Kentucky Mandates Tesla's Charging Plug For State-Backed Charging Stations (reuters.com) 75
Kentucky is requiring that electric vehicle charging companies include Tesla's plug if they want to be part of a state program to electrify highways using federal dollars, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. From the report: Kentucky's plan went into effect on Friday, making it the first state to mandate Tesla's charging technology, although Texas and Washington states previously shared such plans with Reuters. In addition to federal requirements for the rival Combined Charging System (CCS), Kentucky mandates Tesla's plug, called the North American Charging Standard (NACS), at charging stations, according to Kentucky's request for proposal (RFP) for the state's EV charging program on Friday.
"Each port must be equipped with an SAE CCS 1 connector. Each port shall also be capable of connecting to and charging vehicles equipped with charging ports compliant with the North American Charging Standard (NACS)," the documents say. The U.S. Department of Transportation earlier this year said that charging companies must provide CCS plugs to be eligible for federal funding to deploy 500,000 EV chargers by 2030. It added that the rule allows charging stations to have other connectors, as long as they support CCS, a national standard.
"Each port must be equipped with an SAE CCS 1 connector. Each port shall also be capable of connecting to and charging vehicles equipped with charging ports compliant with the North American Charging Standard (NACS)," the documents say. The U.S. Department of Transportation earlier this year said that charging companies must provide CCS plugs to be eligible for federal funding to deploy 500,000 EV chargers by 2030. It added that the rule allows charging stations to have other connectors, as long as they support CCS, a national standard.
Re:Dumbest shit ever (Score:5, Informative)
"broken-ass shit." Have you seen the size of the CCS adapter??? It is stupid huge. The NACS can do both AC and DC fast charging without a huge connector. I can confirm that it has worked flawlessly for 4 years now, and I cannot say the same for many other charging networks. The plug really isn't that big a deal, I'm confused why you seem to be so angry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not angry but I'm a little annoyed that Tsala took this long to release a standard (in 2014 they kinda did but half-assed it here nobody else would touch it)
If NACS was available as an open standard then we wouldnt be in this, the US would have jumped on it as the standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dumbest shit ever (Score:5, Informative)
They opened their parents but not all of them (like design parents
and left enough strings attached that nobody would touch it. It really wasn't just everyone else being stubborn, nobody wanted to touch it under those terms.
Standards aren't just made by popularity, should we all be using Lightning because Apple sells the most or USB since it's a truly open industry standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a citation on them not opening up enough of their patents that others can't use NACs? That there remained problems in doing so?
As for lightning connectors, well: [wikipedia.org]
Lightning connectors contain an authentication chip that made it difficult for third-party manufacturers to produce compatible accessories without being approved by Apple.[21] The authentication scheme has been cracked by some third parties.[16]
Sounds like the opposite of open-sourced. Unlike NACs.
I'll note how at least in the USA, once a major car company folded and said they'd use NACs, most of the others quickly fell in line, effectively making it the standard in the USA.
Re: Dumbest shit ever (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'm not connecting DVD formats with DoT patent stripping, etc...
As far as I know, the DoT has ZERO power to "strip patents", and the VC1 codec sentence before that just makes it seem off the wall. The government may have been able to eminent domain whatever patent, via an act of congress, but that isn't stripping, that's paying for it. Probably through the nose.
Standard SAE sizes for fuel nozzles is another known thing(I've worked with diesel vehicles before). But a nozzle is hardly as complex of a m
Re:Dumbest shit ever (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is some info from Georgia Law, it is generally positive of the patent opening but really the fact nobody used it speaks volumes:
As beneficial as the open patents are to Tesla, the electric car market, and possibly even the world, there are still issues for a company who wishes to use Tesla’s patents. Currently there are scant legal protections for other manufacturers who may wish to take Musk up on his offer.
There is a potential fear that Tesla could take advantage of the expanded market for batteries and charging stations before reneging on their promise of nonlitigation and suing the competitors for large settlements.51 If companies create new products based on Tesla’s technology, there is a substantial chance that they could still be sued.
Tesla has not shied away from using its legal protections to protect its intellectual property. As recently as 2008 Tesla sued a manufacturer over its use of trade secrets and confidential information. Because of this risk, a company must have a great deal of trust in Elon Musk’s promise before making the decision to invest costly and valuable research and development funds in such a venture.
