The European Parliament adopted a set of rules today to improve the EV charging experience, focusing on easier payments, charging speed, and availability. In a separate move, the UK government is also currently proposing new rules for easier payments and charging station reliability.
Both sets of rules stand to improve the EV charging experience for Europeans and possibly the rest of the world.
Public charging has gotten a lot of attention lately as electric car sales continue to grow rapidly. Charging station operators are rushing to install chargers along major routes, trying to keep up with increasing demand from a ballooning EV fleet.
This has led to some issues in various territories, with confusing payment systems, less-than-desired charger reliability, and a lack of high-speed charging along some routes.
EU will mandate 400-600 kW charging every 60 km
Today, the European Parliament made a big move to improve the experience by approving new rules as part of its “Fit for 55” package, intended to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030. These regulations focus on expanding access to fast EV charging networks by mandating minimum speeds and distances between charging stations.
The rules cover Europe’s “TEN-T core network,” the main arterial road networks that cover all of Europe, comparable to the US interstate highway system.
Europe will mandate that, along these primary routes, chargers with at least 400 kW output must be placed at least every 60 km by 2026. In 2028, the minimum output will increase to 600 kW.
There are additional rules for truck and bus charging, with charging points required every 120 km at an output of 1.4-2.8 MW, depending on the road.
By 2027, Europe will develop a public database of these charging stations with information on availability, wait times, and pricing for different stations, regardless of network.
Beyond these charge station mandates, the new rules also mandate simpler charger payments. As-is, some networks require subscriptions or app downloads. But under these rules, customers must be able to pay with cards or contactless devices, and prices must be displayed to the customer.
Unrelated to EV charging, the EU also mandated cleaner maritime fuels, targeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas by 2050 and a requirement to use shore power while in ports. Both rules passed with massive majorities in the European Parliament.
UK wants to mandate 99% charging station reliability
Separately, the UK government has proposed rules focusing on charging experiences within the UK.
The headline feature of these rules is a mandate for 99% charging station reliability in the UK. According to a 2017 survey, 15% of EV charging stations in the UK were out of service, decreasing to 8% in 2019. The UK wants to lower this number to 1%.
Requiring 99% reliability could have benefits outside of the UK, as charging station manufacturers and station operators will have to step up their game and develop protocols for better reliability. The more territories that focus on reliability, the more likely these benefits might also bleed over to the ones that don’t.
The Netherlands has led the way in this respect with a 99% reliability target of its own, and the UK government specifically pointed to the Dutch as a reason for its 99% target.
This reliability focus comes with a requirement that charging station operators must provide a 24-hour helpline for when things go south.
In addition to the reliability mandates, the UK rules would adopt payment and database requirements that are similar to the EU rules, mandating per-kWh pricing, price displays, contactless payments, and live data on charge point availability. However, they only apply to fast chargers of 8 kW or above – slower public AC chargers are exempt.
These UK rules haven’t been officially adopted yet, but once they are, they will take one year to go into force. So the UK might get its rules before the EU if the government moves quickly enough.
Electrek’s Take
This is a good step forward, not just for Europeans but for electric car drivers everywhere. Big moves like this tend to spread, as can be seen with the similarities between EU and UK rules on charging and the UK’s specific callout of the Netherlands in its reliability target. So perhaps some of these requirements will percolate to other areas, and maybe we’ll get a little more charger reliability here in the US as a result.
Europe already has a simpler charging network than the US, as their chargers all rely on the same plug, Mennekes Type 2. Here in the US, we have two competing plugs – SAE CCS and Tesla Supercharger. This is one reason why Tesla could open up Superchargers to other cars in the EU earlier than in the US.
But Tesla has opposed pricing displays in the past. In 2020, California wanted to force manufacturers to display prices on stations, but Tesla’s minimalist Supercharger designs did not include a screen. Thus, the company opposed the idea. Tesla argued that since only its cars used its chargers and it can display all that information on the in-car display, it shouldn’t need to retrofit every charger with a display.
We expect there might be similar wrangling with the EU and UK rules, but the EU government has shown itself to be significantly less interested in tech industry lobbying than the US governments seem to be (see: Apple USB-C charging requirement, Meta GDPR fine, etc.). So Tesla may have its work cut out for it if it wants to convince the EU to let it keep its chargers looking the same.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
An Exxon Mobil gas station in Lorton, Virginia, US, on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025.
Luke Johnson | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Exxon Mobil on Friday reported third quarter earnings that fell year over year, as oil prices tumbled due in large part to OPEC+ increasing production.
Exxon’s net income fell 12% to $7.55 billion, or $1.76 per share, compared to $8.6 billion, or $1.92 per share, in the year ago period. Excluding one-time items, the oil major posted earnings per share of $1.88.
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen about 16% this year as OPEC+ is increasing production and President Donald Trump’s tariffs have the market worried about an economic slowdown.
Exxon shares were down more than 1% in premarket trading.
