Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicles topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee weighs curbside EV charging bill; DOT flags operational details

New Hampshire Senate Transportation Committee · January 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SB 628 would allow local highway authorities to license curbside electric‑vehicle chargers in public right‑of‑way and set host reimbursement, consumer protections and siting rules; DOT raised concerns about maintenance bonds, signage costs, interoperability, payment methods and snow‑emergency towing/enforcement.

Sen. David Waters introduced SB 628 to enable highway authorities to license curbside electric vehicle charging devices and operators in public rights‑of‑way, establish reimbursement to host properties, set safety and siting standards, and clarify that operators are not public utilities.

Michael Moser, DOT NEVI program manager, said DOT takes no position on the bill but highlighted implementation issues: the draft lacks explicit maintenance bond language to ensure removal or repair if an operator fails; it does not specify who pays for signage and markings; it omits interoperability standards for network communications and payment methods (credit card, pay‑by‑app); and it does not require outage reporting or set cybersecurity expectations. DOT also raised snow‑emergency and towability concerns for plugged‑in vehicles.

Senator Waters and other witnesses described the curbside model as a private operator using a host property’s electrical service (or a dedicated meter) and installing a shallow conduit to the curb with a pedestal for charging. Operators would typically provide durable cable management to avoid tripping hazards. Committee members asked how the scheme interacts with federally funded roadway sections; DOT advised fair‑market‑value right‑of‑way agreements are required where federal funds are present.

The committee took testimony from industry and local advocates and closed the hearing after technical Q&A; members requested DOT talking points and follow‑up on implementation details.