UPDATE: Tesla Quietly Jacks Up Supercharging Rates In U.S.


Several recent messages on various Tesla-related social media pages indicate that there’s been a sudden and unexpected increase in Supercharging rates, which have more than doubled in some states.

Yet Tesla insists that Superchargers are not profit makers.

Related – Tesla’s Supercharger Fee Program

InsideEVs received a recent tip that pointed out that Tesla Supercharger rates more than doubled in Washington and Oregon. If you go to Tesla’s website and simply check the price quote for your state, you should see the obvious increase. However, at the time of this writing, there’s no indication from the automaker that this has occurred, nor was there any advance warning, as far as we can tell.

Old Rates – You’ll Find New Rates State-By-State Here

ALSO READ: New Tesla Supercharger Fair Use Policy Deters Commercial Charging


Tesla’s new Urban Supercharger

In Washington, the price jumped from .11/kWh to .25/kWh. This accounts for a significant percentage above typical residential costs. Prices in Virginia jumped to .21/kWh, rates in Illinois have increased over 60 percent, to .25/kWh, and California is up to .26/kWh.

Why did the company initiate this large jump so quickly, rather than making it a gradual increase? Why was there no warning … or did we miss something here? Hopefully, we will have some concrete answers in the near future.

Perhaps this is another attempt by Tesla to discourage Supercharger “misuse.” Basically, we mean the people are only supposed to be using the Superchargers for long trips. However, this isn’t a good plan when considering those that count on the new urban chargers.

UPDATE: A Tesla spokesperson reached out to us with a statement:

“We occasionally adjust rates to reflect current local electricity and usage. The overriding principle is that Supercharging will always remain significantly cheaper than gasoline, as we only aim to recover a portion of our costs while setting up a fair system for everyone. This will never be a profit center for Tesla.”

Source: Tesla, TeslaModel3OwnersClub, TeslaMotorsModel3

Categories: Charging, Tesla


Leave a Reply

140 Comments on "UPDATE: Tesla Quietly Jacks Up Supercharging Rates In U.S."

newest oldest most voted

This is welcome news! At least in CA (or San Diego), rate is now higher than home charging which means people are not going to use supercharger in place of home charging. That will free up superchargers for those who really need them for distance travel.

Still, I wish Tesla would have per-minute based billing instead of kWh based billing so that people don’t sit around for an hour trying to get to 100%.

With Tesla 3 efficiency, even $0.25/kWh is cheaper than driving Prius.

Indeed need to keep Superchargers from being abused.

RE: With Tesla 3 efficiency, even $0.25/kWh is cheaper than driving Prius. — This is absolutely a good thing to make the cost >/greater home charging and </lessthan gas.

Along with: As a commercial driver or operator, can I utilize the public Supercharger Network? With the introduction of our Supercharger Fair Use Policy, we ask that vehicles used for commercial purposes not use the public Supercharger Network.

$0.25/kwh at 120 hwy mpge works out to 28kwh per 100-miles at a cost of $7 for 100-miles. The Prius gets 50 mpg highway, so that’s 2 gallons of gas for 100 miles. $0.25/kwh is equivalent to gas at $3.50/gallon. Gas in Seattle is about $2.95/gallon, so definitely more expensive to take a highway trip in a Model 3 than in a Prius.

That’s kwh from the plug, including charging overhead. The Model3 supercharging in Seattle breaks even in cost with a car that gets 42 mpg highway with gas at $2.95/gallon.

I don’t put much stock in EPA MPGe rating in absolute sense. SparkEV is rated 109 MPGe in highway, yet 55 MPH is 5.5 mi/kWh (186 MPGe, or 148 MPGe with 80% efficient charging). Seeing how Bolt is slightly worse than SparkEV with same MPGe rating, Tesla 3 will probably be similar or just slightly worse in efficiency than SparkEV. Gas around here is $3.25/gal.

A supercharging network shouldn’t be cheaper than gas for a Model3. But you need to compare in the same conditions. At 55mph steady state, A prius is going to get 72.5mpg.
http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/49683/page-8#post-412939 That’s without AC. So I just used the EPA highway numbers for both vehicles since supercharging is mostly a road trip thing. I think everyone agrees city supercharging to be penalized …

I meant supercharging probably doesn’t need to be cheaper than gas. For many folks it probably is cheaper than gas.

Can not disagree with you more. You should be charged by how much you receive, not by how long you charge.

How do you feel if the Tesla park next to you get charged at 100 kWh but you get charge at 40 kWh just because you arrived 1 minute later than the first car.

How can that happen?
How is that related to these price hikes?

I question that the claim of a drop from 100 kW to 40 kW is accurate, but certainly if your Tesla car is the second car to hook up to the same supercharger, and the first car is still in its first few minutes of charging, then your car will receive significantly less power for the first few minutes.

Whether or not that has anything to do with the reported price hike is unfortunately not an easy question to answer. As I recall, Tesla prefers to charge by the kWh for Supercharger use, but some States prohibit any company that’s not an electric utility to charge by the kWh. That means — if I recall correctly — that Tesla has to charge by the minute in those States.

Here in Norway all major charging networks (except for Tesla) charge per minute. As you pass 80-90% SoC, contiunuing charging gives you less and less value for money as charge speed falls rapidly at the end of the charge cycle.

