The directive's requirement to build electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure is the main provision affecting Estonian retailers, and it has recently drawn attention in the media. According to the directive, by 2027, non-residential buildings with more than 20 parking spaces must have at least one EV charging point per 10 parking spaces. In addition, at least half of the parking spaces must be pre-wired for future charging points.

The Estonian Traders' Association has estimated the total cost of implementing the directive at between €500 million and €2 billion. For investments of this scale, there must be an exceptionally well-justified reason. At present, that justification is questionable.

Unfortunately, the directive seems to prioritize quantity over quality. Since the directive focuses on the number of charging points rather than their power capacity, developers are incentivized to install cheaper, lower-capacity chargers.

However, when it comes to building charging infrastructure based on actual demand, power capacity is the decisive factor. Low-capacity chargers offer little added value to customers visiting a store. A typical shopping trip lasts around 30 minutes — not the 5 to 12 hours required to fully charge an EV battery using a slow charger. These types of chargers would be better suited for office building parking lots, where vehicles remain parked during working hours.

The requirements become especially unreasonable in smaller Estonian towns, where EV use is still minimal.

Take Saaremaa, for example. According to the Transport Administration's statistics, there are 190 registered EVs on the island. The directive would require 14 charging stations and pre-wiring for 71 parking spaces at the Lidl store in Kuressaare alone. If we add other local stores, we quickly reach a point where there are multiple chargers for every EV in the area. Most of these chargers would be concentrated in Kuressaare. What added value would mandatory installation of this scale actually provide?

The directive contains other problematic elements that have not been widely discussed in Estonia. For example, under certain interpretations, property owners might be required to install bidirectional chargers — significantly more expensive than standard ones — that allow EV owners to feed electricity back into the grid. But it remains unclear what benefit this offers consumers, as there is no clear economic incentive or established system to compensate users for supplying energy from their car batteries. Once again, we are looking at a requirement whose utility is highly questionable.

Meeting these requirements and establishing connections at this scale would demand substantial power grid investment — in our case, around 13.5 megawatts of fast-charging capacity across Estonia. In some regions, this would necessitate building new substations, reinforcing existing lines and increasing cable capacity.

These investments would ultimately be paid for by taxpayers, and there is no indication that connection or network fees will become cheaper. For instance, a 400-kilowatt charging station currently comes with ampere fees of up to €200,000 — a figure that has more than doubled in recent years.

The directive also requires that starting in 2027, new buildings — and in some cases existing ones — be equipped with solar panels. While this goal aligns with climate policy, it may not always be technically or economically feasible. Some parts of Estonia already lack the grid capacity to accommodate new production units, meaning that connection would require extensive and costly network upgrades.

Another critical issue with both solar panels and EV chargers is the shortage of qualified labor. Their installation requires experienced designers, electricians and construction professionals. If the requirements are implemented without realistic timelines and exemptions, the resulting surge in demand for specialists and materials could outstrip supply, creating bottlenecks in the market.

For this reason, domestic legislation must make full use of the exemptions allowed under the directive when implementation is technically or economically impractical. Longer deadlines should be granted for large buildings and complex projects.

It is clear that the adoption of electric vehicles and the development of renewable energy must be encouraged — this is an inevitable part of the future. However, transposing the directive must take into account Estonia's unique circumstances. While the number of EVs is growing, the pace of growth is nowhere near proportional to the demands the directive places on retailers. We must speak openly about this — and we are. Since the directive's approval, the Ministry of Climate has been in active dialogue with stakeholders to find the best solutions.

The directive's ambitions at the time of drafting were higher than what the current reality of technology adoption can support. If rigid obligations are imposed that prove impractical due to grid limitations or consumer behavior, the outcome may be counterproductive. We risk burdening businesses and building infrastructure that no one uses — not to mention wasting investments that could otherwise support a better future.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!