The EV kerbside charger showdown: Why this fight is coming to your street

A proposed trial of 100 kerbside electric vehicle (EV) chargers in Victoria has left some in the industry fuming, and others shrugging their shoulders.  

Victoria electricity distributor CPU is seeking permission to own and operate the 80 kerbside chargers in Melbourne and 20 in regional areas as part of a five year trial, and says it will leave the customer-facing end of the process to private companies. 

At issue is the fact that CPU – Citipower, Powercor, United – is a distributed network service provider (DNSP), a regulated monopoly that owns the power poles it plans to add kerbside chargers to and the wires these will connect into. 

The argument against the proposal, pushed by private charger operators, is that a regulated monopoly which controls access to the poles and wires shouldn’t be competing for that same infrastructure with private companies. 

But those same operators must negotiate access with those DNSPs, which takes time and money, and with profit margins on the line, will naturally look at sites where they can make the most money, leaving open the possibility of the emergence of charger deserts.

The argument for, issued by CPU, is that it’s just a small trial – 100 chargers is a tiny number compared to the quantity of power poles across its patch in Victoria – and it can also easily and quickly fill kerbside gaps left by private companies, and therefore provide a better experience for EV drivers, given it owns the poles and wires.

And then there is the middle ground: electric mobility service providers (EMSP) who care only that chargers exist so they can be the payment doorway for drivers.

At stake is who gets to control the charging infrastructure and how this will benefit or hurt EV drivers in future. 

We asked representatives from each corner of the industry to justify why CPU’s proposal is good, bad or just business as usual.

What is actually happening?

CPU is asking the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) for a waiver from ring-fencing rules that prevent it from adding EV chargers to its regulated business – but just for a $1.2 million trial. 

The company said in its AER application that it can leverage its own infrastructure to fill a gaping hole in public charging infrastructure currently not being filled by the extremely nascent private sector, and do it more cheaply, given it doesn’t need to lease its own infrastructure. 

In an update to the AER last week, the DNSP revealed the model: it will own the hardware and the software and handle all negotiations with an energy retailer for the electricity supply, then lease access to the system to multiple EMSPs on a single device which provide the interface for EV drivers to charge their cars.

That means if a driver has a deal with energy retailer Amber, for example, for EV charging they could still theoretically access that via a kerbside charger which Amber was present on.

But the DNSP’s head of new energy Daniel Bye told The Driven the project is actually all about demand management.

He says it’s a test to see whether CPU can ramp up and down the amount of electricity flowing through the charger and protect against excess peak-period demand, for example, or change the retail rates to see whether that alters when EV drivers charge. 

“Rather than going out and spending  $50,000 to augment that pole [to enable 100 per cent capacity all the time], you avoid that cost by testing the technology that allows you to ramp them up and ramp them down,” Bye says.

“Once that’s proven, then as an industry we can move forward with a mature conversation on how best to do it.

“Everyone wants to avoid that costly augmentation.”

The CPU view: don’t hate us just because we’re a monopoly

CPU is currently negotiating with two charge point operators for access to its poles, with each lining up 100 kerbside chargers each.

The company is “open for business”, says Bye, suggesting that it doesn’t matter who leases the pole space – a charger, a CCTV unit, a telecommunication asset – as the DNSP will still get paid for the use of its asset.

When it comes to whether CPU will have first dibs on a specific pole or the private company they’re negotiating with, Bye hedged.

“We do the same thing that happens today. We assess their project, we give them an offer,” he says. 

“We want to see more devices on poles. We want to see increased utilisation on the network. We want to see electrons flowing… if I want to install one on [the same pole a charger is already on] I move on.”

But he also stresses that what they’re running is a small, targeted test to see how thousands of kerbside chargers will work across CPU’s network. 

Software exists to ramp up and down power supply – it’s what’s used for flexible rooftop solar exports in South Australia – but what doesn’t exist the software to talk to the tech stack at the consumer end of the charger, and that is what CPU will be building through the trial.

