Electric Vehicles Charging Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.30 pm

Mr Speaker: Minister for Transport.

The Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, Singapore aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To attain this national target, we must significantly decarbonise the land transport sector, which accounts for about 15% of emissions.

The electrification of our vehicle population is key to this effort. The carbon emissions of an electric car are half that of an internal combustion engine (ICE) car and this will improve as more renewable sources enter our energy mix.

Our vision is for all vehicles in Singapore to run on cleaner energy by 2040. Based on current trends, many of these – in fact, a significant proportion – will be electric vehicles, or EVs. This year, more than 10% of new light vehicle registrations were EVs, up from 0.3% in 2020. That is a 30-fold increase.

The adoption has been broad-based, with half of all EVs registered to condominium and HDB residents.

To further encourage the EV transition, we need an island-wide public charging network that is safe, reliable and accessible. We aim to deploy 60,000 charging points across Singapore by 2030.

Today, we have over 3,600 charging points, which is more than double the number two years ago. LTA recently awarded a tender to deploy an additional 12,000 charging points across all HDB carparks. And this means that our charging network is going to expand significantly by the middle of this decade.

As we ramp up the EV charging infrastructure, we must also strengthen the governing regulatory framework. Last year, Parliament amended the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, to assign to LTA the statutory function of promoting and regulating the safe use of EVs in Singapore.

The proposed Electric Vehicles Charging Bill aims to confer LTA with new statutory powers to administer and enforce a comprehensive regulatory regime.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. This Bill serves three main objectives.

The first is to ensure that EV chargers are safe, and safely used. Hence, the Bill proposes to regulate the supply, advertisement, installation, registration, maintenance and use of EV chargers, both portable and fixed, including battery charge and swap stations and pantograph chargers.

Second, to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services through a licensing regime for EV charging operators.

Third, to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network, by mandating a minimum provision of charging points at certain developments and by lowering the resolution threshold for EV charger installation at strata-titled developments.

Earlier this year, MOT and LTA conducted a public consultation exercise on the Bill. More than 70 members of the public and industry players responded and were, generally, supportive of the provisions that have been proposed.

Industry respondents recognised the need for a licensing regime for EV charging operators, so as to maintain standards, but requested that compliance costs be kept low. My Ministry and LTA will work with the industry to ensure this even as we design an effective licensing regime.

Many also supported the proposed charging provision mandate and some even asked for the mandate to be expanded to cover all developments. I will address this later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on how the Bill will help to achieve the three objectives of safety, reliability and accessibility.

First, on regulating for the safe use of EV chargers. Today, while the Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates the installation of EV chargers by Licensed Electrical Workers, the activities of others like charger manufacturers, charger suppliers, charger owners and users are not.

Given the potential fire and other safety hazards, the Bill proposes regulation to cover the entire use cycle of EV chargers and to consolidate the regulatory oversight under LTA.

Clause 6 of the Bill specifies that all chargers supplied in Singapore must belong to a homologated model that meets the national charging standard, which is Technical Reference 25, or TR25, and it was revised earlier this year. The supply of a non-homologated model is an offence with the penalty for individuals of a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum jail term of 24 months, or both, while a corporate entity faces a maximum fine of $40,000.

Clause 15 of the Bill prohibits the advertisement of non-approved EV charger models, including online or digital advertising. The Bill empowers LTA to direct the advertiser to stop further publication of the advertisement, disable access to the offending advertisement or publish a corrective advertisement.

As new and emerging charging solutions may not comply with TR25, Part 4 of the Bill allows LTA to administer a special authorisation regime for such chargers to be trialled under controlled conditions, until they are, eventually, incorporated into our main standards.

To ensure accountability for the proper use and maintenance of EV chargers, clause 22 allows LTA to maintain a national Register of EV chargers. The person in charge and control of an EV charger, which is typically the owner, must register the charger with LTA and will be the registered responsible person required to ensure that it is properly maintained and periodically inspected by a qualified person.

To ensure safe installation, the Bill and accompanying subsidiary legislation will require chargers to be certified as fit for charging electric vehicles by qualified persons, which includes Licensed Electrical Workers (LEWs) and charging equipment specialists. The installation of fixed chargers must also be overseen by LEWs.

In addition, the Bill also has safeguards against unsafe charging. For example, EV chargers capable of charging detachable EV batteries will not be allowed in residences because of the risk of battery fires. Also, a manufacturer or supplier who knows of a safety defect in the charger or charger model it has supplied must inform persons with charge and control of such chargers on how to rectify the defect and, subsequently, report to LTA upon the completion of rectification work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Part 6 of the Bill introduces a licensing regime for EV charging service providers or charging station operators to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services.

The services provided by such EV charging operators will include hiring of fixed EV chargers, EV battery swapping and renting of portable EV chargers.

EV charging operators must obtain a licence, which will be valid for three years and renewable. Licensing conditions will include the purchase of public liability insurance and correcting EV charging service downtime issues within a specified duration.

For a start, the licensing regime will only cover EV charging operators that provide charging services to the public, given the focus on commercial EV charging operators. This coverage can be expanded in accordance with future needs.

The Bill also allows for step-in arrangements in respect of a designated licensee.

Under clause 56, the Minister may, by order in the Gazette, prescribe a licensee that is authorised to provide EV charging services as a designated licensee. For example, this may be a licensee with a large scale of operations in Singapore. If the licence of a designated licensee is revoked or surrendered, the Minister for Transport may, on the advice of LTA, invoke clause 57 of the Bill to authorise a step-in operator to take over the designated licensee's operations temporarily, for no more than 12 months. This will minimise disruption and facilitate a smoother transition for the affected EV users. The intent is for these provisions to be invoked where no short-term commercial arrangement or remedies are available and it will be used as a last resort.

The third objective of this Bill is to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network. With more vehicles going electric, all carparks in Singapore will need to provide for EV charging.

Therefore, Part 8 of the Bill mandates the provision of EV charging infrastructure by developers of specified building works and development owners who carry out certain types of electrical works. These are, typically, new developments or those undergoing substantial renovation.

The mandate, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, consists of two parts. First, developers must install electrical infrastructure that supports at least 1.3 kilovolt amperes of power for every car and motorcycle parking lot in the development. Second, developers must install a minimum number of charging points which would draw at least one-fifth of that amount of power.

To illustrate, a development that is in compliance will be able to support 7.4 kilowatt (kW) charging points with smart charging capability at about one in five lots. And in terms of the actual installation of chargers, the developer can comply with the mandate by fitting out about one in 25 lots with such 7.4 kW charging points.

I am sure everyone understood that technical point. But if I may put it in simple terms, what it means is that one part of the requirement is for the electricity capacity that is to be provided and the technical people have used a specific metric applied to the number of parking lots to establish that cap. The second part of that mandate is on the number of lots. So, while you can have up to one in five of the lots with these chargers, the mandate is really, if you go by slow charging rates, it will amount to about one in 25. That is what it amounts to. So, it is about 4% or 5% of the lots.

But the mandate is designed to provide the flexibility to deploy a mix of charging points with different power ratings at more or fewer lots, depending on the needs of users. For instance, some developers may opt to have more charging lots installed with lower-powered chargers, while others may have fewer lots installed with higher-powered chargers. So, there is a trade-off because, for a given electrical capacity, if you choose to have more high-powered chargers, then you have fewer charging stations and vice versa.

Over the past two years, we have received feedback on the challenges faced by strata-titled developments like condominiums in installing EV charging points. Proposals to install EV charging points may be defeated despite having the majority support of subsidiary proprietors. This is because under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004, proposals to lease the common property to EV charging operators to install EV chargers could be required to meet a resolution threshold of up to 90%, depending on the duration of the lease.

Hence, in consultation with MND and BCA, we proposed related amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act so that proposals to install or uninstall EV chargers in strata-titled developments will only require an ordinary resolution, which can be passed with the support of a simple majority of the subsidiary proprietors voting in a general meeting. Such a proposal must not draw down on the funds of the Management Corporation, and the relevant lease or licence between the Management Corporation and the EV charging operator that enables such a proposal must not last for more than 10 years. So, there is a safeguard around the draw of funds and there is also a safeguard around the duration of the contract.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, as EV charging and related technology evolve, we will need to adapt our laws and regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose. This Electric Vehicles Charging Bill is an important foundation and first step. It is a milestone in Singapore's quest for a sustainable land transport system and in our journey towards net-zero emissions by 2050. And I commend it to all Members to give it their full support. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

1.43 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important milestone in our journey to become greener as a country. As recently as 2020, transport accounted for 16% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is already a lower percentage than the US, UK and the global figure, but it is still a significant piece as we look to cut our carbon emissions. Introducing this framework to regulate safe and efficient charging of EVs is a significant starting step, but it should not be the end.

My speech will not only focus on clarifying how certain provisions in this Bill are going to operate, but also discuss the broader implications on our strategy to transition Singapore's vehicle population from ICE to EVs.

First, I support Part 8 of the Bill which requires developers undertaking certain building or electrical works to install infrastructure to support the supply of minimum electrical charging capacity, as the Minister has shared earlier. This helps to future-proof developments that are presently being constructed even as the national EV strategy is being considered and refined. It is, generally, more cost-effective to plan and incorporate such infrastructural elements at the outset, than to require costly variation works midway through the construction works.

However, when is Part 8 going to come into force? Would present developments that have already obtained preliminary design and construction approvals be required to modify their plans?

Another question I have is, what is the minimum stage that the planning and construction work has to reach before the Minister would consider exempting a development from the new requirements introduced by Part 8?

Further, is there a particular reason why the new Part 8 requirements will not apply to works carried out by the Government or any public authority on land that they own? Given the nationwide push for a greener transport infrastructure, I would have thought that the Government would join the effort and take the lead in equipping its developments with the necessary electrical infrastructure.

Second, a large part of the Bill serves to regulate the devices that are intended for charging EVs in Singapore, the operators of charging stations and the providers of charging services for EVs. As we are contemplating widespread use of EVs and EV chargers, it is key that we have a regulatory framework to ensure the safety and efficient deployment of EV chargers.

From my reading of the Bill, I understand there to be three levels of regulatory control. First, EV chargers must be approved by LTA as an approved model and affixed with an approval label before it can be supplied or used in Singapore. Second, EV chargers must be registered with LTA and specify a registered responsible person before it can be used to charge any EV in Singapore. Third, persons who provide EV charging services in Singapore or engages in conduct as a charging station operator must be licensed.

Is each of the three levels of control necessary, or is it regulatory overkill?

We must be cognisant that each level increases the amount of compliance costs for EV Charging Operators (EVCOs), which could have the effect of increased EV charging costs for end users and even the effect of squeezing out potentially competitive EVCOs from the relatively small market we have in Singapore. In the longer term, this is all going to have a material impact on the cost of EV charging, which I feel will make or break our efforts to get Singaporeans on board with our vision to transit to EVs.

I would like to ask the Ministry if there is a fair valuation exercise built in for EV charging over the next five to 10 years.

While EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, have a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. It will be useful to have a sense of the extent of the fair value EV charging costs in the future at this juncture.

In relation to the first level of control, LTA will only approve an EV charger model if it is satisfied that the model meets the safety and performance standards prescribed by the regulations. The question I have is: have these regulations been prepared and are they ready to be put into effect immediately? What are all these safety and performance standards that will be built into the legislation?

It is also contemplated that LTA-approved models of EV chargers will be identified with an approved label that is affixed to each EV charger which is intended to be supplied, installed, certified or charged in Singapore. What is the applicable fee that would be prescribed for the issuance of an approved label? That would be useful to note.

Further, what is the applicable fee for the issuance of an additional label where LTA approves a proposed alteration or modification to the EV charger model?

Another question is: is the approved label really the most suitable enforcement mechanism? Not only are physical labels susceptible to wear and tear which may cause them to peel off the EV charger; more importantly, who is the intended audience of the label? For the regulator, the presence or absence of a label is unnecessary for it to identify whether an EV charger is an approved model. For an end-user, I am doubtful that the absence of a label would cause them to avoid using a particular EV charging station.

The second level of control is for LTA to register an EV charger if the EV charger is lawfully certified as fit for charging any EV in Singapore and lawfully installed in accordance with clause 24 of the Bill. Given that a certifier is obliged to check that an EV charger satisfies the applicable safety and performance standards here, does it not render the first approval-label stage superfluous? Why is it necessary to separate the approval of EV model and registration of EV chargers into two stages?

Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill provide that the certification will have to be done by a prescribed competent person and a prescribed person. We now know from LTA's announcement that these refer to charger equipment specialists and a Licensed Electrical Worker, or LEW, respectively. Are there any plans by the Ministry or LTA to train and recruit more Singaporeans to be LEWs and charger equipment specialists? Are there any targeted numbers of such specialists to support our EV charging push? While there may already be ITE and Polytechnic courses and programmes in this regard, can we aim to do more, for example, by designing career conversion programmes or Career Transition Programmes around these aims to meet our requirements?

The Bill also requires the registered responsible person for an EV charger to keep and retain records, such as certificates, going back at least two years. Given the overarching theme of sustainability in relation to this Bill, my humble suggestion is that such records can be uploaded and kept in a centralised electronic repository rather than in paper form. This will be in line with our general push to digitalise our systems and records. This would also assist LTA in transposing the necessary information to the register of registered-for-charging EV chargers that it is required to maintain.

I also have a couple of questions on the register to be maintained by LTA. First, what are the concerns that drive the confidentiality provision at clause 22(4) of the Bill? I note from the public consultation feedback that the key concern is over undue disclosure of commercially sensitive data by the EV charger companies. What commercially sensitive information is LTA register expected to contain?

Second, clause 35 requires a manufacturer or supplier of an EV charger who becomes aware of any safety-related defect in the EV charger to give notice to every registered responsible person for a registered-for-charging EV charger of the same model, among others. How would a manufacturer or supplier go about obtaining such confidential information?

Finally, on to the third level of control, that is, licensing of service providers and operators. As a preliminary question, what is the expected duration for which licences will be valid? Will the conditions of renewal be spelt out clearly in subsidiary legislation? I ask these questions because I expect an EVCO to have to invest significant capital expenditure at the outset which can only be recouped by its provision of services over time. It would be important for them to have enough certainty over their projected revenue stream in the mid to long term so as to perform their internal financial calculations for their business.

Also, considering our targets for our EV population and the number of EV charging points, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, does the Ministry have a rough idea of how many licensees it intends to allow to operate in the geographically limited market here?

I recognise that there are potentially a number of operational issues that LTA will need to formulate in consultation with the industry, such as what the optimal licence conditions ought to be. Considering the importance of this area in the next 10 to 20 years as we work to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, there may be value in encouraging a professional body to bring the relevant stakeholders and actors together. I believe the licensing regime introduced under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 was implemented quite smoothly, in part because there already existed professional bodies like the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Singapore (IPAS) that was anchoring the professional development and standards in that space.

Third, Part 4 of the Bill specially empowers the Government to make rules to trial non-approved or non-registered EV chargers. I assume they will automatically apply to the existing regulatory sandboxes that are taking place.

On that note, may I ask if there are any interim findings from the ongoing regulatory sandboxes for battery swapping for electric motorcycles? I had previously raised a Parliamentary Question on this back in October and earlier as well. I note that the Bill is technically broad enough to cover battery swapping services. Can I confirm that notwithstanding the Ministry's position that the charging of detachable batteries at home remains disallowed, it is prepared to proceed to register and license battery charge and swap stations, or BCSS, while the regulatory sandboxes are ongoing?

Fourth, can I check if LTA intends to take a proactive and pre-emptive enforcement stance, instead of prosecuting persons only after a particular safety or other incident has occurred? How does LTA intend to do so beyond mandating periodic inspections of registered EV chargers, which will not flush out cases of unauthorised supply or modification of EV chargers? Also, what are the enforcement capabilities and resources needed by LTA in the future and if it will meet the rise in enforcement needs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by sharing some thoughts on matters that do not appear to be expressly dealt with in this Bill, but which should be considered as part of our holistic plan to transition towards an EV population.

One, would this Bill and its subsidiary legislation, if passed, regulate the commercial aspects of how EVCOs conduct their business, for example, by imposing ceilings on charging costs or mechanisms to regulate any increase in charging costs? Given that the road tax for an EV is significantly higher, how the EV charging costs compare with the cost of petrol will be key in determining consumer take-up. Some assurances or controls over future increases in EV charging costs will give some consumers the confidence to take the leap of faith and go with the relatively new EV option.

Two, LTA's power to order a step-in arrangement under Part 7 of the Bill is a useful power, but LTA's role in encouraging a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector is equally, if not more, important.

HDB and JTC are likely to be the largest landlords with which EVCOs will contract with in Singapore and such tenders are usually conducted by LTA. Where an EVCO has its licence suspended, revoked or surrendered, instead of externalising the costs to taxpayers by ordering a step-in, a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector would mean that market forces can be counted on to secure a replacement EVCO for continuity of services. Having regard to the large tenders which have already gone out this year, what are LTA's optimal long-term plans in terms of the number of EV charging points, percentage of HDB carparks that are EV charging lots and so on?

Three, are there any plans to develop this legislation in future to go beyond regulating the EV chargers and become an omnibus Act that will cover all aspects of our EV transition?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, has a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. MOT and LTA will have to dynamically continue to manage the relative calibration of all the components to meet Singapore's overall goals and ensure safety at the same time. Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

1.56 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Electronic Vehicles Charging Bill is a step to institutionalising the process for the transition of our transportation infrastructure into the 21st century. The fundamental problem it seeks to address is this: how LTA and EMA will work together to ensure that the charging infrastructure is sufficient during the transition and, relatedly, how such charging costs will be regulated.

I support the Bill but have additional suggestions.

The bulk of my speech will address the hard infrastructure issues that are the primary concern of the Bill. However, I will conclude with thoughts on how soft infrastructure, in particular our Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, can also play a role in helping Singapore usher in the electrification of its vehicle fleet. Throughout, my focus will be on practical considerations associated with this transition process.

Parts 2 through 7 of the Bill empower LTA to constrain unregulated or inadequately maintained chargers by imposing minimal standards. Providers are also required to obtain fixed-duration licences and to meet conditions, such as minimal up times and securing public liability insurance. On the whole, these are in line with best practice international frameworks, such as the UN Global Technical Regulation on Electric Vehicle Safety, albeit it remains somewhat less ambitious than stricter standards, such as the EU Regulation Number 540/2014.

Of paramount concern is whether new EV charging stations will adequately address consumer safety concerns, including the risk of electric shocks, battery-related fire and cyber-hacking.

Fires are a particularly salient concern, given a number of recent reports of HDB fires due to Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and the general density of our multi-storey parking structures – Minister Iswaran alluded to this.

In Sengkang alone, I am aware of at least two over the past two years, and Minister Shanmugam has shared with this House, that there were 18 PMD fires across the island last year, all of which the SCDF and LTA had determined to be due to non-compliance with safety standards.

Beyond fires per se, our humid tropical environment may present greater maintenance challenges which, in turn, calls for more attention to ongoing regulation of the charging infrastructure. What safety features and public education efforts has the Ministry put in place to address such concerns? At the moment, the Bill, in Parts 5, 6 and 10, focuses mainly on technical and/or intended offences.

The pertinent question is how inadvertent violations that compromise safety can best be handled, as this also tends to be the case with PMD-charging-related fires.

Part 8 will expand the charging network by requiring new buildings with car parks to install charging points for – as Minister Iswaran helpfully clarified, the technical mumbo jumbo – around 4% of the total car and motorcycle lots. This is a good start and has been adopted in other crowded Asian cities, such as Tokyo.

The practical challenge here is how to ensure there are sufficient stations for EV owners wishing to charge their vehicles and, relatedly, how to prevent hogging of said chargers after charging is complete. After all, many would enjoy the convenience of being able to charge overnight, which is especially attractive given, at least for now, the lower cost of electricity after hours.

The flip side of the strategy, however, is that it would, typically, preclude the timely relinquishment of the station. One management approach is to adopt the strategy employed by Tesla which charges a per minute idle fee for vehicles that are already fully charged, with a higher penalty rate if all chargers are also simultaneously fully occupied. Even with such a system, there may be insufficient charging for certain user-type, the so-called "power users", which would be, for instance, taxi cabs and private hire car (PHC) drivers which are likely to be able to charge only during off-peak hours and require longer charging durations.

Some degree of calibration would, undoubtedly, be necessary, but one interim step may be for LTA to coordinate with PHC and taxi cab companies to obtain the distribution of their registered drivers and adapt initial installation at multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) accordingly. This could mean pursuing an active policy target that seeks the minimum number of charging points per building as stipulated by law.

Part 13 of the Bill, in particular, clause 97, is designed to expand the network for the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) car parks which do not directly fall under LTA and, hence, require more targeted incentive structures to encourage adoption.

In July last year, LTA launched the Electric Vehicle Common Charger Grant (ECCG) to promote the installation of charging infrastructure in non-landed private residences, a practice in line with other nations, such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

This Bill further relaxes the hurdle rate for the installation and removal of chargers, along with other charger management functions, to a simple majority. This is a clear improvement as, previously, some MCSTs may have required as much as 90% vote share to pass the necessary resolution.

My Workers' Party colleague Dennis Tan will suggest a tailored approach to the expansion of coverage, especially for industrial premises. I concur. In principle, MCSTs, such as condominiums as well as commercial and industrial developments, should have a strong incentive for charger installation, given the typically higher income profile of residents' overall heightened environmental consciousness of wealthy households, the ongoing flow of tenants and customers for such projects and the likelihood of a profitable income stream. The ECCG co-funding model should have provided the rest of the necessary boost.

Yet, the barrier to more widespread adoption seems more psychological than monetary. After all, inertia is a powerful force and those of us who have lived in condos and served on condo boards understand how apathetic most condo dwellers are about attending the annual general meeting (AGM). This leads one to wonder whether more can be done to empower MCST and commercial facilities to roll out even more charging stations. Could policy target higher minimum ratio for stations in non-landed private residences beyond legislation? This would ensure that these developments do not inadvertently fall behind even while the HDB rollout accelerates.

Mr Speaker, I will close with some thoughts on how our soft infrastructure can also be adapted and deployed to help with this EV transition.

Singapore already has a built-in system for effecting a controlled phase-out of the existing internal combustion engine fleet. We can do this in at least two ways.

The first is to adopt a fairly aggressive but backloaded strategy consistent with the Singapore Green Plan 2030. This means only permitting the registration of EVs after that year. If we were to do so, this would effectively phase out the approximately one-million-strong ICE fleet over the course of the following decade, give or take several tens of thousands of heavy goods vehicles that may be less amenable to electrification.

The advantage of this approach is that it allows the existing electric charging infrastructure to roll out over the course of the next seven years without too much excess pressure from latent demand. That said, there is an alternative. We can pursue a more gradualist strategy where we begin the issuance of EV-specific COE permits next year, with an even split between the permits available for EVs and ICE vehicles.

