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.
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!
 
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:
 
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 said:
EricBayArea said:
...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.
 
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.
 
GregH said:
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.

Interesting, I've never had a problem taking care of an ICE'd vehicle, and we didn't have this law through most of the last generation. I'm sorry to hear that it was more of a problem than made the EV lists.

Did the PEVDC do any surveying of the (then) existing legislation or documentation of which cities/regions were problematic? I've been asking everyone involved this time (including PIA's lobbyist, who was yours on the last effort) whether it was done for AB1314, or for AB475, to ensure that a state law is still needed, and that what GM was promoting was the best way to approach it. I know there's no evidence supporting this latest mess, though some of it seems to be based in the fear that the EV purists will be the ones unplugging the Volts. But was it ever done in the first place?
 
i think that 120 volt plugs should be distributed like water....oh wait!! in the Southwest, that might not be the analogy i am looking for. like who cares if someone's life situation requires him to plug in his TV in a parking garage. i am guessing he does not live in his car so this would be an unusual event and not commonplace.

obviously i would feel much differently in the RV situation. but have to agree that until charging stations are much more prevalent, that EVs should take precedences over PHEVS. too bad we could not just have a large carousal similar to some of the high density parking structures in Asia where you simply park your EV. its automatically moved to the charging area when the first car has completed its charge. that way, the time on the charger is maxmized and each EV owner gets the charge they are expecting but then again, that would be dreaming.

one thing that is really clear to me; the view from the outside looking in is still clouded by unrealistic expectations of cost (even at prime rates, EVs still cost out pretty well against most cars) when the hidden costs of fossil fuels are essentially ignored.

what we need is the law makers to review the multitude of reports examining what it costs to burn a gallon of imported oil. they might take a different approach to this electricity issue
 
This is what I just emailed Gov. Brown:

Dear Governor Brown,

I am writing to urge that you veto AB475 (Butler). This change to the existing electric vehicle parking laws is a poorly considered and written piece of legislation, which will have the dual negative effects of killing a well established way electric vehicle owners have shared existing infrastructure and make it more expensive for businesses thinking of installing electric vehicle chargers to do so.

Ms. Butler's legislation will make it an offense to park at an electric vehicle charger without connecting one's vehicle to the charger. In a world where every parking space has a charger, this would not be a problem. But in a world where there are maybe a handful of chargers (or in some instances a single charger) for an entire parking lot, the electric vehicle community has typically shared by allowing other drivers to disconnect our vehicles, once we have charged to a sufficient level, and begin charging their own. Ms. Butler's legislation will make the disconnected vehicle subject to cite or tow, so charger sharing dies a death just when the volume of new electric vehicles coming to market makes it more important than ever!

So a way around this would be for a business owner to install more chargers, ideally one in every parking spot, or dual headed chargers between every two spots. This sounds great to those of us patiently waiting for more chargers, but it won't go unnoticed by the business owner that his plan to support electric vehicle charging is now going to cost him way more than he'd anticipated. He may decide that the whole idea is no longer worth it, and not install anything. Hardly the way to encourage private interest participation in the built-out of new infrastructure.

But even more troubling than both these aspects of the new legislation, Ms. Butler's effort does nothing to solve the problem for which the legislation was supposed to be written - the parking of non-electric vehicles at chargers. Ms. Butler has failed to clarify exactly which vehicles could be legally parked, instead using a blanket statement about the parking being for vehicles "connected for charging purposes". This would mean that those patrolling such spots would need to be completely versed in which vehicles are electrified. Otherwise we would see people "faking" charging, by simply sticking the charging connector under their hood (don't think we haven't already seen this done), or by putting their car's 12v battery on a trickle charge from the 120v outlet typically found as part of the charger. They are now parked legally in that parking spot according to the law UNLESS the parking enforcement officer really knows his electric vehicles. And with many electric vehicles differing from their gasoline counterparts very little (if at all) this could be a really difficult judgement call for the officer to make.

