Electric Vehicle Quarterly Discussion Webinar (Text Version)
This is a text version of the video for the Electric Vehicle Quarterly Discussion webinar presented on September 16, 2010, by Carl Rivkin, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Dan Santini, Argonne National Laboratory.
COORDINATOR: Welcome and thank you for standing by. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. During the question-and-answer session, please press star one, and you must record your name to ask a question.
Today's conference is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time. Now, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Linda Bluestein. Ma'am, you may begin.
LINDA BLUESTEIN: Hi, welcome to the Clean Cities third quarterly Webcast that we started this year. And just to introduce myself—I am Co-director of the DOE Clean Cities program and the lead person working on electric drive vehicle issues and matters regarding Clean Cities.
For this particular Webcast, I'd just like to start out by saying thank you to all the people that attended the workshop that we had here July 22 at DOE headquarters.
And it was a meeting on community readiness, and we had a live Webcast—live streaming Webcast—which is also now available for anybody to look at at our Clean Cities Web site, which is cleancities.energy.gov.
And if you go over to the right, you'll see the icons, which is the J1772SAE connector for plug-ins. And you can click on that, and it will take you to a page where you can view any portion of that Webcast.
And I'd also like to announce within the next two to three weeks we will have a report on the Webcast to our—some of the issues that came up, and some of the details that we'll be looking into more in the future, and some of the actions at Clean Cities we'll be taking as a result of our fact-finding and what we've learned.
Now I'd like to get into our Webcast for today, which we put together to kind of reflect what's going on with safety, codes, and standards and regulations. And we have two of our esteemed laboratory colleagues giving presentations on this call.
The first one is Carl Rivkin. He's with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He's Project Leader for safety, codes, and standards at NREL, and he directs a group of engineers and scientists who work on codes and standards development and implementation for alternative fuels, including electricity for vehicles.
So we're going to go ahead and have Carl start with his presentation, and okay, Carl, it's yours.
CARL RIVKIN: Okay, thank you very much, Linda. I assume I can be heard. And what I'm going to do is talk about really two things. I'm going to talk about the safety, codes, and standards group at NREL—you know, who the group is and what they do, and what kinds of projects we work on.
And then I'm going to talk about the electric vehicle permitting project that we've been tasked to do by DOE. And then there will be a chance to ask questions about this when both presentations conclude.
First, just to give you a little background on who I am. I direct the safety, codes and standards group at NREL, as Linda indicated. And we work on safety, codes, and standards for alternative fuels for vehicles.
Prior to joining NREL, I worked for the National Fire Protection Association for ten years on code development for alternative fuels. And then I've had a long career working on safety and environmental issues for both government and private industry. So I've dealt with safety, codes, and standards for quite some time.
Sandra, when I click on the slide, it isn't moving forward. Are you able to advance the slide?
SANDRA LOI: Let's see. You should click on the arrows on the bottom left area.
CARL RIVKIN: On the bottom one?
SANDRA LOI: I'll move that one for you.
CARL RIVKIN: Got it, got it. Okay, thank you.
SANDRA LOI: You're welcome.
CARL RIVKIN: I wanted to give an overview of the safety, codes, and standards group at NREL. I know for people dealing with DOE and the national laboratories, a lot of times it's difficult to put all these different groups in some kind of context as to what they do and how they fit into all the different projects that DOE has ongoing.
This group—the safety, codes, and standards group that resides at NREL—works on codes, supporting codes and standards development for alternative fuels, and electricity is defined as an alternative fuel. So that's how electric vehicles fit into this effort.
And this group works on the full spectrum of both the research required to develop codes and standards and then the implementation codes and standards, the outreach effort required so that people understand what's in these documents, how they fit together, how they're used, how they're actually implemented in jurisdictions, how they're enforced.
So we—this group really covers the spectrum from very, you know, technical research-type work required to develop data for code development all the way to doing—developing Web-based training materials for code officials or other educational materials for different audiences.
I thought as a—initially I wanted to just give you an idea who works in the group so you have an idea that how big and what kinds of work we're involved in. You see we have Chad Blake, who's a project leader, works on codes and standards development coordination.
We do a lot of coordination work coordinating different codes and standards projects so that they don't conflict with each other and different organizations know what the other organizations are doing, so that there is a overlap. And that people understand schedules for codes development so that they can participate in these projects.
Then we have Robert Burgess. He's a senior engineer. He's—he directs a lot of our component testing and validation work. We do a lot of work—not necessarily all here—but subcontracts also. And we also subcontract work out to different organizations to do testing and validation that is required to generate data to support codes and standards promulgation.
Then we have William Buttner, who's a senior scientist. And he's our—really a world expert in chemical sensors. We have a chemical sensor laboratory here where we test different types of chemical sensors to validate their performance.
This is an activity that is essentially open to industry. Anyone who's—any manufacturer who's interested in having a sensor tested to see whether it meets DOE performance criteria—we will make our laboratory available to do that work.
Then we have Mathew Post, who actually does most of the work in the laboratory. And then as an indication of how much outreach work we're involved in, we have actually a graphic artist as part of the group, Angela Costanzo, who works on our—a lot of our education outreach work.
She makes our PowerPoint presentations look really good and she also is very good at taking information, presenting it graphically, which is very important in doing and developing training materials and other educational materials.
So that gives you a little picture of what this group does and who works in the group. Okay, got it. A little sticky on the slide advancement there.
Next slide is—gives some example projects of what the NREL safety, codes, and standards group works on. And I tried to pick some of the projects that are more focused on outreach that I think would be of particular interest for the Clean Cities program.
We do codes and standards workshops around the country, where we target geographical areas where there's project activity. And we try to get code officials and project developers together and present information so that—focused on codes and standards so they understand what codes and standards apply to these different types—the different alternative energies, different alternative fuels used for vehicles.
