Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[mknox]

So, who is going to spend the time to read what you suggest in the #10 font on the posted sign?

I meant put it in the agreement with the host site when the equipment is provided. Then the site owner can figure out how to enforce it... if enforcement is what Tesla wants.

Given the posted signage at the charging stall states: "Tesla Charging Only, or Tesla Charging Station or Tesla Parking Only, etc"...

Many of the sites I've been to have no such signage at all.

Note, the official context for the HPWC has always been associated with the word “Tesla”.

Well, I simply took that to mean Tesla is the manufacturer of the EVSE. Just like ChargePoint and ClipperCreek put their names on their devices. There are Chevrolet Voltec units in a number of locations that are open to vehicles from other makers too (not that they're much use to Tesla owners at 15 amps max).

 

[stopcrazypp]

I meant put it in the agreement with the host site when the equipment is provided. Then the site owner can figure out how to enforce it... if enforcement is what Tesla wants.

It goes back to attitudes. There are people who see a 120V or 14-50 plug outside and just plug in to charge without asking, even when it is trivial to walk into the building and ask for permission. Such people are likely inclined to think they are also entitled to plug in without permission in this case and that it is up to the site owner to "enforce". The "Tesla charging only" sign also may not necessarily deter such people.

I think it is reasonable to expect anyone that has this adapter to at minimum ask the site owner if they can charge their non-Tesla vehicle using such an adapter and to comply if the site owner says no. This is especially true when the sign says "Tesla charging only".

 

[mknox]

I think it is reasonable to expect anyone that has this adapter to at minimum ask the site owner if they can charge their non-Tesla vehicle using such an adapter and to comply if the site owner says no. This is especially true when the sign says "Tesla charging only".

I agree with that completely. In most cases I will ask if it's okay anyway, whether it be a Tesla HPWC or J1772 station, particularly at hotels, restaurants and small businesses, even if there is no signage. Sometimes these can be intended for patrons only. I will also thank them for providing the service and patronize the establishment if I can.

 

[hcsharp]

All I'm suggesting is that if they mean something... say it. It can be done in nice polite language. But yes, we ALL should play nicely in this regard. The demand for charging stations is only going to get worse over time as EVs become more prevalent.

They did say it. They said it in a nice way. That's the point scaesare was trying to make. To say it using stricter, in-your-face, harsher legal terms would not be so nice, and risk sounding like "Nazi Dorks" as scaesare put it.

I agree with your comments about asking permission. On PlugShare most of them say "for patrons only". I've used a few Destination Chargers where I wasn't staying at the Hotel or eating at the Restaurant. In those cases I always ask and offer to pay something. So far none of them have taken my money (except normal parking fees).

 

[TEG]

In my area, I have noticed a trend for larger businesses to start designating some of their spots with peculiar restrictions like "carpool only", "vanpool only", "low emission vehicles only", etc. I don't really grasp the point as people just generally ignore these, may not know how to interpret them, may assume that they are unenforced, etc. All of these types of signs just give the impression that some overzealous planner tried to segregate parkers to encourage certain types of customers, but the net effect is for people to just ignore more and more of these "vehicle specific" type parking "suggestions".

As an example:

 

[mknox]

In my area, I have noticed a trend for larger businesses to start designating some of their spots with peculiar restrictions like "carpool only", "vanpool only", "low emission vehicles only", etc. I don't really grasp the point as people just generally ignore these, may not know how to interpret them, may assume that they are unenforced, etc.

Yes, it sure would be nice if there was some standardization. For example, this station in Niagara Falls looks to be for plug in hybrids only, and BEVs shouldn't use it:

 

[scaesare]

Yes, it sure would be nice if there was some standardization. For example, this station in Niagara Falls looks to be for plug in hybrids only, and BEVs shouldn't use it:

With that slash between "Hybrid" and "Electric", I'd have interpreted that as either type of vehicle...

 

[SW2Fiddler]

Yes, it sure would be nice if there was some standardization. For example, this station in Niagara Falls looks to be for plug in hybrids only, and BEVs shouldn't use it:

I don't think so!

With that slash between "Hybrid" and "Electric", I'd have interpreted that as either type of vehicle...

I agree!

