EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

brucedp5

Apartment dwellers are the next target for EV sales

[unformatted]
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=8655658
[video] SF landlord won't let tenant charge electric car
by Michael Finney  May 09 2012

[video flash]
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- With more and more people turning to electric cars, the challenge is becoming getting the vehicle charged up every day. If you're a homeowner, you can just plug it in, in your garage. But for renters, it's not so easy.

California is trying to promote green technology, but one of San Francisco's biggest landlords has told a tenant he cannot use a plug to charge his new electric car. Neither can the other tenants.

Richard Wiesner is pretty happy with his new electric car.

"Living in the Bay Area, you just feel like you have some obligation to be as green as you possibly can," Wiesner said.

As long as he can keep his car charged up, Wiesner hardly uses any gasoline anymore. He figured that would be no problem. He lives in a San Francisco high-rise and when he parks at his assigned space, there's an electrical outlet right there

"This car is designed to be convenient; that's the beauty of the Volt," Wiesner said.

His Chevy Volt needs only an ordinary socket. The setup seemed ideal, until he told his landlord about it.

"The answer came back, 'We at Trinity Management do not allow any alterations to our premises,'" Wiesner said.

Wiesner explained it required "no alterations" and he would pay for the extra energy cost. Still, his landlord gave him a flat "no." Wiesner could park, but he could not plug his car to the socket three feet away.

The building manager emailed Wiesner saying simply "Trinity Management Services does not approve such requests."

Now Wiesner says he has to drive around looking for charging stations.

He also contacted 7 On Your Side, and we tried to talk with the building owner, developer Angelo Sangiacomo and his company, Trinity Properties. No one from the company returned our calls. We reached building manager Brian Hsieh. He said: "I am not allowed to comment on this," and "We're not going to say anything."

"I think as we see electric vehicles becoming more popular that we'll run into more situations where there are landlord-tenant disputes," San Francisco Tenants Union spokesperson Ted Gullicksen said.

Gullicksen believes Wiesner has every right to plug in his car.

"If the tenants had use of them in the past then they have use of them in the future," Gullicksen said.

However, an expert in landlord tenant law disagrees.

"I don't' see any reason in the law why the landlord would be obliged to make that socket available," David Garcia said.

Garcia, a former superior court judge, now mediates civil disputes. Garcia says if the landlord lets one tenant plug in, he may have to grant access to everybody else. And since Wiesner's lease doesn't give him specific rights to the socket, the landlord can say no.

"It's not a part of his unit; that socket is part of a common area," Garcia said.

Gullicksen says just the opposite: if the lease doesn't prohibit use of the socket, it's fair game.

"That means they have the right to use the outlets without restrictions," Gullicksen said.

One thing everyone agrees on, this conflict is bound to spread, especially in a city where half the residents are tenants and more are buying electric cars.

"If every landlord were to take this position, then no tenant would be able to buy an electric vehicle," Garcia said.

"It's not fair because tenants have the right to have electric cars just like homeowners do and I think all of us want to see more gas guzzling vehicles taken off the road," Gullicksen said.

Wiesner hopes someday charging stations will be the norm and this dispute will seem silly.

The city's Department of Environment is encouraging landlords to install EV charging stations at their buildings. Other cities are taking similar steps.
[© 2012 ABC  KGO-TV/DT  All Rights Reserved]


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/05/next-target-for-electric-car-sales-apartment-dwellers/1#.T6gXjdmm7u8
[image] Next target for electric car sales: apartment dwellers
By Chris Woodyard  May 07 2012

[image] By Dan MacMedan, USA TODAY
There are six charging stations at the Santa Monica Place shopping mall, here being used mostly by Nissan Leafs. Now apartment complexes could be a target for charging

The next great hurdle for selling electric cars could be to attract new customers from among those who live in apartment complexes.

With many of the intial sales of electric cars going to people who can charge them in their home garages, automakers and electric car makers are starting to think about how to tap the market for condo or apartment dwellers.

Why? Because it's where the next great batch of customers could be. In the enviromentally conscious, affluent enclave of Santa Monica, Calif., 70% of the residents live in multi-family housing, says Ed Kjaer, Southern California Edison's electric-car expert. The utilty serves 10 million customers.

