California will require EV charging for all new residential units in 2026


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.

in reply to Brkdncr

At the scale of the electrical inputs for medium-large scale apartment buildings, the cost to be battery-ready isn't measured in dollars but in cubic feet you're reserving for the purpose. The breakers and line (and sometimes full transformer banks) already have to exist to distribute grid to the sometimes hundreds of units of apartment, so converting a standard demarc to one which would support a battery array wouldn't be more than installing the shunts and electronic controls. 1 afternoon for a 2-3 man team and maybe a bucket truck if you're feeling fancy.

The problem is that every square foot of floorspace is planned for in these complexes, and there's a zero percent chance that any builder is going to allocate the raw square/cubic feet to grid storage without the grid operator or city paying cash for it, and maybe not even then.

Now, if you want to try to legislate that all parking must be built on top of batteries or something, that might be workable, but I would consider putting it in the buildings themselves to be untenable.

in reply to osaerisxero

A lot of parking is in a garage. If each garage space already supports EV charging, it’s not a lot more to support a battery too. Paired with the right tech you can limit the amount of current feeding all these things.

Batteries take up about 5’x4’x8”. The biggest obstacle is routing individually metered power to garage space.

Keep in mind that natural gas piping may not be needed, freeing up a decent amount of space, cost, and complexity.

in reply to SirEDCaLot

I completely agree: what’s the point of “preparing for the future” with such a big loophole, making people to have to pay all over again?

A year ago I got an EV, and went with the 50a level 2 charger, because that gives me options plus adds something to my house that people might want. I have a short commute and only go into the office a couple times a week, so technically I could use the much lower end solution, might even be able to just use a standard outlet. Technically it’s enough. But I didn’t get an EV until I knew I could make it convenient too.

in reply to AA5B

I agree it should be higher, but I don't agree that it's useless.
At my place I am using plain old level 1 charging, 120 volts 15 amps. It's actually tolerable most of the time. I don't always get up to 80% every night, and I do sometimes have to stop at a supercharger, but it's usable enough for probably 90% of my charging. 240 volt 20 amp circuit call that 15 amps at the EVSE is 3.6 KW. That would be entirely usable for me.

I think they probably did it this way so it doesn't mess with panel size and service size calculations too much. Still, I wish it was bigger.

in reply to SirEDCaLot

Good point about not messing too much about service sizes, but if this is for new construction, that shouldn’t be a big deal. Actually, that’s a positive side effect for new construction: as everything is electrified, you hope your new house started with sufficient electrical service to handle it. I would be pissed off to have to update my service or panel on a new house just to support something totally expected
This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to AA5B

240V/20A will charge an EV with a 50-60kwh battery in around 12 hours. That's a typical SUV EV battery. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of good options yet for EVs that aren't SUVs, especially if you avoid Tesla. In any case, there are some options coming down the pipe, and they'll likely have smaller batteries because they just don't weigh that much.

That much is fine for daily use and the occasional road trip. The day after a big drive, you'll have enough to get to work and back. The situation it might not handle is back to back long trips. Overall, not ideal, but adequate.

in reply to ikidd

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.

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Strykker

While I agree, there is a line where the addition of more safety features just adds up little by little over the years and makes houses unnaffordable.

And at some point people dying on the streets from being homeless will surpass how many lives are being saved by said safety features.

Now, if we have reached that point yet I cannot say but the line is there and it will be crossed at some point if we haven't yet.

in reply to ikidd

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.

This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to ikidd

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.

in reply to SirEDCaLot

in reply to ikidd

in reply to ikidd

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

This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to SirEDCaLot

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.
in reply to MicroWave

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.
in reply to MicroWave

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.

in reply to nBodyProblem

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 reply to SkunkWorkz

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.

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to enbyecho

This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to SkunkWorkz

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).

in reply to MicroWave

California will require EV charging for all new residential units in 2026
@MicroWave Granted, I live in New Jersey, so this doesn't affect me. But what about for those of us who don't drive? I, for example, am totally blind. Why should those of us without cars have to pay for renovations that we don't need? What about people who don't own or want these cars, and who don't have any friends who do? It says for new residential buildings, but then, it talks about multi-family ones, so I'm assuming that existing homes would require them as well.

News reshared this.