New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[Big Earl]

Then, by definition, it's not a supercharger since there is nothing 'super' about 60kW.

What's in the box is irrelevant, what counts is what power comes out of it.

As I said, 60 kW is about what you'd expect for two vehicles charging at the same Supercharger. I expect that most fleet Superchargers will have high utilization and that this 60 kW limitation per vehicle won't actually be much of a limitation in real world operation. It also makes charge times more predictable since you always get 60 kW (until the SOC ramp down kicks in). At 72 kW, are urban Superchargers not "super," either?

 

[smac]

I don't think Tesla expected people to use $100K cars for a taxi either.

Maybe not initially. They have had data on this for years though.

One has to wonder how much the new demand (particularly for the Model S) has been propped up by commercial users.

My view is there is no way Tesla would have last year suggested dropping inclusive Supercharging only to re-instate it (albeit with a referral code which even a simple Google search would hand out) if they hadn't seen a drop in orders. To me this shows, like it or not the ability to use the network for more than long distance trips was been a significant demand lever to keep the volumes of Model S's up.

Now the Model 3 is starting to ramp, no-one will pay much attention to the volumes of the S/X, which if the ramp goes as plans will be only a small part of Tesla's combined output. Hence the timing of the clamp down.

 

[u00mem9]

Another example of Tesla wishing to change their past mistakes.

I bought a Model S in 2016. The next owner of my car will enjoy free supercharging, for personal or commercial use. It might require some legal services, but Tesla cannot remove something of value from the vehicle just because they forgot to prohibit a use-case.

The only upside is finally having something else to discuss since they buckled to legal threat on ludicrous mode limits.

 

[Teriyaki88]

I wonder how many Teslas are on the road and what percentage of them are used for commercial purposes. I wonder if this is an overreaction from Tesla.

 

[MP3Mike]

I wonder how many Teslas are on the road and what percentage of them are used for commercial purposes. I wonder if this is an overreaction from Tesla.

I think it is more about Teslas that are about to be on the road vs. the number that are on the road now. If they are getting close to 5k/week Model 3 production the mix could change really fast.

 

[arnis]

Not many, but they congest charging network a lot.
For example, More than half DC sessions in our capital are by taxis.
If I want to charge at DC station in the city, it is very likely a taxi is charging there.
Like. 50% likely. This is bad. Because with ChadeMo there is usually 1-2 bays.

 

[LCR1]

I wonder how many Teslas are on the road and what percentage of them are used for commercial purposes. I wonder if this is an overreaction from Tesla.

Last I read it was something like 7% of miles traveled were supercharged miles.

Looks like estimates in march were closer to 13% Tesla used state how many miles the fleet has driven and how many were supercharged so it was pretty simple.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If you are using your Tesla as a business to make money you need to set up a HPWC at your place of business. I understand why Tesla is doing this and the superchargers need to stay open and available for people who need them for travel. As the Model 3 kicks in superchargers are going to become more crowded.

How about long-distance travel commercially? CHAdeMO and Level 2/Type 2?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Perhaps Tesla will change as they mature.

Possible. Hopefully.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The Tesla owner web portal, app, and API allow the car to be tracked, unlocked, and started. They need to have a higher standard for this reason.

But aren't you just underlining the problem? Tesla's system means the old owner retains this access or control to the car beyond their ownership (through their requisite approval) the access and service of a car they no longer own.

And none of this explains why Tesla would deny door handle service before the old owner approves it.

This is what we have the registration process for...

 

[MP3Mike]

But aren't you just underlining the problem? Tesla's system means the old owner retains this access or control to the car beyond their ownership (through their requisite approval) the access and service of a car they no longer own.

At least the new owner can disable remote access to prevent the old owner from having that access until Tesla gets around to updating their records.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

At least the new owner can disable remote access to prevent the old owner from having that access until Tesla gets around to updating their records.

Yeah, and I would imagine factory reset might be helpful too, so that they can't actually access the car. But the problem remains with the requirement for granting permission. If the previous owner is absent or uncooperative for any reason, this can cause headache - and delay even when they are.

 

[Nicklittlejohn]

This is great, we have some ExecuTesla/Uber in Austin that hog all of our stations and abuse the rules.

 

[brkaus]

This is great, we have some ExecuTesla/Uber in Austin that hog all of our stations and abuse the rules.

Ugh.

Here we go, the problem with "free".

Maybe they need some one star yelp reviews for not being neighborly.

 

[smac]

This is great, we have some ExecuTesla/Uber in Austin that hog all of our stations and abuse the rules.

I'm not sure it will address this for a while yet

They've stemmed the growth of the problem, but more stalls will be needed to alleviate any current congestion issues until the fleets of people like ExecuTesla/Uber needs replacing. This could be years out.

 

[scaesare]

I wonder how many Teslas are on the road and what percentage of them are used for commercial purposes. I wonder if this is an overreaction from Tesla.

