DC's condo EV right-to-charge law has never taken effect
DC's condo EV right-to-charge law has never taken effect
2026-09-09 · District of Columbia · Legislation
The District of Columbia's right-to-charge law for condominium and community associations is on the books and legally inoperative. The codified section that would give a unit owner the right to install an electric vehicle charging port is headed “Electric vehicle charging port rights for condominium associations, community associations, or other common interest developments. [Not Funded]” — and its body contains no operative text at all.1
It has been in that condition since the underlying law took effect on March 7, 2025, and it remains so today.
What happened
The Comprehensive Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Access, Readiness, and Sustainability Amendment Act of 2024 created three new sections: one for single-family new construction, one for tenants, and — at § 4(c) — D.C. Code § 6-1451.03c for common interest developments.2
Section 7 of the same Act made its application conditional: the Act applies upon the date of inclusion of its fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan. That inclusion has not happened. The DC Law Library's note is explicit — the creation of the section is subject to inclusion of the fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan, “[t]herefore that amendment has not been implemented.”
Subject-to-appropriations clauses are ordinary in DC legislation, and they are the reason a District law can be passed, signed, survive congressional review, take effect, and still do nothing.
What the section would have done
The unimplemented text would require an association to allow installation in a deeded or designated parking space at the owner's expense, while permitting the association to impose conditions: compliance with safety and building codes, registration within 30 days after installation, reasonable architectural standards for dimensions, placement and appearance, and a bar on licensing, renting or subletting the space.
The owner would have to use licensed electricians, submit stamped plans, bear installation and electricity costs, cover damage to common elements, and carry insurance naming the association as an additional insured. Applications could not be unreasonably delayed and would be deemed approved if not addressed within 60 days of receipt, absent a reasonable request for more information. An association in violation would face fines of up to $1,000 for each 60-day period.
What it means for DC boards right now
An owner's request to install a charger is governed by the condominium instruments, not by § 6-1451.03c. That is the operative point, and it is the opposite of what several widely circulated advisories told DC associations in 2025. A board evaluating a charger request works from its declaration, bylaws and rules, its architectural review provisions and its authority over common elements — the same tools it had before the Act passed.
Two consequences follow.
No 60-day deemed approval applies. A board that has been treating the 60-day clock as binding has imported a deadline that is not in force. Whatever response time the governing documents require is the response time that governs.
No statutory fine exposure applies either. The $1,000-per-60-day penalty runs against associations under a provision that has never operated. An association's exposure on a charger dispute is the ordinary exposure under its own documents and the Condominium Act — including the fee-shifting provision at D.C. Code § 42-1902.09(b), which the Court of Appeals construed for the first time in August 2026.
That case is the proof of the point. In Burton v. Chase Point Unit Owners Association, DC unit owners who were refused permission to install a Tesla charger litigated under the governing documents and § 42-1902.09 — not under the right-to-charge statute — precisely because the statute is inert.
The prudent posture
An association that adopts a charging policy now is doing so voluntarily, which is a stronger position than it sounds. A board that writes a reasonable, published, evenly applied procedure — standards, an application, a response time, cost allocation, insurance, metering — has both a workable answer for owners and a defensible record. It also has a policy already in place if the funding condition is ever met.
The two traps are describing the statute to owners as if it were operative, and refusing a request by citing a statutory condition that does not exist. Both create a written record that is wrong on the law.
What to watch next
One thing: a budget and financial plan that includes the fiscal effect. Until that appears, the section stays as it reads today. The companion provisions for new single-family construction and for tenants are in the same condition, so DC currently has no operative right-to-charge law for any residential category.
Related District of Columbia HOA Topics
- D.C. Code § 6-1451.03c, Electric vehicle charging port rights for condominium associations, community associations, or other common interest developments [Not Funded] ↩
- D.C. Law 25-262, the Comprehensive Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Access, Readiness, and Sustainability Amendment Act of 2024 (Bill 25-106; D.C. Act 25-625; 71 DCR 14111; effective Mar. 7, 2025) ↩
Stay on top of District of Columbia HOA law
Every week: new District of Columbia legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.