Forums

Supercharger credits in kWh blocks ahead of Model 3

Supercharger credits in kWh blocks ahead of Model 3

Linemanap | 30 augustus 2016

Ha ha

leskchan | 30 augustus 2016

Nice find.

I am totally agree with usage-based approach. It's only fair. Also high tide lifts all boats. The revenue can be used to expand the charging network, win-win for everyone.

leskchan | 30 augustus 2016

P.S.

I will also speculate that there will be, say "$500" option or one-time membership fee to have the privilege to use super charging. This one-time fee would not show on "My Tesla" page as it would be in the Model 3 configuration page. That's also fair and makes the recharging revenue model more sustainable.

Rocky_H | 30 augustus 2016

@leskchan, Quote: "The revenue can be used to expand the charging network, win-win for everyone."

What you stated is the opposite of that. They collect the little $5 payments over the course of the next 10 years, and then they have enough to build the stations that people have been using? Time travel for the win! That's why they needed it as an up front payment before, so they could build the stations first to be there for people to use. Switching to this actually HURTS the ability to expand the charging network. But, that's maybe reasonable now, since they needed to build a lot more early on, and now, they can slow down by taking in the revenue much slower.

leskchan | 30 augustus 2016

@Rocky_H

That's why I added the $500 option/membership fee.

KP in NPT | 30 augustus 2016

I'm fine with credits - but as I will use supercharging regularly, I'd rather pay up front as an option when I configure. I do hope they offer that choice. Take my money.

tstolz | 30 augustus 2016

It's the best compromise. I bet Tesla will set a minimum size block of minutes so they still get a chunk of cash up front. I think they chose wisely ... gives me more faith in their management!

bernard.holbrook | 30 augustus 2016

This is perfect for me. Looking forward to the Model 3.

leskchan | 30 augustus 2016

Let's me clarify my speculation:

Model 3 Super Charging will be a one-time setup/option/membership plus usage fee per kWh. This is fair to me and I will glad pay it.

One-time Fee will be use for expanding the network.
Usage Fee per kWh will be used for offsetting the operating costs.

I will go as far as add a per minute penalty fee if you leave your Model 3 parked after 15 minutes of 80%/100% charged, meaning don't park your car in charging bay for 2 hours and go shopping. This is to reduce congestion at the charge station.

Rocky_H | 30 augustus 2016

Well, this is going to get interesting. As a view of how selling kwh for charging works, take a look at this FAQ from Blink's website:
http://www.blinknetwork.com/membership-faqs.html

They say that they would really prefer to sell by the kwh, but there are only some states where they are allowed to. They list those 14 states plus District of Columbia. In all of the other states they cannot, so they have to meter by the minute.

It would seem Tesla would have the same issue, so I wonder what they are going to do in all of those other 36 states where they can't sell by the kwh.

patrick.faragher | 30 augustus 2016

I hope we have options. Pay as you go or one time charge would be a nice choice to consider.

Haggy | 30 augustus 2016

From what I read elsewhere, there are 18 states that would allow it. It might be that Blink has a presence in only 14 of those. There are other states that allow a public utility to offer EV charging, and allow a utility to partner with another company. Texas is an example. I can't see Tesla using a model with co-branded chargers where free charging for some customers is part of the equation.

A big difference is that with slow charging, the car will charge a fixed amount per minute even when over 90%. If Tesla priced things by the minute, some customers would pay more for a 10% charge than others pay for an 80% charge. Also, does the clock keep ticking when the customer gets to 100%?

KP in NPT | 30 augustus 2016

Must have touched a nerve - they removed the payment option from the reservation page now.

Didn't they learn after the RN sequence that there are enough nerds who will look at the source code? ;-)

tstolz | 30 augustus 2016

I'd guess that Tesla becoming an energy provider would enable them to sell electricity. Could be one consideration of acquiring Solar City. If not, they could always use time as a proxy for problem states.

jamilworm | 30 augustus 2016

@tstolz good point. I bet that if they are generating their own power then they ought to be able to sell it.

bj | 30 augustus 2016

@mp1156 - yeah, I wonder if they have sacked the relevant web developer yet :) After the RN exposé you think they would have learned that there is no such thing as secret code on the Internet! It may have been code developed for in house web testing that was accidentally published into the live environment. Oops!

bj | 30 augustus 2016

Those forum members who predicted Tesla would never, ever, EVER introduce pay per use seem to have gone pretty quiet at this news. Although I see in another forum this is now being portrayed as not pay per use but something entirely different and entirely consistent with Tesla's mission and nothing has changed, so stop chirping you PPU fanboys you are still wrong.

