All Springfield, OR Superchargers ICE'd by Trucks except one space

All Springfield, OR Superchargers ICE'd by Trucks except one space

This morning as we were about to top off and go, we drove from the back of Holiday Inn Express to the Superchargers in front. All except one were ICE'd by SUV's. It was quite difficult to maneuver straight into the one stall, as the space left was so narrow, and there were also cars fully parked on the opposite side from the Supercharger stalls.

When questioned, the lady in charge of breakfast said that they had come to her last night and asked for permission to park there. She commented "we don't see many Teslas" (That's because we're so fast)

Holiday Inn shares parking lots with La Quinta next door.

To be fair, the sign posted at the superchargers indicates 2 hour EV parking from noon to 8 pm, but leaves the impression that the stalls are fair game at night.

If we had not charged yesterday, we would have another frustrating search for the owners of those vehicles before taking on a charge. Like yesterday in Omak, WA.

This problem will only get worse, as more Teslas come into service.

2kids10horses | 8 juin 2014

Well, at least they asked!

Also, it would have been nice if they left a phone number so that if a Tesla owner needed a charge, they could be contacted.

windex | 8 juin 2014

So did the one spot not claimed fail to charge?

In Washington State, at least one or two of these spots need to be covered by RCW 46.08.185 at every location, which essentially says that if a sign specifying EV Charging Only is provided and some green paint applied, nobody else can park there even if they get permission.

Not one of the spots is covered with that signage?

Kind of disappointed, I ordered a Model S because I'm in the process of moving back to the U.S. and I'm from Eastern Washington, so that supercharger will be used by me quite a bit since my company's headquarters is in Seattle.

stevenmaifert | 8 juin 2014

All depends on what sort of lease agreement Tesla has with the site owners.

windex | 8 juin 2014

My point is they shouldn't agree to bad leases, especially in places like Ellensburg and Ritzville where they could have probably acquired land for less than the cost of the hardware used to run the site.

info | 8 juin 2014

I have seen Superchargers that you had to back into and those that you pulled in head first. It would seem to me that if you're at one of the head in chargers, you can back your car against the ice car and reach the charge port with the cable. Of course you'll be blocking the ice in. (pity). A note on your windshield with your cell with a message like this might be understood.


Most people who take other people's parking spot do it out of ignorance of the effects it might have. They also realize that they're in the wrong and will respond to a gentle nudge. But there are just some people who are #@$%@&'s.

shop | 8 juin 2014

Call tesla supercharger phone number and complain.

info | 8 juin 2014

Some of the superchargers are shared. I recently stopped at the San Juan Capistrano charger which is located in the Union Bank parking lot. I was surprised to find a sign on the charger which said Parking for Teslas or Union Bank Customers ONLY. The sign does limit the banking parking to 30 minutes.

thranx | 8 juin 2014

info@richardpol; +1; education beats cursing every time.

bevguy | 8 juin 2014

Somde of these problems are due to bad signage. . I was at the Loveless Cafe in Nashville yesterday. The parking lot was crowded but the Blink chargers were not ICED. The spaces were clearly marked as being for electric vehicles only and there was distinctive painting on the tarmac.

Tesla is to blame if they sign contracts that allow for ICE parking even if "temporary" at the Supercharger sites. Even though I dearly want some SC on my travel routes, I would rather Tesla delay them until they can find good sites. A 30 minute limit will be ignored.

Good sites rate not those close to the business door, prime parking. If in a bog parking lot put them a bit further away, the least likely spots to be filled by regular cars. Don't put them to close to heavy population areas which encourage abuse by fellow Tesla owners as well as ICE.

And I agree that while some of the ICE blocking is due to self centered jerks who think rules apply only to others, most of it is due to ignorance or inattention of the drivers. That is where signs help.

jordanrichard | 8 juin 2014

Perhaps it is cheaper/faster to put the SC close to the existing building.

PatT | 8 juin 2014

My guess is that security would be another consideration. Copper thieves might find an unattended supercharger too inviting.

tes-s | 8 juin 2014

Good news you were able to supercharge without a problem.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

Allowing other cars to park there is unacceptable. Tesla shouldn't sign such lease agreements. Once there is a common perception that Tesla stations might be occupied sometimes by other cars it is very difficult to reverse that. Tesla needs to take this problem more seriously.

This is becoming a common issue. There have been many similar topics. Not knowing whether or not you will be able to charge when you arrive there is not good.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

That location is prime space next to a hotel and a very popular bar as well as starbucks and taco del mar. On a saturday night it could be very tough to park at the hotel.

