How did the North American electric vehicle market finally decide on a charging port?
Gradually, then suddenly, to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway.
The war isn’t over yet, but with Electrify America announcing this week that it would add Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS) plugs, it’s close. Electrify America’s decision is particularly important because it’s both the largest non-Tesla, fast-charging network and because it’s owned by Volkswagen, a notable holdout.
The shift in momentum was particularly swift. In late 2021, when the government mandated that EV chargers be equipped with CCS to receive federal money, it seemed like Tesla’s NACS was living on borrowed time. The automaker already sells EVs in Europe with an EU-mandated connector that’s similar to North America’s CCS, so it wasn’t such a leap to imagine a similar thing happening in the U.S.
But then Tesla cut a slew of deals with competitors. The first of them breathed new life into NACS, and then subsequent deals tipped it toward becoming the de facto standard.
Over the last month or so, Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo and Polestar have all said they’d switch to NACS. That leaves Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis, Lucid, Toyota and Nissan. (There are others, but those are the bigger players in the EV space.)
Of that group, several are likely to announce a switch to NACS soon. Volkswagen, Hyundai and Stellantis have all said they’re in talks with Tesla. Lucid is a bit of a wild card since there’s some bad blood between its CEO, Peter Rawlinson, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Toyota’s EV strategy is so far behind that the choice of fast-charging ports is barely an issue. And Nissan, well, who knows about Nissan — the company still sells cars with CHAdeMO ports long after everyone else gave up on them.
Also this week, SAE International, an automotive standards body, said it would expedite work to develop an industry standard around NACS, a move that should assuage other companies that were wary of letting a competitor control a key part of the EV experience.
For EV owners and observers, the tidal wave of support for NACS raises a number of questions. What will happen to EVs that don’t have NACS? What’s driving the change? Is this a good move for consumers? Who wins? And perhaps more importantly, who loses?
What does it mean for current non-Tesla owners?
Hundreds of thousands of EVs equipped with CCS are on the road today — and potentially millions more before automakers make the switch. For those owners, these can feel like uncertain times.
The world of technology is filled with tales of losing standards: direct current, Betamax, HD-DVD, WiMax. Usually, owners of a product that lost a standards war are left with a worthless piece of equipment. Fortunately, both CCS and NACS use the same protocols for charging and communication. Several charging equipment manufacturers have already pledged to support NACS connectors, and many charging networks have said they would install the plugs on future and current equipment. For charging stalls that only have one plug type or another, drivers will need a relatively simple adapter.
Anyone who has experienced a port change — USB-A to USB-C or Apple’s 30-pin adapter to Lightning, for example — knows that dongles aren’t ideal. Using a port adapter with a vehicle is a mixed bag, too. Unlike computers, most cars last for a decade or more, prolonging the need for a dongle. But unlike computers, most people today charge at home, meaning they’ll probably only need the dongle when they’re taking a road trip.
Ultimately, there will be an awkward transition period that will cover a few more model years, maybe more. It’s likely that a few million vehicles with CCS will be on the road before the NACS changeover is complete. That’s not a ton, but probably enough to keep charging networks maintaining their CCS plugs for a while longer. Plus, the federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program currently mandates CCS in order for charging networks to receive federal dollars. Tesla is no doubt lobbying hard for that to change, but for now, it’s the law. (Washington and Texas have already mandated the inclusion of NACS connectors for new charging stalls.)
What spurred the sudden change
Tesla has been trying to get other manufacturers to adopt its plug design for years, but until about a month ago, only one took it up on the offer: Aptera, a small company without any products for sale.
A few things changed recently, though. In November, Tesla announced that it was “opening the North American Charging Standard.” Since the communication protocol was the same as what CCS uses, the only thing other automakers would have to change is the plug design. Not trivial, but not onerous, either. (What wasn’t clear in Tesla’s November announcement is whether the company’s design patent, which is expected to expire in 2027, would be freely available to any automaker and unencumbered with any terms.)
The move probably opened the door to other automakers considering the design, but apart from Aptera, they moved cautiously, undoubtedly concerned about trusting a competitor’s design for a key component. Yet automakers also knew that existing charging networks outside of Tesla’s Supercharger were comparatively sparse and unreliable. That was another part of the EV experience that automakers largely didn’t control. The question was, which one had the potential to hinder EV sales the most?
Ultimately, they decided that gaining access to a solid charging network was more important than controlling the plug design. Ford, for example, might produce a great EV, but it wouldn’t sell if people didn’t have confidence that they could take it on road trips.
Once Ford and GM announced that they would adopt NACS, momentum behind NACS grew. Other automakers, possibly already in talks with Tesla, rushed to wrap their deals so they, too, could gain access to the Supercharger network.
Who wins, who loses
The obvious winners in this deal are non-Tesla drivers who will gain access to the Supercharger network in the coming years. Non-Supercharger networks generally suck, and most EV owners today know that. The deals automakers have inked with Tesla so far don’t appear to provide access to the entire Supercharger network, but customers will have access to enough of it to make a difference.
Competing charging networks fall into both the winner and loser buckets. Their decision to add NACS plugs to their stalls could gain them new Tesla-driving customers. But they’re also going to face some stiff competition. Given the choice of a Supercharger and a competitor, most drivers will probably head to the Supercharger. (There’s still a chance Tesla could drop the ball and implement a terrible experience for non-Tesla owners, but history suggests it’ll get it right.)
Probably the only group that falls more on the loser side of the ledger is current Tesla owners. Part of what makes the Supercharger network so appealing today is the fact that, for the most part, people don’t have to wait long to plug in. With all the new EVs that will have access to the network, Tesla is going to have to double its size to maintain today’s level of service.
Impact on Tesla
For Tesla, these deals are something of a mixed bag. The company has spent over a decade building a worldwide network that only served to sell more cars. Now it gets to cash in, using its first-mover advantage to potentially pad the bottom line. Potentially.
We don’t know if Superchargers are profitable today — the company hasn’t had to break out those figures in its quarterly reports, instead including them in “services and other revenue.” But as Supercharger revenue grows, shareholders might pressure the company to disclose them in more detail. It’s possible that the Supercharger network will be like AWS has been to Amazon, a secret weapon that propels growth. But it’s also possible that it could become an albatross weighing on its earnings. Charging networks are massive infrastructure projects that require constant upkeep. In other words, they aren’t easy businesses to run profitably.
This article was updated to clarify details about Polestar’s adoption of NACS.
Comment