Translating Mobility and Energy: An Actor–Network Theory Study on EV–Solar Adoption in Australia

Abstract

This study investigates the accelerating adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) integrated with residential rooftop solar and battery storage in Australia, employing Actor–Network Theory (ANT) to elucidate socio-technical dynamics. Through purposive sampling, semi-structured interviews with 15 EV industry stakeholders were conducted and analysed using NVivo 14. Findings revealed EV–solar–storage adoption as a negotiated process shaped by alignments among human and non-human actors, structured by three interdependent obligatory passage points. First, technological integration hinges on interoperability among inverters, smart chargers, EV supply equipment, batteries, and home energy management systems. These are constrained by factors like off-street parking availability. Second, policy and market frameworks require clear interconnection standards, bidirectional charging protocols, streamlined approvals, and targeted incentives. Third, consumer engagement depends on energy literacy, equitable access for renters, and daytime charging infrastructure. Smart and bidirectional charging positions EVs as flexible energy assets, yet gaps in standards and awareness destabilise networks. This ANT-framed study offers a practice-oriented model for clean mobility integration, proposing targeted interventions such as device compatibility standards, equitable policies, and education to maximise environmental and economic benefits at household and system levels.

1. Introduction

Decarbonising transport is central to meeting climate goals, yet many fast-growing economies remain locked into fossil-fuel-based mobility with rising oil demand and transport-sector CO₂ emissions [1,2,3]. When scaled, the integration of solar and EVs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen urban energy resilience, affordability, and sustainability [4,5]. The literature is still dominated by techno-economic simulations, optimisation models, and heuristics [4,6], with comparatively less attention given to the spatial and temporal dynamics that shape adoption in practice. Empirical studies show peer and neighbourhood influence in EV purchasing [2,3,7] and sequencing effects in which EV adoption frequently follows PV installation [8], producing delays and conditionality in household decision-making [1,8]. The successful integration of electric vehicles (EVs) with residential solar and battery systems relies on the coordinated alignment of diverse human and non-human actors, including households, utilities, smart chargers, tariffs, technical standards, and regulatory agencies, the interactions of which collectively determine the stability of the socio-technical network [4,5,6]. Unlike traditional “barriers and drivers” or cost–benefit approaches that focus on individual consumer behaviour, the Actor–Network Theory (ANT) reveals the underlying translation failures; that is, the breakdowns or disruptions in the dynamic process through which these actors attempt to align their interests and actions to form a stable network [8,9]. Such failures often manifest in fragmented interconnection standards, inconsistent grid-connection rules, or device interoperability gaps that prevent technologies and institutions from functioning cohesively. By exposing these misalignments, ANT shifts analytical attention away from isolated user decisions toward the structural, institutional, and material conditions that either enable or constrain the coordinated adoption of EV–solar–battery systems [10,11].

To address these shortcomings, this study applies ANT to conceptualise EV residential solar adoption as an Obligatory Passage Point (OPP) within sustainable transitions [9,10,11]. ANT frames it as a socio-technical coordination problem: a negotiated process of translation in which interests are aligned, roles are stabilised, and networks either hold or unravel [10,12]. ANT, rooted in the discipline of science and technology studies (STSs), provides a powerful framework for analysing socio-technical systems by recognising both human and non-human actors as equal participants within dynamic, interdependent networks [13,14,15]. The theory traces a process of translation, including the dynamic negotiation and coordination of interests among actors, across five interconnected stages: problematisation, defining the issue and identifying the OPP and intersegments referring to the strategies and devices used to align the interests of actors around these OPPs. Using mechanisms such as incentives, standards, contracts, or digital tools can align interests, gain acceptance of roles by actors, translate the redefinition and reinforcement of relationships, and ensure the continuity and stability of the network [15,16,17,18]. Through this lens, ANT provides both diagnostic and prescriptive value: it allows the mapping of actors and dependencies, the identification of coordination bottlenecks, and the detection of points where interaction breaks down, such as misaligned incentives, missing technical standards, or the exclusion of key stakeholders [16]. In doing so, ANT supports the formulation of targeted interventions, including policies, design improvements, interface standards, and governance mechanisms that strengthen network stability and functionality [14].

As sustainability agendas intensify, adopting approaches that treat transitions as dynamic and negotiated processes becomes imperative, with ANT providing both diagnostic insight into coordination failures and prescriptive guidance for policy design [17]. Ultimately, ANT underscores the importance of integrated interventions that bridge technical, social, and institutional dimensions to steer transitions toward more sustainable futures [18]. This study applies ANT to identify the factors that influence household adoption of residential solar for electric vehicle (EV) charging. Using a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews, the following research question is addressed: How do social, technical, and behavioural factors shape the adoption of residential solar for EV charging at the household level?