As long as there is an open spot we shouldnt get too exercised. The staff at the hotel are friendly and appreciate tesla... we need to not change that by being angry jerks.

michael1800 | 8 juin 2014

Speculation: if Tesla went only with sites that would allow Tesla vehicles only, we've have half the number of sites and even some of those would be in less ideal places. Rolling out a 'Grand Plan with only ideal locations and conditions' rarely turns out well. Getting them out there is more important, although that priority will change after proliferation. Also, in some areas with parking in public areas, manufacturer-specific parking spots are illegal (and for good reason). Model S numbers are constantly increasing, but the general public isn't going to wisen up automagically. Growing pain incoming. Be vocal, be civil. Just because the problem is happening doesn't mean land owners and Tesla aren't taking it very seriously...that's closer to privileged perspective than any kind of valid logic. Seriously be vocal with sites and Tesla when you can't charge when you need to in order to get to your destination.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

The problem is Tesla's stations appear to be illegal at least in Washington. They don't have the required green pavement markings. They don't have signs telling other cars can't park there even though the regulations require it:

Tesla should never open stations where other cars can park.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

michael1800 +1. teo ~1.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

i cant believe rhe intent of the WA legislature was to force every property owner who installs a charging point to dedicate it to EV only. thats a taking. rather the rational interpretation would be that IF the property owner wants to restrict parking then the state will enforce it.

petero | 8 juin 2014

Further ... I recommend the farthest away locations for superchargers and parking.

As ridiculous as this sounds I do feel SolarCity and Tesla should look into a business plan that would locate superchargers in large gas stations. The stations could probably get lower prices on their electricuty using solar panels, Model Ss can charge and ICE drivers will get to learn something about the wonderful world of EVs.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

the law defines a charging station as a spot whose primary purpose is to charge EVs. by putting up 30 min parking allowed signs, Tesla and the property owners are defining charging as a SECONDARY use. no noncompliance with the law IMHO.

hsadler | 8 juin 2014

Most of us know that there is voltage loss with distance. Therefore it is ideal to place an SC system close to the source. Unfortunately the source in remote areas tends to be the closest bldg.


Red Sage ca us | 8 juin 2014

Teo_ wrote, "Tesla should never open stations where other cars can park."

Please keep in mind that local building/civil code may require a certain specific minimum number of parking spaces be set aside for public parking. Then a certain minimum number of handicapped spaces is required of those, and a certain minimum percentage as handicapped spaces above and beyond that. Even when the regulations regarding parking allow for electric vehicle parking for charging, the other rules take precedence.

In order to have 100% guaranteed exclusive parking for Tesla Motors products alone, the Supercharger location would have to either be: 1) in a place where their available parking spaces were already well over the minimums required; or 2) at a site where the parking lot was purposely expanded specifically to accommodate Tesla cars. So the small lots, with limited spaces to begin with, that are discussed in various ICEing situations really must allow anyone and everyone to park.

A standard rule of thumb in this instance is that if there are less than twenty parking spaces in the entire lot, don't be surprised if a Tesla Supercharger gets ICEd.

As has been stated, this issue will become less prevalent over time, not a bigger problem. Cars will have bigger batteries, longer range. The Supercharger rollout will continue, become more ubiquitous, with better locations chosen as time goes by.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014


The primary purpose clause is an unrelated section that does neither allow or disallow other cars to park. But there are two other sections that define the fines when you park there and the signs that must exist telling you can't park there.

Regulations are written in a way that expect the worst. For example in this case the worst thing would be somebody blocking stations on purpose with the intention of committing a crime. There are vulnerable people who wouldn't be at those stations at 4am but if you can block the stations you could have those people stranded there until that time.

Another purpose of regulations is to avoid conflict. If you think about it, it makes sense. I live in the UK. Gun crime is not a common here. But over there in the US it is. There are so many road rage shootings. You don't want to be in a frustrating situation in a parking lot where there is potential for violence.

Something that makes business sense for Tesla is not necessarily good or safe for the customers. People at Tesla have certainly good intentions when they flex the rules but they are not experts in how to avoid conflicts, violence and road rage etc. That's why there are regulations defining how everything in traffic should work.

Red Sage ca us | 8 juin 2014

petero wrote, "As ridiculous as this sounds I do feel SolarCity and Tesla should look into a business plan that would locate superchargers in large gas stations."

