What drives the cost of installing an EV charger

We could publish a figure and we would get more traffic. We do not, because we do not yet have aggregated real quotes for charging installations in Colombia, and publishing a number without that basis would mean inventing it.

It is the same rule we apply to solar panels: every published figure carries its source and its date, and while the data does not exist we say so rather than filling the gap. An invented range is not a service to the reader, it is a liability.

What we can give you, and what actually helps you avoid overpaying, is the map of where the money goes and what a quote has to state for you to compare it against another.

Once we have enough real quotes from partner installers, this page will publish ranges with declared methodology and a visible date, exactly as the solar pricing page does.

A charging point budget always breaks down into the same items, even if each installer groups them differently. Knowing them lets you spot which one is missing from a suspiciously cheap proposal.

It is worth looking at relative weight rather than percentages: the split varies so much from case to case that giving a percentage would imply a precision we do not have. What is stable is the relative order of magnitude, and in particular which item can multiply the total.

If two quotes for the same charger differ strikingly, the explanation is almost always here.

Your installation has a contracted capacity and a panel sized for the loads you already have. A charging point adds sustained, substantial demand over hours. If available capacity falls short, there are two routes: upgrade, which means a process with the network operator plus building work, or manage the power so you never exceed what you already have.

The second route is often overlooked and saves the most money. A charging point with dynamic load management measures total household consumption and reduces charging current when the rest of the house is drawing heavily. Since the vehicle has the whole night, that momentary reduction rarely has any practical consequence.

So ask explicitly that the proposal state the measured available capacity, not the assumed one, and whether it considers dynamic load management as an alternative to upgrading. A quote that jumps straight to an upgrade without evaluating that option is inflating the project without justifying it.

Horizontal property brings items that simply do not exist in a detached house, and they are why two budgets for the same unit can look nothing alike.

The first is the route. The distance from the feeding panel to the parking space can run to tens of metres, often through common areas, basements and existing trays. That distance is paid for in conductor, in conduit and in labour hours.

The second is independent metering. Unless consumption is going to hang off your own meter, metering has to be installed so that what you charge can be billed to you. It is a small item next to the route, but it is what makes the permission viable.

The third, not always quoted but worth anticipating, is whatever the administration requires: working hours, making good finishes, contractor insurance or bylaw requirements. That is not the installer's money, but it is the project's money.

The method is the same one we apply to solar quotes: before looking at the total, verify that both proposals describe exactly the same scope.

List every item appearing in either proposal and mark, for each one, whether it is included, excluded or unmentioned. The unmentioned ones are what later cause arguments, and in charging installations the usual suspects are always the same: the service upgrade, making good finishes, and metering.

Then check that each proposal declares the standard it works to — IEC 61851-1 or section 625 of NTC 2050 — and details the protections. A proposal naming neither is not cheaper: it is less verifiable.

And finally, separate the warranties. The equipment warranty comes from the manufacturer; the installation warranty comes from whoever did the work, and it covers what actually fails in practice: a poorly tightened connection, a badly sealed conduit, a miscalibrated protection.