Tesla has economies of scale because they manufacture more or less the same equipment globally. They are passing less money to suppliers. And they have more technicians going around so they can use connectors that are replaced more frequently. They don't have screens and have starlink for backup comms and car comms. When they lose connectivity with the mothership they charge at full speed for free.

Regardless of that, if thier costs are the same, by asking for less money for more outlets they are more likely to get money. When you show you're willing to put up your own cash or just ask for less money in general while offering equal or better performance, you're more likely to win bids.

Politicians prefer to say they brought 10000 chargers than 4000.

The subsidy request is just you asking for money and doesn't represent your costs just what you want to ask for. You can ask for more than you need i.e make a profit on building costs

The question is how much do you want to do this, not how much will it cost you

You seem to be skipping the part of the grant request (free money) that they had a limit of 70% of the charger's cost. So even by asking for the max allowed, they still would be required to put up their own money. No business person I have ever talked to would leave free money on the table.

My original question was asking if they are were requesting less than the maximum allowed, and you quibbled with the premise, yet here you are suggesting that's exactly what they did. You're suggesting it was due to altruistic reasons. I just did the thought exercise of knowing people will assume you requested the max allowed, then do the math to come up with a price that's not correct just to F with people. Seems exactly like something Musk would do.

I believe it's 70% of the full install costs not just the charging equipment. That might explain the differing estimates.

But I won't be assigning motivations wrt altruism or effing with people. There's a lady running the charging division.