HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2012 Public Hearing Transcript re: BILL#2436 PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 13, 2012
A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by
Dickie Chang, Chair, Economic Development and Renewable Energy Strategies
Committee, on Wednesday, June 13, 2012, at 2:38 p.m. at the Council Chambers,
Historic County Building, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, and the
presence of the following was noted:
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable Dickie Chang
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Jay Furfaro, Committee Chair
The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following:
"BILL NO. 2436 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 16 AND CHAPTER 17 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATIONS,"
which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County
of Kaua`i on May 23, 2012, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on May
30, 2012.
The following communication was received for the record:
41. Carl Imparato, dated June 13, 2012
The hearing proceeded as follows:
CARL IMPARATO: Aloha, Councilmembers. My name is Carl
Imparato. I am here testifying as to my very strong disagreement with the
provisions of this bill that would provide free electricity from the County to owners
of electric vehicles.
I have no disagreement with allowing public use of the County's electric
vehicle charging facilities provided that public users are charged for both: 1) the full
cost of the electricity; and 2) the full cost of the purchase, operation, and
maintenance of the charging facility. I believe it is simply wrong for the County,
whether it is through general funds, or grants, or whatever, to provide free
electricity to the select few people or businesses that own electric vehicles when that
cost is in the end borne by other residents and taxpayers.
To put some numbers on this, just put together one (1) example, let us
assume there is someone who drives to work daily from Hanalei to Lihu`e. A daily
roundtrip mileage is sixty-two (62) miles and because the person can use a vehicle
for all sorts of other purposes, let us conservatively just say another eight (8) miles
per day to account for errands and weekend use of the vehicle, and pleasure use.
That kind of person would drive seventy (70) miles per week day and let us say that
is the person that comes and uses the County's charging station for free fuel. So at
PH re: Bill No. 36 - 2 - June 13, 2012
seventy (70) miles per week day, and thirty-four kilowatt hours (34 kWh) per one
hundred (100) miles, which is in the day, that equals 23.8 kWh per week day. At
KIUC's current rate of 52.2 cents per kWh, that is a daily subsidy just for the
electricity of $12.42. For the remaining work days in this year, that would be a
subsidy of over $1,600.00. That gift of $1,600.00 from taxpayers is just for the fuel,
it does not include any of the capital operating or maintenance cost associated with
the charging facility. Further, the more the electric vehicle owner drives, the more
free energy the owner consumes, the bigger is the subsidy from other residents and
businesses.
There are a lot of other scenarios you can concoct to less usage and more
usage, and in fact use the residential rate for electricity not the County's rate for
electricity, I do not know what that is. In the end, I believe it is simply wrong for
the County to give free electricity to anyone. It is wrong whether it is for six (6)
months in 2012, or for one (1) day. It is wrong whether it is $1,600.00 or $1.00. I do
not believe there is ever a time when some residents of Kaua`i should be paying the
fuel bill for other people's cars. But of course the County's proposed giveaway is
particularly on market at this time when the County should be reigning in its costs
rather than giving free fuel to a privileged few.
So I ask that you amend the bill in three (3) places. First of all proposed
Section 17.2A, should be amended so that the user fee takes effect on passage of the
bill, not on January 1, 2013. No free electricity to anyone starting on day one (1).
EDDIE TOPENIO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT:
Three (3) minutes,
Committee Chair.
Mr. Chang: Go ahead, Mr. Imparato.
Mr. Imparato: Thank you.
Proposed Section 17-22B, should be amended to
p provide a formula for the
user fee rather than a fixed rate. A formula fully compensates the County for its
costs. The user fee should not be a fixed fee as the cost of electricity certainly rises
or goes down over time. So the question is does the County Code having to be
II change?amended every time KIUC's rates change. The user fee should not be an hourly fee,
as different electric vehicles will consume electricity at different rates using more or
less electricity, which results in undercharging or overcharging different customers.
And so I would propose language to the effect that the user should be charged based
on kWh consumed. The fee shall be the average kWh rate charged by KIUC in the
preceding month, plus an adder to compensate the County for fixed cost operations
and maintenance.
And lastly of course if those changes are made then the findings and purpose
of the bill need to be refined to reflect the above.
So in conclusion, I just have two (2) points: 1) if members of the public are to
be allowed to use the County's electric vehicle charging facility, they should pay full
freight, they should be charge a rate that is based on kWh consumed, based on the
then current price of electricity, and it includes an adder that recovers the County's
full cost for operating the charging station; 2) those of us who do not own electric
vehicles should not be required to subsidize people or businesses that do own
electric vehicles. I am not asking for a subsidy because I drive a 30 mpg vehicle
instead of a 15 mpg SUV, and I think the same holds here for electric vehicles. So I
ask that you modify the bill to eliminate a giveaway that benefits a privilege few
PH re: Bill No. 36 - 3 - June 13, 2012
owners of electric vehicles at the expense of all other taxpayers. I thank you for
considering these concerns. I have this testimony in writing.
There being no further testimony on this matter, the public hearing
adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
Respe lly submitted,
MW , ; : ' 1 6, J,' .
Administrative ', tan.
/il