Will Tesla Buildup Superchargers to Accommodate Anticipated Demand from Ford, GM, Rivian, and whoever else, Adopting NACS circa 2024/2025?

[Earl]

I do think one thing which caught Tesla offsides is a higher than expected uptake to use SCers as a regular charge option, particularly with the 3s/Ys who domicile in an apartment, condo, or some other urban-ish setting where adding L2/L1 charging is not practical.

One has to wonder, however, how many of these folks

who domicile in an apartment, condo, or some other urban-ish setting where adding L2/L1 charging is not practical.

will choose a domicile that has L1/L2 charging for their next residence? I'm sure there will always be some who live in places without EV charging, after all, there are still laundromats around. However their numbers are diminishing, at least in more affluent areas.
One must assume that most had their places before they had an EV.
Will EV drivers continue to rent or buy places without charging if they already have the EV?

 

[houstonian]

However their [residences without L1/L2] numbers are diminishing, at least in more affluent areas.
One must assume that most had their places before they had an EV.
Will EV drivers continue to rent or buy places without charging if they already have the EV?

Earl - my real job is basically real estate asset management, mainly apartments.

Can report new builds are taking this into consideration but ownership generally struggles with weighing how to offer the amenity vs the cost to do so, or at least the complexity to assign cost back to the user base.

Retrofits are generally a no go unless there’s some other major project in the works where it’s basically deminimus to piggy back off an existing capex project…and even then, it’s dicey.

But the real key is this I think: for affluent owners they’ll have greater access to resources/influence to buy their way into an L2 solution. In fact, I’d argue the biggest motivation for this class is the time savings from not having to fool with busy SCers as they’re (I assume) price agnostic in dollar terms but eager to save time when possible.

Whatever the profile of affluent S/X owners, the resources/clout at their disposal, and charge preferences it doesn’t address a more cost sensitive 3/Y owner…and the 3s & Ys are in my experience 80%+ of urban SC usage.

Assuming cost sensitivity of an owner also manifested itself in housing preference, the most economical apartment/condo - not necessarily the nicest - is what I assume the majority of cost - conscious 3/Y drivers (and S/X too, I guess) would find attractive and from ownerships’ viewpoint the goal would be to operate clean/safe housing and forgo “optional” expenses where the returns are nebulous at best and saddle the already busy on-site staff with one more responsibility.

Not saying it’ll never happen but if you’re already pushing rents with 96%+ OCC why roll the dice with something that looks, at least for now, superfluous.

Not saying I agree with this philosophy but I’ve been in the room multiple times when this comes up and unless it’s 100% turnkey + low PITA, it’s generally a no go.

 

[Earl]

Can report new builds are taking this into consideration but ownership generally struggles with weighing how to offer the amenity vs the cost to do so, or at least the complexity to assign cost back to the user base.

Do you folks in your industry look at historical big infrastructure changes such as:
- indoor plumbing around the late 1800's
- electricity in the early 1900's
- clothes washers and dryers in the 1950's
- air conditioning in the lat 1950's
- cable TV in the early '80's
- internet in the late '90's

And the effects of capital upgrades on rental value?
I would think this would be a similar issue.

 

[houstonian]

Do you folks in your industry look at historical big infrastructure changes such as:

Yes, but through the lens of spending [$x] earns/saves [$y] and increases the NOI [i.e. the value] the asset by [$z].

The market strata greatly influence what will be allocated to amenities - which is what EV charging would be viewed as - as well as what residents themselves want. And by "want", I mean "are willing and able to pay for".

True, residents would always like "more" but embedded in this is "more...as long as rent does not go up" just as ownership operates from "more is fine, as long as costs don't go up and staff is not overburdened." This leaves asset managers stuck in the middle trying to reconcile the irreconcilable...but this is nothing new.

Thus the question to overcome is, "we are currently are full while pushing rents and more want to move in based on our current amenity offering, so how can we justify an additional expense/complexity?"

Turnkey solutions are the easiest way to wage the war to put in EV charging as the cost, complexity, support, and billing is done via a 3rd party meaning the onsite team is not burdened with supporting the product, ownership does not have to eat capex, some $ kickback is provided to the property, and there's a legit amenity offered to residents. Everyone wins: residents, staff, ownership, and the servicer (e.g. ChargePoint).

This thread: How much should the HOA charge? (I'm the HOA president) offers an interesting take from the HOA's viewpoint. Might be worth checking out.

- indoor plumbing around the late 1800's

Consider the commercial office r/e glut: one of the major factors preventing conversion to residential or hospitality (hotels) is just how expensive it is to retrofit plumbing. And this is with relatively modern office space with modern tech.

- electricity in the early 1900's

Honestly don't know that one. Would hazard a guess most early 20th century multifamily construction has either been rebuilt / heavy rehab'd / or abandoned. With the first two you're already doing heavy capex and I'd guess the marginal cost of running wiring is more palatable than a stand-alone project.

More recently insurance co's and lenders drive innovation as they'll demand old tech be phased out in favor of new ones - think Stab Lok breakers being uninsurable - which in turn compels ownership to act.

- clothes washers and dryers in the 1950's

Our Service History – CSC ServiceWorks

(turnkey)

PS - CSC consistently buys up/out its competitors. They've got quite a cozy monopoly.

- air conditioning in the late 1950's

Window units and/or HVAC installation with heavy rehab or rebuilds. Also chillers...the bane of my existence.

- cable TV in the early '80's

Cable operators covered install + upkeep cost and kickback a cut of $$$ to the property. (turnkey)

- internet in the late '90's

Cable operators - see prior point.

- installation of gas pumps in apartment/condo common areas

...nope. Never happened. Many residents from the wealthiest of the wealthiest to the humblest of the humblest all drove ICEs yet never demanded onsite fuel capacity. I know it's not a 1:1 comparison to EV charging but would suggest there is enough overlap to make the point.

And the effects of capital upgrades on rental value?

The turnkey + $$$ model works well here as if it boosts the NOI, it boosts the value of the property. Ownership loves that.

The problem is with apartments being full and hemorrhaging cash back to ownership, there's little desire from ownership to innovate. Again, if someone comes to them with an "I've got this all figured out, you have to do nothing, the staff is not going to be bothered, you'll have a slight competitive edge over other (also full) apartments, oh yeah, and we send you a check once a month" ... well, that generally works.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yes, but through the lens of spending [$x] earns/saves [$y] and increases the NOI [i.e. the value] the asset by [$z].

The market strata greatly influence what will be allocated to amenities - which is what EV charging would be viewed as - as well as what residents themselves want. And by "want", I mean "are willing and able to pay for".

True, residents would always like "more" but embedded in this is "more...as long as rent does not go up" just as ownership operates from "more is fine, as long as costs don't go up and staff is not overburdened." This leaves asset managers stuck in the middle trying to reconcile the irreconcilable...but this is nothing new.

Thus the question to overcome is, "we are currently are full while pushing rents and more want to move in based on our current amenity offering, so how can we justify an additional expense/complexity?"

Turnkey solutions are the easiest way to wage the war to put in EV charging as the cost, complexity, support, and billing is done via a 3rd party meaning the onsite team is not burdened with supporting the product, ownership does not have to eat capex, some $ kickback is provided to the property, and there's a legit amenity offered to residents. Everyone wins: residents, staff, ownership, and the servicer (e.g. ChargePoint).

This thread: How much should the HOA charge? (I'm the HOA president) offers an interesting take from the HOA's viewpoint. Might be worth checking out.


Consider the commercial office r/e glut: one of the major factors preventing conversion to residential or hospitality (hotels) is just how expensive it is to retrofit plumbing. And this is with relatively modern office space with modern tech.


Honestly don't know that one. Would hazard a guess most early 20th century multifamily construction has either been rebuilt / heavy rehab'd / or abandoned. With the first two you're already doing heavy capex and I'd guess the marginal cost of running wiring is more palatable than a stand-alone project.

More recently insurance co's and lenders drive innovation as they'll demand old tech be phased out in favor of new ones - think Stab Lok breakers being uninsurable - which in turn compels ownership to act.


Our Service History – CSC ServiceWorks

(turnkey)

PS - CSC consistently buys up/out its competitors. They've got quite a cozy monopoly.

Window units and/or HVAC installation with heavy rehab or rebuilds. Also chillers...the bane of my existence.


Cable operators covered install + upkeep cost and kickback a cut of $$$ to the property. (turnkey)


Cable operators - see prior point.


...nope. Never happened. Many residents from the wealthiest of the wealthiest to the humblest of the humblest all drove ICEs yet never demanded onsite fuel capacity. I know it's not a 1:1 comparison to EV charging but would suggest there is enough overlap to make the point.


The turnkey + $$$ model works well here as if it boosts the NOI, it boosts the value of the property. Ownership loves that.

The problem is with apartments being full and hemorrhaging cash back to ownership, there's little desire from ownership to innovate. Again, if someone comes to them with an "I've got this all figured out, you have to do nothing, the staff is not going to be bothered, you'll have a slight competitive edge over other (also full) apartments, oh yeah, and we send you a check once a month" ... well, that generally works.

