march 4, 2009—phevwg meetingmydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/0903/55n3j7...gery kissel,...

1

MARCH 4, 2009—PHEVWG MEETING

AGENDA

March 4, 2009 (Wednesday), 8:30am – 5:00pm:

Topic Speaker/Leader 1) Welcome and Introductions Mark Duvall / Frank Lambert 2) Review and Approval of Past Minutes and Action Items Frank Lambert 3) NEC Changes for PHEVs – Code Panel Review Gery Kissel 4) SAE J1772 Update Gery Kissel

5) SAE J1772 – Level 3 Connector / Fast Charging Kristen Helsel (Steve Fitzgerald and Adam Szczepanek)

6) Standardization Workshop on E-Mobility Infrastructure Ralf Oestreicher 7) International Standards / J1772 Harmonization Greg Nieminski 8) SAE J2836 Update Rich Scholer 9) SAE Charger Grid Power Quality Jose Salazar 10) PHEV Distribution Impact Assessment Arindam Maitra 11) Smart Charger Controller Development Michael Kintner-Meyer 12) Applying Research on Urban Driving Behavior and Duty Cycles to PHEVs Terry Zdan

13) Grid-to-Vehicle Communications and Submetering with a Focus on Public Infrastructure Jose Salazar

14) Economics and Incentive Programs for Smart Charging David Kaplan (Bart Hornsby) 15) Discussion: Future direction, priorities, next steps, and schedule All

16) Summary of Action Items All

Adjourn The Atheneum Hotel

Detroit, MI

Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Working Group Meeting Minutes (#09-1)

March 4, 2009 Detroit, MI

Welcome and Introductions Mark Duvall, EPRI, and Frank Lambert, chair, welcomed the participants (see the Attachment at the end of the minutes).

Review and Approval of Past Minutes and Action Items The minutes (#08-4) of the previous meeting (December 10, 2008) in Palo Alto, CA were approved. The status of action items from the previous meeting is shown below.

2

Action Items: December 10, 2008 (Palo Alto) Meeting

# ACTION ITEM STATUS

1 Arindam Maitra will provide a summary of all the efforts that EPRI is involved in with regards to the US Green Building Council.

No additional information was found

2 Arindam Maitra will scan specific documents from past IWC proceedings to be circulated and added to attachments for next year.

Completed; documents were provided to key members

3 Arindam Maitra will give Jose Salazar the new version of test procedures for compatibility testing.

Completed

NEC Changes for PHEVs – Code Panel Review Gery Kissel, GM, outlined the proposals for revision of Article 625 which were submitted to the NEC last year. The proposals discussed during the Code-Making Panel 12 meetings in January 2009 included definitions related to PHEVs, bi-directional flow, provisions for a cord set, and height requirements. Some were initially rejected while others were accepted in principle but the final decisions will not be known until the ballots are received and the Report on Proposals (ROP) is mailed out in mid-July. The IWC then has until October 23, 2009 to submit comments.

SAE J1772 Update Mr. Kissel gave an update on the charge coupler design, Level 3 workgroup, vehicle data communications study, and other work (see presentation in the Attachments). The 15A coupler is in the UL queue for certification. Yazaki is developing a 30A version. A design competition for the level 3 coupler has been proposed. The level 3 connector requirements meet J1772. The vehicle communications study is expected to take 12 weeks to create matrix tables of capabilities and requirements and to build and test components, and an additional eight weeks for EMC testing. A statement of work has been developed. Work on charger-grid power quality is co-chaired by Mr. Kissel and Jose Salazar, SCE. The next meeting of SAE J1772 is scheduled for March 24, 2009.

SAE J1772 – Level 3 Connector / Fast Charging Steve Fitzgerald, Amphenol Industrial, and Adam Szczepanek, AeroVironment, gave a presentation on the Level 3 DC coupler proposal (see presentation in the Attachments). The coupler will be rated up to 400A 600VDC. Specific design features were described and inlet sizes for 70A, 400A and 550A were compared. A plug design concept was presented. Amphenol has completed a full set of tests on their J1772 level 2 connector, which meets all performance and safety requirements. The test report is available from Amphenol. Discussions focused on mating forces, weight per foot of cable which may need active cooling, allowable temperature rise in the coupler, and flexibility at very low ambient temperatures. The group also discussed whether or not a level 3 AC connector was needed.

3

Standardization Workshop on E-Mobility Infrastructure Ralf Oestreicher, Daimler AG, presented on EV Infrastructure Strategic Guidelines with particular emphasis on the connector from a European perspective (see Attachments). Their OEM/utility initiative aims to support standardization in the IEC and ISO. Working group 1, dealing with power and physical protection, proposes that all OEMs require a current limit of at least 32A at the interface, use three phase for future applications, have an automatic locking mechanism at the EVSE and vehicle, and make connectors incompatible with industrial connectors. Mr. Oestreicher pointed out the following differences with SAE J1772: use of three phase power, no separate connector for single phase, coding of charge cable power limit, cable or socket on the charge spot, and connector locking mechanism. He then gave their rationale for three phase power and explained various options for connection. The Mennekes proposal for a 1 to 3 phase connector was presented. Discussions related to potential vandalism; differences between US, European and Japanese electrical systems; differences in voltage levels, availability of three phase power, and transformer sizes between the US and Europe; and apparent differences in usage patterns which suggest the need for lower power in the US. Mr. Kissel noted that J1772 took into account immediate and long-term needs, with level 3 charging as a longer term issue.

International Standards/J1772 Harmonization Greg Nieminski, EPRI consultant and chair of IEC SC23H, reported that IEC SC23H Project Team (PT) 62196 met last December and has started work on the 1-phase device proposed by JARI. Since the IEC 62196 Part 1 standard, which covers general requirements, was issued in 2001, minor updates may be made. The 23H committee decided to create a new Part 2 document that will describe configurations and ratings of individual devices including the SAE 1772/JARI design. Part 2 will have sets of drawings such that connectors are interchangeable at the interface regardless of the manufacturer. The first draft is under review until March 10. Mr. Nieminski’s goal is to try to minimize the number of devices, perhaps by standardizing according to continent. He mentioned the possibility of standardizing the inlet body size worldwide. The next meeting will deal with the single-phase device. An attempt to have a joint meeting between TC 69 WG4 and SC23H PT62196 was not possible due to schedule conflicts. He encouraged more countries to join the effort to build consensus towards minimizing hardware.

SAE J2836 Update Rich Scholer, Ford, gave the status of work of the SAE Communication Task Force (see Attachments). After presenting an overview, a summary of objectives, the top level use cases, and other details, he explained the list of SAE documents and their corresponding topics. Using the example of unidirectional AC energy flow, he showed the base condition that required no communication from the vehicle (AC1 on the left of the sequence) to full communication from the vehicle taking advantage of utility programs and AMI/HAN interfaces (AC5 and AC6 on the right side of the sequence) and pointed out the relevant SAE documents involved. Diagrams of specific cases illustrated the flow of information indicating, for example, how the EVSE is used as a bridge or HAN device in certain cases. The task force continues to define messages, complete the details of use cases, and fill in sections of SAE documents. They hope to ballot SAE J2836/1 and J2847/1 around

4

November 2009. Discussion focused on how to better involve the Europeans and Japanese who are represented in the committee. Although the task force is trying to understand the European requirements, it is dealing at a high level while the details are being worked out with Smart Energy Profile.

SAE Charger Grid Power Quality The participants agreed that the legacy IWC power quality records of consensus discussed at the previous IWC meeting should be reviewed, updated, and integrated with SAE. The scope of this work is to create a new document at SAE that will include power quality recommendations and testing protocols. Jose Salazar, SCE, will present an update at the next meeting. The following individuals or groups volunteered to work with Mr. Salazar in support of this project: Joby Lafky, GridPoint; Arindam Maitra, EPRI; John Olsen, DTE; Efrain Ornelas, PG&E; Serge Roy, Hydro-Quebec; Joe Slenzak, Robert Bosch Corp.; Adam Szczepanek, AeroVironment; TBD*, Delta-Q Technologies; TBD*, Ford. (* To be determined)

ACTION ITEM: Jose Salazar will provide an update on the SAE Charger Grid Power Quality work at the next meeting.

PHEV Distribution Impact Assessment Arindam Maitra, EPRI, gave a presentation on distribution impacts of PHEVs and EVs (see Attachments). He pointed out the 12 participating utilities that have provided 25 specific distribution circuits and gave examples of distribution feeders, such as those serving a winter-peaking heavily residential area and a heavily commercial-industrial area. The key questions being addressed are what the likely system impacts are, the level of PHEV/EV penetration that would require feeder/asset upgrades, and how the new load could be managed. Specifically, the study is looking at impacts on thermal loading, voltage regulation, transformer life, distribution system losses, imbalance, and system harmonics. Asset deterministic analysis is used to understand what the system can handle. Stochastic analysis identifies the likelihood of system impacts. Mr. Maitra gave examples of deterministic evaluation results showing the percentage of service transformers overloaded for a set number of PHEVs per customer. He also showed examples of loss of life characteristics for different transformer sizes as PHEVs are added; using a normalized base of 20 years as an average transformer life span, 100% ageing per year means a decreased life span of 1 year. When looking at how many elements are overloaded and exceed normal or emergency ratings, the results show how smart charging is important, allowing much higher PHEV/EV penetration. Similarly, smart charging shows a much lower impact on system losses. Through this collaboration, rules of thumb could be developed for different circuit characteristics. Distribution impact analyses will provide a roadmap to guide smart charging implementation.

Smart Charge Controller Development Michael Kintner-Meyer, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, presented PNNL’s smart charger controller work (see Attachments). He explained their objectives, vision, and the capabilities of an off-the-shelf charger with a smart charger controller prototype that allows charging scheduling and ancillary services. The latter includes “V2G half” which refers to the vehicle as a load only, i.e., requiring only charging while providing regulation service

5

with half the capacity value of V2G and less than half the cost. He showed a use scenario involving ZigBee and the grid friendly chip embedded in the controller which is integrated into the vehicle. Mr. Kintner-Meyer also described a layered approach to charging strategy. PNNL plans to complete lab testing involving various use cases by April 2009 and is actively seeking partnership with utilities and automakers. During discussion, several participants noted that they are involved in similar work.

