New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[AnxietyRanger]

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.

Agreed.

Which then means currently Tesla offers no new purchase solution for long-distance commercial driving at all, unless you consider Level/Type 2 and CHAdeMO a solution, which I would assume nobody outside of Japan would.

CCS is needed to enable commercial long-distance driving for BEVs, Tesla Supercharger is no longer a solution for that. Policy changes such as this (or relying on goodwill exceptions) make it too unpredictable for that anyway.

The other alternative is to conclude Teslas can not be used for long-distance commercial driving (e.g. travelling salesmen, chauffeurs, car rentals etc.) at all.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Agreed.

Which then means currently Tesla offers no new purchase solution for long-distance commercial driving at all, unless you consider Level/Type 2 and CHAdeMO a solution, which I would assume nobody outside of Japan would.

What part of

... Tesla may choose to exclude certain Supercharger stations or occasional trips from the scope of this Policy, such as to accommodate specific local circumstances. ...

Charging Alternatives

We encourage the commercial use of Tesla vehicles while using appropriate charging solutions. Please reach out to your local sales contact to explore vehicle and charging options that suit your needs.

... do you not understand?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoney So far none of the commentary here or from Tesla suggests those solutions include using the Supercharging network commercially for long-distance travel. After all, as @scaesare said it, this seems to be about congestion and access, not about price.

If Tesla offers a price list for commercial Supercharger usage for long-distance travel, then that of course changes things. But that is not what the people on TMC are saying, nor is Tesla saying in their public examples (e.g. charger build-out).

So far Tesla is saying long-distance charging commercially on the Supercharger network is out. They are of course free to post some other policy to clarify. Maybe they will. I would encourage them to.

Or start supporting CCS as an alternative for long-distance travel.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoney So far none of the commentary here or from Tesla suggests those solutions include using the Supercharging network commercially for long-distance travel. After all, as @scaesare said it, this seems to be about congestion and access, not about price.

If Tesla offers a price list for commercial Supercharger usage for long-distance travel, then that of course changes things. But that is not what the people on TMC are saying, nor is Tesla saying in their public examples (e.g. charger build-out).

So far Tesla is saying long-distance charging commercially on the Supercharger network is out. They are of course free to post some other policy to clarify. Maybe they will. I would encourage them to.

Or start supporting CCS as an alternative for long-distance travel.

It's normal business to negotiate specific contracts.

You can't say that it doesn't have a solution when the policy says that it can exclude Superchargers and that companies should contact Tesla sales.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It's normal business to negotiate specific contracts.

You can't say that it doesn't have a solution when the policy says that it can exclude Superchargers and that companies should contact Tesla sales.

What I'm saying is that I would not personally find the "encouragement" and solutions as stand believable enough to base business use on. Private negotiation for Supercharger access is not really a valid option for anyone but the largest of operators anyway. We know how much the value the word of some local sales advisor is historically with Tesla. And relying on goodwill exceptions for the rest, that's relying on wishful thinking...

@scaesare is right IMO. As things stand, this is pure and simple, a discouragement of commercial use of Supercharging for the benefit of sustainability and access for the non-commercial fleet. Both you and @scaesare can't be right, so I'm opining more along the lines of @scaesare on the policy as it stands. Tesla fears for their Supercharger access and denying commercial users is the lesser evil and that why, it seems, they posted this policy.

Now, Tesla does not of course want the commercial operators to go away from Tesla completely, so they try to walk a tightrope, but they are not - as things stand - presenting any commercial long-distance charging solution that would be believable and sustainable from a public perspective. The discouragement is that blatant IMO.

Now I find it possible, even likely, Tesla may post a new policy if there is a backlash with this one. And I would encourage them to.

But adding CCS support seems more important than ever, still.

 

[Carl]

I’ll write my local store on this. I also use supercharging when I have business meetings 200 km away (and no I’m not going to ask clients if they have a destination charger). Don’t all of us use superchargers this way? I can’t image superchargers are now meant only to be ‘holiday trip chargers’ so to speak, and more importantly what’s my incentive to trade in my car if it basically would mean I don’t have any supercharger acces any more (except on week-ends and vacation)? Something doesn’t compete.

Shall revert when I get a reply.

 

[BigTonyTones]

Glad to hear the good news. Drove me nuts seeing all the taxi drivers taking up the supercharger spots.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I’ll write my local store on this. I also use supercharging when I have business meetings 200 km away (and no I’m not going to ask clients if they have a destination charger). Don’t all of use superchargers this way? I can’t image superchargers are now meant only to be ‘holiday trip chargers’ do to speak, and more importantly what’s my incentive to trade in my car if it basically would mean I don’t have any supercharger acces any more (except on week-ends and vacation). Something doesn’t compete.

