UL 1998 2nd Ed. Makes V2G Security Tests Mandatory

On June 26, 2026, UL Solutions announced that UL 1998 Second Edition had formally taken effect, adding mandatory security testing for TLS 1.3 encryption and DoS protection in the V2G bidirectional charging communication link referenced in ISO 15118-20 Annex D. This matters directly to suppliers of V2G-capable charging equipment and BMS/EMS software systems planning to enter the North American market, because the change is tied to certification timing and testing cost rather than being a purely technical update.

What the standard update formally changes

According to the information provided, UL Solutions stated on June 26, 2026 that UL 1998 Second Edition is now in effect. The update, for the first time, makes TLS 1.3 encryption and DoS protection within the V2G bidirectional charging communication link under ISO 15118-20 Annex D mandatory security test items. The stated impact is on the certification cycle and testing cost for all V2G-compatible charging equipment and BMS/EMS software system suppliers seeking access to the North American market.

Where the impact is likely to appear first

Certification work will become more central for market-entry planning

From an industry perspective, companies targeting North America may feel the impact first in certification preparation. The reason is straightforward: once specific communication-security items become mandatory tests, product approval is no longer only about functional compatibility. The business effect is likely to show up in test scheduling, document readiness, and coordination with certification bodies. What deserves closer attention is whether existing project timelines already assumed earlier testing scopes.

Charging equipment suppliers face direct product-level implications

For manufacturers and integrators of V2G-capable charging equipment, the update matters because the mandatory items apply to the bidirectional charging communication link itself. Analysis shows the pressure point is likely to be in validation and product release planning, especially where North American market access depends on certification sequencing. These companies should pay close attention to how communication security requirements are reflected in test preparation and product configuration review.

BMS and EMS software providers are also within the impact range

The event summary explicitly includes BMS and EMS software system suppliers. Observably, this means the impact is not limited to hardware vendors. Software-related parties may need to pay closer attention to how communication security functions are demonstrated, documented, and aligned with certification expectations when their systems are part of a V2G-compatible offering intended for North America.

What companies should monitor now

How mandatory test scope is described in formal communications

Companies should closely monitor subsequent official wording and any clarifications connected to UL 1998 Second Edition, especially around how the mandatory TLS 1.3 and DoS protection items are interpreted in practical certification work. The core issue is not abstract policy reading, but how test scope is applied to actual product submissions.

Which product lines and software modules are exposed

What deserves closer attention is the internal mapping between V2G-capable products and the communication functions covered by the new mandatory tests. For suppliers with multiple variants, the key operational question is which devices, controllers, or software modules intended for North America may now face a longer or more expensive certification path.

Whether delivery schedules need adjustment

Because the provided information explicitly points to certification cycle and testing cost effects, companies should review project delivery assumptions, especially for products already being prepared for the North American market. Analysis shows this is less about broad strategy and more about practical timing: approval sequencing, customer communication, and readiness for additional testing steps may all require revision.

How supplier and customer communication should be handled

Suppliers, integrators, and procurement-facing teams should be prepared to explain whether the standard update affects expected certification timing, test workload, or documentation completeness. In commercial terms, the immediate concern is often not the rule itself, but whether counterparties understand its possible effect on acceptance milestones and launch planning.

How this update is best understood at this stage

Analysis shows this development should be read as more than a routine wording revision, because it turns specific V2G communication-security items into mandatory tests. At the same time, it is more appropriate to understand it as a concrete compliance signal rather than a fully visible market outcome. The confirmed facts establish the direction of the requirement, but the full operational effect will depend on how companies absorb it into certification planning and product delivery processes.

Why the market is likely to keep watching it

For the industry, the significance of this update lies in the fact that security requirements in the V2G communication path are now tied more directly to certification access for North America. A neutral reading is that this is an actionable near-term change for affected suppliers, while also serving as a longer-term signal that communication-security compliance is becoming harder to treat as a secondary item in V2G product preparation.

Basis of this article and what still needs verification

This article is based on the user-provided news title, event date, and event summary. For this type of development, commonly relevant source categories may include official announcements, company statements, industry association updates, standards organization documents, and reporting by authoritative trade media. A specific official source link was not provided in the input, so the exact published documentation and any later interpretive updates still need to be verified on an ongoing basis. Further observation should focus on subsequent official clarifications and any additional implementation details affecting certification timelines or test scope.