Content uploaded by Nicholas P. Lutsey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicholas P. Lutsey on Oct 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.theicct.org
OCTOBER 2017
WHITE PAPER
communications@theicct.org
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE
Dale Hall, Nic Lutsey
BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is conducted for the International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance and
is supported by its members (British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Germany,
Maryland, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, New York, Norway, Oregon, Québec, Rhode
Island, the United Kingdom, and Vermont). Members of the International Zero-Emission
Vehicle Alliance provided key inputs on their charging infrastructure activities. Hongyang
Cui, Drew Kodjak, Mike Nicholas, Uwe Tietge, and Zifei Yang provided input and review,
and ZEV Alliance members provided critical reviews on an earlier version of the report.
Their review does not imply an endorsement, and any errors are the authors’ own.
International Council on Clean Transportation
1225 I Street NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005 USA
communications@theicct.org | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT
© 2017 International Council on Clean Transportation
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................iii
I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
II. Background on electric vehicle charging infrastructure ..............................................3
Electric vehicle charging technology .............................................................................................3
Charging data availability ....................................................................................................................5
Literature regarding charging and electric vehicle uptake ...................................................6
III. Government programs for public charging infrastructure ...........................................8
Asia ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Europe .........................................................................................................................................................9
North America .........................................................................................................................................11
Summary and lessons ..........................................................................................................................13
IV. Analysis of public charging infrastructure .....................................................................15
Public charging infrastructure by metropolitan area ............................................................ 16
Rapid versus normal public charging infrastructure .............................................................. 18
Statistical link between public charge points and electric vehicle uptake .................... 19
Ratio between electric vehicles and public charge points....................................................21
V. Additional topics in public infrastructure planning .....................................................23
Standardization and interoperability ............................................................................................23
Power supply and grid eects ....................................................................................................... 24
Charging infrastructure placement ................................................................................................25
Costs of electric vehicle charging infrastructure ................................................................... 26
Business cases for public charging............................................................................................... 28
VI. Home and workplace charging infrastructure ............................................................ 30
Home charging infrastructure programs .................................................................................... 30
Building code regulations.................................................................................................................30
Multi-unit dwellings ...............................................................................................................................31
Workplace charging ............................................................................................................................32
VII. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................34
Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................35
Opportunities ahead ...........................................................................................................................37
References ................................................................................................................................39
Annex ........................................................................................................................................47
ii
ICCT WHITE PAPER
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Comparison of electric vehicle charging infrastructure per million
population in selected national markets around the world .......................................................... 16
Figure 2. Public charging infrastructure and electric vehicle registrations per million
population by metropolitan area, with size of circles indicating total electric vehicles ........17
Figure 3. Relative numbers of public regular Level 2 and DC fast charge
points per million population in selected major metropolitan areas ......................................... 18
Figure 4. Distribution of cities by electric vehicle/public charge point ratio. .......................22
Figure 5. Approximate program-level costs of Level 2 and DC fast charging
stations from selected major government charging infrastructure programs. .....................27
Figure 6. Public and workplace charging per million population and
electric vehicle sales share for the 15 major U.S. metropolitan areas
with the highest electric vehicle uptake. ...................................................................................33
Figure 7. 2016 electric vehicle sales shares and public charge points
per million population in major national markets. ........................................................................... 34
Figure 8. Electric vehicle sales share and public charge points per
electric vehicle in selected leading markets. .................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Characteristics of Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging. .............................................. 3
Table 2. Comparison of the most popular AC charging connector types. .............................. 4
Table 3. Comparison of the most popular DC fast charging connector types
in general use by major automobile manufacturers. ........................................................................ 5
Table 4. Summary of major national-level charging infrastructure programs
in selected markets, including budget and form of award. ........................................................... 13
Table 5. Summary of statistical regression for electric vehicle uptake with
charging infrastructure, incentives, population density, and housing type. ..........................20
Table 6. Indicated average electric vehicle/public charge point ratios. ..................................21
Table 7. Studies on electric vehicle charging infrastructure placement optimization. .....26
iii
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Electric vehicles oer great potential to dramatically reduce local air pollution, greenhouse
gas emissions and resulting climate change impacts, and oil use from the transport sector.
With electric vehicle costs steadily falling, the transition continues to become more feasible.
This potential is enabled and made compelling by the ubiquity of electricity and the growing
availability of low-carbon, renewable energy sources. Yet there are unanswered questions
about the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and the associated policy
that will need to be addressed to help pave the way for electrification.
This report provides a global assessment of charging infrastructure deployment
practices, challenges, and emerging best practices in major electric vehicle markets, with
an emphasis on public charging facilities. Although most early adopters charge their
vehicles at home, public charging is an important part of the electric vehicle ecosystem.
We analyze public charging infrastructure in the top electric vehicle markets globally,
including a statistical analysis of the relationship between public charging and electric
vehicle uptake. Our analysis is at the metropolitan-area level to better discern local
infrastructure variation, practices, and circumstances.
Figure ES-1 depicts electric vehicle uptake and public charging infrastructure
development in the top electric vehicle markets by share of new vehicles in 2016.
Norway and the Netherlands, which have seen electric vehicle shares higher than 5%
of new sales, have public charging infrastructure per capita that is several times that of
other leading markets. China, the world’s largest electric vehicle market by volume, has
the highest number of charging stations, with more than 100,000 Level 2 and 38,000
direct current (DC) fast charge points. Other countries with an electric vehicle share
of new sales greater than 1% have varying amounts of public charging infrastructure
and dierent fractions of DC fast charging, reflecting dierent roles of public charging
infrastructure that vary according to demographics and policy priorities.
0%
10%
20%
30%
0
500
1,000
1,500
Norway
Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium
Austria
United Kingdom
China
Finland
United States
Denmark
Japan
Canada
Germany
Ireland
Electric vehicle sales share
Public charge points
per million population
Level 2 charge points DC fast charge points Electric vehicle share
Figure ES-1. 2016 electric vehicle sales share and public charge points per million population in
major national markets.
iv
ICCT WHITE PAPER
We find that charging infrastructure availability varies greatly at a local level. We oer four
high-level conclusions on the fast-developing charging infrastructure around the world.
Public charging infrastructure is a key to growing the electric vehicle market. Using a
multivariable regression of 350 metropolitan areas, we find that both Level 2 and DC fast
charging infrastructure are linked with electric vehicle uptake, as are consumer purchase
incentives. We therefore corroborate other research on the importance of developing
charging infrastructure in unison with electric vehicle deployment. The leading electric
vehicle markets of Norway and the Netherlands have more than 10 times as many
public charge points per capita as average markets, and leading markets in California
and China had three to five times the average. Yet the significant charging variability
across the hundreds of cities analyzed in this study points to major dierences across
the electric vehicle markets regarding the role of public charging. As the global electric
vehicle market grows—likely by at least a factor of 10 by 2025—so too will the need for
much more public charging infrastructure.
There is no universal benchmark for the number of electric vehicles per public charge
point. Electric vehicle owners in California more frequently have access to home and
workplace charging, and one public charger per 25 to 30 electric vehicles is typical. In
the Netherlands, private parking and charging are relatively rare, and one public charger
per 2 to 7 electric vehicles is typical. This ratio ranges from 3 to 6 in major markets in
China, and these cities typically had the highest percentages of rapid charging. Given
the wide variation of public charging availability across markets with higher electric
vehicle uptake, and their diering housing and population density characteristics, it
seems clear that there is no ideal global ratio for the number of electric vehicles per
public charge point. Comparisons of similar markets still oer an instructive way to
understand where and how charging is insucient. Lagging electric markets can strive
toward the leading benchmarks of comparable cities, while top markets continue to set
new benchmarks as the market and its charging infrastructure coevolve.
Multifaceted and collaborative approaches have been most successful in promoting
early charging infrastructure buildout. Governments at the local, regional, and
national levels around the world have used varied strategies to promote public and
private charging infrastructure. Successful programs have transparently engaged
many stakeholders through integration of driver feedback on charger deployment,
implementation of smart charging systems, distribution of funding to local governments,
creation of public-private partnerships, and consultation with electric utilities. To
address changing needs in this growing market, governments create and fund programs
that target dicult market segments, such as curbside charging stations, multi-unit
dwellings, and intercity fast charging.
Barriers to the deployment of the ideal electric vehicle charging network remain.
Despite all the electric vehicle improvements entering the market, charging
infrastructure still suers from fragmentation, inconsistent data availability, and a
lack of consistent standards in most markets. Open standards for vehicle–charge
point communication and payment may mitigate some of these issues by enabling
interoperability between charging networks, increasing innovation and competition, and
reducing costs to drivers. As demonstrated by successful eorts in the Netherlands,
governments may wish to require data collection and the use of open standards for
publicly funded projects to help market development.
1
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
I. INTRODUCTION
Electric vehicles oer the potential to dramatically reduce local air pollution, climate
change impacts, and oil use from the transport sector. Petroleum-fueled combustion
vehicles have dominated the past century, but the recent growth of electric vehicles
presents an opportunity to transform the transportation sector. With increased
production volumes and battery cost reductions over the next 10 years, electric vehicles
are projected to approach cost-competitiveness with conventional vehicles (Slowik
& Lutsey, 2017; UBS, 2017). In just the past 6 years, electric vehicles have gone from a
fringe technology with no mass production to a fast-growing part of the vehicle market.
In early 2017, the two-millionth electric vehicle was sold, and electric vehicles have
surpassed 10% of new vehicle sales in multiple local markets.
The potential benefits of electric vehicles are enabled, and made much more compelling,
by the attributes of electricity. Electricity is ubiquitous and available for electric charging
nearly everywhere, including in and near many homes. The cost of electricity can
be lower per eective energy unit than petroleum fuels, and is typically made much
lower than petroleum by the greater eciency of electric motors relative to internal
combustion engines. Whereas renewable and lower-carbon liquid fuels have been
relatively elusive, electricity is generated from many renewable and low-carbon energy
sources, which represent an ever-growing fraction of global electricity generation.
Yet a lack of charging infrastructure still presents a barrier to growth in the electric
vehicle market. Although electricity itself is ubiquitous, its transmission, distribution, and
retail charging options for electric vehicles are not. The fueling infrastructure to support
combustion-powered vehicles is already in place, with a robust network of gasoline
and diesel fueling stations around the world. Taking the U.S. situation as an example:
Through 2016, there were more than 150,000 filling stations for gasoline and diesel
fuel in the United States, most of which have many pumps (API, 2017). This network of
stations has evolved in number and location to be able to fuel the approximately 250
million gasoline and diesel vehicles in the United States (Davis et al., 2016). Compare
this with the electricity availability for electric vehicles. Beyond the electricity that
is widely available at most households, there were about 15,000 publicly accessible
charging stations at the end of 2016 (U.S. DOE, 2017a). If publicly accessible charging
infrastructure for electric vehicles remains limited, this would restrict drivers’ ability
to take longer trips and would practically limit the utility and attractiveness of electric
vehicles for any household without a private garage to charge the vehicle.
As a result, the development of a robust charging infrastructure network is widely
considered a key requirement for a large-scale transition to electromobility. Such
infrastructure would not only provide more charging options for drivers, but would
also promote awareness and range confidence for prospective electric vehicle owners.
Several automakers have begun to directly build out their own charging infrastructure
networks, while others have engaged in partnerships with other automakers and
charging providers. Many governments have created programs to encourage the
construction of charging infrastructure through incentives, regulations, and partnerships.
Nonetheless, there is relatively little consensus about the optimal concentration
and distribution of charging infrastructure or the relationship between charging
infrastructure and electric vehicle uptake. Even getting access to the number and
location of available charging points can be dicult.
2
ICCT WHITE PAPER
At this stage, governments, auto industry experts, and researchers around the world
have many questions about electric vehicle charging infrastructure. How much charging
infrastructure is required for a mature market, and what types are likely to be needed in
the future as electric vehicle technology continues to evolve? What policy frameworks
and funding mechanisms can help to ensure that the necessary charging infrastructure
is in place for electric vehicles? Finally, are there strong global examples of policies
and initiatives that demonstrate how best to overcome prevailing barriers and deploy
charging infrastructure for electric vehicles?
This paper seeks to address these questions with a comprehensive review of the
current status of charging infrastructure in major electric vehicle markets in North
America, Europe, and Asia. Although the majority of charging in most regions occurs
at home, this analysis focuses primarily on public charging infrastructure to help inform
topical government policy and funding questions. We assess the relationship between
charging infrastructure and electric vehicle uptake at the metropolitan-area level.
Through this analysis, we quantify emerging benchmarks for charging infrastructure
deployment and best practices for charging infrastructure promotion, construction, and
operation. Additionally, we compare major government programs to increase charging
infrastructure and discuss some of the barriers and exemplary programs that are helping
to overcome these barriers.
3
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
II. BACKGROUND ON ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING TECHNOLOGY
As electric vehicle charging technology continues to advance, several standards and
guidelines have become widely accepted across the industry. To provide a technical
background for the following analysis and policy discussion, this section gives a brief
overview of charging infrastructure technology, standards, and terminology.
Charging speeds. Charging power, which determines the time required to charge a
vehicle, can vary by orders of magnitude across charge points, as shown in Table 1. A
small household outlet may charge as slowly as 1.2 kW, while the most advanced rapid
charging stations can charge at up to 350 kW. Charging infrastructure is broadly broken
into three categories based on speed: Level 1, Level 2, and direct current (DC) fast
charging (sometimes referred to as Level 3).
Table 1. Characteristics of Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging.
Charging level Voltage (V) Typical power (kW) Setting
Level 1 120 V AC 1.2–1.8 kW Primarily residential in North America
Level 2 200–240 V AC 3.6–22 kW Home, workplace, and public
DC fast 400 V DC 50 kW or more Public, primarily intercity
V = volt; AC = alternating current; DC = direct current; kW = kilowatt
Many electric vehicles are limited in the maximum charging power they can accept,
because of restrictions in their ability to convert AC power from the grid to DC power
that charges the batteries. For example, the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid vehicle
(PHEV), is limited to 3.6 kW, and the Nissan Leaf, a battery electric vehicle (BEV), is
limited to 6.6 kW. Furthermore, some electric vehicle models, including most PHEVs, are
not capable of DC fast charging.
Charging infrastructure can also be categorized by “mode,” which specifies the type
of electric and communications connection between the vehicle and the charging
infrastructure (Bräunl, 2012). Mode 1 consists of 120 or 240 V charging up to 16 amperes
(A) on a shared circuit without safety protocols. Mode 2 consists of 120 or 240 V
charging up to 32 A from a standard outlet, on a shared or dedicated circuit, with safety
protocols including grounding detection, overcurrent protection, temperature limits, and
a pilot data line. Mode 3 allows 240 V charging at any amperage on a wired-in charging
station on a dedicated circuit, with the same safety protocols as Mode 2 and an active
communication line with the vehicle. This enables smart charging—the coordination of
charging according to utility needs, fleet schedules, or renewable energy availability.
Finally, Mode 4 is defined as DC fast charging on a 400 V, wired-in connection, and
requires more advanced safety and communications protocols.