Shall revert when I get a reply.

My expectation is that Tesla will use their vague "exceptions" clause to calm you down.

The problem with that is, relying on goodwill exceptions (or flying under the radar) for a business is not sustainable.

After all, it was the sales network that at one point must touted the "free unlimited supercharging", since then reigned back to long-distance Supercharging... since then reigned back to non-commercial long-distance Supercharging...

See the pattern? This policy really isn't the paragon of predictability businesses prefer.

I am actually surprised Tesla did not discuss commercial long-distance driving in their policy at all. It is almost as if they wish people just wouldn't talk about it too much and chalk it up to the exceptions, until they can change the rules again...

 

[smac]

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.

I tend to agree too, the minor difference would be we don't know how sensitive the model was to deviation.

My take is the original model was based on the early/preliminary data, i..e that from Signature owners, and at that point seemed achievable, because their usage patterns / motivations were different from a Tesla buyer today.

As the ownership demographic has changed, with more cars being available, and in some cases (especially CPO) justifying their price premium over ICE, the original model (viewed in hindsight) may look under-provisioned. (Even without taking into account the worst offenders using it for commercial reasons).

I also wonder how much the original model has deviated from in terms of site sizing / bay counts, etc. One would hope the model adapted as more data became accumulated.

When Elon stood up on stage in London and said (verbatim quote) "Imagine never paying for fuel again", it was with the sincerest of beliefs, little did he realise they would a few short years later be staring down the barrel of powering Schipols entire taxi fleet, or 50+ bay sites in places like Shanghai.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

When Elon stood up on stage in London and said (verbatim quote) "Imagine never paying for fuel again", it was with the sincerest of beliefs,

Was it really, though? Or was it hubris that he realistically knew or should have known will not last, but took the benefit of those hyping words anyway? I mean it would have been so much less powerful as "Imagine not paying for fuel again for the next couple of years"... More honest, but less powerful => ethical conondrum...

I think this is the question that a lot of the hubris or hype from Tesla comes down to. They took words like "free unlimited Supercharging" and ran with it as long as it made sense for them to and there was an upside... and then reverted once there no longer was...

That's the problematic part IMO, ethically speaking.

That said, setting a new policy - any new policy - on new cars sold is perfectly fine, of course, as long as it is expressed in advance like this is. Only the third-party sale part of existing cars here is suspect in that sense...

 

[Tam]

...sincerest of beliefs...

I think he was talking in present tense that was appropriate at that time when there were no less expensive Model 3 and there were only expensive Model S and for those who wanted to pay cheaper for Model S 60, there were an optional $2,500 Supercharger fee.

It's all in the math. It was an exact science and it had certainly nothing to do with a belief!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It's all in the math. It was an exact science and it had certainly nothing to do with a belief!

I can't discount the idea that the math included hype value too. "Free unlimited Supercharging forever" type of rhetoric was a very good marketing slogan, one that was often parroted by the sales force and the evangelist user community alike.

It was very powerful - and it was very useful.

How purposeful it was, that's the question.

I mean Level 5 capable full self-driving was also a very powerful line...

 

[smac]

@Tam It definitely wasn't a pure math problem. They had an unrepresentative sample set when the offer was made.

So you can take my view, that it was an error of judgement based on limited knowledge, or the more sinister one that @AnxietyRanger proposes that it was intentionally misleading if it was always subject to future change.

FWIW my car was a 60, specced as such because it met my needs and I have access to multiple expensive ICE's. I paid post sale to add Supercharging, ensuring I had an email chain regarding unconditional transfer-ability.

Why? Because as soon as the letters from Elon asking people to be considerate happened I figured they had a problem, and I wanted to lock in the residual value Supercharging enablement had.

 

[ggr]

I think he meant "fuel" as in gasoline. He also talked about home charging, and that clearly wasn't going to be free.

 

[sammyfan711]

Let’s not forget Tesla is now encouraging local charging for customers without a home charging setup.

The whole idea of “Supercharging is for long distance charging only” is very 2016 despite being cited on this thread several times.

