THE ENVIRONMENT

CLIMATE AND
Vehicle-to-Grid

ENERGY,
A Sociotechnical
Transition Beyond
Electric Mobility

LANCE NOEL,
GERARDO ZARAZUA DE RUBENS,
JOHANNES KESTER,
AND BENJAMIN K. SOVACOOL
Energy, Climate and the Environment

Series Editors
David Elliott
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK

Geoffrey Wood
School of Law
University of Stirling
Stirling, UK
The aim of this series is to provide texts which lay out the technical,
environmental and political issues relating to proposed policies for
responding to climate change. The focus is not primarily on the science
of climate change, or on the technological detail, although there will be
accounts of this, to aid assessment of the viability of various options.
However, the main focus is the policy conflicts over which strategy to
pursue. The series adopts a critical approach and attempts to identify
flaws in emerging policies, propositions and assertions. In particular, it
seeks to illuminate counter-intuitive assessments, conclusions and new
perspectives. The intention is not simply to map the debates, but to
explore their structure, their underlying assumptions and their limita-
tions. The books in this series are incisive and authoritative sources of
critical analysis and commentary, clearly indicating the divergent views
that have emerged whilst also identifying the shortcomings of such
views. The series does not simply provide an overview, but also offers
policy prescriptions.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14966
Lance Noel · Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
Johannes Kester · Benjamin K. Sovacool

Vehicle-to-Grid
A Sociotechnical Transition Beyond
Electric Mobility
Lance Noel Benjamin K. Sovacool
Department of Business and Technology Department of Business and Technology
Aarhus University Aarhus University
Herning, Denmark Herning, Denmark

Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens and

Department of Business and Technology
Aarhus University Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)
Herning, Denmark University of Sussex Unit
Falmer, UK
Johannes Kester
Department of Business and Technology and
Aarhus University
Herning, Denmark Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Kajang, Malaysia

Energy, Climate and the Environment

ISBN 978-3-030-04863-1 ISBN 978-3-030-04864-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962250

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein
or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Tim Gainey/Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

The authors are appreciative to the Research Councils United Kingdom

(RCUK) Energy Program Grant EP/K011790/1 “Center on Innovation
and Energy Demand,” the Danish Council for Independent Research
(DFF) Sapere Aude Grant 4182-00033B “Societal Implications of a
Vehicle-to-Grid Transition in Northern Europe,” which have supported
elements of the work reported here. Any opinions, findings, and con-
clusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of RCUK Energy
Program or the DFF. We also thank Dr. Xiao Lin for her assistance
in collecting some of the primary data for this book, as well as Prof.
Willett Kempton and Assoc. Prof. Jonn Axsen for helping refine our
thoughts on the topic.

v
 About This Book

This book defines and charts the barriers and future of an emerging
low-carbon source of mobility that could dramatically reduce emissions,
create revenue, and accelerate the adoption of battery electric cars: vehi-
cle-to-grid technology. This technology connects the electric power grid
and the transportation system in ways that will enable electric vehicles
to store renewable energy and offer valuable services to transmission
operators. To understand the complex features of this emergent tech-
nology, this book explores the current status and prospect of vehicle-to-
grid and then individually details the sociotechnical barriers that may
impede its fruitful deployment. Finally, the book concludes with a pol-
icy roadmap to advise decision-makers on how to optimally implement
vehicle-to-grid and capture its benefits to society while attempting to
avoid the impediments discussed earlier in the book.
This combines the most up-to-date literature on vehicle-to-grid,
mobility, transitions, sociotechnical systems, and electric power sys-
tems along with original data collected by the authors on the array of
challenges and benefits to vehicle-to-grid. The examples in the book cut
across technical integration of research, economic analyses, and socio-
political challenges based on novel mixed methods (quantitative and

vii
viii   About This Book

qualitative). Thus, the book will ensure that readers from a variety of
backgrounds will gain a more comprehensive understanding of vehicle-
to-grid and its potential for wide-scale implementation in the transport
and electric systems.
 Contents

1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G 1

1.1 Defining V2G 1
1.1.1 Incorporating V2G to the EV 2
1.1.2 Aggregation 5
1.1.3 Auditing and Metering 7
1.1.4 V2G in Practice 9
1.2 V2G, Power Markets and Applications 10
1.2.1 Electricity Markets and V2G Suitability 10
1.2.2 Long-Term Storage, Renewable Energy, and
Other Grid Applications 13
1.2.3 Beyond the Grid: Other Concepts Related to
V2G 15
1.3 History and Development of EVs and V2G 19
1.4 Actors and Roles of V2G 21
1.4.1 Primary Actors: EV Owners, Aggregators, and
the Electricity Grid 21
1.4.2 Secondary Actors: Government, the EV
Industry, and Electricity Producers 24

ix
x   Contents

1.5 Conclusion 25
References 26

2 The Potential Benefits of V2G 33

2.1 Summarizing the Benefits of V2G 33
2.1.1 Technical Benefits: Storage Superiority and Grid
Efficiency 36
2.1.2 Economic Benefits: EV Owners and Societal
Savings 38
2.1.3 Environment and Health Benefits: Sustainability
in Electricity and Transport 43
2.1.4 Other Benefits and Perceived Benefits 51
2.2 Benefits in Motion: From Fleets to Individuals and
Beyond 53
2.3 V2G and the Grid 55
2.4 Conclusion 58
References 59

3 The Technical Challenges to V2G 65

3.1 Battery Degradation 66
3.2 Charger Efficiency 72
3.3 Aggregation and Communication 75
3.3.1 Aggregation and Scaling 75
3.3.2 Communication Standards 78
3.4 V2G in a Digital Society 81
3.5 Conclusion 84
References 85

4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G 91

4.1 Evaluating V2G Costs and Revenues 92
4.1.1 EV Costs and Benefits 92
4.1.2 Adding V2G Costs and Benefits 94
4.1.3 Additional V2G Costs 97
4.1.4 The Evolving Nature of V2G Costs
and Benefits 100
 Contents   xi

4.2 V2G Business Models 101

4.2.1 Pricing and Revenue Models 102
4.2.2 Ownership Structure: Aggregators and Other
Actors 106
4.2.3 Defining the Evolving Market: Integration
with Other Technologies 109
4.3 Conclusion 111
References 113

5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G 117

5.1 V2G and Regulatory Frameworks 118
5.1.1 Regulating V2G and Energy Storage 118
5.1.2 Ownership of V2G and Energy Storage 120
5.2 Market Design Challenges 122
5.2.1 Proper Valuation of Ancillary Services 122
5.2.2 Double Taxation, Curtailment and Capacity
Markets 124
5.2.3 Clarifying Aggregator Roles
and Responsibilities 127
5.3 Other V2G Regulatory and Legal Challenges 128
5.4 Political Challenges of V2G 130
5.4.1 Broader Policy Coordination and Political Will 130
5.4.2 Specific V2G Policies 132
5.5 Conclusion 134
References 135

6 Consumers, Society and V2G 141

6.1 Consumer Perspectives of V2G 141
6.1.1 Ambivalence and Low Consumer Awareness 142
6.1.2 Intermediaries and V2G Diffusion 144
6.2 Conceptualizing the Consumer in a V2G System 146
6.2.1 Diffusion of Innovation 146
6.2.2 Social Construction of Technology 149
6.2.3 The Multi-level Perspective User-Typology 151
6.3 Increasing Consumer Knowledge and Acceptance 152
6.3.1 User Innovation and Tinkering 153
xii   Contents

6.3.2 Accruing User Experience and Involvement 156

6.3.3 Targeted Information Campaigns 156
6.3.4 Involving Users in Pilot Projects 158
6.3.5 Promoting V2G as a Conspicuous Good 159
6.4 Conclusion 163
References 163

7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations 167

7.1 Synthesizing Barriers Across Actors 168
7.2 Toward a Stylized V2G Policy Mix 172
7.3 Five Global Development Pathways and V2G Futures 178
7.3.1 Conservative Backlash 181
7.3.2 V2G Remains a Niche 183
7.3.3 High V2G, Dirty Grid 185
7.3.4 High V2G, Renewables in a Traditional but
Decarbonized Grid 186
7.3.5 The Super-Smart Grid 187
7.4 Conclusion 188
References 189

8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future 191

8.1 Key Themes and Current Expert Perspectives: Benefits,
Barriers, and Policies 192
8.1.1 Compelling Potential Benefits 192
8.1.2 Sobering Barriers and Challenges 195
8.1.3 Calibrating Policy Mixes 199
8.2 Problematizing V2G in the Context of Energy
Transitions 203
8.2.1 Elitism and Inequitable Access 203
8.2.2 Loss of Privacy and Cybersecurity 206
8.2.3 Affirming Conventional Automobility 208
8.2.4 Vulnerable Groups and Pollution 209
8.2.5 Toward a Just and Sustainable V2G Policy 210
 Contents   xiii

8.3 Thematic Social Research Gaps 212

8.3.1 Carbon and Health Impacts of V2G 212
8.3.2 User Behavior 214
8.3.3 Visions and Narratives 216
8.3.4 Social Justice 220
8.3.5 Gender Norms 221
8.3.6 Urban Resilience, Disasters, and Emergency
Capacity 222
8.4 Methodological Research Gaps 223
8.4.1 Broadening the Set of V2G “Cases” 223
8.4.2 Overcoming Transformative Failures 224
8.4.3 Toward Interdisciplinary, Multi-method
Approaches 225
8.5 Conclusion 228
References 230

Index 235
 About the Authors

Dr. Lance Noel is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Aarhus University,

where he is a lead researcher on a $1.6-million grant on the sociotech-
nical benefits and barriers of electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid in
the Nordic region (NV2G). This research includes five methods across
the five Nordic countries, including expert interviews, surveys, focus
groups, and choice experiments. He received his Ph.D. at University of
Delaware where his dissertation focused on the economic, political, and
legal implications of large-scale renewable energy implementation and
vehicle-to-grid technology. Additionally, he participated in the original
vehicle-to-grid pilot project at University of Delaware and has published
17 journal articles that focus primarily on vehicle-to-grid and renewable
energy integration.

Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens is a Doctoral Fellow at Aarhus University

working on the same NV2G grant that explores the social, technical,
and economic barriers for electric vehicle and vehicle-to-grid imple-
mentation in the Nordic region. His research is focused on energy and
climate policy, sustainable development, and economic and manage-
rial science, and also has experience in undertaking a variety of research

xv
xvi   About the Authors

methods, from expert interviews, to focus groups and surveys. He has

previously worked as a consultant on international electricity markets,
and non-traditional business models of energy supply, as well as logistics
and operations management. Gerardo received his M.Sc. in sustaina-
ble development from the University of St Andrews, Scotland, in 2014.
He is currently leading and co-authoring 10 journal articles focused on
electric mobility, power systems, and energy justice.

Dr. Johannes Kester is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of

Aarhus working on the NV2G grant. His primary interests lie in the
governance of sociotechnical energy systems, drawing on social theory.
Recent publications include “Torn Between War and Peace” (2017) in
Energy Policy and “Energy Security and Human Security in a Dutch
Gasquake Context” (2017) in Energy Research and Social Science. He
defended his Ph.D. “Securing Abundance: The Politics of Energy
Security” (2016) at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is the Principle Investigator of the NV2G

project. He is Professor of Energy Policy at the Science Policy Research
Unit (SPRU) at the School of Business, Management, and Economics,
part of the University of Sussex in the UK. He is also Professor of
Business & Social Sciences and Director of the Center for Energy
Technologies at Aarhus University in Denmark, as well as Visiting
Professor at the Institute of Energy Policy and Research (IEPRe),
Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. Professor Sovacool works as
a researcher and consultant on issues pertaining to energy policy,
energy security, climate change mitigation, and climate change adapta-
tion. Professor Sovacool is the author of more than 400 refereed arti-
cles, book chapters, and reports, including solely authored pieces in
Nature and Science. He is the author, coauthor, editor, or co-editor of
20 books, including Climate Change and Global Energy Security (MIT
Press), Energy Poverty (Oxford University Press), Global Energy Justice
(Cambridge University Press), The Political Economy of Climate Change
Adaptation (Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave), Fact and Fiction in
Global Energy Policy (Johns Hopkins University Press), and Enabling
the Great Energy Transition (Columbia University Press). US President
 About the Authors   xvii

Bill Clinton, the Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland,

and the late Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom have endorsed his books.
Additionally, Prof. Sovacool is the founding Editor-in-Chief for the
international peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science,
published by Elsevier, and he sits on the Editorial Advisory Panel of
Nature Energy.
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Common schematic of a V2G System. Note ISO stands for
Independent System Operator. The figure shows two
potential means of dispatching V2G requests: from the
ISO directly to a vehicle (shown in the upper right-hand
corner), or from the ISO to a third-party aggregator of a
fleet (shown in bottom right-hand corner) 2
Fig. 1.2 Example communication diagram of a V2G System.
The black line represents communication flows, whereas
the red line represents bidirectional power flows 7
Fig. 1.3 Example of example metered data providing reliability
of grid services over five minutes. The blue line (Request)
is the amount of energy requested from the electricity grid
operator, while the red line (Response) is the energy
provided by the EV. Average time delay is between 1 and 3
seconds 8
Fig. 1.4 Example electricity markets and their suitability for V2G 11
Fig. 1.5 Diagram of actors in a hypothetical V2G system. Note that
some of the communication and power flows may differ
depending on V2G service provided 22

xix
xx   List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Revenues over a 16-year period providing frequency

regulation in US electricity grid regions. ISO-NE ISO-
New England, NYISO New York ISO, ERCOT Electricity
Reliability Council of Texas, CAISO California ISO 40
Fig. 2.2 Estimated annual CO2 emissions avoided by V2G per
electricity region, assuming 1% of EVs are V2G-capable 46
Fig. 2.3 Three scenarios of storage with large-scale renewable energy
in the PJM interconnection. Left column: hydrogen storage,
center: centralized batteries, right: V2G 48
Fig. 2.4 Renewable energy curtailed, based on percent penetration
and level of grid flexibility 50
Fig. 2.5 Research focus (a) and Expert opinion (b) of Benefits
of V2G systems 52
Fig. 2.6 Supergrid with high levels of renewable energy and
a HVDC network 56
Fig. 3.1 Estimated battery capacity loss over time for EVs (no V2G
included). Note that the difference between different levels
of charging, as shown in the legend in the upper left corner,
makes no discernable difference on the difference on
capacity loss 67
Fig. 3.2 Battery degradation per cycle (N) as a function
of temperature and depth of discharge (DOD) 68
Fig. 3.3 Average battery capacity losses over 10 years with V2G
services, providing three different services (peak shaving,
frequency regulation, net load shaping) in two usage
scenarios (everyday for 10 years and 20 times per year) 70
Fig. 4.1 Potential V2G revenue, pricing, and power flow models 105
Fig. 5.1 Influence of fees and taxation on V2G operation.
Note Graph represents Nuvve’s June 2017 settlement bills
from NEAS Energy (their BPR), indicating how much
of the bought electricity is used for driving and how much
for grid operations as well as the distribution of taxes,
tariffs, and fees 125
Fig. 6.1 Classic U-shaped diffusion of innovations curve 148
Fig. 6.2 The MLP with description of user typologies 151
 List of Figures   xxi

Fig. 8.1 The diverse array of 25 V2G benefits identified by expert

interviews 193
Fig. 8.2 Dendrogram of top 9 most common barriers to V2G.
Note Organized by Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity,
colors denote cluster groupings (Italics represent Percent
of Respondents Discussing Barrier ) 196
Fig. 8.3 Recent publishing trends in V2G research, January
2015–April 2017. Note n = 197 peer-reviewed articles 213
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Defining the different conceptualizations of use cases

of a bidirectional vehicle 16
Table 2.1 Technical attributes of various storage technologies, using
the USA as an example. Ranges indicate difference in cost
depending on technology or system used 35
Table 3.1 Percentage energy loss per stage in the V2G system for
charging and discharging at two different current levels 73
Table 3.2 Differences between the three V2G standards 79
Table 3.3 Potential security risks in a smart grid/V2G system 83
Table 6.1 Summary of various theories on the implications of users
in a V2G system 147
Table 7.1 Impacts and roles of actors in across sociotechnical barriers 169
Table 7.2 Policy solutions aligned to address sociotechnical barriers 174
Table 7.3 Five imagined V2G futures and their characteristics 180
Table 8.1 Summary of V2G policy suggestions and our reflection 200
Table 8.2 The interactive and potential positive and negative impacts
of a V2G transition 204
Table 8.3 Policy mechanisms to minimize problematic V2G pathways 211
Table 8.4 Functional-symbolic and private-societal dimension of
driver behavior 215

xxiii
xxiv   List of Tables

Table 8.5 Summary of visions, promises, and ideographs of EVs

and V2G in the Nordics 217
Table 8.6 Illustrative summary and comparison of V2G model
qualities 226
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the
Future of Electric Mobility

Vehicle-to-grid, often shortened to V2G, was first introduced as a

concept near the turn of the twenty-first century to capitalize on the
assumption that electric vehicles (EVs) would widely diffuse in society,
and thus, there would be a large amount of electric power capacity that
could provide valuable storage services to electricity grids [1]. Since its
introduction, many have elaborated on the potential benefits of V2G,
detailing the large amounts of power capacity, various electricity grid
services, and economic revenues potentially available to EV owners
[2, 3]. Given the disappointingly slow diffusion of EVs, V2G may prove
useful to accelerate the adoption of EVs [4, 5]. While providing ancil-
lary services for the grid, namely frequency regulation, and EV owner
economic benefits are the most immediate benefits of V2G, the future
benefits of V2G such as integrating renewable energy are also tantaliz-
ing. Indeed, a variety of papers have found that V2G can provide low-
cost storage to integrate large-scale renewable electricity [6–8]), helping
tackle the looming challenge of climate change as well as public health
emissions from electricity and transportation sources.
Consequently, there has been increasing interest in the concept
among industry and scholars, which has resulted in a variety of novel

xxv
xxvi   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

potential solutions within electricity grids and transportation. In a

recent literature review [9], the authors found around 200 articles pub-
lished on V2G, covering a wide variety of concepts, including, but not
limited to renewable energy integration, ancillary services, local grid
solutions, microgrids, and buildings (see more about these research
gaps in Chapter 8, the Conclusion). While the academic focus on V2G
has continued to accelerate, the diffusion of the actual use of V2G has
been more staggered historically, with current projects limited to only
a few pilot projects within fleets around the world [9]. Nonetheless,
these pilot projects are entering commercial operations, and there has
been recent activity in project development, for example, with the
UK government investing £30 million in projects focused on V2G in
2018 [10]. Even the Pope has supported and adopted EVs, which also
included a project involving V2G [11].
Indeed, the future of V2G looks bright, with some scholars predicting
that V2G will be an essential form of storage for the electricity grid of
the future. For example, it has been predicted that there will be massive
increases in V2G capacity in the coming decades, as shown in Fig. 1 [12],
where it becomes a dominant technology in the power system. For this
reason, and with the potential to decarbonize the electricity and transport

Fig. 1 Installed capacity (left) and utilization per hour (right) during operation
of a European grid optimized for different energy storage technologies, 2000–
2100. CAES compressed air energy storage (Reprinted from [12])
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxvii

sectors and drive EV adoption, the future of V2G is enticing to many

actors. Specifically, experts envision V2G as a means to reach a future
where there is a synergy between electricity and EVs, thereby feeding into
imaginaries of synergy and seamless interconnectivity, as well of autonomy
and self-determination [13]. While V2G exists today mostly in fleet pilot
projects, its potential future is far-reaching and substantial, particularly
when tapping into personal vehicles, public transportation, and perhaps
more.
Thus, it is conceivable that in the future, V2G capability will become
the norm (or at least in some markets and regions) and will be avail-
able in a variety of vehicles, becoming a part of everyday life in soci-
ety. Despite the possible pervasiveness and benefits of V2G, outside of
academia (and even within it), current knowledge and understanding of
V2G are relatively low. In a recent survey conducted by the authors in
the Nordic region, fewer than 10% of the respondents had ever heard
of V2G before taking the survey [14, 15]. At the same time, academic
knowledge of V2G is highly specialized, with most of the research effort
taking place in highly technical fields within science and engineering
[9], such as control charging optimization algorithms, renewable energy
integration, and battery degradation.
Specialized knowledge alone, however, does not lead to broad diffu-
sion of a new technology. It is well established in the innovation and
transition literatures that for a technology to diffuse, knowledge about
its benefits, use, and potential must be dispersed across a wider vari-
ety of actors than is currently the case for V2G [16]. Looking beyond
academics and consumers, there will be an increasing number of other
actors who will play an essential role in the diffusion of V2G, such as
local and national policymakers, marketers, energy sector practition-
ers, fleet operators, or parking organizations, among various others.
Therefore, for these actors, a basic understanding of V2G is essential.
For these reasons, we set out to write this extensive, comprehensive,
and easily accessible reference on V2G. The book is aimed toward a
wide audience including academics at the periphery of V2G, consum-
ers interested in the technology that comes in their EV, policymakers
who want to understand the technology to implement policies, and
industry practitioners to understand the technology that may have
xxviii   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

been recently implemented in their local grid. As the only other broad
introduction to V2G is almost 10 years old [17], this book offers an
up-to-date and more extensive introduction to a fast-moving technol-
ogy that has changed substantially over the last 10 years. Moreover, to
underscore the role played by the numerous sectors and actors in the
complex sociotechnical system that V2G is interacting, we believe it is
of the utmost importance to give a more comprehensive perspective of
V2G. Consequently, as you make your way through the book, we will
aim to provide the history and context of V2G, its potential future in
better detail, and the challenges it may face from the variety of relevant
perspectives. As the first chapters will extensively discuss the concep-
tualization and background of V2G, this introduction will introduce
our approach to V2G, offer a brief introduction to the chapters, and
describe the data, method, and theories that are used.

Approach: V2G as a “Niche” in a “Sociotechnical

System”
To help understand the promise and challenges of V2G, the book
largely views the related transport and electricity infrastructure con-
nected to V2G as a “sociotechnical system”—looking at more than just
the technical aspects of V2G to how it is part of and influences society.
The term sociotechnical system finds its origin rooted in multi-
ple disciplines and approaches. One of the best known is Thomas
Hughes’s work on the history of the electric utility system, wherein he
argues that the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric-
ity occurs within a technological system that extends beyond the engi-
neering realm [18]. Such a system is understood to include a “seamless
web” of considerations that can be categorized as technical, economic
or financial, political, environmental, and social, making it “sociotech-
nical.” Large modern systems integrate these elements into one piece,
with system builders striving to “construct or … force unity from diver-
sity, centralization in the face of pluralism, and coherence from chaos”
[19]. If the managers succeed, the system expands and thrives while,
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxix

Fig. 2  A sociotechnical system for personal automobile transportation (Reprinted

from [20])

simultaneously, closing itself (both its meaning and set of relationships)

for disruption, resistance, and change. In other words, the influence
of the outside environment on a sociotechnical system may gradually
recede as the system expands its reach to encompass factors that might
otherwise alter it.
In other words, the concept of a sociotechnical system helps reveal
that technologies, such as electricity grids and V2G, must be under-
stood in their societal context and that the different values expressed by
inventors, producers, managers, regulators, and consumers shape tech-
nological change all in their own way. System builders, it follows, must
overcome a complex milieu of sociotechnical obstacles to reap benefits.
A salient insight from the sociotechnical approach is its focuses on the
interrelationship of linkages between elements and co-evolutionary pro-
cesses, e.g., that a system never stands on its own but is nested in other
equally complex sociotechnical systems. Figure 2 offers an illustration
of the sociotechnical system that surrounds modern, conventional, car-
based land transport [20].
The book takes a sociotechnical approach, as such an analytical frame-
work encourages scholars to look beyond single dimensions without
xxx   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

Table 1  Overview of sociotechnical dimensions of a V2G transition

Dimension Inclusive of Example(s)
Technical Technology, infrastructure, Vehicle performance,
and hardware grid interconnection,
communication, battery
degradation
Financial Price signals, economics, Capital cost of V2G charg-
regulatory tariffs ing stations, hardware,
batteries and intercon-
nectors, revenues, cost
savings, business models
Socioenvironmental Broad social costs and Mitigated greenhouse gas
benefits emissions, air pollution,
integration with renew-
able sources of energy,
externalities
Behavioral Consumer and user Consumer perceptions of
perceptions, attitudes, all of the above, includ-
and behavior ing benefits, inconven-
ience, distrust, confusion,
range anxiety

losing the complexity of the system and doing injustice to the many
interactions and relationships that shape it. Specifically, we investigate
V2G across the various sociotechnical categories summarized in Table 1.
These include, first, the technical or technological elements such as
batteries and charging infrastructure, tires on vehicles, and interconnec-
tions to the electricity grid. Next are the financial or economic elements
that encompass the cost of the technology as well as the availability of
fuel and any affiliated cost savings and revenues that can be generated.
A third category is socioenvironmental, and how the technology relates
to the overall benefits (or costs) to society. A final category focuses on
the individual behavior of consumers and users, namely the owners and
operators of EVs that might take part in V2G programs. We see each of
these dimensions at play in different parts of our chapters.
In laying out the following chapters below, it is not our intent to sup-
pose that demarcations between “technical,” “financial,” “socioenviron-
mental,” and “behavioral” dimensions really exist in distinct, separate
classes. The entire point of the sociotechnical systems approach is that
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxxi

such impediments are seamlessly interconnected; dividing the “social”

from the “technical,” or even the “economic” from the “environmen-
tal” is counterproductive and dangerous, since it misses the point that
such factors exist in an interstitial and interdependent network. In other
words, it is a heterogeneous combination of sociotechnical factors that
determine whether V2G technologies will achieve widespread accept-
ance or face consumer rejection. Thus, while reading each chapter, the
readers are heavily encouraged to consider the seamless connections to
other chapters of the book.
Within well-established field of sustainability transitions studies, one
particularly strong framework often utilized is that of the multi-level
perspective, or MLP [21]. Borrowing from a mix of disciplines, includ-
ing history, evolutionary economics, institutional theory, and science and
technology studies (STS), the approach suggests that diffusion or transi-
tions occur through interactions among three levels: the niche, the regime,
and the landscape. The niche refers to a radical innovation that is emerg-
ing to gain diffusion or adoption, to move from invention and innovation
to viable market introduction [22]. The regime level refers to the incum-
bent sociotechnical system that the niche is potentially affecting or replac-
ing; such regimes contain cognitive, regulative, and normative institutions
[23]. The “landscape” refers to exogenous developments or shocks (e.g.,
economic crises, demographic changes, wars, ideological change, major
environmental disruption like climate change) that create pressures on the
regime, which in turn create windows of opportunity for the diffusion of
niche-innovations. Figure 3 illustrates how the three scales interact.
A key term of art within the MLP framework is that of a “transition
pathway.” Analytically, the claim is that different kinds of interactions
among niche, regime, and landscape result in different kinds of align-
ments. Geels and Schot [24] construct a typology based on combina-
tions between two dimensions: the timing and nature of multi-level
interactions. This leads them to distinguish four transition pathways:
(1) technological substitution, based on disruptive niche-innovations that
are sufficiently developed when landscape pressure occurs, (2) transfor-
mation, in which landscape pressures stimulate incumbent actors to
gradually adjust the regime, when niche-innovations are not sufficiently
developed, (3) reconfiguration, based on symbiotic niche-innovations
xxxii   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

Fig. 3  Niches, regimes, and landscapes in sociotechnical transitions (Reprinted

from [24])

that are incorporated into the regime and trigger further (architectural)
adjustments under landscape pressure, (4) de-alignment and re-alignment,
in which major landscape pressures destabilize the regime when niche-in-
novations are insufficiently developed; the prolonged co-existence of
niche-innovations is followed by re-creation of a new regime around one
of them. The core lesson from these four pathways is that transitions can
be conflictual—many niches fail—and that existing energy systems and
infrastructure can dominate and suppress threatening innovations.
As we will see throughout the book, V2G clearly falls within the
“niche” or even “pre-niche” category, meaning it must compete with
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxxiii

these other sources of mobility and electricity grid actors. While these
are not the only theories that we will utilize, we urge the readers to con-
sider this framework as we move through the individual sociotechnical
barriers, and how these may influence the transition of V2G from a
niche to a regime, and perhaps even to the landscape level.

Chapters to Come
The book has eight remaining chapters, each focusing on a different
facet of V2G, and thus analyzing different subcomponents of the soci-
otechnical system. While acknowledging the interconnected nature of
the topics discussed in each individual chapter, we endeavor to atomize
V2G as a technology into its most basic portions.
First, in Chapter 1, we focus on the history of V2G, to provide
context for the remainder of the book. Additionally, given the lack of
knowledge and confusion over exactly what V2G is, we will carefully
define V2G, what is included in its conceptualization, and what is not
V2G, but related to it, defining other concepts, such as vehicle-to-home
(V2H), vehicle-to-building (V2B). As V2G takes place in a complex
sociotechnical system, this chapter next looks beyond the specifics of
the technology and defines the potential actors and their roles in the
various V2G set-ups. Finally, we will summarize the current status of
V2G around the globe and offer an overview of some of the pilot pro-
jects and plans in place.
Next, in Chapter 2, we focus on the benefits and potential of V2G.
We start with an exploration and summary of all the potential bene-
fits of V2G, from economic revenues, to grid efficiency, to renewable
energy integration, and everything in between. We then place these
benefits in the larger transportation and electricity systems, first focus-
ing on how V2G’s current status in fleets can transfer to personal
consumers and others. From the other side, we also will detail the
interactions of V2G with a quickly changing grid, particularly with
the potential advent of smart grids and super grids. Finally, we end the
chapter with the conceptualization of the future of V2G.
xxxiv   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

Moving beyond the status and benefits of V2G, the next several
chapters detail the challenges that V2G faces, from a plethora of per-
spectives. First, in Chapter 3, we begin with a narrow perspective and
focus on the challenges of the technology itself. That is, we focus on the
technical challenges, including battery degradation, charger efficiency,
and communication. Beyond the snapshot, we will also take a prospec-
tive approach and discuss the potential challenges that V2G may face
as it diffuses across society, such as scaling, privacy, digitalization, and
transparency of data.
In Chapter 4, we then turn to the economic and business challenges
of V2G. First, we will review that main costs of V2G, such as bidirec-
tional chargers and increasing the vehicle’s communication capacity, and
its revenue potential, from the various electricity markets in which it
can participate. Additionally, we will also review other economic bar-
riers stemming from the electricity market, such as double taxation and
its impact on V2G revenue streams. On the other hand, we will also
discuss how these costs and revenues translate into the potential busi-
ness models of V2G, a topic that is currently very understudied [9],
and may be essential to the smooth diffusion of V2G as the technology
itself. Within this discussion, we will explore the pricing and revenue
models of V2G, how ownership could work within aggregation, as well
as defining the market as it evolves.
We next examine the regulatory and political challenges in Chapter 5.
First, focusing on regulations, we will discuss how relevant decision-
makers and actors interact, before moving onto market regulations, such
as the development and definition of the storage market, net metering,
and taxation regulations. The second half of the chapter will focus on
the relevant policies to V2G, and how policymakers can incentivize and
encourage the development of V2G. Of course, a policy discussion of
V2G would not be complete without a discussion of the interconnect-
edness of policies between V2G and EVs. More specific to V2G, we also
discuss the development of V2G niches in pilot projects, as well as the
galvanization of grid operator projects, and how policy can help define
the storage market.
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxxv

The final set of challenges we discuss is from the perspective of the

consumer and social barriers in Chapter 6. First and foremost, consum-
ers are expected to be a major barrier to the diffusion of V2G, as many
experts believe that consumers will resist or at least express reluctance
to the technology. To understand this resistance, we discuss consumer
perspectives on battery degradation, reliability, as well as the general
lack of consumer knowledge and awareness of V2G (and its benefits)
that may assuage this resistance. We then propose certain strategies to
increase consumer knowledge and acceptance of V2G, including educa-
tion, experience, as well as more novel approaches, such as tinkering. In
order to understand the consumer as an actor in the diffusion of V2G,
we then conceptualize the consumer in a variety of theories, drawing on
diffusion studies, sociotechnical transitions, and science and technology
studies. The chapter concludes by commenting on current research gaps
within the social aspects of V2G, including user behavior, externalities
of V2G, visions and expectations, social justice, gender, and urban resil-
ience and disaster capacity.
After reviewing the challenges of V2G, in Chapter 7 we then resyn-
thesize the knowledge gained in the previous four chapters, recognizing
the seamless interconnectedness of these attributes in a sociotechnical
system. With this knowledge, we then propose the pathways for V2G
to develop, and detail recommendations for how each of the actors dis-
cussed in Chapter 1 can take actions to help progress V2G in the socio-
technical system. From a policy perspective, we then provide roadmaps
for a generalized country to transition toward a V2G system. The chap-
ter also reflects on the global diffusion of V2G and the role that interna-
tionalization plays in the development of V2G.
Finally, we summarize the book in Chapter 8 by iterating the key
themes of V2G, and reflecting upon the lessons learned in regards to
the technology. In addition, we comment on the potential futures of
V2G, particularly within the context of energy transitions and decar-
bonization. We conclude the book by setting future research objectives
and goals for V2G.
xxxvi   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

Data, Method, and Other Theories

As shown by the chapters we set out above, our goal of this book is
to provide a complete perspective of V2G as a technology in society,
funded by a fairly large three-year grant looking at electric mobility and
V2G in the Nordic region, but also in connection with global market
trends and technical contexts, to ensure generalizability. In order to
do so, we will principally rely on the most relevant literature that has
been published. However, in addition to this, and given our expertise
as researchers on V2G and our wealth of empirical data collected, we
also use a dataset of four original empirical methods based on recent
work in the Nordics. These empirical methods include expert inter-
views, consumer focus groups, an online survey, and simulated “mys-
tery shopping” experiences at automobile dealerships. We will provide
some information on these methods now and refer to them occasionally
throughout the rest of the book.
First, we conducted 227 semi-structured expert interviews with 257
participants across the five Nordic countries. A brief summary is pre-
sented in Table 2. Data collection lasted from September 2016 until
May 2017 and centered on the sociotechnical benefits and barriers of
both EVs and V2G, though we will focus primarily on their discus-
sion of V2G in the remainder of the book. Upon completion of the
interviews, each was fully transcribed and then coded in NVIVO with
grounded theory in mind (meaning there were no pre-determined
themes). Later these arguments were bundled in larger themes and top-
ics, like costs or taxation. Throughout the book, reference is made to
these coded themes, such as an expert’s views on V2G benefit and barri-
ers, as well as cite individual quotes from the experts (anonymized using
respondent number, e.g., R54).
Second, to complement the expert perspective with a consumer
perspective, we also conducted consumer focus groups across the five
Nordic countries concomitantly. In total, eight focus groups were con-
ducted, with a total of 61 participants across six Nordic cities, sum-
marized in Table 3. Additionally, two of the eight focus groups were
exclusively a single gender (one all-female, the other all-male) and were
asked additional questions about perceived impact of gender on EVs
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxxvii

Table 2  Overview of expert interviews

Classifications Interviews Respondents % of respondents
(n = 227) (n = 257)
Country
Iceland (September–October 29 36 14.0
2016)
Sweden (November–December 42 44 17.1
2016)
Denmark (January–March 45 53 20.6
2017)
Finland (Machr 2017) 50 57 22.2
Norway (April–May 2017) 61 67 26.1
Gender
Male 160 207 80.5
Female 40 50 19.5
Group 27
Focus
Transport or logistics 73 81 31.5
Energy or electricity system 63 75 29.2
Funding or investment 10 12 4.7
Environment or climate change 12 16 6.2
Fuel consumption and 22 23 8.9
technology
Other 13 14 5.4
EVs and charging technology 34 36 14.0
Sector
Commercial 68 70 27.2
Public 37 46 17.9
Semi-public 40 51 19.8
Research 37 39 15.2
Non-profit and media 12 13 5.1
Lobby 23 25 9.7
Consultancy 10 10 3.9
Source Authors. Focus represents the primary focus area of the organization or
person in question, sector represents the sector the company was working in
(semi-public referring to commercial companies owned by public authorities,
like DSOs)

and V2G. Each of the focus groups was asked similar questions that
were asked to the experts, namely about the main transport and energy
challenges, the perceived benefits and barriers of EVs and V2G, and
what should change to speed up the acceptance and adoption of these
respective technologies. Each focus group was fully transcribed and
xxxviii   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

Table 3  Overview of focus groups

Classifications Participants (n = 61) % of participants
F1: Iceland (October 2016) 5 8
F2: Sweden (November 2016) 6 10
F3: Denmark [mixed gender] 10 16
(February 2017)
F4: Finland 1 (March 2017) 9 15
F5: Finland 2 (March 2017) 7 12
F6: Denmark [male] (June 2017) 7 12
F7: Denmark [female] (June 2017) 8 13
F8: Norway (September 2017) 9 15
Male 29 48
Female 32 52
Have driver’s license 50 82
Currently own a car 29 48
Experienced an EV 8 13
Own an EV 0 0
Source Authors

coded in NVIVO as well, again with grounded theory in mind. In the

remainder of the book, we will primarily utilize quotes from individual
participants in focus groups, only referring to the focus group in which
they participated in (e.g., “one participant from F5 suggested…”).
Third, to complement these two in-depth qualitative methods, we
also conducted an online survey with a focus to collect quantitative
data. Responses were collected via both a random sample (distributed
by Qualtrics) and a non-random convenience sample to target specific
populations such as Icelanders or current EV owners. A total of 5894
responses were collected, however, after filtering incomplete surveys, the
final responses totaled to 5067, nearly evenly distributed across the five
Nordic countries. The survey consisted of 44 questions total questions
and split into 4 sections, including (i) vehicle history and background,
(ii) vehicle preferences, (iii) an electric vehicle choice experiment, and
(iv) demographics. As with the other two methods, our focus will be
mostly on the V2G aspects of the survey, though we will use other sta-
tistics to provide context.
Finally, to assess in particular potential business dimensions to V2G
as perceived by commercial entities such as automotive dealerships and
car salespersons, we visited 126 car dealerships between October 2016
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xxxix

and June 2017 across 15 cities in the countries of Denmark, Finland,

Iceland, Sweden, and Norway. The visits where conducted typically in
the capital, the second most populous city and the largest rural town
of each country: Aalborg (Denmark), Aarhus (Denmark), Akureyri
(Iceland), Copenhagen (Denmark), Gothenburg (Sweden), Helsinki
(Finland), Malmo and Lund (Sweden), Oslo (Norway), Oulu (Finland),
Reykjavik (Iceland), Stockholm (Sweden), Tampere (Finland), Tromsø
(Norway), and Trondheim (Norway). After the visit, the mystery
shoppers recorded three sets of data in an audio file including (1)
characteristics of the salesperson based on a five-point Likert scale
(2) characteristics of the dealership visited (such as location, brands
available, or type of dealership), and (3) their shopping experiences;
noting individual thoughts and relevant quotes said by the salesper-
son. Other data collected were promotional material provided by deal-
ers (leaflets and price lists), dealer’s business card, and in some cases
photographs of advertisement, charging infrastructure, and location of
dealership.
Looking beyond the data and methods employed in the book, we
will also take a variety of other theoretical perspectives in the com-
ing chapters to offer context, explain, and reflect on the multitude
of subject areas covered in them. Some chapters, particularly the first
chapter about the history and potential of V2G, are light on theoret-
ical frames, while subsequent chapters use simple economic and pol-
icy analyses. Throughout the book, but especially in the later chapters,
we begin to place more emphasis on V2G in the context of socio-
technical studies, and additional theories are used such as diffusion of
innovation [16], the aforementioned MLP [25], the social construc-
tion of technology [26]. We use these theories with the understanding
that V2G is in the process of diffusing across society and to provide
more than just a snapshot of V2G—instead to show, understand,
reflect, and guide the potential development of V2G during a societal
transition.
Ultimately, we aim to show both the promise V2G has to offer, but to
temper that promise with likely problems that need to be addressed. We
test and validate numerous ideas, concepts, and even conceptual frame-
works about mobility, automobility, electric mobility, and prosuming as
we do so, given that V2G must compete and co-evolve with conventional
xl   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

and emerging mobility services and technologies. What results (we

hope) is a rich, multidimensional, multi-conceptual, multi-method, and
grounded approach that sparkles the pages to come with unique insights
not yet introduced by any other research project. We won’t profess that
our book alone will determine the future of V2G. But we certainly hope
to inform, debate, deliberate, and critically reflect on it.

