2 ms·
This is not a good article. It makes an extrapolation that's not justified. Tesla made 4 separate grant applications. Two of them included "17 activities" an
by akira2501 3y ago
This is not a good article. It makes an extrapolation that's not justified. Tesla made 4 separate grant applications. Two of them included "17 activities" and requested $500,000 as eligible reimbursements. Two of them included "9 activities" for around $375,000.
This makes one project have a ratio of "$30,000 reimbursement request per charger." The other has a ratio of "$41,000 reimbursement request per charger." So there's two very different rates based on circumstances that are not in the published table.
This is a one time program using settlement money. You're only going to get 60% to 70% of the funding through the program. It's not clear what Tesla's goal was here or if these program numbers truly reflect a wholesale price of the charger for them.
- junofan 3y agoA cost is a price paid to acquire, produce, accomplish, or maintain anything. It would appear these chargers cost $30,000 and $41,000 respectively. The article makes no mention of the wholesale price of Tesla chargers—only that the author have seen prices above $100,000 for some charges.
- Guvante 3y agoDoes it? Say the program normally awards to small companies to improve competition. Tesla could underbid reducing their take home if they win but given they don't think they would win that isn't a problem. Similarly if they want to contest the result underbidding gives them justification. All hyperbole of course.