What if Tesla spun off the SuperCharger network to an independent company and gave up the NACS to an independent organization?

[SoCal Rob]

I’ve been reading the back-and-forth on the various charging threads and I’ve been trying to come up with a solution which makes most people happy. As if.

The closest I got is this: Tesla spins off the SuperCharger network into a separate profit-driven company so there is no favoritism among vehicle manufacturers, with that as a permanent part of the new company’s mission statement. Tesla releases all claim to any control over the NACS connector specifications to an independent body.

This would allow consumers to use SuperChargers (regardless of connector type) which are not controlled by a single vehicle manufacturer and it would allow manufacturers to include the NACS connector without being at the mercy of a competitor.

Would that make most people happy? I know that I could live with that.

Sponsored

 

[Sgt Beavis]

Yea, I’d be cool with that. But it makes no sense in Tesla’s part. This is a growth industry that they are extremely well positioned to dominate. It would be foolish to doing it off.

 

[Craigins]

This should be the government requirements for infrastructure funding. In fact it should just be an antitrust ruling similar to Google/Alphabet, Windows/Office, etc.

 

[COdogman]

Totally fine with that. Or even if they kept the supercharger network for themselves and simply transferred control of their connector to a third party.

 

[jjswan33]

No not really. I bought a CCS car from Rivian at least partially on the promise it would be supported long term with Rivian and others building out infrastructure to charge it.

If my truck is now obsolete that is a real kick in the teeth but I don't really believe that as I have said a couple times these obituaries that the Tesla sheople are writing all over the forum are just overblown.

 

[SoCal Rob]

Yea, I’d be cool with that. But it makes no sense in Tesla’s part. This is a growth industry that they are extremely well positioned to dominate. It would be foolish to doing it off.

If they really want to further adoption of EVs then this may be a way of getting (nearly) everyone on board. The perception that Tesla is trying to create a monopoly is very off-putting to some people. It wouldn’t be the first time a single corporation broke up or was broken up into more than one corporation. I’m assuming that Tesla stockholders would be fairly compensated by some mechanism.

My hope is that this is a solution to the problem which would increase the adoption of EVs and benefit consumers. Taking control away from Tesla, a vehicle manufacturer, seemed to be a way of doing that. I could be totally off-base and NOBODY would like the solution.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

At least I tried coming up with a solution instead of rehashing the same points.

 

[dleepnw]

logical but odds of that happening are slim to none. Elon might claim hes about sustainability and all but hes about profits and the SC network is going to be a cash cow.

 

[SoCal Rob]

No not really. I bought a CCS car from Rivian at least partially on the promise it would be supported long term with Rivian and others building out infrastructure to charge it.

If my truck is now obsolete that is a real kick in the teeth but I don't really believe that as I have said a couple times these obituaries that the Tesla sheople are writing all over the forum are just overblown.

I think I may have omitted too much detail with my concept. Please keep in mind that as an independent company, SuperCharger, LLC (or whatever) should install Superchargers with both CCS and NACS connectors. It would be in a profit-driven company’s best interest to attract the greatest number of customers since empty stalls earn no money. That’s why I think the Supercharger network needs to be spun off from the vehicle manufacturer Tesla.

 

[SoCal Rob]

logical but odds of that happening are slim to none. Elon might claim hes about sustainability and all but hes about profits and the SC network is going to be a cash cow.

Oh, I get that.

Ultimately, going this route is a version of, “Put your money where your mouth is.” If Tesla thinks their products are good enough that they can be successful without the ability to make charging better for their customers than for all other manufacturers, then this should be an acceptable solution.

Resistance to this breakup is basically saying that Tesla wants to maintain control over the connector, charging network, or both to protect their own interests. Which, I think, is exactly what many people are concerned about.

 

[jjswan33]

I think I may have omitted too much detail with my concept. Please keep in mind that as an independent company, SuperCharger, LLC (or whatever) should install Superchargers with both CCS and NACS connectors. It would be in a profit-driven company’s best interest to attract the greatest number of customers since empty stalls earn no money. That’s why I think the Supercharger network needs to be spun off from the vehicle manufacturer Tesla.

Honestly I don't have any issue with your proposal as written just assuming that it meant that Rivian abandoned CCS for NACS which I oppose for the reason I stated.

It's interesting to me that all of the sudden what F and GM are doing in the EV space is a strategy that the rest of the industry should emulate.... oh how the times and opinions change so quickly.

 

[JayinNJ]

Spinning off the company would slow down growth. It can not keep growing and maintaining the network at the same pace on its own. It relies on profits from car sales.

 

[kallisti5]

As someone *really* concerned about Tesla being a monopoly... I think as long as Tesla FULLY OPENS NACS with actual public licensing conditions, it's fine. They don't have to "give up" their charging network unless they really want to.

Tesla deserves the ability to make money, while we deserve an open licensing agreement for NACS. The biggest reason I was pushing for CCS was it's open-ness.

What I don't want is Tesla playing gatekeeper over NACS to competitors.

 

[COdogman]

Honestly I don't have any issue with your proposal as written just assuming that it meant that Rivian abandoned CCS for NACS which I oppose for the reason I stated.

It's interesting to me that all of the sudden what F and GM are doing in the EV space is a strategy that the rest of the industry should emulate.... oh how the times and opinions change so quickly.

This is a great point. They got into this late, are still struggling to get their EV business off the ground and this is simply a way for them to avoid investing their own money into any charging infrastructure. They just put it on their customers and Tesla. I wouldn't call that brilliant - it's just lazy.

 

[sub]

I think the reason why Tesla's supercharger network is so much superior to CCS networks is that it was designed by and run by a company that genuinely cares about its success.

CCS is what you get when a bunch of companies who view electric vehicles as unwanted competition design an electric vehicle charger. If you transfer control to the same group of people responsible for CCS, you'll end up with something just as bad as CCS.

To avoid anti-EV corruption of the EV charging network, control of the north of American charging standards would need to be proportional to the North American EV market share.

Since Tesla has more than 50% market share they would have more than 50% control which means they actually have 100% control. Anti-Tesla people would not find that any better than the current state of affairs. If a change in ownership/structure doesn't make anyone happy what's the point?

Elon may be a jerk, but giving Toyota equal say to Tesla in how EV charging is going to work would surely result in yet another failed design. Let's not repeat what we know doesn't work (legacy automakers designing/controlling recharging experience).

 

[SoCal Rob]

It's interesting to me that all of the sudden what F and GM are doing in the EV space is a strategy that the rest of the industry should emulate.... oh how the times and opinions change so quickly.

At the risk of being pedantic, it’s not what F and GM currently are doing, it is what they say they are going to do in the future. I would not be surprised if something changes along the way, especially if there is a strategic benefit to making this announcement right now, even if there is no iron-clad guarantee they’ll follow-through. I picture a salesperson at one of these dealerships telling a customer, “Well, you’ll be able to charge at a Tesla Supercharger any day now!” Over time, F & GM could announce that, upon further analysis, they’ve produced too many CCS vehicles to change to NACS but their customers can continue using Superchargers with the “interim” adapter strategy.

This can play out many ways. Time will tell…

Sponsored