Tesla Supercharger network

[MP3Mike]

Tesla could have one credit card kiosk per site and the user puts in the pedestal number.

Something that looks like that has been seen at Supercharger locations in South Korea. But we have no confirmation of what it is actually used for yet.

 

[ewoodrick]

Tesla could have one credit card kiosk per site and the user puts in the pedestal number. Another option that would be more on brand for Tesla is a web site that you go to with your phone and pay there. The world is headed that direction now.

The phone scenario is easy. It's the non-phone, card only issue that is harder.

If you have a phone, load the app and enter card. That's about the same as most other providers.

 

[Earl]

Um, no they didn't. They paid for their car, they certainly didn't pay for my car, or my neighbors. (Did they pay for yours?)

This argument is kind of silly.
Some of the money they paid for their car went to building out Superchargers (they weren't provided by the mythical Supercharger fairy). Remember how much the haters amplified and Wall Street groused about how Tesla was losing so much money?
The high margin from Model S sales went into car, supply chain, and factory improvements, more factories, and Superchargers, not shareholder dividends.

I would even argue that most of the FUSC vehicles are probably on the second, or third, owner by now.

argue away, you seem to enjoy it. However, most of the original Model S owners I know still drive the same cars. Most have augmented with a newer car but their old ICE went away, not their original Model S. Many have upgraded, however.

the current drivers aren't the ones that paid for anything, as a car with FUSC doesn't really sell for any more than a similar one without.

The current drivers who bought used FUSC cars paid the FUSC drivers for their cars which were older that the non-FUSC cars, in general. Therefore, the 2nd owners also subsidized those who subsidized the Supercharger network albeit indirectly. I know many shoppers for used Model S who were torn between an older one with more miles but FUSC and a newer one without it.
My point is that this is all fine as is opening up the Supercharger network to all EVs, even EVs that charge slowly due to incompetence, myopia, or obstinance. Those that make less efficient use of them and haven't subsidized them up front, should, just pay a bit proportionally more.

 

[Earl]

They are getting a HUGE pot of money from the government

You're either bad at math or you have never worked on government contracts.
Free government money comes at a very high price.

 

[MP3Mike]

argue away, you seem to enjoy it.

Not trying to argue, just trying to correct an incorrect statement.

Some of the money they paid for their car went to building out Superchargers (they weren't provided by the mythical Supercharger fairy).

Sure. But that isn't what you said:

They paid for most of the fast chargers and faster charging cars that we're now using.

Which is patently false. (There is no way they paid for the majority of Tesla vehicles on the road now, so that is just silly.) As to your claim that they paid for most of the Superchargers: FUSC vehicles were purchased no later than mid 2017, so they have not been funding the Supercharger build out for a long time. Let's be generous and just say that they paid for all of the V1 and V2 Superchargers. (V3 was first rolled out in early 2019.)

The majority, ~60%, of current Superchargers in the US are V3, and they haven't been paid for by vehicles purchased with FUSC. In fact, from the announcement it appears that only V3s, and newer, will be opened to CCS vehicles. So not a single Supercharger paid for by these early adopters are being shared with the CCS vehicles.

Details: Of the ~18k Supercharger stalls ~11k, or ~60%, of them are V3. If you go by site count ~56% of them are V3. (And that will go up quickly as there are currently ~400 sites, ~5k stalls, permitted or under construction.)

 

[XHabjab]

Not trying to argue, just trying to correct an incorrect statement.


Sure. But that isn't what you said:



Which is patently false. (There is no way they paid for the majority of Tesla vehicles on the road now, so that is just silly.) As to your claim that they paid for most of the Superchargers: FUSC vehicles were purchased no later than mid 2017, so they have not been funding the Supercharger build out for a long time. Let's be generous and just say that they paid for all of the V1 and V2 Superchargers. (V3 was first rolled out in early 2019.)

The majority, ~60%, of current Superchargers in the US are V3, and they haven't been paid for by vehicles purchased with FUSC. In fact, from the announcement it appears that only V3s, and newer, will be opened to CCS vehicles. So not a single Supercharger paid for by these early adopters are being shared with the CCS vehicles.

Details: Of the ~18k Supercharger stalls ~11k, or ~60%, of them are V3. If you go by site count ~56% of them are V3. (And that will go up quickly as there are currently ~400 sites, ~5k stalls, permitted or under construction.)

I mostly agree except that our FUSC Model X arrived March 30 2018. That was through the referral option, and I think it ended shortly after that. This option dies when I sell to another owner. The previous version of FUSC was for the lifetime of the car, and I think that option ended in 2017 as you say.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Um, no they didn't. They paid for their car, they certainly didn't pay for my car, or my neighbors. (Did they pay for yours?)

