V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations

  • Lance NoelEmail author
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
  • Johannes Kester
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment book series (ECE)


The sociotechnical frame of vehicle-to-grid supposes that these barriers are not as disconnected as the previous chapters treat them. Instead, they form a “seamless web” that weaves together the technical, economic, political, and sociocultural elements of the system. To elaborate, this chapter synthesizes the described barriers across the various actors of the vehicle-to-grid system. Next, to respond to such a seamless web of barriers, the chapter turns to a stylized policy mix, and how each policy within this mix can be relevant to the various sociotechnical elements. Finally, looking prospectively, the chapter proposes five different potential pathways of vehicle-to-grid—conservative backlash, niche development, dirty grid, renewables, and the super-smart grid—which depend on its diffusion and the co-evolution of the electricity and transport sectors.


  1. 1.
    Parsons GR, Hidrue MK, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms. Energy Econ. 2014;42:313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noel L, Carrone AP, Jensen AF, Zarazua de Rubens G, Kester J, Sovacool BK. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applications: a Nordic choice experiment. Review at Energy Eco. 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schot J, Kanger L, Verbong G. The roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems. Nat Energy. 2016;1(5):16054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol. Cult. 1996;37(4):763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sovacool BK, Brown MA, Valentine SV. Fact and fiction in global energy policy: fifteen contentious questions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2016. 370 p.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bodin J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2015;34:122–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zarazua de Rubens G, Noel L, Sovacool BK. Dismissive and deceptive car dealerships create barriers to electric vehicle adoption at the point of sale. Nat Energy. 2018;3(6):501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. MIT Press paperback ed. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press; 2005. 340 p. (Inside technology).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franz K. Tinkering: consumers reinvent the early automobile. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rice RE, Rogers EM. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge. 1980;1(4):499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collantes G, Sperling D. The origin of California’s zero emission vehicle mandate. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2008;42(10):1302–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IEA. Energy Access Outlook 2017: from poverty to prosperity [Internet]. OECD/IEA; 2017. p. 144. (World Energy Outlook). Available from:
  13. 13.
    Bandivadekar A, editor. On the road in 2035: reducing transportation’s petroleum consumption and GHG emissions, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2008. 12 p.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF. Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition. Energy Policy. 2009;37(3):1095–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breitschwerdt D, Cornet A, Kempf S, Michor L, Schmidt M. The changing aftermarket game—and how automotive suppliers can benefit from arrizing opportunities [Internet]. McKinsey & Company; 2017. p. 33. (Advanced Industries). Available from:
  16. 16.
    Book M, Ellul E, Ernst C, Frowein B, Kreid E, Rilo R, et al. The European automotive aftermarket landscape: consumer perspective, market dynamics and the outlook to 2020 [Internet]. The Boston Consulting Group; 2012. p. 21. Available from:
  17. 17.
    Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011;66(4):290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH. The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev. 2016;58(5):4–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lance Noel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
    • 1
  • Johannes Kester
    • 1
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Business and TechnologyAarhus UniversityHerningDenmark
  2. 2.Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)University of Sussex UnitFalmerUK
  3. 3.Universiti Tenaga NasionalKajangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations