California Supercharging cost goes up by 20%

[Mockingbird]

That assumes that you can find a working EA outlet.

Kyle Corners from Out of Spec Motoring has driven across the country on multiple occasions, mostly charging at Electrify America's charging stations.

The problems are overblown and perpetuated by the usual characters on social media who stand to benefit financially.

 

[Mockingbird]

Per PlugShare, there are not many CCS fast chargers in South Dakota or Wyoming, yet.

In South Dakota, there is currently one opened Electrify America charging station and one under construction. (...and 1 free Red E Charge 50 kW charging station)

In Wyoming, this is currently two opened Electrify America charging stations and three more under construction.

 

[densum87]

Per PlugShare, there are not many CCS fast chargers in South Dakota or Wyoming, yet.

I also travel to Colorado but the point is that I would like another option if Tesla is going to continue to raise the prices. I remember the good days when a trip from Rapid City to Fort Collins and back cost me ~$20...

 

[FlatSix911]

This is incorrect. I live in rural American and travel through South Dakota and Wyoming frequently. What used to cost .28/min is now now nearly a 1.00/minute. I cannot wait for a CCS adaptor as Electrify America only costs .35/minute. The costs from Tesla at super chargers is outrageous.

Wow, those SC prices $0.88/$0.99 are high... what time of day were you charging?

 

[Mockingbird]

This is incorrect. I live in rural American and travel through South Dakota and Wyoming frequently. What used to cost .28/min is now now nearly a 1.00/minute. I cannot wait for a CCS adaptor as Electrify America only costs .35/minute. The costs from Tesla at super chargers is outrageous.

Electrify America is $0.24/min with Pass+ in South Dakota and Wyoming.

 

[STS-134]

They need to stop quoting pricing by the minute and having these idiotic tiers based on how fast your vehicle is charging which makes it difficult to calculate exactly how much it costs to go a certain distance given your Wh/mi.

They should instead define the cost per minute as = (target cost in ¢/kWh)*(average power consumed over that minute in kW)*(1 hour/60 minutes). The kW's cancel and the hours cancel and you are left with a cost/minute, calculated based on the average power used over each minute, evaluated once per minute. And this makes things easy to calculate.

 

[densum87]

Wow, those SC prices $0.88/$0.99 are high... what time of day were you charging?

View attachment 807111

Gillette was probably around 5pm and Spearfish around 6-630pm. These prices are an increases to a previous increase. I was in Gillette in January and April 3rd and charging was at 0.78/min. Wyoming and South Dakota’s electric rates are not out of the ordinary.

 

[densum87]

Electrify America is $0.24/min with Pass+ in South Dakota and Wyoming.

Superchargers used to cost even less than this but it wasn’t long ago 0.24/min was the normal price. I always thought charging per Kw/h was way more expensive than per minute.

 

[densum87]

If you really want one now you can buy it from a Forwarding Service in Korea. I bought one last week and it works great.

Harumio - Korea Forwarding Service

Harumio - Korea Forwarding Service Buy anything from Korea with the cheapest fees and shipped to you wherever you are.

www.harum.io

More details in the South Korea CCS1 thread. CCS1 Tesla Adapter

Thank you!! I told the wife and she agree's that we need to get one. Her 2020 Model Y has the CCs chip installed but my 2018 Model 3 does not. Has anyone had the CCS chip installed on their older Tesla in order to take advantage of this?

 

[stopcrazypp]

They need to stop quoting pricing by the minute and having these idiotic tiers based on how fast your vehicle is charging which makes it difficult to calculate exactly how much it costs to go a certain distance given your Wh/mi.

They should instead define the cost per minute as = (target cost in ¢/kWh)*(average power consumed over that minute in kW)*(1 hour/60 minutes). The kW's cancel and the hours cancel and you are left with a cost/minute, calculated based on the average power used over each minute, evaluated once per minute. And this makes things easy to calculate.

Any attempt to emulate a $/kWh price will likely be frowned upon by states that do not allow charge providers to charge by the unit. If you want that you should lobby your state to make changes to the law to allow $/kWh billing.

