An Argument That We Need To Kill

[TRONZ]

The more the merrier is right Dave.

Actually no. All one has to do is look no further than Yellow Stickers getting kicked out of carpool lane for proof that too much of a good thing is bad. Too many "merry" hybrids got them all kicked out of HOV lanes in CA. The state does in fact pick winners and looses when major state programs become at risk. I agree that adoption of plug-in vehicles is great, but if demand for a very limited supply of public chargers becomes a crisis for BEV, don't think for a second CA won't start establishing kWh capacity requirements for public charging.

Edit- if I were Toyota, I would be falling all over myself to help get infrastructure installed. If they take the "GM-we don't need infrastructure" approach, it will bring things to a crisis situation that much sooner. And if forced to pick winners and losers (green sticker vs white sticker), only a fool would imagine CA will kick White Stickers out of public chargers.

 

[davewill]

Actually no. All one has to do is look no further than Yellow Stickers getting kicked out of carpool lane for proof that too much of a good thing is bad. Too many "merry" hybrids got them all kicked out of HOV lanes in CA. ...

Depends on your definition of bad. If "bad" = not good for me personally, then maybe you're right. But from a public viewpoint it was a good thing. The purpose of the Yellow stickers was to help create a market for hybrids. The plethora of Priuses on CA freeways show that the goal was achieved, so the stickers were rightfully retired. I would like nothing better than to see the day that there are so many BEVs in on the road, that the white stickers aren't needed either.

 

[TRONZ]

I would like nothing better than to see the day that there are so many BEVs in on the road, that the white stickers aren't needed either.

Yes, I agree! The funny thing is that people are confusing their personal "beliefs" about access to public charging instead of looking at existing CA state policies. Now not everyone lives in CA, but the state has already ranked cars and their preferences for them with different financial incentives. ZEV is most favored by the state of CA. This is not a "belief", ZEV preference is already a fact!

Now I get the "water rights" argument that PHEV owners are making about public charging. First in time has first in rights. You get their first and you get to drink first. But this argument would also assume that an equel number of BEV's are jousting with an equel number of PHEV's for charging spots. It also assumes that state does not have a preference between ZEV and PZEV which they clearly do. This is the OP's prime concern and a very worthy topic.

PHEV still burns gas and should be outselling BEV 20 to 1. You don't have to be a math wiz to know that at 20 to 1 the BEV is unlikely to get a charge when all things are equel. Combine this with the CA states strong preference for ZEV and PHEV may get further marginalized with even less incentives and access to infrastructure in the future.

If PHEV manufacturers and (some notable anti EV) PHEV owners develop support for infrastructure they "don't need" then they may not have to live without it in the future. In many ways the ball is in their court.

 

[DANandNAN]

Now you're comparing carpool lane stickers to EVSE stations?

Yes, the yellow stickers were given out to encourage Hybrids, and yes the carpool lanes were clogged. But, you seem to think California let the stickers expire (not "kicked hybrids out") to keep from loosing federal funding. Reducing the number of cars that were able to access the HOV lanes was a great way of keeping said funding.

California let the Hybrid stickers expire to keep funds, but that doesn't mean they did so because they favor BEV over all others. If the legislature did, then why are the Volt & PiP getting carpool stickers? If they truly wanted to highlight and show preference to BEV and punish the PiP & Volt, then why did they allow them in?

BTW, how are they going to make all those FEDERALLY FUNDED stations have special requirements only allowing access to BEV?

Don't let fear of being turtled turn your BEV into a RLEV (range limited EV). Just realize there are tons of new chargers that are going in, and eventually everything will be alright. In the meantime, plan ahead, just like the rest of us do. There's a reason so many BEV owners still own/rent/borrow ICE vehicles. Personally, we bought an EREV because the infrastructure isn't here yet - doesn't sound like it's there either or you wouldn't be so worried.

 

[coolfilmaker]

Now you're comparing carpool lane stickers to EVSE stations?

Yes, the yellow stickers were given out to encourage Hybrids, and yes the carpool lanes were clogged. But, you seem to think California let the stickers expire (not "kicked hybrids out") to keep from loosing federal funding. Reducing the number of cars that were able to access the HOV lanes was a great way of keeping said funding.

California let the Hybrid stickers expire to keep funds, but that doesn't mean they did so because they favor BEV over all others. If the legislature did, then why are the Volt & PiP getting carpool stickers? If they truly wanted to highlight and show preference to BEV and punish the PiP & Volt, then why did they allow them in?

BTW, how are they going to make all those FEDERALLY FUNDED stations have special requirements only allowing access to BEV?

