Charging Etiquette Missing as EV Ownership Grows

It’s already happening. What many early EV adopters feared is no longer hypothetical. Over the recent long weekend, a post in the MyEVOC Facebook group highlighted a frustrating scene at the Tapah R&R.

Both DC fast charging bays were occupied by two e.MAS 7s, Proton’s EV built for mass adoption but neither car was actively charging. Meanwhile, a third e.MAS 7 waited nearly 30 minutes just to plug in.

When the waiting couple finally approached one of the drivers, the response was as telling as it was disappointing: “Tadi saya pun tunggu lama gak. Kenapa saya tak boleh buat benda yg sama?”

This wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s a glimpse of what’s to come.

Like us, many have long cautioned against the overly rosy “no queue” narrative used to promote EV ownership. The conversation must shift toward responsibility, civic etiquette, and the urgent need for infrastructure that can withstand peak demand.

On regular days, charging availability may appear sufficient. But, just like petrol stations during festive balik kampung periods or long weekends, demand surges can quickly expose underlying bottlenecks.

Some may argue that drivers should just head to the next charging location, but that advice rings hollow when you’re running critically low on battery and have a family in tow.

Let’s not forget: EV ownership is supposed to be about simplicity and convenience, not complication.

We’ve consistently explained how EV charging curves work, and why there’s usually no need to charge beyond 80%, especially with proper journey planning. But with more affordable EVs flooding the market, that education alone won’t be enough.

Additionally, despite the 80% SOC rule of thumb, if the owner decides to charge to 100%, he/she has the right to do so as they are technically paying for it despite inconveniencing others.

It also doesn’t help that many sales personnel are focused solely on closing a sale, without properly educating buyers on EV ownership and the lifestyle changes it requires. 

As more e.MAS 7s fly off the lot, and aggressive discounts from BYD and Chery continue to fuel a surge in adoption, the situation is only set to get more congested. Lets not forget the upcoming e.MAS 5 and Perodua EV expected later this year.

Our own recent trip to Genting Highlands proved the point. Even the premium Shell Recharge station’s DCFC was overwhelmed, with queues forming and drivers anxiously waiting. If that’s the state of flagship locations, what more can be expected at standard highway stops?

The issue now goes beyond infrastructure. It’s about user behaviour and the absence of deterrents.

Idle fees must become standard across all charge point operators (CPOs). Tesla charges RM4 per minute after a grace period. ChargeSini imposes RM2 for every five minutes. Yet many operators still hesitate, fearing customer backlash. That mindset must change.

Uniform enforcement is the only way to normalise responsible charging habits. We say: go with a high-deterrent model like Tesla’s. At RM4 per minute, every idle minute costs you a decent cup of coffee, not Starbucks, perhaps but enough to make people think twice.

Automated barriers could help too, but let’s be realistic. The upfront cost and ongoing maintenance are high. Unlike chargers that can be reset remotely, faulty barriers require physical servicing. That’s why only a few operators, like ChargeSini, have implemented them widely.

Meanwhile, the government’s goal of deploying 10,000 public chargers by the end of 2025 remains more aspiration than reality. Despite confident rhetoric, progress is slow. One of the main obstacles is policy clarity.

The current EV tax exemption ends in Dec 2025, while CKD incentives only run until 2027. There’s still a glaring lack of long-term direction regarding EV policies, tax incentives, and investment frameworks beyond that point.

With such a short investment window, many BEV brands are understandably hesitant to set up CKD operations as they can’t recoup the costs within just two years. Because of this, CPOs are also cautious about rolling out chargers in large numbers, after all charger demand directly correlates with EV adoption.

Yes, EV sales numbers look healthy for now, but that may be due to buyers rushing in before the tax exemption expires.

Adding to the problem, CPOs are being asked to shoulder the financial risk alone, all while navigating bureaucratic red tape from local councils and various regulatory bodies. If Malaysia is serious about EV adoption, it’s time for more than just speeches and slogans.

What we need is policy certainty, streamlined agency processes, and meaningful structural support.

Then there’s the matter of grid access. The recent TNB Gurun issue, which we previously highlighted, clearly shows one CPO monopolising substation power, blocking others from expanding as highlighted by another CPO.

This sort of practice must be regulated. And the policy limiting each R&R to just three CPOs? That needs to be revisited. If other operators are willing to invest, let them. Open competition always benefits the end user plus there needs to be a clear role separation between grid operator and CPO to ensure there is no conflict of interest present.

So yes, charger hogging is a real and growing issue not only by ICE but EVs too. But it's only a symptom of much broader problems - weak enforcement, infrastructure bottlenecks, and inconsistent policy direction.

So we recommend CPOs start with idle fees. Enforce them across the board, and user behaviour will change, quickly. Until then, expect more scenes like Tapah every not and then. Expect more queues like we saw in Genting.

The “no queue” dream was never going to last without serious groundwork and expect the dream of seamless EV ownership to keep slipping further away.