Must be nice! I have to settle for the "peasant" vehicle for all travel (maybe I should hold onto the hybrid).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharger Price Increase
- Thread starter seattlite2004
- Start date
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Yes, parrot - in a very dated fashion no less.
Those of us in 2018 who have been paying attention are familiar with these things called urban superchargers. Not to mention the shifting demographics of Tesla ownership toward the non-garaged whether in urban areas or the merely suburban.
Bogus rhetoric won’t fly here - especially with someone who was told by Tesla in late 2014 to use superchargers exclusively due to not having any possibility of home or office charging in the foreseeable future.
Not sure what the haters of the non-garaged are so fearful of - other than of simply being wrong. It’s the same group that persecutes the myth of the garaged local “freeloader” about to take over every SC.
Fortunately, those of us who live in areas at the top of the usage list (California has 6-7 of the top 10 used SCs in the world, while the other 99% of the network is juuuust fine with rare exception) know better, and instead note the real causes of SC congestion - ICEing by our own and livery - both since addressed by Tesla.
I’d suggest you do *your* research before taking the easy way out and merely parroting what you wish would be true.
GenSao
Member
I think the increase is fine and still reasonable compared to commercial electric costs.
For Supercharger locations for the Model 3 (and S & X), Tesla has to pay for the land (or lease), property taxes (if applicable), hardware, operation and maintenance, and the energy cost at retail rates. Solar and batteries may help offset some of the retail costs, but likely not enough to offset actual use. For example, using a Northern California (PG&E) rate schedule for a commercial customer for high electric use and a primary feed (A10 TOU):
The above rates do not take in to account Peak Day Pricing, Demand Charges, and fixed costs. The "Average Total Rate" is $0.20 / kWh take those into account. Tesla charges $0.26 / kWh in California. Only a $0.06 / kWh markup to cover everything else.
For Supercharger locations for the Model 3 (and S & X), Tesla has to pay for the land (or lease), property taxes (if applicable), hardware, operation and maintenance, and the energy cost at retail rates. Solar and batteries may help offset some of the retail costs, but likely not enough to offset actual use. For example, using a Northern California (PG&E) rate schedule for a commercial customer for high electric use and a primary feed (A10 TOU):
Summer Peak = $0.21 / kWh
Summer Part-Peak = $0.16 / kWh
Summer Off-Peak = $0.13 / kWh
Winter Part-Peak = $0.14 / kWh
Winter Off-Peak = $0.12 / kWh
Summer Part-Peak = $0.16 / kWh
Summer Off-Peak = $0.13 / kWh
Winter Part-Peak = $0.14 / kWh
Winter Off-Peak = $0.12 / kWh
The above rates do not take in to account Peak Day Pricing, Demand Charges, and fixed costs. The "Average Total Rate" is $0.20 / kWh take those into account. Tesla charges $0.26 / kWh in California. Only a $0.06 / kWh markup to cover everything else.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I think Tesla is going to have a separate fee regimen for the MEGA-Chargers. Rumor is ~$0.07/kWh.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Interesting pricing structure and changes relative to state average price from a month ago: State Electricity Profiles - Energy Information Administration
Washington is avg of 7.68c kW has largest %age hike, yep. Not caring much personally, though rationale on criteria used to determine changes would be good to hear...
Washington is avg of 7.68c kW has largest %age hike, yep. Not caring much personally, though rationale on criteria used to determine changes would be good to hear...
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
This thread is getting snippy. haha
Here is the outdated information I am parroting:
]
I happen to agree with this view. Tesla has changed their marketing now, I think because this is an unpopular opinion. It seems like the best solution would be to have the rates vary depending on congestion and time of day so that locals can charge more cheaply and people on road trips can get on with their trip. I doubt Tesla is making money on superchargers even at the new higher rates.
Here is the outdated information I am parroting:
I happen to agree with this view. Tesla has changed their marketing now, I think because this is an unpopular opinion. It seems like the best solution would be to have the rates vary depending on congestion and time of day so that locals can charge more cheaply and people on road trips can get on with their trip. I doubt Tesla is making money on superchargers even at the new higher rates.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
It's probably all the bitcoin mining operations up there.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
They'll be different facilities, because physically they are very different things (different cable, different size of vehicles, different usage patterns because of longer range), although in places they could be adjacent to allow leveraging the infrastructure that'll get the Mega costs down to where they can sell it that cheap. Battery banks to keep their peak draw rate off the grid as low as possible and solar panels to general some of their own electricity. They also seem to believe that they'll be able to have revenue from providing arbitrage service to the grid, as that large Hornsdale, Australia installation has been doing. ((EDIT: Note that the long term profitability of the Hornsdale project may have been oversold in some stories that came out earlier this year, the degree of profitability is still in question.))
