Superchargers open to all other EVs later this year (2021)

[cpa]

It will be interesting to see how this EV charging network develops. It would be very easy to spend the money and not have much at the end that actually increases EV adoption.

• Are they going to build 100 KW or larger units, or mostly 50 KW?
• Are they going to locate the chargers based on local and/or travel needs or are they going to focus on areas with few or no chargers irrespective of use?
• Are they going to require local community input and approval, environmental impact statements, etc.?
• Are the installations going to have to be done by unionized labor?
• Will the procurement be through normal government processes or streamlined?

You ask good questions. Likely, no one at any level has even given your questions any thought because no one understands any of the concepts. They are going to rely upon lobbyists and other interested parties to develop their infrastructure blueprints.

Thirteen years after the original 30A/208V public chargers were installed as part of the TIGER act, this metric is still the most common L2 installation. Yet, many cars other than Teslas can utilize higher amperage. I would suspect that as newer models enter the marketplace, that the onboard chargers will be able to utilize 48A+ L2 charging. Similarly, I would expect that newer models will be able to utilize more than 50kW of L3 charging. But we both know that government and corporate America satisfy only today's needs; we'll worry about the future later, and it will be someone else's problem.

Locating charging stations will become a political push and pull, much like how the federal signed highway system developed its routes in the '20s. Everyone wants his share of taxpayer $$$$.

Not sure about the labor. Lotsa contractors in rural areas don't have unionized labor, and to import those individuals from metro areas would drive up the costs substantially. I guess it depends on the goals set forth by whatever committees are in charge.

Procurement will likely be like most government contracts. Companies bid on the available funds for a given region or area, and then will procure the materials and labor once they have the contract. What interests me is who will be doing the bidding. Contractors who then subcontract to ChargePoint, EVGO, etc., or will those companies be doing the bidding themselves?

 

[Earl]

If Tesla wants to get gubmint money for charging sites, they probably need to make significant changes.
1. They need to accommodate different charge port locations
2. They need to support CCS connectors
3. They need to provide displays to show the price and amount of "fuel" delivered. This regulation is already coming into effect in California in 2023 for newly installed DC chargers.

Don't forget the requirement to include a credit card reader on any chargers that get CA government support.

 

[HyperionMark]

I think that's probably Tesla's motivation.

If Tesla requires other manufacturers to pay so that their cars can access the SuperCharger network that would probably give those companies some sort of seat at the SuperCharger table, too. I can't imagine Tesla would want that. Better to have the ability to control protocols as they want, chop off access to some cars that they think misbehave, etc.

I think you are right, definitely part of it, but not all of it. Just like they believed that EVs wouldn't take off unless they made a very compelling vehicle in every way that was electric, people would keep on driving ICErs. And now that they see the writing on the wall that the charging infrastructure is really lacking for non-Teslas, they might see that they have no choice.
Just because we aren't used to it from other companies doesn't mean it isn't possible for companies to act altruistically.

 

[macmee]

IMHO, many people are reading too much into too little data. AFAIK, all that's publicly known are four things:

• What's happening in Europe -- Tesla, under pressure from some European nations, is opening its Supercharger network in Europe to non-Tesla vehicles. Even the details of what this means are unclear, though. Also, Europe, including Tesla, has pretty much standardized on CCS2.
• US compatibility -- Currently, Tesla Superchargers are not physically compatible with non-Tesla EVs in North America. This is a critical difference between Europe and North America.
• Elon Musk's tweets -- Musk has recently made two extremely vague tweets that are relevant. The first read "that said, we’re making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year" and the second read "over time, all countries." That second tweet is often de-emphasized in discussions, but it's a caveat that's likely to be very important.
• Elon Time -- Musk has a history of making public statements about timelines that are, shall we say, optimistic. Some Musk pronouncements have come to nothing at all. (Remember "funding secured?")

The way I see it, Musk probably meant that some or all European Superchargers would be opened to non-Tesla EVs this year. (Whether this timeline will be met is another matter -- see "Elon Time" point above.) Musk's "over time" comment (how much time?) suggests a later opening of Superchargers to non-Tesla EVs. That is, in combination, I interpret Musk as saying that Superchargers in some areas (likely part or all of Europe) will be opened this year, with other continents to follow later. Note also that Musk didn't specify which EVs would be able to use Superchargers, particularly in the US market, which is where most people in this thread are located. As I see it, there are three ways that Tesla could open up the Supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs in North America:

