Content uploaded by Patrícia Lavieri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrícia Lavieri on Oct 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electric Vehicle
Charging
Consumer Survey
Insights Report
This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-ND.
Large-Scale Network and System Integration of Electric Vehicles: A Techno-Economic Perspective
Patricia S. Lavieri and Gabriel J. M. Oliveira
October 2021
2
As electric vehicle (EV) uptake increases worldwide, a major concern is
how consumer charging behavior will impact electrical networks. This
project addresses this concern through the investigation of consumer
behaviour, network modelling, and techno-economic modelling.
As part of the behavioural investigation, this report complements the
literature review “Electric Vehicle Uptake and Charging: A Consumer-
Focused Review” by examining EV charging preferences of Australian
consumers. The analysis utilises data from current and potential EV
owners obtained in an online survey conducted in mid-2021. The main
conclusions are:
▪Current EV owners drive almost two times the national average
distance travelled per car per year. Those intending to buy an EV
within the next year also driver longer distances than the national
average.
▪Therefore, charging needs per individual are likely to decrease as
the adoption curve reaches the majorities.
▪Home is the preferred charging location for current owners and
potential consumers. However, monetary savings can make
workplace charging a strong alternative.
▪Fast-charging service stations are perceived to be more convenient
than standard chargers located at destinations of interest.
▪Potential consumers seem to underestimate their ability to charge
at home and at work.
▪Residential charging is likely to take place during evening peak if
unmanaged.
▪Mainstream consumers are more responsive to ToU discounts than
current EV owners.
▪Acceptance of supplier-managed smart charging is higher among EV
early adopters than mainstream consumers.
▪To increase supplier-managed smart charging acceptance:
▪Monetary savings need to be evident and clear to consumers,
even if tariff structure is dynamic and complex.
▪Third-party management and control need an interface via App
that increases users’ sense of control over charging and
decreases their feeling of uncertainty.
▪Clarity in data sharing and user privacy policies is required.
▪Consumer awareness about environmental and community
benefits need to be addressed in campaigns.
▪Public charging needs to be perceived as an easy and accessible
backup plan.
Executive Summary
3
Contents
1. Background and objectives
2. Characterising the sample
3. Characterising EV ownership and purchase intention
4. Where and when do EV owners charge?
5. Would EV owners accept managed charging?
6. Where and when would potential EV consumers prefer to charge?
7. Would potential EV consumers accept managed charging?
8. Comparing EV owners and potential consumers
9. Conclusions and recommendations
1. Background and
objectives
The Project
The project “Large-Scale Network and System Integration of Electric
Vehicles: A Techno-Economic Perspective” is being conducted by
researchers of The University of Melbourne in partnership with Energy
Networks Australia, the Centre for New Energy Technologies, and The
Australian Power Institute. The project aims to investigate the potential
impacts of EV uptake on electricity networks under different future
scenarios. The project is divided into four main research areas:
1. Consumer acceptance and charging of EVs.
2. Distribution network impacts from unmanaged EVs
3. Distribution network integration of EVs using management
strategies.
4. Techno-economic network and system integration of EVs.
Findings from the project will provide strategic inputs about the effects
of EVs on the network and the role of EV management in mitigating
potential negative impacts. These results aim to inform a roadmap for
EV deployment, including an updated view on how to drive positive
consumer response to charging management, and insights into
potential commercial and regulatory changes.
5
This report is part of Research Area 1 and presents the results of an
exploratory online survey with vehicle owners in Australia. Two
separate samples were investigated: internal combustion engine
passenger vehicle (ICEV) owners and electric vehicle (EV) owners. The
survey was developed based on results from a review of national and
international literature on the preferences and behaviours of potential
and current EV users.
A market research panel aggregator company was used to recruit and
compensate participants. The data collection was approved by the
Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne (ID
Number 20391). Data were collected between July and August of 2021.
In addition to the traditional vagaries associated with online sampling,
the data used in this study was collected during a time that respondents
may have been experiencing diverse challenges related to the COVID-19
pandemic, which may have influenced their responses.
The outcomes of the survey include general insights into consumer
charging intention and behaviour, which can be used as a starting point
for the development of future electricity demand scenarios.
The Report
Survey Aim and Objectives
6
The aim of this survey is to generate insights into EV charging
preferences of Australian consumers.
Objectives
1. To characterize EV ownership and purchase intention.
2. To identify preferred locations and times for EV charging among current EV owners and potential
consumers.
3. To understand consumer willingness to adopt time-of-use tariffs and supplier-managed smart
charging systems.
Research Design Considerations
7
There are almost 15 million passenger vehicles registered in Australia,
but only 20 thousand of these are EVs1. Considering this low incidence
of EV ownership, a random sample of vehicle owners in Australia would
not allow for an investigation of EV owners’ preferences and
behaviours. Therefore, this study sought to collect data from two
samples totalling 1000 responses. Sample 1 targeted at 900 responses
from ICEV drivers, who are potential EV consumers, while Sample 2
aimed to reach 100 EV drivers, who are early adopters of this
technology. ‘Drivers’ were defined as individuals who are 18 years or
older, hold a valid driver’s license, and live in a household that owns at
least one car. EV drivers not only had to own an EV, but they also had to
be the person in the household to predominantly use and charge it.
Sample 1 was exogenously stratified to ensure national
representativeness relative to Australia’s adult population (driving age)
in terms of age, gender, and gross household income. The socio-
economic stratification was defined based on the distribution of age,
gender, and household income of the adult population of Australia as
these socio-demographic profiles are not available for the specific
population of car owners. This approximation is acceptable considering
that Australia has on average one car per adult and only 7% of
Australian households do not own a car2.Non-interlocking socio-
demographic quotas for Sample 1 were obtained using filter questions
1Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. National, state and territory population, Dec 2020. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
2Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. Census of Population and Housing 2016. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
at the beginning of the online questionnaire and then weights were
applied to the final sample for fine adjustments. Sample 2 did not target
any socio-demographic distribution as the profile of the EV owner
population of Australia is unknown.
