Standardization in Sustainability Transitions: A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

(1)

TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019,

Standardization in

Sustainability Transitions

A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

JULIA ELF

LUDVIG SVENSSON

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(2)

This page is intentionally left blank

(3)

Standardization in Sustainability Transitions

A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

Julia Elf Ludvig Svensson

2019-06-03

Master of Science Thesis

KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management Energy Technology ITM-EX 2019:363

(4)

Master of Science Thesis ITM-EX 2019:363

Standardization in Sustainability Transitions A Study on Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the

Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

Julia Elf

Ludvig Svensson

Approved

2019-06-03

Examiner

Per Lundqvist

Supervisor

Liridona Sopjani

Commissioner Contact person

Colin Stewart

(5)

Abstract

Keywords: Sustainability transition, Electric vehicles, Vehicle-to-grid, Standardization, Power relations

The electrification of the transportation sector plays an important role in the sustainability transition as successful electric vehicle (EV) integration allows for the reduction of CO 2 emissions. Moreover, bidirectional capabilities of the EVs (vehicle-to-grid) further facilitate this transition by supporting the electricity grid while lowering the cost of ownership of EVs when revenues from grid-supporting services are split between stakeholders. Due to sustainability challenges facing several domains, fundamental transformation processes are needed to transition away from our current global energy system. However, with the strong inertia of the current system together with the sheer complexity and vexed interests during transitions, neither private markets nor government agencies seem likely to spur this transition on their own. Transitions are thus political processes, in which standards can play an important role since they point to the direction of the transition.

This thesis investigates the role of standardization in sustainability transitions. The aim was to improve the understanding of the diverse stakeholder attitudes towards the standardization process of the communication protocol between the vehicle and its charging equipment. While exploring this topic, the thesis further aimed to investigate the power relations that govern the interactions and coordination efforts between the diverse stakeholders involved in the vehicle-to-grid (V2G) standardization processes.

To achieve this, a qualitative study was conducted where two transcripts from the California Energy Commission, adding up to a total of 667 pages, were coded in a mixed inductive-deductive manner. In addition, as a complement, 13 expert interviews were conducted.

The results showed that power was expressed by actors on (and between) all levels in the system. Mutual dependency was the most frequently expressed power relation among the actors. The mutual dependency was assumed to be widely present due to the interdependent nature between the components in the V2G system. The automotive manufacturers were observed to have a strong position in the vehicle-to-grid ecosystem and it was noted that other actors conformed with their political and/or economic goals.

Another finding related to power was the sense of powerlessness and frustration expressed by actors on all levels, likely enabling the status quo to prevail. There was also clear frustration towards policymakers concerning the lack of policy direction and actors expressed the need for market signaling. The policymakers seemed to adhere to both disruptive innovations and the existing regime, causing uncertainty in policy decisions . The empirics also showed that the standardization discussions have little focus on competition between standards at this point of the transition. The debate seemed to rather be shaped by the conflict between advocates and opponents of standardization, where the opponents argued against standardization due to fear of prematurely mandating a single standard. Advocates dominated over opponents at this point of the transition and the communication standard, ISO 15118 seemed to have significant industry support. Automotive manufacturers were found to be the most vocal stakeholder group against standardization. Furthermore, the results highlighted the functions and features of standards commonly mentioned in the V2G standardization discussions, where compatibility, market signaling, and future proof features belonged to the most frequently mentioned.

(6)

Sammanfattning

Elektrifieringen av transportsektorn spelar en central roll för omställningen till ett hållbart energisystem eftersom elbilar bidrar till minskade utsläpp av koldioxid. Bidirektionella laddningsmöjligheter (V2G) kan möjliggöra omställningen ytterligare genom att stötta svaga elnät på lokal nivå samtidigt som funktionen kan minska kostnaderna för att äga en elbil. Fundamentala omställningar krävs för att lösa de hållbarhetsutmaningar som flera industrier står inför men på grund av komplexiteten i dessa system kan varken privat eller offentlig sektor driva denna förändring på egen hand. Omställningsprocessen är en politisk process där standardisering kan spela en viktig roll eftersom de kan indikera vilken riktning omställningen rör sig mot.

Den här uppsatsen undersöker därför standardiseringens roll i hållbarhetsomställningar. Syftet var att öka förståelsen av olika aktörers ståndpunkter i standardiseringsprocessen av kommunikationen mellan en elbil och dess laddstation. För att undersöka detta ämne granskades även maktförhållanden som genomsyrar en standardiseringsprocess. Detta gjordes genom kvalitativ kodning av två transkriberade diskussioner om standardisering från California Energy Commission vilka totalt uppgick till 667 sidor. Utöver detta hölls 13 intervjuer som komplement.

Resultatet visade att makt utövades av aktörer på samtliga nivåer i systemet. Ett ömsesidigt beroende kunde identifieras mellan aktörerna. Detta antogs vara framträdande på grund av de beroendeförhållanden som uppstår sig då samtliga aktörer krävs för att ett V2G-system ska fungera. Vidare observerades att maktutövande som förstärker och reproducerar existerande strukturer och institutioner uttrycktes av många aktörer i V2G-ekosystemet. En annan observation var att biltillverkare verkar ha en stark position i V2G-ekosystemet och det noterades att andra aktörer anpassade sig efter deras politiska och/eller ekonomiska mål. Ett ytterligare resultat var att det fanns en känsla av maktlöshet och frustration på alla nivåer i systemet vilket bidrog till upplevelsen av status quo. Det fanns en tydlig frustration speciellt mot beslutsfattare vilken grundade sig i bristen på tydliga riktlinjer. Beslutsfattare verkade anpassa sig såväl mot disruptiv innovation som till den existerande regimen vilket orsakade passivitet och osäkerhet vid beslutsfattande. Eftersom ramverket Multi-Level Power-in-Transition som användes för analysen inte tar hänsyn till att beslutsfattare kan svara både mot dominanta och mer radikala makrotrender, modifierades ramverket något innan det appliceras på empirin. Vidare visade analysen att det inte pågår någon konkurrens mellan standarder i denna fas av omställningen, däremot identifierades en konflikt mellan förespråkare och motståndare till standardisering där motståndarna var oroliga över att det var för tidigt att ge mandat åt en enskild standard. Förespråkare dominerade över motståndare i denna fas av omställningen och kommunikationstandarden ISO 15118 verkade ha betydande stöd från industrin.

