For example, if there are fees for using the connector (not sure), an automaker might hold out to get the best price. There may be terms related to the rates that will be paid for using Tesla's charging stations.
There might be other issues. Maybe Tesla wants to qualify automakers' designs so cars don't cause problems with their charging network, or vice versa. The automaker might want access to Tesla engineers or facilities for help with designing or testing stuff.
Also, I don't know who's supplying the connectors (that will be built into the cars), but if it's Tesla, the automaker may want commitments about how many will be delivered by what date and at what cost.
There could also be some sort of IT integration, like charging location map data or maybe allowing customers a different way to pay for charging (through the automaker's app or something).
---
[1] Rivian's press release (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230620267452/en/Riv...) says they "signed an agreement with Tesla".
I shouldn't need Exxon and Shell and Phillips and Wawa and Sheetz and whoever to qualify my car to get gas. I shouldn't need Tesla and EA and whoever to qualify my car to get electricity.
I don't see how anyone can see that and think its a good thing.
We are at that point right now. That is the process happening in front of us. Eventually it will all be settled enough that nobody will have to check that devices work with each other, but we aren't there yet.
No, but you'd just have the fuel tank opening large enough that you can put in any particular handle. And in the end you didn't need Gulf saying this brand or that brand could buy gas, but not that brand. So while there were a lot of different handles before U842, they usually all actually worked with all the different brands and the gas stations didn't have to pre-approve the different cars to get gas there.
I've had a few gas tools and gas tanks which didn't have a gas port that was shaped for a U842 handle and yet I've still managed to fuel them just fine. I didn't need to get Shell's authorization every time I wanted to fuel a Toro.
I'm kind of amazed people think its a good thing for Shell to have the ability to say "no, that brand of car isn't allowed to buy gas here anymore". Imagine if Ford operated most of the pumps in the US and could just decide Toyotas could no longer get gas at the majority of pumps. Sound like a good idea?
Imagine if Tesla operated most of the DCFC dispensers and could just decide Toyotas could no longer get gas at the majority of dispensers? Oh wait, they already made that decision. Despite the majority of Tesla dispensers technically supporting CCS communications a Toyota couldn't possibly charge on most of those dispensers even if they had an adapter, because Toyota and Tesla don't have an agreement.
For example, look at how USB C compatibility worked at first. There was a standard, but there were still lots of problems. In practice, implementers may not correctly understand certain parts of the standard, may not grasp the importance of doing something a specific way, or may try to cut corners. Also, the standard may have omissions or errors.
All of this should theoretically be fed back into a future version of the standard, but with evolving technologies, it takes time to get there.
Tesla chargers shouldn't care if the car is a Tesla or Rivian or GM or VW or whatever, if it plugs in and it speaks CCS it should charge.
But you are correct, they are not much invested in CCS in the US. Unlike say Volkswagen.
Contrast this with VW MEB, Hyundai/Kia eGMP, Porsche J1, Mercedes EVA, etc. that were all ground-up EV skateboards without ICE support.
By combining DC and AC onto the same pins, it reduces the part count and weight of bus bars / conductors which run from a car's charging socket and the battery.
NACS is a better user experience for people and significantly so for people with mobility issues, disabilities, etc.
The pre-eminent NACS fast charging network is markedly better than the totality of all CCS1 charging networks.
CCS2 (Europe) has few (if any) of the drawbacks of CCS1.
Is that a good reason to adopt a standard that isn't open? Probably not. Does the average customer cares and will it have an impact on their day to day? Probably not.
EDIT: Seems like NACS is open after all so I don't really understand why we would bother with CCS.
Charging infrastructure sees significantly more duty cycles than an individual car so it makes sense to move the wear part to the vehicle.
It’s annoying that the US will once again be out of sync with the rest of the world, that’s the main drawback.
And in the end it doesn't really matter. I'm not driving my car across the ocean very often. Import processes already tend to make taking a car from one continent to the other a huge hassle, so to the vast majority of people its probably easier to just sell the car in one place and buy another on the other shore.