When it comes to charging and electric car adoption, some interesting patterns are emerging. For instance, an overwhelming number of customers -- 93% -- are opting for charging plans that give them a price break when they plug in at off-peak hours, Kjaer says. More customers are calling the utility as well to ask about rates.

"It's a dialogue, not a monologue" when it comes to helping customers get set up with a recharging system for the new cars, Kjaer says.
[© 2011 USA TODAY]





http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_page&node=413529&query=evln&sort=date
All EVLN posts

{brucedp.150m.com}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

brucedp5
Previously, I had received an email from Coulomb inviting me to
offer them feedback.

I just shot off a response to them with a boat load of thoughts, but
foremost was on this piece. If existing Apt owners are this reluctant,
how are future Apt dwelling drivers being Sales' targeted going to
cope?

I gave Coulomb an idea for a low-cost Level-1 EVSE that would be
fairly easy for a certified electrician to installed and setup (in
theory anyway, they would have to made it happen).  

Coulomb already offers a Level-1 EVSE, CT2000
http://www.advancedenergy.org/transportation/evse/details.php?id=15

But it is too expensive and not what is needed. The CT line of EVSE is
designed as a standalone unit so anyone can use it, thus it needs to
use a wireless connection to enable the authorization.

I suggested a whittled down version that would only enable power for
one specific Chargepoint card (set internally), and only need to dial
up to the Chargepoint network once-a-month for billing purposes.

That means each time the driver wants to use the low-cost Level-1
EVSE he would need his Chargepoint RFID card, internally it would
recognize it, and enable power, but would not call in to get approval.

That would drastically reduce the amount of Chargepoint bandwidth
usage, and if each stall had one, then that would a good bandwidth
savings/network overload prevention.

The unit would not have a J1772 coupler (that would only add to the
cost), but it would have an exposed 5-20 receptacle that is only
powered on if activated.

At the end of the month, the unit could call in to send in the power
usage data. That would allow hosts to get the costs of the electric
power back.

If you saw the flash video in the piece the driver was willing to pay
for the use of the outlet. In this case, they would pay for the
installation of this low-cost Level-1 EVSE in place of the 5-20
duplex receptacle shown, and the associated usage costs.

If the driver decided to take their EVSE with them when they move,
they could if they paid to have a certified electrician de-install it,
and put the receptacle back original. But my thinking is, it would not
be cost effective, and they would just leave it there, buying a new
one for the next place.

In the latter case, that existing EVSE would be reset by a certified
electrician to the new driver's Chargepoint RFID card.

I was thinking the cost of this low-cost EVSE would be in the $500
range.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


{brucedp.150m.com}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Roger Stockton
brucedp5 wrote:

> I suggested a whittled down version that would only enable power for
> one specific Chargepoint card (set internally), and only need to dial
> up to the Chargepoint network once-a-month for billing purposes.
>
> That means each time the driver wants to use the low-cost Level-1
> EVSE he would need his Chargepoint RFID card, internally it would
> recognize it, and enable power, but would not call in to get approval.

[...]

> At the end of the month, the unit could call in to send in the power
> usage data. That would allow hosts to get the costs of the electric
> power back.

[...]

> Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I think your proposal might make some sense if you pitch it to the building management as a potential revenue-generating stream, with Coulomb/Chargepoint taking a cut for their services.

It makes little sense to me as an individual wanting an outlet to plug in my vehicle.  I have trouble with the part where I purchase the charge station and pay for the installation, and then pay Coulomb/Chargepoint to collect the electricity cost (++) from me for the building management.

It makes more sense to me to instead install a pair of locked boxes, one containing a kWh meter (i.e. a Kill-a-Watt type device suitable for the 120V 20A circuit) and the other containing the metered 120V 20A outlet.  I get a key to the outlet box; the building management/caretaker gets a key to the kWh box (or make the meter box cover transparent or with a window to allow the meter to be read without opening the box).  The whole thing plugs into an existing common area outlet so no (or minimal) qualified electrician installation costs are incurred as no permits or inspection is required.  The downside is that someone (caretaker?) has to read the meter and invoice me for the electricity consumed.

