*4.1. Policy*

The section discusses the views of those stakeholders with a background in the development and/or delivery of policy, especially stakeholders who would have a future role in creating and managing the policy environment around DWPT.

*Cost:* Developing dynamic wireless charging infrastructure requires a high capital cost; therefore, "*an attractive business case is required*" to convince potential private or public investors who may perceive the return of investment on the technology to be uncertain, at least in the short to medium term. Since DWPT is relatively a new technology, scarcity in data availability can be a challenge for policymakers to develop business cases. Pilot studies such as DynaCov were recognised as essential to collect the necessary data. The importance of accounting for future EV landscape and user needs while developing the business case was stressed.

*Infrastructure location:* Selecting the right location for the infrastructure is crucial for success. It was commented that the dynamic wireless charging solutions (DWCS) must complement the other existing charging facilities and fully integrate with the charging ecosystem within the area. Furthermore, to compete with other charging solutions, the charging cost to the user must be attractive. One way to manage the cost to the user is by encouraging competition within the dynamic charging market. The road selected for the infrastructure must not possess any significant constraint for installing the infrastructure. It was noted that it might be more feasible to electrify roads within strategic road networks, including motorways and primary roads. In general, these road networks "*are well maintained and contain space for installing required utilities*". Moreover, these roads have a higher chance of carrying the required number of target vehicle types and volumes.

*Temporal considerations:* The disruption that may be caused during the construction phase can be detrimental to the success of the solution. It has the potential to disenfranchise the user. Therefore, installations "*must be done over a relatively short period in terms of road closures*". Furthermore, the implications of the solution for the existing road utilities and that may be installed in the future was emphasised to be evaluated. However, it was agreed that futureproofing for all needs could "*significantly increase the solution's design and the implementation cost*".

*User Considerations:* It was highlighted that the on-road charging solution must cater to different types of vehicles and users. However, there was a broader consensus that the DWCS will be more suited for commercial users who drive long distances and fixed routes. Private owners who usually drive fewer miles in a day are "*more likely to use home charging or destination charging facilities*". Changing consumer's behaviour was ranked as one of the main challenges for the successful adoption of this charging solution. Public engagement activities are suggested to be vital for promoting the technology. Furthermore, "*acceptance of the technology by vehicle manufacturers is essential*" to gain confidence among potential users, especially as this technology requires fixing additional components to the vehicle. Empowering the user is essential; "*the ultimate decision to use the charging facility must be with*

*the user*". A transparent pricing plan and a payment solution that is safe, secure and easy to use are necessary. For a better user experience, it was suggested that the payment solution should be integrated with other charging infrastructure providers within the region.
