Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) vs. CAPEX: The Fleet CFO’s Guide to Financing a Large-Scale EV Charging Rollout in Australia

Fleet electrification tends to reach the CFO’s desk in one of two ways. Either the sustainability team brings it as a compliance initiative with a budget problem attached, or the fleet manager brings it as an operational upgrade with a business case that still needs work. In both cases, the financial question is the same: what does this actually cost, and how do we pay for it? 

The charging infrastructure question is where finance teams often get stuck. The vehicles themselves have established acquisition frameworks — fleet leasing, novated structures, operating leases — but the infrastructure sitting behind them is treated as a conventional capital project. That means CAPEX approval, asset depreciation schedules, and a one-time budget ask that can be very large. 

There’s a different model. Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) structures the infrastructure as a service contract rather than an asset purchase. The organisation pays a monthly fee that covers hardware, installation, software, maintenance, and support. No CAPEX. No asset on the balance sheet. Predictable monthly cost tied to the service delivered. 

This article lays out both models in enough detail to run the comparison properly — including the scenarios where CAPEX wins, the scenarios where CaaS wins, and what the numbers actually look like in an Australian fleet context. 

The Case for Traditional CAPEX: When Owning the Infrastructure Makes Sense 

There’s a straightforward argument for owning charging infrastructure outright: over a long enough time horizon, ownership is cheaper than a service contract. The hardware doesn’t generate ongoing revenue for a vendor if you own it. You pay for it once. 

This argument is at its strongest in specific circumstances. 

• The organisation has stable, predictable capital budgets and straightforward access to CAPEX approval 

• The fleet size and composition are unlikely to change significantly over the next five to seven years 

• The site is owned (not leased), meaning infrastructure can be treated as a long-term fixed asset 

• The internal technical capability exists to manage and maintain the infrastructure — or there’s a budget for third-party maintenance contracts 

• The organisation is large enough that the initial capital outlay represents a manageable proportion of total fleet spending 

For government fleets and large corporate operators with established fleet infrastructure budgets, these conditions often apply. Randwick Council’s EVSE-installed fleet charging network, for example, was a CAPEX project — a straightforward decision for a local government with established asset management frameworks and no balance sheet constraints from a service model perspective. 

What CAPEX Costs Look Like in Practice 

The numbers below are indicative ranges for Australian commercial installations. Actual costs vary materially based on site conditions, state, and the specific hardware and load management requirements of the project. 

A fleet of fifty vehicles requiring fifty AC chargers at a single depot, with moderate infrastructure complexity, might carry a total CAPEX of $300,000 to $600,000 plus annual software and maintenance costs of $30,000 to $50,000. Over a ten-year asset life, the total cost of ownership could run to $600,000 to $1.1 million. 

That figure is manageable for large organisations. For mid-sized fleets, it’s a significant budget ask — and one that often competes with other capital priorities. 

Charging-as-a-Service: The OPEX Alternative 

CaaS converts that capital outlay into a predictable monthly service cost. The provider owns and maintains the infrastructure; the organisation pays for access to it. 

What’s included in a well-structured CaaS contract varies by provider, but a comprehensive offering should cover hardware supply, professional installation, load management software, remote monitoring, preventive maintenance, reactive repairs, and hardware replacement at end of life. The organisation doesn’t own an asset — it subscribes to a capability. 

The Balance Sheet Argument 

Under AASB 16 (the Australian equivalent of IFRS 16), most service agreements that give the user control of an identified asset for a period of time are recognised on the balance sheet as right-of-use assets. This catches finance teams who assume CaaS automatically stays off-balance-sheet — it often doesn’t. 

The accounting treatment depends on the specific contract structure. A pure service agreement where the provider retains operational control and can substitute the assets may qualify for off-balance-sheet treatment. An agreement that effectively gives the organisation control of specific identified equipment typically will not. 

This distinction matters for organisations managing balance sheet ratios, lease covenant thresholds, or reporting frameworks. It’s a conversation that needs to happen between the finance team and the provider’s commercial team early in the procurement process — not during contract execution. 

Practical guidance: Ask providers specifically whether their CaaS contracts have been reviewed for AASB 16 compliance and whether they can structure agreements to support your preferred accounting treatment. The better providers have done this work and can advise on the options. 

What CaaS Costs Look Like in Practice 

CaaS pricing in the Australian market is not yet standardised — it varies by provider, contract term, fleet size, and the scope of services included. The ranges below reflect current market pricing for commercial fleet deployments. 

