• 95
Many California plug-in vehicle proponents have a love-hate relationship with GM, born out of the EV1 experience (see "Who Killed The Electric Car?" if this is news to you) and the trend continues with some disagreement over a bill (AB475) that will, if passed, amend Sections 22511 and 22511.5 of the California Vehicle Code. Why does this matter?

Chelsea Sexton, an occasional AutoblogGreen columnist, wrote up the details on her personal blog, but the gist is that there is a problem with the until-now small plug-in vehicle community and the way they've been treating one another at charging stations. Basically, with a limited number of chargers around, sometimes EV drivers had to be creative to get their juice. As Chelsea writes:

We've learned through years of trial and error that infrastructure use is maximized and cost minimized by installing chargers between two or four parking spaces where feasible. Drivers then share chargers by unplugging a fully-charged vehicle and plugging the next one in, without having to wait for someone to move his car. It also helps with ICEing [a gas car parking in a charger space], the very issue this law is meant to address. Rather than waiting for that vehicle to be moved or towed, the plug-in simply takes the next space.

The problem is that the current version of AB475 prohibits unplugging someone else's vehicle makes it illegal to be unplugged while parked in a charge spot (sorry, Chels). The original form of the bill did not include this provision, but GM apparently pushed to modify the language to include plug-in hybrids (like the Chevy Volt) in the law that had just been written for pure electric vehicles. The law used to be that a sticker was required to show that it was OK to park in a charger space, but the change would make it so that a vehicle is OK to park there while plugged in. You can see how this is a problem with charger sharing.

So, Chelsea has, with others, been working to make sure that charger sharing would survive, but:

I have now been told that charger sharing is bad and needs to be literally outlawed, that installing chargers/EVSEs between spaces is irresponsible, that it needs to be made illegal for anyone to unplug someone else's car for any reason, and should be punished the same as slashing someone's tires or breaking their windshield, and so on...additionally, the language of this version appears to be fuzzy enough that gas cars would actually be able to legally park in these spaces.

Thus, Plug In America now opposes AB475 "because it will hurt the consumers who it was designed to help and will not accomplish its stated goal. This, in turn, could reduce the demand for the next generation of clean efficient vehicles which run on clean domestic electricity." PIA's legislative director, Jay Friedland, adds that "The bill is now bad because it not only wastes resources by disallowing EV charger sharing, but potentially prevents current Volt owners from being able to charge." (Read PIA's full statement after the jump).

So, it looks like the laws are trying to stop what once was an accepted action in a small community. Now that new plug-in vehicle drivers are entering the picture, things may be changing. The funny thing is, one of Chevrolet's slogans is "Its more than a car, it's a community." Hmm.
Show full PR text
August 17, 2011
Assemblymember Betsy Butler California
State Assembly
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Location: Senate Floor
Re: AB 475 (Butler) Vehicles: offstreet parking: electric vehicles (As Amended 6/21/11)
Position: Oppose Unless Amended

Dear Assemblymember Butler,

Plug In America drives change. We are working to accelerate the shift to plug-in vehicles powered by clean, affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment. As the organization representing the millions of potential future consumers of plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles, we respectfully oppose AB 475 as amended on June 21, 2011.

Plug In America enthusiastically originally endorsed AB 475 at introduction (February 15, 2011), which would have simply added plug-in hybrids to an existing EV parking law. Unfortunately, the current amendments to AB 475 will actually make it more difficult for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids to share charging infrastructure. We now oppose this bill because it will hurt the consumers who it was designed to help and will not accomplish its stated goal. This, in turn, could reduce the demand for the next generation of clean efficient vehicles which run on clean domestic electricity.

Please contact our legislative advocate, Kathryn Lynch, at (916) 443-0202 with any questions.

Sincerely,
Jay Friedland Legislative Director

cc:
Brian Putler, Deputy Legislative Secretary, Governor's Office
Jonas Austin, Senate Floor Analyst
Edward Morley, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
Kathryn Lynch, Legislative Advocate
Plug In America


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 95 Comments
      Rotation
      • 3 Years Ago
      This doesn't have anything to do with GM, folks. There was a new bill, GM it suggested changes and then as mentioned by Sexton, the bill was reworked. Sexton has posted an update again which amounts to little more than backpedaling and whining. Now any car would be allowed in that spot for the purpose of charging. This clearly includes Volts or anything else with a plug. But now she complains you could charge there with an ICE car if you just attach a battery tender to your battery. Chelsea, overly specific laws always have loopholes. This one is VERY minor. Few people would pull this stunt. And if they do, the law can be changed again. Don't sweat the small stuff.
        Michael Walsh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        What a pile! This bill was a direct result of GM approaching Butler as a constituent!
        Michael Walsh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        What a pile. The bill was a direct result of GM approaching Butler as a constituent.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        Aww, I'm sorry to have bothered you with my whining. Was just trying to clarify one of the many points I made with new information. Seemed the responsible thing to do. GM was the one doing all the public whining in the last few days. I agree that the potential gas car issue is not the biggest one- but I assure you that people have been putting charger connectors into their front grills or under their hoods for years, trying to look like EVs to the parking enforcement folks. There is not a single concern in that post that isn't backed up by experience. And I agree that overly specific laws have loopholes- and surely you recall that I clearly stated that my preference was to kill this bill, revoke the original law, which solves GM's PHEV issue without creating these others. See? No overly specific law. Or, as they falsely indicated for two months they were willing to do, they could have just reverted back to the original version of this bill, which would have had the same effect.
          • 3 Years Ago
          Tweaker- you're totally right; your speculation outweighs our actual experience. Funny, that's exactly GM's argument. If you would read my actual post, you'd see that what we've been asking for for two months is simply to go back to the original version of AB475, which identified vehicles with....a sticker. For two months, GM agreed with us, though they also told Butler they were happy leaving things as they are. Just over the weekend, GM has changed its stance to state that the company is against the stickers on principle, as no plug-in driver should be subjected to the extra "process step" of an extra form and a few dollars to get the sticker. We're with you on that one.
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 3 Years Ago
          Tweaker, Chelsea should not respond to you because your a nut. To think you know more about the EV community and what goes on in it, is a laugh. Despite what you think, she is a authority and one I would trust over any other. She has given GM a fair shake right on down the line. She was on GM's panel for the Volt and has praised the Volt. This is a example of GM's bait and switch tactics for which they are renowned for. Say one thing and do another. Great, now we have a puny little 8 kwh pack in the Volt that will take up a space for 8 hrs and be done charging in 4, disgusting. They are purposely making the charging infrastructure more expensive. I would not mind some one unplugging my car if fully charged, what good is a unused charging station?
          Tweaker
          • 3 Years Ago
          " I assure you that people have been putting charger connectors into their front grills or under their hoods for years, trying to look like EVs to the parking enforcement folks. " Oh bullshit. Few people have ever even seen a charging station. I know I haven't and I am very interested. Anyway, that is very easily remedied by state DMVs. A simple sticker. Just admit it. GM is evil, the Volt is at least perceived as an American car and you hate the fact that people low enough to buy an American car are entering your little club.
        Dave R
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        You'd be surprised at the stunts people will pull in order to get some free electricity. There have been numerous cases of RVs being spotted in front of charging stations ******* down electricity to run their AC or watch TV.
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave R
          What if the RV is charging their on-board battery?
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave R
          LTAW, please use your filtration mask more when riding your bike as I think the pollution is rotting your brain. I pay and have permission to use the RV park charging. All charging spots are labeled in Portland OR, "For EV's only". Does it stop ICEV from parking their? No it does not but at least some of them get tickets. I am legal, they are not. It is not ok for RV's to use the space.
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave R
          And apparently, there are EV users who like to use RV hook-ups for recharging... what's your point? It's ok for one group to use stations meant for a different user, but not vice-versa?
        Michael Walsh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        What a load of you-know-what. It's was at GM's request (as a Butler constituent) that the bill came about in the first place!
          Michael Walsh
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Michael Walsh
          Sorry about the doubles. Don't know what the heck goes wrong with posting to this site sometimes!
      usbseawolf2000
      • 3 Years Ago
      The bill should allow EV owners to unplug it from the plugins using it. Disallow the other way around. You'll have plug sharing and you'll protect (prioritize) the EV owners. Problem solved!
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      GM can not help themselves. They are just like that guy at the office who would rather play politics rather than working their way to the top. No matter how much it may seem like they try, in the end, it's their nature. They are the scorpion in that old fable about the scorpion and the frog. "Why did you sting me, now we'll both drown?"..."because it's my nature". GM will never change, even after they cleaned house and became "Government Motors", they're still GM. They absolutely can't help themselves.
      Robert Sheehan
      • 3 Years Ago
      A famous energy expert, physicist Lee Schipper, recently died. He is famous for making many unconventional and politically incorrect statements about conservation, irking both sides of the aisle. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/farewell-to-a-master-of-energy-mobility-and-vibes/
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      California has this incredible problem: They always claim to be first in green matters and leading the way to a brighter, cleaner tomorrow. But they seem to have the most corrupt system for deciding these issues and allow special interests to get so deeply ingrained in the process that half the time, their laws cause more harm than good. And of course, all the other states end up following either because it's easier economically or because they just assume Ca actually took the time to study it and do things right. Wrong assumption. GM is clearly screwing with the system here and anyone can see what they're up to. Why do GM in this case, and big oil in other cases seem to have the ability to corrupt this system so easily???
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave D
        What is it with you guys? For years you all demanded major manufactures produce volume production EV's. No sooner that GM and Nissan respond, than you all form little factions to hate the Volt or Leaf etc . Picking up sides like deranged school kids and hating GM for appealing to mainstream owners who are not 'in the club'. sneering at Toyota/Lexus hybrids which are practical, and have sold nearly 3 million vehicles, while educating the public about the possibility of practical EV transport. Instead, you waste time worshipping a ridiculously flawed little vehicle like the EV 1, which would not have sold a single vehicle at it's true cost of manufacture. GM, Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, et al , couldn't do a better job of alienating the rest of the motoring public from EV's, than you are doing yourselves!. Every GM Volt on the road creates credibility for all EV's! But, Oh No, here comes Morton Anorak, or DF, to 'prove' the Volt's not really any good! Why? Because it's not a "true" EV, light and aerodynamic, is equipped with safety, has no solar panels, feathers, and is a secret plot to promote 'big oil', and other mad concepts ,... Well, there goes years of hard work convincing Joe Public to put his tax dollars in to EV Infrastructure, and backside into the drivers seat of an EV!
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Don't even attempt to equate GM with Nissan as it is such a discredit to Nissan and is blasphemy.
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Well said. The fractiousness of the BEV-only crowd is one of the biggest turn-offs.
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Sorry Marco and LTAW but GM does not even have a EV. So why compare Nissan to GM? Like apples to oranges. If GM was to have a EV they would produce it much like Toyota and Ford's EV's that may be produced some day. Basically conversion's of ICE cars in such limited numbers to keep prices high so the average American would not even consider them. You guys really want me to cheer this? They are spending less money on EV production than it would cost them to air green commercials and that is all it is to them, green advertisement, they don't want to bring prices down through volume. Nissan is the only corp with plans to do that. GM just wants to sell hybrids now that use gas and get 37 mpg on premium. I think it takes much to upset Chelsey. So GM really got out of hand and is up to their old tricks of getting their hand in the cookie jar only to contaminate the cookies. Sad, truly sad but as I suspected, GM is here to sabotage the EV movement while pretending otherwise. Willing to stab people in the back while pretending to work with them. Pretending to sell EV's while putting EV's down. Ah the good old EV1 days, some things never change.
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          "Sad, truly sad but as I suspected, GM is here to sabotage the EV movement while pretending otherwise." At least when you say what you really mean, we can then decide on our own if that's a rational opinion or not. I happen to disagree with you.
        Dave D
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave D
        What the hell are you talking about? I'm not deriding GM for the Volt or saying anything about it. All I'm asking is that GM just produce their damn cars and compete with everyone else and stop trying to lobby for lasw that screw anyone else.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave D
          laws...goddamnit, why can't ABG give us a FREAKIN edit button???
      • 3 Years Ago
      Great for tow truck drivers. Get goons to pull plugs, cal in the violation, wait at the corner, tow and collect excessive fees! I own a LEAF and plug swap all the time with notes and it works well. Regardless this is such a bunch of GM crap and I won't be considering their products again.
      HVH20
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't think this needs laws, it needs common sense can decency. Any jackass can unplug someones car while they are gone, but 99% of the time its not going to happen. All the vehicles these days are equipped with notifications to your phone if this happens anyway. So its not like your going to find an uncharged EV or PHEV when you expected a full one. How many people do you know that have been caught for slashing tires and punished through the court system... Exactly - its still a dick move but save the tax payers money for killers and rapists.
      letstakeawalk
      • 3 Years Ago
      What's so hard about installing a dedicated charger for each space?
        Michael Walsh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        Money! Maybe someday that can happen. I'm sure those of us with EVs think that's an awesome idea. But for right now, what we had was working OK!
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        You've just doubled, if not quadrupled, the cost of building the public EV infrastructure. And with the result that all those EVSEs will not even be charging most of the time, they'll just be "plugged in" idly --to avoid being ticketed and towed. What a waste of money, effort, and resources. There are MUCH better solutions.
        letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        This of course wouldn't apply to private chargers, so people who own their own spaces (or rent/lease them) would have no such issue. It seems this only applies to public parking situations, which makes sense. Once you car is done charging (and you've been conveniently alerted by phone/text/email) it would be very simple to step outside, move your car into a non-charging space, and be nice enough to allow someone else to use the charger - if indeed there is no other charging space available. It would be quite rude to leave your EV in a space when someone else could be using it, like those people who leave their cars parked at the gas pump after pumping and then go inside to shop/use the restroom. Likewise, this gives the owner of a location the *ability* to tow a car blocking an EV charging spot. That doesn't mean the car *will* get towed, just that if the owner of the spot finds the car to be a nuisance, then the owner has a legal way of dealing with the nuisance short of going through trespassing. My local grocer has a sign up in the lot that says cars not belonging to shoppers may be towed. That means, if I park there and take up a spot meant for his customers, he *can* tow me, if he wants to. However, I can park there, shop in his store, and then walk down the street to another store - as long as I'm not being a jerk and depriving his customers of that space for an unreasonable amount of time. I'm with GM on this. They want to include PHEVs, which makes sense because we can all agree we'd rather have them using electricity than gasoline, so they need to be able to charge too. And I think it makes sense to give the owners of the charging space leeway to tow cars that they think are taking advantage of the "reserved" spaces.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @letstakeawalk
          Just like you've been since day 1. Why don't you just admit that you're an H2 guy and you will always do anything you can to undermine EVs. That's your choice and you're entitled to it. I just hate that you pretend to be unbiased when you so clearly do nothing but give EVs backhanded compliments at best and outright undermine them when possible. "I've been told numerous times that EVs aren't dependent on charging infrastructure" The fact that you don't need an external charge point all the time has nothing to do with it. When you *do* need one, you need it. You're clearly showing your bias here yet again, and trying to find ways to undermine something that could very easily be a relatively cheap solution for EVs.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @letstakeawalk
          So why do you need a law for this? There is no law about how people using spaces in a parking lot at the grocery store or a movie theater today, so why would they try to regulate this. If people are hogging spaces for inordinate amounts of time, then the owner can put up a sign with restrictions the same way a restaurant has spaces for people just doing carry-out orders. There is no reason for the government to be pushing this and they weren't pushing it this way until GM got involved. As Chelsea noted, they were very clear on their tweets that they were worried about people ganging up on them and their Volts so they're screwing with the rest of us for their own reasons. This is why it's so hard to wish GM well in ANY endeavour: they are always trying to screw with someone else instead of just producing a good product themselves and letting it compete. "Likewise, for all those complaining about increasing the cost of EV infrastructure build-out, what ever happened to all those arguments that EV infrastructure was cheap and easy" I'll tell you what is happening HERE: a bunch of a$$holes are passing laws to make the infrastructure artificially expensive to deploy. That charger could have been shared by 2 or 4 parking spaces just fine.
