News
How Tesla’s pay per use ‘Supercharger Credits’ may work after all
Since our first report of ‘Supercharger Credits’ being discovered under a new payment section of the MyTesla page, presumably to allow Tesla owners to pre-purchase allotments of kilowatt hours for Supercharging, I’ve had sometime to think about what this might really mean to drivers. This is despite previously believing Tesla would not be instituting a pay per minute/pay per kWh option simply because I thought it would be a hassle, but I stand corrected.
Tesla will likely offer a ‘free long distance for life’ option for Model 3 owners. This option would be similar to the current offerings for Model S and Model X, and would be offered as either an up front cost to enable, an included benefit for higher priced models, or both. Might I be wrong? Surely and it wouldn’t be the first time. But I’ll say it again: I still think they will do this. They may or may not add rules or limitations to prevent abuse. That’s another topic and has been hashed out plenty. As for Model 3 owners who don’t go this route, here is what I picture when I think of the idea of Supercharger Credits.
How they work: Each successful visit to a Supercharger, regardless of minutes spent or kWh used would be equal to one credit. Keep it simple. The alternative would be to process potentially several hundred thousand Model 3 drivers with their own unique utility bill. This seems far too complicated – certainly possible, but envisioning the variables associated with keeping track of energy consumption on such a granular level, and then managing the accounting behind it, per driver, doesn’t seem like it would be the Tesla way. Plus, it’s illegal to sell energy to consumers in some States.
Having Supercharger credits based on a per single use model, perhaps even in a tiered structure (ie. usage beyond 25 kWh equals 1 credit, and so on) would allow Tesla to more easily sell credits on a mass scale.
How to start: Each Model 3 comes with some amount of credits to start. Tesla would be smart to do this because to me, the road trip experience and ease of using Superchargers is a major selling point. I’d want to entice people to keep doing it. Visibility of the cars on the road and chatting with onlookers in parking lots is more free advertising. You also hook customers to become repeat buyers or to upgrade. Or at the very least, to buy more credits. This is especially enticing for owners who may not intend to road trip often but who live more than 200 miles away from a service center or pickup location.
How to have fun: It’s your 1 year anniversary of ownership, take a trip on us! Here are 4 free credits. It’s Nikola Tesla’s birthday, 2 free credits. You just reached 50,000 gasoline free miles, 5 free credits! You get the picture.
How to take away transactional headaches: Allowing owners to upload credits in their My Tesla account ahead of time makes it easier for Tesla to administer, as well as an owner who may, for example, be flustered due to some extenuating circumstance and find themselves needing a charge. Knowing you have credits in your account and can just plug in is one less thing to worry about. I don’t know about you but I don’t have a credit card associated with my iTunes account. I much prefer to load on a $20 gift card once and draw down on it over time. I see credits working like this.
How to advertise without really advertising: Pick some nominal price per credit that sounds way more awesome than the cost of a tank of gas. “Five dollar fill up!” has a nice ring to it. (I think from 0 it would cost me $10 at home to fill up but the average supercharger visit is definitely not from 0 to 100% state of charge, and I would hope the average cost of juice at a Supercharger is less than the residential rate in a moderate-to-high priced market like Philadelphia, especially at locations with solar canopies.
Yes, this all sounds really cool and I think the market may end up demanding it so I bow before the brains at Tesla to make it happen if they deem it the best course of action. I just hope enough buyers either choose high margin options or buy the up front Supercharging option (if offered) so that there is enough cash to go around and build more chargers. But then again, Tesla could just take a page out of Trump’s book. “We’re gonna build chargers. Big, beautiful chargers. And we’re gonna’ make them pay for it!” Them being the retail giants whose parking lots the chargers will grace.
PS: Tesla, if you’re listening, I think “credits” need to be graphically represented like coins in Super Mario games.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
