CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/tow

[thankyouOB]

I confirmed with Assembly staff that this passed and has gone to the governor.
I am writing him.

Governor Brown,
Please veto AB475. It is a bill with good intentions that is badly written and has some unintended and very negative consequences -- including negating a protocol in the electric vehicle (EV) community for sharing of EV supply stations.
It is a very bad idea to penalize EVs parked at EVSE spots if they are not plugged in. The EV community protocol allows for EVSE sharing so that an arriving EV owner can read a time-specific placard on a parked and plugged in EV, and have permission to unplug that car once it is either charged or past a certain time (which indicates that it is charged sufficiently for the EV owner to get where they need to go). The arriving EV can safely unplugged the charging EV, and use the station.
AB475 would subject the original EV to penalties, such as towing, and perhaps fines, tickets and other costs.
In addition, it makes no sense to void the state-issued EV stickers. If plug-in hybrids need a sticker, they can be added with some differentiating color or wording. The state NEEDS a standard EV parking sticker. You cannot expect parking attendants or even police officers to recognize every EV or plug-iin hybrid, distinguishing them from other hybrids or cars.

 

[mwalsh]

I just left a message with a couple of my Nissan contacts in Franklin to see if they can't point me towards their Government Affairs person. As someone already said, maybe it's time to get the big guns involved. I'll try to reach out to Mitsubishi similarly next.

Good letter thankyouOB!

 

[mwalsh]

Ack! Please post your concerns to Gov. Brown's FB page, if you have a FB profile. My request has gotten buried several times now by a bunch of folks trying to get the Gov's attention over methyl iodide use on California's strawberries!

http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

I mean, that's worthwhile too. But damn! :?

 

[Yanquetino]

{rant}

I was tossing and turning about GM's bill in the wee hours, and inevitably in these instances my conspiracy gland starts to ache. I kept wondering, over and over again, why in the world GM wouldn't care about slowing down and increasing the costs of rolling out the public EV infrastructure...? And then it hit me. That is precisly what they DO care about: it is their ulterior motive!

They WANT to delay it, make it more expensive, complicate it. As far as GM is concerned, the Volt's gasoline backup engine *IS* their public infrastructure. A delayed, insufficient, expensive EV infrastructure only makes their hybrid on board solution more appealing to consumers --and pure EVs much less appealing. After all, sufficient public infrastructure could render EV range anxiety a moot point --the very thing GM wants to copyright. The best way to undermine and outsell the LEAF (and all other pure EVs) is to keep them tethered to a limited range as long as possible.

That hidden agenda would also explain the SAE Level 3 roadblock. It likewise postpones and complicates the EV infrastructure, something completely unnecessary, if not threatening, to the Volt's appeal. C'mon: they could have started working on a Level 3 plug years ago. Why the outrageous delay? Because they purposely orchestrated it.

Have I become a conspiracy theorist? Maybe. But just because one is paranoid does not mean there isn't a grain of truth to a conspiracy. Especially in a cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, capitalist world. Just look what GM did with the EV1 and the NiMH patents. You bet I believe a corporation could stoop as low as pushing for a bill like this to handicap the competition and tout its own product.

I think it makes a lot more sense than GM just being clueless and stubborn. Despite the numerous problems the law will cause for public charging, it will actually benefit GM: the Volt can smugly remain chargeless. Will Volt drivers themselves want better public charging? Sure. They do now. But that is AFTER the sale. The uninitiated shopper, on the other hand, is obsessed with range neurosis, and GM wants to capitalize on that (literally!) as much and as long as possible.

{/rant}

 

[thankyouOB]

yanquetino

you should send that to the governor of CA in arguing for a veto. very well put and not paranoid at all.

http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

 

[mwalsh]

+1

Very well put, and maybe not too far off the mark either!

 

[evchels]

Interesting, I've never had a problem taking care of an ICE'd vehicle, and we didn't have this law through most of the last generation. I'm sorry to hear that it was more of a problem than made the EV lists.

Did the PEVDC do any surveying of the (then) existing legislation or documentation of which cities/regions were problematic? I've been asking everyone involved this time (including PIA's lobbyist, who was yours on the last effort) whether it was done for AB1314, or for AB475, to ensure that a state law is still needed, and that what GM was promoting was the best way to approach it. I know there's no evidence supporting this latest mess, though some of it seems to be based in the fear that the EV purists will be the ones unplugging the Volts. But was it ever done in the first place?

Our lobbyist in Sacramento was Kathy Lynch. I haven't spoken with her in over 6 years..
How did you take care of ICE'd chargers?!?! We could never get anyone to tow cars because they didn't have legal authority to do so and most site owners weren't inclined to tow other customers. Of course we in the EV1 club had stickers we'd put on the ICEs asking them not to block the chargers but we couldn't do anything about it. My adopted charger was the site at the Block at Orange where the chargers were right in front of Dave and Busters.. One day (before the sticker law) I actually drove out and replaced the timid "EV only" signs with more threatening "unauthorized vehicles will be towed" signs but the chargers would still be frequently blocked. When we'd ask the mall cops to take action they'd say they had no authority to do so. I know this was a problem at other sites, but the Block stands out for me personally.

This whole process required multiple trips to Sacramento for Bill and myself as well as our financial backer... It was a long process and very illuminating with regards to the gears of politics in Sacramento. I think we piggy backed the legislation on some ADA bill and had to usher it through a variety of sub-committees.. When it was all done we had a contest in the EV1 club to come up with a design for the sticker. I think someone's child actually came up with the winning design.

