Fuel Retail in an EV World: When Site Value Transitions from Gallons to Convenience

“Rendering of next-generation EV charging stations featuring enclosed lounges, designed as part of a

Executive Summary

The U.S. fuel retail industry is approaching a pivotal transition as electric vehicle (EV) adoption accelerates. Historically, gas station site value has been tied to fuel throughput (gallons sold), but the coming years will see asset value shift toward convenience-oriented revenue streams and alternate uses. According to the Loan Analytics database (April 2025), U.S. fuel dealer industry revenue rebounded to $49.3 billion in 2025 after the pandemic-era slump. However, long-term forecasts show stagnant growth – essentially flat at ~$49.0 billion by 2030 – reflecting headwinds from electrification and efficiency gains. This report provides a data-driven outlook on how these trends will impact site valuation, with an emphasis on rural vs. urban dynamics, over the next five years (2025–2030).

Key findings include:

• Industry Disruption: Rapid EV adoption, volatile oil pricing, and changing consumer preferences are disrupting fuel retailers. High fuel prices drove short-term revenue spikes in 2022, but 0% growth is projected through 2030, indicating the traditional fuel business is hitting a ceiling. Meanwhile, non-fuel sales (convenience store, foodservice) are becoming critical for profitability. In fact, fuel is estimated to comprise ~60% of a typical station’s sales but only ~30% of gross profit, given much thinner margins than in-store goods. The “gallons to convenience” pivot is already evident in leading chains focusing on foodservice and retail offerings.

• EV Adoption Surge (2025–2030): EVs are set to gain a significant share of new vehicle sales by 2030, though with sharp state-by-state variation. Nationally, EVs are expected to make up roughly 27–30% of new car sales by 2030, up from around 10% in 2025. Some forecasts envision ~33 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030. California and other Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate states will far outpace the average – e.g. California requires 68% of new sales to be EV by 2030 – whereas many rural and Southern states may lag (in 2025 Mississippi had the lowest EV adoption at just 0.21% of vehicles). This uneven adoption means rural fuel retailers face a different timeline: slower EV uptake provides a brief reprieve in fuel demand decline, but also raises concerns that rural sites could be left with outdated infrastructure and fewer alternative revenue options when the transition eventually hits. Federal programs (such as funding for 500,000 public chargers by 2030theicct.org) aim to ensure the charging network reaches underserved highway corridors and rural areas, but as of 2025 charging infrastructure remains concentrated in cities and interstates.

• Impact on Site Valuation: Urban vs. rural site economics are diverging. In urban and high-adoption markets, gasoline volumes may erode faster, yet these sites often sit on valuable real estate or dense customer bases that enable alternative uses – from EV charging hubs to expanded convenience retail or even redevelopment. In rural areas, fuel demand may persist slightly longer due to fewer EVs (rural EV adoption is ~40% lower than urban), but once decline sets in, alternate uses are limited by lower traffic and population density. A rural highway travel center might capitalize on EV charging if it captures long-distance travelers, but many small-town gas stations risk stranded asset status if they cannot generate sufficient non-fuel revenue. We explore how site value is increasingly derived from factors beyond fuel gallons – including store sales per square foot, foodservice offerings, and strategic location for logistics or charging.

• Lender Considerations: Lenders financing gas station properties are recalibrating their risk models. Collateral that was once underwritten primarily on fuel cash flows is now evaluated for its “EV resilience.” Key considerations include valuation adjustments (lower multiples for fuel-dependent revenue streams), requiring borrowers to budget for capital expenditures (e.g. adding EV chargers or store upgrades), and tighter debt service coverage ratios to buffer potential declines in fuel volume. Lenders are also scrutinizing debt tenors – shorter loan terms or amortization schedules – to ensure repayment before the most severe demand loss materializes. Stress-testing is essential: for example, modeling a scenario where gallon sales drop 5–10% annually in high-EV regions and assessing whether the operator could still cover debt from convenience sales. Environmental liability (underground tank removal) remains a lending risk, especially if a site’s highest future use is redevelopment; lenders may demand reserves or insurance to cover these transition costs.

• Investor Strategies: Fuel station investors and owners are pivoting their portfolios to maintain yield resilience. Strategies include retrofitting sites (installing EV fast chargers, solar canopies, etc.), format transformation (expanding convenience store footprint, adding quick-serve restaurants or co-located services), and portfolio rebalancing – for instance, divesting legacy fuel-only sites in markets with aggressive EV mandates while acquiring or developing larger, amenity-rich travel centers in growth corridors. Notably, new store development and redevelopment initiatives have shown strong ROI: modern convenience store formats with enhanced foodservice are delivering significant sales uplift, with operators reporting “raze-and-rebuild” projects yielding robust returns even in the current interest rate environment. Investors are also eyeing partnerships: major oil companies and convenience retailers are teaming up with automakers on charging networks (e.g. Pilot/Flying J partnering with GM for 2,000+ chargers; 7-Eleven’s plan for a large EV charger network). These moves aim to future-proof assets and capture new revenue streams. However, early-stage returns on charging infrastructure can be slim – a typical 150 kW fast charger unit (costing ~$100k) may only reach breakeven at ~15% utilization (roughly 7 charging sessions per day), a level which many locations won’t see until later in the decade. Thus, investors must balance short-term ROI with long-term positioning, often leveraging government incentives (like the 30% federal tax credit for charging stations in certain areas) to improve the economics.

In summary, the fuel retail asset class is at an inflection point. Lenders will need to proactively manage credit risk and collateral values in light of declining gasoline consumption, while investors should adopt a forward-looking approach – shifting value propositions from pumping gallons to providing convenience, energy, and services for an evolving vehicle fleet. The following sections delve into the industry’s outlook, EV penetration forecasts by state, the nuanced urban vs. rural impact on site valuation, and detailed implications for stakeholders.

Industry Overview and Disruption Drivers

The U.S. fuel retail industry (encompassing gas stations and fuel dealers) has experienced a roller-coaster ride in recent years. After a pandemic-induced drop in 2020 when industry revenue plunged to $35.6 billion, fuel sales rebounded strongly on the back of surging oil prices in 2021–2022. By 2022, industry revenue spiked to $51.4 billion as supply shocks (e.g. the Russia–Ukraine war) drove up fuel prices and dealers passed on costs to consumers. This volatility is evident in annual growth swings – double-digit increases followed by normalization as oil prices receded in 2023. According to the Loan Analytics database, industry revenue in 2025 is estimated at $49.27 billion. This figure represents a 6.7% compound annual growth from the 2020 trough, but crucially, the growth has been price-driven rather than volume-driven. Fuel demand in volume terms has largely plateaued, and the industry’s own outlook calls for a mere –0.1% CAGR from 2025 to 2030, essentially flat-lining revenue around the $49 billion level.

