Sounds very reasonable. While you paid for supercharging as did the OP so did the rest of us. Supercharging is a community resource that we all paid into.
Determine what is abuse and what isn't is difficult but most people would know it when they see it.
The problem is, this abuse that now is being called abuse has been defined after the fact - the daily charger. Nowhere was it said before it isn't OK. Examples like urban Superchargers etc. have portrayed an image that it is OK to use them locally too - as long as you don't park there after you're charged up (which was expressly mentioned).
Tesla sure didn't publicize such limitations prior to now.
As for difficulty in determining abuse, while daily local charging is fairly easy to measure, exceptions to this certainly can be very hard to determine. If it is OK to charge if you can't charge at home, who determines if that is true. What if you need to drive a lot locally and need it for the time saved (the taxi example)? And limiting to customers who can't charge at home, would it even be legal to choose your customers based on type of their housing in many places, I wonder. What if you could install a charger home but just won't? What if it looks to the outside you could install something (a detached house) but then in private there are some rules that actually forbid a charger or running a line outside (landlord, housing co-op, fire regulations, the fact that you like at someone else's house and under their rules, whatnot)?
Hence I hope Tesla will keep this purely on a rhetorical level, or introduce new clear rules for new purchases, because this quagmire of exceptions would make the Supercharger selling point stale fast.
- - - Updated - - -
So you're fine with treating owners differently based on the purchase date, but not on how they are (ab)using a limited, shared resource? /confused
I am fine treating owners different based on the purchase date, as long as the terms are made clear to them prior to the purchase of the vehicle. Why wouldn't I be?
I understand and respect Tesla's right to change their product for future commitments, I am only advocating the need to respect existing commitments - which I believe they will (aside from letters), so this discussion is mostly theoretical.
- - - Updated - - -
No one here has a problem with daily Supercharging for those that have no good charging opportunities. It those who have a HPWC or 14-50 at home but purposely don't plug in at night to save $5 that I think most have an issue with. It only takes a few greedy people to negatively impact he system. Sure, they are within their rights but that doesn't make it right. Tesla is also perfectly within their rights to offer them unlimited 30kW Supercharging as well.
But how do you determine that? How does Tesla determine that? What is the limit?
Are we even sure the people who got these letters, that have now been labeled as "abusers", do have good charging opportunities? It seems plausible to me some of them have none and were daily charging because of that. Or are we just assuming Tesla can target these alleged bad guys without collateral damage?
Is Tesla sending letters to the Schipol taxi's or charging (as in payment) them separately?
Maybe Tesla indeed should write explicit rules for Supercharging and impose them on future buyers, if the system has become a burden for them.
