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 shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