References
1. Kempton W, Letendre SE. Electric vehicles as a new power source for elec-
tric utilities. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2(3):157–75.
2. Kempton W, Tomić J. Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: calculating
capacity and net revenue. J Power Sources. 2005;144(1):268–79.
3. Kempton W, Tomić J. Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: from stabi-
lizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. J Power Sources.
2005;144(1):280–94.
4. Zarazua de Rubens G. Who will buy EVs after early adopters? Using
machine learning to identify EV mainstream buyers and their characteris-
tics. Rev Energy. 2018.
5. Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF. 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. 2009;37(3):1095–103.
6. Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimiza-
tion of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and with-
out externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.
7. Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W.
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electro-
chemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power
Sources. 2013;225:60–74.
8. Lund H. The implementation of renewable energy systems: lessons learned
from the Danish case. Energy. 2010;35(10):4003–9.
9. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.
10. GOV.UK. £30 million investment in revolutionary V2G tech-
nologies [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 25]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/30-million-investment-in-
revolutionary-v2g-technologies.
 Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility   xli

11. May L. Pope Francis drives an electric car—Vatican to become the

1st zero-emission state [Internet]. The Mobility House. 2017 [cited
2018 Jun 28]. Available from: http://www.mobilityhouse.com/en/
pope-francis-drives-electric-car-vatican-become-1st-zero-emission-state/.
12. Després J, Mima S, Kitous A, Criqui P, Hadjsaid N, Noirot I. Storage as a
flexibility option in power systems with high shares of variable renewable
energy sources: a POLES-based analysis. Energy Econ. 2017;64:638–50.
13. Wentland A. Imagining and enacting the future of the German energy
transition: electric vehicles as grid infrastructure. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res.
2016;29(3):285–302.
14. Sovacool BK, Kester J, Noel L, de Rubens GZ. The demographics of
decarbonizing transport: the influence of gender, education, occupation,
age, and household size on electric mobility preferences in the Nordic
region. Glob Environ Change. 2018;52:86–100.
15. Noel L, Carrone AP, Jensen AF, Zarazua de Rubens G, Kester J, Sovacool
BK. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applica-
tions: a Nordic choice experiment. Rev Energy Econ. 2018.
16. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
551 p.
17. Beck LJ. V2G-101: a text about vehicle-to-grid, the technology which
enables a future of clean and efficient electric-powered transportation.
Newark, DE: Leonard Beck; 2009. 332 p.
18. Hughes TP. Networks of power: electrification in Western society,
1880–1930. In: Softshell Books, editor. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press; 1993. 474 p. (Softshell Books history of technology).
19. Hughes TP. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker WE,
Pinch TJ, editors. The social construction of technological systems: new
directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 1987. p. 52.
20. Geels FW. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a
multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn car-
riages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manag.
2005;17(4):445–76.
21. Geels FW. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: intro-
ducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr.
2012;24:471–82.
22. Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels FW, Loorbach D. Transitions to sustain-
able development: new directions in the study of long term transformative
xlii   Introduction: Vehicle-to-Grid and the Future of Electric Mobility

change. First issued in paperback. New York and London: Routledge;

2011. 397 p. (Routledge studies in sustainability transitions).
23. Geels FW. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems.
Res Policy. 2004;33(6–7):897–920.
24. Geels FW, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res
Policy. 2007;36(3):399–417.
25. Geels FW. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigura-
tion processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy.
2002;31(8–9):1257–74.
26. Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social con-
struction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol Cult.
1996;37(4):763.
 1
History, Definition, and Status of V2G

In this chapter, we start with the basics; defining what V2G is, the
technology behind it, and how it works, along with key terms such as
“aggregation,” “auditing,” and “metering”. We then move onto the con-
ceptualization of V2G and the other related, yet distinct, applications
of this technology and describe why these distinctions matter. Next,
we describe the history and current status of V2G implementation in
academia and in practice. Finally, we conclude by placing V2G in the
larger context, looking beyond the technology by defining the actors
and their roles in a V2G system.

1.1 Defining V2G

The idea of V2G, first formally introduced to our knowledge by Kempton
and Letendre [1], is relatively simple sounding—it merely stipulates using
the battery within an EV to provide storage for the electricity grid. EVs
are by default already connected to the grid when they recharge their bat-
tery; however, without V2G, they cannot return power back to the grid.
For this reason, several additions to the EV are needed, as well as develop-
ment of a V2G system, to enable bidirectional communication and power
© The Author(s) 2019 1
L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_1
2    
L. Noel et al.

flow between the EV and the power grid. Using the framework defined
by Kempton, among others, there are three key elements to a V2G sys-
tem: (1) a power connection to the electricity grid, (2) communication
that controls charging and discharging, such as an aggregator combining
a fleet of EVs, and (3) a means to audit the services rendered to the grid
[2–4]. Such a V2G system is commonly displayed as Fig. 1.1, and each of
these elements and the system will be explained below.

Fig. 1.1 Common schematic of a V2G system. Note ISO stands for Independent
System Operator. The figure shows two potential means of dispatching V2G
requests: from the ISO directly to a vehicle (shown in the upper right-hand cor-
ner), or from the ISO to a third-party aggregator of a fleet (shown in bottom
right-hand corner) (Reprinted from [5])

1.1.1 Incorporating V2G to the EV

In order to build a V2G system, the EV thus requires three things: a

specialized charger, power bidirectionality, and communication capac-
ity. Of course, in order to have a connection to the grid, the EV needs
to have a charger to which connect with. In this respect, there are sev-
eral important attributes of a charger, including its power capacity,
whether the charger is on-board the vehicle or off-board within the
charging station, and its communication and bidirectional capacities
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
3

[6]. Though V2G is possible with any power level, the power capacity
of the charger is important to the economics and aggregation of EVs.
Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), which supply electricity to
a charger on-board the EV, are commonly distinguished between three
levels: Level 1, typically using the lowest available power outlets, result-
ing in low power capacities, e.g., ~1–2 kilowatts (kWs), Level 2, which
uses higher power capacities ranging from 4 kW to around 20 kW, and
Level 3, also known as fast or quick chargers, which, unlike the previous
two levels, commonly uses direct current (DC) off-board chargers to
provide substantially higher power capacities, such as 50 kW and above
[6]. Since batteries require DC power in order to be charged, Level 1
and 2 chargers that use alternating current (AC) use an on-board power
inverter to convert delivered AC power into DC power to the battery.
While technically any of these charger levels would suit V2G, it is
widely expected that most of the V2G projects will likely occur with
Level 2 chargers, at least in the short term, given the balance between
sufficient power capacity and the more affordable cost of such charg-
ers for an average consumer at home or work [7]. On the other hand,
certain other V2G use cases, such as fleets [8] may be more likely to
use chargers closer to the Level 3 standard, especially as the cost of high
capacity chargers (both AC and DC versions) decrease in price.
Once the EV has established a power connection to the electricity
grid via some type of EVSE, the next step is for the EV to provide bidi-
rectional power and the capacity for communication. Neither of these
provide overwhelming technical or economic challenges, however, it is
important to note that, from the perspective of the EV, these are inte-
gral changes that need to be made at the design stage of the vehicle.
Bidirectionality of power simply requires that an EV can provide power
back through the EVSE onto the grid, which is essentially the same pro-
cess as charging the EV’s battery to drive, but now discharged onto the
grid. As an aside, unidirectional flow—also called managed charging,
V1G, or smart charging—requires only adding communication to the
EVSE and only controls the charging level. But since this has less value
as compared to V2G, we focus the rest of the book on bidirectional
power flows and V2G (while recognizing that smart charging may be a
“stepping stone” to V2G). Of course, the process of V2G requires that
4    
L. Noel et al.

not only the EV but also the EVSE are bidirectionally enabled. More
importantly, apart from the physical flow of power, it also requires a
communication pathway in order to direct the power flows.
From a vehicle perspective, the communication ability is most com-
monly manifested as a simple addition of another communication chip
on-board the vehicle. For example, some of the early projects use a com-
munication software component called a vehicle smart link (VSL), first
developed by University of Delaware for projects that include a variety
of different vehicle types such as converted Scion XB’s and Mini-E’s [9].
It is worth noting that communication technologies such as VSL are
quite expensive to design and develop, but once developed, actual con-
struction and inclusion of the chip is substantially cheaper, estimated to
be only a few hundred dollars. Despite the development and commer-
cial availability of VSL-type technologies, most EVs purchased today do
not currently include such V2G capability, with a few notable excep-
tions such as Nissan [8]. Nonetheless, a VSL is essential to the V2G sys-
tem by directing power flows in and out of the EV.
Once this capacity to control bidirectional power is in place, the next
step is a means to provide messages to the EV instructing it what power
flows the grid currently requires. As such, there needs to be a commu-
nication channel between the EVSE (which is connected to the inter-
net and receives the power flow instructions from a third party such as
an aggregator or utility) and the vehicle. Currently, there are a variety
of ways to enable this communication ability though, with competing
national and international standards of communication that vary slightly
in their implementation. For example, previous projects have used con-
trol pilot line communication specified in IEC 61851 Annex D, or power
line communication through Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) and
Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0), while future standards are contested
between ISO 15118, SAE J2847, among others [9–11]. Some of these
systems of communications are potentially better suited for different types
of V2G systems and services, and the adoption of these standards may be
essential to the diffusion of V2G services. However, for the time being,
the important aspect is that there are some means of communicating
through the charger. Furthermore, we will discuss the specific technical
aspects of the communication standards in greater detail in Chapter 3.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
5

1.1.2 Aggregation

With a bidirectional power connection and a means to receive commu-

nication signals, the EV itself is ready to participate in a V2G system.
This brings us to the next aspect of the V2G system, the aggregator,
often taking the form of a CPU system. As shown in Fig. 1.1, strictly
speaking, an aggregator is not essential to the technical functioning of
a V2G system. Instead, an individual EV could theoretically receive
communication signals directly from an electricity grid operator. In
practice, and to-date, V2G projects overwhelmingly rely on aggregators
to combine individual vehicles into a single resource to participate on
an electricity grid operator’s markets [8, 9]. The aggregator receives a
main signal from the electricity grid operator, and the aggregator sub-
sequently disseminates this signal to each individual vehicle within its
aggregated pool. Considering that EVs are not physically connected to
the grid (through the charging cable) at all times, the aggregator must
coordinate and estimate the number of EVs that are connected as well
as the available power that can be used for grid services required at par-
ticular times.
There are several reasons for why an aggregator is preferred instead
of a direct communication from the electricity grid operator to an indi-
vidual EV. First and foremost, many of the markets that V2G can make
the most economic value participating in (such as frequency regulation),
requires a minimum power capacity in order to participate. In many
cases, in order to bid on an ancillary services market, the minimum
bid is 100 kW, or worse yet, 1 megawatt (MW). As shown in our dis-
cussion of chargers above, if an individual V2G-capable EV is using a
Level 2 charger, a V2G system would require approximately 6–9 EVs
together to reach 100 kW, depending on actual power capacity of the
charger. On the other hand, a Level 3 charger would only require 1–2
V2G-capable EVs, though this would be a substantially more expen-
sive system (and still insufficient for markets with a minimum capacity
of 1 MW). Thus, an aggregator can offer a more economically efficient
means for a V2G system to participate on electricity grid markets by
creating a pool of V2G-capable EVs.
6    
L. Noel et al.

Beyond the technical and market required grouping capacity of

an aggregator, an aggregator with a fleet of V2G-capable EVs can
also offer stability and flexibility as a market participant through the
implementation of predictive and/or control algorithms. First and
foremost, an aggregator can optimize its aggregated capacity and
develop a control strategy that balances energy flows between differ-
ent vehicles and their driver’s needs and maximize revenues by choos-
ing to participate among the various electricity grid services, such as
frequency regulation [12]. Likewise, since EVs are also used for driv-
ing and charging, aggregator algorithms can use statistical predictions
in order to account for EV behavior patterns [13], thus optimizing
energy flows among vehicles (charging the vehicle that is about to
leave, but relying on others to discharge). Aggregators also have the
opportunity to learn from previous EV charging behavior in order
to predict the maximize available V2G resources during future mar-
ket participation [14]. There are many more other algorithmic con-
structions that have potential benefits to a V2G system, and as with
the technical details of V2G, we will similarly go into deeper detail
regarding aggregators in Chapter 3.
In short, aggregators provide many advantages and will play an
important role in the V2G system. Aggregators are the key connec-
tion between the grid and the vehicle, as they receive the power dis-
patch signal from the electricity operator, and then send the relevant
information to the V2G-capable EVs in the fleet. This process is sum-
marized in Fig. 1.2, though in practice, there can be slight variations
(such as where the central communication chip is located, either on
the EV or the EVSE). With the EV, the charger and the aggregator
in place, the first two elements of the V2G framework set out by
Kempton [2] can be satisfied, as there is a bidirectional power connec-
tion to the grid and several layers of communication throughout the
different levels shown in Fig. 1.2. Thus, with these elements in place,
V2G is possible and can provide the different services to the electricity
grid we discuss in the next subsection. But before we do so, the final
element of the V2G framework, auditability of the V2G systems will
be discussed.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
7

Fig. 1.2 Example communication diagram of a V2G System. The black line
represents communication flows, whereas the red line represents bidirectional
power flows (Source Authors, partially adapted from [5])

1.1.3 Auditing and Metering

The primary requirement for the third element of a V2G framework is a

precision meter [2, 4]. Since the fastest electricity markets require relia-
bility within the individual second-time frame, the meter needs to have
high precision and granularity. This level of energy metering, sometimes
referred to as Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), provides practi-
cally real-time data and information to the aggregator and the electric-
ity grid operator. Given this data, AMI can help improve grid quality,
ensure reliability of the V2G systems, and optimize the management of
the system [9].
But what exactly are meters (and AMI) actually measuring? In short,
as shown in Fig. 1.2, electricity grid operator is requesting power both
onto the grid and from the grid, and they require that the V2G sys-
tem, and the aggregator acting on its behalf, is actually doing the ser-
vice that is being requested. Among a variety of other attributes (such
as voltage, EV status, state-of-charge), the primary measurement will
be power consumption, typically both provided to the grid and drawn
from the grid, depending on the service provided, over time. An exam-
ple of the data from a precision meter being used is shown in Fig. 1.3.
In this figure, the power requested from the electricity grid operator and
the power response from the V2G-capable EV should closely correlate.
As one can tell from the slight discrepancy between the request and the
8    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 1.3 Example of example metered data providing reliability of grid services
over five minutes. The blue line (Request) is the amount of energy requested
from the electricity grid operator, while the red line (Response) is the energy
provided by the EV. Average time delay is between 1 and 3 seconds (Reprinted
from [11])

response, there will be limited amounts of lag between the request from
the electricity grid operator and the response from the EV, given the
time required to communicate. However, this will typically be limited
to a few seconds, and generally outperforms other older ancillary ser-
vice participants, which can sometimes take several minutes to respond
(though the market is changing quickly) [15].
As shown in Fig. 1.3, precision metering thus focuses on two aspects:
power capacity provided and accuracy over time. Essentially, this can be
seen as vertical (power) and horizontal (accuracy) matching of request
versus response, respectively. As we discuss below, V2G can provide a
variety of different types of services, where the power request from the
electricity grid operator varies significantly from what is shown in Fig. 1.3.
Nonetheless, authentication of the services provided by the V2G system
will be an important attribute throughout all of these services. Indeed, the
auditing and authentication of a V2G system’s capability to provide these
services will likely provide the basis for both their permitting process and
their regulated economic remuneration (e.g., see [16]). We will discuss the
regulatory implication of V2G systems further in Chapter 5.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
9

Finally, it is important to note that the typical ancillary service mar-

ket participant is not an aggregated pool of resources, and thus metering
is much simpler—each participant only needs one meter, typically one
that is approved and developed by the local utility. However, the meter-
ing a V2G system can be much more complex, as with any aggregated
resource, since it can be comprised of a fleet of tens if not thousands
(and perhaps one day, millions) of individual EVs. Requiring a costly
utility-grade precision meter per individual EV would be overly bur-
densome to a V2G system, especially since the EVSE will likely already
have a (non-utility) meter already installed to ensure reliability from the
aggregator’s perspective. Consequently, allowing the use of certified but
non-utility meter data, already in place in some regions, would allow for
easier aggregation and combination of resources [9]. Such a meter pol-
icy may prove indispensable as V2G fleets shift from the current tens of
vehicles to thousands of individual consumer vehicles.

1.1.4 V2G in Practice

In the above three sections, we have described the system that needs to
be developed in order to suffice the three elements of a V2G framework:
(1) bidirectional power connection to the grid, (2) communication
capability to control charging and discharging of the EV, and (3) preci-
sion metering to audit services provided to the grid [2]. With this V2G
system in place, an EV would be ready to provide V2G services to the
grid. It is important to note that V2G can be done by a variety of dif-
ferent vehicles, more than just the average consumer personal vehicle. In
fact, the concept of V2G can be incorporated to a myriad of other vehi-
cles, especially fleet vehicles such as vans [8], school buses [17], delivery
trucks [18], and other public services vehicles like garbage trucks and
city buses [19]. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that with the electrifica-
tion of other modes of transportation, such as motorcycles, boats, even
airplanes, the scope of V2G will likewise continue to grow. Nonetheless,
the primary focus will still likely be on personal vehicles, albeit not the
only one.
In addition, the sections so far highlight how the aggregator plays an
important role in the development of the system. Importantly, given
10    
L. Noel et al.

that much of the value of V2G is in markets that require substantial

capacities, the socioeconomic value of individual EVs depends on the
aggregation of resources to capture such benefits. And as the V2G
capacity increases, the flexibility of the aggregator to provide a variety
of grid services concomitantly increases. In the next section, we will dis-
cuss the flexibility and the potential grid services that a V2G aggregator
can provide.

1.2 V2G, Power Markets and Applications

A key aspect of V2G is, obviously, the grid. However, the grid itself is
quite complex, and a basic understanding of its structure is necessary
in order to understand how V2G can provide a benefit. To review, the
advantages of a V2G system are that it has high capacity at a low price,
has high availability, and can react quickly. On the other hand, the dis-
advantages of a V2G system are that, compared to other electricity mar-
ket participants, it has a more limited energy production capacity and
that the cost per unit of energy is comparatively higher. With this in
mind, we next look at typical electricity markets and then discuss how
V2G fits these markets.

1.2.1 Electricity Markets and V2G Suitability

Though electricity systems globally can vary from each other quite sig-
nificantly, there are many commonalities shared between them. We
summarize the three different generic markets, baseload, peak load, and
ancillary services in Fig. 1.4.
First, the most pertinent market for an electricity system would be
the baseload power market. In this market, wholesale energy is pro-
duced continuously, typically coming from large nuclear or coal power
plants that have low production costs and limited flexibility (though
hydro offers baseload but also has more flexibility). Given the continu-
ous energy demand, long-time frames of market participation, and very
competitive costs per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy, V2G has been
argued to a bad fit for this type of market [5].
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
11

Fig. 1.4 Example electricity markets and their suitability for V2G (Source Willett
Kempton, as based on discussion in [5])

Second, since electricity demand varies substantially throughout the

day, occasionally baseload power is insufficient to meet increasing elec-
tricity demand. At the same time, these peaks tend to occur only infre-
quently as these peaks can occur daily, weekly, or even less frequently,
depending on the size of the peak. As such, the characteristics of the
market participants active on day-ahead peak power markets differ sig-
nificantly from baseload power. Instead of low-cost and wholesale pro-
duction, peak power participants tend to have higher energy production
costs, but offer high flexibility and low technology capital costs, such
as gas turbines. To avoid scarcity pricing, these markets are sometimes
supplemented with capacity markets, wherein operators pay producers
to have idle capacity available at certain times. This helps ensure bet-
ter investment and planning for power capacity that is only occasionally
needed [20]. In relation to V2G, this is considered an acceptable (but
certainly not great) match with V2G, even though it has perhaps a too
strong focus in the literature [8]. Though peak power can be of high
value, it is infrequently used, and when used, is very energy intensive.
In other words, V2G participation runs the risk of draining the energy
from an EV’s battery, preventing EV owners from completing trips, or
12    
L. Noel et al.

when peak power is not used, the V2G system typically does not receive
any economic remuneration.
This brings us to the third type of market, that best matches up with
the attributes of V2G, ancillary services. Though different electricity mar-
kets have a variety of ancillary services, the most common are frequency
regulation and spinning reserves (both shown in Fig. 1.4). Compared
to the previous two electricity markets, both frequency regulation and
spinning reserves coincide better with V2G’s advantages, namely high
availability and a higher valuation of power over energy capacity. First,
spinning reserves, also known as synchronized reserves, is a market that
helps an electricity grid respond to unexpected outages or other con-
tingency events [21]. Power capacity is bought by the grid operator
throughout the entirety of the day with the participant always being avail-
able, and when needed, the participant must generally respond within
10–15 minutes [5, 21]. The capacity costs are highly amenable to V2G,
as EVs can provide capacity continuously due to their high availability
and fast response rate. However, because spinning reserves are used infre-
quently, and, more importantly, can drain batteries when used due to the
larger amount of energy required in such instances (e.g., a failing coal
plant), the overall fit for V2G is considered to be good, but not great.
Finally, this brings us to frequency regulation. Frequency regulation
goes by a variety of other names, such as automatic generation control
(AGC), frequency control, frequency containment reserves. As shown
in Fig. 1.4, the main idea behind frequency regulation is that grid qual-
ity and stability require a constant fine-tuning of the frequency of the
grid. Because actual power delivered can be either too much or too lit-
tle as compared to electricity consumed, frequency regulation requires
the participant to provide energy both to and from the grid, depending
on the ever-changing difference between generation and load around
standardized frequencies of 50 or 60 Hz. Consequently, the value
of frequency regulation to V2G is that it is continuously needed and
used, requires high power capacity but limited energy capacities, and
requires quick reactions, all of which coincide with the advantages of
V2G described above. As a result, frequency regulations is considered
the highest value service that V2G can participate in [5], at least for the
time being.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
13

Consequently, V2G is and will be inextricably tied to frequency reg-

ulation in early pilot projects [8, 9]. Frequency regulation also sheds
light on the V2G system which we described above in Sect. 1.1. The
communication signal coming from the electricity grid operator will be
a frequency regulation signal that is continuously changing every sec-
ond. In addition, because frequency regulation is a 24/7/365 market,
the aggregator must account for the availability of the V2G fleet over
time, to ensure that the capacity exists to follow the signal from elec-
tricity grid operator. In other markets, such as peak power, availability is
only required for a few hours and the aggregator in such a set up would
therefore only be concerned with the capacity during that time period.
Nonetheless, the V2G system participating in a frequency regulation
market requires a richer and more comprehensive information flow.
In addition to the ancillary services discussed above and depending
on characteristics specific to local grids, there are a variety of other ser-
vices commonly employed in electricity markets. These include services
such as non-spinning reserves (same as spinning reserve, but not syn-
chronized with the grid and basically offline), black-start capabilities,
reactive supply and voltage control and other energy imbalance services
(see, e.g. [21]). Moreover, since energy storage is relatively novel to the
electricity grid, a variety of other potential services that V2G could pro-
vide to integrate renewables or provide flexibility to local grids that do
not currently have markets [22]. In other words, when V2G becomes
a more mature technology, its impact, use, and business cases may
change. Indeed, many of the proponents of V2G are particularly hope-
ful that V2G can provide services beyond the ones that are currently
defined as we will discuss in the next section.

1.2.2 Long-Term Storage, Renewable

Energy, and Other Grid Applications

Though the central focus in the short term of V2G will likely be ancillary
services, the concept of V2G is often discussed in much broader terms.
Indeed, when reviewing the literature, the most common subject that
V2G research focuses on is its connection to renewable energy integration,
14    
L. Noel et al.

which was discussed twice as frequently as V2G’s participation in existing

electricity grid markets described above [8]. Though this academic con-
nection between V2G and renewable energy is well-developed, it has not
actually been put into practice for the reasons described above and the fact
that these types of markets do not exist (yet). From a conceptual perspec-
tive, therefore, using V2G to integrate renewable energy would likely be
slightly different than the conceptualization presented above.
In this respect, the main issue with the most common renewable
energy technologies, wind and solar energy, is that these have an inter-
mittent nature and are therefore not as controllable as conventional
electricity sources which creates energy-balancing issues. It is expected
that, as wind and solar energy become more common, the mismatch
between generation and electricity demand will increase and with it
there is an increased need of services to balance the different power mar-
kets described above. This can manifest itself in a variety of ways. First,
the increase in renewable energy can increase the need of ancillary ser-
vices, including frequency regulation [21], thus making V2G more val-
uable in the markets it already participates in.
On the other hand, as renewable energy becomes the primary source
of electricity in grids, the larger concern is more fundamental than
ancillary services: that is, the intermittency of renewable energy can
greatly decrease the predictability of matching generation and load,
sometimes requiring rapid backup generation when wind and solar gen-
eration unexpectedly decrease. Such lulls in renewable energy genera-
tion may last from minutes, hours to even days. When combined with
the times that there is over-generation of wind and solar, V2G is said
to be able to provide a cost-effective means of backup generation dur-
ing times of renewable electricity production shortfall [7, 23]. However,
such a service will likely be very different than how V2G operates in a
system performing frequency regulation services, as it will require sub-
stantially more EVs and energy capacity to provide long-term storage. A
market to incorporate this concept may resemble something similar to
the existing markets of spinning reserves or peak power, though it may
likely depend on the regulatory framework of the local electricity grid
and will evolve as the electricity system increases in renewable electricity
capacity and V2G capability.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
15

In addition to timescale, renewable energy integration and V2G also

depends on the geographic scope of the analysis as well. While much of
the research investigates the role of V2G integrating renewable energy
on large, regional electricity grid systems [7, 24–26], V2G can also help
integrate renewable energy on other scales, such as in microgrids. Similar
to the potential services V2G can provide for large-scale renewable
energy on a regional electricity grid, V2G can improve grid reliability and
provide long-term storage for microgrids that rely primarily on renew-
able energy [27–29]. We will discuss the benefits of V2G to renewable
energy in more detail in the next chapter, and the actual implementation
of V2G with regard to renewable energy integration remains to be seen.
In addition to renewable energy and longer-term storage, V2G can
also provide a variety of the grid services of which there are not devel-
oped as markets yet, particularly on a more local level. For example,
V2G can delay costly transformer upgrades, reduce line congestions
and voltage violations, improve power supply, and avoid critical situa-
tions [8, 22]. However, these local service markets do not exist and the
options to create them from a regulatory perspective are at best uncer-
tain, which we discuss further in Chapter 5.

1.2.3 Beyond the Grid: Other Concepts Related to V2G

The local and regional electricity grids are not the only things to which
a bidirectional vehicle can be pointed toward. Instead, many have con-
ceptualized various uses of a bidirectional vehicle, including by connect-
ing such a vehicle to homes (V2H), to buildings (V2B), to loads (V2L),
to anything (V2X). To many of the experts who are only partially aware
of V2G, the idea has been conflated with a variety of these other uses
and applications. While it is true that bidirectionality of an EV can pro-
vide a variety of new uses, which we summarize in Table 1.1, each of
the different concepts has specific use cases and their own benefits, and
while some overlap, the distinctions in use case and benefits are impor-
tant to understand individually in comparison to V2G.
Among all the various conceptualizations of a bidirectional capa-
ble vehicle, certainly, the most common in the literature is V2G, with
Table 1.1. Defining the different conceptualizations of use cases of a bidirectional vehicle
Concept Definitions Examples Primary benefits Exemplary citations
V2G Vehicle-to-grid: Using the – Frequency regulation, Highest economic value to [5, 7, 24, 30]
16    

vehicle to provide storage ancillary services EV owners can contribute

services on an electricity – Improve grid flexibility to decarbonization of elec-
grid market – Renewable energy storage tricity sector
V2H Vehicle-to-home: Likely – Independence from grid Backup power during [31–33]
L. Noel et al.

the second-most common – Integration of home solar blackouts or when grid

topic, using the vehicle to PV interconnection is overly
provide storage and power – Emergency backup power expensive, smooths home
to one’s home energy demand, higher
personal utilization of
solar PV
V2B Vehicle-to-Building: Using – Optimize building energy Buildings can reduce their [34–36]
the vehicle to provide consumption electricity costs by man-
power and energy to a – Demand side management aging both power and
building, decreasing use of – Reduce peak power energy demands through-
the electricity grid charges out the day, can also be
– Emergency backup power integrated with renewable
energy
V2L Vehicle-to-Load: Using the – Providing power at a con- Provides power to area [37–39]
vehicle as the sole energy struction site or hospital where electricity grid is dif-
production source to an – Providing power to elec- ficult or cost prohibitive to
isolated power load tric appliances, such as a connect to, or the power
power tools demand is temporary or
mobile
(continued)
Table 1.1. (continued)
Concept Definitions Examples Primary benefits Exemplary citations
V2V Vehicle-to-Vehicle: Using the – Using one vehicle to Can ensure vehicles have [31, 38, 40, 41]
vehicle to provide energy balance energy in other enough energy to make
to other vehicles vehicles trips, often while provid-
ing other services such as
V2B or V2G
V2C Vehicle-to-community: Using – Using fleets to create short Can increase resiliency and [42, 43]
the vehicle to provide and long-term storage on utilization of solar energy
storage for a local grid, to a local grid, often con- on a local level, helping
create a self-sufficient and nected to community solar integrate solar at low costs
1

resilient community
V2X Vehicle-to-X: Often used as – Can be any of the concepts – Can provide opportunity [38, 44]
a catch-all for any other above for novel uses for EV
imagined use other than – Using the EV to power owners, provide electricity
V2G, it has also been con- small mobile loads, such as in mobile situations where
ceptualized as using the telescopes electricity grid is unable to
EV’s power to provide to connect
mobile loads
History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
17
18    
L. Noel et al.

a wealth of literature focusing on the various aspects of EV grid inte-

gration. Other concepts, namely V2H and V2B, are also commonly
used, though not as much as V2G. Finally, the other concepts like V2L,
V2V, and V2C are less commonly (or rarely) used, while V2X is a con-
cept that is growing in popularity as it hints at the many new potential
uses. Nonetheless, these novel constructions of potential uses reflects
the interpretive flexibility of bidirectional EVs (i.e., that consumers can
interpret the technology differently, see [45]), as well as the innovation’s
wide problem-definition (i.e., that the problem that bidirectional EVs
are seeking to solve is not narrowly defined, see [46, 47]).
It is worth noting a few distinctions and similarities between these
various conceptualizations. Of course, there are some ready connec-
tions, such as the renewable energy integration theme that runs in var-
ious concepts, such as V2G, V2H, and V2C, though it depends on the
scope. Indeed, the idea of V2C and a V2G application to a microgrid
are essentially the same idea. Additionally, the use of a bidirectional
EV to provide mobile loads is shared in both constructions of V2L
and V2X. However, an important distinction is that V2G includes
the medium and high voltage electricity grid, whereas the other con-
ceptualizations focus on low voltage, local and behind-the-meter uses.
Moreover, the scale of V2G in terms of economic benefit and long-term
renewable energy integration is much larger [7], though the others are
perhaps more immediate. While many of the experts we interviewed
appeared to conflate V2H with V2G, V2G is likely to provide much
larger societal benefits. Thus, experts were perhaps underestimating
the potential benefits of V2G, underscoring the importance of under-
standing the distinctions between the various concepts presented in
Table 1.1.
That said, a consumer may be interested in one use case over another.
For example, a purely economic incentive would favor V2G, where
consumers are likely to get the most value out of their EV in partici-
pation of a frequency regulation market. Similarly, a consumer mostly
concerned about environmental impacts may be most motivated
to do V2G along with V2H, in order to help integrate the grid (and
their own) renewable energy. On the other hand, a consumer who is
concerned primarily with grid independence (likely for non-economic
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
19

reasons) may focus solely on V2H. Alternatively, a tinkerer may be

interested in the mobile applications of V2X. However, given the envi-
ronmental, socioeconomic advantages of V2G, its preponderance in
actual use and the academic literature, we focus primarily throughout
the book on V2G but will occasionally refer to these other conceptu-
alizations, especially as the sociotechnical barriers that V2G faces likely
are similar to the ones V2B, V2H, etc., will also face.

1.3 History and Development of EVs and V2G

Admittedly, the promise of EVs has been touted by supporters for dec-
ades, with even early advocates at the turn of the previous century dis-
cussing the benefits of electricity as a transport fuel. EVs, in contrast
to horses, bicycles, trains, steamers, and gasoline vehicles, held many
benefits, and became vehicles of choice in the early 1900s. Their quieter
operation enabled them to run in noise-restricted areas and more afflu-
ent neighborhoods. Many women also preferred push button electrics
as they did not require the shifting of gears or turning of hand cranks
to start [48, 49]. By 1905, Mom reminds us that “more than half of
all commercial vehicles in the United States were electric powered”
[50]. In short, EV proponents believed in technological optimism and
placed faith in human ingenuity to overcome lingering technical prob-
lems. Despite these high hopes, the use of EVs slowly declined and then
sharply dropped off, so much that by 1920 they constituted less than
2% of the overall market. Even the commercial sector slowly abandoned
them: In 1913, ten percent all commercial vehicles were electric pow-
ered but by 1925 the number had dropped to less than 3% [51].
A more recent wave of EV development was driven by motivations
about sustainability and aggressive policies in places such as Europe
and California. In the late 1980s, there was a general acknowledgment
among automobile manufacturers that EVs need not be confined to
the narrow markets of delivery vans, golf carts, and homemade cars
[52]. As one team of transport researchers predicted in the early 1990s,
“By the turn of the century, electric passenger vehicles could be viable
as second cars in multicar households … No longer does successful
20    
L. Noel et al.

commercialization depend on technical breakthroughs” [53]. General

Motors similarly declared that electric propulsion for passenger vehicles
was “suitable for mass production at affordable costs” [54]. As the IEEE
wrote, “The 1990s are likely to be the decade in which the long-sought
practical, economical electric vehicles will begin to be realized” [55].
However, despite such hype (and research expenditure), almost all of
those EV models failed to meet sales targets. EVs as a whole for passen-
ger transport had truly dismal sales and production figures, with major
European manufacturers Renault, Citroen, and Peugeot all selling only
100–200 models, to say nothing of General Motors losing roughly $1
billion on their endeavor promoting the EV-1 in the USA [56]. Indeed,
the collapse of EV markets in the mid-1990s may have even stigma-
tized electric mobility to the point where firms were overly reluctant
to reinvest in electric propulsion as a profitable strategy. EVs remained
confined to niche markets and a few large-scale demonstration projects
across Europe and the USA for most of that decade.
And thus enters the concept of V2G in the late 1990s, as a way to
reverse this trend and make EVs more viable. Though the introduction
of the concept of V2G was in 1997 [1], the first V2G-capable EV was
not developed until ten years later, where the University of Delaware
retrofitted a Scion xB into a V2G-capable EV, renamed the eBox in
2007 [9, 57]. Since then, there have been several pilot projects around
the globe.
However, many of these pilot projects, such as V2G/V2B pilot pro-
ject in Japan or a US Department of Defense pilot project at the Los
Angeles Air Force Base [8] showcase the technology but do not actually
provide services to an electricity grid market. Indeed, there have only
been a few examples of projects actually participating and making reve-
nue on an electricity grid market. The first example of which was also at
University of Delaware, when in addition to the original eBoxes, BMW
Mini-E were added to the fleet to provide frequency regulation in the
PJM Interconnection [58].
In addition, since that original pilot project, a variety of com-
panies have formed in order to perform V2G services on the grid.
Among these companies include: OVO Energy, which claims to have
the world’s first widely available V2G charger [59], Kisensum, which
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
21

conducted the L.A. Air Force Base project [9], among others. However,
the most successful V2G company thus far, in terms of actual projects
participating in V2G, has been Nuvve, which has developed the second
project actually participating on an electricity grid market in Denmark,
the first fully commercial V2G project [60]. Looking forward, Nuvve
has projects in development in San Diego, California [61], as well as the
first V2G project in Japan [62]. Finally, both Nuvve and OVO Energy
are expected to participate in the myriad of V2G projects in which the
UK government invested £30 million [63]. Nonetheless, outside of a
few scattered, comparatively small projects throughout the globe, V2G
remains within a niche market. Compared to the hundreds of academic
journal articles published within only the last few years [8], the actual
implementation of V2G lags behind its academic focus. Yet, at the same
time, V2G is also posed to potentially accelerate its diffusion across the
globe, to which only time will tell.

1.4 Actors and Roles of V2G

With the concept of V2G in place, we next describe the various actors
and their roles in a hypothetical V2G system. Building upon our discus-
sion above, there are several pertinent actors who play essential roles in
the V2G system, as well as more periphery network of secondary actors.
We summarize their interactions in Fig. 1.5, where we show the actors
in a hypothetical V2G system. Of course, actual V2G systems may dif-
fer depending on the local context and the actual service that is pro-
vided. We next briefly discuss the role of the primary and secondary
actors on the overall V2G system.

