Phelan M. Ebenhack via AP
A Tesla vehicle sits at a Tesla vehicle charging station outside a Target store, July 18, 2022, in Orlando, Florida.
A few weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joined a group of senators proposing universal common power cords for mobile devices, to reduce e-waste and save consumer hassle and expense. Such a system has already been established in the European Union.
Warren’s tweet about this proposal went viral; it received criticism from conservatives and “pro-innovation” types, despite being obviously correct. We don’t have 20 different power sockets in the U.S., but left to its own devices the consumer electronics industry might have created such a nightmare. The only way to set universal standards is through government action in the public interest, and we even have an agency—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—dedicated to this purpose, at least in part.
Weeks later, the U.S. government announced it has figured out a way to push industry to an even more important universal, interoperable standard, this time for electric vehicles. And it came through a combination of standard-setting and the enticement of public funding.
There’s an acknowledged need for more EV charging stations across the United States, to increase drivers’ (and passengers’) confidence that they will never be far from a charge when they need one. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act secured $7.5 billion for a national charging network of hundreds of thousands of stations.
But there was a problem, one the Prospect identified back when the infrastructure bill was first proposed. There was at the time no formal charging standard in the United States. Most companies did conform to the same standard, except one: Tesla, which has the largest footprint of EVs in the U.S. The fast “Level 3” chargers that Tesla has deployed, which can fully recharge a vehicle within 30 minutes, have generally not been available to other EV users. These chargers have both different adapters to fit the sockets of different EVs, as well as different software to facilitate the connection.
Standardized products have proved useful for nearly 100 years in America, but in the EV space it’s critical. People currently have the ability to fill up at any gas station, whether they’re driving a Toyota, a Chrysler, or a Volkswagen. A lack of interoperability would weaken the network for different sets of drivers.
So the Biden administration went about fixing this, in a bit of a light-touch way. Their basic premise was that any auto company bidding for federal funding from the charging station program would have to abide by the same rules of the road, allowing for fast charging no matter the vehicle. Once the public is paying the freight, the stations would be interoperable, “with similar payment systems, pricing information, charging speeds, and more,” according to the announcement.
On Sunday, the White House let slip that Tesla had applied for federal funding for building EV stations, and that it would abide by the new rules. By the end of the year, Tesla plans to “begin production of new Supercharger equipment that will enable non-Tesla EV drivers in North America to use Tesla Superchargers,” according to the White House announcement. That means that interoperable adapters will be available, and the software will be modified for universal use.
Directing public money to be used for maximum public benefit shouldn’t be a novel concept, but sadly it is.
While Tesla had opened an interoperable Supercharger network in a pilot program in ten stations in the Netherlands last year, it had not signaled its intent to do so in the U.S. until it began its bidding for the infrastructure act’s charging station funds. Tesla had promised to open its network, but anyone with minimal knowledge of Elon Musk knows that he promises a lot of things. That promise is now coming true because of a federal standard and a federal carrot to get EV manufacturers into the system.
It makes sense for Tesla to open up its network, as EVs are a growing market with more consumers who will need power while away from home. But the incentive to keep a walled garden, therefore gaining a competitive advantage over rivals because of the Supercharger network, was fairly strong. Federal money reduced that advantage, and the interoperability mandate made it maximally useful to any EV user.
That doesn’t mean there are no further problems with the charging infrastructure we’re moving toward. Tesla still can charge more to non-Tesla drivers; indeed, other manufacturers like GM have made special charging deals for their own drivers through memberships and other programs. It’s something the antitrust authorities might want to look at. Meanwhile, while the standards for EV interoperability are fine, the standards for the workforce installing the EVs are somewhat vague, an extension of the lack of strong standards on things like prevailing wages and union neutrality throughout the electric-vehicle space. The administration could do a lot more here.
Moreover, the $7.5 billion to build out the network is about half as much as the administration wanted, meaning it will have to do more with less by creating slower chargers. That’s not a huge problem, since the concept should be just to get the driver home rather than to fill up the battery, since most EV users have the ability to recharge overnight in their carports or garages. But getting people out of the “fill ’er up” mentality will take time, and slow chargers will naturally discourage them. Besides, some areas alongside highways really do need fast chargers for long-haul travel.
Finally, the only way that electrifying transportation benefits the planet is if the sources of electricity are actually clean.
But generally speaking, White House competition adviser Tim Wu is correct; the EV funding rules are a “sleeper competition/innovation move.” Directing public money to be used for maximum public benefit shouldn’t be a novel concept, but sadly it is (as we’ve seen with a semiconductor bill with few guardrails for the well-off companies getting the subsidies). The standard-setting, by contrast, effectively abolished one area of monopolization in the EV industry before it could get going. It created a virtuous circle for public investment that facilitates the green transition.
This is something that the White House envisioned in its competition executive order: to use every approach at the federal government’s disposal to ensure good outcomes for the public and to crack down on corporate power. Standardizing EV chargers wasn’t specifically mentioned in that executive order, but it stems from the same impulse. The administration should do more of it.