A few things to consider here... Many Tesla Model S owners have commented how much they have come to enjoy never going to gas stations, for anything at all, ever. They especially note how palpable it is when they must fuel an ICE vehicle after months of not doing so seems rather painful. They are put off by the myriad of fumes, from the fuel and exhaust of other vehicles, that is often present at busy gas stations. They really don't like it, and would prefer to avoid that experience for the rest of their lives.

Next, there is the fact that gasoline has been known to ignite from nothing more than the static electricity generated from the vinyl seat of a car on a hot dry day. I'm sure that Tesla Superchargers are immensely safe. But imagine the backlash that would occur if just one fire at a gas station was erroneously tied to the high power electrical output of a Supercharger.

Finally, even I had suggested that Superchargers might be located at truck stops and large gas stations run by companies such as SHEETZ and TA TravelCenters... But given both of the other points I've made here, I've changed my mind. It is better that if at some point either urban/metro or open highway large scale EV filling stations are needed, that they be run by SolarCity or Tesla Motors alone.

Mark22 | 8 juin 2014

I think Tesla is doing a fantastic job and should keep doing it exactly the way they are.
We recently took a trip from MN to CA. We had dozens of SC stops.
At only one were there any spots ICED. That was at Grand Junction, CO on the way out. There were three trucks/SUVs parked in SC spots.
On our return home, we stopped at the same SC. There were no spots ICED. The hotel had put a construction barrel in one of the spots with a sign that read ”electric vehicle charging only, violators will be towed".
I went in and spoke with a clerk and manager. I told them how much I appreciate them taking steps to insure those spots are available for charging.

Of the locations that had signage allowing general parking, these sites had those signs on some of the spots, usually half.
This seems very reasonable to me, especially at infrequently used SCs. As traffic increases I am sure changing that signage will be fairly easy.

This is new territory for all of these businesses. It is important that we be good ambassadors, be clear in our communications, and most of all, support the businesses that have agreed to lease part of their parking lot to Tesla.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

by your reasoning teo if someone put chargers up at evert spot in their lot to avoid arguing, no ice could park there. i dont think the law says that.

kenj | 8 juin 2014


The reality is that the reason that all the charging locations SC or otherwise are in prime spots is because the spaces are closest to the electrical source -- the building.

Most recommendations now for parking is to build in the capacity of EV charging throughout the structure. So the spaces are not the "prime spots" in a lot. Most of us try to park as far as we can from anyone in a lot.

DTsea | 8 juin 2014

By the title maybe the OP is most outraged that the ICE vehicles are SUVs. Why?

Roamer@AZ USA | 8 juin 2014

+2 for the as always brilliant Red Sage.

First; Building codes require specific numbers of spaces. If a building is out of compliance they can't get real estate loans. It may be that the parking signs are mush mouth to protect the building owner from over zealous mindless bureaucrats that would fine them for code violations and lenders that require financed buildings to be In compliance with building codes. People count parking spaces more than you realize. Dedicating spaces for a commercial use would likely remove them from code compliance.

Second; The last place on earth I would want to hangout for 30 minutes to an hour while I charge is a gas station. Super Chargers should be located where you want to spend a little quality time. I have learned to enjoy the breaks at clean nice places.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

I understand all this but let's assume this scenario:

In Washington a woman arrives at a Tesla station at 11:00 pm. All stalls a blocked by a truck. There is a restaurant nearby. She walks in and talks to the people there. They say there aren't many Teslas passing by and the truckers are used to parking there and it is allowed during day time but they don't know the truck is parked there now. She asks what she should do. They say she can wait.

At 1 am the restaurant closes. She gets worried and calls the local police. They say they can't help because it is a grey area regarding the legality. She says, there is a sign that says you can park two hours but she has been already waiting for 2 hours. The caps say if there is sign like that they can't help and she should contact the property owner.

She calls her relatives who are 150 miles away. They say they will come to get her in two hours. When they arrive something very bad has already happened. Who is responsible now?

Compare this to some European countries where you can call a number and they come and tow the blocking vehicle away no matter what.

Here is an example of the green tarmac signs the stations are required to have by law in Washington but don't comply.


After I read the regulations I not too impressed with whoever is in charge of superchargers at Tesla. It would be good if Tesla would at least comply with existing regulations, let alone trying to push for improvements.

Here are some examples showing how the green floor signs could look like. These are from Greenlandmobility from Italy. No other car would think of parking here.

Captain_Zap | 8 juin 2014

Those stations in Ellensburg will be getting busy with summer coming and the mountain passes clear.

Roamer@AZ USA | 8 juin 2014

Teo, I totally agree that spaces " should " be signed and enforced. I also know your typical government zoning bureaucrats would view making spaces dedicated to charging stations as no different than putting a hot dog stand on the space. To zoning compliance people if it's not a public space it doesn't count.

Laws will need to be changed to allow for exclusive use of parking in existing locations that don't have excess parking. No one builds even one parking space more than required by building codes and zoning. Parking spaces cost money and reduce the amount of building foot print that can be built. I suspect the reason signage is vague is more than just being dumb.

Red Sage ca us | 8 juin 2014

Teo: The difference is that those are regulations for Public Chargers, typically those that have J1772 connectors or some other ubiquitous means of connection. Tesla Superchargers are effectively Commercial -- they are free to use (or prepaid) for Tesla Model S owners -- NOT Public. They are at least currently specific to a particular brand of vehicles (until Mercedes-Benz grows a pair).

To be in full compliance with the regulations for public chargers, so they could take advantage of laws for towing, the Tesla Motors locations would have to provide J1772, NEMA plugs, or CHAdeMO connectors in addition to their own proprietary connector. That would lead to you perhaps being blocked by a Nissan Leaf or Toyota Prius C. That is yet another problem that Tesla is looking to avoid.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014


To me it doesn't look like that's the issue. The issue looks more like Tesla making a deal with hosts and offering them the perfect package. The negotiations must have went like this:

Tesla: We do all the construction and maintenance. A separate meter is installed and the bill comes directly to us. Your existing customers can still use the parking spaces. These stations simply provide additional customers to you who otherwise wouldn't arrive at your facilities and there is no downside or any cost to your existing business.

Host: Where do I sign?

Obviously the security aspect is overlooked by Tesla. They thought they will put a sign allowing day time parking, without thinking at all how this would undermine the enforcement of regulations because nobody would even know how or who would fine those cars.

Another issue is, charging at those stations should be your legal right not something other drivers allow you to do as courtesy. Let's say you arrive at a station and there is this Ford pickup truck. The driver says "I'm eating now. I can't be bothered. Go park somewhere else. I don't care". What are you going to do?

In a heated argument like that you either try to defend your rights yourself and risk getting shot by a moron or you don't say anything and embarrass yourself in front of your kids.

It is not like these things don't happen in the US. It happens all the time. It is like the main place in the world where these things happen.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

Red Sage,

Look again what the regulation says:

(2) It is a parking infraction, with a monetary penalty of one hundred twenty-four dollars, for any person to park a vehicle in an electric vehicle charging station provided on public or private property if the vehicle is not connected to the charging equipment. The parking infraction must be processed as prescribed under RCW 3.50.100, 35.20.220, 46.16A.120, and *46.20.270(3).

That description covers Tesla stations. Furthermore, Tesla applies for a license for each station before they build them. There was a timetable graph showing how long the paperwork stage took because they need to get the license.

Suggesting that EV charging station regulations don't apply to Tesla stations until some other brand of cars can use them is not logical.

The following website shows Tesla stations as an example that should comply with Washington state law (RCW 46.08.185). It even breaks it down as bullet points. It mentions Tesla stations and has pictures:

You might say that is some random blog. What do they know? They are not. If you look at the about page, the site is hosted and maintained by Washington State Department of Transportation. It is obvious that Tesla should comply with the law but it doesn't.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

Quote from this page:

The “No Parking Except for Electric Vehicle Charging” (R7-11) sign should be posted in a visible spot adjacent to the space. The red, black and white signs should be 12” wide x 18” tall.”


On the page there is a link that shows a PDF image of the sign Tesla is required by law to display.

I wonder what the Department of Transportation would say in Washington if people complain that Tesla stations don't comply with the law.

Red Sage ca us | 8 juin 2014

You say. "should". I say, "can". Tesla Superchargers can be made to comply with the regulations if operated as public chargers.

Once again, they are not PUBLIC chargers. If they were offered as public chargers, then the parking regulations can be applied for signage and towing. There is nothing that specifies that they must do so.

If Tesla signed a gentleman's agreement with a venue to not tow their Customers if it can be avoided, I'm good with that. So would be a local municipality. Better arrangements can be made later.

TeoTeslaFan | 8 juin 2014

RS you are not reading the pages. Towing and fines are optional. Non-parking sign is not optional. Do you see where it says "may be". This is the term used to make something options.

"Supplementary signs may be posted to provide additional information including the monetary penalty for parking a vehicle in an electric vehicle charging station"

When it says "requires" and "must" this is not optional. This is from the same page that shows pictures of Tesla stations with that sign R7-11.

