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

[e of pi]

I expect if Tesla does get a share of the federal money, they'll install as required--CCS non-proprietary connectors, and credit card/tap pay access on new stations. The end result of that, though, is that in a few years, there will be tens of thousands (perhaps 20-50k new stalls, compared to about 11k US Supercharger stalls today) of new DCFC plugs, which will be accessible for CCS cars, but almost certainly only the original Supercharger stations and any stations built by Tesla with their portion of the money would have Supercharger plugs. Thus, the state of networks in a few years might look something along the lines of perhaps 11k legacy plus a third of 30k new ones, for about 21k Supercharger-accessible and then all 30k new stalls with CCS, possibly plus any legacy Supercharger stalls retrofit over time. It seems to me like that's a situation where it becomes beneficial to be a CCS car, not a Tesla Supercharger car as you'll be able to charge at full car speed capability without needing or being limited by an adapter.

Tesla does seem to finally be taking some steps in this direction, with the opening of the network to CCS with adapters or new cables or whatever the implementation ends up, and the Korean CCS1 adapter, but they could have (if they had been less proprietary about the standard) have easily ended up where anyone installing DCFC and not installing a Supercharger plug would have been silly. At this point, I sort of feel like the boldest thing would either belatedly provide the entire standard and announce a partnership with ABB, Signet, and other charging pedestal companies to begin offering native 150 kW or up Supercharger plugs as a sales option for them (not an integrated 50 kW Chademo adaptor, like the current EVGo installations) so that you can say Supercharger is non-proprietary and anyone getting federal money should have to install both CCS and Supercharger (and thus long-term maintain supercharger's parity or superiority)...or switch to CCS on all new-build cars ASAP.

 

[srs5694]

Seems to me it's two plus two equals four. The standards have been published.

Which standards? CCS is, as I understand it, a published standard. AFAIK, Tesla's Supercharger specifications have not been published, but if I'm wrong, I hope somebody will post a link. (Elon Musk tweeting a vague promise doesn't count.) Even if it requires a payment to obtain a document, a link to a page promising to provide the specs for that payment, or a press release announcing the availability of the specs, would satisfy me that they've 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.

In the Q2 earnings call, Musk stated that Tesla would create an adapter (presumably Tesla-to-CCS, but maybe also Tesla-to-CHAdeMO; AFAIK, neither standard was mentioned explicitly), and make them available (through some unspecified mechanism) at Tesla Supercharger locations. I haven't seen any claim coming out of Tesla that they'll be adding CCS plugs to their North American Superchargers. I don't think that the availability of adapters qualifies as meeting the requirements of the draft bill quoted by @e of pi, above:

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....

The question is whether Tesla's connector (and associated software protocols) qualifies as "non-proprietary." If Tesla hasn't published its specifications, then it's hard to see how Tesla's connector would qualify. AFAIK, Tesla's design hasn't been approved by the SAE or other industry standards body, whereas CCS has been. Furthermore, I don't know what, if any, legal definition exists for a "proprietary" design. At a minimum, I think they'd need to publish their specification. Is a published spec that nobody but its creator uses really "non-proprietary," though? That's an almost philosophical question -- or in this context, a legal one that would have to be addressed either explicitly in a law or resolved by a judge.

Now, if Tesla were to add CCS plugs to future Superchargers, I expect they'd meet this part of the requirement, since the bill specifies that the "non-proprietary charging connectors" are a minimum requirement -- that is, Tesla could provide CCS plus whatever non-proprietary (i.e., Tesla) connector it wanted to. Tesla could also take steps to make their design non-proprietary, but precisely what that would entail is unclear, at least to me.

And they're going to have to supply some version of charge card access.

To gain funds under this proposed bill, yes. Similarly, the last I heard, California had passed legislation requiring similar payment options at all DC fast chargers installed after a certain date. I don't recall the details of that legislation, though. California's laws, of course, don't affect installations elsewhere, and I could see Tesla complying in California but not bothering to install such hardware elsewhere. If they want access to these Federal funds, then they'll need to do this nationwide, or at least at sites that are funded, in part, by the new Federal money. The point is that, so far, they have not done this, and it's not at all clear that Tesla will be interested enough in the Federal money to make these changes to their hardware on a national basis.

