How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[Xminus6]

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.

So it would need to be a price based on some multiplier of the ratio of time vs. charge rate.

 

[Garlan Garner]

So it would need to be a price based on some multiplier of the ratio of time vs. charge rate.

If Tesla could sell by the KWH then I would try to go to the SC that is the cheapest.
Oh wait....power is sold by the hour....not by the day. hmmmm

https://hourlypricing.comed.com/live-prices/

LOL. This is getting simpler by the second. .

That makes me wonder - is Tesla going to buy power and then sell it?

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Tesla could sell by the KWH then I would try to go to the SC that is the cheapest.
Oh wait....power is sold by the hour....not by the day. hmmmm

https://hourlypricing.comed.com/live-prices/

LOL. This is getting simpler by the second. .

That makes me wonder - is Tesla going to buy power and then sell it?

Even if they sell by kWh, nothing requires them to sell at a rate tied to realtime electricity prices. The charge networks that sell by kWh just charge a flat rate by state (or by charger set by the location owner). That rate would include the costs of the network and a margin anyways, so it will never be the same as just the electricity cost in the first place.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Even if they sell by kWh, nothing requires them to sell at a rate tied to realtime electricity prices. The charge networks that sell by kWh just charge a flat rate by state (or by charger set by the location owner). That rate would include the costs of the network and a margin anyways, so it will never be the same as just the electricity cost in the first place.

The reason I'm making my statement is because Electricity Mongers such as Commonwealth Edison ( Illinois ) won't allow Tesla to re-sell their electricity at a lower rate than what they sell it. Commonwealth Edison regulates their re-sell price with their contracts. I am intimately familiar with this process. Elon will not let another company force his pricing structure up and down. He is understandably arrogant in this way..... and being a business owner...I agree.

I'm aware of this because of my Solar Interconnection Agreement fine print.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

For the M3, I voted for pay per use. Also, I think there will be a $2000 activation fee IN ADDITION to a use fee (about $10/use). Tesla will likely have at least two, maybe three, subscription levels. Perhaps, $5000 for activation and unlimited use, $3000 for activation and $5/use, and $2000 activation and $10/use. That said, it would be better to have a per minute cost, say $0.20/min (including when finished!). This would incentivize people to move their vehicle as soon as they obtain their desired charge level, as well as penalize those who don't. Tesla needs to make money on every transaction, just like Apple makes a huge amount of money selling music, not just hardware.

 

[David99]

I just did the math on how much I used Superchargers over the past 2 years owning my Model S. I drive a lot and Supercharge a lot. I think about 300 times so far. I got the 85 which came with Supercharging, but let's assume the $2000 prepaid price. I paid about $6.60 per session. I realize that most people use Superchargers far less than I do. I drive about 40k miles a year and many road trips using Superchargers. I would think most people would be better off paying a per use fee of $10 or less. It would take a long time to break even for the average person. For me the prepaid option works to my advantage.

 

[metier]

For the M3, I voted for pay per use. Also, I think there will be a $2000 activation fee IN ADDITION to a use fee (about $10/use). Tesla will likely have at least two, maybe three, subscription levels. Perhaps, $5000 for activation and unlimited use, $3000 for activation and $5/use, and $2000 activation and $10/use. That said, it would be better to have a per minute cost, say $0.20/min (including when finished!). This would incentivize people to move their vehicle as soon as they obtain their desired charge level, as well as penalize those who don't. Tesla needs to make money on every transaction, just like Apple makes a huge amount of money selling music, not just hardware.

If this is the case I don't think Elon has to worry about ramp up because I would think that there will be a lot of people canceling their orders, me included. I was expecting to pay $2000 for unlimited SC, hoping for less. But if Tesla wants more then $2000 then this car is not for me.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The reason I'm making my statement is because Electricity Mongers such as Commonwealth Edison ( Illinois ) won't allow Tesla to re-sell their electricity at a lower rate than what they sell it. Commonwealth Edison regulates their re-sell price with their contracts. I am intimately familiar with this process. Elon will not let another company force his pricing structure up and down. He is understandably arrogant in this way..... and being a business owner...I agree.

I'm aware of this because of my Solar Interconnection Agreement fine print.

With the costs of network plus margins included, the price will likely be higher than the highest you would reach anyways. Blink charges $0.39/kWh ($0.49/kWh for guests) in Illinois.

