Car Charging Group Raises $6 Million In Funding

JAN 3 2015 BY MARK KANE 14

CarCharging Header

CarCharging Header

Car Charging Group announced that it raised net proceeds of up to $6 million with current institutional shareholders (the offering consisted of convertible preferred securities with a conversion price of $0.70 and warrants exercisable at $1.00).

Proceeds will be shifted to three areas:

  • Strengthen CarCharging’s balance sheet;
  • Build on the past year’s progress; and
  • Provide growth capital for expanding the Company’s network.

The company’s first goal is probably to improve its monthly cash flow – to not repeat the acquired ECOtality end.  For Car Charging, revenues from charging station users was very small compared to costs. Interesting is that in 2015, there is expected expansion of the charging network, however we don’t have any details on how much the network could grow.

“Two million of the funds were disbursed at closing, with the remainder of the funds to be disbursed based upon successful achievement of operating milestones over the next two quarters.

The Company also announced that it has undertaken specific restructuring actions to improve monthly cash flow, including initiatives that are expected to reduce general and administrative expenses by more than 40%. CarCharging has also hired a seasoned interim Chief Financial Officer to help lead the Company through its strategic plan towards profitability.”

Michael D. Farkas, CEO of CarCharging stated:

“This capital raise occurs as CarCharging prepares for further expansion in 2015. As we pursue both top line growth and a path to profitability, we intend to maintain a strict focus on managing cash while investing in technology and business development initiatives to address the increasing need for quick, convenient, and cost-effective EV charging services. We believe that this transaction will help ensure our ability to capitalize on numerous opportunities to grow and further improve the Company’s operations, including unlocking the value of our significant  equipment inventory. I personally want to thank our shareholders for their passion and patience. The fact that the current shareholders were willing to purchase securities with stock priced at a substantial premium to the current market is both encouraging and supportive of the management team’s positive outlook for the business.”

Categories: Charging


Leave a Reply

14 Comments on "Car Charging Group Raises $6 Million In Funding"

newest oldest most voted

Same company that charges .04/minute for 3.3KW charging? That’s $2.40 for 1 hour and about 4 kWh of energy. Four hours to fill a volt is over $9.00. Gas is $2.50.

Yeah, they own Blink that charges $.04 a minute at any charging rate from any on-board charger. I kind of blame both GM and the charging companies.

First GM could offer an option for a 6.6 kw on board charger without probably affecting cost over a large volume of base models with the standard 3.6 kw on board chargers for the upcoming 2016 Volt. That would still be more expensive than gas but half of what it costs for us Volt owners now.

Second Blink could very easily allow their chargers to simply look at how much electricity is going into the on board charger and determine which customers are charging at 3.3 kw vs. 6.6 kw and adjust the per minute charge rate. If it’s 3.3 kw then charge $.02 a minute. But that would involve them spending more money updating the software and why would they care.

Blink does charge by kWh where it is legal to do so.

They charge by the hour where they are not allowed to charge by kWh consumed.


This billing problem goes on forever.
Since it’s not permitted to charge kWh, why they don’t charge an equivalent like KVA.
You just go around a very simple problem.
It could be time intensity or time amp or any kind of thing that fits à loophole in this law, but would do almost as good.

In our State it’s not allowed to bill by the kWh but I have seen a site doing that. Who would or could enforce a rule like that?

CarCharging Promises To Bring Blink Level 2 Back To 30 Amps

Blink charges by the kWh in PA ! =D—–

kVA is still a unit of energy, and also one utilities frequently use, so it’s way too obvious to get around the law.

Using a unit of time is the easiest way, just need to adjust based on type of charger (AC or DC) and perhaps EVSE power (3.3kW or 6.6kW). However, if it was adjustable based on the onboard charger of the car rather than the EVSE, then that might run afoul of the law.

Since the cost to install a public EVSE is pretty high, they must be aware that these things are very long-term investments.

Still. I would love to see more stations around here in DF/W. We just barely have any infrastructure to talk about compared to California and other places.

My wet finger in the air tells me that they won’t be installing many additional 3.3/6.6 kW managed network operated public charging stations. If you do the calcs on the equipment costs, installation costs, financing costs, depreciation, operating costs, maintenance provisions, against a plausible revenue side, it looks either terrible or high risk. Throw whatever rule of thumb costs and ratios into your business case model, and if you assume 8 hr daily utilisation and 80% availability, it all looks very questionable for a 6.6 kW charging station, but potentially ok for a 3.3 kW station (but as others have pointed out, where is the customer value for 3kW ~ 10 miles range per hour ($2.40). There really is no revenue business to be had in public L2 charging stations if people have good home charging capabilities/and or the choice to simply use gas/petrol when rarely needed. Free destination charging is a different matter. As commented on elsewhere in Insideevs, if I recall correctly, about 1/3 of the CarCharging Group’s charging stations have been inactive without costumers. Presumably there has been some improvement but it’s still a poor asset portfolio, even if acquired at low cost. Well positioned DC fast… Read more »

EV range may be increasing. But I expect a flood of short-range PHEV vehicles over the next decade. These people will want to charge up their cars. But they aren’t likely to go out of their way to do it. So it is important that charging stations exist at the right locations. Destination charging, as you say.

Fundamentally the key feature of a plug-in HEV is that it doesn’t need to be plugged in, especially when inconvenient. Yes, there will be first adopters and keeners that obsessively go out of their way to avoid using any gas, but John Q. Public simply wants to get there, do his business and get out efficiently. No mainstream user wants to hang around searching for an outlet and waiting for a charge, especially when it costs more than using gas! Get on with your day! A viable PHEV (including the EREV Volt) has to be sized so the range fits the user’s “normal” daily routine, anything outside that routine means using gas. Mainstream PHEV users will normally only ever charge when parked overnight, which is why PHEVs only need L1/L2 charging and come with J1772 sockets. Public charging is really best suited for BEVs, where there is no other choice. And for BEVs the most convenient solution is DC fast charging, either at the destination, or en route. In fact, there may be a case against combined L2/QCDC public charging so self sufficient PHEVs don’t clog up the spaces desperately needed by BEVs with depleted batteries. Over time, the public… Read more »

I’m really hoping they use that money for maintenance on existing infrastructure and to improve reliability especially of QC locations by adding additional QC stations to popular locations first.

The QC stations are unreliable at best and the L2 stations aren’t much better. The time it takes CCG to repair a station can be measured in months.

If you can’t rely on a station to be operating when you need it, you’re simply not going to use it. It’s too much hassle.

Quality EVSE is critical. The cost to send out a field tech to preform maintenance can wipe out months of charging session revenue.

Maintaining network data communication and monthly payment services are high fixed cost wether an EVSE is used or not. A DCFC has an advantage as can service 5-15 sessions per day vs. 0-3 sessions for a Level2 charging stall. Having a sustainable business model and paid usage at charging stalls ensures the EVSE remain operational in the long term.

I think we have to look at this “long term”. Right now, investing in EVSEs is really risky, but 20 years from now– one would hope that EVs are a lot more prevalent and therefore a charging infrastructure could represent a pretty significant cash flow. The cost of gasoline is also going to rise exponentially so this market could change pretty significantly in the near term– say 20 years out or so.

Charging by kwh prevents the Prius and Volts from hoarding the public stations!!!