The existing law, where a State parking permit decal was issued to each car with an E fuel designation was more than sufficient, and we in the electric vehicle community are of the opinion that the exiting law should be kept and simply expanded to include language permitting PHEVs (Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles) access to these same spots. This was Ms. Butler's original intent, but she simply failed to realize some unintended ramifications of what she was putting forward.

I would be happy to talk to you more on this issue, if you have the inclination to contact me!

Regards,
Michael J. Walsh
 
Yes, good letter! My letter to the governor used a different tack, decrying the fact that GM via Butler had pushed through this legislation without any input or consensus from all the other OEMs of electric vehicles. That is downright dirty, since it affects their customers as much as GM's. In fact, it affects them more, since vehicles like the LEAF depend upon the public infrastructure, but a Volt can always use its gasoline engine instead.

Come to think of it... maybe this is the underlying reason why GM did this...? They knew very well that it would slow down and make much more costly the rollout of an EV infrastructure. That would certainly make its hybrid Volt seem more attractive to consumers --and the LEAF less attractive.

I hope you will all write to Nissan as well. In my opinion, the governor is more likely to veto the bill if he receives adamant protests from the other OEMs. They need to demand a seat at the table before any such legislation becomes law.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
...too bad we could not just have a large carousal similar to some of the high density parking structures in Asia where you simply park your EV. its automatically moved to the charging area when the first car has completed its charge. that way, the time on the charger is maxmized and each EV owner gets the charge they are expecting but then again, that would be dreaming...

I parked at an airport parking log (not run by the airport) where they offered discount valet parking for EVs.
They would hook you up to their charging station until the vehicle was full then move it for you to a regular parking spot to make room for other EVs they have at the garage.

Perhaps too labor intensive, and costly for typical use, but I thought it was worth mentioning that "attended charger sharing" is happening on a small scale.
 
evchels said:
GregH said:
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.

Interesting, I've never had a problem taking care of an ICE'd vehicle, and we didn't have this law through most of the last generation. I'm sorry to hear that it was more of a problem than made the EV lists.

Did the PEVDC do any surveying of the (then) existing legislation or documentation of which cities/regions were problematic? I've been asking everyone involved this time (including PIA's lobbyist, who was yours on the last effort) whether it was done for AB1314, or for AB475, to ensure that a state law is still needed, and that what GM was promoting was the best way to approach it. I know there's no evidence supporting this latest mess, though some of it seems to be based in the fear that the EV purists will be the ones unplugging the Volts. But was it ever done in the first place?

Our lobbyist in Sacramento was Kathy Lynch. I haven't spoken with her in over 6 years..
How did you take care of ICE'd chargers?!?! We could never get anyone to tow cars because they didn't have legal authority to do so and most site owners weren't inclined to tow other customers. Of course we in the EV1 club had stickers we'd put on the ICEs asking them not to block the chargers but we couldn't do anything about it. My adopted charger was the site at the Block at Orange where the chargers were right in front of Dave and Busters.. One day (before the sticker law) I actually drove out and replaced the timid "EV only" signs with more threatening "unauthorized vehicles will be towed" signs but the chargers would still be frequently blocked. When we'd ask the mall cops to take action they'd say they had no authority to do so. I know this was a problem at other sites, but the Block stands out for me personally.

This whole process required multiple trips to Sacramento for Bill and myself as well as our financial backer... It was a long process and very illuminating with regards to the gears of politics in Sacramento. I think we piggy backed the legislation on some ADA bill and had to usher it through a variety of sub-committees.. When it was all done we had a contest in the EV1 club to come up with a design for the sticker. I think someone's child actually came up with the winning design.
 
I don't know of any Volts being unplugged by EVs.. But if I NEEDED a charge, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to unplug a Volt.
 
Just wrote Gov Brown as well.

This is just ridiculous.

My father-in-law just got his parking sticker. He's going to be peeved if he doesn't get a refund, and about having to peel it off. Small points I know, but just another set of irritants in the whole mess.
 
Back
Top