Everybody has a different view on this. IMHO, $2k for supercharging is fine for just access to the network; I would not mind paying for the electricity at prevailing rates (12 cents per khw - would be a reasonable off-peak cost, and still less than gasoline). The main problem we need to head off is congestion at superchargers due to large volumes of new Teslas coming on the roads. I like the model of paying more during peak hours (this to include peak electricity demand and peak SC demand). If I have to use the SC because I'm on a trip, I don't mind paying more; meanwhile people who have the flexibility to charge during off-hours could save money by going to SC during periods of less demand. This would even out the congestion at the SC. Think like an economist.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That's been the situation in portions of California's Central Valley (including some of Sacramento) for some time. You can see how that worked out.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
Actually, most ChargePoint stations implement time-based billing, not kWh-based billing, at least where I live. A spot check in Los Angeles shows that nearly all non-free stations charge by the minute/hour, some with heavy penalties after the first couple hours. In fact, in many regions, reselling electricity per kWh is illegal, so time-based metering is the only option. FWIW, ChargePoint L2 chargers can typically provide 6kW, but most Chevy Volts can only accept 3kW; should Volts get a 50% discount per hour for clogging up the charging stations twice as long?
Billing per minute solves all this nicely: it incentivizes responsible SC use (charging near the bottom of the pack, not taking more than you need, not trickle-charging or leaving the car plugged in afterward). It also has "peak pricing" built into it, since the charge rate slows down somewhat when all the stalls are in use.
By contrast, charging per kWh doesn't address abuse and might actually make it worse. Charging per kWh wouldn't prevent someone from leaving their car plugged in after it's done charging. (Or if non-charging time is billed per-minute but charging time is not, it would incentivize users to trickle-charge to 100% to avoid the stall-hogging fees if they're off doing something else, which would be bad for the battery.)
Can you clarify what specific policy you'd like to see, and how it should be enforced?
Last edited:
Ulmo
Active Member
Ok, a better rough rule could be you have to drive far away from a supercharger you used, or else your supercharging isn't free. Home doesn't even enter the equation.
maybe this was already mentioned, but why not set up 1 or 2 SC per location as a pay per use. this would make it more likely that there will at least be one free station open (notice i said "more likely") and if people are paying per use at that particular SC, they will be more likely to get out faster, and thus freeing up a station. This allows people in a real time crunch to reduce wait times, and also can reduce potential abuse during peak times. make it something like 10-20c a minute or what not. you still provide free SCing, but also help reduce wait times and abuse.
Last edited:
Boatguy
Active Member
Speaking strictly about the US market...
1) Owners are expected to have a charging facility at home.
- for owner's who do not have a charger at home (apt, condo, etc.) there is an incentive for someone to provide EV parking with charging (similar to how parking is sold in NY).
2) Can we agree that Superchargers exist primarily to support owners who are away from home, and secondarily as a backup or "charger of last resort" for everyone?
3) Can we agree that if you are within 50 miles of home, you are not "away from home"?
Then I propose:
A) For owner's away from home (i.e., greater than 50 miles), Supercharger's remain free as has always been the intent.
B) For Superchargers not "away" from an owner's home, I suggest an allowance of 100kWh per year for free (roughly 300miles of juice).
- if you're on the last leg coming home, or get caught out and need juice, you can get enough to get home.
C) For usage above the 100kWh allowance, the owner is charged 3x the local peak rate for residential electricity.
- if you've got a problem, you can get a charge, but there is no economic incentive to regular charging at a nearby Supercharger.
Then Tesla's task is to build sufficient Superchargers so that all "touring" owners will be able to quickly charge and get back on the highway, not much different than pulling into a gas station and filling the tank. 150-200kW is good rate of charge that would put an 80% (arrive at 10%, depart at 90%) charge in a 100kWh battery in about half an hour.
The existence of such a network would give Tesla an overwhelming competitive advantage against other car manufacturers who are relying on someone else to build out shared CCS/CHAdeMO networks.
It would be death for Tesla if it became a common occurrence to encounter a queue at a Supercharger. If Supercharger's are not readily available, like a gas pump, they, and the car, have dramatically less value. They are similar to having an account with 100,000 frequent flyer miles that can't be used due to blackouts, they are effectively worthless.
