"An Elon Musk-Controlled Charging Network Imperils EV Revolution" - Article

[Tooney]

Excerpts:
However, as tantalizing as the technical specs of the NACS plug are, they aren’t all that relevant to the conversation. It’s the thing that the NACS plugs are attached to – the Tesla Supercharging network. After a difficult start to the EV infrastructure roll-out, everybody wants to get their hands on that thing.

But the Supercharging network is so damn good not because of the plug, but because Tesla has long understood that a reliable charging network is crucial to its survival. The company makes conveniently located, reliable chargers a priority. Just check out Europe; the EU low-key forced Tesla to switch to the CCS2 plug, and the European supercharger network still has the same excellent reputation.

Yet, unlike the EU where Tesla Superchargers are increasingly open to any EV that can DC fast charge, the North American Tesla Supercharging network has been open only to Tesla.

For many, it seems like this is a win for EVs; Tesla has more than 12,000 DC fast charging stalls in the United States and Canada. It should be a win.

Yet, the win feels hollow. Instead of the Tesla Supercharging network being opened to all EV models, just like in Europe, it seems like access to the Supercharging deal is predicated on switching to NACS. Every single EV manufacturer that has announced access to the Tesla Supercharging network, has also announced it is switching to NACS. Polestar’s NACS announcement appears to acknowledge this; it straight-up says in its PR release title that it switched to NACS to gain access to the Supercharging network.

The switch to NACS wouldn’t be such a big deal if Tesla and all of the other OEMs didn’t prove when they made the deals that there was no technical reason why they couldn’t have been using the Supercharger network all along. The deal is backward compatible for currently existing EVs with those brands, using an all-new, never-before-seen Supercharger to CCS adapter. That means that a 2017 Chevy Bolt could use the Supercharging network with no modifications, aside from an adapter.

Why? Well in part, it’s because Tesla vehicles actually adopted the CCS communication protocol back in 2019 or so. That’s why many modern Tesla cars can DC fast charge at CCS stations via an adapter. Clearly, the charging stations and cars all have the ability to talk to each other, nothing’s holding anything back, aside from the plug shape, which can quickly be rectified with an adapter. Why are we playing these stupid games? This is clearly not about the plug, is it?

Instead of democratizing the technology and letting any paying customer use it, we got weirdo backdoor deals that aren’t really expanding the charging infrastructure but only making a closed, private EV charging infrastructure a little more inclusive for the brands that opt-in. And worse still, opting in means forming a contract with a brand that is run by someone who doesn’t honor contracts, and seems to have contempt for anyone who asks questions he doesn’t like.

My biggest fear is that any of the CEOs that have made deals with Tesla will cross Musk in some way that he deems unacceptable. Perhaps they’ll have concerns with charging speed or quality of service, (Lucid and Hyundai/Kia EVs have reportedly had speed issues using V3 Superchargers), or maybe they’ll want something more out of the still-undefined V2L capability of NACS. Then the deal will unwind, and the non-Tesla clientele will find themselves unable to use the Superchargers they thought they were entitled to. That would be a failure that I don’t think even the most devout EV enthusiast could overlook.
https://jalopnik.com/why-an-elon-musk-controlled-charging-network-imperils-t-1850615019

Sponsored

 

[RingoDingo]

I mean - I don't object to that premise. I wouldn't do a deal with Musk of any type... he's proven to be mercurial, wishy-washy and petulant when he perceives he's been crossed. He's also the product of a really bad information ecosystem where he only seems to receive and act on information that conforms to his preconceptions and biases.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Far from me to defend Musk, but the article committed an alarming number of logical mistakes. (It’s got a good dose of snark, though, so it “felt” Jalopnik before I saw the link address.) Musk’s personality has fuck-all to do with “why NACS” and more with business sense. Why would Tesla retrofit all of their chargers (at their great expense) for the eventuality that some CCS EVs may stop to charge here and there. Is it not the auto manufacturers who should have the incentive to _gain_ access to Tesla’s resource? In other words, “feel free to use my network, just bring your own device”. Your call if that device is an adapter, or built into the car.

