UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
FACULTY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
WILL ELECTRIC VEHICLES BE A BURDEN OR
BENEFIT FOR ONTARIO’S AGING POWER GRID?
Honours Environment and Resource Studies Thesis
Prepared by: Devon Beare 20222664
Advisor: Bob Gibson
May 14, 2012
Table of Contents
List of Tables & Figures ................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................iv
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... Pg. 1
1.1 Key Thesis Question .............................................................................................................. Pg. 2
1.2 Rationale ............................................................................................................................... Pg. 3
1.3 Significance ........................................................................................................................... Pg. 3
1.4 Methods ................................................................................................................................ Pg. 4
1.5 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. Pg. 4
2.0 Electric Vehicles ................................................................................................................... Pg. 5
2.1 EV Technology and Availability ........................................................................................... Pg. 5
2.1.1 Current Technology .................................................................................................. Pg. 5
2.1.2 Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Systems ............................................................................... Pg. 6
2.1.3 EV Manufacturers .....................................................................................................Pg. 7
2.1.4 Anticipated Technological Improvements Through Research and Development . Pg. 9
2.2 EVs as the Primary Source of Personal Transportation .....................................................Pg. 10
2.2.1 Why EVs? ................................................................................................................Pg. 10
2.2.2 Electric Vehicles in Ontario .................................................................................... Pg. 12
2.2.3 Future Predictions for Electric Vehicles ................................................................ Pg. 14
2.3 Summary of Electric Vehicles ............................................................................................. Pg. 15
3.0 Ontario’s Power Grid .......................................................................................................... Pg. 16
3.1 Current Capacity and Infrastructure of Ontario’s Power Grid ........................................... Pg. 17
3.2 Renewable Energy in Ontario ............................................................................................. Pg. 18
3.3 Current Energy Storage Capabilities and Technologies ..................................................... Pg. 19
3.4 Contributing to the Development of Ontario’s ‘Smart Grid’ ............................................. Pg. 22
3.5 Summary of Ontario’s Energy System ............................................................................... Pg. 24
4.0 Potential Impacts of Electric Vehicles on Ontario’s Power Grid ...................................... Pg. 25
4.1 EV Demand on Ontario’s Electricity System ..................................................................... Pg. 25
4.1.1 Implications for Peak Load Demand ..................................................................... Pg. 26
4.1.2 Implications for Base load Demand ...................................................................... Pg. 30
4.2 EV Capabilities as Power Storage Devices ......................................................................... Pg. 34
4.2.1 Limits to V2G Power Availability .......................................................................... Pg. 36
4.3 Services Provided by V2G Systems .....................................................................................Pg. 37
4.4 Economic Implications of EV Adoption In Ontario .......................................................... Pg. 39
4.5 Summary of Implications, Effects, Benefits, Costs and Risks of EV Adoption for Ontario’s
Electrical Energy System.......................................................................................................... Pg. 40
5.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... Pg. 41
5.1 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. Pg. 44
5.2 Directions for Future Research .......................................................................................... Pg. 46
Works Cited .............................................................................................................................. Pg. 47
Appendix A - Ontario / Total Market Peak Demand (May 2002-February 2012) ................. Pg. 52
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 – Ontario Vehicle Registration (2009 Census) ............................................................ Pg. 12
Table 2 – Ontario Population Projections (2006 Census) ....................................................... Pg. 13
Figure 1 – Highest Urbanized Centres in Ontario (2011) ......................................................... Pg. 14
Figure 2 – Existing Generation Resources in Ontario (Jan 2012) ........................................... Pg. 17
Figure 3 – Ontario Installed Capacity by Source (MW) ........................................................... Pg. 21
Figure 4 – Minimum Ontario Demand and Base load Generation (Including Net Exports) . Pg. 31
iii
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the emergence of electric vehicles in Ontario, Canada, the likely impacts that
large-scale electric vehicle adoption would have on the power grid, and the extent to which the
province will need to plan, adapt, and/or alter its current capacity and infrastructure system in
order to accommodate future demand. The recent re-emergence of electric vehicles into the
personal transportation market is predicted to increase substantially in the following decades,
offering many potential benefits and adverse impacts depending on how this technology is
developed and implemented. In Ontario, under the provincial government’s current vision,
approximately 360,000 EVs are expected to emerge by 2020, congregating (at least initially) in
the most urbanized areas of southern Ontario. Consumers will likely embrace EVs in the near
future as vehicle costs decrease, gasoline prices rise, governments provide financial incentives,
and battery technology improves. Concurrently, the adoption of electric vehicles in large
numbers will impact the electrical grid in which they are connected. Ontario’s current energy
system, dominated by nuclear, oil and gas, and hydroelectric power facilities, will require a
major overhaul in order to meet future energy demands. Renewable energy sources, such as
wind and solar, are targeted to provide an increased supply of power to the grid. Although not
currently planned, these systems will require the development and implementation of highcapacity energy storage devices throughout the province. Electric vehicles, if implemented
correctly, could provide much of this energy storage capacity, in addition to other grid services,
through vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology. Realizing the full potential of this technology, in
connection with other energy system developments (such as smart-grid technology), will require
strategic planning by government agencies, grid operators, and utilities; stakeholder
engagement, specifically with vehicle owners; the re-evaluation of future energy plans, especially
Ontario’s 2007 Long Term Energy Plan; and the development and implementation of
appropriate government and utility-based policies and legislation. The emerging opportunities
of electric vehicles to revolutionize both the personal transportation sector and related
technological and energy infrastructure systems over the next 5 to 10 years are immense.
Without adequate planning, adaptation, and altering of current energy plans, however, many of
these benefits will not be fully realized in Ontario.
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Electric vehicles (EVs), once the primary source of personal motorized transportation
across North America, are slowly re-emerging into the mainstream automotive market. EVs,
with their many benefits over horses, bicycles, trains, steam engines and gasoline vehicles,
quickly became the vehicle of choice for personal transportation in the United States between
1900 and 1905 (Sovacool, 2009). Drivers saw passenger and commercial EVs as clean, quiet and
the simplest vehicles to operate on the market, particularly in comparison with gasoline and
steam powered automobiles. Commercial operators also saw the benefits of EVs, as commodity
suppliers were dependent on them for the distribution of goods (Sovacool, 2009). Not only was
electric vehicle technology accepted by early drivers, it also saw many improvements over a
short period of time; with the “perfection” of the nickel-iron storage battery by Edison in 1909,
the storage capacity and range of EVs increased by 35% and 230% respectively between 1910
and 1925 (Sovacool, 2009). Furthermore, the lifespan of EV batteries increased by 300% while
maintenance costs fell by 63%. Significant technical challenges, however, combined with
economic, political and socio-economic factors led to the eventual demise of the once prominent
electric-powered vehicle. Peaking in 1901 and 1902, when approximately 62% of vehicles in the
United States were electric-powered, EV use slowly waned and then diminished severely; by
1920, electric vehicles comprised less than 2% of the overall market, having given way to the
gasoline-powered vehicle (Sovacool, 2009). This decline was due in part to slower technological
improvements and lower top speeds compared to gasoline vehicles, limited viability outside of
urban areas, and recharging difficulties (Sovacool, 2009). The issue of viability is appropriately
summarized in the 1904 issue of Frank Leslie’s Monthly, which states:
“The electric car, being dependent on power houses, is thereby limited to use in cities and
suburbs where charging stations are sufficiently numerous. Considering only the highest
developed types, the steam and gasoline systems are both eminently suited to long distance
touring as well as to local work” (Shields, 2007; p.91).
Due to these challenges, consumers quickly viewed EVs as old-fashioned, particularly when
compared to their gasoline counterparts, which became symbols of individualism, social renewal,
and universality (Sovacool, 2009).
In the mid 1990s, electrical engines began to re-emerge as an alternative power source
for modern vehicles (Dijk & Yarime, 2010). Until the mid-90s, small companies outside the
automotive manufacturing industry dominated electric vehicle sales and production. Around
1995, however, conventional auto manufacturers began to show an increased interest in
1
marketing electric vehicles to consumers (Dijk & Yarime, 2010); this interest appeared shortly
before the California Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate was enacted in 1996 (see Collantes
& Sperling, 2008 for more detail). Manufacturers began the production of new electric vehicles
in 1996, favouring the electrification of existing models as a low-cost strategy (Dijk & Yarime,
2010). Renewed interest in electric vehicles was short-lived, however, as EVs proved
unsuccessful in the automotive market. With only a few thousand sold annually between 1995
and 2000 worldwide, electric vehicles were scrapped once again. Among other factors, the
limited range and higher prices of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles were cited as the main
reasons that electric vehicles failed with consumers (Dijk & Yarime, 2010). This failure was welldocumented in the 2006 documentary film “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, which examined the
rise and fall of EVs in North America, as well as California’s ZEV mandate (IMDB.com, 2006).
Despite their past difficulties, electric vehicles are gradually resurfacing into the modern
automotive market. According to Brown, Pyke & Steenhof (2010): “The emerging opportunity
for electric vehicles (EVs) to revolutionize both the transportation sector and related
technological and infrastructure systems over the next 5 to 10 years is immense” (p.3797).
Although EVs currently represent only a small portion of the automotive market, some analyses
expect that they will experience rapid growth over the coming decades. Estimates by JP Morgan,
for example, state that:
“By 2020, 11 million EVs could be sold worldwide, including 6 million in North America. This
will represent nearly 20% of the North American auto market and 13% of the global passenger
market at that point in time” (Brown, Pyke & Steenhof, 2010).
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and improving energy
security are cited as the main reasons for wide-scale EV adoption. In addition, new vehicle-togrid (V2G) technology, which offers joint benefits for transportation and electrical power
systems, will likely provide further incentives for EV advocates (Sovacool & Hirsh, 2009).
1.1 KEY THESIS QUESTION
Although achieving the accurate prediction of future trends is at best difficult, it seems that EVs
have a greater opportunity now than in any point in history to emerge as the dominant form of
personal motorized transportation in North America. However, the extent of impacts from this
emerging technology on current energy supplies and infrastructure systems is not known. The
following thesis report answers the questions: What are the likely impacts of large-scale electric
vehicle adoption on Ontario, Canada’s power grid and to what extent will the province need to
plan, adapt, and/or alter its current capacity and infrastructure systems in order to
2
accommodate future demand? Research conducted in this report assists with filling in existing
knowledge gaps relating to future power consumption trends in the province, as well as the
anticipated effects of EVs on Ontario’s power grid. Original research was conducted on the
potential use of EV batteries as energy storage devices and intermittent power supplies for
Ontario’s power grid during periods of peak energy demand. Furthermore, this report provides
conclusions and recommendations based on relevant literature and educated predictions as to
how the province can address expected impacts of EVs (both positive and negative) and act in
order to meet anticipated future demands.
1.2 RATIONALE
With the recent re-emergence of EVs into the personal transportation market, the need for
planning and long-term goal setting will become increasingly important for the Province of
Ontario. As outlined by the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (2010),
“The large-scale roll out of plug-in electric vehicles across Ontario will not happen overnight.
It will take anywhere from three to five years for a significant share of the early adopters to
hit the road, and longer for a critical mass to emerge” (p.138).
Significant adjustments to the electrical power grid and infrastructure system, however, will also
not be designed and implemented overnight. Therefore, it’s imperative that the provincial
government, and other stakeholders involved, develop and plan in advance of large-scale EV
adaptation in order to determine infrastructure and energy requirements and ensure these
technologies are readily available to accommodate anticipated future demands.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE
Large-scale electric vehicle adoption offers many potential benefits and potential adverse
impacts, depending on how the technology is developed and transitioned in a market dominated
by gasoline-burning vehicles. According to Brown, Pyke & Steenhof (2010),
“The impacts of the EV in regards to public health and safety, environmental sustainability, as
well as how quickly this technology is adopted will be greatly influenced by the standards
which the EV and related infrastructure are designed and the adherence to these standards by
manufacturers, technicians, and other related professionals. New performance standards and
regulations for systems, designs, infrastructure, and education will have to play a key role in
this technological change by establishing consistent and compatible design and performance
for technologies and infrastructure” (p.3798).
3
The Government of Ontario will, therefore, be required to take adequate steps for the
preparation and development of a province-wide strategy for energy and infrastructure in
anticipation of electric vehicle adoption. This will be particularly important if the province hopes
to achieve its vision of having 1 out of 20 vehicles driven in Ontario to be electrically powered by
2020 (Ministry of Transportation, 2010a). In addition, the implementation of EVs in
combination with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology could play a significant role in the future of
Ontario’s power grid and energy infrastructure. Even without taking into account the burden of
electric vehicles, Ontario’s power grid will require an almost complete reconstruction within the
next 20 years (Winfield et al, 2010). This presents a unique opportunity for the province to
integrate renewable and sustainable power generating systems with the potential energy storage
capacities of electric vehicles.
1.4 METHODS
Research conducted in this thesis report was undertaken using academic and peer-reviewed
sources, in addition to reports from government organizations and media sources. Publically
available documents from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) have provided the majority of
information for Ontario’s power system, including current installed capacity and the capability
of the power grid to handle future demand. Documents from electric vehicle manufacturers,
such as Nissan and Tesla Motors, provided power demand information for EVs and expected
technology and market trends for the future. Finally, peer-reviewed journal articles provided
information for anticipated technological improvements and developments for EVs, expected
impacts to peak and base load demand, implications for future power supply and energy
infrastructure developments, and the potential benefits and limitations of large-scale electric
vehicle adoption in Ontario. Due to the nature of the research question, the limitations of the
available information, and the uncertainties associated with predicting future trends (e.g. EV
successes and/or failures, consumer demand, technological improvements and/or
breakthroughs), this report can provide only preliminary estimates and predictions relating to
future impacts of electric vehicles supported by available data and knowledge.
1.5 NEXT STEPS
The following chapters of this report will outline and discuss in detail the various aspects of
electric vehicle technologies, Ontario’s power grid, the potential impacts of EVs on the current
power grid, the capabilities and capacity of EVs as temporary power storage devices, and the
4
potential implications of this technology for the province of Ontario. This report will provide an
analysis framework of available technologies, Ontario’s energy infrastructure system (as it
stands today), and expected future research and development for electric vehicles. This
framework will be used to provide conclusions and recommendations for how the province can
develop an effective and efficient working relationship between EVs and the local power grid,
taking into account provincial objectives for transportation and sustainability.
Recommendations will include necessary changes to current energy infrastructure systems that
could impact the availability and viability of EV technology for use as personal automotive
transportation in the future.
2.0 ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Electric Vehicles (EVs) have gained popularity in recent years as stricter climate policies are
established and a growing dependency on fossil fuel resources is realized (Schill, 2011). Through
the use of a broad range of electrical energy sources, including renewables, EVs claim a range of
benefits over conventional gasoline vehicles, including greater energy efficiency, lower noise,
and a reduction of CO2 (and other air pollutant) emissions (Schill, 2011). EVs represent a way in
which personal gasoline-automotive transportation users can reduce their CO2 emissions and
their oil dependency through the use of more efficient powertrains that utilize energy from grid
electricity (Doucette & McCulloch, 2011). When connected to the electric grid, an Energy Storage
System (ESS) receives power, which is stored onboard the vehicle. Although an ESS can take
many forms, conventional batteries are the most common presently used (Doucette &
McCulloch, 2011). While designs for EVs vary, all have a battery-electric drive in substitution of
a conventional internal combustion engine (Schill, 2011). The only exception is Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), which use power from the electric grid combined with an internal
combustion engine (Doucette & McCulloch, 2011). Only “pure” electric vehicles, which do not
contain internal combustion engines or fuel cells, will be considered in this report.
