New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[AnxietyRanger]

When I looked at Tesloop some time ago the first thought I had was their model was so flawed due to likely eventual Supercharger policy changes

I think a realistic expectation for any BEV driver is that free charging etc. perks will eventually all disappear. They are incentives for the early adopters and for enabling a market. Charging, EV parking etc. will eventually be all a business.

However, what is rather weird is that Tesla doesn't spell out the alternative here. Their message makes it sound like commercial use of Teslas and long-distance travel on them is not welcomed. They could have simply stated it will be a cost exercise from now on, instead of talk of banning.

 

[smac]

As these companies fleets age eventually the will need newer cars
They’ll likely be fine for the near future with grandfathered vehicles

My view is we will see some strange dynamics in the used market on the back of exactly this issue.

 

[idealsol]

My view is we will see some strange dynamics in the used market on the back of exactly this issue.

Yeah, I was thinking about used cars for these commercial companies
Tesla says it’s new policy applies to both new and used cars
Does that mean all used cars such as 3rd party transfers or just used cars direct from Tesla

 

[Lloyd]

Personally I would like to see Pay Per Use for the entire supercharger network to ensure that it will continue. I don't mind paying when I need it!! I think eventually that will be the norm.

 

[BerTX]

Agreed
I think the livery services, etc should have Supercharger access but only if they pay whatever their fair share is

When I looked at Tesloop some time ago the first thought I had was their model was so flawed due to likely eventual Supercharger policy changes

As these companies fleets age eventually the will need newer cars
They’ll likely be fine for the near future with grandfathered vehicles

Recall that they can't PURCHASE grandfathered cars and use them. They can't expand or even maintain their current fleet if one goes down. They have to find another source for charging.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Recall that they can't PURCHASE grandfathered cars and use them. They can't expand or even maintain their current fleet if one goes down. They have to find another source for charging.

If so, there is no long-distance charging for commerical Tesla use unless CHAdeMO is available or Level/Type 2 is sufficient. I still find it unlikely that is what Tesla wants to say.

 

[smac]

Yeah, I was thinking about used cars for these commercial companies
Tesla says it’s new policy applies to both new and used cars
Does that mean all used cars such as 3rd party transfers or just used cars direct from Tesla

One would hope it meant new cars and used cars going through the CPO system.

If Tesla attempted to revoke grandfather rights from cars sold privately that would have serious consequences on residual values for privately owned vehicles (IMHO).

As an ex-owner of a 60, Supercharging enablement was literally the first question I was asked by potential buyers. Adding more color to this debate from first hand experience was that a number of enquiries I had were for people looking to use it for taxi use (weirdly some were put off by the color, because there are certain places here with restrictions on black cars used for taxi duty).

Free for life Supercharging, again IMHO, is therefore a material item.

Of course CPO cars are sold at a premium due to the much better warranty. One would expect Tesla to somewhat offset the residual value impairment based on the up-sale of the bumper to bumper warranty.

It really is quite murky though.

 

[BerTX]

One would hope it meant new cars and used cars going through the CPO system.

If Tesla attempted to revoke grandfather rights from cars sold privately that would have serious consequences on residual values for privately owned vehicles (IMHO).

As an ex-owner of a 60, Supercharging enablement was literally the first question I was asked by potential buyers. Adding more color to this debate from first hand experience was that a number of enquiries I had were for people looking to use it for taxi use (weirdly some were put off by the color, because there are certain places here with restrictions on black cars used for taxi duty).

Free for life Supercharging, again IMHO, is therefore a material item.

Of course CPO cars are sold at a premium due to the much better warranty. One would expect Tesla to somewhat offset the residual value impairment based on the up-sale of the bumper to bumper warranty.

It really is quite murky though.

Not sure what is murky about

"This Policy applies to all Superchargers worldwide and all Tesla vehicles purchased, either new or used, whether from Tesla or a third party, after December 15, 2017. "

 

[smac]

Why do I think it's murky?

Because without notice Tesla just materially impacted the used values of the fleet.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

"This Policy applies to all Superchargers worldwide and all Tesla vehicles purchased, either new or used, whether from Tesla or a third party, after December 15, 2017. "

I guess their legal (and/or moral) ability to enforce it on third-party used sales could be questionable?

 

[BerTX]

I guess their legal (and/or moral) ability to enforce it on third-party used sales could be questionable?

Could be. There is lots of "intent" in the old unlimited free Supercharging, though. Most livery use is not for long distance travel. It might be tough to quote the old rules without pointing out that violation.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Could be. There is lots of "intent" in the old unlimited free Supercharging, though. Most livery use is not for long distance travel. It might be tough to quote the old rules without pointing out that violation.

Taking out abusers would be quite different from a blanket refusal, though, let alone one attached to whether or not you bought the car new or used...

