CCS Adapter for North America

[Mockingbird]

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

You are just speaking out of your ***.

 

[SalisburySam]

In addition, I expect that solid state batteries as they are currently imagined, will make packs physically smaller, lighter, and cheaper but not contain much more energy capacity. Adding 50kWh to a car at a constant 350kW is only 8.6 minutes. Pushing to higher power is really not necessary and existing CCS & TPC connectors may be able to be pushed to 500kW for short periods.

And at one point Bill Gates supposedly famously said he couldn’t imagine why any computer would ever need more than 64kb of memory. My current 2017-vintage desktop has exactly one million times as much. Just sayin’.

 

[lynyrdM]

You are just speaking out of your ***.

I know you've been following this stuff really closely but I'm curious, have you seen any recent state level initiatives that don't require chademo yet?

I know most of them that I've looked at near me mention "SAE CCS" (CCS1) and "Charge De Move" (ChaDeMo) as the required plugs with that wording. I'm sure a lot of it is cut & paste from a template but I'm curious to see if any of the newer RFP stuff has removed Chademo given its obsolescence.

 

[miimura]

And at one point Bill Gates supposedly famously said he couldn’t imagine why any computer would ever need more than 64kb of memory. My current 2017-vintage desktop has exactly one million times as much. Just sayin’.

I'm not saying that there is no use for higher power or larger battery capacity. I'm just saying that light duty vehicles like personal automobiles can be well served by today's connectors and power levels up to 500kW and pack sizes up to around 100kWh. Obviously, larger vehicles including some "light duty" pickup trucks may have needs that are not satisfied by what is deployed today. However, today there is a clear separation between automobile application and heavy duty truck application. Eventually, there may be a solution somewhere in the middle or a wholesale adoption of something new to bring all automobiles up to a higher capability. There will always be a need for smaller lighter and less capable vehicles just like there is for larger heavier and more capable vehicles.

 

[STS-134]

I know you've been following this stuff really closely but I'm curious, have you seen any recent state level initiatives that don't require chademo yet?

I know most of them that I've looked at near me mention "SAE CCS" (CCS1) and "Charge De Move" (ChaDeMo) as the required plugs with that wording. I'm sure a lot of it is cut & paste from a template but I'm curious to see if any of the newer RFP stuff has removed Chademo given its obsolescence.

Does it really say "SAE CCS"? Because technically, CCS Combo 2 is a SAE standard under J3068.

 

[lynyrdM]

Does it really say "SAE CCS"? Because technically, CCS Combo 2 is a SAE standard under J3068.

Here is the Texas DC Charging Grant information page

DC Fast Charge

Grants for Light-Duty Electric and Hydrogen Supply Equipment

www.tceq.texas.gov

Click on "Step 1" then scroll down to "DCFC light-duty electric vehicle supply equipment must:" where you will see

• Include the following connectors:
  • At least one Charge de Move (CHAdeMO) connector and one Society of Automotive Engineers Combined Charging System (SAE CCS) charging protocol connector per application.
  • If alternative connectors will be included in an application, there must be at least one CHAdeMO and/or SAE CCS charging protocol connector for each alternative connector included in the application.

By Contrast the earlier ChargeOK grant for Oklahoma which now has completed builds had this language

All charging stations at this location will: 2. provide CHAdeMo and SAE CCS charging protocol connectors

I hope there is a means to change out that chademo plug here in Oklahoma. I'd sure like to see it become a full speed Tesla plug instead.

 

[e of pi]

Here is the Texas DC Charging Grant information page

If alternative connectors will be included in an application, there must be at least one CHAdeMO and/or SAE CCS charging protocol connector for each alternative connector included in the application.

Hmm, so that's interesting. A 1-to-1 ratio of CCS or Chademo to alternative (so either two cables on each stall, or half the stalls not being Tesla at all).

 

[SageBrush]

Hmm, so that's interesting. A 1-to-1 ratio of CCS or Chademo to alternative (so either two cables on each stall, or half the stalls not being Tesla at all).