Biltillverkare befanns vara de aktörer som till största grad motsatte sig standardisering. Resultaten gav ytterligare en inblick i de egenskaper hos standarder som vanligtvis nämndes i diskussioner om kommunikationsstandarder. Några av de egenskaper som regelbundet belystes som viktiga var kompatibilitet och att den bör vara framtidssäker. En ytterligare viktig funktion med standardisering ansågs vara att ge tydliga signaler till marknaden.

(7)

Acknowledgments

Firstly, we would like to thank Vattenfall and our supervisors Colin Stewart and Charlotta Edeland for giving us the opportunity to collaborate with Vattenfall on our thesis project. You have both provided us with great support throughout the whole project. A special thanks to Charlotta for bringing us to Odyssey Hackathon – a fantastic experience that we will never forget. Secondly, we would like to express our gratitude to our supervisor at KTH, Liridona Sopjani for accepting us as thesis students, you are truly passionate about bringing change to the energy system and have provided us with great feedback throughout the process. Thirdly, we would like to thank all the industry experts and academia participating in the interviews for this study: thanks for your time and efforts in bringing us such bright insights that we would not have been able to find elsewhere. Last, but not least, we want to thank everyone in academia who has participated in the research within the field of V2G and sustainability transitions. We have spent countless hours on reading, understanding and discussing your research which has guided us through the topic. And to you who asked: “As an author, you often wonder, does anybody even read what we publish?!” – We do!

Julia Elf Ludvig Svensson Stockholm, June 2019

(8)

This page is intentionally left blank

(9)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Illustration of potential V2G system setup. Adapted from Olivella-Rosell et al. (2018) and USEF (2005)

Figure 2: Illustration of the main protocols related to information exchange in e-mobility (Elaad, 2016) Figure 3: Multi-Level Power-in-Transition framework, from Avelino (2017)

Figure 4: Thesis research design

Figure 5: Combination of the two thematic frameworks developed by Braun and Clarke (2006) and Azungah (2018)

Figure 6: The resulting thematic map for the OEM stakeholder group

Figure 7: Modified Multi-Level Power-in-Transition framework. Adopted from Avelino (2017) Figure 8: OEMs’ attitudes towards standardization and the EV-V2G transition

Figure 9: Occurrences of expressed attitudes (pro or anti) towards a single uniform standard

Figure 10: Frequency of the coded standard features, characteristics and functions from the empirics

(12)

List of Tables

Table 1: V2G related concepts. Adapted from (Noel et al., 2019a) Table 2: Summary of potential V2G services

Table 3: Types of power relations and their manifestations (Avelino, 2017) Table 4: Typology of power (Avelino, 2017)

Table 5: Thematic analysis framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006)

Table 6: Coding start list of a priori determined themes and inductively generated themes Table 7: Conceptualization of actors in empirics

Table 8: Taxonomies and roles of standard (Tassey, 2000; Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016) Table 9: Summary of power relations (Avelino, 2017)

Table 10: Typology of power (Avelino, 2017)

(13)

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AC Alternating Current

AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure BRP Balance Responsible Party CAN Controller Area Network

CCS Combined Charging System

CEC California Energy Commission

CEN European Committee for Standardization

DC Direct Current

DOD Depth of Discharge

DSO Distribution System Operator EV Electric Vehicle

EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment ICE Internal Combustion Engine

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ISO International Organization for Standardization MLP Multi-Level Perspective

NGO Non-governmental Organization OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PUC Public Utilities Commission PLC Power Line Communication

SAE American Society of Automotive Engineers SDO Standard Development Organization

SOC State of Charge

TSO Transmission System Operator V2B Vehicle-to-Building

V2G Vehicle-to-Grid

V2H Vehicle-to-Home

V2L Vehicle-to-Load

V2M Vehicle-to-Microgrid V2V Vehicle-to-Vehicle

V2X Vehicle-to-X

VGI Vehicle Grid Integration

(14)

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

– Chinese proverb

(15)

1 Introduction

In this chapter, the context of the thesis is presented, starting with a short background followed by the problem statement.

Thereafter, the purpose and the research questions are stated. Lastly, a description of this thesis’ contribution and its disposition is provided.

1.1 Background

Environmental concerns are driving the evolution of the energy system, in which renewable energy integration is considered a crucial element in lowering CO 2 emissions. However, while lowering emissions, intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar increase the demand for storage in order to balance fluctuations in supply and demand (Kempton & Tomic, 2005). Simultaneously, the electrification of the transportation sector plays an important role in achieving sustainability goals (IEA, 2018). Since electric vehicle (EV) batteries hold the potential of storing energy, the undergoing paradigm shift within the automotive industry could potentially unlock synergies with the transition of the electrical system where the EV batteries can be considered as mobile storage (e.g. Kempton & Tomic, 2005; Knezovic et al., 2015; Lauinger, 2017; Høj et al., 2018). However, while a successful EV transition has the potential to reduce the emissions of the transport sector as well as providing flexibility services to the grid, it also represents a challenge for the power system. As the number of EVs increases, the impact of uncontrolled charging is observed more widely, especially at the distribution level where high EV concentrations cause congestion due to the coincidence between the EV charging and the peak residential consumption (Knezovic et al., 2017). With the increasing electrification of the automotive sector, the opportunity to use EV batteries with smart charging or vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies to reinforce the grid by providing flexibility is becoming more feasible (Briones et al., 2012). Smart charging or V2G technologies not only hold potential in the context of renewable energy integration but can also be a cost-efficient key enabler for intelligent integration of EVs into the grid. In addition to facilitating these transitions, V2G also has the potential to decrease the cost of ownership for the EV owner which could increase the rate of the EV adoption in general (Noel et al., 2019a).

