Electric VehiclesElectric Vehicles –Impacts & Opportunities
Ralph Boroughsp gElectrical Engineer,
Tennessee Valley AuthorityMusic City Power Quality Assoc.y y
November 1, 2011
The TVA Power Service Area
2
Quick Facts about TVA
•Established by Congress in 1933.•Board appointed by the President.•Funded solely by power revenue.y y p•Serving Tennessee and portions of 6 other states, ~9 million people., p p
•Generator, wholesaler and regulator.– 155 Power distributors – Municipals and Cooperatives.155 Power distributors Municipals and Cooperatives.– 59 Direct served accounts .
•Peak load 33,482 MW.
3
,
TVA Mission - Alignment with Electric TransportationAlignment with Electric Transportation
TVA Missions•Economic development. √•Environmental stewardship √•Environmental stewardship. √•Affordable electricity. √
åTechnological innovation. åIntegrated river system managementg y g
4
Environmental Assessment of Plug‐in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EPRI/NRDC Study)lectric Vehicles ( PRI/NR C Study)
• Supported by TVA, other Utilities, and the Natural
400
450
500
2e/m
ile)
Coal Natural Non-,Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• Volume 1 - PHEVs are a minimum of 30% better
200
250
300
350
400
as Emission
s (g CO
2 Gas EmittingGeneration
minimum of 30% better than conventional vehicles for Greenhouse Gas Emissions ‐
50
100
150
cle
cle
oal
oal
PC CC CS CC CC CC GT
GT
ear ar ass eseels Green
house Ga
• Volume 2 – PHEVs Improve Overall Air Quality
Ozone Conven
tional Veh
ic
Hybrid Ve
hic
PHEV
‐20
10 Old Co
PHEV
‐20
10 New
Co
PHEV
‐Adv SP
PHEV
‐IGC
PHEV
‐IGCC
with
CC
PHEV
‐Old 201
0 C
PHEV
‐New
201
0 C
PHEV
‐Adv C
PHEV
‐Old 201
0 G
PHEV
‐New
201
0 G
PHEV
‐Nucle
PHEV
‐Adv Nucle
HEV
‐Ce
ntral Bioma
PHEV
‐Re
newabl
Well‐to‐Whe
– Ozone– Secondary PM2.5
– SOx
NO
P P
PH
Gasoline Well‐to‐Tank Gasoline Tank‐to‐Wheels Electricity Well‐to‐Wheels
Source: EPRI report 1015325: Environmental Assessment
5
– NOx Source: EPRI report 1015325: Environmental Assessment of Plug‐in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Volume 1
Annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions from PHEV adoption
600
reductions from PHEV adoption
• There is the potential
400
500
mission
smetric tons)
for a 400-500 million metric ton annual reduction in GHG emissions by 2050
ti id (th US
200
300ee
nhou
se Gas Em
ctions (million mnationwide (the US
currently emits 6 billion metric tons annually)
0
100
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Gr
Redu
• Petroleum reduction of 3-4 million barrels per day by 2050
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Low PHEV Share Medium PHEV Share High PHEV Share• Reductions in TVA’s
territory are 4.7 MMTons by 2030 and 11.7 MMTons by 2050
6
o s by 050Source: EPRI report 1015325: Environmental Assessment of Plug‐in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Volume 1
CONSUMER STAKEHOLDER MAP
•Customer Interface•Vehicle
MAPValue
FUELCARCustomer Interface
•Integration / Interoperability•Smart Grid / Standards• Infrastructure•Rates
R&D•Safety•Consumer Marketing
•Price•Incentives
Automotive ElectricElectric
Economics•Rates•Smart Charging•Planning•Outreach / Call Center•Billing
•Battery•Recycling
Automotive OEM
Electric Electric Utilities C
onvves
•National Security •Safety
ConsumerEnergy Independence
Supporting
Goods & Services
venienceInce
ntiv
National Security•Carbon / GHG Emissions
