A different idea for limiting SC

[sorka]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I was thinking about the limits being placed on Supercharging. Totally makes sense to reduce congestion, but I feel like the wrong metric is being used. Providing 400kwh / year (1,000 miles) may be generous, but that may really only be one or two trips. For example, I live in Boston. I recently went to a friend's wedding in Rochester NY. Door-to-door was 375 miles. Let's say I left my house in a S 70D. I probably could get to Utica before a charge stop. So at that point I'd be charging on the Supercharge Network. I'd probably need 1-2 more charges to get home (or at a destination charger). So let's say I've tapped into 180kwh on this trip (medium/long range), I'd probably only be able to take one and a half more "free" trips.

But what if rather than capping total network consumption, it was just initial network consumption? So let's say the first visit of a trip hits your limit, but if you fill up at another supercharger x number of miles away within the next 24 hours it's not counted toward your total. That way you could continue to cross the country on your trip and you're not causing congestion at any single charger (the fear attempting to be alleviated).

Surely, if they can make a neural network smart enough to drive the car, they could figure out an algorithm for this.

I'm not complaining, it's still cheaper than the 6 tanks of gas I actually used on my round trip to Rochester. Just thinking of another alternative.

They should apply that algorithm to existing free for life supercharging tesla.

 

[Canuck]

Supercharging was never free - in each car sold with supercharging capability, Tesla included a portion of the purchase cost to cover the supercharger network - both for installing/upgrading superchargers and for electricity use over the life of the car.

True but for orders on and after January 1, 2017 it's highly unlikely we will see a price drop. So a vehicle ordered December 31 will have free supercharging compared to an identically priced one ordered January 1, 2017.

 

[whitex]

I reckon about 1000kwh is a better allowance. Would still stop local charging, because 5000km (3000 miles) is still only a fraction of normal annual use, but would make road trips easier.

Giving people yearly allowance is just as bad or worse as free, especially if that credit expires. You'll end up with people lined up a local superchargers to use up their free charging before it expires. Possibly a better solution would to make it all paid, but include a charging credit included with the new car. For example the car could come with 1000KWh credit for electricity which never expires, then additional credit can be purchased as needed.

 

[Shock-On-T]

You forgot to add "...and I am willing to pay more for the car to make up for that."

Thank you kindly.

Didn't forget, just decided to spare the general readership the nuisance of stating the obvious.

Any cost saving Tesla will make has to be balanced against any reduction in the appeal of their product. Tesla has so far had good results with a high-cost high-appeal product.

An allowance of either 400 or 1000kWh would be similarly restrictive to local charging, but 1000kWh would let true road-trippers to retain the original appeal of free long distance travel.

A local charger doing 20,000 miles/yr uses about 6000kWh and occupies a stall for 75 hours.
If the allowance was 1000kWh this person will have to make other plans from March to December, and would only occupy a stall for 15 hours.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Giving people yearly allowance is just as bad or worse as free, especially if that credit expires. You'll end up with people lined up a local superchargers to use up their free charging before it expires. Possibly a better solution would to make it all paid, but include a charging credit included with the new car. For example the car could come with 1000KWh credit for electricity which never expires, then additional credit can be purchased as needed.

That's an interesting point about rushing to use expiring credits. Perhaps allow the credits to accumulate, so that you can them in the bank for a long road trip?

 

[whitex]

True but for orders on and after January 1, 2017 it's highly unlikely we will see a price drop. So a vehicle ordered December 31 will have free supercharging compared to an identically priced one ordered January 1, 2017.

It won't be quite the same as before since the old $2000 price included enabling DC charging hardware (used to charge from ChaDeMo for example) which I would assume will still come enabled on 2017+ cars. Other than that, just treat it like another price increase (no different than base model price increase last week), though in this case it's opportunistic - Tesla needed to do something to curb local charging, so why not make some money while at it (some of which will likely get used up to create, maintain and operate all of the infrastructure to manage charging credits).

 

[Topher]

Didn't forget, just decided to spare the general readership the nuisance of stating the obvious.

Nothing is obvious in this conversation...

It seems that everyone wants the level of 'free' charging that they personally would use. Large users want unlimited, medium users want a middle level of 'free'-ness, people who expect to charge only at home want to pay nothing for 'free' charging that they won't use. I don't see how any of those groups has any arguments other than 'I want others to subsidize my driving.'

But good ahead, prove me wrong, explain how we would all benefit from having 600 kWh of additional yearly usage tacked on, with a car price increase equal to the per kWh cost we would otherwise pay in Tesla's plan (let's call it $0.12/kWh * 600 kWh * 15 years = $1080).

Thank you kindly.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Nothing is obvious in this conversation...

It seems that everyone wants the level of 'free' charging that they personally would use. Large users want unlimited, medium users want a middle level of 'free'-ness, people who expect to charge only at home want to pay nothing for 'free' charging that they won't use. I don't see how any of those groups has any arguments other than 'I want others to subsidize my driving.'

But good ahead, prove me wrong, explain how we would all benefit from having 600 kWh of additional yearly usage tacked on, with a car price increase equal to the per kWh cost we would otherwise pay in Tesla's plan (let's call it $0.12/kWh * 600 kWh * 15 years = $1080).

Thank you kindly.

The same way we all benefit from the first 400kWh of allowance: it adds to the appeal and desirability of the car.

Not everyone will benefit from that cost, but then again not everyone benefits from the back seat but they still had to pay for it.

The goal of the allowance is to prevent abuse by local charging. The superchargers are not congested by people on their family vacation.

 

[Patrick0101]

I like the new plan. People become irrational when 'free' as involved. Limited free is a good compromise. We had free charging at my work and it was getting abused. My employer had two options, install 4 times more free stations or start charging a fee. They went with option B. The price is low (a little cheaper than home electricity) but now people that can charge at home generally do, rather than blocking the stations from the people that really need them for long commutes. It seems that free was too good to pass up, but a 20% discount is not worth their time.

As for the new program, if Tesla really wanted to complicate things they would do a combination demand-response and surge pricing. This would help move traffic to the less utilized SCs and it would help time-shift electricity use to hours when there is less demand on the grid. I don't think they _should_ do this, just pointing out that they could and would even have good reasons to do so.

A much simpler (more likely) system would be to mirror the local residential electricity rate.

I believe we need to clarify, that 400 kWh/year is for local SC access, while long distance SC will remain free.

I listened to shareholder meeting too. I took the reply to mean that the 400 kWh/year is intended for (but not necessarily restricted to) long distance travel. These 400kWh were the "free long distance." I guess we won't know the facts until the program is officially launched.

Tesla has a lot of data on the charging patterns of their vehicles. I am sure they picked the 400 kWh number to include the bulk of drivers such as two standard deviations (~95% percent). Outliers like Tesloop and other road warriors are out of luck.

Based on our current driving patterns, we'll charge primarily at home and I expect that we will use less than 200 kWh of SC per year. On the road trips that we take, we'll be leaving the house with a full charge and if we plan it right, we'll have destination charging to fill us up for the way home. I can drive from Seattle to Portland on a single charge. So with destination charging, I would not need a SC stop for that one at all.

 

[Topher]

The same way we all benefit from the first 400kWh of allowance: it adds to the appeal and desirability of the car.

Not at $1080, it doesn't. It adds to the appeal, TO YOU.

Not everyone will benefit from that cost, but then again not everyone benefits from the back seat but they still had to pay for it.

So nothing should be optional? How do you differentiate?

The goal of the allowance is to prevent abuse by local charging.

Which, of course, it can't do. Removing unlimited charging prevents local charging abuse.[/quote]

[quote[The superchargers are not congested by people on their family vacation.[/QUOTE]

Sure they are. Want to bet that the past few days weren't huge Supercharging days? That there weren't some Superchargers where there were waiting lines?

Thank you kindly.

 

[bob_p]

A couple of possibilities for how Tesla could implement the supercharger charges.

The 400Kwh credits should not expire. Each owner should have an account with Tesla, which is credited 400Kwh of charging when the car is purchased, and on the anniversary of that purchase. Any unused credits should rollover in the account. By issuing the credit on the anniversary of the car purchase, that spreads the credits out over the year, so that you don't get a burst of "free" charging at the beginning or end of a calendar year. Plus, by rolling the credits over, owners can save up the credit - if they take long road trips every few years.

After the 400Kwh credit is used, Tesla should also consider charging to encourage drivers to only take the amount of charge they need, at the fastest possible charging rates, maximizing utilization of the chargers. They could increase the amount of $$ charged when a car is charged above 80 or 90%, when charging slows down considerably - since charging up to 100% can take a very, very long time.