Applying Research on Urban Driving Behavior and Duty Cycles to PHEVs Terry Zdan, Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST), gave a presentation on urban driving behavior and light-duty vehicles (see Attachments). He gave an overview of CST research and its objectives, and reviewed the variables associated with urban driving behavior and vehicle duty cycle. Their approach has been to instrument vehicles with GPS “Otto” devices (www.myottomate.com) that display cost and other information. Based on over 200,000 km driven by 97 vehicles, they calculated average trip speeds, trip duration, trip time of day, and daily duty cycle (which conforms with that of a plug-in converted Prius). They also compared customers’ perceptions of percent idling and CO2 emissions with actual data. Other data from their studies include vehicle data logs, vehicle speed vs fuel economy, average idling per trip, and driver-vehicle idling signatures. During discussion, some participants noted that their data loggers tend to drain car batteries. Mr. Zdan had no such problem with the Otto when used with the Prius.

Grid-to-Vehicle Communications and Submetering with a Focus on Public Infrastructure Jose Salazar, SCE, gave a presentation on different options for future PEV energy monitoring, noting that his presentation did not necessarily indicate SCE’s particular vision (see Attachments). The reasons for energy consumption metering include the customer’s desire for special discounted rates, possible future road taxes based on energy use, carbon credits, and demand side management accuracy. The challenges are meter-related regulations, roaming models, and inter-utility data exchanges. Mr. Salazar then described future options for monitoring, including a smart meter with a revenue-grade sub-meter at the EVSE for level 2 charging, a communication bridge device communicating with the smart meter and a sub-meter in the cord set for level 1, an intelligent receptacle with revenue-grade sub-meter and AMI integration for level 1, a non-revenue grade on-board vehicle data acquisition device for level 1, or using the smart meter for DSM only without energy metering. During discussion, Mr. Salazar pointed out that regulation is pushing the utility industry to keep track of energy usage. An independent group may need to look at the different options and select the main ones. Regardless of the different approaches by utilities, this all needs to look the same to the vehicle.

Economics and Incentive Programs for Smart Charging Bart Hornsby, GridPoint, gave a presentation on EV management solutions in place of David Kaplan (see Attachments). He described the GridPoint smart grid platform connecting an intelligent network of distributed resources including wind, solar, PHEV, and energy storage. Smart charging and V2G enable the incorporation of solar and wind energy. For example, when the wind is below forecast, the EV stops charging and starts charging again when the wind is above forecast. Economic value comes from effective charge management and

6

control and can be passed on from utility to customer. Mr. Hornsby suggested that a white paper, patterned after the DSM programs, could be presented to elected officials.

Discussion: Future direction, priorities, next steps, and schedule The following are the main comments made during the discussion: • Communication and metering are key issues. How can smart metering be mainstreamed? • The issues of a smart car vs a dumb car has not been addressed. Utilities disagree on their

business models and whether the meter should be in the car or in the EVSE. In Europe, there is a need for a smart car and meter in the vehicle due to the road tax issue and since OEMs can get credit if they can prove energy use from renewables.

• Roaming is an option but it may not be necessary with smart credit cards. Bill reconciling between utility accounts is still an issue. What are the options and standards for a paying mechanism if the EVSE is at a public infrastructure?

• A presenter on the pros and cons of wind power integration with PEVs is needed, focusing on the viability, technology, challenges, and possible solutions.

• With regards to elected officials, Mark Duvall pointed out that EPRI has a role of informing policymakers on technical matters but cannot advocate a particular position.

ACTION ITEMS: Frank Lambert will arrange a presenter for the next meeting on issues

related to roaming and bill reconciliation. Mark Duvall will arrange a presenter for the next meeting to discuss the

pros and cons of wind power integration with PEVs, focusing on the viability, technology, challenges, and possible solutions.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Plug-In 2009 will take place on August 10-13, 2009 at the Long Beach

Convention Center in Long Beach, California. For more information, visit www.plugin2009.com.

Next Meeting The next meeting of the PHEVWG is scheduled for June 3-4, 2009 in the Detroit area.

Summary of Action Items ACTION ITEM Jose Salazar will provide an update on the SAE Charger Grid Power Quality work at the

next meeting Frank Lambert will arrange a presenter for the next meeting on issues related to roaming

and bill reconciliation Mark Duvall will arrange a presenter for the next meeting to discuss the pros and cons of

wind power integration with PEVs, focusing on the viability, technology, challenges, and possible solutions

Adjournment With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

7

PHEVWG Attendance List

First Name Last Name Company Farid Ahmad General Motors of Canada Lance Atkins (via webcast) Nissan Technical Center North America Dave Baxter Coulomb Technologies Juergen Benecke Mercedes Benz Cars Slav Berezin GM Global Technology Engineering Jeff Blais Manitoba Hydro Ralph Boroughs (via webcast) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Stephen Briggs FirstEnergy Service Company James Browder Dominion Virginia Power David Brown General Motors of Canada Tommy Chang American Honda Motor Company Matt DeDona (via webcast) Ford Ali Djabbari National Semiconductor Arun D’Souza Yazaki North America Mark Duvall Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Kathy Ellington Plug Smart James Ellis (via webcast) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) David Emerling Ohio State University Jorge Emmanuel E&ER Group Stuart Evans Delta-Q Technologies Corp. Merl Ferguson Progress Energy, Inc. Steve Fitzgerald Amphenol James Francfort Idaho National Laboratory David Francis AeroVironment, Inc. Jason France Clipper Creek, Inc. Steve Gladstein Robert Bosch Barbara Gonzalez Pepco Holdings, Inc. Roberto Gonzalez Sainz-Maza Iberdrola Distribucion David Hackett KEMA, Inc. John Halliwell Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Bob Hawkins UBS Julie He Toyota Bart Hornsby GridPoint, Inc. Rich Housh Juice Technologies/Plug Smart

Michael Kintner-Meyer (via webcast) Pacific Northwest National Lab.

Gery Kissel GM Global Technology Engineering

Kunihiko Kumita Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America (TEMA)

Joby Lafky GridPoint, Inc. Frank Lambert Georgia Tech/NEETRAC Eric Lee Chrysler LLC Adam Lewis (via webcast) Snohomish County Public Util. Dist. No 1 Arindam Maitra Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Bill Mammen DUECO, Inc. Vincenzo Marano Center for Automotive Research (Ohio

8

State University)

Massoud Momeni Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America (TEMA)

Jim Muldoon U.S. Air Force Scott Nelson Honda R&D North America, Inc. Ruben Nichols Jr. Gulf Power Co. Greg Nieminski DBA Greg Nieminski Tom Odell General Motors of Canada Ralf Oestreicher Mercedes Benz Cars Doug Oliver Ford Motor Co. John Olsen DTE Energy Efrain Ornelas Pacific Gas & Electric Co. David Packard ClipperCreek, Inc. Thomas Perrot New West Technologies, LLC Joel Pointon San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Tom Quinn ETEC Rick Reinhard Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. Serge Roy Hydro-Quebec Jose Salazar Southern California Edison Co. Craig Schlotzhauer General Motors of Canada Rich Scholer Ford Motor Co.

John Shears (via webcast) Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies

Laura Sheets Duke Energy Corp. Brian Sisco Eaton Corporation Joe Slenzak Robert Bosch Corp. Adam Szczepanek AeroVIronment Ben Tabatowski-Bush Ford Motor Company Eloi Taha Nissan Technical Center North America Ron Thompson Eaton Corporation Ray Tison Dominion Virginia Power Alec Tsang BC Hydro Ed Wagner SatCon Technology Corp. Mike Waters (via webcast) Progress Energy, Inc. Norm Weigert GM David West Raser Technologies Bo Wu Ford Motor Co. Terry Zdan The Centre for Sustainable Transportation

EPRIMarch 4, 2009Detroit, MichiganTerry ZdanResearch Director

Centre for Sustainable Transportation

@

Urban Driving Behaviour

&Light Duty Vehicles

CST Research• accurate records of real urban driving behaviour and vehicle duty

cycles,• improving driving efficiencies, • reducing emissions, • can be applied to developing technologies • designing V2G and vehicle recharging systems and infrastructure

Important to :• Electric generation and transmission utilities• Battery developers • OEMs• Governments and regulators• Electricity customers and vehicle operators

Research ObjectivesMerging applied research about behaviour and vehicle

information generates data sets with new knowledge about:

• Feedback systems influence on change driving behaviour

• Safety• Speed• Acceleration and stopping• Understanding fuel economy• Understanding vehicle emissions• Ancillary – Design parameters for battery and PHEVs

Urban Driving BehaviourVARIABLES:• Time• Origin and Destination• Speed• Stops• Idle• Distance• Fuel economy

Urban Vehicle Duty CycleVARIABLES:• Time• Origin and Destination• Speed• Stops• Idle• Distance• Fuel economy

Methodology• Instrument vehicles with GPS “Otto”

devices • Collect socio-economic profiles, opinions

and vehicle data• Demonstrate “OttoView™ ” that displays

vehicle engine diagnostics

http://www.myottomate.com/features.asp

• A Portable GPS device the size of a pocket calculator– Integrated antenna to receive GPS

signals– Integrated digital map (no LCD

screen display of map)

– Integrated speaker and four colored lights

• Otto’s intelligence– Knows Posted Speed Limits– Knows your community

• Crosswalks, School Zones, Playgrounds, Red Light Camera Intersections, Hazardous Intersections, Deer Crossings

• OttoView™ is an interactive “Cost Gauge” device that calculates and displays the cost of operating your vehicle. – Calculates the fuel cost,

idling cost, total trip cost, and total operational cost of running a vehicle as well as the relationship of idling and fuel consumption to CO2 emissions.

– Provides immediate visual feedback of fuel consumed and CO2 emitted, and also stores all historical vehicle performance data.

– A companion software application is provided that allows the driver to review all trip and vehicle emission information and costs.