2. Materials and Methods

The study employed semi-structured interviews to assess how the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) influences the uptake and optimisation of residential photovoltaic (PV) systems and home battery storage, a qualitative approach well-suited to rapidly evolving clean energy markets [19]. Semi-structured formats provide both consistency in questioning and flexibility for participants to elaborate, thereby supporting deeper exploration of technological integration, consumer behaviour, energy policy, and market dynamics [19,20]. To ensure reliability and technical robustness, purposive sampling was adopted, selecting participants with a minimum of five years of professional experience in the EV, solar, or energy storage sectors. This criterion prioritised respondents with both domain knowledge and practical exposure to regulatory change and technological advancement.

Participants were identified through publicly accessible expert directories and professional networks, including the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Australian Electric Vehicle Association (AEVA), complemented by targeted searches on LinkedIn using keywords related to EVs, residential solar, energy storage, and sustainable mobility. This multisource strategy yielded a diverse cross-section of stakeholders, technology developers, policy advisors, system integrators, and energy analysts, consultants spanning public agencies, private firms, research organisations, and not-for-profits. Invitations were issued via email or LinkedIn with study objectives and ethical assurances covering confidentiality and voluntary participation [21,22]. Initial invitations were sent to 154 prospective participants outlining the study’s purpose, scope, and participation details. Thirty-five responded with willingness to participate. Nineteen were excluded because their focus was not on the residential sector, leaving fifteen participants for the study. Interviews were scheduled at mutually convenient dates and times and conducted online via Microsoft Teams. With consent, all sessions were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were then returned to participants for verification to confirm the accuracy of their views [21].

Table 1. List of Participants in the Study.

Code	Description
P1	Commercial Director at an electric vehicle (EV) charging company
P2	Chairperson of a non-profit organisation promoting EV adoption
P3	Director at an EV charging company
P4	National President of a non-profit EV advocacy organisation
P5	Managing Director at an EV charging company
P6	Director at an EV charging infrastructure company
P7	Program Coordinator at a non-profit organisation focused on EVs
P8	President of an EV company
P9	Head of Partnerships at an EV charging company
P10	Director at a company specialising in EV charging systems
P11	Head—infrastructure of an EV charging company
P12	Program Coordinator at a non-profit organisation focused on EVs
P13	Director of an EV company
P14	Head of Delivery at an EV company
P15	Director at a company specialising in EV charging systems

shows the list of participants involved in the study. The number of participants is limited to 15 because data saturation was reached, as no new themes or codes emerged beyond that point. The final sample of fifteen participants provided sufficient breadth and depth to capture consistent patterns and interactions across policy, market, and technological domains. Consistent with established qualitative research standards, this sample size aligns with recommendations in the literature [21,22], which suggest that 12–20 participants are typically adequate for exploratory, theory-building studies. Therefore, the sample is both methodologically justified and empirically robust for this research.

Thematic analysis is one of the most widely used methods in qualitative research and serves as a foundational analytic approach across disciplines such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and increasingly, management studies. The process involves identifying and refining themes that emerge from textual data, such as interview transcripts [20,23].

These themes represent shared patterns or topics in response to research questions. The method allows researchers to begin with a predetermined theme that emerges organically through the coding process, whether inductive or both. Thematic analysis fits well within this model by structuring the analysis into coherent phases of interpretation, linking codes, themes, and patterns across the dataset [23,24]. The approach includes an initial template of themes that evolves during the analysis process, allowing researchers to adapt as new insights arise. This adaptability is particularly advantageous in exploratory research contexts [25]. Recent studies in strategic management have successfully adopted thematic analysis, demonstrating its value in interpreting complex organisational and market phenomena.

The interviews with fifteen EV–solar stakeholders were coded in NVivo 14 using a systematic process that began inductively, identifying recurring sub-themes in participants’ accounts. These sub-themes were then mapped to ANT’s five translation stages to construct a coherent theoretical narrative [26,27]. A systematic process refers to a way of coding in a structured, iterative fashion within NVivo, used to assign descriptive labels to segments of text and identify initial sub-themes [22,23,24,25]. Thematic analysis is a higher-order interpretive phase in which these codes were grouped into conceptual themes and subsequently aligned with ANT constructs, specifically, the stages of translation and the OPPs [27].

