Category Archives: Electric Vehicles

Ce que l’iPhone nous apprend sur l’avenir énergétique

(LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ce-que-liphone-nous-apprend-sur-lavenir-%25C3%25A9nerg%25C3%25A9tique-benoit-marcoux-azlmf/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_pulse_read%3BSazXN8KQQDOom3nyaHLtgg%3D%3D)

Du monopole au mobile : la leçon de l’iPhone

En 2007, l’iPhone n’était pas simplement un nouveau téléphone. Il a bouleversé le modèle établi des télécommunications. À l’époque, les opérateurs mobiles contrôlaient presque tout : les appareils autorisés, les fonctions activées, les services proposés. Les téléphones étaient verrouillés, bridés, alignés sur la vision de l’opérateur.

Les fabricants traditionnels de téléphones cellulaires, confortablement installés dans un équilibre stable avec les opérateurs, ont aussi fait les frais de l’arrivée de l’iPhone. Leur modèle d’affaires reposait sur des appareils standardisés, conçus selon les exigences des opérateurs, peu évolutifs, mais vendus en masse. L’innovation logicielle n’était pas une priorité, tant que les volumes suivaient.

L’iPhone a mis fin à ce statu quo. Incapables de suivre le virage logiciel et l’émergence de plateformes applicatives, plusieurs géants comme Nokia, BlackBerry ou Motorola ont vu leur position s’effondrer. L’interface intuitive, l’écosystème d’applications et l’intégration verticale d’Apple ont redéfini les attentes des utilisateurs et déplacé le centre de gravité vers l’expérience client. Google, avec Android, a poursuivi dans cette voie avec une approche plus ouverte, mais tout aussi centrée sur l’utilisateur.

L’App Store a consolidé cette révolution. En ouvrant une plateforme aux développeurs tiers, Apple a déclenché une explosion d’innovations. Les applications sont devenues le point d’ancrage de l’expérience numérique. Les opérateurs, autrefois maîtres du contenu, ont été relégués au rôle de simples fournisseurs de connectivité. La valeur s’est déplacée vers les plateformes logicielles et les services.

Pour les constructeurs automobiles, l’enjeu est similaire. Restreindre les usages, garder un contrôle exclusif sur l’expérience ou brider les interactions avec les systèmes énergétiques revient à ignorer une dynamique déjà à l’œuvre. Ceux qui permettront aux utilisateurs de devenir pleinement acteurs d’un nouvel écosystème énergétique, fluide et personnalisable, auront une longueur d’avance.

Le V2G, ou comment redonner du pouvoir aux usagers

Aujourd’hui, un évènement iPhone se prépare dans le monde de l’énergie.

Les véhicules électriques sont des batteries sur roues. Avec le V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid), ils peuvent faire plus que consommer : ils peuvent stocker, redistribuer, équilibrer. L’utilisateur devient acteur du réseau, producteur, gestionnaire, partenaire.

Mais encore faut-il que les constructeurs automobiles le permettent, ce qui est loin d’être la norme. Quelques projets pilotes existent. En Australie, la Nissan Leaf a été testée dans des initiatives comme REVS, mais l’adoption reste marginale, freinée par la complexité réglementaire, les exigences des réseaux et la prudence des constructeurs. D’autres exemples, comme Renault avec Mobilize et The Mobility House en France, ou GM avec PG&E en Californie, relèvent de configurations fermées, limitées à des accords bilatéraux entre un constructeur et un fournisseur d’énergie.

Cela rappelle le monde des téléphones cellulaires avant l’iPhone : des appareils conçus pour des systèmes fermés (plus encore en Amérique du Nord qu’en Europe), verrouillés par des ententes commerciales, et rarement compatibles entre eux. Tant que cette logique perdure, l’innovation à grande échelle — ouverte, interopérable, centrée sur l’utilisateur — ne pourra émerger. Les constructeurs automobiles risquent alors de connaître le sort des géants déchus des équipements de télécoms. Ce sont peut-être, aujourd’hui, les BlackBerry de demain.

Les compagnies d’électricité, historiquement maîtres d’un réseau centralisé, doivent elles aussi s’adapter. Face à des ressources distribuées, mobiles et autonomes, elles devront réinventer leur rôle. Comme les opérateurs télécoms hier, elles devront passer du contrôle à l’orchestration.

Une nouvelle ère énergétique

Ce nouveau système énergétique ne pourra reposer uniquement sur le modèle pavillonnaire — un foyer unifamilial équipé d’un véhicule électrique, de panneaux solaires et, peut-être, d’une batterie résidentielle. Il devra aussi fonctionner dans des environnements urbains denses : immeubles à logements multiples, tours à bureaux, stationnements partagés. Le V2G devra s’y adapter avec des solutions mutualisées, intelligentes et intégrées à la gestion collective de l’énergie.

Tout comme l’iPhone a déclenché une vague d’innovation — applications, nouveaux modèles d’affaires, paiements mobiles — il a aussi transformé toute une industrie. Des fabricants de téléphones ont disparu, incapables de suivre. Parallèlement, les télécoms ont explosé : croissance du trafic de données, diversification des services, émergence de nouveaux acteurs.

Le V2G pourrait provoquer une mutation comparable dans le monde de l’énergie. Et, contrairement à de nombreux programmes dictés par les compagnies d’électricité ou soutenus par des subventions publiques, cette transformation pourrait être portée — et financée — par les consommateurs eux-mêmes, comme ce fut le cas pour l’iPhone. Ce sont les usagers qui, en adoptant massivement ces technologies, pourraient en accélérer l’avènement.

Pour les fabricants automobiles, cela signifie repenser le véhicule comme une plateforme énergétique. Les clients V2G auront souvent des panneaux solaires et voudront maximiser leur autoconsommation, ce qui exige une intégration fluide entre voiture, maison et réseau. Cela implique des fonctions logicielles avancées, des partenariats ouverts, une gestion optimisée des batteries. Ceux qui offriront une expérience fluide, sécuritaire et économique prendront une longueur d’avance. Les premiers fabricants d’automobiles à intégrer le V2G concrètement auront un avantage compétitif décisif, en capturant une part stratégique du marché et en imposant leurs standards.

Pour les compagnies d’électricité, le défi est tout aussi stratégique. Elles devront gérer des millions d’actifs énergétiques mobiles qu’elles ne possèdent pas. Il leur faudra des outils d’orchestration, des modèles tarifaires dynamiques et une capacité d’interaction avec des plateformes tierces. Le V2G accélérera la transition vers un réseau plus décentralisé, plus flexible, plus intelligent.

Des entreprises traditionnelles devront repenser leur modèle. De nouveaux acteurs plus agiles apparaîtront : dans les technologies, les services résidentiels, la gestion de l’énergie.

Comme l’App Store l’a fait pour le mobile, le V2G pourrait ouvrir la voie à des plateformes énergétiques ouvertes. Des tiers viendraient y offrir des services novateurs : optimisation tarifaire, stockage partagé, automatisation domotique, agrégation de batteries. L’utilisateur, d’abord simple consommateur d’électricité, deviendrait le pivot d’un écosystème riche, personnalisé et décentralisé.

Les défis sont nombreux — techniques, réglementaires, culturels — mais le mouvement est lancé. Et comme pour AT&T et Rogers à l’époque, ceux qui s’adapteront tôt pourraient bien en sortir gagnants.

What the iPhone Teaches Us About the Future of Energy

(LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-iphone-teaches-us-future-energy-benoit-marcoux-fhiof/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_pulse_read%3BjOZ%2FEZqyRFmjrsYUey0rUA%3D%3D)

From monopoly to mobility: the iPhone lesson

In 2007, the iPhone was more than just a new phone. It upended the established telecommunications model. At the time, mobile carriers controlled nearly everything: approved devices, enabled features, and available services. Phones were locked down, restricted, aligned with the carriers’ vision.

Traditional cellphone manufacturers, comfortably entrenched in a stable arrangement with carriers, were also caught off guard by the iPhone’s arrival. Their business model relied on standardized devices built to carrier specs, not particularly innovative, but sold at scale. Software innovation wasn’t a priority as long as the volumes were there.

The iPhone broke that equilibrium. Unable to pivot quickly to software-centric platforms, several giants like Nokia, BlackBerry, and Motorola saw their dominance collapse. Apple’s intuitive interface, app ecosystem, and vertical integration redefined user expectations and shifted the focus to customer experience. Google followed up with Android, pursuing a more open approach but still centred on user empowerment.

The App Store solidified this revolution. By opening a platform to third-party developers, Apple triggered an explosion of innovation. Apps became the cornerstone of the digital experience. Carriers, once the gatekeepers of mobile services, were relegated to simple connectivity providers. Value shifted decisively toward software platforms and services.

The stakes are similar for automakers today. Restricting usage, keeping tight control over the user experience, or limiting interactions with energy systems ignore a shift already underway. Those who empower users to become active participants in a fluid, customizable energy ecosystem will gain a decisive edge.

V2G: returning power to the users

Today, an iPhone moment is brewing in the energy sector.

Electric vehicles are batteries on wheels. With V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid), they can do more than consume — they can store, redistribute, and balance energy. The user becomes an actor in the grid: producer, manager, and partner.

But this will only happen if automakers allow it — which is far from the norm. A few pilot projects exist. In Australia, the Nissan Leaf has been trialled in initiatives like REVS, but adoption remains marginal due to regulatory complexity, utility requirements, and manufacturer caution. Other examples — Renault with Mobilize and The Mobility House in France, GM with PG&E in California — are based on closed configurations, limited to bilateral agreements between one automaker and one utility.

This mirrors the mobile world before the iPhone: devices designed for closed systems (especially in North America), locked down by commercial agreements, and rarely interoperable. As long as this logic persists, large-scale innovation — open, interoperable, user-driven — cannot emerge. Automakers risk the same fate as the fallen telecom equipment giants. They may well be today’s BlackBerrys.