Model OttoView™Technical SpecificationsDimensions 121 mm x 72 mm x 19 mmWeight 250 gramsOperating Temperature -30 C to +60°CVehicle Power Source 12V DCConnector and cable SAE J1962M with 4 foot cable to RJ45 plug on device

SAE J1850 – VPW – Variable Pulse Width- Describes the interface for GM vehicles,SAE J1850 – PWM- Pulse Width Modulation- Describes the interface for Ford vehicles,ISO 9141-2 - Describes the interface for Chrysler and some Asian vehicles,ISO 14230-2 - Describes the interface for some European vehicles, andISO 15765-4 CAN- Controller Area Network - Describes the CAN-based interface in a 4-part series that is mandatory for all 2008 and newer vehicles.ISO 15765-4 500 kbps/11 bit IDISO 15765-4 500 kbps//29 bit IDISO 15765-4 250 kbps/11 bit IDISO 15765-4 250 kbps/29 bit IDThe OttoView™ ™ device captures and records data at up to 300 bytes per second. The total storage time on a memory card can be calculated as follows:Total Data Storage capacity (hours) = [Memory storage capacity/300]/3600For a 1 GB card, the total storage time is approximately 925 hours.

OBDII Protocol Support

SD memory card specification

GPS Option: Model: PM2626

Dimensions 55 mm x 19 mmWeight 62.4 gramsOperating Temperature -40 C to +85°C

Vehicle Power Source

4.5 - 6.5V DC (internal to OttoView™- device) with 42 mA current draw typical

Data Interface 6-pin PS/2 connector

GPS Receiver

20-channel, 1575 MHz SiRF Star III e/LP with built-in patch antenna

Map Source

Proprietary Municipal Database and Map Format with Posted Speed Limit and other municipal safety area information.

GPS Position AccuracyUp to 10 meters, updated once per second

GPS Speed Accuracy1.0 km/hr, updated once per second

Driver Identification Option: Model: OttoRFID

RFID Antenna dimensions 55 mm x 25 mmRFID Antenna Weight 75 gramsOperating Temperature -40 C to +85°C

Vehicle Power Source12V DC (internal to OttoView™- device)

Read range Up to 7.5 cmRFID frequency 125 kHz

Key FOB dimensions35.5 mm square, waterproof and crunch resistant

Key FOB Weight 25 grams

RFID TransceiverIntegrated within OttoView™ device

Otto-driving companion road safety Device with OttoLog driving behaviour statistics

RFID transceier with key FOB

CST Urban LD Vehicle Overview

• 97 vehicles – 80 data logs• 1996 or newer model year• 60 days of data collection• 20,030 trips• 201,000 kilometres driven• 860 hours idle time• Average trip length / day 42 km – 26 miles

CST Urban LD Vehicle Data• Time vehicles operate – or not• Trip speed frequency • Trip distance frequency • Trip duration frequency • Variation in average weekly driving instances

by day of week• Variation in speeding and idling instances by

gender and age• Variation in vehicle speed

Phase I Average Trip Speeds

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 +

Average trip speed (km/h)

Num

ber o

f trip

s

Phase I Trip Durations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 +

Trip duration (minutes)

Num

ber o

f trip

s

Phase I Trip Time of Day

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

12AM1A

M2A

M3A

M4A

M5A

M6A

M7A

M8A

M9A

M10

AM11

AM12

PM1P

M2P

M3P

M4P

M5P

M6P

M7P

M8P

M9P

M10

PM11

PM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

12AM

2AM

4AM

6AM

8AM

10AM

12PM

2PM

4PM

6PM

8PM

10PM

% Phase IPrius PHEV

Daily Duty Cycle

OttoView Vehicles Small Sample

• Based on Odometer readings they average – 25,500 km/year (16,000 miles /year)

–70 km/day (44 miles / day)• Based on 3 week driving with OttoView™

they average– 21,760 km/year (13,600 miles/year)

–60 km/day (38 miles /day)

Phase II - Participants' Perceptions of Idling

Phase II Carbon Dioxide Emissions

225 or moreBetween 150 and 184

Between 100 and 149

Less than 100

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Perc

ent

SurveyActual

Category

Vehicle Information Feedback

Cumulative Level of Impact of the Five OttoView Screens as Indicated by Study

Participants

Economy (L/100km)

CO2 (kg)

Idling (min)Idling (%)

Cost ($)

• Cost of the trip including fixed and variable costs

• Fuel economy• Percent of time not

moving• Amount of time not

moving• Tailpipe emissions

Source Ryan Smith @ CST

Sample Transit DataFigure 1: Route 60 Summary Speeding Data

(Weighted mean calculation)

Above Speed Limit

3%

Below Speed Limit

67%

Idling30%

Figure 2: Route 39 Summary Speed Data

Above Speed Limit

0%

Below Speed Limit

69%

Idling31%

Urban Trip – 10 m @15 mpg

Kia Sedona Fuel Economy (km/litre) vs Speed (kph): Trip 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

km/h

r

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

km/li

tre

Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Fuel Economy (km/litre) 30 per. Mov. Avg. (Fuel Economy (km/litre))

Toyota Prius

Sample of Vehicle speed vs. Fuel Economy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1277

1908

km/h

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

litre

s/10

0 km

Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Fuel Economy (l/100 km) Poly. (Fuel Economy (l/100 km))

Sample Data OttoView OBDII data logger

Single Vehicle Data Log October 29 to December 23, 2008

Report Statistics

Filename:Number of Trips 342Total Distance 3154.2 kmTotal Duration 99:19:34 hoursTotal Idle Time 22:03:38 hoursTotal Trip Fuel Cost $237.57 Total Trip Cost $562.32 Total CO2 Emissions 692.33 kg

Report Parameters

Units kmData Log Start 10/29/08 10:38 PM GMTData Log End 12/23/08 3:01 PM GMTLocal Time Correction GMT -6Fuel Fill-ups 6Fuel Consumed 261.62 litresInformation SummaryAverage ValuesCO2 Emissions 219.49 grams/kmFuel Cost $0.075 $/kmIdling 22.2% (%)Fuel Economy 8.3 litres/100 kmFuel Economy 12.05 km/litreFuel Economy 28.34 MPG

[ToyotaCorolla-Dec23-08.xls]OttoViewVehicle B

Report Statistics

Filename:Number of Trips 978Total Distance 7182.2 kmTotal Duration 227:06:40 hoursTotal Idle Time 43:24:47 hoursTotal Trip Fuel Cost $603.07 Total Trip Cost $1,903.99 Total CO2 Emissions 1761.61 kg

Report Parameters

Units kmData Log Start 10/18/2008 0:43 GMTData Log End 2/23/2009 22:36 GMTLocal Time Correction GMT -6Information SummaryAverage ValuesCO2 Emissions 245.27 grams/kmFuel Cost $0.084 $/kmIdling 19.1% (%)Fuel Economy 9.3 litres/100 kmFuel Economy 10.75 km/litreFuel Economy 25.29 MPG

[FordFocus-Feb26-09.xls]OttoView

Report Statistics

Filename:Number of Trips 342Total Distance 3154.2 kmTotal Duration 99:19:34 hoursTotal Idle Time 22:03:38 hoursTotal Trip Fuel Cost $237.57 Total Trip Cost $562.32 Total CO2 Emissions 692.33 kg

Report Parameters

Units kmData Log Start 10/29/08 10:38 PM GMTData Log End 12/23/08 3:01 PM GMTLocal Time Correction GMT -6Information SummaryAverage ValuesCO2 Emissions 219.49 grams/kmFuel Cost $0.075 $/kmIdling 22.2% (%)Fuel Economy 8.3 litres/100 kmFuel Economy 12.05 km/litreFuel Economy 28.34 MPG

[ToyotaCorolla-Dec23-08.xls]OttoViewVehicle A Vehicle B

Average Idling: 19.3% per trip

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

6:27

:00

6:36

:00

6:38

:00

6:42

:00

6:49

:00

7:23

:00

7:33

:00

7:39

:00

7:41

:00

7:44

:00

7:44

:00

7:45

:00

7:45

:00

7:45

:00

7:45

:00

7:46

:00

7:46

:00

7:47

:00

7:48

:00

7:48

:00

7:48

:00

7:49

:00

7:49

:00

7:50

:00

7:51

:00

7:51

:00

7:53

:00

7:54

:00

7:57

:00

8:07

:00

8:37

:00

8:57

:00

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

14:5

6:00

15:5

0:00

15:5

2:00

15:5

4:00

15:5

5:00

16:1

5:00

16:3

4:00

17:2

1:00

17:2

2:00

17:2

7:00

17:2

8:00

17:2

9:00

17:3

8:00

17:3

9:00

17:3

9:00

17:3

9:00

17:3

9:00

17:4

0:00

17:4

0:00

17:4

4:00

17:4

4:00

17:4

5:00

17:4

5:00

17:4

8:00

17:4

9:00

17:5

1:00

17:5

4:00

17:5

6:00

17:5

8:00

18:0

5:00

18:0

9:00

18:1

5:00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

18:5

7:00

19:0

2:00

19:1

6:00

19:1

7:00

19:1

9:00

19:2

6:00

19:3

2:00

19:3

5:00

19:3

7:00

19:4

1:00

19:4

2:00

20:0

1:00

20:0

6:00

20:1

1:00

20:1

8:00

20:3

2:00

20:3

4:00

20:4

0:00

21:2

4:00

21:2

4:00

21:2

7:00

21:4

4:00

21:4

5:00

21:4

5:00

21:5

5:00

22:0

6:00

22:0

7:00

22:0

8:00

22:0

9:00

22:2

4:00

22:2

8:00

23:4

3:00

Off-Peak Trips: 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM

Evening Commute Trips: 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM

Morning Commute Trips: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM

Average Idling: 23.5% per trip Average Idling: 11.7% per trip

Trip Idling (%) October-December-2008Municipality of Winnipeg, Manitoba

-20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

10/30

/2008

10/31

/2008

11/1/

2008

11/2/

2008

11/4/

2008

11/5/

2008

11/7/

2008

11/8/

2008

11/9/

2008

11/11

/2008

11/13

/2008

11/14

/2008

11/18

/2008

11/19

/2008

11/21

/2008

11/25

/2008

11/27

/2008

11/29

/2008

11/29

/2008

12/1/

2008

12/3/

2008

12/4/

2008

12/5/

2008

12/6/

2008

12/8/

2008

12/9/

2008

12/11

/2008

12/12

/2008

12/14

/2008

12/16

/2008

12/18

/2008

12/19

/2008

12/20

/2008

12/22

/2008

Date

Idlin

g (%

of t

otal

trip

tim

e)

