Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes

[AnxietyRanger]

I think your summary is accurate and fair, beyond the disagreement part.

And on the disagreement part, you can probably recruit people in your way of thinking if you can supply any supporting evidence to your claim that Tesla has liberally touted a marketing message that can be interpreted as "reduce your TCO by Supercharging".

Thank you. And I do get the questions and asks for evidence in your message, perhaps one time I will have a moment to return to them. At this juncture, though, I'm trying to find out what we can agree on first... I feel the topic a bit too controversial otherwise at this minute for a tit-for-tat...

Could you edit the disagreement part of my summary in a way that you could agree with its wording... or is your disagreement simply with the disagreement itself?

I mean, my intent with this summary was to document the premise as well as the disagreement, not really to argue the disagreement itself further but if you think I misrepresented either side of the argument, perhaps you can edit the bolded parts below to adjust to that? This offer is open to anyone, I'm genuinely looking to see if at least we can find common ground on where the agreements as well as disagreements are.

I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following:

I think most us agree Tesla created the Supercharger system to solve certain specific issues hindering EV adoption, including both lack of infrastructure and the unique needs of EVs. This started with long-distance travel (call it the road trip), both the lack of charging and the lack of charging speed, but eventually evolved into other intents as well, such as solving the question of urban charging (London), perhaps - at least temporarily - even issues like operating a taxi fleet of EVs (Schipol) which would not work as well without such fast charger.

I think most us agree Tesla has calculated the price of the Supercharger system (built into the price of the car nowadays) in such a manner that it would be mostly used for the above-mentioned purposes. I think most of us can also agree Tesla would prefer the Supercharger system to be used for these purposes and not much for other purposes. No doubt, Tesla is also a strong advocate of the home charger, and of the EV-era home (solar, PowerWall etc.) and would not wish to hinder this with the Supercharger.

Also, I think most of us agree what is free for the life of Model S, may not remain free for the life of future Tesla models. The Supercharger, as unique a system as it is, is by nature an obstacle remover - not an instrument of lesser total cost of ownership. Eventually it seems possible, as EVs have crossed these obstacles and moved to the mainstream, that the Supercharger system may become - for future Tesla models - either pay-per-use or perhaps one day even obsolete if other solutions to EV charging replace it in society.

I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.

Where there is a main disagreement, and my intent here is merely to note this not continue to argue it, is: Was Tesla clear enough beforehand on what the Supercharger system can be used for?

Some feel the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough.

Some feel Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use.

Who would be comfortable with this summary and just agreeing to disagree on the last part? I know I am.

 

[supratachophobia]

Did anyone get the impression that the notes would just be along the lines of "Hey, if you live around here, could you mind charging at home, if possible, so that non-locals passing through have less of a possibility of not finding an available bay or wait-times for charging?"

That is how I took it to mean a note would be passed along. I don't think Tesla can/wants to change the rules at this point regarding superchargers for anyone grandfathered into the plan, prior to an official announcement that things are changing (which hasn't come yet, if it ever does). But I do think they would appreciate possible considerations on the part of owners that if they can charge at home, to attempt to do so in the hopes of alleviating possible congestion at the charging locations. It doesn't hurt to ask, and if the problem doesn't improve, then they'll have to find another way. At this point, it's still not the owner's problem yet so why get upset?

Now if there were changes, I think regular charging within, say, 10-15 miles of your home netted you some kind of financial charge, or slower charging rate (not the best option if you are trying to deal with congestion) seems like a fair trade. But you'd have to meet both the requirements, the distance and the frequency.

 

[Tedkidd]

After hearing about this discussion my comedienne partner suggested: "Hey, maybe they should require new owners take the Dale Carnegie training course before picking up their keys!" (its funnier hearing than reading...)

Think and act socially, or think and act selfishly, which is the bigger win long term? In a perfect world the Supercharger system remains free, AND easily accessible for all.

Couldn't this happen if we encourage certain social norms? This is really a brand new society, with norms of acceptable behavior still evolving. And guess what? The early participants and thought leaders get to carve etiquette into stone.

So should we take the " I'm going to get mine now" approach to this, or a more "let's make this sustainable long term" approach?

Won't the latter have greater likelihood of keeping Tesla from having to step in and put formal constraints on what appears to be a near utopian situation?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

After hearing about this discussion my comedienne partner suggested: "Hey, maybe they should require new owners take the Dale Carnegie training course before picking up their keys!" (its funnier hearing than reading...)

Think and act socially, or think and act selfishly, which is the bigger win long term? In a perfect world the Supercharger system remains free, AND easily accessible for all.

Couldn't this happen if we encourage certain social norms? This is really a brand new society, with norms of acceptable behavior still evolving. And guess what? The early participants and thought leaders get to carve etiquette into stone.

So should we take the " I'm going to get mine now" approach to this, or a more "let's make this sustainable long term" approach?

Won't the latter have greater likelihood of keeping Tesla from having to step in and put formal constraints on what appears to be a near utopian situation?

I like your thinking.

The problem, as I see it vis-a-vis this conversation, is that we still have a hard time determining what that sustainable politeness boils down to - is the problem, say, daily local charging itself, or excessive use of busy chargers etc. And what is the corporate responsibility attached to it, how much Tesla should build to accommodate etc. Culture born out of the people is often by far more sustainable than one forced on by a company looking to save a buck on a deal it has already sold.

I find the question of great Supercharger etiquette thus a bit different than a conversation of what Tesla's Supercharger terms are or should be. Perhaps some people on this thread are discussing the former and others are discussing the latter. It would certainly explain why some may be talking past each other.

I've read How to win friends and influence people twice and a few of its sister books too... It's working really great for me on TMC... Oh, wait...

Anyway, a great post Tedkidd, and appreciated. Kudos to your comedienne partner too for the great Carnegie reference.

 

[deonb]

Could you edit the disagreement part of my summary in a way that you could agree with its wording... or is your disagreement simply with the disagreement itself?

Of course I disagree with the disagreement itself , but let's put that aside from now. (Looking forward to your reply when you have more time available.)


However, an issue I have with the "agree to disagree" part is that it's being presented on equal footing ("Some"). This is akin to the global warming denier strategy - present a fringe dissenting opinion as being on equal footing.

If you were to use the results of the latest polling data instead, I would be more inclined to agree to the spirit of the agree-to-disagree part in itself.There are 2 polls right now, so I'll take the approximate average between them.

E.g.
95% of people feel that the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough.

5% of people feel Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use.

 

[hbouw]

Did anyone get the impression that the notes would just be along the lines of "Hey, if you live around here, could you mind charging at home, if possible, so that non-locals passing through have less of a possibility of not finding an available bay or wait-times for charging?"

Excellent point! We're speculating too much about the contents of these notes without even having seen a single one. My ultimate opinion about all this will depend on the content of the note.

 

[deonb]

Bonnie in post 100, ...
Bonnie in post 109, ...
Bonnie in post 112 ....
Bonnie in post 117 ...

Dude... just, no.

You're not going to score any points of this forum by personally attacking Bonnie.

If you want to pick a battle on this forum with a larger chance of convincing people, here's a cow hide cause for you. But Bonnie is out of your league.

 

[lolachampcar]

Yep, I was wondering when this and the Vegan thread were going to intersect. They were both going down the same rabbit hole.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Also, I think most of us agree what is free for the life of Model S, may not remain free for the life of future Tesla models.

In general, I agree with your summary, but this part stands out to me as something I don't agree with (and I have mentioned previously I find it curious it is many on the "other side" that argue this point).

Tesla's current model of free superchargers is sustainable even for the Model 3, as long as superchargers are used as intended (primarily for long distance trips). As I posted before, only roughly 15% of miles traveled in the US is on trips over 100 miles and people currently use slightly over 6% on superchargers.

