Everyone in EV charging is treating price transparency as a compliance chore. It is really a spotlight on a pricing decision most operators already got wrong.
In 2026 the pressure stepped up. DATEX II reporting became mandatory in April, and a fresh EU review is pushing for a pre-session all-in price and less tariff complexity, especially below 50 kW. Most operators read that as a labelling exercise. The more useful reading is that the rules are exposing a problem that was already there: a single flat tariff is a blunt instrument.
Why a flat tariff quietly loses money
A flat price per kWh has to cover your most expensive hour. So every driver who charges off-peak overpays to subsidise the peak, and every peak session you could have earned more on is billed at that same low number. Public charging already runs well above residential electricity rates; a flat tariff makes that gap look arbitrary rather than explained. Transparency rules simply make the number visible to everyone at once.
Transparent does not mean static
Here is the counter-intuitive part. Regulators want a price that is predictable before you plug in. That sounds like an argument for one flat number. It is not. A driver can see a clear, all-in price for this session, at this time, and that price can still reflect real conditions. Transparent and dynamic are not opposites.
It is worth being precise about which kind of dynamic. We spent three years on this and found that the obvious version — letting your price simply follow the energy exchange — earns less than a flat rate on most chargers, because the cheap hours and the busy hours rarely line up. The version that works is demand-aware: a curve that reflects how price-sensitive drivers are at each hour, published in advance and locked at the start of the session. We worked all of that through, with the numbers, in a separate piece: all we got wrong on dynamic pricing.
What we would check this quarter
- Pull your utilisation by hour. If it is spiky, a flat tariff is costing you both margin and volume.
- Make sure your ad-hoc and MSP price are shown before the session starts — that is where the new rules bite first.
- Model one demand-aware tariff on your busiest site before rolling anything out network-wide.
The operators who will struggle in 2026 are not the ones with dynamic prices. They are the ones whose flat tariff was quietly overcharging off-peak and undercharging peak, and who now have to show that number to everyone.
Frequently asked questions
What does AFIR require on EV charging price transparency?
Public charging prices must be transparent, comparable and non-discriminatory. In practice the price should be clear before the session starts, and the 2026 direction of travel adds pre-session all-in pricing and less tariff complexity below 50 kW, on top of mandatory DATEX II data reporting.
Isn’t a single flat price the most transparent option?
Transparent means the driver can see the price before charging, not that the price never changes. A flat rate is easy to display but it overcharges off-peak drivers to cover the peak, so it is arguably less fair. A demand-aware price that is published in advance and locked at session start is both transparent and better aligned with real conditions.
Does a dynamic tariff simply mean customers pay more?
Not if it is built around demand rather than the energy spot price. A demand-aware curve drops below the flat rate in the hours when drivers are price-sensitive, because that discount pays for itself through extra volume, and only rises where charging is a necessity. A hard minimum and maximum, a curve known in advance and price locking at session start keep it predictable.