september 27, 2011 steve bossart , project management center

FSO Smart Grid Overview July 23, 2009

Environmental Impacts of Smart Grid & Challenges of Connecting Electric Vehicles

September 27, 2011Steve Bossart, Project Management Center

2

Topics

• Case for modernizationMain topics

• Environmental impacts • Electric vehicles

Other topics• Field projects• Metrics & benefits• Smart Grid maturity model• Smart Grid organizations• Barriers and challenges

3

Case for Grid Modernization

44 4

Why Modernize the Grid?• Today’s grid is aging and outmoded• Unreliability is costing consumers billions of dollars• Today’s grid is vulnerable to attack and natural disaster• An extended loss of today’s grid could be catastrophic to

our security, economy and quality of life• Today’s grid does not address the 21st century power

supply challenges• Adverse trends associated with the grid

- Costs, reliability, peak loads, asset underutilization, TLRs, grid divorce

• The benefits of a modernized grid are substantial

5

Value Proposition Cost to Modernize• $338-$476B over 20 years

– $ 82-90 B for transmission – $232-$339 B for distribution– $24-46 B for consumer

• $17-24 B per year

Benefit of Modernization• $1,294 – $2,028 Billion• Overall benefit-to-cost ratio

of 2.8 to 6.0

5

EPRI, 2011

Previous StudiesBenefit to Cost Ratio for West Virginia of 5:1Benefit to Cost Ratio for San Diego of 6:1Benefit to Cost Ratio for EPRI (2004) 4:1-5:1

$165 B Cost$638 - $802 B Benefits

EPRI Report: http://www.smartgridinformation.info/pdf/3272_doc_1.pdf

66

Today’s grid - status quo is not an option

• Aging– 70% of transmission lines are 25 years or older– 70% of transformers are 25 years or older– 60% of circuit breakers are 30 years or older

• Outmoded – Designed in the 50s and installed in the 60s and 70s,

before the era of the microprocessor.• Stressed

– Never designed for bulk power shipments– Wholesale power transactions jumped 300% from

2000 to 2005. Insight Magazine, Oct. 2005

7

What’s Different with Smart Grid

• Consumer engagement with resources to solve power issues locally

• Two-way power flow in Distribution• Two-way communications • Integration of Distributed generation and storage • Imperative to transform from passive to active

control in Distribution• Move from radial to network Distribution system• New ways for Distribution to become a

Transmission resource• Potential to transform transportation sector

8

Environmental Impacts of

Electric Power System & Transportation Sector

Enabled by Smart Grid

9

9

Environmental ImpactsELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM• Carbon dioxide• Nitrogen oxides• Sulfur dioxide• Particulate matter• Air toxics (e.g., mercury)• Fly ash and bottom ash

• Polychlorinated biphenyls• Other transformer oils

TRANSPORTATION SECTOR• Carbon dioxide• Nitrogen oxides• Hydrocarbons• Carbon monoxide

10

EIA Pollutant DataUnder a “Business As Usual” Scenario

Electricity Production (Million Tons) 2008 2020 2030

CO2 2300 2500 2700 SO2 7.6 4.2 3.7 NOX 3.3 2.0 2.1

Transportation Sector (Million Tons) 2008 2020 2030

CO2 1900 2000 2100 HC 12.8 13.5 14.1 CO 98.3 103.5 108.6

NOX 6.4 6.7 7.1

11

Grid Features Enabled by Smart Grid That Impact Environmental Emissions

• Demand Response• Electric Vehicles• Variable Renewables • Distributed Energy Resources• Transmission and Distribution Systems• Energy Storage• Customer Systems• Outage Management• Improved Operations and Maintenance

12

Some Smart Grid Operational Practices That Impact Environmental Emissions

• Conservation• Load changes

– Demand response– Demand dispatch

• Efficiency– Generation– T&D– End-use devices

• Dispatch of generation & storage – Central, distributed, & consumer– Fossil fuel, nuclear, variable renewables, hydro– Baseload & peaking

• Electric vehicle charging

13

Demand Response• Shift load to different time or eliminate or reduce load • Load types include climate control, lighting, hot water,

refrigeration, laundry, EV charging, industrial processes• Using demand response for regulation may reduce

emissions (ORNL, 2000)– More closely match load and generation

• Predict annual growth rate of 1.07% from 2008-2030 (EIA)EE programs could reduce growth rate to 0.83% (EPRI)

• Predict annual growth rate for peak demand of 1.5% from 2008-2030 (EIA)EE/DR could reduce peak demand growth rate to 0.83% (EPRI)

14

Impact of Peak Demand Reduction by DR 2030

EPRI (2008)

16

Electric Vehicles

• Includes plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles

• Reduces transportation emissions from gasoline & diesel fuels while reducing import of crude oil

• During EV charging, electric power system emissions will depend on generation mix

• Plug-in electric vehicles will increase demand for electricity

17

Annual GHG Emissions Reductions from PHEVs in the Year 2050

“Well to Wheels Study”

EPRI (2007)

18

Carbon Footprint by Vehicle Type

Source: (ICF, 2010)

19

Variable Renewables & Energy Storage • Environmental impacts must consider:

– Generation/storage mix used to meet demand when power output from variable renewables cannot meet demand

– Distance between variable renewables/storage and load

– Need for ancillary services to maintain grid stability (volt/VAR, frequency regulation, load following)

– Power losses during storage

– Serving baseload, peak load, or both

20

CO2 Impact of Smart Grid Enablement of Renewable Resource Deployment 2030

Source: EPRI (2008)

21

Gas25%

Nuclear17%

Renewables14%

Oil1%

Coal43%

Gas21%

Nuclear20%

Renewables9%

Oil1%

Coal49%

5,150 BkWh / Year69% Fossil Energy

+ 25%

Electricity Demand 20084,107 BkWh / Year71% Fossil Energy

2,357 mmt CO2 2,526 mmt CO2

Electricity Demand 2035

United States

Coal could shift toward clean coal with CCS?Natural gas from Marcellus and other shale gas? Permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel?Renewables includes hydro at about 7%Continued reduction in cost for variable renewables?Incentives favoring investments in technologies with GHG reduction?

22

Study by Carnegie Mellon UniversityThermal Plant Emissions Due to Variable Renewable

+

+

+

1

2

n

=

Firm PowerVariable PowerCompensating Power

Time

Power

Gas

Wind

Does operating one or more gas turbines to fill in variable wind or solar power result in increased NOx and CO2 emissions compared to full-power steady-state operation of natural-gas turbines?

23

Results

• The results of CMU’s analysis demonstrates that CO2 emissions reductions from a wind (or solar PV) plus natural gas system are likely to be 75-80% of those presently assumed by policy makers.

• Nitrous oxide reduction from such a system depends strongly on the type of NOx control and how it is dispatched. – For the best system examined, NOx reductions with

20% wind or solar PV penetration are 30-50% of those expected.

– For the worst, emissions are increased by 2-4 times the expected reductions with a 20% RPS using wind or solar PV.

24

Transmission and Distribution Systems

• Power loss increases with distance

• Power loss associated with voltage transformation

• More generation is needed to offset T&D losses

• Typical losses on U.S. T&D system is about 6-7%

• Transmission congestion can be relieved with DER

• Low-loss conductors & superconductors

25

Impact of Reduced Line Losses Voltage Reduction 2030

Energy Savings Corresponding to Reduced Line Losses

Baseline Residential Retail Electricity Sales, 2030 [billion kWh]: 1,737

U.S. Distribution Substations: 2,179 U.S. Distribution Substations Serving Predominantly Residential Circuits: 1,525 Ratio of Residential Electricity Sales per Residential Distribution Substation:

Billion kWh / Res. Distribution Substation 1.14

Ratio of Load Reduction to Voltage Reduction:

(1% reduction in voltage yields 0.8% reduction in load) 0.8

Average Percent Voltage Reduction: 1% 2% 3% 4%Market Penetration Effect, 2030 [billion kWh]

25% of Res. Dist. Substations (381): 3.5 7 10.4 14

50% of Res. Dist. Substations (762): 7 14 20.8 28Source: EPRI (2008)

26

Customer Systems

• Demand response requires smart appliances and customer interface (e.g., HAN, in-home displays, programmable thermostats)

• Encourages conservation (i.e., Prius effect)• Efficient appliances (i.e., EnergyStar)• Customer-owned generation and storage

– Electric vehicles – Photovoltaic

• Different classes of customers– Residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture– Industrial parks, universities, manufacturing – Potential microgrid and CHP applications

27

Improved Operations and Maintenance

• Reduced vehicle miles– Condition-based maintenance– Remote meter reading

• Generation dispatch considering cost & emissions– Generation type– Distance from generation to load– Charging storage and electric vehicles

28

Outage Management

• Less vehicle miles– Reduced outages, duration, and extent– Knowledge of location and cause of outage– Better planning

