's important. If 20 we're going to be going there, we feel comfortable with 21 the conductive. We probably prefer that. In closing, I'd 22 like to thank you for your leadership to move us toward a 23 common standard. Thanks to the staff for their report.

24 You know, we really would have preferred industry 25 to show the leadership. We just feel that, gosh, it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 148 1 really hasn't happened. We can't continue to delay and 2 wait and now is a good time before we get a lot of cars 3 out there. Now is the time to have the standard. We 4 realize that we've probably got a couple of boat anchors 5 in our garage, because it doesn't look really promising 6 for us to get replacement EVs. I may beg and I may plead,

7 you know, but I know there are no more EV Pluses coming.

8 We're certainly going to miss it.

9 Hopefully when the EV1 lease expires, maybe we 10 can extend that for a couple more years, but who knows.

11 And other wise, it's looking kind of bleak. So, you know,

12 the most important thing is, I think, to get a standard 13 and we hope long term if the cars go away, we'll be able 14 to return another day.

15 Thank you very much.

16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Tim. That was a 17 very positive report.

18 Steve Heckeroth Ken Smith, David Burch.

19 MR. HECKEROTH: Hi. My name is Steve Heckeroth.

20 As a sole architect and EV manufacturer and an EV driver 21 over the last 30 years, I've tried to live a zero emission 22 life. I have three electric bicycles for my family. I 23 have two electric cars. I have probably the largest 24 electric tractor fleet in the world. It's only 3, but 25 there aren't many, and I drive a Prius for long trips. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 149 1 got 55 miles to the gallon coming here. I charge my 2 electric cars from a seven kilowatt photovoltaic array.

3 And I just wanted to let you know that for the 4 last 30 years, I've had this nightmare. It's a fact that 5 burning fossil fuel harms our life support system. In 6 1995, I testified before this Board and I challenged the 7 auto industry to a range test, my electric vehicle against 8 the best they had to offer. The only requirement was that 9 the exhaust pipe be terminated and capped. The auto 10 industry did not take me up on that challenge, because, as 11 you know, they would die.

12 This is the nightmare that I have. I watch my 13 child in the cab of the car dying of exhaust. Now, how 14 much harm does exhaust do? There's a very easy test. You 15 get in your car with your child, you start the engine, you 16 have the exhaust pipe terminated in the cab, you get out 17 of the car and you watch your child as she struggles for 18 breath.

19 If this is just repeated by a few cars, that's 20 one thing, but this is being repeated all over the world.

21 And this country has taken the lead in putting this 22 technology all over the world.

23 It doesn't matter if it's a small manufacturer or 24 a large manufacturer, this exhaust is harmful. And there 25 should be fines for it. It doesn't even matter if it's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 150 1 car. Another way to test is to take a lawn mower or a 2 leaf blower, put it in your living room, turn it on and 3 then sit there and explain to your family why it's more 4 important to use this energy saving equipment or time 5 saving equipment over a regular a push mower.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Wouldn't they ask why you've 7 got the lawn mower in the living room.

8 ( Laughter.)

9 MR. HECKEROTH: Yeah, well I think that's 10 something we should all ask, why we have a polluting  a 11 lawn mower produces 50 times as much as a vehicle. So 12 this is a very critical situation, and I think it's 13 incumbent on this body to look at the way  I've watched 14 for the last nine years, I've testified before this Board,

15 and watched as the zero emission mandate has been pushed 16 back and watered down. And I want to see it go the other 17 way. If it can go that way, can it go the other way? Can 18 you put a fine, like a ten percent fine on every 19 manufacturer of equipment that produces exhaust.

20 Now, I'll close by something I testified on six 21 years ago in ' 95, and that's the inductive chargers, which 22 I think are only employed by the industry to control the 23 infrastructure. And I can plug my car in. Even though it 24 only gets a 75 mile range, I can go across the country in 25 it, because I can plug it into a conductive charger and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 151 1 there's millions of them. And there's no restriction on 2 my charging.

3 So please take a second look at ways to make this 4 zero emission mandate really function in a way that we 5 eliminate exhaust and stop making deals with the industry.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, but I think it's also,

7 Steve, to recognize the enormous progress made by the 8 industry, so that, in fact, some of the companies 9 legitimately claim that looking at the engine, not 10 emissions or the tailpipe emission which are sometimes 11 cleaner than those going in.

12 So there's been significant progress on that too.

13 So some cases when you put that tailpipe into your car it 14 would be difficult to actively

15 MR. HECKEROTH: Yeah, the only reason they could 16 be cleaner is because we've polluted so bad in the past.

17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.

18 Next Ken Smith, David Burch and Ted Holcombe.

19 MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Ken Smith.

20 I represent the American Lung Association of California,

21 but I'm also here on behalf of the Coalition for Clean 22 Air, the Union for Concerned Scientists, Planning 23 Conservation League and the Natural Resources Defense 24 Council.

25 And I'm here today to urge you on behalf of these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 152 1 organizations to adopt a single on board charging 2 standard. We need to move on this now. Don't wait, don't 3 create more confusion, adopt it now.

4 While the staff has been very specific in 5 recommending a single on board charging system of a 6 specific type, we are more concerned that you make this 7 decision for an on board charging system as opposed to 8 what type. We're not opposed to staff's position on this,

9 but it is essential that you make this single choice now,

10 before we get too many cars out there.

11 I think I drew this assignment on behalf of these 12 organizations, because of more than 20 years of fighting 13 these things. I have been involved in infrastructures of 14 almost every type of nonpetroleum fuel except hydrogen.

15 I'm sure that I'll get involved in that as we proceed.

16 I'm from the school of hard knocks on this. I've 17 been out there. I've been stranded. I've been 18 everything. One of my recent experiences was with an EV 19 rental in southern California, where I pulled up to 20 Fashion Aisle, the mall there. There's five charging 21 stations. There was one available. Of course, it's the 22 wrong kind.

23 I won't bore you with all the details of waiting 24 in the restaurant and getting unplugged and replugged and 25 I took a taxi. I gave up. I finally  I was going to an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 153 1 ARB meeting and I finally just gave up and took a taxi. I 2 just had to have that happen.

3 Now, the natural gas industry faced this problem 4 several years ago. In the eighties, before there was a 5 lot of production of natural gas vehicles, there were 6 mostly after market vehicles, the natural gas industry 7 decided we've got to step up and solve this problem.

8 Today, if you get a natural gas vehicle from an 9 OEM, from an Original Equipment Manufacturer, you can be 10 assured that when you go to a station here in California 11 or anywhere in the country you've got a standard plugin.

12 It's a very simple, you know, easy to use system. I use 13 them all the time with natural gas vehicles.

14 I also want to share with you a massive failure 15 with methanol and the M 85 system. I watched an SAE 16 committee spend more than five years. In fact I went away 17 from the industry for two years and came back and didn't 18 see any progress at all.

19 This was all over a fueling system, of not having 20 Joe six pack put in and see 102 octane methanol and try to 21 put it into his gasoline car. And the oil industry 22 absolutely insisted on this being solved. And the car 23 companies came back with, of course, three different 24 unique systems to solve this. And the oil companies 25 wanted a very elaborate electronic system to solve it.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 154 1 And, frankly, it never was resolved. It failed.

2 And I would hate to see the electric charging system go in 3 that direction. So I urge you to make a decision now.

4 Sometimes you just can't get the industry to do this 5 independently like the natural gas vehicle industry did.

6 Sometimes it requires regulation. I urge you not 7 to delay. Let's get this thing going in the right 8 direction, do it now.

9 Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks, Ken.

11 David Burch, Ted Holcombe, Mickey Oros.

12 MR. BURCH: Good afternoon, Dr. Lloyd and members 13 of the Board. My name is David Burch. I'm a senior 14 environmental planner with the Bay Area Air Quality 15 Management District.

16 At the BAAQMD, we have a long record of support 17 for the ZEV mandate and for electric vehicles. We've 18 devoted significant resources to promoting the EVs in the 19 Bay Area.

20 In addition to providing incentives to acquire 21 vehicles, we also implemented a program to install 22 electric vehicle charging stations around the region to 23 create a network of public EV chargers.

24 Air District staff supports the CARB staff 25 recommendation to adopt a single standard charging PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 155 1 technology for electric vehicles. We recognize that the 2 CARB board needs to consider many factors in evaluating 3 the staff recommendation. And the Air District takes no 4 position as to the relative technical merits of conductive 5 versus inductive charging.

6 Our experience indicates that both inductive and 7 conductive systems are safe and effective. And testimony 8 from CARB staff and other speakers today bears that out. 9 Our key point is that we believe and agree that a 10 single charging standard is an important prerequisite to 11 successful implementation of the ZEV mandate.

12 We believe that the lack of a standard charging 13 technology will impede our efforts to promote electric 14 vehicles and install a network of EV charging in a cost 15 effective manner.

16 The public charging can provide several benefits.

17 It can help to encourage the public to consider purchasing 18 electric vehicles. It can enable current EV owners to 19 drive their vehicles for more trips and for longer trips.

20 And it can increase the visibility of electric vehicles 21 and help to increase public awareness of this new 22 technology.

23 Like most parties, we would prefer to see a 24 marketplace solution or a voluntary agreement among the 25 automakers, but there has been little or no progress to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 156 1 date, and there doesn't seem to be much prospect of an 2 agreement in the future. Therefore, we support CARB 3 staff's recommendation in their efforts to develop a 4 single standard charging technology via the rule making 5 process.

6 I'd like to emphasize a couple of points. We 7 think the public perception is important here. The lack 8 of a standardized charging technology contributes to the 9 public perception that the EV industry is not yet sure.

10 In our interaction with interested members of the 11 public, we find the people are perplexed by the lack of a 12 standard charging technology. I go out a lot of times and 13 represent the district at events like electric vehicle 14 positions, and I interact with people that are 15 sophisticated about electric vehicles, other people that 16 are just getting introduced to the technology.

17 There are two things I always take home are one,

18 that everybody wants to know how they can get a vehicle 19 and are frustrated at the lack of product out there. But 20 the other thing is that people, when you start talking 21 about the various types of chargers, and, you know,

22 inductive versus conductive, and couplers, they're just 23 kind of amazed that there isn't a standard out there 24 already. And almost invariably people say that's got to 25 get fixed, somebody has got to deal with that issue.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 157 1 The second point is that the cost to install and 2 maintain a system of public chargers is higher due to the 3 need to purchase and service two different types of 4 charging technology.

5 The third point, most existing public charging 6 sites currently provide both inductive and conductive as 7 has been noted, but that's not the case in all locations.

8 So we have a situation right now where there's 9 some stations have both, some only have one, and it 10 complicates the effort to provide the information via web 11 sites and resources to people that want to know where they 12 can go and charge their electric vehicle.

13 And that lack of clear information basically 14 undermines the credibility of the current system and 15 complicates our efforts.

16 Finally, in terms of getting the most bang for 17 the buck with installing EV chargers for the public, it's 18 going to be more effective if all the vehicles can use the 19 same chargers. Right now, if you've got a site that has 20 one inductive and one conductive charger, you've got two 21 chargers, but if you've got an inductive vehicle and you 22 pull up and that inductive slot is full, well essentially 23 that site is not rendered useful for you in the same 24 situation vice versa.

25 So if you have two chargers that are the same,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 158 1 then you've got double the capacity, and it makes for a 2 more cost effective use of the system, creating more 3 capacity with the same number of chargers.

4 What the means is that we can install a greater 5 capacity with less resources and fewer chargers if 6 everybody can share the same chargers.

7 In summary, adoption of a single standard will 8 facilitate the effort to promote public charging by 9 reducing the infusion of EV drivers, allowing for more 10 efficient use of the public charging network and reducing 11 the cost in both public and private dollars to construct 12 and maintain a network of public chargers.

