Debunking IEEE Article: Speed Bumps Ahead for EV Charging

“The myth that thousands of EVs will seamlessly fold into the power grid by charging at night, using otherwise idle generating plants and power grids, is breaking down.”

The first rule of reporting I was told was, if you want to seem credible, remove any language that indicates bias. “Don’t editorialize.” That is unless you are writing an editorial. However, our very good author, who has provided IEEE Spectrum with many good articles in the past, lets the word “myth” slip right into this article in the very first paragraph. He could have chosen many other words, words such as “belief” or “idea” that wouldn’t have designated this article as a biased piece, but he didn’t. This is unfortunate because on top of that slip the article also follows with inaccuracies in argument and logic all leaning to the sentiment found in the word he chose.

You see the concept of electric vehicles (EVs) seamlessly folding into the power grid by charging at night isn’t a myth at all. It is only a myth if you accept what the utilities have put forward as what will happen if even a small number of EVs enter the grid. Once you accept that false premise then everything falls into place. Well just like it doesn’t rain beer and therefore the rest of the argument that you can just put your mug out in a rain storm and have all the grog you want isn’t true. EVs don’t take up to three households of electricity overnight and so anything else built on that premise is also untrue. 

“Such "AC Level 2" chargers, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers' emerging J1772 standard, draw up to 6.6 kilowatts. Turning one on is like adding up to three homes to a neighborhood, and that's with the air conditioning, lights, and laundry running.

Turning on two or three Level 2 chargers could burn out the street-level transformers that are the distribution grid's weakest link. Most utilities employ undersized transformers, which are designed to cool overnight. Without time to cool, sustained excess current will eventually cook a transformer's copper windings, causing a short and blacking out the local loads it serves.”

What happens if California has a heat wave where these transformers don’t get a break for days or even weeks? Santa Anna winds anyone? Do transformers all over the southern part of the state begin to blow up or melt down? California has had heat waves pretty regularly over that last 50 years. I don’t ever remember reading any reports on transformers melting in large numbers during those periods. I remember brown outs and blackouts being reported, but I don’t remember them ever reporting that their undersized transformers were the main cause of those problems and that there was a catastrophic disaster taking place because transformers couldn’t cool down. During these periods of time, after reading this report, you would have expected to hear something to the effect of, “This has been the Xth day of a California heat wave where air conditioners have been running without stop causing massive numbers of transformers to overload and either explode or melt.” Remember that nearly every household in Southern California has an air conditioner. Given this report a heat wave that lasts even a relatively short period of time would cause serious problems for California’s utilities transformers if this report is to be believed. Millions or even billions of dollars worth of damage would be caused and the transformers would be clearly seen as the culprit, but I have never heard that specific problem reported, ever.

Californians were buying bigger energy hog appliances in huge numbers before the recession hit. Far more appliances, plasma televisions, stereos, refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and electric dryers, electric ovens and ranges, than they would ever buy electric vehicles. Yet, before the recession hit there was nary a peep about that affecting the grid.

“Californians buy four million televisions each year,” - California Imposes Rule for Efficiency on Some TVs, New York Times. November 18, 2009

California is now realizing that they can’t make the argument against EV’s unless they look at every other area in consumer product purchases that draw electricity. They have finally come around to understanding that Plasma TVs in particular were ridiculous energy hogs and needed to be regulated. But, they came to this only after EV organizations and well known bloggers pointed out the inconsistency.

“Ironically, electricity rates designed to discourage charging during the daytime threaten to intensify the night-charging challenge. For instance, customers with an AC Level 2 pay SCE a whopping 28 cents per kilowatt-hour to charge between noon and 9 p.m., but just 10 cents thereafter. That scheme protects the grid while it is normally peaking, but it invites new problems if EV owners plug in en masse at 9 p.m. "All of a sudden you've got an artificial peak and you've got transformers popping," says Zambrano, describing the nightmare scenario for the energy commission meeting.”

The article is correct in stating that the hour of 9 pm is where we see a convergence in the predicted patterns of charging. We know this because charging cycles have been researched by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and we can compare them with the research done on electric demand done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). However, you don’t get a new peak as stated above. What you get is a slower drop from peak than you would normally have at this time. The draw, according to the NRDC, will be around 10% of the full charging cycle for all PHEVs charging that full day. The impact of charging on the transformers is defused over the entire night rather than it being something happening in only a few hours as the article indicates. Because charging happens in a diffuse manner over the entire night, it gives the transformers plenty of time between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am to cool down. EVs maybe charging and drawing electricity, but little else is happening on the grid at those times. Simply put, you won’t see transformers popping like is stated in the article.

“SCE and PG&E are working with the Electric Power Research Institute to predict likely problem areas, and Kim and others are seeking to strengthen the grid before trouble starts. California's Public Utility Commission, meanwhile, is examining how utilities might use the smart meters they're installing to choreograph charging and avoid an early-evening EV-charging peak. The communication gear needed to allow smart meters to control EV charging can be integrated into vehicle chargers and will come standard in GM's Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid sedan.”

If you don’t like big brother scenarios coming from the government then why would you want a utility company, who has no idea what your personal energy needs are going to be at any given moment, control when and how you can use electricity. “I am sorry but you can’t use your defibrillator at this moment because the grid is near peak and we have turned off the charging function at this time to save energy.” “No, I am sorry that you spilled coffee on your tuxedo shirt that you need because you really have been invited to a White House Dinner but you can’t wash it because …”

I had a feeling that after having attended an IEEE meeting on the Smart Grid and Vehicle to Grid (V2G) held in Washington, DC a few years ago that I would be seeing an article like this one. The entire time the underlying tone coming from those attendants who were employed by utilities was that Smart grid and V2G would be a great way to get out from under the regulations on pricing imposed on them. Most of the talk among them was how this "smart grid" thing could finally break the hold that regulation had on them and they could charge the “real value” of their product. They made claims that they would charge less at night, however, the reality revealed from the article above is that night-time prices end up going up and day prices can average more than three times what they are today. EV advocates, please understand that prices that high negate a lot of the fuel price advantage that electric cars have over ICE cars. This high an increase in electric costs will kill the electric vehicle market before it begins.

What this report really ends up being about is how utilities can charge its rate payers more without having to do a cent’s worth of improvement of their infrastructure. The smart grid and V2G won’t happen in the end because it will be too expensive (unless it is done with tax payer money). It really doesn’t have anything to do with the actual load caused by EVs. It is all about utilities getting out from under regulation and the Smart Grid or V2G are just vehicles to get to where they want to go, which is overcharging for their electric services.

The author of this article, Peter Fairley and IEEE should revisit this topic again only next time Peter don’t limit your interviews to utility company people alone. Bring in some EV driver/home owners and ask them what their experience has been. My experience being an EV owner has been that I can’t see my EV’s electric use in the summer time because it is dwarfed by my air conditioner and other appliances. If we have had a hot month I can easily see my air conditioner use, but my EV takes about $10 a month worth of electricity and does so consistently. It becomes part of my base usage rather than a changing variable like all my other appliances. I look forward to hearing what you have to say if you visit the subject again.