Commercial EV charging is moving into its “earn it” phase. The early years were about footprint: add ports, announce partnerships, and race competitors to permits. Now the scoreboard is different. Reliability, utilization, power economics, and software attach rates decide who grows and who quietly bleeds.
Two big signals stand out going into 2026:
The most durable commercial EV charging businesses look less like hardware vendors and more like infrastructure operators with software leverage.
A practical thesis you can underwrite:
This is why the sector is drifting toward vertically integrated stacks and selective consolidation: hardware alone is commoditizing, while operational performance and software are getting priced in.
If you don’t model those early, a “great” location can turn into a slow-motion loss.
Opportunities
Risks
First, a quick reality check: “commercial EV charging” is not one clean market. It’s a stack of markets that overlap (hardware, installation, operations, software, energy services). Most market reports publish total EV charging infrastructure, then you carve out the commercial slice based on where you play.
Global demand signal (infrastructure volume)
The cleanest, least-hype indicator is the global count of public charging points.
IEA outlook:
That implies roughly 21% annual growth in the stock of public charging points from 2023 to 2030 (simple CAGR on the counts). (IEA)
TAM published estimates (global and US examples)
Global EV charging infrastructure market (broad TAM)
ResearchAndMarkets summarizes a global EV charging infrastructure market estimate:
US EV charging infrastructure market (regional TAM)
Grand View Research estimates:
How to think about SAM for commercial EV charging (a practical carve-out)
SAM depends on your operating model. Here are three common SAM frames that don’t require hand-wavy guessing:
If you want a single-number SAM without inventing details, the honest approach is to publish a range and show the math inputs (geography, segment mix, attach rates). Most teams use a bottom-up model, not a one-line market report.
Segments (who actually makes money where)
Verticals (where commercial demand concentrates)
EU (AFIR)
AFIR pushes corridor coverage:
Competitive dynamics: consolidation vs fragmentation
This sector stays fragmented because it sits at four intersections:
That fragmentation naturally creates consolidation pressure in three places:
At the same time, fragmentation persists at the edge because local permitting and utility relationships are hyper-regional. That keeps small and mid-size players alive, especially in installation and site development.
What’s happening in plain English
Deal activity in commercial EV charging has split into two stories at the same time:
Story A: “Buy the brains”
Strategics are buying software, payments, and orchestration layers that make charging feel reliable and scalable. These assets tend to have cleaner revenue, lower capex, and easier integration math.
Story B: “Rescue or rationalize the metal”
Hardware-heavy and cash-burning operators are getting recapitalized, sold for a fraction of prior valuations, or pulled apart for assets. This is what a shakeout looks like when a market grows up.
Strategic buyers are still the main characters
PE activity tends to cluster where cash flows can be stabilized
Private equity is most comfortable underwriting:
Important caution (because this sector can trick you)
“EV charging company” can mean:
So instead of pretending there’s one clean multiple, here are benchmarks anchored to real disclosed comps from this market and what they imply.
In this sector, a lot of targets do not have clean positive EBITDA, so buyers frequently revert to:
When EBITDA is positive and stable (more common in services/software than in CPO rollouts), buyers typically shift to EBITDA multiples. The exact range varies wildly by growth and churn, but the key diligence question is: is EBITDA real, repeatable, and tied to recurring revenue, or is it temporarily inflated by one-off installation cycles?
Public markets have been punishing “growth without proof”
Public comps (ChargePoint, EVgo, Blink, etc.) are useful as sentiment indicators, but private deal math often diverges because private buyers can underwrite:
Private deals in 2024–2025 show a clear theme:
Commercial EV charging has quietly turned into a software business with steel-toed boots.
A few years ago, “software” meant a map, a payment screen, and a dashboard that kind of worked. Now software is the operating system for uptime, revenue, and cost control. If the software stack is weak, you pay for it in the most painful way possible: truck rolls, dead stalls, charge failures, angry fleets, and churn.
