News
Tesla owner racks up $1147 in Supercharger idle fees at valet-only parking garage
For Tesla owner James Salantiri, his Model 3 and the valet-only Supercharger station at the William Vale Parking Garage in Brooklyn, NY are intertwined. With his apartment just 10 minutes away by foot from the parking garage, Salantiri is a regular in the business. He would drive over to William Vale, hand his vehicle over to the valets, and drive away the next day, charged and ready for the road.
It was a system that has worked since he took delivery of his black Long Range Model 3 RWD on March 2018. Salantiri had waited long for his Model 3, having been one of the reservation holders who waited in line to put a deposit on the vehicle during the day of its unveiling. The parking garage has served him well, even when Tesla started rolling out strict Supercharger idle fees.
Tesla initially introduced a $0.40 per minute idle fee for its Supercharger Network on December 2016 to discourage owners from keeping their vehicles connected to the high-powered charging stations even when their electric cars are fully charged. Tesla raised its idle fees on September 2018, adjusting the fees to $.50 per minute. When a charging location is fully occupied, the company’s idle fees go as high as $1.00 per minute.
This system is particularly tricky for Tesla owners like James Salantiri, who regularly use valet-only Urban Superchargers to charge their vehicles. In a message to Teslarati, the Model 3 owner noted that William Vale’s valets would usually charge Teslas and unplug them as needed when the parking garage gets full as part of their service. At times when the parking garage is relatively empty, the valets would at times go the extra mile by plugging a vehicle overnight.
When the electric car maker rolled out its updated Supercharger idle fees, Salantiri was informed by a Tesla representative that since the garage is valet-only, and since owners have no control when their vehicles are plugged in or taken off the Urban Superchargers at the location, any idle fees incurred at the parking garage would be waived. This setup worked well. Even when the vehicle is left plugged in overnight and large idle fees are incurred by his Model 3, Salantiri would see the charges either waived or refunded.
-
- (Credit: James Salantiri)
-
- (Credit: James Salantiri)
Previous idle fees at the Urban Supercharger were previously waived or refunded automatically. (Credit: James Salantiri)
Things changed recently. Upon looking at his recent bank statement, the Model 3 owner noticed two Tesla Supercharger charges to his account amounting to $1,147.16, comprised of a $171.04 charge on August 1 and a $976.12 charge on July 23. This prompted Salantiri to contact the electric car maker, where a representative reportedly informed him that a refund wasn’t possible due to the Supercharger not being on Tesla property. In the following call that was escalated to a supervisor, Salantiri was told that the recent fees could not be waived or refunded since the company’s waive/refund policy for Supercharger idle fees only covers an initial charge. Attempts to contact the parking garage’s new management about the issue were also unsuccessful.
A look into Tesla forums such as the Tesla Motors Club shows that Salantiri’s issue was not an isolated incident. Another Tesla owner, who goes by the username choatie88, noted that he was also charged a notable idle fee at the same location since his vehicle was left to charge overnight. In a message, the Tesla owner noted that he eventually got a one-off refund once he explained the parking garage’s valet-only nature to Tesla. Unfortunately for Salantiri, his one-off refund/waive credit appears to have been used up over his regular trips to the location.
-
- (Credit: James Salantiri)
-
- (Credit: James Salantiri)
The Model 3 owner’s recent Urban Supercharger idle fees from the valet-only parking garage. (Credit: James Salantiri)
Tesla noted in its Supercharger idle fee announcement last September that there is no upper limit on the amount of fees that a vehicle could accrue. This is absolutely fair in public charging stations where owners have full control when they could plug in and remove their vehicles from a Supercharger, but this system hits somewhat of a gray area when it comes to valet-only parking locations. It would be difficult for owners to remove their vehicles from a Supercharger, after all, if they do not have access to their cars.
In a message to Teslarati, Salantiri noted that it would perhaps be best for Tesla to roll out an upper limit for Supercharger idle fees, at least in locations that are valet-only. Or perhaps the electric car maker could just maintain its previous system, which automatically addresses idle fees in places where owners could not disconnect their vehicles from Superchargers. In places like the William Vale Parking Garage, which city dwellers depend on for their charging needs, perhaps Tesla could also roll out Destination Chargers instead, which are not as quick as Urban Superchargers, but do not accrue idle fees once a vehicle is fully charged.
Update:
The Model 3 owner has informed us that his vehicle’s idle fees at the William Vale Parking Garage have been waived by Tesla. A representative from the parking garage further explained that an error on Tesla’s backend caused the charge to be levied, but it has been reversed, considering that idle fees do not apply to valet-only Superchargers.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
