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

[EVDRIVER]

"For between 76 and 100 EV charging/parking spaces at a single location, at least 4 such parking spaces must be extra-wide, ADA-compliant parking spots."


Getting a bit ahead of the game here folks, they must be working with COSTCO :lol: At the SF COSTCO it seems half the lot is handicap parking.

 

[Yanquetino]

Here's a related thought: since the bill mandates that the EV or PHEV must be plugged in, a few years from now BMW's EVs with wireless charging will evidently always be towed. :shock:

What was GM thinking to even propose this law? Obviously... they weren't. Or... they actually have the ulterior motives I have eluded to previously. :?

 

[evchels]

GM finally posted their statement, nearly a week later. Interesting re-framing of the situation, stripping out of several concerns, and a clear attempt to marginalize the plug-in community. Sad.

http://www.mychevroletvolt.com/california-ab-475-public-ev-charging-etiquette-laws" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Yanquetino for chiming in so tirelessly!

 

[TEG]

From that page:

Who’s to judge when the charge is done?

Not sure about the Volt, but the Leaf has obvious indicators when it is charging, and done.
If you don't see any LEDs blinking on the dashboard then it isn't charging.
(And it wouldn't make sense to have a delayed charge timer active at a public charge spot.)

Yeah, they have crafted a one sided point of view... Charge station sharing can and has worked.

 

[evchels]

From that page:

Who’s to judge when the charge is done?

Not sure about the Volt, but the Leaf has obvious indicators when it is charging, and done.
If you don't see any LEDs blinking on the dashboard then it isn't charging.
(And it wouldn't make sense to have a delayed charge timer active at a public charge spot.)

Yeah, they have crafted a one sided view point of view... Charge station sharing can and has worked.

Absolutely. At the same time, GM is framing the sharing practice as allowing unauthorized unplugging whenever people want. This is not the case. The "unplug when full" idea worked well in the last generation, but people also bought into it- it wasn't forced upon anyone. We can just as easily shift to a couple different forms of "opt-in" sharing for this new generation. But GM seems bent on painting us all as too uncooperative and entitled to have any courtesy for each other. Gee, if that were true, you'd think it wouldn't have taken 15 years to start hearing about it.

 

[EVDRIVER]

From that page:

Who’s to judge when the charge is done?

Not sure about the Volt, but the Leaf has obvious indicators when it is charging, and done.
If you don't see any LEDs blinking on the dashboard then it isn't charging.
(And it wouldn't make sense to have a delayed charge timer active at a public charge spot.)

Yeah, they have crafted a one sided view point of view... Charge station sharing can and has worked.

Absolutely. At the same time, GM is framing the sharing practice as allowing unauthorized unplugging whenever people want. This is not the case. The "unplug when full" idea worked well in the last generation, but people also bought into it- it wasn't forced upon anyone. We can just as easily shift to a couple different forms of "opt-in" sharing for this new generation. But GM seems bent on painting us all as too uncooperative and entitled to have any courtesy for each other. Gee, if that were true, you'd think it wouldn't have taken 15 years to start hearing about it.

To be fair, GM has been an active participant on the EVDL and other related places.

 

[evchels]

To be fair, GM has been an active participant on the EVDL and other related places.

Yes they have- that's why this is so frustrating to me; marketing aside, they've actually been doing some things pretty well. Tough (for me) to watch them squander whatever goodwill they'd started to earn back, over something so unnecessary.

But EVDL, really? That's a pretty nerdy list (in a good way, of course.) Who from GM participates there?

 

[walterbays]

GM is framing the sharing practice as allowing unauthorized unplugging whenever people want. This is not the case. The "unplug when full" idea worked well in the last generation, but people also bought into it- it wasn't forced upon anyone. We can just as easily shift to a couple different forms of "opt-in" sharing for this new generation.

The replacement bill for AB475 could authorize EV parking stickers for any plug-in car and make it illegal to unplug anyone without permission. You can give permission in person, on the phone, or via the charging protocol placard.