The interview responses reveal three distinct but interconnected Obligatory Passage Points (OPPs) that collectively determine the stability of the EV–solar adoption network: technological integration, policy and regulatory alignment, and consumer engagement. For instance, P8 emphasised that “you need a charger that is solar-aware or integrates with your inverter; otherwise, you’re just pushing solar back to the grid at low feed-in tariffs”, highlighting a technological integration OPP. This statement demonstrates an interessement challenge, where alignment between smart chargers, inverters, and tariffs is essential to synchronise user preferences with technical functionality [15,16]. The absence of interoperable standards or communication protocols represents a translation failure, preventing human and non-human factors, such as devices and tariffs, from forming a stable network [14]. Similarly, P3 observed that “every state has a different rule for grid connection and metering… some don’t even recognise bidirectional chargers”, pointing to a policy and regulatory OPP. This reflects the problematisation stage of translation, where fragmented approval processes act as institutional bottlenecks that slow technology diffusion [17,18]. The analysis reveals that enrolling policymakers and utilities through harmonised frameworks, certification schemes, and standardised regulations is vital to overcome these systemic misalignments [15,16,17,18]. Finally, consumer behaviour emerged as a third OPP, illustrated by P11’s remark that “most people don’t really understand how to time their charging or monitor when their panels are producing”. This represents the mobilisation stage, where inadequate energy literacy and limited feedback tools hinder sustained user participation in coordinated charging practices. Through this analysis, ANT exposes how translation failures, whether technical, institutional, or behavioural disrupt alignment among human and non-human actors, destabilising the socio-technical network [17,18]. By mapping these points of breakdown, the theory guides the development of targeted interventions such as interoperability standards, streamlined regulatory frameworks, and user-engagement tools that can strengthen network stability and support widespread EV–solar integration [13,14,15,16,17].

While individual quotations are presented for illustration, the analysis was not based on isolated opinions but on patterns of convergence identified through analysis. Each interview transcript was coded in NVivo 14, and recurring ideas across participants were grouped into higher-order categories aligned with the five translation stages of ANT [22,24]. Only themes supported by multiple participants, typically ten or more, were elevated to the level of OPPs, ensuring that the findings reflect shared perspectives rather than individual viewpoints. The thematic analysis thus served to aggregate and validate cross-actor consensus, transforming qualitative narratives into structured, relational insights about how technological, regulatory, and behavioural alignments shape EV–solar integration. This process strengthened the robustness of results by linking collective stakeholder experiences to ANT constructs, thereby enhancing both theoretical and empirical rigour.

The findings indicate that although the technical components required for integrating electric vehicles (EVs) with home solar and battery systems are already available and progressing rapidly, successful integration is still largely shaped by contextual enablers [27]. Participants highlighted that technologies such as smart chargers, home energy management systems (HEMS), and bidirectional inverters can facilitate advanced energy exchanges between EVs, households, and the grid. Yet, outdated or ambiguous regulatory frameworks, particularly around vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and vehicle-to-home (V2H) applications, remain a significant barrier [28,29]. In practice, many households resort to manual strategies, such as limiting charging to daylight hours or prioritising critical household loads, because automation and real-time data access are lacking. These improvised practices underscore a broader trend: in the absence of fully integrated control systems, users themselves take on the role of informal energy managers.

3. Results

The analysis of the interviews themed within Actor–Network Theory (ANT) demonstrates that the adoption of solar and batteries as a pathway to accelerating electric vehicle (EV) uptake depends on a set of Obligatory Passage Points (OPPs). These OPPs function as critical junctures where heterogeneous actors human actors such as households, policymakers, utilities, regulators, retailers, installers, manufacturers, and end users and nonhuman actors such as solar panels, home batteries, EVs, smart chargers, Home Energy Management Systems [HEMS], vehicle-to-grid [V2G] and vehicle-to-home [V2H] technologies, time of use tariffs, and rebate schemes, must align for the sociotechnical network to stabilise [1,30].

Through a systematic process of coding of interviews, three interdependent categories of OPPs emerge: technological integration and infrastructure, policy, regulation, and market support, and consumer engagement and social practices. Each of these categories reflects a distinct translation layer in ANT, whereby diverse interests are coordinated, conflicts are addressed, and the transition to clean mobility is made both feasible and desirable.

3.1. Technological Integration and Infrastructure

Participants consistently identified technological integration as the most immediate challenge for coadoption. The interoperability of hardware solar panels, inverters, home batteries, EV supply equipment (EVSE), and home energy management systems (HEMS) was seen as central to unlocking the economic and environmental benefits of renewable-based EV charging [28]. As P8 explained: “You need a charger that is solar aware or integrates with your inverter; otherwise, you’re just pushing solar into the grid at low feed-in tariffs.” Here, the smart charger functions as an OPP: unless it can communicate with both the solar inverter and the EV, household energy flows remain suboptimal [10,31]. The significance of smart chargers was reiterated by P1: “Widespread adoption of smart chargers and bidirectional capable inverters is key.” By aligning charging demand with solar generation, these devices ensure household energy self-sufficiency and reduce dependence on grid electricity [28]. Several participants noted that synchronisation could generate annual savings of approximately $1300–$1500 compared to petrol vehicles, underscoring the financial appeal of integration.