2.1 EV TECHNOLOGY AND AVAILABILITY
2.1.1 CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
Grid electricity as a power source for vehicles provides many advantages over conventional fossil
fuel-powered vehicles. However, it has two main disadvantages that call into question its
applicability for use in personal automotive transportation. Pearre et al (2011) identifies these
disadvantages as storage and recharging. “Storing it [electricity] is more bulky and expensive
5
(batteries versus a sheet metal gas tank) and refuelling is slow” (p.1172). These disadvantages
imply that EVs, when compared to gasoline vehicles, will initially suffer from higher costs,
reduced range and refuelling challenges when commuting/traveling significant distances
(Pearre et al, 2011). Current electric vehicle technology is entirely reliant on internal battery
storage systems; when used in EV applications, batteries are generally the heaviest component
of the powertrain, accounting for over one third of a vehicles weight in some cases (Pearre et al,
2011). Battery recharging for electric vehicles is also currently limited mainly to households, as
few charging stations exist along roads and highways unlike those available for fossil fuelpowered vehicles. Battery technology is constantly improving, however, and will likely decrease
in weight and size, with concurrent increases to capacity and recharge speed with new research
and development (Doucette & McCulloch, 2011). In addition, the Government of Ontario, as well
as EV manufacturers (such as Tesla Motors), have committed to the construction of public
recharging facilities across the province (Ministry of Transportation, 2010a). Therefore, with
proper research and development, issues with early model EVs will largely be negated.
2.1.2 VEHICLE-TO-GRID (V2G) SYSTEMS
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology is one of many potential energy storage technologies that can
be adapted to support flexible energy systems in Ontario through the improved use of
fluctuating renewable energy sources (e.g. wind and solar) (Lund & Kempton, 2008) V2G
technology, via a real-time signal, combines the automobile (specifically the vehicles battery)
with existing grid utility systems (Sovacool & Hirsh, 2009), giving EVs the capability to deliver
power from the vehicles Energy Storage System to the grid, controlled in part by the needs of the
electric system (Lund & Kempton, 2008). This two-way communication system enables utilities
to better manage electricity resources and control peak energy demand requirements placed on
the grid (Sovacool & Hirsh, 2009). For utilities, V2G resources could be quite large, especially
considering that vehicles in the United States (likely similar to those in Ontario) travel on the
road only 4-5% of the day, and at least 90% sit unused, even during peak traffic hours (Sovacool
& Hirsh, 2009). V2G systems could also provide financial benefits to owners, thus reducing the
overall costs of purchasing an electric vehicle. Vehicle to Grid systems allow vehicle owners to
generate revenue from selling power back to the grid (Sovacool & Hirsh, 2009). As identified by
Birnie (2009):
“The batteries in these vehicles can store cheaper night-time power and deliver it back to the
grid during daytime hours when demand for electricity and prices are highest” (p.539).
6
For those concerned with CO2 emissions reductions, V2G systems, although appealing, would
only provide a partial reduction in emissions as only a fraction of Ontario’s grid energy
generation is derived from renewable resources (Birnie, 2009). Increased emission reductions
(up to 100%) could be achieved through Solar-to-Vehicle (S2V) systems, which would provide
daytime EV charging through the utilization of energy from solar arrays installed on household
rooftops and/or shade structures over parking lots (Birnie, 2009). Although the feasibility of
these systems will be largely dependent on solar energy influx and seasonal variation, an
analysis conducted by Birnie (2009) determined that “solar collectors of a size similar to one’s
parking space could generate enough power to carry a commuter (within a reasonable distance)
to and from work using EVs with appropriate battery capacity” (p.541). Similar systems using
residential-scale wind turbines are also conceivable and could generate power during the day
and night depending on wind availability.
2.1.3 EV MANUFACTURERS
Several prominent vehicle manufacturers in North America and Asia are introducing electric
vehicle models into the mainstream automotive market in 2012 and beyond. Examined below is
a short list of EV manufactures and vehicles offered.
Tesla Motors, founded in 2003 by a group of Silicon Valley, California engineers, is the only
prominent all-electric automotive production company listed in this report. The overarching
purpose of Tesla, as quoted by co-founder Elon Musk, “is to expedite the move from a mineand-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a sustainable, solar electric economy” (Tesla Motors
Ltd., 2012). The company currently manufactures two all-electric vehicles: the Roadster (sports
car), which is currently available across North America but ending production shortly, and
Model S (sedan), which begins production in 2012. The Roadster offers a 53kWh-capacity
battery with a range of 245 miles (394km) and 3.5 hours charging time from empty to full using
a 240-volt power outlet. The Tesla Roadster has a starting cost of US$109,000 (Tesla Motors
Ltd., 2012). The Model S offers three range options depending on battery capacity: 160 miles
(255km) with 40kWh battery, 230 miles (370km) with 60kWh batter or 300 miles (480km)
with 85kWh battery. Recharging also varies depending on battery capacity, ranging from 2.5
hours to 5 hours from empty to full using a 240-volt outlet. Starting costs for each variation of
the Model S are: US$49,900, US$59,900 and US$69,900 respectively after applicable tax
credits (Tesla Motors Ltd., 2012).
7
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.: Established in 1933 in Japan, Nissan is a prominent automotive
manufacturer in North America. Nissan is pursuing the development of electric vehicles,
releasing its first and only all-electric Leaf across North America in 2011 with two variants: the
Leaf SV and Leaf SL (available in 2012). The Leaf SV provides a driving range of 100 miles
(160km) per charge, depending on road conditions, and can be recharged within 7 hours using a
240-volt outlet. The Leaf SL provides the same range and recharge rate, with additional features
not offered in the SV base model. A 480-volt quick-charging system, available for both models at
an additional $900, can provide an 80% charge in approximately 28 minutes. The Nissan Leaf
SV and SL start at CA$38,395 and $39,995 respectively, before applicable provincial tax credits
(Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., 2012).
Ford Motor Company: Founded in 1903 by Henry Ford, the Ford Motor Company is the
second largest automaker in the U.S. and the fifth largest in the world, offering many different
vehicle types across several global markets (Ford Motor Company, 2012). Ford is also actively
pursuing the development of electric vehicle technologies. The Focus Electric is the first and
only all-electric vehicle currently in development by Ford, with an expected launch date of mid2012. The Focus Electric contains a 23 kWh lithium-ion battery system with a range of 100 miles
(160km) per charge and a recharging time of 3-4 hours using a 240-volt outlet (Ford Motor
Company, 2012). The starting cost for the Ford Focus Electric is US$39,200, and although not
listed on the Provinces EV Program Incentives website, will likely be applicable for a provincial
tax credit (Ford Motor Company, 2012).
Toyota: The RAV4 EV, first produced by Toyota between 1997-2003 (cbc.ca, 2011a), is being
re-launched in 2012, in collaboration with Tesla Motors, as a second-generation version of its
previous EV model (Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2012). The RAV4 EV is the only all-electric
vehicle currently in development by Toyota, and only the second plug-in vehicle next to the
Prius PHEV. Although battery specifications and recharge times have not yet been released,
Toyota has stated that the RAV4 EV will offer a driving range of approximately 100 miles
(160km) per charge. Toyota announced in August 2011 that it would be producing the vehicle in
Woodstock, Ontario, as a result of the Province’s “continued commitment to electric vehicles”
(cbc.ca, 2011a).
Mitsubishi: The MiEV, the first and only all-electric vehicle currently in development by
Mitsubishi, is expected to be released in 2012. The MiEV offers a 16kWh-capacity lithium-ion
battery, which can be recharged in 7 hours using a 240-volt outlet. The expected range of the
MiEV’s battery has not yet been released; due to its battery capacity, however, the vehicle will
8
likely offer a range of ~70 miles (110km) per charge. The starting cost of the Mitsubishi MiEV is
CA$32,998, before applicable provincial tax credits (Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc.,
2012).
Honda: The Honda Fit EV, expected for release in early 2013, is Honda’s only all-electric
vehicle currently in development. The Fit EV will feature a 20kWH-capacity lithium-ion battery,
with a range between 75-125 miles depending on driving conditions and a recharge time of 3-4
hours using a 240-volt outlet. The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) for the Honda
Fit EV is US$36,625, and although not listed on the Provinces EV Program Incentives website,
will likely be applicable for a provincial tax credit when released (American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., 2012).
2.1.4 ANTICIPATED TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Future technological advances and developments will likely play a substantial role in the largescale adaptation of electric vehicles in Ontario. Anticipated developments in EV technology
include battery range and capacity improvements and quicker recharging times. Despite
empirical evidence that suggests current limited-range EVs already have the ability to meet the
average daily driving needs of a large proportion of drivers (Pearre et al, 2011), range is still
considered a prominent and important barrier to public acceptance of electric vehicles. Studies
conducted by Franke et al (2011), however, suggest that this barrier is primarily psychological
and that ‘range-anxiety’ is something that can largely be overcome. For the future, the
consideration of range as a limitation for current EVs is not expected to be an enduring feature
as research and development of battery science and technology is a quickly moving field:
“Advanced materials and electrochemistries (e.g. silicon nanowires rather than graphite
sheets for the anode) already have shown the possibility of batteries with seven times the
specific energy of today’s Lithium-ion designs. If industrialized, such a magnitude of
improvement would hold the promise of a practical vehicle with 1,000 miles of range on a
single charge” (Pearre et al, 2011; p.1182).
The development of higher capacity, rechargeable lithium batteries for electric vehicles would
also have applications in many other fields, especially for use in portable electronic devices such
as laptop computers and smart phones, as well as implantable medical devices (Chan et al,
2007). The Government of Ontario, which announced on August 29, 2011 a $400-million
investment into research and development for electric vehicles in partnership with Magna
9
International Inc., is actively pursuing the development of such technologies (Keenan, 2011).
Any significant advances in battery technology for electric vehicles, or vice versa, would have
significant implications for a wide variety of purposes, ultimately making research and
development an important area of consideration for governments and corporations.
2.2 EVs AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION
2.2.1 WHY EVs?
Electric Vehicles comprise only a small fraction of all vehicles currently registered in Ontario.
However, due to a combination of factors, Electric Vehicles will likely make up a much larger
fraction of registered vehicles in the near future. Several factors will play a role in large-scale
electric vehicle adoption, including financial incentives, rising fuel costs for conventional
internal combustion vehicles, environmental concerns, economic benefits, and
infrastructure/energy systems benefits (in the form of V2G technology). The Province of Ontario,
along with several Provinces and States throughout North America, is currently investing
heavily in electric vehicle incentive programs. These programs offer incentives to encourage the
adoption of plug-in electric vehicles and rewards early adopters of this technology (Ministry of
Transportation, 2010b). Ontario’s incentive program:
“Provides a financial incentive to support the purchase or lease of eligible new plug-in electric
vehicles on or after July 1, 2010. The value of the incentive is based on the battery capacity of
the vehicle and, if applicable, the lease term. The incentives range from $5,000 for a 4kWh
battery to $8,500 for a battery of 17kWh or more” (Ministry of Transportation, 2010b).
Additional benefits of Ontario’s EV incentives program include special green licence plates,
which allow EVs priority access to Ontario’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes until June 30,
2015 (even if there is only one person in the vehicle), as well as access to public recharging
stations at selected GO Transit parking facilities (Ministry of Transportation, 2011a).
Increasing fuel costs are also providing incentives for the purchasing of electric vehicles
over conventional gas-powered vehicles. The rising global price of oil, a highly discussed
phenomenon since early-2005, has raised questions about the potential impacts to heavily
urbanized, car-reliant regions of North America (D0dson & Sipe, 2007). The future trajectory of
oil prices has resulted in predictions of adverse consequences and concerns for the sustainability
of petroleum-dependent metropolitan and suburban areas. Furthermore, there is a limited
understanding of the socio-economic impacts of rising fuel costs on these areas (D0dson & Sipe,
2007). The lower fuel costs for electric vehicles, however, could help mitigate this issue. With a
10
per-kilometer fuel cost estimated to be a third to a fifth that of conventional gasoline vehicles
(Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, 2010), electric vehicles can help diminish the oildependence of heavily urbanized North American regions and greatly reduce fuel costs for
vehicle owners.
In addition to financial incentives, environmental concerns are an important area of
consideration for electric vehicle proponents. Roughly one-third of CO2 emissions generated in
the United States, about 1/4 globally, can be attributed to transportation (Barkenbus, 2009).
Automobiles and light trucks (also known as Light-duty vehicles) represent approximately 62%
of global transportation emissions, equivalent to over 1.1 trillion metric tonnes of CO2 emissions
in 2005. Currently there are over 600 million light-duty vehicles operating globally; this number
is expected to rise sharply, with 1 billion predicted for 2020 and 3 billion by 2050 (Barkenbus,
2009). Consequently, increases in light-duty vehicles represent a significant concern for global
climate change as the average American vehicle receives only 20 miles per gallon (11.8L/100km)
and emits 1lb of CO2 for every mile travelled (generating approximately 100lbs of CO2 per 100
miles) (Barkenbus, 2009). Electric vehicles, in comparison, have no tailpipe CO2 emissions and,
even when taking into account the emissions from generating stations that power EVs, produce
only 34% of the emissions of the average vehicle today (34lbs of CO2 per 100 miles) (Barkenbus,
2009). This reduction in emissions is attributed to the increased efficiency of the electric motor
drive (90% efficient) compared to the 15-30% efficiency rating of typical internal combustion
engines. Furthermore, replacing conventional CO2-burning energy generating stations with
renewables (e.g. wind, solar, hydro, biomass) or nuclear would further reduce transportationrelated emissions from light-duty vehicles.
The large-scale adoption of electric vehicles could also bring about economic benefits for
the Province, specifically in relation to job creation from electric vehicle production
opportunities. As the largest producer of light-duty vehicles in North America (Ministry of
Transportation, 2011b), Ontario is in a unique position to become a leader in electric vehicle
production. The recent announcement that Toyota will manufacture the RAV4 EV in Woodstock,
Ontario exemplifies this opportunity. Furthermore, Vehicle-to-Grid technologies, as previously
discussed, could provide significant benefits to electric vehicle owners, governments and utilities.
Ultimately, as a result of the above factors, electric vehicles are in a strong position to become
the leading source of personal transportation in the foreseeable future.
11
2.2.2 ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN ONTARIO
Although there are presently no statistics representing electric vehicle numbers in Ontario, it’s
evident that EVs currently comprise only a small portion of the automotive market. With many
predicting rapid growth in EV numbers over the coming decades, it will become increasingly
important to determine where these vehicles will emerge in Ontario and in what quantity; since
EVs are charged from grid power, energy demand from these vehicles must adhere to the
constraints of Ontario’s transmission system, which may be significant during peak demand
(Valentine et al, 2011).
