7 Major Automakers Band Together to build their own Network.

Interesting.

BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, KIA, GM*, Honda and Stellantis will be building their own charging network (Non-Tesla branded), but will be using NACS, along side CCS which I think they'll eventually phase out?

If so this may indirectly confirm that the Big 7 will be adopting the NACS? (*GM already did as we know), but instead of using Tesla SCs they'll be just building their own "stations" which is smart from a business perspective so good on them. They obviously know that there is a huge piece of the pie up for grabs in an untapped free market.

It keeps Tesla from monopolizing (giving consumers more options), which is a positive thing. After all if it's NACS that's a win win.

The Big 7 plan to build 30,000 charging stations with the focus of making them more like a gas stations with the option to purchase food and snacks etc. Going into it with this intent out of the gate is much better than what Tesla did in just putting up chargers where they could without these amenities.

The new network from the Big 7 can charge all EVs so essentially this isn't necessary a bad thing for Tesla owners.

What do you guys think about this? I was curious why things were so quiet with the Big 7, while Ford and some others were quick to throw in the white flag submitting to the Tesla throne. I get it now...

Simply put, if Tesla was the Chevron, we'll now be getting a Shell, all of which we can utilize so it's just another option (network) to accommodate the future of EVs, except now it'll come with the convenience of having restrooms, food, snacks, and drinks like the old dyno juice stations.

 

[MP3Mike]

I haven't followed any of it that closely, but thought there were many billions from the fed available for public charging infrastructure... I assumed magic dock would allow Tesla to reap a lot of that money.

There is ~$3.5B of money as part of the NEVI program, but it comes with a lot of requirements attached to it. Adding MagicDock alone doesn't make V3 Superchargers meet the NEVI requirements. I don't know if Tesla applied for any of the Ohio NEVI funds, but they didn't get any. I know that Tesla didn't apply for any of the Oregon portion of the NEVI funds.

My guess is that Tesla doesn't want to meet all of the NEVI requirements, so they won't even bother applying for it. But even if they did, there is no guarantee they would get any. There is a lot of competition for this money. As an example, Oregon is granting just three contracts for the first year of funding, but 50 companies have applied for it. So the odds aren't good for getting the money. (Tesla could probably underbid a lot of the companies and get some if they wanted to, but then they would have to meet all of the NEVI requirements, as well as any requirements the states adds on.)

And again, there is only ~17k DC fast chargers worth of funding in the NEVI program over the 5 years. This consortium wants to install ~30k DC fast chargers, so almost double, the available funding. I think Tesla is planning to install ~15k over the next year, and they will probably keep going in the following years. And there are lots of other companies building networks; EA, EVgo, FLO, Pilot, TravelCenters of America, Rivian, ChargePoint, Love's, etc.

 

[Rocky_H]

Like I said the credits mattered to me and I doubt I'm the only one

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. That income tax credit is for you and is meaningful for you. Tesla doesn't get that money. If they didn't sell that car to you, then would have just sold it to someone else who may or may not file for something on their income tax credit. It doesn't make any monetary difference to Tesla.

I still estimate Tesla has received 5B through state and federal incentives..

LOL I am going to make a very confident guess that you did not actually estimate that. It is way too coincidental to the $4.9 billion number that is from that thoroughly debunked propaganda piece from the Los Angeles Times many years ago. It has several (intentional) mistakes in its data. It is counting people's personal income tax credits, like you are doing, as the major problem.

The other problem is that they are finger pointing at Tesla for something that is not in any way unique to them. Whenever Wal-Mart or Amazon or Boeing or any other big company is going to build a new factory or warehouse facility, the bidding wars begin from lots of states who desperately want all of those new jobs in their state. So tax incentive packages start getting offered to try to attract those companies into a particular state.

So there are two issues with that in the article. Firstly, it's trying to falsely single out as if Tesla is some golden child getting a windfall, but this is common practice with all big businesses building new facilities. Secondly, the states benefit greatly from the economic growth of the large number of new development, commerce, retail, extra taxpayers, etc. etc. So they offer the smaller tax packages to try to earn that much bigger development benefits for their state. The word "subsidizing" has the connotation of just giving away money while receiving nothing, while these state situations are the opposite of that. That word is being misapplied to this to make people angry about it.

 

[Lloyd]

Isn't Tesla also heavily subsidized by the government?

Tesla is the only company that paid back their government loans EARLY! The other automakers are slow walking their loans. So yes they get subsidies and incentives to build new facilities, but so do the others when they are expanding.

 

[father_of_6]

That income tax credit is for you and is meaningful for you. Tesla doesn't get that money.

And let's not forget that those same tax credits are available to *all* manufacturers... it's not Tesla specific.

 

[tivoboy]

Tesla is the only company that paid back their government loans EARLY! The other automakers are slow walking their loans. So yes they get subsidies and incentives to build new facilities, but so do the others when they are expanding.

