Teo Takes Tesla To Task

[NigelM]

It is not a problem that affects me.

And yet....

 

[Teo]

Nigel, there is no reason for you to send me warnings (referring to the pm you just sent me). You are misusing your moderator powers.

 

[NigelM]

Teo, I was asking you to stay polite and did it in a PM so as not to call you out publicly. That's not misuse of power and just for the record here's the full text:

You are expected to maintain common courtesy with everyone, please do so.

NigelM
(moderator)

 

[dsm363]

It is not a problem that affects me.


No. RCW 46.08.185 is effective from July 28, 2013. A short time after that on September 17, 2013 there was discussion about the station here. Most likely this means when Tesla and the host negotiated a deal and signed an agreement, the law didn't exist. But of course the law overrides whatever is in that agreement. So now Tesla should either negotiate a new deal with the host or move the station elsewhere. They should also pick better locations.


Good.

You are taking this rather personal and putting a lot of effort into something that doesn't impact you at all.

You said it is crazy the hotel only has ten parking spots and Tesla didn't protect their spots. In your hours of research did you ever call the hotel? I just had a nice conversation with someone at the desk and he said thank you for bringing that up. Very rarely if everything is sold out some cars do park there but he said to please let desk know and they will call guest and get them to move. He wasn't sure if his manager was aware of the new law as he is the one that deals with Tesla but would pass along the message. Oh and they have over 40 parking spots in addition to the Tesla spots. I asked.

 

[Teo]

Teo, I was asking you to stay polite and did it in a PM so as not to call you out publicly. That's not misuse of power and just for the record here's the full text:

I wasn't rude. You have no reason to warn me. When you join a discussions you are writing as a regular member. You can not then turn around and use your moderator powers against the person you don't agree with.

The fact that I bring up a non-compliance issue to the attention of others does not mean I like Tesla less than you. There are many good reasons way it makes sense for Tesla to comply with regulations. Even if all Tesla drivers are happy with the current Ellensburg situation and nobody asks Tesla to add those signs, there is still good reason for Tesla to comply with regulations.

I don't want to go into too much detail but if you look at the following lawsuit against Porsche you can see that relatives of people who were harmed in some way may sue a car company. Therefore there are legal risks to Tesla if something happens to somebody at Ellensburg.

Paul Walker Dead -- R.I.P. Paul Walker | TMZ.com

 

[NigelM]

Oh please!

 

[dsm363]

Ummm. So if a gas car is blocking the charging that is like their car turned into a fireball? You have us there.

People are asking Tesla to fix this if they are allowed to. Again, a phone call to the hotel shows that and that your impression about there only being ten parking spots is false. Someone of us have actually been to this location and I assume you haven't. Your fixation on this issue is very perplexing.

 

[Teo]

dsm363,
Obviously I'm not going to call the hotel because that wouldn't be right but I'm glad you couldn't resist to talk to them. It is always good to have more information which is why I wrote the phone numbers of the hotel a few messages earlier. If those charging spaces are so insignificant then hopefully they will agree to put those no parking signs or road cones to two of the stalls so all five don't get ICED. I have no fixation on the issue. In message #34 I explained why I became interested in this topic.

 

[brianman]

There is no reason for arguments. The language is clear....

So close yet so far...
Let me requote what the post immediately preceding yours did:

(3) For purposes of this section, "electric vehicle charging station" means a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.

What basis do you have for claiming the "primary purpose" of the parking spaces in Ellensburg is for charging? My impression from Tesla's prior signage is that they -- and the property owner -- don't consider it the primary purpose otherwise they would have marked it with the stronger "don't park here you dirty guzzlers" signage that they use in such cases.

I'll grant that the grammar could lead some to believe "that has" is referring to the equipment rather than the parking space, but I don't believe the intent was such. More specifically, it would pointless to craft the language such that it only applies to "charging equipment that has as it's primary purpose [charging]" since I would argue all charging equipment has such a purpose as primary.

Further, if you do read this "would be pointless" clause with such an interpretation then I can park pretty much anywhere in WA state that has a 110V plug, plug in my car, and claim "the signs are missing, zomg!" to whatever fool might pay attention.

 

[brianman]

@NoCO - By your interpretation, are these two statements the same?

(3) For purposes of this section, "electric vehicle charging station" means a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.

(3) For purposes of this section, "electric vehicle charging station" means a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment.

If they are not the same, how are they different?

 

[stopcrazypp]

There is no reason for arguments. The language is clear.
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation website: Washington state law (RCW 46.08.185)

The language in that website does not address the definition of an electric vehicle charging station nor who gets to designate a spot as one. All it does is establish uniform signage for spots that ARE designated as an electric vehicle charging station.

