REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR CHARGING AT HOMES WITHOUT OFF-STREET PARKING

Transcription

1 REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR CHARGING AT HOMES WITHOUT OFF-STREET PARKING DRAFT FINDINGS Glenn Higgs Commissioned by a consortium of London Boroughs and Transport for London including Hackney, Haringey, Kensington & Chelsea, Brent, Greenwich and Merton 1

2 Introduction Issues & objectives To date it has been largely possible to satisfy the charging requirements of EVs through domestic charge points and public charge points Two-thirds of households in London do not have access to off-street parking Review and assess the range of potential solutions, including emerging technologies and international case studies Our approach Desktop review & stakeholder consultation Focus on short to medium term delivery of charging solutions 2

3 International Case Studies Amsterdam Surge in activity in 2014, EV usage nearly doubled City has therefore committed to 4,000 charging points by % of municipalities permit charging through extended house connection and/or cable over the footway Paris Autolib EV car club scheme: 3,000 Bluecars averaging over 10,000 rentals every day 3,000 public charging points - permits charging of private EVs but not overnight Oslo Most EVs per capita anywhere in the world ~3% market share Responding to requests from residents Fast charging being developed by private companies Berlin Aiming for 15,000 EVs and 1,400 charge points across the city by the end of 2015 Trialling innovative residential charging solution using lamp columns 3

4 Options Long List Charging near home: Charging Post A - IER Source B - Parallel network Supply from street furniture C - Lamp columns, pop-up power Within catchment of home: Alternative technologies G Rapid Charge stations H - Battery swap Alternative solutions I e.g. JustPark, 3 rd party sites Home charging D Secured matting E Duct & chamber Or discourage on-street charging Alternative technologies F Inductive charging 4

5 OPTIONS LONG LIST A. Source London Bays Pros: Integration with existing network Legibility delivers a single consistent network Comparatively deliverable Economies of scale Minimise burden on Boroughs Cons: Commercial viability uncertain Planning rather than demand led in clusters Difficult to guarantee availability Visually intrusive 5

6 OPTIONS LONG LIST C. Supply from street furniture Lamp columns Pros: Low cost solution Versatile - good scope for scaling up Simple payment model, user connected directly to DNO Less impact on streetscene Less need for EV bays as sockets proliferate Cons: Availability of suitable street furniture Stakeholder agreement Technological risks Sensitivities to asset upgrade

7 Summary Not a one-size fits all solution Feasibility heavily subject to issues in three key areas: 1. Business models/ stakeholder agreement 2. Charging Infrastructure and Technological Challenges 3. Charging Locations and Access 7

8 Summary Current Short-term Medium-term Source in a limited capacity only, almost by coincidence Parallel Networks high investment costs, more suitable for central/inner London Socket Networks good prospect for widespread roll-out Rapid Charging Stations more suitable if less dependent on home charging * Secured matting requires legislative changes 8

9 Next Steps Test shortlisted options in case studies within specific streets Finalise reporting and present to Consortium team Feed findings into the Go-Ultra Low Cities Funding Bid Determine next steps for taking forwards shortlisted options and practical actions to resolve identified issues i.e. trials, businesses cases, liaison with key stakeholders, negotiation of commercial agreements/ market testing 9

10 Thank you Glenn Higgs Associate WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff