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

[cdub]

For example, we're encouraging LAX to consider installing 120v outlets for longer term parking

Please do! And why are there 8 or so obsolete (for most people) paddle chargers and 2 chargepoints? It should be the opposite. But yes... 40+ 120 outlets would be excellent. Especially when I saw 17+ Leafs parked there this weekend.

 

[qcar]

This law can never be applicable to long term parking because obviously you can't charge your car for a few days at 240v and if you are using 120, your really shouldn't be in the charger spot in the first place although I can see a few cases where this could happen.

If someone who owns an ICE goes out of their way to cut a hole in their car to install a fake socket- I say let them park there for their effort. In reality unless someone is clearly abusing the privilege, I don't see much towing ever happening. I completely agree this is a poorly worded statute in any case and hope it is vetoed.

 

[evchels]

This law can never be applicable to long term parking because obviously you can't charge your car for a few days at 240v and if you are using 120, your really shouldn't be in the charger spot in the first place although I can see a few cases where this could happen.

Why would this law not be applicable? It does not state that you have to actually be charging, only that you are connected. Based on what GM has said to me, they want to see this law enforced everywhere, well beyond the minority of sites which currently use it.

 

[TEG]

Most of the non-charging concerns (12V battery tender, engine block heater, etc.) are 120V, but "real" charging is 240V, so if they had the wording specify 240V charging it would be more as intended.

Special parking spaces reserved for charging activities really ought to encourage 240V charging, not 120V charging.

As a generalization, I would disagree. For example, we're encouraging LAX to consider installing 120v outlets for longer term parking; if you're gone for a week, no need to fill up within a few hours when someone else could be using the 240v space. The important thing is to site the right speed of charging to fit the location- but any law along the lines of AB475 should be applicable to either.

I would much rather find a J-plug to use than to have the portable EVSE out in the open like that.
Not only with theft/vandalism concerns, but just a lot more hassle with extra cable sitting around. (Potential trip hazard.)
And I do think that a NEMA5-15 outlet attracts a lot more mis-use than a J-plug.
It isn't just about the 120V vs 240V, but the household plug versus the car plug.
The 120V household plugs don't have the same safety features, or power down before disconnect features either.

Basically every time I have seen someone in an EV spot mis-using it (watching TV, running a heater, running an air-conditioner) they were plugged into a NEMA5-15 that was next to the 240V EV dedicated EVSE.

 

[TEG]

And of the EVs I have seen parked in front of ChargePoints, but not plugged into them, they are almost always Tesla Roadsters. Possibly because they don't need to charge as frequently, but more likely they don't have the ($750) J to Tesla proprietary adapter cable.
So, along with stray ICE cars, Tesla Roadsters would probably be the next towing target if the governor doesn't veto the new law.

 

[evchels]

And of the EVs I have seen parked in front of ChargePoints, but not plugged into them, they are almost always Tesla Roadsters. Possibly because they don't need to charge as frequently, but more likely they don't have the ($750) J to Tesla proprietary adapter cable.
So, along with stray ICE cars, Tesla Roadsters would probably be the next towing target if the governor doesn't veto the new law.

I've been getting complaints of this too. And regardless of what happens with this law, we are starting to get more vocal about discouraging any plug-in vehicle from parking in front of an incompatible charger. We've been more lax about the LPI spots or broken chargers, as no one else was prevented from charging anyway, but there's really no excuse with the new ones.

And I understand your 120v/240v preferences, but the law itself would be applicable either way in any spots designated specifically for charging, regardless of speed.

 

[GregH]

Based on what GM has said to me, they want to see this law enforced everywhere, well beyond the minority of sites which currently use it.

Uhm.. Who exactly is going to be enforcing this?

 

[TEG]

...And I understand your 120v/240v preferences...

Also keep in mind that 240V@30A will be tomorrow's "slow charge" for large packs.
Someone might drive their 300 mile range Model S to a distant airport, and would need over 64 hours of 120V@12A to get refilled.
They could make it an overnight trip if they had 240V@30A instead.

An airport is the extreme example too. One would hope a hotel charge spot could refill a model S overnight. Not so on 120V.

 

[TEG]

Eek:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/public-charging-in-the-ev-future-why-proposed-california-law-ab-475-needs-to-be-enacted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TRONZ]

Why would this law not be applicable? It does not state that you have to actually be charging, only that you are connected. Based on what GM has said to me, they want to see this law enforced everywhere, well beyond the minority of sites which currently use it.

I am so totally yanking the plug on Volts when the tow truck shows up. (joke :lol: ... well, sort of :shock: ).

 

[Yanquetino]

I am so totally yanking the plug on Volts when the tow truck shows up. (joke :lol: ... well, sort of :shock: ).

I would imagine that, no joke, there might be pure EV drivers who really do need a charge to keep going and would succumb to the temptation to unplug a Volt, since it can always use its gasoline engine instead. After all, the bill doesn't punish plug-pullers: only those whose vehicles ARE unplugged. Geez, GM: stupid is as stupid does. Let the Volt towing festivities begin! :shock:

By the way, GM has arm twisted Car and Driver to get on board:

Public Charging in the EV Future: Why Proposed California Law AB 475 Needs to Be Enacted

 

[walterbays]

GM duped a lot of people with AB475, which has an impressive list of supporters. Only Plugin America noticed the "poison pill" slipped into the bill at the last minute to cripple the state's public charging infrastructure, and withdrew their support. What about others who might speak out now to call for Gov. Brown to veto the bill?

