First Ford, now GM to adopt NACS standard. Who's next?

[lpickup]

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OwxWwQOPlNxQ

Mary Barra and Elon Musk just announced that GM will adopt the NACS connector, just like Ford (in 2025). I'm actually quite shocked that legacy automakers are willing to abandon the charging station that they themselves created. It just goes to show you how they hold the Supercharger network in high regard.

Now I'm wondering how this will affect the various partnerships that GM and Ford have announced with charging networks. Will they put those plans on hold until they are able to get third party charging station manufacturers to adopt NACS? Will they ditch those partnerships altogether and go with a Tesla Supercharger solution? Quite interesting!

 

[ArtiePenguin1]

Mary Barra and Elon Musk just announced that GM will adopt the NACS connector, just like Ford (in 2025). I'm actually quite shocked that legacy automakers are willing to abandon the charging station that they themselves created. It just goes to show you how they hold the Supercharger network in high regard.

I am very surprised too. You should see how combative the pro-Tesla people are getting at other places online (ahem, Reddit). Anyways, I don't think it's game over for CCS by a long shot as NEVI still requires CCS be installed. We will likely just see CCS & NACS at future DC fast chargers.

Hopefully there will be interoperable adapters available for purchase that will work with any CCS EV for those non-NEVI chargers that choose to go only NACS. It would be a real nightmare if all car manufacturers locked you into using only their own adapter. Only a passive adapter is needed since NACS already uses the CCS communication protocol. Activating Tesla Superchargers is a whole nother issue since that depends on Tesla themselves.

To be honest, since I drive an 800-volt EV I'm not that eager to gain access to Tesla Superchargers as all up until this point can only output 500 V max. Once V4 Superchargers roll out that can go to 1000 V then that'll be enticing.

 

[Mockingbird]

Now I'm wondering how this will affect the various partnerships that GM and Ford have announced with charging networks. Will they put those plans on hold until they are able to get third party charging station manufacturers to adopt NACS? Will they ditch those partnerships altogether and go with a Tesla Supercharger solution? Quite interesting!

General Motors CEO Mary Barra said that it is cheaper to pay Tesla to get access to the Supercharger than to build out its charging network (that it had planned with EVgo).

So, reading between the lines, GM will ditch its partnership with EVgo.

That said, many people incorrectly assume that any automaker can add "NACS" ports to its vehicles and have access to the Supercharger.

Barra made it pretty clear that GM is paying Tesla to have access to the Supercharger.

 

[lpickup]

I am very surprised too. You should see how combative the pro-Tesla people are getting at other places online (ahem, Reddit). Anyways, I don't think it's game over for CCS by a long shot as NEVI still requires CCS be installed. We will likely just see CCS & NACS at future DC fast chargers.

I predict that with the political backing of Ford & GM on board that the NEVI rules will be amended to not specifically call out CCS, but rather use some other language such as "standard connector" or "available to multiple vehicle brands".

Hopefully there will be interoperable adapters available for purchase that will work with any CCS EV for those non-NEVI chargers that choose to go only NACS. It would be a real nightmare if all car manufacturers locked you into using only their own adapter. Only a passive adapter is needed since NACS already uses the CCS communication protocol.

I will be shocked if the adapters are brand-specific. At most they will probably have a logo sticker on them.

Activating Tesla Superchargers is a whole nother issue since that depends on Tesla themselves.

I am wondering if with this move Tesla will add Plug&Charge capability to Superchargers so that those vehicles with native NACS ports don't have to use the Tesla app method to initiate charging. The only other alternative is that vehicle makers that adopt the NACS port would have to provide support for speaking the Tesla authentication protocol, but I bet that part of the deal that Tesla worked out with Ford & GM included something along the lines of making Supercharger access as seamless for those vehicles as it is for Teslas.

To be honest, since I drive an 800-volt EV I'm not that eager to gain access to Tesla Superchargers as all up until this point can only output 500 V max. Once V4 Superchargers roll out that can go to 1000 V then that'll be enticing.