Charging connector standards. Depending on region and speed of charging, the type
of plug and socket used for charging electric vehicles may vary. The most common plug
types are illustrated in Table 2 and Table 3. Although these plug types are generally
well-defined and each works well for its specific application, the variety of standards
may lead to confusion among drivers and hesitation from industry.
4
ICCT WHITE PAPER
In North America and Japan, most electric vehicles use the SAE J1772 connector,
which contains five pins and a mechanical lock. In Europe, Level 2 charging uses the
Type 2 or Mennekes connector, which has seven pins and takes advantage of the
three-phase alternating current grid. China also requires (as of 2017) a variant of the
Type 2 plug (under the standard GB/T 20234.2-2015), although legacy vehicles and
charging stations have not yet been converted (NDRC, 2015). The exception to this
regional breakdown is Tesla, which uses a proprietary connector for its vehicles sold in
North America, although adapters to SAE J1772 are available. In Europe and Asia, Tesla
vehicles have a Type 2 plug.
Table 2. Comparison of the most popular AC charging connector types.
SAE J1772 Type 2 (Mennekes) Tesla (US)
North America and Japan Europe and China Tesla vehicles in
North America
Photo credit (left to right): National Alternative Fuels Training Center, Mennekes AG, Silverstone Green Energy
For DC fast charging, connector types vary by automaker in addition to region, with
the most common connectors shown in Table 3. Nissan and Mitsubishi created and
promoted the CHAdeMO (short for Charge de Move) fast charging standard beginning
in 2011 (Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, 2014). This type is still used on electric
vehicles produced by Nissan, Mitsubishi, Kia, Citroën, and Peugeot. In contrast, several
automakers from the United States and Europe have advocated for the Combined
Charging System (CCS), which uses the SAE J1172 or Mennekes AC plugs along with
two additional DC pins for fast charging. This standard has now been adopted by BMW,
Daimler, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen. Whereas
CCS (sometimes referred to as SAE Combo or Combo2 in North America and Europe,
respectively) uses the same receptacle on the car as a Level 2 charger, CHAdeMO
requires a separate port. As in the case of Level 2 charging, Tesla uses its proprietary
plug for its DC Supercharger stations in the United States, although the company also
makes Tesla-to-CHAdeMO adapters. China has recently mandated the use of a new
standard (GB/T 20234.3-2015) for all new vehicles and fast charging infrastructure; Tesla
vehicles sold in China will also use this standard (Lambert, 2016; NDRC, 2015).
5
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Table 3. Comparison of the most popular DC fast charging connector types in general use by major
automobile manufacturers.
CHAdeMO CCS (North America) CCS (Europe)
Nissan, Mitsubishi,
Kia, Citroën, Peugeot
BMW, Daimler, Ford, Fiat Chrysler,
General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Volkswagen
Photo credit (left to right): National Alternative Fuels Training Center, SAE, Hadhuey via Wikimedia Commons
CHARGING DATA AVAILABILITY
In the rapidly evolving charging infrastructure industry, availability and access to accurate,
up-to-date data can be limited in various markets. This situation can be problematic for
drivers, who may have a more dicult time finding a place to charge; for charge point
operators, who may see lower use at their stations; for governments, unable to direct
investment eciently; and for auto dealers, who need to assure customers of charging
availability. There are several kinds of data regarding charging infrastructure that can be
recorded, including location, type, operational status, and usage.
In many markets, there are numerous services attempting to advertise station
information to drivers, although some of this information is likely to be incomplete
or outdated at any given moment. Many dierent stakeholders oer these services,
including governments (the Alternative Fuels Data Center in the United States),
nonprofits (Open Charge Map or LEMnet in Europe), for-profit companies (ChargeHub
in Canada, Zap-Map in the United Kingdom), automakers (the Nippon Charge Service
consortium in Japan), and charge networks (ChargePoint in the United States, State Grid
Corporation in China). Although most of these services oer maps (and in some cases
mobile apps) for drivers, few oer open access to data.
A lack of information about maintenance and operational status can present an issue for
charging stations, leading to higher downtime and frustration for drivers. Many newer
charging stations are connected to the internet and can provide live information about
their status and any problems, which can be incorporated into online charging station
locating services. For stations without such capabilities, or on services that cannot
access privately held data, allowing users to easily report a station’s status or successful
charge (such as the “Check In” feature on PlugShare) can be useful in providing
frequently updated status information. In turn, sharing such data can help charging
station managers quickly repair the infrastructure.
Finally, more advanced networked stations frequently collect usage data from charging
stations; these data can provide helpful lessons for governments and researchers, and
may eventually lead to more ecient charging station construction and management
6
ICCT WHITE PAPER
practices (i.e., OLEV, 2013; Winn, 2016). Some governments choose to make usage data
reporting a precondition for funding—for example, in British Columbia and the United
Kingdom (evCloud, 2017; OLEV, 2016a).
LITERATURE REGARDING CHARGING AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE UPTAKE
Many governments consider transportation electrification an important step toward
climate, air quality, and energy independence goals. To help achieve these goals,
governments have invested substantial funding to promote electric vehicles and the
associated charging infrastructure. Although charging infrastructure is a major priority
for governments seeking to accelerate electric vehicle adoption, specific relationships
between charging infrastructure availability and increased electric vehicle sales have
been elusive. Likewise, there are no universally accepted goals or standards for charging
infrastructure density, either on a per-capita or per-vehicle basis. Nonetheless, several
studies in the past few years have provided helpful insights into this question.
Sierzchula et al. (2014) assessed factors influencing electric vehicle adoption across 30
countries in 2012 at a national level, focusing primarily on financial incentives. In their
analysis, charging infrastructure was included as an explanatory variable, measured
as charging stations per 100,000 residents in each country. A regression of several
variables, with electric vehicle market share as the dependent variable, showed that
charging infrastructure is the best predictor of national electric vehicle market share.
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this trend, such as Israel and Ireland, with relatively
extensive charging infrastructure and low electric vehicle sales shares.
Harrison and Thiel (2017) modeled the impact of several factors, including charging
infrastructure, on electric vehicle market share in Europe. This model calculated the
utility and respective market share of dierent powertrain types, using feedback loops
to capture realistic decision-making patterns by drivers, manufacturers, charging
infrastructure providers, and policymakers. The model also assessed the profitability of
charging stations under various scenarios and considered subsidies and government
targets for charging infrastructure. The authors found that the private market can
profitably support 95% of public charging stations, up to a ratio of 25 electric vehicles per
charge point. They also found that electric vehicle market share increases as the electric
vehicle/charge point ratio decreases from 25 to 5 electric vehicles per charge point.
Charging infrastructure availability also appears to have the strongest impact on uptake
once electric vehicle stock share exceeds 5%, which is currently the case only in Norway.
Slowik and Lutsey (2017) followed an approach similar to that of Sierzchula et al. (2014),
but for the United States. Unlike other analyses, however, they focused their analysis
on the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, breaking down charging
infrastructure at a regional level. Overall, the study found a significant relationship
between public charging (measured in charge points per capita) and electric vehicle
uptake, and identified 275 charge points per million residents as a benchmark for
leading U.S. markets. The number of fast charging points per capita was also found
to correlate with electric vehicle sales share, as was workplace charging. However, the
authors more broadly concluded that a robust electric vehicle market requires multiple
types of supporting policy, including charging infrastructure, consumer incentives, and
local promotion actions that address consumer awareness barriers.
In general, there is broad agreement that public charging infrastructure is important
to the growth of the electric vehicle market, among other factors related to electric
7
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
vehicle cost and awareness. However, there has been limited research into how much
charging infrastructure is needed for a given market and how strongly charging
infrastructure encourages electric vehicle sales, even within one market. This may be
partially due to the data availability problems described above. It may also be due to
the quickly evolving state of electric vehicle technology, where electric vehicles and
charging infrastructure will grow and coevolve together with patterns that still remain
largely unclear.
Although this paper cannot comprehensively and definitively answer these questions,
we seek to provide greater clarity about the existing relationship between charging
infrastructure and electric vehicle sales in major electric vehicle markets around the
world as of 2016. The next sections describe the policy context and oer an analysis of
public charging deployment around the world.
8
ICCT WHITE PAPER
III. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE
Since the introduction of modern electric vehicles, many governments at the local and
national level have promoted electric vehicle charging infrastructure in recognition
of the necessity of charging stations for a mature market. However, these plans vary
widely in scope and focus, reflecting the uncertainty and pace of change in this industry.
Here, we summarize major government programs promoting charging infrastructure in
selected markets and highlight some emerging best practices. We focus on programs
to increase the stock of public charging infrastructure through subsidies, grants, and
public-private partnerships.
ASIA
China. Many stakeholders in China, including the central government, local governments,
and utilities, have been active in quickly building a charging infrastructure network in
that country. The charging network will serve China’s ambitions to greatly increase its
electric vehicle market in the years ahead. The market, with more than 300,000 electric
car sales and 1% of new sales in 2016, is set to meet increasing New Energy Vehicle
quotas that are under development to at least triple electric sales in the 2020 time
frame. The central government has announced the goal of having electric vehicles reach
20% of national vehicle production, or about 7 million electric vehicles per year, by 2025
(MIIT, NDRC, & MOST, 2017).
The number of charge points has expanded dramatically in China in the past few years,
especially in the 88 designated pilot cities funded by the central government, led by
Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen. As part of the program, these cities are required to
provide one charge point for every 8 electric vehicles, and charging stations should be
no farther than 1 km from any point within the center area of the city (NDRC, 2015). The
municipal governments in these cities have sometimes funded many of the local stations
(typically called “charging piles”), often in collaboration with the national utility State
Grid (Research in China, 2017). The State Grid is also working to construct fast charging
plazas within cities and along major intercity corridors as part of a plan to build 120,000
fast charging stations and 500,000 total public stations by 2020 (NDRC, 2015; Xin,
2017). Furthermore, some automakers in China have constructed charging stations in
the regions where they are headquartered to benefit drivers of their vehicles, although
there still remain some issues with interoperability of stations between automaker
brands (Yuan, 2016). China represents almost half of the global supply of electric vehicle
charging infrastructure—a proportion likely to increase in the coming years, given the
strong government support at many levels and high electric vehicle volume there.
Japan. Since the introduction of modern electric vehicles in Japan in 2011, the
government and the country’s major automakers have supported charging
infrastructure, viewing it as a key requirement for increased electric vehicle sales.
In 2013, the government created the massive Next Generation Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure Deployment Promotion Project to fund charging stations around cities and
highway rest stations in 2013 and 2014 (CHAdeMO Association, 2016). The Development
Bank of Japan partnered with Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and power company
TEPCO to construct the Nippon Charge Service (NCS), a nationwide network of
charging stations (including many fast charging stations) now operated as a private joint
9
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
venture. Almost 7,500 stations are now part of this network, with continued funding at
least through 2018.
EUROPE
Charging infrastructure in Europe has been constructed by a combination of private
charge point providers, power companies, automakers, and governments, primarily at
the national and city levels. Many countries within the European Union have created
funding schemes or public-private partnerships to increase charging infrastructure,
sometimes targeting specific regions in order to create leading electric vehicle markets.
Some countries, such as Norway and the Netherlands, have provided incentives for
charging infrastructure for several years; others, like Germany, have recently launched
major new charging infrastructure programs, indicating growing recognition of the
benefits of charging station investments.
The European Union has indicated that electric vehicles and charging infrastructure are
a major transportation priority, and is considering extending its vehicle CO2 regulations
to 2025 or 2030 to promote electric vehicles, among other policy approaches (Lutsey,
2017). The European Union has also directed all member states to “ensure that
recharging points accessible to the public are built up with adequate coverage, in order
to enable electric vehicles to circulate at least in urban/suburban agglomerations and
other densely populated areas” (European Parliament, 2014). In addition, the European
Commission has supported more than a dozen electric vehicle infrastructure projects
through the TEN-T/CEF-T program, with a focus on trans-European corridors and linking
the projects operated by member states (TEN-T, 2016). The European Union has also
taken an active role to promote interoperability, open standards, and smart charging, as
demonstrated in the Green eMotion and PlanGridEV research projects conducted with
industry partners (Green eMotion, 2015; RWE Deutschland, 2016).
France. Building on earlier goals to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles, the French
government in 2017 has stated a goal of shifting all vehicle sales to electric by 2040.
Promotional programs for charging infrastructure have been in place for several years
in France. The primary program, operated by the French Environment and Energy
Management Agency, distributes funding to municipalities and regional governments,
helping to fund more than 12,000 charge points (Environment and Energy Management
Agency, 2016). Recipients must commit to building at least 20 charge points and
oer free parking for charging vehicles. Currently, most charging stations are eligible
for a 30% subsidy. The state-owned utility EDF has also taken a lead role in charging
infrastructure, constructing the Corri-Door fast charging network with more than 200
locations across the country (Lefevre, 2016). The federal government’s strong role is
evident in the large numbers of charging stations in France.
Germany. Germany has sought to ramp up its charging infrastructure to match its
electric mobility ambitions. Sales of electric vehicles had reached 100,000 by early
2017, and the German federal government has goals to reach 1 million by 2020 and 5
million by 2030. Despite these stated goals, the government did not widely support
public charging infrastructure until recently. Beginning in 2009, the government
supported more than 200 projects in eight “model regions” with €130 million, boosting
charging infrastructure in areas such as Hamburg and Saxony (BMVBS, 2011). A few
cities created their own programs to provide incentives for charging infrastructure; for
example, Munich provided a 20% subsidy for private, public, and workplace charging
10
ICCT WHITE PAPER
stations (Mobility House, 2017). Most other early charging stations were built by power
companies and various private companies.
In early 2017, the government announced a major new nationwide program to promote
electric vehicles, including €300 million earmarked for public charging infrastructure
through 2020. Of this, €200 million is intended for the construction of 5,000 DC fast
charging stations and the remaining €100 million for 10,000 Level 2 stations, with
stations distributed across the country (BMVI, 2017). Businesses may apply for funding
to cover 60% of the hardware and network connection costs of the stations, and grant
recipients must conform to the Open Charge Point Protocol (see below). The scale of
this project indicates a substantial commitment to electromobility in Germany, and
its results may hold lessons for other governments attempting to support charging
infrastructure.
The Netherlands. As a global leader in electromobility, the Netherlands has been on
the forefront of charging infrastructure for several years, and many of its cities already
have a dense network of charging stations in place. The Netherlands has ambitions
to have electric vehicles reach 10% of new vehicles by 2020 and 50% by 2025, and to
deploy a nationwide network of charging points to ensure they remain a frontrunner in
electric mobility. Much of the early construction of charging infrastructure was initiated
by ElaadNL, a foundation created by six power network operators in the country; this
group continues to maintain and upgrade about 3,000 stations around the country
(ElaadNL, 2016). The federal government also provided €16 million in incentives
for charging infrastructure through their 2011 “Electric Mobility Gets Up to Speed”
program (Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2011). More recently, the federal government
consolidated various programs and began to promote charging stations through its
“Green Deal,” including forming partnerships with businesses (Green Deal, 2016).
Regional and local governments in the Netherlands have shown similar ambition in
promoting electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The province of Noord-Brabant began
a smart charging trial project in 2014 with the installation of public smart charging
stations in major cities, and has announced tenders for the installation of 2,000 new
smart charging stations beginning in 2017 (Nederland Elektrisch, 2016). The city-operated
Amsterdam Elektrisch program, in partnership with utility Nuon, will install curbside
chargers on demand, ensuring that all residents have a place to charge an electric vehicle.
