EV Range’s Response to the Shift to NACS

By Carl Pancutt, CEO

The Tesla experience is often praised for its seamless integration and closed-loop control between their vehicles and chargers, much like the Apple ecosystem. Not too long ago, however, Tesla made an announcement labeling the Tesla connector as the North American Charging Standard, NACS. At the time, the news received some ridicule and backlash from the electric vehicle driving community.

Fast forward to the summer of 2023, Ford, GM and Rivan announced that starting next year, their EVs will be able to charge at Tesla’s charging stations. But, more importantly, all three companies stated their intention to build their cars with the NACS port integrated into the car itself. That is a big industry shift and one that will impact all of us.

So, what does this mean for EV Range? EV Range’s software, the heart and soul of our offerings, is plug agnostic and thus we are well suited for however the plug war plays out. And, as the demand for NACS at EV Range stations increases, we will evolve our offerings accordingly. This means we'll explore options like offering CCS with NACS adapters and/or physical NACS connector cables on our EVR stations. We’re committed to working closely with our hardware vendors, automakers, and most importantly, our customers during this industry transition. 

We leave it up to you to decide whether this is good for the industry, however, there are few factors, some of which are relatively technical in nature, that we are considering:

Less confusion due to multiple connector types - There are currently numerous EV connector types - J1772 (the slow one), CHAdeMO (the big blue one), J1772Combo/CCS (the white one), NACS (the Tesla one) and soon the MegaWatt (the massive triangular one). CHAdeMO is being phased out with many OEMs already having made the switch to CCS. Will CCS also go the way of CHAdeMO? Will J1772 go too and leave us with only the NACS? If so, I believe this can be a good thing! We, as a Network, deal with new adopters every day and explaining the difference takes time to navigate such confusion. Supporting multiple connectors takes resources. Reducing to a single connector will help us all - especially the consumer.

Power -  The NACS standard states that it has been tested for 500-1000V and up to 900A. Many existing Tesla stations are limited to just 200-300A, while the bulkier CCS connector can provide up to 500A, it is bulkier because of liquid cooling. Why liquid cooling? To meet NEC code size requirements, liquid cooled CCS is able to reduce the normal amount of conductor required as a non-conductive liquid is pumped across the wire reducing dangerous overheating caused by forcing a huge amount of current (amps) through a smaller than normal wire. This is done to ensure both the weight of the cable is manageable by the public and to ensure a truly fast charge. How is the NACS able to overcome this? How are they able to claim 900A without liquid cooling via their “inlet”? To me it is not clear how this can be achieved within the confines of the National Electric Code (NEC). Although I am excited at the prospect.

As mentioned previously, most Tesla stations are just 200-300A, so how will the existing Ford models the Lightning and Mach-E be impacted? I use these models as examples as they are the vehicles my Wife and I drive, thus I have real world experience and will be personally impacted. Firstly, these vehicles possess 400V charging architecture, although real voltage is usually just 350-370V. A 350V vehicle at 200A Tesla station equates to just 70kW. The maximum charging power of 70kW is poor, especially when these vehicles are capable of 175kW. The vast majority of EV Range sites are 350-500A which ensure maximum power to 400V and 800V vehicles and to ensure true high power 150kW+ charging. Until Tesla makes substantial upgrades, this will be a poor experience for 400V vehicles, unless the NACS is truly capable of 400A+ charging.

Interoperability - From our experience, CCS itself is not the issue. The largest issue is the different state to state requirements, payment processes and various OEM specifications that may cause vehicle side charging timeouts after plugin. EV Range is a software company first and is at the forefront of fixing those issues. For instance, via the EV Range app, we encourage drivers to plug in only after signup and starting a session to prevent such vehicle issues.  This approach eliminates the vehicle’s software based disconnect from the charger that is maddening to customers. So many nuances like these affect the driver experience. Standardizing flows, OEM specifications, and state to state requirements will help the industry as a whole. The space is moving fast without enough cohesion between OEMs, charging hardware manufactures and charging networks.

In summary, I truly believe that NACS has the potential to be a win for everyone (perhaps Tesla being the biggest winner). I do still see strong potential in CCS, as I do not believe the physical CCS connector itself being the issue. Automaker and hardware vendors alignment is difficult, however, interoperability testing such as the Charin VOLTS event are bridging the divide. Tesla has yet to realize this and will most certainly need to deal with the issues that come with numerous OEM integrations/demands, though in recent news, Charin will support and assist Tesla with such challenges. Furthermore, progress and adoption of "Plug & Charge" will greatly improve experience for drivers on CCS (or NACS), which further mitigates steps via auto billing a virtual wallet based on your vehicle which, once configured, allows a driver to just plug in and walk away. EV Range is currently developing this technology, as it brings a huge benefit to all drivers.

Most importantly, EV Range is most excited by anything that moves the industry and ecosystem forward. We’ll continue to monitor, develop and support the changes, to ensure the best driver experience.

Carl Pancutt

CEO

EV Range