 

[abasile]

Although I've never used an HPWC with my older LEAF and probably never will, I find it puzzling that so much energy has been expended here in arguing that non-Tesla EVs shouldn't use "destination" HPWCs. Assuming safe adapters can be produced, an HPWC is nothing magic - like a J-1772 dock, it's basically a fancy electrical outlet with added safeguards.

I don't hear many complaining that EV owners shouldn't be using various types of electrical outlets, whether welder outlets, air conditioner outlets, out of phase 120 V outlets using professionally manufactured Quick220 units, and many others. Nobody questions who might have originally paid to have these outlets installed and what their intent was. But suddenly people are up in arms over Tesla-provided HPWCs getting more general use. As long as Tesla owners are given priority, the site owner is okay paying for the electricity and gives permission, and no harm is done, the more EVs the merrier.

The very fact that Tesla is willing to provide J-1772 equipment suggests that they would unofficially be fine with others using their HPWCs provided Tesla owners are given priority. Of course Tesla won't give their official approval, as they won't want to take responsibility for third-party adapters (such as hcssharp's Roadster product).

 

[scaesare]

I don't hear many complaining that EV owners shouldn't be using various types of electrical outlets, whether welder outlets, air conditioner outlets, out of phase 120 V outlets using professionally manufactured Quick220 units, and many others.

Well, the entire thread was spun off from another to specifically talk about the usage of HPWC's, so it's not surprising that's the focus here.

Nobody questions who paid to have these outlets installed and what their intent was

Actually, there have been comments supporting the idea that you should ask before randomly plugging in to somebody's outlet. I support that idea.

The very fact that Tesla is willing to provide J-1772 equipment suggests that they would unofficially be fine with others using their HPWCs provided Tesla owners are given priority.

I don't think that's a foregone conclusion at all. As a matter of fact you could argue that the presence of Tesla-supplied J1772's is because they wish to reserve the HPWC's for their own cars.

 

[abasile]

Actually, there have been comments supporting the idea that you should ask before randomly plugging in to somebody's outlet. I support that idea.

As do I.

I don't think that's a foregone conclusion at all. As a matter of fact you could argue that the presence of Tesla-supplied J1772's isbecause they wish to reserve the HPWC's for their own cars.

Maybe, maybe not. By introducing its own charge connector, was Tesla attempting to provide exclusivity? Or just trying to build a better user interface?

 

[scaesare]

Maybe, maybe not. By introducing its own charge connector, was Tesla attempting to provide exclusivity? Or just trying to build a better user interface?

There's 40 pages of speculation here on that... :wink:

 

[mknox]

With that slash between "Hybrid" and "Electric", I'd have interpreted that as either type of vehicle...

Yeah, but "hybrids" can't plug in here... only "plug-in" hybrids. I know, I'm being silly, but only to reinforce @TEG's original notion that there doesn't seem to be very good standardization around how these spots are labeled.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't hear many complaining that EV owners shouldn't be using various types of electrical outlets, whether welder outlets, air conditioner outlets, out of phase 120 V outlets using professionally manufactured Quick220 units, and many others. Nobody questions who paid to have these outlets installed and what their intent was. But suddenly people are up in arms over Tesla-provided HPWCs getting more general use. As long as Tesla owners are given priority, the site owner is okay paying for the electricity and gives permission, and no harm is done, the more EVs the merrier.

I did complain about that (see below). The only reason why it wasn't brought up much is because it's not really part of this topic (which was carved out of the HPWC thread as scaesare put it).

It goes back to attitudes. There are people who see a 120V or 14-50 plug outside and just plug in to charge without asking, even when it is trivial to walk into the building and ask for permission. Such people are likely inclined to think they are also entitled to plug in without permission in this case and that it is up to the site owner to "enforce". The "Tesla charging only" sign also may not necessarily deter such people.

I think it is reasonable to expect anyone that has this adapter to at minimum ask the site owner if they can charge their non-Tesla vehicle using such an adapter and to comply if the site owner says no. This is especially true when the sign says "Tesla charging only".

 

[abasile]

I did complain about that (see below). The only reason why it wasn't brought up much is because it's not really part of this topic (which was carved out of the HPWC thread as scaesare put it).