My experience is that the building management decision may not be logical or rational; if they are opposed to plugging private vehicles into common area outlets, they will find reasons to block any request to install equipment even if that equipment would address a previously expressed concern about compensation for the cost of electricity consumed.

If the building management were logical and not inherently opposed to an individual using a common area outlet, then they would agree to an arrangement such as simply adding an amount to the monthly maintenance fee to cover the cost of electricity used.  For instance, for a 120V 20A outlet, the maximum allowed load is 16A, for 1.92kW; 1.92kW x 24h = 46kWh/day as the absolute maximum that could ever be used.  At $0.05/kWh, this is $2.30/day; $70/month.  Ultimately this is far more that the cost of the electricity that will actually be consumed, but it is a simple arrangement that reassures the building management/other owners that there is no way that the individual can use more than they are paying for.  By avoiding the purchase cost of any equipment as well as installation costs (and possible removal costs), it might still work out to be less costly for the individual especially if they move within a few years.

The bigger problem is that while an individual might be lucky and have a suitable outlet near their parking space already, in most cases there will not be such an outlet available to a large fraction of the spaces, and the building electrical service and wiring will not have been sized to allow large numbers of such outlets to be in use at the same time.  This means that installation costs for an outlet at a space presently without one can be quite significant, and as EV use increases there will come a point where additional EVs cannot be plugged in without costly upgrades to the building electrical service.

I think part of what may cause building management to react the way they do is this sort of "if we let one owner do it, we have to let them all, and we can't let them all unless we spend a bunch of money, so don't let anyone do it" reasoning.

I think an effective approach to circumvent this might be to convince the building management to dedicate a small number of parking spaces for EV charging and install fully functional "public-type" charging stations to serve them.  This allows multiple owners to share the use of a relatively few charging stations so that the burden on the building electrical system capability is kept reasonable, and avoids the issue of an individual using common property inappropriately, and avoids the cost of electricity issue (since the individual would pay for the cost of electricity each time they use the spots).  The challenge is to figure out a way to make the economics of installing one or more charging stations justifiable to building management/other owners.  It might be as simple as setting the usage fee sufficiently high to recover the initial cost over a year or other reasonable period, or perhaps partnering with some third party company who would be responsible for installing th!
 e charging equipment and maintaining/servicing it, and would be paid through the usage fees (very similar in principle to the way coin-operated laundry facilities are provided in many buildings).

Cheers,

Roger.


