CCS Adapter for North America

[Mockingbird]

That's a good way to get sued for discrimination. That's like the government saying "we're giving grants to people to go to college and we get to choose who gets them" and it just so happens that only people of one race actually get them.

You can sue for anything these day. It doesn't mean that you would win.

If Tesla tells the judge that the government is "discriminating" again a charging connector that doesn't even exist in North America, Tesla would be laughed out of the room.

Link to the legislation please?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

 

[STS-134]

You can sue for anything these day. It doesn't mean that you would win.

If Tesla tells the judge that the government is "discriminating" again a charging connector that doesn't even exist in North America, Tesla would be laughed out of the room.

It does exist, it's called J3068, and it has been standardized by SAE International. They had to allow the Mennekes to adopt North American charging voltages, etc. It's not Tesla's fault if other manufacturers don't add CCS Combo 2 connectors to their vehicles or if vehicle owners are too lazy to buy a simple adapter to be able to use the SC sites. At least this would push the most frequently broken part of the CCS Combo 1 connectors, if the customer has a CCS Combo 1 port on their vehicles, to the customer's adapters instead of Tesla being responsible to fix it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

This is pretty clear:

``(1) Standards.--Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
installed using funds provided under this title shall provide,
at a minimum--
``(A) non-proprietary charging connectors that meet
applicable industry safety standards; and
``(B) open access to payment methods that are
available to all members of the public to ensure secure,
convenient, and equal access to the electric vehicle
charging infrastructure that shall not be limited by
membership to a particular payment provider.
``(2) Treatment of projects.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a project to install electric vehicle charging
infrastructure using funds provided under this title shall be
treated as if the project is located on a Federal-aid
highway.''.

J3068 clearly meets the requirements of (A). (B) is more problematic, as in Europe, Tesla has implemented the system such that people need to download the Tesla app and start the session within the app. Perhaps as long as they allow anyone to create a Tesla account, they'd be good, otherwise they might have to have a payment machine on site.

 

[Mockingbird]

It does exist, it's called J3068, and it has been standardized by SAE International. They had to allow the Mennekes to adopt North American charging voltages, etc. It's not Tesla's fault if other manufacturers don't add CCS Combo 2 connectors to their vehicles or if vehicle owners are too lazy to buy a simple adapter to be able to use the SC sites. At least this would push the most frequently broken part of the CCS Combo 1 connectors, if the customer has a CCS Combo 1 port on their vehicles, to the customer's adapters instead of Tesla being responsible to fix it.

You argument is a red herring.

That are no vehicles that uses J3068.

There are no charging station that uses J3068.

J3068 only exists on paper.

This is pretty clear:

``(1) Standards.--Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
installed using funds provided under this title shall provide,
at a minimum--
``(A) non-proprietary charging connectors that meet
applicable industry safety standards; and
``(B) open access to payment methods that are
available to all members of the public to ensure secure,
convenient, and equal access to the electric vehicle
charging infrastructure that shall not be limited by
membership to a particular payment provider.
``(2) Treatment of projects.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a project to install electric vehicle charging
infrastructure using funds provided under this title shall be
treated as if the project is located on a Federal-aid
highway.''.

J3068 clearly meets the requirements of (A). (B) is more problematic, as in Europe, Tesla has implemented the system such that people need to download the Tesla app and start the session within the app. Perhaps as long as they allow anyone to create a Tesla account, they'd be good, otherwise they might have to have a payment machine on site.

I never said that J3068 doesn't meet the requirement.

I said that the government wouldn't choose it because it doesn't even exist in North America.

 

[MP3Mike]

J3068 clearly meets the requirements of (A). (B) is more problematic, as in Europe, Tesla has implemented the system such that people need to download the Tesla app and start the session within the app. Perhaps as long as they allow anyone to create a Tesla account, they'd be good, otherwise they might have to have a payment machine on site.

It depends on what they mean by "payment provider". If Tesla is the "payment provider" because you have to create a Tesla account, then that would be a problem. If by "payment provider" they mean credit card provider, i.e. Visa/Mastercard, then they should be OK.

I sort of think the idea is that there has to be a credit card reader at the site so that you don't have to have an app/phone/Tesla account. So that would be a problem with how Tesla is currently doing things.