 

[STS-134]

Any attempt to emulate a $/kWh price will likely be frowned upon by states that do not allow charge providers to charge by the unit.

You've got to be kidding. That's what Tesla is already doing, by having 3 or 4 different charging tiers, isn't it? Except it's done in a manner that is far more confusing for the consumer than defining the per minute price in terms of kW power and a target price per kWh and evaluating per minute. I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to be sympathetic to the state's attorney general (if he or she even wants to pursue the case). And public opinion is going to fall strongly on the side of transparency.

Tesla's already pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with in terms of "full self driving" and a lot of other regulations (like allowing gaming on the front display while the car is driving and allowing the boombox to play whatever sounds the driver wants it to while the vehicle is moving). This, by comparison, would be FAR less controversial.

There is no difference legally between having 3-4 charging tiers vs. having 250 tiers (1kW all the way up to 250kW, taken from average power rounded to the nearest kW) evaluated once per minute or even once per second. As long as the bill shows a table with average power, cost per minute at that tier, and number of minutes spent at that tier, everything is good. It would make the bills a bit longer but Tesla doesn't send paper bills anyway. The first thing the lawyers would ask is: how many tiers can there be, and how short can the evaluation period be, before this becomes unacceptable? Oh wait, that's not in the law? Well then, there is no difference between 3 tiers/once per minute and 250 tiers/once per second or even 25000 tiers/once per nanosecond.

If you want that you should lobby your state to make changes to the law to allow $/kWh billing.

My state (California) already allows billing by kWh, and already requires it for any new AC EVSE installed today. Starting next year, kWh billing will be required for all new DC fast chargers. But if I were to drive into a state like South Dakota or Wyoming, I shouldn't have to get out the calculator and do 3-4 different complex calculations to figure out how much it's going to cost to go a certain distance.

I think Tesla should push a software update that shows everyone how stupid billing by the minute is and forces EA and others to change their billing. It would work like this: limit the maximum DC charging power, and an option to shut down once the battery can no longer take that much power. EA for example charges according to the maximum power the car says it can take, and has two tiers: 1-90kW and 91-150kW. So you first tell the car to shut down the moment the battery cannot take at least 150kW (do not ever allow the power to go under 150kW). Then you tell the car to advertise a maximum of 90kW and to shut down the moment the battery cannot take at least 90kW, unplug the vehicle, and plug it back in, such that it runs at exactly 90kW until it cannot do so any longer. Since EA has set these prices assuming that cars will spend a significant amount of time charging at less than the rates in their tier, EA will start losing money. Even worse, the time each vehicle spends at the charger will be longer because it will be holding back in order to get the benefit of always operating at the highest power in its tier. The only solution is to have lots of tiers based on average power drawn and evaluate frequently. In other words, per minute billing that emulates billing by kWh, at which point it becomes impossible to game the system.

 

[zecar]

That is not an acceptable alternative to the company who provides it not providing it in the region you want to use it in. Furthermore they can disable CCS charging via software at any time.

Why would Tesla enable CCS1 charging for North America and then disable it when used?

The CCS1 adapter sold in S Korea is clearly made for the North American market

 

[stopcrazypp]

You've got to be kidding. That's what Tesla is already doing, by having 3 or 4 different charging tiers, isn't it? Except it's done in a manner that is far more confusing for the consumer than defining the per minute price in terms of kW power and a target price per kWh and evaluating per minute. I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to be sympathetic to the state's attorney general (if he or she even wants to pursue the case). And public opinion is going to fall strongly on the side of transparency.

The difference is there is no direct formula being applied that directly ties $ to kWh. The scheme you are suggesting however does do that.

Tesla's already pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with in terms of "full self driving" and a lot of other regulations (like allowing gaming on the front display while the car is driving and allowing the boombox to play whatever sounds the driver wants it to while the vehicle is moving). This, by comparison, would be FAR less controversial.

