Landlords Vs Tenants With Electric Cars: The Latest Round
Add to circle
Related Photo Galleries
-
Delays At Detroit Electric Postpone Electric...
-
Bosch Offers Wireless Charging For Nissan Leaf...
-
2015 Infiniti LE 'Luxury Leaf' Sedan Put On...
-
Build Your Own Ford Transit Connect Electric...
-
Price Cuts Work: Waiting Lists For Electric...
See more photos »
Garages in single-family homes are relatively easy to wire for electric-car charging; shared garages in multifamily residences often aren't.
Therein lies much frustration, not only for plug-in car drivers but also their landlords.
The latest episode hit the airwaves last Wednesday, when KGO-TV in San Francisco aired a clip about Richard Wiesner, whose landlord was forbidding him to plug his Chevrolet Volt into a 110-Volt outlet in the multi-car garage underneath his high-rise apartment building.
Wiesner wasn't asking Trinity Management for any alterations; he just wanted to use the plug 3 feet from the end of his assigned parking space.
He offered to pay for all power he used, which in the case of the Volt would have been at most 12 kilowatt-hours per day--or less than $2 at California's average electricity rate of 14.4 cents/kWh.
The landlord e-mailed Wiesner a note saying, "Trinity Management Services does not approve such requests."
Frustrated, Wiesner contacted both the ABC station's "7 On Your Side" and the San Francisco Tenants Union for help. The building owner, management company, and building manager all declined to speak to the media.
Wiesner's challenges are eerily reminiscent of Ottawa Volt owner Mike Nemat's situation in January, when his landlord refused to allow him to plug in his car in the parking structure attached to his condo.
These kinds of confrontations are likely to spread as plug-in car sales rise. But here are the challenges:
- Standard 110-Volt plugs in garages may be of widely varying qualities and not sufficiently robust for the power draw of continuous plug-in car charging;
- In California and elsewhere, landlords must install a sub-meter if they are legally to charge tenants for electricity used--which costs money;
- If one tenant is allowed to charge a plug-in car, that same privilege may have to be extended to all tenants;
- Depending on the building's rate plan, additional use could kick it into a higher-cost rate bracket; and
- Landlords do not provide fuel for gasoline vehicles, so why should they provide it for electric cars?
At the moment, it appears that Wiesner in San Francisco and Hemat in Ottawa are out of luck--as others in multiple dwellings may be as well.
What do you think? Are landlords within their rights to ban electric-car charging in their garages? Should tenants have unlimited rights to plug into any power outlet in their buildings' garages?
Or can there be a happy compromise somewhere in the middle?
Leave us your thoughts in the Comments below.
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Related Articles
-
New Gas Mileage Rules Will Reshape What Americans Drive: Aerodynamics And Weight
-
Can Plug-In Electric Road Trips Revitalize Fading Historic Route 66?
-
2014 Ford Fiesta SFE: 34 MPG Combined, 41 MPG Highway
-
2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Underscores 'Your Mileage May Vary'
-
Electric-Car Price War Heats Up: Chevy Volt $5,000 Cash Back
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Flying Electric Bicycle Debuts In Prague, Will NYC Ban These Too? 
NYC Bans Electric Bikes (Again), Launches Bike Sharing System 
2014 Ford Focus Electric: No Updates, No Love For Ford's... 
2014 Cadillac ELR Electric Luxury Coupe Featured On Jay Leno's... 
Nissan Leaf Electric Car: Ultimate Guide, What You Need To Know Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
For example, I think in the above case there's no genuine reason not to install a power outlet, so it should be forced if desired - BUT but the person who wants the metered plug has to pay for its installation, not the landlord. I think that's fair.
This person is renting the apartment. Any improvements to the building will permanently benefit the landlord. Tenents are typically only in an apartment for a couple of years. The idea that the tenent should bare the full cost is misguided.
to all the parking spaces. A meter called a Kill-A-Watt would serve just fine for measurements and costs about $20, which I'm sure the tenant would provide. But the law only requires a meter if the landlord issues monetary charges. If the tenant offers so much per night for the juice, I see no legal requirement for a meter, which is solely to protect the tenant in the first place.
The circuit needs to be examined and possibly altered, to insure
no continuous overloads. Level 2 and level 3 chargers will likely make all these issues moot.
circuit. Take a 120 Volt circuit, typically either 15 or 20 amps and wired with either 12 (20amp) or 14(15 amp) gauge wire. The circuit will typically have 5 or 6 outlets and perhaps a light switch or two. You can overload the circuit simply by plugging two 1200 watt hairdryers into a single outlet, even if none of the other outlets or lights are being used. Circuits are designed to handle the "typical" load to be expected under normal circumstances and breakers are installed to take care of those occasions when the load is not typical. A heavy, continuous load (hours duration) will heat up the wire but not trip the breaker.
Circuits are rated for continuous loads.
In any case, the wires are rated to carry the full load (15 or 20 amps) without creating a hazard.
Wnat to change it? Contact the CPUC... at least in California.
tenants are also in their rights to move.
if and when evs become common, good ole competition starts to play.
landlords with meters placed in for ev drivers will have the advantage.
the more evs there are, the more landlords there will be, with electric plugs for the evs.
For one thing, EV cars really are a new, relatively niche market - a neat car gadget among the masses of cars. It is not the responsibility of any landlord to accommodate the latest gadgets.
Even if it were mainstream, how could they be required in any way to accommodate that, whether or not it would hurt or benefit them? Besides, we don't know the state of the electrical circuit to which the car is to be attached. It may be a liability.
Most fundamentally: they might not be under any obligation to have parking for cars in the first place. Nor do they need to allow mirrors in the building. Now, not having those may drive away potential customers, but let the markets decide.
