Are any of the new V4’s in North America CCS1 compatible?

[MP3Mike]

I take that to mean while the 4 ports are in use (for example when there are 4 cars in use it can't for example drop one car below 150kW). As you interpret it (that it applies even to the 4+ car), it makes for a worse station design and doesn't make sense (I expect operators to fight it). Like if there is a 600kW installation, forcing the station to only have 4 stalls makes for a much worse station with poor utilization of the resources.

I actually think requiring a minimum of 150kW of power available per stall is very reasonable. (Maybe it could be a little lower ~125kW?) This is especially true as vehicles start to have larger batteries and are capable of faster charging. (Think trucks.) What I don't agree with is what Ionity does in Europe, where they always dedicate a full 350kW to every stall, that is a poor utilization of resources.

Tesla V3 sites are normally around 90kW per stall, though there appears to be newer cabinets that can take that up to about 100kW. (Though like in the example Branden Flasch showed, the utility is the limiting factoring by only having a ~1000kW transformer for 12 stalls, so ~83kW per stall, the next V3 site he showed has a ~1,500 kW transformer for 12 DC stalls and 2 AC stalls, so they are at the V3 hardware limit of ~88kW per stall with room for expansion.) It works for Tesla because of their control over everything, and the vehicles they currently make. It won't work forever though, which is likely why there will be a V4 design that probably has a higher site power requirement per stall.

I doubt we will see many, if any, NEVI installs with more than 4 stalls for a long time. It is going to take Orgeon ~4 years to get the one NEVI site per 50 miles, with their "Oregon Quad Pod" spec, on the initial highways identified to be covered, as the program intends. (And that is taking the already installed sites that are NEVI compliant into account.) Arizona has said that they plan to use the first year to upgrade existing sites to be NEVI compliant before they start funding additional sites in the state.

 

[RTPEV]

Although remember that the V3 Supercharger limit is not necessarily imposed by the grid transformer. On-site storage and solar can be used to supplement the power at a given site.

Ideally the requirements should have been written to account for load sharing using reasonable statistical assumptions about stall utilization and state of charge, but of course that's getting way into the weeds for policy makers.

I would also like to see service level (uptime) requirements, and put an end to (or at least minimize) sites with multiple power level stations. I know this can't be avoided in some cases, and we're already well past this point now, but having 350kW chargers alongside 100 or 150kW chargers is really going to be a disaster.

 

[MP3Mike]

Although remember that the V3 Supercharger limit is not necessarily imposed by the grid transformer. On-site storage and solar can be used to supplement the power at a given site.

True, but there are currently very few V3 sites with solar and/or battery storage. (In the examples I provided the sites are grid transformer, or cabinet AC input limited.) Adding battery storage greatly increases the cost of a station install. (Maybe 9x with the current prices of the Tesla Megapacks. A typical Tesla V3 site I think costs ~$300k, while a single Megapack installed costs ~$2.6M, if you figure Tesla makes a 50% GM, that still puts the cost at ~$1.3M or ~4x the cost of a non-storage V3 site. They really need smaller storage options available to supplement the grid, and then work to sell grid services as well.)

I would also like to see service level (uptime) requirements,

The NEVI guidelines have requirements:

Achieve a high-level of reliability (>97 percent at the individual station level)

Though I'm not sure what the enforcement would be for failing that.

I know this can't be avoided in some cases, and we're already well past this point now, but having 350kW chargers alongside 100 or 150kW chargers is really going to be a disaster.

Yeah, and Oregon requires a minimum of 3) 150kW and 1) 350kW ensuring there will be a mix. I think all stalls should be 350kW capable, with shared power across the whole site. So you could still have the 600kW to share across the 4 stalls, but you don't end up with a Bolt charging forever at 50kW on the 350kW stall while a Rivian/Lucid/Kia/etc. come in and are forced to use a 150kW stall when there is plenty of site power available. I think EA is moving more to this mind set with their "next gen" chargers using "Balanced Power", i.e. sharing 350kW between two stalls, where before I think they dedicated 350kW to a given stall with the prior generation of chargers. So for them they would really need 700kW available at a 4 stall site, since they don't share power between more than 2 stalls.

 

[RTPEV]

True, but there are currently very few V3 sites with solar and/or battery storage. (In the examples I provided the sites are grid transformer, or cabinet AC input limited.) Adding battery storage greatly increases the cost of a station install. (Maybe 9x with the current prices of the Tesla Megapacks. A typical Tesla V3 site I think costs ~$300k, while a single Megapack installed costs ~$2.6M, if you figure Tesla makes a 50% GM, that still puts the cost at ~$1.3M or ~4x the cost of a non-storage V3 site. They really need smaller storage options available to supplement the grid, and then work to sell grid services as well.)

True, but that is the "temporal" equivalent of load sharing...no need to outfit a site with expensive storage until such time as it becomes an issue. But when it does, you have the ability to improve service (at a cost of course).

Similar to using load sharing at a site to handle peak loads as opposed to dedicated 350kW stalls across an entire site (which would be a waste of capacity), going with the assumption that in practice you won't have all cars simultaneously drawing max power, so would outfitting a new site with storage/solar from day one be wasteful, until usage warranted it (and perhaps costs reduced).

 

[stopcrazypp]

I actually think requiring a minimum of 150kW of power available per stall is very reasonable. (Maybe it could be a little lower ~125kW?) This is especially true as vehicles start to have larger batteries and are capable of faster charging. (Think trucks.) What I don't agree with is what Ionity does in Europe, where they always dedicate a full 350kW to every stall, that is a poor utilization of resources.

Tesla V3 sites are normally around 90kW per stall, though there appears to be newer cabinets that can take that up to about 100kW. (Though like in the example Branden Flasch showed, the utility is the limiting factoring by only having a ~1000kW transformer for 12 stalls, so ~83kW per stall, the next V3 site he showed has a ~1,500 kW transformer for 12 DC stalls and 2 AC stalls, so they are at the V3 hardware limit of ~88kW per stall with room for expansion.) It works for Tesla because of their control over everything, and the vehicles they currently make. It won't work forever though, which is likely why there will be a V4 design that probably has a higher site power requirement per stall.

I doubt we will see many, if any, NEVI installs with more than 4 stalls for a long time. It is going to take Orgeon ~4 years to get the one NEVI site per 50 miles, with their "Oregon Quad Pod" spec, on the initial highways identified to be covered, as the program intends. (And that is taking the already installed sites that are NEVI compliant into account.) Arizona has said that they plan to use the first year to upgrade existing sites to be NEVI compliant before they start funding additional sites in the state.

I just think it results in a very poor usage of resources either way. From your videos ~1MW (1000 kVA) transformers seems to be a very standard and common thing, and 150kW minimum for each stall means you can only install a max of 6 stalls. Instead, with the Tesla design they have 12 stalls. 12 stalls with the ability to power share is a much better station than 6 stalls, even though with a 150kW minimum for each stall it won't be NEVI compliant. Having trucks charging doesn't change this.

Even with a truck, I would much rather arrive at a 12 stall station and start charging at a slower speed (most likely it won't even be slower given people tend to arrive staggered), than wait for the 6 stalls. It also decreases the chance of a stall or two being down having a significant effect on wait time (I see this in the out of spec videos, the 4 stall EA stations have a huge wait time when one or two stalls are down).

 

[MP3Mike]

12 stalls with the ability to power share is a much better station than 6 stalls

Is it really though? It depends on the vehicle mix. So you can have 6 vehicles charging fast, or 12 cars charging slowly. The turn-over should be faster on a 6-stall install, as long as the vehicles are capable of charging quickly. If you have a bunch of Bolts, then the 12 stalls is way better. If you have a bunch of Rivians/Taycans/Lucids/EV6s/Ionic5s/Lightnings/etc. then the 6 stall would be just about as good. (Though I suppose some people would prefer to have their vehicle charge slowly while they go do other things, rather than having to wait for a stall to be available. But other people would rather get in and out as quickly as possible.)

