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

[evchels]

Our Assemblyman, Steve Knight, was mentioned in walterbay's post as a Republican who voted against the bill. I have forwarded the thread link to him and asked him to at least contact Gov Brown's office to recommend a veto. Perhaps he will even want to pick up a veto lead role, given the leading role his district and next-door Kern County have in developing alternative energy sources. He and Gov Brown at least have that in common.

Thank you- and of course, I'm happy to speak directly with any of these folks if they want to discuss or get further clarification. I'm sure Jay at Plug In America would as well.

 

[GregH]

Much ado over nothing..

Unless AB475 actually compels law enforcement to tow offending vehicles, I don't see what all the fuss is.. The original 2002 "sticker" law was just a tool giving EV drivers the authority to have offending ICEs towed. So who is going to enforce this? Is an ICE driver going to have an unplugged EV towed? No.. Is a Leaf driver going to have a Volt (plugged or unplugged) towed? I doubt it. None of this really matters so long as we have a way of towing an improperly parked ICE if we NEED to charge... Is a Leaf that doesn't need a charge or a Volt that clearly doesn't need a charge going to go out of their way to tow ICEs? Maybe, but I'd guess not. I should point out that the existing law works just fine for it's intended purpose. If a Leaf or even a Volt driver sees an ICE without the EV sticker (obviously) parked in a charge spot with correct signage, they can have it towed. Problem solved.

 

[evchels]

I should point out that the existing law works just fine for it's intended purpose. If a Leaf or even a Volt driver sees an ICE without the EV sticker (obviously) parked in a charge spot with correct signage, they can have it towed. Problem solved.

And if the original version of AB475 (which kept the sticker and simply made PHEVs eligible for them) was kept, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In the current version, the potential for towing is only one of several problems- among which is that the language isn't all that effective against gas cars either.

 

[TEG]

...So who is going to enforce this? Is an ICE driver going to have an unplugged EV towed? No.. Is a Leaf driver going to have a Volt (plugged or unplugged) towed? I doubt it...

Sometimes a towing service can make some $ if they have a law on their side that lets them tow vehicles.
So, even if you think "why would someone call?", there could be situations where a roving towing company seizes the opportunity, or gets someone involved to call in to "drum up business."
http://www.predatorytowingdefense.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Personally ,I don't like the idea of risking a tow going under the assumption that "probably no one will bother."


But if no one cares to put in the required signage, or this whole situation scares people away from installing any charging stations, then it is all moot.

 

[juliblue]

We have just purchased an orphaned LEAF and are so far very happy with it. My husband travels A LOT to Sacramento, and he says even up there the EV parking spaces can be very frustrating, since many EV owners tend to park, maybe charge a bit, or not at all, but leave their cars in the EV spaces all day for work. If I lived there, and needed emergency charge, or needed to get near/to a charging station (that reads as 'not in use' on my computer, but in reality has an EV parked there, but not charging)- how would I get to it??
It seems that having a sticker saying I can park there -would not help me at all if I can't actually plug in.
I think more businesses/companies/parking garages need to worry less about dedicating EV parking spaces- and think outside the box- like making the charging stations MOBILE- so that in essence ANY PARKING space will BECOME a charging station. It could be as simple as a railing against the parking structure wall that multiple chargers could be attached to at any time, and have any wall in the parking garage be equipped to become a charging wall at any time.
I would still not want to pull in at the end of a charge- and wait for the non-EV parked in the space I need to get towed out...
My husband has seen many regular cars parked in EV SPACES, and I was drawn to this board to see if there were any laws prohibiting non-EV from parking in dedicated spaces.
If I could always get a mobile charger moved to the front of my vehicle, no EV would need to be unplugged, there could be a track in the ground, hanging from the ceiling, on the wall, etc...
I would like to know how any new legislation turns out. Also, if they do prohibit non-EV parking, it would be nice for the state ( CA) to list the fine, like on Handicapped parking spaces, to discourage illegal parkers that think it doesn't matter... soon there will be many, many more of us! And, it will really matter!
I hope they can come up with some seriously simple and clear legislation- although those two things almost never go with legislation! Ever....
I think another thing they really need to straighten out- is to not think of 'charging stations' as 'parking spaces'- they should be thought of as different things. I would never park my car at a gas station pump, get out, and leave my car there, so no one else can use the gas pump... so, why should electric stations have any different designation? I REALIZE that the time to fill a car with gas is much shorter than to fill a battery-- but when your smart phone tells you your battery is 'full' you go and move the car to a parking space; parking space and charging space should not be treated the same. Maybe that's where the wording can be altered.

