It needs infrastructure, see my other comment in this thread, but the cost thereof can be considered part of the cost of fuel, in a way. You're currently spending money on diesel fuel, which is already paying for the expensive infrastructure to transport and store and dispense an energy-dense liquid. Just shift who you're paying for your energy, and now the electric utility uses that money to upgrade their infrastructure to let their customers buy more of their product.
Companies are generally happy to expand their operations to allow their customers to buy more of their product.
You may not be intentionally trying to be negative, but you're parroting the same FUD lines used against EVs for decades, and against horseless carriages a century ago. (And which, incidentally, became entrenched in Oregon and New Jersey in the form of laws prohibiting motorists from operating the dispensing infrastructure.)
Companies are generally happy to expand their operations to allow their customers to buy more of their product.
You may not be intentionally trying to be negative, but you're parroting the same FUD lines used against EVs for decades, and against horseless carriages a century ago. (And which, incidentally, became entrenched in Oregon and New Jersey in the form of laws prohibiting motorists from operating the dispensing infrastructure.)