Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the main thrust of the Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill before us is to bring about greener and more sustainable transport options in Singapore, focusing on enhancing our land transport infrastructure to support EVs in particular. Such a move is overdue and is necessary, given the climate emergency we are facing. All the measures in this Bill are an appropriate first step. There remain key gaps that we must address in order to secure a more sustainable and environmentally-secure future for Singapore.

My remarks and clarifications today relate to two key areas: first, building an equitable and sustainable EV infrastructure; and, second, stepping up efforts to promote additional green transport alternatives.

The core of the Bill focuses on enabling LTA to promote the use of electric vehicles in Singapore through facilitating the development of and standards for an EV charging infrastructure. The stellar rise of mobility as a service has given its role more urgency, underlining the importance of having LTA play a role in building up a sustainable mobility eco-system that can minimise the environmental impact of our transport system. For this to be achieved, new low emissions mobility options must be widely available to all.

I note that there is no provision in the Bill that directs LTA to ensure that charging points for EVs in public areas, including HDB estates and public vehicle parking facilities, remain widely accessible.

The Bill also does not prescribe the role of LTA to ensure that charging points are made available in a manner that is affordable to the public, including ensuring sufficient competition in the market to encourage fair pricing for consumers. These may be seen as operational matters. The principle of equitable access to chargers should be enshrined in law. The convenience and benefits of owning an EV must not only be reserved for residents who live in landed properties as they can easily purchase, install and access their own charging points in their own properties.

I note that the RFI being conducted by LTA right now does consider deploying 60,000 charging points by 2030, including 40,000 points in public and HDB carparks. Yet there are less details about how and where these points would be located.

I would like to ask, can the Government provide a commitment that building equitable access will be the cornerstone of LTA's approach to our EV transition? What specific payment and funding models are being considered to ensure that the final user will be extended affordable prices? Would the Government engage residents in deciding the location of charging points and pricing and publicise the results of this engagement? What regulations can be put in place to prevent ugly behaviours, such as charger and space hogging, which deprive other users of the chance to charge their vehicles?

Getting out EV support infrastructure right from the very beginning is especially important as the continued growth in mobility-as-a-service means that many drivers and users of mobility devices depend on their vehicles for their livelihoods. They conduct deliveries and transport passengers and should be able to continue doing so without having to worry about finding an available charging station to spend 30 minutes or more charging up their vehicle in the middle of their workday.

Moving on from equity to sustainability, we should also ensure that there is sufficient consideration for how we would manage inevitable growth in electronic waste from expired EVs and whether the 10-year duration for COEs remains relevant, given the potentially low emissions beyond the 10-year life of the electric car.

EV batteries comprise rare metals that can be hazardous to humans and the environment and are a finite resource that we will soon be in short supply of. Our EV strategy must consider extending the typical 10-year useful life of the car and have a plan for the electronic waste after that, including adequate facilities to repurpose, recycle and, when there are no other choices, for the safe disposal of such waste.

We need to think ahead about this issue systematically and not scramble when we realise we are being forced to act because of pressing environmental or safety concerns. LTA and MOT should coordinate closely with MSE to develop a clear plan. The public and key stakeholders should also be consulted and must be asked to provide feedback as we prepare our infrastructure to accommodate EVs. This crucial element should be baked into the system from the start, not patched on in an ad-hoc fashion years down the line.

I also wish to note that EVs are just one component of developing a sustainable transportation eco-system. The Green Plan 2030 highlighted the importance of continuing efforts to promote an active, healthy lifestyle in Singapore. This includes promoting cycling and even more eco-friendly means of getting around. There is the added benefit of building exercise into our daily commute.

Given on-going trials to repurpose car lanes for pedestrian use and increase bicycle paths, MOT and LTA should use this opportunity to increase adoption of a cycling culture in Singapore. Preliminary studies have found that bicycle sales have soared in the wake of COVID-19 travel restrictions and lockdowns. I look forward to the results of LTA's on-going household travel survey to see if there is a marked increase in commuting by bicycle and other more eco-friendly measures. If it is, indeed, true that the on-going pandemic has resulted in the uptake of alternative forms of mobility, it would be a shame to let such gains be reversed as we think about moving back to a new normal.