I mean, as it stands, the new policy also forbids commercial long-distance travel for old used Teslas that change hands after the 15th. These are cars sold with unlimited free Supercharging for, at the very least, long-distance travel (just taking the lowest common denominator from that debate...). Yet now this policy will forbid long-distance travel for those cars for a partcular set of use cases.

The morals and legality would certainly seem debateable. What else might Tesla retroactively change on existing cars based on ownership changes?

(No problem with new car sales, of course. There Tesla can offer whatever terms. The grey area are existing orders yet to be delivered, though, that's a bit puzzling as well.)

 

[BerTX]

Taking out abusers would be quite different from a blanket refusal, though, let alone one attached to whether or not you bought the car new or used...

I mean, as it stands, the new policy also forbids commercial long-distance travel for old used Teslas that change hands after the 15th. These are cars sold with unlimited free Supercharging for, at the very least, long-distance travel (just taking the lowest common denominator from that debate...). Yet now this policy will forbid long-distance travel for those cars for a partcular set of use cases.

The morals and legality would certainly seem debateable. What else might Tesla retroactively change on existing cars based on ownership changes?

(No problem with new car sales, of course. There Tesla can offer whatever terms. The grey area are existing orders yet to be delivered, though, that's a bit puzzling as well.)

I'm not sure it is worth whatever costs incurred in taking a legal approach would be worth the gain. I suspect that Tesla will work out a pay for charging system as a compromise. They just wanted to put the cut-off NOW, rather than some time in the future. They were not fully prepared to reveal the payment system yet. They will deal with the orders in the pipeline on a case by case basis.

 

[smac]

@BerTX that doesn't address arms length sales.

Are we now saying the only way to sell a Tesla is if Tesla operate as a middleman?

Personally I have big reservations around this.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm not sure it is worth whatever costs incurred in taking a legal approach would be worth the gain. I suspect that Tesla will work out a pay for charging system as a compromise. They just wanted to put the cut-off NOW, rather than some time in the future. They were not fully prepared to reveal the payment system yet. They will deal with the orders in the pipeline on a case by case basis.

Put it this way:

Tesla sold cars with free, unlimited Supercharging - at the very least for long-distance travel... right? There was no EULA. Just a blanket wording of free, forever. These cars were sold at the very least until around early 2017.

What legality do you think they'll base the decision to rescind that for used cars sold with that premise? How can they effect retroactive change on goods already sold? (Unless Tesla is the middle-man doing the selling of course.)

 

[BerTX]

@BerTX that doesn't address arms length sales.

Are we now saying the only way to sell a Tesla is if Tesla operate as a middleman?

Personally I have big reservations around this.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I did wonder if the livery companies could rent the cars from a third party...

 

[BerTX]

Put it this way:

Tesla sold cars with free, unlimited Supercharging - at the very least for long-distance travel... right? There was no EULA. Just a blanket wording of free, forever. These cars were sold at the very least until around early 2017.

What legality do you think they'll base the decision to rescind that for used cars sold with that premise? How can they effect retroactive change on goods already sold?

One solution might be to do the split that has been suggested in the past, and split out "Superchargers" located outside cities for long-distance travel, from "Urbanchargers" which are located in cities intended for apartment dwellers and livery services. Everyone pays for Urbanchargers.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

One solution might be to do the split that has been suggested in the past, and split out "Superchargers" located outside cities for long-distance travel, from "Urbanchargers" which are located in cities intended for apartment dwellers and livery services. Everyone pays for Urbanchargers.

Sure - fiddling with the branding can certainly allow Tesla some opportunities. I get that angle. Stop building Superchargers and start building Hyperchargers, etc etc.

However there still remains the question of long-distance commercial travel on cars sold before December 15th that change hands through third-party sales allowing one kind of long-distance Supercharging and no longer allowing another.

That seems like a one-sided, material change to a product and commitments they have already sold. As such, it seems suspicious?

 

[BerTX]

Sure - fiddling with the branding can certainly allow Tesla some opportunities. I get that angle. Stop building Superchargers and start building Hyperchargers, etc etc.

However there still remains the question of long-distance commercial travel on cars sold before December 15th that change hands through third-party sales allowing one kind of long-distance Supercharging and no longer allowing another.

That seems like a one-sided, material change to a product and commitments they have already sold. As such, it seems suspicious?

Maybe the policy is still in beta test?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Maybe the policy is still in beta test?

Yeah, it may well be they are seeing if they can get away with it. Tesla certainly has adjusted their policies many times.

I do wish they wouldn't try stuff like that, though. Just make nice, clean breaks for the future, but stop trying to meddle with past commitments like this or the performance counters or... (or repeating offers you once sold as going-away levers, e.g. free Supercharging).

It is perfectly fine to change policies for future new car sales (or Tesla CPO sales). Be clear about it and people can choose to buy or not to buy, very simple. Affecting products already sold, less OK IMO.