Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Charging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables EV charging overhaul; agrees combined draft will be revised before next meeting
Summary
The BFRW standing committee discussed a consolidated EV charging proposal that would replace three earlier petitions, debated percentages and infrastructure requirements (10% charging; 10% ready; 40% capable), and agreed to table the document for more stakeholder edits and posting of written comments before resuming consideration.
The BFRW standing committee debated a consolidated EV charging proposal intended to replace three previously filed petitions, then voted to table further action and requested a single posted draft and written comments ahead of the next meeting.
Why it matters: the proposal would change requirements for new construction on how many parking spaces require immediate EV charging, EV-ready wiring, or EV-capable raceways. Members debated technology horizon, cost impacts, and where future electrical equipment must be provided.
The draft under discussion compresses prior proposals into one committee version that sets baseline targets of 10% of spaces as required EV charging stations, 10% as EV-ready (power and outlet provision), and 40% as EV-capable (raceways and conduits sized for future equipment), for a total of 60% of spaces addressed by some level of future electrification. Todd Baber noted the 10% and 40% figures trace to a forecast: the committee used the Northwest Power and Conservation Council power plan to estimate statewide vehicle stock forecasts (about 20% in 2030 and higher later), and committee members emphasized the need for a defensible statewide forecast.
Stakeholders raised several recurring concerns: - Sizing electrical service and transformer capacity now for EV-capable spaces creates up-front utility and equipment costs that builders prefer to defer until demand is known. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington and developers argued that requiring equipment sizing now is costly; they asked that raceways or spaces be required but not sizing of the building’s service transformer or panels for EV-capable spaces. - Placement: utilities and developers said the future service or transformer for EV charging is often a separate service and not always located in the main electrical room; committee language was edited to require "electrical rooms or areas for dedicated electrical equipment" be sized to support section 4.29 but not to prescribe that equipment must be in the same service. - Definitions: commenters asked for a narrower definition of "EV-capable" so the requirement does not force immediate equipment sizing. Proponents agreed that definitions in chapter 2 must be updated to match the table language (raceway termination requirements, enclosures or end caps, and panel references).
On procedure and drafting: committee staff will post a single consolidated working draft (the BFRW combined proposal) and stakeholders were asked to submit written suggested code language to the posted Word document before the next meeting. Several attendees also recommended harmonizing hyphenation and formatting with the defined terms.
Formal action: the committee moved to table the combined EV-charging proposal to the next meeting to allow stakeholders to exchange proposed language edits; the motion to table carried. The chair asked proponents (Patrick Hanks and others) to provide detailed suggested code language and to coordinate with staff on posting and formatting.
Ending note: the committee reached broad alignment on intent — reduce retrofit costs by requiring raceways and termination points while avoiding immediate oversizing of service transformers — but did not agree on exact percentages, definitions, or transformer-sizing language. Parties will submit suggested text edits for the consolidated draft and the committee will resume formal consideration after the consolidated draft and comments are posted.