And how much does the EV owner pay for this?

 

[EbS-P]

I do think there is a valid concern that even if other companies add NACS connectors to their stations, Tesla Superchargers will continue to be the most popular/reliable places to charge and therefore at risk of crowding.

There won’t be much profit in the electric sales (similar to gasoline) profit will be in what you can sell in the 15 minutes of charging. One could see a price war with the charging stations, but I find it doubtful.

 

[rlsd]

Tesla will get free advertisements with NACS for couple years. After that NACS will become history because Tesla will have a new charging technology: wireless charging.

Tesla To Buy EV Wireless Charging Company Wiferion: Report

If the report proves to be true, it indicates that the maker of the Model Y could look further into offering its customers a wireless charging solution.

insideevs.com

 

[EbS-P]

Tesla will get free advertisements with NACS for couple years. After that NACS will become history because Tesla will have a new charging technology: wireless charging.

Tesla To Buy EV Wireless Charging Company Wiferion: Report

If the report proves to be true, it indicates that the maker of the Model Y could look further into offering its customers a wireless charging solution.

insideevs.com

I get the wireless charging for my phone. Not for my car. Would love to see the efficiency numbers. Charge port does have a finite number of uses.

 

[rlsd]

I get the wireless charging for my phone. Not for my car. Would love to see the efficiency numbers. Charge port does have a finite number of uses.

See here:

Easier than a plug: Wireless EV charging gets ready for prime time

Now that there's an industry standard, automakers are starting to deploy the tech.

arstechnica.com

No major efficiency losses​

Gruzen dispelled the idea that wireless charging is inherently much less efficient than using a wire. "When we talk about our system, we talk about them as being 90–92 percent efficient," he said. "But that's end to end; that's from the grid all the way to the battery of your car. And if you were to look at the equivalent for plug-in charging, it tends to be in the mid- to high-80s; [for] the best in the market, it's been about 94–94.5 percent. So we're right in the sweet spot."

And "A draft wireless charging standard (J2954) has been released by standards organization SAE."

Mainstream Electric Car Makers Race to Wireless EV Charging

Luxury EV Makers Ramp Up Wireless Charging Announcements

www.pluglesspower.com

Probably the next question is will anyone can provide a better technology than SEA standard and more importantly who can deploy a better wireless charging network. SEA had CCS standard for plug in charge but the market failed to utilize it and now resorts to NACS as a rescuer.

 

[houstonian]

Appears Mercedes is jumping on the NACS.

Of note is their own build out of chargers which will support both Merc drivers as well as non-Merc drivers.

Seems like this could be a real win-win for all involved.

And how much does the EV owner pay for this? [charging at their domicile delivered by a turn-key 3rd party]

Uncertain - but remember from ownership's perspective they're agnostic to price. It is what it is.

 

[kilpatds]

If everyone builds their chargers in the same locations as everyone else, it doesn't help as much. If manufacturers put their chargers back behind dealerships that are closed, it doesn't help as much.

I want to see more convenience store installs, to be honest. In small towns.

 

[houstonian]

If everyone builds their chargers in the same locations as everyone else, it doesn't help as much.

My anecdotal experience leads me to be believe for urban areas where onsite L1/L2 solutions are impractical, or at least for now (see my posts upthread), a greater concentration of supply is needed to meet a greater concentration of demand.

In other words for EV driving apartment/condo dwellers unable to charge at home, they'll rely on DC fast charging. As the density of apartments/condos is presumable greater than the 'burbs or rural locations, a corresponding increase in density is needed for charging options.

This is not to takeaway from your keen observation about location concentration in rural locations where the breadth of multiple (small) charging locations is superior to the depth of a few (large) charging locations.

If manufacturers put their chargers back behind dealerships that are closed, it doesn't help as much.

No idea how MB - or others - will roll this out but if adding DC charging stalls at dealerships in addition to whatever other non-dealer locations they were already planning on building, I think this will be a net plus all around.

 

[KJD]

The problem isn't directly charging demand. The problem is that V3 doesn't support the Detroit charge port position.

To support different charge port positions, they need V4, so if they don't retrofit to V4 or expand rapidly there could be some mess.

Yes the V4 stations could solve a lot of port location problems with the longer cable. This article show a V4 station and an ID4 VW.

Tesla’s newest Supercharger easily accommodates any brand of EV in Europe.

 

[KJD]

I wonder if Ford, GM and the others will move their charge ports to support left-rear or front-right by 2025 when they say they will have NACS ports. The short charging cables of the Superchargers are one of the best features. No cables laying all over and getting run over.

