4 ms·

People also made the argument that the exclusivity of the Tesla supercharger network was a positive for Tesla. It's hard for both to be true. I think the reali

People also made the argument that the exclusivity of the Tesla supercharger network was a positive for Tesla. It's hard for both to be true. I think the reality is that uncertainty about charging away from home pushed a lot of people towards Tesla who might otherwise have considered a different make/model. With that gone, a moat vanished. That being said, competition in the US EV market is still weak. Maybe the added charging revenue outweighs that for now, but long-term, it seems like it will undoubtedly be a negative.

stetrain 3y ago
I think the difference is that over time Tesla has streamlined mass production, installation, and reliable operation of their chargers. They are averaging 1.5 charging stations installed per day over the last year in North America. Each of those stations has at least 8 chargers, some of them have 24, 40, or more. They have moved to pre-fab construction where a row of 8 chargers are all installed in a concrete slab that can be dropped into a site and commissioned in a very short time period. Basically nobody else is keeping up with them at charger deployment in the US and that creates a market opportunity for Tesla and a need to make some return on all of that construction by increasing utilization rates.
- conjecTech 3y ago
  The price of charging is already dominated by the marginal cost of electricity, in the same way the price of filling your gas tank is by the price of gas. That will only be more true as charging gets faster. So an advantage in fixed costs is unlikely to be much of a strategic benefit. If they can save 100k/stall, that's great. But that is only a few hundred million a year at that install rate.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > The price of charging is already dominated by the marginal cost of electricity No it isn't. Most level 3 chargers are 3x-4x the price of electricity.
    - conjecTech 3y ago
      PG&E commercial energy rates in California are $0.36/kwh including delivery[1]. Tesla charges about $0.50/kwh[2]. [1] https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml [2] https://electrek.co/2022/09/28/tesla-hikes-supercharger-prices-california/ https://electrek.co/2022/09/28/tesla-hikes-supercharger-pric...
      - stetrain 3y ago
        Up to around $0.70 now at peak times: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17bls7u/woke_up_to_new_supercharging_prices_here_in_socal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17bls7u/woke_u...
    - reitzensteinm 3y ago
      How are you estimating demand charges?
- sundvor 3y ago
  Cries in Australia numbers.. There are 79 sites in total (recent list1), and a different source gave me 1958 for USA (October 2023). With US population ~14x that of Aus (~350m vs ~25.5m), the ratio of chargers in the US is over double ours, plus your build output is way higher too. We share that the non-Tesla chargers are largely useless. 1) https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/growth-of-superchargers-vs-teslas-evs-in-australia.317675/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/growth-of-supercharg...
mdasen 3y ago
Times change and companies need to adapt with the times. 2015-2022, exclusivity would be a huge positive for Tesla. Their vehicles would have lots of charging stations while other vehicles wouldn't. That's great for Tesla. When the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure plan, it became clear that CCS would become the dominant charging standard in the US - unless Tesla acted fast. Tesla's port would go from an advantage to a disadvantage. Tesla has 12,000 US chargers today. Maybe the company would make that 25,000 by 2030. The NEVI pushes for 500,000 chargers by 2030 with the CCS port. Toward the end of the 2020s, Tesla would feel pressure to switch to CCS because the majority of chargers in the US would be CCS. Tesla owners would complain that their Tesla vehicles used a different port from 95% of the public chargers. By pushing the industry to adopt the Tesla charger, they ensure that chargers built using the NEVI money will most likely have Tesla ports. They could even argue that the administration should drop the CCS requirement given that the industry has moved to the Tesla port. Tesla's port would have gone from an advantage to a hinderance. If Tesla didn't move the industry to the Tesla port, they'd eventually have to move to CCS. People would want their cars to be compatible with 95% of the chargers out there. When Tesla announced a switch to CCS, sales of current vehicles would likely crater. With Tesla abandoning their port, people would want to wait for the new model. Tesla might need to offer steep discounts to get people to take the "old" port. Instead, by moving the industry to their port, they put the uncertainty on competing vehicles; they make potential punchers of competing vehicles more likely to buy a Tesla or delay their competing purchase. That either adds to Tesla sales or makes competing companies question their EV commitment. It's not that Tesla wanted to give up their moat. It's not that Tesla wants a bit of charging revenue. It's that if 95% of the chargers in the US become CCS, that moat is trapping Tesla in rather than keeping competitors out. Yes, having Supercharger exclusivity would still be an advantage for a few more years - and it will still be given that it'll be a couple years before competitors have Tesla's port on their vehicles. However, Tesla doesn't want the situation where their port becomes the odd one out where Tesla owners need to fumble with CCS adaptors. Maybe Tesla gives up a year or two of Supercharger advantage, but they ensure that it doesn't become a disadvantage.
- conjecTech 3y ago
  Agreed, I think its much fairer to say they snatched a stalemate out of the jaws of defeat rather than just "this is good for Tesla".
tempestn 3y ago
I think the idea is that so far, and for now, the chargers have indeed helped them keep a significant lead in EV sales. Eventually though, many other companies will also be selling very good EVs, and if Tesla doesn't open their chargers, the rest of the industry will standardize on something else, and it will eventually get good (or at least good enough) out of necessity. So instead of being the only decent option, Teslas will be the odd one out that have their own weird charging setup. As long as that setup is good it might not be too much of a detriment for them, but eventually it would stop being a major benefit either. So, better to use their current position to become the dominant charging solution for all brands. They were never going to corner the EV market long term. But they actually do have a chance of being the dominant charging supplier for every car on the road.
joshl32532 3y ago
Yeah, I was holding out on buying Ionic5 because of the lack of good charging network, even though I will only use it for occasional roadtrip. I will be charging at home for everyday use. Now that everybody is in Tesla supercharger, Teslas are losing its appeal to me now. I just need to wait until 2025 when everybody actually uses NACS. lol.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  You don't need to hold out on buying a car you like because of the shape of the charge port. Passive adapters will be available since the actual communication protocol is the same. Since you roadtrip occasionally it won't make much difference in convenience.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
The flipside argument is that Tesla has by far the largest fleet. If Tesla had forced the industry to standardize on a non-Tesla connector, and subsequently more charging options had popped up to support it, there was a risk (to Tesla or their customers) that they would have to retrofit millions of cars or force their customers to use annoying dongles. Now that risk is gone, and they also own the dominant charging network in North America and billions in subsidies.

