victorian electric vehicle trial mid-term report - Department of Transport

CREATINGA MARKETVICTORIAN ELECTRICVEHICLE TRIALMID-TERM REPORTTRANSPORT.VIC.GOV.AUCREATING A MARKET 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYWith the arrival of electricvehicles onto Victorianroads, we are witnessing thecreation of a new market.Over 80 organisations have taken partin the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial,providing the foundations of a marketworth having.Electric vehicles are fun to drive andcheap to run. They support local jobs,and create zero emissions when run onrenewable energy. By 2040, the statemay be over $20 billion better off asa result of electric vehicle adoption– savings that will go largely in thepockets of Victorian drivers.However, right now electricvehicles are expensive. Like all newtechnologies, prices will decrease overtime. When mobile phones first arrivedin 1987, they cost the equivalent of$11,000 – around 100 times more thana basic phone costs today. Since 2010Australian electric vehicle prices havedropped by over 30 per cent, and thisis just the beginning.For households, the technology willwork now. During the trial mosthouseholds used the electric vehiclesas their main transport choice, withouthaving to change anything abouthow or where they travelled. MostMelburnians can drive during theday and charge overnight, when it’scheapest and while they sleep.Fleet operators successfully used thecars to showcase their environmentalcredentials. However, concernsabout range, charging and vehiclemanagement reduced the appeal ofthe trial vehicles for corporate fleetapplications, even if cost was the mainbarrier to uptake overall. Workplacecharging, where forward-thinkingemployers provide staff with the meansto charge their car at work, may saveVictorian commuters thousands ofdollars each year.Electric vehicle charging can beaccommodated by Victoria’s electricitynetwork. Drivers will charge theirvehicles during off-peak periods ifthey have a financial incentive to doso. Victoria’s smart meter roll-out willallow charging to be managed, andmay even address other problemsby using electric vehicles forenergy storage.Connecting the vehicles to theelectricity network is not withoutits challenges. Households can expectto pay between $2,000 and $3,000 fortheir charging solution. Renters andresidents with shared parking will payeven more, and will need to work withtheir landlord or fellow residents. Onaverage, fleet operators take around10 weeks to get a charging solutionand public charging outlets take evenlonger. With only a small number ofcustomers for the foreseeable future,public charging is a difficult businessproposition despite being a key enablerfor electric vehicle adoption.By 2020, the electric vehicle operatingcost advantage is expected to outweighthe purchase price penalty for mostVictorian drivers. Before then ‘earlyadopters’ will buy the vehicles asa reflection of their interests intechnology and the environment,or to gain a marketing advantagefor their organisation.

Measures which reduce electriccar purchase prices, remove barriersto ownership, improve resale valuesor allow the vehicles to be drivenfurther will all assist in bringing the‘take-off point’ forwards. Raisingawareness, understanding andacceptance of the technology will helprealise the benefits for electric vehicletake-up sooner.The results from the trial so farsuggest that electric vehicles arelikely to be an important part ofVictoria’s transport future.The mid-term report explains thewhat, why, how and when of electricvehicle take-up for Victoria, andhighlights the issues and opportunitiesfor future market development:Section 1 provides a brief introductionand context to the report.Section 2 is an overview of electricvehicle technology.Section 3 outlines the trial designincluding the underlying principlesand arrangements.Section 4 describes the vehiclesand their deployment in householdsand fleets.Section 5 explains the charginginfrastructure network experiencesand insights.Section 6 is a triple bottom lineassessment of the electric vehiclemarket impacts.Section 7 details the trialcommunications programand learnings.Section 8 summarises the issuesand opportunities observed throughthe trial.Section 9 sets out the directionfor the remainder of the project.CREATING A MARKET 3

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21. INTRODUCTION 62. BACKGROUND 82.1 What is an electric vehicle (EV)? 92.2 Why electric vehicles? 92.3 What types of electric vehiclesare available? 102.4 How does electric vehicle charging work? 113. TRIAL DESIGN 143.1 The EV ecosystem 153.2 A market development model 173.3 Commercial arrangements 203.4 Data collection and management 214. HOUSEHOLD AND FLEET VEHICLE ROLL-OUT 244.1 Vehicles 254.1.1 What vehicles are taking partin the trial? 254.1.2 Were any differences seenin how the vehicles were used? 264.1.3 What are the issues andopportunities for the vehicles? 284.1.4 What about electric two-wheelers? 314.1.5 What about commercial vehicles? 334.2 Household vehicle roll-out 334.2.1 Who’s interested in electricvehicles and why? 334.2.2 What do drivers think of electricvehicles? 344.2.3 How do people use electric vehicles? 374.2.4 How much does it cost for anaverage household to run an EV? 414.2.5 What are the issues and opportunitiesfor electric vehicles in households? 424.3 Fleet vehicle roll-out 434.3.1 What fleets are interested inelectric vehicles and why? 434.3.2 How do fleets use electric vehicles? 464.3.3 How much does it cost for an averagefleet to run an EV? 474.3.4 What are the issues and opportunitiesfor electric vehicles in fleets? 475. CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE ROLL-OUT 525.1 Charging infrastructure 535.1.1 What are the arrangements for thetrial charging infrastructure? 535.1.2 What charging infrastructure is beingused in the trial? 545.1.3 What are the relevant features of thetrial charging infrastructure? 545.1.4 How do users ‘roam’ across the trialcharging infrastructure network? 565.1.5 What are the charging infrastructurenetwork issues and opportunities? 585.2 Home charging 615.2.1 How much does household charginginfrastructure cost? 615.2.2 How is charging infrastructureinstalled in households? 625.2.3 What is the charging solution forrentals or shared parking? 645.2.4 When do households chargeelectric vehicles? 665.2.5 What do households think ofelectric vehicle charging? 695.2.6 What are the issues andopportunities for home charging? 705.3 Fleet and workplace charging 725.3.1 How much does charging infrastructurefor corporate applications cost? 725.3.2 How is charging infrastructureinstalled for corporate applications? 735.3.3 When do fleets chargeelectric vehicles? 755.3.4 What do fleets think of charging? 765.3.5 What has been the experience ofworkplace charging? 765.3.6 What are the issues andopportunities for electric vehiclecharging by corporate entities? 78

5.4 Public charging 815.4.1 How much does publicly-accessiblecharging infrastructure cost? 815.4.2 How are publicly-accessible chargingoutlets installed? 835.4.3 What do people think about publiccharging? 865.4.4 Where should public charging beavailable? 885.4.5 What are the issues andopportunities for public charging? 906. ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTALAND SOCIAL IMPACTS 986.1 Economic impacts 996.1.1 How have the economic impactsbeen assessed? 996.1.2 What is the timeline for electricvehicle adoption in Victoria? 1006.1.3 What are the costs and benefits ofelectric vehicle adoption for Victoria? 1036.1.4 How will electric vehicle marketdevelopment affect Victorian jobs? 1046.2 Environmental impacts 1056.2.1 How will electric vehicles impactthe environment? 1056.2.2 How have environmental impactsarising from the trial been managed? 1076.2.3 How can an electric vehicle be‘zero emissions’ in Victoria? 1076.3 Social impacts 1096.3.1 How is community safety beingprotected as part of the electricvehicle roll-out? 1096.3.2 How is Victoria’s future electricvehicle workforce being prepared? 1107. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAM 1127.1 Outputs and outcomes 1137.1.1 How has the trial beencommunicated? 1137.1.2 How has awareness of electricvehicles been promoted? 1157.1.3 What electric vehicle educationalactivities have been delivered andwhat do they tell us? 1187.1.4 How has the local electric vehicleindustry and market been promoted? 1217.2 Insights 1237.2.1 How do we best tell the storyabout electric vehicles? 1237.2.2 Do electric vehicles educate orinform people about other issues? 1248. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 1259. WHERE TO FROM HERE? 13010. ACRONYMS, GLOSSARYAND UNITS OF MEASURE 133REFERENCES 136APPENDIX A – VICTORIAN ELECTRIC VEHICLETRIAL CORPORATE PARTICIPANTS 142APPENDIX B – EVS AND FLEETS 2012PRACTICAL ROLL-OUT PLAN 145APPENDIX C – CHARGING OUTLETATTRIBUTE LIST 147APPENDIX D – HOUSEHOLD CHARGINGINFRASTRUCTURE QUESTIONS PROFORMA 150APPENDIX E – EV CHARGING COURTESY SIGNAGE 151CREATING A MARKET 5

INTRODUCTIONThis report documentsthe findings up tothe half-way pointof the VictorianElectric VehicleTrial. It containsexperiences, resultsand interpretationsfrom the early stagesof electric vehicle (EV)market developmentin Australia.

The trial is a $5 millioninitiative of the VictorianGovernment that seeksto understand the process,timelines and barriers fortransitioning to electricvehicle technologies.The trial was launched inOctober 2010 and will rununtil mid-2014.On behalf of the Victorian Government,the Department of Transport, Planningand Local Infrastructure (formerly theDepartment of Transport) is runninga trial to ensure that the roll-out ofelectric vehicles is safe and efficient,and that the needs of all Victoriansare taken into account. It considersthe effects electric vehicles will haveon society and the State’s resources.The trial considers people as well astechnology. A successful trial will makesure that Victoria becomes an EVfriendlyplace, and that electric vehicleswork for Victoria.Through the trial the VictorianGovernment is providing thefoundations for the Australian electricvehicle market. The findings willinform all levels of government on theissues and opportunities associatedwith electric vehicle uptake. Thisreport allows many of the insightsgained to be considered alongside thearrival of electric cars from a range ofmanufacturers from 2013 onwards.The government’s support for thisinitiative recognises the potentialsignificance of a global trend towardselectric vehicles for Victoria’sautomotive industry and transportsystem. Unlike many developedeconomies, Victoria has no previoushistory of EV technology. The vastmajority of Victorians have onlyexperienced electric vehicle technologythrough non road-going vehicles suchas golf-carts or electric wheel-chairs.In considering EV market development,Victoria is effectively a blank canvas.CREATING A MARKET 7

BACKGROUNDElectric vehicles (EVs)have started to arriveon Victoria’s roads.Most major vehiclemanufacturers arenow or soon will bedelivering EVsinto the market.

In 2012, Mitsubishi, Nissan,and Holden all deliveredEVs into Victoria. In addition,Renault, Ford, Toyota,BMW and Porsche all havemodels in the pipeline.Answers to some of themore common questionsrelating to electric vehiclesare provided below.2.1 WHAT IS AN ELECTRICVEHICLE (EV)?An electric vehicle is any vehiclethat uses electricity as energy forpropulsion. In simple terms, the maindifferences between a fully electricvehicle and a conventional InternalCombustion Engine (ICE) vehicle are:• EVs have an electric motor insteadof an ICE• EVs store energy in a batteryrather than a fuel tank• EVs source energy via a plug andcable rather than a petrol bowser.Figure 1 shows the functional andoperational differences between vehicletypes, while Section 2.3 providesfurther explanation on the differentvehicle types available.2.2 WHY ELECTRIC VEHICLES?Electric vehicles can provide arange of benefits when comparedto conventional ICE vehicles:• Operating cost savings due to thelower costs of electricity relativeto liquid fuels, and the higherefficiency and lower maintenancecosts of electric drivetrains• Greenhouse gas emissionreduction, particularly when runon renewable energy• Air quality improvements forpopulated areas due to the zerotailpipe emissions• Traffic noise reductions, throughthe near-silent operation of theelectric drivetrain• Employment benefits throughthe use of domestically-producedelectricity to replace imported oil,and within the automotive industry.Electric vs PetrolZero EmissionsElectricity Company100-160 km RangeHours to Recharge4 cents per km(renewable energy)Greenhouse Gases/PollutionOPEC500+ km RangeMinutes to Refuel8 cents per km(petrol price = $1.40/L)Household PlugElectricmotorRechargeablebatteriesPetrol PumpCombustionenginePetrol tankFigure 1. Schematic illustrating the functional and operational differences betweenelectric and conventional petrol vehicles.CREATING A MARKET 9

Electric vehicles have potential tohelp Victoria in a variety of ways.This is because:• Private vehicles account for thesignificant majority of all travelmade in Victoria, both in terms ofthe number of trips made and thetotal distance travelled (DOT 2009)• Transport makes up 18 per cent ofVictorian household expenditure(ABS 2011)• Victoria increasingly relies on oilimports to fuel passenger vehicles(ACIL Tasman 2008)• Transport makes up 16 per centof Victoria’s greenhouse gasemissions, with the majoritycoming from cars (DCC 2007)• Motor vehicles are the mainsource of urban air pollution(EPA 2012a)• Road traffic noise has beenidentified as the most commonnoise source in Victoria(EPA 2007)• Victoria has a competitiveadvantage in automotive designand manufacture (Invest Vic 2011).2.3 WHAT TYPES OF ELECTRICVEHICLES ARE AVAILABLE?There are different types of electricvehicles. They vary according tothe extent to which they rely uponelectricity as their energy source.The various types can be roughlyclassified as follows – refer also toFigure 2:• Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)have been on Victorian roads forover 10 years through cars suchas the Toyota Prius, Honda CivicHybrid and the locally-producedToyota Camry Hybrid. They useliquid fuel (petrol) as their soleexternal energy source, butsupplement this with electricalenergy captured from the brakingsystem and stored in batteries• Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles(PHEVs), sometimes calledExtended-Range Electric Vehicles(EREVs), use both electrical energyand liquid fuel from externalsources. They vary in their choiceof primary energy source, withthe Toyota Prius PHEV biasedtowards petrol and the HoldenVolt favouring electricity. They areeasily differentiated from HEVs asthey have a plug• Battery Electric Vehicles(BEVs) or fully-electric vehicles,use electrical energy as theirsole energy source. BEVsavailable in the Australianmarket include the Nissan LEAFand Mitsubishi i-MiEV.As only PHEVs and BEVs use plugsto source electrical energy, they arecollectively known as Plug-in ElectricVehicles (PEVs).Through the remainder of this paperthe term ‘EV’ will be used to denotevehicles which use solely electricalenergy (that is, Battery ElectricVehicles described above).HEV PHEV BEVHybrid Electric Vehicle Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Electric VehicleICEICERegenerativeBrakingRegenerativeBrakingRegenerativeBrakingElectricMotorElectricMotorElectricMotorBatteriesPetrol/DieselBatteriesPetrol/DieselBatteriesFigure 2. Schematic of the various electric vehicle types.

2.4 HOW DOES ELECTRIC VEHICLECHARGING WORK?Similar to mobile phones or otherportable electronic devices, electricvehicles charge their batteries via aplug into an electrical outlet. Chargingcreates issues and opportunities in thecontext of how cars are used.As they contain large batteries, electricvehicles can take hours to recharge.But as this process can take placeunattended, EVs can charge whilethey’re parked, allowing drivers to geton with living life.Many EVs can be charged more quicklythrough high-voltage quick chargers,and some EVs will include the abilityto swap their depleted batteriesfor fully charged replacements atdedicated swap stations. In futureEVs may be able to use wirelessinduction-charging similar to electrictoothbrushes, however the majority ofEV charging in the near-term will usea plug/cable combination as for otherelectrical appliances.Charging takes place where electricvehicles park – such as the home,workplace or shopping centre carparks.As charging occurs unattended,EV drivers can simply arrive at theirdestination, plug in, and walk away.A simplified/idealised day-in-thelifeof a corporate fleet EV based inMelbourne’s CBD is shown in Figure 3to help explain how charging/batterycharge management works.Most electric vehicles also containthe ability to charge significantlymore rapidly using high-powered‘quick chargers’. This quick chargingcapability exists alongside the standardcharging described above, and usesdedicated equipment – refer toFigure 4.With reference to Figure 5, EVcharging infrastructure consistsof two basic elements:• Charging outlet, whichprovides the charge managementcapability and is the hardwarefrom which the connection ismade to the vehicle• Charging circuit, which connectsthe charging outlet to the point ofelectrical supply.Charging outlets are proprietarytechnologies that contain a varietyof features that vary across modelsand suppliers. A charging outlet couldbe a simple wall-socket, or it may bea fully networked device with enhancedsafety, security, damage protection,user identification, data collection andmanagement, energy management,billing capabilities, and informationprovision including advertising.Charging outlets may be ownedby the site owner/occupant, or maybe supplied under a service provisionagreement by the EV chargingservice provider.CREATING A MARKET 11

Eastern FwyDoncasterHoddle StKewBurke RdBalwynEastern FwyRingwoodMelbourneWhitehorse RdBox HillPunt RdToorak RdCamberwellWarrigal RdMiddleborough Middleborough RdSpringvale RdCanterbury RdBurwood HwyEastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink Eastlink EastlinkEastlink Eastlink Eastlink EastlinkEastlinkEastlink Eastlink Eastlink EastlinkEastlink EastlinkSt St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Kilda Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd RdSt KildaBalaclava RdBurke RdHigh Street RdHawthorn RdDandenong RdMonash FwyGlen WaverleyWaverley RdKnoxfieldNorth RdOakleigh100Base Trip 1 Base Trip 2 Base75Battery charge state502503:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00TimeFigure 3. A day-in-the-life of a corporate fleet EV – the map (top) shows the route for two 50 km round-trips taken fromMelbourne CBD, while the chart (underneath) shows the battery charge state as the EV completes these journeys alongwith an ‘opportunity’ charging event between 12 and 2pm and ‘overnight’ charging from 5pm. The figures assume thatthe EV has a range of around 100 km, and a zero-to-full charging time of 6 hours using standard (240 v / 15 A) charging.

Meter, Switch orDistribution BoardDistribution NetworkCharging OutletCharging CircuitEVCharging CableFigure 4 (Top). A Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric vehicle being plugged into a quick charger.Figure 5 (Above). Electric vehicle charging infrastructure basic description for the purposes of the Victorian Electric VehicleTrial roll-out.CREATING A MARKET 13

TRIAL DESIGNThe Department ofTransport, Planning andLocal Infrastructure’sapproach for theVictorian Electric VehicleTrial initiative recognisesthe pathways andtimelines for marketdevelopment.

It has brought together allthe pieces of the emergingelectric vehicle marketand provided participantswith a low cost, low riskoperating environment.The trial is a test-bedfor deployment of newtechnologies and businessmodels, the learnings fromwhich will help streamlinemarket development.ELECTRICITYMARKETCHARGINGINFRASTRUCTURE3.1 THE EV ECOSYSTEMThe trial has brought togetheraround 70 corporate participantsand 120 households to form the basisof the Victorian (and Australian) electricvehicle market.As summed up by the followingquote, efficient development of an EVmarket has been portrayed by manyin the automotive industry as beingdependent upon the presence of afunctioning ‘EV ecosystem’:The Chevy Volt is truly coming tolife, but preparing the market forelectric vehicles also requires capablepartners from outside the autoindustry. Momentum is building asgovernments, technology companies,communities and universities areincreasingly working togetherto prepare the market forelectric vehicles.Ed Peper, then GeneralMotors North AmericaVice-President for Chevrolet(Green Car Congress 2009)OTHERThe trial has adopted the ecosystemmodel at its foundation. An Expressionof Interest (EOI) was launched inMarch 2010 seeking input from vehiclesuppliers, charging infrastructureproviders, electricity marketparticipants, fleet operators and anyother interested party on what theymight offer in support of an electricvehicle technology trial project (DOT2010a). Despite Australia’s statusas one of the most highly open andcompetitive automotive markets in theworld (MMAL 2011), at the time of theEOI, no commitments had been madeby original equipment automotivemanufacturers to bring EVs to theAustralian market. The EOI processsought to address this by leveragingthe highly competitive market operatingenvironment and in doing so chart apath forwards based upon the indicatedmarket direction.Following a multi-criteria analysis ofthe 76 submissions, around 60 wereaccepted at the outset to form the basisof a fully-functioning electric vehiclemarket model depicted as a schematicin Figure 6. Multiple participantswere selected to take part at eachlevel of the emerging EV market toavoid proprietary influence in termsof technology and/or business model,to provide a low cost/risk operatingenvironment for the participants todeploy and refine their technologiesand business models, and to promotecoordination across the market andprovide insights into barriers that mayotherwise prevent it.VEHICLESUPPLIERSVICTORIANGOVERNMENTVEHICLEOPERATORSINDUSTRYBODIESUNIVERSITIESFigure 6. Schematic illustrating the EV ecosystem thatforms the basis for the trial design.CREATING A MARKET 15

Trial componentOutcomesObjectiveHousehold/fleetvehicle roll-out• Give Victorians experience of EVs• Help us understand how EVs willwork in Victoria• Find out what EVs meanto VictoriansInfrastructureroll-out$Economic, environmentaland social impacts• Establish beginnings of VictorianEV market• Guide design of the VictorianEV charging network to meetuser requirements• Understand EV benefits andcosts – now and in the future• Identify issues and test solutionsTo makeVictoria anEV-friendlyplacethrough improvedawareness,understanding andacceptanceEducation andawareness program• Engage and inform thecommunity on EV technology• Link local designers andmanufacturers into the national/international EV marketFigure 7. EV Trial conceptual model and delivery framework.

Commercial negotiations and astructured consultation processwere then undertaken to informthe final trial design (DOT 2012b).The participants were announced inOctober 2010 to a backdrop of vehiclesand charging technology previouslyunseen in the Victorian market(Autoblog 2010). Additional participantshave joined the trial as the projecthas progressed – refer to Appendix A –Victorian EV Trial corporate participantsfor a full list of the 80 corporate trialparticipants including their role as ofDecember 2012.While the participants and their goodsand services provide the basic buildingblocks for the trial, the four-partconceptual model shown in Figure 7was designed to deliver the trial.The diverse range of activities beingdone as part of the trial includes:• Household vehicle roll-out: around120 households living with an EVfor three months each (referto Section 4)• Fleet vehicle roll-out: over 50corporate fleets having theopportunity to trial a number ofEVs for three months or morefor each vehicle (Section 4)• Charging infrastructure roll-out:around 200 charging outlets beinginstalled for household, fleet andpublic use (Section 5)• Economic, environmental andsocial impacts assessment: anevaluation into the triple bottomline impacts of EV technologyintroduction in Victoria (Section 6)• Education and awareness program:a wide-ranging communicationsprogram to raise awareness,understanding and acceptance of EVtechnology in Victoria (Section 7).The unifying objective ‘to makeVictoria an EV-friendly place’ is to beachieved through improved awareness,understanding and acceptance ofelectric vehicle technology.The Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial is a trailblazingstudy that providesconsumers and businesseswith a firsthand taste ofwhat will be an excitingfuture transport option;electric vehicles.The industry is looking tothis trial as the cornerstoneof future development inthis area and a lot of workhas already gone intoovercoming barriers intesting these vehicles.Australian Gas Lighting (AGL),a premier partner for the Trial,14 November 20123.2 A MARKET DEVELOPMENTMODELThe trial design and outcomes arebeing viewed in the context of themarket development model fornew technologies.New technology is adopted gradually,following an ‘S-curve’, similar tothose depicted in Figure 8 for a rangeof technologies introduced over thelast century.This process has been characterisedby Rogers (1962) and Moore (1991),and forms the basis for consideringthe status and path forwards for theVictorian electric vehicle market(Rorke and Inbakaran 2009).With reference to Figure 9, theorysuggests that around 16 per cent ofthe population form the early marketfor any new technology. These people,the ‘innovators’ and ‘early adopters’,are attracted to new technologies onaccount of the reflected symbolism,that is, what ownership of newtechnology says about them. Thisperceived benefit outweighs thecosts and risks associated withany new technology for these earlymarket participants.In contrast ‘mainstream’ marketparticipants, composed of the earlyand late majority, are primarilyfinancially-motivated and will adoptthe new technology because it makessense. The transition from earlyto mainstream market adoption iscommonly termed the ‘take-off point’.Moore (1991) identifies the difficulttransition between these two verydifferent market segments as thekey phase in the success or failureof any new technology – a challengecommonly described as ‘crossingthe chasm’.CREATING A MARKET 17

1009080Colour TV7060ElectricityComputer50Air-conditioner403020TelephoneStoveRefrigeratorClothes washerClothes dryerDish washerVCRMobile phoneInternet1001900AutoMicrowaveRadio1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 200510075Take-off Point50Market share %25Innovators 2.5%EarlyAdopters13.5%Early Majority34%Late Majority34%Laggards16%0Figure 8 (Top). Technology adoption curves for a range of modern innovations (New York Times 2008).Figure 9 (Above). Adoption lifecycle for new technologies, where the brown line represents the increase inmarket share with time, and the green/blue line represents the market share distribution among buyer types(Rogers 1962).

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION CASE STUDYMOBILE PHONESAlthough it is difficult to now imagine life without it, mobile phone technology has traversed theinnovation adoption curve within most people’s lifetime.The world’s first commercial portable cellular phone became available to U.S. consumers in 1984(Motorola 2012). The Motorola DynaTAC 8000x weighed over seven times as much as an iPhone,took 10 hours to charge and cost nearly $USD 4000 (Time 2010) – equivalent to over $USD 9000 in 2012.In 1987 the first mobile phone and network was launched in Australia (Access Economics 2010).The Walkabout TM cost around $5,200 (or around $11,000 today), was around the size of ten iPhones,had around one hour of talk time between recharges and quickly became known as ‘the ultimate yuppieaccessory’ (SMH 2007, Telstra 2012). The associated cellular network was launched by the CommonwealthGovernment telecommunications provider Telecom in Sydney in February 1987, Melbourne in May,and extended into other parts of Australia over time (ActewAGL 2009).From these small beginnings, the mobile phone technology evolved rapidly:• In 1993 second generation mobile phone technology (2G) commenced operation,including basic data functionality (Access Economics 2010)• By March 1994 the one millionth subscriber had joined the network (ActewAGL 2009)• With the arrival of 3G networks in 2003, the technology had improved to allow for videostreaming (ABC 2011)• By 2007 mobile phone subscriptions outnumbered people in Australia (ACMA 2008)• By 2009 over three quarters of all 12-14 year olds were reported having their own mobilephone (ABS 2009) – a mere 25 years from when the DynaTAC 8000x went on sale in the U.S.Figure 10. Anillustration of the rapidevolution of mobilephone technology.CREATING A MARKET 19

In seeking an understanding of theearly versus mainstream market forelectric vehicle technologies, the trialdesign has adopted these marketdevelopment theories at its core.Procurement and deployment ofvehicles and charging infrastructurehas been overseen by theDepartment so as to gain insightsinto the issues and opportunitiesat different phases of the marketdevelopment. Insights into themotivations, behaviours and opinionsof the wide range of trial participantsare being gathered and circulated aspart of efforts to promote an efficientEV market roll-out.3.3 COMMERCIALARRANGEMENTSThe trial design is underpinned by alarge and diverse range of commercialagreements addressing the activitiesand risks associated with developmentof a new market.An implication of the electric vehicleecosystem project design was theneed for a large number of commercialagreements to underpin the manyand varied trial participantrelationships. This complexity wascompounded by the early marketsituation, which required newbusiness models for service delivery,and the large amount of informationexchange, which required an extensiveprivacy review and protections forsensitive information and intellectualproperty alike.Trial-specific commercial agreementswere designed for the followingfamilies of activities and relationships:• Premier partner• Vehicle procurement• Vehicle operation by fleetsincluding charginginfrastructure hosting• Charging infrastructureservice provision• Charging infrastructure hostingfor a non-vehicle operator• Private household trialparticipation• Trial participation other thanfor households and fleets• Data collection, transferand management.Building upon this, around 230commercial agreements have beenexecuted over the first half of theproject. The effort and resourceexpended in the design and executionof these agreements deliveredconsiderable benefits including:• Insights into the issuesand opportunities associatedwith the roll-out of EVtechnology, attained throughthe legal negotiations• Consistency across commercialagreements, which hasstreamlined the trial deliveryand ensured a low-riskoperating environment forthe trial participants.The role of the Premier Partnershas been key to the trial designand delivery:• AGL supplied renewableenergy to account for the trialvehicle operation• CSIRO led the design,implementation and interrogationof the trial data collection andmanagement framework• Lumleys Insurance providedcomprehensive insurance for thevehicles in support of the widerange of short- and long-termtest-drive applications• RACV partnered in deliveryof the household applicationto participate process, andpromotion of the trial generally.Detailed observations regarding thenegotiation and operation of thecharging infrastructure agreementscan be found in Section 5.1.1.

RACV considers electricvehicles to be a majorcomponent of Victoria’ssustainable transport mix.Work conducted throughthe Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial has contributedto strong engagementbetween the public,industry stakeholdersand government on issuessurrounding the successfuluptake of electric vehiclesin Victoria including pricemechanisms, energydemands and land-useplanning.Royal Automobile Club ofVictoria (RACV), a premierpartner for the Trial,24 October 20123.4 DATA COLLECTION ANDMANAGEMENTThe trial data has been collected usinga range of techniques from a largenumber of sources. Managementof the data has been centralised toensure data integrity and protectionof sensitive information. Distributionof the findings has taken place throughregular meetings with the corporateparticipants as part of the trialstakeholder engagement strategy.Collection and management of the trialdata is a key element to the overalldesign of the trial. With reference toFigure 11, the range of data sources,attributes and outputs can be seen.The role played by CSIRO in boththe design and operation of the trialdata collection and managementframework has been critical toensuring private and commerciallysensitiveinformation is protected, andin facilitating analysis of the results.Data collection from the householdparticipants is a major input for thetrial. With reference to Figure 12,the households first supply datathrough their application to participate.Once shortlisted, the applicant isprovided an offer of participationin the form of their Deed. As theagreement for their participationis finalised, they complete a shortquestionnaire to provide moreinformation about their residence toinform the charging solution planning.At each point before, during and aftertheir electric vehicle experience,they are requested to complete aone-week household travel diaryand a 10 minute survey. The travel diaryis analogous to the Victorian IntegratedSurvey of Travel and Activity 1 , exceptthat it captures a week of householdtravel at each sample interval ratherthan a day. This qualitative data issupplemented by additional qualitativedata gathered from the VictorianElectric Vehicle Trial Discussion Board(refer to Section 7.1.1).Quantitative data is gathered from thevehicle instrumentation, the network ofcharging infrastructure and from eithertheir electricity retailer or distributor.It represents the behavioural aspectsof the household EV experience, asopposed to the attitudinal aspectsrepresented by the qualitative datadescribed above.1 http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/research/statistics/victorian-integrated-survey-of-travel-and-activityCREATING A MARKET 21

The fleet participants supplyquantitative data via the vehicleinstrumentation and qualitative datavia their application to participate andresponses to various questionnairesdelivered predominantly around eventsand through interviews. This approachaddresses the limitations of the fleetdata set in terms of the number of andvariations between participants.Additional input is sourced on anas-needs basis from the corporateparticipants in the trial. An exampleof this was a survey of the charginginfrastructure providers to informan understanding of a standardisedcharging infrastructure circuit.Project meetings are held on amonthly basis for the trial’s corporateparticipants. These meetings include:• Trial Planning Working Group –open to all corporate participants;a variable roll-call of around 30participants regularly attend fromaround 100 invitees• Interoperability Working Group –open to all charging infrastructureproviders and convened inrecognition of the needs of thisemerging industry sector; aroundeight representatives of differentproviders regularly attend from10 invitees.Additional meetings are convenedaround specific initiatives beingadvanced under the umbrella of thetrial, for example a demonstrationproject for demand response and loadcontrol of electric vehicle charging(refer to Section 5.2.4).Data Provision &Disclosure AgreementsTrial DataManagementHouseholds• Application to Participate• Household Surveys• Travel Diaries• Discussion Board• Incidents & Issues ReportingSecure Raw DataData Assembly& CleansingSecure Aggregated & De-personalised DatabaseElectricityProviders• Grid Supply Parameters• Tariffs• Household Energy Use• Billing InfoData AnalysisEngineReporting EngineChargingInfrastructureProviders• Home EV Charging• Work EV Charging• Public EV ChargingDisclosureFilteringVehicles• Vehicle ID• Operational State• GPS Data• Charging Data• State of Charge• Driving Parameters• Ancillaries StatusDoTGeneralPublicResearchBodiesFigure 11. Trial data collection and management framework.

What we need from you: The participantApplication ‘Before’ travel diary ‘During’ travel diary ‘After’ traveldiaryDeed ‘Before’ survey ‘During’ travel survey ‘After’ travelCharging pointquestions1 2 3 45 6 7 8Charging pointinstalledWhat is happening in the TrialYOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE EXPERIENCEsurveyCharging pointremovalVehicle handover Vehicle return Charging point offerNote: The Trial vehicles aremonitored throughout.Household energy use willalso be monitored by therelevant electricity retailer.Figure 12. Household participant timeline for the trial, where the period from vehicle handover to vehicle return is of threemonths duration nominally.CREATING A MARKET 23

HOUSEHOLD ANDFLEET VEHICLEROLL-OUTThe Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial has soughta range of vehiclesfrom different suppliersfor deployment inhouseholds andcorporate fleets.The car types haveincluded OriginalEquipment Manufacturer(OEM) products andaftermarket conversions,with the formersupporting all of thehousehold and mostof the fleet trials.

Information gained fromthe cars has allowed for arelative assessment of thevehicle use.The household vehicle roll-out hasprovided around 120 households withthe opportunity to live with an electricvehicle for three months. Informationgained from the households hasprovided insights into the sort of peopleand motives for being interested inelectric vehicles, what they thoughtof them and how they used them.The fleet vehicle roll-out has providedaround 40 fleets with the opportunityto trial a range of electric vehicles forperiods of up to six months at a time.An understanding of the fleet types,motives and uses for the electricvehicles has been gained, along withthe issues and opportunities formarket development.4.1 VEHICLES4.1.1 What vehicles are takingpart in the trial?The mainstay of vehicles taking partin the trial are 100 per cent electricallypoweredvehicles – primarily theMitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan LEAF.A small number of Toyota Prius PHEVs,both pre-production prototypes andconversions, have also taken part,along with a number of aftermarketEV conversions.Table 1 provides a summary of thevarious vehicles operating as part ofthe trial. Vehicles for which the serviceapplication has been identified as‘fleets through affiliation’ were ownedand/or controlled by entities other thanthe former Department of Transport.These vehicles took part in the trial toaccess a range of benefits includinguse of public charging infrastructureor the trial data collection andmanagement framework, or simplyin support of information exchange.The supply arrangements for theOEM vehicles (Mitsubishi i-MiEV,Nissan LEAF and Toyota Prius PHEVpre-production) allowed them tobe deployed to both householdsand fleets, whereas the remainingvehicles were operated solely by fleets.Furthermore, those vehicles takingpart in the trial courtesy of ‘fleetsthrough affiliation’ did not supplydata into the trial collectionand management framework– refer to Table 1 and Section 3.4.Vehicle Type No. vehicles PriceFirst vehiclecommissioningdateTrial serviceapplication/sMitsubishi i-MiEV OEM BEV 14 $65,200 2 (2010) December 2010$48,800 (2011-12)3 $36,888 3 (2013) December 2010Toyota Prius PHEV 4Blade Electron 5OEM preproductionPHEVAftermarketconversion PHEVAftermarketconversion BEVNissan LEAF OEM BEV 16EV EngineeringElectricCommodore 8Aftermarketconversion BEVTotal 54Fleets, householdsFleets throughaffiliation3 N/A December 2010 Fleets, households3 N/A January 20118 $48,000 (2010-11) March 2011$68,007 6 (2010)$51,500 (2012)$46,990 7 (2013)June 20117 N/A June 2012Fleets throughaffiliationFleets throughaffiliationFleets, householdsFleets throughaffiliationTable 1. Vehicles operating as part of the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial as of December 2012, where ‘Price’ reflects the RecommendedRetail Price (RRP) unless otherwise indicated.2 Drive-away price includes $20,000 guaranteed buyback price from Mitsubishi3 Dealer drive-away price 16 January 20134 Vehicle ownership retained by Toyota (OEM pre-production) or operators (aftermarket conversion)5 Blade Electric Vehicles ceased trading in April 20126 UK-specification vehicles supplied ahead of the Australian product launch; includes $25,045 guaranteed buyback price from Nissan7 Drive-away price, representing around $8,000 saving on the 2012 RRP8 Proof-of-concept prototype vehiclesCREATING A MARKET 25

Features of relevance regarding thevehicles included the following:• In-vehicle GPS, a key enablingtechnology/driver-aid for EVrange management, was presentin only the Mitsubishi i-MiEVs,which utilised an aftermarket GPSsolution. The Nissan LEAF trialvehicles were supplied ahead ofthe Australian-specification OEMGPS solution, which was not ableto be cost-effectively retrofitted tothe vehicles• The Nissan LEAF has a climatecontrol pre-heat/cool feature thatallows it to use mains electricityto warm/cool the cabin to a presettemperature/time, therebypreserving the battery chargefor driving range. Although useof this feature was not able to bemonitored, use of heating/coolingby both the i-MiEV and the LEAFduring driving was monitored. Thisshould have resulted in the i-MiEVbeing reported to use heating/cooling more, all else being equal• In-vehicle range estimationworked differently from onevehicle type to the next. By wayof example, the i-MiEV evaluates/displays a remaining-rangeestimate based upon the currentoperating condition of the vehicle,resulting in instantaneousfeedback to changes in operationalstate, whereas the LEAF evaluatesthis figure based upon a rollingfive kilometres average, providingmore gradual changes to theindicated range based uponchanges to the vehicle operatingstate. The more immediate driverfeedback supplied by the i-MiEVwas perceived to influence driverchoices differently from the LEAF,for example with regards use ofheating/cooling• Aftermarket instrumentation fittedfor the trial vehicle monitoringdrew charge from the 12 voltbattery to the extent that thisissue needed to be managedby the vehicle operators in theevent of the vehicle not beingdriven regularly – one householdparticipant rejected this solutionand returned the vehicle after ashort period, while some of thefleet participants reported this asbeing a deterrent for their staff touse the vehicle. Overall this mayhave reduced vehicle utilisation/acceptance for the i-MiEV inparticular due to its relatively lowcapacity 12 volt battery• The complete vehicleinstrumentation solutionwas applied to the Mitsubishii-MiEVs and Nissan LEAFs only.Cost, complexity and operatorpreference were factors in thereduced solution specificationapplied to the other vehicles• The Blade Electrons were existingfleet vehicles retrofitted with anupgraded specification for use inthe trial by their owner-operators.As a consequence of the various issuespresented above, the majority of thedata captured related to the NissanLEAF and Mitsubishi i-MiEVs.4.1.2 Were any differencesseen in how the vehicleswere used?Significant differences were noted inhow people used the trial vehicles,with the Mitsubishi i-MiEV beingunderutilised by comparison withthe Nissan LEAF. The Toyota PriusPHEVs were generally driven furtherthan the pure EVs, however this variedconsiderably between deployments.The Blade aftermarket EV conversionssuffered from a range of issues whichsignificantly impaired their utilisation.With reference to Table 2, the NissanLEAFs were driven substantiallyfurther per day than the Mitsubishii-MiEVs. The Nissan LEAF averagedaily driving distance of 32.8 kilometresis close to the Melbourne averagevehicle daily driving distance of 35kilometres (DOT 2012a).The Toyota Prius PHEVs loggedsubstantially higher average dailydistances travelled than either of thepure EVs – 42.6 kilometres versus32.8 for the LEAFs and 24.5 for thei-MiEVs. Notably however, this wasaccompanied by a standard deviation ofnearly 21 kilometres over the relativelysmall sample of 11 household and fleetvehicle assignments, indicating somestatistical uncertainty in the results.Nevertheless, the results suggestthat the PHEVs were generally drivenfurther than the pure EVs.