As for which chargers they "paid" for, not any of the ones installed in the last ~6 years, which is actually most of them. I would even argue that most of the FUSC vehicles are probably on the second, or third, owner by now. So, the current drivers aren't the ones that paid for anything, as a car with FUSC doesn't really sell for any more than a similar one without. (Yes, the actual early adopters helped to make Tesla successful, so that later people had the option to buy a Tesla.)

I think the point is they paid for the supercharger network, as the network up to now was fully funded by Tesla, funding which came from owners. I don't think it is particularly fair to account for older vs newer chargers separately unless the older ones get taken out completely offline. Newer cars still use the older ones (I know I do) so a fairer accounting would have the percentage split.

This is part of the reason why Elon previously conditioned access to the network by other automakers investing upfront to expanding the network to cover the expected increased demand. Elon also mentioned sufficient charging speeds. Just having them pay higher pay-per-use fees do not address this concern.

If Tesla gets federal funding however, then I don't think this is a big concern, as that funding can be used to cover the increased demand. I don't think it was a pure coincidence that this launch coincides with a major charging infrastructure bill.

 

[mikevbf]

Thing is, opening up the network makes economic sense for Tesla even without funding. If they stick to lightly used sites, they get incremental revenue with very little capital outlay. And it is a marketing coup.

Sounds about right for the short to middle term, but long term Tesla aspires to open the whole network. From Tesla's support page (bolding added by me), "More customers using the Supercharger network enables faster expansion. Our goal is to learn and iterate quickly, while continuing to aggressively expand the network, so we can eventually welcome both Tesla and non-Tesla drivers at every Supercharger worldwide."

Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot | Tesla Support

Launched in November 2021, our Non-Tesla Supercharger pilot will continue to expand to new sites and countries in support of our mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

www.tesla.com

 

[israndy]

Could California become the first state to require Tesla charging stations to open to all EVs?

By Dustin Gardiner, San Francisco Chronicle - March 2

Hopping in a Tesla and driving from San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles has gotten easier as charging stations along Interstate 5 rapidly expand. The trip now takes about eight hours, including two charging stops that double as meal and bathroom breaks.

But making the same road trip in another type of electric vehicle can be problematic due, in large part, to a lack of access to fast-charging stations, according to a new EV road trip planning tool The Chronicle launched Thursday.

For example, it takes nine hours to make the same trip in a Chevy Bolt or Ford F-150 Lightning truck, the paper found, including an additional stop and much longer wait times to charge given a lack of fast chargers.

The comparison illustrates a problem that legislators, environmentalists and auto-industry experts say has become increasingly apparent: Sales of all electric vehicles are soaring.

Tesla operates chargers that are only compatible with its vehicles. Its stations use a plug that exclusively works with its cars and drivers use an integrated payment system within the car.

Electric-car advocates say it’s a problem that raises concerns about economic inequities in the transition to clean cars because many middle- and lower-income drivers can’t buy pricey Teslas, which go for $43,900 at the cheapest.

Now, a California legislator is attempting to solve the problem by forcing Tesla and other station operators to open their networks to all drivers. Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel has unveiled a bill that would require new public stations to be accessible to all drivers and have universal connecting ports.

The bill, if approved by the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom, would expand on Tesla’s recent announcement that it will open a portion of its chargers to non-Tesla drivers.

Last month, Tesla and the White House announced that it would make at least 7,500 chargers available to all types of electric vehicles by the end of 2024, including 3,500 new and existing superchargers along highways scattered across the country — a partnership that allows Tesla to receive gobs of federal funding to help build more chargers.

Gabriel said his proposal, Assembly Bill 591, is designed to make the company move faster in opening its charging network, so the state can ensure all drivers are included in the state’s rapid shift to zero-emissions vehicles.

“It can’t just be something that works for the elite and the wealthy,” said Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles County who drives a Tesla Model 3. “We’re hoping to get there a little faster than the White House. We have to get to a point where charging your EV is as easy as filling your tank at a gas station.”

Tesla and its registered lobbyists in Sacramento did not respond to requests for comment.

CEO Elon Musk tweeted “Tesla Superchargers almost everywhere” on the same day the company announced its agreement with the White House to open some chargers, and Tesla said it would double the size of its U.S. network within two years.

Gabriel’s bill would apply to any new charging ports as well as existing charging ports that are significantly retrofitted. It would also require Tesla and other EV charging networks — which commonly require a membership to recharge — to accept credit cards in addition to app payments.

