Supercharging Costs

[abelohlavek]

After using up the yearly allowance of 400kWh on the supercharger network, I'm wondering which of the following routes Tesla will take:

1. Charge for the cost of electricity and not take a profit, thereby using extremely cheap "fill-ups" as yet another good marketing device to sell the car.

2. Charge more than the cost of electricity and use the profits to build and develop the supercharging network.

In thinking about option 1, using the average price of $.02/kWh, even a full charge on a P100D would only cost $12. That's pretty amazing compared to the price of gas.

On the other hand, even charging $.20/kWh would still be cheaper than gas and might provide them with enough profit to expand the network.

Elon has said that Tesla is not in the service business to make a profit, and I wonder if that ethos will apply to the supercharging network.

Thoughts? Go!

 

[JeffK]

On the other hand, even charging $.20/kWh would still be cheaper than gas and might provide them with enough profit to expand the network.

No, this is highly dependent on the car and current gas prices. Modern hybrids get over 50 mpg.

At $2 per gallon a 50 mpg car costs 2/50 = 4 cents per mile
The equivalent electricity price would be 0.04 cents/mi * about 3.5 miles/kWh = 0.14 cents per kWh

There are of course a ton of other factors, driving habits, electrical losses, ICE maintenance, etc. but basically unless you are thinking about a non-fuel efficient car in the future, the prices are "virtually" equivalent with electricity being slightly cheaper as a "fuel".

The second you use the supercharging network to make a profit then you're price gouging the public like commercial charging companies such as chargepoint, etc. who might charge 0.40 to 0.80 cents per kWh. or the equivalent of nearly $5.5 - $11 per gallon of gasoline using the numbers above. It's ridiculous.

 

[S3XY]

I would be okay with a one or two cent per kWh margin charged by Tesla to use for maintaining and expanding the SC network. I would not want to see it become a profit center and I'd be surprised if they made it one. The SC's are there to help Tesla achieve it's mission, to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. Price gouging would run counter to that.

 

[melindav]

In thinking about option 1, using the average price of $.02/kWh, even a full charge on a P100D would only cost $12. That's pretty amazing compared to the price of gas.

Assume you intended $0.12...

Personally, I'd like to see it set up as slightly over your local home energy rates (relative to ea owner). So someone in the Midwest with a home rate of $0.12 could pay $0.14 or $140 for 1000kWh, in the northwest home rates are $0.08 and could pay $0.10 or $100 for 1000kWh, those with high home rates of $0.20 may pay $0.22 or $220 for 1000kWh....
That would go toward the idea that it is best/cheapest to charge at home equally across the board. But if you just used the national average of $0.12, those in the high energy rate areas would have more of an insentive to use the SCs than charge at home and those in areas with low rates would be paying well over what they do at home.
Just my bias being in the low home electricity rates camp

 

[1101011]

My understanding is that selling kWs turns Tesla into a utility- then subject to public utility commissions in each state- very problematic.

Therefore more like to see charges based on something else.

 

[JeffK]

My understanding is that selling kWs turns Tesla into a utility- then subject to public utility commissions in each state- very problematic.

Therefore more like to see charges based on something else.

It depends, companies like chargepoint, blink, etc lobbied to be excluded from such laws.

 

[Saghost]

If Tesla sells you a block of Supercharging kWh which can be consumed in any state, which utility commission do they have to report to?

They aren't selling power by the kWh in any specific location, but they are in all of them. I'm not sure how the law would work out in that case - does it make them a utility or not?

 

[Az_Rael]

Elon has said that Tesla is not in the service business to make a profit, and I wonder if that ethos will apply to the supercharging network

I don't know if you have priced the hourly rates at your local SC, but "not for profit" is not equal to cheap or low rates.

 

[BluestarE3]

Regarding your poll question, we'll have to wait until Tesla announces their pricing, which is promised to be soon (that's assuming you actually want a definitive answer to this, rather than just spurring a lively discussion on this topic).

By the way, welcome to the TMC forums!

 

[cpa]

We are used to a variable rate for refueling our cars. Filling stations generally display prominently the prices for their various grades of fuel. I really do not think that Tesla should adopt this approach for these reasons:

--Too time consuming for a clerical person to change the price at location X when the rates go up. Moreover, it could get troublesome if there are time-of-use rate differences. It just creates a lot of extra work and increases errors for a couple of dollars per use. No need to have call centers dedicated to resolving customer complaints for peanuts.

--Utility service areas are not obvious. California has the big three, but then we also have a lot of irrigation districts and municipalities who are their own utility. Prices can be different one mile down the road due to these different utility providers. Customers won't know why the charge was $.10 kWh at Rocklin but $.08 at Truckee (for example.) And yes, I know people who react to these sorts of small differences.

--A single price (or a single price over a large region like east/west of the Mississippi) is much easier for the customer to comprehend. Tesla has the data to determine the mean, median and mode electricity price. They should just determine which of the three to use to determine a fixed per-kWh price and stick with it. Add a small amount to cover routine maintenance.

It is unclear whether Tesla will offer paid Supercharging on a unit basis or on a time basis. If it is on a unit basis, then it is much easier for both parties to know that $100 will buy 1,000 kWh if the price is 10 cents, but only 800 kWh if the price is twelve and one-half cents. Keep it simple. If the fee is charged on a period of time basis, then this whole discussion is academic.

 

[JeffK]

It is unclear whether Tesla will offer paid Supercharging on a unit basis or on a time basis.

It's clear after the last few months of updates and leaks, Tesla supercharging credits are per kWh.
old screenshot:

In addition, the free 400 kWh has a kWh in the units not minutes/hours.

 

[tezzla]

What about rates per kWh of charge: 20 cents for 60 kWh (max), 50 cents for 120 kWh (max).
(do not take this post seriously, but... you never know!)

 

[GSP]

Tesla has stated they do not intend to make a profit, and they will price supercharging less than the cost of gasoline for a comparable car. Tesla has also stated the price will vary by region (depending on gasoline and electricity prices in each region).

If Tesla tried to recover all of their costs, including installation, maintenance, utility meter/connection fee, energy fees, and monthly peak demand rate fees, supercharging would be more expensive than gasoline.

Fortunately, we do not need high power public charging except for long trips. Most of the energy for Teslas and other EVs can come from much less expensive lower power home or work charging. I think this is key to making EVs economical.

GSP

 

[Jersey Shore Tom]

What about rates per kWh of charge: 20 cents for 60 kWh (max), 50 cents for 120 kWh (max).
(do not take this post seriously, but... you never know!)

That would encourage people to stay at Superchargers longer than nessasary. If anything slower charging should be more expensive.

 

[AustinPowers]

After using up the yearly allowance of 400kWh on the supercharger network, I'm wondering which of the following routes Tesla will take...

Having just gotten the email about the extension of the free-SC usage program, I am unsure if what we thought up to now is actually going to happen.
In the mail it clearly states that Model S and Model X cars ordered after 15 Jan and delivered after 15 Apr will benefit from 400 kWh per year. It makes no mention at all of Model 3!

I am not sure what to make of it, but it certainly sounds as if only Model S and X cars will get the free 400 kWh of SC usage per year.
Thoughts?

 

[FlatSix911]

Tesla is extending unlimited Supercharging for cars ordered in the next 2 weeks

 

[Candleflame]

i cant see how this can be very expensive. A tesla MS uses ~283 watt/km at 150km/h for 3.53 km/kw. A modern diesel will probably use about 63ml of diesel for the same, i.e. get 15.8 km/L.

A litre of Diesel is 1.15 Euros atm in Germany so it rolls 4.47x further than a kw of energy Anything above 25 eurocents/kwh, means that a diesel is actually cheaper.

I had a look at the american diesel prices and it looks like diesel is about 2.5 USD/gallon which I guess is about 0.26 USD/litre (this seems really low?). So unless it costs less than 0.06 USD/kwh you end up paying more for distance with electricity than with Diesel.

 

[melindav]

i cant see how this can be very expensive. A tesla MS uses ~283 watt/km at 150km/h for 3.53 km/kw. A modern diesel will probably use about 63ml of diesel for the same, i.e. get 15.8 km/L.

A litre of Diesel is 1.15 Euros atm in Germany so it rolls 4.47x further than a kw of energy Anything above 25 eurocents/kwh, means that a diesel is actually cheaper.

I had a look at the american diesel prices and it looks like diesel is about 2.5 USD/gallon which I guess is about 0.26 USD/litre (this seems really low?). So unless it costs less than 0.06 USD/kwh you end up paying more for distance with electricity than with Diesel.

There are 3.785L per gallon, so your $2.50 USD gallon of diesel would be $0.66 USD per liter (every gas station i pass on a regular basis has diesel near or over $3.00)

 

[Mkorpal]

Having just gotten the email about the extension of the free-SC usage program, I am unsure if what we thought up to now is actually going to happen.
In the mail it clearly states that Model S and Model X cars ordered after 15 Jan and delivered after 15 Apr will benefit from 400 kWh per year. It makes no mention at all of Model 3!

I am not sure what to make of it, but it certainly sounds as if only Model S and X cars will get the free 400 kWh of SC usage per year.
Thoughts?

Well, they are still at least 9 months from delivering a Model 3, so I wouldn't read into anything at all. Why would they mention the model 3 in that email at all?

 

[AustinPowers]

Well, they are still at least 9 months from delivering a Model 3, so I wouldn't read into anything at all. Why would they mention the model 3 in that email at all?

Why? Because they have over 300K reservations for what promises to be their future best-seller, with - as you say - first deliveries less than a year away. I am sure many of those 300K reservation holders are very eager to know whether those 400 kWh per year of free SC usage applies to them also.

I'd rather ask the other way around "why would Tesla make absolutely no mention of the Model 3, the most talked about BEV currently on the horizon?"