Over the last decade, the topic of sustainability transitions has been extensively researched due to the fundamental sustainability challenges facing several domains (Markard et al., 2012; Köhler et al., 2019).

Sustainability transitions are long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption (Markard et al., 2012). However, due to the strong inertia that occurs in the socio-technical systems, they undergo incremental rather than radical changes (Dosi, 1982; Frantzeskaki & Loorbach, 2010). These incremental changes will not suffice to cope with sustainability problems (Markard et al., 2012). The paradigm shift in the automotive industry as well as the transition to renewable energy technologies both fall under sustainability transitions (Köhler et al., 2019) and are affecting each other as both transitions reduce emissions while impacting the grid stability. This co-evolution is particularly evident for the progression of the V2G technology as it connects the synergetic effects between the two transitions: V2G or smart charging can effectively solve congestion problems while storing excess renewable energy and providing flexibility services (Knezovic et al., 2015). Nevertheless, despite the potential value of V2G shown in various pilot projects and numerous theoretical studies (e.g. Noel et al., 2019a; Cenex, 2018; Knezovic et al., 2015), realizing V2G also holds many challenges (Noel et al., 2019a).

The success of the V2G progression is contingent on cross-sectoral solutions between two industries (energy and automotive) that traditionally have been separated from each other. This poses significant

(16)

challenges for the standardization processes as it requires a wide range of stakeholders with different disciplines, backgrounds, and interests to come together and coordinate engagement (Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016). Additionally, designing well-functioning standards to support, rather than restrict, technological innovation is becoming increasingly more difficult due to the pace of technological advancement as well as the lack of a coherent long-term vision on the direction of standardization (Blumenthal & Clark, 1995).

While standardization becomes more challenging, it also becomes more important under multi-domain settings due to lock-in effects and the sheer number of interdependencies among subsystems (Tassey, 2000; David & Shurmer, 1996). This amplified critical aspect adds to standards’ already central function in transitions of influencing the future direction, speed and costs of socio-technical transitions (Kester et al., 2018) by establishing consensus and by coordinating actions among system actors and their networks (Brown et al., 2010).

The need for coordination of standards-related activities across different industries stresses the relevance for understanding the power dynamics between the diverse set of actors involved in sustainability transitions. During such transitions, incumbent industries will often exercise their power to resist radical changes. In parallel, new entrants will promote their alternative solutions to gain support. These vested goals create friction between actors and power relations are created (Fischer, 2016). Transitions are thus political processes in the sense that there will be disagreement about desirable directions and that a transitions most likely will result in winners and losers which ultimately could complicate standardization processes (Köhler et al., 2019).

1.2 Problem Statement

The energy industry is currently under transition, where there is a need to shift towards both the electrification of the transport sector as well as the integration of more renewable energy in the electricity mix. V2G technologies could potentially be used to support this transition by acting as mobile storage for renewable energy and support weak electricity grids in urban areas (e.g. Kempton & Tomic, 2005;

Knezovic et al., 2015; Lauinger, 2017; Høj et al., 2018). However, the emergence of new technology poses challenges as it combines two industries that are not used to collaborate (Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016).

Meanwhile, to engage in finding technical and economical solutions, all involved stakeholders must be assured about the value that can be realized through V2G. Since investment costs in infrastructure are associated with high risk, actors are hesitant to incorporate such immature technology which creates skepticism and even reluctance to new technology (CEC, 2016; CEC, 2018). Standardization is an important factor in a transition since it can guide the direction to the involved actors (Kester et al., 2018).

Standardization is done through the involvement of industry actors who spend time and resources to push the technology in a certain direction (Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016). In other words, they exercise their power to achieve specific goals during the transition. These conflicting goals create friction and disagreement between actors attempting to steer the transition in a, for them, desirable direction.

1.3 Purpose and Research Questions

Derived from the problem statement above, the aim of the thesis is to improve the understanding of the diverse stakeholder attitudes towards standardization of the communication protocol between the electric vehicle (EV) and its charging equipment (EVSE), needed to enable V2G. To further explore this topic, the thesis aims to investigate the power relations that govern the interactions and coordination efforts between the diverse stakeholders involved in the V2G standardization process.

To meet the purpose of the paper, the following research questions were formulated.

(17)

RQ1: What are the various stakeholder attitudes and views towards the standardization of EV-EVSE communication? What implications does this have on the transition?

RQ2: In what way are power relations expressed between actors within V2G standardization? What implications does this have on the transition?

1.4 Expected Contribution

Due to the interdisciplinary characteristics of the chosen topic, the thesis has the potential to make contributions within several disciplines. It primarily aims to contribute to the standardization and sustainability transition literature with the knowledge of what the selectivity of V2G standards means for the transition into electric mobility while offering a description of the V2G communication protocols.

While there is quite some socio-political work on standards in general, Kester et al. (2019) observe that highly technical and invisible standards are understudied in the energy literature and commonly misinterpreted as purely technical in scope. They further highlight that standards, through a process of co-production, are of vital importance for the governance of energy systems and play a major role in energy transitions through the various non-technical assumptions they entail. This thesis will contribute to the standardization literature by studying the interaction between actors and their attitudes towards the standardization of the EV-EVSE protocols, hence connecting the roles of the actors and their place in the sustainability transition to their attitudes on standardization.

