For me with my bZ4X, that brainless plug & play is already available with EVgo.  Billing is linked to the Toyota app. I don't have to do anything beyond just plugging in for a charging-session to begin.

NACS Inevitability.  I nailed it with the timing.  It's a rare opportunity to provoke a discussion, then to be provided with major ammunition almost immediately afterward.  We got this from Toyota: "Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (TMNA) today announced it has reached an agreement with Tesla, Inc. to adopt the North American Charging Standard (NACS) on its battery electric vehicles (BEVs) beginning in 2025."  I was bummed to find out that actually happened yesterday, but the link wasn't sent until today.  Oh well.  The important point followed with: "Toyota will incorporate the NACS ports into certain Toyota and Lexus BEVs starting in 2025, including the all-new, three-row, battery-electric Toyota SUV that will be assembled at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky (TMMK)."  That will be bZ5X, the larger successor to bZ4X.  The timing was quite predictable.  This was too: "Additionally, customers owning or leasing applicable Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS) will be offered access to an adapter to enable NACS charging starting in 2025."  Currently, it is roughly $149 for an adapter.  So, the expense to assure compatibility is no big deal.  Other automakers will likely be doing the very same things... well, except Nissan.  That CHAdeMO port for Leaf hasn't stir much industry support for compatibility with CCS-1.  With the bulk & expense, that was understandable.  But now all these years later, there simply isn't enough demand.  Already being able to use MagicDock with my bZ4X, having access to the rest of the Superchargers is exactly what was needed for reaching a wider audience.

NACS Timing.  It is inevitable.  Hype around any type of progress, regardless of how minor, gets lots of attention.  Comments to antagonize are abundant as a result.  Here's another: "Toyota/Lexus, Mazda, and Subaru also haven’t announced a switch to NACS.  Statistically irrelevant given their pathetic BEV offerings presently, but there it is."  That is just more impatience at play, something troublemakers can exploit.  Knowing the gain from taking time, especially since we won't see any action for quite awhile still (likely to begin next summer, with new vehicle rollouts including NACS from day 1), it is really a matter of carefully watching & listening.  Learn from the mistakes of others.  That should be obvious.  Heck, being obvious what the article focused on, claiming the move to NACS is now quite easy to see looking back... hindsight.  So, I provided a little foresight:  What benefit is there to announcing?  The point of holding out is to ensure solid standards are agreed to.  The other "obvious hindsight" issue at play currently is the lack of transparency.  We don't actually know what each automaker is agreeing to with Tesla.  For that matter, we don't know what DCFC producers will be able to provide either.  That absence of clarity should be a concern.  People are eager to commit to a standard even though support for things like 800-volt and V2L still hasn't been settled upon.

Behind On Everything.  That was the entire post today.  It was in a thread sighting the automakers who have announced intentions to adopt the NACS connector for DC fast-charging in North America rather than sticking with CCS-1.  With Toyota not being in the list yet, it was an invitation for trolls to join the discussion.  That brain-dead comment was exactly that.  I relied back to that nonsense with:  Who is that narrative for?  Toyota has delivered a robust EV drive system.  So what if that electric-only propulsion originated from plug-in hybrids?  It proved reliable and robust about heat-pump use (years before Tesla) and liquid cooling.  Having that experience prior to their first mass-market BEV rollout is exactly what an automaker should do to prepare for high-volume production.  As the industry approaches that threshold where ordinary consumers take the BEV purchase decision seriously, they will see Toyota as a major player... not behind by any means.  We are still 2-3 years away from that.  Dependency on subsidies and adoption of NACS overwhelmingly confirm that timing.

Winning over the market with KISS is a tried & true method for change.  It is why the "Toyota Preference" is still what we hear from those who know little to nothing about how their current vehicle operates.  Toyota has earned their trust.

Uncompetitive Choices.  Fighting the benefit of plug-in hybrids continues: "Minimum range or you charge all the time.  PHEVs have this problem which is why less than half their miles are as BEVs."  It isn't all from the purity pushers either.  Some still stems from those not really understanding the technology or how much automaker designs can differ.  What makes all that especially difficult to deal with is the perspective that improvement isn't possible.  Facts at the time they made their decision never get verified to still be current.  They assume.  It's an endless battle pointing that out:  Those outdated studies are a disservice to everyone.  As pressure builds, only the more capable PHEV will survive.  That means enough range to cover daily usage, which equates to more capacity than in the past combined with greater efficiency.  Additionally, we are seeing the desire for households with a BEV to replace their other vehicles with a plug.  Getting a PHEV that delivers most miles electric-only, it's a win-win.  The last thing we want is for automakers to keep selling ICE because their only plug-in option is an expensive choice configured for long-distance travel.  In short, claims of PHEV not delivering mostly EV are losing credibility.  The market will squeeze out those uncompetitive choices.

Most Important.  Gotta like when someone posts this: "Range is what is most important for the buyer."  That is an easy belief to persuade people of.  Why wouldn't range be criteria be at the top?  I provided a reply, obviously annoyed by such a claim:  That's the narrative, not reality.  There are many shoppers who place a high priority on operating cost.  Sadly, many so-called pros in the industry have been labeling "efficiency" as a measure of distance you can travel instead... which has nothing whatsoever to do with how much you have to pay to drive a specified distance.  Range matters less and less as infrastructure builds up.  With more places to charge, speed matters less anyway.  The true problem is added weight from carrying capacity that's rarely ever needed.  Ironically, it turns the table on the "dead weight" arguments BEV supporters used against PHEV... putting them in a hypocritical position.  We really don't want to endorse electricity-guzzlers either.

Supreme Court Declined.  The legal outcome in our state court was challenged, raised to the federal level.  Starting this January, inventory requirements will begin.  The intent is to make the purchase decision easier.  With tax-credits becoming available at the time of purchase, it seems absurd to argue that sales will be difficult.  Yet, that is exactly what MADA (Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association) claimed.  Their original lawsuit stated they would be forced to carry more electric vehicles than customers want, which forces prices up.  Needless to say, it was a quick & easy decision to not hear the case.  That dispute is now officially over.  We should see improvement here starting in a few months.  Of course, with continued growth of DC fast-chargers, it is difficult not to see interest stir.  Think of what it does for demand when a consumer sees a nearby grocery-store installing chargers.  Anywho, this is what I had to saw about that issue resolution on our local EV owners group:  Gotta love how that argument has completely fallen apart over time.  They drew their conclusion prior to IRA (tax-credits for consumers), prior to NEVI (funding for public DC fast-chargers), and prior to NACS (support for non-Tesla vehicles).  It is pointless to fight it anymore.  Good to see their latest challenge to be rejected.

Fast Charge Prime?  This was an interesting question: "Can a Prime owner currently use a Tesla charging station?"  I expect to be routinely answering the same thing, likely to be asked on a regular basis.  Here's my first attempt to offer some type of simple and easy-to-follow response:  The short answer is no.  DC charging is an entirely different beast.  Tesla, Electrify America, Blink, EVgo, etc. all deliver power bypassing the vehicle's onboard hardware, using their own large stand-alone device for AC to DC conversion.  So rather than your simple EVSE (which is nothing but an adapter to connect), you get the faster & larger current when plugged into one of those stations.  But to accept that, the vehicle needs a large battery-pack.  Most PHEV are too small to benefit, hence usually not including a port for DC charging.  In Japan, Prius Prime offers the slowest (and now discontinued) of the DC ports, the CHAdeMO type.  In Europe, their CCS-2 type is not available.  In North America, the CCS-1 type is not available, nor the propriety NACS (Tesla) type.  To take advantage of DC charging, you need a BEV.

That covers the basics.

Impatience, blocked.  I was patiently waiting to see what would happen.  How would he react to getting called out with facts?  I go to great lengths to avoid making it personal.  Even when attacked, I don't reply back with any pronouns.  There's no point reflecting sentiment to someone who has already made up their mind.  Others will read the exchange though, seeing one side being reasonable sharing information and the other behaving like a child.  Seeing name-calling, attempts to divert, outright lies, and blatant denial is fascinating.  Some just don't want to face reality... which is what played out in this case.  After about 10 minutes, all the posts disappeared.  Faced with a fight or flight situation, his choice was to runaway.  By blocking me, our posts to each other vanish.  Lurkers can still see them.  As intended, I left a trail for those who randomly encounter the group will see what happened.  Given enough time, that impatient will be vindicated too.  It's difficult to assess when Toyota will provide an update.  The original feedback was a future model-year could have a physical button.  We would only get one for the screen.  The point would be the same though.  Toyota would have figured out a simplistic means of delivering battery-heating beyond the "happy zone" temperatures currently available.  It would be a responsible & accountable approach; not just a "fix" for a requirement none have actually defined.  Notice how that enthusiast never actually provided any expectation of what the "fix" should be.  What temperature?  When would it begin?  How long should it take?  Will the driver get options?  What about the interface?  For that matter, how fast should "fast" be?  We don't have answers yet.  No patience is a recipe for failure.  He didn't care.  He wanted only to complain.  Ugh.

Impatience, wasting time.  This was ironic: "Start by producing clean electricity.  Then you can get a church and preach to the sinners.  You are wasting my time."  My message about waste turned into his.  The time he was spending in the discussion was clearly more valuable than the goal of carbon reduction for our world.  He knew I had exposed a weakness.  That original post pointing out wasteful consumption must have finally sunk in.  It is a very difficult argument to push a want as a need... and he had stepped right into that trap.  Being unwilling to wait for something supposedly so important is a contradiction.  Like many others, he discovered he was his own worst enemy.  How can you promote the benefit of lower cost when you place so much emphasis use of expensive DC fast-chargers and consuming electricity for the sole purpose of making them operate faster?  The early-adopters who used their Tesla for exactly that didn't have that goal.  They were helping to prove the technology.  We have since moved on to finding a practical means of enticing mainstream consumers to use it too.  That is a painfully slow process.  Patience is very much required.  It sometimes takes forever just figuring out what type of messaging works for appealing to those who have no engineering background.  Think about the huge controversy stirred last winter from Toyota's simple screen.  Imagine trying to explain range loss as a result of heating the battery.  It's like the consequences of pushing that charge-mode button.  Most owners have no idea if its use is a good idea and when that would be appropriate.  This topic is far more complex.  You could fail to reach you destination by not understanding the tradeoff.  Anywho, I was amused by the irony.  So, I pointed out the course I had seen this discussion taking from the first post:  Impatience was the theme out this exchange.