Meet three startups offering three different solutions to tackle the biggest roadblock to the electric bike revolution in Pakistan. But do they have what it takes to win?

Many consider a shift to electric vehicles just a matter of time. However, in Pakistan, especially in the case of two-wheelers, it is not as easy a transition as they might have you believe. Certainly, the running costs of an electric bike are much lower than a comparable ICE-powered motorcycle, and we have seen a boost in the numbers of such motorcycles on the road because of the recent hike in petrol prices. But what really is the hurdle that stands in the way?

Put simply, electric bikes are more expensive. For an average user of motorbikes (and we know it is a generalization), money is a big issue. Most people in Pakistan who drive a motorbike are not exactly the group with deep pockets. An electric bike which could give them a range good enough to match the experience of an ICE-powered bike would generally be priced at over 3 lakh rupees, often exceeding 4 lakhs. Compare that to the workhorse of choice – the Honda CD70 – which is priced at around 1.6 lakhs, and the extent of additional investment required (in percentage terms) becomes clear.

But this is not a problem without solutions. The first solution would obviously be to provide prospective buyers with financing to cover the additional costs of buying an electric bike. This might come from banks, the informal sector, or through mobility financing initiatives such as the Wasl Mobility Modaraba. The way this would work is that the electric bike users would pay off the loan in installments from the savings they would make by using electric bikes. This is essentially Wasl’s model.

The problem with this solution, so to say, is that for someone to pay off their loan through the savings they make by using electric bikes, their usage has to be high enough. After all, the more you use these bikes, the more your savings increase, and only in the case of high savings would one be able to pay off the loans financed at high rates. But for an ordinary user who does not cover as massive distances as delivery riders etc., what is to be done?

For one, they can buy a cheaper electric bike. But the lower price point of these bikes comes with its own issues, at least two of which are worth mentioning here. First, they have limited range, often around 60 km per charge which restricts the freedom available to them. And secondly, the battery – most commonly the graphene one in lower priced electric bikes but even the lithium iron phosphate one – will depreciate. This latter is a cause for concern since batteries can make up to 40 percent of the total cost of an electric bike, and once they have been depleted, they need to be replaced, adding to the overall expenditure.

Here again, as for many problems, there are solutions in the market. Businesses like ZYP Technologies and ESwap Technologies are leveraging the battery swap model as a way to solve both the range and the battery depreciation problems. Another company called ZVolta is taking a different approach by promoting destination charging as a way to solve the range problem. All of these nascent companies have put their thumb on the problem, and are trying to strike while the iron is hot. Yet they face an uphill battle, each encountering hurdles that are specific to their models, but which taken together display the massive obstacles that still remain in the way of a large-scale transition to electric two-wheelers.

ZYP Technologies

Founded in September 2022, ZYP Technologies aimed to do something different. It was founded by Hassan Iqbal Khan, a software engineer who spent years working in Silicon Valley. As he told Profit, ZYP did not just want to be another assembler. Rather, they saw that the time was ripe to reset Pakistan’s automobile industry, which for decades had lagged behind globally as the dominating ground of foreign brands. Given that electric mobility was globally a new space and that other emerging markets had already begun capitalizing on this moment (some even have started exports), Hassan and team felt that they needed to do something similar in Pakistan.

Unlike most of the electric motorcycle brands in Pakistan, ZYP is remarkable for two major reasons: they have actually developed an indigenous motorcycle model, which is manufactured locally in their facility in Lahore, and they have set an ambitious target to eventually begin exporting this Pakistani ‘brand’, and to become a global competitor. They want to put Pakistan on the map, and help contribute to orienting the local auto industry towards exports, to actually do the right thing. As he says, “In Pakistan, we have been taking the easy route. We merely want to assemble kits and sell them quickly. But if you build a product for quick wins, you lose out on a lot. We want to change this.”

The Model:

How ZYP’s model works is essentially this. You buy the bike, but not the battery. Rather, you pay a 2.5 rupees/km rent for using the battery. As far as the bike is concerned, currently they have only one model called ZUM 2000, with a 2kW motor, priced at 260,000 rupees. The rent you pay for the battery is supposed to be protection against battery depreciation. Now the battery within the bike can be charged either at home, or through a battery swap. And it is this battery swapping technology that is the main solution ZYP is claiming to offer.

