This is absolutely awful for the industry. I hope the FTC steps in and either forces Tesla to truly open its connector (no requiring licensing fees / handing over development to an industry consortium) or kills these deals.
I genuinely don't know why people are excited to replace an open standard with a proprietary one. Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port?
In addition, it seems that in the way the way the language is worded, Tesla's connector now qualifies for infrastructure subsidies because it can charge multiple makes of vehicles, even though it's limited to only those makes that have paid them the tax*. That's appalling.
* this is made clear by their discussion of the Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles. Everyone with a different brand of car is left out. "Open standard"? I don't think so.
1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join.
2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable.
3. Your USB example would be more like manufacturers sticking with Serial port (with manual configuration and payment done by the user) vs plug-and-play USB 1.0 (still a pain but it's a huge improvement.)
4. Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
> Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join.
Any licensing fee paid to a single company is unacceptable for what is described as an "open standard."
> the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS
Sure, it's bigger, but how is that a problem? It's not like you carry it with you. Nobody I know has ever had an issue physically working with it, including people 70+ years old.
> Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
I have a big problem with companies getting infrastructure subsidies that they then use to rent-seek in the market and force other companies to pay them fees for access to publicly-funded infrastructure, yes.
I'm not saying subsidies have to be given equally, but subsidies should absolutely not be given to companies that limit the product of that subsidy (charging) based on licensing for profit.
Not sure if you've driven EVs, but I have had a Tesla and non-Tesla .. the charging situation is night & day. I say this as someone who left Tesla in spite of the CCS networks.
The plug is huge, the cables are heavy.. there is a poorly implemented locking mechanism that frequently breaks.. some people end up propping up the cable to support it so it doesn't trip that failure mode.
The CCS network companies in US are a joke, they are more than 5 year behind Tesla and building out slower than Tesla's current expansion.
On the east coast they are in less convenient locations, with fewer overall stations, with fewer stalls per station, with way higher failure rates, with much longer repair times.. and if you do happen to use it, the interface to activate charging is slower, error prone, and sometimes requires calling them.
I can go on and on.
CCS in US, lead by EA, has truly and utterly failed.
I am less happy with them continuing to be propped up by government subsidies and carmaker bulk purchases, than I am to see Tesla get a little more money to support their incredible charging network.
I am an EV proponent and would never pressure any family member to buy a non-Tesla because I do not want to be responsible for their CCS experience. I say this, again, as a non-Tesla EV owner who is happier with my car than with my old Tesla.
There is no successful EV transition in the US in which we rely on the likes of the Electrify America, EVGo and Chargepoint.
What makes you think they’re swapping charging outlets for existing customers? We’re all getting adapters friend (well, maybe my Kona will, otherwise we’re just screwed outside of Ford/GM).
I have a non-tesla EV, and ea and evgo are unacceptably bad. There’s at least a 25% chance they will fail to process my credit card or their stupid apps will break.
For EA, there’s also a 10% chance it’ll flip my car’s “oh my god you are trying to make me explode with bad voltage, abort! abort!” alarm/circuit breaker.
At home, there is no problem. For a given evgo charger, there is no problem (so I know it isn’t my car).
Also, the flaky data connection stuff from above is documented in the ea UI (and only seems to apply to them… they really suck).
I’ll begrudgingly admit that chargepoint generally works, but screw them for having an app (and they’re mostly only level 2 anyway).
Also, there are a half dozen smaller networks, each of which is also a fractal snowflake of bullshit like this.
It really isn’t. Driving my Leaf or i3 beyond 70 miles round trip is absolute Russian roulette. Will the charger be in service? Will it accept payment? Will it accept payment and then, for unknowable reasons, just not initiate charging?
Contrast that with driving 2000 miles round trip in a Tesla. There’s not going to be any trouble charging, ever.
Well good news then since Tesla is "The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy."
I do agree that the connector needs to be a public standard and the licensing fee needs to be kept to a minimal.
(I am against free solely to cover the cost of standard validation similar to WiFi. As we see from USB-C, having 1000 companies of various quality developing charging cable is a disaster, but now it's 400V 500Amp connector.)
Just a cautionary note: Steve Jobs made the same "we're working on a standard" promise for FaceTime when he announced the iPhone 4. We're up to the iPhone 14 and it hasn't happened.
I assume they changed facetime to not infringe the patent (which was later found invalid anyway) in response so couldn't they just have opened up the changed version?
If that lawsuit affected their ability to go forward with facetime, facetime surely wouldn't exist at all so I don't understand why it explains facetime continuing to exist but not being open.
It's since exploded into things beyond just FaceTime. The FaceTime one though, Apple ultimately lost their appeal in 2019 and paid out $440M for FaceTime infringement (so, yes, legally speaking, VirnetX won). It's now over VPN patents which had some patents cancelled.
With FaceTime being legally infringing... hard to make an open standard. Plus, why would they now? Not only would it primarily benefit the competition; but it would also undermine FaceTime's security. The beauty of FaceTime is that it is very much tied to physical devices, making it very expensive and difficult to spam call without detection. An open standard would likely lose that ability, causing spam video calls everywhere.
I agree this is a good thing, but what would be fantastic is if EA could start making chargers with NACS. Until that's possible, it's not going to be comfortable.
I admit, I don't know if that's possible now or not.
> Network operators already have plans in motion to incorporate NACS at their chargers, so Tesla owners can look forward to charging at other networks without adapters.
With GM now on board with NACS as well, single-cable designs make a lot of sense: that single cable should just be NACS in North America. The writing is on the wall for EA to see.
If that is the case, why will the Tesla to CCS adapter work only on Ford and GM vehicles? It's very clear from the press releases that other companies cars are left out until they pay up.
Because the OP here was actually mistaking things. For all we know there won't be a Tesla to CCS adapter that works on existing Ford/GM vehicles, it could be that only Ford/GM vehicles with the NACS connector will get to use all superchargers.
And Tesla has already opened up charging to all EVs on some superchargers via the Magic Dock, but the situation isn't amazing, especially with many new cars using an 800 volt architecture and thus not charging super fast on Tesla's 400 volt superchargers. https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8
Combine this with how many charge port doors aren't on the back left or front right, and you have a really messy charging situation with blocked spots and slow charging cars.