I get your point, but at least for the near term, it's probably preferable to have access to a denser network with larger sites and better reliability that what you have today. I think the third-party experience will drastically improve in the future, but for now the Supercharger network does offer some compelling advantages, even if it's only 500V today. Regardless, I also don't think you'll be waiting long for V4 sites to start popping up. I figure Tesla is in the process of ramping up V4 production and getting rid of old V3 stock as we speak.

 

[Mockingbird]

I predict that with the political backing of Ford & GM on board that the NEVI rules will be amended to not specifically call out CCS, but rather use some other language such as "standard connector" or "available to multiple vehicle brands".


I will be shocked if the adapters are brand-specific. At most they will probably have a logo sticker on them.


I am wondering if with this move Tesla will add Plug&Charge capability to Superchargers so that those vehicles with native NACS ports don't have to use the Tesla app method to initiate charging. The only other alternative is that vehicle makers that adopt the NACS port would have to provide support for speaking the Tesla authentication protocol, but I bet that part of the deal that Tesla worked out with Ford & GM included something along the lines of making Supercharger access as seamless for those vehicles as it is for Teslas.


I get your point, but at least for the near term, it's probably preferable to have access to a denser network with larger sites and better reliability that what you have today. I think the third-party experience will drastically improve in the future, but for now the Supercharger network does offer some compelling advantages, even if it's only 500V today. Regardless, I also don't think you'll be waiting long for V4 sites to start popping up. I figure Tesla is in the process of ramping up V4 production and getting rid of old V3 stock as we speak.

I doubt it.

The problem with "NACS" is that it isn't a "standard" despite its name.

To be standard, there has to be a standardized body.

CCS has CharIN.

ChadeMO has CHAdeMO association.

There is no standardized body for "NACS"; it's entirely controlled by Tesla.

 

[lpickup]

I doubt it.

The problem with "NACS" is that it isn't a "standard" despite its name.

Hard to tell what specifically you were responding to, but I'll assume you're quoting my suggestion that NEVI rules may be changed with wording such as "standard connector".

I agree that NACS is not a formal standard, but it is very quickly becoming a de facto standard. So fine, maybe they won't use the words "standard connector", but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. And even if it is just a de facto standard today, many standards get their start being proprietary only to be formalized at a later time.

Now if you doubt that the NEVI rules will be updated, I think we will have to see about that.

ABB just announced their intention to support NACS on their hardware:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667139962830041091

This is all happening very quickly. So quickly in fact, that these talks had to have been happening for weeks if not months, and I would be very surprised if there aren't already talks with lobbyists and politicians in the works. With this amount of momentum, it would be silly to have NEVI specifically single out CCS at this point. And speaking of momentum, with the dominoes starting to fall, expect those not currently on board to quickly get on board.

 

[Mockingbird]

Hard to tell what specifically you were responding to, but I'll assume you're quoting my suggestion that NEVI rules may be changed with wording such as "standard connector".

I agree that NACS is not a formal standard, but it is very quickly becoming a de facto standard. So fine, maybe they won't use the words "standard connector", but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. And even if it is just a de facto standard today, many standards get their start being proprietary only to be formalized at a later time.

Now if you doubt that the NEVI rules will be updated, I think we will have to see about that.

ABB just announced their intention to support NACS on their hardware:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667139962830041091

This is all happening very quickly. So quickly in fact, that these talks had to have been happening for weeks if not months, and I would be very surprised if there aren't already talks with lobbyists and politicians in the works. With this amount of momentum, it would be silly to have NEVI specifically single out CCS at this point. And speaking of momentum, with the dominoes starting to fall, expect those not currently on board to quickly get on board.

I doubt that the government wants a single company (Tesla) to control the entire industry.

Also, NEVI rules mandate CCS, but that doesn't mean the exclusion of other connectors (i.e. "NACS")

 

[lpickup]

I doubt that the government wants a single company (Tesla) to control the entire industry.

Probably not, which is why I would also expect NACS to go through a formal standardization process. In fact, Tesla's own blog post (statement) says this:

The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard.

Source: Opening the North American Charging Standard | Tesla

Also, NEVI rules mandate CCS, but that doesn't mean the exclusion of other connectors (i.e. "NACS")

True, but there is also a reason they don't mandate CHAdeMO, and I fear that CCS1 may be falling into that category (a fact that I am actually surprised at, but suddenly it appears that's the way the industry is going in North America).

