New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[arcus]

@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.

We agree on this one and looking at the updated policy, Tesla encourages commercial users to reach out to them for available options.

Just a thought: with the advent of Semi, Megachargers will most likely offer the much needed alternative in future. Time will tell.

 

[scaesare]

Tesla has pivoted on this, shifted their intent,

Disagree. Clarified intent is how I read it.

 

[smac]

by not getting all those "promised" solar canopies up on all the supercharger locations.

We will never know, but for me it provided a background story to explain the free for life. Yes it took capital, but the theory would be the ongoing P+L impact would be minor.

I wonder if with some battery backup, a lower usage rate, and a much lower bay count (due to a predicted lower fleet utilization rate), it could be feasible in sunnier parts of the world at rarely used sites.

Interestingly the Dutch FastNED canopies do have solar canopies, though I'm struggling to see them being able to charge the cars without a grid tied feed too. (I'm also not up on Dutch feed in tariffs, which may have impacted FastNEDs decision to install them on top of the public image.)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Disagree. Clarified intent is how I read it.

Removing long-distance commercial travel still seems like a clear shift to me, not a clarification IMO. No solution is offered for long-distance commercial travel. I would assume nobody outside of Japan considers CHAdeMO sufficient.

I'm not quite sure people understand the ramifications of it, if this policy remains. The policy takes away Tesla's unique benefit as a long-distance car for business users, rental cars etc. That's a significant difference in utility. Not about profit anymore, but about ability.

That's why CCS is needed to offset the loss in the car's ability (business long-distance travel). Or a new policy that outlines fair usage terms for business travel.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Removing long-distance commercial travel still seems like a clear shift to me, not a clarification IMO.

It hasn't removed it.

No solution is offered for long-distance commercial travel.

Other than contacting Tesla to discuss a solution that meets that needs of the business.

I would assume nobody outside of Japan considers CHAdeMO sufficient.

Absolutely. That'd include Tesla.

I'm not quite sure people understand the ramifications of it, if this policy remains. The policy takes away Tesla's unique benefit as a long-distance car for business users, rental cars etc. That's a significant difference in utility. Not about profit anymore, but about ability.

Some of us understand better than others, apparently.

That's why CCS is needed to offset the loss in the car's ability (business long-distance travel).

Or contact Tesla and discuss charging needs.

Or a new policy that outlines fair usage terms for business travel.

Or just read the existing policy and contact Tesla discuss the business' circumstances.

 

[MP3Mike]

That's why CCS is needed to offset the loss in the car's ability (business long-distance travel). Or a new policy that outlines fair usage terms for business travel.

But even if Tesla made CCS available today, there still isn't a significant network of Supercharger speed CCS chargers to utilize. (>50kW)

So adding CCS now doesn't actually solve the "problem". Sure in a couple years there will probably be enough chargers to make CCS worth it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

But even if Tesla made CCS available today, there still isn't a significant network of Supercharger speed CCS chargers to utilize. (>50kW)

So adding CCS now doesn't actually solve the "problem". Sure in a couple years there will probably be enough chargers to make CCS worth it.

Of course not, but I would consider CCS support a significant step in the right direction. It clearly seems Tesla feels they can't make Supercharging work for everything and everyone, not even with a cost (hence the commercial use ban). CCS is the best way of opening up third-party support to Tesla users, to cover those scenarios where Tesla feels they can't handle it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Just a thought: with the advent of Semi, Megachargers will most likely offer the much needed alternative in future. Time will tell.

Perhaps. But there are even less Mega Chargers than there are CCS chargers...

Luckily rumors are CCS support comes at least to Europe... Rumor summary: Blind-spot cameras, Rain sensing, Level 3, Big battery, Interior/HUD

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Removing long-distance commercial travel still seems like a clear shift to me, not a clarification IMO.

It hasn't removed it.

Well, that's where we disagree.

No solution is offered for long-distance commercial travel.

Other than contacting Tesla to discuss a solution that meets that needs of the business.

Sure, a vague suggestion to contact Tesla exists. However, as said, my view is that such a suggestion is pointless for any small operation, given that private assurances in such circumstances are not something one can rely on.

I agree a large commercial operator may well be able to negotiate something (exactly those guys hogging the chargers...). This is more likely to help a fleet operation than the long-distance business traveller. Bit players need a public-facing policy for a sustainable solution.

As it stands, Tesla clearly intends to offer Supercharging for the following:

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

If it is just a badly formulated policy, I encourage Tesla to formulate a better policy.

 

[Johann Koeber]

Removing long-distance commercial travel still seems like a clear shift to me, not a clarification IMO. No solution is offered for long-distance commercial travel. I would assume nobody outside of Japan considers CHAdeMO sufficient.

I'm not quite sure people understand the ramifications of it, if this policy remains. The policy takes away Tesla's unique benefit as a long-distance car for business users, rental cars etc. That's a significant difference in utility. Not about profit anymore, but about ability.

That's why CCS is needed to offset the loss in the car's ability (business long-distance travel). Or a new policy that outlines fair usage terms for business travel.

I read the Tesla statement a little different. Commercial long-distance is not out. Tesla is requesting commercial users not to use the Superchargers. Tesla does not tell us if and when a car will be banned (we may ask you to modify this behaviour). They are willing to discuss charging alternatives and explicitely encourage commercial use of Tesla vehicles: Quote from the tesla.com page.

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. For questions related to home charging, please contact [email protected].


What I do not like, is that the "charging alternatives" are in the dark. The whole request (not to use the SCs) is somewhat a grey area. This is not a dependable policy.

