SAE has followed through on its plan to finish its NACS certification by the end of the year, and the NACS standard is now ready to go. And the new standard promises to solve a lot of charging problems in one fell swoop.
Tesla released specifications of its charging connector in November 2022. It called it the “North American Charging Standard,” which was somewhat of an absurd name at the time, given that Tesla was the only company using it.
However, since Tesla is a majority of the US EV market, Tesla’s argument was that most of the cars and most of the DC charging stations in America already used Tesla’s connector, so it should be considered a de facto standard anyway.
This led SAE, the professional engineering organization which develops industry standards, to take up the flag of creating a real, independent standard that is no longer in the hands of Tesla. This is an important move because many governments and companies would understandably have an issue with a single company having control over a standard that, at this point, it seems like everyone is planning to use.
How NACS will solve several EV charging problems at once
We had another chat with Rodney McGee, Ph.D., of the University of Delaware, who chaired SAE’s NACS task force, and told us that the new standard will soon be announced by the White House. He was understandably excited about the standard getting finished so quickly, and told us how NACS is going to solve a lot of problems with EV charging all at the same time.
In particular, it should make charging installation cheaper for commercial entities, leading to cheaper and easier charging for businesses (including, potentially, for large apartment buildings); make charging more interoperable between commercial and personal vehicles; and unlock new possibilities for street charging for electric vehicles.
The main reason for this is the standard is preserving NACS’ support for 277 volts, as opposed to the 208-240 voltage of J1772. This simple change unlocks a cascade of benefits that should smooth out several charging problems.
Why does this matter? 277V is one phase of a three-phase 480V supply, which is the form that most commercial utility connections come in (particularly those that support DC chargers). Which means that secondary step-down transformers are no longer necessary for AC chargers, making EV charging installations cheaper and more efficient.
When you make EV charging installations cheaper and easier for businesses, this means more chargers at workplaces, giving people who can’t charge at home another option. It means more opportunity charging at any other place you might happen to park, and more opportunity charging means more EVs plugged in at any given time which means more battery capacity available on the grid in a potential V2G future.
Saving businesses money is all well and good, but the most important point here is that by making commercial installations cheaper, this means that mixed-use apartment buildings can more easily install banks of EV chargers, without needing big transformer rooms to further step down voltages. And that means that more people will be opened up to the convenience of having a charger at the place where their car spends the most time.
The news is even good for people who don’t have a parking spot – city-dwellers who use street parking. The NACS standard includes a provision that would enable the installation of chargers in lampposts, something that we’ve seen trials of in London. There have been similar efforts in the US, but those are subpar because the J1772 standard requires a permanently-attached cable, which means that streetside cables get dropped, broken, laid around, and otherwise abused.
The new NACS standard instead uses a standardized receptacle – which is in fact the same one used in the EU and China – which can be plugged into with a ~$100-200 carry-along cable that EV drivers can keep in their car (and the receptacle does have a locking mechanism). Making each driver responsible for their own cable makes maintenance easier in public spaces where otherwise, nobody’s really willing to take ownership of ensuring cables don’t get abused.
NACS also allows AC and DC through the same connector, unlike J1772. CCS is similar to the J1772 plug, but with an additional two pins on the bottom, so the connectors aren’t identical. With NACS, the connectors are identical for both types of charging.
Another potential upside here involves medium and heavy duty vehicles, which could charge at up to 52kW AC from the same receptacle as a light duty vehicle can charge at 20kW, by using 3 phases or 1 phase respectively. 20kW can be a bit on the low side for some larger vehicles – school buses and the like – so allowing those vehicles to charge at up to 52kW from the same place light duty can charge at 20kW would be a big boon as well.
And finally, all of these boons add together to a world where it’s easier to install and maintain chargers, and easier for everyone to be using those chargers wherever they’re parked, which means more cars plugged in at any given time. And if everyone is plugged in all the time, that means more capacity available for a potential vehicle-to-grid future. If V2G ever takes off, we will want to have as many cars plugged in as possible, because more cars plugged in means more capacity available for the grid. And that means making AC infrastructure cheap, which is what 277V support and carry-along cables enable.
There is one potential problem on the horizon, though: California and the US federal government (through NEVI) have both put a lot of money into charging station deployment, and the original intent of that money was to install roadside DC chargers that are as compatible as possible. So now, will those rules fully embrace NACS and allow the money to be used to install the new standard, or will they require CCS-compatible deployments so as not to leave an installed base of vehicles behind, even though CCS is now, effectively, a dead standard? (one compromise option being discussed is to require CCS for DC chargers, but throw full weight behind NACS for AC chargers)
This decision point is also a little ironic, since NACS’ existence seems to have been spurred on by NEVI in the first place. When the government offered billions of dollars to companies that install chargers with the restriction that those chargers be useable with multiple vehicles, that’s what got Tesla to finally offer a “standard.” At the time, it wasn’t really a standard because only Tesla was using it, and it was somewhat of a last-ditch effort to save the Tesla connector. Then, when Ford decided to use NACS, that’s what started all the others dominos falling. Now, NACS is dominant, but it only happened because of NEVI in the first place – and NEVI now has the difficult decision over whether to embrace the (positive) situation it caused, even if it will give some of the installed base an effective “use-by” date as a shift to NACS will inevitably mean fewer CCS/J1772 chargers over time.