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear. I'm not suggesting that EV owners should plug in without permission. I'm just saying that people don't question who originally paid for the installation of any random electrical outlet, even a special type of 240 V outlet. If the site owner gives permission, that's sufficient.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear. I'm not suggesting that EV owners should plug in without permission. I'm just saying that people don't question who originally paid for the installation of any random electrical outlet, even a special type of 240 V outlet. If the site owner gives permission, that's sufficient.

I see your point, but then I don't think the comparison works. It is a reasonable assumption that close to all "random electrical outlets" were paid by the site owner or tenant, so asking the site owner or tenant is always going to be sufficient in that case.

However, when talking about the HPWC destination chargers, it is reasonable to assume the opposite: close to all are paid for by Tesla. There may be a few rare cases where a HPWC installed in a parking lot for the general public was done independent of Tesa, but not even sure there is even one example.

The other issue is that "random electrical outlets" all use standard NEMA sockets/connectors, not a proprietary patented socket/connector like the HPWC. There are no patent violation issues there, but there may be for these third party Tesla adapters.

 

[scaesare]

I think stopcrazypp identifies the issues that make the HPWC rather unique. I'd add:

- There are some cases where the question of who paid for the outlet/electrical service has come in to play, namely: Nissan dealerships. And, the questions arise for one similar to the reasons being discussed here: What was the intent of the provider in installing a charger ostensibly to service their cars?

- The other issue at hand, in addition to the possible patent issues mentioned above, is the potential to damage the charger, as no "official" adapter exists, and unlike standardized AC connectors, there is no commercial source for "QC'ed" connectors.

 

[abasile]

At the risk of re-hashing points that have been made up thread, I'll say this:

- If a site owner gives permission to charge, no contractual agreement with Tesla is violated, and the charging equipment is used in a safe manner, then the question of who paid for the equipment seems irrelevant.

- Tesla indicated that they would allow "good faith" use of their patents. Reasonable people can come to different opinions as to what constitutes good faith use. Creating an adapter that benefits the wider EV community is arguably such a use, and even at worst, this is a grey area.

- Apart from Tesla's destination charging network, owners of non-Tesla EVs may wish to occasionally charge at the homes of Tesla owners with HPWCs.

If I personally had a need to do so, I would have no hesitation to purchase an HPWC to J-1772 adapter manufactured by a reputable outfit, if one should exist, and use it wherever permission is granted. That said, I expect my next EV will be a Tesla, so I don't expect to have such a need.

 

[hcsharp]

... As long as Tesla owners are given priority, the site owner is okay paying for the electricity and gives permission, and no harm is done, the more EVs the merrier.

I mostly agree with that in theory. I'm curious how you would make sure that Tesla owners are given priority? How would your method(s) be enforced?

 

[abasile]

I mostly agree with that in theory. I'm curious how you would make sure that Tesla owners are given priority? How would your method(s) be enforced?

That is a fair question.

Most of the "destination" locations seem to be hotels where overnight charging would be the norm. In that case, I would expect guests to essentially reserve a charging dock as part of the room reservation - in the past when we've driven our EV to overnight accommodations, we've always made sure to concretely confirm that we will be able to charge. At that time, a non-Tesla-owning, HPWC-using guest should be informed that, to allow for the possibility of a Tesla vehicle needing to charge, they will need to allow their vehicle to be unplugged and/or leave their keys with the front desk so that their vehicle can be moved on short notice.

At shorter-stay "destination" locations like restaurants, it might be easiest to simply disallow non-Tesla EVs at HPWCs unless there is a clear abundance of unused HPWCs or an EV owner is in a particularly desperate situation with respect to charge. Or, if there is an abundance of adjacent, unused parking spots, an "OK to unplug" note on the dashboard should suffice.

That said, I expect it will be years before this is something to significantly worry about. Only a small fraction of EV owners seem to go out of their way to acquire adapters that are not sold directly by the OEM. Personally, I had my 2011 LEAF's portable EVSE modified to accept 240 V (evseupgrade.com) and I purchased 240 V dryer and RV adapters, a Quick220, and a 240 V extension cord, but I was an early adopter and not a "normal" user.