Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Tesla has invested over $600 million in their Supercharger network globally [1], and should be compensated if legacy automakers want access to it for their customers. If they don't desire access to it, they can foot the bill themselves. No sense in giving a free ride to apathetic automakers who had to be dragged to build EVs. If governments want to cut a check to open up access, compensating Tesla for their capex costs, that's fine too.

[1] https://supercharge.info/map

View on HN

Tesla would be compensated, that's why you pay when you charge. Adding CSS to their chargers only financially benefits them by increasing their customer base. By opening the charging standard instead of licensing it they have also taken the morally higher ground by making it possible for anyone to charge their eventually.

Switching over to CCS is already happening in Europe because of regulation. The Model 3 is sold with CCS instead of the Telsa connector as part of that: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/supercharging I would not be surprised to see similar legislation here in the US, but we are typically massively behind on things like that. And it would likely be done as it is in the EU, new chargers would be required to have the standard connector. Retrofitting old ones is optional.

The question is what they see as their business model. Part of the Tesla pitch to buy a car is access to the big Tesla super charger network.

Competing on charging networks is tough. The charging cost is determined in large parts by energy cost and rent for the space. Customers have some ease-of-use effect to get a membership at a large network, but brand reliance is low. Thus there is little to gain, but cars from all sorts of vendors blocking Tesla's chargers isn't good for the exclusivity of their brand.

Since they voluntarily opened their chargers it's pretty obvious their business model is not exclusivity. Adding other cars doesn't not impinge access to superchargers for Tesla owners other than potentially more congestion.

Yes, what's good for society and consumers might not be good for one particular company. It should still be mandated.

I think there is a conflict of interest:

- Tesla obviously wants to have a exclusive network to boost their car sales. Vender lock in greatly helps them.

- The Government / The public want ONE charging network which can be used by anybody regardless of their car brand. In particular you don't want vendor lock in for something basic such as access to individual transportation. (Remember Tesla could easily decide that only "Tesla approved power sources" are allowed to charge your car)

I think it's inevitable that charging becomes a comodity such as fuel. Ad-hoc without registration / app download (or at most one on a national level).

> - The Government / The public want ONE charging network which can be used by anybody

While I agree with your overall point a little nitpicking:

Many certainly don't want ONE network, but compatible competing networks. (Compatible regarding plugs etc. and compatible regarding payment registration)

In concur.

Basically like gas stations. Different brands but the same products.

Maybe loyalty programs for customers, special conditions for companies etc.

I wonder if they'll charge different rates for Tesla / non-Tesla charging. Could still incentivize owning a Tesla while giving other EV users range flexibility (for a price).

The way it is done at Tesla stations at the moment in Norway is that a third party like Fortum provides chargers for non-Tesla vehicles and they have their own pricing and payment system. The Tesla charging stalls at the site are still only used by Tesla vehicles.

CCS or not is not the question. You can still limit it with software.

Eventually it makes sense probably but as of now in the US, many people still recommend Tesla if you are doing road-trips. Its still a competitive advantage.

Eventually they will open it up and make money, but reality is that fast charging is a losing business strategy right now. Tons of money in, no money out. Having it as marketing and competitive advantage right now is more valuable by far then the small amount they money they would make by opening it up.

It will be years before they open it up in the US is my guess. Sooner in Europe, but not because of regulation but rather because of the competitive advantage not being as relevant and attempting to get higher utilization.

I think the market forces point in the opposite direction. With the big regions EU and China having standardized charging, they each created a market for different open charging networks to compete in.

In e.g. Germany Teslas are <10% of the new EVs sold YTD, I doubt it would make much sense for Tesla trying to maintain a Tesla-only network there, as they have to support the standardized connector and communication protocol anyway. They can only gain by opening up their charging network there.

China is far more un-standardized then the US.

In the US you have Tesla and CCS. CHAdeMO still exists but it will vanish soon, as almost no new car uses it.

I don’t see why automakers should pay up. They don’t pay oil companies to allow their customers to buy their gas, either.

It’s the customers who they should expect money from.

> and should be compensated if legacy automakers want access to it for their customers

The way Tesla will get "compensated" is that users will pay for the electricity they use. This is straightforward business, not a "free ride".

Didn't Tesla already receive a hefty amount of government subsidies? Seems like the public already wrote that check to Tesla.

Looks like they've received a total of $2.5B in subsidies and $466M in loans[0]. Feel free to compare that to GM with $8B subsidies and $50B in loans[1] or Ford with $4.3B in subsidies and $33B in loans[2].

0: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=tes...

1: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=gen...

2: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=for...

Why is that comparison relevant?

The subsidy per vehicle manufactured would probably be a better comparison.

Per EV manufactured, sure.

These weren't all--or even mostly--EV subsidies.

In a world with climate change, there's no reason to ever subsidize ICE vehicles. So we can count those as a total waste of money.

VW has invested $2 billion in Electrify America [1].

With every manufacturer accelerating their EV rollouts, there will soon be more CCS EVSEs than superchargers. This move isn't about giving non-Teslas access to superchargers, it's about giving Teslas access to what very soon will be the majority of EVSEs.

It also about tax incentives: the government isn't going to support a proprietary standard.

[1] https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan/

VW did not invest that money. That was the penalty they had to pay from Dieselgate [1]. The network is now seeking $1 billion in capital investment [2]. DC fast charging isn't profitable due to utility demand charges (for drawing 100-300kw on demand), so networks like EA will likely eventually fail being unable to obtain capital financing [3]. Tesla runs Superchargers as a cost center, and only needs them to break even, as their business is selling vehicles.

TLDR Tesla sells an ecosystem. They are the Apple of EVs.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/vws-2-billion-penalty-for-di...

[2] https://electrek.co/2021/07/07/electrify-america-rumored-bil...

[3] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-...

>They are the Apple of EVs.

Right down to the atrocious repair policies.

Say what you will, the products command a premium, and both Apple and Tesla have valuations based off of brand value and consumer demand. Consumers can vote with their wallets, and they have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com