California lawmakers looking to trim the price tag of affordable housing construction have set their sights on a surprising target: electric vehicle charging requirements. But according to one Inland Empire EV advocate, that approach could end up costing residents far more than it saves.
Assembly Bill 2748, introduced by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, would let developers of new affordable housing projects follow the state’s 2022 building code standards for EV charging infrastructure rather than the updated 2025 requirements. Supporters frame the measure as a straightforward way to ease the financial burden on builders at a time when California desperately needs more low-cost housing.
But Michelle Pierce, founder of the advocacy group EV Nirvana and a co-leader of the National Charging Access Coalition, argues the bill misses the mark — and could backfire.
Pierce speaks from experience. She bought her first electric vehicle back in 2012, drawn by the promise of lower fuel and maintenance costs and cleaner air in a region long plagued by poor air quality. But after she moved into an apartment in 2019, she learned firsthand how difficult life becomes for EV owners without a home charger. She found herself driving out of her way to track down a working public charger, waiting in line for a spot to open up, then rushing back to her vehicle to avoid idling fees once it finished charging.
That inconvenience comes with a steep price. Unlike residential electricity rates, which are regulated by the state, public charging stations can set their own prices — often charging up to six times more than what it costs to plug in at home. The renters most affected by this gap, Pierce notes, tend to be younger residents and Black and Latino Californians, populations that make up a disproportionate share of the state’s apartment dwellers.
That’s what worries her about AB 2748. While the bill’s stated goal — reducing housing construction costs — is a worthy one, an analysis by the National Charging Access Coalition found that in some cases the legislation could actually increase costs down the line, not lower them. And in every scenario, it would mean fewer charging options for residents who most need affordable transportation.
The 2025 building code that the bill would roll back was specifically crafted to strike a balance: expanding charger access for tenants while keeping expenses down for builders. Under that code, when apartments come with assigned parking, developers aren’t required to install pricier charging stations — they can instead wire simpler, cheaper outlets directly into a resident’s own electrical meter.
According to the coalition’s analysis, that approach nearly doubles the number of available charging outlets compared to the 2022 code, without adding to overall costs. It also means residents’ charging is billed through their own meters, qualifying them for regulated utility rates and state discount programs that make plugging in even more affordable.
Rolling that requirement back, Pierce argues, would cut charging access roughly in half in new affordable developments and set both tenants and property managers up for steeper costs later on. Retrofitting a building with EV charging after the fact is far more expensive than building it in from the start — potentially tripling costs, and in at least one documented case, driving expenses up 30-fold compared to installing the infrastructure before concrete is poured and electrical systems are sized.
That bill for retrofitting, Pierce warns, doesn’t disappear — it typically lands on taxpayers and utility ratepayers, as state agencies and utility companies spend millions later to add charging capacity to buildings that lacked it from day one. Delaying this kind of infrastructure isn’t really saving money, she argues; it’s simply pushing the expense down the road, with interest.
Pierce also pushes back on the idea that EV charging is a major driver of high housing costs in the first place. Charging infrastructure, she points out, accounts for less than 1% of total construction costs for affordable housing — a fraction of the 10 to 15% typically consumed by development fees alone. The real drivers of California’s expensive construction costs, she says, are lumber, labor and land, not charging outlets.
For the families who will eventually live in these buildings, however, the presence or absence of home charging can determine whether they enjoy the full cost savings that come with EV ownership, or remain stuck paying premium prices at public chargers or the pump for years to come.
As Pierce puts it, affordable housing residents deserve the same basic convenience already available to tenants in market-rate developments: the ability to charge their vehicle overnight at home, without ever needing to visit a gas station again. Housing affordability, she argues, shouldn’t stop at the construction budget — it has to extend to the cost of actually living there.
Original source: CalMatters