The future number of electric vehicles to be expected in Ontario is difficult to determine,
as it’s dependent on several factors, such as consumer acceptance, technology improvements,
and costs. Consequently, this report took the number of expected EVs in Ontario based on the
current Provincial government’s vision of 1/20 vehicles driven in Ontario to be electrically
powered by 2020 (Ministry of Transportation, 2010a). This target provides complications for
estimating EV numbers, however, as it does not specify the type of vehicle targeted for
electrification; without specification from the government, the 1/20 vision could include buses,
motorcycles, trailers, and off-road/construction/farm vehicles. For simplicity’s sake, this report
will assume that the Provincial target applies only to vehicles weighing less than 4,500 kg; these
are considered ‘light-duty vehicles’ and include passenger vehicles and light trucks, such as sport
utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and pickup trucks (Hajimiragha et al, 2010). Using this target,
combined with the most recent census data for Ontario vehicle registration [Table 1], Ontario
Table 1: Ontario Vehicle Registration (2009 Census)
Source: Statistics Canada, 2010
Type of vehicle
Vehicles weighing less than 4,500 kilograms
Vehicles weighing 4,500 kilograms to 14,999 kilograms
Vehicles weighing 15,000 kilograms or more
Buses
Motorcyles and mopeds
Trailers
Off-road, construction, farm vehicles
Total, road motor vehicle registrations
Total, vehicle registrations
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
6,775,882
6,918,914 7,038,695
7,176,013 7,243,898
88,599
94,155
97,823
101,517
103,361
111,546
117,622
118,556
117,463
112,796
26,151
26,816
27,457
28,164
28,649
128,143
140,875
153,441
168,125
181,305
1,825,637
1,906,823
1,992,156 2,088,656
2,163,459
523,373
544,630
562,138
588,993
610,510
7,130,323 7,298,384 7,435,973 7,591,285 7,670,011
9,479,334 9,749,838 9,990,267 10,268,935 10,443,981
could expect as many as 362,195 electric vehicles on the road by 2020. This number is only an
estimate, however, and could be significantly higher or lower than assumed here, especially
when considering an increasing population and subsequent vehicle registrations between 2009
and 2020. Nevertheless, electric vehicles will likely represent a relatively large number of
vehicles on the road in 2020.
12
Vehicles less than 4,500 Kg (2009 census data) = 7,243,898
1/20 vehicles = 5% of current registered vehicles
Therefore: 7,347,259 x 0.05 = 362,195 electric vehicles
The geographic location in which electric vehicles will largely be adopted is also an
important consideration and remains an area of uncertainty when predicting future impacts on
the transmission grid. Current available literature provides a limited discussion of this
phenomenon, and as such this report will rely on educated assumptions for where EV
penetration is most likely to occur in Ontario. According to the International Energy Agency
(2011), early adoption of electric vehicles by consumers will likely be for those with specific
needs, such as primarily urban driving, allowing EVs to serve specific, shorter trips. In addition,
EV expansion is predicted to follow subsequent investments in infrastructure from governments,
which are targeting large urban centres in order to provide sufficient recharging access
(International Energy Agency, 2011). As a result, electric vehicle adoption can be expected (at
least initially) to occur mainly in the heavily urbanized areas of Ontario. The 10 most populated
regions in Ontario in 2011 and their projected growth in 2021 based on 2006 census data [Table
2] is outlined below (Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2011).
Table 2: Ontario Population Projections (2006 Census)
Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2011
Region & Census Division
Toronto
Peel
York
Ottawa
Hamilton
Waterloo
Simcoe
Middlesex
Niagara
Essex
Total
Current Population (Thousands)
2011
% Share
2,760.0
20.6
1,364.8
10.2
1,061.7
7.9
911.7
6.8
536.9
4.0
531.7
4.0
463.5
3.5
459.9
3.4
446.3
3.3
401.9
3.0
8,938.4
66.7
Projected Population (Thousands)
2021
% Share
3,040.4
20.2
1,681.7
11.2
1,299.0
8.6
1,061.6
7.0
571.1
3.8
621.5
4.1
540.6
3.6
514.2
3.4
475.5
3.2
408.2
2.7
10,213.8
67.8
When these 10 urbanized areas are mapped, as shown below [Fig 1], a few important
facts can be derived. First, with the exception of Ottawa, all of these areas are located in
Southern Ontario; these areas account for a combined 59.9% of the Provinces population in 2011
and will account for 60.8% in 2021 (Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2011). This is important
because increased energy demand concentrated within this area could have significant
implications for the local energy grid and transmission infrastructure. Second, these urbanized
13
areas exist within relative proximity of the Macdonald-Cartier Highway 401, which originates in
Windsor, ON and runs North until the Ontario-Quebec Provincial boarder. This is important
because government investments in public recharging facilities along the Macdonald-Cartier
Highway could help alleviate range-limitations of current generation electric vehicles and
promote consumer adoption of this technology.
Fig.1 Highest Urbanized Centres in Ontario (2011)
Source: Google Maps, Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2011
2.2.3 FUTURE PREDICTIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Currently, electric vehicles represent a small portion of all passenger vehicles in most
jurisdictions globally. However, it has become widely accepted that rapid growth in the electric
vehicle market will take place within the coming decades (Brown, Pyke & Steenhof, 2010). A
2009 study conducted by JP Morgan estimated that 11 million electric vehicles could be sold
worldwide by 2020, with approximately 6 million sold in North America. This growth would
represent a nearly 20% share in North America’s passenger vehicle market and 13% globally at
that point in time (Brown, Pyke & Steenhof, 2010). Growth in the EV market and conversion
from current mainstream internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles is expected to occur in
three main stages, the first of which is already taking place with the global adoption of Hybrid
vehicles. Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles (HEVs), such as the Toyota Prius, are gaining a
foothold in the current automotive market, with several models offered by most mainstream
vehicle manufacturers. HEV technology allows for the recovery of a substantial amount of a
vehicles kinetic energy through regenerative braking, which can be stored in the vehicles battery
14
storage system and utilized as an energy source, thus reducing the vehicles fuel consumption
(Hajimiragha et al, 2010). Although HEVs offer significant reductions in fossil fuel consumption
and subsequent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their dependence on a single halocarbon fuel
source is a significant limitation (Hajimiragha et al, 2010). The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(PHEV), similar to conventional HEVs, is currently emerging as a ‘second-stage’ vehicle in the
transition to electric vehicles in the mainstream automotive market and will largely replace
current HEVs within the coming years (Hajimiragha et al, 2010). PHEVs, such as the 2012
Chevrolet Volt, consist of a considerably larger onboard battery (when compared to HEVs), an
internal combustion engine, and a plug-in charger, which increases the range capability of the
vehicle through the charging of the vehicles internal battery with grid-energy. Because of these
advancements, PHEVs can operate solely on battery power (for a limited distance) without the
use of the internal combustion engine, which acts as a reserve fuel source for extended trips
(Hajimiragha et al, 2010). PHEV technology will ultimately allow consumers to reduce their fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, and eliminate the concern of range limitations associated
with all-electric vehicles. Simultaneously, or following the mainstream adaptation of PHEV
technology, the final conversion to all-electric vehicles will likely occur as consumers begin to
embrace electric-transportation technology, vehicle-related costs for EVs decrease, and
range/battery capacity increases.
2.3 SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Current literature on electric vehicles provides many important conclusions and implications for
future transportation planning in Ontario. A variety of sources point to the emergence and
continuance of EVs in the mainstream automotive market in the coming years, replacing
conventional internal combustion vehicles to an extent. Many prominent automotive
manufacturers are currently engaged in the research and development of new electric vehicle
models, with many expected for release in 2012 and 2013. Research conducted by Pearre et al
(2011) suggests that current EV technology is already sufficient to meet the driving needs of a
large portion of drivers, although Franke et al (2011) indicates range limitations of current EV
models is still a psychological barrier to public acceptance on a large scale. Despite this, the
Government of Ontario is pushing forward with an ambitious goal of 1/20 vehicles on the road
being electric-powered by 2020. If this vision is fully realized, as many as 360,000 electric
vehicles, if not more, could be drawing power from Ontario’s energy grid in 2020. Since early
adopters of electric vehicles will largely be urban dwellers, as implied by the International
Energy Agency (2011), the majority of electricity demand will come from Southern Ontario in
15
areas such as Toronto, Peel, York, Hamilton, Waterloo, Niagara, and Ottawa in the north. Early
adopters of electric vehicles will be persuaded by financial incentives provided by the Provincial
government, increasing fuel costs for internal combustion vehicles, and environmental concerns
from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The continued acceptance of electric
vehicles will be encouraged by future technological developments in EV battery technology.
Current research and development of this technology is expected to yield increased battery
capacity and charging rates, with the possibility of batteries will seven times greater specific
energy than current models, as discussed by Pearre et al (2011). Overall, the large-scale adoption
of electric vehicles in Ontario is underway, with greater numbers expected in the future as
consumers begin to embrace EV technology, costs decrease, and vehicle range increases.
3.0 ONTARIO’S POWER GRID
Ontario’s power grid, the interknit network of high-voltage transmission lines that carry reliable
energy from power generating stations to intermediate and low-voltage distribution lines, is a
skeleton-like framework supporting electrification throughout the Province (Pickard et al,
2009). The foundation supporting the entire grid, as stated by Pickard et al (2009) “is the
simplifying hypothesis that a grid is an ‘infinite busbar’ which maintains a fixed voltage and
waveform while supplying as much or as little energy as required” (p.1935). When the
generating capacity of the Province is greatly exceeded by consumer demand, grid voltage drops
resulting in brownouts across the system. Conversely, during periods of low consumer demand,
capacity suppliers are forced to scale down energy production by temporarily shutting down
generators or reducing their power output (Pickard et al, 2009). This shift in demand takes
place daily throughout the Province’s energy market, with demand growing just before dawn,
peaking in the late afternoon and attenuating in the evening. Requirements for this continual
shift, as discussed by Pickard et al (2009), can be met only because:
“The grid can withstand ‘‘small’’ fluctuations of demand on the few-second time scale without
seriously compromising power quality; Electromechanical storage devices and regulatory
constraints can take up larger short-term disturbances, and; Predictable diurnal variations
can be handled by hydrocarbon-based thermal generation” (p.1935).
Hydrocarbon-based generation, however, cannot continue indefinitely due to the finite supply
and rapid depletion of non-renewable fossil fuel resources. Additionally, the environmental
impacts of fossil fuel combustion and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions are becoming
increasingly difficult for governments and energy suppliers to ignore (Pickard et al, 2009).
16
Consequently, attention must be drawn to the planning and development of a new, reliable, and
sustainable power grid that will serve the future needs of Ontario’s growing population and
increasing energy demand.
3.1 CURRENT CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF ONTARIO’S POWER GRID
Ontario’s energy industry currently serves approximately 13 million people across a 1.1 million
square kilometre land area, roughly the size of Germany and France combined (Yatchew &
Baziliauskas, 2011). The power grid (i.e. transmission and infrastructure) is managed and
regulated by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), while the electricity market is operated and
monitored by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which balances the daily
supply/demand of the Province and maintains the stability of the energy system. The Ontario
Power Authority (OPA), established in 2004, assumes long-term responsibility for providing
adequate electricity supply throughout the Province (Yatchew & Baziliauskas, 2011).
Current installed capacity in Ontario, as of January 2012, is nearly 35,000 MW, with
peak demand reaching approximately 27,000 MW and an annual energy production of roughly
150 terawatt hours (tWh) (Yatchew & Baziliauskas, 2011). Energy generation within the province,
as displayed below [Fig.2], is distributed into six production types: Nuclear power, which
represents 34% of power generation (11,446 MW), followed by Oil/Gas - 28% (9,549 MW),
Hydroelectric - 23% (7,947 MW),
Coal -10% (3,504 MW), Wind –
5% (1,511), and Biomass/Landfill
Hydroelectric
7,947
23%
– 122 MW (~0%) (Independent
Electricity System Operator,
2012a). In addition to installed
capacity within the Province,
Oil/Gas
9,549
28%
Coal
3,504
10%
Ontario also has interconnection
capacity with Quebec, Manitoba,
Minnesota and New York State,
which can deliver an additional
Biomass/Landfill
Gas Wind
122
1,511
0%
5%
Nuclear
11,446
34%
5,000 MW if required (Yatchew &
Fig.2 Existing Generation Resources in Ontario
(Jan 2012)
Baziliauskas, 2011).
Source: Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012a
In its current state, Ontario’s generating capacity consists of a low overall dependence on
fossil fuel / greenhouse gas emitting sources, with a majority of energy generated by ‘clean’
Nuclear and Hydroelectric resources. The relatively high dependence on these two resources,
17
however, poses an issue for Ontario’s energy future. Nuclear facilities throughout the Province
are aging, with many likely requiring shut down in the near future and others requiring major,
and expensive, refurbishments in order to increase their lifespan (Yatchew & Baziliauskas, 2011).
Additionally, the province has already exploited all major hydraulic sites, meaning hydroelectric
energy capacity cannot be increased further. Moreover, as discussed by Yatchew & Baziliauskas
(2011): “the present Provincial government has been committed to substantially reducing the
role of coal generation in the province in order to improve air quality in southern Ontario and
to make progress towards reducing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions” (p.3886). As a
result, two units at the Nanticoke coal-fired station were shut down in late 2011, decreasing
Ontario’s coal generation capacity from 4,484 MW to the current 3,504 MW (Independent
Electricity System Operator, 2012a). Despite reductions in generating capacity, Ontario will
have sufficient electricity supply over the next 18 months to meet consumer demand. During
this time there will be an addition of 2,600 MW of capacity added to the grid, resulting from the
reactivation of two refurbished Bruce nuclear units (1,500 MW), the construction and
integration of approximately 400 MW of gas-fired generation, and the addition of over 700 MW
of renewable generation capability in the form of wind energy (Independent Electricity System
Operator, 2012a).
3.2 RENEWABLE ENERGY IN ONTARIO
In its current form, Ontario’s energy system is unsustainable. Modern energy availability,
particularly electricity, is viewed as an encouraging factor for increasing economic and social
development throughout the Province (Hoicka & Rowlands, 2011). However, it’s also
contributing to a diverse range of adverse environmental and sustainability impacts, including
acid rain, photochemical smog, and climate change. Accordingly, under Ontario’s Long-term
Energy Plan, the Province has implemented the planning and developing of a future energy
system focusing on efficiency, distributed generation, and a mix of renewable energy sources
(specifically wind, solar, hydro, and bioenergy) (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010). To
encourage the development of these systems in Ontario, the Provincial government
implemented the ‘Green Energy Act’ in 2009 in order to “attract new investment, create new
green economy jobs and better protect the climate” (Yatchew & Baziliauskas, 2011). A Feed-inTariff (FIT) program, enacted as part of the Green Energy Act, provides a basis for meeting the
goals of the 2009 Act, with a directive to:
“Increase the capacity of renewable energy supply to ensure adequate generation and reduce
emissions, introduce a simpler method to procure and develop generating capacity from
18
renewable resources of energy, enable new green industries through new investment and job
creation, and provide incentives for investment in renewable energy technologies” (Yatchew &
Baziliauskas, 2011; p.3887).