It’s not a trial to lay the groundwork for the DNSP to move into mass EV charging, he promises.

Access fees are an issue cropping up among charge point operators, but Bye says that’s the reality of negotiating with a regulated business: the AER encourages them to lease poles at market rates as a way to ultimately lower network costs to households. 

CPU has discounted the rate per pole from “thousands down to high hundreds”.

“By doing that, by heavily discounting those we’re adversely affecting both access of that pole, because as soon as you’ve got anything on that pole it limits our ability to use that pole for the customers that are in that street who are effectively paying for that pole to be there,” Bye says. 

Bye’s argument is that this testing needs to happen now, so in five or 10 years time – when state and federal EV targets are, or are not, met – DNSPs have the technology and understanding to handle an influx of charging needs. 

“DNSPs will play a role into the future. What that role looks like, I don’t think anyone has any idea at this stage. But that’s why we want to test things, and the test might be great, the test might be a spectacular failure, and both are at this stage as equally likely.”

The chargepoint operator view: it’s a Trojan horse

This subject is so sensitive that only one chargepoint operator contacted by The Driven was willing to talk about it on the record: Evie Networks.

That’s because kerbside charger hopefuls are leasing access from the very DNSPs they are talking about.

The view is that this trial is a Trojan horse for a wider incursion into the private sector.

“We agree that DNSPs have a big role to play in enabling infrastructure rollout, however today the biggest barriers to deploying EV charging are the DNSPs themselves,” says Evie Networks head of public charging Bernard Conoplia.

“Network connections are unpredictable and costly. One DNSP recently quoted us $20k just to provide a quote – ie. for a piece of paper.”

There is also the risk that if the AER allowed EV chargers to be added to a DNSP’s asset base, that cost is then spread across all consumers – leading to potential complaints that everyone is subsidising transport options available to currently just a few. 

Conoplia also warns that ring-fencing rules are designed to protect consumers from monopolistic behaviour and encourage competition and innovation, citing community battery trials where DNSP-run installations were more expensive compared to community installations. 

Keeping DNSPs out will send a positive signal to investors, he says, while letting them in will have a chilling effect on investment as private companies are forced to compete with an entity with guaranteed returns.

Conoplia does have some advice for how to make kerbside charging work, with improving access to power poles and data sharing between industry and the DNSPs as a starting point. 

“The UK LEVI program is a good example. It begins with local council engagement and funding. The program has resulted in [up to] 10,000 charging stations deployed and more than 10,000 new charging stations are being planned,” he says.

“Successful models involve all stakeholders working together … Successful models do not involve gifting the market to DNSP monopolies.”

The EMSP view: more chargers, please

Chargefox is what’s called an EMSP: it doesn’t own infrastructure anymore but does provide the app through which chargers are connected and billed. 

“I fully understand the nervousness and the motivation behind other parties trying to demonstrate that it’s unfair competitively. From Chargefox’s perspective we are agnostic as to who owns the charging infrastructure,” says Chargefox head of marketing Rob Asselman.

Chargefox pulled out of hardware ownership about two years ago when it became clear the company’s strength was in its software that connects to any charger, avoiding the need for customers to download “20 apps” to fill up.  

“Hardware deployment is a complex and expensive thing. Putting EV chargers in the ground is no mean feat and what Chargefox wants to do is support as many EV chargers in the ground as we can,” Asselman says.

The system CPU is proposing is business as usual for Chargefox, as it only provides EMSP services now. 

But Asselman is also aware of the contradictions a DNSP participant poses for the industry

“I think that the ring fencing [rules] that are in place across the energy sector are in place for a good reason. But equally I would say that there are situations where special permission to circumvent those rules may be good for the consumer,” he told The Driven. 

“I don’t know what will bear out in terms of this situation. I’m genuinely not sure.”