Randomized trial analyzes charging behavior differences in electric vehicles across public and workplace settings, highlighting implications for infrastructure development.
Understanding and managing the electric vehicle (EV) charging network is expected to become a major challenge for future electricity grids, driven by the growing penetration of battery electric vehicles. This study analyzes two real-world datasets from the Czech Republic, representing public and workplace charging sessions, each further categorized into AC and DC charging, with a focus on their key operational differences. Workplace charging is characterized by significantly longer session durations, higher energy delivered per session compared to public charging, and a distinct peak in energy use on Mondays. In contrast, public charging sessions peak on Fridays. Cross-country comparisons highlight substantial differences in charging behavior, driven primarily by local charging infrastructure conditions and EV fleet composition. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth analysis comparing public and workplace charging based on real-world data from charging stations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in showing that charging-session parameters are shaped not only by charging location and AC/DC technology, but also by battery electric vehicle (BEV)/plugin-hybrid-electric-vehicle (PHEV) fleet composition and provider-specific pricing strategies, including overstay-fee policies. The findings suggest that EU- and national-level policies and subsidy schemes should consider not only the total number and installed power of charging points, but also the composition of the charging mix, including workplace charging and different forms of public charging such as on-street AC, commercial charging, and high-power DC charging. Such differentiation is particularly important for smart grid integration, demand flexibility, and the development of grid-compatible charging infrastructure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fišer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: