Tesla opens charging network to other EVs for the first time(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Tesla opens charging network to other EVs for the first time
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-opens-charging-network-other-evs-netherlands-2021-11-01/
154 comments
Tesla converted their chargers to use the standard charging connector in Europe (CCS) several years ago.
But while any CCS vehicle was technically capable of plugging in to Tesla's CCS superchargers, until now only Tesla vehicles could charge there because the supercharger's software would recognise a non-Tesla vehicle and not allow it to charge.
There isn't a mandate that requires charging stations must be public and available to all vehicles. However, by converting the supercharger network into an open charging network, Tesla should be eligible to bid for government funding for charger network expansion, which was not available to a Tesla-exclusive charging network.
But while any CCS vehicle was technically capable of plugging in to Tesla's CCS superchargers, until now only Tesla vehicles could charge there because the supercharger's software would recognise a non-Tesla vehicle and not allow it to charge.
There isn't a mandate that requires charging stations must be public and available to all vehicles. However, by converting the supercharger network into an open charging network, Tesla should be eligible to bid for government funding for charger network expansion, which was not available to a Tesla-exclusive charging network.
Apparently, EU made CCS compulsory for the Electric vehicle charging network since 2014[0]. It's not really a happy accident but a regulation that went well.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
And this article is exactly why it shows that it made so much sense. With one software update, so many more chargers came online for all EVs in Europe, that could not happen in the US where Teslas use a special plug.
Tesla created the same problem for themselves in Europe. Instead of being CCS Type 2 Combo from the beginning, Tesla initially went with their own different special plug. It was a modified Type 2 which also supported DC fast charging.
A few years ago Tesla retrofitted all chargers in Europe to have two plugs - their modified type 2 and CCS. The Model 3 launched with a CCS inlet in Europe and older Model Ss and Xs needed a hardware change and an adapter to use CCS:
https://insideevs.com/news/343728/most-tesla-superchargers-n...
https://insideevs.com/news/438861/ccs2-retrofit-tesla-europe...
These days Tesla's newer chargers just have CCS plugs.
Tesla could do a similar retrofit in North America as part of the transition to CCS. It's a bigger problem because there are more chargers to do, but it's still only 12,653 ports:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html
A few years ago Tesla retrofitted all chargers in Europe to have two plugs - their modified type 2 and CCS. The Model 3 launched with a CCS inlet in Europe and older Model Ss and Xs needed a hardware change and an adapter to use CCS:
https://insideevs.com/news/343728/most-tesla-superchargers-n...
https://insideevs.com/news/438861/ccs2-retrofit-tesla-europe...
These days Tesla's newer chargers just have CCS plugs.
Tesla could do a similar retrofit in North America as part of the transition to CCS. It's a bigger problem because there are more chargers to do, but it's still only 12,653 ports:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html
Tesla didn’t create the problem for themselves purposely. CCS Type 2 was not in production when Tesla began building Superchargers a decade ago (and didn’t want their progress impeded by typical “death by committee” of legacy automakers, as a functioning fast DC charging network is a moat and an asset for an EV manufacturer), and while Europe forced them to adopt CCS in that market, I believe Tesla’s plug will remain the standard in the US for the foreseeable future (as they sell the majority of EVs in America, have the largest charging network, and the US government doesn’t have the political will to mandate CCS). Tesla has committed to tripling the size of the US Supercharger network in the next two years while Electrify America is desperate for investment it can’t get (because, no surprise, you can’t make a profit with fast DC charging stations between demand charges and price sensitive drivers [1]; it’s a cost center you want to break even on to sell high margin cars, not a revenue driver as a distinct business).
[1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-...
[1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-...
> "you can’t make a profit with fast DC charging stations between demand charges and price sensitive drivers"
Fast charging will be perfectly profitable in the longer term. There just isn't a large enough established base of EVs to create enough demand yet. But once there is, there will be plenty of customers willing to pay a premium for the fastest, best-located chargers with the best amenities and services on site.
Fast charger operators can make significantly higher margins on reselling electricity than anyone is making on gasoline.
Demand charges are an issue when demand is limited and spiky, but this will be alleviated through increased scale. More customers charging results in a smoother, more predictable demand curve. On-site battery storage is another solution.
Fast charging will be perfectly profitable in the longer term. There just isn't a large enough established base of EVs to create enough demand yet. But once there is, there will be plenty of customers willing to pay a premium for the fastest, best-located chargers with the best amenities and services on site.
Fast charger operators can make significantly higher margins on reselling electricity than anyone is making on gasoline.
Demand charges are an issue when demand is limited and spiky, but this will be alleviated through increased scale. More customers charging results in a smoother, more predictable demand curve. On-site battery storage is another solution.
> I believe Tesla’s plug will remain the standard in the US for the foreseeable future
It isn't the standard now. All other manufacturers have switched to CCS Type 1 Combo. Tesla is the last holdout.
Tesla sells J1772 chargers and they will sell a CCS adapter. The next step is to put CCS plugs on the chargers and then CCS inlets on the cars.
It isn't the standard now. All other manufacturers have switched to CCS Type 1 Combo. Tesla is the last holdout.
Tesla sells J1772 chargers and they will sell a CCS adapter. The next step is to put CCS plugs on the chargers and then CCS inlets on the cars.
I am aware of your disdain for Tesla, but they are the only volume EV manufacturer in North America and the largest fast DC charging network currently. Therefore, they are the current standard, not one set by a group of low volume runner ups. Same reason Hertz is ordering 100k+ Teslas for their fleet (their CEO specially said they’re the only automaker building EVs in volume [1]). Europe is of course a different market with more regulation, where government set the fast DC charging standard by edict.
“How do we democratize access to electric vehicles? That’s a very important part of our strategy,” Mark Fields, who joined Hertz as interim chief executive officer earlier this month, said in an interview. “Tesla is the only manufacturer that can produce EVs at scale.”
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28989001
“How do we democratize access to electric vehicles? That’s a very important part of our strategy,” Mark Fields, who joined Hertz as interim chief executive officer earlier this month, said in an interview. “Tesla is the only manufacturer that can produce EVs at scale.”
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28989001
> Therefore, they are the current standard
A standard that no one else uses is not much of a standard. All other manufacturers have switched to CCS Type 1 Combo. Eventually Tesla will switch too.