29

Reduction in Electricity Use from Smart Grid

Mechanism

Reductions in Electricity Sector Energy and CO2

Emissions*

Direct (%)Indirect

(%)Conservation Effect of Consumer Information and Feedback Systems 3 -Joint Marketing of Energy Efficiency and Demand-Response Programs - 0Key Enabling Technology: Disaggregation of Total Loads into End Uses - - Deployment of Diagnostics in Residential and Small/Medium Commercial Buildings 3 -Measurement & Verification (M&V) for Energy Efficiency Programs 1 0.5Shifting Load to More Efficient Generation <0.1 -Support Additional Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 3 -Conservation Voltage Reduction and Advanced Voltage Control 2 -Support Penetration of Renewable Wind and Solar Generation (25 percent renewable portfolio standard [RPS]) <0.1 5Total Reductions 12 6*Assumes 100 percent penetration of the smart grid technologies.

PNNL (2010)Reduce CO2 emissions by 442 million metric tons by 2030

30

Smart Grid Energy Savings and Avoided CO2 Emissions

EPRI, 2008

31

Some References on Environmental Impact of Smart Grid

• EPRI. “Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid EVs,” Palo Alto, CA, 2007

• EPRI. “The Green Grid: Energy Savings and Carbon Emissions Reductions Enabled by a Smart Grid,” Palo Alto, CA, June 2008

• PNNL. “The Smart Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2

Benefits,” January 2010

• NETL, “Environmental Impacts of Smart Grid”, DOE/NETL-2010/1428, January 10, 2011

32

Electric Vehicles

33

Challenges of Electric Vehicle Charging• Cul-de-sac factor• Transformer overload• Mobility of load• Billing• Gas tax recovery• Carbon credits• Helpdesk support• Data security and privacy• Installation model• Messaging and education

Reference: Public Utilities Fortnightly, June 2011, Top 10 EV Challenges

34

PEVs and Emissions

Public Utilities Fortnightly, June, 2010

35

Electric Vehicle Charging• Assume all U.S. passenger vehicles excluding cars

and trucks are converted to plug-in electric vehicles• Electricity to charge 130 million PEV would be 13% of

U.S. electricity consumption (3,723 TWh)

• PNNL - Up to 84% of vehicles could convert to PHEV without additional electric infrastructure

• ORNL - By 2020, 10% PEV penetration would increase electricity by 1-2% and

– By 2030, 25% PEV penetration would increase electricity by 2-5%

Plugging In, Public Utilities Fortnightly, June 2010

36

Metrics for Best In-Class Alternative Vehicles

Vehicle Type Urban Gasoline Vehicle Chevy Cruze Urban Electric

Vehicle Chevy Volt Honda Civic GX

Fuel Gasoline Gasoline Battery Battery/Gasoline Natural Gas

Fuel Economy 32 MPG 40 MPG 163 MPG-e

168 MPG-e electric

50 MPG gas36 MPG-e

Urban Range 408 mi 450 mi 127 mi 450 mi 250 mi

Fuel cost per mile $0.09/mi $0.07/mi $0.05/mi $0.019/mi $0.026/mi

Source ICFInternational

EV Lit ReviewTable

ICFInternational

EV Lit ReviewTable

EV Lit Review Table

37

Trip Distance vs. Average Fuel $/Mile

Trip distance vs. average fuel $/mile* for 3 vehicles

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Trip Distance (miles)

Fuel

$/m

ile

Chevy Volt (gas and electric vehicle, 340 mile range)

Chevy Cruze (all gas vehicle, 450 mile range)

Nissan Leaf (all electric vehicle, 100 mile range)

Chevy Volt switches fuel source from battery to gasoline after 40 miles

*Assumptions: $2.60/gal gasoline, $0.10/kWh

38

Trip Distance vs. Total Cost Per Mile

Trip distance vs. total $/mile* for 5 scenarios

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Trip Distance (miles)

Tota

l $/m

ile

Chevy Volt WITHOUT $7,500 federal tax credit (gas and electric vehicle, 340 mile range)

Chevy Cruze (all gas vehicle, 450 mile range) – no applicable tax credit

Nissan Leaf WITH $7,500 federal tax credit

Chevy Volt switches fuel source from battery to gasoline after 40 miles

*Assumptions: $2.60/gal gasoline, $0.10/kWh, 100,000 mile vehicle life with no major maintenance/repairsMSRP Chevy Volt: $41,000; MSRP Nissan Leaf: $32,780; MSRP Chevy Cruze: $17,000

Federal tax credit of $7,500 applicable to Volt and Leaf

Chevy Volt WITH $7,500 federal tax credit

Nissan Leaf WITHOUT $7,500 federal tax credit (all electric vehicle, 100 mile range)

