Should Tesla charge "going rate" for electricity?

[Vern Padgett]

Downey and Commerce, interested in seeing their progress. I'd post pix, but google maps just shows empty space next to the Burger King.

For all superchargers, can we agree, Tesla should charge going rate for electricity, like 48c a kW, during high peak times, when you charge within an hour of drive to your home, or if you charge over 80%?

 

[4SUPER9]

For all superchargers, can we agree, Tesla should charge going rate for electricity, like 48c a kW, during high peak times, when you charge within an hour of drive to your home, or if you charge over 80%?

I would not agree to that. None of us can decide on whether someone who lives near by is either:
1) abusing to avoid paying their home casts
2) are in a situation where they are forbidden from charging at home (ie: many apartments), or
3) Making serious commutes throughout the region necessitating a rapid charge to get somewhere other than back home. They could have left with a full charge, and returned with little to none, and need to continue going somewhere else.

It is not Tesla's job nor ours to make those determinations. Besides, it is too complex to manage.

 

[cpa]

I would not agree to that. None of us can decide on whether someone who lives near by is either:
1) abusing to avoid paying their home casts
2) are in a situation where they are forbidden from charging at home (ie: many apartments), or
3) Making serious commutes throughout the region necessitating a rapid charge to get somewhere other than back home. They could have left with a full charge, and returned with little to none, and need to continue going somewhere else.

It is not Tesla's job nor ours to make those determinations. Besides, it is too complex to manage.

Agree 100%.

Two weeks ago I drove to Oregon. First stop, Manteca. Next stop, Corning. I charged to 88% at Manteca in order to reach Corning. Made it with 20RM remaining.

Return trip: Springfield Supercharger to Klamath Falls Supercharger: Charged to 90%; arrived with 38RM. Klamath Falls to Truckee:
Charged to 96%; arrived in Susanville and used the Red Lion HPWC for a little over an hour. Arrived Truckee with 10RM. Leg home: Charged at Rocklin to 85%; made it home with 26RM. Sure, I could have charged at Rocklin to 60% and stopped 90 minutes later at Manteca for a 30-minute detour; how many of us would do that sort of thing?

I estimate that I have made about 35 additional Supercharging stops where I charged more than 80% out of necessity, like Worthington MN to Council Bluffs IA; Hays KS to Goodland KS; Ritzville WA to Nelson BC. When I return home from the desert, I must stop in Mojave. I need a 92-95% charge in order to make it home with 25-35 RM. Do you recommend that I stop at 80% and drive to Buttonwillow, a good 90 minutes out-of-my-way?

VernPadgett, your suggestion of a 48c/kWh fee for charging beyond 80% appears to be reflexive and not thought-out. Your idea imposes even more restrictions upon us and takes away from enjoying our cars. Must we be consigned to the popular interstate highways? Must we drive longer legs at 50MPH in order to conserve battery? How about when there is inclement weather and usage skyrockets?

If your driving habits and needs never require more than an 80% charge, that is great! But not all of us fall into that category.

 

[Vern Padgett]

Thanks for your thoughts on this divisive issue. But Tesla does need to charge us for the power.

We do need to pay for the power. I don't see another way to ration it fairly. I've thrown out a couple suggestions.

Any ideas on how to charge for the energy fairly?

Just saying you don't want to ever pay for electricity isn't helpful and won't reduce unneeded charging.

 

[Doug Martoccia]

It's not the electricity use that is the issue, it's the congestion. Charging a few cents a kWhr serves as a gentle nudge and may work at the margins; however, ultimately, more Superchargers must be built.

 

[bxr140]

Any ideas on how to charge for the energy fairly?

Tesla already does charge for power. They don't need to layer on another complicated system.

 

[freeewilly]

Thanks for your thoughts on this divisive issue. But Tesla does need to charge us for the power.

We do need to pay for the power. I don't see another way to ration it fairly. I've thrown out a couple suggestions.

Any ideas on how to charge for the energy fairly?

Just saying you don't want to ever pay for electricity isn't helpful and won't reduce unneeded charging.

I did pay for the power, I paid $2500 for super charging that comes with unlimited use. I used SC for about 10 times total, it's kind of expensive.

 

[cruiserlarry]

There are a substantial number of Tesla owners who either paid for unlimited supercharging as an expensive option, or purchased the vehicle with free unlimited supercharging as a condition of the sale. While I can appreciate the congestion issue, that should be a concern for Tesla to work out to make sure they follow through on the commitment they have made to current "unlimited supercharging for life" owners. If you have purchased a Tesla with unlimited free lifetime supercharging, you should be able to access free unlimited supercharging without subsequent conditions.

Of course, common courtesy regarding remaining at a charger only while charging, or paying an "idle" fee, make sense to me to help alleviate SC overcrowding when they are crowded, and realistically, most superchargers are not convenient for daily use for most folks anyway. Personally, I charge almost exclusively at home, so I don't consider myself a "supercharger hog". But please don't tell me I shouldn't be able to utilize ANY supercharger in the Tesla network ANYTIME I want to because you feel I'm "taking advantage" of the free electricity, when what I'm really doing is utilizing one of many fantastic features included in the price of a very expensive automobile I paid for. (With all respect to Tesla's performance options) any suggestion otherwise is Insane and Ludicrous.

 

[ecarfan]

Moderator note: the first 8 posts in this topic were moved from a thread in the California Superchargers forum that was discussing/speculating about future Supercharger locations in Southern California. That is why the first sentence in post #1 isn't related to the rest of the posts above. But I couldn't leave that sentence in the thread it was in while moving the post.

 

[TexLaw]

I already paid for my electricity when I bought my car with FUSC for life. The only thing "fair" is for Tesla to live up to their end of that agreement.

 

[Lloyd]

Here is an interesting dilemma: If your car gets totaled, and you have to get a new Tesla which will not have free supercharging for life. What do you claim with insurance as the "value" for the lost ability to charge for free for life???

Mods feel free to make this a separate thread if you feel it should be.

 

[brkaus]

Here is an interesting dilemma: If your car gets totaled, and you have to get a new Tesla which will not have free supercharging for life. What do you claim with insurance as the "value" for the lost ability to charge for free for life???

Mods feel free to make this a separate thread if you feel it should be.

Simple - whatever fair market value for the car is at the time. Other cars with unlimited supercharging that are for sale will effectively set the price as unlimited supercharging will be included in those cars.

 

[jaguar36]

Here is an interesting dilemma: If your car gets totaled, and you have to get a new Tesla which will not have free supercharging for life. What do you claim with insurance as the "value" for the lost ability to charge for free for life???

Shouldn't be any separate value, the value of the free supercharging for life is included in the resale value of the of the car.

 

[Vern Padgett]

Great points all.

I'm sure that you all are aware that we will have thousands of Model 3 cars adding to the supercharger congestion. I'm just thinking as to how Tesla might ration "free" electricity to us.

I have 2 Model Ss and I've enjoyed supercharging often with each of them. Part of what I paid for. Not saying I want to give that up, or that anyone would. Just wondering what is a fair way to balance availability with demand. Building more supercharging stations helps but what would be better-- more SC stations than needed, or those resources used to further Model 3 production? And how ought Tesla calculate that? Doug's comment was useful-- working at the margins--

Pretend you are CEO of Tesla. You can provide an infinite number of SCs for unlimited "free" charging for everyone, or, you can use those resources to further the mission .... I'm just tossing out for thoughts on how to balance our entitlement mentality about "free" fuel versus the reality of finite resources.

 

[Vern Padgett]

Revised proposal to ease the problems of overcrowded Superchargers:

Tesla charges going rate for electricity, if you charge within X miles of your home, and

charges you the going rate for charging over 80%, if there are other supercharging stations on all major routes within your 80% range.

These are not punishment rates-- just charge the going rate.