This has led to most people just charging what thay need to reach their destination, instead of them occupying the chargers an extra ~30 minutes to get the last few percent SoC

All Chademo and CCS in the US also charge by the minute.

That’s a very good point Knut has about how Norway fast charge network operators have decided to bill my the minute. I have to agree per minute has more pros that cons.
And Dan, it’s not true that all CCS and CHadeMO chargers in the U.S. bill by the minute. EVgo does, and they are the largest CCS and CHadeMO network operator in the U.S., but Blink and ChargePoint sometimes do bill by the kWh.

The slowing of charging speed at higher state of battery charge (SOC) is why Tesla has tiered rates where billing “per kWh” is not allowed.
Billing “per kWh” is measure of energy consumption.

NOTE: when a battery is cold soaked in winter like Norway, the cost to charge pay “per minute” goes way up.

NOTE: EVs with smaller battery capacities pay much more “per mile” if billed by “per minute” vs by “per kWh”.

Yeah, more expensive than home charging but cheaper than gas would be perfect. In order to have a rational system, higher than home charging is the key. You have to reduce congestion at the chargers by discouraging those who want to use DC charging because it’s cheaper.

Buying an incredibly expensive vehicle and then trying to save a few bucks on charging never made sense to me, but apparently that’s not how a lot of people think.

As a Tesla financial analyst and stockholder, this worries me. Is Tesla simply charging the true price of power now, or does it means they are so low on cash, they frantically search for any loose change?

I hope Tesla is not like the guy who digs around in the couch for loose change to pay the electric bill. 🙂 (I don’t think so, but I am just asking the question, as they are running big losses now, until production ramps up).

I believe that, as Get Real says below, it’s still less than the cost of gas, and everyone has to admit that anything below $0.20 per kWh is pretty cheap in fast charge network rates around the world. So it’s not surprising to me to see up to $0.30 a kWh because that’s like $3.00 a gallon gas, and there needs to be some convincing incentive for the many Model 3 owners to come to only use as much as they need at a Supercharger and then move on.

Also, I can tell you these rates by no means even cover the operating costs of most Superchargers. Why? Because often up to 90% of the cost of the electricity is because of utility demand charges!! I’m willing to bet that only the busy busy locations would actually break even on operating costs (mostly electricity, ie demand charges) if Tesla was getting income from all Tesla vehicles charging there.

Here’s an article that shows the significance that demand charges have on fast charge network operators:

I think the new pricing is to discourage needless supercharging to reduce congestion. If they’re still congested, the right thing to do would be to raise price even more. I doubt it has anything to do with finding couch cushion change.

Frankly, I wish there’s a way to auction supercharger use so that they can best price it for given demand. But unfortunately, people don’t like auctions.

Gas here in ohio is $2.29 a gallon thats cheap

If truly a Tesla anylist you would have done your homework and compared Tesla SC rates with other DC Chsrging network providers.

Guess where Tesla stands in the ranking on price “per kWh” with the other charging vendors?

BTW: reference and comparisons to gasoline prices are meaningless. If wanting to make comparisons to operating cost of other vehicles, need to do so on a “cost per miles” basis.

Anyone involved in commercial transportation knows “cost per mile” is where all competition is focused.

“With Tesla 3 efficiency, even $0.25/kWh is cheaper than driving Prius.”

$0.25/kWh is not cheaper. Just fuel cost gives you:
$.25/kWh*33.4 kWh/gge * 56 mpg / 130 mpge = $3.59/gal equivalent price comparing to Prius Eco.

Even in overpriced San Diego, gas is $3.39/gal average according to GasBuddy, including taxes. Very close, but a bit cheaper for Prius.

Fuel cost is mouse nuts really. You need to compare lease and insurance payments first to find what is cheaper to drive.

Wrong. This move was to get people to buy Models S or X. S and X get free Supercharging. Only hurts the Model 3 crowd.

Several things come to mind here:

Tesla is about to really ramp up Model 3 deliveries and as Sparky notes, higher SC pricing will deter people from doing most of their charging on SC.

New prices are still less then gasoline which was Tesla’s stated policy all along and the other charger networks are in the 25-30 cents/KWH range so still cheaper then the others plus faster charging.

As Tesla is now adding PV to the Gigafactory maybe they are getting ready to do large scale PV arrays and battery storage for most SC so they can be largely not totally dependent of the grid and avoid demand charges/higher TOU rates.

It’s not practical or affordable to put large-scale solar farms near most Supercharger locations. Large solar farms should be placed in remote areas far from highways, where land is cheap.

Perhaps Tesla can contract with various utilities to offset the power they use with power fed into the grid. I have read of that arrangement being used in theory, but I don’t know how commonplace it is to find utilities which will actually make such an arrangement with a solar farm owner.

Yup these arrangements commonly exist, both for Diesel Generation, and also for ‘Remote’ Solar and Wind Generation – that is, to gain a benefit on the electric bill the solar panel or windmill, or microgenerator or what have you does *NOT* have to be on the same property as, in this case, the SC arrangement.

Of course I mentioned this a year ago, but you, being the self appointed expert said that was all totally nonsense – you who have no familiarity with commercial nor industrial installations other than the neighborhood bar or supermarket.

This is why I call you a clown, and zzzzzzzz calls you the village idiot.