39

Capital, “Fuel”, and Total Cost

Capital Cost $/mile

Average $/mile fuel expense TOTAL cost $/mile

Chevy Volt(PHEV) $0.335/mile Variable: $0.02 -

$0.048/mileVariable: $0.355 -

$0.383/mile

Nissan Leaf (PEV) $0.252/mile $0.012/mile $0.264/mile

Chevy Cruze

(gasoline)$0.17/mile $0.065/mile $0.235/mile

40

WV Military Affairs / Public Safety , November 20, 2008

Smart Grid Activities

41


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act • Smart Grid Investment Grants (99 projects)

– $3.4 billion Federal; $4.7 billion private sector– 877 PMUs covering almost 100% of transmission– 200,000 smart transformers– 700 automated substations– 40 million smart meters– 1 million in-home displays

• Smart Grid Demonstration Projects (32 projects)– $620 million Federal; $1 billion private sector– 16 storage projects– 16 regional demonstrations

Current Smart Grid Activities

42


• Additional ARRA Smart Grid Activities– Interoperability Framework by NIST ($10M)– Transmission Analysis and Planning ($80M)– State Electricity Regulator Assistance ($50M)– State Planning for Smart Grid Resiliency ($55M)– Workforce Development ($100M)

• DOE Renewable & Distributed Systems Integration (9) • EPRI Smart Grid Demonstrations (12 projects)

• Smart Grid System Report to Congress– http://www.smartgrid.gov/resources

Current Smart Grid Activities (continued)

43


Metrics

44

WV Military Affairs / Public Safety , November 20, 200844 44

Smart Grid Metrics

Reliability• Outage duration and frequency, momentary disruption, power qualitySecurity• Ratio of distributed generation to total generationEconomics• Electricity prices & bills, transmission congestion costs, cost of outagesEfficient• T&D electrical losses, peak-to-average load ratioEnvironmentally Friendly• Ratio of renewable generation to total generation, emissions per kwhSafety• Injuries and deaths to workers and public

Field Data Metrics Benefits Value

45


Benefits Analysis Framework

Benefit Category Benefit Sub-category Benefit

Economic

Improved Asset Utilization

Optimized Generator Operation (utility/ratepayer)Deferred Generation Capacity Investments (utility/ratepayer)Reduced Ancillary Service Cost (utility/ratepayer)Reduced Congestion Cost (utility/ratepayer)

T&D Capital SavingsDeferred Transmission Capacity Investments (utility/ratepayer)Deferred Distribution Capacity Investments (utility/ratepayer)Reduced Equipment Failures (utility/ratepayer)

T&D O&M SavingsReduced Distribution Equipment Maintenance Cost (utility/ratepayer)Reduced Distribution Operations Cost (utility/ratepayer)Reduced Meter Reading Cost (utility/ratepayer)

Theft Reduction Reduced Electricity Theft (utility/ratepayer)Energy Efficiency Reduced Electricity Losses (utility/ratepayer)Electricity Cost Savings Reduced Electricity Cost (consumer)

ReliabilityPower Interruptions

Reduced Sustained Outages (consumer)Reduced Major Outages (consumer)Reduced Restoration Cost (utility/ratepayer)

Power Quality Reduced Momentary Outages (consumer)Reduced Sags and Swells (consumer)

Environmental Air EmissionsReduced Carbon Dioxide Emissions (society)Reduced SOX, NOX, and PM-10 Emissions (society)

Security Energy SecurityReduced Oil Usage (society)Reduced Wide-scale Blackouts (society)

. *Methodological Approach for Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Smart Grid Demonstration Projects, EPRI, January 2010.

46


Who are the Beneficiaries?

• Utilities (What’s in it for my shareholders?)• Consumers (What’s in it for me?)• Society (What’s in it for us?)

46

We get what we reward!

47


DOE has supported development of a computational tool

Smart Grid Computational

Tool

Inputs Outputs

Assets, Functions, and Mechanisms

Impact Metric Results

Estimates and assumptions

Examples

AMI/Smart Meters, Automated Feeder and Line Switching

Annual Generation Costs, Number of Tamper Detections

Cost Parameters and Escalation

Factors

Discount Rate, Total Capital Cost, Inflation Rate,

Population Growth

Value of Service, Price of Capacity at Peak, Value of CO2

Sensitivity Factors High and Low case Value of CO2

Monetary Value of up

to 22 Benefits

NPV Analysis of

Project

Sensitivity Analysis of

Project

Analytics

48


Observational Results• Utility workers (management, planners, designers, O&M)

Job impact, complexity, troubleshooting, business model

• Customers (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural) Cost, comfort, convenience, involvement, understanding

