RAN Survival and Sustainability

[Fmc]

I am sitting at a RAN charger contemplating economics. Currently there are RANs and Tesla SC in the same parking lot. Pricing is as follows

Lot 1
RAN-.55
SC-.38

Lot 2
RAN- .55
SC-.30

Electrify America .56 but reduced to .42 with a $7 subscription.

Yes I know RIVN is young and trying to grow. Just curious on the future of RAN and its ability to survive and be competitive.

Sponsored

 

[Mathme]

RANs have gotten $$$ just recently and if they want to be competitive, they will need to drop their prices. Having a SC and and RAN in the same parking lot is a lot like two gas stations on the same corner...eventually people will learn which is cheaper and that'll be the busy one.

 

[DCFC]

Personally, I chose to support RAN, the jobs it created, and Rivian as a whole. And this sign only speaks to the manufacturing team. All of the engineering, software, network support, and field service is all in-house Rivian, in the US.

 

[Mellowyellow]

I wonder if they increased the prices because so many owners got 6 months of free charging (or longer). That perk of the referral program was eliminated after a short while. The price will probably come back down in a bit to stay competitive. That’s my guess.

 

[CBRacerX]

I’ve got years worth of free RAN charging I can’t use from referrals since no RAN is at all close to Doylestown, PA. So I’m not the problem

 

[Jonger1150]

You would think they would baby step the increase, but they almost doubled it.

I don't travel much so this doesn't impact me that hard.... but it will when I do.

 

[EarlyAdptr]

I don't know, this may be a smart strategic choice on Riv's part. Higher prices will also yield greater charger availability. I suspect many Rivian buyers (at least the earlier ones) are new to the EV world - and so are probably less likely to "learn" off the Rivian network (RAN) - they're also more likely to have a seamless experience. So, they can boost earnings, (higher margins) and deliver better customer experiences for now - while they're still early in the adoption phase.

That approach may make sense depending on the actual numbers that Rivian is seeing.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

If you read current events at all you’d know there are folks who want nothing to do with Tesla. You needn’t worry about RAN sustainability.

 

[BCondrey]

I don't think people are as picky about the DCFC station prices as they are with gas stations. Most of us have found a way to charge at home and don't use DCFC regularly. For the occasional use and road trips, I will pay the higher RAN price if it is available. I want to support RIvian and the RANs are very reliable. If I used DCFC all the time, I would treat it like a gas station: find the lowest price.

 

[mizuno]

I've noticed the same differential on recent road trips and I think Rivian have got this wrong.
It is particularly perplexing in states where electricity is cheap, eg NC. If Rivian pricing was close I'd support them but for me currently, using Tesla chargers saves significant $$.

Who knows, maybe it is a deliberate corporate ploy to drive people onto the Tesla chargers because they can't (yet) meet their 100% renewable promise?

 

[DCFC]

I think it's simple: they need to more rapidly recoup the cost on their investment. They had to hire a business team, real estate team, engineering team (software, firmware, electrical, mechanical, manufacturing), supply chain team, program management team, logistics team. That's before getting to the designing and building of the production line. Figure costs for manpower is at least $25 million a year and it's been going for five years. $125 million in the hole on headcount. Maybe $10 million for the production line? Figure each RAN site is a million dollars to bring online and they have over 100 sites. Oh yeah, the whole field service team to support the sites. So I think it's safe to say Rivian invested a quarter billion dollars into RAN and they need to more rapidly recoup their investment.

 

[theonetruestripes]

100% renewable promise?

If so that is a pretty self inflicted problem. They could have started with “50% renewable now, and the other 50% by 2050” like everyone else make a promise you can keep for today, and a future promise that is Furure Rivian's problem.

You get very nearly the same PR boost, and it is less problematic on things like “oops, gotta discourage people from using the RAN!

 

[mikehmb]

I did a quick check of the RANs I've used most often, and many of them are still (in California) at $0.44/kWh, which is still competitive. Some are at $0.63 but it's not wildly off the $0.56 of the EAs nearby.

There are others still that charge for Rivian and Other Brands differentially.

The ones that are near other chargers are within a few % of their costs. For example, the RAN is $0.63 vs. $0.60 for the Tesla SC down the street at one location.

As others have said, I will choose to support RAN over other brands as long as the costs are similar enough.

 

[Zorg]

Issue with Rivian RAN is the fixed cost structure. Tesla has a much higher utilization rate and therefore can spread it's fixed costs over many more charging sessions and charge less per KWh. Problem with Rivian pricing is that it discouraging utilization making its cost per KWh even higher. I am convinced that they will walk back their price increases to increase charger usage.

 

[mizuno]

theonetruestripes

I agree. A lot of what Rivian say is well intentioned.... I'll give them that.

FYI: here's the link I found buried in a footnote on their charging info page.

Sponsored