1.4.1 Primary Actors: EV Owners,

Aggregators, and the Electricity Grid

First, Fig. 1.5 shows three different primary actors in the V2G system,
each representing a part of the “V2G” abbreviation. First and foremost,
of course, is the EV owner. Intuitively, the EV owner of course plays
22    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 1.5 Diagram of actors in a hypothetical V2G system. Note that some of the
communication and power flows may differ depending on V2G service provided.
Partially based on [64]

a vital role in the V2G system, as they provide the “V”—the vehicle.
Beyond this, however, the role of the EV owner in most V2G systems
is relatively passive. Once the EV owner connects their vehicle to the
system, the EV owner no longer needs to actively participate in the sys-
tem—indeed, the only other role they play is to notify the aggregator
when they expect to leave, and most importantly, receive money for the
services their vehicle rendered. At the same time, the EV owner’s vehicle
is quite active in the process, as it communicates with the aggregator as
well as provides the actual power to the grid for whichever service they
provide, e.g., frequency regulation. Of the various roles in the system,
the EV owner’s role is the simplest, but they also determine the amount
of power capacity available and for how long it can be used, two of the
most vital attributes to increase the system’s economic value.
Next, the aggregator, which we discussed in detail above and which
has the role of balancing communication and power sent between
the grid and the vehicle or representing the “2” in V2G. The aggrega-
tor, likely operated by a third party (though in rare occasions may be
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
23

owned by the electricity grid operator) manages the systems in a variety

of ways. For example, the aggregator decides which electricity markets
to participate and when to do so, which may depend on the available
resources aggregated across EV owners. Once the aggregator has bid
into a certain market, the aggregator must then be capable of receiving
the communication signal for the services they agreed to provide from
the electricity grid operator. This signal then will be split across the fleet
of EVs as described previously in Sect. 1.1.2, with power flowing to and
from the electricity grid to the EVSE’s. During this process, the aggre-
gator must monitor the status of the services provided by the fleet to
ensure reliability.
Finally, the third primary actor is the electricity grid operator, rep-
resenting the “G” in V2G. Of course, the electricity system is quite
complex, but we have segregated this into two actors in Fig. 1.5. First is
the larger regional or national electricity grid operator, which is known
across regions and nations as either a transmission system operator
(TSO), an independent service operator (ISO), or a regional transmis-
sion organization (RTO). Whatever they are called, their primary role
on the electricity grid is transmission of large-scale electricity produc-
tion to demand areas through high voltage transmission lines, and bal-
ancing of generation and load, typically over large regional areas. These
are the organizations in charge of the ancillary services described above
and will be the entity that the aggregator actor will primarily interact
with. Depending on the status of the grid, the electricity grid operator
will purchase ancillary service capacity and subsequently send the signal
to all participants, including the aggregator.
The other grid operator is the local utility, also known as a distri-
bution system operator (DSO) or sometimes a distribution network
operator (DNO). The main purpose of these organizations is to receive
the electricity transmitted by a TSO or ISO and then distribute it to
end-users, such as industry or households. Though ancillary service
markets will typically be conducted at the TSO level, EVs must also
use the DSO network as EVs in the V2G system will be situated at the
end-use of electricity (i.e., houses, etc.) and therefore both impact and
interact with local grids. Thus, V2G systems provide energy through
the DSO network and often must be permitted to do so. In addition
24    
L. Noel et al.

as market mature, it is likely that V2G systems will provide services

directly to DSOs and help with balancing and congestion on local grids
[22].

1.4.2 Secondary Actors: Government,

the EV Industry, and Electricity Producers

Beyond these primary actors of the V2G system, there are a variety of
other important actors in the periphery to the main concept. Though
these are not necessarily active participants in the V2G system, they
nonetheless are vital in creating the space to allow V2G to contribute to
the grid, as well as potentially increase its value. One of the most impor-
tant secondary actors is the government and electricity market regula-
tors. Primarily because they can regulate storage markets and develop
the regulatory framework for aggregators to exist and participate on
electricity grid markets. Policymakers can also encourage TSOs and
DSOs to develop their own policies and regulations on storage. Beyond
creating a regulatory space for storage, these types of policies can also
determine things like the tax regulations on electric grid participants
or both consume and produce electricity. Such general tax settings will
determine the economic livelihood of V2G services. Finally, besides
offering direct support for storage options, government can also indi-
rectly encourage the development of storage by requiring more renewa-
ble energy sources. As discussed above, renewable electricity sources like
wind and solar will increase the need for energy storage, and decarbon-
ization policies, like a carbon tax, will make other ancillary service par-
ticipants like oil and natural gas less economically viable as compared to
V2G systems.
Another important secondary actor is the EV industry. Like govern-
mental actors, the EV industry does not participate in the operation of
the V2G system but they are important to the creation of bidirectional
vehicles. For example, automakers play an influential role in V2G sys-
tems by deciding whether or not to produce EVs (which government
actors may also help determine), and of those EVs, whether or not
they will be V2G-capable. Indeed, given the lack of EV models, and
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
25

the further lack of V2G-capable EVs, this is a major obstacle the dif-
fusion of V2G systems. Another group in the EV industry is the EVSE
or charger developers, as they also decide whether an EVSE system is
V2G-capable or not. Both the EV and the EVSE, built by different
industry actors within the EV sphere, must be developed with V2G in
mind. Thus, their primary role is enablers of V2G systems.
Finally, the third type of enabling actor we discuss is electricity
producers and sales companies. Electricity production is a key deter-
minant of the ancillary services required by the electricity grid opera-
tor. Moreover, renewable electricity developers may work in tandem
with the advent of V2G systems and other energy storage options to
ensure the reliability of the electricity grid. In smaller electricity grids,
or ones with higher load and generation variability, the development
of large-scale renewable energy may be dependent on the concomitant
development of V2G systems and other energy storage capacity. Thus,
renewable electricity production actors may play a role of supporter
of V2G system, both directly (such as lobbying for the development
of storage in the electricity market) and indirectly (since renewable
energy makes V2G services more valuable). Beyond these three second-
ary actors, it is worth noting that there may be other actors that could
potentially play a role in the development of the V2G system, such as
international standardization bodies (that set international and national
agreements on V2G standards) or non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) lobbying the government for more pro-environmental legisla-
tion. However, these are uncertain roles and are left out of Fig. 1.5 but
may be further developed in the future.

1.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have set out to define the basic definition, concep-
tualization, and implementation of V2G. In summary, V2G is a system
with aggregated EVs communicating with an electricity grid, providing
a variety of storage-based services. Though V2G can potentially provide
a variety of grid services, especially down the road as it diffuses across
society, the primary markets will be ancillary services, with frequency
26    
L. Noel et al.

regulation being the most valuable and therefore economically viable.

The chapter further discussed how V2G has been put into practice,
offered a short historical overview, and discussed the primary actors and
their roles in and behind the V2G system. Beyond V2G, we showed
that there is a plethora of other unique use cases for bidirectional vehi-
cles that are similar to V2G, such as V2H, V2B, and V2X. It is impor-
tant to be cognizant of the conceptual differences. These concepts are
sometimes conflated, despite the fact that V2G provides the largest eco-
nomic benefit to consumers as well as the largest environmental benefits
to society, which we discuss in further detail in the next chapter.

References
1. Kempton W, Letendre SE. Electric vehicles as a new power source for elec-
tric utilities. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2(3):157–75.
2. Tomić J, Kempton W. Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid sup-
port. J Power Sources. 2007;168(2):459–68.
3. Guille C, Gross G. A conceptual framework for the vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
implementation. Energy Policy. 2009;37(11):4379–90.
4. Sovacool BK, Axsen J, Kempton W. Tempering the promise of electric
mobility? A sociotechnical review and research agenda for vehicle-grid
integration (VGI) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G). Annu Rev Environ Resour
[Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 24]. Available from: http://www.annual-
reviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-030117-020220.
5. Kempton W, Tomić J. Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: calculating
capacity and net revenue. J Power Sources. 2005;144(1):268–79.
6. Yilmaz M, Krein PT. Review of battery charger topologies, charging power
levels, and infrastructure for plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. IEEE
Trans Power Electron. 2013;28(5):2151–69.
7. Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimiza-
tion of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and with-
out externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.
8. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
27

9. Markel T, Meintz A, Hardy K, Chen B, Bohn T, Smart J, et al. Multi-

lab EV smart grid integration requirements study [Internet]. Golden,
Colorado: NREL; 2015 May [cited 2016 May 22]. p. 91. Report No.:
NREL/TP-5400-63963. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy16osti/60958.pdf.
10. Kester J, Noel L, Lin X, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. The
coproduction of electric mobility: selectivity, conformity and fragmen-
tation in the sociotechnical acceptance of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) stand-
ards. J Clean Prod. 2019; 207: 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.018.
11. Martinenas S, Vandael S, Andersen PB, Christensen B. Standards for EV
charging and their usability for providing V2G services in the primary
reserve market.pdf. In: Montreal, Canada; 2016.
12. Han S, Han S, Sezaki K. Development of an optimal vehicle-to-
grid aggregator for frequency regulation. IEEE Trans Smart Grid.
2010;1(1):65–72.
13. Jang S, Han S, Han SH, Sezaki K. Optimal decision on contract size
for V2G aggregator regarding frequency regulation. In: IEEE; 2010
[cited 2018 Jul 4]. p. 54–62. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/5510464/.
14. Vandael S, Claessens B, Ernst D, Holvoet T, Deconinck G. Reinforcement
learning of heuristic EV fleet charging in a day-ahead electricity market.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2015;6(4):1795–805.
15. Marakov YV, Ma J, Lu S, Nguyen TB. Assessing the value of regulation
resources based on their time response characteristics [Internet]. Richland,
Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 2008 Jun [cited
2018 Jul 5]. p. 83. Report No.: PNNL-17632. Available from: https://
www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-
17632.pdf.
16. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Order No. 755 [Internet]. 137
FERC 61,604, Docket No. RM11-7-000, AD10-11-000 Oct 20, 2011.
Available from: https://www.ferc.gov/whatsnew/comm-meet/2011/
102011/E-28.pdf.
17. Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable elec-
tric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy.
2014;126:246–55.
18. Zhao Y, Noori M, Tatari O. Vehicle to grid regulation services of elec-
tric delivery trucks: economic and environmental benefit analysis. Appl
Energy. 2016;170:161–75.
28    
L. Noel et al.

19. Park D, Yoon S, Hwang E. Cost benefit analysis of public service elec-
tric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability. In: IEEE; 2016
[cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 234–39. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/7512954/.
20. Cramton P. Electricity market design. Oxf Rev Econ Policy.
2017;33(4):589–612.
21. Zhou Z, Levin T, Conzelmann G. Survey of U.S. ancillary services mar-
kets [Internet]. Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems
Analysis, Energy Systems Division,Argonne National Laboratory; 2016
Jan [cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 59. Report No.: ANL/ESD-16-1. Available from:
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2016/01/124217.pdf.
22. Knezovic K, Marinelli M, Codani P, Perez Y. Distribution grid services
and flexibility provision by electric vehicles: a review of options. In: IEEE;
2015 [cited 2017 Aug 18]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/document/7339931/.
23. Kempton W, Tomić J. Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: from stabi-
lizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. J Power Sources.
2005;144(1):280–94.
24. Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport
and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy. 2008;36(9):3578–87.
25. Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W.
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electro-
chemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power
Sources. 2013;225:60–74.
26. Noel L. The hidden economic benefits of large-scale renewable energy
deployment: integrating heat, electricity and vehicle systems. Energy Res
Soc Sci. 2017;26:54–59.
27. Díaz A, Ramos-Real F, Marrero G, Perez Y. Impact of electric vehi-
cles as distributed energy storage in isolated systems: the case of tenerife.
Sustainability. 2015;7(11):15152–78.
28. López MA, Martín S, Aguado JA, de la Torre S. V2G strategies for conges-
tion management in microgrids with high penetration of electric vehicles.
Electr Power Syst Res. 2013;104:28–34.
29. Ramirez-Diaz A, Ramos-Real FJ, Marrero GA. Complementarity of elec-
tric vehicles and pumped-hydro as energy storage in small isolated energy
systems: case of La Palma, Canary Islands. J Mod Power Syst Clean
Energy. 2016;4(4):604–14.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
29

30. Ota Y, Taniguchi H, Nakajima T, Liyanage KM, Baba J, Yokoyama A.

Autonomous distributed V2G (vehicle-to-grid) satisfying scheduled charg-
ing. IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2012;3(1):559–64.
31. Liu C, Chau KT, Wu D, Gao S. Opportunities and challenges of vehicle-
to-home, vehicle-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-grid technologies. Proc IEEE.
2013;101(11):2409–27.
32. Shin H, Baldick R. Plug-in electric vehicle to home (V2H) operation
under a grid outage. IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2017;8(4):2032–41.
33. Colmenar-Santos A, de Palacio-Rodriguez C, Rosales-Asensio E, Borge-
Diez D. Estimating the benefits of vehicle-to-home in islands: the case of
the Canary Islands. Energy. 2017;134:311–22.
34. Nguyen HK, Song JB. Optimal charging and discharging for multiple
PHEVs with demand side management in vehicle-to-building. J Commun
Netw. 2012;14(6):662–71.
35. Van Roy J, Leemput N, Geth F, Buscher J, Salenbien R, Driesen J. Electric
vehicle charging in an office building microgrid with distributed energy
resources. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy. 2014;5(4):1389–96.
36. Ioakimidis CS, Thomas D, Rycerski P, Genikomsakis KN. Peak shaving
and valley filling of power consumption profile in non-residential build-
ings using an electric vehicle parking lot. Energy. 2018;148:148–58.
37. Tuttle DP, Baldick R. The evolution of plug-in electric vehicle-grid interac-
tions. IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2012;3(1):500–5.
38. Thompson AW. Economic implications of lithium ion battery degradation
for vehicle-to-grid (V2X) services. J Power Sources. 2018;396:691–709.
39. Kinomura S, Kusafuka H, Kamichi K, Ono T. Development of vehicle
power connector equipped with outdoor power outlet using vehicle inlet
of plug-in hybrid vehicle. In: 2013 [cited 2018 Jul 6]. Available from:
http://papers.sae.org/2013-01-1442/.
40. Mohamed A, Salehi V, Ma T, Mohammed O. Real-time energy manage-
ment algorithm for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging parks involving
sustainable energy. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy. 2014;5(2):577–86.
41. Koufakis A-M, Rigas ES, Bassiliades N, Ramchurn SD. Towards an opti-
mal EV charging scheduling scheme with V2G and V2V energy transfer.
In: IEEE; 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 6]. p. 302–7. Available from: http://ieeex-
plore.ieee.org/document/7778778/.
42. Yamagata Y, Seya H, Kuroda S. Energy resilient smart community: sharing
green electricity using V2C technology. Energy Procedia. 2014;61:84–87.
30    
L. Noel et al.

43. Yamagata Y, Murakami D, Minami K, Arizumi N, Kuroda S, Tanjo T,

et al. Electricity self-sufficient community clustering for energy resilience.
Energies. 2016;9(7):543.
44. Andersen PB, Marinelli M, Olesen OJ, Andersen CA, Poilasne G,
Christensen B, et al. The Nikola project intelligent electric vehicle integra-
tion. In: IEEE; 2014 [cited 2016 May 23]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=7028765.
45. Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social con-
struction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol Cult.
1996;37(4):763.
46. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
p. 551.
47. Rice RE, Rogers EM. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge.
1980;1(4):499–514.
48. Why Volti R. Why internal combustion. Inven Technol. 1990;6(2):42–47.
49. Franz K. Tinkering: consumers reinvent the early automobile.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2011.
50. Mom G. The electric vehicle: technology and expectations in the automo-
bile age. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. p. 423.
51. D’Agostino S. The electric car: a historical survey on the motives driving
its existence. Inst Electr Electron Eng Potentials. 1993;1993:28–32.
52. Cowan R, Hultén S. Escaping lock-in: the case of the electric vehicle.
Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1996;53(1):61–79.
53. DeLuchi M, Wang Q, Sperling D. Electric vehicles: performance, life-cy-
cle costs, emissions, and recharging requirements. Transp Res Part Gen.
1989;23(3):255–78.
54. Rajashekara K. History of electric vehicles in general motors. In: IEEE;
1993 [cited 2018 Aug 7]. p. 447–54. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/document/298962/.
55. Chan CC. Present status and future trends of electric vehicles. In: 1993
2nd International Conference on Advances in Power System Control,
Operation and Management; 1993. p. 456–69.
56. Dijk M, Yarime M. The emergence of hybrid-electric cars: innovation path
creation through co-evolution of supply and demand. Technol Forecast
Soc Change. 2010;77(8):1371–90.
57. Fehrenbacher K. The father of vehicle-to-grid charges toward commercial-
ization [Internet]. Gigaom.com; 2010 [cited 2018 Jul 5]. Available from:
https://gigaom.com/2010/05/13/from-research-to-reality-using-electric-
vehicles-to-regulate-the-grid/.
 1 History, Definition, and Status of V2G    
31

58. Fitzgerald M. Electric vehicles sell power back to the grid. Wall Str J
[Internet]. 2014 Sep 28 [cited 2018 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.
wsj.com/articles/electric-vehicles-sell-power-back-to-the-grid-1411937796.
59. Field K. OVO energy drops 4 product Bombshells, including new vehi-
cle-to-grid charger. CleanTechnica [Internet]. 2018 Apr 19. Available
from: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/19/ovo-energy-drops-4-product-
bombshells-including-new-vehicle-to-grid-charger/.
60. Nuvve. Nuvve operate world’s first fully commercial vehicle-to-grid hub
in Denmark [Internet]. Nuvve: Western Europe; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 7].
Available from: http://nuvve.com/portfolio/nissan-enel-and-nuvve-oper-
ate-worlds-first-fully-commercial-vehicle-to-grid-hub-in-denmark/.
61. Margoni L. Nuvve and UC San Diego to demonstrate vehicle-to-grid
technology through energy commission grant [Internet]. UC San Diego
News Center; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 7]. Available from: https://ucsd-
news.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/nuvve_and_uc_san_diego_to_demonstrate_
vehicle_to_grid_technology.
62. Nuvve. First V2G project defined for Japan [Internet]. Nuvve Corp;
2018 [cited 2018 Jul 7]. Available from: http://nuvve.com/2018/06/
first-v2g-project-defined-for-japan/.
63. GOV.UK. £30 million investment in revolutionary V2G technolo-
gies [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.
gov.uk/government/news/30-million-investment-in-revolutionary-v2g-
technologies.
64. O’Rielly T. Adopiton of vehicle-to-grid in South Australia [Internet].
Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 7]. Available
from: https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/267987414/Adoption_of_
Vehicle_to_Grid__in_South_Australia___Tom_ORielly___Final.pdf.
 2
The Potential Benefits of V2G

One of the main reasons that V2G is enticing as a technology is that

it potentially represents a scenario where all parties involved benefit. In
this chapter, we go over the variety of potential benefits that V2G can
offer EV owners, the grid, and society at large. We first move through
categorizing the benefits of V2G in specific topics, and how these bene-
fit the different actors described in Chapter 1. After defining the various
benefits, the chapter then turns to how these benefits can be captured,
especially as V2G as a technology moves from a select few fleets in pilot
projects to personal and public vehicles in wider society. In addition,
as the grid becomes smarter and more encompassing we next postulate
how V2G can and will interact with the grid.

2.1 Summarizing the Benefits of V2G

The benefits of V2G are quite wide in scope and, given its niche sta-
tus, are not completely defined yet. Nonetheless, in this section we
summarize the benefits of V2G into three main themes, which coin-
cide with different dimensions of a sociotechnical system: technical,

© The Author(s) 2019 33

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_2
34    
L. Noel et al.

economic, and environmental. Additionally, these benefits impact dif-

ferent actors and levels of society differently, which we discuss within
each subsequent subsection. Beyond these three central themes, we also
acknowledge the wide variety of other potential benefits that V2G, and
the related concepts described in the previous chapter such as V2X or
V2H, can also provide. However, these should still be put in context
that the three other themes of benefits are larger and more beneficial to
society.
Before moving onto the actual benefits, throughout this section (as
well as other portions of the book) it is important to reiterate the inter-
connectedness of the concept of V2G to EVs themselves. Obviously,
since EVs are antecedent to V2G, the benefits of V2G could be seen as
a subset of the benefits of EVs. Conversely, though, V2G can be con-
strued as a means to increase the adoption of EVs, i.e., the additional
financial benefits of V2G will encourage more consumers to choose
EVs. In this sense, V2G may also help “unlock” the benefits that EVs
can offer society, so with this in mind our discussions below demar-
cate both benefits that V2G can directly contribute to, as well as indi-
rectly contribute to, through the increased adoption of EVs. While it is
important to recognize both of these potential benefits in order to fully
contextualize the benefits of V2G, readers making their way through
this chapter should also be careful to understand the distinctions
between V2G’s direct and indirect benefits.
Finally, this section describes a wide variety of benefits which can be
described in another two ways. That is, many of the benefits are pres-
ently available, whereas others are expected to occur down the road,
depending on the circumstances in the future energy and transporta-
tion system. We discuss these potential developments in the final chap-
ter, but it is also important to understand the temporal aspects of these
benefits. For example, economic benefits to EV owners participating in
frequency regulation are readily available in most areas, but the decar-
bonization of the electricity grid is likely to occur over both a short- and
long-term time frame. This temporal distinction matters, as some of
the V2G benefits are antecedent on other aspects in the sociotechnical
system.
Table 2.1 Technical attributes of various storage technologies, using the USA as an example. Ranges indicate difference
in cost depending on technology or system used. Data based on [1–5]
Storage Cost of storage Response Round-trip Cost to match Other notes
technology $/kW $/kWh time efficiency U.S. V2G
(%) capacity ($bn)
V2G 0 0–40 A few 70–85 N/A By far the cheapest system,
seconds diffusion process long
and complex, depends on
consumers
Hydrogen 1500–3200 260–540 Seconds to 40 $6200 Lowest efficiency and high
minutes capacity costs
Purpose-built 1100–2500 500–800 A few 70–90 $7020 Without secondary use,
batteries seconds battery energy capacity is
very high cost
2

Flywheels 870 4800 A few 94 $41,200 Highly efficient but cost lim-
seconds its overall energy capacity,
preferred for short-term
storage
Power-to-gas 850 N/A Seconds to 50 $2300 Low efficiency, gas infra-
minutes structure must preexist,
contributes to gas-related
emissions
Compressed air 900–1300 40–109 9–12 minutes 70–90 $2800 Dependent on local geology
energy storage to compress air into,
proven technology
Pumped 1400 68 A few 70–82 $4300 Most prevalent storage, but
hydroelectric seconds to geographically dependent,
minutes environmental implications
The Potential Benefits of V2G    

Note Round-trip efficiency is the amount of energy that is retained after energy is put into the storage system and subse-
35

quently retrieved, expressed as a percentage

36    
L. Noel et al.

2.1.1 Technical Benefits: Storage Superiority

and Grid Efficiency

First, the primary benefit V2G offers is its technical benefits to the
power grid through storage, since V2G is comparatively low cost, has a
high potential power capacity, and can react quickly, and thereby is able
to serve different types of power markets. But, to completely understand
the benefit that V2G offers to the grid, it should be placed in the con-
text of other commonly used energy storage options. Here in Table 2.1,
we compare the technical attributes of V2G to other commonly dis-
cussed forms of electricity storage.
The technologies presented in Table 2.1 all have their own benefits
and downsides. While some may be preferred for specific roles, such
as flywheels for short-term ancillary service storage or compressed air
energy storage for large-term renewable energy storage, here we argue
that V2G offers the most valuable storage overall. Clearly, V2G’s most
substantial benefit is that, in theory, it can be “free” if EV owners agree
to use the already existing storage and power capacity in the EVs for
V2G (though some include a cost for battery degradation, hence the
upper limit of $40/kWh). In addition, assuming per-car averages of a
10 kW charger and a 30 kWh battery, the total capacity of the US vehi-
cle fleet would be 2.7 terawatts (TW) of power and 8.1 TWh of energy
[6]. This capacity is substantial compared to the existing US electricity
capacity, which is just over 1 TW [7]. In short, if the entire US vehicle
fleet converted to V2G-capable EVs, it would be a substantial resource
for storage to the electricity grid. Of course, the same capacity can be
built in the form of any of the other storage technologies in Table 2.1
(perhaps other than pumped hydroelectric), but this would also come
at a significantly higher cost. For example, in the best case, the V2G
system essentially is available for free, whereas Table 2.1 shows that this
same capacity (using the lowest cost range for each technology) would
cost trillions of dollars if constructed with the other technology systems.
In addition to the potential cost-effectiveness of V2G technology,
there are several other technical advantages compared to its alterna-
tives. V2G has a fast response time and relatively high efficiency, while
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
37

many of the alternatives have only one or the other (e.g., hydrogen is
fast responding, but inefficient, and compressed air energy storage has
high efficiency but takes several minutes to respond). In addition, it is
expected that charger efficiency can be improved, making V2G even
more amenable [4].
Of course, V2G isn’t the perfect solution (if it were, it is likely we
would not need to write this book). There are several disadvantages of
V2G compared to the other technologies in Table 2.1, which may post
obstacles in the future development of V2G systems. First, the most
significant challenge is that, unlike the other technologies, the devel-
opment of V2G systems depends almost entirely on end-use consum-
ers’ decision to adopt a V2G-capable EV and agree to participate in
an aggregator’s V2G system. As an example, if a hypothetical electric
grid operator required 1000 MW of storage, V2G would be the cheap
option, but also would require convincing roughly 100,000 individual
consumers or several hundred vehicle fleet operators in their electrical
grid region to participate in a V2G program, which would likely take
a long time to implement and potentially face consumer resistance.
Alternatively, a grid operator could convince one industry actor to
construct pumped hydroelectric or a centralized, purpose-built battery
plant, both of which could be finished within a few years and not rely
on consumer decisions.
Secondly, in its current form, batteries in general are best suited for
shorter-term storage, especially depending on the overall system capac-
ity. Hence current V2G pilot projects focus on services that require
seconds to minutes worth of storage time [8, 9], but future storage mar-
kets like renewable energy integration may require storage time of days
to weeks. While the latter three examples in Table 2.1 (power-to-gas,
compressed air energy storage, and pumped hydroelectric) are already
suitable for such long-term storage, V2G systems would likely require
substantially higher capacities before it can meaningfully participate in
such markets.
If the storage-related barrier discussed above is resolved, then V2G
(or storage in general) can offer the grid a variety of technical advan-
tages. For example, Eyer and Corey [10] found 17 general benefits that
storage could provide the grid. Briefly, some of these benefits include
38    
L. Noel et al.

improved power quality, voltage support, transmission congestion

relief, energy demand shifting, increased electricity reliability, and wind
and solar integration. As V2G capacity increases, it is expected that a
V2G system can provide a variety of these services all at the same time.
However, the most alluring economically are the ancillary services such
as the frequency regulation market (as discussed in Chapter 1), and
the most alluring societally is likely to be renewable energy integra-
tion. While we focus primarily on these two benefits, we recognize that
there are a plethora of secondary benefits V2G systems could provide to
improve grid operation. In addition to making the grid technically more
efficient, these benefits can also provide economic benefits to both the
EV owner and society, which we discuss next.

2.1.2 Economic Benefits:

EV Owners and Societal Savings

More pertinently, V2G can produce economic savings on a variety of

scales and a variety of actors, such as individual EV owners, grid oper-
ators, and society as a whole. However, the perspectives are slightly
different for each of them. For consumers, V2G can open up new rev-
enue sources, whereas for grid operators and society, V2G can provide
a cheaper alternative to current market participants. We will show this
below, first by calculating potential V2G revenues in ancillary service
markets and then by discussing how these benefits can make the grid
more cost-effective.
From the perspective of the consumer, the primary means of eco-
nomic benefits are remuneration from participating in ancillary markets
services. As we discussed in Chapter 1, the primary and most valuable
ancillary services market in which V2G currently participates in is fre-
quency regulation. However, we have not yet discussed the specifics of
how consumers are compensated for frequency regulation participa-
tion. In short, the value of frequency regulation is primarily the power
capacity, meaning that compensation is generally given for each mega-
watt (MW) of power capacity over the period of an hour, in line with
Eq. 2.1. After the service is provided over that hour, the participants are
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
39

then also compensated for the energy, i.e., megawatt-hour (MWh). For
simplicity’s sake, however, we ignore this aspect in Eq. 2.1 as the remu-
neration for the actual energy delivered tends to be of substantially less
value than the capacity itself. Many of the other services that V2G may
provide in the future, such as spinning reserves, will likely have com-
pensation schemes of similar structure.
R = PrFREQ × PMW × A (2.1)
Equation 2.1. Calculating the Annual Revenue of Frequency Regulation
Participation, where R = Annual Revenues, PrFREQ = Frequency reg-
ulation price (in $/MW-h), PMW =  power capacity (in MW), and
A = Availability to provide V2G (in hours).
Using Eq. 2.1, we can calculate an example of how much frequency
regulation participation could benefit an EV owner. Let us assume that
a Nissan Leaf owner in the PJM Interconnection (the largest electricity
grid in the world, operating roughly from Chicago to New Jersey) can
participate in frequency regulation using their home charger. Assuming
use of some kind of Level 2 charger (see Chapter 1), let us assume
that the capacity for this Nissan Leaf owner is 10 kilowatts (kW), or
0.01 MW. Next, acknowledging that there would be additional revenue
if there was also a work charger, we assume that the EV is available to
provide V2G services only at home, for 15 hours during weekdays and
23 hours during weekends [11], adding up to about 6300 hours per
year (~72% of the time). Finally, the average price (as of May 2018)
for frequency regulation in PJM was $34 per MW-h [12]. Multiplying
these out, per Eq. 2.1, the annual revenue that our hypothetical Nissan
Leaf owner can earn is $2140 (though a portion of this revenue would
in reality likely go to an aggregator). Adding a V2G-capable charger at
work increases this annual revenue by about $600/year, which may be
cost-effective for our hypothetical Nissan Leaf owner to invest in.
Thus, depending on the time frame, V2G revenues can add up to
tens of thousands of dollars over the life span of a vehicle. For example,
the 2018 Nissan Leaf costs a consumer in the USA as low as $22,490
after federal tax rebates [13]. In theory, it would take only 10.5 years
for an owner to recapture that value in V2G revenues (not accounting
for other benefits of EV ownership, like reduced fuel costs). At the same
40    
L. Noel et al.

time, it is important to note that frequency regulation prices are highly

variable over time and electricity grids. Figure 2.1 shows the total reve-
nues of a V2G owner providing frequency regulation over 16 years in
the five electricity grid operators in the USA, where total revenues can
range from just under $20,000 to over $45,000 [14].
Of course, these revenues rely on the three factors in Eq. 2.1: frequency
regulation price, power capacity, and EV availability. Frequency regulation
price may vary significantly over time, hence the relatively large error bars
in Fig. 2.1. At the same time, power capacity and EV fleet availability can
be increased, which both will increase the revenue potential. In a previous
study, we have found that power capacity and variations in frequency reg-
ulation price are the most pertinent variables in overall revenue of V2G
[15]. Either way, and depending on the time frame, the potential of V2G
to reduce the cost of ownership over the life span of the vehicle could be
quite enormous.
Moving onto whether these revenues can incentivize further EV
adoption, it is important to note that these revenue calculations have

Fig. 2.1 Revenues over a 16-year period providing frequency regulation in US

electricity grid regions. ISO-NE ISO-New England, NYISO New York ISO, ERCOT
Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, CAISO California ISO (Reprinted from [14])
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
41

not been discounted to their net present value (NPV). Briefly, for those
unfamiliar, discounting is an economic concept that computes future
costs and benefits to their value in the present. Essentially, the main idea
is that $100 today is worth more than $100 one year from now. The
amount discounted, known as a discount rate, depends on its use, but
in economic analyses, typically ranges from 3 to 7% [15, 16]. Applying
a discount rate of 5% to V2G revenues, we can calculate that in our
example above, the NPV of V2G to our hypothetical Nissan Leaf owner
over 16 years would be $23,000 (whereas undiscounted it would be
$34,000). Still, when discounted, the potential revenues of V2G are
quite substantial, even in comparison with the capital cost of the EV.
Unfortunately, one of the main issues with technologies like V2G
or fuel efficiency, as well as energy efficiency problems in general, is
that consumers tend to greatly discount future costs and savings, well
beyond typical discount rates. Known as an implied discount rate, con-
sumers have been shown to discount future benefits and savings by as
much as 15% [17, 18]. Applying such a discount rate to our exam-
ple above reduces the benefit nearly in half, resulting in an NPV of
$12,800. While still substantial, consumer implied discount rates would
clearly influence the valuation of V2G. Thus, the use of V2G revenues
to incentivize EV adoption may very well depend on how consumers
view the technology’s benefits, and how they calculate future savings.
In addition, the lack of business models, V2G-capable EV models, as
well as other social barriers to EV diffusion could limit the possibility of
V2G revenues incentivizing EV adoption in the short term. We discuss
these potential barriers further in Chapters 4 and 6.
In the meantime, beyond consumers, the benefit of frequency reg-
ulation market revenues is even more compelling to other types of EV
owners and users. As is the case currently with pilot projects [8, 9],
V2G revenues may be especially enticing to fleet managers, who tend
to be more cost-sensitive than consumers, can be more easily aggregated
than individual consumers, and can more easily integrate EVs (model
availability, less range limitations, trips already scheduled). In some
cases, V2G capability has successfully incentivized the adoption of EVs
in fleets, and in the short term will likely incentivize marginal EV adop-
tion in fleets next in a variety of uses, such as vans, buses, even garbage
42    
L. Noel et al.

trucks [15, 19, 20]. While V2G revenues can more easily be integrated
into fleet EVs, they may act as a short-term bridge to the wider mar-
ket of private consumers. In this thread, one can construe fleets as small
market niche, or a “protected space” where V2G can develop before
moving onto the regime or landscape levels [21].
Beyond the economic benefit of providing a new revenue stream for
EV owners, V2G can also increase the cost-effectiveness of ancillary
services, which reduces expenses for grid operators and society overall.
For example, in the USA, it is estimated that the frequency regulation
market alone costs approximately $400 million per year, and spinning
reserve markets cost another $200 million per year [22]. Given the lim-
ited operating costs of a V2G system, which is essentially zero once the
system has already been developed, increasing V2G capacity can greatly
reduce these costs, saving grid operators (and thus electricity payers)
potentially hundreds of millions of dollars per year. At the same time,
the assumption that V2G can greatly reduce the cost of ancillary ser-
vices benefits society, but also entails a decreasing revenue stream for EV
owners as more V2G capacity is added to the system, reducing cost and
pushing overall revenue downward. Thus, in the long term, the opening
of new markets (such as DSO services or renewable energy integration)
may be key to maintaining the revenue potential of V2G.
Nonetheless, V2G can greatly reduce electricity grid costs, especially
in the ancillary service market. Moving toward the future, it is likely
that V2G can help reduce grid operating costs in other ways as well,
though those ways have not yet been monetized [23]. For example, as
often discussed, V2G is a cost optimum way of integrating renewable
energy, especially compared to other storage options, as we showed in
Table 2.1. Previous work focusing on high-penetration renewable sce-
narios in the PJM electricity grid has found that compared to other
storage options, V2G can save $419 billion over a 25-year time frame,
or approximately $24 billion per year [2]. Once society chooses to com-
mit to large-scale renewable energy development, V2G can save society
billions of dollars per year providing storage in a variety of scales and
contexts—from improving ancillary services, local utility storage, to
renewable energy integration.
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
43

As such, V2G can make the EV sociotechnical system even more

alluring from a socioeconomic perspective. In addition to the hun-
dreds of millions, or even billions of dollars that V2G can save directly
in electricity grid operation annually, if it incentivizes further EV adop-
tion, then indirectly society can gain another set of socioeconomic ben-
efits, the chief one being reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Assuming
a full transition from the current system to EVs, societal expenditure
on fuel and maintenance is expected to likewise decrease substantially.
For example, the USA consumes 142.8 billion gallons of motor gaso-
line, costing an average of $2.33 per gallon in 2017 [24], resulting in a
total fuel cost of $332 billion dollars per year. If these same vehicles had
travelled using EVs, using average electricity costs [7], the approximate
cost would be about $95 billion. So, in addition to the grid efficiency
savings from V2G, EVs can offer additional socioeconomic savings in
the hundreds of billions annually. To the extent that V2G can indirectly
incentivize the further adoption for EVs, the total socioeconomic value
of V2G can be quite expansive, anywhere from hundreds of millions
per year to hundreds of billions. Clearly, if properly implemented, a
V2G-EV sociotechnical system can offer substantial economic benefits
to both consumers and society as a whole.