Like I said I think that requiring 150kW per stall is a little overkill, but it is looking to the future. I think ~125kW per stall would be good, but maybe Tesla has it correct and that ~100kW per stall is currently optimal. But I suspect with V4 Supercharger Tesla will be raising that closer to/above 150kW to support larger battery vehicles like the Cybertruck/Roadster/etc. (They say the V4 cables are capable of 1MW+, but if the entire site is limited to 1MW what is the point? How often would only one vehicle be charging at a time to get that rate?)

It is like people keep insisting that V3 sites are dedicated 250kW per stall, because Tesla said the cabinets were capable of 1MW. But in reality at most V3 sites, which have 8 stalls, only 2 vehicles can charge at 250kW at the same time. At 12 stall V3 sites you can have 4 vehicles charge at 250kW, assuming the grid connection is capable, or there is battery storage onsite.

tl;dr: You have to draw a line somewhere, and 150kW is probably a good line to draw that will be good for at least a number of years. Would you really want a 10 stall site with only 600kW of power available? If you have enough demand for 10 stalls, then you likely need more than 600kW. (Unless the extra stalls are just for people to sit idle after they have charged.)

 

[moa999]

. I think all stalls should be 350kW capable, with shared power across the whole site.

You really only reach 350kW by supplying 800V.. so the question really becomes, how flexible are Tesla's V3 or V4 boxes in being able to switch between 400V (ie a Tesla and most other EVs) and 800V.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Is it really though? It depends on the vehicle mix. So you can have 6 vehicles charging fast, or 12 cars charging slowly. The turn-over should be faster on a 6-stall install, as long as the vehicles are capable of charging quickly. If you have a bunch of Bolts, then the 12 stalls is way better. If you have a bunch of Rivians/Taycans/Lucids/EV6s/Ionic5s/Lightnings/etc. then the 6 stall would be just about as good. (Though I suppose some people would prefer to have their vehicle charge slowly while they go do other things, rather than having to wait for a stall to be available. But other people would rather get in and out as quickly as possible.)

I'm talking about a scenario where you are limited by the 1MW power input, but the individual stalls can max at 150kW (or higher). I'm not talking about a station where each stall just splits power evenly in a dumb way (maxing at 75kW each). There is never a scenario that the 6 stall station is faster overall, because the station can only pump out 1MW. In the 6 stall case, you have to add in the time you wait for a stall (which you have to do regardless if you have a Bolt or a faster charging car).

If you have 6 cars (or less) arrive at the 12 stall station or the 6 stall station, both solutions work the same.

If you have 12 cars arrive, the 12 stall solution can split power in the 12 cars (which can optimize based on charge curve and order of arrival). If you have 12 cars arrive at a 6 stall station, you have 6 cars waiting (similar thing for other numbers in between). Essentially with the 12 stall solution, if you are car #7 to 12, you can be charging while you are waiting for more capacity to free up.

For an extreme example you can design a charging strategy like below for the 12 stall: allocate 6 stalls of power (150kW each) to the first 6 cars that arrive. This will make it function exactly like the 6 stall station. When cars start ramping down below 150kW, free up power for other stalls that arrive later (this is capacity that a 6 stall station can't take advantage of). In this case, the 6 stall station is never faster in how it serves cars. If you add in the extra time it takes for people to swap a space (instead of just pulling into an empty space in the 12 stall case), the 6 stall is even worse.

I'm not envisioning a scenario that the 6 stall station will ever be superior.

 

[wwu123]

Did you miss the next bit of gudiance?


So every NEVI funded port has to be able to supply 150kW at all times.

Does it? I'm just a passer-by on this thread, but it seems everyone who references this statement:

"Power sharing across ports should be permitted so long as it does not reduce the maximum output per port below 150 kW. For stations with ports above 150kW, States should support station design that facilitate power sharing across ports."

has figuratively or literally flipped the word "maximum" to mean minimum, which is the opposite. Why didn't they say "minimum" if that's what they meant? Maybe there's other context or references folks have, but if they really meant dedicated 150 Kw always, the entire document could have been much more clearly and succinctly. They could have just said:
a) each station much have at least 4 ports
b) four ports must be capable of minimum 150 kw at all times
and no need to mention power sharing at all, because however a station distributes power from its transformer would just be an implementation detail that can't violate these two simple requirements.