The partnership most likely means:
- The cars will be 400 volt architecture (or otherwise 800v and upcoming V4 superchargers will support up to 1000 volts)
- The charging port door will be either on the front right quarter of the car, or back left quarter.
I guess they'd only do it for maybe three model years or so, because theoretically over time even existing superchargers can be retrofitted with the magic dock (as V3s have).
The main purpose of the magic dock seems to be enabling anyone to roll up and pay for their charging session. If there were a personal charger, the car would have to also be updated to perform the NACS handshake and communicate with Tesla's backend for payment (note that all payment and charging is handled by the car, and with some hacks you can enable free unlimited supercharging which the supercharger doesn't do any verification of).
Also, in the original announcement, I wonder if ford meant they'll give CCS to Tesla adapters[0] so that you can plug in on existing infra.
Because the Tesla supercharger network isn’t the only network using the standard. Kind of like you have to be a Costco member to buy gas at Costco but they have the same dispenser nozzles as every other gas station.
I’d assume both since SAE is important for North America and IEC for Europe. The Type 2 connector references the Type 1 standard for communication, so cross referencing is also likely here.
I can download a Windows ISO, doesn't make it free and open for me to start shipping products. Just because they've got some files on a website doesn't make it an actually open standard.
> Any licensing fee paid to a single company is unacceptable for what is described as an "open standard."
... do you understand how out of touch this is? Every single recent "public standard" will absolutely require paying license fees to some company, or often a whole pool of companies. This is simply how things are done, designing things cost money and that money is recouped through licensing. The key part is that the licenses are FRAND, or Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminating.
> ... do you understand how out of touch this is? Every single recent "public standard" will absolutely require paying license fees to some company, or often a whole pool of companies.
If the fee is to one company, it is usually an industry non-profit (HDMI, Bluetooth) that doesn't itself have a stake in the outcome. If it's a pool of companies they also have to hash things out amongst themselves and no one company will have control over another.
Neither of these situations apply to Tesla and 'NACS'.
If Tesla wants to give up control of 'NACS' to SAE or IEC, then we can talk.
You might be sad to hear that the latest standard of over the air (antenna) TV utilizes ATSC 3 audio, requiring tuners to pay 70 licensing fees so you'll have sound with your TV.
I don't get audio when I use my DVR on Plex because of that.
There is no such thing as ATSC 3 audio. ATSC is the transmission standard, either ATSC 1 (basically everywhere, 1080p) or ATSC 3 in some cities ("Next-Gen TV", 4K). ATSC 1 uses Dolby Digital AC-3, ATSC 3 uses Dolby AC-4 which is otherwise quite rare.
Also, that's a very light example. Look into the patent situation for H.264 / AVC, H.265 / HEVC. They are Open Standards (you can download the documentation right now), but they are patent minefields to implement, with dozens of companies and hundreds, if not thousands of patents.
Also, to reply to the comment above you:
> If the fee is to one company, it is usually an industry non-profit (HDMI, Bluetooth) that doesn't itself have a stake in the outcome. If it's a pool of companies they also have to hash things out amongst themselves and no one company will have control over another.
What? HDMI is not an open standard - you need to pay to get the documentation, pass certification, and pay a royalty fee per device (about 5-15 cents per connector). You also need to license the logo because HDMI is actually a brand. Sure, anyone can get HDMI, but it sure ain't open. And if it's a TV or a monitor, better license HDCP separately. Also, as for Bluetooth... that was a patent minefield for decades.
The difference between my car with a minutely smaller charging door is like maybe an ounce or two in weight. We're not even talking pounds. On a vehicle that weighs a few thousand pounds and will vary several hundred based on how many passengers are in it.
Shaving a few ounces isn't going to make a difference in range. With EVs, even adding a hundred pounds or two isn't changing the range that much. You get a ton of it back in regen so the vast majority of energy usage is rolling resistance (which a few pounds isn't changing) and aero drag (no weight difference at all).
The door itself and the plastic bit are a minor part of the weight savings, I think most of it would come from what's just on the other side of the connector: With NACS you can throw everything onto the 2 aluminum bus bars in the vid, whereas CCS has a whole octopus of copper (relatively heavy and expensive) cables coming out of it
It's two extra wires. Two extra wires going a few feet. Let's say those two wires are 2lb/foot (that's way heavier than actual, but let's be generous here) and they need to go 6 feet (also, probably doesn't really go six feet, let's be generous).
That's maybe 12lbs of extra stuff. On a 4,500lb car. 12/4500. 0.2% difference in mass in a car with regen braking. You think that's enough for a difference in range?
I routinely get groceries weighing more than that. There's no effective difference in my range. I don't even have a noticeable hit in range with just a solo driver or four total people with bags, a difference of probably 600lbs or so.
The Lightning range estimates don't really change much with several hundred pounds of stuff in the bed. You really only start seeing range hits towing, and that's mostly because you're adding a lot of drag and extra rolling resistance with more tires.
I don't think the charge port is making that much of an impact on the range. Motor design and placement, aero drag, suspension, tires, battery size, inverter efficiency. These things will affect range, but not 12 extra pounds.
I don’t necessarily agree to the parent comment, but I believe the point is that it eliminates need to attach, remove, and keep the fuel door by use of a temporary fixture during painting.
All doors and bumpers on a car is attached to the body during the paint process, then the whole thing is painted, disassembled, and re-mated later to the same chassis, for better color matching.
The NACS latch is entirely driven by the car, which is fine for the owner of the car — assuming the car is working as it ought to, the owner can disconnect a charger. But there is no intelligent logic for when someone (owner or otherwise) ought to be able to disconnect the charger without the owner’s help. In many cases, it would make sense to be able to disconnect someone else’s car once it’s fully charged, and disconnecting or connecting a charger in the owner’s garage should not require unlocking the car.
The J1772 latch is substantially more complex, and I’ve seen it get stuck. This is quite nasty when it happens.
> it would make sense to be able to disconnect someone else’s car
This seems like a bad idea for something designed by for use in public with no direct supervision. I would absolutely prefer that no one disconnect my car over having the ability to disconnect someone else's car. I can understand having some override that requires a little mechanical effort in the case of malfunction, repossession, or something like that. However, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to disconnect my car at their discretion. That is a recipe for chaos at charging stations. Plus the caveat of "once its fully charged", already means you need to let the car have at least partial control over the unlocking mechanism anyway.
There's already a two-way data flow in the standards, so the charger could just ask the car to unlock if someone requests that at the charger. It does make sense for it to be a request to the car and the car can know the driver's preference on desired charge level (should be at least 80% charged, for instance) and/or alert the driver somehow that the request has been made.
I've seen plenty of places where there are two charging spots per charging cable. In which case it makes sense to unplug a car that's in the spot and full.
It sounds like it makes sense until someone else wants to charge their car regardless of whether yours is charged or not. That will be 99% of the use case for this. Just charge idling fees, that's a great deterrent for sitting there with your car fully charged and still plugged in. I'm not sure about all of the major networks, but Tesla and EA both charge those fees.
It actually does cause reliability issues. A common troubleshooting tip for a CCS (Type 1) charge failing to start is to lift up and push in on the handle while the charge is starting to make sure the data pins make good contact for the initial handshake.
I'm sure Ford and GM have some real world reliability metrics around this at this point.
My understanding is this is unique to CCS Type 1 used in North America, which uses an external lever at the top of the connector to latch it to the vehicle. CCS Type 2 used in Europe and elsewhere uses internal latch points where the vehicle locks the connector to the port during charging and doesn't seem to have the same issue.
> companies getting infrastructure subsidies that they then use to rent-seek in the market and force other companies to pay them fees for access to publicly-funded infrastructure
I was thinking AT&T as a more relatable example. Pretty much everyone uses AT&T infrastructure of some type. Whether it's the actual cables strung by the phone company, or other companies needing to string cables on the poles installed by the phone company. AT&T was so entrenched, that it's easy to overlook just how vested into them we were.
HD Radio on the other hand is just something of little interest to me personally. By the time I had a tuner with that feature, it also came with bluetooth which meant my device was doing the work and the radio was just a legacy thing that came with the device.
Japan, Korea, and China also have different charging standards within their countries. It is probably a minor annoyance for the manufacturers but other than that, what is the problem? Vehicles can rarely be moved from one regulation zone to another and there are often remediations that need to be made.
> 1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join.
So if I want to purchase a NACS charger for my house, besides Tesla, what are my options?
> 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable.
Besides size apparently, what are these "design deficiencies" that you speak of?
> Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard.
You'll forgive me if I don't believe them, considering their last PR release pre-2021 about it being an "open standard" included the fine print of Tesla gaining permanent access to all of your IP if you used it.
For one, the locking component, that prevents yanking the handle out while 350kw is flowing through it (an obvious arcing and fire hazard), is on the CCS handle itself, vs NACS where the charge handle just has a small hole and the locking mechanism is part of the car.
This plastic locking mechanism on a CCS handle can break if it's abused, leaving it in an unsafe state to use
I haven't seen one made of plastic. All the ones I've handled have been metal.
The locking mechanism can also break on the car. Its way more challenging to fix. Also, I'd prefer to always be able to quickly and easily manually unlatch it, which isn't true on a Tesla. On most models the manual release is tucked pretty deep in the car.
Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
Tesla's larger network is just classic first mover advantage and output setting. Not an indication their (charging) product is "technically superior".
They've had first mover advantage for years paving the way for the industry... for everyone else.. it's not preordained that something like this will happen and sometimes credit is due
> Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port?
Which one? Thunderbolt/USB4 (which pretty much still requires intel only solutions/chips)
What open standard? CCS is neither open nor a very well defined standard. Think patents, licensing, and lot's of car and charger specific behavior and weirdness, endless software glitches, etc. Design by committee stuff that the likes of VW, Mercedes, etc. came up with years ago. Let's just say it's not very good.
It's why non Tesla chargers are such a compatibility mess. There are a few emerging standards like plug & charge and a mess of ISO and other specifications. So, things are slowly improving but there are still lots of issues with cars and chargers not being compatible with each other, weird payment processes and complexity, enormous testing overhead to deal with all the silly hacks, workarounds, bugs, etc. CCS is a bit of a train wreck as a standard and it's a bit user hostile. And very much a work in progress.
The Tesla ecosystem predates all of that and is un-apologetically a Tesla ecosystem that has been running smoothly for many years that has none of those issues. While other vendors insisted EVs were a fad, Tesla actually invested in lots of chargers which is why they dominate the market.
The Tesla charging experience is best in class in this industry. It is a standard in its own right as well. Tesla positions NACS as an alternative to CCS. And like CCS, you can license it in order to use it and it is well specified. Ford and GM just chose to license NACS in addition to CCS to enable a better charging experience for their users. Nothing wrong with that. I'd say, more vendors will probably do this and that would effectively make it an industry standard just like CCS is. All an industry standard is is different companies agreeing on some specifications and signing licensing agreements with each other.
I think instead of governments dictating half broken specifications as standards or endorsing this or that consortium, it's better to just let the industry sort things out by itself.
What's your definition of proprietary here? Tesla is publicly committing opening this up.
> As a purely electrical and mechanical interface agnostic to use case and communication protocol, NACS is straightforward to adopt. The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy.
Proprietary and public are not mutually exclusive.
CSIRO (Australia's science and technology research agency) developed WiFi and made the design "public". However, they also held a patent for that technology.
After other companies adopted WiFi as the standard, CSIRO went to the biggest users (BroadCom, AT&T, Lenovo, etc) and sued them for patent infringement. [1]
There are a few things that Tesla could do here. If they are building all of the charging infrastructure, and other manufacturers use the Tesla proprietary plug, does that mean other chargers can automatically use it as well? If not, that removes those players from the market - but as I understand it, Tesla chargers are way better anyway.
I'm sure Ford and GM lawyers are all over the potential implications of this in the future, but I think it's best not to consider public and proprietary as completely orthogonal.
You mean the organizations/standards that are run by non-profits where multiple competitors get together and hash things out so that no one company has a leg up on another?
And where if you have a non-computer device, having a HDMI port forces you to not have any other ports due to licensing. Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports?
> Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports?
Legacy and network effects: home A/V has HDMI because HDMI is on all home A/V equipment. At this point you can probably have either/both and things would work fine.
One technical distinction for HDMI is perhaps having CEC.
First it was "it's not open". It is freely available according to other comments.
Then it was "it's not really free if they charge a fee", but that's common enough to be standard practice.
Now it's "But their org structure".
Not only is this a moving goalpost, I wonder if we're asymptomatically approaching "I just think Elon is a tool". Even if not, the news on TFA is good, because Tesla chargers are now more open.
In the spirit of assuming good intent...what the heck are you talking about?
The NACS standard is public, and any auto or charger manufacturer is free to equip them, or make as many as they'd like.
Then there's the separate issue of whether or not a given car will communicate with a charger -- that is using the CCS standard, which is managed by a standards group.
So you have a free connector design, the ability to anybody and their dog to make adapters (although you probably shouldn't use a dog-designed adaptor), and the important part (the charging protocol) being controlled by the consortium you seem enamored by.
Tesla has already said their charging network will become EV-agnostic, making that an open standard.
You have to be strangely self-centered to proclaim that you can't understand why people are excited, and somewhat unwilling to read.
Technically these already exist with the Magic Dock on some superchargers, and for these it's available to all CCS1 cars. Here's a video of it: https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8?t=299
But these are physically locked to the supercharger. The original comment was claiming a vendor lock-in for the Combo 1 to NACS adaptor that Ford and GM would be providing.
It's incredible for the industry, most of these non-Tesla EV's were effectively unusable outside daily use due to poor charging infrastructure. Now they're not, it's great.
Incredible for the industry would be requiring a standard connector for all brands so that Tesla would switch its charging stations to the standard connector. This has worked just fine in Europe.
What's the benefit of adopting CCS Combo 1 as the standard over NACS? CCS Combo 1 is incompatible with Combo 2.
67% of EVs shipped in North American in Q3 2022 supported NACS. While that % may have gone down in subsequent quarters, it goes up historically. That means the majority of EVs in North America already support NACS.
It's far easier for other manufacturers to adopt NACS than it is for Tesla to adopt CCS Combo 1.
They would still have to build out a charging infrastructure tho wouldn't they? This skips that step for now, they can still build out there own standard if they'd like
It is a legitimate concern, tbh. But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations. Most support two cables, so doing both isn't a big lift.
> But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations.
Sure seems like there are seeing as how finding a dispenser with both CCS and Tesla is like finding a unicorn. You'd think someone would have been rolling them out years ago alongside Tesla.
EVGo has done it, but they've done it by using chademo adapters strapped to the side of the unit. Most of that was before Tesla added support for CCS signaling to the cars.
Also, they did it in the most EVGo way possible. There was a high traffic route near me with no superchargers. EVGo had a location, but no adapter. But EVGo would put units like that in the same parking lot as supercharger. :facepalm
More recently, a lot of manufacturers want to do it, but there's a different constraint. High quality cable and connector manufacturers are not yet making Tesla connectors in volume. Tesla doesn't sell their own cables and connectors to third parties. I'm hearing that this will all change by next year, though.
At least one charger company (Freewire, IIRC) has committed to using them.
As a Tesla owner, I generally have no need for any non-Tesla chargers. Tesla's network has been everywhere I want to go and has been reliable. I have an adapter in case, but the only time I've used it is just to try it out to see how it works. That probably doesn't make me the target market of the other networks.
Tesla drivers mostly don't have a choice at the moment, unless they knew about and bothered buying the expensive CCS adapter at the moment.
If there were third party natively Tesla compatible chargers (including payment negotiation), are you really saying you'd never use them? Like, if your hotel had a third party one, or there was the Tesla one off the highway a few miles away, you'd go.out of your way to go to the Tesla one? What if the third party ones were cheaper?
I totally get most Tesla owners ignoring CCS chargers currently. Most owners don't have adapters, many chargers would require some app for a subpar billing experience, people don't like the connector, etc. But I wouldn't understand people choosing Tesla ones over similarly equipped ones. It'd be like driving well out of your way to always use Shell stations while you pass up an Exxon, a Phillips, a Wawa, etc.
There are a few factor's that decide what to use. Location, price and reputation. When filling up our ICE car, I drive to Costco gas and pass quite a few stations on the way to do it. In a pinch, will I use another brand, sure. Am I in a pinch often enough to make it worth it for EVGo, or EA, to install the tesla connector? That's their choice. I have an adapter, and I don't use their chargers. Never needed it. The only time I've tested it to see how it works at EVGo, EA and Charepoint. I have all of the apps setup. I had issues at every single charger with it either not starting, or stopping after a few minutes.
It's one of those early car purchase decisions I wish I didn't make and am glad to have never needed.
Hotels generally have level 2 chargers. Those use the J1772 adapter that is included with the car for free.
I also have the CCS adapter, but I've rarely used it. It does help when the CCS station is more convenient. I've had that happen a couple of times, but it is remarkably rare.
The opposite situation, CCS but no Tesla Supercharger access would be a lot less pleasant.
Lots of hotels should really change up their EV game imo. Having a couple of L2s doesn't really cut it, you get people plugged in overnight so if you're not one of the first two in the afternoon/evening good luck getting charged.
Having a few DCFC plugs would encourage people to rotate through more. Plug in when you first get there, get checked in and settled, then move the car. Bonus points for valet service doing it.
Exactly. I just took a rented Kia Niro EV on a road trip to the eastern Sierra. I was so, so jealous of the Tesla charger network. I had to download apps for Electrify America, EV-Go, and ChargePoint, and had to use them all.
It will be bad for consumers too. Tesla is going to overcharge non-Tesla EVs to subsidize Tesla owners’ charging. And when there is an hour long queue at the Supercharger, you will need to buy a clunky adapter in advance, and hope you didn’t lose it, to use other nearby networks.
The adapter isn’t big. I put it in my pocket sometimes. But it’s worth noting the Tesla plug that does both AC and Fast Dc charging is smaller than the J1772 plug that does AC alone.
And the J1772 to Tesla adapter is purely mechanical and conductive, no active components. So it’s cheap and you can buy 3Rd party ones.
Oh! We're talking about the connector. For some reason I thought we were connecting to wall power, which requires a brick sized power converter and thick cable.
It's not even a power converter, it's just some contactors and a microcontroller that tells the EV what sort of power source it is. The EV talks to the micro and if the input power is compatible the contactors close and deliver AC directly to the EV. The charger onboard the EV takes that AC input and converts it.
