What if Tesla spun off the SuperCharger network to an independent company and gave up the NACS to an independent organization?

[2025R1S]

I am in the minority and think that North America should either ditch CCS1 for CCS2, or ditch CCS1 for NACS, or ditch CCS1 for a new plug that has yet to be developed.

I am anti-CCS1, primarily because I can’t use most stations unless the handle is basically broken and its really warm outside.

What’s your solution or are you content with the, ”My way or no way!” approach?

Sponsored

 

[Longreach]

Regarding NACS standardization, a look back at history might be instructive.

Tesla already offered their connector IP to the SAE J1772 committee for standardization over a decade ago. But back then Legacy Auto committee representatives took a competitive position and voted against accepting the connector as a standard.

Now that Legacy Auto (namely GM and Ford) have changed their minds, it would be a very simple step to have the J1772 committee simply accept the NACS connector IP for standardization. Having SAE be the SDO for NACS standardization is both fast and efficient, and it is dominated by domestic auto manufacturers who are the pimary interested parties. No need to have IEC or other European based SDOs involved since this is a North American issue.

Having SAE move quickly should rest the concerns of the most paranoid NACS fear mongers.

 

[Longreach]

I am in the minority and think that North America should either ditch CCS1 for CCS2, or ditch CCS1 for NACS, or ditch CCS1 for a new plug that has yet to be developed.

I am anti-CCS1, primarily because I can’t use most stations unless the handle is basically broken and its really warm outside.

You are not in the minority.

Regardless of the loud protestations of a few short sighted anti-NACS people here, polls on different boards show the majority of people are happy that NACS appears to be the eventual sole connector standard for North America. And it is because of the same reasons you mention, and more.

 

[SoCal Rob]

Congrats on your icon image. Must got yours now!! Enjoy the ride...

On this subject, the only ones with heartburn over the NACS transition by F and GM are those that have reservations about, distaste/hate for Elon, Tesla or both.

Further, none of us know what the agreement entails and the implementation other than the imagination and speculation of what Tesla would/may do based on individual bias. It's creating lots of entropy without any insightful information.

Vast majority of the people are glad that there will be more reliable charging options available, especially after the EVgo, ChargePoint and others have also got on board to support the format.

I am very hopeful that Rivian will follow suit and move to NACS (the survey herein shows 2:1 in favor to do so). Once they do, it will open up all the superchargers to Rivian and make roadtrip planning significantly easier.

Thanks! We’re definitely enjoying it so far.

I don’t have any more distaste/hate for Tesla than I would if we substituted any other large corporation which could gain control over a critical piece needed by competitors in a similar discussion. I don’t think I’m the only one with reservations about this sort of thing since I think the Supreme Court weighed in at one time…

I may not be remembering the details correctly from some long-ago class, but I think you could look at the movie studio and movie theater issue from the early 20th century. The issue back then was one of movie studios (which produce content) having control over theaters (which deliver content) such that consumers could be blocked from accessing the content of competing studios merely because a competing studio owned the theaters in an area.

Today we’re talking about EV manufacturers and chargers but to me the issue is similar: by vertically integrating the manufacturing of a product and infrastructure/required service for the product, one manufacturer can prevent other manufacturers from accessing the service, effectively preventing them from selling to consumers not based on the merits of the products but rather because a single manufacturer has a monopolistic stranglehold on the required service.

I may not be remembering my high school social studies lesson correctly, and I’m neither an economist nor a lawyer, but I hope I got close enough to make my concern about any large corporation in a similar situation clear: My concern isn’t just with Tesla.

I completely agree that we don’t know what the agreements entail, and to me that’s not a good sign. If the terms were fair and equal for all then Tesla would rightly be bragging about what they’re doing to push the adoption of EVs forward, regardless of who manufactures them. They aren’t.

 

[SoCal Rob]

I am in the minority and think that North America should either ditch CCS1 for CCS2, or ditch CCS1 for NACS, or ditch CCS1 for a new plug that has yet to be developed.

I am anti-CCS1, primarily because I can’t use most stations unless the handle is basically broken and its really warm outside.

That addresses the connector and I don’t really have any strong feelings about that.

The weight and inflexibility of the cable is probably related to lack of standardization in charge port location, and the nose-in/tail-in design of most charging stations compared to the pull-through setup of most gas stations. Superchargers can have shorter cables because of the uniform vehicle configuration. I think that the shorter cables can be more flexible for a number of factors.

What you’re proposing doesn’t address the charging network, and the fact that one manufacturer has control over Superchargers which also use NACS.

For the record, I empathize with your concerns about accessibility. Long story short, the fingers and thumb on my left hand were effectively paralyzed for 3 months last year. I’m pretty resourceful, and very stubborn, so I tried to come up with work-arounds where I needed to. I wasn’t always successful and it made a lot of seemingly trivial tasks very difficult.

 

[Longreach]

What you’re proposing doesn’t address the charging network, and the fact that one manufacturer has control over Superchargers which also use NACS.

You write as if these agreements ban all charging networks except Superchargers. No such suggestion has been made.

Standardization of the NACS connector allows everyone to use it, including existing network operators. And there have been several announcements from existing operators of their intent to install NACS cables on their chargers.

The suggestion that adopting a NACS connector standard means a monopoly charging network is utterly absurd.

 

[s4wrxttcs]

The problem with that is it might be giving up what made the Tesla Supercharger Network so good to begin with. It's really difficult to make any kind of profit off of Charging. So they're likely always going to have to have some kind of manufacture support. Or some other means of making a profit. Like gas stations make a profit off the convenience store side of it.

Most of the contention I've seen so far have to do with the fact that we don't have all the details of the deals made with Ford, and GM.

We also don't know what kind of experience non-Tesla (or partners like Ford/GM) will have at Tesla Superchargers. Both in terms of access and cost. Tesla could limit access to only approved companies the same way Rivian current limits RAN access to only Rivians (that will change in the future).

We do have more detail on the charger side of thing where other charging companies will make Fast chargers with the NACS connector. Like EVGO, Blink and some others are going this route.

My biggest frustration with Fast charging in North America is we don't have a single standard like Europe does. This means things are often pretty convoluted when trying to charge. I imagine they'll be EVgo stations with CHAdeMO, CCS, and NACS which will make for a lot of customer confusion. The federal government is still pro-CCS, and I don't expect companies like VW/Porsche/Audi, Hyundai/Kia to switch to NACS any time soon. So it seems like for the foreseeable future there will be two main standards.

What I'd like to see is some organization that's separate from Tesla to have control over the NACS standard. That can implement things like V2H independently of Tesla. Tesla still retains 100% ownership/control over the Tesla Supercharger. Then the federal government switches to allow funding for NACS without a requirement for a CCS port.

When its all said and done one standard has to win over the other.

It's the lack of a clear winner that's frustrating when we're so late in the game.

 

[SASSquatch]

You are not in the minority.

Regardless of the loud protestations of a few short sighted anti-NACS people here, polls on different boards show the majority of people are happy that NACS appears to be the eventual sole connector standard for North America. And it is because of the same reasons you mention, and more.

Yeesh. I really am getting tired of the fact that anyone who protests is viewed as anti NACS. Can we please stop that? Just stop.

The issue ISN"T ABOUT THE NACS PORT. It is about the dominance Tesla has over the NACS standard and charging infrastructure and that there is no way to easily level the playing field for other 3rd parties or OEMS so that you have a free and open market for arguably the most important nation wide infrastructure investment that the US will make in the next 100 years.

How many times do we have to say that?

 

[Joel]

CharIn said that it "will work to convene an open task force to align requirements to submit NACS to the standardization process."

 

[Longreach]

Yeesh. I really am getting tired of the fact that anyone who protests is viewed as anti NACS. Can we please stop that? Just stop.

The issue ISN"T ABOUT THE NACS PORT. It is about the dominance Tesla has over the NACS standard and charging infrastructure and that there is no way to easily level the playing field for other 3rd parties or OEMS so that you have a free and open market for arguably the most important nation wide infrastructure investment that the US will make in the next 100 years.