P.S. It'll be interesting to see if Tesla begins to deviate from their state level pricing at the SC locations that are able to leverage off those Mega sites. Right now they aren't adjusting for local reality costs or local electricity prices (different sites within the same state aren't necessary even on the same regional grid). They're abstracting all that away.
Last edited:
It looks a lot like Tesla switched from basing SC prices on avg state electricity prices to basing them on avg state gasoline prices instead.
Washington State has amongst the lowest electricity prices but amongst the highest gasoline prices. This explains why it saw the biggest jump in SC price.
(I actually plotted out the old and new SC prices vs electricity and gas prices by state to check this hypothesis. The correlation isn't perfect, but it's very strong.)
By basing the price on avg state gas prices instead of electricity prices, Tesla can raise the SC prices as high as possible in each state without violating their "cheaper than gas" pledge.
Racerx22b
@unplggdd on Instagram
Lemme know that that Semi is worth in 10-20yrs... I’m thinking my ocean front view will give me a profit if I choose to sell and I might lose a few bucks on a Semi.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Interesting. This could well be correct. If so, this could have an unexpected consequence. A large proportion of the gas price in states like Washington is tax and Tesla should be unsurprised that States will consider taxation on electricity as an an automotive fuel source in a similar manner when they realize this’s the new expectation..
Just because they lost money in one business unit doesn't mean they didn't profit in the other. Tesla could charge $10.00/kwh and still lose money overall as a company. Their charging business unit however will be a cash cow in relation to expenditures. If you spend $5mil/yr on SC network then you should bring in no more than $5mil in revenue from the spending network. If we look at it your way then they can make a killing in charging department but as long as the make sure to spend more money somewhere else, then they aren't breaking their promise.
This slide from a presentation I found shows how much demand charges can have an effect on the utility bill.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
FYI, this is already in effect yet I’ve not seen any official communication from Tesla via email, or other direct method on price increase. From 0.11c to 0.25c. It’s not the cost here, it’s the principal: Tesla’s poor communication to its current and future customers continues. How much additional effort is it to go from blog entry to mass mailing to customers to rationalize and proactively communicate?
david_42
Member
Looks like the Oregon rate has doubled to 0.24/kwhr, although I doubt we would ever use a supercharger.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It was that 7 cents a kWh figure I was thinking of. If 20 cents a kWh is closer to cost for Tesla, then 7 cents a kWh is heavily subsidized ... even before we consider what will presumably be much higher demand charges.
Kenriko
Former Vendor
Let’s see them try to tax my solar panels. You can pry these solar panels from my cold dead hands.
My understanding from what I've read recently was that large companies will have the Megachargers installed in their own lots and presumably the trucks could travel from one location to the other without the need for a charge in between, but there's been some discussion as to maybe some type of reciprocal program for other semis to possibly charge there as well. All sounds still very much up in the air how this will work for them.
Back here at home with Electricty from our local utility, the rise in Calif Supercharger rate is still .02 below what it is for us at our home (.28kWh). And I'm not sure when my husband arrived at that number if it factored in taxes and fees which Tesla's charge rate does include. Our bills would be much less if it wasn't loaded down with those. There's generally always someone in our house day or night so until we get solar (hopefully roof tiles) on our home with battery pack, we're kind of stuck paying the higher utility home rate we have. So supercharging for us in California is close to charging at home.
I saw that Hawaii's Tesla rate was .34kWh, yikes. But the islands have rather limited amounts of road to travel on so figure most drivers' traveling is more limited in miles driven than in other states like California where many people have good round trips totals just to and from work. Plus those living up in residential areas on Haleakala or some of the other island volcanoes I'm thinking at least get good regen on the way down to the coast if their work takes them in that direction so maybe the higher electricity number isn't quite as bad as it seems. Interested to hear from Hawaiians regarding this.
Foxhound199
Member
The state already collects this tax on Washingtonians in the form of a $150/year registration surcharge for EVs. They aren't trying to recover it through electricity, which is dirt cheap and plentiful here.
Kant.Ing
Member
Another way to interpret the chart is that the business could provide a slow charge for a free Supercharge holder, and a fast charging rate for a paying one. I want my charge neutrality!
This slide from a presentation I found shows how much demand charges can have an effect on the utility bill.
Similar threads
