GM Riles CA Electric-Car World (Again) Over AB475 'Charger Sharing' Ban
Another Convert To Natural-Gas Fueling: Railroad Locomotives?
The U.S. is increasingly awash in natural gas, so it's natural to consider it as a potential... Read More
- #4LEADERBOARD RANK
- 2895ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 1942COMMENTS POSTED
Add to circle
Also See
-
Our Semi-Exclusive Interview With The Volt...
-
New Chevy Volt Ad Hits Back At Critics With...
-
2012 Chevrolet Volt Owners Help With Peppy Volt...
See more video »
California's electric-car advocates are often "true believers," and they can be single-minded in the pursuit of what they believe is right.
But the nuts-and-bolts experience they've gained during the state's 15 years of electric-car use can be invaluable--which is why policy-makers and car companies take their views seriously.
Usually.
Which brings us to the strange case of California Assembly Bill 475, and why it has upset advocates so much that they want it vetoed or completely rewritten.
AB 475 is a bill, backed by General Motors [NYSE:GM], to allow Chevrolet Volts (and other plug-in cars with engines too) to use certain charging stations legally.
Plug-in cars, with engines too
Public charging stations have existed in California since the first wave of electric cars started to arrive in 1996. In 2002, a law was passed that restricted parking in certain "EV spaces" to Zero-Emission Vehicles.
About 800 electric-car owners have paid the state $18 for a "Zero Emission Vehicle" sticker that marks their car as authorized to park in these spaces. But not all charging-station spaces in California require electric cars to display the stickers, though some do--no one seems to know how many.
Because they didn't exist at the time, the 2002 law said nothing about plug-in hybrids (e.g. the 2012 Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid) or range-extended electric cars (e.g. the Chevy Volt).
These cars have plugs, but also gasoline engines, so they're not zero-emission vehicles. So they can't get the ZEV sticker, and hence are illegal at charging stations that require a sticker to use.
Drafted by Betsy Butler, staff, GM
The bill that became AB 475 started out by adding language to make this new type of plug-ins eligible for the stickers.
The largest number of plug-in hybrids today are Volts, leading GM to assist the staff for sponsor Assemblymember Betsy Butler in drafting the bill. The company did so, it says, at the request of Volt owners who wanted legal access to chargers.
A subsequent draft of the bill eliminated the need for electric-car owners to get the sticker. At that point, Plug-In America and other advocates got involved to address several concerns about the bill's new language.
GM: We'll work with you
GM said it would work with the advocates, recounted advocate Chelsea Sexton, to refine the new draft so it addressed their concerns. After months of meetings and revisions, the bill was passed by the Senate on August 18. Butler introduced it in the Assembly on Friday, August 19, where it was passed on Monday, August 22.
But the final bill contained none of the revisions urged by advocates. Instead, it used the same wording that had brought Plug-In America and others into the process in the first place.
California Governor Jerry Brown has until October 9 to sign or veto the bill. If he does neither, it passes into law.
Plugged in isn't always charging
The final wording requires any vehicle parked at a charging-station space to be "connected for charging purposes," i.e. plugged in. Or as GM representative Shad Balch put it, "Your charging cord is your parking permit."
Balch stressed that GM sees the overall goal of AB 475 as ensuring spaces with charging stations are occupied only by vehicles "using the space as intended--to charge" and to ensure that it does not in any way simply provide a better, "preferential parking" space for any random electric car.
But whether a car is charging is different from whether it's plugged in. If that little green light on a plug-in dash is green, it's done charging, whether or not the plug is still inserted into the socket. If it's orange on the Prius Plug-In, the car is still charging. (On a Volt, solid green is charging, and flashing green means "done".)
Unfortunately, the requirement that a parked electric car be plugged in at all times makes illegal a practice called "charger sharing," which Sexton and others say has worked well for 15 years now.
Share with your friends, kids
Here's the problem: Suppose you're driving an electric car, you want to recharge while you shop, so you pull in next to a plug-in vehicle already hooked up to a public charger.
Related Articles
-
![2011 Chevrolet Volt and 2013 Tesla Model S [photo: David Noland]](http://static.hgmsites.net/images/cache/2011-chevrolet-volt-and-2013-tesla-model-s-photo-david-noland_100427529_130x80.jpg "Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars")
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars
-
2013 Nissan Leaf Final Ratings Issued: 115 MPGe, 75 Miles Of Range
-
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S?
-
2013 Nissan Leaf: Driven Through Tennessee Countryside
-
Should EPA Gas-Mileage Ratings Tests Change? What You Need To Know
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Electric Cars: Eight Important Things Everyone Should Know (But... 
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars 
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S? 
