Porsche Says No To Free Fast Charging, Cost Close To Gasoline


No free ride at the Porsche pump

When Porsche Mission E owners first pull up to the fast-charging power pump, they will be reminded that the price of the juice needed by their premium EV was not included in the original invoice. Unlike Tesla, whose mission is “to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport…,” and offered, until recently, free lifetime Supercharging to owners of the Model S and Model X, the German automaker is a little less altruistic.

Read Also: Porsche Debuts Mission E Cross Turismo In Geneva

This, according to Gearbrain, who reported that the company’s deputy chairman of the executive board, Lutz Meschke, replied to a question about whether Porsche would run its charging facilities as profits centers thusly:

Yes, we want to earn money with the new products and services. Of course. Yes.

When asked whether the electricity “would be cheaper than gas or a similar” price, Meschke answered that the price would be similar.  Lower fueling costs have always been a popular selling point for electric vehicles, but if your EV is also a Porsche, small things like electricity costs probably aren’t an issue for you.

Now, these charges will only apply to owners who power up their Porsche away from their home garage, though the outfit is happy to sell owners the home charging station (EVSE) as well — electricity charges would be applied from a utility, presumably. It is unclear whether this means the 800-volt fast-charging systems destined for dealers will be included. Typically, dealers do not charge for fast charging on their premises, though perhaps this high-end manufacturer might buck that trend.

In Europe, Porsche is part of the Ionity network, along with some other Volkswagen Group brands, while in the U.S., it is part of the Electrify America initiative. Since it is likely this is where the mentioned charges will occur, it is not unreasonable to imagine that other users will pay the same rates.

The Mission E is expected to begin rolling off a production line in Stuttgart, Germany starting in 2019, and will be joined at a later date by the company’s freshly revealed Mission E Cross Turismo.

Porsche Mission E

Prototype Porsche Mission E out testing with Teslas
21 photos
Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Spy Shot Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E New shots of the Mission E prototype mule out testing Porsche Mission E The Porsche Concept Study Mission E shows up as world premiere at the IAA 2015 The Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Concept Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E - Headed To Production In Germany Thanks To Some Staff Payroll Cuts Porsche Mission E Inside the Mission E concept Porsche Mission E Porsche Mission E Concept Porsche Mission E Concept Porsche Mission E Concept

Source: Gearbrain

Categories: Charging, Porsche, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

64 Comments on "Porsche Says No To Free Fast Charging, Cost Close To Gasoline"

newest oldest most voted

Vertical Integration could allow Tesla to charge less.
Solar & Storage should have good pricing all across the US 20 Southern States. Also, battery storage could just be fed by night time charging where available.

Vertical integration doesn’t make something cheaper. It might allow you to hide the true cost because of creative accounting practices where you don’t internally account for a cost properly. That will ultimately just show up as a loss on the balance sheet. So, why?

Another Euro point of view

+1000. This is exactly it (and by the way, Tesla’s chief accountant officer resigned recently).

He got a massive promotion to a C-level position at another company. What is wrong with that?

“Vertical integration doesn’t make something cheaper.” It Definitely CAN make things cheaper. “It might allow you to hide the true cost because of creative accounting practices where you don’t internally account for a cost properly. That will ultimately just show up as a loss on the balance sheet.” You don’t need VI for obfuscating losses. That is what accountants are for but that is not what is happening with Tesla and free charging. Free charging isn’t free. It is like the free smartphone with long term contract except you pay upfront instead of over time. It has been estimated that Tesla was charging an extra $3,000 per MS for free charging. With cars having an average life time of a little over 10 years and Tesla’s cost of capital at 9% the average that is roughly equivalent to $27 per month for something many users won’t even use every month. Competing charging networks weren’t able to get anything close to that and they have additional burdens like credit card fees and less predictable usage. The premium that Tesla is getting would be meaningless if the cost of fuel were rising but Tesla is betting that those costs will stay the… Read more »

The old lifetime charging is for the life of the car, regardless of the number of owners. The new lifetime charging is for the first owner only.

When you vertically integrate, you can remove much of the executive overhead, as well as the massive 20-50% profit margins that so many companies now take.

It is because of the vertical integration that Tesla is heading towards profitability. Their margins per car are the envy of the industry (25-35%; woof).