While smart charging is an enabling technology, participants diverged in their views on vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and vehicle-to-home (V2H) readiness [2,29]. Some expressed strong optimism: “Vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid will make EV adoption a no-brainer, because suddenly the car is not just a car—it’s your household battery as well. Others were more cautious, describing V2G as overhyped relative to current costs, P3: “V2X is overhyped at the moment; home batteries are cheaper and simpler, and most people will go down that path first.” Technical limitations such as phase connection constraints, the absence of affordable bidirectional chargers and interoperability gaps between devices were all cited as barriers.

These barriers highlight the fragility of the network at the technical layer: even when the will exists, the lack of affordable and interoperable hardware prevents the stabilisation of adoption. From an ANT perspective, these technologies operate as a nonhuman factor that either stabilises or destabilises the network [1,3,32]. Smart chargers and HEMS serve as devices that lock households into synchronised energy flows, while V2G chargers, currently high cost and limited, act as contested OPPs [21,33]. Without reliable, affordable, and interoperable infrastructure, the technical translation of renewable energy into mobility cannot occur.

3.2. Policy, Regulation, and Market Support

At the institutional layer, participants highlighted the role of policy frameworks and rebates as enabling OPPs. Australian state and federal schemes such as Queensland’s Battery Booster Rebate, Victoria’s Solar Homes Battery Rebate and Western Australia’s Battery Incentive Program were repeatedly mentioned as decisive factors in encouraging uptake. As P8 summarised: “Rebates are only part of the picture—removing barriers and demystifying the process is what really moves the needle”. Rebates reduce upfront costs while signalling legitimacy, thereby enrolling households into the sociotechnical network. Participants also noted that EV-specific tariffs, such as Synergy’s EV Add-on Plan with off-peak rates as low as 8 c/kWh and midday free or low-cost charging, create strong incentives for aligning charging with renewable availability [30,34]. Utility providers were depicted as both enablers and potential blockers. On one hand, the participants praised the ToU tariffs schemes for supporting household alignment with system needs. On the other hand, restrictive grid approval processes and inconsistent connection standards were described as barriers. P6 highlighted the ongoing uncertainty: “We are still in an awaiting game until the standards for V2G are finalised; until then, consumers are hesitant to invest”. Utilities, therefore, occupy an ambivalent role in the network: they can provide enabling conditions but may also slow down integration through conservative or fragmented regulatory practices.

Participants also emphasised the role of market actors such as manufacturers, suppliers, and installers. Their responsibilities include demand forecasting, supply continuity, training provision, and ensuring installation quality [35,36]. P9 explained how software providers are stepping in “a software-based charging solution that helps manage when and how households charge”. However, participants warned of fragility within the supply chain. Demand fluctuations, competitive pressures, and disruptions could lead to consolidation, with only the most adaptive companies surviving [35]. This uncertainty reflects ANT’s observation that markets are themselves networks of competing and collaborating actors, whose interactions can either stabilise or destabilise adoption trajectories [7,36,37]. In ANT terms, policy and market structures provide the scaffolding of translation. Rebates, tariffs, and regulatory standards, utilities and manufacturers are mediators whose actions determine whether consumers are enrolled or excluded [38]. Institutional OPPs thus operate as bottlenecks: unless rules, tariffs, and incentives align, the sociotechnical network risks fragmentation.

3.3. Consumer Engagement and Social Practices

The third category of OPPs relates to consumer engagement. Participants repeatedly emphasised the challenge of low energy literacy. P8 emphasised that “People don’t know the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour, and they don’t realise how quickly a 10 kWh battery can be drained by a bar heater”. Such knowledge gaps limit consumers’ ability to optimise charging, understand tariffs, or evaluate system sizing. Several participants recommended government-led educational campaigns, while others suggested embedding educational features within EVs, e.g., P4: “If EV infotainment systems displayed solar charging opportunities or renewable charging stations nearby that would increase awareness”. These statements highlight the need for devices that enrol consumers through knowledge and visibility. Several participants described workplace charging as a decisive motivator, e.g., P10: “The real kicker is workplace charging. If charging by day at work is free, employees will make the effort to buy an EV”. Public charging opportunities were similarly seen as shaping everyday practices. These examples highlight how infrastructure availability synchronises adoption with daily routines, enrolling consumers into the EV network by reducing perceived inconvenience.

