SVRex spittin facts.
Local amendments are where the requirements vary greatly. In ATL, IIRC (note: my memory sucks) new commercial construction requires 2% of parking to include EV charging and 20% to be EV ready (feeder, panel space and raceway). I don't believe you can just provide 120v receptacle and comply.
In reply to OHSCrifle :
I'm sure you are right in ATL, but wouldn't 110V access meet the requirements of "EV Capable" ?(without further definition)
In reply to OHSCrifle :
I'm totally fine with a requirement for commercial construction of 2% of parking to include EV charging and 20% to be EV ready (whatever that means).
I am totally opposed to a requirement for 100% of residential (or multi-family) construction to include it.
ProDarwin said:Why is 120v (level 1) largely useless? It will still provide 30-60 miles a day of range when plugged in for 10 hours at night.
When your car is empty do you put in 1-3 gallons of gas every day or do you fill it up?
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I did search Google and found the bill and read it (I do live in IL so it has the potential to impact me more than others). And yes the article might be more confusing than the actual legal language.
It is very light on any "specs", which I suspect is on purpose. It looks like they had specs in there like level 1 level 2 etc but have mostly ripped out that type of language. While those specs might make sense now, there's a strong chance anything you try to spec now will be not very useful in 5-10 years because of the rate of change of the tech.
I stand by my assertion that I think if there is "a" conduit to the parking space, the landlord is good. I am familiar with how more current requires bigger wires and bigger wires require bigger conduit. I do not think electrical work (even just materials) is cheap.
c'mon man, give me some credit here. I'm a grmer after all, I probably am significantly less sound of mind than the average bear.
I did a quick read of the bill and its revisions. It is very poorly written, with the revisions attempting to fix it but still failing to make it very clear. This will fall to the interpretation of the AHJ for a given project, which does make it harder when there is no clear guideline to follow. It is for new construction, which is clear. But also applies to renovations, which is unclear. How much of a renovation triggers the requirement? I've seen adding solar trigger changing toilets out to low flow, definitions matter. I did see that they added an exception if trenching would be required. Just "having a conduit" makes no sense, even in the context of energy code. Some AHJ's might not care and let that slide, but others won't.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
How does one run conduits to a parking lot without trenching?
The people that write this stuff need to get their heads examined.
In reply to SV reX :
Building codes can be confusing to people who don't work with them every day.
There is no such thing as "local codes", or even "state codes". Governments don't write building codes. The way it works is the International Code Congress (ICC) writes the codes, then the states or local municipalities decide to adopt them (or not). Sometimes locals will add amendments. These are effectively "local codes" (semantics), but they are technically National codes with local amendments. Every set of plans says on the first page what sets of codes and years will be required to adhere to.
How is California Title 24 not an example of building/energy code? It's part of "The California Code of Regulations," known as "The California Building Standards Code." Build a building in CA 100% to the ICC building code, and you will not get a use permit if you don't follow T24. This is the minimum requirement in CA, and local governments can and frequently do impose stricter standards.
In reply to SV reX :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
How does one run conduits to a parking lot without trenching?
The people that write this stuff need to get their heads examined.
The way I read it, you are excluded from having to comply if it would require trenching of an existing lot. Which is good, but it took a couple revisions to get there.
93gsxturbo said:ProDarwin said:Why is 120v (level 1) largely useless? It will still provide 30-60 miles a day of range when plugged in for 10 hours at night.
When your car is empty do you put in 1-3 gallons of gas every day or do you fill it up?
No, but if my car refilled 1-3 gallons every day while I slept I would never need to fill it up, so it doesn't matter.
Not going to cover 100% of use cases, but certainly not useless. Pretty effective for a huge % of the population.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Why is 120v (level 1) largely useless? It will still provide 30-60 miles a day of range when plugged in for 10 hours at night.
Because that is under what the average person drives, and if one invested in an EV, I'd hope that they drive a bit more than average to recoup that extra up front cost. That's assuming it would actually work and charge the car overnight uninterrupted. Which is unlikely as with bill as written, because you will experience popping breakers or load management stopping the charging. Or some jerk unplugging the basic 110v receptacle in the middle of the night. This applies to multifamily obviously, but if you have a house with a garage already, this bill does nothing for you anyway.
Edit: I do see a benefit for plug in hybrids. They typically have small batteries and short EV only range, so a few miles overnight works. And they aren't stuck if there is a charging problem. My brother commutes in a plug in hybrid Ford Fusion. He just plugs in to an extension cord overnight. When the charging fails- not uncommon- he has the gas engine to get him to work.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to SV reX :
Building codes can be confusing to people who don't work with them every day.
There is no such thing as "local codes", or even "state codes". Governments don't write building codes. The way it works is the International Code Congress (ICC) writes the codes, then the states or local municipalities decide to adopt them (or not). Sometimes locals will add amendments. These are effectively "local codes" (semantics), but they are technically National codes with local amendments. Every set of plans says on the first page what sets of codes and years will be required to adhere to.
How is California Title 24 not an example of building/energy code? It's part of "The California Code of Regulations," known as "The California Building Standards Code." Build a building in CA 100% to the ICC building code, and you will not get a use permit if you don't follow T24. This is the minimum requirement in CA, and local governments can and frequently do impose stricter standards.
CA Title 24 is essentially a massive amendment of the IBC, the NFPA, the plumbing code, and others. Much of it is copyrighted by those other organizations.
Agreed, it's huge, and it appears to stand on its own. But it's largely huge amendments.
As noted, it's a bit of a semantics game. The local amendments are were the rubber meets the road.
(EDIT): I don't work in CA, so I am not knowledgeable about Title 24, but that's my understanding of it.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to SV reX :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
How does one run conduits to a parking lot without trenching?
The people that write this stuff need to get their heads examined.
The way I read it, you are excluded from having to comply if it would require trenching of an existing lot. Which is good, but it took a couple revisions to get there.
I hear you, but that essentially negates the law.
All parking lots require trenching. If you ran conduits on the surface of a sidewalk or parking area it would create a trip hazard and violate the ADA.
"Let's write a massive law that requires installing EV charging stations"
"Ok, but let's make an exception so no one has to do it"
SV reX said:Boost_Crazy said:In reply to SV reX :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
How does one run conduits to a parking lot without trenching?
The people that write this stuff need to get their heads examined.
The way I read it, you are excluded from having to comply if it would require trenching of an existing lot. Which is good, but it took a couple revisions to get there.
I hear you, but that essentially negates the law.
All parking lots require trenching. If you ran conduits on the surface of a sidewalk or parking area it would create a trip hazard and violate the ADA.
"Let's write a massive law that requires installing EV charging stations"
"Ok, but let's make an exception so no one has to do it"
Glad you guys have finally gotten around to my original assessment, which was: "so probably it's one of those changes that goes on a resume but doesn't actually change much".
In reply to SV reX :
I hear you, but that essentially negates the law.
All parking lots require trenching. If you ran conduits on the surface of a sidewalk or parking area it would create a trip hazard and violate the ADA.
"Let's write a massive law that requires installing EV charging stations"
"Ok, but let's make an exception so no one has to do it"
Mostly. It looks like if parking spaces butt up to the wall of a building, for example, they may be required to comply for those spaces. But they would not have to add provisions on the other side of the parking lot where conduit cannot be run on a wall.
In the end, I expect new construction will have increasingly more requirements to add EV charging stations and provisions. I expect existing properties to add based on subsidies and market forces. It will be expected from renters, and those that don't offer them will see less interest in/be able to collect less rent from their properties. I think we are a long way from every space, but in many areas some EV charging accommodations are already expected. I think requiring them to add when renovating could backfire. It could drive up rents in areas with little demand for EV charging or prevent renovations.
It could also really backfire as written. Say I want to add 10 spots of EV charging to my apartment complex. I've got a bit of extra capacity in my service, I just need to add another breaker, sub panel, and the stations. I'll add them to the spaces closest to the service to minimize costs. If that "renovation" triggers the requirement of a much larger scale project, I may choose to skip it entirely.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
That's a self-correcting problem the market can solve. We don't need any laws to fix it.
Tenant: "I don't want to rent from you because you don't have charging stations"
Landlord: "Hmm... maybe I should fix that problem. Then I can raise my rates"
These are laws trying to solve a problem that nobody has.
I totally agree with you about the potential for these laws to backfire.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to ProDarwin :
Why is 120v (level 1) largely useless? It will still provide 30-60 miles a day of range when plugged in for 10 hours at night.
Because that is under what the average person drives, and if one invested in an EV, I'd hope that they drive a bit more than average to recoup that extra up front cost.
30-60 miles covers a huge % of drivers. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm I think it covers at least 50%, but lets say it only covers 30% of drivers. That's a big number, its not useless.
SV reX said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
That's a self-correcting problem the market can solve. We don't need any laws to fix it.
Tenant: "I don't want to rent from you because you don't have charging stations"
Landlord: "Hmm... maybe I should fix that problem. Then I can raise my rates"
These are laws trying to solve a problem that nobody has.
I wouldn't say nobody has the problem, however I would absolutely agree this probably should be self correcting.
And if a municipality truly wants to flex its legislative muscles to increase EV adoption, there are better ways of going about it.
I just looked hard at the first 20 commercial buildings I passed. NONE of them had parking spaces touching the building. Sidewalks, planting areas, drive throughs, handicapped ramps, loading areas, etc. But they ALL would require trenching.
It's a big loophole.
One thing worth noting... power companies are still FUBAR with supply chain issues after the pandemic. Our business needs new higher capacity transformers, we're getting quotes in the 80 week range. So slow installations may be related to laws, or demand, or simply capacity to do the work at all.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:One thing worth noting... power companies are still FUBAR with supply chain issues after the pandemic. Our business needs new higher capacity transformers, we're getting quotes in the 80 week range. So slow installations may be related to laws, or demand, or simply capacity to do the work at all.
We're waiting on 3 substations. They were 30 weeks from us cutting the contract for us to receive submittals from them, then 55 weeks from approval of submittal to us getting the gear on-site. They're going to arrive maybe 10 weeks before I need to get a CO on a $150mil job. Going to be some busy electricians for those three months.
You'll need to log in to post.