To further promote EV adoption, we could even provide temporary incentives that would favour the switch to EVs, such as a 10% discount, for instance, on the COE's face value for EV permits. Then this way we can embark on the EV transition immediately. And as private charging providers receive even stronger incentives for switching now, they will also step up efforts to expand their networks. This solves, in some part, the chicken and egg problem of EV charger installers waiting for greater EV adoption before increasing charging capacity while potential EV purchasers hold off while they await more charging stations to appear. Done this way, incrementally, over 20 years, we would meet our full EV fleet target by 2042, only two years after the 2040 deadline, with a more gradual process that simultaneously begins with the EV transition occurring earlier.

The COE system offers additional tools for us to encourage the switch to an EV fleet. For instance, there is some evidence that drivers of PHCs have expressed reluctance to switch to EVs owing to range anxiety and the much higher operating costs for EVs, estimated at as much as 82% or greater. Yet, since PHCs are utilised at about seven times the rate of the average car, they account for a disproportionate share of emissions.

One way to compel such switches is to designate a special COE category for PHCs that are also EVs. This riffs off a query that my Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua, had put forward, albeit in the context of concerns over whether PHCs were bidding up COE prices. To the extent that this eventually does raise the cost of regular ICE COEs, we can content ourselves that, at the very least, there is a beneficiary, which is, the environment.

Other approaches would be to provide subsidies or to offer a discount off the price of COEs in the PHC-EV category.

Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.

2.08 pm

Mr S Iswaran: Speaker, may I just seek a clarification from the Member? Did he say that PHC drivers expressed concern about the higher operating cost of EVs? I think he used the number of 80%. Is that correct?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, Minister, I did. This was based off a report in 2022, reported in paultan.org that said "EVs made up just 8.4% of new cars registered in Singapore with Grab drivers being reluctant to switch". This is not my own numbers but based on —

Mr S Iswaran: Sorry, paultan.org?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: — paultan.org, which is —

Mr S Iswaran: And it says 80% higher operating costs for EVs?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: That the estimated operating costs for EVs was as much as 82% greater, yes, based on that report.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

2.09 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the EV Charging Bill. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the President of Strides Mobility Services of SMRT which has business units that rent out EVs and provides EV chargers.

I had previously spoken during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate about how it is important to have enough or sufficient charging stations in HDB estates, private estates and commercial buildings. This is in order for the EVs to take off. I am glad to note that the EV Charging Bill has considered some of my recommendations.

With the EV Charging Bill that mandates private buildings to provide charging points and the recent LTA tender to install 12,000 EV charging points across 2,000 HDB car parks, Singapore will be transformed from a city with few charging points to a country with probably the highest number of charging points per capita. This is a strategic and timely move by MOT and LTA.

To realise our vision, we will need to consider ways to achieve fairness, better affordability and confidence for our EV users.

I would like to, first, touch on the affordability of EVs. The lifecycle cost of owning an EV, as compared to owning an ICE vehicle, is much higher. In other words, owning EVs over the lifespan is higher than owning ICE vehicles in Singapore currently. Will the majority of car buyers in Singapore buy EVs just because they are pro-environment or think that EVs are greener? This may not be so, as consumers are very practical and financially savvy.

Even the green-conscious residents in the Nordic countries are also behaving similarly as being cost-conscious. I would like to take Norway as an example. Norway, currently, has the highest rate of EV ownership in the world, with the most number of EV owners in Norway, compared to other countries. Yet, only 26% of the car buyers in Norway buy EVs because they are environmentally conscious. In fact, about 72% of the car buyers confessed that they buy EVs because of financial considerations, according to the survey conducted by the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association.

EV drivers in Norway get to use toll roads for free, enjoy free parking and are exempted from Norway's high purchase taxes. We may not take the same route, but some incentives do help to promote EVs. Currently, the EV buyers in Singapore enjoy some tax rebates and incentives. But is this enough? Would we need to do more, to give this a stronger push? I think we should.

When LTA signals its intention to install EV chargers in all HDB car parks, mass market EV adoption is key to the frequent utilisation of the chargers. To encourage mass market adoption, I also want to suggest that we perhaps give a discount for Category A (Cat A) COE prices for those EV buyers and I suggest that this can be part of the early adopter scheme. Do I only suggest to have 10% discount on Cat A COE? Why only Cat A? Because the Cat A COEs are catered to buyers who are more cost-conscious and it is more likely the Cat A COE cars ply the roads longer than other categories. So, by converting them to EVs, we can have a greater impact in reducing carbon dioxide emission.

But we have got to be careful about this. Instead of creating a separate EV category, as what is suggested by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, because those who are able to pay for the higher value of EVs, we should not subsidise them. And although this eye-catching COE discount early EV adopter scheme can be removed once a critical mass of EVs is on the road or when the prices of EVs have fallen significantly as predicted by industry experts, that would happen in a couple of years’ time.

I would also like to clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – he said the report said that operating a PHC or taxi equivalent, the cost is 82% higher. I really doubt this is so because in my experience of renting out EVs, the cost of owning and operating EVs is cheaper as compared to a hybrid or diesel vehicle because of the high mileage incurred by the PHC or taxi. But the reason why PHC drivers and the taxi drivers are reluctant to switch to an EV is because of the charging facilities right now.

Therefore, I would like to say that the installation of EV charging points in HDB car parks as part of the Government's plan to deploy 60,000 charging points by 2030 will reduce the range anxiety and provide the convenience of charging EVs.

At the same time, it is important to cultivate a good EV charging culture to deter hogging of charging points when an EV is fully charged. But we also do not want to go to the extent where you also charge an idling fee when the EV is fully charged at 4.00 am in the morning. There is a balance of how we want to use the idling charge to encourage good behaviour of charging.

Meanwhile, I understand from some industry players that there are teething issues relating to the installation and use of EV chargers in the HDB car parks which I hope Government agencies can help to resolve.

Firstly, I understand that the first batch of EV charging operators that were awarded to install charging points at HDB car parks faced difficulties coordinating with various agencies, just for clearance to install the chargers. I would like to urge Government agencies, led by MOT and LTA, to help eliminate any possible red tape so that EV chargers can be deployed swiftly in the second tender to install the 12,000 EV chargers. This will lead to a faster transition of ICE vehicles into an EV fleet across our car population.

Secondly, many users of commercial EVs find it difficult to park at HDB car parks, especially at multi-storey car parks, because of the weight of the EVs, which is much higher than ICE vehicles.

Instead, HDB – they replied in The Straits Times Forum page – will assess and grant approval on a case-by-case basis to allow EVs, especially commercial EVs, to park at multi-storey car parks, I hope that LTA and HDB can do a systemic review to facilitate parking of electric commercial vehicles at HDB car parks, which will eventually have EV charging facilities. This will better optimise the use of electric chargers by a range of vehicles and not just private EVs.

Thirdly, we understand that the roll-out of EV chargers at HDB car parks is a gradual process. Currently, only about 200 HDB car parks are installed with EV chargers. Some EV users staying at the precincts beside the existing car parks with EV chargers have to pay parking fees while they charge their EVs overnight. Thus, I hope LTA can work with HDB to consider making an arrangement to allow EV users staying adjacent to the car parks with EV chargers to park for free while charging their EVs. This is a transition period. But it would be good if the agencies can assist until all HDB car parks are installed with EV charges.

Under the new HDB EV charging contracts awarded by LTA, I understand different operators will have different EV charging rates at different HDB car parks due to the different concession fees that they will pay to LTA. I urge LTA to closely monitor the charging fees over time to ensure fairness and affordability.

At the same time, we would like to avoid the situation where, as what the Minister has said, EV users have to pay a higher charging fee should any of the charging operators exit the market.

To install EV chargers, only licensed electric workers or LEWs can do so. As of end June 2022, we know there were 4,000 LEWs in Singapore. However, many of the LEWs are already engaged in other jobs due to the opening up of our economy in tandem with the easing of COVID-19 pandemic restriction measures. Moreover, we also need LEWs to maintain the 60,000 EV chargers in time to come.

Thus, I would like to ask the Minister, as what the Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) has said, whether LTA would work with the industry to generate more trained LEWs to sustain the momentum of installing EV chargers in large numbers. In particular, will MOT and LTA be working with Polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education to train more Singaporeans to be LEWs?

According to a global survey, the number of consumers looking to buy EVs globally has hit 52% and it represents a 22% rise in just two years. At the same time, there are also growing concerns of EVs catching fire.

In the last two years, I also had two fire incidents at HDB flats in my Nanyang constituency that involved battery charging of electric personal mobility devices. There were casualties from these two incidents, including one death, unfortunately. Likewise, the safety of EVs cannot be overlooked.

In China, apparently, there were 680 EV fires in the first quarter of this year alone. That translates to seven EV fires a day. At the same time, there are also reports indicating that EVs are safer than ICE vehicles. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister on key lessons which MOT and LTA have gleaned on the safety of EV and EV charging.

We are in the midst of going through an exciting transformation in the transport sector as part of our quest towards the Singapore Green Plan 2030. The Electric Vehicles Charging Bill has the potential to turbo-charge our transition from the ICE age to the new EV era. But we cannot overlook the transition issues that have been highlighted above and I hope the Minister can address them.

We recognise that the best way to travel around Singapore is by train or by MRT. Please take the train as often as possible. But if you need to drive, consider an EV.

Before I end, I would like to ask Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who was suggesting that after some years, we will not allow the registration of any non-EV vehicles. I would like to ask which year he anticipates that would come. Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.22 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Sir, if I may clarify two points. The first has to do with that report. It has now been raised both by the Member as well as Minister S Iswaran.

The quote was originally by the Grab Group's Vice President for Marketing and Sustainability, Cheryl Goh. She had made this statement in a conference and it was reported not just in my original source but also in The Straits Times. The specific quote is that "the total cost of owning an electric vehicle remains 82% higher than owning an equivalent internal combustion engine." So, that is the first clarification.

The second clarification is that my understanding of the Government's position is that the Green Plan states that they will stop issuing ICE COE permits after 2030. Based on that assumption, my guess is that the complete phase-out of the ICE fleet would occur around 2040, I believe. That is my estimation of the Government's target.

My alternative suggestion would have pushed it back by just two years, but it would actually get a small number, an increasing number of EVs on the road in the interim.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.

2.23 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, one of the first widely produced models of the battery-powered EV, the Nissan Leaf, was launched in 2010. Feted as a breakthrough model, the Leaf was considered one of the most efficient and user-friendly electric cars.

A decade later, Singapore is beginning its journey towards electrification.

In March this year, I spoke briefly on the need for greater electrification of our commercial goods fleet and expansion of charging infrastructure for such a fleet during the Committee of Supply debates. The Minister acknowledged that there are fewer viable cleaner-energy solutions currently available for heavier goods vehicles. I am concerned that such goods vehicles may continue to be a significant contributor to our land transport emissions as a result.

There is an important point to make here. Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce and the accompanying last-mile deliveries have seen a surge in demand. The World Economic Forum estimated that last-mile deliveries saw an increase of 25%, with up to 20% of the growth remaining post-pandemic.

As I alluded to in March, with pre-pandemic growth in last-mile delivery increasing carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, a lack of supporting infrastructure to encourage EV adoption could have deleterious effects on our ability to reduce our emissions and meet our carbon-neutral goals as a country.

We should bear in mind that we have a large number of commercial goods and heavy vehicles locally as well as a large number of goods vehicles which come in from Malaysia on a daily basis.

To that end, while the Ministry has focused on using the "sticks" of the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Schemes (CVES) and the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy light goods vehicles locally, I would reiterate that a lack of widely available charging infrastructure, particularly for the "brown" goods delivery fleets, is a significant roadblock to our green goals.

The Electric Vehicles Charging (EVC) Bill is, certainly, a welcome step in the right direction. With to-be stipulated requirements for charging points in buildings, this ensures that the charging infrastructure is established to match the mandated increase in demand.