How many times do we have to say that?

If so, then it is odd your sudden outburst of concern over a perceived Tesla monopoly is coincident with the industry momentum toward standardizing the NACS plug.

Recent announcements make it very clear the other network operators have embraced the plug and will complete with superchargers using NACS equipped cables on their own chargers.

Competition is happening, unless you truly believe that none of them could ever operate a reliable charger network. If so, your solution is we should all be forced to live with bad charging experiences from incapable operators? Irrational and illogical.

Astonishing that your definition of a free and open market means government control over who can do what with whom.

 

[SoCal Rob]

You write as if these agreements ban all charging networks except Superchargers. No such suggestion has been made.

Standardization of the NACS connector allows everyone to use it, including existing network operators. And there have been several announcements from existing operators of their intent to install NACS cables on their chargers.

The suggestion that adopting a NACS connector standard means a monopoly charging network is utterly absurd.

I don’t think I ever wrote that, but if you can point me to it then I’ll gladly edit for clarity.

I think I write as if most people want access to the Supercharger network, because from what I’ve read, they do. If, as an example, every non-Tesla charging provider of DCFC in America converted to Tesla’s NACS connector overnight, the rest of those networks would remain unchanged in location and reliability. This would give Tesla drivers some additional options if they didn’t have an adapter with them, but that would be the extent of the benefit when it comes to charging locations and reliability. Any complaints people have about EA, ChargePoint and the rest of the non-Tesla DCFC options would still be complaints, just with a different connector at the chargers.

I also write as if Tesla can do pretty much whatever they want with their charging network to benefit their car sales because, as far as I know they can and they have already instituted different pricing for Teslas versus others. If, as an example, Ford and GM switched to the Tesla connector overnight (and Tesla permitted those vehicles to use the Supercharger network) what is to prevent seemingly-benevolent Tesla from changing things in the future?

Finally, I write as if I don’t really care about the physical connector used as long as it is a real standard, because I don’t. I’m more concerned about increasing choices of charging locations for all than what connector is used, provided all manufacturers can use it with no strings attached from a manufacturer.

 

[moosetags]

CCS?, NACS?. The market will take this thing where it is supposed to go. I will admit that CCS is kind of a PITA anyway. If Elon gets richer, who cares? Did any of us ever worry about who was getting rich when we filled up our ICE vehicles?

Yes, I have a CCS connector in my Rivian truck. I'm sure that there will be an adapter to get me into NACS units. This change will be a game changer. All I want is a quick "fill-up" when and where I need it.

Brian

 

[Ozmt]

Oh, I get that.

Ultimately, going this route is a version of, “Put your money where your mouth is.” If Tesla thinks their products are good enough that they can be successful without the ability to make charging better for their customers than for all other manufacturers, then this should be an acceptable solution.

Resistance to this breakup is basically saying that Tesla wants to maintain control over the connector, charging network, or both to protect their own interests. Which, I think, is exactly what many people are concerned about.

Can anyone say apple? I bet you can

 

[mkg3]

Thanks! We’re definitely enjoying it so far.

I don’t have any more distaste/hate for Tesla than I would if we substituted any other large corporation which could gain control over a critical piece needed by competitors in a similar discussion. I don’t think I’m the only one with reservations about this sort of thing since I think the Supreme Court weighed in at one time…

I may not be remembering the details correctly from some long-ago class, but I think you could look at the movie studio and movie theater issue from the early 20th century. The issue back then was one of movie studios (which produce content) having control over theaters (which deliver content) such that consumers could be blocked from accessing the content of competing studios merely because a competing studio owned the theaters in an area.

Today we’re talking about EV manufacturers and chargers but to me the issue is similar: by vertically integrating the manufacturing of a product and infrastructure/required service for the product, one manufacturer can prevent other manufacturers from accessing the service, effectively preventing them from selling to consumers not based on the merits of the products but rather because a single manufacturer has a monopolistic stranglehold on the required service.