There is no difference legally between having 3-4 charging tiers vs. having 250 tiers (1kW all the way up to 250kW, taken from average power rounded to the nearest kW) evaluated once per minute or even once per second. As long as the bill shows a table with average power, cost per minute at that tier, and number of minutes spent at that tier, everything is good. It would make the bills a bit longer but Tesla doesn't send paper bills anyway. The first thing the lawyers would ask is: how many tiers can there be, and how short can the evaluation period be, before this becomes unacceptable? Oh wait, that's not in the law? Well then, there is no difference between 3 tiers/once per minute and 250 tiers/once per second or even 25000 tiers/once per nanosecond.

If they do a tier system with 250 levels they must post the pricing as such (all 250 levels). They would not be allowed to post anything that suggests a $/kWh pricing, so there would be no simple way to post this. And tier system with that many levels would be very unwieldy. That is the major difference. Probably 3-4 tiers is the limit to the tiers that a consumer would be able to deal with.

The current 4 tier breakdown emulates the charger progression:
Tier 1 0-60kW emulates the 70kW urban chargers
Tier 2 60-100kW emulates the original V1s (which launched with 100kW)
Tier 3 100-180kW emulates the V2s (which went up to 150kW)
Tier 4 180+kW emulates the V3s (up to 250 kW)

My state (California) already allows billing by kWh, and already requires it for any new AC EVSE installed today. Starting next year, kWh billing will be required for all new DC fast chargers. But if I were to drive into a state like South Dakota or Wyoming, I shouldn't have to get out the calculator and do 3-4 different complex calculations to figure out how much it's going to cost to go a certain distance.

Unfortunately that is the way with per-minute charging. It wasn't designed for easy calculation based on kWh.

 

[LoudMusic]

Why would Tesla enable CCS1 charging for North America and then disable it when used?

The CCS1 adapter sold in S Korea is clearly made for the North American market

They have enabled and disabled features before. Radar is an example. Different levels of regen is another. They could disabled CCS charging whenever they want to in order to force millions of customers to use their charging locations. I'm not saying they would, but they most certainly could.

How is it so clearly made for the North American market if they're not selling it here and have been selling it South Korea for nearly a year now? I do think they will eventually sell it here, but I believe it was more intended as a quick way to get more Teslas on the road in SK where Tesla's biggest legitimate competitor is located. If their own population are buying Teslas instead of Hyundias or Kias it would put a major cramp on the development of EVs from those companies. And the adapter for CCS is easier to roll out than entire charging stations. And it just happens we have the same electrical infrastructure that they do.

I don't understand why people have a blind trust of a company that's doing everything it can to take their money.

 

[STS-134]

The difference is there is no direct formula being applied that directly ties $ to kWh. The scheme you are suggesting however does do that.

Not exactly. They publish a table of say 25 or 250 different tiered rates, and have a note that says how they came up with the pricing for each tier.

If they do a tier system with 250 levels they must post the pricing as such (all 250 levels). They would not be allowed to post anything that suggests a $/kWh pricing, so there would be no simple way to post this.

Where is the statute that specifically says it's illegal to "suggest" kWh pricing? I don't think I've ever seen one. And they can post all 250 levels either in the app, on the screen in the car, or on the display at the charger (if it's EA or Chargepoint).

And tier system with that many levels would be very unwieldy. That is the major difference. Probably 3-4 tiers is the limit to the tiers that a consumer would be able to deal with.

All they have to do is post something like this (it's very easy to generate in Excel or any other spreadsheet):

*These prices were generated by targeting a rate of approximately 43¢/kWh. In accordance with the law, your bill will not list kWh, but will list minutes spent charging at each tier. You are not being billed by kWh but the price you get should be fairly close to 43¢/kWh.

