Blink changes billing model for public charging

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If we must pay such a price then I expect better equipment. EVSE should be 50 to 80 amps rated. OK not all cars need this yet but should be available at those prices. Better user interface also.
 
Pipcecil said:
It just means I won't use Blink stations anymore nor will I go out of my way to frequent places that have them either. It's not worth it unless I really need it. But since NRG eVgo has a bunch of QCs around I already pay for, I would rather fuel up there instead of using the blink at the actual place I am at. Sad.
Sad that what little competition exists is undermined. I'm also an eVgo subscriber, paying them $15/month to not have to worry about where or when I drive, in lieu of paying Nissan $5,000 for a new battery. But once subscribed to one network the incremental cost to use that network is low or zero, compared to a high cost to pay a competing network's a la carte prices. So second movers can't get a toehold in the market.

In Southern California Blink, under former ownership, had the opportunity to lock up the market and be in the dominant position that eVgo now holds, but they fumbled it away with slow build out and unreliable equipment. Now even if they offered similar subscription plans the choice would be between eVgo - comprehensive and growing QC network, fairly high equipment availability, very low incidence of ICEing - and Blink - incomplete QC network, poor equipment availability, high incidence of ICEing. So I guess they're left to seek non-subscriber occasional customers, and look for profit from high a la carte prices. But with prices higher than gasoline per mile they've abandoned the PHEV market.

I don't know how any region could end up with two or more healthy charging networks, with competition putting some pressure on prices. Sad.
 
Pipcecil said:
The range I got back (~25 miles) was the equivalent of a 18 mpg vehicle. My father-in-laws big truck doesn't even get that bad of mileage. When it cost more to fuel my EV than a truck it makes me think someone didn't think this pricing all the way through.

I had a similar experience today. 9 Miles range added per LEAFSpy pro. Cost $1.70. About 19c per mile of range.

I do think we will be boycotting Blink stations, not on a a matter of principle, but based on finances.

Had they offered a 'monthly plan' they may have been able to increase their revenues, this way they can expect revenues to fall like a brick.
 
Pipcecil said:
nor will I go out of my way to frequent places that have them either.

As a charging host I would now be looking for a way to get off the network and either buy the units from Blink and turn them into dumb charging stations, or replace them with Clipper Creek units.
 
mbender said:
GRA said:
They won't, and unless public L2 costs less than gas, people living in apartments with no charging available (like me) will stick with gas.
leafo said:
Too bad for me, as I live in an apartment...
Not sure how well-known this is, the details, and/or when it will go into effect, but just before adjourning for the summer, the California legislature passed a bill allowing renters to have chargers installed in their complex(es) if they want one.

It hasn't been signed by Brown yet, but I suspect he will.
I'm aware of it, and for apartments on their own meters that may work. Just as an example of the issues some may face, in my case I share a meter with the main house and utilities are included in my rent, so I'd have to pay for a new service and meter, or else pay considerably more on my rent based on some estimate. Not going to happen.

Wandered by my local Blinks today to see if they'd changed over to the new billing, and found all but one of the L2s switched over ($0.49/kWh members, $0.59/kWh guests), but the QCs still show the old flat rate. Oddly enough, there were three LEAFs and a Volt charging or about to, the most spots I've ever seen in use here at once. Talked to a new Volt owner who was just getting ready to charge, and found he was unaware of Hold mode (my impression is that he was unaware of any of the mode selections, as I had to show him where the button was), and based on his claim that charging at home took 14 hours, also unaware that the portable EVSE defaults to 8 amps but could be set to 12. Just another example that the majority of the people who buy cars aren't as into the technical aspects as many of us here. Pointed him towards gm-volt.com.
 
Today I charged at both an NRG QC and Blink QC in San Diego. I am happy to see more EV infrastructure.

90%+ of the time I charge at home during off peak. The other % of the time I am happy to pay more and have more flexibility to drive more and do more things without using gasoline :)

I agree for those that rent or can not charge where they live, it would be good to have some base monthly membership fee with a lower per kWh fee. Paying by the kWh is okay by me.

It does not make sense for a Tesla to suck goobs of kWhs of electricity for a dollar an hour while another slower charging vehicle pays the same per hour.

Need to maintain the infrastructure.

One thing Blink could do better is let us know when they have upgraded a location. I think I will give them a call about that tomorrow.
 
lkkms2 said:
One thing Blink could do better is let us know when they have upgraded a location. I think I will give them a call about that tomorrow.