Driver-Vehicle Idling Signature: October-December-08

Vehicle “warming-up” on cold days

WHO would like to know about urban duty cycles and driving behaviour?• Electric generation and transmission utilities• Vehicle manufacturers• Battery designers• Municipal infrastructure planners• Commercial / institutional parking facilities• Vehicle operators/owners• Fleet managers• Insurance companies• Law enforcement agencies

Terry ZdanResearch DirectorCentre for Sustainable Transportation

[email protected]

@

Urban Driving Behaviour

&Light Duty Vehicles

1

Electric Power Research Institute

IWC Workgroup Meeting

Detroit 04 Mar 2009

Level III DC Coupler ProposalSAE J1772 Workgroup

o Injection molded shell/insulator

o 400A Charge Current Rating

o 600VDC Voltage Rating

o 2 x 11.1mm Power Pins

o 1 x 8.0mm Ground Pin

o 4 x 2.4mm Signal Pins

o Touchproof, scoop proof pins

o Proven 10K cycle durability

Level III DC Charge Coupler

Level III DC Charge Couplero Multiple wire connections avail.

o M6 bolt connections shown

o Inline or right angle boots

o Custom overmolds

o Mounting flange can be moved

o Preassembled or Crimp & Poke

Interface (Draft)

Inlet Size ComparisonAmphenol Level II (Draft)70A max

Amphenol Level III (Draft)

400A max

Amphenol Level III

(Production)550A max

Mounting Flange

52 x 52 mm 71 x 71 mm 96 x 96 mm

Panel Cutout46 mm diameter

76 mm diameter

90 mm diameter

Total Depth 50 mm 61 mm 97 mm

Inlet Size Comparison

96 x 96 x 9785% larger71 x 71 x 61

36% larger52 x 52 x 50

Level II70A

Level III400A

570% higher

Level III550A

785% higher

*Comparisons to Level II connector shown.*Packaging geometry shown in millimeters.

De‐rated Inlet Options200AInlet

(Vehicle)

400A Inlet

(Vehicle)

400APlug

(Infrastructure)

Lower performance config – designed for low

current

High performance config– designed for max

current

One config only –designed for high current

and max duty cycles

Stamped & Formed Pin Contacts

Machined Solid Pin Contacts

High Performance Hyperbolic Sleeve

Sockets

Only 60% plug engagement needed

Full contact engagement

1/0AWG (50mm2) terminal crimps

Up to 350MCM (180mm2) crimp size

350MCM crimp size

• Aluminum diecast plug structure

• Injection molded insulator assembly

• Injection molded outer “skins”

• TPE overmold on cable for sealing and strain relief

Plug Design Concept

• Connector test sequence per UL 2251 Table 23.2

• Amphenol Industrial has completed a full set of tests on existing J1772 Level II connector

– Connector met all performance and safety requirements

– UL 2251 Sec.44 No‐Load Endurance Test (10k cycle salt/sand test) passed

• Test report is available for review by contacting Amphenol Industrial

Validation Plan

Incentives forIncentives forSmart Charging and Grid-Aware EVs

1

Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Working GroupDetroit – March 4, 2009

Agendag

Electric Vehicles and the Smart Grid

Smart Charging Technologies− Power Flow Mgmt

d− Grid Aware EVs

Economic Value of Smart Chargingg g− Level 1 Charging− Level 2 Charging

Incentives to Promote:− Grid-aware EVs− Level 2 Smart Charging

GridPoint Confidential 2

EVs and the Grid

EV* Momentum− 60+% of OEMs (by market share) have announced EV models60+% of OEMs (by market share) have announced EV models

Problem: Can the Grid Support Plug-in Vehicles?Grid capacity exists to “fuel” EVs− Grid capacity exists to fuel EVs

− Provided the charging load is actively managed− Uncontrolled charging hurts grid reliability, increases costs

Opportunity: Increase Clean Renewable Energy− Take advantage of wind powers’ nocturnal characteristics for charging

vehiclesvehicles

GridPoint Confidential 3* EV includes any form of plug-in electric vehicle: PHEV, EREV, BEV, etc.

Smart Charging Enables Clean EnergySmart Charging Enables Clean Energy

Stop Charging: wind below forecast

Forecasted9pm

10pm

12pm-4amForecastedWind

8pm 11pm

ActualWind

Start Charging: wind above forecast


Smart Charging =Power Flow Management + Grid-Aware EVsPower Flow Management + Grid-Aware EVs

External inputs(grid conditions, weather, etc.)

Information

Electric Utility

(g , , )

Information

GridPointControlPower Flow Mgmt

Software

Internet

Customer Interface

Wi l

VCM

VCM


WirelessEVSE/charge-point, PLC

Economic Value of Smart Charging

Economic Value derives from Control− Power Flow Management: Control the timing, pace, and extent of EV charging

g g

− Optimize timing of generation with demand− Minimize distribution grid stress− Economically valuable services: capacity, regulation, load shaping, wind following,

etc.D d id (DSM) h HVAC l id d l − Demand-side mgmt (DSM) programs, such as HVAC control, provide a good value analogy for EV Smart Charging

Per-vehicle economic value* increases with power operating range− Level 1 (typical): 120V x 15A = 1.8kW− Level 2 (typical): 240V x 15A = 3.6kW, or 2x operating range− Level 2 (potential): 240V x 30A = 7.2kW, or 4x operating range

Level 2 advantages− Utility: larger economic value per vehicle, enables stronger financial incentives− Customer: faster charging time, larger financial incentive− OEM: Level 2-capable, grid-aware EVs deliver increased consumer value


p , g

* Based on preliminary modeling. Varies with local grid characteristics including cost of energy, new generation, and ancillary services.

Proposed Action Plan forPEV Wo king G o p

Study of Smart Charging economics− Academic quality study by a recognized expert

PEV Working Group

cade c qual ty study by a ecog ed e pe t− Detailed estimates of per-vehicle value, Level 1 and Level 2− Enumerate benefits for consumers, utilities, OEMs− Publish white paper(s) to inform elected officials, regulators, the public

Model Grid-Aware EV incentives− Address OEM up-front design/engineering costs (modest, but non-zero)

Ensure that all production EVs are delivered grid aware− Ensure that all production EVs are delivered grid-aware− Additional incentives for Level 2-capable EVs and infrastructure− Collaborate with EDTA

Utility incentive programs for Smart Charging− Leverage Smart Charging economics study− Pattern after existing DSM programs (HVAC control, etc.)


− Collaborate with EPRI

SAE J1772 Task Force UpdateFor

IWC PHEVMarch 04, 2009

SAE J1772 Task Force Update•Charge Coupler Design Status

•Level 3 Workgroup Update

•Vehicle Digital Communications Study

•Continuing Work

Coupler Design Status

Coupler in UL queue for certification. Details available in committee.

Coupler in UL queue is rated 15 amp. Yazaki currently developing 30 amp version (terminal wire crimp area change).

Samples of 15 amp coupler are available. Contact Yazaki Engineering Sales.Contact [email protected]

Level 3 Workgroup Update

Connector design requirements available in committee. Connector meets SAE J1772 requirements:

Fully groundedTouch proofControl logic prevents high voltage exposure or arcingThermally controlled

Task force recommends design competition for coupler design.

Status Summary

Vehicle Communications StudyA technical evaluation of digital communication methods for plug-in vehicle advanced communication & control and off-board DC charging systems.

Evaluation will:•Catalog existing data and results from project partners•Build matrix tables for capabilities and requirements based on available data, interviews and research as required•Purchase, build and validate components to ensure they meet expected capabilities•Contract with testing laboratory for EMC evaluation•Review results with project partners for final recommendations to SAE committee•Prepare final report

Estimating 12 weeks of evaluation plus 8 week EMC testing.

Continuing Work

•Next SAE J1772 meeting is March 24, 2009. Meeting will focus onfinalizing document text updates.

•Charger Grid Power Quality•Discussed SAE Recommended Practice for Charger Grid Power Quality during November Hybrid Committee meeting.•Work has not yet started

Distribution Impacts of PHEVs & EVs

IWC Meeting

March 4 2009

Arindam Maitra Marcus Alexander Daniel Brooks Jason Taylor

Mark Duvall

2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Project Goals and Objectives

• Develop a consistent methodology to assess the “true impact” of adding PHEV fleets on utility’s distribution system operations

• Ascertain what levels of penetration and charging behaviors will result in excess demand requiring remediation

• Evaluate the impacts of PHEVs as a load

• Initially concentrate on near term (1-5 years); small total penetration; but possible high localized concentrations

1

4

7

10

13

16

19

22

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

rM

ay Jun Ju

lAu

gSe

p Oct Nov Dec

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

kWh

Hour

Month

300000-350000250000-300000200000-250000150000-200000100000-15000050000-1000000-50000


EPRI PHEV Distribution System Impact(12 UTILITIES 25 DISTRIBUTION CIRCUITS)


Distribution Feeder – A

• 60 % industrial; 28% commercial; 12% residential

• Daytime recharge and opportunity recharge

• Integration with the existing commercial and industrial load

• Quick charge

• Slightly winter peaking


Distribution Feeder – B

• 97% residential, 3%commercial

• Evening and night recharge

• Medium population density (middle class suburbia)

• Winter Peaking


Distribution Feeders – C

• 88% residential; 12% commercial95% underground

• High population density (deluxe high rise condos)

• High density evening and night recharge

• Winter and summer peaking


Distribution Feeder - D

• 34.5 kV circuit– 25 miles three-phase circuit miles– 73 miles primary circuit

• 76% Residential, 24% Commercial

• 18 MW (max summer)

• 2007 load factor 41%

• Day and Night Charging

Substation


Distribution Feeder - E

• 34.5 kV circuit– 9 miles three-phase circuit miles– 24 miles primary circuit

• 85% Residential, 15% Commercial

• 18 MW (max summer)

• 2007 load factor 44%

• 2007 Utilized Capacity 66%

• Night Charging


Key Questions Being Addressed in the Study

• What system impacts are likely to occur?