stetrain 3y ago

I think the difference is that over time Tesla has streamlined mass production, installation, and reliable operation of their chargers. They are averaging 1.5 charging stations installed per day over the last year in North America. Each of those stations has at least 8 chargers, some of them have 24, 40, or more. They have moved to pre-fab construction where a row of 8 chargers are all installed in a concrete slab that can be dropped into a site and commissioned in a very short time period. Basically nobody else is keeping up with them at charger deployment in the US and that creates a market opportunity for Tesla and a need to make some return on all of that construction by increasing utilization rates.

conjecTech 3y ago
The price of charging is already dominated by the marginal cost of electricity, in the same way the price of filling your gas tank is by the price of gas. That will only be more true as charging gets faster. So an advantage in fixed costs is unlikely to be much of a strategic benefit. If they can save 100k/stall, that's great. But that is only a few hundred million a year at that install rate.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > The price of charging is already dominated by the marginal cost of electricity No it isn't. Most level 3 chargers are 3x-4x the price of electricity.
  - conjecTech 3y ago
    PG&E commercial energy rates in California are $0.36/kwh including delivery[1]. Tesla charges about $0.50/kwh[2]. [1] https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml [2] https://electrek.co/2022/09/28/tesla-hikes-supercharger-prices-california/ https://electrek.co/2022/09/28/tesla-hikes-supercharger-pric...
    - stetrain 3y ago
      Up to around $0.70 now at peak times: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17bls7u/woke_up_to_new_supercharging_prices_here_in_socal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17bls7u/woke_u...
  - reitzensteinm 3y ago
    How are you estimating demand charges?
sundvor 3y ago
Cries in Australia numbers.. There are 79 sites in total (recent list1), and a different source gave me 1958 for USA (October 2023). With US population ~14x that of Aus (~350m vs ~25.5m), the ratio of chargers in the US is over double ours, plus your build output is way higher too. We share that the non-Tesla chargers are largely useless. 1) https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/growth-of-superchargers-vs-teslas-evs-in-australia.317675/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/growth-of-supercharg...

