How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[stopcrazypp]

I don't have an expectation of anything other than what Elon and his Sales team told me. For your MS its free - use it as much as you like. My expectation is that my FREE use would be cheaper than my home use...if I had home use. If I purchased my MS and didn't have a garage and the Sales team told me that I could use the SC's as much as I like.....then that gives me a reason to purchase the vehicle. Tesla - don't change your mind mid stream and now say - you have to pay per use.

We are talking about the Model 3 here, not the Model S.

I sell power to ComEd at $0.04/kwh and they re-sell it at approx. $.09/kwh. There are no taxes or fees exchanged. I consistanly produce more power than my home uses...so I never have to pay those fees nor taxes. I understand what you are saying, however Home charging for the masses will be cheaper than bankrupting companies such as Blink who charges $0.39/kwh.

I think you probably understand what I'm saying, but to clarify, I am talking about what a typical person would see on their electricity bill, not what a net metering person who generates excess electricity would see (if you decided to charge your Model S+3 at home all the time, it would probably push you over and you might have to pay those same fees). Right now for me personally, besides from the $/kWh base rate (which is what is typically used to compare), there are also tiered rates for different usage, a fixed infrastructure charge, and taxes at both the county and state level. For someone with solar panels, their equivalent would have to include the amortized costs of their solar system (along with all the EVSE related costs I pointed out).

Tesla can't start charging per/kwh because it would ultimately kill their infrastructure. No one would use it. They would make a much greater profit with a one time charge to whomever selects to purchase SC for life.

There will be plenty of people who will use it. If you are on a road trip, you have no better choice. Either you use superchargers (which may or may not be pay per use) or you use slower public chargers (like CHAdeMO or CCS) which are guaranteed to be pay per use, some with extra subscription fees too.

If you happen to be an apartment/condo dweller who relies on superchargers, you will also have similar choices.

As this poll shows, there are plenty of people who would choose pay per use if given the choice. If the one-time price is too high, people will balk at it. If the one-time price is too low, Tesla loses money (made worse by the "get my money's worth" attitude it encourages). I illustrate the math on the ongoing costs alone (not even considering network installation costs) making it quite easy for Tesla to lose money on the one-time price depending on how usage goes:
Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

 

[Garlan Garner]

All I'm saying is that companies like Blink are failing miserably. Their charges are just too high. Free attracts people. People seem to drive 10 - 20 miles to get a free dollar worth of electricity.

I don't know about anyone else, but 200 people is hardly enough people to depict what the 300K reservationist will do / want. Also. It's certainly not a landslide vote of the 200 people. 100 people want pay per use and Tesla should create a price and billing infrastructure for it?

 

[deonb]

That is not the way anyone has talked about it... I think most of us who are in favor of "pay per session" "pay per min" or "pay for a time span" are all willing to use what ever system we are in favor of... and all of us realize it will lower the amount of local use.

While I agree that people who vote for "pay per session" would be willing to use "pay per session", that's not the point.

This poll reflect how they "want" to pay for it. The discussions reflect how they're "willing" to pay for it. That's where the discrepancy between the poll and the discussions come from.

My contention is that people who are in favor of "pay per session", is not because they actually prefer pay per session themselves, but because they think Superchargers will be better if everybody else uses pay per session.

I think you're actually in agreement with me though, based on your "human nature" comment.

 

[Fourdoor]

While I agree that people who vote for "pay per session" would be willing to use "pay per session", that's not the point.

This poll reflect how they "want" to pay for it. The discussions reflect how they're "willing" to pay for it. That's where the discrepancy between the poll and the discussions come from.

My contention is that people who are in favor of "pay per session", is not because they actually prefer pay per session themselves, but because they think Superchargers will be better if everybody else uses pay per session.

I think you're actually in agreement with me though, based on your "human nature" comment.

Hmmm, I wonder if semantics is getting in the way here? I am perfectly willing to pay as I go (how I voted), but in my discussion (how I have posted) have talked about paying up front and charging exclusively at superchargers... this is a contrast between "what I want" (pay as you go) and "what I expect to get" (pay flat fee up front) and how I will react just like any other 100K a year income level person. People making 500K a year may react differently, but 100K and under are going to try and get as much as possible back out of the system if we have to pay a large up front fee for access.

Keith

PS: Hey Garlan, what is up with panel 2.1.5? Some weird shadow on that side of the house?

 

[stopcrazypp]

All I'm saying is that companies like Blink are failing miserably. Their charges are just too high. Free attracts people. People seem to drive 10 - 20 miles to get a free dollar worth of electricity.

Blink (ECOtality) failed because it was largely mismanaged (chargers poorly maintained) and they didn't have a large enough consumer base when they were active (EV sales just picked up recently). And the alternative you suggest wouldn't work either, you can't run a viable charging network business offering free usage. Even when charging networks have subscriptions they also charge a per use fee (only cheaper than a guest), for example EVgo.

I don't know about anyone else, but 200 people is hardly enough people to depict what the 300K reservationist will do / want. Also. It's certainly not a landslide vote of the 200 people. 100 people want pay per use and Tesla should create a price and billing infrastructure for it?

Why are you assuming only the 100 people who voted here for pay per use would support it and then the rest wouldn't. Although this was not a randomly selected poll, that is not how statistics work.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Blink (ECOtality) failed because it was largely mismanaged (chargers poorly maintained) and they didn't have a large enough consumer base when they were active (EV sales just picked up recently). And the alternative you suggest wouldn't work either, you can't run a viable charging network business offering free electricity. Even when charging networks have subscriptions they also charge a per use fee (only cheaper than a guest), for example EVgo.

Why are you assuming only the 100 people who voted here for pay per use would support it and then the rest wouldn't. Although this was not a randomly selected poll, that is not how statistics work.

Who said I'm assuming anything? I'm not assuming anything. I choose my words carefully so read them carefully. I simply said that a poll of 200 people doesn't qualify as a poll when 300K+ potential voters are out there. That's not even 0.5% of all of the buyers out there.

Tesla is offering free charging for life. They are doing pretty good in my eyes.

 

[Garlan Garner]

stopcrazypp - You aren't going to "stop" are you?

 

[mhan00]

All I'm saying is that companies like Blink are failing miserably. Their charges are just too high. Free attracts people. People seem to drive 10 - 20 miles to get a free dollar worth of electricity.

I don't know about anyone else, but 200 people is hardly enough people to depict what the 300K reservationist will do / want. Also. It's certainly not a landslide vote of the 200 people. 100 people want pay per use and Tesla should create a price and billing infrastructure for it?

Blink failing means nothing. Tesla isn't a company trying to make money selling charging services, they're a car company selling cars. The Super charging network is part of their selling points for the car, which is why they use money allocated to their marketing budget to build them: drive electric while still maintaining your ability to go on long road trips. Frankly, if no one used their chargers and did all their charging at home and only used the super chargers when they went on road trips, Tesla would be ecstatic while a company like Blink would go out of business.

Tesla charging per use wouldn't be to try to make a profit or to pay off the super charging network, it would be to discourage camping and enable greater turnover at the super chargers, which would be to everyone's benefit. Speaking as a Leaf driver, there are few things more frustrating than seeing a charging spot taken up by a car that's done charging when you need a boost. Maybe there would be another way to handle it (autonomous cars, valet, whatever) but probably the easiest way would be to remove the incentive for people to abuse chargers. Autonomous vehicles and valets introduce liability issues, as well as issues with just parking spaces in general. AFAIK, Tesla doesn't own the lots where their super chargers are, so they'd have no recourse to reserve spaces other than super charging spots if they even wanted to valet or could have cars park and charge themselves.

