Who Pays?  My ask of that question resulted in this answer: "I believe the "who pays" answer is Tesla, paid for by charging fees as you go.  Of course, charging providers can also add an NACS to their stations and some already have."  Clearly, this is a new topic few have actually given much thought about.  Knowing the manager of the ramps I parks at for work, I have been privileged to information about what it takes to maintain publicly available level-2 chargers.  It was interesting over the years to witness the choices made for adding more chargers, then eventually replacing the outdated units with new ones.  There are a number of on-going expenses to have to address too.  Raising awareness of that is difficult.  Here's my attempt, in response to the answer I got:  You're overlooking who actually owns the chargers.  In many cases, it is not the provider.  Stations like ChargePoint are purchased, then ChargePoint supplies the service.  The station owner is out of luck if connectors change.  That's a new expense & risk they never planned for.  Think of the investment from a privately owned business or a city park.  They simply don't have extra budget that.  It becomes a very real problem for intended usage.

NACS Details.  It was absurd for BEV enthusiasts to expect automakers to build their own charging network, especially with so many handshake methods for connecting with a large CCS-1 plug.  That made both hardware & software an undesirable choice.  Tesla has been like Apple though, a closed-system.  That propriety approach is extremely reliable though.  The same devotion we saw to Mac decades ago is exactly what we are seeing now with Model 3/Y.  Unfortunately, the same barriers exists too.  Market share isn't expected to grow beyond 11% by 2028 for Tesla.  It's trapped in that niche due to the very restrictions which drew customers.  Opening up Superchargers makes the situation worse.  Lifting the barrier will take away convenience.  Using NACS will do exactly that, enabling non-Tesla to use those same stations.  That's why knowing details of how NACS will be implemented & shared is a really big deal.  So far, we haven't heard squat.  Tesla will obviously benefit from economies-of-scale with their quick & affordable station installations, which will also generate revenue for the automaker.  Electrify America, EVgo, ChargePoint, Blink, and the variety of other hardware providers won't sit idly by though.  In fact, that's what the other automakers are banking on by adopting the Tesla connector.  The catch is, what about those impacted by this right now?  If you are a smaller provider with established stations, what will they do?  In my area, I see older ZEF chargers.  At 50 kW max with both CCS-1 and CHAdeMO cords, they are stuck with outdated equipment.  In the oldest locations, I have already seen some simply removed entirely.  No new replacement is troubling.  On an active discussion about the topic within the owners group we have here in Minnesota, I asked:  When details of NACS get worked out to establish a true standard, then the rest will join in.  Currently, there are some uncertainties & shortcomings to work out.  Odds are very good that will happen, but there will be fallout.  Who pays for the transition and what happens to infrastructure investments now in limbo?

This is how the "know your audience" mantra came about.  It puts an entry-level offering in a very difficult position; GM's own supporters end up quarreling with each other.  We have seen it several times in the past... with Two-Mode... with gen-1 Volt... with gen-2 Volt... and now it is about to begin with Bolt.

Tesla Agreement.  With Ford, GM and a variety of DCFC suppliers making some type of commitment to the standard Tesla is attempting to create, a comment like this was inevitable: "Toyota will likely be coy, but I think this would be a good time for them to adopt a better standard and access an enhanced charger footprint."  Absence of detail doesn't seem to stir any concern.  Think about how many times Tesla fought third-party adapter providers by changing their software.  What would prevent Tesla from doing the same with their Superchargers, where access suddenly wouldn't be available.  That's not how standards work.  You cannot just arbitrarily change a protocol.  Quite curious for thoughts from others, I asked:  What does "adopt" mean?  Notice how we don't have any detail of what either Ford or GM actually agreed to.  The devil is in the details.  There's a big difference between using an open standard and signing some type of deal with a provider.  For that matter, what does "better" mean?  Keep in mind that hardware (connector, cord, screen) is one thing and software (connection, app, billing) is entirely separate.

Fighting Fire With Fire.  I was asked an intriguing question today.  It came from an acquaintance who was quite familiar with my Prius background.  She asked why I would choose to switch to a SUV.  Her look was perplexed.  Wasn't I pleased with the hatchback, especially after so many trips with the cargo area loaded?  It seemed quite unnecessary.  I didn't have a easy comeback to that either.  At this stage, there simply aren't alternatives available.  bZ4X was the only choice.  It didn't hit me until later that telling her why it was the only choice available was the answer, likely something she would be receptive to hearing.  Toyota selected that particular size/type configuration to reach the most fickle audience.  Appealing to them... those drawn to SUVs... is how you tip the balance.  Turns out, that's the easiest platform to adapt without major disruption too.  That vehicle shape allows support of a decent size battery-pack in a hidden manner.  Think of how many arguments can no longer be started as a result of having a vehicle offering so similar to RAV4.  That's fighting fire with fire.