Electric utilities, long accustomed to central control, must also evolve. Faced with distributed, mobile, and autonomous resources, they will have to rethink their role. Like telecom operators before them, they must move from control to orchestration.

A New Energy Era

This new energy system cannot rely solely on the single-family home model — one house with an EV, solar panels, and perhaps a home battery. It must also work in denser urban settings: multi-unit buildings, office towers and shared parking lots. V2G will need to adapt to these environments through shared, intelligent, and integrated energy management solutions.

Just as the iPhone launched a wave of innovation — apps, new business models, mobile payments — it also transformed an entire industry. Some handset makers disappeared, unable to keep up. Meanwhile, telecom boomed: data usage soared, services diversified, new players emerged.

V2G could trigger a similarly profound shift in the energy sector. And unlike many programs dictated by utilities or supported by public subsidies, this transformation could be driven — and paid for — by the consumers themselves, just as it was with the iPhone. It is user adoption that could accelerate this revolution.

For automakers, this means rethinking the vehicle as an energy platform. V2G customers will often have solar panels and want to maximize self-consumption, which requires seamless integration between car, home, and grid. That demands advanced software, open partnerships, and optimized battery management. Those who deliver a smooth, secure, cost-effective experience will gain the upper hand. The first carmakers to implement V2G meaningfully will secure a strategic lead and set the standards for others.

For utilities, the challenge is just as strategic. They will need to manage millions of mobile energy assets they do not own. That calls for orchestration tools, dynamic pricing models, and the ability to interact with third-party platforms. V2G will accelerate the shift toward a more decentralized, flexible, and intelligent grid.

Traditional players will need to rethink their models. New, more agile entrants will emerge — in tech, home energy services, and distributed energy management.

As the App Store did for mobile, V2G could pave the way for open energy platforms. Third parties could offer new services: smart charging, shared storage, home automation, battery aggregation. The user — once a passive electricity consumer — would become the focal point of a dynamic, personalized, and decentralized ecosystem.

The challenges are real — technical, regulatory, cultural — but the shift has begun. And just like AT&T and Rogers in the early iPhone days, those who adapt early may be the ones who win.

Conduire l’avenir de la technologie V2X

L’intégration des véhicules électriques (VÉ) au réseau électrique ne constitue pas seulement un défi technique—c’est une transformation écosystémique. J’ai eu l’opportunité d’en discuter sur le V2X Podcast avec Rob Safrata, où nous avons abordé les complexités, les opportunités et les obstacles liés à la technologie V2X. 

(LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/conduire-lavenir-de-la-technologie-v2x-benoit-marcoux-fcdkc/)

L’écosystème V2X : un jeu à trois acteurs

Au cœur du V2X, trois parties prenantes jouent un rôle clé :

  • Les constructeurs automobiles, qui conçoivent les véhicules mais ne veulent pas être responsables des systèmes énergétiques résidentiels.
  • Les services publics, qui ont besoin de visibilité sur les VÉ mais sont habitués à gérer des actifs énergétiques stationnaires.
  • Les propriétaires de maisons, qui possèdent les VÉ et interagissent avec les deux parties, mais qui manquent actuellement d’outils intuitifs pour gérer les flux d’énergie.

Combler ces lacunes est un défi de coordination plus qu’un simple défi technologique.

Les cas d’utilisation concrets

Les batteries des VÉ sont de grandes unités de stockage d’énergie mobiles. La question est : comment les utiliser efficacement ? Trois applications principales se dégagent :

  1. Services au réseau – Les services publics pourraient exploiter les VÉ pour la régulation de la fréquence, mais le modèle économique reste faible en raison de sa complexité et de sa faible rentabilité.
  2. Alimentation de secours – Utiliser un VÉ en cas de panne peut sauver des vies, mais l’automatiser comme un générateur traditionnel est un défi.
  3. Gestion des pointes – L’utilisation la plus pratique aujourd’hui. En modifiant les horaires de recharge et en déchargeant les VÉ pendant les pics de demande, les propriétaires peuvent réduire leurs coûts énergétiques et stabiliser le réseau.

Le débat AC vs DC

L’une des grandes questions techniques est de savoir si le V2X doit fonctionner en courant alternatif (AC) ou en courant continu (DC).

  • AC (norme actuelle) – Fonctionne bien pour des applications simples, mais nécessite des transformateurs coûteux pour une intégration domestique complète, en plus d’ajouter des coûts et de la complexité aux véhicules.
  • DC (tendance émergente) – Plus efficace, mieux adapté aux panneaux solaires et aux batteries stationnaires, et pourrait éliminer le besoin d’onduleurs embarqués dans les VÉ. En Chine et en Corée du Sud, la recharge passe déjà au DC.

Comme dans de nombreuses industries auparavant, de la télécommunication à l’informatique, l’évolution des VÉ dans le système énergétique suivra probablement un chemin d’hybridation avant de se stabiliser dans un modèle dominant.

Les services publics doivent s’adapter à un avenir décentralisé

Historiquement, les services publics ont opéré dans un monde où ils contrôlaient toute la production d’énergie. Aujourd’hui, avec l’essor des ressources énergétiques distribuées (DER) comme les VÉ, l’énergie solaire et les batteries, ils doivent s’adapter à un modèle plus dynamique, axé sur le consommateur. La transition entre le fait de considérer les usagers comme de simples « abonnés » et de véritables « clients » est toujours en cours.

Conclusion

Le V2X n’est pas qu’une technologie—c’est un changement fondamental dans notre façon de concevoir l’énergie. Les défis sont réels, qu’il s’agisse des modèles économiques ou des infrastructures, mais le potentiel est immense. À mesure que les services publics, les constructeurs automobiles et les consommateurs s’adaptent, l’avenir de l’énergie sera façonné par la manière dont nous intégrons ces puissants actifs de stockage mobile au réseau.

Un immense merci à Rob Safrata pour m’avoir accueilli sur le podcast et pour cette discussion enrichissante !

Driving the Future of V2X Technology

The integration of electric vehicles (EVs) with the power grid is more than just an engineering challenge—it’s an ecosystem transformation. I had the opportunity to discuss this on the V2X Podcast with Bob Safrata, where we covered the complexities, opportunities, and roadblocks of vehicle-to-everything (V2X) technology.

(LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/driving-future-v2x-technology-benoit-marcoux-ln1gc/)

The V2X Ecosystem: A Three-Player Game

At its core, V2X involves three key stakeholders:

  • Automakers, who design the vehicles but don’t want to be responsible for home energy systems.
  • Utilities, who need visibility on EVs but are accustomed to managing stationary energy assets.
  • Homeowners, who own the EVs and interact with both sides but currently lack seamless tools to manage energy flows.

Bridging these gaps is more of a coordination challenge than a purely technological one.

The Real-World Use Cases

EV batteries are large energy storage units on wheels. The question is: How do we use them effectively in the grid? Three main applications emerge:

  1. Grid Services – Utilities could tap into EVs for services such as frequency regulation, but the business case remains weak due to complexity and low financial returns.
  2. Backup Power – Using an EV as a source of electricity during an outage can be life-saving, but automating it like a traditional generator is difficult, as the vehicle is not normally on standby.
  3. Peak Management – The most practical use case today. By shifting charging times and even discharging EVs during peak demand, homeowners can reduce energy costs and stabilize the grid.

The AC vs. DC Debate

One of the biggest technical questions is whether V2X should be AC (alternating current) or DC (direct current).

  • AC (Current Standard) – Works well for simple applications like powering appliances during an outage but requires costly transformers for full-home integration, on top of adding cost and complexity to vehicles.
  • DC (Emerging Trend) – More efficient, aligns better with solar and stationary batteries, and could eliminate the need for onboard inverters in EVs. In some countries, like China and South Korea, EV charging is already moving towards DC only.

As with many industries before, from telecom to computing, the evolution of EVs in the energy system will likely follow a path of hybridization before settling into a dominant model.

Utilities Must Adapt to a Decentralized Future

Historically, utilities have operated in a world where they controlled all energy generation. Now, with distributed energy resources (DERs) like EVs, solar, and batteries, they must adapt to a more dynamic, customer-driven model. The shift from treating users as passive “subscribers” to active “customers” is still underway.

Final Thoughts

V2X is not just a technology—it’s a shift in how we think about energy. The challenges are real, from business models to infrastructure, but the potential is enormous. As utilities, automakers, and consumers adjust, the future of energy will be shaped by how we integrate these powerful mobile storage assets into the grid.

A huge thank you to Rob Safrata for hosting me on the podcast and for a great discussion!

Navigating “America First”: Strategic Focus for Canada’s Energy Transition

The “America First” trade policy and executive orders recently signed by President Trump present significant challenges for Canada’s energy sector, particularly for Québec. These measures include proposed tariffs on Canadian goods, a divergence in climate policies, and the rollback of electric vehicle (EV) incentives in the U.S. Given the deep integration of the North American auto and energy sectors, these developments have far-reaching implications for Canada’s energy transition.

(LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-america-first-strategic-focus-canadas-energy-marcoux-vxmnc/)

Key Challenges

1. Tariffs and Market Competitiveness

The U.S. has proposed a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, including energy exports like oil, natural gas, and hydroelectricity. Québec’s hydroelectric sector, which relies heavily on electricity exports to the U.S., would be directly affected. Such tariffs would undermine Hydro Québec’s competitiveness for long-term contracts and its ability to trade on short-term spot markets in the U.S. Northeast. Canadian oil, already trading at a discount, would face further price pressure, exacerbating financial challenges for oil-producing provinces. This situation also raises questions about the viability of the Keystone XL pipeline, which was promoted by President Trump but may be rendered unnecessary if tariffs further reduce the competitiveness of Canadian oil. This contradiction adds to the uncertainty of future energy investments.

2. Reduced EV Availability

The rollback of U.S. EV incentives and infrastructure programs could hinder the growth of Canada’s EV supply chain. The integration of the North American auto sector means U.S. policies directly influence Canadian markets. A decrease in EV availability in the U.S. could similarly limit their availability in Canada, hindering the adoption of clean transportation technologies and delaying progress toward national emissions reduction targets.