Battery swaps need two things: a battery that can be removed and then plugged with no hassle, and a network of swapping stations where charged batteries are available at all times, and where you can go and swap your depleted battery for a fully charged one. Of course, this charge too comes at a charge, currently set at 195 rupees for a full 100 percent difference. Otherwise, you pay only for the difference between the charge of the battery that you are swapping and the fully charged battery you are receiving at the swap station. It takes around a minute to swap the batteries, comparable to what it takes to refill your fuel tank in an ICE-powered bike.

This is the appeal of the battery swap solution. Hassan believes that people will shift to electric motorcycles if the experience they offer is comparable to the experience offered by petrol bikes. As he says, “Battery swap is the way to go. Nobody wants to wait. People whose incomes depend on the bike certainly will not switch to electric even if you provide them with a charging station. It takes a minimum of 2 hours for fast charging, whereas slow charging can take between 4 and 6 hours.” The battery swap model, then, unlocks the level of freedom of a petrol bike, while aiming to deliver at least part of the savings of an EV. At the same time, it allows riders to cover extensive distances which they would not have been able to cover with a normal electric motorcycle that comes with a fixed battery, increasing the earnings people (such as delivery riders) are able to generate through the motorcycle itself.

And that’s the reason, ZYP considers itself more than a bike manufacturer. Instead, it sees itself as a solutions provider. And part of this ‘solution’ includes setting up the battery swap infrastructure, with battery stations stationed at various points within the city. Currently, the number of swap stations is 16, but ZYP has plans to open more of these stations in Lahore, before moving on to other geographies.

But ZYP includes other offerings as part of its ‘solution’ too. These include the marriage, as Hassan puts it, between the hardware and the software. ZYP has an app which allows you to track your bike and offers smart features and insights. The software tells you where your nearest charging stations are, offers suggestions based on your driving usage, and offers anti-theft measures that allow you to disable the bike remotely. The app also allows you to make payments, eliminating the need for cash.

 The Hurdles:

According to an analysis that we ran previously which compared the costs and calculations of using the ZYP model compared to a Honda CD70, the savings in the ZYP model make sense enough only at high usage (think 100+ km per day). Based on our analysis, for someone who drove 60 km every day, the ZUM-2000 would only be offering 113,000 rupees in savings compared to a CD70, over five years. Such savings, we had reasoned, did not cover the risk of investing in a more expensive bike, which is based on a technology that’s not fully developed yet, whose resale value would fall by much more than a CD70’s, and whose aftersales support system is considerably less extensive than a petrol motorcycle’s, and so on.

The problem, in other words, is that the ZYP bike – ZUM 2000 – is a little too expensive to run. And that means unless your usage is very high, the model is unlikely to yield significant savings, which are the selling point of electric bikes consumers resonate the most with. 

This, in fact, is one of the core issues with this model. The per kilometer battery rent, as well as the rate for battery swap are such that the savings are much lower than one would have expected. For instance, swapping the battery at the swap station could cost you 97.5 rupees per unit, almost double the rate available to domestic users. The per kilometer rent of 2.5 rupees would have made more sense if the bike had not been a whole lakh more expensive than a CD70. ZYP’s CEO admits that the prices are not as low as even they would have liked, but he believes that is because the company hasn’t hit enough volumes to have achieved economies of scale, at which they could feel comfortable reducing prices. But this fact points to a deeper malaise than simply the higher pricing. It points to an underlying condition that has more to do with - you guessed it - money.

See, models such as ZYP’s often face the chicken and egg problem. For volumes to reach high levels, you need the infrastructure in place. And to finance this infrastructure you need the money from these sales. What is to come first, then? The answer usually lies in throwing money at the problem. You raise enough money upfront to develop infrastructure, and once that is in place, you hope the sales will follow. People who can see what they are getting into can now trust your product.

Now, ZYP did start with 1.2 million USD as seed capital, with investors led by Indus Valley Capital and Shurooq Capital injecting money into the fledgling enterprise. ZYP has been making use of that money to invest in their product and capabilities. But, as Hassan pointed out to Profit, the volumes and visibility still aren’t there that would push prices low enough for the bike to be competitive enough. Neither have the sales – which Hassan describes as “peanuts” – reached a point where the return on investment has become attractive. The key bottleneck, however, is funding, which once obtained might start bringing in the volumes to breathe new life into the enterprise. 

