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

[evchels]

The strawberry faction is posting so prolifically there that I doubt anything else is going to be seen...

Maybe we need to kidnap their campaign organizer? I mean, I love strawberries more than ice cream, but really?

 

[mwalsh]

The strawberry faction is posting so prolifically there that I doubt anything else is going to be seen...

Maybe we need to kidnap their campaign organizer? I mean, I love strawberries more than ice cream, but really?

Seriously! I was just going to post something like "Hey! Some people might like a try at getting the Governor's ear on other issues, you know!" But I got afraid of what kind of hate it might bring down on me! :?

 

[GregH]

Oh, and now the stickers are evil and against GM's principles, and it was always the goal to get rid of them.

*SNORT* And to think the original sticker law was to prevent ICEs from blocking GM's Magnechargers so GM's EV1 could charge..

 

[evchels]

Seriously! I was just going to post something like "Hey! Some people might like a try at getting the Governor's ear on other issues, you know!" But I got afraid of what kind of hate it might bring down on me! :?

Well, if you ever find your car unplugged and strawberries smushed into your charge port...oh wait, you won't know that- you car will have been towed.

 

[evchels]

Oh, and now the stickers are evil and against GM's principles, and it was always the goal to get rid of them.

*SNORT* And to think the original sticker law was to prevent ICEs from blocking GM's Magnechargers so GM's EV1 could charge..

And that GM paid for a lot of the original infrastructure in the first place, only to build a car that, by law, wouldn't be allowed to use it, even if it were compatible.

 

[mwalsh]

Well, if you ever find your car unplugged and strawberries smushed into your charge port...oh wait, you won't know that- you car will have been towed.

:lol:

 

[smkettner]

Uh-oh... if the governor signs AB745, here is a tow just waiting to happen:

That photo is from a Fast Company article on the issue. Nice to see the additional coverage, but it frankly irks me that they failed to give credit to Chelsea as the prime mover-and-shaker to expose the bill's flaws.

What is the issue here? The spots do not appear to be EV only.

The solution is more charging stations placed toward the back of the parking lot.

 

[walterbays]

While I agree with this, and also believe that PHEVs should be allowed at the trough. I would dearly like to hope that your average PHEV driver would be considerate of our need to charge vs. his desire to charge.

I agree, mwalsh...

We need to be careful here. Most of the time, EV drivers do not need the charge either. It happens occasionally, but rarely will any one public charge determine whether you get to your next destination or not. Most of the time, it's topping off.

...but you know, evchels, you are absolutely right! As a newcomer to EVs it seems to me that the charging protocol placard is a great way for the majority of EV and PHEV drivers with good intentions. If you mark on it the time you need to charge, then you only get unplugged if it's past that time and someone else needs to charge. If I have plenty of charge in my EV battery, or if I'm driving a PHEV then the amount I need to charge is zero, though the amount I desire to charge is to 100% or 80%.

 

[walterbays]

The strawberry faction is posting so prolifically there that I doubt anything else is going to be seen...
Email or snail mail is far more effective anyway.

My assembleyman Nathan Fletcher has a limited web contact form in lieu of email, so I decided to mail a letter. Then I saw his district office was nearby so I drove the letter over at lunch and delivered it in person. His district director took time out of her day to talk with me, and went out to see my car and how you charge it. She asked lots of good questions about EVs, the Leaf, and private and public charging. No guarantees of course, but I'm satisfied that Mr. Fletcher is listening - and listening to his constituents, not to GM.

I've heard that to an elected representative one paper letter counts as much as 10 emails because it takes that much more effort and shows more true involvement. A personal visit counts even more, and I suggest that others do the same. Mind you, I am not suggesting that 100 people visit Mr. Fletcher's office! He is already listening, and his district director does not deserve 100 more interruptions. Rather I suggest that 100 other assembly members should receive personal and polite visits from one EV driver, with a letter and an offer to show the car and answer any questions.

 

[Nekota]

I think they removed it .. I cannot find this..

No, to their credit it's still there. You have to look under "Everyone (Most Recent)" and it's currently 6th post down, under their own post about Volt owners trying to maximize EV range.

Well as of 10:33PM on Wednesday 24th August I cannot find it - I went through the posts 2x back to Sunday. Anyone else find it?

