New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[BuildingCap]

When I was in CA last month, I approached a Tesloop driver and asked him about this new policy... He replied that Tesloop has always paid for their use of the Superchargers. Which I found strange: If that pay per use precedent was there with Tesloop, why make it sound like all other commercial users have to install a charger themselves? Has anyone actually had a conversation with Tesla about their commercial charging options?

 

[TexasEV]

When I was in CA last month, I approached a Tesloop driver and asked him about this new policy... He replied that Tesloop has always paid for their use of the Superchargers.

Um, no.

 

[smac]

Um, no.

Well yes as it was included in the vehicle purchase price under the original sale conditions.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If that pay per use precedent was there with Tesloop, why make it sound like all other commercial users have to install a charger themselves?

Be Tesloop as it may, the policy and FAQ on Tesla.com make it clear Tesla worries - or at least that is the public reason - about charger availability. Paying commercial customers eat into charger availability...

 

[smac]

Paying commercial customers eat into charger availability...

And paying commercial users do their sums without "man maths", and for what Tesla would like to price the Supercharger network at (which given throughput and utilisation rates should be more not less than Diesel on a per mile basis), means central Amsterdam is now awash with brand new Mercedes E Classes.

TBH I'm amazed at the stark contrast from my last visit

 

[Johann Koeber]

If commercial users of the SC network pay for using the SC, then
TESLA can build out the network - using this money - for the benefit of us all.

Private Superchargers are not the answer. TESLA superchargers paid for by the commercial users are.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If commercial users of the SC network pay for using the SC, then
TESLA can build out the network - using this money - for the benefit of us all.

Private Superchargers are not the answer. TESLA superchargers paid for by the commercial users are.

That is not how Tesla puts it on Tesla.com at this time, though. They are explicit that charger availability is the reason to ban commercial use of public Superchargers.

 

[smac]

If commercial users of the SC network pay for using the SC, then
TESLA can build out the network - using this money - for the benefit of us all.

Private Superchargers are not the answer. TESLA superchargers paid for by the commercial users are.

I am 100% behind this.

My view is quite simple, I'd just love for the network to be self funding. (A view which I've held since the whole free nonsense was mentioned. ).

 

[TexasEV]

Well yes as it was included in the vehicle purchase price under the original sale conditions.

I doubt that's what he meant, and it's certainly not the implication of the driver's response of Tesloop has always paid for its use of superchargers.

 

[smac]

@TexasEV well I took it somewhat as possible, that if confronted with some random person approaching you with what is clearly an emotive subject, the default response would be to say you had paid.

To be fair I know some people who have abused the system to claim the whole "I paid for it in the price of the car,".

 

[AnxietyRanger]

My view is quite simple, I'd just love for the network to be self funding. (A view which I've held since the whole free nonsense was mentioned. ).

Hear, hear. Just make Supercharging a business, which it will eventually be anyway, and put a clear price tag on it for any use that is relative to the cost of that use - and adjust that price as needed. Then grandfather old cars in without shenanigans (on the terms they were sold) and move forwards.

Similar to "we don't discount", "we don't advertise", reverse discounts (announced future price increases), "Showroom Adjustments" (using planned inventory build-out to generate price "adjustable" car stock), "Supercharging free forever / will never be a profit center" these old maxims may have served a purpose at the time (debateable), but more and more they are become a hindrance and causing Tesla to resort to odd and questionable solutions. Just forget about them already. IMO.

Advertise cars as need may be, use discount campaigns when needed (they can still be available for all to avoid haggling) and put simply a commercially sustainable and profitable price on Supercharging.

Stop the weirdness, Tesla. Please.

 

[BuildingCap]

@smac @Tex EV Is there substantiated evidence that Tesloop doesn't pay for use? The driver seemed pretty non nonchalant and sure of it. If it's not true, good to know; no point in being snotty about it though.

I've heard @AnxietyRanger's theory is that Tesla doesn't want to backtrack on the their promise of free supercharging in other places too. Agree time of day pricing with be more effective in easing congestion than this 'all or nothing' approach, and curious how this policy is actually being implemented in practice.

 

[schonelucht]

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.)

FastNed stations do have a grid connection (overdimensioned bc sized for 350kW chargers instead of the 50/150kW they have today). The Dutch grid is sufficiently mature and diversified that putting in batteries today is a waste of money and effort. Putting in solar is smarter move : less costly and just as profitable since full net metering is guaranteed for at least a few more years. When that changes, the battery market will be radically different than today and it may make sense to reconsider then. Although I struggle to see FastNed making a financial gain on their solar panels due to the extra costs of having to build the canopy. The canopies make sense as a marketing cost : it provides a recognizable brand image for potential customers and provides extra comfort for users, making their service more attractive.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Hear, hear. Just make Supercharging a business, which it will eventually be anyway, and put a clear price tag on it for any use that is relative to the cost of that use - and adjust that price as needed. Then grandfather old cars in without shenanigans (on the terms they were sold) and move forwards.