I call that splitting hairs in the extreme. If kWh credits become an announced option for SC access, then it is PPU in all but name.

krissu | 30 augustus 2016

States who do not allow to sell by kW, then it can be configured different. They will call it quick, medium and range charge, first up to 10 min and x kW, medium to 30 min and x kW and last one max 1 hour. The last one will be priced high. Lets say first will be 1 credit, second 2 credits and last one 5 credits. Price for one credit 3-5 EUR/USD? It would be very smart from Tesla to work with credits. If every model 3 owner will buy some amount of credits, then it creates nice cash pool for Tesla which they will really need. I wonder if CHAdeMO adapter charging will create any costs besides the adapter to Model 3 owner. With S it's pretty stupid for S60 owners as to use the CHAdeMO adapter and pay to utility I need to activate supercharging for 2500 and at the same time there is no supercharges within driving range from my home. Means I would have never chance to use Teslas own charger(for free), but would need to pay for this in order to be able to use paid CHAdeMO stalls.

Red Sage ca us | 31 augustus 2016

It's still prepaid. Not pay-per-use.

johndoe | 31 augustus 2016

Whether it is prepaid, or not, does not determine whether it is pay-per-use.
It is called pay-per-use, not prepay-per-use, or postpay-per-use.

johndoe | 31 augustus 2016

Each owner paying a small amount for credits does not create a sizeable cash pool for Tesla. If each owner paid $50 right now, it is only $5 million. Tesla may want to do prepaid amounts to ensure that the bill is always paid, and to avoid repeated small credit card charges.

gavinolukoju | 31 augustus 2016

This is an excellent idea, works well for me (UK Based). I predict under normal circumstances the range will be good enough for my commutes and regular journeys. I can load the car with credit for trips over 200 miles. Hopefully this means even without buying supercharger credits we can have the option to use chademo stations with the adapter. If I ever find myself doing over 200 miles per day I can buy the lifetime package. Charging per KWh is fair as the more you use the more you pay, its also good for Tesla as I guess most people will buy slightly more than they use so the cash will sit in Tesla's accounts for them to invest in other projects and expanding the network.

tstolz | 31 augustus 2016

I'll predict that this won't be particularly cheap .... certainly a lot more than if you were to fill up at home! Speed costs more after all.

zakeeus | 31 augustus 2016

I wonder if Tesla will add this feature to any of the S60s that haven't been supercharger enabled.

dsvick | 31 augustus 2016

@johndoe - "Tesla may want to do prepaid amounts to ensure that the bill is always paid, and to avoid repeated small credit card charges."
Yes, it is much simpler than charging a card each time someone visits a SC. That should reduce the customer service headaches significantly, which was my biggest concern. It also simplifies the SC experience as well since the charger would only need to make sure the car is authorized (has credits) and not have to worry about waiting on a CC transaction to process every time, even though they are pretty quick.

With this model they can also do some sort of auto-replenish as well, if your balance falls below a certain amount it would automatically bill your card and add more. Like the EasyPass does for toll roads.

Red Sage ca us | 31 augustus 2016

[IGNORE] applet engaged! w00+!

jordanrichard | 31 augustus 2016

bj, I am one of those who agreed that Tesla wouldn't do a pay as you go/use (meaning each time you plug in) model. Pre-paying for a block of kwh, is not a pay as you go/per use. It is like a time share beach house. You pay X amount for X number of visits/house usage. Pay as you go would be a hotel.

SamO | 31 augustus 2016

"Supercharging services and idle fees"

http://imgur.com/a/XaKNn

If the image doesn't post.

SamO | 31 augustus 2016

P.S. Overstaying a charge has always a big risk to the Supercharging system until autonomous parking and charging allowing Tesla to shuffle the cars at will.

KP in NPT | 31 augustus 2016

If they're going to charge "idle fees" then they should charge anyone who overstays a charge - not just Model 3 owners. JMHO

johndoe | 31 augustus 2016

@jordanrichard
Pay-as-you go has nothing to do with it being prepay or postpay. My cellphone provider specifically calls sever plans Pay As You Go but the are prepaid plans. The same applied to many other services. You were previously posting that the would be no pay-per-use option, and that there would only be a one time lifetime fee.
You were wrong.

You previously posted:
jordanrichard | May 31, 2016
"Elon did not say, nor did he even hint at there being an ongoing charge."

jordanrichard | June 1, 2016
"Time based charging WILL NOT work."
"So a fixed cost for a "product" (kwh) that varies in quantity will not work."
"I mean is there anybody here that would be content with paying say $10 to get literally half as many kwh as the car next to you, for the same period of time?"

SCCRENDO | 31 augustus 2016

@Samo. What do you think? May solve the mooching problem. LOL

SamO | 31 augustus 2016

@SCCRENDO,

How do idle fees address mooching?

SCCRENDO | 31 augustus 2016

@Sam0. If they pay per charge or block of charges may be cheaper and less hassle to charge at home.

elephant in a bottle | 31 augustus 2016

Guilt free charging to those future M3 owners who dont't have home charging.
Makes me wonder if M3 will have a built in credit card slot.

