Government funding will significantly incorporate Tesla’s unique red-and-white charging stations into the overall experience of both Tesla drivers and all electric vehicle users on American highways. This is a victory for Tesla, but it also indicates surrender as the unconventional company is now accepting the regulations that apply to all others by constructing federally funded stations.

According to experts on federal electric vehicle policy, having Tesla, known for having the country’s most extensive and dependable charging station network, take the lead in establishing a government-backed network has minimal drawbacks. Aaron Kressig, manager of the transportation electrification program at Western Resource Advocates, a non-profit organization focused on environmental policy in Boulder, Colorado, believes this move will result in a bigger and stronger network of charging stations overall.

Despite Musk’s unpredictable actions, it does not affect the perception of the EV community. Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy, a Washington-based analysis firm for EVs, recognizes Tesla as a company with intelligent engineers and professionals who have hastened the shift towards electric vehicles. While Musk garners excessive attention due to his erratic behavior, he does not represent the company and their success does not depend on his involvement.

However, the fact that Tesla only receives a share of nearly 13% of the monetary awards does not seem significant enough to warrant any antitrust concerns.

The federal funds are being channeled to state departments of transportation, which
after long delays are now making specific awards. It is within these pots of money that Tesla is winning the race. The federal EV-charging program supported by the infrastructure law is known as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, or NEVI.

based on information from the Department of Energy’s database.

often criticizing Tesla’s land, labor, and environmental practices.

The Biden government also maintained a separation from Tesla, with the president and his representatives frequently voicing concerns about Tesla’s use of land, labor, and environmental practices.

Seldom bringing up the organization.

During his initial two-year term, there was a minor conflict concerning differing perspectives on labor unions. President Biden is known for being supportive of labor unions, while Musk is against attempts by unions to organize workers at Tesla facilities.

Then, last February, Tesla agreed to
open several thousand of its chargers to non-Tesla drivers — a deal with the White House that opened the door to the company getting federal funds. That same month, Tesla opened its first station designed to charge a non-Tesla vehicle. In the spring came an even more significant development: Ford Motor said it

By 2025, Tesla plans to incorporate their charging technology into their vehicles. .

One car company after another followed the same path. Recently, Stellantis, one of the few remaining holdouts, announced that it would also use the Tesla plug. This corporation produces popular car brands such as Jeep, Dodge, and Ram.

Confirmed to have flaws. This unreliability is beginning to negatively affect electric vehicle purchases.

Tesla’s widespread incorporation of their standards could have two significant effects for individuals who drive EVs: It would simplify the process of utilizing Tesla’s current Supercharger stations for drivers of upcoming EVs from any brand. Additionally, the presence of Tesla’s plug would become more prevalent across various locations. As other car manufacturers have also adopted the Tesla standard, other charging networks that are not affiliated with Tesla have also followed suit.

Government agencies were faced with a challenging dilemma as the industry moved towards implementing Tesla’s technology.

The Federal Highway Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is responsible for managing federal investments in EV charging. In 2022, the FHWA outlined regulations to ensure that only CCS chargers are eligible for federal funding.

In December, the highway office acknowledged a change in circumstances and announced that a charging station utilizing Tesla’s technology may be eligible for federal funds on the condition that a CCS plug is also incorporated. The newly formed Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, established by the bipartisan infrastructure law, praised the acceptance of Tesla’s standard, and the FHWA initiated the necessary procedures.updating federal regulations to include it.

Tesla’s system has multiple names depending on the industry. In North America, it is known as the North American Charging Standard, while SAE International, an organization responsible for setting technical standards, has designated it as J3400.

After the FHWA adopted the Tesla system, the White House also voiced their support for it. During a briefing in December, Heather Boushey, a member of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, discussed how Tesla’s standard is gaining popularity and allowing for flexibility within the federal program.

Recently, the White House has shifted from completely disregarding Tesla to occasionally acknowledging it. However, President Biden still opposes Musk’s negative attitude towards labor unions.

In late January 2023, Musk had a meeting with Mitch Landrieu, who was then the administration’s infrastructure czar, and John Podesta, the chief clean energy adviser to the president. Following the meeting, a reporter asked White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre if this indicated a possible reconciliation between the administration and the company.

Jean-Pierre stated that the recent outreach and meeting demonstrate the president’s recognition of the significance of the bipartisan infrastructure legislation and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as Biden’s climate law. She also mentioned that senior members of the administration met with Elon Musk today to further discuss these issues.

What Tesla loses

Despite receiving millions of dollars in federal funding for EV-charging, Tesla is making sacrifices. This includes fulfilling certain requirements, such as providing charging session data to the Department of Energy. Tesla will be obligated to adhere to these regulations.

According to Nigro, from Atlas Public Policy, this is mostly a new venture for them as they pursue public funding.

It’s not that Tesla is a stranger to federal aid. In 2010, it got a crucial $452 million loan that helped it buy and build its first factory. Last year, the company got research and development and federal renewable energy tax credits to the tune of more than $1.6 billion.

Customers who purchase the company’s vehicles have been receiving federal tax incentives for many years. Tesla stated in a recent financial report that their energy storage units and solar panels also receive tax assistance, which helps lower costs and incentivizes customers to buy their products and encourages investors to invest in their solar financing funds.

Up to this point, Tesla’s charging stations have not received considerable financial support from the government. The funds often come with stipulations that may conflict with Tesla’s desires.

An instance of this would be necessitating that charging stations adhere to the requirement of accepting payments through a credit card reader. Tesla has opposed this rule in the past as it would rather process payments using its own smartphone application.

Nigro noted that it would require a change in their approach.

The primary objective of the EV charging funding included in the infrastructure legislation was to promote uniformity. Much of the unreliability associated with EV charging can be attributed to the lack of a unified charging network in the United States. Instead, there are various software, hardware, payment systems, and network protocols that are not synchronized to function together efficiently.

According to industry experts, Tesla offers benefits that are desirable to states seeking an efficient development of charging infrastructure.

The creator of EVAdoption, Loren McDonald, mentioned that Tesla has extensive expertise in identifying locations with ample electricity for charging and collaborating with utilities to acquire permits and construct grid interconnections. States may trust Tesla more to establish charging stations due to its previous successful experiences.

McDonald commented on Tesla, saying, “They are simply a well-oiled machine. With a large network of suppliers and vendors, they can complete tasks with incredible efficiency.”

More cost-effective train stations

Larger train stations with reduced expenses

Due to its intention to construct charging stations that are bigger and more affordable compared to other companies, Tesla could potentially help states save money in certain situations.

The federal guidelines require highway plug plazas to include a minimum of four stations. Though Tesla occasionally suggests the standard four, they often propose eight or even twelve stations.

Francesca Wahl, Tesla’s senior manager responsible for charging policies, explained in a letter to the Colorado Department of Transportation the rationale behind the figures. According to Wahl, through Tesla’s past work in developing charging stations along travel routes, it has been determined that a site requires a minimum of 8 to 12 DC fast chargers.

Simultaneously, Tesla is making a request to the federal government for reduced funding per project. The average amount of funding Tesla receives per site, which is $414,554, is significantly lower compared to other competitors seeking infrastructure law funds.

As an example, Pilot Travel Centers, a previous top recipient, received NEVI funding averaging $631,069 per location. BP Pulse, the electric charging subsidiary of oil giant BP, requested an average of $525,854 per site. The priciest charging stations are being constructed in Hawaii by Sustainability Partners and Aloha Charge, with an average cost of $1.7 million, surpassing Tesla’s average expenses by more than four times.

Francis Energy and Pilot have secured 11% and 10% respectively of all government-funded stations in the fight for NEVI financing, following closely behind Tesla.

Kum and Go, a service station chain from Des Moines, Iowa, was the only company to offer project costs lower than Tesla. Their three successful bids had an average cost of $346,322.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is responsible for managing federal expenditures, did not provide a statement regarding Tesla’s significant share of funding successes or its comparatively low project expenses.

According to an email from FHWA spokesperson Angela Gates, states must adhere to both federal contracting regulations and their own state procurement procedures when choosing charging providers. The costs for EV chargers vary greatly depending on factors such as the level of work needed and the location.

The low cost of Tesla enables states to construct a greater number of charging stations with less federal funding. In contrast, the more expensive stations result in a lower quantity being developed as states receive a set annual amount of money from the infrastructure legislation.

Tesla has not accepted the incentives proposed by states that require charging companies to contribute a higher amount of money for each project.

According to federal regulations, a business is required to cover at least 20% of an installation’s cost. However, the specific amount the business pays may differ due to individual state regulations that can be added on top of the federal guidelines. Many states have utilized this flexibility by implementing scoring systems that give extra points for actions like offering to pay above 20%. A higher score increases the likelihood of receiving funding for the company.

In majority of situations, Tesla limits its contribution to 20 percent. McDonald noted that other companies offer a match of 30, 40, or 50 percent.

Tesla’s charging stations are more cost-effective due to its extensive economy of scale. Furthermore, being one of the wealthiest car companies globally, Tesla can finance the construction of its stations independently, while other competitors have to seek out external funding.

McDonald stated that their cost structure is significantly lower than that of others.

Essentially, Tesla is well-positioned to receive federal funding due to its ability to produce electric vehicles at a lower cost compared to other established automakers. This is because Tesla has been dedicated to creating a complete EV infrastructure for a longer period of time than any other company, resulting in a level of capability that cannot be matched by any other company in the United States.

According to Nigro, our charging system is better equipped for future use than our competitors’. Other companies will need to catch up to our advancements, which could strain their financial resources. Maintaining charging equipment is costly.

The initial publication of this report was featured in E&E News’ Energywire.
Get a fuller and more thorough analysis and breakdown of data

E&E News covers topics such as the shift towards renewable energy, utilization of natural resources, and the effects of climate change.