Santiago Sena Final2-1

Santiago Sena
Candidate
Electrical & Computer Engineering

Department
This thesis is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication:
Approved by the Thesis Committee:
Professor Olga Lavrova , Chairperson
Professor Rafael Fierro
Professor Edward Graham
i
ASSESSMENT OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES
CHARGING ON RESEDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION
CIRCUITS
By
SANTIAGO SENA
B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Science
Electrical Engineering
The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico
March, 2015
ii
©2015, Santiago Sena
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Lavrova, for her
guidance, patience and support. I couldn’t imagine have a better advisor or mentor.
Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Fierro and Dr. Graham. I credit them for
teaching various courses that helped develop my passion for power systems and power
electronics.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends Dr. Shahin Abdollahy, Dr.
Feng Cheng and Brian Arellano and Babak Sarlati. I learned a lot from each of them and
it wouldn’t have been as fun without them. Thanks also to the ECE department,
specifically Elmyra Grelle for all her help.
Special thanks to my parents and family of their support and understanding.
Disclaimer:
PNM does not endorse or accept the conclusions or results of this study
iv
Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicles Charging on Residential
Distribution Circuits
By
Santiago Sena
B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico
M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico, 2015
ABSTRACT
Over the past few years, interest and sales of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs),
which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) have steadily increased. These vehicles, which are powered partially, or in some
cases solely with energy stored in their battery packs, require large amounts of energy to
recharge. Recent research has shown that regional transmission and generation has
enough excess capacity to handle the additional charging load of the majority of the U.S
light duty vehicle fleet. While upgrades to transmission and generation resources my not
be needed, the local distribution circuits maybe vulnerable to the additional load. Of
paramount concern are residential distribution circuits which unlike commercial circuits
are not sized to handle large loads. The increase penetrations of plug-in electric vehicles
has the potential to significantly increase local power demand, possibly creating new
demand peaks or exacerbating existing demand peaks which left unaddressed could lead
to adverse system impact on residential distribution circuits. Such increase in power
demand can be intensified by the fact that initial EV adoption profiles may not be evenly
distributed across local electrical distribution networks - phenomenon also known as
v
“clustering.” This study evaluates the possible impact PEV, PHEVs, and BEVs charging
has on residential distribution feeders.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENSE
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Electrical Distribution System Overview ............................................................. 4
1.3 Objective .............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Implementation..................................................................................................... 7
2 Plug-In Electric Vehicles ................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicles ...................................................................................... 8
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) .................................................... 9
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) .................................................................. 11
2.2 Charging Levels ................................................................................................. 11
2.3 PEV Charging Characteristics............................................................................ 13
3 Demographic analysis .................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Demographic Analysis Introduction .................................................................. 16
3.2 PEV Driving Profiles ......................................................................................... 16
3.3 Feeder Identification .......................................................................................... 21
4 Feeder Models ................................................................................................................ 24
4.1 Feeder Model Conversion .................................................................................. 24
4.2 OpenDSS ............................................................................................................ 24
4.3 Distribution Feeder Conversion ......................................................................... 26
4.4 Bus Coordinate File ............................................................................................ 29
4.5 Underground and Overhead Lines ..................................................................... 31
Line Element File ........................................................................................ 32
Geometry File ............................................................................................. 36
Wire Data File ............................................................................................. 36
4.6 Capacitor File ..................................................................................................... 37
4.7 Transformer File ................................................................................................. 38
5 OpenDSS Feeder Models ............................................................................................... 41
5.1 Feeder Model Introduction ................................................................................. 41
5.2 TRAM11 OpenDSS Model ................................................................................ 41
vii
5.5 HAMI13 OpenDSS model ................................................................................. 45
5.6 Model Validation/Distributed load models ........................................................ 46
6 PEV Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 50
6.1 Study Methodology ............................................................................................ 50
6.2 Voltage Standard ................................................................................................ 52
6.3 Current Unbalance.............................................................................................. 53
6.4 Equipment Loading ............................................................................................ 54
6.5 TRAM11 Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 55
6.8 HAMI13 Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 64
7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 68
8 References ................................................................................................................. 70
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Visualizing US Electric Vehicle Sales. The data and graph were taken from
Argon National Laboratory. [2] .......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: An Example of a Residential Household Power Demand While Charging a
PEV. .................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: One-line Representation of a Typical Distribution Feeder System. .................... 5
Figure 4: Parallel Hybrid Drivetrain. .................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Series Drivetrain ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6: Level 1 KW Charging Profile for a 2012 Chevy Volt ...................................... 13
Figure 7: Level 1 RMS Current Charging Profile for a 2012 Chevy Volt ....................... 14
Figure 8: Residential Home Load Profile with a 2012 Chevy Volt Charging at Level 1. 14
Figure 9: Sample of Extracted NHTS Data in Excel Format. ........................................... 18
Figure 10: Developed Driving Profiles Using Data Extracted From the NHTS. ............. 18
Figure 11: The Number of Vehicles Binned by Total Daily Miles Driven. ..................... 19
Figure 12: Number of Vehicles Binned by Travel Start Times. ....................................... 19
Figure 13: Number of Vehicles Binned by Vehicle Return Home Times. ....................... 20
Figure 14: Joint Probability Distribution Function for Miles Driven and Return Home
Times................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 15: Propensity Score Overlay with Feeder Map.................................................... 23
Figure 16: OpenDSS Object Structure [14] ...................................................................... 25
Figure 17: SynerGEE Feeder Model Representation........................................................ 27
Figure 18: Feeder Model Conversion Process. ................................................................. 29
Figure 19: Visualization of an OpenDSS Bus Element with Nodes. ................................ 30
Figure 20: SynerGEE NodeID Table. ............................................................................... 30
Figure 21: SynerGEE Node object to OpenDSS Bus element Conversion. ..................... 31
Figure 22: Example of the OpenDSS Bus Coordinate File. ............................................. 31
Figure 23: OpenDSS Line File Conversion Process. ........................................................ 32
Figure 24 SynerGEE Straight Line Section. ..................................................................... 33
Figure 25 SynerGEE line section with Gnodes. ............................................................... 33
Figure 26: Visualization of an OpenDSS Line Element. .................................................. 34
Figure 27: Examples of OpenDSS Line Definitions: A). Three-Phase Line Element
Syntax, B). Single-Phase Line Element Syntax. ............................................................... 35
ix
Figure 28: Line Geometry Conversion Process. ............................................................... 36
Figure 29: Wire Data Syntax for Overhead Line. ............................................................. 37
Figure 30: Wire Data Syntax for Underground Line. ....................................................... 37
Figure 31: Capacitor SynerGEE to OpenDSS Conversion Process.................................. 38
Figure 32: (A) Capacitor Object Visualization, (B) Capacitor Object Definition ............ 38
Figure 33: Transformer Conversion Process .................................................................... 39
Figure 34: (A) Transformer Object Visualization, (b) Transformer Object Definition .... 40
Figure 35: TRAM11 OpenDSS Feeder Representation.................................................... 42
Figure 38: HAM13 OpenDSS Feeder Representation ...................................................... 45
Figure 39: Feeder SCADA KW Profiles for TRAM11, TRAM12, TRAM13 and
HAMI13. ........................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 40: Feeder SCADA MVAR Profiles for TRAM11, TRAM12, TRAM13 and
HAMI13. ........................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 41: OpenDSS Feeder Load Profiles (A) TRAM11, (B) TRAM12, (C) TRAM13,
(D) HAMI13. .................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 42: TRAM11 Feeder Load Profiles for PEV Scenarios ........................................ 56
Figure 43: TRAM11 Transformer Voltage Range............................................................ 57
Figure 44: TRAM11 Transformer Loading Range. .......................................................... 58
Figure 45: TRAM12 Feeder Load Profiles ....................................................................... 59
Figure 47: TRAM12 Distribution Transformer loading Range ........................................ 61
Figure 48: TRAM13 Feeder Load Profiles ....................................................................... 62
Figure 50: Distribution Transformer Loading Range ....................................................... 64
Figure 51: HAMI13 Feeder Load Profiles ........................................................................ 65
Figure 52: HAMI13 Voltage Range ................................................................................. 66
Figure 53: Distribution Transformer Loading Range ....................................................... 67
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Current U.S. PHEV Characteristics. The data obtained from Plugincars.com’s
online information database [9]. ....................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Current U.S. BEV Characteristics. The data was obtained from Plugincars.com’s
online database [9]. ........................................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Charging Times for Various Charging Levels. The Data in this table was derived
from information found in the California PEV Collaborative [11]. ................................. 15
Table 4: Peak Feeder Characteristics ................................................................................ 46
Table 5: Average and Max Error Comparison between SCADA and OpenDSS Models 48
Table 6: Number of PEV’s charging by Penetration Level and Feeder. .......................... 51
Table 7: Maximum and Minimum Primary Voltage Criteria ........................................... 53
Table 8: TRAM11 Current Unbalance at Feeder Head .................................................... 56
Table 9: TRAM12 Current Unbalance at Feeder Head .................................................... 59
Table 10: TRAM13 Current Unbalance at the Feeder Head ............................................ 62
Table 11: HAMI13 Current Unbalance ............................................................................ 65
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Over the past few years consumer interest in the electric vehicle has steadily
increased. In fact globally, between 2010 and 2012 Electric Vehicle (EV) sales have
doubled year over year [1]. Furthermore, major automotive manufactures have increased
the number of EV models offered to consumers. In the U.S. market, major automotive
manufactures including Ford, Tesla, GM, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes and Mitsubishi
offer EV models. U.S. EV sales, including plug-in electric vehicles (PEV), plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles (BEV) have shown a steady increase since
December 2010 as indicated in Figure 1 [2].
1
Figure 1: Visualizing US Electric Vehicle Sales. The data and graph were taken from
Argon National Laboratory. [2]
Federal and local governments have also shown interest in incentivizing EV
purchases. Currently, 37 states offer incentives such as: free public charging, use of high
occupancy driving lanes, tax credits/rebates, parking incentives and electricity rate
incentives for purchasing EVs [3]. In 2009, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
created a federal tax credit worth up to $7,500 for the purchase of a plug-in electric vehicle
(PEV) [4]. Electrical utilities have also shown an interest in incentivizing EV purchases. It
is estimated that regional transmission and generation have enough excess capacity to
handle charging roughly 73% of the U.S. light duty vehicle fleet [5]. This provides a
potential revenue opportunity for utility companies that have seeing slow to negative
growth over the past few years. In fact, 70 electrical utility companies have committed to
devoting 5% of their annual fleet budget to purchasing EVs, totaling approximately $50
million per year [6]. PNM, New Mexico’s largest electricity provider, recently announced
a long-term strategy to switch most of its vehicle fleet to PEVs as well as a partnership
with Nissan Motors to operate five PEV charging station where the public can charge for
free.
2
A major issue with growing interest in EVs is preparing the power system to
accommodate the addition of PEV changing loads. Considering that the power demand for
charging a PEV is comparable to that of a small home [7], at home charging could double
or in some cases almost triple the demand of a single household. Figure 2 illustrates the
load profile of a single family home while charging a Chevy Volt between 5pm and 3am.
As indicated in Figure 2, the power demand of the household more than doubled while the
PEV was charging.
Figure 2: An Example of a Residential Household Power Demand While Charging a

PEV.
It’s clear that charging PEVs on residential distribution systems will significantly
increase local power demand. Since infrastructure located on residential distribution
circuits was not specifically sized to handle the addition of PEV charging, even low PEV
penetration has the potential of negatively impacting distribution equipment and power
quality indicators.
3
1.2 Electrical Distribution System Overview
The generation, transmission and distribution networks collectively make up what is
known as the U.S. power grid. The transmission system is a highly meshed network of
infrastructure that is responsible for transporting electricity, at voltage ranging from 69-
750kV, from generation facilities to distribution systems. The transmission system is
normally broken into two categories bulk transmission and sub-transmission. Bulk
transmission networks typically operates at voltages between 230-750kV and sub-
transmission network operates at voltages between 69-230kV.
The distribution substation is typically identifies as the delineation point between
the transmission system and the distribution system. Typically, distribution substations are
feed from one or more sub-transmission lines. The distribution substation contains one or
more substation transformers that step the sub-transmission voltage to the primary
distribution voltage. The distribution substation also houses protection and control
equipment that is vital to protecting equipment and monitoring power quality indicators.
Most residential distribution systems are radial, i.e. power flows in one direction, from the
distribution substation out along the feeders to metered customers. Distribution systems
have been a source of increased research interest over the past few years [8] [9] [10] [11]
[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] A simple one-line representation of a distribution system is
identified in Figure 3.
4
Figure 3: One-line Representation of a Typical Distribution Feeder System.
The distribution transformer normally serves two or more feeders. The feeder is
composed of three phases, and four-wire conductors of overhead or underground design.
Single and two-phase laterals, of overhead and underground design branch off the three-
phase backbone to serve primary transformers. The feeders, laterals and primary
transformers are collectively referred to as the primary distribution system. The primary
system is the upper hierarchical level of the distribution system and also includes various
regulating equipment such as capacitors, voltage regulators, reclosers and fusses.
Typically, primary distribution systems operate at nominal voltages of between 4-35kV.
5
The secondary distribution system refers to equipment located on the low-side of
the distribution transformer and is intended to supply residential customers at 120/240V.
Representing the lower hierarchical level of the distribution system, facilities located on
the secondary system are designed to operate at much lower power ratings then primary
system facilities. This, coupled with the fact that most utility’s only study the primary
system and rarely even include the primary transformer and secondary facilities in
distribution feeder models represents a possible risk to the reliability of distribution circuits
when PEV are present. Considering that the power requirements for charging a single EV
can be equivalent to that of a small residence even low PEV penetration can have
deleterious effects on distribution transformers when multiple PEV owners are connected
to the same transformer. Such increase in power demand can be exacerbated by the fact
that initial EV adoption profiles may not be evenly distributed across local electrical
distribution networks - phenomenon also known as “clustering”. Initial EV adoption is
projected to be heavily dependent on household demographics such as income, educational
attainment and household ownership. Furthermore, in the service territory under study,
unless a service panel upgrade is required (i.e. greater than 200 Amp), most EV owners are
not required to notify local utility providers of EV charging locations, hindering the ability
to identify, monitor and respond to EV clusters as they develop.
1.3 Objective
The goal of this study was to develop realistic EV adoption and charging profiles
based on a demographic and travel survey data to evaluate the impact various PEV
penetration levels has on existing distribution infrastructure. The individual task included:
6
1) Identifying residential feeders that show a propensity for early EV adoption, 2) Develop
baseline load models of the identified feeders, 3) Develop PEV charging profiles based on
simulated driving patterns and 4) Converting existing SynerGEE feeder models to
OpenDSS feeder models and 5) Perform load flow analysis to identify capacity limits and
voltage violations. Results from this analysis will help identify and understand current
system limitations.
1.4 Implementation
Two freely available national surveys, the American Community Survey (ACS) and
the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS 2009), were used to develop residential EV
adoption scenarios and charging profiles. Using data obtained from the ACS, this study
identified 4 residential feeders within PNM’s Albuquerque service area that demonstrate a
propensity for early EV adoption. A usable battery size of 16.5kWh with an equipment
charging efficiency of 86.4% for level 2 and 83.7% for level 1 charging was used for
simulation in this study. Furthermore, simulated driving profiles were derived from the
NHTS and were used to calculate battery state of charge (SOC) and charging start times.
Feeder models were developed and load-flow studies were performed on the
identified feeders using the OpenDSS load flow program. Baseline distributed loads, based
on transformer KVA ratings, were calculated. The resulting baseline load models were then
superimposed with hourly EV charging profiles. Four PEV charging penetrations levels
were explored in this analysis 1%, 10%, 20% and 50%.
7
Chapter 2
Plug-In Electric Vehicles
2.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicles
A Plug-in Electric Vehicle is a general term for any passenger vehicle that has the
following characteristics:
 Its primary means of propulsion is through the use of an electric motor.
 The electric motor is powered partially, or in some cases solely by an on-
board battery pack.
 The on-board battery pack is capable of being charged from a source
external from the vehicle.
There are currently two types of PEVs technologies on the market; they include
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (PHEV). Although
BEV and PHEV share many common characteristics they differ in drivetrains, battery
capacity, electric vehicle range and battery charging duration.
8
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV)
PHEVs, sometimes referred to as Extended Range Electric Vehicle, are equipped
with both an internal combustion engine (ICE) and energy storage battery pack. Typically,
the battery packs and electric motor serve as the primary means of propulsion, with the
ICE serving as a secondary means of propulsion and/or charging source for the battery
pack. Two drivetrain structures exist for PHEVs, which differ in how they combine power
from the ICE and electric motor.
 Parallel – In a parallel hybrid drivetrain, the wheels can be powered through either
the ICE or electric motor, which are connected in parallel with the transmission.
The transmission couples the ICE and electric motor, allowing either, or both to
power the wheels, as shown in Figure 4 [18] .
Figure 4: Parallel Hybrid Drivetrain.
 Series – In a series hybrid drivetrain, the wheels are powered directly by the electric
motor. The ICE and battery pack are connected in series with the electric motor,
providing a single path by which the wheels are driven, as shown in Figure 5.
9
Figure 5: Series Drivetrain
In both drivetrain designs the ICEs are essentially used as a supplementary power
source. During most typical driving conditions the PHEVs power is derived from the stored
energy in the battery pack. The ICE is used during extreme driving condition, such as when
the battery is depleted or when rapid acceleration is needed.
The all electric drive range for PHEVs varies but most are designed to have an all-
electric range of between 10-40 miles. After that the ICE is capable of powering the vehicle
for essentially an unlimited range or until the battery pack can be recharged through an
external power source, e.g. a 120 volt outlet. Current US PHEV characteristic are
summarized in Table 1 [19].
Table 1: Current U.S. PHEV Characteristics. The data obtained from Plugincars.com’s
online information database [9].
All Electric Battery Size
model Make Year Price
Range (Miles) (kWh)
Prius Toyota 2014 11 4 $30,800
C-MAX Ford 2014 21 8 $33,700
Volt Chevy 2014 38 16 $35,000
Fusion Energi Ford 2014 21 7 $35,500
Accord Honda 2014 13 7 $40,700
ELR Cadillac 2014 37 17 $76,000
I8 BMW 2014 25 11 $137,000
10
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
BEVs, sometimes referred to as all-electric vehicles, do not have an ICE and rely
solely on the electric motor for propulsion. The energy used by the electric motor is derived
solely from the onboard batteries. The batteries are charged by plugging the vehicle into
an electrical power source, with supplemental charging through the use of regenerative
breaking. The electric driving range varies by make and model but in all cases the driving
range depends in part on driving conditions and habits. Current US BEV characteristic are
summarized in Table 2 [19].
Table 2: Current U.S. BEV Characteristics. The data was obtained from Plugincars.com’s
online database [9].
All Electric Battery Size

Model Make Year Price
Range (Miles) (kWh)
Spark EV Chevrolet 2014 82 19 $27,500
I3 BMW 2014 81 22 $42,300
500e Fiat 2014 87 24 $32,600
Focus Electric Ford 2014 76 23 $36,000
i-MiEV Mitsubishi 2014 62 16 $23,800
LEAF Nissan 2014 84 24 $29,800
Model S Tesla 2014 265 85 $81,000
2.2 Charging Levels
Most auto manufacturers utilize nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) or various lithium based
battery technologies in their vehicles. In any case, the batteries are charged by plugging the
vehicle into the electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) [20]. The EVSE is the
equipment used to deliver electric energy from the electricity source to charge the PEV’s
battery pack.
11
Various types of EVSE exist, which defer in the rate of charged delivered to the PEV. The
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed standard J1772, which defines three
charging levels for PEV. The three charging levels identified in SAE J1772 Standard are:
 Level 1 – Level 1 charging is through the use of a standard 120 volts (V) household
wall outlet. Typically, the only EVSE necessary to implement Level 1 charging
includes a cordset that comes standard with the PEV. To charge the PEV, one end
of the cord is plugged into the vehicle and the opposite end is plugged into a three-
prong household electric outlet. All the power electronics necessary to facilitate
charging are included on the vehicle or on the cordset. At 120V and 12 amps the
maximum power delivered to the PEV is 1.4kW.
 Level 2 – The EVSE necessary to charge at level 2 includes a dedicated 240V
circuit and the installation of permanent charging equipment. Typically, this
requires a qualified electrician install a new 240V service specifically for the PEV.
In some cases installing a dedicated 240V circuit would necessitate upgrading the
home service panel. In most cases, the homeowner is required to notify the local
utility company of the upgrade (Which is the case for the area under study). At
7.7kW, level 2 charging may impose significant impacts on grid infrastructure,
especially local transformers.
 Level 3 – Level 3 charging requires a 3-phase 400A 480V input to the EVSE. Due
to the electoral service requirements and EVSE required to implement level 3
charging, very few homeowners are likely to implement level 3 charging at home.
Capable of fully charging a PEV in 15-20 minutes, Level 3 charging is ideal for
opportunity charging in public areas such as parking structures and shopping areas.
12
2.3 PEV Charging Characteristics
The energy required to charge a PEV depends on two factors: The PEV’s SOC and
PEV charging level used. Section 3 discusses SOC estimation for PEV but essentially the
SOC dictates how long the PEV will need to charge. The accumulated instances of power
demand make up the load profile for any individual PEV. Therefore, the charging level,
i.e. level 1, 2, or 3, will have a significant impact on the charging profiles. Figure 3
illustrates the load profile and instantaneous power demand required to charge a 2012
Chevy Volt at Level 1. The current demand for the same charging session is shown in
Figure 7. Essentially, aside for the first and last 15 minutes of charging, Figure 6 & Figure
7 shows that Level 1 charging requires a constant 12 amps and 1.4kW for the duration of
the charging session.
Figure 6: Level 1 KW Charging Profile for a 2012 Chevy Volt
13
Figure 7: Level 1 RMS Current Charging Profile for a 2012 Chevy Volt
Figure 8 illustrates the load profile of a single family home with the same Chevy
Volt charging between 5pm and 3am. In this case, the power demand of the household
more than doubled while the PEV was charging at level 1.
Figure 8: Residential Home Load Profile with a 2012 Chevy Volt Charging at Level 1.
14
The California PEV Collaborative, estimates that to completely charge a
completely depleted battery, level 1 charging would take 7-17 hours, level 2 between 3-7
hours and level 3 charging would take 10-45 minutes [21]. Charging time is summarized
in Table 1 [21].
Table 3: Charging Times for Various Charging Levels. The Data in this table was derived
from information found in the California PEV Collaborative [11].
Power Charge Time

Charging Level Power Supply
Demand
BEV PHEV
Level 1 120VAC @ 12amps 1.4kW ~17 ~7
240VAC @ 30amps 7.2kW ~7 ~3
Level 2
240VAV @ 60 14.4kW ~3.5 ~1.4
DC Fast Charge 200-450VDC 45kW ~30-45 min ~10 min
The efficiency of the charger will also play a role in charging profiles. A less
efficient charger will take longer to charge and use up more energy than an efficient
charger. In a study of more than 1,000 unique charging events the Vermont Energy
Investment Corporation Transportation Efficiency Group found that Level 2 charging was
2.7% more efficient than Level 1 charging [22]. The study found that level 2 chargers were
86.4% efficient and Level 1 chargers were 83.7% efficient.
15
Chapter 3
Demographic analysis
3.1 Demographic Analysis Introduction
To model the impact PEV charging has on the distribution system requires understanding
the PEV load variation as well a network charging locations. The purpose of this chapter
is to identify the methodology used to estimate PEV charging locations and charging
demand. Two freely available national surveys were used in this thesis, The American
Community Survey (ACS) and the National Household Survey (NHTS). The NHTS was
used to estimate PEV driving usage patterns and the ACS was used to identify
neighborhoods that show a propensity for PEV adoption.
3.2 PEV Driving Profiles
As discussed in Section 2.3, the SOC for individual PEV is based in large part on driving
behavior and travel habits. This section will describe the approach used to develop SOC
and charging profiles utilizing the “Travel Day” (DAY2PUB.csv) file of the National
Household Travel Survey.
16
A U.S Department of Transportation effort the NHTS compiles individual trip-
related data such as miles traveled, mode of transportation and trip start-end times. The
data represented in the NHTS is collected from over 150,000 completed household surveys
and covers trip data over a 24-hour period [23]. The NHTS data is publicly available and
accessible through The NHTS web site [23]. Each record within the “Travel Day” file
represents a trip by one person by any means of transportation, e.g. walking, driving, public
transit, etc.
Individual vehicle driving profiles were developed from vehicle trip records
extracted from the “Travel Day” file. The desired subsets of records were developed by
extracting trip records from the “Travel day file that matched the following criteria:
 The mode of transportation for the trip was through the use of a vehicle similar in
size to current PEV.
 The trip was recorded by the self-identified vehicle operator.
 The vehicle started and ended each trip at the home within the 24 hour survey
window.
The aforementioned criteria were used to ensure that vehicle passengers were not
counted as vehicle trips and to ensure that vehicle driving profiles had an opportunity for
home charging. A visualization of the subset of data is illustrated in Figure 9. Each record
represents a trip by a vehicle similar in size to a mid-size or full-size vehicle. The subset
of data identified in Figure 9 is trip records for three vehicles, differentiated by color.
17
Figure 9: Sample of Extracted NHTS Data in Excel Format.
Driving Profiles were developed from the resulting subset of data. Each driving profile
included miles driven, home arrival times and total vehicle miles drive. The objective was
to simulate PEV’s charging upon returning home from the final vehicle trip. A visualization
of the developed driving profiles is illustrated in Figure 10. Again, three vehicle driving
profiles are highlighted in Figure 10, which correspond to the vehicle trip records
highlighted in Figure 9.
Figure 10: Developed Driving Profiles Using Data Extracted From the NHTS.
A total of 63,563 driving profiles were developed. From the driving profiles statistical
information about vehicle drive habits was derived. Figure 11 illustrates daily miles driven
binned by intervals of 10 miles.
18
The most common driving distance for vehicles, as shown in Figure 11 was 10 miles or
less. Furthermore, roughly 60% of vehicles traveled 30 miles or less.
Figure 11: The Number of Vehicles Binned by Total Daily Miles Driven.
Vehicle trip start times are identified in Figure 12. As shown in Figure 12, the most
common vehicle start time happens between 7am and 8am. Roughly 60% of Start times
began in a three hour window between 6am and 9am.
Figure 12: Number of Vehicles Binned by Travel Start Times.
19
Vehicle travel end times are identified in Figure 13. As shown in Figure 13 peak
return times happen between 5pm and 6pm. approximately, 40% of trips end between
4pm and 7pm.
Figure 13: Number of Vehicles Binned by Vehicle Return Home Times.
From the developed driving profiles a joint probability distribution function (PDF)
relating miles driven and home return times was developed. Driving profiles for each
vehicle were generated according to the PDF shown in Figure 16. From the driving profiles
charging start times and hourly charging profiles were developed for each vehicle.
20
Joint PDF
Figure 14: Joint Probability Distribution Function for Miles Driven and Return Home
Times
3.3 Feeder Identification
The American Community Survey is an ongoing nationwide survey administered by
the US census Bureau that uses a series of monthly surveys to produce annually updated
demographic, housing and economic data of geographical areas. The data presented in the
ACS is based on accumulated responses to the survey over 1-year, 3-year or 5-year periods.
The ACS data is publicly available and accessible through The U.S Census Bureau’s
American Factfinder web page. Utilizing Factor Analysis and the 5-year ACS data, at the
tract level, EV Adoption Propensity score for each census tract within the Albuquerque
area were developed.
21
Five demographic ACS datasets were chosen that best predict the ability for a
household to purchase an EV. Namely, these data sets are: Travel Time to Work, Sex by
Age by Educational Attainment, Household Tenure by Vehicle and Earning in the Past 12
Months. A weighted factor, on the scale of 1-10, was determined and assigned to each
subgroup within the identified ACS sets. The weight factors were assigned based on the
economic and social perception of the demographics behavior; three different experts were
asked to assign such weights. The incidence of each subgroup within a tract was calculated
in proportion to its overall population and multiplied by its corresponding weighted factor.
These scores were summed together to obtain a Tract Score for each tract within an ACS
data Table. Each tract score was then summed with its corresponding tract in the other five
identified ACS tables to produce a PEV Adoption Propensity Score for each tract within
the Albuquerque area. The location of each tract, and its adoption propensity score, were
overlaid with existing GIS data to identify the corresponding Feeder. Areas of deeper red
in Figure 15 indicate a higher Adopting Propensity Score. Four feeders were identified,
TRAM11, TRAM12, TRAM13 and HAMI13
22
Figure 15: Propensity Score Overlay with Feeder Map
23
Chapter 4
Feeder Models
4.1 Feeder Model Conversion
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the various software packages used to model
residential feeders and to descript the process by which feeder models were developed.
Visual Basic for Application (VBA) scripts were developed to convert existing SynerGEE
feeder models into OpenDSS models. Power flow analysis was done using OpenDSS,
driven by VBA through the COM interface.
4.2 OpenDSS
The Open Distribution System Simulator (OpenDSS) is an open source
comprehensive electrical system simulation tool for electric utility distribution systems
[24]. The simulator is capable of performing nearly all RMS steady-state analysis including
fault study, harmonic, power flow and frequency domain analysis. Developed by the
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), OpenDSS can operate as a standalone text
scripting executable program or as an in-process COM Server DLL, capable of being
24
driven from a variety of other software platforms. The OpenDSS object structure is shown
in Figure 16.
Figure 16: OpenDSS Object Structure [14]
Four classes of objects define circuits within the OpenDSS executive, they are:
 Power Delivery Elements – is a single or multi-phase element that transports energy
from one point to another. Some of the most basic power delivery elements include
lines, transformers and capacitors.
 Power Conversion Element - is an element that converts power from one electrical
for to another. Typically, power conversion element such as generators, loads and
storage (i.e., Batteries) devices require only one connection to the power system,
necessitating only on terminal block in OpenDSS.
 Controls Element - is an object that samples voltage and current at a terminal that
the controller is monitoring. The control will perform some prescribed action once
a specific set of characteristics is met. Examples of control elements include
capacitor controllers and voltage regulator controllers. In the case of a capacitor
25
control the element will monitor voltage or current and switch the capacitor on or
off based on the measured perimeter.
 Meter Element – simulates the behavior of an actual energy meter in that it is
capable of measuring electrical characteristics at the terminal it is monitoring.
Depending on what meter element is defined a number of other capabilities can be
leverage. For instance, an enegrymeter object can measure electrical characteristic
at the terminal it is connected to as well as the electrical characteristics at terminals
within its defined circuit region.
4.3 Distribution Feeder Conversion
VBA scripts were used to convert existing SynerGEE feeder models to OpenDSS
models. Developed by GL Noble Denton, SynerGEE Electric is a software package used
to analyze and plan distribution feeders. SynerGEE is capable of performing analysis on
balanced and unbalanced system in radial, looped or meshed configuration. SynerGEE
provides a detailed graphical user interface, with drag and drop functionality. Figure 17
illustrates SynerGEE’s user interface. SynerGEE stores feeder model data in Microsoft
Access database files (.mdb files).
26
Figure 17: SynerGEE Feeder Model Representation.
Existing feeder models were converted to OpenDSS models for two reasons.
Firstly, the standard licensing configuration of SynerGEE doesn’t allow for the use of a
COM module. SynerGEE does have a COM based simulation engine but it requires an
addition license, with additional financial costs. Secondly, SynerGEE is not an ideal
program for running time series analysis. Furthermore, current SynerGEE models do not
include primary transformers or secondary service equipment.
The conversion process consisted of using custom VBA scripts to access feeder
model information stored in the relevant SynerGEE feeder model database file. The VBA
scripts than converted the information into equivalent OpenDSS models. Nine OpenDSS
files were developed for each SynerGEE feeder model: Six (5) circuit element files and
one (2) general library file. The seven (7) OpenDSS files are briefly identified below:
27
 Bus Coordinate File – This file is a circuit element file. It lists the X & Y
coordinates for every bus. This file is not essential to the overall feeder
model. The purpose of this file is to enable circuit visualization of the
feeder.
 Lines File – This file is a circuit element file. It defines the overhead and
underground conductors for the feeder.
 Geometry File – This file contains information about the physical
arrangement of the conductors. This file and the Wire Data file are used by
OpenDSS to calculate the impedances of conductor sections.
 WireData File – This file contains information about the physical properties
of conductors. This file and the Geometry file are used by OpenDSS to
calculate the impedance of conductor sections.
 Capacitor File – This file is a circuit element file. It defines all Capacitors
on the feeder.
 Transformer File – This file is a circuit element file. It defines all
transformers on the feeder. Additional user input was required to create this
file.
 Load File – This file is a circuit element file. It defines all load connected
to the distribution transformers.
28
The overall conversion process is highlighted in Figure 18. The SynerGEE database
tables used and the VBA conversion scripts are identified in Figure 18. It’s important to
note that the information provided in the following sections is specific to PNM SynerGEE
models.
Figure 18: Feeder Model Conversion Process.
4.4 Bus Coordinate File
Bus elements within OpenDSS models serve as connection points for all other circuit
elements. Each OpenDSS bus element is composed of node objects. Essentially, bus
elements serve as node containers for node objects. Circuit elements such as capacitors,
transformers and conductors have terminal connections that connect to the node objects
within the defined bus. Bus elements also have X & Y parameters that identify the
geographical location of the bus. Figure 19 is a visual representation of a bus element with
four node objects.
29
Figure 19: Visualization of an OpenDSS Bus Element with Nodes.
SynerGEE also contains elements similar to OpenDSS bus elements. In SynerGEE
they are known as node objects. SynerGEE node objects represent feeder circuit elements
such as capacitors, transformers, junction boxes and fuses. Nodes also serve as starting and
ending points for line sections (conductors). Therefore, within a SynerGEE model, line
sections will always lie between two nodes. The geographical location of SynerGEE buses
are defined by the X & Y location parameters. Figure 20 illustrates the syntax used to
define node objects within the SynerGEE database model.
Figure 20: SynerGEE NodeID Table.
Developing the OpenDSS Bus Coordinate file was the first step in the conversion
process. Essentially, the VBA code performed a one to one conversion for node elements
in the SynerGEE NodeID table to elements in the OpenDSS Bus Coordinate file. A
visualization of the conversion is highlighted in Figure 21.
30
Figure 21: SynerGEE Node object to OpenDSS Bus element Conversion.
A portion of the resulting OpenDSS Bus Coordinate File is illustrated in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Example of the OpenDSS Bus Coordinate File.
4.5 Underground and Overhead Lines
Distribution feeders consist of single and multiphase conductor sections which can
be of overhead or underground design. Modeling overhead and underground line section
in OpenDSS required developing three files: the WireData file, the Geometry file and the
Line file. The information needed to develop the OpenDSS files were found in the
SynerGEE InstSection and Gnode tables. The individual SynerGEE database feeder files
did not contain the entirety of relevant conductor data needed to develop the WireData file.
Therefore, some parameters in the WireData file had to be entered manually. Specifically,
the database files did not contain tables which identified the physical properties of the
31
conductor such as: geometric mean radius, conductor radius and the geometric mean
radius, all of which are used to define the impedance of the line sections.
Line Element File
The SynerGEE InstSection and Gnode tables were used to develop line elements in
the OpenDSS Line file. The OpenDSS line element syntax and SynerGEE table parameters
used in the conversion are shown in Figure 23. Line elements define the connectivity of
conductor sections in OpenDSS. Each line element, whether overhead or underground
represents a span of conductors.
Figure 23: OpenDSS Line File Conversion Process.
The SynerGEE InstSection table contained all the information required to define and
model line sections in SynerGEE. Each element in the InstSection table has a
“FromNodeId” and “ToNodeId” parameter that identifies the starting and ending nodes
32
of the conductor spans. A visualization of a straight line overhead conductor section in
SynerGEE is identified in Figure 24.
Figure 24 SynerGEE Straight Line Section.
The SynerGEE Gnode and InstSection tables were used in tandem for instances
when conductor section did not extend in a straight line. The Gnodes table identifies all the
nodes that define the contour points of a conductor section. A visual representation of an
overhead line section with Gnodes is illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure 25 SynerGEE line section with Gnodes.
33
Each OpenDSS line element, whether overhead or underground represents a span of
conductors. Line elements contain parameters that define the connectivity, length and
geometry of the conductor span. The connectivity of the conductor spans, i.e. the starting
and ending points are specified by bus1 and bus2 parameters respectively. As mentioned
in Section 4.3 each bus contains nodes that the terminal connections of circuit elements
connect to. Essentially, nodes are used to connect terminal element to a specific phase in
the feeder model. A visual representation of two OpenDSS line elements is identified in
Figure 26. The first line element, a set of three-phase conductors, starts at Bus1 and ends
at Bus2. The second line element, a single-phase set of conductors, starts at Bus2 and ends
at Bus3.
Figure 26: Visualization of an OpenDSS Line Element.
The Syntax used to define the line elements identified in Figure 26 are shown below
if Figure 27. The terminal connections to the nodes inside the buses are identified at the
end of the unique bus ID.
34
The character string “.1.2.3” at the end of the bus ID for line element “SomeLine1”
identifies that the A-phase conductor is connected to node 1, the B-phase conductor is
connected to node 2 and the C-phase conductor is connected to node 3. If for instance the
desired terminal connection was for the C-phase to connect to node 2 then the character
string after the bus ID would look like “1.3.2”. The character string “.2” at the end of the
bus ID “TheBus2” for line element “SomeLine2” identifies that the single-phase span is of
the B-phase.
Figure 27: Examples of OpenDSS Line Definitions: A). Three-Phase Line Element
Syntax, B). Single-Phase Line Element Syntax.
In some cases, the VBA code performed a one to one conversion from the
SynerGEE section objects to OpenDSS line elements. The SectionID parameter was used
to identify the new line element. The FromNodeID and ToNodeID parameters were used
as Bus1 and Bus2, respectively. The “SectionPhases” parameter was used to determine the
node terminal connection for the line element.
35
Geometry File
The Geometry file contains line geometry elements for each unique line construction
on the feeder. Geometry elements are used in conjunction with Wire Data elements to
calculate the impedance of line elements. While a feeder may contain hundreds of line
elements typically utilities have a handful of standard overhead and underground
construction configurations. Each Geometry element represents a specific construction
configuration and captures the number of wires, type of wire and spacing between wires.
Figure 28 identifies the syntax and SynerGEE parameters used to define geometry
elements in the Geometry file. The PhaseConductor parameter is used to define the new
line geometry element. The nconds and nphases parameters identify the number of
conductors and phases in the specific configuration. Individual conductors are defined by
using the cond, X and H parameter.
Figure 28: Line Geometry Conversion Process.
Wire Data File
Each conductor type, overhead or underground used on the feeders is defined in the
WireData file. The WireData file defines the physical properties, of each conductor
36
referenced in the Geometry file. Overhead conductor sizes ranged from 2AL to 477ACSR
and underground cable ranged from 2CU to 750Al. Figure 29 and Figure 30 identify the
syntax used to define wire elements for overhead and underground lines respectively. The
VBA code created entries for each new Wire Data element in the Wire Data file but the
values were entered manually.
Figure 29: Wire Data Syntax for Overhead Line.
Figure 30: Wire Data Syntax for Underground Line.
4.6 Capacitor File
The SynerGEE InstCapacitors table was used to create capacitor elements in the
OpenDSS Capacitor file. A visualization of the parameters and syntax used to define
capacitor elements is identified in Figure 31. The LocationLink parameter in the
InstCapacitor table represents the X and Y location of the capacitor. The
ConnectionPhases parameter identifies what phases the capacitor is connected to. The
FixedKvarPhase parameters identify the Kvar value connected to each phase. Combining
the values of all three FixedKvarPhases identifies the overall size of the capacitor bank.
37
Figure 31: Capacitor SynerGEE to OpenDSS Conversion Process
A simple diagram and the corresponding OpenDSS object definition for a 3-phase,
1,200kVAR capacitor bank installed on a 12.47kV system is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32: (A) Capacitor Object Visualization, (B) Capacitor Object Definition
4.7 Transformer File
As discussed previously, SynerGEE models provide voltage and loading results at
the primary voltage level. Typically, the secondary voltage drop from a distribution
transformer is not modeled. Therefore, most PNM SynerGEE models do not contain
information about the distribution transformers. Transformer data was exported from PNM
Geographic Information System (GIS) and used in conjunction with the Bus Coordinate
38
file to populate the OpenDSS Transformer file. A visualization of the parameters and
syntax used to define transformer elements is identified in Figure 33.
Figure 33: Transformer Conversion Process

