Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

US Superchargers open to CCS vehicles

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
  • I am a Tesla driver, what additional benefits do I get compared to other electric vehicles?
    As a Tesla driver you benefit from the seamless integration of charge post and vehicle, optimized route planning and battery pre-conditioning. With your Tesla, you’ll also have access to the lowest Supercharger pricing.

So who will be the first to post a video or image of this working? Just go into the Tesla app, click your acct. then sipe left on the icons below your image and choose Charge Your Non-Tesla and you'll see all the chargers you can use:

B42F82B2-E5BD-41F6-82A8-79ECC1B664F1_1_201_a.jpeg


West coast:

Placerville, CA
Scott's Valley, CA

3CC2C96A-3CF3-450C-8CC7-1924ACEA4C9B_1_201_a.jpeg


East Coast:

Batavia, NY
Brewster, NY
Hancock, NY
Fredonia, NY
Malta, NY
Parish, NY
Red Hook, NY
Verona, NY
 
Last edited:
But, that's playing a dangerous game when it comes to the federal dollars that Tesla is after.
We don't even know they are after any of the NEVI funding.

Tesla isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts nor are they trying to get additional revenue. Instead its all about the federal money.
Well they aren't getting any federal money for what they have opened so far.. And as it is wouldn't qualify for any NEVI funding.

In the presentation tonight they made it clear that they need to increase usage at low utilization sites to lower their per kWh costs. So no, not the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it to increase revenue so they can expand Superchargers more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_H and RTPEV
At retrofit stations, Tesla should limit the number of Magic Dock stations to 1/4 of the site, in order to ease this transition. At least until a cable extender, or other software solution, mitigates the impending gun shots.
It would be a sad statement about the US if that happened. I haven't heard of any issues like that in the more than a year Superchargers have been open in Europe.
 
At retrofit stations, Tesla should limit the number of Magic Dock stations to 1/4 of the site, in order to ease this transition. At least until a cable extender, or other software solution, mitigates the impending gun shots.
It is unclear if Tesla would even qualify for federal dollars on a ”retrofit” station. (Effectively, there is no “new” charging stall capacity.)
It says "new and existing"

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
 
It says "new and existing"

But it also doesn't say anything about Tesla getting any funding for opening the Superchargers.
 
But it also doesn't say anything about Tesla getting any funding for opening the Superchargers.
Exactly. Need to separate the funding part of the announcement from the "expanding existing" part of the announcement. Those are talking about two different things. Still good news, but the fact that Tesla is opening existing stations to CCS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accessing funds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_H and MP3Mike
I saw a tweet of a Taycan using a Supercharger, and while it had to pull all the way forward, it wasn't blocking any stalls.

Other vehicles with charge ports on the back left (backing in) or the front right (pulling in) have the best chance of not blocking an extra stall, but the cable lengths can still be a problem. I was previously considering an Ariya for this reason but cancelled my pre-order after more than a year of waiting. Our old Volvo's may have worked well, but I sold them before any of these opened up.

Do any of the MD sites have the bumper stoppers at them? I'm thinking those will make it even harder for short cables to reach non-Tesla ports.

I'd also think the new Niro EV's (2023s) would do well with the charge port in the center front, but my Kona maybe not as much since it's Left Front like the older Niro's. Other manufacturers may want to consider where they put their charge ports in the future to be more Tesla-SuC-Friendly.
 
Exactly. Need to separate the funding part of the announcement from the "expanding existing" part of the announcement. Those are talking about two different things. Still good news, but the fact that Tesla is opening existing stations to CCS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accessing funds.

It does demonstrate they CAN support CCS cars - even though they've been doing in Europe for a while now.
 
Other vehicles with charge ports on the back left (backing in) or the front right (pulling in) have the best chance of not blocking an extra stall, but the cable lengths can still be a problem. I was previously considering an Ariya for this reason but cancelled my pre-order after more than a year of waiting. Our old Volvo's may have worked well, but I sold them before any of these opened up.

Do any of the MD sites have the bumper stoppers at them? I'm thinking those will make it even harder for short cables to reach non-Tesla ports.