13 It seems that there's consensus that we need a 14 single charging standard sooner or later. The question is 15 when do we take that step. There's no perfect time. In 16 our opinion, it makes more sense to adopt a single 17 standard now, while the number of people and chargers that 18 are out there is relatively limited. The costs and the 19 disruptions from the transition will be minimized if we 20 deal with it now, rather than waiting until we have more 21 vehicles and more chargers out there.

22 If the CARB does adopt a single standard, we're 23 certainly going to work with CARB, automakers and other 24 stakeholders to ensure the most viable and smooth 25 transition to that new standard.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 159 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And we 2 appreciate the support of the Bay Area to come and testify 3 today. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco 4 next month.

5 Next, we have Ted Holcombe, Mickey Oros, and 6 Hans Henning Judek.

7 MR. HOLCOMBE: Chairman Lloyd, I'll try and make 8 this brief here. We also support the concept that a 9 single standard is preferable to two. We don't care which 10 one. We think they both have merit. They're both good,

11 but settling on one would be desirable.

12 Relative to the grid discussion that came up 13 earlier, I think people  there might be  people should 14 realize first of all under deregulation, that we no longer 15 produce the power, so I don't see the utilities going out 16 necessarily to place chargers in order to bring this 17 market in. But there would be, perhaps, a profitable 18 market there, where somebody who owns a parking lot could 19 put chargers in the parking lot and make a profit out of 20 charging vehicles in the morning and taking power out in 21 an amount in the afternoon if the vehicles are parked 22 everyday, for instance say a BART parking lot or a 23 CalTrans parking lot. There might be certain areas where 24 this would be profitable. 25 But I would also think that if there was a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 160 1 question of taking power out of the vehicle, that that 2 power might be more valuable to the owner in his own house 3 to service his own load if, for example, power is lost to 4 him if he loses a power supply.

5 So I think that going  thinking of a battery 6 electric vehicle as being a backup for a house power 7 supply might be a more prudent backup use than they can 8 use a backup for the grid.

9 And I think that the question of whether the 10 existence of that backup might prevent the placement of 11 gasoline or diesel generators, might be a consideration.

12 Thank you very much.

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Ted. Now, Mickey 14 Oros, Hans Henning Judek and Dale Foster.

15 MR. OROS: Thank you. My name is Mickey Oros. A 16 brief history. I founded EVI in the early nineties, ' 92.

17 It was a group that was put together to  I was working 18 with SMUD as a consultant and was asked to put together a 19 safe, cost effective system for the marketplace.

20 I've since moved on to fuel cells and 21 electrification. And also I have just been working on 22 doing the design for the electrical systems for the Post 23 Office. And I am able to say that because of a conductive 24 system, we're able to save a third of the cost doing it 25 conductively for the Post Office. And when you're talking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 161 1 dollars in excess of a half a million dollars for material 2 costs, it's quite sizable.

3 In working with SMUD, I was asked to bring in 4 some  hire some engineers to help develop this system.

5 I could have easily gone into an inductive format, no 6 problem, since I was green and had no basis to start from.

7 But after thorough investigations we found that 8 the systems  there were other systems available out 9 there that made the inductive system a little less 10 desirable to go with.

11 What I've heard today is comments that go either 12 way if the system were to go inductive or the system were 13 to go conductive.

14 But this is what I have discovered and that is 15 five years ago, if we just look at five years ago, and 16 consider that ground zero, we have done a tremendous 17 amount of engineering development to the point where we've 18 made both systems as safe for the consumer as they could 19 possibly be.

20 Given that five years, and starting from a ground 21 zero with codes, standards and safety, you're giving this 22 industry another five years to work towards, to go ahead 23 if one manufacturer had to change its format.

24 This is a lot of time. You're giving them a good 25 fair amount of time to go ahead and make that transition.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 162 1 So what you're hearing is that it cannot be done, it's too 2 short. I think it's just ego and greed talking here.

3 I don't need to comment on a lot of the comments 4 that have already been talked about today. But I think 5 that if you were to get  and I'm sure that the Board has 6 not been given true costs from most of the manufacturers,

7 for simple reasons. But I think once these true costs 8 were to surface, you would probably see that from a 9 standpoint of the consumer that a conductive system makes 10 a lot of sense. And when we go out, as the consumers here 11 in the United States today in our country go out and buy,

12 we basically go out, and the first thing that comes to 13 mind is what does it take or how much do we take out of 14 our pocket and cost is always the driving factor.

15 And once we look at that, I think from those that 16 have spoken earlier and said that some developer should 17 come out and bear all the cost to this, we find out that 18 if they were, they would probably also go back to that 19 saying, well what is the most cost effective system for me 20 to get a return on the investment.

21 And we think, again, that drives us towards the 22 conductive standard. The architecture, conductively, I 23 found over the years is much more open. The investment 24 costs are far less, and the time is now. I don't think 25 that you should wait and continue to wait. It will only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 163 1 worsen as time goes on, before the ramp up begins.

2 And I hope you'll take some of these comments to 3 heart and take a look. And I also have figures that would 4 backup some of the statements that I've made.

5 Thank you very much.

6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Oros.

7 Any questions?

8 Who used the phrase Last of the Mohicans? 9 Mr. Hans Henning Judek, and then Mr. Dale Foster 10 and Mr. Alec Brooks.

11 MR. JUDEK: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

12 I hope everybody is not too hungry. It's already after 13 lunch. So anyway, I just wanted to briefly introduce what 14 we are doing or trying to do.

15 My company is trying to implement an automatic 16 mechanical car parking system in the United States. And 17 we have a project in the Los Angeles area, which is very 18 close to a subway station. And about four weeks ago,

19 somebody had the glorious idea that we should probably 20 implement electric vehicles into this apartment facility 21 to provide an intermodal means of transportation.