I suspect the real figure of merit is actually the ratio of supercharger usage to each commercial vehicle.

And given that Tesla has all of that information collected in an automated fashion, they know exactly what it is.

So not likely an over reaction based on inaccurate estimation.

 

[Carl]

From Electrek: Tesla introduces new ‘Supercharger Fair Use’ policy to focus on long distance travel and deter commercial use

Link to the full policy: Privacy & Legal | Tesla Canada

Essentially you aren't allowed to use a Supercharger if you use your Tesla for commercial purposes, at all. I imagine the this could be a real issue for Real Estate agents. (As well as Taxis, ride-share, etc.)

And it starts with any Tesla sold tomorrow, be it from Tesla or a third-party. (So I assume any Tesla added to, or transferred between Tesla accounts tomorrow are flagged for this new policy.)

Supercharger Fair Use

To help ensure that Superchargers are available for their intended use, we ask that you not charge your vehicle using a Supercharger if your vehicle is being used:

• as a taxi;
• for ridesourcing or ridesharing (through Uber, Lyft or similar services);
• to commercially deliver or transport goods;
• for government purposes; or
• for any other commercial venture.

If you charge your vehicle in a manner that does not comply with this Supercharger Fair Use Policy, we may ask you to modify this behavior. We may also take additional action to protect the availability of Superchargers for their intended purpose, such as limiting or blocking your vehicle’s ability to use Supercharger stations.

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. Tesla may choose to exclude certain Supercharger stations or occasional trips from the scope of this Policy, such as to accommodate specific local circumstances.
Click to expand...​

So it seems like Tesla is starting this as trusting people to play by the rules, but maybe they will disable Supercharging on any new cars not purchased by an individual.

1/ As someone mentioned earlier up this thread I think the good news is that if Tesla wants to introduce this policy, they may be thinking of having new "Free Supercharging" incentives in the future, otherwise it wouldn't be of much importance (as long as Supercharging rates are a bit higher than what people pay at home/work).

2/ I don't think Tesla can apply this policy to cars other than cars sold by Tesla itself as of 15 December 2017. Existing cars have Supercharging enabled (sometimes even free Supercharging) as a characteristic of the car, which enticed us to buy the thing in the first place, and which still attaches to the car when we sell it on to a third party other than Tesla. Tesla cannot start disabling Supercharging on existing cars based on some new conditions which did not apply at the time of the original sale by Tesla, imo.

3/ So what to make of the policy itself? I understand the first three bullet points (if you use your Tesla to make money transporting goods or people, you may not use Superchargers) but I can't make any sense of the last bullet point ("any other commercial venture"). So that's a commercial venture other than tranporting people or goods? Does it apply to a real estate agent? A plumber? A doctor making house calls or an accountant visiting clients? Someone like @buttershrimp making greater Austin unsafe by driving around his Tesla to make you-tube videos to which we should all subscribe? Or even any company car, e.g. part of the overall remuneration package of a manager?

I think this is just a catch-all provision added to allow Tesla to basically say that for any car sold (at least by Tesla) after 15 December 2017 which is used for any type of business trips, Tesla can decide at any time whether or not the car will remain Supercharging enabled. Mayby Tesla has no plans on enforcing this (for commercial ventures other than the transporting of goods or people) but they just want to have it up their sleeve.

 

[cpa]

This debate is reminiscent of the dread letters emailed to a select group of owners in August 2015. There was no rhyme or reason in choosing who received them, other than perhaps those of us who did took a couple of long road trips in a relatively short time frame and the assumption was that we were using our "local" Superchargers for everyday use. This was despite the fact that there were no local Superchargers within 60 miles or more of our homes.

It is imaginable that certain businesses or individuals will accumulate a lot of miles on a daily basis that are exclusive of transporting people or property for hire. I met a woman at the Manteca Supercharger 18 months ago who lived in the East Bay and worked in Turlock. She had to Supercharge her car every day to make it home--the 90% charge each morning was cutting it too close for comfort.

A friend of mine works in Bakersfield twice a week--a 225 mile round trip not factoring in driving around Kern County.

I don't know how Tesla will be able to differentiate how people use their cars when they Supercharge at the same locations on a regular basis.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I think the interesting bit is, what triggered this rather massive-feeling change... mid-quarter no less?

It is bound to affect deliveries too, right?

Were the Supercharging electricity cost figures simply looking too bad?

 

[NeverFollow]

When renting a car from Turo, or any rental car, the gas tank must be refilled,
or you will have to paid for the refill and a fee. I imagine the same for the battery of an EV?

How a renter using a (Turo) Tesla rental car for any cross country trip,
will be able to recharge if using a supercharger is not allowed?

So even if a renter don't use a (Turo) Tesla rental car for any cross country trip,
how should the renter recharge the battery?

Is there any alternative provided, like using any future commercial supercharger?