New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[Scott-P]

I've seen this many times. Just like I can't take someone else's pet to the vet and get them altered. Tesla only provides service to the registered owner.

You mean that someone else can't take Rommie in and get her neutered? (My car is named "Andromeda Ascendant"...) But I can?

Wow, this is taking the whole anthropomophization thing to a whole new level. I liked giving my car a name... I'm not sure I think of it as a pet, and I am SURE it doesn't think of me... ever.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You mean that someone else can't take Rommie in and get her neutered? (My car is named "Andromeda Ascendant"...) But I can?

Wow, this is taking the whole anthropomophization thing to a whole new level. I liked giving my car a name... I'm not sure I think of it as a pet, and I am SURE it doesn't think of me... ever.

This, though, was a case where Tesla was refusing warranty service on your new pet - after you had purchased the pet and still after you had official registration of buying the pet.

Instead Tesla calls the old owner about your pet. Who does not own your pet and should have no say in your pet.

 

[Scott-P]

This, though, was a case where Tesla was refusing warranty service on your new pet - after you had purchased the pet and still after you had official registration of buying the pet.

Instead Tesla calls the old owner about your pet. Who does not own your pet and should have no say in your pet.

Whoa, dude. Joking...

 

[MP3Mike]

The point was that the official paperwork was not enough, not even @smac's word was enough, apparently instead it was a many weeks long process - before they would do warranty work on a vehicle that was under warranty the whole time.

I have never seen a car business where official papers wouldn't be enough. That's why vehicle registration exists.

OK, the examples I heard of were that Tesla won't always take the temporary registration paperwork so you have to wait the week(s) that it takes to get the official permeant registration paperwork until they will work on the car for you.

 

[EscoguyS75]

This is what they should have been required to do from the beginning.

Tesla should have required to have commercial users pay the 7 cents per kWh (Telsa Semi rate) plus a reasonable surcharge to cover the depreciation of the supercharger. 11-12 cents/kWh would be fine.

In fact, for a cash hunger company like Tesla, they could sell the kWh as prepaid cards and get the money in advance.

For those of us who have used the Model S for Uber about 10 times, it seems like a real annoyance that Tesla can't be more sophisticated about pricing and usage. From an economic standpoint, using a Model S for Uber makes no sense in California as the rate per mile is too low and the depreciation is too high. A used Model S with perhaps 50K miles may work if there is a >30% discount on the price. Even then, the deprecation is greater than the fuel/electricity cost by a factor of 4-5 to 1.

All or nothing thinking isn't suited to a market economy, put a price on it and the market will tell you if it's too high. As a reference, I usually use my Honda Accord PHEV for Uber and even if I drive 10 hours, it is rare to drive 200 miles. At 7 cents/kWh, it is about $4.20 of power, at 21 cents $12.60. Fuel for the Honda would run $14 at 50 mpg. I often paid up to 50 cents/kWh just so I could drive using electric keeping with the mission of sustainable transport.

Eventually when the Supercharger network is built out, Tesla will surely come up with pricing models which allow for a wide range of users and applications which match the purpose and cost at reasonable conditions. Hopefully we get there sooner than later.

Some of the people I stood in line with to buy the Model 3 were Uber drivers who expressed wanted to used the car for ride share.
There will be times, using the Supercharger network will be needed, it should be expressly allowed at a reasonable price.
Even 20 cents per kWh just puts the Supercharger at cost parity with a 50 mpg car. Tesla should be in the face of the oil industry and do it for 10 cents kWh just to show the economic benefit.

 

[EscoguyS75]

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.

You raise some interesting points: I know a surgeon who drives is P100D 30,000+ miles a year and uses Superchargers daily to go from San Diego to Santa Barbara. He performs medical procedures in both places so no he doesn't have passengers like Uber but it is a form of commercial use.

I think Tesla should realistically put a cap on Supercharger mileage which is "free" of say 10,000 miles/year. Over a 10 year life of the vehicle, that would be about $6,300 of power in a high cost area like California. My surgeon friend could use $2,000 of power/year in an extreme case and I don't think that was Tesla's intention i.e. to have a 20K potential liability with the car.

My take on the policy is you are fine, but a better policy would actually be to sell power at cost above a generous mileage limit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla should have required to have commercial users pay the 7 cents per kWh (Telsa Semi rate) plus a reasonable surcharge to cover the depreciation of the supercharger. 11-12 cents/kWh would be fine.

In fact, for a cash hunger company like Tesla, they could sell the kWh as prepaid cards and get the money in advance.

