charging ahead power grid perspectives on plug-in electric vehicles
DESCRIPTION
Charging Ahead Power Grid Perspectives on Plug-in Electric Vehicles. ISO/RTO Council (IRC). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Charging AheadCharging AheadPower Grid Perspectives on Plug-in Electric Power Grid Perspectives on Plug-in Electric
VehiclesVehicles
2
ISO/RTO Council (IRC)
North America’s 10 independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) serve two-thirds of electricity consumers in the United States and more than 50 percent of Canada's population.
3
IRC Electric Vehicle Study
IRC report examines grid impacts of Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs). Among the study’s conclusions:
• One million PEVs may be on U.S. roadways in a decade -- with concentrations of the vehicles in the major metropolitan areas of the West Coast and the Northeast.
• Staggered charging of PEVs would reduce the potential negative impact on electric load.
• Power companies will need new tools to manage growth in PEV use.
4
PEV Projections – ISO/RTO
ERCOT 42,769
SPP 30,459 Midwest ISO 94,644
PJM 144,172
NYISO 43,738
ISO-NE 61,074CAISO
267,654
Of the 1,000,000 PEVsexpected over the next
10 years, more than684,000 may be served
by U.S. ISO/RTOs
The Historical Data: The Pace of Prius Market Penetration
Methodology question
– Why focus on the Prius?
– Prius was (a) high mileage, (b) very new technology, (c) “green,” (d) relatively expensive
Prius sales illustrate the introduction of a new vehicle technology
– Market introduction: first generation technology, limited production capacity, high prices
– Market development: second generation, improved technology, expanded capacity, growing consumer interest and acceptance
The Prius study period represents “early adopters” only
– Data focus on Prius concentrations, not “niches” or very small numbers
– NOT focused on distribution circuits – but could be!
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
United States Annual Prius New Registrations
United StatesNotes:• 2000-2002 represented Prius “Gen 2”• Prius “Gen 2” introduced in 2003
Note: All Prius data provided by R. L. Polk
What have we learned about Prius early adopters?
New Prius Registrations – Total Prius Sales, 2000-2007*
Ranking by state
1 – 10
11 – 20
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 51
New Prius registrations for study period:2000 – 2007: 435,400 vehicles* Prius data provided by R. L. Polk
Buyer Demographics: Locations of New Registrations
Sales of the Prius were generally concentrated in states with the highest population – but…
Total NewRank State Registrations
1 CA 123,9892 FL 20,5963 TX 18,2974 NY 18,0335 VA 17,8286 WA 16,4597 PA 14,7918 IL 14,6609 MA 13,723
10 MD 12,040
States With Highest Prius Sales
PopulationRank State (Millions)
1 CA 36.82 TX 24.33 NY 19.54 FL 18.35 IL 12.96 PA 12.57 OH 11.58 MI 10.09 GA 9.7
10 NC 9.2
States With Highest Population, 2000-2007
What have we learned about early Prius consumers?
Prius Registrations – New Registrations Per Capita, 2000-2007*
Ranking by statePer capita data
1 – 10
11 – 20
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 51
2.0 – 3.4
1.3 – 1.9
1,0 – 1,3
0.7 – 1.0
0.3 – 0.7
Rank
Registrations per 1,000
New Prius registrations for study period:2000 – 2007: 435,400 vehicles
* Prius data provided by R. L. Polk
Buyer Demographics: Urban Concentrations
…but the demographics of the Prius customer has a strong “coastal” character - and was heavily concentrated in the largest urban areas, which account for 31.6% of total U.S. sales
Total New % ofRank Metro Area Registrations US
1 New York 18,622 3.7%2 Los Angeles 52,700 10.4%3 Chicago 9,400 1.9%4 Wash., DC 15,100 8.4%5 San Francisco 42,900 8.4%6 Philadelphia 6,300 1.2%7 Boston 13,200 2.6%8 Detroit 3,000 0.6%9 Dallas 3,200 0.6%
10 Houston 3,900 0.8%
Metro Areas Where Prius Was Most Popular
Registrations perRank State 1000 Residents
1 CA 3.372 VT 3.213 OR 3.044 NH 2.545 WA 2.516 DC 2.467 VA 2.298 MD 2.149 MA 2.11
10 ME 2.03
States Where Prius Was Most Popular
Note:“Most popular” = highest per capita sales
The “Take-aways” From the Prius Review
1. Early adopters WERE NOT proportional to population size alone– Significant differences in per capita sales between states and regions– Some strong preferences, some distinct disinterest
2. TOTAL numbers WERE driven by overall population size3. The “Coastal” phenomenon for this class of vehicle among early adopters
is very clear – in both the per capita numbers and in the overall sales numbers
Conclusions
1. Early adopters have a clear demographic locational component• The so-called “coastal effect” appears valid
2. There are likely to be significant differences in PEV clustering among ISOs/RTOs• BUT – from an ISO/RTO perspective, where clusters of significant size are needed to
provide a useful level of MWs of connected PEVs, POPULATION SIZE matters more than almost any other criteria
III PEV Projections: Distribution
Where are PEVs likely to be concentrated among the ISOs and RTOs?