I haven’t been naive enough to believe that Tesla would build a multi-million dollar super charging infrastructure and then not want to recoup that cost.

Elon was.

Yeah, I’m sure Elon woke up this morning with his Supercharging network and simply wondered how he got there…

Dude, you play checkers, he’s playing chess.


Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Tesla and/or Elon said the Supercharger network was not intended to be a profit maker, meaning they planned to sell access at cost. Of course, “cost” includes building and maintaining the system, not just paying for kWh of electricity.

However, your attempt at Tesla bashing is duly noted.

An omen of things to come. Soon it will be quite apparent how unscalable high power quick charging is.

Methinks you are right. Or at least a lot more difficult than EV true believers think. Anything that pushes up peak demend means new generation required which means higher costs.

Me thinks you are wrong. The vast majority of BEVs on the road today are of the short range (> 90miles) variety. Most drivers like to have a 20-30 mile safety buffer consequently many will charge anytime they venture more than 30 miles from home. (I’m looking at you lLeaf, I3, 500e, Spark EV,and, iMIEV owners)

Most of the BEVs that are coming are going to have over 150 miles of range and many will be 200 plus miles. With the longer range there is much less need to charge in public unless you are on a long range trip.

Tesla responded in the past to car demand, leaving the 40KWh, etc. As they attempt sales in urban, apartment (no charging) areas, they know these users will rely upon the new 70KW chargers they are installing.

My take is they are getting ready for how unpredictable this new type of buyer may be, as Model 3 approaches its base price.

Haha … in 3D!

Am omen of FUD to come from 7 Lies/7 Big Oil companies.

It is already apparent to anyone with a brain here that 7 Lies/7 Pretend Electrics is an anti-Tesla and EV shill for Big Oil.

Get Real that’s ridiculous. Just because you want to find fault with anything 7E’s says you say that he is saying something wrong.

Tesla is just obviously feeling the effect of demand charges at the SC locations and is merely trying to recoup a fraction of the cost.

Musk is not averse to this, since he originally raised the price of the original Roadster from $89k to $109k, so this raising of prices is neither unexpected, nor anything new.

If they open or subsidize Megachargers for the trucks (presumably at $.07/kwh – even in expensive locations, at least temporarily,) Musk and Tesla certainly are to be expected to recoup some of the cost from facilities that are already up and running.

I’m assuming any trucking company who enters into an AGREEMENT with Tesla has the terms spelled out completely as to the minimum duration of any subsidy.

It is really not such a burden on the consumer. Such Costing is still much less than any prices for Hydrogen Fueled vehicles those users will eventually be expected to pay.

You are conflating two things Bill.

Yes I’m sure that Tesla is wanting to avoid demand charges and they will do that by installing their own solar PV where possible and battery storage which will take time and money of course.

Tesla will basically also become its own energy company for all practical purposes.

Raising SC rates will probably help fund that and accomplish the other goals I listed.

The issue with 7 Lies is that he…lies.

There is nothing factual to suggest that “high power quick charging” is “unscalable”.

High power DCFC is happening right now and it will continue to grow for Tesla and others no matter what trolls, shills and liars think.

Growth of such is nothing more then a technical issue and lots of people/institutions/businesses are working on various ways to efficiently scale such demand.

I don’t think this is about recouping the cost of electricity. I think it is about providing better SC availability to the large number of new Tesla owners, who will be expecting to be able to charge when they need to. I’m in the camp that things Tesla never should have provided free SC charging for any of their cars, though I completely understand from a marketing perspective why they did it.

Well yes it does those 2 things, but both save money. It increases revenues and decreases expenses in that existing superchargers will be adequate for the expected ‘3’ usage and therefore no additional monies need to be expended.

Perhaps somewhere there are SC’s with absolutely huge solar panel or wind farm generation, but the SC’s by me have absolutely no alternative power generation and depend 100% on whatever they get from the serving utility – not even having batteries.

And yet somehow megawatt charging will only cost 7 cents per kWh which is lower than any of Teslas old SC rates in any state let alone their current rates.

Yes, that promise seems to be impractical. Will it be subsidized by Tesla? Do they have some solar plan that can actually create electricity at this price?

Another Euro point of view

Does the 7 cents/kWh Megawatt charging rate come from the same reliable source as the price for the base Model 3 ? ($35k).

For some reason Olaf from Frozen popped in my head with ‘Yeah, why?’

Tesla is going to be subsidizing costs of Megacharging for the Tesla semi, no doubt. And I would argue that even at $0.25 a kWh on the Supercharger network there’re still not getting operating expenses paid just from potential income collected from Tesla owners Supercharger there. Only once Superchargers and HP DCFC get a lot of usage will break even be possible.

Hey that’s the deal apparently. Makes the Tesla Truck that much more appealing, especially in expensive electricity areas.

At least Tesla is getting SOMETHING back – not like SC’s used to be where they got absolutely nothing back except the Bill to pay.

If there is an agreement with prospective customers, it doesn’t matter to the customer so that adds to the appeal of the Truck.

There are likely some undisclosed constraints. First you have to the cash to pay for a Tesla Semi. There are likely to be operational and service contracts to support commercial operations.