Multiple disruption drivers are converging to cap growth and reshape business models:

• Electrification and Alternative Fuels: The rise of EVs is the most profound long-term threat to the traditional gasoline-centric model. Every percentage point increase in EV market share translates to lost gasoline gallon sales. In parallel, improved fuel efficiency of new internal combustion vehicles and the growth of hybrid cars mean even ICE (internal combustion engine) drivers buy fewer gallons. The Loan Analytics industry data already flags competition from electric heating and natural gas in related fuel markets (for home heating oil, etc.), which foreshadows what gas stations face on the transportation side. While EVs still comprise a single-digit percentage of U.S. vehicles on the road, their exponential sales growth will erode fuel volumes over the next decade.

• Policy and Regulatory Pressures: Environmental regulations are accelerating the shift. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards continually push gasoline vehicles to be more efficient, and at the state level, ZEV mandates (like California’s) will force automakers to sell a majority EVs by 2030. The federal government’s climate initiatives are also bolstering EV adoption through incentives and substantial funding for charging infrastructure. Conversely, some policy volatility (such as the temporary rollback of EV targets under the previous administration) injected uncertainty, but the overall regulatory trajectory favors electrification and carbon reduction. This creates a one-way secular trend that fuel retailers must navigate.

• External Competition and Substitutes: Even beyond EVs, gas stations contend with alternatives to gasoline mobility. Ridesharing and urbanization mean fewer young consumers own cars; biofuels and renewable diesel are emerging (though often integrated into the fuel supply chain rather than displacing fuel retail). In rural heating fuel markets, many new homes opt for electric heat pumps or natural gas instead of heating oil, which is analogous to drivers opting for EVs instead of gasoline. These substitutes slowly shrink the addressable market for fuel dealers.

• Consumer Behavior Shifts: Consumer expectations at fuel stops have evolved. Drivers increasingly seek one-stop convenience – not just fuel, but fresh food, good coffee, package drop-offs, and clean restrooms. This trend has turned large-format convenience stores (think Buc-ee’s in Texas or Sheetz/Wawa on the East Coast) into destinations that generate significant revenue from non-fuel items. As a result, operators with a strong foodservice and retail offering are capturing more customer spend (and time on site) than those relying purely on gas and cigarettes. This dynamic is crucial as fuel gallons alone are a low-margin, high-volatility business. Industry analysts note that while fuel drives 58% of an average convenience store’s sales, in-store items drive the majority of profit. For example, one leading rural chain (Casey’s General Stores) reported gross margins of roughly 12% on fuel vs. 58% on prepared foods, underscoring the profit imbalance. The imperative for traditional fuel retailers is clear: grow the higher-margin convenience sales to compensate for stagnating fuel sales.

• Technology and Mobility Trends: Additional headwinds include the potential impact of autonomous vehicles and mobility-as-a-service. Widespread ridesharing or future self-driving car fleets could reduce per-capita vehicle ownership and consolidate fueling/charging to central depots, reducing visits to retail stations. While these effects are more speculative and longer-term, major oil companies and retailers are hedging bets. Notably, Shell announced plans to close 1,000 gas stations globally as part of its energy transition strategy to focus more on EV charging and sustainable energy. Such moves illustrate that even oil majors foresee fewer fuel retail sites in the future, or at least a very different composition of energy services offered at those sites.

Amid these disruptors, the industry still exhibits some resilience in the short term. U.S. convenience store and fuel station valuations have remained strong through 2024, buoyed by steady cash flows and investor appetite for hard assets. In fact, convenience retail is often cited as a defensive sector – offering “recurring traffic, stable demand, and strong unit economics”. Recent market analysis showed high EBITDA multiples for gas station/c-store acquisitions, reflecting confidence that these businesses can adapt (via consolidation and diversification). Many operators and investors believe that, at least for the next few years, fuel retail will remain essential – especially in areas where EV penetration is low – and that stores can pivot to new profit centers in parallel with selling fuel. This optimism is evident in ongoing M&A activity: over 295 c-store transactions in the past decade as chains seek scale and improved efficiency.

However, this optimism is tempered by a “watchful eye on long-term headwinds” from EVs and related trends. Industry insiders acknowledge that EV proliferation and autonomous fleets pose eventual threats to the current business model, even if immediate impacts are modest. Fuel retailers are not standing still – many are piloting EV charging programs now and using them to draw customers for longer dwell times in-store. At the same time, they are doubling down on making their convenience offers more compelling – expanding fresh food, partnering with quick-serve restaurants, and modernizing facilities. The logic is to bolster alternative revenue streams in advance of fuel declines, effectively transitioning site value drivers from “gallons” to “convenience.”

In summary, the fuel retail industry’s status quo is under assault from technological and societal shifts. The next five years (2025–2030) are likely to be the most transformative the sector has seen in over a century. Lenders and investors in this space must grasp these disruption drivers to make informed decisions, as detailed in the subsequent sections.

EV Adoption Forecast and State-Level EV Penetration

EV adoption is the linchpin factor in forecasting fuel retail’s future. All signs point to rapid growth in EV market share through 2030, but critically, the trajectory will not be uniform across the United States. State policies and demographics create a patchwork of adoption rates – a coast/interior and urban/rural divide. Here we provide forecasts for EV uptake and the implications for fuel demand, highlighting state-level differences and infrastructure trends relevant to lenders and investors.

Forecast EV share of new light-duty vehicle sales in the U.S. (national average) vs. California mandate, 2025–2030. Nationally, EVs are projected to reach ~27–30% of new sales by 2030, while California’s regulation requires ~68% EV sales by 2030. This illustrates the stark gap between average adoption and leading-edge markets.

National Outlook: Recent forecasts converge on the view that roughly one-quarter to one-third of new vehicles sold in the U.S. will be electric by 2030. A March 2025 Reuters industry report noted PwC’s expectation of 30% of new car sales being EVs by 2030, and BloombergNEF’s mid-2025 outlook similarly projects about 27% of 2030 new car sales as EVs (revised down from earlier optimism of nearly 50%). In absolute terms, this means annual EV sales could reach ~4 million units in 2030 (up from ~1 million in 2023). Cumulatively, the U.S. EV fleet would grow from around 3 million in 2025 to on the order of 15–20+ million EVs on the road by 2030. The Department of Energy’s NREL projects an even higher figure – 33 million EVs by 2030 – under an accelerated scenario. For context, that would still be only ~10–12% of all light-duty vehicles, but a huge jump from ~1% in 2020. The growth curve is steepest in the latter half of the decade, as automakers roll out dozens of new EV models and battery costs decline. Crucially, many of these EVs will be concentrated in certain geographies (and largely in personal/passenger use, as commercial fleet electrification of trucks and heavy equipment will lag).

State-Level Leaders vs. Laggards: The national average obscures big regional differences. As of mid-decade, California is the undisputed EV leader, with about 8% of new car sales already electric in 2020 (four times the U.S. average then) and over 1.8 million EVs on the road (≈5.8% of all cars in the state by 2024). California’s Advanced Clean Cars II mandate legally requires an aggressive ramp-up: 35% EV of new sales by 2026, 68% by 2030, and 100% by 2035. A dozen other states (including New York, Washington, New Jersey, etc.) have adopted or plan to adopt similar ZEV mandates. Washington State, for example, is targeting 100% EV new sales by 2030 for an even faster transition in alignment with its climate goals. These “ZEV states” will likely see EVs become the majority of new car sales by the late 2020s, far outpacing the national average. Indeed, one analysis assumes the ZEV states collectively reach ~61% EV share of new sales by 2030 if they implement their announced policies fully.

By contrast, many states in the central and southern U.S. are EV laggards. Factors such as fewer state incentives, longer driving distances, lower urbanization, and a cultural affinity for large combustion-engine vehicles have kept EV adoption low so far. As of 2025, the lowest-adoption state was Mississippi, with only 0.21% of vehicles being electric. Other rural states like Wyoming and North Dakota also have well under 1% EVs in operation and negligible EV sales share. These states lack the dense charging infrastructure and policy push seen on the coasts. While EV adoption will eventually penetrate all markets (especially as automakers’ EV offerings expand and used EVs become available), by 2030 it’s reasonable to project some states might still have <20% of new sales as EVs and perhaps only a few percent of vehicles on the road electric. Rural vs. urban divides even occur within states: affluent urban/suburban counties tend to buy EVs at much higher rates than rural counties. The U.S. Department of Transportation notes that EV adoption in rural areas is roughly 40% lower than in urban areas today, reflecting both consumer differences and infrastructure gaps. This gap is expected to persist into 2030.

To summarize the spread, here is a snapshot of EV adoption projections by 2030 in different U.S. markets:

Region/State	Projected EV Share of New Sales (2030)	Notes
California	~68% (mandated target)	Leading policy-driven adoption (ZEV mandate).
ZEV Policy States	~50–60% (varies by state)	E.g. WA, NY aiming for majority EV sales by 2030.
U.S. National Avg.	~27–30%	Based on cumulative automaker commitments & trends.
Low-adoption States	<20% (est.) – e.g. MS, WY likely in low teens	Infrastructure and policy lag; currently <1% of fleet.

These disparities have direct implications for fuel retailers. In high-adoption states (California, Northeast, Pacific Northwest), gasoline demand is likely to decline faster – we may see outright volume contractions by late-decade as the EV fleet size reaches critical mass. In those markets, any gas station’s business plan must assume fewer fill-ups and should be incorporating EV chargers or other revenue to compensate. Conversely, in slow-adoption regions (Southeast, parts of Midwest and Great Plains), gasoline volumes may continue growing modestly or plateauing through 2030, giving retailers a bit more runway. Lenders in those regions might see fuel-backed cash flows remain stable for longer, but they must also recognize a potential cliff beyond 2030 if and when the transition catches up rapidly (sometimes called the “S-curve” effect, where adoption goes from slow to fast suddenly).

EV Infrastructure Build-Out: A key factor enabling EV adoption – and an opportunity for site value creation – is the expansion of charging infrastructure. The availability of convenient, fast charging is crucial for EV drivers, especially in rural and highway locations, and will influence how valuable a given site could be as an EV charging hub. The U.S. federal government has set a goal to deploy 500,000 public EV charging stations by 2030, backed by programs like the NEVI formula grants (which provide $5 billion to states for highway corridor fast chargers). For perspective, there were only about 133,000 public chargers in 2020, so this target represents a nearly fourfold increase. States are already using NEVI funds to install charging every 50 miles along interstates, which will particularly benefit rural stretches that are currently “charging deserts.” Private investment is also pouring in: automakers are investing $1+ billion in a joint venture to build 30,000 fast chargers across North America by 2030, and energy companies and retailers are partnering up (as noted earlier with Pilot, 7-Eleven, and others).

Real-world examples highlight the trend: Mercedes-Benz is rolling out branded charging hubs at 30 Buc-ee’s travel centers (large format highway convenience stores) by 2024, targeting locations “along key travel corridors and EV charging deserts” in states like Texas, Alabama, and Florida. Buc-ee’s, famous for 100+ gas pumps at some sites, had lagged in EV infrastructure but now sees the need to cater to EV drivers. Similarly, Pilot/Flying J (a major truck stop chain) and Simon Property Group (mall operator) are adding hundreds of chargers via partnerships. These deployments indicate that well-located sites (especially highway and retail destinations) are being upgraded to serve EVs, and those upgrades can attract customers and new revenue. For rural communities, installing fast chargers at the local gas station could turn it into a regional charging stop, preserving its relevance as gasoline sales eventually dwindle.

Nonetheless, utilization of charging infrastructure is a critical variable. Today, EV charger usage is relatively low on average – one industry source noted that as of 2024, the average fast charger was only utilized about 15–19% of the time (meaning 3.5 to 4.5 hours of active charging per day). This is the highest it’s ever been and is expected to climb as more EVs hit the road. McKinsey & Co. analyzed a hypothetical charging station’s economics and found 15% utilization (≈7 charging sessions per charger per day) is around the break-even point for a four-charger station, yielding ~$270k annual revenue against ~$310k in costs. In that scenario, the station operates at a small loss without subsidies. With higher utilization – which will come as EV adoption grows – such a station would turn profitable, especially if it can also earn income from drivers spending time in a convenience store during charging. By 2030, as EVs become more mainstream, we anticipate utilization rates improving substantially (possibly 30%+ at busy sites), which will make EV charging a profitable service and a real contributor to site value. Until then, many operators will view charging installations as a strategic investment or even a loss leader to drive foot traffic, rather than a big profit center on its own.