Indeed, greener forms of commuting and transport must form an integral part of that new normal from day one. To encourage higher ridership rates and more commuting by bicycle, we should introduce legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options of travel as an alternative means of commuting. An obvious place to start will be further amendments to legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options as an alternative means of commuting and not just as a means of recreation.

Having dedicated bike lanes on roads and pop-up bicycle lanes that are separate from both pedestrians and motor vehicles are good ways to encourage alternative means of transport, not just for leisure but also for commuting. This is especially important when you consider that cycling was estimated to emit 10 times less emissions than electric cars by a recent study. In fact, the study also found that the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one week, one day a week, cut their carbon footprint by 3.2 kilos of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10 kilometres, eating a serving of red meat or chocolate or sending 800 emails.

With this in mind, I would like to call for the Government to allow Sengkang to lead the charge in becoming one of the first towns to fully embrace a cycling culture, with a dense network of cycling paths and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. I believe that the compact nature of our estate and the large number of residents who cycle in Sengkang, whether for leisure, commuting or as delivery riders, make it a good place to trial our move towards more active travel and mobility options. The younger population's high reliance on delivery services and proximity to bike networks, such as the Punggol Waterway Park and Sengkang Riverside Park, makes the estate an ideal candidate for a concerted push towards being a truly bike- and pedestrian-friendly town. Sengkang can and should be a model for how Singapore can move towards sustainable mobility.

We can even go further by considering repurposing car lanes into bike lanes. This is a tried-and-tested approach from cities, such as Taipei, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Canberra. A more considerate road design that embraces bicycles and even PMDs can also address matters of road safety, which is the subject of some of the changes to the RTA Bill that was also debated earlier today. If we make it easier for all road users to use pathways and roads safely together, it would naturally engender safer road behaviour.

To address concerns raised about active mobility options in Singapore's climate, we should also ensure coordination with BCA and other authorities. While I note that BCA's Green Mark gives a point for buildings that provide sheltered bicycle lots, adequate facilities like showers and changing rooms, can we go a step further to eventually make such on-site end-of-trip features mandatory for new and renovated office spaces?

Additionally, we could provide additional tax breaks for buildings which provide such facilities by having a green tax relief scheme. These measures would definitely further encourage active mobility commuting.

In conclusion, while we understand the Bill's intent, we need to ensure our EV infrastructure is developed in an equitable and sustainable way and that it is not the only focus of a sustainable transport plan. We must think ahead and also innovatively to ensure we focus our minds towards fulfilling our commitment to a green Singapore – promoting health and improving transportation. I support the Bill.

Madam, this is a short Bill with just three clauses. Brief as it may be, it is an important Bill. It enshrines within LTA’s remit the important duties of promoting, regulating, standardising and otherwise facilitating the use of EVs.

I have two points of clarification on how LTA will carry out its duties.

My first point of clarification is about motorcycles. Electric motorcycles are better than petrol motorcycles in just about every important way. They emit far less air pollutants and greenhouse gases than gas-powered motorcycles. This means less environmental damage and less health problems for riders and pedestrians. They are also far quieter, something anyone who has lived remotely near a road will appreciate.

These benefits are not lost on our neighbours in Asia. Tokyo and Taiwan have both announced that they would ban sales of petrol motorcycles by 2035. In Indonesia, the private sector is taking the lead. Gojek will convert its massive fleet of green "ojeks" or motorcycle taxis into EVs by 2030. Grab is also launching smaller scale pilots.

By contrast, neither the private nor public sector in Singapore has shone a clear light on the future of motorcycles here. NEA announced just last month that it will tighten vehicle noise and emission standards for motorcycles. I applaud this move. In the same spirit, we can take bolder steps towards adoption of electric motorcycles.

In March 2020, we did take a small step of allowing high-powered electric motorcycles on our roads. By the end of the year, a grand total of one electric motorcycle was registered, compared to 140,000 petrol motorcycles.

There are obstacles outside our control. Prices remain high as production has not yet reached a critical mass. But the industry is moving quickly. Honda, the world’s largest motorcycle manufacturer, announced just last month plans for four new models of electric motorcycles, three of which will be released by 2024.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share the Ministry’s plans to address the cost of electric motorcycles? For instance, will the Ministry consider supporting partnerships between international manufacturers, local dealerships and logistics firms to trial the use of electric motorcycles at low costs? SMRT has already taken some steps in this direction.

