Plugged Up: GM to Adopt Tesla Charging Standard

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

It was only a few short days ago we brought you news of Ford announcing it will be granting its EVs the capability of hoovering electricity from Tesla-branded charging stations. If that news gave you whiplash, last night’s announcement of a similar move from General Motors will surely put yer back out.


While plenty of (valid) shade can be thrown at Tesla and its big cheese, there’s no argument the company used its 10-year head start on electric cars to completely flip the script and build up an impressive charging network. While many third-party chargers are broken, refusing payment, or thoughtlessly placed behind the second dumpster at Pizza Hut, Tesla’s Supercharger network is clean, largely seamless, and – most importantly – reliable. 


The prevailing wisdom is that while there was plenty of incentive for third-party charging companies to get their stations up and running, there has been precisely zero motivation to keep them working. After all, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of profit (yet) in selling electricity through CCS plugs, so why should companies dump untold billions into their maintenance – especially once they’ve set up shop and won the game in terms of land grab (which is the real fight, if you’re wondering).

Well, if people shop using these third-party chargers, their owners will find out real quick why it is important to do all those things. In a conversation with Elon Musk yesterday on Twitter, GM boss Mary Barra explained her company will begin to integrate the North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector design into its EVs beginning in 2025. This is huge news since it’ll mean America’s three biggest sellers of electric vehicles will all be using the same power port. Standardization isn’t bad when it comes to this type of stuff, especially if it erases the frustration of rocking up to a Level 3 fast charger and finding it devoid of the plug you need.


Left unclear is if future GM (and Ford) EVs will ditch the CCS port in favor of NACS or simply add the latter to its cars. We say ‘simply’ but, of course, there’s nothing simple about it, really. There isn’t a ton of real estate behind the doors of most EV charging ports, even if NACS does have a relatively tiny footprint, not to mention you just increased the amount of charge cabling required in a car. And designing a second charging flap door on another part of the car to house a NACS port would be very expensive. The specter of adapters and such is also being bandied about.


By the way, the term “North American Charging Standard” is just a name Tesla gave to its own plug design. It’s like inventing a new proprietary barbecue in your backyard and marketing it as the “North American Grilling Standard” and then waiting for the likes of Traeger and Weber to team up with you. Or, more apt to this scenario, if ExxonMobil was in the business of making cars and shaped their filler necks to only accept their gas pumps – and waited for Chevron and Shell to change their cars to match. As unlikely as it sounds, that’s pretty much what is happening with EV charging ports in 2025.


Hey, if it means one less variable in the forthcoming EV onslaught, bring it.


[Images: GM, Tesla]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 32 comments
  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Jun 09, 2023

    China will decide which EV charging protocol will become world wide standard.

    • Tassos Tassos on Jun 10, 2023


      No it won't. It at most will decide what will happen INSIDE China.


      PS it's "THE world standard".

  • Tassos Tassos on Jun 10, 2023

    These last months, every day seems to be another great, consequential piece of news for Tesla, who does not just DOMINATE, it OWNS the US and FREE WORLD BEV market.


    It is the ONLY (repeat ONLY) maker that builds its huge best sellers at a PROFIT, ie, SUSTAINABLY. FOrd EV is bleeding 3 billion in losses. GM hides theirs, and I bet they are even HIGHER. VW has spent a huge no of billions and its ID series has been an UTTER FAILURE.


    Toyota, already 12 years too late, is yet to try. I doubt they will succeed to dethrone TESLA.

    • See 2 previous
    • Deanst Deanst on Jun 12, 2023

      I guess if you ignore the fact that purchasers of Teslas receive billions in subsidies to buy their EVs, then Tesla could be seen as “profitable”.


  • Redapple2 All this BEV investment. A bigger impact (less oil consumption) would have been made if we had made PIG UP trucks smaller since 2000 and not HUGEr. (And raised gas tax by $2-3/gallon.)
  • ChristianWimmer One of my clients is a company that is actually producing eFuels in Leipzig. Yes, they require a lot of energy to produce but this would not be an issue if Germany had nuclear energy or used the excess energy from wind and solar to produce these fuels. In such a scenario the energy losses wouldn’t really matter.Also, I am told that nations like Spain or the North African nations like Morocco or Tunisia could be ideal places to produce eFuels/Hydrogen due to their abundance of solar power. Again, the energy loses here would not matter since the energy used to produce these fuels is essentially “free”. If this path were pursued, Morocco and Tunisia could become wealthy nations and exporters of eFuels and Hydrogen. Countries with an abundance of solar or wind or hydro energy could be producing eFuels for their domestic consumption and export.Another argument which to me is irrelevant these days ist the poor thermal efficiency of ICE engines (25-35% gasoline, 40-45% diesel). One long trips with cruise control set to 130 km/h and even the occasional venture into the 180-200 km/h zone, my fully loaded (with my gear) A250 (2.0 4-cylinder 224-hp Turbo) can achieve an impressive gas mileage of 6 L / 100 km. That’s phenomenal - I am looking at six 1 liter bottles of water right now and that’s all my car needs to travel 100 km… amazing.So, I am a supporter of eFuels. I love internal combustion engines and if we want to use them in a climate neural way, then eFuels are a must. Also, to me every ICE car is way more sustainable and longer-lasting an an EV. Mazda, Toyota etc. are making the right move IMO.
  • Blueice Once you infuse governmental unit regulation & [marketing] and taxpayerfunding, one knows quite well, dat the product or service isdestine to fail; which includes battery vehicles. Just axe yourself how revolutionary have your home batterydevices become ??? I am still waiting. after three decades, for a battery shaver whichonly requires charging two or three times per year.I am glad that I do not have a plug in Frau.
  • Tassos Such a heavy breadvan on stilts, with so much HP, AND with ONLY 100 KWH Battery, I doubt if you will ever see 250 miles, let alone 300, under the best of conditions. In the winter, count on 150 miles range.And NO, it looks TERRIBLE. The only SUV that looks great is the RANGE ROVER.
  • Tassos They sure are doing the right thing in the SHORT and MEDIUM term.As for the long term, in the long run, YOU'LL ALL BE DEAD, so WHO CARES.
Next