‘Watering’ the EV charging deserts and leaving no-one behind?
Dr Chris Jones, University of Portsmouth
Figure: We need to create equitable charging opportunities for all EV users, both present and future.
The rapid rise in electric vehicles (EVs) in the UK for domestic and commercial use is helping to decarbonise the transport sector, as well as affording benefits to residential air quality. As a society, this is clearly a good thing, if we are to tackle the growing spectre of climate change and to help prevent life-curtailing respiratory diseases [1]. However, if we scratch beneath the surface of this positive drive towards electrification, there are hidden depths that should be considered; including the extent to which access to the benefits of electrification are fair.
Advances in the ‘smartification’ of the home environment offer a parallel context. While a growing number of people now benefit from the presence of an in-home assistant (e.g. Amazon Alexa) and a variety of smart systems and appliances, there remain a substantial number of homeowners who have yet to embrace the revolution. The reasons for this are manifold, including the accessibility and affordability of the technology, questions about its usefulness and usability, fears over data-security and privacy, a lack of trust in authorities, and a more general reluctance to adopt new technologies, to name but a few. Whatever the reason(s), there are fears that in the context of the home environment, that a ‘digital divide’ is emerging: where the ‘haves’ reap the rewards afforded by an increasingly tech-driven, digital society, while the ‘have nots’ are left behind and risk being left behind and isolated by the steady march of ‘progress’ [2].
Considering the electrification of the private vehicle sector, many of the same arguments remain. The relative affordability of EVs continues to be a major barrier to their mass uptake. Prices of EVs will drop to more affordable levels over time as the second-hand market matures, and as competitively priced new vehicles come to market. However, there are different types of ‘accessibility’ to consider in this context, and inequalities will remain (and could widen) where there is not a comparable growth in the accessibility and affordability of charging infrastructure.
Concerns over the accessibility of charging, alongside the cost of EVs, remain a key barrier to uptake as they feed into related and well-documented concerns about ‘range anxiety’. While the range of EVs is improving over time, and while the majority of journeys fall well-within the range of even a largely discharged battery, residual concerns about the potential inability to travel wherever at one’s convenience play on the mind of many ‘would be’ EV owners [1]. And with good reason, as the convenience afforded by private vehicle ownership is one of the primary reasons people have a car [3].
The provision and availability of charging need to keep pace with the growing presence and demand for EVs on our roads, but must also not create further inequalities and barriers to entry. For example, while there is growth in the provision of home-charging systems, which reduce the need to ‘compete’ for public chargers, purchase and installation of these systems can be costly and rely upon the presence of suitable off-road parking; preconditions that tend to favour more affluent homeowners living in houses with private garages and/or driveways [4].
There is also the urban/rural divide, where public charging infrastructure tends to be deployed in more populous (and affluent) urban areas to the detriment of those living in more sparsely populated rural settings. The reasons for this growing divide are, of course, manifold. For instance, there is the logical ‘meet the demand’ argument, which favours deployment in more populous areas with a high penetration of existing EVs (and greater source of revenue). However, we should not lose sight of the ‘create the demand’ argument, where ‘charging deserts’ can be suitably ‘watered’ to provide impetus and opportunity for others to engage and benefit. To paraphrase ‘Jim Morrison’ in the 1993 film Wayne’s World 2 “If you build them, they will come”.
In addition to the ‘softer’ (e.g. social, political, economic) barriers to creating EV charging equality, there are also considerable technological challenges to contend with. Grid capacity and connectivity is a genuine issue given the sharp rise in demand for charging, particularly where existing draws upon the grid have already reached ‘saturation’ or where the absence of an existing grid connection to ‘plug into’ is accompanied by the prospect of a long wait and considerable expense.
With this in mind, FEVER’s (www.fever-ev.ac.uk) off-vehicle energy storage solution offers the prospect of bringing EV charging to the masses, particularly in more grid-constrained or grid-limited environments. As a low-cost, self-contained, grid-independent EV charging system, FEVER could help to bridge the gap in EV charging within ‘hard to reach’ and ‘hard to treat’ contexts; making charging more inclusive and accessible to more people, and helping to break down (or at least reduce the height of) barriers to EV uptake.
However, it is crucial that we are inclusive of the other pertinent challenges and considerations. Equality (‘giving everyone the same’) is not the same and equity (‘giving everyone what they need to ensure parity’) [4]. While introducing standard charge points to communities that might otherwise go without is vital in promoting equality in access, if the infrastructure serves to benefit certain users over others, then there remains an issue of inequity. For example, were a FEVER charging station to be designed such that all the associated charging bays were the size of a standard parking space, then this might reduce the usability for some people (e.g. parents with young children or wheelchair users). Similarly, the increasing weight and/or unwieldy nature of some EV charging cables might limit the usability for some user groups (e.g. the elderly or infirm, those with certain physical disabilities).
While some of these issues can be resolved relatively simply through conscientious design (e.g. ensuring that charging bays can accommodate different users), others are perhaps trickier to solve (e.g. how to ensure equity in the ability of all users to connect their vehicle to the chargers). Within the FEVER project we have an opportunity to engage with different prospective user groups to explore different means of creating equity in the EV charging experience, and to reflect our commitment to employing a responsible approach to research and innovation. Let’s see how we do.
References
[1] Pamidimukkala, A., Kermanshachi, S., Rosenberger, J. M., & Hladik, G. (2024). Barriers and motivators to the adoption of electric vehicles: a global review. Green Energy and Intelligent Transportation, 100153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geits.2024.100153
[2] Seymour, V., Xenitidou, M., Timotijevic, L., Hodgkins, C. E., Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., ... & Jones, C. R. (2024). Public acceptance of smart home technologies in the UK: a citizens’ jury study. Journal of decision systems, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2298617
[3] Soza-Parra, J., & Cats, O. (2023). The role of personal motives in determining car ownership and use: a literature review. Transport Reviews, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2278445
[4] Global Sustainable Mobility Partnership (2021). Policies for a mature, flourishing and equitable EV charging ecosystem. Available at: https://gsmp.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/211101-ZEV-Alliance-Policy-Advice_branded_Final.pdf (Accessed 28.03.24)