Don't let fear of being turtled turn your BEV into a RLEV (range limited EV). Just realize there are tons of new chargers that are going in, and eventually everything will be alright. In the meantime, plan ahead, just like the rest of us do. There's a reason so many BEV owners still own/rent/borrow ICE vehicles. Personally, we bought an EREV because the infrastructure isn't here yet - doesn't sound like it's there either or you wouldn't be so worried.

1. They don't get any funds from the sticker program

2. They're only making 40,000 green PHEV stickers vs. 85,000 yellow HEV stickers that were made.

 

[DANandNAN]

1. They don't get any funds from the sticker program

2. They're only making 40,000 green PHEV stickers vs. 85,000 yellow HEV stickers that were made.

I'm not sure what you're point is. I didn't claim they were given money because of the stickers, I wrote that they were going to have funding pulled because of the overcrowded HOV lanes.

You're 2nd point goes back to my point. There are less available stickers for qualifying single occupant vehicles to avoid the same situation.

 

[coolfilmaker]

1. They don't get any funds from the sticker program

2. They're only making 40,000 green PHEV stickers vs. 85,000 yellow HEV stickers that were made.

I'm not sure what you're point is. I didn't claim they were given money because of the stickers, I wrote that they were going to have funding pulled because of the overcrowded HOV lanes.

You're 2nd point goes back to my point. There are less available stickers for qualifying single occupant vehicles to avoid the same situation.

I don't know what this money you're talking about is but what I don't think you realize is that there is no limit to the number of white EV stickers. There could literally be 1,000,000 issued in the next two and a half years.

 

[DANandNAN]

I don't know what this money you're talking about is but what I don't think you realize is that there is no limit to the number of white EV stickers. There could literally be 1,000,000 issued in the next two and a half years.

You know that there's federal funding for highways. That was threatened to be pulled because of the HOV lane congestion - not just in California BTW. For that same reason there will be a limit on the number of single occupant stickers issued for any vehicle. Other states are only issuing exemptions for certain highways to combat the overcrowding.

Everyone be happy, the infrastructure will grow and we'll all be happy. Going back to what I posted earlier, I'd really like to see Chevy, Nissan, Ford and the rest to team up (or do it individually) and go to restaurants, malls, zoos, museums, city centers and so on and install chargers. Don't wait on the government to do it, just pair up with an EVSE manufacturer and get on it! It's good advertising, a green initiative and will build the infrastructure.

 

[SanDust]

I don't know what this money you're talking about is but what I don't think you realize is that there is no limit to the number of white EV stickers. There could literally be 1,000,000 issued in the next two and a half years.

Theoretically this is true, though most unlikely in practice, but it doesn't address his point, which is that rules for issuing stickers for HOV lanes aren't relevant for charging stations. This seems obvious. At the most basic level, CARB has the statutory authority to issue HOV stickers but lacks any authority to issue permits for or to regulate EVSE charging.

 

[TRONZ]

CARB has the statutory authority to issue HOV stickers but lacks any authority to issue permits for or to regulate EVSE charging.

Because PHEV has not made it a problem... yet!

 

[Pipcecil]

you have the stickers mostly half right. As part of California's plan to meat non-attainment for ozone, the HOV lanes are used as leverage to help meat the NAAQs standards by the specificed date EPA has given. With an HOV lane being underutilized for cars, allowing single occupancy vehicles into the lanes allowed capacity taken from the main lanes to the HOV lane (remember idle vehicles and accerating vehicles produce the most pollution). To not violate their air comformity, and, maybe use leverage of "green vehicles" to help meet attainment (I have not seen california's conformity documents) the incenitive for green vehicles helped artifically induce growth in a better fleet mix of vehicles in favor of better air polution while being able to use an underutilized portion of the highway. Some air quality and traffic dude probably did some air modeling calculations to figure out the max amount of vehicles that the HOV lane could take without it becoming congested while creating the best benefit for air quality. Now with BEVs and PHEVs available, clearing up the HOV lane for more of these better green cars helps with air conformity.

And to come full circle - if you don't meet attainment by the date set by EPA, your federal highway trust fund money is revoked - so california has a large vested interest to get that right.

As for the main issue discused: public chargers - PHEV vs BEV its a hard issue with current limited infrastructure. And while we all play nice now with cards, there is going to be some a-hole who won't and keep their PiP plugged in for 9 hours straight on the only EVSE there. And saying NOT to rely on public charging on e BEV defeats some of the purpose with that. The arguement always favors PHEV unfortuately:

BEV - public charge as an opportunity (because its there) if free, or will pay in an emergency (too costly to pay if you don't need the charge)
PHEV - public charging is always cheaper (either free or paid) than gas, never need as an emergency.