Importantly, rural vs. suburban vs. urban charging patterns differ. NREL’s research projects that by 2030, 60% of EVs will reside in suburban areas, 20% rural, 20% urban. Urban EV drivers will rely heavily on public fast chargers (expected to supply ~40% of urban charging needs), because many city residents lack home charging. In suburban and rural areas, however, most charging will occur at home on Level 1/2 (82% of rural charging energy, says NREL). This means rural gas stations that add chargers might see sporadic use mainly from travelers passing through, rather than local EV owners (who charge overnight at home). Lenders and investors should internalize this: a rural site’s EV charger ROI may depend on its location on travel routes (capturing long-distance drivers) more than local EV population. In suburban areas, there’s a stronger case for public chargers at retail centers since a large absolute number of EVs will be present and not all have home charging (multi-family housing, etc.).

In summary, by 2025–2030 we expect a dramatic rise in EV presence on U.S. roads, with leading states far ahead of the pack. Fuel consumption will begin to decline first in those high-adoption markets. Charging infrastructure is racing to catch up, and the availability of charging will in turn reinforce EV adoption in a virtuous cycle. Fuel retailers and their financiers must track these metrics closely on a state and local level – national averages won’t tell the whole story. The next section translates these forecasts into concrete impacts on site valuation, contrasting urban and rural scenarios.

Impact on Site Valuation (Urban vs. Rural)

The core question for lenders and investors is how the EV transition (and broader changes in the fuel retail business model) will affect the value of fuel retail sites. Traditionally, a gas station property’s value has been tied to its fuel sales (often expressed as a multiple of annual gallons sold or fuel gross profit) plus any convenience store income. Now, as the industry pivots, valuation methodologies and drivers are evolving. This section examines how urban and rural sites may diverge in value trajectory, and what factors will drive a location’s worth in an EV-dominated world. We consider real estate value, business value, and the concept of “highest and best use” of these properties.

Urban Sites: From Fuel Stops to Multi-Use Hubs or Redevelopment Opportunities. Urban fuel retail sites (including those in suburbs and busy corridors) often occupy valuable land at high-traffic intersections. In a future where gasoline sales diminish, these sites have options: they can be repurposed or enhanced to serve new purposes. Already we see site value shifting from fuel volume to alternate uses:

• Enhanced Convenience Retail: Many urban gas stations are essentially mini-shopping hubs, and this trend will intensify. A station in a city or suburb with heavy foot and vehicle traffic can expand its convenience store, add seating, maybe integrate with other retail (coffee shop, fast food, package lockers, etc.). The fuel pumps become just one of several services. The revenue per square foot of the convenience store area is often much higher than that of the fuel forecourt. For instance, top-quartile convenience stores achieve ~$75 of inside sales per square foot, about double the bottom quartile’s ~$37. By increasing the store footprint or optimizing product mix (especially high-margin prepared foods and beverages), an urban site can significantly boost cash flow even if fuel gallons decline. Lenders might start valuing such properties more like retail businesses (using EBITDA multiples) rather than strictly tying value to gallons.

• EV Charging Destinations: Urban areas will have the greatest density of EVs and also many drivers who cannot charge at home (apartment dwellers). This creates an opportunity for gas station sites to become charging destinations. An urban site that installs a bank of fast chargers could attract a steady flow of EV drivers who will spend 20–30 minutes on site. The incremental store sales from these captive customers can be substantial – EV drivers might spend more time (and money) in-store than a gas customer who pumps for 5 minutes and leaves. There are examples already: convenience chain 7-Eleven announced its “7Charge” network aiming to build one of the largest fast-charger networks at its stores, explicitly to leverage its store presence while cars charge. Another example is a flagship EV charging station in Santa Monica, CA (as reported by Fast Company) that repurposed an old gas station into an EV charging hub with a cafe and amenities, illustrating the concept of “EV fueling lounges”. The real estate implication is that sites with enough space and power capacity to host multiple fast chargers will retain utility and value, even if fuel sales wane. They may also benefit from new revenue streams (utility rebates, LCFS credits in California, etc., for dispensing electricity).

• Redevelopment Potential: In densely populated cities, some gas station lots are being eyed for complete redevelopment into different uses (residential, office, etc.), especially as their fuel sales dwindle making the existing business less profitable. For example, in many large cities (New York, San Francisco) the number of gas stations has been declining for years as landowners sell sites to developers. An urban station that today might be worth $X based on fuel/c-store cash flow could be worth much more as a parcel for a mixed-use building. However, environmental remediation (removing underground tanks, soil cleanup) can be a barrier and cost that must be accounted for. Still, lenders may increasingly look at alternative-use appraisals: “If this site wasn’t a gas station, what else could it be?” In high-value areas, the land may ultimately be worth more without the station. This doesn’t mean immediate closures – rather, it places a long-term floor under the value (the dirt value for future development), while the current business continues to operate in the interim.

• Logistics and Mobility Hubs: Another emerging use case – particularly in suburban/edge-of-city locations – is repurposing sites as last-mile logistics hubs or fleet charging depots. For instance, a moderately sized gas station property could serve as an EV fleet charging site for delivery vehicles (Amazon vans, etc.) overnight, or be a staging area for ride-share drivers. Some fuel companies are exploring offering “charging as a service” to commercial fleets, leveraging their real estate network. If an urban station’s customer traffic declines, contracting with a logistics operator to lease part of the lot for fleet charging or a mini-distribution center could monetize the asset in new ways. These sorts of arrangements could sustain site value by replacing lost retail volume with lease income.

In summary, urban fuel retail real estate is relatively adaptable. Its value will increasingly hinge on location fundamentals (traffic counts, neighborhood demographics) and the owner’s ability to pivot the use case (from pure fuel to diversified services or entirely new development). Many urban stations will likely survive and even thrive by becoming multi-purpose convenience hubs – essentially, small commercial centers that incidentally also provide energy (fuel or electric). Those that cannot adapt (too small, bad location, heavy competition) will be candidates for closure and land sale, but even then the land often retains underlying value.

Rural Sites: Extended Lifelines but Risk of Sudden Obsolescence. Rural and small-town gas stations present a different story. These sites typically have lower throughputs and rely on a more dispersed customer base. They are often the only fuel source in a community or along a stretch of highway. How does the EV transition impact their value?

• Slower EV Adoption = Longer Fuel Demand Tail: As noted, rural areas will adopt EVs more slowly. Many rural residents drive long distances and have concerns about EV range and lack of chargers; plus, vehicle turnover in rural areas is slower (people keep older cars longer). This means gasoline demand in rural regions will likely remain relatively robust into the late 2020s. From a valuation perspective, this could allow rural fuel businesses to maintain revenue for a longer period before decline. Lenders financing a gas station in a remote area might take some comfort that the borrower’s fuel cash flow won’t deteriorate as quickly as it might for a suburban station in California, for example. In terms of collateral risk, one could argue a rural station faces less near-term disruption.