If EVs offer environmental benefits, improved balance of trade, and reduced CO2 emissions, then society can force some sort of accommodation.
The hope probably would be that no one would notice or care, which should have been the case.
Do you ask for permission to plug in your laptop at the airport? at a cafe? I doubt it.
But, to Joe's point, if the only place I was going to plug in my computer was at the airport or a cafe and it was going to be bricked otherwise, I think I might make certain I could plug it in instead of counting on sneaking it into the outlet every day and then making a fuss that they wouldn't let me.
This is a common way to start a legal action. The tenant now has a complaint and can begin proceeding that may benefit everyone.
In no way comparable, but Rosa Parks didn't just happen to be sitting at the front of the bus, she did it deliberately to force the issue. Sometimes that is the only way to get change. Again, in no way comparable.
I was amused to see that the owner restored the function of the outlet. Ah the uncertainties of outlet protocol.
with that sort of logic, you gotta be a liberal !!!
i am not surprised that you gave me a friendly warning.
however, i am not a bit sorry for the comment.
society is too tolerant. we are allowing the govt to take too much control, and we are becoming a socialistic society, more and more dependent on the govt.
it is the absolute opposite from what this country was founded upon.
it is one thing to take advantage of a situation. but then to complain about something that was a non-given luxury in the first place, just sets a spark in me.
too many people are interested only in themselves. and they lack responsibility for their actions, cuz they have never been taught such.
Mr. Wiesner should be commended for being so up front about it with his landlord. For me, if my tenants are that forthcoming, I will try to make an accommodation. His landlord did not have to bill him separately - he could simply up the rent by a reasonable amount and be done with it. Why the big push back??
It's one of the benefits of buying a whole package not just a car with a plug. I will pay for this over time with the subscription of course, but at least I have backup when talking to Luddite building owners and committees.
Perhaps some form of cost sharing on an install would be reasonable.
But again, in this case, a plug already existed. Unless the breaker was tripping, there should have been some accommodation.
He offered to pay for all power he used, which in the case of the Volt would have been at most 12 kilowatt-hours per day--or less than $2 at California's average electricity rate of 14.4 cents/kWh.
The landlord e-mailed Wiesner a note saying, "Trinity Management Services does not approve such requests."
It shouldn't have been a big deal, an agreement should have been reached. He wasn't asking for free energy, or even to install a L2 charging station, just to use the standard 120v that was 3 feet away and would pay for the energy. I agree, the landlord should know and be paid back. But just no?
The Chevy Volt does pull more electricity, 1200 watts, so at most, only two Chevy Volts could be on one circuit, not three.
But given the overnight charging of the Chevy Volt, it seems unlikely to conflict with other uses of the branch circuit other than EVs and block heaters.
A little bit of planning could allow him to charge his Volt, then they just need to figure out how to have him pay for the electricity at perhaps $50/month.
john,
i will try not to be sarcastic, cuz i am puzzled why anyone would not understand the difference.
in one situation, a person has free choice. in another, the person is being forced by the govt.
this is certainly a situation easily handled by doing nothing.
as more and more evs come into being, more and more tenants will find it advantageous to live in an apartment where they can charge their car.
landlords will adjust and provide the convenience - giving the tenant the option to pay for using it or not using it, and not being charged.
the vendor has the choice to run his business as he desires.
the customer has the choice of which businesses he wants to use.
if we, as customers, dont like a business, then we dont go there. this is one way that we tell the business community what we like, and dislike.
the business needs to consistently assess its mode of operation, to make sure that it is operating profitably (to a point, of course).
if i was a current landlord, i would certainly attempt to do what i could. but it might not be a feasible expense, or it might cause liabilities that the landlord may not be prepared to handle.
but now the landlord is at least aware of something he may need to address in the future, in order to compete.
you are looking at it from the perspective of ev owner. you want some sort of mandate that landlords supply electric plugs for all their tenants ?
just how many of these tenants currently need it ? you are forcing an expense on the landlord that wont be used by most.
the most effective way of handling this problem is doing nothing, and allow competition to take over.
homeowners do have the advantage, but lets face it - with today's ev prices, it is mainly homeowners who are buying them.
there is never gonna be a system that works perfectly for every single person, at every single moment.
so he is gonna try to do what he can - thereby making his facility "ev-friendly". now, you have an apartment that is ev-friendly. and so the snowball begins to grow.
allow the snowflake to develop naturally.
everything will fall into place - just let nature take its course.
if supply goes up, prices come down. more buyers, and eventually more apartment dwellers as owners, and more landlords with facilities for evs.
Way to be pro-active.
There are more stakeholders in this than the tenant and the landlord. There is a public that is impacted by air pollution. That is why a planning is needed rather than "doing nothing."
I really don't have a specific plan for dealing with this, so let's not count up the costs yet. Some new buildings are forced to put in a cableway for EV charging, but not put in the wires or chargers. That seems like a reasonable compromise.
Perhaps with buildings that have some existing outlets, tenants could use them if there is no fire or trip hazard.
Perhaps there could be cost sharing for 220V installs.
The plumber launched in to a long thesis about how this was a personal residence and the Vermont government can't control what goes on there that they can only set standard for rental or commercial properties and had no say about what I set my water temp to.
Having no answer, I asked what would it need to be for a rental. Answer, 140F. Please set it to 140F.
Sometimes helps to have some guidance as to the right course of action.
But in this guy's case, a 3 foot long cord should not have been denied. But there is a reasonable question about the $50/month electricity bill.
some people tend towards knee-jerk reactions that get them in trouble.
doing nothing in this situation - the problem solves itself.
absolutely no need to get the govt involved, and mess things up further. LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!