_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Dave Hymers
If the tenent has the means, rent a very noisy gas generator, heck take the
muffler off. ;-) I'm terrible when it comes to stuff like this, I hate my
HOA.
On May 10, 2012 2:54 PM, "Roger Stockton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> brucedp5 wrote:
>
> > I suggested a whittled down version that would only enable power for
> > one specific Chargepoint card (set internally), and only need to dial
> > up to the Chargepoint network once-a-month for billing purposes.
> >
> > That means each time the driver wants to use the low-cost Level-1
> > EVSE he would need his Chargepoint RFID card, internally it would
> > recognize it, and enable power, but would not call in to get approval.
>
> [...]
>
> > At the end of the month, the unit could call in to send in the power
> > usage data. That would allow hosts to get the costs of the electric
> > power back.
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> I think your proposal might make some sense if you pitch it to the
> building management as a potential revenue-generating stream, with
> Coulomb/Chargepoint taking a cut for their services.
>
> It makes little sense to me as an individual wanting an outlet to plug in
> my vehicle.  I have trouble with the part where I purchase the charge
> station and pay for the installation, and then pay Coulomb/Chargepoint to
> collect the electricity cost (++) from me for the building management.
>
> It makes more sense to me to instead install a pair of locked boxes, one
> containing a kWh meter (i.e. a Kill-a-Watt type device suitable for the
> 120V 20A circuit) and the other containing the metered 120V 20A outlet.  I
> get a key to the outlet box; the building management/caretaker gets a key
> to the kWh box (or make the meter box cover transparent or with a window to
> allow the meter to be read without opening the box).  The whole thing plugs
> into an existing common area outlet so no (or minimal) qualified
> electrician installation costs are incurred as no permits or inspection is
> required.  The downside is that someone (caretaker?) has to read the meter
> and invoice me for the electricity consumed.
>
> My experience is that the building management decision may not be logical
> or rational; if they are opposed to plugging private vehicles into common
> area outlets, they will find reasons to block any request to install
> equipment even if that equipment would address a previously expressed
> concern about compensation for the cost of electricity consumed.
>
> If the building management were logical and not inherently opposed to an
> individual using a common area outlet, then they would agree to an
> arrangement such as simply adding an amount to the monthly maintenance fee
> to cover the cost of electricity used.  For instance, for a 120V 20A
> outlet, the maximum allowed load is 16A, for 1.92kW; 1.92kW x 24h =
> 46kWh/day as the absolute maximum that could ever be used.  At $0.05/kWh,
> this is $2.30/day; $70/month.  Ultimately this is far more that the cost of
> the electricity that will actually be consumed, but it is a simple
> arrangement that reassures the building management/other owners that there
> is no way that the individual can use more than they are paying for.  By
> avoiding the purchase cost of any equipment as well as installation costs
> (and possible removal costs), it might still work out to be less costly for
> the individual especially if they move within a few years.
>
> The bigger problem is that while an individual might be lucky and have a
> suitable outlet near their parking space already, in most cases there will
> not be such an outlet available to a large fraction of the spaces, and the
> building electrical service and wiring will not have been sized to allow
> large numbers of such outlets to be in use at the same time.  This means
> that installation costs for an outlet at a space presently without one can
> be quite significant, and as EV use increases there will come a point where
> additional EVs cannot be plugged in without costly upgrades to the building
> electrical service.
>
> I think part of what may cause building management to react the way they
> do is this sort of "if we let one owner do it, we have to let them all, and
> we can't let them all unless we spend a bunch of money, so don't let anyone
> do it" reasoning.
>
> I think an effective approach to circumvent this might be to convince the
> building management to dedicate a small number of parking spaces for EV
> charging and install fully functional "public-type" charging stations to
> serve them.  This allows multiple owners to share the use of a relatively
> few charging stations so that the burden on the building electrical system
> capability is kept reasonable, and avoids the issue of an individual using
> common property inappropriately, and avoids the cost of electricity issue
> (since the individual would pay for the cost of electricity each time they
> use the spots).  The challenge is to figure out a way to make the economics
> of installing one or more charging stations justifiable to building
> management/other owners.  It might be as simple as setting the usage fee
> sufficiently high to recover the initial cost over a year or other
> reasonable period, or perhaps partnering with some third party company who
> would be responsible for installing th!
>  e charging equipment and maintaining/servicing it, and would be paid
> through the usage fees (very similar in principle to the way coin-operated
> laundry facilities are provided in many buildings).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> | Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
> | Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
> |
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20120510/e655e423/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

EVLN: Landlords Vs Tenants-with-Plug-in-Vehicles

brucedp5
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by brucedp5
Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

[unformatted]
[image] Landlords Vs Tenants With Electric Cars: The Latest Round
By John Voelcker May 15 2012

[image] 2012 Chevrolet Volt [plug-in series hybrid]
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 [Nemat] 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?
[© 2011 Green Car Reports  All Rights Reserved]
...
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ottawa+Volt+Michael+Nemat





{brucedp.150m.com}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: Landlords Vs Tenants-with-Plug-in-Vehicles

Maka
In Saskatchewan Canada the car owners plug in their  block heaters many  nights of the season-- in apartment parking lots or home driveways that always have ample outlets for plugging in cars & trucks.   New vehicles are sold with plugs hanging out of the hood.  It's no big deal.   The revered ICE motor gets protected from icy frigid starts.  
This issue is really about changing consciousness.  The Nissan dealers in this province won't be selling LEAFS until 2014.


