CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
the proposed regulations, the amended text, with the 
changes clearly indicated, will be made available for an 
additional 15−day public comment period, before the 
Department adopts the regulations. The Department 
will accept written comments on the modifications to 
the regulations during the 15−day public comment period. 
A V AILABILITY OF FINAL 
STATEMENT OF REASONS 
Upon completion, the Final Statement of Reasons 
will be available on the Department’s website at https://oag.ca.gov/ . You may also obtain a written copy 
of the final statement of reasons by contacting: 
Shayna Rivera, CalGang Unit Manager Bureau of Criminal Identification and 
Investigative Services 
California Justice Information Services Division 4949 Broadway 
Sacramento, CA 95820 
(916) 210−4296 
A V AILABILITY OF 
DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET 
Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial 
Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikeout format, as well as the Final 
Statement of Reasons once completed, are available on 
the Department’s website at https://oag.ca.gov/. 
TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD 
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO 
CONSIDER PROPOSED ELECTRIC 
VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT STANDARDS 
The California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below to consider approving for adoption 
the proposed standards for Electric Vehicle Supply 
Equipment (EVSE). 
DATE: June 27, 2019 
TIME: 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: California Environmental 
Protection Agency 
California Air Resources Board 
Byron Sher Auditorium 
1001 I Street 
Sacramento, California 95814 
This item will be considered at a meeting of the 
Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., June 27, 2019, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on June 28, 2019. 
Please consult the agenda for the hearing, which will be 
available at least ten days before June 27, 2019, to deter-
mine the day on which this item will be considered. 
WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND 
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS 
Interested members of the public may present com-
ments orally or in writing at the hearing and may pro-vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal 
before the hearing. The public comment period for this 
regulatory action will begin on May 10, 2019. Written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after May 10, 2019, and received by June 24, 2019. CARB requests that, when possible, 
written and email statements be filed at least ten days 
before the hearing to give CARB staff and Board mem-
bers additional time to consider each comment. The Board also encourages members of the public to bring 
to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing any 
suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory 
action. Comments submitted in advance of the hearing 
must be addressed to one of the following: 
Postal mail: Clerk of the Board, California Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street 
Sacramento, California 95814 
Electronic submittal: http://www .arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php 
Please note that under the California Public Records 
Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact infor-mation (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become 
part of the public record and can be released to the pub-
lic upon request. 
Additionally, the Board requests but does not require 
that persons who submit written comments to the Board 
reference the title of the proposal in their comments to 
facilitate review. 
AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE 
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority 
granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 
 739  
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
39600, 39601, 43016, 44268, and 44268.2. This action 
is proposed to implement, interpret, and make specific 
sections 44268 and 44268.2 of the Health and Safety Code. 
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED 
ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT 
OVERVIEW 
(GOV . CODE, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) 
Sections Affected: Proposed adoption to California 
Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2360, 2360.1, 2360.2, 2360.3, 2360.4, 2360.5 
Documents Incorporated by Reference (Cal. Code 
Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(3)) 
The following documents and test procedures would 
be incorporated in the regulation by reference as speci-fied by section: 
 “Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard — Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures” published by PCI 
Security Standards Council (Version 3.2.1) (May 
2018), Section 2360. 
 “California Open Charge Point Interface Test Procedures for Networked Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment for Level 2 and Direct Current 
Fast Charge Classes”, [Insert Adoption Date], 
Section 2360.3. 
The above−listed document is also being adopted by 
this regulation and thus the adoption date would be the date that the regulation is adopted by CARB. 
Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory 
Action : 
CARB proposes to add and adopt the California Code 
of Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 8.3, Section 2360, to 
establish hardware and software standards for EVSE. 
The proposed regulation affects publicly accessible Level 2 and direct current fast charger (DCFC) EVSE. 
Under the proposed regulation, electric vehicle service 
providers (EVSP) will be required to install and main-tain credit card readers and mobile payment technology 
on publicly accessible EVSE, post signs for all fees as-sociated with charging, attach a Code of Federal Regu-lations (CFR) Title 16 Part 309 sticker, and adopt an in-
teroperable billing standard. The proposed regulation imposes specific reporting requirements for EVSPs in-
cluding annual reporting to CARB, the National Re-
newable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Alternative Fu-
els Data Center (AFDC), and an initial statement of compliance for new models of EVSE. Background 
CARB and the State of California are committed to 
the growth of the zero emission vehicle market. These 
vehicles are critical to meeting the State’s health−based 
air quality and climate change targets. As increasing numbers of plug−in electric vehicles (PEV) are added to 
California roads, public charging infrastructure to sup-
port the vehicles is also being added. 
Existing public charging infrastructure is often con-
fusing to PEV drivers due to varying access and pay-ment modes. Drivers have encountered EVSE being non−functioning upon arrival, toll−free numbers not 
being staffed, inconsistent charging session prices, and 
not being able to find EVSE at a given location. The 
proposed regulation will address these problems so drivers will have greater confidence in charging infrastructure. 
The California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 
454, “Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Open Access Act,” in 2013. The purpose of SB 454 was to set EVSE 
performance standards allowing for open access. Cali-
fornia Health and Safety Code sections 44268 and 
44268.2 gave authority to CARB to implement the re-quirements. 
The proposed regulation establishes six requirements 
for publicly accessible EVSE: 
1. Public chargers must be accessible to drivers 
regardless of membership in an EVSP network. 
2. EVSPs must operate credit card readers and 
mobile payment options on Level 2 and DCFC EVSE allowing payment by members and non−members. 
3. EVSPs must place, on each EVSE, a sticker informing drivers of voltage (V) and amperage (A) 
capabilities of that EVSE. 
4. EVSPs must post all fees associated with a charging session. 
5. EVSPs must install the interoperable billing standard Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) on each EVSE. In addition, other interoperable billing standards may also be used. 
6. EVSPs must report new, current, and decommissioned EVSE locations and access information to the NREL AFDC and CARB. The information reported will include pricing, EVSE model and location information. 
EVSPs will also be subject to initial statement of 
compliance requirements for EVSE models and annual location and usage reporting requirements. 
Staff have continued stakeholder engagement on the 
proposed regulatory requirements. Should compromis-
es on areas of contention be reached before the board 
 740 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
hearing, additional modifications resulting from this 
coordination will be presented at the Public Hearing. 
Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory 
Action: 
The proposed regulation’s primary objective is to ad -
dress consumer access to publicly available EVSE. Ac -
cess to an EVSE includes finding the location of an EVSE, identifying fees associated with use, and paying 
for a char ging session. 
Implementation of the proposed regulation will: (1) 
enable drivers to more readily locate public EVSE, (2) provide drivers char ging session pricing before use, (3) 
provide drivers convenient and simple payment meth-
ods for charging sessions, (4) provide standardized 
power information on each EVSE, and (5) facilitate 
EVSP roaming agreements.
1 Consumer benefits of the 
proposed regulation include familiar payment methods, 
clear pricing information, and uniform station location. 
Timeline 
This proposed regulation does not require EVSE to 
be installed for public use; it establishes hardware and 
software requirements for new and existing EVSE. 
New DCFC installations shall be fully compliant start-ing July 1, 2020. Existing DCFC EVSE must meet nec-
essary hardware and software requirements by July 1, 
2024, depending on installation date. New Level 2 EVSE installations shall be fully compliant starting July 1, 2023. Existing Level 2 EVSE must meet neces-
sary hardware and software requirements by July 1, 2027, depending on installation date. 
Credit Card and Mobile T echnology 
The proposed regulation requires EVSPs to ensure 
that all EVSE have a physical credit card reader and a physical near field communications (NFC) reader (to 
accept mobile payment). EVSPs may install the credit 
card reader and NFC reader either on the EVSE itself or 
at a nearby kiosk that services one or more EVSE at the site. This provision is to comply with SB 454’ s require-
ment that an EVSE “shall allow a person desiring to use 
the station to pay via credit card or mobile technology, or both.”