Washington state law (RCW 46.08.185) requires that EV charging stations are clearly identified with the following:
1. an “EV Charging Station” sign
2. a “No Parking Except for Electric Vehicle Charging” sign
3. green pavement markings

How can you still continue arguing the opposite? There is nothing option about the law. The Ellensburg station is non-compliant. I have written an email to Tesla but I don't know if I will hear back.

If somebody would file a complaint, Tesla would be forced to make changes. The contact info is here:

Washington State Department of Transportation
310 Maple Park Ave. S.E.
PO Box 47395
(360) 705-7023

I would like to hear your argument if Tesla is forced to put that sign.

windex | 9 juin 2014

Tesla's chargers are not private. Just proprietary.

The protections in that law however apply to marked stalls. There is no law saying the stall must be marked I can find. This is similar to how you must post signs AND paint at handicap stalls for a ticket to be valid. What the requires means is that "In order to be subject to this law, the stall is required to be marked such and such way", which is why I suggested 1-2 of them per site should be.

TeoTeslaFan | 9 juin 2014

I found the website of the company who built some of the Tesla stations. There are pictures of the following 5 stations on this page:

Ellensburg (Washington): No parking sign required but doesn't exist.
Centralia (Washington): No parking sign required and exists.
Burlington (North Carolina): No parking sign not required but exists.
Springfield (Oregon): No parking sign not required and doesn't exist.
Woodburn (Oregon): No parking sign not required and doesn't exist.

The following page has links to regulations from different states. Thanks to AmpedRealtor for mentioning this:

Let me summarize with plus and minus signs. The first is requirement. The second is existence.


As you see they would be a perfect match if the signs at Ellensburg and Burlington were swapped. I think ADK mixed up these two locations. They have put a no parking sign to Burlington where there is no such regulation yet.

sbeggs | 9 juin 2014

Posting more details of our Ellensburg experience, now that we're in Portland:

We made it to Ellensburg Supercharger with 25 miles “left in the tank”. We plugged in and charged to 90%, figuring we could top off a few more miles during breakfast the next morning and then go. We then moved the T to the back lot out of courtesy in case more Teslas showed up later that evening and needed a charge.

We rested after our 12 hour drive, thinking over the struggle we had to find a charge point that was open, on the long drive from Canada. Omak and Pateros had been our only 70 amp possibilities and we had to roust someone out or move on.

Awakening Sunday morning, we packed for Portland and moved the T to the front where the Superchargers were. All but one space were ICE'd by WA state Lexus, Toyota, and Cadillac SUVs, making backing in to the one space a difficult proposition given that all other spaces on the other side of the open space were packed, so maneuvering in without scraping them was difficult.

We backed into the one space available and topped off. Went to the front desk to explain that the reason we had booked Holiday Inn was the presence of Supercharging on site. The breakfast lady admitted that the owners of the large vehicles had come into the hotel last night and asked if they could park in those spaces, as the Quality Inn and Holiday Inn parking lots were full (in front, but not in back). She let them park, because she said not too many Teslas had ever used the superchargers.

I told her and the front desk clerk that the signage needed to be changed. Current signs permit parking after 8 p.m. for non-Teslas. Thus under current signage it is permitted for ICE vehicles to park in every space overnight, leaving absolutely no possibility of charging for any Tesla arriving between 8 p.m. and noon the next day. There is a 2 hour parking limit at Ellensburg for Tesla EV charging but only between noon and 8 p.m.

I asked for the manager’s name and card, and told them that it’s a matter of educating people to not park all night blocking somebody’s gas pump, when the next one is 150 miles away. And that by painting the sidewalk in yellow or green stripes, as has been mentioned in this forum, and placing clear signs that make it clear to ICE vehicles that they must leave the spaces free, this problem could be resolved for the busy summer season.

Steve’s speech to him did not focus on education, rather about rights and laws. I did not know the relevant laws, so I thank all of you for helping to clarify WA state law for us.

Because we were at risk of not being able to acquire enough charge to continue our trip, we drove like snails, taking 12 hours to get to Ellensburg. We can never take for granted any charge point being available and not blocked.

tes-s | 9 juin 2014

+1 @Mark. Tesla is doing an outstanding job locating superchargers, putting up site-appropriate signage based on their agreement at each location, and keeping them ICE-free.

There is always room for improvement, but I give them an A. I've supercharged dozens of times, and never had to wait or leave empty - and almost always had a full charger (120kW) available just for me.

