How gas station economics will change in the electric vehicle charging future

As electric vehicles proliferate, some gas stations are making expensive overhauls to add EV charging stations.

In most cases, they aren’t scrapping traditional liquid fuel pumps. But select locations, including an RS Automotive in Takoma Park, Md., and a Shell station in Fulham, England, have made a full switch.

Location, cost, power requirements and conversion time are among the multiple considerations that factor into a gas station’s decision to convert all or a portion of their existing infrastructure to allow for EV charging.

“Figuring out how to do this on an active site can be complex and challenging,” said Neha Palmer, chief executive of TeraWatt Infrastructure, which is developing a network of electric vehicle charging centers for fleet operations across California, Arizona, and New Mexico. “How do you sequence the construction when you have vehicles that might want to fuel there?”

Here’s what gas station owners need to know about the EV charging trend and their future.

The EV fast-charging model

Locations like office complexes, hospitals and hotels typically offer a slower charging option, since people generally stay put for hours at a time. Gas stations, however, are investing in Level 3 chargers, which are more powerful and generally charge a car in 20 to 30 minutes.

While slower charging stations are often free to motorists, that’s not generally true for fast charging stations, given ongoing operational expenses such as electricity and extra fees charged by utilities in commercial settings, said Seth Cutler, chief operating officer of EV Connect, whose software tools help companies build charging station networks.

Big oil company franchisers and car dealers are on board

For large oil giants, adding EV chargers is both a defensive and offensive play.

Gas station numbers have been decreasing at a sharp rate in the past three decades and the trend is expected to continue in the coming years, according to Shubhendra Anand, vice president of research and strategy at Market Research Future. In fact, at least a quarter of service stations globally are at risk of closure by 2035 without significant business model tweaks, according to consulting firm BCG.

The Biden administration has a stated goal of having 500,000 electric vehicle chargers nationally where EVs make up at least 50% of new car sales by 2030. By current administration estimates, there are more than three million EVs and more than 130,000 public chargers nationwide.

The European oil majors are among the energy sector leaders in the global EV charging push.

Shell has EV-charging-only mobility hubs in China and the Netherlands, in addition to the Fulham location. The company intends to own more than 70,000 public EV charge points worldwide by 2025, and 200,000 by 2030, according to an email statement from Barbara Stoyko, senior vice president of mobility for Shell Americas.

BP also sees the need for mixed-use hybrid refueling and EV charging stations, according to Sujay Sharma, chief executive of BP’s electric vehicle charging business in the U.S. “Today’s gas stations are well positioned to adopt EV charging due to locations in high-demand areas, in addition to their existing convenience offerings including restrooms, food and beverage,” Sharma stated in an email.

Franchise car dealers are also increasingly getting on board, thanks to pushes from automakers like GM and Ford.

As of late last year, 65% of Ford’s dealers had opted into the EV certification program (a little under 2,000, according to data shared by Ford), as it has started to make the role of car dealers central to the EV transition process.

The National Automobile Dealers Association said in a May release that franchise owners will spend an estimated $5.5 billion on EV infrastructure across OEM brands, with per store costs ranging from $100,000 to over $1 million.

Upfront costs can be jaw-dropping, incentives help

Adding EV charging capabilities is not a one-two decision that owners should take lightly. Indeed, the return on investment could be seven to 10 years on average, according to an estimate provided by Yair Nechmad, co-founder and chief executive of Nayax, a global commerce enablement and payments platform, which offers its services to gas stations.

The hardware and software for fast charging can run between $50,000 for one charger and $500,000 for multiple fast chargers and dispensers, said Michael Hughes, chief revenue officer of ChargePoint Holdings, a technology company that makes EV charging hardware and software to help drivers find local charging stations and amenities. The infrastructure, meanwhile, which includes the cost of breaking ground, running power, permits and contractors, generally costs about twice that, he said.

That makes it advisable to incur all the infrastructure changes upfront, even if a gas station only intends to make a few chargers available at the onset, said Rohan Puri, chief executive of Stable Auto Corporation, which helps make charging stations more profitable for companies that own and operate them. His advice: “Put in as much power as you think you’re going to need in 10 years.”

There are numerous federal, state and utility-based incentives for commercial businesses to purchase and install fast chargers. This includes the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration NEVI Formula Program, which provides generous funding to states to strategically deploy EV charging stations.

Gas station owners can search for information on incentive programs they may qualify for.

Location is a key factor, gas station franchise concerns

Even with incentives, there can be barriers to entry, location being a major factor. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 80 percent of EV charging happens at home, which makes adding EV charging less appealing for in-town gas stations, Hughes said. Local gas stations also don’t generally have amenities to keep people entertained while they are charging their vehicles.

Real estate can also be prohibitive. A traditional gas station may have two islands with four pumps each for liquid fuel; the same utilization rate would require about 40 charging stations, Hughes said.

By contrast, gas stations along major highways between highly traveled destinations can be ideal for electric charging hubs. These locations tend to have multiple amenities, offering people the opportunity to grab a cup of coffee, get a quick bite to eat, stretch their legs or walk the dog while they charge their vehicle, Hughes said.

Convenience stores like Sheetz, Wawa, Royal Farms and Buc-ee’s that double as gas station operators are also starting to add electric chargers at certain locations, said Albert Gore, executive director of The Zero Emission Transportation Association, a federal coalition that advocates for EVs, and who is a former Tesla and SolarCity executive. It can’t be “a place that you’re just going to run in and buy a Snickers,” Gore said.

While there can be a first-mover advantage for gas stations, some owners, like Blake Smith, founder of SQRL Holdings, a gas station and convenience store operator, are taking it slow. His company operates more than 150 convenience store gas station locations and offers electric charging in select locations in Florida. By contrast, the company hasn’t installed any EV charges in Arkansas, where it has more than 60 stations.

“I would never recoup my investment,” he said, adding that a move to all electric charging could be decades away. “We’re not flipping a switch to where gas vehicles are getting off the road and it will be EV-only.”

Source link

#gas #station #economics #change #electric #vehicle #charging #future

Swiss central bank promises regulation review after collapse of Credit Suisse

Thomas Jordan, president of the Swiss National Bank (SNB), speaks during the bank’s annual general meeting in Bern, Switzerland, on Friday, April 28, 2023.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Swiss National Bank on Friday pledged to review banking regulations during its annual general meeting in Bern, following recent turmoil involving Credit Suisse.

Set against a backdrop of protest over its action on climate change and its role in the emergency sale of Credit Suisse to Swiss rival UBS, Thomas Jordan, chairman of the governing board at the SNB, said banking regulation and supervision will have to be reviewed in light of recent events.

“This will require in-depth analysis … quick fixes must be avoided,” he said, according to a statement.

The central bank played a key role in brokering the rescue of Credit Suisse over the course of a chaotic weekend in March, as a flight of deposits and plummeting share price took the 167-year-old institution to the brink of collapse.

The deal remains mired in controversy and legal challenges, particularly over the lack of investor input and the unconventional decision to wipe out 15 billion Swiss francs ($16.8 billion) of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds.

The demise of the country’s second-largest bank fomented widespread discontent and severely damaged Switzerland’s long-held reputation for financial stability. It also came against a febrile political backdrop, with federal elections coming up in October.

Jordan said Friday that future regulation will have to “compel banks to hold sufficient assets which they can pledge or transfer at any time without restriction, and which they can thus deliver as collateral to existing liquidity facilities.” He added that this would mean his central bank could would be able to provide the necessary liquidity, in times of stress, without the need for emergency law.

A shareholder holding a placard reading in German: “Invest in the planet and not in its destruction” takes part in a protest ahead of a general meeting of of the Swiss National Bank (SNB) in Bern on April 28, 2023. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Fabrice Coffrini | Afp | Getty Images

The SNB faced questions and grievances from shareholders about the Credit Suisse situation on Friday, but the country’s network of climate activists also sought to use the central bank’s unwanted spotlight to challenge its investment policies. Activists failed to gain traction with a vote to reprimand the SNB’s investment decisions, with just 0.8% of shareholders backing the move, according to Reuters.

Unlike many major central banks, the SNB operates publicly-traded company, with just over half of its roughly 25 million Swiss franc ($28.1 million) share capital held by public shareholders — including various Swiss cantons (states) and cantonal banks — while the remaining shares are held by private investors.

