Would you pay for privately owned superchargers?

[Twiglett]

Gas stations that are stores that are large enough to benefit from someone being around for 40 minutes... they should install a couple of "universal" EV bays. That would be really something, wouldn't it? One roof, with pumps and plugs?

I did hear rumors of Buc-ees adding superchargers, but not seen anything like that happen.

 

[hikerockies]

I have been on a few 1000+ mile road trips in model S in the last couple of years, all powered by superchargers. Based upon my experience I would be willing to pay in these cases:

- where there are no tesla owned superchargers for 100s of miles like southern Colorado.
- more flexibility in when I choose to stop to charge when 3rd party superchargers are located in between tesla superchargers.
- more flexibility in choice of food/coffee/activities even when another tesla supercharger is located within 10 miles of privately owned supercharger. I am starting to get tIred of eating at the same places at the superchargers I frequent most

 

[scaesare]

As David astutely states, sure most of us will pay in certain circumstances depending on the location.

To be clear, my earlier point is not that I won't pay, but rather it is unwise for someone to try to start a business based on paying for Supercharging when Tesla is rapidly expanding a FREE Supercharger network.

Even free Supercharging ceases to be attractive if you have to wait in a line behind a dozen Model Ss. I would absolutely pay $60+ to jump the line at a congested Supercharger Station to get a Battery Swap if needed.

In fairness, what many of us are saying is not that we won't pay for charging, but that we prefer Tesla's charging business model over the "pay at the pump" business model. As was pointed out, we are paying, but we are paying upfront in the cost of the vehicle.

Larry

In catching up in this thread, Larry's comments above sum up my feeling pretty much spot-on.

As Tesla grows their network, the absolute need for fast DC charging at other locations becomes less for road trips along those corridors.

That having been said, we are far from the saturation point where there's a supercharger at every location I'd prefer to stop at, as opposed to having to plan my route to accommodate supercharging locations.

If you are driving some distance, you still have to on many occasions either go out of your way, or stop and charge specifically at a supercharger location even if you have other stops along the way. I some cases I'd opt to pay[1] in order to allow my charging time to coincide with some other activity, or to avoid an necessary route/detour. Examples:

- My buddy recently took his S from the SF Bay Area to Palm springs. The distance was ~460 miles (with some elevation change & headwind). That should have been 2 supercharges after his initial home charge. It was 3 because the layout of the chargers made one leg a bit short and the other a bit long[2]. If there were a charger at a more ideal location you could pay $20 to top off at, I might be willing to do that rather than have to make a third stop.

- Here in VA if you want to get to some interior state locations, you have to detour significantly Eastward along the supercharger populated I-95 corridor and then cut back West. While this will change somewhat as I-81 is developed, even with the future "fully populated" map Tesla advertises there are many conceivable routes where the supercharger route can be significantly longer than a straight-line route. That would be worth some cost to me to avoid.

- If on vacation and stopping for sights/activities, you have to schedule those stops in addition to charging stops. If there were pay-for chargers strewn everywhere, and I could combine charging with those activities, that would be worth some expense to me. While you typically also have to stop and eat, let's face it you, 1) many times have a restaurant you want to go, and that doesn't likely have a supercharger, and 2) your charging schedule and eating schedule don't necessarily coincide.


So there are a number of reasons I'd be happy to pay a reasonable amount to have lots of DC fast charging options available to me when on the road...


[1] Particularly if it was metered, not flat rate
[2] And this in an already well-developed state

 

[dgpcolorado]

As David99 said: "it depends on the location". In my case, the "location" where I happen to live.

I'm lucky: for me the answer to the question is generally "no" because I am only 95 miles — and 3500 feet of elevation change — from the nearest Supercharger, in Grand Junction. From there I can get anywhere I want to go via the existing SC network (or soon will be able to when the eastern Oregon/southern Idaho stations are completed). And none of the places I travel through are populated enough to have lines develop at the SC stalls for the foreseeable future. I suppose that's an advantage of living in thinly populated "flyover country" but near a major Supercharger route.

 

[Robert.Boston]

An important point raised earlier that I want to return to: would you invest $250,000 to build a private Supercharger, intending to earn a profit on a pay-per-use/pay-per kWh model when your competitor (Tesla) is (a) growing rapidly and (b) charging nothing?

My answer is "no".

Putting on the tinfoil hat of a DOJ or FTC economist, I can see a potential enforcement action against Tesla were it to license private Superchargers but charge nothing for use of its own Superchargers. (Selling a product below cost is often viewed as anti-competitive, if the goal is to drive out competitors to allow you to charge super-competitive prices thereafter.) Were I Tesla's corporate counsel, therefore, I would probably suggest that there is risk in licensing a pay-per-use private Supercharger.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

An important point raised earlier that I want to return to: would you invest $250,000 to build a private Supercharger, intending to earn a profit on a pay-per-use/pay-per kWh model when your competitor (Tesla) is (a) growing rapidly and (b) charging nothing?

My answer is "no".