2.1.3 Environment and Health Benefits:

Sustainability in Electricity and Transport

Thirdly, in addition to economic benefits, V2G also provides other soci-

etal benefits through reductions in environmental and health damages
in both the electricity and transportation sectors. Looking at the elec-
tricity sector first, the environmental and health benefits can be divided
into two main prongs: displacing current ancillary service market partic-
ipants and large-scale renewable energy integration.
Before quantifying the extent of these benefits, let’s first briefly review
how the existing system damages the environment and current electric-
ity generators, namely coal and natural gas, generate emissions during
the production process that causes damages to the environment and
public health. The relevant emissions include climate change-causing
44    
L. Noel et al.

gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, as well as those related to

health-damaging particulate matter (PM), including nitrogen oxides
and sulfur oxides (NOx and SOx). While climate change damages are
self-explanatory, gaseous emissions can cause health damages by directly
emitting PM, or by emitting NOx and SOx, which subsequently turn
into PM. The most damaging is PM that is under 2.5 microns in diam-
eter, known as PM2.5, as these can bypass the filtration system of the
lungs and cause cardiopulmonary diseases, and premature deaths
[25–29]. In addition to the gaseous emissions, electricity production
also causes a wide variety of other impacts, such as impacts to wildlife,
land use, and water resources [30, 31].
In order to understand the trade-offs of electricity production and
potential alternatives, one avenue is to monetize the climate change and
public health damages of electricity production.1 However, the pro-
cess of doing so is quite complex, as the main things being damaged
by climate change and public health emissions, the entire planet’s envi-
ronment and human lives, respectively, are necessarily difficult to value
properly Still, in order to give some context to our findings below, we
briefly describe how these damages are monetized in the literature (in
equivalent MWh of production), by looking at the cost estimates of the
damages of respectively CO2 and health-related emissions.
First, climate change damages are estimated over the time frame of
several hundred years in integrated assessment models (IAMs) that
attempt to capture the full damage of unabated climate change, and
then discount the value into a NPV, typically in dollars per ton of CO2
[16, 32]. This estimate, called a social cost of carbon, relies on several
key aspects, including the type of damages that are included, the relative
risks of climate-related catastrophes, and the discount rate used, among
other variables [33]. Since valuation of planetary devastation can be
difficult, studies have produced a wide variety of estimates of the social
cost of carbon, anywhere from $10 per ton to several tens of thousands
[34, 35]. However, the US government uses a method that takes

1It is worth noting that wildlife and water damages, despite being substantial impacts on the envi-

ronment, have not been monetized and would likely be very high in costs if they were [30].
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
45

averages from a variety of modeling methods and concludes an aver-

age of just about $50/ton of CO2, which we use in our monetization
throughout this book [16, 32]. Thus, to estimate the economic impact
avoided by V2G, one can multiply this social cost of carbon by the car-
bon emissions that were avoided from coal and natural gas. Using aver-
age carbon intensities and 2016 production rates (the most recent year
available) [7], coal and gas climate change damages amounted a total of
$94 per MWh per year from these two sources totaling to $62 billion
and $32 billion, respectively.
Secondly, the exposure of particulate matter to the public causes a
variety of negative consequences, such as lung cancer, asthma, and other
cardiopulmonary diseases, resulting in increased sickness and premature
death [25, 26]. From an economic perspective, increased sickness leads
to reduced productivity, while the valuation of premature death is even
harder and based on statistical estimates. Specifically, in order to esti-
mate the cost of loss of life, economists use a metric termed the value
of a statistical life (VSL), which is generated based on the valuation of
increased risk of death and used by policymakers to estimate benefits
of lifesaving technology [36]. However, since exposure, and thus dam-
ages, is dependent on geographic factors as well as the direction of the
wind carrying the particulate matter and the impacted population den-
sity, a universal cost estimate of emissions is difficult. Instead, air quality
modeling is typically utilized to estimate these damages from electricity
production, which are then monetized and divided by total energy pro-
duction per generation type [27, 28]. For example, coal-related health
damages in the USA have been found to range from $0.02 to $1.57
per kWh [27] (the average being $0.14/kWh), while natural gas has
been found to have damages about half the costs of coal, roughly $0.05/
kWh [28]. Applying these average health damage costs to 2016 produc-
tion rates [7], it is estimated that coal caused $173 billion in damages,
and natural gas caused $69 billion, for a total of $242 billion per year.
Combining this with the climate damages above, the coal and natu-
ral gas system cause approximately $336 billion in environmental and
health damages each year. If these damages were included in the elec-
tricity price, then it would essentially double the cost of electricity [7].
46    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 2.2 Estimated annual CO2 emissions avoided by V2G per electricity region,
assuming 1% of EVs are V2G-capable (Reprinted from [14])

From an economized environmental and health perspective, and

plain common sense, it is thus of the utmost importance to move away
from these actors and their impacts in the electricity market. This will
certainly require a substantial transition with a variety of different sys-
tems, only one of which is V2G. However, V2G can play an important
part in the short term and long term. The most immediate way that
V2G can reduce the environmental and health damages from electric-
ity production is through participation in the ancillary services market.
The most relevant ancillary service market competitor to V2G is natural
gas, and the addition of V2G can displace both its carbon and health
emissions [14]. For example, using an agent-based model to estimate
the amount of V2G-capable EVs in each region Noori et al. estimate
that hundreds of thousands of climate change emissions can be avoided
in the frequency regulation market, depending on the region and EV
penetration level, as shown in Fig. 2.2.
Thus, assuming a relatively modest V2G system in the near future,
the USA can avoid almost a million tons of CO2 by 2030, which would
equate to an avoided damage of $50 million per year using the social cost
of carbon discussed above, only from displacing some of the natural gas
in the frequency regulation market. Unfortunately, studies have yet to
characterize the full benefit of V2G entirely displacing all conventional
fuel participants in the ancillary services market. In addition, there are
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
47

no studies on the avoided health damages from V2G participation on the

ancillary service market. Using the carbon content of natural gas [37],
the implied total production of natural gas based on carbon emissions
in Fig. 2.2, and the estimated health damages from natural gas [28],
we estimate that there should be approximately $106 billion in avoided
health damages in the scenario of 1% V2G modeled by Noori et al. [14],
totaling approximately $150 million per year. Though not thoroughly
studied, assuming V2G expanded to capture the entire ancillary services
market (not just frequency regulation shown here), then the climate and
health damages avoided could be even more substantial, especially con-
sidering that the entire value of these services is $600 million per year
[22]. In sum, V2G can provide a very large value to society by avoiding
carbon and health emissions in the ancillary service market, but deserves
a lot more study than the rough estimates presented here.
Moreover, an optimist’s vision for V2G entails more than just the
decarbonization of ancillary services. Instead, the larger environmen-
tal and health benefits to be captured are to help integrate the large-
scale implementation of renewable energy. The majority of the damages
caused by coal and natural gas happen not on the ancillary service mar-
ket, but instead as a result of wholesale energy production. Of course,
V2G cannot replace wholesale energy production (for extended periods
of time) given limits on storage to produce energy. However, V2G can
provide storage and flexibility for renewable energy to displace con-
ventional fuel sources. But to understand how V2G assists renewable
energy integration one must also understand the challenges of renewa-
ble energy integration in general.
In short, the initial challenge of the primary sources of renewable
energy, wind and solar, is that energy production cannot be controlled
to the same extent as previous conventional electricity production
actors, like coal and natural gas. In order to meet load demands, elec-
tricity grid operators must deal with the intermittency of renewable
energy, that is, that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t
always blow. Intermittency in turn leads to two central challenges for
electricity reliability: sudden changes in generation which require rapid
responses from other electricity producers, and lack of sufficient supply
to meet demand. The first challenge requires high levels of flexibility
48    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 2.3 Three scenarios of storage with large-scale renewable energy in the
PJM interconnection. Left column: hydrogen storage, center: centralized batter-
ies, right: V2G (Reprinted from [38])

and responsiveness on the grid, whereas the second challenge requires

either backup storage or generation or building additional renewable
energy (which would likely lead to over-generation at other times). The
general mismatch between generation and load is shown in Fig. 2.3,
based on modeling work of large-scale renewable energy.
Figure 2.3 shows the modeling of very high levels of renewable
energy in the PJM grid, as compared to the historical load. As one can
see, the wind generation (shown in the blue and pink in the top half of
the figure) is very unpredictable, and over the course of only a few hours
ranges from half of the load to several times over the needed load. Thus,
in the bottom half of the figure, one can see the need of backup storage
and generation, shown in the gray and red. This is the generation that
is needed to fill in the wind lulls and lack of solar production to ensure
that there are no interruptions in electricity provision. So, if there is
enough V2G capacity present in the electricity grid operator’s system,
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
49

then one can utilize V2G storage to essentially perform peak shaving for
a few hours until the wind lull is over. Without the use of storage, this
extra needed generation would be produced most likely by coal or nat-
ural gas sources. Furthermore, in addition to obviating the need to rely
on conventional fuel sources, storage like V2G has the additional ben-
efit of being able to store excess generation (shown in gold in Fig. 2.3),
which is expected to increase as wind and solar become the main source
of electricity production [2, 38].
However, at the times where a large amount of backup generation is
needed and storage cannot meet all of the generation on its own, grid
operation runs into another problem: that conventional power plants
cannot respond quickly enough to fill short term generation needs. The
rate at which conventional generation plants can increase their genera-
tion of electricity, known as the ramp rate, can vary significantly from
the type of production source. Depending on the technology and age
of the power plant as well as its minimum load and start-up condition,
coal can take about 3 hours to reach 100% production, whereas natural
gas would need about half an hour to an hour (worse yet, nuclear would
need at least a day or more) [2, 39]. In contrast, V2G and other bat-
tery storage have only a couple of seconds delay and almost no ramp-up
time. But given that wind and solar generation can fluctuate rapidly
within an hour, or even minutes [40], there needs to be flexibility in
the grid to allow conventional fuel power plants enough time to ramp
up production, especially if the need for production is unforeseen. In
this case, V2G can act as a temporary shoulder, which can help fill in
generation gaps until slower means of production are able to fill in the
larger generation gaps. Also, conversely when wind and solar generation
picks up again, V2G can provide storage capacity while slower genera-
tion ramps back down, preventing curtailment of renewable energy and
ensuring grid stability.
In this respect, Fig. 2.4 shows the benefit of flexibility to wind
and solar photovoltaic (PV) and highlights that, as flexibility of the
grid increases, the amount of curtailed (or wasted) renewable energy
decreases substantially, as 100% flexibility (which a large V2G capacity
could achieve) can help increase penetration by nearly 30% while only
curtailing 10% of the energy (points A and B in Fig. 2.4). Thus, in the
50    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 2.4 Renewable energy curtailed, based on percent penetration and level of
grid flexibility (Reprinted from [41])

short term, where grids rely on a mix between renewable energy and
slower, conventional sources, V2G can provide important flexibility ser-
vices to help integrate renewable energy without interrupting electricity
grid reliability [2]. And when renewable energy becomes the sole means
of energy production, i.e., 90% or more of total production, then V2G
may act less as a flexibility service and more as a wholesale backup stor-
age service (obviating the need for fossil fuels).
Comparing these two types of services that V2G may provide, both
play an important role in the short-term and long-term scales of the
large-scale renewable energy transition. Flexibility is a key turning point
in the transition and coincides well with the characteristics of V2G,
such as quick responsiveness that other electricity actors do not have.
This type of service will indirectly lead to improvements to the environ-
ment and public health, as it can help integrate renewable energy with-
out causing the system to fail. On the other hand, the second service of
wholesale backup storage provides more direct environmental and pub-
lic health benefits, as it is directly displacing fossil fuels, but this requires
substantial amounts of energy capacity. As shown in our discussion of
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
51

Table 2.1, an entire fleet of V2G-capable EVs would likely have suffi-
cient storage capacity to provide this service, but this would take a long
time to develop. Nonetheless, V2G may play an essential role in the
decarbonization of the electricity sector in a variety of ways: ancillary
services, increased flexibility, and backup storage.
Secondly, it is important to remember that electricity production
is not the sole source of climate change and public health emissions.
Indeed, in the USA, electricity production and transportation sectors
are equally liable, both representing 28% of total climate change emis-
sions in 2016 [42]. In addition, consumption of gasoline and petroleum
causes substantial damages to health [43, 44], leading to approximately
3800 premature deaths per year in the USA, or about $35 billion worth
of economic damages per year [45]. To the extent that V2G can incen-
tivize the adoption of EVs in the transport sector (as discussed above),
then V2G can help the decarbonization and improvement of public
health from the transportation sector as well. Indeed, combining these
calculations with the monetization of environmental and health dam-
ages from electricity production, the current electricity and transporta-
tion sectors cause $470 billion in damages annually, or an equivalent of
decreasing the US GDP by 2.5% per year [46]. Considering US GDP
increased by 2.3% in 2017, if society used EVs with V2G to move away
from fossil fuels in both electricity and transportation, society would
benefit more that than the economic growth from all other types of
activity [46]. Moreover, though we use the USA as an example, this
type of calculation will be relatively similar in any region of the world.
In conclusion, the environmental and health benefits that V2G could
provide to the electricity and transportation sector are enormously
important to the sustainability and economic activity of society.

2.1.4 Other Benefits and Perceived Benefits

As discussed in Chapter 1, V2G (and its related concepts like V2H

or V2X) technology can be applied in a wide variety of other use-
ful applications, such as in microgrids or emergency backup in one’s
home. However, as compared to the previously discussed three benefits,
52    
L. Noel et al.

especially the latter two, the variety of other benefits that V2G could
provide are notably less valuable to society. For example, V2G systems
have been studied in the context of microgrids or community grids to
integrate highly local renewable energy development [8, 47, 48]. While
V2G has been found to be beneficial in these cases, the overall societal
benefits as compared to large-scale renewable energy integration can be
characterized as much more niche.
Moreover, other benefits such as backup power to one’s home or
being able to disconnect from the grid are individual benefits that are
more difficult to monetize and likely do not provide much of a bene-
fit to society as a whole. Likewise, V2X benefits, like using the vehicle
to provide mobile loads (such as using the vehicle to provide energy to
a telescope) may increase the advantageousness of a V2G-capable EV,
but the benefits are not monetizable nor societal. While these should be
studied, especially as they could encourage users to adopt V2G-capable
EVs for personal benefits and then subsequently also use them in ways
that benefit society as a whole, it is important to note who benefits from
each use and what the scale is of these potential benefits.
For example, in Fig. 2.5 we show how academics and experts view
the benefits of V2G. On the left hands we show the research focus
of recently published V2G papers, and on the right, is data from our
expert interviews (described in the Introduction) and how they per-
ceive the main benefits of V2G. Both the research papers and the
expert interviews overwhelmingly focus on V2G as a means to integrate

Fig. 2.5 Research focus (a) and Expert opinion (b) of Benefits of V2G systems
(a is reprinted from [8], b is based on author’s data)
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
53

renewable energy, but this is often more on the technical aspects (as
opposed to the environmental and economic aspects), as well as the
variety of grid services that V2G could provide. However, noticea-
bly absent from both lists is the public health benefits of V2G, rein-
forcing our findings that health and other societal benefits have been
understudied by the literature (and go unrecognized by experts). While
climate change appears as the 9th most common research topic, less val-
uable concepts, like emergency backup, microgrids, and V2H, are dis-
cussed more prevalently.
This is not to say that the other benefits of V2G, V2H, and V2X
should not be researched at all, nor discussed by experts. Indeed, some
may argue that these concepts, such as V2X, may be also understud-
ied by the literature and can provide a wide array of potential ben-
efits to EV owners and society, even if they cannot be monetized yet.
However, it is also true that the most valuable benefits of EVs, particu-
larly environmental and health-related benefits are also understudied.
And while V2X may provide some benefits to individuals, it is essen-
tial to understand that the main benefits of V2G have a substantial
impact on society, from an economic, environmental, and health per-
spective. Importantly, we would push this argument even further and
claim that these societal benefits provide valid reasons to the idea that
policymakers and government should take an active role in encouraging
the development of V2G. On the other hand, there is little reason for
government intervention to encourage personal benefits like V2H and
V2X. All in all, V2G systems include all of these benefits—large societal
savings and novel personal benefits like powering telescopes.

2.2 Benefits in Motion: From Fleets

to Individuals and Beyond
As the bundle of benefits has been described above, there remains the
question of who will be doing V2G and how these benefits will accrue
as the V2G system diffuses and evolves. As mentioned previously, the
status of V2G currently is entirely focused on fleet vehicles performing
54    
L. Noel et al.

frequency regulation [8, 9], however not to the degree that ancillary ser-
vice prices are decreasing, thus the benefits are primarily accruing to the
EV fleet owners. Or rephrased, the overall V2G power capacity of these
pilot projects is relatively low within their respective electricity markets
(only a few hundred kW), there is not enough participation to capture
the entire market, push ancillary service market prices down, nor to
really decarbonize the market.
The next step in V2G diffusion is likely a push to move from fleet
pilot projects toward fully commercially developed V2G fleets and
subsequently to privately owned individual vehicles. Though the latter
represents the largest capacity, diffusion of EVs and V2G in the indi-
vidual consumer market may be a slow and lengthy process. EVs them-
selves have faced a substantial amount of challenges in their diffusion,
and even after decades, only represent 0.2% of the global vehicle fleet
[49]. Considering the V2G-capable EVs in the world are in the tens or
hundreds only, both EVs and V2G have a long way to go before cap-
turing the capacities described in Table 2.1. Nevertheless, as EV prices
decrease, it is expected that there will be a rapid transition to EVs,
where adoption accelerates exponentially. For example, one study found
that EU sales share of EVs in 2030 could range anywhere from about
8% to nearly 70% [50]. Even if EV market share was 70%, they esti-
mate that EVs would still only represent just under 30% of the total
vehicle fleet [50]. Additionally, it is impossible to know what propor-
tion of those EVs would be V2G-capable, as this would likely depend
on a variety of the technical challenges and institutional barriers we dis-
cuss in the following chapters.
If the EVs by 2030 were indeed all V2G-capable, this 30% would still
represent a very large amount of power and energy capacity. This would
likely be sufficient to provide all ancillary services for electricity grid oper-
ators, decreasing the cost of grid operation and reducing climate change
and public health emissions from the displaced electricity grid produc-
ers. On the other hand, most likely it remains insufficient to capture
the larger economic and environmental benefits of large-scale renewable
energy. For example, two studies on large-scale renewable energy integra-
tion found that to achieve 50 and 99.9% renewable energy integration of
the PJM electricity grid, 70 and 100% of the vehicle feet would need to
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
55

be V2G-capable EVs, respectively [2, 38]. Thus, in order to capture the

entirety of the economic and environmental benefits described above in
regard to the renewable energy transition, it seems that V2G-capable EVs
not only deserve but also require further policy support.
Lastly, though personal EVs would provide the most capacity to the
electricity grid, this is not to say that they are mutually exclusive with
public transportation. Indeed, some types of public transportation such
as buses can be electrified and provide the same V2G services [15, 19].
Indeed, the full decarbonization of transport would require the electri-
fication of a wide variety of transportation methods, including personal
vehicles, larger buses, among others. As such, given the wide need for
storage capacity in future large-scale renewable energy scenarios, V2G
capacity would be needed in all, not just some of the transport sector.

2.3 V2G and the Grid

Storage in general and V2G are very valuable to the grid as it exists
now, especially as more renewable energy is added to the system.
However, as renewable energy is integrated into the electricity grid,
many have called for substantial changes to the electricity grid itself. For
example, some have argued that the integration of the electricity sec-
tor with the heat and transportation sector would increase the reliabil-
ity of wind-dominated systems [2, 51, 52]. Of course, the integration
of the transport sector coincides perfectly with V2G systems. On the
other hand, integration of the heat sector will likely reduce the need
for other types of storage, as excess generation can provide a substantial
benefit to the efficiency of the heat system [52]. Indeed, the integration
of new sectors into the electricity grids coincides with the concept of
smart grids, which is essentially a means of increasing communication
in the electricity grid to control electricity demand to improve the flex-
ibility and dynamism of the electricity grid [53]. However, the smart
grid goes beyond V2G and includes distributed electricity production
(such as community solar), as well as other types of demand-response
actors, like HVAC, water heaters, and other forms of electricity demand
[54]. Nonetheless, these studies show that V2G will not be only actor
56    
L. Noel et al.

participating in many of these services required for large-scale renewable

energy and increased grid efficiency, but that V2G is likely to be the
most valuable and possibly one of the largest actors on the smart grid.
In short, the emergence of smarter grids would reinforce V2G.
On the other hand, another way to increase the reliability of systems
based largely on renewable energy is to geographically increase the scope
of the electricity grid, particularly by construction of high-voltage direct
current (HVDC) transmission lines connecting new forms of electricity
generation [55, 56], often called a supergrid. One of the main benefits
of connecting geographically disparate regions is that wind generation
becomes more stable on average, and thus easier to manage [57]. On
the other hand, HVDC networks can also connect different types of
renewable energy sources, such as solar-rich areas with wind-rich areas,
and deliver them to where electricity demand is located [55, 56]. For
example, we show a proposed HVDC supergrid in the USA in Fig. 2.6.

Fig. 2.6 Supergrid with high levels of renewable energy and a HVDC network
(Reprinted from [56])
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
57

In theory, the supergrid offers substantial benefits to renewable

energy integration. Specifically, this type of supergrid can integrate
large amounts of renewable energy at comparatively low costs by siting
renewable energy projects with the best resource, as opposed to those
that are close to the existing grid transmission lines, reducing overall
costs. In addition, given a variety of renewable energy sources and the
benefit of geographical variation, the supergrid is expected to not need
as much grid flexibility and storage as the existing grid. In short, the
supergrid can provide the infrastructure for large-scale renewable energy
at prices cheaper than today with little or no storage [56].
However, as advantageous as the supergrid is, it still faces several
substantial challenges. The most obvious of which is that a network of
HVDC transmission lines across a large region (e.g., the USA or the
E.U.) would require a substantial investment in capital costs (which
would save money over decades). However, such megaprojects often run
into a variety of financial, regulatory, and social risks [58]. In addition
to securing the billions of dollars in overnight investment to establish
the HVDC network, supergrids face regulatory questions (i.e., who
regulates and controls the supergrid), cost overrun concerns, lack of
political support, and issues of public acceptability [59–61]. With these
questions in mind, the supergrid may indeed face an uphill battle to be
developed, despite its potential benefits.
As such, the role of V2G in relation to the supergrid is relatively
uncertain. If the supergrid is realized, then the need for backup storage
is largely obviated. Yet, V2G may still play an important role in renew-
able energy integration on the supergrid that focuses on intra-regional
energy balancing (as opposed to the inter-regional balancing done via
HVDC transmission in the supergrid). In addition, V2G can provide
a cheap means of ensuring reliability in the case of faults in the super-
grid. That is, if a solar or wind power plant in California went suddenly
offline or an earthquake brought down a main HVDC line, it may have
much further reaching impacts in the supergrid, possible affecting the
entire geographical region. With V2G, such concerns could be miti-
gated as it reduces the overall operational risk associated with supergrids
[59]. However, it is unlikely that V2G could assuage the regulatory,
58    
L. Noel et al.

financial, political, and social barriers that a supergrid would face previ-
ous to its construction.
In the meantime, V2G may actually provide a bridge to the super-
grid. As discussed above, of the two means of V2G to integrate renew-
able energy, flexibility, and backup storage, V2G is better suited to
provide flexibility given its responsiveness and high levels of power but
somewhat limited energy capacity. Thus, as renewable energy is in mid-
dling levels with some conventional energy, V2G could help integrate
renewable energy at lower costs, while the supergrid is being built for
the highest level of renewable energy (e.g., 90% or more). This could
help the business case of the supergrid, as it makes little sense to have
a supergrid if only 30–50% of generation is renewable (and the other
is conventional power plants that do not use the supergrid). But while
V2G may be a stepping stone to a supergrid, the interaction between
a supergrid and flexible storage services has not yet been studied rig-
orously by the literature. Given the comparatively cheap cost of V2G,
and the value of storage to the electricity grid in general, it is reasona-
ble to assume that under any supergrid or smart grid (or combination
thereof ), that V2G can provide a different array of valuable services.

2.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have aimed to define the potential benefits of a V2G
system. These benefits can be primarily categorized as technical, eco-
nomic, and environmental. In sum, V2G offers a cheap and technically
advantageous form of storage, one that, in tandem with the benefits of a
full EV diffusion, has economic, environmental, and health-related ben-
efits that are of immense value to society, since the current system causes
hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year. While these soci-
etal benefits are vast, we also briefly discussed other potential benefits
of V2G, highlighting how these may provide novel and non-monetized
benefits to individual EV owners. Such a distinction is important to
understand the underlying impetus for policymakers to intervene and
encourage the development of V2G for the benefit of society. In other
words, while V2X could offer new and interesting business models and
services to consumers, those do not necessarily justify public support.
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
59

However, we wholeheartedly argue that the societal system level

promise of V2G validates the extensive and active support from pub-
lic authorities and industry. Moreover, this chapter also discussed how
these benefits would be realized as V2G diffuses from its current state
to, potentially, the entirety of the vehicle fleet. Likewise, we hypothe-
sized how the evolution of the electricity grid toward supergrids and
smart grids would affect the role and potential of V2G. In line with
sociotechnical thinking, this reminds us that V2G will coevolve not
only with technical improvements in vehicle performance, but in a sym-
biotic relationship with other elements of the system including batteries
and storage as well as non-technical issues such as user practices, polit-
ical regulations, and economic incentives. We will explore these latter
themes in the chapters to come.

References
1. Zakeri B, Syri S. Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle
cost analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:569–96.
2. Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimiza-
tion of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and with-
out externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.
3. McDonagh S, O’Shea R, Wall DM, Deane JP, Murphy JD. Modelling of a
power-to-gas system to predict the levelised cost of energy of an advanced
renewable gaseous transport fuel. Appl Energy. 2018;215:444–56.
4. Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Codani P, Kempton W. Measurement of power
loss during electric vehicle charging and discharging. Energy. 2017;
127:730–42.
5. Hedegaard K, Meibom P. Wind power impacts and electricity storage—a
time scale perspective. Renew Energy. 2012;37(1):318–24.
6. U.S. DOT. Highway Statistics 2016 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 2018 Jun.
Available from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/.
7. EIA. Electric Power Annual [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy
Information Administration; 2017 Dec. Available from: https://www.eia.
gov/electricity/annual/.
60    
L. Noel et al.

8. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-

sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.
9. Markel T, Meintz A, Hardy K, Chen B, Bohn T, Smart J, et al. Multi-lab EV
smart grid integration requirements study [Internet]. Golden, CO: NREL;
2015 May [cited 2016 May 22]. p. 91. Report No.: NREL/TP-5400-63963.
Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/60958.pdf.
10. Eyer J, Corey G. Energy storage for the electricity grid: benefits and market
potential assessment guide [Internet]. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National
Labortories; 2010 Feb. p. 232. Report No.: SAND2010-0815. Available from:
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010–0815.pdf.
11. Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: how
much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C Emerg
Technol. 2011;19(6):1171–84.
12. PJM. Ancillary service market results [Internet]. Ancillary Services. 2018
[cited 2018 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-op-
erations/ancillary-services.aspx.
13. Nissan. 2018 Nissan Leaf [Internet]. Nissan USA. 2018. Available from:
https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html.
14. Noori M, Zhao Y, Onat NC, Gardner S, Tatari O. Light-duty electric
vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through vehicle-to-
grid technology: analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings.
Appl Energy. 2016;168:146–58.
15. Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable elec-
tric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy.
2014;126:246–55.
16. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon. Technical support
document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under exec-
utive order 12866 [Internet]. United States Government; 2010 Feb. p. 51.
Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf.
17. Allcott H, Wozny N. Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy para-
dox. Rev Econ Stat. 2014;96(5):779–95.
18. Hausman JA. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of
energy-using durables. Bell J Econ. 1979;10(1):33.
19. Zhao Y, Noori M, Tatari O. Vehicle to grid regulation services of elec-
tric delivery trucks: economic and environmental benefit analysis. Appl
Energy. 2016;170:161–75.
20. Park D, Yoon S, Hwang E. Cost benefit analysis of public service elec-
tric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability. In: IEEE; 2016
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
61

[cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 234–39. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/

document/7512954/.
21. Geels FW. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: intro-
ducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr.
2012;24:471–82.
22. Zhou Z, Levin T, Conzelmann G. Survey of U.S. ancillary services mar-
kets [Internet]. Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems
Analysis, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory; 2016
Jan [cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 59. Report No.: ANL/ESD-16-1. Available from:
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2016/01/124217.pdf.
23. Knezovic K, Marinelli M, Codani P, Perez Y. Distribution grid services
and flexibility provision by electric vehicles: a review of options. In: IEEE;
2015 [cited 2017 Aug 18]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/document/7339931/.
24. EIA. Petroleum & other liquids [Internet]. U.S. Energy Information
Administration—data. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 13]. Available from: https://
www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php.
25. Pope III CA. Lung Cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term expo-
sure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA. 2002;287(9):1132.
26. Schwartz J, Coull B, Laden F, Ryan L. The effect of dose and timing of
dose on the association between airborne particles and survival. Environ
Health Perspect. 2008;116(1):64–69.
27. Levy JI, Baxter LK, Schwartz J. Uncertainty and variability in health-re-
lated damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States. Risk
Anal. 2009;29(7):1000–14.
28. McCubbin D, Sovacool BK. Quantifying the health and environmental
benefits of wind power to natural gas. Energy Policy. 2013;53:429–41.
29. Brandt T, Wagner S, Neumann D. Evaluating a business model for vehi-
cle-grid integration: evidence from Germany. Transp Res Part Transp
Environ. 2017;50:488–504.
30. Noel L, Firestone J. Public trust doctrine implications of electricity pro-
duction. Mich J Environ Adm Law. 2015;5(1):89.
31. Arent D, Pless J, Mai T, Wiser R, Hand M, Baldwin S, et al. Implications
of high renewable electricity penetration in the U.S. for water use,
greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply. Appl Energy.
2014;123:368–77.
32. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon. Technical sup-
port document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory
62    
L. Noel et al.

impact analysis under executive order 12866 [Internet]. Washington, DC:

United States Government; 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 17]. Available from:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_
of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf.
33. Howard P. Omitted damages: what’s missing from the social cost of car-
bon. Cost of carbon project; 2014 Mar. p. 82.
34. Havranek T, Irsova Z, Janda K, Zilberman D. Selective reporting and the
social cost of carbon. Energy Econ. 2015;51:394–406.
35. Howarth RB, Gerst MD, Borsuk ME. Risk mitigation and the social cost
of carbon. Glob Environ Change. 2014;24:123–31.
36. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of mar-
ket estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain. 2003;27(1):5–76.
37. Moomaw W, Burgherr P, Heath G, Lenzen M, Nyboer J, Verbruggen
A. Annex II: methodology. In: IPCC special report on renewable
energy and climate change mitigation [Internet]. Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY; 2011. Available from: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/
IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf.
38. Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W.
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electro-
chemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power
Sources. 2013;225:60–74.
39. Loisel R, Pasaoglu G, Thiel C. Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles
in Germany by 2030: an analysis of grid-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-grid
concepts. Energy Policy. 2014;65:432–43.
40. Archer CL, Simão HP, Kempton W, Powell WB, Dvorak MJ. The chal-
lenge of integrating offshore wind power in the U.S. electric grid. Part I:
wind forecast error. Renew Energy. 2017;103:346–60.
41. Nikolakakis T, Fthenakis V. The optimum mix of electricity from wind-
and solar-sources in conventional power systems: evaluating the case for
New York state. Energy Policy. 2011;39(11):6972–80.
42. EPA. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2016
[Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 Apr [cited 2018 Jul 16]. p. 995. Report
No.: EPA 430-R-18-003. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/pro-
duction/files/2018-01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf.
43. Brandt J, Silver JD, Christensen JH, Andersen MS, Bønløkke JH, Sisgaard
T, et al. Assessment of health-cost externalities of air pollution at the
national level using the EVA model system [Internet]. 2011 Mar. p. 98
(Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series). Report No.:
 2 The Potential Benefits of V2G    
63

CEEH Scientific Report No. 3. Available from: www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_

Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf.
44. Buekers J, Van Holderbeke M, Bierkens J, Int Panis L. Health and envi-
ronmental benefits related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries.
Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2014;33:26–38.
45. von Stackelberg K, Buonocore J, Bhave PV, Schwartz JA. Public health
impacts of secondary particulate formation from aromatic hydrocarbons in
gasoline. Env Health. 2013;12:13.
46. World Bank. GDP (current US$) [Internet]. The World Bank—data.
2018 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indi-
cator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD.
47. Yamagata Y, Seya H, Kuroda S. Energy resilient smart community: sharing
green electricity using V2C technology. Energy Procedia. 2014;61:84–87.
48. Díaz A, Ramos-Real F, Marrero G, Perez Y. Impact of electric vehicles
as distributed energy storage in isolated systems: the case of Tenerife.
Sustainability. 2015;7(11):15152–78.
49. International Energy Agency. Global EV outlook 2017: Two million and
counting [Internet]. OECD; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. Available from: https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/global-ev-outlook-2017_9789264278882-en.
50. Nilsson M, Nykvist B. Governing the electric vehicle transition—near
term interventions to support a green energy economy. Appl Energy.
2016;179:1360–71.
51. Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport
and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy. 2008;36(9):3578–87.
52. Pensini A, Rasmussen CN, Kempton W. Economic analysis of using
excess renewable electricity to displace heating fuels. Appl Energy.
2014;131:530–43.
53. Mwasilu F, Justo JJ, Kim E-K, Do TD, Jung J-W. Electric vehicles and
smart grid interaction: a review on vehicle to grid and renewable energy
sources integration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;34:501–16.
54. Gelazanskas L, Gamage KAA. Demand side management in smart
grid: a review and proposals for future direction. Sustain Cities Soc.
2014;11:22–30.
55. Mai T, Mulcahy D, Hand MM, Baldwin SF. Envisioning a renewable elec-
tricity future for the United States. Energy. 2014;65:374–86.
56. MacDonald AE, Clack CTM, Alexander A, Dunbar A, Wilczak J, Xie Y.
Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2
emissions. Nat Clim Change [Internet]. 2016 Jan 25 [cited 2016 Jan 27].
Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2921.
64    
L. Noel et al.

57. Kempton W, Pimenta FM, Veron DE, Colle BA. Electric power from
offshore wind via synoptic-scale interconnection. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
2010;107(16):7240–45.
58. Sovacool BK, Cooper C. The governance of energy megaprojects: poli-
tics, hubris and energy security. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar; 2013. p. 251.
59. Torbaghan ME, Burrow MPN, Hunt DVL. Risk assessment for a UK
pan-European supergrid. Int J Energy Res. 2015;39(11):1564–78.
60. Van Hertem D, Ghandhari M, Delimar M. Technical limitations towards
a supergrid; A European prospective. In: IEEE; 2010 [cited 2018 Jul 16].
p. 302–9. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5771696/.
61. Zarazua de Rubens G. Who will buy EVs after early adopters? Using
machine learning to identify EV mainstream buyers and their characteris-
tics. Rev Energy. 2018.
 3
The Technical Challenges to V2G

Starting with this chapter, we next move onto the challenges that
V2G currently face and will face as it diffuses (or fails to do so).
With the benefits described in the previous chapter in mind, under-
standing these challenges is essential to capturing the societal ben-
efits that V2G offers. While these challenges encompass the entire
sociotechnical system and include economic, regulatory and social
aspects, we first start with the most immediate of them, the tech-
nical barriers to V2G. Specifically, we describe the three primary
technical challenges to the implementation of V2G: battery degrada-
tion, charger and communication efficiency, and aggregation. While
none of these barriers prevent a V2G system from operating, they do
impact the efficiency and thus economic advantage of V2G systems.
As a result, the challenges here are the basis for many of the other
challenges described in Chapters 4–6. In order to understand those
later challenges, a basic understanding of the technical nuances of
these challenges is foundational.

© The Author(s) 2019 65

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_3
66    
L. Noel et al.

3.1 Battery Degradation

The first and most compelling challenge to V2G systems is the degra-
dation of the battery as the result of wear from increased use. Battery
degradation can cause loss of capacity over time, which impacts an EV’s
range capability. For instance, a 30% capacity fade in an EV that was
originally able to drive 100 miles means that the EV can now only drive
70 miles. Obviously, given the concerns that already exist over range of
an EV and range anxiety [1–3], further decreasing the range only wors-
ens this perceived problem. The extent that V2G may degrade the bat-
tery is consequently expected to impact the potential adoption of V2G
in two ways. On the V2G side, the potential battery degradation could
affect consumer’s willingness to participate in V2G systems. Battery
degradation also affects V2G’s business case, as the payment offered to
consumers will need to be high enough to compensate for potential
battery degradation, or worse, if overall capacity fades, replacing the
battery.
Calculating the degradation of a battery’s capacity in general is not as
intuitive as one may think, and instead is very complex, with the main
causes being time (known as calendar aging) and the amount of cycling
on the battery (known as cycling aging), which is the amount of energy
discharged and then charged into the battery [4]. These two types of
aging in turn depend on a myriad of factors, including the number of
cycles put through the battery, time, the operation temperature of the
battery, power rates of charge and discharge, the depth of the discharge
(DOD), the state of charge (SoC) of the battery, and the total energy
withdrawn or energy throughput [5, 6].
Before moving onto V2G, understanding the degradation of a
generic EV is complex and highly context dependent. Nonetheless,
understanding typical battery degradation from typical non-V2G use
provides important context to the additional degradation that V2G
may cause. Because degradation is most contingent on time, tempera-
ture, and use, the degradation of a typical EV is highly dependent on
the driving and charging characteristics of the EV user, as well as the
weather conditions of where the EV is used. Then again, time does not
depend on geography or use patterns and is less context dependent.
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
67

Fig. 3.1 Estimated battery capacity loss over time for EVs (no V2G included).
Note that the difference between different levels of charging, as shown in the
legend in the upper left corner, makes no discernable difference on the differ-
ence on capacity loss (Reprinted from [7])

Some assumptions therefore need to be made in order to estimate the

amount of degradation that EVs will face.
As an example, using an average driving behavior, the degradation
of battery over time only including typical EV use was estimated to
be about 31% over 10 years [7], see Fig. 3.1. Though Fig. 3.1 shows
that the degradation is not exactly linear, the capacity fade equates to
roughly 3% per year. In this study, the authors find that higher tem-
perature leads to higher capacity losses due to calendar aging, while
lower temperatures lead to higher losses from cycling aging [7]. From an
average temperature, e.g., San Francisco, the 31% loss over ten years is
about evenly due to calendar aging and cycling aging.
While calendar and cycling aging are roughly equally responsible
for battery degradation, temperature is one of the most influential fac-
tors for both types of aging. Though lower temperatures cause a higher
68    
L. Noel et al.

amount of cycling (given reduced efficiency in batteries [8]), which

indirectly reduces battery capacity due to more energy throughput, in
contrast, higher temperatures directly cause high capacity loss and bat-
tery degradation. For example, Fig. 3.2 shows that higher temperatures
combined with high DODs lead to the most drastic degradation of
the battery per cycle [9]. Meanwhile, Wang et al. find similar impacts
to degradation due to time with high temperatures [7]. As such, a key
means to reduce battery degradation in general is the temperature man-
agement of the battery, to prevent the internal battery temperature from
becoming too hot and degrading, but also preventing it from becom-
ing too cold and reducing efficiency, especially while driving [8]. For
example, all else the same, actively managing the thermal conditions of
the battery can reduce capacity fade by 7 percentage points [10]. Thus,
improving battery management systems will have several benefits on the
EV’s efficiency and on maintaining overall battery health and life.
With these general concepts in mind, the battery degradation due
to V2G is primarily because of cycling aging, of course, since calendar
aging will occur either way. Since EVs that actually are performing V2G

Fig. 3.2 Battery degradation per cycle (N) as a function of temperature and
depth of discharge (DOD) (Reprinted from [9])
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
69

have not been around that long, it is not known based on actual expe-
rience how the overall degradation trends for frequency regulation (or
any other grid service, for that matter) impact batteries. Instead, like
many of the studies regarding general EV degradation, the estimation
of V2G’s impact on batteries is modeled, often with some underlying
empirical data, based on battery experiments in a lab that accelerates
impacts (but not on actually EVs providing V2G services) [11].
However, as with the importance of individual driving patterns, the
assumption of the type of electricity grid service that the assumed V2G-
capable EV provides, as well as the regularity of providing these services,
are the most influential on estimated degradation. For example, provid-
ing peak-shaving services will entail substantial amounts of DOD, while
frequency regulation requires smaller amounts of DOD, but generally,
is more active throughout the year. However, as discussed in previous
chapters, frequency regulation is the primary market in which V2G will
provide in the short-term, and will likely provide other more energy-in-
tensive services only once there is a substantial amount of V2G capacity
in the EV fleet.
With this in mind, Fig. 3.3 shows the estimated degradation from
three different V2G services, assuming different amounts of partici-
pation rates. In the “extreme cases” (which we do not believe to be so
extreme for frequency regulation), the authors find that frequency
regulation participation every day will further degrade the battery by
3.6% over ten years [7]. On the other hand, net load shaping (i.e., inte-
grating solar electricity and avoiding duck curves) every day causes an
additional degradation by over 20%, but it is highly unlikely that such
services would be needed more than 20 times a year (perhaps an excep-
tion would be some V2H use cases). Thus, an EV providing frequency
regulation every day and some type of net loading or peak shaving
occasionally would be expected to cause only minor degradation over
10 years (e.g., approximately 5% higher additional capacity loss).
Of course, any additional degradation is undesired, but these num-
bers are not discouraging. In fact, given that even the minor degrada-
tion as modeled here is uncertain, the impacts to the battery may be
even less damaging. Another study used actual frequency regulation per-
formance to test a battery (as opposed to modeled behavior), and found
70    
L. Noel et al.