And then there—they should be better able to both identify the codes and standards that apply, and from the code official's perspective, review permit applications for these different types of projects.
The basic purpose of these workshops is to make the code approval or the permit approval process work more smoothly to answer questions from both project developers and code officials as to what codes and standards would apply for the use of different alternative fuels and where they can get background information if they need additional information on properties of fuels—safety incidents associated with the use of these fuels.
We also have done Web-based training materials, such as—we have a code officials training course that's online that's primarily focused on hydrogen but is an effort that could be expanded to address other fuels and is something we would—depending on the level of interest—could be expanded to address the use of electricity as a vehicular fuel.
We also are directly involved as members in key code and standards technical committees to make sure that the work that we do and that other national labs do gets incorporated into the codes and standards, that the research gets translated from the laboratories into a form that can be used by codes and standards development committees so that they can take research and actually implement it.
And this is a very critical activity. There has been in many cases a gap between developing research required to support codes and standards development and actually translating that research into a form that can be used by codes and standards development committees.
The last bullet I have here is we actually perform research to support codes and standards development, as I mentioned. We do sensor testing. We do a lot of testing of different types of components that are addressed by standards to validate the requirements and the standards.
Okay. Now I'm going to get to the second piece of—that I was—mentioned I wanted to talk about, and that's the specific project that this group has been tasked to do, and that's the EV Charging Station Project. And this project started with a request to the Vehicle Technologies Program Manager from the Grid Interaction Technical Team.
And the GITT requested the DOE assist in developing streamlined permitting procedures for electric vehicle charging stations for initially residential applications.
And the concern was that as probably many of you are familiar with is that they—if someone were to want to purchase an electric vehicle and have an electric vehicle charging station at their residence to support the vehicle, that if there were a significant gap between the time that they purchased the vehicle and the time they were to have this charging station installed at their residence that they would be hesitant about buying a vehicle.
That if someone was told it would take them six, eight, ten weeks some—or longer to get a charging station installed at their residence to charge their vehicle that they might walk away and not—and decide not to buy the vehicle. So there were—this was a concern.
And the—this project was—is there to address that concern. The basic purpose of the project is to reduce that time, to streamline the process involved in permitting residential charging stations so that potential electric vehicle purchasers don't make that a part of their decision or reason not to buy an electric vehicle.
And the work that's being done here can easily be extended to apply to charging stations that are commercial or public charging stations. It doesn't have to be limited to residential.
But the initial concern was with residential charging stations, and the concerns that potential electric vehicle buyers would have with this gap—this time involved in—this gap between the time they purchased the vehicle and the time that they get a charging station installed.
The initial request to DOE was quite extensive and included a creation of a database that would assist jurisdictions in this effort. The idea was that there was a need to create a database that would connect the different parties involved in this process.
So that you have a—someone who's selling a vehicle, the dealership. You have some sort of authority having jurisdiction where that vehicle would be located that would control the permitting of the charging station.
You would have the utilities involved who would potentially would need to add an additional meter to allow for the operation of that charging station. And then you have licensed electricians who would be the electric vehicle charging station installer.
So you have all these different groups—all these different parties. And the—what we're looking at is creating a database that would somehow connect all these different groups so that they would not—there wouldn't be a delay in this process based on, you know, one of the parties not being informed. This is something that we'd still like to pursue, and that's why I mention it here. It is not part of the project as it is funded today.
What is funded—was funded—was the development of a permit template that would contain basic safety requirements for electric vehicle charging stations and could be used—and the idea could be used with relatively little modification from one jurisdiction to another.
And the reason that there was even the possibility of developing such a permit template is that the—throughout the United States there's really one electrical code that's used. That's the National Electrical Code NFPA 70.
And that electrical code has an article that specifically addresses electric vehicle charging stations, Article 625. There—I know that different jurisdictions may have adopted different editions of the code. Not every jurisdiction has the most current edition of the code on record, but it's generally a practice that the jurisdictions will accept the requirements of the most current edition as meeting the due safety diligence.
So with this landscape that we were presented with of having basically one electrical code in the United States and having within that electrical code an article that has specifically addressed electric vehicle charging stations, we had what was the basis for a national permit template.
And the—one of the main objectives or the basic objective was to streamline the permitting process and reduce the time involved. One of the ways that that could be accomplished is if in implementing this permit template jurisdictions were able to allow for the installation and operation of a charging station without having an upfront inspection, because the—scheduling an inspection can create a delay in the permitting process.
So the idea was that if an applicant accepted all the conditions in this permit and that they agreed to meet all the other requirements in the permit that the jurisdiction would allow them to install and operate the charging station with a potential of some sort of deferred inspection of the charging station.
Or maybe the jurisdiction would perform some kind of spot check or they would inspect a certain percent of the charging stations. That way they—it would reduce the administrative burden on the jurisdiction and they would still be in a position to collect the fees for these various permits.
So it would be a way for them to address the added workload that they would see with these permit applications for charging stations while still maintaining public safety and not necessarily adding much to their administrative burden in dealing with all these permits.
So that was our starting position for developing this permit. Next—let's see if I can advance the slide. Okay.
The next slide shows some of the project deliverables and the timeline. And I'll go through some of this briefly. The first thing that had to be done was we had to evaluate the existing codes and standards that apply to electric vehicle charging stations to determine whether or not there were even adequate codes and standards in existence to allow for this project to proceed.
We already had a pretty good sense before we took this on that there were adequate codes and standards. I was aware of the existence of this article in the National Electrical Code.
And our evaluation did show that there were adequate codes and standards in place to develop a permit template. And when I say adequate I mean there's still a lot of work ongoing in standards development for electric vehicles. But there are enough codes and standards in place that address the installation of a charging station that you could put together a permit based on these existing requirements.