> It’s unwise because there is no way for a passive cable or adapter to tell the car to limit current to anything below 80A.
Yes there is, the adapter just passively adapts all 5 pins. The J1772, CCS Combo 1, and NACS are all pin compatible. The EV has an ECU that can detect what is plugged by sensing the configuration on those 3 pins and negotiate accordingly. For older Teslas to support the CCS Combo 1 adapter they require an ECU upgrade. The adapter only needs to passively connect all 5 pins.
If your dumb adapter is actually rated for 80A and the J1772 protocol is never extended to allow more than 80A, you’re fine.
If your dumb adapter is rated for less than 80A, but your car and charger negotiate more than the rating of your adapter, you may have a problem. See, for example:
Are there any EVs besides that Model S/X that can L2 charge above 11.5kW?
If everyone adopts NACS then this won't be an issue because even the lower end adapters support 11.5kW. The longer it takes for North America to standardize, the greater the possibility of your hypothetical scenario becoming a reality.
I have a Nissan Leaf and have a brick of an adaptor for J1772. I think it's required for some kind of ground fault or other check circuitry because I know the car has its own built in charging system that deals with AC.
Oh, come on. A Tesla (excuse me, "NACS") plug with AC adapter attached is still less than half the size of a CCS connector. This is what it looks like:
It's just a passive connector. All the signaling is handled internal to the car (which actually supports CCS too, there's a equally passive similar-looking CCS adapter you can buy).
It was originally supposed to lock out Nissan and CHAdeMO (Tesla wasn't yet considered a threat) from the US and European[2] markets. Traditional automakers didn't actually want their EVs to succeed[1], they just wanted to make sure no one else's EVs did either.
As it happened, it worked well enough. Nissan never sold enough Leafs to make much of a dent, largely because of the lack of a good DC charging network.
The real threat was the company actually trying to win.
[1] Much better to sell high margin pickups and SUVs than risky technology bets.
[2] It always needs to be repeated: CCS is actually two incompatible charging connectors. The DC/fast charger connector is mostly compatible between the two, but the AC half is either a J-1772 or a Mennekes, and the signaling for those is done via two different overlays on top of the CCS layer.
CHAdeMO is pretty bad too. They’re both needlessly complex and chunky. My guess is that it’s the usual dynamic of industry consortia designing by a committee that heaps a massive number of requirements on the design that must all be met.
That being said the FTC should require that Tesla open the connector spec if they are going to do this.
CHAdeMO was just an extreme early optimization. It supports 400A/1kVDC(400kW) on basically the same connector as the original L1 plug for a Leaf, supporting faster charging than V3 Supercharger, which… just later turned out to be a moot point.
That's not open. That much is clear when GM and Ford have to sign licensing agreements to add the connector to the car and get access to a NACS to CCS adapter, which won't work on vehicles from automakers that haven't signed that agreement.
Not to mention that "open for others to use" is not the same as "developed by an independent trade association to remove undue influence from one company over the process", which is how it should be.
Imagine Tesla can't figure out V2H, so they deliberately exclude it from the connector to hold back the rest of the industry that wants to move forward with it. Is that okay for you?
The design is open which means that GM or Ford can build their own adapters and their own chargers.
The deal is for access to Tesla's supercharger network.
The superchargers cost money to produce, install and maintain.
The land on which they are installed costs money to lease.
Tesla installed, in US, over 12 thousand chargers and the rumored cost of a supercharger is about $50k. That's $600 million, not counting the land and other costs.
Those chargers are Tesla's property.
It would be preposterous for government to meddle in a business deal where Tesla sells access to their property to others.
Ford and GM are free to build their own supercharger network but I'm guessing that they would rather pay Tesla than spend $600 million and 10 years to build something that is only as good as what Tesla has today.
It's less than half the size, takes maybe 1/4 the force to insert, doesn't have a fiddly mechanical push-pin in the connector, and is locked by the car vs. the connector. It shares the same connectors for both DC and AC and will autodetect. It even delivers more current, though at 400V instead of the 800V that recent CCS devices can deliver.
But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device. You pull in, plug in, and walk away. Literally. Your phone will buzz automatically when the charge reaches the level required for your next leg. This part remains Tesla-only. CCS devices at these chargers need to start the current manually with the app.
> But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device.
This is good, and this is bad. It's yet another charging app I need to manage my payment info. I can't just arbitrarily choose a different payment method when I'm there. I'd greatly prefer just a basic card reader so I can choose a payment method. Sure, plug and charge if I didn't supply payment method ahead of time, but otherwise it's just another charging app I need to manage.
I would argue it’s 100% bad. Tesla should not have a monopoly on determining whether a car gets to charge when it plugs in.
But apps with accounts and ToS and such should be banned outright IMO for any charger or at least any charger that receives any sort of public funding. Anyone with a compatible car should be able to charge, without an account, just like at a gas station.
While what you say is true about a gas station, I think a lot of the standard privacy arguments dont really hold for a car.
Its literally illegal to drive a car without it being built to the standard the government likes, with an identifiable ID printed on the outside of it, with a valid license with your name and date of birth on, and current registration.
Let alone the fact that the vast majority of cars are sold with gps trackers bolted on if they are financed. Requiring a credit card tied to that vehicle is the least of your privacy worries.
Yeah I like the idea of payment happening automatically, but that should be optional and implemented via kind of standard payment protocol between the car and the charging station, not via a proprietary app.
Ford has already announced they will support plug and charge on Tesla chargers also
The whole paying on a terminal/using an app thing is the wrong approach I think. Ultimately to charge there is a handshake protocol between two computers, just sort out payment then (and thats the standard NAC supports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118)
Adding a payment terminal is just adding another handshake and computer into the mix, a computer that needs to be (mostly) connected to the internet, exposed to the elements, and vulnerable to skimming devices.
I've yet to see a charger with a card reader or that accepts currency. I suspect it's because there would be too many transactions of small value that the payment processing fees are more than the electricity. Which gets you into the yucky mess of I owed chargepoint $0.11, and they charged me $20 and are going to hold onto the rest of my money forever.
It was definitely rare to see a couple of years ago but most dispensers I've seen installed in the last year or so around me seemed to have actual credit card terminals. I've used a few.