I'm not sure how you can draw any other conclusion.

I'm not sure how you can draw any conclusion. AFAIK, Tesla has been its usual tight-lipped corporate self about what it's planning.

Also, keep in mind that we're discussing draft legislation. The language quoted by @e of pi could change before it passes, and that's if it passes at all. No doubt this is part of why Tesla has made only the vaguest of official statements on these matters. If Tesla were to promise to install CCS plugs at all future Supercharger locations, in the hopes of getting some of that Federal money, and then the legislation never passes, then Tesla would be stuck with a promise that they might not want to keep.

 

[srs5694]

I expect if Tesla does get a share of the federal money, they'll install as required--CCS non-proprietary connectors, and credit card/tap pay access on new stations. The end result of that, though, is that in a few years, there will be tens of thousands (perhaps 20-50k new stalls, compared to about 11k US Supercharger stalls today) of new DCFC plugs, which will be accessible for CCS cars, but almost certainly only the original Supercharger stations and any stations built by Tesla with their portion of the money would have Supercharger plugs. Thus, the state of networks in a few years might look something along the lines of perhaps 11k legacy plus a third of 30k new ones, for about 21k Supercharger-accessible and then all 30k new stalls with CCS, possibly plus any legacy Supercharger stalls retrofit over time. It seems to me like that's a situation where it becomes beneficial to be a CCS car, not a Tesla Supercharger car as you'll be able to charge at full car speed capability without needing or being limited by an adapter.

Tesla does seem to finally be taking some steps in this direction, with the opening of the network to CCS with adapters or new cables or whatever the implementation ends up, and the Korean CCS1 adapter, but they could have (if they had been less proprietary about the standard) have easily ended up where anyone installing DCFC and not installing a Supercharger plug would have been silly. At this point, I sort of feel like the boldest thing would either belatedly provide the entire standard and announce a partnership with ABB, Signet, and other charging pedestal companies to begin offering native 150 kW or up Supercharger plugs as a sales option for them (not an integrated 50 kW Chademo adaptor, like the current EVGo installations) so that you can say Supercharger is non-proprietary and anyone getting federal money should have to install both CCS and Supercharger (and thus long-term maintain supercharger's parity or superiority)...or switch to CCS on all new-build cars ASAP.

I agree. I think that things will evolve so that either the majority of DC fast chargers offer both CCS and Tesla plugs, or Tesla will switch to CCS in North America (presumably keeping their proprietary plugs on Superchargers for at least a decade, to service existing customers). The current wall between the Tesla and CCS charging worlds is simply unsustainable, particularly if legislation providing funding for industry-standard DC fast chargers moves forward.

 

[mrbulk]

I also disagree with allowing all or most other EVs access to *our* Superchargers.

Although the upcoming new Supercharging free-for-all does align with Tesla’s own mission statement (“accelerate the world’s transition to” blah-blah), unless more stations are built out rapidly enough, the wait times and delays will make the charging experience for Tesla’s own dedicated customer base even more sucky.

Instead they should change their statement to, “accelerating the world’s transition to TESLA” and let the legacy carmakers, who only dragged their feet and continually rained FUD onto Tesla’s ever more successful parade, build out their Own $multi-million$ charging system.

Reminds me of the old children’s fable about the grasshopper (legacy makers) who played all summer while the ants (Tesla) worked to gather and store food for the winter. Gimme a break…

 

[texas_star_TM3]

if Tesla can't provide a proper CCS adapter allowing Tesla's to charge at CCS with at least 100kw ... then it might be better for them to adopt CCS eventually. Opening up Superchargers to non-Tesla's (either by installing a CCS cable or providing an adapter) but handicapping their own vehicles isn't a winning strategy. Think about a Supercharger stall being blocked by a Bolt but you can't use the EA charger down the street because there's no reliable or fast CCS adapter for your vehicle. fun.

