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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mwalsh

Well-known member
Leaf Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
9,781
Location
Garden Grove, CA
Uh, oh. Looks like we got a problem here (caused, I might add, by GM sticking their nose in....again) - Assembly Bill 475 is going to change the existing CA law requiring ZEVs to show the State EV parking decal to avoid cite or tow, to eliminating the decal entirely and mandating that an EV or PHEV be actually connected to the EVSE, thus eliminating the idea of a shared charging infrastructure.

THANKS FOR NOTHING, AGAIN, GM! :twisted:

I don't know if there are any options left as of now....this all happened as of last week. But if there is a chance of getting this overturned, I'll find out how and report back.

http://evchels.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/gmcharging/

http://images.pluginamerica.org/AB_475_PIA_Oppose_Unless_Amd_Sen_Floor_8-17-11.pdf

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_475_bill_20110621_amended_sen_v95.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_475&sess=CUR&house=B&author=butler

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_475&sess=CUR&house=B&author=butler

Edit:

It looks like it passed the Senate with amendments. So, if I understand my legislative processes correctly, it now has to go back to the Assembly for resolution:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_475_cfa_20110819_171423_asm_floor.html

I don't know if that means there is a chance for intervening by contacting our local Assembly member or not?
 
Thanks for posting all that.

I hope as a group we find a way out of this mess somehow.
 
If there were charging stations in Sacramento, somebody nearby could go by
just before the "meter-reader" and helpfully unplug all the charging cords.

A few months of that, and maybe our legislators would write a better law.

In the mean time, take a time-and-dated picture of your connection
each time you plug in?

This is a perfect example of various legal processes that
can be used to stop/stall/kill the EV Revolution.
 
mwalsh said:
mandating that an EV or PHEV be actually connected to the EVSE

I dont understand what the complaint is.. they are getting rid of the decal and requiring you to be plugged in?.. whats the issue?
 
garygid said:
If there were charging stations in Sacramento, somebody nearby could go by
just before the "meter-reader" and helpfully unplug all the charging cords.

Ironically, I'm told that's where most of the few sites (of the total in CA) that use this law are... :eek:/ Almost none in SoCal do.

garygid said:
In the mean time, take a time-and-dated picture of your connection
each time you plug in?

Unfortunately, that doesn't prove you were still plugged in at the moment you received the ticket/tow. And if not, why not.
 
Herm said:
mwalsh said:
mandating that an EV or PHEV be actually connected to the EVSE

I dont understand what the complaint is.. they are getting rid of the decal and requiring you to be plugged in?.. whats the issue?

There are several: http://evchels.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/gmcharging/

And not allowing PHEVs to plug in at all isn't the right answer either. Best would be to gut the whole thing, which would solve everyone's problems. If it's determined that a state law is still needed, we can start over and do one right.

Second best is to go back to the original version of this bill, which kept the stickers and just expanded the definition of eligible vehicles.
 
According to the law as worded, a car, even an ICE with no battery, but has a socket, could be legally in the space if plugged in. Is that correct?
And if the person who unplugs my car happens to be the same one who is fulfilling his quota of citations, then I guess my little Jazz video camera had better be recording every instant of my parking duration.
Gregg
 
starry said:
According to the law as worded, a car, even an ICE with no battery, but has a socket, could be legally in the space if plugged in. Is that correct?
And if the person who unplugs my car happens to be the same one who is fulfilling his quota of citations, then I guess my little Jazz video camera had better be recording every instant of my parking duration.
Gregg

I've just asked for GM's position. Our interpretation was that the definitions provided in the bill summary clarified the type of vehicles required (and contains the language problematic to current Volt drivers). After seeing my post, GM is insisting that I have misinterpreted, and that the summary has no relevance whatsoever, and that the only requirement is "connected for electric charging purposes"- in which case we agree that it's actually worse, because it would indeed open up to any gas car with a socket, or engine block heater (not that we have those in CA, but still), etc. From my perspective, someone could put a battery tender on the 12v in his Suburban and technically be "electrically charging his vehicle".

Will report back, and will clarify one way or the other on the post when I can get a fairly reliable determination.