Obviously this whole discussion originates because the hotel does not intend for the parking spot's primary purpose to be a EV charging space, but for its primary purpose to be a general parking spot, and its secondary purpose to be a Tesla charging spot when that spot is not used as a parking spot. It's unclear from the law as it is written if such types of spots are legal or illegal (and in the illegal case, thousands of EV owners in WA are violating that law as we speak, so Tesla is not alone in this).

The same content is also available in Jeff Finn's PDF file.

The title of that file is: Unofficial Guidelines for Implementing Washington State’s SB 5849 which provides for a $124.00 fine for parking a vehicle in a public or publically accessible private EV charging station space.

First of all it's clearly "unofficial". Second of all, it makes a distinction between "publically accessible" private spaces, vs a "publicly inaccessible" private space. It's actually because I looked at that document I brought my point up, because the law DOESN'T make that distinction, so I have question about how that document interprets the law.

 

[Zythryn]

Because "EV charging station" is not defined, it probably doesn't apply.
Is it inclusive? In other words, is it a spot any EV can charge at (such as a J1772). If so, the SCs don't qualify.
Is it a lvl 2 charger? If so, the SC again doesn't qualify.
Is it any parking spot within reach of any potential charging point? If so, any spot in reach of a standard 110V outlet qualifies.

 

[scaesare]

There are people in this topic who think Tesla is trying to prevent ICE parking in Ellensburg. That couldn't be further from the truth.

This has been an interesting argument...er... "conversation" to follow.

The primary issue I have is the implications regarding Tesla's motive with comments like the above.

Do you really think Tesla wants ICE cars blocking SC stalls? Do they want them to be located in places where there's likely to be contention for them? Do they want to have vague signage that forces them to allow non-Tesla cars to park there? Do they want to have too few SC spaces to properly serve the owner base?

I'm 98.573% sure the answer to all of the above is "No".

However Tesla has to comply with owner wishes, state law, local regulation, physical layout restrictions, power availability, geographic considerations, traffic considerations, cost, etc...

So, if you want to have constructive conversation about this, it might be best to leave the motive implication out of it...

 

[dsm363]

dsm363,
Obviously I'm not going to call the hotel because that wouldn't be right but I'm glad you couldn't resist to talk to them. It is always good to have more information which is why I wrote the phone numbers of the hotel a few messages earlier. If those charging spaces are so insignificant then hopefully they will agree to put those no parking signs or road cones to two of the stalls so all five don't get ICED. I have no fixation on the issue. In message #34 I explained why I became interested in this topic.

This response had me the most confused. Multiple posts about alerting websites and the media of this huge problem and hours of research into local regulations but you obviously won't make one phone call and talk to the actual hotel that has the parking? I had a nice 5min conversation and explained the situation so the manager who talks with Tesla will look into it. Maybe they simply didn't know about the law and Tesla didn't do enough research either.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This response had me the most confused. Multiple posts about alerting websites and the media of this huge problem and hours of research into local regulations but you obviously won't make one phone call and talk to the actual hotel that has the parking? I had a nice 5min conversation and explained the situation so the manager who talks with Tesla will look into it. Maybe they simply didn't know about the law and Tesla didn't do enough research either.

Wow, thanks for doing the call. It seems this really isn't that big of a deal after seeing the response by Tesla and the hotel, but the way Teo put it made it seem like this was some sort of big crisis for Tesla.

 

[Smitty769]

Just adding some perspective...

... putting in these locations is a regulatory nightmare. If you knew all of the work that goes into placing one location, you'd be amazed that any exist at all. I haven't worked at Tesla for over a year, but I can still recall the first attempts. I am not disputing the fact that this location might need new signage, or whatever, to avoid future ICE problems, but the fact that this location even exists for customers to use, now, is a big deal.

 

[dmckinstry]

You do seem preoccupied with assumed problems that don't happen to you.

Agreed.

I'm skipping the rest of the thread. It's getting too tiresome.

I've charged in Ellensburg at least 8 times since I got my Model S (at the end of last June). Five times were at the supercharger. The first time was coming home from so. CA just before Easter. It wasn't open when I headed south in early December. Maybe it's just the times I travel, but I've never seen more than one other vehicle parked at the superchargers, and it was always another Model S. Every time I've charged at the left-most charger, as I don't have to back into it.

However, I've never arrived at the superchargers later than 7:30 pm. In that case, were they ICEed, I spend the night at the Days Inn, which has plenty of NEMA 14-50 outlets available. There may exceptions to that. One is the holiday weekend of the Ellensburg Rodeo.