Average Power (kW)	Price per minute (evaluted every minute)
1	0.007166666667
2	0.01433333333
3	0.0215
4	0.02866666667
5	0.03583333333
6	0.043
7	0.05016666667
8	0.05733333333
9	0.0645
10	0.07166666667
11	0.07883333333
12	0.086
13	0.09316666667
14	0.1003333333
15	0.1075
16	0.1146666667
17	0.1218333333
18	0.129
19	0.1361666667
20	0.1433333333
21	0.1505
22	0.1576666667
23	0.1648333333
24	0.172
25	0.1791666667
26	0.1863333333
27	0.1935
28	0.2006666667
29	0.2078333333
30	0.215
31	0.2221666667
32	0.2293333333
33	0.2365
34	0.2436666667
35	0.2508333333
36	0.258
37	0.2651666667
38	0.2723333333
39	0.2795
40	0.2866666667
41	0.2938333333
42	0.301
43	0.3081666667
44	0.3153333333
45	0.3225
46	0.3296666667
47	0.3368333333
48	0.344
49	0.3511666667
50	0.3583333333
51	0.3655
52	0.3726666667
53	0.3798333333
54	0.387
55	0.3941666667
56	0.4013333333
57	0.4085
58	0.4156666667
59	0.4228333333
60	0.43
61	0.4371666667
62	0.4443333333
63	0.4515
64	0.4586666667
65	0.4658333333
66	0.473
67	0.4801666667
68	0.4873333333
69	0.4945
70	0.5016666667
71	0.5088333333
72	0.516
73	0.5231666667
74	0.5303333333
75	0.5375
76	0.5446666667
77	0.5518333333
78	0.559
79	0.5661666667
80	0.5733333333
81	0.5805
82	0.5876666667
83	0.5948333333
84	0.602
85	0.6091666667
86	0.6163333333
87	0.6235
88	0.6306666667
89	0.6378333333
90	0.645
91	0.6521666667
92	0.6593333333
93	0.6665
94	0.6736666667
95	0.6808333333
96	0.688
97	0.6951666667
98	0.7023333333
99	0.7095
100	0.7166666667
101	0.7238333333
102	0.731
103	0.7381666667
104	0.7453333333
105	0.7525
106	0.7596666667
107	0.7668333333
108	0.774
109	0.7811666667
110	0.7883333333
111	0.7955
112	0.8026666667
113	0.8098333333
114	0.817
115	0.8241666667
116	0.8313333333
117	0.8385
118	0.8456666667
119	0.8528333333
120	0.86
121	0.8671666667
122	0.8743333333
123	0.8815
124	0.8886666667
125	0.8958333333
126	0.903
127	0.9101666667
128	0.9173333333
129	0.9245
130	0.9316666667
131	0.9388333333
132	0.946
133	0.9531666667
134	0.9603333333
135	0.9675
136	0.9746666667
137	0.9818333333
138	0.989
139	0.9961666667
140	1.003333333
141	1.0105
142	1.017666667
143	1.024833333
144	1.032
145	1.039166667
146	1.046333333
147	1.0535
148	1.060666667
149	1.067833333
150	1.075
151	1.082166667
152	1.089333333
153	1.0965
154	1.103666667
155	1.110833333
156	1.118
157	1.125166667
158	1.132333333
159	1.1395
160	1.146666667
161	1.153833333
162	1.161
163	1.168166667
164	1.175333333
165	1.1825
166	1.189666667
167	1.196833333
168	1.204
169	1.211166667
170	1.218333333
171	1.2255
172	1.232666667
173	1.239833333
174	1.247
175	1.254166667
176	1.261333333
177	1.2685
178	1.275666667
179	1.282833333
180	1.29
181	1.297166667
182	1.304333333
183	1.3115
184	1.318666667
185	1.325833333
186	1.333
187	1.340166667
188	1.347333333
189	1.3545
190	1.361666667
191	1.368833333
192	1.376
193	1.383166667
194	1.390333333
195	1.3975
196	1.404666667
197	1.411833333
198	1.419
199	1.426166667
200	1.433333333
201	1.4405
202	1.447666667
203	1.454833333
204	1.462
205	1.469166667
206	1.476333333
207	1.4835
208	1.490666667
209	1.497833333
210	1.505
211	1.512166667
212	1.519333333
213	1.5265
214	1.533666667
215	1.540833333
216	1.548
217	1.555166667
218	1.562333333
219	1.5695
220	1.576666667
221	1.583833333
222	1.591
223	1.598166667
224	1.605333333
225	1.6125
226	1.619666667
227	1.626833333
228	1.634
229	1.641166667
230	1.648333333
231	1.6555
232	1.662666667
233	1.669833333
234	1.677
235	1.684166667
236	1.691333333
237	1.6985
238	1.705666667
239	1.712833333
240	1.72
241	1.727166667
242	1.734333333
243	1.7415
244	1.748666667
245	1.755833333
246	1.763
247	1.770166667
248	1.777333333
249	1.7845
250	1.791666667

