CA AB 475 Allow ticketing of vehicles not connected to chargers

[SByer]

Uh oh:
Car and Driver Blog Public Charging in the EV Future: Why Proposed California Law AB 475 Needs to Be Enacted

I didn't get past the first sentence before thinking 'yup, that's why I stopped subscribing'. Gack, morons.

 

[TEG]

AB475: GM evchels

 

[Norbert]

AB475: GM evchels

While I find myself agreeing, in general, it seems there are two points the text and the comments are not addressing (yet):

- The law as proposed appears to intentionally make the point that the parking spot is reserved for charging, rather than for EVs. Just an EV decal wouldn't address this (even if it is a better solution overall), it wouldn't rule out that EVs might take advantage of the reserved parking without actually needing a charge. I think that point would deserve at least discussion (which might have happened elsewhere).

- not sure if this is a valid point in practice, but especially at airports, one might want the EV to remain connected to keep the battery from depleting over time, resulting in less than a full charge on return, and in order to allow pre-heating or pre-cooling the car on return, using the grid instead of the battery. While this could be addressed by not posting a permission to disconnect, these might be additional reasons to not share, aside from a discomfort with strangers operating one's charging port. This might lead to a thinking that emphasizes support for more chargers instead of sharing, but we seem to be far from having that many chargers (especially at LAX).

 

[Nik]

While I find myself agreeing, in general, it seems there are two points the text and the comments are not addressing (yet):

- The law as proposed appears to intentionally make the point that the parking spot is reserved for charging, rather than for EVs. Just an EV decal wouldn't address this (even if it is a better solution overall), it wouldn't rule out that EVs might take advantage of the reserved parking without actually needing a charge. I think that point would deserve at least discussion (which might have happened elsewhere).

Reserved parking for EVs and Reserved for parking whilst charging are pretty much indistinguishable, for any vehicle that can set it's own charge rate. If you're EV doesn't 'need' a charge, simply hook it up and dial the max charge rate down to the minimum the vehicle will accept. Result is that the car is always 'charging'.

It's pretty tough to state that EVs must be disconnected once charged, since this limits what the driver can do at the location whilst parked. Do I have to leave my restaurant to move the car? Pop out in the middle of a film? A job interview?

 

[TEG]

Not all EVs can adjust their charge rate.

Not all EVs are compatible with a particular plug at a given charging spot.
We ought to do something that discourages, for instance, a Roadster without a J1772 adapter from parking all day at a J1772 station. Or a Leaf from parking all day in front of a Tesla EVSE.
Or a Volt in front of a CHAdeMO L3. I am for a regulation that says charge spots are reserved for compatible vehicles that can actually plug into the EVSE/or charger there. Working out what should happen when they are done charging is a little trickier.

 

[bonnie]

We've already established a best practice for what to do when your car is done charging & someone else might want it - most of us leave a courtesy note. (I just finished up printing some new notes for my upcoming roadtrip saying basically, 'Happy to share the plug - call me if you need it before I return - [phone number]).

I don't see a problem with requiring EV drivers to leave contact information or time of return with their potentially non-charging car. Either move it when done charging OR leave a way to be contacted so another EV can use the plug as needed. If there are privacy concerns, set up a Skype account and forward to your phone. Or an email address just for this purpose.

 

[Norbert]

Reserved parking for EVs and Reserved for parking whilst charging are pretty much indistinguishable, for any vehicle that can set it's own charge rate. If you're EV doesn't 'need' a charge, simply hook it up and dial the max charge rate down to the minimum the vehicle will accept. Result is that the car is always 'charging'.

It's pretty tough to state that EVs must be disconnected once charged, since this limits what the driver can do at the location whilst parked. Do I have to leave my restaurant to move the car? Pop out in the middle of a film? A job interview?

Well, the current law doesn't require 'charging', it requires 'connectedness', expressing that you should go there only if you want to charge, but not implying that you have to leave when you are done. That, I think, is a good intention (especially in that it states that you should use the space only if you actually want to charge, not just because you can, with an EV), except there is a problem in proving it afterwards.

And a problem may be: lots of people may not be comfortable with others operating their charging port, but they may still want to use the EV space for charging, and still keep parking there without having to return as soon as they are done. So when others want to share plugs (as long as there aren't enough for everyone), those two camps will battle each other with peer pressure etc for what is the "better" way. The "old" EV community has developed this sharing protocol on the basis that they are friends, and the number of chargers limited, but will it scale to the larger population?

 

[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.

 

[Norbert]

I think the risk of an EV/PHEV getting towed for the wrong reasons is far too big, and locking etc is difficult. The sticker should solve this problem, by saying: a plugin car needs to have a sticker to park there, and if it has a sticker, it will never get towed. Nevertheless drivers are asked (or obligated without enforcement) to park there only if they want to charge their cellphone.

