EU Market Situation and Outlook

[Spidy]

Not a lawyers, but the definitions say that should is to be treated like must unless there are special "atypical" situations. Also soll honestly sounds much better in that sentence that muss in that sentence.

Reading that sentence I honestly don't even understand how a fence and gate would help...

 

[RobStark]

Not a lawyers, but the definitions say that should is to be treated like must unless there are special "atypical" situations. Also soll honestly sounds much better in that sentence that muss in that sentence.

Reading that sentence I honestly don't even understand how a fence and gate would help...

Maybe Tesla's German lawyers are just Sehr Sehr Sehr stupid.

 

[avoigt]

Not a lawyers, but the definitions say that should is to be treated like must unless there are special "atypical" situations. Also soll honestly sounds much better in that sentence that muss in that sentence.

Reading that sentence I honestly don't even understand how a fence and gate would help...

Let's clear that confusion:

§1 Abs 9 :
ist ein Ladepunkt öffentlich zugänglich, wenn er sich entweder im öffentlichen Straßenraum oder auf privatem Grund befindet, sofern der zum Ladepunkt gehörende Parkplatz von einem unbestimmten oder nur nach allgemeinen Merkmalen bestimmbaren Personenkreis tatsächlich befahren werden kann;

That § is the one that counts here. It does state that a public charging point can be on public or private ground and that it can be driven from a not defined group of people people. IOW if you cannot access or just a selected group of people can it its not considered a public charging point any more and does not need to comply with the regulations. Easy and clean!

LSV - Verordnung über technische Mindestanforderungen an den sicheren und interoperablen Aufbau und Betrieb von öffentlich zugänglichen Ladepunkten für Elektromobile

Tesla Lawyers are smart in my opinion....

 

[Spidy]

No it says it's publicly accessible if people, who as a group can be determined by non defined or just general characteristics, can drive on the private property.

Even if you say Tesla owners are a defined group of people there is still a or. And there is of course the issue that it seems goes by person not car/owner, so is someone who rents a Tesla part of a defined group of people or rather part of a group defined by the general characteristic that he drives a Tesla?

 

[schonelucht]

Maybe Tesla's German lawyers are just Sehr Sehr Sehr stupid.

I hope not. Seems more likely to me that Tesla management is willing to take a risk and deal with the consequences later. That's totally Tesla (and a good thing) See also the German incentive for cars under the 60 000EUR. Tesla pushed it and then got shut down. But it was part of the break through they needed in Germany to get established.

 

[Model 3]

Maybe Tesla wants to challenge this law? "This is private property, and we have a lock that is controlling the access to it and we decides who get access to it. How can this law then redefine this private property to be public?" - or something like that? It will - if it goes well - not be the first time an EU directive has been declared illegal by the court.

 

[avoigt]

No it says it's publicly accessible if people, who as a group can be determined by non defined or just general characteristics, can drive on the private property.

Even if you say Tesla owners are a defined group of people there is still a or. And there is of course the issue that it seems goes by person not car/owner, so is someone who rents a Tesla part of a defined group of people or rather part of a group defined by the general characteristic that he drives a Tesla?

I am afraid but must disagree to your answer..

The Tesla owner are indeed a defined group and the or does not deny that the exception is valid. If the "or" would be an "and" than you would be right.

The legal text is clear and thats why Tesla did not have any issues opening the new SC in Germany a few days ago. Its beside the fact that is no disputable also obviously in public interest that someone who opens a charger for the usage of a restricted group can operate them. All other would be against public interest.

If you have questions you might want to read the discussion on the German Tesla forum TTF where this has been discussed in length reviewed.

 

[schonelucht]

I am afraid but must disagree to your answer..

Thanks it seems clear that the Verordnung is less strict than the Dutch and French text of the EU directive. Would be interesting to know what the real intent of the directive is though.

 

[avoigt]

Germany EV Registrations for Feb 18 ... not so bad.

 

[AudubonB]

Well, (avoigt), I fear the German forum TTF is, as by rights ought, in German language so I'll stick to TMC for the nonce.