PEVs: Where will they land?
• How do we apply the Prius experience to project the distribution of PEVs among the ISOs and RTOs?– Where are PEVs likely to be concentrated in significant numbers from
an ISO/RTO perspective?
• Key to an ISO/RTO perspective– MWs – concentrations of PEVs that provide significant MW demand
response resources• One vehicle here and there doesn’t count
• Where will PEVs wind up?– The consumer model: PHEVs and EREVs (and some BEVs)
• The Prius analogy – applied to consumer behavior, not fleets
– The “fleet” model: BEVs• An “urban center” model, driven largely by population size
The “Top Twenty” Metropolitan Areas
City Population City Population
New York 16,400,000 Atlanta 4,100,000
Los Angeles 16,400,000 Miami 3,900,000
Chicago 9,200,000 Seattle-Tacoma 3,600,000
Washington, DC 7,600,000 Phoenix 3,300,000
San Francisco 7,000,000 Minneapolis 3,000,000
Philadelphia 6,200,000 Cleveland-Akron 3,000,000
Boston 5,800,000 San Diego 2,850,000
Detroit-Ann Arbor 5,500,000 St. Louis 2,600,000
Dallas-Fort Worth 5,200,000 Denver-Boulder 2,600,000
Houston 4,700,000 Tampa-St. Pete 2,400,000
Metro areas located within the ISO/RTO study area are in bold, other metro areas are in gray
PEVs in the “Top Twenty” Metropolitan Areas – Slide 1 of 2
Metro areas located within the ISO/RTO study area are in bold, other metro areas are in gray
City Consumer PEVs Fleet PEVs Total PEVs
New York 40,000 14,069 54,069
Los Angeles 105,000 14,069 119,069
Chicago 20,000 7,892 27,892
Washington, DC 31,000 6,520 37,520
San Francisco 85,000 6,005 91,005
Philadelphia 13,000 5,319 18,319
Boston 27,000 4,976 31,976
Detroit-Ann Arbor 6,000 4,718 10,718
Dallas-Fort Worth 6,500 4,461 10,961
Houston 8,000 4,032 12,032
PEVs in the “Top Twenty” Metropolitan Areas – Slide 2 of 2
Metro areas located within the ISO/RTO study area are in bold, other metro areas are in gray
City Consumer PEVs Fleet PEVs Total PEVs
Atlanta 4,500 3,517 8,017
Miami 8,000 3,346 11,346
Seattle-Tacoma 23,000 3,088 26,088
Phoenix 13,000 2,831 15,831
Minneapolis 8,000 2,574 10,574
Cleveland-Akron 6,000 2,574 8,574
San Diego 20,000 2,445 22,445
St. Louis 3,500 2,230 5,730
Denver-Boulder 9,000 2,230 11,230
Tampa-St. Pete 7,000 2,059 9,059
IV Moving from PEVs to MWs
Translating from numbers of PEVs to numbers of MW in ISO/RTO metro areas
MW: Translating PEVs to Available MWs
It’s not the size, it’s the miles driven – and the kWh used – that matter– PEVs come with different size batteries (e.g., 10 kW, 25 kW, 100 kW)) – PEVs come in different designs (e.g., PHEV, EREV, BEVs) – The PEV may be hooked up, but it may be already fully charged and not
available for demand reduction
Ultimately, MW available for demand reduction are a function of:– Number of PEVs of varying size available locally– Charging voltage (e.g., Level 1, 2, 3) – how long it takes to charge– Connection at load
• Likelihood that a vehicle is in fact connected at a given moment in time• Likely depth of discharge at time of hook-up• BOTH are stochastic
Calculating “Available” MW
Implications– Our analysis estimates the number of PEVs in the SMSA clusters– We estimate a split between PHEVs, EREVs and BEVs, and locate the majority of
BEVs in the larger urban centers • 80% in the “top 20”
– To arrive at MW estimates it is necessary to “rerate” the kW of the batteries to recognize:
• Some batteries are larger than others (e.g., BEVs)• The likelihood that many batteries will be only partially discharged when first plugged
in
Our model– Consumer BEVs average 100 miles in range vs. 40 miles for EREVs– 80% of consumer BEVs are in the “top 20” metro areas– The majority of fleet vehicles will be BEVs– For this purpose, we only calculate fleet BEVs in the metro areas used throughout