He said he began working on the bill long before the White House’s announcement because he’s concerned California won’t meet ambitious climate targets at its current pace.

The state, under a rule Newsom spearheaded, will require that most new cars sold in California be zero-emission by 2035. The rule includes interim benchmarks: 35% of new vehicles must be fully electric or plug-in hybrid by model year 2026.

Electric vehicles accounted for nearly 19% of all new vehicles

In California, Tesla has by far the largest market share of any electric vehicle, accounting for about 73% of models sold. Tesla’s market share of new sales has dropped slightly. Still, there are about three Tesla Superchargers for every two similar chargers from other companies, such as EVgo and Electrify America, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Tesla’s Model 3, its most popular car, has an estimated battery range of 315 miles and a starting price of $43,990. By comparison, the Chevy Bolt has a range of 259 miles and starting price of $25,600; the Ford F-150 Lightning has a base range of 240 miles and starts at $55,974. Those prices don’t reflect the final price after various rebates and tax incentives that many buyers receive.

Environmentalists and electric-car experts say they fear the transition to clean cars could lose steam if there aren’t enough publicly accessible chargers for lower-priced models.

Alvaro Sanchez, vice president of policy at the Greenlining Institute, an environmental advocacy group sponsoring AB591, said low-income communities and communities of color have, so far, been the least likely to benefit from clean transportation. He said the barrier for many is uncertainty about whether they will be able to charge, especially those who live in an apartment or condo without the ability to charge where they park.

“The goal is to try to eliminate that huge barrier,” Sanchez said. “We need to build so many charging stations in order to be able to have a full electric fleet in California.”

Battery range anxiety — the fear of winding up stranded on the side of the road without any juice — has long been a major hurdle for the electric-car market. Gil Tal, director of the electric vehicle research center at UC Davis, said what distinguished Tesla early on was its ability to ease that fear with a reliable, user-friendly network of fast chargers, which allow recharging of about 80% of a battery in 30 minutes or less, compared with several hours for stations typically installed in homes and public parking lots.

“Tesla did something that no one else was doing, giving their customers a very good experience,” he said.

Tal said day-to-day range anxiety has dissipated for many drivers as battery range increases and charging networks of all types expand, allowing most drivers to commute to work and run errands around town on a single charge. He said the critical hurdle for non-Tesla drivers is having the confidence they can make the same weekend road trips

But Gabriel’s bill, which has not received a hearing yet, could face fervent opposition from Tesla and other companies that operate membership charging stations.

Marc Geller, who lives in San Francisco and helped found Plug In America, a national advocacy group for electric-car drivers, said while he’s happy to see Tesla voluntarily open up some of its chargers to the wider public, he worries about forcing the company to go further right now.

“Until I see that the other carmakers are truly stepping up to the plate, we ought not hobble the one company that is really successfully putting EVs on the road, including for an increasingly wide variety of people,” he said.

Geller said while policymakers are focused on public charging ports, the more meaningful way to ensure equity is to help more drivers access charging at home, including by requiring power outlets with cheaper utility-rate energy at every parking spot built for new housing.

“That’s how you serve everybody,” he said. “Anyone who has parking at home or work should be served by slow power at utility rates.”

[TL;DR] A bill in the California Congress is designed to force all new EV chargers built in the state to include CCS and Credit Card Readers. A Marc Geller of Plug In America gets to rebut

 

[stopcrazypp]

Could California become the first state to require Tesla charging stations to open to all EVs?

By Dustin Gardiner, San Francisco Chronicle - March 2


[TL;DR] A bill in the California Congress is designed to force all new EV chargers built in the state to include CCS and Credit Card Readers. A Marc Geller of Plug In America gets to rebut

Even EU didn't try to do something so draconian. And forcing readers may serve as an impediment rapid supercharger expansion. And not allowing member based charging may make charge networks unprofitable, which only hurts expansion. The profitability of charge networks is partially why it has been expanding so slowly and why the reliability and user experience of most charge networks are so poor.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Even EU didn't try to do something so draconian. And forcing readers may serve as an impediment rapid supercharger expansion. And not allowing member based charging may make charge networks unprofitable, which only hurts expansion. The profitability of charge networks is partially why it has been expanding so slowly and why the reliability and user experience of most charge networks are so poor.

Didn't the EU require all DCFC to be CCS? Thought that's why Tesla changed to CCS for their EU cars. That's pretty "draconian"! Unless I remember that wrong, having never been there...

 

[Electroman]

This credit card reader requirement rule seems quite arcane and a step backwards. I am using my CC only on the legacy big box stores like Walmart and HD that do do not accept Apple pay.

Every other online purchase is through the merchants website or phone app with a CC stored in my account with the merchant.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Didn't the EU require all DCFC to be CCS? Thought that's why Tesla changed to CCS for their EU cars. That's pretty "draconian"! Unless I remember that wrong, having never been there...

I'm referring to the fact they didn't force Tesla to open all their stations to all CCS cars and also didn't force them to add card readers. EU did try to pass laws to force the CCS2 standard, but in the end I don't believe they passed a law that forced Tesla to do it. From a quick search, the Leaf still uses CHAdeMO in the EU (German page and UK page both mention CHAdeMO; I know UK is no longer EU but they still follow much of the same):
Nissan LEAF – Das 100 % elektrische Familienauto | Nissan
Nissan Leaf | Electric Family Car

Instead, given Tesla already started with a modified Type 2 connector (the NACS one was never used in Europe), it just made common sense to add the two DC pins so that Model 3 wouldn't have to use an adapter at CCS2 stations, and then the rest followed. We have a different situation here in the US, where NACS is not a J1772 variant, so it does not necessarily make as much logical sense.

 

[Rocky_H]

I'm referring to the fact they didn't force Tesla to open all their stations to all CCS cars. EU did try to pass laws to force the CCS2 standard, but in the end I don't believe they passed a law that forced Tesla to do it.

They didn't force retrofitting of existing stations. That would have been overreach. Forcing a specific private company to modify their own private property that was in place before the ruling? Yeah, it's not that. But I do remember it as @dgpcolorado said, that a general ruling was made that any new DCFC stations anyone would build needed to comply with these conditions, which included offering the CCS2 plug. Tesla still had a choice--not build any more Superchargers, or make them with a CCS2 plug.

So then it's not just trying to do something to Tesla. It's simply setting a standard for the area, like cellular frequency transmissions need to be GSM system, for example. They did that, before things moved on to LTE and then 5G.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They didn't force retrofitting of existing stations. That would have been overreach. Forcing a specific private company to modify their own private property that was in place before the ruling? Yeah, it's not that. But I do remember it as @dgpcolorado said, that a general ruling was made that any new DCFC stations anyone would build needed to comply with these conditions, which included offering the CCS2 plug. Tesla still had a choice--not build any more Superchargers, or make them with a CCS2 plug.

So then it's not just trying to do something to Tesla. It's simply setting a standard for the area, like cellular frequency transmissions need to be GSM system, for example. They did that, before things moved on to LTE and then 5G.

The CCS2 rule from what I remember excluded Tesla's network because chargers that are not "non-discriminatory" are allowed to use other standards.
Standardization Of EV Charging In The EU
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/01 2020 Draft TE Infrastructure Report Final.pdf

Basically a private charge network (like Tesla's) that excludes the general public is allowed to choose their own standard. However, this California rule clearly wants to target Tesla directly, so such an exception would obviously not be carved out or it would defeat the whole purpose.

It's not only the issue of the connector, but the fact Tesla would be required to allow other cars to use their stations. Even in EU this is not the case even for new V3 stations with CCS2 connectors (not the dual head).

 

[Feathermerchan]

So are gas stations required to service any car?

Anyway if you look at Tesla's inverter day, their cost of producing/installing SC is so much less than the competition they will take over.

As far as the credit card reader, it is not only a step back but it also results in theft via skimmer. Besides what's the difference if you have a credit card on file?

 

[MP3Mike]

As far as the credit card reader, it is not only a step back but it also results in theft via skimmer. Besides what's the difference if you have a credit card on file?

As far as I can tell a credit card reader is not required for NEVI funding. However an 800 number to take payment via phone/SMS is required.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So are gas stations required to service any car?

Anyway if you look at Tesla's inverter day, their cost of producing/installing SC is so much less than the competition they will take over.

As far as the credit card reader, it is not only a step back but it also results in theft via skimmer. Besides what's the difference if you have a credit card on file?

I suspect they'll allow contactless since new credit cards are contactless.

The idea is that people shouldn't have to have an account with a charging company.

 

[Earl]

As far as I can tell a credit card reader is not required for NEVI funding. However an 800 number to take payment via phone/SMS is required.

California requires that all charging stations paid for with California government funds have a credit card reader.

 

[Electroman]

California requires that all charging stations paid for with California government funds have a credit card reader.

What if Govt mandated that LG and Samsung put card readers on their TVs so that there is seamless and frictionless experience for people buying movies from Netflix or Amazon