The Subtype parameter identifies the type of transformer, pad-mounted or
overhead. The Subtype also identifies whether the transformer is single phase or three phase
design. The PhaseDesignation parameter identifies the phase connection. The location of
the transformer is identified with the X and Y parameters. The GIS data contains all the
information required to define transformer elements in the Transformer file.
The VBA function cycles through each transformer definition in the GIS data file
until a match is found between the X and Y values of a Bus Coordinate file. Once a bus
element is identified the Description parameter is checked to ensure that the Bus element
represents a transformer. A simple diagram and the corresponding OpenDSS object
definition for a single phase 50 kVA rated transformer installed on the C-phase of a
12.47kVA system is shown in Figure 34.
39
Figure 34: (A) Transformer Object Visualization, (b) Transformer Object Definition
Chapter 5
40
OpenDSS Feeder Models
5.1 Feeder Model Introduction
In order to evaluate the impact PEV charging has on residential feeders it is
necessary to have an accurate representation of the feeder in question. This includes
effectively modeling primary system circuits and calibrating distributed loads to match
hourly MW and KVAR loads measured at the substation. The purpose of this chapter is
to highlight the individual OpenDSS feeder model characteristics and to describe the
procedure used to develop baseline distributive load models.
5.2 TRAM11 OpenDSS Model
41
Figure 35: TRAM11 OpenDSS Feeder Representation
A one line diagram of the resulting OpenDSS feeder model for TRAM11 is
identified in Figure 35. The feeder consists of mostly underground facilities and consists
primarily of residential load. The OpenDSS feeder characteristics are summarized below:
 The feeder serves approximately 1,550 residential customers
 The distribution transformer is rated at 20MVA and is identified by a green box
on the feeder map.
 5 overhead capacitors, 4 fixed and 1 manually controlled are located on the
feeder. Capacitor locations are identified by black boxes on the feeder map.
 The feeder serves 11 three-phase transformers and 619 single phase transformers.
 The feeder is composed of approximately 365,000 feet of overhead and
underground conductor.
42
A one-line diagram of the resulting OpenDSS feeder model for TRAM12 is
identified in Figure 36. The feeder consists of mostly underground single phase laterals
and consists primarily of residential load. The OpenDSS feeder characteristics are
summarized below:
 The feeder serves approximately 597 residential customers
 The distribution transformer serving the feeder is rated at 20MVA and is
identified by a green box on the feeder map.
 One overhead fixed capacitors. The capacitor is primarily used for power factor
correction on the distribution system. The Capacitor locations are identified by
black boxes on the feeder map.
 The feeder serves 13 three-phase transformers and 165 single-phase transformers.
underground conductor
43
A one-line diagram of the resulting OpenDSS feeder model for TRAM13 is
identified in Figure 37. The feeder consists of only underground facilities and consists
 The feeder serves 13 three-phase transformers and 165 single-phase transformers.
 The feeder is composed of approximately 70,901 underground conductors.
44
5.5 HAMI13 OpenDSS model
Figure 38: HAM13 OpenDSS Feeder Representation
A one-line diagram of the resulting OpenDSS feeder model for HAMI13 is
identified in Figure 38. The feeder consists of mostly underground facilities and consists
underground conductor.
45
5.6 Model Validation/Distributed load models
In order to perform any type of study on a distribution feeder it is first necessary to
establish the baseline distributed load on the feeder. Using advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) technology, actual measurements from individual loads can be used
to develop the baseline model. In the absence of AMI, distributed loads can be estimated
using kW, kVAR, PF and phase currents values as measured by a supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA) system. One technique for developing distributed load is to
use substation SCADA load data and allocate a portion of the load to each distribution
transformer according the its KVA rating.
In this study, baseline distributed load profiles were developed for each of the 4
feeders using substation SCADA phase current load data. The measured load was
allocated according the connected transformer KVA ratings. For each feeder the peak
loading day in 2012 was used for analysis. SCADA load data for 2012 was used because
it represented the first available year that all 4 feeders were in normal operation (N-0)
when their respective peak happened. That is, no feeders were serving other loads do to a
first contingency operation (N-1). The respective feeder peak dates and peak values are
identified in Table 4.
Table 4: Peak Feeder Characteristics
SCADA Feeder Load Data

