By Edward A. Sanchez — June 4, 2023

As expected, CharIN, the international standards organization, which is the creator and promoter of the Combined Charging Standard (CCS), has issued a response to the news of Ford’s decision to adopt Tesla’s NACS plug and port for its future vehicles starting in 2025. As you might imagine, CharIN is not happy about this development. The organization’s response made some valid points, but the tone is mainly about doubling down on why it should have a monopoly on global standards, and the “collaborative” nature of the organization, rather than Tesla’s “proprietary” approach.

The irony in this whole situation is that Tesla is at least nominally a member of CharIN itself. Because of the European Union’s mandates, all Teslas sold in Europe in the last several years have a CCS2 port. Additionally, Tesla has provided all North American owners with a J1772 adapter with a new car purchase since 2012.

Below are a few of the points CharIN made in its news release. I will offer analysis and commentary on each.

“The global EV industry cannot thrive with several competing charging systems”
This is a valid point inasmuch as fragmentation of standards leads to customer confusion, and typically, a sub-optimal experience. However, objectively, the Tesla standard is superior on nearly every level. CharIN criticizes the “proprietary” nature of Tesla’s standards. Fair enough. But the bulky, clunky, CCS standard is what happens when you have dozens of different stakeholders and committees each contributing to a project. Having multiple stakeholders involved, sometimes with competing interests, often lead to a compromised outcome.

“CharIN also does not support the development and qualification of adaptors”
As a Tesla Model 3 owner, I have had my own mixed experiences with adapters. I am also generally not a fan, and wish they were not necessary. But until there is a truly universal (or at least regional) standard, they will be a necessary evil.

CCS isn’t as elegant as an NACS connector, but CharIN insists the CCS plug is the only North American standard that’s needed. (Image by Phil Royle)

“Focus on market acceleration and adoption of CCS should be the first choice”
This statement is obviously very self-interested on CharIN’s part. I can’t blame them. The organization has spent a lot of time and effort to create consensus within the industry, and attempt to create a unified standard. However, in my opinion, this statement is completely avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that the Tesla standard, by measures of ease-of-use, form factor, etc., is demonstrably superior to CCS. I think most stakeholders privately acknowledge this, but they are so committed to CCS that they can’t admit it publicly.

“NACS is not a published or recognized standard by any standards body”
True. However, there has obviously been some knowledge sharing between Ford and Tesla, and likely exhaustive validation testing. It would not be hard, and would probably be advantageous to Tesla to make its standard open source, and submit it for validation testing by a third-party organization.

“In the U.S., CCS is used in over 50 passenger vehicle models, with more coming soon. The anticipated volume of these vehicles will exceed a single NACS supplier volume soon”
There is some hedging language in this statement. The “anticipated” volume of these vehicles will exceed a single NACS supplier [read: Tesla] “soon.” Maybe, maybe not. Few other models have been able to come close to Tesla’s domination of the EV market. The Model Y has become the best-selling car, period (ICE or EV) in many markets, and its ascent shows little signs of slowing down. With Ford’s adoption of NACS, the unit volume of vehicles on the road using NACS could soon surpass CCS. It would only take one other major OEM to adopt NACS, and it would effectively be game-over for CCS in the U.S.

CharIN’s point that CCS charges more kinds of passenger vehicles than NACS is valid, but with Ford’s swap to NACS, it wouldn’t take much to tip the scales. (Image by Phil Royle)

“In North America (including the U.S. and Canada) there are 22,262 CCS connectors compared to 22,128 Tesla Supercharger connectors and 204,253 J1172 connectors compared to 16,009 Tesla destination connectors, according to recent PlugShare data (includes public and restricted use)”
CCS and Tesla Supercharger connectors are effectively neck-and-neck. However, some of those, as noted by CharIN itself, are restricted, or not open to the general public. There are some Superchargers that are in paid parking structures (which could still arguably be considered public) but the vast majority are located in free, publicly-accessible parking. The J1772 argument is somewhat irrelevant in my mind, since nearly all Teslas have a J1772 adapter (whether or not the owners keep it in the car in another matter). The majority of focus on charging has been in the area of DCFC, and for good reason. When people are taking a road trip, or are in a hurry, few are going to have the patience to wait around for 4-8 hours for their car to charge.

My final takeaway is this: The North American DC Fast Charging market has been a mess for several years, characterized by an inconsistent user experience, inoperable chargers, spotty customer service, and many neglected charging points. Although the Tesla Supercharger network is not perfect, it is much better than any other third-party network in almost all of the noted measures.

Ford’s adoption of NACS is a shot across the bow of both CharIN as well as the charging networks to get their act together and focus on creating a higher-quality, more consistent experience – and although further out, possibly even the creation of a more elegant charging standard than the current CCS.

I believe the standard that best serves customer interests, and is objectively the best design, should win. In my opinion, that standard (whether it meets CharIN’s technical definition or not) is NACS. I appreciate CharIN’s defense of its standard and organization, as it should. But rather than just a rote re-statement of its objectives, why not a commitment to improve the customer experience, and encourage, work with, and yes, possibly even sanction member organizations that do not meet minimal operability, uptime, and reliability standards. That kind of statement I could respect and get behind.

(Main image courtesy Tesla)

- Store - Podcast - Facebook - Google News - Twitter -