•CAFÉ / Fuel Economy•Incentives / Tax Credits•Mandates•Public good
•Safety•Standards•Codes•Home Base•Public•Research Suppliers
InfrastructurePolicy
Environment
e
7
g•Economic Health•Environmental Health
•Suppliers•Planning & Development
•ContractorsEthos7
Traditional Consumer Fuel Paradigm
House = Consumer’s Largest Purchase Decision
Largest Consumer Purchases are traditionally mutually exclusive
P i id f ft it d
Strong Consumer / Utility Dynamic Exists
Power is paid for after its used
Fuel is prepaid prior to use
Traditionally NO Fueling at House
Vehicle = Consumer’s 2nd
Largest Purchase Decision
Many Public Fuel Choices
Decision
NO Utility Role
Consumer billed / pays AFTER power
8
Consumer NOT brand loyal to FUEL
AFTER power consumption
Utility has no role in vehicle purchase8
New Consumer Fuel Paradigm
Home = Primary Re-Fueling Location Utility RoleStrong Consumer / Utility
Dynamic Remains Existing customer dynamic with their
utility will NOT be changed by vehicle using electricity as a fuel
Consumer experience will be directly affected by utility engagement
Power Bill is increased from more kWh
Electricity is the FUEL
usage; Consumer NET COSTS decrease from transportation Fuel and O&M savingsMeter/Account
Number Provides Utility Visibility
9
Utility will maintain PRIMARY point of contact for electrical issue resolution
9
ELECTRICITY AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL
20
TRANSPORTATION FUELECONOMIC
1.05.0
E ti t d F l C t/Mil if C t V hi lPrice of Residential Electricity & Regular
15
d Veh
icle Types (Ce
nts pe
r Mile)
Standard 0.6
0.8
3.0
4.0
in Ten
nessee
($/kW
h)
enne
ssee
Valley ($/G
al)
Gasoline Prices
Estimated Fuel Cost/Mile if Current Vehicles Presented with Historical Prices (¢/Mile)
Price of Residential Electricity & Regular Gasoline in TN, April 2006 to March 2010
5
10
ed Ann
ual A
verage
Fue
l Costs ‐Standard
Plug‐in Electric Vehicle
Hybrid
Sedan
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.0
Average
Retail P
rice of Electricity i
Regular Gasoline Price ‐A
verage
for Te
El i i P i
($/Gal)
0
Simulate
Electric Vehicle
0.00.0
Electricity Prices
Source: EIA
($/kWh)
•TVA Electricity is equivalent to $0.75 ¢ per gallon of gasolineALL THE TIME!
10
…. ALL THE TIME!•Electricity is consumer friendly - less volatile than gasoline and easier to estimate overall transportation fuel expense.
ELECTRICITY AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL
TVA Hourly Seasonal Load Curves, Example Three-Day Periods in 2008
TRANSPORTATION FUELENERGY
35,000 Electric Transportation load will overlay an already-existing load pattern
Periods in 2008
30,000
MW)
Winter
existing load pattern.
The Fuel Challenge: Smooth it out
25,000
Hou
rly Sales (M
Summer
Winter Smooth it out
Options:Education
20,000 Smart ChargingTOUEV Rate
11
15,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Dual Peaking System – Summer & Winter
Why Utilities Should be Plug-In Ready
Central Air conditioning 3 – 20 kW
Water heater (40 gallon) 4.5 – 5.5 kW(40 gallon)
Clothes dryer 1.8 – 5 kW
Plug-in Electric Vehicle 1.44 – 7.2 kW
Unplanned “per capita” load growth
12
We do not yet know how consumers will
respond
First Plug-in Vehicles to Market Very Different Grid Impacts!Very Different Grid Impacts!
Chevrolet Volt– Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Nissan Leaf – Battery Electric Vehicle g
(EREV - A plug-in hybrid with a guaranteed electric range).
