Analysis of effects of plug Analysis of effects of plug-

vehicles on electricity demaA li i l i A preliminary ana nary analysis

1

Photo illustration by George Lange, with Michael Miller (Plug) –Popular Mechanics
Potential Impact of 

Plug-in Electric Vehicles in Electric Vehicles

 State of transportation for passen

State of transportation for passen

and light trucks past 30 years.

 Potential impact of Plug Potential impact of Plug

-in Hybrid in Hybrid

vehicles

 Potential impact of Vehicle to Grid Potential impact of Vehicle to Grid

2
We have two modes: We have two modes:

”Complacency and Panic”

James Schlesinger

3
C ed s r it

 Dr. Anup 

 Bandivadekar MIT “Evaluatin

Impact of Advanced Vehicle and Fuel technologies in U.S. Light-duty Vehicle Fl “ eet

 Michael Kinter-Meyer, Kevin Schneide

Robert Pratt from Pacific Northwest 

National Lab Impacts Assessment of National Lab. Impacts Assessment of 

in Hybrid Vehicles on Electric Utilities 

regional U S Power Grid

4

regional U.S. Power Grid.
Bac g ou d kground

 About 230 million passenger vehi

About 230 million passenger vehi

and light trucks on the roads toda

 Vehicles per 1000 people Vehicles per 1000 people

 US ~ 800 per thousand  Western Europe/Canada Western Europe/Canada- 600

 China- 20

 MPG i l 20 MPG ~ in low 20s

5
C a ges a spo a o hanges in Transportatio

US totals 1970 Number of Vehicles (millions) Number of Vehicles (millions) 110 

Miles traveled (Trillion) 1.1 

Miles per vehicle Miles per vehicle 10 303 , 

6
7

,Adjusted fuell Ecol1oJmy. bY' Model 

(An Dlota 

,30..,.......-------------------, 

, " 

1.5 

1 [0 +-r-T""T""T"""I""T""T""'Ir-r-T-T""T""T'"r+T-"T""T""T'+-rT"T""T""i"'T""T""'l--r+-1I'""T""T""r-+-T"T""T""T""'I 

1910.[ 1'9,90 19851 990 199[51 2000 200.[5 2010 

; 

;ii
8

4500 

4QOO 

300 

W1eigll t and Performance 

(,Annuall] Da,fa) 

hI L.' 

, eig'h 

19901 

; 

;ii
9

4!lO :, . 

S a es IIFlI!"actito n b y V ,e e .y pe 

(Th ree Yeall!" Mov i n g Ave Ira ge) 

:S a les rrac1ii o 

1- -oE- C 

.......-.. 

___ 

.

- l/l

L 

....... 

; 

;ii
Trends in Cost of Transpo

10

F gure 

1

0. oj Rea} DISposable 

Income, Vehlcle-Mtles 'D'tn' Jed, COl1SWllQr 

Pric

(CPI-U, and Real Avera

g,eRe ail Gasoline 

Price; 19 - 004. 

198 -=

10'0 

I{) 

... iii) a; 0 ... ... ..... CD ('II 

(I) (I) (I) (I) CD CD 

,.. ,.. .... ... Q) Q) 

,.. ,.. 

ReallLlisposable Personal Income 

-e-Real 

MotorG 

o'lin Price for 

All Gr d . 

A Traveled 

CPI·U: All item- le-- food 

and 

e

n-rgy 

• 

t') ... in <Q "" i:O Q) b , N M in ID ... CD CD CD CD CD co co Q) 0) en 0) (I) 

(I) 01 (I) (I) CIl Q) (I) G'> G'> (I) (I) CIl 01· (I) (I) 

,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. .... ,.. ,.. Q) Q) ,.. ,.. ,.. ... ,.. ,.. 

,.. ,.. 

iii) Q) 0 N I

Q) Q) 0 0 0 Q) (I) 0 Q 0 

,.. ,.. Q N N 

(\oj 

· R , -tnV 00 .. Bllr U 0 2 cOllom Ie 

Allal) 

; 

;ii
11

'14 

12 

I '10 

9.4 

9,0 - .-

I 8 

I 16 

4 

2 

0 

1969 1977 198,3 

10.6 11.6 

1990 1995 

; 

;ii
Travel Time to Work 

60%70%50%

t

30%40%

Percen

10%20%

0%

Less than 30 minutes Between 30 Minutes to an 1

hour

Over an ho

12
Typical US Commute Distance

35%30%

We assumed 33 miles round trip for our modeling w

20%25%

muters

We assumed 33 miles round trip for our modeling w

15%20%

ercent of Comm

5%

10%

Pe

0%

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 

13

1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 51 60 61 70 

Round Trip Miles Traveled
Desc p o o d e e op o 

ription of different optio

 Current options

 Gasoline system Turbo Diesel hybrid

 Future options

 Gasoline Audi Turbo Diesel 

G

 Turbo Diesel Hybrid plug-in hybrid in hybrid Battery electric Fuel Cell Hyundai’s Fuel Cell Tesla’s Ba

14
Barriers to new alternative fueled v

 Demand

 High first cost for vehicle Fuel storage/limited range Fuel storage/limited range Reliability and durability Lack of refueling infustructure Lack of refueling infustructure Market entry barriers (high entry co High discount factors and risk avers