Even though this table has 250 different entries in it, it is far more understandable than the gobbledygook that they're publishing currently. And you don't expect people to actually look at each entry; the point is that they know how the entries were generated.

 

[zecar]

They have enabled and disabled features before. Radar is an example. Different levels of regen is another. They could disabled CCS charging whenever they want to in order to force millions of customers to use their charging locations. I'm not saying they would, but they most certainly could.

How is it so clearly made for the North American market if they're not selling it here and have been selling it South Korea for nearly a year now? I do think they will eventually sell it here, but I believe it was more intended as a quick way to get more Teslas on the road in SK where Tesla's biggest legitimate competitor is located. If their own population are buying Teslas instead of Hyundias or Kias it would put a major cramp on the development of EVs from those companies. And the adapter for CCS is easier to roll out than entire charging stations. And it just happens we have the same electrical infrastructure that they do.

I don't understand why people have a blind trust of a company that's doing everything it can to take their money.

Blind trust? Buy the adapter now or buy it later. Once it appears in the Tesla U.S. store it will be gone in minutes.

There is no chance Tesla will disable CCS charging except for a safety issue. They haven't even made an effort to disable the SEETEC adapter, which is a kludge.

 

[avs007]

Not exactly. They publish a table of say 25 or 250 different tiered rates, and have a note that says how they came up with the pricing for each tier.

Where is the statute that specifically says it's illegal to "suggest" kWh pricing? I don't think I've ever seen one. And they can post all 250 levels either in the app, on the screen in the car, or on the display at the charger (if it's EA or Chargepoint).

All they have to do is post something like this (it's very easy to generate in Excel or any other spreadsheet):

*These prices were generated by targeting a rate of approximately 43¢/kWh. In accordance with the law, your bill will not list kWh, but will list minutes spent charging at each tier. You are not being billed by kWh but the price you get should be fairly close to 43¢/kWh.

That is not legal, at least in South Dakota. In South Dakota, it is not legal to charge for electricity provided/consumed if you are not a regulated utility. kWh is the unit of measure for electricity consumption, so by definition, you would be charging for electricity consumed, which is explicitly illegal. By only having 4 tiers, there is no direct correlation to how much you actually consumed, whereas in your proposal you are essentially metering it with your frequent polling, especially since you are targeting a specific unit of measure.

Summary from South Dakota Public Utility

 

[STS-134]

That is not legal, at least in South Dakota. In South Dakota, it is not legal to charge for electricity provided/consumed if you are not a regulated utility. kWh is the unit of measure for electricity consumption, so by definition, you would be charging for electricity consumed, which is explicitly illegal.

No, you wouldn't be charging for electricity consumed, you'd be charging for the time spent at each tier, according to the table of rates, which just so happens to be somewhat correlated with the amount of electricity consumed. But you're not measuring amount consumed and charging for it, you're measuring power and charging by time.

By only having 4 tiers, there is no direct correlation to how much you actually consumed, whereas in your proposal you are essentially metering it with your frequent polling, especially since you are targeting a specific unit of measure.