But luckily for ZYP, they do not require too extraordinary a sum of money to reach volumes where things start to make sense. According to Hassan, an upfront injection of 10 to 15 million dollars would suffice to turn the company cash-flow positive and even enable them to start exports. “The market is so hot that someone should be able to invest this amount in this space.” And the company has been in talks with local and foreign investors to raise more money.

At the same time, the company is exploring other business models which might enable it to achieve enough return on investment that the model becomes cheaper for the consumer. For instance, ZYP has been considering a model of electric bikes, which is non-swappable, and they have also been considering a rental model like ESwap’s, which we will consider in more detail. They have also been aiming to get into a pure battery play business, whereby they plan to partner with OEMs as a battery provider, reducing upfront costs of their vehicles, especially three-wheelers, which are so much more expensive, relatively, to their two-wheeler counterparts. ZYP is also planning to soon launch a cheaper bike called ZYP GO 1500, more comparable to a CD70, which it hopes would fare better in the market.  

One wonders whether with limited funds which they currently have, whether ZYP has taken too high an aim, with the set-up of manufacturing of their bikes, while also investing in the battery swap infrastructure. The latter, just for context, does not come cheap. And investing in manufacturing requires not only intensive capital input, but also requires investing in capabilities, which takes time to bear fruit. The fact that they are now exploring alternative models shows, to us at least, that they are trying to figure out a better way of utilizing precious funds to position themselves. Yet again, streamlining their energies into one particular stream might yield them more freedom to take their company to the next level.

There is another company, however, which until now has set a more streamlined sight on what they want to do, and which has been deploying its capital into that particular objective.

 ESwap Technologies

There is a newer player in the arena, aiming (not avowedly, but you can sense it) to beat ZYP Technologies at their own game. And, here, the problem is not the availability of capital. One would reasonably agree with this last statement once one comes to know that the person behind the company is a Chinese billionaire named Vincent Tianquan Mo. Vincent, currently the chairman of Fang.com, is perhaps most famous for SouFun, which he cofounded and which rose to become China’s largest real estate commercial platform, in the manner of Zillow or Zameen.com, where users can list, transact over, and buy property, among other things. According to some reports, an influential political and business family of Lahore is also involved in the business, which prefers to keep its name unmentioned.

While this latter fact may partly explain why a Chinese billionaire would be interested in Pakistan’s electric mobility space, another perhaps more visible fact might also explain it. And that’s the massive two-wheeler space in Pakistan, which comprises over 25 crore motorcycles. That’s just so many petrol bikes that would have to move to electric. No denying, this is an opportunity so massive that, according to reports from people familiar with the matter, Vincent is closely overseeing the operations himself.The operation is based, like ZYP, in Lahore.

The Model:

As far as the ESwap model is concerned, they too offer the battery swap solution, but with a twist. Unlike with ZYP, where you had to buy the bike first and then pay rent for battery usage and also pay for any swaps that you do, with ESwap you don’t need to do any of that. Instead, you pay a monthly rent and that covers everything, including major maintenance. Currently, the monthly rent is set at 17,000 rupees per month for the first 3,000 km. For distance driven above that, you pay a per kilometer charge of 4 rupees.

But you might ask: what are the bikes involved in the ESwap operation? ESwap does not make the bikes themselves; rather the bikes are manufactured under the brand name JBR (a company that Vincent also owns) by Plum Qingqi Motors in Pakistan. Effectively, this bifurcates the solutions providing company and the bike manufacturing segment, which is outsourced to an established player allowing the company to focus on scaling that solution rather than investing in technologies. Unlike ZYP, ESwap can afford to do this, given the heft of the billionaire behind the latter, a fact that makes them seem more well placed than ZYP to scale their solution.

Coming back to ESwap, the company has been aggressively expanding its swapping stations in Lahore. And this seems to be their answer to the ‘chicken and egg’ problem that we saw ZYP facing; the difference being that ESwap seems to have the resources to force a solution to the problem, and since the company was registered in 2025, the company has been able to set up more than 30 battery swap stations, more than double the amount ZYP has been able to establish. While we do not have their exact sales numbers, based on our conversations, we can confidently assert that they have been able to sell more bikes than ZYP despite having entered the market later. The removal of the initial capital investment – and with it the worry about any depreciation in the bike’s value – in buying the bike seems to be a key factor in the popularity of this model.

ZYP’s Hassan would of course say it is not fair to compare the two, considering ZYP is trying to do something different and more ambitious. But it is instructive to see how the different aims have resulted in current success. Of course, current success is not a foolproof determinant of future success, but it is one thing that future success might be built upon.