It doesn't mean that there won't be new requirements as this technology development develops and as there's a wider implementation of this technology. That's always the case.
What we then were tasked to do is put together a draft permit. And we developed—we put together a project team to work on this. The project team consisted of representatives from utilities, from the automobile industry, from component manufacturers. And of course there were NREL staff involved.
The process for developing this permit would have—would be involved in selecting some key jurisdictions to review the permit, get some feedback on it. These will be jurisdictions where there'd be the potential for widespread installation of charging stations and jurisdictions that would be—show some interest in streamlining their permitting process, with the ultimate objective at the end of this fiscal year—and we're pretty much there—of producing this permit template.
This slide gives a little project timeline status—kind of jumped a little bit ahead into some of the contents of this slide. You see that there is a listing of the project team and we've got representatives from utilities, car companies, NREL.
And we've also had input from component manufacturers as well as some other people directly involved in getting these electric vehicle charging stations installed. So we've got input from a lot of different groups.
We're still looking—we're always looking for input. I've told people that I don't look at this permit template as being something that will ever be a fixed document.
It's something that we have developed so that we can work with jurisdictions and modify it, have it work in their jurisdictions so that they can streamline their permitting process.
And that way—and as a result of that it's never going to be something that's final. It's something that I see evolving to meet the ongoing needs of the electric vehicle infrastructure.
This next slide is a little—gives the status on the project deliverables. We did base a gap analysis and determine that there was sufficient codes and standards in place.
We've developed a draft permit, as I mentioned. That's been reviewed by several groups. Got a lot of the input from a lot of different groups and I think it's improved the quality of what we've got.
And next slide, please. I'm going to go into our meetings with the key jurisdictions. The project team, after extensive discussion—we had about three meetings I think that was devoted to evaluating which jurisdiction would be the best to start with—and based on the criteria that we established and our proximity to Boulder, Colorado, we selected Boulder, Colorado.
And the reason, as I mentioned, that we're looking at a jurisdiction with Boulder, Colorado that we expect there will be electric vehicle charging stations installed there.
And we also expect—we also believe that they would be interested in looking at ways to streamline the permitting process to make it more effective for both the users and for the town of Boulder.
We had a meeting with them in August, and they did—the reaction was favorable to this whole process. We're going to have a follow-up meeting next Wednesday. It's been a little difficult to schedule meetings, but they're very busy too.
We're—we also were looking at Austin, Texas and San Jose, California to have—to get feedback on this permit. And we have meetings scheduled I believe in San Jose next week.
We've already had a teleconference meeting with Austin and the feedback is generally favorable. We'd like to get a little more detailed feedback from them.
The next slide, please. Next steps—what we're—tasked to do in the next fiscal year is to actually implement the streamlined permitting in some key jurisdictions and we may expand those jurisdictions beyond just the three that you've seen here.
We've had interest expressed by several other jurisdictions and utility companies to work with us on trying to implement a streamlined permitting process for charging stations
We've also been specifically directed by our DOE program manager to work with the Clean Cities Program and make this information known so that the regional coordinators have this information. And we'd like to work with any of the regional coordinators that are interested in trying to implement that streamlined permitting process.
We also are planning on developing outreach materials to give an overview of electric vehicles and EV infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, we've done this type of work for other fuels. We've developed a online training course and other educational materials such as fact sheets, and we'd like to continue that effort, working with the EV infrastructure.
And I believe that concludes my presentation, so with that—we're—I think we're going to have another presentation—we will have another presentation. And then we will have questions after that, so if you have questions please make a note of them and bring them up during the question and answer period. Thank you very much.
LINDA BLUESTEIN: Thank you very much, Carl. This is Linda Bluestein again. The—it's very important work that Carl's doing with NREL and it's much appreciated. And we did hear from auto manufacturers and utilities and others at the workshop that we held in July 22 on community readiness.
But permitting is an issue that everybody's a little bit nervous about, because each jurisdiction does it a little bit differently—in some cases a lot differently—with varying times to have the inspections and the permitting accomplished. So to be able to have some standardized information materials and permits to be able to give them is definitely a goal that DOE and Clean Cities aspire to.
So thanks very much, and hold your questions for Carl, because now we're going to introduce Dan Santini. He's a very valuable member of our Clean Cities team and has worked with us quite a bit.
Dr. Santini has worked at Argonne National Laboratories since 1974. He joined the newly formed Center for Transportation Technology Research in 1979, became a section leader in 1992. And he's now the Senior Economist, which he's been since 2003.
He's conducted numerous economic and environmental technology assessments of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles. He was the chair of the Transportation Research Board Alternative Fuels Committee from 1996 to 2002, and is now an emeritus member of the committee.
And for the last several years, he's focused on electric drive technology. He's working on a study that's being done collaboratively with the Electric Power Research Institute and on other studies initiated by the International Energy Agency.
He's a valuable member of our team, as I said, and at Argonne. And he's also working on a report that will be released soon. And this was done for Clean Cities called Highway Vehicle Electric Drive in the United States—Current Status and Issues.
And that was part of a strategy meeting that we did with Clean Cities coordinators and stakeholders back in 2009. And this is a revised report based on our strategy meeting and the need for somebody to cover these issues for us. And it should be posted on the Clean Cities Web site soon as well.
Dr. Santini will speak—will broadly discuss the regulatory environment, the Clean Cities coordinators and stakeholders will become involved with as they work to support the use of plug-in hybrid vehicle and electric vehicles in the coming years.
And Dan's presentation is titled Regulatory Influences That Will Likely Affect the Success of Plug-in Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles. And Dan always puts a lot of very thought-provoking material in his presentations, so I'll let him take it from here. Thanks, Dan.