Some critics have been quick to point out that saying Tesla “opened” their patents is quite simply a misnomer. When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants a patent, that very patent is published for the entire world to see.
In exchange for publishing their intellectual secret, the Patent Office grants a narrow monopoly to the inventor of that item. This monopoly is not exactly something that Tesla “gave away” either. Without entering into a contractual licensing agreement or other formal assignment with the specific user of Tesla’s patents, it still retain, all of its rights and enforcement opportunities.
Since Tesla has not fully ceded its ownership rights to the public domain, it occupies a middle ground between giving them away and retaining full rights. Musk’s blog post on the company website lacks all the formalities of a contractual agreement. While Google has a similar, yet untested, open patent pledge for cloud-related patents, it appears to be much more formal and was most likely drafted by an attorney instead of the CEO.
Such formality and boilerplate language makes it more likely to be upheld by a court as a valid contract. Unlike the pledges of other large companies, Musk’s statements lack an intention for his representations to be held as legally binding or irrevocable.
This means that Tesla may be able to withdraw or change its “open source” patent policy at any time.
Furthermore, Musk stipulated in his blog post that Tesla would not seek patent infringement litigation against those who used the patents “in good faith.”
While this seems to give Tesla a little more flexibility in preventing patent abuse, it also must cause the potential user to pause. What constitutes “good faith” to Elon Musk? Keep in mind that without some protective instrument or license in place, Tesla could very well sue even if the user had the best of faith in using the patent.
https://digitalcommons.law.uga... [uga.edu]
Now the compairson to lightning seems a little more apt. Since companies now, in 2023 can clearly feel free from legal limbo and the SAE was finally able to get involved and make NACS a real working standard it's taking off.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the compairson to lightning seems a little more apt. Since companies now, in 2023 can clearly feel free from legal limbo and the SAE was finally able to get involved and make NACS a real working standard it's taking off.
Not really. Apple, with lightning, has deliberately worked to keep control of the connector, going so far as to include an authentication chip. It sounds like Musk, as usual, made a flawed attempt at opening it up, and it took some lawyer work behind the scenes to nail down it actually being "open" and "royalty free", even if Tesla does ultimately retain some ownership rights.
Their "maybe" being able to withdraw at any time also means that they'd face an expensive legal process if they tried. Because it
Re: (Score:3)
and it took some lawyer work behind the scenes to nail down it actually being "open" and "royalty free", even if Tesla does ultimately retain some ownership rights.
9 years my man. That's not just "we need some lawyers to look at it"
Because it'd have to go before a court and Musk would have to argue that he didn't mean to say what he did, didn't have the power to do so, etc...
Yes and ambiguity about lawsuits and IP rights is radioactive to any large company with a general counsel. Either Tesla was a) ignorant of what an actual standard or royalty free was or b) didn't care and just wanted the PR but didn't actually want other companies getting access to superchargers because it would be a bad look if a Model S owner had to wait for a Nissan Leaf to finish charging (my pet theory)
Look, im glad things seem to
Re: (Score:2)
"Standards aren't just made by popularity"
Standards are made by popularity among manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
North America is CCS1 which is single phase. While CCS1 is smaller than the European CCS2 it's still bigger than NACS.
The reason CCS1 is bigger than NACS is because the AC and DC pins are separate in CCS1 and combined in NACS. I'm wondering if Tesla's patents blocked them from also doing combined.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the smaller NACS connector is that it doesn't support higher power charging. The contacts are too small, and the handle will have to be enlarged to accept thicker cables.
What you want is CCS2. Small connector for AC charging, larger (but still not difficult to use) one for DC rapid charging. 400kW already deployed, with higher rates demonstrated.
Re: (Score:3)
The NACS standard can do 1000kW. The V4 superchargers can do up to 615kW. They're currently (pun intended) limited to 250kW.
Re: (Score:2)
They claim it can, but there are currently no publicly deployed or publicly demonstrated examples of it doing that.
I suspect one of the reasons why Cybertruck is delayed is they are still trying to get higher power to work. If you look at their connector, the smaller contacts are clearly going to be an issue. The lack of a good locking mechanism is an issue for higher voltages too, as unplugging 1000V will cause arcing.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1000kW or 615kW?
