Supercharging rates go WAY up!

[Electroman]

I suspect some who gave up free supercharging for a $5000 rebate may eventually regret their decision.

At 30c per kWh rate, $5000 gives you 16k kWh. At 4 miles a kWh that is 64k miles of driving that one can do with $5k.

So it looks like a dumb decision to lose $5000 in favor of free supercharging.

 

[EVDRVN]

I think that while it is the most logical opinion, it is not the most prevalent opinion.. "Free" is a very, very powerful motivator.. usually causing irrational behavior...

but I wonder.. where are you located? I suspect you are in a place with low energy costs. some of us pay thru the nose for our energy needs.. so its nice to get a break once in a while.. never mind what we can afford and what we can't. it's just nice to get a break...



i've been thinking about this for a while. for one thing, most urban SCers require a hefty parking fee to access. many of these lots are valet.. so you are at the mercy of the attendants for idle fees too.. and somehow I suspect that at such lots, even the idle fees are waved. but I only have anecdotal evidence that this is the case.. makes sense tho..





I would very much like to see Tesla's monthly SCer costs for the entire network. electricity costs, maintenance costs, and build out costs... i'm so curious.. I get it, this is all considered a marketing/advertising cost, but I want to see what it is.. anyone have any idea?



I had a 2012 Volt until I got my Model S in 2015. loved that car. but I was READY to trade up when my volt lease was up. BTW one of my quotes of your post is missing. I hit dislike in your post b/c of your "never go to a gas station again: say hello to Idle fees comments.

now idle fees bother me also... but they are necessary. there is just too much supercharger congestion. perhaps the rising princes will help curtail this.. as someone who doesn't have home charging, I have had to deal with a tremendous amount of Destination Charge congestion over the past 3 years (and even when I had my Volt, the ChargePoint EVSE I was using was often occupied) so I know SCing congestion was bound to start being a problem. There are too many cars, and not enough superchargers.. you have to incentivize people to move their cars once they are done charging.. particularly if there are other cars waiting to charge... that's how scarce resources are shared. not everyone is happy all of the time, but most people are happy most of the time. it is the best we can do.



I don't know if I would agree with your "heavily promotes" comment.. back in March 2015 when I ordered my Model S, I was told that it was possible to own a Model S without a dedicated place to charge at home.. but that I really needed to look into some long term home charging solution. between May 2016 and until June 2018 my charging needs were met by a valet service that offered level 2 charging at their garages.. but again it was EVSE congestion all the time.. too many cars, not enough chargers... that valet service is now defunct, so I am again having to find somewhere to charge my car. since I purchased my car there are many, many more SCers (and destination chargers) in the NYC metro area.

They do in the Bay Area but they may not in NY. Almost all the S buyers I know that do not have home charging were told this to get them sold.

 

[Merrill]

Ok, I love this forum and learn lots but for me it is all about perspective. At my age I have experienced flying around in helicopters in Vietnam and more recently 2 years of California fires, so stuff like raising the supercharging fees is insignificant in the total scheme of things. I feel very lucky to be able to own Tesla’s and will continue to enjoy them as long as they exist.
“How to get rich quick, count your blessings”

 

[ChrisH]

$0.11 when I got my Model 3 in April 2018

Crazy. I didn’t realize they were that low to start. That’s household electricity rates.

 

[gilscales]

Pedantic mode: on.

That would be quite expensive if they charged by the kW.

OOOPS! forgot the H

 

[gilscales]

No. Go back to the Tesla webpage and read the bulletpoints. $.31 is an estimated average. You now have to look at each site on your car screen. In the LA area prices range from $.30 to $.36 I think.

I did not read the fine print, I did travel to San Diego today and needed a few miles before returning home at $0.35 so I stand corrected

 

[KenF]

At 30c per kWh rate, $5000 gives you 16k kWh. At 4 miles a kWh that is 64k miles of driving that one can do with $5k.

So it looks like a dumb decision to lose $5000 in favor of free supercharging.

Many states are already above 30c per kWh and I don’t expect the rates to stay there for long. Look for 50c per kWh rates by the end of the year and higher rates in the future.

 

[SageBrush]

but after a bout a year.. the novelty wore off.. for the last 20 months of ownership, I drove my volt almost exclusively on gas.