Once Tesla Semis are rolling, then can step back and look at total annual operating costs on “per mile” basis. The cost on “per kWh” is just cents in a pie that is houndreds of thousands per year.
(ie: just a little noise in the bigger picture)


The ‘Green Eye Shade’ folks at the Trucking Company will INSIST on $.07 / kwh charging for a minimum period of time.

Since it will be in the fashion of a Legal Agreement, it will matter not to the Customer how Tesla satisfies their end of the Agreement.

so what?
here in austria,chademo charging costs $ 0,54
per minute,not per kwh.
my leaf costed me $28 per 100km(62 miles),
i drive diesel again,costs $ 4,80 per gallon

Lolololol I cannot believe you guys. If supercharging is free tesla is the best saint Elon blablabla, if they up the price this is welcome news tesla is the best blablabla. Lol, tesla can really do no wrong can it?

What are you talking about? One reason I was going to stay away from Tesla is that they used to have free charging for all. As I always say

Free charging SUCKS!!!

Yup Ricardo, your point is well-taken.

When I suggested the $0.07/kwh price is the ‘Subsidized’ price (as business articles on the new Tesla regularly also easily assume) – and making the inference that this amount of cash is not enough to fully finance the truck charging operation – especially not Fast Charging (MEGA); people like Pushi Jumped all over me for not ‘knowing’ that factories pay a bit less than 7 cents on average, as if that had anything to do with the price of Tea in China.

The fact that Tesla is now going to charge 25-26 cents/kwh (they tell me, that THAT amount is more than ‘a bit less than 7’) means that now PUSHI is all ok with it and OF COURSE IT COSTS around that much, but to say a few months ago that 7 cents/kwh might not be enough PROVED I didn’t know ANYTHING about electric rates.

“tesla can really do no wrong can it?

It can but that is reflected in their customer satisfaction ratings. How are those looking? Hmm?

I would say that Tesla’s customer ratings are looking a lot better then new serial anti-Tesla troll Ricardo’s babblings here!

I would much rather pay up front and not have to worry about pay per use. That way It can be rolled into the cost of the car, make those who optioned it more valuable, and Tesla’s best interest because they get money up front.

I don’t care what it costs, I would just rather pay up front at once in a lump sum.

But that leads to the problems Tesla has had with the long lines at superchargers. When it’s “free” or prepaid people make sure to use it as much as possible rather than charging at home. A price for charging creates a psychological barrier against overuse.


Don’t want to make the psychological barrier too high, it people will simply burn gas.


Costing equivalent of 60 MPG gasser for 0-60 MPH in 5 seconds is not going to have people burn gas. Heck, even costing 30 MPG equivalent will be better than comparable gasser.

I fully agree that the SC rates and any other network rates have to be slightly higher than the residential lowest rates.

At .26/kwh, that’s about $2.90/gallon on a 45 mpg car. So much for saving money on “electric fuel” to make up for the higher purchase price (or at least the “I’ll fool myself bragging rights”).

Strange timing and rollout of new charging prices if the primary goal is to sell as many Model 3’s as possible.


Lines at superchargers would be really bad for future sales.

Are there superchargers getting swamped in the states that are showing the sudden increase in rates? —- and if this is really the reason, should we expect that rates will now vary by time and station, (just like prime time toll road rates?)

And not many people drive 45mpg vehicles in the US so there is that.

And that’s not the point. By that measure, there are certainly more 45mpg cars on the road than there are EVs. The point is that one can go out and buy a Prius or a Hyundai Ionic/kia niro hybrid for substantially less money and get 45mpg.

Which explains why HEV sales are dropping and PEV sales are rising right?

First of all we are talking about SC rates which is NOT where most Tesla get their juice from which would be home or work.

Meanwhile in the real world about 1/2 of all PEV owners (being smarter then the average bear) have or are installing solar so that their effective electricity costs are very low.

So keep moving the goal posts here and eventually you will back over a cliff.

No. There were limited instances of chargers filling up in California. Then, they built more. Other times are rare, or it would be reported more often.

Fueling up is only more expensive when you are using the Supechargers and presumably on trips. When home, using your own electricity source, it’s cheaper. The latter use case should be the norm, not the former.

$0.26/kWh is in CA where gas prices are $3.40/gal, not $2.90/gal, soon to go up even more for summer blend. I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes to $4/gal few months later.

Doesn’t explain Ohio where gas is around $2.40/gallon.

FORGET GALLONS … true cost comparisons need to be made on “COST PER MILE” basis.

When booking a flight, no one compares the price of jet fuel to the price of diesel at the local pump. Context is all wrong!!

“At .26/kwh, that’s about $2.90/gallon on a 45 mpg car.”

Are there any 45 MPG cars which are not either hybrid EVs, or tiny microcars? If someone is already driving an EV, even if it’s just a HEV, then they are already part of the EV revolution. Nattering at them would be preaching to the choir!

Reality check: The average gasmobile in the USA gets only ~25 MPG.

“So much for saving money on ‘electric fuel’ to make up for the higher purchase price…”

I find it rather surreal that so much EV bashing is predicated on the painfully obvious false premise that all plug-in EV charging is done at DCFC stations, when in reality about 95% of it is slow charging at home or work.

Do EV bashers honestly believe that people who read InsideEVs comments don’t know that, or forget it?

It’s not only insulting to our intelligence; it’s downright strange that EV bashers think this is a winning argument for them.