A similar model has also been adopted by other cities such as Utrecht and The Hague
(Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Several other provinces and municipalities oer incentives
or trial programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, leading to the high number of
charge points in the Netherlands today. Moreover, the Netherlands has become a leader in
charging standardization and interoperability, as discussed below.
Norway. Norway is the global leader in national electric vehicle sales share, with
approximately 30% in 2016, and it seeks to shift to 100% electric vehicle sales by 2025.
The country has a number of unique challenges relating to charging infrastructure,
related to both its high density of electric vehicles and its cold climate. The government
has been a key driver of charging infrastructure through the early stages of the electric
vehicle market and will continue to invest in this area. The 2016 National Transport Plan
states that “Power charging facilities or fuel supply for zero-emission vehicles should be
so easily available that long distance driving is possible and unacceptable waiting times
are avoided both in the city and for long-haul operations” (Norwegian National Rail
Administration et al., 2016).
11
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
The key sponsor of Norway’s charging infrastructure has been Enova (formerly
known as Transnova), an agency funded through petroleum and natural gas sales that
promotes greenhouse gas emissions reductions and energy eciency improvements.
Transnova first began construction of charging infrastructure with an investment of
€6 millionin 2009 and has since steadily continued funding (Nobil, 2012). In 2015 and
2016, the agency issued four calls for proposals, and most recently it has focused on the
installation of fast charging stations on remote highways in northern Norway. In addition
to this federal investment, many Norwegian cities and towns also have a long record of
investing in charging stations; for example, Oslo budgeted €2 million for initial buildout
of charging stations through 2011 (Nobil, 2012).
United Kingdom. The government of the United Kingdom, through the Oce of
Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), operates a diverse set of programs to encourage the
buildout of charging infrastructure in that country. In addition to support for domestic
and workplace charge points, OLEV operates the On-street Residential Chargepoint
Scheme, which provides funding to local authorities to install public Level 2 charging
stations in residential areas for residents without private o-street parking (OLEV,
2016a). This program, designed to cover 75% of hardware costs for these stations, is
also notable for its clear guidance for reducing costs and maximizing convenience for
installers, drivers, and cities. At the same time, Highways England has plans to install
charging infrastructure every 20 miles along the major road network as part of its Road
Investment Strategy (Jones, 2015). With EU funding support, the electricity provider
Ecotricity has installed at least one rapid charger in each of the United Kingdom’s
Motorway Service Areas.
Local governments have also been involved in construction of charging infrastructure.
Like Germany, specific cities and regions received special funding for trial projects in the
Plugged-In Places program through 2014, which included matching funds to businesses
that installed charging stations. This has resulted in eight popular regional charging
networks with a total of more than 6,400 charge points installed, including Plugged-in
Midlands, with almost 1,000 charge points covering East and West Midlands. This was
followed by various national schemes that concentrated funding on DC fast charging.
In 2016, the U.K. government announced the Go Ultra Low Cities scheme, which awarded
£40 million to a number of cities to roll out pioneering initiatives to assist them in becoming
internationally outstanding examples for the promotion of ultralow-emission vehicles.
Charging infrastructure is a key part of the initiatives, with funding made available for
rapid charging hubs, residential and car club charge points, and trials of various on-street
charging initiatives. The program is expected to fund 750 stations in total (Go Ultra Low,
2016). Additionally, under the leadership of Transport for London and various private-sector
partners, London has created the Source London network and plans to add 4,500 charge
points by 2018 (Source London, 2016). Plans have also been announced to take forward
legislative measures to ensure that sucient charging infrastructure is available at Motorway
Service Areas and can be required to be installed at large fuel retailers.
NORTH AMERICA
Canada. Canada’s electric vehicle market, driven by early growth in Québec and British
Columbia, reached cumulative sales of more than 30,000 electric vehicles in early 2017.
The Canadian government is undergoing a broad zero-emission vehicle strategy to
set new goals for electrification and its associated policy and charging infrastructure.
12
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Charging infrastructure in Canada has primarily been deployed through a number of
provincial and local programs, and the federal government is becoming increasingly
involved in the sector. The government is working to write a national zero-emission vehicle
strategy and has already committed $182.5 million for electric vehicle charging and
hydrogen fueling infrastructure through 2017 (Transport Canada, 2017). Québec, which has
about half of the country’s electric vehicle stock, has been especially active: The Electric
Circuit network, operated by public utility Hydro Québec, includes almost 1,000 stations
as of July 2017, and it has expanded into Ontario (Electric Circuit, 2017). Three other
charging networks are also active in the province, bringing the number of public charging
stations available around 1,600. The province also provides support for charging at private
homes, workplaces, and multi-unit dwellings, and is working with neighboring U.S. states
to create cross-border fast charging corridors. Ontario and British Columbia have also
invested substantially in public charging infrastructure, Ontario through its Ministry of
Transport and British Columbia through its utility BC Hydro.
United States. The U.S. electric vehicle market continues to grow, helped by a combination
of federal and state consumer incentives and investment, zero-emission vehicle regulatory
policy, and a series of state and local city promotion activities (Slowik & Lutsey, 2017). The
California zero-emission vehicle policy, adopted by states representing nearly one-third
of the U.S. vehicle market, is expected to increase electric vehicles in the market from
more than 600,000 in early 2017 to several million by 2025. To serve the early growth,
much of the initial investment in charging infrastructure in the United States came from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided federal funding
through the EV Project and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery program, among many infrastructure projects
in the United States from 2010 to 2013. By the end of 2014, there were about 18,000 public
Level 2 and DC fast electric charge points in the United States (U.S. DOE, 2017a). Since
then, charging infrastructure has been deployed with funding and authority from many
dierent federal, state, and local agencies and has increased to more than 27,000 charge
points by the end of 2015, and to 36,000 charge points at the end of 2016 (U.S. DOE,
2017a). Almost all of these government-funded stations are operated by private networks.
As of 2016, one of the most promising developments for sustained investment in charging
infrastructure consists of electric power utilities providing mutual benefits to all ratepayers
through their investments in charging infrastructure. This new movement has been led
by major utility actions in California (see CPUC, 2017; Edison International, 2016; SDG&E,
2016). A number of utilities and public utility commissions in other states are following
California’s lead, while in other states, utility commissions and stakeholder groups are
considering the costs and long-term benefits of rate-based utility investment in charging
infrastructure and other transportation electrification programs. As input to help guide
charging deployment, California developed the EVI-Pro model, a tool that projects the
number of home, workplace, and public charge points needed by 2025 in each county to
correspond to the expected growth in the electric vehicle fleet (CEC & NREL, 2017).
As part of the settlement of the Volkswagen diesel scandal, VW will invest
approximately $2 billion in charging infrastructure and other programs to support clean
transportation across the United States for a 10-year period commencing in 2017, 40%
of which will be invested in projects in California. The first phase will result in several
thousand charge points at more than 900 sites across the country, including local
community charging and intercity fast charging corridors, with some stations capable of
providing 350 kW DC charging (Electrify America, 2017). The settlement also establishes
13
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
an Environmental Mitigation Trust that allocates funds to the states and allows them to
use up to 15% of their allocation for zero-emission vehicle fueling infrastructure.
SUMMARY AND LESSONS
As the electric vehicle market evolves, governments are increasingly working to promote
charging infrastructure. Table 4 summarizes some of the major national-level charging
infrastructure programs in leading electric vehicle markets, illustrating that there are
multiple ways for governments to promote this part of the market. Additionally, in
markets such as the United States and the Netherlands, local governments have played a
strong role in building charging infrastructure.
Table 4. Summary of major national-level charging infrastructure programs in selected markets,
including budget and form of award.
Country Program Budget Mechanisms of support
China
• State Grid national fast
charging corridors
• Regional investments by
automakers
• City government-funded
construction in pilot cities
• State-owned utility programs
• Public-private partnership
• Grants to local governments
France
• Funding given 3,000 cities for
12,000 charge points
• EDF power company building
nationwide DC fast charging
network
• Local governments apply for
grants
Germany
• €300 million for 10,000 Level
2 and 5,000 DC fast charging
stations
€300 million
($285 million)
• Subsidies for 60% of costs
for all eligible businesses
Japan
• Next Generation Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure
Deployment Promotion
Project
• Nippon Charge Service
government-automaker
partnership
Up to
¥100 billion
($1 billion)
• Grants to local governments
and highway operators
• Public-private partnership
Netherlands • “Green Deal” (curbside
chargers on request)
€33 million
($31 million)
• Contracts tendered to
businesses on project-by-
project basis
Norway • Enova grant scheme from
2009 onward
• Quarterly calls for proposals
for targeted projects
United
Kingdom
• Curbside stations for
residential areas
• Highways England building
DC fast charging stations
along major roads in England
£2.5 million
($2 million)
£15 million
($12 million)
• Municipalities apply for
grants; installers reimbursed
• Grants and tenders
administered by public body
United
States
• Grants for funding public
charging stations through
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act
$15 million • Matching grants for local
governments
Although there is no conclusively superior design for a charging infrastructure program,
several lessons can be gleaned from these government programs. In particular, there
14
ICCT WHITE PAPER
is evident value in targeting specific charging needs, making the charging program
information clear and easily accessible, and promoting competition. Naturally, all
recommendations must be tailored to fit local political, geographic, and demographic
contexts for each market.
» It is important to target specific, known charging needs. The problem of charging
infrastructure availability is complex and large, and constructing a comprehensive
charging network would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, because the
industry is evolving quickly, current assumptions about technology and driver
preferences may not hold in the future. Therefore, it is usually preferable for a
government program to focus on one form of charging infrastructure where there is
a clear need (e.g., intercity DC fast charging or curbside residential charging). This
can also help to encourage broader geographic coverage and will lead to a more
accurate assessment of the costs of a given program.
» Clear, accessible information on charging programs helps all stakeholders. For
programs oering subsidies or accepting applications, it is important to make
information and guidance about the program easily accessible and simple to
understand. This includes posting basic information online, requiring only one
or two clicks from the primary electric vehicle informational website. Ideally, the
most important provisions of the rule for dierent actors (such as drivers, local
governments, and businesses) would be identified. If a government oers multiple
programs, these would ideally be displayed together, along with links to other
similar programs at a local level (or at a national level for local governments). A
strong example of this is OLEV’s programs in the United Kingdom: Three schemes
are laid out on one webpage with clear guidance for all parties, accessible in only
one click from the main OLEV page.
» Competition among charging providers will facilitate growth of the early
infrastructure and will also help to identify the leading business models over time.
It is generally accepted that the charging infrastructure industry will eventually
shift to the private sector as electric vehicle sales increase the demand for charge
points and the profitability of their operation. In the near term, although incentives
are needed, regulators can set the stage for robust private-sector leadership by
promoting competition and innovation through government programs. This could
include holding frequent bids for projects (as in the Netherlands), adding bonuses
to subsidies for specific advanced features, or capping the reimbursable price of
stations while mandating a particular functionality.
15
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
IV. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Governments and private companies have been constructing public charging
infrastructure for several years, resulting in more than 200,000 stations of various types
around the world. The status of charging infrastructure varies greatly from country to
country as well as from city to city, and comparison of these local markets can help to
elucidate broader trends within the electric vehicle market. This section presents and
analyzes data on charging infrastructure in major electric vehicle markets. For each
market, we use the most complete publicly available data on charge point counts for
the end of 2016, unless otherwise noted. We include both BEVs and PHEVs in our counts
of electric vehicles, and we define a charge point as a single outlet or plug; a charging
station may have one or more charge points. We also break down the public charging
data into Level 2 or DC fast charging to identify dierences across the major electric
vehicle markets. Further information on data sources is given in the Annex.
To help inform topical questions around the world about public electric vehicle charging,
we present data according to several dierent metrics that are each relevant in dierent
contexts. We present charging infrastructure data in terms of charge points per 1
million residents in each area, which allows comparison of the extent of charging with
an adjustment for dierent jurisdiction sizes. This metric is key in comparing markets
of dierent sizes, and also provides a measure that is independent of the number of
electric vehicles. Having a metric that is separate from the size of the city and the
electric vehicle population is necessary to analyze the statistical link between electric
vehicle uptake and charging deployment. We also assess and compare charging
infrastructure on a per–electric vehicle basis. Such a charger/vehicle ratio (or the
inverse) oers additional input to help approximate the number of charging stations
for a given electric vehicle market. Some jurisdictions find such ratios more useful
in projecting the necessary charging infrastructure to match electric vehicle growth.
Both of these metrics can clarify dierences across global electric vehicle markets, as
illustrated below.
At a national level, the availability of charging infrastructure varies widely, as shown in
Figure 1. The global leaders in electric vehicle uptake, Norway and the Netherlands, are
also leaders in charge point availability, with far more total charge points per million
residents than other countries. While the Netherlands has the most Level 2 charge points
per population, Norway has the highest concentration of DC fast charge points per
capita. Before adjusting for population, China is the clear leader by charge point volume,
with more than 100,000 Level 2 charge points and 38,000 DC fast charge points,
followed by the United States (36,000 total charge points), the Netherlands (27,000),
Japan (18,000), Germany (12,000), and the United Kingdom (11,000). As shown, there
are major dierences across the markets in terms of the percentage of charging that is
DC fast. In Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, DC fast chargers constitute less than
10% of the charging points. In most countries, DC fast chargers represent 10% to 20% of
charger deployment. China, Japan, and Finland have the highest share of rapid charge
points, 25% to 45%.
16
ICCT WHITE PAPER
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
Netherlands
Norway
Switzerland
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
Ireland
United Kingdo
m
Germany
Belgium
Japan
Canada
United States
Finland
China
Average
Percent public charging
that is rapid charging
Public charge points
per million population
Level 2 charge points DC fast charge points Percent fast charging (right axis)
Figure 1. Comparison of electric vehicle charging infrastructure per million population in selected
national markets around the world.
PUBLIC CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE BY METROPOLITAN AREA
A national-level outlook is useful for considering broad electric vehicle readiness and
the impact of national charging infrastructure programs, but it does little to clarify
the relationship between charging infrastructure and electric vehicle uptake. Within
countries (especially large markets such as China and the United States), there is
significant variability among cities with regard to electric vehicle uptake and charging
infrastructure density. Furthermore, charging infrastructure is part of a regional
ecosystem, where drivers can make use of charging stations in a wide area as they
commute and take additional local trips. For these reasons, our primary analysis is
focused at a metropolitan-area level (see Table A-2 for definitions).
For the following analysis, we include metropolitan area–level data from 14 countries:
Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. These
markets were targeted primarily because they have the highest electric vehicle uptake,
and also because data in these markets were available for both local-level electric
vehicle uptake and public charging infrastructure. We estimate that these national
markets eectively include about 90% of global electric vehicle sales. The only
substantial national market for which we could not find comparable electric vehicle and
charging data is France, which is therefore excluded. We note that in the relationships
depicted in Figure 2, Figure 3, and the statistical data, we include only metropolitan
areas with resident populations of at least 200,000. This excludes many smaller markets
with few electric vehicle sales that could have otherwise skewed the results. The data
are for 2016, with the exception of China markets, where some of the most recent
available local-level data are for 2015.