Three software capabilities are becoming table stakes:
What’s real and showing up in deals and deployments
AI for reliability and dispatch efficiency
AI here is not a buzzword model stuck on a slide. It is practical pattern recognition:
IoT plus better telemetry
The charging market used to run on sparse logs and late alarms. Better on-device telemetry is turning chargers into measurable assets. That enables faster root-cause analysis and gives operators the ability to enforce uptime standards with vendors.
Plug and Charge, driven by ISO 15118
Plug and Charge reduces friction and can reduce failed sessions because it removes account/app confusion from the flow. A Harvard-MIT DC fast charging stakeholder working group report (March 2025) argues Plug and Charge can speed adoption and improve reliability by raising the odds that a charging attempt succeeds. (The Salata Institute)
Heavy-duty fast charging and the Megawatt Charging System (MCS)
This is one of the biggest “next two years” shifts. As electric trucks scale, depot and corridor charging needs higher power and a standard that multiple OEMs can build around. NREL documented CharIN’s MCS evaluation event that ran from May 2023 through January 2024, testing prototype designs from multiple manufacturers as part of the effort to develop a high-power charging standard for heavy-duty electrification. (NREL Docs)
CharIN also publishes an MCS white paper that summarizes technical and non-technical aspects of MCS development. (charin.global)
Blockchain
There are niche use cases (roaming settlement, audit trails), but most operators can get the same business outcomes with conventional billing systems and tight partner reconciliation. Unless you’re operating in a market with unusual settlement constraints, blockchain rarely changes unit economics.
Charging businesses do not report R&D in a clean apples-to-apples way because many bundle software development into product, operations, or engineering. In practice, the better benchmark is capability maturity:
If you want a real-world proxy, count:
Cybersecurity is no longer a compliance checkbox. Chargers are internet-connected endpoints tied to payments and sometimes to utility and building networks. That is a big attack surface.
NIST IR 8473 provides a Cybersecurity Framework Profile for the EV extreme fast charging ecosystem, spanning EVs, charging infrastructure, cloud/third-party operations, and utility/building networks. It is a solid baseline for risk management and control planning. (NIST Computer Security Resource Center, NIST Publications)
Practical risk areas operators actually run into:
Here’s the cleanest way to decide without getting lost in ego.
Build when
Buy when
Commercial EV charging looks shiny from the outside. On the inside, it’s a gritty infrastructure business. Concrete, copper, transformers, electricians, utility queues, and a lot of “why is this permit taking 14 weeks?”
This section matters because operational execution is where most charging strategies either become profitable… or quietly collapse under delays and cost overruns.
Typical cost structure breakdown (COGS, SGA, labor, logistics)
The cost structure depends heavily on whether you are:
But for commercial operators building and running sites, the economics generally break into two layers:
A) Upfront capital cost (CAPEX)
This is the cost to get a site live.
Typical CAPEX components
DOE cost benchmarks (real-world reference)
The US Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center gives widely cited installation cost ranges:
Source: AFDC Infrastructure Development overview
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-infrastructure-development
That range alone tells you why fleet depots and high-utilization hubs matter: DC fast is expensive infrastructure, not a gadget.
B) Ongoing operating cost (OPEX)
Once the charger is live, the meter starts running.
Key OPEX buckets
Supply chain is still one of the least appreciated constraints in EV charging. The bottleneck is rarely “chargers exist.” The bottleneck is everything around them.
Major vulnerabilities
This is one reason distressed hardware acquisitions (like Tritium’s asset purchase) carry hidden operational liabilities: you inherit an installed base that needs support.
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2024/08/12/troubled-tritium-picked-up-by-indian-ev-charger-giant/
Supply chain strengths (what’s improving)
EV charging is a skilled-trades business disguised as climate tech.
Key labor realities
Margins vary massively by business model
Public charging networks (CPOs)
Hardware-heavy models
Software + services models
Public company benchmark signal
ChargePoint reported improved GAAP gross margin of 24% for FY2025, reflecting restructuring and mix shift toward subscription revenue and services.