• Partnerships with Tesla connectors on cars -- There are reports that Aptera is using the Tesla charging connector, at least on prototype vehicles. A deal to give Aptera vehicles access to Superchargers would be sufficient to satisfy the truth value of Musk's two tweets, noted above, for the North American market. This would have minimal impact on Supercharger use. Superchargers would not be flooded with Chevy Bolts or Ford Mustang Mach-Es, and buyers like @No_ICE would have no change in incentive compared to the world of a week ago, since nothing will have changed for them. Similar deals could theoretically happen with other automakers, but I know of no evidence that any such deals are in the works.
• Sale of adapters -- Tesla could sell (or license others to sell) Tesla-to-CCS1 and/or Tesla-to-CHAdeMO adapters, thus enabling drivers of non-Tesla EVs to use Superchargers. Given the price of adapters that go the other way, such adapters would likely cost $400-$600, so I doubt if there'd be a mad rush of non-Tesla EV owners to buy them, although of course some would. There might also be charging-speed limitations.
• Addition of CCS1 support to Superchargers -- Similar to what Tesla has done in Europe, they could add CCS1 plugs to existing or new Superchargers in the US. This approach would have the greatest potential to bring in non-Tesla vehicles to charge at Supercharger stations. It could also be part of a plan to transition Tesla vehicles onto CCS1 in North America. (I have no evidence that such a plan exists; but if Tesla did plan to transition their cars to use CCS1, they'd need to add CCS1 plugs to Superchargers at some point anyhow.) Note, however, that even if Tesla did add CCS1 plugs to Superchargers, there's no guarantee that all cars would be supported. Tesla might only support cars with Plug-and-Charge capabilities, for instance. There could be similar plans with CHAdeMO, too; but if not, Nissan Leafs and other CHAdeMO-using vehicles would not gain access to Superchargers.

If Tesla has been working on any of these approaches, they could make an official announcement tomorrow; but it could also be months or years before anything comes to fruition. Depending on which -- if any ("funding secured") -- of these things happens, impact on Tesla owners, and benefits to non-Tesla owners, could be minimal.

Also remember that, if non-Tesla access to Superchargers happens, that access will also mean more revenue for Tesla, which will help them to build out the Supercharger network. Thus, although there may be temporary problems caused by increased demand at some stations or at some times, in the long run I doubt if there will be any significant problems for existing Tesla owners. Should Tesla decide to transition its cars to CCS1, then over time capacity issues at busy Superchargers might be reduced, since CCS1-capable Teslas could fast charge at non-Tesla DC fast charger locations.

Anybody who's followed Tesla knows that Teslaworld is chaotic. Elon Musk creates chaos with his tweets, Tesla changes pricing and options as often as many people change their socks, Tesla's growth as a company creates growing pains, the EV industry in general is volatile, etc. This chaos is part of the price of owning a Tesla -- or in some cases of not buying a Tesla. Right now we have very little information on what Tesla is planning with respect to Supercharger support for non-Teslas in North America, which creates a sort of self-created FUD problem for Tesla. "Wait and see" may be a worthwhile attitude for people like @No_ICE who want to buy an EV; however, if Tesla clarifies its plans in a month or two, another issue may arise at that time to create another "wait and see" period. Sooner or later, we consumers just have to make a decision, knowing that we have incomplete information. That's always the case -- it's just more so whenever Tesla is involved.

This is a really well written post. Thanks!

 

[srs5694]

This is a really well written post. Thanks!

Thanks, but of course we now know more, as detailed in later posts.

 

[dfwatt]

TThe problem

Thanks, but of course we now know more, as detailed in later posts.

The problem is not what we know it's what we don't know. And that is not all the parametrics that have been discussed in impressive detail it's whether or not Tesla's planning and organization takes into account an accurate estimate of the increased bolus of demand that's going to come into the supercharger system over time, and whether or not that demand is accurately accounted and planned for, and whether or not extra capacity is built-out prior to that curve of increased demand manifesting itself. Otherwise you have a potential for significant jam up. And a whole lot of angry Tesla owners. All it takes is planning and organization and good data analysis. I'm assuming that Elon is not in charge of the details on that but somebody else who is sweating the details and spending a whole lot less time tweeting about them.

 

[HyperionMark]

Anyone on this thread have a Mach E or Bolt so they can go see how long of dongle/adapter they would need if they backed in?

 

[HyperionMark]

And to add to the fun, it seems like all German automakers are putting the charge port on the rear passenger panel. That should work perfectly with Superchargers. #sarcasm

 

[e of pi]

I'm not sure an adaptor alone would cover it. Looking at some of the draft text from the Senate bill...

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/a/ea1eb2e4-56bd-45f1-a260-9d6ee951bc96/F8A7C77D69BE09151F210EB4DFE872CD.edw21a09.pdf

p203:

If I'm reading this right, to get federal money from this act, Tesla would have to install native CCS ports at any funded stations. Unless Tesla releases the supercharger standard as a non-proprietary standard, with no strings attached to its use, they would not have the reverse be true I think.

