New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[smac]

We are seeing similar municipal schemes in Europe too.

London boroughs to add 1,500 electric vehicle charging points

I'm sure there will be some nuances by region though, so fixing California will be good, but there are still challenges revolving around grid timing mismatches, and primary sources of renewable power generation.

An example I can think of here in Nottingham in the UK is the local city owns a number of parking lots, but also a large combined heat and power plant. During windy nights they can't switch off the plant (because of the heating side), so the electrical energy either goes back into the grid and they pay penalties for excess generation, or they dump it into dummy loads .

To "solve" this they are running a separate set of direct power lines from the plant to the bus hubs (we have a lot of EV busses here) to use those as what is in effect a mobile battery farm lite. (I don't think they are doing Vehicle To Grid). It was proposed they would also use a similar strategy for some of the city centre car parks, but busses > cars as far as Nottingham Council's view stands.

 

[scaesare]

@smac . Until all the malarkey about "Supercharging was always about long-distance" only started.

In your opinion. It's the opinion, formulated on the evidence of numerous web site descriptions, event transcriptions, etc..., of a number of folks here that by and large the corpus of communication from Tesla has consistently been to primarily enable long distance travel/road trips. We argued this with you for pages some time ago.

Certainly Tesla subsequently has moved to address urban charging challenges, and no doubt there has been some exuberant salesfolks with verbal messaging that didn't align.

But to pretend that the larger "official" descriptions about long-distance Supercharging never existed is either disingenuous or intentionally sticking your head in the sand.

 

[scaesare]

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.

I think you may be reading too much in to this. Using your personal car to get to work (be it a business meeting or flipping burgers) would seem to fall under Tesla's description:

We are continually expanding our global network of Supercharger stations to enable personal long distance travel

The other examples imply using your car to either directly make a profit, or as part of some fleet operations:

• as a taxi;
• for ridesourcing or ridesharing (through Uber, Lyft or similar services);
• to commercially deliver or transport goods;
• for government purposes; or
• for any other commercial venture.

I sincerely doubt that even that last one applies to getting you to your meeting.

(I'd bet if you don't have commercial plates on your car, there's easily not much of a question outside Uber/Lyft)

 

[Carl]

I think you may be reading too much in to this. Using your personal car to get to work (be it a business meeting or flipping burgers) would seem to fall under Tesla's description:



The other examples imply using your car to either directly make a profit, or as part of some fleet operations:



I sincerely doubt that even that last one applies to getting you to your meeting.

(I'd bet if you don't have commercial plates on your car, there's easily not much of a question outside Uber/Lyft)

I'm sure you're right but I'd feel comfortable with some confirmation from Tesla.

 

[scaesare]

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.

I'm sure that the additional data has refined their plans.

I also believe that there's a degree of context in Tesla's statements over time. For instance in Elon's announcement, he talks about how you use superchargers "when taking a trip", and uses examples of driving for 3 hours at a clip then charging for the next leg. The map overlaid on the video shows a SF-to-LA route.

He also uses the phrase "Free long distance, no gasoline" in that announcement. And leaving your wallet at home "if you travel from LA to New York". So clearly there's context that a lot of people like ot ignore and instead cherry-pick phrases from.

However people, being who they are, typically are self centered and what Tesla intended and what happened are two different things... thus as you say the model has had to chane over time.

 

[scaesare]

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...

I suspect he also pulled a fast one on us by not getting all those "promised" solar canopies up on all the supercharger locations. Undoubtedly unethical and he secretly wanted to burn more coal just so he could make a splash.

 

[scaesare]

@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.

I side with you on the "best of intentions" motive. I also suspect he had more faith in humanity than was warranted.

 

[scaesare]

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.

Here's the current quote on their site:

We are continually expanding our global network of Supercharger stations to enable personal long distance travel and to provide a charging solution for those without immediate access to home or workplace charging, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of electric vehicles

So yes, they've added the proviso that those who don't have immediate[1] home/work charging can charge within their intent[2]. But it doesn't remove the long distance intent.

And neither of those are pertinent to why those points have been "cited on this thread several times": because commercial use doesn't fall in to either of those two categories.


