CA AB 475 Allow ticketing of vehicles not connected to chargers

[TEG]

By the way, SFO charging:
SFO - San Francisco International Airport - EV parking

 

[Norbert]

Hmm:

LAX Lot 1 (90045_2)


LAX - Parking

From the comments for LAX Lot 1:

Updated: 9/1/2011
justring3624360 reports: Got there at 6:05am and the place was packed. Leafs and Volts, Cables everywhere. I parked three spaces over and was able to get a J1772 plug but was ill-prepared with a lack of a ChargePoint card, so no juice for me. When I got back there were a few nasty notes on the windshields of other cars - seems the protocol for unattended charging/cars is still to be worked out amongst the community. Lucky I had enough juice to get home!

 

[vfx]

Someone pointed out that if this law passes, a broken EVSE means no-one can park in a EV spot.

 

[Norbert]

Someone pointed out that if this law passes, a broken EVSE means no-one can park in a EV spot.

My take: Under no circumstances should an EV get towed from such a parking spot (except maybe if it is abandoned). The law isn't acceptable for this single reason. The risk is too high it would be for wrong reasons, if there even are "right" ones.

Problems such as at LAX won't be solved by law or sharing protocols. Apparently LAX needs lots of 120V plugs and a number of EVSE at both long-term and short-term parking (maybe more EVSE at short-term, and more 120V plugs at long-term). Then people can leave the EV connected for proper battery maintenance and preconditioning on return. EVs don't have these features for nothing. The cost, compared to other costs at airports, will surely be quite small. That should be the official solution. Sharing protocols may come in when the official solution fails, so the law shouldn't exclude voluntary sharing. But to say that we need sharing to make it financially work is too humble, and will not work, in my humble opinion.

 

[Norbert]

In this context, someone at the MNL forum argued that for EV owners, public charging is privilege, not a right. I'm sure this was said with best intentions, however I find myself disagreeing completely. In my view, it is none of those.

It is a need, a necessity, not for the EV owner, but for us all, for the planet. Public charging is what we need to solve global problems, it has nothing to do with some person at LAX wanting to park there.

With only 10,000 plugin cars right now, what does it look like if the message to the public is that the solution is that we need to share chargers? To me, two things: horrible and wrong.

 

[vfx]

...
With only 10,000 plugin cars right now, what does it look like if the message to the public is that the solution is that we need to share chargers? To me, two things: horrible and wrong.

Agreed on all points. Though I would like the public to know that this law would prohibit us from sharing if we want to.

And that GM is evil.

 

[Norbert]

It has become strangely silent around this matter. PLugInAmerica posted an update on 9/1/2011 saying that they were asked to make a proposal:

AB475 Update | Plug In America

But since then no further update about what the proposal actually looks like, and how they remained with the governor's office.

 

[TEG]

Thanks for pointing that out, Norbert.

 

[Norbert]

Welcome. Just saw on MNL Chelsea is saying they got the wrong deadline info from the Gov. Office, he needs to veto today, and they want more calls/faxes/emails asking for Veto. No other information about what is happening.

 

[TEG]

Yeah, just saw that!

Hey all,

Just got word that we'd been given wrong info by Gov. Jerry Brown's office about the deadline to act on AB475- he must veto it by midnight tonight or it becomes law.

We're now to the point of needing phone calls or faxes to his office to urge a veto- email's not quick enough:

phone: 916-445-2841

fax: 916-558-3160

 

[vfx]

from Chelsea's Twit

• Phone shy? Can also email @JerryBrownGov to urge veto on AB475 til midnight!http://t.co/drvLRDK (Call/fax good til 5pm PT) ...
• Up for a fire drill? @JerryBrownGov will act on AB475 *today*. Call for a veto! phone: 916-445-2841 fax: 916-558-3160 ...

I just called.

 

[Norbert]

(That was posted a few hours ago, on MNL)

 

[bonnie]

I just called.

 

[Norbert]

from Chelsea's Twit

I guess that's an official news outlet now.

 

[Norbert]

By the way, where are Volt-enthusiasts discussing this, if they are?