So when a BEV needs it, PHEVs are using chargers to save money (or environment if you want to look at it from a non-selfish point). There is no reason ever for a PHEV to skip a charger, but their need will never be as great as a BEV that absolutely needs it to get home. How do you balance that?

Honestly I wish there was an "interface" on the public charging (or via mobile app!). Instead of leaving cards or numbers, because X person is registered through that system (like blink) you can use the app or screen interface to email/text (however signed up they are) and send a message to person charging asked if they could move. This way it could hide contact information, but you could still contact said person. While it won't solve all issues, its a step in the right direct I think.

Honestly, I think the greater issue isn't a PiP taking 9 hours in a slot, but chargers being ICEd which is more common than them being taken by plug-ins, at least, here in Dallas.

 

[SanDust]

Because PHEV has not made it a problem... yet!

I was under the impression market clearing pricing would prevent a problem. If you want free charging then you'll need to get in line with everyone else. Beggars can't be choosy.

 

[DANandNAN]

As for the main issue discused: public chargers - PHEV vs BEV its a hard issue with current limited infrastructure. And while we all play nice now with cards, there is going to be some a-hole who won't and keep their PiP plugged in for 9 hours straight on the only EVSE there. And saying NOT to rely on public charging on e BEV defeats some of the purpose with that. The arguement always favors PHEV unfortuately:

BEV - public charge as an opportunity (because its there) if free, or will pay in an emergency (too costly to pay if you don't need the charge)
PHEV - public charging is always cheaper (either free or paid) than gas, never need as an emergency.

So when a BEV needs it, PHEVs are using chargers to save money (or environment if you want to look at it from a non-selfish point). There is no reason ever for a PHEV to skip a charger, but their need will never be as great as a BEV that absolutely needs it to get home. How do you balance that?

Honestly I wish there was an "interface" on the public charging (or via mobile app!). Instead of leaving cards or numbers, because X person is registered through that system (like blink) you can use the app or screen interface to email/text (however signed up they are) and send a message to person charging asked if they could move. This way it could hide contact information, but you could still contact said person. While it won't solve all issues, its a step in the right direct I think.

Honestly, I think the greater issue isn't a PiP taking 9 hours in a slot, but chargers being ICEd which is more common than them being taken by plug-ins, at least, here in Dallas.

Getting back on topic would be great.

The bottom line is for now there are a limited number of chargers available - but there is no need to act like a petulant child running around saying "the stations are MINE you can only use them if I don't want to!" (I'm not speaking to you Pipecil) I'm sorry, but that's not going to be how things work out. At least not with the Fed subsidized stations. The stations are there for all cars that can use them. They are first come, first served and then get out.

How do I balance a BEV owners desire (not need) to charge their BEV over my desire to remain EV? Pretty simply. I don't want to burn gas anymore than anyone else here, but I planned ahead. The infrastructure isn't there - yet. I bought a car that has a backup generator, but that doesn't mean I should be forced to buy gasoline - does it? Will there be discounted gas for Volt's paid for because BEV need to charge? And I know I'm not alone here when it comes to having a back-up as most BEV owners own/rent/lease or borrow an ICE when they "need" it.

Folks shouldn't dream up punishments for people who bought vehicles equipped with a back-up plan. They should just develop their own back-up plan (besides Nissan towing) and work on the developing the infrastructure. So far I've made about 50 phone calls and emails - and I've had no successes. But, at least I'm trying instead of whining and calling for entitlements (again, Pipecil I'm not speaking to you).

 

[coolfilmaker]

As for the main issue discused: public chargers - PHEV vs BEV its a hard issue with current limited infrastructure. And while we all play nice now with cards, there is going to be some a-hole who won't and keep their PiP plugged in for 9 hours straight on the only EVSE there. And saying NOT to rely on public charging on e BEV defeats some of the purpose with that. The arguement always favors PHEV unfortuately:

BEV - public charge as an opportunity (because its there) if free, or will pay in an emergency (too costly to pay if you don't need the charge)
PHEV - public charging is always cheaper (either free or paid) than gas, never need as an emergency.

So when a BEV needs it, PHEVs are using chargers to save money (or environment if you want to look at it from a non-selfish point). There is no reason ever for a PHEV to skip a charger, but their need will never be as great as a BEV that absolutely needs it to get home. How do you balance that?

