Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee

[dc_h]

Hopefully summon capability can be used to autopark a charging car.

 

[Drone Flyer]

Improving Supercharger Availability
We designed the Supercharger network to enable a seamless, enjoyable road trip experience. Therefore, we understand that it can be frustrating to arrive at a station only to discover fully charged Tesla cars occupying all the spots. To create a better experience for all owners, we’re introducing a fleet-wide idle fee that aims to increase Supercharger availability.

We envision a future where cars move themselves once fully charged, enhancing network efficiency and the customer experience even further. Until then, we ask that vehicles be moved from the Supercharger once fully charged. A customer would never leave a car parked by the pump at a gas and the same thinking applies with Superchargers.

The Tesla app allows owners to remotely monitor their vehicle, alerting them when their charge is nearly complete and again once fully charged. For every additional minute a car remains connected to the Supercharger, it will incur a $0.40 idle fee. If the car is moved within 5 minutes, the fee is waived. To be clear, this change is purely about increasing customer happiness and we hope to never make any money from it.

We’re excited to increase availability during long distance travel and think this change will make the Supercharging experience far better for everyone.

I was at the Port Hope, Ontario SC last night and while I was there, an ICE car drove up and a guy got out of passenger side, opened up the trunk and grabbed a hockey stick and skates and walked over to his Tesla, having long finished the charge earlier, got in and left.
He was probably gone at least two hours while he played hockey
This is SC abuse!
Hopefully, this behaviour will somewhat stop from now on but it will still be there unfortunately.

 

[bkp_duke]

Ya I popped "dislike" to the message, he obviously made a pretty deragotory statement towards me by saying I would sit a fuel dispenser for hours in decades past. But apparently that was okay. I had no right to say I disliked it.

Thank you for my "very, very, small pass". Much appreciated.

And I would absolutely like to clarify what I am saying. Tesla certainly has the ability to monitor congestion at their super charger locations, if the site is less than half full, why should an owner be penalized if they choose to finish their dinner, or not immediately rush away from a conversation with someone they just met, or want to catch a few extra winks? My whole entire point is what difference does it make if you are the only car there? If it's a busy station with multiple cars, absolutely you should move as soon as you are done charging.

And by the way, since I own a truck stop, I feel qualified to chime in on the subject of ICE vehicles staying at the fuel pump after fueling since it was brought up. As the owner, there have been MULTIPLE times in the middle of the night when somebody has finished fueling then came inside and struck up a conversation about Yellowstone Park, or Montana in general and before you know it a half hour has passed. During that time maybe one other car (if that) pulled up to one of the other vacant fuel pumps, got his fuel and went on his way. Do I feel like I should tell the driver chatting with me he owes me 12 bucks for blocking my fuel pump that nobody was waiting to use anyway? Absolutely not!

Not even remotely a valid comparison.

It is highly unlikely your fuel stop is the ONLY fuel stop in the STATE, which is not uncommon for superchargers. It also doesn't take 30-60 minutes to fuel up an ICE. Until there are many more charging stations, a higher level of etiquette applies.

 

[Twiglett]

I can think of only a few areas in downtown cities that don't even charge $24 a DAY to park, LOL

Tesla bragged about how their superchargers were next to "destinations" such as restaurants and shopping centers and such, well you don't dare go enjoy those "destinations" for fear of being charged $10 or $20 all because there was a line at the bathroom or the checkout counter, or the waitress was slow bringing your check, etc. Kinda takes the fun right out of an "enjoyable trip exploring the destinations the superchargers are located at."

I would hardly describe Sonic, Chilli's or Burger King etc as "destinations" - more places for a personal fill-up and empty out.
As others have said many times over, superchargers are charging spots not parking spots.

 

[bkp_duke]

I wonder how this affects service centers. When I was there last week to pick up my car, they told me it was ready and charged at the SuperCharger. They either have to retrain their employees to move the cars or owners will incur surcharges, or make accommodations when car is in service.

The immediate enforcement of this policy is surprising given that a majority of SuperChargers are underutilized. This is perhaps to get people into the habit of disconnecting immediately. It would be nice to see if charges are actually incurred for very low use SuperChargers. Volunteers? Given how this his already gone into effect, can anyone give insight if this has affected the busiest SuperChargers?