Ahh ... but think about the gaming allowed:

One station has two CCS connectors, but only one connector is used at a time up to 150 kW, just like EA.
One station has two TPC connectors, each able to supply 250 kW concurrently

In terms of throughput, the grant will cover transformers, land work, most of the labor, and some of the cabling; and 77% of the station costs.

---
In NM Francis energy won dieselgate money from the state to install CCS/CHAdeMO. They are installing either two or 4 connectors able to supply 25 - 50 kW ... for about $300k a location. Imagine what Tesla could do with $300k.

 

[e of pi]

Ahh ... but think about the gaming allowed:

One station has two CCS connectors, but only one connector is used at a time up to 150 kW, just like EA.
One station has two TPC connectors, each able to supply 250 kW concurrently

Yes, certainly Tesla could act in bad faith and against the intent if not the letter of the laws. I don't doubt their ability to do so. I just hope they don't, especially since they have no interest in opening up TPC as a standard that anyone other than them can install. Their insistence on treating TPC and the SC network as a proprietary product that they'd only open up reluctantly and under extraordinary circumstances/payoffs was one of the early things that soured me on Tesla as a company advancing electric vehicles, not just selling cars to make money. If the regs have to be written to force Tesla to not deliberately take money to install a substandard product, then I suggest writing regulations as tightly as necessary on the government's infrastructure bill money to do that, or giving as little of that money to Tesla and more to others installing stations like EVGo, Electrify America, Chargepoint, Francis, etc.

 

[Mockingbird]

I know you've been following this stuff really closely but I'm curious, have you seen any recent state level initiatives that don't require chademo yet?

I know most of them that I've looked at near me mention "SAE CCS" (CCS1) and "Charge De Move" (ChaDeMo) as the required plugs with that wording. I'm sure a lot of it is cut & paste from a template but I'm curious to see if any of the newer RFP stuff has removed Chademo given its obsolescence.

Yes. Texas is the only one.

I wrote about it a while back when Tesla applied for the grant.

Tesla's Grant Application Might Spark Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot In Texas

Tesla is applying for grants in the Texas Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Program to build charging stations in the state.

insideevs.com

It suggest CCS and CHAdeMO, but allows a propritary plug as an alternative to one of the plug.

So this is what is allowed:

CCS + CHAdeMO

CCS + TPC

CHAdeMO + TPC

 

[STS-134]

Yes, certainly Tesla could act in bad faith and against the intent if not the letter of the laws. I don't doubt their ability to do so. I just hope they don't, especially since they have no interest in opening up TPC as a standard that anyone other than them can install. Their insistence on treating TPC and the SC network as a proprietary product that they'd only open up reluctantly and under extraordinary circumstances/payoffs was one of the early things that soured me on Tesla as a company advancing electric vehicles, not just selling cars to make money. If the regs have to be written to force Tesla to not deliberately take money to install a substandard product, then I suggest writing regulations as tightly as necessary on the government's infrastructure bill money to do that, or giving as little of that money to Tesla and more to others installing stations like EVGo, Electrify America, Chargepoint, Francis, etc.

As long as Tesla has a standard port on each SC stall that can either directly plug into all vehicles or be plugged into all vehicles via an adapter, I don't think the choice of plug, whether it's J1772, J3068, or TPC, is an issue. Acting truly in bad faith would be putting a standardized plug on each SC to meet the letter of the law and get the money, but using a negotiation protocol that only Teslas can use to start the session. Kind of like the setting they have on the Wall Connector that is supposed to limit charging to "only Tesla vehicles" although there are now products that bypass that function and allow all vehicles to charge at all Wall Connectors.

 

[j_grange]

As the respondent to that tweet, let me offer additional color that is not possible in a limited number of characters.

If Tesla were going to switch to any other format other than TPC (in North America) the time to do it would have been prior to the Model Y launch.

They didn't do it then, and now I'm afraid that genie will never be put back into the bottle. Like it or not, TPC is here to stay in NA. I'm pretty sure we don't need to debate that any further. The only question is whether future V4 Superchargers will remain backward compatible with current vehicles, or if there will be required adapters or dual-format sites (e.g. 8 V3 stalls + 8 V4 stalls). At this point, however, it doesn't make a lot of sense to speculate.

But when it comes to the number of CCS stalls available nationwide (or continent-wide, I don't mean to leave out Canada), it is inevitable that CCS stalls will eventually greatly outnumber TPC stalls. We can debate when that will happen, but we can't debate whether it will happen. That is an inevitability:

Give me your most optimistic prediction of how many vehicles Tesla will be producing in 5 years' time and selling in North America, and it's almost a guarantee that the number of non-Tesla EVs is going to be greater. I'm not trying to knock Tesla here, just acknowledging the reality that Tesla is a single manufacturer, and the number of other makes that will be hitting the market, taken in total, is going to exceed what Tesla is capable of producing (unless, as @rhuber pointed out, something goes horribly wrong with the EV transition). Tesla may be at 2 million vehicles produced w/w in 2022 (optimistically), and then at 50% growth for 4 more years that brings them to 10 million vehicles w/w, with probably only 25-30% going to North America. US new vehicle sales are around 15 million units per year, so if 50% of the non-Tesla portion of those are electric, that's going to be around 6 million non-Tesla EVs sold to Tesla's 2.5 million. Granted, it will take some time for the electric fleet to catch up with all the Teslas sold prior to 2027, but unless you see a future where Tesla is producing over half the vehicles in the world (and I don't think even the most extreme Tesla fanboy is going to argue that), there are going to eventually be more non-Teslas on the road than Teslas.

And those cars are going to need a place to plug in. The market will ensure that adequate and reliable CCS charging stations exist. Whether the connectors are atttractive, or the sites are laid out properly, or the latches are prone to breakage is immaterial: the charging stations of the future will be more prevalent and reliable than we are used to today...if a particular network cannot provide a reliable solution, there will be another provider that comes in and does.

And once we get to the point where there are sufficiently large numbers of vehicles with CCS ports on them, and there are adapters or some other means for Tesla vehicles to plug into CCS stations, potential site hosts will be faced with the question of whether to host TPC Superchargers or CCS chargers (or perhaps a Supercharger site with CCS capability). As they go to make this decision, they will undoubtedly consider that the CCS options will draw in 100% of customers, whereas TPC Superchargers will be limited to 30-50% of drivers. Anyone that can do math will probably choose CCS. Sure, Superchargers are the obvious choice now. But at some point in the future, this will not be the case.

Hmm this is one of the big reasons why I buy Apple or Tesla over the alternatives. Design for the lowest common denominator sucks. Always has / always will.

 

[Mockingbird]

Yes, certainly Tesla could act in bad faith and against the intent if not the letter of the laws. I don't doubt their ability to do so. I just hope they don't, especially since they have no interest in opening up TPC as a standard that anyone other than them can install. Their insistence on treating TPC and the SC network as a proprietary product that they'd only open up reluctantly and under extraordinary circumstances/payoffs was one of the early things that soured me on Tesla as a company advancing electric vehicles, not just selling cars to make money. If the regs have to be written to force Tesla to not deliberately take money to install a substandard product, then I suggest writing regulations as tightly as necessary on the government's infrastructure bill money to do that, or giving as little of that money to Tesla and more to others installing stations like EVGo, Electrify America, Chargepoint, Francis, etc.

If Tesla sinks so low as to take the government's money (public money) to build Superchagers and use every possible chicanery to prevent non-Teslas from using them, Tesla would probably get de facto banned from the next round of grants.

That not to mention that doing what is essentially poking the government right in the eye is probably in the best interest of the company's future.

That's not to say that Tesla won't do it esp. with Elon at the wheel.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Tesla sinks so low as to take the government's money (public money) to build Superchagers and use every possible chicanery to prevent non-Teslas from using them, Tesla would probably get de facto banned from the next round of grants.

That not to mention that doing what is essentially poking the government right in the eye is probably in the best interest of the company's future.

That's not to say that Tesla won't do it esp. with Elon at the wheel.

They probably won't get banned given EA played similar tricks on CHAdeMO (building only one example per station) and there was not consequence at all. If the grant itself does not lay out stricter criteria, and you can't really blame the grant applicant. If there is a concern there is a violation of the spirit of the grant, the government can always not approve the grant application in the first place.