A market research panel aggregator company, Qualtrics, was used to
recruit and compensate participants. Online sample providers maintain
a list of potential survey participants (email or user-id list) and utilise
weighted randomisation techniques (based on the desired socio-
demographic attributes) to send out survey invitations to potential
respondents. Even though the invitation process can be considered
probability-based, this sampling approach still suffers from frame
coverage bias and selection bias. That is, only individuals who are
capable and willing to join online market research panels are reached
(frame coverage bias) and those who are invited can accept or reject
survey invitations and opt-out while taking the survey (self-selection
and non-response bias). Recruitment strategies aimed to minimise self-
selection bias by omitting any information about the survey topic from
the recruitment material. The use of sample providers cannot be
considered a flawless probabilistic sampling approach but allows for
better socio-demographic distribution coverage than other convenience
sampling techniques. With the above limitations in mind, this report
focuses on descriptive statistics rather than inferential statistics.
Survey Details
8
Quotas &
Weighting
Sample size
Target
respondents
Purpose
Understand
consumer
preferences for EV
charging
Potential EV
consumers (ICEV
drivers) n=899 Age, gender, and
gross annual
household income
Early adopters (EV
drivers) n=104 N/A
Data collection
•Between July and August 2021
•15-minute online survey
•Recruitment and compensation by Qualtrics
Sample Weighting
Gross Annual Household Income
$1
-34,999 17.2%
$35,000
-99,999 40.1%
$100,000 or more
42.7%
9
3Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. National, state and territory population, Dec 2020. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
4Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019. Survey of Income and Housing 2017-18. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
Driving-age population distributions3,4
Gross Annual Household Income
$1
-34,999 15.5%
$35,000
-99,999 38.6%
$100,000 or more
45.9%
Original Sample 1 distributions
Age
18
-24 11.9%
25
-34 19.6%
35
-44 17.7%
45
-54 16.6%
55
-64 15.4%
65
-84 18.8%
Gender
Male
49.3%
Female
50.7%
Age
18
-24 14.6%
25
-34 12.1%
35
-44 17.7%
45
-54 15.7%
55
-64 17.5%
65
-84 22.4%
Gender
Male
51.3%
Female
48.7%
Sample 1: potential consumers
(ICEV drivers)
▪Quotas of age, gender and gross annual
household income were established aiming
at a representative socio-demographic
distribution of Australia’s driving-age
population based on data from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
▪Sample weights were calculated to adjust
the quotas that were not met.
▪Weights were calculated using an iterative
proportional fitting (raking) method.
▪Geographic variables and interactions
between variables were not considered in
the weighting process due to small sample
size.
2. Characterising the
samples
10
11
Samples’ Description: Key Insights
▪The geographic distribution of both samples show an
overrepresentation of NSW but distribution across
remaining states follow the general trends of vehicle
registrations.
▪67.4% of ICEV sample and 82.7% of EV sample live in
metropolitan areas.
▪The ICEV driver sample is representative of Australia’s
driving-age population in terms of age, gender, and gross
annual household income.
▪Employment status and education attainment
distributions are not representative but are comparable
to the population.
▪The EV driver sample presents high shares of individuals
who are
▪men,
▪between 35 and 44 years old,
▪have at least a Bachelor’s degree,
▪are employed full-time, and
▪have a gross annual household income above $100,000.
▪The average annual distances driven per respondent in the
ICEV driver sample are below the national average (9,800
km compared to 11,100 km).
▪The average annual distances driven per respondent in the
EV driver sample almost two times the national average
(20,500 km).
▪Associated with a high share of full-time workers and
long one-way commute distances (average of 47 km).
▪Can also be explained by the fact that individuals who
drive longer distances are usually willing to spend more
money in car technologies that provide increased
comfort.
Location of Respondents (1)
*N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
**N=104, all respondents who drive an EV 12
What?
Geographic distribution of survey respondents compared to the
distribution of vehicle registrations per state.
Why?
To understand the geographic representativeness of the samples.
Results
With a few exceptions, the geographic distribution of both samples follow
the general trends of vehicle registrations across the Australian states.
There is an overrepresentation of NSW in both samples, which is especially
pronounced in the sample of EV drivers. We observe a higher share of ICEV
drivers from SA than the share of ICEV registrations, while there is a lower
share of EV drivers compared to registrations in this state. The opposite
relationship is observed for Queensland.
5Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. Motor Vehicle Census 2021. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
6Electric Vehicle Council, 2021. State of Electric Vehicles 2021. (Accessed 03/09/2021)
Location of Respondents (2)
13
ICEV drivers
Metropolitan
67.4%
Regional
32.6%
EV drivers
Metropolitan
82.7%
Regional
17.3%
Individual Socio-Demographic Characteristics (1)
14
What?
Age and gender distributions in the ICEV driver sample and in the EV driver
sample.
Why?
Age and gender differences between the samples may indicate how the
profile of EV owners+compares to the general car consumers and may also
help explain the stated preferences.
Results
While the distribution of age and gender of the ICEV driver group is
representative of Australia’s driving-age population, we observe that men
and individuals between 35 and 44 years old are overrepresented in the EV
drivers’ sample, which is likely reflecting a population trend. Similarly, we
observe a significant underrepresentation of individuals 55 years or older.
+Note that we cannot guarantee that the sample of EV drivers is representative of the EV driver population of Australia as characteristics of this population are unknown and we
are not using a random sampling technique. However, the results observed here provide a general idea of the socio-demographic profile of this group.
15
What?
Education distribution in the ICEV driver sample and in the EV driver
sample.
Why?
Education differences between the samples may indicate how the profile of
EV owners compares to general car consumers and may also help explain
the measured preferences.
Results
35%of Australia’s adult population have a Bachelor’s degree or a higher
qualification, while 34% have Diplomas or Certificates in addition to school
completion7. The sample of ICEV drivers has a higher share of individuals at
both ends of the education spectrum compared to national averages. The
sample of EV drivers is significantly skewed toward higher levels of
educational attainment.
Individual Socio-Demographic Characteristics (2)
7Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020. Education and Work, Australia 2020. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
16
What?
Employment status distribution and commute mode share in the ICEV
driver sample and in the EV driver sample.
Why?
Employment status differences between the samples may indicate how the
profile of EV owners compares to general car consumers. Commute mode
differences help understand the potential use of workplace charging.
Results
Australia’s employment distribution (43.4% full-time, 19.5% part-time, 4.6%
unemployed) is similar to what we observe in the sample of ICEV drivers.
There is a strong skewness toward full-time employment in the sample of
EV drivers, which is expected considering this group’s age and education
attainment. 75%of the ICEV users currently drive to work (or used to drive
to work prior to the pandemic), while the share among EV drivers is of 86%.
Individual Socio-Demographic Characteristics (3)
8Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. Labour Force, Australia, Detailed July 2021. (Accessed 27/08/2021)
17
Household Socio-Demographic Characteristics
What?
Gross household income distributions in the ICEV driver sample and in the
EV driver sample.
Why?
Household income differences between the samples may indicate how the
profile of EV owners+compares to general car consumers and may also help
explain the stated preferences.
Results
While the distribution of gross household income of the ICEV driver group
is representative of Australia’s driving-age population, we observe that the
great majority of the EV drivers are in the high-income segment (and thus,
additional segmentation is shown).
Weekly Distances Travelled
9Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021. Motor Vehicle Census 2021. (Accessed 16/08/2021) 18
What?
Distribution of weekly distances travelled by ICEV drivers EV drivers. The
graphs are segmented based on quartiles defined using both samples
merged.
Why?
Understanding vehicle usage is important to understand charging
requirements and the potential for range anxiety among prospective
buyers.
Results
In 2020, passenger vehicles in Australia travelled on average 11,100 km9.In
the ICEV driver sample and the EV driver sample, the average annual
distances driven per respondent are 9,800 km and 20,500 km, respectively.
Considering that Australia has on average one car per adult, these results
indicate that EV owners in the sample drive almost twice as much as the
national average. This skewness is a consequence of long commute
distances (the average one-way commute in the EV driver sample is 47 km).
3. Characterising EV
ownership and
purchase intention
19
20
Characterising EV Ownership and Purchase
Intention: Key Insights
▪In Australia, annual sales of Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs)
have been more than five-times higher than of Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) since 201910. However, the
survey sample has an even split between owners of these
two types of EVs.
▪The sample is not representative of Australia’s EV
population. Yet, very few behavioural differences were
found when comparing PEV and PHEV drivers.
▪PHEVs are more likely to be the only household vehicle
than PEVs.
▪There is no significant difference in weekly distances driven
by PEV and PHEV drivers.
▪Tesla is the most popular PEV brand in the sample (42%of
PEVs).
▪The majority of the sample has more than one year of
experience owning an EV.
10Electric Vehicle Council, 2021. State of Electric Vehicles 2021. (Accessed 03/09/2021)
▪The distribution of intention to purchase EVs among ICEV
drivers indicates a small overrepresentation of potential
early adopters in the sample.
▪Selection bias may have contributed to higher response
rates among enthusiasts and rejecters of EV technology.
▪Almost 81%of ICEV drivers in the sample can be considered
mainstream consumers.
▪44%of the mainstream consumers do not consider
purchasing an EV within the next 10 years.
▪Segmentation of intention to purchase an EV by weekly
distances driven shows that potential early adopters drive
longer distances than the remaining sample.
▪This travel profile is similar to what we observe in the
sample of current EV drivers.
What?
Types and models of electric vehicles owned, and whether the household
has additional vehicles.
Why?
To understand potential charging requirements and how much users rely on
EVs as their main vehicle.
Electric Vehicle Type and Model
21
Results
The sample has an even distribution of PEV and PHEV drivers. Teslas are the
most popular PEVs, with almost 42%of the PEVs being of this brand.
44%of the PEV drivers and 60%of the PHEV drivers do not have any
additional vehicle in the household, which may be an indicative that the
hybrid technology has greater consumer trust.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
What?
Length of EV ownership and weekly distances travelled.
Why?
To understand users’ level of experience with EV usage and charging.
To understand regular usage patterns and weekly charging requirements.
Electric Vehicle Length of Ownership and Usage
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle 22
Results
Most of the EV drivers in the sample (77.9%) are experienced with the
technology as they have owned the vehicle for one year or longer. Weekly
distances driven by PEV and PHEV drivers are similar and substantially
longer than distances driven by ICEV drivers. However, this difference may,
in part, be associated with differences in the employment status
distributions of both samples.
Weekly distances travelled were segmented into quartiles based on
observations from Sample 1 and Sample 2 combined.
Intention to Purchase an EV
23
What?
Intention to purchase an EV within the next 10 years.
Why?
To understand the level of interest in EV adoption among sample
respondents and compare it to the diffusion of innovations curve. Intention
to purchase an EV may impact attitudes and preferences towards charging.
Results
Respondents currently doing research or considering to purchase an EV
within the next year can be classified as potential early adopters of EV
technology (19.3%). Therefore, the sample has an overrepresentation of
this group, which is expected due to selection bias. That is, higher response
rates among enthusiasts (and rejecters) of the technology. The reaming
respondents can be considered mainstream consumers. The 35.6% of
respondents currently rejecting EVs indicate that it would be too optimistic
to consider that EVs will reach high levels of market penetration in a10-
year timeframe without significant changes in the current policy scenario.
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
Mainstream consumers
(early & late majorities + laggards)
Market share %
car
4. Where and when do EV
drivers charge?
24
25
Characterising EV Driver Charging Behaviour:
Key Insights
▪Most EV owners can charge their vehicles at home.
▪While more than 87% own their dwellings, only 61% have Level 2
chargers installed.
▪No significant difference between PEV and PHEV owners.
▪Special tariffs (EV specific or ToU) and/or solar panels are used by
half of the EV owners.
▪PEV owners are 2 times more likely to adopt these than PHEV
owners.
▪82% claim to be able to set a timer to start charging their vehicles.
▪However, almost 30% reported to start charging between 5-8pm
and another 21% between 8-10pm.
▪Evening peak charging is more common among PHEV drivers.
▪Mid-day (10am-2pm) ToU tariff discounts of 20% would potentially
attract around 40%of the EV owners who currently charge at
different times.
▪Higher discounts would not attract significantly more customers.
▪A50% tariff discount after 11pm could attract up to 2/3 of EV
drivers currently charging at different times.
▪91%of the EV owners who drive to work can charge their cars
where they park.
▪Half of them can charge for free.
▪Most respondents without access to free charging at work would
use it instead of home charging if available.
▪85% use public chargers at least occasionally.
▪Half of them use chargers that do not have an associated
charging fee.
▪For this group, if charging fees were implemented, no major
behavioural change would be observed.
▪Almost 60% of the sample charges at home at least 3 times a week.
▪Similar charging frequencies for PEV and PHEV owners.
▪Considering all locations, on average, respondents charge their cars
4 times a week.
▪Considering average weekly distances driven, each charging session
would correspond to 78km of added driving range.
▪Convenience and time seem to be more important than price on
most occasions.
Ability to Charge the EV at Home
26
What?
Dwelling type and ownership, off-street parking availability and distance to
a power point are variables associated with the ability to charge at home.
Why?
The ability to charge at home is a key determinant of EV ownership and
residential charging behaviour is a major concern for utility providers.
Results
Most respondents own their dwellings (87.5%) and there is a diversity in
dwelling types in the sample. Most respondents park their vehicles in
garages and only 16.3% of the parking spaces are more than 10 metres
away from a power point. Even though 9.6% of respondents do not have
off-street parking, only 7.7% claim to be unable to charge at home.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Charger Level, Electricity Plan and Solar Power
27
What?
The charger level, electricity plan and the availability of solar panels.
Why?
These variables can help determine how much power is drawn from the
network and when. Also, the adoption of time-of-use (ToU) tariffs can be an
indicator of acceptance of demand response mechanisms.
Results
Almost two-thirds of the sample have Level 2 chargers installed in their
residences, with no significant difference between PEV and PHEV owners.
Half of the EV owners use special tariffs (EV specific or ToU) and/or solar
panels are used by half of the EV owners, with PEV owners being two times
more likely to adopt these than PHEV owners.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Home Charging: Usual Start Time
N=100, respondents who charge their electric vehicle at home
This question requested respondents to report their charging start time based on a 24h clock, which may have caused some measurement error.
28
What?
Usual start time when charging at home and ability to use a timer (within
the car or charging station) to set a charging start time.
Why?
These variables can help determine whether EV users are contributing to
peak electricity demand.
Results
Even though 82%of respondents claim to be able to set a timer to start
charging their vehicles, close to 50%of the sample reported to start
charging during evening peak (30% between 17h-20h) or shoulder times
(21% between 20h-22h). Evening peak charging is more prevalent among
PHEV than PEV owners.
Home Charging: Willingness to Change Start
Time
*N=81, respondents who charge at home and whose charging start time in between 7am and 10pm
**N=91, respondents who charge at home and whose charging start time is not between 10am and 2pm
29
What?
Willingness to delay home charging start time to 11pm or to change it to
between 10am and 2pm
Why?
The 11pm scenario provides insights into the acceptance of traditional
demand response programs based on ToU tariffs. While the mid-day
charging scenario represents demand response programs that aim to use
EVs to absorb excess solar power generation.
Results
For the night period charging program, there is a non-linear increase in
acceptance. A 50% discount shows the greatest marginal benefit with 2/3
of the valid sample accepting to delay their charging start time. Acceptance
of mid-day charging is constrained by the car location during this time
window. 20%of the sample stated that their vehicles were never at home
during this time. Based on respondents’ stated preferences, a discount of
20% during this time shows the greatest marginal benefit in the acceptance
rate increase.
Discount Level Change to 11pm* Change to between
10am and 2pm**
No discount
13.6% 16.5%
10% discount
19.8% 24.2%
20% discount
27.2% 40.7%
50% discount
66.7% 53.8%
Workplace Charging Availability
*N=87, respondents who drive to their primary workplace; **N=42, respondents without access to free charging at their primary workplace parking location; ***N=79,
respondents with access to one or more chargers at their primary workplace parking location. 30
What?
EV owners who are in the workforce and drive to their primary work
location reported parking type and access to EV charging as well as
intention to charge at work if free charging is available.
Why?
To understand the current ability to charge in the workplace and the
potential for workplace charging to act as a substitute for residential
charging.
Results
Most respondents park their cars in car parks. 91% are able to charge their
cars where they park and half of them can charge their vehicles for free.
Access to paid and free standard charging is similar, while fast-chargers are
more likely to require payment. Most respondents without access to free
charging at work would use it instead of home charging frequently.
Public Charging
*N=88, respondents who use public chargers
**N=44, respondents who only use public chargers that don’t have a charging fee
31
What?
Use of public chargers, payment structure of the public charger most often
used, and response to the elimination of free charging.
Why?
To understand the current use of public chargers and how this may change
in a future that free public charging is no longer available.
Results
85%of the EV drivers in the sample use public chargers at least
occasionally. Half of them use chargers that do not have an associated
charging fee. For this group, if charging fees were implemented, no major
behavioural change would be observed. Only one-fourth of them would
reduce their usage of public chargers but nobody would stop using this
type of facility. It is important to note that innovators and early adopters
tend to be less sensitive to cost increases than the early and late majorities.
Charging Frequency by Location
32
What?
The frequency that EV drivers charge at home, work, and public chargers.
Why?
To understand charging demand at different locations.
Results
Residences are the most frequently used charging locations. Almost 60%of
the sample charges at home at least 3 times a week. The distribution of
charging frequencies is very similar for PEV and PHEV owners. Yet, charging
the vehicle at least once a day is more common among PEV drivers.
Considering all locations, on average, respondents charge their cars 4 times
a week. Considering average weekly distances driven, each charging session
would correspond to 78km of added driving range.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Decision to Charge
33
What?
EV drivers reported on how often their decision to charge is planned and
how they trade off convenience and time for cost.
Why?
Understanding how charging behaviour varies across individuals can help
guide strategies for charging infrastructure deployment and demand
management
Results
Planning charging sessions in advance is a more common behaviour than
deciding on the go, especially for PEV drivers. Convenience and time seem
to be more important than the price on most occasions, which is expected
as current EV drivers are early adopters with high incomes. There is an even
split between those that decide to charge based on the battery level or as
part of an established routine.
Always →
← Always ← Often Often →
Always
Often →
← Always ← Often
Always
Often →
Always →
Often →
← Always ← Often
← Always ← Often
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Equal Always →
← Always ← Often Often →
← Often← Always Equal Often →Always
← Often← Always Equal Often →Always
← Often← Always Equal Often →Always →
← Always
Charging Routine Characteristics
34
What?
EV drivers reported their usual charging routine involving general
frequency, time, and day of the week.
Why?
Understanding how charging behaviour varies across individuals can
provide insights into charging related electricity demand and potential
strategies for demand management.
Results
Only about 20%of the sample often need to stop to charge in order to
complete their daily travel. There is an equal split between individuals who
take advantage of every opportunity they have to charge and those who
will only plug if the battery is low. Charging on weekdays at regular times is
often the majorities’ choice.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
← Always ← Often Equal Often →Always →
← Always ← Often Equal Often →Always →
← Always ← Often Equal Often →Always →
← Always ← Often Equal Often →Always →
5. Would EV drivers accept
supplier-managed charging?
