I've been posting to SeekingAlpha about this subject, and this post is particularly apropos for this thread. However, since it is a part of a different conversation, please forgive the fact that it seems a bit out of place:
====
Tesla's Supercharger apparently uses the same J1772-DC protocol as the SAE CCS system. Tesla was part of the SAE standards body. However, Tesla disagreed on the design of the Combo adapter and further, Tesla needed to ship cars well in advance of the finalized Combo adapter specification. Therefore, Superchargers are SAE J1772-DC fast chargers, but with a different connector head.
We can see several ramifications. First, the major cost of installation of a fast DC charging station is not in the actual connector head. Replacing the connector head is likely a <$500 part in volume, assuming the replacement of the entire cable and not accounting for labor. However, the charging standard issue is that Tesla has cars on the road with a specific connector. Given that hardly any SAE CCS chargers are deployed anywhere in the world and the business case for spending $50k to $200k to establish such stations for a 3rd party is likely daunting, it is likely that Tesla could make a case to replace SAE's Combo adapter with Tesla's J1772-DC Supercharger connector. Whether or not there would be licensing fees is obviously conjecture... maybe a small fee?
As for CHAdeMO, the problem is that huge numbers of CHAdeMO installations outside of the west coast are at Nissan dealerships. Which is one of the worst places to go for a charge on a road trip. Not truly conducive at all for enabling transport. High speed DC chargers are really only needed along major transportation routes to enable inter-city travel. Everywhere else needs L2 destination charging which, in the U.S. should be 30A to 80A J1772 AC charging. If you need high speed DC charging for intracity travel, you are doing it wrong, because the economics of the charging stations won't work out. Since Nissan only has a small short range urban vehicle for sale, the placement of CHAdeMO installations usually favors locations that are not useful for inter-city travel. Further, CHAdeMO usually means charging at 45 kW, which is a far cry from 105 or 120 kW one gets from a Tesla Supercharger. That makes all the difference when we are talking about inter-city travel. If we are talking about charging at a hotel or at home, 10 kW is more than enough and the challenge at a hotel is getting many 10 kW chargers, not a few 45 kW chargers.
For the other car manufacturers, as long as they are bothering with plug in hybrids, they are not as likely to embark on establishing a strong L3 charging network. The only highly motivated source of funds to implement a strong L3 charging network is likely a car manufacturer, as the government and 3rd parties are not likely to find the business case compelling on a wide scale. Nissan is spending significant capital establishing a weak L3 charging network, but they are usually installing it in the wrong places and they currently have a car that is not as useful at utilizing a L3 charging network anyways. In other words, until they have a 200 mile car that is charging at double the current CHAdeMO charging rate, they are likely still doing it wrong for the U.S. market.
That leaves Tesla alone as the entity firmly interested in establishing a strong L3 charging network and the only entity with a product that can leverage it. So it's not really a technology problem, but a business case and management outlook problem. Therefore, there is no incentive at the moment for Tesla to adopt the CCS plug as they are the only ones installing 100+ kW L3 charging and the only ones with a product that can use it. So move forward a few years, and it is likely that Tesla is still the only ones that broke through the chicken and egg issue and therefore the other auto manufacturers will either have to finally choose to establish CCS along the same routes as the Superchargers or gain access to the Tesla Supercharger network in some manner. The latter becomes very interesting for Tesla if they care to leverage it.
===
So, for this thread, the main issue is that destination charging a Tesla Model S is where you would charge for many hours. At 200V/80A, the Model S with dual chargers is full in 5 hours from empty. At 40A, pretty much any Model S is full overnight. It costs roughly $2-7k per EVSE to install high amperage L2 EVSE and is far more economical than L3 by an order of magnitude. This also makes sure that the biggest burden of energy usage is borne by owners and is consumed at night at off peak hours (higher mix of nuclear, hydro, and wind power). It is actually more convenient than a supercharger inside the city would be, both from having many more L2's available, possibly at the exact destination and the entire queueing problem. It makes sense to leave the car overnight at a slower L2 than it makes sense at many destinations to come back 30-50 minutes later.
Therefore, the big issue is getting many more 40-80A J1772's installed at locations that matter most to us. That should be hotels as #1. At the very least, available L1's would take some of the immediate pressure off - if I am staying at a resort for 2-5 days, it is likely that even an L1 will fully charge the car. That's why airports don't need even L2 charging.