17
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 2 illustrates charging infrastructure deployment and electric vehicle uptake in
major metropolitan areas around the world. Cumulative electric vehicle sales (including
both BEVs and PHEVs) per million population are plotted on the vertical axis; public
charge points (both Level 2 and DC fast) per million population are plotted on the
horizontal axis. The bubble size indicates the number of electric vehicles sold in 2016
in a given market. Data points are colored according to country; selected markets with
high electric vehicle uptake are labeled.
10,000 50,000 100,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Cumulative electric vehicles
per million population
Public charge points per million population
* denotes 2015 data, 2016 for all other markets
China
Netherlands
Denmark
China*
Sweden
Austria
Norway
Japan
Belgium
United States
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Canada
Oslo
Bergen
San Jose
San Francisco
The Hague
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Rotterdam
Copenhagen
Zürich
Shenzhen*
Los Angeles
Electric vehicles
Beijing
30 EV/CHARGE POINT
15 EV/CHARGE POINT
5 EV/CHARGE POINT
Stockholm Shanghai
Figure 2. Public charging infrastructure and electric vehicle registrations per million population by
metropolitan area, with size of circles indicating total electric vehicles.
Several conclusions can be drawn from Figure 2. As with the national-level data in Figure
1, the data demonstrate that there are some rough apparent patterns between electric
vehicle uptake and charging infrastructure availability. There is also substantial variability
across the markets. If the electric vehicle–public charger relationship were a clear universal
one, the data would line up more diagonally. We overlay three diagonal trend lines within
the figure, indicating ratios of 30, 15, and 5 electric vehicles per charge point, to highlight
how the cities compare. The cluster of data points at the lower left is a clear testament to
the early state of electric vehicle market development at present. In most of the markets
below 5,000 electric vehicles per million population and fewer than 400 charge points per
million electric vehicles, fewer than 1% of new vehicle sales are plug-in electric.
Electric vehicle charging and uptake data from the various metropolitan areas within
each country show approximate patterns. Oslo and Bergen, the two major metropolitan
areas in Norway, are labeled. These two, with about one-third of all new vehicle
sales being plug-in electric vehicles, have the highest uptake, and they each show a
relationship of about 14 to 17 electric vehicles per public charger. The markets in the
Netherlands tend to have a lower ratio of electric vehicles per charge point, at 3 to 6
18
ICCT WHITE PAPER
electric vehicles per charger for the three largest electric vehicle markets, Amsterdam,
Utrecht, and The Hague. This could be due to the relatively low rate of private garage
ownership in these markets (see below). In contrast, the large California markets tend
to lie above the other cities with a higher vehicle/charge point ratio, approximately 25
to 30 electric vehicles per charge point. This could be due to greater access to private
home charging, as well as workplace charging in northern California. The major China
markets had a range of 3 to 11 electric vehicles per charge point.
Over all markets considered in this study, we find an average of approximately 7 electric
cars per public charge point. Given the wide variation observed across the markets,
including the successful high-uptake markets, it seems clear that this average ratio does
not represent a consistent or universal metric for assessing the maturity of local electric
vehicle markets. We further examine this ratio of electric vehicles per charge point,
along with factors such as city housing type and population density, below.
RAPID VERSUS NORMAL PUBLIC CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
As charging infrastructure continues to expand, a key issue is in establishing the correct
balance between convenient-yet-expensive DC fast charging and inexpensive-but-slower
Level 2 charging. Along with the variation in overall amount of charging infrastructure
shown above, the various electric vehicle markets also vary greatly by their dierent
numbers of Level 2 (normal) and DC fast (rapid) charging infrastructure. Figure 3
illustrates these dierences, plotting Level 2 charge points (horizontal axis) and DC fast
charge points (vertical axis) per million population for the major metropolitan areas with
substantial electric vehicle uptake. Data points to the lower right have less, and points
to the upper left have more, DC fast charging. Again, we note that some of the regional
data for China are through 2015 rather than 2016. Selected major markets are labeled.
We also overlay three diagonal trend lines to illustrate how the cities compare with
respect to 40%, 15%, and 5% of their public charging infrastructure being rapid charging.
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
2,500
Public rapid charging
per million population
Public regular charge points per million population
* denotes 2015 data, 2016 for all other markets
China
Netherlands
Denmark
China*
Sweden
Austria
Norway
Japan
Belgium
United States
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Canada
Oslo
Bergen
San Jose
The Hague
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Shenzhen*
Copenhagen
Hangzhou*
Kansas City
Zürich
Newcastle
Shanghai
Hefei*
Beijing
40% RAPID
15% RAPID
5% RAPID
Figure 3. Relative numbers of public regular Level 2 and DC fast charge points per million
population in selected major metropolitan areas.
19
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
A consistent ratio of Level 2 charge points to DC fast charge points would show more
of a clear diagonal line; however, there is no such universal trend in these data. Some
approximate patterns do emerge, revealing that local conditions diverge greatly from
the global average of about 20% fast charging. The cities in China, to the upper left,
tend to have the highest proportion of fast charge points—about 30 to 40% of all public
charging facilities—at least in part because of installations by their major utilities. Cities
in the Netherlands generally have the most charging overall but the lowest percentage
of rapid charge points, about 1.5 to 2%. The low percentage of fast charge points may
reflect the large numbers of curbside charging stations intended for overnight use
and the large numbers of PHEVs lacking fast-charging capability. The highest electric
vehicle uptake markets in Norway had high amounts of both regular Level 2 and DC
fast charging, and had 6% (Oslo) and 13% (Bergen) of the charging as DC fast charging.
The three largest U.S. markets, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose, had 7 to 11%
of their charging as DC fast charging. However, there can also be substantial variation
within each country. For example, although the Kansas City area leads the United States
with 664 charge points per million population, it has less than half as many fast charging
points, adjusted for population, relative to the San Francisco or San Jose areas.
STATISTICAL LINK BETWEEN PUBLIC CHARGE POINTS AND
ELECTRIC VEHICLE UPTAKE
As previously noted, public charging infrastructure has often been found to be
linked with greater electric vehicle uptake. With the detailed local-level data from
most major global electric vehicle markets, we sought to test this relationship with
a stepwise multiple linear regression to find the best fit among the factors analyzed.
In addition to analyzing the link between charging availability and electric vehicle
uptake, we sought other data that also might help to partially explain the variation in
Figures 2 and 3 above.
On the basis of the research literature, we sought to include housing and demographic
data to help control for known major dierences across global cities. We were able to
collect data on the percent of households that are multi-unit dwellings, which could
serve as a rough proxy for the number of households that are less likely to have their
own private parking or garage. In addition, we included a population density (number
of residents per land area within the metropolitan area) in the analysis to account for
significant land use and travel pattern dierences across the areas. In addition, we
included consumer financial incentives in the analysis, applying the methodology from
Yang et al. (2016). We felt it necessary to include the major dierences in available
consumer incentives among the electric vehicle markets, considering the strength of the
relationship with uptake in previous analyses (as mentioned above).
The results of this regression are summarized in Table 5. The statistical test is for the
dependent variable of electric vehicle share of new 2016 vehicle sales, with several
dierent charging, incentive, housing, and land use variables as independent variables
in dierent combinations. For the analysis below, we conducted a multivariate linear
regression using StatPlus software (AnalystSoft, 2017a, 2017b). As above, we included
only metropolitan areas with populations of at least 200,000. For this statistical
analysis, we included only a smaller subset of cities for data availability and data
quality considerations: metropolitan areas from the United States, Norway, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Belgium, and Japan.
The remaining four countries were excluded because we could not find comparable data
20
ICCT WHITE PAPER
on housing attributes or electric vehicle incentive policies. The resulting regressions are
based on 350 metropolitan areas with populations more than 200,000.
We used separate variables for regular Level 2 charging and DC fast charging to
discern whether they were both significant. For the consumer incentives, we included
electric vehicle purchase incentives (tax credits, rebates) as well as tax incentives
(e.g., exemptions from vehicle taxation). As shown in Table 5, we conducted separate
electric vehicle regressions for BEVs and PHEVs based on separate data for each type’s
incentives and uptake.
In Table 5, the variables marked X had the strongest statistical fit (P values less than
0.05) and were part of the statistical regression for electric vehicle uptake. For the
consumer incentives, we included a weighted incentive between BEVs and PHEVs for
the general electric vehicle regression. As summarized in Table 5, we found a significant
statistical link between electric vehicle uptake and charging infrastructure, incentives,
housing characteristics, and population density (R2 = 0.78). Table A-3 shows the
statistical regression outputs related to Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of statistical regression for electric vehicle uptake with charging infrastructure,
incentives, population density, and housing type.
Electric
vehicle
share
BEV
share
PHEV
share
Level 2 charge points per million population XXX
DC fast charge points per million population XXX
Consumer electric vehicle incentive (weighted BEV/PHEV) value X
Consumer BEV incentive X
Consumer PHEV incentive X
Percent of households that are in multi-unit dwellings X X
Population density X X
Adjusted R2 value 0.78 0.65 0.78
Variables with X are statistically significant (P < 0.05)
BEV = battery electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
When isolating BEVs and PHEVs, the statistical fits were similar, with charging and
incentives still significant in each case, but for BEVs the population density was
not significant, and for PHEVs population density was significant. In each of these
regressions, both Level 2 and DC fast charging are shown to be statistically significant,
which suggests that they both play a role for electric vehicle drivers. Although fast
charging is predominantly used for BEVs, we note that PHEV models such as the
Mitsubishi Outlander and BMW i3 Rex version include fast charging capability. The R2
values of 0.65 to 0.78 indicate that unexplained variation remains in the relationships.
This could include the many dierent national, state, and local policies that aect
electric vehicles; model availability; automaker marketing and dealer activities (e.g., see
Slowik & Lutsey, 2017); and other factors that are not analyzed here.
Although it is widely recognized that charging infrastructure will be required to expand
the electric vehicle market, there is considerable uncertainty about the precise amount
of public charging infrastructure needed to reach a given market size. As suggested by
21
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
the successful early electric markets described above, there is no single global answer to
this question. It is unlikely that any market has achieved the perfect balance of electric
vehicles and charge points, and it would be dicult to know when this is the case.
The electric vehicle market and the associated charging infrastructure will grow and
coevolve. The rapid development of the technology means that the situation may be
quite dierent in a few years. Furthermore, local conditions, the availability of private and
workplace charging, and the mix of electric vehicle types could also strongly influence the
appropriate level of public charging infrastructure deployment in various markets.
RATIO BETWEEN ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND PUBLIC CHARGE POINTS
The idea of a ratio between electric vehicles and public charge points is attractive to
policymakers, as this ratio could inform targets for infrastructure buildout to support
an electric vehicle market of a given size. Although our analysis shows the diculties
in developing international benchmarks or quantitative guidelines for charging
infrastructure, several organizations have sought to do so, as shown in Table 6. These
ratios help to reveal broad international trends, but it is not yet clear whether these
ratios represent the correct benchmarks for future market development or how
useful they might be for national or local decision-makers planning their charging
infrastructure to match electric vehicle deployment. The estimates from the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
are based on detailed models of the evolution of the U.S. electric vehicle market. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) Electric Vehicle Initiative’s ratios are based on global
averages in 2015 and 2016. The numbers from the California Energy Commission (CEC)
and NREL are the California average values for a more detailed tool that estimates the
future public charging on the basis of projected future electric vehicle deployment and
several local factors.
Table 6. Indicated average electric vehicle/public charge point ratios.
Organization Region
Electric vehicle/public
charge point ratio Source
European Council European Union 10 European Parliament (2014)
NDRC China 8 (pilot cities),
15 (other cities) NDRC (2015)
IEA Electric Vehicle
Initiative Worldwide 8 (2015),
15 (2016) EVI (2016, 2017)
EPRI United States 7-14 Cooper & Schefter (2017);
EPRI, 2014
NREL United States 24 Wood et al. (2017)
CEC/NREL California 27 CEC & NREL (2017)
On the basis of the data presented above, we provide an additional summary chart
to explore what the local-level data reveal for public charging deployment trends.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of electric vehicle sales among major metropolitan
areas within the countries analyzed here (again, only for areas with at least 200,000
residents) according to their electric vehicle/charge point ratio. This distribution shows
that within each country, there tend to be some groupings related to the relationship
between electric vehicle sales and number of charge points. For example, the ratio
in the Netherlands and China ranges from 0 to 10, whereas in the United Kingdom it
22
ICCT WHITE PAPER
generally ranges from 15 to 25. As shown above, this ratio can vary by a factor of 20—for
example, from 1.5 (Rotterdam, Netherlands) to 33 (San Jose, United States). We also
examined how this ratio has changed from 2014 to 2016 in select markets in the United
States, Norway, Sweden, and Germany; in general, the same national relationships shown
in Figure 2 and Figure 4 were consistent over this period. With the limited sample of
multi-year data, we find no clear trend that would indicate that electric vehicle stock or
public charging infrastructure tends to grow at a faster rate or that the ratios are shifting
in any clear way.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-2525-30 30-3535-40>40
Cumulative electric vehicle sales
Ratio of electric vehicles to public charge point
* denotes 2015 data, 2016 for all other markets
China
Netherlands
Denmark
China*
Sweden
Austria
Norway
Japan
Belgium
United States
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Canada
Figure 4. Distribution of cities by electric vehicle/public charge point ratio.
We note that this global comparison and the above statistical analysis of public charging
infrastructure availability at the local level constitute a novel contribution to the research
literature, and that there are a number of additions that could strengthen this type of
research. First, our study only covers select countries with high electric vehicle uptake.
Second, some of the data may be incomplete for particular local markets. Integration
of privately held charging point data with the data compiled here might result in more
accurate estimates and relationships. Third, we do not include workplace charging in this
analysis, which may play a similar role in some circumstances. In most markets, there are
very few data revealing the share of workplace charging. Finally, many additional factors
influence electric vehicle uptake, such as model availability, income, fuel and electricity
costs, and residential and workplace charging availability. Accounting for these variables
in a statistical regression may lead to a more accurate estimate of the relationship
between charge points and uptake. Certainly, this is a rich area for further research as
the market evolves and more data become available.
23
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
V. ADDITIONAL TOPICS IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
PLANNING
STANDARDIZATION AND INTEROPERABILITY
Much of the early electric vehicle charging infrastructure was not systematically planned
or optimally placed. Rather, in many cases it was developed in a relatively fragmented
way, with dierent government and private-sector players deploying numerous types
of infrastructure without necessarily holding a shared vision. Although standards for
the physical plugs have been generally accepted (as described above), the back-end
communications, payment, and power supply standards are less developed. In many
markets, this means that an electric vehicle driver needs a variety of memberships,
accounts, and cards to access all of the nominally publicly available infrastructure. This
was not a problem for most early adopters of this technology, when almost all charging
was done at home and many charging stations were free; however, it is likely to become
an increasingly dicult issue as the market grows.
