Private charging points for electric trucks are to be opened up to other logistics companies in the future. A sensible idea that would allow existing infrastructure to be used more efficiently. However, it seems that once again, the focus is mainly on vehicles, electricity prices, and operational processes, while the people driving these vehicles are surprisingly overlooked in the discussion.
On October 20, 2026, the industry portal trans.info published an article titled “No private charging point? EU eases electric truck charging” . Reading only the headline might lead one to believe that the European Union has already adopted a corresponding regulation. In reality, however, we are still quite some way off from that.
Behind the news is a joint initiative by the International Road Transport Union (IRU) and the environmental organization Transport & Environment (T&E). Both organizations addressed a letter to the European Commission on October 8, 2026, calling for a legal framework for so-called Semi-Private Charging. This refers to the possibility of logistics companies making their private charging points available to other transport companies under certain conditions.
However, nothing has been decided yet. This is initially a request to policymakers, which should be considered as part of a revision of the European regulation on alternative fuels infrastructure (AFIR). Whether, when, and in what form this will actually become binding law remains open at present. The headline at trans.info anticipates the result to some extent, even though the article itself explains the background correctly.
Use existing infrastructure instead of building new ones everywhere
The basic idea behind the proposal is indeed reasonable. A logistics company that electrifies its vehicle fleet must inevitably think about charging infrastructure. Those who can create such possibilities on their own premises may invest considerable sums in charging stations, grid connections, and the associated technology. However, this infrastructure will not necessarily be used around the clock. While their own vehicles are on the road, individual charging points could be made available to other companies.
This would be particularly interesting for smaller logistics companies. After all, not every company has its own sufficiently large property or the financial means to build high-performance fast-charging stations. And even if the money is available, that does not necessarily mean that the local grid operator can provide the required connection capacity in the short term.
So why not share existing infrastructure? In other areas of logistics, it has long been common practice to use resources across companies. Vacant warehouse spaces are rented out, handling capacities are shared, and transport orders are assigned to subcontractors. Why should charging points be fundamentally different?
The initiators therefore want to achieve that companies can voluntarily open their charging infrastructure for a limited circle of users without having to meet all the requirements applicable to publicly accessible charging infrastructure solely because of this. Which legal obligations apply in individual cases depends, under current law, on actual accessibility and usage. It is precisely here that a clearer legal framework should be created.
Up to this point, I can agree with the reasoning. Problems arise only when a technically and economically understandable idea is mentally transformed into a functioning infrastructure for road freight transport.
A charging column in place does not guarantee charging capacity
Let’s take a larger logistics company that has installed six charging points with 350 kilowatts each on its premises. On paper, this results in a possible total capacity of 2.1 megawatts. Whether this capacity can actually be drawn simultaneously is a completely different matter. The charging points may have to share the available connection capacity, and even existing load management can only distribute the electricity that is actually available.
As long as mainly the own fleet is being charged, this can be organized relatively well. After all, the entrepreneur knows their vehicles, their usage times, and the approximate energy requirements. However, when foreign vehicles are added, planning becomes more complicated. An additional truck requiring several hundred kilowatt-hours is not comparable to a passenger car that recharges a few kilowatt-hours during shopping.
It will become particularly interesting if the own vehicles return earlier than planned or if several foreign trucks arrive at the same time. Then the operator must decide how to distribute the available charging capacity. In case of doubt, giving priority to the own fleet would be understandable from an economic perspective. However, for the foreign entrepreneur and their driver, this could mean that a planned charging stop suddenly turns into a longer waiting time.
A legal easing for shared use will not initially change anything about this. Because opening up existing charging points does not create additional grid capacity. The real problem of many companies, namely the limited availability of high-performance grid connections, remains.
Naturally, an intelligently organized shared use can ensure that existing capacities are utilized more effectively. However, the involved companies must coordinate their charging times and make reliable arrangements. Otherwise, one merely shifts part of the infrastructure problem from one’s own premises to those of another company.
The driver must cope with what others have planned
What stands out in the discussion is the predominantly economic perspective. For freight forwarders, it is about investment costs, additional revenues, and the possibility of using electric trucks even without their own charging infrastructure. These are undoubtedly important questions. Yet, transport planning famously does not end at the dispatcher’s office door.