High discount factors and risk avers

15
Barriers to new alternative fueled v

 Supply side constraints Supply side constraints

 Lead times for new product line High Capital investment requirem

High Capital investment requirem

 Limitations of critical supply 

components

 Global market response / increas

pp g rice of com

ponents/ backlo

g

16
S p e a ode imple “ What If ” m t If ” model

 Forecast of passenger and light trucks –Global  Market share fraction ~ 3% to start 26% in 10 y

Market share fraction ~ 3% to start 26% in 10 y

 Miles traveled per day ~33 held constant Energy requirement ~ 0.26-0.46 KWh/mile (0.3  Energy efficiency improvement -5% per year Battery size 10 KWh  Available battery yp t e Lithium-Ion  T&D and conversion efficiency losses ~20% Recharge at 110 v 15 amp in 8 hours Recharge at 220 v 30 amp in under 2 hours Recharge at 220 v 30 amp in under 2 hours Assumed 95% recharge off peak, 5% during pe Current average MPG for gasoline vehicles 20.

17

 CO2 emissions for gasoline ~ 1 lb/mile
2000-2030 New Passenger and Light Trucks 

400450300350150200250

1000s

50

100

150

0

2000

2001

2003

2004

2006

2007

2009

2010

2012

2013

2015

2016

2018

2019

2021

2022

2024

2025

2027

2028

2

18
Market Share Scenarios

60%70%50%

ars

30%40%

Percent of New c 

10%20%

P

0%

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Plug-in Vehicles on the Road (1000s)

5000600040003000 10002000 

0

1000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

Slower sBaseAggress

20

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030
Assumed Daily Recharge Sche

Assumed Assumed Daily Recharge Recharge Sche

Sche

90%

100%

70%80%40%50%60%20%30%

0%

10%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

21
Impact on Northwest Energy MWa

1 2001,0001,200

800

a

Slower staBaseAggressiv

400600

MWa

200

-

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

22
Impact on Off Peak Hour Loads (MW)

2 0002,5001,5002,0001,000

MW

500 Slower sta

Base

-

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

202

Aggressive

23

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2
Impact on Peak Load

6050 40

W

Slower sBase

2030 MWAggress10

-

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

24
Reduction in CO2 Emissions 

metric tons

18,000,000 ~

r

12 000 00014,000,00016,000,000 r

egc2

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1

1

4,000,0006,000,000

-

2,000,000

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

0

25

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030
Impact of Plug Impact of Plug-in Hybrids in Hybrids 

on the Power System

 In year 2020

Base Case without Hybrids

Annual Average Mid-C price: $ 64.57/mwhA l CO2 E i i f l t Annual CO2 Emissions from power plants:

443.3 million tons

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Case

Annual Average Mid-C price: $ 65.27/mwhAnnual CO2 Emissions from power plants:444.7 million tons

Average price and CO2 emissions go up sligh

26
MID-C Prices in 2020 $/mwh (nominal) 

70

Base casePlug-ins recharged off peakPl i h d k

5060

Plug-in rec

harge

d on pea

k

30405020

-

10

Average price $/MWH Off peak price On peak price $/MWH

27

$/MWH
Modeling Storage Opportuniti

Vehicle 2 Grid Vehicle 2 Grid

 First assumed that 25 MW of storage 

be placed in the Plug-in vehicles.Charge period: 11 pm-5 am

 Di h P i d 11 4 Disc

harge 

Perio

d: 11am to 

4 pm

 Assumed efficiency: 80%

 I t P i d CO2 i i Impac

t on 

P

rices an

d CO2 emissions 

marginal.

 Then evaluated impact of a 250 MW Then evaluated impact of

a 250 MW

storage unit. 

28
Storage Charge and Discharg

Shape

Discharge

2530 Discharge Period101520

‐5

05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

‐20‐15‐10

Recharge Recha

‐30‐25

20

Recharge Period Recha

Period

29
Impact on Prices and CO2 Emiss

Impact on Prices and CO2 Emiss

Emiss

Storage

Charge Period

Discharge period

Base case 52.3 70.75With plug-ins 53.7 70.96with plug-ins and V2G 54.3 69.94

 Power Plant CO2 Emissions (WECC w

 Base case - 443 million ton With Plug-ins - 444.7 million to With Plug-in and V2G- 444.8 million to

30
Op g a a ge s o age 

timizin timizing a larger storage 

 Assumed that 250 MW of storage can 

pl d i th l laced in the plug-i hi l n vehicles

 Allowed Aurora Model to optimize cha

a d d sc a g g nd discharging

 Model chose discharge periods in resp

to higher market prices, to lower mark

price.

 Discharge Periods were early evening 

winter peak period and early afternoon 

summer peak period. 

 Finding: Similar impact to earlier analy

31
Incorporating Plug Incorporating Plug-in Hybrids in 

in Hybrids in 

Forecast 

 Plug

-in hybrid characteristics will 

in hybrid characteristics will 

incorporated into Energy2020 mo

 Penetration rates can be exogeno

Penetration rates can be exogeno

set as a policy or endogenously 

modeled as a customer choice modeled as

a customer choice.

32
Su a y mm r

 Plug-in hybrids could increase an

in hybrids could increase an

electricity use in the NW by 1-3%

 Plug-in hybrids could increase in hybrids could increase off

peak demand by 4-10%

 Plug-in electrics increase CO2 in electrics increase CO2

emissions from power plants but 

significantly reduce emission from significantly reduce emission from

transport sector.

33