It could, if Tesla had some sort of secret unique technology to generate electricity cheaper than a utility. However, with the same panels, same batteries, and the same technology as anybody else, they can’t make cheaper electricity than anyone, particularly a utility.

Or do they? With their own panels and batteries at each site, they can cut out several middle man and grid maintaining costs. Electricity providers have to buy batteries and panels from manufacturers and need to have them installed by a contractor. All the parties involved need to make a profit at each step. Tesla just needs to cover its costs and make a profit at the very last step.

This was meant as a reply to Dan.

“with the same panels, same batteries, and the same technology as anybody else, they can’t make cheaper electricity than anyone, particularly a utility.”

No but they can buy and sell more cheaply which is what is relevant. power Puchase Agreements (PPAs ) are typically long term contracts. As the costs of generating electricity are declining utilities are stuck with older more expensive contracts and they have to charge more than the cost of electricity generated under newer contracts. A newcomer is not burdened by older more expensive contracts. This is indisputable as are the declining costs of PPAs. Your rates may be increasing because utilities want to maintain profit margins and electricity consumption from utilities have been flat but there is no denying that the costs of generating electricity have been falling for over 10 years now. With solar and wind undercutting NG coal and nuclear are just too expensive to compete.

You have a very optimistic view on Tesla. Their battery technology and panels are from Panasonic, if there was a way to generate cheap electricity at a profit, Panasonic would do it, rather than letting Tesla do it at their expense. Other companies (LG, Samsung etc.) have similar technology.
Tesla will never be able to make significant money by selling electricity. They should just focus on their cars and try to make a good LUXURY brand that customers are willing to pay big bucks for them. They need to have higher transaction prices than BMW, Merc etc. to survive. That is why I think a $35k Model 3 is BS and will make the company bankrupt. They should add $10k to Model 3 immediately, and I think they will be forced to do it anyway.

“if there was a way to generate cheap electricity at a profit,”

There is and it isn’t magic. It is actually pretty common in California where we have over 70% of the US solar electric. Generation. If you follow the power industry you would know that solar is often cheaper than NG which is cheaper than coal which is cheaper than nuclear. There is an entire industry built on installing solar panels.

The city of Austin signed a PPA last year which should be just over $0.02 per kWh!!!! The coal alone costs more than that. NG can’t compete with those prices either.

Vertical Integration in solar is particularly beneficial compared to many other industries. Especially for SolarCity, who saw customer acquisition costs rise to 90 cents per watt in 2016 prior to the merger with Tesla.

Now with Vertical Integration with Tesla acquisition costs on the panels that Tesla “buys” internally have near zero acquisition costs. This represents upwards of 20% overhead just being completely whacked out of the equation for selling those solar panels.

That is even before savings due to getting rid of duplicate functionality like HR, management, sales staff, etc.


Everyone buying a Porsche electric should already expect to pay more. You can’t just put in any old regular low grade electrons. Mission e will require premium high energy electrons. Higher quality electrons cost more to produce so the price needs to reflect this.

Porsche “high quality electrons” are definitely worth the added extra expense, especially when it keeps the Mission E exhaust system squeaky clean, and free of emission debris, kind of like Chevron Techron, but for EVs, and reducing “SMUG”!

Good news is that the high quality electrons are already sold on US market. I think San Diego has them hence the more expensive electric rates.

Here in New England, our NIMBYs just voted to prevent the construction of a transmission line. Our electrons are priced at Whole Foods organic levels.

That money is better spent on home solar, even in New England. Not only does it produce electricity locally reducing the need for power lines, it goes nicely with a battery pack which helps keep the grid from crashing by buffering draw from the grid.

While this is meant as a joke, you are actually on to something. The Porsche requires 800V charging and while that doesn’t make the electricity more expensive, the chargers might.

So in a way you change premium electricity.

Like premium gas

Without battery storage and solar cells, having 800V high speed chargers actually makes that electricity much more expensive than Tesla superchargers.

The problem is the demand charge. This is the peak amount of electricity that the charger demands from the grid. Businesses pay extra for needing a lot of electricity from the grid quickly, even if that is just a small amount over the entire month.