Furthermore, the thesis aims to contribute to the body of literature on sustainability transitions. According to Markard et al. (2012), there is a general need to further specify and elaborate the conceptual frameworks within sustainability transitions which the thesis does through its modification and application of the multi-level power in transitions framework. Secondly, Farla et al. (2012) conclude that strategies of firms or the role of strategic alliances within industries did not receive much attention in the existing body of literature on socio-technical transitions. Even though sustainability is one of the core drivers for fundamental shifts in industry structures, transition research has mostly focused on meso-level contexts, such as innovation systems and socio-technical regimes. Therefore, the field might benefit from more in-depth studies on how regimes and niche structures are created and affect the uptake of technology through the strategic interplay of different types of actors (Markard et al., 2012). As Köhler et al. (2019, p. 6) acknowledge “transitions are inherently political processes, in the sense that different individuals and groups will disagree about desirable directions of transitions”. We aim to address these needs by building on existing approaches from transition theory and modifying them when needed. In doing so, the thesis also tries to meet the observed increased need for integrating other approaches and theories from other scientific disciplines with the transition research (Markard et al., 2012), namely integrating the highly technical topic of communication protocol standardization with the literature on power relations. There is also a need to improve the understanding of complementary and competing interactions between multiple technologies or niches (existing or emerging) (Köhler et al., 2019) while focusing on the existing regimes.

As Geels (2014, p. 23) claims, “most transition-scholars focus on green niche-innovations and pay less attention to existing regimes and incumbent actors”.

Additionally, the thesis aims to contribute to the research on V2G. Sovacool et al. (2017) provide a recent systematic review of V2G-related literature where the authors examine 197 peer-reviewed studies published across 17 academic databases between the years 2015-2017. Their results showed that the majority of V2G studies focused on technical aspects of V2G such as renewable energy integration, V2G

(18)

services and batteries and equipment, and the authors recognized a need for socio-technical topics to be addressed in research.

Moreover, V2G can be considered both a result of, and a driver to, the EV transition as the diffusion of V2G is determined by the EV adoption while the V2G technology itself also impacts the EV uptake through reduced cost of ownership and new revenue streams for involved actors (Noel et al., 2019a).

Therefore, this thesis also contributes to the body of literature on EV transition in general. The case of V2G provides an excellent opportunity to further explore EV transition since V2G is largely interconnected with the larger transition of e-mobility, competing with the existing internal combustion engine (ICE) mobility paradigm. Furthermore, there are several battles for dominant design within the V2G niche itself which affects its diffusion potential, a topic that can potentially be applied to other cases within transition theory, adding generalizability.

1.5 Disposition

Chapter 1: Introduction presents the context of the thesis, starting with a short background, followed by the problem statement. Thereafter, the purpose and the research questions are stated. Lastly, a description of this thesis’ contribution and its disposition is provided.

Chapter 2: Literature review provides a review of the literature related to the thesis’ main technical fields:

electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid. It also includes a description of communication standards between the electric vehicle and its charging supply equipment, which have a central role in this thesis. The purpose of the section is to present a technical foundation on the relevant topics of the thesis in order to facilitate for the reader.

Chapter 3: Theoretical lens synthesizes the relevant theory on sustainability transitions with a focus on power and the role of standards in transitions, resulting in a theoretical framework.

Chapter 4: Method describes the research design as well as the data collection and analysis that underpin the thesis. The chapter also includes a critical discussion on reliability and validity.

Chapter 5: Results and analysis presents the results gathered throughout the research process. It starts by applying the theoretical framework on the empirics by slightly modifying it, followed by analysis, discussion and interpretation of the results.

Chapter 6: Conclusions synthesizes the key findings from the results and analysis in six main points.

Following this conclusion, delimitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research are presented.

(19)

2 Literature Review

This chapter reviews literature related to the thesis’ main technical fields: electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid. The purpose of the section is to present a technical foundation on the relevant topics of the thesis in order to facilitate for the reader.

2.1 Sustainable Mobility Transition

Although the focus of the thesis is V2G, it should be acknowledged that any V2G progression takes place within the larger context of the EV transition. The transition into more sustainable modes of transport has been extensively researched during the last decades (e.g. Sovacool, 2017; Köhler et al., 2019). EVs can greatly reduce or eliminate tailpipe pollution and curtail greenhouse gas emissions compared to internal combustion engine vehicles (Sovacool et al., 2017). Turton and Moura (2008) argue that EVs offer a potential paradigm shift in how we envision future markets for energy and mobility. It requires fundamental shifts along several dimensions including development of charging infrastructure, user practices, technological improvement of batteries as well as organizational changes when the electricity and transport sector need to collaborate. It impacts urban planning, housing, production and trade as well as policymaking. Perhaps the greatest challenge in electric mobility research is how, and if, a socio-technical transition to sustainable transport is possible (Tyfield, 2014). From a systems perspective, despite countless initiatives across the world over the last 15–20 years (Geels, 2012) and an increasing acceptance of the need of decarbonization, the evidence of any appreciable change in the automobility system has for a long time remained unnoticed (Geels et al., 2013). Only recently there have been, what Geels (2018) calls, “glimmers of hope”, where tensions (e.g. local air pollution) that might provide a window of opportunity for electrified transportation. The difficulties in an EV transition can, in addition to the general complexity of socio-technical transitions, be claimed to stem from the inherent chicken-and-egg problem of building charging infrastructure for a very small volume of cars and the result of network externalities become apparent, especially in non-urban areas, creating range anxiety for the users (Tyfield, 2014). In addition, high upfront costs of buying an EV contribute to low consumer acceptance. Such transition is of systemic nature requiring system innovation and change in which many interdependencies can be observed.

2.2 The Concept of Vehicle-to-Grid

As mentioned above, V2G can be considered a smaller part of the bigger EV transition: its adoption is contingent on the diffusion of EVs while also having the potential to facilitate the general EV transition by contributing to a lower cost of ownership of the EVs. In short, V2G refers to the ability to use EV batteries to provide storage to the electricity grid. The concept was first introduced by Kempton &

Letendre in 1997. They include three main aspects in the term V2G, namely: 1) power connection with bidirectional power flow from the electric vehicle battery, 2) a system that controls charging or discharging of the batteries, such as an aggregator, 3) a means to audit the services provided to the grid.

