The Current State of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Costs: An Assessment of Contemporary Understanding
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLyons et al. reported a hybrid meta-analysis and literature-review approach to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the costs associated with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). The authors revealed a significant variation and a lack of standardized EVSE cost measures based on analyzing a sample of 13 recent studies. To address this, they proposes a convention for presenting EVSE cost measures, which includes factors like application (commercial or residential), power level, and type of cost measure. This study would promote the use of common metrics in future research, facilitate meta-analyses, and increase the reliability of cost evaluation. But the reviewer think there are some issues requiring the authors’ attention. So a necessary revision is recommended with the following specific comments.
11. There should be no full stop in the title.
12. The authors used a sample of 13 literatures that in the past 10 years (2013-2023) to evaluate the cost of EVSE. However, the U.S. economy has changed at any time in such a period, particularly experiencing the Covid pandemic. So how do the authors consider this in studying the cost? In addition, a sample of 13 literature might be not enough to demonstrate the quality of cost analysis.
33. What challenges might researchers face when adopting the proposed cost measurement convention, and how can these challenges be addressed?
44. In what ways can a standard convention for cost measurement in EVSE help policymakers and researchers make informed decisions about EV charging infrastructure investment?
55. Could the authors provide examples of how this standardized convention for cost measurement could be applied in real-world scenarios or in future studies?
66. How might the adoption of a standardized convention for EVSE cost measurement benefit the EV charging industry and its consumers in the long run?
77. Most data presentations are in the form of figure, could the authors change to other types if applicable, for example bar or pie graph?
Author Response
- There should be no full stop in the title.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed the period in the title.
- The authors used a sample of 13 literatures that in the past 10 years (2013-2023) to evaluate the cost of EVSE. However, the U.S. economy has changed at any time in such a period, particularly experiencing the Covid pandemic. So how do the authors consider this in studying the cost? In addition, a sample of 13 literature might be not enough to demonstrate the quality of cost analysis.
These are two valid points. First, as we mention in the preface to appendix item A, we have adjusted all figures to 2023 dollars. However, we realize that this adjustment is only mentioned in the appendix, and as such we have added a sentence to the methods section describing the process of adjusting for inflation. Second, we recognize the limitations of the limited sample size. We have acknowledged the limitations that stem from our small sample size in the discussion section where we say: “First, there are simply not enough data points, when analyzing at the meta level. Our sample contained 13 studies that met our inclusion criteria and making assertions about trends with such a sample was not feasible. Second, our analysis found that there is a great deal of variation in the way researchers are measuring EVSE cost. In our sample of 13 studies, we identified 51 unique cost measures. Such a high number of measures is less a function of a comprehensive understanding of EVSE cost, but rather characteristic of a nascent area of study lacking convention in its metrics.” Additionally, we believe that conforming to the sample criteria that we set, as described in the methods section on Page 2 lines 87-93 strikes a defensible balance between comprehensiveness and robustness.
- What challenges might researchers face when adopting the proposed cost measurement convention, and how can these challenges be addressed?
This is a fantastic question that we believe warrants being addressed in the discussion section of the paper. We have included it at the end of the discussion section on page 12 lines 383-390.
- In what ways can a standard convention for cost measurement in EVSE help policymakers and researchers make informed decisions about EV charging infrastructure investment?
Another great question. Our answer to this question can be found in the discussion section on page 12 lines 367-372.
- Could the authors provide examples of how this standardized convention for cost measurement could be applied in real-world scenarios or in future studies?
Thank you for this suggestion. We included an example on page 12 lines 370-372.
- How might the adoption of a standardized convention for EVSE cost measurement benefit the EV charging industry and its consumers in the long run?
Another great question that we have now addressed in the discussion section on page 12 lines 372-377.
- Most data presentations are in the form of figure, could the authors change to other types if applicable, for example bar or pie graph?
Thank you for this suggestion. While we agree that alternating the type of figure would make for a more aesthetically pleasing paper, we contend that presenting cost figures using the same graphic representation allows for easier comparison between figures and ultimately, an easier to interpret results section more broadly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2689408
Title: The current state of light-duty electric vehicle supply equipment costs: An assessment of contemporary understanding
This study aims to establish such an understanding by examining the current state of knowledge regarding electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) cost.