For those of us who have used the Model S for Uber about 10 times, it seems like a real annoyance that Tesla can't be more sophisticated about pricing and usage. From an economic standpoint, using a Model S for Uber makes no sense in California as the rate per mile is too low and the depreciation is too high. A used Model S with perhaps 50K miles may work if there is a >30% discount on the price. Even then, the deprecation is greater than the fuel/electricity cost by a factor of 4-5 to 1.

All or nothing thinking isn't suited to a market economy, put a price on it and the market will tell you if it's too high. As a reference, I usually use my Honda Accord PHEV for Uber and even if I drive 10 hours, it is rare to drive 200 miles. At 7 cents/kWh, it is about $4.20 of power, at 21 cents $12.60. Fuel for the Honda would run $14 at 50 mpg. I often paid up to 50 cents/kWh just so I could drive using electric keeping with the mission of sustainable transport.

Eventually when the Supercharger network is built out, Tesla will surely come up with pricing models which allow for a wide range of users and applications which match the purpose and cost at reasonable conditions. Hopefully we get there sooner than later.

Some of the people I stood in line with to buy the Model 3 were Uber drivers who expressed wanted to used the car for ride share.
There will be times, using the Supercharger network will be needed, it should be expressly allowed at a reasonable price.
Even 20 cents per kWh just puts the Supercharger at cost parity with a 50 mpg car. Tesla should be in the face of the oil industry and do it for 10 cents kWh just to show the economic benefit.

That presumes the network can handle the demand and that such a low rate can cover the costs (it likely can't). The intended purpose of the supercharger network is to show general users that EVs can be a viable long distance option. Tesla isn't trying to use it to attract commercial customers, so there is no point to put out incentives for that. The fact Tesla is putting this policy should make that pretty clear.

When the network reaches a point where they have lots of extra capacity, then maybe it makes sense, but not at this moment with the huge expansion of the Tesla fleet given the Model 3.

 

[EscoguyS75]

That presumes the network can handle the demand and that such a low rate can cover the costs (it likely can't). The intended purpose of the supercharger network is to show general users that EVs can be a viable long distance option. Tesla isn't trying to use it to attract commercial customers, so there is no point to put out incentives for that. The fact Tesla is putting this policy should make that pretty clear.

When the network reaches a point where they have lots of extra capacity, then maybe it makes sense, but not at this moment with the huge expansion of the Tesla fleet given the Model 3.

Commercial users in SoCal can buy power at 7 cents/kWh. Each commercial user could be given different terms.
Tesla should have enough data to know when the chargers will have capacity like in the middle of the night and which locations should be off limits. Given my original post was a simplification but with proper analysis the Supercharger network should be able to generate some serious cash for Tesla if managed properly.

As far as Tesloop, I've seen them three times when I've been charging (I've had less than 20 Supercharger sessions) which implies they are very heavy users. With only one active Supercharger in San Diego, I understand the frustration of having to wait to charge when they are there. That being said, I wouldn't think they have more than 20-30 vehicles at present. Still the total financial impact of those 20-30 vehicles could be 600-900K over their life if they go 500K miles each and only charge at Superchargers at 20 cents/kWh.

I'd like to think Telsa gets the commercial rate of 7 cents but don't know.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Commercial users in SoCal can buy power at 7 cents/kWh. Each commercial user could be given different terms.

Just looking at that rate is extremely misleading (even if it was true and it's not some special off peak rate). There is also something called a demand charge which varies with the amount of power drawn and supercharger stations are a huge power draw. You also have to include any flat monthly charges. And counting only for electricity is not sustainable. The equipment also has to be amortized, maintenance/ billing costs have to be included.

Edit: I just looked at Southern California Edison rates. Using the 8 stall (~500 kW peak) Hawthorne station as a model.
https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2014/09/Tesla-supercharger-Hawthorne.jpg
This is the EV rate schedule for high demand (500kW+) users:
https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce379.pdf
$0.07/kWh is the super off peak rate (10pm-8am), off peak (8pm-10pm, 8am-2pm) is $0.09/kWh, on peak (2pm-8pm) summer is $0.408/kWh.
https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect...Rate_Sheet_TOU-D-A-B_12.22.14.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
However, the customer charge is $635 per meter per month (assuming 1 meter, might be more), demand charge works out to $5730 per month for 500kW. At the estimated 70,000 kWh per month demand for Hawthorne, that works out an additional $0.09/kWh on top of the other rates.

Tesla should have enough data to know when the chargers will have capacity like in the middle of the night and which locations should be off limits. Given my original post was a simplification but with proper analysis the Supercharger network should be able to generate some serious cash for Tesla if managed properly.

