How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[melindav]

I've brought up a similar point before when there were arguments over Tesla's promises of free and limitations on usage. Free does not equal unlimited. T-mobile has a "Free data for life" plan, but it is limited to 200MB per month. Tesla can certainly do something similar.

the biggest advantage IMO would be to keep the taxis from clogging up the urban SC sites. I can't recall which Supercharger site located at a southern California service center I'd seen in a Tesla road trip video, but there were 10ish spaces, and all but 1 had taxis in them with another couple waiting when the video driver arrived.
Personally, I don't care if 'normal' drivers use a SC near their home, but think it's ridiculous that a taxi should be using them to this extent when others are waiting.

 

[zenmaster]

So I got to thinking about my suggestion for credits, and then re-read my post above about the occasional road trip. I think I'm starting to like this idea: free supercharging for all cars. For life. Just not unlimited. So let's call it in the range of 5-10 charges per year come with each Model 3 if you don't choose the unlimited package. No collecting, use them or lose them. It's enough that the car can take the occasional road trip, probably as much as the normal person takes, but if you decide to do more, then you get the full package.

Sounds good to me. I'd even pay an upfront fee of $100 for each yearly charge credit while I owned the car.

 

[alseTrick]

What if Tesla made it so Supercharging was NOT standard on ANY model?

If they did that, they could still offer the assumed ~$2,000 option to upgrade any specific vehicle. (And if they decide on some type of pay per use option, that would also still be available.) And presumably the base price would drop correspondingly.

But what if they offered something like a ~$5,000 option to upgrade an OWNER for life? In other words, I'd pay $5,000 and be able to supercharge for free on ALL of my future Tesla vehicles for the REST OF MY LIFE.

You would increase the odds that first-time Tesla owners become Tesla owners for life. In the long run, that would be more valuable than charging $2,000 per vehicle. And in the short term a $5,000/pop upgrade fee benefits Tesla more than a $2,000/pop fee. It's pretty much a win/win for Tesla, isn't it? And if looked at as an "investment" for the 18-40 demographic, it's a win for them, too. For older Tesla owners it may not make as much sense, but that's why the per vehicle option would still be available.

I'm 30. I would probably pay $5,000 to upgrade to supercharging for life no matter the vehicle. I probably wouldn't pay $2,000 to upgrade my Model 3 only. If it was something like $7,500 or $10,000 for supercharging for life no matter the vehicle, I'd probably withhold my supercharging option purchase until later, if ever. Of course, Tesla could run their own figures and see which makes the most financial sense for them, if they were to actually contemplate such an idea.

 

[Big Dog]

More and more Model 3 owners without home charging buy the car and use the SC 15X more often than someone using the SC for trips only.

Personally, I don't see folks purchasing an EV unless they can charge at home, or the office. (But then I've been wrong before.)

 

[EVNow]

Personally, I don't see folks purchasing an EV unless they can charge at home, or the office. (But then I've been wrong before.)

One could always charge at home from 120V. It works if the daily commute is short and a lot of Leaf owners do this.

One thing not talked about much is the cost to get wired up and install an EVSE. This can run to $2k+ depending on the setup.

 

[alseTrick]

Personally, I don't see folks purchasing an EV unless they can charge at home, or the office. (But then I've been wrong before.)

I put my reservation in while knowing that at my current home (urban apartment) I likely won't be able to charge overnight. I have a single J1772 plug in one of the parking garages at my job (a hospital), but I didn't know that at the time of my reservation.

These were all things I was going to figure out prior to purchase (which I feel I have, for the most part). And even knowing the challenges, I was still willing to purchase the vehicle if there were adequate destination chargers nearby my work or my home, that would allow free/cheap charging while I dined, shopped, etc.

 

[Big Dog]

One could always charge at home from 120V. It works if the daily commute is short and a lot of Leaf owners do this.

Supports my pov, I think.

These were all things I was going to figure out prior to purchase (which I feel I have, for the most part). And even knowing the challenges, I was still willing to purchase the vehicle if there were adequate destination chargers nearby my work or my home, that would allow free/cheap chargingwhileI dined, shopped, etc.

My guess is that the most folks will not be so inclined. Early adopters will put up with more inconveniences than the mass market. Think about the single parent who has to get home to his/her kids for dinner. Frequently stopping to charge for 30+ minutes is just not an option.

Then of course, the hassle of running errands on a weekend....if/when the only option is the charging station at work.

 

[alseTrick]

My guess is that the most folks will not be so inclined. Early adopters will put up with more inconveniences than the mass market. Think about the single parent who has to get home to his/her kids for dinner. Frequently stopping to charge for 30+ minutes is just not an option.

Then of course, the hassle of running errands on a weekend....if/when the only option is the charging station at work.

Absolutely agree with the bolded. The average person is simply not going to tolerate such "inconveniences". At least not right now. In 5-10 years when charging infrastructure is much more built out? We might be talking about an entirely different structure/mindset.

But I disagree with your assumption that people won't make multiple 30-minute stops per week at the grocery store, a restaurant or some retail outlet to charge if available for a reasonable price. I think people will drive slightly further (5 miles?) in order to take advantage of such charging features. It really just depends on the charging options available (speed and price). Most people in medium/large cities have multiple charging options nearby. I do. And I will use them if necessary if my work-charging location isn't adequate. I also have two huge retail/restaurant areas nearby my work location that I can frequent more often (instead of my current choices) in order to take advantage of charging services.

I doubt any of these people are going to be folks on the very low end of the SES scale. It only really applies to middle income earners who have more access or wherewithal to find alternative charging options. But again, that's only a problem until EVs become mainstream in the future.

 

[ronsbell]

Why not simply implement pay as you go using the Paypal, Apple Pay or other payment networks, either through the Tesla app or by detecting the VIN of a car when it plugs into a supercharger and debiting the appropriate amount? This would be far more marketable than a flat up front charge for the supercharger network, which some drivers might not use or might use only occasionally. If I owned an M3, I'd be willing to pay the cost of my charge or a slight markup on that cost to help support maintenance and expansion of the network.

 

[Red Sage]

Here's the thing about having 'choices'... The more you have, the less likely that anyone will be willing to take responsibility for the decision making process. People say they want choices, but they have already decided which option they will choose for themselves. Worse, they'll believe they made one choice, but didn't realize they actually wanted something else, then they'll complain that you took advantage of them, or didn't give them a proper chance to decide, or didn't offer the data to make an informed choice -- even though you did.

If you give someone 20 a la carte choices for color, many will comment that they are all great choices. But then, 80% of them will choose the same color... 10% will choose another... and 5% will choose a third option. Then, with 15 options that no one even selected as much as 1% of, you will get a tonload of complaints from those who are PO'd that you canceled those options due to a lack of popularity.

The same would end up happening with multiple Supercharger access options. My preference is no pay-per-use of any sort, and the option of choosing 'FREE for LIFE!' access to Superchargers as either 'ON' or 'OFF'.

 

[cpa]

Here is a question for all of you.

What if in the next two-plus years, Tesla starts to promote a "workplace" charging program a la the destination charging program?

There are tons of employers--from governmental agencies to smaller businesses that either own their parking lots or have long-term leases. Tesla will send complimentary HPWC and J1772 EVSE to anyone who asks and might even offer to split (?) the cost of the installation. Then, it would be up to the employer to allocate time and availability for their employees. I would even submit that the cost of the electricity would even fall under the "de minimis" employee fringe benefit rules, so no additional "wages" would be imputed on the employee's W-2. (It might be tricky for a governmental agency to do this with our tax dollars, so perhaps a modest payroll deduction from net pay would do the trick.)

In metropolitan areas (including cities with moderately large populations) would this help alleviate this putative Supercharger congestion?

Would it be persuasive and convenient enough for those without home charging to utilize? Or would we be just adding another "free" resource for small-time chiselers to exploit?

 

[Red Sage]

What if in the next two-plus years, Tesla starts to promote a "workplace" charging program a la the destination charging program?

I don't consider this a 'what if' so much as a likelihood. Workplaces will offer such benefits, because it will be available to their own fleet vehicles as well, in time. Many airports and seaports use electric vehicles in support roles, from baggage carriers to forklifts, already. Some use short range pickup trucks and passenger carts that are fully electric as well.

There are already publicly available 'free' chargers on public or government property. Adding Destination Chargers at Libraries, Courthouses, Shopping Centers, Movie Theatres or other facilities where people might be parked for an hour or more should be fine. Being able to acquire the hardware at no cost would usually be enough to get a City Council or City Manager to accept them without issue.

In metropolitan areas (including cities with moderately large populations) would this help alleviate this putative Supercharger congestion?

It would be an added convenience. Supercharger 'congestion' is not something that I expect will be a problem due to population. A minimal quantity of individuals who use Superchargers incorrectly can make an issue seem much more pervasive than it really is. If three or four people use an 8-stall Supercharger as their personal parking spaces, leaving their cars in place for hours during the day, that greatly reduces the rate of throughput for everyone else that needs to use it during the day.

Would it be persuasive and convenient enough for those without home charging to utilize?

It could be. But only if the places they are located are sites they would be visiting anyway. Most public charging facilities accommodate only one or two vehicles at a time. That level of distribution would not help much in public places. Perhaps at a minimum of four charging stalls, it could help.

Or would we be just adding another "free" resource for small-time chiselers to exploit?

Don't worry about it. The idea is to offer an incentive that moves people off of fossil fuels for transportation. This gives the benefit of improved air quality and lessened dependence upon limited resources. It isn't enough to only use less fuel per vehicle. Eventually, we must stop using petroleum byproducts as fuel entirely. Better to make that transition before it runs out or becomes too expensive for the public at large to use affordably.

