An Update to our Supercharging Program

[Merrill]

As has been said, they need this to keep the system viable. When the Model 3 rolls out you will have a very large increase in deliveries and I hope this additional money is used to increase the supercharger network. Now they need to figure out how to keep up with the servicing of the car, more service centers are needed now.

 

[Electroman]

Hold On. Isn't there a rule that if you are not a utility or EV Charging company (aka Blink, Charge Point) you cannot charge for electricity?

 

[Drucifer]

I think this is great news. I don't want to wait for locals/taxis/perpetual users at superchargers. Having things be "fair" is more important than having the "free unlimited buffet", IMHO. Time is money.

 

[brantse]

If Tesla needs to stop abuse of local supercharging, & I agree they SHOULD, geo-fence the owners home, and only permit free supercharging OUTSIDE of a 200 mile radius.

I don't agree with this on principle, but 200 miles would be insane. My 60 can't go 200 miles, so I'd never be able to go anywhere. Most supercharger legs are <130 miles.

 

[David29]

This was inevitable, both because of over-crowding at some Superchargers and because Tesla needs to get itself onto a firm financial footing to survive. And I am glad that, for once, they announced it before it goes into effect, so people have tome to get used to the idea and maybe order a car now if they wish.
It does not affect me now, but once my current lease is up and I face the choice of what to do next, it will.
I agree that 400 KWH is fairly small. For a 70D, it is about 1,370 miles at the EPA rated consumption rate, so realistically it is 1300 miles or less for most models under most conditions. Enough for a round trip from Boston to Washington, DC, with a bit left over for sightseeing and so on.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" (or a free kwh)....

 

[David29]

Hold On. Isn't there a rule that if you are not a utility or EV Charging company (aka Blink, Charge Point) you cannot charge for electricity?

That is an interesting point, but it likely depends upon the jurisdiction. In Massachusetts, e.g., there was a law along those lines, but it was changed a couple of years ago so that property owners can and do charge people to use EV chargers in parking garages, malls, etc. I suppose there may be some places where that will affect Tesla's ability to charge for the SC use.

 

[Max*]

Enough for a round trip from Boston to Washington, DC

It's more than that. You charge to 100% at home, and if possible you charge at your destination (assuming it's more than a day trip).

So even if you charge to 100% at home, and don't do any destination charging, you're still at 1,370 + 240 = 1,610 miles.

 

[Owner]

Potential impacts :

Good:
1. Help prevent clogged superchargers
2. Shift travelers to destination chargers
3. Encourage more use of paid public chargers that support all electric vehicles
4. Increase the value of early VIN to 2016 vehicles
5. Make supercharging financially sustainable
6. Encourage more employers to set up chargers and existing ones to add even more.

Bad:
1. May deter renters on tight budgets buying Model 3s

 

[Saghost]

I think everyone knew this was coming for the M3, but so soon for the S/X is a bit startling. The S/X keep getting more and more expensive. Soon they (S/X) will only be for the well off to buy. Sad, sort of...

I'm guessing we'll be seeing a price drop after the first, or at least a feature content increase for minimal cost like the 70D changeover was, as Tesla takes out the money that was in the car for unlimited Supercharging.

 

[Festerfeet]

I did not say it sucks in general, just for the few owners who are not able to charge at home.
In general I welcome the idea as I know from others in more "Tesla congested" areas, it has become a problem.
And again, I think 400 kWh is a bit stingy, as someone else mentioned.

AS Tesla ownership expands to a wider geographical and financial demographic, there will be a a greater proportion of of owners that cannot charge at home. They will need increased charging infrastructure and Tesla has just announced a way to fund it.

They didn't have that before now so it definitely doesn't suck now, it won't suck in the future once it is built out, there may be a short time when supply doesn't meet demand but at least there is now a way to solve that problem.

Why is 400kWh stingy? It is enough to show the benefits of supercharging and I doubt that Tesla will gouge on price for paid supercharging.

 

[Electroman]

I don't agree with this on principle, but 200 miles would be insane. My 60 can't go 200 miles, so I'd never be able to go anywhere. Most supercharger legs are <130 miles.

So sorry to hear that you won't do anything unless it is given to you for free. I think you are stuck in your home now. I agree, who will spend $10 to get their Tesla out of their homes to a supercharger that is 200 miles away. That is insane.

In any case geo-fencing is not there, which makes your life even more miserable after the first 1000 miles.

 

[Max*]

I doubt that Tesla will gouge on price for paid supercharging.

Because the "we're not building service centers to be profit centers" are not gouging you on $500 wiper blades and key fob batteries? Right.

 

[stevej119]

Sorry...add brain dead to bitchy and pouty. I've got a M3 reservation and as soon as my lease is up I was planning to get a shiny new MX (if not before).

The Model III was never going to have free supercharging and I never understood why anyone assumed they would. I am extremely pleased that it's going to be "pay as you go" instead of a $2,000 up front fee for Supercharging as was the case with the original 60kwh Model S. Unless you're using Superchargers exclusively instead of charging at home, it would take a long, long time, if ever, to break even on $2,000 paid to use Superchargers. Now, instead of paying a huge fee at time of purchase so you can take the occasional road trip, you can pay only when you need it.

