AB 819 carves out parking facilities owned or leased by churches and organizations exempt from federal income tax from any mandatory California building standards that would require installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or future EV charging infrastructure, with a limited exception for designated employee parking spaces. The bill also declares that the presence of EV chargers on such properties may not be used to alter zoning designations or disqualify property or other tax exemptions, and it specifies that income from chargers on those properties is not unrelated business taxable income.
Beyond the exemption language, the bill compels the Franchise Tax Board to supply data to the Legislative Analyst’s Office for tax‑expenditure reports, creates a criminal limitation on the use of taxpayer information received by the LAO, and expressly denies state reimbursement to local agencies for any property or sales tax revenues lost because of the bill. The net effect: it protects religious and tax‑exempt nonprofits from retrofit obligations and certain tax consequences while creating potential fiscal and administrative costs for local governments and state agencies charged with reporting and enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill exempts churches and federal tax‑exempt nonprofits from mandatory building standards requiring EV chargers or future EV infrastructure on their parking facilities, except for designated employee parking. It also shields those properties from zoning or tax‑exemption impacts tied to having chargers and classifies charger revenue as non‑unrelated business taxable income for these entities.
Who It Affects
Religious organizations and federally tax‑exempt nonprofits that own or lease parking facilities, local planning and tax authorities, EV infrastructure providers looking to site chargers on nonprofit property, and state agencies (Franchise Tax Board and Legislative Analyst’s Office) tasked with data and reporting obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill undercuts a uniform retrofit pathway for EV charging on private nonprofit properties, potentially slowing charger deployment in areas served by faith‑based and nonprofit organizations while shifting revenue losses and administrative burdens onto local governments and state reporting agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current California law, the Building Standards Commission and Department of Housing and Community Development have authority to research, propose, and adopt mandatory building standards that require installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in certain retrofit and new‑construction contexts. AB 819 inserts a categorical exemption: if a parking facility is owned or leased by a church or by an organization that is exempt from federal income tax, the facility is not subject to any mandatory building standard that would compel installation of EV charging stations or future EV infrastructure.
The exemption is explicit and broad, but it leaves a single carveout — 'designated employee parking spaces' remain eligible for requirements.
The bill goes further than construction rules. It states, 'notwithstanding any other law,' the presence of an EV charger on property owned or leased by a qualifying church or nonprofit cannot be used to change zoning classifications, disqualify property tax exemptions, or affect other specified tax exemptions.
That language is meant to prevent local land use or tax authorities from treating the addition of chargers as a commercial use or as a reason to reassess exemption status.On tax treatment, AB 819 specifies that income derived by a church or other exempt organization from an EV charging station located on property owned or leased by the organization is not unrelated business taxable income (UBTI). In parallel, the bill amends rules around authorizing new tax expenditures: it requires additional information in bills that create new tax expenditures and directs the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to provide requested data to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) so the LAO can prepare mandated reports.
The bill also restricts how the LAO may use taxpayer information it receives, and it makes unauthorized use a crime — an expansion with criminal and administrative implications.Finally, AB 819 includes an explicit fiscal provision: it declares no appropriation is made to reimburse local agencies for property tax or sales and use tax revenue losses resulting from the exemptions the bill creates. Practically, that means counties and cities absorb any lost revenue or must seek offsets within their own budgets.
The combination of carveouts, reporting duties, privacy protections, and a no‑reimbursement clause changes who bears costs and who makes decisions about installing EV infrastructure on nonprofit properties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill exempts parking facilities owned or leased by a church or an organization exempt from federal income tax from any mandatory state building standard that would require EV charging infrastructure, except for designated employee parking spaces.
It bars local governments from using the presence of an EV charging station on qualifying nonprofit property to alter zoning designations or to revoke or change property tax or other tax exemptions.
AB 819 explicitly states that income a church or exempt organization receives from an EV charging station on its property is not unrelated business taxable income under state law.
The Franchise Tax Board must provide data requested by the Legislative Analyst’s Office for reports on new tax expenditures, while the bill makes improper collection or use of taxpayer information by the LAO a criminal offense.
The state will not reimburse local agencies for any property tax or sales and use tax revenue losses caused by this bill; the bill disclaims any appropriation for such reimbursements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Exemption from mandatory building standards for churches and tax‑exempt nonprofits
This section creates a categorical exemption from any mandatory California building standards that would require installation of EV charging stations or future EV charging infrastructure for parking facilities owned or leased by churches or organizations exempt from federal income taxation. The exemption scope is broad — it applies to both retrofits and new requirements — but the bill preserves one narrow exception: designated employee parking spaces may still be subject to standards. For compliance teams, the key operational consequence is that owners of qualifying properties are not required by state building codes to install Level 2 (or higher) chargers as part of covered construction triggers.
Zoning and tax‑exemption protection for qualifying properties
This provision states that the mere presence of an EV charging station on qualifying nonprofit property shall not be used to change the property’s zoning designation, property tax exemption, or other specified tax exemptions. The 'notwithstanding any other law' language attempts to preempt local land‑use or tax assessments that might treat chargers as a commercial or income‑producing use. Practically, local planning departments lose a lever they could otherwise use to require conditional use permits or reassess exemption status when chargers are installed on nonprofit sites.