Rationally, Maka

On May 16, 2012, at 4:36 AM, brucedp5 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge
>
> [unformatted]
> [image] Landlords Vs Tenants With Electric Cars: The Latest Round
> By John Voelcker May 15 2012
>
> [image] 2012 Chevrolet Volt [plug-in series hybrid]
> 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?
> [© 2011 Green Car Reports  All Rights Reserved]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> {brucedp.150m.com}
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-SF-landlord-won-t-let-tenant-plug-in-for-a-charge-tp4622891p4641162.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
> | Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
> |
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: Landlords Vs Tenants-with-Plug-in-Vehicles

brucedp5
In reply to this post by brucedp5
[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-SF-landlord-won-t-let-tenant-plug-in-for-a-charge-tp4622891p4641162.html
]

If the landlord was not against tenants plugging in, but did not want all the associated bother/hassle with covering their costs, my previous post/idea of having a separate company come in, take over the outlet (remove the 5-20 duplex and have the circuit feed their box mounted nearby), and the driver was willing to pay the associated costs (electricity+networking costs, and the equipment rental/purchase), this could still work for both the host and the driver.

I sent this idea to a Coulomb rep who responded that they previously had something similar in a prototype stage. So it is possible that an EVSE company could come in and put a low-cost EVSE in that only provided Level-1 (no J1772 costs, just a 5-20 outlet available).

Also. the response I got back from the Coulomb rep was that it was possible to program that low-cost Level-1 EVSE to only work on that driver's RFID card, and have it only wireless network the EVSE's usage once a month.

It is possible to have a company do this, but no one has stepped forward to provide it = business opportunity.


{brucedp.150m.com}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Cruisin
In reply to this post by brucedp5
The easiest way to resolve this problem is for the tenant and Lanlord to agree to a change in the lease to include the outlet for additional $$ to cver the lanlords cost. The teant has NO legal right to the outlet if it is not included in the lease. The landlord as a option, could enter into a agreement with a charging company and have pay type chargers installed for all the tenants, and share the profit. Maybe the tenant thinks he has "entitlement' to somebody else's property at no cost. "Occupy Eletrical Outlet".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: Landlords Vs Tenants-with-Plug-in-Vehicles

Cruisin
In reply to this post by Maka
In Canada they call it "Entitlement"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

EVDL Administrator
In reply to this post by Cruisin
On 16 May 2012 at 15:21, Cruisin wrote:

> The easiest way to resolve this problem is for the tenant and Lanlord
> to agree to a change in the lease to include the outlet for additional
> $$ to cver the lanlords cost ... Maybe the tenant thinks he has
> "entitlement' to somebody else's property at no cost.

By the conventions of property leasing, maybe he does, unless it's
specifically excluded by the lease.

Previously in this (or a similar) thread, I mentioned the possibility that
an owner of an apartment complex might bar tenants from using a receptacle
in a common area (1) so it would be available for complex maintenance staff;
and (2) because of liability concerns.  Someone (Lee, I think) responded
that recepts are already used for ICE block heaters in cold states, which is
a valid point, but I can still see valid reasons that a complex owner might
want to forbid such use.

I'm not an attorney, but again I mention that I do own rental properties, so
I can imagine being on the other side of this discussion.

It would be very unusual for me to forbid one of my tenants >in a detatched
house or duplex< to use a garage receptacle for any normal use, including
charging an electric vehicle.  

When I rent a premises, I rent all of it.  Unless I specifically state in
the lease that some portion of that premises is not available to the tenant -
 say, a locked storage shed where I keep the lawnmower so I can cut the
grass - anything on that premises is his/hers to use in any reasonable way
that doesn't break the law, damage the property, or interfere with the
rights or safety of others.  

But now let me back up for a second and address this specific instance.  
IIRC, the tenant has been told he can't plug his Volt into a receptacle in
the apartment's carport or garage.  

Suppose the carport has a 120v receptacle in each stall, but several (or
all) of those receptacles are on a single circuit.  If I'm the owner and I
say the tenant can charge his Volt, what happens when 2-3 other tenants want
to do the same?  Pop goes the breaker.  Now >nobody< can charge, and maybe
the security lights are out too, so someone gets injured.  See where I'm
going with this?

If I'm a good landlord, I'll probably have an electrician upgrade the wiring
in the carport so every receptacle can deliver 1800 watts.  But I might not
be able to afford that upgrade right now, so I might have to tell the would-
be charger, "not right now," or maybe even "never."  

I own the property, and I >should< have that right and that choice - to say  
"No, although the receptacle is part of the property and I didn't exclude it
from your lease, you still may not use it."

