logo
Resident worries about fire risk posed by car charging stations in condo parking garages

Resident worries about fire risk posed by car charging stations in condo parking garages

Yahoo04-05-2025
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers.
Question: We are getting more requests by owners to install electric vehicle chargers in their deeded parking spots in our indoor garage. Our town fire marshall recently explained at our board meeting that the chargers and vehicles present a fire risk and that the fire cannot be extinguished.
We now have two charging stations on our outdoor parking deck which are available to owners. Why does Florida Statute 718 mandate that our condo must allow the installation of EV chargers which create a risk of fire in our building? I have recently brought this to the attention of our State representative. Signed, J.P.
Dear J.P.,
With nearly every law, there is a balance between different groups and different interests. There are even professionals called lobbyists whose entire job is to influence public officials on behalf of their clients, particularly when it comes to passing (or rejecting) new legislation.
The law requiring condominiums to allow owners to install electric vehicle chargers in their limited common element parking spaces expressly describes that the legislature wanted to promote electric vehicle use. It says that 'the Legislature finds that the use of electric and natural gas fuel vehicles conserves and protects the state's environmental resources, provides significant economic savings to drivers, and serves an important public interest. The participation of condominium associations is essential to the state's efforts to conserve and protect the state's environmental resources and provide economic savings to drivers.'
So, that's the official stated reason for the law, though it ignores the question of EV safety or the risk of fire. While I don't know the actual specifics of how this law came to be, I can tell you from experience that there's lots of possibilities, including lobbying by electric vehicle companies, electric utilities and charger installation companies.
Or maybe this law was pushed by a legislator who heard a story about a friend who was denied the right to charge their electric vehicle in their condominium, and they decided this was a problem they needed to solve. Or, it could have even been something that happened to a legislator, themselves.
Whatever the reason, someone had an idea, they managed to develop support for it, and the competing interests couldn't push hard enough to stop the law from coming into effect. The reality is, if people in condominiums have EVs, they need somewhere to charge them — it's a necessary evil.
But what may happen, as so often does, is that a tragedy could occur one day that completely changes the calculation, and perhaps even reverses the law. Let's say for example there is an electric vehicle fire caused by a charger in an owner's parking space, and that the fire causes serious damage to a condominium building.
There would then be a push to make changes to the law to protect these buildings and the lives of residents, and that may even end up reversing the law entirely (or perhaps providing that chargers can only be installed outdoors, or only a certain distance from the primary building). This wouldn't reduce the risk from the vehicles themselves, but it would greatly reduce the primary fire risk, which I understand occurs during charging. It's unfortunate that it often takes a newsworthy event to lead to broad legislative changes like this, but in the real world, that's how the sausage gets made.
You reasonably brought this issue to the attention of your legislator — but unless the firefighters get involved in an aggressive lobbying effort to change the law, or unless something terrible were to happen that makes the legislature totally rethink the relative value of electric vehicles (and I will clarify that I am not in any way disparaging EVs — I own one myself), I would not expect this law to change. It's simply the way our system operates.
Question: Our condominium board has instituted a new policy of background checks for new purchasers. Since there is nothing in our governing documents that addresses background checks, are they able to do this? Signed, D.C.
Dear D.C.,
Your governing documents may provide that the association has the right to require whatever documents it needs to approve or reject rentals or sales; and if it does, it's likely that requiring a background check would be found a reasonable part of that process, even if it is not expressly mentioned.
If your governing documents do not allow the board to reject tenants or owners, at all, the question would become whether the background check rule is reasonable.
If the board has no power to reject a lease or sale, what exactly are they doing with the background check information? In that situation I question whether an arbitrator or court would find such a requirement reasonable, as there's no obvious purpose to conducting the background check.
Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@gmail.com. Please be sure to include your location.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Fire hazard v. convenience: Can condos ban car charging stations?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Redistricting kills tax hikes talk
Redistricting kills tax hikes talk

Politico

time2 hours ago

  • Politico

Redistricting kills tax hikes talk

Presented by BACK-BURNERED: Gov. Gavin Newsom's gerrymandering play has effectively ended any possibility, however slim, that lawmakers would seriously consider a push by progressives to raise taxes before the Legislature adjourns next month. It was always a longshot. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire had been more tepid on taxes since wrapping the budget in June. But Newsom's sudden redistricting effort has become all-encompassing at the Capitol, effectively sidelining anything else. 'I think the conversation about raising revenues, it's not something we're going to solve this week or this month,' said Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat and Progressive Caucus member. 'It's going to continue.' While extensive cuts in President Donald Trump's megabill likely won't be felt until after the midterm elections, rollbacks of Medi-Cal and other safety net programs that Newsom and lawmakers made in response to a $12 billion budget shortfall are slated to begin in 2026. Progressives had been hoping to push some kind of new tax scheme through the Legislature this year to stave off the reductions, in particular cutbacks to health insurance for undocumented immigrants. A group of more than two dozen mostly progressive lawmakers met regularly to explore options, including a proposal from labor groups like SEIU and members of the Latino Caucus to penalize big businesses that had large shares of employees who depended on Medi-Cal and other public benefits. Assemblymember Damon Connolly was pushing another idea for a tax on business profits stashed in overseas accounts, called a 'water's edge' exemption. His office estimated it could bring in around $3 billion per year. Even before redistricting sucked the air out of the Capitol, winning support for a new tax was going to be an uphill battle, as Newsom has consistently resisted proposals for new taxes. And Democrats in the state's two chambers were decidedly split on the idea. When party leaders in the Assembly polled their caucus on pursuing new revenue streams now, later or not at all, a third of the 60 members said they wanted to move on revenue-raising options, 16 said they were open to it down the road and 15 rejected the idea. Nine members abstained from responding to the survey. Also in favor of a new tax was Los Angeles state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, who said in an interview that constituents in her communities want state leaders to provide a safety net to counter the Trump administration's cuts to health care, education and other government-funded services. 'Overwhelmingly, what I hear from my constituents when I engage with them is that this is what they want to see,' Pérez said of revenue-raising. 'That we take care of the little guy, and we take care of working people who have been struggling to get by.' But for now, lawmakers have other things on their minds, said Jim Mangia, director of St. John's Health Center, a network of health care clinics in and around Los Angeles that primarily serve the poor and immigrant communities. 'The redistricting conversation has changed a lot in Sacramento. The Legislature is no longer focused on revenue,' Mangia said. 'We are meeting with many legislators … and having some good conversations and more to come, but it has totally changed the focus of the Legislature right now.' The idea of a new tax isn't totally sunk. Lawmakers have been preparing for the possibility of a special session in the fall to deal with the ongoing fallout of federal budget cuts. Generating a new revenue stream could be part of that agenda. 'It's something where I think we owe it to California to keep all options on the table and to entertain any and all possibilities,' Schultz said. Dawn Addis, chair of the Assembly's health budget subcommittee, said that while the cuts to health care remain an urgent problem, lawmakers need more time to work out all possible solutions. 'We want to do something thoughtful that doesn't have a lot of unintended consequences,' Addis said. 'The timing is a little bit tough to discern at the moment. Part of that is because obviously we're dealing with redistricting and the egregious attacks from the Trump administration … We just have no way not to prioritize that. It's got to take front and center.' IT'S TUESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY REDISTRICTING RUMBLE: Republicans' anger over their near-powerlessness in the face of Democrats' redistricting gambit boiled over today in the Assembly Elections Committee. GOP Assemblymember David Tangipa got into a snipefest with Democratic Assemblymember Marc Berman, who was presenting a bill from the legislative package needed to put the gerrymandered map on the November ballot. When Tangipa said lawmakers didn't have enough time to consider the legislation, Berman snapped back that he was surprised it took so long to read a five-page bill. The Democrat also accused the Republican of making veiled threats to his witness when Tangipa suggested they would become 'really good friends' over the course of his questioning. After Tangipa's queries dragged on, chair Gail Pellerin attempted to cut him off at the behest of other Democrats on the committee. Assemblymember Catherine Stefani sternly told Tangipa not to interrupt her during her comments. 'You play stupid games, you get stupid prizes,' she said, alluding to Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. 'And that's what you are doing.' Pellerin eventually cut all the committee members' microphones, leaving Tangipa yelling at his colleagues, à la former GOP Assemblymember Bill Essayli during the final hours of session last year. Democrats ultimately approved the bill over his protests. IN OTHER NEWS DEFENSE DOLLARS: California Sen. Adam Schiff has launched a legal defense fund amid the Justice Department probe into his finances, our Hailey Fuchs and Gregory Svirnovskiy report. Schiff, who led the first impeachment effort in the House against Trump and aided the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, has become a frequent target of the president in his second term. Earlier this summer, Trump alleged in a post on Truth Social that the California Democrat 'engaged in a sustained pattern of possible Mortgage Fraud' — an allegation Schiff vehemently denies. 'It's clear that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies will continue weaponizing the justice process to attack Senator Schiff for holding this corrupt administration accountable,' Marisol Samayoa, a spokesperson for Schiff, said in a statement. 'This fund will ensure he can fight back against these baseless smears while continuing to do his job.' BITING BACK: California Republicans petitioned the state Supreme Court to block legislative Democrats from voting on their redrawn congressional map this week, raising process issues in a bid to stop redistricting from reaching the ballot in November, our Blake Jones reports for POLITICO Pro subscribers. GOP state legislators announced the filing today. In it, they argue legislative language to carry out Democrats' gerrymander must be in print for 30 days before it can be voted upon — or else three quarters of lawmakers must approve suspending a state constitutional rule laying out that timeline. The bills at hand have technically been in print for months, but were gutted Monday and amended to include the redistricting play. The Legislature frequently guts and amends bills in Sacramento and votes on them within a month without drawing legal challenges, but an attorney for the Republicans argued that does not justify the practice. 'If the Legislature has been flagrantly violating this provision of the Constitution in the past, so what? It should stop,' Dhillon Law Group partner Mike Columbo said at a news conference at the California Republican Party headquarters in Sacramento today. CAP-AND-TRADE UNVEILED: The Assembly is proposing modest reforms to the state's signature cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, according to draft legislative language circulating today, our Camille von Kaenel scooped for Pro subscribers. Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, who is leading the Assembly's negotiations on the program, is proposing significant amendments to her placeholder bill, AB 1207, that would direct the California Air Resources Board to extend the cap-and-trade program from 2030 through 2045, make changes to offsets and allowances and make several multi-year appropriations of its revenues for wildfire, water, air and energy programs. Her office confirmed the language this morning. In addition to serving as the backstop regulation that ensures the state meets its emissions reduction obligations, the cap-and-trade program is also a major revenue generator. But proceeds in the state's quarterly auctions have fallen as traders reckon with the program's impending expiration in 2030 and uncertainty over whether regulators will adjust the market's rules. WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — California State University is spending nearly $17 million to make OpenAI's ChatGPT available to all students and faculty even as it faces a $2.3 billion budget gap. (LAist) — Hundreds of professors at UCLA, including a large swath of Jewish faculty, signed a letter condemning Trump's $1 billion settlement demand over alleged antisemitism on campus and the freezing of million in research grant funding. (The Los Angeles Times) — California now has the largest and fastest growing early education program in the country as at least 200,000 kids are set to attend transitional kindergarten this fall. (CalMatters) AROUND THE STATE — A growing number of working- and middle-class families in the North County are enduring long commutes to work or school as they leave in search of affordability. (Voice of San Diego) — Silicon Valley tech giants Cisco and Oracle are slashing hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area. (San Francisco Chronicle) — The Alameda Health System is preparing for a backup plan after Trump's budget bill in July called for a $1 trillion cut to Medicaid that would likely disproportionately affect the hospital's revenue stream. (East Bay Times) — compiled by Juliann Ventura

Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Fuel a Ford F-150
Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Fuel a Ford F-150

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Fuel a Ford F-150

Thinking about switching from gas to electric can feel like a big leap. But when you look at the monthly cost of driving, the numbers speak for themselves, especially when you compare a Tesla to a gas-hungry Ford F-150. Read More: Check Out: We crunched the numbers using expert input, government data and real-world efficiency estimates to determine the actual cost of driving each vehicle 1,000 miles per month. Monthly Cost to Charge a Tesla at Home According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), most electric vehicles (EVs) consume between 25 and 40 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles, depending on vehicle size and efficiency. That means driving 1,000 miles per month would typically use 250 to 400 kWh of electricity. At the U.S. average residential electricity rate of 17.45 cents per kWh (as of April 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration), charging an EV at home would cost between $44 and $70 per month. For You: 'For someone who primarily charges at home, the Tesla is hands-down a winner,' said Kazimieras Urbonas, car expert and supplier excellence manager at Ovoko. 'But if you're dependent on public charging, the cost benefit drops by a huge margin.' Most public charging stations, especially fast chargers, can cost two to three times more than home electricity rates. That means if you rely heavily on public chargers, your EV charging costs could exceed $100 per month, depending on usage and location. Fuel Cost for a Ford F-150 A 2024 Ford F-150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 engine gets an estimated 20 mpg combined, according to EPA ratings. Driving 1,000 miles would require about 50 gallons of gas, and at the current average price of $3.20 per gallon (as of July 2025, per AAA), that equates to approximately $160 per month in fuel costs. In other words, driving an F-150 can cost more than double what it would cost to charge a Tesla at home, and in some cases, over three times more, depending on the vehicle and charging setup. Real-World Factors That Impact Charging Costs 1. Charging Inefficiency EV efficiency ratings, like miles per kilowatt-hour, only reflect the energy used by the motor, not what you actually draw from the grid. But charging isn't perfectly efficient. According to Recurrent Auto, most Level 2 home chargers operate at 83% to 94% efficiency, meaning 6% to 17% of electricity is lost as heat or to onboard systems. So while a Tesla might use 244 kWh to drive 1,000 miles, you'll likely pull between 260 and 290 kWh from the wall, a common misconception that can lead to underestimating your electric bill. 2. Weather-Related Efficiency Loss Cold weather impacts EV range more than gas mileage. EVs can lose up to 40%, per the DOE. By comparison, gas-powered vehicles like the F-150 usually see only a 5% to 15% drop in fuel efficiency in similar temperatures. Hidden Costs on Both Sides Tesla Home charger installation: $500 to $2,000 Winter charging may be more frequent Supercharging adds cost compared to home rates Ford F-150 Fuel price volatility Routine maintenance (oil changes, filters, tune-ups): $100 to $200 per month Long-term engine wear reduces efficiency Bottom Line If you drive around 1,000 miles a month and can charge at home, a Tesla can save you a significant amount on fuel. But the real savings depend on where you charge, how you drive and how much seasonal weather affects your vehicle. Electric vehicles aren't always cheaper in every situation, but for most drivers with access to home charging, the numbers lean in Tesla's favor. More From GOBankingRates New Law Could Make Electricity Bills Skyrocket in These 4 States I'm a Self-Made Millionaire: 6 Ways I Use ChatGPT To Make a Lot of Money 5 Strategies High-Net-Worth Families Use To Build Generational Wealth 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Fuel a Ford F-150 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Public EV fast charging poised for ‘robust' growth: WoodMac
Public EV fast charging poised for ‘robust' growth: WoodMac

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Public EV fast charging poised for ‘robust' growth: WoodMac

This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter. U.S. electric vehicle sales continue to grow and the charging market outlook remains strong despite federal policy headwinds, according to Wood Mackenzie. The sector is showing 'resilience despite challenges,' the firm said Tuesday in its EV charging infrastructure forecast. The U.S. public DC fast charger segment will grow at a 'robust' 14% compound annual rate through 2040, WoodMac said, to reach 475,000 ports and generate $3.3 billion in annual market value. Globally, WoodMac anticipates EV charging ports will increase at 12.3% annually from 2026 to 2040, reaching 206.6 million ports. 'As utilization in public charging increases and infrastructure efficiency improves, we expect the ratio of EVs to public chargers to increase from 7.5 battery electric vehicles per charger in 2025 to 14.2 in 2040,' Oliver McHugh, senior EV charging research analyst for Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement. U.S. federal policy was supportive of electric vehicles under President Joe Biden, who oversaw development of the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program designed to build a public fast charger network. Biden also extended a $7,500 tax credit for EV purchases. These incentives, plus new tailpipe emissions that would force manufacturers to produce more electric models, were intended to help meet Biden's goal of having half of new vehicle sales be an EV by 2030. President Donald Trump has largely opposed the EV transition. The tax and policy bill he signed in July eliminates the EV purchase credit after September. The Trump administration has also moved to weaken or eliminate vehicle emissions standards, and it put the NEVI program on hold for six months, though it has recently been revived. The U.S. Department of Transportation on Aug. 11 issued new NEVI guidance, with changes to make the program more efficient. EV advocates cheered the 'greater flexibility' for states and 'regulatory certainty' around funding rollouts. The market is 'undoubtedly experiencing whiplash' as it shifts between the Biden and Trump administrations, Stan Cross, electric transportation director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, wrote in a Monday blog post. 'Still, the data shows that the US and global EV markets continue to grow steadily, indicating there is likely sufficient market momentum at home and abroad to withstand America's political EV flip-flop,' Cross wrote. EVs reached over 10% market share in 2024, Cross noted, and in the first half of this year more than 600,000 have been sold. EV sales declined 1.4% in June, relative to May, but their market share increased 1.1%, he added. The decline reversed in July, according to Cox Automotive, a services and technology provider for the sector. The EV market 'gained strong momentum in July, with new and used EV sales rising sharply as consumers accelerated purchases ahead of the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credit expiration,' Cox said Friday. 'If you ask me what the state of the EV market is today, I will respond that it is solid despite the shaky political ground,' Cross wrote. 'Though the politics of the moment may slow it down, the EV transition can't be stopped.' Recommended Reading DOT relaunches EV charging fund with stripped-down guidance Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store