So the argument, from the antis, seems to be that rather than selectively cutting power to, in the grand scheme of things, unnecessary usage they would rather a whole area be without power?
E.g. House #1 has a charger, House #2 has an resident with medical equipment that requires constant power... and they would rather cut power to both of them?
I think I see a slight flaw in their argument...
To me the thrust of the focus of this article seems to be about peak demand from electric vehicles when they become more common in the future. Surely this is about controlling the "luddite knuckle dragging petrolheads" dragged kicking and screaming into EV's in the future. They will have the mentality to "insist" they must be ready to drive 500 miles at a moments notice for some emergency with a far flung UK relative, so the must all plug in and start pulling 7-14 kw as soon as they get home from work at 6pm despite having 50%+ SOC left in the battery.
There will be people about like this, and lots of them. Everyone else, will be reasonable, financially savvy, and have their EV set to charge up after midnight on a low cost EV tarriff to balance the grid, as nearly all us do now, or if charging during the day, it's to use up solar that would otherwise be exported. As we all know, in an emergency, if we are caught short needing to start a long journey straight after getting home, you go to the nearest rapid on route and charge to 30m-1hr, before setting off.
Ok if said relative is on their deathbed and you miss them departing by 30 mins because you had to rapid charge then bad luck, we are back to what our relatives had to live with before automobiles in the early 20thn century, travel will be slower.
In the short term the solution will be simple. the DNO's will know when are area's leccy mainline wiring cant cope with more than the current EV chargers and no new home installs with be approved until they upgrade their part of the local grid.