HB182

Thank you for taking my oral testimony today. I did forget one point that you should know. When the price of lithium batteries dropped substantially, they began to be used in many hybrid vehicles (not just plug-in ones). This means that vehicles that are not EVs and not mentioned in this legislation have risks of lithium battery fires. While batteries in these vehicles are smaller than in EVs that rely entirely on battery, these vehicles have substantially higher fire risk than fully electric vehicles. While it may take less time, water usage and involve less toxic emissions exposures to suppress these fires if they occur, the combination of a lithium fire and a gasoline fire in those vehicles would be more challenging in a parking structure than the rare EV fire would be.

Not sure why we would be discouraging the purchase and use of electric vehicles in this day and age. This would present a hardship for many people who already own and drive EV's and use them for commuting. What's the point?

I strongly OPPOSE HB 182. Electric vehicles should be allowed in commercial parking garages. It appears that you do not support electric vehicles and are looking for ways to stop their success, and making this political. Research will show you that Republicans and Democracts, older and younger folks, etc are driving EVs, I have more Republican friends that own EVs than Democratic. Many NH business are financially dependent on EV vehicles. And less emmissions can only help our air quality.

I thought it was customary for bills that were voted down previously to be amended to deal with objections, but this looks like the same old thing. For a couple simple reasons why this is a bad bill, note that charging stations are better placed indoors and no exceptions are made for garages with foam fire suppression. How about an amendment allowing garage owners to optionally ban electric vehicles, or restrict them to certain areas?

It's important to make the use of electric vehicles convenient. It's all about trying to reduce green house gases.

We need to encourage EV’s!

Although EV's may be heavier than non-EV's, they are not as heavy as trucks and later SUV's.

There is no data to support a need for this bill. Why are we rehashing this issue?

Try to work on issues that really affect people and the planet. NOT THIS ONE.

It's my understanding that the motivation for this bill proposes limiting specifically electric vehicle access because of 1) weight concerns and 2) fire concerns. In the case of weight, a parking structure that needs to limit vehicles based on weight should do exactly that, without singling out electric vehicles. Many gas-powered trucks like the Ford F-150 and RAM 1500 now weigh between 4,500 and 6,500 pounds which is significantly heavier than the Chevy Bolt (3,600 pounds) and Tesla Model 3 (3,500–4,000 pounds). As to fire: AutoinsuranceEZ published a study based on NTSB data about the relative risks of fire in different vehicle types ( see https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/ ). The short summary of that study is: "Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold. Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold." (The full study can be found at https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/ ). I encourage this committee to mark the bill as Inexpedient to Legislate.

Why on Earth would anyone want to deter the use of electric vehicles when they lower CO2 emissions, one of the major causes of the weather and fires we've been experiencing. Don't make climate change a political football. The ball is losing air as I speak and the game will be over before our grandchildren can enjoy the natural world as we've loved it.

I am a citizen of Lebanon, former Chair of the Lebanon Energy Advisory Committee, and an owner of an EV (and gas-powered vehicles, as well). While I understand the safety concerns that have prompted this bill, I believe they are misguided. Numerous studies have shown that EV's are significantly less likely to be involved in fires than gas- and diesel- power vehicles. As an example, see Tesla's own analysis here, indicating that their vehicles are almost 14 times less likely to be involved in a fire than the average vehicle : https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport "Our global data indicates that, between 2012 and 2022, approximately one Tesla vehicle fire event occurred for every 130 million vehicle miles traveled. By comparison, data from the NFPA and U.S. Department of Transportation indicate that one vehicle fire occurs in the United States for every 18 million miles traveled." Additionally, concerns about additional weight are unfounded. My Tesla Model Y is approximately 10% heavier than my Subaru Outback, but significantly lighter than my Chevrolet 2500HD pickup. Thank you for the opportunity to speak out on this bill.

The proposal lacks good evidence to back it up and relies on arbitrary regulation as a principle.

There are no identified reasons why an electric vehicle should be prohibited access to public garages. It is not heavier than many trucks nor SUVs. It has not been deemed a fire hazard. Denial of parking garage access to Electric Vehicles would constitute unfair discrimination.

I oppose this bill because I think we should encourage the use of electric vehicles by making it easier for electric car owners to park. We demand the clean air electric vehicles provide.

As an EV owner, I am writing to oppose this crazy bill. EVs including hybrids represent over 20 percent of new car sales, a number that is rapidly increasing. To ban them from commercial parking garages makes no sense, I assume that any rational would be based on perceived fire risk when in fact all vehicles can catch fire (with gas and diesel cars being even more likely to catch fire) which is why parking garages have fire suppression systems and are built in a fire resistant manor. To ban EVs from parking garages would both impact the drivers of EVs and would also cause a significant lose of current and future business for parking garages, let alone the impacts for on-street parking as cars that would otherwise be parked in a parking garage would need to be street parked.

As an EV owner, this bill is just another attack on new, cleaner technology by groups that fund and benefit from the oil industry. It is based of fear and needs to be based on facts. The weight of the Typical EV, including the SUV EV's is on average to gas powered SUV's. As for chance of fire, the science and statistics don't warrant this alienation of EV vehicles. Again, this is being brought up to make it more difficult to use an SUV in NH. Something that is clearly being pushed by a party with a clear agenda against moving toward cleaner energy and resolving global warming. Use science not scare tactics.

Here we go again for a bill in search of a problem that does not exist. I wish representative Proulx would find something more useful to spend his time on. This bill is a waste of everyone's time.

Having no worries about the hybrid and EV in my garage catching fire, I see no reason for the State of NH to support HB 182.

This a terrible action that goes against all efforts to promote interstate and Canadian tourism. It is baseless and foolhardy. It will not in any way dissuade drivers from choosing EVs but just raise ire and demonstrate how backward NH can be.

Please ITL HB 182. This bill makes no sense and puts unreasonable restrictions on the owners of commercial parking garages - limiting a business's ability to do business with anyone who needs to park an electric vehicle.

I am a 72-year-old EV owner and retired Fire Prevention Officer for the Town of Hanover, NH. I find the assertion that electric vehicles in general pose a design weight hazard for parking structures, and that many normal modern passenger vehicles are as heavy or heavier than your typical EV. I see this bill as targeting EVs alone, unless you are going to post engineered weight limitations for all vehicles entering commercial parking structures. If this were done, there is no provision currently in place to determine which vehicles are under the maximum weight limit to enter the parking structure. This approved maximum safe weight limit would need to be retroactively determined for all existing parking structures. Additionally, if all current and future parking structures are not fully outfitted with fire sprinkler or fire suppression systems as a precaution for ALL vehicles, they should be or should be retroactively required. The EV battery concerns have been blown way out of proportion, and when compared to internal combustion vehicles, that current total risk for gasoline or diesel vehicles is equal or higher. The solution for all car fires in parking structures is proper fire department training. I urge you to vote "Inexpedient to Legislate" on HB 182-FN.

An Electric vehicle does not weigh more than a larger truck or SUV, Also, there is no evidence that EV's are more prone to fire hazards when compared to other vehicles. This bill is unnecessary and discourages the use of EV's. I oppose this bill.

This bill would hurt the state's economy, as EV owners from within the state and--especially--out of state would be unable to park in many locations. The two arguments used against EVs parking in garages are fires and weight. Internal combustion vehicles are more prone to fires than are EVs, so shall we prohibit them as well? And since many pickup trucks weigh more than EV passenger vehicles, perhaps they should be prohibited as well.