Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to streamline EV charger compliance and testing process
Summary
SB 314 would require standardized statewide procedures for testing, place‑in‑service of previously installed chargers, and support for local sealers to obtain testing equipment; the committee advanced the bill but several weights-and-measures concerns remain and opponents seek amendments.
SB 314, carried by Senator Padilla, would streamline and standardize the process by which electric vehicle charging stations are tested, certified and placed in service across California.
Padilla told the committee the existing system is inconsistent and slow: of the public and shared private chargers installed statewide, only a small share have completed the inspection and registration process required by the Division of Measurement Standards (CalDMS). He cited a California Energy Commission estimate that California needs 1,000,000 public chargers by 2030, noted that roughly 178,549 chargers are installed now, and said only about 7,761 had been registered for inspection. Padilla described a case in his district where a nonprofit installed chargers for a rural community but found the equipment out of compliance a week before a ribbon cutting; the problem took months to resolve and cost the group thousands of dollars.
Contractors and registered service agents (RSAs) testified about implementation issues. Matt Trout, an RSA and contractor, described inconsistent county practices and the high cost and limited availability of specialized testing equipment (test rigs sometimes costing tens of thousands of dollars). Christian Torres of Comitecivo del Valle described his nonprofit’s experience in Imperial County: the group installed chargers, operated them free while compliance was resolved, and later invested in training and equipment to become an RSA.
The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) opposed the bill as written, urging amendments to preserve consumer protection and avoid unworkable mandates. CACASA representatives said they had participated in discussions with the author but that the existing draft retained problematic carve‑outs and implementation details.
Padilla and committee leadership indicated they would continue to work with county sealers, RSAs, industry and vendors to address technical and enforcement concerns; the committee approved SB 314 for referral to the Senate Appropriations Committee with the understanding that additional amendments and technical fixes may be required before floor consideration.
