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 (TSLA) released its financial results and shareholders’ letter for the third quarter (Q4) 2025 after market close today.
We are updating this post with all the details from the financial results, shareholders’ letter, and the conference call later tonight. Refresh for the latest information.
Tesla Q3 2025 earnings expectations
As we reported in our Tesla Q3 2025 earnings preview yesterday, the Wall Street consensus for this quarter was $26.457 billion in revenue and earnings of $0.55 per share.
It would represent a record quarter in terms of revenue, thanks to record deliveries due to demand being pulled forward into Q3 in the US, amid the end of the federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
However, the expectations suggest that Tesla’s earnings are continuing to erode despite the positive temporary circumstances of the third quarter.
How did Tesla do compared to expectations?
Tesla Q3 2025 financial results
After the market closed today, Tesla released its financial results for the first quarter and confirmed that it delivered below expectations with earnings of $0.50per share (non-GAAP), and it exceeded revenue expectations with $28,095 billion during the last quarter.
This is quite disappointing, considering Tesla’s operating income decreased by 40% year-over-year, despite achieving record revenue.
The difference is accounted for by a decrease in gross margin from 19.8% to 18%. In part due to Tesla losing some regulatory credits and lowering prices across most products.
Bulls also can’t explain this by Tesla investing in the future, as capex is significantly down year-over-year.
Nonetheless, the automaker added to its war chest, which now sits at $41.6 billion.
We will be posting our follow-up posts here about the earnings and conference call to expand on the most important points (refresh the page to see the most recent posts):
Here’s Tesla’s Q3 2025 shareholder presentation in full:
Here’s Tesla’s conference call for the Q3 2025 results:
If you are in the US, the next few weeks are likely the last opportunity to secure a solar installation and take advantage of the federal tax credit, which is set to expire.
If you want to make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar – whether you’re a homeowner or renter. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, including those who install Tesla Solar and Powerwalls, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. The company is currently working double time to help people secure solar installations before the end of the tax credit.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Jeep and Ram’s parent company, Stellantis, is pushing back two more electric vehicles that were due out next year. The delay is the latest in a series of delays or plans to cancel what were considered key EVs.
Stellantis delays Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio EVs
Add it to the growing list of electric vehicles that have recently been delayed or cancelled altogether. The current gas-powered Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio will live on for at least another year in the US.
Initial plans called for both to arrive as next-gen variants in 2026, offered exclusively with electric powertrains. Stellantis is now delaying the EV versions for another year and will continue selling the current models until Alfa Romeo is ready to adopt the STLA Large platform.
Stellantis CEO Santo Ficili announced the news during a presentation for the updated Tonale SUV, according to a report from Motor1.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The Giulia and Stelvio have been on sale in the US for a decade now and are still based on the same Giorgio platform they arrived with.
2025 Alfa Romeo Giulia (Source: Stellantis)
Stellantis is delaying the EV variants to give Alfa Romeo more time to fit the next-gen Giulia and Stelvio on the STLA Large platform with gas engines. Although it’s not confirmed, the replacements will likely use the same twin-turbo inline-six “Hurricane” as the Dodge Charger Sixpack.
The announcement follows Stellantis’ decision to cancel Ram’s first electric pickup, the Ram 1500 REV. Instead, Ram will focus on the range-extended version.
2025 Alfa Romeo Stelvio (Source: Stellantis)
Stellantis also cut the base R/T trim from the Dodge Charger EV lineup and reportedly shelved plans for a range-topping SRT Banshee model.
Ram and Jeep plan to bring back the HEMI engine for the Ram 1500 and Wrangler Rubicon 392, while the 2026 Dodge Durango will be exclusively available with a HEMI.
While Stellantis is shifting plans, at least one EV is still on track. Jeep’s CEO Bob Broderdorf confirmed the Recon EV, its “Wrangler-inspired” electric off-roader, will debut soon with sales starting next Spring.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla has released its latest Autopilot safety report, and the limitations are still presented misleadingly; however, one clear thing is that the data is worsening.
Tesla notoriously doesn’t release any relevant data to prove the safety of its ADAS systems: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised).
The only thing the automaker releases is its quarterly “Autopilot safety reports”, which consist of Tesla releasing the miles driven between crashes for Tesla vehicles with Autopilot features turned on, and comparing that with the miles driven by vehicles with Autopilot technology with the features not turned on, as well as the US average mileage between crashes.
There are three major problems with these reports:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Methodology is self‑reported. Tesla counts only crashes that trigger an airbag or restraint; minor bumps are excluded, and raw crash counts or VMT are not disclosed.
Road type bias. Autopilot is mainly used on limited‑access highways—already the safest roads—while the federal baseline blends all road classes. Meaning there are more crashes per mile on city streets than highways.
Driver mix & fleet age. Tesla drivers skew newer‑vehicle, higher‑income, and tech‑enthusiast; these demographics typically crash less.
With all these flaws in Tesla’s quarterly Autopilot safety reports, the primary value lies in comparing the miles between crashes with Autopilot features turned on over time.
However, there are reasons to believe Tesla’s data now, as it doesn’t look good for the company.
Here’s Tesla’s latest report for Q3 2025:
In the 3rd quarter, we recorded one crash for every 6.36 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology. For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology, we recorded one crash for every 993,000 miles driven. By comparison, the most recent data available from NHTSA and FHWA (from 2023) shows that in the United States there was an automobile crash approximately every 702,000 miles.
It’s now the third quarter in a row where Tesla had a year-over-year decline in mileage between crashes:
The data deteriorated enough that Tesla had to give up its misleading claim that “Autopilot is safer than human by 10x” and now says “9x” instead:
The comment is still misleading for the previously mentioned reasons and should be labeled as “Autopilot + human driver” as it requires driver attention at all times.
There’s no way to know how many accidents human drivers prevented during Autopilot mileage.
Electrek’s Take
Again, I have to emphasize that this report only has value when you compare the Autopilot mileage against itself over time.
It’s also important to compare the same periods year-over-year as accidents are more common during the winter due to people driving more often after dark and in more difficult conditions.
Therefore, the only important thing that this report highlights is that Autopilot is getting worse.
Shouldn’t that be worrying? Shouldn’t Tesla address that instead of falsely claiming it means Autopilot is 10x, 9x safer than humans?
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.