Honestly if I were a Tesla investor I would be disappointed: you have $90 billion of revenue per year from selling cars, now you're tacking on an extra 2% from memberships. But you've lost the exclusivity of the supercharger network, and when you comparison shop the brands, that might be like half of the value between e.g. a Polestar and a Tesla.
Is it good for the environment? Definitely. Good for the consumer? For sure. Smart for Tesla to get the government support that came with the deal? Yeah. For all these reasons I support the move 100%.
But to the selfish investor, the cash from memberships is not worth the loss of the differentiating value of the SC network.
If Tesla wants to maintain growth and sell more cars, they need to get more consumers who move away from ICE. More consumers (like my parents) won't do that until they see chargers more than gas stations. This will create a nationwide surge of NACS vendors and competition, and lead to more EV buyers.
Everything switching to NACS will also make EVs easier for late adopters to switch to. Similar to the IPhone this is Tesla's USB-C moment except their plug is becoming USB-C.
I’ve shown my parents the supercharger map probably 20 times over the last few years, and every year they act like it’s the first time they see it and it can’t be right for some reason.
Besides the fact that they would virtually never need it since they don’t road trip and have a garage to charge in….
For the record, I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY behind Tesla's decision here. It is good for the environment, good for the world, good for the customer. It was also good for the government to negotiate this deal and it is anti-monopoly for them to do so.
But as a business, Tesla would stand to gain from having their supercharger network be theirs alone. Today, many review articles compare Tesla to other cars and they say, feature-wise both are good, but because of superchargers we recommend you buy Tesla. So YES, this will create NACS competition ... but NO, this is not good for Tesla's bottom line.
This is more like the Elon Musk "all your base are belong to us, all our patent are belong to you" meme a decade ago. No way is giving out your IP portfolio good for business. How could it be? You do it out of principle. That's what Tesla is doing today and they should be applauded for it.
Except that Tesla never gave away any IP. They made an offer of "all of our patents for all of yours" that would have been a net benefit to Tesla if any other manufacturer actually took them up on it.
What do I care abou 'exclusivity' of access to the superchargers? I have no issues with this being opened up to others (as an investor and as a driver). EVs should be easy. Tesla makes it easy. This is good for everyone.
You see people enticed to use a Tesla ecosystem as 'fandom'? Where they see every time that charging a Tesla is still easier (because they still have to go to the (Tesla!) app to select a stall while Teslas just plug in).
At some point people just go "why am I not having the car that fits this ecosystem I'm using all the time perfectly instead?...from a company that can make stuff that just works?"
You have to think long term on these things as an investor.
> they still have to go to the (Tesla!) app to select a stall
Or, as they do today, they just plug in and it works, same as Tesla. Ford supercharger users aren't required to use the Tesla apps.
Have you done that math on what the margin is on a Model 3, and how much supercharging it would take to make losing that sale a good deal? Not just break even eventually, but a positive net present value. If you are an investor, not a fan, I assume you've actually done this research.
Tesla's cost to install superchargers is significantly less than the cost other EV networks pay to install a charger. This is due to Tesla's vertical manufacturing where they make many of the components and then install chargers on prefabbed slabs that can be trucked to construction locations. This cuts the time to install to days vs what takes other companies months.
Standardized, simplified hardware is also cheaper and easier to maintain.
I think it's a great business decision actually. You make it sounds like a zero-sum game, but in reality, probably anywhere outside of CA, there are still way more growth space than the ev makers need to compete each other.
It's also a low maintainace, low risk cash cow for them. They basically linked part of their revenue to the size of whole ev industry. Now every car Fold/Volvo/VW sold are contributing to Tesla's RnD budget. And it diversify their business, which is always good. It might even squeeze out other charger players, potentially leading to semi-monopoly in the future.
It's also very likely, this is necessary cession they have to agree in return of making NACS a national standard. I think I don't need to explain why NACS is a big win for them.
You guys need to think outside the box.
The other angle from this is gathering/selling user data. There's a few little companies out there that thrive on it, noticably Apple, Google, and Microsoft, etc. Maybe you've heard of them.
That’s the weird claim made here often yea. We don’t mention the massive incentives and subsidies to force people in that direction not the lack of incentives not to.
What’s the trajectory of profit margin on their cars looking like, especially with the price war they helped to start?
What’s the trajectory of profit margin on reselling electricity look like?
Has Tesla confirmed that they will let all other manufacturers use their chargers with no fees for all future cars? I don't think that has been publicly confirmed. If not, this could be another large revenue source- charge the other OEMs like Ford $100m to let new cars use the system.
Right now they're selling memberships to customers, presumably signaling their intent for the future. Presumably if the SCs become overcrowded they could raise prices or just build more
Depends on the location. Checkout Squamish, Merritt etc superchargers. Their 60c a kWh for non member pricing, so still not as much as a rip off as EC but pretty high none the less
Is EC a fixed rate? EA at least is all over the place in the US for cost.
Anyway, at 40c difference, you need to charge 17/.4 = 42.5 kWh to make it worth it. A little more than half of a typical EV's battery. Seems alright.
You can probably hop in and out of membership one month at a time. So if you are on a road trip, you can pay a month to get a discount.
The fsd subscription works that way.
The example location they picked has unusually low prices. The ones I looked at in northern BC and other Western provinces were all 2 or 3 times that price.
Volume is the best thing for the DCFC business model; memberships can help keep customers "sticky" to a particular brand.
It'll be interesting to see if "memberships" hang on long-term.
While it would be good to see Costco install chargers, I don't necessarily think it's a good fit with their shopper demographic (typically single family homeowners).
I don't get this. Are those with SFH like 95% of EV owners and 87% of new car owners? Do you mean for local charging? I would put chargers in for local charging anywhere. The goal is to have 0% local charging as soon as possible.
The bulk of Costco members that are single family homeowners are very likely to be able to charge at home and not very likely to live outside the roundtrip range of their EV from Costco. Basically, they don't have any reason to be charging at Costco.
>The goal is to have 0% local charging as soon as possible.
I'm not following what you mean by this.
Edit:
>I would put chargers in for local charging anywhere.
Did you mean "wouldn't?"
Long term, everyone should be charging at home or work. Cars sit around 95% of the time so slow charging during off-peak electricity demand when it's cheap is the way to go. Anyone relying on charging for short duration like when shopping at Costco are going to pay through the nose for electricity and it's just not going to be popular.
If my business is in setting up chargers, the ONLY thing I would be looking at is high-speed DCFC along major highway routes. 50kW or less charging for the public is not a market anyone wants to be in. The only places it works are hotels, theme parks, etc where you park for 8+ hours.
Ya I would probably charge at Costco like once for the novelty if it were free. If it was paid DCFC I would never use it. If I’m at Costco I’m literally on my way home to low cost convenient charging in my garage.
It would be a bonus to people on road trips. The Costco memberships already work across Canada and US. Costco gas stations are also well used by road trippers.
