As more fleets move from pilots to large-scale EV deployments, the conversation is shifting from “Which vehicles should we buy?” to “How do we reliably and affordably keep them charged for the next 10 years?”
We sat down with Camber President Brendan Harney to talk about how service-based charging models, long-term performance guarantees, and smart energy management are reshaping total cost of ownership (TCO) for fleet electrification.
Q: Fleets often look at electrification through a TCO lens instead of just upfront cost. How does a service-based charging option change that TCO calculation, and what tends to surprise fleets most?
Brendan Harney: Most fleets are least prepared for the part that matters most in the long run: servicing electrical equipment day in and day out. And that’s understandable—it’s not their core business. Their business is running vehicles, not running power infrastructure.
What we see is that many fleets put a lot of energy into selecting the right vehicles, which is already a big lift. If they’ve also gone through the process of selecting chargers and infrastructure, there’s often an assumption that once everything is installed, it’ll be “magic” from that point forward. Unfortunately, this is still electrical equipment that’s used every day. It will need ongoing service.
On top of that, electricity and demand costs are frequently under-estimated or ignored in early TCO models. Fleets often under-value charge management systems that can materially reduce electrical costs over time. When people say their TCO isn’t penciling out the way they expected, it’s usually because of those tail-end costs—years of electricity bills, years of maintenance, and years of operational friction that weren’t fully modeled at the start.
A good service-based model really tackles that “tail.” You’re looking for a partner who can manage ongoing performance, costs, and issues on the fleet’s behalf—because again, running an electrical plant isn’t the fleet’s business.
Q: When we talk about long-term service agreements, how should they be structured so they reduce TCO for fleets, but still provide the predictable cash flows investors need?
Brendan: Ideally, you want performance-based structures that align incentives for everybody involved. Fleets should be paying for the performance they need—reliable charging that keeps vehicles ready to roll out each morning.
The first piece is making sure your service partner is actually capable of delivering that performance, has the tools to monitor it, and can keep you informed. The contractual “teeth” matter too: the provider has to be meaningfully incentivized to perform, or the structure won’t hold up in practice.
Second is contract tenor. Longer contracts often translate into lower ongoing payments for fleets, which helps TCO. They also create the stability investors want, because they’re backing assets and service relationships that are intended to run for many years—not just a one-off project.
Third is how you handle electricity costs within the contract. That’s a key variable. Some structures bundle electricity; others keep it separate but incentivize cost reduction. What’s important is making sure the fleet can actually capture the benefit of smart energy management and lower electricity spend in the structure you choose.
Q: Camber recently announced a pay-for-performance model. How does that fit into the long-term service picture?
Brendan: We’re really excited about that offering. It’s a true pay-for-performance model where customers are guaranteed 98% uptime. If we fall below a certain threshold, there’s a floor at which they don’t pay anything.
What makes it different is that we’re not just offering credits or complicated give-backs. In a lot of traditional structures, if you only got, say, 50% availability, you might get a small credit the next month. We wanted to flip that dynamic. Our position is simple: if we’re not performing, you shouldn’t be paying us.
Investors like this structure as well, because they’re ultimately financing real assets that have to perform. Their payment streams depend on those chargers doing what they’re supposed to do. A performance-based service model reduces execution risk and makes the whole financing stack more robust.
Q: More fleets now have several years of operational data under financed or long-term service models. Does that performance history move the needle with financing entities, and will it help lower cost of capital over time?
Brendan: Yes—and not quite enough yet. We now have several years of electric fleet data flowing back to financiers who’ve been active in the space for a while, and that has helped bring the cost of capital down. Of course, you have to layer in the broader interest rate environment too, but the asset class itself is maturing.
The big missing piece is still scale. We’re in the early days of electrification. Investors are comfortable with the idea of EV charging as an asset class, but they want to see how large projects perform over 5-, 7-, 10-year horizons.
That’s why projects at the scale of an LA Metro or Miami-Dade—multi-megawatt sites with dozens of vehicles—are so important. Those are the kinds of deployments that really show:
- How do assets perform under high utilization?
- What happens at scale?
- Which partners can actually get these projects over the finish line and then run them well for years?
That real-world, big-project track record is what will steadily de-risk the space and further reduce cost of capital.
Q: From an investor perspective, where are the biggest remaining questions—technology risk or financial/contract structure?
Brendan: For the industry as a whole, the biggest questions now are about contract structure. There isn’t yet one dominant model. Some fleets want a fully bundled number that includes everything. Others want electricity broken out. Some want to be directly incentivized for reducing their energy costs. There are a lot of variables, and the market hasn’t converged on a single template.
On the technology side, most investors who are active in the sector are reasonably comfortable. There are some new wrinkles—like emerging high-power connector standards—where everyone’s watching how things will perform. But the fundamental technology is now fairly well understood.
Instead, what we hear about most are:
- Execution risk: Are projects designed and built properly so they don’t cause chronic issues later?
- Long-term service risk: Is there a capable partner who will still be there in year 7 or 10 to keep everything running?
For financiers, those two factors—execution and ongoing service—are a much bigger concern than whether the core technology works.
Q: Charging hardware is the most visible cost, but software and energy management can be equally, if not more, impactful over a 5–10 year project. How does smart charging and demand charge management factor into TCO?
Brendan: It’s absolutely critical and often overlooked. And I understand why—it’s not as tangible as a charger on a pedestal. But if you care about TCO, you have to care about energy strategy.
I often think about what Southwest Airlines did in the mid-1980s. They adopted an aggressive fuel hedging strategy that helped them manage through massive spikes in oil prices while competitors struggled. If you look back at the history, it was really their energy strategy that allowed them to thrive when others were getting crushed by fuel costs.
Fleets today are in a similar spot. If you ask Southwest whether they’re in the fuel business, they’d say no—they’re in the airline business. If you ask a fleet whether they’re in the electricity business, they’ll also say no—they’re in the vehicles business. But in both cases, energy can make or break the economics.
Smart charging and demand charge management can be the difference between a project that hits its TCO targets and one that doesn’t. Depending on utilization and location, the impact can be major. It’s one of the most under-appreciated levers in fleet electrification—and one of the easiest to ignore until the utility bills start coming in.
Closing Thoughts
Fleet electrification is no longer just about getting vehicles on the lot and chargers in the ground. It’s about designing long-term, performance-based service models; managing energy as a strategic cost; and giving both fleets and financiers the confidence that these assets will perform for a decade or more.
Camber’s bet is straightforward: if your fleet doesn’t stop, your chargers shouldn’t either—and your service provider should be willing to put real guarantees behind that promise.
Ready to start the conversation?
