BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 859 (Padilla)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: May 3, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
SK
SUBJECT
Department of Motor Vehicles:
Confidentiality of Home Address Information
DESCRIPTION
Under existing law, residence address information in Department
of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) records is confidential and may not be
disclosed to any person except to a court, law enforcement or
other government agency, or if the disclosure is subject to
certain exemptions. This bill would allow confidential home
address information in DMV records to be disclosed to an
electrical corporation or public utility if the utility or its
agent, under penalty of perjury, requests and uses the
information only for the purposes of tracking electric vehicle
charging points.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 1779
(Roos, Ch. 1213, Stats. 1989) to make home address information
contained in DMV records confidential after the actress Rebecca
Schaeffer was murdered on her doorstep by a stalker who obtained
her home address from DMV records. As a result, California law
keeps home address information contained in DMV records
confidential except that the information may be disclosed to
specified entities in certain instances. For example, the
information may be disclosed to a vehicle manufacturer if the
manufacturer or its agent, under penalty of perjury, requests
and uses the information only for the purpose of safety,
warranty, emission, or product recall, as specified. Existing
law prohibits residential addresses released from being used for
direct marketing or solicitation for the purchase of any
(more)
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 2 of ?
consumer product or service.
This bill would allow residential addresses to be released by
DMV to an electrical corporation or local publicly owned utility
if the utility or its agent, under penalty of perjury, requests
and uses the information only for the purposes of tracking
electric vehicle charging points.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that all
people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue
and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 1.)
Existing law provides that any residence address in DMV records
is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person except
a court, law enforcement or other government agency, or as
specified in Vehicle Code Sections 1808.22 and 1808.23. (Veh.
Code Sec. 1808.21.)
Existing law provides that residential addresses may be
disclosed to a vehicle manufacturer if the manufacturer or its
agent, under penalty of perjury, requests and uses the
information only for the purpose of safety, warranty, emission,
or product recall if the manufacturer offers to make and makes
any changes at no cost to the vehicle owner. (Veh. Code Sec.
1808.23(a).)
Existing law provides that any residential addresses released by
DMV may not be used for direct marketing or solicitation for the
purchase of any consumer product or service. (Veh. Code Sec.
1808.23(d).)
Existing law requires any person who has access to confidential
or restricted DMV information to establish procedures to protect
the confidentiality of those records. Existing law specifies
that if any confidential or restricted information is released
to any agent of a person authorized to obtain information, the
person shall require the agent to take all steps necessary to
ensure confidentiality and prevent the release of any
information to a third party. No agent shall obtain or use any
confidential or restricted records for any purpose other than
the reason the information was requested. (Veh. Code Sec.
1808.47.)
This bill would allow DMV to disclose confidential home address
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 3 of ?
information to an electrical corporation or public utility if
the utility or its agent, under penalty of perjury, requests and
uses the information only for the purposes of tracking electric
vehicle charging points.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Over the next ten years at least 1 million PEVs are expected
to hit the road in California. As PEVs enter California
markets, utilities, municipal governments, PEV charging
service providers, and other organizations are working
together on infrastructure rollouts to support charging at
homes and in public, and to ensure that PEV charging
integrates smoothly into the electricity grid.
. . . the deployment of PEVs will place new demands on the
state's electric system, but managed properly, that demand can
benefit ratepayers and car owners alike. If that service is
not managed efficiently, it will cost all ratepayers in the
form of higher electric rates and diminish the environmental
benefits of PEVs by increasing greenhouse gas and other
emissions associated with the generation of electricity.
However, a well-planned electric vehicle charging
infrastructure can ensure that the distribution grid has the
capacity necessary to handle the charging of the vehicles and
can also shift a significant amount of charging to off-peak
times. The result is that the need for the new building of
new power plants is minimized and the utilization of existing
plants is increased.
Regardless of where charging occurs - in public or at home -
it is important to avoid adverse impacts on the electricity
grid and associated costs for utility customers.
Consequently, utilities must actively participate in a
data-driven public infrastructure planning process to help
avoid distribution-level impacts of PEV charging. To ensure
that they have the data necessary to facilitate this planning,
a multi-prong strategy is being developed to outreach with
owners of PEVs at several different points including time of
purchase and when a building permit is pulled to install a PEV
charger. However, there are many ways that a PEV car may come
into a new neighborhood including a move by a PEV owner or the
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 4 of ?
purchase of a PEV from a private party. This bill is
necessary to facilitate the tracking of these cars and the
potential charging impact on the distribution grid.
The sponsor, California Electric Transportation Coalition
(CalETC), writes that the bill would allow "DMV to provide
needed information to utilities for the sole purpose of
maintaining grid safety, reliability and efficiency. The
utilities would not be allowed to use the DMV information for
any marketing purposes but would have access to essential
information that will help to ensure that localized transformer
impacts associated with plug-in electric vehicles are addressed
prior to adverse consequences, including potential localized
outages due to electricity demand increases. The DMV data is
particularly useful as this data is the single most reliable in
terms of tracking plug-in electric vehicle sale and resale. Any
and all costs associated with collecting the data will be borne
by utilities; these costs are anticipated to be minimal."
The sponsor indicates that several electric vehicle
manufacturers have entered into a memorandum of understanding
with utilities to provide the utilities with the home address
information of purchasers of new electric vehicles. Consumers
may opt-out of the sharing of this information.
2.Disclosure of confidential home address information contained
in DMV records
This bill would allow DMV to disclose confidential home address
information to an electrical corporation or public utility if
the utility or its agent, under penalty of perjury, requests and
uses the information only for the purposes of tracking electric
vehicle charging points. Existing law keeps home address
information contained in DMV records confidential except that
the information may be disclosed to specified entities in
certain instances. As a result, this bill raises the policy
question of whether it is appropriate to permit DMV to release
confidential home address information to utilities so that they
may use the information to track electric vehicles and their
charging locations.
Under this bill, utilities would be able to request home address
information from DMV-presumably through the department's
Commercial Requester program which allows pre-approved
requesters to obtain residence address information to "fulfill a
legitimate business need" pursuant to specified sections of
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 5 of ?
law-in order to determine where electric vehicles are
registered. Supporters of the measure argue that it is
appropriate to permit DMV to disclose confidential address
information to utilities to help them "be prepared to meet the
growing demand on the electric grid and to minimize adverse
impacts to the system." The author and his sponsor maintain
that it is more cost-effective to plan ahead to ensure that any
adverse impacts are minimized rather than to deal with localized
outages on an emergency basis.
While it is most certainly the case that emergency power outages
are an expensive way to manage the supply of electricity, the
policy question raised by this bill is whether, in order to
manage that supply, utilities should be able to obtain the
confidential home address information of electric vehicle owners
directly from DMV.
a. Home address information obtained under this bill may be
of limited value
It is important to note at the outset that the home address
information contained in DMV records will tell the utility
only where the individual who registered the car resides. It
will not actually tell the utility where the electric vehicle
owned by that individual is actually charged.
While many electric vehicle owners will likely charge their
vehicles at home, many may very well charge them at charging
stations in other locations. For example, the author notes
that "Level 2 and Level 3 (which can charge in less than 30
minutes) chargers will be installed in public locations and at
many workplaces to accommodate charging needs away from home .
. . "
As a result, it is quite possible that the confidential home
address information obtained by a utility from DMV pursuant to
this bill would be of limited value. The policy question thus
raised by the bill is whether-given that the information may
very well be of limited value-the disclosure of confidential
home address information and the resultant intrusion on
privacy is appropriate.
GIVEN THAT THE INFORMATION IS OF LIMITED VALUE BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT INDICATE WHERE A VEHICLE IS ACTUALLY BEING CHARGED, SHOULD
CONFIDENTIAL HOME ADDRESS INFORMATION CONTAINED IN DMV RECORDS
BE RELEASED TO UTILITIES? IS THIS INTRUSION ON PRIVACY
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 6 of ?
APPROPRIATE?
b. Lack of consent
Opponent, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), raises
substantial privacy concerns about the bill's provisions,
noting that it would permit the disclosure by DMV of
confidential address information without an individual's
consent. The organization further writes:
California only allows access to confidential information
that interferes with fundamental privacy rights with a
showing of compelling interest. And, the court also
considers whether there is no less intrusive means of
serving the party's interest. ÝCitations omitted.]