Will the Ministry also consider the EV Early Adoption Incentive to also include electric motorcycles?

We must also work on infrastructure. Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if the 60,000 EV charging points to be built across the island are compatible and convenient for not only electric cars but also electric motorcycles?

Just as important, we must work on a vision. On electric cars, taxis and buses, we have spoken loudly; motorcycles need that same clarity. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share where the Ministry sees motorcycles in 2030 or 2035? Will we aim to keep the same gas-guzzling, smog-spouting models on the road, or will we look to sunset them? A clear Government vision can steer and accelerate private initiatives.

My second point is about charging points in condominiums. This Bill proposes that LTA and EMA’s remit include facilitating the development of accessible charging points. Can the Ministry share what plans it has to collaborate with EMA and BCA to expand the construction of charging points in condominiums?

Sixteen percent of our households live in condominiums, based on 2020 data. That is 220,000 households. A fair proportion of these people likely drive cars, can afford EVs and are more likely to be early adopters. But they simply will not buy an EV if they cannot get a charging point built where they live.

My colleague Member of Parliament Gan Thiam Poh made a similar point during our Climate Change Motion earlier this year. Since then, CNA has written an article containing interviews and research, detailing just how difficult and slow the installation of charging points in condominiums has been.

Options are available. A softer approach is to help condominium AGMs come to an agreement by providing best practices. This is a suggestion from our former colleague, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. A firmer approach is to mandate the installation of charging points in condominiums, as Member Gan Thiam Poh recommended. An intermediate approach could be a "Right to Charge" law. Ontario, Canada’s largest province, introduced a regulation requiring condominium associations to install EV charging points as long as a resident makes a reasonable request.

Alternatively, the Government can provide rebates and professional services for installing charging locations within condominiums. This is done in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

There are many things the Government can do. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify what steps are being taken to make progress on this issue? Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Since I started my engineering career as an automotive engineer 15 years ago, I have seen many changes in the industry. Given that vehicles contribute to 50% of carbon emissions, this industry has been continuously looking for ways to make cars more fuel-efficient while also reducing greenhouse emissions. It was getting harder and more expensive to do so as we were pushing the limits of science for internal combustion engines, or ICE.

The industry was in a flux as it searched for the right technology platform for the future of transportation. We tried to squeeze as much energy from each drop of fuel. We ventured into biodiesel fuels from soya beans and canola which had the effect of increasing the price of this food source instead.

The industry also explored hybrid propulsion systems and hydrogen fuel cells. In the past five to eight years, the industry has landed on electric propulsion as the way forward and it is a very credible replacement for internal combustion engines.

The technology for EV is already available. There are some who are of the opinion that we in Singapore are not moving fast enough to transit fully into an entirely EV population. However, to transit successfully into an entirely EV population requires more than just technological advancement. It also requires the right policies and regulations to ensure the safe use of the EVs. It also necessitates that our infrastructure is adequately prepared to support the EV population. Hence, while I am supportive of this Bill, I would like to pose a few clarifications for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Firstly, in LTA’s role of promoting and regulating the safe use of vehicles, given new technologies and nascent safety standards on EVs, how do we determine what is safe for our roads and how do we deal with after-market modifications that may jeopardise other road users?

In addition, we must also consider that other than the traditional automotive manufacturers, more new players are coming into the market; some are not traditional automotive manufacturers. How do we ensure safety standards are met with each new propulsion system or manufacturer?

To be able to promote and regulate the safe use of EVs, we need to be able to understand these new technologies. This requires a different skillset from what we have today. Engineers in regulatory roles will need to understand EVs to ensure their safe use. There is a need to recruit or upskill/reskill talents in the automotive industry. Engineers in our LTA need to understand battery technology, safe practices for discharging of batteries and electrical infrastructure to be able to regulate the safe use of these EVs.

New technologies are also challenging the norms. Hence, to regulate the safe use of the EVs, our officers must have the right skillset to understand and decide the appropriateness of these new technologies in order to ensure its safe use on our roads.

Examples of new technologies include self-driving vehicles. We need to understand the system, failure rate, redundancy system to understand how it all works so that we can decide on the regulations. Which system, whose system is safe for use on our roads? In addition, crashes involving self-driven vehicles or driver-assisted aids, who is to be blamed? The driver or the manufacturer? How do we regulate the insurance of such vehicles?