 

[markwj]

I think the risk of an EV/PHEV getting towed for the wrong reasons is far too big, and locking etc is difficult. The sticker should solve this problem, by saying: a plugin car needs to have a sticker to park there, and if it has a sticker, it will never get towed. Nevertheless drivers are asked (or obligated without enforcement) to park there only if they want to charge their cellphone.

Or they just ignore it and randomly enforce on complaint (which is what happens in similar cases here).

Sticker would be fine for me (if I lived in the USA). It seems to work reasonably well for reserved handicapped parking.

 

[markwj]

Sticker would be fine for me (if I lived in the USA).

P.S. in Hong Kong our vehicle license has engine info on it. This has to be renewed yearly and is affixed to the windscreen. It shows engine details. It will be interesting to see what it shows when the plugin hybrids (like Prius plugin and volt) arrive.

 

[W.Petefish]

A bit of good news, I talked with Mark at SMU's Park N' Pony (parking enforcement), he and I agree that plug sharing is the best option. Thusly SMU's policy regarding EV charging will be a policy of plug sharing.

I agree that this AB475 is an extremely stupid piece of legislation because of the fact that Chevy Volts don't need to plug in.

 

[vfx]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ar-world-again-over-ab475-charger-sharing-ban

 

[Norbert]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ar-world-again-over-ab475-charger-sharing-ban

LA's Airport (LAX) seems to come up in these discussions like no other airport. What's happening there? Are all of LA's EV owners flying around like crazy? Or is it short term parking, or for people who work there? Shouldn't be that expensive to add lots of 120V plugs, and a few EVSE as well...

 

[vfx]

The story is back in the EV1 days a pilot got the chargers and plugs installed there. They are for use of travelers and have been used by RAV4 owners and the odd Avcon car for the last few years with confidence that they would always have a place. With the J connectors in, there are Volts and Leafs a plenty. EVs get free parking whether they charge or not and yes general consensus seems to be that there should be 100 110V 12A plugs and fewer 220 30A.

 

[kgb]

A law that allows ticketing of non-charging cars in an EV spot can avoid the whole debate of whether to ticket non-charging EV's simply by requiring ALL parking spaces to have chargers. Then it wouldn't matter... but I guess until we live in that "perfect world," we have to deal with this temporary fix.

 

[TEG]

Mostly yes, but there are different options for charging. At a minimum we want to see cars parked in front of charging stations they can use. And hopefully use optimally. For instance, hopefully the parking spot with a high speed / quick charge ("L3") will have a vehicle parked there that can make full use of it, and they will leave quickly once refilled.

Also, lets say LAX had 120V to every spot, and then a few ChargePoints as well. It would be preferable if those staying for a long time using on 120V would be parked in a dedicated 120V spot, and not use the 120V port on the ChargePoint thus denying someone use of the 240V J1772.

At least with airports, they tend to have long term and short term parking lots. If the long term were filled with 120V, and the short term with J1772 that would probably be a good compromise. And then the L3s may be at some "filling station" location not a parking lot since you are meant to just use it quickly then leave.


The previous generation of EVs (e.g.: RAV4EV, RangerEV) were generally only ever charging on 240V, so 120V outlets weren't helpful to them.
So even if you parked your RAV4EV at long term airport parking they still needed to run 240V@30A.

Now with Volt/Leaf and even Tesla Roadster a standard 120V outlet can work for long term airport parking.

 

[vfx]

Long-term lots are physically father away from the terminals, right?

 

[Norbert]

And then the L3s may be at some "filling station" location not a parking lot since you are meant to just use it quickly then leave.

Depends on how many DC fast chargers there are, in relation to use. I think the current picture that chargers (of all kinds) are scarce and users are many, could change soon, certainly within a few years. The price for fast chargers is coming down, Nissan talks about $11k - $12k for a 50kW charger hardware, Tesla about $25k for an installation. Prices for Level 2 chargers will also come down, and my personal guess is that the installation prices will as well, at least as soon as competition will demand it.

We don't know yet how much further they can be reduced, but even if they stay at those prices currently known to be possible, and if you compare infrastructure cost to the budgets for projects of comparable magnitude (and importance), then we should be able to afford a large number of them, at least as soon as it becomes clear that EVs will go mainstream.

Many EV advocates seem to still think about this as a niche market with small numbers and humble expenses. That's not how it will scale to becoming a mainstream "product". However, one question is, at which point will it become clear that we will have a huge number of EVs. To me, it is already clear. . Well, we already have about 10,000, if not more, including Volts, and the numbers of public chargers seem to be lagging behind. From a political point of view, the infrastructure should be at least slightly ahead, in order to be part of a solution (instead of part of a problem).

 

[Norbert]

Long-term lots are physically father away from the terminals, right?

Certainly at SFO this is the case.