The main rationale behind V2G is to capitalize on already existing storage by collecting and sharing revenue from grid services between the involved actors. Since the introduction in 1997, a plethora of related concepts to V2G has emerged such as vehicle-to-building (V2B), vehicle-to-home (V2H), vehicle-to-load (V2L), vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-microgrid (V2M), all presented in Table 1 (Noel et al., 2019a). These concepts are often gathered under the more overarching notions of vehicle-to-X (V2X) or vehicle-grid-integration (VGI). VGI is slightly broader than V2X in its definition as it encompasses all the ways in which a vehicle could provide services to stakeholders by optimizing EV interaction with the electricity grid, including unidirectional charging. Unidirectional charging is often

(20)

termed V1G or smart/managed/steered/controlled charging when it is used for providing energy-related services (CPUC, 2018). Alike V2G, V1G is expected to provide significant value to the grid and its associated stakeholders and is frequently mentioned and evaluated in V2G related discussions. This thesis primarily elaborates on socio-technical transition and standardization from the perspective of V2G applications. However, other closely related concepts to V2G are to an extent also included in the research and hence, this thesis uses V2G somewhat interchangeably with VGI. Furthermore, the thesis introduces the concept of EV-V2G transition to describe the V2G transition while acknowledging the fact that any type of V2G progression takes place within the larger context of the EV transition. The rest of the section presents synthesized description of the current state of the V2G technology, along with its relevant stakeholders, benefits and challenges.

Table 1: V2G related concepts. Adapted from (Noel et al., 2019a)

Term Definition Typical scale

V2H: Vehicle-to-home Using EVs to provide a variety of services such as optimizing energy consumption or providing backup power to households.

1-3 vehicles

V2B: Vehicle-to-building Using EVs to provide a variety of services such as optimizing energy consumption or providing backup power to commercial or public buildings.

1-50 vehicles

V2G: Vehicle-to-grid Using EVs to provide storage services to an electricity grid market. 5-1000 (or more) vehicles

V2V: Vehicle-to-vehicle Using one EV to charge another EV. 2 vehicles

V2L: Vehicle-to-load Providing power to an energy consuming activity or tool at off-grid locations. E.g. construction or providing healthcare at remote locations.

1-3 vehicles

V1G: Steered charging Also called smart or controlled charging. Using the unidirectional flow of

EV charging to provide load management services. 1-1000 (or more) vehicles V2M: Vehicle-to-microgrid Using EVs storage for a local grid to increase resiliency and renewable

energy integration.

5-50 vehicles

2.2.1 V2G System Overview

The success of V2G is dependent on numerous actors, subsystems and technical components. Figure 1, derived mainly from Olivella-Rosell et al. (2018) and USEF (2015), illustrates the most critical actors and components for a possible V2G setup. These system components are described in detail in the two sections below. It should be noted that the particular system design presented in Figure 1 represents a suggestion of a system setup and that alternative interrelationships and actor roles are possible (Kaufmann, 2017). Furthermore, one stakeholder can simultaneously take on several roles within the system. The potential V2G markets are to a large extent still immature (Cenex, 2018; Everoze &

EVConsult 2018; CEC 2018) and the regional differences in electricity market structure, power generation, and grid status will most likely lead to slightly different system setups depending on the regional context (Noel et al., 2019a; Olivella-Rosell et al., 2018).

(21)

Figure 1: Illustration of a potential V2G system setup. Adapted from Olivella-Rosell et al. (2018) and USEF (2005) 2.2.2 The Main Actors in a V2G System

Successful vehicle-grid-integration is contingent upon, and offers benefits to multiple stakeholders including automotive manufacturers (OEMs), utilities, electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) manufacturers, EV owners (fleet or private), aggregators, facility owners and government (Kaufmann, 2017; CEC, 2016). While recognizing that the design of the V2G system and the role of the actors are dependent on the local context, Noel et al. (2019a) make a distinction between primary and secondary actors.

The primary actors include EV owners (in Figure 1 denoted as “prosumer” due to the EV’s capability to feed back power to the grid), aggregators and the transmission and distribution system operators (TSO and DSO). Firstly, although the role of the EV owner in a V2G system is expected to be relatively passive, they are crucial for the existence of the system as the V2G progression is dependent on the EV adoption.

Furthermore, the EV owner also impacts the boundary conditions for the fleet optimization as they, through their driving patterns and preferences, affect the EV availability for V2G services. The EV owners can differ largely in characteristics and driving pattern which is advantageous for pooling the distributed resources. A common distinction is typically made between private EV owners and company fleet owners. The EV availability is further affected by the type of charging infrastructure present. As an example, residential charging, workplace charging, public fast charging, commercial building charging and dedicated fleet charging all entail different charging characteristics and EV availabilities. These different charging infrastructures complement each other and can be combined to improve the availability and reliability of capacity for the aggregator (Kaufmann, 2017). Secondly, the aggregator manages the pooling of the distributed EVs in order to provide various grid services. The system makes use of sophisticated communication, advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and algorithms to maximize the value of flexibility while taking constraints such as driving predictions, state of charge (SOC) and charging station power capacity into consideration (Briones et al. 2012). The aggregating service is likely to be operated by a third party, although many different stakeholders within the V2G system such as OEMs, chargepoint providers or utilities, could potentially claim this role as well (Kaufmann, 2017; Noel et al., 2019a; Bessa &

(22)

Matos, 2010; CEC, 2018). The last stakeholder group of the primary actors, the TSO and DSO, are responsible for the electricity distribution. They are typically the primary beneficiary of V2G services but may also play a role in grid connection permissions and market place design (Noel et al., 2019a; OVO Energy, 2019).

To the category of secondary actors, Noel et al. (2019a) include government, OEMs, EVSE providers and electricity producers. While these stakeholders are considered crucial components in the V2G system, they are not necessarily active participants. Firstly, the government plays an important role in enabling a viable V2G system by providing a suitable regulatory framework for e.g. aggregator participation, storage regulation, grid interconnection, and tax regulations (Noel et al., 2019a). Additionally, they can support the EV-V2G transition by addressing market failures with policy instruments such as subsidies and taxes (Geels, 2010). The government can also shape the direction and speed of the EV-V2G transition through market signaling and mandating certain standards related to the technology (CEC, 2016; Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016). Secondly, as the manufacturer of EVs, the OEMs, are crucial for the existence of a V2G system.

