New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[scaesare]

A couple of comments:

- I think this re-think in policy really signals finally the abandonment of the free Supercharging idea.

Ahh... that's actually funny. When a number of us debated with you on this subject a couple of years ago, we pointed out that there were a number of specific instances of Tesla's statements that reinforced the original intent of free supercharging: enabling long distance travel for road trips. Folks refused to acknowledge that.

A re-think in policy? Only in that they have no choice but to now technically prohibit usage which was counter to their intent all along.

And signaling the abandonment of free supercharging? What in this development makes you think that?

The prior change to metered supercharging for those who needed it for daily usage still explicitly allowd for their originao intent... as per their Supercharging Page:

"Annual Roadtrip Credits
Each year, Model S and Model X owners receive 400 kWh of free Supercharger credit, enough to drive about 1,000 miles. These credits cover the long distance driving needs of most Model S and Model X owners, so road trips are completely free."

It was hubris and marketing in the first place.

Hubris? No.

Marketing? Sure... to demonstrate the ability of the cars/infrastructure.

But it was more: It helped jumpstart the transition by removing one of the significant remaining barriers to EV adoption.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I realize it will allow them to do it, but what will enable them to do it? There may be a dozen users in a handful of Superchargers that they can identify as violators. The random Uber driver or delivery guy? I don't see them being able to identify that reliably, and differentiate from the apartment-dwelling owner on his daily commute.

Well there's one pretty easy way, if the car is owned by a taxi company then that pretty much identifies it as one of the target vehicles.

The other method is relying on customer complaints. I say it's highly likely Tesla put out this policy because of complaints in the first place (some of which I have read in this forum before). They have personnel already at busy stations, so they can use the same people verify complaints.

The goal is not to ban every commercial vehicle, but this policy gives them a way to start addressing some of them.

 

[smac]

Outside the US, it's rare to even see a Tesla at all.

Plenty in Amsterdam and Norway

On a more serious note, anecdotally I seem to see more of them at airports which have nearby Supercharger stalls.

On recent trips I've seen Tesla's used as taxi/exec transfer at obvious places such as Amsterdam and Oslo, but also less obvious ones such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Geneva, Toronto.

Bejing and Shanghai I saw loads of EV's. Plenty of Tesla's, but they all seemed private individual owned. The exec transfer fleet was mainly long wheel base variants of German stuff and EV Taxis were local brands (e.g. Kandi and BYD). Interestingly Xi'An, EV's were a rare sight.

 

[Just a Reader]

for any other commercial venture

This seems so broad that it basically rules out Tesla as a company car. Take the Tesla to get from your office to a client and you are using it in a commercial venture?
As to banning governmental use, what is that about? Given the price of a Tesla I doubt that there is any government agency anywhere that's racking up tons of miles on a fleet of Teslas. Banning senior politicians from promoting e-mobility with a Tesla as an official car doesn't seem to be a good idea.

 

[REMIEL6]

I have a question. I live in Fort Collins and have an office in Rawlins, WY. I purchased my Tesla in November of this year. This is a 168 mile trip, one way through the mountains. I am an Attorney, I do not ride share, I do not deliver things. I purchased the Tesla to cut down on Gas use. Does this policy apply to me? I would be very upset by this. I do not have normal driving routines.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

for any other commercial venture

This seems so broad that it basically rules out Tesla as a company car. Take the Tesla to get from your office to a client and you are using it in a commercial venture?
As to banning governmental use, what is that about? Given the price of a Tesla I doubt that there is any government agency anywhere that's racking up tons of miles on a fleet of Teslas. Banning senior politicians from promoting e-mobility with a Tesla as an official car doesn't seem to be a good idea.

Mentioning government is because non-private use is split into 3 areas:
- commercial
- government
- charity
They're mentioning two of the three potential high-mileage use cases.

Note that the wording has lots of caveats. They ask that you don't. They may ask you to stop. They may take action forcibly to prevent it.

My take is that Tesla is just going to enforce a policy that Superchargers should not be used by commercial enterprises or government as a way of saving money by cost-shifting to Tesla. They're there to make long-distance travel easy. The main thing Tesla will want is that businesses and government use their means to resolve the most important charging challenge of home-base level 2 charging, and use their means to resolve other charging challenges resulting from their high mileage.