A standard that no one else uses is not much of a standard. All other manufacturers have switched to CCS Type 1 Combo. Eventually Tesla will switch too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Actually it seems that the Tesla superchargers had everying implemented to charge any vehicle, but lacking a payment process would refuse to do so. This became apparent when about a year ago there was some issue with the authentication module at some supercharger in Germany. For a day or so it would happily charge any brands car for free. This quickly spread via the internet and soon there was a wide variety of non-Tesla cars charging there.
One still wonders whether this just was a strange bug or some undercover test arranged by Tesla :)
One still wonders whether this just was a strange bug or some undercover test arranged by Tesla :)
In France charging station on public land (or assimilated) must be open to all vehicule, and there is a common information system to manage this.
http://www.avere-france.org/Site/Article/?article_id=7989
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000043475363
That's why tesla charger are on private managed lands (hotels, stores, ...).
http://www.avere-france.org/Site/Article/?article_id=7989
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000043475363
That's why tesla charger are on private managed lands (hotels, stores, ...).
[deleted]
> supercharger's software would recognise a non-Tesla vehicle
Also it has taken time for open standards to be developed to allow "Plug & Charge" operation:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Charge_Point_Protocol
There are of course charge stations where you use an app or kiosk to enter your user account/payment information.
Also it has taken time for open standards to be developed to allow "Plug & Charge" operation:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Charge_Point_Protocol
There are of course charge stations where you use an app or kiosk to enter your user account/payment information.
Tesla haven't implemented Plug & Charge for non-Tesla vehicles yet.
With the current implementation, you download the Tesla app, set up your payment account, then manually select your stall number in the app to begin charging.
With the current implementation, you download the Tesla app, set up your payment account, then manually select your stall number in the app to begin charging.
> There isn't a mandate that requires charging stations must be public and available to all vehicles. However, by converting the supercharger network into an open charging network, Tesla should be eligible to bid for government funding for charger network expansion, which was not available to a Tesla-exclusive charging network.
So you're telling me that instead of a specific kind of government regulation, another kind of government regulation got Tesla out of the walled garden? Got it!
So you're telling me that instead of a specific kind of government regulation, another kind of government regulation got Tesla out of the walled garden? Got it!
So when are Apple going to make phones that use the same charging cables as everyone else?
EU is currently in the process of making USB-C charging mandatory. Apple is still in denial but they will follow suit eventually, in the EU at least.
They're very likely do it everywhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
It costs quite a bit to have different SKUs around the world, especially when one of the SKUs is for a major market. At some point it becomes more cost efficient to just cut out some of SKUs.
California has the same effect in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect
It costs quite a bit to have different SKUs around the world, especially when one of the SKUs is for a major market. At some point it becomes more cost efficient to just cut out some of SKUs.
California has the same effect in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect
Cars are not iPhones though, and emissions control systems aren't slightly different models. In particular, Hong Kong has its own special dual-sim iPhone model that the rest of the world doesn't get. Only Apple knows what they'll do for USB-C, but they have per-Country SKUs for iPhones already so it wouldn't be out of the question.
They still try to have a limited number of SKUs. Suica (Japan) and CMDA (China/US) features are not limited to specific SKUs anymore, and the dual-SIM SKUs are available in India and China, two very large markets.
All new non dual-SIM iPhones have an eSIM too, so they're all technically dual SIM now.
I see, thanks for the source. Also in the reuters article:
> Tesla uses the CCS standard in Europe, allowing a wide range of cars to charge in stations without an adapter that uses a similar connector.
That also explains the announcement first in Europe as well.
> Tesla uses the CCS standard in Europe, allowing a wide range of cars to charge in stations without an adapter that uses a similar connector.
That also explains the announcement first in Europe as well.
One benefit of Tesla (for Tesla inc) opening up their charging network is it provides less incentive for other providers to create new charging points. Tesla have plenty incentive as they are by far the dominant charging provider currently and can continue to expand potentially realising a monopoly on charging infrastructure. If they end up with such a huge lead over the patchwork of competitors then it’s going to give them loads of leverage.
The Netherlands is home to 30% of all public EV chargers in the entire European Union. [0]
They are in no way the "dominant charging provider", probably not even for Tesla's.
What's more likely is that there are so many public and private EV chargers in the Netherlands that the superchargers sit mostly idle and Tesla needs to open them up to try and recoup some of the capex.
[0] https://www.acea.auto/press-release/risk-of-two-track-europe...
They are in no way the "dominant charging provider", probably not even for Tesla's.
What's more likely is that there are so many public and private EV chargers in the Netherlands that the superchargers sit mostly idle and Tesla needs to open them up to try and recoup some of the capex.
[0] https://www.acea.auto/press-release/risk-of-two-track-europe...
You started with providing a source, then go on to make an unsubstantiated claim about Dutch supercharger use?
Whenever I've plugged my Model 3 in at superchargers in the Netherlands, they're not mostly idle.
Whenever I've plugged my Model 3 in at superchargers in the Netherlands, they're not mostly idle.
I was trying to say that the claim above me about Tesla wanting to build a "charging monopoly" make no sense whatsoever in the Dutch market.
Furthermore, the few times I've been to a fast charger they were mostly empty or at least not full. Most of the people at my work (who have Tesla's) also rarely visit them because you can charge pretty much everywhere. No need to for a detour if you can just charge at your destination or at home.
Granted, this is still anecdotal, but would Tesla open their superchargers if they didn't have excess capacity? I think probably not, and therefor my theory seems more likely than trying to build a charging monopoly in the country with the most chargers in the EU.
Furthermore, the few times I've been to a fast charger they were mostly empty or at least not full. Most of the people at my work (who have Tesla's) also rarely visit them because you can charge pretty much everywhere. No need to for a detour if you can just charge at your destination or at home.
Granted, this is still anecdotal, but would Tesla open their superchargers if they didn't have excess capacity? I think probably not, and therefor my theory seems more likely than trying to build a charging monopoly in the country with the most chargers in the EU.
They get to leverage their early investment here. It's not going to be a loss leading enterprise either. Which is why there will be more players. Most highway fueling stations, if they haven't already, will be installing charging infrastructure. Likewise for malls, super markets, any commercial operation with parking lots basically. This will be demand driven rather than opportunistic. But it will happen nonetheless.
I'm on the fence about this. On one hand this would be a new revenue stream (even if a small one). On the other hand, fuelling stations installing chargers might be seen as cannibalizing their own market. I think there will be some time until we see those unfortunately. They will probably be the last to do it.
I Think esp. fuelling stations along high-ways will improve their charging infrastructure. A lot of their revenue is non-food stuff like coffee and snacks. And longer wait times during charging could lead to more revenue there.
There's nothing to be on the fence about here; plenty of existing businesses that have already validated that they are getting a lot of use of their existing charging investments.
For a petrol station. There's nothing to cannibalize. They can either watch all the EVs drive past to the next charging + pit stop opportunity or accommodate those customers and have them in their shops, rest rooms, restaurants, etc. Petrol isn't their core business in any case.
Easy choice if you want the business. The rest is just economical Darwinism. Anyone driving a car for work is likely to be switching sooner rather than later; in some countries that process is already pretty far completed with e.g. leasing companies preferring evs for cost and other reasons. EV sales have hit double digit percentages in many countries and the number of countries where that is over 50% is also growing. So, easy choice for most petrol stations. More a question of when and how many than if for most of them.
For a petrol station. There's nothing to cannibalize. They can either watch all the EVs drive past to the next charging + pit stop opportunity or accommodate those customers and have them in their shops, rest rooms, restaurants, etc. Petrol isn't their core business in any case.
Easy choice if you want the business. The rest is just economical Darwinism. Anyone driving a car for work is likely to be switching sooner rather than later; in some countries that process is already pretty far completed with e.g. leasing companies preferring evs for cost and other reasons. EV sales have hit double digit percentages in many countries and the number of countries where that is over 50% is also growing. So, easy choice for most petrol stations. More a question of when and how many than if for most of them.
Gas stations don't make money on the gas (with some exceptions for stations with fairly captive customer bases or in prime locations). Gas is just a break even to get you in the door. Some % of gas customers get converted to convenience store customers and that's where all the money is made.
I doubt they will care whether they are selling energy to you in the form of gasoline or electricity, as long as they make a buck.
It’s like saying telecoms won’t provide internet services because it might eat into SMS and phone call fees. So far that hasn’t been true - where I stay at least.
It’s like saying telecoms won’t provide internet services because it might eat into SMS and phone call fees. So far that hasn’t been true - where I stay at least.
> It’s like saying telecoms won’t provide internet services because it might eat into SMS and phone call fees. So far that hasn’t been true - where I stay at least.
This has definitely happened, worldwide, and it's still happening. Crap mobile internet quotas, for example.
This has definitely happened, worldwide, and it's still happening. Crap mobile internet quotas, for example.
> On the other hand, fuelling stations installing chargers might be seen as cannibalizing their own market.
It's probably better to cannibalize your own market share than have the revenue go to a competitor.
It's probably better to cannibalize your own market share than have the revenue go to a competitor.
[deleted]
Electric charging stations might drive a lot of traffic for restaurants or shops integrated into the highway station due to the charging time.
That’ll turn out like Kodak inventing the digital camera and shoving it in a drawer.
Actually, it provides more incentive for others to build out networks. Tesla is inarguably the leader for fast charger availability, but the problem is that drivers of other electric vehicles are anxious to purchase EVs because "free for all" chargers are still a rarity outside of urban areas. Now, with access to the Supercharger network at competitive rates, more people can decide to buy an electric vehicle, which in turn provides utilities and other infrastructure vendors with more security that they can actually recoup their investments into chargers.
Additionally, opening up the network should be beneficial for Tesla's cash flow - not that they'd need it these days, though.
Additionally, opening up the network should be beneficial for Tesla's cash flow - not that they'd need it these days, though.
Positive cash-flows effects are always needed. Feeling you don't is dangerous, positive cash-flow is what keeps a company in default alive territory.
Not really, Tesla has $18 billion cash on hand and an established business model that works without opening up the chargers. That means they have the equivalent of more than 6 months of revenue on hand in cash because of the amount of capital they have managed to raise.
Not only that, but their core business model is pulling a profit anyway.
Cash flow is not a particular concern for Tesla right now, they are cash-rich.
Not only that, but their core business model is pulling a profit anyway.
Cash flow is not a particular concern for Tesla right now, they are cash-rich.
Cash-flow after investing activities is not really a thing, unless of course you are looking at companies from a VC-funded SV perspective. Just because you don't need additional cash-flow now doesn't mean you don't need it later. And positive cash-flow allows you to get additional loans, and re-pay those, when needed.
> "Not really, Tesla has $18 billion cash on hand and an established business model that works without opening up the chargers."
True, but building out the supercharger network is expensive and likely still a loss-leader for Tesla. Opening it means that Tesla can generate more revenue from an expensive asset.
> "Cash flow is not a particular concern for Tesla right now, they are cash-rich."
Cash flow is always a concern. Tesla would not stay "cash rich" for long without positive cashflow.
True, but building out the supercharger network is expensive and likely still a loss-leader for Tesla. Opening it means that Tesla can generate more revenue from an expensive asset.
> "Cash flow is not a particular concern for Tesla right now, they are cash-rich."
Cash flow is always a concern. Tesla would not stay "cash rich" for long without positive cashflow.
They have positive cash flow though, and also have a giant pile of cash reserves, so why should they worry about it?
Their current financial position means they can make much more strategic decisions about long-term profitability rather than just worry about cash flow.
Their current financial position means they can make much more strategic decisions about long-term profitability rather than just worry about cash flow.
They always have the option to fallback on cash-flow after outside investment and debt so. Would be a lot easier if Softbank would have the means to get involved so.
Uh..."cash flow positive if investments and the credit part of debt is considered cash flow"? That sounds like a situation you'd really prefer not to be in.
In fact, this is exactly what the market has recently realized separates Tesla from most venture-funded businesses.
In fact, this is exactly what the market has recently realized separates Tesla from most venture-funded businesses.
That was my point, VC-backed companies, some of them at least, cannot only postpone profitability but also positive cash-flow as long as VC money doesn't try up. Back to Tesla, 14.5bn $ are coming from issuance of stock and issuance of debt. Net free cash flow is 2.5bn, so even if it is not VC money Tesla seems to be living to huge extend from external funding, one way or the other.
That’s fine as long as the external funding is being used to invest in capital / production - see Amazon where their years being criticised for being unprofitable but just supported by external VC funds (if you ignored that the funds were being used to buy capital and expand) quickly turned into one of the most profitable companies in the world.
[deleted]
> Feeling you don't is dangerous, positive cash-flow is what keeps a company in default alive territory.
