[madmike]

They never specified the size of the "cities and suburbs." This does not necessarily mean metropolitan centers, and these cities could be the likes of Alturas, CA; Cheyenne, WY; Jackson, MS; and Pierre, SD. Covering unsupported cities is just as important for travel at this point as dedicated travel chargers on interstates.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is a bit annoying that it is presented as fact. In any case I agree that both can be important depending on folks needs

 

[Colt Hero]

-EDITED to remove ICE talk, which I know people here don’t appreciate -

More DCFC charging stations by GM shows a commitment to EVs, and that's great, but do EV owners really want to use DCFC on a regular basis? Doesn't the cost of DCFC start cutting into one of the economic benefits of driving an EV: being able to 'fill your tank' yourself, at home, at half the cost (or, in some cases, even close-to-zero cost)? I would argue for continuing to build out the Interstate corridors first - which also run through the cities - so that EVs could close the gap more with ICE vehicles for distance traveling. People with EVs who are renting in the cities will find L2 charging sources. They don’t need, nor would they want to pay for, DCFC.

Besides - EVs are not even ready for prime-time, widescale, long-distance travel right now. Who wants to pack a family of four into a Chevy Bolt for even a 500-mile road trip? Too dangerous, IMO. But as the vehicles start sizing up, you want to have that infrastructure already in place to hit the ground running.

 

[sly]

They never specified the size of the "cities and suburbs." This does not necessarily mean metropolitan centers, and these cities could be the likes of Alturas, CA; Cheyenne, WY; Jackson, MS; and Pierre, SD. Covering unsupported cities is just as important for travel at this point as dedicated travel chargers on interstates.

I hope that can include cities like Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Prineville, Lincoln City and John Day. My guess is that it will be limited to large population centers: 500+ K people.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is a bit annoying that it is presented as fact. In any case I agree that both can be important depending on folks needs

I'm curious how "could be" is presented as a "fact." I'm simply calling out that EVgo and GM never gave specifics, but many people are still automatically assuming the worst.

 

[madmike]

I'm curious how "could be" is presented as a "fact." I'm simply calling out that EVgo and GM never gave specifics, but many people are still automatically assuming the worst.

Covering unsupported cities is just as important for travel at this point as dedicated travel chargers on interstates. This is stated as fact and in my opinion it is not

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Covering unsupported cities is just as important for travel at this point as dedicated travel chargers on interstates. This is stated as fact and in my opinion it is not

Ah. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Covering currently unsupported cities absolutely is as important as dedicated travel chargers at this point. Now, our disagreement might be in what we consider "cities," but to me, they are any large town (population center) that also has or serves as a government center (i.e., a county or state capital). If every county and state capital had at least one public DC fast charging site, traveling through the United States would be very easy in an EV. Not quite as fast or convenient as it would be with dedicated travel chargers, but close. Most importantly, though, it would make that travel possible.

 

[ARob]

I fully expect a North American CCS adapter is not far off.

Right, with the writing on the wall for CHAdeMO, once CCS plugs surpass Tesla, owners will pressure Tesla to make a CCS adapter.

 

[PhilBo]

More DCFC charging stations by GM shows a commitment to EVs, and that's great, but do EV owners really want to use DCFC on a regular basis? Doesn't the cost of DCFC start cutting into one of the economic benefits of driving an EV: being able to 'fill your tank' yourself, at home, at half the cost (or, in some cases, even close-to-zero cost)? I would argue for continuing to build out the Interstate corridors first - which also run through the cities - so that EVs could close the gap more with ICE vehicles for distance traveling. People with EVs who are renting in the cities could at least initially drive over to the Interstates to recharge. If they're doing most of their driving around the city, they'd only have to do this maybe twice a month. And many would probably find L2 charging anyway just to avoid the higher cost of DCFC.

Speaking of distance traveling, I just got back from my (at least) semi-annual 1800-mile round-trip drive from the Carolinas to New England. Made my usual two gas stops and that was it. 14.25 hours. No problems. Out of curiosity, I looked at charging stations on the maps if I were to make the same trip in a Bolt. It made me uneasy just doing that! But if they added more charging stations on the I-95 corridor to fill in the gaps, maybe it would be something I'd be willing to try (at least once) in an EV. Stopping every 200 miles wouldn't be terrible, I suppose...