 

[TEG]

Yes, we need more public EVSEs so that the general rule, not the exception, is that you will find one available.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_475&sess=CUR&house=B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TEG]

Perhaps they should build EVs with a charge port that can lock the plug while charging then release it when done.
The Coulomb Chargpoints can lock the plug to the EVSE until you show authorization (RFID card) to use it.
The handle can also be manually locked using a small luggage type padlock on the release switch of the J plug.
Perhaps a ChargePoint type electric lock could be part of the charge port on future EVs, and it locks the plug to the socket while charging is in session then releases it when done. That way no one could unplug you until the charging session was done. If the plug is unlocked then others would be free to move the cable to a neighboring spot. Reminds me of how some washing machines lock the lid while they are in use. Just an idea.

---

If the charge plug was locked while charging you would have little worry that someone could unplug you resulting in a possible tow. On the other hand, once you are done charging and the cable is unlocked, then you would start to worry that someone else might take the plug so there would be incentive to vacate the parking space once the vehicle is done charging.
If no one else needed the spot you would likely remain plugged in and able to park longer, but if you were 'hogging' the spot by staying there when not charging, someone could "vote" (by unplugging you) to have you towed so that someone else gets a turn.

 

[GregH]

With either the original sticker law or AB475 we can have ICEs towed from EV spots with proper signage. It certainly is nice to have the longer j1772 cable (vs the old magnechargers) that can reach many spaces if (as many have pointed out) the EVSEs and parking spaces are set up logically. The only way to really make the spots accessible to those who need a charge is to charge $$ for it. Charging $1 for juice would likely separate those who need a charge from those who don't..

 

[evchels]

Charging $1 for juice would likely separate those who need a charge from those who don't..

Probably, but I think the sites who've contributed parking spots and funds should get to decide how they want to filter access to their own EVSEs, not be unilaterally directed by one car company. And either way, this bill does nothing to address this issue.

It's interesting to see GM grasp this latest straw though- the goal is now to keep the spots open for those who need to charge? To your point, Greg, PHEVs never need to charge in public. And the mixed messaging of encouraging sites to install charging, but encouraging drivers not to use them will ultimately backfire. The very reason Costco is yanking their chargers is because they don't think people are adequately using them. By GM's reasoning, EV drivers could be shopping at every location every day, and just leaving the charger spot open in case someone else needs it more.

Yes, we should encourage consideration within the driver community- but we shouldn't have to legislate it, especially over as of yet unsubstantiated fear of a potential future problem.

 

[TEG]

PHEVs never need to charge in public.

Somewhat recap, and academic, but:
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to save money (electric miles cost less than gas miles.)
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to produce less emission (trying to be green even though it is easy for them to revert to gas.)
PHEV drivers may NEED to use the charge spot if they have run out of gasoline and need a bit of electricity to limp to the nearest gasoline station. (Although it is a rare day when a Volt is out of gas, and the public charge spot is closer than a gasoline station.)
[ Someone joked that it becomes a gas vehicle with an electric range extender... ]

 

[evchels]

PHEVs never need to charge in public.

Somewhat recap, and academic, but:
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to save money (electric miles cost less than gas miles.)
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to produce less emission (trying to be green even though it is easy for them to revert to gas.)
PHEV drivers may NEED to use the charge spot if they have run out of gasoline and need a bit of electricity to limp to the nearest gasoline station. (Although it is a rare day when a Volt is out of gas, and the public charge spot is closer than a gasoline station.)
[ Someone joked that it becomes a gas vehicle with an electric range extender... ]

I know, and (as you know too well) I've always thought PHEVs should have equal access to chargers. Even EVs don't usually need any single public charge. But if all EV miles are good miles, all plug-ins should have access. Just think it's an interesting twist of logic on GM's part to base it on need, when that's the least credible justification in their particular case.

 

[occ]

Much ado over nothing..

Unless AB475 actually compels law enforcement to tow offending vehicles, I don't see what all the fuss is.. The original 2002 "sticker" law was just a tool giving EV drivers the authority to have offending ICEs towed. So who is going to enforce this? Is an ICE driver going to have an unplugged EV towed? No.. Is a Leaf driver going to have a Volt (plugged or unplugged) towed? I doubt it. None of this really matters so long as we have a way of towing an improperly parked ICE if we NEED to charge... Is a Leaf that doesn't need a charge or a Volt that clearly doesn't need a charge going to go out of their way to tow ICEs? Maybe, but I'd guess not. I should point out that the existing law works just fine for it's intended purpose. If a Leaf or even a Volt driver sees an ICE without the EV sticker (obviously) parked in a charge spot with correct signage, they can have it towed. Problem solved.

Scenario: A LEAF in desparate need of a charge pulls out the only charger occupied by a Volt who's done charging. The Volt drive got mad (Chad's Volt?) unplugged the LEAF, and calls a tow truck, having the "law of AB475" on his side.

So it's not so simple. AB475 will make it A LOT more complex than it is right now.

 

[occ]

PHEVs never need to charge in public.

