Comparing the levelized cost of electric vehicle charging options in Europe

The Paris Agreement necessitates rapid decarbonization, including the transport sector. Road vehicles account for a significant portion of EU greenhouse gas emissions. Electric vehicles (EVs) are crucial for decarbonizing road transport, but their charging costs remain largely unknown and vary significantly across Europe. Previous research has explored EV charging costs in specific contexts or locations, limiting generalizability. This study addresses this gap by modeling the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) EVs across 30 European countries and various charging options relevant to passenger transport. The LCOC, incorporating capital costs and sales margins, represents the long-term average cost to consumers, enabling comparison with conventional fuel costs. This detailed analysis will provide valuable insights for transport modelers, EV users, and policymakers.

Existing literature acknowledges that the true cost of EV charging extends beyond simple electricity price assumptions. Factors such as charging infrastructure costs, utilization rates, and electricity price variations must be considered. Studies have compared charging costs across sites, technologies, or drivetrains, often focusing on specific locations. While a recent study comprehensively examined charging options and tariffs in the United States, a consistent, pan-European analysis comparing costs across various charging options and countries was lacking. This research gap is critical given the ambitious EU decarbonization targets for road transport.

This study analyzes charging costs across 30 European countries (EU27, UK, Norway, Switzerland), considering 13 charging options for private passenger transport. A levelized cost of charging (LCOC) formula, expanding on Borlaug et al. (2020), is employed. The LCOC per charging plug is calculated, incorporating infrastructure and electricity costs. **Infrastructure Costs:** These are disaggregated into equipment, installation, and operation & maintenance (O&M) costs. A database of 232 charger models from 37 manufacturers was compiled, classifying chargers into three quality standards. Installation costs include mechanical/structural installation, electrical distribution, and planning/permitting expenses. O&M costs are estimated based on expert interviews and vary by charging site type. Yearly charging energy (utilization rate) is estimated based on real-world data for commercial stations and a user-centered approach for residential charging. Infrastructure lifetime is assumed to be 15 years, with a 3% discount rate for residential and 7% for commercial sites. **Electricity Costs:** Average grid electricity costs from Eurostat are used, differentiating between residential and commercial consumers. A 10% reduction is applied to residential grid electricity to account for time-of-use tariffs. For residential charging with PV, country-specific hour-by-hour PV generation is considered, creating a weighted average electricity cost. Charging efficiencies are incorporated for different charger types. A 2% transaction fee is added to publicly accessible stations. **User Profiles:** Four user profiles (Wallbox user, Wallbox user with PV, Socket user, and Commercial user) are defined, representing different charging behaviors. An 'Average user' profile is also included. The LCOC for each user profile is calculated as a weighted average of the LCOCs for different charging options. **Utilization Rate:** The utilization rate (the share of time a charging station operates at nominal power) is a key determinant of LCOC. A sensitivity analysis shows its significant interaction with other cost parameters. The LCOC is analyzed as a function of utilization rate, and results are compared to fuel costs of gasoline cars.

The study reveals considerable variation in LCOC across countries and charging options. The Average user LCOC ranged from €0.173 kWh⁻¹ in Hungary to €0.330 kWh⁻¹ in Germany. Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Denmark showed the highest costs. Wallbox users faced higher costs than Socket users (due to infrastructure costs). Using on-site PV reduced costs in some countries (e.g., Germany), but increased them in others (e.g., Hungary). Commercial charging was competitive or cheaper than residential charging in some countries, particularly in Eastern Europe. The LCOC spread (difference between highest and lowest cost options) across countries ranged from €0.317 kWh⁻¹ (Romania) to €0.489 kWh⁻¹ (Switzerland). Cost order of charging options varied significantly across countries. The LCOC is mainly determined by power level (low AC being cheapest, DC fastest charging most expensive). On average, infrastructure and electricity costs comprised roughly half of the LCOC (except for Socket users). Installation costs often dominated infrastructure costs, while O&M costs were less significant. For electricity costs, energy costs were crucial, with taxes and levies adding considerably to residential grid electricity. In Germany, reducing taxes and levies through PV use significantly lowered LCOC, while in Hungary, higher energy costs negated this effect. Infrastructure costs varied between Wallbox users and Commercial users due to equipment costs, and installation costs were affected by labor costs in high-cost countries like Switzerland and Norway. Sensitivity analysis highlighted utilization rate as a key determinant of LCOC, particularly affecting the balance between charging speed and infrastructure cost. At utilization rates of 5-15%, publicly accessible charging costs were often cheaper than gasoline for efficient cars. However, this does not account for the initial vehicle purchase price difference.

This study's comparison of EV charging costs across various options and countries in Europe highlights significant cost heterogeneity, underscoring the importance of considering this variation in transport modeling and EV adoption projections. Previous studies neglecting infrastructure costs significantly underestimate charging costs. The heterogeneity of charging costs should be considered by potential EV users when comparing total cost of ownership with conventional cars. However, the modeled consumer-level LCOC may not always translate directly into end-consumer prices. Market factors and regulatory policies can influence actual charging prices, potentially masking the underlying cost diversity. The analysis points to the economic benefits of residential charging, especially with PV generation, for homeowners. However, users without access to home charging often face higher costs, potentially exacerbating inequalities and slowing EV adoption.

This study provides the first pan-European comparison of levelized EV charging costs across numerous charging options and countries. It highlights substantial cost variations, emphasizing the importance of incorporating charging cost heterogeneity into transport models. The findings show that policy interventions focused on reducing electricity prices, streamlining installation procedures, and managing public charging infrastructure utilization are vital for fostering a swift transition to electric mobility in Europe. Future research should expand the range of charging options, incorporate dynamic modeling, refine electricity price assumptions, increase geographical resolution, and explore various business models and charging network optimizations to reduce charging costs.

The study relies on 2019 data for electricity prices and other cost components. While a 10% reduction in residential electricity costs was assumed to account for time-of-use tariffs, this simplification might not fully capture the complexity of real-world tariffs. Grid connection costs for high-power charging stations were neglected, potentially underestimating costs in some situations. The utilization rates for commercial charging stations are based on projections and may vary regionally. The study does not consider potential cost reductions from on-site energy storage or vehicle-to-grid technologies.