1) Owners are expected to have a charging facility at home.
- for owner's who do not have a charger at home (apt, condo, etc.) there is an incentive for someone to provide EV parking with charging (similar to how parking is sold in NY).
2) Can we agree that Superchargers exist primarily to support owners who are away from home, and secondarily as a backup or "charger of last resort" for everyone?
3) Can we agree that if you are within 50 miles of home, you are not "away from home"?
Then I propose:
A) For owner's away from home (i.e., greater than 50 miles), Supercharger's remain free as has always been the intent.
B) For Superchargers not "away" from an owner's home, I suggest an allowance of 100kWh per year for free (roughly 300miles of juice).
- if you're on the last leg coming home, or get caught out and need juice, you can get enough to get home.
C) For usage above the 100kWh allowance, the owner is charged 3x the local peak rate for residential electricity.
- if you've got a problem, you can get a charge, but there is no economic incentive to regular charging at a nearby Supercharger.
Then Tesla's task is to build sufficient Superchargers so that all "touring" owners will be able to quickly charge and get back on the highway, not much different than pulling into a gas station and filling the tank. 150-200kW is good rate of charge that would put an 80% (arrive at 10%, depart at 90%) charge in a 100kWh battery in about half an hour.
The existence of such a network would give Tesla an overwhelming competitive advantage against other car manufacturers who are relying on someone else to build out shared CCS/CHAdeMO networks.
It would be death for Tesla if it became a common occurrence to encounter a queue at a Supercharger. If Supercharger's are not readily available, like a gas pump, they, and the car, have dramatically less value. They are similar to having an account with 100,000 frequent flyer miles that can't be used due to blackouts, they are effectively worthless.
cpa
Active Member
Boat, I hear you. But I really do not think this solution is practical, cost efficient or sensible. One reason is that Superchargers on the touchscreen report distance from your location "as the crow flies." Fifty miles as the crow flies could easily be much longer on actual roads. Second, no one is going to monitor their "local 100kWh/year" usage restriction. Third, Tesla is not going to want to suffer adverse publicity for a complicated set up. Finally, there is an increasing number of Superchargers that are clustered. For example, there are three bunched up in Hawthorne, Culver City and Redondo Beach. It is easily possible that two of them are <50 miles away, but the third is 52 miles away from a local residing in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.
I agree that there will always small-time chiselers who want to get something for nothing. They will plan a lunch, shopping, or worse, take in a movie. The best way to handle this would be for Tesla to contact them by telephone and ask if they have a problem charging at home. A 5-minute phone call from a trained human being (not a robot) to explain Tesla's position and concern that others might not be able to utilize the SC network will probably alleviate 80% of the miscreants. The remaining 20% or so will just be the cost of doing business.
I agree that there will always small-time chiselers who want to get something for nothing. They will plan a lunch, shopping, or worse, take in a movie. The best way to handle this would be for Tesla to contact them by telephone and ask if they have a problem charging at home. A 5-minute phone call from a trained human being (not a robot) to explain Tesla's position and concern that others might not be able to utilize the SC network will probably alleviate 80% of the miscreants. The remaining 20% or so will just be the cost of doing business.
bfukumoto
Member
I rarely charge at a Supercharger since I have a HPWC at home and don't take long road trips as my MS is a daily commuter. But today we took a 210 mile trip and I charged to top off to provide margin on the way home. Got there just in time as there were 4 open stalls. When I got back, all stalls were taken and another MS waiting.
EVie'sDad
Member
I don't know anyone making even close to that per hour! But by that same distorted view, you suggest that if you don't make that much, then it's 'ok' to take advantage of the SC? When those who live in residences that don't have charging options available (apartments, condo's, and the like) who don't work for employers who permit charging while working, that their only options will be to use the SC, and being that most owners vying for the Model 3 will be middle income buyers. They will be using the SC services, like it or not. Let's hope the construction of destination & expansion of the SC network keeps pace with those demands.
I didn't say that, nowhere near that at all.
I said that "free" tends to distort economics. That's it, a simple reminder.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Tesla committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE almost 2 years ago. They have also been quoted to the effect that the SC business model is fine through 1,000,000 cars, and that the free SC model in particular is sustainable.