 

[SageBrush]

Tesla could act in bad faith

Bad faith is the ridiculous prices and upkeep of CCS installers. Tesla can only improve the current sorry state of affairs.

 

[Midnightsun]

Best scenario is all 3 plugs are available at all charging stations to cover everyone. Looks like they are doing just that on some new installations coming up in Ontario and hope this sets a precedence.

This will work out great for many including myself as I will get 4 new places to choose if required on my rather short 200km trip I make regularly in summer on weekends. These locations are prime territory as the this is the main corridor connecting Montreal to Toronto.

Regardless, I will definitely be getting a CCS1 adapter as soon as they become available, just too many older non Tesla compatible opportunities out there which can be used if required.

This is a quote from the link.

Each of Ivy’s Charge & Go level 3 fast-chargers at ONroute locations will support the charging of all current models of electric vehicles including charging ports for Tesla drivers.

Hopefully these promisses are not as unreliable as Tesla "coming soon" promised on their SC network where we have been waiting for 8 years for the Brockville one to materialize!! Link to article. Charge & Go level 3

 

[Mockingbird]

They probably won't get banned given EA played similar tricks on CHAdeMO (building only one example per station) and there was not consequence at all. If the grant itself does not lay out stricter criteria, and you can't really blame the grant applicant.

1. Electrify America didn't apply for any grants (at least so far).
2. CCS is non-proprietary, so Electrify America can install as many as it wants

They probably won't get banned given EA played similar tricks on CHAdeMO (building only one example per station) and there was not consequence at all. If the grant itself does not lay out stricter criteria, and you can't really blame the grant applicant. If there is a concern there is a violation of the spirit of the grant, the government can always not approve the grant application in the first place.

Good point. That's what the government will likely do.

 

[Sporty]

They probably won't get banned given EA played similar tricks on CHAdeMO (building only one example per station) and there was not consequence at all. If the grant itself does not lay out stricter criteria, and you can't really blame the grant applicant. If there is a concern there is a violation of the spirit of the grant, the government can always not approve the grant application in the first place.

I’ve seen stupid stuff done by gov contractors because that’s what the letter of the agreement is. Even when circumstances change neither side will re-open the contract to change the terms. Everyone would rather complete it as drawn up, get paid, and call it job well done even if it’s worthless at the end. It’s less then worthless as it’s a lost opportunity.

IMO, if there’s a way to meet the letter of the agreement for the grant there will likely be very few problems other then some bad PR.

 

[Mockingbird]

If Tesla takes the government's money (public money) to build Superchagers and use every possible chicanery to prevent non-Teslas from using them, you have to wonder how competitive Tesla vehicles really are.

That's an indication that Tesla believes that, absence the advantage of the Supercharger, Tesla vehicles are losing their competitiveness.

 

[stopcrazypp]

1. Electrify America didn't apply for any grants (at least so far).
2. CCS is non-proprietary, so Electrify America can install as many as it wants

Good point. That's what the government will likely do.

EA was founded under the VW's settlement for dieselgate. One of the "spirits" was the settlement was not supposed to favor VW over competitors.
Electrify America - Wikipedia
CARB guidance laid that out explicitly for advertising:
"Public awareness is described as brand-neutral education or public outreach that builds or increases public awareness of ZEVs. Programs cannot feature or favor VW vehicles or services but they can contain the statement, “Sponsored by Volkswagen” although not prominently"
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/zip_1_ guidance_ac.pdf
However, they failed to explicitly lay out corresponding guidance for the charging station standards.
This allowed VW to violate the "spirit" of the settlement, by giving themselves a competitive advantage in building it (building only one CHAdeMO per station, even though at the time, that was not proportional to the share of vehicles). Just an example article that discussed this:
WIND-WORKS: Electrify America's DCFC Stations Favor CCS Charging Standard

Neither CARB nor the federal government did anything about it. So I doubt they will do anything either if Tesla uses federal grant funds to build stations, while still giving themselves a competitive advantage at those stations.