Next question: can someone describe how one obtains access to the gate code?

 

[Model 3]

Germany EV Registrations for Feb 18 ... not so bad.

No Leafs? And why that fast drop for Ioniq?

 

[McMountain]

Probably the code shows up on the navigation system, like some access codes for lounges at superchargers.

 

[RobStark]

I hope not. Seems more likely to me that Tesla management is willing to take a risk and deal with the consequences later. That's totally Tesla (and a good thing) See also the German incentive for cars under the 60 000EUR. Tesla pushed it and then got shut down. But it was part of the break through they needed in Germany to get established.

Yeah, that is why Tesla opened stores in all the US States where they are banned.

And no there is no nationalist nonsense going in Germany against non European companies.

 

[hobbes]

As the discussion here shows the Ladesäulenverordnung is not really clear. So one interpretation of Tesla´s strategy is that they are testing out if they are getting problems with this new supercharger and if not, they might continue this way.

IMHO it would be better in the long term if they would join in with CCS at some point and really hope the 3 will have CCS capability in Europe, hopefully allowing it to use both the current superchargers and upcoming CCS chargers by many networks. The idea of having one standard for everyone does make sense I think.

 

[smac]

Would be interesting to know what the real intent of the directive is though.

The intent of the directive is to drive standardisation, enhance EV uptake, encourage private sector charging investment and drive economic development across the region.

(There is loads of background info over on EUR-Lex — Access to European Union law — choose your language , a good starter is this one : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0311&from=EN )

A lot of this CCS vs Tesla is actually driven by how the EU works in combination with the standards bodies at the very core articles of the EU treaties. In effect for stuff to be specified on public procurement, or placed into legislation, it needs to be accepted by CENELEC / CEN / ETSI.

This is most likely why CHAdeMO sought CENELEC approval. Without it regulations around vehicle type approval would not be able to include it as an acceptable vehicle inlet as an example.

Tesla in theory could have handed over the full spec for the Supercharging to CENELEC for adoption, including the comms layer, and followed CHAdeMO's lead. Without such a course of action it can't be referenced in any EU directives / regulations.

I know this all sounds very bureaucratic, and it is, but that doesn't change how the system works.

 

[schonelucht]

Looks like they had deliveries on a Saturday in Norway. Good sign!

 

[JRay]

Norway deliveries might slow down a little it seems, or i suspect just be a little less 'lumpy as far as the end customer is concerned.

"I have just asked our team to slow down deliveries. It is clear that we are exceeding the local logistics capacity due to batch build and delivery." -Elon

Twitter

 

[schonelucht]

What I don't understand is why they can't use the same logistics companies that -safely- delivered twice as many cars in one month both in September and December 2017. It's especially a shame that they seemed to have a very efficient system in place for mass delivery at the Norwegian exhibition grounds. Anyway, it's just a small delay. Just means April will be good too. Cherry on top : better delivery for customers who'll now have a less rushed and possibly more personal experience.

What it does show is that the Norwegian organisation is not yet ready to do Model 3 deliveries. The idea some Model 3 production this quarter to Norway to save the US federal credit one more quarter is not workable.

 

[RobStark]

What it does show is that the Norwegian organisation is not yet ready to do Model 3 deliveries. The idea some Model 3 production this quarter to Norway to save the US federal credit one more quarter is not workable.

Tesla was trying to stuff X number of Gen II cars over 3 weeks.

There is no time constraint shifting X number of Model 3s to Norway.

Tesla's Norway organization is usually Museum Curators the first two months of a quarter.

 

[schonelucht]

There is no time constraint shifting X number of Model 3s to Norway.

Well yes there is. For the purpose of avoiding the 200k they need to produce in April or they will not be delivered before end of quarter. And not delivering before end of quarter means receiving no cash for these cars in Q2. At which point it’s just better to warehouse them in the us, also not receive cash but deliver them all on Jul 1st to get even more full fed credits.

Starting production in April means delivery at best end of May right when the Norwegian org shifts from museum to madhouse btw.