 

[srs5694]

I also disagree with allowing all or most other EVs access to *our* Superchargers.

Although the upcoming new Supercharging free-for-all does align with Tesla’s own mission statement (“accelerate the world’s transition to” blah-blah), unless more stations are built out rapidly enough, the wait times and delays will make the charging experience for Tesla’s own dedicated customer base even more sucky.

Consider this scenario: A driver of a CCS car goes to a Tesla Supercharger and finds there's a wait. There's an Electrify America station a mile away, and it's never crowded. What will that CCS driver do? Wait at the Supercharger or go to the EA station? I expect that, 9 out of 10 times, the CCS driver will go to the EA station. Although there are certainly Tesla Superchargers that are far enough from CCS stations to make such a move impractical, my impression is that the Superchargers that have crowding problems now, or that are even close to having crowding problems, are in urban areas with lots of DC fast charging alternatives. The fact that CCS drivers will have options for alternatives in many, if not most, overcrowding scenarios means that there's a built-in pressure relief valve.

 

[qdeathstar]

This will be only possible in Europe using the CCS-2 plug.

Also the cable is very short, only cars with plug on the left rear or front right could use the Tesla supercharger.

Unless they pull in sideways

 

[drtimhill]

This is an epically bad decision. Tesla will regret this. This decision is ONLY a negative for all current Tesla owners AND future Tesla owners.

SC network is already unable to keep up with the Y/3's coming onto the road. The SC build out has been way slower than planned. So now Tesla owners have to share those limited spots with Nissan Leaf's and whatever else crap out there?

Alienating Tesla owners is not a good move. There is not a single positive to this decision for Tesla owners.

There are two main reasons why Tesla was ahead of everyone else:

1. Tesla SC network making it relatively easy for Tesla owners to charge on trips.
2. Autopilot/FSD.

Now they've removed one of them. Now I am seriously considering changing my Cybertruck purchase to a Rivian R1S. Since now I can charge the Rivian at SC's and the Rivian has room to sleep/camp in unlike the Cybertruck.

Once the SC change happens, Tesla forums will be flooded with people waiting in line for slow charging non Tesla vehicles taking up spots. You wait and see.

From my perspective, Tesla's biggest selling points are the SC network and the cars software upgrade model (including FSD, if and when it arrives). If those two advantages go away, then other vendors cars will certainly start to look more attractive imho.

 

[srs5694]

From my perspective, Tesla's biggest selling points are the SC network and the cars software upgrade model (including FSD, if and when it arrives). If those two advantages go away, then other vendors cars will certainly start to look more attractive imho.

The gap between the Supercharger network and CCS charging networks is narrowing. In 2018, when I began researching EVs, it was easily possible for me to travel from my home in Rhode Island to visit my sister in Cincinnati in a Tesla, thanks to the Supercharger network. At that time, doing so in a Chevy Bolt (the only long-distance non-Tesla EV available then) would have been possible, but tricky. I'd have been relying on at least one or two charges at car dealerships or using DC fast chargers with poor PlugShare ratings. Most of the CCS/CHAdeMO sites had just one or two stalls, so a failure at a critical site would have turned the journey into a very frustrating one. By the time I bought my Tesla, in March of 2019, things were improving in CCS-land, with fewer scary-looking gaps between CCS stations. Today it's better still. I haven't kept hard data, but my impression is that the PlugShare ratings on CCS stations has gone up, and there are more stations than there were two years ago. New York State is in the process of deploying a bunch of state-sponsored DC fast chargers, in addition to stations run by Electrify America, EVgo, ChargePoint, and others, which are also increasing in number. Sometime in the last year or two, the number of CCS stations exceeded the number of Supercharger stations. (There are still more Supercharger stalls, though.) To be sure, Tesla hasn't been sitting still; they've continued to deploy new stations, too. The gap is narrowing, though, which is hardly surprising; Tesla has less room for improvement than the others.