Putting on the tinfoil hat of a DOJ or FTC economist, I can see a potential enforcement action against Tesla were it to license private Superchargers but charge nothing for use of its own Superchargers. (Selling a product below cost is often viewed as anti-competitive, if the goal is to drive out competitors to allow you to charge super-competitive prices thereafter.) Were I Tesla's corporate counsel, therefore, I would probably suggest that there is risk in licensing a pay-per-use private Supercharger.

However, imagine an instance where Superchargers weren't necessarily directly for-profit.
Imagine, for example, if various groups in the BC and the Yukon wanted to allow long-distance electric vehicle owners to drive through to Alaska, but there would be significant infrastructural costs to build the network there. This becomes a non-profit private network with a pay-per-use supplement used to recover costs.

 

[Lloyd]

I own a 70 amp J1772 that is pay for use. (TMC members can use it for free during business hours) Our peak rates are $.58/kwh. The equipment was ~$5000 including installation. I charge $5.00 per hour to deliver 19 kw/hour. I think this is a very fair price, although I have had some very vocal complaints from other EV owners that can only utilize ~6kw/hour! The paid utilization of my site has fallen to very little since the superchargers at buellton and Atascadero have been active. The ones that can use the increased output of my site, have gone for the free sites. ie Supercharges, and City paid charging.

For a paid model, unless the location was ideal, and there were no other options, I feel that your utilization would not support a paid business model.

 

[MichFin]

I feel that your utilization would not support a paid business model.

I personally feel that the only way this is viable is is at super charger speeds and only on the side of a highway. The old L2 charger model at the library doesn't make sense when cars have 200+ mile range.

With 200+ mile range 99% of all people charging away from home are going to be on a road trip. Now as I plot my course and see I have to drive 20 miles out of my way to get to a free super charger or pay $25 and stay on my route... I'll pay the $25.

If you can get $15 profit form 10 people a day that = $150 a day and $54,000 a year. Assuming the install is $150k that's a pretty good return.

 

[Lloyd]

I personally feel that the only way this is viable is is at super charger speeds and only on the side of a highway. The old L2 charger model at the library doesn't make sense when cars have 200+ mile range.

With 200+ mile range 99% of all people charging away from home are going to be on a road trip. Now as I plot my course and see I have to drive 20 miles out of my way to get to a free super charger or pay $25 and stay on my route... I'll pay the $25.

If you can get $15 profit form 10 people a day that = $150 a day and $54,000 a year. Assuming the install is $150k that's a pretty good return.

If you are intent on doing this. The best way is likely to put a high power chademo, and supply, or have chained to the chademo EVSE, the adapter for the Tesla. I don't think that Tesla will sell you or maintain for you a supercharger.

 

[dsm363]

An important point raised earlier that I want to return to: would you invest $250,000 to build a private Supercharger, intending to earn a profit on a pay-per-use/pay-per kWh model when your competitor (Tesla) is (a) growing rapidly and (b) charging nothing?

My answer is "no".

Putting on the tinfoil hat of a DOJ or FTC economist, I can see a potential enforcement action against Tesla were it to license private Superchargers but charge nothing for use of its own Superchargers. (Selling a product below cost is often viewed as anti-competitive, if the goal is to drive out competitors to allow you to charge super-competitive prices thereafter.) Were I Tesla's corporate counsel, therefore, I would probably suggest that there is risk in licensing a pay-per-use private Supercharger.

Since Tesla has open sourced their patents could a different company roll out a separate for profit network though?

 

[Twiglett]

Since Tesla has open sourced their patents could a different company roll out a separate for profit network though?

I don't think the patents are actually open sourced. They are free to use, provided that you use them in specific ways.

 

[patrick40363]

No.

I ordered my 85D for June delivery and I'm totally excited. But the more I think about it and look at the map these superchargers are very limiting. I also read lots of posts about crowded superchargers or having to go out of the way.

So my question to all of you is would you pay for a supercharger? Think about it there are gas stations and rest stops dotted all over the U.S. that have plenty of space for 6-8 parking spots. And what a business that would be to have customers come in pay to charge and have 20-30 minutes of time to waste in your shops to spend more money. Think about it if you paid $.50 per kwh a stop for 50 kwh would cost you about $25. That would give the station about $12-15 profit. At about 20 cars a day that would be $86,400 per year not including what you spend in the store. Those numbers would make good business sense. Also, keep in mind with the addition of 500,000 Tesla in 2020 there is no way these super chargers can keep up.

Tell me what you think.

 

[jgs]

I don't think the patents are actually open sourced. They are free to use, provided that you use them in specific ways.

I haven't seen any details about what Tesla's actual terms are, and I did a little bit of looking after the initial announcement was made (in the form of a tweet from Elon if I remember correctly). As far as I know, the only public statement was to the effect that patents are available under what's commonly called "non-assert" terms, meaning Tesla won't assert their patents against you as long as you assert your patents against them. This sometimes is called "mutually-assured destruction" terms also; it's fairly common in my industry (computer networking) but I gather was quite innovative in the auto industry. But the devil is in the details, and I don't think any details have ever been disclosed.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I don't think the patents are actually open sourced. They are free to use, provided that you use them in specific ways.