More than 170 climate activists have now purchased a SNB share, according to the SNB Coalition, a dedicated pressure group spun out of Alliance Climatique Suisse — an umbrella organization representing around 140 Swiss environmental campaign groups.

Around 50 of the activist shareholders were attendance on Friday, and activists had planned to make around a dozen speeches on stage at the AGM, climate campaigner Jonas Kampus told CNBC on Wednesday. Protests were also held outside the event with Reuters reporting that the campaigners totaled 100, leading to tight security.

The group is calling for the SNB to dispose of its stock holdings of “companies that cause serious environmental damage and/or violate fundamental human rights,” pointing to the central bank’s own investment guidelines.

In particular, campaigners have highlighted SNB holdings in Chevron, Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Repsol, Enbridge and Duke Energy.

Members of a Ugandan community objecting to TotalEnergies’ East African Crude Oil Pipeline, were also set to attend on Friday, with one planning to speak on stage directly to the SNB directorate.

As well as a full exit from fossil fuel investments, activists are demanding that the SNB implement the “one for one rule,” — a capital requirement designed to prevent banks and insurers benefiting from activities that are detrimental for the transition to net zero.

In this context, the SNB would be required to set aside one Swiss franc of its own funds to cover potential losses for each franc allocated to financing new fossil fuel exploration or extraction.

Ahead of the AGM, the central bank declined on legal grounds to schedule three motions tabled by the activists, and said on Wednesday that it would not comment on protest plans, instead directing CNBC to its formal agenda. Yet Kampus suggested that just the process of submitting the motions itself had helped expand public and political awareness of the issues.

“From all sides, there is public pressure and also political pressure that the SNB needs to change things. At this moment, the SNB is really far behind in terms of their actions taken compared to other central banks,” Kampus told CNBC via telephone, adding that the SNB takes a “very conservative view” of its mandate regarding price stability and financial stability, which is “very narrow.”

The shareholders’ cause is also backed by a motion in parliament, with support from lawmakers ranging from the Green Party to the Centre [center-right party], which demands an extension of the SNB’s mandate to cover climate and environmental risks.

“While other central banks around the world are going well beyond the steps taken by the SNB in ​​this respect — the SNB has repeatedly taken the position that its mandate does not give it sufficient leeway to take climate risks fully into account in its decisions and monetary policy instruments,” reads the motion, filed on March 16 by Green Party lawmaker Delphine Klopfenstein Broggini.

Swiss National Bank chair: Maintaining stability is our main goal

“The present parliamentary initiative is intended to ensure this leeway and to make it clear that the SNB must take climate risks into account when conducting monetary policy.”

The motion argues that climate risks are “classified worldwide as significant financial risks that can endanger financial and price stability,” concluding that it is in “Switzerland’s overall interest that the SNB proactively address these issues” as other central banks are seeking to do.

Kampus and his fellow activists hope the national focus on the SNB after the Credit Suisse crisis provides fertile ground to advance concerns about climate risk, which he said poses a risk to the financial system that is “several times larger” than the potential fallout from Credit Suisse’s collapse.

“We feel that there is also a window of opportunity on the SNB side in that they maybe this time are a bit more humble, because they obviously also have done some things wrong in terms of the Credit Suisse crash,” Kampus said.

He noted that the central bank has always asserted that climate risk was incorporated into its models and that there was “no need for further exchange with the public of further transparency.”

Investor who predicted Credit Suisse decline says Swiss banking model is 'damaged'

“Very central to the SNB’s work is that the public just needs to trust them. Trust is something that is very important to the central bank, and to demand trust from the public without leading up to it or supporting it with further evidence that we can trust them in the long run is quite scary, especially when we don’t know what their climate model is,” he said.

The SNB has long argued that its passive investment strategy, which invests in global indexes, is part of its mandate to remain market neutral, and that it is not for the central bank to engage in climate policy. Activists hope mounting political pressure will eventually force a change in legislation to broaden the SNB’s mandate to accommodate climate and human rights as risks to financial and price stability.

UBS and Credit Suisse also faced protests from climate activists at their respective AGMs earlier this month over investment in fossil fuel companies.

Source link

#Swiss #central #bank #promises #regulation #review #collapse #Credit #Suisse