New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[AnxietyRanger]

While I don't share @smac's rather harsh "I'm out until Tesla grows up" (too harsh?) mentality, I am somewhat relieved I don't have to be in the market for a new one at the moment.

The constant changes to everything from the product to the policies, the uncertainties, have become tiresome and I'm happy that at least my car has many things Tesla has discontinued or changed (many times) since.

Not that Superchargers matter to me, obviously they don't, but the constant uncertainty is IMO troublesome. Today it is Superchargers, tomorrow it may be something that does matter to me (barely missed out on the 90 kWh debacle...).

 

[smac]

@AnxietyRanger possibly too harsh, but I was in the market for a new car, and it was this sort of stuff not necessarily the car that was the tipping point in not upgrading to a newer Tesla.

I know I'm in the minority here of not being/likely to be a repeat customer, but those in my situation often suggest very similar reasons for moving away from the brand as you touch on in your post.

Dealing with Tesla was a weird experience somewhere between a startup with little in the way of procedures or policies, to an overly officious government department. I'm sure as they mature they will find a better balance, but without some dissent in the ranks. they might not even realise it's a problem

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Dealing with Tesla was a weird experience somewhere between a startup with little in the way of procedures or policies, to an overly officious government department.

Very well put.

I still like the car, as said. I'm willing to put up with the weirdness, because I'm at peace with the purchase and keeping it for now. But I've put the thought of another one way on the backburner.

Even when that HUD comes , I won't be upgrading. Too stressful to buy right again. I bought right once and I'm keeping it for now.

 

[KJD]

Well, who knows. Who knows if this policy will be there tomorrow. With Tesla predictability isn't exactly the name of the game...

One thing I know for sure is that no matter what Tesla does you will complain about it over and over and over again.

That much is very predictable.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

One thing I know for sure is that no matter what Tesla does you will complain about it over and over and over again.

That much is very predictable.

Funny that I read this post of yours right after posting this to a negative thread:

Tesla reverted my performance upgrade :(

...I'm with Tesla on this one...

Funny world.

 

[EfficientWatts]

Corporate Sales | Tesla

This has been around, and as of now only for Model S and X, but I like this bullet point:

Benefits for your company and your drivers

...

• Low operating costs and access to the Tesla Supercharger network

So it's obvious that Tesla can and would have exceptions for some commercial use, but it would likely be on a per-company basis. Wonder if individuals (who do Turo or elsewise) would be able to get on this.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@quantumslip I wonder of that is an old text, though.

Obviously Tesla marketed Supercharging to everyone, commercial buyers included, until now they changed their minds.

That said, it certainly would seem plausible Tesla can sell commercial access to Superchargers on a per-company basis. The unfortunate part is they don't really spell this or any kind of base pricing out loud, which is a sorry state of affairs for any smaller commercial operator especially, who would in reality rely on on "price list", because they would likely lack negotiating clout for a special deal.

 

[Sleipnir]

Being banned from Supercharger is not a very good news for those who plan to buy Full Self-Driving to make money in ride-sharing Tesla Network.

If you are making money on your car, other Tesla owners shouldn't have to subsidize you. Go buy solar panels (from Telsa ) and get your free electricity that way.

 

[Tam]

If you are making money on your car, other Tesla owners shouldn't have to subsidize you. Go buy solar panels (from Telsa ) and get your free electricity that way.

We are not talking about subsidizing.

We are talking about fair use with fair exchange of money for each charges.

If commercial and governmental owners are not paying enough starting with this new policy, there is no reason for not raising their price.

Again, by not raising the charging prices and by just exclusively banning the usage, then, this is clearly not about subsidizing issue!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If you are making money on your car, other Tesla owners shouldn't have to subsidize you. Go buy solar panels (from Telsa ) and get your free electricity that way.

How will a commercial user long-distance travel on solar panels?

 

[BerTX]

How will a commercial user long-distance travel on solar panels?

Kidding.

 

[Tam]

Kidding.

Hey! That might work with Model X for towing to impress Uber clients but Tesla does not allow towing for Model S!

 

[FlatSix911]

We are not talking about subsidizing.
We are talking about fair use with fair exchange of money for each charges.
If commercial and governmental owners are not paying enough starting with this new policy, there is no reason for not raising their price.
Again, by not raising the charging prices and by just exclusively banning the usage, then, this is clearly not about subsidizing issue!

We are not talking about the pricing model. We are talking about subsidizing for-profit businesses.
Tesla is also reducing congestion at the Superchargers going forward ... just wait until the Model 3 is produced in large numbers.

If you are making money on your car, other Tesla owners shouldn't have to subsidize you.
Go buy solar panels (from Telsa ) and get your free electricity that way.

Agreed!

 

[Tam]

We are not talking about the pricing model...

Why not?

If you don't want to subsidize then you have to talk about prices: Who pays more, who pay less to justify the fair use.

When the policy establishes the no-access for commercial/governmental use regardless of pricing then it is no longer about subsidizing, it is about access!

The policy of access means: No matter how much commercial/governmental owner will pay, they just are not allowed for access at any price!

 

[FlatSix911]

Why not?