While part of Tesla's intention for this new program is to generate enough revenue to cover their actual costs for the SC network, which are evidently higher than their earlier projections, they are likely also trying to encourage owners to use the SC network more responsibly and help increase the efficiency of the network.

Local charging is different than long distance charging. On road trips, charging is typically done to reach the next charger or destination, while local charging (like overnight charging) is typically done to a specific charge level (usually 90%). And because it takes longer to go from 80-90%, Tesla could implement a charging structure that would try to encourage local chargers to find alternative charging options by charging more for "topping off".

If Tesla doesn't accept orders for 100Ds until January, depending upon how Tesla implements this new program, it could impact our purchase decision.

 

[rw86347]

When I first bought my leaf I needed to recharge. Fortunately that city had free chargers at the Rec center. Unfortunately it was taken by a Tesla owner who was inside working out. He was thinking if it is free why not, but I was in need of a charger. It was at that point that I realized free doesn't work.

 

[whitex]

When I first bought my leaf I needed to recharge. Fortunately that city had free chargers at the Rec center. Unfortunately it was taken by a Tesla owner who was inside working out. He was thinking if it is free why not, but I was in need of a charger. It was at that point that I realized free doesn't work.

How did you know for sure he didn't need a charge and either planned it so he can charge while working out (or even went elsewhere)? I've done this once or twice, charged at work free charger because I knew I had more driving to do later that day than my full charge would allow. I don't usually charge there because I don't need it, on those couple of occasions I did need it though. Also, you said chargers, was the Tesla owner parked across all of them?

 

[Tabarnouche]

Perhaps they should charge per minute rather than per kwh. That would encourage people to charge for only what they need and then quickly liberate the spot for others. If your battery is almost empty and your 20 minute charge nets you 60kwh, you would be charged the same as for someone spending 20 minutes trying to squeak out 10kwh with an almost-full battery. Also, if someone's battery is full and they can't be bothered to unplug and move their car, they should continue to be charged per minute even for the time they're not charging.

 

[whitex]

Perhaps they should charge per minute rather than per kwh. That would encourage people to charge for only what they need and then quickly liberate the spot for others. If your battery is almost empty and your 20 minute charge nets you 60kwh, you would be charged the same as for someone spending 20 minutes trying to squeak out 10kwh with an almost-full battery. Also, if someone's battery is full and they can't be bothered to unplug and move their car, they should continue to be charged per minute even for the time they're not charging.

Charging purely per minute would only be feasible if the SC can in fact provide full charge rate 100% of the time, which is not the case. The charge rate varies depending on grid condition and on how many other cars are charging, especially if there is another car on the same shared pair charger.

 

[brkaus]

Charging purely per minute would only be feasible if the SC can in fact provide full charge rate 100% of the time, which is not the case. The charge rate varies depending on grid condition and on how many other cars are charging, especially if there is another car on the same shared pair charger.

It would still be fine if a low enough rate was charged. IMHO.

 

[whitex]

It would still be fine if a low enough rate was charged. IMHO.

If you make it low enough that people don't care to pay 2x or 3x only because someone else is charging at the same time, then by the same reason they will not care to leave the car plugged in after it's charged. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Isn't there also an issue in some states that won't allow Tesla to sell electricity because they're not a regulated utility? Doesn't ChargePoint have to charge by the minute in these states?

Unless of course with the SolarCity acquisition they count as a power utility and then the point is moot. Maybe that's a hidden reason why the wanted to merge?

 

[Patrick0101]

Isn't there also an issue in some states that won't allow Tesla to sell electricity because they're not a regulated utility? Doesn't ChargePoint have to charge by the minute in these states? Unless of course with the SolarCity acquisition they count as a power utility and then the point is moot. Maybe that's a hidden reason why the wanted to merge?

You are correct, selling power (by the kWh) is something, generally, that only regulated utilities can do. Some states (CA, OR, maybe others) have made exceptions for EVSEs. Even with the SolarCity acquisition, Tesla would not have utility status in all 50 states. I think SolarCity is only in 14 states + D.C. So either, they will get utility status in the non-exception, non-SolarCity states, or they will find another way to access the fee (such as by the minute or connect fee) in those states.

 

[Patrick0101]

Tesla introduces $0.40/minute idle fee for Superchargers to incentivise owners to move when charging is over