Geofencing.

Tesla can easily exclude certain cars that it knows are "in for service".

Fair? No. Possible? Very easily.

 

[AudubonB]

Tesla bragged about how their superchargers were next to "destinations" such as restaurants and shopping centers and such

No, they never did. You are skewing the story. SpC sites consistently have been described as being located near conveniences and absolutely NOT destinations. So even if some have had to be placed far from any such conveniences and even if others are tantalizing close to a three-star restaurant where you would be wont to linger, that nevernevernever has been Tesla's intention.

There is another way to look at it: if you are at a deserted site and you really don't have an alternative to using a charge spot as a parking spot, for cry-i, it's only going to cost you $1.20 to park there for three hours.

 

[Maaz]

UPDATE: you won't get charged if supercharger is basically deserted.

 

[bkp_duke]

UPDATE: you won't get charged if supercharger is basically deserted.

There, everyone should be happy and any one complaining now is just a flat out abuser.

 

[tinm]

At superchargers like Gallup NM this new policy won't help much because the main problem is ICEing by big gas guzzling pickups parked for the night in the charger spots. I've shown up at Gallup at 9am and 3 out of the 4 spaces had snow-covered ICEs in 'em. Luckily there was a 4th spot though hard to squeeze in next to some massive souped up truck.

I wish when they built the superchargers the parking spaces had had sensors installed so Tesla could know if a space was occupied (prolly ICEd). They could then call the biz establishment or just call a towing service.

On another note, I've often charged overnight at the Flagstaff supercharger located in a hard to find lower parking lot of the Marriott Courtyard hotel. I've often pulled in after midnight, all 4 chargers deserted. I ask for a room overlooking the chargers, go to sleep, wake up after a few hours, crawl to window, look out, still just my car out there, and go back to sleep.

Never seen more than 2 total cars at Flagstaff.

 

[Pwdr Extreme]

I would hardly describe Sonic, Chilli's or Burger King etc as "destinations" - more places for a personal fill-up and empty out.
As others have said many times over, superchargers are charging spots not parking spots.

I agree, but around here locations like Old Chicago, The Rib & Chop House and the Fort are what is near our super chargers, and those could be considered destinations. It seems that Mr. Musk listened to the people outside of California who don't have a supercharger congestion problem with his tweet about not being charged if there are spaces open. Fantastic!

I absolutely sympathize with people in California being ICE'd and how there potentially could still be a congestion problem due to this, but charging the 90% an unnecessary fee is not the solution to a 10% problem.

Perhaps a Tesla owner waiting to charge at an ICE'd supercharger could send a notification to Tesla that in turn sends out a notification to the owners charging there to please move their car? Certainly a company that can build a self driving car is capable of designing some relatively simple software such as that.

This would also give Tesla the necessary data to see which superchargers have a constant ICEing problem and they can start having the REAL offenders towed away. This will go much further towards solving the problem then charging the rest of us a fee when we are incoviencing absolutely no one.

 

[techmaven]

I do wonder if the tracking and billing system is even in place. They can announce this policy and basically wait to implement it since the fear of getting charged might be sufficient to alter behavior. Obviously, when they implement the charging for Supercharging, they will need a new billing system in place.

 

[Pwdr Extreme]

There is another way to look at it: if you are at a deserted site and you really don't have an alternative to using a charge spot as a parking spot, for cry-i, it's only going to cost you $1.20 to park there for three hours.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying? I'm probably just dense, but what does "cry-i" mean?
3 hours at $.40 a minute is $72.00, I don't understand what you mean by "only going to cost you $1.20 to park for three hours"

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Unfortunately, Mr. Musk, you are wrong! Your company does not know "if the site is basically deserted", as you and a distressingly large number of prior posters on just this thread have been writing.

The only information you have at present at all SpCs other than the very few that have Tesla-monitored security cameras is if there are Teslas present, whether charging, finished charging, or featherbedding. ICEing of SpC sites remains a hugely frustrating - far more prevalent than the overstayed charged vehicle - problem. So that lone Tesla in an 8-stall site that has seven ICEs blocking all other chargers is still the only roadblock over which Tesla Motors has any control.