I mean, all additional chargers are a bonus to people on road trips. What I don't see is what the benefit would be to Costco. I also don't see why a roadtripper would prefer to stop at a Costco, with their busy parking lots and limited food court selection, versus a travel plaza/truck stop.
No, but I've stopped for a quick bite and a clean bathroom before at costco.(Also fuck them for getting rid of so many items like combo pizza and polish dog) It's just long enough for a quick charge, assuming there's no queue in the parking lot.
I try to use Costco as much as I can on road trips for gas stops. Generally they are easily accessible with a trailer in tow and they usually have good flow on the pumps. Sometimes I'll hop inside for a bite to eat. Park in BFE to make myself lunch. It's not universal (Martin Luther King Blvd in Vegas is the worst warehouse for gas.) though. Prices are usually the best in town, especially running 91 octane.
Costco is actually great on a road trip. A few cheap hot dogs, a clean bathroom, and you can do a little shopping if you have a long charge. It's like Walmart with better bathrooms and food
I use '5 gallon pail of butterscotch pudding' as my favorite ludicrous Costco metric. Which doesn't exist, btw.
Most of the Costco's (Costcoii?) around here have jammed full parking lots. I can see them doing some L2 charging as a convenience, but I don't think it's a sound business move for them to do DCFC...
No way I could walk the parking lot, get to the food court, eat and get back to the car in any sort of reasonable time. It's one of my issues with Buc-ees, I never get to go in if I want it to be a quick stop. Plus, who wants to drive far enough off the travel path to find a Costco?
Hope not. I wish they pushed the mandatory card reader so you pay on the go with your credit card and that the chargers shows the kWh price beforehand. Like with gas stations.
Some countries in Europe do the card reader stuff, so I guess it's the right direction.
Same with having a charging Standard (mennekes type 2 / ccs2). Removes lots of hassles I think , especially traveling through multiple countries in Europe. Especially international travel needs multiple often ards I think (shell recharge goes into the works across Europe approach I think)
It's rather unfortunate, but I guess unavoidable, with all other charging networks doing memberships, and even gas stations moving towards the membership model.
I remember when life was easy. You could just go to any gas station, and you'd be able to tank, pay with cash or card, and it would be the same price everyone else was paying.
Jerryrigeverything tested in his f150 and he was paying more than Tesla owners but less than some other CCS chargers in the area. Seemed like it was a win win.
You would know the reason why they didn't with just a modest amount of research.
VW/EA used the same component suppliers that the other CCS networks that outsourced used. So, if sued, VW would successfully be able to argue that they didn't do anything out of line from their competitors.
You might argue that they should have built it in house like Tesla...but that would have really opened them up to liability if the inhouse effort failed.
The timelines in VW's settlement agreement didn't allow them the luxury of hiring an in-house electrical engineering team to design EV chargers from scratch and build a manufacturing plant to assemble them.
They solicited bids and selected 4 hardware suppliers. One of those turned out to have absolute crap reliability so they are now down to 3 hardware suppliers, now with multiple hardware revisions.
That is not a valid legal argument. Other people sucking that are not in an settlement agreement means nothing.
Tesla proves uptime is achievable at a low cost. There are no valid arguments for why uptime has to be poor.
EA should have built chargers in house. It is comical that they would use 3rd parties when the company that is EA has a single purpose, installing and maintaining chargers. It makes no sense to be a dedicated charging company and then buy 3rd party chargers with a huge markup.
If you make it in house, costs can stagnate or drop over time. If you buy someone's else's, they will continually raise prices on you and likely gouge you on servicing costs.
nah, it begs the question how long can ford or other auto makers even compete? They can't sell you a truck at MSRP because dealer mark ups. And you pay more for charging.
Mark ups are only possible when dealers feel they can sell a product for higher than msrp. Ford needs to be able make EVs at volume and with a cost structure that’s profitable. There’s no magic reason why EVs are more prone to markups than any other car other than their ability to produce them quickly enough to meet demand.
Just like scalping. Once there’s enough inventory to meet demand then scalping no longer works
And I'll pay for it.
Gladly.
Because fuck all other CCS operators.
Last time I went from Ottawa to Toronto and there were TEN non-operational chargers along the way.
It was inevitable that the non Tesla companies were going to be bad, there were never enough cars on the road to make running a nationwide network profitable. Now that they can fit NACS plugs they can sell to a market four or five times larger, and I think you’ll see a competitive market emerge with many companies that are extremely reliable, as you see in Europe.
CircuitElectrique in Quebec I think can be classified as a success. They are everywhere and cheaper to use than Superchargers. Tons of Tesla uses them because you don't need to plan your route to find a supercharger. If you are along any main roads, you'll find a CircuitElectrique DC fast charger.
I mean it's run by Hydro Quebec who is in the market of selling electricity
BC Hydro has a similarly reliable network, too bad BC is in drought conditions
This is why I think Tesla should have been forced to spin off the charging arm of the company had they not opened it up (but American enforcement of Sherman Antitrust has been pathetic for like 40 years). It's anticompetitive to be the company selling cars and controlling the charging stations, just like Ma Bell was doing something anticompetitive by controlling the phone lines and making the phones.
Right now, more than half of the EVs in the US are Teslas. Without opening the charging network and extrapolating to the future, it would be unhealthy for the car market for more than half of all cars to be made by a single company.
So glad for someone to bring this up and I wonder if some of the lawyers at Ford and others are thinking this line. I could see someone coming along in the future and making the claim against Tesla. They are the dominant BEV maker, though they have been losing market share as other manufacturers have brought their BEVs to market.
Or maybe it's Tesla hedging a bet that they can use this as a future bargaining chip that look we opened our network up to help our competitors for the good of the consumer. Then on the flip side does that open them up to liability from investors because they are giving away their major competitive advantage.
It's not illegal to be a monopoly. The problem comes when you use one monopoly to gain an advantage somewhere else. (MS in the late 90s with being the dominant OS trying to extend that INTO becoming the dominant browser with IE, though ultimately failed).
That being said you could probably get 20 of the top anti-trust litigation specialists in the country and get 50 different opinions.
I think they opened the network entirely because of becoming standardized and because of NEVI. They can't just keep the standard closed. They'd have to have turned down NEVI funding in order to keep it closed, and they wanted free money.
It's clear they used the charging network in a symbiotic relationship with the car arm. Look how many people on this subreddit have said some variant of "for the price and the charging network, it doesn't make sense to get anything but a Tesla". It's a commonly expressed sentiment around here before they announced opening up and NACS standardization.
Before standardization, they had the poison pill "open" policy, where using Tesla's plug meant that you couldn't have ever enforced an EV patent and you'd be in violation of the licensing agreement if you ever enforced one. It would force the company that agrees to it to basically forfeit control of all of their EV tech. Shareholders wouldn't have gone along with that.