Participants raised concerns about the exclusion of renters and apartment dwellers, in particular, who were seen as disadvantaged. P3 explained: “Renters can’t install chargers, and in high-density apartments it comes down to strata committees, which are notoriously difficult.” P11: “Helping renters and low-income households access solar and batteries, while ensuring landlords are not left out of pocket, would extend the benefits of integration”. Equity thus represents a social OPP: unless addressed, large segments of society will remain excluded from enrolment, destabilising the broader network. According to ANT, consumer engagement and social practices constitute the behavioural translation layer. Households, employees, and communities are enrolled on the network when nonhuman devices and human actors align to support convenience, trust, and equity [39].

Human actors’ households, employees, and communities are recruited and enrolled into the sociotechnical network in ways that synchronise their routines with broader systemic goals [39,40]. These three categories of OPPs together constitute a layered translation process. Technological integration ensures technical feasibility, regulatory and market mechanisms provide accessibility and legitimacy, and consumer engagement secures behavioural alignment [32,40]. Unless all three layers are addressed, the sociotechnical network remains unstable, and adoption of solar, storage, and EV technologies is likely to be stalled. However, when the OPPs align, they collectively transform distributed energy technologies into a powerful driver of EV adoption, embedding clean energy mobility within both household economies and the national decarbonisation agenda. Figure 1 shows the various OPP for the transition based on the ANT framework.

This diagram illustrates how EV adoption is mediated through three critical OPPs within the ANT framework, highlighting the need for alignment between human and nonhuman actors to achieve large-scale transitions. At its centre, EV adoption is presented as the ultimate goal, but the diagram emphasises that this outcome cannot be realised in isolation; it depends on coordinated action across three interdependent OPPs: energy literacy and awareness, policy, regulation and market support, and technological integration and infrastructure. The first OPP, energy literacy and awareness, underscores the importance of informed and engaged consumers.

Adoption requires that households and individuals understand how energy systems operate, such as time-of-use tariffs, peak and off-peak charging, and the integration of distributed energy resources, while also trusting the reliability and convenience of charging options [4,32]. Access to workplace and public charging facilities, combined with awareness campaigns, plays a decisive role in shaping everyday practices and building consumer confidence [15]. Without adequate literacy and awareness, even well-designed policies and advanced technologies risk limited uptake. The second OPP, policy, regulation and market support, represents the institutional layer that enables or constrains adoption.

Regulatory authorities are central in shaping tariffs, compensation mechanisms, and rebates, which in turn reduce upfront costs and signal legitimacy to consumers [1,15,41]. Reliable supply chains and well-trained installers are equally critical for scaling adoption, ensuring that technical solutions are delivered effectively and consistently. Utility companies must adapt their business models to integrate EVs, solar PV, and battery storage into grid operations, shifting away from traditional revenue models that perceive distributed storage as a threat [41]. Grid connection standards and approval processes further shape the ease of integration, while incentives and rebates act as direct levers for consumer engagement.

Without strong institutional frameworks, adoption risks being fragmented, uneven, or exclusionary. The third OPP, technological integration and infrastructure, forms the foundational technical layer on which adoption ultimately rests. Technologies must be interoperable and seamlessly integrated into household and grid systems to ensure reliable and efficient energy flows [42]. Smart chargers and Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS) enable optimisation by matching charging demand with solar generation, while bidirectional inverters allow EVs to act as energy storage devices that can supply power back to homes (V2H) or the grid (V2G) [42,43]. These innovations highlight the role of nonhuman actors in enabling adoption by directly shaping energy practices. However, the high costs of early-generation V2G chargers, interoperability challenges, and infrastructure gaps remain significant barriers that can undermine network stability.

The diagram also distinguishes between human and nonhuman actors, with households, policymakers, regulators, utilities, installers, manufacturers, and communities on one side, and solar panels, batteries, EVs, chargers, tariffs, rebates, and V2G/V2H technologies on the other. In ANT terms, both categories exert agency: human actors make strategic decisions, set policies, and adopt technologies, while nonhuman actors structure possibilities by enabling or constraining energy flows.

Ultimately, the diagram demonstrates that EV adoption depends on passing through these interconnected OPPs: energy literacy and awareness create informed consumers, policy and market support provide affordability and legitimacy, and technological integration ensures interoperability and reliability. When these three layers align, the sociotechnical network stabilises, making EV adoption not only feasible but also desirable, embedding clean energy mobility into household practices and national decarbonisation agendas.

