NACS Today, UCS Tomorrow?
By Edward A. Sanchez — July 1, 2023
Many in the automotive industry, myself included, have been surprised by the rapid uptake and announced adoption of the Tesla-developed North American Charging Standard (NACS). Initial resistance to the protocol made it seem like CCS1 was here to stay in North America. Other automakers were wary (rightly or unjustifiably) of Elon Musk’s offer to freely share the IP, with the rumored initial conditions prior to the November 2022 announcement of NACS that adoptees of the technology could not sue Tesla in perpetuity. If that were indeed the case, it’s easy to understand the reluctance.
Multinational corporations are generally notoriously risk-averse when it comes to partnerships and collaborations, and any joint-venture or partnership is usually thoroughly vetted by the company’s legal department. Something must have changed for the current state of affairs to have transpired. Both Ford’s Jim Farley and GM’s Mary Barra have claimed there were not a lot of strings attached with the use of NACS, and that it was just a matter of them reaching out to Tesla and/or Elon Musk.
Obviously, Tesla benefits from this development in that its network of Supercharger stations in the U.S. will likely see much higher utilization rates in the U.S. in the years ahead. Tesla owners may experience higher levels of frustration with non-Teslas using the charging stations, but the consensus seems to be, even from Tesla owners, that broader adoption of NACS is a positive development.
Even overseas, there is growing enthusiasm for NACS, even as the European Union has come down decisively in the CCS2 camp. Several years ago, Tesla capitulated to the EU mandate, and started to equip its cars with CCS2 charging ports. But industry observers and EV enthusiasts in Europe have noted NACS’ much sleeker, slimmer form factor relative to CCS2, with a quiet, grass-roots lobbying effort for consideration and ultimate adoption of NACS for Europe as well. Right now, this seems far-fetched, for a couple of reasons. CCS2 is the de facto standard in Europe by regulatory mandate. Tesla has adopted it, as well as everyone else. CharIN, although ostensibly a “global” organization, has its base, and a greater level of influence in Europe. Although the organization has made grudging concessions to NACS after initially coming out against it, it is likely not eager to cede any more influence or control to an “outside” standard.
But a case could be made that a similar domino effect could happen in Europe, and indeed globally with NACS. Utilizing many of the same communication and power electronics protocols as CCS, the main difference and advantage of NACS is the smaller form factor integrating AC and DC charging into one elegant plug. Could the “North American Charging Standard” become the “Universal Charging Standard” (UCS)?
Philosophically, the EU and U.S. are quite different when it comes to technology, with the EU generally being more prescriptive when it comes to standards, with the U.S. content to let standards fight it out in the marketplace until a de facto victor emerges by attrition or default. Although the U.S. has lightly put its finger on the scale in favor of CCS, it is not prohibiting NACS, and indeed, some states are already requiring provision for NACS as a condition for qualification for NEVI funds.
The key determining factor for NACS globally is its flexibility for the various AC and DC standards globally. A microcosm of NACS’ flexibility can be seen in the Tesla Mobile Charger itself. Tesla offers multiple plug adapters for 120v and 240v, and amperages from 5A to 32A. You can buy aftermarket adapters that expand the universe even more. The slim form factor of the Mobile Charger reflects the NACS plug and port itself, as well as being priced lower than most comparable units, while offering greater flexibility. Our experience with attempting to use Ford’s equivalent home charger on the Mach-E reflects this difference.
Like Europe with CCS2, China will likely be reluctant to cede control of its GBT standard (or proposed ChaoJi, an evolution of the CHAdeMO protocol), so don’t count on that changing for the foreseeable future. But for nations at an earlier stage of EV adoption, such as India, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, the adoption of NACS could make sense.