Fair enough. I think it makes sense as the market develops and charging is less PHEVs like mine and more full EVs with large batteries that can pull a meaningful amount of dollars out of the plug.
It is 2x the size, 4x the weight, and clearly more prone to failure because CCS stations have failure rates easily 10x the rate of Tesla.
It is incredibly rare to see a broken Tesla charger, and if you do, for it not to be repaired by the time you come back. Even at big 12-16 stall stations, it's incredibly rare to see a single one broken.
CCS chargers being broken is the norm, with typical 2 or 4 stall stations often having 1 broken. It's not unusual for the broken stall to go unprepared for weeks to months.
Is it the connector itself that's broken? Or something about the connector's electrical characteristics that causes the charger to break? It seems like the maintenance schedule is orthogonal to the connector design.
Among other things the "latch" that secures the connector in place (both to make sure the fit is tight and to avoid accidental removal, especially in high voltage modes) is a part of the plastics of the connector on the charge cable in CCS1 and under human mechanical operation but a part of the connector design on the car itself in NACS and firmware operated.
It can be too easy in rough removals to accidentally break the latch on the CCS1 charging cable (and busy car owners may not be careful enough to avoid the rougher removals) and it may be dangerous to operate with a broken latch so some of the software is (usefully) over-cautious about that. Even with the gentlest of usage by people, it's still a mechanical part prone to slow wear and tear from repeated use.
Bigger plug also goes with bigger heavier cables, the liquid cables require cooling to charge at high speed, one of the many failure rates is the cooling system which then reverts the chargers to operate at 20% power.
Another of the failures is the locking mechanism, which is obviously strained by the heavy cable.
The plug has to be put in just-so at sort of an awkward alignment/angle, doesn't go in easily like a NACS plug. Presumably the alignment leads to a lot of thrashing wear & tear.
I simply never saw Tesla stalls break at this rate. It isn't getting better either. EA changed brands and some of their NEW stalls begun failing. This after they abandoned maintenance at some sites as they were planning to replace with the new stalls. The other excuse is EA is fully beholden to OEMs for parts whereas Tesla makes their own. So another EA excuse has been they can't get parts.
You don't read about Tesla chargers getting stuck to cars / frying cars / etc as the same rate. Remember in the US there's probably 10x more Tesla cars in the wild, so you should hear charging horror stories at 10x the rate if their chargers were equally bad.
Instead, you hear 10x the CCS horror stories in US than you do Tesla, from 1/10th the population of cars.
Honestly I just don't care about all these "principle of the thing" arguments, I just want to charge my car.
And we aren't going to make a mass EV transition without working, ubiquitous, easy charging. Tesla is the only company to even remotely have this going on right now. And again I say this as a Tesla seller, BMW owner, Elon disliker.
Good. The CCS connector is hideous, sags under its own weight, and most CCS chargers just fail to start charging. Usually the car is expecting current when it is plugged in, and by the time you open up the app and figure out how to pay, the car has given up on the charger and won't charge when the charger is ready.
Hopefully they can work it out so that all cars can just plug in and everything is negotiated for you without any apps.
I have no love for the CCS connector, but I've been exclusively driving a BEV with a CCS connector for more than a year and many of your complaints are completely foreign to me.
> most CCS chargers just fail to start charging
There's one charger in my neighborhood that is sometimes fiddly, but the vast majority of my charging experiences have been problem free.
> Usually the car is expecting current when it is plugged in, and by the time you open up the app and figure out how to pay, the car has given up on the charger and won't charge when the charger is ready.
I've never had anything like this experience. What charging network are you using? Electrify America chargers have credit card readers and don't require an app. EVGo chargers allow you to either use an app or tap an EVGo card. A bit annoying, I concede, but I have never had the timeout issue you describe. I'm also not sure what this complaint has to do with CCS. [Edit: Reading other comments, maybe EVGo chargers have CC readers too? Maybe I've just never noticed it because I have the EVGo payment card.]
I guess my real point is that most of these issues primarily seem to be caused by the design of the charger and/or car, not the connector. For example, does the fact that some charging networks require you to use an app to pay really have anything to do with the connector? The fact that some cars apparently implement the charging protocol in a way that results in them timing out while the user is trying to activate the charger? That some charging stations just don't work?
I'd bet that we'll start hearing all sorts of similar complaints about the NACS connector once people start using them on cars from a wider array of manufacturers with NACS-equipped EA/EVGo/ChargePoint (or similar) charging stations.
To be clear, I'm open to the possibility that NACS might be better. But I don't think it will be a panacea for peoples' EV charging issues. The CCS connector has become a scapegoat for a lot of the quality issues with non-Tesla charging networks.
The software didn't have to be so bad for CCS, and maybe it still will be for third parties in the future even with the NACS adapter. What can be guaranteed is that with this change there will more more and more reliable Tesla brand superchargers out there.
This is more a statement from GM/Ford that third party chargers have failed and we can't rely on them. GM/Ford aren't going to build their own network so their only option is to join Tesla.
At my nearest EVGo station all 3 chargers don't work. 1 has its software eternally crashed, the other never starts charging and only accepts MasterCard (no Visa), and the app fails to start charging. The 3rd has a physically broken connector.
There is no "call for help" button like elevators have, so I just go to a Tesla Supercharger instead.
Seriously preposterous that you need an app to charge. Nobody uses an app to charge at a gas station! Just tap your card and you're good. Why do they need my email so bad?
Amusing that you're saying this when Tesla requires an app to set up your car for charging in the first place. Sure, you don't need an app at the point of sale, but I'd argue tying your car permanently to your identity is even worse.
I'm also not sure where people have needed an app to charge. In my experience at both EVGo and Electrify America stations, the credit card readers work just fine. I've never made an account for either of them. ChargePoint is the exception, but their system is extra stupid (you need to use the app, then NFC your phone)
You car is tied to your identity with your VIN and registration. These records are available to anyone willing to pay a nominal fee. If you rent, auto rental company has your drivers license on file.
(caveat being if you register your car in Montana using an anonymous LLC with an agent)
They seriously don't let you set up an account on their website? Ugh. I never said Tesla was better, though.
I've mostly used chargepoint (and Volta, heh). I used evgo quite some time ago and thought they pushed you to use the app. My sister recently used an evgo for a rental car and she said she had to install an app.