The Blink map online or in the mobile app tells you the billing structure for each location. So essentially they have informed us of locations where the new scheme is in force.
 
JPWhite said:
The Blink map online or in the mobile app tells you the billing structure for each location. So essentially they have informed us of locations where the new scheme is in force.
I haven't looked at the Blink map for many months, since it always reported as in service a great many stations that were actually broken. Have they started providing accurate information?
 
walterbays said:
JPWhite said:
The Blink map online or in the mobile app tells you the billing structure for each location. So essentially they have informed us of locations where the new scheme is in force.
I haven't looked at the Blink map for many months, since it always reported as in service a great many stations that were actually broken. Have they started providing accurate information?

It has seemed accurate to me lately. As in, most say they are inoperable on the map.
 
pkulak said:
walterbays said:
JPWhite said:
The Blink map online or in the mobile app tells you the billing structure for each location. So essentially they have informed us of locations where the new scheme is in force.
I haven't looked at the Blink map for many months, since it always reported as in service a great many stations that were actually broken. Have they started providing accurate information?

It has seemed accurate to me lately. As in, most say they are inoperable on the map.

Blink / Carcharging have clearly made some back-end improvements. The dashboard for instance renders much more quickly, station status tends to be updated quickly.

However the state of units in the field, (although initially improved after the purchase of Blink by Carcharging), has deteriorated once again, with units going un-serviced 2+ months after a case being established/acknowledged by customer support. They don't seem to send out maintenance crews very often or at all from what I can tell.

Judging by their financial losses and poor field maintenance, they are looking very much like Blink did before they declared bankruptcy. Maybe Car-charging can generate some private funding to keep them going where Ecotality couldn't.

Reflecting on what initially looks like a suicidal pricing structure, I've come to the conclusion they may not be as crazy as it first appears they are. One thing that may save them is "no charge to charge". It maybe that revenues from individual members may not be their primary focus anymore. CarCharging maybe raising prices to get more money faster, mostly out of the Nissan "no charge to charge" program. They may be able to shore up their balance sheet in the short term and sellout before they implode. No charge to charge could keep them limping along for 2+ years.
 
JPWhite said:
pkulak said:
It has seemed accurate to me lately. As in, most say they are inoperable on the map.

Blink / Carcharging have clearly made some back-end improvements. The dashboard for instance renders much more quickly, station status tends to be updated quickly.

However the state of units in the field, (although initially improved after the purchase of Blink by Carcharging), has deteriorated once again, with units going un-serviced 2+ months after a case being established/acknowledged by customer support. They don't seem to send out maintenance crews very often or at all from what I can tell.

Judging by their financial losses and poor field maintenance, they are looking very much like Blink did before they declared bankruptcy. Maybe Car-charging can generate some private funding to keep them going where Ecotality couldn't.

Reflecting on what initially looks like a suicidal pricing structure, I've come to the conclusion they may not be as crazy as it first appears they are. One thing that may save them is "no charge to charge". It maybe that revenues from individual members may not be their primary focus anymore. CarCharging maybe raising prices to get more money faster, mostly out of the Nissan "no charge to charge" program. They may be able to shore up their balance sheet in the short term and sellout before they implode. No charge to charge could keep them limping along for 2+ years.
As I mentioned above, at least at my local chargers they seem to have made considerable improvements in reliability - for the first 9-10 months there always seemed to be one or two out of order, and sometimes as many as five. Course, it took considerable nagging by me and possibly others to get them to come out and fix the units that were inop, but considering how few were ever needed at the same time maybe it made short-term financial sense, if not doing anything for their reputation.

That being said, it would be pretty curious if they could find someone to sell out to, unless they've upgraded the units internally so that the have become more reliable. You'd think anyone would do due diligence before buying them out, but then the same logic should have applied to Car Charging re Ecotality, so maybe history will repeat itself.
 
All this discussion seems to further my opinion that the future of EV charging likely will be almost fully home based charging with well placed QC stations (that will have a cost likely near or above premium gas costs/mile) that can be used by those going on long road trips only.

I base this on my analysis of the cost to install chargers and the estimated payback time for the same. Unless you charge enough for their use AND have the volume (regular use) they will never cover installation costs much less make any company a profit. So if you 'charge enough' to pay for these things, folks who can avoid their use will - thus charging at home being more desirable. Once the minimum BEV range is around 200 miles I expect local use charging stations will become novelties - gone the way of the buggy whips.

