How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[googlepeakoil]

Definately want a "pay per use" model. 2 BIG advantages that Tesla really really need to understand.
1. Nobody else will build SC's if there is a pay upfront model as how would they get a share of the revenue? (presuming that Elon really wants others to build SC and advance electric cars)
2. The over-crowding / over-use issue will NOT go away if it's a pay-upfront model. People will pay their $1000 then hog the chargers. They will even feel "I paid my $1000 - it's my RIGHT to use it as often as I want" clear big backlash next time Tesla tells people to use it responsibly!

Fix the cost at 50-100% the price of "local" consumer grid electricity - eg $0.08 / kWh. Tesla or other company buys the electricity wholesale at below that price OR buffer solar with Powerpacks and makes a little bit of money. This will encourage other companies to do it and Tesla to expand the network. Consumers will still use it - but not feel they're getting something totally free and abuse it.
Only way...

 

[pinski]

Ok, let's consider that and do some math.

It's been noted that the average supercharging station (not charge point) costs less than $300K and there are currently 632 stations as of today. That's under $200 million dollars to build them over the course of a few years (probably way less to maintain them as Tesla has stated it's a near negligible amount compared to revenue).

Let's consider a measly $500 charge per Model 3. $500 * 400,000 cars per year = $200 million (per year)

With $200 million you could double the current network.

By 2020 Elon mentioned they might be doing around 1 million cars per year. So even at $500 it's plenty of money to not only maintain but vastly expand the supercharger network with money left over for service centers, etc.

That all sounds awesome and completely logical to me. With the volume, it'll be an economy of scale compared to the boutique S/X. If lifetime Supercharging is $500 or even $1000, I'll option it.

 

[SageBrush]

Fix the cost at 50-100% the price of "local" consumer grid electricity - eg $0.08 / kWh. Tesla or other company buys the electricity wholesale at below that price OR buffer solar with Powerpacks and makes a little bit of money. This will encourage other companies to do it and Tesla to expand the network. Consumers will still use it - but not feel they're getting something totally free and abuse it.
Only way...

Utilities are heading towards demand charges, which can be quite expensive. Anyone have data how that affects Tesla payments for electricity currently ?

 

[xmetal]

This gets sticky for me, because I can think of only a handful of times in a year that I would need the SC, but during those times I would really want to be able to use it. $2000 up front is not worth it, I don't think I'd even come close to using that much value in the whole life of the car, but if I didn't pay and got locked out of access forever, well that would truly suck.

A subscription or pay for use would be highly preferable for me, or if the cost for lifetime access was lower I'd go for it. But if the cost to add that on remains near where it is now, I would truly agonize over that decision.

 

[JeffK]

Utilities are heading towards demand charges, which can be quite expensive. Anyone have data how that affects Tesla payments for electricity currently ?

Depends how much they are selling back from stations with solar panels. Remember their eventual goal is a net addition to the electrical grid across all the stations combined.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I don't think anyone would complain if it were only $500.

People will always complain. This thread proves it. Folks are complaining about how the use of SC's is free.

On another note: I don't believe that Tesla could sell electricity. They might not be able to do that.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Definately want a "pay per use" model. 2 BIG advantages that Tesla really really need to understand.
1. Nobody else will build SC's if there is a pay upfront model as how would they get a share of the revenue? (presuming that Elon really wants others to build SC and advance electric cars)
2. The over-crowding / over-use issue will NOT go away if it's a pay-upfront model. People will pay their $1000 then hog the chargers. They will even feel "I paid my $1000 - it's my RIGHT to use it as often as I want" clear big backlash next time Tesla tells people to use it responsibly!

Fix the cost at 50-100% the price of "local" consumer grid electricity - eg $0.08 / kWh. Tesla or other company buys the electricity wholesale at below that price OR buffer solar with Powerpacks and makes a little bit of money. This will encourage other companies to do it and Tesla to expand the network. Consumers will still use it - but not feel they're getting something totally free and abuse it.
Only way...

I totally disagree. I know that Tesla would snuff out the competition if their SC's remain free. Free always eliminates competition.

 

[ummgood]

Even though there are some people that want the pay-per-use because of overcrowding I didn't vote that way because of the over crowding. I don't honestly don't drive my car far enough away from home to justify paying a large upfront cost for supercharging. I plan on charging at home and then only needing a supercharger when I want to go on a mini trip with my wife. Honestly that will happen maybe 1 or 2 times a year. Plus I have inlaws that live 80 miles away and it might be nice to hit up the San Marcos supercharger but that might happen maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

I just can't see paying $1000-2000 dollars for needing a supercharger for maybe 4 to 5 times a year use. It might pay for itself in 6 to 10 years but I don't even know if my model 3 will last that long. It could get totaled who knows...

What I would like to see is what was mentioned before where I have my credit card on file with Tesla. I show up at the super charger and charge my car and they charge me $15 to $20 dollars. Then I don't have to stress about it and it is more convenient than any gas station. The 4 to 5 times a year would cost me around ~$100 and that would take me 10 years to pay off a $1000 free for life supercharging plan.

I can see where some people don't want to stress about it but for me personally I would rather pour that $1k or $2k into a feature on my car that I'll enjoy when I am sitting in traffic that I'll get use out of every day.

 

[Electroman]

Lets kill the "Solar for Superchargers" myth, ok? There is not enough space in over 90% of the SC stations where you can put any decent size panels to even make a dent on the amount of power needed vs the power the panels would generate. Not the mention the capital costs and ROI doesn't add up either.