If this is the case I don't think Elon has to worry about ramp up because I would think that there will be a lot of people canceling their orders, me included. I was expecting to pay $2000 for unlimited SC, hoping for less. But if Tesla wants more then $2000 then this car is not for me.

While the specific numbers he uses is quite high, the idea of having an upfront charge plus a per use fee isn't so far-fetched. The DC charging option for the Spark for example is $750 and that doesn't include any network access (GM will likely do the same for the Bolt given they already said DC charging would be optional).

 

[Fourdoor]

With the costs of network plus margins included, the price will likely be higher than the highest you would reach anyways. Blink charges $0.39/kWh ($0.49/kWh for guests) in Illinois.


While the specific numbers he uses is quite high, the idea of having an upfront charge plus a per use fee isn't so far-fetched. The DC charging option for the Spark for example is $750 and that doesn't include any network access (GM will likely do the same for the Bolt given they already said DC charging would be optional).

That price is for the hardware on the Spark, if you don't want CCS GM saves the $$$ on the hardware and installation of the DC charging system. Musk already said that all Model 3 with be "supercharger capable" meaning they will have the hardware weather it is turned on or not.

Keith

 

[Garlan Garner]

Tesla obviously had to prove that it wouldn't make more money than ComEd on its own product.

With the costs of network plus margins included, the price will likely be higher than the highest you would reach anyways. Blink charges $0.39/kWh ($0.49/kWh for guests) in Illinois.

That's exactly why I would think Tesla wouldn't sell electricity. $.39 per/kwh is astoundingly high. That's over 3 times what people are charged in their homes. Why penalize folks for living in an apartment or a condo that has no access to anything other than SCing? That would make LD travel and expense that would be similar to ICE charges - while at the same time extending travel times tremendously.

I'm sure Blink chargers aren't as crowded as Tesla SC's at that price.

 

[Garlan Garner]

That price is for the hardware on the Spark, if you don't want CCS GM saves the $$$ on the hardware and installation of the DC charging system. Musk already said that all Model 3 with be "supercharger capable" meaning they will have the hardware weather it is turned on or not.

Keith

That's absolutely correct. Now its a matter of the $2K price tag or not. In other words...no additional hardware will be needed. Just a financial decision.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Blink must exist for non-tesla EV owners only. How would they be able to compete with Tesla S charging (free for now).?

 

[Garlan Garner]

The only way to bring the Model 3 to market at the proposed base price, he said, “is to decouple (free supercharging) from the cost of the Model 3.”

This clearly indicates to me that the M6 had the supercharging costs coupled with the price of the car.

If you want to read further.....No free charging for Model 3? Tesla can explain

 

[stopcrazypp]

That price is for the hardware on the Spark, if you don't want CCS GM saves the $$$ on the hardware and installation of the DC charging system. Musk already said that all Model 3 with be "supercharger capable" meaning they will have the hardware weather it is turned on or not.

Keith

Yes, that's true, but my point is that if Tesla decided to charge a $750 "network fee" for example (maybe with x-amount of free charges bundled in) that would not make Tesla less competitive vs other manufacturers. Also, the DC hardware obviously still costs Tesla money in the 3. They just decided to bundle it in since the marginal costs aren't too high (they probably expect the hardware to be activated at some point the car's life for most cars, at minimum if the car ever reaches Tesla's CPO fleet for example).

Tesla obviously had to prove that it wouldn't make more money than ComEd on its own product.

That's exactly why I would think Tesla wouldn't sell electricity. $.39 per/kwh is astoundingly high. That's over 3 times what people are charged in their homes. Why penalize folks for living in an apartment or a condo that has no access to anything other than SCing? That would make LD travel and expense that would be similar to ICE charges - while at the same time extending travel times tremendously.

I'm sure Blink chargers aren't as crowded as Tesla SC's at that price.

Tesla has never advertised superchargers as a replacement for home charging or a long term solution for apartment/condo dwellers (only as a stop-gap while EV infrastructure is still developing) and encourages people to charge at home instead of superchargers when they have a choice. A higher rate will ensure that people will do that when they have a choice.

I never understood the expectation that public charging infrastructure should match the cost of charging at home (on a $/kWh basis). The overhead and maintenance costs of the network still have to be paid for. When you charge at home, you have paid for the EVSE and installation, your home's electrical connection/panel, and also any additional processing fees from your utility (utilities don't just charge the $/kWh but also other fixed fees). None of this is included in the $/kwh rates quoted for home electricity. With the higher power demands of quick charging, there are even more costs associated (kW based demand charges and dedicated transformers for example; also DC chargers mean there is a separate offboard charger).

 

[Fourdoor]

Ahh...

But here comes the crux - the predominant argument in favor of pay-per-use is not because people want it for themselves... It's because they want other people to do pay-per-use so that it would stop "Supercharger abuse".

So a correct poll that would reflect the true state of the forum would be something like: "Assuming you're excluded by the policy, how do you want other people to pay for Supercharging".

You know... kind'a like the way Congress passes bills.

That is not the way anyone has talked about it... I think most of us who are in favor of "pay per session" "pay per min" or "pay for a time span" are all willing to use what ever system we are in favor of... and all of us realize it will lower the amount of local use. Saying that we are in favor of "other people" having to be on pay as you go while we are "unlimited" so other people can't clog up "our" superchargers is just silly... we understand human nature. With my driving habits of less than 40 miles a day for commuting for the past decade, I pay about a buck a day to keep my car charged. If I travel further than that I use gasoline (I don't like to, but I don't have a choice in the matter). If I spent $2000 for supercharging I would be tempted to NOT put in the Solar PV array I have planned and just use a local Supercharger instead. Why spend money on my own charging infrastructure when I just paid $2000 for charging infrastructure? If I double my commute for my new job, that would still be only around $50 a month to keep my car charged if I do charge at home and don't go Solar. So doing the math I would "get my moneys worth" from Supercharging in a little over 3 years. Getting "my moneys worth" out of a Solar PV system will take longer, but in the end after it is paid off I own it and actually make money off of it.... but it is a long term investment. The Supercharger network should be viewed the same way by Tesla.

Tesla, over charging for Supercharging up front to pay for the infrastructure makes short term sense... just like on paper socialism makes sense... then you factor in human nature and people resent paying $2000 for something they will get $100 worth of use out of. This is with people at an income level to purchase a 100K+ car... when you start selling cars for less than half of that you will have a much higher percentage of people who will charge exclusively at Superchargers if they have to pay a large fee up front to have it enabled.

If you don't understand this about human nature then I don't know what else to say.

Keith

 

[Garlan Garner]

Tesla has never advertised superchargers as a replacement for home charging or a long term solution for apartment/condo dwellers (only as a stop-gap) and encourages people to charge at home instead of superchargers when they have a choice. A higher rate will ensure that people will do that when they have a choice.

I never understood the expectation that public charging infrastructure should match the cost of charging at home. The overhead and maintenance costs of the network still have to be paid for. When you charge at home, you have paid for the EVSE, your home's electrical connection/panel, and also any additional processing fees from your utility (utilities don't just charge the $/kWh but also other fixed fees). None of this is included in the $/kwh rates quoted for home electricity. With the higher power demands of quick charging, there are even more costs associated (kW based demand charges and dedicated transformers for example).

I don't have an expectation of anything other than what Elon and his Sales team told me. For your MS its free - use it as much as you like. My expectation is that my FREE use would be cheaper than my home use...if I had home use. If I purchased my MS and didn't have a garage and the Sales team told me that I could use the SC's as much as I like.....then that gives me a reason to purchase the vehicle. Tesla - don't change your mind mid stream and now say - you have to pay per use.

I sell power to ComEd at $0.04/kwh and they re-sell it at approx. $.09/kwh. There are no taxes or fees exchanged. I consistanly produce more power than my home uses...so I never have to pay those fees nor taxes. I understand what you are saying, however Home charging for the masses will be cheaper than bankrupting companies such as Blink who charges $0.39/kwh.

Tesla can't start charging per/kwh because it would ultimately kill their infrastructure. No one would use it. They would make a much greater profit with a one time charge to whomever selects to purchase SC for life.