2 The objective of this proposed requirement is 
to ensure consumers convenient charging session pay-
ment access. The benefit of this proposed requirement 
is to provide public charging access for all consumers including those who may not have smart phones or may 
not be familiar with using public charging 
infrastructure. 
1 Roaming agreements are contracts between EVSPs that allow 
members to seamlessly use the networks covered by the contract. 
2 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 44268.2(a)(1). Disclosure of Fees 
The proposed regulation requires EVSPs to provide 
the user a complete listing of all fees that the user may 
incur at the time of a charging session. The fees may in-
clude, but are not limited to, the kilowatt−hour (kWh) or 
megajoule (MJ) cost of electricity, credit card fees, parking fees, non−membership plug−in fees, increased 
charges after plug−in session ends, and any other fees 
chargeable to the PEV user. Fees must be displayed at the point of sale to ensure the fee structure is transparent to the driver. Consumers paying for a charging session 
must be billed for electricity by the $/kWh or $/MJ. The 
Electric Power Research Institute completed a study of 
National Charging Costs,
3 which found over 350 
unique charging cost structures. As a result, there is on-
going confusion for drivers today when paying for 
charging. This proposed requirement will align with California Department of Food and Agriculture Divi-sion of Measurement Standards
4 proposed regulation 
for EVSE charging as well as give customers confi-dence that all fees will be displayed ahead of starting a charging session. The purpose of this proposed require-
ment is to ensure consumers know exactly what they will be paying at the time of starting a char ging session. 
The benefit of this proposed section of the code is that drivers will be able to see clearly what they will be 
charged for a char ging session. 
Payment Car d Industry Data Security Standard Level 1 
Compliance 
The proposed regulation requires that credit card 
reader and near field communications (NFC) reader 
payment systems must be Payment Card Industry Data 
Security Standard (PCI−DSS) Level 1 compliant to se-
cure the payment transactions and protect PEV con-sumers’ personally identifiable information.
5 PCI− 
DSS Level 1 compliance requires a third party to in-
spect annually the EVSE and requires the service 
provider or network operator to use data encryption from the EVSE to the EVSP and back. PCI−DSS Level 
1 compliance is industry standard for curbside parking 
meters and most DCFCs that currently have credit card 
readers. For example, this technology is commonly re-
3 Dunckley, Jamie, December 2017. Electric Power Research In-
stitute “National Charging Costs” 
4 DMS, 2018. California Department of Food and Agriculture. 
“ISOR: Electric Vehicle Fueling Systems” 
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/pdfs/regulations/EVSE_ISOR.pdf 
5 Control Scan, 2018. “What’s the point of PCI DSS compliance 
requirements?” https://www .controlscan.com/data−sheet−pci−dss−compliance− 
solutions/?utm_source=pcicomplianceguide.org&utm_medium =referral&utm_campaign=pcicg−overview, Accessed Septem-ber 10, 2018 
 741 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
quired as a minimum security measure on parking me-
ters that use credit card readers or other payment tech-
nologies.6 The purpose of this proposed requirement is 
to ensure that users’ information will be protected from 
exposure. The second purpose of this proposed require-
ment is to ensure that EVSPs are using the highest form 
of security for handling driver payment information. 
The benefit of this proposed requirement is to provide 
secure char ging session payment transactions at public 
EVSE locations. 
Inter operable Billing Standard 
SB 454 authorizes CARB to adopt interoperable 
billing standards for EVSE network roaming payment 
methods. Roaming enables a member of one EVSP to 
use that membership credential on a different EVSP. 
Upon completing the charging session, the two EVSPs send and receive billing information to complete the transaction. Drivers benefit from roaming by using one 
membership card or mobile device application (app) at other networked EVSE. 
Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI), an open source 
communication protocol−enabling driver roaming, is 
used by many domestic and international charging in-
frastructure providers. A number of EVSPs announced 
roaming agreements using OCPI in 2018.
7,8,9 As no na-
tional interoperability billing standards have been 
adopted, CARB is proposing the use of OCPI 2.1.1, as 
incorporated in “California Open Charge Point Inter-
face Interim Test Procedures for Networked Electric 
Vehicle Supply Equipment for Level 2 and Direct Cur-
rent Fast Charge Classes.” CARB supports the use of 
open source communication protocols and acknowl-edges that other products are currently in development. 
Proposal of the OCPI standard ensures at least one com-
mon communications protocol is in use by all EVSE to 
facilitate roaming agreements, but does not preclude 
6 City of Sacramento, May 29, 2013. “Request for Proposal: Park-
ing Meter Procurement” http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/ 
cache/2/3lh0hxykr0stpot3e3bz2hpx/6784261114201811053259 
5.PDF 
7 Greenlots, 2018. “Greenlots and ChargePoint Partner to In-
crease Access to EV Charging Throughout North America.” De-
cember 20, 2018. https://greenlots.com/greenlots−and−charge 
point−partner−to−increase−access−to−ev−char ging−through-
out−north−america/ 
8 Moran, 2018. Mike Moran. “Network Interoperability Agree-
ments announced with EV network providers EV Connect, 
Greenlots and SemaConnect” October 18, 2018. 
https://www.electrive.com/wp−content/uploads/2018/10/2018− 10−Electrify−America_Interoperability.pdf 
9 ChargePoint, 2018. “ChargePoint and EVBox Pave the Way for 
Fully Electric Future with Forward−Thinking Partnership” Octo-
ber 9, 2018. https://www.chargepoint.com/about/news/charge 
point−and−evbox−pave−way−fully−electric−future−forward− 
thinking−partnership/ the use of additional communications protocols that 
would enable roaming. The proposed standard is being 
used widely in industry today. The benefit of this pro-
posed requirement is that EVSPs should see increased 
EVSE use from non−members once a roaming agree-
ment is in place. Another benefit of this proposed re-quirement is for drivers by providing confidence in quickly starting a charging session through a roaming 
agreement. 
Labeling Requir ement 
The proposed regulation requires EVSPs to label 
each EVSE in accordance with CFR Title 16 Part 309 
label. CFR T itle 16 includes Commercial Practice rules 
and regulations set by federal agencies. Part 309.17 de-
scribes labeling requirements for electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing systems. The label must indicate the type of 
fuel (electricity), if the method of delivery is conductive 
or inductive, and the voltage, amperage and kilowatt 
(kW) capabilities of the EVSE. The Federal Trade 
Commission adopted Section 309.17 on April 23, 2013. 
The purpose of this proposed requirement is to imple-ment proper signage on the EVSE in accordance with 
the CFR. 
Data Reporting 
The proposed regulation requires each EVSP to dis-
close to NREL the station’s geographic location, sched-
ule of fees, accepted payment methods, and the amount 
of network roaming fees charged to non−members.
10 
Through the AFDC website,11 NREL provides infor-
mation and tools to help transportation decision− makers reduce petroleum consumption through the use 
of alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles, 
and other measures. The AFDC website also includes 
an Alternative Fueling Station Locator.
12 Largely 
through collaboration with infrastructure service providers, NREL gathers and verifies EVSE data. The 
AFDC website and mobile applications disseminate in-
formation on EVSE location, fees, and other relevant data to PEV owners. Requiring a central resource of in-
formation for a PEV driver will help provide confi-dence that infrastructure is ready for drivers to use. The 
purpose and benefit of this proposed requirement is to provide consumers with uniform information on public 
charging infrastructure. 
10 NREL is a federally af filiated organization that collects and dis-
tributes information on energy ef ficiency, sustainable transporta-
tion, and renewable power technologies. U.S. Department of En-
ergy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018. https://www.nrel.gov/. Accessed July 25, 2018. 
11 Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2018. https://www .afdc.energy. 
gov/. Accessed July 25, 2018. 
12 Alternative Fueling Station Locator, 2018. https://www.afdc. 
energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC, Accessed July 1, 2018. 
 742 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
Public Process for Development of the Proposed 
Regulation 
CARB staff has engaged with stakeholders via fo-
rums and public processes from the onset of the pro-posed rulemaking. Initially, outreach and input focused 
on stakeholder forum settings to define potential ac-
tions by CARB on SB 454. On December 8, 2017, 
CARB staff hosted the first forum with industry stake-
holders to discuss requirements as stipulated by the leg-
islation and to introduce other regulatory considera-tions CARB was investigating. During the forum, 
CARB staff sought input on factors for developing open 
access charging infrastructure requirements for PEVs, 
including payment for use, data reporting, network roaming and interoperable billing, and that pose barri-
ers for electric vehicle consumer adoption. On March 
30, 2018, CARB staff hosted a second forum to further discuss and seek input on the regulatory framework, definitions, proposed data format, and proposed com-
pliance timelines. At this time, CARB staff solicited 
stakeholders for alternatives to the proposed regulation. 
CARB staff also gathered public feedback on the pro-
posed regulation through public workshops and a webi-
nar. Staff distributed notice of the May 30, 2018, work-shop through a public listserv that includes 5,000+ re-cipients and posted notice
13 of the public meeting. In-
formation regarding the workshop14 and associated 
materials were also posted on the SB 454 website.15 
This public workshop, which was webcast, solicited stakeholder feedback on the proposed regulation and 
the regulatory process. CARB staff also sought public 
input regarding alternatives to the proposed regulation. 
Subsequent to this workshop, CARB staf f hosted a pub-
lic webinar on June 21, 2018, to present proposed defi-nitions for regulated parties and to discuss reporting re-quirements. CARB staff held a second public work-shop
16 on November 7, 2018, during which CARB staff 
presented draft regulatory language and requested feed-
13 CARB, 2018. Public W orkshop Notice to Discuss Implementa-
tion of the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Open Access Act. 
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/ecars1803/ecars1803. pdf. Accessed July 25, 2018. 
14 CARB, 2018. Public Workshop to Discuss Implementation of 
the Electric Vehicle Charging Station EVSE Open Access Act (Senate Bill 454, Statutes of 2013). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ 
public−workshop−discuss−implementation−electric−vehicle− charging−stations−open−access−act−senate. Accessed July 25, 
2018. 
15 CARB, 2018. Electric Vehicle Charging Station EVSE Open 
Access  (Senate Bill 454). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our−work/ 
programs/electric−vehicle−char ging−stations−open−access− 
senate−bill−454. Accessed July 25, 2018. 
16 CARB, 2018. Mail−Out ECARS #18−06. “Public W orkshop to 
Discuss the Implementation of the Electric V ehicle Charging Sta-
tions Open Access Act.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ mailouts/ecars1806/ecars1806.pdf back from stakeholders. CARB staff held a second pub-
lic webinar on April 2, 2019, to present the draft regula-
tory text updated based on stakeholder feedback from 
the November 7 workshop. 
Comparable Federal Regulations: 
CARB is implementing SB 454, which was created 
and signed into law by the California State Legislature 
in 2013. SB 454 requires EVSE to be labeled in accor-
dance with CFR T itle 16 Part 309.17 The proposed regu-
lation effects that requirement. With that exception, there are no other federal regulations at this time that ad-
dress the same issues as the proposed regulation. 
An Evaluation of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations (Gov. Code,§ 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)(D)): 
During the process of developing the proposed regu-
latory action, CARB conducted a search of any similar 
regulations on this topic and concluded these regula-
tions are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with ex-
isting State regulations. 
MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW OR 
REGULATIONS (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.2, subd. (c), 
11346.9) 
CFR Title 16 Part 309 mandates that EVSE have a la-
bel identifying that the EVSE conducts electricity, at a 
specified voltage, amperage, and kilowatt. As stated 
above, SB 454 requires EVSE to be labeled in accor-dance with CFR T itle 16 Part 309.
18 The proposed regu-
lation ef fects that requirement. 
DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE 
PROPOSED REGULATION 
Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination
Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov. Code, 
§ 11346.5, subds. (a)(5)&(6)): 
The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer 
concerning the costs or savings incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in reason-
able compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below. 
Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivi-
sion (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Execu-tive Officer has determined that the proposed regulato-
ry action would create costs but not savings to State 
agencies, would not create costs or savings in federal funding to the State, would create costs (but not a man-
date) to any local agency or school district, which 
would not be reimbursable by the State under Govern-
ment Code, title 2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with 
section 17500), and would not create any other nondis-
17 Health & Safety Code § 44268.2(c). 
18 Health & Safety Code § 44268.2(c). 
 743 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
cretionary costs nor savings to State or local agencies. 
The proposed regulation does not create a mandate for 
several reasons: Operating vehicle charge equipment is generally a discretionary decision for local govern-
ments, so the costs are not required; moreover, the pro-
posed amendments apply generally to all entities oper-
ating electrical vehicle supply equipment rather than applying specific mandates to local governments. Be-
cause they do not impose unique new requirements on 
local agencies, they are not a reimbursable mandate for 
this reason as well (County of Los Angeles v. State of California, 42 Cal. 3d 46 (1987)). 
Housing Costs (Gov. Code, § 1 1346.5, subd. (a)(12)): 
The Executive Officer has also made the initial deter-
mination that the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant effect on housing costs. 
Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including Ability to Compete (Gov. Code, §§ 1 1346.3, subd. (a), 1 1346.5, 
subd. (a)(7), 1 1346.5, subd. (a)(8)): 
The Executive Of ficer has made an initial determina-
tion that the proposed regulatory action would not have 
a significant statewide adverse economic impact direct-
ly affecting businesses, including the ability of Califor-
nia businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. 
Results of The Economic Impact Analysis/ Assessment (Gov. Code, § 1 1346.5, subd. (a)(10)): 
MAJOR REGULATION: Statement of the Results of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA) (Gov. Code, § 1 1346.3, subd. (c)): 
(A)The creation or elimination of jobs within the
state.
CARB staff anticipates that the proposed regulation 
will have a small impact on employment growth in Cali-
fornia. Directly impacted industries such as EVSPs and 
site hosts may see negative impacts to employment due 
to increased costs of compliance. Because the EVSP in -
dustry is currently facing an expansion of the market and major shift in technology, employees of the EVSPs that may reduce jobs are likely to be hired by larger EVSPs looking for qualified employees. 
Various indirectly impacted industries that supply 
goods and services to EVSPs, such as businesses that replace Level 2 EVSE and businesses that supply credit 
card readers, mobile payment, and interoperability compatibility, may see an increase in demand as a result 
of the proposed amendments and may also see some employment growth, particularly in years where many 
Level 2 EVSE need to be replaced. Based on the Re-
gional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) analysis in the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA), the overall impact of the propo sed regulation from 2020 to 2030 is a reduction in job growth of about 460 jobs by 
2030. This change in employment is small relative to 
the California economy, corresponding to a change of less than −0.01 percent. 
(B) The creation of new businesses or the
elimination of existing businesses within the state.
Overall, staff expects the proposed regulation to have 
a small impact on business creation or elimination. Some EVSP businesses, including some small busi-nesses, may struggle with the increased compliance costs and be eliminated. 
The compliance costs incurred for the installation of 
equipment and other items may result in increases in de -
mand for industries supplying those goods and services. Increases in demand for Level 2 replacements may re-sult in an increase in the number of electrical contrac-tors and other wiring installation contractors. A de-
crease in individual contractors offering their services 
to EVSPs may result due to EVSPs hiring larger electri-
cian firms to help maintain the EVSE as a lar ger account 
versus individual work orders. Increased demand for maintenance on the EVSE may create new businesses 
in the EVSE maintenance industry. 
