Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I'm guessing the NHTSA report is out?

Surprised the CNBC article is so tempered.
Wait a second:

"NHTSA says there have been 130 reported automated driving system crashes from June 2021 to May 15. Waymo, at 62, had the most. It was followed by Transdev Alternative Services at 34, and Cruise at 23 (excluding 16 crashes reported separately by GM)."

How could Waymo have any crashes at all? I thought LIDAR was guaranteed to be THE solution for all ADAS functionality. I'm confused!

/s
 
Elon Musk on Wednesday appealed a judge's refusal to end his 2018 agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requiring a Tesla Inc lawyer to vet some of his posts on Twitter.
 
I've done lots of research and installed a half dozen systems. It's pretty simple and will clearly happen that way, unless something changes. Here in PA, we're net-metered and my connection fee is like $10. That fee won't cover the utility's fixed costs, and as each customer who installs solar that results in one less customer to cover those costs and the costs for everyone else will need to go up. Similar to electric vehicles, the last people to adopt and convert over will be the ones who are most impacted, as they're typically lower income and the costs not to adopt will continue to rise.

I do think something will change, as we've seen in some states. There will need to be a larger connection fee (maybe $40 a month) to cover the utility's costs to maintain the grid. I just hope that gets worked out and applied fairly, rather than making drastic changes and penalizing those who made large investments in solar systems.


Your profile lists that you are from Somerset PA (consider changing this if this conversation disturbs you). It seems to me that the utility for this company is Penelec/FirstEnergy.

A copy of their tariff information is here: Pennsylvania Tariffs
A key word I am looking for is "rate schedule", the phrase that my utility uses.

Before getting into the above, there is a $700 fee to apply, so that needs to be considered: Solar FAQS | Somerset REC. That FAQ says that the member is still responsible for a basic service charge, in our area that is called a "base facilities charge" and is the rate to make sure that I pay my fair share of infrastructure. Why do you have a basic service charge and how do you know it won't cover fixed costs?

P. 122 of the tariff has this: The customer-generator is responsible for the distribution charge, demand charge and other applicable charges under the applicable Rate Schedule.

I bet that the distribution charge helps cover their costs.

P. 63 lists residential rates as the following: GENERAL MONTHLY CHARGES: Distribution Charge $11.25 per month (Customer Charge), plus 6.074 cents per kWh for all kWh

And that still does not get into the following charges they say one must pay:

Bills rendered under this schedule are subject to the following applicable Rider Charges: Rider A – Tax Adjustment Surcharge Rider B – Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Voluntary Surcharge Rider F – Energy Efficiency and Conservation Charge Rider G – Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider J – Default Service Support Charge Rider N – Solar Photovoltaic Requirements Charge Rider P – Non-Utility Generation Charge Rider R – Distribution System Improvement Charg

Nor does it cover the fee for neighborhood street lights.

Given the above, I do not accept your initial claim of solar making other electric customer bills more expensive.

EDIT, leaving original in, I might have some confusion as to who actually provides electric. There is Penelec/FirstEnergy, and a co-op. I'm not sure if these are related and the links above are from two different sites.
 
Last edited:
Static grid charges/fees don't necessarily replace cost covering shortfalls, most of the time they simply replace lost profits as utility production is displaced by solar.

As I mentioned up thread, and especially true in Pennsylvania, regions with lower solar adoption rates definitely save money for the first 1-5% of solar supply that comes online. Solar shaves the afternoon peak, and therefore limits the need to build new power plants.

The problem then is that peak shaving also eats into peak demand, and that's where utilities derive a lot of their profits. Selling peak supply from gas peaker plants.

In the US it's considered perfectly acceptable for a utility to expect that new profit shortfall to be filled. Hence static fees get passed by corrupt PUC boards. That doesn't necessarily happen in other countries as renewables start disrupting the grid.

If peak demand is where profits come and they start losing that profit, they could try to get everyone on a rate schedule that bills for peak use. But this then could change consumer behaviors and increase solar/ecar adoption.

