New York’s Anti-ICEing law evidently has loopholes

New York’s Anti-ICEing law evidently has loopholes

Link to the bill that was passed in 2019 –

The problem with the bill can be found in the summary of provisions: “This bill would
make it a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law for a non-electric vehicle to park in a space **designated for electric charging**.”

That “Designated for electric charging” is the crux of the issues. What I am finding is that many site hosts are either putting no “EV Charging Only” signs near their chargers, or only adding one sign (for a dual-port station).

This means that any ICEV parking in these spaces would not be in violation of the law, despite blocking a charging station from an EV driver.

Some nearby examples where I’ve see this signage issue:

Port Jefferson, Baker’s Alley – [Only one sign posted](

Port Jefferson, Barnum Ave – [2nd space is not marked for EVs.](

And those are just Level 2 stations.

In recent filings for an EA station near my home, the site host also stated that ALL the spaces would be available for all guests, regardless of EV. You can actually watch a video of the Town Board meeting where the station permit was approved.

13:00 – Section about EA Station starts
15:10 – Discussion about EV Charging signs

Signage will say “EV Charging”, not “EV Charging Only”. The town board officials even pointed out themselves that this is a stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense.

Not asking a question with this post, just wanted to prompt discussion about how we can avoid these issues.

Read it Too  EV landscape efficiency/performance chart, based on + some added

View Reddit by ChargeLIView Source

3 thoughts on “New York’s Anti-ICEing law evidently has loopholes

  1. I agree with previous comments, this isn’t a loophole but a way to give landowner the power to chose. Do you want your spot to be charging only? Then put a sign. Do you want to offer chargers but are not ready to loose your already limited parking spaces? Don’t put a sign. Do you want to set a dual charger put reserve only one for EVs? Sure put only one sign.

    Making it absolute gives owners less flexibility and might actually deter some from investing in the chargers to begin with.

    For example: This law would allow someone wanting to invest today in let’s say 5 dual heads to only have to sacrifice 5 spots as EV exclusive. With how expensive parking is in NY that gives you flexibility. If they see high utilization they can make more spots exclusive, but if they don’t they can cut the number down and avoid having empty spots all day while customers/residents/visitors have to struggle to find spots. And adding signs later on as EV adoption grows is cheap and easy.

  2. There doesn’t seem to be any loopholes in this law. In fact, this seems to be the appropriate way to design a law.

    The compaint seems to be that EV station parking spots are not being designated for charging, if that’s the case we have to bring it up with the station/landowner. Alternatively, we can accept the fact that there will be shared utility parking spaces.

  3. All of this is moot when **enforcement** is “erratic” (at best). This isn’t restricted to EV charging. Even Handicapped parking has inappropriate parking that goes unticketed sometimes. It all depends on the attitudes of the owner of the spaces and the local police/parking enforcement people.

    The situation is constantly evolving. Most of these laws were written when EV use and EV charging was a relatively rare phenomenon. Another problem is passive aggressive or “malicious compliance” from local interests that have made EV usage a “culture war”/political issue.

Comments are closed.