Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Charging Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee alerted to federal waiver litigation that could affect enforcement of state EV-charging rules
Summary
A committee member warned that federal action to revoke California’s federal waiver could affect Washington’s ability to enforce EV-charging infrastructure requirements that reference California’s zero-emission-vehicle program, creating potential legal risk for local enforcement during code implementation.
The BFRW committee received notice Oct. 10 that federal litigation over California’s federal waiver under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) could affect Washington’s ability to enforce EV charging infrastructure requirements adopted by reference to California’s zero-emission-vehicle program.
Patrick Hanks, representing the Building Industry Association of Washington, told the committee that the state RCW directing SBCC to adopt EV-charging requirements incorporates California’s program by reference and that the federal government recently revoked California’s waiver. “There is current litigation over this, but my understanding is the waiver has not been, stayed. So as of right now, technically the waiver would be ... in effect, thus removing state's ability to be able to enforce these programs,” Hanks said. He urged the council and staff to consult the Attorney General’s Office and council counsel about legal risk during implementation.
Hanks said he supports the committee’s EV infrastructure reforms but wanted members to be aware of the litigation because enforcement of EV-charging requirements in the 2024 code cycle might expose local jurisdictions to legal challenges if the waiver remains revoked by the time provisions are implemented.
Members asked whether staff or legal counsel could provide a case name or number; Hanks said he did not have the case number on hand and recommended contacting Derek in the AG’s office and SBCC legal staff for details. The committee did not take action on the matter but members agreed the legal implications warranted follow-up with counsel before final implementation.
