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

[walterbays]

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.

I'd like to echo the caution evchels expressed earlier that we not automatically assume that all BEV's need the plug while all PHEV's want the plug. In the vast majority of cases a BEV doesn't need the plug because we have plenty of range to get back home, or at least to get to another charging location. It's just that if we do need the plug and can't get it then the alternative is bad - towing to a Nissan dealer. (Still beats towing to a police impound lot thanks to AB475.)

True, PHEV's hardly ever need the plug, but due to their shorter range they much more often want the plug, really really badly. The plug is the whole reason for buying a Volt. With public charging availability they have a really neat EV 99% of the time, and an instant ICE swap 1% of the time. Without public charging availability they just paid an extra $20,000 for what is in effect a Chevy Cruze. And we all want them "burning" solar and wind more often than burning oil too. Moreover, because the Volt has a thermal management system for its battery, it behaves differently than our Leafs do. We are cautioned not to leave our cars parked for extended periods of time with full batteries, especially in hot weather. If you park a Volt with full battery in a hot parking lot, it will use battery power circulating the coolant keeping the battery cool. Whatever we think of that engineering design choice, a Volt driver would prefer to have his parked car plugged in if possible, so it would use grid power to cool the battery. If unplugged it will gradually use up the battery charge keeping itself cool, until it reaches something like 50% of capacity. At that time I suppose the capacity is plenty low that there is no risk to the battery from letting it get hot.

On the Volt forum, as GM fans were trying to tell me why AB475 was so great because it banished plug sharing and stickers, one Volt driver wrote that he would gladly give up his plug to a Leaf driver in need, since he had a gas tank to fall back on. Who needs a plug and who wants a plug? It can only be for the driver to say. Not me: no unplugging without permission. And not the government: no AB475. A lot of Volt drivers may surprise you and give that permission.

Also, as davewill notes, charger contention may only last as long as free charging lasts. My super-off-peak fueled driving costs 2.5 cents per mile or less. Most rates I've seen discussed for paid charging are around the same or higher than gas costs. One of the most modest charges I've seen is Pasadena City College, $1.25 per hour. That equates to $0.38/kWh or 9.5 cents per mile. A Volt driven in ICE mode at 37 MPG and $4.00/gallon equates to 10.8 cents per mile, or barely higher than the most modest public charging rates around. There would be little reason for a Volt driver to plug in if there were any fee for charging.

Bottom line: In most cases a Leaf wants a plug more than it needs one, and in many cases a Volt may have a stronger want for a plug than you might think. Let's not split into Leaf vs. Volt camps and go around unplugging one another. GM is acting as a strong opponent of all Leaf and Volt drivers by seeking to undermine the public charging infrastructure. If GM is successful, the effective range of our Leafs will be limited. All those Volt drivers will have paid double for just another ICE car. And the total market for EV's and PHEV's will be much less. Only GM may be happy though, because they will have a much larger share of that much smaller market. Leaf and Volt drivers need to speak out together in support of electric driving and against AB475.

 

[GregH]

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.

I think you missed my point.. The existing sticker law (or less desirable AB475) would most likely only be used to remove ICEs. I agree that site owners should have control over how the charge spots are used. I am NOT saying that the charge sites should only be used when someone NEEDS a charge, but at the same time I can envision a future where tons of PHEV Prii and a few Volts soaking up their free juice end up preventing a desperate BEV driver from getting a charge.. Of course another BEV looking to "top off" could also pose the same problem (assuming sharing is not physically possible for whatever reason)... Charging a small fee would separate those who need a charge from those who don't.. The price could easily be set to optimize usage.. High enough to keep those who truly don't need it from charging, but low enough to keep the site utilized. Right now it's not an issue but it's not hard to see where this is heading in another year or two.. Thankfully most of the infrastructure now being deployed can handle this future when it arrives.