While tracking electrical vehicle charging points to
preserve the integrity of the electrical grid may meet the
'compelling state interest' prong of the informational
privacy analysis, we do not believe that the DMV's sharing
of Californians' addresses without their consent is the
least intrusive means to achieve this goal. We would
strongly recommend that the industry consider other options
that may not be perfect, but achieve their goals (for
example, the DMV could provide a consent form to the
purchaser of a used electric car to share his or her
information with the utility).
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO PERMIT DMV TO DISCLOSE AN INDIVIDUAL'S
CONFIDENTIAL HOME ADDRESS INFORMATION TO UTILITIES WITHOUT THE
INDIVIDUAL'S CONSENT?
c. Bill would appear to permit utilities to obtain from DMV
confidential home address information of stalking victims
and others who have requested that their home address
information be suppressed
Under existing law, individuals who are the subject of
stalking or who can show that there exists a threat of death
or great bodily injury against them may request that their
information contained in DMV records be suppressed. Under
existing law, this information may still be released to
persons authorized by statute. This bill would authorize
utilities to obtain the home address information of these
individuals in order to track electric vehicle charging
points.
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 7 of ?
Existing law also allows certain public employees to request
that their home address information be kept confidential.
Those individuals include, among others, the Attorney General,
the State Public Defender, a member of the Legislature, a
judge or court commissioner, a district attorney or public
defender, a child abuse investigator or social worker, as
specified, an employee of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, a nonsworn employee of a city police
department, a county sheriff's office, or the California
Highway Patrol, certain county counsel, a member of a city
council or board of supervisors, and an employee of a trial
court.
Under existing law, the confidential home address of a person
listed above shall not be disclosed except to a court, law
enforcement agency, the State Board of Equalization, an
attorney in a civil or criminal action pursuant to a subpoena,
or a governmental agency to which the information is required
by law to be furnished from the DMV's records.
It is not clear how this bill-which would permit DMV to
disclose home address information to utilities for purposes of
tracking electric vehicle charging points-would intersect with
the above provisions providing for home address
confidentiality for specified individuals who request that
confidentiality. For example, if a judge who owns an electric
vehicle in her name had requested that her home address
information be kept confidential, would that request be
maintained?
SHOULD DMV BE PERMITTED TO DISCLOSE TO A UTILITY CONFIDENTIAL
HOME ADDRESS INFORMATION ABOUT A STALKING VICTIM OR OTHER
INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS REQUESTED THAT HIS OR HER INFORMATION BE
SUPPRESSED, AS PERMITTED BY LAW? SHOULD THIS ISSUE BE
CLARIFIED?
d. Utility may not already have electric vehicle owner's home
address information
The sponsors assert that the only additional information that
the utility would obtain under this bill is the fact that an
electric vehicle is registered in that utility customer's
name. The utilities, they maintain, already have the electric
vehicle owner's address.
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 8 of ?
This is not always the case, however. The utility may not
have the electric vehicle owner's home address information.
For example, a husband and wife may own cars separately, and
the utility account may be in the husband's name. In that
case, the utility does not know where the wife lives. If she
owns an electric vehicle and properly registers it, under this
bill, the utility would learn her residence information.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO PERMIT DMV TO DISCLOSE TO A UTILITY AN
INDIVIDUAL'S CONFIDENTIAL HOME ADDRESS INFORMATION WHEN THE
UTILITY DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE HIS OR HER INFORMATION?
e. Increased information held by utilities - data breaches
Increasing the amount and kind of information held by utility
companies is not without its risks. A recent study by the
Ponemon Institute found that 75 percent of energy companies
and utilities had experienced at least one data breach in the
last 12 months, and 69 percent believed that another breach
was likely or very likely to occur within the next year.
("State of IT Security: Study of Utilities & Energy
Companies,"
Ponemon Institute, April 2011.)
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW DMV TO DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL HOME
ADDRESS INFORMATION TO UTILITIES WHEN UTILITIES HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF DATA BREACHES?
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT AND KIND OF
INFORMATION HELD BY UTILITIES WHEN THAT INFORMATION MAY BE
SUBJECT TO A DATA BREACH?
Support : California Municipal Utilities Association;
Environmental Defense Fund; National Resources Defense Council;
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Sacramento Municipal Utility
District; San Diego Gas and Electric Company; Southern
California Edison
Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
HISTORY
Source : California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC)
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
SB 859 (Padilla)
Page 9 of ?
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Public Safety (Ayes 6, Noes 1)
**************