Fig. 3.3 Average battery capacity losses over 10 years with V2G services, pro-
viding three different services (peak shaving, frequency regulation, net load
shaping) in two usage scenarios (everyday for 10 years and 20 times per year)
(Reprinted from [7])

that given limited DOD and energy throughput, there was essentially
no additional degradation as the result of V2G [12]. The reason for this
is that frequency regulation keeps the V2G-capable EV at a medium
SoC, which reduces chemical wear [13], and the limited demand of
energy throughout the hour of a typical frequency regulation signal
is substantially less than driving (and related recharging) power and
energy demand. As the V2G fleet increases in the future, the expected
energy demand per car can be expected to decrease, further leading one
to conclude that battery degradation will continue to decrease as well.
Indeed, as V2G increases in capacity and there is more flexibility
within the V2G system to implement algorithms which can split the
power and energy demands in more optimal ways, V2G may be used
to actually decrease battery degradation. For example, using a smart
grid algorithm to control for DOD and overall cycling, one study
found that V2G can reduce overall battery degradation by 9.1% [14].
Essentially, while V2G participation (especially frequency regulation)
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
71

has limited impacts due to low DOD and energy throughput, the
communication and controlling of power flows allow aggregators the
possibility to implement more intelligent practices that will reduce
degradation. One such principle may be to limit the times when high
power is used to recharge the battery as fast as possible, but instead
control slower charging while providing frequency regulation over an
allotted time. This, along with other principles would be available as
a result of a V2G aggregation system and may not be able to imple-
mented without some kind of aggregator. Thus, in the best case, V2G
can open new possibilities to the consumer to maintain the health of
their EV’s battery.
In sum, estimates of V2G’s impact on the battery can widely vary,
with some estimating small (though significant) additional degradation
to the battery’s capacity [7], while some find very little to no impact
given the limited energy throughput [12], and finally some find that
V2G will reduce degradation [13, 14]. It seems recent research, as well
as evidence from the pilot projects, have rebuked earlier harsher esti-
mates of substantial battery degradation (some of which suggested V2G
would reduce a battery’s life to only two years) [5]. It is therefore very
unlikely that any potential battery degradation caused by V2G will
affect the technical feasibility of an EV from meeting daily driving range
requirements or prevent further participation in V2G [15]. At the same
time, it is important to remember that while the current literature’s
in-depth modeling show positive results for V2G’s impact on batteries,
these results are still largely hypothetical.
Nonetheless, battery degradation is an important challenge once it is
introduced to consumers and starts to affect their valuation of the bat-
tery. Even though degradation may be relatively minor (or even improve
battery health), consumers may resist participating in V2G out of fear
that the impacts will be worse than expected, especially given the high
valuation of battery life and range in general [3, 5, 7, 16]. To be clear,
the barriers we discuss in Chapters 4 and 6 originate out of techni-
cal concerns with regard to the degradation to the battery and may be
resolved through technical solutions, i.e., showing V2G does not impact
battery life or actually improves it.
72    
L. Noel et al.

3.2 Charger Efficiency

The second key technical challenge in the V2G system is the overall
efficiency of sending energy to and from the grid, particularly from the
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Though in Chapter 2 we
showed that V2G systems have a comparatively high efficiency (~70–
80%) compared to other energy storage systems, such as hydrogen sys-
tems (efficiency of 40–50%), efficiency still has substantial impacts on
the cost-efficacy of V2G systems. Energy losses impact the amount of
total energy that makes it from the grid to the battery, and vice versa,
so when performing any type of V2G service, the round-trip losses of
energy are essentially paid for by the V2G aggregator and EV owner.
In addition to V2G, energy losses effect the amount of money an EV
owner needs to pay just to charge their EV.
As such, the energy losses that occur throughout the V2G system
influence the technical efficiency as an electricity grid participant, but
more importantly, the economic cost-effectiveness of both EV owner-
ship and V2G participation, reinforcing the importance of understand-
ing the extent of energy losses. Starting at the grid connection, energy
losses can occur at the transformers, the breaker panels, and the EVSE.
Next, within the car itself, energy losses can occur at the charger or
power electronics unit (PEU), and finally, within the battery, with the
opposite order of losses when discharging energy [17]. Similar to calcu-
lating battery degradation, the amount of energy losses throughout the
process is highly dependent on variable factors, including temperature,
current (in amps), and the current SoC of the battery. Complicating
these factors further is that the amount of losses at each stage for each
attribute also changes depending on whether the system is charging or
discharging energy from the grid.
Using an actual V2G system as an experimental setting, Apostolaki-
Iosifidou et al. [17] found the overall system losses, as well as energy
losses at each stage of the V2G system, as shown in Table 3.1. As one
can read in this table, the amount of losses depends on whether the sys-
tem is currently charging or discharging as well as the current level (in
amps). However, a few trends can be found, that the battery, breakers,
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
73

Table 3.1 Percentage energy loss per stage in the V2G system for charging and
discharging at two different current levels
Total GIV system percentage losses: building and EV components
Component AC current (A) Percentage losses (%)
Charging Discharging
EV battery 10 0.64 0.64
40 1.69 1.91
EV PEU 10 6.28 16.67
40 5.77 19.23
EVSE 10 0.10 1.42
≈40 0.29 1.39
Breakers 10 0.00 2.80
≈40 1.30 0.60
Transformer 10 10.20 14.60
≈40 3.33 6.65
Total 10 17.22 36.13
40 12.38 29.78
Reprinted from [17]

and EVSE are responsible for a very limited amount of the losses.
Another trend is that, for the most part, efficiency increases as higher
amperages are used (though of course, even this conclusion depends
on other factors, such as temperature and the battery’s SoC). However,
most concerning is that energy losses are particularly high at the PEU
and the transformer. Nonetheless, one should note two important
points about the transformer losses found in this study: first, that the
transformer modeled had abnormally low power loads, which causes
high energy losses, and if assuming normal energy loads, transformer
losses were substantially lower; and second, that transformer losses are
typically not included in the costs to the consumer of a V2G system
[18] as they are usually not “behind the meter.” With the higher (and
more typical) utilization of a transformer, the authors estimate a round-
trip efficiency would be closer to 70% (including transformer losses),
not the 62% implied by adding up the losses shown in Table 3.1.
Unlike the transformer, unfortunately, there are no extenuating cir-
cumstances that artificially inflated PEU energy losses. Instead, the
authors found that other EVs found even higher energy losses (though
these too occurred at very low currents). Nonetheless, more focus
74    
L. Noel et al.

should be put on PEU efficiency, a hard task considering the wide varie-
ties of currents and voltages that PEUs typically are designed to operate
in. While previous literature has focused on the efficiency of PEUs dur-
ing charging [19, 20], finding similar charging efficiencies as presented
in Table 3.1, future research should focus on increasing the efficiency
of discharging, and implementing higher efficiencies (e.g., 94.5% dis-
charging efficiency) in practice [21, 22].
One simple solution to reduce overall losses is to increase the EVSE’s
current and voltage capacity, as increasing the EVSE’s capacity from
8 amps at 120 volts to 10 amps at 240 volts would reduce within-EV
losses from 20% down to only 6% [17]. However, underscoring the
cheapness of electricity they found that this sharp decrease in energy
losses only resulted in an increase in savings of $60 per year. Likewise,
other studies found that higher capacity EVSEs (e.g., Level 2) would
also perform more efficiently at higher temperatures than lower capac-
ity EVSEs (e.g., Level 1) [23]. Additionally, upgrading the EVSE
would have benefits beyond charging and discharging efficiency, such
as quicker charging and higher capacity to bid into ancillary market ser-
vices (as we briefly described in Chapter 2).
A second means of reducing energy losses is by designing a control
algorithm that optimizes efficiency. Given that losses change depend-
ing on factors that can be either known (such as the battery’s SoC) or
controlled (the current flow), an algorithm can be designed to take
this information into account to reduce losses either during charg-
ing or while providing V2G services (charging and discharging). For
example, by taking into consideration power capacity and battery
SoC, one algorithm decreased overall energy losses by 8.5% [17]. On
the other hand, while algorithms can be used to resolve several chal-
lenges (as we discuss in more detail in Sect. 3.3.1), a recent review
has found that there has not been enough focus in the literature in
designing algorithms to specifically limit energy losses throughout
the charging and discharging process [24]. All in all, control algo-
rithms can be better designed in the future in order to maximize sys-
tem efficiency, which is more complex than the literature commonly
assumes (i.e., efficiency is rarely a constant and highly dependent on
variable factors).
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
75

3.3 Aggregation and Communication

Aggregation of individual EVs in the V2G system offers a plethora of
advantages that we have described above and in the previous chapters.
Through aggregation, V2G aggregators can implement control and dis-
patch algorithms that provide the means to optimize a variety of differ-
ent aspects of the V2G system. For example, a variety of papers have
investigated how algorithms can optimize grid stability, balance energy
among EVs, maximize the economic benefit for EV owners, and min-
imize battery degradation, among other goals [24]. Despite these bene-
fits, aggregators face two central challenges, the first with implementing
algorithms that can handle the growing complexity of V2G systems,
and the second with the communication system. In order to capture the
benefits that algorithms could offer to the V2G system, these barriers
need to be first addressed.

3.3.1 Aggregation and Scaling

As we describe in Chapter 1, aggregation is often a necessary aspect of

the V2G system to have enough capacity to participate on large elec-
tricity grid markets. And while dispatch and control algorithms imple-
mented in aggregation are not only necessary, and have a variety of
secondary benefits, they also pose a set of challenges. Because a V2G
system may be based on thousands (if not millions) of EVs, there is
unpredictability and stochasticity inherent to any dispatch or control
algorithm.
While a variety of papers have endeavored to investigate the ways
these algorithms can improve overall V2G performance, there remains
several key issues that warrant further research. In a recent review of
the literature Peng et al. find four key areas that require a better under-
standing from an algorithm perspective: (1) a better understanding
of economic factors (charging and discharging price, battery deg-
radation, etc.), (2) the space and time distribution of EV integra-
tion in the grid (including prediction and machine learning), (3)
algorithms that take into account factors that minimize energy loss,
76    
L. Noel et al.

and finally, (4) increasing the practical implementation of the heavily-

theoretical focus of the existing literature (especially important as V2G sys-
tem grows and becomes more integral to electricity grid operation) [24].
While we discuss the economic challenges (especially battery deg-
radation) and energy efficiency above, we will briefly discuss the chal-
lenge of timing in V2G algorithms. The problem of timing within the
EV fleet can pose challenges in that the uncertainty of human behavior
prevents accurately and easily predicting the capacity for fleet flexibility
a day in advance, when bids in electricity markets are often required.
In order to resolve this uncertainty, algorithms can be designed to assist
V2G aggregators to avoid energy imbalances and over-bidding capac-
ity. For example, one study used reinforcement learning of EV behavior
to reduce day-ahead prediction error and reduce overall operation costs
due to energy imbalances [25]. In sum, implementing algorithms such
as this one, in tandem with algorithms that minimize battery degrada-
tion, optimize overall economic benefits, and improve energy efficiency,
should be put in the primary focus of research, especially as it moves
away from theoretical aspects, and more toward practical applications.
Beyond these recommendations, V2G can be considered an innova-
tion the falls under the Internet-of-Things (IoT) landscape, of which
there is substantially more literature on the barriers that these technol-
ogies will generally face. When placed in this context, the IoT literature
provides another set of novel barriers to V2G. By far the most common
challenge suggested by the IoT literature is the extensive amount of data
needed to be collected, managed, and analyzed [26–29]. For example,
if a V2G system consisted of 1 million EVs providing frequency regu-
lation, the system will have data collected every few seconds, resulting
in billions of data points each hour, or trillions of data points per year!
Based on rough estimates of data collection for V2G systems in exist-
ence today,1 this amount of data would equate to tens to hundreds of
petabytes (roughly a trillion kilobytes) for each million of V2G-capable
EVs (keeping in mind that the USA alone has around 270 million vehi-
cles [30]). Simply having enough storage for this data in of itself will

1Based on the author’s personal experience with the data collection process with Nuvve, a V2G

aggregator company (discussed in Chapter 1).

 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
77

prove challenging, not to mention optimizing management practices of

the data, and the capacity to analyze the plethora of data in a reasonable
matter.
A second related set of challenges in this context is security and pri-
vacy, as they relate to data collection [27–29]. The main concern is that
by providing data to a V2G aggregator that, if a third party was given
access or hacked into the data management system, then one can deter-
mine an individual’s mobility patterns (as one can tell where one is,
based on when and for how long their EV is plugged in). Considering
the potential sensitivity of consumers, this is further complicated by the
sheer amount of data being collected during V2G, and even more so
if combined with other IoT technologies like smart homes or mobile
phones [28, 29]. As such, another challenge will be regulating data
collection, preventing access to data by third parties, and establishing
legally and socially acceptable standards. In this thread, another related
challenge commonly discussed in the IoT literature is a variety of legal
and social challenges, which is certainly also true for V2G systems, as
we discuss further in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.
On the other hand, some of the challenges proposed in the IoT liter-
ature may not be as applicable to V2G. For example, when combining
a variety of different technologies, the heterogeneity of these technolo-
gies (i.e., communication, hardware capabilities) may pose a challenge
in aggregation [26]. But, unless V2G is placed in the context of dis-
parate other technologies (e.g., cell phones or LED lighting), then this
challenge is unlikely to be pressing for V2G systems. Similarly, another
study found that this heterogeneity combined with fast-changing inno-
vation cycles could make the operation of an IoT system highly unsta-
ble and difficult to manage [27], but a V2G system in isolation is
unlikely to face such challenges.
Most importantly, it is worth noting that the two central challenges
from an IoT perspective, the amount of data and the access to that data,
along with several other minor ones such as capacity reliability, energy
management and others [26, 28], become more difficult as aggrega-
tion continues to scale upward. As we discuss in Chapter 2, many of
the societal benefits of V2G, namely renewable energy integration, are
captured when large capacities are aggregated. Thus, the largest benefits
78    
L. Noel et al.

of V2G also come with the largest IoT-related challenges. Data collec-
tion, privacy, and security are only minor concerns in the current V2G
systems that exist within private fleets of tens of EVs, but if V2G is to
become a dominant technology in the transportation and electricity sec-
tors, then aggregation needs to be developed in such a way that large
amounts of data can be stored securely and managed with a consumer’s
privacy in mind. Because V2G remains a niche technology, the chal-
lenges of big data in V2G systems [31], as well as their potential solu-
tions, remain to be seen.

3.3.2 Communication Standards

In addition to the challenges in aggregation, algorithms and scaling of

a V2G system, a related challenge is the communication standard that
is used in the V2G system to transmit messages to and from the EVs
and the EVSEs. This challenge of communication between the EV and
the EVSE (as well as the backend of the system thereafter) also provides
some opportunities, as a properly designed communication standard
can resolve some of the challenges discussed in the above section, e.g.,
properly designed communication standards can ensure privacy and
security of data transfer between an individual’s EV and the aggregator.
Currently, there is a myriad of different communication protocols
proposed by various groups to standardize the means of communicating
between EVSEs and an EV, including the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 15118, the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) J2847, and a de facto standard, CHAdeMO [32]. In addition
to these, there are also a variety of periphery standards, such as com-
munication between the aggregator and the EVSE, namely ISO 61850
and Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP). However, here we will focus
on the communication between EVSEs and EVs and the difference in
implementation between SAE J2847, ISO 15118, and CHAdeMO.
The main differences and similarities are shown in Table 3.2.
First, ISO 15118 is a partly published standard, which is still under
development, and has the aim to be implemented globally, though
initially it is most prominently used and accepted in Western Europe.
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
79

Table 3.2 Differences between the three V2G standards

Standard Means of Currents Response time (s) Criticism
communication
ISO 15118 Power line AC or DC 60 Lack of suffi-
communication cient security
measures, poor
response times
SAE J2847 Power line AC or DC <1 Designed for
communication aggregation
with non-vehi-
cle smart home
technologies,
based on SEP
2.0
CHAdeMO Control area DC only <1 No vehicle iden-
network tification or
security, only
works with
CHAdeMO
chargers (high
capacity DC)
Source Authors and [33, 34]

ISO 15118 sets out the technical requirements and communication

protocols of controlled charging in AC, DC, and V2G capability. The
standard sets out a variety of different definitions and requirements,
including (1) general information and use-case definition; (2) network
and application protocol requirements; (3) wired physical and data link
layer requirements; (4) network and application protocol conform-
ance tests; (5) physical layer and data link layer conformance test; and
(6–8) wireless communication [35]. Though the standard would allow
for communication in a variety of use cases, it has been criticized for
half-measures in regard to security [36] as well as poor response times
[33]. In addition, the extended time period of developing ISO 15118
from an idea to usable standard has led to the implementation of
interim standards in other parts of the world like DIN SPEC 70121 in
Germany and SAE J2847 in the USA [37].
Second, SAE J2847 is a standard that was developed by (and imple-
mentation largely focused in) the USA. This standard, like ISO 15118,
80    
L. Noel et al.

sets technical requirements and communication protocols for AC and

DC controlled charging, as well as V2G capability. Further highlight-
ing the similarities, SAE J2847/2, which defines DC controlled charg-
ing, is largely based on ISO 15118-2. However, pertinent to V2G, SAE
J2847 is based largely on the Smart Energy Profile (SEP) 2.0, which is a
technology developed to integrate a variety of smart technologies within
each home into a single profile. As such, SEP 2.0 places V2G-capable
EV in a different context compared to other standards, as it will be
easier to integrate across different technologies, such as smart air-con-
ditioning or smart refrigerators. On the other hand, it may be more dif-
ficult to aggregate millions of V2G-capable EVs as SEP 2.0 is geared
toward merging very disparate technologies, with different technical
attributes, most of which will not be as high in capacity as EVs. Thus,
the efficacy of this communication standard may be highly depend-
ent on the type of technologies that exist beside the EV in consumer’s
homes, as well as the future of the smart grid. Then again, while SAE
J2847 currently differs from ISO 15118, future updates of both are said
to remove most of these differences and integrate them [37].
Finally, outside of governmental standardization bodies, CHAdeMO
is a separate standard based on a specialized high capacity DC fast
charger which has related communication protocols that allow for
V2G communication [33]. In addition to being exclusively functional
with their high capacity chargers and EVs with applicable plugs, there
are several other key distinctions between CHAdeMO and the other
two prominent communication standards. For example, the means
of communication is done through the control area network (CAN)
bus, and there is limited additional communication capacity such as
identification of individual EVs, which degrades the security of the
V2G system [33]. On the other hand, there are some benefits that
CHAdeMO obtains, such as communicating information like the EV’s
SoC. However, given the high cost but also very high capacity of the
chargers, it seems unlikely that the typical EV owner would be willing
to purchase and use a CHAdeMO to participate in a V2G system at
their home or place of work. Just as SAE J2847 and ISO 15118 depend
on the future of the smart grid to determine their efficacy, the future of
CHAdeMO as a major V2G communication standard depends on the
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
81

future charging network (whether fewer, higher capacity chargers or

many lower capacity chargers at home and work).
Up until now, however, none of these standards have been widely
accepted as the clear favorite for V2G. Across the various existing V2G
projects, no single standard has taken hold, with projects around the
world using ISO 15118, CHAdeMO, ISO 61851 Annex D, or other
communication protocols such as Open ADR 2.0 (a protocol focused
largely on demand response) [38, 39]. In addition, the implementation
of a complex communication standard like ISO 15118 across the globe
is both technical and political, and will evolve as technologies improve,
regulations become enacted and users gain more experience with V2G
[32]. The role of the V2G communication standards will evolve and sta-
bilize as the expectations and visions of V2G in the future smart grid
cycle through various hypes. Whether the communication standard is
used only in high capacity public charging (CHAdeMO) or in combi-
nation with various other smart technologies in the home (SAE J2847)
or otherwise only remains to be seen.

3.4 V2G in a Digital Society

Minimizing battery degradation, optimizing charger efficiency, and
implementing effective algorithms to aggregate resources each alone
pose significant challenges, but the V2G system needs to do all of the
above while also scaling up in the near future. At the same time, the
advent of the smart grid in general has brought several concerns of the
evolving electricity grid to the forefront. As mentioned above, smart
technologies such as V2G systems will include vast amounts of data col-
lection and tracking, which implicates security and privacy concerns,
and more broadly, upholding democracy and transparency with regard
to the electricity grid.
The data associated with V2G systems, namely the timing of when
and where cars are plugged in can be considered sensitive subjects. For
example, if given access to this data, a third party could predict when
an EV owner participating in V2G would or would not be at home,
or infer the places that the EV owner has traveled to and from. Thus,
82    
L. Noel et al.

because the V2G system’s data is potentially sensitive, a variety of secu-

rity measures must be taken to ensure that the EV owner’s privacy is
protected.
Of course, such concerns about privacy and information security are
not new for grids, especially as the electricity grid is increasingly mod-
ernized. The smart grid too implicates a wide variety of data, much of
which can be considered sensitive [40, 41] as it relates to increasingly
real-life measurement of household energy use [42]. In addition to third
parties accessing EV owners’ data to determine their habits of when
they’re home or not, there are a variety of other potential security issues
in regard to smart grids (and thus V2G systems) that must be taken care
of. For example, Table 3.3 describes some examples of security issues
of smart grids in general and potential applications to V2G systems.
Across these seven risks, third parties have the potential to launch a vari-
ety of attacks that range from disabling the EV to accessing private data
about the EV owner to physically damaging the EV.
In addition to these general smart grid privacy and security chal-
lenges, there are several aspects unique to V2G that further complicate
risks to the EV owner, the aggregator, and the grid. For example, unlike
other smart grid technologies, V2G systems are dynamically participat-
ing in ancillary services, requiring communication every few seconds. In
addition, EVs are highly mobile and will move across various chargers,
making identification more difficult. Finally, V2G systems add bidirec-
tionality and decentralization to an extent above other smart grid tech-
nologies [43]. Consequently, to protect against these concerns and those
listed in Table 3.3, the aggregator must implement several key security
measures throughout the process.
There are two main aspects to preserving an EV owner’s security
and maintaining privacy during participation in a V2G system. First is
authentication of the EV once it is plugged in and begins a charging
session, in order to prevent impersonation attacks during the commu-
nication between aggregator and the EV. This can be done using digi-
tal certificate systems and key authentication, or, alternatively, external
identification means (EIM) such as credit cards [43, 44]. As we men-
tioned above, the ISO 15118 standard has been criticized as having
insufficient measures, and some researchers have called for changes,
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
83

Table 3.3 Potential security risks in a smart grid/V2G system. Based on concepts
discussed in [41]
Security risk Definition Example in V2G
Impersonation/spoofing Attacker impersonates Third party impersonates
a legitimate actor to and tells aggregator
make unauthorized that EV does not need
communications to be charged, prevent-
ing owner from making
trips
Eavesdropping Attacker “listens” in on Third party can access
data communication, data and determine
accesses personal data when EV owner is not
home or on vacation
Data tampering Attacker modifies data Third party changes
exchanged during the power signal sent to
communication process the EV, causing the V2G
system to fail
Authorization and Attacker attempts to Third party gains author-
control gain authorization ization, controls EV to
and remotely controls stop providing V2G, EV
device owner loses revenue
Malicious code Attacker infects smart Third party compromises
grid or aggregator V2G fleet, causing it to
software with malicious malfunction and stop
code to disable or con- providing services
trol devices
Availability/DoS Attacker can reduce Third party overwhelms
availability of commu- aggregator’s com-
nication by disrupting munication, prevents
communication service messaging between
aggregator and V2G
fleet
Cyberattacks Attacker uses cyber Third party controls com-
aspects of the smart munication, attempts
grid to attack physical to damage EVSE and
assets EV physical hardware

including mandatory certificate verification, removing optional security

measures, and redesigning of the certificate key generation process [44].
However, this is better than other options, such as CHAdeMO, that
have no security protocols [33]. Clearly, to avoid the worst of the attacks
listed in Table 3.3, security and authentication need to be taken more
seriously during charging sessions and the design of these standards.
84    
L. Noel et al.

The second aspect is to preserve anonymity of individual EV own-

ers during data collection and mining [45]. That is, after a secure V2G
charging sessions are complete, a third party could access the data that is
stored after the fact in order to gain information about the habits of the
EV owner, and possibly change the data to cause loss of revenue to the
EV owner. Thus, in addition to securing communication between the
EV and the aggregator, the aggregator must keep the stored data secured
from outside attacks. Further complicating these security concerns is the
potential scale of V2G. As there could be millions (or even billions) of
EVs around the globe in the future, the use of key authentication for
each region may prove especially difficult [41]. At the same time, col-
lecting, storing, and securing petabytes of data per year can also prove
increasingly difficult. In the short term, developing the V2G system
algorithms must consider battery degradation, charger efficiency, but in
the long term, the most challenging barrier may be securing communi-
cation between the EV and EVSE and preserving privacy.

3.5 Conclusion
This chapter has laid out several of the technical challenges that a
V2G system may face in the short and long term. While none of these
challenges in a strict sense prevent an EV from participating in V2G,
these barriers can make V2G less effective, the EV less useful, and even
potentially threaten the EV owner or electricity grids. In addition, these
barriers can also influence other aspects in the sociotechnical system.
For example, though we have shown above that battery degradation
is unlikely to impact the efficacy of an EV’s ability to meet daily driv-
ing requirements, consumers may feel that V2G adds an unnecessary
risk. In tandem with battery degradation, literal security risks such as
potential cyberattacks may push consumers entirely away from con-
sidering V2G as a possibility. In response, these risks need to be com-
municated properly, addressed in a way that can assuage the concerns
of EV owners, and put into context of the benefits of V2G. Without
addressing these concerns, consumer valuation of privacy and battery
life may cause the economics of V2G to falter, as the benefits would be
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
85

outweighed by consumer doubts and fear. Likewise, charger efficiency

can also influence the cost-effectiveness of V2G. Thus, in order for V2G
to succeed in its diffusion, these technical barriers need to be resolved
from an economic and social perspective.

References
1. Schuitema G, Anable J, Skippon S, Kinnear N. The role of instrumental,
hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles.
Transp Res Part Policy Pract. 2013;48:39–49.
2. Egbue O, Long S. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehi-
cles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy.
2012;48:717–29.
3. Hidrue MK, Parsons GR, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to
pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour Energy Econ.
2011;33(3):686–705.
4. Thompson AW. Economic implications of lithium ion battery degradation
for vehicle-to-grid (V2X) services. J Power Sources. 2018;396:691–709.
5. Bishop JDK, Axon CJ, Bonilla D, Tran M, Banister D, McCulloch MD.
Evaluating the impact of V2G services on the degradation of batteries in
PHEV and EV. Appl Energy. 2013;111:206–18.
6. Rezvanizaniani SM, Liu Z, Chen Y, Lee J. Review and recent advances in
battery health monitoring and prognostics technologies for electric vehicle
(EV) safety and mobility. J Power Sources. 2014;256:110–24.
7. Wang D, Coignard J, Zeng T, Zhang C, Saxena S. Quantifying electric
vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services.
J Power Sources. 2016;332:193–203.
8. Jaguemont J, Boulon L, Dubé Y. A comprehensive review of lithium-ion
batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles at cold temperatures. Appl
Energy. 2016;164:99–114.
9. Fernández IJ, Calvillo CF, Sánchez-Miralles A, Boal J. Capacity fade and
aging models for electric batteries and optimal charging strategy for elec-
tric vehicles. Energy. 2013;60:35–43.
10. Smith K, Saxon A, Keyser M, Lundstrom B, Cao Z, Roc A. Life predic-
tion model for grid-connected Li-ion battery energy storage system. In:
Seattle, Washington; 2017. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy17osti/67102.pdf.
86    
L. Noel et al.

11. Petit M, Prada E, Sauvant-Moynot V. Development of an empirical aging

model for Li-ion batteries and application to assess the impact of vehicle-
to-grid strategies on battery lifetime. Appl Energy. 2016;172:398–407.
12. Shinzaki S, Sadano H, Maruyama Y, Kempton W. Deployment of vehi-
cle-to-grid technology and related issues. In: 2015 [cited 2018 Jul 21].
Available from: http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-0306/.
13. Lunz B, Yan Z, Gerschler JB, Sauer DU. Influence of plug-in hybrid elec-
tric vehicle charging strategies on charging and battery degradation costs.
Energy Policy. 2012;46:511–19.
14. Uddin K, Jackson T, Widanage WD, Chouchelamane G, Jennings PA,
Marco J. On the possibility of extending the lifetime of lithium-ion bat-
teries through optimal V2G facilitated by an integrated vehicle and smart-
grid system. Energy. 2017;133:710–22.
15. Saxena S, Le Floch C, MacDonald J, Moura S. Quantifying EV battery
end-of-life through analysis of travel needs with vehicle powertrain mod-
els. J Power Sources. 2015;282:265–76.
16. Jensen AF, Cherchi E, Mabit SL. On the stability of preferences and atti-
tudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transp Res Part
Transp Environ. 2013;25:24–32.
17. Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Codani P, Kempton W. Measurement of
power loss during electric vehicle charging and discharging. Energy.
2017;127:730–42.
18. Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Kempton W, Codani P. Reply to Shirazi and Sachs
comments on “measurement of power loss during electric vehicle charging
and discharging”. Energy. 2018;142:1142–43.
19. Kim J-S, Choe G-Y, Jung H-M, Lee B-K, Cho Y-J, Han K-B. Design and
implementation of a high-efficiency on-board battery charger for electric
vehicles with frequency control strategy. In: IEEE; 2010 [cited 2018 Jul
22]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5729042/.
20. Musavi F, Edington M, Eberle W, Dunford WG. Energy efficiency in
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle chargers: evaluation and comparison of
front end AC-DC topologies. In: IEEE; 2011 [cited 2018 Jul 22]. p. 273–
80. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6063780/.
21. Kwon M, Jung S, Choi S. A high efficiency bi-directional EV charger with
seamless mode transfer for V2G and V2H application. In: IEEE; 2015
[cited 2018 Jul 22]. p. 5394–99. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/7310418/.
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
87

22. Bodo N, Levi E, Subotic I, Espina J, Empringham L, Johnson CM.

Efficiency evaluation of fully integrated on-board EV battery chargers with
nine-phase machines. IEEE Trans Energy Convers. 2017;32(1):257–66.
23. Sears J, Roberts D, Glitman K. A comparison of electric vehicle Level
1 and Level 2 charging efficiency. In: IEEE; 2014 [cited 2018 Jul 22].
p. 255–58. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7046253/.
24. Peng C, Zou J, Lian L. Dispatching strategies of electric vehicles partic-
ipating in frequency regulation on power grid: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2017;68:147–52.
25. Vandael S, Claessens B, Ernst D, Holvoet T, Deconinck G. Reinforcement
learning of heuristic EV fleet charging in a day-ahead electricity market.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2015;6(4):1795–805.
26. Talari S, Shafie-khah M, Siano P, Loia V, Tommasetti A, Catalão J. A
review of smart cities based on the internet of things concept. Energies.
2017;10(4):421.
27. Lee I, Lee K. The Internet of Things (IoT): applications, investments, and
challenges for enterprises. Bus Horiz. 2015;58(4):431–40.
28. Nahrstedt K, Li H, Nguyen P, Chang S, Vu L. Internet of mobile things:
mobility-driven challenges, designs and implementations. In: IEEE; 2016
[cited 2018 Jul 27]. p. 25–36. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/7471348/.
29. Xu LD, He W, Li S. Internet of things in industries: a survey. IEEE Trans
Ind Inform. 2014;10(4):2233–243.
30. U.S. DOT. Highway statistics 2016 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 2018
Jun. Available from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/
statistics/2016/.
31. Philip Chen CL, Zhang C-Y. Data-intensive applications, challenges, tech-
niques and technologies: a survey on big data. Inf Sci. 2014;275:314–47.
32. Kester J, Noel L, Lin X, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. The copro-
duction of electric mobility: selectivity, conformity and fragmentation in
the sociotechnical acceptance of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) standards. J Clean
Prod. 2019; 207: 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.018.
33. Martinenas S, Vandael S, Andersen PB, Christensen B. Standards for EV
charging and their usability for providing V2G services in the primary
reserve market.pdf. In: Montreal, Canada; 2016.
88    
L. Noel et al.

34. Pratt R, Tuffner F, Gowri K. Electric vehicle communication standards

testing and validation—Phase I: SAE J2847/1. Richland, Washington:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 2011 Sep. p. 49. Report No.:
PNNL-20913.
35. ISO. ISO 15118-1:2013—road vehicles—vehicle to grid communication
interface—Part 1: general information and use-case definition [Internet].
International Standards Organization; 2013 Apr [cited 2016 Jun 20].
p. 65. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/cat-
alogue_detail.htm?csnumber=55365.
36. Saxena N, Choi BJ. Authentication scheme for flexible charging and
discharging of mobile vehicles in the V2G networks. IEEE Trans Inf
Forensics Secur. 2016;11(7):1438–52.
37. California Energy Commission. Transcript of the 12/07/16 Vehicle-Grid
Integration Communications Standards Workshop [Internet]. California
Energy Commission; 2016. Available from: http://docketpublic.energy.
ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-TRAN-01/TN215114_20161228T104913_
Transcript_of_the_120716_VehicleGrid_Integration_Communications.
pdf.
38. Markel T, Meintz A, Hardy K, Chen B, Bohn T, Smart J, et al. Multi-
Lab EV Smart Grid Integration Requirements Study [Internet]. Golden,
Colorado: NREL; 2015 May [cited 2016 May 22]. p. 91. Report No.:
NREL/TP-5400-63963. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy16osti/60958.pdf.
39. Chen B, Hardy KS, Harper JD, Bohn TP, Dobrzynski DS. Towards stand-
ardized vehicle grid integration: current status, challenges, and next steps.
In: Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC), 2015 IEEE
[Internet]. IEEE; 2015 [cited 2016 Apr 28]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7165789.
40. McDaniel P, McLaughlin S. Security and privacy challenges in the smart
grid. IEEE Secur Priv Mag. 2009;7(3):75–77.
41. Bekara C. Security issues and challenges for the IoT-based smart grid.
Procedia Comput Sci. 2014;34:532–37.
42. Quinn EL. Smart metering and privacy: existing laws and competing pol-
icies. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2018 Aug 24]. Available
from: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1462285.
43. Saxena N, Grijalva S, Chukwuka V, Vasilakos AV. Network security
and privacy challenges in smart vehicle-to-grid. IEEE Wirel Commun.
2017;24(4):88–98.
 3 The Technical Challenges to V2G    
89

44. Bao K, Valev H, Wagner M, Schmeck H. A threat analysis of the vehi-

cle-to-grid charging protocol ISO 15118. Comput Sci Res Dev.
2018;33(1–2):3–12.
45. Xu L, Jiang C, Wang J, Yuan J, Ren Y. Information security in big data:
privacy and data mining. IEEE Access. 2014;2:1149–176.
 4
The Economic
and Business Challenges to V2G

In the previous chapter, we discussed the technical challenges to

V2G, focusing on battery degradation, charger efficiency, commu-
nication, and aggregation and scaling. In that chapter, we argued
that these challenges partially form the basis for the other challenges
that cut across economic, business, policy, and social dimensions.
Here we expand on this argument by discussing the particular eco-
nomic and business challenges of V2G. Many of the challenges dis-
cussed here can be connected to the technical challenges discussed
in Chapter 3, and others are connected to the remaining chapters,
such as double taxation (which affects both economic, business and
regulatory challenges of V2G). And while these issues are inter-
connected, the economic effectiveness and general business case of
V2G can directly determine the extent of its diffusion. Lack of cost-
effectiveness or lack of a workable business model will necessarily
hinder the development of a V2G system. With this in mind, we
detail the potential costs, revenues, and business structures of V2G
below.

© The Author(s) 2019 91

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_4
92    
L. Noel et al.

4.1 Evaluating V2G Costs and Revenues

Before moving onto the costs and revenues of V2G, it is necessary to
recognize that a V2G system is layered on top of an existing system of
costs and benefits, that is, the EV itself. When calculating the costs and
revenues of V2G, especially from the perspective of the EV owner, it
should be in the context of additional costs and revenues. Thus, to place
the costs and revenues of V2G in its proper setting, we briefly explore
the costs and benefits of an EV, and then discuss how this might change
if V2G were added to it.

4.1.1 EV Costs and Benefits

To understand the cost-effectiveness of an EV, it is often compared to

a counterfactual, what the alternative would be if no action was taken,
which in this case is commonly a typical gasoline car (though can also be
other alternatives, such as diesel or biofueled cars). As compared to a typ-
ical gasoline car, there are several additional costs of an EV, including the
higher cost of the EV itself (as EVs are typically more expensive than gas-
oline vehicles) and the cost of an EVSE or charger at home (if needed).
On the other hand, EVs also provide several benefits as compared to a
typical gasoline vehicle, such as reduced fueling cost (as electricity is
cheaper than gasoline) and reduced maintenance costs. In short, the costs
of EVs mainly consist of high upfront capital costs while the benefits of
electrification accrue over the lifetime of the vehicle. The balance between
these higher upfront costs and gradual benefits is summarized in Eq. 4.1.
 FuelEV−Gas + MaintenanceEV−Gas
NPC = ((EVCAP + EVSECAP ) − GasCAP ) + (+Br )
(1 + r)y

(4.1)
Equation 4.1. A Typical Cost-Benefit Equation of an EV as Compared a
Gasoline Vehicle, where NPC is the net present cost, CAP is the capital
cost, r is the discount rate, y is the year over the lifetime of the analysis,
Br is the battery replacement cost, if necessary.
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
93

With this balance in mind, the literature has found that EVs (includ-
ing plug-in hybrid versions) are in general cost-effective, though it
depends on the exact context of each comparison. One such fac-
tor that affects the cost-efficiency of EVs is the length of ownership
of the vehicle. For example, one study found that plug-in hybrid EV
(PHEVs) were cost-effective as compared to a traditional gas vehicle
after 6–12 years, depending on the model type and size of battery [1].
Similarly, another study found that an EV is more cost-effective than a
typical gasoline vehicle after traveling 60,000 miles (or approximately
5–7 years, depending on travel demands) [2]. Another study found that
EVs in Sweden were the most cost-effective option over the life span
of ten years [3]. On the other hand, another study found that EVs are
only cost-effective as compared to typical gasoline vehicles dependent
on the distances driven, becoming the better choice after a daily driv-
ing demand of more than 50 kilometers [4]. A more recent study con-
cluded that EVs were generally cost-effective, though it depended on
the car model, finding that vans, large cars, and small cars were gener-
ally cost-effective for EVs, but not for medium-sized cars [5].
Throughout these different studies, it is important to note that the
inputs of Eq. 4.1 vary, depending on the context of the comparison
(such as the capital cost between EVs and gasoline vehicles and their
model size) and the author’s choices (such as the discount rate or
assumed battery replacement). The overall point, though, is that the
cost-effectiveness of EVs is dependent on the situation, but is frequently
found to be cost-effective in a variety of different use cases and contexts.
And in the cases where they are not found to be cost-effective, EVs are
generally still cost-competitive, that is, there is not a substantial eco-
nomic difference between EVs and the counterfactual.
Lastly, while factors outside of the EV are important to the cost-
effectiveness, such as the life span of the vehicle in the analysis and the
discount rate utilized, the most important attribute within the EV is the
cost of the battery which is roughly about a quarter of the price of a
new EV [6]. This affects the overall capital cost of the EV as well as the
potential battery replacement cost, which are two of the highest costs
and the most influential factors in Eq. 4.1. It follows that the main
focus of increasing an EV’s cost-effectiveness (and thus EV adoption
94    
L. Noel et al.

rates) is reducing the cost of the battery [7, 8]. Alternatively, another
means of increasing the comparative advantageousness of an EV is to
include V2G benefits, which we discuss next.