Agreed, but they do seem to have over 16 billion $ in cash and other liquid assets (per https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/cash-flow/), and that is after all the expenses they had for the new factories. That's a lot of money to ride out a storm.
Agreed, but they do seem to have over 16 billion $ in cash and other liquid assets (per https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/cash-flow/), and that is after all the expenses they had for the new factories. That's a lot of money to ride out a storm.
Their operating cash flow seems to be around 1.7bn $, based on the TTM column. Overall free cash-flow is 2.5bn $, repayment of debt alone is -16.1bn $. So if everything else fails, Telas liquidity goes strait out just for that. Throw in another roughly -16bn for investing, financing and capital. A solid position for sure when you have 16bn in cash in the bank. But none that would allow them to be generous with not using other cash-flow opportunities.
Yep, likewise you can now feasibly open up just one charge spot, rather than cover a whole country as an MVP
> Tesla have plenty incentive as they are by far the dominant charging provider currently and can continue to expand potentially realising a monopoly on charging infrastructure. If they end up with such a huge lead over the patchwork of competitors then it’s going to give them loads of leverage.
Do you have any source for this?
From what I see Ionity (https://ionity.eu/) has around 400 stations and Tesla has around 600. So the difference is not crushing. Plus Ionity has huge backers: https://ionity.eu/en/about.html
Do you have any source for this?
From what I see Ionity (https://ionity.eu/) has around 400 stations and Tesla has around 600. So the difference is not crushing. Plus Ionity has huge backers: https://ionity.eu/en/about.html
https://insideevs.com/news/454268/ionity-300-fast-charging-s...
"On the other hand, the number of 1,211 chargers"
ionity has 4 stalls per station on average
https://insideevs.com/news/496754/europe-600-tesla-superchar...
"The number of Tesla Supercharging stations in Europe has recently exceeded 600 in 27 countries (with more than 6,000 individual charging stalls). On average, that's 10 stalls per station."
The other thing in practical experience is that tesla superchargers are super reliable and ionity not so much.
"On the other hand, the number of 1,211 chargers"
ionity has 4 stalls per station on average
https://insideevs.com/news/496754/europe-600-tesla-superchar...
"The number of Tesla Supercharging stations in Europe has recently exceeded 600 in 27 countries (with more than 6,000 individual charging stalls). On average, that's 10 stalls per station."
The other thing in practical experience is that tesla superchargers are super reliable and ionity not so much.
> ... as the world's most valuable carmaker looks to bring electric vehicles into the mainstream.
Didn't the EU tell them they had to?
Didn't the EU tell them they had to?
Yes, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that Tesla had plans to open up the charging network at some point anyway.
Well, we have a control site, a.k.a the US. Do they open it there?
We'll see. I for one believe opening up the network will lure more customers into the Tesla fold. At the moment though, Tesla's bottleneck is still ramping up production, not landing new orders.
If their network is underutilized, they have an interest to open it. If their goal is to build a walled garden, they will not open it. So far the latter hypothesis matches the observations better.
Especially considering everything they do with their software + their very harsh anti-repair perspective.
In the US Tesla are the waste majority of EV, and those that are not Tesla usually can't charge anywhere close to fast enough for it to be reasonable to charge at a Supercharger.
The markets are just totally different. In the EU there are lots of cars that could use the Superchargers so you can make way more money there then in the US.
They always said eventually they would open it up to everybody. Its a balance between it being a selling point and making money from higher utilization.
The markets are just totally different. In the EU there are lots of cars that could use the Superchargers so you can make way more money there then in the US.
They always said eventually they would open it up to everybody. Its a balance between it being a selling point and making money from higher utilization.
It's not a good control since there are other differences between US and EU, most notably charging connectors standards and chargers per cars (US superchargers are more crowded than EU on average).
There is no EU directive that requires Tesla to make the charging network available to non-Tesla vehicles. Just that fast charging stations must support the CCS standard, which Tesla used in Europe for years already.
As far as I know the EU did not tell them they have to do that.
If I'm wrong, please provide a source.
If I'm wrong, please provide a source.
It's mentioned in the 2014/94/EU directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure [0], see (26) and (33). It is not a law but it is a guideline for EU countries to implement it as law. And the countries that make up the majority of the EU's charging infrastructure plan on doing exactly that, so any delay would have put Tesla in non-compliance.
Furthermore, this 2021 European Court of Auditors special report pushed for the same [1].
A Supercharger station gives access to private users with an authorisation or a subscription so it's considered accessible to the public. All charging stations accessible to the public should to allow multistandard recharging.
[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
[1] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_05/SR_Elec...
Furthermore, this 2021 European Court of Auditors special report pushed for the same [1].
A Supercharger station gives access to private users with an authorisation or a subscription so it's considered accessible to the public. All charging stations accessible to the public should to allow multistandard recharging.
[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
[1] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_05/SR_Elec...
2014/94/EU requires that public charging stations support a common technical standard, ie: CCS.
There is nothing in it that requires Tesla (or any other operator) to make their network available to all makes of vehicle.
However, without an "open" charging network Tesla cannot access government funds for charging network expansion that is available to their competitors.
There is nothing in it that requires Tesla (or any other operator) to make their network available to all makes of vehicle.
However, without an "open" charging network Tesla cannot access government funds for charging network expansion that is available to their competitors.
> "It is not a law but it is a guideline for EU countries to implement it as law."
This is how all EU directives work. Member states are required to implement EU directives in law.
This is how all EU directives work. Member states are required to implement EU directives in law.
Thank you.
I only read about the german minister of transport, Andreas Scheuer, was in talks to Tesla to open up the charging network. The source I have is here:
https://ecomento.de/2021/06/16/tesla-soll-supercharger-fuer-...
So, I think the logic was: eventually it will happen anyway - so it's better for Tesla to do it themselves before they are forced to, so that they can do it on their own terms. For example, so that Tesla drivers will never have to wait longer than x minutes.
https://ecomento.de/2021/06/16/tesla-soll-supercharger-fuer-...
So, I think the logic was: eventually it will happen anyway - so it's better for Tesla to do it themselves before they are forced to, so that they can do it on their own terms. For example, so that Tesla drivers will never have to wait longer than x minutes.
I see. That's not "EU telling them they have to".
That's a minister of an EU member state allegedly telling them he would like to force them to do it.
That's a minister of an EU member state allegedly telling them he would like to force them to do it.
Still the acting Minister of Transportation in the biggest EU member state. That hair splitting is showing some lack of understanding how this stuff works.
I think Tesla saw the writing on the wall in the EU, which is that the EU doesn't want closed eco-systems, including payment, for EV charging. Now you can do it when forced or leap-frog that and get some positive PR from it. Plus you might be able to do it on our own terms. I highly doubt Tesla would have done it yet without some pushing from the EU.
I think Tesla saw the writing on the wall in the EU, which is that the EU doesn't want closed eco-systems, including payment, for EV charging. Now you can do it when forced or leap-frog that and get some positive PR from it. Plus you might be able to do it on our own terms. I highly doubt Tesla would have done it yet without some pushing from the EU.
I'm sorry, but as a non-german european citizen I really do not consider an opinion of a german minister all that important.
He has zero authority to order companies what they have to do or don't have to do in my country.
He has zero authority to order companies what they have to do or don't have to do in my country.
Directly, no. Indirectly one cannot ignore the influence Germany has in the EU, so his word carries some weight, especially if you are a multi-national company operating in the EU.
That being said, Andi Scheuer is quite an incompetent idiot.
That being said, Andi Scheuer is quite an incompetent idiot.
It's not only the minister's opinion, it's Germany's opinion. As minister he is allowed to make deals in the name of Germany.
Germany and France are the main financial contributors to the EU budget, so they are involved in pretty much all EU matters.
Germany and France are the main financial contributors to the EU budget, so they are involved in pretty much all EU matters.
>> As minister he is allowed to make deals in the name of Germany.
That is very true. It also is part of the problem with that particular Minister, one of those deals cost Germany north of 500 million for nothing.
That is very true. It also is part of the problem with that particular Minister, one of those deals cost Germany north of 500 million for nothing.
Don't infrastructure subsidies in the member states usually require an open system as well?
For there next trick perhaps the EU can ban all payment networks, apps and anything which isn't waving a contactless card in front of the machine to pay for the electricity.
Maybe they could also increase the reliability 10 fold by making them default to giving away free electricity if it can't contact the providers services, I refuse to believe that the core electrical pieces of a car charger are anywhere near as unreliable as the infrastructure people keep throwing up in front of it.
Maybe they could also increase the reliability 10 fold by making them default to giving away free electricity if it can't contact the providers services, I refuse to believe that the core electrical pieces of a car charger are anywhere near as unreliable as the infrastructure people keep throwing up in front of it.
Germany has legislation coming into effect in 2023 requiring credit/debit card readers on all new EV chargers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/new-ev-chargers-germany...
And I've seen people calling that typical backwards German internet policy. Not sure why closed-wall, obscure subscription solutions to pay for commodity services would be preferable to a robust, proven and easily accessible payment solution like credit/debit cards. It works at scale for fuel, why not for electricity? Heck, if you want it fancy throw in Google, Apple Pay or whatever contactless solution there is.
As far as payment for charging is concerned, EVs seem to be really backwards compared to to the existing fuel station networks.
Also intriguing how Tesla is able to sell a legal requirement as a great initiative on their behalf.
As far as payment for charging is concerned, EVs seem to be really backwards compared to to the existing fuel station networks.
Also intriguing how Tesla is able to sell a legal requirement as a great initiative on their behalf.
The criticism I heard on DeutschlandFunk was that now they can't build chargers into thin lampposts or other places with space constraints.
It also makes chargers more expensive both in production cost and in maintenance, as you have to support a display and physical buttons and stuff, all that for a "legacy payment method".
It also makes chargers more expensive both in production cost and in maintenance, as you have to support a display and physical buttons and stuff, all that for a "legacy payment method".
Presumably the payment terminal doesn't need to be built into the individual charger itself. Just like paying for parking in a large car park, there aren't parking meters on every individual space, but rather you can walk to a central terminal to pay.
So on the one side we are pushing all kinds of contactless payment methods, incl. credit cards, only to call them "legacy" once those don't result in yet another walled garden but rather the opposite.
> Not sure why closed-wall, obscure subscription solutions to pay for commodity services would be preferable to a robust, proven and easily accessible payment solution like credit/debit cards
Because these obscure methods of paying usually work out a lot cheaper than paying directly by credit card (usually they have a QR code with a website).
Because these obscure methods of paying usually work out a lot cheaper than paying directly by credit card (usually they have a QR code with a website).
IIRC that only requires an nfc capable credit card reader so still "waving a card in front of the machine".
Which is fine. Buy (electric) fuel like you'd buy a bread. Good news, looking forward to that as it will simplify electric mobility furthermore.
> Which is fine. Buy (electric) fuel like you'd buy a bread.
Are you implying you are able to can use a card to pay in a German bakery?
Are you implying you are able to can use a card to pay in a German bakery?
COVID changed a lot.
I can pay by card in chain bakeries and most non chain bakeries around me.
My supermarket recently upgraded their card reader to a model which doesn't take an eternity to process a nfc transaction.
Restaurants are the biggest hold outs and there many which still only take cash (presumably for "tax reasons").
I can pay by card in chain bakeries and most non chain bakeries around me.
My supermarket recently upgraded their card reader to a model which doesn't take an eternity to process a nfc transaction.
Restaurants are the biggest hold outs and there many which still only take cash (presumably for "tax reasons").
[deleted]
Yes!
As others have mentioned, Covid was a huuuuuuge boost for the acceptance of cashless payment systems in Germany. Even small business now have card readers and don't raise an eye when you want to pay 7,83 by card.
If anything good came out of Covid it might be this.
As others have mentioned, Covid was a huuuuuuge boost for the acceptance of cashless payment systems in Germany. Even small business now have card readers and don't raise an eye when you want to pay 7,83 by card.
If anything good came out of Covid it might be this.
You can use cards prettey much everywhere in the EU. From massive chains to street carts.
> From massive chains to street carts.
I was specifically talking about Germany and its love for cash. It can be tricky to pay with cards in restaurants and small stores. It is a well known quirk.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200520-will-coronavir...
I was specifically talking about Germany and its love for cash. It can be tricky to pay with cards in restaurants and small stores. It is a well known quirk.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200520-will-coronavir...
Not in Germany!
Has been steadily on the rise, most German bakeries I know now have card payments.
In Hamburg I pay using my Apple watch all the time, even when it's just for a Franzbrötchen or other small orders
I do every day, smaller bakery (no chain), they don't take cash anymore since COVID.