Me thinks that in the big picture, the writing is on the wall that the grid is going to move in the direction of localized solar generation, localized battery storage (how many powerwalls are in my tesla?), and two way power management. There will be enormous pushback on these efforts, but there is one company with a war chest that is seeking out to build a great legal team.
 
I'm guessing the NHTSA report is out?

Surprised the CNBC article is so tempered.
Sounds like NHTSA went out of their way to treat Tesla fairly. That's pretty much what I expected. Didn't Elon say he liked working with NHTSA?
 
Yeah reading the article seems like NHTSA seems fair in their assessment.


But this seems silly...

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the first-of-its-kind data doesn’t yet have proper context and is only meant to be a guide to quickly identify potential defect trends and help determine whether the systems are improving the safety of vehicles.

“I would advise caution before attempting to draw conclusions based only on the data that we’re releasing. In fact, the data alone may raise more questions than they answer,” NHTSA Administrator Steven Cliff said during a media event.
 
I'm guessing the NHTSA report is out?

Surprised the CNBC article is so tempered.
It wasn't written by Laura Colonoscopy (dixit Wholemars), hence the lack of twisting the narrative and inclusion of biased opinions ;-)
 
Little chart tidbit, motor Vehicle production since 1954 smoothed out using 5 year rolling average:

29186D5D-5F57-47BC-B79B-73C2CADC4AC8.jpeg

Blue = Western Europe (EU-15 + Norway and Switzerland). Interestingly it looks like the US will produce more motor vehicles than western Europe this year for the first time since 1968.
 
But this seems silly...

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the first-of-its-kind data doesn’t yet have proper context and is only meant to be a guide to quickly identify potential defect trends and help determine whether the systems are improving the safety of vehicles.

“I would advise caution before attempting to draw conclusions based only on the data that we’re releasing. In fact, the data alone may raise more questions than they answer,” NHTSA Administrator Steven Cliff said during a media event.
I think NHTSA is announcing that they will be looking into this to see if there are potential safety defects. My speculation is that NHTSA will start establishing some kind of baseline (most likely using teslas information as it's of abundance) and start comparing it to its safety without the system, and with other systems.

This may also require other companies to start gathering information like Tesla to show their reliability vs hiding behind marketing.

Optimistically, I am suspecting this may be the beginning of the end for some driver assist systems that are terrible but hidden behind a lack of use because they are terrible. We see from many European tests how many car brand fails to work when it comes to emergency braking.
 
I think NHTSA is announcing that they will be looking into this to see if there are potential safety defects. My speculation is that NHTSA will start establishing some kind of baseline (most likely using teslas information as it's of abundance) and start comparing it to its safety without the system, and with other systems.

This may also require other companies to start gathering information like Tesla to show their reliability vs hiding behind marketing.

Optimistically, I am suspecting this may be the beginning of the end for some driver assist systems that are terrible but hidden behind a lack of use because they are terrible. We see from many European tests how many car brand fails to work when it comes to emergency braking.



Thing is I don't think the data exists to do that.

Does Subaru or whoever know how many miles people drive on their system? or do they only know:

We sold X cars with that feature.
We got after-the-fact reports from the field of Y accidents among those cars.



In which case they're likely to just keep reporting really LOW accident numbers compared to Teslas where the system is likely used for vastly more miles per vehicle (but there's no way to confirm that with data since we have no miles data for other companies) and certainly used vastly more places it's not "intended" for use (which we know based on Tesla being the only one who does not lock their system out with geofencing like that)
 
Thing is I don't think the data exists to do that.

Does Subaru or whoever know how many miles people drive on their system? or do they only know:

We sold X cars with that feature.
We got after-the-fact reports from the field of Y accidents among those cars.