(C)The competitive advantages or disadvantages
for businesses currently doing business within the
state.
EVSPs that support networked EVSE (Level 2 and 
DCFCs) that require fee for service are subject to the 
same proposed requirements. Businesses that predomi-nantly support Level 2 EVSE will have a higher per EVSE compliance cost compared to those that primari-
ly support DCFCs. The potential price impacts for Lev-
el 2 chargers is estimated to be larger than for DCFCs; 
however, the business models for these charger types are often different. DCFCs are char ging−focused, pro-
viding a draw to drivers due to their fast charging speeds. Level 2 chargers are slower and less desirable for public charging, but can benefit site hosts who in-
stall these chargers. Many site hosts provide Level 2 
charging for free in order to attract customers; thus, charging revenue is not always a primary goal for Level 
2 EVSE. These varied business models may mitigate some of the impacts of dif ferential compliance costs. 
PEV owners primarily charge their vehicles within 
the range of their residence; thus, CARB staff antici-pates little competition for charging services across state lines. CARB staff does not anticipate compliance costs for California EVSE to impact competitiveness with out−of−state businesses. 
(D)The increase or decrease of investment in the
state.
The proposed amendment would likely have small 
impacts on private investment growth, resulting in less 
than 0.01 of baseline private investment. The modeling 
 744 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
results suggest a slight decrease of investment growth 
from 2020 to 2030, likely driven by cost of compliance 
for the proposed regulation. 
(E) The incentives for innovation in products, 
materials, or processes. 
The proposed regulation could provide incentives to 
improve EVSE and network operations to reduce com-
pliance costs. The proposed regulation does require cer-
tain technology types to be used; there may be technolo-
gy innovation from multiple parties to ensure the hard-ware and software is properly integrated. Due to the 
proposed regulation, CARB staff anticipates growth in 
the monetary authorities, credit intermediation, and re-lated activities industry, which will provide the credit card reader, mobile payment hardware, and PCI com-
pliance. As EVSPs integrate the proposed interoperable 
billing standard, staff expects innovation to streamline 
operations and reduce costs. 
(F) The benefits of the regulations, including, but 
not limited to, benefits to the health, safety, and 
welfare of California residents, worker safety, and 
the state’s environment and quality of life, among 
any other benefits identified by the agency. 
The proposed regulation is intended to make public 
charging more consistent, transparent, accessible and easy for consumers to use. CARB staff anticipates mul-
tiple benefits because of the proposed regulation, which 
are described in this section. 
Emissions benefits 
CARB staff do not anticipate this proposed regula-
tion alone to increase the population of PEVs on the 
road or increase the number of EVSE installed com-
pared to the baseline. This regulation is one initial piece 
of a multipronged strategy, which sets the stage to allow 
broader PEV adoption once other actions are in place. 
The proposed regulation is also complementary to and 
supports realization of the statewide emission benefits 
expected from the existing ZEV Regulation that in-creases in stringency to 2025.
19,20 The proposed regu-
lation also supports realization of California’s 2030 
19 CARB, 201 1. California Environmental Protection Agency Air 
Resources Board. Staf f Report: Initial Statement of Reasons Ad-
vanced Clean Cars 2012 Proposed Amendments to the California 
Zero Emission Vehicle Program Regulation. Page 78 accessed 
September 1, 2018. 
20 Projections of the statewide fleet emission benefits were re-
cently updated to support the LEV III regulation changes for the “Deemed to Comply” provision. CARB, August 7, 2018. “Public 
Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to the Low−Emis-sion Vehicle III Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulation: Staff Re-port:  Initial Statement of Reasons” https://www.arb.ca.gov/ 
regact/2018/leviii2018/leviiiisor.pdf greenhouse gas (GHG) target of 40 percent emissions 
reductions below 1990 levels.21 
The proposed regulation is anticipated to increase 
driver access to EVSE and allow a more consistent and 
transparent charging experience. This increased access 
is anticipated to result in drivers having confidence to transition more of their driving miles to PEVs, which could increase electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT) 
statewide and provide emissions benefits. Consumers 
have a wide variety of mobility and charging options, which results in a complex matrix of consumer choices with vastly different emissions profiles. Currently, 
there is insufficient data available to understand how in-
creased access will quantitatively change eVMT 
statewide, and therefore reduce emissions. 
The proposed regulation is anticipated to increase uti-
lization of public charging, which will likely increase eVMT. To estimate the emissions benefits, it would be necessary to quantitatively identify how much of this 
eVMT is new miles traveled that would not have other-
wise occurred, substitution of gasoline vehicle miles 
traveled (VMT) for eVMT, or simply a shift in char ging 
behavior resulting in no emissions difference (i.e., less 
home charging and more public charging). Increased eVMT that is new VMT that would not have otherwise occurred could result in a slight increase in emissions due to increased electricity use. Substitution of eVMT 
for other modes could result in increased emissions or 
significant emissions benefits. For example, if in-creased confidence in charging causes a consumer to 
use an electric vehicle in place of walking or public 
transit, then emissions may increase. Where consumers 
are substituting personal conventional vehicle use for eVMT the emissions benefits are significant. 
Given that approximately 75 percent of trips in Cali-
fornia use a personal vehicle,
22 CARB staff anticipate 
the proposed regulation to result in net statewide emis-sions benefits, but there is insufficient data currently to 
quantify the results. Substitution of transit, walking or 
biking for eVMT is likely a small proportion of the change, as the CARB staff expects the majority of sub-
stituted miles to be from a conventional personal gaso-line vehicle since these trips dominate mode share in California. This will decrease tailpipe emissions and emissions from production of fossil fuels resulting in 
decreased emissions of GHGs, particulate matter (PM), 
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and other air pollutants. Re-
ductions of these pollutants provide climate and health 
benefits. 
21 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017. 
pdf 
22 CalTrans, 2013. 2010−2012 California Household Travel Sur-
vey Final Report. Table 1.2.3 on pg 4. 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/omsp/statewide_travel_an 
alysis/Files/CHTS_Final_Report_June_2013.pdf 
 745 Figure 1 -Greenhouse gas emission factors (grams of CO2/mile) for three technology types on new passenger cars, 
accounting for direct vehicle emissions (TTW) as well as fuel production and delivery emissions (WTT) 
V 
E 
t a. 
~ 8 .,, e· 
r.: ... 
CD 35-0 ······-__ ., ·-...... •• _, ____ ,.-~-··-····--·-··-·-··-·--· ---··------... ·---·-··· ---- --
300 
250 -
200 
150 
100 
· 50 
0 j' 
! GAS PHEV 
2020 BEV GAS PHEV 
2030 BEV ■WTT 
ll!TTW CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
To convey the potential scale of emissions reductions 
from trips that switch to electric miles, CARB staff have 
quantified the marginal difference in GHG emissions 
between driving a mile with a gasoline conventional ve-
hicle compared to an electric drive vehicle. Figure 1 shows the GHG emissions per mile for a gasoline vehi-
cle (GAS) compared to a PHEV and battery electric ve-hicle (BEV) in California in two time periods. The data 
displays both the tailpipe emissions (“tank to wheel” or TTW) and upstream emissions associated with produc-ing and delivering the fuel to the vehicles (“well to 
tank” or WTT). Combined, this is called a well−to− 
wheel emissions analysis comparing varying vehicle technologies. 