For development in the braking systems – brake by wire, regenerative braking and driver-assisted braking introduces complexity to the normal hydraulic mechanical brake systems commonly used now. What is a safe system? How do we define what is safe?

EVs are also extremely quick. As they are propelled by electric motors, torque comes instantly at low rpms – and this is known as instant torque. This gives immense acceleration for an EV. An entry level Model 3 Tesla does zero to 100 kilometres per hour in five seconds. That is as fast as some high-end performance cars. Even an entry level city car like the Hyundai Ionic does zero to 100 in 7.7 seconds, which is about twice as quick in acceleration as compared to a Toyota Corolla five years ago. The Tesla Semi Truck, a semi truck that is capable of carrying heavy goods, unladen, can accelerate from zero to 100 in five seconds and the world's fastest production bike accelerates from zero to 100 in two seconds.

In Singapore, as it is, accidents involving heavy vehicles continue to be high and the number of motorcyclist fatalities continue to be more than 50 a year. Hence, how are we going to be able to keep our roads safe when we will have more of these high-performance vehicles silently plying through our roads?

In addition, how do we manage modifications that are now available for the EVs. Currently, it is a lot easier to enforce illegal modifications on internal combustion engine cars. Changing a straight-through exhaust, bigger turbochargers, uprated fuel injectors can be seen by the naked eye. Not only can the illegal modification be seen, they often can be heard, with frequent complaints to Members of Parliament.

Modifications to the electrical propulsion system though are done through new electronic control units, new software, which are not immediately visually detectable nor can it be heard by our law enforcement officers. For example, a modified Tesla Model 3 can shave off two seconds of its zero to 100 kilometres per hour pace through modifications and all of this is available on the Internet.

Will these modifications increase the risk of battery fires? What will happen if these battery fires cause a larger fire in a cluster of vehicles at the carpark? How do we prevent illegal modifications that make it unsafe for fellow road users?

Imagine our roads becoming more populated with these powerful vehicles that make little or no sound.

Hence, though I am fully supportive of this Bill positioning LTA as the governing body to regulate the safe use of EVs, I would like to caution that this does not represent an incremental change where we can rely solely on the knowledge of the past and our experiences. EVs are a disruptive technology that will fundamentally change the automotive industry and we too must be prepared to relook at how we fundamentally manage the safe use of such vehicles.

As it is within the responsibility of LTA to regulate the safe use of these vehicles, it is imperative that the officers in the Ministry are equipped with the right knowledge to address this new technology and be able to approach the policies for the adoption of EVs from a holistic perspective.

There are now a few technical and diploma courses, such as that offered by Singapore Motor Workshop Association Training Academy and Ngee Ann Polytechnic, but more must be done to increase the expertise in these fields in preparation for an entirely EV population. One option is to use this as an opportunity to upskill and retrain more individuals from other industries, such as in the aerospace and oil and gas industries, to be proficient in the EV industries.

Beyond safety regulations and enforcement, I am fully supportive of the amendments to the Bill for LTA to cooperate and collaborate with EMA relating to the electrical installation for the charging of EVs.

Based on our population of 980,000 vehicles, our target of 60,000 charging stations by 2030 will mean that there is one charging station for every 16.3 vehicles. By then, what is LTA’s projection of EVs on our roads?

To understand the adequacy of charging stations better, we also need to understand the capability of the charging stations. How many of the charging stations will be fast charge or slow charge? Based on the volume and mix of charging stations, is one station for every 16.3 vehicles sufficient? How are we studying concentration spots?

Based on preliminary assessment on volume and type of charges, do we have enough power in the power grid from clean sources? Do we need more power stations or substations? How will this cost be distributed? What are the maintenance requirements of these chargers? Will maintenance be borne by LTA under an umbrella road tax payment or maintenance will be borne by users, in addition to the electricity cost? Or do we pay a small amount for the charger maintenance or do we pay maintenance through the Town Council on a monthly basis?

As there are already 1,800 charging stations and BlueSG is one of the main players for rental of EVs, what lessons can we learn from BlueSG with its current fleet of vehicles and 1,800 chargers?

How is LTA working closely with MND on the Electrical Load Upgrading (ELU) projects in housing estates? When ELU was started in 2014, it was to accommodate the increased electricity consumption in our homes due to the increased use of TVs, PCs, tablets and air-conditioners. Houses built before the 1990s need to have their 30-amp switch upgraded to a 40-amp switch, and has ELU now factored in the increased electrical load brought about by the charging stations in our estates? Can we ensure that this is done concurrently with the ELU programme in our older estates? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  EVs are called a disruptive technology. Therefore, we need to acquire new skillsets to understand how we can use EVs safely. Our goal of achieving an entirely EV population by 2040 requires a significant change in the way we manage vehicles, while ensuring that our infrastructure is adequate to accommodate these vehicles.

Besides working with EMA, LTA also needs to work hand in hand with HDB to ensure that the growth of infrastructure matches the growth rate of EVs. There should be sufficient charging stations to fully support the number of EVs in the near future.

A clarification is also required on how the usage of such infrastructure will be charged. Is it through a road tax system that encompasses everything or pay-per-use?

(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, though EVs pose significant opportunities, we must be aware of the significant changes that they will bring and we must be able to adapt quickly to ensure the safe use of EVs. Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, whenever new technologies are introduced in Singapore, they are met with both excitement at the unprecedented impact that they will bring about as well as the fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar.

Taking steps towards a low-carbon future will necessarily involve the uptake of low emission vehicles in Singapore and we are encouraged to see that the Government has safety as their primary concern when it comes to the development of the EV eco-system in Singapore, assuaging the concerns of many Singaporeans.

When it comes to confronting the ever-advancing technological revolution in Singapore, this is not our taxi drivers' first rodeo. Before the 1980s, taxis did not even run on digital metres we are now familiar with but had analogue metres hooked up to speedometers that calculated our fares. In 2006, our taxi drivers had to begin learning how to use the new NETS terminals installed in their vehicles.

Fast forward to today, fares are calculated with algorithms on ride hailing applications, payment transactions are completed virtually without any effort needed by passengers.

Our taxi drivers have also cooperated with evolving vehicle policies and we have taxi drivers going on diesel, petrol, compressed natural gas (CNG), petrol-electric hybrids and even blue diesel vehicles.

Our taxi drivers have seen us through generations of technological advancements, proven capable of relentless adaptation and evolution, and we intend to continue to bring them along for this journey. However, the route that we take in developing our EV eco-system in Singapore will determine whether our taxi drivers can face up to the challenge or will be phased out by the measures taken.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, during the Budget debate, I had talked about the plight of our taxi drivers and private hire drivers: they are hit with a double whammy of low street hails, having to drive aimlessly around, wasting fuel and time, and having to deal with petrol tax hikes.

Every policy-maker has two weapons in their arsenal: the carrot and the stick. It is the acumen of and credit to the policy-maker for knowing when to present the carrot and when to brandish the stick.

With the development of an EV eco-system in Singapore and with grand ambitions potentially for EVs to completely replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in Singapore by 2040, I understand the enthusiasm with which we might want to see drivers make the complete switch to electric. However, it must be asked, surely, with 20 years to the finishing line, we certainly do not want our drivers worn out before they get there.

It is important that I raise such concerns, with a push for going electric often coming hand in hand with discouragements towards the use of ICE vehicles. Surely, in decades to come, we will see exorbitant petrol prices as the norm or even zero emission zones out of bounds for ICE vehicles. But ushering these policies in an over-zealous fashion now will only pile on the troubles for our drivers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I cannot stress enough that even as we make headway in the development of Singapore's EV eco-system, it is of paramount importance that taxi and private hire drivers do not fall through the cracks and, in fact, they must be especially supported. Whatever cost we seek to transfer to vehicle owners and drivers in Singapore, they cannot be equally borne by our taxi and private hire drivers.

Bear with my analogy. Just as some people cook for a living, some also cook as a hobby. Should the prices of ingredients shoot up, those who do it as a hobby can and might just stop cooking. But what is there to do for those who do it as a living?

If to complement the development of Singapore's EV eco-system, we put in higher barriers for non-taxi and private hire drivers, maybe they will actually think twice about purchasing an ICE vehicle or only drive when it is necessary. These considerations are, in fact, invalid for point-to-point (P2P) drivers.

There must be a better way. If we can promise our taxi and private hire drivers that the onset of EV does not threaten their rice bowl, they will surely support and embrace the new technology. After all, our drivers have been very supportive of all our national campaigns and agenda, from getting swabbed to going for vaccinations and being very responsible front-liners supporting Singapore as we emerge from COVID-19.

I would like to bring up the additional considerations surrounding charging stations. With 40,000 reported active drivers in 2020 and with drivers driving around 300 kilometres a day, our drivers seek assurance that charging capabilities will stand the test of the P2P driving industry with the complete shift to electric.

Any lapses in charging infrastructure – be it unexpected charging station breakdowns or the unavailability of charging stations – can compromise an entire shift or even an entire day's work. In addition, for many drivers, their vehicles are optimised for use 24 hours a day with partnerships between day and night drivers or main and relief drivers. As it is, there is a lack of clarity with the availability of fast-charging points and the economic balance of having vehicles rested in a typical eight-hour charging cycle.

How would this impact the existing partnerships between drivers? How would this impact rental fees and the P2P business model? These considerations must be tightly watched and implemented with the interest of our drivers' livelihoods as a priority.

It is imperative then for our Government to work closely with taxi companies and ride hailing platforms to work out the implications of policies and infrastructure that accompany the electric push in Singapore. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the transition away from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs is a key initiative under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. If we are honest with ourselves, Singapore is a little slow on the mark with EVs – with adoption rates around 0.2% versus more than 10% in cities like London and Berlin and only some 2,000-plus EV chargers in the market.

The EV eco-system is a complex one with multiple stakeholders and EV is also what we call a two-sided platform. There is a need to grow both EVs and charging infrastructure in sync to truly drive adoption.

As shown in other cities like Beijing, Berlin and London, the public sector plays a key role to get to the inflexion point where the industry has a minimum viable scale to take off, whether it is in mandating subsidies or actually setting up state-owned entities to coordinate the efforts of built charging infrastructure.

There are many strategies but what is clear is that the public sector plays the key role.

The amendments proposed in the Bill gives LTA the clear mandate to drive the promotion and regulation of EVs and the development of EV charging infrastructure as well as standards. I support the Bill as I believe it will enable Singapore to accelerate the adoption of EVs and catalyse a vibrant EV eco-system while not losing sight of the bigger ambition of moving to a car-lite society.

Notwithstanding, I would like to ask for a few clarifications.

First, the proposed subsection 4 in section 6 of the Act defines an EV as a vehicle that is propelled wholly or partly by electricity, whether or not it could be self-driving. As the EV space is still evolving, I would like to ask if this includes plug-in hybrids as well as hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.

Second, the amendment to subsection 1 of section 6 gives LTA the decision rights to set standards for charging devices and equipment in order to protect public safety. But beyond protecting safety, should there also be a clear vision to take a customer-centred approach to make it seamless for the consumers, including ensuring inter-operability, which will require tight mandates and regulations for grid operators and charging point operators as well as back-end systems that allow facilitation of transactions and adjustments between charge point operators (CPOs) and grid operators?

Third, subsidies have been used in other markets to promote EVs – both demand and supply side subsidies. Beyond charging infrastructure, investments will also be needed to finance good upgrades as well as land use changes. Can the Ministry elaborate on how subsidies will play a role in the development of the industry here?

Four, beyond LTA and EMA, many other Government agencies will be involved – such as HDB, URA, to name a few – as well as the private sector. One area to pay attention to is the use of data to unlock value not only for the EV market and industry development but also for other national development objectives. A robust data framework and a mix of incentives and regulations should also be a key area of focus upfront.

Lastly, in recent years, others in the region, like Indonesia and Thailand, have clinched investments from EV automakers and battery makers – so have we with the Hyundai plant. Beyond facilitating the establishment of EV and EV charging infrastructure in Singapore, I would like to ask if there are plans to think about EV as a sector to grow and to develop technology and manufacturing capabilities that can be exported. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I support the Bill.

Madam, I support this amendment Bill, which is necessary to prepare for the greater adoption of EVs on our roads within the next few years.

I would like to firstly emphasise that although EVs will help reduce emissions that contribute to climate change and pollution, we have to be mindful that there is a price to pay for any demand for energy, including the impact upon our local and global environment. Hence, as much as possible, we should use public transport and continue to invest in a good public transportation system.