But the law is a funny thing.  Sometimes it's on the landlord's side,
sometimes it's on the tenant's.  Whether I have that right and choice may
depend on city and/or state laws.  If I were the landlord, I'd be on my
phone to my attorney before giving a final answer.

Finally, we're getting one side of this story from the news item.  I'm not
going to indict anyone until I've heard both sides.  However, I'm sorry to
say that we're unlikely to get that from the news media.  They're often not
very good at examining such issues closely.  They're usually more
entertainment than information, and they get more ratings mileage out of
raising outrage in their readers/listeners/viewers than from informing them.

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Dennis Miles
I found this recently on another list, it is a hassock sized wheeled box
with a battery inside and recharges from 120v, and it charges with a J1772
plug at level 2. Looks cool to me check it out for yourself, I am not the
dealer or manufacturer...

*The Valet Charger***

$1,500 plus shipping and tax, you can order via e-mail Jim
Burness<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=147033&memberID=5768279>
at [hidden email] .
This is a great solution! Charges any EV (It is Portable) then, recharge
"The Valet" in any AC outlet. Just wheel the unit to the EV needing a
charge and plug in the J1772 "level 2" cable into the EV and charge away.
Regards,
*Dennis Lee Miles*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM, EVDL Administrator <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 16 May 2012 at 15:21, Cruisin wrote:
>
> > The easiest way to resolve this problem is for the tenant and Lanlord
> > to agree to a change in the lease to include the outlet for additional
> > $$ to cver the lanlords cost ... Maybe the tenant thinks he has
> > "entitlement' to somebody else's property at no cost.
>
> By the conventions of property leasing, maybe he does, unless it's
> specifically excluded by the lease.
>
> Previously in this (or a similar) thread, I mentioned the possibility that
> an owner of an apartment complex might bar tenants from using a receptacle
> in a common area (1) so it would be available for complex maintenance
> staff;
> and (2) because of liability concerns.  Someone (Lee, I think) responded
> that recepts are already used for ICE block heaters in cold states, which
> is
> a valid point, but I can still see valid reasons that a complex owner might
> want to forbid such use.
>
> I'm not an attorney, but again I mention that I do own rental properties,
> so
> I can imagine being on the other side of this discussion.
>
> It would be very unusual for me to forbid one of my tenants >in a detatched
> house or duplex< to use a garage receptacle for any normal use, including
> charging an electric vehicle.
>
> When I rent a premises, I rent all of it.  Unless I specifically state in
> the lease that some portion of that premises is not available to the
> tenant -
>  say, a locked storage shed where I keep the lawnmower so I can cut the
> grass - anything on that premises is his/hers to use in any reasonable way
> that doesn't break the law, damage the property, or interfere with the
> rights or safety of others.
>
> But now let me back up for a second and address this specific instance.
> IIRC, the tenant has been told he can't plug his Volt into a receptacle in
> the apartment's carport or garage.
>
> Suppose the carport has a 120v receptacle in each stall, but several (or
> all) of those receptacles are on a single circuit.  If I'm the owner and I
> say the tenant can charge his Volt, what happens when 2-3 other tenants
> want
> to do the same?  Pop goes the breaker.  Now >nobody< can charge, and maybe
> the security lights are out too, so someone gets injured.  See where I'm
> going with this?
>
> If I'm a good landlord, I'll probably have an electrician upgrade the
> wiring
> in the carport so every receptacle can deliver 1800 watts.  But I might not
> be able to afford that upgrade right now, so I might have to tell the
> would-
> be charger, "not right now," or maybe even "never."
>
> I own the property, and I >should< have that right and that choice - to say
> "No, although the receptacle is part of the property and I didn't exclude
> it
> from your lease, you still may not use it."
>
> But the law is a funny thing.  Sometimes it's on the landlord's side,
> sometimes it's on the tenant's.  Whether I have that right and choice may
> depend on city and/or state laws.  If I were the landlord, I'd be on my
> phone to my attorney before giving a final answer.
>
> Finally, we're getting one side of this story from the news item.  I'm not
> going to indict anyone until I've heard both sides.  However, I'm sorry to
> say that we're unlikely to get that from the news media.  They're often not
> very good at examining such issues closely.  They're usually more
> entertainment than information, and they get more ratings mileage out of
> raising outrage in their readers/listeners/viewers than from informing
> them.
>
> David Roden
> EVDL Administrator
> http://www.evdl.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> | Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
> | Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
> |
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20120516/f6c81ec1/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

EVDL Administrator
On 16 May 2012 at 20:05, Dennis Miles wrote:

> it is a hassock sized wheeled box with a battery inside and recharges
> from 120v, and it charges with a J1772 plug at level 2.