Tonight I plugged in at Fashion Island alongside a Volt. Neither of us needed a charge and there was still room to wedge in a 3rd car in case of emergency (my cell # was visible on my dashboard as well). Would I (or the Volt driver) have plugged in if it cost $0.25? $0.50? $1.00? I don't know. I'm guessing in the not too distant future I'll need to make that choice.

 

[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.

I think you missed my point..

Nope, I agreed with it, then proceeded to make an observation about the latest of many changes in position and from GM over the last two weeks. Given that people like me have been encouraging others not to exclude PHEVs from chargers based on their perceived lack of need, I think it's cynically appropriate that GM would use need to justify their irrational position. But they've mostly gotten away with it.

Monetization is one way to get people to assess their need. I don't think it's a generally viable business plan anytime in the next several years, but it's certainly one of the mechanisms to tweak behavior. But being complacent about allowing overly restrictive laws like this to pass will only limit our ability to employ those mechanisms in the future. And not just in CA, now that GM is on the record encouraging other states to copy their language as "a good start".

And you may be right that the law would most likely be used to tow ICE cars. But I simply see no reason to trust "most likely" when there are other better ways to accomplish what

 

[mwalsh]

And at last the truth comes out....this is why Shad Balch, GM's Environment and Energy Communications Specialist, is so adamant in his support of AB475. Apparently, Mr. Balch is not happy simply being allowed to charge his Volt to full, he wants to stay plugged into an EVSE for the entire time his car is sitting at LAX (presumably even if he's gone on a 4+ week vacation), so that he can "precondition" his battery pack and interior cabin between landing and returning to the vehicle:

http://www.thefutureiselectric.com/2011/09/want-more-ev-miles-from-your-battery-precondition-your-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Respond to this arrogance as you wish. But here would be a good place to begin (where Mr. Balch is not the one reviewing and approving your comments):

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065314_065314-gm-riles-ca-electric-car-world-again-over-ab475-charger-sharing-ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[thankyouOB]

thanks, Mike.
Balch -= selfish douchebag

 

[evchels]

And at last the truth comes out....this is why Shad Balch, GM's Environment and Energy Communications Specialist, is so adamant in his support of AB475. Apparently, Mr. Balch is not happy simply being allowed to charge his Volt to full, he wants to stay plugged into an EVSE for the entire time his car is sitting at LAX (presumably even if he's gone on a 4+ week vacation), so that he can "precondition" his battery pack and interior cabin between landing and returning to the vehicle:

http://www.thefutureiselectric.com/2011/09/want-more-ev-miles-from-your-battery-precondition-your-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Respond to this arrogance as you wish. But here would be a good place to begin (where Mr. Balch is not the one reviewing and approving your comments):

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065314_065314-gm-riles-ca-electric-car-world-again-over-ab475-charger-sharing-ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What would be bizarre about that reasoning (not that any of their reasoning so far hasn't been) is that the latest spin is entirely around keeping the spots open for charging, rather than people parking there for longer than absolutely needed. Not that AB475 does that, but it doesn't do several of the other things they've claimed either. But even Betsy Butler's automated newsletter that arrived yesterday used the most recent framing- and since GM only started using it about 48 hours ago, they're clearly keeping in touch.

Not that LAX uses this law anyway, so far. Or that temperatures here ever get so extreme that preconditioning is truly necessary- certainly not enough to justify occupying a spot for that purpose.

 

[thankyouOB]

so was it vetoed or signed by Brown.

 

[mwalsh]

so was it vetoed or signed by Brown.

No movement on it as of yet, AFAIK. He has until October 9th, IIRC.

 

[evchels]

so was it vetoed or signed by Brown.

No movement on it as of yet, AFAIK. He has until October 9th, IIRC.

Correct. I have not heard of any action either on the existing version, nor whether the one we're proposing will be considered instead. So still worth pushing for a veto until the proverbial fat lady sings.

 

[walterbays]

Not that LAX uses this law anyway, so far. Or that temperatures here ever get so extreme that preconditioning is truly necessary- certainly not enough to justify occupying a spot for that purpose.