3. Trade Restrictions and Supply Chain Risks

Potential U.S. trade restrictions on imports from countries like China or export controls on critical technologies could delay Canada’s energy transition. Key technologies at risk include:

  • Artificial Intelligence (AI): Vital for optimizing energy systems, enabling smart grids, and improving energy efficiency across sectors.
  • Energy storage systems: Batteries are essential for renewable energy integration, ensuring grid stability and balancing supply and demand. Advanced systems like lithium-ion and solid-state technologies play a critical role in renewable energy adoption and electric vehicles.
  • Grid management software: Necessary for modernizing energy infrastructure.
  • Solar and wind components: Turbines, panels, and related systems.
  • Transmission and distribution grid equipment: Critical for efficient electricity transmission and grid reliability, particularly with the integration of renewable energy. Transformers are currently in short supply, while DC transmission systems (HVDC) are an expanding market.

If Canada mirrors U.S. restrictions, it could face higher costs and limited access to these critical technologies.

Strategic Responses

Strengthening Domestic Supply Chains

Canada has a much smaller economy than the U.S., the EU, or China. It cannot realistically build supply chains for all components of the energy sector. Governments must focus on critical segments or areas where Canada has a competitive advantage. Key strategies include:

  • Re-shoring Manufacturing: Establishing domestic production for segments such as EV batteries, wind turbine components, and transformers to reduce reliance on foreign imports.
  • Trade Diversification: Expanding partnerships with Europe, South Korea, and Japan to secure access to essential materials and technologies.
  • Critical Material Access: Investing in domestic mining and recycling of rare earth elements and other vital materials.
  • Public-Private Partnerships: Supporting innovation and local manufacturing through subsidies and targeted investments.

Examples of focus areas include:

  • Critical Minerals: Leveraging Canada’s abundant reserves of lithium, nickel, and cobalt to support battery manufacturing.
  • Hydroelectric Power and Energy Storage: Capitalizing on Québec’s hydroelectric capacity, with east-west integration, and integrating advanced energy storage systems.
  • Renewable Hydrogen Production: Using renewable energy to produce green hydrogen for industrial decarbonization, particularly in sectors like steel and chemicals.

Prioritizing Local Energy Use

Québec’s abundant hydroelectric resources present an opportunity to focus on local decarbonization rather than exports. Electrification of transportation, heating, and heavy industry within Québec could reduce emissions while insulating the province from volatile export markets.

Similarly, while Canada’s oil and gas sectors warrant support in the near term, governments must balance investments against long-term trends. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a global decline in oil and gas demand as economies transition to net-zero emissions, and China’s consumption of oil likely peaked in 2024. Resources should be prioritized for decarbonization initiatives and the development of clean energy technologies to build long-term economic resilience and adaptability.

Conclusion

The challenges posed by the “America First” trade policy highlight the importance of strategic focus for Canada’s energy transition. By investing in resilient supply chains, emphasizing local energy use, and targeting key sectors where Canada has competitive advantages—such as hydroelectricity, critical minerals, and renewable hydrogen—Canada and Québec can strengthen their energy sectors, enhance economic resilience, and accelerate the transition to a sustainable energy future.

Naviguer dans «?America First?» : un axe stratégique pour la transition énergétique du Canada

La politique «?America First?» et les décrets signés récemment par le président Trump posent des défis importants au secteur énergétique du Canada, particulièrement au Québec. Ces mesures incluent des tarifs proposés sur les biens canadiens, une divergence dans les politiques climatiques et un recul des incitatifs pour les véhicules électriques (VE) aux États-Unis. Compte tenu de l’intégration profonde des secteurs nord-américains de l’automobile et de l’énergie, ces développements ont des implications importantes pour la transition énergétique du Canada.

(LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naviguer-dans-america-first-un-axe-strat%C3%A9gique-pour-la-benoit-marcoux-yiefc)

Défis principaux

1. Tarifs et compétitivité du marché

Les États-Unis ont proposé un tarif de 25 % sur les biens canadiens, y compris les exportations d’énergie, comme le pétrole, le gaz naturel et l’hydroélectricité. Le secteur hydroélectrique du Québec, qui dépend fortement des exportations d’électricité vers les États-Unis, serait directement touché. De tels tarifs affaibliraient la compétitivité d’Hydro Québec pour les contrats à long terme et sa capacité à échanger sur les marchés spot à court terme dans le nord-est des États-Unis. Le pétrole canadien, qui se négocie déjà à prix réduit, subirait une pression supplémentaire sur les prix, aggravant les défis financiers des provinces productrices de pétrole. Cette situation soulève aussi des questions sur la viabilité de l’oléoduc Keystone XL, promu par le président Trump, mais qui pourrait devenir inutile si les tarifs réduisent davantage la compétitivité du pétrole canadien. Cette contradiction ajoute à l’incertitude des futurs investissements énergétiques.

2. Réduction de la disponibilité des VE

Le recul des incitatifs et des programmes d’infrastructure pour les VE aux États-Unis pourrait freiner la croissance de la chaîne d’approvisionnement des VE au Canada. L’intégration du secteur automobile nord-américain signifie que les politiques américaines influencent directement les marchés canadiens. Une diminution de la disponibilité des VE aux États-Unis pourrait également limiter leur disponibilité au Canada, freinant l’adoption des technologies de transport propre et retardant les progrès vers les objectifs nationaux de réduction des émissions.

3. Restrictions commerciales et risques pour les chaînes d’approvisionnement

Les restrictions commerciales potentielles des États-Unis sur les importations de pays comme la Chine ou les contrôles à l’exportation sur les technologies critiques pourraient retarder la transition énergétique du Canada. Les technologies clés en danger incluent :

  • Intelligence artificielle (IA) : Essentielle pour optimiser les systèmes énergétiques, permettre des réseaux intelligents et améliorer l’efficacité énergétique dans tous les secteurs.
  • Systèmes de stockage d’énergie : Les batteries sont indispensables pour l’intégration des énergies renouvelables, garantissant la stabilité du réseau et équilibrant l’offre et la demande. Les systèmes avancés, tels que les batteries au lithium-ion et à l’état solide, jouent un rôle crucial dans l’adoption des énergies renouvelables et des véhicules électriques.
  • Logiciels de gestion des réseaux : Nécessaires pour moderniser les infrastructures énergétiques.
  • Composants solaires et éoliens : Turbines, panneaux et systèmes connexes.
  • Équipements de transmission et de distribution : Essentiels pour la transmission efficace de l’électricité et la fiabilité du réseau, en particulier avec l’intégration des énergies renouvelables. Les transformateurs sont actuellement en pénurie, tandis que les systèmes de transmission en courant continu (HVDC) représentent un marché en expansion.

Si le Canada suit les restrictions américaines, il pourrait faire face à des coûts plus élevés et à un accès limité à ces technologies critiques.

Réponses stratégiques

Renforcer les chaînes d’approvisionnement nationales

Le Canada dispose d’une économie bien plus petite que celles des États-Unis, de l’UE ou de la Chine. Il ne peut pas raisonnablement construire des chaînes d’approvisionnement pour tous les composants du secteur énergétique. Les gouvernements doivent se concentrer sur les segments critiques ou les domaines où le Canada a un avantage concurrentiel. Les stratégies clés incluent :

  • Relocalisation de la fabrication : Établir une production nationale pour des segments tels que les batteries pour VE, les composants d’éoliennes et les transformateurs afin de réduire la dépendance aux importations étrangères.
  • Diversification commerciale : Élargir les partenariats avec l’Europe, la Corée du Sud et le Japon pour sécuriser l’accès aux matériaux et technologies essentiels.
  • Accès aux matériaux critiques : Investir dans l’exploitation minière nationale et le recyclage des terres rares et d’autres matériaux vitaux.
  • Partenariats public-privé : Soutenir l’innovation et la fabrication locale grâce à des subventions et des investissements ciblés.

Exemples de domaines prioritaires :

  • Minéraux critiques : Tirer parti des abondantes réserves de lithium, de nickel et de cobalt du Canada pour soutenir la fabrication de batteries.
  • Hydroélectricité et stockage d’énergie : Capitaliser sur la capacité hydroélectrique du Québec, avec intégration est-ouest, et intégrer des systèmes de stockage d’énergie avancés.
  • Production d’hydrogène renouvelable : Utiliser les énergies renouvelables pour produire de l’hydrogène vert destiné à la décarbonisation industrielle, en particulier dans des secteurs comme l’acier et la chimie.

Prioriser l’utilisation locale de l’énergie

Les abondantes ressources hydroélectriques du Québec offrent une opportunité de se concentrer sur la décarbonisation locale plutôt que sur les exportations. L’électrification des transports, du chauffage et des industries lourdes au Québec pourrait réduire les émissions tout en isolant la province des marchés d’exportation volatils.

De même, bien que les secteurs pétroliers et gaziers du Canada méritent un soutien à court terme, les gouvernements doivent équilibrer les investissements face aux tendances à long terme. L’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE) prévoit un déclin mondial de la demande de pétrole et de gaz à mesure que les économies passent à des émissions nettes nulles, et la consommation de pétrole de la Chine a probablement atteint son pic en 2024. Les ressources devraient être priorisées pour les initiatives de décarbonisation et le développement de technologies d’énergie propre afin de renforcer la résilience économique et l’adaptabilité à long terme.

Conclusion

Les défis posés par la politique «?America First?» soulignent l’importance d’une approche stratégique pour la transition énergétique du Canada. En misant sur des chaînes d’approvisionnement robustes, en favorisant une utilisation accrue de l’énergie produite localement et en se concentrant sur des secteurs clés où le Canada détient un avantage compétitif, comme l’hydroélectricité, les minéraux critiques et l’hydrogène vert, le Canada et le Québec peuvent renforcer leur secteur énergétique, améliorer leur résilience économique et accélérer la transition vers un avenir énergétique respectueux de l’environnement.