 

[Earl]

Unless Tesla releases the supercharger standard as a non-proprietary standard, with no strings attached to its use

You're most likely correct in the politically correct interpretation that would happen. Of course, there are actually strings attached with both standards. With CCS, you must pay for and agree to the license restrictions associated with the standard. With Tesla, you must pay for and agree to the license restrictions associated with the Standard. See the difference?
There really is a difference in that many could weigh in on CCS - that's why it is such a lame compromise. Only Tesla employees could influence the Supercharger standard - hence its optimality.

 

[e of pi]

You're most likely correct in the politically correct interpretation that would happen. Of course, there are actually strings attached with both standards. With CCS, you must pay for and agree to the license restrictions associated with the standard. With Tesla, you must pay for and agree to the license restrictions associated with the Standard. See the difference?
There really is a difference in that many could weigh in on CCS - that's why it is such a lame compromise. Only Tesla employees could influence the Supercharger standard - hence its optimality.

The difference between "pay $85 to the SAE for a pdf of the standard" and "pay a competitor millions up front, and thousands per car" should be trivially obvious, I think?

 

[texas_star_TM3]

I don't think adding a CCS cable to newly build SC's (using government funding) is that complicated... if EVGo can do it...

 

[TunaBug]

The difference between "pay $85 to the SAE for a pdf of the standard" and "pay a competitor millions up front, and thousands per car" should be trivially obvious, I think?

Can you provide a link to where Tesla wants "millions up front, and thousands per car"?

 

[dfwatt]

The difference between "pay $85 to the SAE for a pdf of the standard" and "pay a competitor millions up front, and thousands per car" should be trivially obvious, I think?

What are you talking about? The government standard merely requires that people be able pay with a credit card and have access to a usable connector. How does that translate into thousands of dollars per car? If someone charges once or twice that might be twenty bucks.

 

[e of pi]

Can you provide a link to where Tesla wants "millions up front, and thousands per car"?

Obviously, no one involved in negotiations would be able to speak directly, so the deals offered in meetings remain confidential, but there's years of stories going back about it.

Tesla Wants To Open Its Supercharger Standard To Other Electric Car Makers | TechCrunch

Elon Musk is willing to share the technology behind his Tesla Superchargers, the fast-charging plug-in stations for his company's electric cars, the CEO revealed at the UK launch of the Model S this past weekend (via Engadget). Musk said he'd be willing to open up the designs in order to build a...

techcrunch.com

Musk has some caveats for potential partners, however: Anyone looking to use the network would also have to embrace Tesla’s free power for life model, wherein the costs of the electricity itself used to power the vehicles is built into the car’s initial price tag, instead of charged on a repeating basis every time someone wants to fill up. They’d also have to chip in with maintenance costs for Supercharger stations, which Musk says aren’t all that steep anyway.

Tesla's First Takers: BMW, Nissan Talk To Elon Musk & Co. About Battery Charging

Last week, Tesla Motors and its charismatic CEO, Elon Musk, did something very, very unusual. After dropping cryptic hints about some "controversial" plans, Musk revealed that Tesla would make its patented electric car technology available to anyone, at no cost, with no threat of lawsuits...

www.thecarconnection.com

According to Reuters, Tesla's conversation with BMW took place last Wednesday, a day before Musk announced plans to open up Tesla's patent portfolio to collaborators and competitors alike. Though neither company has commented on the content of the closed-door talks, BMW issued a statement to say that "Both companies are strongly committed to the success of electro-mobility and discussed how to further strengthen the development of electro-mobility on an international level".

Nissan's discussions with Tesla are even vaguer: we only know that Nissan is "keen" to chat with the startup electric car company. Unnamed sources, however, insist that both BMW and Nissan are most interested in the technology that underlies Tesla's groundbreaking Supercharger network.

Whatever the conditions involved in the meetings were, they were enough that the companies weren't able to come to an agreement that would get them the equivalents of that $85 SAE standard document and start putting supercharger plugs on their cars or providing adapters. This is contrary to the CCS standard, where companies making cars or charging equipment can choose between providing equipment and not building cars at all (ABB, Signet, eFadec, etc), just installing ports on their cars and let piggyback on others that are installing the networks (Nissan's strategy after their switch to CCS on Arriya, maybe BMW's?) to focusing only on building networks without building cars (PetroCanada, ChargePoint, EVGo) to car manufacturers partnering to pay third-parties to add chargers to their networks (EVGo/Gm partnership, some of Ford's stuff...?) to spin-off networks of their own (VW/EA, Rivian) to governments funding all of the above. With CCS and the relative lack of roadblocks to accessing the standard documents (not just the patent, but the operational standards), there's a lot of cooks, which means a lot of struggle with compatibility and coherent direction, but it's a lot easier for players to show up, pick their own level of involvement, and pitch it--more like how gasoline infrastructure has grown organically.

