I was in Las Vegas recently as one of the 5,000+ attendees at the EV Charging Summit & Expo, and there was a mix of optimism and frustration as we reviewed the latest products and trends in the electric vehicle charging industry. The three big issues:
– permitting and regulatory complications for charging stations;
– burdens and incentives for the electric vehicle industry and the reduction of federal support;
– most of all, concern about China’s massive EV capabilities and its expansion into global markets.
Let’s look at where the industry currently stands on each of these points.
Permitting and regulatory complications
There were a number of examples of state and local government initiatives that hindered the growth of charging networks. In California and other states, the government is looking to require annual physical measurement of charging stations – as they do with gasoline pumps – although charging stations can report usage electronically in real time, leaving little apparent value in a physical inspection. It is a little like sending an engineer to your house to evaluate your lightbulb, rather than just reading your electric meter remotely. In Maryland, there is a proposal to charge commercial charging stations a $150 annual fee per charger, hurting charging in the more remote and less-used markets.
Burdens and incentives for the EV industry (and the reduction of federal support)
At a private dinner for industry leadership, there was a bit of fatalism as we reviewed the cut in U.S. government subsidies for EVs and the resulting drop in purchases, but the good news was the example from Germany. As in the U.S., the German government eliminated subsidies for EV purchases and the market recovered in 24 months. There was widespread industry confidence in the growing market share of EVs in the U.S.
Perhaps the biggest source of consternation was the U.S. Department of Transportation’s proposed “Buy America” rules that would increase the “Made in America” content requirement for chargers from 55% to 100% to qualify for the U.S.-funded National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund. This was generally viewed as a more rigid, even absolutist, example of protectionism, with a threshold that U.S. manufacturers were unlikely to meet. Even those who could meet it would end up with less competitive products and reduced exports, with a net loss of U.S. jobs.
Concern about China
There was widespread discussion over China’s leadership in EVs, a topic I have previously discussed, and this extends to charging and related equipment. Some U.S. firms welcome international participation in the EV space but those that compete understandably feel threatened. Beyond competition, there is specific sensitivity to Chinese participation in the U.S. market given its large-scale industrial capacity and ongoing political and trade friction between the U.S. and China.
I caught up last month with China tech guru Rebecca Fannin who has written widely about China’s industrial leadership in the EV space and she has much the same perspective: China has the industrial capabilities and automation to lead in this critical market. The U.S. does not appear to have a clear strategy.
The good news for U.S. manufacturers is that it is still early days, with electric vehicles comprising roughly 6-8% of new vehicle sales. One participant observed that perhaps in 1900, gasoline vehicles were only 6-8% of the horse and buggy market. There was widespread optimism about the growing consumer acceptance and market penetration of EVs.
A partial solution would be to liberalize auto and auto parts trade with like-minded nations such as the EU. This would not completely solve the China challenge but it would allow the U.S. and EU manufacturers to gain scale and efficiencies.
The more consequential solution would be to allow China’s participation in the U.S. economy, but to regulate and cap it. Call this the TikTok solution, in which the Trump administration side-stepped a U.S. ban on the Chinese social media platform by allowing TikTok to establish a separate company to serve the U.S. market with significant U.S. ownership and control.
In the EV space, we have seen a version of this in Europe, in which the largest Chinese charging manufacturer, StarCharge, established a joint venture with the leading French firm, Schneider Electric, to distribute charging equipment in Europe, with Schneider the majority partner. A StarCharge executive noted that Schneider paid some $200 million for rights to StarCharge’s intellectual property, but the JV announcement resulted in a $20 billion lift in Schneider’s market cap.
There is also an approach we see in the U.S. with Polestar automobiles. Polestar is managed through Volvo, still based in Sweden but controlled by the Chinese firm, the Geely Group. In the Polestar U.S. offering, the Polestar 3 model is manufactured in the U.S. but the Polestar 2 model is made in China and the Polestar 4 model is made in Korea. So the U.S. shares in a portion of the manufacturing jobs and Polestar avoids tariffs on the model it makes in the U.S.
The EV transition is not just a technological shift—it is an industrial and geopolitical contest. The United States still has time to shape the outcome, but that will require a clearer strategy on trade, regulation, and engagement with allies and competitors alike. If the U.S. wants to lead, it will need to move with both urgency and coherence.
(As previously noted, I serve on the board of EVs for All America, a policy non-profit that supports the U.S. electric vehicle industry. It’s volunteer work, but it provides insight into this fast-growing segment of the economy.)