Chargepoint requires you to maintain an account balance, and requires auto-refills. You can't just bill a CC for the entirety of a session through the app/site. Sometimes you can initiate a non-linked session with an EMV tap from a physical card, but that doesn't always work.
For me it's less about identity and more about just the damn charger working.
I've never had an official Tesla charger fail to charge when plugged in. Their maintenance is top notch.
The apps hardly work, and it doesn't help that I have to fiddle with a map and a list to find the charger I'm standing in front of by some name like "Agustin" or "Bashir", instead of just scanning a QR code or NFC tapping the physical plug which would have been a much better experience.
ChargePoint works well; EVGo almost never works. EA usually works after unplugging and plugging and trying about 3-4 times.
Hopefully this won't be needed soon and all cars and chargers will support Plug & Charge (ISO 15118)[0] after this annoying transition period.
> The user-convenient and secure Plug & Charge feature that envisioned with ISO 15118 enables an electric vehicle to automatically identify and authorize itself to a compatible charging station on behalf of the driver, to receive energy for recharging its battery. The only action required by the driver is to plug the charging cable into the EV and/or charging station, because the car and the charger identify themselves to each other by exchanging certificates which were provided beforehand via a certificate pool to facilitate payment.
Nobody uses an app at the gas station because that process was invented long before the smartphone craze and people have gotten used to it. I am pretty sure that if ICE cars were only coming to market now, the gas stations would ask you to use an app to fill up.
The same process which works for automated gas stations since 1990s works for chargers too. There is nothing new on that. And it is already being aggressively regulated into the infrastructure
A couple of benefits to the apps: one is that you get exact information on the charging session.
The bigger benefit is that some charging stations will stop charging once your battery is "full", wait a bit, then start charging an idle rate. The app can notify you about this or you can be texted or both since the station knows who you are.
All EVs have a charging curve and typically the last 80% or 90% to full goes much more slowly than starting from 0% or 20%. In one case, ChargePoint decided that my Bolt EUV was charging too slowly and started charging me the idle rate without notifying me. Since the idle rate was $.25/minute, I ended up getting charged $1.50 or something like that. I didn't think the idle rate was unfair but I was literally waiting in a coffee shop for the car to get as charged as much as possible.
Not to mention about half the chargers in my area (in California, of all places) don't take Visa cards, but they take some other credit card networks. Unfortunately all of my cards are Visa. So the app is the only option. But a lot of the time the app fails to start the charging. Perhaps the chargers have connectivity issues.
According to current statistics most gas refills are done with some sort of rewards card in tandem (Kroger Rewards, Meijer Rewards, etc). To some perspectives, those are also "apps" of a sort that feed the station owners email addresses and other tracking things.
It depends. They might have a screen and can be used directly, but those screens are often broken, so app will still give you a better experience, at least at EA.
I don't get the hate for the CCS connector? I use it multiple times a week, it works fine. Now and then I come across a charger that refuses to start, OK, the connector is worn. I suppose someone will come along and fix it.
I have one in my garage; it does not sag under its own weight.
> I have one in my garage; it does not sag under its own weight.
I agree with you that the CCS connector is perfectly inoffensive, but you're probably thinking of J1772, unless you have a DC fast charging station at home!
This makes sense as Ford just adopted Tesla's NACS (North American Charging Standard) and GM would logically follow. We can now assume that the charging industry is disrupted by Tesla's NACS. Existing EV charging companies for ex. EVGO would need to upgrade all their chargers to adopt Tesla's connector.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in comments is that CCS standard is owned by BMW and they charge $50 patent fee on each connection.
> Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas.
100% Wrong
I can plug my Teslas into any J1772 charger with a dongle. I don't even use a Tesla charger at home. It's the same protocol, just a different plug shape.
I didn't buy the CCS adapter for my newer Tesla because there's a supercharger everywhere I want to go, and they're much more reliable. (That's also why I haven't paid to upgrade my older Tesla to be CCS compatible.)
> Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas.
They all work with Tesla models that support CCS. In North America it means buying a dumb adapter. In Europe everything is on CCS type 2 Combo so no adapter is needed and all brands of charger charge all brands of EV.
None of the reports around these NACS deals talk about which protocol will be used. They may end up using the CCS protocol with Tesla's plug.
Ultimately this is all the continued failure of North America to pick an EV charging standard. Incompatible infrastructure is a stupid outcome that's bad for everyone. It sounds like there's still years to go for North America to catch up to Europe.
> Ultimately this is all the continued failure of North America to pick an EV charging standard. ... It sounds like there's still years to go for North America to catch up to Europe.
Doubtful. I suspect that the US will standardize on NACS soon.
Then Europe will be playing catch up because it has a bulky charger connector compared to the US and China.
> I suspect that the US will standardize on NACS soon.
"Soon" being years away. So slow. The US is years behind as is.
> Then Europe will be playing catch up
What on earth are you talking about? All brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe. It's one of the reasons the European EV market is bigger than the North American market. There's been more common sense applied to infrastructure.
Europe will be stuck with a clunky CCS plug when the US has a lighter and easier to use plug.
Once these things get established, they are hard to change: In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances. "Instant" teakettles are common in the UK, and don't require special outlets. In the US, an "instant" teakettle would require a special outlet.
That's what happens when a country standardizes too early: The US had domestic electricity first... And picked a worse standard as a result.
> Europe will be stuck with a clunky CCS plug when the US has a lighter and easier to use plug
It isn't clunky. That's a bizarre claim to make and plainly not based on any practical experience with the CCS type 2 combo plug.
Europe has simply done EV infrastructure better than the US. The European EV market is bigger. The European charging networks are better, faster, and growing every month.
Feebly attempting to argue otherwise is childish. The proof is in the field and internet theorizing doesn't change that.
> In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances.
Wot, you mean like how Tesla chargers are 400 volt which limits 800+ volt EVs from charging at their maximum kilowatts? Plenty of CCS chargers already support 800 volt cars. It will take a number of years for Tesla to roll out upgrades to get all their chargers up to spec.
I remember being mocked here for lamenting that my Hyundai Ioniq 5 will be relegated to having to use some klunky adapter to charge where everyone else does, if even someone makes an adapter for Tesla / Hyundai that works. "Tesla is fitting CCS onto their superchargers! just like in Europe!" they told me. BS - Elon can sit back and let everyone come to him now, no way he does squat with CCS connectors here.