And this isn’t the end of the price hikes. If you want to know why the other automakers are not getting into the charging business, it’s because they don’t want to get into the utility business. Hell, with the acquisition of SolarCity, Tesla is nearing utility status themselves… yet they don’t own the right kind of utility to be able to power high-demand Superchargers without making the charging fees either a) expensive or b) unprofitable. The market for electricity is well-developed in industrialized nations; Tesla is subject to the same market forces on electricity pricing as anyone else. As Tesla’s ability to subsidize SC costs through $90k average sale prices declines, SC prices will align with those of other DCFC providers, which means SC pricing will also become more expensive than gas pricing. If EVs are going to continue to attempt to displace ICEs by touting cheaper fueling costs, they cannot also rely on DCFCs (and therefore, less-terrible refueling times) as a selling point. DCFCs have to be sold as the rare-but-necessary evil to make BEVs workable, not the marketing tool that Tesla has been using them as. Finally, this is yet another nail in the coffin for the idea… Read more »

So Spider Dan, are you willing to support FCV for the poor?

After all, the cars, the fuel AND the refueling stations are heavily subsidized.

Yeah I thought so, all this because you hate Tesla for some reason(s).

Meanwhile, electricity is already virtually everywhere FYI.
All it will take is some addition effort/costs to install widespread Level 1 and 2 charging for the “poor” to join the ranks of PEV ownership too since even PHEVs should be charged too you know–or do you?

ICE, which PHEVs have BTW, will go away to eventually but not to be replaced with the aforementioned FCV scam you so fervently hope will derail Tesla.

“Electricity is already everywhere” doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is not whether electricity exists, but rather:

1) who will pay to build chargers
2) who will pay to maintain them
3) who will pay for charging costs
4) who will manage the billing

The latter three issues, in particular, make this a more difficult problem than a simple VW-style “Here is $2B for new chargers” solution can fix.

As for whether I am willing to pay for FCVs for the poor: absolutely! Unlike EVs, FCVs have a very plausible solution to eliminate ICEs: replace existing gasoline infrastructure with H2 infrastructure, with existing fuel companies footing the bill for all the same aspects they are funding in gas stations. And unlike EV charging, FCVs maintain the familiar fill-up-and-go-in-under-5-minutes mechanic of ICEs.

Tesla fans see FCVs as a potential threat to EVs, and therefore to Tesla. I see FCVs as a replacement for ICEs.

It’s quite true that the barriers to get home charging to apartment dwellers are many and not easily solved.
But fuel cell vehicles IMO can’t sustainably give the answer either, because the costs of making, compressing, storing, delivering, and dispensing hydrogen makes the cost so much higher than electricity, even future HP fast charging.

“cost so much higher than electricity, even future HP fast charging.”

$50,000 autoloan at 3% for 5 years is $898/month, assuming your Debt To Income ratio qualifies you at all. Plus insurance on MSRP. For typical 1000 miles/month in the US (may be much less in the rest of the world), how much you would need spend on the fuel to make it so important? It is mouse nuts compared to depreciation of new car.

As far as environment is concerned, it is better when fuel is expensive and people drive less. Less traffic, less pollution.
Emitting 17 tons CO2 to create 100 kWh battery and then drive as much as you can to “recoup” manufacturing emissions and high purchase price isn’t very sustainable idea. Except for taxi drivers who drive a lot anyway.

Well, it does cost more, and furthermore the amount of electrical energy in a given amount of hydrogen is about 3 times less than the amount started with. That’s via electrolysis btw, which is the only renewable way to make hydrogen.


That “3 times less than the amount started with” is still way more than amount of energy needed to manufacture some hypothetical giga-batteries to store harvested solar/wind energy over winter and maintain dispatchable and 100% available electric grid.

And no, it isn’t the only renewable pathway. Biogas reforming is another renewable source, may even have negative GHG emissions using certain chemical conversion technology.

Anyway, world economy powered by “renewable” energy is just very long term dream now. Current generation of cars is not going to use any significant renewable energy, and it seems being coal & gas powered is no problem with their fans, it only becomes a problem when talking about competitors :/ Electricity is not energy storage after all, it is just a carrier to connect you to generator.

I disagree that there are ‘insurmountable barriers’ for ev usage for apartment and condo dwellers.

Forward-thinking landloads on the largers complexes could economically install card-operated kiosks in a small portion of their parking lots to bill the tenant using the service.

Congested areas with no off street parking could have a progressive municipality provide overnight charging – either with a card activated service – or some municipalities may think that the property taxes recouped from the nearby complexes are sufficient inducement to just provide the service gratis.

Other small apartment landlords may sllow the tenant to install a charging outlet on their electric meter on the side of the building, or perhaps to their parking spot should the tenant want to pay for the trench.

They may also allow the cheapest solution as well, that of throwing an extension cord out the back window sealed with a bath towel to keep the heat in and the bugs out.

As I stated, this is already likely to happen for upscale apartments. Working class apartments are a different story.

The poorest people can afford a used EV and a used extension cord.

Apartment parking is usually either surrounding the complex or off to one side. The people fortunate enough to park within 30ft of their front door are going to be few and far between. The idea of apartment management allowing tenants to run hundreds of feet of consumer-grade extension cords outside (in all weather conditions, for >1kW connections!) is lunacy. It’s an electrical short/fire waiting to happen.