• However, Limited Alternate Revenue Streams: The flip side is that rural sites often have fewer ways to diversify. The local population is smaller, so convenience store sales are constrained (a rural c-store might not achieve the per-square-foot sales of a busy urban store simply due to lower foot traffic and spending power). If and when fuel volumes do start dropping – say in the 2030s when EV prices drop enough that even rural drivers switch – such stations don’t have a strong convenience sales cushion. Many rural gas stations are very fuel-centric (maybe selling some snacks, bait, propane, etc., but not the elaborate foodservice of big chains). This means their profitability could be severely hit by fuel declines with little offset. When projecting long-term cash flows for a rural site, investors should model a more precipitous decline once EV adoption passes a threshold, because there’s no major alternative income to fall back on. In valuation terms, this raises the specter of obsolescence: a rural fuel station could lose its economic raison d’être if, say, 50% of the local drivers no longer need gasoline and there isn’t enough volume to sustain operations.

• Geographical Necessity vs. Redundancy: Some rural sites will remain critical due to geography – for instance, a lone gas station along a 100-mile stretch of highway provides an essential refueling point. Those locations might eventually become essential charging stops as well, preserving their value as part of the transportation network (provided the owners invest in chargers). In fact, under NEVI program plans, states are ensuring chargers are placed at regular intervals on interstates, which often corresponds to existing gas stops. So a rural highway travel center that upgrades to have, say, 8 fast chargers could continue to draw travelers (both ICE and EV). Its site value could even increase if it becomes a favored rest stop for both fueling and charging, perhaps with food options and clean facilities drawing in more customers. We may see travel plazas transform into multi-energy stations (gas, diesel, EV, maybe hydrogen in the future) – effectively future-proofed highway oases. Lenders might consider such properties better collateral if the business plan includes capturing EV charging business (especially if government grants fund the capex).

• Stranded Assets in Bypassed Areas: Conversely, consider a small gas station in a rural town that’s off the main highways. If the local community gradually electrifies (even if slower than average), and passing traffic dwindles (perhaps due to highway bypasses or population decline, common in some rural areas), that station could see a steady erosion of both fuel and store sales. Eventually it might close. The property value in a remote town could be very low without the business – often these are specialized-use properties that are hard to reuse (the proverbial abandoned gas station problem). This is a serious concern for lenders: the collateral liquidity is poor. If they had to foreclose on a shuttered rural gas station, finding a buyer or alternate tenant could be difficult. The land might sit vacant (and still requires environmental upkeep). In the EV era, such sites risk becoming stranded assets unless repurposed for something like a general store, auto-repair shop, or other community service that can make use of the location.

• Valuation Adjustments – Urban vs. Rural: We might see the market (and appraisers) start to apply higher discount rates or cap rates to rural fuel properties as the outlook turns more uncertain long-term. Urban properties, with multiple alternative uses, might retain lower cap rates (signaling less risk), whereas rural ones might be valued more conservatively. For example, if urban gas station real estate currently trades at a 6–7% cap rate (due to strong convenience store NOI and redevelopment potential), a rural station might be valued at 8–10% cap to account for the higher risk of decline – meaning a lower multiple on current earnings. There is some evidence that investors are already differentiating: private buyers and PE firms are keen on portfolios of stations in growth markets and along major corridors, but more cautious on one-off acquisitions in declining rural markets.

In practical terms, urban vs. rural valuation will depend on a combination of the station’s current performance metrics and its future adaptability:

• An urban site might get value credit for metrics like convenience revenue per square foot, growth in foodservice sales, and high traffic count (indicating potential EV charging demand). It might also have underlying land value that supports the valuation. If fuel sales drop 5% annually, the hope is increased store sales or other uses make up for it, and the site’s overall NOI can be maintained or even grown (some urban convenience retailers are seeing inside sales growth outpace fuel volume changes, leading to higher profits despite flat gallons).

• A rural site’s value might be more strictly tied to its fuel gallons and stable historical cash flow, with little expectation of growth. A prudent valuation would perhaps haircut those cash flows beyond a certain year to model the EV impact (essentially assuming the business enters decline after, say, 2030). Unless the site is along a strategic route and the owner has concrete plans to install chargers and market them (which could then be factored in as new income), a lender/investor should not assume a rural gas station will seamlessly transition to an EV era money-maker. It could, but it requires proactive investment and perhaps some luck (being in the right location to capture EV traffic).

Another aspect is community dependence: In rural areas, often the gas station is a critical service (for fuel, groceries, etc.). Local governments and communities have an interest in keeping it viable (it’s not uncommon for small towns to support their last gas station through patronage or even subsidies). This intangible factor means a rural station might outlast economic logic, but as an investor, one wouldn’t bank on goodwill alone. It’s better to encourage those sites to evolve (add a diner, a mini-market, EV chargers under state grant, etc.) to remain indispensable.

Bottom line: In an EV world, site value drivers are diverging. Urban and highway fuel retailers can reinvent themselves and maintain strong valuations by embracing the convenience and charging model. Rural and off-network sites face a tougher path – they have a longer grace period of fuel sales, but a steeper challenge when the transition finally arrives. From a portfolio perspective, this suggests urban/high-traffic assets will become more premium, while isolated rural assets could be viewed as higher risk and valued accordingly. Lenders might adjust collateral requirements (lower LTVs or faster amortization) for rural gas station loans relative to suburban ones. Investors might seek higher yields (cap rates) for rural assets or simply limit exposure to them, focusing growth capital on stores that have clear alternate use potential.

It’s worth noting that these outcomes are not set in stone; they depend on how station owners respond now. The next section explores what strategic moves lenders and investors can take to manage these risks and opportunities.

Lender and Investor Strategic Implications

The evolving landscape of fuel retail has significant implications for both creditors (banks, commercial lenders) and equity stakeholders (gas station owners, investors, private equity funds). This section outlines strategies and considerations for each, within a loan analytics and investment management framework. The goal is to ensure financial stakeholders remain ahead of the transition – preserving asset value, avoiding credit pitfalls, and capitalizing on new opportunities.