– 40-mile electric range– Charging:
8-9 hours at 120V 12A
y– 100-mile range– Charging:
20 hours at 120V, 12A 8 hours at 240V, 15A
30 min at 400V 150A DC
13
8 9 hours at 120V, 12A 3 hours at 240V, 15A
30 min at 400V, 150A DC
Charging ScenariosCharger AC Power Supply Charger Charge
Time
g g
Type Volts Continuous Current
Power Location
Level 1 110 12 A 1 4 kW On board 18 hLevel 1 110-120V
12 A 1.4 kW On-board
On-board
18 h
Level 2 220- 15 A 3.3 kW 8 h
On-board240V
32A(80A)
6.6 kW( 20 kW)
4 h(1.2 h)
‘Fast’,or ‘DC’
Input: 3 PhaseTypically 480V AC
50-60 kW DC into thevehicle
Off-board –Vehiclecontrols
<30 min
14
the charger
14
EPRI PEV Distribution Impact Study –A Collaboration Initiative
• Detailed analysis of circuits, PEV impacts
Near-term Planning HorizonLoad only operation
Near-term Planning HorizonLoad only operationimpacts
• 45 circuits at 25 utilities, including:• Nashville Electric Service
Customer behavior drivenMarket projectionsMainly residential charging
Customer behavior drivenMarket projectionsMainly residential charging
Nashville Electric Service,• Middle Tennessee EMC,• Chattanooga EPB,
Evaluated ImpactsFeeder demandTh l l d
Evaluated ImpactsFeeder demandTh l l d
g• Knoxville Utilities Board.• Memphis Light Gas & Water
Thermal overloadsSteady-state voltageLossesImbalance
Thermal overloadsSteady-state voltageLossesImbalance
• Compilation and comparison across different distribution systems.
Power qualityPower quality
15
y
Typical Asset Risk Analysis
Impact Unlikely
omer
per C
ust
Projected Demand CurvekVA
Potential risk
16
Customers per Asset
Key Findings – Asset Risk
•Greatest impact – transformer life.–Transformers with low kVA rating per customer.–At constant kVA/customer, fewer customers/
transformer reduce diversity, increase risk•PEVs loads exacerbate pre-existing problems.
–Undersized secondaries.•Long runs, smaller diameter •Length, diameter, often un-documented.
–Lower voltage primaries – e.g. 4 kV
17
General Study Findings – Phase I
Minimal near-term impacts expected
Negligible Impacts
Local Risks -Reliability Voltage
Planning AdjustmentsImpacts
• Losses
I b l
Reliability, Voltage
• Close to the customer
L i
Adjustments
• Equipment sizing
A• Imbalance
• Power Quality
• Primary Voltage
• Low capacity per customer
• Undersized secondaries
• Asset-to-customer allocations
• Transformer ratingsy g
18
Grid Impact Study – Phase II (pending)
• Area-Wide Asset Risk Planning and Evaluation Tool G & O• Generalize, Automate, & Apply Phase One Learnings
• Provide Utility tool for easy application• Broader than PEV Impact• Broader than PEV Impact• Scope - TBD
PEV Adoption Projection
Asset Risk Assessment
Quantify Impacts
Planning and System
UpgradesProjection Upgrades
19
SAE Power Quality Standards,- J2894
• PQ Standards for Chargers– Attainable goals– To protect utility, customers
To protect public interests (efficiency)– To protect public interests (efficiency)• Standards for AC Power Supply
– Attainable goalsAttainable goals• For utilities.• For alternate power supplies.
– To protect charger electronics.
20
SAE Power Quality Standards,- J2894Part 1 –Target parameters –in draftPart 1 Target parameters in draft
Power Quality Standards for Chargers –
Parameter SAE J2894 EPRI IWC (1990s)( )
Power Factor 95% 95%Power Transfer Efficiency
90% 85%y
%Total Harmonic Distortion (current)
10% 20%
Inrush Current 120% of nominal max Specified ValueInrush Current 120% of nominal, max. (after 50 ms, level 1)(after 100 ms level 2)
Specified Value
21
SAE Power Quality Standards,- J2894Part 1 –Target parametersPart 1 Target parameters
