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

[ericsf]

I am considering writing a letter to the DMV asking for the refund of the sticker fee. I have very little hope to get any money but I just want to make a point. Has anyone done that already?

 

[thankyouOB]

I am considering writing a letter to the DMV asking for the refund of the sticker fee. I have very little hope to get any money but I just want to make a point. Has anyone done that already?

that is pretty much a sorry idea.
come on. the state needs the money. the sticker is keen to have on the car and you save more than its cost in one week by NOT buying gas.

 

[mwalsh]

this was the work of Betsy Butler in the Assembly.
a dimocrat.

Not so much. This is the work of a politician serving the needs of a corporation over the needs of the people, and is prime example of the farce that displays itself as democracy in today's America.

 

[thankyouOB]

this was the work of Betsy Butler in the Assembly.
a dimocrat.

Not so much. This is the work of a politician serving the needs of a corporation over the needs of the people, and is prime example of the farce that displays itself as democracy in today's America.

what you wrote seems to agree with me.
BB is the politician serving the needs of GM.

 

[mwalsh]

what you wrote seems to agree with me.

Yours appeared to be more a slam of the Democratic Party. Am I wrong?

 

[smkettner]

this was the work of Betsy Butler in the Assembly.
a dimocrat.

Not so much. This is the work of a politician serving the needs of a corporation over the needs of the people, and is prime example of the farce that displays itself as democracy in today's America.

I am one of those people and I agree with the law as written.

Not sure how the law serves the corp over the people.

 

[Yanquetino]

Not sure how the law serves the corp over the people.

The law mandates that, unless a vehicle is "connected," it is subject to tow. This means that there must be one EVSE per reserved space, rather than allowing voluntary charge sharing among two to four reserved spaces (as has been possible in the past). Ergo, this doubles or even quadruples the hardware costs.

That increased cost will obviously slow down, complicate, and make more expensive the development of a public charging infrastructure. Of course, a serial hybrid like a Chevy Volt does not need that infrastructure, thanks to its backup gasoline generator. A pure electric vehicle like a Leaf, however, must rely exclusively on EVSEs to drive a comparable number of miles.

GM has therefore stacked the deck: with a delayed and more expensive infastructure, the Volt now looks better, and the Leaf worse, to consumers considering the purchase of an EV. Of course, they pushed the legislation through without any collaboration with Nissan, Mitsubishi, Coda, Ford, or any other EV manufacturer.

There are, of course, other problems with the law. For example, because of its poor language, it actually allows even ICEs to occupy a charging space, as long as they are "connected." You might want to review Chelsea Sexton's first and second posts about the law.

 

[ericsf]

There are, of course, other problems with the law. For example, because of its poor language, it actually allows even ICEs to occupy a charging space, as long as they are "connected." You might want to review Chelsea Sexton's first and second posts about the law.

Well, the law says 2 things. The vehicle needs to be physically connected for charging purposes. In the letter from the DMV the second point was specifically mentionned in a separate bullet point from the "physically connected" one.

Therefore I do think that despite its poor wording, an ICE with a fake J1772 plug would violate AB475. The owner of such car would have to build some kind of contraption which does indeed suck power from the charging station and recharges its battery. That would be quite a lot of trouble and cost. A fake handicapped placard is probably cheaper and much more useful.

 

[garygid]

Easy way around the law is just install one EVSE for 2 or 4 spaces and post signage that the spaces are for "EV/PHEV Only, for Charge-Sharing", maybe marking some spaces for "BEV Only".

Owners are not REQUIRED to have any AB475 spaces.

 

[smkettner]

There are probably other spots but LAX and maybe LA convetion center is the only place seriously lacking for number of J plug spots.
All other places that have spots seem to always have one available when I drive up.

Cord sharing at LAX will not solve the issue when there are 75 EVs and 2 spots.

The real issue is to have lower power and lower cost charge stations at large venues. Suppliers and hosts have not figured this out yet.

I don't think the law helps or hurts EVs vs plug in hybrids. JMHO.

 

[garygid]

Prior to AB475 (and this Sunday when it becomes effective), spaces marked as requiring the state "EV" sticker could not be used by PHEVs.

 

[walterbays]

Prior to AB475 (and this Sunday when it becomes effective), spaces marked as requiring the state "EV" sticker could not be used by PHEVs.

Plug in America's bill would have solved that simply by making ALL plug ins eligible. By crippling the charging infrastructure GM made Volt somewhat more attractive versus Leaf, but also made Volt much less attractive versus plug in Prius.Volt without a plug is an overpriced Cruze, whereas Leaf without a plug is a capable city car.

