I find this a very weird thing to be upset about. The cost is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the price of a house, and I imagine plenty of people would like having an outlet there even if they don't drive an electric car. I'm sure there are lots of pernicious regulations, but this doesn't seem like a great example of one.
Electric cars are up against a vicious cycle: no one will build houses to accommodate electric cars until a lot of people have them, but most people won't buy an electric car if they can't charge it in their garage. So if you want people to drive electric cars, which the government rightly does, it makes sense to require that new houses are built with electric cars in mind. Yes, Teslas are expensive, but the expectation is that the houses will still be around once electric vehicles are more affordable, and it's cheaper to prepare for them now than to retrofit later on.
The cost is a drop in the bucket, but there are enough other drops to overflow the bucket. When we take offense at substandard living conditions and then regulate them away, we price out the poor. We often even excuse it as some benefit to the poor, saying that they deserve good things too, but of course the totality of the regulations ends up pricing them out of the market.
I think it’s a red herring in areas with expensive housing. If you could save a bit of money with cheaper building codes, the land cost would increase by the same amount, because land is capturing all the surplus.
Land only captures all the surplus when construction that increases density is prohibited. What people are really paying for living space, not dirt. A thousand square feet in a ten story building is pretty much just as good as a thousand square feet in a single story building, but the ten story building has ten times as much of it, so at scale more supply lowers the price.
There is also demand for "smallest available unit of housing" which naturally costs more if it's required by law to be larger.
Even taking that as a given, it's eminently reasonable to expect new home construction to last long enough that for future residents, electric cars will instead be a normal fact of life.
I bought a NEW Leaf for $16K (after tax credit) in 2017 when they were liquidating the 1st generation models. It has 30 kWh of battery and a range of about 120 miles.
Right now, you can buy a USED Leaf under $5K, but it probably has a worn out battery with 60-70 miles of range usable:
Electric cars are up against a vicious cycle: no one will build houses to accommodate electric cars until a lot of people have them, but most people won't buy an electric car if they can't charge it in their garage. So if you want people to drive electric cars, which the government rightly does, it makes sense to require that new houses are built with electric cars in mind. Yes, Teslas are expensive, but the expectation is that the houses will still be around once electric vehicles are more affordable, and it's cheaper to prepare for them now than to retrofit later on.