DAN SANTINI: Thank you very much, Linda. To start with, I wanted to talk about the contrast in part between vehicle regulation and utility regulation. For vehicle regulation and policy, we have the issue of what fuel consumption savings estimates we might use and rely on.
The first possibility is to use corporate average fuel economy ratings, which is what the manufacturers get to do. Those—that system is best—kind of gentle—let's say gentle in nature. And they result in higher fuel economy than people see on the road.
They are being used so far as the basis for the claims for range of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, so those range optimists—road range values will be optimistic relative to the real world. However, EPA and DOE also do a window sticker value that is more representative of what people actually see.
That approach is under reevaluation. We could do a whole presentation on that. But a point I would make is that when we do greenhouse gas evaluations with the GREET model, we use the real world fuel estimates and have done so in a report recently released that I'll have a slide from.
The question of how you—how much credit plug-in hybrids should get for electric operation is a difficult one. Methods are being developed and debated. Again, it's something that—where we could have several slides about that.
An approach that I wanted to put into your heads and recommend is the one that was used for Cash for Clunkers effectiveness under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That was they took a look at the vehicles traded in versus the ones that were purchased.
And if we were to look into that, what we want to know is whether people who would otherwise purchase hybrids are purchasing plug-in vehicles or if people that are otherwise purchasing conventional vehicles of a similar size would be purchasing the plug-in vehicles or are they actually trading down?
Each case gets a little bit more optimistic about what fuel—how much fuel savings could result. So it would—it probably would be useful to track that information.
Turning to utility regulations, it's a different ball game. There the fuels and efficiency of generators are going to influence the generation mix. That in turn will influence greenhouse gas emissions and that will influence on our perception.
The three fuels that will dominate the debate and discussion are natural gas, wind and coal. You can rest assured that oil will be saved by using plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles because the electric grid and generators use practically no oil.
Among the fuels that will be used—for natural gas the best technology to use is combined cycle power, non-gas turbine peakers. Old coal-fired power plants may be the source at some times as we'll discuss.
And wind is going to be introduced but there's problems with it. It doesn't blow all the time and doesn't blow on request, so the way it's accounted for is a bit tricky.
Plug-in hybrids—plug-in vehicles rather—are the latest poster child for the smart grid. One of the questions about the coming customer base is whether the purchasers are going to buy into the smart grid and consider it to be a plus, or whether they're just going to be aggravated with the need for more things to worry about. So it's possible to have—that there may be two kinds of customers out there that we need to think about serving the interests of.
Renewable performance standards have been put into place by 35 states. These standards require utilities to increase the generation from renewables between now and some specified date. That tends to enforce interest in wind and it also creates some technological philosophical arguments about how to count wind.
Our utility planners, given the fact that there was a requirement to use wind, didn't credit the plug-in hybrids with very much wind use in our initial analysis. But if we could prove that there are contracts, there's equipment in place and so forth to link the wind to the plug-in technology, one would think that the utility planners would—can see that wind is actually being caused by the plug-in vehicles.
Greenhouse gas caps and targets may exist in the future in the United States. They already exist in California. The renewable performance standards actually are kind of a back door way of—for states to encourage generation that is cleaner in a greenhouse gas sense.
One question for plug-in vehicle crediting and support is whether it will be necessary to prove that coal isn't used or little coal is used to get the public support. Or perhaps to obtain U.S. dollars in future funding sources, must you be able to claim a significant share of wind will be used? And if so, how do you claim that it will be used?
California is requiring a sophisticated tracking of the kilowatt-hours used and the generation used. It's costly. It means everybody's going to have to have a meter that has a plug-in vehicle. It's a question of whether that's necessary and other states would want to do it.
What's coming is in part results not only from regulation but partly from deregulation. It's going to create differing regional pressures for control of plug-ins.
Back in the 1990s there was a theory pushed that said we should be operating our utilities with time-specific marginal costs rather than regulated average costs. That led to the creation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of rules that in turn enabled the creation of independent system operators and regional transmission organizations.
Those separate transmission and distribution functions of utilities out and from generation. But they don't occur in the entire United States. They've been implemented in part of the United States. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants this to be across the U.S. in the future so they're quite interested in pushing it.
The regional transportation organizations that do exist—a couple of examples in New England—they cover six states, the PJM interconnection covers almost all six states and parts of four, so you can see they are fairly large regional organizations.
The problem with this concept is that consumers don't see these marginal prices and they don't react. It's only the utility that requests or provides the generation, the incentive structure isn't perfect.
It creates an environment where the regional transmission organizations are quite interested in plug-in storage from plug-in vehicles. They—there are ways they can provide desired reliability, low cost electricity and now wind to work its way into the system more readily.
And what they're looking for is what they call aggregators of plug-ins. They don't want to deal with individual vehicles. They want a separate organization set up and managed that will have its own contracts with the plug-in vehicles.
And then that will provide a collective service to the ISO—the regional service organization. And that does involve a lot of set up costs to do it but it does have a high value to the RTOs in theory or in fact, actually.
So this is regional level multi-state. Now we move down to the state level. You've got your public utility commissions that you need to worry about. These are state organizations that regulate utilities' rate structures. At the moment, utilities can't pass through these varying time prices to consumers but there are experiments going on to do that.
The states have the ability and have used the ability to require renewables, which would not necessarily have been promoted by the regional transmission organizations. And as we're getting down to finer grain we've got 52 states but the utilities there's thousands in the country. So you may be dealing with multiple utilities as you work to get plug-in vehicles into the marketplace.
And just to make things a little more complicated, California's public utility commission has decided that it will not place charging services under utility regulation because it's an infant industry. The technology ideas need to be developed and it's premature to put it under the utility regulation umbrella. So you'll have different charging services, purveyors coming to you and saying that this is the best system to be used in your area.