this analysis
MW Load and Charging Projections
Assumptions– Chargers – 20% level 1; 80% level 2– 300 kWh per mile (includes travel, AC and accessories)– Night time charging assumed; daytime charging not included– Included both Consumer and Fleet projections– Individual utility load profiles were not considered
MW Load and Charging Projections
Slide 1 of 2 City Metro Area Total PEVs
MW Load if everyone
charged at the same time
MW Load if charging is
staged over 8 hours
MW Load if charging is
staged over 12 hours
New York 54,069 448 40 26
Los Angeles 119,069 988 174 116
Chicago 27,892 231 41 27
Washington, DC 37,520 311 55 37
San Francisco 91,005 755 133 89
Philadelphia 18,319 152 27 18
Boston 31,976 265 47 31
Detroit-Ann Arbor 10,718 89 16 10
Dallas-Fort Worth 10,961 91 16 11
Houston 12,032 100 18 12
MW Load and Charging Projections
Slide 2 of 2 City Metro Area Total PEVs
MW Load if everyone
charged at the same time
MW Load if charging is
staged over 8 hours
MW Load if charging is
staged over 12 hours
Atlanta 8,017 67 12 8
Miami 11,346 94 17 11
Seattle-Tacoma 26,088 216 38 25
Phoenix 15,831 131 23 15
Minneapolis 10,574 88 15 10
Cleveland-Akron 8,574 71 13 8
San Diego 22,445 186 33 22
St. Louis 5,730 48 8 6
Denver-Boulder 11,230 93 16 11
Tampa-St. Pete 9,059 75 13 9
22
Projected PEV Load
ISO/RTO Total PEVsLoad if everyone
charged at the same time (MW)
Load if charging is staged over 8
hours (MW)
Load if charging is staged over 12 hours (MW)
ISO-NE 61,074 338 75 50
NYISO 43,738 242 27 18
PJM 144,172 797 178 119
Midwest ISO 94,644 523 117 78
SPP 30,459 168 38 25
ERCOT 42,769 237 53 35
CAISO 267,654 1,480 331 221
TOTAL 684,510 3,785 819 546
23
Impact of Charging Patterns
3,785
819546
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Meg
awat
ts
Load if everyonecharged at the
same time
Load if charging isstaged over 8 hours
Load if charging isstaged over 12
hours
PEV Load Impact - U.S. ISO & RTO Regions
24
PEV Products & Services
Emergency Load Curtailment (ELC)—PEVs are able to provide a quick-response load-curtailment resource for emergency events, and may be aggregated for maximum effect.
Dynamic Pricing (DP)—Dynamic pricing might be a way to accomplish charging of PEV batteries in off-peak hours. However, further research on consumer behavior is necessary to understand how a PEV owner will respond to retail price differentials.
Enhanced Aggregation (EA)—The potential for high concentrations of PEV loads in the evening makes managing charging over the day a priority for the ISO/RTOs. This would be complementary to time-of-use programs and be potentially linked to a dynamic-pricing product.
25
Conclusions
EV can be accommodated and managed within existing Ancillary Services Products
Expanded use of electricity as primary fuel powering light-duty vehicles poses a challenges and opportunities to the electricity grid.
Management of PEV charging — at a minimum — can limit the impact of new PEV loads and — at its best — provide new resources.
In addition to testing and demonstrating new tools, grid operators will be able to leverage experience with smart grid technology and demand response to prepare for the unique changes predicted to arrive with PEVs.
26
For More Information
A copy of the full report, Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Integration with ISO/RTO Systems, is available at the IRC website, www.iso-rto.org.
27
ISO – New England
28
New York ISO
29
PJM Interconnection
30
Midwest ISO
31
Southwest Power Pool
32
Electric Reliability Council of Texas
33
California ISO