I'm also inclined to interpret "station" as an entire supercharging site, not a shared bank or cluster of charging ports.

By putting all that convoluted language throughout the document, and using "maximum" not "minimum", I feel they're suggesting something more nuanced. Though like folks here I'm not sure what....

 

[MP3Mike]

Does it? I'm just a passer-by on this thread, but it seems everyone who references this statement:

"Power sharing across ports should be permitted so long as it does not reduce the maximum output per port below 150 kW. For stations with ports above 150kW, States should support station design that facilitate power sharing across ports."

If the stall starts with a maximum of 350kW available to be requested, power sharing can't reduce the maximum available to be requested below 150kW. (The minimum output power would always be just over 0kW.)

has figuratively or literally flipped the word "maximum" to mean minimum, which is the opposite. Why didn't they say "minimum" if that's what they meant? Maybe there's other context or references folks have, but if they really meant dedicated 150 Kw always, the entire document could have been much more clearly and succinctly.

Let's flip that for you: "Power sharing across ports should be permitted so long as it does not reduce the minimum output per port below 150 kW."

So now you are saying that a car couldn't request 60kW if that is all it was capable of accepting, so it couldn't charge at all, because the stall isn't allowed to put out less than 150kW.

So I think what they said is fine. Though they could have added the word "available" to the output power to clarify.

 

[TunaBug]

<<snip>>
The NEVI guidelines have requirements:

Achieve a high-level of reliability (>97 percent at the individual station level)

Though I'm not sure what the enforcement would be for failing that.
<<snip>>

I also wonder how "at the individual station level" will be interpreted. Does that mean if only one port works that the station is working? Or does it mean that all NEVI station requirements must be met simultaneously (150kWh at four ports, credit card reader, display, etc)? Obviously the latter is what we want, although I expect there are corporate lawyers working through how to argue it says the former.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I also wonder how "at the individual station level" will be interpreted. Does that mean if only one port works that the station is working? Or does it mean that all NEVI station requirements must be met simultaneously (150kWh at four ports, credit card reader, display, etc)? Obviously the latter is what we want, although I expect there are corporate lawyers working through how to argue it says the former.

It currently is unspecified, but Tesla's comments to CA on implementation says that obviously some differentiation should be made for example if 1 or 2 stalls are down in a 4 stall station vs if 1 or 2 stalls are down in a 12 stall station.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=247434&DocumentContentId=81819

The former is a huge inconvenience, the latter doesn't really have much of an effect.

 

[bradtem]

Does it? I'm just a passer-by on this thread, but it seems everyone who references this statement:

"Power sharing across ports should be permitted so long as it does not reduce the maximum output per port below 150 kW. For stations with ports above 150kW, States should support station design that facilitate power sharing across ports."

What is your source for that text? I can't find it. If it does indeed say that the maximum output must not be below 150kW then we are all fussing over nothing, and every Tesla charger 150kw or more complies.

So can you point me to the precise regulations as written in the rules?

Now, even if it does require that 4 ports give 150KW at the same time when requested, you can still make a Tesla charger bank comply with that without that much change or problem, but it's a stupid design constraint that should be removed, but it could be worked with. "I'm from the government and I am here to help you by designing how your charger works."

 

[MP3Mike]

What is your source for that text? I can't find it. If it does indeed say that the maximum output must not be below 150kW then we are all fussing over nothing, and every Tesla charger 150kw or more complies.

So can you point me to the precise regulations as written in the rules?

It is all in this document: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/resources/ev_charging_min_std_rule_fr.pdf

It requires a minimum of 4 CCS Type 1 connectors and a 600kW grid feed. It has to provide a minimum of 150kW any time a vehicle asks for it. (They have reworded the maximum/minimum 150kW verbiage since it was confusing some people.)