4.1.2 Adding V2G Costs and Benefits

Next, let us add V2G capability to these costs and benefits of a typi-
cal EV. As we briefly described in Chapter 2, the potential revenue of
participating in the frequency regulation market can be substantial and
represent additional benefits to the EV owner (as opposed to exclusively
costs represented in Eq. 4.1). On the other hand, before these reve-
nues can be gained, there are several elements that need to be added
to the EV system in order to achieve V2G capability (as we discussed
in Chapter 1). For example, adding V2G capability to the EV and
the EVSE each add an additional (albeit minor) cost. In addition, it is
important to note that there is a cost of aggregation as well, which is
typically represented as a portion of the V2G revenue being kept by the
aggregator. Finally, another cost may be that V2G accelerates the degra-
dation of the battery and potentially makes the replacement of the bat-
tery more likely. However, as we described in the previous chapter, the
impact of V2G is still uncertain. All in all, with these additional costs
and benefits in mind, we have updated Eq. 4.1 to include V2G costs
and benefits, as shown in Eq. 4.2.

NPC =((EV + V2GCAP + EVSE + V2GCAP ) − GasCAP )

+
 FuelEV−Gas + MaintenanceEV−Gas − (V2GR − Agg)
(+Br )
(4.2)
(1 + r)y

Equation 4.2. A Typical Cost-Benefit Equation of an EV as Compared

a Gasoline Vehicle, with V2G Revenues. Note: V2GR is the revenues
from V2G, Agg is the aggregator cost, all else is the same as Eq. 4.1.
Of the additional costs due to V2G, it is expected that the marginal
cost related to V2G to the EV itself will be relatively minor, perhaps
only a few hundred dollars. Instead, the more pressing costs are the
additional EVSE and infrastructure costs, as well as the potential cost to
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
95

replace the battery [9, 10]. There are two primary reasons that the addi-
tional cost of V2G-capable EVSEs is higher; first, that these EVSEs are
currently made to order and do not benefit from scales of production,
and secondly, that since many EVs are not designed with the capacity
to provide V2G with their on-board chargers, more expensive off-board
DC chargers are sometimes used to provide V2G. This can increase
the EVSE costs by several thousand dollars, depending on the tech-
nology (e.g., Level 1 or 2) and the costs of individual EVSEs that are
being compared. While both of these costs present challenges currently,
they are also not expected to persist as V2G technology matures and
will likely cost roughly the same as an EVSE that is not V2G-capable.
But in the short term, the main focus of reducing capital costs of V2G
remains mostly within reducing the cost of the EVSE/charger.
On the other hand, battery degradation is a trickier cost to gauge. First,
the technical impacts of V2G on battery degradation are dependent on the
service provided [11], but even then, the extent of impacts can be minor,
or none, or even improve battery health [11–13]. Still, assuming con-
servatively that there is some increased battery degradation due to V2G,
translating this into an economic effect is still murky. That is, if the bat-
tery degrades slightly, such as an additional 3.6% over ten years one study
found from V2G participation in frequency regulation [11], this does not
directly result in an economic cost. Instead, the impact of battery degrada-
tion is that it results in capacity loss and reduces the range of the EV. This,
in turn, can cause an economic cost if it results in the EV owner needing
to replace their battery. But the point at which the capacity fades to such
a point that requires battery replacement is not necessarily objective and
depends on the driving demands and preferences of the EV owner.
For example, one study found that even after accounting for
“extreme” battery degradation (more than 40% of capacity fade), the
average user could meet more than 75% of the driving trips [14]. In
response to this, an EV owner could either plan their driving resources
more carefully (i.e., plan their trips around more frequent charging), use
another car, or replace their battery. Presumably, the EV owner would
avoid replacing the battery until it is absolutely necessary to do so, but
if that decision is made, the cost is quite high. Assuming a 30 kWh bat-
tery, the cost of battery replacement would range from about $7000
96    
L. Noel et al.

to $9000 (depending on the cost estimate of the battery pack) [7, 15].
Remembering our calculations from Chapter 2, a best-case scenario
would be V2G revenues of about $2000 a year, implying that needing
to replace the battery would negate about 4 or 5 years of V2G revenues,
a substantial cost.
On the other hand, it is also important to remember that the majority
of degradation will be due to driving, not providing V2G, and that total
degradation from both is closer to approximately 30% after 10 years
[11]. If only comparing the additional cost of V2G, then one could cal-
culate the total cost of battery replacement, ~$8000 and multiply it by
the percent of additional battery degradation due to V2G (3.6% out
of the baseline of 31%) which is approximately 10%. Thus, one could
say that the battery degradation costs of V2G are approximately $800
over 10 years. Adding the potential additional EVSE costs and this cost
together, one can assume the additional V2G costs in total are on the
order of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
Next, the benefits of V2G, V2GR in Eq. 4.2, are itself dependent on
a variety of factors. Remembering the equation in Chapter 2, V2G rev-
enues are dependent on the type of service being provided, the value of
that service, the capacity that the individual EV can provide, and the
amount of time (in hours) the EV spends providing that service. Based
on our assumption of participating in frequency regulation in the PJM
market, we found in Chapter 2 that annual revenues for a typical EV
could amount to $2140 [16, 17] and would have similar revenues from
frequency regulation around other electricity markets [18]. In reality, it
is quite likely that an EV will not participate in frequency regulation on
its own and would rely on an aggregator to participate in these services
on their behalf, and overall revenues would be contingent on the regu-
latory framework, which we discuss in Chapter 5. As such, a portion of
this revenue would go to the aggregator to cover their costs.
Yet, because V2G is such a novel technology and has been put
into practice in very limited circumstances, the cost of the aggregator
as a portion of V2G revenues is not well understood. For example,
one study assumed that the aggregator would take 50% of the reve-
nues, leaving the EV owners with the other half of the revenues [19].
Applying this figure to our estimated annual revenues would leave the
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
97

EV owner with $1070 per year (and conversely, the aggregator would
have a revenue of $1000 per car in their system). Other studies assume
a cost of 33% of revenues [8], which would leave the EV owner a reve-
nue of $1400 per year.
Even taking a conservative estimation of aggregator costs, the poten-
tial benefits of V2G would clearly outweigh the additional capital and
battery costs associated with V2G. For example, assuming a battery
degradation cost of $800, an additional EVSE cost of $2000, and an
additional EV cost of $500, the overall V2G cost would total to $3300.
This cost would be paid off by the benefits of V2G revenues within
3 or 4 years. Given a life span of 10–12 years, V2G is a clear cost-
effective addition to EVs and would have a cost-effective ratio of 3:1.
In addition, given that EVs on their own are on the cusp of cost-
competitiveness with gasoline vehicles, V2G can make the choice clear.
For example, though applied to buses, it was found that an electric bus
had essentially the same cost-effectiveness as a diesel bus, but when
V2G revenues were added, the V2G-capable bus was a third cheaper
than the diesel bus [10]. Thus, V2G revenues could tilt the cost-benefit
analysis in clear favor of owning an EV as opposed to a gasoline or die-
sel vehicle.

4.1.3 Additional V2G Costs

However, beyond these direct costs and benefits, there are several remain-
ing technical and regulatory challenges that could impact the cost-effec-
tiveness of V2G (and thus V2G-capable EVs). These concerns include
double taxation and charger efficiency and are also discussed in Chapters 5
and 3, respectively. Still, here we show how these technical and regulatory
challenges impact the economic and business efficacy of V2G. Both of
these challenges can greatly decrease the benefits of V2G, potentially to the
extent that the benefits would be outweighted by V2G costs, and resulting
in V2G reducing the overall cost-effectiveness of an EV, not helping it.
Of course, both V2G and charging related to driving consumes
electricity from the grid. In turn, this affects both double taxation and
charger efficiency. For example, in the most recent pilot project in
98    
L. Noel et al.

Denmark, the taxation on energy was found to comprise over 75% of

the aggregator’s cost (whereas actual electricity cost was only 11% of
overall cost) [20]. Moreover, because participating in V2G increases
the overall energy flow through the charger, taxing energy put into the
battery as well as taxing energy coming out of the battery can greatly
increase the overall cost as compared to taxes associated only with driv-
ing. As the grid needs the energy in order to balance frequency devia-
tions (and since overall bidirectional energy flows can be substantial),
it has been argued that the Danish tax system should not be applied to
V2G in this case, and instead only to the share of energy that is used for
driving [20]. To put it bluntly, the developers of the Danish V2G pilot
project conclude that V2G is “not initially profitable without profound
changes in the way taxes and tariffs are applied” [20].
Admittedly, Denmark is not exactly a typical example of electricity
taxation rates globally, as it has by far the highest in the world [21], but
it underscores the potential economic challenges V2G faces as a novel
market participant. Moreover, electricity taxes are common through-
out the globe and discerning the proper ways to tax electricity without
discouraging frequency regulation will be essential to the overall cost-
effectiveness of the V2G system. While the taxation scheme in
Denmark causes V2G to no longer be profitable, other countries with
lower taxes can still severely hinder the economic advantages of V2G,
and thus EVs. We discuss this further from a regulatory perspective in
the next chapter.
Next, as we discussed in Chapter 3, a main technical challenge of
V2G systems is the overall system efficiency. Yet, we also showed in
Chapter 2 that V2G is one of the more efficient storage systems with
a rough round-trip efficiency of about 80% as opposed to hydrogen,
which is closer to 40% [22, 23]. Still, while V2G is comparatively
efficient, energy losses can still increase the overall cost of the system,
thereby reducing the overall revenues for both the aggregator and the
EV owner. When participating in frequency regulation, energy that is
lost due to system inefficiency must be “bought” to make up the dif-
ference—which entails further charging the battery, as lost energy is
made up by drawing extra energy from the battery. This extra energy is
not as devastating to the cost-effectiveness of the V2G system as taxes
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
99

(especially in Denmark [20]), but one study found that accounting for
energy loss could decrease revenues by 17% [22]. In addition, this extra
energy would also increase the amount of taxes paid by the EV owner
and V2G system, aggravating the economic costs of taxation. Of course,
the overall cost of energy loss within the V2G system depends on the
local context and its electricity prices and taxation scheme. Nonetheless,
unlike the cost of double taxation, there is no regulatory solution to this
cost, and it relies exclusively on technical improvements to EVSE and
EV power efficiency.
Finally, in some electricity grids, there are regulations about who can
bid into the market. That is, V2G aggregators sometimes cannot directly
interact with the frequency regulation market, and instead have to part-
ner with a third party, often called a balance responsible party (BRP).
The BRP is then responsible for ensuring that the energy provided to the
grid is balanced and covers the costs of any imbalances. Using the Danish
pilot project as an example, the cost of having a third-party BRP bid
on the frequency regulation market on their behalf increased their costs
by 13% [20]. Unsurprisingly, the pilot project operators have called for
restructuring the Danish electricity market to allow the aggregator to be
a direct player in the frequency regulation market [20]. We discuss regu-
latory frameworks and their potential challenges to V2G in Chapter 5.
In the meantime, adding these additional costs of BRPs, energy
losses, and taxation schemes together paints a bleak picture for the
cost-effectiveness of V2G systems. As concluded above, harsh dou-
ble taxation schemes like the one in place in Denmark alone could
erase the positive benefits of V2G. However, even if such taxation was
resolved (as called for by the aggregator), or if taxation was reduced
to other global averages [21], the total cost of these three could still
greatly impair cost-effectiveness of V2G, and that of V2G increasing
the cost-effectiveness of EV systems. Combining the percentage costs of
energy losses and BRP, one could assume that these costs reduce total
V2G revenue by about 30%. Applying this to our earlier calculation of
revenue to the EV owner, this reduction results in an annual revenue
closer to $750 per year (not accounting for potential taxation schemes).
This elongates the payback period to 5 or 6 years before the benefits of
V2G outweigh the additional costs. And while V2G still is found to be
100    
L. Noel et al.

cost-effective, the additional profit from V2G over the life span of the
EV, approximately $3000–$5000 undiscounted, may not be enough to
tilt EVs in favor of a traditional gasoline vehicle. This is especially true
when considering that consumers tend to be skeptical and overly dis-
count future savings [24, 25]. In short, additional costs and skepticism
from consumers can essentially reduce the marginal benefit of convert-
ing an EV into a V2G-capable EV to essentially zero.
In order for V2G to be a cost-effective system, and in order for V2G
to increase the deployment of EVs, it is therefore essential for these tech-
nical and regulatory barriers to be resolved. Together, these barriers can
reduce the cost-efficacy of V2G to zero. Even individually, some of the
barriers, such as double taxation in Denmark, can entirely negate the
profitability of V2G. Nonetheless, there exist solutions from a regula-
tory perspective for many of these barriers (Chapter 5), and if addressed,
V2G can provide substantial benefits to the EV owner to the degree that
it is the obvious cost-effective choice over a gasoline vehicle. In addi-
tion, resolving technical barriers such as the cost of V2G-capable EVSE,
reducing battery degradation, and improving system efficiency further
enhances the profitability of owning a V2G-capable EV. In sum, if tech-
nical and regulatory barriers are resolved, V2G can be very cost-effective
and may provide a large incentive for EV adoption and diffusion.

4.1.4 The Evolving Nature of V2G Costs and Benefits

In the near term, while the benefits of V2G may help assuage some of
the barriers already identified, the way in which V2G actually develops
remains uncertain. For example, in the literature, it has been shown that
V2G can be the difference in cost-effectiveness for an EV, but even with
this knowledge, actors may be limited by the amount of capital costs
required to invest in an EV [10]. As such, one potential solution is for
the aggregator to change the compensation scheme such that the aggre-
gator covers these capital costs, and then receives a larger proportion
of the V2G revenues. In some cases, this may resolve the challenge of
higher capital costs for V2G-capable EVSEs, or in other cases, the addi-
tional capital cost of an EV. Alternatively, another model may be that
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
101

the aggregator transfers a different value in exchange for higher V2G

revenues, such as providing the EV owner with free charging for their
driving.
In addition, as we discussed in Chapter 2, the benefits of V2G to
society are quite wide in their scope. And while the future may greatly
reduce the costs associated with V2G, as the technology diffuses, it may
also bring substantial change to the benefits. To be clear, society has the
most to gain when the share of V2G grows to a larger proportion of
the transportation fleet, as it can provide more flexibility and storage to
the grid (especially in tandem with large-scale renewable energy, see, e.g.,
[26, 27]). At the same time, though there are additional benefits to be
captured if there were millions instead of hundreds of EVs in an aggre-
gator’s fleet, it is likely that the overall benefit per vehicle would decrease
overall. This is especially true if V2G capacity grows to such an amount
that it is capable of pushing down the price of ancillary market services
(which would benefit society and electricity ratepayers, but reduce total
revenues to the V2G system and individual EV owners). While there is
a strong case to be made, based on its societal benefits to mitigate the
current cost-effectiveness of V2G with subsidies or other investment
support, on the long term, work needs to be done on the viability of
the V2G system for individual EV owners as per-EV revenues decrease.
For example, by transferring value to EV owners (e.g., free driving or an
upgraded charger) instead of revenues may be key to the later stages of
V2G diffusion. Transferring revenues or other types of value to the EV
owner is not just one of the aggregator’s central roles in the V2G system,
it may also be the final push to convince potential EV owners to adopt
an EV over a gasoline vehicle. Either way, given all its potential and its
open development, it is important to understand how V2G business
models would operate and function, which we discuss next.

4.2 V2G Business Models

Internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) traditionally have what
engineers call a “unilateral” relationship with their fueling infrastructure
(when refueling), as well as arguably having little to no impact in other
102    
L. Noel et al.

surrounding infrastructure systems, in particular, energy supply systems.

Electric vehicles, on the other hand, are on the opposite spectrum in
two particular ways. First, the source of power for EVs at “the pump,”
or in this case, electricity plug is shared with other types of demand,
such as power for buildings, households, industries, among others.
Second, through V2G, EVs have a bilateral relationship and can com-
municate with their charging infrastructure (both EVSEs and the power
grid) to offer a number of services to the power system. These oppor-
tunities for communication and system-pairing require new models of
business and development that account for the new interconnections
and dynamics across different systems, such as transport and electricity
supply. While more work has been done around the business implica-
tions of EVs, considering they are further along the diffusion path, V2G
remains a nascent technology and its real-world business applications
have remained limited prior to 2018.
In this section, we explore different elements of the business impli-
cations of V2G, such as the pricing and revenue models that are
imperative to V2G’s business case and its potential for social diffusion;
ownership structures and dynamics across stakeholders, and how these
interact within a V2G system; and the interaction of V2G with other
systems and other technologies such as home appliances, or market
opportunities via grid services.

4.2.1 Pricing and Revenue Models

For the business implications of V2G, one must consider the elements
that are both essential to the workings of V2G as well as the effects it can
have in collateral systems, processes, and actors. Here a plethora of new
dimensions arises, that has not been taken into consideration in the pre-
vious dominant technology of combustion engine cars. With ICEVs, the
business case and their pricing and revenue models are in a way straight-
forward due to the unilateral relationship they have with the fueling
infrastructure as well as the natural elements of their fuel source. This
includes a fast and low-cost operation, with high volumes of localized
demand, relatively few specific locations for infrastructure, and despite
high initial capital costs, the paybacks are and have been reasonable.
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
103

EVs and V2G, on the other hand, have and are still developing new
pricing and revenues models which have yet to find maintainable and
reasonable returns that justify investments and the development of a
greater market. As shown above, there are many barriers that can affect
EV’s and V2G’s pricing and revenue models, with the biggest perhaps
being the cost of V2G technology (communication chips or software).
Here, however, we focus on other considerations that can affect the rev-
enue model for V2G to work empirically, starting with the understand-
ing of the core unit of use in the system: electricity. While electricity is
a daily and widely used form of energy, the understanding of electricity
among the wider public can be categorized as limited, something that is
reflected in consumer areas such as retail power markets with low levels
of consumer knowledge about power bills, pricing, and volume usages
[28], which mainly derives from a lack of understanding the units of
measure of electricity: ampere, kilowatt, watt, etc.
In a V2G system, it is necessary that its users have some basic under-
standing of electricity. Particularly for V2G-capable EV owners and
aggregators, since electricity will be the main product exchanged from
an EV to the grid and vice versa, where the form of seller and buyer is
constantly changing depending on where the power is stored at a par-
ticular time. For example, these elements differ depending on whether
the V2G-capable EV is being recharged for driving, or is instead pro-
viding grid services. EVs have these considerations regarding the under-
standing of electricity, but with V2G it becomes imperative since it is
the property of the V2G participant. It is their EV, their battery, and
their power that it is being used, sold, stored, and served, and therefore,
a true and accurate understanding of these concepts is imperative both
for the adoption of V2G from a consumer perspective, but also from a
business side to make the business of V2G work in practice. Moreover,
system users also need other relevant knowledge such as the distinctions
between power capacity (watts), power use (watt-hours), and the rela-
tionship between power and its economic value (e.g., potential reve-
nues, degradation costs, operational costs, etc.).
This knowledge, however, has and will have different considerations
depending on the type of V2G market that we focus on. As previously
noted, in its current commercial form, V2G mainly exists in the vehicle
104    
L. Noel et al.

fleet space, where a number of V2G-capable EVs are owned and oper-
ated by a single entity, mainly a private or public company, and this
user interacts directly with the aggregator. And the aggregator subse-
quently takes the aggregated pool of power to different types of elec-
tricity markets, mostly ancillary services, such as frequency regulation.
Here the pricing and revenue models can arguably be straightforward
since the V2G-capable EVs, as part of a fleet, will mainly be connecting
to V2G-capable EVSEs located in a single place and are used solely by
the fleet operator. Therefore, there is only a single type of transaction,
one that can be fairly stable, considering the fleet will likely operate dur-
ing working hours, and therefore, their V2G availability will be particu-
larly high during early mornings, late afternoons, and throughout the
night. Within this V2G system, there are three types of end-revenues,
one for the fleet owner, one for the aggregator, and one for the EVSE
owner (if different from the fleet owner or the aggregator). Therefore,
the total revenues from participating in the power market, via the pro-
vision of power or capacity is divided among these three actors. The
pricing structure may change depending on the aggregator company or
EVSE provider (as it would in any other market), but if V2G is diffused
more widely in the fleet space, different pricing models can arise based
on volumes of power. For example, the aggregator may have different
pricing models or levels of commission depending on the available vol-
ume (the number of V2G-capable EVs and the time they are available
for V2G provision) of the fleet operator. More so, if a fleet operator is
large enough to fulfill the minimum power requirements to enter the
electricity market on its own, then we could see a number of independ-
ent V2G-capable EV providers participating in grid services without the
support of a separate aggregator. Such a scenario would create a new
and simpler revenue model for the V2G system since the aggregator is
removed (but the role remains and is taken up by the fleet provider).
This is similar to what currently happens with energy producers, where
large wind farms or gas power plants can enter as single bidders in
power markets.
Complexities may arise however if and when V2G diffuses across
society and enters the private consumer market, especially consider-
ing the multiple and different types of transaction points that would
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
105

exist within the private passenger V2G system. Whereas current V2G
models focus on a single centralized actor, the vehicle fleet operator, the
private consumer market would open the V2G model would greatly
increase the transaction points between aggregator, EVSEs, and EV
owners. To show the differences, we conceptualize a V2G fleet model
and three different private vehicle market V2G models in Fig. 4.1.
Here we present a household (model 1), a household and work (model
2), and a household, work, and public connection model (model 3).
In each of these scenarios, the V2G aggregator would have to engage
potentially with a variety of different actors, given that the EV can con-
nect to an EVSE at home, at work or at a public charging spot, each
perhaps having different actors involved. In addition, each of these
locations could use different types of chargers with different speeds,
power, and overall energy exchanged at particular moments, which
can complicate capacity requirements for the aggregator in addition to
muddling the V2G business model.

Fig. 4.1 Potential V2G revenue, pricing, and power flow models (Source
Authors)
106    
L. Noel et al.

For instance, it is technically and organizationally challenging if

we take model 3 with a single privately owned V2G-capable EV that
can connect at home with a level 1 (or 2) charger, at work with a level
2 charger, and on the motorway or at a shopping mall with a level 3
charger. From a technical standpoint, the available power capacity
of the V2G-capable EV will be different on each of these EVSEs and
could influence the type of services that the aggregator can provide (or
whether the EV can provide any V2G capacity at all). Moreover, the
EVSE and grid connection of each of these charging points could be
owned by a different player, whether it is a power utility or a combi-
nation of utilities and EVSE providers. Thus, in this example, the EV
owner and the EVSE providers at home, work, and in public (which
could be different companies owning each) would all receive revenues
from the V2G process, in addition to the aggregator. This clearly con-
trasts with the fleet model, where revenues can be limited to three par-
ties. Therefore, the V2G aggregator will have to design a model that
can capture the different types of transactions with the various players
in the market, to accommodate pricing structures and revenues, while
concomitantly minimizing transaction costs and informing consumers
about what is actually happening.

4.2.2 Ownership Structure: Aggregators

and Other Actors

Throughout the previous chapters, we have defined the primary actors

of the V2G system, starting with the aggregator, the EV owner, the
EVSE owner, and the local grid operator. The complexity of this V2G
system will depend on the type of market the system operates on the
transportation side (e.g., fleets or private vehicles), as this will deter-
mine the type and number of actors in the V2G system, as well as
the potential ownership structure. In these markets, one first needs to
identify the elements of the system that need ownership, such as infra-
structure or electricity, and then identify who are the actors that have
and should have ownership of these elements, as the state of ownership
and use of service can and will determine revenue streams in the V2G
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
107

system. Here we discuss two main types of ownership structures, cen-

tralized and dynamic, based on the type of market, type of V2G trans-
action, the level of development of V2G (i.e., if there is competition
across aggregators), and who and at what point of the process owns the
unit of transaction, electricity.
The V2G aggregator can appear as the principal actor within the
V2G system, since it is the entity that enables the dual interaction
between EVs and the electricity grid. For this reason, one could see the
aggregator as a market intermediary or market dealer in the traditional
sense, as it takes one or several customers onto a market that otherwise
the customers would not have access to. It is possible, however, to go
further and instead see the aggregator as a market maker, since it creates
a new type of market within both the transportation and the power sec-
tor, the V2G market. Moreover, as V2G is developed, the aggregator can
create other forms of services, such as selling power capacity to other
forms of infrastructure different than the power grid; particularly as
their volumes of V2G-capable EVs and overall power capacity increases.
This approach can be regarded as a centralized model of ownership since
the aggregator is the main enabler for bidirectional engagements and
has contracts with both parts of the market. Such a model particularly
fits the current commercial applications of V2G which operates on the
vehicle fleet space. Additionally, the marginal V2G-capable EV owner
can only interact with the grid via an existing aggregator, limiting the
overall number of potential V2G aggregators operating in the market.
Other models of ownership can arise once V2G develops further and
enters the private passenger vehicle market or when EVs and V2G are
diffused into larger fleets of EVs available for grid services. Assuming
there is more than one market aggregator, ownership of the V2G sys-
tem can be dynamic, and V2G-capable EVs have options in how and
with which aggregator they want to sell their power or capacity back to
the grid. In this sense, ownership of the V2G process could d­ ynamically
move across the system depending on where and with whom the electric-
ity sits at particular points in the V2G process. The dynamism on own-
ership structures can also arise when V2G fleets become large enough
that certain V2G-capable EV owners do not require the s­ervices of an
aggregator to be taken to market. As discussed above, this can resemble
108    
L. Noel et al.

how the current power market operates with larger scale players tak-
ing their production or capacity independently to the market without
needed the services of an aggregator or intermediary.
Moreover, this idea can be taken further, if for example power markets
are decentralized, then power providers (renewable energy producers or
capacity providers) can engage in retail sales without having to partici-
pate with national centralized markets. As seen in markets like the Great
Britain power market, transactions and power both flow back to the
national transmission level, and retailers have to be able to provide power
across the entire national geography, which would not be possible for
large vehicle fleets aiming to provide power or capacity to specific build-
ings. In this scenario, V2G and the dual communication ability can be
explored further, under the umbrella conceptualization of V2X (further
discussed in Sect. 4.2.3) as it allows V2G-capable EV owners to fulfill
local needs of power. Thus, when diffused to private consumers, the V2G
market could see different types of market-driven contractual agreements
to define ownership structures, whether EV owners can join subscrip-
tion-like services for capacity or power provision, or in an opt-in, opt-out
basis depending on power prices or required power volumes for driving.
Additionally, when discussing ownership and actors in a V2G sys-
tem, it is important to note that the nature of the system can change
as the V2G market develops, particularly the form of the aggregator.
Currently, the existing aggregators are either ICT companies, such as
Nuvve, or research institutions, such as the University of Delaware in
the USA [29]. In our field research, respondent R162, from a power
utility, explains that the market development for V2G will likely be
formed by new companies rather than traditional players:

In Finland we are very market driven. So I don’t see any municipalities

or public bodies in this. It will be companies who are running this. And
I think a mixture of energy companies and aggregators, most likely new
companies [rather than incumbents].

However, traditional companies can naturally embody the role of

aggregators, specifically utility companies and also EVSE providers. For
example, Ovo Energy in the Great British power market has already
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
109

made commitments to participate in V2G [30]. This is particularly

likely as the V2G market moves to private vehicles where an EV owner
can easily enter into a contract with their existing utility for both the
household and EV power services, similar to the diffusion of residential
PV. Under this idea, we can expect that the V2G market could develop
in a similar way as onshore renewable energy production (solar PV or
wind), that is, taken to market via aggregators through contractual
agreements such as power purchasing agreements (PPA) for larger pro-
duction units, or even through a scheme such as the feed-in tariffs (FiT)
for domestic solar PV installations.

4.2.3 Defining the Evolving Market: Integration

with Other Technologies

While V2G remains a niche part of both the transportation and electric-
ity markets, it has made significant progress recently and is moving quickly
from pilot projects to commercial applications across different countries
[30–32]. Most current applications of V2G remain both within vehicle
fleets and the provision of ancillary services, in particular, frequency reg-
ulation. V2G is expected to continue to progress both in penetrating the
transportation market with more V2G-capable EVs (in fleets and private
passenger vehicles), as well as in the power market (with more presence
within frequency regulation), while also reaching to other markets such as
short and long-term balancing. The business considerations on whether
V2G should enter these different types of short to medium storage mar-
kets depend on V2G aggregators having sufficient capacity to participate in
them. Thus, as V2G continues to grow in capacity, it is expected that the
elements of the V2G business model will coevolve with the technology.
Beyond the expected uses of V2G for existing power markets, if V2G
is diffused to private consumers, V2G-capable EVs can support the devel-
opment of other infrastructure and markets, such as renewable energy,
smart grids, microgrids, and supergrids. Particularly in the case of super-
grids, V2G may actually provide a bridge that enables this development.
As discussed in Chapter 2, V2G could help integrate medium amounts
of renewable energy at lower costs while the supergrid is being built for
110    
L. Noel et al.

the highest level of renewable energy (e.g., 90% of generation or more).

V2G in this way could help the case of building a supergrid, as it makes
little sense to have a supergrid if the power system has only 30–50%
renewable generation with the remainder coming from conventional fos-
sil-fueled power plants (to which the supergrid would provide little to
no benefit). While V2G systems may prove to be a stepping-stone to a
supergrid, once in operation, the relationship between the two systems
appears to be complementary but non-essential, considering that V2G
could provide benefits within specific subregions of the supergrid. On
the other hand, while potentially rare, V2G could provide backup power
in case of technical failures within the supergrid, especially as aggregated
capacity grows to meet such large power demands. However, these rela-
tionships have not been discussed in depth, in part due to V2G’s niche
status, but also the currently theoretical state of supergrids.
On the other hand, V2G can be an integral element of smart grids
and microgrids, particularly when these are renewable energy-based.
Here V2G can act as the storage component of the grid, with either a
commercial fleet or privately owned passenger V2G-capable EVs, help-
ing to harmonize the system both with balancing capabilities, but also
maximizing renewable energy utilization by acting as storage for when
the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shinning. In turn, this could
help for example those with off-grid [33] purposes or those living in
remote locations such as the northern parts of the Scandinavian coun-
tries, like Finmark in Norway or Lapland in Finland, that often have a
single cable connecting the region with the central power system (e.g.,
vehicle-to-community, V2C). Ultimately, given the potentially cheap
cost of V2G, and the value of storage to the electricity grid in general, it
is reasonable to assume that under any supergrid or smart grid (or com-
bination thereof ) V2G can provide a wide array of valuable services.
Moreover, V2G is not only limited to the power grid, because once
EVs can communicate back into systems, a plethora of new oppor-
tunities opens as we can connect EVs to virtually anything. As seen in
Chapter 1, this is an emerging concept known as vehicle-to-X (V2X).
For this reason, these services start to capture new names and con-
cepts, such as vehicle-to-home, (V2H), vehicle-to-building (V2B), or
vehicle-to-community (V2C), among others [34–36]. Thus the possi-
bility for V2X to be applied to a variety of new problems, particularly
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
111

highly mobile and highly local needs for power [37]. While these uses
of V2G are currently understudied in the literature [38], the application
of power to places and loads that are otherwise not feasible or conven-
ient allows EVs to serve as more than a source of mobility for people
or power to the grid. In our research, we found different examples of
V2X, from using it to power telescopes, to grills or a source of power
while camping. These applications might feel to narrow but certainly
can support the diversification of uses of EVs and therefore contribute to
their social diffusion. Importantly, however, V2X can have considerable
system impacts when thinking of V2B or V2C especially. For example,
when a fleet of V2G-capable EVs is paired with large physical infrastruc-
ture such as stadiums, hospitals, or power plants, and helps balance the
power requirements of those buildings as well as allows for local renewa-
ble energy to be incorporated, then it removes some of the stress on the
grid to and from those buildings. That said, outside of small-scale pilot
projects, we have yet to see commercial applications that have captured
these models. An example, though, can be found in the Amsterdam
Arena and Nissan agreement, using 280 Nissan Leaf batteries for storage
and balancing requirements, with the caveat that these are second hand
or use batteries rather than true V2G services [39]. Thus, business mod-
els that capture V2B or V2X benefits remain undeveloped and uncertain.
In addition, while there can be a variety of novel and evolving mar-
kets that V2G-capable EVs in the near future, similar issues of owner-
ship and actor’s roles in the related business models remain unresolved.
Nonetheless, EVs, through the dual communication ability, can serve
many purposes to society, whether it is at a system level, with V2G and
V2C powering local grids and off-grid communities, to local uses such
as netting the power demand of households, or even for the eventual
telescope for anyone gazing at the stars while camping.

4.3 Conclusion
This chapter has intimately and intricately traced the business implica-
tions of V2G, particularly referring to the economic costs and revenue
models of potential V2G systems. To understand these, we first touched
on the comparison with ICEVs, since it is V2G and EVs that compete
112    
L. Noel et al.

against ICEVs in the automotive sociotechnical system. At first glance,

conventional fossil cars appear to have a relative advantage due to their
arguably straightforward business case and economic models, which cur-
rently make ICEVs more profitable that EVs (and consequently V2G-
capable EVs). From a cost perspective, this is the result of over 100 years
of manufacturing optimization with a legacy of investments of assembly
lines and economies of scale that make the manufacturing of combus-
tion engines and vehicles relatively low cost. Furthermore, from a system
perspective, the simplicity and cost advantage come from the unilateral
relationship of ICEVs have with their refueling infrastructure, since pet-
rol and diesel cars can only be refueled. We also noted how petrol and
diesel, as an end-product, are not shared with other systems or types of
demand other than transportation, at least in large scale, making the
design of refueling the ICEV system straightforward, with a few stations
located at traffic hot spots or public gatherings (next to shopping malls).
This, on the other hand, is not the case for V2G-capable EVs. The
business case of V2G must consider the manufacturing costs of EVs,
which are currently higher than conventional vehicles due to the elec-
tric battery and the lack of manufacturing robustness to take advantage
of economies of scale, and also the cost for making them V2G-capable,
which adds software and hardware both to the EV and its charging
infrastructure, the EVSE. While not considered substantial, the costs of
making an EV capable of providing V2G can be a deterrent to the busi-
ness case of both technologies considering the already high EV produc-
tion costs, especially if V2G cost barriers remain unaddressed.
Beyond the manufacturing implications, the V2G model needs to
contemplate its interaction with the electricity sector, considering V2G-
capable EVs have a bilateral relationship with their recharging infra-
structure, where an EV can communicate back to the grid and provide
a myriad of services to the electricity market. This, however, unlocks
various business implications when thinking of a V2G system, as these
vehicles share its source of power with other types of demands such
as households and industries, and can bring complexities in design-
ing power supply structures to meet the requirements of all types of
demand. Moreover, in interacting with the electricity sector, V2G
needs to consider the workings of power markets which currently have
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
113

fundamental challenges, such as the discussed double taxation (when

you charge the V2G-capable EV for driving versus when you discharge
it to provide grid services). It should also consider if, how, and when the
markets evolve beyond V2G into V2X, with applications such as V2C
or V2B. Lastly, the analysis showed the importance of regulation and
how the roles of electricity market actors will (or will not) be translated
to V2G systems.
In analyzing the business case and profitability of V2G, we also dis-
cussed the potential revenue models and ownership structures which
depend on the type of market in which V2G operates. In Fig. 4.1, we
showed a conceptual comparison of the revenue and power flows across
four different V2G models, differing across the type and number of
actors within the V2G system. The more complex private vehicle mod-
els in particular come with high transaction costs, as each EV owner,
EVSE operator, and electricity owner can be a different entity at dif-
ferent moments in the V2G process, while all being entitled to a part
of the revenues. Of course, the V2G model will coevolve with emerg-
ing electricity markets, and one can imagine aggregators will eventually
participate in other power markets with longer storage time frames.
Ultimately, the considerations to make the business case of a V2G sys-
tem viable lie with having enough V2G-capable EVs on the road to
build any type of robustness for power provision, after that the possibili-
ties are indeed multitudinous.

References
1. Al-Alawi BM, Bradley TH. Total cost of ownership, payback, and con-
sumer preference modeling of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Appl
Energy. 2013;103:488–506.
2. Mitropoulos LK, Prevedouros PD, Kopelias P. Total cost of ownership
and externalities of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle. Transp Res
Procedia. 2017;24:267–74.
3. Hagman J, Ritzén S, Stier JJ, Susilo Y. Total cost of ownership and its
potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion. Res Transp Bus
Manag. 2016;18:11–17.
114    
L. Noel et al.

4. Wu G, Inderbitzin A, Bening C. Total cost of ownership of electric vehi-

cles compared to conventional vehicles: a probabilistic analysis and projec-
tion across market segments. Energy Policy. 2015;80:196–214.
5. Weldon P, Morrissey P, O’Mahony M. Long-term cost of ownership com-
parative analysis between electric vehicles and internal combustion engine
vehicles. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;39:578–91.
6. IEA. Global EV Outlook 2018 [Internet]. Paris, France: OECD/
IEA; 2018. p. 143. Available from: https://webstore.iea.org/download/
direct/1045?filename=global_ev_outlook_2018.pdf.
7. Nykvist B, Nilsson M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric
vehicles. Nat Clim Change. 2015;23(5):329.
8. Noel L, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. Optimizing innovation, car-
bon and health in transport: assessing socially optimal electric mobility
and vehicle-to-grid pathways in Denmark. Energy. 2018;153:628–37.
9. Gough R, Dickerson C, Rowley P, Walsh C. Vehicle-to-grid feasibility:
a techno-economic analysis of EV-based energy storage. Appl Energy.
2017;192:12–23.
10. Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable elec-
tric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy.
2014;126:246–55.
11. Wang D, Coignard J, Zeng T, Zhang C, Saxena S. Quantifying electric
vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services. J
Power Sources. 2016;332:193–203.
12. Shinzaki S, Sadano H, Maruyama Y, Kempton W. Deployment of vehi-
cle-to-grid technology and related issues. In: 2015 [cited 2018 Jul 21].
Available from: http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-0306/.
13. Lunz B, Yan Z, Gerschler JB, Sauer DU. Influence of plug-in hybrid elec-
tric vehicle charging strategies on charging and battery degradation costs.
Energy Policy. 2012;46:511–19.
14. Saxena S, Le Floch C, MacDonald J, Moura S. Quantifying EV battery
end-of-life through analysis of travel needs with vehicle powertrain mod-
els. J Power Sources. 2015;282:265–76.
15. EA Energy Analyses. Vehicle energy use and cost—methodology used in
Grøn Transport Roadmap 2030 [Internet]. 2015 Nov. Available from:
http://www.ea-energianalyse.dk/reports/1459_vehicle_energy_use_and_
cost_methodology.pdf.
16. Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: How
much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C: Emerg
Technol. 2011;19(6):1171–184.
 4 The Economic and Business Challenges to V2G    
115

17. PJM. Ancillary service market results [Internet]. Ancillary Services. 2018
[cited 2018 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-op-
erations/ancillary-services.aspx.
18. Noori M, Zhao Y, Onat NC, Gardner S, Tatari O. Light-duty electric
vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through vehicle-to-
grid technology: analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings.
Appl Energy. 2016;168:146–58.
19. Bhandari V, Sun K, Homans F. The profitability of vehicle to grid for sys-
tem participants—a case study from the Electricity Reliability Council of
Texas. Energy. 2018;153:278–86.
20. Christensen B, Trahand M, Andersen PB, Olesen OJ, Thingvad A.
Integration of new technology in the ancillary service markets [Internet].
Parker Project; 2018 Mar (Public Project Report). Available from: http://
parker-project.com/.
21. Finnish Energy Industries. Energy Taxation in Europe, Japan and the
United States [Internet]. Helsinki, Finland; 2010 Nov. p. 16. Available
from: https://energia.fi/files/725/et_energiav_naytto_eng_040211.pdf.
22. Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Codani P, Kempton W. Measurement of
power loss during electric vehicle charging and discharging. Energy.
2017;127:730–42.
23. Zakeri B, Syri S. Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle
cost analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:569–96.
24. Allcott H, Wozny N. Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy para-
dox. Rev Econ Stat. 2014;96(5):779–95.
25. Hausman JA. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of
energy-using durables. Bell J Econ. 1979;10(1):33.
26. Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimiza-
tion of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and with-
out externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.
27. Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W.
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electro-
chemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power
Sources. 2013;225:60–74.
28. Read S. Six in 10 customers are still confused over their energy bills
[Internet]. Independent.co.uk. 2016 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/six-in-10-customers-
are-still-confused-over-their-energy-bills-a6972811.html.
116    
L. Noel et al.