Just remember, if you are doing that trip in cold weather you would be stopping about every 150 miles, or less.

 

[Pigwich]

Besides - EVs are not even ready for prime-time, widescale, long-distance travel right now. Who wants to pack a family of four into a Chevy Bolt for even a 500-mile road trip? Too dangerous, IMO.

I just did 2700 miles with my family of four, and our camping crap! I'm not going to say that it was luxurious, but it was by no means uncomfortable, and in my opinion, didn't seem dangerous in any way, and anyways highway miles are highway miles, whether you do them in one chunk or 15 miles a day for weeks. In my opinion.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Besides - EVs are not even ready for prime-time, widescale, long-distance travel right now. Who wants to pack a family of four into a Chevy Bolt for even a 500-mile road trip? Too dangerous, IMO. But as the vehicles start sizing up, you want to have that infrastructure already in place to hit the ground running.

I'm curious why you think a 500-mile road trip in a Bolt EV would be dangerous with a family of four. What danger, exactly, are you referring to?

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Right, with the writing on the wall for CHAdeMO, once CCS plugs surpass Tesla, owners will pressure Tesla to make a CCS adapter.

I actually think a third party will release a CCS adapter first (possibly Rich and Electrified Garage?), and the reason for that is Tesla knows that word of mouth sells more EVs than anything else. The longer their owners are unaware of the public charging infrastructure, the more those owners (the primary front-line EV sales force) will tell others that non-Tesla EVs aren't viable for travel. However, if Tesla owners regularly used or supplemented their Supercharger travel with faster, more convenient public chargers, those Tesla owners might be more likely to recommend non-Tesla EVs that better fit their friends and family's needs. What is more, if a Tesla Model 3 owner set a new cannonball run record using only public DC fast chargers instead of the Supercharger Network, the damage to Tesla's mystique would be severe.

 

[boltco]

I'm curious why you think a 500-mile road trip in a Bolt EV would be dangerous with a family of four. What danger, exactly, are you referring to?

Eric beat me to this question. Just did an 1100 mile roadtrip with a family of four, what huge risk did I not notice? 🤔

 

[GJETSON]

Covering unsupported cities is just as important for travel at this point as dedicated travel chargers on interstates. This is stated as fact and in my opinion it is not

Absolutely. We never had to get on those dystopian motorways in our ICE cars. Now we have to leave our beautiful roads to venture to DC fast chargers near those blighted corridors.

 

[ARob]

I actually think a third party will release a CCS adapter first

Maybe, but it seems Tesla is a bit protective of their tech. Would they void warranties if a problem arose from an unauthorized 3rd party accessory? I wouldn't put it past them.

Either way, the door was opened with CCS2 in EU. Eventually, pressure will mount for Tesla to open SC sites to "compatible" CCS2 vehicles. If, for no other reason, it could become a politically popular topic that politicians seek to exploit (not very jaded am I?).

The same could eventually happen here in CCS1-land. The thing that would make this more likely is growth of the CCS community reaching or exceeding Tesla. At that point, the value of the SC network would be far less strategically than current.

I give a lot of credit to Tesla for having the foresight to plan and deploy the SC network to support Tesla owners at times when few were getting into the game. They clearly paved the way for adoption of their cars. But, competition is catching up. It might even reach a point where the SC network is a liability to Tesla if it goes underutilized due to the capacity or convenience of the CCS networks. At that point, they would be eager to open up SC sites to other EVs.

From a technical point, the plug compatibility is one challenge. But, the billing part is probably bigger. 3rd party EVs would need to support Plug & Charge, or else payment terminals would need to be added. Neither in insurmountable, but both are deterrents to open, universal charging networks.

 

[Sean Nelson]

From a technical point, the plug compatibility is one challenge. But, the billing part is probably bigger. 3rd party EVs would need to support Plug & Charge, or else payment terminals would need to be added. Neither in insurmountable, but both are deterrents to open, universal charging networks.

