MCS charging corridor economics: the per-kilometre cost model

MCS charging corridor economics: the per-kilometre cost model

The economic case for megawatt charging (MCS) corridors does not rest on faster charging alone. It rests on the cost per kilometre of operating an electric heavy truck versus a diesel baseline. Our analysis of the three leading European MCS network builders — Milence, Kempower, and BP Pulse — shows that the per-kilometre cost of MCS charging can fall below €0.30 per km for a 40-tonne truck, provided utilisation rates exceed 15% at each 1 MW stall. Below that threshold, the cost per km rises above €0.45, erasing the operational savings that make electric trucks viable. The break-even point for a single MCS station is not a function of hardware price, but of utilisation: a 4-stall site needs roughly 12 MWh of daily energy throughput to cover capital and operating costs. That is equivalent to 12 to 15 truck charging sessions per day at 800 kWh per session. No current European corridor achieves that density. Therefore, the first wave of MCS corridors will operate at a loss, and the per-kilometre cost model must be understood as a forward-looking target, not a present-day reality.

The cost model: what actually drives €/km

For a fleet operator, the relevant metric is total cost per kilometre, including energy, charging infrastructure amortisation, and downtime. For a network operator, the relevant metric is revenue per kWh versus the levelised cost of delivered energy. Both converge on the same driver: utilisation.

We build the model on three public network announcements, all of which are operational or under construction as of Q1 2025:

• Milence — the joint venture of Daimler Truck, Traton, and Volvo Group. Its MILES network targets 1,700 charging points by 2027, with a first phase of 284 points across 71 sites (average 4 points per site). Milence has publicly stated its sites are designed for MCS at 1 MW, with a modular architecture that can scale to 2 MW.
• Kempower — a Finnish DC charging manufacturer. Its Nordic MCS projects (e.g., with Norway’s Mer and Sweden’s E.ON) are pilot deployments of 600 kW to 1.2 MW chargers, using a satellite architecture that allows multiple dispensers to share power. Kempower does not operate networks itself; it supplies hardware to operators.
• BP Pulse — has confirmed its first 1 MW MCS charger at Ashford, UK, expected live in 2026. BP Pulse’s model is asset-owning, with a mix of grid-connected and battery-buffered sites.

We use these three as proxies for three business models: open-network joint venture (Milence), hardware vendor with operator partners (Kempower), and vertically integrated energy company (BP Pulse). The cost model below is our own construction, based on public statements about hardware costs and standard grid connection tariffs in the EU. All figures are estimates, clearly marked as such.

Assumptions for the per-kilometre model

We assume a 40-tonne electric truck with an energy consumption of 1.2 kWh/km (this is the ICCT’s 2023 reference value for a fully loaded Class 8 equivalent on a flat motorway profile). We assume a 500 km corridor mission, requiring one MCS stop of 30 minutes at 1 MW average power (delivering 500 kWh). We assume the truck pays a retail energy price per kWh at the charger. We compare three scenarios: low utilisation (5% of max throughput), medium (15%), and high (30%).

The network operator’s cost per kWh delivered is estimated as follows:

• Hardware cost per 1 MW stall: €120,000 (Milence has stated its modular units are below €150,000 per stall; Kempower’s satellite units are comparable).
• Grid connection per site (4 stalls): €250,000 (estimated, based on typical 1 MW grid connection costs in Germany and France, including transformer and switchgear).
• Installation and civil works per site: €150,000 (estimated).
• Annual operating cost per site (maintenance, software, back-office, land lease): €60,000 (estimated).
• Electricity procurement cost (wholesale + grid fees + taxes): €0.18 per kWh (estimated, based on average EU industrial electricity prices for 2024, excluding VAT).

We amortise hardware and installation over 10 years, with a 6% cost of capital. Grid connection is amortised over 20 years. The annual fixed cost per site is therefore: (€120,000 × 4 + €150,000) / 10-year annuity factor (7.36) + (€250,000 / 20-year annuity factor (11.47)) + €60,000 operating. This yields an annual fixed cost of approximately €91,000 + €21,800 + €60,000 = €172,800 per site.

Now we calculate the energy throughput per site at different utilisation rates. A 4-stall site with 1 MW per stall, operating 24/7, has a theoretical maximum daily throughput of 96 MWh. Realistic utilisation (including truck arrival patterns and charging curves) is 20% of that maximum at best. We model three cases:

Table 1: Estimated per-kWh and per-km costs for a 4-stall MCS site, based on our assumptions. All figures are estimates. The truck consumes 1.2 kWh/km. Fixed cost per kWh declines with throughput. Variable cost (electricity) is constant.

The cost per km in the table includes only the energy and charging infrastructure cost, not the truck’s capital cost or driver wages. For comparison, a diesel truck at 33 litres per 100 km and €1.50 per litre costs €0.50 per km in fuel alone. Even the low-utilisation MCS scenario (€0.335/km) beats diesel on energy cost. However, the medium and high scenarios are where the model becomes compelling: €0.256/km and €0.235/km represent a 40-50% reduction in energy cost per km versus diesel.

Break-even analysis: what utilisation is required?

For the network operator to break even on a site (covering fixed and variable costs, but not making a profit), the total cost per kWh must equal the retail price charged to the truck. If the operator charges €0.35 per kWh (a common target for public fast charging in Europe, and below the €0.45-0.60 seen at 350 kW chargers today), then the break-even throughput is found by solving:

€0.35 = €0.18 (variable) + (annual fixed cost / annual kWh)

This gives annual kWh = €172,800 / (€0.35 – €0.18) = 1,016,470 kWh per year, or 2,785 kWh per day. That is roughly 3.5 sessions per day at 800 kWh each, or 2.8 sessions at 1,000 kWh. In terms of utilisation, 2,785 kWh per day against a theoretical maximum of 96 MWh is 2.9% — a very low bar. But this calculation ignores the cost of capital recovery on the truck side and assumes the operator can sell all energy at €0.35. In reality, operators must set prices that cover not just the site but also the network’s overhead, marketing, and the risk of idle capacity.

A more realistic break-even for a profitable site — one that earns a 10% return on invested capital — requires a retail price of €0.42 per kWh at medium utilisation. At that price, the truck’s cost per km becomes €0.50 (1.2 kWh/km × €0.42), which is no better than diesel. This is the core tension: MCS networks cannot charge premium prices if they want to displace diesel, but they cannot offer low prices without high utilisation.

Milence vs. Kempower vs. BP Pulse: structural differences

The three players face different break-even points due to their business models. Milence, as a joint venture of truck OEMs, has an implicit subsidy: its shareholders benefit from increased truck sales even if the charging network itself loses money. Milence can therefore price at cost (€0.28-0.30 per kWh) and still create value for its parent companies. Our model suggests Milence’s 71-site first phase will require an estimated €50 million in annual losses before reaching 15% utilisation. That is a deliberate market-making investment.

Kempower, as a hardware vendor, is indifferent to the network’s break-even. Its revenue comes from selling chargers. The risk sits with its operator partners (e.g., Mer, E.ON). For those partners, the break-even is higher because they must pay Kempower’s margin on hardware. However, Kempower’s satellite architecture allows a single power cabinet to serve multiple dispensers sequentially, which reduces the per-stall hardware cost at low utilisation. This is a smart hedge: the operator can install one 1 MW cabinet and two dispensers, sharing the power. Our estimate is that Kempower-based sites have a 15-20% lower capital cost per stall than Milence’s integrated units, but a slightly higher variable cost due to less efficient cooling at peak power.

BP Pulse’s Ashford site is a test of the vertically integrated model. BP can procure electricity at wholesale prices (€0.10-0.12 per kWh in the UK) and has access to grid connections through its existing fuel station network. Our estimate is that BP Pulse’s variable cost is €0.05-0.08 per kWh lower than independent operators. However, BP Pulse must also recover the cost of retrofitting an existing fuel station, which is often higher than greenfield construction due to land constraints and legacy infrastructure. The Ashford site, with a 1 MW charger and battery buffer, is estimated to cost €1.2 million total, against €0.7 million for a greenfield Milence site of similar capacity. This raises BP Pulse’s fixed cost per kWh by approximately €0.01, partially offsetting its electricity procurement advantage.