In addition to comparing emissions between technol-
ogy types, the analysis also compares new passenger 
vehicles in two different years to account for improved 
vehicle efficiency and fuel carbon content (both elec-
tricity and gasoline) over time. CARB staff estimated 
emissions from vehicles using the most current CARB on−road vehicle inventory, the Emission Factor 
(EMFAC) 2017 model approved by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for state 
implementation plan (SIP) purposes. Emissions from 
producing gasoline in 2020 and 2030 account for the an-
ticipated lower carbon fossil and renewable fuel blends 
expected in the market due to the recently adopted Low 
Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) amendments. CARB 
staff based emissions from producing electricity on 
California’s power generation mix in 2020 and 2030 
under the SB 100
23 renewable requirements (a 60 per-
cent renewable portfolio standard by 2030) and the phase−out of coal generation. These assumptions, 
therefore, account for the unique conditions in Califor-
nia and show that driving an electric vehicle produces significantly lower GHG emissions, as compared to other states or regions with different vehicle and fuel 
23 Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 399.11, 399.15, 399.30 and 
454.53 to the Public Utilities Code policies. The well−to−wheel GHG emissions from a 
new BEV are anticipated to be about 75 percent lower 
than a new gasoline (GAS) vehicle in 2020, and 85 per-
cent lower in 2030. 
In addition to GHG emissions, CARB staf f evaluated 
other pollutants in this analysis. In 2020, the BEV has approximately 80 percent lower NOx emissions than the conventional vehicle, and in 2030, CARB staff ex-
pects the difference to be even slightly larger. For PM 
pollutants, the difference is slightly smaller at approxi-mately 50−percent−reduced emissions compared to a conventional vehicle. These values represent the full 
well−to−wheel emissions factor.
24 
Fuel Cost Savings 
If the proposed regulation reduces conventional per-
sonal vehicle use and replaces this with eVMT then ve-
hicle operators could enjoy fuel cost savings. CARB 
staff could not quantify these potential cost savings for 
the reasons described in the last section, but staff quali-
tatively discusses these savings here. As above, the sub-
stitution of conventional personal vehicles for eVMT is 
24 Emissions Factor is a representative value that attempts to re-
late the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an 
activity associated with the release of that pollutant. 
 746 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
only one of the possible outcomes of the proposed regu-
lation, but CARB staff expect it represents the majority 
of the substitution choices. 
On average, electric vehicles are estimated to save 
consumers between $440 and $1,340 per year on fuel, 
relative to a conventional vehicle, if all the annual VMT 
is shifted to the electric vehicle.25 Thus, substitution of 
a portion of conventional VMT for eVMT would likely 
result in small fuel savings for consumers. The range is 
large because savings depend on the relative prices of gasoline and electricity , as well as the fuel economy of 
the conventional vehicle. The annual savings of $440 
assumes a low gasoline price and high fuel economy 
conventional vehicle, and the $1,340 represents the high gasoline price and low fuel economy conventional 
vehicle. CARB staff anticipate gasoline prices to in-crease in the future relative to today,
26 which could in-
crease the potential fuel cost savings to consumers. 
Benefits to a typical business 
CARB staff anticipate the proposed regulation will 
increase consumer confidence in public charging and result in increased utilization of public chargers. These 
public chargers could be located at or near any number of businesses including retail locations and work places. In addition, compliance with the proposed regu-
lation will increase demand for credit card and mobile 
payment equipment and electrical contracting services 
from businesses within California. 
The proposed regulation may provide a benefit to 
EVSE operators from increased utilization of public charging stations. Easier access to EVSE and a trans-parent pricing structure could reduce barriers to public charging, enabling drivers to confidently use their 
PEVs for longer trips or switch some charging from 
home to public locations. This could result in increased 
revenue to some of these businesses. 
Additionally, compliance with this proposed regula-
tion, would enable EVSE to be eligible for the new LCFS amendments generating marketable credits for new EVSE installations.
27 These credits would go to 
the station owner, which in the proposed regulation could be the EVSPs or site hosts such as retail centers. The recent change to the LCFS program requires all DCFCs seeking LCFS credit to be able to accept credit 
cards. The proposed regulation defines how the DCFCs 
should accept credit cards. 
25 CEC 2017. Preliminary Analysis of Benefits from 5 million 
Passenger Vehicles in California. https://www.energy.ca.gov/ 
2017publications/CEC−999−2017−008/ CEC−999−2017−008.pdf 
26 DOF 2018. Consumer Price Index Forecast — Annual & 
Monthly. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/ Eco_ Forecasts_Us_Ca/documents/FRCPI0418.xlsx 
27 Page 93. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/lcfs18/ 
frolcfs. pdf Benefits to Small Business 
Small businesses may obtain benefits similar to those 
described for typical businesses. Some small business-
es in California may choose to provide EVSE to attract 
PEV drivers to their businesses or may obtain increased 
revenue from higher use of existing EVSE. Some elec-
tricians and contractors that retrofit or replace EVSE 
are small businesses, and will see increased demand. 
Benefits to Individuals 
Individuals will benefit from increased access, trans-
parency, and ease of use of EVSE in public locations. 
Transparency in pricing will help consumers make in-formed decisions about the costs of charging at dif ferent 
locations compared to home charging. Ease of access 
will reduce anxiety about charging and could save con-
sumers time in searching for, and traveling to, a useable 
charging location. The ability to use standard payment methods such as credit card readers will simplify pay-
ment and allow individuals with limited mobile tech-
nology to utilize public char gers seamlessly. 
Individuals from multiple income groups will benefit 
from the proposed regulation because they will have greater accessibility to EVSE. The proposed regulation 
will allow for lower−income groups to pay for fueling a 
PEV by requiring credit card and mobile payment op-
tions on EVSE. With the required reporting to AFDC, 
drivers from all income groups will be able to see how 
many existing EVSE stations are available. Knowing where to fuel a PEV in public is very important for driv-
ers. As drivers see more EVSE in public, they will have 
more confidence in their ability to charge in public if they need to. 
CARB staff expect no quantifiable benefits relating 
to worker safety as a result of this regulation. 
(G) Department of Finance Comments and Responses. 
Finance generally concurs with the methodology 
used to estimate impacts of proposed regulations, with one exception.
28 The SRIA must include a quantitative 
analysis of increased purchase of electric vehicles and some quantification of statewide benefits from the reg-
ulations. Implementing common billing standards is a key unlocking mechanism for broad deployment of 
electric vehicles and for advancing towards the state 
goal of five million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2030. Electric vehicles are expected to be four mil-lion of the goal. One of the barriers to electric vehicle 
adoption is access to charging infrastructure, and low-
ering this barrier should provide higher benefits than the SRIA estimates. If there are other barriers to in-
28http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Major_ 
Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/documents/ 
ARB%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Char ging%20−%20 
Finance%20Comments%202019.pdf 
 747 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
creased adoption that would prevent this regulation 
from having these benefits, the SRIA should discuss 
how this regulation fits in with future regulations to re-move those other barriers. 
CARB Response 
CARB continues to conclude that the proposed regu-
lation may not incentivize adoption of new electric ve-
hicles and will not increase the number of chargers in the state due to significant remaining barriers, which re-main to be addressed through other means. The pro-posed regulation implements the statutory mandates in 
SB 454 (Corbett, Chapter 418, Statutes of 2013) but is 
not designed to address all of the remaining barriers to adoption of electric vehicles necessary to meet the 2030 
goals. As described in the SRIA, while CARB antici-pates there will be emissions benefits as a result of the proposed regulation, the current data is insufficient to quantify the statewide benefits and quantification by 
CARB would be speculative and difficult to support. 
Further detail is provided in the following paragraphs. 
Remaining Barriers 
The proposed regulation is anticipated to increase 
driver access to char ging stations and allow a more con-
sistent and transparent charging experience. This in-
creased access is anticipated to result in drivers having 
confidence to transition more of their driving miles to 
electric vehicles, which could increase electric vehicle miles traveled statewide and provide emissions bene-
fits. There are multiple unquantified benefits of this ac -
cess, which the SRIA describes in detail. While the pro-
posed regulation lowers barriers, there are multiple re-
maining barriers to widespread adoption of electric ve-
hicles, which must be addressed through other mecha-
nisms including the number of chargers and the cost of electric vehicles. 
