Peri,

The new code provides for direct wiring, so residents pay for EV from
their own electric meter
The old code requires 40% of the spots to have EV charging, but using
a network service provider to allocate and measure common area power
(presumably at a markup).

The bill authors really don't know any of the above.  She like her
colleagues are writing and passing building code reform bills aimed at
reducing housing cost, but without any technical background in codes
or costs.   Here the bill author is very explicit: Trump cuts to
housing money have pressed developers of subsidized housing.  The goal
is to reduce subsidized developer costs at all costs, even if it adds
long term cost to residents of the same buildings.  Note that
developers of subsidized
housing are both for-profit and non-profit in structure.

Note that subsidized housing is called "affordable" housing in California.
It costs much more to develop than market rate housing due to the
funding structure and overhead of piecing funding together.  True
affordable housing would be done differently: with standardized
designs and integrated public amenities and transport for a lower cost
overall spend per resident per year over decades (e.g. as done in
countries other than the USA).  Think commie bastads or democratic
socialism for the model.

---

The irony of the current bill situation is if they asked actual code
experts, they
could have much more significant cost reduction in building code.  But
then would face another problem: equipment vendors and to a lesser
extent the unions and contractors profit from code requirements.  In
particular the well established vendors of equipment profit from
shifting code requirements, and in particular profit from being the
only companies able to provide equipment meeting each new iteration of
the code.

---

The new code has a difficult to evalute effect on first cost.
It's a muddy win maybe one way or the other.  What's clear is that
adding EV charging later is vastly more expensive, especially in concrete or
post-tensioned concrete buildings which are quite inflexible.
My personal push is for an empty conduit option.




On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 6:44 PM Peri Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not in california, but what calif does, many states follow. I presume the 
> purpose is to reduce the cost of adding EV infrastructure to a low income 
> project. I'd like to understand the tradeoffs better. Presumably the older 
> code is less costly, but usually there are good reasons the code is 
> "improved". Is using the older code something we might end up regretting ?
>
> Peri
>
> << Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org/ >>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Bryce Nesbitt via EV" <[email protected]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Bryce Nesbitt" <[email protected]>
> Sent: 23-Jun-26 18:34:13
> Subject: [EVDL] AB2748
>
> Dear members of the EV community,
> California bill AB2748 is coming up for a vote June 30th.
>
> This bill creates, for the first time an income distinction in building
> code. Under the bill low income projects would be required to use the older
> building code for EV provisions. Developers of affordable projects would
> be prohibited from complying with the current code, even if they find that
> better for their residents.
>
> A signon letter is here (no password or login needed):
> https://www.dropbox.com/t/Y3H9bpbrZUyVSkHn
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20260623/0c4f8836/attachment.htm>
> _______________________________________________
> Address messages to [email protected]
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
> OT: If you use an Android device, please read https://keepandroidopen.org/
_______________________________________________
Address messages to [email protected]
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
OT: If you use an Android device, please read https://keepandroidopen.org/

Reply via email to