E-Mobility Financial Modeling Standards (Phase 1 Draft)¶
- Status: Phase 1 draft — synthesized from internet research (Sep 2026)
- Purpose: anchor repo terminology, methodology, and assumptions to mainstream 2/3-wheeler e-mobility and battery-swap financial modeling practice
- Source policy: 5 core adopted sources (see External References); all other surveyed works are read-for-information only
- Posture (ADR 0002): terminology is adopted as defined; published technology and cost assumptions are incumbent benchmarks — low-confidence priors, shown as contrast cases. Our chemistry, China-production-cost, and eMe second-use knowledge sets the base case where documented.
- Next: Phase 2 distills this into the controlled vocabulary in Terminology
- Figures marked "verify" should be re-checked against the cited source before external use
- Repo modeling standard: the BU logic is unitary (unit-agnostic; profiles supply currency, product attributes, coefficients) — see Unitary Core
1. Accepted terminology¶
| Term | Accepted definition | Units |
|---|---|---|
| TCO | Total cost of owning + operating a vehicle over a horizon, per km or per month | $/km, $/month |
| EFC | Equivalent full cycles: cumulative energy throughput ÷ nominal capacity | cycles |
| SOH | Remaining usable capacity vs nominal | % |
| DoD | Depth of discharge per cycle | % |
| Utilization | Active demand ÷ installed capacity (assets in service) | % |
| Availability | Fraction of time an asset is serviceable | % |
| Swap pricing | Revenue per battery exchange or per kWh dispensed | $/swap, $/kWh |
| BaaS | Battery-as-a-service: battery leased, energy/fee paid per swap or subscription | — |
| LCOB | Levelized cost of battery: lifetime battery cost ÷ lifetime energy delivered | $/kWh |
| Overprovisioning | Installed battery capacity ÷ active fleet requirement | ratio |
| Cycle fade | Capacity loss per EFC | %/cycle |
| Calendar fade | Capacity loss with time independent of cycling | %/year |
| Residual value | End-of-life salvage value of battery | % of cost, $ |
Repo acronyms (FFD, EED, VOR, BCS, SNS, EPS, FCS, VRS) remain codenames; each must be defined in the terms above (Phase 2).
2. Typical parameters (Africa/Asia 2-3 wheelers)¶
| Parameter | Typical range | Source basis |
|---|---|---|
| Rider daily distance (delivery) | 80–150 km/day | Nairobi operator data (verify) |
| Energy consumption (2W) | 30–50 Wh/km | Published TCO studies (verify) |
| Battery pack (2W LFP) | 72V, 40–100 Ah (2.9–7.2 kWh) | Product specs (verify) |
| Swap price (Kenya/East Africa) | ~\(1.5–2.2/swap or ~\)0.25–0.35/kWh | Operator disclosures (verify) |
| Grid tariff (Kenya commercial) | ~$0.11–0.19/kWh | KPLC tariffs (verify) |
| Petrol price (Kenya) | ~$1.4/L | Market data (verify) |
| LFP pack cost (delivered) | ~$200–300/kWh incl. duty | BNEF ranges (verify) |
| Cycle life (LFP to 80% SOH) | 1,500–2,500 EFC | Cell datasheets (verify) |
| Calendar fade | 1.5–3%/year | Studies (verify) |
| Import duty (batteries, EAC) | 0–10% | EAC common external tariff (verify) |
| ICE motorcycle price | ~$1,000–1,500 | Market data (verify) |
| Electric motorcycle price | ~$1,500–2,500 | Market data (verify) |
3. Common simplifications in published models¶
- Deterministic demand (no queueing or stochastic arrivals)
- Constant prices, FX, and tariffs over the horizon
- Linear or combined-linear degradation
- Perfect swap availability; no stockouts
- Static tax/policy treatment
- No theft, losses, or no-shows
The repo's overview page already flags queueing theory, discrete-event simulation, and stochastic optimization as the Phase 2/3 methodological evolution — consistent with practice.
4. Sensitivity driver ranking (typical, published models)¶
- Swap price / revenue per kWh
- Utilization (swaps/day/battery or slot)
- Battery CAPEX ($/kWh) and cycle life
- Energy cost (grid/diesel mix)
- Labor / management cost
- Discount rate (WACC)
- FX, tariffs, subsidies
This matches Maxwell's v12 finding that revenue quality dominates and battery cost/life is second.
5. Comparison frameworks¶
- Perspective segmentation: rider vs station operator vs battery investor vs energy supplier — mirrors the repo's BUFM stakeholder split
- Standard KPI outputs: TCO saving vs ICE, payback period, IRR/NPV, utilization, cost per swap/kWh, battery replacement cadence
- Published models typically present one perspective per report; the BUFM coupling approach (all perspectives at once, plus profitability pools) is a differentiator, not a deviation
6. How Maxwell's v12 compares¶
| Aspect | Industry practice | Maxwell v12 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue basis | $/swap or $/kWh | Both used per market |
| Battery life | EFC to 80% SOH | EFC + SOH engine (stronger than typical) |
| Overprovisioning | ratio stated | auto-computed ratio (aligned) |
| Sensitivity | reproducible scenarios | static pasted values (defect) |
| IRR | single convention | two conventions, non-convergent case (defect) |
Use v12 as a comparison artifact only (ADR 0001, decision 5).
References¶
See External References for the curated source list.