• What level of penetration necessitates feeder/asset upgrades?– Sensitivity of the individual assets to PHEV loading and penetration– What does it take to exceed capacity for each asset class? – What is the impact on distribution transformer loss of life?

• How can the new load be managed? – How will different charge times influence system impacts?– How do different charge profiles influence system impacts?– What is the benefit of “smart” charging?

Distribution System AdequacyDistribution System Adequacy


Evaluated Impacts

• What is the contribution of inverter to system harmonic levels

• Thermal Loading

• Voltage Regulation

• Transformer Life

• Losses

• Imbalance

• Harmonics

Distribution ImpactsDistribution Impacts

• To what extent are component normal and emergency ratings exceeded (number of occurrences, typically overload asset classes, duration and magnitudes)

• To what extent does PHEV loading adversely impact system voltage regulation. (Voltage excursions, regulator operations, cap operations, etc.)

• How do PHEV load affect the overall Aging and %Loss of Life of distribution and substation transformer

• Impact on distribution system losses

• Potential for disproportionate penetration on particular phase and results on system unbalance


General Analysis Framework

Distribution ImpactsDistribution ImpactsPHEV CharacteristicsPHEV Characteristics

Circ

uit C

hara

cter

istic

sCi

rcui

t Cha

ract

eris

tics

Circuit LoadingCircuit LoadingDistribution ModelDistribution Model

PHEV PenetrationPHEV Penetration


Deterministic Impact Analysis - What the System Can Handle

• Sensitivity analysis for each asset classes to varying– Penetration– Charge Profile– Connection Time

• Identifies overload sensitivity without regard to “likelihood”

Asset Deterministic Analysis

Time (Hours)

Overload Rating

Capacity

Demand

Peak Hour Off-Peak Hour

= Incremental PEV Load


Deterministic Scenarios – What the System can Handle

System Level Deterministic Analysis

–Evaluate specific deterministic PHEV proliferation scenarios based on:• PHEV market penetration• Charge profile• Connection time

–Identifies system impact sensitivities• Thermal overloads• System losses• Voltage excursions


Probabilistic Scenarios

•Multiple stochastic simulations based on probabilistic PHEV characteristics–PHEV per customer–PHEV type–Daily miles driven–Daily interconnection time

•Identifies LIKELIHOOD of system impacts through empirical results of: –Thermal overloads–Voltage excursions–System losses–Unbalanced conditions, etc.


General Progress

• Work with utilities to identify circuits and collect data

•• ModelingModeling– Good progress on data collection and

conversion– Overall Framework has been

developed– PHEV Characteristics and Scenarios

are getting finalized

• Modeling data received for 13 circuits

• ~10 circuits modeled and validated with base cases

Regulator

900kvar

900kvar300kvar

900kvar

900kvar

900kvar

Capacitor

Substation


Battery Charge Profiles

Level 2: (high): 208-240 VAC6 – 15 kWLevel 2: (high): 208-240 VAC6 – 15 kW

Level 2 (low): 208-240 VAC2.8 - 3.8 kWLevel 2 (low): 208-240 VAC2.8 - 3.8 kW

Level 1: 120 VAC1.2 – 2.0 kWLevel 1: 120 VAC1.2 – 2.0 kW

POWER LEVELTYPE


PHEV Market Penetration Used for our Study

• PHEV market penetration levels must be translated into expected PHEV penetration across utility customers

• DOT data (the number of existing vehicles per household per utility service territory) is used to generate projections of the number of PHEVs per utility customer as a function of market penetration

• Each utility customer corresponds with a household

Market PenetrationMedium Penetration Used for Distribution Impact Assessment

(Source: EPRI NRDC Study TR-1015325, 2007)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Per

cent

age

of fl

eet (

Sha

re o

f New

Veh

icle

Sal

es)

CE HEV PHEV


Example Profile of Home Arrival Time

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

0:01

-1:0

01:

01-2

:00

2:01

-3:0

03:

01-4

:00

4:01

-5:0

05:

01-6

:00

6:01

-7:0

07:

01-8

:00

8:01

-9:0

09:

01-1

0:00

10:0

1-11

:00

11:0

1-12

:00

12:0

1-13

:00

13:0

1-14

:00

14:0

1-15

:00

15:0

1-16

:00

16:0

1-17

:00

17:0

1-18

:00

18:0

1-19

:00

19:0

1-20

:00

20:0

1-21

:00

21:0

1-22

:00

22:0

1-23

:00

23:0

1-24

:00

Last Trip Ending Time

Shar

e of

Sam

pled

Veh

icle

s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y

National Household Travel Survey (NHTS 2001

•NHTS 2001 Unweighted Travel Day Data: Summary by Home Type, Purpose, End Time of the Last Trip, and Miles per Vehicle


Relationship Between Home Arrival Times and Miles Driven

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230.01-10

30.01-40

60.01-70

90.01-100

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50% Conditional Probability - Share of Sampled V

ehicles

Home Arrival Time (Last Trip Ending Time)

Miles D

riven Per Day

• Early morning arrival times coupled with long miles are unlikely • Overall driving patterns - 74% of trips are less than 40 miles a day


Example Result of Deterministic Evaluation –Service Transformer

If customers served off of distribution transformers each had one PHEV (120V 12A)

12.8% of the transformers would be overloaded if all the PHEVs charge during the peak hour

0.64% would be overloaded when the PHEVs charged during an off-peak hour (10pm).

240V 30A

120V 12A


Transformer Loss of Life Evaluation

• How do PHEV load affect the overall Aging and %Loss of Life of distribution transformer?– Loss of life calculations are based off IEEE standard C57 91_1995.pdf. – The aging calculation is based on

• Thermal hot spot temperature calculation (TH)– Transformer thermal characteristics (tH, tTO)– Transformer loading (used to calculate the losses → PLOSS)– Ambient temperature (TA)

• Calculation of insulation aging based on TH


Utility 1: Example Transformer/Customer Network Characteristics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10 25 37.5 50 75 100 167.5 250

Transformer Rating (kVA)

Num

ber o

f Cus

tom

ers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tra

nsfo

rmer

Cou

nt


Utility 1: Example Transformer/Customer Network Characteristics

Distribution Transformer Loading

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140

Percent of Rated kVA

Tran

sfor

mer

Cou

nt

100 kVA

75 kVA

50 kVA

37.5 kVA

25 kVA


Utility 1: 25KVA Loss of Life Characteristics (Average Loading)

Transformer Aging

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

100.000

1000.000

10000.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

% A

ging

per

Yea

r

120V 12A Peak (5pm)

120V 12AOff- Peak (10pm)

240V 30A Peak (5pm)

240V 30A Off-Peal (10pm)

Peak Hot Spot Temperatures

75

125

175

225

275

325

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


240V 30A Peak (5pm)



Utility 1: 37.5KVA Loss of Life Characteristics (Average Loading)

Transformer Aging

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

100.000

1000.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

% A

ging

per

Yea

r

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


240V 30A Peak (5pm)



75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


240V 30A Peak (5pm)



Utility 1: 50KVA Loss of Life Characteristics (Average Loading)

Transformer Aging

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

100.000

1000.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

% A

ging

per

Yea

r

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


240V 30A Peak (5pm)



75

100

125

150

175

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of PHEV

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


240V 30A Peak (5pm)



Overloads – All System ComponentsSmart Charging is a Key Technology to Reduce Impacts

Number of Additional Elements Exceeding Normal Ratings

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Penetration Level

Ove

rload

ed E

lem

ents 120V 12A Peak (5pm)

120V 12A Off-Peak (10pm)

120V 12A Diversif ied Charging

240V 20A Peak (5pm)


240V Diversif ied Charging

– Identifies What the system can handle• System impact sensitivities: Thermal overloads


Overloads – All System ComponentsSmart Charging is a Key Technology to Reduce Impacts

Number of Additional Elements Exceeding Normal Ratings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Penetration Level

Ove

rload

ed E

lem

ents

120V 12A Peak (5pm)


120V 12A Diversif ied Charging

240V 20A Peak (5pm)


240V Diversif ied Charging

Emergency Ratings


Impact of System Losses Due to PHEV LoadingAdditional Peak Day System Losses due to PHEV Load

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Percent Penetration

Per

cen

Cha

nge

in S

yste

m L

osse

s

120V 12A Peak

120V 12A Off-peak

120V 12A Diversified Charging

240V 30A Peak

240V 30A Off-peak

240V 30A Diversified Charging

Base Case Peak DayLosses = 2.4 MWh Demand = 831.6 MWh

Δ1% Pentration = Δ0.1% demand increase


Distribution System AnalysisSmart Charging is a Key Technology to Reduce Impacts

July 27th 2007 24 hr: Total Loading for the Feeder Under Study

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hours

Tota

l Loa

ding

at S

ubst

atio

n (K

W)

Base Load Scenario

PHEV Case 1:- (240V, 12A) Charging @6pm Penetration=10%

off-peak load

off-peak load




4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hours

Tota

l Loa

ding

at S

ubst

atio

n (K

W)

Base Load Scenario



off-peak load

off-peak load




4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hours

Tota

l Loa

ding

at S

ubst

atio

n (K

W)

Base Load Scenario

PHEV Case 3:- (240V, 12A) Diversified Charging @9pm-1am Penetration=10%

off-peak load

off-peak load




4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hours

Tota

l Loa

ding

at S

ubst

atio

n (K

W)

Base Load ScenarioPHEV Case 1:- (240V, 12A) Charging @6pm Penetration=10%PHEV Case 2:- (240V, 12A) Charging @9pm Penetration=10%PHEV Case 3:- (240V, 12A) Diversified Charging @9pm-1am Penetration=10%

off-peak load

off-peak load


• Complete analysis for participating members

• Present individual results to each utility with specific design and operational impact

• Develop rules of thumbs based on different circuit characteristics

EPRI PHEV Distribution Impact Collaboration – Next Steps

Summary Dashboard

Individual Technical ReportSpecific Results

n/an/an/a n/an/aAMI Coverage Available

Data Gathering(Models/GIS/Load Shapes)