Tesla does still have the lead, particularly when it comes to convenience and reliability; but I'm skeptical that Tesla will be able to maintain a significant lead in the DC fast charging arena for long. Even if Tesla is in the lead in, say, two years, it will almost certainly be a narrower lead than it is now, with features like the CCS plug-and-charge standard becoming more common and CCS network operators figuring out how to make their chargers more reliable. What's more, with the possibility of significant government spending on DC fast charging networks, Tesla will have to either open up their Supercharger network (probably by adding CCS plugs, not just using adapters) or allow competing networks to take all that government money, while taking none themselves. That development would help competing networks narrow the gap, or even reverse it. If Tesla can get some of that money (assuming it materializes), then Tesla will find it easier to maintain a (narrower) lead.

Ultimately, what's best for all consumers is a world in which any EV can charge at any DC fast charging station. I own a Tesla today, and so of course I want to see plenty of places where I can charge my Tesla. I'm not dead-set on my next car being a Tesla, though. If it's another brand, then being able to charge at Tesla Superchargers will be a good thing -- and if my next car is a Tesla (and until then, while I own my current Tesla), I'd like to be able to charge at non-Tesla DC fast charging stations. Currently, there's a wall between the Tesla and CCS/CHAdeMO worlds that does not serve the interest of consumers. Looking at all of this from a "team Tesla" point of view is, IMHO, misguided. Speaking only for myself, I'm not on "team Tesla"; I'm on "team EV," which includes Teslas, as well as Ford Mustang Mach-Es, Chevy Bolts, and so on. Tesla opening up its Superchargers is part of a long-term solution, the other part of course being making it easier for Teslas to charge at CCS stations.

 

[e of pi]

I haven't kept hard data, but my impression is that the PlugShare ratings on CCS stations has gone up, and there are more stations than there were two years ago. New York State is in the process of deploying a bunch of state-sponsored DC fast chargers, in addition to stations run by Electrify America, EVgo, ChargePoint, and others, which are also increasing in number.

I've only been keeping data on Electrify America long enough to have multi-year data, my tracking of EVGo is more recent, but there's this:

 

[srs5694]

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:

View attachment 690883
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.

I don't know which one is newer, but I've run across a different version of that draft legislation with different language. The relevant section in the version I found reads:

§ 155. Electric vehicle charging stations

“(a) In general.—Any electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded under this title shall be subject to the requirements of this section.

“(b) Interoperability.—An electric vehicle charging station funded under this title shall—
“(1) provide a charging connector type or means to transmit electricity to vehicles that meets applicable industry accepted practices and safety standards; and

“(2) have the ability to serve vehicles produced by more than one vehicle manufacturer.

“(c) Open access to payment.—Electric vehicle charging stations shall provide payment methods available to all members of the public to ensure secure, convenient, and equal access and shall not be limited by membership to a particular payment provider.

My non-lawyer interpretation of this version is that Tesla's stated plans to make adapters available would qualify it for funding, since even though the "connector type" can't directly connect to non-Tesla vehicles, the adapter adds a "means to transmit electricity," which the word "or" makes equally valid. They might still need to add card readers, or at least a non-membership, pay-as-you-go way to pay via their app.

The big question, then, is which version is newer? The version I found is dated July 13, which is well before you posted your link -- but I don't see a date in that document, so it could be older. If yours is older, then it could be that Tesla has successfully (so far) lobbied for changes to make it easier for them to get a share of the funds. If yours is newer, then it could be that other automakers or other DC charging networks have successfully (so far) lobbied to make it harder for Tesla to get part of the funds. Of course, more changes are likely between now and whenever the legislation passes -- if it passes at all; and there's another relevant bit a little further down:

“(e) Standards and guidance.—Not less than 180 days after enactment of the INVEST in America Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, shall, as appropriate, develop standards and guidance applicable to any electric vehicle charging station funded in whole or in part under this title related to—
“(1) the installation, operation, or maintenance by qualified technicians of electric vehicle charging infrastructure;

“(2) the interoperability of electric vehicle charging infrastructure;

“(3) any traffic control device or on-premises sign acquired, installed, or operated related to an electric vehicle charging station funded under this title; and

“(4) network connectivity of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including measures to protect personal privacy and ensure cybersecurity.

