Vermont's right to charge arrived inside the transportation bill
Vermont's right to charge arrived inside the transportation bill
2026-09-19 · Vermont · Legislation
Vermont now has a statutory right to install an electric-vehicle charger in a condominium or planned community — and it is not in any bill with “electric vehicles” in its title. The provisions were added on the Senate floor to H.944, the annual transportation program act, and were signed by Governor Phil Scott on June 18, 2026 as Act 168. They took effect July 1, 2026.1
Where the language actually came from
The standalone bill, S.270, An act relating to a right to charge electric vehicles at home, was introduced by Sen. Andrew Perchlik on January 16, 2026, went to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs, got one committee date on January 22, and was never heard from again.2 It was the fifth attempt at the same idea: S.271 in 2024, then S.75 and H.426 in 2025, then H.863 and S.270 in 2026, all carrying substantially the same text, all dead.
The sections that became law are not in H.944 as introduced and are not in H.944 as passed by the House. They appear for the first time in the Senate proposal of amendment, under the caption “* * * EVSE Installation in Common Interest Communities * * *”, and became Act 168 Secs. 31 and 32. The House agreed to the conference report on May 28, 2026; the Senate did the same day.1
What 27A V.S.A. § 3-125 says
The operative sentence voids the restriction rather than creating a permit:
“Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a common interest community, and any provision of a governing document associated with a common interest community, such as a declaration, bylaw, or rule, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation of EVSE within the boundaries of a unit owner's unit or limited common element or the unit owner's exclusively designated parking space or the use of such EVSE for noncommercial purposes … is void and unenforceable.”
And the sentence that forecloses the most common board objection: “Installation of EVSE shall not be deemed a division or reallocation of a common element and shall not alter the allocated interests of any unit owner.”
The 90-day clock, and what starts it
An owner's application is processed “in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification”, and the section says the process “shall not be intentionally avoided or delayed.” Approval or denial must be in writing. If the association does not deny the application in writing within 90 days, it is deemed approved — unless the delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
Ninety days is not the number the bill's sponsors wanted. Every dead standalone version — S.271, S.75, H.426, H.863 and S.270 — used 60 days. The Senate's transportation amendment lengthened it by half.
What an association may still require
The section is not a surrender of architectural control. An association may require:
- compliance with applicable building and electrical codes and safety standards;
- reasonable architectural standards — but standards that “shall not prohibit the installation … or substantially increase the costs thereof”;
- that the work be performed by a licensed electrician;
- reimbursement of any increased insurance premium attributable to the EVSE, payable within 14 days of the association's invoice;
- “any other reasonable restrictions”, with “reasonable” defined in the section as a restriction “that does not significantly increase the cost of the EVSE or significantly decrease the efficiency or specified performance of the EVSE.”
What the owner keeps
The owner carries the cost of installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and restoration, the cost of the electricity, and liability for damage. The obligation follows the unit only if the buyer takes it on: the owner must remove the equipment and restore the common element before sale unless the purchaser agrees in writing to assume the obligations.
Two things the enacted version dropped
The dead standalone bills carried a $1,000 civil penalty for an intentional violation and an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Neither is in Act 168. An owner whose association simply refuses has the void-and-unenforceable declaration and the deemed-approval clock; the enforcement machinery that would have made refusal expensive did not survive the transportation bill.
What to watch next
Nothing in § 3-125 requires the association to build anything, and nothing requires the electrical service to be adequate. The section's cost-allocation subsection — which lets a board assess infrastructure upgrades against the units of owners who install chargers — is where the next round of Vermont disputes will land. The Office of Legislative Counsel's common-interest-community report, due November 15, 2026 under Act 179, covers leasing, home business, accessory dwelling units and vegetable gardens; EV charging is not on its list, because that fight is over.
Related Vermont HOA Topics
Stay on top of Vermont HOA law
Every week: new Vermont legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.