I wonder if you can legally meet the requirement if you make stations that meet all the other requirements but only have a cable long enough to barely reach the corner of the car, as Tesla SC do? Cars silly enough to have a port not at the corner could carry an expensive 6 foot ccs extension cable if they wanted.
Yes thank you @stopcrazypp, for @bradtem and @DeepBlueMN , this is the source (Elon himself). I almost seem to recall that Zach backed Elon up on this as well, but I can't find a source right now.
I will say looking at quote closely, the person asking was asking specifically about GM on energy costs. So it could be Elon means 30% GM on energy costs, and then 10% GM on all costs (although he uses "profitability"). Hard to say, as it's just a short tweet. I don't believe the SEC filings lay out any details. There's also the details like even if this is the goal going forward, does that 10% profitability cover also the sunk costs of the network previously (or is it just a quarter by quarter or year by year analysis).
Well, if you cant make a profit on 58 cents/kwh, that's not a great sign for the electric car. While selling electricity is not a business, people hope it will be, and if it has to be more than 60 cents to be, that's not good, as it exceeds the cost of gasoline in efficient hybrid cars.
Look at Tesla financials, there is a Supercharger and other services lines, IIRC, it showed 10%
Link and direct quote?
I disagree. Most charging is done as home charging. That DC charging (if break even) costs a bit more than a efficient gas car is not an issue at all, especially given Teslas have performance levels that in a gas car would result in something much less efficient. It's not expected to be a method of primary charging, it's mainly for long trips.
For you and I, it's all home charging. While it's the wrong approach, the charge networks are now infilling urban locations with chargers for use by people who can't charge at home. As I said, it is the wrong approach, and nobody with home charging uses these, but they think there is a business there.
Charging at a L2 charger whenever possible (whether at a hotel, at work, at a mall) is exactly the thing they should be promoting! L2 chargers are much less expensive to install and are much less likely to be subject to high demand charges.
I'm still on an E1 schedule and I essentially pay nothing for charging at home given I have solar (ignoring panel costs), but if I didn't have NEM, I would be paying 31.5 cents per kWh.
You don't have ToU? 13 cents is the national average. In many places it is more, but I had not heard of a place where you paid 30.5 cents off-peak. Where is that? Don't charge on-peak.
I don't understand what requirements they don't currently meet. The current rules only require 4 stalls with "150 kw" (regardless of amperage limitations :facepalm). Tesla V3 setups meet these requirements, afaict. Unfortunately, some NEVI compliant installs from others could potentially be quite bad.
OT: Are you actually getting $0.12/kWh in Sunnyvale? Who is your provider and what plan are you on?
As noted that is a national average, up from 10 cents not long ago. Sadly in PG&E territory we pay much more. My neighbours behind me are on Santa Clara Muni power and pay a much better rate. Death to PG&E.
California is way more than national average. I don't have TOU. I'm on PG&E. TOU and EV plans are not much better.
NEM pays 4.5 cents per kWh if I have lots of excess, it's close to worthless to me. By "nothing" I mean my solar generates much more power than I use, so all my usage is completely offset. All I pay for is minimal delivery costs (about $10 per month) but even that is offset on annual true-up.
That's why I put "ignoring panel costs". I didn't want to go into details of the costs of amortizing the panels, etc. My main point was about the E1 schedule electricity prices being already higher than $0.30/kWh.
Nope, V3 doesn't meet the 150kw requirement. V3 can only provide ~90kW to each stall if they are all in use, the NEVI requirement is that it has to be able to provide 150kW to every NEVI stall at the same time. So that is one condition that V3 doesn't meet. I suppose at a 8 stall V3 site Tesla could dedicate 600kW to 4 NEVI stalls, but that would only leave 120kW to be shared by the remaining 4 stalls. (A 4 stall V3 site could not qualify without a lot of battery storage on-site which Tesla hasn't done.)
I have PG&E ToU and it's about 18 cents/kwh from midnight to 3pm. You must be in a different place if you pay 25 cents off peak. The very long off-peak period means I put most of my electricity use into off-peak, such as my pool pump and a few other things. In fact, back when it was only 13 cents off-peak, going to ToU saved me money to the point that getting my Tesla made my total power bill go down, in spite of charging it!
I don't didn't sign up for either EV or TOU schedule, so I don't know what the final rate would be, but I'm just going by the website, which gives those numbers on their rate schedules. Also PG&E got approved for a rate increase recently, so it got higher.
This is why we should not let laws design charging stations.
I've seen you quoting this 90 kW per stall a couple of times, but that doesn't seem to always be the case. It seems to vary some and depends on what feed they can get from the utility at that location. This thread was spotting the transformers, and it was an 8 stall location that was provided by two transformers--a 500 kVA one and a 750 kVA one. So right near the border of maybe so, maybe not able to meet that 150 kW per stall level at that site.
teslamotorsclub.com
Yeah, the 90kW per stall is the maximum the Tesla equipment can provide unless there if on-site battery storage linked to the DC bus. Obviously if the utility provides less power than the cabinets can handle that would reduce it. But even if the utility could provide 100MW, an 8 site V3, with no storage, is limited to ~720kW split across the 8 stalls.
