Complaint number C-SAN-2024-001772, filed by Michelle Negrón Padilla, president of Producciones Cuarto Menguante Inc., allowed DACO to resolve a series of legal and administrative disputes regarding the exercise of the rights of owners to install electric charging stations in condominiums.
For the first time, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) is addressing the provisions of Act No. 81 of July 2, 2014, known as the “Act for the Promotion of Vehicles Powered Mostly by Electricity” (hereinafter, Act No. 81-2014). This act encourages the use of electric vehicles by prohibiting undue restrictions on the installation of charging stations on properties subject to horizontal property management.
Complaint number C-SAN-2024-001772, filed by Michelle Negrón Padilla, president of Producciones Cuarto Menguante Inc., allowed DACO to resolve a series of legal and administrative disputes regarding the exercise of the rights of property owners to install electric charging stations in condominiums. Attorney Marimar Pérez-Riera, the plaintiff’s attorney, presented the key arguments in defense of the right of the property owner who wants to install a charging station in his private parking lot.
Negrón Padilla, owner of apartment PH-6 in the Plaza Inmaculada Torre II Condominium, requested authorization to install an electric charger in one of her three private parking spaces. However, the Board of Directors conditioned the authorization on the completion of a load study, a technical design, internal regulations, and approval by the Board of Owners. Despite these requirements, the evidence presented demonstrated that the process was characterized by unjustified delays, inaction, and a lack of understanding by the Board of Directors of the hierarchy of legal sources.
First controversy: Public policy and delay in processing applications
The first dispute assessed by DACO focuses on determining whether the Board of Directors’ delays are consistent with the public policy of encouraging the use of electric vehicles established in Law No. 81-2014.
According to the proven facts, the complainant’s request was submitted in the summer of 2023. In response, the Board of Directors held a meeting where it indicated that a load study, an electrical design, and a bylaw were required before issuing a permit. However, during the administrative hearing, it became clear that, by the date of the hearing, more than a year later, several of these documents had not been produced or commissioned, reflecting unjustified inaction.
The most troubling example of the informal and uninformed manner in which the Board of Directors of the Plaza Inmaculada Torre II Condominium handled the Complainant’s request came from the testimony of the Board’s Treasurer, José Rivera Urrutia. He admitted to having no expertise in the matter but stated that he was not in favor of the request because he was “concerned” about something uncertain in the future, although he could not specify what that concern was. In other words, the Treasurer expressed his rejection based on a vague and undefined concern about a potential risk that he himself acknowledged he did not understand. To top it all off, he also admitted that, during a Board of Directors meeting held on November 8, 2023, he was tasked with preparing an RFP (Request for Proposal) with the necessary specifications for the project’s design stages, but by the date of the Administrative Hearing, a year later, he had still not done anything about it. DACO says, “This mixture of unfounded concern and inaction demonstrates completely disorganized and biased handling by the Board of Directors, leaving the Complainant in an indefensible situation.”
We must be clear here that it is not unreasonable for a Board of Directors to spend the necessary time seeking quotes and conducting electric load studies, given that the safety and well-being of the condominium community must take priority over the individual interest of a homeowner in charging their electric vehicle. It is reasonable for the Board of Directors to require a load study, design, and regulations before granting a permanent permit for an installation of this nature. However, in this case, what is contrary to public policy is the undue prolongation of the process without taking the necessary steps.
The Board of Directors’ own expert, Engineer Ángel R. Zayas Duchesne, confirmed that the electrical substation shared by the Plaza Inmaculada Tower I and II Condominiums had sufficient capacity to support the installation of several electric chargers without compromising the infrastructure. According to Zayas’s report, the substation’s current consumption was 59.8 kW, while the maximum available capacity reached 304.2 kW, even after safety adjustments. Despite this finding, the Board of Directors did not advance its evaluation of the request. The Board’s inaction, especially when favorable technical evidence already existed, is considered a breach of its obligation to facilitate access to charging stations.
What is at issue here is not the time it takes the Board of Directors to reach an informed decision, but rather the failure to obtain the necessary information to reach that decision, which is inconsistent with public policy. This turns the condition into a prolonged obstacle, leaving it up to the Condominium’s own Board of Directors to resolve something they clearly do not want to resolve. This calls into question the Board of Directors’ genuine interest in effectively evaluating the request to install an electric charging station.
The second controversy examines whether a Board of Directors can restrict the installation of charging stations to communal areas only or whether, pursuant to Law No. 81-2014, it is required to allow their installation in private parking lots, provided that technical or legal considerations allow it.
The Board of Directors argued that it could only authorize the installation in a communal area of the condominium. However, during the administrative hearing, it was found that there was no suitable or available communal area for that purpose. The electrical experts, the condominium manager, and the Board treasurer all testified to this fact. This demonstrated that the Board had imposed an impossible condition to comply with in order to delay the complainant’s request.