[1] Implying that working towards that would be preferred
[2] We've also seen the additional development of Urban Superchargers

 

[AnxietyRanger]

We are continually expanding our global network of Supercharger stations to enable personal long distance travel

And there we have it: Commercial long-distance travel is out.

Time for CCS for the travelling salesman, car rental and chauffeur.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I side with you on the "best of intentions" motive. I also suspect he had more faith in humanity than was warranted.

I also suspect you have more faith in Elon's humanity than is warranted.

He knows his hype. He knew the free unlimited Supercharging story had hype value.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I suspect he also pulled a fast one on us by not getting all those "promised" solar canopies up on all the supercharger locations. Undoubtedly unethical and he secretly wanted to burn more coal just so he could make a splash.

That's not so important, though. Even though they were promised and could be seen as false marketing, they don't have a direct end-result to what was pre-sold.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I also believe that there's a degree of context in Tesla's statements over time. For instance in Elon's announcement, he talks about how you use superchargers "when taking a trip", and uses examples of driving for 3 hours at a clip then charging for the next leg. The map overlaid on the video shows a SF-to-LA route.

Elon is Elon. There is the whole rest of Tesla's sales machine (including all those sales people on Tesla's payroll) who were parroting a very different story to buyers until the first change to the policy hit.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So yes, they've added the proviso that those who don't have immediate[1] home/work charging can charge within their intent[2]. But it doesn't remove the long distance intent.

And neither of those are pertinent to why those points have been "cited on this thread several times": because commercial use doesn't fall in to either of those two categories.

Tesla has had the urban charging intent for years now. The whole long-distance only intent hasn't been believable for a long time now. Maybe in the very first moments of the network, but then it quickly morphed into exactly what Tesla is describing there: a USP.

I grant you the commercial ban is new and unrelated.

 

[arcus]

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).

Are you a commercial user? What is a percentage of those among all Tesla owners today? Has any of those actually expressed a valid concern? Besides, this applies to new sales, so existing commercial operations are not affected. Again, read my point number 2) - no serious business should build their offering around a promise, goodwill, gesture etc. The alternative exists and it is that if you have to pay for the electricity to get your car going and making profit, you include that in the cost of your service. Seems like you are making a big deal out of nothing.

I don't think my car lost any value regardless of SC situation. If anything, the long-term vision from Tesla suggest that I could opt in for Tesla fleet service once that is available. Would I let my expensive car be operated by someone else? Probably not, but that's a different story. Unless the value proposition is attractive enough

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

What I'm saying is that I would not personally find the "encouragement" and solutions as stand believable enough to base business use on.

Have you contacted Tesla as the policy requests in order to form that opinion?

Private negotiation for Supercharger access is not really a valid option for anyone but the largest of operators anyway.

Do you know this because you have contacted Tesla as the policy requests?

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...

Do you know that it would be a goodwill exception after contacting Tesla as the policy requests?

The policy could have be a firm no. But it is not.

So given that they have chosen not to word the policy for a firm ban, and given it says that they want people to make commercial use of Teslas, and given that they tell people to contact Tesla to discuss charging options, and given that they specifically chose to say that they can make exceptions for particular Superchargers and for occasional use, I think that assuming that it's a firm ban on commercial Supercharger use is obtuse, and that instead we'd do much better not to make firm judgments until we have some real information from real commercial users who have really contacted Tesla to discuss the policy.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Are you a commercial user? What is a percentage of those among all Tesla owners today? Has any of those actually expressed a valid concern? Besides, this applies to new sales, so existing commercial operations are not affected. Again, read my point number 2) - no serious business should build their offering around a promise, goodwill, gesture etc. The alternative exists and it is that if you have to pay for the electricity to get your car going and making profit, you include that in the cost of your service. Seems like you are making a big deal out of nothing.

I don't think my car lost any value regardless of SC situation. If anything, the long-term vision from Tesla suggest that I could opt in for Tesla fleet service once that is available. Would I let my expensive car be operated by someone else? Probably not, but that's a different story. Unless the value proposition is attractive enough

I am a user that certainly falls into "any commercial venture", given that I travel for business in my car - not only for personal.