Source: ChargePoint FY2025 results
https://www.chargepoint.com/about/news/chargepoint-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results
Commercial EV charging is not just a growth market. It’s a compliance market.
Every charger sits at the intersection of:
If you get regulation right, you scale faster. If you get it wrong, projects stall, incentives vanish, and reputational damage spreads fast.
This industry doesn’t deal with FDA or HIPAA, but it does face a serious regulatory stack:
If you accept credit cards (and commercial networks must), you’re operating in the world of:
A growing push in the industry is secure, standardized payment interoperability through protocols like OCPI and OCPP extensions.
The IFSF paper (Nov 2025) discusses EV charging payments integration using OCPI and OCPP standards, highlighting the need for secure, interoperable transaction flows.
Source: IFSF EV charging standards paper (PDF)
https://ifsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EV-charging-with-IFSF-OCPI-and-OCPP-standards-v1.0-Nov-2025.pdf
Practical risk:
If payment fails at the charger, utilization drops immediately. Drivers don’t “try again later.” They leave.
Charging networks collect:
If you operate in Europe, GDPR applies.
In the US, state-level privacy regulation is expanding (California, Colorado, Virginia, etc.).
Compliance isn’t just legal. It affects enterprise sales. Fleets will ask about data handling before signing contracts.
Charging stations are connected endpoints tied to:
NIST IR 8473 provides a Cybersecurity Framework Profile specifically for EV extreme fast charging infrastructure, covering risks across EVs, chargers, cloud operators, and grid interfaces.
Source: NIST IR 8473 (final)
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/ir/8473/final
Key cybersecurity risk categories:
Cybersecurity is moving from “IT problem” to board-level operational risk.
The fastest-growing bottleneck in charging is not capital. It’s local friction.
Common zoning triggers:
Even in EV-friendly states, zoning timelines can vary wildly by municipality.
EV fast charging requires:
A charger can arrive in weeks. A permit can take months.
Interconnection is often the longest pole in the tent:
Operational takeaway:
Interconnection capability is a competitive advantage, not a back-office task.
Interoperability is becoming mandatory, not optional.
The Open Charge Alliance runs OCPP certification programs, including OCPP 2.0.1 certification, which is increasingly viewed as a maturity marker for commercial deployments.
Source: Open Charge Alliance certification program
https://openchargealliance.org/certificationocpp/certification-ocpp-2-0-1/
EV charging is part of the energy transition, but ESG pressure is evolving from “install chargers” to “prove impact and reliability.”
Enterprise buyers increasingly expect:
The ESG narrative is shifting from marketing to measurement.
United States: NEVI and federal funding execution
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program is one of the largest direct federal charging funding mechanisms, with nearly $5B allocated over five years.
FHWA publishes the 5-year NEVI funding allocations by state (FY2022–FY2026).
Source: FHWA NEVI allocations table
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/evs_5year_nevi_funding_by_state.cfm
Material impact:
European Union: AFIR corridor mandates
The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) is forcing infrastructure density along key corridors.
The ICCT policy update summarizes AFIR requirements, including fast-charging deployment intervals along TEN-T corridors.
Source: ICCT AFIR policy update (PDF)
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/AFIR-EU-Policy-Update-A4-Final.pdf
Material impact:
Standards evolution: connector and interoperability regulation
North America is moving toward the SAE J3400 standard (formerly known as NACS), accelerating connector standardization.
The Joint Office provides an overview of charging connector standardization developments.
Source: Joint Office connector overview
https://driveelectric.gov/charging-connector
Why it matters:
Standardization reduces consumer friction, but it forces operators to plan upgrade paths carefully.
Marketing in commercial EV charging is not about hype. It’s about trust, uptime, and economics.
This sector sits in a strange spot: it’s infrastructure, but it’s also a customer experience business. People don’t buy chargers because the ad was clever. They buy because they believe the network will work, the economics will pencil, and the operator won’t disappear in two years.
The smartest marketing teams in this space don’t act like “growth hackers.” They act like translators between engineering, finance, real estate, and the end user.
Customer acquisition channels: organic, paid, referral, offline
The channel mix depends entirely on who you’re selling to.
A) Public charging networks (driver-facing demand + site host acquisition)
Driver acquisition channels that actually matter:
Site host acquisition channels:
Marketing truth: for public charging, the “product” is reliability plus location. Awareness without uptime is wasted spend.
B) Fleet and depot charging (enterprise demand)
Fleet buyers don’t respond to lifestyle marketing. They respond to operational certainty.
Best-performing acquisition channels:
NACFE’s work on charging-as-a-service reflects why fleets increasingly buy outcomes, not equipment.
Source: NACFE Charging-as-a-Service report
https://nacfe.org/research/collaboration-reports/caas-report/
C) Workplace and multifamily charging
This is a channel partner business more than a direct-response business.
Top channels:
Commercial EV charging is rarely pure DTC. Most operators run one of three funnels:
Typical funnel stages:
Sales cycles are long (6–18 months is normal), and multiple stakeholders are involved: facilities, finance, sustainability, operations, and procurement.
Common for mid-market operators:
If you sell CSMS or payments:
Public CAC/LTV disclosure is rare in this industry, so operators use practical proxies:
CAC proxies
LTV drivers
Brand equity in charging is unusually operational:
Your “brand” is uptime, payment reliability, and session success.
J.D. Power’s EVX study shows failed public charging visits declined to 14% in 2025 vs 19% in 2024. That improvement raises expectations: reliability becomes the marketing baseline, not the differentiator.
Source: J.D. Power EVX Public Charging Study
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2025-us-electric-vehicle-experience-evx-public-charging-study
Most major charging operators are tightening spend and shifting away from broad awareness toward efficiency and margin discipline.
ChargePoint’s FY2025 results highlight restructuring and improved gross margin, signaling a pivot toward operating efficiency over “growth at any cost.”
Source: ChargePoint FY2025 financial results
https://www.chargepoint.com/about/news/chargepoint-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results
The implication:
Media mix is moving toward:
For platforms pursuing buy-and-build strategies, marketing centralization is one of the fastest synergy unlocks.
Centralize:
Localize:
This hybrid model prevents duplicated spend while preserving local trust.
Demand generation strategies that are working right now
Commercial EV charging demand is being shaped by one big shift:
The market is moving from early adopters who tolerated friction to mainstream buyers who refuse it.
That change affects everything: station design, pricing models, marketing messages, fleet contracts, and even M&A priorities. Charging is no longer a novelty. It’s becoming part of normal infrastructure expectations, like Wi-Fi or fuel.
The expectations gap is widening fast.
A few years ago, EV drivers expected some chargers to be broken. Fleet managers expected pilot programs to be messy. Property owners expected “EV charging” to be a perk, not a requirement.
That grace period is ending.
Three expectations are hardening:
J.D. Power’s 2025 EVX Public Charging Study reported that 14% of EV owners experienced an unsuccessful public charging visit in 2025, down from 19% in 2024. That’s the lowest failure rate in four years.
Source: J.D. Power press release
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2025-us-electric-vehicle-experience-evx-public-charging-study
Translation:
As failure rates drop, tolerance drops even faster. Customers don’t celebrate 14% failure. They ask why it isn’t 2%.
The IEA explicitly notes that charging must be easy to use, reliable, transparently priced, and interoperable for broader EV adoption.
Source: IEA Global EV Outlook 2024
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/outlook-for-electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure
The demand is shifting from “destination charging as novelty” to “charging as invisible infrastructure.”
The EV customer base is changing.
Early adopters were:
Mainstream buyers are:
Psychographic shift:
The market is moving from enthusiasts to pragmatists.
That matters because pragmatists don’t evangelize. They just churn if the experience is bad.
Public fast charging behavior
Public DC fast charging is increasingly used as:
But the biggest behavior change is this:
Charging sessions rise when trust rises.
As reliability improves, people stop “overcharging early” out of fear and start charging only when needed, which stabilizes demand patterns.
Fleet and depot purchasing behavior
Fleet buyers behave very differently from consumers.
Fleet operators care about:
NACFE’s work on charging-as-a-service highlights that fleets increasingly want managed solutions rather than owning complexity outright.
Source: NACFE Charging-as-a-Service report
https://nacfe.org/research/collaboration-reports/caas-report/
This is why “charging-as-a-service” is not a marketing slogan. It’s a buyer behavior shift.
Property owner behavior (multifamily + workplace)
For landlords and employers, EV charging is becoming:
Multifamily demand is especially sticky because renters often lack home charging alternatives.
Published NPS data in EV charging is inconsistent and often not disclosed, but two proxy indicators are widely used:
Retention is the real moat. Ports can be copied. Trust is harder.
The consumer cycle (B2C)
Consumer behavior is becoming more transactional:
Brand loyalty is weak if uptime is weak.
The enterprise cycle (B2B)
Enterprise buying is becoming more structured and finance-driven.
Stakeholders include:
Buying criteria are shifting toward:
Sales cycles remain long, but contracts are stickier once signed.
Commercial EV charging is one of the most promising infrastructure buildouts of the next decade. It’s also one of the easiest markets to misunderstand.
The risk isn’t that EV adoption disappears. The risk is that the economics, regulation, and competitive landscape punish operators who scale too early, too loosely, or without operational discipline.
This section lays out the threats that actually show up in diligence, boardrooms, and post-acquisition integration meetings.
Charging sites don’t fail because chargers don’t exist. They fail because people don’t show up often enough.
A DC fast charging site can look great on a map and still produce weak economics if:
Utilization is everything. Ports installed is vanity. Sessions delivered is reality.
The IEA projects major growth in public charging points, but that growth does not guarantee every site will be profitable. Density and demand alignment matter.
Source: IEA Global EV Outlook 2024
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/outlook-for-electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure
The harsh truth: electricity is not just a cost. It is a constraint.
Key threats:
Operators who underestimate utility friction often face:
This is why interconnection competency is increasingly viewed as a moat.
Government incentives are a tailwind, but they introduce compliance risk and timing uncertainty.
NEVI funding in the US is real and published, but execution varies significantly by state and is exposed to political and administrative delays.
Source: FHWA NEVI allocations
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/evs_5year_nevi_funding_by_state.cfm
Risk:
Operators building a strategy dependent on incentive timing can get stuck in stop-start deployment cycles.
As networks overlap, pricing becomes transparent.
Drivers and fleets will increasingly compare charging like they compare fuel:
This pushes operators toward margin compression unless they differentiate through:
Charging hardware is not static. Standards evolve.
North America is moving toward SAE J3400 (formerly NACS), forcing operators to manage connector transitions and upgrade paths.
Source: Joint Office connector overview
https://driveelectric.gov/charging-connector
Risk:
Stranded assets and retrofit costs if deployments aren’t future-proofed.
Moats that hold
J.D. Power’s EVX study shows failed public charging visits declined to 14% in 2025, which raises expectations for all operators.
Source: J.D. Power EVX Public Charging Study
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2025-us-electric-vehicle-experience-evx-public-charging-study
Moats that erode
Vendor concentration risk
Operators dependent on a single charger OEM or backend provider face:
Hardware distress events reinforce this risk. Tritium’s insolvency-driven asset acquisition highlights how quickly OEM stability can change.
Source: PV Magazine coverage
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2024/08/12/troubled-tritium-picked-up-by-indian-ev-charger-giant/
Customer concentration risk
Public filings show that customer concentration is a real diligence issue.
EVgo’s annual report discusses revenue concentration with certain partners/customers, a reminder that network economics can depend heavily on a few relationships.
Source: EVgo Form 10-K (SEC)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1821159/000155837025002400/evgo-20241231x10k.htm
Key man risk
In smaller operators, relationships with:
In acquisitions, this must be underwritten and transitioned carefully.
Entry is deceptively easy
You can buy chargers. You can win a pilot site. You can announce a network.
Scale is brutally hard
Scaling requires:
The barrier is not starting. The barrier is operating at scale without breaking trust.
Charging infrastructure is part of the critical energy and mobility ecosystem.
NIST IR 8473 outlines cybersecurity risk management for EV extreme fast charging, emphasizing vulnerabilities across chargers, cloud operators, and utility/building networks.
Source: NIST IR 8473
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/ir/8473/final
A breach can trigger:
As charging becomes mainstream, regulators and consumers will scrutinize:
Charging sites are physical infrastructure. Accessibility requirements are enforceable and must be designed in from the start.
Programs like NEVI come with requirements around uptime, payment methods, and domestic content. Noncompliance can lead to clawbacks or lost funding.
This is where the report stops being “interesting” and starts being useful.
Commercial EV charging is past the phase where the winners are the loudest builders. The next winners will be the most disciplined operators: the ones who understand power economics, reliability, fleet behavior, and the real shape of demand.
The recommendations below are written for an investor, consolidator, or platform operator looking at acquisition-led expansion or a buy-and-build strategy.
The fastest way to destroy value in EV charging M&A is to buy ports instead of buying performance.
Your acquisition criteria should focus on five pillars:
Prioritize targets with:
ChargePoint’s pivot toward subscription revenue and margin improvement reflects what public markets reward: recurring, scalable economics.
Source: ChargePoint FY2025 results
https://www.chargepoint.com/about/news/chargepoint-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results
Red flags:
Demand evidence of:
Reliability is no longer optional. J.D. Power reports unsuccessful public charging visits declined to 14% in 2025, meaning customer expectations are rising fast.
Source: J.D. Power EVX Public Charging Study
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2025-us-electric-vehicle-experience-evx-public-charging-study
The strongest operators treat utilities like strategic partners, not a line item.
Underwrite:
This is where site-level profitability is won or lost.
Targets are more valuable when they own:
The Nayax → Lynkwell deal (implied ~1.5x revenue multiple) is a clean example of buyers paying for the orchestration layer, not just hardware.
Source: Nayax IR release
https://ir.nayax.com/news/news-details/2025/Nayax-Announces-Acquisition-of-Lynkwell/default.aspx
EV charging is high-voltage infrastructure. Safety culture is non-negotiable.
Look for:
Rather than naming a random shopping list, the most actionable approach is to define target types.
Why:
Payments are where charging experiences fail publicly and immediately.
Buy or partner if you lack:
The payments + CSMS convergence trend is accelerating (Nayax–Lynkwell).
Source: Nayax IR
https://ir.nayax.com/news/news-details/2025/Nayax-Announces-Acquisition-of-Lynkwell/default.aspx
Fleets increasingly buy outcomes, not equipment.
NACFE’s charging-as-a-service work highlights this shift toward managed solutions.
Source: NACFE CAAS report
https://nacfe.org/research/collaboration-reports/caas-report/
Acquisition rationale:
Roll-ups often overlook the most valuable “boring asset”:
teams that can consistently deliver sites through permitting and utility upgrades.
Buy for:
Distressed acquisitions can be cheap but dangerous.
Example: Tritium’s insolvency-driven asset acquisition shows how quickly OEM stability can shift.
Source: PV Magazine coverage
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2024/08/12/troubled-tritium-picked-up-by-indian-ev-charger-giant/
Only pursue if you have:
The right strategy depends on your core advantage.
Buy-and-build works best when:
Single-anchor works best when:
The mistake is mixing them too early: building scattered public sites while trying to sell enterprise fleet solutions without focus.
0–6 months: Build the operating system (stop leaks first)
Priorities:
Connector standardization is accelerating, forcing upgrade planning.
Source: Joint Office connector overview
https://driveelectric.gov/charging-connector
Deliverable:
A repeatable deployment + operations playbook, not one-off projects.
6–18 months: Expand where economics are provable
Priorities:
This is where you shift from “building chargers” to “building a network business.”
18–36 months: Scale through consolidation and platform leverage
Priorities:
EU AFIR requirements are forcing corridor buildout, creating predictable deployment lanes.