Alongside differences in utilisation,the behavioural and attitudinal dataobtained from the trial participantsillustrates differences betweenthe vehicles.Despite household participants beingselected partly on the basis of whetherthey had an existing small to mediumsize vehicle, i-MiEV drivers reporteda marked difference in their responseto the question, ‘How well does thetrial vehicle fit your needs, that is, inways not related to it being an electricvehicle (for example size)?’ (3.6 versus4.5 for the LEAF on a rating scalefrom 1 = ‘hardly at all’ to 5 = ‘to a greatextent’; aggregate std dev 1.2).In seeking to understand specificallyissues drivers had with thei-MiEV, perceptions of it beinga less safe vehicle were reportedby some participants.A typical quote drawn from theVictorian Electric Vehicle TrialDiscussion Board sums upthese sentiments:We have only once had the i-MiEV atspeed (up to 100 km/h). It was OK…but not something I would want to dofor prolonged periods of time. My VWGolf is definitely superior at speedand gives a much greater feeling ofstability and safety.Victorian Electric Vehicle Trialhousehold participant, 2012Size limitations were also citedoccasionally, however vehicle occupancyrates before, during and after thehousehold EV experience suggest thatthis was not a major issue.Table 2 below highlights the markeddiscrepancy between the use ofheating and cooling on both vehicles.Several factors may have influencedthis outcome including:• Seasonal variations between theperiods over which the vehicleshave been allocated (furtheranalysis of the raw data is beingundertaken to verify this)• Increased need to conserve energyas a result of around 10 per centlower operating range of thei-MiEV relative to the LEAF.Vehicle use attributeDistance travelled per day(km)Distance between chargeevents (km)Mitsubishi i-MiEV Nissan LEAF Toyota Prius PHEVAV SD AV SD AV SD24.5 12.7 32.8 15.3 42.6 20.934.3 10.6 35.9 8.0Statistically-significantdifference?Yes (i-MiEV / LEAF)No (Prius PHEV /others)NoState-of-Charge at plugin(%)Use of ECO driving mode(% of driving time)Use of air-conditioning(% of driving time)Use of heating(% of driving time)57.5 10.2 52.0 9.4 Yes26.1 25.6 23.1 23.0 N/ANo9.4 11.5 17.2 8.8 Yes50.0 31.2 65.7 25.0 YesAverage energy economy(kWh/km) 9 0.150 0.179 YesTable 2. Vehicle use data based upon 25, 33 and 11 three-month vehicle assignments for the i-MiEV, LEAF and Prius PHEVrespectively, where AV = average value and SD = standard deviation for the data-set.9 Derived figures based upon vehicle odometer readings and charging activity dataCREATING A MARKET 27

Although the ability of the LEAF to beprogrammed to heat or cool the carusing mains electricity whilst chargingmay have provided an explanation forincreased use of these functions, thevehicle data monitoring did not capturethis activity due to a quirk with theproprietary vehicle firmware.An artefact of the way the trialwas designed was the effect theaftermarket instrumentation had onthe cars as a result of the increasedload on the 12 volt battery. This effectwas much more pronounced fori-MiEVs than for the LEAFs due to therelatively small 12 volt battery in thevehicle. A partial fix was implementedfor the i-MiEV in the form of a devicethat isolated the 12 volt battery oncethe remaining charge dropped belowa certain point, beyond which it wasa short procedure to get the vehiclegoing again. Nevertheless, feedbackfrom the some of the trial participantshighlighted the inconvenience of thissituation, which for fleets in particularmay have acted as a deterrent forvehicle use.Although quantitative data was notsupplied by the fleet owner/operatorsof the Blade Electron EV conversions,anecdotal and survey reportingsuggests that vehicle utilisation didnot meet expectations. Vehicle deliveryand reliability issues significantlyimpaired the operation of thesevehicles, in addition to which referencewas made to range limitations versusoperational requirements, alongwith driver disapproval of the chargemanagement/range estimation.Feedback obtained from the vehiclesupplier suggested that their producthad been much more favourablyreceived by private buyers, who weremore accepting and accommodatingof the vehicle idiosyncrasies.4.1.3 What are the issuesand opportunities forthe vehicles?The purchase price barrier commonto all new technologies is expectedto reduce in the near-term througha range of avenues. The total costof ownership argument in favour ofelectric vehicles will strengthen inparallel. Improved driver informationwill greatly assist in realising EVoperational cost savings.Relative to other markets, sales ofvehicles analogous to plug-in EVs inAustralia have traditionally been nicheat best. Australian combined sales ofthe Toyota Prius and Honda Insighthybrid-electric vehicles have hoveredbetween one and two per cent of thesmall vehicle market segment for anumber of years, during which timethese same vehicles have been theoverall market sales leaders in Japan(GoAuto 2011).35Electric vehicle sales in Australia30Nissan LeafMitsubishi i-MiEVSource: VFACTS25Sales2015Leaf Launch1050Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Mar Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct20112012Figure 13. Early market Australian sales figures for the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan LEAF (GoAuto 2012a).

Evidence suggests that while purchaseprices remain significantly higher thanICE vehicles of the same size and basicspecification, EVs are likely to occupya similar niche role in the Australianmarket. With reference to Figure 13,the early market sales figures for theMitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan LEAFillustrate relatively slow take-up.However, various indicators suggestthat this is an early-market scenarioconsistent with Rogers’ theory oftechnology market developmentoutlined in Section 3.2:• Australian sales of green andspecifically hybrid cars areincreasing, due to lower prices,greater choice and increasedbuyer awareness, understandingand acceptance of thesetechnologies (News 2012)• OEM EV purchase prices aredropping in all markets – referto Table 1 and Figure 14 for theAustralian market story over thelife of the trial• Sales of plug-in vehicles globallyare ahead of the sales of hybridvehicles at a similar stage in theirmarket development – in the U.S.alone sales of plug-in vehiclestripled in 2012 (US DOE 2013 andFigure 15)• According to industry sources,there are a range of plug-invehicles being considered forintroduction to the Australianmarket, which will provide morechoice for buyers and increasedcompetition on prices – notably,19 new plug-in vehicles from15 manufacturers will arrive inthe U.S. market in 2013-14(Edmunds 2012).While the inter-related issues of newvehicle purchase prices and salesfigures are a major challenge currently,it is envisaged that local vehicle supplywill be an issue as prices continueto fall and global demand increases.Industry consultation undertaken aspart of the Department’s economicmodelling found that Australian vehiclesupply represents around one percent of global production (AECOM2011). Global production is prioritisedto supply the markets which hold themost appeal for the manufacturers– traditionally the U.S./Canada,Japan and Western Europe, althoughincreasingly also the emergingeconomies of China, India, Braziland Russia. As a result, the Australianmarket may be undersupplied forvehicles either by type or volume dueto competition from other markets.$75,000$65,000Nissan LeafMitsubishi i-MiEVMazda 3 Neo$55,000$45,000$35,000$25,000$15,0002010 201120122013Figure 14. Recommended Retail Price history for the trial EVs and Australia’s highest-selling small car.CREATING A MARKET 29

0Future product planning for theautomotive OEMs occurs at least threeyears ahead of the product sale launch(CAR 2007). Discussions held withOEMs as part of the trial have foundthat vehicle model and sales volumeforecasts are locked in at least twoyears ahead of vehicles arriving intothe market. Noting the wide rangeof models forecast for delivery intothe U.S. market (Edmunds 2012), thisreality has implications for the timingof measures to encourage mainstreammarket adoption – refer to Sections6.1.2 and 6.1.3 for further discussionon this issue.Depreciation is another issue thathistory suggests will be a problem(Drive 2011). The absence of reliabilityand maintenance cost data for newtechnology creates uncertainty in themarket that results in accelerateddepreciation and lower resale values.This is a challenge for manufacturersas poor resale values can significantlyhinder sales due to depreciation beingthe largest contribution to new vehicletotal cost of ownership.However, there are a range ofinfluences that may help bolsterresale prices and reduce vehicledepreciation costs:• Australian electric vehiclesellers are known to be stronglyinterested in the second-handmarket for their vehicles 9 , atleast partly to satisfy a market forvehicles of lower cost• The national EV standards projecthas within its scope an industrystandardfor assessment of batterycondition (Standards Australia2010), which if implemented willimprove market confidence withinused vehicle transactions• A range of ‘second-life’applications exist for batteriesat the end of their vehicle life,including trams and trains, marineapplications, commercial andoff-road vehicles, home energystorage, uninterruptable powersupplies, and large scale gridenergy storage (P3 2012).As any/all these influences cometo bear, the total cost of ownershipEV value proposition for new vehiclebuyers will improve beyond whatwill be delivered by transport energycosts alone.In terms of range management, theeffect of improved driver information isalso a clear opportunity. A white paperprepared for the Michigan Departmentof Transportation (CAR 2011) outlinedthe synergy between electric vehiclesand vehicle communication systems.It identified trip planning, includingroute finding, range estimation, smartparking, and identification of charginglocations, as the earliest opportunityfor improved vehicle and energymanagement.Australian-specification models ofNissan’s LEAF are equipped within-vehicle route-finding systems thathighlight charging options, along withsmart phone connectivity that allowsusers to monitor and manage thecharging of their vehicle remotely.10,00070,000Monthly sales (dotted lines)9,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,000PEVHEVPEV cumulativeHEV cumulative60,00050,00040,00030,00020,000Cumulative sales (solid lines)2,0001,00010,00001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324Figure 15. New Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) sales compared to Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) sales over their respective24 month introductory periods in the U.S.; PEV sales 12/2010 to 11/2012, HEV sales 12/1999 to 11/2001 (US DOE 2013).10 Personal communications

This sort of functionality is expectedto be standard on most vehicles thatenter the market in future, even ifthe solutions are region-specific(due to local telecommunicationsand transport network issues).Facilitating improved information onthe charging network for the vehicleand/or intelligent transport systemstechnology suppliers may streamlinemarket entry for all participants (referalso to Section 5.1.5).Despite the limited data obtained forthe Toyota Prius PHEVs, indications arethat the absence of range limitationsfor this vehicle may have contributedto increased utilisation in terms ofaverage daily driving distance. Moredata needs to be obtained beforeconclusions can be formed however.The Blade Electrons clearly sufferedfrom issues directly related to thembeing aftermarket electric vehicleconversions. Furthermore, thereappears to be a significant mismatchbetween the private and fleet buyerexpectations for these vehicles. Whileaftermarket EV conversions are wellsupported by enthusiasts, thesefindings suggest that more widespreadacceptance may prove challenging.4.1.4 What about electrictwo-wheelers?Electric two-wheelers are atransport option with great potential.International trends and Australianregulatory reform suggest that theymay play a greater role in Victoria’sfuture transport system as consumerawareness, understanding andacceptance of the technology improves.Electric bicycles (e-bikes) can bedefined as non-registered vehiclesthat are partly or fully propelled byan electric motor. Evidence suggeststhat electric bikes may provide anaffordable, healthy mobility optionfor the aged and physically-impairedin particular. Sales of this relativelylow-cost transport option are forecastto grow from around 30 to nearly 50million vehicles annually between 2013and 2018 (Green Car Congress 2012).Research co-sponsored by theVictorian Electric Vehicle Trial(Johnson 2012) has found that the topreasons for purchase of e-bikes are (indescending order or importance):• To replace some car trips• To ride with less effort• Health – increase fitness• Live in a hilly area• Health – medical condition.Other findings from this researchincluded:• Nearly three quarters of e-bikecharging takes place at home,with the remainder mainly atthe destination and a minoramount elsewhere• Nearly two-thirds of ridersare male, and the largest agedemographics 40-49 and 50-59• The majority of e-bike trips werecommuting and local journeys,predominantly in place of cartravel resulting in averageestimated savings of between$21 and $49 per week• Nearly three quarters ofrespondents agreed that e-biketravel avoided the need for ashower at the end of the journeyshould it have been undertakenby bike, and also that the averagespeed was higher than for a bike• The main advantages of e-biketravel included health/fitnessand enjoyment/fun, while thedisadvantages included the heavybike and bad weather/rain.A subset within the e-bike researchgroup above is pedal-assist e-bikesor pedalecs, which are defined as‘a type of power-assisted bicycleequipped with one or more auxiliarypropulsion motors, a maximum powerof 250 watts, and a safeguard allowingfor power assistance only when thebicycle is travelling less than 25 km/hand the rider is pedalling’ (VicRoads2012a). This definition was refined in2012 through a national process whichresulted in harmonisation acrossthe states of Australia and with theEuropean standard for these vehicles.As a result, the availability of thesevehicles is set to increase greatly,promoting their adoption.Electric motorcycles are roadregisteredvehicles that use electricityfor part or (more commonly) all of theirpropulsion. Figures obtained fromthe VicRoads registration databaseshowed that electric motorcycles area rare sight on Victorian roads. Therewere just 45 registrations at the end ofNovember 2012 which represents lessthan 0.03 per cent of total motorcycleregistrations (VicRoads 2012b).However, the number of registrationshas grown by almost 30 per cent in 18months from the previous data point.While it is unclear as to whether thisis a sign of an emerging trend, thesefigures are analogous to those forelectric passenger vehicle registrationsin Victoria, particularly once the trialvehicle registrations are discounted.CREATING A MARKET 31

ELECTRIC TWO-WHEELER CASE STUDYDOLOMITI E-BIKE TRIALCarlton-based Italian lifestyle store Dolomiti have taken a novel approach in bringing e-bikes to theAustralian market. By offering commuters free e-bikes for a number of weeks, they hope to raiseawareness, understanding and acceptance of e-bikes in the community.Participants in the Dolomiti trial are required to travel at least 35 kilometres per week, including acommute into Melbourne’s CBD. The e-bikes are equipped with GPS tracking, providing not only themeans to assess performance against the weekly travel requirement, but also data for the MonashUniversity research partners. Monash combine this information with entry and exit surveys ofparticipants to gain a better understanding of how this new transport mode is used.The outcomes from the Dolomiti trial will inform stakeholders, such as local government, on themotivations and applications for e-bikes. Through these insights, measures may be designed toencourage e-bike uptake. Early findings indicate that e-bikes deliver real benefits in termsof physical activity and traffic reduction.Figure 16. Pedal-assistedelectric bike or ‘pedalec’being used for theDolomiti e-bike trial.

4.1.5 What about electriccommercial vehicles?Electric commercial vehicles are ofstrong interest to many fleet operatorsin Australia, particularly vans and othervehicles at the light-duty end of themarket. Supply constraints currentlyinhibit further evaluation of the viabilityof these vehicles for Victorian roads.Electric commercial vehicles, such asvans, buses and light and heavy trucks,are already operating on roads aroundthe world with less of the fanfare thataccompanies passenger vehicles. Thereduced operating costs and improvedenvironmental performance of electricvehicle technology are an attractionfor operators of vehicles for whichthe potential savings may greatlyexceed those from passenger vehicles.Additionally, the near-silent operationof electric vehicles holds potential forfreight sector productivity increasesthrough night-time deliveries innoise-sensitive areas (Freight BestPractice 2009).Extensive investigations by a largeAustralian freight and logisticsoperator identified a number ofpotential EVs available globally forwhich discussions were pursuedfor local import. Although theseinvestigations have been underwaysince the launch of the trial in 2010,no agreements have been reachedon local supply of vehicles.The main issues preventing vehiclesfrom being trialled locally are:• Relatively small numbers ofvehicles being sought• Australian market entry costs(vehicle homologation, serviceand repair etc.)• Technology suitability for theintended service application/operating environment• Price.Separately, investigations into alocal fleet purchasing coalition havediscerned an appetite for electric lightcommercial vehicles. Consultation withlocal fleet operators, undertaken bythe consultants Verdant Vision as partof a project led by The Climate Groupand sponsored by the Victorian andSouth Australian Governments, foundmany fleets to be interested in triallingelectric vans and other commercialvehicles. However, relatively fewvehicles are being sought by theoperators, which may not provide thecritical mass required for the supplyconstraint to be addressed. The finalreport from this project is expected forrelease in early 2013.Electric buses are already operatingon Victorian roads as charter vehicles(Crown 2012). Assessment of electricbus technology was included as partof a wider investigation into alternativefuel and vehicle technologies for thebus industry (DOT 2012b). Indicationsfrom this and more recent analysissuggest that the long charging timesfor the vehicles and high purchaseprices make them best suited to lightduties with high promotional value.4.2 HOUSEHOLD VEHICLEROLL-OUT4.2.1 Who’s interested inelectric vehicles and why?In general, would-be Victorian EVdrivers are strongly interested innew technology and environmentallyaware. They are also highly educatedrelative to the general population.Although the spatial distribution ofEV enthusiasts was fairly flat, therewere notable ‘hot-spots’ aroundthe middle suburbs in Melbourne’ssoutheast and the outer suburbsin both the west and southeast.A household application to participateand survey process was run inpartnership with RACV in November/December of both 2010 and 2011(DOT 2010d and 2012c). Applicantswere requested to complete a 15minute questionnaire that soughtinformation not only to guide theparticipant selection process, butalso to inform the understandingof the potential electric vehiclemarket in Victoria.CREATING A MARKET 33

Some observations about the nearly9000 households who applied to takepart in the trial included:• High levels of environmentalawareness• Positive attitudes towardsgovernment action in supportof EVs• Substantial take-up of solar PVsystems and GreenPower (around20 per cent of each)• Large number of householdsconsisting of two adults andno children• A high proportion of householdswith postgraduate educationalqualifications (nearly 20 percent of applicants, as comparedto around 3 per cent of thegeneral population)• Most significant motivationsto participate in the trial wereattributed to interests in new/EVtechnology (refer to Figure 17).These findings are generally consistentwith what has been observedelsewhere in relation to the electricvehicle early-adopter demographic(Rorke and Inbakaran 2009).The spatial distribution of applicantswas fairly flat (DOT 2012c). Asignificant cluster of applicationswas received from the south-eastMelbourne suburbs around Waverleyand Blackburn, along with outersuburban locations aroundWerribee and Cranbourne.4.2.2 What do drivers think ofelectric vehicles?Drivers who experienced the trialEVs were highly accepting of thetechnology, with the caveat beingpurchase price. Purchase price wasroutinely cited as the reason for whythey would not be buying one in thenear-term. Performance, technologyfor the sake of technology, and quiet/environmentally-friendly/low-costoperation were common reasons forfavouring the technology. The limitedoperating range of the vehicles was nota significant issue for the majority ofparticipants, however one in five wereconcerned the majority of the time.I want to experiencemyself what an EVis like to driveThe opportunity totrial newtechnologyI am thinking aboutpurchasing anElectric VehicleI strive to be 'green'(environmentallyresponsible)I want to see whatthe running costsare likeOtherIt is free0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%ProportionFigure 17. Results from the 2012 trial household application to participate process highlighting the primary reason forapplying to participate in the trial (n = 2,200, single choice permitted, DOT 2012c).

A clearly positive influence on people’sattitudes towards EVs is vehicleperformance. This finding arises fromthe inherent characteristics of electricmotors, which generate maximumtorque from rest (in contrast to ICEs,which generate maximum torque nearthe middle of their operating range).Torque is ‘twisting’ force that is thebasis of acceleration – a popularvehicle driving characteristic.Evidence of this can be seen in theopinions of participants in the shorttermtest-drives, who were surveyedon their perceptions of electric vehiclesbefore and after their test-driveexperience. Of the 127 participantssurveyed, 27.6 per cent changed theirmind in favour of EVs as a result oftheir test-drive experience (that is,their answer to the question ‘Wouldyou use an EV as your regular vehicle?’changed from ‘no’ before theirtest-drive to ‘yes’ afterwards). Withreference to Figure 18, the vehicleattributes that showed the greatestrating improvement according to these‘converted’ participants were mostlyperformance related.First impressions by the drivers asrecorded in the trial discussion boardmost often cited the lack of noiseand issues to do with comfort/space/storage, which were both cited byaround half of the contributors each.Driving modes, range and technology/features were each cited by between30 and 40 per cent of contributors.21.5Rating change (after vs before)10.50-0.5-1-1.5AccelerationFun to driveOvertakingMaintain highway speedEase to driveEase to startBrakingQuiet operationComfortInfo displayFigure 18. Changes to the vehicle attribute survey responses for the participants who changed their mind in favourof using an electric vehicle as their regular car as a result of their short-term test-drive experience (n = 127).CREATING A MARKET 35

The limited operating range of thevehicles is a complicated issue. Withreference to Figure 19, householdparticipants surveyed around six weeksinto their EV experience were biasedtowards only occasional concernsabout range limitations, howeveraround one in five participants wereconcerned the majority or all of thetime. The following quote from thediscussion board illustrates themajority view of participants:I drove Camberwell – Dandenong –Boronia – Ferntree Gully – Camberwell(91 km) … in an i-MiEV. Was a littleconcerned that I might run out ofpower toward the end, but … ended upwith 7 km to spare according to theindicator. That was actually a pretty bigdrive for a suburban commute, and Idon’t think I’d ever go further in a dayin Melbourne.Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial fleetparticipant driver feedback, 2011The range difference between vehicletypes does not appear to have overlyinfluenced driver opinion. Responsesto the question in Figure 19 from thei-MiEV drivers indicate only slightlymore concern than the LEAF drivers(3.6 versus 3.4 on a rating scalefrom 1 = ‘all the time’ to 5 = ‘hardlyat all’; aggregate std dev 1.2). Thissuggests that range may not be theprimary issue for the comparativeunderutilisation of the i-MiEV,and not an issue for most trialhousehold participants.With regards the ‘significant minority’of participants who were notcomfortable with the vehicle range,it is important to note that manywere enthusiastic at the prospect ofthe technology. This finding may besignificant in the context of publiccharging infrastructure – refer toSection 5.4.Many household participants displayedingenuity and resolve when it came tomanaging the range limitations of theirvehicle. User-generated content fromthe trial discussion board highlightsthe concept of ‘range anxiety’, howeverthe issue is more often expressedin the form of ‘range management’.Users cite a range of considerationsmade as part of this:• Trip planning and distanceestimation• Driving mode selection/benefits• Public charging options/accessarrangements• Interpretation of the in-vehiclerange indicator (of which they arehighly critical)• Efficient driving techniques• Use of heating/cooling• Other measures that assist withrange optimisation.Don’t know/unsure of question 1.3%All the time 7.9%Hardly at all 19.7%The majority the time 13.2%About half the time 11.8%Occasionally 46.1%Figure 19. Household participant responses from around six weeks into their electric vehicle experience to the question,‘How often do you feel concerned about the available range of your vehicle?’ (n = 76).

Having to make these considerationsis occasionally cited as being aninconvenience that is not felt withpetrol vehicles. A quote from thediscussion board sums this upby saying:Driving in an EV isn’t a mindlessactivity.Victorian Electric Vehicle Trialhousehold participant, 2012Of those participants who wereaccepting of EVs as a viable andeven desirable transport option, theoverwhelming majority highlightedpurchase price as being the keyobstacle to ownership. The quotesupplied by one of the householdparticipants subsequent to their threemonthelectric vehicle experienceillustrates this issue:I was very close to buying myvery own Nissan LEAF about3 months ago. In fact, I went to theshowroom and tried to find out thedifferences between the Australianmodel versus the model I had from thetrial. I also considered various financeoptions and a special leasing optionprovided by Nissan itself for the LEAF.At the end, I could not financially justifythe purchase of this EV. I went andbought a Toyota Prius instead.– Victorian Electric Vehicle Trialhousehold participant, 20124.2.3 How do people useelectric vehicles?Results suggest that householdsseamlessly adopted the trial electricvehicles into their normal travelbehaviours, and that they used theelectric vehicles as their primarytransport mode. Comparison withVictorian Government travel datasuggests that these conclusionsmay be transferred to the majorityof the Melbourne population. Vehiclerange limitations are managed bythe majority of drivers. Workplacecommuting was the most commonvehicle travel destination. Selfdescribed‘early-adopters’ were notfound to use their vehicle differentlyto mainstream market participants.BeforeCar tripsEV tripsTrial travel diary resultsDuringAfterMelbourne average0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Total tripsFigure 20. Results from the household travel diaries where the breakdown in car travel as a percentage of total trips isreported for all travel diaries submitted across the three phases of the household vehicle allocations.CREATING A MARKET 37

With reference to Figure 20,households were asked to completetravel diaries for each phase of theirinvolvement in the trial – before, duringand after their EV allocation. Althoughthe completion rate of the travel diariesfell away across the phases (from 5,586trips reported in the ‘before’ phase, to4,675 for the ‘during’ phase, to 2,733for the ‘after’ phase), the percentage oftotal trips reported as using a car heldsteady at around 75 per cent – slightlyless than the Melbourne average of78 per cent. These findings providesome confidence in the comparabilityof the data across phases/householdsgenerally, and suggest that thehouseholds did not significantly altertheir travel behaviours as a result ofhaving an EV.Reported household and vehicleoccupancies support this conclusion.Households reported themselves ashaving an average of 2.87 occupants,translating to two adults with drivinglicences to operate the averageof almost 2 vehicles owned perhousehold, and one non-drivingdependent. The average vehicleoccupancy rates per trip were 1.94occupants per vehicle in the ‘before’phase and 1.85 ‘after’, compared to1.85 occupants per EV trip ‘during’their trial vehicle allocation.When considered in combinationwith the trip mode choice breakdownabove, it may be concluded thathouseholds seamlessly adopted thetrial electric vehicles into their normaltravel patterns.Furthermore, 62 per cent of all tripswere reported as using the trial vehiclein the ‘during’ phase, equating toaround two-thirds of all householdvehicle trips. This suggests thathouseholds used the electric vehicleas their first-choice for vehicle travel.This result is a strong endorsementfor the substitutability of EVs, asthe participant selection processprioritised households who alreadyowned small or medium vehicles soas to avoid a functional mismatch withthe trial vehicles.Cumulative percentage of vehicle100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%42%23%65%36%85%59%94% 98% 99%89%84%79%70%100%91% 94% 95%96% 97% 98% 98% 98%10%8%Melbourne MetroVIC EV Trial0%10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Average daily vehicle driving distance (km)150Figure 21. Average daily driving distances for the Melbourne metropolitan area (DOT 2012a) along with ave3rage daily drivingdistances for trial household participants.

Analysis of the vehicle monitoringdata provides additional insights thatsupport these conclusions and helpsexplain the spectrum of driver opinionregarding the vehicle range limitations(refer to Figure 19). Highly reliable dataobtained from 44 household vehicleallocations of three months each foundthat the average distance travelledbetween charge events was 36.9kilometre, with a standard deviationof 8.8 kilometres.With reference to Figure 21, theaverage daily driving distance forthe Melbourne metropolitan area is35 kilometres (DOT 2012a), howeverthe distribution of average dailydriving distances reveals that thereis a significant minority who travelfurther (much further in some cases).This correlates well with the findingsabove in suggesting that the electricvehicles supported by householdcharging are sufficient for the majorityof Melbourne’s drivers, even if thereis a significant minority for whom thiswould not work.Further analysis of the vehicle usedata illustrates driver management ofrange limitations. In practical terms,the operating range of the i-MiEV isaround 90 kilometres on the highwayand 100 kilometres around town,whereas the LEAF is 110 and 120kilometres respectively. With referenceto Table 3, i-MiEV drivers on averageplug-in with less range remaining thanLEAF drivers, despite having travelleda similar distance between charging(34.3 and 35.9 kilometres respectively).Given that the distance travelledbetween charging of both vehiclesclosely approximates the average dailydriving distance for Melbourne (35kilometres), this suggests that peopleused the i-MiEV as they would theirnormal vehicle despite the reducedrange (relative to the LEAF) – inother words, they managed the rangedifference. These results also suggestthat the tension between rangeanxiety and management has beenresolved in favour of the latter for themajority of participants (refer also toSection 4.2.2).Vehicle Mitsubishi i-MiEV Nissan LEAFPractical operating range (km) 90 – 100 110 – 120Average distance travelledbetween charging (km)Average State-of-Charge atplug-in (%)Average range remaining atplug-in (km)34.3 35.957.5 5251.8 – 57.5 57.2 – 62.4Table 3. Derived average range remaining at plug-in values for the i-MiEV and LEAF,based upon the practical operating range and the average State-of-Charge at plug-in.CREATING A MARKET 39

Analysis of the reported trip purposeprovides more insights into how peopleuse EVs. Participating householdsreported 11, 11 and 12 per cent ofcar-trips as being direct to work inthe before, during and after phasesrespectively. Unsurprisingly given thetwo-thirds substitution for total vehicletrips above, 11 per cent of EV tripswere reported as being direct to workin the ‘during’ phase. These resultsare slightly above the Melbourneaverage of 7 per cent, suggesting thatthe trial sample is biased towards‘car commuters’.This conclusion may also apply to thebroader group of would-be EV drivers.Figure 22 provides an insight into thedriver travel behaviours for householdsapplying to take part in the trial.Noting that multiple responseswere permitted, the workplace wasthree times more likely to be a traveldestination than the next most popularalternative. This is a significant findingin the context of ‘workplace charging’(refer to 5.3.5).Potential differences between earlyadoptersand mainstream marketparticipants were investigated in thecontext of the technology marketdevelopment model adopted at theheart of the trial (refer to Section 3.2).The trial household participants weresegmented according to their responseto the question ‘Thinking in generalabout when a new product comes onthe market, which one of the followingwould best describe you?’.Those who described themselvesas ‘I like to be in there early and getit straight away’ were not found toexhibit any statistically-significantdifference in behaviour from the restof the population in terms of vehicleutilisation, charging behaviour orcharge management (as describedby average daily distance travelled,average distance travelled betweencharge-events, average state-ofchargeat plug-in, use of heating/airconditioning,use of eco driving mode).This suggests that ‘early adopters’ inthis case may be characterised by theirpurchase rather than user behaviour,however further investigation may bewarranted into this issue.Workplace 60%Domestic duties18%Childrensschool or care6%Place of study5%Sport/Leisure 5%Figure 22. Results from the 2011 trial household application process showing the distribution of vehicle travel destinations foreach driver in the household; multiple responses are permitted for each (n = 6,147, DOT 2010d).

4.2.4 How much does it costfor an average household torun an EV?Although there was significantvariation across the vehicleassignments, the average cost for atrial household participant to run theirelectric vehicle on renewable energywas between $7 and $10 per week.This is about half of what it would costto run an equivalent petrol vehicle, withnone of the emissions.Analysis of the data obtained from thetrial household participants providessome insights into the average drivingdistances and energy economies –refer to Table 4. These values havebeen segmented by vehicle type dueto the statistically-significant variationin energy economy recorded for thetwo vehicles.Electricity costs have assumed aresidential tariff of $0.25 per kWh thatincludes a premium for GreenPower(renewable energy). Althoughhouseholds varied significantly interms of their GreenPower and/or solarPV take-up, the former Departmentof Transport has accounted for allelectricity used by the trial vehiclesfor reconciliation with an equivalentamount of renewable electricitysupplied by AGL (DOT 2012d).For the purposes of comparison acalculation was made for the Mazda3 SP20 – Australia’s highest sellingmotor vehicle and a direct sizecompetitor to the Nissan LEAF inparticular. Although differences wereobserved between the vehicles, the EVtransport energy cost saving is around50 per cent even allowing for ‘zeroemissions’ driving.Limitations with these calculationsinclude:• Gaps in the trial data-set, limitingthe number of vehicles from whichan average electricity economyfigure can be derived• Wide variation in the dailydriving distances, reducing themeaningfulness of the averagedistances used for the calculations• Functional mismatch betweenthe Mitsubishi i-MiEV and theMazda 3 SP20, reducing themeaningfulness of the comparison• Assumed fuel economy for theMazda 3 SP20, which may notreflect reality (for example, citybaseddriving would increase theEV savings; DOT 2012f)• Assumed energy costs for bothelectricity and petrol, which canbe expected to change over timeindependently of each other(AECOM 2011).A separate limitation relates tocalculation of operating costs forthe Prius PHEVs. As these vehiclesutilised both electricity and petrolfrom external sources, significantchallenges exist in obtaining reliabledata and/or accounting for missingdata. These issues have been setout more clearly in the GreenPoweraccounting report released by the trial(DOT 2012d), along with an operatingcost analysis method for PHEV drivers.Based upon the electricity usefigures obtained, it is clear thatsignificant variation exists in theextent to which individual PHEVusers rely upon electricity. Possibleexplanations for this includemismatches between driving needsand charging opportunities, or a lackof awareness or understanding of howto access the cost savings provided byelectric-operation.Attribute i-MiEV LEAFAverage daily driving distance (km/day) 26.4 31.6Average energy economy (kWh/km) 0.150 0.183Daily electricity cost ($/day) 0.99 1.45Weekly electricity cost ($/wk) 6.93 10.12Saving relative to Mazda 3 SP20 (%) 56.1 46.4Table 4. Renewable electricity operating costs for the trial household i-MiEV assignments (n = 45) and LEAF assignments (n = 31);GreenPower tariff assumed to be $0.25/kWh, Mazda 3 SP20 fuel economy = 6.1 L/100km, petrol price $1.40/L.CREATING A MARKET 41

4.2.5 What are the issuesand opportunities for electricvehicles in households?Electric vehicle technology, even asthe technology currently stands, holdsgreat promise for more widespreadadoption by households. Based uponthe results obtained, EVs are suitablefor drivers averaging up to around 50kilometres per day. For average dailydriving distances of 50-80 kilometres,alternate solutions would includeworkplace charging and/or PHEVs.Beyond this, HEVs and ICEVs wouldlikely be the best choice.However, the significant minority ofdrivers who did not accept the trialelectric vehicles as their everydaytransport choice indicates that thetechnology is not for everyone. This sitsalongside the much greater number ofpeople who simply aren’t aware of ordon’t know much about EVs.These observations have beencombined to form a conceptualmodel for electric vehicle take-upby households. Figure 23 shows thedifferent groupings of householdsaccording to where they sit againstthe key attributes of EV awareness,understanding and acceptance, andaverage daily driving distance. Eachhousehold grouping has been scaledto provide some indication of therelative size of this grouping. Thelargest grouping, the mainstreammarket, are potential EV adopterswho need to be made aware of, moreknowledgeable about and ultimatelymore accepting of the technology.Given that electric vehicles are a viabletransport option for a majority ofVictorian drivers, the clear obstacle totake-up is purchase price. Section 4.1.3provides a discussion on the potentialfor improvement in this area, howeversignificant change is required beforeEV technology becomes financiallyviable for the majority of households.Marketing of EVs to early-adoptersshould focus on technology anddriving pleasure/vehicle performance,backed up with messages relating tooperating costs and the environment.Interestingly, no difference wasobserved in the vehicle usebehaviours between early-adopterand mainstream market households.This suggests that these messagesmay remain effective through tomainstream market adoption, even ifthe emphasis should move towardscost savings.HIGHEarlyadoptersWorkplacechargersPHEVsAWARENESSUNDERSTANDING ANDACCEPTANCE OF EVsLOWMainstreammarketNon-EVdrivers< 50 km / day 50 – 80 km / dayAVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCEFigure 23. Conceptual model for electric vehicle take-up by households based upon trial results.