22 So that means that people who arrive by the 23 subway have the opportunity to get a car right at the 24 subway station. And I found out that there are already 25 quite a substantial amount of people working on this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 164 1 matter, for example, Matt Barth in Riverside and Susan 2 Shaheen here in the Bay Area.

3 The problem that I see to make a decision now on 4 which kind of connector should be used or inductive system 5 should be used is that we definitely should not forget 6 that we may in the future have the need to automatize this 7 whole procedure, that this  it could be some kind of 8 robot or some kind of mechanical device would be necessary 9 that automatically connects the connector or the panel or 10 whatever we are using to the vehicle.

11 And I would like to ask you please try to think 12 now already about these kinds of possibilities, because 13 any cost sharing system can only really work with these 14 kind of automatic systems. So it means we will have to 15 think about where to allocate the contact point. We have 16 to think about how to open, for example, the cover or a 17 flap. We have to think about how to aim the connecting or 18 conductive device to the car.

19 And I'm really not quite sure we have at the 20 moment really all the facts together to make a decision on 21 this matter.

22 And I'm inviting everybody here to the room to 23 support our effort, because 300 electric cars in the City 24 of Los Angeles would be a good start for electric 25 vehicles.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 165 1 Thank you.

2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Are 3 there any questions?

4 Dale Foster.

5 MR. FOSTER: Good afternoon. My name is Dale 6 Foster. I'm with AeroVironment in Monrovia, California.

7 I'm the product manager for the off board Level 3 charger 8 that uses a conductive charger, which you've heard some 9 discussion about here. We're the technology and product 10 that staff is proposing to effectively make obsolete here 11 with your current proposal. Dr. Paul MacCready and myself 12 on behalf of AeroVironment did submit some bold more 13 extensive remarks on this subject. So I'll just hit some 14 of the highlights. We do support standardization of 15 infrastructure. We think that's very important.

16 We are also a member, one of the founding members 17 of the Electric Vehicle Conductive Charging Coalition, so 18 we support conductive charging for all the reasons that 19 you've heard earlier here today. We also support the 20 single connector as has been proposed, the Avcon style 21 connector we believe we can get there.

22 At this point, we digress from the majority of 23 the EVC3 membership where we do not support mandating and 24 requiring on board charging, high powered charging. Now,

25 like most of the folks you've got testifying before you,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 166 1 we've all got some vested interests in this topic. And AV 2 has a lot of invested interest.

3 We're a small California company and we've 4 invested millions of dollars in our off board charging 5 technology. And contrary to staff's report we are not OEM 6 supportive as a contract manufacturer. We're an 7 independent company and we sell these to a variety of 8 clients.

9 So that being said, AV suggests deleting the 10 requirement for on board charging. Let the marketplace 11 decide which is going to work out. We believe there are 12 justifiable cases and applications for both on and off.

13 The high cost that's been quoted for our charging systems,

14 $ 45,000 for a 60 kW charger, we believe is mitigated if 15 there are lots of EVs per charger, such as oftentimes in 16 the case of fleets and other repetitive use applications.

17 There is a place for on board charging in some of 18 these low powered vehicles. We think it would be prudent 19 for every manufacturer of a vehicle to supply an on board 20 charger with it that can plug into the millions of 21 standard 110/ 220 outlets that are out there.

22 Fast, fast charging on the order that we achieve 23 with our posicharge system, which is something roughly two 24 percent state of charging increased per minute, we think 25 greatly enhances the market viability and acceptance of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 167 1 electric vehicles.

2 And, yes, we need to get more of the OEMs, and 3 the battery manufacturers to support fast charging 4 technology, besides just DaimlerChrysler and some of the 5 other independents. But the higher power, fast charging 6 we think is going to be best accomplished with the 7 off board charging. So standards are important and 8 useful, but they should enable and not limit advances in 9 this technology.

10 So in summary we support conductive charging 11 standards. We support standardizing that connector as 12 proposed. But we do not support specifying on board in 13 the mandate. Leave that open for either on board or 14 off board.

15 Thank you very much.

16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does staff want to comment on 17 that?

18 Jack, the question was, Dale made the comment 19 about it's okay with conductive but don't specify on board 20 or off board. And so that was my

21 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: I 22 apologize for that.

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's okay.

24 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Well, 25 the systems are, you know, fundamentally different. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 168 1 we did not have an off board conductive system here 2 available for review. In most of our analysis we didn't 3 put it in the review. There's one manufacturer who 4 utilize the system and it's quite extensive and continues 5 to be quite expensive.

6 It does have some advantages especially for 7 larger vehicles, like the Epic, but the direction seems to 8 be to minimize battery sizes and moving toward smaller 9 ones.

10 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Will 11 the connector that we're specifying accept or work with 12 that charger?

13 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: The 14 connector should work.

15 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: So 16 it's really basically

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Can you speak up just a 18 little bit.

19 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: They 20 never turn me up.

21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No, it's not that. It's 22 the system. You just have to sit on it.

23 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 24 guess the discussion I was having with Jack is that I 25 think that our main concern with specifying on board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 169 1 charging is with Level 2 charging, it's the charging that 2 will happen between people's garages and at work sites and 3 things like that.

4 What I was asking was whether or not if a Level 2 5 charging with the on board charging could co exist or not 6 with Level 3 capability for off board fast charging?

7 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Which 8 it can.

9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: So 10 maybe we can settle that. And the next step is can we 11 modify the regulations so that they don't  or the 12 proposal so that it doesn't specify only on board charger,

13 in other words, if you're going Level 3

14 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: The 15 Level 3 is exempt from the regulations that are set.

16 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:

17 Okay. Well, does that satisfy you?

18 MR. FOSTER: Well, I think by specifying on board 19 you're effectively obsoleting off board technology. I 20 realize that it may not apply to a lot of these vehicles 21 or a lot of the buses and other heavy duty things may not 22 apply, but I think that there's going to be no incentive 23 for the automakers to put duel on board/ off board systems 24 on vehicles.

