Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Electrification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to require EV installer certification on state-funded projects
Summary
Senate Bill 5528 would require EV charger installations on state-funded sites be performed by installers certified through the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) or an equivalent program.
Senate Bill 5528 would require that installation of electric vehicle supply equipment at state-funded facilities be performed by persons certified by the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) or a similarly accredited program.
The bill’s sponsor and committee staff told the Labor & Commerce Committee the training is intended to improve safety and consistency in installations as the state moves toward greater vehicle electrification. “If you look at electric vehicle infrastructure, … there’s a real need for it,” said Ryan Brott, training director at the Puget Sound Electrical Apprenticeship School. Brott added the training covers continuous-load calculations, voltage drop and burial depths that are important for reliable operation and public safety. “Please consider this bill,” he said.
Why it matters: Washington’s policy to increase zero-emission vehicle adoption will require more public and private charging stations. Sponsors say standardized training will reduce outages and safety risks at charging sites and protect workers who install the equipment.
Supporters representing electricians, apprenticeship programs and utility workers emphasized EVITP’s 20-hour curriculum and its continuing-education model. Nicole Grant, a journey-level electrician with IBEW Local 46, testified that the training is “a best practice that is high impact for safety and a low burden” for workers. Mark Davis, an electrician with experience installing chargers in areas without cell service, told the committee failures at remote stations can strand drivers and “could really be a life or death situation” if an installation is done improperly.
Opponents — including electrical contractors and some trade associations — said licensed journeyman electricians already must meet state licensing and apprenticeship requirements that cover electrical safety and the National Electrical Code. Brandon Huskeeper of the Associated Builders and Contractors said the training largely overlaps existing requirements and questioned what additional public-safety benefit the bill adds. Timothy Rockwell, a small business owner and electrical contractor, said the bill “is unnecessary” and would limit competition and raise costs for small contractors.
Several witnesses urged alternate policy approaches: standardizing charger hardware quality, strengthening inspection processes, or increasing access to apprenticeship programs for small or minority-owned firms rather than adding a separate certification requirement.
Committee context: Staff noted the bill would apply to state-funded projects and would not affect installations already under contract on the act’s effective date. No fiscal note was final at the time of the hearing. Committee members asked whether residential installs are affected and how reliability problems (cut cables, cellular connectivity) factor into enforcement and inspections.
The committee did not take a vote in the hearing. The committee record shows multiple written statements pro and con and the spoken testimony tally reported near the hearing close: 12 pro, 26 con, 0 other.