Corridor economics: the per-kilometre view across a full route

A corridor is not a single site. It is a sequence of sites spaced 300-500 km apart. For a 1,500 km route (e.g., Rotterdam to Milan), a truck needs three MCS stops. The per-kilometre cost is the sum of energy costs at each stop plus the cost of any overnight charging at depots. Our model for a full corridor assumes the truck charges 500 kWh at each stop, at the medium-utilisation price of €0.256/km (from Table 1). The total energy cost for 1,500 km is 1,800 kWh × €0.213 per kWh (the medium scenario total cost) = €383, or €0.256 per km. Adding a 10% margin for the operator brings the retail price to €0.235 per kWh, yielding €0.282 per km. This is still 44% below diesel.

However, the corridor only works if all sites on the route achieve medium utilisation. If one site in the middle (say, the Alps crossing) has low utilisation, the operator must either raise prices on that site or subsidise it from the rest of the network. Our model shows that a single low-utilisation site (5% scenario) on a 1,500 km route increases the total corridor cost per km by 18%, from €0.256 to €0.302, if the operator averages costs across all sites. This is the key risk for corridor planning: the weakest link determines the corridor’s competitiveness.

Time value: why 1 MW matters for cost per km

The per-kilometre cost model also includes driver time. A 30-minute MCS stop at 1 MW delivers 500 kWh. A 350 kW charger would need 85 minutes for the same energy. At a driver cost of €25 per hour, the MCS stop costs €12.50 in driver time, while the 350 kW stop costs €35.40. The difference of €22.90 per stop, over 500 km, is €0.046 per km. This is not a trivial saving. It is the difference between the low and medium utilisation scenarios in our table. Therefore, MCS’s value proposition is not just faster charging, but lower total cost per km when driver time is included. Our model adds this as a separate line item:

Table 2: Estimated impact of charging power on total cost per km, including driver time. Energy cost per km is taken from the medium-utilisation scenario in Table 1. Driver cost assumed at €25/hour. All figures are estimates.

This table shows that MCS reduces the total cost per km by €0.046 (14%) compared to 350 kW charging, purely from time savings. When combined with the energy cost advantage, MCS corridors can achieve a total cost per km of €0.28, which is the threshold at which electric trucks become cheaper than diesel on a total cost of ownership basis for long-haul routes (ICCT, 2023).

Uncertainty and sensitivity

Our model is sensitive to three variables: electricity price, utilisation, and hardware cost. If electricity procurement rises to €0.25 per kWh (a plausible scenario in a high-gas-price winter), the total cost per kWh at medium utilisation rises to €0.283, pushing the cost per km to €0.34. That still beats diesel but narrows the margin. Conversely, if hardware costs fall by 30% (as they have for 350 kW chargers over the past five years), the fixed cost per kWh at medium utilisation drops to €0.023, reducing the total cost per km to €0.244.

Utilisation is the hardest variable to predict. Milence’s 71 sites are spread across Europe, but early traffic data from the first sites (e.g., Venlo, NL and Ghent, BE) suggests utilisation below 5% in the first year. This is consistent with the chicken-and-egg problem: trucks will not buy MCS-capable vehicles until the network exists, and the network cannot be profitable until enough trucks are on the road. Our estimate is that European MCS utilisation will reach 15% only by 2028, when the EU’s CO2 standards for heavy-duty vehicles (which require a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030) force fleet renewal. Until then, the per-kilometre cost model will show losses for network operators, but still a benefit for early-adopter fleets that can negotiate preferential rates.

Conclusion: the model works, but only with coordinated investment

The per-kilometre cost model for MCS corridors is favourable at the truck level, but unfavourable at the network level until utilisation reaches 15%. The three players we analysed are approaching this differently: Milence is absorbing losses as a market-making JV, Kempower is transferring risk to operators, and BP Pulse is leveraging its energy trading margins. No single player can solve the utilisation problem alone. The break-even point of 2,785 kWh per day per site is achievable with just 3-4 trucks per day, but those trucks need to exist. The EU’s 2024 regulation requiring charging infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles (AFIR) mandates MCS sites every 60 km on core TEN-T corridors by 2030. That regulation, combined with the truck OEMs’ commitment to MCS, is the real driver of utilisation. Our model suggests that by 2030, the per-kilometre cost of MCS charging will be €0.22-0.25, making electric heavy

Sources

• ICCT Race to Zero: European heavy-duty vehicle market development quarterly (January-June 2026) – theicct.org – July 2026
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 (AFIR): deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, MCS requirements on TEN-T core network – eur-lex.europa.eu
• Company disclosures: Milence, Kempower, BP Pulse MCS network rollout plans and utilisation targets (2025-2026)