The Maslow Pyramid of EV Charging

Remember the Maslow pyramid? It is often used to illustrate human needs, with the largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom, and the self-fulfillment needs at the top. This idea also applies to light-duty EV charging infrastructure.

The EV charging pyramid represents what I expect the market shares of the basic charging use cases to be once the EV charging infrastructure is more widely deployed, in a decade or so. The market share is expressed as the overall percentage of the delivered energy for each case. Obviously, these market shares are only indicative and will vary between regions, depending on various factors such as the rate of home ownership and urbanization. Also, individual EV drivers will have different charging patterns, with some drivers using some use cases much more than others.

These four segments are the fundamental use cases for light-duty EV charging. Each has its own characteristics (see table below). Overall, home charging is the largest segment because it is the most convenient and the least expensive mean to charge an EV. On-the-go fast charging (like going to a gas station) is the least convenient and the most expensive. Charging at various destinations is in between these extremes. 

All EV drivers may use all of these options, and each one is good in its own way. However, some drivers will use some of them more than others. For example, a salesperson often driving to see clients in distant cities may use a lot of on-the-go charging, whereas a retired couple may only use home charging, except for occasional trips to see family in other cities. A city dweller parking on the street may primarily use destination charging at work or while shopping, but use home charging at their cottage. The pyramid only illustrates the overall market share; it does not represent individual patterns.

The key then is to match the speed of charging to the expected duration of stay. For on-the-go charging, a driver is stopping to charge the vehicle. Charging needs to be as fast as possible. For destination and home charging, charging occurs while the EV is parked and the driver doing something, like shopping, visiting or sleeping — it’s charging while parked. Charging time needs to match park duration. Some destinations have longer park duration than others, as one may spend a day at a national park (good for Level 2 charging) but less than an hour at a shopping mall (good for a moderate fast charger). The basic rule is that the charging speed needs to match the expected dwell time at a site. Too fast or too slow charging both result in suboptimal customer experience.

Stopping to Charge vs. Charging While Parked

The other characteristics stem from this observation. 

Convenience. On-the-go charging at a service station is the least convenient: drivers only go there for the chore of charging and, perhaps also for a restroom break and to get coffee. Other cases are more convenient, as charging occurs naturally while the drivers do what they need to do — no time wasted waiting. 

Criticality. On-the-go charging is the most critical situation, since drivers usually stop with a nearly depleted battery. If there is a line-up or if a charger is broken, they are stuck unless there are other fast chargers in the vicinity. In contrast, destination charging does not require waiting for a fully depleted battery. Drivers will instead charge their vehicles whenever they have the opportunity. And there are far more Level 2 chargers than fast chargers — there’s always another one nearby.

Costs. On-the-go charging is also the most expensive to use, as these fast chargers have the most expensive hardware and the highest power costs. Destination chargers are less expensive than on-the-go chargers, cost less in electricity and may be subsidized to attract shoppers. Home charging is the least expensive, sometime as little as a dollar for a full charge, especially when charging at off-peak electricity rates. Level 1 (120 volts) chargers may be used at home, avoiding the purchase of a more expensive Level 2 charger. 

Public site owners and charging operators need to understand the pyramid to optimize customer experience and the economics of charging sites. Too many sites have been built with a poor match between charging speed and stay duration: 

  • Moderate (50 kW) fast chargers along highways (too slow) backed up by a Level 2 charger (way too slow).
  • Moderate fast chargers at a hotel (too fast, as drivers need to come back to move the vehicle after charging). 
  • Very fast chargers at a shopping mall (too fast, as the drivers needs to wait for charging to complete before shopping).
  • Level 2 charger at a fast food restaurant (too slow, as a few minutes of charging doesn’t provide a meaningful charge).

Hopefully, as more charging site owners and operators become EV drivers themselves, we will see emerging a public charging infrastructure that is convenient and resilient, supporting the transition away from fossil-fuel vehicle.

Preconceptions on EVs Lead to Wrong Infrastructure Decisions

Drivers of internal combustion vehicles far outnumber drivers of electrical vehicles (EV). Meaning: they are often the ones deciding on EV matters.

Based on a few formal surveys and many ad hoc conversations with drivers and deciders, I unfortunately see that preconceptions on EVs too often drive decision-making on EV matters. I compiled the differences in thinking for combustion and electrical vehicle drivers in the table below. Warning: reality might shock combustion drivers.

What Combustion Drivers Think What EV Drivers Know
Full charge: “You need to charge to 100% before driving.”Charge enough: “I just need to have enough battery to get to where I need to go.”
Long charge time: “It takes much longer to charge your EV than to fuel an ordinary car.”Quick charge (1): “It takes seconds to plug my EV and then I usually go do whatever I need to do.”
Quick charge (2): “If I’m on a road trip, I try to charge at my destination (hotel, cottage…) so I don’t have to wait.”
Quick charge (3): “If I can’t charge home, I get my car to charge overnight at a curbside station, at my workplace, or while shopping.”
Don’t stand there! “Don’t you hate standing beside your car, sweeting, freezing or being rained on, while holding a filthy gas nozzle?”
Slower, but who cares? “Yah, it takes a bit longer to charge at a fast-charging station, but I only charge there as a last resort and very rarely, so it doesn’t matter much since I saved so much time rarely going to gas stations.”
Range anxiety: “Will you have enough charge in the battery to get where you want to go?”Mostly charge at home: “I mostly charge at home and most of my driving is within the 400 km (250 mi.) range of my vehicle.”
Charging anxiety: “Will I be able to charge when I get to the charging station? Will there be a problem such as a broken charger, blocked access, a long waiting line or a combustion vehicle in the stall? How long will it take to charge with this fast charger?”
No charging station: “I don’t see charging stations around where I live.”Easy to find: “Charging sites are easy to find using apps like ChargeHub or PlugShare.”
Good geographic coverage: “Fast charging geographic coverage outside cities is quite good, but there may not be enough charging stalls at peak times.”
Slow is best: “I rather charge at one of the many slow (level 2) destination chargers, often for free, instead of waiting at a fast charger.”
Poor layout: “Why are fast chargers in the remotest corner of the parking lot, or in the middle of nowhere, without a canopy, and requiring backing up? 
No amenities: Is there a restroom and a place to get coffee at this charging station?”
It’s complicated: “Why so many different price scheme? How do I pay? Why do I need to have so many apps on my phone? Don’t you want my business?”
Unreliable public chargers: “Public chargers, especially fast ones, are often broken.”

Messaging and actions to accelerate EV adoption by combustion drivers need to dispel these preconceptions. However, these are different than the messaging and the actions necessary to meet the needs of EV drivers. For example, increasing visibility of charging stations will help combustion drivers realize that there are, indeed, many charging stations around, but it won’t help EV drivers who know how to find them anyway. However, having drive-through layouts and canopies would be greatly appreciated by EV drivers. 

The dichotomy between combustion and EV drivers makes it difficult for government to promote EV adoption while ensuring that the right infrastructure is deployed. This contradiction also led to many charging operators and site owners to install chargers which ended up being lightly used, either because they are not well matched to the site, not well situated, poorly laid out or simply unattended and broken.

Better understanding what combustion drivers and EV drivers think will help us make informed investment decisions. 

Why Are We Trying to Replicate the Gas Station Experience for EVs?

Your grandma’s rotary phone had advantages over a cell phone: it didn’t need to be recharged and the voice quality was superior. Yet, rotary phones can now only be found in museums. And it didn’t stop at cell phones: Apple came along and showed us how a smartphone has potential to be so much more. Our smartphones are now considered essential for running our day-to-day lives beyond communication — we shop, we look for directions, we take pictures; it’s now more of a personal assistant then a phone. But we need to charge them.

The same transformation is happening with EVs. EVs can do more than a combustion vehicle, being batteries on wheels designed around a core computing architecture. We’re only beginning to scratch the surface of how EVs can change our lives, with greater resiliency at home and helping integrate renewable energy sources without contributing as much to climate change.

Yet, non-EV drivers seem to assume that adoption of EVs will be limited until they can be recharged in a time comparable to fueling a combustion vehicle at a gas station. It’s like saying that cell phones and smartphones can’t reach mass adoption until they don’t need to be charged. 

Combustion vehicle drivers might be shocked (warning!) to learn that EV driver behavior is closer to charging a smartphone than fueling a car. EV drivers tend to charge overnight at home or opportunistically during the day, but not necessarily expecting a full charge every time. They prefer to charge at their destination using less expensive, more convenient and more reliable (but slower) level 2 chargers or slow DCFC rather than faster chargers at a “gas station” where they would have to wait and pay more for charging. Do you often “fast charge” your smartphone? I don’t.

“Gas station” charging is the most expensive way to charge in an ecosystem that is very price sensitive (like gasoline). It’s also the most time-consuming way to charge while we all need more time to do our things. Nevertheless, “gas station” charging is crucial in some situations, like along corridors during a road trip. But it’s also a last resort, used as infrequently as possible. Like a payphone in remote locations without cell coverage. But this doesn’t stop us from loving our smartphones.

Fast chargers: over-rated?

Many assume that adoption of light-duty electrical vehicles (EV) will be limited until EVs recharge as fast as combustion vehicles refuel at a gas station. That’s not quite true. The truth will not surprise many EV drivers, but (warning!) some combustion vehicle drivers might be shocked.

For EV drivers to experience a gas station-like experience, charging needs to be complete within minutes, i.e. fast charging, the faster the better, it seems. The need largely arises from the possibility of cross-country road trips, leading to an accent on fast charging along highway corridors. Who doesn’t dream of cruising top-down in a roadster on highway 66 or the Trans-Canada highway?