You say that as if pricing is easy, when in fact it's the most difficult challenge for charging networks.

That's why Tesla has used a Fair Use Policy, not a blanket ban, and why they ask businesses to contact them to discuss.

 

[TexasEV]

@smac @Tex EV Is there substantiated evidence that Tesloop doesn't pay for use? The driver seemed pretty non nonchalant and sure of it. If it's not true, good to know; no point in being snotty about it though.

Evidence? Tesloop uses cars that have free supercharging for life. It’s their business model. Everyone knows that (which was the reason for my “snotty” remark). Tesla ended that practice for cars purchased after 12/15/2017 with the new “fair use” policy. They wouldn’t have needed a new policy for cars being purchased now if they were requiring payment from Tesloop previously!

 

[schonelucht]

@smac @Tex EV Is there substantiated evidence that Tesloop doesn't pay for use? The driver seemed pretty non nonchalant and sure of it. If it's not true, good to know; no point in being snotty about it though.

Straight from the Tesloop blog.

During the first 300,000 miles the total combined maintenance and fuel costs of the Tesla Model S were $10,492, with a total of 12 days in the shop. Of these costs, $6,900 was scheduled maintenance and $3500 was headlight damage due to driving through deep water.

The same blog posts mentions (twice) that this vehicle also made extensive use of the supercharger network. With $92 in total fuel costs for 300.000 miles it is safe to say Tesloop supercharged for free.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I've heard @AnxietyRanger's theory is that Tesla doesn't want to backtrack on the their promise of free supercharging in other places too. Agree time of day pricing with be more effective in easing congestion than this 'all or nothing' approach, and curious how this policy is actually being implemented in practice.

Not entirely accurate. I fully believe (and know, as the case may be) Tesla will put a price on Supercharging for new cars. But they seem to continue to do it in weird ways slowing down the inevitable of it becoming a business. And then we have weird stuff like commercial charging is banned.

Same with Tesla's sales. I would encourage them to dismiss old business practices that no longer work like avoiding discount campaigns, avoiding advertising, saying things like Supercharging will not be a profit center and avoiding normal pricing lists for Supercharger charging, instead some weird "contact us" wink and a nod...

Trying to be different in many of these cases is IMO just leading to being awkward. Some normalcy would be welcome in some of these cases, Supercharging policy included. Just sell by the minute - adjust price to sustain, rinse and repeat - simple, you don't even need idle charges, and everyone pays fair.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You say that as if pricing is easy, when in fact it's the most difficult challenge for charging networks.

That's why Tesla has used a Fair Use Policy, not a blanket ban, and why they ask businesses to contact them to discuss.

IMO some things Tesla just makes hard for themselves quite unnecessarily, because they want to keep up some chosen appearances. I would encourage them to let go of such appearances.

I get the reasoning. They want to walk that fine line of selling maximum cars. But much less of this trickery (e.g. bringing back discontinued free Supercharging etc.) would be needed if Tesla just started using normal demand levers like ads and discount campaigns... and didn't avoid them on some principle...

 

[Carl]

Tesla's original idea of "Supercharging free forever / will never be a profit center" was imo brilliant as a kick-starter and USP, as in those days, before the first Superchargers, everyone was an AnxietyRanger . Now Tesla needs a more mature solution, hence paid Supercharging, and also some way to avoid that all five-year MS's are bought by taxi companies wanting to squeeze another 700,000 miles of free Supercharging out of those cars! No easy solution to that I think (and given how the Fair Use Policy is currently spelled out, I'm not sure Tesla has fully figured it out itself).
On the other hand, I don't think Tesla ever said it wouldn't advertise (it just doesn't really have to advertise in the traditional sense, up to now), and I think the only idea behind the "no discount" rule is that you can't negotiate a price with your "dealer" (the "showroom/inventory adjustments" are for everyone, as are the "reverse discounts" - aligning the price of not yet delivered cars to those of new cars, if there has been a price reduction, or former options now included in base configuration - certainly nothing wrong with that!)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

in those days, everyone was an AnxietyRanger

Well, blimey! In that case the old days definitely were better!

I knew I joined the Tesla community too late.

Must have been a bliss back then.