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.
As long as there are companies like GM behind them, you will see a never-ending run of such bad bills...

z0ner said:
I don't think this post is about odds. I think it's about having the lawmakers clarify this poorly worded bill.
 
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.
 
mogur said:
Realistically, what are the odds of this actually happening...

garygid said:
Any passer-by can unplug the "charging" vehicles, which would then
be subject to a ticket, etc.

High enough to be worth figuring out another way. It already happens occasionally now. Usually, it's "benign"- someone gets curious when they see an EV, unplugs it to check out how that works, and just doesn't get it plugged back in properly (or the charger door closes, etc.) Occasionally it seems to happen out of resentment in hopes of leaving someone stranded, but currently there are no huge consequences- in most cases that particular charge isn't going to make the difference between someone getting home or not. Even in the rare event it would, the worst case scenario is that you are delayed while waiting to charge after finding your car unplugged (or with some cars, you go find a fast charger.)

I would hope that parking enforcement folks are bright enough to realize the car is still an EV and not get grumpy about the technicality of not being plugged in. It helps with distinctive-looking vehicles like the Leaf. But as we get EVs and PHEVs that look like their gas or hybrid counterparts (Ford Focus, Prius PHV, Honda Fit...) it'll become more likely that enforcement really does think it's a gas car.

The Volt's horn goes off when someone unplugs it too- owners can disable that to enable sharing (or just cause they don't like it) so while some people will try to plug it back in to make the noise stop, others will freak, drop the connector and quickly walk away. We don't know yet if other cars will have this "feature". Given how many Volt drivers have complained, I hope not.

But to z0ner's point, it's more about this being one of several issues with the current bill, and problems that could be solved by shoring up the language, or simply going back to the original version, which no one but GM seemed to have significant issues with. For reasons I cannot understand, the stickers are a huge issue of "principle" for them. A minor inconvenience, perhaps- and I'd love to get rid of them by revoking the whole law and going back to the local ordinances we've always used to enforce spots, and still do, in the majority of locations. But it takes 10 minutes, a form, and a few dollars to get a sticker, and it costs the state an estimated $1000 per year. One site retrofitting its location with extra chargers for the spots that currently share will outweigh 5 years of those costs. So I fail to see how they're so much worse than all the issues created by the current version. Could also switch to a special license plate, or a marker on the current ones, if aesthetics are a concern.
 
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.
 
garygid said:
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.

Yup, which in turn also requires potential vehicle design and or EVSE modifications, all at significant cost- and probably some process to standardize locking mechanisms. We've seen from the J1772 process how easy that is.

And even solving the unplugging piece doesn't fix the other problems. Even if one thinks these issues are only small-to-medium concerns, all of them added together still makes this approach more trouble than it's worth, especially when there's such an easy fix.
 
Unplugging by people who are anti-EV? Virtually nil.

Anywhere near a place where teenagers hang out? Anywhere near a college campus? Guaranteed to happen.

mogur said:
Realistically, what are the odds of this actually happening...

garygid said:
Any passer-by can unplug the "charging" vehicles, which would then
be subject to a ticket, etc.
 
I wrote Betsy Butler today, to try and urge some last minute consideration. Maybe even voting down her own legislation when it comes back to the Assembly for resolution. I also wrote my own Assembly person (Allan Mansoor) to urge a no vote. I suggest you do the same with yours!

The way this law is written, there is nothing to stop me from parking my ICE car in front of a Chargpoint unit and putting my car's 12v battery on a trickle charge from the 120v outlet. I am now parked legally in that parking spot. It's a stupid and poorly written law.
 
mwalsh said:
I wrote Betsy Butler today, to try and urge some last minute consideration. Maybe even voting down her own legislation when it comes back to the Assembly for resolution. I also wrote my own Assembly person (Allan Mansoor) to urge a no vote. I suggest you do the same with yours!

The way this law is written, there is nothing to stop me from parking my ICE car in front of a Chargpoint unit and putting my car's 12v battery on a trickle charge from the 120v outlet. I am now parked legally in that parking spot. It's a stupid and poorly written law.

Thank you for contacting Butler!

The required signage is even worse: “Unauthorized vehicles not connected for electric charging purposes will be towed away at owner’s expense." By not saying it's the vehicle that has to be the thing being charged (and how), the cell phone in my Saturn would be "connected for electric charging purposes". Wouldn't even have to pop the hood and connect the 12v.
 
My letter to Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa):

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.
 
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.
 
TEG said:
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.
 
TEG said:
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.
 
garygid said:
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.
 
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.
 
garygid said:
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.
 
PaulScott said:
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:
 
EricBayArea said:
...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?
 
Back
Top