The FIT program, which provides financial support for developers depending on the size (in
MW) of the project (see http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/ for additional detail), has successfully
encouraged new renewable energy undertakings, with the program receiving 15,000 MW of
applications for renewable supply generation within the first twelve months – equivalent to 43%
of Ontario’s current generating capacity (Yatchew & Baziliauskas, 2011). With renewables in
Ontario currently comprising only 6% of the energy market, the share of emissions-free
generating capacity is set to increase considerably as a result of the FIT program. The
integration of renewable energy systems, however, poses a unique challenge for conventional
energy system operations, with two main factors limiting the easy integration of these resources
(Hoicka & Rowlands, 2011). First, the geographical location of most renewable systems (for
optimized energy production) are far from load centres, therefore making it difficult to
incorporate renewables into the power grid. Second, the most prominent forms of renewable
energy (wind and solar) are intermittent, “with temporal variance displayed hourly, daily, and
seasonally” (p.97), leading to periods of production that are over or under the capacity of the
grid in which they are connected (Hoicka & Rowlands, 2011). The integration of renewables,
therefore, will provide significant challenges for current and future system operators and the
market to which they are applied. However, if integrated and applied correctly, renewable
energy could supply a large portion of Ontario’s future energy needs.
3.3 CURRENT ENERGY STORAGE CAPABILITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES
The intensification of fluctuating energy sources (i.e. renewables) in Ontario will be largely
dependent on the introduction of flexibility into the Provinces energy system (Connolly et al,
2012). One of the most appropriate ways in which to increase flexibility is the development of
energy storage technology. According to Pickard et al (2009):
“Whether because of sources which lack output agility or sources which are intermittent, it
appears that the electricity grid of a sustainable-energy future will need a huge capability to
store energy if it is to efficiently match consumer demand with generator supply” (p.1938).
Post Carbon Society (PCS), a model in which CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are
eliminated, is centred on a four pillar energy system, which includes: renewable energy;
buildings as positive power plants; energy storage; and smart grids and plug-in vehicles
19
(Kraja!i" et al, 2011). The PCS model, of which much of the developed world is in the early
stages of adoption, allows for the possible reframing of current energy and climate change
challenges as opportunities for the development of a more equitable, sustainable and wealthier
society (Kraja!i" et al, 2011). As a pillar of the PCS model, energy storage is required (in primary
or secondary form) to increase the efficiency and viability of power systems through the transfer
of surplus energy from periods of excess production to periods of peak use (Kraja!i" et al, 2011).
A range of energy storage technologies currently exists for use with renewables, each with
advantages and limitations in terms of their suitability (Connolly et al, 2012). Many of these
technologies have existed for over a century; however, their applicability for specific purposes
and synergies with new combinations of energy sources is still under development (Kraja!i" et
al, 2011).
Current energy storage devices encompass a wide range of energies, technologies and
applications; this allows for the conversion of grid-generated energy to chemical, electrical,
kinetic, potential or thermal storage mediums (Baker, 2008). These systems are commonly
grouped into two categories: Electrical and Thermal.
Electrical energy storage includes technologies and systems in which the external
interface is electrical, with the storage medium being one of several technologies, including:
electrochemical energy (e.g. batteries or flow cells), kinetic energy (i.e. flywheel energy storage),
and potential energy (e.g. pumped hydro or compressed air storage) (Baker, 2008). These
systems are predominantly applied as base load power stations in order to eliminate imbalances
between supply and demand in electrical power systems. Electrical storage technologies are
frequently required for electric power systems that are heavily reliant on intermittent energy
sources (i.e. renewables) since they reduce the need for fossil fuel-based standby plants, which
are required when renewables are temporarily unavailable (Baker, 2008). Potential energy
storage (in the form of pumped hydro) is currently the most widely adopted system worldwide,
with approximately 90 Gigawatts of installed capacity.
Thermal energy systems, conversely, employ the sensible or latent heat capabilities of
materials, or reversible thermochemical reactions, in order to convert grid energy to a heating or
cooling resource (Baker, 2008). Sensible heat-based systems generally include hot/cold water
tanks, Underground Thermal Energy Storage (UTES), Borehole Thermal Energy Storage
(BTES), or specific customized materials and structures, such as ‘feolite’ electric storage heaters
(Baker, 2008; p.4372). Latent heat capacity systems commonly include Ice Storage and Phase
Change Materials (PCMs), which are based upon “various paraffins, esters, fatty acids and salt
hydrides developed to absorb or reject heat over narrow temperature bands, while providing
20
a thermal storage capacity significantly greater than sensible heat storage” (Baker, 2008;
p.4372). Large-scale applications of sensible and latent heat-based thermal energy systems,
often combined with renewable energy sources, can be found throughout Germany,
Scandinavia, and in parts of the United States (Baker, 2008).
Presently, Ontario has a limited capacity for energy storage, with only one Pumped
Hydro storage facility at the Sir Adam Beck Pumping Generating Station in Niagara Falls
(Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010). This poses a significant problem for Ontario’s future energy
system. By 2014, coal will be completely eliminated as an energy source in Ontario, with
renewable sources (wind, solar and biomass) offsetting the difference with a target of 10,700
MW by 2018 (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010). Future targets for renewables under Ontario’s
Long-Term Energy Plan are also set to increase from less than 1% of energy generated in 2003
to almost 13% by 2030 [Fig.3]. Although energy storage was identified in Ontario’s 2007 LongTerm Energy Plan - which sets goals and targets for Ontario’s Energy Future between 20102030 - no specific targets for storage capabilities were declared, most likely due to the high
capital costs for large-scale energy storage developments (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010).
Furthermore, Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan will see a continued investment in Natural Gas
and Hydro to meet peak power demands throughout the Province.
Fig. 3 Ontario Installed Capacity by Source (MW)
Source: Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010
Clearly, Ontario’s current energy storage capabilities leave much to be desired and the
distinct lack of future planning for energy storage will have significant implications for the
Province’s projected dependence on intermittent renewable energy sources. Continued
21
development of renewable energy in Ontario, whether electrical or thermal, must be supported
by the establishment of load balancing, ample-capacity energy storage technology (Pickard et al,
2009). The development of these systems, according to Kraja!i" et al (2011), “could help with
the integration of energy flows, transformations, and energy demand at the location of the
energy end-use or close to it. The smart use of energy storage will support all four pillars of the
Post Carbon Society” (p.2074). Electric vehicles, as discussed further in this report, could
provide the future energy storage capabilities the Province will require in order to successfully
implement renewable energy systems.
3.4 CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONTARIO’S ‘SMART GRID’
Local distribution systems in Ontario and throughout the world provide an essential connection
in the movement of electricity from its location of generation to where it’s consumed in homes
and businesses (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010). The distribution system in Ontario, however,
is dependent on aging and out-dated infrastructure technology. In response, the Provincial
government is investing heavily in the development of a ‘Smart Grid’ system as part of its LongTerm Energy Plan in order to “replace aging infrastructure, introduce customer control,
incorporate more renewable energy and accommodate new adaptive technology such as
electric vehicle charging” (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010; p.43). Smart grid systems are
designed and developed in many nations to address the convergence of three electricity industry
constraints, known as the “Energy Trilemma”, which are: 1) engineering constraints, which
comprise concerns regarding aging energy infrastructure systems that impact the reliable
performance of power grids; 2) economic constraints, which focus on the volatility of electricity
and fuel prices as determined by global economic factors, and; 3) socially and politically
important environmental impacts from the production and utilization of electricity (Blumsack &
Fernandez, 2012). The development of a Smart Grid system in Ontario would closely integrate
all elements of the Provinces electricity system, including production, delivery and consumption
in order to improve the overall operation of energy systems for the benefit of consumers and the
environment (Independent Electricity System Operator, 2009). The full deployment of this
system in Ontario, according to Blumsack & Fernandez (2012), would entail the connection of
electricity delivery infrastructure with:
“Modern telecommunications and sensing technology, bringing the communications backbone
of the grid up to speed with commerce, entertainment and other infrastructures. The real
promise of the smart grid is in the ability to process and analyze large amounts of information.
22
With the right control architectures and software systems in place, the smarter grid could lead
to smarter decision-making by both system operators and electricity consumers” (p.61).
The development of this technology will require a complete shift from our current energy
model, which predominantly encompasses the unidirectional movement of electricity from
generators to consumers, to a future system that enables the multi-directional flow of electricity
and information; this would enable new forms of energy production, delivery, and consumption
(Independent Electricity System Operator, 2009). Additionally, Smart Grid technology would
provide consumers with a greater understanding and interest in their energy consumption and
the services obtained through electricity; possibilities include detailed measurements of
consumption at the individual consumer appliance level (Giordano & Fulli, 2012). Utility and
system operators (such as the IESO) would also benefit from the implementation of Smart Grid
systems. This technology would enable the control of energy flows throughout the grid with
more precision, allowing for grid optimization in near-real time speeds (Blumsack & Fernandez,
2012). Furthermore, operators would be provided with the automated ability to cycle consumer
appliances, therefore addressing peak-load issues and increasing electricity supply reliability
during periods of high demand. More important, however, is the ability of Smart Grid
technology to efficiently integrate Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging into the existing electricity
grid. As discussed by Sovacool & Hirsh (2009), EVs require three elements to operate in V2G
configuration: “a power connection to the electricity grid, a control and/or communication
device that allows the grid operators access to the battery, and precision metering on board
the vehicle to track energy flows” (p.1096). Smart Grid systems, if properly implemented, would
provide grid operators with the ability to access electric vehicle batteries connected to the
system and control the flow of stored energy for peak-load demand management. The successful
implementation of electric vehicles (using V2G configuration) into Ontario’s electricity grid will,
therefore, require the development and implementation of a Province-wide Smart Grid system.
This will pose a significant challenge for the province, however, as Ontario will be faced with
“simultaneously incorporating distributed generation, addressing growth, and replacing
aging infrastructure while maintaining reliability and quality of service. While new grid
infrastructure will be necessary to connect generation resources, replace aging assets and
address growth, simply adding wires and equipment without intelligence is not a viable option”
(Independent Electricity System Operator, 2009; p.2). Furthermore, “Current Provincial
initiatives on conservation, renewable generation and smart meters begin the move towards a
new electricity system, but their full promise will not be realized without the advanced
23
technologies that make the smart grid possible” (Independent Electricity System Operator,
2009; p.2).
3.5 SUMMARY OF ONTARIO’S ENERGY SYSTEM
Ontario’s current electricity generation and transmission infrastructure system is unsustainable
and outdated. Energy generation throughout the province is dominated by aging nuclear
facilities, which require extensive refurbishment or shutdown; oil and gas stations, which
pollute the environment and emit greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; and, hydroelectric power
systems, which are already at their maximum generating potential with no possibility of
significant future expansion. To resolve these issues, the current Provincial government is
investing heavily in renewable energy systems (as part of the 2009 Green Energy Act and Feedin-Tariff program) in order to meet future energy demand without compromising the
environment. However, due to the intermittent nature of renewable systems (such as wind and
solar), the province will need a significant capacity to store energy if it hopes to use these
systems effectively and efficiently. Despite this knowledge, Ontario currently has a very limited
storage capacity and has not set targets under its Long-Term Energy Plan to increase energy
storage capabilities, likely due to the high capital costs of developing these systems. The
Province’s transmission infrastructure system is similarly comprised of aging and out-dated
technology. The transmission system requires careful management by the Independent
Electricity System Operator as it can withstand only small fluctuations in energy demand on a
few-second time scale. This requires highly inefficient hourly and daily shifts in energy
generation through the activation or shutdown of generators in order to maintain fixed power
output and voltage throughout the system.
In response, the Provincial government is investing in the development of a ‘Smart Grid’
system as part of its Long-Term Energy Plan. This system will integrate all elements of Ontario’s
electricity system in order to improve overall operations of the system and provide benefits for
operators, consumers, and the environment. It appears that electric vehicles have a role to play
in the sustainable development of future electricity generation and transmission infrastructure
systems in Ontario. EVs can act as energy storage devices for energy generated by intermittent
renewable systems and provide peak-load demand management capabilities for the
transmission system through the transfer of energy back into the electrical grid. The successful
implementation of EVs into Ontario’s electricity grid will, however, require the development of a
Province-wide Smart Grid system. Therefore, the sustainable development of Ontario’s future
energy system is linked, in part, to the large-scale adoption and integration of electric vehicles.
24
4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON ONTARIO’S POWER
GRID
Electric vehicles offer a range of potential benefits when compared to conventional fossil-fuel
dependent vehicles, such as greater energy efficiency, lower noise, zero tailpipe CO2 emissions,
and reductions in the emissions of other air pollutants (Schill, 2011). These benefits, however,
are largely dependent on the means of electricity generation and the electricity markets in which
EVs are connected. Electric vehicle interaction with electricity markets, as discussed by Schill
(2011) “is hardly studied…in particular, there is little research on electric vehicles in imperfect
electricity markets” (p.6178). The following subsections provide a discussion of the potential
impacts to Ontario’s power grid as a result of electric vehicle charging. An assessment of EV
demands on Ontario’s electricity system is discussed in detail, specifically regarding the impacts
and implications for peak load and base load demand. The capabilities of electric vehicles as
power storage devices, factors limiting V2G availability, and the application of V2G systems to
service the power grid are also examined. This section also provides a preliminary assessment of
the economic implications of EV adoption in Ontario.
4.1 EV DEMAND ON ONTARIO’S ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
Academic analyses and literature for EV impacts on electricity systems are, at present,
considered quite limited; this is mainly due to the recent re-emergence of EVs into mainstream
automotive markets. Schill (2011) conducted one of the first studies on these potential impacts,
based on electricity markets in Germany. In this study, Schill created a theoretical model
consisting of a hypothetical fleet of one million EVs with a goal of determining potential impacts
on local electricity markets. The findings resulting from the application of this model were
analysed in order to determine “the market effects of additional load and additional storage
capacity on prices, welfare, and power generation” (Schill, 2011; p.6178). The model
implemented by Schill (2011) consisted of two scenarios based on the uncontrolled and optimal
charging of EVs and the resulting impacts on Germany’s electricity market. Although Schill’s
model would likely yield considerably different results when applied to Ontario, there are still
many important findings that can be observed and applied as knowledge for future
energy/infrastructure planning in the Province.
Ontario’s electricity system, based on Schill’s findings, will likely face increased demand
and uncertainty at both the peak and base load level as a result of large-scale electric vehicle
penetration into the mainstream automotive market. As a result of the characteristics of
25
Ontario’s electricity system, specifically inefficiencies regarding peak load management, the
likely adverse effects of EVs will be placed, in part, on local distribution systems (Khayyam et al,
2012). Expected impacts include increased power consumption as a result of EV charging,
leading to increases in peak load and base load demand on the energy grid. The model created
by Schill (2011) also points to increases in electricity generation requirements as a result of
additional demand from electric vehicles; this increase could have negative implications for the
stability of the grid network, electricity prices for consumers, and impacts on the environment
and human health. The following sections describe the potential effects of EV charging on peak
and base load in Ontario and approaches to mitigate anticipated adverse effects.
