Does Tesla Prohibit Destination Chargers from Being Used by Non-Customers?

[u00mem9]

Yes. I just sit around making stuff up all day for morons to read.

What kind of morons? The kind that don't understand the definition of the English words "requires" and "asks"?

The last thing the forum needs is more authoritative posts that are flat frickin wrong. You had the info we all wanted, but STILL managed to misinform. Impressive feat!

 

[Sasmania]

It also depends on the scenario.

I have a destination charger installed at one of my Vacation Rentals in Flagstaff. Since it's in the garage and would disrupt the people who are actually paying to stay there, I can't have non-guests charging. Obviously, a charger in a public parking lot is a different story.

 

[cpa]

It seems to me that the B&B owner wanted to avoid any further confrontation with the person who started this thread. The easiest way to stop any sort of ongoing entreaty or discussion is to deflect the conversation to a party who is not present (as was stated above by Audobon and others.)

Personally, I think that the owner of the B&B was a fool. Why not accept a few bucks for an hour's charge? Perhaps the user would stroll the grounds and decide to make a return trip and stay a couple of nights. His attitude is not one that I find comforting, and I would never consider a getaway to his establishment.

One might even post on PlugShare the owner's attitude that he does not allow non-guests to charge at any time for any reason.

 

[kort677]

Posting on PlugShare alerting others to stay away is a good idea

 

[TonyWilliams]

I just put in some destination chargers and there was no agreement... So no Tesla will not limit it but as others have said the owners can as they are toe ones paying for the power.

Of course, Tesla has no "significant" control over a charging station owned by somebody else, particularly when that somebody else is paying all the bills associated with the charging station.

By "significant", I mean that while Tesla has no specific method to limit HPWC / Wall connector use, there is no reason that Tesla couldn't send some software through the car that uploads to the HPWC / Wall Connector to somehow limit its use (without telling the owner in advance... or ever, per standard Tesla operating procedures "STOP").

 

[dhrivnak]

Of course, Tesla has no "significant" control over a charging station owned by somebody else, particularly when that somebody else is paying all the bills associated with the charging station.

By "significant", I mean that while Tesla has no specific method to limit HPWC / Wall connector use, there is no reason that Tesla couldn't send some software through the car that uploads to the HPWC / Wall Connector to somehow limit its use (without telling the owner in advance... or ever, per standard Tesla operating procedures "STOP").

I think it is fair to say Tesla has no control. There is no internet connection and so they just provide the hardware. Because of the propriety nature of the Tesla plug they have limited the HPC to Tesla's. But in most installs they also provide a ClipperCreek HCS 60 for any non-Tesla EV.

If you want to get technical the new HPCs can be linked together so they share a 100 amp service. So if one car connects they can charge at 80 amps. But if a second car connects each will only get 40 amps. So there can be some limiting. But again this is set by the host site not by Tesla.

 

[boaterva]

I think it is fair to say Tesla has no control. There is no internet connection and so they just provide the hardware. Because of the propriety nature of the Tesla plug they have limited the HPC to Tesla's. But in most installs they also provide a ClipperCreek HCS 60 for any non-Tesla EV.

If you want to get technical the new HPCs can be linked together so they share a 100 amp service. So if one car connects they can charge at 80 amps. But if a second car connects each will only get 40 amps. So there can be some limiting. But again this is set by the host site not by Tesla.

I don't even think there is 'software' in the HPWCs as we think of it with the cars... yeah, they talk to each other (up to four total), but that's a little network for 'how much *you* using' sort of thing. Not a firmware update iPhone sort of thing.

 

[brkaus]

I feel it is totally reasonable to charge or deny - 70kWh at 0.12 is $8.40. That's a chunk of change for "goodwill" of someone passing through, parking, and utilizing a nearby business. Personally, I believe I would charge if in the same spot. But maybe they did that before and someone tried to argue that $10 was way too much and the proprietor was fed up with it. We have no idea what this person dealt with the day, week, or month before.

It is the destination charging program and not the nearby to my destination charging program.

I believe as EVs become more prevalent, more will charge. Right now it's "green" advertising.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

In answer to the question in the post title...
No.

 

[JHWJR]

The owner of the B&B could've asked for a fee or not lied.

So while I'm sure you're examples were fun to concoct, this is much more of a "You're not wrong, Walter" scenario than your idea that the request itself was absurd.

First, I did suggest that when I said: "I do believe that this guy was deflecting responsibility for his own decision."

Second, I never suggested that it was absurd to ask to charge. What I suggested was that it is absurd to think it is absurd to say "no."

 

[alcibiades]

First, I did suggest that when I said: "I do believe that this guy was deflecting responsibility for his own decision."

Cool. I wasn't suggesting that you weren't. I was making explicit things he could've done. That's not arguing.

Second, I never suggested that it was absurd to ask to charge. What I suggested was that it is absurd to think it is absurd to say "no."

I never said that you said it was absurd to ask to charge. What you actually wrote was that it's ok for the business owner to limit access to his customers -- because of a long list of absurd analogies. Your analogies were ridiculously shallow. Of course a business owner can say no. People are free to be assholes. But not because clothing stores don't let people borrow items.