The math works out to 150,000 miles * 34kWh/100 miles * $0.10/kWh = $5100 in electricity to cover all travel. However if assuming:
5% * $5100 = $255
10% * $5100 = $510
15% * $5100 = $765

SEC filings say the amount spent is somewhere around $500 per car and matches that model.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-Scam/page10?p=1030610&viewfull=1#post1030610

However, under the assumption of entitlement to offload even home charging on the supercharger network (exclusively no less, not talking about rare occasional use), the number changes to the $5100 and that is obviously unsustainable. I think the goal of us on this side (including Elon, I believe, in making this recent statement) is to change that kind of thinking without having to resort to hard-line measures like throttling, per use fees, etc., which ultimately ruin the supercharger experience for ~95% of the population because of the actions of ~5%.

As for the city superchargers, I haven't mentioned it, but I think that is a temporary measure until the laws catch up on allowing condo/apartment charging.

And note how the above is in reference to the overall cost model of superchargers, not even about the congestion (so those doing this and offering to move their cars don't really address the issue). The congestion is another separate issue, which I did the math very far back in the other thread and shows similarly it would make the current network unsustainable.

 

[Ben W]

Thinking ahead a couple years...

If Supercharging were included free and unlimited for the Model 3, at 500,000 units a year, the network could quickly become overwhelmed. Note that Model 3 is primarily intended for a demographic that is less likely than Model S / X to have accessible charging at home (e.g., owners might just have street parking, or apartment parking with 110v or nothing at all). As such, Model 3 owners are likely to want superchargers for local charging even more than Model S / X owners currently do. With the Model S/X "free unlimited" model, this could create a massive problem.

As a practical solution, I propose that Tesla offer the following scheme for Model 3 purchasers:

$12 / hour metered supercharging for life. ($0.20 per minute, or roughly $4.00 for a half-charge.)

There are many justifications for this. First, it would allow Tesla to sell the car for a lower base price, rather than baking in the $2000 upfront supercharging cost as the S / X currently does. (I don't expect the "premium" unlimited model to change for the S / X, since the upfront cost there is what subsidizes the supercharger expansion.)

At the maximum 120kW charging rate, $12 / hour works out to roughly 3 cents per mile or ~$0.10/kWh, so even if a Model 3 owner were to drive 100k miles on supercharging alone, their total cost would be $3000, barely more than the S / X upfront cost. Most Model 3 owners would end up well ahead on this model, versus what S / X owners pay now. The metered model would help reduce the potential for arbitrage (i.e., charge up at SC, then drive home and power your house) if V2G is ever enabled. Also, satisfyingly, the "abusers" would be effectively helping subsidize the low $0.10/kWh cost for proper users!

This model would provide a significant disincentive for supercharger abuse, as well as a disincentive to stay plugged in after charging completes. (Something most S owners are guilty of from time to time. You've had your car finish charging while you're in the middle of dinner, right?) The time-metered model would greatly cut down the traffic at superchargers, meaning Tesla would have to build out fewer of them to accommodate the growing fleet. And importantly, charging per minute instead of per kWh would discourage trickle-charging the final 10%, which as we all know is hard on the battery, takes a long time, and takes up valuable stall space for minimal gain. (Not to mention, is just as fast to do at home on an L2 charger.)

How would you react if Tesla were to implement this pricing model for Model 3 supercharging? Do you think it's a good idea? If you could, would you have opted into this model to save the upfront $2k on your Model S/X? And finally, would it make you more or less likely to consider buying a Model 3?

 

[hbouw]

As a practical solution, I propose that Tesla offer the following scheme for Model 3 purchasers:

$12 / hour metered supercharging for life. ($0.20 per minute, or roughly $4.00 for a half-charge.)

How would you react if Tesla were to implement this pricing model for Model 3 supercharging? Do you think it's a good idea? If you could, would you have opted into this model to save the upfront $2k on your Model S/X? And finally, would it make you more or less likely to consider buying a Model 3?

I like it. Especially the fact that it would discourage people from staying plugged in too long. It's better than paying per kWh.

