Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs requiring EV chargers in new multifamily buildings, delays vote
Summary
Work session on House Bill 2961, which would change building-code requirements for electric-vehicle (EV) charging in new multifamily and mixed-use buildings, drew debate over unit thresholds, rural impacts and costs; the committee closed the work session and carried the bill over for a later date.
Chair Lively opened a work session on House Bill 2961, a bill that would modify state building-code requirements for electrical service capacity and EV charging in newly constructed multifamily or mixed-use residential buildings. The bill, as amended in a dash-4 under consideration in committee, raised the minimum building size that triggers an installed charger requirement from five residential units to ten and set a 20% ratio for the number of parking spaces required to have chargers installed and ready to use.
Committee members debated the scope and cost implications of the dash-4 amendment. Representative Grama explained the dash-4 removes broader infrastructure requirements not already in building code and requires an installed charger only for buildings with at least ten residential units, with remaining charger counts set at 20% of parking spaces. Several members said the change to ten units came at the request of rural communities who found the five-unit threshold too stringent.
Opponents focused on housing cost and rural suitability. Representative Osborne argued the mandate would raise construction costs and make housing more expensive in Oregon, and said he opposed adding requirements that could deter builders. Representative Lawson and others warned the requirement could disproportionately affect rural districts where EV adoption and parking configurations differ. Representative Osborne and others said the bill as drafted would increase costs in an already expensive housing market.
Supporters and other members urged the committee to consider access and equity. Representative Gamba and Representative Neron said used EVs are an affordable option for many renters and that lack of chargers systematically limits renters’ ability to use EVs. Representative Helm and others noted the expensive portion of many EV installations is upstream (service panels and distribution), and that an installed charger at move-in could make EV ownership viable for renters.
Members also discussed technical points raised in committee: the base bill ties charger requirements to percentages of parking spaces (so projects with no parking would not require infrastructure), and committee members noted that in parts of Portland a few developments have no parking, but that situation is uncommon elsewhere. A committee member estimated a single charger costs roughly $3,500, though members noted the larger, costlier work (service upgrades, panel work) is often already in place for many projects.
No motion to adopt the dash-2 amendment was made; members debated whether to adopt the dash-4 amendment or delay further work. Legislative-counsel capacity to process additional amendments before deadlines was raised as a constraint. With no final motion to adopt amendments on the record, Chair Lively closed the work session and carried the bill over for a later date.
Ending: The work session on HB 2961 ended without a committee vote; the bill will be carried over and scheduled again so members can consider amendment language and rural/urban applicability before a final committee decision.