As the number of charging points required is correlated with the purpose of the building, I urge the Minister to take a tailored approach to each building. A distribution hub which uses purely EVs may be more likely to require more charging points, compared to a residential block.

I would like to touch on two separate issues with the charging infrastructure – one for residential premises and one for industrial premises.

Mr Speaker, LTA has indicated that 12 charging points will be installed in 2,000 HDB car parks, with a total of 12,000 chargers to be installed by 2025, subject to demand. The longer-term goal was to have 60,000 charging points island-wide by 2030.

As I previously highlighted, an important measure in the deployment of these chargers is the siting and the number of chargers, with a critical mass needed to support charging and minimise queues for charging points.

The EV Charging Bill has taken a step down this path, with a formula-based approach to determining the number of chargers required per building. As of end 2021, we had approximately 3,700 electric vehicles registered on the road, double the previous year's numbers. Moving forward we should expect the numbers to increase exponentially.

I wonder whether the Minister can share more details as to how the Ministry arrived at the formula that is being used to determine the number of chargers which would be optimum for each car park.

Evidently, some calculations have gone into determining that 12,000 chargers might be necessary by 2025. If I assume that an average privately owned EV travels approximately 60 kilometres per hour each day and has a range of approximately 300 kilometres, then the average driver would need to charge his vehicle to full every four days. This could mean that a significant scaling up of charging points would be necessary, given the current trends. Twelve thousand chargers island-wide may not be enough if we are successful in encouraging EV adoption.

Is the Minister able to share with the House how LTA expects to keep up with a possible rising demand? And may I also ask whether LTA is considering building charging points on a larger scale in advance of demand, perhaps even taking on the risk that there might be, in the short term, a little excess and underused capacity?

My concern is that it will be harder to persuade more to convert to electric cars if they see that the charging facilities are insufficient. This is not even considering that the price of many EVs remain relatively expensive.

There is also the possible issue that if more people convert to EVs and the EV car numbers were to go up ahead of the building of sufficient infrastructure, there may be a period of frustration for vehicle owners as they cope with insufficient facilities in their immediate vicinity.

Still on EV charging for residential and public car parks, I have received feedback that there are owners who have parked their EVs at parking lots with EV chargers without actually charging their cars. May I ask whether the Government will take adequate measures to deter such acts at public car parks instead of relying on public feedback through, say, the MSO and, if so, what would they be?

Next, I would like to seek an update from the Minister on the progress of our condominiums, office and commercial buildings and other MCSTs on their adoption of EV chargers in their carparks as their timely participation is also important in our country's EV conversion journey.

I now move on to the topic of commercial and industrial usage of EVs.

Mr Speaker, direct Government support to electrify a delivery fleet and direct Government support to build charging infrastructure in industrial facilities, like distribution hubs, can send a powerful signal that we are serious and committed about leading carbon emission reduction across all segments of our land transport.

I note that we are already on the Combined Charging System (CCS) charging format; several heavy goods vehicle offerings available globally are already built for this charging format. The largest of these vehicles are able to tow up to a Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of 40,000 kilogrammes. This is roughly equivalent to a single 40-foot International Organization for Standardization (ISO) container. While an electric heavy vehicle range might understandably be shorter, say approximately 200-kilometre range on a single charge, Government support would be a powerful incentive to modernise and "green" a domestic transport fleet.

I would like to know how would the Government ensure the timely electrification of all commercial goods and heavy vehicles. As a topic for discussion or consideration, would MOT even consider a more prescriptive approach, say, legislating a requirement for a fleet to be completely electrified by a set date and support fleet owners by dedicating public resources to building large-scale fast-charging points at central areas, such as the port and strategically-placed distribution hubs?

Similar to the point made for charging infrastructure for private vehicles, Government funding for charging infrastructure will give industry stakeholders the assurance that the large-scale investment will not bankrupt their company or have too large an impact on their bottom line.

Mr Speaker, in March this year, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu highlighted how our investments in science and technology continued to unlock possibilities in Singapore's development. Specifically, she mentioned how R&D for NEWater and desalination increased Singapore's profile as a leading global HydroHub.

I hope that our Government has also been actively looking for similar R&D opportunities in areas relating to EVs and EV charging (EVC) technology, including charging facility, charging infrastructure or even battery technology. This may help to not only enhance the development and use of better technology in our own electrification efforts locally, but it will also help Singapore in our journey towards a low emission future. It may lead to new technologies which could be exported, giving a boost to the Singapore economy and creating new areas of growth in our manufacturing industry.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the shift towards higher adoption of EVs and a low emission economy is in motion and I look forward to the further ramping up of all efforts to full electrification. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

2.33 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I rise in support of the Bill. I have some questions for the Minister. I would like to know how the Ministry would introduce or facilitate more competition among suppliers and operators of chargers in all areas, including multi-storey car parks in HDB estates. As this is a very new sector still developing and evolving, the number of operators is limited, especially for a small market like ours. My concern is how to ensure that users and consumers can benefit from competitive pricing and, of course, affordability.

My next question, following up on my first point, is how would the Ministry ensure a level playing field for all vendors to compete effectively, for the good of EV owners and drivers? I think it is important that we have a range of vendors. Over time, the smaller suppliers may get muscled out of the market, leaving drivers with fewer choices, at which point, they would be at the mercy of the remaining operators. I hope that the Ministry would implement measures to foster a healthy suppliers' market.

Another point of concern is how do we regulate platform providers to ensure that all imported portable chargers are compliant with the regulations? Would the Minister share how enforcement will be carried out? While we have the legislation, how do we enforce effectively while it is still at this early stage to address fire safety concerns?

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.

2.35 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Singapore's EV adoption is well-paced, with electric car registrations in 2022 exceeding 10% of all car registrations. Compared to 2021, this has almost tripled. In fact, this adoption rate has reached a new high of nearly 20% in the past couple of months. This trend has, most certainly, boded well for our national EV objectives. Users are more confident in purchasing an EV, due to availability of EV models, charging infrastructure, competitive costs and access to associated amenities. I want to congratulate and thank MOT for the work well done thus far in our EV transition.

The continued deployment of EV infrastructure over the next 10 years is critical in maintaining our pace. By 2030, there will be over 60,000 EV charging points, of which 40,000 will be located in public car parks, whilst 20,000 will be in private premises. This project is a significant nationwide deployment. As such, it is timely for MOT to introduce the Electric Vehicle Charging Bill to ensure reliable EV charging services and infrastructure.

Globally, nearly 25% of EV fires occur while charging. As such, it is vital that we can minimise the deployment of unregulated or ill-maintained chargers. I agree that LTA should have the power to regulate the supply, modification, advertisement, installation, certification, registration, use and maintenance of EV chargers. Like elevators in our buildings, EV chargers should meet high standards, with timely maintenance to ensure safe operations.

Given the nascent EV charging technology, I would like to ask the Minister how MOT will establish and review the certification and testing standards. How will these new standards affect current owners of EV chargers? What is the impact assessment? In the future, when these standards evolve, how will it affect EV chargers that were already implemented?

To ensure a robust EV charging industry, operators will play a significant role in ensuring that EV charging experience is safe and reliable. As the capital expenditure (capex) investment for an EV charger is substantial, licensing and establishing commercial guidelines are essential to ensure commercial viability, price stability and user reliability.

I would like to ask the Minister if there will be a cap on the number of licences issued and if there will be a minimum baseline load before a licence is required. Also, how long will the licence be valid? Finally, will the licence be in sync with the commercial lifespan of the chargers?

The network and accessibility of the chargers are essential. As a significant proportion of the chargers will be located on private premises, how will the usage of these chargers be regulated? Will there be a distinction between EV chargers solely for private and public use? Can private owners provide charging services on an ad hoc basis? Another example is: if the chargers are located within a private estate or home, can the public pay for and use the charging infrastructure when visiting these private properties? How will this affect chargers on Government premises and Government-linked premises, such as JTC managed properties? Will these EV chargers be reserved only for staff in the building? If there is restricted use clause, will a vehicle that requires emergency charging be able to use these facilities?

The transition phase for any implementation will be dynamic. There will be disruption and I am encouraged that MOT and LTA have mentioned that they will work closely with the industry to facilitate the transition. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

2.40 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I firmly believe that the Electric Vehicle Charging Bill will be pivotal in laying the foundation for Singapore's national agenda towards sustainable development. The Bill is set up to make EVs charging safe, reliable and accessible, in hopes of realising the rapid proliferation of EVs and a cleaner, more sustainable Singapore.

The dynamics of car ownership in Singapore, however, are varied and, indeed, ever-changing. We have people who drive every day, people who drive only during the weekends, people who drive to bring their family around, people who drive because of work and people who drive because driving is their work. And, indeed, I would argue that these varying dynamics need to be taken into consideration, as we single-mindedly eye the prize of a clean sustainable Singapore with the proliferation of EVs.

While the total number of new car registrations dipped in the first half of the year, the number of cars registered for private hire was steadily on the rise. This means that an increasing proportion of cars on the road today are cars that are part of our public transport network, such as our registered for-private-hire vehicles and our over 14,000-strong taxi fleet.

What this means for the EV ecosystem in Singapore is that it is just as imperative to drive the uptake of EVs among private hire and taxi drivers as it is for other vehicles in order for the Bill to realise its long-term goals. I understand that full taxi and private hire EVs on the road are now less than 5% of Singapore's fleet size and we do have some miles to go before we sleep in this critical pivot. We do have some good tailwinds, however, on the matter though, and, through conversations with our leaders and members at the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, I can feel a good buzzing energy about the move towards EV. However, there are some concerns on the ground.

For those among us who drive cars, we are familiar with the anxieties associated with a near-empty tank and an unknown distance to the next petrol station. While our seasoned taxi and private hire drivers are familiar with the rhythms of their workhorses and are able to "agar-agar" their refuelling schedules, they seek assurances that anxieties around an empty tank, or battery for that matter, can be dispelled. The ubiquity of charging stations is not enough; their prominence, locatability and predictability of availability are of utmost importance. Simply put, taxi and private hire drivers must be able to easily find and get to charging stations and not be caught by their unavailability, for instance, by a long queue of drivers waiting for the charging point to be freed up, even if the driver had come up with the best of journey planning.

Mr Speaker, these concerns are compounded by two other factors: one, the sheer distance that taxi and private hire drivers travel in a day; and two, the concentration of jobs along major travel nodes. On distance, given that some taxi and private hire drivers easily travel over 300 kilometres a day – multiple times the distance travelled by the average driver – charging becomes a much more pressing need for our point-to-point (P2P) drivers. Indeed, our drivers may even be charging multiple times a day, throughout the day, especially if the vehicle is fully utilised round the clock, shared by the main hirer and his relief drivers.

On concentration, taxi and private hire jobs during peak hours are, predictably, focused on a few major travelling nodes in Singapore. This means that charging station availability is challenged, hindering the usage and experience of an EV from being a truly seamless one. The call, therefore, to ensure the prominence, locatability and the predictability of availability of charging stations is a crucial one, and the placement and rollout of charging points must be one that takes into account the travel patterns of Singaporeans.

Further, it is critical that, as a country, we start off on the right note on setting the norms of the sharing culture of charging points. Until the day when charging points are truly ubiquitous, it would be a situation where there are more EVs needing to be charged than charging points available and there will, certainly, be a transitional period needed while the dust settles on sharing norms.

Should the norm be one where it is first-come-first-served? Or should there be weighted preferential arrangement for vehicles that are used for livelihoods or saving lives?

What would this new norm look like? Perhaps, there could be special decals for certain vehicles. Perhaps, it is setting aside charging points to be used only by certain vehicles within key timeframes. Perhaps, it is allowing corporations the liberty of putting in their own charging points for their employees, partners and members. What is clear though is that there needs to be awareness, education and even public campaigns on the considerations of various driver communities and our suggested sharing norms.

Mr Speaker, in any major technological shift, it is inevitable that early adopters do not enjoy the economies of scale that later adopters enjoy and, therefore, bear heavier fixed costs, as well as running higher costs as a result of a nascent ecosystem. This is the same in the EV ecosystem. EVs are still more expensive to procure than ICE vehicles, and though they promise lower running costs, the nascency of the EV ecosystem still incurs drivers some costs.

For example, a concern for private hire and taxi drivers is the cost surrounding the prolonged usage of car parks while charging their vehicles in these car parks mandated to provide EV charging. Should a private hire or taxi driver need to charge their vehicle, say, after a job in the CBD, a stopover at a charging station in the CBD could set them back at least $2 to $3 an hour. As we figure out how to incentivise early adopters to make the transition to EVs, the last thing we want to do is to disincentivise them. Therefore, I call on the Government to ease the transition of private hire and taxi drivers to EVs by perhaps waiving the costs of parking in such car parks for them as they are charging their vehicles.

The concerns I have outlined here, notwithstanding, I would like to share with the House that there are, indeed, good tailwinds for the adoption of EV amongst our P2P community.

I recall that some time last year, I was a happy witness to Mr Ah Ban, one of our taxi leaders picking up his new EV car. We marvelled about the quietness of the electric car and the technology behind it. We appreciated happily the savings made from moving from petrol to electricity, and we were positive about the changes EVs would make to our lives. And, indeed, Mr Ah Ban, adapted very quickly to the changes he needed to make as an EV driver. Instead of driving for hours on end, running a full tank of petrol to zero, he now drives for four to five hours at a time, stopping to charge his vehicle, and taking a well-needed 45-minute break each time. I was very glad to hear that during those times, besides taking a meal or a drink to replenish himself, he also uses this time to go to the gym for a quick run, as the charging point he frequents has a nearby gym with shower facilities. The move to EV for Mr Ah Ban was an awesome move, not just only for sustainability or his driving trade, but also for his mental and physical well-being.

The Bill paints a vision of a future where the usage of EVs is seamless and ubiquitous – a smarter, more sustainable future. Our P2P driving community and I stand behind this move. However, as a society in transition, we highlight the importance of an inclusive and considered rollout and implementation that take into account a diversity of needs because of the varying types of drivers out there.

While the dust settles on the plan, the unions and our associations will continue to work the ground and engage with our major stakeholders to give our inputs to the implementation plan. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

2.49 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me be a part of this debate.

Minister Iswaran stated in a June 2022 The Straits Times article that electric cars accounted for 8.4% of all new car registrations in the first five months of this year, more than twice the rate in all of 2021. Compared to the whole of 2020, just two years ago, the 8.4% represents a 20-fold jump. To support this growth, the Government has already set to boost Singapore's charging network – 2,000 public housing car parks equipped with EV chargers by 2025 and a network of 60,000 chargers by 2030.

Just last week, on 18 November, Singapore had accepted the United States' invitation to join the Collective 2030 Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Deployment Goal (Goal) which represents a shared aspiration among like-minded countries in transiting to a greener land transport sector, at the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27). To support our ambition of being environmentally responsible in lowering emissions from our land transport, we must create an efficient, economical and effective EV charging ecosystem. Hence, I have a few clarifications to make for the Minister.

Firstly, in regulating the safe charging of EVs, to minimise the proliferation of unregulated or ill-maintained chargers which can pose safety hazards, the Bill will provide LTA with powers to regulate the supply, modification, advertisement, installation, certification, registration, use and maintenance of EV chargers. The Bill will require all chargers in Singapore to be installed, certified and used in accordance with prescribed standards, such as registering before they can be used. Registered chargers will need to be inspected regularly in accordance with the relevant standards.

Hence, I would like to make a few clarifications.

Does this apply to chargers already installed? What are the frequency and cost of this routine inspection? Understandably, LTA is responsible for EV chargers in public spaces. But is LTA also responsible for overseeing the upkeep of EV chargers in condominiums, residences and private offices? Will LTA be adequately resourced in terms of both personnel and capability to carry out such an activity? This involves having personnel with the necessary technical expertise to monitor and manage the supply and modification of EV chargers. With 60,000 public chargers across the country, not including chargers in office buildings, condominiums, landed homes, what is the expected manpower requirement and how do we ensure LTA is sufficiently resourced to carry out this enforcement? Is the Ministry concerned that the Electric Vehicle Charging Operators (EVCOs) may detrimentally affect the grid and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent that from happening? Is LTA best equipped to comprehend and monitor its effects, or should EMA also be involved, too?

Secondly, in order to provide a satisfactory user experience, the public charging network must be reliable. The Bill requires EV charging operators to obtain a licence in order to provide the service. Licensees will be required to meet conditions, such as data exchange, the purchase of public liability insurance and the uptime of their chargers in their network. Licences will be valid for a fixed period and must be renewed.

Hence, I would like to raise a few clarifications.

What kind of information must the EVCOs share? How can we ensure the user's privacy is protected? How is the service uptime determined and what is the expected penalty for not meeting service uptime? With multiple charging firms now offering varied pricing models, how do we ensure that the price structure is fair for customers, particularly penalty charges for leaving a fully-charged EV in an EV lot?

Thirdly, the Bill will mandate developers of specified building works to provide EV charging at their developments. How do we maximise the efficiency of the charging infrastructure network? At present, we have SP Group, Shell Recharge, BlueCharge, Charge+, CDG Engie, Plugshare, all with their own standards, apps, locations and charging speeds. In the long term, as more EVs become available, demand for ICE vehicles will also fall, as will demand for pumps at gas stations. What is the strategy for gradually repurposing land for petrol stations and the labour that backs it up? How do we ensure that the transition from ICE to EVs is done in a manageable way, for both labour and land?

One other topic that I would like to touch on is the recycling of batteries. Though this Bill does not talk about recycling of car batteries, we will start to see many of our hybrid vehicles like the Honda Vezel, Toyota Vios reaching their 10th year and will be deregistered and sent for scrap soon. How are we prepared for scrapping, particularly the recycling of lithium-ion batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles? In Singapore, what percentage of scrapped electric or hybrid vehicles had their batteries removed and recycled? Is the Government working on regulations to ensure that hybrid and electric vehicles are recycled efficiently? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: To support the growth of electric vehicles or EVs in the coming years, the Government has committed to develop a charging network in Singapore, with around 2,000 parking spaces in housing estates to be equipped with EV chargers by 2025, and around 60,000 chargers by 2030.

We aspire to save the environment and reduce carbon emissions from our vehicles. Singapore must develop a resilient and effective EV charging ecosystem. Therefore, I have a few questions.

First, will LTA be responsible for chargers in private locations, such as condominiums and office buildings? What is the possibility of EVCOs affecting the electric grid and how can we prevent that from happening?

Second, to ensure satisfactory service, what penalties will be imposed on users who park their cars in the charging lot for too long? How can we ensure that the charging pricing structure is fair and affordable for consumers?

Considering that the demand for petrol station pumps will decline as Singapore switches to electric vehicles, what are the plans to help petrol station workers transition to other sectors?

Finally, although this Bill does not address the recycling of car batteries, many of our hybrid vehicles will reach their 10th year and will be sent for disposal. How can we recycle lithium-ion batteries in hybrid/electric cars? Is the Government reviewing legislation to ensure that hybrid and electric vehicles can be recycled efficiently and sustainably?

(In English): Notwithstanding the points of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

2.57 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight the impact on three stakeholders: vehicle repair and maintenance companies, EV charging operators (EVCOs) and residents.

First, I would like to speak about this Bill's impact on employees in vehicle repair and maintenance companies. With the expansion of the EV charging network, consumers may now be more inclined to purchase an EV as it poses greater convenience to them and contributes better to Singapore's Green Plan 2030. What would then be the indirect impact on employees in vehicle maintenance and repair companies and how will the Government ensure that the employees do not lose their job because their skills are now deemed less relevant and if the workforce does not have the skills required as the auto industry shifts to electric vehicles and digital services?

In the USA, for instance, earlier this year in August, Ford terminated 3,000 staff, both permanent and contract, in mostly North America and India. This was part of their restructuring efforts to better compete in the race to develop EVs. Reason for termination was due to employees' lack of skills to shift to EVs and digital services in car manufacturing.

According to CNN in 2019, building an electric car requires about 30% less labour than a traditional ICE vehicle. In general, EVs have lesser parts than an ICE vehicle. While Singapore does not manufacture ICE vehicles, we do have a considerable number of ICE vehicle repair and maintenance workshops. The amount of repair and maintenance works is directly proportional to the amount of manufactured parts in a vehicle.

Second, the impact on EVCOs. By 2025, every multi-storey car park will have at least three EV charging points. The proposed licensing regime raises three challenges: first, higher compliance costs; second, the tedious entry into market may prevent smaller businesses from attempting this shift and, hence, limiting market competition; and third, the licensing and certification costs may, subsequently, be passed on to consumers.

While MOT and LTA propose keeping compliance costs reasonable, has there been an estimated range for this? What would the payment structure be like? Would it be a one-time payment, for instance, a monthly instalment, or are there any renewable fees?

Under the licensing requirements, EVCOs are subjected to the following set of requirements, such as data sharing, third party liability insurance, payment methods, cybersecurity protections and service downtime recovery. In this situation, what if EVCOs are unable to afford to ensure the relevant cybersecurity protection and liability insurance? In the future, when there are newer types of technology in EV chargers, would EVCOs need to go through the entire licensing process again and what if the costs associated with that are prohibitive?

Lastly, this Bill states the need for two competent persons to certify a charger unit for both deployment and regular checks. Will the Ministry provide guidance on the endorsement cost which competent persons should charge, or will the Ministry leave this to market pricing?

Moving on to the second part of my speech, where I seek to clarify a few technical points in the Bill.

Clause 25 imposes an obligation on the registered responsible person for an EV charger to cause EV chargers to be inspected by a prescribed competent person in accordance with the prescribed frequency and standards. Within domestic premises, such as landed property, with fixed charging stations, the registered responsible persons are subjected to these periodic inspections. How then will LTA ensure that the competent persons have the authority to enter the private premises? For example, SP officers have previously faced challenges in conducting checks of these private estates' power meters when these were installed inside the home.

Clause 24 deals with unlawful installation of fixed EV chargers. The proposed framework would require in future two competent persons, an LEW and a charger equipment specialist, with different expertise, to inspect the safety of the charger.

First, as the Bill is vague on how the Ministry would determine if one is a charger equipment specialist, it will be useful if there is a framework in identifying this competent person. The eligibility criteria can take reference from the LEW skills structure to be considered as an industry specialist/competent person.

Second, will LTA look into having a skills transformation roadmap to allow for upskilling of workers to be a charger equipment specialist? Also, is LTA working with CET institutions to create curriculums to ensure that sufficient training capacity dovetails with the demand for training of charger equipment specialists?

How many competent persons can LTA produce in the following five years and beyond? Do we anticipate enough talent in Singapore to increase the volume of competent persons required by the market? Training centres may not be able to cope with the sudden influx of demand for training. Regulators will need to take into account the lead time required as we do not want a situation where providers are not able to enter the market because they were not able to complete the relevant training by the deadline.

These are similar points made the hon Members, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Ang Wei Neng, earlier.

The availability of sufficient charger equipment specialists is essential for the timely deployment of EV chargers and ensure market price for endorsements remains competitive. This can also address potential job losses in the ICE vehicle repair and maintenance industry.

