While he thinks the Tesla physical connector is probably better, the CCS communications standard is better (AIUI). So once Telsa adopts that, it will probably be a good system.
Also: he's talking about CCS1, and not CCS2, which can do things like handle three-phase power.
Even in that video, Alec manages to slip in numerous disingenuous arguments, such as when he held up an adapter and suggested size parity between the (larger) female socket end of a complete NACS connector and the (smaller) male plug end of a AC-only J1772 connector.
More to the point, the debate isn't about NACS versus J1772, it's about NACS versus CCS1. If you compare CCS1 to NACS, the difference is substantial. This graphic is probably showing best case for NACS and the worst case for CCS1 but the connectors shown are dimensionally accurate:
Technically there was nothing stopping the use of CCS2 in the US, as the L2 and L3 pins would simply not be used at people's homes. But one-phase J1772 was already around, and it was decided to go with legacy compatibility.
I'm sure CCS2 exists in more commercial settings with heavy duty EVs, e.g., Volvo Trucks:
US power is really 240V with a neutral. It’s wired to most outlets and circuits as one 120V leg (against the neutral). But you can absolutely wire a 240V circuit using both legs and major appliances (air conditioners/heat pumps, electric driers) use 240V. My Tesla charger is on a 240V 60A circuit.
We don't have three phase but power coming into most panels in the United States has two 120V lines that are 180 degrees out of phase so that's enough to construct the 240.
He did a video on this Connextras channel about this news:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU
While he thinks the Tesla physical connector is probably better, the CCS communications standard is better (AIUI). So once Telsa adopts that, it will probably be a good system.
Also: he's talking about CCS1, and not CCS2, which can do things like handle three-phase power.