For 615kW the V4 chargers have a 1000VDC and 615A rating.
For 1000kW yeah, there's nothing out in the public. They claim they can do 900kW without liquid cooling. So with liquid cooling the cable and connector I don't see why 1000kW is not attainable.
Has there been issues with the latch mechanism failing?
Re: (Score:2)
The only place I know of with 615kW Tesla chargers is a test location in The Netherlands, which is limited to 250kW and uses CCS2 plugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the size of the CCS adapter??? It is stupid huge.
It's slightly larger than Tesla's. While I agree with your comment that the OP calling Tesla's connector "broken-ass shit" is baseless and stupid, you complaining about a plug that is only marginally larger and yet small enough that my neighbour's 7 year old daughter can plug it in without difficultly is "stupid huge" makes your post look equally stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The CCS2 plug with DC is significantly larger
Re: (Score:2)
>Have you seen the size of the CCS adapter??? It is stupid huge.
So? What do I care the size of an adapter? Plus it isn't clear if you're talking about an adapter for Teslas to charge from CCS stations, or the disingenuous posturing from Tesla of building nearly-undocumented and fully-non-functional adapters into a few of their stations in only a few states. I tried three of them last week, none would function. Went across the street to an EA CCS 350k station and went from 20 to 85% in like half an ho
Dongles allowed? (Score:3)
As I understand it most CCS chargers can charge a Tesla with an adaptor. As I understand it both systems use the CCS communication protocol so at that point it's just a matter of making pins connect to pins.
Seems like we will be stuck in dongle hell as far as EV cars in NA are concerned for at least a little while. What a mess.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is US-Style consumer capitalism by design.
The best solution wins in the end. I avoid non-Tesla superchargers like the plague. They are often damaged or slow as molasses.
Re:Dongles allowed? (Score:4, Informative)
The best solution wins in the end.
What, you mean like the way that Betamax won over VHS? :-)
Re:Dongles allowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you dig into it, it's actually a lot like Betamax vs VHS back in the day. If you dig into the old betamax vs VHS stuff, you ran into that while Betamax offered slightly better video, it had a number of other flaws.
1. Runtime: You couldn't initially put most movies on a single betamax tape because they were limited to 60 minutes(VHS was 120 then 240). Which meant you had to switch tapes in the middle of the movie, not to mention that sellers would need to sell you TWO cartridges to show a single movie, increasing expense. Also, fun rewinding and all that.
2. Control over media: This one's simple. Sony decided they wanted control over what movies and such were allowed, and porn wasn't on the list. VHS was open, so porn. (this might be untrue)
3. VHS was cheaper for similar performance(kind of like how most people still use shitty earbuds for music, sit at the wrong distance for TV, etc...)
CCS may theoretically offer faster charging by allowing the use of 3 phase, but the car charger has to support that(and I think most don't), you need 3 phase in the location(and if you do, why not an even faster DC charger?), or DC charge limits, but from what I've heard, NACS plugs are easier to handle(so more convenient), still have overhead for allowing faster charging, and are, like VHS, already "fast enough" for most consumers. While actually being more durable. Betamax was a touch more durable back in the day, but as one guy put it, a toddler can as easily destroy both, and lacking a destructive toddler, both could last years. Meanwhile, I've heard lots of complaints by US EV drivers about broken chargers, mostly non-Tesla locations, as Tesla generally puts enough in that a broken one doesn't leave you stranded.
Re: (Score:1)
CCS2 is the best. You have a small, easy to handle connector for AC charging up to 22kW. For fast DC charging the connector is a little larger, but it uses the same socket as AC so the car only needs one.
The larger connector is necessary for higher charging speeds. The surface area of the contacts determines the electrical resistance, which in turn determines how much of the power gets turned into waste heat just getting into the car.
CCS2 also has decent locking for high power DC charging. You don't want th
Re: (Score:3)
Uh... NACs also has a "small, easy to handle" connector that does both AC and DC. And the DC parts for CCS are obviously grafted on after the fact, which is what makes the connector so huge for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the NACS connector can't handle very high charging power. The connectors are too small. The advantage of CCS2 is that when you need high power, it's available.