Tesla isn't going to want businesses _not_ to buy their cars, they'll just want the sales to be profitable. To be profitable, the Supercharger use can't be high enough that it adds significant costs to the Supercharger network. If a taxi company needs to make regular use of Superchargers, they could pay Tesla a fee that will cover the cost above the average that they add to the network. If Tesla is successful with the Supercharger network, it should still be a low cost option.

 

[BerTX]

I have a question. I live in Fort Collins and have an office in Rawlins, WY. I purchased my Tesla in November of this year. This is a 168 mile trip, one way through the mountains. I am an Attorney, I do not ride share, I do not deliver things. I purchased the Tesla to cut down on Gas use. Does this policy apply to me? I would be very upset by this. I do not have normal driving routines.

That sounds like a commute to me. Lots of people will be upset if that is not allowed.

 

[REMIEL6]

That sounds like a commute to me. Lots of people will be upset if that is not allowed.

I called Tesla support, they told me that i would be fine for a couple of reasons. 1)I bought my car before December 15. 2) Although I use my car for business, it is not used "commercially" meaning I am not deriving income from operating my car. That's what I got so far. The person who answered wasn't real sure themselves.

 

[RAM_Eh]

A very simple solution to the issue of locals and commercial vehicle clogging the superchargers is only allow 50% of the chargers at the station to be used by local vehicles that are registered with 100 miles of the supercharger.

 

[TexasEV]

I have a question. I live in Fort Collins and have an office in Rawlins, WY. I purchased my Tesla in November of this year. This is a 168 mile trip, one way through the mountains. I am an Attorney, I do not ride share, I do not deliver things. I purchased the Tesla to cut down on Gas use. Does this policy apply to me? I would be very upset by this. I do not have normal driving routines.

Of course not.

 

[Just a Reader]

.....

Note that the wording has lots of caveats. They ask that you don't. They may ask you to stop. They may take action forcibly to prevent it.

......

Tesla isn't going to want businesses _not_ to buy their cars, they'll just want the sales to be profitable. ..... If a taxi company needs to make regular use of Superchargers, they could pay Tesla a fee that will cover the cost above the average that they add to the network.....

How is anyone supposed to base a purchasing decision on such uncertain terms? they may, they may not, they may...
Another point: why are such major changes of Terms & Conditions announced with basically immediate effect, leaving people to wonder about how it will affect their purchasing decisions?

 

[TexasEV]

Are you planning to charge people for transportation in the car? If not, don’t worry about it.

 

[smac]

Are you planning to charge people for transportation in the car? If not, don’t worry about it.

People or goods. The terms, as I understand them, also intend addressing services like Nimber.

 

[LCR1]

Glad is took delivery on this one on the 13th It's still an hour to the nearest super charger though.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

How is anyone supposed to base a purchasing decision on such uncertain terms? they may, they may not, they may...

I don't think it's complicated. As the judge said of pr0n, it's hard to define exactly, but you know it when you see it.

Any doubts, contact Tesla.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Ahh... that's actually funny. When a number of us debated with you on this subject a couple of years ago, we pointed out that there were a number of specific instances of Tesla's statements that reinforced the original intent of free supercharging: enabling long distance travel for road trips. Folks refused to acknowledge that.

I agree there are some instances where Tesla touted long-distance travel as a reason for the original free, unlimited Supercharger policy. I disagree it stayed that way, though. We don't have to re-litigate that, we'll never agree. Your view is Tesla's intent was free long-distance travel, my view is their intent was - or at the very least later became - also marketing for all kinds of use-case scenarios that Supercharging would enable, including word of mouth for the "free, unlimited" part. There are enough stories of Tesla's sales people pitching the latter to support my view IMO, but I get it you disagree.

I think back-pedalling to "original intent" is disingenous. In fact, even this announcement keeps proving my point: Tesla states they are going to allow exceptions in some scenarios. Tesla is IMO walking a fine line here and their intent seems to include many things, not just long-distance travel. They want to keep enabling whatever they think makes sense for them at a given time, is my take on it. Indeed, the further proliferation of the urban Supercharger is another point of proof for my PoV, those have got nothing to do with long-distance travel...

But I get it, you disagree and I'll never get you to change your mind. That's fine. There is room for opinions in the world.

A re-think in policy? Only in that they have no choice but to now technically prohibit usage which was counter to their intent all along.

And signaling the abandonment of free supercharging? What in this development makes you think that?