 

[stopcrazypp]

w

If Supercharging were included free and unlimited for the Model 3, at 500,000 units a year, the network could quickly become overwhelmed. Note that Model 3 is primarily intended for a demographic that is less likely than Model S / X to have accessible charging at home (e.g., owners might just have street parking, or apartment parking with 110v or nothing at all).

First thing is in the cost model of $X/car, the volume of units per year is irrelevant given larger volume gives proportionally more funding to expand the network. Hopefully, this point at least is clear.

Second point, is that while the Model 3 will likely have a slightly higher percentage of owners which will not have home charging, I wouldn't say it is *primarily* intended for that demographic (primarily implies a majority). The Leaf is in an even lower price bracket, but you will find there are little to no people who will buy the car without home charging. The Model 3 will still be a $35k car minimum (in the BMW range), with ASP in the $50k range. It's still quite far from an inexpensive city car.

There are many justifications for this. First, it would allow Tesla to sell the car for a lower base price, rather than baking in the $2000 upfront supercharging cost as the S / X currently does.

The $2000 "baked in" assumption is already been disputed (esp. given Tesla now offers no model with a $2000 supercharger option). SEC filings say supercharger network spending right now divided by the number of cars is $500 per car.

How would you react if Tesla were to implement this pricing model for Model 3 supercharging? Do you think it's a good idea? If you could, would you have opted into this model to save the upfront $2k on your Model S/X? And finally, would it make you more or less likely to consider buying a Model 3?

I think a pay per use/time fee even on roadtrips is a horrible idea that will eliminate the main goal and reason why superchargers are "free" in the first place (encourage people to take roadtrips in EVs). I was fully prepared to pay $2k for supercharging if that was an extra option (as a hardware/software activation fee, plus a little extra to cover supercharger network costs). I would prefer that over a pay per use fee AND likely a hardware/software activation fee on top of that. This will throw out one major advantage of the Tesla over other EVs (not having to worry about a subscription service for DC charging).

(I don't expect the S / X "premium" unlimited model to change, since the upfront cost is what subsidizes the supercharger expansion.)

And I don't know why people keep suggesting that if a pay per use fee is implemented, it should only be applied to Model 3 and not Model S/X. I think this is far more like "classism" (which I remember was brought on 70D/85D comparison). There is nothing that says because you are a Model S/X owner you will not need/want to use the superchargers exclusively for daily charging: these two long threads about this subject already prove this to be false!

A far better solution is to have inner city stations be converted to paid stations (assuming Tesla intends to use superchargers as a long term solution to city charging), and even introduce third party stations (I remember this idea was brought up by Tesla before). They can re-brand them as "urbanchargers" or something if necessary, to get around those Model S owners wanting to play the lawsuit game. "Supercharger" stations on road trip routes will still remain free. This eliminates any assumptions about the breakdown of owner types among the models, and ensures a consistent "Tesla" ownership experience among the different models.

Otherwise you are degrading the ownership experience of a large majority of Model 3 owners (which will charge at home) while giving a free ride to the Model S/X owners who intend to use the supercharger network for daily charging (esp. those with home charging).

 

[Ben W]

First thing is in the cost model of $X/car, the volume of units per year is irrelevant given larger volume gives proportionally more funding to expand the network. Hopefully, this point at least is clear.

Not true. Each Model 3 will have a much smaller absolute profit margin (from which to pull funds for the supercharging network) than a Model S / X, but each Model 3 will spend just as many hours charging there.

Second point, is that while the Model 3 will likely have a slightly higher percentage of owners which will not have home charging, I wouldn't say it is *primarily* intended for that demographic (primarily implies a majority). The Leaf is in an even lower price bracket, but you will find there are little to no people who will buy the car without home charging. The Model 3 will still be a $35k car minimum (in the BMW range), with ASP in the $50k range. It's still quite far from an inexpensive city car.

Perhaps 2% of S / X owners (in NA) are currently dependent on local supercharging for most of their charging. That percentage is likely to be significantly higher for the Model 3 (say 15%), though still not a majority. This percentage will climb for the Leaf as well, as it grows beyond its low-volume early adopter phase.