29. University of Delaware. The grid integrated vehicle with the vehicle to grid
technology [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from: http://
www1.udel.edu/V2G/.
30. Ovo Energy. Vehicle to grid: your electric car as a power station [Internet].
2017 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.ovoenergy.com/
guides/electric-cars/vehicle-to-grid-technology.html.
31. Prateek R. A V2G-repository: 18 European vehicle2grid-projects. 2018;18.
32. Casey J. Consortium: vehicle-to-grid charging ‘could generate £5 bil-
lion’ [Internet]. Road Traffic Technology. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug
18]. Available from: https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/news/
consortium-vehicle-grid-charging-generate-5-billion/.
33. Beeton D, Meyer G. Electric vehicle business models. 2014. 266 p.
34. Sovacool BK, Axsen J, Kempton W. Tempering the promise of electric
mobility? A sociotechnical review and research agenda for vehicle-grid
integration (VGI) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G). Annu Rev Environ Resour
[Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 24]. Available from: http://www.annual-
reviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-030117-020220.
35. Yamagata Y, Seya H, Kuroda S. Energy resilient smart community: sharing
green electricity using V2C technology. Energy Procedia. 2014;61:84–87.
36. Tanguy K, Dubois MR, Lopez KL, Gagné C. Optimization model and
economic assessment of collaborative charging using vehicle-to-building.
Sustain Cities Soc. 2016;26:496–506.
37. Andersen PB, Hashemi S, Sousa T, Soerensen TM, Noel L, Christiensen
B. Cross-brand validation of grid services using V2G-enabled in the Parker
Project. In: Kobe, Japan; 2018.
38. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1).
39. Arena A. Amsterdam Arena more energy efficient with battery storage
[Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.johan-
cruijffarena.nl/default-showon-page/amsterdam-arena-more-energy-effi-
cient-with-battery-storage-.htm.
 5
The Regulatory
and Political Challenges to V2G

In this chapter, continuing our sociotechnical approach, we discuss

the regulatory and market design challenges that V2G faces, as well
as the political challenges in supporting the introduction and uptake
of V2G. The first section of this chapter discusses the need to incor-
porate V2G as a generic storage technology into electricity grid
frameworks. Next, Sect. 5.2 discusses important market design issues
related to rules and regulations that impact the value of V2G, such
as the proper valuation of ancillary services and double taxation.
Additionally, Sect. 5.3 elaborates on regulatory and legal issues spe-
cific to V2G, such as EVSE auditing, and battery degradation. Finally,
remembering that government has a role beyond just regulation,
Sect. 5.4 discusses the political and policy challenges that V2G faces,
focusing on the political will to develop policy coordination to mature
a EV and V2G ecosystem.

© The Author(s) 2019 117

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_5
118    
L. Noel et al.

5.1 V2G and Regulatory Frameworks

A core issue concerning V2G is its undefined role in existing legal and
regulatory frameworks, given that V2G can participate in markets typi-
cally limited to generation capacity, as well as emerging markets focused
on storage and flexibility. Moreover, current regulations and future
energy storage needs will differ substantially from region to region and
among various energy markets [1, 2]. This in turn leads to uncertainty
regarding regulation, ownership, and responsibility of V2G aggrega-
tors and grid operators in unbundled markets. This further complicates
other regulatory issues, such as properly designing markets to include
V2G participation.

5.1.1 Regulating V2G and Energy Storage

From a regulatory perspective, V2G is one type of energy storage, and

for any energy storage technology to play a significant role in electricity
markets, it needs to be defined and classified first [3]. However, since
the electricity grid is made up of actors whose functionality is predeter-
mined (e.g. generation or consumption), from a regulatory perspective,
multifunctional energy storage technologies like V2G are considered
undetermined assets [4]. As a consequence, both industry and govern-
ment have concluded that defining energy storage within a regulatory
framework is an essential first step to realizing the value of energy stor-
age and thus the value of V2G [5, 6].
Nonetheless, there are a range of elements that need to be resolved or
clarified before V2G can be incorporated into a regulatory framework.
For instance, energy storage technologies like V2G can either participate
across various current elements of the electricity grid, i.e., generation,
load and transmission capacity, or alternatively, they could participate in
a “new” market element that is designed separately for V2G and other
energy storage technologies [4, 7]. This choice is still currently being
debated and has a variety of opinions and rulemaking on both sides.
For example, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
recently approved a set of rules to remove barriers to energy storage that
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
119

defines energy storage a type of generation [8]. Likewise, the UK reg-

ulator Ofgem defined energy storage as a modified form generation,
which would provide the most practical regulatory clarity [9]. However,
because Ofgem distinguishes between grid-focused storage investments
and self-storage investments, V2G would need to adhere to the adjusted
generation rules, potentially hindering consumer-based V2G capacity.
On the other hand, there also have been several calls for defining
V2G and energy storage in general with its own regulatory position,
given its unique functionality for generation, transmission, and con-
sumption aspects of the grid. In contrast to the USA and the UK, the
European Commission maintains that energy storage is neither gener-
ation nor demand and has set out to establish new rules to integrate
consumer-centered storage and flexibility within electricity markets
[10, 11]. Similarly, both academia and industry lobby groups argue that
energy storage should be regulated as a unique actor within electricity
markets, as it can cut across generation, transmission, and consumption
elements of the electricity grid [4, 6, 7].
While it may benefit V2G if energy storage is regulated as a novel
market participant, since this would give V2G aggregators more flex-
ibility when participating on TSO and DSO electricity markets, the
more important principle is that the regulatory role of V2G is clearly
defined. In addition, making the regulatory role of V2G consistent and
predictable across various regions would clarify the expectations of V2G
aggregators as well as EV owners who may participate in the V2G sys-
tem. However, above all, V2G needs to be integrated in the regulatory
system in a manner that is non-discriminatory and guarantees equitable
access to the variety of electricity markets that V2G can participate in
[5, 10].
Finally, beyond defining the regulatory role of V2G and energy stor-
age, there are several related elements that need to be defined to properly
include V2G in emerging energy markets. For example, FERC recently
tasked US RTOs and ISOs to develop plans that would remove barri-
ers to energy storage participation by developing new taxation and tariff
schemes, adjusting physical and operational requirements of the markets
to mirror battery characteristics more closely, and reducing the minimum
capacity bid to 100 kW [8]. Not only does this define the role of energy
120    
L. Noel et al.

storage, but these three elements directly help V2G by removing overly
burdensome taxation (increasing V2G cost-effectiveness), optimizing
the storage benefits of batteries and V2G, and making V2G aggregation
more plausible, respectively. Another key element is elucidating how
V2G can provide “stacked” services, where a V2G system provides more
than one service at once [12], which can give more revenues streams and
increase the cost-effectiveness of the V2G system. Developing a clear reg-
ulatory definition of V2G can also give more certainty to grid operators,
giving them enough assurance to invest in technologies like V2G [13],
and counteracting the typical conservative nature of grid operators and
regulators.

5.1.2 Ownership of V2G and Energy Storage

Moving beyond the question of the regulatory role of V2G in the elec-
tricity market, a secondary question of who will and is allowed to own
energy storage technologies. In unbundled liberalized markets, grid
operators are not allowed to own and operate generation capacity, but
are they allowed to own storage capacity? In some cases, local services
that V2G can provide such as congestion management coincides with
capacitors, which grid operators already own and operate. On the other
hand, owning and operating a V2G system to participate in an ancillary
market seems to violate the principles of a liberalized market. That said,
many local flexibility and storage services that V2G may provide in the
near future do not currently have a market, such as preventing conges-
tion and avoiding capacity upgrades. From a regulatory perspective, this
poses quite a conundrum for a local DSO that needs flexibility: they
can’t own the storage that would make the grid more effective, nor can
they currently buy this storage from a third party [14].
In response, there are two clear options: either develop these mar-
kets or allow (or force) grid operators to own and operate storage. The
European Union recently proposed that neither DSOs nor TSOs could
own and operate energy storage facilities, and if energy storage is nec-
essary, then they are required to set these markets up in a standardized
manner [10]. Requiring the development of these markets will likely
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
121

benefit the diffusion and overall value of V2G in the long-term since
many localized benefits of V2G were not possible under prior regu-
lations, as we discussed in Chapter 2. Moreover, this helps clarify the
role of the DSO in V2G systems, as even among our interviewed DSO
experts, there was still much uncertainty and obscurity whether there is
a market service available to a DSO. In addition, since DSOs are often
publicly owned, they are seldom allowed to set aside funds and invest in
new technologies and pilot projects, such as V2G.
Nevertheless, there also has been a strong push to allow grid opera-
tors to own energy storage technologies such as V2G. Previous to the
European Commission prohibiting grid operators from owning energy
storage, both Belgium and Italy have allowed some form of TSO and
DSO energy storage ownership [6, 7], though this storage in Belgium
was used as a last resort for grid balancing and not for commercial
purposes. Indeed, many have argued that DSOs can and should own
energy storage technologies like V2G systems and characterize it as a
“network asset,” which can recover investment costs, but any further
commercial activity would be regulated [4]. Both TSO and DSO indus-
try groups have argued that they should be allowed to have regulated
ownership of storage technologies like V2G, especially when it is pro-
viding benefits as a network assets (and not commercial benefits) [11].
However, in a V2G system, it would be difficult to neatly distinguish
when it is acting as a “network asset” and when it is participating on a
commercial market (such as frequency regulation).
That said, there are several ways that a DSO could own a V2G sys-
tem that still operates both as a non-commercial network asset as well
as a commercial actor [7]. For example, DSOs could own and operate
the V2G system, but lease it out commercially when participating in
electricity markets. Alternatively, DSOs could simply operate a V2G
system that only participates in local electricity balancing, foregoing
any commercial activity. Finally, DSOs could also forego ownership and
instead contract a separate V2G aggregator company to provide services
for which there is no actual commercial market. Above all, these options
are entirely determined by the regulatory definition of V2G and energy
storage technologies discussed above.
122    
L. Noel et al.

Finally, regardless of whether DSOs or TSOs own energy storage

technologies like V2G systems, it is likely that both of these electricity
grid operators will greatly increase their communication capacity, with
the advent of renewable energy, the smart grid and distributed flexibil-
ity services [2, 4, 8]. For example, with energy balancing being a key
emerging concern in both the DSO and TSO grid, then there is the
adverse possibility that a V2G system could be activated to balance one,
to the detriment of the other. Thus, there needs to be improved com-
munication between both the DSO and the TSO with the V2G system.
This can exacerbate some of the technical concerns associated with the
V2G system, as it requires doubling data and communication require-
ments (since both the DSO and TSO will need to know what the
V2G system is doing and whether this conflicts with any service being
requested). Without ensuring this communication, then the poten-
tial local benefits that V2G could have provided would be lost, forcing
DSOs to focus on increasing capacity infrastructure, or perhaps to own
and operate separate energy storage systems, both of which would be
more costly than a communicative V2G system.

5.2 Market Design Challenges

Apart from defining and clarifying the regulatory complexities of V2G
and energy storage, the next challenge for V2G is that the markets that
they participate in often have unintentional barriers to storage-based
actors. As such, this requires that these markets are redesigned to
remove existing technical and financial mechanisms, as well as poten-
tially creating new markets.

5.2.1 Proper Valuation of Ancillary Services

In most markets, the missing monetization of a range of ancillary ser-

vices that V2G could deliver to the market and the grids is a strong
disincentive. Like many of the emerging DSO services that V2G
could provide, TSO-level services like voltage control and black starts
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
123

simply do not exist in some places, such as in Germany and Spain, or

are organized invisibly on long-term bilateral contracts [1]. Moreover,
it has been argued that TSOs need to develop more markets that focus
on power quality, such as surges, harmonics, imbalanced loads, and
flickering generation, which all lead to voltage drops [4]. In addition
to developing these markets such that V2G systems can easily partici-
pate, another principle is that proper valuation of local electricity pric-
ing. This can entail removing price caps [11, 15] or the introduction of
locational marginal pricing (LMP) [4–6, 10], both of which increases
the value of demand-side aspects of V2G during price hikes or during
periods of local congestion.
Within existing ancillary service markets, a major concern is that the
market design is primarily based on availability, and less focus is put on
the actual performance of the market participant [1]. Considering that a
main benefit of V2G is its fast reaction and comparatively better perfor-
mance, market designs that value power availability over performance con-
sequently undervalues the services that V2G could provide. It follows that
one immediate way to improve the cost-effectiveness of V2G (and overall
efficiency of the grid) is to redesign ancillary service markets that equally
value availability and performance. Looking further down the road, as
V2G capacity grows, it has the potential to participate in several markets
at once, providing “stacked” services, but the current market design inhib-
its simultaneously bidding into multiple markets [3, 4, 16, 17]. In short,
markets should be redesigned to properly value performance and encour-
age participation across more than one service.
Besides a proper monetization of potential and existing markets,
V2G also is hindered by the minimal capacity requirements to par-
ticipate in existing ancillary markets, which understandably, have
been historically set to levels corresponding with conventional gener-
ation capacity. This includes the minimum capacity bid and the settle-
ment period, but also agreements on the consumption baseline [18].
These requirements significantly vary regionally, as some markets do
not have minimum capacity bid requirements, whereas others require
as much as 5–10 MWs for frequency regulation and spinning reserve
markets [1]. In the short-term, requiring substantial minimum capac-
ities, such as 10 MW, poses an obvious challenge to V2G aggregators
124    
L. Noel et al.

as this translates to several thousands of V2G-capable EVs. While

V2G capacity may eventually reach such levels, reducing the min-
imum capacity bids to more achievable capacities (such as the com-
monly used 100 kW) would provide more immediate access to these
markets [4, 7, 15, 16], reducing barriers to entry.
Finally, another important element of ancillary service market design
is the notion of flexibility in the context of a consumption baseline
(what the load profile would look like if flexibility was not used at
all) [18]. Properly valuing flexibility is entirely dependent on the costs
which are avoided, which in turn is based on the consumption baseline,
and if not accepted by all the actors in the market, many will dispute
the settlements [18]. Further complicating matters is that consumption
baselines are forecasted partially based on flexibility market bids, as well
as supply markets, and can range from seasonal to day-ahead to intra-
day in temporal scope [19]. The proper valuation of flexibility markets
will become increasingly complex, especially considering the growing
number of participants. Thus, there needs to be clear settlement rules
and procedures that clearly define actor roles and responsibilities, as well
as cases when settlements are disrupted (due to weather, failures, usur-
pation, etc.) [20]. In short, there are a variety of rules and regulations
within current and emerging ancillary services that need to be resolved
both in the short and the long term to increase the value of V2G and
decrease barriers to entry.

5.2.2 Double Taxation, Curtailment

and Capacity Markets

In addition to the design of ancillary markets that are inhibiting V2G

participation, there are also several other market design elements that
reduce the economic viability of a V2G system. These elements include
double taxation, curtailment requirements for renewable energy, and
the capacity markets to support baseload capacity in the presence of
ever-increasing levels of renewable energy.
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
125

First, a key regulatory barrier to V2G is the double grid fees and tax-
ation that some electricity grid operators impose, due to historic reg-
ulatory decisions. In most countries, V2G services are required to pay
fees and taxes when they charge electricity and also when they discharge
electricity [4, 6, 7]. As previously discussed in Chapter 4, this can have
substantial economic implications for V2G when providing services
like frequency regulation, where electricity frequently flows in and out
of the battery [21]. As shown in Fig. 5.1, taxes and fees can comprise
nearly 75% of the cost of V2G operation of the Danish V2G pilot pro-
ject, and that the breakeven point would only be reached if the V2G
aggregator was exempted from these taxes (the Elafgift in Fig. 5.1) [21].
While exemption of taxes would provide a short-term solution to the
burdensome taxation scheme in Denmark, a more stable and equita-
ble solution would be to redesign taxation regulations to include net
metering. That is, instead of taxing electricity transferred between the
grid and the EV during frequency regulation market participation, net
metering would apply taxations and fees only to the net electricity actu-
ally consumed by the EV (the energy lost due to inefficiency and used
for driving). In this sense, net metering would be more fair and would
not disincentivize V2G participants.

Fig. 5.1 Influence of fees and taxation on V2G operation. Note Graph represents
Nuvve’s June 2017 settlement bills from NEAS Energy (their BPR), indicating how
much of the bought electricity is used for driving and how much for grid opera-
tions as well as the distribution of taxes, tariffs, and fees (Reprinted from [22])
126    
L. Noel et al.

Another option is to make these single tariffs and taxes flexible.

Though existing taxation regulations burden V2G systems, if these fees
are flexible, then V2G systems can use this to their advantage, as flexi-
ble taxation can increase the business case to buy off-peak and sell dur-
ing peak periods. Either way, it is clear that these regulations need to
be changed, and the absence of integrated and consistent regulations
provides little clarity to V2G operators, as some European countries do
have double taxation, while others have none [6, 7, 22]. Considering
that V2G may provide a key means to integrate renewable energy, it
may be best to resolve the double taxation regulation in the context of
renewable energy schemes, since V2G could arguably be included in
these schemes [4].
Second, in addition to taxes and fees, yet another market design
­challenge of V2G is, ironically, the existing mandates that prioritize
renewable energy. Specifically, renewable energy receives financial sup-
port when its excess generation is curtailed in order to ensure the stabil-
ity of the grid. Currently, to cover these curtailments, renewable energy
producers receive financial compensation and/or guaranteed tariffs in
certain markets. However, from a system perspective such curtailment is
wasteful, especially when considering that that excess generation could
have been absorbed by V2G systems. Thus, any financial compensation
for renewable energy producers could subsequently be construed as a
disincentive to install V2G capacity to integrate renewable energy and
its excess generation [4, 6]. In response, one solution is to require that
renewable energy generation is accompanied by local storage (instead of
elsewhere in the grid) [23], while others instead argue for a reduction
of this curtailment as an incentive to find other solutions for the result-
ing grid imbalances [4]. Either way, this renewable energy curtailment
shows that there should be a more comprehensive approach to regulat-
ing the taxes and subsidies of both V2G and renewable energy.
Third, capacity markets are another potential financial disincentive
with regard to V2G investments. While these are aimed to preserve con-
ventional peak load generation capacity that would otherwise not be
economically viable based on its actual use, the focus is still on gener-
ation—particularly natural gas. Of course, natural gas still poses sub-
stantial damages to climate change and public health, and a potential
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
127

benefit of V2G is that it could displace natural gas in stabilizing the

grid in these cases. Nonetheless, current capacity markets undervalue
behind-the-meter resources like V2G, since capacity markets are geared
toward traditional generation actors [24]. In short, these market design
elements prevent the proper valuation of V2G systems, particularly in
the long-term, and inhibit its investment stability and diffusion process.

5.2.3 Clarifying Aggregator Roles and Responsibilities

Since the concept of an independent aggregator is a relatively novel

addition to the electricity grid, the rights and responsibilities of an
aggregator remain entirely open and under debate [15]. Because of the
lack of definition, there are two central questions regarding V2G aggre-
gators. First, different electricity markets have different organization and
requirements in terms of whether aggregators can access and be inte-
grated within these markets. As shown in Fig. 5.1, some electricity mar-
kets, such as Denmark, require a third-party balance responsibility party
(BRP) to access the market on the aggregator’s behalf, which increases
the operational cost of the V2G aggregator. Thus, it is argued that
aggregators should be able to access and participate in reserve markets
without the need (and extra cost) of a third party like a BRP [15].
Second, regardless of the issue of market access, the relationship
between V2G aggregators, BRPs, suppliers, and grid operators needs
to be clearly defined, especially as these parties could have conflict-
ing objectives and simultaneously counteract each other’s objectives
and economic viability [25, 26]. For example, as R129 told us, a V2G
aggregator’s actions can have rippling effects:

Whenever the aggregator, or the customer on behalf of the aggregator,

takes a decision to change his energy consumption that deviates from the
initial forecast of a different party which is the balance responsible party,
it creates imbalances. These imbalances have to be taken care of. The
question here is how can we solve this in such a way that the imbalances
are taken care of, but the aggregator can act for the best of the customer,
without causing any negative financial benefits to the balance response
party or the supplier.
128    
L. Noel et al.

Returning to the pilot project in Denmark, the independent aggre-

gator, Nuvve, is only allowed to trade on the Danish frequency mar-
ket as a BRP or as part of a BRPs portfolio, even though Nuvve feels
that they adhere to the requirements to trade themselves [22]. In con-
trast to Denmark’s requirement that an aggregator works with a BRP,
in Sweden, the aggregator, retailer, and balance responsibility partner
could be three different companies, two companies, or one company
taking up all these roles. Recent research for Sweden, however, indicates
that aggregators will need a certain size market to be able to remain
independent, as otherwise they inevitably become part of a BRP [27].
Nonetheless, the aggregator’s relationship with the BRP, whether it is
a separate company or a role that the aggregator assumes, needs to be
clarified from a regulatory perspective.

5.3 Other V2G Regulatory and Legal

Challenges
In addition to the regulatory and market design challenges discussed so
far, which apply to all forms of energy storage technologies, there are
additional considerations specific to regulating V2G, such as metering,
communication and supply procedures and standards for auditing V2G
as a reliable source, the legal responsibility around battery degradation,
privacy concerns, and consumer acceptance in general.
First, network regulators will require V2G to adhere to certain
technical requirements to ensure a reliable grid connection. V2G
projects are thus audited on the reliability of meters, communication
protocols and charging equipment. In some cases, this may involve
international standards, like ISO 15118 (communication) or IEC
61851 (grid interaction), which are in various stages of develop-
ment and are necessary to increase the interoperability between cars
and EVSEs, which would help increase numbers of EVs and the grid.
However, multiple authors highlight how V2G operations are still
missing certain guidelines and pre-qualifications of EVSE equipment
and the EV connection [18, 22].
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
129

Similarly, this concern of authentication and auditing returned in

our interviews, with several experts discussing the difficulty of ensur-
ing that the V2G aggregator was actually delivering the services it had
sold on the market (R127, R147). This can be exacerbated by outdated
TSO regulations, such as the Danish TSO, which was obligated to visit
the site and approve the meters at the V2G pilot project, which might
make sense with 10 cars, but becomes near impossible with thousands
of units (R127). While the Danish TSO has since exempted additional
cars added to the V2G project from requiring such a visit and approval,
such an exemption is vital when projects reach the scope of thousands
of units, particularly in other regions. Additionally, both our experts
and the literature remark that the costs of the required industrial settle-
ment meters, which are standardized across the sector, do not stand in
relation to the charging station [18, 22]. If meters remain as expensive
as they currently are and are required at each individual EVSE, then this
will pose a substantial barrier to V2G’s diffusion to private consumers.
Second, while battery degradation itself is a technical issue, the legal
discussion regarding who is responsible for the degradation is still unde-
termined, particularly its relation to the warranty of car manufacturers
on the batteries and the EVs. On the one hand, our consumer research
indicates that consumers—while concerned—approach V2G pragmat-
ically: if it’s there, they are not bothered in their daily routines and are
fairly compensated, few objected outright [28]. On the car side, the
warranty discussion remains a contentious point of discussion. While
some automakers, like Nissan deem the V2G impact on batteries not an
issue and have extended the warranty to include it, others are more hes-
itant about V2G and its potential impact on batteries. Of course, other
actors in the V2G system are hesitant to take it on as it would poten-
tially unnecessarily increase costs given complexity about warranties.
Third, as we discussed in Chapter 3, the V2G system requires a sub-
stantial amount of data to be stored and communicated with other
actors in the V2G system. This data lies beneath the potential flex-
ible responsiveness of V2G and simultaneously leads to a need for
more data to control and coordinate the resulting flexible capacity. For
instance, there is a call to open up the EV status data and EVSE sta-
tus data to both EV and charging companies [18]. On the other hand,
130    
L. Noel et al.

consumers may become increasingly sensitive about their EV sta-

tus, V2G participation, and charging patterns becoming increasingly
public. Consequently, there’s a need to regulate the privacy and secu-
rity aspects of these data streams. While lawmakers and regulators are
increasingly enforcing privacy by design principles [26, 29–32], actual
regulation is only just beginning and sometimes actually resisted [33].
Nonetheless privacy and security of data collection during V2G oper-
ations may become an increasingly pressing challenge that requires fur-
ther regulation.

5.4 Political Challenges of V2G

In addition to regulating the electricity markets that V2G can participate
in, governments also have a secondary role in V2G systems, which is to
develop policy mechanisms that encourage the diffusion of V2G systems.
Some of these policies may directly relate to the regulatory challenges
discussed above (such as government defining the specific role of V2G
within electricity market regulatory frameworks), others of these policies
provide a broader foundation to encourage general diffusion of V2G.
Here, we briefly describe some policy challenges that government may
face in developing the policies necessary to encourage V2G diffusion.

5.4.1 Broader Policy Coordination and Political Will

Looking more broadly than V2G, there are a number of related ele-
ments that can contribute to a speedier and more optimal rollout of
V2G. These include a so-called policy mix, consisting of broader policy
targets for EVs and general emission reduction in transport, as well as
renewable electricity. While policies that support V2G specifically are
certainly beneficial, greater co-benefits can be achieved if policies and
support schemes also integrate electric mobility and renewable energy
integration. However, Sovacool et al. [34] argue that thus far there has
been a lack multi-level policy coordination that leads to a lack of sup-
port for electric mobility and electricity grid decarbonization, which
they term a “policy coordination failure.”
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
131

With this in mind, perhaps the most foundational policy that gov-
ernmental actors can take is developing an overarching climate change
scheme. These can include policies like carbon taxes or overarching
renewable energy goals (e.g., mandating a certain percentage of renew-
able electricity, or that a certain number of EVs are sold, by a certain
date). Such broad policy coordination may not be directly related to
V2G, but can provide a variety of indirect benefits. For example, one
value of such targets is that it provides a robust signal for consumers,
incumbent companies, and investors the trust that decarbonization
transitions are to be taken seriously.
One can see the value of broad policy coordination in the Paris agree-
ment, which the IEA expects to increase EV stock from its current 3
million vehicles to 220 million light-duty vehicles by 2030 (increased
ambitions in line with climate targets) [35]. While this does not
directly guarantee any V2G capacity, the strong signaling of EVs can
lead to the development of the EV environment, within which V2G
can later develop. Beyond EV targets, there is a variety of EV-specific
policies that can also be enacted, such as direct purchase incentives,
development of public charging infrastructure, public procurement of
EVs, or secondary benefits like exemptions from tolls and free parking
[35, 36]. Not only would these policies develop the EV ecosystem and
later potentially increase investments in V2G, these policies can also
be altered to include direct V2G incentives. For example, governments
can later modify these regulations to give additional purchase incentives
for V2G-capable EVs, allow free parking only for EVs participating in
V2G, or require public procurement of V2G-capable EVs.
From the grid perspective, another goal can be the amount of renew-
able energy that comprises a country’s electricity production share. One
type of policy could be a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, which
provides incentives for an electricity grid to reach a certain percentage
of renewable electricity [37]. Similar to EV targets, this of course also
does not guarantee any specific capacity of V2G. However, increasing
renewable energy will necessitate the creation of certain flexibility and
storage markets that V2G can later participate in, adding to the value
of V2G systems. And with or without large-scale renewable energy,
another broad policy coordination effort could be developing a clear
132    
L. Noel et al.

electricity roadmap that clarifies the regulatory roles of storage in gen-

eral and instructs TSOs and DSOs to develop certain markets, similar
to as the European Commission has done [10].
However, a key barrier to enacting these broad policies, and avoid-
ing policy coordination failure [34] is that there is a currently lack of
political will to enact such broadly reaching climate policies. If political
opposition and general consumer indifference to climate change poli-
cies continue to be impediments, then V2G systems will likely continue
to face policy coordination failure. Therefore, a key political challenge
for V2G systems is reducing the lack of political will to enact general
but comprehensive climate change policies. This not a small task, and as
such it may be better to focus on policies specific to V2G.

5.4.2 Specific V2G Policies

Beyond broad policy coordination, governments can specifically enact

policies that directly encourage energy storage technologies like V2G.
Indeed, as compared to broad EV and renewable electricity policies,
this may be a more politically viable route. Policies that focus on gen-
eral energy storage targets can create a space for which V2G capacity
to participate in [1, 4]. Indeed, previous energy storage targets have
been shown to increase industrial activity and result in additional pres-
sure for public authorities to enact storage-related regulations [1]. And
though these targets may not specifically include V2G, these targets will
encourage the creation of market designs and regulatory elements that
will enable the diffusion of V2G as well [18]. That is, any type of energy
storage will need to resolve many of the regulatory issues above, such as
double taxation, data flows, and privacy, as well as increasing regulatory
familiarity with energy storage technology.
However, governments can still take an even stronger stance on
V2G policies. These policies can be financial support, possibly piggy-
backing on EV financial incentives. On the other hand, certain policies
could be based on stronger command and control principles, such as
requirements that all public chargers are V2G-capable, or even stronger,
that all sold EVs need to be V2G-capable. However, perhaps the most
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
133

important way at the moment to develop the V2G ecosystem is through

pilot projects [38], which was also ranked the second most important
V2G policy suggestion in our expert interviews, only after a restructur-
ing of the electricity markets [39].
Pilot projects not only lead to further technological development
[40] and increased experience [41], but they also lead to insights on
business cases and models [42]. Also importantly, V2G pilot projects
can generate a lot of visibility [43], which increases societal knowl-
edge of the technology and increases its overall profile. Moreover, many
experts in our interviews believed that the technology was developed
enough to warrant further pilot projects to bring it to the next step of
diffusion. In this respect, R99 in Denmark told us that: “the technol-
ogy is there; the vehicles are there. So, I think [the goal] is to encourage
and support heavy field pilots.” Likewise, R222 from Norway stated:
“I think the first step is to just to develop the pilots and learn. And
because that could happen anywhere it does not matter [who or where
they take place].”
Unfortunately, V2G pilot projects are hindered by their novelty as
conservative TSOs and DSOs struggle to gain the institutional knowl-
edge whether they are allowed to actually engage with such projects,
and how they can incorporate them within existing rules and regula-
tions. In many cases, policymakers and regulators need to be involved
to offer exemptions, especially considering that government is in the
unique position in providing the foundation for pilot projects. A more
proactive position from the government would thus push everything
into a higher gear.
One way to mandate such a proactive position is by authorizing or
even requiring TSOs and DSOs to develop their own V2G projects and
operate them as network assets, as discussed above. While such a pilot
project may limit the commercial viability of V2G in the short-term,
this can give TSOs and DSOs valuable experience in interacting with
the technology, including principles in how to later design markets that
increase overall value of V2G. Similarly, electricity regulators can use
these pilot projects to figure out issues regarding V2G’s role in regula-
tory frameworks, as discussed above. Finally, and perhaps most impor-
tantly, these electricity grid operator-led pilot projects can generate the
134    
L. Noel et al.

dissemination of information for a technology that is still developing

and emerging, which many of the experts believed suffered from lack
of recognition, both among private consumers and companies. In short,
government can play a key role in the niche development of V2G by
enacting general policies and pilot projects, fulfilling the need for tech-
nical, economic, and long-term information effects on V2G.

5.5 Conclusion
V2G can provide a variety of the grid services on the transmission, dis-
tribution, and behind-the-meter levels of the grid. Nonetheless, many
of these services are not yet developed into markets, particularly those
on a more local level. In order for V2G to help delay costly transformer
upgrades, reduce line congestions and voltage violations, improve power
supply, and avoid critical situations, such markets need to be devel-
oped first [14, 40]. This chapter shows that there remains a substantial
amount of regulatory work left to be resolved before V2G can reason-
able participate in the variety of markets suggested in Chapter 2. This
stems from the lack of energy storage definition within electricity mar-
ket regulatory frameworks.
In addition to defining energy storage in regulatory frameworks,
we also described some of the key market design challenges that V2G
faces. Properly valuing ancillary services, removing burdensome taxation
policies, and clearly defining the role of the aggregator as participants
in these markets are all essential elements to the cost-effectiveness of
V2G, and subsequently its business case. These elements would require
changes to the organization of electricity markets, as well as increased
communication and coordination between V2G aggregators, electricity
grid operators, and BRPs. We also discussed some of the V2G specific
challenges in relation to standardization, metering, battery warranty,
and privacy and security aspects.
From a political perspective, we argue that government is a key actor
in the development of V2G systems. However, given lack of political
will to enact sweeping climate change policy and general consumer
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
135

ambivalence or ignorance of the technology, V2G may require targeted

and strong policy intervention. Following this argument to its logical
conclusion, this means that the focus of regulations should perhaps
switch to be more mandatory, rather than voluntary, a theme we explore
in greater detail in Chapter 7. Essentially, to make policy interventions
less ephemeral and more effective, V2G would benefit most from gov-
ernments and regulators actually giving V2G a chance on the electric-
ity markets in line with Sects. 5.1–5.3. In contrast to EVs, where the
electric version offers basically the same service as conventional vehicles,
V2G has the technological capacity to offer a new and very competitive
service that is both needed and valued by the grid operators.

References
1. Castellano Ruz F, Pollitt MG. Overcoming barriers to electrical energy
storage: comparing California and Europe [Internet]. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge: Energy Policy Research Group; 2016 [cited
2018 Aug 10]. (Cambridge Working Paper in Economics). Report No.:
1629. Available from: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/han-
dle/1810/257159/cwpe1629.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
2. Weck MHJ, van Hooff J, van Sark WGJHM. Review of barriers to
the introduction of residential demand response: a case study in the
Netherlands. Int J Energy Res. 2017;41(6):790–816.
3. Forrester SP, Zaman A, Mathieu JL, Johnson JX. Policy and m ­ arket
barriers to energy storage providing multiple services. Electr J. 2017;
30(9):50–56.
4. Anuta OH, Taylor P, Jones D, McEntee T, Wade N. An international
review of the implications of regulatory and electricity market structures
on the emergence of grid scale electricity storage. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev. 2014;1(38):489–508.
5. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document:
energy storage—the role of electricity [Internet]. Brussels; 2017 Feb
[cited 2018 Aug 6]. Report No.: SWD(2017) 61 final. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/swd2017_61_
document_travail_service_part1_v6.pdf.
136    
L. Noel et al.

6. EuroBat. Battery energy storage in the EU: barriers, opportunities, services and
benefits [Internet]; 2016 [cited 2018 Aug 6]. Available from: http://eurobat.
org/images/news/publications/eurobat_batteryenergystorage_web.pdf.
7. Castagneto Gissey G, Dodds PE, Radcliffe J. Market and regulatory bar-
riers to electrical energy storage innovation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2018;1(82):781–90.
8. FERC. Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators [Internet].
Washington, DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 2018 Feb
[cited 2018 Aug 7]. (8 CFR Part 35 [Docket Nos. RM16-23-000; AD16-
20-000; Order No. 841]). Report No.: Order No. 841. Available from:
https://ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2018/021518/E-1.pdf.
9. OFGEM. Clarifying the regulatory framework for electricity storage:
licensing [Internet]. OFGEM; 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 7]. Available from:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/122279.
10. European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the internal market in
electricity (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) [Internet]. Brussels; 2017 Feb
[cited 2018 Aug 6]. Report No.: COM(2016) 864 final/2. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/1_en_act_part1_
v7_864.pdf.
11. ENTSO-E. Energy storage and storage services: ENTSO-E position
[Internet]. European Network of Transmission System Operators for
Electricity; 2016 [cited 2018 Aug 9]. Available from: https://docstore.ent-
soe.eu/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/
entsoe_pp_storage_web.pdf.
12. DOE. Grid energy storage [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Energy; 2013 [cited 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: https://www.sandia.
gov/ess-ssl/docs/other/Grid_Energy_Storage_Dec_2013.pdf.
13. Bellantuono G. The misguided quest for regulatory stability in the renewa-
ble energy sector. J World Energy Law Bus. 2017;10(4):274–92.
14. Knezovic K, Marinelli M, Codani P, Perez Y. Distribution grid services and
flexibility provision by electric vehicles: a review of options. In IEEE; 2015
[cited 2017 Aug 18]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/7339931/.
15. Annala S, Lukkarinen J, Primmer E, Honkapuro S, Ollikka K, Sunila K,
et al. Regulation as an enabler of demand response in electricity markets
and power systems. J Clean Prod. 2018;10(195):1139–148.
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
137

16. Cutter E, Alagappan L, Price S. Impact of market rules on energy storage

economics. In: 2009. p. 12.
17. Sakti A, Botterud A, O’Sullivan F. Review of wholesale markets and reg-
ulations for advanced energy storage services in the United States: current
status and path forward. Energy Policy. 2018;1(120):569–79.
18. Knezović K, Marinelli M, Zecchino A, Andersen PB, Traeholt C.
Supporting involvement of electric vehicles in distribution grids: lower-
ing the barriers for a proactive integration. Energy. 2017;134(Suppl C):
458–68.
19. Olivella-Rosell P, Lloret-Gallego P, Munné-Collado Í, Villafafila-Robles
R, Sumper A, Ottessen S, et al. Local flexibility market design for aggre-
gators providing multiple flexibility services at distribution network level.
Energies. 2018;11(4):822.
20. Rosso DJ, Dorgan CS. Arbitration and dispute resolution in the electricity
industry. Power Econ. 2002;24–27.
21. Christensen B, Trahand M, Andersen PB, Olesen OJ, Thingvad A.
Integration of new technology in the ancillary service markets [Internet].
Parker Project; 2018 Mar (Public Project Report). Available from: http://
parker-project.com/.
22. Christensen B, Trahand M, Andersen PB, Olesen OJ, Thingvad A.
Integration of new technology in the ancillary service markets [Internet].
Frederiksberg, Denmark: Nuvve & DTU; 2018 Mar [cited 2018 Aug
10]. (Electric Vehicle Group). Available from: http://parker-project.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Report-Pilot-project-Integration-of-new-
technology-in-Ancillary-service-markets.pdf.
23. Wasowicz B, Koopmann S, Dederichs T, Schnettler A, Spaetling U.
Evaluating regulatory and market frameworks for energy storage deployment
in electricity grids with high renewable energy penetration. In: 2012 9th
International Conference on the European Energy Market; 2012. p. 1–8.
24. NUVVE. Cenex Smart Charging & V2G Workshop [Internet]. 2017 Mar
28. Available from: http://www.cenex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/
Nuvve-Presentation.pdf.
25. Eid C, Codani P, Perez Y, Reneses J, Hakvoort R. Managing electric flex-
ibility from Distributed Energy Resources: a review of incentives for mar-
ket design. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;1(64):237–47.
26. USEF. USEF: The framework explained [Internet]. Utrecht: The Universal
Smart Energy Framework; 2015 [cited 2016 Jan 14]. Available from:
http://www.usef.info/Framework/Download-the-Framework.aspx.
138    
L. Noel et al.

