California will require EV charging for all new residential units in 2026
California will require EV charging for all new residential units in 2026
California is taking a big step towards solving the only real problem with EVs - charging for people who don't own a garage.
Summary
Starting in 2026, California will require all new residential units with parking spaces to be EV charger-ready, significantly increasing access to electric vehicle charging.
Multi-family developments must equip at least one EV-ready spot per unit, while hotels, commercial lots, and parking renovations will also face new EV charging mandates.
Advocacy groups praise the policy, emphasizing its balanced approach to affordability and infrastructure needs.
The initiative aligns with California’s 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales, aiming to address key barriers to EV adoption and support the state’s transition to electrification.
Carry on California and tell the MAGAts to shove it up their asses.
This is fantastic. It's not super expensive either. Just an extra 240 volt 50 amp cable with a 14-50 outlet. If done at the build stage it's a few hundred bucks.
The cost of the outlets isn’t bad, but the whole system has to be wired and able to support those outlets all being in use. The average apartment is probably only wired for about 50-100 amps per unit, so this would mean a 50-100% increase in the capacity for the building or a load sharing system that can split the load in a way that’s compatible with everyone’s EVSE. I don’t know what that kind of system would cost. But it’s going to be more than just $200-500 per space. This is not to disparage the requirement. I think this is absolutely the right move if you are going to ban new gas cars in your state in a few years. I hope we see these kind of requirements everywhere in the next 5 years. Lack of charging prevents most non home owners from being able to consider EVs.
Now if only PGE would stop charging 60 cents / KwH
Nothing ever added to building code is inexpensive. It's always many times the cost of the simplest way of doing it because it has to be done to code.
The rampant expansion of building code is a major reason for the expense of housing.
Downvote away but you know it's true.
Downvote away but you know it's true.
You don't know what others know. Building codes vary tremendously between regions. Imo zoning and real estate speculation are MUCH more significant drivers than the cost of design and construction. But my opinion is based on my experiences in my region.
Maybe, but I prefer my new house be suitable for modern life, and considering that from the beginning is the most cost effective way to do that.
You’re also missing the fact that most houses are previously owned. Sure we update building code all the time, so houses gradually get better, but the majority of pre-owned houses are not affected, remain cheaper.
For my own town, houses are extremely expensive, but I had an interesting conversation with my insurance company. They claim they can replace a completely burned down house for less than 1/3 the purchase price. The land is most of the cost of a house, and cost of building code is negligible
You can't install an electrical outlet if it's not to code now. The "code" for electric circuits has been set for decades, and when updated, affects them all.
Requiring another circuit on a building with dozens/hundreds of circuits already doesnt add any extra burden, especially at the build stage like the commentor above said. Adding electrical when the walls are open is easy as shit.
Making up a regulation boogeyman about mundane, everyday building projects doesnt actually make them difficult, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.
Lmao. If you ever worked in construction you'd know that 1. code compliance is not that hard 2. you do not want the random contractor chucklefucks making it up on the fly without a sanity check from the inspector. Be glad your house doesn't burn down because knob and tube isn't code compliant.
*Also, you can absolutely build a small cheap house that is code compliant. The reason nobody does is because banks dont want to lend for it and builders want the better margins that come with a larger more upscale house.
I think there's some merit to both sides of this. Using codes to mandate quality construction is a good thing IMHO. Even when it increases building cost.
What I dislike is the fact that every little municipality has their own individual special snowflake set of building codes. Some use one version of the national code, others use another version of the national code, others use the national code with a whole bunch of special stuff added on, etc. Then throw in wildly different enforcement and inspections and a handful of inspectors who just want to see it done their way code be damned and it becomes a confusing morass that needlessly increases cost.
It's good to know the rich people will be able to charge their expensive cars.