 The Hurdles:

If ZYP’s model shows the problems facing a company yet to achieve substantial scale, ESwap’s fortunes show the problems facing a company that is well on its way to achieving scale and does not suffer from the tight financing that ZYP does. In fact, one of the major issues that ESwap is facing is that they have simply sold too many bikes for the batteries they had. The result is that charging stations sometimes do not have enough batteries to administer swaps for the (mainly) delivery riders who want to make a quick stop as they hurl themselves back into their oppressive routine. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that as things stand, these bikes cannot be charged at home, so the unavailability of batteries becomes a substantial issue.

The second major issue that ESwap is facing is the pricing factor. Initially, the monthly rent was set quite low, at around 5,000 rupees per month. Of course, the amount was too low to make any financial sense for the company, yet it was set that way to attract customers and put their product on the road. Once people started using their bikes, they started increasing the rates gradually, sometimes by a couple of  thousand rupees per month, until they reached the current level of 17,000 rupees per month. 

According to background conversations with people familiar with the matter, prices start to make sense for the company at around 20,000 rupees (at which level the company does intend to raise prices in the near future). The problem with this is that until now they have been increasing their prices without much compunction because the prices of petrol had risen by so much. Yet now that petrol prices have returned close to the pre-Iran war levels, the company might find itself hard-pressed to achieve that coveted 20,000 rupees mark.

At this point, one must consider whether the numbers make sense or not from a consumer’s standpoint. Let’s say if the company sets the rate at 20,000 rupees for 3,000 km, this would make the per kilometer cost of usage of the ESwap model 6.67 rupees. This figure is not that far off from the fuel cost of a CD70, which with the mileage of 50 kilometers per liter, comes at 6 rupees per liter. Of course, the CD70 also has added maintenance costs, but it has the advantages that come with a well developed support ecosystem as well, an attribute that ESwap for now lacks. This issue is exacerbated by the battery shortages ESwap is facing, and the reality that a lot of ESwap users already own a CD70. In this context, moving on to the ESwap model from a CD70 becomes a tough ask from them at the 20,000 rupee rate.

Moreover, the company finds itself in another fix: they are unable to reliably charge the batteries that they have at their charging stations. The problem here lies with the fluctuations in electricity discharge within Lahore, which interfere with the charging process of a lithium iron battery. This is not a small issue, since this has forced ESwap to rethink the way their batteries are charged. In fact, they are now planning to shift to a hub and spoke model, whereby they plan to charge their batteries at a centralized location – ideally with large solar installations – and once the batteries have been charged to dispatch them physically to their battery swap stations across the city. This solution might make sense at scale, but it points to broader problems with the grid within Lahore, something that might need an overhaul if electric vehicles are to take over the roads.

Last, but not least, the company has an issue which it shares with ZYP, and that is the fact that as things currently stand, their model makes the most sense for people with high to very high usage every day, a category in which most of the ridership in Pakistan does not fall. The company had recognized the suitability of its model for the delivery rider segment since it started, like ZYP, with targeting them. But now that the electric bikes industry recently saw a boom in the wake of high petrol prices, the massive retail demand for these bikes was made evident to all in the industry. In fact, ESwap is also considering selling bikes through retail to supplement the current rental model, just to capitalize on this massive segment.

These are not problems that money cannot solve. And the situation until now shows a company that has been willing to experiment and course-correct. But, especially for the latter two issues, there is another new player in the industry that aims not to solve the battery depreciation problem – which partly is what ZYP and ESwap intended to do – but to solve the range problem through a different, more diffuse method: destination charging.

 ZVolta

ZVolta was founded in 2025 by two LUMS alumni, Nashit Naviwala and Anusha Shahid who had already dabbled with starting their own ventures. Nashit had already worked in mobility, having launched bike ride hailing operations for Careem in Pakistan, while Anusha had her background and interest in energy markets. Together, after they had experimented with small scale electric vehicle rental operations, they decided to launch ZVolta in Karachi as a way to solve the issue many face with electric vehicles: limited range.

