Volkswagen, Porsche, and Audi say they will use Tesla's EV charging plug
Volkswagen Group’s decision to adopt Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS) for VW, Audi and Porsche is widely seen as the tipping point that makes Tesla’s plug the de facto fast‑charging connector in the US and Canada. Commenters debate whether this strengthens Tesla’s long‑term position—by turning its Supercharger network into a major, subsidy‑backed business—or erodes a key competitive advantage as all automakers gain access. Many contrast this emerging North American standardization with Europe’s earlier, regulator‑driven adoption of CCS2, and highlight remaining technical, reliability and payment‑system challenges around EV charging infrastructure.
NACS adoption and remaining holdouts
- Most commenters see Volkswagen Group’s move as cementing Tesla’s NACS/J3400 as the North American plug standard; Stellantis is viewed as the last major outlier and expected to follow.
- Some stress that NACS is “just CCS protocol over Tesla’s plug,” arguing CCS has already “won” at the protocol layer; the real change is the physical connector.
Technical comparison: NACS vs CCS1/CCS2
- Many praise NACS as smaller, lighter, and easier to handle than CCS1/2, especially for elderly or in cold weather with stiff cables.
- CCS2’s main advantage: 3‑phase AC support (common in Europe), which NACS lacks; this makes NACS a non‑starter as a general standard in Europe.
- Several explain that in North America 1‑phase/split‑phase is normal in homes, so 3‑phase is less relevant; for high‑power DC charging, phase count doesn’t matter.
- Discussion notes NACS/SAE J3400 is an open standard now, with CCS-style communication, so adapters between CCS and NACS are feasible and already appearing.
Regional standardization
- Europe is seen as having “nailed” early standardization on CCS2, including a legal mandate, giving them interoperable fast charging across brands.
- In North America, commenters expect a long transition with CCS1 infrastructure coexisting, Magic Dock adapters fading over time, and NEVI-funded chargers still required to support CCS in the short term.
Business model, moats, and subsidies
- One camp: this is Tesla “winning the charging war,” gaining a large future revenue stream and eligibility for billions in US charging subsidies.
- Another camp: Supercharging has historically been near break-even and serves mainly to sell cars; opening the network trades away a key moat and was forced by policy (NEVI/IRA) and CCS momentum.
- Some worry about antitrust/monopoly risk; others argue it’s premature given Tesla’s role as an early pioneer and the open standard.
User experience and payments
- Broad consensus that non‑Tesla DC fast charging (especially CCS networks) is unreliable and app‑heavy, with poor UX and payment friction.
- Strong support for “plug-and-charge” where the car handles authentication and billing, versus today’s proliferation of incompatible apps and QR codes.
- Several argue that simple tap‑to‑pay credit card terminals, mandated by regulation, would solve a large portion of the UX mess.
Other themes
- Battery swapping is debated; most see it as complex, dangerous at car scale, and inferior to fast DC charging.
- Some worry about an “Osborne effect” on current CCS cars; others note adapters and phased transitions should mitigate this.