 

[TEG]

By the way, where are Volt-enthusiasts discussing this, if they are?

In the beginning:
California DMV Form REG 1000 For Clean Air Vehicle Stickers

I don't believe the Volt is a zero emission vehicle. Does it qualify for this decal? ...it's absolutely an insane policy to say the Volt CAN be zero emission, but the state won't allow it to be zero emission and that it MUST burn gas. But I think that's the way the law is currently worded.

I have also applied for the CA sticker; I did so two weeks ago. All you need is a VIN number to do so. I specified the motive power as electric.

I just received a nice REJECTION for the "Zero Emission Vehicle Parking Decal Application". The cover letter states that "the motive of power (MOP) for the above vehicle is gas...
...Does anyone have suggestions on appealing/changing the regulation?

This is no shock. I think the best course of action is to write to our state senators and reps and to get several of the ev blogs to write articles about this to raise awareness...

I would think the mostly likely productive course would be for GM's lobbyists to put pressure on Sacramento. Ground swell can have positive effects, but there really aren't that many of us here. Like it or not, it's lobbying dollars that get law maker's attention.

Then this:
CA public charging and section 22511

...the bill should fix the charging station parking problem. It adds Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) as eligible for the EV sticker...

It appears that they are now proposing to do away with the decal and to change the language from "engaged in the process of charging" to "connected for electric charging purposes". Seems like goodness for Volt owners...

Somewhat recent:
Public EVSE Charging Stations, Retrofitting, and Who is Responsible?

...I have a Volt, so I don't need the charging infrastructure...

...Right now we have a kludgy, stupid, inefficient, and wasteful sticker process that is the poster child for useless government programs. The bill you think "would kill EV charge stations" gets rid of this and replaces it with a simple, universal, and easily administered system that says if you are plugged in then you're OK...

...Stickers are a PITA. Get rid of them. One charger per EV spot and we have one less useless government program and all is fixed.
Here is why you need one charger per spot and why sharing chargers isn't desirable. First, for security purposes, if you unplug the Volt it sets off the security alarm...

Most recent:
Bill Requires Drivers to Plug in at Charging Station Spaces

...Public charging stations are not ready for prime time IMHO. EREV is clearly the answer for the foreseeable future.

Leaf owners tend to view charging as a required need, Volt owners as an "optional nice to have..."

 

[Doug_G]

Leaf owners tend to view charging as a required need, Volt owners as an "optional nice to have..."

Why am I not surprised? GM is getting all tied up in knots over something their own customers don't give a damn about, to the disadvantage of eveyone else. Fools.

 

[Norbert]

Most recent:
Bill Requires Drivers to Plug in at Charging Station Spaces

The practical problem is that the Volt will sound an alarm if it's unplugged. If this weren't a problem you could put a sign in the window saying after Hour X it would be OK to unplug. Then of course you're advertising you're not going to be around. And of course no one may pay any attention. It's something of a crapshoot.

???

Can they not turn that off? Or would they?

EDIT: Apparently there are magic methods to disable the alarm...

 

[TEG]

It seems like the Volt is attracting some gas car buyers who aren't really knowledgeable about EVs so they end up not meshing well with the "true ZEV" crowd. Something like "We bought this gas car with a plug that GM says is an EV, so we should be able to get all the EV perks. Now I find out that there are different kind of EVs that do weird stuff like plug sharing, and don't even have any range extender, so what am I supposed to do? We better get the laws fixed..." It seems this whole ball really started rolling when CA Volt customers found the DMV telling them that their "motive power" is not electric. Back to the old "Fish or Fowl?" "Floor Wax or Desert Topping?" It ends up in a gray area where people keep debating if it is an EV or a gas car.

Reading through all the threads I mentioned to get the AB 475 quotes, I noticed a lot of California, CARB and PIA 'bashing'.
Attitude like "CARB and PIA aren't supportive enough of us Volt owners even thought we have the true all-American EV, not some weird foreign thing made only for California to satisfy CARB."

 

[bonnie]

Wow. My 2010 Prius can go a few miles on the battery. It even has an "EV" button to select that. It never occurred to me that it was an EV. What is the thinking of the Volt owners?