Where EV Charging Installers Lose Margin on Commercial Projects - and How to Protect It

The EV charging installation market is growing fast. UK public chargepoints grew by 22% year-on-year in 2025, and a £381m government scheme is backing the installation of 100,000 additional public chargepoints across England. For installation businesses, the pipeline of commercial work - car parks, office developments, retail sites, logistics depots - has never looked stronger. But volume and margin are different things. Across commercial EV charging projects, there are four specific points where profit leaks out quietly, often without the installer realising until the job is closed and the numbers tell a different story.

The Survey That Doesn't Capture the Full Picture

A site survey for an EV charging installation should do two things: identify where chargers will be positioned and establish what it will actually cost to connect them. In practice, many surveys accomplish the first and only partially address the second.

The most common gap is cable run distance. A commercial car park installation might show charger positions on a sketch plan, but the actual route from the distribution board to each charger - following the path of least resistance, avoiding buried services, navigating structural constraints inside a building - can differ significantly from the straight-line estimate. The difference between a 25-metre cable run and a 70-metre run, once you factor in armored cable, containment, groundwork, and labour, can easily reach £500 to £1,500 per circuit. On a six-charger installation, that gap absorbs a substantial portion of the job's margin before a single charger is commissioned.

Ground conditions present a similar problem. A site that looks straightforward at survey stage may require breaking through concrete, dealing with unknown buried services, or reinstatement of a surface the customer expects to be left in the same condition it was found. Groundwork estimates made without test holes or existing utilities records are provisional at best.

The fix at survey stage is to measure actual cable routes rather than straight-line distances, check ground conditions at trench locations before quoting, and apply an explicit provisional sum to any element that cannot be confirmed until the works begin. A quote that shows a clearly labelled provisional sum is honest about uncertainty - and gives the installer a contractual position when that uncertainty resolves in an unfavourable direction.

Grid Connection Costs That Arrive After the Quote Is Accepted

For a residential EV charger installation, grid connection is usually straightforward - the existing supply is adequate, and a DNO notification under G99 or equivalent is all that is required. Commercial installations are different. A depot installing 20 chargers, a supermarket adding charging to its car park, or a business with a modest existing supply wanting to run several 22kW AC chargers will often trigger a supply upgrade requirement. The Distribution Network Operator issues a formal connection offer detailing what reinforcement is needed and what it will cost. That offer typically arrives weeks after the initial site survey.

If an installer has already issued a fixed-price quote based on assumptions about available grid capacity, and the DNO connection offer comes in at £8,000 or £15,000 on top of what was allowed, the installer faces a difficult conversation. The customer believes they have a price. The installer has a cost they did not allow for.

This is one of the most predictable margin problems in commercial EV charging, and it is avoidable. Before issuing a final fixed price on any commercial project where supply capacity is uncertain, the DNO position should be established. An initial DNO enquiry - or at minimum, a load assessment against the existing metered supply - gives the installer the information they need to either price the connection cost correctly or present it as a confirmed provisional sum.

On-Site Scope Changes That Don't Get Priced

Commercial EV charging projects frequently expand during installation. The property owner or facilities manager sees the installation happening and asks about adding two more chargepoints while the trenching is open. The operations director wants a management display added to the wall. A second circuit gets requested to cover a bay that was not in the original scope.

These additions are reasonable requests - and the installer often agrees to them because the customer relationship matters and the crew is already on site. The problem is that each addition carries real costs: additional cable, additional containment, additional circuit protection, additional commissioning time, and additional programming for networked units. If none of those additions are captured on a written variation order with a confirmed price before the work starts, they become part of the job at no extra charge.

A formal change order process - log the request in writing, assess the cost impact including materials and additional labour, issue a written price to the customer, obtain written approval before proceeding - is the operational discipline that keeps commercial projects profitable. It does not damage customer relationships when it is presented as standard practice from the first job.

Grant Administration Timing That Creates Cash Flow Pressure

Government grant schemes - including the EV Infrastructure Grant, Workplace Charging Scheme, and local authority-backed programmes - play a significant role in commercial EV charging projects. They reduce the net cost to the end customer, which often makes projects viable. But grant administration introduces timing risk that can put installers under cash flow pressure if the sequencing is not managed carefully.

The typical risk pattern works like this: a customer confirms they are applying for a grant, the installer places equipment orders to secure lead times, the grant voucher is delayed or the customer's application hits an administrative obstacle, and the installer is now holding equipment on order - with supplier invoices arriving - while the job has not yet started. In markets where chargepoint hardware lead times run to six to twelve weeks for popular models, this timing mismatch can leave a business funding equipment costs that are sitting in a warehouse rather than generating revenue.

The practical discipline is to treat grant confirmation as a prerequisite for equipment procurement. Equipment should be ordered once a confirmed grant voucher or approval letter is in hand, not on the basis that the application is in progress. This single sequencing discipline - confirm funding before committing supply costs - removes most of the cash flow risk that grant administration creates.

The four margin problems above - underscoped cable runs, unpriced DNO connection costs, unlogged variation work, and grant timing that commits procurement too early - are each individually manageable with operational discipline. The survey process, quoting approach, change order policy, and procurement sequencing are all standard practices. The challenge for EV charging businesses growing quickly is maintaining that discipline across multiple active projects simultaneously.

Zigaflow's job management, purchase orders, and works orders give installation teams a single place to track project costs, raise variation orders, and reconcile supplier invoices before the final invoice goes out. When connected to Xero or QuickBooks, actual job margin is visible before invoicing, not after. The commercial opportunity in EV charging is real - the businesses that build margin discipline into their operations now will be the ones that scale it profitably.

Related pages