An Australian Perspective on Local Government Investment in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a case study on how a local council engaged with EV charging infrastructure deployment, from which, the authors argue that local councils should play a key role in promoting EV charging infrastructure development. However, the study reads like a project report, with specific case data and practical applications. It lacks new knowledge or new models to demonstrate adequate scholarship value. 

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for contributing their valuable time and expertise.

The authors have undertaken extensive additional proofreading to correct grammar and improve readability.

In terms of practical application, the study has helped the Local Government define its EV charging business model and so the paper presents a method to help other similar organisations achieve the same outcome. The novelty of the approach is that it was developed specifically for a real-world case, applied to an Australian Local Government context, and the methodology is adaptable for others to follow.

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for contributing their valuable time and expertise. The detailed comments are highly appreciated.

• Point 1: Thank you for these insightful comments. I appreciate the reviewer’s comments that this is a specific example of Australia. The methodology for defining a business model can in theory be applied within any geographical context. From the select country comparison, you can also see how Australia does have peers (Canada is quite similar in a number of population and geographical contexts). The authors’ are actively working on applying the methodology to another quite different Local Government Area in Australia which we see as demonstrative of its applicability.
• Point 2: The final business models are described quite generically intentionally as the authors’ were keen that readers don’t take the final business models as “the best” business model for all local governments but instead follow the methodology in order to tailor a suitable business model based on their specific circumstances and appetite for risk. The authors appreciate the point that there is a policy focus but feel the approach taken is novel while helping highlight policy challenges.
• Point 3: This is another well-considered point. The authors’ did write to the role of local government in section 1.4 (line 116-129) to frame the challenges and responsibilities. Expanding on this section was considered during the drafting of the paper but a condensed version was preferred to be able to communicate local government’s role succinctly, and so enable the dedication of enough of the paper to explaining the sustainable transport service design case study. Counterfactuals were researched at the beginning of the research project as part of the literature review and were summarised in table 3. This would be an interesting follow up topic to look at but with this research, the focus was on developing a methodology to help develop business models for EV charging deployment while understanding the issues and policy implications for new service design by local government.
• Point 4: Thank you for taking the time to review and note these points. The authors had an additional three proofreadings undertaken to highlight and address these and additional errors.
• Point 5: The placeholder table has been deleted.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the Literature review author/s should present more literature regarding previous and present theoretical background and empirical research  on the topic to give a more broad overview of the role of government in reducing emissions and in promoting certain types of transport . There are specific studies that research the connection between environment and transport, it would be useful to mention them as the background for this paper. Part 3 is not necessary. If authors want to keep it, they can incorporate it in some other chapter.

Authors should technically improve the paper.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for contributing their valuable time and expertise.

Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Additional references presenting the role of local government in reducing emissions and the connection between transport and the environment are provided as follows:

• Stanley, J.; Ellison, R.; Loader, C.; Hensher, D. Reducing Australian motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 109, 76–88, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.002.TK
• Ustun, T.S.; Zayegh, A.; Ozansoy, C. Electric vehicle potential in Australia: Its impact on smartgrids. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2013, 7, 15–25, doi:10.1109/MIE.2013.2273947.
• Rafique, Sohaib, Town, G.E. Potential for electric vehicle adoption in Australia. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 13, 245–254, doi:doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1463416.

Thank you for this other sensible suggestion and so section 3 has been removed. It has been kept as a separate paragraph dedicated to the case study, incorporated into section 2, for the reason that it is kept clear for the special issue that it meets the case study requirement.

The authors have added additional references as follows:

• Naor et al. (2018) paper in their description of the collaboration BetterPlace undertook in Israel with the local energy utility to investigate different EV charging strategies and ultimately settling on smart charging.
• Naor et al (2015) which further explores barriers to uptake (which shows that these barriers started to emerge +10 years ago, as well as still being the subject of more recent research).

These additional references and editing has been undertaken to improve the technical nature.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I have found some issues that have to solved:

1) row 75 - please solve the error „Error! Reference source not found.“

2) rows 76-79 - values must be recalculated, isn’t? for Australia should be 11,010 instead of 11,039, for Norway it is 384 people per charger instead of 397 and for Canada 3,049 instead of 3,056

3) Figure 1 need to be repaired based on data on rows 76-79

4) Row 94 - should continue with Figure 2 after „(„

5) Please check the template and fix it. For example, here are some issues:

- Page numbering is incorrect. There are 2 of 25 on pages 2 - 13. Also on some other pages from page 22

- Please merge the space between lines 362 - 364

- The page on line 411 is empty

- Page 21 looks like the first page and has no number. Probably the wrong format.

- etc….

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for contributing their valuable time and expertise.

Point 1: the Error reference was created during the file conversion to PDF. This has been addressed.

Points 2 and 3: The discrepancy in the numbers is due to the rounding of the population figures to 1 decimal point.  Based on the reported unrounded population numbers they are correct.

Point 4: Corrected.

Point 5: Template issues have now been addressed and links updated as part of the proofreading and format/layout review.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper needs significant improvement in new knowledge development.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfyingly addressed my comments in the revised version of the manuscript. I think that the paper has improved now. Aside from my fundamental concern that the paper provides a very specific case study, I have no further comments. Regarding this concern, I feel that the new version of the manuscript does a better job in describing what we can learn more generally from the case study of Lake Macquarie City Council.