Additionally, the engineering expert hired by the Board was instructed only to design a solution for communal areas, not for private parking lots. Furthermore, the expert admitted that he had never worked on design projects for private facilities. The DACO determined that limiting the technical analysis to communal areas was a strategy by the Board to prolong the process and avoid complying with the complainant’s request.
The Board of Directors of the Plaza Inmaculada Torre II Condominium also conditioned the authorization to install a charging station in its private parking lot on having capacity for 100% of the owners, even if there was no interest from them.
Electrical experts Ignacio Elizondo and Manuel Torres confirmed that installing smart chargers would optimize electrical capacity and facilitate the installation of many more charging stations in the complex. They indicated that with this system, combined with applications that allow chargers to communicate with each other to distribute amperage, it would be possible to maximize the number of chargers, installing up to 10 times more without incurring high infrastructure costs. Both experts also suggested limiting the use of chargers to certain times in case of increased demand.
Furthermore, the plaintiff offered to carry out the installation provisionally, assuming all costs and committing to make the necessary modifications once the studies and regulations were completed. However, the Board of Directors maintained its refusal, arguing that there must be sufficient space for all owners, even if they had not requested it, to install charging stations. The administrative hearing confirmed that the plaintiff was the only one who had requested such a permit for the twin towers. The requirement to have the capacity to install chargers for 100% of the owners was arbitrary and lacked a technical basis for its argument.
Law No. 81-2014 expressly prohibits any provision that limits or restricts this right, provided the technical requirements are met. Its Article 5(a) establishes that any clause, condition, provision, arrangement, or understanding that restricts, limits, or prohibits the installation or use of electric vehicle charging stations in the individual parking spaces of the owners is illegal. This means that, provided the installation complies with the technical and legal requirements, and the applicable permits are in place, it is not legal to impose a restriction requiring the installation or use of charging stations exclusively in communal areas when the owner has the right to install a station in his or her private parking lot.
DACO concluded that this conduct by the Board of Directors constituted a direct violation of the complainant’s rights under Law No. 81-2014.
The third controversy centered on whether the Board of Directors was right in making the installation authorization conditional on the consent of the Board of Owners, arguing that the wiring should pass through communal areas.
Another reason given by the Board of Directors of the Plaza Inmaculada Torre II Condominium as an excuse for not granting the requested permit is that the Board of Directors is the body that must approve the private installation. However, it did not go unnoticed by the DACO that, contrary to its own actions, the Board of Directors never submitted the request to the Board of Directors for discussion or decision. This underscores the bad faith of the Board of Directors.
More importantly, however, it should be noted that the determination that the Board of Owners must approve the installation in a private parking lot is incorrect. The DACO determined that this position contradicts the hierarchy of sources of law and that the internal provisions of condominiums cannot contradict higher laws. The DACO explains in detail the hierarchy applicable to condominiums.
In Puerto Rico, the sources of law are organized hierarchically, as follows:
Regarding hierarchy, Law No. 81-2014, being a special law that regulates a particular situation, prevails over any master deed, condominium regulations, or agreement of the Board of Owners or Board of Directors that restricts or limits its application.
In the dispute at hand, it is necessary to evaluate the hierarchy of sources of law and point out that the Board of Directors has demonstrated a lack of understanding of this hierarchy by mistakenly considering that the Board of Owners must approve the installation of electric charging stations in private parking lots, when the special law clearly grants this right to owners without the need for such approval. Provided there are no technical or legal impediments, as is the case in the DACO ruling, this incorrect interpretation by the Board creates an arbitrary and unjustified restriction. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the Board had permitted the use of communal areas for other purposes—charging other batteries—without intervention from the Board, evidencing unequal treatment of the plaintiff.
It’s not often that DACO examines the actions of a Board of Directors in light of bad faith, bias, and lack of clean hands. However, this case was understood as such. DACO states that, although the Board of Directors never explicitly denied the complainant’s request to install a charging station in its private parking lot, it did so indirectly, creating conditions and obstacles that effectively constitute a “sneaky denial.” Law No. 81-2014 specifically allows for the imposition of sanctions for the illegal restriction or limitation of the rights of titleholders, imposing a penalty of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) in favor of the Department. DACO did so, imposing a fine of $1,000 on the Board of Directors for the illegal restriction of the titleholder’s rights.
At Velocicharge, founded in 2021, we are proud to be Puerto Rico’s leading operator of fast charging stations for electric vehicles. We offer comprehensive residential, commercial, and industrial solutions for electric cars. Our mission is to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles by delivering a reliable, convenient, and easy-to-use charging network across the island.
