evchels said:
Blech!
Also, I spit on GM! :twisted:
CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/tow
- Thread starter mwalsh
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Blech!
Also, I spit on GM! :twisted:
Hey, what about a repeal campaign? Get enough signatures and we can get a repeal referendum on the next statewide ballot!
mwalsh said:
Or in theory, a new bill could be intro'd in January revising all of this yet again. Once I hear for sure about whether this version was altered and whatever inside scoop inevitably comes out, it'll probably be clearer what the options are.
TomT
Well-known member
As I was afraid would be the case, I have so far been very unimpressed by Governor Brown...
davewill
Well-known member
There was no hope of him vetoing it. Governors don't veto small bills like this that were passed by their own party.TomT said:
davewill said:
He actually vetoed one of her last bills. But you'd think, with 3 automakers against this (that I know of) and hundreds of affected people weighing in...
It was still worth the effort, in my book. And it was those in this forum that made me sure of that.
SanDust said:
No, it strikes me that the increases in infrastructure that AB475 purports to force could be good for the situation which arose in the other thread. But, on the other hand, it could mean that NOTHING in the way of new infrastructure is now developed, and that was one of the biggest sticking points I had with the bill.
BTW, I now officially HATE GM and ALL their vehicles (whereas beforehand I was only lukewarm about them).
smkettner
Well-known member
You all are making a mountain out of nothing. Just follow the signage and all will be fine. :roll:
gbarry42
Well-known member
I hope there is a provision for getting a refund for the now useless parking sticker. Mine is still in the envelope, never applied. $17 a pop should get some notice.
walterbays
Well-known member
How sad that someone with Betsy Butler's environmental record, whose election was bitterly opposed by Big Oil may become "She Who Killed the Electric Car, The Sequel."
It would be great if Gov. Brown attached a signing statement requiring amendments, and if Betsy Butler led the revision to turn out a decent law in the next session. But I'm not hopeful. Even when informed of the effects of GM's last minute amendment, Ms. Butler went ahead because that's what GM wanted. So either she puts GM's interests ahead of the interests of her constituents and of the environment, or even in this her supposed area of expertise she is not able to understand these fairly simple issues. I don't think she intends to kill the electric car, but the effect of her actions could be to do exactly that. Her law will cripple California's nascent public charging infrastructure - just as GM intended. The already meager supply of charging stations will be effectively cut in half, and when faced with a 2X or 4X increase in price many businesses and public institutions will choose not to install new charging stations. That could just make the difference between EV's reaching a critical mass where they can sell on their own without government subsidies, or fading back into obscurity again.
I certainly would want to contribute to the campaign of someone to replace Ms. Butler, who could then lead the effort in the next legislature to repeal AB475 and replace it with a bill that fairly and effectively allows equal access to PHEV's and EV's. But who? Her Republican opponent in the last election, Nathan Mintz, is a tea party member. And so (showing my prejudice) I fear he would be more likely to lead the effort to halt all public expenditures on EV charging infrastructure, on account of their cost being 2X to 4X higher than originally estimated (thanks to AB475).
The runner up in the Democratic primary, James Lau, director of the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, might be a good candidate to support if he ran again.
Democrat Betsy Butler tops crowded AD53 primary
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/06/democrat-betsy.html
The Betsy Butler Smear: The Primary Result
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-betsy-butler-smear-th_b_607433.html
Opinion: Butler's Tough Fight Shows Voter Discontent with Government
http://hermosabeach.patch.com/articles/betsy-butlers-narrow-margin-over-mintz-grows-to-victory-2
EV Charger Law Spawning New GM Image Woes?
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/08/ev-charger-law-spawning-new-gm-image-woes.html
It would be great if Gov. Brown attached a signing statement requiring amendments, and if Betsy Butler led the revision to turn out a decent law in the next session. But I'm not hopeful. Even when informed of the effects of GM's last minute amendment, Ms. Butler went ahead because that's what GM wanted. So either she puts GM's interests ahead of the interests of her constituents and of the environment, or even in this her supposed area of expertise she is not able to understand these fairly simple issues. I don't think she intends to kill the electric car, but the effect of her actions could be to do exactly that. Her law will cripple California's nascent public charging infrastructure - just as GM intended. The already meager supply of charging stations will be effectively cut in half, and when faced with a 2X or 4X increase in price many businesses and public institutions will choose not to install new charging stations. That could just make the difference between EV's reaching a critical mass where they can sell on their own without government subsidies, or fading back into obscurity again.
I certainly would want to contribute to the campaign of someone to replace Ms. Butler, who could then lead the effort in the next legislature to repeal AB475 and replace it with a bill that fairly and effectively allows equal access to PHEV's and EV's. But who? Her Republican opponent in the last election, Nathan Mintz, is a tea party member. And so (showing my prejudice) I fear he would be more likely to lead the effort to halt all public expenditures on EV charging infrastructure, on account of their cost being 2X to 4X higher than originally estimated (thanks to AB475).
The runner up in the Democratic primary, James Lau, director of the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, might be a good candidate to support if he ran again.
Democrat Betsy Butler tops crowded AD53 primary
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/06/democrat-betsy.html
The Betsy Butler Smear: The Primary Result
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-betsy-butler-smear-th_b_607433.html
Opinion: Butler's Tough Fight Shows Voter Discontent with Government
http://hermosabeach.patch.com/articles/betsy-butlers-narrow-margin-over-mintz-grows-to-victory-2
EV Charger Law Spawning New GM Image Woes?
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/08/ev-charger-law-spawning-new-gm-image-woes.html
HighDesertDriver
Well-known member
Whether parking is free or fee, whether charging is free or fee, there will soon be a design or modification/hack that allows the car's driver to set the period of time required for charging. Need a charge to get home from the evening dinner and show, but can't get back to move the car without stepping on the feet of seven people during the second act? No problem -- just set the time you want to arrive back at a sufficiently charged car and the controller will automatically run at a lower current to make sure it is charging the whole time. :lol: :lol:
I'm not actually supporting this type of mod, but whenever regulations are written -- well-intended or otherwise -- some people will try to figure out a way to work it to their benefit. I certainly wish AB475 had not been approved as written, and I hope its implementation will be so slow that it does not create greater problems before it can be amended or superseded.
I'm not actually supporting this type of mod, but whenever regulations are written -- well-intended or otherwise -- some people will try to figure out a way to work it to their benefit. I certainly wish AB475 had not been approved as written, and I hope its implementation will be so slow that it does not create greater problems before it can be amended or superseded.
walterbays
Well-known member
You're right, there are many ways people can and will "game" AB475. In fact even without the timer mod you posit, I can accomplish the same now. Plug in the Leaf with the timer preventing charging. The car is now "connected for electric charging purposes." Go to the play. A couple of hours later from inside the theater, tap the button on the phone to initiate charging.
In the mean time Plugin America could come up with a model EV parking ordinance to suggest to cities, which would be fair and effective. They could even have a few options based on the cities' policy choices, e.g. paid or free parking, length of stay, etc.
Yes, maybe a slow implementation is our best hope. After all the previous law was so slowly implemented that I hadn't been aware it even existed. None of the few charger installations around here use it, so we can hope that not one charger installation will use AB475 signs before it is repealed.HighDesertDriver said:
In the mean time Plugin America could come up with a model EV parking ordinance to suggest to cities, which would be fair and effective. They could even have a few options based on the cities' policy choices, e.g. paid or free parking, length of stay, etc.
lambert
Active member
Slow implementation or not, the existence of the law may be enough to stall plans for adding public charging infrastructure. Don't need to enforce what you don't have, so for some businesses that will be the most economical alternative.
TomT
Well-known member
For free parking in Santa Monica and some other communities, you will still need the ZEV sticker unless they change their requirements at some time in the future... AB475 has no bearing on this.
gbarry42 said:
garygid
Well-known member
In any case, AB475 would not take effect until 1 Jan 2012, right?
Then, IF the required signage is there, avoid using those "tainted" Charging Stations, and let the controlling authority know why their Charging Stations are likely to sit idle.
Remember, only vandals would (at a "tainted" charging station):
1. unplug all the cars there.
2. deface the AB475-required signage.
More respnsible persons might:
1. leave a warning message on each car, explaining the "tainted" nature of the charging spots.
2. include an encouragement to boycott the "tainted" charging stations.
3. include a suggestion that the driver/owner talk to the management to get the "tainting" signage removed.
Then, IF the required signage is there, avoid using those "tainted" Charging Stations, and let the controlling authority know why their Charging Stations are likely to sit idle.
Remember, only vandals would (at a "tainted" charging station):
1. unplug all the cars there.
2. deface the AB475-required signage.
More respnsible persons might:
1. leave a warning message on each car, explaining the "tainted" nature of the charging spots.
2. include an encouragement to boycott the "tainted" charging stations.
3. include a suggestion that the driver/owner talk to the management to get the "tainting" signage removed.
True that. A year from now no one will even remember why they were so concerned about AB 475.smkettner said:
"Officially" hating anyone who disagrees with you on an issue would seem tiring, but whatever.mwalsh said:
I like AB 475. Plug sharing may not be intrinsically as bad a needle sharing but it can't scale. With relatively few EV owners and a couple of models it's workable. It's unworkable with tens of thousands of users and dozens of models. Just understanding what state any given car is in will be too much for most people. For EVs to enjoy mass adoption we need to move beyond the clubhouse and adopt easy to understand rules that don't involve a time consuming and frustrating dance with the DMV.
SanDust said:
Oh, you have no idea what a vindictive a**hole I can be. Trust me, it's no hardship whatsoever.
