Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workgroup Formation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PSC work group sets schedule and scope to draft EV charging reliability rules
Summary
The Public Service Commission convened an EV charging (EVSE) work group to draft a regulatory framework focused on public charger uptime, agency roles, and enforcement, aiming to deliver a legislative report by Nov. 1 with a mid‑September first draft deadline.
Get email alerts on the Workgroup Formation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Public Service Commission on a virtual call established an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) work group charged with designing a regulatory framework to improve public charging reliability and to recommend which state agencies should oversee enforcement. Chair Ben, who leads the work group as the PSC representative, said the panel’s three statutory tasks are to define the population covered by new rules, identify the responsible agency or agencies, and draft operational rules such as uptime metrics and enforcement mechanisms. "We are to deliver a report on those 3 items to the legislature by, let's see, November first of this year," Ben said.
Members and industry representatives emphasized customer experience and harmonizing new standards with existing federal and state programs. Public members and industry speakers, including Josh Cohen of Switch and Matthew Chen of Blink Charging, urged uniform standards that do not unduly hamper deployment. Paul and Scott Wilson, representing EV driver perspectives, said reliability should be the group's top priority.
Members agreed on an iterative process with standing meetings and subgroup work. Chair Ben proposed standing meetings (provisionally Mondays, 1–3 p.m.) and said he will circulate a straw‑man framework and an Excel matrix of issues for written feedback. The group also assigned interns to compile comparative research from other jurisdictions.
The work group did not adopt formal rules or votes at the meeting; instead, it set a procedural timeline: first draft by mid‑September, final draft for review in October, and a statutory report due Nov. 1. The chair asked members to provide written feedback at least two days before the next meeting and said he will circulate availability for the next session.