35
36
EV Drivers Acceptance of Supplier-Managed
Charging: Key Insights
▪46.2% of EV drivers would choose user-managed smart
charging and 40.4% would choose supplier-managed smart
charging instead of unmanaged charging.
▪PEV drivers are twice as likely to choose supplier-
managed charging than PHEV drivers are.
▪The general acceptance of supplier-managed smart
charging is high.
▪The ability to use an App to override the external
charging management does not have a major impact on
acceptance.
▪Acceptance is higher among PEV drivers.
▪EV drivers seem convinced about the advantages of
supplier-managed smart charging systems over alternative
systems.
▪Nevertheless, more than 75%of the sample think that it
is somewhat likely that they would need to override the
system at least once a week or use a backup plan to
charge their vehicle.
▪75%of respondents show some level of concern
regarding data sharing and privacy issues with this
system.
▪Even though innovators and early adopters tend to be
risk-takers, it is unclear whether:
▪perceived benefits significantly outweigh risks to
justify adoption,
▪or there is some degree of survey measurement error.
Survey respondents were presented with
definitions of smart charging and charging
management options:
Definitions
37
Types of chargers
Conventional chargers: don't include a data connection.
Smart chargers: include a data connection.
Options for controlling the charging, and managing your costs and electricity demand
Unmanaged conventional charging: Charging is monitored and controlled only by you. Your car is charged from the moment it
is plugged in (or based on a simple timer). The rate of charge is fixed based on your charging point specification (ex: 20km per
hour of charge) and costs depend on your electricity plan and the times you choose to charge.
User-managed smart charging: Charging is optimised by an automatic system that is monitored and controlled only by you.
You provide the system with the desired level of charge and your next departure time, and the system will automatically select
the cheapest time to charge your car based on time-of-use tariffs. The rate of charge may be lower than your charging point
specification to minimise costs. If you need to use your car before your set departure time, it may not have the desired level of
charge.
Supplier-managed smart charging: Charging is optimised by a centralised system that communicates and coordinates with the
electricity supplier to determine the best schedule for your charge considering real-time electricity demand in your area. You
provide the system with the desired level of charge and your next departure time, and the system will automatically select the
cheapest time to charge your car based on discounts that vary to help balance the overall demand for power in your area and
increase the share of renewable energy used. The rate of charge may be lower than your charging point specification to
minimise costs and balance the demand. If you need to use your car before your set departure time, it may not have the
desired level of charge.
Preferred Type of Charging Management
38
What?
Preferred type of charging management based on definitions provided.
Why?
To understand the acceptance of smart charging and user willingness to
give electricity suppliers the ability to control charging.
Results
The use of an automated system to minimise costs based on ToU tariffs is
the preferred option of most EV drivers in the sample (86.6%). However,
only 40.4% would have the supplier-managed option as their preferred
alternative. PEV drivers are twice as likely to choose supplier-managed
charging than PHEV drivers are. Among men, the choice between supplier
and user managed charging is evenly split, while women are more likely to
choose user-managed charging.
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Acceptance of Supplier-Managed Charging
39
What?
Willingness to accept supplier-managed smart charging to avoid peak
surges considering the risk of not having the vehicle fully charged.
Why?
To understand the general acceptance of supplier-managed charging when
considering potential benefits and risks.
Results
Even though supplier-managed charging is not the majorities’ preferred
option, general acceptance of this concept is high among EV drivers. For
this group, the ability to use an App to override the external charging
management when needed causes a marginal increase in acceptance. PEV
drivers are more prone to accept supplier-managed charging than PHEV
drivers are. Acceptance is higher among men than women and the App has
little impact on this difference.
Description
“In a future where the majority of cars are
electric, balancing the overall demand for
electricity becomes important to avoid potential
peak surges that may lead to a power
outage. Between the moment you plug in your
car and your chosen departure time, a supplier-
managed smart-charging system selects the
charging time and speed that minimise your
costs, balances the overall demand for electricity,
and increases the use of renewable energy.
However, there is a chance that in sporadic
occasions your car won't be charged to your
desired level by the end of the charging session.”
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
40
What?
User appreciation of supplier-managed smart charging in terms of
convenience, reduction in the use of non-renewable energy, cost efficiency,
as well as general appreciation compared to other systems.
Why?
To understand how perceptions of benefits may drive supplier-managed
smart charging acceptance.
Results
All four benefits are evaluated in a similar manner by EV drivers. Around
80%of the sample at least somewhat agrees that supplier-managed smart
charging systems are better than the alternative systems.
Perceived Benefits Associated with Supplier-
Managed Charging
How much do
you agree…
N=104, all respondents who are the main drivers of an electric vehicle
Perceived Risks Associated with Supplier-
Managed Charging
41
What?
Concerns and perceived risks associated with the use of supplier-managed
charging systems.
Why?
To understand how perceptions of risks may hinder supplier-managed
smart charging acceptance.
Results
All risks are considered somewhat likely by at least half of the sample.
However, it is interesting to note that the general acceptance of this
management system is high despite these perceptions. The highest
perceived risks are associated with the need to override the supplier
managed system or use a backup plan, which is considered somewhat likely
by more than 75%of the sample. 75%of respondents show some level of
concern regarding data sharing and privacy issues with this system.
If you adopt a
supplier-managed
smart charging
system, how likely
to you think…
How much do
you agree…
6. Where and when would
potential EV consumers prefer
to charge?
42
43
Charging Preferences of Potential EV
Consumers : Key Insights
▪70%own their dwellings, 80% live in houses, and 85% have off-
street parking.
▪79%of the parking spots are less than 10 m away from a power
point.
▪20% have ToU tariff plans and almost 30% have solar panels.
▪Perceived ability to charge is lower than expected: 52.2% think they
would be able to charge at home, while 31.5% state that they are
unsure.
▪Almost 80%of those who commute by car, park their vehicles in
places other than street parking.
▪75.6% claim that EV charging is not available in their workplace
parking location.
▪Interest in using free work charging instead of home charging is
high.
▪Charging at home is perceived as the most convenient location by
most potential EV consumers, followed by dedicated fast-charging
facilities.
▪Those who commute tend to prefer workplace charging over
dedicated fast-charging facilities.
▪On average, sample respondents expect to charge their vehicles at
home around 2 to 3 times a week.
▪Close to 55%of the sample reported they would start charging
during evening peak (38% between 17h-20h) or shoulder times
(17% between 20h-22h).