BMW CEO To Germans: Get Over Your Angst, Buy Electric Cars... 
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
I think some flexibility is needed and Chelsea's approach is better. If sharing of charging points becomes an issue, it can be addressed later.
GM's defense is baffling. Are they saying this a good law, but if it is bad, you can ignore it at the discretion of parking lot managers? Make something that is workable everywhere.
For everyone that thinks the LEAF should be given preference over the Plug-in Prius, consider that the Prius will only be able to travel home on clean green electricity if it can plug in at work. So I think the argument could be made for the Plug-in Prius being given preference.
For now, let's have an open discussion with our fellow commuters.
In the end, this will probably be a self-correcting problem. I think free access to Level 2 charging is a temporary perk that will fade from the scene if/when EVs become more common, and PHEVs will not be inclined to pay to use charging slots they don't really need, especially if the price exceeds that of gasoline for their 50mpg Prius.
I would also point out that the bill would require the installation of one EVSE per parking space, thus greatly increasing the cost and slowing down the rollout of the EV public infrastructure. Is GM going to pay for the difference?
'GM has said unplugging an electric car is "tampering" and should be viewed as vandalism--like smashing car windows or slashing tires--that carries criminal penalties.'
Now, if and when GM tries to incorporate unplugging into the criminal code as well someday, I would again oppose it. But that's a subject for another story.
For accuracy, I should point out that someone who removes a charging cord is NOT touching the CAR, assuming s/he doesn't close the charging door afterward.
If that charging cord is attached to a public charging station, the cord doesn't "belong to" the car (as it would if it were the 120-Volt charger that comes with the Volt). It is not the driver's charging cable; it belongs to whichever entity installed the public station.
My guess is we should probably not make it illegal, because we may want to put a note on the dashboard to allow people to do that.
However, I must admit that this might be an issue for vehicles using the AC power to maintain battery temperature on zero degree days even after the battery is fully charged. So Shad may have a point.
Clearly GM assumes drivers are inherently going to behave badly. And the proposed AB 475 does nothing to help drivers whose cars are unplugged by random passers-by.
IMHO, this whole unplugging thing is getting increasingly bizarre. Show us the data that there is ANY kind of problem?
And again, nothing in this law requires the EV spot to actually have an EVSE, nor that the vehicle "connected for charging purposes" must be connected to an EVSE. Given that there are scenarios where basic 120v outlets would be more appropriate, the law shouldn't specify that. But while the latest spin is creative, the law does nothing to protect spots for charging, not parking. As long as I'm plugged in, I can stay parked- but not charging- indefinitely.
Here's an idea: Most plug-in vehicles already have a visual indicator of charging progress. Why not standardize and mandate it, so every plug-in shows the same external displays/colors in the same sequence? If SAE can wrangle automakers to agree on J-1772, a single dashboard LED oughta be simple!
Then the issue you raise goes away. Every parking sign could say, "Do not unplug car under any circumstances unless dash light is solid green" (or whatever). Just sayin' ... :)
Installing between spaces would make a lot more sense- someone else could use the charger while you're on your trip, plug you back in, and you could precondition upon your return..everyone's happy, except that it would require a less cynical opinion of your fellow drivers.
http://www.thefutureiselectric.com/2011/09/want-more-ev-miles-from-your-battery-precondition-your-car/
So you would purposely hog an EVSE for hours, even days --although your battery is full, although other EV drivers might desperately need a charge-- just so your Volt won't seem "stuffy" inside when you return? That strikes me as downright rude and selfish.
So much for the "better world" I hoped we were building.
"Admittedly, I do like to precondition my car as much as possible. I agree with you about LAX, which is why AB 475 is written the way it is - to not require it to change its EV charging and parking policy"
To clarify, you make a good point about LAX, and I agree - despite the benefits of preconditioning (as I mentioned in my blog yesterday). LAX is a busy place and has more stalls than chargers. Seems to me it's a good example of where specific policy should be used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqWxB5Ho5cc
Solid green means charging.
My bad. I meant to "thumbs up" your comment, but clicked on the wrong icon. Sorry. I liked your idea.
A far better solution would be for CA to issue EV license plates, or at least EV decals for the plates. This would not only solve the parking/charging problem, but also HOV access, and vehicle registration. Three birds down, one stone thrown. What’s not to like?
The link at the picture below represents what happens FAR more often, and this is why I'm glad AB475 is passing. This picture was taken last Friday.
http://gallery.me.com/victor1970#100026/idiots_in_ev_spots&bgcolor=bl
Unfortunately... this bill does NOT stop that from happening. It only gets YOU towed if somebody does. Yet you're glad about that? Odd.