The $2000 "baked in" assumption is already been disputed (esp. given Tesla now offers no model with a $2000 supercharger option). SEC filings say supercharger network spending right now divided by the number of cars is $500 per car.

Again, the relatively high S / X profit margin can afford a $500 / car expense for the Supercharger network. Model 3, much less so.

I think a pay per use/time fee even on roadtrips is a horrible idea that will eliminate the main goal and reason why superchargers are "free" in the first place (encourage people to take roadtrips in EVs).

More important to Tesla (and to many customers) will be to keep the base Model 3 sticker price down to their $35k target. Externalizing the supercharging cost out of the sticker price, even $500 per car, goes a very long way at that price point. Tesla will need to squeeze every penny to reach this target.

And I don't know why people keep suggesting that if a pay per use fee is implemented, it should only be applied to Model 3 and not Model S/X.

Because to apply the change to Model S / X would be to create two classes within their premium S /X brand, which would be far more confusing. If you want the luxury of meterless supercharging, buy the luxury model car. Simple.

A far better solution is to have inner city stations be converted to paid stations (assuming Tesla intends to use superchargers as a long term solution to city charging), and even introduce third party stations (I remember this idea was brought up by Tesla before).

Third-party Tesla-compatible L3 charging stations, good idea, agreed. Tesla-branded Tesla-run paid stations (coexisting with free stations), I don't see happening.

Otherwise you are degrading the ownership experience of a large majority of Model 3 owners (which will charge at home) while giving a free ride to the Model S/X owners who intend to use the supercharger network for daily charging (esp. those with home charging).

Degrading how? And free ride how? The majority of Model 3 owners would save significant money overall with the metered model. And Model S / X owners have paid a premium price for the privilege of un-metered supercharging. The metered model for Model 3 would dramatically reduce supercharger abuse / overcrowding, which will lower Tesla's build-out costs (thereby enabling the aforementioned savings for Model 3 owners), and significantly improve the experience for everyone.

Tl;dr; I think it is highly doubtful that the base $35k Model 3 will include free unlimited supercharging. Perhaps unlimited un-metered charging will be offered as a $2k option, as it originally was for the 60kWh Model S. But I expect that the metered model will be an option as well. And if they do meter it, for the reasons outlined in my post, it makes far more sense to meter it by the hour than by the kilowatt-hour.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Of course I disagree with the disagreement itself , but let's put that aside from now. (Looking forward to your reply when you have more time available.)


However, an issue I have with the "agree to disagree" part is that it's being presented on equal footing ("Some"). This is akin to the global warming denier strategy - present a fringe dissenting opinion as being on equal footing.

If you were to use the results of the latest polling data instead, I would be more inclined to agree to the spirit of the agree-to-disagree part in itself.There are 2 polls right now, so I'll take the approximate average between them.

E.g.
95% of people feel that the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough.

5% of people feel Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use.

Fair enough, I get your point. I also agree that a majority of active TMC posters (I don't know if it is 95% vs. 5% - perhaps it is 70% vs. 30% or something) seem to be in the first camp.

That said, I also think this can be sometimes a hard place to voice critical opinion and some abstain from doing so for that reason, at least such is suggested in many threads by the PMs and reputation points my messages receive when I take on an unpopular topic. I often get messages like "I didn't want to bring this up here but thanks for doing so" type.

I also think the fact that, for example, so many people warn or joke on the topic of not posting criticism against some prominent member's postings suggests that there are cultural issues on TMC that make it easier to not post on certain topics or at least not to disagree with certain members. I fear it may limit somewhat the diversity of responses we get.

But, of course, I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that a majority of Tesla customers indeed understood the message as you did. I have no qualms over that possibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think most of us agree what is free for the life of Model S, may not remain free for the life of future Tesla models.

In general, I agree with your summary, but this part stands out to me as something I don't agree with (and I have mentioned previously I find it curious it is many on the "other side" that argue this point).