Somewhat recap, and academic, but:
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to save money (electric miles cost less than gas miles.)
PHEV drivers may WANT to use the charge spot to produce less emission (trying to be green even though it is easy for them to revert to gas.)
PHEV drivers may NEED to use the charge spot if they have run out of gasoline and need a bit of electricity to limp to the nearest gasoline station. (Although it is a rare day when a Volt is out of gas, and the public charge spot is closer than a gasoline station.)
[ Someone joked that it becomes a gas vehicle with an electric range extender... ]

Note that the PHEV may "WANT" ... never "NEED". The only way for a PHEV to run out of gas is if he runs out of charge first...never the other way around. If he runs out of gas, he's as clueless as other ICE drivers.

 

[garygid]

Just watch the signage wherever you park and charge.

 

[smkettner]

Scenario: A LEAF in desparate need of a charge pulls out the only charger occupied by a Volt who's done charging. The Volt drive got mad (Chad's Volt?) unplugged the LEAF, and calls a tow truck, having the "law of AB475" on his side.

So it's not so simple. AB475 will make it A LOT more complex than it is right now.

Who would the Volt have towed? LEAF would be parked in an open spot.

 

[TEG]

Note that the PHEV may "WANT" ... never "NEED". The only way for a PHEV to run out of gas is if he runs out of charge first...never the other way around. If he runs out of gas, he's as clueless as other ICE drivers.

Not necessarily - a real "range extender" mindset could be "I can make this destination if I use all my charge, almost all of my gas, and just make it to the EV charge station within 40 miles of the next gas station." Someone with a PHEV could plan to run out of charge, and nearly run out of gas and plan to visit a plug before a pump. Probably extremely rare that someone would plan or need to do that, but it could happen.

The Volt has a total published range of something like 375 miles. Some long trips through rural USA could test that range, and you might find a plug near the end before a pump.

Then there are the PHEV owners who only put 1 gallon of gas in their tanks to force themselves to keep recharging instead of refueling... Should we discourage them from plugging in?

 

[smkettner]

Two points this law makes evident to me.

1) More charging stations are needed.
2) The spots are not for preferred parking, they are for charging.

 

[evchels]

Two points this law makes evident to me.

1) More charging stations are needed.
2) The spots are not for preferred parking, they are for charging.

1) not necessarily. More will be needed at some point, and there is a temporary issue around the fact that few sites have been retrofitted with J1772 EVSEs. But with the exception of a few sites that already see lots of EVs (eg LAX), the debate is more speculative about what will happen when there are so many EVs on the road that they're all crowded. A nice problem to have in some respects, but it's not going to happen tomorrow, or without enough warning to deploy more EVSEs and/or establish different protocols about using them. For now, site use is rather inconsistent at most sites- a retailer may not see an EV for a week, then two or three on Saturday. Certainly not enough to justify more than one EVSE, but even just one installed between a couple spaces takes care of everyone in most cases. But it's much better to stay just one step ahead of the vehicle population with respect to infrastructure, than ten. Too much is as bad as too little.

2) True. But that's the case no matter what, and this law does nothing to affect that or encourage charging behavior in that way. It says you simply have to be connected, not that current must be flowing. Sites or municipalities can and should adopt time limits or other management mechanisms based on the conditions they experience, but it's at best premature (and I would argue, inappropriate entirely) to legislate those details at a state level.

 

[TEG]

In some cases, the preferred location ends up being a "side perk", but I think most EV drivers would prefer to have them more out of the way so there is less competition (and perhaps less scorn) from ICE drivers that would rather have that spot for themselves. As has been discussed elsewhere, the ADA regs, and accessibility of electrical wiring infrastructure frequently ends up making the spots logical to be right in front of the building even if it is an "overly preferred" location.

 

[Yanquetino]

Two points this law makes evident to me.

1) More charging stations are needed.
2) The spots are not for preferred parking, they are for charging.

[ Hah! I see that evchels beat me to the submit button. There's no slowing that gal down! Well... I'll post anyway, to second her motion. ]

1) Right! More charging stations will be needed. Period. With or without AB745. That is just the reality of the growing number of EVs on our roads --and in our parking lots. However, GM's proposed law would double or even quadruple the interpretation of "more," and thus the cost of equipment and installation, by mandating one EVSE per space. Will GM foot the bill? Or expect taxpayers and private businesses to pay for the additional infrastructure?

2) Yes, of course the spots are for charging. (Has anyone ever seen an EV designated space without an EVSE there?) However, the reality is that topping up seldom takes as long as the car is parked. Why mandate by law that the EVSE must remain connected anyway, even though it is no longer charging? Especially if someone else could use it in the adjacent parking space? That really is a waste of resources. Not only would there be more EVSEs than really necessary, each and every one of them will be under-utilized, sitting idle for hours at a time. Ah... but... they will be "connected," simply to let clueless meter maids know that the vehicle is legally parked there. Surely there are better, more efficient, less expensive, and less selfish ways of doing that!