 

[Vern Padgett]

I would not agree to that. None of us can decide on whether someone who lives near by is either:
1) abusing to avoid paying their home casts
2) are in a situation where they are forbidden from charging at home (ie: many apartments), or
3) Making serious commutes throughout the region necessitating a rapid charge to get somewhere other than back home. They could have left with a full charge, and returned with little to none, and need to continue going somewhere else.
It is not Tesla's job nor ours to make those determinations. Besides, it is too complex to manage.

I agree with most of what you wrote.
But does Tesla have the onus to decide whether others are abusing?
Or should that onus be on them?
Just asking, not judging.
I mean, ask yourself this, if there were a huge fount of free money .. what would the rules be?
That no one could say that they were not qualified?

 

[Vern Padgett]

Trying to make this simpler.

Ought we pay for resources that Tesla gives us?

 

[cruiserlarry]

My experience so far has been the Tesla community seems to be comprised of people generally of above-average intelligence - so I still trying to understand why there is confusion about what "Free Supercharging for Life" means.

There is nothing in that contractual obligation Tesla made with me that would suggest I would need to compromise the value of the features of the vehicle I paid for to ease the concerns of the Mr. Musk, or selfishly, of any other Tesla owner. In fact, if my access to free supercharging were to be restricted for any reason other than site congestion, Tesla should have to reimburse me for cost of electricity I need to obtain in it's place. Tesla was not coerced into selling this feature to me and others; in fact, it was heavily used as a marketing tool to help sway folks like me considering a new Tesla into purchasing their vehicles prior to the end of the 4th quarter, 2016, to boost sales numbers for investors. So, in my view, the fact I am willing to charge my vehicle at home, at my expensive, is already a courtesy being extended to Tesla and their obligation.

It wasn't that long ago when folks were in an uproar on this forum and others when Tesla stated they would limit the launch capability of P series vehicles for fear that Tesla would incur additional warranty claims for batteries and motors that were "abused". I didn't recall anyone, whether they owned a P model or not, stating they were in favor of Tesla limiting owners' ability to access a feature they were marketed and sold, or agreeing that utilizing Launch mode, regardless of how often, was an "abuse" of the feature they paid for.

I see no difference in regard to Free Supercharging for Life.

 

[Shock-On-T]

My experience so far has been the Tesla community seems to be comprised of people generally of above-average intelligence - so I still trying to understand why there is confusion about what "Free Supercharging for Life" means.

There is nothing in that contractual obligation Tesla made with me that would suggest I would need to compromise the value of the features of the vehicle I paid for to ease the concerns of the Mr. Musk, or selfishly, of any other Tesla owner. In fact, if my access to free supercharging were to be restricted for any reason other than site congestion, Tesla should have to reimburse me for cost of electricity I need to obtain in it's place. Tesla was not coerced into selling this feature to me and others; in fact, it was heavily used as a marketing tool to help sway folks like me considering a new Tesla into purchasing their vehicles prior to the end of the 4th quarter, 2016, to boost sales numbers for investors. So, in my view, the fact I am willing to charge my vehicle at home, at my expensive, is already a courtesy being extended to Tesla and their obligation.

It wasn't that long ago when folks were in an uproar on this forum and others when Tesla stated they would limit the launch capability of P series vehicles for fear that Tesla would incur additional warranty claims for batteries and motors that were "abused". I didn't recall anyone, whether they owned a P model or not, stating they were in favor of Tesla limiting owners' ability to access a feature they were marketed and sold, or agreeing that utilizing Launch mode, regardless of how often, was an "abuse" of the feature they paid for.

I see no difference in regard to Free Supercharging for Life.

That is completely correct.
The Model 3 congestion will be solved by:
1. More superchargers
2. The Model 3 not having FUSC
3. More price-sensitive Model 3 demographic preferring cheaper home charging

As for working out who's abusing, local charging, whatever, there have been dozens of threads and it's basically too complicated.
Those of us with FUSC paid extra for it and will use it. The 2017+ cars will pay per use. Easy.

 

[Shock-On-T]

I'd also add that in many ways the supercharger network is Tesla's biggest asset.
There will be many EVs coming soon, and quite a few already out, that people are/will ignore because of charging difficulty.
Those waiting for the Model 3 could be buying Bolts and Ionics, but they aren't.