Sure, and also the reason some don't.Isn’t “exclusivity” part of the Tesla mystique (and brand), and isn’t it at least partly why people are buying Teslas?
Here are snapshots of DCFC in my state. Left is CCS, right is Tesla. There are a few places where Tesla owners have challenges, needing to find L2, or use adapters at slower charging speeds to reach. CCS is growing fast, with 10+ sites under construction, many in remote, desirable tourist parts of the state. A year ago, common mantra at our EV Events, Tesla owners proudly proclaimed the SC network was second to none. Now, they merely say it is good enough for most places you would want to go.
Don't get me wrong, there are places where Tesla charging is far superior. But the image of second to none is eroding. In 1-2 years, my expectation is a growing number of Tesla owners will acknowledge the lack of CCS charging capability for their cars to be a negative. It is already happening, interest in CCS adapters is growing among the Tesla owners I know. At first, mildly so, but eventually maybe even a big enough factor to consider alternatives.
One member of our group got fed up with Tesla support for his 2012 MS. He was a big Tesla fan, but traded up to ID.4 a month ago and is thrilled with his decision to walk away from Tesla. When asked why, support was his #1 complaint, but he recognizes CCS charging is the wave of the future and sees more travel opportunities than when he owned his MS.
Tesla's network was essential for getting where they are today. But, it may become a liability both from the image of being exclusionary, and being limited compared to CCS.
Presently, CCS networks are under utilized. But as CCS EVs grow in market share vs Tesla, it is conceivable they may adopt EULA similar to what EVGo recently did, restricting use of adapters. Theoretically, they could even restrict Teslas and Tesla made adapters. How? Blacklisting MAC addresses of devices connected to their EVSEs. MAC addresses of hosts connected to networks are 6 octet hexadecimal physical addresses assigned to each network device at the factory. The first 3 octets identify manufacturer.
What would be the justification for blacklisting Teslas and unauthorized adapters? For one, EVSE equipment makers certify equipment with compatible EVs. Using untested devices could have unforeseeable impacts, potentially damaging their equipment. Secondly, if CCS owners complain of being unable to charge because of Teslas using the equipment, given the exclusionary SC practices, the network operator might argue it is equally fair to exclude Teslas on their network as it is to exclude third party EVs on SC.
Do I want to force change? No. Do I think Tesla owes it to the public to open their network? No. Do I think they may eventually find it necessary to adopt CCS and open their network? Yes. Do I think converting sooner will minimize headaches for Tesla owners, and all EV owners? Yes.
Tesla fans will argue I am being overly critical, have an ax to grind, have an agenda, etc. My primary concern is that the current state of exclusionary networks, incompatible plugs, and the confusion created by these is off putting to potential EV buyers, and an unnecessary burden on existing EV owners, including Tesla owners. My dream is of a universal charging plug, all networks being open, and a single billing entity one can choose to use on any DCFC plug in the country, regardless of the network provider. Ideally, such a solution would be as easy to use as Plug & Charge or Tesla SC. I want solutions that work well for all EVs, including Teslas. I want to see all EV manufacturers succeed, not just Tesla or GM. I want to see it possible to pull into any network EVSE and charge, just like we can pull into any network gas station and fill up.
I agree, if or when it becomes a liability to Tesla, they will look for ways to offload it. If a buyer were an existing network operator, they would likely rebrand the units, add CCS plugs, and open it to all. But, I think it is equally plausible Tesla may offer the units at the existing sites to the site hosts along the lines of how Chargepoint operates. The site hosts are less concerned with profitability, more interested in generating traffic to their businesses where they will make higher margin sales. Similar to gas stations. I see charging networks as three primary business functions, the chargers themselves, which are low margin, the billing services which is reasonably profitable, and maintenance which is also reasonably profitable. I suspect all network operators will eventually look at adopting ChargePoint's model of selling the units to site hosts, and making their money on billing and maintenance.That’s why I think if he does anything it’ll be to sell off the entire network all at once. That way, the new owner can be the “bad guy”.
And I see opportunity for Tesla Energy to play a big role as an energy provider alongside the grid players, providing wind\solar co-generation, and on site storage, on any EV Charging network. I see DCFC sites being micro grids, reducing the demand EV charging has on the national grids. These DCFC sites might even play a bigger role of helping improve the grid reliability for homeowners and businesses through their micro grid contributions.
If we ever move in that direction, I would be all for using public and private funds to assist anyone looking to expand, including Tesla. I think EV manufacturers should get together and create a pool of funds, based on sales volumes that would be used to fund DCFC expansion. These funds might supplement registration fees and public funds awarded to state agencies that are tasked with expanding charging within their states. The state agencies tend to know best where charging needs are in their state. And they are more accessible to EV owners, getting valuable feedback on the needs of the community.