It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:35 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 39  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:15 pm 
Offline
Forum Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 1450
Location: Arrowbear Lake, CA
Delivery Date: 20 Apr 2011
My letter to Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa):

Quote:
Please vote against AB 475 regarding electric vehicle charging. As a Republican member of your district, I drive an all-electric Nissan LEAF in order to reduce dependence on imported oil and cut smog. While the intent of AB475 is good, passage would have the unintended consequence of prohibiting plug sharing at public EV chargers.

Because electric vehicle infrastructure is limited, the EV community has an informal protocol for sharing access to chargers. If one vehicle has finished charging, then other EV owners can unplug it in order to charge their own cars. However, according to AB475, that could result in the unplugged EV being cited and towed.

We need to encourage the use of alternatives to oil for the benefit of our national security and our environment. Unfortunately, AB475 would hurt more than it would help. Please vote against this misguided bill.

_________________
2011 LEAF (Blue, w/QC) - 51K mountainous miles - Fontana Nissan
Battery capacity: 11/12 bars, and 185 GIDS at 80% charge (-20% vs. new)


Basile Enterprises - Custom Software Engineering


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:43 pm
Posts: 1377
In Vacaville, at one of the park-n-ride places (the one with the L3 DC charger), I saw an RV parked there with a 120V extension cord going through the back window with a note saying "recharging my electric scooter in the back". But I could hear the air conditioner running full blast which I bet was what they actually had hooked up.

In Palo Alto, at a public garage there was an ICE vehicle frequently parked there with an extension cord powering a color TV in the passenger seat.

If this bill goes through, part of the answer may be to stop providing 120V NEMA5-15 sockets, and just go to J1772 only which would limit the amount of "bending the rules" charging opportunities as well as uses of the power for other than charging.


Last edited by TEG on Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:18 pm 
Offline
Forum Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 1450
Location: Arrowbear Lake, CA
Delivery Date: 20 Apr 2011
TEG wrote:
If this bill goes through, part of the answer may be to stop providing 120V NEMA5-15 sockets, and just go to J1772 only which would limit the amount of "bending the rules" charging opportunities.

That could have the unintended consequence of preventing a second EV from charging at 120 V if the J1772 is taken.

_________________
2011 LEAF (Blue, w/QC) - 51K mountainous miles - Fontana Nissan
Battery capacity: 11/12 bars, and 185 GIDS at 80% charge (-20% vs. new)


Basile Enterprises - Custom Software Engineering


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:25 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:10 am
Posts: 8051
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Delivery Date: 05 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0213
TEG wrote:
If this bill goes through, part of the answer may be to stop providing 120V NEMA5-15 sockets, and just go to J1772 only which would limit the amount of "bending the rules" charging opportunities as well as uses of the power for other than charging.


But then you'd also be in a position of having to lock the EVSE to your car, to stop anyone from disconnecting you so they can park without getting ticketed or towed.

_________________
2011 Blue Ocean SL. 46,100 miles; 193-200 Gids; 9 bars.
Tinted windows.
Michelin MXV4 tires.
L1 EVSE upgrade.
FIAMM horns.
Superbright LED lighting.
2013 sun visors.
LED shifter.
Heated seats.
AV L2 EVSE (self-installed).
6.2kW DC of Sunpower PV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:02 pm 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 3535
Location: Coastal LA
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
garygid wrote:
The probability of being unplugged by somebody (maybe another driver of a vehicle that uses e-fuel) is quite significant.

Have you ever put a sign on your car inviting others to unplug your car?

Has your car ever been unplugged by somebody?

Have you ever unplugged somebody (after they were done charging)?

Have you ever seen another vehicle that had been unplugged?

I certainly have.
If you charge in public charging spots, and practice charger-sharing, this bill would prohibit that kind of sharing of these scarce resources.

Legislating NON-SHARING is only a step to impede the use and growth of EVs.

I got unplugged at work in a 3000-car garage with plenty of empty spaces.

_________________
may reserve/delivery 4/30/11
--
ECOtality/LADWP/ Blink 4/4/11
--
Gardena Nissan, msrp -1k
red SL with etec L3
SOLAR POWERED since 2008


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:14 pm
Posts: 263
Location: Tustin, CA
Done. Wrote to both Donald Wagner, and Jeff Miller (District 70, and 71) since Tustin is split up between them. I was beginning to warm up to GM because of the Volt, but then they go and do things like this. I'm glad I bought a Nissan.