As far as Tesloop, I've seen them three times when I've been charging (I've had less than 20 Supercharger sessions) which implies they are very heavy users. With only one active Supercharger in San Diego, I understand the frustration of having to wait to charge when they are there. That being said, I wouldn't think they have more than 20-30 vehicles at present. Still the total financial impact of those 20-30 vehicles could be 600-900K over their life if they go 500K miles each and only charge at Superchargers at 20 cents/kWh.

I'd like to think Telsa gets the commercial rate of 7 cents but don't know.

As you point out, it's easy to find examples where owners can see commercial users making use of the chargers. If it causes any of them to have to wait (which I am sure has happened, I have read threads on this), then there may be complaints to Tesla, thus the need for this policy.

 

[cwerdna]

Tesla should have required to have commercial users pay the 7 cents per kWh (Telsa Semi rate) plus a reasonable surcharge to cover the depreciation of the supercharger. 11-12 cents/kWh would be fine.

You're dreaming if you're talking about So Cal power rates. If you're near San Diego and your power provider is SDG&E, I highly doubt even your average per kWh residential rate (assuming you have no solar) is anywhere near as low as those figures. At those cheap rates, you'll have plenty of locals going to local SCs to charge since it's way cheaper than charging at home.

Those rates you want are way low and don't take into account demand charges which are common on commercial power plans, esp. when there are large loads.

I pointed to a lengthy report awhile ago which I haven't a chance to do more than skim at Rocky Mountain Institute and Evgo fleet and tariff analysis (relates to DC FCing) - My Nissan Leaf Forum

Their press release (now gone) had this (PDF also mentions the figure):

RMI’s study found that, under certain electricity tariffs, current demand charges can make up as much
as 90 percent of the monthly bill of operational public DC fast chargers, driving the cost of delivered
electricity as high as $1.96 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) during summer months in some locations. These
charges are nearly seven times as high as the current gasoline equivalent cost of $0.29/kWh, meaning it
is difficult for DC Fast charging providers like EVgo to remain competitive with the costs of operating
petroleum-fueled vehicles.

On page 23 of the PDF (http://blog.rmi.org/Content/Files/eLab_EVgo_Fleet_and_Tariff_Analysis_2017.pdf), I noticed a graph in terms of $ per mile for SDGE for 2017 that for SDGE AL-TOU is ~34 cents per MILE and for SDGE Public GIR iooks to be about 5 cents per MILE.

Peak demand charges can make up over 90% of electricity costs for electric vehicle charging stations points to this report and says

One EVgo charger in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s report generated a monthly electricity bill of $1,938, of which $1,362 was demand charges

I think I see what they're talking about on page 22. On SCE TOU EV4, fixed costs were $220, energy was $278 (which would be per kWh) and demand charges are $1,362 (which are per kW), that adds up to $1,860 but somehow they list $1,938.

TonyWilliams has posted a bunch of times about demand charges on MNL in your area on SDG&E. Examples:
San Francisco Bay Area Quick Chargers Getting them sooner - My Nissan Leaf Forum
I need an under 20KW DC ChaDeMo Quick Charger - My Nissan Leaf Forum
$9900 Nissan Level III chargers come to the US - Page 3 - My Nissan Leaf Forum

Wayback Machine even on page 5 discusses hypothetical demand charges for installing a 25 kW vs. 50 kW CHAdeMO DC FC. That's $700/month for a 25 kW unit vs $1400/mo for a 50 kW unit.

 

[smac]

Tesla only provides service to the registered owner.

There are a few vagaries on this here in the UK. A lot of the time with business contract hire vehicles (which is how many businesses finance company provided cars), you never get to even see the official document (V5) as it's held by the finance company, who in effect retain title.

Maybe this is the reason I've never needed to show my V5 when taking a car in for servicing / warranty work. The VIN and proof of my ID suffices, and even then the proof of my ID may just be a pre-auth on a credit card.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

OK, the examples I heard of were that Tesla won't always take the temporary registration paperwork so you have to wait the week(s) that it takes to get the official permeant registration paperwork until they will work on the car for you.

Yeah, I think the thing is like this: You buy a car, have the registration done... But before getting warranty service, the car company demands calling the old owner of the car for approval? Seriously? What if the old owner was absent or uncoperative? And even if they are class act like @smac, again, why are we calling the old owner in the first place...

The old owner sold the car, and a well-defined legal process and registry exists for that transfer in almost anywhere in the world. That should be the end of it. For the in-between period of sale to registration a temporary verification call could be offered as good service (but was not). Tesla is indeed very bureaucratic and I would say this kind of old-owner confirmation after registration never happens with used cars normally.