400kW already operating in public, with 1500kW demonstrated.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA's approach of simply adopting the most popular company's current thing is truly backwards in this regard and locks you in to a sub-par product while the world leaves you behind.
From what I've read, the NACS vs CCS connecter is a lot like VHS vs Betamax - CCS is better in maybe one aspect, but the other stuff - cheaper, handier, and more durable in practical terms actually matter more.
Betamax had better picture quality, but VHS ran longer(when they decreased the speed to make Betamax last as long as VHS, the picture quality degraded to the point that they were equivalent).
Now, I'm seeing that CCS can theoretically go as high as 1.5MW, but NACS can go to 1.0MW, at least theoreticall
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, the NACS vs CCS connecter is a lot like VHS vs Betamax
You completely missed my point. Selling you a $100 Betamax recorder is not the same thing as dedicating $billions across many companies to produce nation wide charging infrastructure.
If you want to make a video comparison a better one may be PAL vs NTSC. However NTSC had a logical reason for adoption in that it was a first mover. The situation we find ourselves in now would be like recognising PAL already exists as a better standard, and yet adopting NTSC because Fox said to do so locking the USA into somet
Re: (Score:2)
You completely missed my point. Selling you a $100 Betamax recorder is not the same thing as dedicating $billions across many companies to produce nation wide charging infrastructure.
And you miss that your point is poor. It isn't selling ME a $100 Betamax recorder, it's selling Betamax or VHS tapes in stores around the country. Also, while the price of the charging infrastructure might reach into the billions, the difference between the two types is actually marginal - the charging equipment is the same except for the plug, even the signaling for NACS is the same as CCS. So you're looking at a smaller price to change out than the $100 the betamax/vhs player cost back in the day.
Personally I agree with you. But holding up the EV adoption is that many people don't, and consider a 10-15min charge waaay too long.
Actua
Re: (Score:2)
And you miss that your point is poor. It isn't selling ME a $100 Betamax recorder, it's selling Betamax or VHS tapes in stores around the country.
No it's not, that would be the car not the charger. I don't know why you persist with the stupid VHS vs Betamax comparison. My point is only poor when you shoehorn it into the really really bad Betamax vs VHS analogy. Use another and then maybe you'll understand.
Instead, the charging speed is something I think that is seized upon by anti-EV people in order to have an "iron clad" reason to put EVs down.
Who seized on it is irrelevant. The point is it is seen as fundamental, maybe not to you, but definitely to the operators of charging stations and companies who have collectively already spent many millions on research into consumer behaviour.
But even NACS can reach that high...
Except
Re: (Score:2)
It's you that keep going after it in bad ways, which makes it very fun to dispute your attempts. I just turned nickovs's original use of it around.
Also, you're failing to realize that analogies don't need to be exact.
Who seized on it is irrelevant. The point is it is seen as fundamental, maybe not to you, but definitely to the operators of charging stations and companies who have collectively already spent many millions on research into consumer behaviour.
Actually, who's seized upon it is highly relevant. You see, it isn't potential EV customers(at least in the short term), it's those who detract EVs no matter what. It isn't the potential customers who are talking about it.
That consumer behavior is probably why Tesla has sized their stations
Re: (Score:3)
100% bullshit. The only reason non Apple phones started using micro usb was because the EU made them.
Re: Dongles allowed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Machiavellian in me says Apple was happy for the EU USB-C mandate because it allowed them to switch connectors without being pilloried like when the switched from the 30 pin connector.
Apple was happy to switch away from the 30 pin connector because it was expensive, and also because anybody could make cables with them easily. They wanted to switch to their cheaper connector, which was coupled with their DRM chip. There was nothing in it for them to switch to micro usb, it threatened their place in the accessory market.
Re: (Score:2)
The best solution wins in the end. I avoid non-Tesla superchargers like the plague. They are often damaged or slow as molasses.
That's no "best solution". That's you complaining about a few poorly maintained pieces of equipment by private companies. There's nothing inherently damaged about CCS and the standard as it is currently written supports significantly faster charging than Tesla's V3 supercharger.
Complain about companies, not the way they implement a standard.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The best solution wins in the end.