I haven't seen any details about what Tesla's actual terms are, and I did a little bit of looking after the initial announcement was made (in the form of a tweet from Elon if I remember correctly). As far as I know, the only public statement was to the effect that patents are available under what's commonly called "non-assert" terms, meaning Tesla won't assert their patents against you as long as you assert your patents against them. This sometimes is called "mutually-assured destruction" terms also; it's fairly common in my industry (computer networking) but I gather was quite innovative in the auto industry. But the devil is in the details, and I don't think any details have ever been disclosed.

I think it is fair to say that Tesla's patents are in the spirit of the open source movement, but I'm not sure its correct to call them "Open Source". Will Tesla reveal all the technical details as in the case of Open Source software? What Elon stated in his blog was, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."

Regardless, it's true we don't know the details and it is not likely the terms of the non-assert clause (also called a covenant not to sue) will ever be publically disclosed. They might be free, but we don't know. What we do know is there will be terms that have to be met. Like a patent license, a covenant not to sue has terms that must be met, and some of the terms may also require compensation just as patent licenses do. The difference is that a patent license grants rights that extend downstream to users of the licensed article. A covenant not to sue does not. A covenant not to sue can be a contractual commitment not to sue only for a stated period of time.

Obviously this is not a situation where Elon makes a general tweet and everyone has the right to use Tesla's intellectual property. Interested parties must agree to a contract with Tesla which includes the non-assert clause, the terms of use and any fees or compensation if required.

Larry

 

[igotzzoom]

I think as more and more Tesla models get on the road, the prospect of a paid charging network is increasingly inevitable. Assuming Tesla gets up to 500,000+ units on the road, the "free" supercharging may be grandfathered to the models that originally offered it, but may be a subscription or per-use model for subsequent models. I don't know that Musk ever necessarily said Supercharging would always be free for all future models. Just in terms of supply/demand, I think of the analogy of toll roads here in South Orange County. They're less congested, because you have to pay for them. "Free" will always be more crowded. But for some people the speed and convenience of the paid charging will be worth the price.

 

[Cosmacelf]

The patent angle is a bit of a red herring. Patents are not specs. There is no way to build a Supercharger just by looking at patents. You need detailed engineering specs for handshake communications, etc. and an engineering agreement such that when specs are updated, you get notified so you can update your own Supercharger firmware.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Putting on the tinfoil hat of a DOJ or FTC economist, I can see a potential enforcement action against Tesla were it to license private Superchargers but charge nothing for use of its own Superchargers. (Selling a product below cost is often viewed as anti-competitive, if the goal is to drive out competitors to allow you to charge super-competitive prices thereafter.) Were I Tesla's corporate counsel, therefore, I would probably suggest that there is risk in licensing a pay-per-use private Supercharger.

Putting on your tinfoil hat again, in your opinion is a Covenant not to Sue considered a license that would have the same risks?

Larry

 

[Skotty]

Yes.

If I had a Tesla, I would happily pay per-use for a Supercharger, as long as it wasn't much more expensive than a gasoline fill up (preferably same price or less).

 

[cpa]

I experienced colossal headwinds driving west through Kansas a few days ago. Even though I charged to 95% and started out at 62MPH on the interstate, I still had to slow way down in order to reach Goodland. (Yes the elevation gain did not help either!) I am not familiar with the weather patterns outside of the Pacific Time Zone, but I could see places where a pay-for-use model might work in selected locations that do have extreme weather periodically throughout the year in order to sustain a reasonable speed on the highway. Tesla may not be interested in adding two or three more Superchargers on Interstate 70 across Kansas for occasional use during heavy winds or extreme cold and snow. I know during my drive I said I would cheerfully pay $25-$30 for another 30 kWh of juice, if there were such a spot. Two pods would be sufficient for these stop-gap locations, as charge times would only be enough to continue to the free SC.

And if I know human nature, people will sometimes use them anyway, despite the (comparatively) hefty fee just because it makes more sense from a time perspective to skip the free SC.

A good example is that today's price for gasoline in Needles, California is $4.60 to $4.70 per gallon. Yet a short drive north across the river into Arizona or at the Love's station at Exit 9 in Arizona on Interstate 40 the price is $2.65. Yet motorists will just pay the extra $2 per gallon because they KNOW they can fill up and resume their trip easily at Needles.

 

[jerry33]

The patent angle is a bit of a red herring. Patents are not specs. There is no way to build a Supercharger just by looking at patents. You need detailed engineering specs for handshake communications, etc. and an engineering agreement such that when specs are updated, you get notified so you can update your own Supercharger firmware.

Right. I take what Elon says to mean "If you reverse engineer a Supercharger and use it to create a viable charging network Tesla won't go after you to obtain revenue from the patents".