Experience from overseas suggeststhat non-financial measures can behighly effective in promoting consumeradoption of new vehicle technologies.In California single-occupant hybridvehicles were permitted to travel inhigh-occupancy vehicle (car-pooling)lanes from 2005 to 2011 (LA Times2011). Around 10,000 Clean Air Vehiclestickers were issued to cars that metstringent emissions and fuel efficiencystandards from 2005 to 2007 as part ofefforts to promote consumer uptake.In the year the program began, salesof hybrid vehicles increased from85,000 vehicles nationally to 207,000,and continued growing to 353,000 in2007 when the last sticker was handedout. Once the stickers stopped beinghanded out, hybrid vehicles with thesticker sold for more than $USD 1,000above comparable vehicles withoutthe sticker. Although the programhas sunset for hybrid vehicles, pluginvehicles are now eligible andbeing marketed by manufacturersaccordingly (Ford 2012).4.3 FLEET VEHICLE ROLL-OUT4.3.1 What fleets areinterested in electricvehicles and why?Government fleets, particularly localgovernment, are a key market forelectric vehicles. Motivations relateprimarily to environmental objectivesfor their fleet operations or fortheir organisation more generally.Private sector interest has arisenpredominantly through the electricitymarket, motivated by businessplanning and/or brand-building.A breakdown of the fleet participantsin the trial according to sectorindicates that government fleets area key market for electric vehicles,followed by the private sector – referto Figure 24. Further analysis ofthese segments indicates that localgovernment is the primary source ofinterest, representing nearly 30 percent of trial fleet participants overall.Within the private sector, participantsare most commonly sourced from theelectricity market, with three out offive being goods and service providerswithin this sector.Fleet interest in electric vehicles isstrongly motivated by environmentalcommitments relating to their fleetoperations. Figure 26 illustrates thisthrough the results of a survey ofattendees at EV-related workshopstargeted at fleet managers.Higher education 9%Private sector 38%Government 47%Not-for-profit 6%Figure 24. Sectoral breakdown of fleets participating in the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial (n = 41).CREATING A MARKET 43

EARLY ADOPTER FLEETS CASE STUDYLOCAL GOVERNMENT FLEETS IN AUSTRALIAThe third tier of Australian government, local government, is responsible for community needs such astown planning, waste collection and recreational facilities (Aust Govt 2012). There are about 560 localgovernment bodies in Australia, employing around 178,000 people (ALGA 2012). About one in four localgovernment bodies are ‘cities’, the name historically given to urban or suburban local government areas(Wiki 2012).In 2008 a survey was undertaken of local government fleet operations (ICLEI 2009). The survey gatheredresponses from 58 urban and 9 rural councils participating in the Cities for Climate Protection program,representing 8 per cent of all Australian local government bodies at the time. Councils reported on atotal of 12,097 vehicles, of which around two thirds were passenger and light commercial vehicles.Of the councils who took part in the survey, almost three quarters reported having specific goals orobjectives in place relating to the environmental performance of their fleet.Local government procurement methods include autonomous procurement by individual councils,demand aggregation through state government contracts or third party aggregators, and regionalprocurement clusters (Ernst & Young 2008). Third party demand aggregation contracts exist for bothvehicle and fuel procurement (Local Government Procurement 2012, Procurement Australia 2012). InVictoria, local government expenditure on vehicle purchasing in 2006/07 was estimated to be$65–70 million (Ernst & Young 2008).On a separate but related note, trial experience has found that the majority of local government fleetsoperate from sites which are owned by them. This is good news in the context of charging infrastructureroll-out. However, differences arise in the vehicle assignment (such as pool, tool-of-trade), and overnightgaraging of vehicles (which may be at the depot or at employees’ homes).Most local government fleets operate one or more fuel-card systems that allow staff to refuel vehicles onan as-needs basis and according to the internal rules-of-use, and require staff to fill out log-sheets forreconciliation with Fringe Benefits Tax.Figure 25. City of Kingston trial vehicle.

In terms of who drives the decisionmaking,attendees to the fleet EVworkshops were asked about previousdecision-making around deploymentof the Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle intotheir fleet. According to responsesfrom those attendees who had a Priusand knowledge of the factors behindthe procurement decision, the FleetManagement team was identified ashaving the strongest influence, aheadof the CEO/Executive team and theEnvironment team – refer to Figure 27.Does your organisation have any environmental commitments relatingto your fleet purchasing/operations?No, but are expectingthere will be in futureDon’t knowYesBuilding on this, attendees atthe workshops were asked aboutmeasures that would most effectivelypromote EV adoption by their fleetwithin the next two years. Withreference to Table 5, attendees wereof the view that getting buy-in fromtheir senior management held themost promise in terms of influencingtheir organisation’s EV uptake.When making the decision to adopt a hybrid into your fleet, who do youbelieve had the most influence on this decision?Environment team 23%CEO/Executive team 30%Fleet Management team 47%Figure 26 (Top). Survey responses from attendees at three EV workshop events staged in 2012, where the response‘No and not expecting any’ was not selected by any attendees (n = 39).Figure 27 (Above). Survey responses from attendees at three electric vehicle workshops held in 2012, where the response ‘Marketing’was not selected by any attendees (n = 30).CREATING A MARKET 45

4.3.2 How do fleets useelectric vehicles?At this early stage of the market,corporate fleets are predominantlyusing EVs to evidence theirCorporate Social Responsibility(CSR) commitments and to gatherinformation in support of forwardbusiness planning. These deploymentdecisions are contributing to relativeunder-utilisation of the vehicles interms of distance travelled.With reference to Table 6, theaverage daily distance travelled bythe trial vehicles when operatingas part of corporate fleets issignificantly less than for otherVictorian fleet applications.Feedback from the trial fleetparticipants indicates that deploymentdecisions have been the strongestinfluence on this relative underutilisation.Customer, staff andcommunity engagement activitieswere prioritised by most trialparticipants, in between which thevehicles were often moved aroundto gain insights into their suitabilityfor different service duties. Thishas translated to reduced distancestravelled relative to purely-operationalvehicles over the nominal three-monthtrial vehicle assignment periods.While the trial fleet participants wereon the whole very positive about theirEV experience, other issues were notedthat may have also contributed to thisrelative under-utilisation:• The ‘EV learning curve’ in termsof trip planning, charging andrange management was citedas a major barrier to use,particularly in situations wherethe vehicle was relativelyunsupported in terms of a‘champion’ to promote and assist• The 12 volt battery issue for thei-MiEV in particular (refer Section4.1.2) was cited as a deterrent foruse by some fleet operators.OptionAverage score(out of 5)Std devGaining strong top-down commitment from senior management within your organisation 4.2 0.8Access to an independent EV coalition to potentially reduce up-front costs and provide broadassistance with EV roll-out4.1 0.7Providing more options for improved visibility of EVs such as dedicated on-street charging sites 3.9 0.8Improving the processes required for installing EV infrastructure on your premises to reducecosts and streamline installation3.9 0.9Assistance with efficient charge management strategies to maximise the utilisation of your EV 3.8 0.6Providing information packages on effective EV roll-out for fleet managers 3.8 0.7More concrete information on the environmental benefits of EV technology 3.8 0.9ApplicationAverage daily driving distance (km)Victorian EV Trial fleet participants 22Victorian EV Trial household participants 32Vehicle with privately-paid running costs – Melbourne metro (DOT 2012a) 33Vehicle with company-paid running costs – Melbourne metro (DOT 2012a) 54Victorian Government pool fleet average (DTF 2012) 77Table 5 (Top). Results from a survey of EVs & Fleets 2012 workshop attendees on their opinions of the options to promote adoptionof EVs by their corporate fleet (n = 32; “In the NEXT TWO YEARS which of these do you think would PROMOTE the adoption of EVsby your fleet?”; marks out of 5 where 5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree)Table 6 (Above). Average daily driving distances for fleet vehicles – a relative comparison

Despite this relative under-utilisation,fleet participants were generally verypositive about their electric vehicleexperience, indicating that the vehicleshad been successful in promotingtheir organisation and informingfuture business planning. Corporatesustainability/branding, environmentalbenefits, operational cost and futuretotal cost of ownership savings wereall cited as important benefits ofEV uptake by fleets following theirtrial involvement.4.3.3 How much does it costfor an average fleet to runan EV?Fleet EV energy costs provide around60 per cent saving on a comparablepetrol vehicle, even allowing forrenewable energy purchase in supportof ‘zero emissions driving’. Challengesexist in making reliable calculationsof PHEV operating costs which mayprevent their benefits from beingrealised by fleet operators.Based upon the energy economyfigures obtained for the differentvehicle types, energy costs perkilometre can be calculated – refer toTable 7. These figures are based upona commercial electricity tariff thatincludes an additional component forrenewable energy.Much of what is written in Section 4.2.4about the household costs of runningan electric vehicle applies to the fleetassessment also.Due to the disconnect between thevehicle driver and the fleet manager,the challenges in accounting for energyuse and by extension the operatingcosts of PHEVs are more significantfor fleets than for households (DOT2012d). A recent news item from theNetherlands tells of PHEVs whichare being operated solely on petrol(Autoblog 2012a) in spite of a likelyfinancial incentive to do otherwise.This may be partly explained by thedifficulties in accessing informationthat highlights the cost advantage fromoptimised electric-only operation.4.3.4 What are the issuesand opportunities for electricvehicles in fleets?EVs currently provide fleets withthe opportunity to showcase theirorganisation’s ‘brand’ through a highlyvisible and engaging corporate asset.However, the cost of electric vehicleownership for fleets is currentlyprohibitive in both financial and nonfinancialterms, and technical barriersexist in relation to range/charging. Thesignificance of these items is expectedto change as the EV market evolves,moving the emphasis towards theoperational cost advantages ofEV technology.The brand-building benefits of EVs aremost beneficial for organisations withenvironmental or CSR commitments,and/or business alignment withEV technology in some way. Basedupon the trial experience, theseorganisations are predominantly(local) government, or electricitymarket or electrical goods and serviceproviders. Surveys of the trial fleetparticipants found that the vehicleswere very effective promotional toolsfor these organisations.Further investigation indicates thatmany fleets are recognising themarketing value of the vehicles withinthe business case to support EVpurchase. Specifically, the purchaseprice difference between an EV anda comparable ICE vehicle is beingaddressed through a contribution fromthe organisation’s marketing budget.This approach also addresses theresidual value risk of EVs, wherebythe expected high rate of depreciationfor the new technology can be dealtwith as part of the business case byeffectively ‘writing off’ the marketingbudget contribution to the originalpurchase price.Attribute i-MiEV LEAFAverage energy economy (kWh/km) 0.150 0.179Renewable electricity cost ($/km) 0.030 0.036Saving relative to Mazda 3 SP20 (%) 64.9 58.1Table 7. Renewable electricity operating costs for the trial fleet participants; GreenPower tariff assumed to be $0.25/kWh,Mazda 3 SP20 fuel economy = 6.1 L/100km, petrol price $1.40/L.CREATING A MARKET 47

Recognising this near-term marketingobjective, relevant insights gainedfrom trial fleet electric vehicleroll-out included:• The i-MiEV’s distinctiveappearance provided animmediate advantage relative tothe more conventional-lookingNissan LEAF – this is consistentwith historical observationsregarding the Toyota Prius and itssales performance relative to lessdistinctiveHEV competitors• Design and application of eyecatchingand informative brandingfor the trial vehicles was perhapsthe most crucial success factor forthe trial fleet participants (referto Figure 28) – the availabilityof exterior vehicle dimensionsand/or design data, along withgood relationships with vehiclelivery designers/applicators wereimportant ingredients to deliveryof the vehicle branding• Ensuring the vehicle was fullyintegratedwith the organisation’swider internal/external marketingefforts was an important startingpoint for the successful trial fleetparticipants – online videos of thebranded vehicle were a popularchoice by the more successfulparticipants, as was integrationinto messaging around renewableenergy use strategies alreadybeing pursued• Advanced marketing strategiesincluded use of visible charginglocations/opportunities, such ascharging outlets located in front ofthe fleet’s own corporate premises– this builds on the observationthat ‘plugged-in’ vehicles are mosteffective at engaging passers-by• The environmental bona fides ofthe vehicles were underwrittenby the former Department ofTransport’s ‘zero emissions’ trialcommitment (DOT 2012) – thisallowed the fleet operators toconfidently leverage the nominalenvironmental benefits of thetechnology.Despite the clear promotionalbenefits from EV acquisition andsuccessful trial experience, only threetrial fleet participants are knownto have acquired their own vehiclesfollowing participation. The primaryobstacle cited by participants isprice, although the range/chargingissues were also cited as a significantobstacle to uptake.The business case for electric vehicleacquisition is strongly dependentupon upfront purchase price and theresidual value at the time of disposal.By way of example, in recent timesthe Victorian Government has turnedvehicles over at service intervalsof three years or 60,000 kilometres(whichever came first).Figure 28. An example of the trial fleet vehicle branding

Within the traditional fleet assetmanagement model, the operationalcost savings within this period mustexceed the initial purchase pricepenalty and residual value riskassociated with electric vehicle uptake.This is summed up by the responseof one fleet manager to an electricvehicle supply proposal:They’ve said they can do an EV for thesame total package cost over threeyears as one of my current vehicles –but if I’m not going to save anything,why would I bother?Victorian fleet manager, 2012A range of opportunities exist toaddress these issues, some of whichare being addressed through theVictorian Electric Vehicle Trial:• Fleet purchasing coalition –combining the EV procurementactivities of a number oforganisations is beneficial forsuppliers and customers alike(refer Local Government fleetsbreakout in Section 4.3.1). Tothis end the trial has partneredwith The Climate Group andSouth Australian Governmentto investigate a fleet purchasingcoalition for Australia, the resultsfrom which will be released inearly 2013• Market competition – by creatingconsumer interest and removingbarriers to market access, thetrial is seeking to attract morevehicles into the market and indoing so create competition thatwill have a downwards influenceon vehicle prices• Marketing contribution –as described above, some fleetsare seeking to address the initialpurchase price/residual valuerisk issue through a contributionfrom their marketing budget,however this approach is not likelyto extend much beyond the firstvehicle purchase by any fleet• Guaranteed buy-backs – the trialEV residual value risk for VictorianGovernment was addressed withguaranteed buy-back priceslocked in at the time of purchasewith both Nissan and Mitsubishi;these experiences can be expectedto inform the business planningof both organisations as theyapproach EV fleet salesmore broadly.An additional cost issue identifiedas part of the fleet roll-out is theresource commitment associatedwith successful deployment of EVs.Compared to conventional vehicles,there are significantly higher overheadsassociated with the business casedesign, procurement process, chargingstrategy design and implementation,vehicle management, projectcommunications and marketing,and staff training. In addition,organisations must acquire theknowledge and skills to complete thesetasks in order to realise the benefitsfrom their EV investment.TimeDescription9:00 – 9:10 Introduction9:10 – 9:30 EV technology 1019:30 – 10:00 Procurement options panel discussion10:00 – 10:30 Practical roll-out plan10:30 – 10:50 Morning tea / networking / charging outletdemonstrations10:50 – 11:30 Staff engagement and training panel discussionBenchmarking of the trial fleetparticipant experiences informedthe design of two half-day trainingworkshops delivered in early 2012 toaddress the information barriers tosuccessful EV roll-out by corporatefleet operators. The topic breakdownfrom these workshops is provided inTable 8, with additional information inAppendix A – Victorian EV Trial corporateparticipants.11:30 – 12:00 Future business planning12:00 – 12:30 Realising the value of your investment12:30 – 1:15 Lunch / networking / EV test-drivesTable 8. EVs and Fleets 2012 training workshop agenda.CREATING A MARKET 49

One of the objectives of the guidanceabove is to optimise the vehicleutilisation once in-service, and withthis the operational cost savings. Animplication of the observed underutilisationof the trial vehicles isthe reduced operational cost savinginput into the total cost of ownershipbusiness case. This will work againstEV uptake, which means addressingbarriers to vehicle utilisation should bea priority to promote fleet adoption.The inter-related issues of limitedrange, long charging times and a lackof widespread charging infrastructureavailability were cited by trial fleetparticipants and attendees at the fleetworkshops as a major barrier to morewidespread fleet adoption of EVs.Options to address this include:• Larger vehicle batteries – thiswould increase range, but at theexpense of purchase price andcharging time• Faster charging – next-generationEVs are likely to be capable ofdrawing 32 amps, which willeffectively halve the current‘standard’ charging times;sufficient electrical supply mustbe available or installed to supportthe increased demand (refer toSection 5.1)• Public charging network –including specifically quickcharging and/or battery swap,would greatly increase theeffective range of the vehicles,or possibly even support reducedbattery size/vehicle cost forhighly predictable vehicleapplications that align with thecharging network• Corporate charging network –including charging locations atcorporate sites, staff residencesand common corporate fleetdestinations (such as customerfacilities); this approach mayprovide additional brand-buildingbenefits (by increasing the visibilityof the vehicles whilst plugged-inat strategic locations), as wellas the battery size/vehicle costoptimisation described above.The contrasting nature of these optionshighlights the importance of fleetservice duty analysis and matchingto the EV/charging solution. Serviceduties may include tool-of-trade, pool,executive, and a range of other specificpurpose vehicle applications. Of these,vehicles which return to a centrallocation are more easily supportedwith a simple charging solution;however vehicles which operate onpredictable and relatively high mileageroutes provide potentially the greatestopportunity for EVs. By way of example,salary-packaged vehicles for staff thatcommute relatively long distances maybe supported with a home/workplacecharging strategy that will deliversignificant savings in transport energycosts that may be shared between boththe employer and the employee.Discussions with the trial fleetparticipants found that those whohad most successfully integrated theelectric vehicles into their operationalfleet were:• Designating an electric vehicle‘champion’ who can manage andpromote the vehicle/s, and trainand support staff• Mostly assigning the vehicles tosmall groups of (enthusiastic)staff, who could becomefamiliar with the vehicle throughregular use and report on theirexperiences to others• Providing staff with one-on-one/tailored training in use of the EV(EV meet’n’greet sessions werepopular, and one large fleetoperator developed an onlinetraining/assessment tool)• Actively promoting the EV to staff,and characterising it as new,exciting and interesting• Providing feedback to staff ontheir own and their organisation’sEV experience.Conversely, the various issues thatmake up the electric vehicle learningcurve were routinely cited by fleetsin instances where operational useof the vehicles had either not beenattempted or was less than successful.Noting the non-existent or less-thanidealnature of the route-planningand charge-management technologyemployed in the trial (refer to Sections4.1.1 and 5.1.1), these issues may beat least partly addressed by improvedtechnology for management ofthe vehicle.

CORPORATE CHARGING NETWORK CASE STUDYNHP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING PRODUCTSAs a supplier of industrial electrical and automation products, NHP’s core business is in goodalignment with EV technology. NHP also have a commitment to environmental sustainability,including through a Sustainability Centre where many of their products are evaluated anddemonstrated in renewable energy applications. This background has meant that NHP wereideally placed for participation in the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial.NHP have taken a holistic outlook towards translating this strategic alignment to theirfleet operations through their corporate EV charging strategy:• To maximise visibility, an EV charging solution has been installed out the front of NHP’scorporate headquarters• To maximise vehicle utility, an EV charging solution has been installed at the most common parkinglocation for the vehicle at NHP’s manufacturing and distribution centre, around 25 kilometresfrom their corporate headquarters• To support their standard fleet practices, charging outlets have been installed at some of the moredistant NHP staff residences to allow the EVs to be garaged at these locations overnight.As a result of their corporate electric vehicle charging strategy, NHP have averaged nearly doublethe daily EV driving distance for the trial fleet participants, at 41 kilometres per day (km/day) for thei-MiEV and 46 km/day for the LEAF (at the halfway point for that vehicle assignment). Over this sametime, NHP have trialled the vehicles in a number of different fleet service duties, and leveraged thetrial vehicles for promotional opportunities. Should they go on to deploy EVs in their fleet operations,it is not unreasonable to expect that NHP will record much greater average daily driving distanceseven using the current generation of EV technology.Figure 29. NHP ElectricalEngineering Products brandedtrial vehicle parked in frontof their SustainabilityCentre, located at theirmanufacturing anddistribution centre inLaverton North.CREATING A MARKET 51

CHARGINGINFRASTRUCTUREROLL-OUTThe Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial charginginfrastructure roll-outhas sought to establishthe foundations ofVictoria’s EV chargingnetwork as an open andcompetitive market ofdifferent technologiesand business models.The department hasacted as an ‘honestbroker’ in the formationof this new market,insulating providers,hosts and users fromcommercial andnon-commercial risk.

Nearly 140 household, fleetand publicly-accessiblecharging outlets have beendeployed up to the mid-pointof the trial. Providers haverolled out the infrastructurethrough a non-prescriptiveapproach beyond basic‘rules of engagement’developed in consultationwith key stakeholders.Deployment and operationof the charging infrastructurehas been benchmarked,providing insights into theissues and opportunitiesassociated with this newmarket. An understandingof costs and benefits hasbeen obtained, which willinform planning critical tothe successful uptake ofelectric vehicles.5.1 CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE5.1.1 What are thearrangements for the trialcharging infrastructure?The trial charging infrastructureis delivered under a model whichaddresses the early-market investmentrisks for the relevant parties. Thedelivery model has also sought toidentify least-cost approaches toinform cost benchmarking activities,and facilitate creation of a legacyelectric vehicle charging networkfor Victoria.The former Department of Transportengaged charging infrastructureproviders under service provisionagreements that provide a frameworkfor the infrastructure delivery,operation, removal and transition ofresponsibilities – refer to Figure 30:CHARGINGINFRASTRUCTUREOPERATOR• Once installed, the charginginfrastructure operates for theperiod of trial participation• Towards the end of this period,the charging infrastructureoperator provides the site owner/occupant with an offer to retainthe infrastructure• The negotiation of this offeris undertaken by both partiesdrawing upon the knowledgeacquired through trialparticipation, allowing them tomore clearly understand the costsand benefits involved• If no agreement is reached, thecharging infrastructure is removedand the site remediated to the siteowner/occupant’s satisfaction.CHARGINGINFRASTRUCTUREOPERATORCharging infrastructureservice agreementVictorianGovernmentOffer to retain charginginfrastructureOpen marketcommercialagreementCharging infrastructurehost agreementSITE OWNERSITE OWNERTRIAL MODELPOST-TRIAL MODELFigure 30. Schematic of the commercial model developed for the trial charging infrastructure.CREATING A MARKET 53

With reference to Figure 5, thelocation of the charging outlet drivesmuch of the costs associated withthe charging circuit. As the decisionon location generally rests with thesite owner/occupier, under the trialarrangements, they bear the costsof the charging circuit. Householdswere an exception to this, howeversome contribution to the costs wassought in instances where either theyinsisted upon a solution other thanthe least-cost approach, or anelectrical supply upgrade to theirproperty was required (which is ageneral home improvement).5.1.2 What charginginfrastructure is beingused in the trial?In recognition of the very early stateof the market development, a rangeof providers have been engaged forthe trial household, fleet and publiccharging outlets.As a result of the March 2010 EOIprocess, a range of EV charginginfrastructure technology and serviceproviders were engaged in support ofthe trial. These were supplementedby additional technology and serviceproviders who joined the trial to accessa range of benefits, including gainingexperience in charging the range oftrial vehicles or simply in supportof information exchange. The list ofcharging infrastructure providerstaking part in the trial, their role andthe equipment supplied is detailedin Table 9.5.1.3 What are the relevantfeatures of the trial charginginfrastructure?The trial charging outlets are of‘Level 2’ standard and have minimumrequirements relating to vehiclecompatibility, data provision and safety.Beyond this, the charging outletsare proprietary solutions tailoredto the specific application. Throughbenchmarking and consultation, a listof relevant attributes has been definedto inform procurement processes fordedicated EV charging outlets.As a minimum requirement, trialcharging outlets need to be compatiblewith the vehicles and have enhancedsafety and data collection/managementcapabilities relative to conventionalwall sockets. Additional features areincluded according to the needs ofthe site, for example a public siterequires enhanced security anddamage protection.According to the industry terminology,the charging infrastructure deployedin the trial was of ‘Level 2’ standard.This means that it is a 240 voltcircuit (standard for Australia), andincludes some interaction with thevehicle as set out by the SAE J1772technical specification as part of thecharging activity initiation. At the trialoutset, ‘Level 1’ standard charginginfrastructure was deployed in termsof vehicle interaction due to the trialMitsubishi i-MiEV vehicle specification.In 2011 a modification was made to thevehicles to allow for standardisation ofthe charging infrastructure to Level 2specification (refer to Section 5.1.4 forfurther explanation of this).Although the trial vehicles only draw15 amps current maximum, the trialcharging circuits are standardised to‘future-protect’ for the next-generationEVs that are expected to draw 32 amps.However, for locations with insufficientelectrical supply this specificationwas de-rated to 16 amps to avoidcostly upgrades.

The trial charging infrastructure varieswidely in user feedback and networksupport. All charging outlets providefeedback at the point of use. Howeverthis varies from a simple beep/flashinglight to indicate changes in operationalstatus, to LCD screens able to provideguidance, promotional and/or chargingactivity information. While it maybe argued that more information isbetter, the cost trade-off is generallynot insignificant. An example of thisis stand-by power consumption. Fora charging outlet equipped with an‘always on’ LCD screen, this mayequate to an additional 20 per centenergy consumption for a typicalhousehold EV driver (DOT 2012c).Although all charging outlets arenominally networked, only someprovide network visibility from theuser perspective. One networkoperator provides users with real-time/remotely-accessible information onthe charging status of their outlets,charge management capability and asuite of data analytics. Other networkoperators provide reduced levelsof support, due to the point they’vereached in their Australian businessdevelopment and/or overall corporatestrategy/business model.Three quick chargers were contractedfor delivery at the start of the trial in2010. As of December 2012, a site workorder has been released for one quickcharger and an agreement-in-principlereached for another.Benchmarking of a procurementactivity undertaken by the SouthernCalifornia Association of LocalGovernment informed a survey ofthe trial charging infrastructureproviders on the relevant features forspecification of charging infrastructure.These attributes should be consideredby any entity procuring dedicated EVcharging outlets. For more information,refer to Appendix C – Charging outletattribute list.ProviderBetter PlaceBoschChargePointClub AssistDiUS Computing(ChargeIQ)ECOtality (Blink)General Electric(GE)JuicepointSiemensTrial roleContractedservice providerCharginginfrastructureoperatorContractedservice providerCharginginfrastructureoperatorContractedservice providerContractedservice providerCharginginfrastructureoperatorTrial partner(observer role)Trial partner(observer role)Equipment supplied / operatedHousehold Fleet Public Other27 7 4 -2 2 - -31 11 2 Quick charger provider(x 2)- - 1 SAE J1772 aftermarketvehicle solution (x 2);Mobile charging solution(roadside assistance)18 - - Grid-integrated chargingsolution (‘ZigBee’communications protocol)21 6 6 -- - 1 -- - - -- - - -Total 99 26 14Table 9. Breakdown of charging infrastructure providers and equipment taking part in the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial as ofDecember 2012.CREATING A MARKET 55

5.1.4 How do users ‘roam’across the trial charginginfrastructure network?Participants have been able touse the various charging outletsprovided under the trial through theprovision of cables to match vehiclesto charging outlets, RFID cards toactivate the outlets, and informationto guide planning and use. Paymentfor use has generally occurredthrough the underlying electricitybilling arrangements for the site.Arrangements for the trial have beennegotiated on a business-to-businessbasis by the Department, includingwith vehicle suppliers, charginginfrastructure providers and hosts.Despite general agreement on thegoal for streamlined network roamingcapability, there is limited appetite foran industry standard at this stage ofthe market development due primarilyto cost/time constraints.Drawing upon the model provided byNous (2010), roaming by users acrossdifferent charging outlets and serviceproviders is underpinned by basicelements of system ‘interoperability’:1. Physical compatibility – theelectrical connection plugconfiguration must match theoutlet2. Systems compatibility – the onboardvehicle system must beable to interact with the chargingoutlet controller3. Financial reconciliation –arrangements must be in placeto allow for the various costsassociated with the chargingactivity to be reconciled4. User information – users mustknow where to find chargingoutlets and how to use them.Various layers of complexity may beadded to these elements to supportmore advanced system models.By way of example, identificationof users as part of the systemscompatibility will allow for moreadvanced financial reconciliationthrough user accounts and acrosscharging infrastructure providers.At the start of the trial, some of theissues included physical and systemscompatibility. Some fixes were neededto allow for basic user roaming:• Each charging infrastructureprovider technology has its ownsystem activation strategy mostlyutilising proprietary RFID cards –each trial participant is assigneda unique set of RFID cards forthe relevant vendors, which alsoenables charging activity data tobe reconciled to individual users• One charging infrastructureprovider adopted the IEC 62196‘Mennekes’ connectors asopposed to the SAE J1772 asfeatured by the trial vehicles – inaddition to their existing cables,each trial vehicle was kitted outwith a ‘floating’ cable that utilisedthe SAE standard on the vehicleendand the Mennekes standardon the infrastructure-end• The Model Year (MY) 2010Mitsubishi i-MiEVs were found touse a superseded specificationfor the on-vehicle charging outlet,resulting in varying degrees ofphysical incompatibility withthe charging infrastructure –modifications of the chargingcables were required to ensurephysical compatibility withthe vehicles• The MY2010 i-MiEV and the UKproduction-specification MY2011Nissan LEAFs utilised differentcharging protocols, preventingthem from being charged fromthe same specification outletsand ensuring network systemcompatibility – a modificationto the MY2010 i-MiEV chargingoutlet was undertaken to allowit to be charged using the SAEJ1772 Level 2 charging protocol,supported by warranties from thecharging infrastructure providers• The Toyota Prius PHEV preproductionprototype vehicleswere found to use an unfamiliarcharging protocol for many of thecharging infrastructure providers– this required some adaptationby the charging infrastructureproviders to ensure systemcompatibility• A commercial charging stationusing the SAE J1772 standardwas installed at a site whereaftermarket EV conversions werein operation, necessitating avehicle-based solution to allowfor both physical and systemcompatibility – the charginginfrastructure provider ClubAssist were able to provide acertified aftermarket solutionthat was accepted by the othercharging infrastructure providersto allow for vehicle roamingacross the network.

Through these efforts, trial participantscan use the network of chargingoutlets operated by seven providers.They are assured of physicalcompatibility (the plugs match thesockets), systems compatibility (RFIDcards and vehicle responses willactivate the charging sequence), andare provided with sufficient informationto allow them to navigate their wayaround the charging network and usethe equipment.Financial reconciliation of chargingactivities was an issue of muchdiscussion at the outset of the trial.A discussion paper was authored forthe most complicated of scenariosrelating to on-street charging (DOT2011), however the outcome haslargely defaulted to the site owner andbilling recipient for the electricity usedby the charging outlet paying for theelectricity costs associated with use.The main influence on this outcomehas been the transaction costsassociated with processing a relativelynovel transaction as compared tobusiness-as-usual.The only instances where costs havebeen associated with the chargingactivity are when the financialtransaction is not automated (notethat a charging activity ‘flat-rate’has been adopted in these instancesto avoid the on-selling of electricitythat is prohibited under electricitymarket rules).User information has beenstandardised in terms of a commoninformation source (the trial website)and typology (charging outletdescription, access arrangements,signage). The preferred approach toutilise Google maps as the primarynetwork information source wasconfounded by the need for a postcardcontaining the activation code forthe listing to be sent to the listingbusiness address.As charging outlets are unmannedfacilities, it proved impossible to havethese postcards be received andthe listing activated. At this point intime, the trial webpage ‘Where do Icharge my car?’ remains the primaryinformation source for trial participantsseeking to navigate their wayaround the charging network.This represents a significantopportunity for improvement that iscurrently limited by the small marketfor this information.Standardisation of signage for EVparking and charging has beenprogressed by the Victorian roadregulator through the national signagestandards working group – refer toFigure 31. Visual recognition testingand review by other road signageregulators has underpinned what ishoped to be the universal EV symbolto be adopted nationally.Figure 31. VicRoads-designed EV parking symbol, which has been endorsed for use in-principle nationally(VicRoads drawing no.V130 11 ).11 Contact tem@roads.vic.gov.auCREATING A MARKET 57

Consultation with the trial charginginfrastructure providers found thatuniversal agreement existed on thegoal for full interoperability acrossdifferent EV charging networks. Thisgoal was agreed to be outside the trialtimeframe due to the large numberof higher priority issues that needto be dealt with in the near-term bythe fledgling companies involved.The companies also agreed that fullinteroperability requires a uniqueand universally-recognised useridentification key.The trial experience in negotiatinga common data schema for use byall providers illustrated the issuesand opportunities in this space. Eachprovider characterises chargingevents taking place on their networkslightly differently, which necessitatedsome manipulation of data in mostcases to make it suitable for exportand incorporation into the main trialdata-set. The trial defined uniqueuser identification codes which weremaintained on a ‘look-up’ table to becross-referenced with the charginginfrastructure provider’s ownuser identification.In most cases it was found that theRFID cards issued by the charginginfrastructure providers formed theonly unique user identification, asan individual user account may havemultiple cards linked to it that aresupplied and/or replaced as needsarise. The Department’s look-up tableand user identification codes to whichthe charging infrastructure RFID cardsare mapped effectively provide a modelfor business-to-business or industrywideinteroperability models forthe future.5.1.5 What are the charginginfrastructure network issuesand opportunities?A clear issue for the charginginfrastructure network is provisionof information to would-be users.Information is not supplied in astandardised way, nor is it availablethrough easily-found or streamlinedchannels. This information is a keyenabler for promotion of awareness,understanding and acceptance ofEV technology. Additional opportunitiesexist to streamline user roamingacross the electric vehiclecharging network.Signage is a prime example of thechallenges and opportunities in thisspace. The visible presence of EVcharging stations has a recognisedimpact upon electric vehicle take-upand ultimately the economic benefitsto the state (refer to Sections 6.1.2and 6.1.3). Electric vehicle driversneed to locate the actual bays in whichcharging of their vehicle is possible –no small challenge in large multi-levelcar-parks. Educating non-EV driverson recognition and avoidance of EVparking bays is critical to increasingEV driver confidence, recovering thevalue of the charging infrastructureinvestment, and minimisingenforcement overheads.The foresight of the Victorian roadregulator has provided an excellentstarting point in the form of the EVsymbol depicted in Figure 31. However,this design is not currently availableonline, nor has it been formallyrecognised within the manual ofstandard drawings for road signs.Adoption of the symbol nationally willoccur at the discretion of the roadregulator in each jurisdiction.A further challenge in promoting morewidespread use of this symbol andstandardised signs generally lay in theuncertainty around the distributionof responsibilities. Local governmenthas responsibility for the majority ofinformational signage of this naturein the public domain, however thereare 79 councils in Victoria who mustbe educated as to the existence andappropriate use of these standardiseddesigns. For private property thesituation is even more complicateddue to the large number of potentialplayers who may be involved.Drawing upon lessons from both thefleet and public charging infrastructureroll-out (refer to Sections 5.3.2 and5.4.2), the best solution for the signageappears to be:• The road regulator in eachjurisdiction to formally adopt theEV signage symbol depicted inFigure 31 as part of their standarddrawings for road signs• Charging infrastructure providersto arrange for the signage design/manufacture as part of their‘turn-key’ EV charging product/service offering• A leading council to designstandard work practices andtraining of staff for signage,enforcement etc. in relation toEV parking arrangements, andfor them to make this informationavailable through the relevantlocal government networks.

To support trip planning and rangemanagement (refer to Section 4.2.2),electric vehicle drivers will also greatlybenefit from remotely-accessible, realtimeinformation about the chargingnetwork. Drivers need to be able to findcharging locations, understand howto access them and reliably plan ongaining access. Feedback from the trialparticipants suggests that an inabilityto access this information results inunderutilisation of both the vehiclesand the charging network, and reducesthe likelihood of EV take-up.The trial charging network directoryin the ‘Where do I charge my car?’webpage is a temporary and imperfectsolution. Although the information forall charging network locations hasbeen standardised and is linked toan online mapping resource, there isno integration into vehicle navigationsystems, no real-time information,and no easy pathway to engage withthe relevant service provider for eachcharging service/location (for example,to reserve a charging station inadvance of needing it, or to verify theparking bay/charging station as beingoperational and available for use).These are potential areas ofcompetitive advantage for individualproviders and so may be best left tothe market; however a centraliseddirectory would provide a virtualmarketplace for these services.Government and third-party solutionshave emerged internationally 12 , someof which have spawned innovationssuch as listings by private EV ownersoffering their home-charging stationfor EV drivers in-need. There are alsoa range of pilot and demonstrationprojects in the EU that are focusedspecifically on connected vehiclesolutions as a key input to the EV valueproposition 13 .However, discussions withinternational providers found a limitedappetite to extend their solution toVictoria. This is partly attributable tothe small size of the Victorian marketfor the foreseeable future, whichalso undermines the likelihood thata local charging network directorysolution will emerge. According to a2009 survey of U.S. experts in vehiclecommunications systems (CAR 2011),a comprehensive plan and fundingfor road network infrastructure arethe two main obstacles to widespreadconnected vehicle deployment.12 In the United States, www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations and www.plugshare.com13 For instance, www.ict4eveu.eu, www.mobieurope.eu, www.molecules-project.eu and www.smartcem-project.euCREATING A MARKET 59

The ‘holy grail’ is a fully-interoperablecharging network that supportsseamless user roaming acrossproviders, as is the case for bankingservices or mobile phone use. Whilethere is a consensus amongst industryparticipants on the desirability of thisscenario, it is unlikely in the neartermdue to the fledgling status of thecharging servicer provider industry(refer to Section 5.1.4). Lessons fromthe toll-roads industry and the bankingsector (Nous 2010) suggest thatcharging service providers will needto work with each other to progresstowards a better customer experienceoverall, even if there may be a role foran ‘honest broker’ to facilitatethis outcome.Business-to-business relationships areemerging internationally as a steppingstone towards this outcome (Green CarCongress 2013). One clear observationmade by all parties lay in the need for aunique data key for individual users – apotentially low-cost opportunity now interms of its potential benefits for thefuture, and a critical component of thetrial framework.An obstacle for the entire electricvehicle space relates to harmonisationof charging requirements andspecifications for different vehicletypes. Electric bikes and motorcyclesgenerally use conventional 10 ampGPO plug/cable as for most otherelectrical appliances. At the other endof the spectrum, electric commercialvehicles often employ industrial highvoltagecharging systems due to theirlarge batteries and need for shortcharging times to keep the vehicleson the road. Passenger vehicles sitsomewhere between the two, suchthat even quick charger technologyis generally different to what is beingused in commercial vehicles globally.These differences in chargingstrategies arise out of trade-offsbetween battery size, cost andcharging speed, the balance for whichchanges according to the vehicle type.Furthermore, the vehicles generallypark in different locations. As a resultof these issues, few opportunities existcurrently to deploy charging solutionsthat can satisfy a number of differentvehicle types. This creates furtherchallenges for the public chargingbusiness model as outlined inSection 5.4.5.Many of the standardisation issuesmay be addressed through a nationalstandards development process forelectric vehicles being delivered byStandards Australia with the supportof the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial(Standards Australia 2010). The mostsignificant workstream within thisproject is focused upon EV charginginfrastructure. Resumption of the workprogram following a hiatus as fundingissues are resolved is expected in 2013.A further issue relating to EV charginggenerally is the potential revenueimpact for government. Fuel exciseis a major contributor to governmentbudgets around the world, helping tofund those services that are not ableto be funded within themselves (forinstance, public education and health).In Australia, fuel excise raises thelargest amount of revenue of all taxeson specific goods (Aust Govt 2011).Increased use of electric vehicleswill reduce government revenues,as electricity is not subject to excise.Internationally, some jurisdictionsare responding to this by introducingannual fees for electric vehicles(CNET 2012).A corollary to the reduction in fuelexcise is the relative impact of carbonpricing. The Australian Government’sClean Energy Plan (2012) applies toelectricity but not transport fuels suchas petrol. Although the Department’sanalysis suggests that the relativeimpact of carbon pricing on thecompetitiveness of electric vehiclesis minor by comparison with oilprices (AECOM 2011), the contrastingtreatment of electricity compared toother transport fuels represents aregulatory barrier of the type discussedin Section 8.