I read this (particularly point (e)(2)) as meaning that the Departments of Transportation and Energy will write more detailed regulations, which might have the effect of imposing additional requirements that could make Tesla's plan to use adapters unworkable, at least for acquiring funds from the government.

In sum, it seems we have a definite "maybe" to the question of whether Tesla's adapters plan will enable them to get US Federal funds to help with Supercharger expansion. Of course, in a worst-case scenario, Tesla could always add actual CCS plugs to future Superchargers. (I'd actually prefer to see them do this, as well as work with other DC fast charging network providers to get them to add native Tesla support to their stations.) Adapters are useful temporary or stop-gap tools, but having native support is better.

 

[e of pi]

I don't know which one is newer, but I've run across a different version of that draft legislation with different language. The relevant section in the version I found reads:

The big question, then, is which version is newer? The version I found is dated July 13, which is well before you posted your link -- but I don't see a date in that document, so it could be older. If yours is older, then it could be that Tesla has successfully (so far) lobbied for changes to make it easier for them to get a share of the funds. If yours is newer, then it could be that other automakers or other DC charging networks have successfully (so far) lobbied to make it harder for Tesla to get part of the funds. Of course, more changes are likely between now and whenever the legislation passes -- if it passes at all...

I believe the 2700-page version is the most current Senate proposal, being (as the first page says) "in the nature of a substitution" for the original house bill. It came out this past weekend.

As you say, though, the final language is what matters first, and then (even more importantly) how that's interpreted into contract terms. I have to imagine, however, that federal or state contract review agents evaluating a bid from Tesla that proposes to take Federal money and provide new stations that can only be accessed by other manufacturers using adapters (likely Tesla-built) that are likely limited to 70-100 kW (enough, sure, for something like my Niro, but for an e-Tron or a Taycan?). Native CCS cables seem like the best solution, both in terms of doing the most to further EV adoption, and in terms of having the best shot at any federal money in any version of this bill which does end up passing.

 

[Earl]

No

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?

You basically get what you pay for.
Its kind of the same as the Beta -vs- VHS except that no governments meddled by mandating or subsidizing one Video tape standard over the other.

 

[Earl]

Given the dominant goal of the CCS committee was to obstruct: Tesla first, and EVs second (arguably the other way around), you can be quite sure that the final bill will be written to be as inconvenient as possible for Tesla.
Personally, I'm not sure that it benefits Tesla to try too hard for any government money. Having worked in government and commercial sectors, I find the limitations and constraints placed on government money to seldom be worth its face-value benefit.
To date, Tesla has made most of its money with no government support and they've been strengthening even as the government support is reduced.
I can, however, see how, with the right strategy, completely independent of government money, opening up the Supercharger network to non-Teslas could be quite a win-win-win-win for Tesla, TSLA, Tesla drivers, and non-Tesla drivers. If they can get a little government money without having to blow too much, all the better.

 

[EnterpriseT]

In Canada, they have begun installing Superchargers with a few Flo (Canadian EV charging network) chargers. For Federal grants, they seemingly need to have 1/4 of the chargers be "universal".

Example: Supercharger - Vernon, BC

 

[texas_star_TM3]

Given the dominant goal of the CCS committee was to obstruct: Tesla first, and EVs second (arguably the other way around), you can be quite sure that the final bill will be written to be as inconvenient as possible for Tesla.
Personally, I'm not sure that it benefits Tesla to try too hard for any government money. Having worked in government and commercial sectors, I find the limitations and constraints placed on government money to seldom be worth its face-value benefit.
To date, Tesla has made most of its money with no government support and they've been strengthening even as the government support is reduced.
I can, however, see how, with the right strategy, completely independent of government money, opening up the Supercharger network to non-Teslas could be quite a win-win-win-win for Tesla, TSLA, Tesla drivers, and non-Tesla drivers. If they can get a little government money without having to blow too much, all the better.