Please note in the photo you linked that those are two ICE vehicles (NOT "unplugged" EVs), and thus already covered by law to be towed for illegally parking there. Also note that this law will make it necessary to upgrade that site with one EVSE per parking space, rather than letting two EVs share one unit. Otherwise, the unplugged one will be towed.
I suppose that GM will foot the bill for the extra equipment and installation, since they insist on one EVSE per vehicle --whether or not it is charging...?
Unless they were repealed before now, I would assume they're still be in effect and those ICE cars would be illegally parked because they do not have ZEV stickers. Am I wrong?
I also purport that you are skirting the issue by claiming that the parking lot could simply put the EV sign at the designated stall. C'mon: that would NOT maintain the same number of EV spaces that it currently provides. To do that under AB745, additional EVSEs would, in fact, be necessary.
Is GM's goal to REDUCE the number of spaces? If not, will GM foot the bill for the increased costs?
First you state that the ICE examples are parked legally --which is why AB475 is needed. Then you admit that they are illegal --under the 2002 law. And you justify that contradiction by pointing out the particular lot.
Victor did NOT specify that it was a USC lot: he was talking about PUBLIC chargers (his caps), and posted the link to the photo as an example. Our responses were thus aimed at the theoretical situation depicted in that photo.
Do NOT cloud the issue by trying to have it both ways. In a private lot, neither the 2002 law nor AB745 would apply. In a public lot, the 2002 law applies --and AB745 is unnecessary.
It's the idea that we can't use the charger even if the vehicle that is plugged into it is full charged. That is a waste of a charger. I was at LAX and all the chargers were plugged into cars. But a few of the cars were done charging. Why should I not able to use that public charger?
I am not touching that person's car.. just the public charger handle. Also when people leave notes in the dashboard, you can just call the person. That way we are using the public charging infrastructure the most efficiently.
you just got a thumbs down from a gm-troll. i await mine - LOL.
Now what about the guy in the LEAF that absolutely needs that charger. If your Plug-in Prius is there, he cannot charge, and cannot get home. That is bad. But I guess it all depends on the probabilities of that happening. If you think it is likely that a LEAF will need that spot, then perhaps you should not put your Plug-in Prius there.
Well, I don't worry about using the handicapped stall because the probability of a handicapped person needing the stall at the same time is very low.
A correction: The volt's dash light is solid green for charging and blinking green when done charging.
See http://www.evchargernews.com/chargeprotocolcard.pdf
and http://www.evchargernews.com/chargingprotocol.htm
all this recharging talk is simply not gonna be needed. it will be interesting to see if we build a big and wasteful infrastructure system.
After the vehicle is fully charged the owner should, for example, pay 1.5-2.0 times the rate at a normal space. This will help move people along and also generate some income for the municipality.
I know, I know. You don't know when your car will be fully charged. You do have a good idea though and should check back on it. Like others do when checking/adding time to their meters.
Charge and move along is my point. You get a charge but then you have to pay for the spot like everyone else, but more. That vacates the spot for another vehicle to use the charging station.
Only question- if someone explicitly gives you permission to unplug their car, why shouldn't you be allowed to? The protocol of "sharing" has never allowed unplugging under any other circumstances.
About pure EVs having preference, I agree. A BEV requires a charge to get home, a hybrid does not. Who gets inconvenienced more?
Out of curiosity, how should "tampering" be defined? If no damage is done to the car, and the owner isn't deprived of anything of value (eg, being billed for kWhs he didn't get), what substantiates that unplugging a car- which doesn't even require touching it- should be considered vandalism, but touching it as you walk by isn't? (I asked GM too, still waiting for an answer.)
In the instances where charging is monetized, billing stops when the car is unplugged- so that bit isn't an issue.
I don't know if I like much about any of the current or proposed laws. And if there is to be a law, it should be state-wide and not allow parking lots to "opt-out". That way everyone would be able to be on the same page and everyone would better understand how the law is applied in each parking spot.
Actually, having only local laws worked pretty well for years; there's never been any basis for the state law other than anecdotes from a few sites who didn't want to tow gas cars. If there is a state law, it should be more like the 2002 version though- allows PH/EVs, bans gas cars, and creates an identifier for the PH/EVs w minimal downsides. But individual sites should still have customization options to add time limits, etc.
So how do you propose AB475 be constructed instead?
The law could make it illegal for a non-owner to unplug an EV at a charge station _IF_ the EV is not fully charged.
The law could even have wording to require a system to prevent non-owners from unplugging incompletely-charged EVs. For example, one way: have the charge station require that the first person plugging in their EV enter a temporary 4 digit PIN, which would be used to allow them to unplug the EV when they come back to it. Without the PIN, the station would deactivate; this would be posted.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!