Supercharging to be uncoupled for new owners - lowering price of S/X

[John Stuckey]

We have an SC very close to where we live. Except for a demo once in a while (5 minute charge) we have never used it. We have used SCs on trips across the country and they are great. No need for them at home since we charge at home.
But for those that do not have home chargers the issues get muddy very quickly.

 

[Cosmacelf]

This is a great move. Will sell more cars, will help monetize the SC network, will reduce SC utilization (on a per car fleet wide basis), and will enable Tesla to offer the SC network to other car manufactures, which will give Tesla yet another unbreakable barrier to entry for something really valuable eventually - a worldwide charging network.

 

[msnow]

Today, the SC network is a 'cost center'. It does not generate income to support it's expansion. Money for the expansion will come from the Tesla Motors warchest.

It's only a cost center if they didn't allocate the built-in $2500 per car cost properly. As far as M3's and future cars go the model will work but there will be some loss in revenue by deducting the $2500 (or whatever it is) and rely on the new cost structure.

 

[Dynastar]

There will be a nationwide non-Tesla grid. It happening. Already, L2 charging is coast to coast.

There is? Man I wish I had known that when I drove my Leaf across Montana last month. Would have made my trip soooooo much more enjoyable.

The truth is from California it may look like we have a coast to coast network but there's still a long way to go. In a lot of "flyover country" Tesla is the only game in town, and even then their coverage has a ways to go. Want to drive to Malta in the winter? Good luck with that. I think Tesla can do quite well by charging for access, especially in the more remote parts of the country.

 

[McRat]

It's only a cost center if they didn't allocate the built-in $2500 per car cost properly. As far as M3's and future cars go the model will work but there will be some loss in revenue by deducting the $2500 (or whatever it is) and rely on the new cost structure.

Every station that is underutilized is a cost center regardless. Capital has time value. Each inverter that is not used, it becomes a piece of furniture in an empty office.

Say you have a SC in Lusk, Wyoming, that never gets more than a single car at a time, and even days go by without a visitor.

3 of the 4 outlets are never necessary, ever, even if your $2500 "paid" for it. It is a 'cost center' until the 3 outlets are necessary for the cars sold.

Only 'necessary' outlets could even be argued as 'profit' centers, and only if the building of one actually increased the sales.

 

[RogerHScott]

reduce SC utilization (on a per car fleet wide basis)

Why is this a good thing, given that, system-wide, the SpC system is grossly underutilized right now? I'll bet if you look
at the SpC system cost per-charge today it would be something astonishing.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

I'm wondering if certain states will have a problem with this approach. I'm sure Tesla has considered this, but I'm wondering what their game plan is.

In Texas, your company has to be regulated as a public utility corporation if you want to sell power by the kWh. That's why all public chargers here are either free or they charge by the minute or by the session.

I'm thinking that Tesla is going to make an argument that the power sale is occurring in California, since that's where the credit card will be charged, and that Tesla is actually the consumer -- buying power from a local utility which is then theirs to do what they want with it.

However, it's been seen far too often that Texas lawmakers have their own interpretations and agendas that sometimes bear no resemblance to reality.

 

[Eclectic]

This seems like the natural evolution of Supercharging to me. Early adopters took a risk in buying a new product with the possibility of it flopping and they've been rewarded with, among other things, no additional fee access to fast charging. There's no way that model can work with sales at the volumes Musk predicts unless one of two things happens. Either the cost of the charging network is embedded in the price of each car sold, whether or not the owners use the network, or the cost is borne by only those who use the network, and the unit price of each car no longer has to cover the cost of the charging network.

Maybe some people really believe that they can get things "for free", and I'm sure they'll be disappointed, but I think most consumers understand that you pay for what you get, and if you don't want something, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[McRat]

There is? Man I wish I had known that when I drove my Leaf across Montana last month. Would have made my trip soooooo much more enjoyable.

The truth is from California it may look like we have a coast to coast network but there's still a long way to go. In a lot of "flyover country" Tesla is the only game in town, and even then their coverage has a ways to go. Want to drive to Malta in the winter? Good luck with that. I think Tesla can do quite well by charging for access, especially in the more remote parts of the country.

The 7? SC stations in Montana are too far apart for Leafs right now. You'd have to use 240vac service to cross through.

I'm wondering if certain states will have a problem with this approach. I'm sure Tesla has considered this, but I'm wondering what their game plan is.

In Texas, your company has to be regulated as a public utility corporation if you want to sell power by the kWh. That's why all public chargers here are either free or they charge by the minute or by the session.

I'm thinking that Tesla is going to make an argument that the power sale is occurring in California, since that's where the credit card will be charged, and that Tesla is actually the consumer -- buying power from a local utility which is then theirs to do what they want with it.

However, it's been seen far too often that Texas lawmakers have their own interpretations and agendas that sometimes bear no resemblance to reality.

The way I'd plan non-Tesla's using the SC sites:

You'd rent an adapter from Tesla, with a deposit equal to retail price. You pay per month for the adapter.
You'd also create a "special" outlet in Tesla Format that is actually L2 only for cars that don't support DCFC.

 

[mspohr]

Every station that is underutilized is a cost center regardless. Capital has time value. Each inverter that is not used, it becomes a piece of furniture in an empty office.