Bad habits are supremely hard to break. Nipping them in the bud was the answer, but with some 100,000 Teslas now on the road, this, as the complaints in prior posts have shown, has now become nipping the emergent flower. PLEASE don't make 2019, 2020, 2030...any more difficult to the upcoming generations of Tesla owners. Keep the hard line.

The thing here that gives me pause is the notion that directing action towards the Tesla owners should be done... because it can be done. I am not sure that is either fair or wise.

This could be an unwise and unfair decision on two levels:

1) Tesla would be directing unilateral action at its customer. In your scenario Tesla would be directing more and more certain action at their customer (the SC overtimer), an arguably more important party, than at their non-customer (the ICEr), an arguably less important party. This could be unwise.

2) Also, Tesla would be directing its punitive action against the less offending party: the Tesla customer whose charge has already ended, arguably a less offending party, vs. the non-charging ICE that was never charging there and should never have been there in the first place, an arguably more offending party. This would be unfair.

I get your practical point, I really do. In a case there is an SC is ICEd up, that sole charging stall could mean the difference of many people being able to get on with their journey. Sure. And by design, Tesla is able to invoke more automated action against a charging Tesla, than they can against an ICE. There certainly is an argument to be made for using this convenience to help in such instances.

Nevertheless, the opposing argument also carries weight: The convenience of automation should not dictate the punishment, but the "crime" should. If so, and if the problem you mention exists at scale, Tesla should address - as you agree in another message - the ICEing problem separately by towing or whatnot. That is the more drastic "crime" and it deserves the more drastic response. And that response should come first.

This becomes especially sensitive when we don't just consider the fairness of the crime and its punishment, but the resulting difference in customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is arguably important to Tesla. Long charging times (SCs included) are arguably a handicap of EVs, impediment to ownership and a major component of satisfaction issues that Tesla is trying to overcome with SCs.

By "forcing" customers to stay near the SC or cut short their dinners etc. through fines, Tesla is actually adding a layer of customer non-satisfaction. It will make the SC stop a bit less pleasant and they are making that SC visit that bit more inconvenient, where it already is an inconvenience compared to filling the tank (i.e. how to spend the time is already a problem). Now, at very busy SCs, this lessened satisfaction will be offset by added satisfaction by owners who are/would otherwise be queueing - also important, I agree, which is why I am not disagreeing with Tesla taking some action to address this.

However, the first inconvenience would not be offset by anything at the frequently deserted SCs. So there the end-result would simply by inconveniencing and testing the feeling of fairness in their customers. "There absolutely is nobody here, why are they charging me, why are they making me come here in the middle of the night etc.!" Especially when the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped (one of those things the SCs are trying to help with), there may not always be a reasonable alternative to using the SC in an unorthodox manner, the alternative might be an ICE. Why make an issue of this in places where it is not an issue is a fair question.

I would say in this case Tesla may be wise to recognize the sensitivities here. It may not pay to introduce unnecessary rules and fines just to keep things simple. Being smart, kind, nice is also a valid take on this. A layered approach will also make change more palatable and give people time to get more used to the idea of thinking the SC as a payment experience.

Disclosure: 1) I have never charged to full at an SC in my life, I don't park at SCs. 2) But I have also never seen a full SC in my life, 95% of the time I am the only car there. 3) As long as this remains, to me, it would feel an unnecessary added burden to worry about this when using SCs.

 

[cinemasatty]

Glad Elon stepped in about not requiring a payment if stalls are empty. I am curious, however; one sentence in the article stuck out to me, "deter owners from leaving their cars at Superchargers after reaching their preset charging requirements". Makes me wonder if the fee will begin after you have reached the charge amount that the car has deemed necessary for you to get to your next destination. Could be problematic. Granted that wasn't a direct quote from Tesla so it could be incorrect/misleading.

 

[ohmman]

I found this an interesting read on another thread. Pardon if has already been posted.

It is a study of behavior when a charge is introduced as a penalty for 'overuse' of a service:

http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine.pdf

This study and its surprising result were the subject of a Freakonomics podcast episode. Definitely worth looking up.

