Charging tariffs for electric cars in comparison: average driver

User type: Average loader

Dank Wallbox This user charges 70% of the time at home. Public remain 10% AC-Laden and 20% HPC left over. We assume a mid-range electric car with the key data shown below. If it is charged on AC columns, then in the evening or during shopping or appointments (4x 3 hours, 3 x 5 hours). It charges on HPC columns for 7 x 20 minutes and 5 x 3 hours.

According to the Federal Motor Transport Authority, this is average mileage per car in Germany 12 440 km. However, the breakdown by type of drive is interesting: with around 9,730 kilometers per year, petrol engines drive the least. Diesel cars are ahead with around 17,750 km, and “other drive types”, which also include electric cars, are in between with around 16,220 km per year. In our model calculation we set for the “Average” electric car driver 15,000 km per year.

Thanks to the high proportion of cheap charging on the private wallbox, the annual costs in our model calculations (which, mind you, only include the costs for public charging) are the cheapest in this profile. Nevertheless, depending on the EMP tariff chosen, they show differences of up to 270 euros per year.

E.ON

In our comparisons, we take into account two tariffs from the Essen energy company’s offering: the basic fee-free “Drive Light“ and the “ designed for higher charging salesDrive More“. Both are well ahead in our results tables and each achieved a good grade. The advantage here is that the tariffs are at least on the pillars of the fairly broad partner network no blocking fees provide. Because of their higher total charge quantity, streetlight parkers benefit from “Drive More”, for average drivers the ratings for “Drive Light” and “Drive More” are close to each other, and frequent drivers are, unsurprisingly, better off with “Drive More”.

EnBW

The Baden-Württemberg energy company differentiates between its charging tariffs Sizes S, M and L. Our calculations confirm that this classification is correct. Lantern parkers have a slight advantage in level M due to the high loading volumes, but the difference to S is not big. The same applies to average drivers, although they drive slightly better with “S”. Frequent travelers make sense to choose level L. All three offers are in the good midfield for us.

Shell Recharge

In addition to its standard tariff, the gas station operator also offers a tariff designed for frequent users.Beta“ on. But at the time of testing it was possible only via app book, it was still missing on the provider’s website. With its standard offering, Shell is in the good midfield in our model calculations for streetlight parkers and average drivers; frequent chargers are actually better served with “Beta” – even if only with a satisfactory grade.

Maingau

The energy supplier offers with “Autostrom“A clearly structured tariff. However, its partner conditions do not cover many well-known CPOs. In the model calculations for our three profiles, it lands in the middle of the field with a grade of satisfactory.

Plugsurfing

The strongly internationally focused EMP offers tariffs that land in the middle of the field with a rating of satisfactory in our three profiles. The offer is less worthwhile for frequent travelers.

Hintergrund: Charging Roaming

Why differentiated roaming prices are ultimately fairer

Similar to mobile communications, charging point operators (CPOs) also charge charging card (EMP) providers “roaming fees” when their customers use their charging infrastructure. Unlike mobile communications, these roaming costs are only lightly regulated – they ultimately depend on negotiations between both partners involved. And surprisingly, these costs are often even higher than the kWh price that the CPO charges its own customers. Depending on the charging station operator and EMP, the roaming price can vary.

From the customer’s perspective, it is of course clearer if a uniform price applies regardless of the CPO and possibly even regardless of the charging power (AC/DC/HPC). But providers have to decide: With a mixed calculation, do they risk increasing the price in individual cases? Or do they set the roaming price at the level of the highest case that occurs? Both pose problems. Ultimately, offers that differentiate roaming depending on the CPO are therefore actually fairer – but at the same time more confusing.