The authors should address the following points in order to improve the quality of the paper:
In order to improve the technical content of the paper, authors must improve the bibliographic review presented.
The results section should also be improved. Authors should analyze whether some of the figures presented are necessary. In general, authors must present the most significant results, however they must be well framed.
Authors must make a complete review of the text, document formatting and quality of figures.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors must make a complete review of the text, document formatting and quality of figures.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
This study aims to establish such an understanding by examining the current state of knowledge regarding electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) cost.
The authors should address the following points in order to improve the quality of the paper:
In order to improve the technical content of the paper, authors must improve the bibliographic review presented.
Thank you for this comment. Being a review of literature and contemporary understanding, we believe the the results section, which analyzes 13 relevant recent studies on the topic, constitutes a significant representation of the existing literature. However, based upon your comment, we have added eight additional references to the introduction section where we address other relevant literature that was not included in our study sample, increasing our bibliographic review total by nearly 50%.
The results section should also be improved. Authors should analyze whether some of the figures presented are necessary. In general, authors must present the most significant results, however they must be well framed.
Thank you for this comment. We have removed two figures and added additional framing and context to the remaining figures. We see now that some figures included in the results section were never directly referenced and we have remedied that problem.
Authors must make a complete review of the text, document formatting and quality of figures.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have made further reviews and copy editing and formatting of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article discusses the hybrid meta-analysis and literature-review approach to understand the current state of knowledge regarding the costs of electric vehicle supply equipment. However, clarification of major points presented below will be useful for understanding the manuscript.
1- A descriptive keywords without abbreviations are suggested. It should encompass the novelty involved.
2- Highlights are missing. It should be written in concise way.
3- The paper contains a language formulation problem and many conceptual, grammatical, type, format, and spelling errors. A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person
4- Revise the abstract and include important findings. Some numerical data based on the conducted hybrid meta-analysis of the costs of electric vehicles is required.
5- Please provide an introduction that provides a clearer picture of the electric vehicles issues currently facing the world.
6- Please include concrete sources or studies that support their claims about the benefits of electric vehicles compared to other energy chain sources.
7- In the review section; I would recommend strengthening your introduction and literature review by adding recent papers studying PV powered vehicles innovative strategies based on machine learning algorithms such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.101797 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2023.102051
8- The limitations of the related previous review studies based electric vehicle breakdowns in the previous review studies should be further deeply discussed. Please explain to highlight the novelty of the current review paper.
9- Section 2, There are a clear lack in research methods applied in this study, you must add a deep explanation and formulation to support how the authors use these methods.
10. Please include more graphs, diagrams, or images that can help illustrate methods formations and framework structure (if applicable).
Conclusions
11. Please summarize the key findings discussed in this paper more clearly and powerfully.
12. Please add economical solutions faced in electric vehicle utilization.
13. Please explain how better from your own ideas will help address the issues that have been identified.
The article discusses the hybrid meta-analysis and literature-review approach to understand the current state of knowledge regarding the costs of electric vehicle supply equipment. However, clarification of major points presented below will be useful for understanding the manuscript.
1- A descriptive keywords without abbreviations are suggested. It should encompass the novelty involved.
2- Highlights are missing. It should be written in concise way.
3- The paper contains a language formulation problem and many conceptual, grammatical, type, format, and spelling errors. A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person
4- Revise the abstract and include important findings. Some numerical data based on the conducted hybrid meta-analysis of the costs of electric vehicles is required.
5- Please provide an introduction that provides a clearer picture of the electric vehicles issues currently facing the world.
6- Please include concrete sources or studies that support their claims about the benefits of electric vehicles compared to other energy chain sources.
7- In the review section; I would recommend strengthening your introduction and literature review by adding recent papers studying PV powered vehicles innovative strategies based on machine learning algorithms such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.101797 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2023.102051
8- The limitations of the related previous review studies based electric vehicle breakdowns in the previous review studies should be further deeply discussed. Please explain to highlight the novelty of the current review paper.
9- Section 2, There are a clear lack in research methods applied in this study, you must add a deep explanation and formulation to support how the authors use these methods.
10. Please include more graphs, diagrams, or images that can help illustrate methods formations and framework structure (if applicable).
Conclusions
11. Please summarize the key findings discussed in this paper more clearly and powerfully.
12. Please add economical solutions faced in electric vehicle utilization.
13. Please explain how better from your own ideas will help address the issues that have been identified.
Author Response
The article discusses the hybrid meta-analysis and literature-review approach to understand the current state of knowledge regarding the costs of electric vehicle supply equipment. However, clarification of major points presented below will be useful for understanding the manuscript.
1- A descriptive keywords without abbreviations are suggested. It should encompass the novelty involved.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have replaced the reference to EVSE in the keywords with the complete phrase.
2- Highlights are missing. It should be written in concise way.
Thank you for this suggestion. The template for this journal does not contain a highlights section. We will be happy to include one if the editor believes that this is a mistaken omission.
3- The paper contains a language formulation problem and many conceptual, grammatical, type, format, and spelling errors. A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person
Thank you for this suggestion. We have further revised and edited the manuscript to ensure it is free of grammatical and technical errors.
4- Revise the abstract and include important findings. Some numerical data based on the conducted hybrid meta-analysis of the costs of electric vehicles is required.
Thank you for this suggestion. As we state in the abstract, “We find that in general, there is too much variation and too few commonly represented EVSE cost measures to reasonably provide aggregate figures for these measures. “ For this reason, we do not believe that providing select cost averages from the 53 different cost measures identified in our sample would be helpful to the reader, as a key finding is that there are too many measures and two few repeated estimates to faithfully synthesize new estimates at this stage in the development of the field’s understanding of EVSE cost.
5- Please provide an introduction that provides a clearer picture of the electric vehicles issues currently facing the world.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added additional context and justification of this work in the introduction, per your request. Please see the addition on page 2 lines 71-84.
6- Please include concrete sources or studies that support their claims about the benefits of electric vehicles compared to other energy chain sources.
Thank you for this suggestion we have addressed this request in the introduction section on page 2 lines 71-84.
7- In the review section; I would recommend strengthening your introduction and literature review by adding recent papers studying PV powered vehicles innovative strategies based on machine learning algorithms such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.101797 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2023.102051
Thank you for this suggestion. These are quite interesting papers, although the connection between air conditioning systems and sustainable transport is not immediately apparent to us.
8- The limitations of the related previous review studies based electric vehicle breakdowns in the previous review studies should be further deeply discussed. Please explain to highlight the novelty of the current review paper.
Thank you for this suggestion. Based in part on this feedback, we have referenced four new studies that demonstrate the lower operating costs of EVs due to their lower maintenance requirements and lower fuel costs. A discussion of these studies and their findings can be found on page 2 lines 74-78.
9- Section 2, There are a clear lack in research methods applied in this study, you must add a deep explanation and formulation to support how the authors use these methods.
Maybe you mean that you do not think that we have utilized the correct methods. Please find the description of our methods and the justification for those choices on page 3 lines 104 to 136.
- Please include more graphs, diagrams, or images that can help illustrate methods formations and framework structure (if applicable).
Thank you for this suggestion. We received countervailing input from the other reviewers, who asked that we reduce the number of figures provided in the manuscript. We have decided to limit the figures to only those that reference at least three studies from our sample.
Conclusions
- Please summarize the key findings discussed in this paper more clearly and powerfully.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a great deal more consideration of the findings in the discussion section, particularly on page 12 lines 383 to 398 and page 13 lines 414 to 421.
- Please add economical solutions faced in electric vehicle utilization.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a section to the introduction that discusses operational cost considerations for EV consumers. This can be found on page 2 lines 71 to 84.
- Please explain how better from your own ideas will help address the issues that have been identified.
Thank you for this suggestion. Please see the additions included in the discussion section on page 12 lines 383 to 398 and page 13 lines 414 to 421.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsagree to accept
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review / correction performed by the authors allowed an improvement in the quality of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe review / correction performed by the authors allowed an improvement in the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the comments have been greatly addressed by the authors and the article can be accepted for publication in its current version
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMost of the comments have been greatly addressed by the authors and the article can be accepted for publication in its current version