CARB staff expects the benefits of the proposed reg-
ulation to be magnified once future actions or regula-tions address these barriers. Because these actions or regulations are not yet defined or adopted, CARB could 
not estimate the likely magnifying effects of the current proposal. Additional information on the remaining bar-riers and actions to address those barriers follows. 
Infrastructure Needs 
While the proposed regulation makes infrastructure 
easier to use, the number of char ges in California is still 
far too low to support widespread electric vehicle adop-
tion. The California Energy Commission (Energy 
Commission) estimates California needs 229,000 to 279,000 connectors
29 to support 1.5 million ZEVs by 
2025.30 To date, the state has approximately 18,000 
connectors installed, representing only 7 percent of the anticipated future need. The proposed regulation does 
not require installation of additional EVSE, and there is 
no evidence that the proposed regulation will indirectly 
incentivize providers to install more EVSE. 
Additional electric vehicle infrastructure is being 
rolled out statewide with support from several funding programs, including the Energy Commission’s Assem-
bly Bill (AB) 118 (Núñez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007) program and the subsequent AB 8 (Perea, Chap-
ter 401, Statutes of 2013) legislation. The Energy Com-mission has allocated or awarded more than $80 million 
to support plug−in electric vehicle infrastructure and 
has allocated an additional $134.5 million through 2019 
to help support the governor’s 2025 goal of 250,000 connectors and 200 hydrogen−fueling stations. SB 350 
(de Leòn, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) also autho-
rizes electric utilities to undertake transportation elec-
trification activities. In 2016, the California Public Util-
ities Commission (CPUC) approved charging infra-structure pilot programs to install up to 12,500 connec-
tors for a combined budget of $197 million. 
In 2012, the State of California reached a settlement 
with Dynegy which provides over $100 million for the 
installation of 200 public direct current fast charging 
“Freedom Stations” and the infrastructure to support 
10,000 lower level charging stations. These projects, developed by EVgo Services, formerly, NRG EV Ser-
vices LLC, and overseen by the CPUC, are nearing 
completion. In addition, V olkswagen, through its sub-sidiary Electrify America, has agreed to invest $800 million over a 10−year period for zero emission vehicle 
(ZEV) infrastructure, education, and access in Califor-nia as part of a settlement with CARB. In the first 30−month cycle of the settlement, Electrify America is expected to invest $45 million in community chargers 
in major metropolitan areas and $75 million in highway 
fast charging throughout California. In the second 30−month cycle of the settlement, Electrify America is 
expected to invest up to $145 million in commu nity and 
highway charging infrastructure. 
29 Connectors, also known as ports, are the number of locations 
that an electric vehicle may charge at a given location. There are 
typically one or two ports at each distinct charging location. 
30 CEC 2018. 2018 California Plug−In Electric Vehicle Infra-
structure  Projections: 2017−2025. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ 
fy18osti/70893.pdf 
 748 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
These investments are significant but are not antici-
pated to meet the Energy Commission’s estimated in-
frastructure needs. CARB staff conducted a high−level 
analysis of existing, in progress, and proposed char ging 
infrastructure projects and concluded that there remains 
an estimated infrastructure connector gap of 46 percent by 2025.
31 CARB staff projects the char ging infrastruc-
ture gap to grow to approximately 86 percent by 2030. 
Additional actions will be needed to address this gap, 
and the State is working to do so. For example, the Gov-ernor’s Of fice of Business and Economic Development 
(GO−Biz) is working with local governments and busi-
nesses to streamline the infrastructure permitting 
process and provide subject matter expertise. Addition-ally, CARB has shepherded new California Green 
Building Code standards requiring greater percentages 
of charge ready installations in new construction, and 
the California Department of Housing and Community 
Development is continuing to increase the number of 
PEV−capable parking spaces in new residential build-
ings and assessing strategies to increase PEV charging 
options in existing residential buildings. 
Vehicle Cost 
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Re-
view
32 finds that “battery technology has improved and 
battery costs (as well as other component costs) have 
fallen dramatically (largely due to reduced material 
costs, manufacturing improvements, and higher manu-
facturing volumes), leading to an increase [in model 
availability] from 25 plug in hybrid electric vehicle and 
battery electric vehicle models offered today to manu-
facturer announcements of more than 70 unique models 
to be released over the next 5 model years.” 
Despite this cost reduction, advanced technology ve-
hicles still cost more than comparable internal combus-
tion engine vehicles, which represents a remaining bar-
rier to adoption. CARB continues to develop future Ad-
vanced Clean Cars regulations, which will help transi-tion the California light−duty vehicle fleet towards zero 
emission technology. These planned regulations join 
actions by a host of other countries and jurisdictions and 
will help drive down zero emission technology costs in 
the future. 
Quantification of Statewide Emissions Benefits 
For the reasons described above, CARB does not an-
ticipate the proposed regulation alone will incentivize 
significant additional ZEV adoption. As described in 
31 CARB, 2018. Staff Assessment of Electrify America’s Cycle 
2 Zero Emission Vehicle Investment Plan. 
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw−zevinvest/ documents/cycle_2_staff_analysis_110918.pdf 
32 CARB, 2017. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Re-
view. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/mtr/acc_mtr_final report_full.pdf the SRIA, the proposed regulation does lower some bar-
riers, and for this reason, CARB anticipates some emis-
sions benefits. CARB anticipates these emissions bene-
fits will primarily take the form of increased eVMT 
from the vehicles already on the road. 
However, quantification of statewide emissions ben-
efits from the proposed regulation is complex and 
would require data that is not currently available. 
CARB staff expect the proposed regulation to increase 
access to charging infrastructure but it may also slightly 
increase public charging prices. Consumers have many 
options for vehicle charging including charging at 
home, charging at work, free public charging, and paid 
public charging. There are no studies or data that CARB 
is aware of which quantifies increased consumer use in 
context of increased access, particularly in context of 
this complex set of consumer options. Further, the con-
sumer response to the competing effects of minor price increases versus enhanced access have not been stud-
ied. Some of this data will be collected because of the 
reporting required in the proposed regulation and may 
better constrain these ef fects. CARB recommends addi-
tional research in this area to inform future regulations 
and other actions. 
Quantification of benefits is complicated further by 
the inability to predict what percentage of eVMT would 
be a substitution for other charging options or would be 
VMT that is a substitution for internal combustion 
miles. Substitution for other charging options means 
that an electric vehicle driver uses a public charger im-
pacted by the proposed regulation rather than another 
charging option. The increased access provided by the 
proposed regulation would benefit the consumer by 
providing more charging options but would not result in 
new eVMT or emissions benefits. It is only in the case 
that a consumer substitutes conventional VMT for 
eVMT that emissions benefits would occur . In this case, 
consumers would drive their electric vehicles in place of their conventional vehicles, resulting in emissions 
benefits. The data necessary to estimate the substitution 
of eVMT with conventional VMT because of the in-creased access provided by the proposed regulation is 
not currently available. 
Business Report (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.5, subd. 
(a)(11); 1 1346.3, subd. (d)): 
In accordance with Government Code sections 
11346.5, subdivision (a)(11) and 11346.3, subdivision 
(d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting require-
ments of the proposed regulatory action that apply to 
businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and wel-
fare of the people of the State of California. 
In order to know with accuracy which EVSE will 
need to be retrofitted or replaced for the proposed re-quirements, staff proposes an initial reporting of current 
 749 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
EVSE models. This information will also enable track-
ing of EVSE that are currently operating in the State of 
California. Staff expects new models to be designed at 
any point in time during a calendar year and would need 
to know how they comply with the proposed regulation 
before it is installed. This is to ensure the requirements 
of the proposed regulation are being met. 
Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or 
Businesses (Gov. Code. § 1 1346.5, subd. (a)(9)): 
In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff 
evaluated the potential economic impacts on represen-
tative private persons or businesses. CARB is not aware 
of any cost impacts that a representative private person 
or business would necessarily incur in reasonable com-
pliance with the proposed action. 
The proposed regulation does not result in direct 
compliance costs to individuals in California. Individu-
als may incur increased charging costs if EVSPs and site hosts are able to pass on compliance costs. If com-
pliance costs were passed on, then the costs to regulated 
businesses described above w ould be less. 
Staff estimated the direct compliance cost per kWh of 
EVSE utilization to estimate a potential price impact if 
all of the compliance costs are passed through to end− users. This represents an upper bound impact, which is 
not anticipated to occur in practice, as some of the costs 
may be absorbed by the EVSP or site host. 
To estimate the potential price impact, CARB staff 
first divided annual compliance costs for Level 2 and DCFC chargers by the corresponding population of 
EVSE averaged for 2020 through 2030. This provided the average annual cost of $152 per DCFC and $493 per Level 2 EVSE. Staff then estimated the cost per kWh by 
dividing this annual cost by the annual energy utiliza-
tion per EVSE. The energy utilization for an EVSE de-
pends on many factors and may vary significantly; it may also change as the industry grows in the future. 
However, based on reports and data available to staff,
33 
the annual average utilization of a typical EVSE is esti-
mated to be 19,600 kWh per DCFC and 6,400 kWh per 
Level 2 EVSE.34 Staff estimate the price increase as a 
result of the proposed regulation to be $0.01 per kWh for DCFCs and $0.08 per kWh for Level 2 char gers. The 
average market rates in California for Level 2 and 
DCFC EVSE are $0.36 per kWh and $0.41 per kWh re-
33 Based on information received from a survey of stakeholders 
one submitted as business confidential information on the utiliza-
tion of Level 2 charging. 
34 Southern California Edison. Charge Ready and Market Educa-
tion Program Pilot Report. April 2018. EVSE California utiliza-
tion reporting data. 2016−2017. spectively.35 Staff estimate the upper bound price im-
pact to be 2 percent for DCFC and 21 percent for Level 2 
EVSE. 
Based on the current EVSE business model, it is not 
likely that all Level 2 EVSE compliance costs would be 
passed through to end−users. Currently 1,245 EVSE36 
do not require payment for public use. While some of 
these free chargers could be subsidized by incentives, a 
proportion a re operated by businesses as a means to at-
tract customers. These businesses absorb the costs to own and operate the EVSE along with the annual elec-tricity necessary to provide free charging. Using the 
typical charging rates and electricity prices cited in the 
previous paragraph, the annual electricity costs ab-
sorbed by these businesses would be approximately 
$2,304 for a Level 2 EVSE. This is over four times larg -
er than the typical annual compliance cost that results 
from the proposed regulation. Given that these levels of 
costs are routinely absorbed, and that this is an increas-
ingly competitive industry, full compliance costs may 
not be passed through to consumers. 
Even if the compliance costs were fully passed on to 
end−users, it is unlikely t hat driving habits or the adop-
tion of PEV technology would change significantly. The price change calculated for Level 2 char gers above 
would only constitute a portion of total annual char ging 
costs. To demonstrate the change in overall annual 
charging prices, staff calculated the average increase in 
total annual charging costs that could result from the 
Low PEV Scenario. Typical charging behavior indi-
cates approximately 65 percent home char ging
37 and 35 
percent of public charging. Of the public charging, ap-
proximately 20 percent is at free Level 2 EVSE, 71 per-
35 Dunckley, 2017. Jamie Dunckley, Electric Power Research In-
stitute. “National Charging Costs” 
36 AFDC, 2018. Alternative Fuels Data Center. “Alternative Fuel-
ing Station Locator: Advanced Filters Downloaded Results” 
June, 2018. 
37 Menser, 2018. Paul Menser for INL Public Affairs and Strate-
gic Initiatives. “Large Nation Studies Analyze EV Infrastructure Needs”. December 19, 2018. 
 750 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
cent is at for pay Level 2 EVSE, and 9 percent is at for 
pay DCFC.38 
Using these typical charging behaviors, Staff esti-
mates the total cost for charging in one year is $1,190 on 
average. This assumes a PEV is driven 15,000 miles per 
year,39 consumes 0.3 kW of electricity per mile driven, 
and that charging prices are $0.19 per kWh for resi-dences,
40 $0.36 per kWh for public Level 2,41 and 
$0.41 per kWh for DCFC.42 This also includes costs for 
home charging infrastructure ($1,616),43 annualized 
over 10 years at a 5 percent interest rate. Assuming all the costs were passed through to the end user, the new 
total cost for charging would be $1,280 under the pro-
posed regulation. The end user would see an increase of 
$79 per year or about 6.6 percent of total cost. 
Although Level 2 public charging is a relatively small 
portion of the total charging needs for PEV drivers, it provides an i mportant service. Making Level 2 more ac-
cessible enables more usage by drivers who do not have 
memberships to EVSPs and also supports PEV drivers 
who do not have home char ging options. 
Effect on Small Business (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 4, 
subds. (a) and (b)): 
The Executive Officer has also determined under 
California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 4, that the proposed regulatory action would affect small busi-
nesses. For the purposes of this regulation, CARB staff defined a small business as having fewer than 100 em-
ployees and not dominant in its industry. Of the seven 
38 AFDC, 2018. Alternative Fuels Data Center. “Alternative Fuel-
ing Station Locator: Advanced Filters Downloaded Results” 
June, 2018. 
39 FuelEconomy.gov, 2018. “Electric Vehicles: Learn More 
About the Label”. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/ 
learn−more−electric−label.shtml 
40 U.S. Ener gy Information Administration, 2018. Electric Power 
Monthly. March 2018−October 2018 reports. Average yearly cost 
of residential electricity cents per kilowatt hour, California. 
41 Dunckley, 2017. Jamie Dunckley , Electric Power Research In-
stitute. “National Charging Costs — L2: Average cost by state”. 
42 Dunckley, 2017. Jamie Dunckley , Electric Power Research In-
stitute. “National Charging Costs — DCFC: Average cost by 
state”. 
43 CARB, 2017. California Air Resources Board. “California’s 
Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review Report: Appendix D: Ze-
ro Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Status in California and Sec-tion 177 ZEV States”. January 18, 2017. EVSPs operating in California, six meet the definition 
of a small business, and one of these small businesses is 
headquartered in California. 
To calculate the costs to a typical small EVSP, staff 
first calculated the costs borne by all EVSPs operating in California from 2020 through 2030. EVSPs are re-sponsible for the replacement costs of EVSE for which they are the site hosts and are responsible for all the oth-
er costs of the regulation. EVSPs are the site hosts for 58 percent of the Level 2 EVSE and are therefore assumed 
to bear 58 percent of the Level 2 replacement costs. 
Next, staf f separated out the costs borne by the small 
business EVSPs for Level 2 replacement, credit card and mobile payment, signage, and the CFR T itle 16 Part 
309 sticker based on market share. Small business 
EVSPs are the service providers for approximately 85 
percent
44 of the total Level 2 EVSE and 19 percent45 of 
the total DCFC EVSE. CARB staff averaged the total costs borne for Level 2 replacement, credit card, mobile 
payment, signage, and Title 16 sticker requirements among the six small businesses to arrive at the cost for a 
typical small business. 
PCI−DSS Level 1 compliance includes an annual 
$8,125 per EVSP cost for all required checks from the PCI governing body and a one−time $25,000 per EVSE model cost for PCI compliance certification. CARB staff estimates 30 new EVSE models each year so that 
the annual cost is $750,000. Staff assumed this cost 
would be spread evenly across all seven EVSPs. In to-tal, the annual cost for PCI−DSS Level 1 compliance for 
one EVSP is approximately $1 15,268. 
A small business EVSP will also be required to im-
plement the OCPI interoperability standard. As dis-cussed above, this requires a one−time cost of $120,000 
that would occur in 2020. 