ANT explains sociotechnical change as a process of translation, where diverse human and nonhuman actors are aligned around common goals through five stages: problematisation, interessement, enrolment, translation, and mobilisation [14,44]. The integration of EVs with solar and battery systems offers a rich example of how these stages unfold in practice, as highlighted by the study participants. Problematisation is the stage where focal actors define the central problems and identify the Obligatory Passage Points (OPPs) through which all actors must pass [14,16]. Rather than targeting higher EV uptake alone, the focus is on how EV adoption can be viable and advantageous in a renewable integrated system. Participants identified critical OPPs such as the need for solar aware chargers, off street parking for at home charging, and interoperability across solar–battery–EV systems. For example, one participant noted that “people without garages or private parking won’t be influenced to buy an EV no matter how lucrative solar or battery incentives are.” This demonstrates how physical infrastructure itself becomes an OPP, defining who can or cannot participate in the integrated network. In the current context, the study identifies that rebates, time of use (ToU) tariffs, and workplace charging were repeatedly highlighted as mechanisms that draw consumers and institutions into the network [29,45]. Tariffs that offer midday charging at effectively zero cost or off-peak night charging at 8 c/kWh are classic interessement devices; they persuade households to time their charging behaviour in line with renewable generation. Similarly, rebates such as Queensland’s battery scheme or Western Australia’s rebate reduce entry barriers and stabilise consumer interest. Workplace charging also plays a decisive role, acting as an institutional interessement device that motivates employees to switch to EVs. Enrolment occurs when actors accept the roles defined for them within the network [46,47]. At the household level, enrolment happens when users adjust routines to charge their EVs during solar peaks or adopt apps and energy management systems that automate these decisions. At the institutional level, employers enrol by installing solar augmented charging infrastructure, while utilities enrol by offering tailored EV tariffs. Nonhuman actors also play a role in enrolment: smart chargers and HEMS user behaviour, ensuring that energy flows are optimised even without active consumer intervention [47]. Translation involves a deeper redefinition of roles and identities as actors are integrated into the network. In this case, EVs are translated from being merely mobility devices into distributed energy assets. Several participants described how Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) and Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technologies could reframe EVs as “batteries on wheels,” enabling households to reduce energy bills or sell surplus energy.

Table 2. Shows the coding of the translation stages based on the ANT framework.

Participant Quotation	Step 1: Key Terms	Step 2: Restatement	Step 3: Concept (Open Code)	Step 4: ANT Category	Definition (ANT Framework)
“People without off-street parking will not be influenced to buy an EV… because there won’t be anywhere to charge their vehicle at home” P11. “Every state has a different rule for grid connection and metering… some don’t even recognise bidirectional chargers” P3.	Off-street parking	Physical and spatial limitations restrict, Variation in rules across states	Infrastructure constraint	Problematisation	The focal actor frames the issue and sets conditions that all actors must meet to be part of the network.
	Fragmented Approval
“Origin 360 gives out free EV charging at home between 10 am and 3 pm… other retailers like AGL have deals” P13. “Synergy’s EV Add-on Plan… off-peak rates as low as 8c/kWh and midday free charging” P14.	Time-of-use tariffs;	Energy retailers create drive through time-specific low-cost charging	Tariff-led interessement	Interessement	Strategies and mechanisms (rebates, tariffs, tools) that lock actors into the problem definition
	Off peak charging
“The better apps can change charge rates automatically depending on solar export…” P12. “Households are motivated to offset charging costs and reduce reliance on the grid” P5.	Smart charging apps;	Automation align behaviour with solar generation	Behavioural & technological enrolment	Enrolment	Processes where actors adopt specific roles, creating stable relationships in the network.
	Less grid reliance
“Vehicle-to-Home and Vehicle-to-Grid will make EV adoption a no-brainer… the car is your household battery” P4. “V2X is overhyped; home batteries are cheaper and simpler” P6. “Consumers are now becoming active energy managers” P15.	V2H/V2G; EV as household battery;	EVs redefined as mobile storage; end-user transition from passive drivers to energy managers	EV redefinition & consumer transformation	Translation	Shaping how actors see themselves and their technologies, creating new value and meaning
	consumer attitude
“We are still in a waiting game until the standards for V2G are finalised” P5. “Rebates are only part of the discussion—removing barriers and reducing friction points will really move the needle” P8.	V2G standards; policy rebates;	Incomplete standards fragmented rebates delay mass adoption	Policy & standards mobilisation	Mobilisation	Ensuring spokespersons, institutions, and standards represent and sustain the aligned network.
	Regulatory clarity

shows coding of the translation stages based on the ANT framework.