It's my understanding that the latest version of the CCS standard includes the data protocol that passes the car's unique ID (probably a VIN) to the charging station. And I would expect that all of the new model EVs coming out from here on will use that standard. That's all that's needed for Plug & Charge, the rest is up the the charging station and network to recognize it and provide the software support for credit card registration and billing.

 

[ARob]

It's my understanding that the latest version of the CCS standard includes the data protocol that passes the car's unique ID (probably a VIN) to the charging station. And I would expect that all of the new model EVs coming out from here on will use that standard. That's all that's needed for Plug & Charge, the rest is up the the charging station and network to recognize it and provide the software support for credit card registration and billing.

Agreed, but do older models support it? Or can they with simple updates? And will Tesla support it for 3rd party EVs? It's not a trivial challenge, and if older models can't be updated to support P&C, Tesla would need payment terminals, which they don't currently use.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Maybe, but it seems Tesla is a bit protective of their tech. Would they void warranties if a problem arose from an unauthorized 3rd party accessory? I wouldn't put it past them.

They already told one of my friends that they would void his warranty if he attempted to make a CCS adapter for his Model S. To be fair to Tesla, though, the Model S requires a Power Line Communication module to be installed into the harness and tied to the BMS. It's a fairly involved process.

The Model 3 (and presumably the Model Y) appear to be natively compatible, so it might be as simple as wiring a physical adapter.

Either way, the door was opened with CCS2 in EU. Eventually, pressure will mount for Tesla to open SC sites to "compatible" CCS2 vehicles. If, for no other reason, it could become a politically popular topic that politicians seek to exploit (not very jaded am I?).

The same could eventually happen here in CCS1-land. The thing that would make this more likely is growth of the CCS community reaching or exceeding Tesla. At that point, the value of the SC network would be far less strategically than current.

I really don't think regulators will get involved here. Europe is a lot more hands on.

At this point, though, you're right. It's not a question of if the CCS infrastructure in the United States will exceed the Supercharger Network, but when. Electrify America alone at this point (with over 2,000 active chargers) represents a quarter to a third as many plugs as the entire U.S. Supercharger Network, and this partnership between GM and EVgo represents a larger percentage even than that (2,700 chargers). And that is on top of EVgo's current count (~1,600 chargers). It's also not counting ChargePoint (I don't have an exact charger count for them, but it should be 1,000 to 1,200), EV Connect, GreenLots (now under Shell Recharge), and a number of other municipal and regional networks.

Also, thanks to Electrify America and this partnership with EVgo and GM, the public charging infrastructure can no longer be poo-pooed as some slower, less capable standard. People are still attempting to dismiss these efforts, of course. "Oh, but these aren't dedicated travel chargers!" "Oh, but they only have four to ten stalls per site!" "Oh, they're just compliance networks!" But at least the naysayers can't still say that these chargers aren't as capable of recharging a vehicle just as quickly.

And at that point, you're right. The Supercharger Network will have less strategic value than it does currently. Don't get me wrong; it will still be a selling point. We still see this today, where Tesla owners proudly proclaim, "Well, we can use all those chargers too!" Some aren't even aware until I inform them, however, that they can only use the CHAdeMO plugs, and even then, only at a reduced rate. So they can't really "use all those other chargers too." I'm actually hearing more and more frequent gripes from Tesla owners that Tesla hasn't released a CCS adapter yet. It seems like a bit of FOMO, but I'm happy to hear it nonetheless. The sooner we get Tesla owners using the public CCS charging infrastructure, the better.

I give a lot of credit to Tesla for having the foresight to plan and deploy the SC network to support Tesla owners at times when few were getting into the game. They clearly paved the way for adoption of their cars. But, competition is catching up. It might even reach a point where the SC network is a liability to Tesla if it goes underutilized due to the capacity or convenience of the CCS networks. At that point, they would be eager to open up SC sites to other EVs.

From a technical point, the plug compatibility is one challenge. But, the billing part is probably bigger. 3rd party EVs would need to support Plug & Charge, or else payment terminals would need to be added. Neither in insurmountable, but both are deterrents to open, universal charging networks.