If GM opposed that then at least it would be clear to everyone that their goal is to cripple the public charging infrastructure rather than to protect the interests of Volt drivers. Who knows? Maybe they would support such a replacement bill, and their goal really is to promote plug-in cars and sell a lot of them.

 

[Yanquetino]

Let's again remind ourselves what the problem is here. AB475 does not make it a crime to unplug a vehicle --whether it be the owner, another EV driver, a curious passerby, or a mischievous vandal. What would be illegal is for the vehicle to be parked there unplugged. Ergo, the law does nothing to protect Volts from having their charging swiped by one of those --gasp!-- wicked, mean, and nasty pure EV owners. It would, however, punish the Volt driver in such instances, who would return to find that it had been towed away.

This is why GM's argument that a vehicle must be "connected for electric charging purposes” makes no sense whatsoever. It actually punishes GM's own customers as much as any EV owner --and not the malicious plug-pullers. My conclusion is that GM must have an ulterior motive, probably to delay and make more costly the rollout of the EV charging infrastructure. After all, a Volt doesn't really need it; a pure EV does.

 

[mwalsh]

This is why GM's argument that a vehicle must be "connected for electric charging purposes” makes no sense whatsoever. It actually punishes GM's own customers as much as any EV owner --and not the malicious plug-pullers. My conclusion is that GM must have an ulterior motive, probably to delay and make more costly the rollout of the EV charging infrastructure. After all, a Volt doesn't really need it; a pure EV does.

And doesn't it make it more likely that nasty EV drivers would unplug Volt drivers, strictly for purposes of retaliation. Not that I'm suggesting such an action.

 

[Yanquetino]

And doesn't it make it more likely that nasty EV drivers would unplug Volt drivers, strictly for purposes of retaliation. Not that I'm suggesting such an action.

Yup: the bill is a dream come true for those throngs of malevolent plug-pullers who harbor a deep-seated hatred of GM and the Volt. They're probably begging the governor to sign the law even as we type!

 

[evchels]

. It actually punishes GM's own customers as much as any EV owner --and not the malicious plug-pullers. My conclusion is that GM must have an ulterior motive, probably to delay and make more costly the rollout of the EV charging infrastructure. After all, a Volt doesn't really need it; a pure EV does.

It actually punishes the Volt (and PHEVs in general) more than EVs. Yes, there is the potential for increased resentment of GM to be taken out on Volt drivers (which would be totally unfair, but could happen) the longer GM drags this out and the harder they keep going against plug-in drivers, including their own. But without this law, there is no possibility for a PHEV to be stranded should it be unplugged. (Although Shad made the case on fb that it might be totally out of gas too...umm, ok.) It's even unlikely for a BEV to be stranded or delayed, but possible. With this law, everyone gets towed- so the incremental difference in consequences between the two scenarios is highest for the PHEVs.

 

[mwalsh]

It's even unlikely for a BEV to be stranded or delayed, but possible

You may not have been following this thread:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vitor was delayed in his departure from LAX by 3 hours because MY ZEV (or somebody else malevolent) unplugged him well before the time he'd requested on his (hand-written version of the) protocol card! And that's even without the law AND (most likely) the result of LEAF on LEAF disrespect. :shock:

Of course, being delayed by 3 hours is still better than returning to find your vehicle gone completely! :?

 

[evchels]

It's even unlikely for a BEV to be stranded or delayed, but possible

You may not have been following this thread:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vitor was delayed in his departure from LAX by 3 hours because MY ZEV (or somebody else malevolent) unplugged him well before the time he'd requested on his (hand-written version of the) protocol card! And that's even without the law AND (most likely) the result of LEAF on LEAF disrespect. :shock:

Of course, being delayed by 3 hours is still better than returning to find your vehicle gone completely! :?

I hadn't seen that thread, but I do know it happens. Most of the time though, even the BEVs are doing more "topping off" than actually needing the charge or else (otherwise range anxiety would be a much more common concern). So while someone is occasionally delayed, it's not the general outcome- and once the infrastructure is built out more, it's likely even a Leaf driver can find a fast charger instead of having to wait the full 3 hours. But yes, the main point was that no matter how inconvenient or frustrating, it's nothing compared to being towed. And the Volts GM is trying to hard to protect from everyone else wouldn't have any consequences at all.