 

[arcus]

What are we still disputing here again? The way I see it:

1) Tesla invested in SC network and as such, has a sole right to change the conditions of use as deems fit (or as the landscape of SC user grows/demographics chance).
2) Any commercial operator (large or small) should make the operational cost part of their business plan (that includes fuel, electricity or other means to propel their vehicles).
3) I bought the car in 2017 (way after Elon made the statement) and I do enjoy free supercharging for life (at least life of my car, that is). No false advertising or broken promises as far as I can tell.
4) Limits are put in place to discourage unnecessary congestion at SCs (such as business owners/users, who should plan how to keep their fleet operational without relying on "freebies" or inconveniencing other Tesla owners for whom the SC network has been designated at the first place. This of course might as well change in future when high speed chargers are as abundant as gas stations.
5) Lastly, Tesla's investment in SC must have been substantial. Initially it might be to propel adoption of Tesla vehicles and/or differentiate themselves from the rest of automakers (gain tactical advantage or whatever you call it). From business perspective, it would be silly to think that this "charity" will last forever.

Bottom line, the amendments to the SC use policy are fair and square.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

1) Tesla invested in SC network and as such, has a sole right to change the conditions of use as deems fit (or as the landscape of SC user grows/demographics chance).

They don't (well, in most jurisdictions anyway) have the right to change terms after money has exchanged hands on those terms. Changes to cars already sold with free unlimited Supercharging forever (the used car commercial usage clause) are suspect in this case.

Tesla is of course free to set the terms for future sales as long as those terms and their marketing are not at odds.

2) Any commercial operator (large or small) should make the operational cost part of their business plan (that includes fuel, electricity or other means to propel their vehicles).

Of course. But for existing sales when Tesla decided to market and sell cars with free unlimited Supercharging forever ("imagine never paying for fuel") they made their bed and must sleep on it, as others - commercial and non-commercial alike - have based their car purchases and calculations on Tesla's promise.

3) I bought the car in 2017 (way after Elon made the statement) and I do enjoy free supercharging for life (at least life of my car, that is). No false advertising or broken promises as far as I can tell.

If the current policy stands, this is unfortunately not completely true. Tesla is reducing the value of your car for commercial used car sale after the fact. Nowhere was such a limitation expressed beforehand.

New car sales are obviously problematic only from one angle: no public or clear policy is offered for long-distance Supercharging for any commercial use. This is OK of course, as long as the policies are publicized, but too bad for anyone thinking of long-distance travelling commercially in a Tesla as there is no good alternative (e.g. no CCS support yet).

 

[smac]

Let’s not forget Tesla is now encouraging local charging for customers without a home charging setup.

That's so 2015* Tesla Drivers Will Soon Find More Charging Stations in Manhattan


TBH This sort of solution seems to work so much better for people who have cars in dense urban areas if they are being contract parked anyway.

Interestingly China seem to be going this route with their GB/T AC rollout. Effectively flood filling public parking garages with 7kW AC points.


(*arguably it goes even further back to 2014 if you look at how they placed UK Superchargers to capture the initial London buyers).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@smac Yes. Until all the malarkey about "Supercharging was always about long-distance" only started. No it wasn't. It was a sales enabler used by Tesla in a number of ways, urban dweller sales included.

It is unfortunate if those promises backfired on Tesla. But they should not have made them in that case. You can't sell a car to an urban dweller with Supercharging promises forever as the solution and then take that back after you've sold the car.

Luckily they never really enforced that "long-distance only" rule. I don't think they had a leg to stand on there. But it was the first questionable play with words they did on this topic...

 

[TaoJones]

Let’s not forget Tesla is now encouraging local charging for customers without a home charging setup.

The whole idea of “Supercharging is for long distance charging only” is very 2016 despite being cited on this thread several times.

Indeed - Tesla has supported since day one, and continues to support the use of SCs by the non-garaged.

Despite, of course, the efforts of a few who have had the temerity to opine that the non-garaged shouldn’t buy a Tesla. Short-, meet sighted.

This, with 90%+ SCs even today not at all saturated.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the Dieselgate money converts into tens of thousands of L2 and L3 chargers (and maintenance thereof) across California - on top of the 12,500 L2 and L3 chargers coming to most of the (populated) state courtesy of 2 large utilities. While 70% of homes in the States have garages, one could argue that 70% of housing in coastal SoCal does not have dedicated parking.

Already we see EVs using city-contracted L2 chargers that have been installed at certain residential street parking spaces. If I’m a Model 3 owner and there’s a space on my block that costs me $0.15/kW for overnight charging, then I’m less likely to frequent the nearest SC 10 miles away (in LA traffic) @ $0.20/kW.

Solve California and we solve the continent. Quite the race between supply, demand, and municipal will.