KP in NPT | 2 september 2016
suresh7745 | 2 september 2016

say you set it for 30 min charge and you leave to go shopping/lunch. tesla can easily move the car to an empty parking spot after the 30 min charge. unhooking is the tricky part. what if we can let the customer waiting in line to unhook. he/she gets out car when car spots the charger, un-plugs the previous car, plugs in his/her car. all the parking in and out can be auto park.

JayInJapan | 2 september 2016

Car needs to be unlocked to take out the charge connector.

Haggy | 2 september 2016

"I'll predict that this won't be particularly cheap .... certainly a lot more than if you were to fill up at home! Speed costs more after all.

Haggy | 2 september 2016

"I'll predict that this won't be particularly cheap .... certainly a lot more than if you were to fill up at home! Speed costs more after all."

That depends. I have a Model S. I paid for supercharging, but it was rolled into the price of the battery upgrade. If I assume that the portion of my payment that was equal to the cost of supercharger enabling was built into the price, and the rest was for a battery upgrade, then I got a terrible deal on the electricity and a great deal on the battery upgrade that made up for it. Or I could look at it as "free" as long as I got the upgrade. Since the upgrade from a 70 to an 85 didn't go down in price when they added free charging to the 70, it was the equivalent of throwing in charging for free when I bought it, and charging no less for the upgrade later. (i.e. the 70 already had supercharging so the upgrade was only the battery but the price difference was the same.)

That's relevant only if they throw in supercharging for "free" with an upgraded battery.

Since I do have a Model S, am less likely to take as many long trips as I have in recent years, am even less likely to have one family member go on a trip with the S and another go on a trip that would need supercharging with the 3, something like this would work. I'd pay a reasonable amount. You never know when you might need it. If it works out to more per mile, as long as it's cheaper than gasoline, I'd be fine with it for the rare use. I most likely could not justify paying a lot for adding unlimited charging. But I wouldn't want to have a car that could leave me in need of charging at a remote location.

mos6507 | 3 september 2016

@RedSage
[IGNORE] applet engaged! w00+!

^^^ Think twice about sharing this sentiment, as all it does is broadcast butthurt.

Red Sage ca us | 7 september 2016

mos6507: It seems that the [TESLA FORUM PERSONAL BLOCKLIST] Chrome Extension works even better! w00+!

topher | 7 september 2016

One way of looking at it:

If a Model S paid $2,000 for supercharging, lasts 200,000 miles, gets 300Wh/mi and supercharges 10% of the time, they are paying (at most) 33¢ per kiloWatt-hour (or 10¢ per mile).

For a Model 3 that's, 7¢ per mile ($3.52 gas in a Prius). Or about $20 per fillup.

Thank you kindly.

jordanrichard | 8 september 2016

If one is trying to work out a ROI for their paid or built in $2,000, by using the avg cost of electricity, you are looking at it wrong. If you didn't have a Tesla, you would have taken that road trip in an ICE car. So what you should be doing is calculating how many gallons of gas and related cost, it would have taken to get the number of miles added at the supercharger.

For example, you charge up and add 75 miles of range. Your previous ICE car got on avg 25 mpg. That means you got the equivalent of 3 gallons of gas. Here in CT premium gas cost $2.80 a gallon. So in this instance, the savings would have been $8.40. I have tracking my supercharger usage/savings for a little over 2 years and as of the end of last month, I had saved $2.048 in gas. I use the local price of Premium gas for my calculations since the car I would have used required premium gas.

Haggy | 8 september 2016

If I didn't have supercharging and had to take my previous ICE I would have spent over $1000 on gasoline over the past two years. But more realistically I might not have taken so many trips and flown instead. I can justify flying if I have to pay for gasoline, and the incremental cost of plane tickets over gasoline isn't high compared to the inconvenience of having to drive. But I also have to balance that with my willingness to drive. I can spend a day driving a Model S without ending up with a sore back and sore shoulders.

I also have to balance that with the number of passengers and the amount of cargo space. If there are several people going and I will need to haul a great deal of something with me, that might not be practical for an airplane trip.

johndoeeyed | 8 september 2016

@jordanrichard
This thread is about free-for-life versus pay-per-use supercharging.
It is not about supercharging versus petrol.

Red Sage ca us | 8 september 2016

jordanrichard: +42! The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything about 'What is the Proper Means to Gauge the Comparative Expense of Driving Fully Electric Instead of ICE?' Thanks. Now I don't have to write the same thing.

johndoeeyed | 8 september 2016

@Red Sage
This thread is about free-for-life versus pay-per-use supercharging.
It is not about supercharging versus petrol.

Haggy | 9 september 2016

It's about whether it makes financial sense for somebody to add supercharging, and their alternative is probably petrol.

Red Sage ca us | 9 september 2016

Haggy: +21! Exactly. It's strange that people keep forgetting that there are no 'electric cars that run on gasoline'... No matter what Toyota and Chevrolet say.

Pages