What’s the real need? The share of energy provided by public fast charging is around 10% to 15%, depending on where you are, and most of this is in cities, not along highway corridors. This breakdown is not surprising, as most EV drivers charge at home, which is also the least expensive place to charge. After home, workplace is the second least expensive place to charge, with some employers providing free charging. For public charging, level 2 chargers are much more economical than fast chargers to install and operate, cost less than half as expensive for drivers to use, are easier to handle (having lighter cables) and may often be more convenient (no need to wait, just park, plug and come back some hours later or the next morning). Given this, plus the fact that the range of modern EVs is more than most people usually need in a day, level 2 chargers at destinations (as well as “slow” fast chargers, like 25 kW or 50 kW) are likely to retain a higher share of charging energy than public super fast charging. Note that 25 kW or 50 kW chargers at commercial destinations like grocery stores are very convenient: you may get a week worth of veggies, milk, meat and driving in one visit, all without waiting.

Corridor fast charging is a last resort, used if other alternatives (home, workplace, and destination charging) are not suitable. This means that fast corridor chargers have relatively low time utilization, but the pattern is peaky, resulting in congestion at certain times, such as Friday afternoon as people leave town for the weekend. The low market share of fast chargers will clearly be a challenge for operators of gas stations, as 100% of fuel is now sold at gas stations. And, with high peaks, congestion will occur even with low average utilization. Operators of fast corridor chargers will have no choice but to increase prices further for captive drivers who have no other alternatives.

However, a good fast charging infrastructure along highway corridors is nevertheless essential, as EV drivers sometimes need it, when they go on road trips. Furthermore, the fast charging infrastructure is also a major showcase for people considering buying an EV. Without it, as infrequently it might be used, few combustion drivers would consider an EV.

NRCan Report: Biennial Snapshot of Canada’s Electric Charging Network

I was the principal author for this just-released primary research report on public EV charging, sponsored by Natural Resource Canada and done in collaboration with Mogile technologies, editor of the ChargeHub database. You may find a summary below and how to get the full report is at the end of this post.

As of 28 January 2022, there were 19,502 charging ports in 7,967 locations in Canada. These include 15,718 level 2 (240 V) ports and 3,784 level 3 (DCFC) ports operated by 28 charging networks. There are also six hydrogen fuelling stations for fuel-cell electrical vehicles. 

ChargePoint, Electric Circuit, Flo and Tesla are the largest charging network operators, accounting for almost 70% of the ports. However, most of the chargers are owned by the site hosts where they are located. In addition to charging network operators and site owners, major stakeholders in the public charging infrastructure include automakers, utilities, charger manufacturers, governments, and regulatory agencies. The public EV charging ecosystem is nascent, and a few competing or complementary business models have emerged to link the various stakeholders. These business models are still evolving, and stakeholders are adapting to the evolution in the market. 

Most chargers are owned by businesses. However, there are significant differences amongst Canadian regions, with comparatively more chargers owned by different levels of governments and utilities in Québec. By contrast, the governments, the not-for-profit organizations, and the utilities own relatively few chargers in the Prairies, with ownership types in British Columbian and Ontario falling somewhere in between. About 48 charging sites are on or near Indigenous lands. 

Depending on the business model used, either the charging network operator or the site owner earns revenues from charging. About half of level 2 ports are free or partially free to use. Another quarter is at $1 per hour or less. Excluding Tesla, most level 3 ports are in the $10 to $15 per hour range, often around $12 per hour.

About 60% of the charging sites are in large cities, and these sites tend to be larger and equipped with more level 2 ports (and relatively fewer level 3 ports) than rural sites. For rural sites, charger mix varies with the distance from a highway. Sites closer to a highway have relatively more level 3 chargers than any other category — they are on-the-go corridor chargers. Further out, they are destination chargers generally installed at commercial or public sites.

Food stores, restaurants, and bars, as well as health care, finance and insurance companies, are the most common amenities found within 100 m of charging sites. Automotive repair places and gasoline stations are more commonly found around level 3 sites than around level 2 sites.

With the many EV charging stakeholders having their own objectives and priorities, and often competing amongst them, interoperability is increasingly important. The ecosystem is working toward improved interoperability between the EVs and the chargers, between the chargers and the E-Mobility systems of a network operator, and between E-Mobility systems of various network operators. However, the full interoperability is clearly not achieved yet, with multiple incompatibilities present at various levels in the infrastructure. 

Usage of the charging infrastructure was estimated using data provided by some Canadian operators. Overall, Mogile assembled a dataset with nearly 2 million charging sessions in four thousand locations with level 2 or level 3 chargers (over 20% of the ports in Canada). The dataset has usage data from 2019, 2020 and 2021. Unsurprisingly, utilization of public chargers has decreased with the COVID-19 pandemic. The average duration of charging sessions has remained relatively constant, while the number of ports available to the public continued to increase. Level 3 charging sessions in the datasets lasted on average 28 minutes, and level 2 charging sessions lasted on average 2 hours and 44 minutes. There has been a slight increase in energy and power delivered from 2019 to 2021.

The weekly pattern varies greatly depending on where a charging site is located. Sites in rural areas have more charging events during the weekend, starting Friday. In general, level 2 ports are the busiest toward noon and level 3 ports are busiest in late afternoon.

Accessibility, hardware and charging issues occasionally afflict drivers attempting to charge their EVs. Most level 3 chargers are communicating to enable remote diagnostics, but some level 2 chargers are not. Cable management systems are being installed to limit potential of damage to cables and connectors. Excluding external issues such as blocked access, the typical average unavailability of communicating level 3 chargers stated by some interviewed operators is around 1%. The stated average unavailability of communicating level 2 ports is higher, around 8% or 9%. Together, these issues contribute toward the overall satisfaction of EV drivers for public charging, and drivers are more satisfied with level 2 charging than with level 3 charging based on a natural language analysis of comments left by drivers in the ChargeHub mobile app. 

The full report can be obtained at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/resource-library/3489, under the title “Biennial Snapshot of Canada’s Electric Charging Network and Hydrogen Refuelling Stations for Light-duty Vehicles”. Alternatively, you can obtain it at https://chargehub.com/en/industry/nrcan-report.html, or contact me directly. 

NRCan Report: Public EV Charging Infrastructure Gaps

I was the principal author for this just-released primary research report on public EV charging, sponsored by Natural Resource Canada and done in collaboration with Mogile Technologies, editor of the ChargeHub database.

This report identifies three categories in the Canadian electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in which gaps occur: cities, highways, and customer experience. It is based on data in the ChargeHub database, an independent, curated, user-enriched and commercially available database of public EV charging stations in North America, augmented by data from stakeholder interviews and demographic census data and geographic data. 

Generally, cities in British Columbia and Quebec have more public charging ports relative to their population than cities in other provinces, and city EV drivers use them more than drivers outside cities. As for major highways, coverage is at 61%, with most of the gaps in the Prairies. For customer experience, EV drivers consider range anxiety (a vehicle issue: “Will I be able to get where I am going?”) a less serious concern than charging anxiety (an infrastructure issue: “Will I be able to charge at this site?”).

Although the geographic coverage of the EV charging infrastructure is relatively good, the charging capacity is stretched in many areas, resulting in a suboptimal customer experience. Fast charging sites tend to be larger in cities, and Tesla fast charging sites are, on average, four times larger than non-Tesla sites. Meeting the increasing charging needs of EV drivers and promoting adoption of EVs will need to account for existing capacity utilization in the immediate area where new sites are considered, especially at peak driving times such as Fridays before a long weekend. 

Interviewees stated that public charging sites generally have a challenging intrinsic economic case for their operators and site owners, which is constraining expansion. A large portion of charging sites is currently only financially undertaken when subsidized in some way, whether by governments, by utilities, by automakers or by site owners. Business owners likely justify supporting public charging sites based on the possible indirect benefits they may bring, such as attracting drivers and customers or improving public image. In this context, stakeholders see the financial support from NRCan’s infrastructure deployment programs as essential. 

Optimizing future EV charging infrastructure deployment will need to account for not only coverage but also capacity needs. For example, adding ports to an existing site, or adding a new site in the vicinity, may be highly beneficial for EV drivers if there is regular congestion and if the new capacity can be demonstrated to relieve current or upcoming congestion. Furthermore, due to the low levels of satisfaction with customer experience for public charging, we recommend that NRCan make the driver experience a key measure in assessing the performance of the EV charging infrastructure. 

The full report can be obtained at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/resource-library/3489, under the title “Identification of Current and Future Infrastructure Deployment Gaps”, or contact me directly. 

EV Charging Use Cases

Charging EVs can be done at many places with various complementary use cases. This is quite different than fueling combustion vehicles, where the only option is to go to a service station. I am providing here the breakdown of the common EV charging use cases that I use for analysis when reporting on the industry.

  1. Home Charging.
    • Detached homes with their own parking spaces (and access to electricity).
    • Multi-unit residential buildings (using the shared electrical infrastructure).
  2. Public Charging. 
    • At a destination (when parked for hours).
      • Commercial or public sites (such as food stores and restaurants).
      • Curbside (using public on-street parking spaces).
    • On-the-go charging (when stopping for minutes).
      • Community charging (for commuting in a city, such has at a convenience store).
      • Corridor charging (along highways for intercity travel, such as at a rest area).
        • Light duty vehicles (LDV)
        • Medium and heavy duty vehicles (MHV)
  3. Workplace Charging (while employees are at work).
  4. Fleet Charging (at a depot).
    • Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV)
    • Medium and Heavy Vehicle (MHV)

Based on energy supplied, roughly 70% of LDV charging occurs at home, with level 2 charging accounting for about 80% of home charging[i]. The rest is mostly in public places, and some charging is at workplaces. 

For detached homes with their own parking spaces installing a dedicated EVSE is generally feasible at a reasonable cost, often wall-mounted in a garage or on an external wall. EVs may also be charged at level 1, from a 120 V plug. While level 1 charging is slower, it is generally sufficient for typical daily commuting when the EV is charged overnight. 

For multi-unit residential buildings, installing chargers and their electric distribution cabling may be highly problematic. For example, the electrical service entrance may not be suitable for the additional load from large-scale EV charging. Furthermore, cost allocation amongst owners or renters may need to be negotiated. Homeowner associations may provide a forum for discussions, but their rules may also hinder installation of chargers. Therefore, EV drivers living in a condo, a strata or an apartment building may have to rely on public or workplace charging sites. 

Destination charging refers to charging when one can expect to be parked for a few hours, elsewhere than at home. For example, food stores and restaurants are commonly found around destination charging sites. These are typically level 2 chargers. 

With on-the-go charging sites, drivers expect to stay only a few minutes while charging, such as at a convenience store or at a highway rest area. These are much like legacy gas stations, and normally level 3 chargers. Many of these charging locations may serve the local community for drivers not having access to home or workplace charging. Others are for corridor charging, serving intercity travellers (like service areas for LDV) and commercial vehicles (like truck stops for MHV). 

Many workplaces are starting to offer EV charging for their employees, either at level 1 or level 2. This charging may or may not be free to the employees, and it may or may not be available to visitors. For large installations, workplace EVSEs may coordinate with the building management systems to avoid excessive demand charges. 

In addition to charging of light-duty passenger vehicles (use cases 1 to 3 above), fleet charging is an important segment. Fleet charging might include light-duty commercial vehicles, such as taxis, as well as local delivery trucks, long-haul trucks, school buses, and public transit buses. Fleet charging is a combination of level 2, such as for overnight charging of light-duty vehicles at a depot, and level 3, especially for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. For large fleet depots, power requirements may reach megawatts, which may have a significant impact on the local distribution grid.


[i]        The Geography of EV Charging, Understanding how regional climates impact charging and driving behavior, FleetCarma, 2020, p. 13.

Managing Residential Light-Duty EV Charging – An Overview

Big Idea

Through behavioral or direct control approaches, managed charging encourages customers to charge at times when grid and generation capacity is available. Likewise, it discourages charging during peak demand or low renewable generation periods. In doing so, it reduces the need to build additional grid and expensive or greenhouse gas emitting generators to meet the electric system load. Managed EV charging makes optimal use of existing infrastructure, lowers costs that would otherwise be incurred, and benefits ratepayers.

Analysis

Analysts show steep forecasts of the number of light-duty EVs, in parallel with increasing space and water heating electrification, adoption of electrified industrial processes and expansion of intermittent renewable generation. It’s a perfect storm of the less-know new EV loads, the highly coordinated new heating loads, and the unpredictability of new renewable supply. 

Many electric utilities are rightly concerned by the impact EV charging may have on their resource plans, both in terms of energy and capacity, but are also starting to see that managed — or “smart” — EV charging may be part of the solution to the disruption brought about by the electrification of the economy and the intermittency of renewables. So, although the grid impact of unmanaged light-duty EV charging may, by itself, be relatively modest or even beneficial, managed EV charging may become a new tool for utilities to provide grid services (such as peak shifting or even frequency regulations) or to help optimize customer charges. 

Light-duty managed charging aims to shift EV charging to times when generation and grid capacity is available, considering the load that needs to be served, the demand on the electrical system and its markets. To effect managed charging, utilities may rely on multiple approaches, sometimes simultaneously:

  • Residential unmetered incentives.
  • Residential dynamic rates.
  • Direct residential load control (V1G).
  • Residential Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G).

Rates and incentives are behavioral approaches, attempting to nudge customer conduct, while load control systems and V2G take action on the electrical equipment itself, without customers intervening. Managed charging programs often rely on more than one option. For instance, a utility can use unmetered incentives to get customers to opt in to time-of-use rates. 

However, utilities are not the only ones vying to influence the charging patterns of EV drivers. There are indeed many stakeholders vying for attention in the EV charging ecosystem: utilities, cities, charging operators, local businesses, real-estate developers, state/provincial governments, federal government, regulators, automakers, charger manufacturers, etc. For example, installation of chargers at commercial sites and the price charged to drivers (if any) is primarily driven by business considerations, such as attracting customers (a business owner objective), and not to benefit the grid (a utility objective) or to ensure sufficient charging coverage or capacity (which may be government objectives). Another example: utilities and their regulators may set electricity rates charged to public charging station owners but charging operators (which may not own the station) usually control end-user pricing and service conditions. 

Because EV charging market signals are still relatively weak and could even be in opposition, greater collaboration and alignment among EV stakeholders, with better understanding of driver behavior, will be important for the EV charging infrastructure to develop harmoniously over at least the next few years. 

Residential Light-Duty EV V2G

There’s an increasing level of interest in the industry to use the energy stored in EVs to manage demand and supply peaks, drawing on the EV batteries to support the grid, referred to as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G). In concept, V2G is similar to using stationary batteries in people’s home as a distributed energy resource, a concept that has been growing in interest, with Green Mountain Power being the first utility with tariffed home energy storage programs[i] for customers. However, in some ways, V2G has more potential than stationary batteries, but also more challenges.

With V2G, EVs may be used as distributed grid-resource batteries. Then, a plugged-in EV with a sufficiently charged battery and a bidirectional charger may get a signal to discharge the battery when called upon to support the grid (demand response) or to optimize a customer’s electricity rates (tariff optimization). 

When associated with a home energy management system, V2G may be used as a standby power source during outages, a feature referred to as Vehicle-to-Home (V2H). V2G is also related to Vehicle-to-Load (V2L), where the vehicle acts as a portable generator. Collectively, these functions are often referred to as V2X, although they all have their own characteristics, as described below.

The Case for Residential Light-Duty EV V2G

The case for residential light-duty EVs is compelling because the batteries in modern light-duty EVs are large in comparison to their daily use, being sized for intercity travel (like going to the cottage on the weekend, or an occasional trip to visit friends and family), leaving significant excess capacity for use during peaks. For example, modern long-range EVs have batteries of 60 kWh to 100 kWh, for a range of 400 km (250 mi.) to 600 km (400 mi.) — significantly more than what is required for daily commute by most drivers. This means that light-duty passenger vehicles can leave home after the morning peak with less than a full battery and still come back at the end of the day with a high remaining state of charge for use during the evening peak. 

In terms of capacity, residential V2G compares favorably to home energy storage systems and commercial EV fleets. Indeed, home energy storage systems (like the Tesla Wall, with 13,5 kWh of usable energy[ii]) have far less capacity than modern EVs. As for medium or heavy-duty fleet EVs, they have a high duty cycle, with their batteries size usually optimized for their daily routes, leaving little excess capacity for use by a V2G system during peaks, with some exceptions, such as school buses[iii].

Extracting value from residential light-duty EV V2G can be achieved at the consumer level or at the utility level, but depending on the local regulatory framework and the energy, capacity or ancillary market structure:

  • Consumers may use V2G to leverage utility dynamic rates and net metering tariffs (or other bidirectional tariffs), charging the EV when rates are low and feeding back to the grid when rates are high. Typically, the consumer would own the V2G system. The consumer (or a third-party service company hired by the consumer) controls when the EV is charged and when it is discharged, following rules to ensure that the consumer driving needs and cost objectives are met.
  • A customer’s utility may also control the V2G system to optimize grid supply, charging the EV when wholesale prices are low or when generating capacity is aplenty, and feeding back to the grid when market prices are high or capacity constrained, therefore benefitting all ratepayers. As enticement for the consumers to participate, the utility would need to subsidize the V2G system or to have a recurring payment to the consumer.
  • In some jurisdictions, third-party aggregators may act as an intermediary between consumers and the energy, capacity or ancillary markets. Consumers are compensated by a subsidy, a recurring payment, or a guaranteed rate outcome. 

However, the potential of V2G also depends on automakers. Automakers are announcing V2X features, such as Volkswagen[iv] and Hyundai[v]. Aware of the economic potential of V2G and their gatekeeper position, automakers will want to extract some value from it, especially as V2X would increase the number of charging and discharging cycles of the battery, possibly affecting its service life, the warranty costs and civil liability. Automakers could extract value from V2G a few ways, including with an ordering-time option, a one-time software option, or even as an annual or monthly software fee to enable to a V2G function.[vi] Here again, cooperation among automakers will be important as the V2G interfaces to the grid are being defined; there are some signs that such cooperation is starting to take place, as shown by the common position of the German Vehicle Association, the VDA.[vii]

V2G vs. V2H vs. V2L

V2G should be distinguished from Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) and Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) use cases, as V2H and V2L do not feedback power to the electrical grid to relieve grid constraints or optimize customer rates. 

  • V2H is analogous to using the EV battery as a standby generator for use during a power outage. A V2G vehicle, when coupled with a home energy management system, may also offer V2H. 
  • V2L is like using a portable generator to power tools at a construction site or a home refrigerator during a power outage. V2G vehicles may or may not have plugs for V2L, although this is an increasingly common EV feature. 

V2G and V2H or V2L have different power electronics and standards to meet. V2H and V2L are easier to implement as they do not have to meet grid connection standards, while V2G systems must meet DER interconnection standards. An example is Rule 21 in California which makes compliance with IEEE 2030.5 and SunSpec Common Smart Inverter Profile (CSIP) standard mandatory distributed energy resources.[viii] On the other hand, a V2H or V2L vehicle (or its supply equipment) needs to have a grid-forming inverter, while a V2G inverter acts as a grid-following power source.[ix] [x]

On-Board V2G (AC) vs. Off-Board V2G (DC)

Electrically, V2G (and V2H) may come in two varieties: on-board V2G (AC) and off-board V2G (DC).[xi]

On-Board V2G (AC)

With on-board V2G, the EV exports AC power to the grid, through a home EV supply equipment. For light-duty vehicles, the connector is SAE J1772; SAE J3072 defines the communication requirements with the supply equipment. The supply equipment needs to be bidirectional and to support the appropriate protocol with the vehicle and compatible with the local grid connection standards.