Perhaps the pressure to at least break even is pushing Blink to move in this direction. My prediction is that the successful charging chain/company will be those that provide DCQC stations situated to be used by those traveling more miles (i.e. rest areas) and not the companies trying to install many smaller L2 stations in 'general public' areas.
 
JPWhite said:
Reflecting on what initially looks like a suicidal pricing structure, I've come to the conclusion they may not be as crazy as it first appears they are. One thing that may save them is "no charge to charge". It maybe that revenues from individual members may not be their primary focus anymore. CarCharging maybe raising prices to get more money faster, mostly out of the Nissan "no charge to charge" program. They may be able to shore up their balance sheet in the short term and sellout before they implode. No charge to charge could keep them limping along for 2+ years.

You know, I never considered that and you are probably 100% right on that. People under the no charge to charge program are going to charge willy-nilly because its free. Nissan will be paying for it (at a much higher rate), and, I am betting most people would have never reached the maximum amount on the program but may under this new pricing scheme. It really looks like CarCharging is getting Nissan to pay for its expenses with how the program will work. CarCharging really doesn't seem to car about its regular older users.

Unfortunately, on the flip side, Nissan is the ONLY company doing this. CarCharging is still alienating all the PHEVs (mostly Volts and PiPs based on numbers) and from the reports produced by the charging companies themselves, PHEVs make up the majority of charging events at stations. I guess the figured the price hike was enough to just exist on Nissan no charge to charge and if anyone else would actually use the stations not on the program, it was just gravy.
 
I am quite disappointed at those who complain the new higher pricing structure. Given that 90%+ of our charging happens at home at low prices, why would this occasional, convenience charging at a higher - gasoline equivalent - prices are such a burden ?

Flip this over and imagine a situation where gasoline is pumped to your car in your garage overnight for $0.70/gallon and you only pay $3.50 when you drive long distances. Would any of us complain about that?
 
mkjayakumar said:
I am quite disappointed at those who complain the new higher pricing structure. Given that 90%+ of our charging happens at home at low prices, why would this occasional, convenience charging at a higher - gasoline equivalent - prices are such a burden ?

Flip this over and imagine a situation where gasoline is pumped to your car in your garage overnight for $0.70/gallon and you only pay $3.50 when you drive long distances. Would any of us complain about that?

I wouldn't mind if there system was reliable and I could COUNT ON IT when I need to extend my range further. As it stands if I want to extend my range, I plan around QCing and IF there is a level 2, hopefully skip the QC. I got burned with trying to rely on Blink - website showed all up and yet all stations were blinking and erroring out - awesome. And the ICEing is horrible too. Its just too unreliable. So from this perspective I would use them to save me time from waiting on QC or to support a business. Now I will use neither, why do it?

But, some of us (my wife and I) use them more than once a week. Me, everyday at work and her twice a week at school. At one point, before I was eligible for a replacement battery, I HAD to charge at work just to make it home (55 miles round trip). And if I want to do any errands after work I need to charge as well (even on my new battery). For use everyday (or almost everyday) users this is a huge slap in the face. I know public charging will be more expensive, but at the rate of an 18 mpg truck cost on gas? Really? Seriously? When everyone else charges LESS and still not gone bankrupt and can keep themselves profitable makes me think CarCharging is as messed up as blink was.

Not to mention, charging stations are being utilized as an air quality benefit, especially during conformity approvals with FHWA for non-attainment areas. We use the infrastructure (as well as most metro areas now) as a program to reduce air pollution. If less people are using then stations, FHWA might not allow the use of it or give us less weight for air quality benefits when using it. This will cost governments more money as we will have to find other programs to reduce air pollution. Trust me, my work (transportation government - an MPO) is very worried about this. More money for air quality conformity plans means either more money need (via taxes or fees) or, more likely less roadway improvements over the next 25 year horizon. This is not a joke. CarCharging is mucking things up more than they know. We are already doing analysis on how much less charging will occur, how this will amount to alternative ICE cars being used or PHEVs opting for gas versus charging.
 
Pipcecil said:
Not to mention, charging stations are being utilized as an air quality benefit, especially during conformity approvals with FHWA for non-attainment areas. We use the infrastructure (as well as most metro areas now) as a program to reduce air pollution. If less people are using then stations, FHWA might not allow the use of it or give us less weight for air quality benefits when using it. This will cost governments more money as we will have to find other programs to reduce air pollution. Trust me, my work (transportation government - an MPO) is very worried about this. More money for air quality conformity plans means either more money need (via taxes or fees) or, more likely less roadway improvements over the next 25 year horizon. This is not a joke. CarCharging is mucking things up more than they know. We are already doing analysis on how much less charging will occur, how this will amount to alternative ICE cars being used or PHEVs opting for gas versus charging.

Interesting problem. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the mere presence of charging stations is being used as evidence of air quality improvements? So the concern here is that non-use will decrease the perceived value to the air quality improvements and money will be lost... Hmm... It seems to me that the air quality improvements come from more EVs being used in the affected area - charging stations may or may not increase this, but shouldn't the programs measure actual EV usage? I realize it would be harder (have to go survey/count the vehicles to see what is happening). Then the money could be allocated based on actual improvements - charging stations may only be one part of the solution leading to the desired outcome (presumable more EVs being used leading to cleaner air).

I wonder - would the presence of EV preferred parking in key areas (always available for example) perhaps have as much impact on encouraging EV usage? In other words, I wonder if the money could be better spent on creating/enforcing available EV parking (as a perk for being clean) vs installing a lower number of charging stations around the area (and thus fewer parking spaces)... I wonder how many folks 'charge' merely to get the parking benefit as it is (seems that would be the case for many PIP drivers...). Certainly there are a lot of folks moving to EVs for the HOV lane benefits in CA so clearly such "perks" do impact behavior...
 
mkjayakumar said:
I am quite disappointed at those who complain the new higher pricing structure. Given that 90%+ of our charging happens at home at low prices, why would this occasional, convenience charging at a higher - gasoline equivalent - prices are such a burden ?

The problem with the price hike is that it will reinforce charge at home day to day and use public charging only when you have to. I'd like to see public charging utilized more for extending day to day activities, not just for once in a while jaunts out of town.

This coming Thursday I will need to do some extra miles (not a trip, simply a diversion), I will carefully calculate when I arrive at the Holiday Inn if I can squeak home on the remaining charge or not, rather than top it off to be sure. In the past I've always topped off since the fee for a 3-4 of hours isn't much and it does support the network (now I will be looking at spending $10 or more, the charge is normally finished within 90 minutes the extra time simply 'attached' will make it expensive). So instead, on the drive home I will have to keep a close eye on my speed and remaining charge, something I haven't had to do for that monthly meeting.

Increased fees to the extent they have gone to discourages topping off.
 
mkjayakumar said:
I am quite disappointed at those who complain the new higher pricing structure. Given that 90%+ of our charging happens at home at low prices, why would this occasional, convenience charging at a higher - gasoline equivalent - prices are such a burden ?

Flip this over and imagine a situation where gasoline is pumped to your car in your garage overnight for $0.70/gallon and you only pay $3.50 when you drive long distances. Would any of us complain about that?

+1
 
Slow1 said:
I wonder how many folks 'charge' merely to get the parking benefit as it is (seems that would be the case for many PIP drivers...).


Funny you should mention that. I met a Volt driver who was plugging up recently. I told him the station he was about to use had a fault and he may want to move over to the next available space. Nah... he said, I really just wanted the parking space. Apparently moving his car over a space after he'd got out was too much trouble.
 
JPWhite said:
Slow1 said:
I wonder how many folks 'charge' merely to get the parking benefit as it is (seems that would be the case for many PIP drivers...).

Funny you should mention that. I met a Volt driver who was plugging up recently. I told him the station he was about to use had a fault and he may want to move over to the next available space. Nah... he said, I really just wanted the parking space. Apparently moving his car over a space after he'd got out was too much trouble.

I imagine this happens far more often than folks care to admit. Which, of course, is my point. IF one wants to encourage the behavior of driving EVs in a given area, give EV drivers a perk that they appreciate. Sprinkling a few charging stations (at a cost or not) may have a smaller effect than putting a larger number of parking spaces available or cheaper than what ICE vehicles can use. Most poor air quality areas have tight parking (at least that has been my impression) so this may just do the trick eh? Certainly would have a lower cost to roll-out and then perhaps adjust (i.e. remove) later - should just be cost of painting/signage and enforcement (that could be revenue generating to ticket ICEd spots...).
 
Back
Top