Department of Agriculture - Public Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment - Registration, Regulation, and Oversight
SB913 creates a new regulatory framework in the Agriculture Article for public electric vehicle supply equipment, meaning EV charging stations that are available to the public for a fee. The bill requires owners of public EV chargers to register with the Maryland Secretary of Agriculture, pay registration and renewal fees, display certificates of registration, and notify the Secretary when equipment is sold, transferred, or moved. It also exempts private chargers, shared private chargers, and chargers already registered with the Comptroller or Public Service Commission.
The bill directs the Department of Agriculture to treat public EV chargers under the state’s weights-and-measures laws, including testing for measurement accuracy and compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44. It further requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, to establish reliability, reporting, and consumer standards; inspection procedures; and a decommissioning process. The bill sets a minimum 97% uptime standard in regulations, requires annual reporting to state agencies and the General Assembly, and prohibits requiring consumers to have a subscription or membership to use public chargers, while allowing optional subscription-based services.
In practical terms, SB913 would expand state oversight of the EV charging market and place the Department of Agriculture in a central role for regulating public charging infrastructure. It would create new compliance obligations for charger owners and operators, especially those using public funds, and would establish a dedicated fee-supported fund for administration. The bill also delays enforcement and registration requirements until specified dates in 2026, giving the department time to adopt implementing regulations by December 1, 2025.
Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, the bill’s overall sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text, the measure appears policy-driven and regulatory rather than controversial on its face, with a focus on consumer protection, reliability, and standardization of EV charging services. Any opposition would likely center on added compliance costs, reporting burdens, and the expansion of state oversight over private charging operators.
The main points of contention likely involve who should regulate EV charging stations, how strict the uptime and consumer-access standards should be, and whether the registration and reporting requirements are burdensome for operators. Another possible issue is the bill’s treatment of publicly funded chargers, which are subject to additional reliability and reporting standards and potential civil penalties, while some other categories of chargers are excluded from the new subtitle.
SB913 amends the Agriculture Article by adding Subtitle 5, creating a new registration and oversight regime for public electric vehicle supply equipment and modifying existing weights-and-measures provisions to include these chargers. It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to collect fees, issue registrations, inspect equipment, enforce standards, and compile annual reports, while also excluding Subtitle 5 violations from the general civil-penalty provision in § 11-208.1. The bill would affect EV charging station owners and operators, particularly public-facing networks, and would require coordination between the Department of Agriculture and the Public Service Commission.
No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or amendments. From the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of EV infrastructure by setting consumer and reliability standards, but it also imposes a new regulatory structure that could draw concern from charging-station owners over costs and compliance. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials suggests the bill’s political reception cannot be determined from the available context.
The likely points of contention are the scope of state regulation, the Department of Agriculture’s role in overseeing EV charging equipment, and the operational requirements imposed on public charger owners. Operators may object to registration fees, reporting obligations, uptime mandates, inspection authority, and restrictions on subscription or membership requirements. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer transparency, charger reliability, standardized measurement, and accountability for publicly funded infrastructure.