• Regulators (Federal, state, and local) Used and useful, cost recovery, customer preferences

• Investors (IOU, municipalities, coops, …) Business case, risk

• Product and service providers Competition and market

49


Smart Grid Organizations

50


Some of the Smart Grid Working Groups

• NERC Smart Grid Task Force• Federal Smart Grid Task Force• Electricity Advisory Board• GridWise Alliance• Smart Grid Policy Center• FERC NARUC Smart Grid Committee• GridWise Architecture Council• EPRI Smart Grid Advisory Group• Smart Grid Interoperability Panel

51


Smart Grid Maturity Model

52


What is the Smart Grid Maturity Model?

• SGMM is a • MANAGEMENT TOOL

• that provides aCOMMON FRAMEWORK

for defining key elements of

SMART GRID TRANSFORMATION and helps utilities develop a

PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH and track their progress.

53


How is the SGMM Used?• SGMM is used to help organizations:

– Identify where they are on the smart grid landscape

– Develop a shared smart grid vision and roadmap

– Communicate using a common language

– Prioritize options and support decision making

– Compare to themselves and the community

– Measure their progress

– Prepare for and facilitate change

54


The model at a glance

6 Maturity Levels: Defined sets of characteristics and outcomes

8 Domains: Logical groupings of smart grid related capabilities and characteristics

175 Characteristics: Features you would expect to see at each stage of the smart grid journey

55


Breaking new ground; industry-leading innovation

Optimizing smart grid to benefit entire organization; may reach beyond organization; increased automation

Investing based on clear strategy, implementing first projects to enable smart grid (may be compartmentalized)

Taking the first steps, exploring options, conducting experiments, developing smart grid vision

Default level (status quo)

Integrating smart grid deployments across the organization, realizing measurably improved performance

The Smart Grid Maturity Model – levels Level Description

PIONEERING

OPTIMIZING

INTEGRATING

ENABLING

INITIATING

DEFAULT

56


Eight SGMM domainsStrategy, Mgmt & Regulatory

SM

R

Vision, planning, decision making, investment process

Organization and Structure

OS Culture, structure, training, internal

communications, knowledge mgmt

Grid Operations

GO Grid reliability, security, safety,

observability, control

Work & Asset Management

WA

M

Mobile workforce, asset tracking & maintenance, GIS

Technology

TEC

H

IT architecture, standards, infrastructure, integration, tools

Customer

CU

ST

Customer role in energy use, cost, & source, advanced services

Value Chain Integration

VC

I

Demand & supply management, leveraging market opportunities

Societal & EnvironmentalS

E Conservation, sustainability, impact on environment

57


Strategy, Management & Regulatory

Organization & Structure

Grid Operations

Work & Asset Management Technology Customer Value Chain

IntegrationSocietal & Environmental

Results

0

1

2

4

2

0 0 0

3

2

4 4

3 3

2 2

This is where we aspire to be in X years

NOTE: There is no “correct” target profile implied in the model; the optimal profile will vary by utility.

This is where we are today

58


Some Barriers and Challenges

59


Change Management

A significant change management effort is needed:• Why do we need to change?• What is the vision?• Who’s in charge?• What is the value proposition?• Consumer education, alignment, and motivation is critical• Metrics needed for accountability and to monitor progress• Active leadership by stakeholder groups needed

59

Move at the “Speed of Value”

60


Technical Challenges

• Interoperability and scalability• Large number of consumers actively involved• Decentralized operations with 2-way power flow• Getting the communications right• “Future proofing” the technologies• Cyber Security• Conversion of data to information to action• Market driven

60

Where will we find the skilled resources to solve these?

61


Regulatory Challenges

• Time-based rates• Clear cost recovery policies• Policy changes that remove disincentives to utilities• Societal benefits included in business case• Increased utility commission workload• Consistency among state utility commissions• Potential cost of “carbon management”• Future proofing vs. stranded assets• Consumer privacy concerns• Least cost• Used and useful• New operating and market models

61

62


ReferencesSmart Grid Implementation Strategy

www.netl.doe.gov/smartgrid/index.html

Federal Smart Grid Websitewww.smartgrid.gov

Smart Grid Clearinghousewww.sgiclearinghouse.org/

http://www.netl.doe.gov/smartgrid/index.html

http://www.smartgrid.gov/

http://www.sgiclearinghouse.org/

september 27, 2011 steve bossart , project management center

Documents

todays grid

modernized grid

grid modernization

grid costs

b cost

grid divorcethe benefits

quality of lifetodays

cost ratio