When our Model 3 arrived, one of our two existing cars was destined for sale. I wanted to keep the LEAF and my wife wanted to keep our Toyota PHEV. Her reasons were the usual, practical ones: super reliable, petrol back-up, easy familiarity, extended range. I wanted to keep the LEAF to save money and transition to EV only. I also worried that my wife would succumb to the familiarity and learned convenience of petrol if she became the primary driver of the PHEV.

We could not agree so both cars were put up for sale and the PHEV found an owner. Nowadays my wife loves her petrol free life and I have so far dodged the wife-bullet but I continue to think that her lifestyle change was eased by simply being placed in a new reality where she had no choice but to adapt.

 

[Kant.Ing]

V3 will cost owners for even higher demand charges, if the owner chooses to charge at 350kW. And I hope it will be able to offset some slower (<150kW) charging's cost. Let's see.

 

[clostridium]

Clearly you don't live in the Bay Area where many have no garage and PGE rates are insane for home charging. Your off peak rate is a pipe dream here, My off peak is $.27 and in the summer peak is $.45 or more. This is before our next BK rate hike.

Let's get a few things out of the way so they don't take up repeated posts on the forum:

1. We all know many people in CA pay more for electricity while many people elsewhere can get pretty cheap rates
2. We all know people in CA can take advantage of great incentives on solar installs as well as actually having sun unlike some of the rest of us
3. We all know that people in colder climates take a significant hit in Wh/mi to operate their vehicles in winter
4. We all know that some people live in housing arrangements where it is very challenging to "home" charge
5. Except for perhaps people impacted by #4 the SC network is not intended to be the typical way you charge your car. The intent is for that to be done by L2 chargers at home or work or at another location where you will be for several hours. SCs are primarily for long distance travel with the exception of the newer crop of urban superchargers. I suspect the urbans are for the people impacted by #4 but I've not seen a clear statement about the goals of them so could be incorrect.

 

[clostridium]

At 30c per kWh rate, $5000 gives you 16k kWh. At 4 miles a kWh that is 64k miles of driving that one can do with $5k.

So it looks like a dumb decision to lose $5000 in favor of free supercharging.

Like most financial decisions it comes down to a whole lot of variables that are different for each person. Yes, if you charge most of the time at SCs you should keep the FUSC. That's not typical for most people. Even if you have a SC near your house charging at one probably takes up more of your time than just plugging in at home which allows you to be at home living your life.

 

[EVDRVN]

Let's get a few things out of the way so they don't take up repeated posts on the forum:

1. We all know many people in CA pay more for electricity while many people elsewhere can get pretty cheap rates
2. We all know people in CA can take advantage of great incentives on solar installs as well as actually having sun unlike some of the rest of us
3. We all know that people in colder climates take a significant hit in Wh/mi to operate their vehicles in winter
4. We all know that some people live in housing arrangements where it is very challenging to "home" charge
5. Except for perhaps people impacted by #4 the SC network is not intended to be the typical way you charge your car. The intent is for that to be done by L2 chargers at home or work or at another location where you will be for several hours. SCs are primarily for long distance travel with the exception of the newer crop of urban superchargers. I suspect the urbans are for the people impacted by #4 but I've not seen a clear statement about the goals of them so could be incorrect.

1) Seems many don't know this fact and seem quite surprised.
2) What are CA's great solar incentives? I would really like to expand my system before we get up to $.75.

 

[SigNC]

Somewhat unrelated but I didn't realize you get charged tier 1 pricing when you are sharing a pedestal even if you are still getting over the 60kW where it usually steps to tier 2.

 

[EVDRVN]

Like most financial decisions it comes down to a whole lot of variables that are different for each person. Yes, if you charge most of the time at SCs you should keep the FUSC. That's not typical for most people. Even if you have a SC near your house charging at one probably takes up more of your time than just plugging in at home which allows you to be at home living your life.

People in the Bay Area live a different lifestyle, they commute long hours and work out of their cars often. I see many of the same people on an SC working using that time to get things done. They also park and run errands which is all about living your life. Yes we pay high rates so charging at home without solar can be insanely costly. Personally I think the SC network should have been tiered or restricted for travel charging only but that would have prevented Tesla from selling cars significantly in many areas. Better yet perhaps offer better rates to those doing long road drips X times a rear and charge more to those that use an SC frequently near their homes.