▪A50% tariff discount after 11pm could attract up to 75%of the
consumers who prefer different times.
▪A20% mid-day (10am-2pm) tariff discount would potentially shift
the charging times of 23%of the consumers who prefer different
times.
▪Saving money seems to be a priority over time and convenience,
which is expected as mainstream consumers tend to be more cost-
sensitive than early adopters.
▪Regular charging start times and charging on weekdays are
preferred by more than half of the consumers.
Residential Characteristics
44
What?
Dwelling ownership and type, electricity plan and the availability of solar
panels.
Why?
Determine the potential for residential charging installation. The current
adoption of ToU tariffs is indicative of acceptance of demand response
mechanisms, while solar energy indicates potential grid independence.
Results
Almost 70%of respondents own their dwellings, while more than 80% live
in houses, which are attributes usually associated with the potential for
home charging installation. ToU tariffs are more popular than green energy
tariffs but still are adopted by less than 20%of the sample. Solar panels are
available in almost 30%of the residences, which is compatible with the
current national average11.
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
11Australian PV Institute, 2021. Mapping Australian Photovoltaic installations. (Accessed 16/08/2021)
Residential Parking and Perceived Ability to
Charge an EV at Home
45
What?
Off-street parking availability, type, and distance to a power point.
Perceived ability to charge an EV at home.
Why?
The ability to charge at home can significantly impact EV purchase intention
and the need for public charging infrastructure.
Results
Around 85%of ICEV drivers have off-street parking in their residences, with
attached garages being the most common setup. Access to a power point is
also high, as almost 79%of those who park off-street are less than 10 m
away from an outlet. Considering these factors, the perceived ability to
charge is lower than expected. 52.2% of the ICEV drivers think they would
be able to charge at home, while 31.5% state that they may be able but are
unsure.
*N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
**N=777, respondents who have access to off-street parking
***
N=422, ICEV drivers who currently drive to work or who used to drive to work prior to the COVID-19 pandemic 46
Workplace Charging Availability
What?
ICEV owners who drive to work reported parking type, access to EV
charging, and intention to charge if free charging is available. Those who do
not drive to work reported on their intention to change their commute
mode to take advantage of free charging.
Why?
To understand the potential for workplace charging to complement or
substitute residential charging.
Results
Almost 80%of those who commute by car park their vehicles in places
other than street parking. Yet, 75.6% claim that electric car charging is not
available in their parking location. Interest in using free work charging
instead of home charging is high, with 67% saying that they would do that
most of the time or always. 45%of those who do not drive to work would
consider switching their mode to take advantage of free charging on a
regular basis.
47
Hypothetical Scenario
For the remainder of the survey, please consider that you are the owner or regular user of a plug-in
electric car.A car that NEEDS to be plugged into an electrical outlet to recharge and does not use
traditional fuel such as petrol or diesel.
Also, consider that your parking arrangements allow you to charge your car at home.
Charging an electric car may take from less than 1 hour to more than 12 hours, depending on the battery
size, level of charge, and type of charger. Cars can be charged overnight at home, but residential chargers
usually require longer charging periods than public chargers.
Usual charging rates available at different locations:
1- Dedicated fast-charging facility: 225 km per hour of charge
2- Regular public chargers at car parks of shopping, dining, recreational, and sporting facilities: 45 km per
hour of charge
3- Regular public chargers at workplace car parks: 45 km per hour of charge
4- Residential chargers: 20 km per hour of charge
The remainder of this section and Section 7 present the compilation of answers that
ICEV drivers gave based on the following hypothetical scenario:
48
Preferred Charging Location and Home
Charging Frequency
What?
Perception of convenience of different charging locations and frequency
that ICEV drivers would charge at home.
Why?
To understand charging demand at different locations and expected
changes in residential charging loads.
Results
Charging at home is perceived as the most convenient location by most
potential EV consumers, followed by dedicated fast-charging facilities.
However, those who commute tend to prefer workplace charging over
dedicated fast-charging facilities. However, fast-charging facilities are
preferred over standard chargers located at destinations of interest, such as
shopping facilities. On average, sample respondents expect to charge their
vehicles at home around 2 to 3 times a week.
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
*N=523, respondents who commute
Charging rates provided to respondents:
1- 225 km per hour of charge
2- 45 km per hour of charge
3- 45 km per hour of charge
4- 20 km per hour of charge
49
Home Charging: Preferred Start Time
What?
Preferred time to start charging an EV at home.
Why?
This variable can help determine whether future consumers may contribute
to peak electricity demand once they buy EVs.
Results
Close to 55%of the sample reported they would start charging during
evening peak (38% between 17h-20h) or shoulder times (17% between
20h-22h).
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
This question requested respondents to report their charging start time based on a 24h clock, which may have caused some measurement error.
Home Charging: Willingness to Change Start
Time
*N=756, respondents who charge at home and whose charging start time in between 7am and 10pm
**N=797, respondents who charge at home and whose charging start time is not between 10am and 2pm
50
What?
Willingness to delay home charging start time to 11pm or to change it to
between 10am and 2pm
Why?
The 11pm scenario provides insights into the acceptance of traditional
demand response programs based on ToU tariffs. While the mid-day
charging scenario represents demand response programs that aim to use
EVs to absorb excess solar power generation.
Results
Marginal benefits in terms of participation increase in both programs are
the highest when 20% discounts are offered. Increases in acceptance of the
night ToU are rather linear and a 50% discount would be able to reach
almost 75%of the consumers. Acceptance of mid-day charging is
constrained by the car location during this time window as almost 18%of
the sample stated that their vehicles are never at home during this time.
Discount Level Change to 11pm* Change to between
10am and 2pm**
No discount
7.9% 4.6%
10% discount
15.9% 10.5%
20% discount
32.0% 22.7%
50% discount
74.8% 50.6%
51
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
Factors Affecting the Decision to Charge
What?
ICEV drivers reported how frequently they would base their charging
decision on several factors.
Why?
Understanding how charging behaviour may vary across potential
consumers can help guide different strategies for charging infrastructure
deployment and demand management.
Results
Potential EV consumers indicate a general preference toward planning
charging sessions in advance and following a routine. Saving money seems
to be a priority over time and convenience, which is expected as
mainstream consumers tend to be more cost sensitive than early adopters.