There have been several major eorts toward improving the user experience of charging
infrastructure by promoting interoperability, both for drivers and for charging network
operators. For electric vehicle drivers, interoperability, or “e-roaming,” means that drivers
can charge at any station with a single identification or payment method, and that all
charging stations can communicate equally with vehicles. For this to work seamlessly,
common standards for charging network operators must also be established so that
usage data and payment information can be consolidated and directed to the correct
accounts. Of particular interest is the experience of the Netherlands, a leading electric
vehicle market with the highest number of charging stations per capita. Through careful
planning and regulation, every public charging station (and many private stations) in the
country can now be operated and paid for using a single radio-frequency identification
card or key fob. This has made traveling with an electric vehicle in the Netherlands much
easier and more aordable while also promoting competition in the electric vehicle
charging industry.
Driver roaming is accomplished through the widespread adoption of open standards,
including the Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) and Open Clearing House Protocol
(OCHP), which allow for ecient communication between charging stations, the
grid, and back-end oces to ensure interoperability in operation and payment. These
protocols are now enforced through all public tenders in the Netherlands. ELaadNL,
a consortium of grid operators formerly known as the ELaad Foundation, was largely
responsible for the early development of these standards; the organization is also
currently working on the Open Smart Charging Protocol (OSCP), which would allow
coordinated smart charging across many stations.
While the Netherlands has led in this area, numerous projects in other countries are also
trying to promote interoperability. Ladenetz, a government-sponsored collaboration
among municipal utilities, universities, and private electric vehicle service equipment
(EVSE) operators in Germany and the Netherlands, seeks to create a Europe-wide
network of interoperable and user-friendly charging stations. Hubject, a company
founded by BMW, Bosch, Siemens, and EnBW, has launched a service known as
“intercharge” that incorporates e-roaming into more than 40,000 stations.
24
ICCT WHITE PAPER
In the United States—where interoperability in the charging infrastructure sector is
perhaps least developed—BMW, Nissan, ChargePoint, and EVgo founded the ROEV
(Roaming for EV Charging) project to advance interoperability. California is currently
working on implementing the Electric Vehicle Charging Open Access Act, which focuses
on customer interaction with the EVSE. This act requires (1) publication of all station
locations on the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) website; (2) disclosure of all fees
before a charging event begins, including plug-in fees if not a member of the network;
and (3) charge point accessibility to nonmembers of the network, including the ability to
accept multiple forms of payment. Implementing these key features will enable broader
access for consumers. Other states such as Washington and Massachusetts are also
pursuing interoperability initiatives. These projects, as well as government support for
interoperability and the use of open standards, could be important in the long-term
growth of electric vehicle charging networks.
POWER SUPPLY AND GRID EFFECTS
Electric vehicle charging has the potential to use vast amounts of power, and although
it currently does not pose any substantial risk to the grid, this is an issue that should
be considered by authorities as the market grows. A frequently cited concern is the
exacerbation of evening peak power demand, both on a local and regional level, due
to many drivers plugging in after arriving home from work (Brandmayr et al., 2017;
National Academy of Sciences, 2015). This could be compounded by increasing use
of solar power, which may decline in output at the same time of day that charging
demand spikes. Utilities could see some increased costs from this phenomenon. The
Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California calculated costs of about $150 per
vehicle at 5% fleet penetration using uncontrolled charging patterns. However, these
issues may also be increasingly easy to work around as smart charging technology
develops (Berkheimer et al., 2014). Many governments are engaged with working group
activities, pilot projects, and policy processes to incorporate greater use of smart
charging practices, including controlled charging and demand response (see, e.g., Hall &
Lutsey, 2017). Even simpler solutions, such as using in-vehicle timers to take advantage
of time-of-use rates, could help minimize stress on the electrical grid while also saving
money for consumers.
Another area of concern in some areas is the eect of DC fast charging on local
distribution infrastructure. These fast charging stations use very high amounts of power
for short periods of time, meaning that more expensive upgrades will be needed with
a relatively low use rate. This problem could intensify as technology improves: Four
European automakers have announced plans to build a network of 400 charging
stations capable of charging at 350 kW, more than three times the current industry
standard (Herdlitschka & Sedlmayr, 2016). Electrify America will also build charging
stations capable of 350 kW charging in the United States (Electrify America, 2017).
These usage patterns and the potential for infrastructure upgrades often cause charging
sites to incur high demand charges, a component of electricity rates based on the
highest capacity used. For fast charging stations, which use a lot of power but may be
less frequently needed by drivers, demand charges can account for 90% of operating
costs, which leads to higher rates for drivers (Fitzgerald & Nelder, 2017). Utilities,
regulators, and research groups are developing alternative rate structures for workplace
and public charging infrastructure, an important step in improving the commercial case
for electric vehicle charging (see Fitzgerald & Nelder, 2017; O’Conner & Jacobs, 2017).
25
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Because drivers expect fast charging to be available on demand, smart charging
strategies are less practical than for Level 2 charging. However, there are a number of
innovative solutions to minimize the grid eects of fast charging. For example, projects
in the United Kingdom, Germany, British Columbia, Hawaii, and elsewhere have paired
fast charging stations with stationary battery storage (sometimes second-life electric
vehicle batteries) in order to mitigate grid impacts and coordinate with renewable
energy output (Hall & Lutsey, 2017). Perhaps the most important practice for preventing
negative eects for the grid, especially as the fast charging market continues to grow,
is to coordinate closely with the utility to site fast chargers near adequate high-capacity
electrical infrastructure. The California utility Pacific Gas & Electric has created a
comprehensive guide and map tool enabling charging providers to identify which sites
have sucient grid capacity and driver demand (PG&E, 2017). Such coordination will be
important for the growth of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure industry.
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE PLACEMENT
Ensuring that the electric vehicle charging network operates eciently and meets driver
expectations can be crucial in maintaining future investment and support. One critical
step toward maximizing the return on investment is to place charging stations in optimal
locations at a local level in order to maximize usage, avoid trac and parking issues, and
minimize stress on the power grid.
A number of studies and models have addressed this issue in depth, both in urban and
regional contexts. Table 7 summarizes some of these studies, including their geographic
focus, the type of data they include, and the considerations used in choosing locations.
These methods, adapted for local context, enable governments and private-sector
partners to create guidelines that will maximize the usefulness of infrastructure.
Although these studies vary in their approach and the factors they consider, there are
commonalities in their use of data from many partners, including municipal governments
and utilities. This further emphasizes the need to coordinate eorts between multiple
stakeholders when funding and deploying electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Within a specific location, such as a parking lot, there are additional factors to consider
in determining the final placement of charging infrastructure. For instance, it is smart
to place the charging posts, where possible, in a position that is accessible to multiple
cars at once. This could mean putting it in the middle of a parking lot, where up to
six vehicles could use the post, rather than at the edge or a corner, where only two or
three vehicles would be able to connect. These stations would ideally be handicapped-
accessible, with any tripping hazards covered or removed. Additionally, placing charging
stations near the entrance to buildings increases their visibility and their convenience
for drivers. However, various additional complicating factors influence these decisions; a
number of publications oer more detailed guidelines (see OREF & EVAS, 2016; Webb &
Sears, 2017; NYSERDA, 2017).
26
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Table 7. Studies on electric vehicle charging infrastructure placement optimization.
Region Considerations Data sources Citation
Bolzano and South
Tyrol, Italy
Parking, transit, power
supply
City and provincial
GIS data Harrison & Thiel (2017)
Boston, United States Parking, driver
discomfort, cost
Cell phone location
data Vazifeh et al. (2015)
Beijing, China Parking, trac
impacts, power supply Taxi fleet data Hua et al. (2014)
California, United
States Regional trac, cost Travel surveys, past
charger utilization Ji et al. (2014)
Liege, Belgium
Commute patterns,
transit, business
locations
City and provincial
GIS data Wirges (2016)
Singapore Trac impacts,
vehicle range
City and national
trac and GIS data Xiong et al. (2015)
Chicago and South
Bend, United States
Energy consumption,
cost, parking
Census data, public
map data Yi & Bauer (2016)
COSTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure has seen substantial cost declines over the
past several years due to new technological innovation and larger production scale,
as with electric vehicle production. For example, since 2009, the city of Amsterdam
has seen the costs of their curbside charging stations fall from approximately €12,000
to €2,000 per station. Nonetheless, charging infrastructure also typically requires
substantial installation costs and can also incur additional costs for land procurement,
administration, and maintenance.
Figure 5 illustrates the approximate per-station costs of a number of major government
programs to fund charging infrastructure, including administrative, installation, and
siting costs. As seen in the figure, total costs per Level 2 station range from $5,000 to
$15,000, whereas each DC fast charging station can cost $40,000 to $100,000. These
wide ranges of values depend on the type of charging station (including its networking
capabilities), the setting (urban versus rural, mounted on walls or on posts), and the
administrative details of the program.
27
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Germany California
SCE
California
SDG&E
France
Corridoor
Oslo USA
EV
Project
Oregon
West
Coast
Electric
Highway
Ontario
Electric
Circuit
Average
Cost per fast charge point
Cost per Level 2 charge point
Figure 5. Approximate program-level costs of Level 2 and DC fast charging stations from selected
major government charging infrastructure programs.
There are a number of ways to reduce the costs of charging infrastructure construction.
Using stations with two connectors rather than one can greatly reduce the cost per
outlet. Given sucient demand, constructing multiple stations in the same area can
reduce installation costs and save on the back-end electrical infrastructure. Wall-
mounted charging stations typically cost much less than freestanding charging stations.
Consulting with utilities beforehand to select sites with sucient nearby electrical
capacity can substantially reduce installation costs, especially for DC fast charging
stations or for multi-unit installations. In the future, building codes requiring supporting
electrical infrastructure in new buildings will substantially reduce the total costs of
installing residential, workplace, and public charging stations.
Governments can also select more basic charging station units to save on costs, but
this may increase the risk of stations becoming obsolete or incurring higher costs in the
long run. Charging stations with lower power output tend to cost less but are better
suited for workplace and residential charging than for situations when drivers are
parked for only a few hours. Additionally, although non-networked charging stations
(those that cannot communicate with a central server and therefore typically only
allow free electricity) are usually cheaper upfront, they do not allow recovery of costs
through electricity sales. Furthermore, a greater number of stations may be needed
in the long term if drivers gravitate toward free public charging instead of charging at
home. Additionally, non-networked chargers will not be able to support variable rates
or smart charging programs that could be increasingly useful as the market develops.
For these reasons, networked Level 2 stations may have a lower amortized cost than
non-networked (free) stations (Webb & Sears, 2017). One compromise is to oer a range
of charging power and payment options at areas where many charging stations are
needed, from free Level 1 to increasingly expensive Level 2 or even DC fast stations. This
allows drivers to select the charging power that best matches their vehicle and travel
patterns while paying for the electrical capacity they use, and allowing site hosts to oer
more stations and save money.
28
ICCT WHITE PAPER
BUSINESS CASES FOR PUBLIC CHARGING
Governments have largely funded early electric vehicle charging infrastructure in order
to advance low-emission transportation, often without an expectation of making back
the investment or turning a profit. As the market grows and begins to reach mainstream
customers, there is increasing interest in a transition to commercially sustainable
charging infrastructure. With this in mind, there are a few promising business models
based on electricity sales, increased retail sales, advertising revenue, and automaker-
funded stations. Some options are briefly described here, although we emphasize that
they are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps the simplest business model for public charging infrastructure is to sell
electricity with a sucient markup to recover the cost of the charging infrastructure.
The limitations of this model are clear: If electricity costs approach the costs of gasoline
(on a per-kilometer basis), electric vehicles become less financially attractive and
PHEV drivers are more likely to operate on gasoline. Furthermore, even a slight markup
in electricity price makes it cheaper for drivers to charge at home if infrastructure is
available. The wide-scale viability of an electricity price–based business model depends
on the relative cost per mile of driving with electricity versus gasoline. When gasoline
costs about $3 per gallon, as is typical in California, electricity cannot cost more than
$0.22 per kWh and still be cheaper than driving purely with gasoline in a PHEV. However,
when gasoline costs approximately $6 per gallon (€1.414 per liter, comparable to prices
in Western Europe), electricity priced at $0.44 per kWh would be cheaper than driving
with gasoline in the same vehicle. This basic, illustrative calculation is for the 2016
Chevrolet Volt, achieving 42 miles per gallon (5.6 L/100 km) on gasoline versus 0.32
kWh per mile (0.2 kWh/km) in electricity consumption. This cost-per-mile equivalence
implies that this business model is much better suited for European markets and other
regions with higher fuel prices than in the United States. Indeed, the curbside charging
stations in Amsterdam, where the electricity price is regulated to be cheaper on a per-
mile basis than gasoline, are beginning to make a profit through electricity sales alone.
Another option is to base the business case on increased retail sales. Because public
electric vehicle charging requires significant time and a new stop on a trip, charging
stations may represent a way for retailers to attract new customers and increase sales.
This represents an important business model for private-sector charging infrastructure
deployment by defraying charging station costs through increased sales at commercial
site hosts. There is some early evidence that this approach can be successful. After
installing Level 2 charging stations at one of its California locations, a major U.S. retailer
found that dwell time for customers using the charging stations was 50 minutes
longer than average, a 257% increase (ChargePoint, 2015). This led to an estimated
$56,000 in additional sales over 9 months, and the retailer is now installing charging
stations at additional locations. Similarly, another study in California found that when
electric vehicle drivers stopped to charge at a fast charging station next to a retailer,
50% of drivers shopped during the charging, and among those shopping, the average
expenditure was about $18 (Nicholas & Tal, 2017). As the market continues to grow,
greater use of this model may benefit drivers and businesses alike.
Advertising revenues are another option on which to base a charging station business
model. Gasoline stations already have increasingly integrated advertisements on pumps
and signage; electric vehicle charging stations could oer a similar opportunity for
advertising, which could generate revenue to oset initial costs. Such an idea is most
29
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
appropriate for high-trac, high-visibility locations such as malls, restaurants, and busy
highway rest areas. California-based Volta Charging is pursuing this business model,
providing free Level 2 charging at high-trac retail locations in several U.S. cities, paid
for by advertising revenue from large video screens attached to each station. In some
cases, advertising revenue may not completely oset the initial installation costs but
could be integrated with other tactics to form a profitable business case.
Automobile manufacturers could also fund charging stations by integrating their
overall electric vehicle deployment and infrastructure into their unique customer
proposition. As discussed in the introduction, charging infrastructure is seen as a key
driver of electric vehicle uptake. Therefore, to fuel future sales of their electric vehicles,
automakers have an interest in creating a robust charging infrastructure network. The
most obvious example of this is Tesla’s proprietary Supercharger network, consisting
of 5,043 charge points at 790 locations, 2,636 of those in North America (as of
December 31, 2016) (Golson, 2017). In addition, Tesla communicates to owners via
text message when new Supercharger stations come on line. However, many other
automakers are helping to fund more open charging networks. BMW, Ford, and Nissan
all provide subscriptions to EVgo, a major U.S. fast-charging network, and are helping
to fund the expansion of that network. In Europe, BMW, Daimler, Ford, and Volkswagen
Group (including Audi and Porsche) have announced a joint venture to construct a
network of ultrafast charging stations across Europe, beginning with 400 sites in 2017
(Herdlitschka & Sedlmayr, 2016). This automaker investment signals a commitment
to the technology and an understanding of the relationship between charging
infrastructure and vehicle sales, and could be an important contribution to the private-
sector charging infrastructure industry.