In which case they're likely to just keep reporting really LOW accident numbers compared to Teslas where the system is likely used for vastly more miles per vehicle (but there's no way to confirm that with data) and certainly used vastly more places it's not "intended" for use (which we know based on Tesla being the only one who does not lock their system out with geofencing like that)
Correct, which means NHTSA can mandate that you either gain the ability to report or else your cars are banned from having such feature. Like I said, could be the beginning of the end until they fall in line.
 
One solution to the NHTSA thing could be german regulation ;)
All LVL3+ Assist systems (not lvl2 sadly) are required to protocol into a black box EVERY SECOND:
- active systems
- GPS data
- speed

so .. every automaker wanting to offer LVL3 in the future in Germany has to have SOME process to get the data in case of crashes :)
Should be easy to require such things for lvl2 as well when most components are already in place :)
 
Correct, which means NHTSA can mandate that you either gain the ability to report or else your cars are banned from having such feature. Like I said, could be the beginning of the end until they fall in line.



Or... they insist Tesla geo-fence their features to lock them out in areas that Tesla themselves states in the manual you're not intended to be using them.

And point at the fact every other ADAS maker does that and has much lower accident rates.


NTSB has been banging that exact drum since at least 2016.


(this issue goes away whenever there's wide release of the One Stack To Rule Them All I suppose, but even then only for folks with FSD)
 
Or... they insist Tesla geo-fence their features to lock them out in areas that Tesla themselves states in the manual you're not intended to be using them.

And point at the fact every other ADAS maker does that and has much lower accident rates.


NTSB has been banging that exact drum since at least 2016.


(this issue goes away whenever there's wide release of the One Stack To Rule Them All I suppose, but even then only for folks with FSD)
The real reason they report lower incident is due to the lower usage. As they gather more data and see that driver assist actually decrease accidents compared to no system, then it's safety issue if car companies are not INCREASING usage from the driver, not decrease. It's all about accidents per mile driven. Other cars spend less time on adas due to geofence but has more overall accidents because of this plays to exactly what Tesla is trying to prove.
 
The real benchmark:Is Tesla FSD + driver better than the average driver?
5 million crashes annually (may be up to 7 million) across a population of 300 million cars in the US is 17 crashes per 1,000 cars.

Article says it was maybe 207 crashes, so if Tesla has more than 12k cars on the road, they're better.
Going the other way, at 830k cars per article, if Tesla has less than 14k crashes, they're better.
(Also, crash doesn't necessarily equate to at-fault)

2022 Driving Statistics: The Ultimate List of Driving Stats
From the report, it's citing:

Tesla’s figure and its crash rate per 1,000 vehicles

In other news, in the last year, more iPhones have been reported to have had to be rebooted than Motorola Bricks.
 
Or... they insist Tesla geo-fence their features to lock them out in areas that Tesla themselves states in the manual you're not intended to be using them.

And point at the fact every other ADAS maker does that and has much lower accident rates.


NTSB has been banging that exact drum since at least 2016.


(this issue goes away whenever there's wide release of the One Stack To Rule Them All I suppose, but even then only for folks with FSD)
For clarity's sake, when discussing the NHTSA data, ADS is level 3 and up, ADAS is level 2.

Sort of disingenuous to conflate geofencing with accident rates when it's also cherry picking the easiest/ safest regions.
 
The real reason they report lower incident is due to the lower usage.

It could ALSO be the fact they only allow the system to work on a really limited set of ultra-safe, ultra-mapped, roads- where ALL accidents happen less often.

Supercruise can't work on unmapped roads- period. So there's no option to "allow" it to in hopes it's still safer than just a human.




It's all about accidents per mile driven.

Which again is data legacy has no way to collect.

And I don't believe NHTSA can force them to do so.... certainly not on existing vehicles- and I don't think they could compel real-time OTA data collection either if the company lacks the back-end to do so. Remember in this case they compelled car makers to provide all available data-- not "go invent systems to collect and report data you don't have access to do today"

As OEMs move toward some version of always-connected OTA capabilities that will change- and that data will start to get fed in because it'll be possible to collect then-- but you can't do much here on existing fleet.