1. Town Council

To: Springdale Mayor Barbara Bruno Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Re: Springdale Town Council Special Meeting ChargeWest@Scale Contract with Independent Contractor Emily Friedman First, thank you for providing this opportunity to participate in the development of improved Electric Vehicle (EV) corridors in Springdale and Utah. I plan to attend the Special Meeting, but I recognize that the community has been invited to help Springdale citizens understand what is being done, not to engage in a long discourse about it. So, I’ve provided this letter with the remarks that I would make as a courtesy to avoid a long discourse. (I would be happy to read this into the record if necessary.) I ask only that you recognize that these concerns have been received by Springdale as part of the meeting. Second, I want to emphasize that these are concerns, not objections. My hope is that these concerns are addressed by the work that will be done. I have three concerns that I want to highlight in this letter. The first concern is that the appearance of including citizens in developing an EV corridor will be served, but not the reality. The PDF document included with the meeting announcement is simply more than Springdale citizens can absorb in the time we have been given. But although the PDF document is large and complicated, it still doesn’t answer my concern that all relevant information will be disclosed. The PDF file provided in the notice is 120 pages long (which includes a lot of difficult legal content). The timestamp on the email I received shows that citizens have had just five days (which includes a weekend in this busy holiday season) to read and understand it. I read it anyway. (This might only show that I don’t really have a life.) I was pleased to see that the contract includes language that will help to ensure an open information policy. In Term 40, “Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreements Assurances” of the “Special Terms and Conditions”, I see the following language. (emphasis provided by the original document) By entering into this agreement, the Recipient attests that it does not and will not require its employees or contractors to sign internal nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting its employees or contractors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse … In contrast, I was told in a Springdale public meeting that the use by large business entities of Springdale’s shared resource of culinary water was private and confidential and information about it is not and will not be made publicly available, even though “waste, fraud, or abuse” of this shared resource is possible. (emphasis provided by this author) My hope is that in this EV project, everything will be public. The second concern is that critical issues in EV charge points simply do not seem to be part of the project. In particular, a critical issue that is totally missing is that ensuring standard and compatible charging is never mentioned. (In this summary, estimates provided by the Department of Transportation (DOT) are used.) Standard chargepoint levels have been established in the US. Level One, typical in home installations, uses 120V charging, but can require 40-50 hours for a full charge. Level Two uses 240V charging but can still require 4-10 hours. Level Three (also referred to as Direct Current Fast Charging - DCFC) is the only charging interface that is likely to satisfy consumers and specifically Springdale visitors who don’t have a lot of time to wait around for a charge. Individual commercial chargepoint suppliers (principally Tesla) are not supporting a standard interface for DCFC. Standards driven chargepoints must be a part of any Springdale solution to avoid the trap of powerful corporations forcing consumers into oligopolistic control over their choices. The third concern is “mission creep” into non-EV chargepoint issues. Specifically, Task 3.2: “Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan for Hydrogen Hubs” mandates investigation for the feasibility of hydrogen as a fuel and even natural gas. I remind you that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is the product of burning natural gas. Similarly, biofuel also produces carbon dioxide. The keyword here is “feasibility”. There is no reason not to investigate feasibility, but my concern is that industry lobbying will infect the project to retain a toe-hold where one does not exist. Dan Mabbutt