Survey and Gap Prioritization of U.S. Electric Vehicle Charge Management Deployments: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The goal of this study was to survey and characterize the scope of current technical and programmatic knowledge pertaining to EV charge management technologies and practices in the US and relevant international jurisdictions. This characterization of existing field demonstrations and knowledge derived were used to determine gaps in the SCM demonstration landscape. Addressing these gaps through research and demonstration could increase confidence in the U.S. that load management and EV charge control could achieve overarching societal benefits. A survey of charge management deployments and input from stakeholders was completed to determine the state-of-the-art of smart charge management (SCM) where SCM is defined as controlling the amount of power exchanged between chargers and EVs to meet customers' charging needs while also responding to external power demand or pricing signals to provide load management, resilience, or other benefits to the customer and electric grid. The survey was the basis of the gap analysis in this report and determines which areas are well understood, with high confidence, and which areas need further investigation. Existing examples of EV charge management are characterized here to determine aspects that are ready for widespread deployment and have been demonstrated in the field. These include demonstration studies, pilots, programs, and EV-specific tariffs. In all, 110 examples of charge management were characterized. The data sources were public literature and utility filings as well as targeted interviews. In addition, 43 interviews with stakeholders were conducted with a consistent set of questions used in each interview. This study prioritized gaps in demonstrated SCM capabilities based on 1) Urgency of the particular use-case to offset traditional grid assets, 2) Impact, extensibility, and scaling of results across the entire spectrum of 3000+ utility service territories including projected technical and market potential for a given grid service, and 3) Value of federal funding in addressing the gap, including potential to leverage and/or add scope to existing field demonstrations funded by other non-federal funding mechanisms.