 

[Garlan Garner]

That is not the way anyone has talked about it... I think most of us who are in favor of "pay per session" "pay per min" or "pay for a time span" are all willing to use what ever system we are in favor of... and all of us realize it will lower the amount of local use. Saying that we are in favor of "other people" having to be on pay as you go while we are "unlimited" so other people can't clog up "our" superchargers is just silly... we understand human nature. With my driving habits of less than 40 miles a day for commuting for the past decade, I pay about a buck a day to keep my car charged. If I travel further than that I use gasoline (I don't like to, but I don't have a choice in the matter). If I spent $2000 for supercharging I would be tempted to NOT put in the Solar PV array I have planned and just use a local Supercharger instead. Why spend money on my own charging infrastructure when I just paid $2000 for charging infrastructure? If I double my commute for my new job, that would still be only around $50 a month to keep my car charged if I do charge at home and don't go Solar. So doing the math I would "get my moneys worth" from Supercharging in a little over 3 years. Getting "my moneys worth" out of a Solar PV system will take longer, but in the end after it is paid off I own it and actually make money off of it.... but it is a long term investment. The Supercharger network should be viewed the same way by Tesla.

Tesla, over charging for Supercharging up front to pay for the infrastructure makes short term sense... just like on paper socialism makes sense... then you factor in human nature and people resent paying $2000 for something they will get $100 worth of use out of. This is with people at an income level to purchase a 100K+ car... when you start selling cars for less than half of that you will have a much higher percentage of people who will charge exclusively at Superchargers if they have to pay a large fee up front to have it enabled.

If you don't understand this about human nature then I don't know what else to say.

Keith

$2000 is much cheaper than putting in your own infrastructure. I've done it. Follow my solar panel link that is showing the production of my panels.

For Tesla owners in apartments and condos - its the only option.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Tesla, over charging for Supercharging up front to pay for the infrastructure makes short term sense... just like on paper socialism makes sense... then you factor in human nature and people resent paying $2000 for something they will get $100 worth of use out of. This is with people at an income level to purchase a 100K+ car... when you start selling cars for less than half of that you will have a much higher percentage of people who will charge exclusively at Superchargers if they have to pay a large fee up front to have it enabled.

If you don't understand this about human nature then I don't know what else to say.

Keith

The $2000 is for life. That means you would just have to use them more......to get your moneys worth. That's what I'm doing.
I absolutely love pulling up to a SC not having to worry about money.
I just pull up, plugin, and listen to my music. Now that's relaxing.

I don't have to calculate time/kwh charges, how often I've visited, concern myself with limits.

 

[Fourdoor]

$2000 is much cheaper than putting in your own infrastructure. I've done it. Follow my solar panel link that is showing the production of my panels.

For Tesla owners in apartments and condos - its the only option.

Oh, I agree with you... I checked out your link already, very cool If Tesla charges a reasonable activation fee for supercharging I am much more likely to invest in my own PV system. Does your system make enough money now to make it worth staying grid coupled so Commonwealth Edison can profit off of your investment or will you purchase some power wall units and go off grid?

Keith

 

[Garlan Garner]

Oh, I agree with you... I checked out your link already, very cool If Tesla charges a reasonable activation fee for supercharging I am much more likely to invest in my own PV system. Does your system make enough money now to make it worth staying grid coupled so Commonwealth Edison can profit off of your investment or will you purchase some power wall units and go off grid?

Keith

In short - My PV system causes my Electric Meter to spin backwards at an amazing speed. Then at night my house and MS spin it back the other way at a snails pace. I never spin the meter forward as much as the solar panels spins it backwards over a period of a year.
At the end of April - ComEd and I "true up". If I've produced more than I've used...they pay me $0.04/kwh. For the past 2 years, they have paid me $1,200 and $1,600.

The reason I will never go off grid is:
1. I won't get paid by ComEd for overproduction
2. They store my over produced energy for free. (actually used by my neighbor - see below)
3. My panels/batteries can't produce enough energy to start up my whole house AC unit.
4. I never have to pay taxes or fees (because I pay those based on kwh used - for me its 0kwh used).

Its a win / win for both ComEd and I. I over produce power at my home that is used by my neighbors. ComEd charges my neighbors 3X what they pay me and they:
1. Don't have to deliver it.
2. Don't have to run it over their lines ( no infrastructure needed by them).
3. Don't have to produce it.
4. Get credit for delivering "Green" energy by the USdoe ( USA department of energy).
5. Didn't have to install a thing.

Hopefully my post will help people make decisions about whether or not you want to install Solar Panels or not.