As far as the connector all Tesla would have to do is open the TPC to one other OEM, say Aptera, and then the TPC connector would qualify. (At least how I read it.)

 

[Mockingbird]

I sort of think the idea is that there has to be a credit card reader at the site so that you don't have to have an app/phone/Tesla account. So that would be a problem with how Tesla is currently doing things.

Tesla can just add an iPad with a mobile credit card reader at each Supercharger location.

 

[Mockingbird]

As far as the connector all Tesla would have to do is open the TPC to one other OEM, say Aptera, and then the TPC connector would qualify. (At least how I read it.)

That's not how it works.

It has to be "non-proprietary".

Just because Tesla licensed it to another automaker doesn't make it "non-proprietary".

 

[STS-134]

That are no vehicles that uses J3068.

There are no charging station that uses J3068.

J3068 only exists on paper.

Wrong.

You know, 10 years ago there were no TPC fast chargers, no CCS combo 1 fast chargers, there was absolutely nothing. Technology evolves fast. 10 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if we could take a look at all of the fast chargers in use at that time and less than 10% of them still have any of the connectors we use today on them.

As far as the connector all Tesla would have to do is open the TPC to one other OEM, say Aptera, and then the TPC connector would qualify. (At least how I read it.)

I don't think that's true. Apple could allow another manufacturer to use the Lightning cable or Magsafe connector but those connectors would still be controlled by Apple and would be solely Apple's intellectual property. Apple alone would still determine who (if anyone) gets to use them. However if it gets written into a published standard, such that anyone who wants access to it has access to it and Apple can no longer stand in their way, then that's when it becomes non-proprietary. And I don't think Tesla would do that, because they'd lose their exclusive control over that connector and would have to go through SAE to make changes (like increasing power if they determine it's safe to do so). And Tesla and SAE aren't known to get along.

 

[Mockingbird]

Wrong.

You took that image from the article titled "SAE releases new J3068 specification for charging of medium- and heavy-duty EVs".

Clearly, we were not talking about charging for medium- and heavy-duty EVs.

I don't think that's true. Apple could allow another manufacturer to use the Lightning cable or Magsafe connector but those connectors would still be controlled by Apple and would be solely Apple's intellectual property. Apple alone would still determine who (if anyone) gets to use them. However if it gets written into a published standard, such that anyone who wants access to it has access to it and Apple can no longer stand in their way, then that's when it becomes non-proprietary. And I don't think Tesla would do that, because they'd lose their exclusive control over that connector and would have to go through SAE to make changes (like increasing power if they determine it's safe to do so). And Tesla and SAE aren't known to get along.

If Tesla released the TPC into the public domain, then it wouldn't be proprietary.

The problem for Tesla, as you point out, is that Tesla loses exclusive control over the connector.

 

[STS-134]

You took that image from the article titled "SAE releases new J3068 specification for charging of medium- and heavy-duty EVs".

Clearly, we were not talking about charging stations for medium- and heavy-duty EVs.

Why do you keep moving the goal posts? Your statement was that this connector and vehicles that use it do not exist in North America. That is clearly not true, and when you use absolute terms like "does not exist", "never", "always", etc., one counterexample is all that's needed to shoot you down.

Adapters are going to be required for any CCS1 passenger cars that want to use J3068 connectors that normally charge medium and heavy duty EVs, as well as any medium and heavy duty EVs that want to charge at CCS1 stations, until all of this gets sorted out. We're going to be dealing with adapters for a while, regardless of which way everything goes. Best practice is to just carry around adapters for everything and use them when necessary.

 

[Mockingbird]

Why do you keep moving the goal posts? Your statement was that this connector and vehicles that use it do not exist in North America. That is clearly not true, and when you use absolute terms like "does not exist", "never", "always", etc., one counterexample is all that's needed to shoot you down.

Adapters are going to be required for any CCS1 passenger cars that want to use J3068 connectors that normally charge medium and heavy duty EVs, as well as any medium and heavy duty EVs that want to charge at CCS1 stations, until all of this gets sorted out. We're going to be dealing with adapters for a while, regardless of which way everything goes. Best practice is to just carry around adapters for everything and use them when necessary.

You argument reeks of whataboutism.

What if Tesla has a CCS2 charging station in California to test European vehicles???

It technically exist doesn't it???

For the context we are talking about, there are CCS1, CHAdeMO, and TPC.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's not how it works.