Keep 'em coming, Tesla!

TeoTeslaFan | 9 juin 2014


I suggest that you contact these people and file a complaint.

Washington State Department of Transportation
310 Maple Park Ave. S.E.
PO Box 47395
(360) 705-7023

The signage in Ellensburg does not comply with state law even though it is a requirement, not an option to do so. I disagree with the other commentators and I believe Tesla will be forced to put the R7-11 no parking sign.

It is not a matter of education. It is a matter of law. Those signs allowing 2 hour parking are illegal as too.

When providing a public service private companies need to comply with regulations whether they provide a parking space, a charging station or a loo. There is nothing optional about the law.

I would be happy to try to get this fixed for you. However I don't even live in the US. I'm from the UK. So hopefully some of will step up and contact Department of Transportation in Washington and get what is rightfully yours instead of asking permission to charge.

Tesla does have options. They can either open charging stations that comply with the law or they can choose not to open any. They can't customize and allow something the law specifically prohibits.

Suggesting that the law doesn't apply to Tesla stations is comical especially after I have shown a website from Department of Transportation that shows pictures of Tesla stations demonstrating how they comply with the regulations that are explained on the same page.

LEvans | 9 juin 2014

What's the point in going to all that trouble to increase SC stalls all over the country if Tesla does not defend them from being ICE'd? These are private parking areas and the private owner can have whatever regulations they want for their parking spaces. No different from when you pull in to a private parking lot and certain spaces are designated reserved for certain people or companies.

Tesla needs to get in front of this before it becomes the norm to ICE SC stalls. Every SC installation must be painted with clear signage and a towing operator should be assigned to each space so that if a Tesla owner arrives at a space that is ICE's they can call to have the illegally parked vehicle towed.

What's the point in having 6 charging stalls if 4 are ICE's and they don't tow away the illegally parked vehicles. How are Tesla customers who paid access to the SC stalls going to charge when the MX rolls out next year and there are more people with Teslas driving everywhere?

DTsea | 9 juin 2014

So teo maybe you should stop interfering in washington state law enforcement and leave that to us locals then. How about you go help with the ecotricity mess.... in the uk- that would be a real service.

I thought maybe you were a lawyer but if so i would assume british law is not the same as WA state. Red sage is right. Our law just means that if you mark the spot you can have the cops enforce it. It doesnt force you to dedicate the spot. That would strongly disincentivize provision of chargers.

I have used the ellensburg SC several times without a problem. Even the OP DID get to charge TWICE.

TeoTeslaFan | 9 juin 2014

WEB_SRFR said: "These are private parking areas and the private owner can have whatever regulations they want for their parking spaces."

That's not true. Washington State Law includes private property:

"(2) It is a parking infraction, with a monetary penalty of one hundred twenty-four dollars, for any person to park a vehicle in an electric vehicle charging station provided on public or private property"

That detail is not so important and I agree with your main argument. I think Tesla should build stations on their own land with enough space to expand in the future.

DT, I think Elon has the ecotricity issue covered. He doesn't need my help.

My understanding about the superchargers in WA is different. I think it will be fixed once somebody complains.

Rocky_H | 9 juin 2014

Teo, I feel your pain. I would have expected better in this forum, but I am surprised at how many people here who are continuing to ignore what the actual text of the law says and continue to argue that their own opinion, contrary to the law, is correct.

DTsea, WEB_SRFR, and Red Sage have all done it in this thread.

It says "public or private", so stop this nonsense about how the law doesn't apply to private spaces.

It does say that these spots with charging stations must have the no parking signage, so stop saying that it's not required or that the law only applies IF that signage is there.

Good grief. The text in that law isn't dense legalese; it's relatively simple, so the reading comprehension of it should not be that hard. I think this is more a case of not wanting to believe it so therefore dismissing it, rather than failing to understand.

DTsea | 9 juin 2014

Rocky do you LIVE in washington state???? I do. And my private charging station in my garage is not painted green and no troopers come to ticket me if i am not chatging there.

Sheesh! My legislature passed this law so a property owner COULD get enforcement on ICEing not to FORCE them to do so.

Captain_Zap | 9 juin 2014

The officers can't ticket unless it is marked properly. Those spots must be painted green in the Evergreen State.

Captain_Zap | 9 juin 2014


Public and private places were well defined in Washington State when they outlawed smoking in restaurants and near entrances to buildings.

If the public has access it is defined as a "public" in Washington State. Only private clubs with private memberships can allow smoking on the premises.