1 / 40

POWERING EV GROWTH IN SANTA DELANO VALLEY

POWERING EV GROWTH IN SANTA DELANO VALLEY. The Technology & Policy Group Ash Bharatkumar , Michael Craig, Dan Cross-Call, & Michael Davidson Prepared for the USAEE Case Competition 2013 Anchorage, AK, July 29. Outline. Summary of challenge EV and demand growth projections

tobit
Download Presentation

POWERING EV GROWTH IN SANTA DELANO VALLEY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. POWERING EV GROWTH IN SANTA DELANO VALLEY The Technology & Policy Group Ash Bharatkumar, Michael Craig, Dan Cross-Call, & Michael Davidson Prepared for the USAEE Case Competition 2013 Anchorage, AK, July 29

  2. Outline • Summary of challenge • EV and demand growth projections • BAU: Transmission and distribution expansion • Alternatives • Energy storage • Demand response • Controlled charging • Tariff design for equitable allocation of EV costs Technology & Policy Group

  3. The Challenge • Growth in electric vehicles (EVs) poses challenges for Santa Delano Electric Company (SDEC) • Accommodate new electricity load • Maintain affordable and reliable electricity • Ensure equitable distribution system upgrade costs • While encouraging growth in EV ownership • Options and opportunities for a 15 year planning horizon Tesla Roadster Technology & Policy Group Nissan Leaf Images: thecarconnection.com and proetools.com

  4. Electric Vehicle Projections • Projected growth with Bass diffusion model • Used elsewhere to model EV growth • Low, medium and high growth scenarios • Split fleet projections proportionally into EV models 30% Fleet Penetration, 2027 10% 1%

  5. Demand Growth Projections

  6. BAU: T&D Expansion • Distribution and transmission network expansion required to serve increased demand from EVs over 15 year horizon • Distribution expansion for each 1% increase in load relative to 2012 load • Increase substation capacity (transformers + feeders) • Transmission expansion for each 5% increase in load relative to 2012 load • Add lines Technology & Policy Group

  7. BAU: T&D Expansion Costs *Note: Costs will vary with network topology, terrain, selected line voltage, distance of transmission, and reactive power profile of load Technology & Policy Group

  8. BAU: T&D Expansion – Findings • T&D network build-out can accommodate projected EV growth • Medium Growth cost: $1,460 per EV • Not the recommended course of action Technology & Policy Group

  9. Summary of Alternatives • Energy storage • Energy storage is not a viable option • Costlier than T&D upgrades, not suitably mature • Demand response • Real time prices are not reliable alternative to T&D upgrades • Controlled charging • Controlled charging is preferred solution to accommodate EVs Technology & Policy Group

  10. Alternative 1: Energy Storage • Meet additional peak load from EVs with many small installations on distribution network • Shifts electricity from off-peak to peak hours • Limited technologies are viable for distributed applications • Sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries – commercially available, chosen as a representative battery chemistry • Modeled build-out per annual power and energy needs Technology & Policy Group

  11. Alternative 1: Energy Storage –NaS Installations (7 MWh/1 MW) Technology & Policy Group

  12. Alternative 1: Energy Storage – Findings • Costs much more than T&D upgrades • Medium Growth: $5,133 per EV • Not suitably mature for near-term application • Energy storage is not a viable option Technology & Policy Group

  13. Alternative 2: Demand Response • Engage households in reducing peak load through tariffs that vary with system conditions • SDEC pilot used locational marginal price (LMP) • Peak demand will be shifted only if: • Size of price incentive is sufficiently large (>5x) • Households are open and responsive to price signals • Price reflects peak system demand

  14. Alternative 2: Demand Response – Analysis of Pilot • Weak price incentive: only 10 hours with large differential • Low opt-in rate (24%) • Wide variation/unpredictability in customer response

  15. Alternative 2: Demand Response – Disadvantages of LMPs • LMP reflects mostly California wholesale prices: Congestion < 10% of LMP cost in CAISO in 2012 • SDEC peak does not align with LMP peak:

  16. Alternative 2: Demand Response – Findings SDEC’s DR pilot using real-time prices (RTP) led to small, inconsistent reductions in peak demand The standard price signal – locational marginal price – does not accurately reflect distribution-level congestion RTP is not reliable alternative to T&D upgrades

  17. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging • Two options considered: • Utility has full control over charging • Delayed charging (4 hours after plug in) • Shift EV loads to off-peak hours • But at the expense of consumer control Technology & Policy Group

  18. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging – Model • Modeled load-shifting capability with GAMS • Cost-minimization optimization • Assumed 90% EV fleet participation • Guaranteed all EVs fully charge overnight • Minimized total system cost (demand times price) Technology & Policy Group

  19. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging – Load Shifting No Control, Medium EV Growth Scenario

  20. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging – Load Shifting Controlled Charging, Medium EV Growth Scenario, 90% of EVs

  21. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging – Costs • Costs of program: • Smart meters • IT and communications infrastructure • Annual IT costs • Annual savings from less “dumb” meter reading • T&D upgrades from EVs not in program Costs for Medium Growth Scenario Technology & Policy Group

  22. Alternative 3: Controlled Charging – Findings • Off-peak night hours can fully absorb demand from EVs under all growth scenarios • Costs less than T&D upgrades • Medium Growth: $125 per EV • Preferred solution to accommodate EVs Technology & Policy Group

  23. Summary of Alternatives

  24. Tariff Structure – Essential Considerations • Goals of differentiated tariffs: • Pursue lowest total system cost • Allocate costs of system upgrades equitably (avoid cross-subsidization) • Demand (capacity) charges more precise than energy charges from T&D perspective • Controlled charging infrastructure (e.g., smart meters) furthers other SDEC objectives Technology & Policy Group

  25. Tariff Structure - Recommendations Monthly EV charger fee of $8, effective for 15 years (approx. cost per EV of BAU T&D upgrades) Fee waived if enrolled in controlled charging program Program participants face higher rate when override charging schedule Smart meters paid for by rate base Periodically review tariff (e.g., every 2 years) to ensure accurate cost accounting

  26. Conclusion • Large but uncertain demand growth expected from EVs • Ideally accommodate load cost-effectively and equitably while encouraging further EV growth • BAU T&D expansion costly • Of alternatives, only controlled charging accommodates load at reasonable cost • Proposed tariff allocates cost equitably Technology & Policy Group

  27. Thank You for Your AttentionQuestions? Technology & Policy Group

  28. Bass Diffusion Model • Three key parameters (low, medium and high): • Maximum potential market (m=0.03, 0.25, 0.7) • Fraction of purchasers who make decisions independent of others and network externalities (“coefficient of innovation”) (p=0.01, 0.015, 0.02) • Fraction of purchasers who are swayed by decisions of others and network effects (“coefficient of imitation”) (q=0.3, 0.35, 0.4) Technology & Policy Group

  29. Proportions of EV Types in Fleet Technology & Policy Group

  30. Demand Growth Projection Details • Split fleet projections proportionally into EV types • Accounted for: • Fraction of EVs that plug in during peak hours at home • Temporal distribution of when EVs plug in • Charger level (Level 2 for EVs >40kWh) • Daily travel distance (high value (52 mi.) for EVs >40kWh) • Duration of charge Technology & Policy Group

  31. Demand Growth Projection Details Technology & Policy Group

  32. Temporal Distribution of Added Demand Technology & Policy Group

  33. Delayed Charging

  34. Controlled Charging under High EV Growth Scenario

  35. Controlled Charging Model Formulation • Cost minimization: • z = total cost, p(h) = price, B(h) = base demand, D(h) = aggregate EV demand, h = hour, v = vehicle • Must fully charge overnight: • C(v,h) = charging, d(v) = hours required for full charge • Charging and plug-in relationship: • L(v,h) = plugs in

  36. Controlled Charging Model Formulation • Charge status: • C(v,h) = charging, L(v,h) = plug-in, U(v,h) = unplug • Demand from EVs: • D(h) = aggregate EV demand, P(v) = charging power • Limit number of EVs that plug-in per hour: • M = max number of EVs that can plug-in per hour Technology & Policy Group

  37. T&D Expansion Costs Technology & Policy Group

  38. T&D Expansion • Transmission expansion – add lines • Line loadability governed by St. Clair Curve – line loadability vs. line length • Capacity of shorter lines limited by conductor thermal capacity, longer lines governed by SIL and voltage stability limits Technology & Policy Group

  39. LMP Variation During Pilot Period • Only 10 hours during six months with LMP above five times average of $85 / MWh Technology & Policy Group

  40. DR Household Response Technology & Policy Group

More Related