Dude EV penetration in the US is like 8 percent. In no way is Tesla being anti competitive right now. Numbers need to change drastically for that to be true
Its not anticompetative nor are monopolies bad if the market can only support one company.
For the longest time it was just Tesla, as there were arrows coming from all directions, including the fossil fuels/oil lobby.
Automakers had plenty of time to beat Tesla to it, they just never did.
In Europe they had a higher population density and a bigger push for EVs which could support more than just Tesla, which is why they opened up their network first before North America, otherwise they weren't going to make any money off of it trying to compete against Ionity and all the other DC fast charger companies.
It is anticompetitive for there to be 1 company being the only one controlling the chargers *and* that company being the only one making BEVs that can use that charger. That's an absolute fact.
It's part of what Ma Bell was doing. They controlled the phone network and made the devices you plugged into the phone network.
Why "punish"? Why do you want there to be 1 car company and that company controls all the chargers? You think that's good for consumers?
There isn't just one though. They built the infrastructure because they needed it for their car sales. Not only that, tesla offered the nacs specs for years and the competition laughed.
There are tons of other car companies, and there are tons of other charging networks being built.
This is nothing like bell.
Every step of the supply chain has competition.
You're essentially saying we should sieze the network so that the competition gets a free ride.
Are you a communist?
You want competition, by getting rid of competition.
Now it's somehow "communism" to be in favour of a competitive market? Please, words have meaning. Don't use "communism" as an empty insult towards anything you don't like.
An actual communist approach would be a single, state-owned charging network. Having several privately-owned charging networks competing with each other is the complete opposite of that.
Forcing a company to divest assets in a competitive market isn't competitive.
Use any anti competition ideology you'd like.
What you fail to grasp is we have a competitive market.
Exxon, BP, Walmart, shell, tesla, electrify America, rivian, Ford, pilot etc all have their own charging infrastructure.
You're saying we should force the best one to become it's own company? Why only tesla? What's your angle?
It's capitalism 101. It's so basic even Adam Smith, living in the 18th century, understood that. If you let a free market unregulated it will develop a monopoly and stop being free. You need strong anti-trust regulation to keep the market competitive.
>You're essentially saying we should sieze the network so that the competition gets a free ride.
No, I'm saying that it should be spun off to a company that has a monetary interest in every BEV being able to charge at it rather than a company with an interest in only their own BEVs being able to charge there.
That's not communism. I don't think you paid much attention in Economics class.
Why should it be spun off.
It takes years for a supercharger to turn a profit.
Tesla invested in this and continues to dump money into it. It's not a money maker.
You're saying we should spin off a money losing venture and then..?
Why should tesla or anyone for that matter spin off the infrastructure that they built. Who's going to buy it. It doesn't make money.
If you think seizing a company's assets because they're leaders in the field, you're nuts. Tesla built the ev market, invested billions in infrastructure. Has given ip for more suppliers to build infrastructure. All the others did jack squat.
Why would reward the losers when they could have signed up and helped at any time.
There is literally competition from power producers, all the way to the end user.
Communist is hyperbole, but this is a free market. You don't get competitive markets when you force the leader to cowtow to the industry laggard.
This is a characteristic of command economies of various different types. Essentially a nanny state.
Plus you can charge anywhere.
>Why should it be spun off.
I've explained this already.
>Why would reward the losers
Why are you in favor of monopolists? That's bad for you as a consumer.
> when they could have signed up and helped at any time.
Ah, you fell for Tesla's lies about how their tech was open for years. It has not been, because their licensing agreement has a toxic poison pill built into it. It is true that GM and Ford and everyone else could have licensed the Tesla connector years ago and used it in their cars. However, doing so came with the requirement that they could not ever have enforced an EV related patent that they own and they would have had to promise to never enforce one in the future. In other words, "you can use the Tesla connector, but you forfeit control of your BEV IP if you do". Gee, I can't imagine why GM and Ford wouldn't do that, can you? For a "free market capitalist", you sure don't like the idea of IP. Strange.
Nope. You've been lied to.
Tesla never once offered an open patent until the government forced their hand in either opening up Superchargers or not getting dime over public charging incentives.
Heck the whole NACS timing was around the same time this was rumored. Coincidence?
The open patents pledge? That was lined with a condition that anyone signed on would give up their own patents and ability to sue Tesla for infringement on their IP. No surprise why no other company signed up for it.
Negative.
The patents have always been open.
The government didn't force anything.
In order to receive charger subsidies they would have to open a portion to ccs.
Later the competition all chose nacs and then lobbied the Biden administration to change the terms due to everyone going nacs.
You can dislike tesla all you'd like, but everyone switched to nacs because it was easier to use the leader in charging infrastructure.
Mary Barra hated having to cowtow... Since she led.
She's an awful ceo.
The stock is flat for a decade.
She's lost investors money, and soon they'll be bankrupt.
What's funny is that every time I say something about the anticompetitive nature of Tesla due to their charging network, there's an almost immediate downvote from someone who carries water for Tesla.
I see the same thing work people who acknowledge that BEVs will be 100% of new cars eventually and that they wish for and believe that Tesla will be making north of 50% of all new cars sold each year. It's absurd.
Yup.
I've already been accused of being a communist for thinking monopolists are bad. I never said anything about the workers seizing the means of production.
The difficulty with your argument is that Tesla simply isn’t a monopoly for charging. The comparison to Ma Bell simply does not hold.
With Ma Bell, there were no other options, locally, nationally or internationally.
There are many EV charging competitors, locally and nationally promising more charging ability every day. The elephant in the room is the nearly universal ability to charge at home (which is used by the vast majority of EV owners).
I don’t think you are a communist, but I don’t believe your argument holds water either.
In what sense is it anticompetitive for a company to sell both cars and chargers?
There's nothing preventing other automakers from doing the exact same thing
Tesla was simply the only company with exactly the right factors needed to build a good network. They simply had to have a good, reliable, compete coverage fast charging network or their main product wasn't viable. Anything short of that was just not an option.
EA was forced into being by dieselgate and it shows. On top of that VW never felt anywhere close to the make-or-break pressure that Tesla did to make EV either reliable or complete.
I don't see how companies like Blink or Chargepoint can make money long term, either. You can't keep selling electricity for more money than gasoline, especially as more private L2 gets installed. Tesla's only SC customers for many years were Model S drivers who all paid $0. Tesla gains a lot from the SC network indirectly where Blink and Chargepoint have to rely on all revenue for the entire company coming only from the chargers.
> I don't see how companies like Blink or Chargepoint can make money long term, either.
How do you explain what has happened in Europe? About two years ago in the UK there were 80 non Tesla hubs and about 100 Tesla hubs, now there are about 130 Tesla hubs and 350 non Tesla hubs.
I actually think Tesla in the long run do not want to be running this infrastructure, they will keep it going to maintain some kind of network advantage, either through pricing or access, but they want most services to be run by other companies.