Lender Considerations: Credit Risk, Underwriting, and Collateral Management

For lenders, gas station loans historically combined steady cash flows with unique risks (commodity price swings, environmental liability). The rise of EVs and declining gasoline demand adds a new dimension of secular decline risk that must be factored into underwriting and portfolio management. Key considerations include:

• Collateral Valuation and LTV Adjustments: Lenders should revisit how they appraise gas station properties. Instead of assuming a perpetual fuel business, appraisals now need to incorporate terminal value erosion. For example, a station currently valued at $2 million based on income might only be worth $1 million in 10 years if fuel profits shrink – unless offset by other uses. As a result, lenders may tighten loan-to-value (LTV) ratios. If previously an 80% LTV was acceptable, now they might cap at 65–70% for fuel-heavy businesses, leaving more equity buffer. Some lenders might even commission alternative-use appraisals (what’s the land worth empty or redeveloped) as a backstop for collateral value. In high-adoption states, we may start to see appraisal haircuts where appraisers explicitly reduce the going-concern value of fuel assets citing EV transition risk (akin to how appraisals for, say, coal power plants are reduced due to anticipated phase-out). Lenders in 2025 should not be caught off guard in 2030 with a collateral that lost significant value – proactive valuation now is essential.

• Cash Flow Projections and Debt Service Coverage: Robust debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) analysis is critical. Lenders should incorporate scenario analyses in underwriting: e.g., Base Case: flat fuel volumes, modest growth in store sales; Downside Case: fuel volume declines 5% per year, store sales flat. If in the downside scenario the DSCR falls below 1.0 within the loan term, that’s a red flag. The underwriting might then require either a shorter term or more initial equity (lower debt) to ensure coverage. Many gas station loans are structured with 5- or 7-year terms – within that horizon, EV impact might still be minimal in some areas, but for longer amortizations (10-20 year SBA loans, etc.), it’s imperative to build in a buffer or reserve. Lenders could require a sinking fund for improvements, where the borrower sets aside cash from operations to invest in EV chargers or site upgrades, thus maintaining competitiveness and revenue.

• Qualitative Factors – Management and Strategy: Underwriters should evaluate the operator’s transition plan. Is the borrower forward-thinking (adding a deli, considering EV chargers, partnering with charging networks) or stuck in the old mindset? A proactive operator likely poses less credit risk because they will adapt as volumes shift. Lenders might favor established convenience store operators who have shown they can integrate new profit centers. Additionally, examining fuel supply agreements is key – some stations have branding contracts that could either help (support from major oil co for EV investments) or hinder (restrictions on selling electricity or adding other brands on site). A station tied to a major fuel brand that is itself transitioning (like Shell or BP rolling out chargers) might benefit from corporate support, whereas an unbranded independent will need sufficient capital and savvy on their own.

• Loan Covenants and Monitoring: To manage risk over the loan life, lenders could implement covenants tailored to this industry shift. For instance, a covenant might require the borrower to report quarterly fuel volume and store sales. If volumes fall beyond a certain threshold, a “springing” action could be triggered (such as stepping up principal payments or requiring additional collateral). Another approach is requiring the borrower to invest in certain improvements by a date (e.g., install at least two fast chargers within 3 years) – failing which the loan could default or repricing occurs. While such covenants are not typical in small business loans, for larger credit facilities or portfolio financing of multiple stations, these provisions could be negotiated. Lenders will also closely monitor macro indicators: if a state passes a law significantly accelerating EV adoption or if gas demand in the region drops, credit teams might proactively reach out to borrowers about contingency plans.

• Environmental and Exit Strategy: EV transition could lead to more station closures, meaning more loans ending not in refinance but in business wind-down. Lenders must be prepared for the end-of-life scenario of a gas station. This often involves environmental cleanup – the cost of removing tanks and remediating soil can be tens of thousands of dollars or more, which can eat into sale proceeds. Prudent lenders may require environmental insurance or indemnity funds. In some cases, if a borrower decides to exit (sell or cease operations), the lender should have a say in ensuring there is a plan (either a qualified buyer who will continue some operation or a reserve for cleanup). Essentially, lenders need to think of not just can this loan be repaid through operations, but also can we recover in a worst-case scenario where the station shuts down due to lack of business? If the latter scenario is bleak for a particular collateral, it may influence the lending decision or terms.

• Geographic Diversification: From a portfolio perspective, banks with heavy exposure to gas station loans should assess geographic risk distribution. A regional bank in California, for example, might be more exposed to EV risk sooner, whereas a Southeast U.S. lender might have more time. Diversifying across markets or focusing on areas with strong convenience stores (like Texas, which has many large-format stores and a growing population) could mitigate concentrated risk. Some lenders might start limiting new loans in states that have aggressive EV mandates, or conversely, require stronger mitigants for those (like lower LTV or additional guarantees).

In essence, lenders must start treating fuel retail credits with a bit of the mindset used for industries in transition (like print media or coal-fired plants in years past) – recognizing that change is coming and building in safeguards. The good news is that the timeline allows for a gentle glidepath if managed well: loans can be structured to amortize significantly before the steepest declines hit, collateral can be improved to keep value, and strong operators can pivot to maintain cash flow. Lenders who actively engage with borrowers on these issues will be better positioned than those who take a passive “business as usual” stance.

Investor Strategies: Portfolio Rebalancing, ROI on Retrofits, and Yield Resilience

Investors – whether they are individual owners, fuel jobbers, or private equity firms – have a different but related challenge: how to future-proof the value and returns of their fuel retail investments. They are concerned with maximizing ROI, maintaining cash flow yields, and deciding where to deploy capital (or divest) in light of industry changes. Key strategic implications and moves for investors include:

• Retrofit and Upgrade ROI Analysis: Investors are increasingly faced with decisions on capital expenditures for existing sites. This includes installing EV chargers, adding solar panels (to cut electricity costs and appeal to ESG-minded consumers), remodeling stores to expand foodservice or add drive-thrus, etc. Each of these has a cost and an uncertain return. For example, adding a pair of 150 kW DC fast chargers might cost $200,000+ all-in. The expected return from that charging infrastructure depends on utilization: at current usage rates, it might take 5-7 years or more to pay back (even longer in low-EV areas), but usage is expected to rise annually. Moreover, having chargers can attract EV-driving customers who will spend in store, an indirect return. Investors should conduct holistic ROI analysis: a charger might on its own only break even, but if it boosts convenience store sales by 5-10% from additional dwell time, the overall ROI could be attractive. There are also intangible benefits, like signaling that the site is modern and relevant (potentially improving the multiple if the business is sold). Tools like NPV and scenario analysis are useful – e.g., project cash flows with low, medium, high EV adoption and see under what conditions the charger investment yields a positive NPV. Many are finding that tapping federal and state incentives flips the equation: the 30% federal tax credit for charging equipment (up to $100k per charger) and various utility rebate programs can significantly reduce payback time. In some cases, grants can cover 80%+ of costs, making the ROI very favorable. Bottom line: smart investors are leveraging subsidies to install EV infrastructure at minimal net cost, positioning their sites ahead of competitors. Those who delay may find themselves scrambling later to catch up (or facing revenue declines with no plan B).