 

[Rocky_H]

IMO the odds of pay per use are ~0. Tesla needs the $$$ to expand the network when the cars are added to the network... not collected over the next few years.

Yep, this is THE answer, and I keep trying to tell it to people. However many bucks at a time over the next 10-15 years does not get the Superchargers stations built. They need that money up front. People tend to forget that the electricity cost is almost nothing to them. They have actually said this in their SEC filings. It's the big cost of building the stations to have enough stalls available to handle the number of cars trying to use them that costs significant money.

 

[setheryb]

An all or none option when it comes to SC access will hurt main stream adoption. While in my daily use I won't have need of a SC as I can charge at home and have a pretty short commute, the handful or so times I travel cross state or to my alma mater for a football game means that I'd need access to SC charging little enough that a $2,000 SC yes/no wouldn't make financial sense. I also think the way Elon phrased it when talking about the Model 3 base not having SC charging lends to the idea of some sort of pay per use or pre-purchasing a set of kWh/month...maybe with rollover

This is what I'd like to see...a pay per use model, but charged monthly. Given all the data Tesla can get from vehicles, I'd assume they know the difference between being plugged in at home and being plugged in at an SC and that they know how long a vehicle has been plugged in. So throughout the month, any SC use accrues in your My Tesla account (you can log in desktop, app, or vehicle and see to usage) and at the end of each month you get charged for those uses. Eliminates the need to deal with 'paying at the pump' and would allow for use in the situations where needed.

 

[Booga]

Yep, this is THE answer, and I keep trying to tell it to people. However many bucks at a time over the next 10-15 years does not get the Superchargers stations built. They need that money up front. People tend to forget that the electricity cost is almost nothing to them. They have actually said this in their SEC filings. It's the big cost of building the stations to have enough stalls available to handle the number of cars trying to use them that costs significant money.

Right, but they can access capital through the markets fairly easily now, so it shouldn't be an issue if it was just access to capital that they desired.

 

[Rocky_H]

An all or none option when it comes to SC access will hurt main stream adoption. While in my daily use I won't have need of a SC as I can charge at home and have a pretty short commute, the handful or so times I travel cross state or to my alma mater for a football game means that I'd need access to SC charging little enough that a $2,000 SC yes/no wouldn't make financial sense.

It is NOT going to be $2,000. I am absolutely certain of that. I really don't like that it is listed that way in the poll selections, because that's not going to be correct, and it makes people much more irritated/worried about it. It was $2,000 on an $80,000 car. In a $35,000 car, that level of option would not be as palatable. Plus, that was with less volume. With the much greater number of cars of the Model 3, it won't need to be as high. I would say somewhere between $500 and $1,000.

 

[ohmman]

It is NOT going to be $2,000. I am absolutely certain of that. I really don't like that it is listed that way in the poll selections, because that's not going to be correct, and it makes people much more irritated/worried about it. It was $2,000 on an $80,000 car. In a $35,000 car, that level of option would not be as palatable. Plus, that was with less volume. With the much greater number of cars of the Model 3, it won't need to be as high. I would say somewhere between $500 and $1,000.

Another way of looking at this is that it was included in the margins on a $90k car, was a $2k addition to the existing margins on a $70k car, and will be a $4k addition to the slim margin on a $35k car.

I'm not saying that's the case, but to be "absolutely certain" seems dangerously confident.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It is NOT going to be $2,000. I am absolutely certain of that. I really don't like that it is listed that way in the poll selections, because that's not going to be correct, and it makes people much more irritated/worried about it. It was $2,000 on an $80,000 car. In a $35,000 car, that level of option would not be as palatable. Plus, that was with less volume. With the much greater number of cars of the Model 3, it won't need to be as high. I would say somewhere between $500 and $1,000.

This logic does not compute. A less expensive car does not reduce the supercharger network costs per car for Tesla. In fact, people are claiming the opposite (that a less expensive car would use the supercharger network more). So you can easily say that the price should be expected to be even higher than $2000.

 

[Booga]

It is NOT going to be $2,000. I am absolutely certain of that. I really don't like that it is listed that way in the poll selections, because that's not going to be correct, and it makes people much more irritated/worried about it. It was $2,000 on an $80,000 car. In a $35,000 car, that level of option would not be as palatable. Plus, that was with less volume. With the much greater number of cars of the Model 3, it won't need to be as high. I would say somewhere between $500 and $1,000.

They could easily make it a subscription as well. $500 for 3 years possibly.

Doing this also reduces their energy input cost risk - as rates for energy move, they can pass it onto the customer then. Otherwise, they're on the hook no matter where rates go.

 

[Booga]

This logic does not compute. A less expensive car does not reduce the supercharger network costs per car for Tesla. In fact, people are claiming the opposite (that a less expensive car would use the supercharger network more). So you can easily say that the price should be expected to be even higher than $2000.

The point is that on a per car basis, the capital needed is less. There is some overhead to maintaining a national network to link highways that is probably underutilized and so the costs for those will decrease on a per car basis as more cars hit the road.