4.1.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR PEAK LOAD DEMAND
Peak load, or peak demand, refers to periods of time when electricity demand is significantly
higher than the average supply level for a sustained period of time (Ontario Ministry of Energy,
2011). According to the Independent Electricity System Operator (n.d.), “peak electricity
demand is primarily influenced by weather, hours of daylight, business hours, school holidays
and consumption patterns as people arrive home from work. Typically, demand peaks
between 4 pm and 7pm every day”. Electricity demand is generally highest on hot summer days
when air conditioning usage by industry and commercial businesses is widespread; this results
in High Electric Demand Days (HEDDs) (White & Zhang, 2011). For Ontario, the highest
recorded HEDD was Tuesday, August 1, 2006, with a peak demand of 27,005 MW (Independent
Electricity System Operator, n.d.). Similar high electricity demand periods are shown in
Appendix A, which depicts peak demand for Ontario and the Total Market from May 2002 to
February 2012. As discussed by White & Zhang (2011), “these periods of high power usage often
require the use of peaking electric generation units to meet demand” (p.3972) Typically, these
are plants that can be activated for short periods of time to generate power for peak energy
needs (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a). Since these plants are only operated a few hundred hours per
year, they are commonly comprised of generators can be built with relatively low capital costs
and can be fired up quickly. Use of as oil/gas and coal fired plants is generally common; natural
gas turbines are utilized for this role in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011). The
activation of these plants during peak demand yields a host of environmental and health issues
stemming from increased greenhouse gas emissions and the release of air pollutants (White &
Zhang, 2011). Therefore, increases to peak electricity demand in Ontario could pose significant
impacts for the Province and, according to Khayyam et al (2012), is “one of the principal issues
that must be addressed by smart grid technology” (p.4).
26
The modelling and scenario-based approach to anticipating potential EV impact on
Germany’s electricity system, as discussed by Schill (2011) discerned that “the uncontrolled
loading of electric vehicles, i.e. recharging irrespective of market prices or grid situations, will
increase peak load to dangerous levels, even if EV fleets are rather small” (p.6179). Such an
analysis would likely yield similar findings for peak demand in Ontario resulting from the
uncontrolled charging of EVs. Uncontrolled charging refers to the charging of a vehicles battery
immediately after being plugged in, stopping only when the battery is fully charged (Minghong
et al, 2012). This charging mode is undesirable as it would result in the greatest impact to peak
demand; if used for daily commuting, electric vehicles would likely be connected to the grid in
the late afternoon and begin charging during peak hours, placing additional and unwanted
strain on the power system. The following section provides a preliminary assessment of the
predicted impacts of uncontrolled EV charging on peak demand in Ontario.
The impacts of EVs on peak load will depend on two main factors: 1) the amount of
battery capacity required for recharging when plugged in; and, 2) the duration required to
recharge each vehicle’s battery. For the purposes of this study, it’s assumed that “half the
average daily vehicle miles would have been depleted when the vehicle is parked and power is
requested”, as discussed by Kempton & Tomi" (2005a; p.272). Due to the varying capacities and
recharging times of current market EVs, this study will be centred on the Ford Focus EV and
Nissan Leaf because of similarities in battery capacity. The recharging times for both vehicles,
although considerably different, will help provide a better understanding of the impacts of
uncontrolled EV charging on peak demand over differing time periods. Considering the above
factors, the power requirements of uncontrolled EV charging is estimated to be approximately
2,376 MW per hour for 1.7 hours for the Ford Focus EV and 1,183 MW per hour for 3.5 hours for
the Nissan Leaf.
Ford Focus EV:
Battery Capacity = 23 kWh at full; 11.5 kWh at ! capacity
Recharging Time = 3.5 Hours empty to full; 1.7 Hours from half to full
Available EVs in 2020 = 360,000
Energy Requirements: 360,000 * (11.5 kWh) = 4,140,000 kWh or 4,140 MWh
Power Requirements: 4,039 MWh / 1.7 hrs = 2,376 MW/hour of charging
Nissan Leaf:
27
Battery Capacity = 23 kWh at full; 11.5 kWh at ! capacity
Recharging Time = 7 Hours empty to full; 3.5 Hours from half to full
Available EVs in 2020 = 360,000
Energy Requirements: 360,000 * (11.5 kWh) = 4,140,000 kWh or 4,140 MWh
Power Requirements: 4,140 MWh / 3.5 hrs = 1,183 MW/hour of charging
When considering peaking electricity demand (27,005 MW is the highest recorded in
Ontario), the available generating capacity across the province (35,000 MW), and the additional
burden placed on the electrical grid by EVs, it appears that the uncontrolled charging of EVs in
this assessment would not exceed the maximum generating capacity of the Province during peak
hours. However, due to transmission line constraints and the distribution of centralized
electricity generating stations across the province, it’s likely that a clustered group of EVs in a
single urban centre would exceed the capacity of local transmission systems during peak
demand periods. This factor should be examined in more detail in future research in order to
determine the impacts to specific urban areas in Ontario where the large-scale adoption of EVs
are likely.
Demand placed on the grid can be mitigated to an extent through the use of different
charging modes if EV charging exceeds the capacity of local transmission infrastructure.
Depending on the charging mode, demand can be shifted from peak to off-peak hours, thus
reducing EV impact on peak demand (Minghong et al, 2012). Three different charging modes for
EVs, in addition to uncontrolled charging, can be provided for vehicle owners. These modes are:
1) delayed charging; 2) off-peak charging; and, 3) continuous charging. The delayed charging
mode consists of the postponement of vehicle charging until low-cost, off-peak energy demand
times in an attempt to optimize fuel costs for vehicle owners (Minghong et al, 2012). This mode
is clearly more desirable than uncontrolled charging and is viewed as a more likely outcome by
Schill (2011), based on the assumption that owners will actively attempt to recharge their EVs at
the lowest possible cost. In addition, many current generation EVs are equipped with the
technology to allow for recharge scheduling, providing a convenient way for owners to take
advantage of off-peak electricity rates. A second charging mode, referred to as off-peak charging,
provides the most optimized and low-cost charging of EVs, controlled directly or indirectly by
grid utilities (Minghong et al, 2012). From a utility/grid operators perspective, this method is
the most desirable as it has a low impact on peak demand and allows for the management of EV
charging if demand reaches peak levels. Lastly, the continuous charging method, discussed by
Minghong et al (2012), involves the constant use of recharging facilities (either at home or
28
through the use of public facilities) whenever the vehicle is not in motion. Although this method
places demand on the electrical system throughout the day, it also provides the greatest
opportunity for vehicle-to-grid services. For any of the charging modes discussed above, the
calculation of load for charging EVs will be particularly important for generators and grid
operators in Ontario; understanding EV-influenced grid load will be required in order to provide
timely generation to accommodate this load. Predicting EV power demands will be essential for
the expansion of electric utility infrastructure throughout the Province to meet these anticipated
needs (Bashash et al, 2011).
There are several major implications of electric vehicle emergence on Ontario’s energy
system when considering uncontrolled charging of EVs during peak hours. According to White &
Zhang (2011):
“The cost of electricity use can increase considerably during periods of peak loading. In a 2006
examination of the PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland) market in the US, it was
found that a 1% shift in peak demand could result in cost savings of 3.9%, representing billions
of dollars at the system level” (p.3972).
Any growth in peak demand in Ontario could result in subsequent economic and
financial impacts on electricity consumers, making this an important issue for future grid
planning and management. Although peak demand has increased considerably over the past few
decades, the input of electric vehicles into the energy market would certainly have a visible
impact. Extensive peak electricity demand has also resulted in an increased focus on the
introduction of peaking power facilities, which is discussed extensively in Ontario’s Long Term
Energy Plan. Since these plants are not financially viable when generating energy at wholesale
market value (“the price local utilities pay when purchasing electricity on behalf of their
customers”)(Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012d), governments must support plant
income in order to ensure capital costs are covered (White & Zhang, 2011); this places excess
burden on local taxpayers who are forced to support the operation and maintenance of these
facilities.
In addition to financial implications, it’s also important to consider the environmental
consequences of using peaking power plants. Although these facilities only operate a few
hundred hours per year, peak generators are often among the dirtiest plants in a region (White
& Zhang, 2011). “They can contribute significantly to the total amount of Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) emissions from electricity generation, which is a chemical precursor to the formation of
ozone” (White & Zhang, 2011; p.3972). The regional and local environmental and health costs of
operating peaking plants are often high; therefore, reducing our reliance on these facilities for
29
power generation is imperative. At present, demand response programs (i.e. the “smoothing” of
the demand curve) are viewed as a primary reduction strategy for peak load (White & Zhang,
2011). The identification of demand response, according to White & Zhang, is a key component
in the management of modern energy infrastructure systems and could lead to substantial
economic and environmental benefits (p.3972). However, additional peak load reduction
strategies, such as V2G services provided by electric vehicles, are needed in order to mitigate the
negative impacts of peak generating facilities (White & Zhang, 2011; p.3972).
The concept of peak power shaving is an important consideration for mitigating EV
impacts to peak demand in Ontario. Peak shaving, as discussed by Levron & Shmilovitz (2012),
is “well known in the context of power systems” and, in regards to energy storage devices,
“allows for better energy management by lowering the peak of generated power” (p.80). This
method has been employed in many regions, including Ontario, to manage peak demand. Many
large-scale power systems, Ontario’s Sir Adam Beck Generating Station for example, utilizes
pumped hydro storage technology to store energy during low demand periods and return it to
the grid during peak energy demand periods (Levron & Shmilovitz, 2012). This technology has
also been employed in other areas, such as secondary batteries in hybrid vehicles, which are
used to increase overall power and efficiency for the main gasoline-powered motor. Despite past
applications of peak shaving technologies, its effective use for mitigating peak demand impacts
is considerably complex (Levron & Shmilovitz, 2012). The application of smart-grid technology
could be quite beneficial for the practice of peak shaving in Ontario. Additionally, the storage
capacity of electric vehicles could be particularly useful for peak power shaving; an analysis
conducted by Levron & Shmilovitz (2012) determined that “minimal storage capacity is
required to limit the peak of generated power to a predetermined desired value” (p.83). The
use of available storage capacity from electric vehicles, through V2G services, could be used for
peak shaving, thus mitigating impacts to peak load demand.
4.1.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR BASE LOAD DEMAND
Base load, in contrast to peak load, is the minimum amount of power that must be consistently
provided to the grid throughout the day and night, and across the seasons of the year, in order to
meet demand (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a; Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011). In the U.S., large
nuclear or coal-fired plants typically supply base load power due to low overall operational costs
per kWh. In Ontario, base load power is supplied by nuclear, hydroelectric, and some coal-fired
generators, which are designed to operate continuously in order to provide a stable power
supply for the province (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011); coal-fired generators in Ontario,
30
however, will be phased out by 2014 as per the Province’s Long-Term Energy Plan. Demand
placed on base load power, according to The Pembina Institute, relates primarily to the
continuous use of electricity from consumer appliances, such as refrigerators and freezers, or
IESO_REP_0778v1.0
18-Month Outlook Update
from industrial motors; the common ground for base load consumers is the lack of defined
peaks in use (Peters & Burda, 2007). Displayed below [Fig 4] is an outline of expected base load
6.0 Operability Assessment
power consumption in Ontario between March 2012 and August 2013. The graph depicts a base
!"#ȱ$%&'ȱ()*+,)-.ȱ#/+.,+*0ȱ1*2ȱ#(#-0+*0ȱ)3#-14+5+,6ȱ+..7#.ȱ,"1,ȱ8)752ȱ3),#*,+1556ȱ+(318,ȱ.6.,#(ȱ
load generation [red line] of approximately 11,000 MW at minimum and 15,000 MW at
-#5+14+5+,69ȱȱ:5,")70"ȱ+*.,1*8#.ȱ);ȱ.7-357.ȱ41.#5)12ȱ0#*#-1,+)*ȱ<&=>?ȱ"1@#ȱ5#..#*#2ȱ)@#-ȱ,"+.ȱ31.,ȱA71-,#-Bȱ
maximum, with an average generation of about 13,000 to 14,000 MW (Independent Electricity
&=>ȱ-#(1+*.ȱ1*ȱ)*0)+*0ȱ8)*8#-*ȱ;)-ȱ,"#ȱ$%&'9ȱȱȱ
ȱ
System Operator, 2012a). It also shows that average weekly minimum demand [green line] is
:ȱ5)Cȱ2#(1*2ȱ3#-+)2ȱC+,"ȱ"#1@6ȱC+*2.Bȱ27-+*0ȱ;-#."#,BȱC+,"ȱ*#+0"4)7-.ȱ#+,"#-ȱ7*C+55+*0ȱ)-ȱ7*145#ȱ,)ȱ
,1D#ȱ)7-ȱ#/3)-,.Bȱ(16ȱ5#12ȱ,)ȱ1ȱ*785#1-ȱ7*+,ȱ."7,2)C*BȱC"+8"ȱ+*ȱ,7-*ȱC)752ȱ817.#ȱ,"1,ȱ0#*#-1,+)*ȱ,)ȱ4#ȱ
roughly 13,000 MW, with a maximum demand of 15,000 MW and minimum of 12,000 MW. In
7*1@1+5145#ȱ;)-ȱEFȱ,)ȱGHȱ")7-.9ȱ&")752ȱ,"1,ȱ*785#1-ȱ81314+5+,6ȱ4#ȱ-#A7+-#2ȱ;)-ȱ.6.,#(ȱ12#A7186ȱ27-+*0ȱ,"#ȱ
both cases, base load demand and generation are predicted to fluctuate over the coming months,
3#-+)2ȱ+,ȱ+.ȱ7*1@1+5145#Bȱ,"#-#ȱC)752ȱ4#ȱ1*ȱ12@#-.#ȱ+(318,ȱ)*ȱ-#5+14+5+,69ȱȱI)C#@#-Bȱ1ȱ.+(+51-ȱ5)Cȱ2#(1*2ȱ
3#-+)2ȱC+,"ȱ*)ȱC+*2ȱ1*2ȱ1ȱ.,-)*0ȱ14+5+,6ȱ,)ȱ#/3)-,ȱ8)752ȱ-#A7+-#ȱ*)ȱ(+,+01,+*0ȱ18,+)*.9ȱȱ
with higher overall demand occurring between December and March; this is likely due to
ȱ
household heating and lighting requirements during the colder and darker winter season.
