Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation United States

Tesla To Open US Charging Network To Rivals In $7.5 Billion Federal Program (reuters.com) 125

Posted by BeauHD from the sharing-is-caring dept.
Tesla will open part of its U.S. charging network to electric vehicles (EVs) made by rivals as part of a $7.5 billion federal program to expand the use of EVs to cut carbon emissions, the Biden administration said on Wednesday. Reuters reports: Such a move could help turn Tesla into the universal "filling station" of the EV era - and risk eroding a competitive edge for vehicles made by the company, which has exclusive access to the biggest network of high-speed Superchargers in the United States. By late 2024, Tesla will open 3,500 new and existing Superchargers along highway corridors to non-Tesla customers, the Biden administration said. It will also offer 4,000 slower chargers at locations like hotels and restaurants.

A White House official said at a briefing that Tesla would be eligible for a subsidy - including retrofitting its existing fleet - as long as its chargers would allow other vehicles with a federally backed charging standard called CCS to charge. The administration said Tesla has not committed to adopting CCS as its standard, but it must comply with the requirements to qualify for federal funds.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla To Open US Charging Network To Rivals In $7.5 Billion Federal Program More

Tesla To Open US Charging Network To Rivals In $7.5 Billion Federal Program

Comments Filter:

  • Because Joe Biden made them (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @08:32PM (#63297129)
    I would think that would at least be in the summary if not the headline. Tesla needs those federal funds. And they're not going to get them if they don't open the charging Network up. At least not while Biden's in the White House.

    Honestly given that the only reason that charging Network exists in the first place are the massive subsidies indirectly given to Tesla as part of a carbon credit scheme program I'm a little miffed we're going to give them even more money. But that's just the way it goes

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      I would think that would at least be in the summary if not the headline. Tesla needs those federal funds. And they're not going to get them if they don't open the charging Network up. At least not while Biden's in the White House.

      After years of watching Joe Biden's White House ignore and dismiss the efforts of Tesla in the EV sector, I find it funny that you assume Tesla is the one in need here.

      Joe Biden is the one who needs to repair his shitty reputation he built by ignoring the world leader in EV. This is his attempt to extend an olive branch and save face.

      • After years of watching Joe Biden's White House ignore and dismiss the efforts of Tesla in the EV sector,

        What should Biden do, send Elon some flowers or a thank you card? You want Biden to take some of my tax money and give it to Elon to make Tesla better?

      • For 2 years and since change right? I mean I guess technically two is plural, but you're really stretching the definition there. What do you think Joe Biden was actually the president when Obama was in office?

      • Re:Because Joe Biden made them (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @09:46PM (#63297263) Homepage
        No one needs anything here, but Tesla wants in on that lucrative subsidy. Who would give up free money? Especially when every other manufacturer in the country is using CCS, the standard charging plug. Tesla sees the writing on the wall, they lost the standardization battle.

        • Tesla sees the writing on the wall, they lost the standardization battle.

          I will give Tesla credit for at least bowing out somewhat gracefully, unlike Apple with their damn Lightning cables.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            I will give Tesla credit for at least bowing out somewhat gracefully, unlike Apple with their damn Lightning cables.

            Except Tesla has doubled down on NACS and proposed it as the new standard.

            Though, at least by "opening up" they're making the Superchargers with CCS plugs so they will have both Tesla NACS and CCS cords on them.

            The problem for both Tesla and Apple is that switching is hard. There's a huge install base using Lightning, and when Lightning was introduced, there was nothing else like it - you only

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zobeid ( 314469 )

          Saying Tesla "lost the battle" is sort of like saying Microsoft "lost the battle" for desktop OS. I mean, look at how many more companies are backing Linux!

          Personally, I don't expect either CCS Type 1 or Tesla/NACS connectors to go away, as far into the future as I can usefully look. They'll have to co-exist, and we all better get used to that. Tesla seem to be paving the way for inter-operability with simple adapters and the "Magic Dock" device, as well as publishing the NACS specs for other charging ne

          • they really should have freed NACS about 2-3 years earlier. By waiting so long it stinks of desperation to pretend they still have a shot at it being widely adopted.

            I know Musk was trying for it to be a carrot for a patent truce, but most everyone else took the can't-sue-us clause as a poison pill. Musk really needed to get his connector into first gen Fords or a swath of newbie major brands (Hyundai, Nissan, etc)

            Now they're going to have to support both NACS and CCS, and either start a transition-to-CCS pl

            • As I recall, they presented what is now called NACS to the standards bodies, and the standards bodies went with the CCS form factor instead.

