Congestion Fee

[Mach1E]

Which would be quicker for a person in a hurry: Waiting an extra hour for a charger or NOT waiting an extra hour for a charger?

Which would convince people to make the switch to BEV?

Not being able to fully charge on a road trip and fines or penalties if you do or being able to fully charge an have more range?

It’s not a good look from a publicity standpoint and is a step backwards.

It’s A solution, but not THE solution in my opinion.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

The 2nd one, because if everybody stops charging above 80% (or maybe 90% might be a better cutoff based on looking at some charge curves), there will be more DC charger time available for everybody, and it's less likely you will have to wait for the next charger.

Maybe?

But that’s not how people or the world works. Bird in the hand and whatnot.

If you think people could be convinced that it’s better for them and everyone else if no one charges above 80%………. Then this whole discussion would be pointless because no one would charge above 80%.

The problem with this reasoning is you’re assuming that any particular charging stop is about time.

If you’re stopping for lunch or dinner or shopping for example, they’ll charge as long as that stop takes…..even if it’s above 80%. I see no issue with this.

And again, I’m totally fine with an idle fee when you’re fully charged and still plugged in (maybe with a 5 min max before getting charged or something).

It’s the penalty for filling up that I take issue with.

 

[superdave80]

Not being able to fully charge on a road trip..

But we need to get out of the "Fill 'er up!" mentality that works for ICEs but is terrible for EVs. It takes MORE time and MORE DC chargers if everybody thinks they should charge to 100%. It wastes time for the individual charging AND all of the people waiting for that person to finish wasting time.

 

[superdave80]

It’s the penalty for filling up that I take issue with.

So, when all chargers are filled with people taking an hour to get from 80% to 100%, and you are the fifth car in line waiting for those people to finish charging at 15kw, would you still take issue with a hard charging cap to get those people moving on to the next charger?

The hard charging cap is ONLY if all chargers are full. If there are still available chargers, I have no problem with someone wasting an hour of their own time to get that last 10-20%.

 

[Mach1E]

So, when all chargers are filled with people taking an hour to get from 80% to 100%, and you are the fifth car in line waiting for those people to finish charging at 15kw, would you still take issue with a hard charging cap to get those people moving on to the next charger?

The hard charging cap is ONLY if all chargers are full. If there are still available chargers, I have no problem with someone wasting an hour of their own time to get that last 10-20%.

I’m not arguing about whether or not it’s a problem worth fixing.

I’m just arguing against this particular solution.

And I think the fine in question was if chargers are 50% full, something you as an individual have ZERO control over.

You plug in, chargers are empty, go to lunch, come back with a “fine” because they filled up. Doesn’t seem “fair” nor a good experience for a BEV driver. Could definitely ruin someone’s day.

We should focus on these things instead-

Fixing the broken chargers
More chargers

and From the tech side of course faster charging etc.


If things continue to go they way they’re heading…….. it’s gonna suck to drive a BEV on a road trip even more.

 

[superdave80]

And I think the fine in question was if chargers are 50% full, something you as an individual have ZERO control over.

In my first post I stated that a hard cap (not a fine) shouldn't go into affect until 100% of functioning chargers are full. I don't agree with a 50% usage. That fee is just to make more money for Tesla, not to clear up congestion, because it's clearly NOT congested at 50%.

Fixing the broken chargers
More chargers

Those are both going to take a lot of time and money, but do need to be done. But if EV usage grows, I think they are going to be just treading water to keep up with demand even if they fix and install chargers.

My suggestion can be put into effect quickly through software for almost no cost.

 

[Mach1E]

In my first post I stated that a hard cap (not a fine) shouldn't go into affect until 100% of functioning chargers are full. I don't agree with a 50% usage. That fee is just to make more money for Tesla, not to clear up congestion, because it's clearly NOT congested at 50%.

Those are both going to take a lot of time and money, but do need to be done. But if EV usage grows, I think they are going to be just treading water to keep up with demand even if they fix and install chargers.

My suggestion can be put into effect quickly through software for almost no cost.

I remember a couple decades ago in a marketing course in college we studied a VERY unique marketing campaign by AOL.

They ran tv ads discouraging people from going online.

You may even remember them. Had people saying things like “I like to surf the web”……..then someone else came on and said in a serious manner “I use AOL to grow my business.”

Basically they had capacity issues and were literally trying to convince people NOT to use their product.

Luckily this was short lived.

Anyone remember how it turned out for AOL? ?

 

[babgvant]

When stationed overseas we had ration cards. Basically limiting the amount of an high demand item you could purchase. The vendors in this scenario are in fact limiting use during high demand; therefore, rationing. If it were all demand supply then they would raise everyone’s prices to reduce demand during those periods.

The distinction b/w the situation you're describing and what is happening is that the ration card is a supply constraint, not a demand constraint. You can't purchase more than the card lets you regardless of your willingness to pay (i.e. demand). Raising price limits demand. Ration cards limit supply.

But whatever, believe what you want to believe regardless of what the econ textbook would tell you .

 

[AKgrampy]

The distinction b/w the situation you're describing and what is happening is that the ration card is a supply constraint, not a demand constraint. You can't purchase more than the card lets you regardless of your willingness to pay (i.e. demand). Raising price limits demand. Ration cards limit supply.

But whatever, believe what you want to believe regardless of what the econ textbook would tell you .

Well you can if you are willing to pay black market prices. My position would be both are methods to ration a product or control consumption.

 

[babgvant]

Well you can if you are willing to pay black market prices. My position would be both are methods to ration a product or control consumption.

Right, you can enter the black market, but that's a different discussion with different curves (and potential costs) .

Under your description anything that isn't "free" (which is also a different discussion) is "rationing" because any value above zero will reduce consumption. Although what it's really doing is limiting demand. Reduced consumption is an output, not an input.

Raising price limits demand, this is not rationing. Rationing is an artificial supply constraint, like your card.

Allowing price to float is a form of price discrimination, not rationing.

Sponsored