CA AB475 requires connection to the EVSE to avoid cite/tow
- Thread starter mwalsh
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
evchels said:
Well, I'll always have the love for you Chels! 
abasile
Well-known member
I'm not going to let AB475 stop me from using public charging when I need to, signage or no signage. It's a bad bill, but life will go on, and it probably won't have as much negative effect as some fear. One thing I will try to remember to do, however, is use my cell phone to take a photograph of our LEAF plugged in every time we are using a public charger.
evchels said:
Poop!
Yanquetino
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 479
Thanks so much, Chelsea, for keeping us informed about this nefarious issue all the way to the bitter end.evchels said:
So let's review what GM has "accomplished" by pushing through this law, without input from other OEMs, and ignoring the concerns and advice of the EV community itself.
- PHEVs can now legally park in public EV charging slots. (To be quite frank, I wonder just how much of a problem this really was. Do we know if there have been, in fact, multiple incidents of the police ticketing Volts, despite huge J1772 connectors sticking out of their front left fender? Their very names, lightning bolt logos, and charging ports just fail to register with meter maids that they have an electric drivetrain?) Well, regardless, GM has now killed that mosquito with a bazooka, so Volts can now legally park in those spots.
- Owners of EVs from other OEMs must now adhere to this law, even though their manufacturers had no role in writing or implementing it.
- Public sites with one EVSE to serve two --or even four-- EV parking spots now face two choices: (1) They have to eliminate all the other spots except one, thus shrinking the EV infrastructure; or (2) They will have to purchase and install more EVSEs, one for each slot, thus spending two to four times more money.
- It is no longer possible to share public charging, either by letting other EV drivers know when they are welcome to unplug a vehicle, or by asking them to plug in another vehicle when they leave.
- Any vehicle --EV or not-- that is discovered unplugged in a designated parking slot, for whatever reason, will now be ticketed and towed.
- EV owners will need to purchase and use a lock to secure the J1772 to their charging ports, lest they be towed if a curious passerby or mischievous kid pulls the plug.
- ICEs can now legally park in those spots, provided they have an extension cord plugged into the EVSE's outlet and leading to their car to provide power for... you name it (12V battery, engine block heater, cell phone, MP3 player, laptop, crock pot... whatever).
- Each EVSE per space will actually just sit idle most of the time, not charging the connected vehicle anymore, but... at least plugged into it.
- EVs' access to HOV lanes, their registration, perhaps even their fair share of road tax, will all require more time, effort, and regulation to resolve separately, while the alternative solution of a simple license plate decal could have taken care of ALL those issues in one fell swoop.
- Oh... and let's not forget this jewel: EV owners will be able to precondition their vehicles' cabin via their cell phone a few minutes before returning, a convenient luxury afforded them by inconveniently blocking the EVSE from other drivers for hours, even days or weeks, while they're gone.
- To overcome all the above setbacks, literally hundreds of townships, municipalities, cities, counties will all have to draft, approve, and implement their own local ordinances.
- And the "pièce de résistance"? GM has now complicated, made more expensive, and thus delayed even further the rollout of the public EV infrastructure. The "range anxiety" exacerbated by that prolonged lack of public charging will consequently discourage consumers from buying pure EVs, and instead purchase a PHEV Volt. After all, the Volt is... "More Car Than Electric."
Whether or not this last point was GM's true intention all along, they have only managed to pour salt into the wounds inflicted by their previous fiasco of crushing the EV1 and selling the NiMH patents to Chevron. One would think that a corporation would learn from such disastrous mistakes, and take careful steps to redeem itself. Apparently not. GM has now flushed down the toilet all the benefit of the doubt that EV advocates were willing to give them since that debacle. It's just sewage under the bridge at this point. Fool me twice...? Stupid is as stupid does.
They. Don't. Care. As far as GM is concerned, ours is but a "small group of fanatics" whose support they are more than willing to shrug off as long as they can eventually make a sizable profit off of the millions of potential customers who have never even heard of Who Killed the Electric Car--let alone seen it.
Even though we have lost this particular battle, we have to commend you, Chelsea, for having the courage to stand up for what is right, proper, fair, decent, considerate, ethical. We are fortunate to have an advocate with your expertise, talent, and persistence in the EV movement. Any time a similar issue arises that merits input from the community, please let us know: we are there to support you!
