Every major automaker is racing to build charging infrastructure like it's the last gold mine on Earth. Ford, GM, Tesla, Volkswagen, Hyundai—they're all throwing billions at networks, partnerships, and proprietary systems. The unpopular take is that restraint, not speed, may be the smarter strategy here.
The industry's logic is seductive. EVs need charging. Charging networks are infrastructure. Therefore, automakers who control charging networks control the customer experience and, by extension, customer loyalty. It's a vertical integration play dressed up as consumer advocacy. It sounds smart. It probably isn't.
Let's start with the obvious problem: automakers are not energy companies. They don't have the expertise, the regulatory relationships, or the operational DNA to manage sprawling charging networks efficiently. They know how to make cars. They know their supply chains. They know manufacturing margins. Charging infrastructure is a completely different beast, with different economics, different regulatory environments, and different failure modes.
Look at what's happening with the current patchwork of charging networks. Users complain constantly about incompatible plugs, unreliable equipment, and confusing payment systems. Does this sound like a category where automakers are adding value? Or does it sound like they're duplicating work while making the consumer experience worse?
The real issue is that automakers are treating charging as a competitive moat when it's actually becoming a commodity utility. In five years, charging networks will be as differentiated as gas stations are today. Maybe less so, given that standardization is finally happening. A Ford owner doesn't choose a Ford because of the charging network. They choose it because of the vehicle itself. The charging infrastructure is table stakes, not a differentiator.
But here's where it gets expensive for shareholders. Building and maintaining a national charging network isn't a sideline. It requires capital investment, operational overhead, and ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. It's capital-intensive and margin-thin. For comparison, look at the margins on actual vehicle sales versus the razor-thin margins on energy delivery. Automakers are voluntarily moving into a lower-margin business with higher operational complexity while they should be focused on what actually makes money: designing and selling better EVs.
The fastest way to achieve nationwide charging coverage isn't for seven different automakers to build seven different networks. It's for energy companies, utility companies, and specialized charging companies to do what they do best. Let them own the networks. Let them optimize for efficiency and coverage. Let automakers negotiate long-term charging agreements that guarantee their customers access, without bearing the operational burden themselves.
This is what actual strategic restraint looks like. It's saying: we will not do everything. We will do the things we're best at and pay others to do the rest exceptionally well. Instead, the industry is caught in a prisoners' dilemma where every company fears being locked out if they don't build their own network.
The irony is that this competitive scramble will likely result in redundant infrastructure, stranded assets, and frustrated consumers anyway. Thirty charging stations on the same highway corridor, operated by six different companies, with six different apps and payment systems. That's not progress. That's waste pretending to be innovation.
Automakers should pump the brakes here. Yes, participate in standards-setting. Yes, negotiate favorable terms with charging operators. Yes, guarantee seamless access for your customers. But building your own sprawling network? That's ego, not strategy.
The company that wins isn't the one that built the most chargers. It's the one that built the best cars while letting someone else handle the infrastructure.