To sum up:

First, your first point is yelling at clouds.

Second, your second point is yelling at clouds.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

In the past I have asked hotels with Tesla destination chargers whether I can use the charger even if I am not staying at the hotel, and have not had any issues before. One asked for a $10 fee, but I thought that was reasonable.

However, I just got a response back from a bed & breakfast that told me Tesla prohibits them from allowing anyone that is not a guest of the hotel from using the Tesla destination charger. Has anyone else heard this before? Does anyone have a copy of the terms and conditions under which venues must agree to operate in order to comply with the Tesla destination charger program?

This isn't going to be a big deal for me, as I have alternative charging options on this particular trip, but it would have been convenient as this location had an 80 amp circuit which would have allowed me to recoup a significant charge while having dinner near the venue.

That's just a jerk move by a jerk establishment to blame their own, greedy, unfriendly policies on someone else so as not to appear greedy and unfriendly when denying you use of the FREE charger that Tesla gave them. If this establishment appears on PlugShare I might be inclined to give them negative feedback.

 

[TexasEV]

That's just a jerk move by a jerk establishment to blame their own, greedy, unfriendly policies on someone else so as not to appear greedy and unfriendly when denying you use of the FREE charger that Tesla gave them. If this establishment appears on PlugShare I might be inclined to give them negative feedback.

It's not greedy, its the B&B being in the business of providing lodging and not EV charging. Hotels, etc. accept the HPWCs to attract travelers to stay at their establishment. They don't necessarily want the hassle of non-customers asking them to charge there, whether for free or for a fee. It's not their thing.

 

[chris5639]

When I stay at a hotel with a designation charger, I make sure I tell the owner/manager that it was the primary reason why I chose their hotel vs. another nearby. It is of direct benefit us (EV owners) to have as many places motivated to install chargers.

I also think a fee for charge, facilitated by Tesla, should be set up for destination chargers where the majority of the fee goes back to the establishment. Many places charge $10 for a charge but it's on a case by case basis and often involves either calling ahead or going inside to ask. I would prefer to be able to pull up and know that Tesla will just bill it to my account.

I know a lot of people are obsessed about free fuel with EVs. Free for you means it will cost someone else. I know places like malls can benefit from more traffic but it is difficult to measure that gain and hence reduces the motivation. Also, if it is free, it becomes a free for all and also prone to be ICE'd or even just an EV parked without charging.I want every motivation for these places to guard the parking spaces because they are a revenue source.

 

[JHWJR]

When I stay at a hotel with a designation charger, I make sure I tell the owner/manager that it was the primary reason why I chose their hotel vs. another nearby.

Great idea. All should follow.

 

[boaterva]

When I stay at a hotel with a designation charger, I make sure I tell the owner/manager that it was the primary reason why I chose their hotel vs. another nearby. It is of direct benefit us (EV owners) to have as many places motivated to install chargers.

I've been looking for places where we usually go (Outer Banks, Eastern Shore of Maryland, etc.) to see who already has destination chargers. Most are pretty pricy B&Bs and the like, but even if you stay at one because you like the place over another for other reasons, tell them it was mostly because of the HPWC. They need to be able to tell their local competitors that we had people stay here *because* we let Tesla install the HPWCs.

 

[JHWJR]

They need to be able to tell their local competitors that we had people stay here *because* we let Tesla install the HPWCs.

I doubt they will advise their competitors on what to do to compete better. But it may encourage where you stayed to put in a couple more chargers.

 

[brkaus]

It's not greedy, its the B&B being in the business of providing lodging and not EV charging. Hotels, etc. accept the HPWCs to attract travelers to stay at their establishment. They don't necessarily want the hassle of non-customers asking them to charge there, whether for free or for a fee. It's not their thing.

Exactly - I would much prefer that every lodging place had a Tesla 40+ amp destination charger and it cost $10 per night vs a small number of destination chargers that are free to anyone.

Regarding billing, it might be technically possible for Tesla to collect charges using GPS location and knowing it's connected to an HPWC.

 

[kort677]

That's just a jerk move by a jerk establishment to blame their own, greedy, unfriendly policies on someone else so as not to appear greedy and unfriendly when denying you use of the FREE charger that Tesla gave them. If this establishment appears on PlugShare I might be inclined to give them negative feedback.

The charger hardware is free the installation and power is bourne by the establishment, their store their rules, if you think they're being pig headed don't do business with them but claiming that because they got the hardware for free they should offer free charging for all is childish

 

[AmpedRealtor]

It's not greedy, its the B&B being in the business of providing lodging and not EV charging. Hotels, etc. accept the HPWCs to attract travelers to stay at their establishment. They don't necessarily want the hassle of non-customers asking them to charge there, whether for free or for a fee. It's not their thing.

Lying to a customer by incorrectly saying it's Tesla does not allow them to allow non-customers to charge makes them greedy. Instead of copping to the truth - it's their decision to allow only paying customers to charge - they blame a party who is not in the room to defend themselves. Why not tell the truth if it is so rosy? Classic shady move.