Here is what Exxon reported for the third quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:
Earnings per share: $1.88 adjusted.
Revenue: $85.3 billion, vs. $87.7 billion expected
CEO Darren Woods said Exxon posted its highest earnings per share compared to similar quarters when oil prices were falling. Profits also took a hit due to bottom-of-cycle margins in its chemicals business.
However, production in Exxon’s lucrative offshore assets in the South American nation of Guyana hit a quarterly record of more than 700,000 barrels per day. Its assets in the Permian Basin also set a production record of nearly 1.7 million bpd.
Overall, Exxon produced 4.77 million bpd in the quarter.
Exxon’s production business recorded earnings of $5.68 billion, while its refining business posted a profit of $1.8 billion. Its chemicals product business saw earnings of $515 million.
The oil major’s capital expenditures stand at about $21 billion so far this year. It expects spending in 2025 to come in slightly below the lower end of its guidance range of $27 billion to $29 billion.
Exxon gave back $9.4 billion to shareholders in the quarter and raised its fourth-quarter dividend to $1.03 per share.
Signage outside the Chevron Corp. headquarters in Houston, Texas, US, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025.
Mark Felix | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Chevron on Friday reported third-quarter financial results that beat Wall Street estimates, as the company achieved record production due in part to its acquisition of Hess Corporation.
The oil major’s net income declined 21% to $3.54 billion, or $1.82 per share, compared with $4.49 billion, or $2.48 per share, in the same period last year. Its earnings decreased year over year due to falling oil prices and a $235 million loss on transaction costs associated with the Hess acquisition.
Excluding costs associated with Hess and foreign currency impacts, Chevron earned $1.85 per share, beating Wall Street estimates of $1.71 per share.
Here is what Chevron reported for the third quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:
Earnings per share: $1.85 adjusted vs. $1.71 expected
Revenue: $49.73 billion vs. $49.01 billion expected
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen about 16% this year as OPEC+ increases production and President Donald Trump’s tariffs have the market worried about an economic slowdown.
Even with lower prices, Chevron pumped a record 4.1 million barrels per day, a 21% increase compared with the same period last year. Higher production came from the Hess acquisition, the Permian Basin, the Gulf of Mexico and Kazakhstan, according to the company.
Chevron’s U.S. production business posted a profit of $1.28 billion, down 34% compared with $1.95 billion in the third quarter of 2024. It pumped 2 million barrels per day, up 27% from 1.6 million bpd in year-ago period.
International production recorded earnings of $2 billion, down 24% compared with $2.64 billion in the same quarter last year. Production increased 16% to 2 million bpd compared with 1.76 million bpd in the year-ago period.
Profits increased more than 300% to $638 million in Chevron’s downstream U.S. refining business, compared with $146 million in the third quarter of 2024. International refining posted earnings of $499 million, up 11% from $449 million in the year-ago period. Refining profits increased year over year due to higher margins on product sales.
Capital expenditures increased 7% to $4.4 billion over the year-ago quarter due to spending on legacy Hess assets. Chevron’s adjusted free cash flow increased about 50% to $7 billion over the year-ago period.
California’s ambitious statewide electric bicycle incentive program is officially dead – and it didn’t even get a funeral. After years of buildup, delays, and surging public interest, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has quietly ended the program, rolling the remaining $17 million of the original $30 million budget into its “Clean Cars 4 All” initiative without even making an official announcement.
The California E-Bike Incentive Project was originally hailed as a groundbreaking effort to make electric bikes affordable for low-income residents. Vouchers – not rebates – were designed to let buyers walk into a participating shop and ride out without covering the full price upfront. Base vouchers were worth $1,000, with up to $2,500 available for those purchasing cargo or adaptive e-bikes in priority communities. It was a model that other states were watching closely.
But from the outset, the program was plagued by setbacks. Years of delays meant the first vouchers weren’t distributed until late 2024, and even then, only after a chaotic launch that saw the website crash under the weight of tens of thousands of applicants vying for just 1,500 vouchers. A second launch attempt in April 2025 failed completely, locking out eligible users. While a final distribution round in May went more smoothly, an estimated 90% of eligible applicants were turned away due to limited supply.
To make matters worse, the program’s administrator, Pedal Ahead, came under fire for questionable practices in San Diego, further undermining confidence.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Now, with no formal announcement or update on the program’s official website, CARB has quietly absorbed the funds into its Clean Cars 4 All program.
Electrek’s Take
This is an enormous letdown.
The California E-Bike Incentive Project had the potential to reshape car-heavy communities by giving low-income Californians access to clean, affordable micromobility. Instead, it was starved by mismanagement and then cannibalized to prop up car-centric policy.
It’s not that electric cars don’t deserve support, but this move reflects a broader failure of imagination. If we want a future with fewer cars, not just cleaner ones, then we need to start funding real alternatives. This was a huge missed opportunity to invest in a more livable California.