 

[e of pi]

What are you talking about? The government standard merely requires that people be able pay with a credit card and have access to a usable connector. How does that translate into thousands of dollars per car. If someone charges once or twice that might be twenty bucks.

That's what Tesla has asked from other manufacturers before to get access to the standards--apparently back in 2014 and 2015 in negotiations as I understood articles at the time they were basically asking other manufacturers to pay the equivalent of the old "unlimited supercharging" upcharge, and still in more recent negotiations were asking other automakers to kick in something in the hundreds or thousands per car built with a Supercharger port. My point is exactly that this is incompatible with the requirements of the standard for the proposed national EV charging subsidy program, and thus Tesla would have to radically change their handling of the Supercharger plug standard if they wanted to get other national charger companies compelled to offer Supercharger plugs the way Tesla likely will be forced to have CCS cables at any new stations built with federal money.

 

[dfwatt]

That's what Tesla has asked from other manufacturers before to get access to the standards--apparently back in 2014 and 2015 in negotiations as I understood articles at the time they were basically asking other manufacturers to pay the equivalent of the old "unlimited supercharging" upcharge, and still in more recent negotiations were asking other automakers to kick in something in the hundreds or thousands per car built with a Supercharger port. My point is exactly that this is incompatible with the requirements of the standard for the proposed national EV charging subsidy program, and thus Tesla would have to radically change their handling of the Supercharger plug standard if they wanted to get other national charger companies compelled to offer Supercharger plugs the way Tesla likely will be forced to have CCS cables at any new stations built with federal money.

But that's a hopelessly out of date piece of information isn't it, what Tesla might have been publicly asking for seven years ago? Tesla's not asking for some kind of buy in at this point, or anything like that. Seems to me your just trying to stir some kind of pot but I'm not even sure what pot you're stirring. What exactly is your point in all this?

 

[RandyS]

I don't think adding a CCS cable to newly build SC's (using government funding) is that complicated... if EVGo can do it...

EVgo started by offering DC Fast charging with charging stations provided by ABB and others that have 1 Chademo connector and 1 CCS connector...Recently, they worked a deal with Tesla to purchase Tesla chademo charging adapters that have a longer cord than what you and I can purchase on the Tesla store. EVgo has been installing these adapters at their sites in-series with their Chademo cords. So a driver has the choice of using the CCS cord, the Chademo cord, or the Chademo cord with the Tesla Chademo adapter that would then plug into a Tesla. So with those three combinations (and the original DC Fast chargers they already installed), they can now charge any of the 3 flavors of DC Fast charging that is out there...Gotta hand it to them, they are in the business of charging cars and have made that very clear (unlike EA/VW). I hope that helps to clarify your statement about EVgo. They used their existing standard charging hardware and added a special Tesla Chademo adapter to charge all cars....

 

[srs5694]

But that's a hopelessly out of date piece of information isn't it, what Tesla might have been publicly asking for seven years ago? Tesla's not asking for some kind of buy in at this point, or anything like that. Seems to me your just trying to stir some kind of pot but I'm not even sure what pot you're stirring. What exactly is your point in all this?

You were responding to @e of pi, not me, but AFAIK, what you've raised is an open question -- I haven't seen anything recently about Tesla's current position on making their charging standards available to others. I have seen claims that, in the past, Tesla was making demands that other automakers were unwilling to accept, but I've seen nothing solid about Tesla having changed their position. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. If you have solid sourcing that they have changed their position, then I'd love to see it. (Yes, I know that Aptera prototypes seem to use Tesla sockets; but this says nothing about Tesla's terms in general. EVgo's use of CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapters is also something of a side case.)

 

[dfwatt]

You were responding to @e of pi, not me, but AFAIK, what you've raised is an open question -- I haven't seen anything recently about Tesla's current position on making their charging standards available to others. I have seen claims that, in the past, Tesla was making demands that other automakers were unwilling to accept, but I've seen nothing solid about Tesla having changed their position. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. If you have solid sourcing that they have changed their position, then I'd love to see it. (Yes, I know that Aptera prototypes seem to use Tesla sockets; but this says nothing about Tesla's terms in general. EVgo's use of CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapters is also something of a side case.)

Seems to me it's two plus two equals four. The standards have been published. Musk has said that Tesla is going to supply open access for other brands of vehicles. He has not contested the standards and of course that would not get him anywhere. So again I think it's a slam dunk that the standards are going to be complied with by Tesla. They are going to supply some version of either a universal connector or the ability to use other manufacturers proprietary connectors. And they're going to have to supply some version of charge card access. I'm not sure how you can draw any other conclusion.