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 Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