 

[clostridium]

1) Seems many don't know this fact and seem quite surprised.
2) What are CA's great solar incentives? I would really like to expand my system before we get up to $.75.

1) Yes, that's why I posted what I did so perhaps we can avoid rehashing it over and over again. My post wasn't sarcastic, I was dead serious. Note that the national average electricity cost is 12 cents an hour. Of course it can vary widely throughout such a large country.

2) You are correct, I should have been more specific. CA and some other states have substantially better economics for solar installs than a number of states which is due to multiple factors. There are far more incentives through a variety of sources (mainly utilities) to install solar in CA than in OH for example. The solar exposure is much better in CA than in many states. From a purely economic perspective it makes no sense for me to do solar since my electricity is $0.05/kWh and any solar install would create more expensive electricity for me.

The bigger picture is that there are so many variables that impact the economics of operating an EV that vary widely for people. Hopefully people will bear that in mind in these interactions. I've seen people disagree with posts just because their own experience varies which is silliness.

 

[SigNC]

People in the Bay Area live a different lifestyle, they commute long hours and work out of their cars often. I see many of the same people on an SC working using that time to get things done. They also park and run errands which is all about living your life. Yes we pay high rates so charging at home without solar can be insanely costly. Personally I think the SC network should have been tiered or restricted for travel charging only but that would have prevented Tesla from selling cars significantly in many areas. Better yet perhaps offer better rates to those doing long road drips X times a rear and charge more to those that use an SC frequently near their homes.

How do you solve for the instance when somebody lives without home charging then? Also, it seems like a lot of jobs in california, especially the bay area offer charging at work.

 

[diamond.g]

I wish they would add pricing to the app. I looked at the SC's that I use when visiting my inlaws and the prices have gone up like 2 or 3 cents per kWh for some stations and no increase in others.

 

[SigNC]

I wish they would add pricing to the app. I looked at the SC's that I use when visiting my inlaws and the prices have gone up like 2 or 3 cents per kWh for some stations and no increase in others.

Agreed. FYI Fayetteville SC seems to be .26 for tier 2 now and lumberton is .27. From what I can tell this is really mostly impacting city areas or places in the state where power is more expensive than the overall state. Logically it makes sense that tesla would charge what they are paying in the area.

 

[juliusa]

My locality charges $30 a kW so e.g. a 10 station SC location could owe 30*120*10 = $36,000 a month just in demand charges.

That is a 10 charger / 20 stall site.

But is battery buffering going to be cost effective, even for Tesla? Assume they are 100% utilized 8 hours, 50% utilized for 8 hours, and 0% utilized for 8 hours. To cut the demand charge in half, they would need enough battery to provide half the power for the 8 hours they are 100% utilized, or 8*120*10/2 = 4.8mWh of storage.

If the useful battery life is 2000? cycles, that is about 67 months and $1.2M in demand charge savings. The batteries alone would cost half that at $100/kWh; figure another $250,000 for other components, installation, and maintenance. So they end up saving about $4,500 per month or 1/8 of their demand charges.

If the useful life is 1000 cycles? Costs more.
If the demand charge is $15/kWh (another poster said $10 in Kansas)? Costs more.
If four months a year there is no savings (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Labor Day, Memorial Day) because of high utilization and batteries do not have adequate capacity to mitigate demand charges? Costs more.

I don't see how it can be cost effective for a consumer (even a large consumer like a Tesla supercharger) to use battery storage to lower demand charges unless their usage profile is really extreme. Theoretically the demand charges are for the utility to capture their costs of having to deliver the peak capacity "on demand" of the customer. Surely the utility can put in batteries, peaker plants, or other mechanisms over a large subscriber base (1000 or more times larger than a supercharger site) at a lower cost than the customer can. For example, when everyone is driving for the holidays and supercharger demand is high, aren't the air conditioners off at their houses and factories/offices where they work shut down?

 

[smartypnz]

Yeah the price went up - but the complimentary foot massages are nice!!!