mdasen 3y ago

Times change and companies need to adapt with the times. 2015-2022, exclusivity would be a huge positive for Tesla. Their vehicles would have lots of charging stations while other vehicles wouldn't. That's great for Tesla. When the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure plan, it became clear that CCS would become the dominant charging standard in the US - unless Tesla acted fast. Tesla's port would go from an advantage to a disadvantage. Tesla has 12,000 US chargers today. Maybe the company would make that 25,000 by 2030. The NEVI pushes for 500,000 chargers by 2030 with the CCS port. Toward the end of the 2020s, Tesla would feel pressure to switch to CCS because the majority of chargers in the US would be CCS. Tesla owners would complain that their Tesla vehicles used a different port from 95% of the public chargers. By pushing the industry to adopt the Tesla charger, they ensure that chargers built using the NEVI money will most likely have Tesla ports. They could even argue that the administration should drop the CCS requirement given that the industry has moved to the Tesla port. Tesla's port would have gone from an advantage to a hinderance. If Tesla didn't move the industry to the Tesla port, they'd eventually have to move to CCS. People would want their cars to be compatible with 95% of the chargers out there. When Tesla announced a switch to CCS, sales of current vehicles would likely crater. With Tesla abandoning their port, people would want to wait for the new model. Tesla might need to offer steep discounts to get people to take the "old" port. Instead, by moving the industry to their port, they put the uncertainty on competing vehicles; they make potential punchers of competing vehicles more likely to buy a Tesla or delay their competing purchase. That either adds to Tesla sales or makes competing companies question their EV commitment. It's not that Tesla wanted to give up their moat. It's not that Tesla wants a bit of charging revenue. It's that if 95% of the chargers in the US become CCS, that moat is trapping Tesla in rather than keeping competitors out. Yes, having Supercharger exclusivity would still be an advantage for a few more years - and it will still be given that it'll be a couple years before competitors have Tesla's port on their vehicles. However, Tesla doesn't want the situation where their port becomes the odd one out where Tesla owners need to fumble with CCS adaptors. Maybe Tesla gives up a year or two of Supercharger advantage, but they ensure that it doesn't become a disadvantage.

conjecTech 3y ago
Agreed, I think its much fairer to say they snatched a stalemate out of the jaws of defeat rather than just "this is good for Tesla".

tempestn 3y ago

I think the idea is that so far, and for now, the chargers have indeed helped them keep a significant lead in EV sales. Eventually though, many other companies will also be selling very good EVs, and if Tesla doesn't open their chargers, the rest of the industry will standardize on something else, and it will eventually get good (or at least good enough) out of necessity. So instead of being the only decent option, Teslas will be the odd one out that have their own weird charging setup. As long as that setup is good it might not be too much of a detriment for them, but eventually it would stop being a major benefit either. So, better to use their current position to become the dominant charging solution for all brands. They were never going to corner the EV market long term. But they actually do have a chance of being the dominant charging supplier for every car on the road.

joshl32532 3y ago

Yeah, I was holding out on buying Ionic5 because of the lack of good charging network, even though I will only use it for occasional roadtrip. I will be charging at home for everyday use. Now that everybody is in Tesla supercharger, Teslas are losing its appeal to me now. I just need to wait until 2025 when everybody actually uses NACS. lol.

kccqzy 3y ago
You don't need to hold out on buying a car you like because of the shape of the charge port. Passive adapters will be available since the actual communication protocol is the same. Since you roadtrip occasionally it won't make much difference in convenience.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

The flipside argument is that Tesla has by far the largest fleet. If Tesla had forced the industry to standardize on a non-Tesla connector, and subsequently more charging options had popped up to support it, there was a risk (to Tesla or their customers) that they would have to retrofit millions of cars or force their customers to use annoying dongles. Now that risk is gone, and they also own the dominant charging network in North America and billions in subsidies.