Tesla forced to open superchargers to unlock billions

[MP3Mike]

As an FYI it seems that Rivian really copies Tesla... For their Rivian Adventure Network chargers, which are CCS, they use a ~500kW transformer for 6 stalls. While Tesla normally uses a ~1000kW transformer for 12 V3 stalls. (~83kW/stall if all in use.)

So in the configurations currently being used neither Tesla's nor Rivian's chargers would qualify for NEVI funding.

 

[Ogre]

I think we all agree CCS is shite, and now planning for spending $7.5B on it is also shite, but doesn't seem like a lot that Tesla can do about it, other than quote what they will charge local governments to install their systems and let the elected representatives make their usual terrible decisions and take the blame for the cockup. If you want change, vote.

Unless Biden was issuing some quiet threats behind closed doors to Musk. Tesla doesn’t need to “Do” anything unless they want to collect government funding.

That’s what the giant joke is here. There are no downsides to Tesla on either path.

 

[WyoDude]

There are no downsides to Tesla on either path.

 

[WyoDude]

a bunch of Tesla owners saying what the [insert person or group] should do, yet can't even agree on Tesla's [insert noun/verb]

You’ve just described this sites slogan

 

[israndy]

Can we get the banner changed?

 

[ElectricIAC]

You’ve just described this sites slogan

Tesla. Singular.

Teslæ. Plural.

 

[israndy]

If that were true than more than one Nissan Leaf would be Leaves. When production objects take the name of real world objects they don't take their pluralization.

"Teslas" is well established, but you are responding to someone I have blocked so it's possible my response is inappropriate.

 

[STS-134]

If that were true than more than one Nissan Leaf would be Leaves. When production objects take the name of real world objects they don't take their pluralization.

"Teslas" is well established, but you are responding to someone I have blocked so it's possible my response is inappropriate.

Any irregular forms in the language get regular forms when they're used for new meanings. The plural of Leaf (the car) is Leafs. And while the simple past tense of "fly" (the verb) is "flew", when the word was used in baseball to describe a ball hit in the air, a batter that has one caught is said to have "flied out", because we don't use irregular forms in new expressions.

 

[WyoDude]

but you are responding to someone I have blocked

 

[israndy]

No, it's ElectricIAC

 

[MP3Mike]

Well, the final standards/requirements for NEVI funding are out: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/resources/ev_charging_min_std_rule_fr.pdf

Highlights:

• They clarified that every DCFC port funded by NEVI has to be able to provide 150kW of power anytime a vehicle asks for it. (Power sharing is allowed above 150kW.)
  • This means that it is likely that no current Tesla sites would qualify without grid/transformer upgrades.
  • Even V3 sites would have to be re-done to add double the number of V3 charging cabinets. (Only 2 ports/stalls per cabinet.)
    • I don't think battery storage would be acceptable, unless it was huge, as when the storage was depleted you would fall below the required 150kW minimum per port.
• They confirmed that a compliant stall can have a NACS connector, but it still requires a permanentlyconnected CCS Type 1 connector on every stall/port.
  • Does that mean that Tesla's MagicDock wouldn't qualify? (As the Type 1 CCS wouldn't be permanently connected to the cable.)
• CHAdeMO connectors are allowed, but only for the first year of funding. (Still require a CCS Type 1 on every stall/port.)
• Clarified payment rules that appear to no longer require on-site credit card readers.
  • But you need an automated toll-free number to activate/pay for charging. (Can be voice or SMS.)
  • App payment is acceptable but does not replace the toll-free number requirement.

I think that covers the highlights.

The announcement that Tesla would be opening a portion of the Supercharger network to CCS vehicles did not indicate anything about Tesla getting funding for doing so: FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Standards and Major Progress for a Made-in-America National Network of Electric Vehicle Chargers - The White House

• Tesla, for the first time, will open a portion of its U.S. Supercharger and Destination Charger network to non-Tesla EVs, making at least 7,500 chargers available for all EVs by the end of 2024. The open chargers will be distributed across the United States. They will include at least 3,500 new and existing 250 kW Superchargers along highway corridors to expand freedom of travel for all EVs, and Level 2 Destination Charging at locations like hotels and restaurants in urban and rural locations. All EV drivers will be able to access these stations using the Tesla app or website. Additionally, Tesla will more than double its full nationwide network of Superchargers, manufactured in Buffalo, New York.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625798925017059328

 

[kman42]

The 7,500 chargers include both new and existing chargers and only 3,500 super chargers (the rest are destination chargers). Tesla said they plan to triple their network, including both ccs and proprietary chargers. So the number of super chargers open to non-teslas seems like it will be a small fraction of the total number of super chargers. Seems like we will have two standards for a long time.