However, as @smac states, this makes a bit more sense now in light of the new Supercharging policy, since Tesla clearly seems to plan on interjecting themselves and their policy changes into the third-party ownership changes of already sold, used Teslas. Which again is certainly something quite unseen in the used automotive market. We shall see how it plays out.

 

[smac]

@AnxietyRanger It's not completely unknown

In the spirit of fairness and balance, I have had to get BMW involved in resolving the remote connectivity of the mobile app. Quite rightly they want some assurances on my rights to do things like GPS tracking / pre-heating.

I bought my car through a franchised dealer, so this meant for the most part BMW did this for me, but I did have to wait for their systems to reflect the ownership change.

Welcome to the brave new world of used connected cars.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@smac I can understand an app or an account requiring a handover (though even there car companies should make it possible to do without their intervention through some self-service handover that can be done at time of sale).

But as you know, the warranty repair is not about it. Tesla being the bureaucracy that they are, it doesn't surprise me they'd tie these things together though...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If I go to a BMW dealership, with a car registered to my name, they will not deny warranty service on door handles because a mobile app is still in someone else's name. (But then BMW is not looking to interject themselves and policy changes into the ownership change.)

The only actual example of that, that I could think of, if Renault renting the original Zoe batteries. That, obviously, had some implications over trade-ins. But it was a model that was of course crystal clear at the time of original sale...

 

[smac]

@AnxietyRanger if you drove to BMW dealer with a minor warranty fault (especially a common one), I suspect they would just fix it against the VIN of the car.

The dealer checks the VIN of the car to see if it is still under warranty, fills in a job card and bills the parts and labor to BMW GmBH. No need to see proof of ownership at all.

For all the flaws in the dealership model, it is an advantage from a customers POV to not be dealing with the manufacturer directly.

 

[Science fan]

I agree. 95% of the time you wouldn't need to SuperCharge to Uber if you are doing it part time. And only 1X a day if you were full time.

But...the fact that "I Uber" occasionally now makes Supercharging off limits to me? Even if it wasn't used to Uber?

Or, what if I Uber all morning off of my home charge, but then want to drive to Flagstaff the same afternoon. I can't use the SC for that? Or I have to go home, wait 5 hours on my home charger before I can go on my trip?

In the 18 months I have owned my S75, I have used a supercharger fewer than ten times and have been thankful that there has always been one available without need to wait. In fairness to others, using free supercharging most days is akin to selfishly asking others to subsidize your everyday fuel use and forces others to wait as more and more Teslas hit the road. If you Uber your Tesla, then want to go to Flagstaff on occasion, I would say go for it. Use the supercharger. If, however, you want to Uber and use the supercharger every day you do so, then that would strike me as being unfair to others who are sharing the network. Unrelated, when you Uber you are also introducing others to how great it is to own a Tesla and may increase sales, which is great for the company and the environment.

 

[EfficientWatts]

In the 18 months I have owned my S75, I have used a supercharger fewer than ten times and have been thankful that there has always been one available without need to wait. In fairness to others, using free supercharging most days is akin to selfishly asking others to subsidize your everyday fuel use and forces others to wait as more and more Teslas hit the road. If you Uber your Tesla, then want to go to Flagstaff on occasion, I would say go for it. Use the supercharger. If, however, you want to Uber and use the supercharger every day you do so, then that would strike me as being unfair to others who are sharing the network. Unrelated, when you Uber you are also introducing others to how great it is to own a Tesla and may increase sales, which is great for the company and the environment.

That is the crux of the problem. You are describing a policy of flexibility, where the language of the Tesla fair use policy sounds more like zero tolerance. They leave a little room in saying "we ask", but it still leaves people wondering. I can understand why Tesla isn't more specific (otherwise people will skirt around), but that leaves a lot of grey area in the middle where people wonder if they can really use their car to do what they need to do, whether it be a bit more grey (like what Sasmania is describing), or more like another guy I see referenced who actually has to drive long distances daily for self-transportation purposes, not as a TNC/Uber/etc, but has to supercharge everyday.

They need to clarify and/or narrow the language down. The last thing I want is for people to question if they can supercharge or not just because of how they use their car (especially if they're not doing Tesloop/Uber/Lyft or otherwise have a pattern of a high mileage driver).

 

[sammyfan711]

The timing of this announcement makes sense with Model 3 non-employee deliveries starting (hopefully in earnest)

 

[DragonWatch]

Quite frankly, I am surprised the ban took this long.

It is freeloading and overloading the system.

As an investor you are sucking up my profit.

As an owner, I appreciate finding a stall right away especially since while on a road trip it requires an hour to charge and hit the wc.

Now, if we can start punishing ICE car drivers.