I mean they cleaned out all available EV tax credits - and - lived well off selling emission credits... If EA and other build thousands of charging stations with billions $ in "free" green subsidies and the SC network is overtaken in terms of size - one key selling point for Tesla is going away. I drive a Tesla because many roadtrips would be not doable or take much longer with EA,

 

[Earl]

Tesla because many roadtrips would be not doable or take much longer with EA

There also really haven't been any roadtrip-worthy EVs on the market except Tesla, until, arguably, the MachE came around.

lived well

I don't know about that. I'd agree that they grew well, plowing all that money back into expanding and accelerating production. It was only recently that Tesla started reaping the results of their investments and government benefits. Note that the mentioned government subsidies did benefit them but nowhere near as much as the $ Billions that were invested in TSLA or that came from selling many cars with good margins.

 

[scubastevo80]

Something else to point out regarding this notion of opening up Tesla chargers to all other manufacturers is Tesla's present stance on not permitting salvage vehicles to charge on superchargers. Assuming this has to do with potential fire risk, how will Tesla prevent other manufacturers salvage vehicles from using their superchargers?

Additionally, if there's no price competition and profit between energy distributors (Tesla, EA, etc) and Tesla is the cheapest, then there is zero incentive for any EV to use anything other than Tesla superchargers. Who would pay 43c a kW at EA if Tesla is 26c? That's a ~$13 difference on a 75kW battery charge. When I had my ICE, I certainly wasn't going to the gas station in town that was $0.50/gallon hire than the others.

 

[wws]

Something else to point out regarding this notion of opening up Tesla chargers to all other manufacturers is Tesla's present stance on not permitting salvage vehicles to charge on superchargers. Assuming this has to do with potential fire risk, how will Tesla prevent other manufacturers salvage vehicles from using their superchargers?

I suspect Tesla could care less - since they are not liable for warranty repairs on non-Tesla vehicles.

Additionally, if there's no price competition and profit between energy distributors (Tesla, EA, etc) and Tesla is the cheapest, then there is zero incentive for any EV to use anything other than Tesla superchargers. Who would pay 43c a kW at EA if Tesla is 26c? That's a ~$13 difference on a 75kW battery charge. When I had my ICE, I certainly wasn't going to the gas station in town that was $0.50/gallon hire than the others.

This is a neat card or two up Teslas sleeve. Tesla designs/manufactures/supports the Supercharger hardware themselves. EA and the others buy from third party manufacturers. That gives Tesla a nice cost and reliability advantage over the others when installing and maintaining a site. Additionally, Tesla builds their own integrated solar/battery storage systems which can mitigate the demand charges the power companies charge. This again gives Tesla a cost advantage over the others when it comes to energy costs.

Some Taycan owners may have a problem though. Unless Elon is hiding a super secret 800V mode, they'll have to charge in 400V compatibility mode. And unless they've ponied up for the 150 kW 400V charging option, they'll be slumming at 50 kW like a Bolt EV.

 

[Big Earl]

This is an epically bad decision. Tesla will regret this. This decision is ONLY a negative for all current Tesla owners AND future Tesla owners.

SC network is already unable to keep up with the Y/3's coming onto the road. The SC build out has been way slower than planned. So now Tesla owners have to share those limited spots with Nissan Leaf's and whatever else crap out there?

Alienating Tesla owners is not a good move. There is not a single positive to this decision for Tesla owners.

There are two main reasons why Tesla was ahead of everyone else:

1. Tesla SC network making it relatively easy for Tesla owners to charge on trips.
2. Autopilot/FSD.

Now they've removed one of them. Now I am seriously considering changing my Cybertruck purchase to a Rivian R1S. Since now I can charge the Rivian at SC's and the Rivian has room to sleep/camp in unlike the Cybertruck.

Once the SC change happens, Tesla forums will be flooded with people waiting in line for slow charging non Tesla vehicles taking up spots. You wait and see.

That tweet didn't say "all" other EVs ... just "other EVs." In addition to this advancing the mission, it opens Tesla's access to government funding for Supercharger construction. The language in that funding requires EV charging stations to support "at least one manufacturer." Technically, Elon could open the Supercharger network to just one other manufacturer and get the funding, as well as technically fulfilling the commitment in his tweet.