The coding process shown in the table represents a structured and theory-driven approach to analysing qualitative interview data using the ANT framework [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. It begins with Step 1, where key terms are extracted from participants’ quotations to capture the most relevant ideas and expressions such as “off-street parking,” “time-of-use tariffs,” and “V2G standards.” These key terms highlight the essential themes emerging from stakeholder experiences. In Step 2, each statement is paraphrased or restated to summarise the underlying meaning in analytical terms, helping to clarify the participant’s viewpoint while reducing redundancy—for example, describing how spatial constraints or regulatory variations hinder adoption. Step 3 involves grouping these restated meanings into broader conceptual categories or open codes like infrastructure constraint, tariff-led interessement, and prosumer transformation, which reveal recurring patterns across responses. Finally, in Step 4, these open codes are interpreted through ANT categories—Problematisation, Intermediaries, Enrolment, Translation, and Mobilisation—to explain how different human and non-human actors, e.g., consumers, tariffs, apps, standards, and policies interact, align, and evolve to shape the co-adoption of electric vehicles, solar energy, and storage. This sequential coding approach thus bridges raw narratives and theoretical interpretation, demonstrating how infrastructural, behavioural, and institutional factors collectively stabilise or challenge the energy transition network [26,27].

This is similar for synchronising mobility with household energy use. Mobilisation refers to the process by which networks stabilise and extend influence, often through institutional actors. In the current context, standards bodies ISO 15,118 for V2G, utilities, government agencies, and EV councils act as mobilisers, scaling adoption through consistent rules, incentives, and education [32,35,40]. Yet mobilisation remains fragile, as participants pointed to inconsistent state policies, fragmented compliance standards, and high costs of early V2G chargers up to $12,000. Without strong mobilisation, networks risk fragmentation, but with coordinated action, EV renewables integration can become durable and mainstream [36].

The findings also underscore the broader diagnostic value of ANT in identifying leverage points for sustainable transitions. V2H and V2G integration, for instance, exemplifies ANT’s principle of symmetry, whereby EVs act as a mobile storage system that reshapes grid dynamics [45]. While challenges such as battery degradation, regulatory gaps, and efficiency losses of up to 10% in bidirectional charging represent antiprograms that disrupt enrolment, opportunities for grid flexibility and consumer revenue generation exist to create momentum for mobilisation [1,2,31,48]. The adoption of SES and EVs is best understood not as a linear process but as a negotiated network alignment involving human and nonhuman actors.

The OPP of accessible, interoperable smart charging infrastructure supported by policy incentives and consumer education emerges as the central passage point through which adoption must proceed [48]. By translating diverse interests into collective action, this OPP enables the stabilisation of sociotechnical networks that advance decarbonisation. Future research should extend this ANT-informed analysis through comparative case studies to examine how different focal actors, such as utilities, regulators, and communities, negotiate OPPs under varying institutional and infrastructural conditions [46,49]. This study develops a clear framework for understanding how solar panels, home batteries, and electric vehicles (EVs) work together within social and technical systems. It identifies four key challenges: physical, technological, institutional, and financial. These act as points through which adoption must pass [40,43]. The study also translates ANT into real-world practice by showing how different stages of problem identification, interest formation, role assignment, translation, and mobilisation appear in energy adoption [34,50]. By also considering issues of timing, place, and fairness, such as the difficulties faced by renters, it broadens the theory to include equity. Ultimately, it proposes that stable, clean mobility systems emerge only when technology, institutions, and consumer behaviour align. In a nation like Australia with a higher residential solar penetration, pairing EVs with rooftop solar is increasingly essential.

The charging of EV’s during the middle of the day soaks up surplus solar and cuts curtailment, improving system stability; households boost self-consumption and savings by charging when exports earn low feed-in rates and wholesale prices can dip or go negative; dynamic/flexible export limits from utilities are easier to meet when PV is used onsite for EV charging, reducing export to the grid; emerging EV/PV-friendly tariffs such as midday/off-peak plans reward solar-aligned charging; and charging from PV now and with future V2H/V2G lowers emissions while providing flexible demand that follows the sun [50,51]. With daytime prices projected to stay low as distributed solar grows, EVs are the fastest scalable “demand sink,” making EV–solar integration a cornerstone of cost-effective decarbonisation that maximises household value and grid benefits [51,52]. Such convergence not only accelerates EV uptake but also embeds renewable technologies in daily life, advancing national decarbonisation agendas and energy resilience. Ultimately, sustained focus on interoperability, supportive policy, and consumer engagement will be essential to stabilise the sociotechnical network and realise the full potential of clean energy mobility [7,8,51].

4. Discussion and Implications

This study, grounded in ANT, offers a nuanced exploration of EV adoption integrated with residential solar and battery storage in Australia, reframing it as a complex socio-technical translation process rather than a linear consumer choice. By identifying three interdependent OPPs, namely, technological integration and infrastructure, policy and market frameworks, and consumer engagement and social practices, the analysis elucidates how alignments among heterogeneous human (households, policymakers, utilities) and nonhuman (solar panels, smart chargers, tariffs) actors stabilise socio-technical networks, while misalignments, such as interoperability gaps, regulatory fragmentation, and low energy literacy, precipitate instability.

