Search eceee proceedings

Stakeholder expectations as a barrier or success factor for alternative drive technologies – the case of ehighway systems in Europe

Panel: 6. Energy-efficient and low-carbon mobility for all

Authors:
Aline Scherrer, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Germany
Uta Burghard, Fraunhofer ISI, Germany

Abstract

Catenary trucks and infrastructure, so-called eHighways, present one option to decarbonize the growing heavy-duty road transport sector. EHighways enable electric vehicle charging through overhead lines during driving. This makes them an energy-efficient solution as the trucks do not have to carry large and heavy batteries. However, the technology requires adjustments on the vehicle side and a large initial build-up of catenary infrastruc-ture. To achieve such a far-reaching system change, not only techno-economic aspects are relevant but coordination and negotiation between relevant stakeholders as well.

Activities around eHighways continue to be dynamic. In addition to the concluded field trial in Sweden, Germany plans extensions of its three trials and additional countries are getting involved. This suggests that the technological innovation system (TIS) around the technology is growing. However, market development and a diffusion of the technology beyond the field trials necessitates a wider market acceptance and many vehicle manufacturers remain critical of the technology. To shed light on potential roadblocks our aim is to identify industry-perceived success factors and barriers for a market development of eHighways. Literature on sustainability transitions and innovations puts forward joint visions as a crucial aspect for the success of niche technologies and TIS (Scherrer et al., 2020). We therefore ask: (1) which expectations and visions do truck manufacturers have for eHighways and (2) how do these expectations and visions align or differ from those within the field trials?

We conducted a qualitative study using interview and document data in Germany. We interviewed representatives from five truck manufacturers, an industry association and a government programme association. We then triangulated this data with actor statements in newspapers articles and press statements. The material was coded according to the pre-identified categories of different actors and expectations. Sub-categories were then inductively developed based on the material.

Manufacturers’ expectations highlight their perceived barriers for the potential success of eHighways.They expect the technology to be met with opposition due to its disruptive aesthetics, centralized nature, maintenance requirements, and lacking integration into EU regulations. They also expect that it will be difficult to standardize the technology across borders and to achieve a market competition that is as dynamic as the one already developing for fast, stationary charging.

A key difference in visions shows in the expected relationship between the alternative technologies. In the research projects, eHighways are considered one type of charging infrastructure that can be compatible with multiple vehicle configurations, including fully BEV. Such "synergetic" vision has, for example, been put forward by a Task Force in Germany (NOW, 2021). Manufacturers outside the trials consider eHighways to compete with BEV and focus on the early PHEV configurations. Further differences show in the expected future USP of eHighways. In the field trials, the technology is expected to retain its usefulness as it avoids stationary charging and the associated space and time requirements. Interviewed trial-external manufacturers expect the technology to lose its USP and only remain in specific niche applications if battery technologies continue to develop at current speeds and fast stationary charging is established.

The results show that in order to gather market acceptance, eHighways need to be set in context with rapid development around BEV and fast, stationary charging. Further factors are currently being analysed in a second coding round showing that acceptance seems to hinge on actors and processes in addition to technology specifications. Further analysis will account for these factors based on literature on technology legitimacy (Binz et al., 2016; Geels & Verhees, 2011).

Downloads

Download this presentation as pdf: 6-159-22_Sherrer_pres.pdf