Montana Clean Energy Pilot Working Group Workshop #3nweplus.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default-source/... · Helping Utilities Make Smart Solar Decisions Montana Clean Energy Pilot

Helping Utilities Make Smart Solar Decisions

Montana Clean Energy Pilot

Working Group

Workshop #3

January 21, 2016


Agenda

Agenda Topic Presenter Time

Safety Moment ??? 9:00-9:05

Group Introductions ALL 9:05-9:15

Meeting 2 Recap

Recap of discussionSEPA 9:15-9:30

Rate Design

Cost of service and revenue requirements

Typical bill components

Time-varying rates

Innovative rate design discussions

SEPA 9:30-10:30

Break 10:30-10:45

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

Description of AMI

Benefits of advanced metering

SEPA 10:45-11:15

Electric Vehicles

EVs and EV charging 101

Update on deployments

Idaho National Labs 11:15-12:15

Lunch 12:15-1:00

Group Activity

Understanding goals

Defining pros, cons, and unknowns

Aligning against Guiding Principles

Capturing group final thoughts

ALL 1:00-3:00

Wrap Up & Next Steps SEPA 3:00-3:15

2

Helping Utilities Make Smart Solar Decisions3

MEETING #2 RECAP


Final Desired Outcome

4

Customer-Enabling Initiatives

Grid Integration Technologies

Pilot #2

Pilot #3

Two customized pilots

Based on Stakeholder input

Meeting customer needs

Providing long-term grid benefits


Guiding Principles

Reformative

• Changes how the customer and utility interact

• Educates key stakeholders

• Requires that the project is replicable

Measurable• The outputs are credible, unbiased, actionable,

relevant, and there is a timeline for goal tracking

Sustainable

• Can be adapted for different environments

• Beneficial to the triple bottom line (environmental, economic, & social)

• Considers future customer needs along with current customers

Equitable• All parties are considered and no costs are

transferred to nonparticipants

• Program can be justified to nonparticipants

5


Group Activity Results

Smart Inverters Schools Pilot

6


Group Activity Results (cont’d)

Community SolarRooftop Solar (Utility-owned)

7


Group Activity Results (cont’d)

Low-Income Community Solar

8


OVERVIEW OF RATE DESIGN

OPTIONS


Bonbright’s Principles

Key Concepts:

1) Stability and continuity in rates and revenues

2) Effectiveness in recovery of revenue requirements that are based on fair rates of return

3) Rate equity based on cost causation between customer classes

4) Promotion of efficiencies, both upon how services are supplied by the utility and how those services are consumed by the customer

5) Simplicity and clarity in design

10


Ratemaking 101

Rate Base

Investmentx Rate of Return +

Operating

Expenses=

Revenue

Requirement

Long-lived

investments in

generation,

transmission,

& distribution

NET of

accumulated

depreciation

Regulated and

approved rate

of return

sufficient to

attract new

capital given

the risk profile

of the utility

Labor, fuel

and

purchased

power,

maintenance,

insurance,

etc.

Approved

revenue level

used to

create rates

for all

customer

classes

• Cost of Service Studies allocate the revenue requirement across each class of service (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) based on cost causation

• Variables considered include:– # of customers in each

class

– Class peak demand & seasonal consumption

– Voltages required

– Etc.

11


Ratemaking 101 (cont’d)

Types of Charges

• Customer charge– $/day or $/month, designed

to recover costs that exist regardless of a customer’s consumption pattern

• Demand charge– $/kW, designed to recover

fixed costs that are expensed to meet peak demand requirements

• Energy charge– $/kWh, designed to recover

costs that are variable in nature

Types of Rates• Flat

– Charges do not vary year round

• Seasonal– Energy and/or Demand charges are different summer vs. winter

to represent costs to utility

• Inclining Block– The more energy consumed, the higher the incremental charge

becomes

– Designed to promote energy efficiency

• Declining Block– The more energy consumed, the lower the incremental charge

becomes

– Designed to promote energy consumption

• Time-of-Use– Rates are different at specific times of the day (e.g., 3-6pm) to

align with highest consumption hours

– Time periods and prices are static in nature

– Designed to promote shifting and conservation

• Dynamic– Prices change dynamically based on the cost of generation in

the real-time, load levels, or other factors

– Ex: Critical Peak Pricing, Real-Time Pricing

12


Rates in Action

• Salt River Project offers three primary rates for

Residential customers

– Basic Price Plan: inclining block rate

– Time-of-Use Price Plan: standard TOU rate

– “EZ-3” Price Plan: super peak rate

• SRP also offer additional pilot or technology-

specific rates

– Electric Vehicle Price Plan

– Residential Demand Price Plan Pilot

– M-Power® Prepaid Price Plan

13


Caveat: Load Shapes Matter

Desert SW Summer Peak Day

Desert SW Load Requirements

14

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1

62

7

1,2

53

1,8

79

2,5

05

3,1

31

3,7

57

4,3

83

5,0

09

5,6

35

6,2

61

6,8

87

7,5

13

8,1

39

Planning for System Peak

LOAD Top 1% Top 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HE1

HE3

HE5

HE7

HE9

HE1

1

HE1

3

HE1

5

HE1

7

HE1

9

HE2

1

HE2

3

Load Profile

The nature of the load being served impacts cost of service, which in turn impacts rate designWhat works for one utility may not make sense for another


SRP Basic Price Plan

• Leverages both an

inclining block

structure and

seasonal rates

15

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

10

0 k

Wh

40

0 k

Wh

70

0 k

Wh

10

00

kW

h

13

00

kW

h

16

00

kW

h

19

00

kW

h

22

00

kW

h

25

00

kW

h

28

00

kW

h

$/k

Wh

SRP kWh Charges by Monthly Consumption

Winter Rate Summer Rate

Summer Peak Rate


SRP TOU Price Plan

16

• Summer = May thru

October

• Summer Peak = July

and August

• Strong incentive in

Summer months to

shift energy

– Long window can

impact energy savings

approaches

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

1am

3am

5am

7am

9am

11

am

1p

m

3p

m

5p

m

7p

m

9p

m

11

pm

TOU Prices by Hour

Winter Summer Summer Peak


EZ-3 Price Plan

• Punitive pricing for

energy consumption

3-6pm

• 3 hour window allows

for activities like pre-

cooling

17

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

$0.35

$0.40

1am

3am

5am

7am

9am

11

am

1p

m

3p

m

5p

m

7p

m

9p

m

11

pm

EZ-3 Hourly Pricing

Winter Summer Summer Peak


Savings in Action

Target EZ-3

Savings

Target On-

Peak %

My EZ-3

Savings

On-Peak

%

December ($0.15) 10% $3.06 7%

November ($0.10) 10% $3.20 5%

October $19.60 10% $53.70 4%

September $33.91 10% $92.12 2%

August $51.35 10% $146.80 2%

July $32.38 10% $83.84 4%

June $34.63 10% $93.78 2%

May $15.46 10% $53.11 2%

April ($0.13) 10% $5.47 4%

March ($0.14) 10% $5.60 4%

February ($0.09) 10% $3.05 4%

January ($0.12) 10% $3.80 5%

ANNUAL SAVINGS $186.60 10% $547.53 3.40%

• Significant

savings

possible by

eliminating A/C

usage during on

peak window

18


Savings in Action

Target EZ-3

Savings

Target On-

Peak %

My EZ-3

Savings

On-Peak

%

December ($0.15) 10% $3.06 7%

November ($0.10) 10% $3.20 5%

October $19.60 10% $53.70 4%

September $33.91 10% $92.12 2%

August $51.35 10% $146.80 2%

July $32.38 10% $83.84 4%

June $34.63 10% $93.78 2%

May $15.46 10% $53.11 2%

April ($0.13) 10% $5.47 4%

March ($0.14) 10% $5.60 4%

February ($0.09) 10% $3.05 4%

January ($0.12) 10% $3.80 5%

ANNUAL SAVINGS $186.60 10% $547.53 3.40%

• Significant

savings

possible by

eliminating A/C

usage and other

major loads

during on-peak

window

19


Things to Consider

• Do utility costs create opportunities for time-

differentiated rates that are significantly

differentiated?

– TOU rates are effective because of strong price

signals

– Revenue neutrality dictates rate design

• Do customers have the ability to shift load out of

the windows where utility costs are highest?

20


Rate Complexity Impact

21“Smart Rate Design for a Smart Future”, Regulatory Assistance Project (July 2015)

Creating the potential for savings also creates the potential for increased billsPrinciple of rate neutrality creates natural winners and losers


Challenge of Holistic Program

Design

22

…but the added cost of that technology needs to be offset by that reduction for the pilot to be a success

Providing customers with an enabling technology can provide significant boost peak reduction…

“Smart Rate Design for a Smart Future”, Regulatory Assistance Project (July 2015)


INNOVATION IN RATE DESIGN


e21

24

www.betterenergy.org/projects/e21-initiative

http://www.betterenergy.org/projects/e21-initiative


e21

25

FUTURE

- revenue tied to performance

- more choice

• Return on Value Provided

• Revenue Streams (sales, fees, incentives)

TODAY

- “build more, sell more”

- limited choice

• Return on Capital Invested

• Volumetric Sales

Phase I Report: http://www.betterenergy.org/e21-Phase1-Report

http://www.betterenergy.org/e21-Phase1-Report


e21

• Filed for a rate increase that would be phased in over 3 yrs with option to extend the plan to 5 yrs

• Performance metrics. No penalties or incentives assessed as part of the initial multiyear plan.

• Data gathered during pilot would establish a baseline for measuring performance.

26http://mn.gov/puc-stat/documents//pdf_files/xcel_energy_roadmap_presentation_2-26-2015.pdf


NY REV

27

www.ny.gov/programs/reforming-energy-vision-rev

https://www.ny.gov/programs/reforming-energy-vision-rev


NY REV

28Source: New York State Department of Public Service


NY REV

29

• Gradualism

• Future Oriented

• Granularity vs. Simplicity

• LMP+D

• Time-of-Use Rates

• Smart Home Rate

• C&I Rate Design

• Standby Service Tariffshttp://t.co/fz0Ks1hQh7

Ratemaking Whitepaper

http://t.co/fz0Ks1hQh7


NY REV

Brooklyn Queens Demand Management (BQDM)

• $1 billion substation along the Queens-Brooklyn border

• Cobble together 52 MW of "customer-side" and "utility-side" demand solutions– 41 MW of customer-side

using Targeted Demand-Side Management

– 11 MW of utility-side non-traditional solutions

30


Comparing Initiatives

31

MN e21 NY REV

OUTCOMES Consensus Commission Order

REGULATORY MODEL Fully Regulated Deregulated

RATES RELATIVE TO US AVERAGE

Average Rates High Rates

PUBLIC POLICY OUTCOMES Primarily Utilities Primarily Markets


Resources

32

• E21 Initiativehttp://www.betterenergy.org/projects/e21-initiative– Phase I Report: http://www.betterenergy.org/e21-

Phase1-Report

• NY Reforming the Energy Visionhttps://www.ny.gov/programs/reforming-energy-vision-rev– Whitepaper on Ratemaking and Utility Business

Models: http://t.co/fz0Ks1hQh7

http://www.betterenergy.org/projects/e21-initiative

http://www.betterenergy.org/e21-Phase1-Report

https://www.ny.gov/programs/reforming-energy-vision-rev

http://t.co/fz0Ks1hQh7


ADVANCED METERING

INFRASTRUCTURE


AMI Defined

• Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) covers more than just the meter– Smart meters

– Wide-area communications infrastructure

– Meter Data Management Systems (MDMS)

– Operational gateways

– Home Area Networks (HAN)

34“Smart Rate Design for a Smart Future”, Regulatory Assistance Project (July 2015)


Why Move to AMI?

• Legacy metering systems are defined by:

– Monthly reads

– Limited visibility on usage patterns

– Little to no customer interface

– Rate changes requiring new meter switchout

• AMI provides the opportunity to:

– Communicate remotely with meters on a daily basis

– Hourly granularity on a day-behind or better latency

– Change rates and connect/disconnect service

remotely

35


Comparison of Meter

Functionality

36Levy, R., Herter, K., Wilson, J. “Unlocking the Potential for Efficiency and Demand Response through Advanced Metering”.


Example Mesh Networks

37http://inside.edison.com/content/inside/2012/02-12/gtk.html

https://www.bidon.ca/fr/notes/gridstream-rf-focus-axr-sd

AMI “mesh” networks often work best when deployed in clusters, where meters can work together to transmit data upstream to gateway meters/routers

http://inside.edison.com/content/inside/2012/02-12/gtk.html

https://www.bidon.ca/fr/notes/gridstream-rf-focus-axr-sd


The Smart Meter Pitch

38http://www.srpnet.com/electric/home/smartmeters101.aspx


The Smart Meter Pitch

(cont’d)

39http://www.srpnet.com/electric/home/smartmeters101.aspx


More than Just Meters…

40http://www.slideshare.net/jrpettit/ams-oncor-march-2010

Significant integration with databases / software applications is required to actualize AMI data.


ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Barney Carlson, Idaho National Labs

ww

w.inl.gov

Plug-In Electric Vehicles and

Charging Infrastructure

Richard “Barney” Carlson,Jim Francfort, John SmartJanuary, 2016

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

INL/MIS-15-35584

Outline• Introduction and Background Information

• EV Project

– National PEV and Charging Infrastructure Usage Profiles

– Public Venue Charging Use & Installation Costs

– Charging Fee Impact on DCFC Use Rates

– Workplace Charging & Installation Costs

• INL Testing and Evaluation of Charging Systems

– Conductive Chargers

– Wireless Charging

– Integration with Renewable Resources

43

Idaho National Laboratory• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory

• 890 square mile site with 4,000 staff

• Support DOE’s strategic goal:

– Increase U.S. energy security and reduce the nation’s dependence

on foreign oil

• Multi-program DOE laboratory

– Nuclear Energy

– Fossil, Biomass, Wind, Geothermal and Hydropower Energy

– Energy Storage and Vehicle Systems

– Homeland Security and Cyber Security

Bio-mass

Nuclear

Hydropower

Wind

44

Nomenclature• PEV (plug-in electric vehicle) are defined as

any vehicle that connects or plugs in to the grid

to fully recharge the traction battery pack

– BEVs: battery electric vehicle

• no internal combustion engine ICE

• no fuel tank

– EREVs: extended range electric vehicles

• operates on electricity first

• when electric range has been

exceeded, operates like a normal

hybrid electric vehicle

– PHEVs: plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

• blended electric and ICE operations in

various schemes45

Photo courtesy of Nissan

Photo courtesy of General Motors

Photo courtesy of Ford

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjt6cONiqrKAhWKFT4KHa2OCa0QjRwIBw&url=http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/colors-photos&psig=AFQjCNHwzJUj71Ii8p6hchjfQ2iL7TIYyw&ust=1452887556637550

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjt6cONiqrKAhWKFT4KHa2OCa0QjRwIBw&url=http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/colors-photos&psig=AFQjCNHwzJUj71Ii8p6hchjfQ2iL7TIYyw&ust=1452887556637550

http://www.cars.com/chevrolet/volt/2015/snapshot

http://www.cars.com/chevrolet/volt/2015/snapshot

http://www.galpinford.com/2015-Ford-Fusion-Energi-dealer-Serving-Los-Angeles.html

http://www.galpinford.com/2015-Ford-Fusion-Energi-dealer-Serving-Los-Angeles.html

Nomenclature• Charging infrastructure

– Level 1 EVSE:

• AC 110/120V electric vehicle

supply equipment (up to 1.4 kW)

• SAE J1772 standard

– Level 2 EVSE:

• AC 208/240V electric vehicle

supply equipment (up to 19 kW)

• SAE J1772 standard

– DCFC: DC fast chargers (50 kW)

• CHAdeMO

• SAE Combo Connector (CCS)

46

Level 1

Level 2

SAE J1772 w/ CCS

SAE J1772

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqyL2X17PKAhUBST4KHfgFAe0QjRwIBw&url=http://www.pluginamerica.org/accessories?page%3D6&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNF-Kc-9XYwlsfct1jRngsm9xYMnWQ&ust=1453217488049084

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqyL2X17PKAhUBST4KHfgFAe0QjRwIBw&url=http://www.pluginamerica.org/accessories?page%3D6&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNF-Kc-9XYwlsfct1jRngsm9xYMnWQ&ust=1453217488049084

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTj5fU17PKAhXJOD4KHZB5DYkQjRwIBw&url=http://insideevs.com/two-federal-ev-incentives-end-tonight-chargers-and-motorcycles/&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNF9mlhtmLHuEsQL6in1E9AcxSFJpA&ust=1453217565953462

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTj5fU17PKAhXJOD4KHZB5DYkQjRwIBw&url=http://insideevs.com/two-federal-ev-incentives-end-tonight-chargers-and-motorcycles/&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNF9mlhtmLHuEsQL6in1E9AcxSFJpA&ust=1453217565953462

EV Project

47

Questions to Be AnsweredWidespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) has the potential to significantly reduce our nation’s transportation petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Barriers to PEV adoption remain, however.

• What kind of charging infrastructure is needed?

• Where will PEV drivers plug in?

• How often?

48

Building the “On-Road” Laboratory

To answer these questions, the U.S. Department of Energy launched The EV Project and ChargePoint America to install charging infrastructure and study its use

These two projects combined represented the largest PEV charging infrastructure demo in the world

Participants agreed to allow data collection from vehicles and charging stations.

INL’s role was to collect data and study user behavior

17,000 Residential and commercial

charging stations49

Project Partners

50

Project Areas

51

The Question

• With gas stations on seemingly every block, should we expect a similarly ubiquitous charging network to refuel PEVs?

• PEV charging is different –vehicles can be charged where they are parked

• AC Level 2 and DC fast chargers were installed at residences, workplaces, stores, restaurants, airports, and other locations

Photo courtesy of ChargePoint52

Despite extensive public charging networks in most areas, the majority of charging was done at home

About half of participants charged almost exclusively at home

Of those who charged away from home, the vast majority favored 3 or fewer away-from-home charging locations

What Have We Learned?

Nissan Leafs

Chevrolet Volts

53


This does not mean that public charging stations are not needed or desirable

• DC fast chargers were popular to support both local and long-distance driving

54


This does not mean that public charging stations are not needed or desirable

Photo courtesy of ChargePoint

• A relatively small number of

AC Level 2 charging sites

saw consistently high use

• What is it about these sites

that make them popular?

55


Public Level 2 charging stations installed where vehicles were typically parked for long periods of time were among the most highly used

• Shopping malls

• Airports and commuter parking lots

• Downtown parking lots and garages with easy access to multiple venues

Exact factors that determine what makes a public charging station popular are community-specific… and more research is needed

Nevertheless, it is clear that…

To support PEV driving, charging infrastructure should

be focused at home, workplaces, and in public “hot

spots” where demand for Level 2 or DC fast charging

stations is high

56

Exceptions

Organizations may want to install charging stations regardless of how much they are used

• Attract a certain customer demographic

• Project a “green” image

• Encourage PEV adoption

(This project did not study effectiveness of charging infrastructure in meeting these goals)

DC fast chargers along travel corridors were found to effectively enable long-distance range extension for battery electric vehicles

Infrastructure is needed to serve PEV customers without access to charging at home

57

Areas of Analysis

• PEV driving patterns and charging preferences

• Away-from-home charging for range extension

• Workplace charging

• Public charging station use

• Charging at home

• Charging infrastructure installation costs

58

What have we learned about PEV driving patterns and charging preferences?

Volt drivers averaged only 6% fewer EV miles per year than Leaf drivers, despite having less than half as much battery energy storage capacity.

59

What have we learned about PEV driving patterns and charging preferences?

Volt drivers tended to fully deplete their battery packs prior to recharging, whereas Leaf drivers favored recharging with significant charge left in their batteries (as expected for EREV vs. BEV)

Volt drivers charged more frequently

• Volt: 1.5 charges per day

• Leaf: 1.1 charges per day

Trend was consistent, with some seasonal variation

60

Preference for charging frequency and location

Leaf and Volt drivers performed

most of their driving at home

92% of Volt drivers and 77% of Leaf

drivers did most (at least 80%) of

their away-from-home charging at 3

or fewer locations

Preference for charging equipment

Volts and Leafs come with an AC Level 1 EVSE

All Leafs in the project were DC-fast-charge capable (CHAdeMO)

Participants could charge wherever they wanted

63% 36%1%6% 54% 40%

Level 1 only Level 1 and

Level 2

Level 2 only Level 1 or

Level 2 only

Level 1 or

Level 2

and DCFC

VOLT LEAF

DCFC only

62

What have we learned about away-from-home charging for range extension?

PEV drivers, who plugged in away from home tended to drive more EV miles

72% increase

63

What have we learned about away-from-home charging for range extension?

However, most drivers did not charge away from home frequently

• Overall, 20% of the vehicles studied were responsible for 75% of the away-from-home charging

• Much of this can be attributed to workplace charging

64

What have we learned about workplace charging?

Of charging events were performed at home and work on work days.

Home65%

Home57%

Work32%

Work39%

Other3%

Other4%

LeafVolt

All days65

of drivers drove a Leaf to work even though they could not make it back home unless they charged at work

of Leaf drivers could complete their direct commute without charging at work, but their routine on most days required them to drive additional distance, which necessitated charging at work in order to make it home

of Leaf drivers relied on workplace charging on at least one day a month to complete their daily commutes

Range extension from workplace charging

66

Range extension from workplace charging

Leaf and Volt drivers with known workplace charging averaged 23% and 26% higher annual EV miles traveled than the overall groups of vehicles in the project, respectively

67

Workplace Charging as a Substitute for Home Charging

• About 30% of drivers only charged at work on most days

• This shows that workplace charging could make PEVs viable for people without access to home charging

Photo courtesy of Facebook

68

What have we learned about public charging station use?

• Level 2 charging station usage (excluding workplace charging) was low overall

• Median of 1.4 charges per week

• 75% of 2,400 sites nationwide averaged 4 or fewer charges per week

• However, well designed sites at retail stores, especially shopping malls, and parking lots and garages serving multiple venues demonstrated potential to support 7 to 11 charges per day

69

What have we learned about public charging station use?

• DC fast chargers were used much more frequently than most public Level 2 stations

– Median of 7.2 charges per week

– 25% of DCFC’s averaged >15 charges per week

– The highest site saw 70 charges per week

– The most highly utilized DC fast chargers tended to be located close to interstate highway exits

• Public charging station usage varied by region, with higher usage in areas with higher PEV sales

• However, highly utilized public charging sites were found in most regions, proving that utilization is dependent on local factors

70

Roll-out of Blink

DCFC usage fees

during Q3

National Blink DC Fast Chargers - Fee Impacts

DCFC Fee per Session - $5 Blink members - $8 non-Blink members

71

Level 2 Fee per hour - $1 Blink EVSE - ChargePoint unknown

How did public usage change over time?

Blink DC fast chargers were initially free and usage increased quickly

Usage dropped dramatically when the Blink Network instituted fees in summer 2013

The average number of minutes in a Blink DC fast charger session prior to the onset of fees.

After the onset of per-session fees, the average time spent charging increased by 20%

72

What have we learned about charging at home?

The vehicles never needed more than 5

hours to fully charge at home using the

Level 2 charging units, and usually only

took 1 to 3 hours to charge completely

This means that even though most

vehicles were plugged in by 10 p.m.,

overnight charging at home typically could

be delayed until the early morning hours

when overall demand on the electric grid

is lowest

73

What have we learned about charging at home?

PEV owners in the project in areas where time-of-use rates were offered

showed a willingness to delay charging at home until off-peak periods

In San Diego, where the

cheapest time to charge

was midnight to 5 a.m.,

most PEV owners

programmed their charging

to start at midnight or 1 a.m.

74

TOU Charge Infrastructure UsageResidential Level 2 In San Diego(2nd quarter 2013, 272 of 700 units participating)

75

Super

Off-peak:

$0.16

Off-peak:

$0.22

Off-peak:

$0.22

On-peak: $0.49

Percent of EVSE connected to a vehicle

What have we learned about charging station installation costs?

$150

$600

>$8000

$12,660

$8,500 >$50,000

76

Public Level 2 EVSE Installation Costs• Installation cost data for analysis is available for 2,479 units

• Average installation cost per EVSE, for publicly accessible Level 2 EVSE

installed in EV Project markets

– $3,108

• The five most expensive geographic markets had per unit installation costs

– > $4,000 ($4,004 to $4,588)

• The five least expensive geographic markets had per unit installation costs

– < $2,600 ($2,088 to $2,609)

77

Public Installation Considerations

78

• Establishing an EV charging infrastructure has unique challenges in that

the public is not used to seeing EVSEs in public and may be unfamiliar with

its purpose and use

• Without specific signage to the contrary, ICE vehicles may park in spaces

equipped with an EVSE because they are convenient and vacant

• When an PEV arrives, the driver finds the space occupied and is unable to

recharge

Public Installation Considerations

79

• It is recommended that municipalities adopt specific ordinances to:

– Prohibit non-EVs from parking in spaces marked for “EV Charging Only”

– Require that EVs parked in spaces marked for “EV Charging Only”

must be connected to the EVSE while parked

• It may not be feasible to install EVSE in existing accessible parking spaces

because

– that space then becomes exclusively designated for an EV and would

remove one of the

– accessible spaces originally required for the facility.

Disabled Parking Considerations

80

• Recommendations to enable persons with disabilities to have access to a

charging station per ADA and IBC (International Building Code):

– An accessible space is required to park, exit vehicle and access the

EVSE

– Operable controls within 48” front and side reach range; and a 30” x 48”

clear floor space is required

• In general, for every 25 parking spaces, one parking space should be

accessible. For every six parking spaces that are accessible, one parking

space should be van accessible http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/EVProj/EVProjectAccessibilityAtPublicEVChargingLocations.pdf

• Labor costs were the primary

geographic differentiator of EVSE

installation cost

• Labor costs can be mitigated by

wall mount versus pedestal

installation

• Another factor that affected

installation costs in different

markets was implementation of

Americans with Disability Act

(ADA) requirements as

understood by the local permitting

authority having jurisdiction

81

Public Level 2 EVSE Installation Costs

Utility Demand Charges on AC Level 2 EVSE• Some electric utilities impose demand charges on the highest power

delivered to a customer in a month

• Simultaneously charging plug-in electric vehicles via multiple AC Level 2

EVSE can create significant increases in power demand

• The increased charging rate allowed by many newer plug-in-electric

vehicles (PEVs) will exacerbate this impact

• 3 EVSE x 6.6 kW = 19.8 kW

– Many utilities start demand charges at 20 kW

– Demand charge can exceed $1,000 per month

82

DC Fast Charger Installation Costs for 111 Units

• By the end of 2013, the EV Project had installed 111 DC Fast Chargers

• Overall, installation costs varied greatly from $8,500 to >$50,000

• The median cost to install the Blink dual-port DC Faster Chargers in the

EV Project was $22,626 (does NOT include DCFC unit cost)

• Largest differentiator of installation costs

1. Addition of new electrical service at the site was the

2. Surface on or under which the wiring and conduit were installed

• Cooperation from the electric utility and/or the local permitting authority is

key to minimizing installation costs (both money and time) for DCFCs

83

Workplace EVSE Installation Cost Drivers• Wall-Mounted Installations

– Greater freedom as to the installation location at a site led to more

wall-mounted installations

– Wall-mounted EVSE were typically less expensive to install, because

they did not require underground conduit to supply power, which is

typical for a pedestal unit

– The average cost to install a wall-mount AC Level 2 EVSE

• $2,035

– The average cost to install a pedestal AC Level 2

• $3,209

84

Workplace EVSE Installation Cost Drivers• Flexibility of the staff installations gives the ability to install EVSE with fewer

accessibility requirements:

– Typically there were few, if any, parking signage or striping

requirements

– ADA accessibility, including an accessible pathway to the workplace

building, was only necessary if an employee was a PEV driver and

required this accessibility

– Units did not need to be in conspicuous locations

85

Workplace EVSE Installation Cost Drivers• One workplace installation cost factor that did emerge over the course of

The EV Project, was the cost to install additional EVSE

– Employers who provided workplace EVSE for their employees found

that it encouraged more employees to obtain PEVs for their work

commute

– This put pressure on employers to add more stations, with the “easy”

installations often being the first ones installed

– Additional electrical service and parking places further from the

electrical distribution panel usually were required for additional EVSE,

which added to the cost of these subsequent installations

86

INL’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (EVI) lab

87

Purpose: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (EVI) Lab

• Evaluate EV charging infrastructure

– Independent evaluation of vehicle charging system

• Efficiency

• Power Quality

• Additionally for wireless charging: EM-field safety and coil alignment and coil gap impact

– Evaluate cyber security vulnerabilities of charging systems

– Evaluate and develop EV integration with renewable resources in both distributed and micro-grid environments

• EVI lab supports codes and standards development

– Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)

• Wireless Charging (J2954)

• Charger Power Quality (J2894)

– EnergyStar ratings for conductive EVSE88

EVI Facility capabilities• Wide range of facility input power (total of 400 kVA)

– Residential power: 120 / 240 VAC 1f

– Commercial power: 208 / 480 VAC 3f

• Vehicle emulator (for bench tests)

• Multiple test vehicles from various manufacturers

• Laboratory measurement equipment (Power meters, Oscilloscope, EM-field meters, IR temperature sensors)

89

Conductive Charging:Evaluation and Test Procedure Development

90

Evaluation of EVSE• Benchmark evaluation of 16 EVSE

– Functionality / compatibility with standards

– Power consumption during charging and stand-by

– http://avt.inel.gov/evse.shtml

• Four prototype EVSE with smart gridcommunication capabilities– Commercial EVSE: GE, Eaton

– Residential EVSE: Siemens, Delta

• Evaluated for:– Functionality / Compliance with standards

– Stand by power consumption

– Losses during charging

• Cyber Security Vulnerability assessment– Physical security

– Communications security

• wired and wireless

– Software and firmware assessment

91

Evaluation of Conductive EVSE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

EVSE AC W Consumption Prior to Charge

EVSE AC W Consumption During Charge

EVSE AC Watt Consumption Prior to & During Chevy Volt Charging

See http://avt.inel.gov/evse.shtml for individual testing fact sheets

• AC energy consumption during stand-by (not charging)

• Most EVSE consume < 10 watts

• AC energy consumption while charging a Chevrolet Volt at 3.3 kW

• Most EVSE consume < 30 watts 92

Conductive EVSE test procedures for Energy Star

• Test Methods document created for Level 1 and Level 2 EVSE

– Definitions

– Test equipment requirements

– Test procedures and measurements

• Standby power consumption

• Power loss during charging

• Ratings recommendations for EVSE with additional features

– EVSE rated maximum current

– Cord length

– Status lights

– Smart Grid communications

– Touch screen interface

– Active brightness control

93

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCJL_xsPB_sYCFU57kgodKnALfg&url=http://rookerco.com/government/clients/notable/&ei=f9G3VdLDJs72yQSq4K3wBw&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNFIcN8EwIYCZAnGvjlsgmNlNn1O5w&ust=1438196450548979

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCJL_xsPB_sYCFU57kgodKnALfg&url=http://rookerco.com/government/clients/notable/&ei=f9G3VdLDJs72yQSq4K3wBw&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNFIcN8EwIYCZAnGvjlsgmNlNn1O5w&ust=1438196450548979

Benchmark Evaluation of:Hasetec DC Fast Charger and Nissan Leaf• 53.1 AC kW peak grid power

• 47.1 DC kW peak charge power to Leaf energy storage system (ESS)

• 15.0 Grid AC kWh and 13.3 DC kWh delivered to Leaf ESS

• 88.7% Overall charge efficiency (480VAC to ESS DC)

94

Cyber Security Evaluation of Charging Infrastructure

• DC Fast Charger cyber security vulnerability assessment

– CHAdeMO using Nissan Leaf

– CCS using Chevy Spark

• Evaluate cyber security

– Vulnerability in connection between DCFC to vehicle

• Protocols

• communication

– DCFC to back office

• includes data, billing, energy management, etc.

– Vehicle robustness to attack

95

On-board charger power quality• With smart grid communication, plug-in

electric vehicles can be controllable loads on the grid

• Vehicle response must be understood

– Power Quality (efficiency, power factor, total harmonic distortion)

– Dynamic characteristics (response to voltage sag, swell, noise, etc.)

• INL supports SAE J2894 development

• INL characterized the on-board charger for several vehicles

– 2012 Chevrolet Volt (3.3 kW charger)

– 2012 Nissan Leaf (3.3 kW charger)

– 2015 Nissan Leaf (6.6 kW charger)

– 2014 BMW i3 (7.2 kW charger)

– more planned in the near future

96

INL Test results of On-Board Charger: Efficiency

97

• Variation in charge efficiency

– Vehicle models

– Charge power level

– Level 1 vs. Level 2

Test results: Power Factor & Harmonic Distortion

98

Wireless Charging:Evaluation and Codes & Standards Support

99

Electric Vehicle Wireless Charging• Capable of charging at same power levels as conductive charging

– Therefore same recharge time

• May lead to increased EV adoption

– Hands-free / automated

– Possibly in-motion charging (charging while driving)

100

Photo courtesy of HELLA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFw7GS_LPKAhVJdz4KHT2hCoEQjRwIBw&url=http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2014/04/hella-developing-wireless-charging.html&psig=AFQjCNE3brL4rmCaZyjHB1xKAbubYUbtow&ust=1453227387405558

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFw7GS_LPKAhVJdz4KHT2hCoEQjRwIBw&url=http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2014/04/hella-developing-wireless-charging.html&psig=AFQjCNE3brL4rmCaZyjHB1xKAbubYUbtow&ust=1453227387405558

INL Wireless charging testing and evaluation• On-board vehicle testing

• Standalone sub-system testing (bench test)

• Directly supports SAE J2954 test procedure development, EM-field evaluation, and interoperability evaluation

• INL test setup adopted in the current draft of SAE J2954 TIR

101

INL Test Results example: Efficiency

Evatran PLUGLESS wireless charger

• Efficiency varies with coil gap and misalignment

• Significant differences between on-board and bench testing

– Due to steel vehicle chassis absorbing electromagnetic field

• Output power also has efficiency effects

– Decreased power decreased efficiency

102

Vehicle Efficiency (Chevy Volt)

Bench Test Efficiency

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCMDP3Y68_sYCFQfKPgodsPUCxg&url=https://www.pluglesspower.com/look/&ei=0su3VcCeKYeU-wGw64uwDA&bvm=bv.98717601,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNGVuptrPHFcsQr6SniKvMbBzEDouw&ust=1438194941713230

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCMDP3Y68_sYCFQfKPgodsPUCxg&url=https://www.pluglesspower.com/look/&ei=0su3VcCeKYeU-wGw64uwDA&bvm=bv.98717601,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNGVuptrPHFcsQr6SniKvMbBzEDouw&ust=1438194941713230

INL Test Results example: EM-field around vehicle

103

On Vehicle

Bench Test

104http://avt.inl.gov/evse.shtml

Fact Sheet: vehicle test results

INL evaluation enabled efficiency improvements• INL’s evaluation of the pre-production PLUGLESS system led to:

– Improvements for the production PLUGLESS, based on INL test results

• More consistent efficiency across range of misalignment

105

Pre-production PLUGLESS Production PLUGLESS

Upcoming Wireless Charging Testing• U.S. DOE FOA-667 evaluation of vehicle WPT system

– ORNL, Toyota, Evatran collaboration• RAV4 EV with prototype circular topology WPT

• Input 240 VAC, 50 A

– Hyundai, Mojo Mobility collaboration• Kia Soul EV with prototype circular topology WPT

• Input 240 VAC, 100 A

– Three SAE J2954 prototype master / reference coil systems for interoperability evaluation and document requirements refinement

• WPT1 / Z1-Z2 circular coil topology

– 3.7 kW, 100-210mm gap

• WPT2 / Z2-Z3 circular coil topology

– 7.7 kW, 140-250mm gap

• WPT2 / Z1-Z3 Double “D” coil topology

– 7.7 kW, 100-250mm gap

106

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCO6OqfqStsgCFYElPgodM8wHAg&url=http://www.alphr.com/cars/1001421/formula-e-bmw-and-qualcomm-unveil-wirelessly-charging-i8-safety-car&bvm=bv.104819420,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNFKyswbU8aOp0pHI7XNY25E6fIENw&ust=1444506109463946

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCO6OqfqStsgCFYElPgodM8wHAg&url=http://www.alphr.com/cars/1001421/formula-e-bmw-and-qualcomm-unveil-wirelessly-charging-i8-safety-car&bvm=bv.104819420,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNFKyswbU8aOp0pHI7XNY25E6fIENw&ust=1444506109463946

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=http://phys.org/news/2012-07-wireless-power-ultra-thin.html&bvm=bv.104819420,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNFpMVa2OBgMuy8rgaj3QdCkHVQjZg&ust=1444507814917766

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=http://phys.org/news/2012-07-wireless-power-ultra-thin.html&bvm=bv.104819420,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNFpMVa2OBgMuy8rgaj3QdCkHVQjZg&ust=1444507814917766

EVI Lab Coordination:Integration of EV’s and Renewable Resources

107

Vehicle Integration with Renewable Resources

• RTDS

– High speed control and communication between INL and NREL

• Renewable resources

– wind, solar, etc.

• Electric vehicles

• Micro-grid

• Supports grid modernization

• Coordinated control system

• Cyber security

108

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCITCuYPK_sYCFYYZPgodq1gJvg&url=http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1070298_nissan-leaf-goes-wireless-charging-mat-under-development&ei=adq3VcTpBoaz-AGrsaXwCw&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNGWx-HZl2B1fltPZZxlDjpsTEEE_w&ust=1438198612754001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCITCuYPK_sYCFYYZPgodq1gJvg&url=http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1070298_nissan-leaf-goes-wireless-charging-mat-under-development&ei=adq3VcTpBoaz-AGrsaXwCw&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNGWx-HZl2B1fltPZZxlDjpsTEEE_w&ust=1438198612754001

Charging Infrastructure Evaluation with RTDS

• Evaluate charging infrastructure using Grid Emulator

– Variable AC power supply

• 1f or 3f phase

• 100 VAC to 520 VAC

• Bi-directional

• Dynamic grid event emulation

– sag, swell, step, pulse, harmonics, etc.

• Real Time Digital Simulation

– Hardware in the loop

– Integration with renewable resources

– Real time connection between RTDS at INL and NREL

109

Summary

• INL is the U.S. DOE core capability for collecting, analyzing and reporting on-road light duty vehicle utilization and energy consumption

• INL’s EVI lab is the U.S. DOE core capability for evaluating electric vehicle charging infrastructure

110

Questions?

Richard “Barney” Carlson

[email protected]

at.inl.gov

http://avt.inl.gov

Funding provided by U.S. DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office

111

Back-up slides

112

Charge Infrastructure Usage – DCFC (Full year 2013, 100 units reporting)

113

Charging Availability: Range of Percent of Charging Units with a Vehicle Connected

versus Time of Day

Charging Demand: Range of Aggregate Electricity Demand versus Time of Day


GROUP ACTIVITY


Group Activity

• Break into groups of 3-4

• For your assigned program/technology, identify: – Target customers

– Pros and cons

– Potential goals of this type of pilot

– Synergies with other options discussed, or other MT initiatives

– Additional information needed to make an informed decision

– How well this option aligns with our guiding principles

• You will have a chance to have input on each topic!

115


NEXT STEPS


Next Meeting

Topics

• Storage

– Grid-connected

– Behind-the-meter

• Microgrids

• Demand Rates

Logistics

• Next meeting in February

• Likely timing is the week

of the 15th or 29th

• Location options:

– Butte

– Missoula

– Bozeman

117


Suggested Readings

118

• Storage– “Electric Utilities, Energy Storage and Solar: Trends in

Technologies, Applications and Costs” (SEPA report)

– Energy Storage Association case studies

• http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/case-studies

• Microgrids– DOE microgrid activities webpage

• http://www.energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid/role-microgrids-helping-advance-nation-s-energy-syst-0

• Demand Rates– Same material from this meeting

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/case-studies

http://www.energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid/role-microgrids-helping-advance-nation-s-energy-syst-0

Documents

Montana Clean Energy Pilot Working Group Workshop #3nweplus.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default-source/... · Helping Utilities Make Smart Solar Decisions Montana Clean Energy Pilot