Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces RS32045 C1, which would bar mandates for EV chargers and related conduit in buildings
Summary
Rep. Joe Palmer’s RS32045 C1, a change to language derived from House Bill 18, passed introduction after debate over whether requiring conduit for future electric vehicle chargers is reasonable or unduly expensive for property owners.
Representative Joe Palmer asked the House Business Committee to introduce RS32045 C1, a draft that restates language from House Bill 18 and adds protections against local governments mandating electric‑vehicle (EV) plug‑in chargers, EV parking spaces and certain conduit or other infrastructure requirements in new construction.
Palmer said the original bill forbids making EV chargers or charging parking spots mandatory; after the bill’s introduction he returned to add language preventing local governments from requiring conduit or similar infrastructure that could be used to install chargers in the future. He said the additional language was meant to prevent unexpected construction costs for property owners.
Representative Birch and others questioned that approach. Birch said basic conduit—empty raceways placed under concrete—can be inexpensive relative to later retrofits and can substantially lower future costs to add charging infrastructure. Representative Wheeler noted that labor, particularly trenching and wiring across a large parking lot, is the expensive element, not the conduit material alone.
Members debated whether local governments should retain authority to require basic conduit to support future electrification or whether that imposition would be a forced cost on private property owners. Palmer argued that governments do not force private businesses to install gasoline pumps and that similar mandates for EV infrastructure were inappropriate.
Representative Wheeler moved to introduce RS32045 C1; the motion carried by voice vote. The RS will proceed through the committee process; the sponsor and committee members flagged cost estimates and technical clarifications as items to revisit at a future hearing.