I can't get any information from the page linked because I don't do
LinkedIn, and am not about to sign up just for this.  But "hassock sized"
might be a cube around 18" (457mm) on a side, for a total enclosed area of
perhaps 5800 in^3.

Let's take those recently discussed a123 20ah lithium cells and see how many
we can stuff into that space.

Each cell is 7mm x 166mm x 227mm.  So let's stretch our hassock out to 452mm
x  681mm x 455mm.  That way we can fit 390 of those cells in there.  

By my calculations that's 24.9 kWh of battery, just enough to charge a Leaf
if you're careful not to waste any.  The battery might have to be a bit
smaller, though, so you can find room for a charger and an inverter.

> $1,500 plus shipping and tax, you can order via e-mail Jim Burness ...

Wait a minute, are you sure that's not $15,000?  The cheapest price I can
find for those A123 cells is $32 each in quantities of 1000.  So 390 of them
would cost $12,480.  And that's not allowing anything to pay for the
hassock's charger or inverter, and darn little for labor cost and margin.

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Rush Dougherty
David wrote -

> Let's take those recently discussed a123 20ah lithium cells and see how many
> we can stuff into that space.
Snipped
>  The cheapest price I can
> find for those A123 cells is $32 each in quantities of 1000.

http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/modifications-technical-issues/22520-large-group-purchase-a123-20ah-cells.html

or http://tinyurl.com/chennwt

has a group buy going on for the A123 20A Pouches, about $25.25 a cell to Madison WI, your shipping
cost from there to your house...

Rush Dougherty
www.TucsonEV.com

_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EVLN: SF landlord won't let tenant plug-in for a charge

Cor van de Water
In reply to this post by EVDL Administrator
David responded:
> > $1,500 plus shipping and tax, you can order via e-mail Jim Burness
...
>Wait a minute, are you sure that's not $15,000?  
>The cheapest price I can find for those A123 cells is $32
>each in quantities of 1000.  So 390 of them would cost
>$12,480. And that's not allowing anything to pay for the
>hassock's charger or inverter, and darn little for labor
>cost and margin.

First I presumed that for that price you get a lead-acid
(golfcart) battery and charger/inverter. Because nobody had
said that it does supply a certain amount of current or
energy, though *somebody* suggested that he could fit a
Leaf-sized pack in such an enclosure size...

So, I looked up the linkedIn post and found the link to
the PDF of the device. The specs state that it is a valet
charger with portability in mind. It is 240V 30A and
probably has a NEMA 14-30 (though it does not say) cord on
one side and you can plug that into a wall outlet and then
it can charge a car through its J-1772 plug. In other words,
it is a standard EVSE, but one that does not need to be
fixed mounted to a wall, you can carry it.
http://clearenergy-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EVSE_PortableValet
.pdf

In other words: this device has no relevance to the problem
we are discussing, because you still need to plug it in to
get a charge, it is a smart J-1772 to 240V wall plug converter
but the issue we discussed was a Volt and you can plug that
into a standard wall outlet already.
So, the jury is still out on an affordable/portable dump
charger solution or a way to plug in the car without getting
the building owner all over you.

Personally I would not use a common outlet but see that I can
park the car in a way that allows me to throw a cord out a
window of my house and plug in.
No liability issue for the landlord.

Cor van de Water
Chief Scientist
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [hidden email]    Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water     XoIP: +31877841130
Tel: +1 408 383 7626        Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203

_______________________________________________
| Moratorium on drag racing discussion is in effect.
| Please take those discussions elsewhere.  Thanks.
|
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| CONFIGURE: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev