In 2022, California set a deadline, declaring that all new car sales in the state after the year 2035 would be Zero Emission Vehicles. As EV sales continue to grow, nationally it’s estimated that EV sales will reach 70% by 2035, necessitating action on behalf of the federal government to not only establish charging standards, but inspire the creation of a national network, supported by grid infrastructure, to meet future demand. David Abel, Chairman of VerdeXchange moderated a CoMotionLA panel that included Lynda Tran, DOT Director of Public Engagement and Andrew Rogers, FHA's Deputy Administrator, as well as TAE Power Solution's Rob Capaldi, and Petersen Automotive historian Leslie Kendell on the rapidly approaching transition. Panelists addressed the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program ($5 billion), the Discretionary Grant Program for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure ($2.5 billion), as well as the challenges of unifying the states re: standards.
David Abel:
Good afternoon. I'm David Abel and I host a global energy & sustainability Conference platform VerdeXchange, which looks at the evolving energy, water, transport, and finance markets. But even when VerdeXchange addresses transport, we're not as cutting edge as this CoMotionLA conference. I’m delighted to moderate this panel - Energizing America: The Push for a Comprehensive EV Charging Network. The latter obviously requires a major transition & investments. We have an expert panel here, they possess a lot of knowledge. I'm going to allow each of our panelists to introduce themselves briefly, and the contributions they would like to make to this conversation.
Lynda Tran:
Thank you, David. I’m Lynda Tran, I'm Senior Adviser to Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and also Director of Public Engagement for the Department of Transportation. Usually, the way that I introduce myself on these panels is that I'm the lady with the money, but because I have my colleague here, with the Federal Highway Administration next to me, I guess we're the people with the money. I want to give a little bit of a sense of the landscape that we're operating in and talk about some of the available opportunities. I’d like to give insight to the landscape we’re operating from..
Andrew Rogers:
We're here from DOT. My name is Andrew Rogers, I'm the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Our role is to supplement the private sector, and help catalyze the growth that's already happening. Our goal: to help build a convenient, affordable, reliable, equitable, made in America, national EV charging network- we’re putting up a lot of money to do that. We also want to establish rules of the road, to set a baseline for establishing these minimum standards, so there's plenty of room to innovate. We also want to make sure that when you pull up to charge, you know that it's going to work, and that it's going to work every time. Our role here is to provide some of those funds and clarity. I’m excited for this conversation.
Rob Capaldi:
Hi everyone, I'm Rob Capaldi. I'm from chemical TAE Power Solutions. I'm here to represent the private and technology sector. TAE is a spin out of the fusion energy research company TA Technologies. We're taking a piece of technology that's been developed as part of the journey towards fusion energy, making it a safe, sustainable energy source of the future, and applying it to the mobility sector through a number of innovative products. I'm here today to talk about what's required to help with the transition towards an upgraded grid, to power the EVs that are in front of us, and to bring perspective from our technology provision to how it can support that.
Leslie Kendall:
My name is Leslie Kendall, I am the Chief Historian of the Petersen Automotive Museum, and have been there for 30 years. I was the only student in Kindergarten to know what a Bugatti was. I'm here to give a historic and impartial look at the past and answer any questions that might come up regarding how we got to where we are.
David Abel:
Turning back to you Lynda: What is the ambition of this Federal program to transition us to EV charging?
Lynda Tran:
Thank you, David. Let me start with some level setting about what's happening at the Department of Transportation. I think folks in the room know that exactly two years ago today, the President signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), or the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that was $1.2 trillion, and $660 billion of that went to us and our colleagues. It was a daunting amount to have come on to us.
To give you a sense of that number, it is either five times or seven times, depending on the year, the budget that has ever flowed to the Department. 103 programs, 46 new programs, and one of them, a seven and a half billion dollar program to build a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations and help electrify that great American road trip.
Over the past few years, we've had a number of really exciting announcements. In February of the first year, we announced the formula side of the program, which had about $5 billion there. A few months ago, we announced the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program, which is about $2.5 billion split between corridors and communities, which Andrew can talk about in a great level of detail. He was actually one of the people on the Hill who wrote the language that led to the IIJA. I really have a lot to thank him for.
We are trying to recognize the fact that transportation accounts for the lion's share of greenhouse gas emissions, and we're obviously living in a world where if we don't address the climate crisis ahead, and build a more resilient and climate responsive transportation system, we're going to be in a pickle. We are excited about this, and the electrification of how we get around this country is a big piece of that.
David Abel:
Well Andrew, Lynda shared the ambition, Andrew. How do you go about achieving the promise?
Andrew Rogers:
We have a multistage approach here. Two years ago, today, the law passed. In the law, there are many provisions, one being the $5 billion program that Lynda mentioned, which is affectionately known as NEVI, or the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. For those of you not acquainted with Title 23 of US Code, good, and for those of you are, sorry.
To pull back the curtain a bit on the way that it and its formula works: Every state gets an apportionment based on a couple of different factors set by Congress. Essentially, every year the federal government allotts a chunk of money to various programs and for various uses. The NEVI program, for the first time, said that you can only spend this money to build EV charging stations. This was truly seismic, to pass not only the NEVI program, but a climate title in a highway bill, something that up until that point was absolutely unheard of.
We certainly celebrated that achievement itself, and then we quickly got to work actually using the new resources. As Lynda mentioned, the first thing we did was write guidance, which sounds really boring, but it's actually very important. People on the Hill write the legislation, and then agencies need to interpret the legislation, and establish the rules on the road for states and others to actually spend the resources according to the law.
The guidance did a couple of things. Rather than just give out the money and say go build, which would have been an acceptable path forward, we asked the federal government and Federal Highway Administration specifically, for states to write plans, talk to their communities, specifically disadvantaged communities, and your departments of energy. You can’t just put a charging station in the ground and hope that a grid comes along someday, you need to actually have that coordination.
A lot of the Year One work, before chargers are in the ground or before boards are being announced, was planning. It was critical to ensure that when we're building a network, it's actually a network. It doesn't do any good if at every state boundary, the network just drops off. If when you cross to a new state there is a different connector or a different pricing scheme, all things that can happen in the 52 laboratories of democracy, I'll explain the “two” in a minute, that we have implemented in our different highway systems. We wanted to really make this a national approach. We wrote rules for the use of these funds that do exactly that. That was Year One.
In Year Two, we asked what we should spend the funds on. There's Chatham connectors, there's CCS connectors, there's NACS connectors, which were previously known as the Tesla connector. There’s level two and level three charging. Candidly, there were some draconian laws from states that prohibited displaying the price of electrons going into a vehicle in certain ways, or you'd be regulated as a utility in the state. This is deep dive stuff, but they are the types of things that we needed to lift up, suss out, and then standardize across the board so that whether I'm charging in Montana or Mississippi or Michigan, the rules of the road, and the requirements are the same. I would have that same reliable charging experience.
And then, and this is really key. We were talking earlier about something that the government is generally very bad at, which is regulating innovation, regulating tech. We were very intentional in developing the standards. Yes, we asked industry, states, and stakeholders, where we should begin? Where should we draw the line? What should we consider, and what should we avoid? But we really wanted to emphasize that these were minimum standards. It's a baseline, leaving all of that fertile ground above for innovation, and for that nascent technology to grow and change. If we need to come back in and amend those regulations, to update them, we are absolutely well suited to do so.
It's a daunting task. It's been a lot of fun, up to this point, to stand up these programs. We’re really excited to be celebrating charges actually going into the ground.
David Abel:
Andrew, before we turn to Rob and the POV of the private sector, who would DOT love to interface with? Share where and how DOT will set the standards, and how will DOT iterate the standards?
Andrew Rogers:
Within a month or two after the law passed, we published a Request for Information. Pretty basic, we just said, “Hey, we did a thing. What should we do with it?” We asked industry to tell us about their vision. When I say industry, I'm really talking about all stakeholders? Yes, EDSEs and OEMs have a perspective, but so do transit operators, community planners, and tribes. We really wanted to make sure that the thing that we were building could work everywhere, and for everyone.
That was part one.
Part two said that now that we've got a rough sketch of what that might look like, we have to propose it. The Administrative Procedures Act, is a regulatory process that we needed to formally go through to make sure everybody had an opportunity to contribute. We weighed things like plug types, connectors, charging levels, and total station power. We arrived at 150 kilowatts for ports, and a total station power of 600 kilowatts. Earlier when we were over at the Auto Show –we've been to a couple of auto shows– and the automakers all wanted us to do 350 kilowatt or megawatt charging, which is great, except for that it's astronomically expensive, and there's very few model vehicles on the road today that could actually take that type of charge. Now, I love my automakers, and this is not to disparage them. But why would an automaker want that? Because they want people to have the absolute fastest, best charging experience possible so that more people buy their vehicles. I don't disagree with that. But as a practical matter, if we're trying to stretch $5 billion over 52 jurisdictions, we need to right-size a lot of things. So we arrived at something like 150 kilowatts.
I mentioned pricing. Again, this seems like it's in the weeds, but it's the type of thing that was really important. There were eight-ish states that prohibited displaying the price of charging the vehicle in the same way you would see how much a tank of gas costs today, dollar per kilowatt hour.
One of the good things about being the federal government is you have the power of preemption. So we said, if you want to take $5 billion, and be able to spend on charging stations, this is what you will need to display. And lo and behold, those state legislatures are acting and changing their laws. They can take advantage of this program, and now the consumer is not confused, there’s no sticker shock. You’re not getting a bill from your utility company a month after you filled up your vehicle.
These are just a small handful of the types of issues that we had to tackle. But at every step of the way, we did it with the benefit of input. This wasn't a couple of people sitting in a room deciding what the future of charging would be. It was reaching out with great deliberation to diverse stakeholders to make sure that, hopefully, what we put forward was a great first step. But there will be version two and version three as this network continues to evolve, so we can keep pace with innovation.
David Abel:
Andrew, just one more before we go to Rob and the private sector—The Stakeholders: What's the array of stakeholders that you had in mind when you developed these standards?
Andrew Rogers:
Yeah, I mentioned a couple of the diverse stakeholder groups, including your traditional automaker to a consumer of a personal use vehicle. The freight industry, the heavy duty vehicle industry is very interested in this as well. I will tell you, since this isn't a secret. It's been published for almost a year now, in the regulations, we very intentionally didn't regulate heavy duty vehicle charging at this time. Why? Because they told us they weren't ready. They're still harmonizing around what they will need, in terms of the connector types, the correct power station power levels, and such.
These are really important things that before a federal government puts their thumb on the scale and says “build this using these funds,” you want to make sure the industry is actually galvanized around something. So while there's a lot of conversation in the freight space right now, we were very intentional to not yet speak on the heavy duties piece, even though back to Lynda’s point, there's incredible climate savings potential in those last mile, and medium and long haul vehicles. They just don't yet have the technology at the level of completeness that you do on the consumer vehicle side. It didn’t make sense for the federal government to nose our way into that. And then there's everybody else in between.
The transit piece is huge –multimodal hubs, ensuring that when you're putting a charging station in, it's not just on a city corner where there used to be a gas station, maybe it's not just four maybe it's 16, maybe there's micro mobility, maybe there's additional charging needs that are not eligible under the program. But the point is, if you're going to dig once and build these things, you want to do it with some intentionality, because it's really expensive to do this more than once.
Lynda Tran:
I'm going to chime in, because stakeholders are my jam. I don't want to leave the impression that this was a conversation between the federal government and industry alone. We're very concerned about the advocates, about consumer perspectives and consumers having a really good experience. To Andrew's point, the OEMs want to be able to move the vehicles. They are, to the tune of $200 billion, making massive investments in the electric vehicle space. And they want to make sure that we get it right early enough that people are buying these vehicles at a rate that actually makes it worth their while. So there's that piece of it. And then, you know, we would be remiss if we didn't bring it up, one of the very first things that President Biden signed into an executive order was the justice40 initiative. So we're very concerned, of course, about climate justice, environmental justice, and making sure that we're also taking into account different challenges and different types of communities. And that's part of the reason why there was a stratification of how the funds were put together. And also part of the reason that we wrote into the early notices of funding opportunity, thou shalt also engage stakeholders if you want to be able to use these funds.
David Abel:
Rob, you represent on this panel the private sector. There are a lot of private sector people here that want to interface with this program. You also represent TAE Power Solutions. Speak generally, and specifically, about how you fit into these DOT programs.
Rob Capaldi:
The history of the company is that we are a fusion energy company that is developing safe, sustainable ways to generate power. As part of following that scientific process. We've generated other technologies, one of which can be applied to use in batteries to optimize the way power flows within those batteries.
We can apply that technology to a multitude of different applications. The first two applications are stationary storage devices for grid balancing applications and electric vehicles, enabling us to provide a vehicle that is able to charge faster, drive more efficiently for a longer range, and provide a stationary storage solution that is more efficient in its operation.
We are very much a company that sits on that interface between infrastructure and vehicle, which means we have a third product, which is a charge of products. Being able to provide that whole ecosystem of technologies that covers the interface from the infrastructure through to the vehicle means that we have a pretty unique viewpoint on this discussion, in that we're not just a company that wants to talk to vehicle makers about what's our vehicle, we want to understand how there are developments taking place in the infrastructure that can be optimized to make better use of the funds that have been made available to ensure that the users get the best experience.
If we look at the publicized user surveys that often take place and people's objections to electric vehicles, some of the headlines often crop up around charger availability, vehicle range, charge fees. And we need to make sure that the technologies that are being developed that are able to access the funds that are made available, address those user objections.
So speaking as a technology company that's working in that space, we're very much taking on board those objections that come from users to make sure the tech that we create enables them to address those challenges and enables the infrastructure providers, whether that's charge station operators or whether that is regional DOTs that have got large fleets of buses or delivery fleets for companies like Amazon, we make sure that the technology they're able to access allows them to electrify their fleets in an efficient way.
David Abel:
Rob, there's a libertarian streak in every technology developer, a little distrustful of the government's ability to iterate. Are the quality conversations now taking place, in your opinion, that you'd like to have taking place with investors?
Rob Capaldi:
From my perspective, I think we're at a pretty revolutionary time in terms of every level of investment has already been highlighted. And in terms of the rate of change in the technology that's coming to the market.
As long as the regulations that have been defined are fit for purpose, and as long as they address both the technology industry's capabilities and the user's requirements, I think we're at a point of absolute change in the industry.
David Abel:
Speaking of changing the industry… Leslie, you're here representing the Petersen Museum, you're trying to combat the notion that history is bunk, that we've had these transitions before. You can give us some perspective on what we're about to go through.
Leslie Kendall:
In the year 1900, there were more electric cars on the roads than gasoline or steam-powered cars. The whole idea is that the reasons for the ascension of the gasoline-powered car are being addressed now, and it's because electricity is becoming more convenient. Convenience is really what it's about. If I could fill my tank or charge my battery quickly, if I could do it just about anywhere, I could go for a long, long time on what I have, and I'll be fine.
It didn't take long for gasoline to take supremacy because electric cars were used differently. At the turn of the 20th century, they were meant for city use, primarily for ladies, as they were considered like phone booths on wheels. Women, with their massive millinery, could go in there, and the seats were arranged in conversational groupings, with people actually facing each other, their backs to the windshield, having a nice little chat on the way to the Monday club or something.
Eventually, gasoline cars took over when the electric starter came into being. Suddenly, you didn't have to crank your car anymore, bend over the dirty street to do anything; you just stepped off the curb, pushed a button, and off you went. But you needed a battery to energize that starter. So there you go, electricity was always involved.
David Abel:
Lynda, coming back to you, because you're doing engagement. Address the challenges of engaging stakeholders given the program will be iterative.
And, as Andrew said, you left some things out of the program, like freight. Give us a sense of the kinds of conversations you're going to be having in the next two, three years.
Lynda Tran:
It's a great question, David. Andrew and I often engage in these conversations, forming a kind of duo act. The discussion initially started as Andrew described, but now we've delved much deeper into questions surrounding the supply chain and recycling. What's happening with those batteries? Where are the critical minerals coming from? We're focused on keeping the goods movement chain operating in a way that allows us to continue developing in this space, and that has become a significant part of our recent discussions with stakeholders.
I would also like to add that there are numerous discussions, of course, around heavy-duty trucks. Andrew mentioned that we deliberately built in flexibility based on early feedback. However, I suspect that heavy-duty trucks will be an area where we continue to have more profound conversations, especially as technology advances. In places like LA and Oakland, at the ports, there are hydrogen hubs and demonstration projects underway. These ports are not only investing in electrification and electric infrastructure but also exploring hydrogen because that's what will be needed to continue moving our goods efficiently. We'll also explore LNG (liquefied natural gas).
Andrew Rogers:
We initiated the conversation around NEVI and the highway charging experience, and heavy-duty vehicles are a natural extension of that. Range anxiety, as Rob mentioned, is a factor in every conversation when making a purchasing decision. However, it's essential to note that the program is not limited to highway charging. A significant and exciting aspect is the CFI program—Community, Charging, and Fueling Infrastructure. This program is community-driven and encompasses Level Two charging at multi-unit dwellings, curbside charging, and other places where charging is most likely to occur. While fast charging on freeways is crucial, daily charging often happens at home, work, school, shopping centers, places of worship, etc.
There's an additional $2.5 billion allocated for this purpose, and unlike the highway formula funds, this is a discretionary grant program. We are currently in progress with the first round of grants, selecting tribes, cities, localities, and states based on their applications that align with our criteria. Substantial amounts of funding are then awarded to build use cases. Some of these cases may be replicated nationwide, while others will be unique to specific geographies. Despite hydrogen often grabbing headlines, I believe the small yet robust $2.5 billion CFI program is the crown jewel in this initiative—let's make it work.
David Abel:
Well, Andrew, under the category of “show me the money,” give us an example of a grant you've made, or a grant you're about to make, and what's involved.
Andrew Rogers:
Yeah, I can do that. So again, the first batch is coming to a press release soon, but imminently. So, in the out years, we want to see what works. What you're seeing in the States, as well as in many states making awards in the form of the program, is diversifying their portfolios. This holds true for the private companies they're selecting and is relevant to the types of projects they're building. They'll learn a lot from what worked and what didn't work. Maybe a contractor isn't the best fit, perhaps a company promised a lot, and the cost ended up being higher than expected. Lessons are taken, and the federal government is no exception. We have been learning from years one and two, and year three, and year four, and year five will be different. Part of that involves plugging gaps. For instance, when making an award in Los Angeles, which is already saturated with charging, we'll likely aim to fill gaps in the map where needed, not just stacking stations on top of each other.
Another piece that we launched in September was the $100 million reliability accelerator. If you drive an EV, you're familiar with the unfortunate circumstances of pulling up to a charging station and it not working. This has likely happened to every single EV driver out there. The program isn't just about building new things; it's also about taking care of what we have. It's a catalyzing $100 million influx of funds to find those orphaned chargers, repair or replace them, bring them up to the new standard, and then maintain them. So, we're not only building new things and a new network, but we're also fixing and maintaining the existing network. These are just two examples of the types of grants we're making and will be making in future years.
David Abel:
Rob, I'm sure a number of private sector people in the audience are already included in a DOT proposal or hoping to be. Are you hearing what you need to hear? Do you know what you need to know to be an active player in this?
Rob Capaldi:
I think, in opposition to that picture, we're more likely to be at a level down from those applying for the grants, serving as a technology provider that enables ChargePoint operators and network operators to fulfill their objectives. Our focus is heavily driven by specifications required to achieve the necessary penetration of charges nationwide. When considering the spread of chargers, it goes beyond the availability of grants. It involves understanding the electrification efforts of other fleets and what's necessary to ensure effective delivery to their users, customers, and others. Take the case study of buses; they may not necessarily use publicly accessible charges but rely on the network established by their operator, whether it's the city or a contracted local operator.
These operators need the right technology to run their operations effectively, ensure the longevity of their hardware for a comparable return on investment as traditional vehicles, and access power from the grid, especially with buses moving toward heavy trucks, which requires significant energy demands in a short period. This aspect hasn't been touched on in our discussion but is a critical consideration.
Beyond publicly accessible chargers for consumer EVs, in discussions with organizations actively advancing these initiatives, there's positive momentum in the US. It's setting the right controls to provide operators with the funds they need and access to the necessary technology. However, a significant challenge is ensuring that providers with interests beyond defined boundaries, involving power generation and distribution, are included in consultations and service delivery.
Lynda Tran:
Part of what has made this time and service so exciting is hearing from people like Rob. There's a lot of exciting innovation happening. I envision one day lying on my deathbed, reflecting on this time in my life, and feeling proud that we not only established this program making investments but also inspired additional innovation, contributing to the growing ecosystem we witness every day. It's genuinely thrilling, and it aligns with the President's vision, signaling to the broader marketplace about the immense opportunities available. This is a pivotal moment in history, the moment we worked towards building a better world for my kids, for Andrew's kids, for everybody. That's why I'm smiling—I find it truly exciting.
David Abel:
Leslie, what are you going to collect for your museum from the first generation products coming from this funding? What is likely to be in your museum 10 years from now?
Leslie Kendall:
Time will tell. Firstly, we don't know the direction technology will take. We have a collection of infrastructure, both in terms of vehicles and charging stations. Some of our early charging stations, though now looking antiquated, were cutting-edge in their day. It's comparable to when people ask me about collectible cars or which cars will become valuable — we simply don't know. However, we make it our business to stay informed about emerging and fading technologies, as sometimes cars are just as important for what they represent as they are for what they are.
David Abel:
I want to go back to Lynda. You mentioned that you learned something from listening to Rob. Give us an example of some of the exchanges you had that have been really enlightening and have opened up a window to what DOT is trying to inspire.