It has to be "non-proprietary".

Just because Tesla licensed it to another automaker doesn't make it "non-proprietary".

I doubt it will be that simple for an unattended commercial application. It would need to be a lot more robust unless they intend to staff the location. At minimum one of those kiosks you see used to pay for parking.

Of course what would work best is if the app or a web page works to satisfy the requirement (even if it means a "guest" section that requires no login).

 

[STS-134]

You argument reeks of whataboutism.

What if Tesla has a CCS2 charging station in California to test European vehicles???

It technically exist doesn't it???

For the context we are talking about, there are CCS1, CHAdeMO, and TPC.

It technically does exist. If there's at least one of them in existence, it exists. If you meant to say that they're "rare" in North America, then just say that and I'll acknowledge that fact. But saying that they don't exist is factually inaccurate because at least one of them does exist.

But note that just because something is rare today doesn't mean it'll be rare tomorrow. TPC superchargers were rare 10 years ago, but they're not so rare today. I expect to see 1, maybe 2 new generations of DC fast chargers in the next 10 years and they'll probably all be using connectors that don't even exist on paper yet.

 

[Mockingbird]

It technically does exist. If there's at least one of them in existence, it exists. If you meant to say that they're "rare" in North America, then just say that and I'll acknowledge that fact. But saying that they don't exist is factually inaccurate because at least one of them does exist.

They are so rare that they are, for all intends and purposes, non existence.

Percent wise, they are within rounding error of zero.

But note that just because something is rare today doesn't mean it'll be rare tomorrow. TPC superchargers were rare 10 years ago, but they're not so rare today. I expect to see 1, maybe 2 new generations of DC fast chargers in the next 10 years and they'll probably all be using connectors that don't even exist on paper yet.

This isn't 10 years ago.

There are already CCS1, CHAdeMO, and TPC all over the country.

 

[RTPEV]

You guys do realize that you've been arguing about a snarky "what if" that was suggested as funny remark, not an actual plan for Tesla to install J3068 connectors? I think we can all agree that Tesla is not going to do that, so I don't think it warrants another 2 pages of back-and-forth about whether the law says they can deny a grant or whether they actually would.

 

[miimura]

J3068 is an awesome standard from a technical standpoint. However, it's basically just for fleet use right now. When it has an entry in the Filters in Plugshare, then I would consider it to be "real" from a public standpoint.

This is all way off-topic for this thread. Let's just get the Tesla CCS-1 adapter already!

 

[SageBrush]

Tesla can install as many TPC as it wants, but that is not what Tesla would get subsidies for.

There are three answers to this:

1. CCS grants have been so high that Tesla can easily compete, and have money left over for TPC
2. A large fraction of a DC installation cost is infrastructure. The grant covers the lion's share of the infrastructure cost.
3. So long as the 1:4 rule is followed, the grant covers the entire installation.

 

[Mockingbird]

There are three answers to this:

1. CCS grants have been so high that Tesla can easily compete, and have money left over for TPC
2. A large fraction of a DC installation cost is infrastructure. The grant covers the lion's share of the infrastructure cost.
3. So long as the 1:4 rule is followed, the grant covers the entire installation.

There is no "1:4 rule" for the $7.5 billion subsidies.

It was a stupid rule that the Canadian government shouldn't have allowed.

 

[SageBrush]

There is no "1:4 rule" for the $7.5 billion subsidies.

Wrong. The money will be disbursed at state and local levels of government. I have read multiple jurisdictions that apply that rule, and I have only read a few.

Nothing of course prevents rule changes, but this rule is the least important of the three realities I pointed out to you earlier that will let Tesla easily and profitably continue to build TPC DC fast charging.

You obviously have a bone to pick, so you are distorting the actual facts.

 

[Mockingbird]

Wrong. The money will be disbursed at state and local levels of government. I have read multiple jurisdictions that apply that rule, and I have only read a few.

Nothing of course prevents rule changes, but this rule is the least important of the three realities I pointed out to you earlier that will let Tesla easily and profitably continue to build TPC DC fast charging.

You obviously have a bone to pick, so you are distorting the actual facts.

Show me five US states that does this.

 

[SageBrush]

Show me five US states that does this.

You are old enough to pay for your spoon-feeding. I find it more convenient to put you on ignore.