Fair enough. That point wasn't very pertinent to my summary and I'd be willing to leave it out, too. I didn't think too much of it, nor did I meant it to be any kind of tool in the argument. It has been my own thinking that the Supercharger network seems to be an incentive and obstacle remover and eventually, when that obstacle is removed and that incentive no longer required - as far as mainstream use is concerned - the rules would change. Also because the volumes required by mainstream use might make the current business model unsustainable.

Tesla's current model of free superchargers is sustainable even for the Model 3, as long as superchargers are used as intended (primarily for long distance trips). As I posted before, only roughly 15% of miles traveled in the US is on trips over 100 miles and people currently use slightly over 6% on superchargers.

The math works out to 150,000 miles * 34kWh/100 miles * $0.10/kWh = $5100 in electricity to cover all travel. However if assuming:
5% * $5100 = $255
10% * $5100 = $510
15% * $5100 = $765

SEC filings say the amount spent is somewhere around $500 per car and matches that model.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-Scam/page10?p=1030610&viewfull=1#post1030610

However, under the assumption of entitlement to offload even home charging on the supercharger network (exclusively no less, not talking about rare occasional use), the number changes to the $5100 and that is obviously unsustainable. I think the goal of us on this side (including Elon, I believe, in making this recent statement) is to change that kind of thinking without having to resort to hard-line measures like throttling, per use fees, etc., which ultimately ruin the supercharger experience for ~95% of the population because of the actions of ~5%.

As for the city superchargers, I haven't mentioned it, but I think that is a temporary measure until the laws catch up on allowing condo/apartment charging.

And note how the above is in reference to the overall cost model of superchargers, not even about the congestion (so those doing this and offering to move their cars don't really address the issue). The congestion is another separate issue, which I did the math very far back in the other thread and shows similarly it would make the current network unsustainable.

I have no disagreement over this. I haven't done any math on it myself, so it is possible it could go down like this.

 

[Candleflame]

i think people here get the wrong idea about ppl not charging at home. There are people who simply can't charge at home. and that number is likely increasing. Not everyone lives in america.

 

[deonb]

i think people here get the wrong idea ppl not charging at home. There is people who simply can't charge at home. and that number is likely increasing. Not everyone lives in america.

I take it you haven't read this thread in full. This isn't about people who can't charge at home.

This is about people who do have the option of charging at home but are trying to reduce total cost of ownership by using a SuperCharger instead.

(Tesla can tell based on where you park every night whether you can reasonably charge at home or not).

 

[Candleflame]

A small amount of people who charge at superchargers regularly rather than at home will not make a big difference to supercharger occupance imho. Also those people can argue that they should not be punished for having a garage...

 

[Owner]

I disagree. The thread is about the long term sustainability of the supercharger model.
If there are too many apartment dwellers near San Juan Capistrano, there are problems for travelers.
If there are too many taxis in Amsterdam. etc...

I don't imagine this can be policed.

How does Tesla or anyone really know what your charging situation is at home? You could be divorcing.

I take it you haven't read this thread in full. This isn't about people who can't charge at home.

This is about people who do have the option of charging at home but are trying to reduce total cost of ownership by using a SuperCharger instead.

(Tesla can tell based on where you park every night whether you can reasonably charge at home or not).

 

[WarpedOne]

This is about people who do have the option of charging at home but are trying to reduce total cost of ownership by using a SuperCharger instead.

What about people who choose not to install home charging equipment to reduce total cost of ownership even further?
Are they bona fide SC users or not? Who is to judge who should install their own EVSE and who are exempt to this obligation?

Apartment dwellers have the option to buy/rent a garage and install their own EVSE. Just because they have chosen to not invest into their own garage and charging spot, it is OK to suck free juice from SC?

 

[deonb]

A small amount of people who charge at superchargers regularly rather than at home will not make a big difference to supercharger occupance imho. Also those people can argue that they should not be punished for having a garage...

SuperCharger usage for road tripping is currently 5%.

So even if only 5% of garage chargers use SuperChargers for TCO charging, it doubles the number of SuperChargers required.