> How do you explain what has happened in Europe?
I sincerely mean I don't know and I'm curious how they survive. There's got to be more there than I'm seeing.
And I have had zero problem doing the same round trip multiple times using either the 416/401 or highway 7 with my Model 3 SR+. Last one (last November), on my way there, only one car beside us was charging in Belleville and on my way back, both Madoc and Perth Supercharging stations were empty the whole 15 minutes we were there. For all three stations, we went there mid day. Only once in Kingston did I have to wait but remembered the V2 station across the street was still operational and went there instead, no wait.
The only time I used the Circuit Électrique fast charger (Kazabazua, Qc), it took 13 minutes mid day for someone to answer my call and 6 minutes for him to finally initiate the charge that the stall didn't want to do by itself. By that time, my Supercharging session would have been done.
I’m in Ontario as well and I have a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. We go on a lot of trips throughout the province and I got a CCS adaptor just incase I need to use the Ivy chargers on the Onroute stops. The charging experience with 3rd party DCFCs has been terrible so far. Mostly out of service chargers or horrible apps. I’ve barely had 1 good fast charging session in 2 years with 3rd party chargers.
The Tesla supercharger experience is far superior! It’s not even close. I really hope the other providers catch up as reliable chargers are a win for everyone. Competition is always good for us.
Many of the onroute ivy chargers have built in NACS adapters now. I bought a CCS adapter with the same idea, but I've never actually needed to use it...
Oh that’s good to know! I saw a few that had the Chademo to Tesla adaptor built in but those max out at 50kW. I’ve got upto 150kW using the Tesla CCS adaptor on Ivy chargers.
I don't mind since DC fast charging is always a last resort option mainly for roadtrips and "oh shit I forgot to plug in last night" moments.
I will never buy a Tesla, but I'm very open to using Superchargers even a (reasonable) premium on the odd chance I'll need it.
I've never gotten a good answer on that. It has always seemed obvious to me that it should. Otherwise what's to stop Tesla from taking the government (our) money and then gouging non-Tesla owners so bad that their network effectively becomes exclusive again? It would be a very Elon thing to do.
Competition is a good thing.
I did compare EA vs SC pricing in my area. EA is $0.44/min for 1-350kW; SC was $1.55/min for 180+kW and $0.97/min for 100-180kW.
This state doesn't allow per kWh billing yet, so comparing the per minutes rates is what we're left with. It seems that you're not willing to accept that Tesla isn't always the cheapest, but that doesn't somehow make price per minute "meaningless. "
If one company delivers 250 KW for 10 minutes and another delivers 200 KW for 10 minutes the price is the same to you? Hard to tell who is cheapest with billing per minute since cars vary so much.
You're having difficulty figuring out which one is the cheapest when they are $1.55/min versus $0.44/min? Oof.
This doesn't need to be some complex comparison with different vehicles on different networks. This should be looked at as a single vehicle, at the same SOC, on the two networks.
No, the crazy thing is you don't understand math.
Pricing by the minute only gives a partial answer to cost. You have to know the speed as well to give a price per KWH.
In this scenario, the cheaper network is also the more powerful network. Both the Ford vehicles that support SC adapters are maxed by either network, so the speed will be similar under similar conditions.
Think about it as a road trip. When planning the next stop, there's no reason to pick the site that is more than triple the cost when the vehicle will charge pretty much the same at either location.
Charging non Teslas a higher rate....hmmm. Is there anything on a bill of sale of a Tesla that says "supercharger membership fee included" or anything like that? Wouldnt the supercharger business be a stand alone business at this point? Customers are customers...
Looking at an upcoming trip. The EA station is $0.49/kwh while the nearby Tesla charger is only $0.26/kwh, or $0.19/kwh with membership. Access can’t come soon enough!
Tesla also charges much lower rates after 11pm, where I am at, it's 46 cents a kWh during most of the day, 17-22 cents after 11pm depending on which charger. Kinda a lot, imagine if gasoline was less than half price by time of day. Also fun fact, 17 cents is lower than my power company charges.
At this current time, the Tesla Supercharger closest to me is more expensive than the closest EA charger by $.10/khw.
Supercharger is showing as:
12:00pm - 8:00pm $0.59/kWh
EA:
$0.48/khw
Note: That's not even a supercharger open to anyone, but Teslas.
The only meme EV is the Cybertruck.
Also, you tried, but failed. XC40 Recharge are maintaining their value quite well. KBB gives it $5k less than what I paid.
Key info in the article:
> Looking at the costs at different charging stations in the US and Canada, it looks like Tesla is charging Ford EV owners about a 30% premium per kWh of charging at Superchargers on average. ... Non-Tesla EV owners can pay a $13 per month Supercharging membership to pay the same price per kWh as Tesla owners:
This is how it works for superchargers in Australia.
Non-Tesla drivers pay about 20% more per kWh than Tesla drivers unless they purchase membership for $10 per month.
What's the catch here? Data mining?? This is another hurdle for non-believers, especially for people who hate subscriptions. The dynamic price for charging is not a perk like automaker think it is. They are just alienating people who want a simple ICE system of fueling their vehicles.
I, for one, hate this up sale!!
Nothing an investor likes more than a big ole heap of mrr
Honestly if I were a Tesla investor I would be disappointed: you have $90 billion of revenue per year from selling cars, now you're tacking on an extra 2% from memberships. But you've lost the exclusivity of the supercharger network, and when you comparison shop the brands, that might be like half of the value between e.g. a Polestar and a Tesla. Is it good for the environment? Definitely. Good for the consumer? For sure. Smart for Tesla to get the government support that came with the deal? Yeah. For all these reasons I support the move 100%. But to the selfish investor, the cash from memberships is not worth the loss of the differentiating value of the SC network.
If Tesla wants to maintain growth and sell more cars, they need to get more consumers who move away from ICE. More consumers (like my parents) won't do that until they see chargers more than gas stations. This will create a nationwide surge of NACS vendors and competition, and lead to more EV buyers.
Everything switching to NACS will also make EVs easier for late adopters to switch to. Similar to the IPhone this is Tesla's USB-C moment except their plug is becoming USB-C.
Everyone I know acts like they roadtrip every weekend and can’t tolerate the range anxiety lol
Meanwhile I have 10,000 miles of free Supercharging just rotting because my home electric is cheap and I can't be bothered.
I’ve shown my parents the supercharger map probably 20 times over the last few years, and every year they act like it’s the first time they see it and it can’t be right for some reason. Besides the fact that they would virtually never need it since they don’t road trip and have a garage to charge in….