They are in control of the EV development and manufacturing processes and decide on V2G capability and battery warranties (Noel et al., 2019a; CEC, 2018). Furthermore, they possess valuable data points such as driving patterns and SOC which are vital for precise and reliable aggregation services (CEC, 2016).

Thirdly, another primary enabler of a V2G system is the provider of the charging stations. The providers of EVSE can affect the system design both by taking the initiative as an aggregator and by integrating certain standards, communication protocols, and V2G functionality into the equipment (Everoze &

EVConsult, 2018; Noel et al., 2019a; Bessa & Matos, 2010). Finally, the electricity producers are dependent on energy storage capacity or backup power to maintain grid reliability when integrating more renewable energy sources which tie their interests to the V2G technology (Kempton & Tomic, 2005; Noel et al., 2019a; Kaufmann, 2017). V2G services would also minimize the curtailment of renewable energy generation and support electricity producers in fulfilling their grid support or ancillary services obligations (Briones et al., 2012). Furthermore, it is likely that the utilities who also act as energy retailers will impact the stakeholder interactions and the design of the V2G system as they many times already have established interfaces, energy contracts and other touchpoints with the consumer (Vattenfall, 2017).

Another actor group in the V2G system that has not received much attention in literature is the property owner or the site host who provides the location for the electrical infrastructure and who often bears the associated costs for e.g. installation and demand charges. Any type of V2G solution has to conform to the needs of this stakeholder group as they have the power to raise the cost of parking or exclude EVSE installations altogether in the absence of incentives or remuneration (CEC 2016, CEC 2018). Likewise, the V2G system somehow needs to compensate the balance responsible party (BRP) who ultimately is financially responsible for the potential imbalances caused by the aggregator. Several frameworks have been developed to account for these and similar challenges, including USEF’s interaction model (2015) and Sweco’s (Sahlén et al., 2018) suggestions on aggregation models.

2.2.3 V2G Technology Overview

This chapter aims to give a short overview of the state of V2G technology. In addition to the actors above, adjustments to the hardware of the EV and the charging stations are necessary in order to enable V2G. Furthermore, communication protocols between the EV and the EVSE as well as between the EVSE and the aggregator are also required. According to Yilmaz and Krein (2013), the necessary technology components include an EV with bidirectional functionality and its associated battery, V2G

(23)

enabled charging infrastructure, on-board and off-board electrical metering and control, as well as communication protocols.

2.2.3.1 Hardware Requirements

Up to date, there is a notable absence of V2G enabled EVs. From a vehicle perspective, the bidirectional capabilities are enabled by the addition of another on-board communication chip (Noel et al., 2019a).

Currently, the commercially available V2G compatible vehicles are Nissan Leaf, Nissan e-NV200 and Mitsubishi Outlander (PHEV). All three models use DC charging, supported with the CHAdeMO communication protocol while the first EV (Renault Zoe) with bidirectional AC compatibility is currently being tested by Renault (Kaufmann, 2017; Green Car Congress, 2019). Additionally, there has been a number of proof-of-concept demonstrations of the hardware required to perform V2G where a small number of EVs of various models have been configured to V2G compatibility (Christensen et al., 2018).

Alike the V2G enabled EVs, there is also a deficiency in V2G capable charge points. V2G is possible through both AC and DC. The key difference between the two configurations is whether the bidirectional converter is placed in the EV or on the charge point. When using fast DC charging, the bidirectional charger is placed on the charging unit. Due to this design, and due to low economies of scale, DC charging stations are typically expensive compared to AC charging stations (Kaufmann, 2019). The DC configuration has been adopted by the first movers such as Nissan and Mitsubishi, using CHAdeMO connectors (CHAdeMO, 2018; Cenex, 2018). The second configuration requires an onboard AC/DC converter and a DC/AC inverter (bidirectional converter) since batteries require DC power in order to be charged. There are no commercialized V2G compatible AC charging stations or ports to-date. One of the reasons for this is that V2G compatibility requires additional hardware to be installed in the vehicles, consequently requiring OEMs to include V2G components when designing the EVs which increases the capital cost and the complexity (CEC, 2018). Another reason is the current absence of communication protocols that allows for AC bidirectional charging (V2G Clarity, 2019).

2.2.3.2 Communication Protocols

The final technology components necessary for a V2G system are the communication protocols which have a central role in this thesis. The standard landscape of e-mobility and V2G is extensive. Figure 2 shows the most central standards for information exchange which covers e.g. authorization and authentication, but also sending commands for charging control. The standard map has been derived from the Dutch smart charging infrastructure innovation center, Elaad (2016) with a few slight modifications obtained from Kester et al. (2019) and Schmutzler et al. (2013). As seen in Figure 2, many of the protocols are connected to different information exchanges between multiple stakeholders. Additionally, many protocols act as substitutes to one another and can vary greatly regarding standardization properties such as interoperability, maturity, and openness (Elaad, 2016). As a consequence, different combinations of protocols can be used for an “end-to-end” solution. Furthermore, it should be brought to the reader’s attention that Figure 2 merely presents standards related to communication. A plethora of additional standards is therefore, for the sake of simplicity and focus, excluded in this description. As an example, in the connection between the EV and the EVSE, several other standards exist including e.g. IEC 61439 for low voltage switchgear and IEC 62196 for plugs, socket-outlets, vehicle couplers and vehicle inlets (Schmutzler et al., 2013; SIS, 2010; IEC, 2003). Since this thesis focuses on the communication protocols between the EV and EVSE, the upcoming section further elaborates on the four preeminent standards within this space.

(24)

Figure 2: Illustration of the main protocols related to information exchange in e-mobility (Elaad, 2016)

Four EV-EVSE communication standards with varying adoption rates, competitive advantages and outlook currently exist in parallel: ISO 15118, SAE J2847, CHAdeMO and GB/T 27930. The ISO 15118 protocol was first published in 2013 and several new editions have been released since then (Multin, 2018).