In the end, a human sits behind the steering wheel who must drive the vehicle to the designated charging point. And this person must keep an eye on both the remaining battery capacity and their driving and rest periods.
Let us imagine, therefore, that a driver has already been on the road for several hours and arrives at a charging point on the premises of a foreign freight forwarder. The tour was planned accordingly, the remaining range reaches there, and the charging time should ideally be combined with a mandatory driving break. On paper, everything fits together perfectly.
On site, it then turns out that the charging pile is currently needed by a company-owned vehicle. Perhaps the available charging power has also decreased because other vehicles are connected. Or access to the premises is simply not possible outside regular business hours.
With a conventionally powered truck, one can often switch to another gas station in case of problems. With an electric truck with low remaining range, this is not necessarily so easy. Although the public charging network for heavy-duty vehicles is also being expanded, the spatial distribution and availability of suitable charging points remain crucial for route planning.
Particularly annoying is that legal driving and rest periods cannot simply be adjusted to operational difficulties. If the permissible driving time has been largely exhausted, it helps the driver little if another charging point might be available 40 kilometers away.
Anyone who wishes to establish charging points at foreign companies as a fixed component of transport planning must therefore also consider reliable access options, transparent information on actual availability, and preferably binding reservations. Otherwise, shared use becomes an additional source of uncertainty, whose consequences will ultimately have to be borne by those on the road.
And where is the driver supposed to stay?
The matter becomes even more interesting when we do not only deal with the charging process itself. Because while the battery is being charged, the driver famously does not simply disappear from the vehicle.
Perhaps he has exhausted his four-and-a-half-hour driving time and wants to use the charging time for his mandatory driving break. Perhaps it is also the daily rest period that is due. In the case of electrically powered trucks, it would indeed make sense to use longer standing times for charging instead of having to plan additional breaks.
However, this presupposes that the respective standing time can actually be utilized accordingly.
A charging point on a freight forwarder’s premises is not automatically a suitable place to stay. It may be located right next to a transfer hall where operations continue late into the night, loading and unloading takes place there. There may be neither a toilet accessible to external drivers nor a rest room on the premises. And even if such facilities exist, that does not necessarily mean that external drivers are allowed to use them.
From the operator’s perspective, I can certainly understand why one does not wish to grant foreign persons unrestricted access to all operational areas after all. Safety regulations, insurance issues, and the organization of ongoing operations play a role.
For the driver, however, this changes nothing about his situation. He is standing on a foreign business premises, his truck is plugged into the charging cable, and there may not even be the possibility to visit a toilet.
It becomes particularly problematic if he has to move the vehicle immediately after the charging process is completed. Because a proper rest period presupposes that the driver can actually dispose of their time freely. If they are obliged to move the vehicle or be available for operational instructions during this time, this may contradict the recognition of a rest period.
Of course, not every charging session needs to be linked with a daily rest period. Many vehicles can be charged during regular operating breaks or at their home locations. However, in long-haul transport, the situation looks different. Anyone who relies on external charging points there needs infrastructure that can be reconciled with real working conditions.
And this aspect is severely lacking in my view throughout the entire discussion.
We constantly talk about how electromobility can be integrated as efficiently as possible into existing transport processes. That a human being also belongs to these processes, who occasionally needs to sleep, eat, or simply go to the toilet, sometimes seems almost secondary.
Perhaps we should connect this with the parking lot problem
In doing so, the idea of making private freight forwarder premises accessible to foreign trucks could indeed have another advantage.
For years now, there has been discussion about the shortage of truck parking spaces along our motorways. Anyone who regularly travels long-haul does not need a scientific study to confirm this; a look at the rest areas in the evening is enough. Vehicles are parked on access roads, alongside driving lanes, and sometimes even in places where they should not be there for safety reasons.
This is not because drivers particularly like parking there, but simply because regular parking spaces are often no longer available.
At the same time, there are numerous logistics sites and distribution centers where not all areas are utilized at least temporarily. Of course, not every such site is suitable as an additional truck parking lot. Some companies operate around the clock, others have only limited maneuvering areas, or must strictly control access for safety reasons.
Nevertheless, I ask myself why we do not think further about the planned shared use of charging infrastructure.
If companies are willing to open their premises to electric trucks from other operators, it could be examined at suitable locations whether additional parking spaces can be created there. Ideally, these should be designed so that drivers can spend their mandatory driving breaks or rest periods while charging.
Of course, more than just a charging pile and a patch of asphalt would be needed. Sanitary facilities should also be considered, as well as reasonable accommodation options and sufficient distance from active loading/unloading operations. For longer rest periods, it is also important that drivers do not have to constantly expect their vehicle to need moving.
In this way, two problems could be addressed together that have so far often been considered separately: the expansion of charging infrastructure for electric commercial vehicles and the long-standing shortage of suitable truck parking spaces.
Of course, this alone would not eliminate the parking space shortage. But even additional parking opportunities at suitable logistics sites could provide relief. Above all, it would be an opportunity to ensure that new infrastructure concepts do not focus exclusively on vehicles again.
Cheap electricity alone does not yet make transport economically viable
Another aspect is economic viability. In the article by trans.info, electricity prices of around 30 to 35 cents per kilowatt-hour are mentioned for certain depot charging offers. This initially sounds attractive, especially compared to some public fast-charging offers.
Let us assume a typical energy consumption of 120 kilowatt-hours for an electric truck over 100 kilometers. At an electricity price of 30 cents, this results in pure energy costs of 36 euros. If the price rises to 50 cents, it is already 60 euros. At 70 cents per kilowatt-hour, we reach 84 euros.
These are, of course, only calculation examples. The actual consumption depends on the vehicle, load, route profile, and weather conditions. Additional charging losses and possible fees have also not yet been taken into account.
Nevertheless, it becomes clear why cheap depot charging offers can be interesting for transport companies.
However, economic assessment involves more than just the price per kilowatt-hour. A charging point can still be so cheap that if the driver has to take a significant detour or wait several hours unplanned there, additional costs arise. After all, operational obligations continue: delivery deadlines must be met, vehicles scheduled, and drivers paid.
The planned utilization of driving and working time also plays a role. If the charging process can reasonably be combined with already required driving breaks, the calculation looks significantly cheaper than if additional standing times become necessary.
That is why I consider it wrong to assess the economic viability of semi-private charging infrastructure mainly through as low electricity prices as possible. What matters is whether this infrastructure can be reliably integrated into the actual transport process.
And that also includes the fact that the driver does not regularly stand before locked gates or has to hope that a charging space will become available somewhere.
A sensible initiative, but please not only for companies again
I certainly do not want to disparage the joint initiative by IRU and T&E. On the contrary: better utilizing existing infrastructure instead of having to build new facilities at every location is fundamentally a sensible approach. In particular, smaller and medium-sized transport companies could benefit from gaining access to affordable charging infrastructure without having to make high investments themselves.
It would, however, be a mistake to consider this opportunity already as a far-reaching solution for the problems of electric road freight transport.
Because access to a charging point is only part of the necessary infrastructure. At least equally important are actual availability, reliable route planning, and suitable conditions during standing times.
What I would therefore wish for is a debate that is not determined exclusively by the economic interests of transport companies and the technical possibilities of charging infrastructure.
Now that we are already considering new legal frameworks, we could take the opportunity to also better address the needs of drivers. Not every logistics company therefore needs to build a hotel for professional drivers. However, an accessible toilet, the possibility of an uninterrupted break, and reasonable regulations for longer standing times should play a significant role when planning corresponding charging offers.
It is already characteristic enough today that billions are being invested in traffic infrastructure along our motorways, while professional drivers have to search for a suitable parking spot every evening.
We should not simply repeat this mistake with electromobility.
A robust charging network is necessary for the future of electric road freight transport. But if we only supply the batteries of our trucks and ignore the needs of the people behind the wheel, we have failed to understand a fundamental problem.
Perhaps therefore, when planning future charging infrastructure, one should not only ask how many kilowatts an electric truck can absorb.
But also under what conditions its driver is supposed to spend the time while the vehicle is charging.
Sources and further information
- trans.info: No own charging point? EU facilitates charging of electric trucks (20.10.2026)
- IRU: EU framework needed to unlock semi-private truck charging (09.10.2026)
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 on the establishment of alternative fuels infrastructure
- Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on driving times and rest periods