It’s not about control. Just like Twitter throttling, it’s about business. I can’t stand unwarranted whataboutism.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[snstevens]

Far from me to defend Musk, but the article committed an alarming number of logical mistakes. (It’s got a good dose of snark, though, so it “felt” Jalopnik before I saw the link address.) Musk’s personality has fuck-all to do with “why NACS” and more with business sense. Why would Tesla retrofit all of their chargers (at their great expense) for the eventuality that some CCS EVs may stop to charge here and there. Is it not the auto manufacturers who should have the incentive to _gain_ access to Tesla’s resource? In other words, “feel free to use my network, just bring your own device”. Your call if that device is an adapter, or built into the car.

It’s not about control. Just like Twitter throttling, it’s about business. I can’t stand unwarranted whataboutism.

Thanks for sharing.

I agree with all your points.

And let's not omit the fact that the Jalopnik author probably has never used a CCS connector and is totally unaware of how awful it is, and how easy to break.

Once we standardize on NACS in North America, all energy providers (Blink, EVGo, ChargePoint, Tesla, EA, etc.) will at least be using a more reliable plug that is much easier to attach to the car. They are all probably thrilled about this forecasted change, even though there are costs on the horizon. Hopefully the Infrastructure Bill will provide funds to support the plug-type changeover.

 

[tchavei]

Excerpts:
However, as tantalizing as the technical specs of the NACS plug are, they aren’t all that relevant to the conversation. It’s the thing that the NACS plugs are attached to – the Tesla Supercharging network. After a difficult start to the EV infrastructure roll-out, everybody wants to get their hands on that thing.

But the Supercharging network is so damn good not because of the plug, but because Tesla has long understood that a reliable charging network is crucial to its survival. The company makes conveniently located, reliable chargers a priority. Just check out Europe; the EU low-key forced Tesla to switch to the CCS2 plug, and the European supercharger network still has the same excellent reputation.

Yet, unlike the EU where Tesla Superchargers are increasingly open to any EV that can DC fast charge, the North American Tesla Supercharging network has been open only to Tesla.

For many, it seems like this is a win for EVs; Tesla has more than 12,000 DC fast charging stalls in the United States and Canada. It should be a win.

Yet, the win feels hollow. Instead of the Tesla Supercharging network being opened to all EV models, just like in Europe, it seems like access to the Supercharging deal is predicated on switching to NACS. Every single EV manufacturer that has announced access to the Tesla Supercharging network, has also announced it is switching to NACS. Polestar’s NACS announcement appears to acknowledge this; it straight-up says in its PR release title that it switched to NACS to gain access to the Supercharging network.

The switch to NACS wouldn’t be such a big deal if Tesla and all of the other OEMs didn’t prove when they made the deals that there was no technical reason why they couldn’t have been using the Supercharger network all along. The deal is backward compatible for currently existing EVs with those brands, using an all-new, never-before-seen Supercharger to CCS adapter. That means that a 2017 Chevy Bolt could use the Supercharging network with no modifications, aside from an adapter.

Why? Well in part, it’s because Tesla vehicles actually adopted the CCS communication protocol back in 2019 or so. That’s why many modern Tesla cars can DC fast charge at CCS stations via an adapter. Clearly, the charging stations and cars all have the ability to talk to each other, nothing’s holding anything back, aside from the plug shape, which can quickly be rectified with an adapter. Why are we playing these stupid games? This is clearly not about the plug, is it?

Instead of democratizing the technology and letting any paying customer use it, we got weirdo backdoor deals that aren’t really expanding the charging infrastructure but only making a closed, private EV charging infrastructure a little more inclusive for the brands that opt-in. And worse still, opting in means forming a contract with a brand that is run by someone who doesn’t honor contracts, and seems to have contempt for anyone who asks questions he doesn’t like.

My biggest fear is that any of the CEOs that have made deals with Tesla will cross Musk in some way that he deems unacceptable. Perhaps they’ll have concerns with charging speed or quality of service, (Lucid and Hyundai/Kia EVs have reportedly had speed issues using V3 Superchargers), or maybe they’ll want something more out of the still-undefined V2L capability of NACS. Then the deal will unwind, and the non-Tesla clientele will find themselves unable to use the Superchargers they thought they were entitled to. That would be a failure that I don’t think even the most devout EV enthusiast could overlook.
https://jalopnik.com/why-an-elon-musk-controlled-charging-network-imperils-t-1850615019

He also didn't realise CSS (USA) and CSS2 (EU) aren't the same being the crucial difference that CSS2 has no moving parts on the plug. It's solely the car that locks the plug in place. I believe most frustrations from USA users comes from broken stalls of which a big percentage is probably nothing more, nothing less then a broken plug perhaps?