• Emphasizing Non-Fuel Profit Centers: The shift from “gallons to convenience” means investors should prioritize businesses with strong non-fuel income. This might involve rebalancing a portfolio: for instance, selling off sites that lack a convenience store or have very low inside sales, and acquiring or expanding sites that have large C-store footprints or foodservice. Some indicators investors watch are inside sales per customer and foodservice penetration (what % of sales are food vs fuel vs merchandise). High convenience sales per fuel gallon is a sign of a resilient model. We are seeing growth in concepts like travel centers that incorporate quick-service restaurants (Subway, McDonald’s, etc. inside the store) or even local eateries. The ROI on building a bigger store or adding a franchise restaurant can often surpass that of adding another fuel dispenser, especially as fuel margins stay tight. For example, a new foodservice program might cost a few hundred thousand to implement but could raise gross profit margins substantially (since prepared food margins are 50%+). The expected returns from such investments often outpace traditional fuel ROI: industry data shows that top-quartile stores (with robust food programs) can generate double the profit per square foot of bottom performers. Investors will allocate capital to these higher-return opportunities. A concrete trend is the razing and rebuilding of older stations: as referenced earlier, many operators report that raising an old small store and building a large modern one yields a very attractive ROI – sales jump enough to justify the upfront cost, and the asset is more future-proof (larger format to host whatever new services come along, like EV charging lounge, etc.).

• Geographic and Market Focus: Just as lenders diversify risk, investors might tilt their portfolios toward markets they believe will remain profitable or even grow in the transition. For instance, some may double down on highway corridor sites that will remain essential for EV charging (the thinking being, “cars may charge differently, but they still need roadside stops on long trips, so let’s own those stops”). Others might invest in regions with growing populations (Sun Belt, Mountain West), betting that overall retail demand growth offsets any per-car fuel decline. Conversely, investors might be wary of states like California not because they doubt its economy (it’s strong), but because the transition could force expensive changes and possibly lead to lower fuel margins or volumes sooner – unless they are prepared to invest heavily in transformation in those markets. We’ve seen a bit of this already: some fuel distributors in California have sold stations to focus on wholesale fuel supply, while big convenience retail chains (e.g. 7-Eleven via Speedway acquisition) still see opportunity if they can pivot those stores to new models. Another angle is urban vs rural focus: some investors will avoid very rural properties given the eventual headwinds and low exit liquidity, focusing on suburban areas where stores can be larger and have more diverse revenue. That said, certain specialized rural assets like large truck stops (TravelCenters of America, etc.) have attracted major investment (BP’s acquisition of TA in 2023, for example) because trucking will take longer to electrify and those sites have unique value on freight corridors. So, segmenting the market – passenger vehicle-focused city gas stations vs. freight-focused interstate stations, etc. – is part of strategic portfolio planning.

• Yield and Exit Planning: Investors typically look for a cap rate (yield) that reflects risk. Currently, gas station/c-store cap rates might be in the 5-7% range for strong locations with long-term fuel supply or tenant guarantees, and higher for weaker locations. If the perception of risk increases, these cap rates could rise (values fall). Investors should be realistic in their exit assumptions. It may become harder to find buyers for certain stations in 5-10 years if those buyers are concerned about EV impacts. That suggests two strategies: (1) Focus on quality assets that will always have buyer demand (e.g. prime corner locations, sites with brand-name long-term leases or integrated convenience operations), and (2) Consider earlier exits for assets that you think will lose value. In other words, some investors might choose to sell marginal stations now while cash flows still look good, rather than hold until volumes decline and values erode. There is a bit of a timing game: selling too early means giving up years of cash flow, but selling too late could mean a much lower price. The ideal is to reinvest proceeds from sales into either upgrading remaining sites or acquiring future-proof assets.

• ESG and Investor Image: An emerging consideration is that institutional investors increasingly have ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) mandates. Owning a large portfolio of fossil-fuel-centric businesses can be seen as a negative, unless there’s a credible transition narrative. We’ve observed some investor communications highlight how their convenience store investments are evolving to offer EV charging, alternative fuels, etc., aligning with sustainability goals. For example, some REITs and infrastructure funds now include EV charging assets as part of their portfolio to show they are positioned for the energy transition. While this may not directly change a site’s cash flow, it affects who might buy into these assets and at what cost of capital. A portfolio positioned as a “diversified energy and convenience retail portfolio” with solar panels, EV chargers, and community services might attract a broader pool of investors (and possibly at better valuation) than a traditional gas station bundle. Thus, investors have a strategic incentive to push their assets in a greener direction, not just for the immediate economics but for long-term portfolio reputation and value.

• Watching the Majors and Adopting Best Practices: Big industry players (e.g. BP, Shell, Alimentation Couche-Tard (Circle K), Casey’s, etc.) are all executing strategies which smaller investors can learn from. Shell is pivoting to EV hubs in some markets, BP is investing in charging infrastructure and aiming for certain revenue mix targets by 2030 (like more from convenience and electricity). Couche-Tard is piloting EV fast charging at Circle K stores in Norway and starting in North America, learning how to integrate it with their retail offering. Casey’s is expanding its food operations aggressively (pizza delivery from its stores, etc.) to boost non-fuel share. Investors should track these moves – they often signal where value is headed. For instance, if a major c-store operator finds success with an EV charging + coffee shop concept, that’s something to emulate. If oil companies reduce their company-owned station counts, it might create acquisition opportunities but also signals where they see risk. In fact, some major oil companies are turning more into suppliers and letting local operators bear the retail risk – an investor should ask why and ensure they are comfortable swimming in those waters (usually it’s because those oil companies foresee lower margins or have better returns investing upstream in the EV value chain like power provision rather than retail).

To illustrate a combined approach: ARKO Corp. (a large c-store owner, parent of Empire Petroleum/GPM Investments) has in recent communications emphasized growing their retail and wholesale fuel business while “evaluating EV charging opportunities” and making selective acquisitions to expand store count and geography. This is typical – keep core profits flowing now, but prepare for the future by testing EV equipment and acquiring stores that can thrive with or without fuel. Investors at smaller scale can do the same by ensuring each property has a strategy: maybe one location will be the first to get a charger bank and marketing to EV drivers; another might add a quick-service restaurant to become the town’s lunch spot, etc. Those who invest in the transition early will likely capture more market share as competitors who do nothing slowly fade.