TVA

Generalized ReportOverall Findings

Methodology Report

PHEV Impact Evaluation (Asset Level, System Level, Stochastic)

Overall Framework Development

PHEV Penetration & Scenario Identification

DSS Conversion &Base Case Modeling & Validation

Circuit Selection and Identification

Project Development/Kickoff

SCE

Northeast

Utilities

PG&

E

Duke

BC

Hydro

SRP

Southern C

o

ConEd

AEP

Hydro

Quebec

Dom

inion

Individual Technical ReportSpecific Results

n/an/an/a n/an/aAMI Coverage Available

Data Gathering(Models/GIS/Load Shapes)

TVA

Generalized ReportOverall Findings

Methodology Report

PHEV Impact Evaluation (Asset Level, System Level, Stochastic)

Overall Framework Development

PHEV Penetration & Scenario Identification

DSS Conversion &Base Case Modeling & Validation

Circuit Selection and Identification

Project Development/Kickoff

SCE

Northeast

Utilities

PG&

E

Duke

BC

Hydro

SRP

Southern C

o

ConEd

AEP

Hydro

Quebec

Dom

inion

CompletedIn ProcessUpcomingHave AMI Coverage

Distribution impacts analyses will serve as a ‘roadmap’ to guide Smart Charging implementation


Summary

• Distribution impacts analyses will serve as a ‘roadmap’ to guide Smart Charging implementation

• Utilities must balance ideal load shape with customer wants/needs

• Greater understanding of entire system benefits/impacts


EPRI Project Team

ET Group System Studies & Analysis GroupArindam Maitra Daniel BrooksMark Duvall Jason TaylorMarcus Alexander Wes SundermanSunil Chhaya Will Kook

Bob ArrittTim RothRoger DuganTom Short

EV Infrastructure Strategic GuidelinesOEM / Utility Workshops

EV Infrastructure Strategic Guidelines

OEM / Utility Workshops

Presentation to IWC

March 4th, 2009

1


[email protected]

Agenda

Overview on Berlin OEM/Utility workshops

- Motivation

- Working model

- First results

Main differences to SAE J1772

- Use of three phase power

- No separate connector for single phase

- Coding of charge cable power limit

- Cable or socket on the charge spot

- Connector locking mechanism

Status of connector design

2


[email protected]

To make electric driving successful an integrated power and communication network must be developed

• Optimized home recharging

• Set charging parametersand monitor state of charge

• Heat and power cogeneration

• Infotainment

• Load leveling

• (Green) Power generation

• Metering, clearing and billing

• Charging at work, recreation, shopping… (incl. roaming)

• Position Information and theft protection

• Communication and control through internet

Standards established now must be stable for many years to give consumers and

businesses the confidence to invest the technology today

• Software update

• Vehicle and Battery Diagnostics

• Maintenance planning

3


[email protected]

Working model of OEM/Utility workshops

• Define fields in the area of hardware where standardization enables the market introduction of EVs through low cost, robust, long term solutionsUnderstand

“Big-Picture”

Set

Strategic

Guidelines

Standards

Roadmap

• Understand the major issues and to set a framework and guidelines for further detailed issue-specific solutions

• Ensure standards do not limit our ability to develop superior products or limit technology evolution

• Ensure a working mode characterized through non proprietary standards in non-competitive fields, avoiding regional, short sighted solutions

• Define Roadmap for further standardization work within our respective regions, together with appropriate committees

One

Global

OEM/Utility

Voice

• Develop unified OEM/Utility position regarding EV standards

• Push world wide harmonization to avoid additional complexity

Strategic GuidelineStandards~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~

OEM/Utility Position

OEMOEM

OEM

OEM

U

U

U

U


OEMOEM

OEM

OEM


OEMOEM

OEM

OEM

U

U

U

U

4


[email protected]

OEM/Utility standardization initiative aims to accelerate and improve standards definition in IEC and ISO

REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE OEM/UTILITY STANDARDIZATION INITIATIVE

> One single position to speed up

the standardization process

> One common standard already for the first generation infrastructure/

vehicles

> Clear development roadmap

OEM/Utility standardization initiative

process

Benefits of OEM/Utility standardization

initiative

OEM/Utility Standardization Initiative

25:1

1

29:0

1 11:0

3

20:0

2

5


[email protected]

Discussion of guidelines concerning power, connector, cable and physical protection

Standardization fields

Working group 2 –communications

Working group 1 –power and physical

protection

Connector/cable1

Position of the charging cable2

Physical protection3

On-/off-board charging4

Communication protocols5

Value-added services6

6


[email protected]

General targets of working group 1

• High convenience, reliability and safety for the customer at low cost

• Compatibility with

- high and low power applications

- home and at public charging

- international electricity grids

• Minimal negative impact of provisions for high power application on

low power applications (cost, weight, mating forces…)

• Minimal changes to existing standards (SAE J1772, IEC 61851… )

to speed up the process

7


[email protected]

Results of working group 1

Standardization fields Results of the group

Current limit of basic interface

1All OEMs require at least 32A. Cost, size, & mating forces of a system protected for up to 63A (incl. 80A 1 phase for US) must be evaluated

Coding of charge cable power limit

2Coding needed to allow use of smaller cables for low power charging. Evaluation of technical solution necessary

Cable and/or socket on the charge spot

3Cable on the charge spot would be more convenient but may not befeasible everywhere (e.g. vandalism) both options must be possible

Use of three phase power

4For future applications 3 phase power is necessary and more effective (cost and size of charger and cable) than single phase

Separate connector for 1 & 3 phase

5No dedicated 1 phase connector design needed, as 3 phase connector

(incl. neutral) can be also used for single phase

Connector locking mechanism

6Automatic locking mechanism at EVSC and at vehicle needed to avoid unauthorized or hot disconnect

Compatibility ind. connectors

7No compatibility with industrial connectors as existing sockets do not always provide appropriate protection (e.g. RCD)

8


[email protected]

Agenda


- Motivation

- Working model

- First results








9


[email protected]

Benefits of three phase power

Smaller cable size, weight and cost at same power level

• Higher voltage

Small increase of charger weight, size and cost for large increase in power

• Better utilization of components due to constant power

Higher maximum power level

• European utilities limit current of non symmetric loads to 32 Amps (7.3 kW)

10


[email protected]

Use of three phase power: smaller cable size, weight and cost at same power level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 20 40 60 80

Total copper cross section [mm²]

Ma

xim

um

po

we

r [k

W]

Three phase 400V (4 wire)

Three phase 400V (5 wire)

Phase-to-phase 400V (3 wire)

Single phase 230V (3 wire)

DIN VDE 0298 Part 4:2003+180%

+1

00

%

11


[email protected]

Use of three phase power: Small increase in charger weight, size and cost for large increase in power

300x300x80 mm3160x260x120 mm3Dimensions

21 kW7 kWPower

150%100%Cost

7,2...8 liter5...6 literVolume

10...12 kg6...7 kgWeight

3, simple1, complexInductors, transformers

53Power modules

Three PhaseSingle Phase

+200%

+50%

+70%

+40%

12


[email protected]

Most countries use single phase at home and three phase in commercial environments

L3

L2

L1

N

PE

480V

277V

L3

L2

L1

N

PE

400V

230V

L1

N

PE

230V

Used to supply

other homes

N

L2

PE

L1240V

120V

USA commercial

USA domestic

Europe commercial*

Europe domestic

*in northern Europe also domestic

13


[email protected]

Using a three phase connector design also for single phase applications reduces complexity and cost

Domestic charging station

Publiccharging station

High power vehicle

Low power vehicle

At lest two cables per vehicle/charging station

Domestic charging station

Publiccharging station

One cable per vehicle/charging spot

Low power vehicle

High power vehicle

14


[email protected]

The disadvantage in size of a three phase vs. a single phase connector design is minimal

∆∆∆∆ = 9 mm

Cost difference between a connector designed for single phase only and a connector

designed for 3 phases but only equipped with contacts for single phase: ≈ 6%

15


[email protected]

For low power applications fewer and less advanced contacts can be used to reduce cost, weight and mating forces

TBD ΩTBD ΩTBD ΩPlug present resistor

10 - 16 mm²4 - 6 mm²1,5 - 2,5 mm²Wire / terminal cross section

Contact diameter

Contact technology (exemplary)

Current

Connector geometry

63A32A16A

multi contactspring loadedslotted

7,43,713

6 mm²

12,86,424

incl. neutral for 1 phase compatibility

43,522,111,035

incl. neutral for 1 phase compatibility

PowerPhasesPower pins/wires

16


[email protected]

Due to the modular concept the cost burden for low power applications is small

* Mass production >>100,000 p.a.