That said, my point wasn't my own use, but the use of the eventual second owner of my Model X. With Tesla claiming the commercial use of the Supercharger network is now gone for my car's second owner (perhaps a policy to be tested in court still, of course, somewhere in the world) will not have that possibility. Hence my car has lost this possibility and has lost whatever value was attached to that feature. That's where I find the ethical conondrum with this change. Was Tesla in their rights to make such a change? I'm not sure.

The alternative exists and it is that if you have to pay for the electricity to get your car going and making profit, you include that in the cost of your service. Seems like you are making a big deal out of nothing.

Time to get that CCS support so a real alternative for commercial long-distance driving exists.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Have you contacted Tesla as the policy requests in order to form that opinion?

No. Honestly I don't see any value in such a private answer.

Do you know this because you have contacted Tesla as the policy requests?

No. What I do know is Tesla's history and I know the value of the word of some low-level sales person is low. I would not trust that word to be sustainable over any period of time. And given there is no immediate need for me (my travel is covered through grandfathering), I would see this as a pointless exercise. One day Tesla could just change that answer.

Do you know that it would be a goodwill exception after contacting Tesla as the policy requests?

No, it is my estimate that would be the answer, though.

The policy could have be a firm no. But it is not.

Then again, thinking this way, Tesla's answer to a question could as well be a firm no. You don't know that. Have you asked?

So given that they have chosen not to word the policy for a firm ban, and given it says that they want people to make commercial use of Teslas, and given that they tell people to contact Tesla to discuss charging options, and given that they specifically chose to say that they can make exceptions for particular Superchargers and for occasional use, I think that assuming that it's a firm ban on commercial Supercharger use is obtuse, and that instead we'd do much better not to make firm judgments until we have some real information from real commercial users who have really contacted Tesla to discuss the policy.

By the way, I don't think it is a firm ban. I fully think Tesla will try to keep wiggling with the exceptions clause so as to not hurt their sales (similar to using showroom adjustments to sell us discount inventory they built to storage), while at the same time driving down commercial use of the network.

I just don't consider those exceptions a sustainable answer, so barring any public policy changes, I am reading Tesla's intent and eventual action as they themselves now state it:

We are continually expanding our global network of Supercharger stations to enable personal long distance travel and to provide a charging solution for those without immediate access to home or workplace charging, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of electric vehicles

The big deal is that Tesla has pivoted on this, shifted their intent, probably because the old ways weren't sustainable for them. Now it means a commercial user would be wise to seek other alternatives, because they are no longer amongst the intended users of the Supercharger network, not even when travelling long-distance.

And when the intent shifts, one would IMO be fool to trust anything short of a clear-cut policy to the contrary.

 

[smac]

I wonder if this was the tipping point. If you look at the mileage of this fleet and consider that at least 90% of that was paid for by Tesla whilst the Taxi firm took the profit ...

One thing not mentioned in the article is what the fleet is being upgraded to. New Tesla's or are they going back to diesel ?!

If we assume the existing bays are still open for Taxis, but only at the stated tariff for the Model 3 / non inclusive Model S, I suspect it will come down to hard TCO figures.

I'm going to Amsterdam in a few days, I'll check if the Supercharger site is still crazy busy, and if so look at the VINs on the blue plated cars.

 

[arcus]

The big deal is that Tesla has pivoted on this, shifted their intent, probably because the old ways weren't sustainable for them. Now it means a commercial user would be wise to seek other alternatives, because they are no longer amongst the intended users of the Supercharger network, not even when travelling long-distance.

And when the intent shifts, one would IMO be fool to trust anything short of a clear-cut policy to the contrary.

It seem to be a big deal for you. Again, who's logo is on the supercharger? As such, I see no issue with Tesla amending terms of use for the solution they provide for our convenience.

I for one would like to continue having peace of mind when travelling long distance (such as road trips with a family) that SC will be available when I need it, without having a frustration that someone is hogging it while making profit our if it. My time is as precious as the next person, no one should feel any more entitled. If it takes additional policing where simple etiquette and kindness doesn't suffice, so be it.

I will let you have the last word on this, but I see no point dissecting it any further. There are more important things to be concerned about

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@arcus CCS support would be nice so that business meeting driving can happen with the same peace of mind in the future. It is not about profit, but being able to use the car.