The goal is to start making charging ubiquitous, so it will eventually be available to everyone. Let wealthy early adopters pay to build out the infrastructure and the market, so it will be everywhere ready to use
False, The used Chevrolet Bolt, Bolt EUV and Nissan Leaf EV's are affordable and there are plenty of them on the market with low mileage.
that's not even mentioning the Chinease cards from manufactures like BYD (outside the US)
Unfortunately every apartment I have lived in with charging adds a massive markup to the electricity coming out of the chargers. At one place we were paying $150/month for a space with an EV charger and the electricity coming from the charger was still billed at around 10x the base rate. It was far cheaper to fill our plugin hybrid with gas than to use the charger in our parking space.
I’m sure the same will apply here. It doesn’t help anyone if the complex is allowed to gouge the tenants on the electricity usage.
Yeah, it’s really annoying. My ex’s association just voted against chargers. The plan was to set aside a distant parking lot and have a service come in to run them, profit off them.
The thing is these are townhouses with front service entrance, mostly with parking spots just across the sidewalk. It would be cheaper and easier to run a wire from the service entrance under the sidewalk, to a pedestal by the spot, and let it be part of their regular electric bill. This would also let you phase it in over time, rather than spend a ton of money at once
In theory chargers being more readily available will help with this. If they mark up the electricity 10x and all the tenants just charge at work instead, there's a motive to make the price more competitive. In practice we might just end up with more AI price fixing and consumers with no recourse.
Great to see this. In 10 years ice cars will not be sold so this needs to happen now.
Now if only we could build way more new residential units in CA.
I was going to say. I'm sure this will be great... for all 25 new homes built in CA that year!
Frankly incredible that the NEC isn't requiring this in all new editions yet. Absurdly short sighted. Like, it's just 1 circuit to a garage if a garage is present. All the yokel states can refuse to adopt that section if they want, whatever.
Don’t they need to make it mandatory to increase capacity first? Most average residential streets probably dont have enough power to charge an EV on every address simultaneously.
Somewhat true but this won't happen overnight and the power companies will upgrade capacity to meet the needs over time
Most average residential streets probably dont have enough power to charge an EV on every address simultaneously.
[citation needed]
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this sounds very much like a statement made definitively because it sounds like it might be true but has no particular basis in fact. I'd like to know if you have those facts.
It's likely true, but doesn't have to be, and the fact that this is being phased in with only new units means the power company can plan for it.
The transformers for the neighborhood can provide a certain amount of kVA at once. If all houses on a single transformer drew their max load, they would overload it. The power company plans on that not happening, because people vary their load from minute to minute. A hair dryer goes on in one building when an electric stove is turned off in another.
A few of those houses could upgrade their service. We upgraded ours from 100A to 200A when we installed solar and got EVs. However, if all our neighbors tried to do that, the power company would tell the last few on the list that they couldn't provide capacity (possibly more than a few). This is why smart circuit breaker boxes are important. They can be programmed to turn on certain circuits for high draw items, like electric dryers or an EV charger, in a round-robin fashion so nothing is drawing too much at once. People can get one of those and keep their 100A service.
When it's building new, though, the power company is consulted on how much power the unit needs and they plan accordingly. It's a non-issue for this purpose.
This is completely untrue. While there might be some streets unable to do this, it is definitely not most.
A) This requires 20A charging, which is lower power draw than a normal electric dryer. Are you super concerned about houses having dryers? What about air conditioners? They pull literally 3 times the power. How can we possibly install air conditioners in every house?!?!
B) The vast majority of these will be used late at night, when most electric draw is at a minimum (like air conditioners and dryers).
As good as this is, requiring all units to have it prevents building carfree residences where transit, walking or cycling are the main transportation. Maybe an amendment where any unit that includes car parking needs a charger. If you build a unit with no car parking and only bicycle parking you wouldn't need to add the charger, if that unit gets renovated to have a parking spot, it needs the charger installed then.
Makes sense and should not really add to the cost since a standard 15A 120v outlet will charge a car.