If they want to get the green cred on the supercharger usage, the best Tesla can do, and perhaps should do, is to put hundreds (or thousands) of solar panels on the land they own today in Freemont and in and around Gigafactory and feed that to the grid, or simply offset the current usage in their manufacturing. So they can still claim that, superchargers in total used x MW directly from the grid all over the world, and in turn our solar panels produced X+Y MW and was fed into the grid.

 

[SageBrush]

Lets kill the "Solar for Superchargers" myth, ok? There is not enough space in over 90% of the SC stations where you can put any decent size panels to even make a dent on the amount of power needed vs the power the panels would generate.

How about clean energy production somewhere in the same grid ? Or does it have to be on the car to appease you ?

 

[Electroman]

How about clean energy production somewhere in the same grid ? Or does it have to be on the car to appease you ?

I think you are saying exactly what I am saying. The green power can be generated elsewhere and fed into the grid, 10 miles away or 1000 miles away , The green electrons need to be generated at the SC station and directly fed into my car.

As long as Tesla as a company is carbon-neutral wrt the SC usage we should be okay.

 

[SageBrush]

The post you responded to was talking about regen, so I presumed the errors you mentioned was related to regen. If it is a general issue that can happen to any car that does not have regen braking, then that is kind of a different subject.

Personally, I would like to see the clean generation on the same grid as the SC. While GHG are not local, grid economics are; and moreover, other criteria pollutants are local.

 

[efusco]

Another option that might be interesting would be a per kWh rate. Say, you could pay for 1000 kWh credit for $200 ($0.20/kWh), once you use that up, over whatever period of time it takes you, you could reload. Tesla could adjust the price per kWh based upon market rates, etc. Sort of like loading up your Starbucks card. I'm not a fan of the "per minute" option as that punishes those who can't charge as fast (I have an "A" pack) and those who have to start with a nearly empty battery and need to top up to a max charge due to the slower speed of charging at those extremes and also if there are multiple people charging and you are the second one you'll charge more slowly. A per kWh seems the most fair to everyone.

 

[Jeff N]

Utilities are heading towards demand charges, which can be quite expensive. Anyone have data how that affects Tesla payments for electricity currently ?

I haven't seen any data but I believe Tesla has said that when this is a problem they will add stationary storage and perhaps some solar panels to help smooth out the grid use and avoid demand charges.

 

[Az_Rael]

A per kWh seems the most fair to everyone.

Totally agree. Only problem right now is many states have old laws on the books that classify selling kWh as only for utilities.

Here is a list of states that do allow per kWh charges (from Blink):
California
Colorado
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Utah
Virginia
Washington

 

[EVNow]

Another thing I've seen discussed is - what this means if you lease, rather than buy. Paying a big fee upfront is obviously not preferable when leasing. I'd like to lease EVs in the next few years, until fully autonomous vehicles are sold.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Another option that might be interesting would be a per kWh rate. Say, you could pay for 1000 kWh credit for $200 ($0.20/kWh), once you use that up, over whatever period of time it takes you, you could reload. Tesla could adjust the price per kWh based upon market rates, etc. Sort of like loading up your Starbucks card. I'm not a fan of the "per minute" option as that punishes those who can't charge as fast (I have an "A" pack) and those who have to start with a nearly empty battery and need to top up to a max charge due to the slower speed of charging at those extremes and also if there are multiple people charging and you are the second one you'll charge more slowly. A per kWh seems the most fair to everyone.

As noted before, it would be illegal for Tesla to bill by "kWh" in many states. Realistically they would have to bill by minute or session in many states. They can do a (rough) power based discount to account for the issues you mentioned, but in a careful way that doesn't tie too closely to "kWh".

"kWh" is not necessarily most fair because part of the fee is to charge for the "use" of the supercharger. People who take up more time at a station to "trickle charge" their car should not pay the same for a kWh than one who leaves immediately.

 

[Garlan Garner]

As noted before, it would be illegal for Tesla to bill by "kWh" in many states. Realistically they would have to bill by minute or session in many states. They can do a (rough) power based discount to account for the issues you mentioned, but in a careful way that doesn't tie too closely to "kWh".

"kWh" is not necessarily most fair because part of the fee is to charge for the "use" of the supercharger. People who take up more time at a station to "trickle charge" their car should not pay the same for a kWh than one who leaves immediately.

Does Tesla have the license to "sell" electricity throughout the country/world?

I don't think they do. Sooo....they can't charge by KWH.

The can sell access to their SC's.

 

[Xminus6]

Lets kill the "Solar for Superchargers" myth, ok? There is not enough space in over 90% of the SC stations where you can put any decent size panels to even make a dent on the amount of power needed vs the power the panels would generate. Not the mention the capital costs and ROI doesn't add up either.

If they want to get the green cred on the supercharger usage, the best Tesla can do, and perhaps should do, is to put hundreds (or thousands) of solar panels on the land they own today in Freemont and in and around Gigafactory and feed that to the grid, or simply offset the current usage in their manufacturing. So they can still claim that, superchargers in total used x MW directly from the grid all over the world, and in turn our solar panels produced X+Y MW and was fed into the grid.

Since almost all of the Superchargers are on properties not owned by Tesla, they could strike up an agreement with the property-owner to supply an offsetting amount of solar energy in exchange for the land usage fee. So Harris Ranch could get enough solar panels on their roof to offset the kWh used by the cars charging there. If it's a retail space, the landowners already get a benefit, either directly or indirectly, by the increased foot traffic of relatively affluent people with time to kill.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Does Tesla have the license to "sell" electricity throughout the country/world?

I don't think they do. Sooo....they can't charge by KWH.

The can sell access to their SC's.

They can in some states, which Az_Rael listed above. In most states they can't.