Those of us who bought in good faith in part due to the above commitments do not appreciate efforts to the contrary and in particular to create some kind of hinky pay per use model.
Two-thirds of dwellings in the US have garages. Put another way, garages outnumber gas stations 400:1.
The vast majority of Model S/X owners do not use SCs. The majority of M3 owners won't either.
This does not have to be complicated.
Those of us who bought in good faith in part due to the above commitments do not appreciate efforts to the contrary and in particular to create some kind of hinky pay per use model.
Two-thirds of dwellings in the US have garages. Put another way, garages outnumber gas stations 400:1.
The vast majority of Model S/X owners do not use SCs. The majority of M3 owners won't either.
This does not have to be complicated.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
If you are suggesting that the vast majority of S/X owners don't use Superchargers on a regular or daily basis, I agree. If you are suggesting that the vast majority of S/X owners don't use Superchargers ever, I am highly skeptical of such a claim.
I agree, it isn't a vast majority of people who never have used a SpC but I bet the numbers run between .25 and .33 percent of owners have never supercharged. with a car that gets 250 miles of range coupled with the ability to home charge many people never have the need to go to a SpC
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Fortunately, "ever" remains irrelevant in the context of supercharger utilization or, in particular, with regard to the mythical notion of congestion that does not affect 97% of SCs today.
Tesla's commitment to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE will stay ahead of the demand curve nicely. As well, one might consider that garages outnumber gas stations 400:1 and that 2/3 of US abodes include a garage.
Of course, if one wants to be a contrarian and focus upon only greater metropolitan areas, the numbers change.
Hi Boat,
I can agree with some of this. I certainly agree that the primary purpose of superchargers is to allow Tesla owners to make long distance trips. However, I am pretty sure Musk has said that they are also a means for people in housing circumstances that don't allow personal chargers (eg, some apartments and condos) to keep their cars charged. I would not turn those folks away. I think that people with homes should, as a general rule, keep away from SC except when traveling—at least when the SC are close to full.
DJ
You missed his point entirely, sorry. He was simply saying that despite the fact that it is irrational behavior for someone whose time is very valuable economically to spend time sitting around at superchargers people do so anyway. The word "free" has the demonstrable effect of distorting rational preferences.
ZBB
Emperor
No… We cannot agree on that.
There are 3 Superchargers within a 50 mile radius of my house. None are close enough to use for daily use. I have used all 3 during road trips.
Let's use the closest one as an example -- Cordes Lakes, AZ. Its just under 40 miles from my house. While I can make it to the Flagstaff Supercharger from my house without stopping at Cordes (we did it once before Cordes was built), a ~15-20 min boost charge at Cordes makes the climb up to Flagstaff much easier. For reference, I have a 60 -- and while the Flagstaff Supercharger is only 129 miles to my house, there is a net elevation gain of over 5000 feet, and it takes ~190 rated miles to make it up the hill. The time we made it, we drove exactly the speed limit (which meant we were the slowest car on the road -- I-17 traffic flows at 80-85 (5-10 over the limit). With a boost charge in Cordes, I can drive with the flow of traffic and have no worries about making Flag.
As for Supercharging overcrowding, in my experience its not an issue at most superchargers. I've supercharged 66 times now -- with all except one being on road trips; the other was an impromptu ribbon cutting for a new Supercharger. I've only seen a queue twice -- both right after TMC Connect ended. The Supercharger site was full or nearly full (1 spot left) only 4 other times -- all in California. Tesla is adding capacity in CA, and I'm OK with their messaging to abusers (although it sounds like they need to refine their triggers a little bit…)
Boatguy
Active Member
So with about 70,000 MS's sold in the US through Q1 2016, some SCs are already full. Let's say MS + MX double that through 2017. Then let's say M3 double's that in 2018. Two and a half years from now there are 4x as many potential SC users as today. If the current utilization model is representative of the future, then Tesla has a couple of years to quadruple the number of SCs that it has deployed in the last four years.
I just don't see how the current model will work without some reasonable rationing (in the economic use of the word) to support the original and ongoing intent of the SC network.
Similar threads
- Question