Great news!
EV infrastructure in EU is incredibly fragmented. Nice that Tesla chargers are becoming accessible, but we still have fragmentation of apps and charging subscriptions/accounts (Tesla app/account is another one you need to have): https://svedic.org/tech/daddy-did-you-really-need-electric-c...
EV infrastructure in EU is incredibly fragmented. Nice that Tesla chargers are becoming accessible, but we still have fragmentation of apps and charging subscriptions/accounts (Tesla app/account is another one you need to have): https://svedic.org/tech/daddy-did-you-really-need-electric-c...
Statement from Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/support/non-tesla-supercharging
I long believed that Tesla should test out concept of charging stations, modeled after gas stations. Once they figure out the best design, structure and business, they should then franchise it to small operators.
It’s going to be good business for operators as Tesla owners are in the high earn/spend bracket and it will allow Tesla to significantly expand its brand’s footprint (not that they need it) while reinforcing the perception that driving Tesla is more superior to other experiences (even if it might not be true).
The incremental revenue from franchises is also nice. And it would allow Tesla to deploy more batteries and solar panels.
It’s going to be good business for operators as Tesla owners are in the high earn/spend bracket and it will allow Tesla to significantly expand its brand’s footprint (not that they need it) while reinforcing the perception that driving Tesla is more superior to other experiences (even if it might not be true).
The incremental revenue from franchises is also nice. And it would allow Tesla to deploy more batteries and solar panels.
The ideal model isn't like a gas station. It's not even a 1:1 replacement of refueling model.
Some gas station usage disappears entirely due to at-home charging and destination charging (i.e. opportunistically wherever the car is parked). You simply don't visit a special place to charge.
Remaining usages are for longer-range road trips, which are already served adequately by bigger service stations along highways. The rest is for users who don't have at-home charger and need a 45-minute weekly charge, but for this the ideal model is not a charger with a gas-station like shop, but a mall that happens to have chargers.
Some gas station usage disappears entirely due to at-home charging and destination charging (i.e. opportunistically wherever the car is parked). You simply don't visit a special place to charge.
Remaining usages are for longer-range road trips, which are already served adequately by bigger service stations along highways. The rest is for users who don't have at-home charger and need a 45-minute weekly charge, but for this the ideal model is not a charger with a gas-station like shop, but a mall that happens to have chargers.
I agree with your analysis of the charging needs but not with your conclusions.
> the ideal model is not a charger with a gas-station like shop, but a mall that happens to have chargers.
I own few Teslas for last decade or so. Last year took a trip with wife across the Pacific Northwest. The mall concept is extremely annoying because it's the most congested area of the city. Gas station model is superior for road trips, as one needs a place to stop, use restroom, stretch legs, grab coffee/bite.
What we experienced were chargers in middle of nowhere with no services or ones in parking lots of hotels and malls. Malls were crowded and hard to get into. Hotels were angry that we are using their services. Empty lots were, well, empty.
> the ideal model is not a charger with a gas-station like shop, but a mall that happens to have chargers.
I own few Teslas for last decade or so. Last year took a trip with wife across the Pacific Northwest. The mall concept is extremely annoying because it's the most congested area of the city. Gas station model is superior for road trips, as one needs a place to stop, use restroom, stretch legs, grab coffee/bite.
What we experienced were chargers in middle of nowhere with no services or ones in parking lots of hotels and malls. Malls were crowded and hard to get into. Hotels were angry that we are using their services. Empty lots were, well, empty.
I'm in the UK, so we may have very different expectations. Pee-in-a-bottle road trips are uncommon here (if you drive 5h in any direction you'll either drive into the sea, or wish you took a train instead). When road tripping for sightseeing, you'd rather stop at a pub than a parking lot.
Shops at gas stations here are for buying red bull, cigarettes, and toilet paper. That's not enough "entertainment" for a longer charge.
Shops at gas stations here are for buying red bull, cigarettes, and toilet paper. That's not enough "entertainment" for a longer charge.
I think this shows how biased we all are. 5h drive in the Pacific Northwest of US won’t even get you between large cities in some places.
Anyway, I think both of us made solid points. It’s going to be interesting to watch.
Anyway, I think both of us made solid points. It’s going to be interesting to watch.
This is interesting news. First of all, it is good news, if the Tesla locations become available to other car brands as well. But it is probably also pointing to a change in the Tesla company strategy. So far, superchargers were built to enable long-distance travel with Tesla cars and consequently sell more cars. Tesla recently opened up a large factory for superchargers in China. It looks to me as if they could be entering the business of providing public charging as an individual profit center. Being able to mass manufacture the charging installations, they could have a huge cost advantage, and the superchargers are known to work very well in general. And of course the superchargers keep being a benefit to all Tesla owners.
Tesla chargers are head and shoulders over their competitors in Europe. There are more of them, they are in better shape overall, they are more powerful, and I'm pretty confident that they work better. Plus so far Tesla is way cheaper than its competitors, so much that is probably can undercut them on price too. This looks like an easy disruption...
When we see pricing for non-Teslas, we'll see how they're trading off keeping the network a competitive advantage...
Is it $10/kWh 'premium charging' or is it $0.10/kWh 'encourage EV's pricing'.
Is it $10/kWh 'premium charging' or is it $0.10/kWh 'encourage EV's pricing'.
Tesla will be charging other EVs around €0.60 per kWh, or €0.24 per kWh with a €13 per month subscription.
This is only slightly higher than what Tesla owners are charged, arguably to cover the additional overhead.
Also, it's competitive: The comparative fast-charger network Ionity charges €0.79 per kWh, or €0.35 kWh with a €17.99 subscription.
This is only slightly higher than what Tesla owners are charged, arguably to cover the additional overhead.
Also, it's competitive: The comparative fast-charger network Ionity charges €0.79 per kWh, or €0.35 kWh with a €17.99 subscription.
These subscriptions have to die, if we want to really replace ICEs. It would be nice if companies did it on their own, because otherwise we'll see the EU Commission step in yet again - and it will.
Why do the subscriptions have to die? Companies have monthly recurring payroll costs—it makes sense to have monthly recurring revenue too.
Also, it makes monthly budgeting easier for individuals.
Also, it makes monthly budgeting easier for individuals.
It sounds similar to the current "standing charge" you get on UK household energy bills (don't know about the rest of Europe).
Even if you don't use any electricity you still pay a day rate (on most tariffs).
What I'd hate to see long term is if the subscription remains tied to a single supplier (i.e. I pay my subscription to Tesla, but use Ionic to charge, so pay the subscription charge and the higher rate). That will mean the decision to use a different charge point still has repercussions, and prevents the openness of the infrastructure we (society at large if we're moving full electric) really need.
Even if you don't use any electricity you still pay a day rate (on most tariffs).
What I'd hate to see long term is if the subscription remains tied to a single supplier (i.e. I pay my subscription to Tesla, but use Ionic to charge, so pay the subscription charge and the higher rate). That will mean the decision to use a different charge point still has repercussions, and prevents the openness of the infrastructure we (society at large if we're moving full electric) really need.
> It sounds similar to the current "standing charge"
One of the great things mobile phones did for society was the PAYG model. It lowered costs for consumers and allowed to onboard even people with atypical cashflows, who might have otherwise struggled to afford monthly contracts. It was a great democratization of access, and that should be the model to pay for services.
Sadly, companies of all size prefer monthly "standing charges" because they make it much easier to fleece consumers by making them pay even if they don't use the service - and if you miss a payment, they can add further charges on top, increasing the abuse. Even mobile companies now make it harder and harder to get true no-strings PAYG accounts.
One of the great things mobile phones did for society was the PAYG model. It lowered costs for consumers and allowed to onboard even people with atypical cashflows, who might have otherwise struggled to afford monthly contracts. It was a great democratization of access, and that should be the model to pay for services.
Sadly, companies of all size prefer monthly "standing charges" because they make it much easier to fleece consumers by making them pay even if they don't use the service - and if you miss a payment, they can add further charges on top, increasing the abuse. Even mobile companies now make it harder and harder to get true no-strings PAYG accounts.
What gas station requires a subscription to buy aside from Costco or Sam's club?
Until these EVs can match the convenience of gas, there isn't a point to get one. Especially since batteries are a huge tax on resources as it is.
Until these EVs can match the convenience of gas, there isn't a point to get one. Especially since batteries are a huge tax on resources as it is.
Because it makes EVs a closed system of kinds. Compared to ICEs, where I can get fuel at any station just using my credit or debit card, no subscription needed. All there exists, where I live at least, are bonus programs and cooperations that give you some price reductions. Subscriptions like those for EV charging a only there to create a kind of lock in, a lock in that has the potential to slow down EV sales.
Does Shell charge for a subscription to get some fuel at their stations...? Don't they have fixed costs too? And let's not make up excuses that patronize consumers; they can budget fine for fuel, they will do the same for electricity.
The more we stop this parasitical "subscription for everything" model, the better.
The more we stop this parasitical "subscription for everything" model, the better.
Actually yes, Shell offers a subscription model that gets you a discount on fuel prices (you get the "premium" V-Power at the cost of "standard" Super fuel), at least in Germany - it's called the "V-Power Smart Deal".
And it's entirely optional. Which is how it should be.
So no, they don't require a subscription to fuel up. It's just a loyalty scheme.
So no, they don't require a subscription to fuel up. It's just a loyalty scheme.
...Okay, and the same is true of Tesla. You don't need a monthly subscription, you can pay as you go; the optional subscription gives you discounted pricing. It's just a loyalty scheme.
So I can pull up at any Tesla station and just charge, without giving them my details?
Gas stations (which are way more complex & expensive to operate than unattended electric charging points) manage just fine without subscriptions though.
Because it severely reduces the quality of service received by the user.
If I have a subscription to Walmart which gives me half price food in return for $50/month, you can bet I'll always be shopping there.
That means I'll usually drive further for food, have less selection, and will be far less likely to switch to another grocery store.
When many stores have a subscription model, they can start to creep prices up for non-subscribers, and before long grocery shopping starts to look like cable internet or phone plans.
I can't 'just switch to AT&T for a few minutes to see if it's faster'!
Endgame:. "36 month Walmart Grocery Plus for $50/month. Early termination charge: $1800. For just $25/month extra, you can also shop at other Walmart locations."
If I have a subscription to Walmart which gives me half price food in return for $50/month, you can bet I'll always be shopping there.
That means I'll usually drive further for food, have less selection, and will be far less likely to switch to another grocery store.
When many stores have a subscription model, they can start to creep prices up for non-subscribers, and before long grocery shopping starts to look like cable internet or phone plans.
I can't 'just switch to AT&T for a few minutes to see if it's faster'!
Endgame:. "36 month Walmart Grocery Plus for $50/month. Early termination charge: $1800. For just $25/month extra, you can also shop at other Walmart locations."
It creates captive audience, which is a gateway to further anti-competitive and abusive market practices
Most utilities and physical retail doesn't have monthly recurring revenue, it's all driven by demand. Yes, some of them have additional plans/subscriptions you can get involved in, but most of their revenue comes from one-off payments and they seem to do just fine, what about Tesla makes them special?
Not speaking for others but my personal goal is to only use cash 90% of the time, maybe more. I am not quite there yet but I want to delete all my dependencies on banks and online systems. I am currently still depending on Amazon for some items and that is what is mostly holding me back. I will hold onto my ICE vehicle as long as I can or until cash slots on charging terminals has been sorted as well as entirely offline EV's exist. Cash works fine at the car wash.
I'm curious: What do you get on Amazon that you can't get an equivalent for in a physical store?
Note: I live in the outskirts of a tiny town. I am intentionally in the middle of nowhere.
- Beds and bed frames. Locally beds are marked up 1000%+ over the same bed I can get online. There is only one store.
- Protein drinks. I can buy out the local stores monthly/quarterly stock in one day. They are currently having issues getting my drinks. There is only one grocery store and people come from a neighboring state to shop there.
- Shelves. In fairness the local hardware store does have some shelves. I wanted steel shelves that can hold a lot of weight. They have the RubberMade shelves that don't meet my needs. I could weld some myself but the cost of steel is really high right now.
- Amino acids, Enzymes, High Quality Vitamins, Mastic Gum, Berberine, Garlic Extract, misc other molecules. The vitamins sold in grocery stores are not only low quality, but actually a cancer risk with vitamin E being the prime example. Males should never take alpha-tocopherol without a balance of gamma-tocopherol and selenium less risking prostate cancer. There are a myriad of other examples in this area. Convincing grocery store chains to carry the higher quality molecules is a herculean effort. When the cost of wood and steel come down I will be building a double-insulated geo-thermal greenhouse and will start producing some of my own molecules, but not all of them.
- Inverters, charge controllers.
- Medical supplies. I am trained as a first responder and have to be ready for family and neighbor emergencies. The local store only has what one would find in a grocery store.
- Radio equipment. CB HP/FRS, scanners, HAM, etc...
- Computer equipment. This is a no-win for me. Not only are there no local stores for this but Amazon has burnt me multiple times. Buying computer equipment on Amazon is a huge gamble.
I could continue listing things for a long time but it's easier to list what I could get locally.
- Beds and bed frames. Locally beds are marked up 1000%+ over the same bed I can get online. There is only one store.
- Protein drinks. I can buy out the local stores monthly/quarterly stock in one day. They are currently having issues getting my drinks. There is only one grocery store and people come from a neighboring state to shop there.
- Shelves. In fairness the local hardware store does have some shelves. I wanted steel shelves that can hold a lot of weight. They have the RubberMade shelves that don't meet my needs. I could weld some myself but the cost of steel is really high right now.
- Amino acids, Enzymes, High Quality Vitamins, Mastic Gum, Berberine, Garlic Extract, misc other molecules. The vitamins sold in grocery stores are not only low quality, but actually a cancer risk with vitamin E being the prime example. Males should never take alpha-tocopherol without a balance of gamma-tocopherol and selenium less risking prostate cancer. There are a myriad of other examples in this area. Convincing grocery store chains to carry the higher quality molecules is a herculean effort. When the cost of wood and steel come down I will be building a double-insulated geo-thermal greenhouse and will start producing some of my own molecules, but not all of them.
- Inverters, charge controllers.
- Medical supplies. I am trained as a first responder and have to be ready for family and neighbor emergencies. The local store only has what one would find in a grocery store.
- Radio equipment. CB HP/FRS, scanners, HAM, etc...
- Computer equipment. This is a no-win for me. Not only are there no local stores for this but Amazon has burnt me multiple times. Buying computer equipment on Amazon is a huge gamble.
I could continue listing things for a long time but it's easier to list what I could get locally.
[deleted]
Nicely done. Subscription pricing a commodity. That's a nice way to lock users.
https://tm3een.home.blog/2021/06/06/kwh-prices-at-european-t... claims the price for Tesla owners is €0.25 per kWh in NL.
Ionity is an outlier with its extreme pricing.
Ionity is an outlier with its extreme pricing.
I welcome this development. It may both benefit Tesla with free marketing and further the transition to EVs in general.
In practical terms, expect to see some challenges reaching the charging port on non-Tesla vehicles...
In practical terms, expect to see some challenges reaching the charging port on non-Tesla vehicles...
Surprised it took so long. As a big player in the EV market, the expansion of that market generally benefits them and this will help that.
Actual title: Tesla had to respect standards set by the european commission and is doing this because they are legally ordered to.
Did the government force them to sell their electricity to other EVs? AFAIK the CCS connector is forced which had been shipping for a while. Allowing other EVs to charge seems to be business choice.
Not yet, but new regulation is coming that forces all new chargers from 2023 onwards to sell to all car.
"The right to build a charger comes with responsibility to service electricity to any EV car."
The EU, and in particularly Germany, is strongly nudging Tesla that, if they do it now, then right now at least they can do it in their own terms, and existing experience can flow into legislation.
If they wait, then they will need to complain with whatever is legislated, and without any experience, they won't have a seat at the table (while other EV charger systems with experience will).
"The right to build a charger comes with responsibility to service electricity to any EV car."
The EU, and in particularly Germany, is strongly nudging Tesla that, if they do it now, then right now at least they can do it in their own terms, and existing experience can flow into legislation.
If they wait, then they will need to complain with whatever is legislated, and without any experience, they won't have a seat at the table (while other EV charger systems with experience will).
exactly, as I understand it the main obstacle is billing, which is not standardised, and for Tesla's cars and superchargers is based on an identifier in the cars that is linked to a tesla account. Even without a standardised connector and protocol it's fairly easy to make an adapter. (that said the standardised connector makes it easier to trial this in europe than in the US)
I'm happy we don't let the building/access of infrastructure to companies only and instead let them work something out with the government/EU. In a country where space is not abundant, it would be hell to search through multiple proprietary stations to find the right charger.
This is going to have rollout worldwide after the pilot in Netherlands.
I see it more like: Tesla has good charging infrastructure and Tesla can scale chargers faster than cars (with cars production they are battery constrained).
If even Shell and BP are installing electric chargers at their gas stations to get a small cut of this market it's a no-brainer for Tesla
I see it more like: Tesla has good charging infrastructure and Tesla can scale chargers faster than cars (with cars production they are battery constrained).
If even Shell and BP are installing electric chargers at their gas stations to get a small cut of this market it's a no-brainer for Tesla
Alternatively, it's easier to implement something consistency across the world instead of special solutions for each country, and since Tesla's biggest market (probably) is Europe, they focus on Europe and implement whatever they need to implement there in other countries too.
Who really knows the strategy behind their moves, but legislation forcing their hand certainly feels plausible. Which company wouldn't want to own a proprietary network of chargers all over the world and extract as much money as possible?
Who really knows the strategy behind their moves, but legislation forcing their hand certainly feels plausible. Which company wouldn't want to own a proprietary network of chargers all over the world and extract as much money as possible?
BP and Shell, along side any other company running chains of fuel stations, are perfectly placed to provide a charging infrastructure when they partner with local electricity utilities to get the power lines to their existing locations. If they do so is a different story so.
That's the first I've heard of that. Is that true?
What standards?
> The Combined Charging System allows AC charging using the Type 1 and Type 2 connector depending on the geographical region. Since 2014 the European Union has required the provision of Type 2 or Combo 2 within the European electric vehicle network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
As is mentioned elsewhere, this standard mandates a connector and does not require the charger to be open to all vehicles. Tesla certainly may be anticipating further actions in the future to require that, but there are no requirements to open the Supercharger network today.
If this comes to the US, will we need an adapter for CCS equipped cars or will Tesla add CCS cables to superchargers?
this might be the AWS equivalent of Tesla.
Reminds me a bit of when apple opened mobile apps to outside developers ... and thus an industry was born.
That's why it's opening it up first in the EU.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/1/22757159/tesla-supercharg...