Power Level
This final rule establishes a requirement that each DCFC located along and designed to serve users of designated AFCs must simultaneously deliver up to 150kW, as requested by the EV, and that each AC Level 2 port be capable of providing at least 6 kW per port simultaneously across all AC ports with an option to allow the customer to consent to accept a lower power level to allow power sharing or to participate in smart charge management programs. This final rule also clarifies that power sharing is permissible above the minimum 150 -kW per-port requirement for DCFCs.

Therefore, the requirement that each DCFC must simultaneously deliver up to 150 kW, as requested by an EV, was retained as a minimum requirement to provide a standard, reasonably high level of charging service for DCFCs.

Now, even if it does require that 4 ports give 150KW at the same time when requested, you can still make a Tesla charger bank comply with that without that much change or problem, but it's a stupid design constraint that should be removed, but it could be worked with. "I'm from the government and I am here to help you by designing how your charger works."

Well, I suppose they could easily by crippling the remaining Supercharger stalls. Take a typical 12 stall V3 design, that has a ~1000kW grid feed. They could designate 4 of them as NEVI stalls, each with 150kW, and the remaining 8 Supercharger stalls would only get ~50kW/each if the site was full. Not acceptable, and Tesla would never do that.

 

[RTPEV]

Was just going to provide a link to a separate source (Federal Register :: Request Access) but it's basically the same as what @MP3Mike posted, albeit in slightly easier to use web format:

§ 680.106 (d) Power level.
(1) Maximum power per DCFC charging port must be at or above 150 kilowatt (kW). Each charging station must be capable of providing at least 150 kW per charging port simultaneously across all charging ports. DCFC must supply power according to an EV's power delivery request up to 150 kW. DCFC may participate in smart charge management programs so long as each charging port continues to meet an Electric Vehicle's request for power up to 150 kW.

That seems relatively unambiguous to me.

 

[MP3Mike]

Was just going to provide a link to a separate source (Federal Register :: Request Access) but it's basically the same as what @MP3Mike posted, albeit in slightly easier to use web format:



That seems relatively unambiguous to me.

Yeah, that is the old version, prior to the changes they announced this week. There will probably be a new consolidate version available soon. (If it isn't already.)

One of the changes they made was to remove the "smart charge management programs" wording from that section, because again it was confusing people. (And wasn't really what they meant.)

Also, FHWA agrees that smart charge management is usually not appropriate for fast charging stations, so reference to it was removed from the DCFC power requirement in this final rule.

 

[moa999]

The 150kW requirement is interesting.. but maybe it should more be seen as future proofing..

While the average today is likely lower (particularly in non-Teslas) max charge rates and the curve will likely get higher as battery tech gets better.

 

[bradtem]

Well, I suppose they could easily by crippling the remaining Supercharger stalls. Take a typical 12 stall V3 design, that has a ~1000kW grid feed. They could designate 4 of them as NEVI stalls, each with 150kW, and the remaining 8 Supercharger stalls would only get ~50kW/each if the site was full. Not acceptable, and Tesla would never do that.

You don't have to cripple them. After all, is the 2nd port in a pair on a V2 supercharger crippled, or just a bit less useful? The reality is that it gives a slow charge rate if the car that got there before you is very empty and taking the full power, but within a modest amount of time, that car is no longer taking full power and you get a usable amount.

Now the first loophole I imagined was that you don't label the chargers as to which one has the guarantee of the full 150kw, and you even change them every day. It's not clear that changing them qualifies you as the subsidy is to build 4 stalls so they are perhaps not virtual. It would be nice if they were virtual.

If you came to a bank of 8, and 4 of them (not marked) have the 150kw "assured if requested" status and you have say 800kW for the bank of 8, what would happen is this:

• If 4 cars at the 4 special stations all arrived recently and are in the first boost of their charging session, they would get 600kW, leaving 200kW for the other 4 stalls.
• As soon as one of those stalls is vacant, the worst case is there are 350kW to share among the other 4, which is not that bad
• In reality, one or more of the 4 cars in those 4 stalls will not be at a low SoC and no longer will be taking 150kW. Cars tend to drop below 150kW after about 10-15 minutes of charging. More likely you have the newest car taking 150kW, the one that's been there 10 minutes taking 120kW, the one there 25 minutes taking 90kW, and the one there 40 minutes taking 20kW. So that means 420kW are available for the other 4 stations. Which is usually more than enough.