Finally, a word on financial performance comparisons to guide strategy: it’s useful to quantify the value of different revenue streams. Consider a typical scenario in 2024:

• Fuel revenue per square foot of forecourt: Perhaps only ~$30–50 (a large lot might sell $5 million of fuel on 70,000 sq ft of land, ~ $71/sqft, but net of cost of goods and considering space inefficiency, the gross profit per sqft is low).

• Convenience store revenue per square foot: Could be $200–$300/sqft for a well-run store (e.g. a 3,000 sqft store making $900k in sales). More importantly, gross profit per sqft might be ~$100–150.

• EV charging revenue per square foot: Not a common metric yet, but if one charger occupies maybe 200 sqft including space, and can generate $50k/year at high utilization, that’s $250/sqft of revenue (though still lower net margin after electricity costs).These rough figures underscore why shifting a site’s emphasis to convenience and services can enhance the productivity of the real estate. Investors aiming for yield resilience will prefer revenue that is dense (lots of profit in little space) and sticky (comes from repeat daily needs like food/coffee vs. volatile fuel demand). EV charging has the potential to increase the revenue density of a site if done right – EV drivers park longer and potentially spend more during dwell time. Early data from pilots shows retail sales lifts during charging sessions. Over the next five years, expect investors to measure and track metrics like “ancillary sales per charging session” to optimize layouts (e.g. putting chargers by the store to encourage visits).

In conclusion, investors should remain nimble and proactive: optimize current operations for profitability, invest in future capabilities, prune assets that lack a future role, and be ready to seize new business models (like serving EV fleets or offering subscription-based charging, etc.). The fuel retail of 2030 will look quite different, but it will still reward those who offer convenience and essential services to travelers and locals – essentially, those who anticipate customer needs in a changing market.

Tables and Charts

To complement the analysis, below are select tables and charts highlighting key financial benchmarks, market transition metrics, and projections discussed in this report.

Table 1. Industry Revenue Outlook (Fuel Dealers, US) – This table from the Loan Analytics database summarizes recent and projected industry revenues, illustrating the growth stagnation forecast for the next five years:

Year	Industry Revenue (USD)	Annual Change
2020	$35.6 billion	–16.5% (pandemic)
2022	$51.4 billion	+24.3% (price spike)
2025	$49.3 billion	+0.9% (est. 2025 growth)
2030	$49.0 billion	–0.1% (5-year CAGR from 2025)

Source: Loan Analytics database, April 2025. Reflects NAICS 45431 (Fuel Dealers) including gasoline, propane, heating oil, etc. Note the sharp volatility in early 2020s and the flat projection for 2025–2030, indicating an inflection point in long-term demand.

Table 2. State-Level EV Adoption and Fuel Demand Implications – A comparison of EV adoption rates and what they imply for gas station site strategy in different regions:

Market	EV % of New Sales by 2030	Fuel Demand Trend (2025–30)	Site Strategy Focus
California (CA)	~68% (mandated)	Sharp decline (gas volume shrinking mid-decade)	Maximize convenience; add EV charging hubs; consider redevelopment of surplus sites.
ZEV States (NJ, WA, etc.)	50–60% (policy-driven)	Declining (especially post-2027)	Pivot early to foodservice and EV charging; upgrade sites to retain EV drivers.
National Average (US)	~27–30%	Flattening (peak gasoline around 2025)	Improve efficiency; focus on profitable segments (food, car wash); watch EV trends.
Rural Low-Adoption (e.g. MS, WY)	<20% (slower uptake)	Steady then eventual drop (late 2030s peak)	Maintain fuel service for now; seek alternate income (repair, community store); plan for long-term EV addition on highways.

Sources: BloombergNEF, PwC, state policy targets. Fuel trend estimates are qualitative.

Conclusion

The fuel retail sector is entering an era where site value is no longer predominantly about selling fuel, but about the constellation of services and amenities a location can provide. “Gallons to convenience” is more than a catchy phrase – it encapsulates the strategic reorientation required for gas stations to remain relevant and financially healthy in an EV world. Lenders will protect their interests by underwriting with an eye to the future, demanding stronger fundamentals and transition plans from borrowers. Investors will earn their returns by reshaping portfolios and properties to serve evolving consumer needs – from fast charging to fast casual dining.

Rural areas, often overlooked, get special attention in this analysis because they underscore the complexity of the transition: slower to start, but potentially more disruptive when it arrives. Keeping rural communities connected in the EV age (through charging infrastructure) while sustaining local fuel-based businesses as long as needed will require coordination between private owners, lenders, and public programs. Those rural sites that adapt (or those new travel centers being built with EVs in mind from day one) can continue to thrive. Those that don’t may eventually face difficult choices.

From a loan analytics perspective, continuous monitoring of key metrics – fuel volumes, EV adoption rates, non-fuel revenue growth, and asset values – will be indispensable. Just as important is qualitative insight: is management forward-looking? Is the location defensible long-term? By combining hard data with strategic foresight, lenders and investors can not only manage risks but also identify the front-runners in the new paradigm of fuel retailing.

In the next 5+ years (2025–2030), expect to see:

• A wave of capital investments in convenience store remodeling, EV charging installations, and technology upgrades at fuel retail sites nationwide.

• Greater segmentation of asset performance – with high-traffic, innovation-embracing sites significantly outperforming fuel-dependent, no-frills stations.

• An evolving valuation playbook that factors in transition risk, with deal-making favoring those assets that tell a convincing “resilience and growth” story even as gasoline demand peaks.

• Closer collaboration with government programs (grants, credits) to fund infrastructure improvements, particularly in rural areas, aligning private business interests with public policy goals to ensure an equitable transition.

For lenders and investors alike, the mantra should be “adapt early, adapt smart.” The EV revolution and changing consumer habits are not the end of fuel retail – rather, they are catalysts transforming it. Those who skillfully steer this transition will find that a well-located site can continue to deliver strong returns, even if those returns come less from pumping gallons and more from brewing coffee, electrons, and providing the convenient pit stop of the future.

Sources:

• Loan Analytics Database (Fuel Dealers in the US, April 2025)

• U.S. Energy Information Administration / Dept. of Energy data

• BloombergNEF and Reuters analysis

• National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and industry benchmarks

• McKinsey Future Mobility insights

• Houlihan Lokey Convenience Store Update, Fall 2024

• U.S. DOT Rural EV Toolkit, NREL EV Infrastructure Report, among others.