Third, as it is common for hardware manufacturers to enforce the need to engage their staff or approved maintenance contractors for repairs and servicing, does LTA anticipate such market practices imposed by EV charger manufacturers? If so, would independent charger equipment specialists be able to certify a charger is fit for use? This would have implications for the cost levied on EVCOs and end users.

Lastly, can the same competent person perform the role of LEW and charger equipment specialist?

Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA, Part 2, clause 5, there is a provision for registering a controlled goods supplier. In clause 6, there is also a provision to add items into the controlled goods list. Hence, would there be any reconciliation between the EV Charging Bill and CPFTA? Would EV chargers be added to this list, be parked under the CPFTA's safety mark? Since there is already an existing safety regulation under controlled goods, parking EV chargers under the same regulation would prevent double certification and duplication of man-hour efforts by regulators.

I wish to also highlight the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST)-related Act amendments and the questions and concerns raised by these stakeholders when I interacted with them.

First, there are some challenges that can result in social issues, the first of which is the issue of idling. Residents may become unhappy with MCSTs and Town Councils and neighbourly disputes may occur. How can we prevent idling? Market-based solutions, such as imposing an idling charge, may not solve the issue as EVCOs, technically, achieve better unit economies for imposing idling charges. I seek the Ministry to study this potential issue and update the by laws that provide Town Councils and MCSTs greater authority to enforce penalties on idling.

Second, MCSTs have shared that, despite the amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act where the threshold for MCSTs will be a simple majority of votes, there are still challenges. When the demand for EVs goes up, who will bear the expansion and upgrading cost of substations for higher power provisions? As condominiums are considered private housing, there are no Government grants to co-fund power upgrades for chargers. Some condominiums do not have sufficient power supply to allocate for EV chargers.

LTA provides the EV common charger grant to support condominiums in installing EV chargers. I would like to ask about the application and disbursement rate for this LTA grant. As there are now market-based solutions where EVCOs lease lots from MCSTs to install chargers and recover investments from the revenue of usage, is this grant still relevant? Would providing grants for MCSTs to co-fund power upgrades be considered instead?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised three broad areas in my speech. First, the impact on relevant stakeholders, such as vehicle repair and maintenance companies, EVCOs and residents; second, the relevant concerns in specific clauses of the Bill; and lastly, questions raised by MCSTs. Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.06 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, regular access to reliable and secure EV charging points is a concern for many EV drivers. Introducing and expanding a new infrastructure is always a significant undertaking. But laying a strong foundation early promotes certainty and stability among stakeholders and users. It will help our drivers to use cleaner energy and meet Singapore's sustainability targets in the long run. I have suggestions and clarifications in four areas.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the proposed minimum number of charging points adequate? Singapore plans to phase out petrol vehicles and only allow registration of EVs from 2030 onwards. As such, we need to beef up the number of charging points across the island. However, the Bill proposes a relatively small number of all parking spaces in the development to have charging points. Would this conservative number of mandated available charging points move the needle? Would this encourage higher EV adoption in the near future? Can we not afford to have more ambitious targets?

I understand that there is an ongoing study to determine what will encourage Singaporeans to adopt EVs. The results are slated to be released in the second quarter of 2023. I look forward to reading it. In the meantime, many of my residents are already concerned about the adequacy of charging points.

I note that we have a target of 60,000 EV charging points by 2030. How does this translate to the ratio of charging spaces to the number of EVs? We should establish a national EV adoption or conversion rate target. This would better guide us to determine the adequacy of charging points.

Furthermore, while the spotlight has been on personal cars, electric forms of commercial vehicles are also becoming popular, like lorries and buses. An example is a new ride-sharing service next year that allows SMEs to rent electric vans at 20 locations across Singapore. All this is good news for our sustainability targets and should be encouraged. Are these new developments and increased demands for EV charging factored into our targets?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, human behavioural issues could undermine the actual availability of charging points. I am aware of complaints about EVs hogging charging points when they are fully charged or not charging. Likewise, there are non-EVs that misuse the parking lots designated for EVs.

LTA explained that EVs, generally, only have to be charged once every five to seven days. This was one of the factors taken into account for setting the target quota. Even so, it would be idealistic to assume that users would, by default, seek out consensus or compromise on a schedule to use the charging points on different days. Moreover, does the target number of charging points take into consideration the prevalence of private hire vehicles and the high mileage that would be clocked by private hire vehicles?

As we work on expanding the infrastructure, can we look into enforcing appropriate parking? Are there deterrent measures or penalties for drivers who park erroneously in lots reserved for EVs? This brings to mind the fines imposed on those who park at designated disabled parking lots. Can we do more to formalise codes of conduct to encourage considerate behaviour for EV charging? Legislation will also not be enough in this case. Active ground enforcement would be correspondingly needed.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, what are the plans to mandate EV charging at existing developments with no upgrading plans? To promote nation-wide adoption, our EV infrastructure must be comprehensive. Can the Ministry clarify what is the projected percentage of buildings in Singapore that would have to comply with mandated provision of EV chargers?

With the ongoing high interest rate environment, there is the likelihood that many developments have suspended plans for upgrading works. As such, how effective will the requirements to increase EV charging facilities be during this period, where plans to upgrade are likely to be suspended?

Additionally, many people go to work in such buildings. Instead of charging their vehicles at work, they would have to compete with their neighbours back home for the limited charging lots. Worse still, they may leave their cars to charge in the residential car park and hog the lot while at work. This may present a missed opportunity towards the adoption of EV vehicles due to the reluctance of building owners to create more charging infrastructure due to current prohibitive costs.

I am glad LTA has reduced the percentage of votes required at a general meeting for MCSTs of strata-titled developments to pass EV-related resolutions. Will the Government monitor the installation rate of EV charging points in strata-titled developments? For developments that consistently refuse to install EV charging points, will efforts be made to engage them and address their concerns? We are looking at the potential exclusion of a significant number of drivers if strata-titled residential buildings deny their residents of EV charging lots.

Concomitantly, I would like to ask the Government to consider providing additional support or subsidies for brownfield sites. Building a new EV charging station on brownfield sites presents many challenges and these are additional requirements imposed on them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my last clarification is on ensuring fair competition and sustainability of EV charging providers. There are about 22 EV charging operators as of July 2022. Out of this list, slightly fewer than 10 are major players. The rest are smaller providers, with some providing EV charging as a side business. How do we ensure that among providers, there is healthy competition?

On the other hand, how do we avoid the problem of having too many small players and the risk of a fragmented market? From the point of view of EV consumers, there is the concern that a small-scale provider secures the right to provide charging points at their residence, then exits the market prematurely when the business becomes unsustainable. The users would then face supply disruption. We have already seen a similar scenario in our energy market. Will it be like our energy market, where SP steps in to replace a provider that has exited the market?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, COP27 has just recently concluded in Egypt. We are at a crossroads today. We are just coming out of a pandemic. With the Ukrainian war and geopolitical uncertainties causing inflationary pressures as well as disruptions in energy supplies, there is a risk that nations focus on the pressing issues of the day but lose sight of the climate and energy crisis facing the planet.

As such, Singapore must play our part. We must take the long-term view, focus on the clean energy transition and give due attention to the existential crisis of our generation. We must act in time.

The adoption of EVs is important for us to meet our sustainability commitments. For EVs to be successful, the infrastructure must be laid out right. We must be bold and ambitious with our targets to evoke significant changes in attitudes towards transportation. Singapore must always be one-step ahead with our planning to meet future needs and demands in the EV landscape. As part of the Steward Pillar in our Forward Singapore conversations, we must also continue to engage our residents on how Singapore can do better in environmental sustainability, as well as grow our partnerships for a green, liveable and climate-resilient Singapore. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.15 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Electric Vehicles Charging Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

3.35 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am working at a Singapore bank and I do not manage any revenue performance target.

With the increasing number of EVs on our roads, it is necessary for us to legislate the charging of EVs to ensure safety and accessibility of reliable chargers all over our island.

As part of the transitional arrangements, the Government is allowing existing suppliers to continue to supply non-approved EV chargers for six months from the commencement of the Bill. I have a clarification for MOT – will these chargers be allowed to continue usage beyond these six months? Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My next question is regarding power capacity. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that public carparks, industrial parks, public and private buildings, bus terminals, hospitals, amongst others, will have enough and the required electric power capacities? In addition, what safety preparations and back-up measures do we have in the event of flooding of areas with these chargers?

(In English): I would like to urge for incentives for private apartments and condominiums to install chargers so that potential owners will have less range anxiety and switch to EVs with confidence.

In line with the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to promote EV adoption, Singaporeans can tap on many business and job opportunities. I urge LTA to collaborate with the private sector players like the banks. For example, UOB has put in place financing to promote the development of the EV sector and the transition to green vehicles.

MOT had also launched an EV Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI) which runs from January 2021 to December 2023. Under this scheme, owners who register fully electric cars receive a rebate of 45% off the Additional Registration Fees (ARF), capped at $20,000.

I would like to ask what is the outlook for EEAI that will be expiring end of next year? Will the Government consider extending the scheme to encourage more owners to switch to EVs?

As 2022 to mid-2025 is the period with the lowest COE quotas in a 10-year cycle, not many owners will be keen to switch to EVs earlier as their COEs are due later, after 2025. Alternatively, would MOT consider a separate COE category for EVs, considering the past few years’ take-up rate for EVs to determine the EV COE quota size?

On the COEs for EVs, can LTA consider extending the COE life from the current 10 years to a longer period, say 12 years, at the same quota premium? This will be another incentive to encourage owners to switch to EVs. The PARF rebate, if any, which is at 50% of ARF at the end of 10 years, should be reduced, in tandem, to 45% and 40% at end of the 11th and 12th year respectively.

Would the Government consider allowing some rebates or incentives at point of purchase and/or for the usage of EVs manufactured in Singapore? For example, waivers of ERP and road tax and free parking at public car parks for a period of time may be attractive to potential EV buyers.

I also urge MOT to consider more incentives for private apartments and condominiums to install chargers so that potential owners will have less range anxiety and switch to EVs with confidence.

We also need a clear framework to minimise inappropriate use and hogging of charging lots and ensure that EVs can have access to chargers easily.

There are more companies awarded tenders to install public chargers these days. Each service provider decides on its chargers and uses its own app to facilitate payment and the chargers’ locations. Will the Government consider developing a single app to integrate all service providers and set a common charging rate across all?

Lastly, I am concerned about the issues of batteries, as in the utilisation of batteries, swapping services and recycling.

I understand that batteries are resource-intensive, requiring up to two batteries for a vehicle on the road. What is the Ministry’s view on this and should we be more mindful about not encouraging battery-swapping schemes?

How would we deal with battery disposals? Old batteries may generate a lot of toxic chemicals and potentially cause explosions. The recycling and disposal of such batteries is still an industry in its nascent stage. What are MOT’s plans for this sector?

As EVs are adopted by the rest of South-east Asia, Singapore can, potentially, become a regional centre for battery recycling and disposal. If we can close the loop by taking care of EVs from purchasing to charging and maintenance and, finally, to disposal, we will be able to transit smoothly into the adoption and development of this sector. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.41 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill sets standards, mandates licences and amends processes related to EV charging. It enables Singapore to scale up the provision of EV charging in a reliable, accelerated way. I wholeheartedly endorse this.

I thank the Ministry for holding a public consultation as well and engaging affected industries in preparation for this Bill. I have three points of clarification.

My first clarification is on clause 97, which amends the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. The amendment allows MCSTs to install and regulate EV charging by passing a motion with more than 50% of the votes. This would be a sharp drop from the current threshold of 90%.