Of course Leaf drivers could want to hog a plug for an entire 3 week vacation as well, so that we could cool the car when the plane landed. Nothing special about the Volt there. (Myself, I just open all the windows for a few minutes.) It would be nice if long term parking had plenty of plugs so that everyone would have that choice, but for that purpose it would make a lot more sense to put in 100 L1 outlets than 10 L2 outlets. Oh, and if people had to pay for the electricity I suspect more people would decide that it's not too much trouble to roll down the windows after all.

For short term parking a Volt could really benefit from a plug, lest the battery thermal management run the battery down to 50% charge. Even then, if they were paying for the plug-in I doubt they would want to do it. Plugging in would protect at most 20 miles of range, or less than 1/2 gallon of gasoline - say less than $2. If a plug-in costs $1-3 per hour, and an unplugged Volt battery doesn't run down immediately, it's hard to find a case where paying to plug-in would make sense.

 

[Herm]

Not that LAX uses this law anyway, so far. Or that temperatures here ever get so extreme that preconditioning is truly necessary- certainly not enough to justify occupying a spot for that purpose.

Well, its not just for comfort.. it does prolong the life of the battery in a Volt, if its plugged in it maintains the battery temperature at optimum for long life. 75 deg F I believe.

 

[Yanquetino]

Well, its not just for comfort.. it does prolong the life of the battery in a Volt, if its plugged in it maintains the battery temperature at optimum for long life. 75 deg F I believe.

All to hog the EVSE from other EV owners who really do need a charge...? "Tough frijoles. I got here first. My battery will last longer. To Hades with others' needs." Oh... my. :?

 

[garygid]

Perhaps just charge $1 per hour for being plugged in, charging or not.

Then, there could be the technique of unplugging a car, making the EVSE think that the J1772 is STILL in the first car, and continue charging ... on a second car, with the first car's charge-card still paying the (perhaps expensive) bill.

 

[evchels]

Not that LAX uses this law anyway, so far. Or that temperatures here ever get so extreme that preconditioning is truly necessary- certainly not enough to justify occupying a spot for that purpose.

Well, its not just for comfort.. it does prolong the life of the battery in a Volt, if its plugged in it maintains the battery temperature at optimum for long life. 75 deg F I believe.

Agreed, but if you're leaving for so long to risk a battery life issue, leaving it at a public charger isn't the best solution to begin with. And batteries are not so sensitive to merit blocking public chargers for this purpose, especially in CA. It's also the usual double-speak that GM has relied upon to justify this bill to say that part of it's purpose (all of a sudden) is to keep spaces open for active charging, not just parking, but also for Shad to want to occupy a spot indefinitely so he can precondition when he gets back? At a site that is a mile from the ocean and never gets that hot or cold?

 

[scottf200]

Agreed, but if you're leaving for so long to risk a battery life issue, leaving it at a public charger isn't the best solution to begin with. And batteries are not so sensitive to merit blocking public chargers for this purpose, especially in CA. It's also the usual double-speak that GM has relied upon to justify this bill to say that part of it's purpose (all of a sudden) is to keep spaces open for active charging, not just parking, but also for Shad to want to occupy a spot indefinitely so he can precondition when he gets back? At a site that is a mile from the ocean and never gets that hot or cold?

Again it is not so he can precondition when he gets back but to manage the batteries temp and charge.

Indeed Volt owners are happy with the extent of effort GM put in their battery management (limit charging up and limit discharging) as well as thermal management. GM's recommendation is to leave the car plugged in all the time that is possible (one place it was recommended by GM - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20054356-48.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

CA sets precedences so we are not just talking about CA and about their temps year around but about FL, AZ, etc, etc.

Failure to take care of the EV batteries is going to be a huge blackeye IMO in several years. Many people lease EVs so they could care less about how they treat them (full charge, QC charges, etc, etc). Imagine folks that buy EVs that came off lease and a couple years later they are not getting close to the original owners or companies promises. Imagine the newspaper articles and subsequent public perception when batteries are going to start failing...even for those that bought. This will be a setback ... mark my words -- just an opinion. Peace out.