Care to explain the continued existence of Microsoft Windows?
Re: (Score:3)
The world is stuck in dongle hell. Every country is different. We haven't quite gotten to USB-C everything for DC power. There are a bunch of EV plug standards.
In the US, Tesla deployed NACS, and since it has like 60+% of the market share, it seems to have won.
I'm happy to have a smaller sized plug, one that supports both AC and DC Fast Charging, and that will over the next 3-5 years unify the EV charging network so we can ideally be rid of the adapters.
The first gas stations also were not standardized eith
Re: (Score:2)
CCS supports DC fast charging, hell they are pin compatible, that's not the issue.
Also just because Tesla has the most market share doesn't mean they get to choose for everyone. Especially today at the precipice of the EV car era. No way Tesla has that market share in 5 or 10 years, they just can't manufacture that many. A plurality maybe but they're under 25% in a decade, easily.
I'm happy to standardize under NACS now that its an actual standard, like USB
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's not that bad, in the scheme of things.
Europe has CCS2. Japan and China have CHAdeMO. And now the US has NACS.
I'm actually surprised that it's only three competing standards. Compare it to things like the Vienna Convention on road signs, or even USB charging for small devices. The EU has standardized on USB-C, but everywhere else it's still a random mix of various USB connectors, barrel connectors, and proprietary crap like Lightning.
The main downside to NACS is that it's slow compared to CCS2. It's a l
Re: (Score:2)
What a mess.
Probably by design to make people happy about sticking with ICE. Considering that I don't have to worry about charging standards and I can go from empty to full in less time than it takes to listen to the average pop song - it is certainly working.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that I don't have to worry about charging standards
What do you call the diesel and E85 pumps? And before that you had to make sure you pumped from the leaded/unleaded pumps.
Yeah the CONNECTOR isn't an issue but that doesn't mean the pump is compatible with your vehicle. (Though one actual connector incompatibility I can think of is that truck diesel nozzles are too large to fit in diesel passenger car ports)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to point out as an old fogie at this point that they deliberately made the fill ports for unleaded cars smaller so you couldn't use the older bigger leaded nozzles in them. So you could easily pump unleaded into your leaded car, but not vice verse.
Unless you were my grandfather who, to save a few cents per gallon, had a special funnel. Didn't realize until I was much older how bad that actually was.
As far as I know, truck diesel nozzles, at least in the USA, can fit into diesel passenger car ports.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, truck diesel nozzles, at least in the USA, can fit into diesel passenger car ports. But because they assume the idiots are the ones in the gasoline cars, diesel nozzles won't fit into a gasoline port, but gasoline ones will fit into diesel cars.
This varies a lot. I am able to put a big diesel filler nozzle into our Sprinter van, but back when I had a W126 300SD I couldn't, and it did have a filler neck part that was different from the W126 gassers. The Sprinter has a ~30 gallon tank, so it doesn't exactly need to be fast filled, but it's neat that I can use whichever nozzle.
Unfortunately, the fill nozzle sizes are backwards (with good reason) from what you want if you want to protect people from damage by misfueling. If you put gasoline into a die
Re: (Score:3)
And what's worse, they picked the wrong standard.
CCS can do higher charging power than NACS. So really if you're going to pick one of those and then adapt to the other one, you should be picking CCS and adapting to NACS.
Nothing prevents stations from having both, but most won't due to cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure CCS can do higher? Telsa is claiming 1MW is possible.
https://www.tesla.com/sv_se/bl... [tesla.com]
They're claiming that it's "twice as powerful" as CCS connectors, though whether that's CCS1 or CCS2, I don't know.
But some quick searching says CCS2 is 1kV@500A max, so that would be double.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I generally rate the two as "equivalent". 2MW upgrades are being looked at for Semis and such, but I'd argue that a different plug for an EV Semi isn't too much to ask, given the probable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends.
CCS1 is based on the J1772 connector, and the J1772 connector on EVs is used for AC charging - the two pins are Line and Neutral (or Line-Line), a protective earth ground, and
Kentucky (Score:2, Funny)
Can someone share a Venn diagram of the population of Kentucky and electric car owners?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids will likely be a bad idea at net zero too.
