My Nissan Leaf Forum

My letter to Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa):

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?