These findings extend techno-economic models prevalent in the literature [4,6,7,8] by foregrounding relational dynamics and material agency, complementing the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) with ANT’s emphasis on symmetry and power asymmetries in sustainability transitions [3,7,11,12,13]. The study’s qualitative approach, leveraging semi-structured interviews with 15 EV industry stakeholders analysed via NVivo 14, provides empirical depth to these dynamics, revealing how smart charging and bidirectional technologies (V2H/V2G) reposition EVs as flexible energy assets, potentially yielding household savings of $1300–$1500 annually while enhancing grid resilience amid rising renewable penetration [28,49,50,51,53].

Theoretically, this research advances ANT’s application in sustainability transitions by operationalising its five translation stages—problematisation, interessement, enrolment, translation, and mobilisation—in the context of clean mobility. By mapping OPPs, it addresses methodological gaps in quantifying network interactions, offering a practice-oriented framework that integrates spatial, temporal, and equity considerations [15,16,43,53]. Notably, the study highlights exclusionary barriers for renters and apartment dwellers, extending ANT’s analytical scope to socio-psychological and spatial equity dimensions, which are often underexplored in MLP frameworks [10,45]. This enriched perspective underscores the negotiated nature of transitions, where physical infrastructure, such as off-street parking, and social practices like workplace charging act as critical mediators.

This also recommends practical actions derived from the research findings and guided by the ANT framework. For the technological integration OPP, it suggests developing a National Roadmap to ensure all bidirectional chargers comply with ISO 15,118 and AS/NZS 4777.2 standards, supported by utility-led trials to test smart charging models in high-renewable regions [36,38]. Under the policy and regulation OPP, the study calls for simplifying grid-connection procedures through a centralised AEMO portal and promoting time-of-use tariffs like Synergy’s 8 c/kWh rate to encourage daytime solar-based EV charging [36,37]. In terms of consumer engagement, it emphasises targeted energy literacy programs, real-time solar monitoring via HEMS dashboards, and portable charging solutions to enhance accessibility for renters and apartment residents. These strategies demonstrate how ANT-based insights can translate into real-world interventions that connect technology, policy, and consumer behaviour [22,31]. They further provide actionable guidance for policymakers to prioritise interoperability standards and streamlined approvals, for industry to address supply-chain constraints and affordability of bidirectional chargers, and for communities to strengthen awareness and equitable access [17,43]. Collectively, these interventions align technological, institutional, and behavioural actors, stabilising the EV–solar network and embedding clean mobility within Australia’s broader decarbonisation agenda.

This research moves beyond describing EV–solar adoption trends and instead shows how ANT can be applied to uncover the relational mechanisms that shape transitions. The study identifies three key OPPs: technological interoperability, policy and market coordination, and behavioural mobilisation. Together, these determine the stability of Australia’s clean mobility network. It shows, through empirical evidence, how translation processes such as aligning interests through tariff incentives, harmonising policies across jurisdictions, and improving energy literacy influence how these networks hold together or break down. These results provide clear leverage points for improving EV–solar integration and demonstrate how the study adds both conceptual depth and practical insight to ongoing studies on sustainable energy transformation.

Limitations include the study’s focus on industry stakeholders, potentially sidelining end-user perspectives, and its Australian context, which may limit generalisability. Future research should pursue comparative case studies across diverse regulatory and infrastructural settings or employ quantitative network analyses to validate these findings [44,45]. Additionally, integrating ANT with socio-psychological frameworks could further illuminate consumer motivations. Ultimately, stabilising these networks promises accelerated decarbonisation, reduced emissions, and enhanced energy resilience, positioning Australia as a global exemplar for renewable-integrated mobility transitions. The inclusion of additional stakeholder groups, such as end-users, could further enrich future research and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the socio-technical network

5. Conclusions

This study, based on ANT, offers fresh insight into how EVs work together with residential solar and battery systems in Australia. It shows that adoption is not just a single decision but a process that depends on how technology, policy, and consumer behaviour interact. The research identifies that technological interoperability, policy coordination, and consumer engagement act as key points that either strengthen or weaken clean mobility networks. It also shows that different groups see priorities differently—manufacturers and policymakers focus on standards and regulations, while utilities and community groups emphasise consumer awareness and fair tariffs. These differences highlight that progress comes from negotiation rather than complete agreement. This study also links its findings to current national efforts, such as EV charging standards, government rebate programmes, and workplace charging initiatives, showing how these actions already support Australia’s move toward renewable-based mobility. Together, these findings provide both a new understanding and practical direction for improving the coordination of technology, policy, and everyday behaviour in building a stronger clean-transport system.