The Competition Board’s Approach to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Introduction
In recent years, numerous automobile manufacturers have announced their goals to reduce carbon emissions, with many brands setting net-zero carbon targets spanning from production processes to the lifecycle of their vehicles. While ongoing debates persist regarding the significantly higher carbon footprint of electric vehicles during production compared to fossil-fuelled cars[1], it is evident that electric vehicles are increasingly becoming an integral part of daily life. This rise in the use of electric vehicles has further underscored the importance of charging infrastructure, making expanding charging stations a critical issue in terms of competition law.
A recent example of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) detailed scrutiny of activities related to electric vehicle charging stations is the investigation initiated in 2024 regarding exclusivity practices in providing charging services for electric vehicles on the İzmir-İstanbul O-5 Motorway. These practices were alleged to violate Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Law No. 4054”). The competition law outcomes of this ongoing investigation in the sector are closely monitored.
On the other hand, another significant decision reflecting current competition law practices in this area is the Board’s ruling on the exemption request concerning the collaboration between Trugo Akıllı Şarj Çözümleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Trugo”) and Shell & Turcas Petrol A.Ş. (“Shell”) for the establishment of high-performance electric vehicle charging stations. This collaboration, governed by the Cooperation Agreement Between Charging Network Operators and the Service Procurement Agreement (together referred to as “Cooperation Agreement”), was carefully reviewed by the Board. This article will briefly analyse the Board’s decision on the Trugo-Shell collaboration (“Decision”).
Evaluations Related to the Sector
The Board, in the BP Europa/Daimler decision[2] -although the decision pertains to an acquisition- examined the market dynamics related to e-charging stations by considering the conditions at the time of the decision. It revealed that both the electric vehicle production market and the public electric vehicle charging station operation market in Türkiye are still in development. While market developments have progressed rapidly since the BP Europa/Daimler decision, it can still be said that the current market saturation level remains low.
In this context, public charging services are expected to evolve in parallel with the development of electric vehicles. The increase in demand for electric vehicles is likely to be proportionally reflected on the supply side. However, addressing the market entry barriers caused by regulatory and operational factors when making these evaluations is also important.
Evaluations on Barriers to Market Entry
In its Decision, the Board highlights the financial and operational barriers to entering the electric vehicle charging market, which are encountered globally due to high investment costs. For instance, the absence of transformers with sufficient power capacity or the need for power upgrades can double investment costs. Moreover, the rapid advancement in charging station technology and software necessitates continuous investment, underscoring that the market constantly demands financial input and solutions to operational challenges, making market entry potentially challenging.
In addition to these financial and operational barriers, regulatory obligations also play a critical role. Specifically, undertakings wishing to operate in the public electric vehicle charging station market must obtain a license from the Energy Market Regulatory Board (EMRA). To secure a charging network operator license, businesses must comply with the criteria set forth under the Turkish Commercial Code. Furthermore, under the Charging Service Regulation, charging network operators must establish a charging network within six months of the license's effective date. This network must consist of at least 50 charging units across a minimum of five districts[3] . Additionally, at least 5% of the charging units in the network and at least 50% of the charging units located on highways and state roads under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Highways must be DC units with a power of 50 kW or above[4] .
Sector-Related Evaluations in the Product Market Definition
According to the findings in the Decision, electric vehicle charging stations are categorized into two main types based on their usage: "public" and "private or restricted use."[5] Public charging stations are located in areas accessible to everyone, such as gas stations, shopping mall parking lots, and similar public spaces. In contrast, private or restricted-use charging stations are only accessible to specific user groups[6] . For example, a charging station located within a residential complex, available only to the residents, is not considered a public station[7] .
In its evaluation of the technical specifications of charging devices, the Board identified two main types of charging units: slow charging (AC) and fast charging (DC/HPC)[8] . AC units deliver power up to 22 kW, while stations delivering power above 22 kW are classified as DC, and those providing power above 50 kW are referred to as HPC[9] . It was noted that the charging time for electric vehicles depends on the power capacity of the charging device, and consequently, charging time is a key factor influencing consumer preferences[10] .