Please list the last five fires that burned down the building due to an extension cord OUTSIDE the building.

The answer is subsidization. The govt should be subsidizing H2 tech development significantly more than EVs or gasoline have been subsidized. I believe it is that important.

“I see FCVs as a replacement for ICEs.”

That’s a joke, right? People drive half way across town to get $0.01/gal cheaper gas, yet you see FCEV that cost 2X or 3X gasoline as replacement for ICE? They’ve been saying H prices will go down for years, yet it’s still as expensive as ever. There’s zero evidence it will cost anywhere close to gasoline.

I don’t know anybody stupid enough to drive somewhere across the town for $0.01/gal “savings”. It is some $1 per tank, wear & tear of the car when driving would cost more.

I don’t think anybody has promised H2 prices at pump dropping this year or next. What is expected and supported by scientific studies ordered by DOE, and equivalent ones in EU, is the price drop when certain dispensing volume and certain scale is achieved. We are very far from any significant scale yet.

Apparently, you haven’t seen people waiting 10 minutes to get gas at Costco gas station that’s halfway across town. It is stupid, but it happens probably more often than I know.

H will not scale as long as prices remain high. But prices will remain high without scale. But even if prices come down, it won’t match gasoline when you have to dispense it for consumer automotive fuel when there are other (cheaper) sources of energy to fuel cars.

While you are correct zzzzzzzz in saying that electric plug-in vehicle ‘penetration’ of 1-2% currently doesn’t amount to much, it is premature to say Fuel-Celled Vehicles will ever have HUGE market share, excepting places like California where there is EXTREME EFFORT to make it successful.

Currently, Fuel Cell Vehicle advocates can only DREAM of 1% purchase by the buying public.

I’ve seen your ‘Pie in the Sky’ studies from 2008. Very rosey predicitions for 2020, now only 2 years away.

The only ‘swarm in the ointment’ (so many problems I can’t call it only a ‘fly’) that the history of development from those 2008 studies to 2016 has not proceeded as smoothly as those studies (mistakenly) stated.

Bill Howland,

Well, I would not qualify some futurology as “studies”, although I don’t know what exactly you read at that time.

Real studies only calculate costs of current or near future technology that is already in lab, at specific production rates, and these are more or less hard numbers. Deployment however is matter of political will, macro economy, technical or fundamental science progress that is hard to predict in long term.

You can also see studies with various deployment scenarios, “optimistic”, “pessimistic”, “medium”, etc, but these are more or less speculations based on certain specified assumptions. E.g. around 15 years ago, at the beginning of commodity price bubble, many people assumed that oil price will be going up to the stars forever. Projected gasoline cost makes big difference to alternative fuel deployment. As oil bubble burst, all these assumptions became void as well.

Well, that’s the problem with both EV’s and H2 cars. They are both forced to compete with existing economical fuels such as gasoline.

From my point of view H2 vehicles have by far the much harder path.

Also, Fuel Cell research has been going on for decades. To think there are going to be unfathomable technology advances (as those studies assume) in ridiculously short periods of time is truly riding a huge gamble.

I think H2 requires more up-front subsidization, but has a much easier sustainability path. H2 has a much more familiar refueling schedule than BEVs do, and (given a proper H2 infrastructure) you wouldn’t have to plan trips any more than you do with gas. In contrast, even if we replace every gas pump with an EVSE, BEVs still require significant trip planning to account for significant downtime.

That applies as long as Californians in general have cushy $100k/year jobs (i.e., the economy keeps trucking along non-stop), and don’t mind heavily subsidizing the cost of the Hydrogen Dispensers.

From info ZZZZZZZZ provided, the best graph I saw was the ‘current maintenance average cost’ of the new dispensers was ‘$24 / kg’.

To sell Hydrogen for even $10-$16/kg (substantially more expensive than EV charging or gasoline) is at once both:

1). HIGHLY Subsidized by someone.

2). Takes a Cavalier attitude by the customer, not caring they are paying so much more than if they drove a plain old car.

I’m talking about federal subsidization, not state. The “cushy $100k/year jobs” of Californians have as little to do with my proposal as they do with the billions the US currently spends subsidizing gasoline costs down to ~$3/gal.

Water, water every where … BUT people prefer to buy bottled water!

Spider-Dan asked:

“The problem is not whether electricity exists, but rather:

1) who will pay to build chargers
2) who will pay to maintain them
3) who will pay for charging costs
4) who will manage the billing”

The electric utilities. That will be a new source of revenue for them, in an age when they are losing revenue to increased efficiency and home/neighborhood solar power installations.

I thought that was obvious. In fact, we already see that starting to happen.

So far, utilities are only willing to do #1. As I said, a VW-style “build-and-forget” doesn’t solve any real problem.

+1, Spider-Dan. The True Believers won’t agree with you, though.

With workplace charging options, a whole lot of those people who park ont the streets can still get a charge every day. The key is to ensure there is a sufficient infrastructure in the workplace for this demographic, and that continues to be more and more prevalent.

Workplaces have little more incentive to provide (free) charging than they do to provide company gas cards. The employers of working class people (e.g. retail workers) are not likely to spend tens of thousands of dollars installing EVSE equipment for employees – most aren’t even building them for paying customers! And in the few cases when they do, it’s a token handful, usually less than 1% of the parking spots available.

But even in the unlikely scenario where employers commit to building dozens of EVSEs for employees to use, if they aren’t also subsidized (indefinitely) then we’re back to the same problem the article above hints at: peak daytime charging is not cheaper than gasoline.

EVs are great for homeowners and the upper-middle-class. For everyone else, there are just too many obstacles to charging to make them a practical choice for your only car.

I say all this as a person who has logged over 50,000 electric miles and has no intention of buying another car without a plug in my lifetime. EVs work great for someone like me, and I’ve done my best to spread the good word… but for a lot of people, they’re simply not practical.

For those that are extremely price sensitive Robo-taxis in urban and suburban areas are the perfect answer. Transportation as a service will not only offer the convenience of Lyft/Uber but FAV will make it cheaper. Fear not for those poor apartment dwellers. They will be liberated from the hassles of maintenance and the financial burdens of the inefficient model of today.

If your solution for the plan to eliminate ICEs is… to hope that people stop wanting cars, I’d have to say that is a wishful-thinking-based strategy.

Who said the workplace charging has to be free? It just has to be the same kind of non-markup cost as residential charging.

And there continues to be several federal incentives and initiatives to expand this deployment.

The problem is that workplace charging is during the day (i.e. peak hours). So the subsidization actually needs to be far and above residential rates, because peak daytime residential rates are not competitive with gasoline.

“EVs are great for homeowners and the upper-middle-class. For everyone else, there are just too many obstacles to charging to make them a practical choice for your only car.”

And you can’t imagine that this will change? In fact, you ignore the reality that it’s already changing, with some cities now requiring that any new apartment building parking lots must support EV charging?

Pretty myopic for one of the Usual Suspects here, I must say! Take off your blinders, Spider-Dan.

No municipality is requiring anything beyond the most token number of chargers. 1 charger for every 50 residents does not change any of the objections I made, and the most forward-looking complexes in the country have chargers for maybe 10% of residents, if that.

Spider-Dan said:

“…the working class who parks on the street will be excluded from the EV revolution.”

That will be true until things change, just as it was true for the early part of the motorcar revolution. How could the urban working class buy a Model T Ford when they had no place to park it, and quite possibly no streets in their neighborhood designed for automobiles to drive on them?

Things will change as the EV revolution progresses, just as they did as the motorcar revolution progressed. The day will come when nearly every place that cars are parked overnight, will have a L2 slow EV charger within reach, or even a wireless charger buried in the pavement.

Patience, Grasshopper!

As you and I have already discussed, motorcars were a far more compelling innovation than EVs are. EVs will never cause the kind of instant, dramatic demand for change that the Model T generated, even if Tesla was selling M3s for half of what they are now.

So $.12/kWh is not profitable but somehow Tesla is going to make money by offering Tesla Semi customers electricity for $.07/kWh.

Who ever said Tesla was turning any Megacharger installation into a Profit Center?

The Megacharger arrangement (what we know of it so far) is much more viable than the current successful SuperCharger Network since at least SOME monies are recouped, and it is likely never to be a huge “burden” on Tesla Motors.

Any losses have to be viewed in the sense that $.07/kwh is a very appealing draw to major customers, especially in expensive areas.

If said agreement is reached by Tesla and the prospective customer, it matters not to the customer how Tesla satisfies their end of the agreement, and provides the customer Peace-Of-Mind that their ‘Refueling’ cost for any Tesla Semi products will be low and predictable. The actual cost is Tesla’s problem, not the customer and is one less thing for the customer to worry about since Tesla is providing this valuable ‘service’ for them.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

O know dudes that drive their P85’s close to empty and SC for free and drive on weekends the SC for free again and use those charges to commute…….lol

Some of them don’t even charge at home.

Has anyone noticed this… I like how Tesla supercharger cables never touch the ground.

After their finance guy left they finally figured out that they are in dire need of income.

Way to go off topic their Reject,

Why don’t you go post your conspiracies on seeking Liars?

Still cheaper than Blink rate of $0.39 a kilowatt hour or sema-connect rate of $2 per hour no matter the charge rate! Tesla supercharging is cheap.

Wait for it…

Yeah Spider Dan, just like you are waiting for your unicorn widespread FCV hydrogen hoax economy?

Interesting, California is now just .01 higher than Washington which is funny because California buys most of their electricity from Washington.

California buys “most of its electricity from Washington” (Pacific Northwest), that is true if you forget that twice as much of California electricity originates from the Southwest, than from “Washington”.

“California now imports 33% of its electricity supply from fast growing neighbors, with about 65% of that coming from the Southwest and 35% coming from the Northwest.” (Forbes 4/3/2016)

For some, “most” lost most of its meaning.

Interesting that rates below 60 kw in my state are half the price of 60 kw+. If you are not in a hurry, can you set the rate at 50 kw or does the charger/Tesla car decide the rate? Slower charging would take up the space longer, but save 1/2 the cost of charging.

That wouldn’t help much unless Tesla has each individual Supercharger set up on a separate account with the electric utility, which seems rather unlikely. A couple of years ago the average Supercharger station had 5 stalls, and I’m pretty sure the average is higher now.

Not surprising, given that they sold services at a noticeable loss in 2017.