I may not be remembering my high school social studies lesson correctly, and I’m neither an economist nor a lawyer, but I hope I got close enough to make my concern about any large corporation in a similar situation clear: My concern isn’t just with Tesla.

I completely agree that we don’t know what the agreements entail, and to me that’s not a good sign. If the terms were fair and equal for all then Tesla would rightly be bragging about what they’re doing to push the adoption of EVs forward, regardless of who manufactures them. They aren’t.

History is always good to look at to project what might happen next.

The thing is it's not just history and what had happened. Need to also look at the assumptions and the conditions in which yielded the results. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages of vertical integration - for both businesses and consumers.

Argue the good, the bad and the ugly but the vertical integration of Apple App Store has greatly benefited most of our lives and the use/proliferation of smartphones. This is very similar to that more than movies at the turn of the last century. In the case of Apple, its the apps instead of electric charge being facilitated.

Already, other charging businesses, e.g., EVgo, ChargePoint, have committed to using NACS. If Tesla acts as you speculate, then others will fill the space quickly to win the business.

As for the transparency of the agreements, the details are still to be worked out, I believe. Need bit of patience before making judgement or jumping the gun, so to speak...

 

[SoCal Rob]

History is always good to look at to project what might happen next.

The thing is it's not just history and what had happened. Need to also look at the assumptions and the conditions in which yielded the results. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages of vertical integration - for both businesses and consumers.

Argue the good, the bad and the ugly but the vertical integration of Apple App Store has greatly benefited most of our lives and the use/proliferation of smartphones. This is very similar to that more than movies at the turn of the last century. In the case of Apple, its the apps instead of electric charge being facilitated.

Already, other charging businesses, e.g., EVgo, ChargePoint, have committed to using NACS. If Tesla acts as you speculate, then others will fill the space quickly to win the business.

As for the transparency of the agreements, the details are still to be worked out, I believe. Need bit of patience before making judgement or jumping the gun, so to speak...

I think the Apple App Store comparison does not work here.

The App Store, in addition to allowing Apple to take a cut which means more revenue (as Tesla would gain revenue in each charging session for non-Tesla vehicles) also furthers Apple’s business of selling hardware. More apps tends to mean more utility for end users which generates more demand for the only hardware which runs those apps: Apple hardware. This is very different from the Tesla+Supercharger situation in that increasing the availability of Superchargers to other brands may decrease demand for Tesla vehicles/hardware while also making the experience worse for Tesla owners with more competition for charging stalls. This introduces an incentive for Tesla to do manipulative things to their Supercharger charging network when it furthers their car manufacturing business. Also, one thing that the studio/theater example I used has going for it is the physical location aspect. Back in the day, entire towns could be cut off from Studio A’s content entirely if Studio B owned the the only theater within reasonable driving distance of a small town.

Regarding others filling the space quickly to win business, let’s say we’re years after F & GM started equipping vehicles with NACS (in place of or in addition to CCS). If we have hundreds of thousands of non-Tesla vehicles which had been using Superchargers which suddenly got cut off from that network, do you think that anyone would be able to quickly fill the non-Tesla charging space in something less than, what, years? While that’s going on, the non-Tesla charging networks would be overwhelmed by all of the non-Teslas which had been using Supercharging right up until they couldn’t. This would make the experience for non-Tesla EV owners terrible and cause demand for Tesla vehicles to skyrocket while causing demand for others, even those with NACS connectors but now cut off from the Supercharger network, to plummet. The fact that the non-Tesla charging networks have both NACS & CCS connectors at every stall (best case) by then won’t change the fact that if the Supercharger network is denied to the non-Tesla vehicles then the demand at what networks remain will be crazy, no matter what brand of banned NACS vehicle you own or CCS, for that matter.

I still think separating the Supercharger network from Tesla, vehicle manufacturer, addresses any scenario where Tesla could directly use their network as a weapon against competing vehicle manufacturers. I’d rather not have the government impose it (as with breaking up AT&T back in the day) and I think it would be better, even for Tesla, if Tesla did this voluntarily. Other large companies have created spin-offs so I don’t this is impossible.

Sponsored