I believe this will not be the only amendment Bill in view of the rapid changes and advancement of technology in the EV sector which is taking place even as we speak. While we are now looking at the installation of charging stations, there are breakthroughs in battery swapping technology, which can be done within 10 minutes or fewer, as well as fast-charging technology. Nonetheless, I agree that we cannot afford to wait to see what would be the best charging technology to adopt as we need to proceed with the installation of charging points island-wide.

We need to encourage private investments in the EV charging technology and the use of the latest innovations. How would the Ministry encourage more local and foreign investments in this industry? How can we ensure more private investments which can help promote the use of EVs with fast-charging technology and the building of multiple charging points from a single source in all our public and private carparks?

As the prices of EVs come down, they will provide an equally attractive, if not cheaper and cost-effective mode of transport. The eradication of carbon emissions and thus less need for maintenance are additional advantages. How would the Ministry ensure standard adoption and enforcement of safety measures?

I have some concerns about the additional demands on our power grid and, in a way, a loss of diversification in terms of energy sourcing for vehicles. Allow me to explain.

In the unfortunate event of a blackout, presently, most vehicles can continue to move around on our roads since they are powered by petrol and diesel. When most cars are powered by electricity, the impact of a blackout will be much heavier. Would the Ministry share with us how we can prevent and mitigate the impact of such an event?

Finally, we have to study how we will recycle EV batteries properly. They should not be another waste to contaminate our fragile planet. What are the Ministry's plans for these batteries at the end of their life cycles?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. They have also raised issues on EV charger regulation and other EV-related topics, which are important as EVs become increasingly common.

To clarify, for the purposes of this Bill, the definition of EV includes battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles but excludes other types of hybrid vehicles that cannot be recharged by plugging in to an external source of electrical power.

First, on electrical safety. Safety must be of priority in all aspects of EV use and charging. That is why we abide by stringent safety standards.

For example, LTA mandates that the electric powertrain of EVs must meet requirements in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulations. I would like to assure Mr Sharael Taha that we have strict laws to enforce against illegal modifications which are detected either through on-the-road enforcement or periodic vehicle inspections.

For software that governs EV performance, such as motor power output and batteries, we will need to work with EV manufacturers to explore ways to guard against illegal modifications.

EV charging systems are governed by Technical Reference 25, or TR25, which is based on global standards set by organisations like the International Electrotechnical Commission. TR25 is tailored to our warm and humid weather conditions and guards against safety hazards like overheating or electrocution.

Every review of TR25 is a consultative process involving industry stakeholders, academics and Government agencies. This ensures that TR25 supports innovation in EV charging technology, while ensuring public safety. Licensed electrical workers are required to ensure, and only install, EV chargers that are TR25 compliant. It is an offence under the Electricity Act to tamper with electrical installations, which include fixed EV chargers. Mr Saktiandi Supaat can be assured that these requirements will remain in place, regardless of the agency in charge of regulating EV chargers.

Second, on incentives for electric motorcycles. Mr Louis Ng asked about the Ministry's plans to promote adoption of electric motorcycles. As he pointed out, there are some barriers to electric motorcycle adoption today that are beyond our control. Globally, there are not many electric motorcycle models, compared to electric cars. Many motorcycle dealers and distributors have also not adjusted to the electric motorcycle market yet. Therefore, we have not included motorcycles in our 2030 cleaner energy target on new registrations at the moment.

As the global market for electric motorcycle matures, we should see more offerings for consumers. We will continue to monitor such trends and consider suitable measures to encourage adoption if necessary. At the same time, we will look into providing for the charging needs of vehicles like electric motorcycles and goods vehicles, as part of our charger deployment plans. We will also not rule out battery swapping for motorcycles.

Third, on available grid capacity to support EVs. EMA and LTA are working with local researchers to study the long-term electrical infrastructure needs for EV charging in Singapore. Preliminary findings show that we may require some upgrades at various levels, including the consumer intake substations, the distribution grid network, as well as power generation. The Minister for Transport earlier mentioned that if our light vehicles switch to EVs and most EV owners charge around the same time of the day, we may need to add one or two new 600-megawatt electricity generating units in our power generation system. This amounts to around 8% to 16% of the current overall peak electricity demand in Singapore.

The required upgrades will be implemented over the next two decades as we survey our grid and gather insights on charging behaviour. Agencies plan upgrades by catering for a capacity buffer to insure against unanticipated consumption growth. This will ensure that the electricity grid remains stable, as substations are unlikely to exceed capacity due to EV charging.

Fourth, on charger deployment. We have announced our plan to roll out 40,000 charging points at our public carparks by 2030. This is a major undertaking which will necessarily involve some electrical infrastructure upgrades, and LTA has launched a Request-for-Information to consult the industry on how best to structure private sector involvement in the funding of these upgrades. Input from this exercise will also inform the design and use of carpark lots for charging, including issues that Mr Dennis Tan had mentioned.

As Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Janet Ang pointed out, agencies will need to work closely together on the national charger deployment plan. We already see this close cooperation among agencies in the pilot charging point tender issued in November 2020, covering multiple carparks owned by different agencies.

Another example, as mentioned by Mr Sharael Taha, is how LTA is working with HDB to incorporate EV charging demand into the upgrading of substations in older estates, under HDB's Electrical Load Upgrading Programme. Going forward, the National EV Centre under LTA will coordinate and drive close collaboration among agencies, including URA, EMA and HDB, to deploy chargers. We will also explore supporting regulations on data use, which Ms Mariam Jaafar has suggested.

I am glad that Mr Louis Ng and Ms Janet Ang raised the role of private development owners in the deployment of EV charging points. That includes Mr Dennis Tan as well. Indeed, we target 20,000 charging points to be deployed at private premises by 2030. To kick this off, we will launch the EV Common Charger Grant in July, to defray charger installation costs in non-landed private residences, such as condominiums. We will need to engage stakeholders, such as MCSTs, managing agents and charging operators, to see if we can do more. But more importantly, the economics must work. Users must find it more worthwhile to drive an EV compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle, so that vendors will enter the market.

Fifth, on charger availability. Beyond charger deployment, the issue of charging anxiety raised by Ms Ng Ling Ling can be addressed by maximising access to chargers as far as possible through a mix of smart charging solutions and advance booking features. To respond to Mr Gan Thiam Poh, our charger deployment tenders will also incorporate innovations in charging technology where feasible. More importantly, as Ms Janet Ang rightly pointed out, developing good social norms is also essential to discourage behaviour like lot hogging by cars that do not need charging. As Mr Dennis Tan mentioned, there are pricing schemes to discourage such behaviour, such as time-based pricing for an EV that is already fully charged.

We agree with Ms Yeo Wan Ling that point-to-point transport (P2P) drivers have specific charging needs which need to be met as they transit to EVs. We are working closely with P2P transport operators to facilitate their efforts to develop charging infrastructure for their fleets. P2P drivers can also tap on the growing network of fast chargers island-wide.

Sixth, on the disposal and recycling of used EV batteries, an issue which Mr Leon Perera raised. From July this year, the National Environment Agency, or NEA, will implement an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure the proper treatment and recycling of regulated electrical and electronic waste. This includes EV batteries. Under the scheme, producers of EV batteries are responsible for the proper treatment of the batteries when they reach end-of-life. NEA has also appointed an operator to collect consumer EV batteries on behalf of the producers. All collected EV batteries are to be sent for proper treatment with licensed e-waste recyclers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am heartened that Members are enthusiastic about the benefits of EVs and greener modes of transport in general like public transport and cycling. Some of these ideas are beyond the scope of this Bill. Today's Bill to assign LTA statutory functions on EV and EV infrastructure is a strong commitment to the transition to cleaner energy vehicles, but it is only the first step. Building on this, we will introduce further legislation in due course, such as the registration of EV chargers and charger provision requirement for new buildings. Nevertheless, we will study and, where possible, incorporate the many useful ideas and also address the concerns raised by Members today.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is important to build a healthy and vibrant EV eco-system in Singapore. The Government will do this in partnership with industry and public stakeholders. In particular, echoing what Ms Janet Ang said, there is much economic value offered by the EV industry. We are working with relevant economic agencies to anchor high value R&D activities and develop related industries, such as charging systems and automotive manufacturing, to establish an EV eco-system. As highlighted by Mr Sharael Taha, our workforce, especially our technicians and mechanics, will need to be equipped with the necessary skills to transit into future job opportunities. We are working closely with a wide variety of stakeholders on this: unions, trade associations, companies, Institutes of Higher Learning and skills development agencies.

Through our combined efforts, I look forward to making a safe transition to EVs and a greener, more sustainable living environment. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

*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 Baey Yam Keng].*

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