It's—the vehicle and utility regulators have different goals, so there should be conflicts between these goals that have to be managed. For the vehicles, obviously we want to save oil at the federal level.
So to save oil we want to charge our plug-in hybrids as often as possible. We want to use the electric vehicles that are out there as much as possible. We'd like to sell as many of them as possible so we want to keep costs reasonable. You want to squeeze as many miles from the batteries as soon as possible to pay them off. You want to keep the electricity costs down.
But the regional transmission organizations in adopting the smart grid have some different objectives. They don't want you to charge at certain times, so they want high costs at that time.
They want you to charge overnight off peak. So they'll provide a cheap rate at some times but they want high rates at other times. They don't want the plug-in vehicles when introduced to create new systems peaks by having a bunch of vehicles charging—starting charging at a certain time or a bunch of vehicles ending charging at a certain time. They don't want electricity to be given away. They want the consumer to see a price.
And when we move to the public utility commissions, they're responsible for equitable, efficient and reliable electric supply. On the equity issue, that means that they set up charges for electricity up to a certain limit, and then if you go over that all of a sudden your rates increase a lot.
And when you consider the plug-vehicle can use as much—as many kilowatt hours as a house, this creates the possibility of pushing you into a much higher rate category, especially if you have two plug-in electrics.
So this is something that can be problematic for wide-spread penetration. Yet option of time-of-day rates that we're going to look at so they can encourage the use at certain times of the day and not at other and actually time of year, calendar day rates are being experimented with.
The electric vehicles by Southern California Edison are going to get their own rate, but you have to install a separate meter. So you could do the electric vehicle rate or you could do the time of day rate, which is incorporated with the house. The electric vehicle rate would not be incorporated with the house.
So the EV rates may differ from plug-in hybrid rates. Then with respect to wind, the utility regulation we saw in California, they've decided that they're not going to specify what control systems to use.
The two options exist at least through the wires, which is what the utilities might prefer. But wireless systems also exist and may be cheaper. So seeing which of those wins out and is best remains to be done.
Don't create new neighborhood peaks. If there's a lot of vehicles clustered in a few houses and they're all on the same transformer, it can blow the transformer. State and city safety regulators have to assure quality installation and that's what Carl's presentation was all about.
Where ozone reduction for part of the United States was the goal of the 1990s, California's ZEV mandate, which was in turn adopted by a number of other states but only a limited number of states. Now what we're going for is oil savings and greenhouse gas benefits from plug-in electric drive. And it's a national priority.
That changes the way you think about accomplishing the goals. Ozone is a summer problem. It was limited in geographical scope. ZEV acronym—zero emission vehicles tailpipe emissions came out of that but it ignored power plant emissions.
Now for oil use reduction we need to worry about the behavior of the vehicles year round—cold temperatures, hot temperatures. But we can only worry about the vehicle for that.
For greenhouse gas reduction, not only do we need to worry about the vehicle, we have to worry about the power plants, the extra energy in emissions used in batteries and we have to even go beyond the U.S. borders for the provision of the fuel to the vehicle perhaps.
Argonne's GREET- this is an example of Argonne's GREET model pathway for an electric vehicle. It's a natural gas-based pathway with natural gas well pipeline and combined cycle power plant mixing in wind, providing that to the electric vehicle.
You see that it would not—we've had it in the vertical vehicle pathway with lithium sources to the battery and then to the vehicle. And then the vehicle there is looking at batteries being reused or recycled. If they're reused, they may back up wind so that that could help the long-run success of introduction of wind.
Why is summer such a problem for utilities? Well, here we've plotted for four seasons of the year a typical week—a week including weekdays and weekends.
And we've got the summer red—hot summer, blue cold winter, orange autumn and green spring plots. And you can see how much higher the summer load is through the air conditioning. You can see that the air conditioning loads when schools are open and businesses are open are higher than on the weekend when the kids are back home and people are not at work any more. So you see that the week—work week is regarded as the big problem for a lot of utility planners.
And then we go to the rate structure. And this is a 2007 plot. We've gone to the week length on the vertical axis here—Monday through Sunday. You can see that the off peak rate in green here recognizes the fact that the weekends are not as much of a problem and it's the weekdays that are the problem.
This is a 2007 summer block. I looked up the 2010 E6 rate from Pacific Gas and Electric, and the blocks are a little different now. I didn't have time to change that but at 9 cents per kilowatt hour for the off peak, 15 cents for partial peak.
Consumer Reports just tested the Nissan Leaf, and they said that at 19 cents a kilowatt hour, which is what they have in their area. It would costs us just as much to operate the Leaf as it would to operate the Prius hybrid. So that's kind of a cut point, 19 cents. This is a bit under 15 cents. But then 30 cents your operating cost for the electric drive would be like an SUV, not to mention that you have to pay more for the vehicle.
Electricity—rest assured that electricity's a lot cheaper in a lot of places in the country, so don't get too upset about that. But one of the most expensive places in the country.
Colleagues from the Environmental Protection Agency worked this problem a few years ago, gave a presentation at the Transportation Research Board. And I liked their plot. I've modified it quite a bit.
But it turns out it illustrates what happens on say a Friday and a Saturday. Generically there's what you call baseload power. Hydro is at the bottom of the curve. Nuclear is the light blue. And coal as you're moving up.
And then the magenta is combined cycle natural gas, and that's very efficient, relatively clean technology. And then the blue is the beaker that we have to turn on during the week day according to this illustration.
The smart charging strategy that the regional transmission organizations would like would move everything into the trough and fill that trough. So we've got a smart charging strategy that we're looking at and that pink smile.
Another—the opposite end is for people when they come home at 5:00 and it turns out that's when the demand is peak in the New York area—charge—start charging immediately. And vehicles will have varying lengths of time so that red strip gives you an idea of how long the charging would occur. And you'd use some combustion turbines, some combined cycle, maybe some coal. Whereas with—where the smile is, it's going to be coal.