The Solution:

The solution is simple. There is a system of decentralized chargers placed in destinations with higher dwell time across the city. These destinations include places such as offices, restaurants, shopping malls, universities, etc. – places where people spend some time. The idea is that while they are working their shifts or browsing the mall or taking their lectures, they could put their vehicle on charge. Bear in mind that in most cases, they would not need to fully charge their vehicles; rather, they would just need to top up their battery to the extent that they would need to go to their next destination. These diffused chargers would function as a support system to increase the effective range available to electric vehicle users to commute through their day.

This is effectively what ZVolta has been doing: they sell chargers, which are a one-time purchase, and they have created an app through which they take a cut on every prepaid payment made for a charge. Currently they have options for three types of chargers, 3kW, 7kW, and 22kW, the last one of which hasn’t yet been deployed. 

The company is championing AC charging as the main charging of choice, since they say, almost 90 percent of the local electric market can be covered with that, it is much cheaper than DC charging, and it does not create the load pressures a DC charger might create. The chargers are made in-house, do not require manning, and ZVolta takes care of all maintenance. As Nashit put it in his conversation with Profit, “People are already placing a bet on EVs. We don’t want them to be stuck with the problems of chargers on top of that.”

This is essentially a more formalized and institutionalized version of the jugaad that many predicted would characterize the spread of electric mobility in Pakistan. People, especially Pakistanis, always seem to find a way to bypass nuisances of process and bureaucracy. What ZVolta has done is to try to make it a more thought-out process, which includes an app and an aftermarket system for the maintenance of chargers.

No wonder then that the company has been positioning their charger as a “business in a box”. It is not meant to be a massive, primary source of income; rather, it is supposed to be a stream of side income which, once the capex investment has been paid off, forms a recurring payback on each charging session. ZVolta has also positioned itself to cater to corporates and businesses which can install electric chargers in their premises to achieve their sustainability goals and create convenience for their employees, and so on. The result is that there are two types of chargers available through the ZVolta app: ones that are public and open to all, while others are private and whose accessibility is limited to a particular group determined by the host.  

As far as the pricing of the charging session is concerned, ZVolta leaves it up to the host to determine the price. This means that people can set rates depending on what rates they are paying to their DISCO. Commercial enterprises might set a higher rate, while those who have access to NEECA’s reduced rates of 39 rupees per unit might choose a lower rate. Of course, the charging rate would include their margins, but as Nashit and Anusha reasoned, this is not supposed to be a place to charge your battery from zero to hundred. It is intended, on the other hand, to meet the emergency needs of people on the road, and that’s why they think higher rates would make sense. Another relevant factor is the solar boom, through which hosts might be able to access cheaper electricity rates, and therefore offer more competitive rates to the consumers.

 The Hurdles:

The main issue that’s facing ZVolta – indeed, the issue that’s holding them back – is the inadequate regulatory framework that’s governing the deployment of chargers. For context, NEECA has set a subsidized rate of 39 rupees per unit for charging stations, but the policy appears to be promoting DC charging.

According to ZVolta’s founders, the emphasis on DC charging is misplaced. They concede that the placement of DC chargers might make sense along motorways, but within a city, it is a different matter altogether. First of all, there are only a handful of car models that can actually bear the heavy voltage passing through the charger. Secondly, our electricity grid is not built to support high voltage DC chargers. And finally, an emphasis on DC charging does not take actual account of the fact that EV transition in Pakistan would have to start with two-wheelers, which do not use DC charging.They concede that regulations do and should make sense for DC charging, which is dangerous and requires infrastructural upgradation.

But the problem is that even AC charging is regulated, and in order to access the discounted electricity tariffs announced by NEECA, one must register with NEECA and coordinate with local utilities and DISCOs. Even public charging stations that do not intend to use the discounted tariffs are likely to invite regulatory scrutiny, in which case registration might also be required. This whole process would include paying a 50,000 rupee registration fee, in addition to level-dependent annual inspection and license renewal costs. Moreover, coordination and site-specific NOCs would also need to be obtained from local authorities, including applicable DISCOs. In any case, this process of obtaining approvals and jumping through bureaucratic hoops is so tiresome that with these in place, unit economics stop making sense.

Nashit and Anusha’s reasoning is simple. Why would the government need to regulate AC charging, especially level 1 charging? As they put it, “if AC charging is allowed at home, why are approvals required for such charging in public? If I can charge my mobile phone at home, I can also charge it outside. Similarly, if I can charge my car at home, why can’t I charge it outside too?” They fail to see how regulating AC charging is going to help EV transition, especially since these regulations just make the process of setting them up cumbersome and erode the host’s ROI, eventually stifling the expansion of a decentralised charging network throughout the metropolis.

As of now, they have been targeting both public charging as well as private charging, but they have been facing some resistance from the former, where hosts often don’t see the point of paying for the charger up front. And there is some reasoning behind this. 

Let’s do some math. Let us assume that a host wants to set up 6 3kW charging pods. It would cost them a total of 262,000 rupees to do so (75,000 for the first pod, 37,000 for the other 5). Let’s assume that it is an office space, and that each bike takes 4 hours to charge and consumes 2 units. Since the usage would normally be during the 8 hours of office time, total electricity used per working day would be 6x2x2 = 24 units. And let’s assume that there are 22 working days in a month and the host makes 40 rupees profit per unit sold. This would make his yearly earning to be 253,000 rupees, slightly enough to cover the cost of investment.

Note that this is the ideal, best case scenario with 100% utilisation. If the utilisation is half, which is much more likely to be the case, the earnings per year fall by 75 percent. In this case, it would take 4 years merely to recoup the cost of the chargers. Now ZVolta would argue that people can choose to deploy chargers incrementally depending on the demand, and that deploying such chargers would bring them associated benefits such as increased customer retention, employee satisfaction, and so on. And considering these ancillary benefits, the investment might make sense. But as a purely financial argument, it is a little hard to sustain as things currently stand, especially in public charging contexts.

Moreover, the fact remains that most of the places setting these charging pods would be paying the commercial electricity rate (which is around 80-90 rupees per unit) - so the rate someone using the ZVolta app would be paying would be that rate plus the host’s margin. In order for the rate to be attractive, then, the margins would have to be lower - unless the host has a substantial solar installation. Otherwise, the rates would be high enough to be discouraging, if not prohibitive, creating a downward pressure on the host’s earnings. 

Private enterprises, often corporates, are more amenable to setting these up, and even if they do require some convincing, ZVolta feels that the orders they place are big enough to justify the convincing they need to do. The fact does remain, however, that public charging would be the way to go to promote large scale EV transition, but with current attitudes and the regulatory hoops, it is a slower work in progress. Of course, it is early in the tale for both ZVolta and Pakistan’s EV landscape, but for it to move into the next gear, a concerted effort needs to be made by the government. As Nashit and Anusha pointed out, this is still lacking: “There is push from the government’s side, but there’s also resistance.”

And it is the removal of this resistance – mainly in the form of regulatory hurdles – that holds the key for ZVolta to move to the next step in its career. Currently, they are a small operation, funded by angel investors, and are reliant on raising money through grants. Yet, according to the founders, if the regulations governing AC charging are changed, they will then move beyond fundraising through grants, and do actual fundraising. “We are ready for the regulations to change and when that happens, we will have enough market exposure that we’ll be able to scale as soon as possible,” as they optimistically declared.

 What is the way out?

We have considered three companies that are aiming to create solutions to the hurdles that face a large-scale shift towards electric mobility in Pakistan. Though we have focused more on the challenges these initiatives are facing, it is not to say that there are only challenges. There have been some successes too, but given the stage of EV adoption Pakistan is in, we felt it would be more worthwhile to see what actually is stopping us from allowing the shift to take hold sooner rather than later. The mere fact that these enterprises have begun gives us some room for hope that people will figure out a way. Even larger companies like ESwap are still figuring things out, while others like ZYP are aiming high and investing in long term capabilities. ZVolta is taking a different approach to the same problem.

It must be understood here that all of these three companies are currently in the very early stages of their lives. Of course they are figuring stuff out, and although each of them are facing issues that call into question the financial viability of both the customer and the company, some leeway must be granted to them. What should invite greater thought is the structural level of hurdles that they face, particularly in the form of poor electric infrastructure and availability of adequate funding. These are factors that the government can actually play a role in alleviating, and the measure of its willingness to address these problems would be the measure of their seriousness about achieving the EV targets they have set for themselves.

At the same time, larger automobile manufacturers, particularly in the two wheeler space, could actually partner with these companies and see how they can help each other in pushing this transition forward. In China, as Hassan of ZYP pointed out, a big part of the success of their electric vehicle industry is the fact that they were encouraged by the government to collaborate. This would not only unlock greater funding, but also allow companies to focus on what they do best, while integrating their solutions into the broader electric vehicle framework the country would like to operate in. And that might be the dawn of the electric era in Pakistan.