30
ICCT WHITE PAPER
VI. HOME AND WORKPLACE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE
Although this report primarily focuses on public charging infrastructure, we recognize
that private charging, both at home and at the workplace, represents the majority
of electric vehicle charging. This section highlights some emerging best practices by
governments to support home and workplace charging infrastructure.
HOME CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
Among early adopters, the vast majority of charging events have been carried out with
private home charging infrastructure (see, e.g., Figenbaum & Kolbenstvedt, 2016; Idaho
National Laboratory, 2015). In general, private home charging has not been a major
barrier, as most vehicles come with Level 1 or Level 2 charging equipment. However,
purchasing and installing more advanced Level 2 stations with higher charging power
and features such as internet connectivity or timers can add additional costs for electric
vehicle drivers. As longer-range BEVs become more available, Level 1 charging could
be insucient for many drivers; therefore, aordable and convenient Level 2 home
charging would be increasingly important.
A number of governments operate programs to defray the added costs of charging
infrastructure. The United Kingdom’s Oce for Low Emission Vehicles will pay up to
75% of the hardware and installation costs (up to £500) for a hardwired Level 2 station
(OLEV, 2016c). Likewise, Québec oers up to $600 CAD for the cost and installation of a
240 V station (Gouvernement du Québec, 2012). In the United States, a number of states
oer similar rebates or incentives, such as Washington, D.C. ($1,000), Oklahoma (75%),
Delaware (50%), Maryland (40%), Louisiana (36%), and Oregon (25%) (ChargePoint,
2017a). Utilities in some parts of the United States also oer incentives, up to several
hundred dollars, for home charging stations, indicating the growing role of utilities in
expanding the electric vehicle market (Salisbury & Toor, 2016). Consistent incentives
for higher-capacity home charging stations may help to make electric vehicles more
accessible and increase the viability of long-range vehicles in the future.
BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure requires robust electrical wiring and safety
equipment beyond what is included in most construction. Retrofitting existing wiring
to accommodate the high power consumption of electric vehicle charging equipment
can greatly increase the cost of installation; conversely, pre-installing the necessary
electrical infrastructure for charging equipment is relatively inexpensive. A number
of governments at various levels have crafted regulations to promote charging
infrastructure, especially through mandating “make-ready” infrastructure in buildings.
One pioneering use of building requirements to promote electric vehicles was
California’s Green Building Standards Code, which required in 2015 that 3% of all
parking spaces in commercial buildings include make-ready infrastructure for charging
stations (including dedicated panel and circuit capacity) (CARB, 2015). This regulation
has since been expanded to include more parking spaces and higher-powered
charging infrastructure. In some cities, standards are more progressive. In Los Angeles,
for example, all single-family homes require a dedicated 240 V outlet and circuit
31
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
capacity for a Level 2 charger, and there are additional requirements for make-ready
infrastructure in multi-unit residential and commercial buildings.
Similar regulations have also been implemented in Europe. A new European Union
directive is set to require an electric vehicle charging point in every new or refurbished
home beginning in 2019 (Hyundai Motor Europe, 2016). The city of London now requires
electric vehicle charge points at 20% of parking spaces in all new developments, as well
as make-ready infrastructure for an additional 20% of spaces (Greater London Authority,
2016). The government of Germany is considering new policies mandating charge points
or make-ready infrastructure in all new buildings, as well as policies to streamline the
construction of charging stations in existing buildings (Harendt & Mayer, 2015). Similar
policies may help to boost electric vehicle uptake and driver satisfaction in these quickly
growing markets.
MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS
Early adopters of electric vehicles have tended to be relatively wealthy drivers living in
single-family homes with private garages. However, as the market grows and expands
to more diverse clientele, charging infrastructure will adapt. One of the most pressing
questions is how to address multi-unit dwellings, where residents frequently do not have
dedicated parking spots, instead parking in a shared garage or on the street. As such,
many residents cannot access a dedicated residential charge point.
A number of cities and countries have created programs specifically targeting drivers
in multi-unit dwellings and others without access to o-street parking. One potential
solution is to simply build public curbside charging stations in the areas where the
potential demand is relatively high, a model followed by Amsterdam and other cities in the
Netherlands. The United Kingdom also operates a curbside charging station program. A
few cities in North America, including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Berkeley, and Montreal,
operate similar programs, but they are temporary pilots (Berkeley Oce of Energy and
Sustainable Development, 2017; CBC News, 2015; Glovas, 2015; LADWP, 2017).
Governments can also work with residents and property owners to install charging
infrastructure in shared parking facilities and promote consumer awareness in multi-
unit dwellings. California has created the emPower the People program, which assists
residents in advocating for charging infrastructure in multi-unit dwellings, and also
provides materials to property owners to reduce the costs and clarify the benefits of
adding charging infrastructure in their buildings (California Plug-In Electric Vehicle
Collaborative, 2017). Nonetheless, the costs of installing stations in multi-unit dwellings
can be high: A recent study in California estimated average installation costs of $5,400
per Level 2 charge point, more than three times the average cost for installation in a
single-family home (Turek et al., 2017).
There is growing recognition of the challenges in this field, and some governments
may be interested in making substantial financial investments in this area. The
government of France, for example, subsidizes 50% of the costs (up to €1,300) for
shared stations in multi-unit residential buildings through the ADVENIR program, with
a goal to fund 5,700 charge points (AVERE-France, 2016). Although broader funding
programs in other countries (such as OLEV’s Homecharge scheme in the United
Kingdom) may be used to install charge points in multi-unit dwellings in some cases,
dedicated funding such as this may help to increase awareness and create stronger
business cases for multi-unit dwellings.
32
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Electric utilities may also be a major actor in this field, especially when they are able to
use ratepayer money for infrastructure investments. California’s three major utilities have
each announced plans to deploy thousands of charging stations in the state; in each
case, multi-unit dwellings are a major focus (CPUC, 2017). Regulators in the northeastern
United States are currently working with utilities to accelerate charging infrastructure
construction in that region, including in multi-unit dwellings. Although much work is
required to make electric vehicles advantageous for all electricity sector stakeholders,
these electric companies could be crucial to expanding the electric vehicle market for
drivers living in multi-unit dwellings.
WORKPLACE CHARGING
In many markets, dedicated workplace charging infrastructure for employees plays a
role in the charging ecosystem. Workplace charging can serve as the primary charging
opportunity for drivers without a dedicated home charge point, allowing increased
flexibility for drivers who commute with their electric vehicle and more all-electric miles
for those who drive PHEVs. Several governments have created schemes to support
workplace charging infrastructure, as summarized below.
In the United States, the Department of Energy operated the Workplace Charging
Challenge from 2013 to 2017 to promote and track workplace charging infrastructure
deployment, with the goal of achieving a factor of 10 increase in the number of
workplaces oering charging by 2018. As of late 2016, the 757 partner workplaces of
the Challenge had installed more than 7,000 Level 2 and Level 1 stations, as well as 136
fast charging stations (U.S. DOE, 2017b). At a regional level, the metropolitan areas
of San Jose (with approximately 1,700 charge points), Detroit, San Francisco, and
Portland, Oregon, have the most workplace charging infrastructure registered through
this program (Heywood & Olexsak, 2017). Only a few cities (including San Jose, Detroit,
and Raleigh, North Carolina) have more workplace charging than public charging,
although these stations are likely to be highly clustered, and many other workplaces
may provide charging points without participating in this program. For example, a major
U.S. charging network provider, ChargePoint, estimates that approximately 40% of their
charge points are at private workplace locations, totaling almost 14,000 points in their
network alone (Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2017; ChargePoint, 2017b).
Noting the caveats above about the limited data on workplace charging, we present
data on workplace charging and public charging data in Figure 6 for the 15 major U.S.
metropolitan areas with the highest shares of new vehicles that were electric in 2016.
The chart includes public charging as above, with workplace charging reported through
U.S. DOE’s Workplace Charging Challenge; both are reported in terms of charge points
per million residents to better compare markets of dierent sizes. As shown, there is an
approximate alignment with the markets with high electric vehicle uptake and relatively
high public-plus-workplace charging availability. The three markets with the highest
workplace charging per capita—San Jose, Detroit, and San Francisco—are shown.
33
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
San Jose
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
Riverside
Detroit
Salt Lake City
Washington
Denver
Austin
Boston
Nashville
Las Vegas
New York
Phoenix
Atlanta
Hartford
Electric vehicle share
Charging infrastructure
per million population
Public DC fast Public level 2 Workplace Electric vehicle share
Figure 6. Public and workplace charging per million population and electric vehicle sales share for
the 15 major U.S. metropolitan areas with the highest electric vehicle uptake.
A number of other jurisdictions have also created programs to accelerate employer
charging installations. The province of Québec’s Branché au Travail program funds 50%
of the costs, up to $5,000 CAD per station, for businesses and municipalities oering
free charging to their employees (Gouvernement du Québec, 2017). The Massachusetts
Electric Vehicle Incentive Program oers grants for workplace charging that provide 50%
of the funding (up to $25,000) for hardware costs to employers installing Level 1 and
Level 2 stations (EEA, 2017). The United Kingdom’s OLEV has launched the Workplace
Charging Scheme, which provides rebates up to £300 per charge point for up to 20
charge points, to defray initial purchase and installation costs for organizations providing
o-street employee or fleet charging (OLEV, 2016b). France’s ADVENIR program funds
workplace and public charging on company property, with a goal of installing 6,300 such
charge points through 2018. The program will cover 40% of the costs per charge point,
up to €1,000 for employee and fleet stations and €1,500 for public stations (AVERE-
France, 2016). The Norwegian EV Association works with businesses to build charging
infrastructure for employees and customers, and has created a comprehensive guide on
regulations, costs, pricing, siting, and more. In the past, tenders from Enova have funded
workplace charging infrastructure (Norsk Elbilforening, 2017).
As the electric vehicle market continues to grow, workplace charging may further grow
in importance. Because cars charging at a workplace tend to be plugged in for many
hours during the middle of the day, it is an ideal setting for smart charging programs
and could further the integration between electric vehicles and daytime renewable
energy (especially solar). Research has shown that people are 20 times as likely to
buy an electric vehicle if there is access to charging infrastructure at their workplace
(Olexsak, 2014). An electric vehicle owner who lives in an apartment that does not oer
overnight charging could consequently be especially interested in workplace charging.
However, when creating funding programs or awareness campaigns to promote
workplace charging availability, governments may consider data reporting requirements
in order to identify further trends and best practices in this important field.
34
ICCT WHITE PAPER
VII. DISCUSSION
As with the electric vehicle industry as a whole, charging infrastructure technology
is changing quickly. New developments such as superfast and inductive charging are
making their way out of laboratories and could further change the industry. This report
provides a snapshot of the state of public charging infrastructure deployment as of late
2016, highlighting prominent actions and progress in the major electric vehicle markets
in Asia, Europe, and North America.
FINDINGS
On the basis of our analysis of major electric vehicle markets that make up about 90% of
global electric vehicle sales, we find that the availability of public charging is generally
linked with electric vehicle uptake. As illustrated in Figure 7, national vehicle markets with
higher electric vehicle uptake tend to have more publicly available charging infrastructure.
The basic national statistics in the figure indicate the need to build charging stations
to help meet charging demand and increase electric vehicle consumer confidence as
the market develops. The general market statistics also show that there are underlying
dierences among countries that are worthy of much deeper investigation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
0
500
1,000
1,500
Norway
Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium
Austria
United Kingdom
China
Finland
United States
Denmark
Japan
Canada
Germany
Ireland
Electric vehicle sales share
Public charge points
per million population
Level 2 charge points DC fast charge points Electric vehicle share
Figure 7. 2016 electric vehicle sales shares and public charge points per million population in major
national markets.
The variation across national markets led us to analyze the diering local charging
infrastructure characteristics and underlying factors that were emerging through 2016.
When analyzing local-level data, we find that dierent patterns emerge among the top
global electric vehicle markets. Figure 8 compiles several of the results from this paper’s
analysis to depict electric vehicle uptake and the relative availability of public charging
infrastructure. The figure shows the major metropolitan areas with the highest electric
vehicle shares in Norway, China, the Netherlands, California, and Sweden in 2016. When
local-level uptake and charging infrastructure data were unavailable for 2016, China data
35
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
are from 2015 as marked. These markets represent the highest electric vehicle shares
among major metropolitan areas around the world, with electric vehicle shares ranging
from 3% in Gothenburg, Sweden, to 36% in Bergen, Norway. To give a sense of the
scale of these markets, cumulative electric vehicle sales in Oslo, Shanghai, Beijing, San
Francisco, and Los Angeles each number more than 50,000.
0
10
20
30
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Bergen
Oslo
Shenzhen*
Beijing
Hangzhou*
Shanghai
The Hague
Utrecht
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
San Jose
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Stockholm
Gothenburg
NORWAY CHINA NETHERLANDS UNITED STATES SWEDEN
Electric vehicles per
public charge point
Electirc vehicle share
of new vehicle sales
Electric vehicle share Electric vehicles per public charge point
* denotes 2015 data, 2016 for all other markets
Figure 8. Electric vehicle sales share and public charge points per electric vehicle in selected
leading markets.
This local-level analysis rearms that the electric vehicle charging ecosystem is evolving
dierently in the various markets. By selecting major metropolitan areas within the
most prominent national electric vehicle markets, we get a glimpse of the emerging
patterns of charge points per electric vehicle. In Norway, the electric vehicle share
has been highest, and there is one public charge point per 14 to 17 electric vehicles.
The major China markets more typically have 3 to 6 electric vehicles per charger, and
they also tend to have 30 to 40% of their charging as DC fast charging, whereas most
other markets are below 15% DC fast. In the Netherlands, where private parking and
charging are less common, 2 to 7 electric vehicles per public charger is more typical.
Electric vehicle owners in California more frequently have access to home charging in
their private garages or to charging at their workplaces, and there is roughly one public
charger per 25 to 30 electric vehicles. In addition, we find that the various electric
vehicle markets have greatly diering mixes of public fast charging, workplace charging,
and supporting policies to help encourage the charging market.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings do not permit definitive, universal conclusions about such a quickly
moving industry with so many dierences across the various markets. However, we
do oer several high-level conclusions about the status of charging infrastructure and
exemplary practices that help point toward the path forward.
36
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Charging infrastructure availability varies dramatically at a local level, and there is no
universal benchmark for the amount of charging infrastructure required. Although
national-level numbers of charge points allow easy comparisons across markets, these
statistics hide the high level of variation among regions and cities within a single
country. Moreover, characteristics such as the balance between regular and fast charging
can also vary widely within a single country. Certain regions and metropolitan areas
typically lead in both electric vehicle uptake and charging infrastructure availability.
We identify an average of one charge point for every 7 electric vehicles, with about
one in every five charge points a DC fast charger. However, as shown in Figure 8, the
electric vehicle/charge point ratio varies by a factor of 10 even among the leading
global markets. This variability may stem from the varied roles of public charging in
dierent city contexts. For example, in the Netherlands cases, public charging appears
to eectively take a role that is more like that of residential or workplace chargers
elsewhere. In other cases, more often in California, public charging supplements home
and workplace charging. The clear broader conclusion from all these developments is
that as the global electric vehicle market grows—likely by at least an order of magnitude
by 2025—so too will the need for much more public charging infrastructure.
Although we find that public charging infrastructure is a key to growing the electric
vehicle market, there is no universally accepted benchmark or global threshold for
the extent of charging required. This work corroborates other research that indicates
the importance of developing charging infrastructure in unison with electric vehicle
deployment. In our analysis, both standard and DC fast charging infrastructure are
statistically linked to electric vehicle uptake, as are consumer purchase incentives and
factors such as population density and the prevalence of multi-unit dwellings. The
leading electric vehicle markets of Norway and the Netherlands have more than 10
times as many public charge points per capita as average markets, and leading markets
such as California and China had 3 to 5 times the average. However, there is also
significant unexplained variability in our statistical analysis that goes beyond charging
infrastructure availability. As routinely indicated in other studies, consumer incentives,
vehicle policy, and consumer awareness campaigns are also key components of electric
vehicle market development. Although there is no single ideal global ratio or benchmark
for charging, comparisons of similar markets still oer an instructive way to understand
where and how charging is relatively insucient. Lagging electric markets can strive
toward the leading benchmarks of comparable cities, while top markets continue to set
new benchmarks as the market and its charging infrastructure coevolve.
Multifaceted and collaborative approaches have been most successful in promoting
early charging infrastructure buildout. Governments at the local, regional, and national
levels around the world have used varied strategies to promote public and private
charging infrastructure. In leading markets, programs have engaged many stakeholders
through integration of driver feedback on charger deployment, implementation of smart
charging systems, distribution of funding to local governments, creation of public-
private partnerships, and consultation with utilities to minimize grid impacts and limit
costs. To address changing needs in this growing market, leading governments have
created and provided consistent funding for separate programs to target several dicult
market segments, such as curbside charging stations, multi-unit dwellings, and intercity
fast charging stations. In all cases, it is important to make programs transparent and
easily accessible for electric vehicle owners and industry stakeholders.
37
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD
Despite this government support and falling costs, there are still a number of challenges
to the further development of global electric vehicle charging networks. Charging
infrastructure still suers from fragmentation, inconsistent data availability, and a lack
of consistent standards in most markets. Open standards for vehicle–charge point
communication and payment may mitigate these issues by enabling interoperability
between charging networks, increasing innovation and competition, and reducing costs
to drivers. Led by successful eorts in the Netherlands, a number of public and private
eorts promote these open standards and a more robust market. Governments may
wish to mandate data collection and the use of open standards for publicly funded
projects, an approach adopted in several programs. The success of such initiatives will
be increasingly important as the market grows and smart charging develops.
This study also raises additional questions for future research. The analysis focuses on
public charging, but more research into home, workplace, and fast charging availability
is needed to create a fuller understanding of the complex charging ecosystem. Because
each charging type lessens the need for the others to an extent, a clearer relationship
between electric vehicle stock and charge points may emerge when all types of
charging are considered. As the market develops, the need for public and other charging
types will shift with vehicle technology (e.g., longer-range electric vehicles) in uncertain
ways. As the electricity sector embraces more intermittent renewables, the location and
timing of charging could shift from the home overnight charging paradigm to daytime
public and workplace charging. Another important area for deeper analysis is how the
right amount, types, and locations of charging can encourage PHEV drivers to use
electricity for a greater proportion of their driving. Going forward, another key question
is how to ensure that the cost of public electric vehicle charging remains competitive
with the comparable per-kilometer cost of conventional internal-combustion vehicles.
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure, as indicated above, will need to grow with
electric vehicle deployment. Global electric vehicle growth has averaged more than 50%
annual growth per year from 2013 to 2016. Taking into account the various technology
improvements, battery cost reductions, auto industry announcements, and policy
developments that are under way, this growth appears likely to persist for years to
come. With regulatory policies that require greater electric vehicles sales nationally,
reinforced with preferential access for electric vehicles locally, the annual growth could
be even higher. This means that electric vehicles on the world’s roads could increase
from 2 million in early 2017 to well over 10 times that number by 2025 (see Lutsey,
2015). Our work assesses the level of public charging infrastructure, on a per-capita and
per–electric vehicle basis, that has enabled the initial leading markets to emerge. To aid
in the transition, lagging markets will have to strive toward today’s leading charging
infrastructure benchmarks for comparable cities. Top markets will continue to set new
benchmarks as the electric vehicle charging infrastructure evolves.
The expansion of charging infrastructure networks will create many opportunities.
Governments can catalyze these markets with policy, share in the initial infrastructure
investments, and pave the way for business cases to improve and eventually thrive.
Electric power utilities in many regions could especially play a key role as they seek
mutual benefits for the broader network and the electric vehicle market (see Hall &
Lutsey, 2017). As with the broader electric vehicle market, charging infrastructure
is changing quickly, causing further challenges beyond responding to the growth in
38
ICCT WHITE PAPER
charging. It is important that governments and the private sector coordinate their
deployment activities to ensure that convenient, aordable, and reliable public charging
infrastructure is available to all electric vehicle drivers. There is still much more work to
do, but cities, national governments, public utilities, and the private sector are making
great strides toward developing a robust charging infrastructure network, setting the
foundation for the transition to electric mobility.
39
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (API) (2017). Service Station FAQs; www.api.org/oil-and-
natural-gas/consumer-information/consumer-resources/service-station-faqs.
AnalystSoft (2017a). StatPlus:mac; www.analystsoft.com/en/products/statplus/content/
help/analysis_regression_forward_stepwise_regression_model.html.
AnalystSoft (2017b). “Forward Stepwise Regression”; www.analystsoft.com/en/products/
statplus/content/help/analysis_regression_forward_stepwise_regression_model.html.
AVERE-France (2016, May 12). Présentation du programme ADVENIR; www.avere-france.
org/Site/Article/?article_id=6556.
Berkeley Oce of Energy and Sustainable Development (2017). Residential Curbside
Electric Vehicle Charging Pilot. City of Berkeley; www.cityofberkeley.info/EVcurbside/.
Berkheimer, J., Tang, J., Boyce, B., & Aswani, D. (2014). Electric grid integration costs for
plug-in electric vehicles. SAE Int. J. Alt. Power, 3, 1–11; http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0344/.
Brandmayr, C., Benton, D., George, A., & Kumar, C. (2017). People Power: How Consumer
Choice Is Changing the UK Energy System. Green Alliance; http://green-alliance.org.
uk/people_power_consumer_choice.php.
Bräunl, T. (2012). EV Charging Standards. University of Western Australia; therevproject.
com/doc/2012-EVcharging-s.pdf.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung(BMVBS) (2011, July
29). Elektromobilität—Deutschland als Leitmarkt und Leitanbieter; www.bmvi.de/
SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/elektromobilitaet-deutschland-als-leitmarkt-und-
leitanbieter.html?nn=13190.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI) (2017, February 13).
Förderrichtlinie Ladeinfrastruktur für Elektrofahrzeuge in Deutschland; www.bmvi.
de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/G/foerderrichtlinie-ladeinfrastruktur-fuer-fahrzeuge-in-
deutschland.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2015, July 9). Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure—Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code—Suggested Code Changes
for Nonresidential Buildings—Technical and Cost Analysis. California Environmental
Protection Agency; www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/CAC/GREEN/
Exhibit-B-CARB-Cost-Analysis-and-Technical-Report.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
(2017). EV Infrastructure Projection Tool (EVI-Pro); https://maps.nrel.gov/cec-evse/.
California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative (2017). Charging Infrastructure at Multi-
unit Dwellings; www.pevcollaborative.org/MuD.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2017). Zero-Emission Vehicles: Charging
Infrastructure; www.cpuc.ca.gov/zev/#Infrastructure.
CBC News (2015, October 25). “Montreal to Get 106 Electric Car Charging stations
by Next Spring.” CBC Radio Canada; http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/
montreal-electric-car-stations-1.3287858.
CHAdeMO Association (2016, June). 2015 Activity Report (1 April 2015–31 March 2016);
www.chademo.com/wp2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FY2015ActivityReport_
en.pdf.
40
ICCT WHITE PAPER
ChargePoint Inc. (2015). “Leading Retailer Partners with ChargePoint to Attract and
Retain Loyal Customers”; www.chargepoint.com/files/casestudies/cs-retail.pdf.
ChargePoint Inc. (2017a). Take Credit for Going Green; www.chargepoint.com/products/
home-station-incentives/.
ChargePoint Inc. (2017b). Home page; www.chargepoint.com/.
Cooper, A., & Schefter, K. (2017, June). Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales Forecast Through
2025 and the Charging Infrastructure Required. Institute for Electric Innovation and
Edison Electric Institute; www.edisonfoundation.net/iei/publications/Documents/
IEI_EEI%20PEV%20Sales%20and%20Infrastructure%20thru%202025_FINAL%20
%282%29.pdf.
Davis, S. C., Williams, S. E., & Boundy, R. G. (2016). Transportation Energy Data Book. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory; http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml.
Edison International (2016). “SCE Receives CPUC Approval for ‘Charge Ready’
Pilot Program; Will Install As Many As 1,500 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in
Southland”; http://newsroom.edison.com/releases/sce-receives-cpuc-approval-for-
charge-ready-pilot-program;-will-install-as-many-as-1-500-electric-vehicle-charging-
stations-in-southland.
ElaadNL (2016). About Us; www.elaad.nl/organisatie/over-ons/about-us/.
Electric Circuit (2017, February). Find a Station. Hydro Québec;
https://lecircuitelectrique.com/find-a-station.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2014, June 16). Guidelines for Infrastructure
Planning; https://www.epri.com/ - /pages/product/000000003002004096/
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Promotion Alliance (EVCIPA) (2017, June 19).
Development of China’s Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Annual Report.
National Energy Administration; http://www.nea.gov.cn/2017-06/19/c_136376732.htm.
Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI) (2016). Global EV Outlook 2016. International Energy
Agency; www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Global_EV_
Outlook_2016.pdf.
Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI) (2017). Global EV Outlook 2017. International
Energy Agency; www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/global-ev-
outlook-2017.html.
Electrify America (2017, July). Our Plan; https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan.
Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) (2016, October 17).
Dispositif de déploiement des Infrastructures de recharge pour véhiculesélectriques;
https://appelsaprojets.ademe.fr/aap/IRVE 20162016-92.
E-tankstellen-finder.com (2017, January). E-tankstellen Catalog. KELAG-Kärntner
Elektrizitäts-Aktiengesellschaft; https://e-tankstellen-finder.com/at/de/catalog.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2014, October 22).
Directive2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October
2014 on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure. European Union;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32014L0094.
evCloud (2017). About the evCloud. FleetCarma; www.fleetcarma.com/evCloud/About.
41
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Executive Oce of Energy and Environmental Aairs (EEA) (2017). Massachusetts
Electric Vehicle Incentive Program (MassEVIP): Workplace Charging. Commonwealth
of Massachusetts; www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/grants/workplace-
charging.html.
Figenbaum, E., & Kolbenstvedt, M. (2016). Learning from Norwegian Battery Electric and
Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Users. Institute of Transport Economics, Norwegian Centre for
Transport Research; www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=43161.
Fitzgerald, G., & Nelder, C. (2017, April). EVgo Fleet and Tari Analysis—Phase 1:
California. Rocky Mountain Institute; https://d231jw5ce53gcq.cloudfront.net/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/eLab_EVgo_Fleet_and_Tari_Analysis_2017.pdf.
Gemeente Amsterdam (2017). Openbaar oplaadpunt aanvragen [Public charging station
applications]; www.amsterdam.nl/parkeren-verkeer/amsterdam-elektrisch/openbaar-
oplaadpunt/.
Glovas, K. (2015, May 11). “Philadelphia Encouraging Homeowners to Add Curbside
Electric CarChargers.” CBS Philly; http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/05/11/
philadelphia-encouraging-homeowners-to-add-curbside-electric-car-chargers/.
Go Ultra Low (2016, January 25). “Go Ultra Low Cities Winners Announced”; www.
goultralow.com/go-ultra-low-cities-winners-announced/.
Golson, J. (2017, February 22). “Tesla Is Doubling the Number of Supercharger Locations
in North America.” Vox Media; www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14703712/tesla-
supercharger-growth-model-usa-canada-mexico.
Gouvernement du Québec (2017, May). Remboursement pour les bornes de recharge
[Reimbursement for charging stations]; http://vehiculeselectriques.gouv.qc.ca/
entreprises/remboursement.asp.
Gouvernement du Québec (2012). Charging Station Rebate; http://vehiculeselectriques.
gouv.qc.ca/english/particuliers/remboursement.asp.
Greater London Authority (2016, March). Parking Standards—Minor Alterations to the
London Plan; www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/parking_standards_malp_for_
publication_7_april_2016.pdf.
Green Deal (2016). Electric Transport Green Deal 2016–2020. Netherlands Ministries of
Economic Aairs, Infrastructure and Environment, and Interior; www.greendeals.nl/
wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Green-Deal-Electric-Transport-2016-2020.pdf.
Green eMotion (2015). The Green eMotion project: Preparing the future of European
electromobility: Results and findings. European Commission; http://www.
greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/deliverables/Project-Results-online.pdf.
Hall, D., & Lutsey, N. (2017, February). Literature Review on Power Utility Best Practices
Regarding Electric Vehicles. International Council on Clean Transportation; http://
theicct.org/literature-review-power-utility-best-practices-regarding-EVs.
Harendt, B., & Mayer, C. A. (2015, December). Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen
für Ladeinfrastruktur im Neubau und Bestand. Schaufenster Elektromobilität;
http://schaufenster-elektromobilitaet.org/media/media/documents/dokumente_
der_begleit__und_wirkungsforschung/Ergebnispapier_Nr_11_Rechtliche_
Rahmenbedingungen_fuer_Ladeinfrastruktur_im_Neubau_und_Bestand.pdf.
42
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Harrison, G., & Thiel, C. (2017). An exploratory policy analysis of electric vehicle sales
competition and sensitivity to infrastructure in Europe. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 114, 165–178; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.007.
Herdlitschka, M., & Sedlmayr, C. J. (2016, November 29). “BMW Group, Daimler AG, Ford
Motor Company and Volkswagen Group with Audi & Porsche Plan a Joint Venture
for Ultra-Fast, High-Power Charging Along Major Highways in Europe.” Daimler AG;
http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/BMW-Group-Daimler-AG-
Ford-Motor-Company-and-Volkswagen-Group-with-Audi--Porsche-Plan-a-Joint-
Venture-for-Ultra-Fast-High-Power-Charging-Along-Major-Highways-in-Europe.
xhtml?oid=14866747.
Heywood, P., & Olexsak, S. (2017, March 10). Personal communication. U.S. Department of
Energy, Oce of Energy Eciency and Renewable Energy.
Hua, C., Xiaoping, J., Chiu, A. S. F., Hu, X., & Xu, M. (2014, October). Siting public
electric vehicle charging stations in Beijing using big-data informed travel patterns
of the taxi fleet. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 33,
39–46; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.09.003.
Hyundai Motor Europe (2016, December 15). Charging Points In All New Homes: Why
Mobility Is Going Electric; www.hyundai.news/eu/technology/charging-points-in-all-
new-homes-why-mobility-is-going-electric/.