Having batteries and smart battery management allows the demand from the grid to be moderated so there are no massive demand peaks. Slower chargers reduces short term peaks. Solar can drive down peaks by supplying power in parallel with power from the grid and reduce any daytime peaks.

But damn, the charging rate is worth it!!! You aren’t paying for the electricity. You are paying for the fast and convenient delivery. Like buying beer from the beer guy at a baseball game. You aren’t paying a premium price because Bud Light tastes so good. You are paying a premium to have someone bring it to you while you sit back and watch the game.

So what’s with the “cost close to gasoline” line in the title? There’s nothing in the article to back that up, nor does the one sentence quote from the Porsche executive. So Porsche won’t include rapid charging, ok but where’s the pricing that suggests it’ll cost nearly as much as gasoline?

Thanks for pointing that out. I somehow chopped a paragraph while preparing the piece.

Hopefully it makes more sense now, with the main point of the title reinserted.

Very good on the fast charging, – whether the cost was just IEV’s opinion or was from VW-group. You’d think they’d specify which.

I haven’t heard word one about charging the car at home. How much is the charger/or/docking station, does it require anything special, what are the details and if you must use Porsche’s models, what is the price?

I’d be shocked if it used something other than J1772 for at home L1/2 charging.

With a Porsche you can buy your high speed charging from whomever provides it the cheapest.

The majority of new Tesla owners will have to pay for charging at the Supercharger. Is there any chance that a third party could step in and provide Supercharger speeds for Teslas?

Tesla has ‘adapters’, and can make more.

I don’t talk about Tesla. I talk about third parties that want to let you charge your Tesla at Supercharger speeds of 135kW but cheaper.

With CCS everybody can set up their own charging station and start selling to prospective customers.

It all depends on what the electricity costs from the utility. CA, where +/- 1/2 US EVs are sold, has ever increasing electricity cost and is going to time of use pricing for almost all customers in 2019. Just as at home, the cost to fast charge will likely vary based on time of day, day of week and season.

Hopefully they will all start charging by the kwh instead of by connection time, and post the price clearly so it’s more like buying gasoline. Then, if and when all charging stations can serve all EVs the whole system will start being competitive with gasoline powered vehicles with the (big) plus that many owners will be able to charge at home too.

Again. My question was if it is possible for third parties to compete at supercharger speeds with the prices Tesla decides i.e. are third parties able to set up superchargers?

What with the lack of patents it shouldn’t be a problem for third party supercharging to be set up. Tesla still looks to me like they are subsidizing the price at least a little, so doing it profitably may not be possible if they have to compete with a nearby supercharger.

eject — Tesla has offered to any company that they can join the supercharger network. Any car maker can join and build their own chargers and help build out the network.

The Tesla CHADeMO adapter does let you L3 charge at third parties. They also offered to open their patents

Despite what the trolls say.

With your Tesla can also shop and buy your high speed charging from whoever charges the least since you can also use Chaedmo with an adapter as well as the very high speed SC experience.

I’m sure Tesla will also engineer a CCS adapter too.

Chademo can’T charge at supercharger speeds. I asked explicitly about third parties setting up superchargers. Everybody is allowed to built a CCS station, no royalties attached. Just build one and start selling.

There’s a reason why everyone’s not rushing to setup a CCS charging business, and that’s economics. There’s no way to make money just by selling DCFC charging, you have to bundle it with something. Tesla is for selling cars, existing CCS like eVgo is selling bulk free charging to Nissan, BMW, GM (Maven).

But selling to third party to provide the actual service to end customer result in horrible user experience. You can see this from awful user experience from waiting EVERY FREAKING TIME for free chargers in one or two handle per site CCS. And this horrible user experience is only going to get worse with CCS as more cars become available.

Tesla, OTOH, has an incentive to keep Superchargers operational since it is to supplement their car sales. This is why they have more than couple of handles per site and in remote locations even if they aren’t used much.

I think the economics of providing CCS at 150kW and above is going to pan out. You can basically charge very close to the costs of fossil fuel. At some sites probably above that. For Germany this would be at around 30x the wholesale price of electricity. Which is also why I want to see competition. The pain threshold for the drivers is going to be quite high since you only need to fast charging occasionally.