Although there are differences between AC and DC units regarding structural features and cost factors, the relevant regulations, technical requirements, and commercial conditions allow enterprises to offer both AC and DC stations[11]. From the demand side, it was found that electric vehicle users can benefit from both AC and DC units depending on their location, time, and personal/technical needs[12] .
As a result, the Board concluded that the electric vehicle charging services market is an emerging market, which can be subdivided into categories such as "fast charging station installation and operation" and "slow charging station installation and operation."[13]
Exemption Assessment of the Cooperation Agreement
The Cooperation Agreement between Trugo and Shell aims to establish and operate electric vehicle charging stations at Shell-branded fuel stations, with Shell and Trugo separately covering their costs. The Agreement also includes providing services to customers needing electric vehicle charging via both parties' applications. Additionally, the expected outcomes of the collaboration include cost advantages, increased customer satisfaction, and promoting environmental benefits. The cooperation, which merges Shell's broad dealer network with Trugo's technical know-how, contains horizontal and vertical components. The possession of charging network operator licenses by the parties and their competitive position in the market makes the Agreement a horizontal arrangement. At the same time the accompanying Network Operation Agreement (to be signed among Trugo, Shell, and the location owner dealer) incorporates vertical elements.
In conducting the Cooperation Agreement exemption assessment, the Board conducted an in-depth review. As a result of this review, the Board stated that the growth in both electric vehicle and charging station numbers in Turkey and globally supports each other. This growth was seen as critical in light of Turkey's commitments under the Paris Agreement and its net-zero emission goals, and the planned cooperation was considered to significantly contribute to achieving the 2030 targets and combating climate change[14] . The increase in alternative fuels was expected to reduce emissions, improve air quality, and support the infrastructure necessary to transition to clean energy[15] . The Board determined that this cooperation meets the first condition for exemption, which is the promotion of economic or technical progress, by improving the efficiency of the services provided[16] .
Moreover, considering the benefits provided to consumers and the contribution to developing the charging services market, the Board concluded that the cooperation fulfills the consumer benefit condition stipulated in Article 5 of the Competition Law No. 4054[17] .
In assessing whether competition would not be significantly eliminated in a substantial portion of the relevant market, it was noted that, as of the decision date, 152 undertakings held licenses, and 77 of them entered the market in 2023[18] . The Board concluded that this indicates no significant entry barriers in the market. It was also pointed out that various collaborations had been made between fuel distribution companies and charging network operators[19] . However, considering the presence of other undertakings with significant market shares, the increase in the number of new entrants, and the fact that charging stations can be installed in various locations, the Board assessed that the impact of the notified cooperation on the market would be limited and that competition would not be eliminated in a substantial portion of the relevant market[20].
Regarding the condition of not restricting competition more than necessary, the competition restrictions introduced by the Cooperation Agreement between Trugo and Shell were examined. Under these restrictions, Trugo will not establish charging stations at fuel stations located along the same routes where Shell has established charging stations, within cities and intercity routes within a certain distance. However, this limitation does not prevent Trugo from installing charging stations at hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, and vehicle maintenance services, which are not fuel stations but are suitable for electric vehicle charging stations[21] . Furthermore, during a specific period after the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement, Trugo committed not to enter into any cooperation agreements with another fuel distribution company, while Shell agreed not to form any agreements with other charging network operators for electric vehicle charging station installation[22] . This exclusivity period is limited to a specific duration as mutually agreed by the parties[23] . On the other hand, even if Trugo is under an obligation not to enter into a central agreement with a fuel distribution company other than Shell within the scope of the cooperation, it will still be able to conclude individual agreements with other fuel stations operating under a fuel distribution company other than Shell[24] .
Considering other contractual details, it was also determined that the final exemption condition was met. The Board decided to grant individual exemption for the Cooperation Agreement, as it satisfied all the conditions under Article 5 of the Competition Law No. 4054.