25 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 170 1 situation gets back to the whole reason why we started,

2 and that we did specify an on board system, so that every 3 vehicle can come up onto any charging station and be able 4 to utilize that charging station.

5 If there's a Level 3, some systems can be able to 6 accommodate greater power, recharge quicker, but we still 7 want those vehicles to be able to not have to have 8 separate distinct charging systems like exists with the 9 DaimlerChrysler system today.

10 MR. FOSTER: But I contend that you could get 11 there with the connector that's being specified.

12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I couldn't hear 13 that.

14 MR. FOSTER: I contend that you could get 15 there  we have the technology to get there with the 16 connector system that's being supplied.

17 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:

18 We're going around the same circle I just went around, but 19 I'll try again. I think that the staff strongly believes 20 that for Level 2 charging, which is again the garage, the 21 routine stuff, that the charger should be on a vehicle and 22 connectors should be standardized as proposed.

23 As I understand it, some of AeroVironment's work 24 connects to  is associated with doing very fast 25 charging. And if that's the case, their system should be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 171 1 able to coexist with the Level 2 that's part of the staff 2 proposal, in other words, if the vehicle has the wires 3 between the battery and the pins on the connector.

4 So I'm not sure that we really have a problem 5 other than saying that the regulation shouldn't exclude 6 the possibility of doing Level 3 charging with an 7 off board charger. 8 MR. FOSTER: And the regulation does not 9 explicitly exclude off board charging. The staff has made 10 that comment to me, but it effectively does when you 11 specify that it requires an on board charger.

12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I thought, at one point,

13 it was not specified that that Level 3

14 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 15 think he's saying well, for Level 2 that's true, but, you 16 know, in other words we specify an on board for Level 2,

17 then we are, but I don't think that's exclusive. In other 18 words, the charger that he's developing is a fast charger,

19 then it's a different system.

20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What would you do if 21 you were him, had millions invested, what would you do?

22 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 23 would focus on marketing my fast charger as an off board 24 charger, because the only  that's what I was asking 25 about the  if the connector is okay, then his end is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 172 1 okay, and all that needs to be on the vehicle is the wire 2 between the  well it's not quite that simple, but the 3 wires between the pins and the battery. So his off board 4 charger does fast charging through the appropriate pins on 5 the connector, which is already specified.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So that would be okay.

7 MR. FOSTER: That's feasible. We can continue to 8 market our product as an off board fast charging system.

9 We have other niche markets that we're doing development 10 work, and we're doing sales work. And my concern is,

11 again, if by requiring anybody who's going to get a ZEV 12 credit to have an on board charger greater than three 13 kilowatts, you have effectively disincentivized it by 14 putting any type of off board combinations.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we're hearing some 16 sympathy to your investment here and technology. I guess 17 what we're trying to look for is some hybrid approach 18 where we can have our cake and eat it, too.

19 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: If 20 we go the way he's suggesting though, we're going down the 21 path of multiple standards again, because you can't have 22 off board and on board Level 2 charging without multiple 23 standards.

24 ON ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: In 25 effect, it would be analogous to taking the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 173 1 DaimlerChrysler system but changing the connector so that 2 it looks like the Avcon or Ford, so it looks like it will 3 charge with it. Some vehicles, like a DaimlerChrysler,

4 might look like they could go up to a charging station and 5 they could charge and it would fit, it's just it wouldn't 6 charge.

7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we'll probably have 8 to come back to this point and maybe ask staff how, in 9 fact, we can work with it in the environment to mitigate 10 some of these issues.

11 Thank you, Dale.

12 Our last witness is Alec Brooks from AC 13 Propulsion.

14 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation 15 was presented as follows.) 16 MR. BROOKS: Good afternoon, Dr. Lloyd and 17 members of the Board. My name is Alec Brooks. I'm the 18 Chief Technology Officer at AC Propulsion. I've been 19 involved in electric vehicles since 1987, both 20 professionally and as a driver. In 1988, while at 21 AeroVironment, I wrote the proposal to General Motors for 22 the Impact electric car, the predecessor to the EV1, and I 23 was the project manager and chief engineer for the Impact 24 during its development.

25 I've used both conductive and inductive charging PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 174 1 systems, and I leased an EV1 on the first day they were 2 available. And, by the way, I spent $ 2,000 on a large 3 pile inductive charger.

4 I got the EV1 in spite of the inductive charging 5 system not because of it. I support the Board's 6 initiative to settle the charging standards debate once 7 and for all and I support the staff's recommendations to 8 standardize on on board conductive charging.

9  o0o

10 MR. BROOKS: Lets skip this, because it's been 11 covered.

12  o0o

13 MR. BROOKS: " It ain't what you don't know that 14 hurts you; it's what you know for certain that just ain't 15 so."

16 I remembered this when I read a lot of the 17 submitted comments on this issue. And I was reminded of 18 this pearl of wisdom from Charles Kettering, a great 19 inventor, engineer and educator and head of GM research 20 from 1919 to 1946.

21 There's been an awful lot of, what I consider,

22 misinformation and obfuscation of the facts.

23 Next.

24  o0o

25 MR. BROOKS: The first one I want to talk about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 175 1 is cost. There is no reason why the on board components 2 of a conductive system will always cost more than the 3 on board components of the inductive system. There are 4 many, many different ways to make a conductive charger,

5 some will cost more than the inductive on board 6 components, and some will cost less.

7 I want to point out that the display that's been 8 put up here to compare the inductive and conductive 9 systems makes use of the latest unreleased version of the 10 inductive system that takes and shows it compared to the 11 six year old, separate conductive charger, and that is the 12 most complex conductive wall box. So I don't think it's 13 exactly an apples to apples comparison.

14 These comments from Toyota and GM on the slides 15 show  and these are taken from the public testimony and 16 submitted  show that the real cost of the inductive 17 system is high and will remain high through 2020. GM has 18 said that they don't want to be in the charger business.

19 It's easy to see why due to the cost involved. But it is 20 hard to see why anyone else would want to be in the 21 inductive charging business. By contrast, conductive 22 charging systems and connectors are made by small 23 companies that have to pay their bills from the product's 24 sales and are a sustainable business even at today's 25 volumes.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 176 1 Next.

2  o0o

3 MR. BROOKS: Let's skip this one, it's been 4 covered.

5 Another often heard but questionable fact is that 6 the weight of on board conductive charges will always be 7 more than the weight of the on board inductive components.

8 While this has been the case for some first generation 9 electric vehicles, new products and approaches may 10 eliminate or even reverse the weight difference. One 11 nonintegrated six kilowatt charger that I'm aware of could 12 be integrated into the vehicle at a weight of five 13 kilograms, not the 50 that we heard earlier.

14 And GM's claim that a mile of range is lost per 15 kilogram of weight added is completely incorrect. It 16 doesn't stand up to any rational engineering analysis or 17 even common sense.

18 Southern California Edison tested the EV1 with 19 both minimum and maximum payload conditions and reported 20 range losses of only 1/ 100 to 6/ 100 of a mile per kilogram 21 of added weight.

22  o0o

23 MR. BROOKS: Now, let's talk about consumer 24 friendly. It's true that the inductive paddle is slightly 25 easier to connect to the vehicle than the conductive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 177 1 coupling. By having used both types quite a bit, this is 2 a negligible difference.

3 Another point worth considering in evaluating 4 consumer friendliness are the multiple warnings attached 5 to the newest conductive chargers. These labels warn the 6 consumer about the potential for burns, fires, shock and 7 state that the ground fault interrupt device should be 8 tested prior to each use.

9 Conductive charging stations also contain some 10 warnings, but these are directed towards service people 11 that will open the box, not the end users of the device,

12 and there is no direction to manually test a ground fault 13 device every time the charge station is used.

14 Imagine a customer that is new to EVs, but is 15 interested in maybe getting one. Out of curiosity, they 16 have to look at an inductive charger and pull out the 17 paddle. What do they see? A warning that you can get 18 burned.

19 By the way, the burn warning label was missing 20 from the charger that's on display here. The recall from 21 the GEN1 EV1s for a charge port problem is well known.

22 I'd like to share some of my own experience in this area.

23 In February 2000 my EV1 was at the dealership for 24 a tire problem. When I got the car back, I noticed a 25 smokey electrical smell while charging. I called the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 178 1 dealership and was told rather matter of factly, " Oh,

2 that. We put your car on charge after we finished and one 3 of our technicians noticed smoke coming out of the charge 4 port, pulled the paddle, but don't worry, we put in a new 5 port. It happens a lot."

6 It was this incident that caused me to cancel the 7 renewal of my EV1 lease. A month later all Gen 1 and EV1s 8 and S10s were recalled because of charge port problems.

9 We were assured that there was no problem with the 1999 10 Gen 2 EV1s.

11 Next.

12  o0o

13 MR. BROOKS: Well, there was a problem. In 14 November 2000, the 1999 Gen 2 EV1 was recalled for a 15 charge port fire danger. The reasons cited were an 16 internal component variation, whatever that means. Are 17 there any more flaws or defects in the latest inductive 18 system that we were not aware of? A recent event suggests 19 that this may be the case.

20 On Monday this week there was a report on the EV1 21 Internet mailing list of a broken paddle on a small paddle 22 inductive charger at a park and ride location in southern 23 California. I drove over to have a look.

24 Next.

25  o0o

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 179 1 MR. BROOKS: This is what I found. The paddle 2 casing was shattered. The plastic was fractured with 3 clean sharp edges and appeared to be brittle. I'm not an 4 expert in plastics, but I wonder if the choice of plastic 5 for the paddle was severely limited by the requirement 6 that it withstand temperatures that are hot enough to burn 7 you. 8 How the paddle was damaged is unknown. It could 9 have been vandalism or it could have been dropped, but it 10 does raise the question of whether the paddle is too 11 fragile for its intended application, and expected use and 12 occasional abuse.

13 I picked out of the dirt a couple of plastic 14 fragments from the paddle and I want to pass them up to 15 the Board to have a look at. I also have with me a piece 16 of the segment of new Avcon coupler and it's plastic.

17  o0o

18 MR. BROOKS: What's been talked about in the 19 packaging. Well, it turns out that the conductive inlet 20 is smaller in volume by about 20 percent than the new 21 small paddle inductive system. And its mounting depth,

22 the depth from the circuit to the car back is about half 23 as much.

24 There's also in the inductive, there's a 25 requirement for cooling air flow to take away the losses PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 180 1 from the paddle and port.

2 Next.

3  o0o

4 MR. BROOKS: Communication is another issue.

5 Proponents of inductive charging have emphatically stated 6 that vehicle to charge station digital communications will 7 be an absolute requirement for things like car sharing,

8 vehicle to grid and fuel cell vehicles. This is not the 9 case at all.

10 These applications will be better served with 11 wireless broad area coverage such as through 12 cellular based data systems that will allow communications 13 with the vehicle whether it is parked at the charger,

14 being driven or plugged into a 110 volt outlet at home.

15 Even the Toyota Crayon station car program brochure touts 16 how GPS and cell based date are used to track the E com 17 vehicles.

18 Also there is no reason that station cars or 19 shared cars will be EVs. It makes no sense to mandate a 20 communication method for these purposes as part of an EV 21 charging system.

22 Next.

23  o0o

24 MR. BROOKS: I want to briefly address charging 25 at higher power than the usual Level 2. Level 1 or 110 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 181 1 volt charging is admittedly slow, but in my experience it 2 has proved very useful. With my EV1 with the so called 3 convenience charger I was able to make overnight trips and 4 charge with 110 outlets at hotels.

5 Level 1 charging is a kluge with inductive 6 charging. You have to have a separate box, called a 7 convenience charger, that you remove with the trunk and 8 unwind two cords, one with the paddle and the other way 9 with a plug.