Even we have 2.4 jigawatt CCS today, most of them would be used by highly tapered free charging Leaf, i3, Bolt as 3 kW charger. Porsche may not provide free chargers, but if they are relying on existing CCS and not build their own (and prevent free from others as well), their cars will also be waiting for free charging cars charging at 3 kW instead of 150 kW or 2.4 jigawatt.

If Porsche build their own and seriously concern themselves with end user experience, that could be something. But that will be just as “profitable” as Tesla Superchargers while Porsche will also be serving (helping) other CCS carmakers.

Now that it’s been revealed the ’18 Leaf neuters its fast charging rate quickly, you’ll be waiting even longer for open DCFC as soon tons of free charging ’18 Leafs will be clogging up EVgo stations charging at 22 kW.

I know all about that, and that’s why I’m bear on CCS since almost all are dual handle with Chademo. Free charging is killing existing CCS/Chademo, and Porsche should set up their own and prevent free chargers if they are serious about EV.

Tesla makes a CHADeMO adapter

Good. I see no need to have to pay for something in the price of the car that I wouldn’t use very often. Certainly not enough to cover the cost of it for those people who use it as their sole/primary charging option. Would much rather have a less expensive car as a result.

I would be furious; but lucky for me, I don’t own a Porsche. 🙂

Also last time I checked, car companies weren’t allowed to jack up my utility bills. You wouldn’t believe how relieved I feel right now! 🙂

I gotta give Porsche credit for the design of the Mission E. It’s drop dead GORGEOUS!

Agreed. BUT— that is irrelevant to the topic.

Also- will the production model look as good?
I doubt it.

I think this version is getting pretty close to production. It already has the rear suicide doors removed that was in early concepts.

Are you looking at the concept car or the testing mule? The testing mule indicates it will pretty much look like the baby Panamera that it is.

One of the big advantages of EVs is, that they are more energy efficient. It is a big nonsence, to pay the same ammount for electricity as for gasoline 🙂

Unlike gas cars and FCEV, BEV can charge at home most times, so gasoline equivalent pricing is actually a good thing to discourage cheapskates who’d use them and prevent use by those who actually need them for distance travel. I don’t see any concrete pricing, but consider that Tesla Supercharger at $0.25/kWh is roughly equivalent to 40 MPG gas car depending on local gas price.

Pricing at the equivalent of 40 mpg is much cheaper than you’d pay in fuel costs for a Porsche, especially in Europe.

I agree with you that $0.25/kWh is reasonable, but in Europe average gas price is $1.70-$2.00 per litre, and Porsches get 7 miles per litre, so equal pricing would mean over $0.80 per kWh.

That would be very pricey, IMO.

Yeah. But if you are charging that much you can actually turn a profit on these chargers and have an incentive buy build them. This would be 20-30 times the wholesale price of electricity in Germany.

350 kW HPC won‘t be cheap as 50kW or even home charging. What a suprise…

If you can charge at 350 kW so the charge takes 10 minutes or so rather than and hour or two on a 50 kW or 100 kW that is worth paying a premium for on the few occasions that you are likely to need it.

Apparently Porsche thinks that the primary benefit of owning an electric Porsche is owning a Porsche.

If they disallow free charging Bolt and i3 on their infrastructure (assuming they build their own), the primary benefit of Porsche is that they are serious about EV by not offering free (or lot cheaper than gasoline) charging. They let their cars stand on their own rather than “free charge” gimmick, same which can’t be said of Leaf and i3 and Maven Bolts.

80+% charging done at home peeps.

Think about it……

Germans never free. It’s usually costly. Who needs a Porsche unless you try to use it to impress chicks.

Since when someone who buys a Porsche is concerned about the charging costs??!

It´s a Porsche, not a Tesla!!


Battery capacities are growing. There should be a very small percentage of people’s trips where they need public charging. For those rare cases, I would think people should expect to pay the cost of electricity plus the cost of maintaining the charging station.

I have a Model X and have never used a supercharger station. Probably most people charge at home especially with with Tesla’s large batteries. Most people fly if traveling.

Porsche is a car company
Tesla is a energy company

Let’s not forget that Tesla is far from being a profitable company. They may as well give cars for free.