I am curious how this will play out. This is great news for Tesla and probably good news for future Ford and GM EV owner. Bad news for all the CCS charge companies out there but honestly screw them. They are generally some of the worst experiences out there and maybe this forces them to actually be better.
EA is genuinely one of the worst charging experiences I have ever had. The EA near my house is totally fine but while traveling it’s hit or miss. I tried using one last time because the Tesla supercharger had a 10min wait, I have an EA account, try to tap my account with my phone like always…does not work. Ok let me pay by credit card, it does not accept my main credit card so I use my backup, works. Charging starts then when my car gets to 60% it just stops, EA just stopped me. I try to restart the process and EA terminal says that I cannot charge anymore by credit card…What the heck. Just a terrible experience for something that should be so simple.
GM joining the parade likely means that CCS chargers in North America will have to upgrade to NACS (or die). Luckily it sounds like it should be a relatively straightforward upgrade for some of them: NACS still speaks the CCS data standards so a lot of firmware mostly doesn't need to change. I think the only real exception is that NACS mandates the CCS "plug and charge" standard and CCS1 left it "optional" for some dumb reasons. That NACS requirement, if it is indeed a requirement, will do a ton to clean up the other charger networks: fewer apps, fewer terminal interactions, just plug the car in and let it securely speak the user's CC information in the handshake.
Imagine if gas stations could create a fuel subscription: we'll only fill your tank to 60% unless you pay $50/mo. If you subscribe now, your first month is free! Subscribers also get a $0.01 discount per gallon!
Just imagine how that will go during an evacuation. It'll be advertised to go GREAT because fuel stations won't run out of gas!
I wonder how well this works with the proposed US-EU agreement on common charging ports? About a week ago EU and the US met for the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, where among other things they published this[0]:
We also welcome the publication of EU-US joint technical recommendations for government-funded implementation of e-vehicle charging infrastructure which were developed in consultation with governments, industry, and grid-service stakeholders.
This then links to a slightly more technical document[1], with more specific information:
1.) Adopt an agreed set of standards and regulations in technical requirements for
public funding, while expanding transatlantic collaboration to identify and
address priority gaps in standards for e-mobility infrastructure.
The following could be implemented now, or is currently implemented by authorities:
a) Require, as a minimum, use of pertinent IEC 61851 and IEC 62196-2/-3
standards for light- to medium-duty EV inlets and their EV-EVSE connectors,
respecting the "Type 1"- and "Type 2"- form, as commonly used in the U.S. and
the EU, respectively.
I believe it is the IEC 62196 standard[2] that governs the connectors, and I don't see Tesla's connector in there.
> respecting the "Type 1"- and "Type 2"- form, as commonly used in the U.S. and
the EU, respectively.
That's likely reference to Combo 1 and Combo 2 in CCS.
CCS Combo 1 and J1772 support single phase (i.e., North American) AC power. CCS Combo 1 is J1772 plus two large DC pins.
In Europe they use multi-phase power and so they don't have J1772, instead they use a connector colloquially called Mennekes. Thus they use CCS Combo 2 which is a Mennekes connector plus two large DC pins.
In order for Europe and US to adopt the same connector, the US would likely have to switch to Mennekes because I believe it can support single, two, or three phase AC.
Or more likely this would require the US to adopt CCS Combo 1. But I fail to see how that would benefit manufacturers because they'd still be supporting two CCS connectors.
How common is actual three phase charging in Europe?
Most larger buildings in the US (condominium complexes, commercial buildings, and things like supercharger stations) have three-phase supply. But most non-huge loads get only one or two of the phases, presumably because the benefit of wiring up all three is pretty small compared to the added expense of installing an extra wire and keeping track of which phase is which.
That's exactly my point. It's far easier to adopt NACS as the North American standard than J1772, CCS Combo 1 or anything else. It requires the least change.
Yes, but shipping new cars with a different charging plug than new government funded chargers doesn't seem like a great idea. The industry should start converging to a common standard by now, and as far as I know not even Tesla is using their plug in the EU.
It won because the Betamax cassette was too small, severely limiting payback length.
Feature films on Betamax used slower tape speeds compared to VHS; which meant that VHS typically had better picture quality.
The mythical "better" Betamax was limited to about an hour of playback per tape. Technically Betamax could have a better picture, but in practice it didn't. (Again, because the smaller cassette meant that it used slower tape speeds compared to VHS.)
The rule is: if government is subsidizing the chargers, it must be available to all cars.
Which is more than fair.
The current Tesla superchargers were fully funded by Tesla, so that requirement doesn't apply.
If government gives Tesla money to build a supercharger then this (and ONLY this) supercharger needs to be available to every car. Which Tesla would do by adding CCS connector to those superchargers and provide an app where you, an owner of Ford or GM car, can create an account and charge using that CCS connector.
That doesn't require Tesla to open the design of the connector.
What GM and Ford is (probably) paying here is access to 12 thousand of superchargers that Tesla build and paid for and things like API access etc. so that they can implement seamless billing for charging in their apps (as Tesla does in Tesla app) or get real-time information about availability of chargers so that they can do route planning that takes into account location of superchargers.
Understand too that fast electricity at peak times is pretty expensive. I don't think they have a significant margin on electricity, just the benefits of volume.
And they certainly haven't been resting on their laurels. The entire supercharger network has doubled in recent years enabling more trips than ever.
Back in 2018 you were counting on these individual stations which to their credit never let me down. Now as I plan yet another cross-country trip, there are dozens of superchargers that I skip past as in some areas they are only 20 miles apart. Great for the consumer imo.
Did you read the article? They signed a deal directly with Tesla. They also never had to develop their own charging stations. Existing GM EVs can use any network that uses CCS already.
I genuinely don't know why people are excited to replace an open standard with a proprietary one. Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port?
In addition, it seems that in the way the way the language is worded, Tesla's connector now qualifies for infrastructure subsidies because it can charge multiple makes of vehicles, even though it's limited to only those makes that have paid them the tax*. That's appalling.
* this is made clear by their discussion of the Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles. Everyone with a different brand of car is left out. "Open standard"? I don't think so.