Production Defines Demand: Competition or Integration?
In late September, the energy replenishment competition in China's NEV (New Energy Vehicle) industry suddenly accelerated.
On September 23, BYD announced plans to expand its charging network to 90,000 stations over the next two years. On the same day, Geely launched a new generation of smart charging technology with a single-gun peak power of 2,250 kW, planning to build over 22,000 charging stations by the end of 2027.
Five days later, Geely injected equity from its battery swapping business and CNY 640 million in cash into NIO Power, acquiring a 30% stake, which corresponded to a post-investment valuation of NIO Power at CNY 16 billion.
Battery manufacturers are also accelerating their entry into this market. On September 17, Sunwoda released an open ecosystem platform for solar-storage-flash charging, proposing a target to build 10,000 megawatt flash charging stations by the end of 2027.
On September 29, CATL announced that its Choco Swap battery swapping service has cumulatively built 2,520 stations, covering 200 cities nationwide, with nearly 20,000 brand-new batteries warehoused.
In just two weeks, the energy replenishment industry witnessed new power records, plans for tens of thousands of stations, and unprecedented integration of energy replenishment assets among automakers.
Over the past few years, energy replenishment networks have primarily been supplementary investments by a few leading automakers to improve user experience and enhance product competitiveness.
Today, battery manufacturers, traditional energy companies, and third-party charging operators are also participating more deeply in construction, operation, and capital cooperation.
This competition is unfolding amid pressure on domestic auto sales. Data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) shows that in August 2026, domestic retail sales of NEV passenger cars reached 1.005 million, a year-on-year decrease of 10.1%, with cumulative retail sales in the first eight months down 12.1% year-on-year; however, the retail penetration rate of NEVs in August reached 65.2%, hitting a new high.
While the EV market continues to expand its substitution for ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles, automakers are facing fiercer competition for existing market share.
Faced with the new market environment, automakers hope to enhance vehicle competitiveness and attract users through energy replenishment services, while battery companies are attempting to extend into battery asset management, technical standards, and energy operations.
For charging operators and oil and power companies, the growing electricity demand of NEVs represents a new transportation energy market.
As the scale of energy replenishment investment expands, the relationships among various parties are also changing. Who is responsible for funding construction, who controls technical standards and user entry points, and who can continuously profit from energy consumption after vehicles are sold are becoming the core issues in a new round of competition and integration in the NEV industry.
01 From Competing for Auto Orders to Competing for Energy Replenishment Networks
The escalation of the energy replenishment battle this year is first related to power battery technology entering a new stage of competition.
In March, BYD launched its second-generation Blade Battery and megawatt flash charging solution, claiming that at room temperature, it takes as little as 5 minutes to charge from 10% to 70%, and 9 minutes to 97%.
On September 23, Geely released the 12C Aegis Gold Bar Battery and 2,250 kW smart charging technology, claiming that the Lynk & Co 10 equipped with this battery takes an average of 4 minutes and 30 seconds to charge from 10% to 70%.
Li Auto also raised its target for the next-generation super-charging battery to 15C this year, with related products entering the B-sample and real-vehicle testing stages.
The continuous breaking of charging speed records also places higher demands on infrastructure. Vehicles with high C-rate batteries require matching charging equipment, grid capacity, and thermal management systems to deliver on product performance.
For automakers, the charging network, along with battery technology and vehicle platforms, has begun to jointly determine the user experience, thus extending technological competition from inside the vehicle to public infrastructure.
BYD's actions have been the most aggressive. As of September 24, according to Yicai, it has cumulatively built 11,586 flash charging stations, covering 341 cities, including 2,000 highway flash charging stations.
The company plans to build 20,000 stations by the end of 2026, followed by adding 30,000 and 40,000 stations in 2027 and 2028 respectively, expanding the cumulative scale to 90,000 stations.
This investment is closely tied to BYD's battery and complete vehicle business. At the end of September, its power battery base located in the Xixian New Area of Xi'an, with a planned annual capacity of 16 GWh, was fully completed and put into production, continuing to release the manufacturing capacity of the second-generation Blade Battery.
Meanwhile, BYD is pushing the second-generation Blade Battery into the supply chains of external automakers, attempting to promote its battery products and energy replenishment capabilities to a broader market.
For BYD, the commercial value of charging stations needs to be calculated within the context of its entire auto business.