It is welcome news for many condominium owners, whose management has been unable to install charging points because a small minority of the residents object. It is also welcome news for Singapore’s Green Plan. More charging points at home mean more drivers making the leap from gas cars to electric cars. It will help us reach our net-zero emissions target.

But I am concerned that the lowered voting threshold is limited. It applies only when the motion does not propose spending from the MCST’s management or sinking fund. Can the Minister explain the intent for this carve-out?

The management and sinking funds of MCSTs are meant precisely for the installation and maintenance of common property, such as charging points. How else should MCSTs fund charging points? Is the idea for operators of charging points to bear all costs and for residents to pay the operator out of pocket? This is not how charging points are funded at most condos around the world, so, any clarification on intent and implementation will be helpful.

My second clarification is on Part 8, which mandates the installation of charging points during major construction works. Let me first applaud the Ministry for increasing its requirements in response to energetic feedback from the public consultation.

The standard for approved electrical load increased from 15% of parking lots to 20%. The standard for the number of charging points increased from 1% of parking lots to 4%. So, my concern is not about standards. Instead, it is about coverage.

The amendment fails to cover redevelopments where the gross floor area, or GFA, increases by less than 50%. Can the Minister share how many building projects from 2018 to 2020 increased the GFA by between 25% and 50%, and how many increased the GFA by between 10% and 25%?

The amendment also fails to cover redevelopments where the new approved electrical-load capacity is less than 280 kilovolt-ampere. Can the Minister share how many building projects from 2018 to 2020 led to a new approved electrical load of between 150 and 280 kilovolt-ampere?

I worry that we have set reasonable standards but applied them to too few building projects. Indeed, it would be unsurprising if redevelopments in the coming years are designed to dodge our threshold for the charging point standards. I hope not.

My suggestion is that we should impose standards even on smaller-scale redevelopments. These standards may be lower, but they must exist. That will ensure a more steady growth in our charging-point provisions. Will the Ministry consider this suggestion?

My third and final clarification is not about what is in the Bill but what is missing from it. Several key ingredients for increasing the provision of charging points are not in the Bill today.

First, let us talk about subsidies. Can the Government share how many charging points have been supported by the co-funding from the EV Common Charger Grant? Are we on track to co-fund the grant maximum of 2,000 charging points by end-2023?

Installing charging points is expensive. If the grant remains underutilised, then there might be scope to increase the quantum of the grant or to expand the number of co-funded charging points per residence.

Second, let us talk about kerbside charging. Does the Ministry plan to install charging points on the kerbs of residential streets and public roads? Street parking is the norm for many Singaporeans in both residential and commercial areas. For some, it is the only place they can park. We should ensure there are options for kerbside charging as well.

In the US city of Seattle, the city government is installing kerbside charging points free of charge if the applicant's home does not have its own parking facilities. We should have our own programme, based on a framework that balances costs, accessibility and any other considerations. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister S Iswaran.

3.45 pm

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members for their active interest in this Bill and also for their support. They have raised a series of questions and suggestions on a range of issues pertaining to the Bill and I will endeavour to address them. In particular, my responses will focus on the broad policy points pertaining to safety, reliability and accessibility, which are the key thrusts of this legislation.

First, on the issue of safety-related regulations, which will apply to all chargers, including those which are already installed.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether it is excessive to have three separate regimes for approval, registration and licensing. Sir, all three aspects are necessary because they fulfil distinct purposes. The approval regime ensures that only safe EV chargers are sold. The registration regime holds each charger owner accountable for the safe use and maintenance of their chargers. The licensing regime ensures the reliability of EV charging services.

So, there are distinct objectives served by these various components. Together, these regimes minimise the harm from unsafe charging, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has highlighted. I would like to assure the House that we will endeavour to keep the compliance cost reasonable.

That includes the examples that Mr Saktiandi raised, where even if there may be instances where two separate approvals are required, where they coincide with the applicant because it is one and the same, we will endeavour to streamline those processes to minimise friction.

Mr Edward Chia asked if the proposed regulatory regime should be reconciled with or parked under the regulatory regime for Controlled Goods in the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations.

Mr Speaker, my Ministry did consider this. However, those regulations are targeted at the description and advertisement of goods. As I have explained earlier, the scope of this Bill goes further and a dedicated regulatory regime under LTA is what we have assessed to be the preferred and more appropriate option.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Shawn Huang have also asked for more details of the homologation, certification and inspection regimes. The regimes will be underpinned by Technical Reference 25 (TR25). These technical standards were just revised earlier this year, in consultation with industry experts and academics. So, Members can be assured that the EV charging industry is familiar with the standards as the industry has played an active role in its review. LTA will continue to work closely with the industry on regular future reviews as well. LTA is also working with industry players to support local R&D on promising EV charging technologies while ensuring safety, such as through regulatory sandboxes.

Mr Saktiandi asked if we have any insights into the charging solutions for motorcycles. The sandboxes for motorcycle charging are in the very early stages. It would be premature for us to infer at this stage. But we do expect to learn quite a bit from these and other sandboxes so that we can, eventually, generalise the application through appropriate regulation.

On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, we take fire safety very seriously. It is a paramount consideration. LTA worked with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to update the Fire Code last year to enhance the fire safety requirements for buildings that install EV chargers.

Under the revised Fire Code, EV chargers must have an isolation switch to cut off the electricity supply to the EV charger to facilitate emergency response. This is in addition to other charger design requirements in the TR25, such as electrical circuit breakers that minimise the risk of electrocution and electrical fires, including in the event of flooding mentioned by Mr Don Wee. But, in general, many Members have highlighted this concern about fires. And this is one of the reasons why we have paid specific attention to this and worked closely with SCDF.

Secondly, several Members have asked how we will ensure adequate charging provision in Singapore.

On Mr Dennis Tan's query, we are planning for the charging demand of a largely electric light vehicle population, taking into account the average mileage of car drivers in Singapore and the effective range of a typical EV. There are different parameters and these are factored into the computation.

But having said that, I want to emphasise that we are dealing with an evolving space. The technology is evolving, the adoption rates and, therefore, the consequential demand are also changing. Usage patterns, both in terms of driving and charging habits, have yet to normalise.

So, we need time to monitor and assess this pattern. But we cannot wait for everything to stabilise before taking action because it is a dynamic situation, it is a situation that calls for a response.

That is why we have focused on this 12,000 charging-point deployment. It allows us to deploy quickly but without incurring some of the heavier capital expenditures (capex) – the capex that is associated with, for example, the upgrading of substations. Instead, we are able to roll out the charging infrastructure in this first phase quickly because it focuses on the more approximate or last-mile type of infrastructure, such as the distribution boxes and so on, and then, of course, the actual charging points themselves.

We want to deploy charging infrastructure quickly to support EV adoption. The data we gather from this adoption will inform how we want to go further. We may not need to wait until 2025 because, if the data comes in earlier and the patterns become more discernible, then we will have to adjust accordingly.

As Mr Ang Wei Neng said, we also need to avoid overprovisioning, especially as the EV population today is relatively small, although the take-up rates are rising. So, in LTA's recent large-scale tender for charging points at HDB car parks, operators start with deploying at least three charging points at each car park, with the flexibility to scale up to 12 charging points. In most cases, this can be accommodated within the current electrical capacity. LTA will monitor the demand and launch further tenders as necessary. So, essentially, we can ramp up supply, if the need arises.

We expect the vast majority of charging points to be low-powered. This optimises the electrical capacity required as charging can be done overnight when there is less demand on grid capacity.

However, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have said, some EV users will require fast charging, such as two-shift taxi drivers. Our low-powered charging network will be complemented with a smaller number of high-powered charging points across the island.

Mr Ang Wei Neng was concerned about the ground issues in implementation. This is a legitimate concern because when we take it to the ground, to the individual HDB car parks, there may be no end of questions around which floor of the car park the EV charging point should be deployed. Many other questions will arise, some of which have been, in fact, expressed in the course of this debate.

That is why we have established a multi-agency committee, which is chaired by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and the deputy chair is Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng. On this, we have LTA and HDB, among other important agencies that have relevant jurisdiction, in order to make sure that we are able to iron out these sorts of teething issues on the ground as we implement because we do not want these kinds of, if you like, regulatory hurdles to get in the way of a quick deployment of the chargers that we wish to achieve.

As Mr Sharael Taha has highlighted, the role of petrol stations will also have to evolve as EVs become more widespread. Some petrol stations have already started to provide fast chargers for EVs and many electric taxi drivers charge there.

The licensing regime is essential to our plans as it allows LTA to set conditions, such as service uptime, and also to collect data on EV charging patterns. Such data is critical to support the national master-planning efforts to deploy chargers and upgrade electrical infrastructure.

However, accessibility goes beyond the physical infrastructure and it includes user experience. This is where Mr Don Wee's suggestion about developing a single app to integrate all service providers is pertinent. It is, indeed, what LTA has been working on.

Today, LTA's MyTransport App allows EV users to locate and access public charging points offered by various EVCOs. LTA has just launched a beta function displaying real-time charger availability on the app, which more operators will contribute to over time. LTA is also working with third-party platform providers to allow more EV users to access charger information on their platform of choice, including information on real-time availability.

I want to assure Mr Sharael Taha and, indeed, all Members that LTA will be transparent about how licensees' data is used. Commercially sensitive data will only be used for LTA's internal master-planning work. In general, LTA will not require EVCOs to share any personal data and LTA will only use or disclose any data collected from licensees in compliance with directions made under the Public Sector (Governance) Act and other relevant laws relating to confidentiality.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Edward Chia asked about preventing and deterring the inappropriate use of EV charging lots. Today, in HDB car parks, it is already an offence for a non-EV to park in an EV charging lot. EVCOs are also commercially driven to tackle this, because if a car is occupying the lot but not charging, that is loss of revenue.

In some countries, EVCOs have implemented idle fees and time-based pricing to discourage lot hogging. Others are looking into technological solutions to make enforcement easier.

Enforcement aside, motorists must also develop a culture of responsible and gracious behaviour when charging their EVs. So, education and an evolving culture are key.

The fact is, even with enforcement and education, it will take some time for the EV charging behaviour and patterns in Singapore to normalise. We need a collective effort to help nurture the process and allow us all to ensure that this experience is a positive one for all of us.

Several Members have posed more detailed questions about the licensing regime. LTA will provide updates in due course.

Thirdly, let me elaborate on the mandate to provide EV charging at certain developments.

Mr Saktiandi has asked why developments owned by the Government are not subject to this statutory requirement. As with other provisions like parking, Government-owned developments will take reference from our general policy and abide by relevant internal circulars. We have already started, as Members know, to deploy EV chargers on a large scale at HDB residential estates.

I also have it on good authority – from Mr Speaker no less – that Parliament is also looking into the installation of EV chargers in the car park here. So, Members can all model responsible EV charging behaviour and the recalcitrant ones will, I think, face consequences in the Chamber. That is what the Speaker told me. [Laughter.]

Let me now turn to the points raised by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng about applying these requirements to more redevelopments. As EV adoption is still at an early stage and not evenly distributed across developments, the mandate will not apply if existing developments do not cross the specified building or electrical work thresholds for now.

We will monitor EV adoption trends and consider whether the mandate should be extended to all developments in future. The Bill does allow the Minister for Transport to adjust these thresholds through regulations when needed. In the meantime, we encourage developers to plan ahead and invest in the requisite infrastructure.

