Executive summary
Key findings
- This study examines pricing and price transparency across the European Union (EU) in public charging for electric vehicles and in onshore power supply in ports. The study provides clear evidence that public charging is substantially more expensive than charging at home or at company premises, and often appears unreasonably high, non-transparent, complex and not user-friendly. It can and does ‘break the business case for driving an EV’. Moreover, the study also finds that OPS currently creates a clear risk of unreasonable pricing.
- For public charging, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation requires prices to be reasonable, transparent, easily and clearly comparable, and non-discriminatory, but implementation and enforcement remain uneven.
- Public charging is often much more expensive than charging at home or at company premises and, for users who depend on it, can weaken or remove the economic case for an electric vehicle.
- The same public charging session can result in very different prices depending on the access method used. Large price spreads and tariff complexity remain major problems for consumers.
- Local monopoly conditions in public alternating-current (AC) charging and weak comparability often limit effective competition and contribute to high prices.
- A moderate surcharge for fast direct-current (DC) charging could be justified by higher investment, grid capacity and service value, but observed surcharges are not always well explained by underlying cost differences.
- In ports, onshore power supply is usually provided in monopoly or near-monopoly conditions, while European Union law does not yet provide an equivalent pricing standard.
- Onshore power supply tariffs vary widely across ports and often combine energy charges with fixed, call-based or connection-related elements, which reduces comparability and can penalise smaller or short-stay users.
- For public charging for electric vehicles the main policy priorities are: clearer pre-session price information, simpler tariff structures, and stronger enforcement.
Public charging for electric vehicles
The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 (AFIR) lays down binding requirements for Member States on the deployment of charging infrastructure for light-duty electric vehicles (EVs), including battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). It sets requirements for ad hoc payments, price transparency, and consumer information, and mandates that prices must be ‘reasonable, transparent, easily and clearly comparable, and non-discriminatory’.
Reasonable, transparent public charging prices are crucial for EV adoption. As most EU citizens cannot charge at home and must rely on public charging, a cost advantage over driving an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle is essential for mass adoption. At present, charging at home is the cheapest option in almost all cases, and especially charging company cars at company premises. By contrast, as shown in the total cost of ownership (TCO) examples below, high public charging prices can substantially raise annual driving costs and, for users without access to home charging, remove any financial advantage over an ICE vehicle or even widen the existing financial disadvantage.
Main findings
The study provides clear evidence that public charging is substantially more expensive than charging at home or at company premises, and is often unreasonably high, non-transparent, complex, and not user-friendly. It can and does ‘break the business case for driving an EV’.
Reasonable pricing: There is a large spread between the highest and lowest prices. At the EU level, average AC charging prices through mobility service providers (MSPs) range from €0.27 to €0.65/kWh. For DC charging, the spread is even wider, from about €0.32 to €0.85/kWh, with the highest observed prices exceeding €1/kWh in some markets. At the individual charging point level, the spread is also very large, with most sampled charging points showing a spread (difference between the highest and lowest MSP price) of €0.40 to €1.00/kWh, and some go well above that, up to €1.40/kWh. Higher service levels or subscription-based discounts can explain some price differences. However, the large differences observed indicate that prices are, from a user perspective, unreasonable.
Price transparency is lacking: Price information is often unavailable before charging begins, tariff structures are difficult to understand, and the final price can strongly depend on whether the user pays ad hoc via a charge point operator (CPO) or a mobility service provider, sometimes including hidden fees.
The market structure helps explain these outcomes: In public AC on-street charging, the availability of a single nearby charger is often decisive, limiting local competition and resulting in local monopolies. For fast DC charging, competition is generally stronger and a surcharge can be justified by higher costs and service value, but the size of the surcharge differs strongly by country and payment method.
Recommendations for policymakers in EV charging
The main weakness of the current AFIR framework is that the legal requirements remain open to interpretation, are not yet well implemented, and are difficult to enforce.
To improve price transparency, priority measures include: pre-session ‘all-in’ price estimates; limits on tariff complexity, especially below 50 kW and in MSP pricing; stricter regulation of occupancy fees; extension of the AFIR ad hoc pricing logic from ≥50 kW to lower-power chargers; pre-session provision of both the MSP price and the ad hoc price; and itemised invoices.
To address high and poorly justified prices, the EU should reduce ambiguity in requirements on reasonable and non-discriminatory prices; empower national competition authorities with an EU indicator package; translate lessons from DC fast charging transparency and competition into guidelines and regulation; address the broader lack of competition and local monopolies in AC public charging, including the role of concession tenders in mitigating these problems for users; and improve transparency through National Access Points and the Common European Access Point, while recognising that this is a longer-term measure and should not delay other actions.
Onshore power supply in ports
AFIR provides specific requirements for the provision of onshore power supply (OPS) in specified Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) maritime and inland ports. The FuelEU Maritime Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 complements these infrastructure obligations by requiring, from 2030, that certain ships at berth in ports covered by AFIR use OPS or an equivalent zero-emission solution. However, unlike public charging for EVs, EU law does not yet set an explicit pricing principle for OPS.
Main findings
The study finds that OPS currently has economic and market characteristics that create a clear risk of unreasonable pricing. These can be summarised as follows.
- Natural monopolies and utilisation risk: OPS infrastructure requires substantial upfront capital investment. Because ships cannot choose between competing shore power providers at the same location, it increases the risk of unreasonable pricing.
- Heterogeneous tariff structures: Without EU-level pricing rules, OPS tariff structures differ strongly across EU ports and are often difficult to compare because they combine energy prices with fixed, connection-related or minimum-charge elements.
- Competitiveness and shipowner behaviour: From the shipowner perspective, OPS is often assessed as an out-of-pocket port cost and compared directly with onboard electricity generation. Unless regulatory costs, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and FuelEU penalties, are fully internalised, high OPS tariffs can deter uptake and distort competition, especially relative to nearby non-EU ports.
Recommendations for policymakers regarding OPS
The main recommendation for OPS is the development of EU guidance on OPS pricing. Given the natural-monopoly character of ports, the EU should introduce transparency guidelines for OPS tariff design and publication, promote a clearer, more comparable presentation of price components, and support cost-recovery models that do not unfairly penalise early adopters or short-stay vessels. A basic pricing governance framework for OPS would help preserve the competitiveness of EU ports while supporting the uptake of shore-side electricity.
Selection of visuals:
1 Comment
[Digest] Pricing of E-Charging for Electric Cars and Onshore Power Supply in Ports – Research4Committees · June 4, 2026 at 12:42 pm
[…] Study on Pricing of E-Charging for Electric Cars and Onshore Power Supply in Ports […]