I know, she's been PIA's lobbyist for several years now. Ok, so it sounds like there was no actual survey, more an anecdotal need. As for how I did it, was mainly just asking whomever was in charge of the lot- though obviously I dealt more with LA sites...I recall the history you described, and that we made some fake "tickets" and things over the years to leave on gas cars. I'm sure some sites wouldn't want to tow their customers, just as they wouldn't want to exclude PHEVs today. And they're not going to want to tow, even with this law. It sounds more like some sites were unwilling to deal with it, not that they necessarily didn't have a mechanism to do so.

 

[Yanquetino]

you should send that to the governor of CA in arguing for a veto. very well put and not paranoid at all.

Done! My second letter to him. And I sure hope Nissan, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Coda, Ford, et.al., are ringing his phone off the hook even as we type.

 

[mwalsh]

I just spoke to Tracy Woodard, Nissan's Director of Government Relations, and Nissan is on it! And I've just spoke to my guy at Mitsubishi, who in turn will get his Gov Affairs people from back east to take a look. Do we know anyone over at Ford on the Focus EV project?

 

[AndyH]

FANTASTIC WORK everyone! Way to inject some sanity! Best of luck!

 

[prberg]

Ack! Please post your concerns to Gov. Brown's FB page, if you have a FB profile. My request has gotten buried several times now by a bunch of folks trying to get the Gov's attention over methyl iodide use on California's strawberries!

http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

I mean, that's worthwhile too. But damn! :?

Done. Either the Strawberry lobby is very powerful, or there are alot of facebook savvy Strawberry lovers. Wow.

-Peter

 

[TomT]

I doubt that anyone who matters (including Brown) reads the FB page anyway.

Ack! Please post your concerns to Gov. Brown's FB page, if you have a FB profile. My request has gotten buried several times now by a bunch of folks trying to get the Gov's attention over methyl iodide use on California's strawberries!

 

[mwalsh]

What do you think my chances are of this staying up for the long term? :lol:

 

[evchels]

What do you think my chances are of this staying up for the long term?

Oh my...love it! There are also two (at least) "Chevy Volt Owners" groups there that aren't administered by GM....The Mini E folks congregate on fb too, maybe others.

 

[AndyH]

Ack! Please post your concerns to Gov. Brown's FB page, if you have a FB profile. My request has gotten buried several times now by a bunch of folks trying to get the Gov's attention over methyl iodide use on California's strawberries!

http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

I mean, that's worthwhile too. But damn! :?

Done. Either the Strawberry lobby is very powerful, or there are alot of facebook savvy Strawberry lovers. Wow.

-Peter

Or there are a LOT of folks upset that a known neurotoxin and carcinogen that's been linked to late-term miscarriages is used on strawberry fields... http://archive.panna.org/files/SRC_methyl_iodide_peer_review_report.pdf

Hopefully nobody will die from a poorly written EVSE law.

 

[TEG]

{rant}
...
Have I become a conspiracy theorist? Maybe. But just because one is paranoid does not mean there isn't a grain of truth to a conspiracy. Especially in a cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, capitalist world. Just look what GM did with the EV1 and the NiMH patents. You bet I believe a corporation could stoop as low as pushing for a bill like this to handicap the competition and tout its own product.
...
{/rant}

Hey! You said it, not me...

Oh, but wait... +1...

 

[evchels]

{rant}
...
Have I become a conspiracy theorist? Maybe. But just because one is paranoid does not mean there isn't a grain of truth to a conspiracy. {/rant}

Hey! You said it, not me...

Oh, but wait... +1...

Oh, but it gets better...I just learned on the Tesla forum that the Vauxhall Ampera (euro version of Volt) is a "pure electric vehicle"! Suh-weet, no petrol!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9A1mgO_rY&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[mwalsh]

Oh, but it gets better...I just learned on the Tesla forum that the Vauxhall Ampera (euro version of Volt) is a "pure electric vehicle"! Suh-weet, no petrol!!!

LOLZ! :lol:

 

[garygid]

My Message to Gov. Brown was simple:
Please Veto AB475 ...
it is poorly worded ...
puts all electric vehicle owners in jeopardy ...

 

[Yanquetino]

There are MUCH better ways of addressing the original PHEV problem this bill was supposed address, but GM refused to even consider them.

For example, it seems to me that the ultimate solution would for the DMV to issue third decals for EV and PHEV license plates, something like this (see the upper left corner, under the month decal):

This solution would solve multiple problems, IMHO:

(1) Meter maids could tell if a vehicle is, in fact, an EV and thus legally parked in the designated space (what the separate sticker did previously).

(2) Sharing an EVSE would still be possible.

(3) An unplugged EV would not run the risk of being ticketed and towed.

(4) It would be unnecessary to install an EVSE for every single parking spot, keeping the infrastructure costs much lower, and without slowing down its rollout.

(5) CA could charge an EV “road tax” fee for the decal, which would solve the quandry about EVs not paying their fair share of those revenues via the gas pump (which WA is trying to solve right now with a $100 registration fee).

(6) The very same decal could designate HOV access. (And I would suggest that CA charge an additional $5 fee per every mile lower than the 40 mile average commute that the EPA rates the vehicle’s zero-emission range. In other words, a LEAF would only pay the $100 fee for a decal; a plug-in Prius with only a 20 mile range, however, would have to pay $200. These are only suggested numbers, of course, but you get the idea.)

(7) The cost of making and distributing the third decals would be much easier and cheaper than large stickers, since the DMV has to produce year and month decals anyway.

(8) Combining the EV parking, HOV, road tax, and registration onto one single DMV form will greatly reduce the paperwork and hassle of all those issues.

One stone flung… eight birds down. Everyone’s a winner!