I'd also think the new Niro EV's (2023s) would do well with the charge port in the center front, but my Kona maybe not as much since it's Left Front like the older Niro's. Other manufacturers may want to consider where they put their charge ports in the future to be more Tesla-SuC-Friendly.

Re: bumper stoppers (Bollard?!?) at Magic Dock sites
See 9:30 minutes into this YT vid for Tom M F150 example


Re: charge port location on some car
charging locations on non-Tesla cars.jpg
 
Or perhaps even putting in NACS in their future cars so they don't have to pay the increased rate that CCS cars pay, and can use all the Tesla Supercharger immediately upon pulling outta the lot
Even if they used a NACS connector, I think they still may need to pay a different rate, because if they just plugged in the regular connector, they would plug it in and <crickets>. They would still need to use the app to engage the charger, and Tesla would probably have a higher rate for non-Tesla vehicles. Even if the NACS connector on a non-Tesla vehicle could communicate identifying information directly to the charger to initiate the charge, Tesla would still be free to charge a different rate than they do Teslas.
 
We don't even know they are after any of the NEVI funding.
I agree that there isn't 100% clarity on this issue. But, I don't see why Tesla wouldn't be going after it.

As to being compliant with NEVI funding I would say EA is going to have a much more difficult time given the 97 percent uptime requirement.

 
  • Funny
Reactions: israndy
But, I don't see why Tesla wouldn't be going after it.
I would think mainly the required openness:
  • Required to share live stall usage data with any third-party via API
  • Required to allow activation/payment from any third-party charging network
  • Not allowed to require the Tesla app
  • Not allowed to require having a Tesla account
  • Required to accept payment over the phone
  • Required to be able to provide 150kW at all times on all NEVI funded stalls
  • Other requirements by individual states/territories
    • Like Arizona requires Plug&Charge support. Which would mean they need a button on the MagicDock to release the CCS adapter without paying/activating via something else first. (I thought someone said NEVI will require P&C support, but I didn't see it as a requirement, we will have to see.)
  • etc.
 
Last edited:
I would think mainly the required openness:
  • Required to share live stall usage data with any third-party via API
  • Required to allow activation/payment from any third-party charging network
  • Not allowed to require the Tesla app
  • Not allowed to require having a Tesla account
  • Required to accept payment over the phone
  • Required to be able to provide 150kW at all times on all NEVI funded stalls
  • etc.

Where are you getting this list from?

The one I've been looking at is this one.
 
Where are you getting this list from?

The one I've been looking at is this one.

I've been looking at what they released this February: Federal Register :: Request Access (Looks to be the same thing you are looking at, but a different format than what I was looking at earlier in February.)

Some snippets:

Require OCPI support: (authorization from other charging vendors)
1677798086866.png


Requiring ability to use a phone to authorize/pay: (If you have to be able to use a dumb phone, you can't require the Tesla app/account.)
1677798691505.png


1677798413059.png


Plug&Charge required in less than a year:
1677798326141.png


Real time availability be made available to third parties for free:
1677797963284.png


API requirements:
(c)Third-party data sharing.
States or other direct recipients must ensure that the following data fields are made available, free of charge, to third-party software developers, via application programming interface:

(1) Unique charging station name or identifier;
(2) Address (street address, city, State, and zip code) of the property where the charging station is located;
(3) Geographic coordinates in decimal degrees of exact charging station location;
(4) Charging station operator name;
(5) Charging network provider name;
(6) Charging station status (operational, under construction, planned, or decommissioned);
(7) Charging station access information:
(i) Charging station access type (public or limited to commercial vehicles);​
(ii) Charging station access days/times (hours of operation for the charging station);​
(8) Charging port information:
(i) Number of charging ports;​
(ii) Unique port identifier;​
(iii) Connector types available by port;​
(iv) Charging level by port (DCFC, AC Level 2, etc.);​
(v) Power delivery rating in kilowatts by port;​
(vi) Accessibility by vehicle with trailer (pull-through stall) by port (yes/no);​
(vii) Real-time status by port in terms defined by Open Charge Point Interface 2.2.1;​
(9) Pricing and payment information:
(i) Pricing structure;​
(ii) Real-time price to charge at each charging port, in terms defined by Open Charge Point Interface 2.2.1; and​
(iii) Payment methods accepted at charging station.​

150kW requirement:
1677798517617.png


I'm sure there are more things that Telsa probably doesn't like in there, I haven't read it all...