Cold Load Pickup – proposed
tility
lta
geU Vo
urre
ntC
u
1 Amp/second, max.
22
2 Minutes (minimum)
SAE Power Quality Standards,- J2894Part 1 –Target parametersPart 1 Target parameters
Power Quality Standards for AC Service
Voltage Range SAE proposed EPRI IWC (1990s)
Voltage Range 90-110% nominal 90-110% of nominal
Voltage Swell (1/2 cycle, minimum)
175% of nominal 180% of nominal
Voltage Surge 6 kV 6 kVg g(momentary)Voltage Sag 80% for 2 s 80%Voltage Distortion 2% max N/Ag %Momentary Outage 0 V for 12 cycles 0 V for 12 cyclesFrequency Variation +/- 2% +/- 2%
23
SAE Power Quality Standards,- J2894Part 2 –Testing Procedures - pendingPart 2 Testing Procedures pending
• Work has just begun.G C• Grid and Charger interaction– Charger PQ during Grid Sags & Surges
Charger Protection during Grid sags & Surges– Charger Protection during Grid sags & Surges• Scope of tests may be controversial.
– Limited to power conversion electronics?Limited to power conversion electronics?– Auxiliary loads?– Heating cooling loads?
• Efficiency standard driven by California’s need for “Low Carbon Fuel Standard”.
24
Chevy Volt
• A Chevy Volt was monitored during 250
300
16
18
20
Voltage Current
monitored during charging– 250 Volts, ave., 100
150
200
250
Volta
ge (i
n R
MS
Vol
ts)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Cur
rent
(in
RM
S A
mps
)
– 13 Amps, ave.• Complete charge
cycle 3 8 hours
0
50
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (in Minutes)
0
2
4
Harmonic
cycle, 3.8 hours.• Sampled every 3
seconds. 6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
onic
Mag
nitu
de
• 9.37% iTHDave.
• 1.42% vTHDave.0.00
2.00
4.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Harmonic Order
Harm
o
25
DC Fast Charger Demonstrations
• CHAdeMO system developed by TEPCO/JARIby TEPCO/JARI
• Widely deployed in Japan• Being deployed in US as part
f DOE j tof DOE projects• PG&E Demo underway
– Two sites (San FranciscoTwo sites (San Francisco and Vacaville)
– Ongoing testing of Mitsubishi i-MiEV andMitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf at PG&E
• TVA /EPRI Solar Assisted Charging Station in Knoxville
26
Charging Station in Knoxville.
Charge Profiles for Leaf and i-MiEV- with DC Fast Chargerwith DC Fast Charger
Leaf
i-MiEV
27
Other Fast Charge Data
TEPCO Fast ChargerMay 5, 2011
50000
60000PG&E IMiEV and NY Times Demo IMiEV
PG&E IMiEV
NY Times IMiEV
30000
40000
atts
20000
Wa
0
10000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
i ( i )
11.4 kWh 10.7 kWh
28
Time (minutes)
Power Quality & Plug In Vehicles - SummarySummary
• PEVs will impact distribution circuits– Impact is local, manageable.– Planning tools are needed
• Charging profiles are being gathered• OEM Chargers appear to meet PQ StandardsOEM Chargers appear to meet PQ Standards• Prototypes – not so much• Additional work needed:
– Testing standards and procedures– Utility control for cold load pickup
29
Solar Charging Sites in Tennessee
TVA EPRI S C• Knoxville – EPRI Site Complete
• Nashville – Site Agreement• Memphis Site Agreement• Memphis – Site Agreement• Chattanooga – 2 Sites, 1 Agreement Oak Ridge National LabOak Ridge National Lab• ORNL Site Complete, • others pending in Knoxville, NashvilleNissan• Franklin HQ and Smyrna Factory
30
TVA- EPRI Solar Charging Stationwith six Chevrolet Voltswith six Chevrolet Volts
31
Nissan Leaf – ‘Anecdotal Experience’– not a scientific testnot a scientific test
• Mild Weather, 68-69 F (~20 C) No HVAC,• Moderate speed cruise control set at 38 mph• Moderate speed, cruise control set at 38 mph.• Level Ground, Oval Track.• First Warning at 94.6 miles, 11 miles more predicted.g , p• Second Warning at 110.3 miles, 4 miles more predicted.• Range Prediction then shows ‘----’• ‘Turtle Mode’ warning light at 118.8 miles• Cruise control drops out• Max speed begins to drop steadily• Coast to stop at 120.2 miles• Tow to charging station charge to 100% with 26 1 kWh
32
• Tow to charging station, charge to 100% with 26.1 kWh