User avatar
leafmealone
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:01 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2011
Location: Costa Mesa, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:52 pm

Just wrote to Betsy Butler, the 53rd District Member of the Assembly who is sponsoring the bill and to my local Assembly Member Alan Mansoor strongly encouraging them to NOT support this bill.
Thanks to mwalsh for carrying the torch!

Yanquetino
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:47 am

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:14 pm

Chelsea has tweeted that AB475 has, in fact, passed. Those who oppose the bill now need to urge Governor Jerry Brown to veto it. I have already sent him a message, echoed in a short tweet to his Twitter account. I have also written to Nissan, as I opine that GM has run this one around them and they need to be aware of it.

For the record, I also wish to state that, of the many villains behind this AB475 fiasco, the most despicable is Butler herself. For gawd's sake, what kind of public representative is she? Her statement to Chelsea was: "“General Motors did not share your concerns”. Uh... so? My response would be:
Oh, okay. Now... does Nissan share our concerns? Does Mitsubishi share our concerns? Does Ford share them? Does Tesla? Does Coda? Does Fisker? Does BMW? Or Toyota? Or Honda? Or Volkswagen? Or Volvo?

GM is NOT the sole manufacturer of plug-in vehicles, and in fact its Volt constitutes only a small percentage of the current and future EV market. Since bill AB475 will affect them ALL, throughout the entire state, you need to first gather their input and consensus before imposing such a law upon them.

To do otherwise would be unconscionable --and blatantly undemocratic.

Shame on GM for pulling a fast one like this! Makes me secretly wish that their exec's own Volts are routinely uplugged --and then towed. :twisted:

User avatar
garygid
Gold Member
Posts: 12188
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:10 am
Delivery Date: 29 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 000855
Location: Laguna Hills, Orange Co, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:55 pm

"They" haven't even started the "Tucker"-type wars yet. :o
See SOC/GID-Meter and CAN-Do Info
2011 LEAF, sold in 2015
2010 Prius, 2014 silver Tesla S
Nissan EVSE, mod to 240/120v 16A
PU: SDG&E
Solar PV: 33 x 225W -> 7 kW max AC
To Sell: X-treme 5000Li EV motorcycle

User avatar
leafmealone
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:01 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2011
Location: Costa Mesa, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:29 pm

Alright! Just tweeted and emailed the Brown to veto the bill.

evchels
Gold Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:33 pm

First, thank you all for your support and action; I know it was a fire drill and a longshot, but it was worth trying. And still worth trying to veto- not least because GM revealed tonight that they'd blown me off from the beginning, as even though my initial post spoke of the plug-in advocates as a group, they were convinced that I was the only one who hated the bill, and I was just trying to rile y'all up for sport or something. Since I don't have a plug-in of any kind, none of the chargers in my area use this law (so I'd be utterly unaffected no matter what happens), and I've been enough of a Volt supporter that I regularly get accused of shilling for GM...I'm not sure what they think my motivation would be for that, but ok...maybe the Nissan paycheck? (I kid, just a joke..don't go starting any rumors! :)


TEG wrote:
EricBayArea wrote:...I feel that charging stalls should be for EVs only - not PHEVs. .


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.


Thanks, TEG- I'd actually call myself a plug-in advocate; I'm a total EV fan, but think that especially at this stage, PHEVs are useful for certain circumstances, and dismissing them entirely will keep some folks from getting a plug-in anything because they can't or won't go full EV. In both groups, I have my own personal likes and dislikes, but as an advocate, I just can't dismiss an entire category if it can serve a useful role in moving all of this forward.