Honestly I wish there was an "interface" on the public charging (or via mobile app!). Instead of leaving cards or numbers, because X person is registered through that system (like blink) you can use the app or screen interface to email/text (however signed up they are) and send a message to person charging asked if they could move. This way it could hide contact information, but you could still contact said person. While it won't solve all issues, its a step in the right direct I think.

Honestly, I think the greater issue isn't a PiP taking 9 hours in a slot, but chargers being ICEd which is more common than them being taken by plug-ins, at least, here in Dallas.

Getting back on topic would be great.

The bottom line is for now there are a limited number of chargers available - but there is no need to act like a petulant child running around saying "the stations are MINE you can only use them if I don't want to!" (I'm not speaking to you Pipecil) I'm sorry, but that's not going to be how things work out. At least not with the Fed subsidized stations. The stations are there for all cars that can use them. They are first come, first served and then get out.

How do I balance a BEV owners desire (not need) to charge their BEV over my desire to remain EV? Pretty simply. I don't want to burn gas anymore than anyone else here, but I planned ahead. The infrastructure isn't there - yet. I bought a car that has a backup generator, but that doesn't mean I should be forced to buy gasoline - does it? Will there be discounted gas for Volt's paid for because BEV need to charge? And I know I'm not alone here when it comes to having a back-up as most BEV owners own/rent/lease or borrow an ICE when they "need" it.

Folks shouldn't dream up punishments for people who bought vehicles equipped with a back-up plan. They should just develop their own back-up plan (besides Nissan towing) and work on the developing the infrastructure. So far I've made about 50 phone calls and emails - and I've had no successes. But, at least I'm trying instead of whining and calling for entitlements (again, Pipecil I'm not speaking to you).

You probably shouldn't get a leaf if that's how you feel.

 

[lspooz]

"You probably shouldn't get a leaf if that's how you feel
"
You STILL don't get the point!
We ALL need a backup plan; for now it should include using + giving out the Courtesy Charging Protocol [see earlier link] and more advocacy/less whining - get out to some of the regional NC meetings, start sending letters/emails and making phone calls.

"Folks shouldn't dream up punishments for people who bought vehicles equipped with a back-up plan. They should just develop their own back-up plan (besides Nissan towing) and work on the developing the infrastructure. So far I've made.... "
Well said!

Signed,
Cayenne red LEAF activist

 

[Rebound]

The thing that will expand the charging infrastructure is increased sales of plug-in vehicles. All of the attempts at public charging pre-2011 have failed, and the J1772 deployments will fail unless more plug-in cars are on the road.

Whether EV or PHEV, there will always be capacity issues with public charging. And there will always be jerks. Forever and ever. However, since there's no-one here with the opinion that public charging should only be used to charge your car with the amount necessary to get you to your next charger (or home), then I see no justification for the notion that PHEV charging is less needs-based than EV charging. What I do respect is that EV drivers can experience significant anxiety over running out of juice, and I do what I can to alleviate that. But I'm still entitled to use a public charger with my PHEV.

In fact, the PHEV's offer a huge advantage to EV's, which is this: If public chargers aren't sufficiently utilized, deployments will cease and they'll be shut down, which is what Costco did. Leaf owners don't just need more plug-ins on the road, they need them to use the public chargers.

 

[coolfilmaker]

In fact, the PHEV's offer a huge advantage to EV's, which is this: If public chargers aren't sufficiently utilized, deployments will cease and they'll be shut down, which is what Costco did. Leaf owners don't just need more plug-ins on the road, they need them to use the public chargers.

That's not true. Costco announced that they would upgrading all of the chargers to J1772 months before they announced hat they would be removing them. They're just removing them because Costco was taken over by some douchebag who wants people to buy more Costco gas.

 

[TomT]

Now you are simply making yourself look and sound like an ass if you truly believe that! Sheez!

Hey, I hear there is a Walmart just down the street... Maybe they are a better option for you! :lol:

That's not true. Costco announced that they would upgrading all of the chargers to J1772 months before they announced hat they would be removing them. They're just removing them because Costco was taken over by some douchebag who wants people to buy more Costco gas.

 

[TRONZ]

So far I've made about 50 phone calls and emails - and I've had no successes.

Sucks being pimped by the company you just gave $40K to, huh? Little hint but GM is rowing in the opposite direction as you.

 

[coolfilmaker]

Well I guess I was partially wrong. People just assumed Costco was not run by idiots and just assumed they were going to be upgrading the chargers. http://greentechnolog.com/2010/09/post_112.html

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else someone giving the same reasoning as I repeated. They did get a new CEO in 2011.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-ceo-expected-to-continue-the-costco-way-2011-09-01