Most of the GM cars have the port in the wrong place for supercharging. I did notice that the Silverado that is NOT in production just yet does have the port in a much better location. Maybe a sign of things to come, I hope.

 

[Roger Keay]

To accommodate non-Tesla vehicles, replace some of the V2 and V3 cable holders with the V4 long cable style holders. Changing cable holders should be the simplest way to adapt existing Superchargers for non-Tesla vehicles. Without longer cables, EV drivers will be tempted to occupy multiple stalls to position the vehicle charging port within reach of a cable. Installing a couple of V4 style charger boxes should be the lowest cost way of avoiding conflict between Tesla and non-Tesla vehicle owners.

 

[paulkva]

My hope is that as NACS-compatible EV sales accelerate, that we'll also see traditional gas station / convenience store locations accelerate their adoption of superchargers or other L3 NACS-compatible stations. We've already seen it to an extent with some eastern-US chains like Wawa, Sheetz, & Royal Farms, but there's still plenty of room for that trend to grow.

Of course I hope that when other manufacturers switch to "native" NACS ports, they locate the ports on the back of the driver's side or front of the passenger's side. (I haven't looked closely, but perhaps the port positioning is or could be baked into the standard?) My worry is that there will be enough NACS-compatible EVs with charge ports in the "wrong" location that many will end up blocking multiple spaces at V3 superchargers, so I also hope that V4 pedestals & cables could become a relatively easy retrofit for an existing V3 location and alleviate that issue.

Separately, but related to the apartment/condo discussions here, I also worry that fewer drivers (%-wise) will have home charging available. Though I'm a big proponent of high-speed charging, the convenience of charging at home is one of the biggest benefits of EV ownership for me.

All those hopes & worries, combined with the extensive time I've spent staring at maps/tables/charts of superchargers, lead me to ... not be able to answer the poll confidently.

 

[henderrj]

To accommodate non-Tesla vehicles, replace some of the V2 and V3 cable holders with the V4 long cable style holders. Changing cable holders should be the simplest way to adapt existing Superchargers for non-Tesla vehicles. Without longer cables, EV drivers will be tempted to occupy multiple stalls to position the vehicle charging port within reach of a cable. Installing a couple of V4 style charger boxes should be the lowest cost way of avoiding conflict between Tesla and non-Tesla vehicle owners.

Don't believe the V2 chargers are usable by other brands. They don't meet the NACS standard themselves. As to v3 the boxes that hold the cable are not just cable holders. There's a lot more to it than that. So I'm not sure how easy that would be. Still, it is an option. You wouldn't have to replace the transformers, just the stations themselves.

However, I think we'd be much better served by simply installing more and more v4 charge stations. Also, putting them down the middle of a lot, with parking places front and back, solves the issue more easily than anything.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Don't believe the V2 chargers are usable by other brands. They don't meet the NACS standard themselves. As to v3 the boxes that hold the cable are not just cable holders. There's a lot more to it than that. So I'm not sure how easy that would be. Still, it is an option. You wouldn't have to replace the transformers, just the stations themselves.

However, I think we'd be much better served by simply installing more and more v4 charge stations. Also, putting them down the middle of a lot, with parking places front and back, solves the issue more easily than anything.

The Tesla approach has been to keep the old and add the new. The few V2 that have closed have been for other reasons.

They'll get there eventually.

A lot of the current Permits that have been found have had an option of V3 or V4.

 

[Earl]

Don't believe the V2 chargers are usable by other brands

It could be done but would require a protocol translator (perhaps designated C3PO).

I think we'd be much better served by simply installing more and more v4 charge stations.

This, of course makes a lot of sense too, especially given that many of the V2 sites are at or nearing capacity anyway and will need to expand, even to handle Tesla growth, but definitely to handle other OEMs if they ever get serious about EVs.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

My anecdotal experience leads me to be believe for urban areas where onsite L1/L2 solutions are impractical, or at least for now (see my posts upthread), a greater concentration of supply is needed to meet a greater concentration of demand.

In other words for EV driving apartment/condo dwellers unable to charge at home, they'll rely on DC fast charging. As the density of apartments/condos is presumable greater than the 'burbs or rural locations, a corresponding increase in density is needed for charging options.

All this NACS adoption has been focused on DCFC.

However, Tesla has a program for installs of 6 or more Wall Connectors where they will directly bill owners. The limitation for adoption was that it was Tesla only.

But if the manufacturers all adopt NACS, everybody can use the Wall Connectors and so you then have more possibility of greater adoption of a Tesla-provided, low-cost, low-management, plug-and-charge AC charging system for MDUs.

Mind blown.