Coordinated planning of European charging infrastructure and energy system for optimal V1G and V2G deployment

Vehicle charging infrastructure targets in Europe currently rely on uniform benchmarks and overlook the flexibility that could be provided by future smart charging (V1G) and vehicle to grid operation (V2G). To address this gap, we explicitly represent charging infrastructure and its costs in a cost minimizing European energy system model, allowing uncontrolled charging, V1G, and V2G to compete. We find that V1G captures the majority of system cost savings, amounting to 19 to 42 billion euros per year, or 2.2 to 4.5 percent, and substantially reduces infrastructure requirements. V2G provides more limited system cost savings of up to 2.5 billion euros per year, but generates substantial balancing market revenues of around 6.4 billion euros per year. V2G deployment is most cost effective in photovoltaic dominated systems and in scenarios with limited grid expansion, where combined solar and wind generation is relatively scarce. Charging infrastructure requirements vary across countries, reflecting either utilization maximization or flexibility maximization. This indicates that uniform EU targets risk overestimating infrastructure needs in some regions while constraining the benefits of smart charging in others.

💡 Research Summary

This paper addresses a critical gap in European energy planning by explicitly integrating electric‑vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and its associated costs into a continent‑wide, cost‑minimizing energy system model. While many earlier studies have examined the flexibility potential of smart charging (V1G) and vehicle‑to‑grid (V2G), they often treat charging infrastructure as an exogenous input, assume fixed market values for V2G, or conflate infrastructure costs with remuneration. The authors overcome these limitations by extending the Sector‑Coupled Euro‑Calliope model with a novel mobility module derived from the RAMP‑mobility framework. This module endogenizes decisions on the number and type of chargers, the spatial distribution of infrastructure, and country‑specific battery constraints, while preserving a one‑hour temporal resolution to capture daily and seasonal flexibility patterns.

Three dimensions of scenario design are explored: (1) charging flexibility level – uncontrolled charging, V1G (price‑responsive unidirectional charging), and V2G (bidirectional operation); (2) transmission expansion – limited, moderate, and unconstrained, following ENTSO‑E 2040 projections; and (3) charging‑infrastructure cost – high, base, low, and zero. Across the 27 resulting configurations, the model simultaneously optimizes generation, storage, transmission, and charging infrastructure for a 2050 target year.

Key findings:

• V1G delivers the bulk of system‑wide cost reductions, cutting total energy system expenditures by €19–42 billion per year (2.2–4.5 % of total costs). It achieves this by shifting EV charging to periods of high renewable output, thereby reducing peak charging demand from roughly 281–284 GW to 73–94 GW and shrinking required public charger capacity.
• V2G adds only modest additional savings (up to €2.5 billion per year) but generates substantial balancing‑market revenues of €0.2–6.4 billion annually. These revenues stem from arbitrage between low‑price (e.g., midday solar) and high‑price periods, effectively turning EV batteries into distributed storage assets.
• The magnitude of V2G deployment is highly sensitive to the generation mix and transmission constraints. In scenarios dominated by photovoltaic generation and with limited transmission expansion, V2G injections can reach up to 89 TWh per year, requiring an extra 14 % of charging capacity to accommodate discharge cycles. Conversely, when transmission capacity is abundant or infrastructure costs are high, V2G uptake is markedly lower.
• Country‑level analysis reveals a wide spread in optimal charger capacity per vehicle (0.17–2.81 kW/EV). Nations with solar‑rich grids (e.g., Spain, Italy) benefit more from V2G, whereas wind‑heavy systems (e.g., United Kingdom, Norway) see limited value in additional flexibility and thus require less infrastructure.
• Uniform EU targets, such as the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation’s 1.3 kW per EV benchmark, ignore these national differences. The model defines a “cost‑neutral” upper bound for charger deployment; exceeding this bound erodes the economic benefits of smart charging.

Policy implications are clear: (i) V1G should be prioritized as the most cost‑effective lever for integrating EVs into the power system; (ii) V2G can be encouraged in PV‑dominant, transmission‑constrained contexts through market designs that reward storage arbitrage; (iii) EU‑wide infrastructure mandates must be calibrated to country‑specific generation mixes and grid expansion pathways to avoid over‑building in some regions and under‑utilizing flexibility in others. The authors suggest differentiated targets, incentives for low‑cost charger rollout, and regulatory frameworks that facilitate V2G participation in ancillary service markets.

In summary, the study provides the first comprehensive, endogenous assessment of how coordinated planning of charging infrastructure and the broader energy system shapes the economic viability of V1G and V2G across Europe, offering actionable insights for policymakers aiming to harmonize EV adoption with the continent’s decarbonization goals.