They don't have to prevent non-Teslas from using them, just use the funds in a way that favors Tesla (just like VW did). They have every right to do so given most likely the grant does not cover the entire installation (this is different from the VW settlement, where the funds were in lieu of a equivalent penalty). Note Tesla is opening their superchargers to non-Teslas in certain places in Europe, even ones that were fully funded by Tesla though.
Your argument is a red herring.
Yeah, if the Feds give Tesla money to open new chargers and get access to the entire Tesla Supercharger Network, that's a bargain
The article and point about VW's move was not mine. But it's blatantly obvious to anyone that the move was designed to give VW an unfair advantage, given at the time the Leaf made up a bulk of non-Tesla EVs (not to mention Teslas being able to use the CHAdeMO using the adapter at the time, but not the CCS). They hid behind the fact that CCS could be used by other cars too, but it's not hard to see past the motive (otherwise, why not at minimum build CCS and CHAdeMO in equal share or at least a couple of CHAdeMO instead of just one).
Tesla would be open to that if the Feds were willing to do that. The sticking point for Tesla was always that they need anyone that wanted access to contribute upfront to the network (not just feed off it in per-session manner, which is not sustainable, given the network is money-losing in the first place). So doesn't matter if it's the government contributing or automakers themselves.
CHAdeMO was the preferred standard for Asian automakers (minus China) while CCS was the preferred standard for European and American automakers (san Tesla).
Just FYI, as far back as 2014 Tesla announced that it was allowing competing automakers to design their EVs to use Tesla Supercharger stations. There seems to have been little interest among other manufactures to cooperate with Tesla on the charging front.
They didn't publish it as a standard, they said they'd be willing to allow other manufacturers to pay licensing fees to use their standard, with (if I recall IIRC) those payoffs including major upfront payments for access to the network and then an upfront payment for each car built with it. They also didn't as I understand it talk to any of the other charging networks or the manufacturers of charging equipment. That's not really allowing other manufacturers to use the port as a standard.
You still seem to be stuck in this mistake. Here's who they were giving "advantage" to:
VW did not.
It's obvious that it was not.
That's not "hiding". That is doing the sensible and rational thing that the data supports.
Because the EV market IS NOT AN EQUAL SHARE between those two! I already pointed out above that CCS is used by all of the other auto makers except for Nissan and Tesla. CHAdeMO barely exists and was only being used by ONE maker, who is now phasing it out too. It would have made no sense at all to do half and half with CHAdeMO.
Awesome. I did the same, but my adapter is still in transit. Let us know how it goes!
If <insert any company name here> is allowed to take the government's money and violate the spirit of the law, blame the idiot politicians for not writing the law or regulations properly. If someone writes a piece of software that has a security flaw in it that they gets exploited, do you put more blame on the people using the exploit or the people who wrote the buggy software in the first place?
Are your arguing that EA should have had a different ratio of CCS to Chademo? Personally, I think keeping to one (and now none) Chademo per site is about right....
That is now, not back then though. The Leaf made up a bulk of the non-Tesla EV volume (110k vs Bolt at 24k), and Tesla is by far the largest (and back then it can only use CHAdeMO). Perhaps half-half would not be justified, but only one per station obviously is trying to give VW an advantage.
Haven't you heard of Wayne Gretzky's famous bit of wisdom? You don't skate to where the puck is. You skate to where the puck is going to be. When dozens of auto makers are using CCS and only one using CHAdeMO, it was already indicated that CCS was going to be the dominant and overwhelming number of EVs in the near future. Current numbers being different than that was not the important point. If someone was focusing on that instead of where the market was going (as you are), that would be very unwise and shortsighted. Setting up your business toward focusing on the old thing that is going away doesn't make much sense in any industry if you want to have a future.
Once it leaves Ukraine, monitor it on the USPS site. The original ukraine tracking won't show anything.
That's all fine and dandy if EA was purely a private venture, but it was one that was built in lieu of penalties to VW. To make a move that just "conveniently" disadvantaged one of VW's biggest competitors at the time, typically wouldn't be allowed if it was a public project (as given in other examples upthread where there were explicit ratios required).
Right now or back then? Right now, 0 CHAdeMO connectors per site is the right number. If they're going to do two connector types per site, it should be CCS1 and CCS2 (and I'd be able to buy a CCS2 to TPC adapter from Europe and use it to charge my Tesla at any EA site). But back then? Of the two types of connectors, the most prevalent EV in the US (Teslas) could only use CHAdeMO and this is still the case until Tesla releases the adapter, so I think a ratio of 1:2 for CHAdeMO to anything else was warranted.
Tesla doesn't make such an adapter... (They do have a CCS2 to Tesla custom Type 2 adapter that they sell in Europe.)
