Maryland Delays $150-Per-Port EV Charger Fee Amid Backlash

On December 23, 2025, Maryland Matters reported that Maryland is postponing a new inspection fee for electric vehicle chargers that was scheduled to take effect next week, following concerns that the cost could slow the deployment of charging infrastructure statewide.

The Maryland Department of Agriculture, which oversees inspections of public EV chargers for accuracy and functionality, announced that charger owners will not be required to pay the $150 per-port inspection fee until July 1, instead of the originally planned January 1 start date.

EV advocates and industry stakeholders have warned that the fee could discourage businesses from installing new chargers or even prompt the removal of existing ones to avoid ongoing costs. The concern is especially acute for chargers at apartment buildings and other multi-unit dwellings, where equipment is primarily intended for residents and typically does not generate the same revenue as fast chargers located along major travel corridors.

State officials have defended the fee, noting that public chargers that collect payment should be regulated similarly to other consumer-facing devices. According to the department, the $150 fee reflects the cost of testing chargers using specialized “standard” equipment, as well as the electricity consumed during inspections.

In its announcement, the department also clarified that certain chargers may qualify for exemptions. Chargers at multi-unit residential properties can be exempt if they are exclusively reserved for residents, clearly labeled as such, not accessible to the general public, and not advertised on public charging maps or websites. Workplace chargers may also qualify for exemptions if they are restricted to employee use. Chargers at private residences and free-to-use chargers are automatically exempt.

“The decision to extend the registration deadline to July 1, 2026, will allow the department to facilitate more extensive and meaningful dialogue with the electric vehicle charging industry, local governments, and the community at large,” Maryland Agriculture Secretary Kevin Atticks said in a news release.

“This extended timeline will allow us to incorporate critical feedback and make the necessary formal amendments to the program’s structure and regulations, ensuring the program is effective, fair, and supportive of the state’s electric vehicle adoption goals while meeting the practical needs of all stakeholders,” his statement said.

Despite these clarifications, some in the EV charging industry remain concerned that the requirements are overly restrictive and could undermine Maryland’s efforts to accelerate EV adoption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Robert Borkowski, owner of Plug IO, an EV charging company focused on multifamily installations, said he recently secured an exemption for chargers in Frederick but worries many properties will struggle to meet the criteria. Restricting public access, he noted, may be difficult for some complexes. Borkowski also questioned the ban on promoting chargers publicly, arguing that visibility is essential for attracting EV-owning residents and supporting the state’s climate goals.

EVinfo.net’s Take: Maryland Should Reduce the Fee, Reduce Pollution and Drivers’ Total Cost of Ownership by Supporting EV adoption

Maryland has set ambitious climate and transportation goals, recognizing that electric vehicles are essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving local air quality. Yet the state’s proposed $150 per-port inspection fee on public EV chargers risks slowing the very progress those goals depend on. While recent delays and exemptions are welcome, the policy still sends the wrong signal at a critical moment for EV adoption.

EV charging infrastructure is not evenly profitable. Fast chargers along highways may generate steady revenue, but many chargers in apartment buildings, condominiums, and mixed-use developments are installed primarily as an amenity. These chargers often operate at low utilization and slim margins, yet they play an outsized role in enabling EV ownership for residents without access to home charging. Imposing a flat per-port fee on these installations increases operating costs and discourages deployment where chargers are needed most.

Higher infrastructure costs ultimately flow downstream to drivers. When site hosts face higher fees, they respond by charging higher prices, limiting access, or abandoning projects altogether. Each of those outcomes increases the total cost of ownership for EV drivers, making electric vehicles less competitive with gasoline-powered alternatives. That runs counter to Maryland’s interest in accelerating adoption and reducing fuel-related emissions.

Reducing or restructuring the fee would support broader EV adoption while still preserving consumer protection. A tiered or utilization-based approach, lower fees for multifamily and workplace chargers, or a temporary waiver during early deployment years would better align policy with market realities. These adjustments would maintain oversight without penalizing low-margin installations that expand equitable access to charging.