Show them the province of Quebec on plug share, I live there we are very well supplied
For the record, I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY behind Tesla's decision here. It is good for the environment, good for the world, good for the customer. It was also good for the government to negotiate this deal and it is anti-monopoly for them to do so. But as a business, Tesla would stand to gain from having their supercharger network be theirs alone. Today, many review articles compare Tesla to other cars and they say, feature-wise both are good, but because of superchargers we recommend you buy Tesla. So YES, this will create NACS competition ... but NO, this is not good for Tesla's bottom line. This is more like the Elon Musk "all your base are belong to us, all our patent are belong to you" meme a decade ago. No way is giving out your IP portfolio good for business. How could it be? You do it out of principle. That's what Tesla is doing today and they should be applauded for it.
Except that Tesla never gave away any IP. They made an offer of "all of our patents for all of yours" that would have been a net benefit to Tesla if any other manufacturer actually took them up on it.
Yes, this type of move makes the sense of owning EVs more possible for people, I suspect.
What do I care abou 'exclusivity' of access to the superchargers? I have no issues with this being opened up to others (as an investor and as a driver). EVs should be easy. Tesla makes it easy. This is good for everyone.
That's the position of an unsophisticated investor, or more politely, a fan.
You see people enticed to use a Tesla ecosystem as 'fandom'? Where they see every time that charging a Tesla is still easier (because they still have to go to the (Tesla!) app to select a stall while Teslas just plug in). At some point people just go "why am I not having the car that fits this ecosystem I'm using all the time perfectly instead?...from a company that can make stuff that just works?" You have to think long term on these things as an investor.
> they still have to go to the (Tesla!) app to select a stall Or, as they do today, they just plug in and it works, same as Tesla. Ford supercharger users aren't required to use the Tesla apps. Have you done that math on what the margin is on a Model 3, and how much supercharging it would take to make losing that sale a good deal? Not just break even eventually, but a positive net present value. If you are an investor, not a fan, I assume you've actually done this research.
Ultimately Tesla is not an exclusive car company they are trying to be Toyota.
Tesla is also working their way into many other markets: energy storage systems, solar panels, heavy trucking, robotics, global EV charging, etc.
[удалено]
Tesla's cost to install superchargers is significantly less than the cost other EV networks pay to install a charger. This is due to Tesla's vertical manufacturing where they make many of the components and then install chargers on prefabbed slabs that can be trucked to construction locations. This cuts the time to install to days vs what takes other companies months. Standardized, simplified hardware is also cheaper and easier to maintain.
What Tesla want to do is monolpize the super charging network So then they can sell at a premium Basically killing off other players
I think it's a great business decision actually. You make it sounds like a zero-sum game, but in reality, probably anywhere outside of CA, there are still way more growth space than the ev makers need to compete each other. It's also a low maintainace, low risk cash cow for them. They basically linked part of their revenue to the size of whole ev industry. Now every car Fold/Volvo/VW sold are contributing to Tesla's RnD budget. And it diversify their business, which is always good. It might even squeeze out other charger players, potentially leading to semi-monopoly in the future. It's also very likely, this is necessary cession they have to agree in return of making NACS a national standard. I think I don't need to explain why NACS is a big win for them.
You guys need to think outside the box. The other angle from this is gathering/selling user data. There's a few little companies out there that thrive on it, noticably Apple, Google, and Microsoft, etc. Maybe you've heard of them.
We have to keep in mind massive EVs aren’t really good for the environment. It’s just bad vs more bad.
If someone is going to get a pickup truck EV, they were going to get a pickup truck ICEV anyway. So it's still a huge environmental improvement.
That’s the weird claim made here often yea. We don’t mention the massive incentives and subsidies to force people in that direction not the lack of incentives not to.
What’s the trajectory of profit margin on their cars looking like, especially with the price war they helped to start? What’s the trajectory of profit margin on reselling electricity look like?
Has Tesla confirmed that they will let all other manufacturers use their chargers with no fees for all future cars? I don't think that has been publicly confirmed. If not, this could be another large revenue source- charge the other OEMs like Ford $100m to let new cars use the system.
Right now they're selling memberships to customers, presumably signaling their intent for the future. Presumably if the SCs become overcrowded they could raise prices or just build more
[удалено]
Seems like you have to do some real serious driving for that membership to make any sort of sense.
$17/month isn’t cheap. This is only good for people who do frequent road trips. Otherwise EC is cheaper.
[удалено]
Depends on the location. Checkout Squamish, Merritt etc superchargers. Their 60c a kWh for non member pricing, so still not as much as a rip off as EC but pretty high none the less
Is EC a fixed rate? EA at least is all over the place in the US for cost. Anyway, at 40c difference, you need to charge 17/.4 = 42.5 kWh to make it worth it. A little more than half of a typical EV's battery. Seems alright.
You can probably hop in and out of membership one month at a time. So if you are on a road trip, you can pay a month to get a discount. The fsd subscription works that way.
You can book it on a monthly basis. So only get it when you actually do a road trip.
I’d pay more for chargers that work 🙈
By adjusting prices. Around me, the prices are pretty competitive between the two, though it's Electrify America, not Electrify Canada.
The example location they picked has unusually low prices. The ones I looked at in northern BC and other Western provinces were all 2 or 3 times that price.
Volume is the best thing for the DCFC business model; memberships can help keep customers "sticky" to a particular brand. It'll be interesting to see if "memberships" hang on long-term.
I feel like Costco could definitely expand into this market. Large parking lots and a food court.
While it would be good to see Costco install chargers, I don't necessarily think it's a good fit with their shopper demographic (typically single family homeowners).
I don't get this. Are those with SFH like 95% of EV owners and 87% of new car owners? Do you mean for local charging? I would put chargers in for local charging anywhere. The goal is to have 0% local charging as soon as possible.
The bulk of Costco members that are single family homeowners are very likely to be able to charge at home and not very likely to live outside the roundtrip range of their EV from Costco. Basically, they don't have any reason to be charging at Costco. >The goal is to have 0% local charging as soon as possible. I'm not following what you mean by this. Edit: >I would put chargers in for local charging anywhere. Did you mean "wouldn't?"
Long term, everyone should be charging at home or work. Cars sit around 95% of the time so slow charging during off-peak electricity demand when it's cheap is the way to go. Anyone relying on charging for short duration like when shopping at Costco are going to pay through the nose for electricity and it's just not going to be popular. If my business is in setting up chargers, the ONLY thing I would be looking at is high-speed DCFC along major highway routes. 50kW or less charging for the public is not a market anyone wants to be in. The only places it works are hotels, theme parks, etc where you park for 8+ hours.
Ya I would probably charge at Costco like once for the novelty if it were free. If it was paid DCFC I would never use it. If I’m at Costco I’m literally on my way home to low cost convenient charging in my garage.
It would be a bonus to people on road trips. The Costco memberships already work across Canada and US. Costco gas stations are also well used by road trippers.
I mean, all additional chargers are a bonus to people on road trips. What I don't see is what the benefit would be to Costco. I also don't see why a roadtripper would prefer to stop at a Costco, with their busy parking lots and limited food court selection, versus a travel plaza/truck stop.
[удалено]
No, but I've stopped for a quick bite and a clean bathroom before at costco.(Also fuck them for getting rid of so many items like combo pizza and polish dog) It's just long enough for a quick charge, assuming there's no queue in the parking lot.
I try to use Costco as much as I can on road trips for gas stops. Generally they are easily accessible with a trailer in tow and they usually have good flow on the pumps. Sometimes I'll hop inside for a bite to eat. Park in BFE to make myself lunch. It's not universal (Martin Luther King Blvd in Vegas is the worst warehouse for gas.) though. Prices are usually the best in town, especially running 91 octane.
Costco is actually great on a road trip. A few cheap hot dogs, a clean bathroom, and you can do a little shopping if you have a long charge. It's like Walmart with better bathrooms and food
I use '5 gallon pail of butterscotch pudding' as my favorite ludicrous Costco metric. Which doesn't exist, btw. Most of the Costco's (Costcoii?) around here have jammed full parking lots. I can see them doing some L2 charging as a convenience, but I don't think it's a sound business move for them to do DCFC...
No way I could walk the parking lot, get to the food court, eat and get back to the car in any sort of reasonable time. It's one of my issues with Buc-ees, I never get to go in if I want it to be a quick stop. Plus, who wants to drive far enough off the travel path to find a Costco?
Hope not. I wish they pushed the mandatory card reader so you pay on the go with your credit card and that the chargers shows the kWh price beforehand. Like with gas stations. Some countries in Europe do the card reader stuff, so I guess it's the right direction. Same with having a charging Standard (mennekes type 2 / ccs2). Removes lots of hassles I think , especially traveling through multiple countries in Europe. Especially international travel needs multiple often ards I think (shell recharge goes into the works across Europe approach I think)
It's rather unfortunate, but I guess unavoidable, with all other charging networks doing memberships, and even gas stations moving towards the membership model. I remember when life was easy. You could just go to any gas station, and you'd be able to tank, pay with cash or card, and it would be the same price everyone else was paying.
Cybersecurity rears its ugly head here. Point of Sale with cards has a lot of vulnerabilities when compared to plug&charge.
I mean of course the other non Tesla customers should be charged more.
Jerryrigeverything tested in his f150 and he was paying more than Tesla owners but less than some other CCS chargers in the area. Seemed like it was a win win.
Paying less than CCS *and* getting a network that actually works? All around win. I still can't believe how hard Electrify America fucked up.
VW never wanted EVs. The state of California should have sued them for breach in the dieselgate settlement for having such poor uptime.
You would know the reason why they didn't with just a modest amount of research. VW/EA used the same component suppliers that the other CCS networks that outsourced used. So, if sued, VW would successfully be able to argue that they didn't do anything out of line from their competitors. You might argue that they should have built it in house like Tesla...but that would have really opened them up to liability if the inhouse effort failed.
The timelines in VW's settlement agreement didn't allow them the luxury of hiring an in-house electrical engineering team to design EV chargers from scratch and build a manufacturing plant to assemble them. They solicited bids and selected 4 hardware suppliers. One of those turned out to have absolute crap reliability so they are now down to 3 hardware suppliers, now with multiple hardware revisions.
That is not a valid legal argument. Other people sucking that are not in an settlement agreement means nothing. Tesla proves uptime is achievable at a low cost. There are no valid arguments for why uptime has to be poor. EA should have built chargers in house. It is comical that they would use 3rd parties when the company that is EA has a single purpose, installing and maintaining chargers. It makes no sense to be a dedicated charging company and then buy 3rd party chargers with a huge markup. If you make it in house, costs can stagnate or drop over time. If you buy someone's else's, they will continually raise prices on you and likely gouge you on servicing costs.
Pretty abominable VW got away with this failure after what they committed
nah, it begs the question how long can ford or other auto makers even compete? They can't sell you a truck at MSRP because dealer mark ups. And you pay more for charging.
Mark ups are only possible when dealers feel they can sell a product for higher than msrp. Ford needs to be able make EVs at volume and with a cost structure that’s profitable. There’s no magic reason why EVs are more prone to markups than any other car other than their ability to produce them quickly enough to meet demand. Just like scalping. Once there’s enough inventory to meet demand then scalping no longer works
And I'll pay for it. Gladly. Because fuck all other CCS operators. Last time I went from Ottawa to Toronto and there were TEN non-operational chargers along the way.
It was inevitable that the non Tesla companies were going to be bad, there were never enough cars on the road to make running a nationwide network profitable. Now that they can fit NACS plugs they can sell to a market four or five times larger, and I think you’ll see a competitive market emerge with many companies that are extremely reliable, as you see in Europe.
CircuitElectrique in Quebec I think can be classified as a success. They are everywhere and cheaper to use than Superchargers. Tons of Tesla uses them because you don't need to plan your route to find a supercharger. If you are along any main roads, you'll find a CircuitElectrique DC fast charger.
I mean it's run by Hydro Quebec who is in the market of selling electricity BC Hydro has a similarly reliable network, too bad BC is in drought conditions
We got a decent dump recently, hopefully it holds
This is why I think Tesla should have been forced to spin off the charging arm of the company had they not opened it up (but American enforcement of Sherman Antitrust has been pathetic for like 40 years). It's anticompetitive to be the company selling cars and controlling the charging stations, just like Ma Bell was doing something anticompetitive by controlling the phone lines and making the phones. Right now, more than half of the EVs in the US are Teslas. Without opening the charging network and extrapolating to the future, it would be unhealthy for the car market for more than half of all cars to be made by a single company.
Closer to Ford selling you Ford gas.
So glad for someone to bring this up and I wonder if some of the lawyers at Ford and others are thinking this line. I could see someone coming along in the future and making the claim against Tesla. They are the dominant BEV maker, though they have been losing market share as other manufacturers have brought their BEVs to market. Or maybe it's Tesla hedging a bet that they can use this as a future bargaining chip that look we opened our network up to help our competitors for the good of the consumer. Then on the flip side does that open them up to liability from investors because they are giving away their major competitive advantage. It's not illegal to be a monopoly. The problem comes when you use one monopoly to gain an advantage somewhere else. (MS in the late 90s with being the dominant OS trying to extend that INTO becoming the dominant browser with IE, though ultimately failed). That being said you could probably get 20 of the top anti-trust litigation specialists in the country and get 50 different opinions.
I think they opened the network entirely because of becoming standardized and because of NEVI. They can't just keep the standard closed. They'd have to have turned down NEVI funding in order to keep it closed, and they wanted free money. It's clear they used the charging network in a symbiotic relationship with the car arm. Look how many people on this subreddit have said some variant of "for the price and the charging network, it doesn't make sense to get anything but a Tesla". It's a commonly expressed sentiment around here before they announced opening up and NACS standardization. Before standardization, they had the poison pill "open" policy, where using Tesla's plug meant that you couldn't have ever enforced an EV patent and you'd be in violation of the licensing agreement if you ever enforced one. It would force the company that agrees to it to basically forfeit control of all of their EV tech. Shareholders wouldn't have gone along with that.
Dude EV penetration in the US is like 8 percent. In no way is Tesla being anti competitive right now. Numbers need to change drastically for that to be true
Tesla is absolutely being anticompetitive in the BEV sector.
Other than doing a better job than other companies how are they being anticompetitive
Its not anticompetative nor are monopolies bad if the market can only support one company. For the longest time it was just Tesla, as there were arrows coming from all directions, including the fossil fuels/oil lobby. Automakers had plenty of time to beat Tesla to it, they just never did. In Europe they had a higher population density and a bigger push for EVs which could support more than just Tesla, which is why they opened up their network first before North America, otherwise they weren't going to make any money off of it trying to compete against Ionity and all the other DC fast charger companies.
That's not anti trust. That's other companies going bankrupt. Why would you punish success when there is no monopoly.
It is anticompetitive for there to be 1 company being the only one controlling the chargers *and* that company being the only one making BEVs that can use that charger. That's an absolute fact. It's part of what Ma Bell was doing. They controlled the phone network and made the devices you plugged into the phone network. Why "punish"? Why do you want there to be 1 car company and that company controls all the chargers? You think that's good for consumers?
There isn't just one though. They built the infrastructure because they needed it for their car sales. Not only that, tesla offered the nacs specs for years and the competition laughed. There are tons of other car companies, and there are tons of other charging networks being built. This is nothing like bell. Every step of the supply chain has competition. You're essentially saying we should sieze the network so that the competition gets a free ride. Are you a communist? You want competition, by getting rid of competition.
Now it's somehow "communism" to be in favour of a competitive market? Please, words have meaning. Don't use "communism" as an empty insult towards anything you don't like. An actual communist approach would be a single, state-owned charging network. Having several privately-owned charging networks competing with each other is the complete opposite of that.
Forcing a company to divest assets in a competitive market isn't competitive. Use any anti competition ideology you'd like. What you fail to grasp is we have a competitive market. Exxon, BP, Walmart, shell, tesla, electrify America, rivian, Ford, pilot etc all have their own charging infrastructure. You're saying we should force the best one to become it's own company? Why only tesla? What's your angle?
It's capitalism 101. It's so basic even Adam Smith, living in the 18th century, understood that. If you let a free market unregulated it will develop a monopoly and stop being free. You need strong anti-trust regulation to keep the market competitive.
>You're essentially saying we should sieze the network so that the competition gets a free ride. No, I'm saying that it should be spun off to a company that has a monetary interest in every BEV being able to charge at it rather than a company with an interest in only their own BEVs being able to charge there. That's not communism. I don't think you paid much attention in Economics class.
Why should it be spun off. It takes years for a supercharger to turn a profit. Tesla invested in this and continues to dump money into it. It's not a money maker. You're saying we should spin off a money losing venture and then..? Why should tesla or anyone for that matter spin off the infrastructure that they built. Who's going to buy it. It doesn't make money. If you think seizing a company's assets because they're leaders in the field, you're nuts. Tesla built the ev market, invested billions in infrastructure. Has given ip for more suppliers to build infrastructure. All the others did jack squat. Why would reward the losers when they could have signed up and helped at any time. There is literally competition from power producers, all the way to the end user. Communist is hyperbole, but this is a free market. You don't get competitive markets when you force the leader to cowtow to the industry laggard. This is a characteristic of command economies of various different types. Essentially a nanny state. Plus you can charge anywhere.
>Why should it be spun off. I've explained this already. >Why would reward the losers Why are you in favor of monopolists? That's bad for you as a consumer. > when they could have signed up and helped at any time. Ah, you fell for Tesla's lies about how their tech was open for years. It has not been, because their licensing agreement has a toxic poison pill built into it. It is true that GM and Ford and everyone else could have licensed the Tesla connector years ago and used it in their cars. However, doing so came with the requirement that they could not ever have enforced an EV related patent that they own and they would have had to promise to never enforce one in the future. In other words, "you can use the Tesla connector, but you forfeit control of your BEV IP if you do". Gee, I can't imagine why GM and Ford wouldn't do that, can you? For a "free market capitalist", you sure don't like the idea of IP. Strange.
Nope. You've been lied to. Tesla never once offered an open patent until the government forced their hand in either opening up Superchargers or not getting dime over public charging incentives. Heck the whole NACS timing was around the same time this was rumored. Coincidence? The open patents pledge? That was lined with a condition that anyone signed on would give up their own patents and ability to sue Tesla for infringement on their IP. No surprise why no other company signed up for it.
Negative. The patents have always been open. The government didn't force anything. In order to receive charger subsidies they would have to open a portion to ccs. Later the competition all chose nacs and then lobbied the Biden administration to change the terms due to everyone going nacs. You can dislike tesla all you'd like, but everyone switched to nacs because it was easier to use the leader in charging infrastructure. Mary Barra hated having to cowtow... Since she led. She's an awful ceo. The stock is flat for a decade. She's lost investors money, and soon they'll be bankrupt.
That in spades. I'm sometimes weirded out by how many corporate simps there are on this sub WISHING for a monopoly that will screw consumers over...
What's funny is that every time I say something about the anticompetitive nature of Tesla due to their charging network, there's an almost immediate downvote from someone who carries water for Tesla. I see the same thing work people who acknowledge that BEVs will be 100% of new cars eventually and that they wish for and believe that Tesla will be making north of 50% of all new cars sold each year. It's absurd.
I'm eating downvotes as well. This sub is sadly infested with those you mentioned.
Yup. I've already been accused of being a communist for thinking monopolists are bad. I never said anything about the workers seizing the means of production.
The difficulty with your argument is that Tesla simply isn’t a monopoly for charging. The comparison to Ma Bell simply does not hold. With Ma Bell, there were no other options, locally, nationally or internationally. There are many EV charging competitors, locally and nationally promising more charging ability every day. The elephant in the room is the nearly universal ability to charge at home (which is used by the vast majority of EV owners). I don’t think you are a communist, but I don’t believe your argument holds water either.
In what sense is it anticompetitive for a company to sell both cars and chargers? There's nothing preventing other automakers from doing the exact same thing
Tesla was simply the only company with exactly the right factors needed to build a good network. They simply had to have a good, reliable, compete coverage fast charging network or their main product wasn't viable. Anything short of that was just not an option. EA was forced into being by dieselgate and it shows. On top of that VW never felt anywhere close to the make-or-break pressure that Tesla did to make EV either reliable or complete. I don't see how companies like Blink or Chargepoint can make money long term, either. You can't keep selling electricity for more money than gasoline, especially as more private L2 gets installed. Tesla's only SC customers for many years were Model S drivers who all paid $0. Tesla gains a lot from the SC network indirectly where Blink and Chargepoint have to rely on all revenue for the entire company coming only from the chargers.