How about Betsy Butler herself? Does she intend to represent the 53rd district, and perhaps still believe even now that AB475 would help EV's? Does she intend to represent GM, and not care what AB475 does? Does she realize she was duped, but feels it politically necessary to pretend otherwise? Or does she realize she was duped and is angry enough to speak to the governor and make it right? Maybe Plugin America is already asking her these questions behind the scenes, and an Internet forum would not be the right place for them to talk about it. But still I wonder if anyone in her district has talked with her EV policy person, Jennifer Wonnacott, (310) 615-3515 (district office), to find out if they realize what they have done.

The bill's supporters were listed in one of Rep. Butler's press releases, http://asmdc.org/members/a53/news-r...d-electric-vehicle-use-passes-first-committee

• American Lung Association
• California Electric Transportation Coalition
• California Public Parking Association
• General Motors
• Plug In America
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District ( [email protected] )

All of these have a strong interest in seeing electric vehicles succeed, with the possible exception of GM. So they all have a strong interest in seeing AB475 killed - if only they realized what the bill would do. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District seems most likely to be reachable and lobbied to intercede with Gov. Brown. Is there someone in Sacramento who has a contact at the district and could talk to them?

Finally there are the assembly members who voted against AB475. Perhaps one of them could lead the fight to overturn AB475?

• Donnelly, R, Hesperia
• Hagman, R, Chino Hills
• Jones, R, Santee
• Knight, R, Palmdale
• Mansoor, R, Costa Mesa
• Morrell, R, Rancho Cucamonga
• Wagner, R, Irvine

Not likely. First, they're all Republicans and not likely to have any special influence with (Democratic) Gov. Brown. Second, none of them has taken any public position on anything EV related as far as I can tell. I fear it's unlikely that any of them voted NO because they saw through GM's machinations and realized the bill would harm EV's. It's more likely that they voted NO just because the bill was proposed by a Democrat, or if they did think about EVs at all they voted NO because they were as fooled as everyone else and they hoped their vote would harm EVs. In this case I'm afraid that "the enemy of my enemy" is... "just another enemy." :-(

 

[Yanquetino]

Chelsea has posted an informative update on the situation that you will undoubtedly want to read:

AB475: GM's stance on charging gets curiouser and curiouser...

You know, we are truly fortunate to have advocates of Chelsea's caliber so willing to go the extra mile for the EV movement. The least we can do is bolster her efforts with our own e-mails, letters, and phone calls.

 

[mwalsh]

You know, we are truly fortunate to have advocates of Chelsea's caliber so willing to go the extra mile for the EV movement. The least we can do is bolster her efforts with our own e-mails, letters, and phone calls.

+1!

 

[evchels]

You know, we are truly fortunate to have advocates of Chelsea's caliber so willing to go the extra mile for the EV movement. The least we can do is bolster her efforts with our own e-mails, letters, and phone calls.

Aww, shucks.

On the supporters- part of the issue is that we all generally supported the original version. So if folks didn't track all the amendments, they wouldn't have realized that it went so pear-shaped. Even PIA ended up listed both as supporting and opposing in the final version by mistake.

As for Butler, I'm not sure what she's thinking at this point, and not impressed with her at all. Her office has pointed a finger at GM. GM's pointed at Butler and PIA. As a constituent of Butler's, I've made repeated attempts to have a conversation with anyone in her office, to no avail, and another stakeholder reports being told by her Chief of Staff that the only opposition to the bill was "just one woman from our district." The consensus seems to be that she was more interested in the "win" of getting a bill passed given the encroaching end of session, more than she was worried about the details. And yes, clearly GM as a corporate constituent carries more weight than those affected by the bill.

 

[TRONZ]

Ya, Chels has a pretty thick skin. Looks like they could easily add about 30 min to the end of WKTEC since GM is still up to it's old tricks.

Bottom line, GM is NOT a supporter of EV's and infrastructure.

 

[garygid]

It is unlikely that I will EVER buy another GM vehicle.

 

[mwalsh]

Me either. But then, I always was a Ford over Chevy man.

 

[evchels]

It is unlikely that I will EVER buy another GM vehicle.

See, and that's not the outcome I want either (that general sentiment taking hold, not whether you personally ever buy a GM vehicle.) Telling any company that we'll never support them gives them no reason to do better, and GM is not the only one that has made mistakes. Others just wrangle the PR better...

Still, I'm hoping this temporary insanity on their part ends soon.

 

[HighDesertDriver]

You know, we are truly fortunate to have advocates of Chelsea's caliber so willing to go the extra mile for the EV movement. The least we can do is bolster her efforts with our own e-mails, letters, and phone calls.

Aww, shucks.

On the supporters- part of the issue is that we all generally supported the original version. So if folks didn't track all the amendments, they wouldn't have realized that it went so pear-shaped. Even PIA ended up listed both as supporting and opposing in the final version by mistake.

As for Butler, I'm not sure what she's thinking at this point, and not impressed with her at all. Her office has pointed a finger at GM. GM's pointed at Butler and PIA. As a constituent of Butler's, I've made repeated attempts to have a conversation with anyone in her office, to no avail, and another stakeholder reports being told by her Chief of Staff that the only opposition to the bill was "just one woman from our district." The consensus seems to be that she was more interested in the "win" of getting a bill passed given the encroaching end of session, more than she was worried about the details. And yes, clearly GM as a corporate constituent carries more weight than those affected by the bill.

I, too, appreciate your perseverance. Bad legislation and good legislation gone wrong should both be sent back to the locker room for rework.

Our Assemblyman, Steve Knight, was mentioned in walterbay's post as a Republican who voted against the bill. I have forwarded the thread link to him and asked him to at least contact Gov Brown's office to recommend a veto. Perhaps he will even want to pick up a veto lead role, given the leading role his district and next-door Kern County have in developing alternative energy sources. He and Gov Brown at least have that in common.