I would disagree with the author that “nor was there any advance warning”. There wasn’t specific warning maybe, but any literate person can see it in Tesla SEC fillings.
Net income:
2014: ($294,040)
2015: ($888,663)
2016: ($674,914)
2017: ($1,961,400)

“Yet Tesla insists that Supercharger are not profit makers.” – and of course Superchargers are not profit makers, Tesla is 100% right. Where do you see profit? Supercharger CapEx and OpEx cost them way more than these $0.20+/kWh fees can generate.

Also, with the Model 3 in full “production hell” in February, with four days of idle production, it is probably a good time, to put a stop to some of the avoidable losses, originating elsewhere on the Tesla balance sheet.

Tesla Model 3 won’t hit the 5k production numbers needed, until the end of June.

And next year the negative will be even grater as they expand the network forward. Do you have a point here?

Yes, he has a point; but if he wears a hat, he can hide it. 😛

I wish that fool cell shill zzzzz and Rick Rowling would go back to Seeking Liars and stop coming here to spread their anti-EV FUD.

Get Real,

And you go where? To Rakka, Syria, join your Tesla Thought Police forces together with other aggressive zealots, hating everybody thinking just a bit differently? Oops, I heard Rakka felt not so long ago, too bad for you :/

Zealots like you is one of the reasons that I got quite skeptical about your idol.

This website is for actual EV enthusiasts and advocates like Get Real and like me.

It’s not for you and other Tesla Hater cultists to use for a sounding board.

I look forward to the day when the comment section here either enables us to Ignore those who are here for no purpose other than to tear down the good name of Tesla, or to vote your comments down into oblivion so nobody ever needs to be exposed to your greed-motivated, mendacious, hate-filled drivel.

Its probably to discourage overuse by local drivers, but likely also to include the demand charges that these stations rack up. 6, 120kW chargers plugged into cars is 720kW which is more than a residential home will ever require. These stations are on commercial meters so will be on commercial rates, which once over a demand threshold, will incur demand rates.

When I read the title, “jacks up supercharging rates”, I thought they were talking about higher KWs. (not sure how they were going to do that unless they secretly limited the juice flowing)

Oh well…

25 cents per kWh is more sensible than 11 cents per kWh, and for most users – those who charge 90% or more at home – it means just a small increase in overall “fuel” costs. This also made me realize else. I’ve often said energy-based pricing is inferior to energy-based pricing for EV charging. Perhaps the reason Tesla has never seemed to consider time-based pricing is that their charging stations were not equipped with sufficient power to run all points at maximum concurrently. I never actually thought about that before, but I’ve seen in Bjørn Nylands videos that supercharging isn’t always so super-fast, and there’s zero doubt multiple charging points were dynamically sharing power. Dynamic power sharing makes some sense, too. Say you can reasonably get 0,5 MW supply to your station. If you aim for 120 kW, you only have enough power for four stalls. If you want eight stalls and you won’t share power dynamically you have only 60 kW per point. That means even a single car charging never gets more than 60 kW. With dynamic sharing a maximum of 60 kW becomes the worst-case scenario, and you’ll seldom be in it even when all stalls… Read more »

Yup, I’m sure it is a big surprise that stuff costs money and someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

I don’t see this as much of a Revelation.

I know this will sound strange to many, but I would like to see Tesla start paying DOT a bit of money from charging. Say, .01/kwh.
In addition, IDEALLY, they would charge based on Time of Day. Seriously, i think that it is in tesla’s best interest to have large pulls during low demand time.

But then those of us in states like Washington where we pay $150/yr in road tax would be paying at the “pump” as well.

Residential rates here in Oregon are in the teens and single digits but this may be a commercial rate. Possible Tesla stopped subsidizing stations getting too much use.

Also “possible” — in fact, indisputable — that Tesla is ramping up the rate of building new Supercharger stalls in anticipation of Model 3 sales, so their costs for the network have lately shot up because of the up-front costs for installation. That alone is sufficient to explain the rate hike.

127 comments here, and only Mark.ca referred to this fact directly, with Dr. Strange at least hinting at it.

Critical thinking seems to be in short supply today. O_o

“Critical thinking in Short Supply”.

I’m glad you excluded yourself.

Totally expected. That is why I thought the original claims of $0.07/kWh or $0.09/kWh by the Tesla semi is full of BS.

But that is a great thing for multiple reasons:

1. It reduces fleet sharing abuse of SC.
2. It reduces future Model 3 congestions.
3. It pays for demand charges which can be used to fund more SC network.
4. It reflect the cost of the business so it is “self funding” going forward.
5. Makes current Model S/X purchase more appealing to up sell buyers who wait on Model 3. (free SC is still a good perk).

Of course, the downside is the those who “depends on it” will pay more.

What do you mean $0.07 / kwh is malarkey?

To me its a legitimate ‘sweetener’ for the customer, and it gives them Peace-of-Mind for a (unspecified publicly so far) certain duration.

The customer, in taking a chance on the new Tesla Truck, can be assured of predictably low refueling costs for the duration and is one less thing for them to worry about.

That feature alone I’m sure will sell many trucks.

The ultimate cost, whatever it is, is tesla’s problem and is likely to be, in Tesla’s words, ‘Immaterial’.

Say the negotiated time period is 2 years. That is a Bonanza to the trucking company.

$.25/kWh is not cheaper than gas.