 

[Mockingbird]

Probably not, which is why I would also expect NACS to go through a formal standardization process. In fact, Tesla's own blog post (statement) says this:


Source: Opening the North American Charging Standard | Tesla


True, but there is also a reason they don't mandate CHAdeMO, and I fear that CCS1 may be falling into that category (a fact that I am actually surprised at, but suddenly it appears that's the way the industry is going in North America).

Until there is a standardized body for "NACS", it's still just the Tesla connector despite whatever Tesla say.

Furthermore, I think this is all for show and Tesla doesn't really want a standardized body to control "NACS" because Tesla would lose monopoly control over the connector.

 

[lpickup]

Until there is a standardized body for "NACS", it's still just the Tesla connector despite whatever Tesla say.

Furthermore, I think this is all for show and Tesla doesn't really want a standardized body to control "NACS" because Tesla would lose monopoly control over the connector.

I think having other manufacturers and charging station networks support NACS >> Tesla having exclusive control over the standard. I'm sure their happy to give up exclusive control if it means getting more customers to use their Superchargers, and giving their customers more options when it comes to using 3rd party chargers.

 

[Mockingbird]

I think having other manufacturers and charging station networks support NACS >> Tesla having exclusive control over the standard. I'm sure their happy to give up exclusive control if it means getting more customers to use their Superchargers, and giving their customers more options when it comes to using 3rd party chargers.

You should stop taking things at face value and read between the lines.

Tesla is trying to use federal funding to pay for the Superchargers, but without making those Superchargers publicly available for anyone to use.

Everything Tesla is doing is to try to exploit loopholes in the wordings of the law.

That includes naming the connector the “North American Charging Standard” and the licensing deals with Ford and GM.

 

[lpickup]

Okay, but everything Tesla does is not a conspiracy theory either. There is plenty of financial upside to them making Superchargers available to other autos. It's not just a loophole play. Besides, that's not even the main point. There is definitely upside to them to open up the standard. There is very little reason for them to keep it private. And, they would have considerable standing to affect future extensions to the standard (if necessary) anyway.

 

[Mockingbird]

Okay, but everything Tesla does is not a conspiracy theory either. There is plenty of financial upside to them making Superchargers available to other autos. It's not just a loophole play. Besides, that's not even the main point. There is definitely upside to them to open up the standard. There is very little reason for them to keep it private. And, they would have considerable standing to affect future extensions to the standard (if necessary) anyway.

The White House has said again today that CCS is required for federal funding.

The last thing the government wants is a "standard" control by one company, esp. when that company has a history of using federal funding to open proprietary charging stations that are only available to its own brand of vehicles.

 

[lpickup]

The White House has said again today that CCS is required for federal funding.

Sure, because that's what's true today. No argument there. But we are talking about what could happen in the future (or at least I am)

The last thing the government wants is a "standard" control by one company, esp. when that company has a history of using federal funding to open proprietary charging stations that are only available to its own brand of vehicles.

What federal funding has Tesla received to open charging stations?

 

[Mockingbird]

What federal funding has Tesla received to open charging stations?

Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative - Successful Applicants – Phase 2

1. About

natural-resources.canada.ca

Cranbrook Supercharger | Cranbrook, BC | EV Station

Located at the west side of Tamarack Centre near Tim Hortons.

www.plugshare.com

Creston Supercharger | Creston, BC | EV Station

6 Superchargers, available 24/7, up to 250kW

www.plugshare.com

Fernie Supercharger | Fernie, BC | EV Station

6 Superchargers, available 24/7, up to 250kW

www.plugshare.com

Salmon Arm Supercharger | Salmon Arm, BC | EV Station

Located at Askew’s Foods Uptown.

www.plugshare.com

Vernon Supercharger | Vernon, BC | EV Station

Located at Vernon SmartCentre near Mark’s.

www.plugshare.com

Osoyoos Supercharger | Osoyoos, BC | EV Station

Located at the 74 Avenue Parking/Charging lot, near 87 Street. This station is only for Tesla Superchargers, reference the second location for FLO check-ins.

www.plugshare.com

Prince George Supercharger | Prince George, BC | EV Station

Located at River Point Landing.

www.plugshare.com

Edson Supercharger | Edson, AB | EV Station

Located south of Boston Pizza, near 3 Ave.

www.plugshare.com

Vegreville Supercharger | Vegreville, AB | EV Station

Located at Vegreville Power Centre near Canadian Tire.

www.plugshare.com

Cornerstone Lloydminster Shopping Centre (2) | Lloydminster, AB | EV Station

Located at the northwest corner of Cornerstone Lloydminster Shopping Centre.

www.plugshare.com

Saskatoon Supercharger | Saskatoon, SK | EV Station

Located at Saskatoon South SmartCentre, near Clarence Ave entrance.

www.plugshare.com

North Battleford Supercharger | North Battleford, SK | EV Station

Located at the northwest corner of Discovery Co-op Mall.

www.plugshare.com

 

[lpickup]

Bit of a stretch to characterize $5 million in subsidies to build 129 stations (stalls) at 14 sites...in Canada...as having a "history" of receiving federal funding. But hey, I will acknowledge that you did find an instance of Tesla receiving federal funding for installing chargers.

 

[Mockingbird]

Bit of a stretch to characterize $5 million in subsidies to build 129 stations (stalls) at 14 sites...in Canada...as having a "history" of receiving federal funding. But hey, I will acknowledge that you did find an instance of Tesla receiving federal funding for installing chargers.

When a company has done something before, it's hardly a stretch to say that it would do it again, let alone a "conspiracy" as you said.

 

[ArtiePenguin1]

I get your point, but at least for the near term, it's probably preferable to have access to a denser network with larger sites and better reliability that what you have today.

In principle yes, but not really in practice where I live in New Mexico. Tesla only has 4 advantageous Supercharger locations in NM: T or C and Socorro along the crucial I-25 corridor, Farmington, and Clayton. None of Southeast New Mexico has a Supercharger just like the Texas Panhandle (excluding I-40) or much of Kansas.

The White House has said again today that CCS is required for federal funding.

That's probably because the final NEVI rule states that CCS is required. I highly doubt they'll restart the bureaucratic process to change that rule when it already allows the flexibility of other charging ports in addition to CCS. The market will likely decide having two ports is advantageous because nearly any current or future North America EV can charge without an adapter (except CHAdeMO).

The last thing the government wants is a "standard" control by one company, esp. when that company has a history of using federal funding to open proprietary charging stations that are only available to its own brand of vehicles.

Not that I support it, but NACS is a published 'open' standard. It just has yet to be implemented by anyone other than Tesla. The standard document exists and it uses the CCS communication protocol.
What is yet to be known/published is V2G (V2X) bi-directional power flow implementation. Also the Tesla Supercharger payment protocol, although that has always been separate from NACS and will likely always remain closed (just like the specifics of any other charging network's payment flow).

 

[lpickup]

There is a difference between implying a "history", which to me means a repeated pattern of constantly reaping as much benefits as possible. If anything, Tesla is well behind the status quo when it comes to seeking funding. In fact, Tesla has actually turned down funding because they couldn't or didn't want to meet the requirements of the program (Tesla walks away from public funding for Superchargers because of payment system integration).

If you're going to hold Tesla accountable for seeking funding opportunities (an activity that I would argue any company has a fiduciary responsibility to do), then shouldn't you also hold other networks similarly accountable? Is the only difference that until now the plug has been proprietary (despite the fact that NACS-equipped vehicles capable of long distance trips where these kinds of chargers are needed outnumber CCS?)

I'm not trying to defend proprietary connectors here. Obviously sites that work with as many cars as possible are preferable. And even though it seems like you don't believe it to be the case, that's now happening with NACS. Between Tesla, Ford & GM (so far) that's a lot of cars in the future that would be able to use NACS-equipped sites.

 

[Mockingbird]

Not that I support it, but NACS is a published 'open' standard. It just has yet to be implemented by anyone other than Tesla. The standard document exists and it uses the CCS communication protocol.

Free ≠ open standard.

"NACS" might be free, but it's entirely controlled by Tesla.

Tesla gets to approve or deny any changes made to "NACS".

In an open standard, a committee representing various members of the association approves or denies any changes.