Cant sell cars directly but its plug is standard! (Score:5, Interesting)
It’s also more difficult for Tesla [spectrumnews1.com], the most popular EV company in the U.S., to sell cars in Kentucky because it uses company-owned stores, not independent dealerships. Many states, including Kentucky, have outlawed this
But it is making Tesla's plug the standard? What gives?
Re:Cant sell cars directly but its plug is standar (Score:5, Interesting)
The car stealerships bought more politicians than Tesla.
Re:Cant sell cars directly but its plug is standar (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.thedrive.com/news/... [thedrive.com]
And it provided for 50,000$ to destroy existing EV chargers too.
Re:Cant sell cars directly but its plug is standar (Score:5, Insightful)
Brought to you by the party of small government.
Re:Cant sell cars directly but its plug is standar (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to note some things.
1. It died in committee. [ncleg.gov]
2. Any damn fool/idiot senator/representative can submit a bill. I still remember the one [wikipedia.org] where it actually reached the floor for declaring Pi to be 3.2
3. There's a lot of fools in state legislatures.
4. I happen to agree that Kidwell; Moss; Brody; Cleveland; and Loftis are idiots(the sponsors).
5. There's a lot of "performative legislation" done by state legislators, in that they submit bills they darn well know will never become law or become effective even if they do(instantly tossed out by the courts), but do so under the premise of "no news is bad news", so they get some free advertising for their base* when the news gets ahold of it and publishes outrage pieces.
*Remember, they only need enough votes to get reelected.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be fun.
Most "free" chargers are 220V 30A or so, so roughly 5kW or so. (All DC fast chargers are paid - whether you're using Superchargers or other service). 1 gallon of gas has around 33.7kWh of energy in it, so at 5kW it would mean the fuel pump would provide about 0.15 ghp (gallons per hour), or for metric minded, about 560mL/hr, which is just under 10mL/minute. Yeah, I'm sure people would
Re: (Score:2)
But it is making Tesla's plug the standard? What gives?
It's not making Tesla's plug standard. It's making an SAE defined standard connector the requirement. Or rather a different SAE defined connector the requirement. One can hate on Tesla while still having to face the reality that in North America something they designed is becoming the norm among many manufacturers and being ratified by standards bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean NACS, which was previously known as the Tesla charging connector. Now also being used by Ford and GM.
But yeah, it's ironic that the company that invented the connector can't direct sell cars in the state.
SO Kentucky (Score:1)
You will ignore the SAE standard and force people to use proprietary connector. Looks like they are trying to be the anti European Union. There they told Apple to use the existing standard plug and not a proprietary one.
No federal dollars should be used to install Tesla EVSE unless they charge the and price for Tesla vehicles as competitors.
I'm fine with their free charging if that was the deal, but if there is a marginal charge for Teslas it should not be one penny less than others pay.
Re: (Score:1)
And that is just the SAE adopting NACS, perhaps you also missed the deluge of news about Ford, GM, and every fucking one else also moving to standardize on supporting native NACS within a year or two.
This is an impressive level of stupid, even for (Score:2)
government.
Mandate the less popular charger plug just as the industry is pivoting away from it anyway.
Somehow, all gasoline dispensers the world over are more or less dimensionally compatible and dispense roughly the same blend of hydrocarbons. And yet electricity is somehow harder despite literally being a few pieces of metal touching eachother.
One wonders how many different kinds of gas stations there would be now if the same geniuses pushing EVs now had been pushing gasoline 120 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandate the less popular charger plug just as the industry is pivoting away from it anyway.
The industry is moving away? It's almost like you've not been paying any attention to what is happening in the EV industry in America the past 2 months.
Re: (Score:2)
The Industry exists a lot outside the USA ... Europe has CCS2. Japan and China have CHAdeMO ... Tesla's use both ...
The EV industry beyond Tesla (now second place and falling) is mostly Chinese companies
Mandating not equal Requiring (Score:2)
Who is the fucking asshat that knows not the English language? If they mean "required" then it is not a mandate. If they say mandate, then it cannot be a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
The mandated a requirement?
Now down to 3 and a bit ... (Score:2)
Europe has CCS2. Japan and China have CHAdeMO. And now the US has NACS
CSS(1) will slowly die ...