So Argonne recently did its analysis of plug-in hybrids—not battery electrics, but plug-in hybrids. Basically found the same thing, namely that smart charging actually causes a little bit of an increase in greenhouse gases. What you've got on the vertical axis is a greenhouse gas emissions raised on the technology relative to a same size gasoline vehicle or the gasoline vehicle is one.
On the horizontal axis we've got petroleum use gives the same size gasoline vehicle. And then you've got your same size hybrid electric vehicle about two-thirds of the energy consumption, two-thirds of the greenhouse gases.
Then it gets complicated with the plug-in vehicles depending on where they are, whether they're using coal or natural gas, whether wind is—in this case, for the base cases we looked at, wind was not being mixed in.
The ideal—idealized case was zero emissions which is almost impossible to attain—is down at the bottom, the lower left-hand corner of the plot. As you go from right to left you've got plug-in vehicles that have more and more kilowatt hours capability so you save more and more oil.
But if you use too much coal, greenhouse gases can actually go up in Illinois. You can see that the—in Illinois, if you use the charge immediately strategy and you replace the same size gasoline vehicle you'd have an advantage.
But with a 40 mile range plug-in hybrid you could end up worse if you did the smart charging. In a lot of part—of the U.S. you'd be about the same or better. And then if you could mix in wind you'll get even better on greenhouse gases.
So don't let optimism inappropriately stretch potential positives into idealized probabilities. It's something we ought to be cautious about. Smart charging and plug-ins are not a perfect combination.
Wind power and plug-ins are not an inexpensively effortlessly implemented combination. The point we need—that the earlier slides should make clear—is that power plants are not running unnecessarily at night, so the electricity for plug-ins is not excess electricity. Excess capacity exists, yes. We could use the excess capacity, but not excess generation.
Although the margin of costs of overnight electricity for plug-ins is very low, it's—we still are going to have introduction costs, and those need to be minimized. I mentioned the neighborhood transformer issue. Sometimes transformers are going to have to be replaced.
If you install faster charging in your house—Level 2 charging—that will cost money. And in some houses with old electrical systems it can amount to thousands of dollars and may be prohibitive.
Level 3 fast charging between cities can be very expensive. The Argonne analysis says that some new power plants may be needed—not a lot, but some, depending on charging strategy. The charge immediately strategy requires the most.
As with diet pills, sales of plug-in vehicles alone will not guarantee success. Your results may vary. Your current generation mix is going to be what's going to provide most of the power. Your charge strategy will matter.
We've done the top one here and the bottom one, but there are five more that I came up with here. Now General Motors has an option in the Volt where they'd allow you to tell the vehicle to be full about the time you're going to leave in the morning.
It turns out this will be good for the battery. The battery will last longer. So consumers would have an incentive to do that. We haven't evaluated that yet. You may charge voluntarily or by contract with the ISO. There are some rate structures where you get a phone call and they'd ask you not to use electricity the next day.
We talked about the time of day and the extra EV meter. And then enforce if you install a lot of equipment the RTO or the ISO can take over control of your system.
It's going to be important to carefully track the existing and planned electric rates, whether the public utility commission in your area is supportive or indifferent and the ISO and RTO whether they exist are going to promote electric drive. Each utility will have a different attitude and strategy.
Then the success—we need to look at the success of the strategies in charging infrastructure. The charging infrastructure may be installed nicely and it may lead to a lot of use or it may be installed poorly and may not lead to very much use during the day.
The age of the building stock is going to matter. Newer buildings are easier to add charging cost to. Brand-new construction is the cheapest way to do it. So if you've got—if you're in a growing area with brand-new construction you should have more opportunities to implement a cheap—inexpensive charging infrastructure.
So and then Carl's points are the last that—need to get that under control as well. If the smart grid advocates don't want us charging at the peak, do we want to promote daytime charging?
Should restaurants and retail outlets offer free electricity to customers in the evening hours? State laws actually prevent resale of electricity but there's reasons that retailers would provide a charging station so that customers would come there.
Should households be encouraged to top off during dinner at home in preparation for a show or shopping or discouraged from that? Should workplaces shuffle their multiple cars per day if they have a charger so that they can use that charger twice? But that pushes charging it late in the afternoon when the summer air conditioners are on.
How much oil savings do we get? Are the oil savings worth it compared to what we're doing with the daytime charging?
My closing thoughts are on getting oil savings and doing clean technology while we get those oil savings is that for first estimates I suggest the combination of the Cash for Clunkers and window sticker estimate.
We need to know whether the plug-in vehicles were bought instead of hybrids instead of similar conventional vehicles or if people are actually trading down. But we need to think about the information-gathering strategies that—with dealers or maybe auto manufacturers and fleet managers to get this information.
Then once the vehicles are in place, you want to make sure that you save oil. You want to make sure they are actually utilized in the way that is anticipated. Here we have some potential problems that some consumers buy vehicles anticipating cheap electricity and using, you know, maybe they're going to use it a lot.
And all of a sudden they find that they're in a high rate environment and they back off their use. That would be a negative. So it would be much better for consumers to be made aware ahead of time of those possibilities, so that when they buy a vehicle they buy one that's a good match for their actual use that they could stay within and charge up cheaply.
Finally, it's going to be important for us to manage these conflicting relationships with the smart grid advocates and the perhaps opponents of the smart grid and with environmentalists.
You need to be aware that there really are upstream emissions from electric drive and from battery pack manufacture in case you get what one person called the emissions elsewhere vehicle moniker placed on your electric vehicles.
