3 ms·

Their agreements with Tesla are not public, so it's hard to tell what the benefits are. You say "everyone" is switching, but it's only American companies that h

Their agreements with Tesla are not public, so it's hard to tell what the benefits are. You say "everyone" is switching, but it's only American companies that have pledged to switch to NACS from CCS (so far), I don't think 3 for 3 is a coincidence. Also unlikely to be coincidental is the fact that Tesla "opened up" its charging patents/specs to competitors [1] in 2014 - but only signed its first partner in 2023, a few months after billions of federal dollars were made available for interoperable charging networks. 1. IIRC, they included a mutual non-aggression clause for patents, and if a 100-year-old company with plenty of patents like Ford, you may balk at that. I'm speculating that Tesla has been offering much more generous terms than the 2014 offer

iknowstuff 3y ago
Those 4 represent like 80-90% of EVs in the US
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Those 4 represent like 80-90% of EVs in the US I don't doubt they'd like it to remain that way. Starving CCS charging networks of federal dollars that are be relied upon by Japanese, German and Korean manufacturers would be a win for US manufacturers; expanding a Tesla-moat into a US-manufacturer moat. Tesla gets federal dollars, control the standard and keeps its hungriest competitors at bay who most threaten its margins; Ford, GM and Rivian get access to a large network and protection from foreign competition by being invited into the fort. Cartel-like behaviour is notoriously self-emergent. Insidiously, this arrangement might even get the US government to look the other way if it is American car companies vs. everyone else despite the original assumption being that CCS networks would get most/all of the federal funds.
  - iknowstuff 3y ago
    First of all, as is, the legislation requires CCS1. If that changes, nothing is stoping foreign CCS networks from adding NACS connectors.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      The law does not require CCS, only interoperability. From https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03... > Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure. The requirements relating to interoperability similarly address less visible standardization along the national EV charging network. The FHWA is working to establish a seamless national network of EV charging infrastructure that can communicate and operate on the same software platforms from one State to another. The FHWA establishes interoperability requirements through this final rule for charger-to-EV communication, charger-to-charger network communication, and charging network-to-charging network communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge.
simondotau 3y ago
The major benefit to Tesla here is that it pushes most of the costs of unifying the continent on a single standard upon third party charging networks. Ford and GM have minimal exposure to that, so they don't care, and it saves Tesla a lot of future heartache. And it's a sensible move if you care about e-waste, given that there are far more NACS vehicles and NACS charging stalls in than CCS1 vehicles and CCS1 charging stalls. (And that contrast becomes even more extreme if you assume that the thousands of unreliable CCS1 stalls would be getting scrapped anyway.) Meanwhile Nissan and Mitsubishi are still selling brand new cars with CHAdeMO plugs. So much for it being a universal standard.

iknowstuff 3y ago

Those 4 represent like 80-90% of EVs in the US

sangnoir 3y ago
> Those 4 represent like 80-90% of EVs in the US I don't doubt they'd like it to remain that way. Starving CCS charging networks of federal dollars that are be relied upon by Japanese, German and Korean manufacturers would be a win for US manufacturers; expanding a Tesla-moat into a US-manufacturer moat. Tesla gets federal dollars, control the standard and keeps its hungriest competitors at bay who most threaten its margins; Ford, GM and Rivian get access to a large network and protection from foreign competition by being invited into the fort. Cartel-like behaviour is notoriously self-emergent. Insidiously, this arrangement might even get the US government to look the other way if it is American car companies vs. everyone else despite the original assumption being that CCS networks would get most/all of the federal funds.
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  First of all, as is, the legislation requires CCS1. If that changes, nothing is stoping foreign CCS networks from adding NACS connectors.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    The law does not require CCS, only interoperability. From https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03... > Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure. The requirements relating to interoperability similarly address less visible standardization along the national EV charging network. The FHWA is working to establish a seamless national network of EV charging infrastructure that can communicate and operate on the same software platforms from one State to another. The FHWA establishes interoperability requirements through this final rule for charger-to-EV communication, charger-to-charger network communication, and charging network-to-charging network communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge.

simondotau 3y ago

The major benefit to Tesla here is that it pushes most of the costs of unifying the continent on a single standard upon third party charging networks. Ford and GM have minimal exposure to that, so they don't care, and it saves Tesla a lot of future heartache. And it's a sensible move if you care about e-waste, given that there are far more NACS vehicles and NACS charging stalls in than CCS1 vehicles and CCS1 charging stalls. (And that contrast becomes even more extreme if you assume that the thousands of unreliable CCS1 stalls would be getting scrapped anyway.) Meanwhile Nissan and Mitsubishi are still selling brand new cars with CHAdeMO plugs. So much for it being a universal standard.