5.2 HOME CHARGING5.2.1 How much doeshousehold charginginfrastructure cost?Household charging infrastructurecosts around $1,750 for the chargingcircuit and up to $2,500 for a fullyfeatureddedicated EV charging outlet.While the costs for the latter reflectuser preference and technology, thecharging circuit is a cost that reflectsthe specifics of the residence.Based upon the trial experience, homecharging outlets can vary in price from:• Less than $100 for a standardwall-socket• Up to around $500 for an entryleveldedicated EV charging outlet• Up to around $2,500 for a moreadvanced unit with a rangeof features.It should also be noted that as ofDecember 2012, one service providerprovides the charging outlet at nocost to the household under theterms of their ongoing serviceprovision agreement.The charging circuit varies significantlyin price according to the needsand wishes of the household. Withreference to Table 10, the averagecost for the charging infrastructurecircuit cost for the trial householdswas $1,750. Key influences on thisprice were distance from the point ofelectrical supply, the condition andcapacity of the electrical supply board,and the need for a free-standingcharging outlet as opposed to beingmounted off an existing structure.No.INSTALLATIONS94AVERAGE COST $ 1,750MEDIAN COST $ 1,429STD DEV $ 1,124MAX $ 6,650MIN $ 392Table10. Cost benchmarking of the trialhousehold charging circuits.Information sourced from thehouseholds prior to the initial sitevisit assisted with the installationplanning process, which sometimesincluded phone conversations withthe householder to source additionalinformation and/or negotiateleast-cost alternatives.With reference to Appendix D –Household charging infrastructurequestions proforma:• The age of the dwelling or dateof most recent major renovationprovided an early indication ofpotentially insufficient electricalsupply to support the addition ofan EV charging load• Photos of the meter/switchboardwere a good indicator of thepotential need for an electricalsupply upgrade or refurbishmentof the board itself (in support of acertificate of electrical safety)• Photos of the property and parkinglocation assisted with a subjectivereview for potential aestheticconcerns with regards the EVcharging outlet location – heritageor new/recently-renovatedhousing, along with locationswhere the charging outlet wouldbe visible from the front of theproperty increased the need toaddress aesthetic issues as partof the charging solution• Diagrams/house-plan mark-upsexplaining the property layout interms of the parking location/srelative to the point of meter/switchboard greatly assisted withinitial discussions to find theleast-cost approach – note thatthis information was able to besourced from less than 50 per centof participants• Observations from the photos/diagrams along with discussionswith the resident were also criticalto ensuring that charging cabletripping hazards were avoided– for instance, by consideringthe likely parking location andorientation in relation to thevehicle charging outlet location.CREATING A MARKET 61

Despite these efforts, around one infive dwellings required multiple visitsfrom the installers. Discussions withthe charging infrastructure providerssuggest that around half of thesemulti-visit sites were due to issuesthat may have been possible to discernfrom the initial information and withmore experience on behalf of theinstallers. The residual 10 per centof households for which multiple sitevisits were thought to be unavoidablecould be mostly attributed to thelimited ability to discern the need foran electrical supply upgrade without asite visit. Figure 32 suggests that thisestimate is correct based upon theconclusion that residences built earlierthan 1970 that have not undergonesignificant renovation in the interimare more likely to be in need of anelectricity supply upgrade.5.2.2 How is charginginfrastructure installedin households?Charging infrastructure is installed byelectrical contractors drawing uponinformation supplied by the household.From the time of the contractor beingnotified of the need for an installation,the process to handover usually takesabout five weeks.The average time to install a trialhousehold charging solution was35 days, even if there was somevariability across installations(standard deviation of 17 daysacross 94 installations).Key influences on the installationleadtime include:• The accuracy and extent ofinformation provided beforehanddescribing the household charginginstallation context• Involvement of a third party suchas a landlord or body corporate• The availability and responsivenessof the householder• Stipulation of target dates forthe installation at the time of therequest, and progress trackingthereafter (in other words, workingto a deadline)• Pre-approvals for installationswhere the site works are lessthan a reasonable thresholdvalue ($2,000 was selected forthe trial following the initialround of 14 installations)• The experience of the installer.25%20%Proportion15%10%5%0%1850 1900 1950 2000YearFigure 32. Results from the 2012 trial household application process illustrating the age of the housing stock for potential electricvehicle drivers in Victoria – this attribute was felt to be a key indicator of the need for an electrical supply upgrade (n = 2,200, “Canyou estimate about when your residence was built, or the most recent date it underwent a major renovation?”, DOT 2012b).

The general process for the householdcharging infrastructure installation canbe seen in Figure 33.Further explanation of what thesesteps encompass can be found below:1. Contract negotiation – the formalagreement for the household toparticipate in the trial is explainedand executed2. Site works planning – informationis sought from the householder toinform the charging infrastructuresolution (refer to Appendix D –Household charging infrastructurequestions proforma and Section5.2.1); answers are supplied tocharging infrastructure provideralong with contact details – thisis the start date for assessmentof the installation leadtime;charging infrastructure providercontacts household to bothprovide preliminary informationand prepare them to hear fromthe installation subcontractor;charging infrastructure providerequips installer with relevanthardware, including pre-codedRFID ‘membership’ card3. Site works – installer arrangessite visit, during which thecharging solution is installed/commissioned if possible; issuespreventing immediate installationare referred back to the charginginfrastructure provider forfurther action – this may involvedeliberation on the preferredsolution and negotiation withthe householder4. Handover – charging stationoperation is demonstrated tohouseholder; Department notifiedonce complete so that vehiclehandover can be scheduled – thisis the finish date for assessmentof the installation leadtime5. Operation – Department receivesinvoice/actions payment; chargingactivity commences; data gatheredthrough telemetry link to networkoperating centre; at completionof trial the household is providedwith an offer to retain the chargingoutlet if so desired, otherwise it isremoved and the site remediatedto householder’s satisfaction.The longest leadtime componentsof this process generally relate tocoordination between the householdand the installation subcontractor, andin resolving any complications with theinstallation (step 3).The trial changed its processafter receiving feedback from thehousehold participants. Introductoryinformation from each charginginfrastructure provider is nowprepared to help streamline andgain their support for the installationprocess. Key information includedan explanation and images of EVcharging infrastructure (includinghow it would look once installed),what impact the installation wouldhave on their property, along with anexplanation of options/costs. Althoughmany households were nominallyinterested in free-standing units, theoverwhelming majority accepted awall-mounted solution where possibleto avoid bearing the cost difference ofthe alternative.AVERAGE / MEDIAN LEADTIME = 35 / 37 DAYSContractnegotiationSite worksplanningSite worksHandoverOperation• Explain deed• Q&A• Sign-off• Questionnaire• Notifysub-contractor• Consultation• Scheduling• Site visit / works• Test andcommission• Demonstration • Paymentfor works• Reporting• TransitionFigure 33. Schematic of household charging infrastructure installation process based upon 94 installations.CREATING A MARKET 63

5.2.3 What is the chargingsolution for rentals orshared parking?Based upon trial findings and datafrom other sources, an increasingnumber of potential electric vehicledrivers in Victoria will require chargingsolutions for rental accommodation,with fewer for shared parking.Although charging solutions wereable to be delivered for all situationsinvestigated as part of the trial, theinstallation costs and resistance ofkey stakeholders are likely to prove anobstacle to more widespread roll-out.With reference to Figure 34, analysisof the household applications toparticipate in the trial indicatesthat around one in five potentialelectric vehicle drivers lives in rentalaccommodation, which is slightly lessthan the proportion of renters for theVictorian population more broadly (DOT2010d, ABS 2012).The trial investigated the implicationsof this through a selection ofhousehold participants residing inrental accommodation. A proformaletter was designed for the participantto pass onto their landlord succinctlydescribing what was being proposedin terms of the charging infrastructureinstallation and operation, andreassuring them that all costs andliabilities would be covered includingfull remediation of the site to theirsatisfaction upon the trial conclusion(as per arrangements for thetrial more generally). In someinstances clarifications were soughtwhich extended the leadtime forthe installation, however in allinstances the approval was gainedfor trial participation.Own /paying offRent /Lease2010 Trial household application (n=6,237)ABS 2011 Australian census – Victoria0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Figure 34. Results from the 2011 trial household application to participate process as compared to the Victorian results from 2011Australian census, highlighting the significant minority of rental accommodation with an interest in EVs (n = 6,327, DOT 2010d,ABS 2012).

Although this outcome was a successin the context of the trial delivery, itdoes not provide any insight into themore likely scenario where costs mustbe borne by one of the landlord orthe tenant. Installation of electricvehicle charging infrastructure intenanted premises is characterisedby the ‘principle-agent problem’ thathas been found to inhibit investmentin energy efficiency (de T’Serclaesand Jollands 2007). Landlords wereclearly concerned about any aspectof the installation or operation ofthe charging infrastructure that mayimpact them in terms of cost oreffort. Given that the charging circuitrepresents a cost of just under $2,000that cannot be recovered by the tenantshould they move, it seems likelythat this will represent a significantbarrier to EV adoption by the one in fiveVictorians who rent.Dwellings with shared parkingarrangements were found to be aspecial case. Although differenceswere observed in the approach takenby different charging infrastructureproviders, a common solutionwas to run a circuit from the agreedparking/charging location to thepoint of metered electrical supply forthe dwelling. In some instances thisrequired a cherry-picker to route thecircuit to apartments above groundlevel, driving significantly higher costsinto the installation – around doublethat of detached housing with offstreetparking.With reference to the results from thetrial application process as describedin Figure 35, this issue does not appearto be as significant as for renters.However, urban developmenttrends are likely to increasethe significance of this issue asaccommodation with shared parkingincreases in prevalence.Expert advice provided for Melbourne’sMetropolitan Planning Strategy (MAC2012) illustrates this issue:About half of all newhousing in Melbourneis being constructed inestablished areas. Work bythe Grattan Institute showsthere are ‘shortages’ ofsemi-detached dwellingsand apartments inMelbourne’s middle andouter suburbs.This suggests that the costs of retrofitfor apartments are likely to be adeterrent for EV take-up by a growingnumber of Victorians.Question 1. Do you have off street parking?YES 98% NO 2%Question 2. Is this parking location shared with others?YES 3% NO 97%Question 3. Do you have the final decision on how power outletsin the shared parking facility can be used?YES 55% NO 43%Body corporate, landlord or other organisation decides0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Figure 35. Results from the 2011 trial household application to participate process, highlighting the relatively low number of peoplewithout off-street parking and/or oversight of the decision-making that relates to their regular place of parking (n = 6,327, DOT 2011).CREATING A MARKET 65

5.2.4 When do householdscharge electric vehicles?In the absence of outside influence,charging by households takes placeimmediately upon their arrival home.However, results from solar-PVequipped trial participants suggestthat households will defer theircharging to off-peak periods shouldthey receive a financial benefit to doso. Households may also agree to havetheir charging managed in line withnetwork demand, if the implications ofthis are demonstrated to be minor andprovided they have some control overthe situation.Data recorded from the householdEV charging infrastructure showedthat charging demand basically alignswith general household electricitydemand (CSIRO 2012). This is becausefor the majority of households, themost convenient and desirable optionis to begin charging by plugging inimmediately upon arriving home beforeheading inside to turn other electricalappliances on. Although the chargemanagement options available tohouseholds varied according to theirspecific vehicle and charging solution(refer to Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1.2),these all require some effort andpossibly inconvenience.With reference to Figure 36, somevariation in the charging demandprofile was observed for participantswho reported having a solar PVinstallation at their home. This issignificant as a majority of solarPV owners are on a time-of-useelectricity tariff that provides afinancial incentive to defer electricityuse to off-peak periods.Peak EV charging demand for trialhouseholds with solar PV occurs atmidnight, coinciding with the likelybeginning of the off-peak tariff period.This indicates that in the absence ofoutside guidance and with limitedcharge management capability, solarPV households are managing their EVcharging in response to the financialincentive to do so – refer to thefollowing unprompted quote from oneof the household participants:As I have solar panels with feed-intariff I did virtually all charging at nightVictorian Electric Vehicle Trialhousehold participant, 20120.500.450.400.35Power (kW)0.300.250.200.150.100.05Solar PVNon-solar005101520Time of use (24 hour clock)Figure 36. EV charging demand profiles for solar and non-solar trial household participants (n = 12 and 71 respectively).

The appeal of a financial incentiveto defer charging was investigatedwith the entire sample of householdparticipants. With reference toFigure 37, the bias in the results wastowards maximising the vehicle utility.This result is consistent with findingsfrom the Ergon Energy EV trial inQueensland, where drivers pushedback on mandatory deferred chargingof their vehicle under the ‘Tariff 33’arrangement that is more generallyapplied to pool-pumps (Ergon 2012).In late 2012, a small group oftrial household participants wereselected to take part in an electricitydemand response and load controldemonstration project – refer to thebreakout box below. These householdswere equipped with DiUS Computing’sChargeIQ EV charging outlet, whichwas bound to their residential smartmeter upon installation. The objectiveof the project was to demonstrateuse of Victoria’s Advanced MeteringInfrastructure for the purposes ofmanaging EV charging demand.A total of 64 charge-managementevents were deployed by thedistribution network operator for theregion, split between ‘peak charging’events for which 24 hours’ noticewas provided to participants, and‘emergency charge management’events for which just one hour noticewas provided. Results from a surveyof participants indicated widespreadacceptance of the charge managementmethod and technology, to the extentthat the majority of participants wouldagree to have their charging managedthis way in future even if there was nofinancial benefit to them.This outcome suggests that smartgrid, or other charge managementtechnologies, will be effective in themanagement of EV charging so as toavoid costly network investments.Would you be open to having your vehicle charge when it wascheaper rather than as soon as you plugged in?Yes, but only ifmy vehicle wasfully chargedwhen I needed itYes, if itprovideda betterenvironmentaloutcomeYes, but onlyif it were halfthe costNo0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Figure 37. Results from a survey of trial household participants on their outlook towards deferred charging in responseto a financial incentive; survey interval was around six weeks into their EV experience (n = 77; multiple choices permitted).CREATING A MARKET 67

HOME CHARGING CASE STUDYDIUS COMPUTING / CHARGEIQIn late 2012 Melbourne-based DiUS Computing, in what appears to be a world-first, used Victoria’s‘smart grid’ to manage electric vehicle charging as part of the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial(Smart Grid News 2012).The DiUS ChargeIQ unit, already the world’s first smart grid (Zigbee) certified EV charger (Electronics News2012), was deployed to ‘smart meter’ equipped households within United Energy’s distribution region. Chargemanagement events were then issued to the ChargeIQ units through the United Energy network. The chargemanagement events formed part of an EV charging demand management project known to participants as‘grid-friendly’ charging.The ChargeIQ units are equipped with charge management capability that allows users to take advantage ofcheaper ‘off-peak’ electricity tariffs – this is a form of demand response generally known as ‘smart charging’.The ChargeIQ units also allow EV charging loads to be controlled by the electricity distributor – these eventswere termed ‘peak charging’ and ‘emergency charge management’ in the project according to the extentparticipants were pre-warned.Participants were informed of the charge management events through the ChargeIQ network, including viaemail, SMS, the internet and on the ChargeIQ device. Control of the vehicle charging was possible throughphone applications, the web portal and on the ChargeIQ unit. In simulated conditions to real network scenarios,participants received warnings either 24 hours or immediately before charge management events, along withoptions that would allow them to control charging of their vehicle while minimising impacts on cost and/or use.Charge management capabilities ensure that households are able to minimise their charging costs withoutimpacting upon their vehicle use. Additionally, charging is able to be managed by the electricity distributor soas to preserve the reliability of the network and prevent increases in electricity costs as a result of avoidablenetwork investments.Technology solutions, such as ChargeIQ, will help ensure that electric vehicle charging can be easilyaccommodated by our electricity networks at minimal cost and inconvenience for everyone.Figure 38. DiUSComputing ChargeIQhome charging device,the world’s firstsmart grid EV charger.

5.2.5 What do households thinkof electric vehicle charging?The majority of households felt thathome charging alone met their needs.Despite the relative immaturity of thetechnology, most found it easy to use,and felt confident and reassured intheir understanding of what was goingon. However, an appetite existed formore information about costs andenergy use.Around six weeks into their EVexperience household participantswere asked, ‘Does home charging ofthe trial vehicle meet your needs?’Consistent with the findings inSections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, 79 per cent ofrespondents replied in the affirmative(n = 76). Notably however, the majorityof respondents felt they would alsocharge outside of their home undercertain circumstances – this isexplored further in Section 5.4.3.Additional information was soughtfrom the household participantson what they thought of their homecharging solution. With reference toTable 11, participants were generallyvery positive about their chargingoutlet design and operation. The cable/plug combination and basic feedbackprovided by the outlets were bestreceived, the former potentiallyhaving implications for the wirelesscharging solutions currently beingdeveloped (Pike Research 2012).The least well received and most highlyvaried responses related to supportinginformation on costs and energy.This is likely due to the significantvariation in user feedback and networksupport across the providers (refer toSection 5.1.2).Household participants were alsoasked about the sort of informationthey thought would be useful inrelation to EV charging. Although thesurvey question was not constrained tohome charging, for most participantsthis formed the basis of their EVcharging experience. With reference toFigure 39, cost information was clearlythe highest priority accordingto participants.Although the survey question abovelimited respondents to cost informationabout each charging session only,other survey responses indicatethat households generally considertheir vehicle fuel costs in weekly ormonthly terms (65 and 32 per cent of107 respondents respectively; ‘daily’,‘quarterly’, ‘yearly’ and ‘don’t know’being the other options).Additional suggestions for charginginformation were provided by aboutone third of respondents. The mostcommon requests were for informationrelating to charge management ofthe vehicle, including how long untilcharging would be complete and/ornotifications on when charging hadbeen completed.Charging infrastructure attributeAverage score(out of 5)Std devEase of use – cable/plug 4.6 0.7Confidence in understanding what was happening 4.6 0.7Convenience 4.3 1.0Perceived safety 4.3 1.0Reliability 4.2 1.2Something to look forward to if all cars go this way 4.0 1.0Costs and energy use info 3.6 1.3Table 11. Results from a survey of trial household participants on their perceptions of their home charging solution; survey intervalwas around six weeks into their EV experience (n = 76).CREATING A MARKET 69

5.2.6 What are the issuesand opportunities forhome charging?The home charging infrastructurecost is a potentially significantobstacle to wider electric vehicletake-up, particularly for rentersand the increasing numbers ofapartment dwellers. This issuenot only compounds the purchaseprice obstacle of the vehicle itself,it represents an additional cost forwould-be EV buyers that is not factoredinto their initial vehicle purchaseconsideration.The best case/least cost homecharging solution for around $500will provide no charge managementcapability or insight into energy use –a significant limitation based upon thecurrent generation of electric vehicles.For an average household seekingbasic charge management capability,a home charging solution willcost $2,000-3,000. Electricitysupply upgrades, charging circuitcomplications, and shared parkingarrangements are likely to doublethis cost. Most of this investment getswritten-off for EV owners who movehouse. When it is considered that mostwould-be electric vehicle buyers willnot even be aware of these issues,home charging costs represent apotentially significant barrier toEV adoption.Charging outlets are an evolvingand largely proprietary technology,the specification for which will varyaccording to the specific needs of theuser and their vehicle. However, aclear opportunity exists for chargingcircuits to be included as part ofthe design and construction of newproperty developments or as part ofrefurbishments.For a greenfield development, thecost of charging circuit materialsand labour are estimated to be $200-300. This represents nearly an orderof magnitude less than the averageretrofit, underpinning a clear netpresent value argument in favour ofcharging circuit inclusion during theinitial build. For apartments and otherdevelopments with shared parking thesolution may be to include a revenuegrademeter to allow for electricity useto be reconciled to any user, which mayadd $50-100 to the parts and labourcost above.The Department has recognisedthis opportunity with its Guidance onLand-use Planning for Electric VehicleParking and Charging (DOT 2012e).This document explains the public andproperty value benefits of includingcharging circuits during initial designand construction of new developments.What information would be useful in relation to electric vehicle charging?How much eachcharging session costsHow much energywas consumed ina charging sessionRemotely accessibleinformation onthe charge levelof the vehicleHow much CO 2was saved relativeto the petrol vehicle0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%No informationrequiredFigure 39. Results from a survey of trial household participants on the sort of EV charging information they thought would beuseful; survey interval was around six weeks into their EV experience (n = 77; multiple choices permitted).

It provides guidance on the allocation,placement and design of electricvehicle charging infrastructure. Theadvice addresses the informationbarriers for land-use planners, trafficmanagers and property developerslooking to future-proof for EV take-up.Savings for building retrofits maybe possible through improvedinformation gained from homeownersand learning benefits from theinstallers. This will have the addedbenefit of reducing the leadtime on theinstallation, allowing consumers tomore quickly take delivery of and startusing their electric vehicles. Marketforces are likely to drive this innovationamongst the various charginginfrastructure providers.Promoting an improved awarenessand understanding of electric vehiclesshould include consideration oflandlords and other entities with a keyrole in the approvals for installation ofcharging infrastructure. By providinga credible source of information onthe emerging technology and itsimplications for landowners, barriersto uptake of the technology will bereduced. For example, descriptionsof preferred models for EV charginginfrastructure installation andoperation specific to rental propertiesand/or body corporate administeredparking locations may help streamlinethe negotiations between parties.Internationally, some jurisdictionshave legislated to resolve challengesassociated with electric vehiclecharging by renters and inmulti-unit dwellings 14 .Integration of electric vehicle charginginto Victoria’s electricity networkis both manageable and desirable.Results from the trial clearly showconsumers to be responsive to theprice signals, including specificallythe time-of-use electricity tariffthat accompanies most solar PVinstallations. As Victoria’s electricitymarket evolves towards wider use oftime-of-use tariffs, consumers canbe expected to select and employtechnologies that allow them totake advantage of off-peak tariffs.Communicating the benefits of offpeakcharging practices that avoidundesirable impacts upon vehicleutility should and is likely to beprioritised by EV technology andservice providers.An emerging opportunity maybe using electric vehicles as energystorage devices. Japanese EV suppliersare bringing products into the marketthat allow for energy to be drawnback from the vehicle (Mitsubishi 2012,Nissan 2012). Although these devicesare not configured for Australianelectricity network standards,the potential appeal to the largenumber of households with solarPV is a potentially synergisticopportunity to more closely alignthe two technologies.Beyond home energy storage, otheractivities suggest that the opportunityto use EVs for grid-energy storage maynot be too far away:• The standards developmentprocess for Demand ResponseCapabilities and SupportingTechnologies for Electrical Productsis progressing towards completionof an Australian Standard forEVs as energy storage (workingtitle AS 4755.3.4) – this willprovide government, industry andconsumers with a consensusbackedtechnical and performancespecification for EV chargemanagement systems capable ofsupplying energy into the grid• The Victorian Competition andEfficiency Commission recogniseddistributed storage in their reviewof feed-in tariffs (VCEC 2012),providing a starting point forconsideration of the use of EVs asdistributed energy storage devicesin Victoria• Victoria’s Advanced MeteringInfrastructure roll-out isprogressing towards completionin 2013 (DPI 2012), which willprovide network operators withthe means to manage energytransactions with EVs (as hasbeen demonstrated with the DiUSComputing EV charging demandresponseload-control projectdescribed in Section 5.2.4).Finally, local grid impacts havebeen investigated by United EnergyDistribution as part of the trial.Although the findings are preliminary,indications are that the main issuecreated by EV charging is potentialvoltage drop below the regulatedminimum standard of 230 volts. Thisis an issue that may need addressingparticularly where EV take-uphas ‘clustered’ into a number ofhouseholds along a single feeder.14 For example, Hawaii (Act 186 HRS 196-7.5) and California (Senate Bill 880)CREATING A MARKET 71

The Energy NetworksAssociation (ENA)appreciates the opportunityto have participated in theVictorian Electric VehicleTrial and has been pleasedwith the results to date. Inparticular, our objectives togain, through participation,a clearer understandingof the implications of andopportunities from theintroduction of electricvehicles for energy networkshave been largely satisfied.We applaud the VictorianGovernment’s initiativein committing fundingand resources to the trialand believe that electricvehicles have a definite andimportant role in Victoria’stransport andenergy future.Energy Networks Association,8 November 20125.3 FLEET AND WORKPLACECHARGING5.3.1 How much does charginginfrastructure for corporateapplications cost?At around $5,000, charging outlet costsare generally higher than for homecharging due to the preference forincreased functionality and durability.Average charging circuit costs ofaround $2,200 are also slightly higherdue to the increased separationbetween parking locations and pointsof electrical supply. However, manyfleets have implemented lower costsolutions drawing upon existinginfrastructure and their ownelectrical tradespeople.Similar to home charging solutions, theentry-level 15A GPO electrical outletis likely to cost around $100. Howeverfor most fleets there is a preferencetowards devices with enhanced safety,security and data capture. Based uponthe trial experience this translatesto around $4,000-$6,000 for a fairlysophisticated charging outlet, althoughprices are likely to have fallen dueto market competition, economiesof scale and design/manufacturingprocess improvements.The charging circuit was generallyinstalled at the cost of the fleetoperator, ensuring strong interest inidentifying least cost solutions. For thisreason many fleets elected to installthe charging circuit themselves usingexisting infrastructure and/or their ownelectrical tradespeople. A consequenceof this is a reduction in the cost dataobtained for analysis relative to thesites installed.With reference to Table 12, the averagecost of the charging circuit was foundto be slightly higher than for homecharging at around $2,200. While thedifference between the average figuressits well within the standard deviationfor both sets of data, there is a $500difference in the median values whichreflects the generally shorter distancethat home charging circuits have totravel between the point of electricalsupply and the parking/charginglocation. It should be noted that due tothere being more control of the designsolution with owner-occupied sites,the missing data from the sites wherethe charging circuit was installed bythe fleet operator is likely to be biasedtowards lower cost solutions.No.INSTALLATIONS14AVERAGE COST $ 2,152MEDIAN COST $ 1,910STD DEV $ 1,279MAX $ 4,382MIN $ 550Table 12. Cost benchmarking of the trialfleet charging circuits.As for the home charging solutions,sites which necessitated more complexsolutions such as free-standing unitshad the potential to greatly increasecosts. In most cases lower costsolutions were able to be identified,however this often greatly extendedthe leadtime for the installation oreven resulted in a different sitealtogether serving as the charginglocation for the vehicle.

An example of this was theDepartment’s own experiencewith its property at 121 ExhibitionSt, Melbourne. The Departmentleases levels 5 to 16 of the 36 levelbuilding, along with a portion of theunderground car-parking. As part ofthe trial, the Department requestedpermission to install an electricvehicle charging solution. The buildingmanager proposed a charging circuitbe run from the lowest point ofmetered electrical supply billed tothe Department on building level 5 tothe nearest underground car-park onbasement level 3. This was determinedto be cost-prohibitive, and despiteextensive negotiations to obtain a costeffectivealternative the proposal had tobe aborted.A charging outlet was instead installedin a nearby property also tenantedby the Department, using an unusedelectricity billing meter thatwas one level away from the nearestDepartment parking location. Thisinstallation cost $4,500, which was stillsignificantly higher than the averagefor a commercial property but muchlower than what was expected underthe alternate arrangement.5.3.2 How is charginginfrastructure installed forcorporate applications?Charging infrastructure for corporateapplications is installed by electricalcontractors. Charging circuits can beinstalled by in-house contractors, evenif this is often done by the chargingservice provider during installationof the dedicated electric vehiclecharging outlets. From the time whencommitment to establish EV chargingcapability is made, the averageleadtime to commissioning/handoveris around 10 weeks.Installation of electric vehiclecharging infrastructure for corporateapplications is greatly complicated byinternal approval requirements, alongwith the likely involvement of a thirdand sometimes fourth party in theproperty management and ownership.As a result, the average leadtime forinstallation of a corporate chargingsolution is around 70 days, whichis twice as long as for a homecharging solution.The general process for the installationof charging infrastructure for corporateapplications can be seen in Figure 40.AVERAGE / MEDIAN LEADTIME = 73 / 59 DAYSContractnegotiationSite worksplanningSite worksHandoverOperation• Explain deed• Q&A• In-principleagreement• Legal• Notifysub-contractor• Site survey• Report / quote• Signage• Scheduling• Site prep• Site works• Test andcommission• Demonstration • Paymentfor works• Staff training• Reporting• Transition• Sign-off• Works approval• Install signage• Consultation• Ground-markingFigure 40. Schematic of the charging infrastructure installation process for commercial property.CREATING A MARKET 73

Further explanation of what thesesteps encompass can be found below:1. Contract negotiation – the formalagreement for the corporateentity to participate in the trial isnegotiated through to sign-off; theagreement includes provisions forlease of the trial vehicles, whichwas the focus of the corporateparticipant involvement; gaininginternal approval for the costsassociated with the chargingcircuit and vehicle lease was thecause of significant variation inthe leadtime for completion ofthis step (which due to the vehiclelease issue has been excludedfrom the installation leadtimescope definition)2. Site works planning – thecharging infrastructureprovider is introduced to thecorporate participant and asite visit arranged – this is thestart date for assessment ofthe installation leadtime; thesite visit kicks the project offand includes a preliminarysurvey of options informedby all parties; the corporateparticipant identifies theirpreferred location taking initialadvice into account and agreeson the installation strategy – touse the charging infrastructureprovider subcontractor or installthe charging circuit to thecharging infrastructure providerspecification; example contentis supplied to the corporateparticipant for deliberation on thesignage/ground-marking for thesite, and the plan for manufactureand installation agreed; the worksplan is formalised between partiesand signed-off through a worksapproval/work order process3. Site works – installer arrangessite visit, to either complete theentire installation or install thecharging outlet at the terminal tothe charging circuit supplied bythe corporate participant; chargingstation commissioned into service;signage and ground-markingis delivered/installed as per theworks plan agreement4. Handover – charging stationoperation is demonstrated tocorporate participant; Departmentnotified once complete sothat vehicle handover can bescheduled – this is the finishdate for assessment of theinstallation leadtime5. Operation – Department/corporateparticipant receives invoice/actions payment; corporateparticipant staff are trained aspart of electric vehicle induction;charging activity commences; datais gathered through a telemetrylink to the network operatingcentre; at completion of trial thecorporate participant is providedwith an offer to retain the chargingoutlet if so desired, otherwise it isremoved and the site remediatedto their satisfactionThe site works planning (step 2)has the strongest bearing on theinstallation leadtime. Various pitfallsthat may be encountered include:• Budget approval for the works (asa spillover from step 1)• Unforeseen cost blow-outs, due to:−−−the need for trenching insupport of a free-standingcharging outletlong cable-runs to link upwith a point of electricalsupply that is billed back tothe corporate participantParking and/or trafficmanagement issues for thesite, particularly in seekingleast-cost locations relativeto a point of electrical supply.• Third-party approvals from theproperty management/owner,which may stumble on:−−−difficulties engaging with theproperty management/owner,or fostering an understandingin what is being proposedacceptance of risks andliabilities, particularly forissues arising out of siteworks conducted in thevicinity of the charging outletinstitutionalised approvalsprocesses, such as those thatrelate to airports or othersites with security concerns.

Based upon the trial experience, theincidence of these issues greatlyincreases in shared tenancies. Thesepremises were often characterised byunsupportive property management,challenging energy metering andinflexible parking arrangements. Forthese reasons, corporate entities thatlease space in multi-storey buildingsin which their parking allocation islocated remotely from their officespace often face insurmountableobstacles to installation of electricvehicle charging capability. TheDepartment’s own experiencedescribed in Section 5.3.1 took nearlyfour months to resolve by ultimatelyresorting to a different location fromwhere the vehicle would have beenlocated by choice.Signage and ground-marking issuesare also worthy of special mention,both on account of their importancein realising the fleet operator EV valueproposition (by maximising visibilityof their vehicle), and on account ofthe inefficient process and problemscommonly experienced.The trial charging infrastructureproviders generally did not includethis as part of their service offering.The corporate participant generallydid not have expertise or capacity toaddress the issue. Where required,the Department usually facilitatedthe design of the signage/groundmarkingbased upon the basicdesigns developed as part of thetrial (refer to Figure 31 andFigure 49). Signage was generallydelivered to the site for installationby the corporate participant or theirproperty management, a processwhich was prone to lengthy delays(for example, to source fastenersfor attachment of the signage, orsimply due to a lack of prioritisationby the relevant parties). Groundmarkingwas generally completedby specialist providers referred onby the Department to the corporateparticipant, a process which wasalso prone to lengthy delays. Efficientsignage/ground-marking designand implementation was generallydependent upon it being included aspart of the overall works planning/delivery process.5.3.3 When do fleets chargeelectric vehicles?In contrast with the households, thefleets participating in the trial havemostly charged their vehicles duringbusiness hours.As shown in Figure 41, the fleetcharging demand profile can beexplained in terms of the followingvehicle travel behaviours:• Returning from having spent thenight travelling to/from employeeresidences that are mostly notequipped with charging outlets(6am to 12pm)• Returning from work-relatedtravel duties during the day(10am to 4pm)• Departing from the fleet garaginglocation to employee residences(4pm onwards).0.500.450.40HouseholdsFleets0.35Power (kW)0.300.250.200.150.100.0505101520Hours (GMT + 10)Figure 41. Electric vehicle charging demand profiles for fleet and household trial participants (n = 41 and 83 respectively).CREATING A MARKET 75

Very few fleet participants deployed‘network’ charging strategies thatprovided overnight charging optionsoutside of the central charginglocation for the vehicle. Despite this,the majority of the fleet participantcharging has taken place at thebusiness premises during businesshours, effectively reducing the vehicleavailability for operational duties.This may be explained by thedeployment strategy for the trialvehicles, which were strongly promotedfor staff to ‘experience’ throughovernight evaluations. While thismay have contributed to the staffenthusiasm for the vehicles reportedby many fleets, it may have been asignificant contributor to the relativeunder-utilisation of the vehicles as wasevidenced by average distance travelled(refer Section 4.3.2).5.3.4 What do fleets thinkof charging?Fleets were generally of the view thatfast charging, longer range and/orpublic charging options were neededfor electric vehicles to succeed.These responses reflect the assetmanagement challenge for a corporateEV – a vehicle that is plugged inand charging is also incurringdepreciation and other standingcosts without providing any benefitto the organisation.Trial fleet participants were alsoresistant to the staff time requiredfor charging management. Ensuringa vehicle was plugged in, balancingvehicle bookings with chargingrequirements, easily and reliablyknowing what the actual chargelevel was of a vehicle at any one time– these were issues that persistedfor many fleet operators over theduration of their involvement in thetrial and reduced their acceptanceof the vehicle.These experiences varied between fleetparticipants on account of the variationbetween charging service providers,and also due to the deploymentstrategy for the vehicle. At least onefleet operator developed an automatedbooking system that took chargingneeds into account, reducing thevehicle management overhead for staff.It should also be noted that none ofthe trial vehicles and only a smallamount of the charging infrastructure/services provided real-time, remotelyaccessibleinformation about thecharging status or level of the vehicle.These features are available to varyingdegrees on vehicles and charginginfrastructure that are now in theAustralian market.5.3.5 What has beenthe experience ofworkplace charging?Workplace charging for the householdparticipants was a key enabler forincreased utilisation and acceptanceof the trial vehicles. Although thetrial findings suggest that workplacecharging could significantly enhancethe EV value proposition for would-bebuyers, the case for employers has yetto be substantiated.The average daily electric vehicledriving distance for the 11 householdswith a workplace charging optionwas 38 kilometres compared to27 kilometres for the 65 non-workplacecharging households. Furthermore,of the eight households who hadan average EV driving distance of50 kilometres or more, four wereequipped with workplace charging.This indicates that workplace charginghas been a key enabler for increasedutilisation of the trial vehicles.In addition, discussions with thehousehold participants who hadaccess to workplace chargingdiscerned increased acceptance oftheir EV as a result of the workplacecharging option. Many driversdescribed workplace charging ashaving removed the range limitationof the vehicle, even for relatively longdistance commutes – refer to thebreak-out for a more detailed accountfor one of these participants.