Electrek’s Take
We’re actually pretty amazed that this standardization process finished already. SAE intended to finish by the end of the year, but standards can take a long time and require a lot of cooperation from organizations with differing motivations.
Part of why this process could be finished so quickly is because we’re now further into the world’s electrification journey, and auto manufacturers, many of whom now have departments getting into the charging business, can see the benefit of making charger installations cheaper.
And while we may have been a little hyperbolic in the title, this really does fix one of the few real problems with electric cars right now. There are a lot of perceived problems with EVs which rely on misconceptions, but one that isn’t a misconception is that there are bigger hurdles to owning an EV for people who don’t have a garage.
With cheaper AC charger installation benefits allowing better charging options for workplace, garage and street parking, this all adds up to a win for environmental justice. It makes EV charging easier for renters, or for people who otherwise do not have access to their own garage/off-street parking where they can install a charger. And that means more EVs in lower-income communities, and cleaner air too.
This has been a problem for a long time, and some piecemeal solutions have been proposed and are in the works, but this standard should help make that problem more solvable.
Ironically, the one thing the standard doesn’t solve is the problem we pointed out in the headline of our previous article on this – Plug & Charge. That article laid out how authentication issues are holding Plug & Charge back from being as good as it could be in the US, and unfortunately the SAE NACS standard (which it calls J3400) won’t solve that. However, work is ongoing on a solution for that problem, in a separate proceeding, and it seems like the NACS changeover may be the impetus needed to get it solved once and for all.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla has officially launched the Model YL, a new, larger Model Y with 6 seats, in China, and it starts at 339,000 Chinese Yuan, the equivalent of about $47,000 USD.
After a few weeks of teasing, Tesla has officially launched the new version of the Model Y on its online configurator in China:
The main things we didn’t know about the vehicle yet were the price and range. Those questions are now answered.
The Model YL starts at ¥339,000, equivalent to approximately $47,000 USD. It’s about $3,600 USD more expensive than the Model Y Long Range AWD in China.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It is rated with a range of 751 km (466 miles) based on the CLTC driving cycle, which typically yields a longer range than the WLTP and EPA standards.
For comparison, the larger version achieves roughly the same range as the smaller Model Y Long Range AWD, thanks to its larger battery pack.
Tesla has released new images of the new version of the Model Y:
Last month, the first specifications and dimensions were released, confirming a length of approximately 180mm (7 inches) longer, a height of about 24mm (1 inch) taller, and a wheelbase that is also 150mm (or approximately 6 inches) longer.
Now, Tesla has confirmed a few more features, including up to 2,539 liters of storage space and electric armrests in the second-row seats.
The automaker is guiding deliveries in September.
Electrek’s Take
The price is reasonable in comparison to Tesla’s current lineup, making the upgrade relatively affordable.
However, it is a lot more expensive than other 6-seater all-electric SUV options in China, such as the Onvo L90, which is about $8,000 cheaper.
I’m curious to see how it will be priced in North America, where I think it would be much more popular than in China.
Tesla needs to go downmarket to access a bigger market in China – not upmarket, but the new option is still a positive for the automaker.
If the pricing matches the one in China, it shouldn’t be much more than $51,000 in the US, which I think would make it a popular option.
However, I think it would be the end of the Model X.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Startups with little more than a pitch deck are raising hundreds of millions. Valuations have become “insane.” Capital is chasing a “kernel of truth” with feverish speed.
The OpenAI CEO still believes the long-term societal upside of AI will outweigh the froth, and he’s ready to keep spending in pursuit of that goal.
“Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes,” he said at a recent dinner with reporters. “Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes.”
He repeated the word ‘bubble‘ three times in 15 seconds, then half-joked, “I’m sure someone’s gonna write some sensational headline about that. I wish you wouldn’t, but that’s fine.”
While Altman warned that valuations are now out of control, he’s ready to shell out on more infrastructure.
“You should expect OpenAI to spend trillions of dollars on datacenter construction in the not very distant future,” Altman said. “And you should expect a bunch of economists wringing their hands, saying, ‘This is so crazy, it’s so reckless,’ and we’ll just be like, ‘You know what? Let us do our thing.'”
OpenAI is already looking beyond Microsoft Azure’s cloud capacity, and is shopping around for more.
The company signed a deal with Google Cloud this spring and, according to Altman, OpenAI is “beyond the compute demand” of what any one hyperscaler can offer.
“You should expect us to take as much compute as we can,” he added. “Our bet is, our demand is going to keep growing, our training needs are going to keep going, and we will spend maybe more aggressively than any company who’s ever spent on anything ahead of progress, because we just have this very deep belief in what we’re seeing.”
It’s not just OpenAI. All the megacaps are trying to keep up.
In their most recent earnings, tech’s biggest names all raised capital expenditure guidance to keep pace with AI demand: Microsoft is now targeting $120 billion in full-year capital expenditures, Amazon is topping $100 billion, Alphabet raised its forecast to $85 billion, and Meta lifted the high end of its capex range to $72 billion.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives said Monday on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” that demand for AI infrastructure has grown 30% to 40% in the last months, calling the capex surge a validation moment for the sector.
Ives acknowledged “some froth” in parts of the market, but said the AI revolution with autonomous is only starting to play out and we are in the “second inning of a nine-inning game.”
“The actual impact over the medium and long term is actually being underestimated,” he said.
Citi’s Rob Rowe, speaking Monday on CNBC’s “Money Movers,” pushed back on comparisons between today’s AI boom and the dotcom bubble.
“Back then, you had a lot of over-leveraged situations. You didn’t have a lot of companies that had earnings,” Rowe said. “Here you’re talking about companies that have very solid earnings, very strong cash flow, and they’re funding a lot of this growth through that cash flow. So in many respects, it’s a little different than that.”
He added that the current wave of AI investment is being driven by structural shifts in the global economy, particularly the rapid growth of digital services, which now account for a large share of global exports. Also unlike the dotcom cycle of the late 90s, companies today are funding their infrastructure spending with strong cash flow rather than relying on debt.
Still, concerns about overheating have been mounting.
Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai pointed to worrying signs in the AI sector well before the hyperscalers raised their annual capex guidance during the latest earnings prints.
In March, he warned of a brewing AI bubble in the U.S.
Speaking at HSBC’s Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong, Tsai said he was astounded by the scale of datacenter spending under discussion. Tsai questioned whether hundreds of billions in spending is necessary, and flagged concern about companies starting to build datacenters “on spec,” without clear demand.
Altman, for his part, sees these cycles as part of the natural rhythm of technological progress.
The dotcom crash wiped out scores of companies, but still gave rise to the modern internet. He expects AI to follow a similar path: a few high-profile wipeouts, followed by a lasting transformation.
“I do think some investors are likely to get very burnt here, and that sucks. And I don’t want to minimize that,” he said. “But on the whole, it is my belief that… the value created by AI for society will be tremendous.”
Waymo founder and former CEO John Krafcik is a critic of Tesla’s approach to self-driving, and he has so far accurately predicted the rollout of the “Robotaxi” service.
He is now taking another dig at Tesla.
Krafcik is a highly respected leader in the auto industry. He began his career as a mechanical engineer at the NUMMI plant, which was then a joint GM-Toyota factory, but is now owned by Tesla.
He spent 14 years at Ford, where he was chief engineer of the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator, a very successful vehicle program. He then moved to Hyundai America, where he served as President for five years.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
However, Krafcik is best known for leading Waymo from 2015 to 2021, helping it become the consensus leader in self-driving technology.
There’s a Tesla employee in the front seat of every “Robotaxi” in the fleet, which is only about a dozen vehicles, based on crowdsource data, which is the only data available, as Tesla doesn’t release any.
Those supervisors in the front seat have their fingers on a kill switch ready to stop the vehicle at all times, and there are many examples of them intervening to prevent accidents or traffic violations.
In new comments (via Business Insider), Krafcik makes it clear that he doesn’t consider this to be a “robotaxi” service:
“Please let me know when Tesla launches a robotaxi — I’m still waiting. It’s (rather obviously) not a robotaxi if there’s an employee inside the car.”
More recently, Tesla expanded its “Robotaxi” service area to the Bay Area in California, but it again has an employee in the car, this time in the driver’s seat.
Krafcik commented:
“If they were striving to re-create today’s Bay Area Uber experience, looks like they’ve absolutely nailed it.”
He continued:
“I think the AV industry would be delighted if Tesla followed Waymo’s approach to launch a robotaxi service, but they are not doing that.”
Furthermore, Tesla has been limiting access to “invite-only” and the invites have been primarily going to Tesla influencers and investors who are rarely critical of the company.
CEO Elon Musk has been discussing “opening up” the service in Austin to the public next month, but it appears that Tesla will need to retain the in-car supervisor for the foreseeable future.
Electrek’s Take
It must be a bit frustrating for Waymo, which has deployed an actual robotaxi service for years, to see Tesla calling this a robotaxi.
When Waymo was using in-car “safety drivers’, it didn’t call its service “robotaxi.” It was obviously in the testing phase.
If Tesla were to remove the safety drivers, which I suggest they don’t, based on the current disengagement rate of FSD and the interventions we have seen from supervisors in the currently minimal “Robotaxi” service in Austin, it would officially be about 5 years behind Waymo.
The argument that Tesla will magically scale faster because they don’t use lidar should be retired, as the goal should be the safest, not the fastest, at scaling.
And when it comes to scaling, Tesla’s current bottleneck is safety. It needs to be safe enough to remove the safety supervisor, and it’s clearly not there yet.
I really don’t like Tesla’s approach. It seems to be more about optics than adopting a safe and transparent approach.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.