10 Level 1 charging is built right into many Level 2 11 conductive chargers, with no additional costs. You just 12 plug it into a 110 outlet. Level one is a useful and 13 valuable feature for EV drivers, especially for efficient 14 vehicles and vehicles with lead acid batteries. You 15 shouldn't reject Level 1 just because it doesn't work well 16 in those vehicles with power hungry battery cooling 17 systems.

18 Next.

19  o0o

20 MR. BROOKS: Level 2 Plus is a system that 21 provides faster charging for vehicles with on board 22 conductive chargers. The infrastructure side does not 23 require a costly off board DC charger, only an up rated EV 24 charge station that looks like the standard unit. I think 25 we heard a little bit about that from EVI.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 182 1 AC Propulsion's Level 2 Plus compatible charging 2 system allows 20 kilowatts of charge power or about three 3 times the standard rate. Level 2 Plus accommodates up to 4 400 amps AC or 96 kilowatts to allow for future technology 5 growth in the capability of on vehicle charging systems.

6 Level 2 Plus is backward compatible with Level 2,

7 and drivers of Level 2 Plus vehicles would have the choice 8 of installing standard Level 2 or uprated Level 2 Plus 9 charge stations at home. Level 2 Plus provides the 10 potential to enable the cost effective faster charging 11 public infrastructure that remains compatible with 12 standard Level 2 vehicles.

13 Next.

14  o0o

15 THE COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down just a 16 tiny bit.

17 MR. BROOKS: He told me I had to go fast.

18 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, I know you told him,

19 but I can't write that fast. 20 ( Laughter.)

21 MR. BROOKS: I submitted this in writing as well.

22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: There are competing 23 interests.

24 ( Laughter.)

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe, Alec, you could PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 183 1 compromise here and just hit some of the highlights, since 2 we've got this in front of us then, and maybe slow down a 3 little bit as well.

4 MR. BROOKS: Okay. Integrated charging is a 5 method of using  the components are already there on the 6 vehicle to drive the wheels to use them as a part of the 7 charger. I've made use of figures and charts that the 8 inductive proponents have shown to compare the cost and 9 weight of inductive and conductive. I've put a red line 10 through all of the components that are not needed to be 11 separate with integrated charging, and I've also shown a 12 diagonal red line that shows with integrated charging 13 on board cost and weight are clearly lower than inductive,

14 and as the inductive camp readily agrees, that the 15 off board cost and weight are lower with conductive, too.

16 AC Propulsion is not the only company working on 17 integrated charging. We have patents for our approach,

18 but this is not the only approach. By the way, our 19 patents are in no way covering any of the standards that 20 we're talking about for the connector and the off board 21 equipment. There are at least three other patented 22 integrated charging systems by Fuji, JPL and GM. Toyota 23 showed an integrated charger in the E com at EVS14 in 1997 24 and may still have an integrated charger today.

25 Ford and Ecostar showed integrated charging in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 184 1 1999. GM's rejection of integrated charging is based on 2 their experience for the system that was installed in the 3 original impacts, now a 12 year old design and several 4 generations behind the latest technology.

5 Next.

6  o0o

7 MR. BROOKS: Vehicle to grid is a concept that 8 allows vehicles with electrical storage and generation 9 capabilities to perform valuable services while they're 10 not being driven. The earnings potential is enough to 11 transform the economics of EVs  instead of a cost 12 penalty associated with the emissions benefit, there would 13 instead be a cost reduction associated with the emissions 14 reduction.

15 I took it as a sort of vote of confidence that GM 16 and Toyota were so threatened by vehicle to grid that they 17 hired Mr. Austin to try to shoot it down. If they had 18 spent one tenth as much effort to find out more about the 19 concept and read the report, they would realize that 20 economic potential for EVs from vehicle to grid is not at 21 all related to the daily on street power sales that we 22 agreed conceptually that that doesn't make any sense.

23 I should point out also that neither Mr. Austin 24 nor anyone from GM contacted us to find out more about the 25 vehicle to grid concept. We're, of course, happy to brief PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 185 1 any automakers on the concept and let them know what we're 2 doing.

3 Next.

4  o0o

5 MR. BROOKS: This is why they're so worried about 6 it. What I call the inductive camp dismisses this. What 7 I call the inductive system is a vehicle to grid disabler.

8 They say that it's compatible with vehicle to grid, but 9 this is very misleading.

10 The current designs for the inductive system both 11 on the vehicle side and on the infrastructure side are 12 inherently incapable of bidirectional power flow. By 13 contrast all of the existing Level 2 infrastructure

14 conductive infrastructure is already vehicle to grid 15 compatible right now as installed.

16 It is true that the inductive coupler itself is 17 capable of bidirectional power flow, but the rest of the 18 system isn't. To make it bidirectional would require 19 completely different designs for the infrastructure side 20 charging equipment and the vehicle side equipment.

21 The vehicle side would end up having to carry 22 around something of similar weight and complexity as the 23 current off board charger.

24 This is a good example of how inductive charging 25 is hostile to new technologies. If you want a new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 186 1 feature, okay, just rip out and replace all of the 2 installed charger base. This is what happened with the 3 move to the small paddle, thousands of old style large 4 paddle chargers became obsolete.

5  o0o

6 MR. BROOKS: To sum it up, press on with 7 selecting on board conductive as the standard charging 8 system. We don't support a one year delay for letting a 9 consultant make the decision. CARB staff already made an 10 independent professional evaluation and we support that.

11 Let the technology for chargers continue to 12 develop, but keep the high technology on the vehicle side 13 and keep the infrastructure side simple by adopting 14 standards that require the minimum possible equipment and 15 costs to safely deliver commodity AC electricity to the 16 vehicle.

17 The inductive system is inferior in many ways,

18 including cost both on and off the vehicle, energy 19 efficiency, robustness and vehicle to grid compatibility.

20 Conductive is the right choice.

21 Thank you for putting up with my speed.

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Alec. How would 23 you respond to the comments of your previous employer?