Yanquetino said:
Well written, Yanquetino!
TomT
Well-known member
Yeah, I'm changing the channel...
evchels said:
thankyouOB
Well-known member
I have been following this thread.
But lost the track of what it means for the EV parking sticker.
Are they somehow no longer useful in, let's say, Santa Monica, where EVs can park at meters for free?
But lost the track of what it means for the EV parking sticker.
Are they somehow no longer useful in, let's say, Santa Monica, where EVs can park at meters for free?
smkettner
Well-known member
I disagree that all those issues even exist. I am not so sure the whole plug sharing would have worked as well as many claim to think. Between enthusiasts maybe but not with the general public.
The rest seems to be complaining about trouble that does not exist.
And of course signage must be present for any of this to even apply. So if the owner installs charging equipment that is intended to be shared why would they add the signage that says no sharing?
I like the fact that my car can have peaceful enjoyment of getting a charge. If I do not get a spot so be it. I will ask the owner to install addition units or not return as often.
The rest seems to be complaining about trouble that does not exist.
And of course signage must be present for any of this to even apply. So if the owner installs charging equipment that is intended to be shared why would they add the signage that says no sharing?
I like the fact that my car can have peaceful enjoyment of getting a charge. If I do not get a spot so be it. I will ask the owner to install addition units or not return as often.
GregH
Well-known member
Let's just see how long it takes for the first AB475 compliant signage to show up anywhere. I bet it will be a while... I can't imagine many site owners getting pumped up about buying new signs to support the new law... Maybe some Volt drivers who get iced will push for it..? The sad news is now WE have lost the authority (granted by the 2002 sticker law) to tow offending ices from the few spots that did have correct signage.
rawhog
Well-known member
.
thankyouOB said:
Having followed it too, I am not sure.
Some talk of the bill included this: "This bill would instead allow only a vehicle that is connected for electric charging purposes to park in these designated stalls or spaces..."
So, to me, that may mean that parking for free at a meter could be over since you aren't parking there for charging purposes.
On the other hand, various places they have said that local city ordinances could enhance/override AB 475, so if Santa Monica wants to have a special rule in their city I think they are free to do so. But AB 475 mostly does away with the stickers, since "being plugged in" is the new entry permit, and the old sticker isn't necessary anymore, so the state may stop issuing new stickers which could affect a local city that was using the stickers for other purposes (such as free parking at non-charge spots.)
I also heard that none of this really takes effect until 2012... (?)
Also, reading though the above, with more questions than answers, keep in mind that many who apposed the bill said it didn't make things clear enough.
davewill
Well-known member
Nope. It just shows that the blog is not one big homogenous group...besides you can be against this bill, and still think that plug sharing is problematic. I'm against the bill because it's too easy to be hung out to dry by someone else unplugging you. However, I believe that plug sharing ultimately will not work out. It's fine with a tight knit community, but the more BEVs and PHEVs we get, the less workable it's going to become. The only real solution to the problem is plentiful EVSEs.SanDust said:
smkettner
Well-known member
I have yet to read a story where someone was unplugged just for giggles.
EricBayArea
Well-known member
EricBayArea said:
Remember when the chargers went in at the Science Center in SD...one of our peeps said he got several unplug notifications from his car while parked there - clearly someone was goofing around with the J1772 to see how it worked. Good job he didn't have his charge timer set and wasn't doing something that precluded him from getting back to his car and resume charging!
smkettner
Well-known member
EricBayArea said:
The LAX story was not for giggles it was about stealing a charge. That is what this law discourages.
smkettner said:
I sincerely hope you never encounter these issues. Unfortunately, my actual experience in this industry finds that unlikely, especially if GM pursues its stated intent to see this implemented consistently, codify unplugging as vandalism, and encourage other states to do the same.
thankyouOB said:
The ZEV stickers (and stickers in general) will no longer be required to be issued by the DMV. Presumably, any entity that also tied their incentive to that sticker will have to come up with another sticker or method. If we're really lucky, we'll end up with a different sticker for each city. Nascar-lookin EVs! :?
GregH said:
This bill still provides for towing, but the language is now goofy enough that it's only a matter of time til a gas car owner fights it in court, or someone sues a site for unlawful towing. And I'm sure they'll love the idea of people padlocking their private property.
Hmm...shall we start a pool on how long it'll take for site owners to decide charging is more trouble than it's worth?