 

[garygid]

If AB475 becomes law, Do not let AB475 get you:

Refuse to park or shop where the Charging Spaces have the
signage required by AB475:

... a sign not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less
than one inch in height that clearly and conspicuously states the
following: "Unauthorized vehicles not connected for electric charging
purposes will be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may
be reclaimed at
_________________________________or by telephoning
(Address)
_______________________________________________.''
(Telephone number of local law enforcement agency)

Tell the store managers that they must remove this sign before it is
safe for you to park and shop at their store. Be nice, explain why
AB475 makes it too risky for you to park, having the threat of being towed.

Simple, do not let AB475 get you.

 

[TRONZ]

and once the infrastructure is built out more, it's likely even a Leaf driver can find a fast charger instead of having to wait the full 3 hours.

Not to put you on the spot EVChels but what is your take on the virtually non-existant infrastructure in CA? Does PIA have any insight on what is really going on at Ecotality, etc?

 

[evchels]

and once the infrastructure is built out more, it's likely even a Leaf driver can find a fast charger instead of having to wait the full 3 hours.

Not to put you on the spot EVChels but what is your take on the virtually non-existant infrastructure in CA? Does PIA have any insight on what is really going on at Ecotality, etc?

Don't feel put on the spot at all. But first, let me clarify- while PIA and I collaborate on different projects and issues (like AB475), I'm no longer involved in the day-to-day of the org, and so can't speak for what insight they may have.

But you're right that things have moved incredibly slowly, and everyone seems to be pointing fingers at others. In part, I've been told the retrofits that are being funded by the CEC were delayed due to the agency's contract/funding/paperwork process- though that should be resolved by now. Lately though, I've been hearing a lot of both Coulomb and especially Ecotality complaining that they can't "give these chargers away"- that site owners don't want to host them. This contradicts my experience over the years (the EV1 folks were pretty involved in getting all the original stuff installed, since GM paid for a lot of it), so my only conclusion for now is that site owners aren't necessarily opposed to hosting EVSEs specifically, but more likely the terms the companies are asking of them. But you are definitely not alone in your frustration.

 

[planet4ever]

Ergo, the law does nothing to protect Volts from having their charging swiped by one of those --gasp!-- wicked, mean, and nasty pure EV owners. It would, however, punish the Volt driver in such instances, who would return to find that it had been towed away.

This is why GM's argument that a vehicle must be "connected for electric charging purposes” makes no sense whatsoever.

But I thought GM had designed the Volt to protect from that. Is it just a rumor, or does the Volt alarm system go off if you unplug it?

If this is true, Volt owners wouldn't really be able to participate fairly in plug sharing, and the GM position makes a lot of sense.

Ray

 

[evchels]

Ergo, the law does nothing to protect Volts from having their charging swiped by one of those --gasp!-- wicked, mean, and nasty pure EV owners. It would, however, punish the Volt driver in such instances, who would return to find that it had been towed away.

This is why GM's argument that a vehicle must be "connected for electric charging purposes” makes no sense whatsoever.

But I thought GM had designed the Volt to protect from that. Is it just a rumor, or does the Volt alarm system go off if you unplug it?

If this is true, Volt owners wouldn't really be able to participate fairly in plug sharing, and the GM position makes a lot of sense.

Ray

The Volt's horn does go off if it's unplugged while the doors are locked, but GM has allowed drivers to disable this feature (to enable sharing, actually.) However, there are a variety of ways to accomplish sharing. A Volt driver could indicate (many drivers use a notecard on the dash) that he is volunteering to be unplugged. Or, the second driver to arrive leaves a note on the first car, asking to be plugged in when that guy leaves. I have discussed both of these methods w GM. "Sharing" does not inherently mean unplugging someone w/o permission, no matter how many times GM says it does.

 

[Herm]

Is it possible to put a padlock on the public chargers to prevent being unplugged?