Figure 6.1 Minimum Ontario Demand and Baseload Generation (Includes Net Export Assumption)
18,000
16,000
14,000
MW
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Range o f Minimum Weekly Demand
Bas elo ad Generation
25-Aug-13
28-Jul-13
30-Jun-13
02-Jun-13
05-May-13
07-Apr-13
10-Mar-13
10-Feb-13
13-Jan-13
16-Dec-12
18-Nov-12
21-Oct-12
23-Sep-12
26-Aug-12
29-Jul-12
01-Jul-12
03-Jun-12
06-May-12
08-Apr-12
11-Mar-12
0
Average Weekly Minimimum Demand
Fig. 4 Minimum Ontario Demand and Base load Generation (Including Net
Exports)
J+07-#ȱK9Lȱȱȱ=1.#5)12ȱ0#*#-1,+)*ȱ1..7(3,+)*.ȱ+*8572#ȱ#/3)-,. L Bȱ,"#ȱ51,#.,ȱ351**#2ȱ)7,10#ȱ+*;)-(1,+)*Bȱ(1-D#,ȱ
ȱ
Source: Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012a
31-,+8+31*,Ȭ.74(+,,#2ȱ(+*+(7(ȱ3-)278,+)*ȱ21,1Bȱ1*2ȱ+*Ȭ.#-@+8#ȱ21,#.ȱ;)-ȱ*#Cȱ)-ȱ-#;7-4+."#2ȱ0#*#-1,+)*9ȱȱ!"#ȱ
#/3#8,#2ȱ8)*,-+47,+)*ȱ;-)(ȱ.#5;Ȭ.8"#275+*0ȱ1*2ȱ+*,#-(+,,#*,ȱ0#*#-1,+)*ȱ"1.ȱ15.)ȱ4##*ȱ7321,#2ȱ,)ȱ-#;5#8,ȱ,"#ȱ51,#.,ȱ
Although not depicted in Fig 4, there are cases when base load generation in Ontario is higher
21,19ȱȱ'7,37,ȱ;-)(ȱ8)((+..+)*+*0ȱ7*+,.ȱ+.ȱ#/35+8+,56ȱ#/8572#2ȱ;-)(ȱ,"+.ȱ1*156.+.ȱ27#ȱ,)ȱ7*8#-,1+*,6ȱ1*2ȱ,"#ȱ"+0"56ȱ
@1-+145#ȱ*1,7-#ȱ);ȱ8)((+..+)*+*0ȱ.8"#275#.9ȱȱ
than demand. This generally occurs during low demand periods (e.g. overnight), when wind
output is high and neighbours are either unwilling or unable to receive exports of excess energy
11
An export assumption of 1,500 MW is applied under conditions which allow Ontario’s aggregate export capability to be higher
(Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012a). This results in negative electricity costs per
than 2,600 MW. The 1,200 MW export assumption will be applied when forecast planned outages are expected to limit Ontario’s
aggregate export capacity to between 1,400MW and 2,600 MW. For forecast planned outages that further limit export capacity to
kWh, the required shutdown of generating facilities to reduce energy surpluses, and an overall
below 1,400 MW, an export assumption value of 700 MW will be used. See Appendix C of the 18-Month Outlook Tables for
forecast reduction to major transmission interface limits, including interconnection interfaces.
February 24, 2012
Public
Page 16
31
loss of revenue for electricity providers and the Province. Due to current limitations for energy
storage in Ontario, the issue of surplus base load generation will continue to impact the Province
as more intermittent, renewable energy sources are added to the grid.
The expected impacts of electric vehicles on base load power in Ontario will largely come
from a shift in demand from periods of peak energy consumption to lower-cost, off-peak hours
as a result of demand response programs. According to The Pembina Institute, programs aimed
at “reducing peak demand do not reduce overall demand, but, rather, shift the demand to nonpeak times. As base load demand is not reduced, overall energy use and gains remain
unchanged” (Peters & Burda, 2007; p.1). The most desired mode of charging for electric vehicle
owners, as discussed in section 4.1.1, is delayed charging, where vehicle charging is postponed
until low-cost, off-peak energy demand times in an attempt to optimize fuel costs for vehicle
owners (Minghong et al, 2012). This is a more likely outcome than other charging modes, as
discussed by Schill (2011), especially considering that current EVs are equipped with technology
to delay charging until off-peak hours. With off-peak hours in Ontario occurring daily from 7pm
to 7am and a price decrease from 10.8¢/kWh to 6.2¢/kWh, its possible that actual peak energy
consumption will be extended later in the evening when EVs connected to the grid begin
recharging (Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012c). Consequently, the Provincial
government or grid operators may be required to develop and implement policies that introduce
staggered or alternated charging for EVs; this would require the charging of vehicles over
specific times in order to reduce overall energy demand. A report by the ISO/RTO Council
(2010), for example, determined that if an estimated 15,700 EVs in Toronto all began recharging
at the same time, grid demand would equal approximately 86 MW. However, if charging were
staggered over an 8 or 12-hour period, demand would be reduced to 19 MW and 13 MW
respectively (p.29).
There are several major implications of electric vehicle emergence on Ontario’s energy
system when considering base load power demand. In Ontario, as discussed by The Pembina
Institute, “we have come to assume that residual base load power demand can and should be
met only by using continuously running thermal power plants like nuclear and coal and some
hydro capacity” (Peters & Burda, 2007; p.2). The consequences of this approach, as discussed
previously, include pressures to replace nuclear generating stations in Ontario that are aging
and will either require expensive and lengthy refurbishments to extend their lifespan or must be
shutdown permanently in the coming years. Nuclear plants also cannot be relied upon entirely
as they often take days to restart after shut down and require major transmission lines to
connect core generating facilities to distant parts of the province (Peters & Burda, 2007). In
32
addition, Ontario has already exhausted all major hydraulic sites within the Province and thus
cannot significantly expand hydroelectric generating capacities in the future. Likewise, coalfired generators in Ontario are being decommissioned by the current Provincial government and
will be completely eliminated as an energy source by 2014. Furthermore, studies conducted by
Kempton & Tomi" (2005a), have shown that EVs cannot provide base load power through V2G
at a competitive price: “This is because base load power hits the weaknesses of EVs – limited
energy storage, short device lifetimes, and high energy costs per kWh – while not exploiting
their strengths – quick response time, low standby costs, and low capital costs per kW”
(Kempton & Tomi", 2005a; p.270). Therefore, the Province will require additional generating
capacity in order to meet expected future energy demand, even without the consideration of
electric vehicles.
In the interest of environmental protection and lower electricity costs, oil and gas-fired
generators will largely be ruled out as a substitute power source for base load in Ontario.
Conservation measures, such as energy efficiency, fuel switching, co-generation and waste heat
recycling could reduce base load demand to an extent (Peters & Burda, 2007). An increasing
demand for energy as a result of future population growth in Ontario is also an important
consideration; predictions of the impacts of population growth on energy, though, may be
exaggerated as a result of economically tighter times. Additionally, gains in energy efficiency
may also cut per capita demand enough to avoid an overall growth in demand. This trend may
be discernable when analyzing peak demand changes over the past decade [Appendix A], which
shows little growth in demand since 2002.
Despite advances in energy efficiency and reduced growth in energy demand, the need to
replace and/or increase baseline generation will be essential for Ontario’s future energy system.
One of the few viable options currently available to meet future energy demand in Ontario, from
an economic and environmental standpoint, will be renewable energy sources; the only
exception is cheaper, high efficiency gas-fired generators with co-generation. Many contend that
only limited amounts of renewables could be integrated into the Province’s power grid and that
they would have to be backed up with conventional power sources in order to meet base load
generation (Peters & Burda, 2007). This argument, however, assumes that future grids will
continue to be designed around large-scale, centralized power plants; that renewables will cause
instability for the grid; and that renewables will be unmanageable and difficult to regulate. The
Pembina Institute, conversely, argues that a variety of renewable sources distributed throughout
the province, combined with dispatch energy from power storage devices and integrated with
‘smart grid’ technology would allow a far greater percentage of base load power to be met from
33
renewable sources (Peters & Burda, 2007). Therefore, the planning and development of base
load power supplies in Ontario must focus on higher levels of renewable energy, distributed
throughout the province and supported by power storage technology.
4.2 EV CAPABILITIES AS POWER STORAGE DEVICES
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology, when combined with plug-in electric vehicles, provides
communication abilities between the power grid and electric vehicles. Through this connection,
vehicles can provide demand response service through the delivery of electricity into the power
grid or through the throttling of vehicle charging rates by utilities (Minghong et al, 2012). The
rechargeable battery capacity of EVs, when combined with V2G systems, can be used to provide
power to the grid during periods of peak load demand and regulation requests, or act as
spinning reserve for grid-energy storage. Through this capability, EVs can provide considerable
benefits for local power systems (Minghong et al, 2012). These benefits will be largely
determined by the number of vehicles connected to the energy grid at a given time, as well as the
amount of stored energy available in each vehicle. The following is a preliminary assessment to
provide a baseline estimate for V2G availability in Ontario based on the preliminary study in
Section 2.2.2, which determined that approximately 360,000 electric vehicles could be available
to the grid by 2020.
The determination of grid energy that can be supplied by electric vehicles through
vehicle-to-grid services is largely dependent on two main limiting factors: transmission wires
and the amount of stored energy in a vehicle [see section 4.2.1 below]. Kempton & Tomi"
(2005a) determined that typical U.S. household circuits are limited to 10 to 15 kW of power; this
suggests that at any given time the maximum amount of power that can be contributed to the
grid by an EV will be 10-15kW. For the purposes of this study, it’s assumed that average Ontario
households are similarly limited and that 10 kW will be the maximum capacity of the circuits.
Kempton & Tomi" also suggest that the power contributions of current generation EVs will be
similarly limited by their corresponding charging units. For adequate V2G services, however, the
development of higher capacity chargers will be required; therefore this study presumes that the
needed innovations will be accomplished and therefore does not consider charging units a
limiting factor. Lastly, the energy stored within an EV battery when its connected to the grid is a
major limiting factor. This study will assume that “half the average daily vehicle miles would
have been depleted when the vehicle is parked and power is requested” and that the requested
range buffer [see section 4.2.1], “the minimum remaining range required by the driver”, for
V2G participants is approximately 20 miles (32km) (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a; p.272).
34
Furthermore, this study assumes that the average battery capacity of an EV connected to the
grid will be 23kWh of energy; this is the capacity of most current EVs, such as the Nissan Leaf,
Ford Focus EV, and Toyota RAV4 EV. Considering the above, the average EV connected to the
grid will have approximately 6.9 kWh of energy capacity to contribute to V2G services.
Average EV capacity: 160km or 23 kWh
EV range buffer: 32km or 4.6 kWh
Battery at ! capacity: 80km or 11.5 kWh
Battery capacity after range buffer: 48km or 6.9 kWh
The capacity of current EV batteries, as determined above, suggests that household
wiring will not be a limiting factor for V2G services as previously assumed. As battery capacities
increase with research and development, however, or vehicles such as the Tesla Model S (with
an 85 kWh battery) are adopted, household wiring will certainly become a limiting factor.
Nonetheless, with current generation EVs capable of supplying 6.9 kWh worth of energy
capacity and approximately 360,000 vehicles expected by 2020, this study calculates that EVs
could supply approximately 2,484,000 Kilowatt hours or 2,484 Megawatt hours of energy to
Ontario’s grid.
Available EVs in 2020: 360,000
Capacity of Average EV: 6.9 kWh
EV Supply to Grid: 360,000 x 6.9 kWh = 2,484,000 kWh
In order to determine the amount of power EVs could provide to the grid, this value is
simply divided over the number of hours that EV energy will be utilized. For example, if EV
energy were required over a one-hour period, the total power supplied by EVs would be 2,484
MW. If required over a longer period, however, the power supplied by EVs would be
considerably less. Nevertheless, the amount of energy and power that could be provided to
Ontario’s electricity grid through V2G services is substantial, especially considering future
advances in battery technology between now and 2020. The rapid development of V2G and
smart grid technologies, as anticipated by Minghong et al (2012), will help alleviate pressures
placed on the energy grid resulting from the large-scale penetration of EVs. Therefore, electric
vehicles have the potential to contribute significantly to Ontario’s future electricity grid.
35
4.2.1 LIMITS TO V2G POWER AVAILABILITY
Kempton & Tomi" (2005a) identify three main factors limiting EV vehicle-to-grid power
capabilities: “1) the current-carrying capacity of the wires and other circuitry connecting the
vehicle through the building to the grid; 2) the stored energy in the vehicle, divided by the time
it is used, and; 3) the rated maximum power of the vehicle’s power electronics.” (p.272).
Kempton & Tomi" suggest that the maximum capacity of a vehicles battery is of little
consequence, when considering the other two factors; battery capacity is irrelevant if
transmission wires can only carry restricted amounts of power and/or there is limited available
energy in the vehicle’s battery for effective V2G capabilities. The two more prominent factors
influencing V2G power are discussed below.
Fully functional EVs typically contain internal circuits with a 100 kW carrying capacity
(Kempton & Tomi", 2005a). A typical US home, in comparison, has a maximum power capacity
of roughly 20 to 50 kW, although the average draw from the grid is closer to 1 kW.
Consequently, the ability of grid operators to draw power from EVs is limited to the electrical
current capacity of the wiring to which the vehicle is connected. Maximum wiring capacity for a
house or commercial building can be calculated using the voltage and rated ampere capacity of
the line, expressed as Pline = VA, where Pline is the maximum limit imposed by the electrical
line (in kW), V is the line voltage, and A is the maximum rated current in amperes (Kempton &
Tomi", 2005a). Calculations conducted by Kempton & Tomi" determined typical US household
circuits are limited to between 10 and 15 kW, whereas commercial buildings (or residential
buildings following an electrical service upgrade at additional capital costs) could be limited to
25 kW or more (p.272). Electric vehicles are also limited based on their charging units: “most
existing (pre-V2G) battery vehicle chargers use the National Electrical Code (NEC) “Level 2”
standard of 6.6 kW. The first automotive power electronics unit designed for V2G and in
production, by AC Propulsion, provides 19.2 kW at a residence or 16.6 kW at a commercial
building” (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a; p.272). Combined, the limited electrical capacity of wires
and EV chargers can restrict the available V2G power availability from electric vehicles and
response to these limitations may be an area of future consideration for grid operators.
The second major limit for V2G power availability is the energy stored within an EV
battery divided by the duration in which power is drawn (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a). More
specifically, this limit is the onboard energy storage of an EV, subtracted by the energy used and
needed for planned travel, multiplied by the efficiency of converting stored energy to grid power,
all divided by the duration of time the energy is dispatched. Therefore, the maximum power
available for V2G (in kW) is dependent on existing stored energy (as DC kWh) available to the
36
inverter, the distance driven since energy storage was full, the distance of the range buffer
required by the driver, the vehicle driving efficiency (km/kWh), the electrical conversion
efficiency of the DC to AC inverter, and the time that a vehicle’s stored energy is dispatched in
hours (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a; p.272). All of the above factors are dependent on the vehicle
owner’s driving patterns, the type of EV, and the driver’s strategy for selling power back to the
grid. It’s assumed by Kempton & Tomi" that “half the average daily vehicle miles would have
been depleted when the vehicle is parked and power is requested” (p.272). Additionally, the
‘range buffer’, “the minimum remaining range required by the driver”, will be determined by
the individual driver or fleet operator, based on the distance reserved for a return commute or
unanticipated trip (Kempton & Tomi", 2005a). Interviews with California drivers, for example,
determined that a range buffer of 20 miles was sufficient for most drivers; this will likely vary
between individual drivers, however, depending on commuting distances and proximity to
amenities (i.e. grocery stores, entertainment, hospitals, and schools). Due to the large variability
of individual driving habits, it would be extremely difficult to provide an accurate calculation of
V2G power capabilities based on this limiting factor. Regardless, Kempton & Tomi" (2005a)
suggest that the lower of the two limiting factors discussed above will ultimately determine the
power capacity of V2G-enabled vehicles.