We want to promote charging that reduces life cycle emissions but still it doesn't strain the capacity of the grid. We need to track implementation of charging equipment infrastructure, smart controls and contracts I think if we're going to be able to properly measure and talk about all this stuff with the interested parties such as the environmentalists.
And that's—if you would like to contact me, you've got any questions, my e-mail is listed below. And of course I'll be happy to answer questions after this. Thank you.
LINDA BLUESTEIN: Dan, thank you very much. This is Linda Bluestein again. I just wanted to point out from—to our Clean Cities Coalition—I think Dan brought up a lot of really interesting information that I think could be very confusing to consumers.
And also I think it's going to be very important for our Clean Cities Coalition to work with the local utility and electricity distributors to be able to make sure that they get the story straight for consumers and to work closely with them during their processes so they understand the regulations and they also understand the pricing structures and what's best for the consumers. And so they can help in the best possible way.
I think we should open up calls—I'm sorry, open up questions to everyone. So I guess if Sandra, you can take over, that would be great.
SANDRA LOI: Okay. Hey, Rudy, if we can open up the lines for questions, that would be great. We'd like to get started.
COORDINATOR: Will do. To ask a question, please press star 1 and you must record your name. Once again, to ask a question, please press star 1. One moment please.
SANDRA LOI: As we're waiting for the first question, actually I've have gotten one via the online Q&A function from John Getze. He had said that through the state of Connecticut Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council that they've heard from first responders such as firefighters and public safety officials and trainers that do trainees first responders that there needs—that they have a need for them to be able to quickly identify a fuel type of vehicle when they're getting on a scene.
And they don't—they are not currently I guess satisfied with what's out there now. And they seem to think that potentially a solution could be that there should be a national standardized placard that's put on the outside of the vehicle in several locations potentially.
And this concern goes even beyond just electric vehicles, but all types of alternative fuel vehicles. And the bottom line question I guess was what if anything is being done to address this?
And are there any plans to come up with a standardized placard or decal or something for alternative fuel vehicles that can be used, you know, for a variety of uses including things able to be identified in case of an emergency?
LINDA BLUESTEIN: Carl, this is Linda. I don't know if you have any...
CARL RIVKIN: No, this is—I have some information on that question if you'd like me to try to address that.
LINDA BLUESTEIN: Please.
CARL RIVKIN: I've been involved in this issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. And there was—I think I first got involved in this in 2001. I remember going to a meeting at the Society of Automotive Engineers where they were debating exactly this issue. What type of identification should be placed on a vehicle to let emergency responders know that the vehicle contains hydrogen?
And it's—the car—there's been a lot of debate, let me put it that way without getting into the details of who's taking different positions. But there is an understanding that emergency responders need to know what type of vehicle it is that they're dealing with.
There's, you know, there are different hazards associated with the different alternative fuels. If you're dealing with an electric vehicle as opposed to conventional vehicle, there's going to be high voltage lines that run through the vehicle.
One of the actions that's been taken to address this—it's still not—to get to the end of the question—it hasn't been resolved. But the DOE has developed a course for emergency responders that does address some of the issues associated with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
But as far as the broader issue of having a label on the vehicle that identifies the fuel, I think that's still an area where there's ongoing work. And I would expect that that would come out—that type of standard—would come out of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
And it's—what I—from what I can tell it's being looked at on a fuel-by-fuel basis. I don't know that there's one standard that addresses vehicle labels for alternative fuels. So it's a good question and it's being worked on.
SANDRA LOI: Great. Thank you for that.
Another online question, and this one is for Dan from Jonathan Overly, one of our Clean Cities coordinators in Tennessee. He's asking that—his question is he's heard that several different conversion methods exist for converting kilowatts to miles per gallon. Has one methodology been accepted by DOE? Or alternatively, do you expect MPG to become MPGE or some other metric?
DAN SANTINI: There is not one method accepted at this point in time. It's—there's likely to be. It's likely to be a state of flux for a period of time. It's a difficult question. The window sticker values on vehicles are going to change. The Environmental Protection Agency has asked for comment on two different window sticker approaches at the moment. So there—that's going on.
Another thing that's going on is that the window sticker estimate of fuel consumption is evolving and new methods are being developed. Vehicles will be tested in cold temperatures and hot temperatures with air conditioning for that window sticker number that—where that had not been done in the past.
That's actually going to probably cause a bit of a hit to electric drive because batteries like human temperatures and they have their issues at the real cold temperatures and hot temperatures.
And finally, a personal concern. And this is not going to be addressed for a while, but I think it's going to come up—is that we don't have any measure of what fuel consumption is driving between cities on Interstates.
And with electric drive and electric—with all electric drive what's going to happen is that's going to be the worst circumstance for consumers. The vehicle is going to deplete most rapidly the highest number of kilowatt hours per mile at 70, 75 miles an hour. And it's going to be, you know, it'll be evident to people that drive the vehicles, and there's going to be some fall back on it I think.
SANDRA LOI: Great, thank you. And we have another online question—Kelly Gilbert from our Kansas City Clean Cities Coalition. Her question is how much is all the source of electricity an academic question?
If we're using a certain amount of electricity, the coal and the natural gas and the wind should all be used to the same degree, right? Or is there a practical reason for making the distinction of charging using wind power from the grid or coal power from the grid?
DAN SANTINI: For greenhouse gases, that's one of the points that it might take a while to sink in—but one of the points I was trying to get across in the presentation is that in particular for greenhouse gases you do care what kind of fuel is being used and what kind of technology is being used with that fuel.
And you need to separate those out. It'll depend on any individual state. From the point of view of oil use, we don't really care very much what—where the electricity's coming from. None of it is—practically none of it is oil-based, so in that—from that perspective no issue which one it is.
And of course whether greenhouse gases should be regulated, whether they are regulated is—it varies across the country. It may change over the life of the vehicles that are being purchased. So yes, it matters but not in the—not on a regulatory basis in most of the country yet.