              NACS and CCS both implement the same communications standards, which is why Tesla has a phyiscal adaptor.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Zobeid ( 314469 )

                NACS is not the same as the original Tesla Supercharger standard. Tesla Supercharger worked much more like CHAdeMO, and it used the automotive CAN bus for communication. My understanding is that NACS is much more like CCS routed through the Tesla physical connector. (We might almost think of it as CCS Type 3.) Older Teslas don't support CCS Type 1 adapters, and they don't technically support NACS. It won't matter when using one of Tesla's own pedestals, of course. I'm guessing that third-party NACS ch

        • No one needs anything here, but Tesla wants in on that lucrative subsidy. Who would give up free money? Especially when every other manufacturer in the country is using CCS, the standard charging plug.

          Tesla really shouldn't have a reason to give a shit about what "every" other manufacturer is doing.

          As if Apple's lightning connector doesn't stand tall as the ultimate Fuck You reason.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        years?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
      If the Dems gave a crap about real results, they'd add into a bill a mandatory label on all charging stations of all kinds stating what estimated percentage of the electricity comes from renewable sources or the coal-burning power plant down the street. That'd be a fun wakeup call for all these delusional pseudo-environmental slacktivists buying electric cars.

  • I'm calling it now (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

    My prediction is that Tesla will start giving "discounted" electrical rates to their branded vehicles while everyone else gets the higher rate. Of course, I put it in quotes because what it will truly be is a surcharge for charging a competitor's BEV, in the same way that some gas stations presently have a credit card fee disguised as a cash discount (to circumvent credit card company rules regarding explicitly charging a credit card fee). TANSTAAFL, folks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by crow ( 16139 )

      I think everyone is expecting it to be like other charging networks where there is a lower member price, with the difference being that the membership is included in the price of the car for Teslas. This would also make it very easy to account for the charging network as a separate business, and even spin it off potentially.

      • Yeah, the government didn't go far enough. If they wanted to regulate this properly right from the start, they need to make memberships illegal. A hodge-podge of logins just to get the new "gas" is very unfriendly for consumers, and isn't even good capitalism because it makes price discovery difficult. There's a little bit of this going on with petroleum based fuels too, but it's not nearly as bad. You can still make reasonable price comparisons with Gas Buddy, even if you know in the back of your mind

    • My prediction is that Tesla will start giving "discounted" electrical rates to their branded vehicles while everyone else gets the higher rate. Of course, I put it in quotes because what it will truly be is a surcharge for charging a competitor's BEV, in the same way that some gas stations presently have a credit card fee disguised as a cash discount (to circumvent credit card company rules regarding explicitly charging a credit card fee). TANSTAAFL, folks.

      That's fine.

      For Tesla, the big advantage in locking out competitors comes at the initial point of sale. People just want to know they can charge in that network if they need to. That means even if Tesla has an absolutely insane 1000% markup for non-Teslas it probably doesn't deter many people from getting a non-Tesla.

      So, given that it's not helping the initial sale all a big markup is doing is driving non-Tesla customers away from from Tesla charging stations, which costs Tesla money in charger revenue. As

      • In other words, I wouldn't be worried that Tesla will do something wonky with the charging.

        I would imagine it would be more like how Starlink is priced - not enough to be unreasonable, but still more expensive than what you'd pay if you had a wider selection of options.

        From my experience looking at the rates of BEV chargers just out of curiosity, it seems there's quite a few of them that charge a significant premium over what you'd pay for power charging at home. One of the most egregious examples are the chargers at Disney World [go.com], which costs a whopping $0.35 per kilowatt hour.

        Interesting thing

        • Well, not if you use shitty charging networks.

          Even if you use nothing but the supercharger network, you will be paying far less than that rate you quoted where Disney is just getting an early start to a day of siphoning your wallet empty from entering Disney World.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )

          I'm merely pointing out that the savings when compared to a relatively efficient ICE vehicle aren't always as significant as you might assume.

          I mean, you're not technically wrong. But saying "when you use the most expensive charging on the planet it's only a little bit cheaper" isn't really a strong argument.

          • Disney's charger rates are a little more than double what it would cost for me to charge at home. Ignoring the volatility of gas prices for a moment, the Tesla would cut my "fuel" costs in half. Would those "fuel" savings have paid for the difference in price between the Tesla and my cheap econobox? Nope, not even close.