It carries considerable legitimacy as it is an international standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and builds on IEC 61851. It has further been selected as the national standard for all European countries by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (Kester et al., 2019). The protocol is developed by numerous experts in the field and contains extensive functionality such as wireless charging and power transfer and a variety of different means to authenticate and authorize users (CEC, 2016; Multin, 2018).

However, despite the comprehensiveness of ISO 15118, it currently does not cover bidirectional capabilities. This feature is expected to be included in the second edition of ISO 15118-2 which will be published at the end of 2019 or early in 2020 (Multin, 2018; V2G Clarity, 2019). Notwithstanding the current V2G incompatibility, ISO 15118 is likely to be the single uniform standard in the western parts of the world (Kester et al., 2019; CEC, 2018; Kaufmann, 2017). Many stakeholders, including OEMs, have either already implemented ISO 15118 or are in the process of doing so (CEC, 2016; CEC, 2018).

Consequently the American Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) standard SAE J2847, which was published in 2010 and which already bears many similarities to ISO 15118, is currently being updated with the goal to remove all remaining differences between the two protocols in order to completely harmonize SAE J2847 with the international standard (Kester et al., 2019; CEC, 2016).

Unlike the three other EV-EVSE communication protocols, CHAdeMO is a de facto standard, originating from Japan. The first R&D initiatives were commenced in 2005 and the first compatible charging infrastructure appeared in 2009. Today it is a globally recognized standard that conforms to standards such as IEC 61851, IEC 62196 as well as IEEE 2030 and is composed of a network of 400 global member organizations. Currently, it has the largest number of certified charging stations of all communication standards and has the highest number of EV models that are compatible with the protocol. Furthermore, it is to date the only readily available protocol with bidirectional capabilities and has therefore been the obvious choice for V2G projects despite only being compatible with DC charging. As a result, at least 21

(25)

pilot projects have been conducted with CHAdeMO as a communication protocol to date (CHAdeMO, 2018; Kester et al., 2019).

Finally, the fourth communication protocol, GB/T 27930 is a de jure communication protocol created as a national standard for the Chinese market. It is based on insights from ISO and SAE and has a high installed base due to the large EV stock in China (CHAdeMO, 2018, IEA, 2018). Both GB/T 27930 and CHAdeMO are based on controller area network (CAN) whereas ISO 15118 and SAE J2847 are based on power line communication (PLC). The choice of using CAN seems to be driven by the automotive industry where CAN protocols are common (Kester et al., 2019).

2.2.4 Potential V2G Services and Benefits

Literature suggests a wide range of services that V2G solutions will be able to provide (Noel et al., 2019a;

Cenex, 2018; Pearre & Ribberink, 2019). Given the infancy of the technology, the potential value of the different services is still unclear and the benefits of each service are expected to vary depending on the local market and its regulatory context. The most frequently discussed V2G services are summarized in Table 2, derived from Everoze & EVConsult (2018), Sahlén et al. (2018), EPRI (2016), Cenex (2018), Pieper & Rubel (2011), Kaufmann (2017) and Noel et al. (2019a).

The V2G services commonly pointed out as the most promising are ancillary market services, DSO services as well as V2B/V2H services (Noel et al., 2019a; Pearre & Ribberink, 2019; Cenex 2018;

Kaufmann et al., 2019). Ancillary services towards the TSO have received much attention from literature over the years and have sometimes been referred to as the “best match” or the “preferred service” for V2G (Noel et al., 2019a; Pearre & Ribberink, 2019). However, more recently, concerns about market saturation for such services have gained momentum (Cenex, 2018; CEC 2018; Høj et al., 2018; Knight 2019; Kester et al., 2018) and consequently, use cases for DSO and V2B/V2H applications have received increasingly more attention. DSO services offer great potential but the market is highly immature and several uncertainties remain; clear stakeholder roles and responsibilities, as well as market rules, still need to be defined (Knezovic et al., 2015; Cenex, 2018). V2H has also received much attention from industry and academia (Noel et al., 2019a) and is sometimes cited as the first or easiest application of V2X technology as it does not require aggregation or integration with grid management parties to the same extent as many other V2G applications (Pearre & Ribberink, 2019).

The V2G applications presented in this section are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, studies point out that the optimal service offering will most likely be a bundling of the different V2G services, tailor-made for a specific market or context. This is believed to especially be the case for the next years to come, as niche markets with very specific market contexts continue to dominate commercial V2G activities and as the profitability for single individual service remains low (Noel et al., 2019a; Cenex, 2018;

Everoze & EVConsult 2018; Pearre & Ribberink, 2019; Kaufmann, 2017).

In addition to the services listed in Table 2 which provide direct benefits to certain actors in the system, V2G also offers significant societal and system-wide indirect benefits. Firstly, it has the potential to produce system-wide cost savings as it offers a cost-efficient option for grid-related services. Secondly, V2G is expected to provide environmental and health benefits. The technology has the potential to accelerate the decarbonization of ancillary services by replacing fossil based backup power (Noel et al., 2019a). Additionally, the flexibility from V2G allows for increased renewable energy integration. V2G

(26)

could also support the decarbonization of the transportation sector by accelerating the EV adoption by for example by lowering the cost of EV ownership (Noel et al., 2019a; Kaufmann, 2017).

Table 2: Summary of potential V2G services

Service category Service Description and benefits

Ancillary market (TSO) services

Frequency regulation Aggregated car fleets can cost-efficiently provide frequency control improving the grid resilience and the integration potential of renewable energy sources in the grid.

Spinning reserves Aggregated car fleets can cost-efficiently dispatch energy in case of loss of generation which improves the grid resilience and the integration potential of renewable energy sources in the grid.

DSO services

Capacity constraint management / congestion reduction

Deferral or avoidance of transmission and distribution equipment investments by mitigating local congestion issues through rescheduling power consumption away from peak hours as well as dispatching electricity to the local distribution network.

