Follow us today...
For years, electric vehicles have carried a simple promise: even if they cost more up front, they will pay you back every time you skip the gas station.
A recent post in r/TeslaModelX challenges that assumption in a way that feels uncomfortable precisely because the math is not theoretical. It is lived, tracked, and backed up by Tesla’s own app.
“My Model X gets a cost-equivalent 25 mpg
Winter: $0.46 per kWh (off-peak)
Summer: $0.50 per kWh (off-peak)
Gas: $4.20 per gallon in CA
At about 350 Wh/mile observed efficiency, that’s equivalent to a car with 26 mpg in the winter and 24 mpg in the summer.
Even the Tesla app backs me up. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think it would be cheaper for my next car to be ICE.”
The owner lays out the numbers plainly. Winter electricity rates of $0.46 per kWh off-peak. Summer rates of $0.50 per kWh off-peak. Gasoline is at roughly $4.20 per gallon in California. With an observed efficiency of about 350 Wh per mile, the Model X works out to the cost equivalent of roughly 26 mpg in winter and 24 mpg in summer. That is not a typo, and it is not a cherry-picked scenario. According to the Tesla app itself, the driver has spent $2,030 on electricity to cover what would have cost $2,023 in gasoline. Net savings: zero dollars.
Tesla Model X: Falcon Wing Doors & Battery Placement
- The Model X’s tall body and low-mounted battery create a stable feel through corners for a large SUV, though its mass becomes apparent during hard braking and quick direction changes.
- Falcon Wing rear doors improve access in tight parking spaces and ease third-row entry, while adding mechanical complexity and sensitivity to weather and clearance conditions.
- Interior layout prioritizes openness and visibility, with a wide windshield and minimal dashboard controls shaping a cabin that feels airy but heavily dependent on touchscreen interaction.
- Cargo versatility benefits from a flat load floor and front trunk, although third-row use significantly reduces usable rear storage.
What makes this moment jarring is not that electricity can be expensive, but that it has quietly erased one of the core emotional justifications for driving electric. A Model X is not a small car, but neither is it meant to be a fuel-cost wash against an average ICE SUV. When an EV with no oil changes, no exhaust system, and regenerative braking still ends up matching a mid-20s mpg gasoline vehicle on operating cost, the narrative starts to wobble.
The comments quickly zeroed in on geography, and rightly so. One reply summed it up bluntly: this sounds like a California problem. Others refined that diagnosis further, pointing directly at PG&E. In Sacramento, where electricity is provided by a municipal utility, one commenter reported paying around $0.12 per kWh and saving over $1,500 in a year. Plug the same driving into PG&E rates, and the savings vanish. The difference is not driving style or vehicle choice, but the company sending the bill.
Several users highlighted how dramatic the shift has been. Supercharging that once cost $0.05 per kWh in parts of California now approaches $0.50. Residential electricity that sat around $0.16 per kWh less than a decade ago has nearly tripled. That change did not happen in a vacuum, and commenters were quick to note that regulation, wildfire liability, infrastructure costs, and lobbying all play a role. Whatever the causes, the effect is clear. Electricity is no longer cheap by default.
Others pushed back slightly, noting that the original poster’s rates are on the high end even for California. Some reported paying closer to $0.34 off-peak in winter and $0.44 in summer, which still hurts, but does not quite tip the balance in favor of gasoline. Still, the margin is thin enough now that small changes in gas prices or electricity tariffs can flip the equation either way. That alone would have sounded absurd a few years ago.
What is quietly happening here is a reframing of the EV value proposition. The savings are no longer universal. They are conditional. They depend on utility territory, rate plans, access to cheap overnight charging, and whether you rely on public fast chargers. In places like Illinois, where one commenter claimed overnight rates as low as one or two cents per kWh, the old promise still holds spectacularly well. In parts of California, it does not.
This is not an argument against electric vehicles, and the post does not read like one. It is an accounting exercise that happens to land in an inconvenient place. The Model X still offers instant torque, quiet operation, and a very different ownership experience than an ICE SUV. But when the owner admits they are considering an internal combustion car next time purely on cost grounds, it signals something deeper than personal preference.
The uncomfortable truth is that EV economics are no longer guaranteed by the technology itself. They are increasingly dictated by policy, utilities, and infrastructure decisions that owners cannot control. When electricity prices rise faster than gasoline prices fall, the math stops working the way it used to. And when the Tesla app itself confirms that reality, it becomes much harder to dismiss as user error or bad assumptions.
This post is not a declaration that EVs have failed. It is a warning that the transition is uneven, and that for some drivers, in some places, the long-promised fuel savings have quietly evaporated. If electric vehicles are going to remain compelling on cost alone, the solution may have less to do with batteries and motors and far more to do with what shows up on the power bill each month.
Image Sources: Tesla Media Center
Noah Washington is an automotive journalist based in Atlanta, Georgia. He enjoys covering the latest news in the automotive industry and conducting reviews on the latest cars. He has been in the automotive industry since 15 years old and has been featured in prominent automotive news sites. You can reach him on X and LinkedIn for tips and to follow his automotive coverage.
Follow us today...