            The economics really only work out if you consider the price of the BEV a sunk cost. If you were going to drop $35k on a car regardless, and your choice is between ICE or BEV, the BEV wi

  • The government made a standard that the largest fleet of electric vehicles does not us. I'm curious why they don't use it? It's hard to imagine there wasn't efficiency built into the entire process by not going with this government standard. We may be reaching the point where electric vehicles instead of being incentivized get regulated into actually costing more, forcing people to ride the bus instead. We aren't far away from a future of the disaster like Catalytic Converter change which caused a huge stor

    • Re:Is this not bothersome? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MaestroRC ( 190789 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @09:06PM (#63297185) Homepage

      When Tesla developed their connector (now North American Charging Standard, NACS), the Combined Charging System did not exist. CCS, however, still wasn't developed by the government. The Society of Automotive Engineers issued the charging specifications for the United States as standard J1772; however, this isn't adopted as a national standard. J1772 is where the CCS implementation lies in the US.

      When Tesla needed fast Level 2 charging (faster than 6.6kW), they had to develop their own standard. When Tesla needed DC fast charging faster than 50kW and less bulky than the CHAdeMO connector, they had to develop their own. They developed their own connector such that it could do *both* things, and do them well, and be able to extend it in the future with substantial backwards compatibility. Today, a single connector can handle 1.4kW (120@12A) all the way up to 1MW (NACS current max). J1772/CCS1 is a mess, and it's not compatible with the rest of the world's CCS connectors. Tesla was able to extend *their* connector to support CCS by upgrading the hardware on the charge ports and the supercharging stations to add the communications protocol.

      And through all of that, they built out a charging network that is larger than the largest CCS network (Electrify America). They have a substantial majority of cars on the road using their network. They've developed a mechanism that allows CCS users to use their stations without having to bring their own adapter. There really isn't incentive to do anything else unless the government wants to declare a specific connector as the standard, which they haven't.

    • The government made a standard that the largest fleet of electric vehicles does not us. I'm curious why they don't use it? It's hard to imagine there wasn't efficiency built into the entire process by not going with this government standard.

      Does the Apple lightning connector provide enough of an answer for you, or should millions of workers now demand a new charging port standard in order to continue to use Apple products in Government?

      Ain't it funny how some companies don't get juiced like that.

  • Master of Federal Subsidies Strikes Again (Score:5, Informative)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @08:47PM (#63297149)

    I'm not sure any private business person has ever positioned himself as well as Musk has to make money off the US federal government. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you believe the federal government generally improves things for citizens when it manipulates the market. But Musk's hypocrisy when it comes to his stances on federal interference in markets is among his most annoying traits.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Notice that Elon stayed out of politics until his massive subsidies ran out. Now all of a sudden he's attending the Super Bowl with Rupert Murdock. https://variety.com/2023/biz/n... [variety.com]

      Also a bit of a snowflake. https://www.techspot.com/news/... [techspot.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PoiBoy ( 525770 )
      Take a look at the defense industry. Elon is an amateur.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        Take a look at the defense industry. Elon is an amateur.

        I am not aware of any individual owner of a defense industry company who has amassed nearly $200 billion in wealth primarily through companies heavily funded by the government and/or heavily subsidized by the government. Elon is not an amateur.

      • Really? Because outside the war on terror and the Vietnam War, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars the defense budget has remained relatively stable (History of DoD budget cuts by administration and adjusted to FY 2012 dollars [americanprogress.org]).

        So that common meme about the defense industry doesn't really hold water; the DoD budget has only increased during time of war. More importantly, the US wins wars not because we have better warriors or better equipment, it wins because we have the best logistics ie the abilit

  • Tesla Defensive Move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @09:51PM (#63297277) Homepage Journal

    From Tesla's perspective, they're building out their charging network anyway, and they don't really need any federal incentives for this. But they're going to go after this aggressively for two reasons.

    First, and quite obviously, if they can build out their network with someone else paying for it, that's a pretty obvious thing to do.

    Second, and more strategically, they need to do all they can to block other companies. Right now, they completely dominate EV charging (in the United States). If all of this build-out goes to other companies, Tesla could find themselves as a minority player in the charging market. But by trying to take the lead in this program, they will keep their lead position.

    • Third, non Tesla owners will need the Tesla app and see Tesla vehicles charging generally faster and a working infrastructure compared to other fast chargers. It's a way to get new owners

      • You're thinking as if these are gas-powered vehicles. I doubt the typical EV owner is going to be charging while traveling often enough to care how fast their car charges - the vast majority of the time, they'll be charging overnight, at home.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dstwins ( 167742 )
          You would be surprised.. if EV charging was as ubiquitous as gas charging (ie: practically one on every corner) more people wouldn't care so much about home EV charging simply because its easier to track the actual cost.. home charging costs are tricker to calculate due to other things at home taking place. But because EV charging (publicly) requires some planning.. most people eschew public charging in favour of home charging (unless their place of work/office has an EV charging station). At the end of t

          • I won't disagree with "more" people charging in alternate locations if the alternate locations are "everywhere", but I don't think that "easier to track actual cost" would be a reason for any significant number of people spending even 15 minutes every other day parked somewhere charging, when they can spend seconds plugging in at home.

            For the very reason you say - convenience trumps all. Why make a special trip PERIOD if they don't have to? I know driving a mild hybrid that I'm like "man, I gotta visit a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Will they switch their cars over to using CCS though? The European models do. It's not a great situation for Tesla owners, because older ones can only use Tesla chargers or CHAdeMO with an adapter that has been out of production for years.

      Tesla chargers here now have two connectors, the old Tesla one and a new higher power CCS one. Even so, charging power is limited due to being 400V only.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        Maybe, but it's not looking like it. Tesla has a CCS adapter, but it only works on newer cars. They're going to soon start retrofitting older cars to be compatible with the adapter, but I haven't heard what, if anything, they'll charge for the update.

        So it's adapters for everyone right now.

    • I would characterize this a more of a move of desperation from Tesla and Musk in particular.

      Elon has got to be peeing his shorts... the cash cow is under actual threat. He probably thought he had another 10-15 years to get SpaceX / Starlink printing money for him. I know, I know, fanboys and girls will insist Tesla is so far ahead that they are unparalleled blah blah blah. The problems Elon faces are much more banal, and not even relocating to Texas will save Tesla from banal market forces.

      The first p

  • The federal government is willing to spend millions on EV chargers while the DoD has to scrape together funds on a carbon neutral alternative to petroleum fuels.

    https://www.autoevolution.com/... [autoevolution.com]

    The raw material is water. The energy source is anything that can produce electricity. If done on a larger scale than an aircraft carrier then more efficient processes are available where high temperature heat is applied to the synthesis process. The carbon for the hydrocarbon fuels is from CO2 that is naturally d

    • The problem with synthesized fuel is that it will always be more expensive than the source of energy used to produce it. The laws of thermodynamics make sure of it. That's not to say the concept isn't appealing. As you said, we'd be able to continue using ICE vehicles without the concern that we're trashing the climate in the process. Unfortunately, the economics just won't work out.

      I do believe that there's going to be a bit of a reckoning once all the previously externalized costs associated with priv

      • The economics of BEVs vs. synthesized fuels in ICEVs starts with heat, not electricity.

        What's the efficiency of taking heat from a geothermal well, a solar concentrator, or nuclear fission reactor to the wheels of a BEV? There's a few ways to work that out given how far the wires need to run, the efficiency of the turbines, the losses in the batteries, and so on. What's the heat to wheels efficiency of synthesized fuels? That would also be an interesting calculation to estimate. We start with heat becau

        • I have confidence that the people working on this technology know more about the end costs than you do. If the costs were so easily proven nonviable like you claim then they'd have abandoned the technology long ago.

          This is a case where I'd like to be proven wrong. I personally don't find BEVs appealing due to their high initial cost and battery longevity issues (which invariably someone will refute with how long they last in "miles", when I'm specifically referring to degradation over a chronological period).

          The main reason I doubt the economic viability of synthetic fuels is because every existing manufacturer of ICE vehicles has significant profit incentive to keep the status quo intact. They have very likely alre

          • A quick google finds that a 10 year old Tesla maintains >80% of designed battery capacity [nimblefins.co.uk].

            That'd have the range of a base-model Model 3 go from ~300mi to ~240 miles. How big of a problem that is depends on your use case of course, but for long-distance driving that would still allow for 3+ hours of driving in a stint, at which point I wouldn't mind taking a break for a coffee and a recharge.

            • That's assuming the battery doesn't start developing strange operational quirks due failing cells. The other issue is that battery longevity probably will be a corner which gets cut on more affordable makes of BEVs, so a limited budget (which is what I have to work with) increases the likelihood of ending up with a vehicle with a less than stellar battery.

              The Nissan Leaf is already a good example of this. The batteries in that car are known for failing prematurely due to inadequate cooling, which was, no

              • Not sure about Tesla or Nissan, but the Volkswagen I have on order warranties that 80% for a decade. Any 'strange operational quirks due failing cells' and they will repair or replace it. When choosing it we worked on an estimate of half the stated maximum range for battery degradation and then half it again for cold weather and other factors. 25% of the maximum range is enough to do the daily commute, so that battery range is fine for us.

                • The cheaper the car, the shorter the warranty. I'll agree that a decade of warranty on the battery is probably enough for most first owners. However, when you look at the age of vehicles presently on the used market, and factor in the average age of a car in the USA (approximately 12 years), it means the average driver will be encountering battery issues.

                  At any rate, my original statement was why I don't want a BEV, not why I don't think they work for other people (clearly they do, otherwise they wouldn't

              • So, exactly like all of the other parts on cars that wear down or degrade over time?

                • So, exactly like all of the other parts on cars that wear down or degrade over time?

                  Except a battery pack isn't like say, an alternator, where you just pay a few bucks for a new one and swap out in your driveway. Everything I've had fail on older vehicles has just been easy, DIY shade tree repairs. BEVs are fine until something breaks, and then you either hope you still have warranty, or be prepared to open your wallet wide.

                  • Right. So total up all of the costs of the small repairs over ten years, including parts, labour, materials, tools, and so on.

                    My last ICE car, a 2015, once had a gasket go. The part itself was like five bucks. Unfortunately, the engine had to be disassembled to get to it. That ain't 'shade tree.'

    • Synfuel is not being neglected, Porsche invested like $75M in it recently. My guess is it will end up being used for aircraft and legacy vehicles in Europe albeit at a rather high cost. Synfuel somewhat in America and Australia too, although we'll be much slower to let go of that last 20% of vehicle miles using actual fossil fuels (which will become an increasingly polarized political issue).

  • Buy your car, then pay for it every day.
    Guess where the big money is !!!!

    • Re:sold once, charged daily (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @02:20AM (#63297571) Journal

      So what magical car do you drive that doesn't consume energy at all, or generates it's own energy without ever having to add anything to it, yet still gets you where you want to go and back again?

      Every single car you can drive, costs you money for every single inch you drive it, regardless of age or power plant type. Fuel, insurance, registration, maintenance, licensing, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ruddk ( 5153113 )

      So how come Electrify America sucks so much? why are the other car manufactures dragging there feet, now they can even provide the "fuel" to the cars they sell.

      I know nothing about the US marked, but I find it interesting that I see many new fast charging operators here in the EU

  • When the government does your business a favor... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ndykman ( 659315 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @12:00AM (#63297465)

    Seriously, this is where Tesla always needed to be. Providing battery and electric infrastructure for EVs, homes and the grid as a whole.

    Car companies are insanely established and since they have seen the EV opportunity, Tesla has a huge battle ahead if they just stay with cars. Or they could produce technology that is in every charger and car and so on. That's a solid business that accomplishes the reduction of fossil fuel use to even larger scale that just making your own cars.
       

    • Musk has had a lead in the market, but now the legacy car companies are coming in *HARD*. He's not competing with Rivian, Lucid & Polestar anymore, it's GM, Ford, Hyundai/Kia, Honda, ... They have far more engineering & marketing resources and economies of scale he can't touch.

      Opening up the chargers to other makes gives him a) a tax break from the Feds for the build-out and b) a small steady cash-flow from those Other Cars using Supercharger stations (presumably at a markup from Tesla owners). As

    • Seriously, this is where Tesla always needed to be. Providing battery and electric infrastructure for EVs, homes and the grid as a whole.

      Car companies are insanely established and since they have seen the EV opportunity, Tesla has a huge battle ahead if they just stay with cars.

      You seem to be forgetting that there were no serious Electric Vehicles before Tesla. Sure, Tesla could provide battery and electric infrastructure... but to who? There was nobody to sell to. Tesla had to make the cars AND the infrastructure for those cars. They couldn't just make the infrastructure.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ndykman ( 659315 )

        You seem to be forgetting that there were no serious Electric Vehicles before Tesla. Sure, Tesla could provide battery and electric infrastructure... but to who? There was nobody to sell to. Tesla had to make the cars AND the infrastructure for those cars. They couldn't just make the infrastructure.

        Indeed, Tesla did have to jump start the market, but now, if they stay with cars, they are up against every car company old and new.

        Instead, they can pivot to making the core parts and standards for EVs. Not just charging. They could standardize around motors, brakes, infotainment. They could easily move to a model in which they supply a significant amount (if not a majority) of chargers, battery packs, motors, regen braking and other systems to every car maker out there.

        In essence, they turn every car make

  • There's no doubt that Federal govt. funding helped Tesla (and probably Tesla Solar) get off the ground. And sure, if you make a deal with the devil? You can be sure there will be some downsides in your future (like being pushed into giving up your proprietary supercharging infrastructure for use by all competition).

    Thing is though? Federal government has been throwing money at practically anyone claiming to have a "Green" industry, without much regard for how viable it really is. (Remember Solyndra under Ob

  • Format wars suck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @04:23AM (#63297689)

    The European Union mandated that from 2023 all new chargers MUST support CCS Type 2, MUST be non-discrestionary way and MUST support a common payment type such as a credit card. The last one is a bit irksome because some charging networks will be assholes and interpret that to mean "through our app".

    The legislation only covers new chargers and there is a sunset clause for older ones to be upgraded within a few years, but it will mean over time all chargers regardless of who makes them will be able to charge any car. Roll up, plug in, tap app / credit card and charge.

    And you know what? Tesla is onboard with this. All new European Teslas are CCS Type 2 just like every other modern EV. Format wars are stupid and actually harm everyone in the sector including Tesla. Governments need to mandate the standard and then manufacturers will eventually get over themselves and comply.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Tesla was forced to put CCS in its cars. The EU mandated it, it wasn't Tesla's choice and they didn't do it until the EU required it.

      Same with their chargers opening up to other vehicles. They only started doing it once the EU decided it was mandatory, and they needed to be ready for the 2023 deadline.

      • They weren't forced to, they chose to. They could have used a proprietary charging format but they would still be obligated to offer CCS. Fortunately it turns out even Tesla will use a standard when they see which the way the wind is blowing.

  • Tesla were told you will allow anyone to use them, you will provide an adaptor on all of them for the standard EU charging adaptor, they will work with any and all vehicles with a standard EU adaptor (which is all of them in the EU besides Tesla), no we are not going to give you any money, and the alternative is they will all be ripped out at your expense ...

  • Qualcomm parallel (Score:3)

    by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @09:55AM (#63298199)
    Decades ago, Qualcomm was selling phones with the best technology on the market, CDMA. The only problem was, they were competing with giants like Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia; companies that produced 1,000 times the phones that Qualcomm produced.

    Qualcomm switched it's model and instead stopped selling phones and focused on licensing CDMA to those companies, and as a result the FCC made CDMA the standard for 3G. Qualcomm became THE telecommunications powerhouse it is today by sharing and owning the part that tied all the smart phones together.

    Tesla's market value not withstanding, it's facing the exact same issue. It's dwarfed by all the other car companies out there, and many of those companies are building EVs. Tesla's tech is the best in some areas and not the best in others, but they do have the charging network.

    This makes Tesla the standard for all EVs for charging. They can stop building cars, license their tech if they choose, and own the distribution of energy for all EVs. Frankly I think Model 3s and Model Ys are kind of dumb looking with a lot of extraneous and stupid quality of life features. But I wouldn't mind driving a Honda or Toyota using the best parts of Tesla's tech but the car quality and branding of Honda or Toyota and charging at a Tesla EV station. That I would do.

    I'm not a Tesla fan obviously, but this is the move I was hoping I would see from them. This makes them the government standard in the US. Focus on their core strength, share the rest with the car companies, and boom. Tesla's market value is not because it's a car company; it never was. It's an EV power charging company now, and they are the only game in town to charge EVs outside of your own home. I really hope Tesla takes this move now; I would actually become a Tesla supporter then.

  • Although the hide-under-a-rock (aka anti-woke) idiots here seem to have missed a comparison, but then they're probably all too young to remember 10 years ago, before the EU passed a law that ALL THE FUCKING PHONE MANUFACTURERS had to make ALL of their damn wallworts interchangeable, so all phones now charge via USB, rather than a separate wall wort for each brand, and each model.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close