Table 1 summarizes the annual and total direct costs 
of the proposed regulation for a typical small business providing EVSEs. The initial cost for a typical small 
business is $0.24 million in 2020 and an average of 
$1.26 million each year from 2021 through 2030. 
44 Alternative Fuels Data Center , Alternative Fueling Station Lo-
cator, https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/analyze.  Accessed June 
2018. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ownership, 2018. Data Dash-
board, Underlying Data Table. Accessed August 6, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/dashboard/dashboard.htm 
45 Ibid. 
 751 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
Table 1 — Costs for a Typical Small Business providing EVSEs (Million 2018$) 
Year Level 2 
Replace-
ment Costs Credit Card 
and Mobile 
Payment 
Costs Signage 
Costs Title 
16 Part 
309 Costs PCI− 
DSS Level 
1 
Costs Inter− 
operability 
Costs Grand 
Total 
2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.24 
2021 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 
2022 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 
2023 0.65 0.54 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.00 1.34 
2024 0.66 0.64 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.00 1.45 
2025 0.68 0.75 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.00 1.58 
2026 0.67 0.86 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.00 1.70 
2027 0.68 0.99 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.00 1.84 
2028 0.30 1.03 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.00 1.51 
2029 0.25 1.07 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.00 1.50 
2030 0.18 1.10 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.00 1.47 
Total 4.07 7.01 0.29 0.13 1.27 0.12 12.89 
 752  
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
Alternatives Statement (Gov. Code, § 1 1346.5, subd. 
(a)(13)): 
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory 
action, the Board must determine that no reasonable al-
ternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise 
been identified and brought to the attention of the 
Board, would be more ef fective in carrying out the pur-
pose for which the action is proposed, would be as ef-fective and less burdensome to affected private persons 
than the proposed action, or would be more cost−effec -
tive to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provisions of 
law. 
Alternative 1: Compliance timeline lengthened to seven 
years from date of installation. 
This alternative would require any new installation of 
DCFC from January 1, 2020, and Level 2 January 1, 
2023, to be fully compliant with the hardware and soft-
ware requirements. Any installation that occurs prior to 
January 1, 2020, for DCFC and January 1, 2023, for Level 2 would have seven years from date of installa-tion to become compliant with the hardware and soft-
ware requirements (as compared to five years in the pro-
posed regulation). This alternative would result in sig-
nificantly fewer compliant Level 2 and DCFC EVSE in 
the early years of implementation. Specifically, in 
2023, there would be less than half the number of com-
pliant Level 2 EVSE under this alternative. It is impor-
tant to have as many compliant EVSE in the ground and 
operational as possible. The PEV market is changing monthly and adoption rates are steadily increasing in 
California. It is imperative that drivers have confidence 
that charging infrastructure is available and easy to use. 
Having a robust infrastructure will provide driver and 
regulatory confidence for future ZEV regulation devel-
opment. CARB staff rejected alternative one because it 
did not provide the maximal benefits, which can be 
achieved through the proposed regulation. 
Alternative 2: Compliance timeline shortened to three 
years from date of installation. 
This alternative would require any new installation of 
DCFC from January 1, 2020, and Level 2 January 1, 2023, to be fully compliant with the hardware and soft-
ware requirements. Any installation that occurs prior to 
January 1, 2020, for DCFC and January 1, 2023, for Level 2 would have three years from date of installation 
to become compliant with the hardware and software requirements (as compared to 5 years in the proposed regulation). CARB staff rejected alternative 2 because it would not be feasible for all regulated parties. There 
are thousands of locations that have EVSE installed. It 
will take time and coordination to bring all the non− compliant EVSE into compliance. This will put a strain 
on the supply chain, which is already struggling to keep up with the fast−paced demand. While the goal is to get 
open access EVSE into the market as quickly as possi-
ble, forcing the EVSE to be compliant in three years may not be feasible. This proposed alterative could lead 
to non−compliance issues and place strain on enforce-
ment activities. By speeding up the compliance time re-
quirement, consumers will have publicly available 
open access to EVSE more quickly. Open access for 
consumers is vital, but industry needs sufficient time to 
retrofit or replace existing EVSE or there will likely be 
non−compliance, requiring enforcement action. CARB 
staff also rejected this alternative because it is less cost− 
effective, and the implementation timeline may not be 
feasible for all regulated parties. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 
CARB, as the lead agency for the proposed regula-
tion, has concluded that this action is exempt from the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as de-
scribed in CEQA Guidelines §15061, because the ac-tion is both an Action Taken by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (as described in 
CEQA Guidelines §15308 for “class 8” exemptions); 
and it is also exempt as described in CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) (“common sense” exemption) because it 
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. A brief explanation of the basis for reaching this conclusion is included in Chapter 
VII of the Staff Report. 
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST 
Consistent with California Government Code Sec-
tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs 
may be provided for any of the following: 
 An interpreter to be available at the hearing; 
 Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and 
 A disability−related reasonable accommodation. 
To request these special accommodations or lan-
guage needs, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 
(916) 322−5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322−3928 as 
soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days be-
fore the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to 
Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay 
Service. 
Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de 
Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial o 
necesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para 
cualquiera de los siguientes: 
 Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia; 
 Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno u otro idioma; y 
 753  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 19-Z 
 Una acomodación razonable relacionados con una 
incapacidad. 
Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi-
dades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina del 
Consejo al (916) 322−5594 o envié un fax a (916) 322−3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 
días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien-
cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Re-transmisión de Mensajes de California. 
AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS 
Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed 
regulatory action may be directed to the agency repre-sentative Stephanie Palmer, Air Resources Engineer, ZEV Implementation Section, at (916) 322−7620 or (designated back−up contact) Elise Keddie, Manager, 
ZEV Implementation Section, at (916) 323−8974. 
A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS 
CARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial State-
ment of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory ac-
tion, which includes a summary of the economic and 
environmental impacts of the proposal. The report is en-
titled: Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Electric V ehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Standards. 
Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed 
regulatory language may be accessed on CARB’s web -
site listed below or may be obtained from the Public In-
formation Office, California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental Services 
Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814, on 
or after May 7, 2019. 
Further, the agency representative to whom non− 
substantive inquiries concerning the proposed adminis-
trative action may be directed is Chris Hopkins, Regula-
tions Coordinator, at (916) 445−9564. The Board staff has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is 
based. This material is available for inspection upon re-
quest to the contact persons. 
HEARING PROCEDURES 
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance 
with the California Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, title 2, division 3, part 1, chapter 3.5 
(commencing with section 1 1340). 
Following the public hearing, the Board may take ac-
tion to approve for adoption the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with non−substantial or gram-matical modifications. The Board may also approve for 
adoption the proposed regulatory language with other 
modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently re-
lated to the originally proposed text that the public was 
adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory lan-
guage as modified could result from the proposed regu-
latory action. If this occurs, the full regulatory text, with 
the modifications clearly indicated, will be made avail-
able to the public, for written comment, at least 15 days before final adoption. 
The public may request a copy of the modified regu-
latory text from CARB’s Public Information Office, California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors 
and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacra-
mento, California, 95814. 
FINAL STATEMENT OF 
REASONS A V AILABILITY 
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons 
(FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested 
from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. 
INTERNET ACCESS 
This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory 
documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/evse2019 . 
TITLE 23.  STATE WATER 
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 
Title 23. Waters 
Division 3. State Water Resources 
Control Board and Regional 
Water Quality Control Boards 
Chapter 16. Underground Storage 
Tank Regulations 
Underground Storage Tank Biodiesel Regulations 
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State W ater 
Resources Control Board (State W ater Board) proposes 
to amend, adopt, or repeal the under ground storage tank 
(UST) regulations described below  after considering all 
comments, objections, and recommendations regard-
ing the proposed regulatory action. 
 754 