 

[evchels]

Hi guys,

I've heard that some have gotten a form response from the Gov's office that AB475 has not passed yet. It has, it's just not on his desk yet. It's in an interim phase called "enrollment", where it is proofread (hopefully fixing the legislative summary) and packaged for his signature or veto.

He should receive it any day, but at least we have slightly more time than we suspected.

 

[evchels]

Uh-oh... if the governor signs AB745, here is a tow just waiting to happen:

That photo is from a Fast Company article on the issue. Nice to see the additional coverage, but it frankly irks me that they failed to give credit to Chelsea as the prime mover-and-shaker to expose the bill's flaws.

What is the issue here? The spots do not appear to be EV only.

The solution is more charging stations placed toward the back of the parking lot.

Well, it's hard to tell what signage may be there, as closely cropped as the pic is. Those are also very new units, so signage may not be up yet.

One solution may be more toward the back. However, most of the spots are in the front because a) ADA law requires them to be accessible to the disabled, and b) most site owners want their good deed to be as visible as possible, even to non-EV drivers. Some EV drivers love the preferential parking, and many are in your camp.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

well that is good news!

 

[smkettner]

One solution may be more toward the back. However, most of the spots are in the front because a) ADA law requires them to be accessible to the disabled, and b) most site owners want their good deed to be as visible as possible, even to non-EV drivers. Some EV drivers love the preferential parking, and many are in your camp.

I would be in favor of requiring a percentage of existing ADA spots should have a charging station if charging stations are installed for the public.
One station to be shared amoung four ADA existing spaces should be sufficient initially. I think their are enough ADA spaces as is.

 

[garygid]

This law would be like requiring a person to carry a purse, and if their
purse gets stolen, the person gets deported to another country.

 

[richard]

Well, it's hard to tell what signage may be there, as closely cropped as the pic is. Those are also very new units, so signage may not be up yet.

One solution may be more toward the back. However, most of the spots are in the front because a) ADA law requires them to be accessible to the disabled, and b) most site owners want their good deed to be as visible as possible, even to non-EV drivers. Some EV drivers love the preferential parking, and many are in your camp.

Chelsea,

I don't think the photo is a real installation. May even be a Photoshop. AFAIK, there are no public Wattstation installs yet.

 

[Yanquetino]

What is the issue here? The spots do not appear to be EV only.

The solution is more charging stations placed toward the back of the parking lot.

Well, it's hard to tell what signage may be there, as closely cropped as the pic is. Those are also very new units, so signage may not be up yet.

One solution may be more toward the back. However, most of the spots are in the front because a) ADA law requires them to be accessible to the disabled, and b) most site owners want their good deed to be as visible as possible, even to non-EV drivers. Some EV drivers love the preferential parking, and many are in your camp.

Another problem with the back of the parking lot is that the electrical connections usually originate from the building. The farther away from the source, the more difficult and costly the installation. Also, the outer edges of parking lots are not as easy to keep an eye on, and thus are most prone to vandalism.

 

[Yanquetino]

I don't think the photo is a real installation. May even be a Photoshop. AFAIK, there are no public Wattstation installs yet.

Yeah, that might be true, but what is most interesting is that those Wattstations are positioned between parking spaces, thus allowing (I would even say encouraging) EVSE sharing. If GM has its way, it will cost this provider 1/3rd more, since it will be necessary to install yet another Wattstation for the middle space. And in this photo... the EV on the left would be ticketed/towed, since it is not --gasp!-- connected.

 

[evchels]

One solution may be more toward the back. However, most of the spots are in the front because a) ADA law requires them to be accessible to the disabled, and b) most site owners want their good deed to be as visible as possible, even to non-EV drivers. Some EV drivers love the preferential parking, and many are in your camp.

I would be in favor of requiring a percentage of existing ADA spots should have a charging station if charging stations are installed for the public.
One station to be shared amoung four ADA existing spaces should be sufficient initially. I think their are enough ADA spaces as is.

It's not a matter of what we're in favor of. There's a formula in the law that dictates how many of the total charger spots need to be ADA accessible. (And for that matter, how many of the total parking spots.) At sites where the charger spots exceed the ADA requirement, the extra ones may be able to be located elsewhere. Though still, it would be subject to site owner preference for them to be visible, and, to Yanquetino's point, the electrical service availability.

 

[thankyouOB]

http://www.plugincars.com/gm-sponsors-bill-creates-problems-electric-car-charging-107641.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

news