Charging at Tesla at a Rivian charging station

[Parakeet83]

It is possible to charge a Tesla at a Rivian charging station. The Rivian charging station in Salida, CO had a sign on it to indicate it was 'open to all electric vehicles'.
Charging here gives me a max of 40mph, charging at 240v using the J1772 adapter. It is also free to use at this moment in time.
Figured I'd share as I could not find any information on this when doing a quick search.

 

[LoudMusic]

Neat.

You mentioned 40mph and 240v. Do you recall exactly the voltage and amperage the vehicle was showing?

 

[mociaf9]

It is possible to charge a Tesla at a Rivian charging station.

Important caveat: This is only true at Rivian L2 stations (like the one Parakeet83 used). Rivian's DCFC stations are for Rivians only. Even though they use a CCS connector, CCS capable cars from other makes can't use them.

 

[LoudMusic]

Important caveat: This is only true at Rivian L2 stations (like the one Parakeet83 used). Rivian's DCFC stations are for Rivians only. Even though they use a CCS connector, CCS capable cars from other makes can't use them.

Have any Rivian DCFC sites been built yet?

 

[zecar]

Have any Rivian DCFC sites been built yet?

Yes, the station OP mentions is DCFC. From the plans I've seen all DCFC stations have one 11kw level2.

An incomplete map:

RAN (Rivian Adventure Network) - Google My Maps

Link to discuss new locations: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/ran-rivian-charging-stations-locations-map-via-google-maps.1721/

www.google.com

 

[mociaf9]

Have any Rivian DCFC sites been built yet?

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of whether they have or not, but Rivian's own information about their planned network/stations say that they plan to exclude all non-Rivian vehicles from using their DCFC stations but will let any make use their L2 EVSE stations. From their Charging page:

Over 3,500 DC fast chargers planned at approximately 600 sites​

The Rivian Adventure Network is reserved specifically for Rivian owners, making it easy for you to pull up and plug in with ease.

 

[Shanty]

I live by a Rivian DCFC and tried to charge my M3 with my CCS adapter and the screen said Rivian vehicles only

 

[RTPEV]

Three Rivian DCFC stations have opened recently:

fastcharger.info

Zoomable DC Fastcharger map with adjustable range indicator.

fastcharger.info

fastcharger.info

Zoomable DC Fastcharger map with adjustable range indicator.

fastcharger.info

fastcharger.info

Zoomable DC Fastcharger map with adjustable range indicator.

fastcharger.info

 

[TomServo]

As I understand it the Adventure Network is not designed for LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL, a Rivian owner would still have to relay on some other network like EV to get to their “adventure location” and then they would use the AN to get IN/OUT of their adventure i.e camping, fishing, hiking etc.

 

[bradtem]

While the reason for building the Tesla SC network was obvious -- without it Teslas would be no good for road trips and thus not a car you want -- it is less clear why to build a private network today. Sure, it has some value, a special perk you get with the car, but it's an expensive one. The stations on popular routes do very little except get you a charger that is less likely to be busy and definitely supports plug and charge. Good, but not that exciting. The chargers in remote locations fit well with what a Rivian is, but such chargers are not likely to be busy.

 

[Earl]

it is less clear why to build a private network today

The value of a private network seems quite clear today: It would allow one to maintain quality control for your vehicle sales customers.
Whether the cost/benefit is worth it would be the only question.
I can definitely see how a large carmaker who truly wanted its customers to feel comfortable on road trips might deploy their own private network. This is especially true if the net business case for a stand-alone charging network without manufacturer subsidy shows itself to be a failure. I do know of many such cases that have indicated this might be the case.
It would, then, be beneficial for a Ford, GM, etc, to build out a network and keep it private (or at least much cheaper) for their own cars. The OEM would then pay the maintenance costs out of vehicle sales revenue. This would be necessary at least until it became large enough to be profitable (some business models show that it only becomes profitable at some minimum size), at which time, it might be worth opening it up to other carmakers at a higher usage cost.

 

[bradtem]

The value of a private network seems quite clear today: It would allow one to maintain quality control for your vehicle sales customers.
Whether the cost/benefit is worth it would be the only question.
I can definitely see how a large carmaker who truly wanted its customers to feel comfortable on road trips might deploy their own private network. This is especially true if the net business case for a stand-alone charging network without manufacturer subsidy shows itself to be a failure. I do know of many such cases that have indicated this might be the case.
It would, then, be beneficial for a Ford, GM, etc, to build out a network and keep it private (or at least much cheaper) for their own cars. The OEM would then pay the maintenance costs out of vehicle sales revenue. This would be necessary at least until it became large enough to be profitable (some business models show that it only becomes profitable at some minimum size), at which time, it might be worth opening it up to other carmakers at a higher usage cost.

It's much cheaper to just make an agreement with one of the existing charging stations to up the maintenance levels of their network. The main virtue of a private network is it is less likely to have lines as long as you make a bigger network than you need. But that's costly.

I have not yet seen analysis on whether a private CCS network qualifies for the $100K subsidy that is in the anti-inflation act, on top of the state subsidies. I suspect a Tesla network isn't, which is why for sure Tesla will now add CCS to their stations.

 

[e of pi]

I have not yet seen analysis on whether a private CCS network qualifies for the $100K subsidy that is in the anti-inflation act, on top of the state subsidies. I suspect a Tesla network isn't, which is why for sure Tesla will now add CCS to their stations.

Do you have a reference for which portion of the IRA bill text you're referencing? I initially thought you meant the FHA rules coming out of the infrastructure bill, and don't see now any text about EV charging stations in the IRA. The FHA rule coming out of the infrastructure bill seems to have language about "(c) Connector type. All non-proprietary charging connectors must meet applicable industry standards. Each DCFC charging port must have a permanently attached Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connector and must charge any CCS-compliant vehicle. For NEVI projects using FY22 funds, one or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached CHAdeMO connector (see www.chademo.com). Each AC Level 2 charging port must have a permanently attached J1772 (incorporated by reference, see § 680.120) connector and must charge any J1772-compliant vehicle. One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector." That would sort of imply that "non-proprietary CCS1" for the purposes of the infrastructure bill includes open-access to all CCS1 vehicles, and thus a private CS1 network charger wouldn't be a "non-proprietary CC1" charger for eligibility under the infrastructure bill grants Unless the text of the IRA provision over-rules that or doesn't have a non-proprietary CCS1 requirement, I suspect the same definition would be applied, and thus private CCS1 networks would similarly be excluded from any new grants, though obviously the actual text is what matters.

EDIT: Added the last couple sentences of the section, just for clarity--they're not relevant to the definition of "non-proprietary CCS1" for the rule, but they're a reminder that a stall to be covered may have other types of plugs available like Chademo or TPC, as long as it has CCS1 as a minimum.

 

[bradtem]

Do you have a reference for which portion of the IRA bill text you're referencing? I initially thought you meant the FHA rules coming out of the infrastructure bill, and don't see now any text about EV charging stations in the IRA. The FHA rule coming out of the infrastructure bill seems to have language about "(c) Connector type. All non-proprietary charging connectors must meet applicable industry standards. Each DCFC charging port must have a permanently attached Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connector and must charge any CCS-compliant vehicle. For NEVI projects using FY22 funds, one or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached CHAdeMO connector (see www.chademo.com). Each AC Level 2 charging port must have a permanently attached J1772 (incorporated by reference, see § 680.120) connector and must charge any J1772-compliant vehicle. One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector." That would sort of imply that "non-proprietary CCS1" for the purposes of the infrastructure bill includes open-access to all CCS1 vehicles, and thus a private CS1 network charger wouldn't be a "non-proprietary CC1" charger for eligibility under the infrastructure bill grants Unless the text of the IRA provision over-rules that or doesn't have a non-proprietary CCS1 requirement, I suspect the same definition would be applied, and thus private CCS1 networks would similarly be excluded from any new grants, though obviously the actual text is what matters.

EDIT: Added the last couple sentences of the section, just for clarity--they're not relevant to the definition of "non-proprietary CCS1" for the rule, but they're a reminder that a stall to be covered may have other types of plugs available like Chademo or TPC, as long as it has CCS1 as a minimum.

The IRA section 13404 extends and expands federal subsidies for charging stations. However, it's hard to read and I am looking for a decoding of what the rules now say in one place.

 

[e of pi]

The IRA section 13404 extends and expands federal subsidies for charging stations. However, it's hard to read and I am looking for a decoding of what the rules now say in one place.

I must confess to being confused too, but looking for a place to start with the code being amended, which I think is this:
26 U.S. Code § 30C - Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit, the credit is only as a tax write-off for up to 30% capped at $30,000 in the current code if I understand right.

The definition of the "qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property" is a little harder to track down in the text being amended, but in the bill text it says, "‘‘(B) QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROJECT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling project’ means a project consisting of one or more properties that are part of a single project," and while the cap is raised to $100k in the bill for depreciable equipment the limit is also changed to 6% for depreciable equipment instead of 30% so a project has to have a total cost of $1.6 million rather than the old cap-max project of $100k. So it seems like a Supercharger or other DCFC site installation would count as a single project, eligible for only 6% coverage up to $100,000 in tax credits, and thus reaching a cap only if the cost of the project meets or exceeds $1.6 million? It doesn't seem like there's a requirement the property be made publicly available. Not totally clear how that works. It seems more written to support installation of charging for fleet operators like delivery service's van garages or the like, rather than for a charging business.

 

[bradtem]

I must confess to being confused too, but looking for a place to start with the code being amended, which I think is this:
26 U.S. Code § 30C - Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit, the credit is only as a tax write-off for up to 30% capped at $30,000 in the current code if I understand right.

The definition of the "qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property" is a little harder to track down in the text being amended, but in the bill text it says, "‘‘(B) QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROJECT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling project’ means a project consisting of one or more properties that are part of a single project," and while the cap is raised to $100k in the bill for depreciable equipment the limit is also changed to 6% for depreciable equipment instead of 30% so a project has to have a total cost of $1.6 million rather than the old cap-max project of $100k. So it seems like a Supercharger or other DCFC site installation would count as a single project, eligible for only 6% coverage up to $100,000 in tax credits, and thus reaching a cap only if the cost of the project meets or exceeds $1.6 million? It doesn't seem like there's a requirement the property be made publicly available. Not totally clear how that works. It seems more written to support installation of charging for fleet operators like delivery service's van garages or the like, rather than for a charging business.

No, you can claim 30% if you use the "right" contractors. However, it may only apply in rural or low-income areas, so if that's true expect a lot of new charging stations to show up their. What we need is level 2 in apartment buildings (of all income levels, but mostly middle and upper who can afford EVs) which may not be subsidized under the new rules.