I’m not sure what ONLY or EARLY means here, but Ford (who in 2009 didn’t NEED or want to take the loan) paid off their ~ 6B loan prior to the original due dates for final payments. Certainly not as “early” as Tesla did, but certainly not late or just on time.

They now have a NEW loan for $9B, for battery plant build-out, I’m not sure the terms or time frame are for that one.

I’ll quick update my post here to note that Nissan NA also repaid their 2009 loan either on time or prior to the original payment plan structure.

 

[KzooMYP]

What are the chances that NEVI requirements get changed? NEVI requirements are well intentioned, but it could easily be argued that the requirements were wrote with the best information they had at the time. It seems really counterproductive to have NEVI requirements that don’t reflect the direction of the automotive industry.

I ask myself how long does everyone have to pretend CCS has a future, because it seems NEVI requirement should now outline how to transition away from CCS, rather than mandate its usage.

 

[Rocky_H]

but Ford (who in 2009 didn’t NEED or want to take the loan) paid off their ~ 6B loan prior to the original due dates for final payments. Certainly not as “early” as Tesla did, but certainly not late or just on time.

I think that would have been big news to a lot of people if Ford had paid that back at all. Do you have a link to a source for that?

 

[henderrj]

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the benefit of having 7 different companies involved. Is it just funding? The IRA seems to already provide that. Tesla isn't cash-flow restricted for building out superchargers.

Does anyone see a benefit to having all these companies involved? Otherwise, I'm with @KJD... too many cooks in the kitchen. Perhaps their involvement is financial only, and one of them will just hire a team of people to get the job done.

It may not have anything to do with money directly, but rather perception. If people perceive that all these companies use this connector, they might stop calling it the Tesla connector. That may be all these companies are trying to avoid - looking like they are just vassals of the Tesla empire.

 

[father_of_6]

It may not have anything to do with money directly, but rather perception. If people perceive that all these companies use this connector, they might stop calling it the Tesla connector. That may be all these companies are trying to avoid - looking like they are just vassals of the Tesla empire.

That's an interesting perspective, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[tivoboy]

I think that would have been big news to a lot of people if Ford had paid that back at all. Do you have a link to a source for that?

Lemme google that for you.

Here’s an update straight from the source:

FORD

By upgrading 13 facilities across 6 states, Ford was able to meet consumer demand for better fuel efficiency in more than a dozen popular vehicles.

www.energy.gov

 

[MP3Mike]

What are the chances that NEVI requirements get changed? NEVI requirements are well intentioned, but it could easily be argued that the requirements were wrote with the best information they had at the time. It seems really counterproductive to have NEVI requirements that don’t reflect the direction of the automotive industry.

I ask myself how long does everyone have to pretend CCS has a future, because it seems NEVI requirement should now outline how to transition away from CCS, rather than mandate its usage.

I think it is unlikely that the NEVI requirements will be changed. States can add requirements on top, like some states have signaled that they want to require NACS to be paired with CCS.

• There are still a lot of automakers that haven't committed to changing to NACS: VW group, Hyundia/Kia, BMW, Stelantis group, etc.
• The NEVI program is only 5 years, and we are already into year 2. (Even though the year 1 money has only barely started to be granted.)
• CCS cars will still be made for at least two more years, even for the automakers that have committed to NACS. That puts you well into the 4th year of NEVI funding.

So, sadly, I think it still makes sense to install CCS connectors at this point. I'm sure that by at least year 3 most states will likely require NACS in addition to CCS.

In the end everybody will have adapters, so it shouldn't really matter too much.

 

[Rocky_H]

Here’s an update straight from the source:

Huh, that's interesting--June 2022. Ford has such a huge amount of debt I didn't think they would pay that back.

 

[KzooMYP]

The North American automotive brands (Tesla, Rivian, Ford, GM) have all moved to NACS. Stellantis is a foreign entity, although I recognize the history that Chrysler and Dodge have, when their headquarters were in North America.

Adapters are going to be inevitable. Tesla owners might be the first to be able to ditch their adapters, but that viewpoint aside; i’m not sure what the long term plan is for these CCS chargers. What will they be in 10 years, ya know?

I think it is unlikely that the NEVI requirements will be changed. States can add requirements on top, like some states have signaled that they want to require NACS to be paired with CCS.

• There are still a lot of automakers that haven't committed to changing to NACS: VW group, Hyundia/Kia, BMW, Stelantis group, etc.
• The NEVI program is only 5 years, and we are already into year 2. (Even though the year 1 money has only barely started to be granted.)
• CCS cars will still be made for at least two more years, even for the automakers that have committed to NACS. That puts you well into the 4th year of NEVI funding.

So, sadly, I think it still makes sense to install CCS connectors at this point. I'm sure that by at least year 3 most states will likely require NACS in addition to CCS.

In the end everybody will have adapters, so it shouldn't really matter too much.