The difference between the outcome at the day care center and at a Supercharger is that the parents were forced to face the teacher when they were late, and they'd see her repeatedly throughout the year. Supercharger abuse has a high level of anonymity, especially in in big cities. If one knew they'd see the same people everyday at the Supercharger, I believe the results would be similar to this study. That's just not the case. So I don't buy the hypothesis that somehow economic disincentives are ineffective. On the contrary, studies have shown them to be quite effective.

 

[tezzla]

Fully agree. This should only be enforced if all stalls are full. Plus I think 15mins is more reasonable for the many reasons you have given. I have 2 kids, 10 and 12yrs old and if i ran out halfway through dinner the manager would think 1) I am abandoning my kids or 2) I am running out without paying

The second you start charging; it tells you what time it'll finish, complaining about the 5 minute grace period is ridiculous. If I remember correctly, when charging to 100% you get notification messages at 80% full and another around 90%.

 

[ElectricTundra]

First try to solve the problem, not the non-problem. If the problem is ICE'ing then reduce or eliminate that. If the problem is at 11 superchargers then solve it at those and not the 774 that do not have a problem (and likely will not for years to come). If the problem is between 8am and 11am then solve it then and not the other 21 hrs. If the problem is 20 people then deal with them not the other 80,000.

Very glad to see that this is the direction Tesla are going instead of their scattered buckshot from last night.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This study and its surprising result were the subject of a Freakonomics podcast episode. Definitely worth looking up.

The difference between the outcome at the day care center and at a Supercharger is that the parents were forced to face the teacher when they were late, and they'd see her repeatedly throughout the year. Supercharger abuse has a high level of anonymity, especially in in big cities. If one knew they'd see the same people everyday at the Supercharger, I believe the results would be similar to this study. That's just not the case. So I don't buy the hypothesis that somehow economic disincentives are ineffective. On the contrary, studies have shown them to be quite effective.

End-results may still be unpredictable though, for example the argument that people might start increasing their charging to 100% just to buy themselves more time, or start getting the sense that they should do a full charge (as the social contract is now better defined by an upper limit) etc.

I am taking a wait and see approach on the actual method. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, very hard to tell as the EV culture is only now forming... But I am not objected to Tesla doing something in congested SC areas. That is OK.

One thing I do think Tesla missed in their announcement, perhaps intentionally: SCs can not be compared to leaving your car parked at a fuel pump as Tesla does. That is disingenious. It s simply not a valid comparison due to the difference in filling-up times. As long as charging is not instantaneous, a parking element is included by design in EV charging and comparisons to the fuel pump are apples and oranges. If Tesla wants people to wait by their cars or very near the cars while charging, they are adding one negative answer to the question SCs are trying to solve. A customer can not be expected to do the same thing they do at a fuel pump. Acknowledging the difference is important.

Besides that detail, and especailly with Elon's Twitter amendment making it more common sense policy, I am open minded and feel pretty positive about this change. We shall see how it works.

 

[BerTX]

The problem with towing ICE vehicles parked in Supercharger slots is that Tesla does not own the slots -- the business where they are located does. Those businesses will not allow the offenders to be towed, as they are their customers/guests. They are much less worried about a Tesla driver being upset than a paying customer (and if the Tesla driver IS a paying customer, there is still no benefit to having the ICE towed -- they will STILL have an upset customer).

The only practical solution I have seen is to have cones to block off the stalls in locations where ICEing is a problem. Yes, it's a pain to get out and move the cone to park, and also a pain to put it back when you leave, but it's better than the alternative.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

First try to solve the problem, not the non-problem. If the problem is ICE'ing then reduce or eliminate that. If the problem is at 11 superchargers then solve it at those and not the 774 that do not have a problem (and likely will not for years to come). If the problem is between 8am and 11am then solve it then and not the other 21 hrs. If the problem is 20 people then deal with them not the other 80,000.

Very glad to see that this is the direction Tesla are going instead of their scattered buckshot from last night.

Very much agreed. This is probably the best argument against the "keep it simple" position some have taken to support applying the policy everywhere, all the time.

Tesla is arguably taking the non-buruecratic way forward. That is good. It may not be tidy for the rule-maker minded, but it will appeal to the common sense in us I think.