The totality of it. I think we are moving towards a charge for charging, and possibly different tiers of charging for charging. The Supercharger credits, the different policy for Model 3, and now the new Supercharging policy all point towards that direction IMO. Tesla is IMO taking it step by step to keep the negatives at minimum (even bringing back free Supercharging for a while, a highly controversial move when they had just sold cars with the notion that now is the last time to buy...), but the writing seems to be on the wall IMO.

I estimate Supercharging is about to become a business and there's nothing wrong with that, for new cars that is, that have no previous promises attached to them.

Hubris? No.

Marketing? Sure... to demonstrate the ability of the cars/infrastructure.

Of course it was hubris. For the longest time the likes of Elon spoke of how Supercharging will always be free, when discussing the topic. Then it became "it is a sustainable business for now" etc., then came the credits etc. The "free, unlimited" story was a very bold, very high-visibility marketing and word-of-mouth move by Tesla - a company that loves such moves and arguably has gained a lot because of them. Another such move was Level 5 capable full self-driving in all cars. When the story changes a bit later as realities hit, it is hubris.

But it was more: It helped jumpstart the transition by removing one of the significant remaining barriers to EV adoption.

Where we disagree is not whether or not this is the reason, but whether or not it is the only reason. I believe the free, unlimited Supercharging story was knownigly used by Tesla to remove all sorts of adoption obstacles, urban apartment living included. Only later they backpedalled on that story. Later the same very likely happened for commercial use: Tesla was happy to see commercial operators to adopt Teslas that they otherwise would not have adopted. When it no longer seemed sustainable, the story changed.

Look, there's nothing wrong with what I'm describing - or changing policy for new cars. That's OK and normal. But it IMO wasn't just about long-distance in practical reality, no way.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Any doubts, contact Tesla.

That is arguably not very helpful, because the answers keep changing and the lower levels, who give out answers, will not know what the "final word" may eventually be. So a broader understanding of the policies and where they are headed is needed - simply asking Tesla will definitely not suffice. The answer may well be wrong or outdated.

 

[Johann Koeber]

If TESLA was really to ban certain buyers from Supercharger use, that would be terrible. Tesla has a monopoly on those. Mostly the second best charging opportunity is CHADEMO at 50 kW. Too little for some operations to be profitable.

Tesla would either have to sell the Superchargers to interested parties (taxi companies for example), or make them available at a cost.

I would consider it fair if those making money off of driving the car (and driving it a lot) pay their fair share for the use of the Supercharging network. That money could be used to expand the network, thus serving all Teslas.

Banning them altogether is not good, because it goes too far. If they pay their fair share, they will be helping Tesla build out the SC system and accelerating the transition to sustainable transport (where did I hear that phrase before?).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

IMO what is unfortunate from the commercial use point of view is that Tesla does not spell out the alternative here. I mean, can a business buy access to the Supercharger network at a reasonable rate? IMO it would have been wise to explain how that works. I'm sure they will get back to it (and perhaps even change this policy many times in short order, there is history for that), but it would have been helpful from the get-go.

That option would be very different from being banned altogether, because the latter would mean no long-distance driving for many commercial users. Private SpC building can not realistically enable long-distance driving, though it can enable local operators of course. Long-distance travel would require a solution that allows access to the whole Supercharger network.

I mean, the way this reads now, new-buying commercial users can no longer long-distance travel on Teslas, except where CHAdeMO is available, or where Level/Type 2 is sufficient. Right? That would be a fairly significant development, if so?

Unlike the private user, where I think for most the home/work charging scenario works most of the time, a commercial user by nature probably has more need for long-distance charging. So offering them a solution would seem like a good idea.

 

[idealsol]

If TESLA was really to ban certain buyers from Supercharger use, that would be terrible. Tesla has a monopoly on those. Mostly the second best charging opportunity is CHADEMO at 50 kW. Too little for some operations to be profitable.

Tesla would either have to sell the Superchargers to interested parties (taxi companies for example), or make them available at a cost.

I would consider it fair if those making money off of driving the car (and driving it a lot) pay their fair share for the use of the Supercharging network. That money could be used to expand the network, thus serving all Teslas.

Banning them altogether is not good, because it goes too far. If they pay their fair share, they will be helping Tesla build out the SC system and accelerating the transition to sustainable transport (where did I hear that phrase before?).

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