If you don't want to subsidize then you have to talk about prices: Who pays more, who pay less to justify the fair use.
When the policy establishes the no-access for commercial/governmental use regardless of pricing then it is no longer about subsidizing, it is about access! The policy of access means: No matter how much commercial/governmental owner will pay, they just are not allowed for access at any price!

Read the second line ... it's about a sustainable model going forward.

We are not talking about the pricing model. We are talking about subsidizing for-profit businesses.
Tesla is also reducing congestion at the Superchargers going forward ... just wait until the Model 3 is produced in large numbers.

 

[Tam]

Read the second line ... it's about a sustainable model going forward.

"Sustainable" seems to suggests environmentally friendly: To encourage switching from ICE to EV as much as possible.

Uber, commercial, governmental have the lots of ICE to be switched to EV, so Tesla Supercharger encouragement is a good thing and banning them hinders the goal.

If "sustainable" means not able to generate profit because of grandfathered Model S and X and cheap charges for the rest, then it's time to increase the price.

Commercial owners can easily adjust their cost of business to pay top dollars at Tesla Superchargers to make sure Tesla Superchargers won't be starved of cash.

...Tesla is also reducing congestion at the Superchargers going forward ... just wait until the Model 3 is produced in large numbers.

So, after all, the complaint seems to be about congestion!

I don't think banning commercial/governmental from Superchargers is the solution.

I don't think most Tesla cars are sold to commercial/governmental owners.

Those 2 Tesla cars from Los Angeles Police Department were test loaners and the department didn't even buy or lease any from Tesla!

In 2015, Elon Musk tried to blame congestion on "few people" who are identified as "local" and the solution was formulated to issue tickets to those people.

Guess what? In stead of giving tickets, Tesla would even encourage rewards of "Free Unlimited Supercharging".

Apparently, banning a certain group of people like "local" has never been a solution.

The solution has been sizing a Tesla Supercharger station correctly to avoid congestion.

It's easy to create diversions and blame local/commercial/governmental for for Tesla's incompetency.

It's time to stop blaming "them" versus "us" and get on with sizing Tesla Supercharger correctly!

 

[Electroman]

One thing I know for sure is that no matter what Tesla does you will complain about it over and over and over again.

.. even if the concerned issue or subject has no bearing on AR, like this new policy of commercial usage for new buyers.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@FlatSix911 @mkjayakumar

Bearing on myself is completely irrelevant when discussing policy. In fact I think the absolute requirement for any objective discussion on policy is to rise above personal requirements and preferences. That's the only way to look at policies honestly.

Then again, the policy as it is written now could easily apply to me too on my next Tesla, I drive to business meetings at times on the Supercharger network. That is "any commercial venture". I would like to discuss how this is unfolding from that perpective too. It can also affect the re-sale value of my current car, as Tesla says they are retroactively imposing limits on it at that time.

Nobody seems to want to answer this. How is Tesla to be used for commercial long-distance travel with this policy? None of the points about subsidization, solar panels, home charging etc. solve this question?

My recommendation is Tesla add CCS support as fast as possible, at least that is some kind of a solution going forward. But in the meanwhile I would appreciate if the conversation wouldn't be ignoring this angle.

I get it. It is inconvenient for the narrative, given that Supercharging and long-distance travel are a unique Tesla benefit and now it is being taken away from a portion of the drivers. But if and when this is the reality, the solution to this IMO is a valid discussion.

I think commercial driving (e.g. a travelling salesman, long-distance chauffering) actually is one area where the home/work charging can't solve 90+% of the driving needs. That's IMO why this change is quite significant, because it offers no obvious alternative (yet).

CCS is needed now.

 

[scaesare]

"Sustainable" seems to suggests environmentally friendly: To encourage switching from ICE to EV as much as possible.

Uber, commercial, governmental have the lots of ICE to be switched to EV, so Tesla Supercharger encouragement is a good thing and banning them hinders the goal.

If "sustainable" means not able to generate profit because of grandfathered Model S and X and cheap charges for the rest, then it's time to increase the price.

"Sustainable" has been used as a term in evaluating business models for years prior to being commonly associated with energy renewability.

A sustainable business model doesn't necessarily have to be profit making. Heck, for a subdivision of a company it can be a loss center. It just has to be capable of reaching it's intended goals despite obstacles.

In this case, it appears that the intent was to imply that Supercharging would be too negatively impacted by commercial usage (paid for or not) to continue to allow it while at the same time providing the service desired for the customer base as a whole.

Undoubtedly Tesla has a model that assumes the average car supercharges X percent of the time, based on miles driven. Given that they can track both a car's mileage as well as it's supercharging sessions, they have some excellent data to validate that model.

If entire fleets of cars supercharge at 1-2 orders of magnitude more often, then the entire system likely becomes unsustainable (at least in some locations).

I tend to agree with that assessment.

 

[GSP]

Sure. But IMO Tesla would be wise to offer a clear, public model for commercial long-distance use. This one is way too vague and indeed says commercial long-distance use is banned.

That it has a cost for new cars is obviously perfectly OK. Just make the cost and the policy clear.

Or offer CCS.

Or both!

GSP