The magic number, which Tesla would know is, "on average, if you have 4 cars in a 4 stall station with 150kW cap, what is their total power take?" And I would bet it's almost never 600kW, and more commonly under 400kW and probably often under 300kW. But I would be interested in hard data.

Anyway, based on whatever the typical number is, you calculate what you need for the whole station. This is the average at a 4x150 station. You want a larger station I think you can handle it just fine. If it's 400kW you can build an 8 station unit with 800kW, and a 12 station unit with 1200kW but actually probably even less. Yes, there will be rare times when the "other" stations will get a little less than they would in a fair allocation, but not a big deal.

If you don't label the stations, you are even better off. Most drivers aren't even aware of the pairing at V2 superchargers! While a few savvy drivers will have seen on the web about how "Stalls 3 through 6 have priority!" most won't know that. It will even take some work to figure it out. But the odds that 4 cars arrive around the same time and 3 through 6 were empty and they are all grabbed at once and now 4 empty cars are pulling 150kW -- that will be a very rare event in the day if you do this right. In reality cars arrive at random and take whatever stall is free that fancies them.

Of course, if station load is light, the stations will deliver 250kW to any stall if they have the budget.

The reality is that this is only an issue if the station fills up. If the average real load is 100kW per stall, then you provide that. 4 stalls will be assured 150K IF they can take it, and so other stalls will now get slightly less. IF the station is full. But if the station is full, you just take whatever stall you are given. Are you going to not take a free stall hoping that one of the magic stalls will free up soon? That would generally be a stupid approach, and not charge you any faster, and take a lot of work.

I don't know how many people follow the "Only charge to 50%" approach on road trips, which maximizes the charging rate. I know some do this, but how many? I know a lot of people will charge to 80% or 90% even though the charge rate drops down to 20kW at that point. You do that because your meal is taking a little longer, or your shopping trip is a bit longer, or because you have a long leg ahead of you and it needs 90%.

As long as just a few people are in the priority stalls who are charging above 60%, you have tons of spare power and I doubt anybody will even notice or care.

In fact, if people know which are the "priority" stalls I bet people will foolishly and selfishly prefer them when they are not at a low SoC. "I want the better stall!" If they do that, they will be freeing up capacity for all the other stalls.

 

[MP3Mike]

Now the first loophole I imagined was that you don't label the chargers as to which one has the guarantee of the full 150kw, and you even change them every day. It's not clear that changing them qualifies you as the subsidy is to build 4 stalls so they are perhaps not virtual. It would be nice if they were virtual.

I'm 99% sure that they can't be virtual, they have to be identified by specific IDs. But in any case, I suspect Tesla will make a site 100% NEVI, or 0% NEVI. (If they apply for any NEVI funding at all, I think there are too many requirements that they won't want to deal with.) They are unlikely to mix/match. (Exception might be in Oregon where they require at least one 350kW stall, which current Tesla tech doesn't support.)

Cars tend to drop below 150kW after about 10-15 minutes of charging. More likely you have the newest car taking 150kW, the one that's been there 10 minutes taking 120kW, the one there 25 minutes taking 90kW, and the one there 40 minutes taking 20kW. So that means 420kW are available for the other 4 stations. Which is usually more than enough.

Of course, your whole plan falls apart with newer vehicles, like a Rivian: (And there are more and more of them every day.)

It stays above 100kW for more than a half hour, with about 10 of those minutes above 200kW. The average for that entire 30+minute charging session is 155kW, so if you limit them to 150kW then it would take longer than 30 minutes and offer no sharing ability.

There are also issues that you really can't get a 800kW or 1200kW transformer. You have options like 500kW, which is what Tesla/Rivian use a for 6 stall site, which can't meet NEVI requirements at all. Then you go to 750kW, 1000kW, 1500kW, etc.

If you don't label the stations, you are even better off. Most drivers aren't even aware of the pairing at V2 superchargers!

