This has become a recurring question at co-ownership general meetings since 2022, and unavoidable in 2026. A co-owner buys an electric vehicle, asks to install a charger in the car park, and the meeting realises it has no clear framework for responding. The first charger goes in hastily, the second is refused because the panel can no longer cope, conflict follows. This is precisely the scenario to avoid by preparing a shared infrastructure in advance.
This article sets out the best practices we see working in French-speaking Switzerland, on sites between Geneva, Lausanne, and Fribourg.
Why shared infrastructure is the only viable approach
The "everyone installs their own charger" approach works for the first one, perhaps the second. From the third onwards, problems emerge.
Panel capacity. A standard building has a grid connection sized for historical usage (any electric heating, kitchens, hot water). Adding 5 or 10 eleven-kilowatt chargers in parallel quickly exceeds the capacity of the collective connection. The naive solution would be to request a connection upgrade from the network operator, which can cost CHF 30,000 to CHF 100,000 for a co-ownership.
Intelligent management. With shared infrastructure and a load balancing system, this additional cost is avoided. The system dynamically distributes available power among active chargers. All vehicles charge, but at adjusted outputs in real time. Overnight, that is more than sufficient to fully charge every vehicle.
Aesthetic and administrative consistency. Shared infrastructure plans from the outset for charger locations, cable routing, and signage. No unsightly ducting added piecemeal. A single point of contact for maintenance.
Collective value. A co-ownership equipped with ready-to-use charging infrastructure becomes more attractive on the market. Electric vehicle buyers are actively seeking this type of property, and several property agencies in French-speaking Switzerland confirm a positive effect on unit values.
What shared infrastructure consists of
The concept is straightforward. The full building infrastructure is installed once. Each co-owner then adds their own charger, connected to this infrastructure, when they need it.
Dedicated collective panel. An electrical panel specifically for the chargers, separate from the building's general panel. Enables centralised management and targeted maintenance.
Conduit ducting and cable routes. Cables run once, ready to receive individual chargers. Avoids replastering and improvised routing as demand grows.
Load balancing system. An electronic module that monitors the building's total consumption in real time (chargers included) and dynamically adjusts the power allocated to each charger to never exceed the collective connection's capacity.
Individual meters. Each charger has a certified meter for billing its user.
Cloud management. A web platform (supplied by the charger manufacturer) consolidates consumption data and enables automatic monthly billing.
The cost of infrastructure for a typical co-ownership
Let us take a concrete example: a 12-unit co-ownership with a 14-space communal car park, 4 spaces initially equipped (the co-owners interested in the short term), and 10 spaces with pre-installed ducting.
| Item | Indicative cost |
|---|---|
| Dedicated collective panel | CHF 2,500 – 4,500 |
| Conduit ducting and cable routes for 14 spaces | CHF 6,000 – 11,000 |
| Pre-wiring for 4 initial spaces | CHF 2,000 – 3,500 |
| Dynamic load balancing system | CHF 3,500 – 6,500 |
| Initial chargers (4 × Zaptec Pro) | CHF 6,000 – 9,500 |
| Installation and connections | CHF 4,500 – 7,000 |
| Cloud platform (first year included) | CHF 0 |
| Study and coordination | CHF 1,500 – 3,000 |
| Total infrastructure + 4 chargers | CHF 26,000 – 45,000 |
For the remaining 10 ducted spaces, each co-owner will subsequently add their individual charger for CHF 1,500 to CHF 2,500, without a major new construction project.
At the co-ownership level, this cost is distributed according to the regulations. Typically, the core infrastructure (ducting, panel, load balancing) is financed by all co-owners in proportion to their shares, and each co-owner finances their individual charger when they need it.
The general meeting vote
This is the step that, as with solar installations, often worries property owners. A few best practices.
Read the regulations. First check the majority required for this type of work. Most French-speaking Swiss co-ownership regulations treat charger installation as an improvement to common areas, votable by simple majority. Some older regulations may require a qualified majority.
A well-prepared presentation dossier. 6–10 pages: the rationale (current and anticipated needs), technical options, total cost, allocation per unit, timeline, and choice of supplier. A serious installer provides this dossier ready to attach to the agenda.
Several options to vote on. Rather than a binary decision, propose 2 or 3 variants (for example: 4 initial chargers with ducting for 10 spaces / 8 initial chargers / ducting only without chargers). This facilitates discussion and unblocks votes.
Installer presence at the general meeting. Very useful for larger co-ownerships. Half an hour of direct discussion avoids three months of subsequent email questions.
Anticipating objections. The classic questions: "why now when I don't have an electric car," "who pays for maintenance," "what happens when I sell my unit." Having clear written answers in the dossier reduces blockages.
Financing arrangements
Several models exist in French-speaking Switzerland, all legitimate depending on context.
Model 1: Infrastructure borne by all, chargers by users. The most common. The shared infrastructure (ducting, panel, load balancing) is financed by all co-owners in proportion to their shares. Each co-owner who uses a space purchases their individual charger when they need it. Those without electric vehicles contribute only to the infrastructure, which adds value to the co-ownership for everyone.
Model 2: Infrastructure borne only by initial users. A more restrictive variant: only those installing a charger initially pay for the infrastructure. Future entrants pay a connection fee. Fairer in the short term, more complex to manage over time.
Model 3: Full pooling via an operating company. A rarer model in residential settings, but used in some larger Geneva co-ownerships. An entity (sometimes external) manages and operates the infrastructure, bills for charges, and distributes revenue. Suited to large co-ownerships with tenant turnover.
Model 1 remains the simplest to vote on and manage in 90% of cases.
Coupling with collective solar
For co-ownerships that already have or are planning a collective solar installation with an RCP, coupling with the chargers changes the calculation.
Smart chargers can be programmed to prioritise charging on collective solar surplus. The chargers' total consumption (which can represent 30 to 50% of building consumption depending on the number of vehicles) then shifts largely to self-consumption, at a very low marginal cost.
For a 12-unit co-ownership with 6 electric vehicles in circulation over time and a 35 kWp solar installation, the solar share of charging can reach 50–65%. Across the 6 users, that is CHF 3,000 to CHF 5,000 in cumulative annual savings compared to pure grid charging.
This synergy is a strong argument to make in the general meeting. Many co-ownerships that are hesitant about investing in one or the other operation come around when both are presented together.
The project timeline for a co-ownership
From the decision to commissioning, allow 4 to 7 months.
Month 1. Technical assessment of the existing infrastructure (collective panel, grid connection). Detailed quotes (ideally 2–3 for comparison).
Month 2. Preparation of the general meeting dossier. Coordination with the property manager on financial allocation.
Month 3. General meeting, vote, contract signature.
Months 3–4. Notification to the network operator, municipal authorisations if required.
Months 4–5. Physical installation. Allow 1–3 weeks depending on car park size and ducting complexity.
Months 5–6. Commissioning, configuration, setting up individual accounts.
Months 6–7. First billing cycle, any adjustments.
Pitfalls to avoid
Under-sizing the initial ducting. The most costly mistake. If ducting is only provided for 4 chargers and 6 more are needed in subsequent years, the floor must be broken up again. It is better to plan from the outset for 100% of spaces, even if only 30–40% are initially equipped.
Choosing a closed proprietary system. Some brands impose their ecosystem (chargers, platform, contracts) with no interoperability. Over 15–20 years, that is a risk. Prefer open standards (OCPP 1.6 or 2.0).
Forgetting the reference meter. Without a certified meter per charger, billing becomes unclear and contentious. This is a technical detail that becomes a general meeting topic if poorly managed.
Failing to insure the infrastructure. Many co-ownerships forget to add the charging infrastructure to the building insurance cover. The additional premium is minimal, but in the event of damage (fire, vandalism), it is essential.
Poor communication with tenants. For rented units, the co-owner remains responsible for use of the parking space. Clear communication with tenants about conditions of use and billing is essential.
Our advice for 2026
If your co-ownership has not yet addressed the charger question, now is the time. Planning ahead costs 30% less than retrofitting. For 2026:
- Commission an assessment now, even if no co-owner yet has an electric vehicle. Installing the ducting is easier to vote on when there is no urgency.
- Vote for an infrastructure ready for 100% of spaces, with initial equipment on 25–40% of spaces.
- Consider a solar installation in the same discussion if the building has a usable roof. The two operations complement each other strongly.
- Choose an open standard (OCPP) to avoid locking into a proprietary ecosystem.
- Engage an installer experienced in collective projects, not just a residential installer. The skills are not the same.
A well-equipped co-ownership is a lasting asset for its owners. Poorly equipped, or not equipped at all, it faces recurring conflicts and progressive depreciation on the market.