Super chargers remaining free would be awesome, but I don't think it's realistic. Free is rarely scalable.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Tesla charging per use wouldn't be to try to make a profit or to pay off the super charging network, it would be to discourage camping and enable greater turnover at the super chargers, which would be to everyone's benefit. Speaking as a Leaf driver, there are few things more frustrating than seeing a charging spot taken up by a car that's done charging when you need a boost. Maybe there would be another way to handle it (autonomous cars, valet, whatever) but probably the easiest way would be to remove the incentive for people to abuse chargers. Autonomous vehicles and valets introduce liability issues, as well as issues with just parking spaces in general. AFAIK, Tesla doesn't own the lots where their super chargers are, so they'd have no recourse to reserve spaces other than super charging spots if they even wanted to valet or could have cars park and charge themselves.

Super chargers remaining free would be awesome, but I don't think it's realistic. Free is rarely scalable.

Charging to keep people from camping is 1 possible solution. However I don't think its a good one. Installing more SC's is a better answer. I am not under the opinion that people are Abusing SC's.

So if you always have a spot to charge....then all of this goes away?

 

[metier]

Also, the DC hardware obviously still costs Tesla money in the 3. They just decided to bundle it in since the marginal costs aren't too high (they probably expect the hardware to be activated at some point the car's life for most cars, at minimum if the car ever reaches Tesla's CPO fleet for example).

No it's not costing Tesla money, it is a cost passed on to the buyer in the base price. So I guess tires are costing Tesla money also?

 

[Garlan Garner]

No it's not costing Tesla money, it is a cost passed on to the buyer in the base price. So I guess tires are costing Tesla money also?

Exactly. Well said. SC was built into the price of the car before now.

 

[ohmman]

stopcrazypp - You aren't going to "stop" are you?

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Pot, meet kettle.

Ahhhh....Ok. I didn't know you felt that way. My apologies.

 

[21miDay]

I like the idea of being able to activate Supercharging for a number of days when going on a road trip. That would be more convenient than pay per use. If a multi-day activation was an option I would weigh the price of that against the price of up front activation.

 

[ohmman]

Ahhhh....Ok. I didn't know you felt that way. My apologies.

Don't apologize to me. I'm just pointing out that strong opinions one way or the other are often reiterated. I don't think @stopcrazypp has been any more strong-willed than other participants here. Surely including me.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

If this is the case I don't think Elon has to worry about ramp up because I would think that there will be a lot of people canceling their orders, me included. I was expecting to pay $2000 for unlimited SC, hoping for less. But if Tesla wants more then $2000 then this car is not for me.

Don't worry, I'm probably way off on my previous cost estimate. However, I'm 100% correct with this statement: Tesla will get a LOT more than $2000 from you.

 

[Garlan Garner]

It's happening.

Tesla opens Erie Supercharger connecting west PA with NY

I'm thinking the congestion issue is going away. Slowly but surely.

 

[Booga]

I wonder if Tesla can get around state laws by not charging for the power, but for ac to dc conversion for faster charging?

You can buy coupons similarly on eBay. Legally, they can't sell coupons, so what people sell are their "coupon clipping services instead."

 

[metier]

Don't worry, I'm probably way off on my previous cost estimate. However, I'm 100% correct with this statement: Tesla will get a LOT more than $2000 from you.

Only if it's comes with the purchase of the larger battery.

 

[SageBrush]

Elon and his Sales team told me. For your MS its free - use it as much as you like

Sorry, but I do not understand your stubborn refusal to admit the obvious, that the Tesla offer is in the context of long distance travel.

Tesla is not going to force you to submit to a Q&A and then offer a jury opinion on whether you are long distance traveling or not. There is simply an expectation that you and the rest of the Tesla car owning audience will be reasonable. Grown-up, like. I have read your posts of your SC habits and honestly I don't think they cause any problem or an itch for Tesla to scratch for one simple reason: your behaviour is currently rare in your neck of the woods.

But come on, please give this rationalizing a rest.

By the way, your PV setup is wonderful. I'm jealous