Say you have a SC in Lusk, Wyoming, that never gets more than a single car at a time, and even days go by without a visitor.

3 of the 4 outlets are never necessary, ever, even if your $2500 "paid" for it. It is a 'cost center' until the 3 outlets are necessary for the cars sold.

Only 'necessary' outlets could even be argued as 'profit' centers, and only if the building of one actually increased the sales.

SC stations drive sales even if they are never used. People buy the car because they know they're available even if they never use them.
Also, the incremental cost to add another charging stall to a Supercharger station is very small. Once you negotiate the space, install the transformer and charging equipment, it's almost "free" to add another plug. Right now, the only Supercharger sites where I regularly see lots of cars are in California. For the rest of the country, I'm usually alone.

 

[Cosmacelf]

This is a great move. Will sell more cars, will help monetize the SC network, will reduce SC utilization (on a per car fleet wide basis), and will enable Tesla to offer the SC network to other car manufactures, which will give Tesla yet another unbreakable barrier to entry for something really valuable eventually - a worldwide charging network.

Why is this a good thing, given that, system-wide, the SpC system is grossly underutilized right now? I'll bet if you look
at the SpC system cost per-charge today it would be something astonishing.

It is a good thing from the point of view of Tesla owners who will have slightly less crowded SCs going forward than they otherwise would have.

 

[msnow]

Every station that is underutilized is a cost center regardless. Capital has time value. Each inverter that is not used, it becomes a piece of furniture in an empty office.

Say you have a SC in Lusk, Wyoming, that never gets more than a single car at a time, and even days go by without a visitor.

3 of the 4 outlets are never necessary, ever, even if your $2500 "paid" for it. It is a 'cost center' until the 3 outlets are necessary for the cars sold.

Only 'necessary' outlets could even be argued as 'profit' centers, and only if the building of one actually increased the sales.

No, I'm only talking about the paid money already allocated to the infrastructure. That would be $2500 x the number of cars built that included that cost.
I think you're talking about future investment.

 

[davewill]

The 7? SC stations in Montana are too far apart for Leafs right now. You'd have to use 240vac service to cross through.



The way I'd plan non-Tesla's using the SC sites:

You'd rent an adapter from Tesla, with a deposit equal to retail price. You pay per month for the adapter.
You'd also create a "special" outlet in Tesla Format that is actually L2 only for cars that don't support DCFC.

They wouldn't be too far apart for the Bolt or the 2.0 LEAF or an i3 with Rex.

 

[Az_Rael]

I will be very curious as to how this plays out with regards to CPO cars. If the intent is to decouple supercharging from the car, I could see Tesla selling CPO cars with these new options instead of the rolled in lifetime supercharging they come with now.

Or, does Tesla just set some cutoff date? All VINs built prior to XX date have lifetime supercharging with the car, all VINs afterwards are the paid option. Good luck sorting that out on the used market.

 

[krazineurons]

what does it mean for existing orders? we get a $2500 discount? also how much would it cost to charge over a lifetime, given it is per KWh so it really depends on mileage one is getting to calculate it.. would it be cheaper to get lifetime super charging or pay per charge?

 

[MorrisonHiker]

In Texas, your company has to be regulated as a public utility corporation if you want to sell power by the kWh.

I've seen several posts stating that only utilities can sell power by the kWh. Technically, does that mean a company could change the units and legally sell power by the Wh or MWh?

 

[MP3Mike]

No, I'm only talking about the paid money already allocated to the infrastructure. That would be $2500 x the number of cars built that included that cost.
I think you're talking about future investment.

It would actually be $2,000/car. (The extra $500 was a change fee for the original S60 to add Supercharging after the fact.)

 

[Az_Rael]

what does it mean for existing orders? we get a $2500 discount? also how much would it cost to charge over a lifetime, given it is per KWh so it really depends on mileage one is getting to calculate it.. would it be cheaper to get lifetime super charging or pay per charge?

Electrek is now reporting that the expected discount amount would be $2000 from their source.

All speculation, but I am guessing if you have an existing order, the lifetime supercharger price was already rolled in. I suppose you might be able to remove supercharging from your order, but you would then be subject to the change fee, so the discount would be less.

 

[McRat]

No, I'm only talking about the paid money already allocated to the infrastructure. That would be $2500 x the number of cars built that included that cost.
I think you're talking about future investment.

If I have $2500, I can either invest it, or spend it. If I spend it, I permanently lose it's income. It's sometimes called the Cost of Capital.

Even if Tesla stops making cars, the money they spent on SC's, could have been making income.

It has to do with managerial accounting.

In any case, if I spend the $2500 today on ice cubes for a party in 2018, I lose money even faster. 3 of the outlets in Lusk, Wyoming are ice cubes for 2018. However, if I can sell those ice cubes today, I'm better off.

 

[RogerHScott]

would it be cheaper to get lifetime super charging or pay per charge?

Tesla, of course, wants you to be asking that question and most likely wants you to conclude lifetime super charging is cheaper -- even if it isn't. Companies typically price bulk purchases to be more expensive on an equivalent per-use basis than per-use would be for most
typical customers. Think of all-you-can-eat buffets: are you really a voracious teenager?