Voltage control Voltage regulation can be performed in order to maintain the voltage between standard defined limits. This minimizes the risk of equipment failures which can significantly reduce grid operation costs.

Electricity trading

Arbitrage Bidirectional charging can be used to purchase electricity at low prices and sell at high prices. Profitability is possible if the price differences exceed round-trip efficiency losses and operational costs.

Other V2X services

Time shifting/peak shaving through V2B/V2H

Avoidance of high electricity prices and peak power charges by shifting the timing of energy use from both vehicle and household.

Backup power and black-starts

EV provides resilience services such as backup power in the event of e.g. blackouts.

V2V services When an EV is used to charge another EV. Could improve energy accessibility and customer acceptance while reducing range anxiety.

V2L services When an EV is used to supply power to an energy consuming activity (e.g. construction, emergency healthcare ) at remote off-grid locations.

Renewable energy integration synergy

Can improve ROI on intermittent generation installations as it reduces curtailment. For energy prosumers, it also has the potential to increase the share of self-consumption thus minimizing distribution network fees.

2.2.5 Barriers to V2G Adoption

In socio-economic transitions, the challenges related to V2G are interconnected and by nature difficult to unbundle: e.g. battery degradation might be a technical challenge but also affects the consumers’

willingness to participate. Despite this, an attempt has been made to cluster the issues into social^, technical and economicandregulatory challenges, aligned with Noel et al. (2019a).

2.2.5.1 Consumer and Social Challenges

Noel et al. (2019b) interviewed 227 industry experts about the challenges of V2G and found that consumer resistance was considered a challenge to V2G uptake. Indeed, while technological and regulatory challenges are important to overcome, it is, in the end, the consumers who will choose whether to participate or not in a V2G system (at least as long as the current user-centered ownership model of the EV remains).

While customer hesitation often is pointed out in studies, a very limited number of studies have been investigating the consumer side of V2G due to the immaturity of the technology. A choice experiment

(27)

across the five Nordic countries (Noel et al., 2019c) showed that, even when explicitly stating the revenues and without strict contract terms, consumers were not willing to pay any extra for V2G capabilities in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland (V2G capabilities added €4000 and €5200 to the total value of the EV in Norway and Finland, respectively). In a study from 2014, Delaware University assessed willingness to pay for V2G and showed that the consumers were very sensitive to driving constraints and that they valued up-front payments over a lower total cost of ownership, meaning that they heavily discounted future savings (Parsons et al., 2014).

Range anxiety is a challenge to EV uptake in general and, unsurprisingly, this seems to affect the user acceptance of V2G further as it adds on to the anxiety of insufficient state of charge when the driver wishes to use the EV (Hidrue & Parsons, 2015; Esmaili et al., 2018; Geske & Schumann, 2018). The range anxiety and customers’ fear of battery degradation are both significant factors for customer hesitation and are, at least partially, caused by low consumer awareness and high complexity of the system (Noel et al., 2019a Noel et al., 2019b). Consequently, studies point out the importance of education to minimize range anxiety and fear of battery degradation in order to improve customer acceptance (Noel et al., 2019a). In addition to education and awareness, simplicity is also highlighted as a crucial factor for V2G adoption.

Consumers tend to value seamless driving with as few interactions as possible with potential V2G application interfaces (CEC, 2016; Kaufmann, 2017). Simplicity is not only mentioned in terms of interaction and involvement but also in relation to the complexity of the value offering directed towards the customers. The study conducted by Noel et al. (2019b) stresses the need of over-simplifying the value offering when addressing the general public since topics like frequency regulation can be overly complex for consumers to understand, making them discouraged and confused. Indeed, as long as they opt-in to the basic concept of V2G, they do not have to understand the underlying elements. It is also likely that consumer hesitation decreases with higher general EV penetration.

2.2.5.2 Technical Challenges

Again, due to the nascent state of the V2G technology, technical challenges still have to be solved before a wider uptake is possible. The main technical challenges include lack of available communication standards supporting bidirectional power flow as well as battery technology, elaborated below.

Firstly, as described in the section Communication Protocols, there is a number of different communication protocols for transferring necessary messages between the EV and EVSE. To date, at least four communication protocols are being implemented and proposed by various groups: ISO 15118, SAE J2847, GB/T 27930 and the de facto standard CHAdeMO. While a high variety of standards facilitates competition and thus prevents sub-optimal solutions to be implemented, it could also prevent faster uptake since it leads to market fragmentation and could make companies reluctant to invest in the technology due to the high risk of lock-in (Jacobsson & Bergek, 2004; CEC, 2016). For example, as an OEM or EVSE provider, the choice to implement e.g. CHAdeMO instantly excludes all clients which run on other protocols such as ISO 15118. This puts the industry actor in a difficult position as it has to choose between technologies (Kaufmann, 2017). In this perspective, a single standard could be more effective in influencing the direction of efforts and resource mobilization (Ho & O’Sullivan, 2016).

Moreover, the existing standards all display their own imperfections. As an example, ISO has been criticized for its insufficient security measures related to data integrity and confidentiality (Kester et al., 2019). Likewise, CHAdeMO also has its deficiencies as it is unable to process a lot of information and only works with DC charging which impacts scalability and diminishes the profitability potential due to the high costs of DC chargers (Kaufmann, 2017; NewMotion, 2019; Carbon & Gebauer, 2017).

Standardization in Sustainability Transitions: A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

Standardization in

Sustainability Transitions

A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

JULIA ELF

LUDVIG SVENSSON

Standardization in Sustainability Transitions

A Study on Stakeholder Attitudes and Power Relations During the Standardization Process in the Vehicle-to-Grid Ecosystem

Julia Elf Ludvig Svensson

Abstract

Sammanfattning

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Abbreviations and Acronyms

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Purpose and Research Questions

1.4 Expected Contribution

1.5 Disposition

2 Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Mobility Transition

2.2 The Concept of Vehicle-to-Grid