Then they don't read the tips the car displays to them. (I have had my car show me that tip multiple times.)

 

[bradtem]

I'm 99% sure that they can't be virtual, they have to be identified by specific IDs. But in any case, I suspect Tesla will make a site 100% NEVI, or 0% NEVI. (If they apply for any NEVI funding at all, I think there are too many requirements that they won't want to deal with.) They are unlikely to mix/match. (Exception might be in Oregon where they require at least one 350kW stall, which current Tesla tech doesn't support.)



Of course, your whole plan falls apart with newer vehicles, like a Rivian: (And there are more and more of them every day.)
View attachment 908423

It stays above 100kW for more than a half hour, with about 10 of those minutes above 200kW. The average for that entire 30+minute charging session is 155kW, so if you limit them to 150kW then it would take longer than 30 minutes and offer no sharing ability.

There are also issues that you really can't get a 800kW or 1200kW transformer. You have options like 500kW, which is what Tesla/Rivian use a for 6 stall site, which can't meet NEVI requirements at all. Then you go to 750kW, 1000kW, 1500kW, etc.


Then they don't read the tips the car displays to them. (I have had my car show me that tip multiple times.)

Hmm, I have never seen my car give that tip, but it's recent. Well, anyway, in this scheme, Tesla is not going to offer that tip, obviously. Or only offer it when the station is low. After all, Tesla doesn't want to help a new arrival take power away from others at the station. Instead, they just want to avoid the waste of a mostly empty station where two people are sharing a pair when there are empty pairs out there.

But let's take an example of Rivians that can draw power for a long time. The question is not how long it draws 200kw, but rather what its curve looks like when 150kw is the most it is offered, and how long it will take 150kw for, and most importantly what fraction of its typical charging session will it take 150kW at. In other words, across all vehicles and all sessions, what is the *average* power taken for the whole session, when the max is 150kW. I will tell you, that average is not 150kW, and my guess is it's not even close, it's probably closer to 100kW, but I would be interested in hard data.

It will vary driver to driver and arrival to arrival and brand to brand. That variation barely matters. What matters is the average. If a car stops for 40 minutes and picks up 60kWh then the average is 90kW, even if it drew 150kW for the first 15 minutes.

And if Rivians can average 150kW do this that's not a problem because there are really not many Rivians. And remember, the car is only doing that if it pulls in with a very low SoC. Tesla knows what SoC people actually have, and it's that aggregate data which matters. Urban chargers in particular have many locals charging who don't have Level 2 at home and come in at any SoC. The only people who come in with low SoC and charge to only 60% are a subset of road-trippers who follow that "shortest time at the charging station" strategy. While I know some people do it, the question is what fraction of people do it. I think it's the wrong strategy, but people disagree. That doesn't matter, it matters what the average person does.

Anyway, whatever the real average is, Tesla will want to learn it, and provision their stations to handle that average, not the maximum. Tesla is smart and does this, the NEVI law is stupid and demands provisioning for all cars at maximum.

If the average grows to be 150kW (I doubt it) then Tesla will start provisioning their stations to get closer to that average, though they would not go the full distance because that's silly. However, it means that on rare, high-load events the premium stalls (which have no label, I suspect) will get a slightly better share, and the other stalls slightly less. Again, I doubt most people will notice. Hell, getting less than you think you should get is a super common experience today.

So the other stations are hardly crippled. Again, I don't think people will notice. Tesla typically does a minimum of 8 but usually more more. Anybody know what they typically provision today? If there are 12 or 15 or 30 stalls and it's provisioned to handle those at 80kW each, will anybody notice if, should 4 Rivians happen to go into the premium stalls, the rest get 65kW on those very rare times? I doubt it.

So not crippled, and certainly not a reason to turn down Nevi money. Tesla V4 supercharger, as part of their plan to support the 1000v Tesla Semi at a megawatt, can certainly handle 350kW at 800v if they wish to deploy in Oregon. (A better approach might be to say, "Hey, Oregon, if you don't want any more Tesla stations, that's up to you, but why don't you fix that law and let us do our job?)