Source: ICCT AFIR policy update
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/AFIR-EU-Policy-Update-A4-Final.pdf
Strategic end-state:
A platform with infrastructure density, operational reliability, and software-driven margin expansion.
Final strategic lens: what “winning” looks like
The winners in commercial EV charging will not be the companies with the most ports.
They will be the companies with:
EV charging is becoming infrastructure.
And infrastructure rewards execution, not noise.
Market size, infrastructure growth, adoption context
US infrastructure cost benchmarks
Cybersecurity and infrastructure risk baseline
Interoperability and software maturity
Consumer experience and reliability benchmarks
Fleet buyer behavior
Regulatory and corridor buildout signals
Optional: market intelligence providers to use for deeper benchmarks (not directly cited above)
These are the usual paid datasets teams use when they want audited deal multiples, private company financials, and channel spend splits:
AFIR
EU Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation. Sets corridor deployment targets for charging and alternative fuels infrastructure. (European Council, ICCT)
BEV, PHEV
Battery electric vehicle; plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
CPO
Charge point operator. Owns and operates charging sites (often public-facing).
CSMS
Charging Station Management System. Software used to monitor, control, price, and manage chargers and users.
Demand charges
Utility charges based on peak power draw during a billing period. Can materially impact DC fast charging economics at low utilization.
Interconnection
The process of connecting a site to the electric grid with sufficient capacity and approvals. Often the critical path for timelines.
MTTR
Mean time to repair. A core uptime driver and a practical operating KPI for charging networks.
NEVI
US National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, with state allocations and required deployment planning. (Federal Highway Administration, Joint Office of Energy & Transport)
OCPP
Open Charge Point Protocol. A widely used communication standard between chargers and backend systems; OCPP 2.0.1 has an active certification program. (Open Charge Alliance, Open Charge Alliance)
OCPI
Open Charge Point Interface. Commonly used for roaming and interoperability between networks.
Roaming
Ability for drivers to use one app/account/payment credential across multiple charging networks, often enabled by roaming hubs and standards.
TEN-T
Trans-European Transport Network corridors referenced by AFIR deployment requirements. (European Council)
Uptime
Percent of time chargers are operational and able to deliver a successful session. Increasingly a commercial and regulatory expectation.
Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided by HOLD.co for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax, or professional advice, nor an offer or recommendation to buy or sell any security, instrument, or investment strategy. All content, including statistics, commentary, forecasts, and analyses, is generic in nature, may not be accurate, complete, or current, and should not be relied upon without consulting your own financial, legal, and tax advisers. Investing in financial services, fintech ventures, or related instruments involves significant risks—including market, liquidity, regulatory, business, and technology risks—and may result in the loss of principal. HOLD.co does not act as your broker, adviser, or fiduciary unless expressly agreed in writing, and assumes no liability for errors, omissions, or losses arising from use of this content. Any forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and actual outcomes may differ materially. References or links to third-party sites and data are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement or responsibility. Access to this information may be restricted or prohibited in certain jurisdictions, and HOLD.co may modify or remove content at any time without notice.
Nate Nead is the Founder and Principal of HOLD.co, where he leads the firm’s efforts in acquiring, building, and scaling disciplined, systematized businesses. With a background in investment banking, M&A advisory, and entrepreneurship, Nate brings a unique combination of financial expertise and operational leadership to HOLD.co’s portfolio companies. Over his career, Nate has been directly involved in dozens of acquisitions, spanning technology, media, software, and service-based businesses. His passion lies in creating human-led, machine-operated companies—leveraging AI, automation, and structured systems to achieve scalable growth with minimal overhead. Prior to founding HOLD.co, Nate served as Managing Director at InvestmentBank.com, where he advised middle-market clients on M&A transactions across multiple industries. He is also the owner of several digital marketing and technology businesses, including SEO.co, Marketer.co, LLM.co and DEV.co. Nate holds his BS in Business Management from Brigham Young University and his MBA from the University of Washington and is based in Bentonville, Arkansas.