 

[Yanquetino]

Well, the law says 2 things. The vehicle needs to be physically connected for charging purposes. In the letter from the DMV the second point was specifically mentionned in a separate bullet point from the "physically connected" one.

Therefore I do think that despite its poor wording, an ICE with a fake J1772 plug would violate AB475. The owner of such car would have to build some kind of contraption which does indeed suck power from the charging station and recharges its battery. That would be quite a lot of trouble and cost. A fake handicapped placard is probably cheaper and much more useful.

Does the law define "for charging purposes"? No. Many charging spaces also have a regular 120V outlet to accommodate onboard L1 chargers, but that also makes it possible to legally connect a trickle charger to an ICE's 12V battery "for charging purposes." I do not believe it specifies anything about a J1772 connector. And even if it did, I seriously doubt a meter maid could tell a "fake" from a bona fide J1772 --nor an Avcon, nor a paddle connector, nor a 14-50 cord. Why, for that matter, even plugging in a cell phone with an extension cord fulfills the definition "for charging purposes."

Look, let's call a spade a spade: AB475 is a poorly conceived, poorly worded law that blatantly ignored the years of experience and advice of actual EV drivers, causes more problems that it solves, thus discouraging pure EVs but encouraging PhEVs. Thank goodness the other OEMs are now working on an alternative bill to overturn it.

All that is really needed is a third EV decal for license plates issued by the DMV. Public charging, HOV access, even road taxes all solved in one simple step. Everyone's a winner.

 

[walterbays]

In 8 months of driving my Leaf I've always used the charger sharing placard to indicate when someone could take my plug. In that time I've never had occasion to take a plug from another car, and nobody has ever taken my plug - until today. Ironically it was a Volt with which I shared. I charged at Balboa Park while seeing a play. Afterwards I saw the EV parking spaces had filled up and a Volt was parked next to me in a space without an EVSE. He took my plug after the time indicated on the placard, and very nicely closed my charging cover.

Of course if I had the charging nozzle padlocked to my car he could have just burned some gasoline to drive home. But not burning gasoline needlessly is probably one main reason he paid a lot more money for a Volt than a Cruze. I got all my needed charge. He got a charge and didn't have to use gasoline. Everyone wins.

Of course all this was possible only because the San Diego city officials are much wiser than the California state legislators, and they did not post AB475 signage. Had they done so I would have had to padlock the charging connector or be towed away, and the Volt would have burned gasoline. Still it would make it easier to keep ICE cars out of the charging spots if California had a workable uniform state law.

In the next session of the legislature I hope that some legislators who are much wiser than Betsy Butler will sit down with Plugin America, Nissan,Mitsubishi, Tesla, Ford, Coda, Mercedes, and yes even GM, and write a sensible law to replace AB475.

 

[Spies]

So it begins. Is this our first reported victim? http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mwalsh]

Looks like Betsy Butler may be on her way out. But there are only ~200 votes in it, so I'm not throwing my hat into the air yet.

 

[TomT]

It shows 100% of precincts reporting and here still losing by about 200 votes, but I'm sure there will be a recount before it is certified...

Looks like Betsy Butler may be on her way out. But there are only ~200 votes in it, so I'm not throwing my hat into the air yet.

 

[walterbays]

I've started to wonder if GM was right and I was wrong about AB475 being so bad for public charging infrastructure. First we have all the reports of selfish plug hogging. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=5352&start=270. About the only thing that might deter such behavior is fees charged for time connected (or better yet for time spent in the parking space) whether charging or not.

But then I realized that fees, as implemented by Blink, are another big deterrent to plug sharing. I was about to put out my plug sharing placard (the excellent one given out by SDG&E) when I realized that since Blink charges fees in whole hour increments I didn't want someone to unplug me one minute past the next hour boundary and having to pay another hour for that one minute. I only want to unplug close to the hour; therefore I have to be the one to unplug me.

It's not like $1 is a huge amount of money, but I just hate wasting money. Just like I hate wasting oil by burning it in a car when I could just as easily drive on solar power.

I hope ECOtality realizes that clocks and computers are capable of measuring time in minutes and adjusts their fees accordingly. I'd rather pay 2.5 cents per minute than $1 per hour.

 

[DaveEV]

I hope ECOtality realizes that clocks and computers are capable of measuring time in minutes and adjusts their fees accordingly. I'd rather pay 2.5 cents per minute than $1 per hour.

Going to Santa Ysabel in the morning? Andy from Blink/Ecotality will be there and we can all give him this feedback in person.

 

[JPWhite]

Notice how this official Nissan car from California is parked next to a QC at Cracker Barrel but not hooked up.

He/She avoided prosecution though, this was taken in Nashville TN
Kinda thought the driver would have known better being from California and all.....