WORKPLACE CHARGING CASE STUDYVICTORIAN EV TRIAL HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPANTOne household participant supplied with a Nissan LEAF had a workplace commute of around 40 kilometreseach way. Their normal vehicle was a current model Volkswagen Golf GTI, for which the Nissan LEAF is areasonable comparison for assessment of EV acceptance. Prior to commissioning of their workplace chargingoption they described the vehicle as being a pleasure to drive, but significantly limited by the available rangewith a home charging option alone –‘It prevented me from doing anything more than simply driving to and from home, which has meant that most of thetime I left the vehicle for my wife to drive’.Following commissioning of the workplace charging option, the participant said their perception of the EV hadbeen transformed –‘I don’t have to worry at all about range now… it’s just like a normal car’.Further assessment of the costs and benefits revealed some interesting findings. Based upon the reported fueleconomy figure for the Golf GTI, this household participant would spend around $45 per week on fuel costs fortheir commute alone (using petrol priced at $1.40/L). When asked as to what they would be prepared to pay forthe workplace charging option, the participant was of the opinion that the service should either be free or nomore than the cost of the electricity supplied under a commercial tariff (which is likely to be cheaper than theirresidential tariff). Under a commercial tariff the cost of the electricity consumed by workplace charging of theirLEAF can be approximated as $5.50 per week, which would be in addition to the $9 per week they would pay fortheir home charging contribution to the commute (assuming $0.25/kWh for GreenPower).This suggests that even if required to meet the electricity costs of their workplace charging use, the trialparticipant would save around $30 per week on transport energy costs from their commute as compared totheir Golf GTI, or nearly $1,400 across the working year (46 weeks).CREATING A MARKET 77

5.3.6 What are the issuesand opportunities forelectric vehicle charging bycorporate entities?The clear challenge for corporatecharging locations relates to theinvolvement of third parties in theapproval process for the manycommercial properties which areleased. Delays and even denialson requests for cost-effectivecharging solutions have provento be a major obstacle for manycorporate trial participants.This situation appears to mirrorthe experiences elsewhere. A surveyof 70 Californian employers foundthat the majority that were supplyingworkplace charging options foremployees owned both their ownbuilding and the accompanying parkingarea (CALSTART 2012).Future-proofing for electricvehicle charging during thedesign and construction of newdevelopments should be promoted– this is the objective of the Guidanceon Land-use Planning for ElectricVehicle Parking and Charging (DOT2012e) described earlier.This document should support effortsto raise awareness, understanding andacceptance of EV technology withinthe commercial property managementsector. Engagement should includeconsultation to better understand whatthe preferred solutions are for propertyowners and managers, with a viewto streamlining approvals processesfor all involved. Industry associationssuch as the Real Estate Institute ofVictoria and the Property Council ofAustralia provide a starting point fordissemination of information anddiscussion of ‘best practice’ solutionsfor all parties. There are also a numberof key players within the sector whocan be engaged directly and efficiently.Another means by which support forelectric vehicle charging outlets incommercial property may be increasedis through recognition within buildingrating schemes, as is the case withthe U.S. Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design program 15 .Recognition of this type wouldprovide benefits to property ownersand managers in terms of increasedmarketability and returns. To this endthe trial has been in discussions withthe Green Building Council of Australiaaround development of their GreenStar – Interiors building fit-out ratingtool. The pilot rating tool has includedrecognition of EV charging (GBCA2012), and support has been offeredfor pilot tool users to assist in take-upof this option as part of their GreenBuilding fit-out plan.A corporate network charging strategyprovides a range of benefits thatmay greatly increase the appeal ofEVs to fleet operators. Locationsthat may be considered based uponthe service duties for fleet vehiclesinclude the portfolio of corporate sites,key customer sites (installed underpartnership), and staff residences– refer to Table 13.15 http://new.usgbc.org/leed

Workplace charging appears to be akey enabler for the EV business case– charging at both ends of the journeyallows high mileage drivers to takeadvantage of the EV operational costsavings, and removes any concernsabout range limitations.The significance of workplacecharging for the emerging EV marketis highlighted by the results from thetrial application to participate process.Figure 42 provides a breakdown in dayand night-time parking locations forthe would-be EV drivers who appliedto participate in the trial. For all carsin these households, nearly four infive were reported to be parked atthe workplace during daytime hours.Additional evidence in support ofworkplace charging can be seen inFigure 22.Employer benefits are suggested toinclude improved staff attraction/retention, reduced transport energycosts for salary-packaged employees,and addition of a leading-edgecapability to their sustainabilitycredentials. However while theevidence-base for these items isonly now being compiled, the coststo employers may be a significantdeterrent. Direct costs may be incurredfrom parking, infrastructure and/orenergy use, while indirect costs includestaff education and training, planningand management overheads.Once an organisation elects to pursueworkplace charging, this may occurthrough a number of different avenues:• Making fleet EV charging outletsavailable for staff use• Partnering with nearbycommercial car-parking for theprovision of EV charging locations• Installing EV charging outlets incompany car-parking• Aligning vehicle and chargingsalary packaging options.Location Opportunities IssuesPortfolio of corporate sitesKey customer sitesOn-street sponsored sitesStaff residencesIncrease vehicle utilisationPromote learning across the organisationIncrease visibility to key stakeholdersIncrease visibility to key stakeholdersShare learningsPromote EV uptake through the supply-chainPotential cost sharing between organisationsIncrease vehicle utilisation for all partiesIncrease visibility of branded vehicleCost sharing may be a key enabler for chargingstation establishmentIncreased/guaranteed utilisation for chargingstationPromote EV uptake in wider communityImproved oversight of transport energy costsReduction in transport energy costs for salarypackagedvehiclesEmployee attraction/retentionCoordination across facilities managersVehicle energy use accounting across charginglocationsNegotiations to finalise arrangementsVehicle energy use accounting and/or costreconciliation across charging locationsPotential/perceived risk and liability issuesSunk investment if partnership dissolvesHigh upfront cost of on-street locationsVehicle energy use accounting across charginglocationsIncreased damage risk for vehicle/chargingstationArrangements for installation of charging outletVehicle energy use accounting and/or costreconciliation across charging locationsFringe benefits tax treatment of chargingTable 13. Corporate charging network locations – opportunities and issues.CREATING A MARKET 79

CALSTART (2012), a Californianmembership-based organisation thatpromotes clean transport solutions,is seeking to address these issuesthrough their EV Employer Initiative.They are currently developing a rangeof materials to assist in the promotionof workplace charging:• Case studies of electric vehiclestrategies and internal policies• Electric vehicle infrastructureoptions• Guidance on electric vehicleinfrastructure installation• The electric vehicle valueproposition (costs/benefits)for businesses.An example early-mover companyis Google. At March 2012, Googlehad installed 227 workplacecharging stations at their Californianheadquarters (Schreiber 2012). Theinstallations are part of their goal toprovide EV charging capability at fiveper cent of regular parking places.Take-up has been impressive, witharound 200 EV driving employeestaking advantage of the workplacecharging option provided. Google’smotivations for this includedstaff recruitment and retention,consistency with their CorporateSocial Responsibility commitments,alignment with their EV fleetpractices, and support for their greenbuilding certification.A corporate network charging strategyhas many potential benefits:• Increases effective vehiclerange/utilisation• Increases productivity throughavoided refuelling of normalvehicles and better transportenergy data access/reliability• Increases visibility and byextension the marketing potentialof the vehicles• Provides partnership opportunitieswith key stakeholders/commondestinations.At homeon-street10%9%At homeoff-street87%88%Workplacecarpark1%78%Commercialcarpark0%7%Street1%11%Daytime parkingNight time parkingFigure 42. Results from the 2010 trial household application to participate process, highlighting the significance of theworkplace as a daytime charging location for would-be EV drivers; responses to the question ‘For each car in your household,please provide the daytime/night-time parking location’ (n = 6,237).

One scenario of particular interestis the ‘milk run’ as is applied inthe freight and logistics sector.Figure 43 shows a simple milk runof component parts being supplied toa manufacturing plant. For a vehicleservicing this route, each stop-offpresents as a potential chargingopportunity. Furthermore, if the energyconsumption between stop-offs andthe charging opportunity are both fairlyreliable, the vehicle battery might bedownsized so as to be ‘fit-for-purpose’.This would make the vehicle cheaper tobuy and may even increase the carryingcapacity of the vehicle.Preliminary investigations into thisscenario failed to progress due tosupply constraints on electric light andmedium commercial vehicles.An additional opportunity exists forfleet vehicles that are charged in acentral location to be used as thebasis for a distributed electricitystorage facility. Advanced managementsystems would be required to optimiseagainst electricity and vehicledemands, however this scenario is thebest stepping stone for network-widevehicle-to-grid (V2G) interactions asoutlined in Section 5.2.6.A pilot project utilising a captivefleet of electric vehicles that aremanaged to provide useful energystorage, particularly in alignment withon-site renewable energy generation,would provide a better understandingof the technical solution andcommercial viability for largergrid-scale deployment.5.4 PUBLIC CHARGING5.4.1 How much doespublicly-accessible charginginfrastructure cost?Standard charging outlets for publiclocations generally cost aboutthe same as for corporate fleetapplications – around $5,000 per unit.Standard charging circuit costs arehigher however, with the average ofnearly $3,500 reflecting the greateremphasis on parking location overcost minimisation. Since the VictorianElectric Vehicle Trial launch in 2010,high voltage ‘quick charger’ equipmentcosts have halved to be now around$40,000. Quick charger installationcosts are highly variable, but canbe minimised if provisions aremade during general site constructionor refurbishment.SUPPLIERSUPPLIERManufacturingplantSUPPLIERFigure 43. Conceptual model of ‘milk run’ logistics for freight delivery from a range of regular suppliers to a manufacturingplant – a scenario potentially well suited to a corporate charging strategy.CREATING A MARKET 81

With reference to Table 14, the limitednumber of public charging locations forwhich cost data is available resultedin average cost for the charging circuitof around $3,500. These costs reflectpublic charging outlets located incommercial premises rather thanon-street locations.No.INSTALLATIONS11AVERAGE COST $ 3,393MEDIAN COST $ 3,224STD DEV $ 995MAX $ 5,500MIN $ 2,056Table 14. Cost benchmarking of the trialpublic charging circuits.Several on-street charging outletslocated on public lands wereinvestigated, and found to be largelycost prohibitive without additionalfunding assistance (beyond thatprovided by the Department). Threeon-street locations investigated inMelbourne’s CBD had installationcosts quoted from $15,000-$25,000,in response to which only one sitewas approved to go forwards with theassistance of supplementary funding.The funding provider was a corporatefleet operator seeking a high profilelocation in the vicinity of their placeof business in which to charge theirbranded vehicle.Influences on these costs wereprimarily related to the trenchingrequirements for cabling betweenthe nearest point of electrical supply(sourced from an underground pit)and the on-street location for thecharging outlet.Quick chargers were contracted at theoutset of the trial in 2010 at a cost ofaround $90,000 per unit based uponestimated prices for equipment thatwas undergoing commercialisationat that time. Design evolution andmanufacturing improvements haveresulted in rapid cost reductions suchthat in late 2012 the equipment costswere around $40,000. In 2012 Nissanbegan rolling out quick chargers inthe U.S. and Europe at a price of $US10,000 (Autoblog 2012b), suggestingthat further cost reductions arehighly likely.For reasons explained in Section 5.4.4,the trial quick charger roll-out has yetto be completed. Two quick chargersare being installed in locationswhich are undergoing significantredevelopment for separate reasons,limiting the ability to extract costdata in relation to the quick chargerinstallation specifically.Item Cost CommentsSite preparation $ 2,000 – 4,000 Includes review of site, works planning, applications andsubmissions for permits / approvalsTrenching $ 10,000 – 50,000 Varies according to site specific issues including extent of cable-run,allowances for existing ground assets/utilities encountered, specialexcavation requirements, possible soil contamination/asbestos/geotechnical issues, consultation required with affected landowners etc.Pipe, pits, conduit $ 3,000 – 6,000 Varies according to extent of cable-run, size of conduit; typically 3pits for 50 metre cable-runCabling $ 1,000 – 1,500 Varies according to extent of cable-run; 16 mm diameter typicalcable size cost is around $20 – 30 per metreCabling pull-through $ 250 – 500 Varies according to extent of cable-run; typical cost is around$5 – 10 per metreDistribution board $ 1,500 Varies according to distances, capacity and supplySlab, mounting, installation $ 5,000 – 7,000 For a typical slab length/width/depth of 1.2 x 0.8 x 0.2 metresTermination andcommissioning$ 1,000 Includes connection of cables, RCD installation, equipment testingand commissioning, customer handover and training; note that thisexcludes network testing and commissioningTotal $ 23,750 – 80,500 Establishment costs only – excludes quick charger hardware costTable 15. Quick charger establishment cost estimates for a ‘brownfield’ site, where distance between the 25 kW quick charger andthe point of electrical supply is around 50 metres and electrical supply upgrades are not required.

Cost data obtained from various sitenegotiations has been benchmarkedto provide indicative costs for quickcharger establishment – refer toTable 15. For a ‘brownfield’ site it isclear that the establishment costs cangreatly exceed that of the quick chargerunit, highlighting the reasons forleveraging site works being undertakenfor separate reasons (for example, toreduce/avoid trenching costs).5.4.2 How are publiclyaccessiblechargingoutlets installed?Charging infrastructure is installed byelectrical contractors drawing uponinformation supplied by the household.From the time of the contractor beingnotified of the need for an installation,the process to handover usually takesabout five weeks.The general process for the installationof publicly-accessible charginginfrastructure on commercial propertycan be seen in Figure 44.Further explanation of what thesesteps encompass can be found below:1. Site identification – considerationof electric vehicle ownership andusage informs initial considerationof the region and specific locationsthat public charging optionsmay best support; potentialhost sites in these locations arecontacted either at the premise orthrough the parent organisation;discussions are pursued to engagepotential hosts and identifypreferred sites based upon awillingness to proceed2. Contract negotiation – the formalagreement for the corporateentity to participate in the trialas a charging infrastructurehost is negotiated through tosign-off; finalisation of theagreement occurs in parallelwith determination of thetransaction model for the siteoperation (user payment forparking, charging activities, bothor neither); consideration of thecommunications plan for the siteis also initiated; this step wasgenerally found to be the mostlengthy, for reasons that areexplained further belowAVERAGE / MEDIAN LEADTIME = 201 / 140 DAYSSite IDContractnegotiationSite worksplanningSite worksHandoverOperation• Vehicles• Potential hosts• Contact• Meet• Follow-up• Preferred sites• Explain deed• Q&A• In-principleagreement• Legal• Sign-off• Transactionmodel• Communicationsplan• Notifysub-contractor• Site survey• Report / quote• Signage• Worksapproval• Work order• Scheduling• Sitepreparation• Site works• Test andcommission• Install signage• Groundmarking• OH&S• Training• Communications• Transactions• Paymentfor works• Reporting• Surveys• Enforcement• Evaluation• TransitionFigure 44. Schematic of the publicly-accessible charging infrastructure installation process for commercial property.CREATING A MARKET 83

3. Site works planning – thecharging infrastructure provideris introduced to the potential hostand a site visit arranged – thisis the start date for assessmentof the installation leadtime;the site visit kicks the projectoff and includes a preliminarysurvey of options informed by allparties; the corporate participantidentifies their preferred locationtaking initial advice into account;example content is supplied tothe corporate participant fordeliberation on the signage/ground-marking for the site, andthe plan for manufacture andinstallation agreed; the worksplan is formalised betweenparties and signed-off througha works approval/work orderprocess; this step was found tobe lengthy due to the need tonegotiate agreement with multiplestakeholders for reasons that areexplained further below4. Site works – installer arrangesa site visit to undertake theinstallation as per the agreedworks plan; the host prepares thesite by ensuring that it is cordonedoff for the duration of the works;charging station commissionedinto service; signage and groundmarkingis delivered/installed asper the works plan agreement5. Handover – an OH&S reviewmay be undertaken of the site;instruction on the arrangementsfor the site/equipment operationis provided to staff on the groundif required; a launch eventand/or other communicationsare kicked off as part of theservice promotion and benefitsrealisation; Department notifiedonce the site can be advertisedto trial participants as beingavailable for use – this is thefinish date for assessment ofthe installation leadtime6. Operation – Department/corporate participant receivesinvoice/actions payment; chargingactivity commences; data gatheredthrough telemetry link to networkoperating centre; various surveysof users/stakeholders initiated toassess awareness/understanding/acceptance of the charging facility;management of site undertakenas part of broader enforcementprogram; collective evaluation ofsite performance against predeterminedtargets undertaken atagreed milestones; arrangementsat completion of trial implementedbased upon host agreement.The contract negotiation (step 2) hasbeen by far the most challenging andlongest leadtime aspect of the publiccharging infrastructure roll-out. On thepart of the hosts there is a desire tonot cede ownership of any commercialbenefits to the charging serviceprovider. From a legal perspective,the uncertainty and perceived risks indealing with a new concept such aselectric vehicle charging translate to anunwillingness by the host legal team toaccept liabilities regardless of howeverreasonable. Despite the formerDepartment of Transport acting as an‘honest broker’ in these negotiationsand underwriting the cost and riskissues, the majority of negotiationswith portfolio-level property ownersbroke down at this stage. In the caseof one large property asset investmentgroup who have majority interests insome of Melbourne’s most prominentshopping centres, negotiations havebeen stuck in this stage for nearly14 months as of January 2013 despitethere being an expressed desire fromsenior management to participatein the trial and host electric vehiclecharging services.The site works planning (step 3) wasby far the greatest contributor tothe lengthy leadtime that has beenquantified above. The main issue wasthe handover between the corporatelevelproject supporters and thoseon the ground who own the detaileddecision-making. By way of example, alarge property investment firm enteredinto an agreement to participate asa charging infrastructure host at acorporate level, following which anew round of negotiations commencedwith the individual site managers.The site manager resistance isgenerally related to the opportunitycost associated with assignmentof the parking asset exclusively forEV parking/charging. Institutionalfailures in transferring decisionsbetween the strategic and operationalarms of the organisation are alsovery common, insofar as therebeing no support to ensure that thecorporate-level agreement progressesto implementation.The signage/ground-marking issuesdescribed in Section 5.3.2 for corporateproperties are also evident, howeverorganisations playing the role of ‘host’are generally of the view that thisforms part of the charging serviceprovider’s responsibilities.

PUBLIC CHARGING CASE STUDYON-STREET CHARGING STATIONS IN MELBOURNE CBDIn 2010 City of Melbourne agreed to provide up to 12 on-street parking bays in Melbourne’s CBD for exclusive useas electric vehicle parking/charging locations for the duration of the trial. This commitment has underpinned aninvestigation into the process, timelines, obstacles and opportunities for on-street charging stations.Initial attempts to identify suitable sites were confounded by the limited information available about theunderground cables, pipes etc. that may enable/inhibit establishment of electrical infrastructure. A key inputinto site selection is the location of convenient points of electrical supply, as this has a large bearing on theexcavation/structural works and with this the project costs. This information was possible to obtain through:(i)Formal applications to the electricity network operator in response to detailed works plans (a large andcostly commitment at the site identification stage), or(ii) Informal dialog with the electricity network operator via their representative taking part in the trial projectmeetings (who agreed to investigate a number of regions of around 300 metres diameter as an in-kindcontribution to the trial), or(iii) On-the-ground site surveys to identify potential sources of electrical supply (signified most oftenby the presence of electrical man-hole covers/pits, or above-ground ventilation stacks forunderground substations).As a starting point for the trial site identification, an informal request was supplied to the electricity networkoperator for information about relevant underground electrical infrastructure within a 300 metre radius of sixlocations of interest. These locations were selected to coincide with fleet EV operator parking preferences, whichwould help ensure site utilisation. In response to this request a mark-up map was supplied of potentially relevantelectrical infrastructure in each area. On-the-ground site surveys eliminated all but one site, primarily due to thenetwork infrastructure not aligning with the parking and/or traffic arrangements. Criminal damage risks,for example due to the proximity of a late-night entertainment venue, were also an influence on the site review.One preferred location was taken forwards initially via an application by the charging service provider for anexemption from Energy Safe Victoria under the Electrical Safety Act 2000. The exemption was granted partlydue to the agreement with City of Melbourne for the provision of on-street parking/charging locations asan in-kind contribution to the trial. Having gained the exemption, the charging service provider developed adetailed works plan in consultation with the electricity network operator. Despite the preliminary site surveysundertaken above, the detailed works plan was costed at around $30,000 for a single standard charging outlet,in addition to which complications were identified in relation to some heritage-listed trees in the vicinity of thesite. At this point a decision was made to not proceed with this site.Separate and subsequent to the experience above, a new site was identified in partnership with a corporatesponsor who was seeking a highly visible location outside of their offices to showcase their branded electricvehicles. Having secured the supplementary funding commitment along with a minimum-level site utilisation,a decision to proceed with the preliminary works plan and approvals processes was made in May 2012.A similar process to that outlined above was undertaken by a trial charging service provider. An exemptionapproval was obtained from Energy Safe Victoria, following which a detailed works plan was developed. Thedetailed works plan drew on input supplied by the electricity network operator, confirming the adequacy ofelectrical supply and outlining the proposed method of connection to the network. At this point the projectproposal costs were estimated at around $20,000.The detailed works plan was then lodged with City of Melbourne for a planning approval. The initial reviewreturned an approval in-principle for the parking reassignment, along with a request for further information.The main risk issues discerned by council as needing to be addressed were:• Tripping hazard from the charging cable• Cyclist hazard from the charging plug protruding from the vehicle• Shock hazard potential.As of January 2013 discussions were still underway regarding the risk assessment submission– eight months from when the detailed works planning process was initiated.Indications from City of Melbourne are that works are generally scheduled to occur aroundeight weeks from when the planning approval is finalised.CREATING A MARKET 85

5.4.3 What do people thinkabout public charging?Widespread opinion both here andoverseas indicates that on account ofits role in addressing electric vehiclerange limitations, the availability ofpublic charging infrastructure is a keyissue for EV uptake. Even once peoplehave lived with the vehicles, opinionpersists on the value of public charginginfrastructure despite widespreadacceptance that home chargingaddresses most driver needs. The roleof public charging infrastructure as arange ‘insurance policy’ was furtherhighlighted by the identification ofmeasures to ensure the accessibility ofcharging outlets as being ofhigh priority.Surveys of stakeholders on the barriersto widespread/successful introductionof electric vehicles have routinelyidentified the availability of publiccharging infrastructure as beinga key issue for EV market development:• The 2,200 applicants forparticipation in the householdvehicle roll-out rated the lackof recharge infrastructure 4.2out of 5 (std dev 0.8) in termsof significance as a barrier tosuccessful EV introduction forVictoria (DOT 2012)• Fleet participants and attendeesat the fleet workshops all ratedcharging infrastructure availabilityas a key issue for EV uptake (referto Section 4.3.4)• A survey of 53 attendees at theDecember 2012 EV Conferencein Melbourne rated the lack ofrecharge infrastructure4.1 out of 5 (std dev 1.0) interms of significance as abarrier to successful EVintroduction for Victoria.These results correlate well withfindings from overseas, where non-EVowners in particular consider the lackof public charging infrastructure to bea key barrier for EV adoption (Gopaland Thawrani 2012).Public charging outlets have beencommissioned into service graduallyover the life of the trial such that20 locations were available inthe greater Melbourne area byJanuary 2013. For the majority oftrial participants, this has meantthat charging locations have onlyoccasionally been available at theirintended destination. Nevertheless,the trial household participantsurvey results are representativeof people with a minimum ofsix weeks experience of life withan electric vehicle.Issue for considerationAverage score(out of 5)Std devFines for non-EV users who park in EV-specific locations 4.5 1.0Promote EV usage with high-profile locations and/or free charging 4.4 0.9Availability of charging points similar to that of petrol stations / bowsers 4.2 1.1Provision of a booking facility that allows drivers to reserve their charging point before arrival 4.0 1.1Ensure the safety of other road users (for example pedestrians, cyclists) 3.8 1.3User-pays approach where charging costs reflect energy use, parking and equipment costs 3.4 1.0Preferential treatment for EV drivers on account of their contribution to the 'public good' 3.3 1.3Appease the concerns of local stakeholders in nearby businesses 3.1 1.1Discourage car use in highly-populated areas 2.9 1.3Table 16. Results from a survey of trial household participants on their opinions of the issues that should be taken into accountin the provision of publicly-accessible EV charging points; survey interval was around six weeks into their EV experience(n = 76, marks out of 5 where 5 = very important and 1 = very unimportant).

Household participants were askedabout various issues they felt shouldbe taken into consideration in relationto public charging. With referenceto Table 16, the highest priorityissues according to trial householdparticipants were:• Accessibility – ensuring chargingoutlets would be accessible whenrequired, with enforcement ofEV-only parking the highestranked response and provisionof a reservation facility alsohighly ranked• Availability – consistent withthe views of other stakeholders,provision of public charginginfrastructure was highlyranked – at high profile locationsin order to promote EV usage,and at a density similar to petrolstations/bowsers.The importance of accessibility maybe interpreted as an insight into therole of public charging infrastructureas an ‘insurance policy’ for electricvehicle range limitations. Withreference to Section 5.2.5, nearly80 per cent of participants felt thathome charging met their needs.This suggests that most EV driverswill only use public charging outletsinfrequently, but they want to be ableto reliably access it when they do needit. This interpretation is consistentwith the perception of the role ofpublic charging infrastructure as a keyenabler for promoting adoption of EVs.Household participants were alsoasked about the influence of cost andconvenience on the likely appeal ofpublic charging infrastructure.Results suggest that convenienceoutweighs cost in terms of its effecton driver appeal, with the number ofparticipants who would not use publiccharging outlets regardless of priceincreasing from 5 to around 50 per centif they had to go out of their way to findthem – refer to Figure 45. This findingis potentially inconsistent with the viewof public charging infrastructure as an‘insurance policy’.While nearly 87 per cent of drivers saythey’d be willing to pay for the serviceif the charging outlet was located attheir intended parking destination,it should be recalled that a highproportion of drivers also said thathome charging met their needs (referto above/Section 5.2.5). These resultshighlight the potentially high-riskmarket opportunity for public charginginfrastructure hosts and operators.Yes, even if itwere double thecost of homechargingYes, but only if itcost the same ashome chargingYes, but only ifthey were freeDo you think you would use electricvehicle charging points if they wereavailable at places that you parkother than your home?Do you think you would use standardelectric vehicle charging points otherthan your home if they were availablebut you had to go out of your wayto find them?No0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Figure 45. Results from a survey of trial household participants in response to two questions relating to the likely appeal of publiccharging outlets; the identical response options for both questions examined cost influences, while the difference between thetwo questions assessed convenience; survey interval was around six weeks into their EV experience (n = 76; multiple choice/singlechoice only).CREATING A MARKET 87

As further evidence of the uncertaintieswithin the public charging stationbusiness model, the quote belowsourced from the Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial Discussion Boardprovides an interesting insight intoone driver’s reckoning on use of publiccharging outlets:So where’s the line between theconvenience, economy and luxuryof driving to work in an EV and thecommute by public transport?... for usthe economy is the governing factor,followed closely by convenience.The basic maths says if we cancommute in and out on one chargefrom our home or if required anadditional charge from a freecharge point in the CBD, then it’s aneconomical solution, while at least twopeople are traveling.The approx $3 for the full charge athome @ 16kWh x approx $0.20/kWhfor the i-MiEV or approx $0.80 forthe full charge of the Prius and the$15 parking costs is comparable butcheaper than the $22 odd for two allday zone 1&2 myki transactions (wearand tear on the EV plays a part, but inthe interest of simplicity I’ve ignoredthose additional costs).The convenience of the 40 to 50 minutecommute by EV beats the 1 to1.25 hour commute on public transportuntil you add a 20 min walk to workand back to the car if the chargepoint is not conveniently located nearwork, then the two options comefrighteningly close.Victorian Electric Vehicle Trialhousehold participant, 2012Results from more mature marketsin terms of vehicle and charginginfrastructure roll-out provide similarlymixed messages about the viability ofpublicly-accessible charging outlets.Up to September 2012 the largestinfrastructure roll-out taking place inthe United States as part of ‘The EVProject’ had delivered 1,818 publiclyaccessiblecharging stations (ECOtality2012). In the assessment of thecharging activities of the 6,071 vehiclestaking part in the project, a preliminaryassessment is that around 80 per centof private electric vehicle chargingevents typically take place at the home.The remaining 20 per centof charging events take place atpublicly-available and workplacecharging locations. Although theperformance of individual chargingstations has not been reported,it was noted that the presence ofan electric car-share operator inSan Diego resulted in significantincrease in utilisation of the publiccharging stations.5.4.4 Where should publiccharging be available?Parking areas within or nearby toshopping centres and strips should bea priority for public charging facilities.Specific locations should be selectedon the basis of their alignment with theEV driver demographic. Local factorsrelating to existing parking demandor management, along with electricitynetwork configuration and potentialsponsorship opportunities shouldalso be taken into account in order tostreamline the roll-out. Quick chargersshould be strategically placed alongtraffic corridors.The most convenient locations for‘opportunity’ charging are those wherevehicles are most commonly parkedother than home and work (the twomost common locations – refer toFigure 42). Based upon the responsesfrom the household application toparticipate, this means shoppingcentres or strips – refer to Figure 46.This observation is consistent withpublic infrastructure guidance providedelsewhere (US DOE 2012a).Other locations where vehicles maypark regularly and for periods ofseveral hours may also be well suitedto ‘opportunity’ charging of electricvehicles. Hospitality and entertainmentlocations such as restaurants andcinemas, recreation facilities,airports, railway stations and other‘park-and-ride’ locations could allplay a role in a comprehensive publicEV charging network.

The following quote supplied to thetrial discussion board at anearly stage of the public chargingnetwork roll-out sums up thedriver perspective:I got a list of public charging locationsfrom both ChargePoint and BetterPlace but didn’t actually use anyduring the trial as they didn’t prove tobe convenient to the places I went.Given the time required to be useful(probably min 1-2 hours), none endedup being close to the shops, cinemasor work where I spent any extendedtime – I would’ve had to change whereI went. Obviously this will change asmore get rolled out – I think it would begreat to be able to plug in at shoppingcentre or cinema for example.In terms of specific locations, thereare a range of indicators that may beuseful in ascertaining whether a siteis a good candidate for public charging(Luskin 2012):• Electric vehicles are already usingthe site or a nearby site• Customer/driver surveys revealan interest in electric vehiclesor intention to purchase anelectric vehicle• There is a higher-than-averageconcentration of hybrid vehiclesusing the site or a nearby site• The site user demographicsmatch those of people likelyto be interested in electricvehicles, such as higher levels ofeducational achievement, higherthan average household incomes,interest in new technology,environmentally-aware(refer also Section 4.2.1).Shoppingcentre/stripFriend's/relative'shouseNoneOther(Specify Q1D3o)Recreation facilityEducation facilityHospitality/entertainment0% 10% 20% 30% 40%Proportion of vehiclesFigure 46. Results from the 2012 trial household application to participate process in response to the question ‘What isthe most common parking location for each vehicle in your household other than home or work?’ (n = 2,200; DOT 2012c).CREATING A MARKET 89

Drawing upon the trial experience,additional factors which maypromote or reduce the likely successin a site hosting EV charginginfrastructure include:• Existing parking demand: wheredemand exceeds supply, allocationof parking for exclusively electricvehicles may be resisted bythe operator and resented byother users• Existing parking arrangements:where the concerns of keystakeholders for any site limit theappetite to reconfigure existingparking allocations to better alignwith EV charging establishmentor operation• Parking user model: wherevehicles are normally parkedfor the entire day, this will limitthe ability to recover costs oncharging infrastructure• Electricity network infrastructure:where electrical supply isinsufficient, difficult to access,or requiring separate metering,establishment costs for charginginfrastructure may be prohibitive• Sponsorship opportunities: wherenearby retailers or hospitalityproviders are seeking to attractthe EV driver demographic, orwhere a fleet EV operator isseeking to promote the visibilityof their (branded) vehicle in aspecific location (refer to Section5.4.3 for an example relating toelectric car-share).From the perspective of influencingEV market growth, high profilesites are more likely to influence driverperceptions regarding management ofEV range limitations. While this drovemuch of the planning behind thetrial public charging infrastructureroll-out, the factors above werefound to be the ultimate determinantsof a site owner electing to host EVcharging infrastructure.Quick charger locations align moreclosely with the ‘emergency’ chargingmodel where a quick top-up is requireden route. This suggests that locationsshould be sited as close as possible tohigh traffic thoroughfares suchas arterial roads. Service stationsare often sited at these locationsfor similar reasons, making themwell-suited to the role of hostingquick chargers.Despite this, the trial experience hasfound that the issues identified forstandard chargers above dominatednegotiations on quick charger sites.Even in instances where solutions forthese issues existed, the difficulty inproviding compelling answers to thekey questions of ‘why here?’ and ‘whynow?’ severely delayed or ultimatelyprevented sites from being progressed.5.4.5 What are the issuesand opportunities forpublic charging?Due to their influence on driverperceptions regarding managementof EV range limitations (refer to Section5.4.3), public charging options appearto have a significant influence onelectric vehicle uptake. Consequently,the challenges in promoting a viablepublic charging network are some ofthe most pertinent for the promotionof the electric vehicle market generally.The opinions of the trial householdparticipants indicate that there maybe a market for public charging by EVdrivers, however this market is likely tobe financially-challenging for chargingservice providers.Experience from the United Statessupports this view. Between Julyand September 2012 the mostadvanced market for public charginginfrastructure availability taking partin the EV Project was the Phoenixmetropolitan area 16 (ECOtality 2012).During this time, 259 publiclyaccessibleEV Project charging outletswere servicing a market of 250participating EVs and an undisclosednumber of EVs beyond this. Theseoutlets were reported as having a carplugged in around two per cent of theavailable time and delivering energy(charging) around half that.16 Oregon had more publicly-accessible charging infrastructure than Phoenix during this period, however it has been excluded from this discussion due to thedistortion in the utilisation figures reported by the involvement of an electric car-share service

Despite these challenging figuresand based upon the large body ofinformation arising out of The EVProject overall, ECOtality (2012)believe that around 20 per cent ofcharging activities may be carriedout at publicly-accessible locations.This conclusion may be influenced bya contrast between the behavioursadopted by drivers of different electricvehicle technologies. The averagenumber of charge events per day forNissan LEAF participants is 1.1 andthe daily driving distance is within thebattery capacity – results consistentwith those from the Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial. However for the ChevroletVolt PHEV the average charge eventsper day is 1.4 – this indicates that Voltdrivers, who drive a greater distanceeach day than LEAF drivers, arestriving to operate their cars as muchas possible on electricity (due to thefinancial advantage in doing this).It may also mean that Volt drivers seekout public charging infrastructuremore often than LEAF drivers to realisethis benefit – a theory that may besubstantiated by future data fromThe EV Project.On-street charging locations are rarelyeconomic to install and operate due touncertainties in the planning process,high installation costs, parking policychallenges, and low revenue potential.Information about electricity networkconfiguration is not openly availableand decision-making on electricalinfrastructure proposals is fraughtwith uncertainty in relation to time,requirements and outcomes. Most onstreetsites require carefully plannedand executed excavation works as partof the installation, making costs farhigher than for off-street locations.Parking revenue is a valuable budgetinput for many councils, whichcombined with efforts to disincentivizecar traffic, limits council appetite tooffer free or even reduced parkingcosts for EV parking/charging. Userswill only pay a small premium (at most)for the charging service beyond the costof the energy and parking combined.Transaction arrangements may bechallenging, either for the user whomust pay separately for parking andcharging, or for the host/operator whomust integrate payment systems.Some of these issues may be addressedthrough better support from theelectricity network operators andcouncils, particularly in municipalitieswhere on-street EV charging servicesare most desired, however off-streetcharging locations are clearly thepreferred public charging option. Anexception to this may be locations wherevisibility is a priority for promotionalpurposes – in these instances fundingsupport from third-parties such ascorporate fleet EV operators seekingexposure may be a key enabler.While easier, off-street publiccharging locations are significantlyimpeded by the opportunity cost forparking facility operators. Parkingis a lucrative business. Based upondaily and monthly revenue estimates,a single parking bay in Melbourne’sCBD generates between $6,000 and$15,000 of income per year (Colliers2012). Furthermore, many parkinglocations are already over-subscribed(trial examples include WestfieldDoncaster Shopping Centre, DoncasterPark & Ride and many railway stationcar-parks). For a parking bay to beexclusively assigned to EV parking/charging, the relatively low number oflikely users in the near-term creates asignificant opportunity cost that mostfacility operators will not accept. Thisissue has been the most significantbarrier to roll-out of public chargingfacilities as part of the trial.CREATING A MARKET 91

Quick charging may be a potentialsolution to this issue – refer to Figure4 and Figure 47 for examples. For thesame footprint, quick chargers are ableto service many more customers thanstandard chargers. Quick charging alsoprovides an enhanced value propositionrelative to standard charging that userswill pay a premium for (that is, morethan simply the cost of the energy used).They have the potential to significantlyextend the operating range of EVs, bothfrom actual use and as a by-product ofthe reassurance they provide EV drivers(who consider quick charging to be arange ‘safety net’). In Japan, the countrywith the highest concentration of quickchargers, Nissan (2012b) have reportedpositive impacts on both electric vehicleuptake and use from the presence ofquick chargers. Following an increasefrom 2 to 7 quick chargers on the 350kilometres highway between Tokyo andNagoya, electric vehicle registrationsincreased from around 1500 to 1900vehicles and the number of EV highwaydrivers increased from 19 to 41 per centin the surrounding region.While quick chargers hold greatpotential in their ability to influenceelectric vehicle uptake, they are notwithout their challenges. Table 17provides a description of these issuesalong with a snap-shot of currentprogress towards resolution.An additional opportunity that appliesto both standard and quick chargersrelates to better information for themarket on likely EV parking/charginglocations. Although general informationhas been supplied in Section 5.4.4above, specific information in termsof a map of priority locations wouldhelp address property owner/manageruncertainty on the risks of allocatingreal-estate for EV parking/charging.While the Department’s Guidance onLand-use Planning for Electric VehicleParking and Charging (DOT 2012e)provides advice for new developments,it is not targeted at existing landuses/facilities.Southern CaliforniaAssociation of Governments have beendeveloping a regional plug-in electricvehicle readiness plan that seeks toaddress this information barrier for themarket with more specific guidance(Luskin 2012). The opportunity existsto develop and publish more detailedinformation for Victoria that will assistwith site identification and negotiations,thereby streamlining public charginginfrastructure roll-out.The existence of the trial publiccharging locations does however provethe existence of a value propositionfor some parking facility operators.According to the operators, this mostlyrelated to the marketing benefits fortheir facility through having been anearly-adopter of EV charging technology– a view endorsed by findings in theU.S. (RMI 2009).Figure 47. ChargePoint quick charger installed in North Strathfield, New South Wales.