Summary from South Dakota Public Utility

There is still a correlation between how much you actually consumed and how much was charged. The word correlation means that there is a statistical relationship between two variables -- in this case, the power being drawn and the amount being consumed. "No direct correlation" would mean that there's a correlation coefficient of zero, meaning that the two variables are entirely unrelated. This isn't the case. While the 4 tier system may have a correlation coefficient of say 0.7, the 250 tier system may have a correlation coefficient of 0.99. But legally, there is no difference between a correlation coefficient of 0.7 and a correlation coefficient of 0.99. You're not charging by amount consumed unless the correlation coefficient is exactly 1.00, and if 4 tiers are okay, then 250 tiers are okay as well. Even under the 250 tier system, you could be consuming an average of say 110.51 kW or 111.49 kW or anything in between, for one minute, but you'd still be billed the identical amount of 0.7955¢ for that minute -- regardless of how much you actually consumed. If you cross the threshold into the next tier, at 111.51 kW, then you'd get billed 0.8026666667¢ for that minute, but again, it's not actually tied to the exact amount used, because someone consuming 112.49 kW would get billed the exact same amount.

Unless the law specifically has a maximum number of tiers that can be charged, or has an upper bound on the correlation coefficient, if 4 tiers are okay, then any number of tiers are okay. And the law does not mention a maximum number of tiers or bound the correlation coefficient at all. 49-34A-1(6) defines "electric service" as service "furnished to a customer for ultimate consumption, but not including wholesale electric service furnished by an electric utility to another electric utility for resale" and 49-34A-42 states that "Each electric utility has the exclusive right to provide electric service at retail at each and every location where it is serving a customer as of March 21, 1975, and to each and every present and future customer in its assigned service area.". But in this case, Tesla isn't providing electric service, it's simply billing by time according to a large number of tiers.

 

[avs007]

No, you wouldn't be charging for electricity consumed, you'd be charging for the time spent at each tier, according to the table of rates, which just so happens to be somewhat correlated with the amount of electricity consumed. But you're not measuring amount consumed and charging for it, you're measuring power and charging by time.

There is still a correlation between how much you actually consumed and how much was charged. The word correlation means that there is a statistical relationship between two variables -- in this case, the power being drawn and the amount being consumed. "No direct correlation" would mean that there's a correlation coefficient of zero, meaning that the two variables are entirely unrelated. This isn't the case. While the 4 tier system may have a correlation coefficient of say 0.7, the 250 tier system may have a correlation coefficient of 0.99. But legally, there is no difference between a correlation coefficient of 0.7 and a correlation coefficient of 0.99. You're not charging by amount consumed unless the correlation coefficient is exactly 1.00, and if 4 tiers are okay, then 250 tiers are okay as well. Even under the 250 tier system, you could be consuming an average of say 110.51 kW or 111.49 kW or anything in between, for one minute, but you'd still be billed the identical amount of 0.7955¢ for that minute -- regardless of how much you actually consumed. If you cross the threshold into the next tier, at 111.51 kW, then you'd get billed 0.8026666667¢ for that minute, but again, it's not actually tied to the exact amount used, because someone consuming 112.49 kW would get billed the exact same amount.

Unless the law specifically has a maximum number of tiers that can be charged, or has an upper bound on the correlation coefficient, if 4 tiers are okay, then any number of tiers are okay. And the law does not mention a maximum number of tiers or bound the correlation coefficient at all. 49-34A-1(6) defines "electric service" as service "furnished to a customer for ultimate consumption, but not including wholesale electric service furnished by an electric utility to another electric utility for resale" and 49-34A-42 states that "Each electric utility has the exclusive right to provide electric service at retail at each and every location where it is serving a customer as of March 21, 1975, and to each and every present and future customer in its assigned service area.". But in this case, Tesla isn't providing electric service, it's simply billing by time according to a large number of tiers.

I work with government regulators as part of my job in various standards bodies, I assure you that is NOT how it works. They intentionally leave things a little vague, so they can come back and bite your head off. Doesn't matter how many or how few tiers you have. You can't say you are targeting a specific kWh rate, because that gives the impression that you are selling electricity.

In my experience, in the private sector it's about the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. But in the public sector, it's the opposite.

Besides, you really want a table with 250 line items to display in the infotainment in the Tesla when you tap a supercharger?

 

[avs007]

But yes, it's entirely possible the regulators could come back and decide that even under the 4 tier system, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and determine that Tesla shall be regulated like a utility. I wouldn't want to tempt fate and poke that sleeping bear by having 250 tiers