 

[daveo4EV]

He also didn't realise CSS (USA) and CSS2 (EU) aren't the same being the crucial difference that CSS2 has no moving parts on the plug. It's solely the car that locks the plug in place. I believe most frustrations from USA users comes from broken stalls of which a big percentage is probably nothing more, nothing less then a broken plug perhaps?

yes - the CCS1 cord/connector design is inferior to the CCS2 physical design - CCS1 lacks robustness and ergonomics - it's prone to breakage and hard to handle (leading to it being dropped) and difficult to insert - NACS is smaller, more robust, and ergonomically superior to CCS1 - it's a better design - the article correctly asserts that CCS however is the charging protocol being run across the cord/connector - so swapping the plug's physical design is pretty straight forward…if you can get the vendors on board.

from my read and bias the article lacks a compelling argument and I'm not sure what it's goal is. Other than fear Elon (they are not wrong) but once NACS is in other vehicle's he's effectively lost control and they did open up the NACS physical design…so I'm not sure what the down side is to a better design EV charging plug that breaks less often and easier to handle.

 

[thecoloradokid]

I dream of the day the that Twitter implodes into nothingness and the Cyber truck turns out to be a monumental failure turning into a financial albatross for Tesla. Then, in order to bail out Elon Musk, Tesla is forced to sell off the charging network.

That is my dream. The less the EV industry is dependent on Musk the better. The visionary Elon Musk from 2012 or 2015 has long since disappeared, which is a shame.

 

[Tooney]

I think the article's main points are clear and make a lot of sense:
--the so-called "NACS standardization" is overwhelmingly individual company deals for the purpose of getting non-Tesla brands access to Tesla's charging network.
--having your brand's charging access dependent on a deal with Tesla - your major EV industry competitor - is risky.

This isn't about a plug, it's about Tesla charger access. "NACS plug standardization" is going to be anything/everything that gets your car brands access to Tesla DC chargers.

It's too soon to know the wisdom of the decisions by Ford and other manufacturers to make deals that put their competitor Tesla in control of most of their brand's DC charging infrastructure.

Henry Ford's success with the Model T resulted in 50% of the automobiles in the world being Fords in the 1920s. Who knows what Ford could have achieved if it had also built and owned 75% of the gas stations at the same time.

 

[Slappy_G]

The article makes another huge mistake. It mentions that Teslas can speak CCS protocol but it in no way shows any proof that 99% of Tesla Superchargers can/do speak CCS protocol. Other than the magic dock ones, which are literally a drop in the bucket, there is no way to prove that the supercharger network is not going to need some significant updates to make it 100% CCS compatible.

 

[porsche_coyote]

While I don't love the idea that Musk could be the gatekeeper to North American EV charging, I also am not going to stay up late worrying about it.

Electrify America has already announced that they will be adding NACS connectors to future chargers. EVGo was already doing it, albeit at small scale.

As long as the NACS connector can live on another charge network, it basically obviates the core argument in the article.

In the meantime, I *am* concerned that NACS doesn't have a very clear story for 1000V chargers. The Tesla fans insist that it will be coming with the V4 superchargers (we'll see), and I've heard that NACS does support higher-voltage charging in theory, but I suspect that there is some technical wrangling going on behind the scenes.

It's telling that Hyundai/Kia haven't announced NACS support. Porsche is less surprising to me. Lucid not announcing is utterly unsurprising given Peter Rawlinson's enmity for Musk (which I suspect is mutual). But regardless of the motivations, it means that 100% of the automakers who currently rely on charging at >400V are on the sidelines with NACS, and I doubt that's a coincidence.

 

[porsche_coyote]

yes - the CCS1 cord/connector design is inferior to the CCS2 physical design - CCS1 lacks robustness and ergonomics - it's prone to breakage and hard to handle (leading to it being dropped) and difficult to insert - NACS is smaller, more robust, and ergonomically superior to CCS1 - it's a better design - the article correctly asserts that CCS however is the charging protocol being run across the cord/connector - so swapping the plug's physical design is pretty straight forward…if you can get the vendors on board.

from my read and bias the article lacks a compelling argument and I'm not sure what it's goal is. Other than fear Elon (they are not wrong) but once NACS is in other vehicle's he's effectively lost control and they did open up the NACS physical design…so I'm not sure what the down side is to a better design EV charging plug that breaks less often and easier to handle.