Conclusion
The Board’s decision regarding the Trugo-Shell cooperation plays a significant role in preserving and promoting competition in the electric vehicle charging stations market. Considering the increasing prominence of electric vehicles in our lives, addressing charging station operations from a competition law perspective is critical for maintaining market balance and supporting the transition to sustainable energy. This decision serves as a valuable guide on how collaborations between charging station operators and fuel stations should be assessed within the competition law framework. Notably, one of the standout aspects of the decision is the emphasis on balancing exclusivity arrangements introduced under the cooperation to ensure they benefit consumers without excessively restricting competition. Furthermore, the Board’s emphasis on the necessity of expanding charging infrastructure not only to establish a competitive market structure but also to provide higher-quality and more sustainable services highlights the importance of this decision.
- https://tr.euronews.com/next/2023/09/27/uretimden-yakita-elektrikli-araclar-dizel-ve-benzinli-olanlara-gore-ne-kadar-cevre-dostu
- The Board’s decision dated 08.07.2021 tarihli and numbered 21-34/465-235.
- Charging Service Regulation, article 15(2).
- Charging Service Regulation, article 15(2).
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 28.
- Decision, para. 28.
- Decision, para. 29.
- Decision, para. 83.
- Decision, para. 84.
- Decision, para. 85.
- Decision, para. 93.
- Decision, para. 95.
- Decision, para. 98.
- Decision, para. 103.
- Decision, para. 106.
- Decision, para. 107.
- Decision, para. 107.
- Decision, para. 107.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Restricting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (“Former Regulation on Fines”), which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated February 15, 2009 and numbered 27142, was...
In the past years, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) has closely monitored the activities of undertakings operating in the retail sector. As a result of the Board’s record of administrative fines, horizontal type of violations in the retail sector have been highly publicized. Vertical violations such as resale price...
Under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Competition Board (“Board”) may conduct on-site inspections at the undertakings’ premises when it deems necessary in fulfilling the duties assigned to it. During the on-site inspection, the Board is authorized to examine all...
Agreements and information exchanges between undertakings in labor markets have recently been examined in various preliminary investigations and investigations initiated by the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”). Following the investigations in which some undertakings were subject to...
The Turkish Competition Board’s (Board) decision regarding the acquisition of the international road transport business line of Ekol Lojistik AŞ (Ekol) by DFDS A/S (DFDS) has been one of the most prominent transactions on the competition law agenda recently...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has broad powers to request information from undertakings. The Board’s authority to request information arises from Article 14 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Under the relevant provision, the Board may request any information it deems...
Doğuş Otomotiv Servis ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Doğuş) applied to the Turkish Competition Authority for an exemption for the practice of recommending basic wages to be applied to sales and after-sales service employees of its authorized dealers and distributors...
Access to Instagram was blocked ex officio by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) as of 2.08.2024. Under Article 8 of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Publications, ICTA can issue an ex officio access...
It is well known that agreements between employer undertakings with regards to their employees, such as wage-fixing and non-poaching agreements, along with competitively sensitive information exchanges have been under the scrutiny of competition authorities all over the world, including the Turkish Competition...
Automotive is one of the sectors in which the world’s most significant investments are made. The Competition Board (“Board”) has been closely interested in the automotive sector over the years and has conducted various examinations and studies in this field...
Competition authorities around the world continue unabated to investigate competition concerns arising from data collection and processing activities of digital platforms and impose severe sanctions as a result...
The startup ecosystem in Turkey has experienced notable growth in recent years. In the last quarter of 2023, 81 startups secured a combined investment of around 60 million dollars. While the number of investments remained consistent when comparing the third quarter periods of 2022-2023, there was a decrease...
Hub and Spoke cartel is a type of violation that is not clearly defined and regulated under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Decisional practices of foreign competition authorities, particularly the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions (“CMA”), are instructive concerning...
The Competition Board ("Board") made an addition to its line of decisions on resale price maintenance with its decision on Sunny Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. ("Sunny") . In its decision, the Board thoroughly examined the allegations regarding Sunny's involvement in maintaining resale prices and restricting...
It is observed that the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has recently scrutinized various industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, labor market, pharmaceuticals, and cement. When the reasoned decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) published in October are examined, it can be seen that the...
Jules Verne says, “Everything on earth has a limited lifespan, nothing that will exist forever can be created by human hands”. Perhaps change is the only constant concept in all our lives. Despite two major world wars and countless periods of crisis, humanity has been undergoing a great change and...
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...