 

[Herm]

I still prefer my airport solution, one or two L3 chargers by the exit toll booths, supervised by the toll booth attendants and the driver MUST stay with the car while it charges. No free charges or parking to be fair to the common man.

 

[Herm]

"Tough frijoles. I got here first. My battery will last longer. To Hades with others' needs." Oh... my. :?

Its the same attitude that demands tax breaks and credits in today's tough economic times, while so many people are un-employed.

 

[evchels]

Agreed, but if you're leaving for so long to risk a battery life issue, leaving it at a public charger isn't the best solution to begin with. And batteries are not so sensitive to merit blocking public chargers for this purpose, especially in CA. It's also the usual double-speak that GM has relied upon to justify this bill to say that part of it's purpose (all of a sudden) is to keep spaces open for active charging, not just parking, but also for Shad to want to occupy a spot indefinitely so he can precondition when he gets back? At a site that is a mile from the ocean and never gets that hot or cold?

Again it is not so he can precondition when he gets back but to manage the batteries temp and charge.

Indeed Volt owners are happy with the extent of effort GM put in their battery management (limit charging up and limit discharging) as well as thermal management. GM's recommendation is to leave the car plugged in all the time that is possible (one place it was recommended by GM - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20054356-48.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

CA sets precedences so we are not just talking about CA and about their temps year around but about FL, AZ, etc, etc.

I understand the battery maintenance comment- but I still say that if you're leaving for so long that your batteries may be compromised, it would be more appropriate to leave the car plugged in at home and get to the airport another way, than to expect to occupy a charger for weeks just to take care of your batteries. Also, while I agree with general care of batteries and there are certain guidelines for that, I've yet to encounter an EV with batteries so vulnerable that it must be plugged in at every moment- and I don't believe the Volts' are (I certainly hope not, or we've got much bigger problems coming). Yes, the general advice is to keep the cars plugged in when possible, but the intent is not to imply that it should be done at the expense of keeping others from charging. Keep in mind that when GM created those guidelines, they weren't thinking Volt owners would really even want to use public charging- but it's useful to get people in the habit at home so the cars don't end up sitting for days or weeks (in the case of travel) without being plugged in.

Agreed CA sets precedents, and GM is encouraging this law be adopted elsewhere. But at the moment, it's a CA law, and one that was never meant to address any issue other than giving PHEVs access to chargers. All of these other factors brought up in the last two weeks are more recent spin to justify a situation that blew up on them when people realized they sold out the plug-in drivers for their own convenience. And this law does nothing to address any of those new positions anyway.

And the preconditioning comment was in direct response to GM's (Shad's) example of this law being useful to keep his car plugged in so he could precondition. When two days ago, he was arguing for anyone who did not absolutely need to charge (active charging, not preconditioning or battery maintenance) to park elsewhere.

 

[Yanquetino]

Its the same attitude that demands tax breaks and credits in today's tough economic times, while so many people are un-employed.

You mean... like the billions in subsidies bestowed upon the richest, most profitable companies in history: big oil?

 

[GregH]

And you may be right that the law would most likely be used to tow ICE cars. But I simply see no reason to trust "most likely" when there are other better ways to accomplish what

Agreed AB475 is deeply flawed and sub optimal, I'm not defending it. Shame on GM for doubling down on a bad idea and Kudos to you Chelsea for illuminating it. PIA's original instinct to modify the existing 2002 PEVDC sticker law would have been much better (obviously we didn't consider PHEVs back in 2002).

On a side issue though, I wonder... How many EV charge sites even want PHEVs sucking their electricity? I mean, how many agreed to sacrifice parking spots for chargers/EVSEs because they want to see more clean air EV driven miles, and how many did so because they thought they were enabling BEVs that might otherwise be more range limited? Many probably did so for both reasons, but as more PHEVs enter the mainstream, I wonder if some sites will become BEV only? Of course the easiest way to find out who really needs a charge, as I've said, is to charge a fee...