          Michael Walsh
          • 3 Years Ago
          @letstakeawalk
          quote: It seems this only applies to public parking situations, which makes sense. Once you car is done charging (and you've been conveniently alerted by phone/text/email) it would be very simple to step outside, move your car into a non-charging space, and be nice enough to allow someone else to use the charger....... Unless you're in attending a play or concert; or performing open heart surgery; or having sex and don't really feel like stopping right then and there!
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @letstakeawalk
          "...you will always do anything you can to undermine EVs. That's your choice and you're entitled to it. I just hate that you pretend to be unbiased when you so clearly do nothing but give EVs backhanded compliments at best and outright undermine them when possible." You must have forgotten all the flack I took for supporting Fisker, and Coda, and NEVs... You also seem to forget that we H2 enthusiasts recognize that PHEVs using FCs are the ultimate goal. Thanks for throwing a red herring into the discussion. I just accept the reality that EVs *do* need an extensive charging network. "When you *do* need one, you need it." Oh, I see you agree with me on that point. So how would you feel to roll up to a charging station, only to find somebody's parked there, and can't be bothered to leave after they're finished charging, because as Michael Walsh point out, they're getting laid. I support this law because: 1. I want *more* EV/PHEV charging points. No skimping out cheap because "you can share." That only gives retailers an excuse *not* to install more charge points. 2. I want people who aren't actively using an EV charge point to get out of the way and make sure someone who really needs it can use it. You call charge sharing a "cheap solution", and I agree it certainly is a half-arsed way to build an EV support infrastructure.
          letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @letstakeawalk
          "So why do you need a law for this?" Exactly. Why *do* we need a law that limits a space's useage? It seems to me that if there's a charger, that's all you really need - right? Then why do you need a "designated stall or space"... that's your limitation right there. Put a charger in a location where it is usable by several spaces. I think one in the center of four would be very easy to do. As long as the spaces *aren't* specifically designated for EVs, then anyone can use them, and anyone can charge from the charger, and "charge-sharing" can continue to happen as it has all along. Unless, you're concerned about having someone blocking an EV charger (aka ICEing), in which case you'd like to have the ability to get them towed, right? How is finding an EV blocking a charger any different? It really is a very non-issue, though. I've been told numerous times that EVs aren't dependent on charging infrastructure, and that in most cases (a very high percentage I am assured) that there is more than adequate charge available - even in the case of the LEAF - to make your daily commute and still have time to run errands, and that charging on the run is really only for emergency situations or long-distance trips. I've even heard it said that only an "idiot" would get themselves into a situation where they'd have "range-anxiety", much like those morons who continually run out of gasoline. I think this issue *is* about money, and I agree that the cost for a fully-implemented EV charging infrastructure is going to cost a substantial amount of money to implement. To those of you who think GM is playing this game to hurt EVs, I think you've got it twisted around backwards, and that GM has a better concept of how many people are going to want to have access to chargers, and are possibly playing this angle to get the EV community to realize that. "I'll tell you what is happening HERE: a bunch of a$$holes are passing laws to make the infrastructure artificially expensive to deploy. That charger could have been shared by 2 or 4 parking spaces just fine." Sharing is great among small communities, but as anything grows into the mainstream, sharing doesn't cut it anymore. Of course, if they're really interested in sharing those spaces, just don't designate them as EV/PHEV only, and let anyone use them, and then the towing issue would go away... Otherwise you're hogging parking spaces.
        Dave D
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        1) Cost 2) Is still doesn't solve the problem if the bill allows for towing if a vehicle is allowed to be towed because it has finished charging. There is a reason the "community" has evolved to share plugs the way they have: It works in the real world. Why does GM need to come in and F with it now?
          Tweaker
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave D
          Gee, maybe because once the masses buy electric (thats a good thing - remember?) it won't be a polite little "community". Get used to it.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave D