And then of course Arizona has their own documents: Arizona Electric Vehicle Program | ADOT specifically: https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2022/09/ev-infrastructure-deployment.pdf

1677797354247.png
 
Last edited:
I've been looking at what they released this February: Federal Register :: Request Access (Looks to be the same thing you are looking at, but a different format than what I was looking at earlier in February.)

Some snippets:

Require OCPI support: (authorization from other charging vendors)
View attachment 913105

Requiring ability to use a phone to authorize/pay: (If you have to be able to use a dumb phone, you can't require the Tesla app/account.)
View attachment 913112

View attachment 913109

Plug&Charge required in less than a year:
View attachment 913108

Real time availability be made available to third parties for free:
View attachment 913104

150kW requirement:
View attachment 913110

I'm sure there are more things that Telsa probably doesn't like in there, I haven't read it all...

And then of course Arizona has their own documents: Arizona Electric Vehicle Program | ADOT specifically: https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2022/09/ev-infrastructure-deployment.pdf

View attachment 913102

The eventual plug and charge requirement is likely the biggest obstacle Tesla has considering how the Magicdock works.

Most of the NEVI rules seem like they have sound reasoning beyond them.

Like the 97% uptime requirement will address broken charger issues that EA is famous for
The Plug and Charge requirement will take away from a really annoying hassle. Now I do think on this one that app based activation is fine, and essentially accomplishes the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike
The eventual plug and charge requirement is likely the biggest obstacle Tesla has considering how the Magicdock works.

Plug&Charge and the minimum 150kW are the big obstacles. (Assuming Tesla is OK with sharing live data with third-parties.)

Does OCPI require revenue sharing? Do they allow the third-party to mark up the charging costs?

Current V3 hardware can not support all stalls being NEVI compliant at the same time. (Well maybe they could with lots of on-site battery storage, i.e. Megapack XLs getting added.) For the 150kW requirement they either need to double the number of V3 cabinets on each site, and upgrade the grid connection/transformer to support that, or they have to select a limited number of stalls, say 4, stalls to be NEVI funded, and then implement a crazy power sharing scheme in software where a full 12 stall site would have 8 stalls crippled, ~50kW/each, if the 4 NEVI stalls had vehicles in them requesting 150kW. (Since most 12 stall sites only have ~1000kW available to share.)
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: scottf200
The eventual plug and charge requirement is likely the biggest obstacle Tesla has considering how the Magicdock works.

Most of the NEVI rules seem like they have sound reasoning beyond them.

Like the 97% uptime requirement will address broken charger issues that EA is famous for
The Plug and Charge requirement will take away from a really annoying hassle. Now I do think on this one that app based activation is fine, and essentially accomplishes the same thing.
App-based is OK as long as you can use NFC. Then it's just wake, unlock, tap. I've used Chargepoint's app via NFC and its' quick.
Having to use an app directly is very annoying.

Although, having to install a bunch of apps is also annoying.
 
Last edited:
I agree that there isn't 100% clarity on this issue. But, I don't see why Tesla wouldn't be going after it.
Let's say they want to go after it, but limit it to 4 stalls because of the 150kW requirement. Let's also say it costs $1000/stall to retrofit the MagicDock.

That means that they would qualify for $3,200 of NEVI funding per site, assuming of course the state selected their proposal for funding. (Which might be dependent on the location being located approriately; within 1 mile of an AFC, and ~50 miles from the next closest NEVI site.)

That isn't a lot of money for then being subject to all of those requirements.

Maybe different for a new site. Say that a 12 stall site costs $400k. (That is probably on the high side.) That would mean they could get $106k of NEVI funding for the 4 "NEVI" stalls at that site.

I'm not sure I would want to deal with the NEVI requirements for that amount of money.

Give it ~9 months and we will see how many proposals Telsa has submitted to the 52 jurisdictions.

edit: Now if they went with adding two MegaPacks on the site to make all 12 stalls NEVI compliant, that would change things, as site costs would go up to ~$4.5M, and they could get ~$3.6M of NEVI funding. (But they are constrained on available MegaPacks right now.)
 
Last edited: