EV workgroup schedules Thursday vote on draft charging oversight report after debate over uptime language

Members of a state electric vehicle workgroup on a virtual call reviewed a draft oversight report and agreed to reconvene Thursday afternoon for a formal vote after discussing a handful of substantive edits.

Ben, a workgroup staff member who led the meeting, opened the call by saying the goal was "to review and approve the work the report" or to set a short reconvening so members could sign off after additional review. Several members said they needed more time: Josh, a workgroup member, said, "I don't feel ready now. I would only need another day or 2," and Matt, another member, asked for a similar short delay.

The draft lays out background on state EV goals, a proposed framework for registration and implementation, data reporting and tracking, and enforcement. It recommends a 3-to-12-month timeline for owners to register existing and new chargers, sets a reliability objective discussed in the draft at 97% uptime, and proposes tiered reporting and penalties for publicly funded charging infrastructure.

On how to describe charger reliability, the meeting recorded a pointed exchange over whether to cite specific firms. Ben said Paul had asked that the report note that "Tesla has had, like, a good uptime ratings over the last 10 years," but the group pressed for sources and context. Caitlin, introduced in the record as "Caitlin with EB Go," urged caution: "I do not think that it's a fair comparison to make at this time," saying Tesla—s historical closed network and interoperability differences make direct comparisons misleading. David, another participant, said noting that some private networks have demonstrated high uptime would be useful to rebut claims that reliable uptime is not possible. The chair proposed citing industry reports such as JD Power and adding qualifiers rather than listing a single company—s number.

Members also identified a consistency problem in the draft about whether reliability should be measured at the port level or connector level. Ben noted the group had earlier deferred such technical choices to the implementing agency, and members referenced a Public Service Commission proceeding where connector-level measurement was used. To avoid a conflict with prior votes and to match the workgroup—s earlier recommendation to leave these specifics to the implementing agency, the group agreed to remove the port-level reporting sentence from the draft.

The draft includes a recommendation that publicly funded electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) be subject to uptime reporting and potential penalties, while privately funded chargers receiving public support would face tiered reporting requirements and an annual November 1 reporting cadence. The appendix includes draft budget figures and a flowchart provided by Scott Wilson; Ben cautioned those numbers are drafts and subject to change when legislation is developed.

The group agreed to reconvene for a brief meeting Thursday from 2:30 to 3 p.m. to take a formal vote; Ben said he would draft the short paragraph capturing suggested clarifications and circulate it before noon Wednesday. Rachel, representing MDA, said her agency cannot attend that time but will try to submit a vote by email. Ben said the group would check with legal counsel about whether an email-only vote from the absent agency would be accepted.

The meeting concluded after members expressed thanks for the work and agreed to the Thursday schedule. No formal vote on the report was taken during the call; the outcome will depend on the vote at the reconvened meeting or on any validated email votes.