What Is The Range?  That question gets asked all the time, online and in-person.  It's how conversations are started.  Newbies often have no idea what to ask next, hoping you'll provide some type of information they have no background in.  That makes sense.  The topic is one of discovery, a complete unknown for most.  For others, there is much misinformation they want confirmation or debunking of.  Exposure to device charging is a mix, often lacking awareness of battery-chemistries and actual usage outcome.  Connecting to a charger was not an attentive process.  You just did it out of habit.  The same attitude is not shared with vehicles.  Even though most people rarely ever need more than 200 miles of range, they obsess with the belief more is necessary.  With the growing availability of DC fast-charging stations, that mindset of a necessity for 300 or even 400 miles falls apart.  Of course, we see people charging for hours to reach 100%.  Simply stopping when the charging speed starts to noticeably drop (typically when you exceed 60%) is not an option in their mind.  More is required as far as they are concerned, regardless of evidence to the contrary.  It's a very much "know your audience" situation.  How do you convince them it is much faster to recharge more often instead?  I rarely try.  I keep things simple, hoping it will stir interest in learning more.  If it does, great.  If it doesn't, that's fine.  Here's how I replied in this case:  The better question is asking what real-world efficiency owners are getting.  In my case, it has been 3.8 mi/kWh recently.  Knowing there is about 64 kWh of electricity available, range calculates to 243 miles... which translates to 391 km.

Anti-EV Portrayal.  The favorite means of attack is feeding the narrative that Toyota is against BEVs.  It makes no sense, now that the latest plug-in offering is getting so much attention.  It was much easier in the past where plug-ins from Toyota were hybrids and BEV converts.  Those could be dismissed with little effort; just a blanket comment would do  That has changed.  There are obvious attempts to avoid acknowledgement.  They pretend there was never any such offering, that customers are only now getting introduced to a plug-in vehicle from Toyota.  It's a tell-tale sign.  Comments like this are another: "GM and Ford are building BEVs.  Toyota has been pissing all over BEVs."  That's a truly bizarre statement.  Heck, I had an encounter with a F-150 Lightning owner recently.  I was pulling out of the charging-station as he was walking over to unplug.  He waved and yelled out to get my attention.  His reaction was one of overwhelming joy, to finally see a BEV from Toyota in person.  There was nothing but positive things shared, no sentiment whatsoever for the actions of Toyota.  With others, the most I get from them for feedback is a comment about the slow pace Toyota is taking.  That's it.  There's no indication of any type of resistance being sensed.  It's that same old nonsense of attempting to spin reality.  I enjoyed posting this response:  Portrayal of Toyota being anti-EV was always a weak claim by purist, an obvious effort to create an antithesis.  UX300e is now getting a mid-cycle update, having been offered for several years now without issue.  bZ4X rollout was rough, but it happened and now the next models are getting attention.  New battery chemistries and a "clean sheet" platform is getting attention too.  Meanwhile, more PHEV rollout is taking place.  In other words, Toyota simply wasn't moving fast enough for impatient early-adopters.  Focus on business sustainability during this transition was unacceptable.  Toyota was expected to sell BEV at a loss and just deal with the debt.  Ugh.

Toyota was correct about the market not being ready for a few years still.  The upcoming challenges related to NACS adoption overwhelmingly confirm that.

More Attacks.  It never ends.  The attacks continue: "BEV is a major thing.  No maintenance compared to gas/hybrid/PHEV polluters.  Even chargers out on the road are cheaper than gas that pollutes."  You can tell the trolls have nothing to work with anymore when posts become that vague.  It's how you can confirm their talking-points failed to attract interest.  I enjoy getting to pointing out shortcomings of their arguments:  Attempts to misrepresent Toyota PHEV fall on deaf ears.  Maintenance is trivial and EV miles plentiful.  Don't try to argue with someone who has a mountain of real-world data either.  I started my PHEV ownership in 2012 with a gen-1 Prius plug-in, then upgraded to in 2017 gen-2 Prius plug-in.  Both were flawless experience, never even a burp despite the harsh Minnesota winters.  Most drives were in EV (since I could recharge at work) and the heat-pump proved very efficient.  A few months ago, the upgrade to BEV happened.  My daily driver is a bZ4X, which also gets used for all the other misc household needs.  My wife still has here Prius Prime, which we also use for road trips... since DCFC availability is beyond terrible still.  In short, we know claims of pollution & cheaper are gross oversimplifications of reality.

Undermining Efforts.  The trolls keep trying: "Bz4x is an ok car but pretty much the worst EV on the market at this point.  Bad efficiency and terrible charging experience.  Also, way overpriced for what it is.  I wouldn't even consider it."  Watching how others respond to the attacks is interesting.  Focus has been to portray long road-trips as a horrible experience, emphasizing how vital that is as a ownership would be so bad it isn't worth consideration.  Reality is most people only take a long road-trip once or twice a year and those with Leaf & Bolt managed just fine.  With the number of DCFC locations rapidly growing, any type of anxiety concern should be less not more.  Anywho, the responses I have observed is that of a pile on.  Owners attack back with real-world data.  Trolls don't have an effective means of dealing with that.  I find it quite vindicating.  Here's how I stirred participation:  Clearly not.  I do, the AWD model in the US.  Claims about efficiency are confused with range.  Notice who measures like MI/KWH are suspiciously missing from those claims?  I routinely see over 4 mi/kWh now that temperatures are warm.  So what if DC charging speed is slower?  I rarely ever take road trips.  All my driving around the metro area are fine and the experience itself is great.  Toyota delivered a true driving car, something their customers will recognize & appreciate.

Long story short, it doesn't matter how we got here.  Focus is now on how to get out of the tangle of weeds we are in.