** with special contact system the 63 A mating force can reach the same level as the 32A mating force

Connector geometry for

max. 500V 63A 3 phase

Connector geometry for

max. 400V 32A 3 phase

Maximum current

16A 32A 16A 32A 63A

Cost* 79% 79% 88% 88% 100%

Size (diameter) 86% 86% 100% 100% 100%

Mating force ca. 50% ca. 50% 100%**

Weight 85% 85% 89% 89% 100%

∆∆∆∆ = 9%

17


[email protected]

Vehicle

Target: Redundant electronic current limitation to allow use of smaller cables without the need of a fuse in the plug/cable

EVSE

63A 63A

Rx

Ry

Rz

16A

32A

63A

Rx

Ry

Rz

Redundant limitation of

charging power limit based on electric cable

coding

18


[email protected]

Appropriate standard cables have to be defined based on international wiring standards

7290

80 (16mm²)(single phase US only)

8080100

64 (10-16mm²)636480

5670

504860

404050

353645

32 (4-6 mm²)323240

2835

252430

202025

16 (2,5mm²)161620

12 (1,5 mm²)121215

Max. current of charging plugs cables

Max. current of load = 100% of circuit breaker

Max. current of load= 80% of circuit breaker

Rating of circuit breaker

Int. standard ?EuropeUSA

19


[email protected]

Cable or socket on the charge spot

Cable on the charge spot would be more convenient but may not be

feasible in uncontrolled environments

• Sockets are less susceptible to vandalism

- Higher availability of usable charge spots

- Lower maintenance cost

• Socket at the charge spot allow charging of existing vehicles incompatible

with the new connector standard as customer cable is working as adaptor

• Sockets allow cable replacement by untrained personnel

The standard must allow sockets and cables on the spot

20


[email protected]

Options to connect 1 & 3 phase vehicles to a 1 phase supply

In cable protectioncircuitry

EVSE

EVSE

VehicleCableInfrastructure

or

or

21


[email protected]

Options to connect 1 & 3 phase vehicles to a 3 phase supply

EVSE

EVSE

VehicleCableInfrastructure

or

or

22


[email protected]

Contacts are used differently in 1 & 3 phase installations

L3

L2

L1

N

PE

L3

L2

L1

N

PE

L1

N

PE

N

L2

PE

L1

USA commercial

USA domestic

Europe commercial*

Europe domestic

*in northern Europe also domestic

(e.g. Germany)

L1PE

CP PP

L2L3

CP PP

L1PEN

CP PP

L1N

L2L3

CP PP

L1PEN

L2PE

23


[email protected]

Agenda


- Motivation

- Working model

- First results








24


[email protected]

Mennekes proposal for 1 to 3 phase AC connector

• 5 power pins 500V, 63A three phase / 70A single phase

• 2 signal pins 30V, 2 A

• Locking (to avoid tricking, cable theft and hot disconnect)

• Diameter female 51 mm

• Has been submitted to IEC / SC23H as reactionto Yazaki proposal in January 2009

• Modifications to submitted proposal will be made if required by OEM7Utility Workshops

25


[email protected]

Mennekes proposal for 1 to 3 phase AC connector

Smart Charger Controller

Michael Kintner-Meyer

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)Richland, WA

Contact: email: [email protected]

phone: 509.375.4306 PNNL-SA-64668

March 4, 2009

mailto:[email protected]

Invited Project Advisors

Ron Ambrosio, International Business Machines Skip Ashton, Zigbee™ Alliance / EmberGeorge Bellino, General Motors CorporationDick DeBlasio, National Renewable Energy LaboratoryPaul DeMartini, Southern California EdisonBob DeVault, Oak Ridge National LaboratoryMark Duvall, Electric Power Research InstituteSimon Ellwanger, BMWJim Francfort, Idaho National LaboratoryTom Gage, AC PropulsionErich Gunther, EnernexDavid Hawkins, California ISO Paul Heitman, ComvergeFrank Lambert, Society of Automotive EngineersMichael Lord, Toyota Philip Misemer, California Energy CommissionAlec Proudfoot, GoogleJoe Slenzak, Robert Bosch LLC

Recap the Objectives of Project

1. Influence the development of transportation battery chargers to accommodate

a. load leveling/limitingb. ancillary grid servicesc. other anticipated needs of the evolving smart grid.d. home emergency backupe. mobile transportation billing (charge anywhere, bill at home)

2. Identify, develop, and advocate standardized technologies that will encourage

a. smart charger advancementb. stakeholder collaboration

3. Work with leading industry and research groups toward a demonstration of smart EV charge systems.

Smart Grid with Smart Chargers Can Deliver the Electricity for Millions of PHEVs Smart Grid with Smart Chargers Can Deliver the Electricity for Millions of PHEVs

Capabilities of the Smart Charger Controller PrototypeSmart grid services to enhance reliability and reduce cost

Charging schedulingPrice-based charging to perform majority of charging during off-peak

Enable customer to optimize between cost and convenience

Demand response servicesDirect load control, modulating/reducing load Scheduling load

Ancillary servicesIncrease grid reliability by fast (autonomous) voltage- and frequency controlRegulation services (V2Ghalf) modulate load

according to AGC signals from grid operatorFrequency based

Smart battery servicesbattery system management with safe operating condition logic

Mobile billingEnable ‘roaming’ transaction concepts for mobile billing for

Energy services Ancillary services

PNNL Grid FriendlyTM

Appliance Controller

Why is it important to charge during off-peak

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24hour

kW/v

ehic

le

A1: 120V HomeA3: 120V Home delayed >10pmA4: 50/50 (120-240) Home

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

MW

Summer A3Summer-A4Native LoadSummer-A1

“Dump” charging profiles based on 37,000 observations from

National Household Travel Survey (2001)

“Dump” charging at home exacerbate

system peak

Delayed charging moves majority of load into low-load conditions

Based on 6 mill. PHEVs in CAISO footprint for 20300 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

V2G half: Definition and Value

V2G• provides regulation

service as a load and generator

• requires charging and discharging according to grid operators signal

Max. charging (7.2 kW = 240V*30A)

Max. discharging (-7.2 kW)

char

ging

disc

harg

ing

Capacity value (-7.2 to 7.2=14.4kW)

Max. charging (7.2 kW)

Attribute of “V2G half”:• provides regulation service with ½ the capacity value of V2G• however, less than half the cost because

• No interconnection gear with grid necessary because no electricity goes back into grid• removes any uncertainties regarding battery life reduction because of extra cycling

Max. discharging (-7.2 kW)

char

ging

disc

harg

ing

Capacity value (0 to 7.2=7.2 kW)

V2G half• provides regulation

service as a load only• requires only charging• modulates charging Never discharge !

Prototype of Smart Charger Controller together with Brusa Charger

Smart Charger Testbed

NilarNiMH

Battery5.5 kWh

Brusa charger

Manzanita charger

Motor- generator set

Motor- generator set

Use Scenario: PNNL Smart Charger Controller Integrated in the Vehicle

Grid Friendly Chip

Brusa Charger

ZigBee

Battery ManagementSystemJ1772

Connector

PNNL Smart ChargerController

CAN bus

120/240V

Home Charging

ZigBee

ZigBee

ACAC

Public Charging

Communicationto service provider

Communicationto service provider

Smart Controller • Interfaces via:

• CAN bus to charger• ZigBee to Premises

• perform charging strategies

Grid Friendly chip embedded in controller

performs ancillary services for the grid, based on:- AC frequency- AC voltage

Charging Strategies: Layered Approach

Layer 0Safety Vehicle safety Safe battery operating space CANbus

BMSvehicle

Layer 1Permission

Authentication Permission to charge ZigBeeInfra-

structure

Layer 2Load

Scheduling

Price-based-TOU- CPP- RTP

ZigBeeInfra-

structureDirect load control

- duty cycle

Customer preference- charge by hh:mm- charge NOW

CANbus VehicleDevelop

Charging schedule

Layer 3AncillaryServices

Spinning reserves (load curtailment during stress conditions)

Regulation services (V2G half)(modulation of load)

ZigBeeInfra-

structure

Electric outletGFA Chip

Electric outletGFA Chip

or

Charging process

Involved in standards activities

SAE J 2836Nathan Tenney, PNNL leadReviewing and influencing discussion on use-casesPlanning to introduce use-cases with grid-services enhancements

ZigBeeAdoption of specific services in Smart Energy Profiles

Pricing informationGrid events

Next Steps

Complete lab testing including the following use-casesService initiationAuthenticationTest charging scenarios

Price-based (TOU, CPP, RTP)Direct load control (duty-cycle directive)Grid-friendly behavior (frequency, voltage)Regulation service (V2G half)

AGC controlledAutonomous frequency controlled

Data logging capabilitiesComplete project in Mid-April 2009Continue our involvement with SAESeek actively partnership with utility and automotive partner for demonstration (NOW)

Thank you!

Discussion


1

Why monitor PEV energy consumption / challenges

• Consumers want special discounted rates• Utilities may be asked to collect future road taxes based

on energy consumption• Carbon Credits• DSM Accuracy • Challenges

– “Meter” Regulations – Roaming Models– Inter-Utility Data Exchanges


2

Current State - PEV Level 2. Connection w/No Communication


3

Future State- PEV Level 2 Connection w/ Communication and Sub-metering on EVSE


4

Future State- PEV Level 1 Connection w/ Communication and Sub-metering on EVSE


5

Future State- PEV Level 1 Connection w/ Communication and Sub-metering on Smart Plug


6

Future State- PEV Level 1. Connection w/ Communication and DA on vehicle


7

Future State- PEV Level 2. Connection / Communication for DSM only


8

Future State- PEV Level 1. Connection / Communication for DSM only

Thank You

3/4/2009 Rich Scholer - SAE document & Use case summary

1

1. Use Case Summary – Objectives2. Use Case Summary – Top level3. PEV Use Cases - Detail levels4. Use Case Summary – Consolidation5. SAE Document Summary6. SAE Document Detail – AC Energy7. SAE Document Detail – DC Energy8. SAE Document Detail – Reverse Flow9. Specific cases/desires10. Next Steps

Use Case & SAE Document Summary


2

PEV Cases (com)1. No communication from PEV but utility

wants to control loads.2. Base communication from PEV.3. Enhanced communication from PEV.4. Optional communication from PEV.

EVSE Cases(locations)

1. L1: Home.2. L2: Another home.3. L3: Inside or outside territory.4. L4: Public

a) Work.b) Business.c) Fleet.d) Curbside.e) Multi-family dwelling.

Utility Programs1. U1: TOU2. U2: Direct Load/Price Control3. U3: Active Management 4. U4: Critical Peak Pricing5. U5: Optimized Charging

EVSE Architectures1. S1: Cordset EVSE (120V AC to vehicle)2. S2: Premise EVSE (240V AC to vehicle)3. S3: Premise EVSE w/Charger (DC to vehicle)

Functions1. PR1: Charge2. PR2: Discharge3. PR3: Diagnostics.4. PR4: VM Specific.

Use Case Summary - Objectives


3

PEV Use Cases1. PEV0 - Customer Attributes

2. PEV1 - Utility Provides Services to PEV Customer3. PEV2 - Customer connects PEV to premise energy portal4. PEV3 - Customer enrolls in a PEV3 Demand Side Management Program5. PEV4 - Customer Uses PHEV for Advanced Applications

Use Case Summary – Top level

• PEV1, 2 & 3 are renumbered P1, 2 & 3 from IWC/SCE use cases.Includes updates from more recent detail use cases.