4.3 SERVICES PROVIDED BY V2G SYSTEMS
According to Kempton & Tomi" (2005b), “the most important role for V2G may
ultimately be in emerging power markets to support renewable energy” (p.285). Renewable
energy, such as wind and solar, are expected to become major sources of power generation in
Ontario under the Long-Term Energy Plan; both sources, however, only provide intermittent
energy to the grid. Low levels of renewable supply can be controlled by load and supply
management systems already integrated into the power grid. As renewables exceed 10 to 30% of
the power supply, however (as currently targeted under the Province’s Long-Term Energy Plan),
additional resources will be needed in order to match fluctuations in supply and load (Kempton
& Tomi", 2005b). These additional resources refer to backup or storage devices. Backup
includes “generators that can be turned on to provide power when the renewable source is
insufficient” (Kempton & Tomi", 2005b; p.285). In Ontario, natural gas-fired plants are
considered backup generators and are used to provide flexibility and response during periods of
peak demand (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2010). Storage devices, in contrast, provide a similar
service as backup with the additional advantage of being able to absorb excess grid power. EVs
using V2G services, as discussed by White & Zhang (2011), could increase the efficiency of
37
Ontario’s electric generation system, provide support for renewables, and reduce emissions
resulting from peak power by providing energy storage capabilities.
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) systems are designed to provide the stored electricity of EVs to the
grid when parked (Tomi" & Kempton, 2007). “As energy storage devices, EV batteries may be
charged when the cost of generating electricity is low and discharged when it is high,
decreasing the use of low-efficiency, high-emission peaking units” (White & Zhang, 2011;
p.3973). There is significant potential for the use of V2G services in Ontario, which could
provide substantial external benefits if used for demand reduction during peak demand (White
& Zhang, 2011). Benefits realized from the use of V2G services include financial savings for grid
operators, who would be less reliant on expensive and inefficient peak load generators, and,
more importantly, significant contributions to the environment and human health: “Periods of
high electricity demand typically happen during hot summer days; the damage from
additional power plant emissions on these days tend to be exacerbated by the atmospheric
conditions during these times, which are conducive to the formation of certain air pollutants,
such as ozone” (White & Zhang, 2011; p.3973).
In addition to providing peak load reduction services and support for increased
renewable energy supply, electric vehicles could also support the ancillary services of Ontario’s
power grid. Ancillary service refers to the broad group of services provided to the electrical grid,
including frequency regulation and electricity reserves (White & Zhang, 2011). These services
are necessary for the maintenance of grid reliability, balancing supply and demand, and
supporting the transmission of electric power throughout the grid (Tomi" & Kempton, 2007).
The main purpose of regulation, discussed by Tomi" & Kempton, is to “adjust the grid,
specifically the local control area, to the target frequency and voltage. Regulation helps
maintain interconnection frequency, balance actual and scheduled power flow among control
areas, and match generation to load within the control areas” (p.460). Generators
continuously maintain regulation across energy grids and are required to respond quickly to
requests for increases or decreases in power output 24 hours per day. Electric vehicles, in
conjunction with V2G services, could provide grid regulation services in place of traditional
generators. Tomi" & Kempton (2007) state that grid operators, in order to schedule a dispatch
of power, would rely on the fact that enough vehicles are parked and connected to the system at
any minute during the day (p.460). An analysis conducted by Tomi" & Kempton estimated that
at least 90% of personal vehicles are parked throughout the day, even during peak traffic hours,
meaning the majority of vehicles are inactive for a large portion of the day. As a result, “the
predictability of using V2G for grid regulation is excellent because they follow a daily
38
schedule” (Tomi" & Kempton, 2007; p.460).
Although their analysis of predictability would likely hold true for daily commuters,
Tomi" & Kempton’s study failed to analyze non-commuter trips, which creates a great deal of
uncertainty for predictability; reliable data, therefore, will be required in order to accurately
calculate predictability for V2G services. Similarly, data will also be required for calculating the
residual charge of EV batteries for return commutes (if vehicles are providing V2G services
throughout the day) and the range buffer [as discussed in section 4.2.1] desired by commuter
and non-commuter EV owners. Predictability, consequently, plays a significant role in the
provision of V2G-based ancillary services for electrical grids. Moreover, the use of EVs for
ancillary services would impact their ability to provide peak power shaving [discussed in section
4.1.1], as the residual charge of EV batteries would be significantly diminished if energy were
drawn down during the day. The desired role of electric vehicles from a utility and vehicle owner
perspective will, therefore, need to be weighed carefully. Ultimately, the large-scale penetration
of electric vehicles and their subsequent integration with Ontario’s power grid could yield
important benefits and services for the grid. The consideration of which services EVs will
provide, however, suggests the need for complex and flexible systems for utilities and high
capability requirements for EV owners.
4.4 ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF EV ADOPTION IN ONTARIO
The economic analysis of V2G services conducted by White & Zhang (2011) suggests that:
“There is little financial incentive for EV owners to participate in a program that uses V2G
technology solely for peak reduction. On the other hand, we found that there is significant
potential for financial return for the participants when V2G technology is used for regulation.
Therefore, we propose that with a program using V2G technology for regulation on a daily
basis and for peak reduction on high electricity demand days, profits for the participants may
be higher than either of the two single-use programs on their own” (p.3979).
This is an important consideration for future electricity planning and policy-making in Ontario;
the financial incentives of V2G will largely influence EV owner participation and subsequent
benefits for the grid. Furthermore, White & Zhang suggest that the dual-use of V2G could
potentially reduce environmental impacts while ensuring profits for participants are high
enough to encourage continued participation in the program (White & Zhang, 2011). However,
when operating in current markets, White & Zhang’s study also indicated a tendency for
decreasing revenues for EV owners as participation in V2G programs increased (p.3979).
39
The implementation of V2G services for peak demand reduction and regulation was also
an important area of consideration for White & Zhang’s study. Economic analyses of V2G for
demand reduction and regulation suggest the need to create formal energy storage system
markets, especially as storage needs are expected to increase with the penetration of new
renewable developments (White & Zhang, 2011). Additionally, the study suggests V2G
regulation providers will inundate the market for regulation capacity at higher participation
rates; this should be relatively easy to manage, though, through the incentive structure. Despite
this, White & Zhang (2011) state that “there is plenty of potential for widespread use of V2G
technology, especially if the demand for regulation, reserves, and storage grows as we expect”
(p.3979). Therefore, future electricity and policy planning should consider the financial
implications for V2G participants, in addition to the use of electric vehicles for peak demand
reduction and regulation.
4.5 SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS, EFFECTS, BENEFITS, COSTS AND RISKS OF EV
ADOPTION FOR ONTARIO’S ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM
The large-scale emergence of electric vehicles in Ontario’s automotive market will clearly have
widespread impacts for the Province’s electricity grid, power generation, and peak and base load
demand. Under the scenario of uncontrolled EV charging, the greatest negative impacts will be
felt during peak demand hours. This will require the increased usage of high cost, emission
intensive, peaking generating plants in Ontario, which could increase the cost of energy for
consumers and negative environment and human health effects within the Province. If EV
charging is delayed until off-peak hours, which is a likely scenario, the province will experience
increased demand on base load generators, requiring additional power generation during
normal low demand periods. If traditional solutions are favoured, increased base load demand
would necessitate the development of additional continuously operated generating plants, which
are currently comprised of nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal-fired generators. Although suited for
current needs, many of these facilities require expensive retrofits or shut down, are slated for
removal from the energy system in the near future, or cannot be expanded further due to limited
generating capacities within Ontario. Consequently, renewable energy sources, such as wind and
solar, appear to offer a more desirable option for filling the power gap for base load generation.
Due to the fluctuating and intermittent nature of renewable energy sources, however, the future
development and expansion of renewables will require distributed generation throughout the
province, supported by the implementation of power storage devices and smart grid technology.
Despite shifts in consumption to off-peak hours, the clustered charging of EVs when
electricity prices are reduced could delay peak demand periods and would require a staggered
40
approach to recharging. This approach could significantly reduce demand by dispersing it over a
longer period of time; staggered charging, however, will require government or grid utilityenacted policies, including pricing incentives, in order to ensure vehicle owners alter their
charging habits. If policies to reduce peak demand are not developed and implemented
successfully in Ontario, the use of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology in conjunction with electric
vehicles could help supply temporary power to the grid in order to ensure demand does not
exceed generating capacity. Although the disposal of V2G power will be limited by the capacity
of household circuitry and the amount of remaining battery capacity when vehicles are
connected to the grid, a preliminary study determined that current generation EVs could supply
approximately 2,484 Megawatt hours of energy to Ontario’s grid. This supply could help manage
peak load on High Electricity Demand Days, provide important support to renewable energy
sources throughout the province, or provide important ancillary services, such as grid reliability
and regulation, in place of traditional generators. Electric vehicles could also provide the
important role of peak power shaving, which would deliver stored energy to the grid when
power demands reach peak levels. The use of electric vehicles and V2G services for a single
function (e.g. peak shaving or storage for regulating fluctuations from intermittent power
sources) would yield limited financial incentives for EV owner participation according to the
available literature. If used for multiple services, however, such as daily grid regulation and peak
reduction, profits for participants would be higher and could encourage additional participants.
The impacts of electric vehicles on Ontario’s power grid and the potential benefits they could
supply will, therefore, be determined largely by the development and implementation of
government policies and legislation in order to encourage positive attributes of EVs and mitigate
adverse impacts. Ensuring that these attributes are attainable will require the development of
smart grid tools in order to connect various technologies, timing requirements, incentives, EV
owner understanding, and more into a single, smoothly functioning system. This approach will
require the strategic assessment of available options and alternatives and the collaboration of
many stakeholders. If implemented successfully, however, Ontario could reap significant
benefits for personal transportation, energy systems, consumers, the economy, and the health of
citizens and the environment.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report has provided a detailed overview of the many aspects of electric vehicles, their
integration into Ontario’s electricity grid and power system, and the resulting challenges and
implications for the province. The likely impacts of large-scale electric vehicle adoption on
41
Ontario’s power grid has been identified and discussed in detail, as well as the extent to which
the province will need to plan, adapt, and alter its current energy capacity and infrastructure
system in order to accommodate future demands. This report also provided original research for
the use of EVs as power storage devices and intermittent power suppliers for Ontario’s
electricity system during periods of high power demand. The research and analysis of available
academic and peer-reviewed literature, publically available documents from power generators
and utility operators in Ontario, and information gathered from electric vehicle manufacturers
have yielded several important conclusions regarding electric vehicles in Ontario. This study has
revealed the importance of examining the quantity and spatial location in which electric vehicles
will emerge, the current state and future requirements of Ontario’s energy system, and the
benefits and implications of electric vehicles for the province. Furthermore, this report
illustrates the significance of considering the difficulties and opportunities of electric vehicles in
the intersections of personal transportation, electricity, technology, and government policy.
Preliminary studies conducted in this report have shown that, based on 2006 census
data, Ontario can expect as many as 360,000 electric vehicles to emerge within the province by
2020; this statistic, though, relies on the current government’s vision of 1 out of 20 vehicles
driven to be electrically powered by 2020. Nonetheless, electric vehicles will likely represent
approximately 5% of all vehicles driven in 2020, which is significant in terms of power
requirements for recharging. These vehicles, at least initially, are expected to emerge mainly
within the heavily urbanized areas of Ontario. According to 2006 census data, 9 out of 10 of
these most heavily urbanized areas are located within the southern-most regions of Ontario,
such as Toronto, Peel, and York. The power requirements of these vehicles, when clustered in a
relatively small geographic area, will be sizable if charging occurs simultaneously. Moreover, if
electric vehicle charging is not regulated and managed by utilities and is allowed to occur
uncontrolled, the majority of charging will occur during peak energy demand periods; this could
exacerbate existing energy problems and require the use of additional peak power generating
facilities in order to meet demand. Natural gas generators in Ontario act as high cost, emissions
intensive, peak power generating plants. The increased use of these facilities would result in
greater energy costs for consumers and negative environmental and human health effects.
Ontario’s energy system, although capable of meeting current energy needs, will likely
require additional peak and base load generation capabilities in order to meet future demand.
Energy generation in Ontario is currently dominated by nuclear, oil and gas, and hydroelectric
power systems. Nuclear facilities throughout the province, however, are aging and will require
extensive refurbishment or shutdown in the coming years. Oil and gas stations, although
42
cheaper to operate than some energy generators, are a significant source of environmental
pollution and emit greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; due to the current governments focus
on reducing environmental impacts, the expansion of oil and gas generators in Ontario is
unlikely. Additionally, the province has already exploited all major hydroelectric generating sites,
meaning there is no possibility of significant future expansion of this energy source. Combined,
these factors represent an energy deficit for Ontario if future demand exceeds its current rate of
supply and if replacement of current generation capacity proves costly and difficult. In order to
resolve these issues, the Provincial government is investing heavily in renewable energy systems
as part of its 2009 Green Energy Act and Feed-in-Tariff program. These systems would help
meet future energy demands without compromising the environment. Due to the intermittent
nature of renewable systems, however, the province will require significant energy storage
capabilities in order to utilize renewable systems effectively and efficiently. Although the
province currently has limited storage capabilities and has not declared any long-term plans to
increase storage capacity, it’s possible that electric vehicles could provide this service through
grid connections to EV battery systems, known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology.
Lastly, electric vehicles have the potential to bring significant benefits to Ontario’s
electrical system, including integration with renewable energy systems, peak power shaving, and
the provision of ancillary services to the grid. Renewable energy sources (e.g. wind and solar),
which are expected to become major sources of power generation in Ontario, require backup or
storage devices in order to match fluctuations in supply and load. Historically, the province has
utilized backup generators that are powered on when renewable sources are insufficient. These
generators are expensive to operate and maintain, require government subsidies to support
plant income, and contribute significantly to emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.
Electric vehicles using vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology, however, could increase the efficiency
of Ontario’s energy generation system and provide support for renewables, while reducing
emissions from peak power facilities, due to their energy storage capabilities. Peak power
shaving, which refers to storing energy during low demand periods and returning it to the grid
during peak demand periods, is another possible benefit of EVs. Because minimal storage
capacity is required to limit peak generated power to a predetermined desired value, electric
vehicles could be used for peak shaving; this could mitigate anticipated impacts to peak load
demand. Electric vehicles could also support the ancillary services of Ontario’s power grid,
which refers to the provision of regulation and electricity reserves. Regulation is required
throughout the day in order to maintain interconnection frequency, balance actual and
scheduled power flow, and match generation to load within control areas. These services are
43
typically provided by backup generators, such as natural gas facilities, that respond quickly for
requests to increase or decrease power output over 24 hour periods. Electric vehicles, due to
their higher efficiency and storage capabilities, could provide these ancillary services in place of
traditional, inefficient generators, leading to a more efficient and effective energy system. These
potential benefits, however, will be dependent on the development and implementation of new
government and grid utility regulations and policies,. Additionally, due to the complex nature of
many of these systems, the development of smart-grid technology will be required in order to
manage Ontario’s energy systems properly in conjunction with electric vehicle V2G technology.
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
The main conclusions drawn in this report identify the need for adjustments to government,
grid operator, and utility-based strategic planning for Ontario’s future energy system. The major
recommendations of this report are that decision makers and other stakeholders need to reevaluate future energy plans, specifically those made under Ontario’s 2007 Long Term Energy
Plan. Although representing a significant step forward towards a more efficient and sustainable
energy system, Ontario’s current energy plan fails to take into account several important factors
that must be addressed.
First, Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan considers EVs only as a burden on the province’s
energy system. This is understandable due to the relatively new concept of vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
technology; nonetheless, incorporating the benefits of electric vehicles, as discussed throughout
this report, into a long-term plan will be fundamental for creating a more sustainable and
efficient energy system. Integrating electric vehicles into the electrical grid, however, will require
stakeholder engagement, especially with vehicle owners, in order to create a desirable energy
system. Government and utility-based policies and legislation will also be required to encourage
the early adoption of electric vehicles, provide incentives for vehicle owners to participate in
V2G services, and ensure that vehicle charging occurs during off-peak hours in order to limit
impacts to peak load. Therefore, this report strongly recommends the re-evaluation of electric
vehicles in Ontario, their subsequent inclusion into an amended Long Term Energy Plan, and
the development and implementation of appropriate government and utility-based policies and
legislation.
The second major recommendation of this report is the significant expansion of energy
storage capacity within Ontario, in addition to electric vehicles, as part of future energy plans.
This report has clearly outlined the energy problems facing the province, specifically in regards
to the declining availability of conventional energy sources and Ontario’s increased reliance on
44
renewables. The current limited storage capacity of the province is a considerable shortcoming
for current and future energy plans. The Long Term Energy Plan (2007), for example, makes
almost no mention of storage technology and provides no targets for future expansion. This will
result in complications for Ontario’s future energy market, which will become increasingly
saturated with renewable power in the coming years. As discussed by Pickard et al (2009), “the
electricity grid of a sustainable-energy future will need a huge capability to store energy if it is
to efficiently match consumer demand with generator supply” (p.1938). Energy storage is also
one of the four pillars of Krajac!ic! et al’s (2011) Post Carbon Society model, in which CO2
emissions are eliminated completely. Consequently, this report strongly recommends the reevaluation and inclusion of energy storage capacity in Ontario’s future energy plans. If
implemented successfully, this technology should largely negate the need for developing natural
gas peaking power facilities. The province’s current energy plans should be considered a step
backwards in this regard, particularly in terms of its sustainability, due to the support for
increased natural gas facility developments. The role of these facilities, i.e. providing peak power
needs and supporting renewable sources throughout the province, can be fulfilled by electric
vehicle storage capabilities and electrical and/or thermal energy storage devices.
Lastly, this report strongly recommends the integration of the above recommendations, in
addition to other factors, into Ontario’s smart-grid development strategy. Ontario’s smart grid,
according to the Independent Electricity System Operator (2009), would closely integrate all
elements of the Provinces electricity system, including production, delivery, and consumption in
order to improve the overall operation of energy systems for the benefit of consumers and the
environment. The development of smart-grid technology in Ontario would also completely shift
our current energy model, allowing for the multi-directional flow of electricity and information
between various aspects of the electrical grid. The integration of electric vehicles and large-scale
energy storage devices into the smart grid will, therefore, be essential in order to effectively
utilize this technology. As discussed by Sovacool & Hirsh (2009), EVs require a control and/or
communication device that allows the grid operators access to the battery; smart grid systems, if
properly implemented, would provide this ability to grid operators. Additionally, many of the
benefits of electric vehicles and energy storage devices (e.g. peak power shaving, grid regulation,
etc.) would not be attainable without the development of smart grid tools; these tools would be
required in order to connect the various technologies, timing requirements, incentives, EV
owner understanding, and more into a single, smoothly functioning system. Furthermore,
current conservation, renewable energy generation, and smart meter programs in Ontario will
not be fully realized without the advanced technologies that will be integrated as part of the
45
smart grid. Therefore, this report strongly recommends the re-evaluation and integration of
electric vehicles and energy storage devices into Ontario’s planned smart grid in order to create
a highly efficient and sustainable energy system.
5.2 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
New and theoretical technological developments for energy systems, batteries, electric vehicles
and any other unknown technologies could impact the findings of this report in the coming
months and/or years. Such developments, detailed in Section 2.1.4, should be closely monitored
in order to determine their potential impacts, positive and/or negative, on Ontario’s
infrastructure, transmission grid, energy demand and energy supply. It should also be stated
that the development of such technologies could ultimately influence and/or impact the
recommendations and conclusions provided in this report, and will therefore require special
attention by applicable governing bodies and other stakeholders. Future research on electric
vehicles in Ontario should consider the cost implications of integrating EVs into the electrical
grid; this research should consider the expense of implementing vehicle-to-grid technology and
whether current energy storage technology (i.e. electrical or thermal) would be more a costeffective approach for the province. Additionally, future research should consider the methods
available for integrating electric vehicles into Ontario’s energy system through smart-grid
technology in order to determine the most efficient and effective approach. Impacts to specific
urban areas in Ontario, where the large-scale adoption of EVs is predicted, should also be
studied in more detail; due to transmission line constraints and centralized electricity
generating stations, clustered groups of EVs could exceed the capacity of local transmission
systems. Therefore, examining specific areas of the province’s electricity system (especially those
listed in section 2.2) in order to determine grid capacity and power availability will be of
significant importance. Lastly, future research should include a more detailed study of the
power requirements of EVs and the potential energy that could be supplied to the grid through
V2G services.
46
WORKS CITED
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2012). 2013 Honda Fit EV Overview. Retrieved April 13, 2012
from http://automobiles.honda.com/fit-ev/
Baker, J. (2008). New technology and possible advances in energy storage. Energy Policy,
36(12); 4368-4373.
Barkenbus, J. (2009). Our electric automotive future: CO2 savings through a disruptive
technology. Policy and Society, 27(4); 399-410.
Bashash, S., Moura, S.J., and Fathy, H.K. (2011). On the aggregate grid load imposed by battery
health-conscious charging of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources,
196(20); 8747-8752.
Birnie, D. P. (2009). Solar-to-vehicle (S2V) systems for powering commuters of the
future. Journal of Power Sources, 186(2), 539-542.
Blumsack, S., and Fernandez, A. (2012). Ready or not, here comes the smart grid! Energy, 37(1);
61-68.
Brown, S., Pyke, D., & Steenhof, P. (2010). Electric vehicles: The role and importance of
standards in an emerging market. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3797-3806.
Chan, C.K., Peng, H., Liu, G., McIlwrath, K., Zhang, X.F., Huggins, R.A., and Cui, Y. (2008).
High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires. Nature Nanotechnology,
3, 31-35.
Collantes, G., & Sperling, D. (2008). The origin of California’s zero emission vehicle mandate.
Transportation Research Part A, 42(10), 1302-1313.
Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B.V., Pican, E., and Leahy, M. (2012). The technical and
economic implications of integrating fluctuating renewable energy using energy storage.
Renewable Energy, 43; 47-60.
Dijk, M., & Yarime, M. (2010). The emergence of hybrid-electric cars: Innovation path creation
through coevolution of supply and demand. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 77(8), 1371-1390.
Dodson, J. & Sipe, N. (2007). Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Location, Homeownership and Oil
Vulnerability in the Australian City. Housing Studies, 23(3); 377-401.
Doucette, R. T., & McCulloch, M. D. (2011). Modeling the prospects of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions. Applied Energy, 88(7), 2315-2323.
Ford Motor Company. (2012). 2012 Focus Electric. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.ford.com/electric/focuselectric/2012/
Franke, T., Neumann, I., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., & Krems, J.F. (2011). Experiencing range in an
electric vehicle - understanding psychological barriers. Applied Psychology: An
International Review.
47
Giordano, V., and Fulli, G. (2012). A business case for Smart Grid technologies: A systemic
perspective. Energy Policy, 40; 252-259.
Hajimiragha, A. Cañizares, C.A., Fowler, M.W., and Elkamel, A. (2010). Optimal Transition to
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Ontario, Canada, Considering the Electricity-Grid
Limitations. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 57(2), 690-701.
Hoicka, C.E., and Rowlands, I.H. (2011). Solar and wind resource complementarity: Advancing
options for renewable electricity integration in Ontario, Canada. Renewable Energy, 36(1);
97-107.
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (n.d.). Ontario Demand Peaks. Retrieved
March 15, 2012 from http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/peaktracker/
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2009, February). Enabling Tomorrow’s
Electricity System: Report of the Ontario Smart Grid Forum; 1-47. Retrieved March 9, 2012
from http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/smart_grid/Smart_Grid_Forum-Report.pdf
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2012a, February 24). 18-Month Outlook:
Update – From March 2012 to August 2012. IESO_REP_0778v1.0; 1-17. Retrieved March 2,
2012 from http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/18MonthOutlook_2012feb.pdf
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2012b, March 12). Market Summaries:
Hourly Demand. Retrieved March 12, 2012 from
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/marketSummary.asp
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2012c). Time-Of-Use-Prices. Retrieved
March 22, 2012 from
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/tou_rates.asp?sid=ic&Chart=SUMMER#chart
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2012d). Understanding Demand and Price
Information. Retrieved April 10, 2012 from
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/understanding.asp?sid=ic
International Energy Agency. (2011, June). Technology Roadmap: Electric and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. 1-47. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from
http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/EV_PHEV_Roadmap.pdf
IMDB.com (2006). Who killed the Electric Car? [Documentary]. Retrieved November 15, 2011
from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
ISO/RTO Council. (2010, March). Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Integration with
ISO/RTO Systems. Retrieved March 22, 2012 from
http://www.isorto.org/atf/cf/%7B5B4E85C6-7EAC-40A0-8DC3003829518EBD%7D/IRC_Report_Assessment_of_Plugin_Electric_Vehicle_Integration_with_ISO-RTO_Systems_03232010.pdf
48
Keenan, G. (2011, August 29). Magna, Ontario to invest $400-million in R&D for electric
vehicles. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-onbusiness/magna-ontario-to-invest-400-million-in-rd-for-electric-vehicles/article2144964/
Kempton, W., and Tomi", J. (2005a). Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: Calculating capacity
and net revenue. Journal of Power Sources, 144(1); 268-279.
Kempton, W., and Tomi", J. (2005b). Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From stabilizing
the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. Journal of Power Sources, 144(1); 280294.
Khayyam, H., Ranjbarzadeh, H., and Marano, V. (2012). Intelligent control of vehicle to grid
power. Journal of Power Sources, 201; 1-9.
Kraja!i", G., Dui", N., Zmijarevi", Z., Mathiesen, B.V., Vu!ini", A.A., and Carvalho, M.G. (2011).
Planning for a 100% independent energy system based on smart energy storage for
integration of renewables and CO2 emissions reduction. Applied Thermal Engineering,
31(13); 2073-2083.
Levron, Y., and Shmilovitz, D. (2012). Power systems’ optimal peak-shaving applying secondary
storage. Electric Power Systems Research, 89; 80-84.
Lund, H., & Kempton, W. (2008). Integration of renewable energy into the transport and
electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy, 36(9), 3578-3587.
Minghong, P., Lian, L., and Chuanwen, J. (2012). A review on the economic dispatch and risk
management of the large-scale plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs)-penetrated power systems.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(3); 1508-1515.
Ministry of Transportation. (2010a, June 18). McGuinty Government Supporting Clean
Transportation. Ontario.ca. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from
http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2010/06/ontario-paves-the-way-for-electric-vehicles.html
Ministry of Transportation. (2010b). Electric Vehicle Incentive Program: Program Description
and Application Guide. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/0232097E~1/$File/2097E.pdf
Ministry of Transportation. (2011a). Electric Vehicles. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/electric/ev-green-plates.shtml
Ministry of Transportation. (2011b, August 9). McGuinty Government Driving Ontario’s Clean
Energy Economy Forward. Ontario.ca. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2011/08/ontario-leading-the-way-for-electric-cars.html
Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc. (2012). 2012 i-MiEV. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.ca/en/vehicles/i-miev/2012/trims/standard/
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (2012). Nissan LEAF. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.nissan.ca/vehicles/ms/leaf/en/index.aspx
49
Ontario Ministry of Energy. (2010). Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan. (pp. 1-68). Ontario:
Queen's Printer for Ontario. Retrieved February 24, 2012 from
http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/pdf/MEI_LTEP_en.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2011). Ontario Population Projections Update: 2010-2036 Ontario
and Its 49 Census Divisions. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved March 6, 2012
from http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/projections20102036.pdf
Pearre, N. S., Kempton, W., Guensler, R. L., & Elango, V. V. (2011). Electric vehicles: How much
range is required for a day’s driving?. Transportation Research Part C, 19(6); 1171-1184.
Peters, R., and Burda, C. (2007, September). The Basics on Base Load: Meeting Ontario’s Base
Load Electricity Demand with Renewable Power Sources. The Pembina Institute, Alberta,
Canada; 1-12. Retrieved March 22, 2012 from http://www.pembina.org/pub/1530
Pickard, W.F., Shen, A.Q., and Hansing, N.J. (2009) Parking the power: Strategies and physical
limitations for bulk energy storage in supply – demand matching on a grid whose input
power is provided by intermittent sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
13(8); 1934-1945.
Schill, W-P. (2011). Electric vehicles in imperfect electricity markets: The case of
Germany. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6178-6189.
Shields, W. M. (2007). The automobile as an open to closed technological system. Theory and
practice in the study of technological systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Blacksburg: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University.
Sovacool, B.K. (2009). Early modes of transport in the United States: Lessons for modern
energy policymakers. Policy and Society, 27(4), 411-427.
Sovacool, B.K., & Hirsh, R. F. (2009). Beyond batteries: An examination of the benefits and
barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (v2g)
transition. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1095-1103.
Statistics Canada (2010). Table 405-0004 - Road motor vehicles, registrations, annual
(number), CANSIM (database). Retrieved February 19, 2012 from
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html
Statistics Canada (2011). Table 405-0002 - Road motor vehicles, fuel sales, annual (litres),
CANSIM (database). Retrieved February 19, 2012 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/startdebut-eng.html
Tesla Motors Ltd. (2012). Model S. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.teslamotors.com/models
Tomi", J. and Kempton, W. (2007). Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support.
Journal of Power Sources, 168(2); 459-468.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2012). RAV4 EV. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.toyota.com/concept-vehicles/rav4ev.html
50
Valentine, K., Acquaviva, J., Foster, E.J., and Zhang, K.M. (2011). Transmission network-based
energy and environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Power
Sources, 196(6); 3378-3386.
Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (2010). Towards an Ontario action plan for plug-inelectric vehicles (PEVs). University of Waterloo, 1-165.
White, C.D., and Zhang, K.M. (2011). Using vehicle-to-grid technology for frequency regulation
and peak-load reduction. Journal of Power Sources, 196(8); 3972-3980.
Winfield, M., Gibson, R.B., Markvart, T., Haudreau, K., & Taylor, J. (2010). Implications of
sustainability assessment for electricity system design: The case of the Ontario Power
Authority’s integrated power system plan. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4115-4126.
Yatchew, A., and Baziliauskas, A. (2011). Ontario feed-in-tariff programs. Energy Policy, 39(7);
3885-3893
51
Appendix A: Ontario / Total Market Peak Demand (May 2002-February 2012)
Source: Independent Electricity System Operator, 2012b
52