Amen. I'm deeply suspicious of Musk, but I also have to concede that the NACS connector is a far more elegant solution than the ridiculous 'connector by committee' that we have with CCS1. The more important thing for long-term interoperability is the underlying protocol, and it seems as though CCS has won the battle there.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

“This isn't about a plug, it's about Tesla charger access. "NACS plug standardization" is going to be anything/everything that gets your car brands access to Tesla DC chargers.”

@Tooney the article asserted that the plug enforcement was a way to achieve a dependency on the Tesla network, and thus that it is about control. It’s not - it is, in the terms of your example, as if Ford already owned 75% of America’s gas stations in addition to making 50% of its cars, and telling competitors “you can use my gas if you have an adaptor”.

the point you were alluding to is that Tesla could revoke access to (modern day) Fords, Volvos etc. at any time, adapter or not. I imagine this was the subject of contract stipulations before, you know, someone commits to a design change in their future vehicles. Further, the moment Tesla revoked access to a competitor’s vehicles, the DoJ will file the antitrust case they have been dreaming about.

Really, the article says, in one sentence, that “if Twitter throttled its users, Tesla chargers can do the same”.

 

[Tooney]

My opinion - and it's only opinion - is that what Ford and the other manufacturers want is contracted access to the Tesla DC charging network for their brands.

Labeling this as "Adopting the NACS plug/receptacle standard" is much better PR than "we cut a deal for Tesla charging and we are installing Tesla-compliant hardware to do it".

Tesla controls access and performance of its network. "Control" is a lot more than granting or denying access. Control includes pricing, use of customer info, charging experience, design changes, technical compatibility, etc.

Ford, and the others, are yielding control of DC charging to a network provider that happens to be a direct competitor.

But hey, let's call it: adopting the best plug standard. Uh huh.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

My opinion - and it's only opinion - is that what Ford and the other manufacturers want is contracted access to the Tesla DC charging network for their brands.

Labeling this as "Adopting the NACS plug/receptacle standard" is much better PR than "we cut a deal for Tesla charging and we are installing Tesla-compliant hardware to do it".

Tesla controls access and performance of its network. "Control" is a lot more than granting or denying access. Control includes pricing, use of customer info, charging experience, design changes, technical compatibility, etc.

Ford, and the others, are yielding control of DC charging to a network provider that happens to be a direct competitor.

But hey, let's call it: adopting the best plug standard. Uh huh.

I have a deep respect for your contributions to the forum, and so for you as the person behind your informative, helpful and factual posts. I am sorry for having made a different impression with my replies on this topic.

I am, at the same time, more than a bit wary of media articles that portray an inaccurate image of the EV state-of-affairs. Having been “on the outside”, having read those articles is what kept me on the outside - any skepticism borne out of lack of information was amplified by tendentious (in hindsight) pieces.

Having taken the plunge, I find, as all the others before have been saying - “it’s fine, EVing is easy”. It is fine, as you no doubt have discovered yourself, and so I try and do what I can to dispel that uninformed (or misleading) tendency of those outlets (Jalopnik). We have a huge silent readership here, and many are on the fence.

Lastly, you may recall my despondent reaction when the first Tesla network agreement was signed. I saw nothing short of an implosion of EA, mass transition to Tesla, and my car being rendered a dead-end - functional until the end of its lifetime, but with 0 resale value.

I am aware what “control” means in this context, and how Tesla could misbehave. But it is, sorry, naive to assume that these agreements lack an ironclad legal base - in addition to all parties having financial incentives to behave as well as possible. Tesla stands to gain new (charging, possibly even vehicle) customers who are paying, as well as a big slice of the IRA money. The competitors gain by eliminating a sales blocker. And as I said previously, Tesla playing shenanigans with access (including pricing or user data) would expose them to the frightful prospect of “US DoJ representing auto industry vs Tesla” court case.

I don’t think the article came from anything other than “look what Musk could do”, sprinkled with some facts. And so I had to present my counterpoint - “rubbish”. (I had to choose from a range of words, from “speculation” to something far worse.)

Sponsored