• PEV0 is a consolation from HAN P4 approach (higher level than detail use cases)

Self InstallProfessional Install

P2 - Utility / REP ordered HAN Devices + Self Install

P1 - Utility / REP ordered HAN Devices +

Professional Install

Direct Delivery

P4 - Retail off-the shelf HAN Devices + Self Install

P3 - Retail off-the shelf HAN Devices + Professional Install

Indirect Delivery


4

PEV Use Cases (detail levels)

U1 U2 U3 U5

S1 S2 S3S1: Cordset EVSE(120V AC to vehicle)S2: Premise EVSE(240V AC to vehicle)S3: Premise EVSE w/Charger(DC to vehicle)

Utility Programs(Awareness,

Specific Enrollment)

Binding/Rebinding(Startup, VIN

Authentication,Basic Charging perenrolled program,

Shutdown)

(How)

(Why)

(What)

PR1:Charge

V2G, V2H, V2L, V2V

PR3:Diagnostics

PR4:VM Specific

Detailed Use CaseSummary

U1: TOUU2: Direct Load/PriceControlU3: Active ManagementU4: Critical Peak PricingU5: Optimized Charging

Customer selectsone or more

E General Registration/Enrollment Steps

Initial Setup for PHEV-UtilityCommunication &

Authentication

Customer usesonly one

L1 L2 L4Connection Location (VIN Authentication,Basic Charging perenrolled program)

(Where)Customer uses

only oneL1: Home:Connects at premiseL2: Another's HomeInside the utility’s serviceterritory &A: premise pays tariffB: customer pays tariffL3: Another's HomeOutside the utility’s serviceterritoryL4: Public:Curbside, workplace, business,multi family dwelling

PR2:Discharge

U4

L3


5

Use Case Summary - ConsolidationPEV Use Cases (detail levels)

1. E - General Registration & Enrollment Process

2. U1 - TOU Program3. U2 - Discrete Event Program4. U3 - Real Time Pricing (RTP) Program5. U4 - Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) Program6. U5 - Optimized Energy Transfer Program *

7. S1 Cordset8. S2 Premise EVSE9. S3 Premise EVSE that includes the charger

10. L1 - Customer connects PEV at Home – premise11. L2 - Customer connects PEV at Another Home12. L3 - Customer connects PEV Outside Home Territory13. L4 - Customer connects PEV at Public Location

14. PR1 - Customer charges the PEV15. PR2 - Customer discharges the PEV *16. PR3 - Customer diagnoses the PEV *17. PR4 - Customer uses VM specific features with the PEV *

connection architectures

HAN Installation, Provisioning, and Registration – PEV0

functions

Additional locations

* These are not complete or distributed


6

SAE Document Summary

J2836/1 - Use Cases for Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility GridJ2847/1 - Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid

J2836/2 – Use Cases for Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Supply Equipment (EVSE)

J2847/2 –Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Supply Equipment

J2836/3 – Use Cases for Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid for Reverse Power Flow

J2847/3 – Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid for Reverse Power Flow

J2836/4 – Use Cases for Diagnostic Communication for (all vehicles) Plug-in VehiclesJ2847/4 – Diagnostic Communication for Plug-in (all vehicles) Vehicles

J2836/5 - Use Cases for Communication between (all vehicles) Plug-in Vehicles and the internet

J2847/5 - Communication between (all vehicles) Plug-in Vehicles and the internet


7

SAE Document Detail – AC Energy

AC 1

PilotPWM but

noComm

NoComm

Utilityactions

PEVactions

Customereffects

Connects,charges,

payscurrent rate

Utilityeffects

Potentialtransformer

/gridoverload

Basecondition(J1772)

AC 2

PilotPWM but

noComm

Comm toEVSE (on/off& PWM rate)

Control ofcharge toAMI/HAN

Basecondition(J1772)

Takesadvantage

of utilityprograms

SAEdocuments

AC 3

PilotPWM &BasicComm

Receives PEVID &

authenticates

Basecondition(J1772) +J2836/1 &J2847/1

Takesadvantage of

AMI/HANinterfaces

(if available)

AC 4

Pilot PWM &Basic Comm

+ energyrequests

Receives PEVID, & plans

energy delivery

Receivesenergy requests

and responds

Can enterrequests on

vehicle display, atEVSE panel, etc.

AC 5

Pilot PWM &Basic +

EnhancedComm


programattributes

Receivesprogram infoand responds



Sequence

Takesadvantage of

utility programs& AMI/HANinterfaces

AC 6

Pilot PWM &Basic +

OptionalComm


optional features

Receives addedfeatures infoand responds


Messages PEV ID

+ energydesired,

connectiontime info

+ utilityprogramattributes

(+ cost delta &options)

+ utility &customerspecific

AC Energy Transfer - Forward Power Flow only

Takesadvantage of

AMI/HANinterfaces

(if available)

Control ofcharge toAMI/HAN

Comments Included but no clearUse Case

also N/A for DC

Can be used exclusivelyor combined

Required


8

SAE Document Detail – DC Energy

DC 1

NoComm

Utilityactions

PEVactions

Customereffects

Connects,charges,

payscurrent rate

Utilityeffects


/gridoverload

DC 2

SAEdocuments

DC 3


DC 4

Pilot PWM &DC Basic +Enhanced

Comm

Base condition(J1772) +

J2836/1 & J2847/1J2836/2 & J2847/2

Sequence

Pilot PWM &DC Basic +

OptionalComm

Messages

DC Energy Transfer - Forward Power Flow only

Comments

PilotPWM &

DC BasicComm



NoComm

Connects,charges,

payscurrent rate


/gridoverload

NoComm

Connects,charges,

payscurrent rate


/gridoverload

Exclusive or sequential?

Takesadvantage of


Receives addedfeatures info

and responds

Any combinationof utility &customerspecific

Pilot PWM & DCBasic/Enhanced/

Optional + ACComm


optional features(all options)

Required for DC Optional


9

SAE Document Detail – Reverse Flow

D1

Utilityactions

PEVactions

Customereffects

Utilityeffects

D2

SAEdocuments

D3


D5

Pilot PWM& V2G

Base condition(J1772) +

J2836/2 & J2847/2

Sequence

Pilot PWM& V2H

Messages

Reverse Power Flow

Comments

Basecondition(J1772) +

J2836/1/3 &J2847/1/3

Respondsto PEV

messages

Connects,discharges,to current or

arranged rate

NoCommreqd

Poweroutagesupply

Griddisconnected

(homegenerator)

Takesadvantage of


Receives addedfeatures infoand responds

Any combinationof utility &customerspecific

Pilot PWM & DCBasic/Enhanced/

Optional + ACComm


optional features(all options)

D4


Pilot PWM& V2L

NoCommreqd

Supportsnon gridlocations


Pilot PWM& V2V

NoComm

Supportsother

vehicles

Potentialreduction totransformer/grid overload

Notconnected togrid (mobilegenerator)

Notconnected togrid (mobile

transfer)

DCAC


10

Specific cases1. No utility programs utilized.2. Customer takes advantage of utility programs without communication from PEV.

(PEV responds to PWM change within 10 seconds per J1772)

VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 1: Base Condition(no communication from customer, utility or vehicle)

Interaction betweenEVSE and vehicle

(J1772)

Pilot PWM betweenEVSE & vehicle.

VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 2: Grid controls power on/off and rate.(no communication from customer or vehicle)

Utility sends AMI/HANcommands to EVSE

Customer can overrideexcept for DLC programs.

J2847/1 messagesfrom utility to EVSE



11

Specific cases3. Customer manually controls on/off (& rate).4. Customer takes advantage of utility programs without communication from PEV.

VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 3: Customer controls power on/off and rate.(no AMI/HAN interface) - manual entry at EVSE

Customer enters orselects presets at EVSE


VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 4: Customer controls power on/off and rate.(using AMI/HAN device)

Customer sends AMI/HANcommands to EVSE

J2847/1 messagesfrom customer to EVSE



12

Specific cases5. PEV interfaces thru EVSE.6. PEV bypasses EVSE.

VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 5: PEV provides energy request to utility.(request & response interchange) - Indirectly thru EVSE

EVSE containsbridging device

J2847/1 messages requestsfrom PEV to utility & responses

from utility to vehicle

VehicleOwner /

User

EVSE

Utility

Vehicle

Case 6: PEV provides energy request to utility.(request & response interchange) - Directly

PEV containsAMI device

J2847/1 messages requestsfrom PEV to utility & responses

from utility to vehicle



13

Specific casesSummation of cases.Case 1 – 4 – no messages from PEV.Cases 2 - 6 – Utility programs utilized.

Case 5 & 6 – PEV sends request messages.

Case 2, 4 & 5 – EVSE is bridge and/or HAN device.Case 6 – PEV is HAN device.

How is this applied to our SAE documents?How do we organize it?

Continue defining messages (IDs, requests and responses).Develop state diagrams to show paths (expected and alternatives).

Based on various cases


14

Specific desiresCustomer1. What am I paying for PEV power?

Messages required: Cost from utility, EUMD (energy delivered), etc.

2. What is the mileage equivalent?Messages required: Odo reading (last vs. current), etc.

3. What is my carbon footprint?Messages required:

Utility1. What is the grid usage of a PEV?

Messages required:

2. More?Messages required:

EPRI1. What info does EPRI want?

Messages required:

ISO1. What info does ISO want?

Messages required:


15

Next StepsMessages1. Review HAN messages

What are variations and new requirements?

2. Review utility program messages & sequencesTOU, DLC, RTP, CPP, Load following.

3. Review customer/utility desiresMileage, efficiency, carbon footprint, etc.

Continue with Use Cases1. Complete details (top level and detail use cases)

Messages, sequence diagrams, etc.

2. More Use Cases are neededDC energy, Reverse power flow, Security, etc.

Continue with SAE documents – Set goals and objectives, delegate sub-tasks1. Fill in existing sections – ballot J2836/1 & J2847/1 November 2009 (at least 1st cut)

Input from testing, automotive module requirements, etc.

2. Outline J2836/2, /3 & J2847/2 & 3Start filling in sections

march 4, 2009—phevwg meetingmydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/0903/55n3j7...gery kissel,...

Documents