A nationwide flash charging network can alleviate consumers' range anxiety, enhance the competitiveness of models equipped with the second-generation Blade Battery, and generate subsequent charging service revenue.
Even if the return on investment for a single station is limited, the additional auto sales and customer retention brought by the network may improve the group's overall investment returns.
This logic still requires verification through actual operational data. BYD has not yet disclosed independent revenue, profit, and return on investment for its flash charging business, nor has it publicly revealed the specific contribution of network construction to complete vehicle sales.
However, the flash charging network has already begun serving owners of other brands. When BYD's 10,000th flash charging station was completed on August 28, the company disclosed that it had accumulated over 1.83 million flash charging users, with users from other brands accounting for nearly one-third.
Opening the network helps increase charging volume and amortize infrastructure costs, but it may also weaken the exclusive advantage of energy replenishment services for a single auto brand.
BYD needs to run two businesses simultaneously: utilizing the flash charging network to promote its own auto sales, and improving network utilization by serving a broader base of vehicle owners.
Geely has chosen a different expansion path. While launching the 2,250 kW smart charging equipment, Geely plans to build over 22,000 charging stations and 100,000 charging guns by the end of 2027.
Compared to BYD's rapid network deployment through extensive "station-in-station" cooperation, Geely previously focused more on self-building high-power charging facilities, resulting in different construction cycles and capital investments.
The transaction with NIO on September 28, however, enables Geely to accelerate the supplementation of its energy replenishment capabilities through capital cooperation.
According to the agreement, Geely will inject its entire EASY Interconnection, which primarily serves commercial vehicles, into NIO Power, and add CNY 640 million in cash in exchange for a 30%
stake. NIO will continue to hold a controlling 63.6% stake in NIO Power, while subscribing to a 10% stake in Geely's Haohao Energy with cash; Haohao Energy will use the subscription funds to purchase some charging assets from NIO.
The two parties plan to jointly develop battery swapping standards for private users, with Geely developing compatible models and NIO Power providing battery swapping services. The relevant transactions still require regulatory approval and the fulfillment of closing conditions.
This is the most representative capital integration in the NEV energy replenishment industry recently.
Geely has acquired NIO's scaled battery swapping network and technological capabilities, while NIO has introduced Geely's commercial vehicle battery swapping business, cash, and potential future users of new models. The two companies retain the independence of their respective complete vehicle businesses and share infrastructure assets and network services through cross-shareholding.
The transaction also reflects a shift in the logic of energy replenishment competition. As network coverage becomes increasingly dense, the economic pressure of independently building all facilities is growing.
For automakers seeking rapid expansion, purchasing the service capabilities of ready-made networks, introducing external capital, and integrating peers' assets are becoming alternatives to self-construction.
02 Who Funds, Who Controls the Network, and Who Takes the Profits?
The large-scale expansion of energy replenishment networks is bringing a long-standing industry issue to the forefront: who bears the infrastructure investment, and how are the returns distributed?
The latest transaction between Geely and NIO provides a window to observe the answer. According to the formal agreement released by NIO on September 27, the post-investment valuation of NIO Power is approximately CNY 16 billion. The 30% stake acquired by Geely corresponds to a value of about CNY 4.8 billion, of which only CNY 640 million is in cash, with the rest primarily paid through EASY Interconnection equity.
The two parties also set up an equity adjustment mechanism linked to operational milestones: if business performance fails to meet the agreed targets, Geely's shareholding ratio may drop to 20%; Geely simultaneously obtains the option to make an additional CNY 640 million investment to increase its stake to 34%.
This transaction transforms some of the energy replenishment assets that the two automakers have invested in over the long term into an operational platform that can be integrated through equity transactions.
CNY 16 billion is the equity valuation agreed upon by both parties and does not mean that NIO Power has already achieved profits of that scale. The direct link between operational milestones and equity ratios also reflects that both parties have set clear constraints on future operational performance.
For NIO, this integration comes with realistic operational pressure. As of September 27, the company has built 4,126 battery swapping stations. The massive network provides energy replenishment convenience but also brings equipment, battery inventory, site, and operational costs.
William Li previously revealed that NIO's daily battery swapping volume has exceeded 100,000 times, averaging about 27 times per station. The company previously estimated that a daily swapping volume of 60 to 70 times per station is expected to achieve break-even, with about 20% of stations nationwide approaching or reaching this level. This calculation relies on specific investment and operational conditions, and the break-even point may vary across different regions and station generations.
With the introduction of Geely, NIO has the opportunity to add new vehicle demand to its existing network. Commercial vehicles under Geely, such as Cao Cao Mobility, have high-frequency energy replenishment needs, and future battery-swapping models for private users developed by Geely may also expand the network's service scope.
According to the arrangements currently disclosed by both parties, the battery swapping businesses for commercial vehicles and private passenger cars will be organized and operated separately, and specific technological and asset synergies still need to be implemented.
The value of the two types of users differs. Commercial vehicles such as ride-hailing cars and taxis are sensitive to downtime and have higher energy replenishment frequencies, which helps form stable demand; private passenger cars, on the other hand, place more emphasis on station coverage and convenience, with relatively dispersed usage frequencies.
Integrating both types of demand into the same operational platform may improve the overall asset utilization rate of the network, but it also requires handling the synergy costs among different battery swapping standards, vehicle platforms, and operational models.
For battery companies, energy replenishment networks also represent another business opportunity.
On September 29, CATL announced that Choco Swap has built 2,520 stations, covering 31 provinces and 200 cities. The company plans to build 1,000 highway battery swapping stations from 2026 to 2027 and continue to promote the integration of multi-brand models.
Earlier in April, CATL launched the "Super-Charge and Swap Integration" solution, planning to integrate battery swapping, super-charging, and battery asset management into the same network.
As a power battery supplier, CATL can extend into complete vehicle design, energy replenishment services, and battery asset operations through the battery swapping network.
Standardized battery swapping requires vehicles to adapt in terms of battery pack size, mechanical interfaces, electrical connections, and communication protocols. As more models are integrated, battery suppliers have the opportunity to gain deeper participation in the complete vehicle development stage.
In April this year, CATL and Chery signed a cooperation agreement on super-charging and battery swapping, specifying that CATL and its subsidiary EVOGO will be responsible for the development, iteration, and supply of swapping batteries.
The two parties also plan to develop exclusive models adapted to the battery swapping network. Such cooperation demonstrates that energy replenishment networks can be directly linked to battery orders and model development.
As the market expands, battery companies can obtain manufacturing revenue by selling cells, and may also participate in subsequent returns through technology licensing, battery leasing, asset management, and energy services.
However, battery ownership, procurement entities, and revenue arrangements vary across different projects, and the scale of energy replenishment networks cannot be directly converted into the operating revenue of battery manufacturers.
The relationship between CATL and NIO particularly illustrates the complexity of industrial integration. In January this year, the two parties signed a five-year strategic cooperation agreement covering long-life batteries, battery swapping technology, network sharing, and battery leasing.
Now, NIO has introduced Geely to jointly operate energy replenishment assets, while CATL continues to expand its own standardized battery swapping network. These companies have both battery procurement and technological cooperation, while also holding different infrastructure interests respectively.
Whether the battery swapping industry can form unified or compatible technical standards in the future will directly affect the interest relationships among these enterprises. The more open the standards, the more auto brands and potential users can access the network; however, for companies that have already invested heavily in R&D and construction, the degree of openness will also affect technological control, customer relationships, and long-term revenue distribution.
Beyond automakers and battery manufacturers, companies that originally controlled transportation energy networks are also accelerating their entry.
In June this year, BYD and Sinopec signed a strategic cooperation framework agreement, planning to rely on the existing energy station network to promote the construction and operation of flash charging stations, and to carry out cooperation in member systems, the auto aftermarket, and integrated solar-storage-charging-inspection.
CATL has also established energy replenishment network cooperation relationships with Sinopec, State Grid, China Southern Power Grid, and local transportation investment groups.
The advantages of traditional energy companies lie in their existing sites, traffic flow, and energy supply systems. For companies like Sinopec, building charging and swapping facilities helps maintain their position in transportation energy consumption and may also bring new vehicle owner service revenue.
They can cooperate with companies on different technological routes simultaneously, reducing the investment costs of new stations by sharing existing resources.
Third-party operators, on the other hand, need to reposition themselves in this round of competition.
BYD's current rapid expansion model relies heavily on cooperation with existing operators. As of the first half of 2026, TELD operated about 960,000 public charging terminals, with a half-year charging volume of about 12.6 billion kWh, a year-on-year increase of 47%.
For operators with mature stations, grid access, and user traffic, automakers building flash charging networks bring both new cooperation opportunities and potential changes to original equipment procurement, charging pricing, and revenue-sharing relationships.
However, charging operation remains a business with narrow profit margins to this day. According to TGOOD's 2026 semi-annual report, its EV charging network business generated an operating revenue of CNY 1.826 billion in the first half of the year, a year-on-year decrease of 0.83%; the net profit attributable to shareholders of the listed company was about CNY 30 million. Although it has significantly improved year-on-year, the absolute profit scale remains limited.
The company stated that value-added businesses such as platform services and energy operations have become important sources of profit improvement.
This set of data provides a realistic reference. Even with a large operational scale, charging networks require long-term investment and rely on equipment utilization rates and value-added services to improve profitability.
New entrants can rapidly increase the number of stations through massive investments, but whether they can establish stable cash flows still needs to be tested through actual operations.
Especially in the era of megawatt flash charging, equipment costs are only a part of the total investment.
High-power charging stations also involve power distribution capacity, transformers, power access, site, and operational costs. Some stations can expand capacity using existing grid resources, while others may need to configure energy storage systems to alleviate instantaneous power demands. The capital expenditures and revenue structures of the two schemes show significant differences.
Data from the National Energy Administration shows that as of the end of August this year, national public charging facilities reached 5.16 million charging guns, with a total rated power of 262 million kW and an average rated power of about 50.69 kW per gun.
Although this average includes different types of charging facilities and cannot be directly compared with the peak power of megawatt flash charging equipment, it reflects the existing overall power structure of public charging facilities nationwide.
Therefore, large-scale flash charging construction will also bring new equipment and energy storage demands. For companies in energy storage batteries, PCS (Power Conversion Systems), charging modules, liquid cooling systems, and power equipment, network upgrades may create continuous order opportunities.
Compared to operators who need to run stations in the long term, equipment suppliers can usually obtain revenue first during the construction phase, but the market scale still depends on actual investment amounts, the proportion of station-side energy storage configuration, and project implementation progress.
From the perspective of existing business models, the returns being competed for by various parties are mainly divided into three levels.
The most direct interest for automakers remains auto sales. Improving energy replenishment convenience can enhance product attractiveness, expand user coverage, and generate revenue for charging services after vehicles are sold.
Battery companies hope to establish connections with more complete vehicle platforms through energy replenishment standards, exploring battery asset operations and full lifecycle services while continuously securing battery orders.
Energy companies and third-party operators, on the other hand, place more emphasis on electricity sales, charging and swapping services, station utilization rates, and potential future energy management revenues.
There are both synergies and competitions among these interests.
A flash charging station open to all brands can attract more users, but it will reduce the exclusive value of the network for a single auto brand; unified battery swapping standards help achieve economies of scale, but may weaken the autonomous control of complete vehicle enterprises over battery design and energy replenishment experience; equipment companies can secure orders from rapid expansion, while operators must bear the risks of asset depreciation and utilization rates for subsequent years.
As competition heats up, energy replenishment networks will also face new capital constraints. The 90,000 flash charging stations, 22,000 Geely charging stations, and NIO's 10,000 battery swapping stations by 2030 are currently all future construction targets for these enterprises.
The number of stations announced by different enterprises also involves caliber differences such as self-built, co-built, integrated operations, and already operational, making it impossible to directly compare their asset scales or market shares at present.
In the coming years, the operational results that various enterprises need to prove will gradually go beyond the number of stations themselves, including actual charging and swapping volumes, single-station utilization rates, user repurchases, equipment and battery asset turnover efficiency, and the contribution of energy replenishment networks to complete vehicle sales and other businesses.
For China's NEV industry, the impact of this round of energy replenishment battle may extend to the manufacturing sector. Auto companies are entering energy infrastructure operations, battery companies are attempting to participate in complete vehicle energy replenishment standards and asset services, and traditional energy companies are also beginning to provide more comprehensive energy products to EV users.
The functions of manufacturing, sales, and energy services, originally undertaken independently by different enterprises, are beginning to be recombined through cooperation agreements, equity transactions, and technical standards.
The transaction between Geely and NIO at the end of September has already brought this change to the capital level.
As BYD, CATL, and more participants expand their network investments, the next round of competition will test whether these assets can generate sufficient actual returns, and how the expanding energy replenishment market will ultimately form interest distribution among automakers, battery suppliers, and energy operators.