 

[MP3Mike]

i’m not sure what the long term plan is for these CCS chargers. What will they be in 10 years, ya know?

Long term doesn't really matter. The cables wear out and have to be replaced all the time, and for the most part they can just take off a worn out/failed CCS cable and put a NACS cable in its place. (Same protocol is spoken so they likely wouldn't need to make any software/firmware/hardware changes.) So, the charging operators will put on the cables that are needed at that point in time.

 

[Mardak]

The NEVI program is only 5 years, and we are already into year 2

The final NEVI regulation seems to require 5 years of long-term stewardship ensuring the CCS ports remain operational, so it seems like this particular network relying on federal funding will keep CCS around past 2030. Indeed, it's unclear if they'll proactively remove CCS once allowed to or practically stop maintaining the CCS cables, which maybe will see relatively little use anyway and last much longer.

In some sense, anyone building out with NEVI could budget the federal funding as more than enough to build out relatively unused CCS cables with prepayment to maintain and eventually remove, and the remainder of the money is still useful to help cover the costs of building out more useful infrastructure.

 

[MP3Mike]

In some sense, anyone building out with NEVI could budget the federal funding as more than enough to build out relatively unused CCS cables with prepayment to maintain and eventually remove, and the remainder of the money is still useful to help cover the costs of building out more useful infrastructure.

I think you are over-estimating how much money is available, and under-estimating how expensive it is install DC fast chargers. And, also, how cut-throat the bidding is. The NEVI money can only be spent on the contracted sites, you can't keep some for other uses. NEVI, also, requires 20% of the cost of the site has to come from somewhere else. (The charging provider putting in their own money, state incentives, etc.) In Ohio the average matching money was 25%, 5% more than required, and one bidder had more like 70% match with only getting ~30% of the funds from NEVI. (Putting more money in yourself increases your chances of getting a NEVI contract, at least how most states run the contract bidding process.)

 

[Mardak]

The NEVI money can only be spent on the contracted sites

Yes, I was referring to the "remainder of the money" as building out the NEVI sites with NACS -- assuming that's actually what networks want to deploy. As you suggested, because NACS and CCS share the same protocol, potentially it's "just" the addition of the CCS cable (and related internal wiring, etc.) relative to building out a "pure NACS" station.

 

[gt2690b]

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. That income tax credit is for you and is meaningful for you. Tesla doesn't get that money. If they didn't sell that car to you, then would have just sold it to someone else who may or may not file for something on their income tax credit. It doesn't make any monetary difference to Tesla.

LOL I am going to make a very confident guess that you did not actually estimate that. It is way too coincidental to the $4.9 billion number that is from that thoroughly debunked propaganda piece from the Los Angeles Times many years ago. It has several (intentional) mistakes in its data. It is counting people's personal income tax credits, like you are doing, as the major problem.

The other problem is that they are finger pointing at Tesla for something that is not in any way unique to them. Whenever Wal-Mart or Amazon or Boeing or any other big company is going to build a new factory or warehouse facility, the bidding wars begin from lots of states who desperately want all of those new jobs in their state. So tax incentive packages start getting offered to try to attract those companies into a particular state.

So there are two issues with that in the article. Firstly, it's trying to falsely single out as if Tesla is some golden child getting a windfall, but this is common practice with all big businesses building new facilities. Secondly, the states benefit greatly from the economic growth of the large number of new development, commerce, retail, extra taxpayers, etc. etc. So they offer the smaller tax packages to try to earn that much bigger development benefits for their state. The word "subsidizing" has the connotation of just giving away money while receiving nothing, while these state situations are the opposite of that. That word is being misapplied to this to make people angry about it.

I took the federal money and gave it directly to Tesla.. Tesla definitely stands to gain from its customers getting rebates

My initial total SWAG was 1M cars at $7500 each so 7.5Bish ... yes other makers are getting the rebates too but as others have pointed out Tesla is selling the most..

I'm not against the rebate or Tesla getting positive windfall from the government it would be bad business to not play by the rules the feds have setup but I don't propagate a holier than though attitude to non-EVers or non Tesla folks out there they already hate Elon enough.

 

[Rocky_H]

I took the federal money and gave it directly to Tesla.. Tesla definitely stands to gain from its customers getting rebates

Uh, no. Tesla got retail price from selling a car. They will never see a difference whether it was to you, who filed for an income tax credit, or someone else who didn't.

yes other makers are getting the rebates too

CUSTOMERS are getting the rebates, not the car makers.

 

[gt2690b]

Uh, no. Tesla got retail price from selling a car. They will never see a difference whether it was to you, who filed for an income tax credit, or someone else who didn't.

CUSTOMERS are getting the rebates, not the car makers.

The federal government paid part of the retail price for me.. and for thousands and thousands of others

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/09-20-12-electricvehicles0.pdf

its literally the same money.. Tesla got the money through me .. the majority of people that bought teslas are eligible for the tax credit so its safe to say the next person would have also given the federal money to tesla