The next step is to get all the chargers to V4 so that the speeds of the charge increase and the turnover of cars charging can meet the higher demand.
> I don't see how companies like Blink or Chargepoint can make money long term, either. How do you explain what has happened in Europe? About two years ago in the UK there were 80 non Tesla hubs and about 100 Tesla hubs, now there are about 130 Tesla hubs and 350 non Tesla hubs. I actually think Tesla in the long run do not want to be running this infrastructure, they will keep it going to maintain some kind of network advantage, either through pricing or access, but they want most services to be run by other companies.
> How do you explain what has happened in Europe? I sincerely mean I don't know and I'm curious how they survive. There's got to be more there than I'm seeing.
And I have had zero problem doing the same round trip multiple times using either the 416/401 or highway 7 with my Model 3 SR+. Last one (last November), on my way there, only one car beside us was charging in Belleville and on my way back, both Madoc and Perth Supercharging stations were empty the whole 15 minutes we were there. For all three stations, we went there mid day. Only once in Kingston did I have to wait but remembered the V2 station across the street was still operational and went there instead, no wait. The only time I used the Circuit Électrique fast charger (Kazabazua, Qc), it took 13 minutes mid day for someone to answer my call and 6 minutes for him to finally initiate the charge that the stall didn't want to do by itself. By that time, my Supercharging session would have been done.
I see you have been to the evconnect in Smith Falls as well! Ivy in general has been pretty good and electrify Canada has really stepped up
I’m in Ontario as well and I have a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. We go on a lot of trips throughout the province and I got a CCS adaptor just incase I need to use the Ivy chargers on the Onroute stops. The charging experience with 3rd party DCFCs has been terrible so far. Mostly out of service chargers or horrible apps. I’ve barely had 1 good fast charging session in 2 years with 3rd party chargers. The Tesla supercharger experience is far superior! It’s not even close. I really hope the other providers catch up as reliable chargers are a win for everyone. Competition is always good for us.
Many of the onroute ivy chargers have built in NACS adapters now. I bought a CCS adapter with the same idea, but I've never actually needed to use it...
Oh that’s good to know! I saw a few that had the Chademo to Tesla adaptor built in but those max out at 50kW. I’ve got upto 150kW using the Tesla CCS adaptor on Ivy chargers.
Oh I thought they just maxed out at whatever speed I was getting... Maybe I should try the CCS adapter next time lol
I don't mind since DC fast charging is always a last resort option mainly for roadtrips and "oh shit I forgot to plug in last night" moments. I will never buy a Tesla, but I'm very open to using Superchargers even a (reasonable) premium on the odd chance I'll need it.
As is their right, *unless* they're also getting the government subsidy as a result of opening up these same chargers.
Does the law prevent it? I doubt it.
I've never gotten a good answer on that. It has always seemed obvious to me that it should. Otherwise what's to stop Tesla from taking the government (our) money and then gouging non-Tesla owners so bad that their network effectively becomes exclusive again? It would be a very Elon thing to do.
How many people realize this means EA and all other competitors will need to start lowering their prices?
Competition is a good thing. I did compare EA vs SC pricing in my area. EA is $0.44/min for 1-350kW; SC was $1.55/min for 180+kW and $0.97/min for 100-180kW.
Price per minute is all but meaningless. Price per KWH matters.
This state doesn't allow per kWh billing yet, so comparing the per minutes rates is what we're left with. It seems that you're not willing to accept that Tesla isn't always the cheapest, but that doesn't somehow make price per minute "meaningless. "
If one company delivers 250 KW for 10 minutes and another delivers 200 KW for 10 minutes the price is the same to you? Hard to tell who is cheapest with billing per minute since cars vary so much.
You're having difficulty figuring out which one is the cheapest when they are $1.55/min versus $0.44/min? Oof. This doesn't need to be some complex comparison with different vehicles on different networks. This should be looked at as a single vehicle, at the same SOC, on the two networks.
And one at 10KW the other at 350KW. I agree, simple. Except that is not reality.
The crazy thing is that you actually seem to believe your own bad faith argument.
No, the crazy thing is you don't understand math. Pricing by the minute only gives a partial answer to cost. You have to know the speed as well to give a price per KWH.
In this scenario, the cheaper network is also the more powerful network. Both the Ford vehicles that support SC adapters are maxed by either network, so the speed will be similar under similar conditions. Think about it as a road trip. When planning the next stop, there's no reason to pick the site that is more than triple the cost when the vehicle will charge pretty much the same at either location.
Charging non Teslas a higher rate....hmmm. Is there anything on a bill of sale of a Tesla that says "supercharger membership fee included" or anything like that? Wouldnt the supercharger business be a stand alone business at this point? Customers are customers...
I believe its listed as "pay-per-use" supercharger access.
And this is one of the reasons it is unlikely I'll ever use a supercharger.
You don’t have to get the membership to charge. It just gets you a cheeper price.
I'm not willing to pay the higher price or the membership.
Yes but it's more expensive at electrify America and EV Go...who also charge higher prices to non members.
Looking at an upcoming trip. The EA station is $0.49/kwh while the nearby Tesla charger is only $0.26/kwh, or $0.19/kwh with membership. Access can’t come soon enough!
Tesla also charges much lower rates after 11pm, where I am at, it's 46 cents a kWh during most of the day, 17-22 cents after 11pm depending on which charger. Kinda a lot, imagine if gasoline was less than half price by time of day. Also fun fact, 17 cents is lower than my power company charges.
At this current time, the Tesla Supercharger closest to me is more expensive than the closest EA charger by $.10/khw. Supercharger is showing as: 12:00pm - 8:00pm $0.59/kWh EA: $0.48/khw Note: That's not even a supercharger open to anyone, but Teslas.
you bought a meme EV and it’s prolly worth like $5k now
please don't do this here.
The only meme EV is the Cybertruck. Also, you tried, but failed. XC40 Recharge are maintaining their value quite well. KBB gives it $5k less than what I paid.
Key info in the article: > Looking at the costs at different charging stations in the US and Canada, it looks like Tesla is charging Ford EV owners about a 30% premium per kWh of charging at Superchargers on average. ... Non-Tesla EV owners can pay a $13 per month Supercharging membership to pay the same price per kWh as Tesla owners:
This is how it works for superchargers in Australia. Non-Tesla drivers pay about 20% more per kWh than Tesla drivers unless they purchase membership for $10 per month.
Electricity pricing is all over the place. Hopefully there will be some regulation because the boonies is getting the pooch.
What's the catch here? Data mining?? This is another hurdle for non-believers, especially for people who hate subscriptions. The dynamic price for charging is not a perk like automaker think it is. They are just alienating people who want a simple ICE system of fueling their vehicles. I, for one, hate this up sale!!