_________________
2011 Nissan LEAF:
Res: 4/21/10 7am
RAQ: 11/23/10 (& ordered)
Delivered: 6/17 vin 4873
Toyota Rav4EV (2/27/13)
4Kw Solar PV


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:41 am
Posts: 669
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2011
I just read this thread and the bill, very interesting. I just wrote and urged to vote against the bill. I have 2 feelings on the matter that I shared with him, none of which are meant to insight any hard feelings here on this forum:

First being that I feel that charging stalls should be for EVs only - not PHEVs. In short, if PHEVs are allowed to use the stalls then this just prolongs what I feel is societies evolution of using more EVs because range anxiety will still exist. Now more than ever this infrastructure will start taking off because of the new EVs entering the market and the current bill needs to be in place to support it. Should the infrastructure become more commonplace in the future, then opening up its use to PHEVs would make more sense - but not at this time.

Second being that it is HORRIBLY worded. I agree with every sentiment here about ICE vehicles using it to charge 12v car batteries, charging cell phones, side-by-side charging stalls that share 1 charger, etc.

We shall see what happens.


Last edited by EricBayArea on Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:44 pm
Posts: 196
Location: Santa Monica
Delivery Date: 11 Jan 2012
garygid wrote:
Park-n-Charge will essentially "require" locking the J1772 "nozzle"
to your car, and possibly "locking" some of the charging cable
inside the car as well.

I believe that there will be MANY disguised attempts to keep EVs from reaching
general-public acceptance and becoming practical for longer-range uses.


You could lock your trickle charge cord to the hinge, but someone could still remove the connector, and if the meter reader noticed it, you'd still be subject to a tow, although they'd then have to cut your cord. Ouch!

Chelsea is to be commended to doing all the heavy lifting on this matter by letting us know about it and giving us the ammunition to fight it. The least we can do is call/write our Assembly members and Senators to fight it. Also, let Gov. Brown know your feelings. If it passes, we can push him to veto it.

Those of you in other states should weigh in on this matter, too, since at least 14 states essentially copy what CA does in regard to EVs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:44 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:10 am
Posts: 8051
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Delivery Date: 05 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0213
PaulScott wrote:
Also, let Gov. Brown know your feelings. If it passes, we can push him to veto it.


Very good idea! I forgot about that option.

And, yes, major kudos to Chelsea for "the heavy lifting" and also for bringing this out in the open. It was certainly under my radar until I saw her FaceBook posting! :shock:

_________________
2011 Blue Ocean SL. 46,100 miles; 193-200 Gids; 9 bars.
Tinted windows.
Michelin MXV4 tires.
L1 EVSE upgrade.
FIAMM horns.
Superbright LED lighting.
2013 sun visors.
LED shifter.
Heated seats.
AV L2 EVSE (self-installed).
6.2kW DC of Sunpower PV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:43 pm
Posts: 1377
EricBayArea wrote:
...I feel that charging stalls should be for EVs only - not PHEVs. In short, if PHEVs are allowed to use the stalls then this just prolongs what I feel is societies evolution of using more EVs because range anxiety will still exist. Now more than ever this infrastructure will start taking off because of the new EVs entering the market and the current bill needs to be in place to support it. Should the infrastructure become more commonplace in the future, then opening up its use to PHEVs would make more sense - but not at this time...


There was a recent discussion (perhaps debate) going on over at teslamotorsclub which included this stance & consideration.
On the one hand, we have some Leaf & Tesla owners who one might call "BEV bigots" or perhaps "100% EV purists" (to which I mostly find myself) who feel that the PHEVs are intruding on "our" space. But Chelsea (who I might call a PHEV advocate) made some strong arguments that we ought to ease up a bit and be more welcoming of the PHEVs even if we wish some of those buyers would take the bigger step and go for a full 100% BEV. One of the statements was that most people are still looking at gasoline cars, and PHEVs are mostly considered novel, so having the "100% BEV camp" trying to keep the PHEVs out could possible scare some shoppers away from considering PHEVs which would be a shame because I think we all agree that more miles driven on electricity is a good thing even if the vehicle is dragging around a gas engine that runs some of the time.

The details of exactly who is entitled and gets access to which kind of charging infrastructure still has a way to go, particularly as quick chargers roll out too, but a blanket statement that PHEVs should stay out of 100% BEV spots for now seems overboard to me at this point.

---
Another point - what is considered "while charging"? Do they actually check that the vehicle is charging or just plugged in? A PHEV is likely to get "full" sooner, so may not have the same value in being in the spot a long time as would, for instance, a nearly empty Leaf that wanted to park there all day. It would be good if we found some way to encourage vehicles that are full to "move on" to a non-charging spot so that a vehicle really needing a charge could take its' place. You can tell from the lights on top of a Leaf dashboard that it is still charging... Is there an easy way to externally tell when a Volt is actively charging? Perhaps the charging stations should be like a parking meter. When it stops providing charge to the vehicle, a timer starts and the EV owner better get over and move their vehicle before it switches to a red flag.
Perhaps towing for ICE vehicles having no business there, and parking tickets for plug-in vehicles that overstay their welcome?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 39  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Advertise on the forum | Upgrade your account


© My Nissan Leaf Forum - part of the MyElectricCarForums.com Group