Segment 1 — The Cold Open

Segment 2 — Why It Costs What It Costs Today

Current practice treats each stall as a custom construction project. Developers order a charger unit from one supplier, then hire separate civil, electrical, and utility contractors to adapt the site. Trenching for conduit and cabling, concrete pads, drainage, and lighting are bid individually and executed on site. Utility interconnection studies examine whether the local feeder can accept the added load; when it cannot, the project pays for a new transformer or even upstream substation work. Permitting cycles run through city planning, fire departments, and environmental reviews, each adding calendar time during which capital sits idle. Demand charges from the utility further raise operating costs once the stall is live, because the instantaneous draw of multiple 150- or 350-kilowatt units can spike sharply even if average energy use stays moderate. Early-market sites often see low utilization, so the fixed costs of interconnection and site work are spread across fewer charging sessions. Fragmented supply chains mean the charger manufacturer optimizes only its box while the site contractor optimizes only its scope, leaving no single party responsible for the integrated cost. As a result, the delivered price feels normal inside the industry even though the hardware itself has followed a steep cost curve downward over the past decade. One objection often raised is that every site presents unique soil, traffic, or zoning conditions that prevent standardization; yet this view overlooks how other repeatable infrastructure elements, such as cell-tower pads or modular substations, have already moved toward prefabricated templates despite similar site variability. Another factor is the financing structure itself: lenders price risk according to the longest lead-time item in the stack, which is usually the utility study rather than the charger procurement, so interest accrues across the entire project duration even while the electronics sit in a warehouse. The net effect is that each added month of delay multiplies the carrying cost without changing the physical content of the stall.

Segment 3 — The Magic Wand Number & The Idiot Index

A rough magic-wand estimate begins with the major materials inside the charger and the short run of conduit that connects it to the pad. Power semiconductors, copper bus bars and cabling, aluminum or steel enclosure panels, cooling fans or heat sinks, and a modest length of underground conduit together represent the physical content. Commodity prices for copper and aluminum fluctuate, yet their contribution to a single stall remains a small fraction of the installed price once all site work is included. Adding the cost of a basic concrete pad and the simplest enclosure still leaves the total material value well below the figures commonly reported for turnkey installations. Dividing the finished delivered cost by this material floor produces an Idiot Index that sits in the tens rather than near one, indicating that design, process, and coordination steps account for the majority of the price. The largest single contributors to the gap are the utility interconnection study and any required transformer or feeder upgrades, followed by trenching and civil works that must be performed in variable soil and traffic conditions. Permitting delays compound carrying costs on the capital already committed to equipment and engineering. Because each of these steps is executed as a one-off rather than as a repeatable module, learning does not accumulate across projects at the rate seen in factory production of the charger itself. The result is a cost structure in which the charger hardware has already moved far down its own learning curve while the surrounding installation work has not. To see the arithmetic more clearly, consider that the copper and semiconductor content might together equal a low single-digit percentage of the turnkey figure; once the transformer upgrade, trenching labor, and months of idle capital are layered on top, the ratio climbs rapidly. An objection sometimes offered is that the utility infrastructure itself constitutes a durable asset that benefits future stalls, yet that asset is still sized and paid for on a per-project basis rather than shared across a standardized fleet of installations. Another point is that soil conditions or traffic management can double trenching time from one lot to the next; while true, this variability is precisely what prefabricated conduit stubs and standardized pad designs are meant to reduce by shifting the variable work into a controlled factory setting where tolerances can be managed once rather than rediscovered at every curb cut.

Segment 4 — The First-Principles Opportunity

A from-scratch approach would first standardize the entire stall as a prefabricated skid that arrives with conduit stubs, grounding, and mounting points already integrated, cutting weeks of field trenching and concrete work. Second, it would site battery buffers at the pad so that the grid connection can be sized to average rather than peak demand, lowering the transformer and feeder upgrades required from the utility. Third, it would push for coordinated interconnection queues and pre-approved site templates that utilities and planning departments accept without repeated studies, shortening the time between order and revenue. Each of these moves requires different supporting conditions: modular skids need volume commitments from fleet operators or retailers; batteries need continued declines in cell cost and clear rules for behind-the-meter storage; streamlined permitting needs state-level legislation that treats standardized chargers like other repeatable infrastructure. The genuinely hard constraints remain local grid capacity that no single developer controls and demand charges that still penalize high instantaneous loads even when average energy throughput is modest. Those limits will not disappear through hardware redesign alone, yet they become more manageable once the variable site-work costs are compressed. One practical objection is that battery buffers introduce their own round-trip losses and maintenance cycles; however, when the alternative is paying for an oversized transformer that sits idle most of the day, the net energy economics can still favor the buffer once cell prices reach the range already observed in stationary storage projects. A second objection concerns liability: utilities have historically required custom studies to protect feeder stability, yet several regions have already begun accepting pre-certified skid designs when the developer provides certified load profiles and protection settings in advance. Scaling these templates would require the first few projects to absorb extra engineering hours to prove repeatability, after which the marginal cost per additional stall falls because the study work is amortized rather than repeated.

Segment 5 — The Lesson

When the charger cabinet is already inexpensive but the surrounding installation still multiplies the total, the signal is that coordination and regulatory steps have not yet been industrialized at the same pace as the electronics. Treating the entire stall as a repeatable module rather than a construction project shifts the cost driver from field labor to factory repetition. The same pattern appears whenever a physical product reaches its material floor faster than the services wrapped around it. Tomorrow and every day after, one example or one opportunity. Which developer or utility will first publish the line-item cost of a skid-based stall that bypasses conventional trenching and interconnection queues?

💬 Reply to this email — Patrick reads every one.

Share: X · LinkedIn · WhatsApp

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here — it's free.