An issue is that the standard Type 1 SAE J1772 plug used in North America is a single-phase plug and does not have a dedicated neutral wire for the split phase 120/240 V service used in homes. This means that the J1772 plug can be used for V2G (feeding back to the grid at 240 V) but can’t be used directly (without an adaptor or a transformer) for split phase 120/240 V V2H. This issue reduces the customer value of the system, as AC V2G can’t readily be used as a standby generator for the home. 

Many EVs come with additional plugs, in addition to J1772, for 120/240 V V2L applications. Examples included the NEMA 5-15 120 V plug (common residential plug) and the twist-lock L14-30 split phase 120/240 V plug (often seen on portable generators). The Hyundai IONIQ 5[xii] and the GMC Hummer EV[xiii] are examples of vehicles with additional plugs. 

As of this writing, commercially available EVs in North America do not support on-board V2G, but some have been modified to test the concept for pilot programs.[xiv] However, many automakers have announced vehicles with bidirectional chargers, and possibly AC V2G, although there are little publicly available specifications. 

Off-Board V2G (DC)

With off-board V2G, the EV exports DC power to a bidirectional DC charger. 

Bidirectional charging has been supported by the CHAdeMO DC fast-charging standard for quite some time, and the Nissan Leaf has offered the feature since 2013[xv]. Several light-duty DC V2G pilots therefore used these vehicles. However, with the new Nissan Ariya electric crossover using CCS instead of CHAdeMO, Nissan effectively made CHAdeMO a legacy standard in North America.[xvi]

CCS is an alternative for off-board V2G, but, unfortunately, CCS does not yet support bidirectional charging. CharIN[xvii], the global association dedicated to CCS, is developing the standards for V2G charging[xviii]. The upcoming ISO 15118-20 is expected for the fourth quarter of 2021 and will include bidirectional charging. This will mark the official start of interoperability testing. However, it will take time to reach mass-market adoption since the new standard needs to be implemented and tested beforehand to overcome potential malfunctions on software and hardware side.[xix] BMW, Ford, Honda, and Volkswagen have all announced plans to incorporate bidirectional charging and energy management, with an implementation target of 2025, but it is not clear if this is for V2G AC or V2G DC.[xx]

A critique of off-board V2G is the high cost of bidirectional DC chargers.[xxi] A solution may be to combine the bidirectional charger with a solar inverter, integrating power electronics for residences with both solar panels and EV charging. The dcbel r16 is an example of such an integrated approach[xxii], combining a Level 2 EV charger, a DC bidirectional EV charger, MPPT solar inverters, a stationary battery charger/inverter and a home energy manager in a package that costs less than those components purchased individually.[xxiii]


[i]        See https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-storage/powerwall/ and https://greenmountainpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Battery-Storage-Tariffs-Approval.pdf, accessed 20210526

[ii]       See https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Powerwall%202_AC_Datasheet_en_northamerica.pdf, accessed 20211008.

[iii]      While medium and heavy vehicles like trucks and transit buses generally have little excess battery capacity, school buses during summer are an exception, as many remain parked during school holidays. See, for example, https://nuvve.com/buses/, accessed 20211208.

[iv]       See https://www.electrive.com/2021/01/27/vw-calls-for-more-cooperation-for-v2g/, accessed 20211220.

[v]        See https://www.etnews.com/20211101000220 (in Korean), accessed 20211210.

[vi]       For example, Stellantis targets ~€20 billion in incremental annual revenues by 2030 driven by software-enabled vehicles. See https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2021/december/stellantis-targets-20-billion-in-incremental-annual-revenues-by-2030-driven-by-software-enabled-vehicles, accessed 20211207,

[vii]      See https://www.mobilityhouse.com/int_en/magazine/press-releases/vda-v2g-vision.html, accessed 20211210.

[viii]     See https://sunspec.org/2030-5-csip/, accessed 20211006.

[ix]       See https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=236554, on page 9, accessed 20211208.

[x]        “EV V2G-AC and V2G-DC, SAE – ISO – CHAdeMO Comparison for U.S.”, John Halliwell, EPRI, April 22, 2021.

[xi]       See http://www.pr-electronics.nl/en/news/88/on-board-v2g-versus-off-board-v2g-ac-versus-dc/, accessed 20211008, for an in-depth discussion of on-board and off-board V2G.

[xii]      See https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/eco/ioniq5/highlights, accessed 20211006.

[xiii]     See https://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2021/apr/0405-hummer.html, accessed 20211008.

[xiv]     See https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-027.pdf, accessed 202112108.

[xv]      See https://www.motortrend.com/news/gmc-hummer-ev-pickup-truck-suv-bi-directional-charger/, accessed 20211008.

[xvi]     See https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128891_nissan-s-move-to-ccs-fast-charging-makes-chademo-a-legacy-standard, accessed 20211008.

[xvii]    See https://www.charin.global, accessed 20211008.

[xviii]   See https://www.charin.global/news/vehicle-to-grid-v2g-charin-bundles-200-companies-that-make-the-energy-system-and-electric-cars-co2-friendlier-and-cheaper/, accessed 20211008.

[xix]     Email received from Ricardo Schumann, Coordination Office, Charging Interface Initiative (CharIN) e.V., 20211015

[xx]      See https://www.motortrend.com/news/gmc-hummer-ev-pickup-truck-suv-bi-directional-charger/, accessed 20211008.

[xxi]     See, for example, https://thedriven.io/2020/10/27/first-vehicle-to-grid-electric-car-charger-goes-on-sale-in-australia/, accessed 20211012.,

[xxii]    See https://www.dcbel.energy/our-products/, accessed 20211012. 

[xxiii]   See https://comparesmarthomeenergy.com, accessed 20211210. 

IEEE Webinar: The Utility Business Case to Support Light Duty EV Charging

I presented this webinar on December 2nd. The link to the recording and the slides is here.

Let me know what you think!

A New Kind of Electrical Load: Charging of Long-Range Electric Vehicles

When adopting electric vehicles (EV), consumers are now favoring long-range light-duty EVs[1], with nearly all the growth coming from sales of long-range battery electric vehicles rather than short-range EVs or plug-in electric hybrids.[2] Given this development, I focus here on the unique characteristics of long-range light-duty EVs charging. Long-range EVs have three characteristics that differentiate them from other residential electrical loads:

  • EVs are large and mobile loads—they are not always connected to the grid, and not every day.
  • EV charging is highly price elastic—drivers seek the cheapest electrons.
  • Drivers easily control when to charge—charging is flexible with the large batteries and the telematics of modern long-range EVs. 

These characteristics—and especially customer behavior—mean that utilities can’t consider EVs like any other loads. Utilities need a new thinking to plan for EV charging and to assess how to best manage it to benefit ratepayers. These characteristics also have impact on public and workplace charging sites, their operators, and the businesses nearby.

Let’s see how different EV charging really is.

EVs Are Large and Mobile Loads 

Most electrical loads are fixed, like water heaters and clothes driers. Mobile loads, like cell phones, are small. But EVs are unique because they are mobile and large electrical loads. They are indeed large—typically, 4 to 8 kW for a level 2 charger, and often 100 kW or more with a public direct current fast charger (DCFC). And they are mobile: we drive our cars around (obviously) and do not always keep them plugged in when parked. In fact, parked long-range EVs are more often unplugged than plugged.

Compare this to traditional household electrical loads of a comparable magnitude, which are wired in, like water heaters, or permanently plugged, like clothes driers. Industrial loads in the 100-kW range are usually fixed and wired in.

So What?

This means that the EV charging load is less predictable than traditional electrical loads, both in space and time. An EV driver may charge at home with a level 2 charger, on the way to the cottage with a public DCFC, and on a 120-volt wall plug (level 1 charging) once they get there. Over time and with large numbers of EVs on the road, we may learn where and when EVs are being charged, on average, bringing greater predictability to this load. But, until then, we will have to go with some uncertainty. However, understanding what drive EV customer behavior and what drivers can control helps reduce uncertainty.

EV Charging Is Highly Price Elastic

EV charging is highly price elastic—an economic term meaning that consumers are sensitive to charging price and adjust accordingly. If charging prices at a given time or location rises, the demand for charging then and there should fall. Conversely, lower prices spur usage. 

Many studies confirm the high price elasticity of EV charging:

  • Comparing the charging load profile in the Canadian provinces of Ontario (with time-of use electricity pricing) and Québec (without time-of-use) shows that time-of-use pricing is delaying peak charging by almost 2 hours, with a steep increase once off-peak pricing happens.[3]
  • PG&E customers who have enrolled in EV-only rates conduct 93% of EV charging off peak; on Southern California Edison’s EV-only rate, 88% of charging is off-peak.[4]
  • A small rate differential may induce a strong tendency for overnight charging. A study assessed the impact of the peak-to-super-off-peak price ratio going from small (2:1) to large (6:1). However, the share of super off-peak charging varied little, from 78% to 85% of EV charging taking place during super off-peak period (typically after 10 PM or midnight).[5]
  • EV customers exhibit learning behavior, increasing their share of super off-peak charging and decreased their share of on-peak over time.[6]
  • When free workplace charging is offered, it is used 3 times as much as when employees must pay for it.[7]

Drivers of gasoline or diesel cars are highly responsive to local petrol prices, shopping around or timing purchases when they can, as well as seeking coupons for cheaper gas.[8] When it comes to price, EV drivers seem to act like drivers of internal combustion vehicles.

So What?

The high price elasticity of EV charging is a strong indication that pricing and monetary incentives may be used to shape the EV charging load curve—at home, at work or in public. 

This is not ignored by utilities, as “60 percent of utilities consider activities that would enable them to develop effective rate structures—such as studying EV charging ownership, behavior and rate impacts—to be the most important activity in preparing for increased EV adoption”.[9] For residential charging, driver sensibility toward prices opens the door for gamification programs and is also the main value drivers being considered for vehicle-to-grid pilots. Regarding public charging, Tesla is quietly testing out ways to incentivize its customers to charge their cars when electricity demand isn’t so high or when sites are not congested[10]—I would expect that other charging operators and utilities will also assess time-varying or dynamic pricing for public charging. 

Drivers Easily Control When to Charge

Many forms of residential loads, such as air conditioning used when it is hot and ovens at dinner time, are predictable because consumers want or need to turn them on during specific situations or at regular times. EV charging is less predictable because drivers of long-range EVs have much more control on when (and therefore where) to charge. Drivers elect to use various charging patterns, depending on their needs:

  • Residential EV charging load is well suited to respond to price signals. Modern light-duty EVs be easily programmed to begin charging at a preset time using dashboard menus or a cellphone app. If a smart home charger is installed, it too can limit charging to specific times. Drivers can also start and stop charging remotely with a car or a home charger apps.
  • EV drivers pair charging with other activities, such as spending time in stores while waiting for their vehicles to charge.[11]
  • A Reddit user posted a message received from Tesla, encouraging them to stop at select California Superchargers before 9 a.m. and after 9 p.m. over a weekend, for a lower charging price.[12]
  • Drivers using an “empty battery” pattern tend to run the battery down to a very low state of charge (SOC) before recharging, like people fueling gasoline cars stopping at a gas station perhaps once a week.[13] In fact, not charging every day is recommended by automakers.[14]
  • Another common pattern is “scheduled charging”, where drivers charge the battery at periodic intervals, even every day, regardless of the state of charge of the vehicle’s batterie.
  • For many drivers, charging once or twice a week when the battery gets low is convenient. Others charge their EV at every opportunity[15], plugging into a charger if it’s available nearby, taking advantage of the fact that they do not need to remain beside the vehicle while it is charging.

In other words, drivers of long-range EVs are flexible and control when and where to charge so that it is best for them, either because it is convenient or less expensive. 

So What?

Utilities, charging operators and business owners can leverage this flexibility, knowing the mobility and the price sensibility of EV drivers. Through price signals or promotions, they can nudge drivers to charge where and when it best suits them—to minimize stress on the grid, to balance usage of high-traffic charging sites, or to increase in-store retail sales. 

Looking Forward

With steep forecasts of the number of light-duty EVs in some areas, many electric utilities are rightly concerned by the impact EV charging may have on their resource plans, both in terms of energy and capacity. Many see managed—or “smart”—charging as a solution to this disruption. Managed charging aims to shift EV charging to times when capacity is available in generation and in the grid. To effect managed charging, utilities may rely on metered rates, unmetered incentives, load control, or, very often, a combination of those approaches. Rates and incentives are behavioral approaches, attempting to nudge customer conduct, while load control works with the loads themselves. 

However, utilities are not the only ones trying to influence the charging patterns EV drivers. There are indeed many stakeholders in the EV charging ecosystem: utilities, cities, charging operators, local businesses, real-estate developers, state/provincial governments, federal government, regulators, automakers, charger manufacturers, etc. For example, installation of chargers at commercial sites and their charging rates is primarily driven by business considerations, such as attracting customers (a business owner objective), and not to benefit the grid (a utility objective) or to ensure sufficient coverage or capacity for EV drivers (which are government objectives). Another example: utilities and their regulators may set rates for public charging stations, but charging operators control end-user pricing and service conditions. 

Greater collaboration and alignment among these stakeholders, with better understanding of driver behavior, will be essential for the EV charging infrastructure to develop harmoniously. 


[1] Long-range electric vehicles (EV) typically have an EPA-rated range of around 250 miles (400 km) or more, with batteries of at least 60 kWh. Examples in 2021 include the Tesla Model 3 and the Kia Niro EV. Shorter range EVs also exist, like some Nissan Leafs, along with plug-in hybrids vehicles, like the Toyota RAV4 Prime.

[2] Long-Term Electric Vehicle Outlook 2020, BloombergNEF, May 19, 2020, page 65.

[3] Charge the North project, Presentation to the Infrastructure and Grid Readiness Working Group by Matt Stevens, FleetCarma, September 2019, page 14.

[4] Beneficial Electrification of Transportation, The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), January 2019, p. 66.

[5] Final Evaluation for San Diego Gas & Electric’s Plug?in Electric Vehicle TOU Pricing and Technology Study, Nexant, Inc., February 20, 2014.

[6] Final Evaluation for San Diego Gas & Electric’s Plug?in Electric Vehicle TOU Pricing and Technology Study, Nexant, 2014, p.44.

[7] Employees with free workplace charging get 22% of their charging energy from work, while employees with paid workplace charging get 7% of their charging energy from work. Charge the North project, Presentation to the Infrastructure and Grid Readiness Working Group by Matt Stevens, FleetCarma, September 2019, page 13.

[8] See https://voxeu.org/article/gasoline-demand-more-price-responsive-you-might-have-thought, accessed 20191107.

[9] Black & Veatch 2018 Strategic Directions: Smart Cities & Utilities Report, Black & Veatch, 2018, pages 10. 

[10] See https://insideevs.com/features/454482/getting-best-deal-tesla-superchargers, accessed 20210416.

[11] See https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Public-EV-Charging-Business-Models-for-Retail-Site-Hosts.pdf. accessed 20210416.

[12] See https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/jkhdx8/supercharging_discount_this_weekend_in_california/, accessed 20210416.

[13] The Life of the EV: Some Car Stories, Laura McCarty and , Brian Grunkemeyer, FlexCharging, presented at the 33rd Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS33), Portland , Oregon June 14-17, 2020, page 6.

[14] See, for instance, the recommendations of Hyundai at https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127732_hyundai-has-5-reminders-for-making-your-ev-battery-last-longer.

[15] Charging frequency of private owned e-cars in Germany 2019, Published by Evgenia Koptyug, Oct 21, 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1180985/electric-cars-charging-frequency-germany/, accessed 20210305.

Presentation at the EV Charging Infrastructure Summit

Today, I presented at this conference.

This presentation provided real-life insights into developing a sound EV strategy for utilities and cities. Using from data ChargeHub, I shared best practices to keep in mind as public charging infrastructure is developed. These suggestions are inspired by the actions of forward-thinking utilities and governments, which ChargeHub has had the privilege of assisting with data and strategic advice over the last few years.

Done right, EVs prove to be good for utilities, their ratepayers, and all citizens.

You can download the presentation and the speaker notes here:

IEEE Webinar: “The Business Case for Utilities Supporting Public EV Charging”

Today, I gave a webinar for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) entitled “The Business Case for Utilities Supporting Public EV Charging”. I got quite a few good questions. For everyone to see, I am posting the slides here

Do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any question. 

EV Charging Puts Downward Pressure on Electricity Rates

Real-world experience from utilities with a relatively high penetration of light-duty EVs shows that EV charging brings additional utility revenues that vastly exceed the costs to generate and deliver the additional energy. This may be surprising given the concerns expressed in some industry opinion pieces on the ability of the grid to support EVs. However, in California, with high EV penetration and otherwise relatively low average residential load, only 0.15% of EVs required a service line or distribution system upgrade.[1] At a system level, a Hydro-Quebec study shows that average home charging of an EV draws only 600 watts on peak – a small amount.[2] It is worth noting that these two examples do not even rely on EV load management, which would further lower contribution to peak load. 

In practice, many factors contribute to mitigating the impact of unmanaged EV charging on the grid. For instance, many owners of long-range EVs only charge at home once or twice a week, and not necessarily at peak system time. Also, many EV drivers are simply charging off a standard 120 V wall plug – slow but enough in most circumstances. More and more drivers charge at their workplace or at public stations, with diversified load curves. At the local level, distribution transformers used for residential customers are typically loaded at 25% to 30% of their rating; a few hours a year may be above the kVA rating of the transformer, but with little consequence.[3]

If anything, the advent of EVs may get electric utilities growing again: current year-over-year electricity consumption growth (kWh) averages below 1% in North America but was about 2.5% as recently in the 1990s.[4] Perhaps incredibly, yearly growth was about 8% to 10% in the 1950s and 1960s, as a wave of electrification propelled the economy. The ADN of electric utilities includes building the electricity grid and adding capacity.

Looking forward, various forecasts of the electricity use from EV adoption range from a fraction of a percent to perhaps 2% per year[5] – not negligible, but clearly manageable in view of past growth rates. 

Overall, grid impacts of light-duty EV load profile over at least the next decade should be relatively modest and net economic benefits from additional utility revenue vastly exceed costs. Those benefits will exert a downward pressure on rates for all utility customers – not just to those driving EVs. For example, Avista estimates that the net present value to ratepayers of a single EV on its system is $1,206 without managed charging.[6] Furthermore, shifting charging to off-peak or high renewable generation periods further improves benefits – up to $1,603 per EV for Avista. Furthermore, EV drivers also gain from lower maintenance and operating costs. And besides, the switch to EVs significantly reduce greenhouse gas and other harmful air pollutant emissions.
This post was initially published at https://chargehub.com/en/blog/index.php/2020/03/25/ev-charging-puts-downward-pressure-on-rates/.


[1] Joint IOU Electric Vehicle Load Research – 7th Report, June 19, 2019.

[2] Public Fast Charging Service for Electric Vehicles, Hydro-Québec, R-4060-2018, HQD-1, document 1.

[3] Electric Power Distribution Handbook, T.A. Short, chapter 5. Some winter-peaking utilities are even planning the overloading of distribution transformer, counting on the low ambient temperature to cool it down.

[4] https://data.nrel.gov/files/90/EFS_71500_figure_data%20(1).xlsx, figure 2.1, for US data. 

[5] For examples of forecast electricity use from EV adoption, see: 
– Mai et al., Electrification Futures Study, page 82. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf.
– Canadian electric vehicle transition – the difference between evolution and revolution, EY Strategy, October 2019, page 9. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_ca/topics/oil-and-gas/canadian-electric-vehicle-transition-the-difference-between-revolution-or-evolution.pdf.

[6] Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Pilot Final Report, Avista Corp., October 18, 2019.