According to theory (Lieberman andMontgomery 1988), early-adopteradvantages that may be obtained bya parking facility operator in thissituation include:• Influence customer choice underuncertainty – early-adopterparking facilities may establish areputation for quality from havingthe latest technology, which maythen translate to a preference fromcustomers (particularly given thatparking is a relatively low-cost‘convenience good’ where thebenefits from finding a superioralternative may be insufficient tooutweigh the search effort involved)• Create switching costs forcustomers – building on theadvantage above, once a customerhas adapted to the characteristicsof a parking facility, competitorparking facilities must investadditional resources in order totempt them away from theirinitial choice.These benefits are difficult to discernat a practical level and mostly relatedto the marketing value of hosting EVcharging facilities, which has a ‘use-by’date in terms of novelty. As a result,most parking facility participants drewcomfort at the outset from the finiteterm of their trial involvement, andindicated their intention to removethe EV charging capability unlessthe corresponding parking bays metexpected occupancy levels. Someoperators also opened up the EVparking/charging bay to generaluse, but would rope the bayoff temporarily in response to anEV driver ‘reservation’.Issue Description Mitigation strategyEquipment costs Early-market designs cost $55,000–$90,000 Latest generation equipment costs have reduced to$10,000-$40,000EstablishmentcostsConnectorstandardsGrid impactsVehicle batteryimpactsUser ergonomicsExceed equipment costs – potentially$80,000 depending upon site specifics(refer to Table 14)A range of designs have emerged globally,increasing complexity and market-accessbarriersPHEVs do not generally include quick chargercapabilitySeparate connectors for standard and quickcharging increases costsQuick charging increases the peak- toaverageelectricity demand load, reducingnetwork reliability or necessitating investmentQuick charging degrades battery life morequickly than standard chargingUncertainty relating to quick charging impactson battery life, including vehicle re-saleEarly-market designs are not especiallyuser-friendlyDrivers are unfamiliar with quick chargeroperationLatest generation 25 kW quick chargers have much lowerinstallation costs with only minor impact on charging timesStreamlining through the development of ‘best practice’installation processesProvisioning during initial site development or leveragingsite redevelopment will potentially avoid trenching costs(the largest contribution to establishment costs)A combination standard is in the final stagesof development that will be globally recognised, backwardscompatible and allow for a single connector that may bepotentially adopted even by PHEVsNew standards will support grid communication anddemand management strategiesOn-site energy storage may reduce grid impacts bysmoothing the demand profileBattery technologies are evolving to reduce charging timesand increase battery lifeIncreased understanding and transparency for all EVmarket participants on quick charging impacts uponbattery lifeLatest generation/emerging standard designs are moreuser-friendlyDrivers acquire experience in the use of quick chargersTable 17. Quick charging issues and mitigation strategies.CREATING A MARKET 93

PUBLIC CHARGING CASE STUDYRETAIL STORE CHARGING STATIONS IN CALIFORNIACalifornia, as one of the major EV markets globally, provides some useful insights into the publiccharging models.In January 2012 six dual-outlet charging stations were installed in the parking-lot for a retail premisesin Fremont South, California. The charging stations are available for public use free of charge during thebusiness hours of the associated retail store.Customer feedback for the store is tracked via an online user-review site for local businesses.Of the 42 customer reviews of this store, 26 per cent mention the EV charging stations highlightingtheir influence on customer perceptions:I’ve never been a Target shopper and as a matter of fact I don’t really like big box storesBUT I just bought a Chevy Volt.This store has a row of EV chargers – that’s enough for me and they will now be my storeof choice for pretty much all my shopping and my Starbucks of choice will now be the one in this store.The fact that they are forward thinking enough to recognize the benefit of dedicating a rowof parking places and spending money to install EV chargers is enough for me.Use of the public charging stations has increased steadily from the time they were commissionedsuch that in November 2012 around 1.3 MWh of electricity was consumed by EV charging activities(equivalent to the battery capacity of 54 Nissan LEAFs). Most significantly, the average chargingsession for users was two hours – substantially longer than the 30 minute average customer visitduration companywide – at a cost of under $USD 0.50 per customer for the electricity.Figure 48. EV charging outletsoutside of a ‘big-box’ retailerin Fremont South, California(ChargePoint 2013).

The pushback by parking operatorsagainst reserving parking assets solelyfor the use of EV drivers highlightsanother challenge within the publiccharging business model – protectingand promoting utilisation of the EVcharging infrastructure asset. Publiccharging outlets may be underutilisedfor a range of reasons:• Inappropriate occupancy – wherenon-EV drivers, or EV drivers whodo not use the charging facility,occupy the parking/charging bayeither mistakenly or in spite of the‘EV charging only’ restrictions,thereby preventing EV driversfrom accessing the chargingfacility; a U.S. survey of EV ownersfound that the Toyota Priushybrid-electric (not the plug-in)was the most likely vehicle to beinappropriately occupying anEV-only parking/charging bay(PSRC 2010)• Customer confidence – wherewould-be users err towards nonusedue to a lack of confidencethat the parking/charging facilitywill be available when they needit; many trial householdparticipants provided feedbackon this issue, particularly for theMelbourne Airport EV parking/charging facilities• Commuter charging – whereusers occupy the parking/charging bay for most of the dayin spite of needing the chargingfacility for only a fraction of thistime. Anecdotal reports fromCalifornia suggest that EV driversare conscious of how much theelectricity used in a chargingsession costs, reducing theirappetite to pay a premium forextended occupancy.A range of measures wereidentified to promote publiccharging asset utilisation:• Signage/ground-marking –standardisation of the EV parkingsymbol depicted in Figure 31,and inclusion of this designin directional and restrictionsignage (Figure 49) and groundmarkingwas felt to be themost cost effective deterrentfor inappropriate occupancy, inaddition to which it increased thevisibility and marketing benefit forthe site owner• Real-time/remote chargingstatus reporting and reservationcapability – provided to varyingdegrees by the trial chargingservice providers; provides userswith better information andconfidence but does not eliminateinappropriate occupancy• Parking technology – which ifused in combination with thereal-time/remote charging statusreporting can address uncertaintyabout inappropriate occupancy;preliminary investigations foundthat there was limited appetiteto integrate the technology intothe charging service providernetworks at this time• Enforcement – training of parkingofficers for on-street EV parking/charging restriction enforcementhas been agreed in-principlewith the City of Melbourne,but deferred until an on-streetparking/charging location iscommissioned; conversely,parking enforcement for manycommercial car-parks was foundto be haphazard or non-existent;enforcement also fails to addressinappropriate occupancy beyondserving an infringement noticeon the offending vehicles• Low-value parking assetutilisation – discussions withcharging service providers inthe U.S. found that some werepursuing the least-utilised parkingassets in their negotiationswith parking facility operators,primarily to gain access to thesite but with the added benefitof reducing the likelihood ofinappropriate occupancy• Charging etiquette – where aprotocol is developed that allowsEV drivers to unplug other vehiclesto allow them to charge theirown in a neighbouring location;this is best suited to workplace/commuter charging, where simplesignage has been developed byusers in the US informing otherdrivers of their charging outletavailability for this purpose(refer to Appendix E – EV chargingcourtesy signage)• Interoperability/network roaming –increasing the number of potentialusers by promoting the ability ofusers to roam across the networkis an agreed medium to longertermobjective for chargingservice providers which was feltto be a lower priority at this endof the industry development(refer to Section 5.1.4).CREATING A MARKET 95

At this stage of the marketdevelopment, the signage/groundmarkingand real-time/remotecharging status reporting andreservation capability have emergedas the two solutions for the nearterm,with enforcement likely to haveapplication in on-street locations andcharging etiquette for workplace/commuter charging. Section 5.1.5contains insights into the issues andopportunities for network-level issues.Another major challenge encounteredin the trial was the legal negotiationthat accompanied the commercialagreement to host public charginginfrastructure. The most commonissue raised by would-be hosts relatedto the distribution of liabilities forclaims made in relation to the publiccharging infrastructure.A lack of understanding about electricvehicle charging infrastructureand EVs generally was a commontheme from the would-be host legaladvisor/s, in response to which theywould insist that all risks be borneby the Department and/or chargingservice provider. While this is generallyappropriate, there are limits to theliabilities that will be accepted bythese parties – for example, for issuesarising from unrelated site works thatcome into contact with some aspect ofthe charging infrastructure.By comparison with the issues outlinedabove, equipment and installationcosts were of lesser concern. Whileit is unclear if any/all of the sitescommissioned would have occurredwithout government funding support,the majority of hosts accepted thecharging circuit costs with littlecomplaint. However, some sites wereclearly resistant to any expenditure,pointing out that their contributionwas the not-insignificant opportunitycost associated with the likely lostparking revenue.Figure 49. VicRoads-designed EV directional and parking signage, drawing upon the standardised symbol design depicted in Figure 31.

There’s a lot to like aboutincreased use of electriccars in Victoria. They’remuch quieter and cleanerthan petrol vehicles. EVscan reduce our dependenceon oil imports and canplay a big part in makingour electricity systemmore efficient. However,EVs could also potentiallyexacerbate peak demand,putting more pressure onour energy networks andincreasing costs forall consumers.Finding out how peopleuse and recharge theirEVs is essential to help usplan for the future of ourenergy system and thelong-term developmentof the EV industry.The Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial will give themarket real-life directionabout opportunities andchallenges of more carsbecoming part of theenergy grid.Energy Suppliers Associationof Australia (ESAA),19 November 2012CREATING A MARKET 97

ECONOMIC,ENVIRONMENTALAND SOCIAL IMPACTSAs part of the VictorianElectric Vehicle Trial, ananalysis of the economic,environmental andsocial impacts of electricvehicle adoption in thestate of Victoria hasbeen undertaken.

The economic analysis hasexamined the likely costsand benefits to the Stateunder a range of scenariosup to 2040. It has identifiedkey influences on theoutcomes, along with timingfor various milestones in themarket development.The environmental impactsassessment has included acomprehensive investigation ofthe lifecycle impacts of electricvehicle production, operation anddisposal in Victoria. It has sought anunderstanding of the main issuesinfluencing environmental impacts,and determined pathways to securethe best environmental outcomes.The trial has been used as a test-casefor management of the environmentalimpacts, and guidance has beendeveloped for Victorian EV operators.An understanding of the social impactsfrom EV uptake has been soughtin terms of employment benefitsalong with education and trainingneeds. Opportunities for the Victorianeconomy in terms of research, designand development have been collated.Measures to protect and enhancecommunity safety have been identifiedand are being progressed through acollaborative process.6.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS6.1.1 How have the economicimpacts been assessed?The case for or against electric vehiclesin Victoria will depend to a large extentupon the economic implications forthe State. In recognition of this, theformer Department of Transportcommissioned consultants AECOMin mid-2010 to undertake economicmodelling of future EV uptake inVictoria (AECOM 2011).The economic model directly calculateslikely take-up rates of electric vehiclesusing known data and industry inputabout the relative importance ofdifferent criteria in shaping consumerpurchasing decisions. The benefits ofthis approach are two-fold:(i) It avoids use of assumptions abouttake-up of vehicles based upon pastbehaviour – this is a new market forwhich little information of this type isavailable; and(ii) By directly estimating take-up, itis possible to consider the impactof various potential sensitivitiesaround prices (such as, electricityprices, fuel prices, vehicle prices)and how these affect take-up.The analysis considers three scenariosagainst the base case, reflectingavailability of electric vehicles andcharging infrastructure. The basecase assumes that only conventionalvehicles are available, including ICEVsand HEVs. The three comparisonscenarios investigate the levels ofPHEV and BEV take-up under marketconditions that vary as follows:• Scenario 1 – assumes that there ishousehold charging available only• Scenario 2 – assumes there isenhanced household chargingrelative to Scenario 1, and publiccharging available in the Victorianmetropolitan region• Scenario 3 – same as forScenario 2 with the addition ofelectric vehicle service stationsthat offer battery-swap or fastchargecapability.The analysis:• Looks at small, medium andlarge passenger vehicles, taxisand light-commercial vehiclesbeing used in the Victorianmetropolitan region (that is,Melbourne plus regional centres).Passenger vehicle use was furthersegmented according to how manykilometres vehicles travel eachyear. This approach recognisesthe differences in capital costs,operating costs and payback ratesfor each technology choice relativeto a conventional vehicle• Includes consideration of vehicleprices, fuel and electricity prices(including carbon price impacts)along with other vehicle operatingcosts, vehicle supply constraints,discount rates, emissions impacts,and consumer acceptance criteria• Provides an estimate of the neteconomic impacts over a 30-yearperiod from 2010 to 2040.CREATING A MARKET 99

Notably, the economic analysis doesnot include assessment of potentialimpacts on Victoria’s automotiveindustry (costs or benefits), which arediscussed further in Section 6.1.4.It should also be noted that thesummary of issues presented inSection 8 is also a key consideration forinterpretation of the economic model.Many of the issues identified mustbe resolved in order for the electricvehicle market to progress in line withthe modelling forecasts.6.1.2 What is the timelinefor electric vehicle adoptionin Victoria?Results from the modelling predictthat sales of PHEVs/EVs will makeup a small share of new vehicle salesuntil around 2020, however current oiland vehicle technology prices suggestthat this ‘take-off point’ may occurslightly earlier depending upon localvehicle supply.The ‘take-off point’ reflects the pointat which purchase of an electricvehicle becomes a financially prudentchoice for new vehicle buyers relativeto a conventional ICEV, and there aresufficient EVs available for purchase.It is an important date in the context ofthe economic analysis, as EV uptakebefore this time occurs at a cost to theeconomy (due to expenditure on vehiclepurchase that is not paid back byoperating cost savings). Following thetake-off point, EV adoption provides abenefit to the economy through savingsin transport energy costs that outweighthe vehicle purchase price penalty.Up until the take-off point, vehiclesare bought mostly by ‘early adopters’who purchase the vehicle at leastpartly for non-financial reasons – referto Section 3.2. Following the take-offpoint, EV purchase is a financiallyprudent decision.450400350EVPHEVHEVICE3002502001501005002010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Vehicles sales per year (’000)Figure 50 The breakdown in projected new vehicle sales for Victoria according to technology type. The scenario depicted representsa ‘mid-range’ forecast in terms of oil prices, vehicle purchase prices and public charging infrastructure availability (AECOM 2011).

Under a ‘mid-range’ scenario asenvisaged in 2010 for oil and vehiclepurchase prices, the take-off point forVictorian electric vehicle market is2020 (AECOM 2011). Based upon thismodelling, electric vehicles will makeup around 25 per cent of new vehiclesales from 2020 if they are availableand supported with a basic publiccharging network – refer toFigure 50. Under this scenario, uptakewill increase to become around twothirds of new car sales by 2030.To better understand both this andalternate scenarios, the influenceof key variables on the marketdevelopment should be noted.Extensive modelling commissionedby the United States Department ofEnergy (US DOE), who are responsiblefor President Obama’s ‘one millionEVs by 2015’ target, highlights theuncertainty in forecasts for electricvehicle market development – referto Figure 51.This uncertainty is due to the highlyuncertain nature of key variables thatinfluence the purchase price versusoperating cost balance that economicmodels use to determine electricvehicle market development:• Technology costs – EV purchaseprices relative to conventionalvehicles are influenced by EVtechnology costs, particularlybatteries, and by the decisionson ‘price-point’ by the sellers,which reflect their positioning ineach market and the businesscase that underpins each vehicledevelopment program• Oil prices – potential savings invehicle operating costs are a keyinfluence on EV uptake, howeverthe extent of these savings ishighly dependent upon oil priceswhich themselves are highlyuncertain; oil prices reflect thebalance of global supply anddemand, the former in particularbeing strongly influenced by nonmarketforces such as politicalinstability or interference(Sperling and Gordan 2009),or the emergence of new sourcesof supply such as shale oil(Reuters 2012)PEV annual U.S. market penetration projections10075% of total annual sales5025020102020 2030 2040 2050Figure 51. Predictions for PEV market uptake in the United States according to modelling commissioned by the US Department ofEnergy (DOE) drawing on predictions from the Argonne National Laboratory, AT Kearney, Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank, EIA, ElectricCoalition, EPRI, MIT, National Academies, Deloitte, JD Power, JP Morgan, Lux Research, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, RolandBerger, Shell and the US DOE amongst others (US DOE 2012b).CREATING A MARKET 101

• Consumer preferences –operating costs are only oneconsideration made by consumersin the vehicle purchase decisionalongside other factors such assafety, quality, purchase price andreliability; the relative importanceof each factor varies over time (forexample, fuel economy becomesmore important when fuel pricessuddenly increase), and may notbe ‘economically rational’ (such asthe decision to purchase a vehiclewith high fuel consumption whenfuel prices show a short-termdip despite the long-term trendupwards); the availability of publiccharging infrastructure has beenidentified as a key influence onconsumer preference towardselectric vehicles.The variations seen in the economicmodelling can be mostly explainedby the differences in how these keyvariables are forecast to unfold andinteract with each other.According to the Department’s model,if both technology and oil pricesfollow forecasts, the take-off point forEV technology mainstream marketadoption is 2020. With referenceto Section 4.1.1, vehicle prices aredecreasing slightly ahead of forecasts,whereas oil prices are slightly aboveprojections (EIA 2012). This suggeststhat the breakeven year for EVs may beslightly earlier than 2020.Consumer preferences manifestthemselves differently before andafter this take-off point. Before thetake-off point, the early market isdriven primarily by ‘early adopters’ asoutlined in Section 3.2 who purchasethe vehicles for mostly non-financialreasons. This behaviour may bethought of as ‘economically irrational’,and by extension not well suited toeconomic modelling. As a result, EVsales predictions differ wildly up totheir predicted take-off point.Once the take-off point has beenreached, the market is effectively‘mainstream’ and more likely tobehave in ‘economically rational’ways. Once this occurs the economicforecasting becomes more reliable,even if consumers may still pursuepurchase preferences which are noteconomically rational.A consideration made in the economicmodelling commissioned by theDepartment relates to Australianmarket vehicle supply constraints(AECOM 2011). As was outlined inSections 4.1.3 and 4.1.5, supply ofvehicles into the Australian marketdoes not match that for marketselsewhere. For electric vehicletechnologies this is envisaged to bean issue until around 2020, which hassignificant implications for the salesvolume forecasts prior to this time.A range of factors may influence localsupply constraints. Poor sales and/or a perceived lack of support mayreduce OEM interest in the Australianmarket, thereby extending the supplyconstraints. Conversely, burgeoningconsumer interest and/or support forlocal manufacture may reduce supplyconstraints. These influences arerelevant to considerations relating tooptimisation of the economic benefitsto the state made in Section 6.1.3.A relatively constant influence onconsumer preference is the availabilityof public charging infrastructure.Charging infrastructure availabilitywill not affect the timing of the takeoffpoint for mainstream EV adoption,however it will strongly affect thevehicle sales either side of this date.This is discussed further in Section6.1.3 below.

6.1.3 What are the costs andbenefits of electric vehicleadoption for Victoria?Under all scenarios, electric vehicleswill provide a net economic benefitfor Victoria. The benefit varies from$1.8 billion to $23.4 billion over theperiod to 2040, without considering theeconomic contribution of the electricityand automotive industry sectors. Oilprices and EV purchase costs arethe key factors driving the timingand extent of the economic benefit.Local vehicle supply constraintsare an important influence on theeconomic analysis, both in the earlyyears while the vehicles are expensiveand following the point at whichthey become economically viable.The availability of public charginginfrastructure has a strong influenceon the size of the economic benefitonce EV uptake begins at scale.EVs cost more to purchase initially,but they are cheaper to run thanconventional vehicles. Over time, thepurchase price for EVs is expected tofall, and running costs of conventionalvehicles are likely to increase asoil gets more expensive. Under allscenarios modelled, the EV marketis both economically and financiallystrong with a net present value thatbecomes positive in the period between2026 and 2031. Over the 30-yearevaluation period, economic benefitsto the State range from $1.8 billionto $23.4 billion, mostly as savingsto households and businesses intransport costs.Notably, the modelling does not takeinto account the potentially significanteconomic contributions from electricvehicle market goods or serviceprovision, electricity generation forEV operation, or from local designand/or production of EV technology.These contributions may be additionalto existing economic activity, as is thecase with electricity generation, orsimply an evolution, such as design ofelectric rather of internal combustionengine vehicles. Section 6.1.4provides some insights into potentialemployment benefits for the state.The key influences on the modellingpredictions are the same as thosedescribed in Section 6.1.2:• Technology costs – in the shortto medium-term take-up of EVsis strongly influenced by theirprice relative to conventionalvehicles. Measures to reduceEV costs earlier bring forwardthe economic benefits• Oil prices – take-up of EVs ishighly sensitive to oil prices butless sensitive to electricity pricesand/or a carbon tax. Should oilprices increase ahead of forecasts,measures to promote EV uptakewill increase economic benefits• Consumer preferences –increasing the availability ofcharging infrastructure andremoving barriers to EV ownershipwill encourage take-up of EVswhen prices become moreaffordable, and bring forward theeconomic benefits.The economic model finds that in orderto optimise the economic benefit ofEVs, rapid uptake of EVs should bepromoted once the take-off point isreached where the higher purchaseprice of an EV (technology costs) ismatched by the operating cost savingsEVs provide versus conventionalvehicles (oil prices).An important consideration inpromoting uptake of EVs is vehiclesupply constraints. As outlined inSection 4.1.3, the Australian marketis envisaged to be constrainedto around one per cent of globalproduction until 2020 (AECOM 2011).This forecast is beneficial in thecontext of the economic analysis, asprior to this time EV uptake occursat a cost to the economy due tothe unfavourable purchase price/operating cost relationship. Followingthe removal of supply constraints,uptake is determined by the factorsabove (technology costs, oil prices andconsumer preferences).It is important to note however thatdue to the leadtime on productplanning decisions (refer to Section4.1.3), automotive OEMs should bemade aware of EV market supportmeasures at least two years ahead ofwhen improved supply is being soughtto optimise the overall economicbenefit to the state – in other words,around 2018 based upon the forecastscontained in the Department’seconomic modelling.CREATING A MARKET 103

A range of levers exist to influenceEV prices relative to conventionalvehicles. Investment in researchand development has documentedbenefits in terms of bringingforward technology price reductions.Manufacturing investments provideeconomies of scale for vehicleproduction. Bulk procurementprograms provide economies of scalefor vehicle sales. Measures to promotemarket competition and reduce thecosts of doing business will also putdownward pressure on vehicle prices.By reducing EV technology costs toconsumers, the take-off point formainstream EV adoption is broughtforward and the economic benefitsfrom EV take-up increased.In contrast, oil prices are determinedby global commodity markets that arelargely outside the control of individualmarkets or entities. For this reason,the economic benefit to the statecan be maximised by identifyingmeasures to effectively promote EVtake-up by mainstream consumersand introducing them as oil pricesshow signs of increasing.As described in Section 6.1.2,the availability of public charginginfrastructure is one of the maininfluences on consumer preferencestowards electric vehicle take-up andthe corresponding economic benefitsfor Victoria. To optimise the economicbenefits, widespread public charginginfrastructure should become availablejust prior to the take-off point formainstream EV adoption describedabove. Based upon current forecasts,this would suggest a widespreadcharging network should come online around 2018–19 having beencommitted to at least two years earlierto inform OEM product planning.6.1.4 How will electric vehiclemarket development affectVictorian jobs?Electric vehicles may be a ‘sweet-spot’for Victorian jobs. Opportunities existto protect and enhance employmentin Victoria’s automotive industry,one of the State’s key industries.Greater use of domestically-producedelectricity for transport in favour ofimported hydrocarbon-based fuels willcreate local jobs.Victoria’s automotive industry employsaround 28,000 people (Invest Vic 2011).In 2010, the industry identified vehicleelectrification as the highest priorityopportunity area for the long-termsuccess of the Australian automotiveindustry (AutoCRC 2010).A survey conducted of the trialparticipants in 2010 suggested thatover 500 new jobs would be createdover the life of the trial, accompaniedby $43 million of investment in Victoria(DOT 2010c).The Automotive Australia 2020roadmap (AutoCRC 2010) providessome insights into the EV technologyapplications around which these jobsmay be created:• Supercapacitors for EVs• Design and assembly of PowerElectronics Modules (PEMs)• High energy-density batteries• Low cost, robust, efficientelectric machines• Modular, standardisedbattery packs• Expertise in solutions for EVarchitectures and technologies• Seamless integrated charginginfrastructure• Software and hardware for EVspecific driver-interface• Hybrid and EV production forfleets and taxis.Additional jobs can be expected inother sectors that form part of the EVecosystem described in Section 3.1.The consultants McKinsey (Klintsovet al 2010) identify utilities andautomotive assembly as the top twoemployment multiplier sectors, with5.1 and 4.6 additional jobs in the widereconomy for every full-time employeewithin either sector. Electric vehicleuptake, which will drive employmentin electricity utilities and potentiallyautomotive design and manufacture,represents a unique sweet-spot toprotect and enhance Victorian jobs.

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS6.2.1 How will electric vehiclesimpact the environment?If run on renewable energy,electric vehicles can providesignificant reductions in total lifetimegreenhouse gas emissions forVictorian drivers. These benefitsincrease as conditions tend towardsmore ‘stop-start’ driving. Impacts fromvehicle operation far outweigh thosefrom vehicle production, and vehicledisposal impacts are expected to berelatively minor.In late 2012, the departmentreleased a paper which provideda comparative assessment of theenvironmental impacts of EVs relativeto their ‘conventional’ petrol vehiclecounterparts in the Victorian contextout to the year 2030 (DOT 2012f).The paper found that the impactsarising from vehicle operation faroutweigh those in relation to vehicleproduction, even allowing for an EVbattery replacement over the vehiclelife. Vehicle disposal impacts, includingthose of the EV battery, were found tobe negligible due to the high expectedrate of material recycling.The dominant influence of vehicleoperation on EV lifecycle impactshighlights the importance of the wayin which electricity is made, energyconversion efficiency, and the way inwhich a vehicle is used on the overallenvironmental performance.The source electricity used to powerelectric vehicles is a key issue inVictoria. Despite various influencesdriving decarbonisation of thestationary energy sector, projectionsindicate that for a vehicle operating onVictoria’s grid electricity thebreakeven point in terms of carbonemissions from vehicle operationis some years away. Conversely, anelectric vehicle operating on renewableenergy may provide a net benefit interms of lifecycle carbon emissionswithin three years of operation,and a saving of over 50 per centacross the 20-year average Victorianvehicle lifetime.210200Electric vehicleenergy economy(Wh / km)190180170Nissan LEAFenergyeconomy=173 Wh/kmFull fuel cycleemissions(gCO 2e/km)200 – 300100 – 2000 – 100Mazda 3 SP20= 154 gCO 2e/km1601501401301200 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1Grid emissions intensity(tCO 2e/MWh)Vic 2030 grid emissionsintensity = 0.78 tCO 2e/MWh1101.2 1.3 1.4Vic 2012 grid emissionsintensity = 1.35 tCO 2e/MWhFigure 52. Chart depicting the interrelationship between EV energy economy and the electricity grid emissions intensity indetermining full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including some pertinent figures for comparison (DIT 2012, DCCEE 2012b,personal communications).CREATING A MARKET 105

Based upon current information,the advantage of electric vehiclesover petrol engine vehicles grows asthe conditions tend towards more‘stop-start’ driving. Given the stronginfluence of vehicle energy economyon overall environmental impacts,better information and guidance onthe selection of vehicle technologies,particularly electric vehicles, so asto be ‘fit-for-purpose’ could providesignificant benefits.Other observations of note as relateto greenhouse gas emissions fromEV operation include:• As a result of the Victorianelectricity generation mixcharacteristics, ‘demand’charging during peak periods ofelectricity use is likely to be oflower greenhouse gas emissionsintensity than ‘smart’ chargingduring off-peak periods• The most reliable, if complicated,way to charge an EV using gridconnectedon-site renewableenergy generation such as a homesolar system, is to voluntarilysurrender the associatedrenewable energy certificates• By comparison, the GreenPowerpurchasing program was foundto be the simplest, most effectiveway of using renewable energyfor electric vehicle charging,even for those with on-siterenewable energy generationsuch as home solar• Complications associated withelectricity metering and billingarrangements for publiclyaccessibleelectric vehiclecharging facilities highlightthe need for transparency anddiligence in support of renewableenergy charging strategies.Consideration of the impacts that maybe transferred elsewhere throughelectric vehicle uptake in Victoriahighlighted both existing and emergingrisks to the environment. The EVbattery and electric motor may causeharmful impacts to land, water and airquality if using raw materials and/orproduction processes in locations thathave either weak or poorly-enforcedenvironmental regulation. However,these risks are already evident for oiland rare earth metal extraction and/orprocessing for ‘conventional’ vehiclesoperating on Victorian roads.Nevertheless, greater transparencywith regards to the environmentalimpacts from EV battery productionwould go some way towards ensuringall of the nominal environmentalbenefits from EV uptake translate toreality. A further sensitivity relatesto battery replacement timeframes,which have the effect of multiplyingthe uncertain impacts associated withbattery production.8070EV / Vic grid energyEV / renewable energyICEV60GHG emissions (tCO 2e)504030201002012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031Year2032Figure 53. Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions calculated over an average Victorian vehicle lifetime for an ICEV and acomparable electric vehicle operating on both the Victorian electricity grid mix and renewable energy. The step change in bothEV calculations reflects impacts arising from the single battery replacement forecast.

Based upon the limited informationavailable, up to six batteryreplacements would be possible over avehicle life before the greenhouse gasemissions advantage of a petrol vehicleover an EV operated on renewableenergy would be lost.Impacts arising from increases inelectricity production are consideredto be minimal as a result of Victoria’seffective program of environmentalmanagement for industrial facilities.Rather, impacts on the environmentare likely to be reduced throughavoidance of the transferred impactsattributable to oil extraction processes,and from preferential use of renewableenergy for electric vehicle charging.Due to Victoria’s carbon-intensiveelectricity production, potentiallocalisation of any aspects of electricvehicle production may increase theembodied greenhouse gas emissionsof the vehicles. This conclusiondraws upon evidence that highlightsVictoria’s existing vehicle production asbeing more carbon-intensive than forcomparable facilities elsewhere.Benefits to urban air quality andhuman health are likely to be minimalas the period of EV market growthcorresponds with the implementationof ever-tighter emissions standards forconventional vehicles. A more detailedassessment of this may becomeavailable in the near-term as anoutcome from EPA’s Future Air Qualityin Victoria project.Environmental impacts arisingfrom electric vehicle electromagneticfields are likely to be negligible, EVnear-silent operation at low speedsis likely to be manageable, and EVreduced traffic noise impacts arelikely to be beneficial.6.2.2 How have environmentalimpacts arising from the trialbeen managed?The greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with the trial vehicleoperation have been accounted forand reconciled with renewable energypurchases by the Australian energyretailer AGL, a premier partner for thetrial (DOT 2012d). In having done this,the trial is effectively ‘carbon neutral’in terms of operational impacts.The total electricity used byvehicle deployments and charginginfrastructure operation up toand including 30 June 2012 was66,393.9 kWh. This is the equivalentto around 79 tCO2e in greenhouse gasemissions from electricity production.Results from the energy-useinventory have been presented tothe trial participants to help informdecisions around EV technologyroll-out. For example, the potentiallydisproportionate impacts arisingfrom charging outlet stand-by powerconsumption have been highlighted.6.2.3 How can an electricvehicle be ‘zero emissions’in Victoria?Zero emissions driving of ElectricVehicles (EVs) requires renewableenergy for charging via one of thefollowing options:• On-site renewable energygeneration• GreenPower or Renewable EnergyCertificate (REC) purchase• Charging service agreements.Each option must deal with issuessuch as EV charging time andlocation relating to renewable energyproduction, cost and convenience. Thismeans charging should be undertakenusing outlets which are known to userenewable energy. In instances wherethis isn’t possible or certain, chargingshould be monitored and accountedfor as part of the overall renewableenergy strategy.In 2012 the department publisheda guidance document for driversdescribing the options above in moredetail (DOT 2012g) – refer to Table 18for a summary of this information.The Climate Groupbelieves that effectivelyimplemented, innovativeelectric vehicle deploymentwill help accelerate aClean Revolution: themassive upscale of smarttechnologies, design andnew policy and businesspractices that will ensurethat the nine billion peopleon the planet by 2050 willnot only subsist – but thrive.The Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial has played animportant and critical rolein articulating the case forelectric vehicle deploymentin an independent, rigorousand comprehensive manner.The Climate Group,27 November 2012CREATING A MARKET 107

Renewableelectricitysupply option Advantages Disadvantages More informationOn-siterenewableenergygenerationTakes advantage of existingrenewable energy supplyMore obvious link torenewable energy supplyConfusing in prospectUpfront cost if no system already inplaceMeasurement and accountingrequired to reconcile EV chargingwith renewable energy productionNeed to cater for off-site chargingMay prove more costly thanGreenPower or REC purchaseClean Energy Councilsolar PV accreditationwww.solaraccreditation.com.au/Alternative Technology Associationwww.ata.org.auClean Energy Regulatorhttp://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/GreenPoweror RenewableEnergyCertificate(REC) purchaseNo upfront costsSimpleMost reliable way oflinking EV charging torenewable energy useOngoing costsGreenPower may struggle withoff-site chargingREC purchase a burden and may becomplicatedYour electricity retailerGreenPower programwww.greenpower.gov.auREC trading companiesREC purchaseaccommodatesoff-site chargingMeasurement and accountingrequired if only a percentage of thebill is GreenPower or to reconcilewith RECsChargingserviceagreementLikely to supportoff-site chargingSimpleGood information andcharge managementcapabilitiesNeed to account for chargingusing outlets not operated by yourcontracted providerOngoing costsUpfront cost for a dedicatedcharging unit (if so desired)Electric vehicle chargingservice providersTable 18. ‘Zero emissions driving’ options for electric vehicle operation in Victoria (DOT 2012g).

6.3 SOCIAL IMPACTS6.3.1 How is community safetybeing protected as part of theelectric vehicle roll-out?The safety of the Victorian communityis being ensured through the creationand application of a technical standardsframework and accredited trainingcourses for technicians. Theseinitiatives streamline the existing,individual approaches being taken byelectric vehicle market participants.Electric vehicle technology must bedesigned and deployed to cope withthe enormous range of scenarioswhich could result in a safety risk.Figure 54 illustrates just one suchscenario, where an electric vehiclehas been left to charge prior to a thickblanket of snow falling. Equipmentsuppliers and operators must preemptthese scenarios in their design,manufacture and deployment ofequipment so as to ensure communitysafety is maintained.Regulators must verify that equipmentsuppliers and operators have takenthe necessary measures as part oftheir due diligence when reviewing/approving deployment proposals.Technical standards are peer-reviewed,consensus-backed rules relating tothe design and operation of productsand work practices. They draw uponexpertise from all relevant stakeholdersto ensure consistency with existingpractices and management ofemerging issues. While communitysafety is likely to be maintainedthrough the individual efforts of variouscompanies and regulators, standardssupport harmonisation of these effortsand avoid individual entities fromhaving to ‘reinvent the wheel’ at greatcost in both time and resources.In 2009, the Victorian Governmentcommissioned a scoping study for anational electric vehicle standardsframework (Standards Australia2010). An agreed work-plan wasdeveloped, following which the firstphase of the technical standardsdevelopment was initiated under theumbrella of the trial. The project willultimately deliver a comprehensivetechnical standards framework thatwill help electric vehicle marketparticipants harmonise their approachto ensuring community safety.Separately accredited training courseproviders are addressing the knowledgegaps within workforce training forelectric vehicle technologies. Throughthe systematic deployment of trainingalongside the arrival of EV technologyin the market, workplace safety willbe maintained and the community canbe confident in the work practices thatkeep their vehicles on the roads.Figure 54. Electric vehicle charging in the New York winter (photo by A.Rogers – used with permission).CREATING A MARKET 109

One issue that may need to beaddressed as part of standards andregulatory development processesrelates to the potential hazard to otherroad users as a result of the nearsilentoperation of electric vehicles atlow speed. Around six weeks into theelectric vehicle experience, the trialhousehold participants were askedhow frequently the quiet operationof their EV had caught other roadusers unawares. Nearly one in threeparticipants reported this experienceoccurring either ‘frequently’ or‘very frequently’.International regulators have acted toaddress this risk by requiring electricvehicles to emit a minimum sound levelduring low speed operation (NHTSA2011). The Australian Government(Aust Govt 2012b) is committed toharmonisation with internationalvehicle safety standards, as isevidenced by the following excerptfrom the responsible Department:The Australian Government’s policyis to harmonise the national vehiclesafety standards with internationalregulations where possible andconsideration is given to the adoptionof the international regulationsof the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe (UNECE).Australia is a signatory to the UNECE1958 Agreement and the 1998Agreement. The policy to harmoniseis also important to fulfil WorldTrade Organisation and Asia PacificEconomic Cooperation commitments.Australian Government Departmentof Infrastructure and Transportwebsite, February 2013As these standards are agreedinternationally and applied tothe design and manufacture ofelectric vehicles destined for theAustralian market, communitysafety will be ensured.6.3.2 How is Victoria’s futureelectric vehicle workforcebeing prepared?As the focus of Australia’s automotiveindustry, Victoria is home to a range ofeducation and training providers whospecialise in automotive engineeringand repair. Recognising the futureneeds of the EV market, many of theseproviders have been actively developingtheir programs in support of EVs.The emerging trend towards electricvehicle technology is being recognisedin Victoria’s higher education sector:• Swinburne University ofTechnology has establishedan electric vehicle researchgroup that in 2012 was workingon drivetrain and electricmotor technologies, batterytechnology and management,vehicle architecture anddesign, lightweighting, Clean21Manufacturing, vehicle-to-vehicleand vehicle-to-infrastructurecommunications, the smartelectricity grid, consumerbehaviour and public policy,new business models andentrepreneurship, and EVpromotion, training and education(Swinburne 2012a)• University of Melbourne has aresearch program underway onthe impact of mass adoption ofelectric cars on the Australianelectricity grid (Uni of Melb 2010).A novel means by which the futureEV workforce is being prepared isthrough the Formula SAE-A event.Formula SAE is an internationaleducation program where universitystudents design, build and competein small open-wheeler vehicles (SAE-Aust 2012). Since 2009 it has beenpossible to enter an electric vehicle inthe competition, with local entrantsincluding Swinburne Universityof Technology (Swinburne 2012b)and Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology (DOT 2012h).Technical standards such as thosedescribed in Section 6.3.1 canform the basis of training courseand workshop practices for EVtechnicians. Training providers suchas the Victorian Automotive Chamberof Commerce and Kangan Institutehave already begun to address theseskills shortages with the creationof nationally accredited trainingcourses (VACCSDC 2012). As electricvehicles spread through dealershipand repair networks, manufacturersand workshop operators will beincreasingly able to draw upon widelyrecognised competencies rather thanbe required to address this skills gapin isolation.

A key challenge for many electricvehicle market participants is gaininga return on the investment in trainingand equipment required to supportwhat will be a relatively small marketin the near-term. Additionally, theimplications of this can influenceother market participants. By way ofexample, a major automotive serviceand repair organisation has deferredthe decision to train staff and fitworkshops out with equipment toservice hybrid-electric vehicles(HEVs) due to the relatively lownumber of vehicles on Victorianroads 17 . As a result, HEVmanufacturers must rely upon alimited number of trained techniciansin the field to support their product,and operators of HEVs have a reducednumber of service and repair options.The trial experience of this issuehas been limitations in the dealerand roadside assistance network. Ininstances where roadside assistancehas been sought, the attendingtechnician has often little electricvehicle knowledge and/or experience.Parts inventory and/or supply havealso been key influences in theresponse to vehicle damage and repair.This has resulted in delays and/orinconvenience in remedying problemsand getting the vehicles back onthe road.17 personal communicationCREATING A MARKET 111

EDUCATION ANDAWARENESSPROGRAMThe VictorianElectric Vehicle Trialhas undertaken acomprehensiveeducation and awarenessprogram encompassinga range of online andoutreach initiatives.

The effectiveness ofthese initiatives has beenmeasured and interpretedto inform future effortsaimed at promotingawareness, understandingand acceptance ofelectric vehicles.7.1 OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES7.1.1 How has the trial beencommunicated?The project has been communicatedbroadly through three online outlets,all of which have been found to beeffective when assessed againstcomparable benchmarks:1. Website – providing a range ofinformation about the trial2. E-news – monthly news updateswhich also directs users back tothe website3. Discussion board – for usersto discuss their experiencesof the EV trial.From the start of 2011 to the endof June 2012, the Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial website received nearly30,000 visits. The most popular pageswere the ‘what’s happening’ page with4,103 visits, followed by the homepagewith 3,886. The various publicationsmade available through the websitehad been downloaded 1,108 times,with the trial information booklet thataccompanied the trial launch havingbeen downloaded most at 83 times.Over 80 per cent of the 76 householdtrial participants surveyed reported theVictorian Electric Vehicle Trial websiteas being ‘somewhat’ or ‘very helpful’.The trial’s e-news was launched in July2011 and has been published monthlysince that time except for January 2012which was deferred to February due tolikely impact of the holiday season onreadership. With reference to Figure55, the number of subscribers grewmarkedly as a result of the inclusionof an ‘opt-in’ question as part of the2012 household participation surveyand questionnaire, and has held fairlyconstant ever since.Subscription growth42103517 3492 3480 3492 3492 3507 3495 3481 34781741252308441 474 526Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepJune 2011 – August 2012OctFigure 55. Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial e-news subscription rates.CREATING A MARKET 113

Figure 56 shows the open rate for thee-news email has averaged around 46per cent. This measure is considereda good indicator for audienceengagement, with the open rate forthe trial being more than double theindustry average figure of 20 per cent(Silverpop 2012).Click-through rates, another indicatorof e-news effectiveness, were observedto be relatively low as a percentage ofemail opens, however feedback fromrecipients suggests that the e-newssoftware design and copy-writing stylemake much of the content visible inthe email. Recipients suggested thatthis is the preferred approach, as it issufficient for readers to glean the storycontent quickly and efficiently.The most popular stories (accordingto click-through rate as a percentageof the email opens) have beenthose relating to the trial householdparticipants. This can be explainedin the context of the majority ofsubscribers joining through the 2012household application to participate.Information about where and/or how tocharge cars was also popular, with themost surprising result being the fifthmostpopular story titled ‘Would youunplug someone else’s car?’ 18 , relatingto the etiquette surrounding shareduse of charging facilities.The objectives of the Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial Discussion Board were:• To provide a facility for trialparticipants to interact in avirtual space and in doing socreate an online Victorian electricvehicle community• To gain unprompted feedbackfrom participants on theirattitudes towards electric vehicleswith which to supplement thestructured survey responses.From the launch of the discussionboard on 1 December 2010 to 6September 2012, 3,656 users hadregistered generating 378 posts and276 replies to 101 topics in 6 forums.This user-generated content had beenviewed 15,796 times, with the winnerin terms of content and views being‘first impressions’ with 6920 viewsof 29 topics/120 replies, followedby ‘day-to-day experiences’ with4,694 views of 41 topics/81 replies.70%60%50%40&30%20%10%0%Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctJune 2011 – October 2012Figure 56. Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial e-news open rate, which has averaged 46 per cent over 16 editions up to October 2012.18 http://enews-evtrials.transport.vic.gov.au/link/id/zzzz4ffccf7b47eb8706/page.html#zzzz4ffccebcf305e132

The supplementary data andinteraction with participants enabledby the discussion board has proveninvaluable. Many EV industryparticipants, particularly the carmakers,drew insights from the contentprovided. Issues raised by the trialparticipants were able to be addressedthrough the discussion boardenvironment. A variety of observationswere drawn from the discussion boardthat weren’t arrived at via other means.An example of this relates to theMelbourne Airport charging facility,which was identified as being of stronginterest to users, with the caveatbeing their lack of confidence that itwould be vacant and available uponarrival. Measures were investigatedto optimise the site in terms ofavailability, access and informationprovision, with the case for actionsupported by the unprompted, usergeneratedcontent provided throughthe discussion board.Efficient communication andconsultation with the trial’s corporateparticipants has been achievedprimarily through the monthly TrialPlanning Working Group meetingsdescribed in Section 3.4. Learningsfrom the trial have been deliveredcontinuously through this pathway,streamlining participant interactionsand reducing the overheads associatedwith more formal communications.The mailing list for this group isaround 100 individuals representing80 organisations – the emergingAustralian EV market participants.Attendance at this meeting has beenreliably around 30 to 40 individualswho themselves vary from onemeeting to the next. The persistenceof attendance has been interpretedas an endorsement for the meetingeffectiveness and the trialmore generally.The appeal of EVs as a topic to awide variety of audiences has beenleveraged to communicate the trialthrough speaking engagements. Upto November 2012 the project hasbeen presented to around 75 formallyconvenedaudiences. This method ofcommunication has been found to bevery effective in promoting awareness,understanding and ultimatelyacceptance of EVs.7.1.2 How has awarenessof electric vehicles beenpromoted?Awareness of electric vehicles hasbeen promoted through the use ofeasily-recognisable branding oncollateral and signage, along withformal test-drive events and carsharefacilities. While these methodshave been efficient in terms of projectresources, their effectiveness in termsof Victorian community engagement islimited in terms of reach.Cars are an iconic and powerfullyengagingconsumer product. As aresult, EVs have a significant advantageover many other ‘clean’ technologies interms of community engagement.This advantage has been leveragedto raise awareness of EVs by simplymaking the trial vehicles availablefor events, exhibitions and displays.Collateral has been created toaccompany the vehicles, along withan interactive storyboard that explainsthe background to EVs and the trialproject more generally. Over 5,500DL brochures of the design shown inFigure 57 were distributed in the 12months to October 2012.CREATING A MARKET 115

The vehicles used for the trial havebeen made available for over 1,000people to experience EV technologyfirst-hand through a short test-drive.The largest test-drive opportunitieshave been the 2010 and 2011 RACVGreenzone events, the 2011 AustralianInternational Motor Show and the 2012LEV Automotive Partnership FleetForum and Drive-day. The attractionof new technology has been clearlyevident throughout, with the electricvehicles being the most popularchoice in terms of test-drives taken ateach event. In addition to the resultsfrom participant surveys presentedin Section 4.2.2, key success factorsrelating to the event delivery included:• Involvement of an event organiserwith experience in deliveringvehicle test-drive events• Partnerships with the carmanufacturers, whoprovide funding supportand staff resources• An online test-drive bookingfacility to maximise vehicleutilisation and streamline theparticipant experience• Comprehensive vehicle insuranceto cover the test-drive activitycoupled with participant licencechecking and consent forms• Dedicated event staff includingfor bookings and to provideone-on-one instruction/supervision for the test-drives• Printed collateral to provideparticipants with moreinformation/sign-postingto online resources• Participant surveys to gaugeperceptions before/after thetest-drive experience (includingadvance consideration and on-thegroundverification of the surveydelivery arrangements).Test-drives have also been possiblethrough a car-share facility. As atest-drive option, car-share hassignificant advantages over theformal events described above interms of cost (funding and staff) andaccess for participants. This optionwas investigated in partnership withPlaces Victoria, ChargePoint andGoGet, through placement of a trial EVin a car-share facility located at TheNicholson residential development.While complications arising from theoperating environment have limitedand ultimately curtailed the car-sharefacility at this location, insights gainedfrom the initial roll-out are informingthe design of other electric car-shareroll-outs elsewhere.The Victorian Electric Vehicle TrialThe Victorian Government’s Electric Vehicle Trialaims to smooth our move towards electric vehicletechnologies. The trial will run until the end of 2013,collecting real-world information on how electricvehicles are used by the Victorian households andfleets taking part.Want to get involved?Visit the website to find out how. You’ll also find reports,fact sheets and other informative resources.www.transport.vic.gov.au/evtrialsWant the latest news?Keep up to date with the most recent developments.Subscribe to the monthly newsletter and get the latestnews delivered to your inbox.http://enews-evtrials.transport.vic.gov.au/Want to have your say?Join the Discussion Board. Share yourthoughts and chat about electric vehicleswith community members.http://evtrials.invisionzone.com/www.transport.vic.gov.au/evtrialsAuthorised by the Victorian Government, 121 Exhibition St, Melbourne Victoria 3000Figure 57. Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial DL-size brochure design.

EV PROMOTION CASE STUDYELECTRIC CAR-SHARECar-share is a fast-growing alternative to vehicle ownership where members have access to a fleet ofvehicles in a network of locations and typically pay per use (Shaheen et al 2010). In Australia and aroundthe world, car-sharing is gaining popularity as a means to reduce transport costs, traffic congestion andimpacts on the environment (SGS 2012).Electric vehicles are a potentially great fit with car-share. The vehicles can be charged where they park,rather than needing to be refuelled at a service station. The majority of car-share journeys are well withinthe range of an electric vehicle – GoGet (2011) reported 97 per cent of trips made by their members asbeing less than 50 kilometres.Car-sharing also provides a means for the wider community to experience electric vehicle technologyfirst-hand. Users can choose when and where they take a test-drive, potentially to a location which haspriority parking for electric vehicles.GoGet joined the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial in 2011, and have since deployed three electric car-shareservices in contrasting locations. Insights gained to date suggest that similar issues and opportunitiesexist for electric car-share deployment as for fleet EV take-up more broadly (refer to Section 4.3.4).Figure 58. GoGet electriccar-share vehicle at TheNicholson residentialdevelopment.CREATING A MARKET 117

7.1.3 What electric vehicleeducational activities havebeen delivered and what dothey tell us?Electric vehicle education programsare an effective way of promotingacceptance of the technology, and arepopular with those who experiencethem. Attracting interest at the outsetis however a major challenge thatrequires further work.Lyons and Breakwell (1994)found that attitudes towards theenvironment begin to form early inchildhood development. Additionalresearch suggests that higher levelsof commitment to environmentaleducation programs in schools notonly result in greater understandingand behaviour change in the childrenpartaking in the program, but can evenhave flow on effects in raising parentalawareness of these concepts (Davisonet al 2003, Kopina 2011).These insights, along with engagementby school teachers and children in thetrial household participation process,led to a dedicated EV educationprogram for schools beingdeveloped. The EV School program(www.transport.vic.gov.au/evschool)was launched in early 2012.The EV School program draws uponthe Victorian teaching curriculumlearning objectives in the areas ofscience, humanities, civics, and design,creativity and technology. It alignswith the Victorian Essential LearningStandards (VELS) for primary (Gradethree to six) and secondary (Yearsseven to ten) school levels. Withreference to the step-guide shownin Figure 59, the program provideseducators with all they need toachieve their required teachingobjectives through the topic thatis electric vehicles.Although the program was successfullypiloted with a Melbourne high school,promoting its wider adoption hasproven challenging. Brochureshave been prepared for distributionat the many teaching conferencesthat take place at the end and startof each calendar year, followingwhich it is hoped that widespreadawareness of the program intime for formulation of the 2013teaching plans will help uptake.EV School for teachers1 EnlightenRead the teacher’s notes todiscover electric vehicles andfind out more about the EVSchool program.2 Educate• Go to the EV School lessonplan curriculum matrix andselect the matrix for yourteaching domain• From the Matrix, choose alesson plan which best suitsyour teaching needs• Classroom resources arealso available to supportyour lesson.3 Explore• The student project ideasprovide expanded andprintable versions of theproject ideas for primary andsecondary students found inthe ‘Learning Method Matrix’• If you’re looking for anentertaining classroomactivity, check out end of unitfun for some ideas!Figure 60 (Top). Kingswood College 2012 World Environment Day electric vehicle showroom event.Figure 59 (Above). Step-by-step guide for the EV School program introduced by ‘Evie’, the EV School mascot.

In addition to the EV School program,an education partnership has beenformed with the Centre for Educationand Research into EnvironmentalStrategies (CERES). CERES is anot-for-profit sustainability centreand Australia’s largest delivererof environmental education. Inrecognition of CERES’s role in hostingregular visits by schools, conductingincursion programs into schools, andbeing a community hub for sustainableliving, trial vehicles have been providedfor the CERES fleet and a solarchargingstation has been built at theirfacility to form part of the Victorian EVcharging network – refer to Figure 62and the break-out box.The trial has also partnered with alocal school for an EV-themed WorldEnvironment Day event. An electriccar showroom was created for theYear 11 students to ‘sell’ the vehiclesto their Year 7 ‘buyers’. The strongengagement from the studentsinvolved provides further evidenceof the effectiveness of EVs as anexample of ‘clean technology’.The department also delivered two EVsand Fleets 2012 workshops as outlinedin Section 4.3.4 and Appendix B – EVsand Fleets 2012 Practical roll-out plan.These workshops were intendedto address the knowledge gap onsuccessful EV deployment by educatingthose responsible for the vehicle rollout.Surveys of attendees returneda 98 per cent approval rating on theworkshop (“Would you recommendthe EVs & Fleets 2012 workshopattendance to colleagues looking toroll-out EV technology?”, n = 53).While this result is encouraging withregards the workshop design anddelivery, promoting and securingattendance was and remains thegreater challenge. This findinghighlights the need to address otherstakeholders within organisationsto secure support for electricvehicles. With reference to Table5 (page 46), a major educationalopportunity to promote fleet EVuptake would be to target seniormanagement/executives. To this endthe Department has conceived asmall project to be delivered in 2013aimed at investigating this further.Select which features you like the most about electric cars(more than one option may be selected)Green and moresustainableLess or nopetrol requiredThey are coolHigh-techEnvironmentalcredibilityPrior brandexperienceOtherFigure 61. Results of the Year 11 ‘sellers’ survey of their Year 7 ‘buyers’ from the Kingswood College 2012 World Environment DayEV showroom event (n = 57).CREATING A MARKET 119

EV EDUCATION CASE STUDYCENTRE FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCHINTO ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES (CERES)The Centre for Education and Research into Environmental Strategies, or CERES, is a 4.5 hectare communityenvironment park based in East Bruswick. The award-winning not-for-profit has been internationallyrecognised for its work in community and environmental practice (CERES 2012).Around 60,000 students and their teachers visit the CERES facility per year, along with three adult tours perweek and a thriving community market. With their focus on sustainable living, CERES has emerged as the ideallocation for the solar EV charging canopy launched in 2012 (refer to Figure 61). Although grid-connected, colocationof the solar canopy with the EV charging facility has proven to be an excellent means of engaging thecommunity on electric vehicle technology (ABC 2012). Awareness of the CERES public charging facility is amongthe highest in the trial charging network.CERES has previously been active in the delivery and training of EV aftermarket conversions, and hassuccessfully integrated electric vehicles into its sustainable energy education programs. In 2013 they arebuilding upon these experiences to more fully integrate electric vehicles into their school incursion/excursionprograms, including use of the trial EVs as part of the program delivery.CERES is amongst the most successful of the trial partners in promoting electric vehicle awareness,understanding and acceptance.Figure 62. CERES solar EVcharge station – a hub forcommunity EV education.

7.1.4 How has the local electricvehicle industry and marketbeen promoted?The role of the trial in providing ameeting place for over 80 corporateparticipants in the emerging EV markethas been significant. No other forumexists in Australia for the variousmarket players to interact and in doingso engage with the wider market.A key objective for the trial has beento promote Victoria as a place todo business. This has severalobvious benefits:• Promote investment andemployment in Victoria• Create competition in the Victorianmarket and downwards pressureon costs for consumers.To this end, the trial has beensuccessful in positioning Victoria asthe most electric vehicle-friendlystate in Australia. As of November2012, around 60 per cent of Australia’sEV charging facilities are located inVictoria. Victoria is the only state tohave a registration discount for EVs,and has recognised EVs within theroad safety framework includingnumber-plate labelling andstandardised signage.Promotion of Victoria has beenachieved through numerous nationaland international forums. In May 2012,Victoria took part in the World EV Citiesand Ecosystems conference in LosAngeles. Victoria has also taken partin the International Energy Agency’sImplementing Agreement on Hybridand Electric Vehicles.The value of the trial in bringingthe market together at its outset isevidenced by the regular and reliableattendance of the monthly projectmeetings (refer to Section 3.4), and bythe steady base of subscribers to theproject e-news (Section 7.1.1).CREATING A MARKET 121

LOCAL EV INDUSTRY CASE STUDYBOSCH AUSTRALIARobert Bosch Australia Pty Ltd are part of the global Bosch group of companies. Founded in 1922 andheadquartered in Clayton, in 2012 Bosch Australia had over 1,100 employees and $680 million in sales splitbetween automotive, consumer goods, building and industrial technologies.Bosch Australia have participated in the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial as a fleet operator, charginginfrastructure provider and host, and vehicle supplier courtesy of their support for the EV Engineeringproject. As one of the first fleets to receive a Mitsubishi i-MiEV in December 2010, Bosch Australia haveleveraged their trial involvement to good effect.By receiving one of the trial EVs so early in the global market roll-out, Bosch Australia were able to engageat the forefront of Bosch’s global electro-mobility development activities. As a result, valuable EV chargingstation and network software product and operational experience has been gained by the Bosch Australiaorganisation, years earlier than what may have occurred otherwise.A particular area of interest for Bosch both locally and globally has been network roaming interoperabilityas is discussed in Section 5.1.4. Bosch’s eMobility platform is a network solution for charginginfrastructure operators to provide customers with a seamless ‘roaming’ experience.With reference to Sections 3.1 and 5.1.2, the size and complexity of the trial has permitted Bosch Australiato investigate the network roaming model and business arrangements as an input into their global productdevelopment. An outcome has been the introduction of new products and innovation into the local market,all of which will ultimately benefit the Victorian consumer.Figure 63. A trial vehiclecharging from aBosch charging outletat their Australianheadquartersin early 2013.

7.2 INSIGHTS7.2.1 How do we best tell thestory about electric vehicles?A range of insights can be drawnfrom the trial results that may informcommunication plans relating toelectric vehicle technologies. Keyissues that should be considered incommunicating the ‘EV story’ includeenvironmental bona fides, newtechnology as a defining characteristic,driving enjoyment due to the inherentcharacteristics of electric motors, andoperating cost benefits expressed infamiliar ways. Challenges include thecomplexity of the individual and interrelatedenvironmental and electricitysupply stories.Based upon insights gained fromthe trial, a range of opportunities existto more effectively communicate the‘EV story’:• Technology is clearly a significantreason as to why individuals maybecome initially interested inEVs – ‘interest in new technology’was the primary motivation forhousehold applicants to the trial(Section 4.2.1)• The demographic skew towardshigher education for thoseinterested in EVs (Section 4.2.1)may provide some opportunitiesin terms of communicationspathways – for example,most universities publish anddistribute magazines to alumniand maintain active socialnetworks, and often have roadsystems on campus that may lendthemselves to test-drive events• Vehicle performance in termsof acceleration and othercharacteristics that make electricvehicles fun to drive should be afocus for bringing people acrossto the technology, as has beenevidenced by the results from thetest-drive events undertaken aspart of the trial (Section 4.2.2)• Environmental benefits as thebasis for brand-building is theprimary reason for fleets tobecome initially interested inEVs (Section 4.3.1), and asignificant motivator forhouseholds also (Section4.2.1). The majority of fleetswho applied to participate inthe Victorian Electric VehicleTrial have significant corporatesocial responsibility commitmentsthey believe EVs may visiblydemonstrate• ‘Getting the story straight’ on theenvironmental benefits of EVsis a key to avoiding perceptionsof ‘greenwash’ and gaining a‘social licence’ for EV technologyto operate within the community.Almost without fail at any exhibitof the technology, questions havebeen asked about the legitimacyof the environmental benefitsof EVs. This is even more so inVictoria given the state’s widelyacknowledgedcarbon-intensiveelectricity generation, whichis a key issue that needs to beaddressed as part of EV chargingstrategies (Section 6.2)• Operating costs should beexpressed in terms of dollarsper week or month. Of the107 household participantssurveyed, nearly 65 per centrecorded the existing vehiclefuel costs as a weekly expense,while nearly 32 per cent recordedthese costs in monthly terms(Section 5.2.5)• Solar PV owners have a goodunderstanding of electricity costsand use, including the financialbenefits of deferring energy useto off-peak periods, providing apotential avenue for discussionof the low operating costs ofEVs charged in off-peak periods(Section 5.2.4). Solar PV ownersare also an excellent demographicfit for ‘technology/environment’as highlighted above, and sorepresent a likely early marketopportunity for EVs• The first EV drivers are effectively‘ambassadors’ for the technologywho should be provided withrelevant information so as to bewell-informed. This was evidencedby the frequency of conversationsreported by the trial householdparticipants with family, friends,work colleagues and evenstrangers on the topic (referto Section 7.2.2).CREATING A MARKET 123

Communicating the environmentalbenefits of electric vehicles is bothan obstacle and an opportunity. Withreference to Section 6.2, the relianceon and arrangements for renewableenergy to deliver the environmentalbenefits of electric vehicles is acomplicated story. Experience fromthe trial suggests that a general lackof understanding or even cynicismregarding operation of the electricitymarket creates additional challengesin explaining the environmentalbenefits of renewable energy poweredelectric vehicles.Given that environmental benefitsare a strong motivator for EV takeupby early adopters (Section 3.2) inboth households (Section 4.2.1) andfleets (Section 4.3.1), providing aneasily-understood, defensible meansto evidence ‘zero emissions driving’may be a key enabler for EV take-up.Options to address this may include:• Linking EV support andidentification measures toGreenPower purchase contracts• Documenting, publicising andrecognizing ‘zero emissions’stories for households andfleets that link distributedrenewable energy generationwith EV operation• Working with key stakeholders todevelop or leverage an existingaccreditation program/brand thatcan underpin recognition of EVsthat can be defensibly linked torenewable energy• Leveraging the good understandingof solar PV owners and the ‘EVambassador’ role of the first EVdrivers identified above as part of arecognition program.7.2.2 Do electric vehicleseducate or inform peopleabout other issues?Results from the householdparticipants suggest that electricvehicle experience engages, educatesand motivates people in relation toenergy use issues more broadly.These and other insights are likelyto be shared with family, friends,colleagues and even strangers onaccount of the ‘conversation-starter’effect of EV ownership.Although around 80 per cent ofhousehold participants reportedthemselves as ‘having a goodunderstanding of their householdenergy use’, nearly 60 per cent ofparticipants suggested that theywould ‘like to know more about theirhousehold energy use/costs’ as aresult of having an electric vehicle(n = 62). As an outcome from theirelectric vehicle experience, nearlyone in three household participantsreported themselves as having animproved understanding of householdelectricity use/costs, and one in fouron measures to save on electricityuse/costs.To a lesser extent this also applied tovehicle fuel use. Around 40 per cent ofparticipants suggest that they ‘wouldlike to know more about how to drivein a way that saves fuel in conventionalcars’, to the extent that nearly one infive actually sought this informationout as a result of their EV experience.And as a result of their EV experience,nearly 41 per cent of participantsreported themselves as having animproved understanding of how todrive in a way that saves fuel inconventional cars.This improved awareness andunderstanding often translatesinto action. Some 29 per cent ofparticipants reported themselves ashaving made changes to their homeand/or behaviour that will reduceelectricity use/costs, which is the samenumber of participants who reportedthemselves as having changedtheir driving style so as to be moreeconomical in conventional cars.Household participants also reportedthemselves as having regularlytalked with others about their electricvehicle experience. Over 96 per cent ofparticipants reported having ‘frequent’or ‘very frequent’ conversations withfamily, friends or work colleagueson account of their Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial experience, and over 45per cent reported similar experienceswith strangers. This suggests thatEV drivers may act as ‘experts’ in thecommunity in relation to energy useissues more broadly.

ISSUES ANDOPPORTUNITIESA significant outcomefrom the VictorianElectric Vehicle Trialhas been the range ofissues and opportunitiesobserved in relation toelectric vehicle marketdevelopment in Victoria.The issues/opportunitiesapply to both the earlyand mainstream market,and are relevant for allelectric vehicle marketstakeholders.CREATING A MARKET 125

With reference to Section 3.2, the trial focus is on technology market development, or in other words the adoption of newtechnology. Drawing upon Dunstan et al (2011) and Jaffe et al (2005), barriers to technology adoption may be broken downaccording to the categories listed in Table 19.BarrierDefinitionTechnical Current technology The performance of the new technology (as compared to theincumbent/competitors)Current costsThe cost of the new technology (as above)Institutional Regulatory barriers Regulation biased against the new technologyExternalities and price structuresFailure to reflect costs accurately in prices, including:• Environmental impact costs from a technology that arenot borne by users• Knowledge acquisition costs about a new technology for oneindividual/firm which create benefits for others• Adoption costs of a new technology for one user being dependentupon the number of other users that have adopted thetechnology (sometimes called ‘dynamic increasing returns’).Payback gapSplit incentivesIncomplete informationCultural valuesConfusionThe gap in acceptable payback periods between stakeholdersThe challenges of capturing benefits spread across numerousstakeholdersAbsence or difficulty in accessing relevant, reliable informationInsufficient attention given by individuals and organisations to newtechnologies and opportunitiesThe additional barriers created by the interaction of thebarriers aboveTable 19. The classification of barriers to adoption of new technology/innovations.With reference to Section 3.2, an additional consideration relates to the significance of a barrier in the context of the timelinefor adoption of a new technology/innovation. Some barriers may be particularly significant at the outset of the marketdevelopment, but may reduce over time. Other barriers may be of greater significance as the market goes ‘mainstream’.Dunstan et al (2011) have provided a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the wide range of barriers to electricvehicle adoption against the classifications in Table 19. Building upon this and the phases of market development asoutlined in Sections 3.2 and 6.1.2, Table 20 provides a summary of the issues and opportunities for EV market growthidentified throughout this report. It should be noted that the observations made are relevant for all electric vehicle marketstakeholders, not just government.

Issue Classification Sections Opportunities Early marketEarly-adopter Confusion 6.2 • Evidencing environmental bona fides xvalue proposition• Linking EV uptake to renewableenergy.Current costs 7.2.1 • High Occupancy Vehicle lane access xElectric vehiclepurchase pricesDepreciation /resale valuesElectric vehiclerange / chargingtimeCurrent costs /Payback gapExternalities(knowledgeacquisition,dynamic increasingreturns)4.2.54.3.15.2.65.3.65.4.54.2.34.3.24.3.45.1.55.2.35.2.65.3.25.4.25.4.5Current costs 4.1.34.3.4• Local government and/or electricitymarket fleet focus• Building rating program recognition• Workplace charging programpromotion• Sponsorship of on-street publiccharging locations• Signage for public charging locations• Reservation facility for commercialcharging / parking locations.• EV drivers forum• Fleet knowledge sharing• Corporate charging networks• Centralised charging networkinformation• Information for developers, landlords,property managers etc.• Reduced barriers to market entry• Increased market competition• Purchasing coalitions.Current costs 4.1 • OEM intervention• Battery standards• Second-life battery market.Current technology 4.2.34.3.45.3.65.4.5Incompleteinformation4.1.34.2.24.3.45.1.55.3.65.4.5• Workplace charging• Public charging network, includingquick chargers.• Improved charging networkinformation• Optimised vehicle connectivity• Promote awareness of drivingpatterns/distances• Knowledge-sharing through EVdrivers forum.xxxxxxMainstreammarketxxCREATING A MARKET 127

Issue Classification Sections Opportunities Early marketFleet EV uptake Current costs 4.1.2 • Purchasing coalitions (particularly x4.1.5 E-LCVs)4.3.1 • Promotion to decision-makers4.3.3 • Improved charging activity data4.3.4 • Improved operational cost data forPHEVs• Knowledge sharing• Marketing-focused vehicledeployments (local government andelectricity market fleets; corporatecharging strategies).Current technology 4.3.4 • 32 amp charging vehicle capability x5.3.6 • PHEVs• Quick charger network• Corporate charging strategies• Improved charging managementcapability.Cultural values 4.3.4 • Designated EV championsx5.3.6 • Strategic vehicle deployments• Corporate charging strategies.Charging Current technology 4.1.3 • Improved charging networkxinfrastructure4.2.2 informationroll-out4.3.4 • Optimised vehicle connectivity5.1.5 • Technical standards development /5.3.6 adoption.5.4.5Externalities5.1.5 • Agreed signagex(knowledge5.2.1 • Guidance for parking management /acquisition,5.2.3 enforcementdynamic increasingreturns)5.2.6 • Analysis of Victorian housing stock5.3.2 • Measures to address rentals, leased5.4.2 commercial premises, on-street5.4.5locations holders• Identification of priority locations forpublic charging outlets.Payback gap 5.1.4 • Facilitation of network roamingx5.1.5 arrangements / agreements5.3.6 • Workplace charging program5.4.3promotion5.4.5 • Sponsorship of on-street publiccharging locations• Promotion for public charginglocations• Reservation facility for commercialcharging / parking locations.Mainstreammarketx

Issue Classification Sections Opportunities Early marketCharging Incomplete5.2.3 • Information for developers, builders, xinfrastructure information5.3.2 landlords, property managers,roll-outcouncils, electricity distributors etc5.3.65.4.2• Identification of priority publiccharging locations.5.4.5Split incentives 5.2.3 • Building rating program recognition x5.2.6 • Measures to address new5.3.2 developments, rentals, leased5.4.2commercial premises5.4.4 • Support for priority public charging5.4.5locations• Quick chargers.Environmental Externalities6.2 • Linking EV uptake with renewableximpacts(environmentalenergy.impacts)Grid impactsElectric vehicleawareness,understandingand acceptanceIncompleteinformationExternalities(dynamicincreasing returns)5.2.45.2.65.3.35.2.65.3.6Cultural values 4.1.44.2.24.2.55.4.35.4.55.3.67.2.1• Information for EV operators(households, fleets) on ‘smart’charging strategies• Information for electricity distributorson grid impacts from EV charging andmanagement options.• Measures to promote EVs for energystorage (V2G).• Information about E2Ws• Promotion of the performancecharacteristics of EVs• Targeting information at universitiesand their alumni• Specify EV operating cost advantagesas weekly / monthly• Establish environmental bona fides• High Occupancy Vehicle lane access• Partnerships for on-street charginglocations• Promotion of the public chargingnetwork.xMainstreammarketxxxxxTable 20. Issues and opportunities for EV market development as observed within the trial.The timeline and economic benefits of EV market development as outlined in Section 6.1 are heavily dependent uponresolution of these issues and opportunities. In simple terms, many of these issues must be addressed if the electric vehiclemarket is to ever move beyond its current state of infancy.CREATING A MARKET 129

WHERE TOFROM HERE?The Victorian ElectricVehicle Trial project willbe completed in mid-2014. The final phaseof the trial will seek toposition Victoria for theperiod following the trialconclusion up until 2020,the forecast ‘take-offpoint’ for mainstreammarket adoption.

Drawing upon the learnings acquired in the project to date, the three broad subject areas that will be the primary focus forthe remainder of the trial are:1. Enhancing the early-adopter EV value proposition (‘early adopters’)2. Reducing the costs of EV uptake – now and in future (‘reducing costs’)3. Raising awareness, understanding and acceptance of EVs in the Victorian community (‘education and awareness’).A range of detailed tasks will be completed in the intervening period, a summary of which can be seen in Table 21 includingalignment with the subject areas above. The final project report will update the findings presented in this mid-term report,along with additional insights made in the interim.TaskEV charging DR/LCproject reportEV purchasingcoalition reportCompletion ofhousehold vehicleroll-outsNational leadershipEV test-driveprogramLand-use planningguidance projectEV Schooleducation programreportCompletion of fleetvehicle roll-outsCompletionof charginginfrastructure rolloutsFinal reportEV stakeholderengagementDescriptionPublication of final report forthe electric vehicle chargingdemand response / load controldemonstration projectPublication of final report for thefleet electric vehicle purchasingcoalition feasibility studyFinalisation of householdparticipant data sets, includingvehicle and charging activitymonitoring, surveys and traveldiariesIn partnership with RACV,test-drive program aimed atexecutive-level managementof large fleet operatorsFurther engagement with landdevelopment sector and finalassessmentContinued delivery and finalassessment of school-basededucation programFinalisation of fleet vehicle datasets, including charging activitymonitoring and surveysInstallation and commissioning ofall household and fleet charginginfrastructure, quick chargers,and decommissioning/transitionof legacy infrastructure at trialconclusionCompilation and validation ofcomplete trial data set; analysisand completion of final projectreportContinuation of and transitionarrangements for EV marketstakeholder engagementEarly-adoptersSubject areaReducing costsEducation andawarenessTimeframeX X March 2013X March 2013X X X April 2013X X July 2013X X X October 2013X November 2013X X X December 2013X X X April 2014X X X June 2014X X X June 2014CREATING A MARKET 131

TaskNational EVstandardsdevelopmentprocessProject websiteand associatedpublicationsDescriptionContinuation of and transitionarrangements for the national EVstandards development processTransition and/or exitarrangements for the website,discussion board, guidancematerials etc.Early-adoptersSubject areaReducing costsEducation andawarenessTimeframeX X X June 2014X June 2014Table 21. Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial high-level task list for project completion.With reference to Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1.1, the vehicles and charging infrastructure will be transitioned out of the trialthrough arrangements set out in the initial project agreements:• The trial vehicles are to be returned to the relevant vehicle suppliers via the Victorian Government fleetmanagement organisation• The trial charging infrastructure will be either transitioned over to a direct commercial relationship between the siteowner/operator and the charging infrastructure provider as a result of an offer made by the latter to the former,or it will be removed and the site remediated back to near-original condition.These arrangements reflect the finite duration of the trial project along with the objective to provide a foundation for theVictorian electric vehicle market.

ACRONYMS,GLOSSARY ANDUNITS OF MEASURECREATING A MARKET 133

A – ampere or amps, a measureof electrical currentBEV – Battery Electric Vehicle, ora vehicle that runs exclusively onelectrical energyAdvanced Metering Infrastructure– or smart meters, a type of hightechnology electrical meter thatidentifies consumption in moredetail than a conventional meter andcommunicates that information by wayof a network back to the local utility formonitoring and billing purposesBalance of Payments – a system ofrecording all of a country’s economictransactions with the rest of the worldover a period of one yearBaseload – or baseload demand, isthe minimum amount of power thata utility or distribution company mustmake available to its customers,or the amount of power required tomeet minimum demands based onreasonable expectations of customerrequirementsCharge state – the amount of electricalenergy stored in a battery as areflection of its total storage capacityCharging circuit – the electrical circuitwhich connects the charging outlet tothe point of electrical supplyCharging event – the activity ofsupplying electrical energy to anelectric vehicle from an externalsource, for example via a plug/cableCharging outlet – the device that sitsbetween the vehicle and the electricitynetwork, sometimes known as EVSECharging infrastructure – thededicated equipment used fordelivering electrical energy to EVs viacharging eventsCoal-generated electricity – electricitygenerated from burning coalCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR)– a form of corporate self-regulationthat underpins efforts by business toprotect and promote community valuesCradle-to-grave – a total productlifecycle assessment (LCA)CSIRO – Commonwealth Science andIndustrial Research OrganisationDemand charging – or Conveniencecharging, are Charging events thatcommence as soon as a vehicle isplugged in (as opposed to a later timebased upon other considerations)Duty cycle – the way in which vehiclesare driven, taking into account driverinputs, traffic conditions, vehiclepayload in terms of passengersand cargo etc.EIA – Environmental ImpactAssessmentElectric Light Commercial Vehicles orE-LCVs – commercial vehiclessuch as vans and small trucks thatare either partly or completelyelectrically-poweredElectric Two-Wheelers or E2Ws – twowheeledvehicles such as bicycles andmotorcycles that are either partly orcompletely electrically-poweredEOI – Expression of InterestEV – Electric Vehicle, used in thisdocument to mean any vehicle witha plug (i.e. a PEV)EVSE – Electric Vehicle SupplyEquipment, which is the emergingindustry-standard name for electricvehicle charging outletsEconomies of scale – savings in theper unit costs of production that aregained through production of largerquantities, for example via amortizationof the production facility overheadsacross larger volumesEV charging network – the networkof charging infrastructuregCO2e – grams of carbondioxide equivalent, a measureof greenhouse gasesGHG – Greenhouse GasGrid – a network of cables designedto connect power stations with theircustomers in offices, homes, schools,factories, etc.HEV – Hybrid Electric Vehicle, or avehicle that uses solely a hydrocarbonbasedfuel but supplements this withelectrical energy recovered throughregenerative brakingICE – Internal Combustion EngineICEV – Internal Combustion EngineVehicleKm – kilometre, a measure of distanceLCA – Life Cycle Assessment,an EIA methodLead-acid battery – an electricitystorage device based upon a lead (Pb)and sulphuric acid electrochemical cellLithium-ion battery – an electricitystorage device based upon the familyof lithium (Li) electrochemical cellsMWh – Megawatt hours, a measurefor electrical energyN2O – Nitrogen dioxide, an air pollutantNOx – Oxides of Nitrogen,an air pollutantOEM – Original EquipmentManufacturer, a term that describesthe company that is the originalsupplier of a vehicleOn-street charging – Charging eventswhich take place using charginginfrastructure located on public lands(‘on-street’)

OPEC – Organisation of the PetroleumExporting CountriesPeak / off-peak – periods of greater orlesser demand for something; in thecontext of this paper, the term relatesto electricity demandPEV – Plug-in Electric Vehicle, one ofeither a PHEV or a BEV, both of whichuse plugs to source electrical energyPHEV – Plug-in Hybrid ElectricVehicle, a vehicle that uses bothelectrical and hydrocarbon-basedenergy sourced externallyPV – Photovoltaic, a technologyfor turning solar radiation intoelectrical energyPM2.5 – Particulate Matter of2.5 microns or less in diameter,sometimes known as ‘fine particles’(an air pollutant)Primary use / secondary use batterymarket – terms to distinguish the twomarkets for electrical storage batteries(new and used)Quick chargers – a high current/voltage charging infrastructure devicethat reduces the amount of timeneeded to charge an EVRange – the distance a vehiclecan travel based upon the amountof energy stored and the energyconversion efficiency of thevehicle technologyRare Earth metals – or Rare Earthelements, are a collection of seventeenchemical elements in the periodictable, namely scandium, yttrium, andthe fifteen lanthanides, that are keymaterials for automotive catalyticconverters and a range of electricalequipmentRegenerative braking – a method ofbraking whereby the kinetic energythat is normally lost as heat duringstopping is instead gathered andstored for re-useRenewable energy – energy generatedfrom renewable sources such as thesun and windRFID – Radio Frequency Identification,which is communications technologycommonly used for ‘swipe cards’ suchas Victoria’s myki public transportticketing systemSmart charging – sometimes known asoff-peak charging, are charging eventsthat are scheduled to take place duringperiods of low electricity demandSOx – Sulfur oxides, an air pollutantSO2 – Sulfur dioxide, an air pollutantStandard charging – Chargingevents that are based upon thestandard domestic electrical supply(240 v in Australia)Supply chain – a system oforganisations, people, technology,activities, information and resourcesinvolved in moving a product or servicefrom supplier to customerSwap stations – a proprietary charginginfrastructure technology wheredepleted EV batteries are swappedout of the vehicle for fully-chargedequivalents in automated facilitiesTailpipe emissions – a term todescribe the measured quantities ofair pollutants emitted from a motorvehicle exhaustTank-to-wheel – a vehicle lifecycleassessment term that relates to theupstream impactstCO2e – tonnes of carbondioxide equivalent, a measureof greenhouse gasesTorque – the measure of rotationalforce that is the basis for vehicleaccelerationTraction battery – the propulsionenergy electrical storage device inan EV (as opposed to the 12 v batterythat is used to operate the ancillarysystems such as lighting, security etc.)Upstream/downstream impacts – theoutcomes from different aspects of avehicle lifecycle that relate to the fuelenergy cycle (upstream) and the vehicleenergy conversion cycle (downstream)Vehicle-to-grid/ vehicle-to-building/vehicle-to-home – scenarios wherean EV is used as an electricalstorage deviceVoltage – electrical potential,measured in volts (v)VOCs – Volatile Organic Compounds,an air pollutantWh/km – Watt hours per kilometre,a measure of EV energy economyWell-to-tank – a vehicle lifecycleassessment term that relates to thedownstream impactsWell-to-wheel – the total vehiclelifecycle assessment, also knownas Cradle-to-graveWireless induction charging – a typeof charging infrastructure technologythat utilises electromagnetic inductionto transfer energy as opposed toconduction through a plug/cablearrangementCREATING A MARKET 135

REFERENCES

Actew AGL 2009, History of mobile phones in Australia, 11 June 2009, viewed 29 January 2013,http://kids.actewagl.com.au/education/communications/MobilePhones/DevelopmentOfMobiles/MobileHistory.aspxAECOM 2011, Forecast Uptake and Economic Evaluation of Electric Vehicles in Victoria, report for Victorian Department ofTransport, 6 May 2011, http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/33499/Economic-Viability-of-Electric-Vehicles-in-Victoria-rev-C-final-issued.pdfAustralian Broadcasting Company (ABC) 2011, 30 years of the mobile phone in Australia, 11 August 2011, viewed 15 January2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-11/30-years-of-the-mobile-phone-in-australia/2835564Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) 2012, First solar car charge station opens, 22 March 2012, viewed 19 February 2013,http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3461227.htmAustralian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009, Children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities, release no. 4901.0,April 2009Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011, Household expenditure survey, release no. 6530.0, September 2011Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012, 2011 Australian Census, 30 October 2012Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 2008, Number of mobile phones now exceeds Australia’s population,28 April 2008, viewed 15 January 2013, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_311135Australian Government (Aust Govt) 2011, Architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system: Taxation of fuel, viewed 8 February2013, http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/Section_9-03.htmAustralian Government (Aust Govt) 2012a, About Australia – Local Government (Councils), viewed 16 December 2012,http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government/local-government-councilsAustralian Government (Aust Govt) 2012b, Australian Design Rules, viewed 19 February 2013,https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/index.aspxAutoblog Green (Autoblog) 2010, Australian state of Victoria launches massive 5-year electric vehicle trial, 9 October 2010,viewed 25 February 2012, http://green.autoblog.com/Autoblog Green (Autoblog) 2012a, Dutch fleet owners buying PHEVs for rebates, then using only gas, 9 November 2012, viewed28 December 2012, http://green.autoblog.comAutoblog Green (Autoblog) 2012b, Who’s ready now? Nissan deploys first of 400 planned DC fast chargers in Europe, 25 May 2012,viewed 16 January 2013, http://green.autoblog.com/2012/05/25/nissan-deploys-first-400-planned-dc-fast-chargers/AutoCRC 2010, Automotive Australia 2020, Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Automotive Technology (AutoCRC),August 2010CALSTART 2012, EV employer initiative: Webinar #2 minutes, 30 October 2012, http://www.evworkplace.orgCenter for Automotive Research (CAR) 2007, How Automakers Plan Their Products: A Primer for Policymakers on AutomotiveIndustry Business Planning, July 2007, viewed 10 February 2013, http://www.cargroup.org/?module=Publications&event=Download&pubID=32&fileID=38Center for Automotive Research (CAR) 2011, Green and Connected, white paper prepared for the Michigan Departmentof Transportation, 28 September 2011, viewed 10 February 2013, http://www.cargroup.org/assets/files/green.pdfCentre for Education and Research into Environmental Strategies (CERES) 2012, Awards, viewed 19 February 2013,http://www.ceres.org.au/about/awards.htmlCNET 2012, Washington State senate passes bill to charge EV owners $100 annual fee, 13 February 2012, viewed 8 February 2013,http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57376322-48/wash-state-senate-passes-bill-to-charge-ev-owners-$100-annualfee/#!Colliers International (Colliers) 2012, Australian CBD Car Parking – The Next Decade, White Paper, Colliers International, 2012Crown 2012, Fleet information – BCI Promo Electric, Crown, viewed 20 December 2012, http://www.crowncoaches.com.au/fleet-information/bci-proma-electricDavison, P., Davison, P., Reed, N., Halden., D., Dillon, J. 2003, Children’s Attitudes to Sustainable Transport: an investigation intohow children and young people view sustainability in relation to their personal transport, including to school and leisure facilities,Scottish Executive Social Research, viewed 28 November 2012, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/12/18668/30698CREATING A MARKET 137

Department of Climate Change (DCC) 2007, Information Sheet: Victorian Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2007, AustralianGovernment, CanberraDepartment of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) 2012, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Department of ClimateChange & Energy Efficiency, Canberra, viewed 21 September 2012, http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/#Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2012, Smart Meters, Victorian Government, viewed 18 December 2012,http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/smart-metersDepartment of Transport (DOT) 2009, Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) 2007, Victorian Government,viewed 29 January 2013, http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/research/statistics/victorian-integrated-survey-of-travel-andactivity?a=31280Department of Transport (DOT) 2010a, Expression of Interest – Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial, Victorian Government,March 2010Department of Transport (DOT) 2010b, Design Discussion Paper – Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial, Victorian Government,July 2010Department of Transport (DOT) 2010c, Local electric vehicle technology, Victorian Government, December 2010Department of Transport (DOT) 2010d, Survey of household participants, Victorian Government, December 2010Department of Transport (DOT) 2011, Interoperability arrangements discussion paper – Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial, VictorianGovernment, December 2010Department of Transport (DOT) 2012a, Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA), Victorian Government, viewed28 October 2012, http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/research/statistics/victorian-integrated-survey-of-travel-and-activityDepartment of Transport (DOT) 2012b, Planning for our bus industry’s future, Victorian Government, viewed 20 December 2012,http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/research/sustainability/sustainable-transport-projects-and-programs/planning-for-our-busindustrys-futureDepartment of Transport (DOT) 2012c, The Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial – Results of 2012 Applications, Victorian Government,January 2012Department of Transport (DOT) 2012d, The Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial – GreenPower Accounting Mid-term Report, VictorianGovernment, November 2012Department of Transport (DOT) 2012e, Guidance on Land-use Planning for Electric Vehicle Parking and Charging, VictorianGovernment, September 2012Department of Transport (DOT) 2012f, The Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial – Environmental Impacts of Electric Vehicles in Victoria,Victorian Government, November 2012Department of Transport (DOT) 2012g, Zero emissions driving for electric vehicles, Victorian Government, November 2012Department of Transport (DOT) 2012h, Electric vehicle racing – EV School case study, Victorian Government, 26 October 2012,viewed 21 January 2013, http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/projects/ev-trial/ev-school/rmit-videode T’Serclaes, P. and Jollands, N. 2007, Mind the gap: Quantifying Principal-agent Problems in Energy Efficiency, InternationalEnergy Agency, OECD publishing, 1 October 2007Drive 2011, Why hybrid cars could cost you thousands, viewed 27 December 2012,http://news.drive.com.au/drive/selling-tips/why-hybrid-cars-could-cost-you-thousands-20110212-1aqze.htmlECOtality 2012, The EV Project – Q3 2012 Report, ECOtality North America, 25 October 2012Eddington, R. 2008, Investing in Transport, Victorian Government, March 2008Edmunds 2012, What’s coming – Alternative vehicles 2013-15, 9 November 2012, viewed 16 January 2013,http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/whats-coming-alternative-vehicles-2013-15.htmlElectronics News 2012, Aussie company to launch first smart grid integrated EV charger, 19 November 2012, viewed 18 February 2013,http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/aussie-company-to-launch-first-smart-grid-integratEnergy Information Administration (EIA) 2012, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release Overview, United States EIA,5 December 2012

Ergon 2012, Pool pump connections, Ergon Energy, viewed 18 December 2012, http://www.ergon.com.au/your-home/accounts--and--billing/tariffs-and-prices-2012-13/pool-pump-connectionsErnst & Young 2008, Local Government Procurement Strategy, Victorian Government, September 2008Ford 2012, Ford C-MAX Energi Plug-in Hybrid Qualifies for California Carpool Lane Access and Incentives Up to $5,250,23 October 2012, viewed 18 January 2012, http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=37270Freight Best Practice 2009, The Benefits of Operating Electric Vehicles in an Urban Environment, The Scottish Government,June 2009GoAuto 2011, Up to $7500 cut from the price of Toyota’s pioneering Prius petrol-electric car, GoAuto, viewed 20 December 2012,http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/5927CA2776C7E4E2CA25786B0005A68F, 7 April 2011GoAuto 2012a, New and upgraded electric cars from Nissan, GM to address slow global EV sales, GoAuto, viewed 20 December2012, http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/AD3CDABD6A9B3087CA257ABF0005406A, 23 November 2012GoAuto 2012b, Nissan LEAF flutters down to $47k driveaway, GoAuto, viewed 20 December 2012,http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/F6563306BC8BA82CCA257AD100179ADC, 11 December 2012GoGet 2011, Case-study – GoGet CarShare, presentation to the Smart Utilities 2011 conference, Melbourne, June 2011Gopal, K. and Thawrani, P. 2012, Is the lack of public charging infrastructure a barrier for EV adoption?, paper presented at theEVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Los Angeles, 6 – 9 May 2012Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2012, Green Star – Interiors, Green Building Council of Australia, viewed20 December 2012, http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-interiors/Green Car Congress 2009, GM Working with Communities to Develop Roadmap for Plugin Infrastructure, Green Car Congress,viewed 25 February 2012, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/gm-working-with.htmlGreen Car Congress 2012, Pike Research forecasts annual sales of electric bicycles to surpass 47M units by 2018; Li-ionbattery share to climb to 12%, Green Car Congress, viewed 30 January 2013, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/ebike-20120327.htmlGreen Car Congress 2013, ChargePoint and DBT USA partner on networked EV charging in North America, Green Car Congress,viewed 11 February 2013, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/01/cpdbt-20130108.htmlInternational Council for Local Climate Initiatives (ICLEI) 2009, Local Government Vehicle Fleets – Status and Emissions,Australian Government, CanberraInvest Victoria (Invest Vic) 2011, Automotive industry, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Victorian Government, viewed 24 February 2012,http://www.invest.vic.gov.au/Assets/1425/3/Automotive-Industry-Brochure-201106-WEB.pdfJaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G. and Stavins, R.N. 2005, A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy, EcologicalEconomics, vol.54, pp 164-174Johnson, M. 2012, Electric bike investigation – Powered Two-wheeler ARC linkage grant project, Monash University IntelligentTransport System Roadshow presentation, 24 November 2012Klintsov, V., Klussman, S., Nikomarov, M., Remes, J. and Schubert, J. 2010, Looking Under the Hood 2: How the AutomotiveIndustry Grows, Automotive & Assembly Extranet, McKinsey & Company Inc, 2010Kopina, H. 2011, Kids and cars: Environmental attitudes in Children, Transport Policy, vol. 18, pp 573-578Lieberman, M. and Montgomery, D. 1988, First mover advantages, Strategic Management Journal, vol.9, summer 1998Local Government Procurement 2012, Current contracts, Local Government Procurement, viewed 16 December 2012,http://www.lgp.org.au/councils/current-contractsLos Angeles Times (LA Times) 2011, Yellow hybrid stickers for carpool lanes set to expire, 16 May 2011, viewed 16 January 2012,http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=37270Luskin Center for Innovation (Luskin) 2012, Southern California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles (UCLA), December 2012Lyons, E. and Breakwell. G.M. 1994, Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13 to 16 year-olds,Environment and Behaviour, vol 26.2, pg’s 223-238CREATING A MARKET 139

Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) 2012, Melbourne – let’s talk about the future, Victorian Government, October 2012Mitsubishi 2012, Mitsubishi Motors to launch MiEV power BOX 1500 watt power feeder for its Electric Vehicles, Mitsubishi, viewed18 December 2012, http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/publish/pressrelease_en/corporate/2012/news/detail0834.html, 18March 2012Mitsubishi Motors Australia (MMAL) 2011, Submission to the Light Vehicle CO2 Emission Standard Key Issues Paper,Mitsubishi, viewed 24 February 2012, http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/environment/co2_emissions/files/MitsubishiMotorsAustralia.pdfMoore, GA 1991, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers, Harper Business,New YorkNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2011, Notice of proposed rulemaking – Minimum sound requirementsfor hybrid and electric vehicles, Docket no. NHTSA-2011-0148News 2012, Cool and green hybrid car sales surge to Australian record, News Limited, viewed 20 December 2012,http://www.news.com.au/business/cool-and-green-hybrid-car-sales-surge-to-australian-record/storye6frfm1i-1226441599395Nissan 2011, Zero emission Nissan LEAF priced to deliver zero emission leadership, Nissan Australia, MelbourneNissan 2012a, Nissan and Nichicon to launch ‘LEAF to Home’ power supply system with ‘EV Power Station’, Nissan,viewed 18 December 2012, http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2012/_STORY/120530-01-e.html , 30 May 2012Nissan 2012b, Nissan LEAF and DC Quick Charging, presentation to the International Energy Agency Implementing Agreementon Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Task 20 Quick Charging Technology kick-off meeting, 6 May 2012Nous 2010, Electric Vehicle Interoperability – Lessons from the Telematics Arena, Victorian Government, MelbourneP3 North America (P3) 2012, Secondary use of electrified vehicle batteries, webinar presentation for AutomotiveWorld.com,30 May 2012Pike Research 2012, Wireless electric vehicle charging system sales set to surpass 280,000 by 2020, 20 December 2012, viewed30 January 2013, http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/wireless-electric-vehicle-charging-system-sales-to-surpass-280,000-by-2020Procurement Australia 2012, Current contracts, Procurement Australia, viewed 16 December 2012, http://www.procurementaustralia.com.au/content/contractsPuget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) 2010, Web-based Electric Vehicle Consumer Survey, Appendix D-4 in Electric VehicleInfrastructure: A Guide for Local Governments in Washington State, Puget Sound Regional Council, viewed 23 December 2012,http://www.psrc.org/assets/4326/EVI_full_appendices.pdf , July 2010Reuters 2012, U.S. oil production to surge on shale output: EIA, 23 January 2012, viewed 31 January 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-usa-eia-outlook-idUSTRE80M1LE20120123Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) 2009, Plugging in: A stakeholder investment guide for public electric vehicle charginginfrastructure, July 2009Rogers, E 1962, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New YorkRorke, J. and Inbakaran, C. 2009, Potential Early Adopters of Electric Vehicles in Victoria, Victorian Government, viewed13 November 2012, http://go.vic.gov.au/vK6LmHSchreiber, R. 2012, Workplace charging at Google, presentation to EV Employer Initiative, 31 July 2012SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) 2012, Benefit-cost Analysis of Car Share within the City of Sydney, report for the council ofCity of Sydney, June 2012, viewed 18 February 2013, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/122502/CarShareEconomicAppraisalFINALREPORT.pdfShaheen, S.A, Cohen, A.P. and Martin, E., Carsharing practice and policy: A review of North American practices and SanFrancisco Bay Area case study, Transportation Research Record, 15 March 2010, viewed 18 February 2013,http://www.carsharing.net/library/TRB10-2921final.pdfSilverpop 2012, 2012 Silverpop Email Marketing Metrics Benchmark Study, Silverpop, viewed 25 February 2013,http://www.silverpop.com/downloads/white-papers/WP_2012_Benchmark.pdf

Smart Grid News 2012, Aussie firm unveiling EV charger that can talk to smart meters, 20 November 2012, viewed 18 February2013, http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/End_Use_Electric_Transportation/Aussie-firm-unveiling-EV-chargerthat-can-talk-to-smart-meters-5297.html#.USIQZR2NrU8Society of Automotive Engineers Australia (SAE-Aust) 2012, About Formula SAE-A, viewed 21 January 2013,http://www.saea.com.au/formula-sae-a/media/Sperling, D. and Gordan, D. 2009, Two Billion Cars: Driving Towards Sustainability, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009Standards Australia 2010, Electric vehicle standards in Australia – Standards workplan, Standards Australia, SydneySustainability Victoria (SV) 2012, Energy use in Victoria, Victorian Government, viewed 24 February 2012,http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1819-energy-use-in-victoria.aspSwinburne University of Technology (Swinburne) 2012a, Electric Vehicle research at Swinburne, viewed 21 January 2013,http://www.swinburne.edu.au/engineering/electric-vehicle/Swinburne University of Technology (Swinburne) 2012b, Going electric – Team Swinburne Formula SAE, viewed21 January 2013, http://teamswinburne.com/going-electric.htmSydney Morning Herald (SMH) 2007, Mobile phone technology in Australia turns 20, 23 February 2007, viewed 15 January 2013,http://www.smh.com.au/news/mobiles--handhelds/history-calls/2007/02/23/1171734007650.html?page=2Telstra 2012, Mobile memories – in celebration of 25 years of hand-held phones, 23 February 2012, viewed 15 January 2013,http://exchange.telstra.com.au/2012/02/23/mobile-memories-in-celebration-of-25-years-of-hand-held-phones/Time 2010, Motorola DynaTAC 8000x, Time magazine, 25 October 2010, viewed 15 January 2013, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023689_2023708_2023656,00.htmlUnited States Department of Energy (US DOE) 2012a, Plug-in Electric Vehicle Handbook for Public Charging Station Hosts, DOE/GO-102012-3275, April 2012, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/51227.pdfUnited States Department of Energy (US DOE) 2012b, Electric-drive Technology Futures – Transportation Transition in the U.S.,presentation to the International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, 6 May 2012United States Department of Energy (US DOE) 2013, EV Everywhere Grand Challenge Blueprint, 31 January 2013, viewed6 February 2013, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/electric_vehicles/pdfs/eveverywhere_blueprint.pdfUniversity of Melbourne (Uni of Melb) 2010, Impact of the mass-adoption of electric cars on the Australian electricity grid,30 December 2010, viewed 21 January 2012, http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/index.php?page=alias-8VicRoads 2012a, Power-assisted bicycles, Victorian Government, viewed 7 December 2012, http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferRiders/BikeRiders/PowerAssistedBicycles.htmVicRoads 2012b, vehicle registration database extract, Victorian Government, 6 December 2012Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce Skills Development Centre (VACCSDC) 2012, HEV and BEV safety, inspectionand servicing, VACCSDC, viewed 28 November 2012, http://www.vaccsdc.com.au/Technical/TechnicalShortCourses/HEVBEVSafetyInspectionandServicing/tabid/235/language/en-AU/Default.aspxVictorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) 2012, Power from the People – final report from the Inquiry into FeedinTariff Arrangements and Barriers to Distributed Generation, Victorian Government, Melbourne, July 2012Wikipedia (Wiki) 2012, Local Government in Australia, viewed 16 December 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_AustraliaCREATING A MARKET 141

APPENDIX AVICTORIAN ELECTRIC VEHICLETRIAL CORPORATE PARTICIPANTSParticipation in the trial is underpinned by a formal contract for each participant. Various other organisations not listed belowhave engaged to varying degrees over the life of the project however these interactions have not involved a formal agreement.An explanation of what each participant role constitutes can be found at the foot of the table.EntityChargingInfrastructureHostChargingInfrastructureProviderFleetOperatorPremierPartnerServiceProviderTrialParticipantVehicleSupplierAECOMxAGL Energy x x xAustin HealthBayside City CouncilxxBetter Place Australia x xCardinia Shire CouncilCentre for Education andResearch in EnvironmentalStrategies (CERES)Cloud Utilityx x xxxChargePoint Australia x xCitiPower x xCSIRO x x xCity of CaseyCity of FranksonxxCity of Greater Dandenong x xCity of KingstonCity of MaribyrnongxxCity of Melbourne x xCity of MeltonCity of Port PhillipCity of MonashxxxClub Assist x x xColonial First State GlobalAsset ManagementxDiUS Computing x xDolomiti Italian LifestylexECOtalityxE-Day LifexEnhancex

EntityChargingInfrastructureHostChargingInfrastructureProviderFleetOperatorPremierPartnerServiceProviderTrialParticipantVehicleSupplierEPA VictoriaxExigencyxEV EngineeringxFederation SquarexFreeFuelxGeneral Electric (GE) x x xGM HoldenxGo Get Car ShareGreen Energy TradingxxJuicePointxKangan Institute of TAFELinking Melbourne AuthorityLINK Community TransportxxxLumley Insurance x xManningham City CouncilxMelbourne Airport x xMelbourne Museum x xMitsubishi CorpxMitsubishi Motors AustraliaxMomentum EnergyxMonash University x xMoreland City CouncilMornington Peninsula ShireCouncilMount Alexander Shire CouncilxxxMT DataxMunicipal Association ofVictoria (MAV)xNissan Motor Company (Aust) x xNHP Electrical EngineeringProductsxOrigin x xPowercor Australia x xCREATING A MARKET 143

EntityChargingInfrastructureHostChargingInfrastructureProviderFleetOperatorPremierPartnerServiceProviderTrialParticipantVehicleSupplierRMIT UniversityxRobert Bosch (Australia) x xSG FleetxSofitel on CollinsxSouth East Councils ClimateChange Alliance (SECCCA)xSP AusNet x xSwinburne University x xSustainability VictoriaSynergetics (The Green Spaces)xxThe Climate GroupxRoyal Automobile Club ofVictoria (RACV)The Victorian Arts Centre Trustx x xxToyota Motor Corp AustxTRUenergyUnited Energy DistributionxxUniversity of Melbourne x xVACC x xVicRoadsxVicUrbanxVisionStream x xWellington Shire CouncilYarra City CouncilYarra TramsxxxDEFINITIONSThe role of each participant as setout in the column headings above isdefined below:• Charging Infrastructure Host –owner/manager of property whichhosts publicly-accessible chargingoutlets (refer to Section 5.1.1)• Charging InfrastructureProvider – provider of charginginfrastructure services forhousehold, fleet and/or public use(refer to Section 5.1.1)• Fleet Operator – commercial fleetoperator for vehicles participatingin the trial (refer to Section 4.1.1)• Premier Partner – foundationpartner for the trial, includingin-kind contribution ofgoods/services• Trial Participant – formalparticipant in the trial includingdata/information exchange and/orpromotional activities• Vehicle Supplier – provider ofvehicles for use as part of the trial.

APPENDIX BEVS AND FLEETS 2012 PRACTICAL ROLL-OUT PLANThe guidance material below draws upon the experiences of fleets who have participated in the Victorian Electric VehicleTrial. The material was presented to attendees at the EVs and Fleets 2012 workshops.No. Task Inputs OutputsStarttimingKey Questions1 Design vehicledeployment planStrategic /corporateobjectivesFleet / operationaldataEV typeEV deploymentlocation / taskEV champion- 14 wks What do we want to know?Who is our audience?Where should the EV be based?Who is best suited to managing the EV?Which technology matches our fleet task?2 Procure vehicle EV typeBudget / timing3 Design charging plan EV specEV deploymentlocation / taskBudget / timingEV specEV delivery dateCharging planCharging spec /provider-12 wks Which technology and functional spec?Buy or lease?What are our charging needs/options?When will the vehicle be delivered?-10 wks Where could/should we charge tomaximise vehicle utilisation and exposure?What charging solution/s are available inthese location/s?What info do we require from chargingactivities?Do we need a charging service provider?Do we need a renewable energy strategy?4 Implement basecharging solutionCharging spec /providerCharging planBase chargingsolution-10 wks Where is our base charging solutionlocated and how does it work?How do we ensure the availability of ourbase charging solution?Do we want/need signage/groundmarking?How do we get energy use info?5 Design marketing plan Strategic /corporateobjectivesCorporatecommunicationsplanCharging planEV marketingstrategyEV livery design-6 wks What are we trying to tell our audiencewith the EV?What comm’s pathways work best for thisstory?How can we maximise the vehicle visibilityto our audience?6 Design vehiclemanagement planEV deploymentlocation / taskCharging planEV marketingstrategyEV managementplanStaff training& engagementplan-6 wks What’s our operational plan for thevehicle?How do we find out what we want to know?How do we minimise risk/maximiseutilisation?CREATING A MARKET 145

No. Task Inputs OutputsStarttimingKey Questions7 Receive vehicle &validate plansEV delivery dateEV livery designCharging planBranded EVValidatedmanagement/charging plans0 Who can make/apply our vehicle livery andwhen?Does our EV operate as expected?Does our EV champion understandall aspects of the vehicle operation/management plan?Does our EV work with all aspects of ourcharging plan?8 Commission vehicleinto fleetBranded EVValidatedmanagement/charging plansStaff training &engagement planEV marketing planEV deployment +2 wks Are our staff aware of the vehicle?Who of our Exec team could drive thevehicle?Do the drivers understand how to operatethe vehicle in line with the management/charging plans?Have drivers accepted the vehicle?When do we implement ourcommunications activities?9 Evaluate performance& realise valueEV deploymentEV managementplanEV marketing planOptimal vehicleutilisationFulfilmentof strategic/ corporateobjectives+3 wksonwardsAre we meeting our vehicle utilisationtargets and if not, why and what changescan be made?What are our target audience awarenesslevels of the vehicle?Have we obtained investment-gradeinformation to inform future businessplanning?Notes:• Advice applies to early-market / initial vehicle adoption in 2012-3• Assumes the business case to proceed has already been approved• Start timing doesn’t take internal approval processes or product supply leadtimes into account• Variations in supplier business models may influence the solution design and timing.

APPENDIX CCHARGING OUTLET ATTRIBUTE LISTThe charging outlet attribute list below should be considered by people or organisations seeking to buy dedicated electricvehicle charging equipment. It is a comprehensive list of features that are available in the market and potentially relevant tothe buyer. Buyers should consider the list of attributes an input into their final equipment specification, due to the inevitablecost trade-off in seeking such a comprehensive list of features.The list is an outcome from benchmarking of international procurement activities and consultation with eight charginginfrastructure providers taking part in the Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial.The benchmarking activity focused primarily on the 2011 Southern California Association of Local Government jointprocurement activity RFB-IS-12200325 for 300 to 400 ‘Level 2’ chargers to be installed over 2012-13 19 . The outcomes fromthis joint procurement activity are available online in the form of an evaluation matrix 20 .Area Attribute DefinitionGeneral Mounting style Wall / pedestal (free-standing)Weather-proofingNo. charging outletsDimensionsIndoor / outdoorSingle / multi (no.)Unit; mounting (anchor bolts, concrete pad etc)Compliance AS/NZS 3000KEMAC-TickNEMACharging standard SAE J1772 / IEC 62196AC / DCVarious levels and modesRated power deliveryAmperageStand-by power consumptionRe-start / cold load pick-upCable typeCable lengthElectrical protectionGeneral power outletUser interfaceBilling / cost recoveryPayment system integrationKilowatts (kW)Amps (A)Watts (W)Intermediate / randomized / noneFloating (detached) / fixedStraight / formed-coil / retractableMetres (m)Residual Current Device (RCD) / Residual CircuitBreaker with Overload (RCBO)Standard 240 v outlet included / not includedIncluded / not includedSolution descriptionIncluded / not includedIncluded / not includedPayment systems supported19 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rfb-is-12200325&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2FResearchDocuments%2FProd%2F11-2-2011%2FRFB_IS_12200325_SPECIFICATIONS.docx&ei=xjAYUc32A7GyiQeE94G4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFyz3VsfAoZKIM-uDiWXDzj3T-CSw&bvm=bv.42080656,d.dGY, viewed 11 February 201320 http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/Demonstration/ElectricHybrid/SoCalEV_RFP_Evaluation.pdfCREATING A MARKET 147

Area Attribute DefinitionGeneralParking access and revenue control system(PARCS) integrationWeb-based / mobile phone system integrationEnergy demand response system integrationIncluded / not includedPARCs supportedIncluded / not includedSystems supportedSolution descriptionIncluded / not includedDescriptionData capture Percentage of time the vehicle is drawing power Captured / not capturedEach unique charging eventDate / time of use (start / end)Length of time vehicle was connected per charging eventTotal electricity consumed (kWh) and peak power drawn(kW) per charging eventEach unique vehicle charged from outletState-of-charge of each vehicle as it was connected /disconnected to outletAbility to indicate time and energy consumption for costrecoveryData collected and storedLength of time data is storedHow long / how many transactions are stored if there’s acommunications failureWhat happens when communications failure occursMethod of accessing data locallyWhere does / will data collected resideFleet vehicle data provisionReporting descriptionNetwork capabilities for data transmissionOn-Board & remote diagnosticsAlertsCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedCaptured / not capturedIncluding / in addition to attributes aboveDurationIncluded / not includedDescriptionDescriptionDescriptionProvider network / host networkDescriptionDescriptionFibre / cellular / wireless / EthernetIncluded / not includedDescriptionIncluded / not includedDescription

Area Attribute DefinitionBilling / costrecoveryCapable of accepting / processing user payments andmanaging settlements with hostPoint-of-sale payment capabilityPayment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)compliantAuthentication system for user IDBilling options (time, energy etc)Service feesIncluded / not includedDescriptionIncluded / not includedDescriptionIncluded / not includedIncluded / not includedDescriptionDescriptionApplicable / not applicableCosts Terms and conditionsSupport Service / inspection / maintenance schedule DescriptionWarranty for partsWarranty for labourUpgrade capability / method / costsTerms and conditionsTerms and conditionsDescriptionAdditional considerations relating to service performance should also be made as part of a procurement agreement forelectric vehicle charging services. Evidence relating to the reliability of service provision, time taken for fault diagnosis andremedy and other metrics relating to service delivery should be considered as part of the initial procurement activity andsubsequent service agreement.CREATING A MARKET 149

APPENDIX DHOUSEHOLD CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE QUESTIONS PROFORMAThe following questionnaire was supplied to the trial household participants following completion of their formal agreementto participate. The participant’s response informed planning on the choice of charging infrastructure provider and the designof their charging solution, thereby streamlining the charging infrastructure installation process.A charging unit will need to be installed at your home to enable recharging of your EV. The following questions relate to where youwill be parking the EV when it’s not being driven. To avoid us making numerous visits to your home, please answer the followingquestions as best you can:1. Is the parking location undercover or outside?2. Is a wall-mounted charging unit possible, or will the charging unit need to be on a free-standing pole?3. Is there any risk of asbestos in the location where the charging unit will be installed?4. What is the age and type of your house (free-standing, semi-detached, town-house, apartment etc)?5. When was your house last renovated (if at all)?6. Is the EV parking bay attached to the home or building where the power supply is available? Or will there need to be wiringinstalled between the house and garage?7. Is the path between EV parking bay and household power supply blocked by trees, household storage, rubbish, walls etc?8. What is the estimated length from your electricity meter and/or switchboard to parking bay?If it is not too much trouble, could you please supply photos of the house, the garage, the proposed parking space and location, themeter and switch boards, and anything else you think might be usefulThe answers to these questions will give us a good indication of what to expect when we come out to your residence to install theunit. If you’re not sure what the question is asking, please don’t hesitate to give us a call.Example electricity metersExample switchboards

APPENDIX EEV CHARGING COURTESY SIGNAGEThe proforma design from the U.S. below 21 is an example of simple but effective communication between EV drivers thatallows them to share EV charging infrastructure.21 http://www.evchargernews.com/chargeprotocolcard.pdf, viewed 23 December 2012CREATING A MARKET 151

If you would like to receive this publication in analternative format please telephone the PublicAffairs branch on 9655 6000.© State Government of Victoria 2013This publication is copyright. No part may bereproduced by any process except in accordancewith the Provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.Authorised by the Victorian Government121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne.DOT 7610/13