Mr Louis Ng, in particular, was concerned that the lowered voting threshold for strata-titled developments only applies to proposals that do not tap on MCST funds. The reason for this is simple – it is to preserve a certain equivalence in the current level of accountability and governance for the use of MCST funds. Even then, we expect the lower threshold to be able to facilitate the installation of EV charging points because it is not a very capital-intensive exercise, based on the way it is being carried out today. The more prevalent practice is for EVCOs to pay for the cost of installation upfront and recover it from EV users over time. And as there is greater demand from higher EV adoption, these will form a key impetus, I think, for all developers and owners of developments to further install EV charging infrastructure.

I would like to share with Mr Louis Ng and Mr Edward Chia that the take-up of the EV Common Charger Grant has been growing. So far, we have co-funded the installation of more than 200 chargers at more than 80 condominiums, with 30 applications pending review. So, part of the challenge here is helping the condominium MCSTs navigate the process because they may not know how to go about it and so on. So, LTA and BCA will work with industry players to develop guides to help condominium residents in the process of installing EV chargers.

Several Members have asked about the enforcement of the Bill. LTA will take a pragmatic approach, with safety as the paramount objective. As all chargers must be registered before use, the records of the Registered Responsible Person for each charger will facilitate enforcement efforts. Specifically, on Mr Edward Chia's question, clause 74 of the Bill allows an authorised officer to enter premises where that officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that specific safety-related offences are being committed.

Mr Don Wee asked about the transitional arrangements for existing chargers. After the transitional period of six months after the Act commences, chargers that do not belong to a homologated model cannot be supplied, while unregistered chargers cannot be used. This is to protect the public from potentially unsafe chargers.

In this intervening period, until the Act commences, both on the supply side, suppliers will now take reference from this and will have to ensure that the models they are selling are homologated or belong to the homologated variety. For if they fail, then customers will be back with them within six months to see what can be done to remedy it. And I would urge all who are contemplating procuring the chargers to also take reference from this requirement.

Let me now briefly address Members' queries on the broader EV ecosystem, which, strictly speaking, falls beyond the scope of this Bill.

First, on the long-term market structure of the EV charging industry. I agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng that it is crucial to ensure healthy competition among EVCOs. LTA's large-scale tender for HDB car parks was awarded to five operators across 10 areas and allows for further injection of competition through future tenders at these car parks. Thus far, we have seen healthy competition in the EV charging industry, supported by the growth in market entrants over the past two years.

Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked how the Government will ensure that EV charging services are priced fairly. Fundamentally, competition and consumer choice are the most effective means of doing so.

But we will monitor the price dispersion – something that Mr Ang Wei Neng raised. I understand that, today, the price dispersion across different charging is about five cents per kilowatt-hour. But I would like to point out that there is an inherent irony in this because, if there is a wide dispersion in the prices, does that mean that we have a more competitive market? And if we have a very narrow dispersion or, in extremis, just a single price across the whole of Singapore, is that a desirable outcome?

So, we have to think about this carefully. But, in the first instance, our objective has been to ensure that the award of the tenders and so on is to address the key point that Mr Ang Wei Neng has been raising, which is really not having too wide a dispersion.

The other thing to bear in mind is – not unlike what we see with the conventional ICE cars and so on – I am very sure that the EVCOs will provide incentives and other benefits to their regular customers. So, that would be a further discount, if you will, on the prices being paid. So, we need to really look at this in great detail and understand the true impact before we make any further judgements on the matter.

Second, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about manpower development to support the EV transition. Based on a joint study by LTA and EMA last year, the number of licensed electrical workers, or LEWs, is expected to be sufficient to meet the increased demand from the EV transition over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, EMA has been reaching out to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to raise awareness of the prerequisites to become an LEW. EMA has also implemented alternate pathways to allow experienced workers to apply for LEW licences.

As for charging equipment specialists, to respond to Mr Edward Chia, EVCOs have been building up their talent pool and already employ such specialists in-house. LTA is working with the industry to provide clarity on the requirements to be a charging equipment specialist under this regulatory regime.

As Mr Edward Chia has also highlighted, our technicians and mechanics will also need to be equipped to take on the opportunities offered by the EV industry. In September this year, LTA launched the National EV Specialist Safety (NESS) certification, in partnership with SkillsFuture Singapore. Automotive technicians who have undergone relevant training on high voltage systems safety awareness can be certified under this scheme. We will continue to work closely with the industry and IHLs to grow our talent pool.

Thirdly, I agree with Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Don Wee that we must ensure the proper disposal and recycling of EV batteries. To this end, since July last year, NEA has brought into effect an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure the proper treatment and recycling of electric waste. This includes all EV batteries. So, everyone in the ecosystem will have to comply with it.

Finally, both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Don Wee suggested adjustments to the COE system to phase out ICE vehicles. I have only been at MOT about a year, but no conversation on the vehicle system is complete without a discussion on COEs. So, I thank them for bringing it up.

The core objective of the COE system is to limit our vehicle population. We have set the vehicle population growth to be zero and to have an efficient mechanism to allocate the quota. This is the case for all vehicles and an EV is a vehicle.

It is not also good policy to foist too many objectives on a single policy tool. So, I would argue, for Members' consideration, that to use the COE for multiple objectives is not an appropriate or suitable policy formulation.

One of the proposals that Members have made – and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in particular, I think – is to have a new segment for EVs, if I heard him correctly. If we think through the implications of that proposal, what it means is that we will have to take away supply from the other categories in order to supply a new category called EVs. The total supply for the different segments will reduce further. And for EVs, you will have a specific category. So, I am assuming, in the Member's policy design proposal, EV buyers can only buy EV COEs and not any other COE. And if you think through that, you are going to have far more, minimally, volatility in the price because the supply is constrained and, potentially, higher prices.

It also raises a bunch of questions around how you make that allocative decision – on what basis? Do you allocate 10%, 30%, 50%? And what is the argument that substantiates that allocative decision?

What we do is we treat all vehicles the same because the COE system is designed to control vehicle population, full stop. Whether you are ICE, hybrid, electric, maybe, in future, fuel cell hydrogen, they are all vehicles on our roads. So, we control the population. And then, what we do is we directly incentivise the adoption of the kinds of vehicles that we would like to promote through other policy tools for intervention.

In this case, we have incentivised the adoption of EVs through the EV Early Adoption Incentive, or EEAI, and the enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme, which, together, provide a combined rebate of up to $45,000 off the upfront cost of an electric car. There was a suggestion that maybe we can give a 10% discount. Even at today’s COE prices, $45,000 is significantly higher than that in terms of upfront cost. The Commercial Vehicles Emissions Scheme also provides up to $30,000 in rebates for electric light goods vehicles.

There was another point raised – and I wanted to just make sure and that is why I sought the clarification from the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – because the initial point in his speech was that PHC drivers are concerned because the cost of EVs is 82% higher. I think he said, in fact, operating cost. And when I asked for clarification, he said, no, it is actually ownership cost.

So, I had a cursory look at the site that he was using – paultan.org, I understand, is the site. In fact, the quote goes further than just 82% higher ownership costs. It actually says 82% higher ownership costs in the region, not just in Singapore. So, it is not very clear where the number comes from and, in particular, whether it has taken into account all the schemes that we have in the context of Singapore.

The point I want to make is this. When you consider costs, there are different elements to these. There is the upfront ownership cost, which seems to take into account the specific schemes that we have put in place; there is the operating cost for the life cycle – and on that, I can assure you that, in fact, EVs are very competitive. Because simply on the basis of cost per kilometre, based on today’s prices, it is at least no more than half what it would cost if you were driving an ICE. I am not promoting EVs – or I am not selling them – but these are the facts.

And it does not take into account the maintenance costs. Because an EV has about 20 moving parts, compared to an ICE vehicle which has got, I am told by engineers, 2,000 moving parts. So, when you total it all up, actually, the equation balances out.

Perhaps, what is required is for greater information and awareness amongst those who are making the choices, including PHC drivers, so that they have the full picture. But I thought it was important to make this clarification because we do not want us to be citing Internet sources but without seeing them through in terms of the specific application in our context.

To Mr Dennis Tan’s question, the electrification of goods vehicles is, in fact, one of our priorities. In fact, the light goods vehicles segment saw the highest rate of EV adoption this year, at around 28%. So, it is working and it is working well.

I have already shared that for buses, for example, because LTA is largely the procurer of buses, we will have 50% of our bus fleet, which means about 3,000 out of the 6,000 buses or so will be electric by the end of the decade, and the other half will likely be hybrid. So, we are moving in that direction.

The part that is more challenging is the very heavy vehicles, the big trucks and so on. And the reason is because, from the point of view of propulsion power and so on, there are trade-offs. That is why I mentioned in my earlier speech that hydrogen or related fuel types are being considered quite actively in that regard.

Mr Don Wee asked if the EEAI will continue beyond next year. We are reviewing this, taking into account the upfront cost gap and life cycle cost differential between an ICE vehicle and an EV.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I thank Members once again for their support of the Bill. I have endeavoured to address all their queries in the main and I would like to assure Members that MOT and LTA will study and, where possible, incorporate their suggestions in the design and implementation of the EV charging system.

Our vision is to have a vehicle population that is electric. But that will require the collective effort of Government, industry, unions and consumers. The Electric Vehicles Charging Bill represents a first but major step in our journey to get there. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

4.16 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I just have two quick clarifications.

First, I absolutely have no difficulty with the notion that the COE should be kept predominantly for focusing on the overall body of vehicles. But that said, if I understand correctly, if LTA will, indeed, stop issuing COEs for ICE vehicles after 2030, would not this, ultimately, be equivalent to issuing a specialised category of EV COEs which will apply to all cars after 2030 and then, you will have an existing stock of COEs for cars from before?

The second point is, I would like to acknowledge that the Minister is correct. I misspoke when I said it was the operating cost. Indeed, it is the full ownership cost that I should have cited. That said, the figure was, as I clarified earlier on, a statement from a Vice President at Grab, which is a local outfit and it was in the context of the Eco Prosperity Conference in June this year. I believe Minister Iswaran was one of the keynote speakers at that conference. So, I do believe that this 82% – again, it is not my estimate, but her estimate – was said in the local context.

Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his clarifications. I may have been at the conference, but I cannot take accountability for what was said there by other speakers. But I am just pulling out what was on the website and it says the total cost of owning an EV remains 82% higher than owning an equivalent ICE, four-wheeled vehicle – and then, it said, “in the region, Ms Goh said”.

So, I think it is an important point of detail, does the Member not think so? Because the region has got significant variations and, certainly, what it means is that the number that has been cited here does not necessarily take into — I do not know whether it did, but it would appear, at first reading, that it has not taken that into account.

We already have to deal with a lot of misinformation outside. So, at least in the Chamber, when we cite sources and so on, let us just make sure we get the facts right. That was my main objective: to make sure that we got it right, so that whether it is a PHC driver or an HDB family wanting to buy a car or anyone else, they have the full information and the right information so that they can make the appropriate choice that fits their circumstances.

Secondly, I think there is a qualitative difference between what we will be doing from 2030 onwards, compared to what the Member is proposing. Let me explain why.

What we have said is that, from 2030, we will want Singapore to move towards cleaner energy vehicles. So, we will phase out ICE in the flow. And, therefore, all cars will have to be either electric or you would have hybrids or you may have other new cleaner energy vehicle sources. But they are all treated the same, they are in the same bucket and we treat it that way. We are not allocating a specific amount for electric, we are not allocating a specific amount for hybrid and so on. We are just taking it as one policy position.

What the Member is proposing is, actually, to deconstruct the current COE allocation and quota, and create new elements. My point is that this is something I do not think we need to have a PhD in Economics to infer this. Because when you create more segmentation in the market, reduce the supply to each category, the inevitable consequence must be at least volatility and, potentially – and certainly in the kind of environment we are in where demand is strong – higher prices. That might actually end up frustrating the very objective of the Member's proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.