I do not agree that either the car or the charger meets the definition of appliance or of utilization equipment. Neither uses electrical energy for a purpose similar to those listed in the definition of utilization equipment. Neither uses electrical energy to perform a function similar to those listed in the definition of appliance. The charger provides electrical energy to the car, so that the car can be taken somewhere else in order to use the energy. I equate this to a cell phone, which I would also not call an appliance.
But my real problem is with the proposed use of 220.82 or 220.83. They both list the loads that are to be included in the optional calculation method. The charger does not match anything on the list. The code does not tell us to include any and all additional loads that are not covered by the list, before applying the demand factor. The code also does not tell us to add up the items on the list, then apply the demand factor, then add the nameplate rating of any additional loads that are not on the list. It would be the same if the homeowner wanted to use the garage as a machine shop, and installed a welding outlet. That is not covered by the list, so how could we use the optional method? I think you can't use either 220.82 or 220.83.
My suggestion is to have the contractor apply 220.87 by getting a year's worth of electic bills (presuming they show a monthly peak demand, and not just the total energy used) or by performing a 30 day load study.