Are you really in control? The reseller trap in EV charging

Why do charge point operators lose commercial control when working with resellers?

Because while EV charging has become technically interoperable, commercial control has shifted from charge point operators (CPOs) to resellers, who influence what drivers see, what they pay, and how demand is shaped.

Over time, reseller markups on CPO tariffs, indirect CPO-driver relationships, and margin leakage have become accepted as “just how the market works”.

But this is a structural issue in desperate need of addressing, as it directly affects utilisation, profitability, and the long-term sustainability of public charging networks.

What “losing commercial control” actually means for CPOs

For CPOs, loss of control doesn’t show up in theory, it shows up as:

• Price distortion at the driver level
• Inability to influence utilisation and demand
• Misaligned incentives that reward lack of transparency
• Discount leakage and failed dynamic pricing
• Loss of the customer relationship and data
• Delayed cash flow and settlement risk
• Growing billing, compliance, and fraud exposure
• No ability to react market conditions

Each issue reinforces the others, creating a system where CPOs own the assets, but not the outcomes.

1. Price distortion: CPOs set the price, but drivers see something different

Why does the same charging session cost different amounts depending on how a driver pays?

Because in reseller-led models, the final retail price is often set by the reseller, not the CPO.

In Germany, resellers can add 20–30% to the end price, with the same charger varying by up to 70% depending on the channel used.

This is not demand-based dynamic pricing driven by time of day, congestion, or grid conditions. It is channel-driven price distortion.

For CPOs, this breaks the pricing feedback loop. Even when they define a tariff, it may never reach the driver unchanged. As a result:

• price signals lose meaning
• competitive positioning becomes invisible
• pricing strategy turns into guesswork

Drivers experience inconsistency and unfairness, CPOs experience loss of control over how their service is priced and perceived.

That inconsistency does more than confuse, it actively undermines trust.

2. Utilisation and profitability: when you can’t influence demand, assets sit idle

Why does loss of pricing control hurt utilisation?

Because pricing is one of the few levers operators have to actively influence when and where drivers charge.

If a CPO cannot reliably surface:

• off-peak discounts
• location-specific pricing
• congestion- or utilisation-based incentives

then they have no effective way to shape demand. 

And this isn’t theoretical. When price changes reliably reach drivers, demand shifts.

A recent study from Centre for Net Zero found that a 40% reduction in public charging price led to a 117% increase in demand, while a 15% reduction led to a 30% increase.

In other words: drivers respond to price - strongly.

Many public charging networks still operate at single-digit utilisation, with averages around 8%. But idle assets still carry lease costs, grid fees, maintenance, and depreciation; without pricing control, profitability becomes passive rather than strategic.

This is not a technology problem, it’s a pricing control problem.

3. Misaligned incentives: why opacity is profitable for resellers

What does “misaligned incentives” actually mean in practice?

It means different parties make money in fundamentally different ways.

CPOs generate returns by:

• increasing utilisation
• improving asset efficiency
• building long-term trust with drivers

Resellers generate returns by:

• Adding markups to the CPO price
• Keeping the prices opaque and hard to compare
• Demanding increasingly higher rebates from CPOs

The harder prices are to compare across channels, the more room there is to add margin without pushback. Transparent, consistent pricing works against that model.

That is why inconsistent pricing persists; reseller revenue depends on markups on CPO tariffs, not on utilisation or network performance.

4. Discount leakage and the failure of dynamic pricing

Why don’t discounts translate into higher demand?

Because CPOs cannot guarantee that discounted prices ever reach the driver.

In theory, dynamic pricing should be a powerful tool. CPOs lower prices to stimulate demand during off-peak periods or at underused locations.

In practice, what actually happens is:

• the CPO reduces the price
• the reseller keeps the price unchanged
• and uses the difference to increase its own margin

Over time, CPOs stop using pricing as a demand lever altogether, not because pricing doesn’t work, but because the signal never reaches the market.

This is discount leakage at its most damaging. It doesn’t just erode margin; it neutralises one of the few tools CPOs have to actively manage their networks.

5. Losing the customer relationship, and the data that comes with it

Who owns the customer relationship in the EV charging reseller model?

Often, not the CPO.

When drivers interact primarily through third-party apps, cards, or in-car systems:

• CPOs don’t know who their customers are
• usage data is delayed, aggregated, or incomplete
• direct communication is impossible

Without customer insight, CPOs cannot:

• offer targeted discounts
• reward repeat behaviour
• understand why drivers choose one site over another

The CPO owns the hardware, but not the relationship. And without that relationship, it becomes even harder to influence pricing, utilisation, or trust over time.

6. Delayed cash flow and credit risk

Why do reseller models create credit risk for CPOs?

Under reseller models, CPOs aren’t paid at the moment charging takes place.

Settlement often happens 30-60 days later, creating working-capital gaps, not to mention the counterparty risk. 

If a reseller disputes an invoice, delays payment, or fails financially, revenue for energy already delivered may never be recovered. Cross-border recovery is complex and frequently uneconomical. For capital-intensive infrastructure businesses, delayed and uncertain cash flow is not an inconvenience, it’s a structural financial risk.

7. Billing, compliance, fraud, and brand exposure

As reseller relationships grow, operational and regulatory exposure grows with them.

CPOs may need to:

• issue dozens of invoices
• apply different VAT treatments across jurisdictions
• reconcile payments on multiple timelines

Errors become more likely, disputes become more common, and administrative overhead scales with partner count rather than charger count.

Pricing inconsistency also raises compliance questions under AFIR, which now applies across the EU, while payment flows involving fund collection and onward settlement can fall under PSD2.

Fraud risk is higher in post-paid setups, where stolen RFID cards or shared credentials may only be detected during monthly reconciliation, long after losses have accumulated.

Throughout all of this, brand risk sits with the CPO. Drivers associate confusion, high prices, and poor experiences with the charging network they see, not with the reseller operating in the background.

A structural issue, not an execution failure

The reseller model emerged to solve a real problem: access and early interoperability, and it succeeded at that stage of the market.

But as EV charging matures, its structural side effects have become harder to ignore. Control over pricing, customers, demand signals, and risk has gradually shifted away from the organisations that own and operate the infrastructure.

CPOs do not lose commercial control overnight, they lose it one compromise at a time.

Understanding how that happens is the first step toward changing it.

‍