The feeling I have is that this policy will be changed eventually. Not far in the future. This is not sustainable. Tesla makes the rules, but it should tell us the rules.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I read the Tesla statement a little different. Commercial long-distance is not out. Tesla is requesting commercial users not to use the Superchargers.

Yes, Tesla is requesting commercial users - including long-distance commercial users - not to use the Superchargers.

Nobody can base business use on vague "may or may not be banned, may or may not be excempted" policies, that is obvious.

The whole request (not to use the SCs) is somewhat a grey area. This is not a dependable policy.

Yep.

The feeling I have is that this policy will be changed eventually. Not far in the future. This is not sustainable.

Possible.

Tesla makes the rules, but it should tell us the rules.

The rules are actually very simple. Only personal long-distance and non-commercial urban charging if you have none at home/work (and until you can reasonably get it) are allowed going forward. The only unclear part are the vague exceptions that may be offered and may be available for negotiation. The new rules themselves are very clear, "any commercial venture" banned.

If Tesla wanted to allow commercial long-distance, they would have said so. They didn't even mention it as a negotioable example. My theory is they want to ban it, but want to keep enough vague exceptions in place to make sure not too many sales are lost while they do.

Of course they may make a better policy still. I would encourage they do.

 

[scaesare]

We will never know, but for me it provided a background story to explain the free for life. Yes it took capital, but the theory would be the ongoing P+L impact would be minor.

Clearly I'm gonna have to work on my "blatant sarcasm" skills...

 

[scaesare]

Removing long-distance commercial travel still seems like a clear shift to me...

I've seen just about zilch that expressed intent to provide commercial users supercharging services ever, so I'm not sure what there would be to base that conclusion on.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I've seen just about zilch that expressed intent to provide commercial users supercharging services ever, so I'm not sure what there would be to base that conclusion on.

Tesla is very clear on this. Their intent is to increase the availability of Superchargers for non-commercial users. This only makes sense if they really are banning commercial users - and indeed they say they are. Any "contact us" suggestions revolve around recommending other charging solutions or indirect references to private Superchargers building, none of which helps the commercial long-distance traveller of the nature I speak of. Tesla of course leaves room for some exceptions (which I expect they'll use at times so as to not hurt sales), but that's not a sustainable policy for the end-user, seeing it can go away any time.

With the introduction of our Supercharger Fair Use Policy, we ask that vehicles used for commercial purposes not use the public Supercharger Network. If you are an interested commercial operator, please reach out to us so we can help recommend charging solutions that meet your business’ needs. Keeping the Supercharger Network available for non- commercial users will have a lasting positive impact on the Supercharger Network and Tesla customers as a whole.

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. When Superchargers are used beyond their intended purpose, it negatively impacts the availability of Supercharging services for others.

Emphasis mine.

 

[scaesare]

Tesla is very clear on this. Their intent is to increase the availability of Superchargers for non-commercial users. This only makes sense if they really are banning commercial users - and indeed they say they are. Any "contact us" suggestions revolve around recommending other charging solutions or indirect references to private Superchargers building, none of which helps the commercial long-distance traveller of the nature I speak of. Tesla of course leaves room for some exceptions (which I expect they'll use at times so as to not hurt sales), but that's not a sustainable policy for the end-user, seeing it can go away any time.





Emphasis mine.

I'm not suggesting they are not currently discouraging commercial use. I'm saying they never promoted it to begin with, hence it's not necessarily a "shift in intent". Without much evidence that was their original intent, that's not a very supportable conclusion.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm not suggesting they are not currently discouraging commercial use. I'm saying they never promoted it to begin with, hence it's not necessarily a "shift in intent". Without much evidence that was their original intent, that's not a very supportable conclusion.

Ah, I get you now. A genuine misunderstanding above.

I can't agree they made such a distinction, though. I simply think they made no distinction, simply talking of a free, unlimited Supercharging forever. Unlimited is unlimited. Even if we'd agree on the long-distance intent, commercial long-distance is still long-distance... I think even they know this, because they grandfathered commercial Supercharging in to the existing fleet...

Really, how many of us bought Teslas knowing that "any commercial venture" was not intended to use Supercharging for long-distance travel? I would say asking that question three years ago on TMC (a knowledgeable customer audience) would have gotten quite clearly an answer that long-distance business driving is absolutely OK.

 

[smac]

Clearly I'm gonna have to work on my "blatant sarcasm" skills...

Or your cynicism skills

 

[scaesare]

Or your cynicism skills

That too!

 

[scaesare]

I can't agree they made such a distinction, though. I simply think they made no distinction, .

Hence why drawing a conclusion about a "shift in intent" is seemingly without evidence. You have no way of knowing it wasn't their intent all along for this not to be a commercial use provision. And with the examples given during the supercharger rollout of "private usage", scenarios coupled with verbiage on the websites, it clearly was intended for personal use.

Hence why categorizing this as an clarification of (perhaps previously unstated) intent is supported by more evidence than assuming this is some sort of about-face.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Hence why drawing a conclusion about a "shift in intent" is seemingly without evidence. You have no way of knowing it wasn't their intent all along for this not to be a commercial use provision. And with the examples given during the supercharger roll of "private usage", scenarios coupled with verbiage on the websites, it clearly was intended for personal use.

Hence why categorizing this as an clarification of (perhaps previously unstated) intent is supported by more evidence than assuming this is some sort of about-face.

Well, let me put it this way: I can see the logic of your opinion and I respect it.

It depends on what you believe Tesla really thought internally (not retrospectively). I tend to believe Tesla internally did not originally distinguish between non-commercial and at least some reasonable commercial use (for example the business traveller), hence I tend to believe they now shifted.

As for the public, I definitely believe they felt Tesla shifted. I doubt many would have said "any" commercial long-distance driving was prohibited if asked three years ago.