 

[STS-134]

• They clarified that every DCFC port funded by NEVI has to be able to provide 150kW of power anytime a vehicle asks for it. (Power sharing is allowed above 150kW.)
  • This means that it is likely that no current Tesla sites would qualify without grid/transformer upgrades.
  • Even V3 sites would have to be re-done to add double the number of V3 charging cabinets. (Only 2 ports/stalls per cabinet.)
    • I don't think battery storage would be acceptable, unless it was huge, as when the storage was depleted you would fall below the required 150kW minimum per port.

~1000kW transformer feeding 6 V3 stalls qualifies (whereas previously they have been using the same size transformer to feed 12 V3 stalls). Is the subsidy enough for them to be able to double the number of transformers?

• They confirmed that a compliant stall can have a NACS connector, but it still requires a permanentlyconnected CCS Type 1 connector on every stall/port.
  • Does that mean that Tesla's MagicDock wouldn't qualify? (As the Type 1 CCS wouldn't be permanently connected to the cable.)

It's got to be permanently connected because if it isn't, it's going to get stolen. I think they've figured out some way to get the adapter to detach from either the cable or the stall but never both at the same time. All this seems to mean is that drivers shouldn't have to carry around a separate adapter.

 

[MP3Mike]

~1000kW transformer feeding 6 V3 stalls qualifies (whereas previously they have been using the same size transformer to feed 12 V3 stalls). Is the subsidy enough for them to be able to double the number of transformers?

That wouldn't work with a standard V3 install, like the pre-built V3 modules, as that would only be ~120kW per stall. They would have to add an additional V3 cabinet, essentially 2 stalls per cabinet, where they normally have 4 stalls per cabinet. (Each cabinet can only output ~350kW.)

 

[E90alex]

Highlights:

• They clarified that every DCFC port funded by NEVI has to be able to provide 150kW of power anytime a vehicle asks for it. (Power sharing is allowed above 150kW.)
  • This means that it is likely that no current Tesla sites would qualify without grid/transformer upgrades.
  • Even V3 sites would have to be re-done to add double the number of V3 charging cabinets. (Only 2 ports/stalls per cabinet.)

Why wouldn’t V3 sites qualify? Each one goes up to 250kw. Provided they add a CCS1 adapter of course.

The rumored magic dock seems like it will either remain attached to the cabinet for Tesla use or the end of the cable for CCS use, but not be completely removable. Thereby possibly meeting the “permanent” requirement vs like a completely removable user supplied adapter.

 

[STS-134]

That wouldn't work with a standard V3 install, like the pre-built V3 modules, as that would only be ~120kW per stall. They would have to add an additional V3 cabinet, essentially 2 stalls per cabinet, where they normally have 4 stalls per cabinet. (Each cabinet can only output ~350kW.)

Or redesign the cabinet to output 600kW. Either way, it's a ton of money they have to work with so I think they'll do it.

 

[Stealth MD]

When they open up the Superchargers to non-Teslas, what would be great is if they allow free supercharging for Tesla vehicles (at least the S & X).

This would really be a selling point for buying a Tesla vs. other makes.

Supercharging would be capable on almost all electric vehicles, but it would be free to Teslas. Or reduced pricing for 3 & Y, free for S & X. Another extra perk to buy a Tesla vs. the competition.

 

[texas_star_TM3]

doubling the network (!) by late 2024.... sounds a lot like CyberTruck timelines.

Who is going to install those THOUSANDS of new stalls and who is going to manufacture those THOUSANDS of stalls over the next 22 months? ... especially as they have to be USA made only per the IFR bill. Sounds like local labor and manufacturing / supply chains will be the determining factor.

Anyone knows how many charging stalls Tesla did install in the last ~year ? My guess would less than maybe 800 stalls worldwide?

 

[E90alex]

doubling the network (!) by late 2024.... sounds a lot like CyberTruck timelines.

Who is going to install those THOUSANDS of new stalls and who is going to manufacture those THOUSANDS of stalls over the next 22 months? ... especially as they have to be USA made only per the IFR bill. Sounds like local labor and manufacturing / supply chains will be the determining factor.

Anyone knows how many charging stalls Tesla did install in the last ~year ? My guess would less than maybe 800 stalls worldwide?

Their claim of doubling includes L2 destination chargers too.

 

[texas_star_TM3]

additionally... if substantial Supercharging is open to non Tesla's by the time the Cybertruck comes out... it makes the case for the F150 Lightning/ Rivian / Silverado/Sierra EV and the RAM EV a lot more appealing... might hurt the Cybertruck even more