Lynda Tran:
I'm not allowed to choose any favorite "children," so to speak. However, some of the conversations we've had with these entrepreneurs and innovators have been mind-blowing. For example, there are discussions about standalone charging stations under contract to the DOD with proprietary information that I won't be sharing here, but the innovations are truly exciting. A lot of these developments are intentional, and some are by accident. We recently spoke with a battery recycler who, by a happy accident, discovered a rapid way to extinguish a battery fire, and they plan to present this solution to the world at some point.
The point is that people are actively working in this space, and there are new things happening on a daily basis. That's what I find particularly interesting.
Andrew Rogers:
I'll just add one thing, which is, you set up the legislation, write up guidance, talk to everybody, but there's that moment of just hoping and waiting, seeing what actually happens. None of us are soothsayers here; we try. But at the end of the day, you have to take a leap of faith. What excites me the most is not just the innovation, not just the next generation of innovators diving into the space, but candidly, it's the obscene amounts of private investment flowing into this. There's a huge inertia behind this, and we were always meant to be a catalyzing force.
Now, we feel like a drop in the bucket compared to the private investment in battery technology, refining, and the EVs themselves. There's so much money, attention, innovation, and energy going into this space, and it's genuinely exciting to see. One example: several automakers announced a few months ago, spanning three continents, seven automakers with considerable resources, that they're going to build 30,000 DC fast chargers. What caught my eye was that they mentioned the spec they're using is the one put forward by the US federal government. They didn't have to do that; they could have used other specs. But they aligned with the federal government's standards, making them eligible for associated funds. This spans multiple countries and continents. When you put that time and intention behind it, ensure diverse input, and the outside world says, "Yes, we like that, we'll build that," it's reaffirming. It helps us know that we're on the right track, and it makes me excited to get up every day and get to work.
David Abel:
Andrew, let's drill down a little bit on the standards. Obviously, you're trying to standardize this across the states. Give us a sense of what you've learned from different states about what had to be in the standard and what couldn't be.
Andrew Rogers:
I should say, we have a big team behind all of this work, just to be very clear. But we quickly learned what we didn't know. I'm a transportation guy, a lawyer by training, spending a lot of time in this space. However, I'm not an electrical engineer, not an expert on all things EV. And as I mentioned earlier, for this to work, you need to have a grid, energized charging stations; otherwise, it's just blocks that will end up in a museum one day. We didn't want that. So, one of the other wonderful things that happened (and this wasn't a happy accident) was creating something a little more formal than just phoning friends over VOIP. We established the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. The executive director, Gary Klein, was here last year, and he leads a rockstar team of technical experts whose job is to troubleshoot, to force conversations, to say, "Hey, Kentucky's got a problem, and it's the same problem we saw in Missouri. Let's exchange, share ideas, and learn from mistakes rather than repeating them."
This is a wonderful example and a unique one in the federal government of breaking out of our silos, collaborating, and coming together to solve a common problem. What we are seeing is that this exchange and coordination are being replicated at the state level. That's the key here—if it translates from where the money flows, and the rules and ideas come from, into actual implementation on the ground, then you have the recipe for success.
David Abel:
Listening to what’s been said about the standards; Rob, what are your thoughts about where the standards are now and where they ought to be in two, three years?
Rob Capaldi:
I'm going to speak a little wider than just the standards in response.
I think it would be useful to rewind to the point where seven automakers are coming together to establish a unified charging network across the USA. Remarkably, we've gone 45 minutes into this panel without mentioning the Tesla Supercharger network, which for several years has emerged as the dominant and most widely used fast charging network for EVs, not only in the USA but around the world.
The reason these legacy automakers are pooling their resources to create a fast charging network is because they recognize a clear opportunity and need to provide fueling for their cars. When we look ahead 10, 15, 20, or 30 years, could we imagine General Motors and other traditional automakers getting together to sell gasoline? Definitely not.
Tesla has come along and established the infrastructure required to deliver EVs, taking the lead. The rest of the traditional automakers are reacting to that by joining forces to access funding and regulatory support to establish new networks. This wouldn't be possible if there weren't technology developments enabling them to do so and regulations facilitating it. Bringing together a diverse mix of companies, each with their own internal processes, working practices, sign-off criteria, and funding, wouldn't happen without some kind of unification.
There's no coincidence in the fact that they are all coming together to deliver charging stations with NACS connectors, which is the Tesla standard charger. It's a perfect storm at the moment—there's a market pull from users, a technology push from the industry, and an enabling requirement from regulations with funding coming from the government. It's an exciting time, and we need to ensure that all these elements continue moving together in the same way.