Feeder Date/Time Peak MW Peak Current-A Current-B Current-C
MVAR
TRAM11 7/2/12 7:00 PM 6.6 -0.5 306 292 295
TRAM12 7/30/12 9:00 PM 2.4 -0.6 101 111 126
TRAM13 7/2/12 7:00 PM 4.4 1.7 248 169 223
HAMI13 7/2/12/6:00 PM 8.9 3.0 443 408 430
46
Figure 39 & Figure 40 illustrate the MW and MVAR 24 hour load profile,
respectively for the four feeders on the identified peak loading day.
Figure 39: Feeder SCADA KW Profiles for TRAM11, TRAM12, TRAM13 and
HAMI13.
Figure 40: Feeder SCADA MVAR Profiles for TRAM11, TRAM12, TRAM13 and
HAMI13.
For each OpenDSS feeder model baseline distributed load profiles were
developed by allocating the respective measured phase currents according to the
connected KVAR rating of distribution transformers. Validation of the OpenDSS models
47
was required to ensure that the models accurately characterized the true system. This was
done by performing a power flow analysis using the resulting distributed loads and
comparing the results with the SCADA data. The maximum errors and average errors
between the model feeders and the corresponding SCADA data are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Average and Max Error Comparison between SCADA and OpenDSS Models
The corresponding feeder load profiles comparing SCADA measured values with
OpenDSS simulated values are shown in Figure 41.
48
Figure 41: OpenDSS Feeder Load Profiles (A) TRAM11, (B) TRAM12, (C) TRAM13,
(D) HAMI13.
49
Chapter 6
PEV Impact Analysis
6.1 Study Methodology
An analysis of PEV charging on five residential distribution circuits was performed.
PEV charging profiles were randomly generated according to the joint distribution
function developed in Section 3.1. The PEV charging profiles were then superimposed
onto the feeder baseline models and a power flow analysis was performed on the feeder.
For each feeder, this analysis evaluated four PEV penetration levels: 1%, 2%, 10% and
50%.
This analysis examined four PEV charging penetration levels. Table 6 shows the
impact charging levels broken down by feeder, and charging level. The number of
charging PEV on each feeder was determined by identifying how many residential
metered customers were on the feeder. Once the desired amount of charges was
determined, the split between level 1 and level 2 chargers was determined. It was
assumed that most at home charging would be done through the use of a level 1 charger.
50
This study estimated that 80% of PEV owners would use level 1 charging and 20%
would use level 2 charging.
Table 6: Number of PEV’s charging by Penetration Level and Feeder.

1% 2% 10% 50%
Penetration Penetration Penetration Penetration
Residential Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level
Customers 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
TRAM11 1550 12 3 124 31 248 62 620 155
TRAM12 597 5 1 48 12 96 24 239 60
TRAM13 1748 14 3 140 35 280 70 699 175
HAMI13 2492 20 5 199 50 399 100 997 249
Distributed loads and PEV charging loads were lumped on the secondary side of
the distribution transformer. The transformers hosting PEV chargers were chosen
randomly and chargers were evenly distributed across the feeder. Since the intent was to
evaluate residential transformers all three-phase transformers were excluded from the
analysis. Furthermore, transformers serving load at multi-family homes, such as
apartments were also excluded from the analysis.
In this analysis a usable PEV battery size of 16.5kWh was used in this analysis. As
identified in Section 2.3 the PEV charging profile for a Chevy Volt utilizing a level 1
charger was almost constant for the duration of charging. With that in mind, a constant
charging demand of 1.4kW and 7.2kW was used for level 1and level 2 charging
respectively.
51
6.2 Voltage Standard
PNM’s criteria for appropriate distribution voltage is the American National
Standard Institute Standard C84.1 [25]. The ANSI standard is also a regulatory
requirement called out in NMPRC rule 560 (17.9.560 NMAC). The standard specifies
acceptable voltage ranges for two locations on the distribution system:
 Service Voltage – The service voltage is the voltage measured at the point where
the electrical utilities facilities interconnect with the customers owned facilities.
For residential customers, this point is typically identified as the customer’s
electrical service meter.
 Utilization Voltage – The utilization voltage is the voltage measured at the
terminals of utilization equipment. For residential customers, this point is
typically identified as the customer’s electrical outlets.
The Standard also identifies a voltage range from normal (Range A) and contingency
(Range B) conditions. For a typical 120/240 residential customer the following service
voltage at the meter would apply:
 Range A defines a service voltage at a minimum of 114 volts and a maximum of
126 volts.
 Range B defines a service voltage as a minimum of 110 volts and a maximum of
127 volts.
52
Typically, distribution voltages are set 2.0-2.5% above nominal (12.47kV) to
compensate for distribution primary line voltage drop. The distribution voltage is set
through the substation transformers load tap changer. The identified distribution voltage
criteria would correspond to a secondary voltage range of 116.4-123 volts. Furthermore,
for planning and design purposes a maximum voltage drop of 4% from the distribution
transformer to the customer’s service meter is used as the design limit for the distribution
secondary.
Appling ANSI range A and B limits plus assuming the secondary voltage design limit
criteria results in the service voltage identified in Table 7.
Table 7: Maximum and Minimum Primary Voltage Criteria
ANSI C84.1 Voltage Standard applied to PNM distribution

system design criteria
%Drop Voltage %Rise Maximum
Range A 3.5 118.7 2.4 126
Range B 6.9 114.6 3.3 127
6.3 Current Unbalance
Current unbalance in a three-phase distribution system is marked by a difference in the
phase current, or when the phase separation is not 120 degrees. Normally large levels of
current unbalance generally cause voltage unbalance. Voltage and current unbalance are
calculated using two methods:
1. Expressing the negative sequence voltage as a percentage of the positive sequence.
2. Using the maximum deviation from the mean of the three line values expressed as
a percentage of the mean of the three line value.
53
Distribution systems normally have some degree of current unbalance. This is due to
the fact that it is almost impossible to evenly distribute loads equally across all three phases
of the distribution system. Voltage and current unbalance has little to no effect on resistive
loads. The effect of unbalance is acutely felt on rotating machinery such as three-phase
electric motors. Given a balanced three-phase system, only positive sequence components
exist. Positive sequence components generate positive torque for electric motors. Negative
sequence components generate negative torque on electric motors. When extreme degrees
of unbalance occur, the negative sequence components counteract the positive sequence
components resulting in low performance of electric motors.
The distribution system as a whole suffers when extreme degrees of unbalance exist.
Excessive current unbalance contributes to excessive voltage drop and contributes to
distribution line losses created by current flowing back through the neutral conductor.
PNM’s distribution planning criteria requires that mitigation of current unbalance of >
50Amps occur.
6.4 Equipment Loading
Typically, equipment located on distribution systems is capable of operating at ratings
above the nameplate rating for short periods of time. However, prolonged operation at
above nameplate rating adversely affects the lifetime and makes the equipment susceptible
to failure. The rated capacity of existing feeder components will have been chosen to
handle the projected load and historic load seen on the feeder. Distribution transformers
are sized to handle the historic peak non-coincidental load of the individual customers
served by the transformer. In turn, all feeder components upstream of the distribution
54
transformer are generally sized to supply downstream transformers operating at full
nameplate capacity. This analysis is primarily concerned with overloading impacts seen
on distribution transformers caused by charging PEV’s. An overload impact is identified if
at any point in time the distribution transformer reaches 100% of its nameplate capacity.
6.5 TRAM11 Impact Analysis
Feeder MVA load profiles for the 4 penetration levels and the baseline load model
are identified in Figure 42. Essentially, the addition of PEV charging loads increases load
on the feeder in proportion to the baseline load model. The peak baseline load on the feeder
is 6.5MW and the minimum load is 2.2MW. PEV charging increases the peak load on the
feeder to 7.5MVA during 50% PEV penetration charging. The analysis of PEV charging
on TRAM11 showed that no primary distribution components were overloaded. The
analysis showed that primary distribution components can handle PEV charging up to 50%.
55
Figure 42: TRAM11 Feeder Load Profiles for PEV Scenarios
The TRAM11 OpenDSS models showed no issues with current unbalance for PEV
charging penetrations up to 50%. Unbalance did increase with increasing PEV charging
but was relatively insignificant. The maximum unbalance seen on the feeder was 6.7 amps
and occurred at 50% penetration. Table 8 summarized the maximum unbalance on the
feeder for each penetration level.
Table 8: TRAM11 Current Unbalance at Feeder Head

Current Unbalance
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
TRAM11 1.8 4.9 6.4 6.6 6.7
56
The number of transformer grouped by voltage range, as measured on the low-side
of the distribution transformers are identified in Figure 43. As mentioned
earlier, voltages within the 117V and 118.7V range are considered marginally acceptable
for planning purposes. The base-load model showed no issues with distribution voltage
levels. Increased PEV charging levels up to 50% caused no transformer secondary voltages
to fall below the 117V planning criteria. Voltages within the marginally acceptable range
occurred at 1% PEV penetration and modestly increase with PEV penetration.
TRAM11 Secondary Voltage Range AT XFMR