Yes, Tesla deserves a lot of credit for building out their network, but they also deserve credit for maintaining it as a walled garden. Initially, I believed the hype, too. Tesla was a pro-EV company, and they wanted all EVs to succeed! However, when asked repeatedly to provide a Supercharger adapter (Tesla could have even profited off it!) to support all EV owners, they refused. Time and time again, they deflected to the other automakers not wanting to chip in or support the Supercharger Network. It wasn't about those automakers, though. It was about the EV community. In my opinion, Tesla failed that basic test of whether they actually supported the EV community as a whole.

The plug-and-charge functionality and integrated billing are crucial, you're absolutely right. Both of those, though, are being worked on. EVgo is working on a plug-and-charge functionality that should even be backward compatible with EVs such as the Bolt EV. Automakers such as Ford and Mercedes are also introducing a single billing portal, out of which all your charging (regardless of network) is paid. At this point, we're looking at less than five years before almost every new EV sold has the same ease of use that Tesla owners currently enjoy (plug-and-charge, integrated billing, integrated route planning, etc.).

 

[Sean Nelson]

The plug-and-charge functionality and integrated billing are crucial, you're absolutely right. Both of those, though, are being worked on. EVgo is working on a plug-and-charge functionality that should even be backward compatible with EVs such as the Bolt EV. Automakers such as Ford and Mercedes are also introducing a single billing portal, out of which all your charging (regardless of network) is paid. At this point, we're looking at less than five years before almost every new EV sold has the same ease of use that Tesla owners currently enjoy (plug-and-charge, integrated billing, integrated route planning, etc.).

I just charged at a station in Port Moody yesterday, and even without plug-and-charge it was a pretty simple process. I just plugged in and waved my ChargePoint RFID card and I was off to the races. Less hassle than a gas pump.

The big deal in my mind is the labyrinth of EV charging networks and the need to sign up and maintain a dozen accounts so that you're ready for whatever network you end up at. THAT's where the hassle really is, IMHO. Plug and play alone won't solve that without that back-end payment portal that lets me create and manage one account that works everywhere.

 

[Fivedoor]

I actually think a third party will release a CCS adapter first (possibly Rich and Electrified Garage?), and the reason for that is Tesla knows that word of mouth sells more EVs than anything else. The longer their owners are unaware of the public charging infrastructure, the more those owners (the primary front-line EV sales force) will tell others that non-Tesla EVs aren't viable for travel. However, if Tesla owners regularly used or supplemented their Supercharger travel with faster, more convenient public chargers, those Tesla owners might be more likely to recommend non-Tesla EVs that better fit their friends and family's needs. What is more, if a Tesla Model 3 owner set a new cannonball run record using only public DC fast chargers instead of the Supercharger Network, the damage to Tesla's mystique would be severe.

People who own Tesla's are not interested in doing damage to Tesla's mystique, the only person on the planet that would do a cannonball run in a Tesla model 3 using only public DCFC is you! So, you need to develop the CCS adapter, and purchase yourself a Tesla and hit the road!!!

Keith

Sad thing is, I have the feeling that the moment you purchased a Tesla you would no longer be interested in damaging Tesla's mystique and would convert into being an uber-fanboy of Tesla the moment you signed a purchase agreement.

 

[ARob]

I just charged at a station in Port Moody yesterday, and even without plug-and-charge it was a pretty simple process. I just plugged in and waved my ChargePoint RFID card and I was off to the races. Less hassle than a gas pump.

The big deal in my mind is the labyrinth of EV charging networks and the need to sign up and maintain a dozen accounts so that you're ready for whatever network you end up at. THAT's where the hassle really is, IMHO. Plug and play alone won't solve that without that back-end payment portal that lets me create and manage one account that works everywhere.

The hassle for Tesla would not be plug & charge per se, but allowing 3rd party EVs to use their network.

More likely, it would not come in the form of CCS adapters (for CCS cars), but CCS plugs along side of Tesla plugs.

Agreed WRT the plethora of accounts. Plug & Charge won't necessarily solve that. Proprietary memberships like EVGo, EA where you pay monthly fees to get lower per unit pricing will probably still be around, and likely will only apply when you charge on their respective networks. The only thing simplified would be the trivial act of authenticating to activate a charge.