Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work group weighs NEVI‑style reporting and uptime standards, MDA outlines inspection approach
Summary
Participants compared incentive‑linked NEVI models and national examples for uptime reporting, and the Maryland Department of Agriculture detailed how weights & measures inspects devices under NIST Handbook 44 and responds to consumer complaints.
Maryland regulators, legislators and industry representatives discussed data reporting, uptime standards and how weights and measures would carry out inspections under proposed rules.
Why it matters: any uptime or reporting requirement defines what data owners must submit, how regulators measure reliability and what tools are available for oversight.
Ben Baker noted that two reporting regimes in Maryland already exist: utility‑owned stations report to the Public Service Commission and NEVI grant recipients report to MDOT. Work group members explored whether the NEVI/incentive model — which ties uptime obligations to funding — or a broader mandatory model should be used. The chair pointed to California and Britain as contrasting examples: California typically conditions requirements on incentives; Britain applies broader mandatory obligations.
Allison from MDA described current practice under NIST Handbook 44: device inspections and tolerance checks are performed by MDA inspectors; MDA does not publish routine reliability dashboards but investigates consumer complaints and can condemn nonworking chargers. Allison said device owners are required to maintain devices and outlined the inspection cadence and civil penalties (initial penalty at $500, up to $2,000 per offense under Maryland statute). She also provided technical tolerance figures for AC and DC systems and noted recently updated tolerances for chargers placed into service on or after 01/01/2025.
Several members supported bifurcating approaches for level‑2 and DC‑fast chargers: prioritize strict uptime and reporting for DC‑fast locations and adopt lighter reporting or notification remedies for many level‑2 installations.
Next steps: the work group will invite EVSE industry participants to present on data reporting experiences from other jurisdictions and will consider a proposed set of minimum reporting elements for regulators to review.
Ending: No final reporting standard was adopted; the group will gather comparative models and industry feedback to recommend specific reporting requirements.