>118.7V 117V-118.7V <117V
Number of Transformers
700
619 618 617 608 595
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0 1 0 2 0 11 0 24 0
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 43: TRAM11 Transformer Voltage Range.
TRAM11 transformer loading for the various PEV charging scenarios are shown in
Figure 44. Overall PEV charging penetrations up to 50% cause no distribution transformers
on TRAM11 to load above the nameplate ratings.
57
TRAM11 Distribuion Transformer Loading
<25% 25%-75% 75%-100% >100%
700 613 609 578
600 519
500
403
400
300 211
200
97
100
7 2 0 38
3 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 0
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 44: TRAM11 Transformer Loading Range.
The impact analysis for TRAM11 shows that the feeder can reliably handle PEV
charging penetrations up to 50%. The analysis of TRAM11 showed that some transformer
experience voltage levels within the marginally acceptable range, but this is not anticipated
to adversely impact customer reliability.
TRAM12 feeder MVA load profiles for the 4 penetration levels and the baseline load
model are identified in Figure 45. Essentially, the addition of PEV charging loads increased
load on the feeder in proportion to the baseline load model. The peak baseline load on the
feeder is 2.35 MVA. PEV charging increased the peak load on the feeder to 2.7 MVA
during 50% PEV penetration. Peak loading occurs at 9PM for all PEV charging penetration
levels. The analysis of PEV charging on TRAM11 showed that no primary distribution
components were overloaded with PEV charging penetrations up to 50%.
58
Figure 45: TRAM12 Feeder Load Profiles
The TRAM12 OpenDSS model showed no issues with current unbalance for PEV
charging penetrations up to 50%. Unbalance did increase with PEV penetration levels but
was relatively insignificant. The maximum unbalance seen on the feeder was 10 amps and
occurred at 50% penetration. Table 9 summarizes the maximum unbalance on the feeder
for each penetration level.
Table 9: TRAM12 Current Unbalance at Feeder Head

Tram 12 Current Unbalance
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
TRAM12 4 5.7 6 7.7 10
59
The numbers of transformers grouped by voltage range, as measured on the low-
side of the distribution transformer are identified in Figure 46. The baseline load model
shows that roughly 20% of transformers experience secondary voltages that would be
considered marginable acceptable. No transformer experienced secondary voltages that
would be considered unacceptable. As identified in Figure 46, secondary voltage is
relatively uninfected by increase PEV penetration.
TRAM12 Secondary Voltage Range At XFMR

>118.7V 117V-118.7V <117V
140
125 125 128 117 120
120
100
80
60 47 44
39 39 42
40
20
0 0 0 0 0
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 46: TRAM12 Transformer Voltage Range
The maximum loading experienced by transformers as a percentage of the
transformers nameplate ratings are identified in Figure 47. The baseline load model shows
no issues with transformer loading. Transformer loading steadily increases with PEV
penetration. One transformer on TRAM12 experienced loading above the name plate rating
at 50% penetration. The transformer in question was a 10kVA rated transformer and it
reached 102% of its nameplate rating. The duration of the overload was one hour and no
adverse impacts were anticipated.
60
TRAM12 distribution Transformer Loading
<25% 25%-75% 75%-100% >100%
180
163 156
160
140 128
113
120
100 86
75
80
60 50
40 30
20 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 47: TRAM12 Distribution Transformer loading Range
penetration charging up to 50%. The analysis of TRAM12 showed that some transformer
experienced voltage levels within the marginable acceptable range, but this is not
anticipated to adversely affect customer reliability. One transformer did experience
loading above its nameplate rating, but the duration of the overload was short enough in
duration that no adverse impacts are anticipated.
TRAM13 feeder MVA load profiles for the 4 penetration levels and the baseline
load model are identified in Figure 48. Again, the addition of PEV charging load increases
load on the feeder in proportion to the baseline load model. PEV charging increased the
peak load on the feeder to 5.8MVA during 50% penetration. The analysis of PEV charging
61
on TRAM11 showed that no primary distribution components were overloaded. The
analysis showed that primary distribution components can handle PEV charging up to 50%.
MVA
Figure 48: TRAM13 Feeder Load Profiles
The TRAM13 OpenDSS feeder model showed no issues with current unbalance for
PEV charging penetrations up to 50%. Current unbalance is relatively fixed at 26 amps for
all five PEV penetration levels. PEV charging had little to no effect on the current
unbalance and the unbalance is due to the baseline characteristics of the feeder.
Table 10: TRAM13 Current Unbalance at the Feeder Head

TRAM13 Current Unbalance
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
TRAM13 26.6 26.4 26.1 26.3 26.7
62
The number of transformers grouped by voltage range, as measured on the low-side
of the distribution transformer is identified in Figure 49. As indicated in Figure 49, roughly
30% of the transformers on the baseline mode experience distribution voltages that would
be considered marginable acceptable. At 50% PEV charging, 6 transformers experience
voltages below the 117V range.
TRAM13 Secondary Voltage Range at XFMR

>118.7V 117V-118.7V <117V
160
137
140
116 113
120
90 88 96
100 81
80 62 65
60
35
40
20 0 0 0 1 6
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 49: TRAM13 Transformer Voltage Range
The maximum loading experienced on the transformers as a percentage of the
transformers nameplate ratings are identified in Figure 50. Transformers become
overloaded at PEV penetration levels above 20%. At 20% PEV charging the six
transformers experienced average overload duration of 1.6 hours. At 50% PEV charging
43 transformers experienced overload durations of less than 3 hours. The reaming
overloaded transformers had overload durations of between 4 to 6 hours. All but one of
the overloaded transformers is rated at 25MVA.
63
TRAM13 Distribution Transformer Loading
<25 25-75 75-100 >100
200
180 177 170
160
140
113 105
120 97
100
74
80 64 58
60
40
7 0 6 14
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penertration Level
Figure 50: Distribution Transformer Loading Range
charging up to 20% without any major adverse system impacts. At 50 % PEV charging,
low voltage issues become a problem for 6 transformers. Transformer overloading also
increases substantially at 50% PEV charging.
6.8 HAMI13 Impact Analysis
HAMI13 feeder MVA load profiles for the 4 penetration levels and the baseline load
model are identified in Figure 51. Again, the addition of PEV charging loads on the feeder
in proportion to the baseline load model. The peak baseline load on the feeder is 9.1MVA.
PEV charging increases the peak load on the feeder to 10.6 MVA during 50% penetration.
The analysis of PEV charging on HAMI13 showed that some primary distribution
components experienced overloading. Overloads were experienced on primary conductors.
64
Figure 51: HAMI13 Feeder Load Profiles
The HAMI13 OpenDSS model showed no issues with current unbalance for PEV
charging penetrations up to 50%. Current unbalance is relatively fixed at 22 amps for all
PEV penetration levels. PEV charging had little to no effect on the current unbalance and
the unbalance is due to the baseline characteristics of the feeder.
Table 11: HAMI13 Current Unbalance

HAMI13 Current Unbalance
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
HAMI13 22.6 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.5
The Number of transformers grouped by voltage range, as measured on the low-
side of the distribution transformer is identified in Figure 52. As indicated in Figure 52
roughly 35% of the transformers on the baseline mode experience instances of unadaptable
secondary voltage. Distribution voltage stays relatively constant for PEV penetration levels
65
up to 20%. At 50% PEV penetration roughly half of the transformers experience secondary
voltage below acceptable values.
HAM13 Secondary Voltage at XFRM

>118.7V 117V-118.7V <117V
250
200
200
141134 141134 142136 150
150 136
107 107 104 96 104
100 78
50
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 52: HAMI13 Voltage Range
Maximum loading experienced by transformers as a percentage of the transformers
nameplate rating are identified in Figure 53. The baseline load model shows no issues with
transformer loading. Transformer loading steadily increases with PEV penetration.
Transformers on the feeder do not experience overloading above name plate until 50%
PEV charging is reached. All overloaded transformers were in the 25MVA class and all
experienced overload durations of less the 4 hours.
66
HAMI13 Distribution Transformer Loading
<25 25-75 75-100 >100
450
381 381
400 360
339
350
300
250 225
200
141
150
100
42
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 15
0
Base 1% 10% 20% 50%
Penetration Level
Figure 53: Distribution Transformer Loading Range
The impact analysis for HAMI13shows that the feeder cannot support increased
penetration of PEV. The baseline model shows that at present condition low voltage issues
are a problem. Increased penetration of PEV does not dramatically increase voltage issues
until PEV penetrations of 50% are reached. Significant Transformer overloading is not
reach until PEV penetrations reach 50%.
67
Chapter 7
Conclusion
In this thesis, an analysis of PEV charging impacts, was performed on 4 residential
distribution feeders. This study developed PEV adoption propensity scores for residential
neighborhoods within the Albuquerque area. The adoption propensity scores were used to
identify distribution circuits which show a propensity for PEV adoption. Existing
SynerGEE distribution models were converted to OpenDSS models. PEV charging profiles
were developed from travel survey data found in the NHTS. This thesis focused on PEV
charging impacts imposed on the distribution circuits, including current unbalance,
distribution voltage and transformer overloading.
It was observed that three of the four feeders studied can handle PEV charging
penetrations up to 20% without distribution voltage dropping below unacceptable ranges.
Furthermore, it was found that the same four feeders can handle PEV charging up to 50%
without service transformer becoming overload above 133% the name plate rating for
duration of more than 4 hours. The one feeder that identified significant impact when
PEV were charging had existing voltage and transformer loading problems.
68
Modeling of residential distribution circuits showed that within the near term
distribution circuits within the area studied could handle low penetrations of PEV
charging. It was determined that low voltages at the distribution transformers were the
limiting fact in determining PEV hosting capacities. Transformer overloads did not
appear to be a problem up to 50% PEV penetration. Overall, the major concern in the
near term with PEV charging is the likelihood of low voltage impact at the distribution
transformer.
69
8 References
[1] International Energy Agency, "Global EV Outlook," 2013.