Equal Always → Often →← Always ← Often
Equal Always →ays ← Often Often →
Equal Always → Often →ways ← Often
Equal Always →Often →← Always ← Often
52
Potential Charging Routine Characteristics
What?
ICEV drivers reported their preferred charging routine in terms of
frequency, time, and day of the week.
Why?
Understanding how charging behaviour may vary across potential EV
consumers can provide insights into charging related electricity demand
and potential strategies for demand management.
Results
There is a clear preference for consistent charging start times as more than
half of respondents stated that they would often or always charge at the
same time. Charging on weekdays also tends to be preferred over weekend
charging. There is a slight tendency toward basing the decision to charge on
the opportunity rather than battery level. However, this could change as
these consumers get real world experience with EV technology.
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
Equal Always Often →← Always ← Often
Equal AlwOften →← Always ← Often
Equal AlwayOften →← Always ← Often
7. Would potential EV
consumers accept supplier-
managed charging?
53
54
Acceptance of Supplier-Managed Charging by
Potential EV Consumers: Key Insights
▪45.8% would choose user-managed smart charging and
25.0% would choose supplier-managed smart charging
instead of unmanaged charging.
▪Consumers who are currently doing research to purchase
an EV are more likely to choose supplier-managed smart
charging.
▪Almost 40% are ‘somewhat likely’ to adopt supplier-
managed smart charging.
▪The ability to use an App to override the external
charging management increases this share to 58.7%.
▪Consumers seem unsure about the benefits of supplier-
managed charging.
▪Information campaigns may be necessary to convince
potential EV owners.
▪Most consumers do not think that supplier-managed
charging systems will operate improperly.
▪They think it is somewhat likely that their vehicles will not
get charged to the desired level or during a suitable time
window, and that there will be a need to override
management frequently or use public charging.
▪Around 60%of respondents show some concern about
data sharing and privacy issues related to supplier-managed
charging.
▪Almost 40% would feel uncomfortable passing over the
control of when their vehicles are charged.
▪This seems to be more associated with the risk of not
having their vehicles charged than with concerns about
third-party management.
Preferred Type of Charging Management
55
What?
Preferred type of charging management based on definitions provided.
Why?
To understand the acceptance of smart charging and consumer
willingness to give electricity suppliers the ability to control charging.
Results
The use of an automated system to minimise costs based on ToU tariffs is
the preferred option of most potential consumers in the sample (70.8%).
However, only one-fourth of the respondents would have the supplier-
managed option as their preferred alternative. Preference for this option is
10% higher among consumers who are currently doing research to
purchase an EV compared to the remaining sample. The preference for
supplier-managed charging is higher among men compared to women.
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
Acceptance of Supplier-Managed Charging
56
What?
Willingness to accept supplier-managed smart charging to avoid peak
surges considering the risk of not having the vehicle fully charged.
Why?
To understand the general acceptance of supplier-managed charging
when considering potential benefits and risks.
Results
The general acceptance of supplier-managed charging is higher than the
preference for this option. Almost 40%of the respondents are ‘somewhat
likely’ to adopt it. The ability to use an App to override the external
charging management when required can significantly increase acceptance
among this group (58.7% of the sample would be somewhat likely to adopt
if overriding is available). Supplier-managed charging acceptance levels are
positively correlated with the intention to purchase an EV. Acceptance is
higher among men than women but the App reduces this difference.
Description
“In a future where the majority of cars are
electric, balancing the overall demand for
electricity becomes important to avoid potential
peak surges that may lead to a power
outage. Between the moment you plug in your
car and your chosen departure time, a supplier-
managed smart-charging system selects the
charging time and speed that minimise your
costs, balances the overall demand for electricity,
and increases the use of renewable energy.
However, there is a chance that in sporadic
occasions your car won't be charged to your
desired level by the end of the charging session.”
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
57
What?
User appreciation of supplier-managed smart charging in terms of
convenience, reduction in the use of non-renewable energy, cost
efficiency, as well as general appreciation compared to other systems.
Why?
To understand how perceptions of benefits may drive supplier-managed
smart charging acceptance.
Results
Around one-third of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with the
supplier-managed smart charging benefits, which indicates that consumers
may need more information to make up their minds. The convenience
brough by this system may still be unclear, while there is a slightly higher
understanding of the potential for reducing the use of non-renewable
energy and saving money.
Perceived Benefits Associated with Supplier-
Managed Charging
How much do
you agree…
N=899, all respondents who drive an ICEV
58
Perceived Risks Associated with Supplier-
Managed Charging
What?
Concerns and perceived risks associated with the use of supplier-
managed charging systems.
Why?
To understand how perceptions of risks may hinder supplier-managed
smart charging acceptance among potential EV consumers.
Results
With the exception of improper system operation, all other risks are
considered somewhat likely by at least half of the sample. Around 60%of
respondents show some concern about data sharing and privacy issues.
Almost 40% would feel uncomfortable passing over the control of when
their vehicles are charged, which seems to be more associated with the risk
of not having their vehicles charged than with concerns about third-party
management.
If you adopt a
supplier-managed
smart charging
system, how likely
to you think…
How much do
you agree…
8. Comparing charging
preferences of EV
owners and potential
consumers
59
Setting the Comparison
60
▪This section compares currently EV owners and potential
consumers in terms of:
▪the perceived ability to charge an EV at home;
▪the perceived ability to charge an EV at work; and
▪the charging management preferences.
▪Charging preferences of current EV owners may differ from
those of potential consumers simply because of their level
of experience using the technology.
▪Other sources of variability can be differences in socio-
demographic characteristics and differences in personality
traits and lifestyle preferences.
▪The sample of EV drivers has a significant
overrepresentation of men between the ages of 35 and 44
years.
▪To create a more even field to compare EV drivers and
potential consumers, subsamples of EV drivers and ICEV
drivers formed only by men between the ages of 35 and 44
years were drawn.
▪The subsamples were compared to the main samples to see
if the observed variables of interest significantly differed.
▪Even though some degree of variation between the
subsamples and the samples were observed, they were not
sufficient to justify limiting the comparison to the
subsamples.
▪For the above reason, the next slides provide a summary of
the major differences found between the complete
samples of EV drivers and ICEV drivers.
▪It is important to bear in mind that the sample of potential
consumers (ICEV drivers) is representative of the driving-
age population of Australia. However, the EV driver sample
is not representative in terms of PEV and PHEV split and the
degree of representativeness regarding individual socio-
demographic characteristics is unknown.
