An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-2242 of the Code of Virginia, relating to land subdivision and development; optional provisions of a subdivision ordinance; electric vehicle charging stations; Department of Energy; report.
HB833 amends Virginia’s subdivision ordinance statute, § 15.2-2242, to add electric vehicle charging stations as an optional subject that local subdivision ordinances may address. The bill is framed as a land-use and development measure, expanding the list of discretionary provisions a locality may include when regulating subdivision plats and development approvals. In practical terms, it gives counties, cities, and towns another tool to require or encourage EV charging infrastructure in new subdivision development, but it does not itself impose a statewide mandate on all localities or all developments.
The bill also directs the Department of Energy to prepare a report, indicating a state-level interest in tracking or evaluating EV charging station issues in the subdivision and development context. Because the bill amends an existing local-government planning statute rather than creating a new standalone program, its effect is to integrate EV charging considerations into the existing subdivision ordinance framework used by Virginia localities.
HB833 changes § 15.2-2242 of the Code of Virginia, which governs optional provisions that may be included in subdivision ordinances. The amendment authorizes local governments to address electric vehicle charging stations in subdivision regulations, potentially affecting developers, builders, planning commissions, and local zoning/subdivision administrators. The bill’s impact is permissive rather than mandatory: it expands local authority but does not require every locality to adopt EV charging requirements. The Department of Energy report requirement adds an administrative state reporting component related to the policy area.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s enactment as Chapter 679, the overall sentiment appears to have been favorable enough to secure passage. The bill’s structure suggests it was treated as a practical planning and infrastructure measure aligned with broader interest in electric vehicle readiness.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. If there was disagreement, it likely would have centered on whether local governments should be given authority to require EV charging infrastructure in subdivision ordinances, and on the potential cost or regulatory burden for developers and homebuilders. Another possible issue is the balance between encouraging EV infrastructure and preserving local flexibility versus imposing additional development standards, but the supplied materials do not identify any named opponents or supporters.