Public electric vehicle charging networks are commonly assessed in terms of deployment volume; however, charger counts capture scale more readily than heterogeneity in charging capacity and associated cost burden. This study develops a capacity-adjusted cost-accounting and sensitivity framework for Germany and the Netherlands. The analytical panel comprises 400 German and 40 Dutch internally calibrated analytical units followed over 2019-2025 (3,080 unit-year observations; 2,640 in the lagged-EV-stock diagnostic specification). These units are stable longitudinal analytical constructs generated from documented benchmark inputs and within-country calibration rules; they do not represent directly observed named administrative regions. Installed charging capacity is a constructed unit-year proxy derived from charger counts and assigned charger-power ratings rather than a directly observed capacity measure. Constructed gross cost per installed kilowatt is the baseline indicator, net cost per kilowatt is the alternative outcome, and gross cost per vehicle provides a descriptive denominator check. The principal empirical contribution is the transparent construction, decomposition and sensitivity assessment of these accounting indicators. Two-way fixed-effects estimates are retained as supplementary diagnostics that map conditional within-analytical-unit patterns and document construction linkage, weighting sensitivity and variation across alternative constructions. Overall, the framework provides a reproducible basis for constructing and stress-testing charging-infrastructure cost indicators from documented benchmark inputs, calibrated analytical-unit records and explicit accounting assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amer Morshed (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: