In charge-coupled devices (CCDs), doped semiconductors are used to produce an electronic signal from incoming photons - the underlying principle being the photoelectric effect. This simple law tells us that the maximum kinetic energy of an ejected electron is the photon's energy minus the work function of the material, i.e.
$$K_{\rm max} = \frac{hc}{\lambda} - \phi,$$
where in this case $\phi$ is the work function of silicon. The photons' energy allows electrons to overcome the band gap energy of the material, which, as I understand, is intrinsic to the material (only modified in doping).
One problem with CCDs is that of dark current. Thermal excitation can cause electrons to overcome the band gap energy without the need for photoelectric ejection. This is largely resolved by cooling the instrumentation/CCD to help prevent the electrons from becoming thermally excited.
The question I have is about the application of this in optical/visible versus infrared applications, particularly for astronomical observing. In instruments where CCDs are now being used for infrared observing, the CCD's need to be cooled down more than in optical instruments. I know that infrared photons are higher wavelength and thus lower energy than visible photons. As a result, it seems to me that $K_{\rm max}$ should be lower in total for infrared photons, making it harder for them to overcome the band gap.
So why isn't it that infrared instruments are used at a higher operating temperature than optical instruments?