61
EV Owners vs. Potential Consumers (1)
Ability to Charge at Home
▪The proportion of respondents living in houses is higher
among potential consumers than EV owners. However,
access to off-street parking and garages is higher among
the second group.
▪18.0% of potential consumers, compared to 16.3% of EV
owners, park more than 10 m away from a power point or
do not know if there is power in proximity.
▪16.3% of potential consumers claim that they would not be
able to charge an EV at home and another 31.5% are
unsure. Only 7.7% of EV owners are unable to charge at
home.
▪Potential consumers currently doing research to buy an EV
are more confident about their ability to charge at home
than the remaining sample.
▪Based on the above, it is possible that potential consumers
underestimate their ability to charge at home.
▪Home would be the preferred charging location of most
potential consumers and it is also the most frequently used
location by the majority of EV owners.
Ability to Charge at Work
▪75.6% of potential consumers who drive to work say that
there is no charger available and another 9.6% does not
know. In contrast, 75.9% of EV commuters can charge at
their work parking location.
▪Even though there is a higher share of potential consumers
that use street parking, it is possible that this group
underestimates charging availability.
▪Most EV commuters do use workplace charging at least
weekly and there is similar interest among potential
consumers. Both groups also perceive free workplace
charging as an appealing alternative to home charging.
62
EV Owners vs. Potential Consumers (2)
Home Charging Start Time
▪The distribution of residential charging start time for EV
drivers is similar to potential consumer’s preferences.
▪Potential consumers are more responsive to ToU discounts
than EV owners, which is expected since mainstream
consumers tend to be more sensitive to monetary costs
than innovators and early adopters.
▪Indeed, potential consumers demonstrated that saving
money would be often a priority over increased
convenience and reduced charging time, while current EV
owners demonstrated the opposite.
Supplier-Managed Charging
▪Preference for and acceptance of supplier-managed smart
charging is higher among EV drivers compared to potential
consumers. Those planning to purchase an EV within the
next year show stronger preferences for supplier-managed
charging. These results indicate the clear separation
between consumer types (early adopters and the
majorities).
▪Among EV owners and potential consumers, men show
greater acceptance of supplier-managed changing than
women do. Yet, an App that allows for management
overriding, has greater potential to increase acceptance
among female mainstream consumers.
▪EV drivers tend to agree more with statements about
supplier-managed charging benefits than potential
consumers do. However, they also tend to find risks
associated with this system to be more likely to occur.
▪Considering the differences in perceived risks and benefits,
there are a couple of potential explanations for higher
acceptance of this system among EV owners:
▪innovators and early adopters tend to be risk-takers, and
thus, the perceived risks do not discourage this group;
▪perceived benefits significantly outweigh risks and justify
adoption; or
▪the significantly smaller sample of EV drivers is more
susceptible to survey measurement error than the ICEV
driver sample.
9. Conclusions and
recommendations
64
Conclusions and Recommendations (1)
The results of the survey described in this report corroborate and
complement the findings from the literature review in a previous report
from this project. In this section we summarise conclusions and
recommendations based on these findings.
Current EV owner profile: Like in Europe and the USA, we
observed that most EV owners are men, approaching middle age, with
high income and education.
▪PHEVs are more likely to be the only household vehicle than PEVs.
▪EV owners drive almost two times the national average distance
travelled per car per year and there are no significant differences
between PEV and PHEV drivers.
Prospective buyers: Those intending to buy an EV within the next
year also driver longer distances than the national average. This indicates
that the higher purchase cost of EVs may be appealing only to those who
will benefit the most from lower running costs.
▪From a utility provision standpoint, it is interesting to note that
weekly charging needs per individual are likely to decrease as the
adoption curve reaches the majorities.
Adoption timeline: Among those considered mainstream consumers,
44%do not consider purchasing an EV within the next 10 years.
Skepticism is higher in regional areas.
▪Marketing campaigns and changes in the current policy scenario
seem necessary to accelerate EV dissemination in Australia.
Home is the preferred charging location for current owners
and potential consumers. However, workplace charging is also
frequently used by current owners.
▪All consumers who commute show significant interest in using
workplace charging if it leads to monetary savings. This can be an
opportunity to balance EV charging demand both temporally and
spatially.
Potential consumers seem to underestimate their ability
to charge at home and at work.
▪Initiatives that increase consumer knowledge about EV charging
may be necessary to increase technology acceptance.
Fast-charging service stations are perceived to be more
convenient than standard chargers located at destinations of interest,
such as shopping facilities. However, this is just a perception of
convenience and actual choices will be influenced by differences in
costs.
▪Current users of free public-charging would continue to use it if a
fee was introduced. However, mainstream consumers will likely
be more sensitive to cost changes.
65
Conclusions and Recommendations (2)
Residential charging is likely to take place during
evening peak if unmanaged.
▪Even though most EV drivers can set a timer to start charging
their vehicles, 51% begins charging between 5-10pm.55%of the
potential consumers would also charge during this time.
▪Half of the EV owners adopt EV specific, and/or ToU tariffs,
and/or residential solar panels. PEV owners are two times more
likely than PHEV owners to adopt those.
▪Less than one-fifth of potential consumers currently consider
that special tariffs and solar panels would be necessary if they
purchased an EV.
▪These results emphasize that charging management to nudge
consumers into different charging times will be necessary
together with measures to increase awareness about ToU
benefits.
Mainstream consumers are more responsive to ToU
discounts than current EV owners.
▪A50% residential tariff discount after 11pm could attract up to
three-quarters of the consumers who prefer different times.
▪A20% mid-day (10am-2pm) discount could shift the charging
times of around one-fifth of those who prefer different times.
▪The demand shift is constrained by cars not being parked at
home during this time.
Preference for and acceptance of supplier-managed
smart charging is higher among EV early adopters (both
EV owners and those planning to buy an EV in the near future).
▪Less than one-fourth of mainstream consumers would prefer
supplier-managed smart charging over user-managed or
unmanaged charging.
To increase supplier-managed smart charging
acceptance:
▪Monetary savings need to be evident and clear to consumers,
even if tariff structure is dynamic and complex.
▪Third-party management and control need an interface via App
that increases users’ sense of control over charging and
decreases their feeling of uncertainty.
▪Clarity in data sharing and user privacy policies is required.
▪Consumer awareness about environmental and community
benefits need to be addressed in campaigns.
▪Public charging needs to be perceived as an easy and accessible
backup plan.
