Electrifying a fleet is a large, mostly irreversible bet. The right time to find out whether it pays is before the order goes in — so we built the model that answers it, with the discipline to say "not yet" when that's the truth.
A fleet operator needed to know whether electrifying made financial and operational sense before committing capital. Full Stack Energy built a feasibility and ROI model covering vehicles, duty cycles, charging infrastructure, energy costs and grid constraints — turning an emotive, high-stakes decision into one grounded in the operator's own numbers.
Fleet electrification is the kind of decision that gets made with enthusiasm and regretted with spreadsheets. The vehicles are expensive, the charging infrastructure is a project in itself, and the duty cycles that look fine on a slide can fall apart against a real route and a real grid connection.
The operator had the appetite to electrify but not the analysis to justify it — or to scope it. How many vehicles could the routes actually support on a charge? What charging infrastructure would the depot need, and would the grid connection allow it? Where did the total cost of ownership actually land against diesel, once energy, demand charges and downtime were honest?
They didn’t want a vendor’s optimistic case. They wanted their own numbers, modelled properly, so the decision — whichever way it went — could be defended.
A feasibility study is only useful if it’s allowed to say no. We modelled the full picture and reported what it actually showed, including the parts that didn’t flatter the idea.
A feasibility study that can only say yes isn't analysis — it's a sales deck. The value is in being willing to say 'not yet'.
Lead Engineer, Full Stack Energy
The operator got a clear-eyed view of what electrification would cost, what it would require of the depot and grid, and how the whole-life economics compared to staying put — built on their fleet and their routes rather than a generic case. That turned a high-stakes hunch into a decision they could defend to the people who sign off capital.
Crucially, the model also showed what would have to change for a marginal case to become a strong one — energy prices, vehicle costs, route mix. So even where the answer was “wait”, it came with the triggers worth watching, rather than just a no.
The hardest discipline in feasibility work is staying neutral about the answer. Everyone — including us — would rather deliver an exciting yes. But a study that always says go is worthless, and operators can smell it. The credibility of the model comes from its willingness to say wait, which is exactly what makes the yes worth something when it comes.
If you’re weighing electrification, the cheapest mistake to avoid is ordering vehicles before modelling the depot and the grid. The infrastructure and the connection are where good fleet cases quietly die — model those first.
It covers the whole picture: candidate vehicles tested against the fleet's real routes and duty cycles, the depot charging infrastructure the fleet would need, whether the grid connection can power it, and whole-life total cost of ownership versus the incumbent — energy, demand charges, maintenance and downtime included.
Because brochure ranges don't survive a real route. Testing candidate EVs against the fleet's actual duty cycles shows what the operation can genuinely sustain on a charge, so the plan reflects how the vehicles will really be used rather than best-case figures.
Then the model says so. A feasibility study is only useful if it's allowed to say "not yet" — and when the answer is wait, it comes with the triggers worth watching (energy prices, vehicle costs, route mix) that would turn a marginal case into a strong one.
The cheapest way to de-risk a big decision is to model it honestly first. We'll build the case — and tell you what it really says.