Prepared for lenders, CDCs, and federal agencies to SBA SOP 50 10 8, USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, and conventional underwriting standards. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
EV-charging feasibility is utilization arithmetic against early-market reality: the corridor traffic, fleet commitments, or site co-tenancy behind session projections, utilization ramp modeled conservatively against observed market data, demand-charge exposure that dominates fast-charging operating cost, and the grant and program funding (NEVI and successors, utility make-ready) at its real value. Fleet-depot projects with contracted vehicles are distinguished sharply from speculative public charging.
Methodology uses traffic and adoption data, observed utilization benchmarks, utility-rate and demand-charge analysis, and equipment cost benchmarks by charger class. Coverage is tested at utilization well below operator pro formas, with contracted fleet revenue separated from public sessions.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Clean-energy engagements are prepared to USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 where REAP and B&I apply — including the energy-production documentation, incentive analysis, and payback arithmetic REAP requires — and to conventional and institutional standards otherwise, with interconnection and incentive risk addressed directly rather than assumed away.
Representative clean-energy work includes a $52,688,000 green carbon project evaluation and renewable-energy feasibility within the firm's USDA REAP and B&I practice. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
A feasibility study for EV charging infrastructure goes well beyond a traffic count and a charger price sheet. The engagement is structured around the specific revenue architecture of the site—whether public direct-current fast charging, Level 2 workplace or multifamily, or a contracted fleet depot—because each has a different utilization pattern, a different cost driver, and a different risk profile for the lender reviewing the file.
Every deliverable is produced as a bound narrative report and a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, published to a secure client portal where the model recalculates live as inputs change.
Demand analysis for EV charging infrastructure begins with the question no operator pro forma answers honestly: what utilization rate is supportable by observable evidence at this specific location, at this point in market development, and how fast can it reasonably ramp? The methodology assembles the answer from multiple independent data layers rather than from a single vendor projection.
Traffic volume and composition data are drawn from state and federal highway counts, FHWA corridor studies, and, where available, third-party origin-destination datasets that identify vehicle mix and stop propensity. EV registration density within the primary and secondary draw areas is sourced from state DMV registration files and utility interconnection data, not from national adoption curves applied without adjustment.
Competitive supply is mapped using utility interconnection queues, permit records, and publicly available charging-network station locators to identify both operating supply and committed future supply within the relevant corridor. Anchor demand—fleet operators, employers, or property managers with documented vehicle commitments—is treated as a separate input from public sessions and is supported by executed agreements or letters of intent rather than assumed.
Utilization benchmarks are drawn from published network operator reporting, trade-association data, and academic corridor studies. The study tests coverage at utilization levels materially below the operator's projection, not at the projection itself, so the lender can see where the break-even sits relative to observable comps.
Four inputs account for the majority of variance in debt-service-coverage ratios across EV charging infrastructure feasibility studies. Each is identified explicitly, sourced to observable data, and stress-tested in the model rather than held at a single point estimate.
The fully linked model allows any reviewer to move any of these inputs independently and observe the effect on coverage without unlocking protected cells or requesting a revised file.
SBA lenders reviewing an EV charging project under SOP 50 10 8 require a feasibility study that demonstrates 1.15x operating debt-service coverage and 1.00x global coverage, with projections grounded in evidence rather than in the applicant's business plan. The specific challenge for this asset class is that utilization is early-stage and comparable sales data is thin: the study must explain how the coverage conclusion was reached and why the utilization assumption is defensible, not simply assert that it is.
USDA Business & Industry and REAP engagements require the same evidentiary discipline, with additional documentation obligations under 7 CFR Part 5001. REAP applications for EV charging infrastructure must include energy-production or energy-savings documentation, incentive analysis, and simple-payback arithmetic meeting program requirements. The feasibility study must address interconnection risk—queue position, transformer capacity, and make-ready cost uncertainty—directly, because USDA reviewers will raise it if the study does not.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus on three EV-specific concerns: demand-charge volatility as a cost driver that does not appear in most other commercial real estate or small-business underwriting; the dependence of revenue on network-operator agreements that can be renegotiated; and the residual value of charging equipment, which depreciates on a technology curve rather than a standard fixed-asset schedule. A study prepared to pass agency review will address all three without being prompted.
The fee for an EV charging infrastructure feasibility study is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of receiving a project description. No fee is contingent on the finding, and the quoted amount does not change if the conclusion is unfavorable. The fixed-fee structure means the analyst has no financial incentive to reach any particular determination—the fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency, not to the borrower.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. The data room for an EV charging engagement typically includes the site lease or ownership documents, the utility interconnection application and any correspondence, the proposed equipment specifications and vendor quotes, any executed fleet agreements or letters of intent, the grant award letters or application status for NEVI or utility make-ready programs, and the operator's existing financial statements if the borrower is an operating company. Rush delivery is available and is discussed at engagement.
When the study is complete, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel workbook are published to a secure client portal. The financial model remains live in the portal: a lender, SBA loan officer, or USDA reviewer can change any input—utilization rate, demand-charge rate, session price, grant timing—and the pro forma, coverage ratios, and sensitivity tables recalculate immediately. No revised file needs to be requested. The statement of conditions is explicit: the study states what must remain true for the conclusion to hold, so the conditions of approval are clear from the document itself.
The fee is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of receiving a project description, and does not change based on the finding. No fee is contingent on a favorable conclusion. Because the scope varies by project size, charger class, and the applicable lending program—SBA, USDA, or conventional—the firm quotes each engagement individually rather than publishing a schedule.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. The data room for an EV charging project typically includes the site documents, utility interconnection correspondence, equipment quotes, any executed fleet agreements, and grant award or application status. Rush delivery is available. Incomplete data rooms are the most common cause of delay.
Three factors distinguish it: utilization is early-stage with limited comparable transaction data; demand charges assessed on peak kilowatt draw can be the largest single operating cost and are volatile across rate schedules; and revenue depends partly on network-operator agreements and grant programs whose timing and renewal terms introduce uncertainty that standard small-business underwriting frameworks were not designed to address.
SBA engagements are prepared specifically to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global, and the evidentiary standards the SOP requires for projections. The study is built to pass lender and agency review without exception items. No study can guarantee loan approval, which is a credit decision made by the lender and the SBA.
Yes. Grant and incentive proceeds—including NEVI formula funds, utility make-ready programs, REAP incentives, and applicable investment tax credit treatment—are inventoried and carried at their documentable value and realistic disbursement timing. Coverage is also tested on a basis that excludes incentives not yet awarded, so the lender can see the project's standing without grant dependence.
The standard data room includes site lease or ownership documents, the utility interconnection application and any correspondence, equipment specifications and vendor quotes, executed fleet agreements or letters of intent if applicable, grant award letters or application status, and the operator's financial statements if the borrower is an operating company. The firm provides a data-room checklist at engagement and will identify gaps before the clock starts on delivery.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.