SANDRA LOI: Great. Thank you. Do we have any callers on the line, Rudy?
COORDINATOR: Yes. Ron, your line is open.
RON: Yes, hi. I have two questions for Carl. One is on a follow-up to the jurisdictions that you're evaluating, you have the Boulder, Austin and San Jose. How can we work with you on jurisdictions within our territory? National Grid operates in the Northeast.
And second question for Carl is regarding streamlined permitting, have you found that it's been better since SAEJ1772 was approved, and now there's UL listing for EVSEs?
CARL RIVKIN: And, Ron, I'll answer the first question is we'd like to work with you. And if you don't have my e-mail contact, it's firstname.lastname@example.org.
And as far as your second question goes, we—right now we haven't seen that many permitting—or that many charging stations being installed. So the effect of the SA document—I don't know what the effect of it is yet.
But what I suspect is that what our major—some of our major obstacles in the permitting process may be more the administrative structure of the individual jurisdictions that require certain things, like require an inspection for any type of a modification—a electrical modification. And we may have—that may be our biggest challenge, is to work with jurisdictions to see if there's a way that they can modify some of those administrative requirements.
But as far as working with you, yes, I'd be happy to. And I would like to, you know, get to this permit template introduced into, you know, any areas where there is—looks likes there's going to be a demand for charging stations and an interest in trying to make that permitting process work more smoothly.
RON: Okay, thank you.
COORDINATOR: Next question comes from Bill. Your line is open.
BILL BOYCE: Yes, this is Bill Boyce with SMUD. And I think this is me. Comment for Carl and one of the things for finding in Sacramento is the fact that when we work with the local permitting agencies, we're also needing to cover the different metering concepts for potential incentive rates to make sure that they have concurrence with utility metering concepts and have all that basically pre-approved with our concepts before going in so we don't end up with disputes later on.
I would suggest when you're looking at those types of things beyond just the normal installation, also include metering arrangements for incentive-type programs.
CARL RIVKIN: Yes, thank you That's a very good point. That gets back to one of the—one of the issues I brought up earlier, and that is this coordination effort that has to take place for this process to work.
We—right now we're working essentially with—on a—with jurisdictions on the permitting. But you have these different entities involved. The utility, whoever's selling the vehicle, the installer and for this—all this to work effectively, you have to have coordination among all those different groups.
BILL BOYCE: Thank you.
COORDINATOR: To ask a question, please press star 1 and record your name. Once again, to ask a question, please press star 1 and record your name. One moment, please.
There are no further questions at this time.
SANDRA LOI: Thanks, Rudy. I have a couple more questions we received online. One of the questions from Chris Fernakis asking whether the presentations will be made available after.
We will be posting audio, and if we need to get approval for the presentations to be posted in PDF format. And we will do that hopefully. If approval goes through, we'll go ahead and post that on the Web site. It will be on the cleancities.energy.gov Web site in the archives section of our Web site. So those should be there in the next week or so.
Another question from Larry Kender. He's asking can we get a copy of NREL's preliminary permitting recommendations for use there in Kansas City?
CARL RIVKIN: We can make this draft permit template available. I can send it to you, Sandra, so it can be posted if that would work.
SANDRA LOI: That's great. We could probably post it up where the archive is and probably find another good spot for it on the Web site, so that would be great.
CARL RIVKIN: Okay, I will send you a copy.
SANDRA LOI: Okay, good. So we'll go ahead and post it online, so that would be available online.
And then another question from Dolores Roverello. She's asking or mentioning, Dan mentioned state laws prevent resale of kilowatt hours. Can he elaborate?
How would parking garages get around this if they want to offer charging stations to customers? Would consumers buy directly from a power supplier at a charging station owned by another business?
DAN SANTINI: My understanding is that there are strategies to get around the—that. You can charge for a parking space. So you can't charge for the kilowatt hour service provided at that space perhaps on the basis of number of kilowatt hours.
But if you had a time rate for the parking space, which of course they do in parking garages then—and I think you could charge a higher rate or charge a spot that had an electric charger.
But you just couldn't do a rate directly tied to how many kilowatt hours were put into the vehicle. So I think, you know, this is something for lawyers to decide. It would depend on the laws in each individual state and there might be debate about it. But that's one alternative approach that I've heard discussed to get around the laws.
The other one—the zero charge notion—is because it really isn't that many—that much cost to provide the charger. You know, once you've installed the charging infrastructure, if you're not going to recover the cost of that, the kilowatt hours aren't that expensive.
And if the person stays in—comes to your restaurant instead of somebody else's, or they stay in the store a little bit longer, you can make up the cost of providing electricity and that is—those entities might want to do it anyway. So the question's whether we want to discourage it and just stay away from that.
SANDRA LOI: Okay, great. Thank you, Dan. I don't have any more questions online. If there's no more phone questions, then Linda, pass it to you to wrap up.
COORDINATOR: And there are no more phone questions either.
SANDRA LOI: All right, thank you.
LINDA BLUESTEIN: All right, thank you so much. This is Linda Bluestein again with Clean Cities. I just want to thank everybody for joining the call. I just also wanted to point out that we invited stakeholders from the Edison Electric Institute that are working on plug-in vehicle technologies through their utilities.
In addition, also the National Plug-in Vehicle Initiative partners with the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and we hope to keep up the series of calls and include them as well and draw from new speakers.
And we're also looking for suggestions and ideas for presentations and your thoughts and input on this—on these quarterly Webinars. So feel free to e-mail me at email@example.com or just the Clean Cities Webmaster if that works better for you and give us any kind of feedback on these quarterly Webinars and what you'd like to see in the future. Thank you.
COORDINATOR: Thank you for participating in today's conference call. You may disconnect at this time.