          Tweaker, This is no different than the current "super gas stations" popping up along the interstate. People don't usually fillup and leave their car sitting there for 30 minutes while they go into pizza hut/taco bell to get dinner. They fill the car up and then move them. I don't see the average person being that big of an A$$HOLE. if they are, then the owners of the charging station/gas station will have to start having the cars towed if they are not being shared. But why pass a law to deal with all of this? This should be a matter for the owners of the charging stations. If the city owns them, then they can put them up in a space that can be shared by 4 cars and state the policy of how they can be used. Every situation is different. Why pass some stupid law that is going to have unintended consequences? I'll agree with LTAW on one thing...if some jerkwad is leaving his car in a charging spot for 4 hours and it's not charging AND it stops other from using the charger, then he should be towed. But this law is not the answer. Each setup is different and should be treated with some common sense by the owner as to how it is used.
        letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        "How do you regulate this?" Easy, with a clearly written law that states who is allowed to use the space under what conditions. Which is what they're doing with this law. Likewise, for all those complaining about increasing the cost of EV infrastructure build-out, what ever happened to all those arguments that EV infrastructure was cheap and easy, and that the costs would be absorbed by kindly private businesses and governments that recognize the benefits of EVs? "Unless you're in attending a play or concert; or performing open heart surgery; or having sex and don't really feel like stopping right then and there!" Those conditions would be covered under my original assumption that people who are working, or at home, would be using charging stations belonging either to themselves or their employers, and would therefore be exempt from any time restrictions at all. In terms of a concert or public performance, I would also assert that you're likely using a space intended to be used for the full term of the performance, and that the operator also wouldn't have any interest in towing you. This condition is obviously targeted at shoppers, in commercial areas, who are using spaces well beyond an average timeframe for shopping/dining. If you're hogging a space in a short-term lot, then you deserve to get towed, because you can just as easily come out and move your car.
        Dave D
        • 3 Years Ago
        @letstakeawalk
        So when someone walks up and unplugs your car, you're ok with getting towed? How do you regulate this? What is "long enough" before they can tow you? Why go through all that? Why not just let them share a stupid plug? I'll say it again: These habits evolved in the EV community because they work. Why try to create some law to regulate it based on some perception GM, or you, may have about how it should work??? I swear, you're just one of those people who has to argue the contrary side of every conversation, no matter what it is.
      Michael Walsh
      • 3 Years Ago
      There is still time to get Gov. Brown to veto this!
        Michael Walsh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Michael Walsh
        LOL! Sorry for the double post...thought my original had gotten itself censored!
      Michael Walsh
      • 3 Years Ago
      Still time to get Gov. Brown to veto this piece of crap!
      Mallard
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't see how this is a GM problem. They pushed to have the bill modified so full electric vehicles aren't the only ones allowed to park in a space with a charger. Which is a good thing! If you have an electric or a plug in hybrid you SHOULD be allowed to park in a space and charge your vehicle. From this article, it sounds as if the bureaucrats took it to the next level and added all the language that everyone seems to have a problem with, which is not GM's fault.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Mallard
        The original version that GM sponsored wasn't a problem. The new version, which GM endorsed, is a problem. Lying to us for two months about trying to go back to the original version (which no one had issues with) while simultaneously telling Butler's office they were fine with this one is a problem. I totally agree PHEVs should get to charge; I'm usually going up against the purists on that. And I think the new version started with innocent intentions. But refusing to listen to the people you're trying help after you're made aware of the problem is nowhere near innocent.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          Marco, I forgot you actually were involved in EVs...for some reason I'm getting some type of connection with you and Australia in the back of my mind...you based out there? Anyway, I forgot you're actually one of the folks who has a real stake here. But I disagree with you on GM. Chelsea is in the middle of these discussions with them and has a better idea of what is going on than those of us reading other people's opinions and press releases. She was involved and talking with the players through the different stages of this bill so I'm not going to tell her what is *really* going on. She fought GM in the past and has been on their advisory board for the Volt (which I happened to disagree with and thought they were using her, but she's a big girl and can make those decisions). To me, she's earned the right to criticize GM when they're wrong...and to know the difference. As for your other post to me: No, my application to GM wasn't turned down. LOL I happen to like your smartass jokes, even when they are directed at me. In fact, as a young exec at IBM, I owned the relationship with GM and worked with Dan McNichols (then CIO) to help set up the first secure website GM had where you could register and "build your own car" and have it saved securely as a sales/marketing tool for GM. I got a chance to see GM from close quarters and like any big corporation, they have good people and a bad people. But their corporate culture was incredibly pompous and overbearing....and this comes from someone who was at IBM. I've also invested a lot in the EV movement myself. Well, to me, a few hundred thousand $$$ is a lot of money and nearly 4 years of my life. I'm a big advocate of the pure EVs and wish they were ready to take over the world today...but I'm also practical. The money I've put in so far has been almost totally towards a range extended vehicle and we're now in discussions with two manufacturers to license the technology. So I'm one of those guys who posts for, and pulls for, the pure EV...but I've actually bet my money on the PHEV for the time being. I guess my heart and my brain are not in agreement yet.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          Lets see,...what a complex problem! With so many EV manufacturers. Oh, yeah actully only two, so far, making vehicles in volume numbers. GM and Nissan. Chelsea, do you think that alienating the only domestic volume manufacturer, GM, really helps the promote EV transport? I think the underlying problem you are encountering is best illustrated in your own words, "The community has always been able to establish and evolve its own protocols, and there's never been a problem with that mechanism. But according to GM, we need saving from ourselves. And they know best how to do it." What community? Some little club of EV enthusiasts? That time has passed! Nissan, GM, Toyota, Ford Renault, Hyundai, Honda, are already joining Tesla, Fisker in increasing EV production to volume levels. As the EV manufacturers go mainstream, there is no 'community', GM understands that, evidently you don't!
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          Oh, and by the way, Dave D, I operate over 280 EV's in 11 countries, in specialist hire and rental applications. My personal transport for the last 4 years has been a Blade EV, and a LEVRR. Prior to that I built (or had built EV conversions), so I think my interest in EV promotion is pretty well established.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          Dave D. I think where you make a mistake, is you think the Electric vehicle industry is a small hobbyist 'community' restricted to the Western US. I don't. I have worked and invested for more than twenty years to make EV's a mainstream volume replacement for the ICE. To accomplish this realistic goals must be achieved. I'm not attacking Chelsea so much as pointing out that GM are not governments, and for her to claim that some weak willed legislator blames GM for framing laws is ludicrous! Chelsea may be telling the truth, but no legislator should admit to acting solely on the behest of any lobby group. Why not get the opposition to raise the issue? It's hard to conceive that all Californian Politicians are in the pay of GM!
          Mallard
          • 3 Years Ago
          So GM supported the first version of the bill (which you like) as well as the second version, which contains the language everyone seems to have a problem with. So far, this still doesn't look like GM's fault. There's been no proof they asked for certain language, other than wanting to have PHEV's included in the regulation, which we both agree is a good thing, so of course GM would support it. Either way, I don't want someone I know touching my car and unpluggging it. Sure, charge sharing worked great when it was a tight knit group of people with homebuilts and neighborhood EV's, but this is mainstream now. Average people are total ********, only care about their own needs, and would unplug the car next to them in a second if they wanted to charge, regardless of the other persons state of charge. I think this language is a good thing, the punishment may sound a bit harsh, but I'm sure they're trying to deter mass amounts of people from doing it and the PD spending too much time 'investigating' unpluggings.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          Yeah Marco Polo, go ahead and tell Chelsea all the terrible things she's done to the EV community and let's hear all the wonderful work you've done to help EVs take over the world. Oh, that's right...she's been living and breathing this stuff for over a decade and you comment on some forums.
          • 3 Years Ago
          You know what I love about this forum Marco? The consistency. When I say something good about GM or the Volt, I'm just an unpaid shill. And when I call them out on a mistake here and there, I'm holding the movement back. Either way, I'm wrong. It's all sorts of motivating, let me tell you. :)
      John R
      • 3 Years Ago
      Chelsea is on the GM panel; they should have asked for her input on it before pushing this flawed bill.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @John R
        Actually, there is no panel anymore. I've been back in my Saturn since March.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @John R
        I (and others) worked with them for the last two months to try to fix this bill. Just turns out that despite what we were told all along, they had no interest in actually doing that.
        wardialer
        • 3 Years Ago
        @John R
        i don't think they want her input. they just want her to drive their car around and inadvertently endorse/promote it. this bill kinda reminds me of the time i lived in an apartment building next to a college. it had public/private washers on the ground floor and if you didn't take your clothes out on time, college kids would take it out for you... and sometimes put it in the garbage. ahhh... the good olde days.
    • Load More Comments