Using the same fifty-charger fleet example: at $120 per charger per month on a five-year CaaS contract, the total cost is $360,000 — lower than the CAPEX range — with no upfront spend, no maintenance budget, and no hardware replacement risk. At $160 per month, the five-year cost is $480,000, which sits mid-range against the CAPEX scenario. 

The break-even point — where CAPEX becomes cheaper than CaaS over the full asset life — typically falls somewhere between seven and twelve years, depending on the hardware and maintenance costs assumed. Below that threshold, and particularly in scenarios where the fleet size might change materially, CaaS is often the more financially rational choice. 

How Grant Funding Changes the Comparison 

The federal government and several state governments offer grant programs that can materially change the CAPEX economics. 

ARENA has funded several large fleet electrification projects, including Toll’s TruckVolt program. The NSW Government’s EV Ready Grants program, the Victorian Government’s commercial fleet programs, and various state energy efficiency schemes can offset infrastructure costs by 20 to 50 percent in eligible projects. 

Grants change the CAPEX case significantly. A $400,000 infrastructure project that attracts a 40 percent grant becomes a $240,000 CAPEX commitment — at which point the ten-year economics look materially better than a CaaS contract. 

The catch is that grants are competitive, time-limited, and often tied to specific vehicle or technology types. They also require CAPEX commitment — most grant programs fund asset purchases, not service subscriptions. CaaS projects generally don’t qualify. 

For organisations that can move quickly and have projects that meet eligibility criteria, the grant-adjusted CAPEX case can be compelling. For organisations that can’t, or whose projects don’t qualify, CaaS remains the stronger starting point. 

Note for procurement teams: Grant programs change frequently. ARENA’s programs are updated through their website at arena.gov.au. State-level programs should be verified directly with the relevant government agency, as eligibility criteria and funding availability shift year to year. 

A Decision Framework for Fleet Finance Teams 

Rather than prescribing a recommendation, what follows is a framework for working through the decision with the variables that matter most for your organisation. 

Question 1: What is the certainty of your fleet size over five years? 

If your electric fleet is expected to grow substantially — which it likely is, given current adoption trajectories — CaaS offers flexibility that CAPEX doesn’t. Adding chargers under a CaaS contract typically involves a contract amendment. Adding chargers under a CAPEX model involves another capital project, another budget approval, and potentially another infrastructure upgrade. 

Question 2: Do you own the site? 

Owned sites make CAPEX more attractive — the infrastructure is a genuine asset enhancement. Leased sites complicate the picture. Installing hundreds of thousands of dollars of electrical infrastructure in a building you don’t own, on a lease that might not be renewed, is a risk that CaaS structures avoid. The infrastructure stays with the provider if you leave. 

Question 3: What is your internal technical capability? 

CaaS includes managed maintenance. CAPEX infrastructure needs either an internal team or external maintenance contracts. For fleet operators whose core business is logistics, transport, or something entirely unrelated to electrical infrastructure, paying a provider to worry about charger uptime is often worth the cost premium. 

Question 4: Are you eligible for government grants? 

If yes, model the grant-adjusted CAPEX carefully. At a 30–40 percent grant offset, owned infrastructure over a ten-year horizon often comes out ahead of CaaS. If not, CaaS is probably the cleaner financial model. 

Question 5: How does the accounting treatment affect your reporting obligations? 

If keeping the liability off the balance sheet matters — for covenant reasons, reporting frameworks, or investor communication — the AASB 16 treatment of any CaaS contract needs to be clarified with both your auditor and the provider before signing. 

The Hybrid Approach: What Some Large Fleets Are Doing 

Several large fleet operators are running hybrid models — CAPEX for the core depot infrastructure (switchboard, cable, distribution panels, civil works) and CaaS for the charger hardware and software layer on top. 

This structure makes sense when the site infrastructure has a twenty-year life and the charger technology has a five to seven-year life. Owning the long-lived, stable infrastructure and subscribing to the fast-moving technology layer captures the best of both models. 

It also allows the organisation to negotiate better terms on both sides — the civil contractor isn’t bundling in software margin, and the CaaS provider isn’t pricing in civil risk. 

There is no universally correct answer to the CaaS versus CAPEX question. What there is, is a set of variables that when modelled properly produce a clear recommendation for a specific organisation in a specific situation. The organisations that get this decision right are the ones that do the modelling before selecting a procurement path, rather than after.