Idaho National Laboratory (2015). Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric
Vehicles; https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/arra/PluggedInSummaryReport.pdf.
Ji, W., Nicholas, M., & Tal, G. (2014, November 15). Electric Vehicle Fast Charger Planning
for Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Adapting to Changing Markets and Vehicle
Technology. University of California, Davis; http://docs.trb.org/prp/15-5942.pdf.
Jones, A. (2015, August 11). “O Road Trials for ‘Electric Highways’ Technology.”
Highways England; www.gov.uk/government/news/o-road-trials-for-electric-
highways-technology.
Lambert, F. (2016, April 29). “Tesla Launches ‘Tesla Charging Partner Program’ in
China to Promote a National EV ChargingStandard.” Electrek; https://electrek.
co/2016/04/29/tesla-charging-partner-program-china-national-charging-standard/.
Lefevre, J. C. (2016, March 29). Voiture électrique: le réseau Corri-Door n’est plus un
labyrinthe. Breezcar; www.breezcar.com/actualites/article/reseau-bornes-de-recharge-
rapide-corri-door-0316.
LEMnet (2017, February). Find the Best Charging Stations For Your Trip;
http://lemnet.org/en/home.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) (2017). Transportation
Electrification: The LADWP Plan; http://calstart.org/Libraries/VOC_Docs/Marvin_
Moon_Presentation_VOC_Jan_18_2017.sflb.ashx.
Lutsey, N. (2015). Global Climate Change Mitigation Potential from a Transition to Electric
Vehicles. International Council on Clean Transportation; www.zevalliance.org/global-
climate-change-mitigation-potential-from-a-transition-to-electric-vehicles/.
Lutsey, N. (2017). Integrating Electric Vehicles Within U.S. and European Eciency
Regulations. International Council on Clean Transportation; www.theicct.org/
integrating-EVs-vehicle-CO2-regs.
43
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Ministry of Industry Information and Technology, National Development and Reform
Commission, and Ministry of Science and Technology (MIIT, NDRC, & MOST) (2017).
Medium- and long-term development plan for auto industry; www.miit.gov.cn/
n1146290/n4388791/c5600433/content.html.
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (2014, May 30). “Japan Automakers Advance Electric
Charging Infrastructure with New Company, Nippon Charge Service.” Toyota Motor
Corporation, Nissan Motor Co., Honda Motor Co., Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, and
Development Bank of Japan; www.mitsubishi-motors.com/publish/pressrelease_en/
corporate/2014/news/detaile530.html.
Mobility House (2017). Förderung für Elektroautos und Ladestationen;
http://mobilityhouse.com/de/foerderung-fuer-elektroautos-und-ladestationen/ -
muenchen-foerderung.
National Academy of Sciences (2015). Overcoming Barriers to Deployment of Plug-in
Electric Vehicles; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21725/overcoming-barriers-to-
deployment-of-plug-in-electric-vehicles.
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) (2015, October 9). Guide to the
development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. National Development and
Reform Commission, National Energy Bureau, Ministry of Industry, Information, and
Technology, and Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; www.ndrc.gov.cn/
zcfb/zcfbtz/201511/t20151117_758762.html.
Nederland Elektrisch (2016, June 27). Provincie Noord-Brabant en Limburg organiseren
aanbesteding voor 2.500 slimme laadpunten [Province of Noord-Brabant and Limburg
organize tenders for 2,500 smart charging points]; http://nederlandelektrisch.nl/
actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/i435/provincie-noord-brabant-en-limburg-organiseren-
aanbesteding-voor-2-500-slimme-laadpunten.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA). (2017).
Best Practice Guides for Charging Stations; www.nyserda.ny.gov/Researchers-and-
Policymakers/Electric-Vehicles/Resources/Best-Practice-Guides-for-Charging-Stations.
Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) (2011, October 3). Electric Mobility Gets Up to
Speed—2011–2015 Action Plan. Ministry of Economic Aairs; www.rvo.nl/sites/default/
files/bijlagen/Action Plan English.pdf.
Nicholas, M., & Tal, G. (2017). In Use Fast Charger Data: Implications for Travel and Usage
Projections. EVS30, Stuttgart, October 9–11, 2017.
Nippon Charge Service (2017, January). チャージスルゾウ充電スポットＭＡＰ;
www.nippon-juden.co.jp/cg/.
Nobil (2012). The Norwegian Charging Station Database for Electromobility. Norwegian
Electric Vehicle Association; http://gammel.elbil.no/elbilforeningen/dokumentarkiv/
finish/9-diverse/93-nobilbrosjyre1204.
Nobil (2017, January). The Norwegian charging station database for electromobility;
http://info.nobil.no/images/downloads/nobilbrosjyre.pdf.
Norsk Elbilforening (2017). Lading i bedrift; https://elbil.no/lading/bedrift/.
Norwegian National Rail Administration, Norwegian Coastal Administration, Norwegian
Public Roads Administration, & Avinor (2016). National Transport Plan 2018-2029;
www.ntp.dep.no/English/_attachment/1525049/binary/1132766?_ts=1571e02a3c0
44
ICCT WHITE PAPER
O’Conner, P., & Jacobs, M. (2017, May). Charging Smart. Union of Concerned Scientists;
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/smart-charging.
Oce for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) (2013, September). High Level Analysis of
the Plugged-in Places Chargepoint Usage Data. U.K. Department for Transportation;
www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-level-analysis-of-the-plugged-in-places-
chargepoint-usage-data.
Oce for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) (2016a, December 22). On-street Residential
Chargepoint Scheme Guidance for Local Authorities. U.K. Department for
Transportation; www.gov.uk/government/publications/grants-for-local-authorities-to-
provide-residential-on-street-chargepoints.
Oce for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) (2016b, November 21). Workplace Charging
Scheme Guidance for Applicants, Installers and Manufacturers. U.K. Department for
Transportation; www.gov.uk/government/publications/workplace-charging-scheme-
guidance-for-applicants-installers-and-manufacturers.
Oce for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) (2016c, November 3). Electric Vehicle
Homecharge Scheme Guidance for Customers: Version 2.1. U.K. Department for
Transportation; www.gov.uk/government/publications/electric-vehicle-homecharge-
scheme-guidance-for-customers-version-21.
Oce for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) (2017, January). National charge point registry.
Data.gov.uk; https://data.gov.uk/dataset/national-charge-point-registry.
Olexsak, S. (2014, November 18). “Survey Says: Workplace Charging Is Growing in
Popularity and Impact.”U.S. Department of Energy; https://energy.gov/eere/articles/
survey-says-workplace-charging-growing-popularity-and-impact.
Open Charge Map (2017, January). The Open Charge Map API; http://openchargemap.
org/site/develop/api.
Orkney Renewable Energy Forum (OREF) and Electric Vehicle Association of Scotland
(EVAS) (2016, July). Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: A Design Guide; www.
oref.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160726-Charging-Infrastructure-Design-
Guide-V1.3.3.pdf.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (2017). Site Information for Electric Vehicle Direct
Current Fast Chargers; www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-
are-doing/electric-program-investment-charge/direct-current-electric-vehicle-fast-
chargers.page.
Research in China (2017, March). China EV Charging Station and Charging Pile Market
Report, 2017–2020; www.reportlinker.com/p03605800/China-EV-Charging-Station-
and-Charging-Pile-Market-Report.html.
RWE Deutschland AG (2016, February). Distribution Grid Planning and Operational
Principles for Electric Vehicle Mass Roll-Out While Enabling Integration of Renewable
Distributed Energy Resources. PlanGrid EV; http://plangridev.eu/datas/RWE-16-
004_BRO_PlanGridEV_Rzfinal.pdf.
Salisbury, M., & Toor, W. (2016). How Leading Utilities Are Embracing Electric Vehicles.
Southwest Energy Eciency Project (SWEEP); www.swenergy.org/data/sites/1/media/
documents/publications/documents/How_Leading_Utilities_Are_Embracing_EVs_
Feb-2016.pdf.
45
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) (2016). “SDG&E to Install Thousands of Electric
Vehicle Charging Stations”; www.sdge.com/newsroom/press-releases/2016-01-28/
sdge-install-thousands-electric-vehicle-charging-stations.
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2014, May). The influence of financial
incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy
Policy, 68, 183–194; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043.
Slowik, P., & Lutsey, N. (2017). Expanding the Electric Vehicle Market in U.S. Cities.
International Council on Clean Transportation; www.theicct.org/leading-us-city-
electric-vehicle-2017.
Source London (2016). About Source London. The Bolloré Group; www.sourcelondon.
net/about-source-london.
Tesla (2017). Find Us. https://www.tesla.com/findus#.
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) (2016, November). TEN-T Innovation & New
Technologies. European Commission; http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/
tentec/tentec-portal/site/en/innovation.html.
Transport Canada (2017, May 26). “Government of Canada to Develop a National Zero-
Emissions Vehicle Strategy by 2018”; www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2017/05/
government_of_canadatodevelopanationalzero-emissionsvehiclestrat.html.
Turek, A., DeShanzo, G. M., Siembab, W., & Baum, A. (2017, January). Assessing the Multi-
Unit Dwelling Barrier to Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption in the South Bay. California
Energy Commission; www.southbaycities.org/featured-content/assessing-multi-unit-
dwelling-barrier-plug-electric-vehicle-adoption-south-bay.
UBS, 2017. UBS evidence lab electric car teardown: Disruption ahead? https://neo.ubs.
com/shared/d1ZTxnvF2k/.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2017a). Alternative Fueling Station Locator.
Alternative Fuels Data Center; www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2017b). Workplace Charging Challenge Progress
Update 2016: A New Sustainable Commute; https://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/
downloads/workplace-charging-challenge-2016-progress-update.
Vazifeh, M. M., Zhang, H., Santi, P., & Ratti, C. (2015, November). Optimizing the
Deployment of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Using Pervasive Mobility Data.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00615.pdf.
Webb, M., & Sears, M. (2017, February 21). Sta Report: Adoption of Davis EV Charging
Plan. Davis (California) City Council.
Winn, R. (2016, June). Electric Vehicle Charging at Work. Luskin School of Public Aairs,
University of California, Los Angeles; http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/
files/Full%20Report.pdf.
Wirges, J. (2016, February 25). Planning the Charging Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles
in Cities and Regions. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie; https://publikationen.
bibliothek.kit.edu/1000053253.
Wood, E., Rames, C., Muratori, M., Raghavan, S., Melaina, M. (2017, September). National
Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Analysis: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2017/09/f36/NationalPlugInElectricVehicleInfrastructureAnalysis_Sept2017.pdf.
46
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Xin, Z. (2017, January 26). “State Grid Scales Up Charging.” China Daily; www.chinadaily.
com.cn/business/2017-01/26/content_28058742.htm.
Xiong, Y., Gan, J., An, B., Miao, C., & Bazzan, A. L. C. (2015). Optimal Electric Vehicle
Charging Station Placement. Nanyang Technological University of Singapore;
www.ntu.edu.sg/home/boan/papers/IJCAI15ev.pdf.
Yang, Z., Slowik, P., Lutsey, N., & Searle, S. (2016). Principles for Eective Electric Vehicle
Incentive Design. International Council on Clean Transportation; www.theicct.org/
principles-for-eective-EV-incentive-design.
YellowMap AG/ADAC e. V. München (2017, April). E-Ladestationen; www.adac.de/
adac_vor_ort/hessen_thueringen/test_technik/e-tankstellen.aspx.
Yi, Z., & Bauer, P. H. (2016, March). Optimization models for placement of an energy-
aware electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 91, 227–244; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.04.013.
Yuan, R. (2016, August). China Commits to National Electric Vehicle Charging Network
by 2020. HKTDC Research; http://economists-pick-research.hktdc.com/business-
news/article/International-Market-News/China-Commits-to-National-Electric-Vehicle-
Charging-Network-by-2020/imn/en/1/1X000000/1X0A709R.htm.
Yurui, S. (2017, April 1). 31 provinces and cities to promote new energy vehicles ranked.
NEV OFweek; http://nev.ofweek.com/2017-04/ART-71011-8120-30120626.html.
47
EMERGING BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
ANNEX
Table A-1. Sources and local level of charging infrastructure data in selected markets.
Country or
region
Lowest level
of analysis
Number of
metropolitan
areas Sources
Austria Bezirk 3 E-tankstellen-finder, 2017; LEMnet, 2017
Belgium Arrondissement 5 Open Charge Map, 2017
China Prefecture-level
city 11
EVCIPA, 2017; ICCT project for EV100,
personal communication, April 13, 2017;
Yurui, 2017
Denmark Province 4 LEMnet, 2017; Open Charge Map, 2017
Finland Region 3 Nobil, 2017; Open Charge Map, 2017
Germany Kreis 65 LEMnet, 2017; Open Charge Map, 2017;
YellowMap AG/ADAC e. V. München, 2017
Japan Prefecture 13 Nippon Charge Service, 2017
Netherlands COROP region 9 Netherlands Enterprise Agency, personal
communication, February 2, 2017
Norway County 3 Nobil, 2017
Québec Region 2 Electric Circuit, 2017; Tesla, 2017
Sweden County 5 Nobil, 2017
Switzerland Canton 5 LEMnet, 2017; Open Charge Map, 2017
United Kingdom District 24 OLEV, 2017; Open Charge Map, 2017
United States County 277 U.S. DOE, 2017a
Table A-2. List of metropolitan area definitions used in analysis.
Country
or region Definition of metropolitan area Source
China City (市)China Central Government
Europe Metropolitan region European Commission
Japan Major metropolitan area and metropolitan area Statistics Japan
Québec Administrative regions (2 selected) Government of Québec
United
States Census bureau statistical area U.S. Census Bureau
48
ICCT WHITE PAPER
Table A-3. Summary of three multiple linear regressions for electric vehicle uptake.
Independent variable Coecient Standard Error t Stat P value Beta
Electric vehicle
share
Incentive (weighted BEV/PHEV) 0.0000059 0.0000003 18.01 0.00000 0.618
DC fast charge points per million
population 0.0004200 0.0000400 10.87 0.00000 0.319
Level 2 charge points per million
population 0.0000300 0.0000031 9.77 0.00000 0.289
Percent of households in multi-unit
dwellings 0.0297600 0.0057000 5.22 0.00000 0.169
Population density (residents per km2) 0.0000073 0.0000015 4.76 0.00000 0.128
Battery electric
vehicle share
Incentive (BEV) 0.0000036 0.0000003 13.55 0.00000 0.569
DC fast charge points per million
population 0.0003400 0.0000300 11.71 0.00000 0.428
Percent of households in multi-unit
dwellings 0.0180600 0.0042400 4.26 0.00003 0.174
Level 2 charge points per million
population 0.0000063 0.0000023 2 .74 0.00640 0.101
Plug-in electric
vehicle share
Level 2 charge points per million
population 0.0000300 0.0000014 19.08 0.00000 0.547
Incentive (PHEV) 0.0000015 0.0000001 15.43 0.00000 0.424
DC fast charge points per million
population 0.0001200 0.0000200 6.81 0.00000 0.194
Population density (residents per km2) 0.0000042 0.0000007 5.86 0.00000 0.156