[2] Y. (. Zhou, "Visualizing Electric Vehicle Sales," Argon National Laboratory, 2014.
[3] National Confrence of State Legislatures, "State Efforts Premote Hybrid And
Electric Vehicle," 23 10 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-electric-vehicle-incentives-state-
chart.aspx.
[4] IRS, "Energy Incentives for Individuals in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act," INternal Revenue Service, 28 04 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Energy-Incentives-for-Individuals-in-the-American-
Recovery-and-Reinvestment-Act. [Accessed 10 9 2014].
[5] M. Kintner-Meyer, K. Schneider and R. Pratt, "Impact Assessment of Plug-in
Hybrid Vehicles on Electrical Utilities and Regional U.S. Power Grids Part 1:
Technical Analysis," Pacific Northwest National Laboratory , 2007.
[6] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary , "Fact Sheet: Growing the United
States Electrical Vehicle Market," 18 10 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/18/fact-sheet-growing-
united-states-electric-vehicle-market. [Accessed 1 11 2014].
[7] M. Yilmaz and P. T. Krein, "Review of Charging Power Levels and Infrastructure
for Plug-in Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," Electric Vehicle Confrence (IEVC), p. 8,
2012.
[8] S. Abdollahy, O. Lavrova, A. Mammoli, S. Willard and B. Arrellano, "PNM Smart
Grid Demonstration Project from Modeling to Demonstration," IEE Innovation
Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), pp. (1-6), 2012.
[9] O. Lavrova, F. Cheng, S. Abdollahy, A. Mammoli, S. Willard, B. Arellano and C.
Van Zeyl, "Modeling PV Plus Storage for Public Service Company of New
Mexico's Prodperity Energy Storage Project," 2013 1st IEEE Conference, no. In
Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), pp. (pp. 223-229), 2013.
[10] O. Lavrova, F. Cheng, S. Abdollahy, A. Mammoli, S. Willard and B. Arellano,
"Modeling of PV plus Storage for Public Service Company of New Mexico’s
Prosperity Energy Storage Project," Electrical Energy Storage Applications &
Technologies Conference (EESAT).
70
[11] O. lavrova, H. Barsun, R. Burnett and A. Mammolli, "Renewable energy and smart
grid principles integration into campus–wide energy strategy at the University of
New Mexico," International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, pp.
(212-232), 2012.
[12] O. Lavroav, F. Cheng, S. Abdollahy, H. Barsun, A. Mammoli, D. Dreisigmayer
and C. Van Zeyl, "2012 IEEE PES," Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, no.
Analysis of Battery Storage Utilization for Load Shifting and Technologies, pp. (1-
6), 2012.
[13] F. Cheng, S. Willard, J. Hawkins, B. Arellano, O. Lavrova and A. Mammoli,
"Applying battery energy storage to enhance the benefits of photovoltaics," In
Energytech, pp. (1-5), 2012.
[14] D. li, S. Jayaweera, O. Lavrova and R. Jordan, "“Load management for price-based
demand response scheduling-a block scheduling model”," International
Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’11), 2011.
[15] A. Mammoli, C. Jones, H. Barsun, D. Dreisigmeyer, G. Goddard and O. Lavrova,
""Distributed control strategies for high-penetration commercial-building-scale
thermal storage"," In Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition
(T&D), pp. (pp. 1-7), 2012.
[16] B. Arellano, S. Abdollahy, O. Lavrova, A. Mammoli and S. Willard, ""PNM smart
grid demonstration project from modeling to demonstration"," In Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (ISGT), pp. (pp. 1-6), 2012.
[17] A. Mammoli, C. Jones, D. Dreisigmeyer, H. Barsun, G. Goddard and O. Lavrova,
""Distributed control strategies for high-penetration commercial-building-scale
thermal storage"," In Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition
(T&D), pp. (pp. 1-7), 2012.
[18] Wikipedia, ""Hybrid Vehicle Drivetrain"," [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain. [Accessed 2014].
[19] Plugincars, "Cars "Plug-in Hybrid"," 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.plugincars.com/cars?field_isphev_value_many_to_one=electric+%2B
+gasoline.
[20] Chris M. Finen, "Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: Basic Review," Eaton
Corporation, 2008.
71
[21] California PEV Collaborative , "California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative,"
[Online]. Available:
http://www.pevcollaborative.org/sites/all/themes/pev/files/Comm_guide7_122308.
pdf. [Accessed 9 9 2014].
[22] E. Forward, K. Glitman and R. David, "An Assessment of Level 1 and Level 2
Electric Vehicle Charging Efficiency," Vermont Energy Investment Corporation
Transportation Efficiency Group, 2013.
[23] "2009 National Household Travel Survey User's Gude," U.S Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration., 2011.
[24] R. C. Dugan, "OPenDSS Manual," Electrical Power Research Institute, 2013.
[25] American National Standard Institute, "American National Standard For Electrical
Power Systems and Equipment-voltage Ratings (60 Hertz)," National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 2006.
[26] U.S Department of Transportaion, Federal Highway Administration, "2009
National Household Travel Survey," [Online]. Available:
http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml. [Accessed 2 2 2013].
[27] U.S Census Bureau, ""Travel Day" (Day2Pub.csv)," [Online]. Available:
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>; .
72

Santiago Sena Final2-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Sena Final2-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Sena Final2-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Sena

Electrical & Computer Engineering

Approved by the Thesis Committee:

Professor Olga Lavrova , Chairperson

Professor Rafael Fierro

Professor Edward Graham

B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

The University of New Mexico

I wish to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Lavrova, for her

specifically Elmyra Grelle for all her help.

Special thanks to my parents and family of their support and understanding.

B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico

M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of New Mexico, 2015

to adverse system impact on residential distribution circuits. Such increase in power

distributed across local electrical distribution networks - phenomenon also known as

has on residential distribution feeders.

December 2010 as indicated in Figure 1 [2].

Federal and local governments have also shown interest in incentivizing EV

PEV was charging.

Figure 2: An Example of a Residential Household Power Demand While Charging a

increase local power demand. Since infrastructure located on residential distribution

The generation, transmission and distribution networks collectively make up what is

750kV, from generation facilities to distribution systems. The transmission system is

transmission networks typically operates at voltages between 230-750kV and sub-

transmission network operates at voltages between 69-230kV.

The distribution substation is typically identifies as the delineation point between

composed of three phases, and four-wire conductors of overhead or underground design.

regulating equipment such as capacitors, voltage regulators, reclosers and fusses.

Typically, primary distribution systems operate at nominal voltages of between 4-35kV.

the distribution transformer and is intended to supply residential customers at 120/240V.

distribution networks - phenomenon also known as “clustering”. Initial EV adoption is

projected to be heavily dependent on household demographics such as income, educational

to identify, monitor and respond to EV clusters as they develop.

simulated driving patterns and 4) Converting existing SynerGEE feeder models to

were explored in this analysis 1%, 10%, 20% and 50%.

Plug-In Electric Vehicles

2.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicles

 Its primary means of propulsion is through the use of an electric motor.

 The electric motor is powered partially, or in some cases solely by an on-

board battery pack.

 The on-board battery pack is capable of being charged from a source

external from the vehicle.

capacity, electric vehicle range and battery charging duration.

PHEVs, sometimes referred to as Extended Range Electric Vehicle, are equipped

from the ICE and electric motor.

power the wheels, as shown in Figure 4 [18] .

Figure 4: Parallel Hybrid Drivetrain.

the battery is depleted or when rapid acceleration is needed.

summarized in Table 1 [19].

summarized in Table 2 [19].

All Electric Battery Size

2.2 Charging Levels

Most auto manufacturers utilize nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) or various lithium based

maximum power delivered to the PEV is 1.4kW.

 Level 2 – The EVSE necessary to charge at level 2 includes a dedicated 240V

circuit and the installation of permanent charging equipment. Typically, this

7.7kW, level 2 charging may impose significant impacts on grid infrastructure,

especially local transformers.

to the electoral service requirements and EVSE required to implement level 3