24 MR. BROOKS: I think there's no need to say that 25 you have to  you can have an option of having only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 187 1 off board DC. There is no reason whatsoever that you 2 can't make a vehicle that has both on board conductive and 3 off board DC. I think at one point Ford was trying to do 4 that, so they can market the system as best they can.

5 Any conductive vehicle manufacturer could choose 6 to adopt compatibility with that system and they chose to. 7 I think the point that all vehicles being compatible with 8 the standard level infrastructure is an important one, not 9 to let that go.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I kind of had my 12 hand raised at the last speaker and I'll just ask you a 13 follow up to that question. What would it cost to have

14 what's the kind of cost variable to have the capability to 15 plug in to  to have an on board charger and be able to 16 plug in to say a fast charger like AeroVironment has?

17 MR. BROOKS: I can give an opinion and then 18 someone from Ford can also talk.

19 Basically, it involves installing a slightly 20 larger or high capacity charged receptacle, which I don't 21 think is a big cost, and putting big wires from the 22 receptacle to the battery pack together with a two volt 23 contactor. And then it also requires a fairly significant 24 software effort to talk back and forth to the charger. I 25 think the software effort is probably the most expensive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 188 1 part of the whole deal.

2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: What's your value? Do 3 you value the idea of having fast charging?

4 MR. BROOKS: Yes, within limits. I think one 5 thing to keep in mind is that the electricity company is 6 charging for capacity about $ 10 a month per kilowatt. So 7 if I have a 60 kilowatt charge station and I have a fixed 8 overhead of $ 600 a month before I pump any electricity at 9 all, as the demand charge. And also a lot of vehicles may 10 start tapering that power because of battery heating. 11 But I think what you'll find is that the

12 there's a sweet spot that's somewhere between Level 2 and 13 60 kilowatts. At AC propulsion we have chosen 20 14 kilowatts. We have about three times the normal rate as a 15 nice good compromise that allows you to get a full charge 16 for most vehicles in one hour, and get back on the road.

17 To do much higher levels may or may not be cost 18 effective from the infrastructure side or the vehicle 19 side.

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Alec.

21 Does staff have any more comments?

22 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: No.

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will now close the record 24 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 25 when the 15 day notice of public availability is issued.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 189 1 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 2 but before the 15 day notice is issued will not be 3 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 4 item. When the record is reopened for a 15 day comment 5 period, the public may submit written comments on the 6 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded 7 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.

8 Just a reminder to Board members about our policy 9 concerning ex parte communications. While we may 10 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 11 board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our 12 contacts and the nature of the contents on the record.

13 This requirement applies specifically to communications 14 which take place after notice of the Board hearing has 15 been published.

16 I will start off with a communication here that I 17 met with Nissan and GM and Toyota on June the 12th in this 18 building. We discussed the effect of changing to 19 conductive charging systems and the advantage of inductive 20 charging systems. I met with Mr. Treebolt, Mr. McKeon and 21 Mr. Cassidy from Nissan, Mr. Nike Sadam and Wolterman from 22 Toyota and Mr. Weverstad, Ouwerkerk and Buttacadoli from 23 General Motors.

24 Any other board members starting from the 25 Supervisor?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 190 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Nothing within the 2 timeframe, Mr. Chairman.

3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have 4 met and the conversations would be reflected in the 5 testimony that was presented today and the written 6 comments. I have Mr. Lindstrom Honda, Mr. Foster from 7 AeroVironment, Mr. Franco, Mr. Rogers from EV1, Mr  I'll 8 just spell the last name, X u from Ecostar, Mr. Fledgeon 9 from Mazda, Mr. Brooks from AC Propulsion, Mr. Cartwright 10 from Avcon, Mr. Hosner from Litton, and Mr. Riley from BAE 11 Systems.

12 I also met with people from the Board, Mr. Brown,

13 Mr. Bell, Mr. King, Mr. Phan, Toepfer, Arbuckle, Stevens 14 and Richards.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.

16 Professor Friedman.

17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I was also present 18 at the June 12th meeting in these offices with the Toyota 19 and Nissan and GM representatives that you mentioned.

20 I also was present with others at a meeting at 21 the Ford Think facilities in Carlsbad on June 18th for 22 much of the day. Present were from Ford, Kelly Brown, Mr.

23 Bell, Ms. King, Mr. Phan, Mr. Toepfer, Mr. Arbuckle,

24 Stevens and Richards.

25 And also people from EVC3. There were among PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 191 1 others Mr. Lindstrom from Honda, Mr. Foster from 2 AeroVironment Inc, Mr. Franco from EV1 and Mr. Rogers from 3 EV1, Mr. Jim Jude from Ecostar, Mr. Fledgeon from Mazda,

4 Mr. Brooks from AC Propulsion and Mr. Cartwright from 5 Avcon, and Mr. Hosner from Litton and Chris Riley from BAE 6 Systems. The subject was the same, the advantages and 7 disadvantages of the two systems.

8 CHAIRPERSON Lloyd: Thank you.

9 Ms. D'Adamo.

10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chair, I, too, was 11 present at Carlsbad on June 18th at the meeting and met 12 with all of the individuals that Professor Friedman just 13 listed. In addition, on June 12th in Modesto, I met with 14 representatives  the following representatives from 15 Nissan, Mr. Cheeba, Mr. McKino Mr. Cassidy. From Toyota,

16 Mr. Naiki, I'll spell it N a i k i, Mr. Asada, Mr.

17 Wolterman. And from GM Mr. Weverstad, Mr. Ouwerkerk,

18 O u w e r k e r k, and Mr. Buttacadoli,

19 B u t t a c a d o l i.

20 The subjects discussed at both meetings were 21 similar to the testimony presented by these individuals 22 today. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I was at exactly the same 25 meetings as Professor Friedman on June 12th and on June PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 192 1 18th, with exactly the same people present, and all the 2 subjects that were discussed at those two meetings have 3 been thoroughly discussed at this meeting.