Maryland EV work group debates whether uptime rules should reach all publicly facing chargers or only publicly funded sites

Ben, chair of the work group, opened the meeting and circulated an Excel straw man from Blink Charging outlining uptime expectations. The central debate was whether the final framework should apply only to publicly funded chargers or to all publicly facing chargers, with members sharply split on enforcement and penalty design.

The nut of the discussion centered on two competing priorities: consumer reliability and preserving private investment. Paul Verchinski argued the state must prioritize consumer experience, saying it is "a bad consumer experience, and we need to rectify it," and urged strong enforcement. Paul said that without financial consequences, owners are unlikely to prioritize long-term reliability.

Industry representatives pushed back that overly punitive rules could deter deployment. Michael Krauthammer of the Alliance for Transportation Electrification cautioned that applying liability rules to privately funded chargers would "disincentivize that private investment going to Maryland when it can go, elsewhere." Josh of Switch and Matt (industry participant) suggested a staged approach: hold publicly funded chargers to firm uptime expectations first, gather lessons, then consider broader application.

Weights and Measures and implementation: Allison from Maryland Weights and Measures said the agency already has statutory authority and will rely on NIST Handbook 44 and device certification (INTEP/NTEP) in enforcement. "We already have the authority to regulate these devices," she said, and described creating a registration category, inspector training, and a 30-day registration grace period for existing in-service devices. Allison emphasized that enforcement actions are typically remedial rather than punitive absent evidence of fraud.

Penalty design and practical concerns: Several participants recommended tiered options: (1) apply full standards to publicly funded chargers (financial penalties possible), (2) require reporting from publicly facing chargers while reserving financial penalties for publicly funded or utility-owned deployments, or (3) provide notice and data reporting for private chargers with the implementing agency monitoring and reporting to the legislature before expanding penalties. Paul said strong financial penalties are the only reliable lever to change behavior, while others warned about double costs for owners repairing vandalism and then facing penalties.

Next steps: The work group did not vote. Ben asked members to refine enforcement recommendations for the group's report. The group plans to resume work on the Excel agenda and to meet again on September 16 to continue narrowing options and to prepare final guidance to the legislature or implementing agency.

Ending: The meeting closed with recognition that enforcement design — including whether and how to impose financial penalties — will be central to the report, and no formal actions or votes were recorded.