Let's be honest, though. Tesla's cost comparison is always to relatively low mpg cars at high gas prices. Sure, I save a ton of money in my Model S compared to a luxury car using premium gas and getting 20mpg, but that's not what I was driving. I was getting 46mpg on my 190 mile daily commute in my Ford Fusion hybrid. My Model S, though, will last a lot longer and I've virtually eliminated my carbon footprint as I generate more power with solar than my car uses. From a strictly economic standpoint, even with the 40k+ miles I drive each year the Fusion would have been less expensive, but it's not always about the money. I didn't want to wait (purchased first Model S in 2014) another four years to stop using gasoline and reduce emissions while driving to zero. I also understood, as many of us have, that part of the price we're paying for S's and X's is to ensure that there will be a III. The Model III will absolutely be far more economical to buy/operate than any gas car for a commute like mine, or even one much shorter.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

How can you say this is nice? 400kWh is a very limited amount, this is a step back in every way

It's simply admitting failure on the all-you-can-eat option. The cheat:sucker* ratio was obviously too high, and they don't want to try to get parking enforced. I'm disappointed but not surprised.

400kWh is more than enough to allow people to use it to test, for irregular use or for an emergency.

One condition I'd hope for is that they'll allow you free use on pick-up day. I'd probably need to Supercharge on the way home.

The more important question is not fully answered yet: how much per kWh? My hope is that Tesla will be true to their word and price by location to keep the cheats away

* Not intended as insults. It's a reference to cheat, sucker and grudger in evolutionary theory.

 

[abasile]

If Tesla needs to stop abuse of local supercharging, & I agree they SHOULD, geo-fence the owners home, and only permit free supercharging OUTSIDE of a 200 mile radius.

That's just too arbitrary. What if you're on your way home from a long trip, still have 50 miles to go, and need to charge? One could come up with plenty of arguably "legitimate" uses of "local" Superchargers. Tesla doesn't need to be the arbiter of this.

Tesla's approach is both simple and fair. Every buyer will be given exactly the same benefits.

 

[Sandman1962]

I'm smiling for two reasons.
One is that this move was likely necessary for a sustainable supercharging solution going forward. And I hope the future is EV.
Second, and this is selfish, having grandfathered the free unlimited supercharging, I have a sense of extra freedom to go wherever without spending a few bucks on charging. I know it isn't that much money, but maybe it is my mom's voice telling me to save money, no matter how little!

 

[Cloxxki]

Exactly what I expected, although the 400kW limit is nice twist.

Yes, AP2.0 cars sold this year could be the unicorns of the future. Free SuC, AND the option to become fully autonomous. These (few) cars will be the milking cows for entrepreneurs aorund 2020. They'll be VERY price stable. Luckily for Tesla, they'll keep this "lucky bastards" fleet to a minimum. Say, 20,000 cars?

It's a good thing.
But I hope they'll also lower prices again after Jan 1st. Surely the $2K extra for the 60 was to cover off this upcoming news?

Also, stating that charging will be cheaper than running on petrol, may become a difficult thing to make true. Oil prices could drop, especially as Tesla's desire for competent competition is satisfied.
But, until then it also opens a room of opportunity to become a profitable energy reseller. Even at +50% private rates, it's still a good deal. And they'd likely get decent deals on wholesale energy, even 100% renewably sourced. Good on Tesla. They invested in the SuC network, and now they can milk it, at least for cars yet to be built. And those cars will only use it when home charging is not an option. The additional cost should prevent this. It will take a while, but eventually there will be more profits from reselling energy than cost for serving older cars with unlimited SuC.
For once, the early adopters are rewarded rather than invited to pay the development cost of cheaper cars yet to be sold.

 

[CmdrThor]

Hold On. Isn't there a rule that if you are not a utility or EV Charging company (aka Blink, Charge Point) you cannot charge for electricity?

It varies by state, but yes in many states only the regulated monopoly utility can sell electricity by the kWh. In the announcement Tesla specifies the charges for Supercharging will be incremental, suggesting they are going to sell you buckets of kWhs. I do believe they are going to meet some resistance on this in many states. Here is the price structure for Blink for example:

State Blink Member Blink Guest
California $0.49/kWh $0.59/kWh
Colorado $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
District of Columbia $0.45/kWh $0.55/kWh
Florida $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Hawaii $0.69/kWh $0.79/kWh
Illinois $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Maryland $0.45/kWh $0.55/kWh
Massachusetts $0.49/kWh $0.59/kWh
Minnesota $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
New York $0.49/kWh $0.59/kWh
Oregon $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Pennsylvania $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Utah $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Virginia $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
Washington $0.39/kWh $0.49/kWh
All Other States $0.04/min $0.06/min

 

[MrJones390]

There's going to be such an incredible flood of Model 3's that I'm not sure this along with building out the infrastructure will be enough. Really hope I'm wrong.

My Supercharger experiences (mostly Mohave, Inyokern, Lone Pine, Mammoth) have been SO nice, peaceful, uncrowded and I hope they never change!

 

[Festerfeet]

Because the "we're not building service centers to be profit centers" are not gouging you on $500 wiper blades and key fob batteries? Right.

No, because if they did there would be too much room for competing networks and Tesla would never have the capital to build out the network without having to increase the profit margin and therefore the cost of the Model 3.