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

[evchels]

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...

I'm curious to see if that happens too, though I'm not expecting it- for the same reason you found some sites not wanting to tow gas cars because they're customers too. I don't expect a lot of sites want to risk offending their PHEV patrons by making the EVSEs "EV only". Especially since so many of them will only see sporadic use at all for the next few years. And to your point, if they do end up getting so crowded that they feel the need to segregate, I expect they'll do it with a fee rather than exclude a vehicle type. Or, they'll just install more EVSEs, considering different sites are in this for different reasons. But I've not encountered many that are that "purist" about it- I think some did it to help BEVs with range (especially the existing sites, because there would only have been BEVs to consider at the time), some did it for the feel good aspect of enabling cleaner EV miles in general, and a huge chunk of them did it for more capitalist reasons. It's a relatively small marketing expense in the grand scheme, and if it gets them more customers (of a particularly appealing demographic, I might add), LEED points, some local/national press, and general goodwill, it's worth it. And to flip it around, I don't know many sites who'd do it for the first two reasons alone.

 

[Nekota]

CA AB475 should be sent back to legislature and reworked into an EV parking registration with suitable license plate and fee structure to offset the loss in gas tax revenue of something like $300 per 10,000 miles. If you want to drive an EV then belly up to the bar and lets pay our fair share. I doubt GM will support anything like that.

 

[TEG]

There was talk of concerns with people charging cellphones, or using a 12V trickle charger to "qualify" as parking for "charging purposes."

Something else to consider (has it been mentioned already?) is that this law change could encourage manufacturers to put plug/sockets on vehicles that otherwise wouldn't have them. Imagine a plug in Prius that only has a 1kWh battery pack. Or a car with a plug/socket that just runs a ventilation fan. The parking privileges are enough of a perk that something like this could happen.

 

[lambert]

Sooner rather than later, the availability of public charging infrastructure will come down to this: Does it make good business sense to provide it? Whether or not this comes through a fee to use the station or through increased business traffic and revenue for the venues that provide the charging stations, installing and operating these stations needs to make financial sense to the ones footing the bill for them.

Otherwise, we will not see more charging stations built. And, if you look at the recent Costco decision, even our newest public charging stations will be disabled and removed if the companies maintaining them decide they are not worth the trouble. As much as we may feel entitled as EV owners to public charging, at this day and age it is merely a privilege, not a right.

So, that means 'yes' to allowing both EVs and PHEVs at these stations. It means 'yes' to plug sharing and positioning of charging stations to maximize usage and to encourage practices like the EV charging protocol. It means 'no' to frivolous abuses that block usage, like ICE parking at these stations and novel interpretations of a poorly written law.

And it means we need a better law in place than what AB 475 offers, to maximize the usage (and profitability) of our fledging public charging infrastructure. Otherwise, our beloved Leafs will always be limited by their 100-mile leashes, and EV naysayers and opponents will always be able to play the range-anxiety card and how impractical electric vehicles are as a transportation solution.

 

[evchels]

Sooner rather than later, the availability of public charging infrastructure will come down to this: Does it make good business sense to provide it? Whether or not this comes through a fee to use the station or through increased business traffic and revenue for the venues that provide the charging stations, installing and operating these stations needs to make financial sense to the ones footing the bill for them.

Otherwise, we will not see more charging stations built. And, if you look at the recent Costco decision, even our newest public charging stations will be disabled and removed if the companies maintaining them decide they are not worth the trouble. As much as we may feel entitled as EV owners to public charging, at this day and age it is merely a privilege, not a right.

So, that means 'yes' to allowing both EVs and PHEVs at these stations. It means 'yes' to plug sharing and positioning of charging stations to maximize usage and to encourage practices like the EV charging protocol. It means 'no' to frivolous abuses that block usage, like ICE parking at these stations and novel interpretations of a poorly written law.

And it means we need a better law in place than what AB 475 offers, to maximize the usage (and profitability) of our fledging public charging infrastructure. Otherwise, our beloved Leafs will always be limited by their 100-mile leashes, and EV naysayers and opponents will always be able to play the range-anxiety card and how impractical electric vehicles are as a transportation solution.

Incredibly well said. I believe this little campaign has found its press secretary.

 

[lambert]

Hopefully I am only restating the obvious... :roll:

 

[GregH]

Agreed, well said and yes it should be obvious. I would think that if/when charge fees are imposed it would merely be to throttle usage and not be seen as a source of profit. If the site charged enough to recoup their costs the fee would be so high that only those in dire need of a charge would do so..

 

[KeiJidosha]

If it’s so obvious, where is;

1. A unified vision of how BEV, EREV, PHEV public charging works
2. The legal boilerplate that makes this enforceable law
3. The business model to attract site owners
4. The blueprint cut-sheet for parking design that fulfills charging needs
5. Public sector support for public charging adoption
6. A permitting format to expedite installations
7. An affordable EVSE
8. A utility plan that doesn’t punish site owners
9. Standards surety from the SAE

We need to be very specific about what we want, not just loud about what we dislike. It has to work as a system, satisfy all the stake holders, and be easily replicated. Until the checklist is complete, this is just happy talk.

 

[lambert]

If it’s so obvious, where is;

1. A unified vision of how BEV, EREV, PHEV public charging works
2. The legal boilerplate that makes this enforceable law
3. The business model to attract site owners
4. The blueprint cut-sheet for parking design that fulfills charging needs
5. Public sector support for public charging adoption
6. A permitting format to expedite installations
7. An affordable EVSE
8. A utility plan that doesn’t punish site owners
9. Standards surety from the SAE

We need to be very specific about what we want, not just loud about what we dislike. It has to work as a system, satisfy all the stake holders, and be easily replicated. Until the checklist is complete, this is just happy talk.

Well, maybe just obvious for the topic of this thread, I hope, and while my statement is certainly not a complete picture of what needs to be fixed in our EV eco-system, it's not just "happy talk" either. I've written my letter to the Governor, expressing my concerns about AB 475.

I think you've just described EV Utopia, which, if it's really out there, might not happen for some years to come (especially #9). Most if not all of the elements you've listed above are vigorously discussed topics in this forum. Their solutions are coming from different sources as a matter of course, and they will evolve and peak in their own time, not as part of a master plan.

As early adopters, I think we all have a little faith that this progress will happen eventually, accomplished by expert decisions or trial and error, and more importantly, that we can influence this in a positive way somehow. Of course, to your point, that means not just being vocal within the MNL forum, but also taking appropriate action in the real world.

 

[evchels]

Hey all,

Just got word that we'd been given wrong info by Gov. Jerry Brown's office about the deadline to act on AB475- he must veto it by midnight tonight or it becomes law.

We're now to the point of needing phone calls or faxes to his office to urge a veto- email's not quick enough:

phone: 916-445-2841

fax: 916-558-3160

 

[richard]

Hey all,

Just got word that we'd been given wrong info by Gov. Jerry Brown's office about the deadline to act on AB475- he must veto it by midnight tonight or it becomes law.

We're now to the point of needing phone calls or faxes to his office to urge a veto- email's not quick enough:

phone: 916-445-2841

fax: 916-558-3160

Plug in America is putting out an emergency alert asking for calls and faxes between now and 5 pm. Emails can be sent all the way through midnight. All forms of communication count the same.

 

[mwalsh]

Just tried calling....busy. Am now in the process of faxing. Will also email.

 

[TEG]

Hey all,

Just got word that we'd been given wrong info by Gov. Jerry Brown's office about the deadline to act on AB475- he must veto it by midnight tonight or it becomes law.

We're now to the point of needing phone calls or faxes to his office to urge a veto- email's not quick enough:

phone: 916-445-2841

fax: 916-558-3160

Did PIA ever submit a counter-proposal?
http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/ab475-update" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...The Governor's office has asked us to come back and propose a solution with an amended version of AB475 that serves all plug-in drivers, something we’re committed to doing. We will keep everyone posted as this progresses and determine if we can get agreement on a version of the bill that the Governor can sign rather than veto.

 

[evchels]

Did PIA ever submit a counter-proposal?
http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/ab475-update" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...The Governor's office has asked us to come back and propose a solution with an amended version of AB475 that serves all plug-in drivers, something we’re committed to doing. We will keep everyone posted as this progresses and determine if we can get agreement on a version of the bill that the Governor can sign rather than veto.

Yes, Jay and I did one last week- haven't heard specifically that it was rejected by Butler, but it would seem so at this point.

 

[mwalsh]

Come on guys! Tap into your inner strawberry activist!

BTW, I sent my fax via the free Fax Zero website:

http://www.faxzero.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[abasile]

I called earlier this afternoon and was able to get through to a member of the Governor's staff after a few minutes on hold. I briefly explained our case and was told that my input would be passed along. It's really difficult to know where the Governor and his staff stand on this. Definitely call if you can.

 

[evchels]

Thank you all for your persistence! One way or the other, we're in the home stretch.

Also, I checked w Nissan today; their CA legislative staff weighed in last week. Kudos to them for being responsive to their customers' concerns on this issue!

 

[mwalsh]

I just called and got through on the second try. So I've called, faxed, and emailed. And posted to all the FB pages I "like". That's about as much as I can do, but somehow wish I could do more.

 

[TomT]

Knowing Brown, he'll probably allow 475 to become law, meanwhile vetoing this (which should have become law):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/jerry-brown-vetoes-higher-fines-for-driving-while-using-cellphones.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evchels]

I just called and got through on the second try. So I've called, faxed, and emailed. And posted to all the FB pages I "like". That's about as much as I can do, but somehow wish I could do more.

Me too- just got word that he signed the bill. Now just waiting to hear if it at least has a signing clause in it (which would force whatever changes specified to be done as a condition of signing.)