State tax treatment: excluding charger income from unrelated business taxable income
The bill amends tax treatment by declaring income from EV charging stations on property owned or leased by churches or exempt organizations to be outside the definition of unrelated business taxable income. That change reduces the risk that nonprofits will have to report charger receipts as taxable business income under state tax law, affecting how organizations model revenue from paid charging, member parking fees, or third‑party operator contracts.
Tax‑expenditure reporting, data sharing, and taxpayer information limits
AB 819 tightens requirements for bills that authorize new tax expenditures, adding data and performance‑information obligations. It compels the Franchise Tax Board to provide whatever data the Legislative Analyst’s Office requests to produce those reports and makes misuse of taxpayer information received by the LAO a crime. That combination expands LAO access to FTB data for legislative review while simultaneously imposing criminal limitations on the LAO’s handling of that data — a pairing that raises practical questions about data governance and legal exposure for analysts and staff.
No state reimbursement for local revenue losses
Where state law typically requires the state to reimburse local agencies for revenue losses caused by state tax exemptions or changes, this section expressly disclaims any appropriation and states the state will not reimburse local agencies for property or sales and use tax revenue lost because of this bill. Municipalities therefore carry the fiscal impact, which may affect local budgets, services, and how counties and cities weigh permitting and enforcement decisions for chargers on nonprofit property.
Interaction with existing building standards research and timelines
The bill does not repeal the statutory program that directs the Building Standards Commission and HCD to research and develop mandatory standards for EV charging infrastructure through existing timelines (including work tied to triennial code cycles and research running toward January 1, 2033). Instead, this section creates a carveout for a defined class of properties, producing a patchwork between properties subject to mandatory upgrades and those that are exempt. That distinction matters for agencies planning outreach, incentives, and enforcement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Churches and federally tax‑exempt nonprofits: They avoid mandatory retrofit costs and the administrative burden of complying with building standards, and they protect their property and other tax‑exemption statuses from being challenged because of installed chargers.
- Nonprofit landlords and campus operators (e.g., shelters, schools, community centers): They gain certainty that hosting chargers will not trigger zoning changes or property tax reassessments, reducing legal and planning risk for facilities that rely on exemption status.
- Organizations that operate paid charging on nonprofit property: The UBTI carveout makes revenue from chargers less likely to be taxed as unrelated business income at the state level, improving the economics for using chargers as a service or revenue stream.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments (counties and cities): They lose potential property and sales tax revenue and are explicitly denied state reimbursement, increasing pressure on local budgets and potentially forcing tradeoffs in services or permits.
- EV infrastructure companies and site developers: By removing mandatory retrofit triggers on a significant class of properties, the bill reduces location options where deployment would otherwise be required and may complicate commercial rollout strategies.
- State agencies (Franchise Tax Board and Legislative Analyst’s Office): The FTB must respond to expanded data requests and the LAO faces criminal‑exposure constraints on handling taxpayer data, creating administrative, legal, and staffing burdens.
- EV drivers and communities served primarily by nonprofit parking sites: Slower mandatory deployment on exempt properties could leave charging deserts unfilled, particularly in areas where faith‑based and nonprofit organizations operate large parking lots.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits protection of religious and nonprofit autonomy — avoiding retrofit costs, zoning changes, and tax exposure — against the state's policy goal of building an equitable, comprehensive EV charging network and maintaining a consistent tax framework; it resolves one set of burdens by shifting fiscal, administrative, and deployment costs onto local governments, state agencies, and the EV market, with unclear consequences for equity and emissions objectives.
AB 819 trades a narrow regulatory relief for one class of property holders against a broader public policy objective of accelerating EV infrastructure. By exempting churches and federal tax‑exempt nonprofits from mandatory building standards, the bill preserves institutional autonomy but reduces the universe of sites where state law can force or standardize charger installation.
That makes local incentive programs and voluntary deployment more important; if those do not fill the gap, deployment could be uneven, concentrating chargers where mandates apply and leaving gaps near exempt nonprofits.
The tax provisions create their own set of tradeoffs. Excluding charger income from unrelated business taxable income narrows a longstanding tool the state uses to limit commercial activity inside tax‑exempt entities.
That carveout will lower potential state revenue and may create competitive asymmetries between nonprofit and for‑profit operators. The bill also orders FTB data be shared with the LAO while simultaneously criminalizing improper use of that data — a legal and operational tension that can chill analysis or require new governance controls.
Finally, the explicit no‑reimbursement language forces local governments to absorb costs; combined with the bill’s classification of a criminal expansion as a state‑mandated local program, that creates a practical and fiscal mismatch local officials may challenge or litigate.
Operationally, the bill leaves several implementation questions unanswered: what qualifies as a 'designated employee parking space' and how broadly courts will interpret 'leased' property; how the state and counties will reconcile the bill’s privacy‑and‑criminalization language with routine LAO data handling; and whether the federal tax status baseline will produce definitional disputes when property is used jointly by exempt and taxable occupants. Those ambiguities create litigation risk and increase the need for regulatory guidance from HCD, the Building Standards Commission, FTB, and local assessors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.