I also think that while it's appropriate to filter some incentives for the more electrified vehicles (the exact criteria may differ from one incentive to another) basic access to fuel should be open to all. More EV miles are good, as TEG said. Some of the folks who got PHEVs because they were fearful will see that it really is pretty easy to stay in electric mode (assuming it's a decently electrified PHEV) and will jump to an EV faster. The visibility will help invite the next wave of consumers to jump at least from a gas car to a PHEV- we have few enough plug-ins on the road of any type that we should want them all to be seen as much as possible. Heck we still get excited when we see another EV on the road because it's still not that common. And of course site owners aren't going to want to shun their PHEV patrons, so I find it hard to believe they'd be willing to do enforce an EV-only rule anyway, especially if they had any share in paying for the infrastructure or are paying for the electricity. In the end, they get to decide who they're giving "fuel" to- and in the monetized sites, it's the PHEVs that are most likely to pay.

I do think there is a community aspect to this too. Anyone getting a plug-in of any type is trying to be part of the solution somehow or they wouldn't spend the extra money. Especially at this early stage, it's better to be inclusive, rather than coming off like a bunch of elitists, and make it off-putting to want to stay involved, let alone get an EV next. We can urge OEMs to make better (more electrified) cars, but it's not productive to punish those who bought what's available today.

User avatar
Boomer23
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:57 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Mar 2011
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:01 pm

Email to Governor Brown to urge veto SENT!
Black 2013 SL Premium Max Gids 263, 60.34 A
2014 BMW i3 with Range Extender
Blog: http://drivingelectric.blogspot.com

evchels
Gold Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:05 pm

Boomer23 wrote:Email to Governor Brown to urge veto SENT!


Thank you, my little corruptible minion! :)

User avatar
Boomer23
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:57 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Mar 2011
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:15 pm

evchels wrote:
Boomer23 wrote:Email to Governor Brown to urge veto SENT!


Thank you, my little corruptible minion! :)


Watt upp, Chels!
Black 2013 SL Premium Max Gids 263, 60.34 A
2014 BMW i3 with Range Extender
Blog: http://drivingelectric.blogspot.com

evchels
Gold Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Boomer23 wrote:
evchels wrote:
Boomer23 wrote:Email to Governor Brown to urge veto SENT!


Thank you, my little corruptible minion! :)


Watt upp, Chels!


I'm tryin'!

GregH
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:16 pm
Delivery Date: 13 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 26967
Location: Irvine, CA

Re: CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/t

Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:40 pm

This is probably not as big of a deal as it may seem.. When Bill Mason and I sponsored the original 2002 law on behalf of the Production EV Drivers Coalition (1999-2005 R.I.P.) the goal was merely to be able to tow ICE vehicles blocking chargers. Efforts prior to this included more threatening signage (compared to the stock "Electric Vehicle Only") but law enforcement and property owners more or less refused to tow a vehicle unless they had a law to fall back on... So we hired a lobbyist to help us draft the legislation and get it sponsored and through the whole legislative process. What the existing law really does is specify that if a vehicle WITHOUT a sticker is parked in a charge spot with the correct signage, then an angry EV driver could have the vehicle towed. Law enforcement and property owners weren't inclined to tow customers with ICE vehicles without prodding by the ICE'd EV driver. This will likely still hold true if the Governor signs the new law.

Personally I have mixed feelings on PHEVs using the public chargers.. Yes every mile that could be electric, should be... But these people don't NEED a charge the way a stranded EV driver might (not that I haven't used public infrastructure when I didn't need it from time to time). But it will be a sad day when a Leaf, I-Miev or Focus EV driver get's "Volted".

Long story short, I don't think ANY vehicles will be towed unless someone in dire need of a charge calls the authorities to have the offending vehicle towed. Sticker or no sticker, plugged in or not, the only vehicles likely to be towed will be ICEs and then only with some prodding. Personally can't imagine someone raising a stink about a Volt or a disconnected Leaf or Leaf sans sticker... We the people who need the chargers simply need a mechanism to keep those who shouldn't be blocking them, out of the way.
SL black '12 Leaf 1/30/13-
SL blue '11 Leaf (Joulee3)
RAV4-EV 2002-2005 (Wattson)
Gen2 EV1 1999-2002 (Joulee2)
Rooftop PV 2.4Kw installed 1998
Gen1 EV1 1997-2003

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”