On the quota issue, I have that concern too- but I'm already being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and the post was long enough already. :)
 
I sent the below to Lowenthal (d-lb):

Bonnie,
As an Electric Vehicle (EV) owner, I am concerned about ab475, which is sponsored and/or supported by you and carried by your colleague, Betsy Butler.
It is not a good idea to either negate the state issued parking sticker or to require that EVs only be parked at EVSE spots while plugged in. The EV community has a protocol that allows for EVSE sharing so that an arriving EV owner can read a time-specific placard on a parked and plugged in EV, and have permission to unplug that car once it is either charged or past a certain time (which indicates that it is charged sufficiently for the EV owner to get where they need to go). The arriving EV can safely unplug the charging EV, and use the station.
AB475 would subject the original EV to towing, fines, tickets and worse
 
Any passer-by can unplug the "charging" vehicles, which would then
be subject to a ticket, etc.

Locking the hose or nozzle to the car might the the only
(not nice) solution if this law passes without better wording.

The issue of plug-sharing and leaving your car un-attended
must be delt with in an acceptable and constructive manner.
 
Might this also be the reason my EV parking decal request check and form have not been responded to in 45 days?

I hope that this type of idiocy doesn't make it through.
 
evchels said:
...
And not allowing PHEVs to plug in at all isn't the right answer either. Best would be to gut the whole thing, which would solve everyone's problems. If it's determined that a state law is still needed, we can start over and do one right.

Second best is to go back to the original version of this bill, which kept the stickers and just expanded the definition of eligible vehicles.

It sounds like whatever is done you hope that the result is that Volts (and Karmas and Plug-in-Prius) are allowed into the formerly ZEV/100%BEV only spaces...
 
TEG said:
It sounds like whatever is done you hope that the result is that Volts (and Karmas and Plug-in-Prius) are allowed into the formerly ZEV/100%BEV only spaces...

Yes, though creating all sorts of hassles in the process isn't satisfactory to me. GM maintains the current bill allows all PHEVs in, and yet I've been pretty clear how I feel about the bill.

It's appropriate to scale certain incentives to degree of electrification or capability, but basic access to electricity should be open to all, especially given how much of it is taxpayer-funded. If our common goal is maximum EV miles, it makes no sense to place a restriction that means PHEV drivers have to use more gas if they can avoid it. We've always managed to develop protocols for sharing within the community (and with far less available technology than we have today). The plug-in population is not going to outgrow our ability to do that anytime soon, and active chargers only makes the case for more infrastructure and shows where it's needed.
 
starry said:
According to the law as worded, a car, even an ICE with no battery, but has a socket, could be legally in the space if plugged in. Is that correct?

I got a response to this (I used the example of a gas car "charging" its 12v battery via a battery tender, etc.):

"I certainly can't argue that people won't try to pull stunts, but we feel the statute is pretty specific in Section 1 Subdivision A that charging is only for the vehicles we're trying to accommodate (and therefore prohibits a gasoline only vehicle from parking in the stall): " ...for the exclusive purpose of charging and parking a vehicle that is connected for electric charging purposes." You can't "charge and park" a 12v battery."

And my argument back:

"I totally disagree. You could certainly park a vehicle and "charge" its 12v battery- which would be tough to argue is not an integral part of the vehicle (in the most basic sense, the same way a traction pack would be- the vehicle won't run w/o either...and therefore, you're charging the vehicle). Not that CA has much in the way of engine block heaters, but same premise would apply. Point is, anything on a gas car that you could argue could be "charged" would technically be in compliance."

I'd also like it to be more specific that it's the vehicle being charged, not doing the charging- of, say, a cell phone. Still think reference to a high-voltage battery or something would suffice, or "connected to the grid" or to "electrical infrastructure" (which would include the most basic 120v outlet), etc. Silly to rely on "it probably won't be misused" when there are so many ways to fix it...and there are still so many other issues besides this one.

Also, thanks to any who have sent notes to their Assemblymembers. It can't hurt to weigh in with Butler too, as the author. There's a simple web-based contact form on her site: http://bit.ly/oyetJr
 
garygid said:
Any passer-by can unplug the "charging" vehicles, which would then
be subject to a ticket, etc.

Actually, this bill only provides for towing as remedy.
 
evchels said:
garygid said:
Any passer-by can unplug the "charging" vehicles, which would then
be subject to a ticket, etc.

Actually, this bill only provides for towing as remedy.


Certainly towing companies will have no say in that:)
 
Back
Top