27. Alvehag K, Öhling LW, Östman K, Broström E, Strömbäck E, Klasman

B, et al. Measures to increase demand side flexibility in the Swedish elec-
tricity system abbreviated version. Eskilstuna: Swedish Energy Markets
Inspectorate; 2017. p. 78. Report No.: Ei 2017:10.
28. Geske J, Schumann D. Willing to participate in vehicle-to-grid (V2G)?
Why not! Energy Policy. 2018;120:392–401 Sep.
29. ENISA. Smart Grid Security: Recommendations for Europe and Member
States. European Network and Information Security Agency; 2012.
30. ISO. ISO 15118-1:2013—Road vehicles—Vehicle to grid communication
interface—Part 1: general information and use-case definition [Internet].
International Standards Organization; 2013 Apr [cited 2016 Jun 20].
p. 65. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/cat-
alogue_detail.htm?csnumber=55365.
31. CEC. Transcript of the 12/07/16 Vehicle-Grid Integration Communications
Standards Workshop [Internet]. Sacramento: California Energy Commission;
2016 [cited 2018 Apr 12]. Report No.: 16-TRAN-01. Available from:
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-TRAN-01/
TN215114_20161228T104913_Transcript_of_the_120716_VehicleGrid_
Integration_Communications.pdf.
32. IEA, Nordic Energy. Nordic EV Outlook 2018;105.
33. Cuijpers C, Koops B-J. Smart metering and privacy in Europe: lessons from
the Dutch case. In: European data protection: coming of age [Internet].
Dordrecht: Springer; 2013 [cited 2014 Jun 16]. p. 269–93. Available from:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_12.
34. Sovacool BK, Axsen J, Kempton W. The future promise of vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) integration: a sociotechnical review and research agenda. Annu Rev
Environ Resour. 2017;42(1):377–406.
35. IEA. Global EV Outlook 2018. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2018.
p. 143.
36. Kester J, Noel L, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. Policy mechanisms
to accelerate electric vehicle adoption: a qualitative review from the Nordic
region. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;94:719–31.
37. Carley S, Nicholson-Crotty S, Miller CJ. Adoption, reinvention and
amendment of renewable portfolio standards in the American states. J
Public Policy. 2017;37(04):431–58.
 5 The Regulatory and Political Challenges to V2G    
139

38. Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic Energy Research. Demand side flexi-
bility in the Nordic electricity market: from a distribution system operator
perspective. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2017. 72p.
39. Kester J, Noel L, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. Promoting vehicle
to grid (V2G) in the Nordic region: expert advice on policy mechanisms
for accelerated diffusion. Energy Policy. 2018;116:422–32.
40. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Letters. 2018;13(1):013001.
41. Nilsson M, Nykvist B. Governing the electric vehicle transition—near
term interventions to support a green energy economy. Appl Energy.
2016;1(179):1360–71.
42. Niesten E, Alkemade F. How is value created and captured in smart grids?
A review of the literature and an analysis of pilot projects. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2016;1(53):629–38.
43. Davies H, Santos G, Faye I, Kroon R, Weken H. Establishing the trans-
ferability of best practice in EV policy across EU borders. Transp Res
Procedia. 2016;1(14):2574–83.
 6
Consumers, Society and V2G

In the previous three chapters, we have discussed the technical,

­economic, and political barriers to V2G. However, this leaves out one
of the largest aspects of V2G and perhaps the most pressing barrier: the
consumer. While technical, economic, and political barriers pose sub-
stantial challenges, the large-scale diffusion of V2G ultimately depends
on the willingness of consumers to participate in the system. In this
chapter, we first discuss how consumers currently view V2G and how
this may pose barriers to its diffusion. Next, we move onto conceptu-
alizing the consumer based on a variety of theories, in order to garner a
better understanding of the consumer as a barrier and as the key to fur-
ther diffusion. With these theories in mind, we list potential strategies
to reduce consumer barriers that V2G may face in the near future.

6.1 Consumer Perspectives of V2G

First, the current understanding of V2G from consumers is quite limited,
which is unsurprising given the novelty of the technology. Nonetheless,
because widespread deployment of V2G and many of its larger benefits (i.e.,
renewable energy integration) depend on large-scale consumer adoption,
© The Author(s) 2019 141
L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_6
142    
L. Noel et al.

several studies have endeavored to gauge how consumer would hypothet-

ically respond to V2G. Because consumers at the moment do not actually
have the option in the real world to participate in V2G, consumer will-
ingness to do so has been tackled through hypothetical choices in surveys,
known as choice experiments. In a survey, a consumer may see a choice
between two EVs, one with V2G-capability at a different price. Whether
the consumer has the willingness to pay (WTP) the extra amount to partic-
ipate in V2G can elucidate how attractive V2G is to the average consumer.

6.1.1 Ambivalence and Low Consumer Awareness

The first of these studies built this choice around whether a consumer would
be willing to sign a contract that guaranteed them a certain amount of rev-
enue per year, but also required them to be plugged in a certain amount
of hours per day (on average), and varying levels of a guaranteed minimum
driving range [1]. Though the amount of hours per day were well less than
the average hours per day an EV would not be used, increasing these attrib-
ute greatly reduced WTP by consumers, by as much as $8500 for an EV.
At the same time, additional V2G revenues were heavily discounted by
consumers (who used a discount rate of 53.5%), leading the authors of the
study to conclude that the perceived inconvenience of V2G would outweigh
perceived benefits, and that V2G would not help diffuse EVs further [1].
However, a clear distinction from this choice experiment is that it meas-
ured the consumer’s reactions to V2G contracts and their attributes, as
opposed to V2G participation generally. Nevertheless, it is insightful that
the attributes of a V2G contract, such as a requisite on the amount of hours
plugged in providing V2G, may prove burdensome to consumer accept-
ance. This may be the result of consumer ignorance, as the required hours in
the choice experiments (between 5 and 20 hours) are well below the average
hours a car is not being used (closer to 23 hours) [2]. In addition, one rea-
son that V2G revenues may be so heavily discounted is that consumers are
generally unaware of the technology and thus more skeptical [1]. Logically,
the solution then appears to be that better education and awareness of the
V2G system could help consumers be more interested and accepting of
V2G participation. On the other hand, another solution could be adjusting
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
143

V2G contracts such that aggregators would instead rely on aggregated

resources and forecasting rather than burdensome individual contracts.
Relying less on restrictive contracts and increasing consumer awareness of
V2G at the same time would likely increase consumer acceptance the most.
Another V2G choice experiment, this time focusing on the five Nordic
countries, found that even without onerous contract terms, the over-
all WTP for V2G was minor and regionally dependent [3]. Of the five
Nordic countries, the study found that in Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden,
V2G added zero value to the EV in the choice experiment, meaning con-
sumers were not willing to pay any extra for V2G, despite being made
aware of the potential revenues and even without any strict contract terms.
On the other hand, in the other two countries, Norway and Finland,
having an EV be V2G-capable added €4000 and €5200, respectively,
to the value of the EV. The authors of that study theorize this large dis-
crepancy is the result of better awareness of EVs in Norway, and pos-
sible higher sensitivity to energy security in Finland, as compared to
the rest of the Nordics. Nonetheless, this study corroborates that the
value of future V2G revenue is highly discounted, possibly as the result
of consumer ignorance or indifference to V2G’s benefits. As such, the
study concludes that for V2G to incentivize EV adoption, consumers
should be made more aware of the benefits and potential value of V2G.
That said, while consumers seemed lukewarm on the benefits of V2G,
this ambivalence can also work in favor of V2G, as consumers seem
willing to participate in V2G if it is not too troublesome, that is, they
don’t necessarily have any preconceptions against it. As another recent
choice experiment study found, with some of the same contract terms
as [1], consumers were willing to participate in V2G for limited or no
payment, so long as the range was not overly limiting [4]. For example,
for €15 a month and a guaranteed minimum range of 30 kilometers,
the study found that 56% of the sample population would participate
in V2G, (though a subsample participation varied widely, from only 6
to 74%) [4]. If minimum range was doubled and no remuneration was
given, participation rates surprisingly substantially increased to 71%.
Thus, the authors of the study believed that high participation levels
could be achieved without any revenues, so as long as the perceived free-
dom of the EV driver was not limited [4]. To further improve the value
144    
L. Noel et al.

of V2G, however, the authors suggest that governments show clear com-
mitment to the technology and disperse information, keeping in mind
that consumers may not need substantial economic remuneration if suf-
ficient freedom is built into the system [4].
Finally, in the consumer focus groups that we conducted in the Nordic
region, we found similar ambivalence among consumers when discuss-
ing their potential participation in V2G. Despite none of the participants
having heard of V2G (or at least knowing the details thereof) before the
discussion in the focus groups, many immediately recognized the benefits
but concluded that they were relatively minor. Even so, the majority of the
focus group participants were willing to participate in V2G (many particu-
larly convinced once they understood they would receive revenues for doing
so), and some even believed that V2G would eventually be automatically
a part of owning an EV. At the same time, some of the participants feared
that V2G would add too much inconvenience, worried about having an
empty battery, and at worst, felt that V2G would inhibit their freedom,
with a select few outright refusing to ever participate in V2G. Nonetheless,
a sense of unfamiliarity and ambivalence permeated the focus group discus-
sions of V2G participation.
Looking across all of these studies one of the key lessons is that con-
sumer awareness is relatively low, and increasing consumer awareness
may be the primary way to increase consumer acceptance and interest
in V2G. And while the benefits of V2G are undervalued, consumers
are also typically underwhelmed by potential barriers to V2G participa-
tion and most are generally willing to participate with limited reserva-
tions. On the other hand, V2G contracts are perceived as onerous [1],
even though the conditions can likely be met with ease. Even outside of
V2G contracts, the additional benefit of V2G capability is likely to be
relatively minor until issues with consumer awareness are addressed.

6.1.2 Intermediaries and V2G Diffusion

In addition to increasing consumer awareness, another approach to

assuaging consumer barriers to V2G depends on the consumer’s inter-
action with the system that would be set up by an intermediary such
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
145

as the aggregator. That is, a key means of acceptance, besides better

informing consumers of the economic and environmental benefits of
V2G, is making the system pose as little inconvenience on the con-
sumer as possible. Aggregators should focus on making the planning
trips for the consumer as easy as possible and maximize the minimum
guaranteed range. In the near future, as battery technology improves
and ranges similarly increase, minimum guaranteed range may become
less of an issue for consumers, especially considering that consumers
tend to overestimate their daily driving range demands, and increased
EV experience will reduce their range anxiety [5]. To address consumer
perceptions that V2G limits their freedom (which may also be assuaged
with experience with the system), aggregators may want to consider
focusing on developing intuitive user interfaces. Additionally, aggre-
gators could even develop algorithms that use prediction and machine
learning to maximize battery range for when consumers are likely to
take trips, further reducing inconvenience to the consumer. If these can
be reasonably accomplished, the literature discussed above suggests that
consumers may not even need to be compensated for providing their
EV’s capacity to the V2G system.
In some ways, consumers may be considered a major barrier to V2G
diffusion, especially if these surveys and focus groups overestimate will-
ingness from consumers, especially in tandem with lack of consumer
awareness. As our expert interviews predicted, consumer acceptance
and reliability would be the second most substantial barrier to V2G
deployment, particularly due to loss of freedom, the complexity of
the concept, and fear of battery degradation. On the other hand, bet-
ter information on the workings of the V2G system and the extent of
its benefits may be sufficient to remove any hesitations that consumers
would have before participating in V2G. But, given the novelty of the
technology and the current focus within fleets (and not individual pri-
vate consumers) [6], it is difficult to predict the role that consumers will
play in the diffusion of V2G—whether they help accelerate the diffu-
sion or prove to be a barrier, inhibiting diffusion. In order to more com-
prehensively understand how consumers play a role in the transition to
V2G in the near future, we next conceptualize the consumer through a
variety of different theories.
146    
L. Noel et al.

6.2 Conceptualizing the Consumer

in a V2G System
There already exist, of course, a variety of different theories that try to
understand the role of the consumer in the diffusion of a technology.
Each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses, and character-
izes the consumer or user differently. In order to give a fuller picture of
how consumers and users could in theory interact with V2G in the near
future, in this section, we summarize several different theories and dis-
cuss how they may be applied to the V2G context. We summarize our
findings in Table 6.1. We argue that compared to the passive acceptance
or resistance of consumers that the literature in Sect. 6.1 describes, the
role of the consumer in V2G need not be so simplified.

6.2.1 Diffusion of Innovation

First, diffusion of innovation is a theory that describes the social process

of an innovation (which is sometimes a technology, other times it may
be a concept) disseminating through communication channels [7]. The
diffusion process consists primarily of information exchanges through
interpersonal networks and social modeling to encourage other users to
follow the lead of adopters. Likewise, the innovation can be described
by five attributes: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) com-
plexity, (4) trialability, and (5) observability. As users are made aware of
the attributes and overall advantageousness of the innovation through
societal communication channels, the innovation diffuses through five
adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late major-
ity, and laggards [7], as shown in Fig. 6.1. These categories determine
when the innovation is adopted, and by who, as each of these five adop-
ter categories have their own characteristics [7].
Beyond adopter categories, there are several unique roles for indi-
vidual users in diffusion of innovation theory. As the dissemination of
information throughout society about an innovation plays an impor-
tant role in diffusion of innovation, there are some potential roles that
users may play in further spreading such information. For example, a
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
147

Table 6.1 Summary of various theories on the implications of users in a V2G

system
Theory Relevant Main points Role of consum-
citations ers/users of V2G
Diffusion of [7, 8] –D  iffusion of an Opinion Leader:
innovation innovation is A user adopts
primarily done V2G and
through commu- consequently
nication channels influences others
– Invitation attrib- to also adopt
utes include because of their
relative advan- high status
tage, compatibil- Change Agent:
ity, complexity, User actively
trialability, and influences
observability others to make
–U  sers can be decisions that
categorized into promote V2G
five adopter cat- Reinventors:
egories, depend- Users develop
ing on how new uses and
innovative they practices of V2G,
are and when increasing and
they adopt stabilizing diffu-
sion rates
Social construction [9, 10] – Technologies are Embedding
of technology embedded with Meaning: Users
“scripts” that embed mean-
give users mean- ing into V2G,
ings and develop which is argu-
their identities ably without
– Interpretative any scripts thus
flexibility encour- far. Diffusion to
ages various new users relies
social groups on developing
to embed their scripts to be
own scripts and embedded into
define their V2G
own use of the
technology

(continued)
148    
L. Noel et al.

Table 6.1 (continued)

Theory Relevant Main points Role of consum-
citations ers/users of V2G
Multi-level [11, 12] – Transition takes User-legitimators:
perspective place between Users develop
three levels, meaning,
the niche, the purpose, and
regime, and the rationale for
landscape the technology,
– Five different developing
user types play a expectations and
variety of roles visions, driving
that produce emergence of
niches, legiti- niche
mate them into User-
regimes and intermediaries:
stabilize into Users develop
landscapes networks, con-
figure and tinker
with technol-
ogy to develop
user identities,
up-scaling niches
into regimes

Fig. 6.1 Classic U-shaped diffusion of innovations curve (Adopted from [7])
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
149

key role is the opinion leader, a user who is highly influential in their
interpersonal communication network and has high social status, par-
ticularly when it comes to the innovation’s area [7]. Another role is
the change agent, who attempts to influence other user’s decisions and
develop adoption and use of the innovation in a direction deemed desir-
able by the change agent. Finally, an underappreciated role is that of the
end-user reinventor, that is, the user modifies and adopts the innova-
tion to better fit the user’s local context and particular situation [7, 8].
Reinvention, in turn, can help accelerate the adoption and increase the
sustainability of its diffusion by increasing its overall advantageousness.
Finally, it is worth noting that these three user roles can overlap, mean-
ing an opinion leader can also be a reinventor and so forth.
Applying these user types to V2G, it would seem that the role of the
users in the current state of V2G is somewhat limited, and potentially
may impair the diffusion of V2G to the rest of society. As opposed to
a focus on passive acceptance, diffusion theory would argue that a key
focus in moving beyond fleets to wider consumer use of V2G may be
fashioning these more active user roles. Using these three user roles
as a guide, a V2G aggregator company should focus on: (1) develop-
ing change agents to influence consumers to adopt V2G; (2) targeting
opinion leaders to adopt V2G (thereby using their status to encourage
their followers to also adopt); and finally, (3) actively encouraging rein-
vention of V2G to better suit local contexts and increase V2G’s relative
advantageousness within certain niches. Indeed, developing these spe-
cific types of users may prove to be a substantial turning point in the
diffusion of V2G.

6.2.2 Social Construction of Technology

Moving onto the next theory, the Social Construction of Technology,

commonly referred to as SCOT, underlines the role of the user as the
primary agents of technological change. The central concept of SCOT
is interpretive flexibility, the idea that social groups inject meaning
into a technology, shaping the form of the technology as well as the
150    
L. Noel et al.

identities of the social groups in relation to the use of the technology

[9]. The meaning embedded into the technology either for the user or
by the user is often referred to as a “script,” giving direction for how the
user should interact in relation to the technology [10].
Even more so than diffusion of innovation, the role of the users is
essential to the development of a technology in SCOT. Looking at the
original automobile, SCOT implies that the injection of meaning by
those who resisted the technology, by calling it a “devil wagon,” could
have caused the technology to fail to diffuse. Instead, users who embed-
ded positive meanings and uses of the automobile, such as a stationary
power source for daily farm tasks and as a converted tractor, or as means
for women to socialize and redefine their gender roles, led to the suc-
cessful redefinition of the automobile and diffusion in rural areas [9]. In
this sense, interpretive flexibility and embedded scripts altered the cul-
tural context of the automobile, and also opened new, lucrative markets
for automakers and others to develop, such as tractors or gas genera-
tors. In short, the scripts and meanings that users embed into a technol-
ogy through interpretative flexibility can determine the success of that
technology.
Applying these concepts to the users in a V2G context, we simi-
larly find that the current literature also comparatively shortchanges
the role of the users. Through the lens of SCOT, V2G users deter-
mine the script embedded in the technology, which in turn is read
by other potential users. Without any active users embedding mean-
ing into the technology, interpretative flexibility of SCOT falls flat;
that is, there is no meaning of the technology that the user can iden-
tify with. With this in mind, a hypothetical V2G aggregator com-
pany should actively encourage a variety of users to embed their own
scripts into the technology and encourages subsequent interpretative
flexibility among different types of users. Users in the V2G context
play the most important role of developing meaning by using the
technology, and instead of users being on the receiving end of V2G
information and education, active users also give benefits to V2G
developers.
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
151

6.2.3 The Multi-level Perspective User-Typology

Thirdly, looking more broadly, the multi-level perspective (MLP)

describes a societal transition of a new technological system. The MLP
approach has three levels that describe the scope of the spread and
acceptance of a technology: the niche level, where radical innovations
are generated and developed, the regime level, where the innovation
is improved incrementally and evolves while adoption accelerates, and
finally, the landscape level, where the technology becomes a dominant
part of society [13]. Building on the MLP, Schot et al. [11] categorize
users into a typology, each of which plays a different role on the three
levels of the MLP during a transition, as summarized in Fig. 6.2.

Fig. 6.2 The MLP with description of user typologies (Reprinted from [11])
152    
L. Noel et al.

There are five different types of users according to the MLP user-typol-
ogy developed by Schot et al. The first type of user is the user-producer,
who invents, experiments and tinkers with new innovations, often first
developing the technology into the niche level on their own. Second, the
user-legitimator, who also acts at the niche level, develops the meaning
and context of the technology, as their interpretations help further develop
the emergence of the niche. Third, user-intermediaries help upscale and
mainstream niches by aligning elements of the sociotechnical system and
providing spaces for the technology to develop new user representations
and enroll new actors. Fourth, user-citizens engage in regime-shift poli-
tics, lobbying government and other regime actors to give preference to
a particular technology niche over others in the regime space. Fifth and
finally, user-consumers purchase and use the technology, attributing sym-
bolic meaning and expressing their identity and status in relation to the
technology, while stabilizing the new sociotechnical regime [11].
Applying these five user types to V2G provides a substantial amount
of detail to the roles of the users throughout the entire potential V2G
transition. Some of these users arguably are not currently relevant to
the ongoing emerging niche status of V2G, such as user-producers,
who arguably have already been defined, as well as user-consumers and
user-citizens, who the V2G transition has arguably not yet fully reached.
Of course, hollowing out the existing regime by user-citizens and stabiliz-
ing uses of V2G will certainly be important as the transition nears com-
pletion. In its current status, however, the hypothetical V2G aggregator
company should focus on user-legitimators and user-intermediaries by
engaging users that will define the meanings of the technology and align
actors in the regime to help develop the V2G niche into the regime.

6.3 Increasing Consumer Knowledge

and Acceptance
Looking across these three theories, it is clear that users play more
than just a passive role of knowledge and acceptance in terms of V2G
(though of course knowledge and acceptance of V2G are also essen-
tial). These theories all have several commonalities between them,
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
153

emphasizing the role of users to help develop the meaning of V2G and
subsequently communicate these meanings and their benefits to the
next users. As compared to the current literature that poses users exclu-
sively as barriers to V2G that need to be addressed through informa-
tion and education, these theories show that users are active participants
in the V2G system and are key determinants to its successful diffusion.
However, in the current V2G system, the opportunity for users to take
a more proactive role is relatively limited, but we would argue that this
means that now is precisely the time to think about the ways to engage
with consumers in the subsequent phases of V2G diffusion where they
will play a role.

6.3.1 User Innovation and Tinkering

In light of this, one way to increase consumer knowledge and accept-

ance of V2G is to encourage innovative uses of V2G. Specifically, there
are a myriad of ways to encourage the average consumer to become one
of the more active users discussed in the last column of Table 6.1. One
such way is to encourage tinkering of the V2G system by users. For
example, “opening” up V2G to something closer to V2X allows con-
sumers to experiment with potential other uses, thereby reducing con-
sumer acceptance issues by making them an active participant in the
diffusion and reinvention of V2G. If given the opportunity, individu-
als could find novel uses for a bidirectional EV, such as a telescope or
motor saw, as suggested by R86 in our expert interviews:

We want the car to have this outlet that you can plug in, like a cigar.
You can charge your phone, but why not also use it for different equip-
ment, like a motor saw in the woods, or lighting road work, or use it as
a kitchen during crisis conditions. I take astronomy photos, and I need
power all the time when I’m out. I have a big battery in my trunk, why
shouldn’t I just plug it into my EV and have vehicle-to-telescope? I think
a lot of people would have fun with that, you can have a party at the
beach, with lights and everything. It could be a very powerful feature
that you can use for anything, like vehicle-telescope, or whatever you can
imagine using it for.
154    
L. Noel et al.

Importantly, such tinkering for “whatever you can imagine using it for ”
entails an interpretive flexibility that gives users the power to construct
their own uses for V2X (for telescopes or otherwise). V2X is thus par-
ticularly apt for user-made innovations, as V2X would not require a
rich understanding of new technologies, but instead a rich understand-
ing of potential needs to which V2X could be applied [14]. While R86
viewed this as a way to encourage interest in consumers by means of
having novel uses for personal enjoyment, other experts viewed it from
a much more utilitarian perspective. Mirroring early tinkering with the
automobile as a power source to be put to work on rural farms [9],
and continuing on R86’s woodwork and lightning of road work, R105
imagined EVs being able to provide power to a variety of tools and
equipment:

When the battery gets larger for EVs, then we’ll have the power tools and
a lot of other equipment, like cleaning equipment, or whatever uses or
power, you can do it straight out of the EV battery. So that will be to be a
big advantage of owning an EV.

Second, tinkering and V2X can not only provide new uses related
to V2G, but could also increase general consumer knowledge of V2G,
which may help V2G diffuse more effectively. With the complexity of
V2G in mind, R99 believed that V2X could be a means to educate con-
sumers on the concepts that are foundational to both V2X and V2G:

I think the idea of V2G can be conveyed quite easily by having these fun
and also hopefully very useful applications of vehicle-to-load, or to equip-
ment or tools. The idea is that you have access to electric power in places
that you didn’t before. But the idea behind both is the same. This is also
why we went to the Røskilde festival, though that was more for letting
people charge their phones and other stuff directly from the vehicles.
We have to do something that is fun and also has a real application. But
we have to keep exploring what would be some good cases, like electric
barbeques.
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
155

Interestingly, there has already been evidence that auxiliary uses of

EVs can increase the consumer acceptance of EVs. For example, when
discussing a city bus that had recently been electrified, R54 credited the
auxiliary uses within the bus as being the central benefit recognized by
the users, even before its environmental benefits:

The largest benefit is actually the free WiFi and the possibility to charge
your phone, as there is a USB connection. 85% of the users rank these
as the top two benefits, but the third one is interestingly, that the bus is
renewable and being fueled with wind power.

Based on the consumer acceptance of electric buses primarily on

auxiliary uses, rather than the renewable and climate change aspects, it
is reasonable to assume that consumers will be more interested in the
potentially more powerful practical uses of V2X over the renewable and
economic benefits commonly touted by V2G researchers. Additionally,
it may be that V2X increases EV adoption more than V2G would.
However, V2X depends more on automaker’s willingness to open
up bidirectionality to off-grid activities than on aggregators mediating
the grid focused power flows, but it follows that user-based innovation
would benefit both the users of the technology (who gain new advan-
tages and identities) as well as the producers of the technology (who
can increase adoption of their innovation). As such V2X user-based
innovation should be actively encouraged both by automakers, aggre-
gators, and users to increase adoption and reduce consumer barriers to
V2G. Tinkering could help embed new meanings in V2G, as well as
develop new types of uses and advantages of V2G, potentially mirror-
ing the success of tinkering in the original automobile [15]. However,
for such tinkering to be possible, the current system of V2G needs to
be designed to allow consumers to experiment more easily. Not only
does this entail V2G-capability to the system, but also giving the con-
sumers more control in how to use the bidirectional power at their
will. Automakers would need to design their EV with this in mind and
engage more with consumers to allow such tinkering to happen.
156    
L. Noel et al.

6.3.2 Accruing User Experience and Involvement

Still, compared to tinkering, there are more immediate ways to include

consumers as active participants in the V2G systems. For example, it
may make more sense to target specific types of users that can help the
niche emerge into a regime, such as the user-legitimators proposed in
[11] or opinion leaders in [7]. Instead of opening up the technology
to allow for rampant experimentation, the goal would be to target spe-
cific types of users and actors to adopt and further diffuse V2G, such as
automobile associations, or technology clubs and magazines [12]. These
actors play a disproportionate role in legitimizing technologies and seem
to be the next apparent step for V2G to succeed in moving from the
niche to larger scale majority adoption. Of course, specific user targeting
could be done in tandem with other strategies like tinkering, as these are
unlikely to conflict and could be synergistic; e.g., technology magazines
publish articles about user-defined tinkering solutions related to V2X.
While strategies to more actively include users in the diffusion and
transition process are perhaps the most beneficial, the more traditional
strategies proposed by the literature in Sect. 6.1 are of course also neces-
sary and can play a complementary role. Indeed, information and edu-
cation of consumers may become increasingly more important as V2G
moves from the niche to the regime and enters a stage where it depends
more on the decisions of individual consumers to adopt or not. And given
the societal benefits of V2G, such as economic efficiency and socioenvi-
ronmental improvements, governments may choose to incentivize V2G
adoption. And while there are a variety of policies that the government
can take to encourage the development of V2G, it is clear from the litera-
ture that one central policy for the government to undertake is dispersing
information about V2G to increase consumer willingness to participate.

6.3.3 Targeted Information Campaigns

That said, what exactly a government-led information campaign

would comprise of has not been detailed by the literature as of yet.
From the choice experiment surveys described above, it seems clear
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
157

that consumers are very skeptical of the potential economic benefits of

V2G [1, 4], so one key aspect of the information campaign should be
informing and validating potential revenue estimates for individual con-
sumers. On the other hand, even common energy efficiency-type tech-
nologies are still overly discounted [16], so information campaigns may
want to instead focus on transferring economic value instead of deline-
ating potential profits. That is, it may be more beneficial to inform con-
sumers that the value of participating in V2G could cover the cost of
driving or the cost of an upgraded EVSE as opposed to advertising prof-
its of $1000 per year.
Secondly, recent literature and our consumer focus groups both find
that a substantial portion of consumers appear willing to participate in
V2G already, assuming that there is limited inconvenience to them [4].
In order to further spur this participation (with limited remuneration),
a key aspect of the campaign should be on the potential societal bene-
fits of V2G, especially the potential for EV owners to further integrate
renewable energy, as the message highlights its core benefit as well as
develops the social meanings of the technology. Tapping into pro-social
motives could actually increase the willingness of consumers to partici-
pate in V2G more than increasing economic remuneration would, but
to do so, the consumers need to be made aware of the potential social
benefits that participating in V2G has. In addition to informing con-
sumers, SCOT shows that an information campaign that focuses on the
societal benefits can also help embed scripts and meaning into V2G that
the consumers can identify with.
Thirdly, beyond the economic and social benefits of V2G, another
alternative would be to use information campaigns to minimize the
perceived downsides of participating in V2G. For example, while bat-
tery degradation from participating in the frequency regulation mar-
ket is expected to be relatively minor [17], consumers are intuitively
worried about the effect of V2G on their battery. Thus, independent,
clearly readable and easily accessible information regarding the benefits
and the limited damage to their batteries may prove useful. While con-
cerns of battery degradation may be resolved by better informing con-
sumers, the challenge of additional inconvenience may not be so easily
resolved by information alone. Instead, similar to consumers becoming
158    
L. Noel et al.

accustomed to the range of an EV [5], inconvenience of planning trips

and perceived loss of freedom will likely be assuaged primarily through
experience.
Still, information can address at least some of these barriers, espe-
cially if done in a wider context. For instance, national or even regional
(at the scale of the Nordic region or even across the European Union)
information and education campaigns could include grade-school
classes on energy, mobility, and the environment; public demonstra-
tions and tours of EV charging and V2G facilities; mandatory disclo-
sure of fuel economy not only for vehicle purchases but leasing and
rentals; free training sessions for potential EV adopters about the V2G
system; improved labeling, rating, and certification programs for vehi-
cles and V2G equipment; and an pan-European information “clearing
house” consisting of Web sites, free books, indexing services, and librar-
ies to help consumers gather and process information and make more
informed choices about their travel and mobility choices.
Such information programs, however, must be carefully tailored [18].
Information is less likely to be used if it requires effort or arrives when
a potential adopter is busy with other things. Households have differ-
ent energy preferences, in different kinds of buildings and vehicles, and
vary in their income, housing tenure, and individual mobility needs, all
of which can greatly influence the type of information about V2G that
would be most relevant to them. To avoid creating information that is
merely a distraction, “general” or “generic” distribution strategies must be
avoided. Moreover, government agencies may be convinced its informa-
tion is accurate and reliable, but users may be skeptical over past perfor-
mance, mistrusting the source, even when the content is unbiased [19].

6.3.4 Involving Users in Pilot Projects

With these insights on user innovation, user experience and targeted

information campaigns in mind, governments, as well as other V2G
actors, may want to show stronger commitment to V2G by imple-
menting pilot projects that take place primarily with private consumers.
This can provide a stream of various benefits at the same time, such as
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
159

giving experience to consumers, provide a foundation to disperse infor-

mation, and also testing what aspects of V2G aggregator practices and
methods are perceived as the most inconvenient. That is, using consum-
er-based data can help V2G aggregator companies better understand
what specific details in their user-interface post the biggest barriers
for consumers and subsequently experiment with solutions to reduce
inconvenience. While experience could provide consumers with valua-
ble information on how the V2G system actually operates, the consum-
ers can provide valuable feedback to the V2G aggregator as it develops
a new niche and realigns elements to bring V2G to the regime level.
At the same time, actual experience allows consumers to develop tacit
knowledge (which can only be gained from actual use), creating diver-
sity and resilience in the technical networks of V2G [20, 21].
Throughout these potential solutions and theories described here
and above, it is important to note that consumers are not passive actors
in the sociotechnical system, but can actively participate in a technol-
ogy’s diffusion and transition. Moreover, government, academia, and
V2G aggregators should recognize consumers in such a manner, and
when relevant implement policies or programs that activate consumers
beyond passive acceptance. These policies should start with information
and education, but also identify the role that consumers play in helping
shape V2G and accelerate its adoption.

6.3.5 Promoting V2G as a Conspicuous Good

A final novel strategy for accelerating user acceptance is to change the

branding strategy of V2G aggregators to increase the conspicuousness
of V2G. That is, that the immediate visibility of V2G should be pur-
posefully increased in order for consumers to conspicuously show that
they are using the technology. At the same time, one would only want
to show off using V2G if it became associated with higher status and
luxury, which, on its face, may seem unlikely considering that the main
benefits of V2G are that it saves money, improves grid efficiency, and
reduces the total cost of EV ownership.
160    
L. Noel et al.

However, there is evidence that previous green technologies can

become associated with higher status, such as the Toyota Prius, because
they become associated with pro-social and environmental status signals
[22–24]. Because consumers associated the Toyota Prius with pro-en-
vironmental signaling, status-seeking led increases in willingness to pay
for the Prius, even more than other hybrid vehicles [22]. In short, even
though the Toyota Prius represented an increase in economic and tech-
nical efficiency, its pro-environmental meanings and connotations led to
status-seeking behavior by consumers. Given the similar environmental
advantages of V2G, it is reasonable to assume that if V2G becomes as
conspicuous as the Toyota Prius, then consumers may also choose to
adopt V2G for status-seeking purposes.
V2G can also learn from the way our experts believed that sta-
tus and luxury mediated the failures and successes of EV diffusion in
the Nordics [25]. First, many experts believed that a key detriment to
Nordic EVs was that they were perceived as too cheap or common.
For instance, two EV companies in Norway, the Th!nk and Buddy,
attempted to diffuse the EV by creating a small reasonable two-seater
EV that maximized utility and minimized cost. Although Th!nk and
Buddy represented a large proportion of EVs in Norway before the
2010s, as of the end of 2013 there were only about 1000 of each car
registered in Norway [26]. However, these innovations failed to garner
any status-seeking consumers. For example, R196 (connecting conspic-
uous diffusion’s appeal to male mate attraction) suggested that driving a
Th!nk or Buddy would turn one unattractive and geriatric:

You have this story in Norway about the car called Th!nk. It looked like
a fucking dustbin! It was a plastic can on wheels! Where is the dick factor
on that one, you know? And then you have Buddy, you know the car
called Buddy? I mean, my god, put your ass in that one, you look eighty
years old.

Many experts added on that these two EV companies did not feel
or look like a real car, both of which are essential to conspicuous sta-
tus [27, 28]. R228 called these early EVs “eggs” which made “you feel
like a chicken.” The lack of looking and feeling like a real car not only
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
161

inhibited these EVs from diffusing across Nordic society, and the stigma
attached to earlier EVs was clear in the perspective of the consumers of
other Nordics, as one Danish participant in F3 said:

Have you ever driven an electric car? It’s like eating food without taste.

To avoid the past failures of early Nordic EVs, V2G aggregator com-
panies should be careful not to underestimate the value of conspicuous-
ness and status. Underscoring the importance of status, many of our
experts credited Tesla as a better example of encouraging status-seeking
behavior, and in short, salvaging the public image of EVs. In this
thread, R234 credits the luxury aspects of Tesla as repairing the con-
sumer’s perspective of EVs:

Like I said before, the Buddy had almost a laughable image, it’s a nutty
car. So I think actually Tesla knowingly or unknowingly has actually con-
tributed to promoting electric vehicles in a very positive way, it’s a dream
that come true for a lot of people.

Experts consistently credited the conspicuous and status-oriented

value of Tesla as redeeming the EV in society, and accelerating adoption
by causing other automakers to respond with their own EVs now that
EVs were no longer seen as plastic dustbins, or food without taste, and
were becoming more popular.
To learn from the successes of the Prius and Tesla while avoiding
the mistakes of the Th!nk and Buddy, there are several principles and
strategies that automakers and V2G aggregator companies may want
to implement to increase consumer interest and status-seeking behav-
ior. The first of which is that there should be strategic focus on more
than just improving the economic value of the V2G system. While
reducing additional V2G costs are certainly important, the successes
Tesla enjoyed in the Nordics ironically highlight that the solution to
EV adoption was not to increase the utility of the EV as compared to
the Th!nk and Buddy, but instead actively increase the overall disutil-
ity of the EV. Translating this to V2G systems, the solution may be to
put less emphasis on reducing the price of the system, but instead, and
162    
L. Noel et al.

perhaps non-intuitively, develop the conspicuous and status aspects of

V2G. Not only could this motivate higher early adoption rates (due to
status-seeking behavior), but this may also more naturally fit within the
early business model, where development costs are high and it is diffi-
cult to sell the innovation at a loss.
On the other hand, it may be difficult for V2G to rival the lux-
ury and status aspects of Tesla. Nonetheless, even non-luxury items
can still gain conspicuous and status value, as V2G aggregators could
learn from the diffusion of the Toyota Prius. Thus, the second strat-
egy that V2G aggregator companies could implement is to emphasize
the pro-environmental and pro-social aspects of V2G. In addition to
strategic marketing, this would coincide well with government-led
information campaigns the detail the environmental and social bene-
fits of V2G. By making the social benefits clearer, then consumers may
be more interested in V2G for the same reasons that consumers were
interested in the Toyota Prius, to display their conservation conspic-
uously [22]. It follows that not only do government-led information
campaigns lead to a more informed consumer base, but it may also
have secondary benefits, as shown here with increasing the conspicuous
value of V2G.
Finally, and perhaps the most important is that the overall visibility
of V2G should be greatly increased. That is, it is hard to show off the
pro-social and pro-environmental aspects of V2G if others cannot or do
not recognize the difference between V2G-capable EVs and otherwise.
Following the lead of the unique appearance of Tesla and the Toyota
Prius, automakers may want to consider making V2G-capable EVs
especially distinguishable. And though it may difficult to show that the
EV is actually performing V2G (considering that it will often occur in
the privacy of one’s garage), EVSE manufacturers and V2G aggregator
companies may also want to devise ways to show off to neighbors that
the EVSE and EV are currently providing V2G services, such as adding
colors along the plug’s wire to mimic electricity going in and out. Above
all, visibility is a key to the pro-social status of V2G and gives it more
relative advantages [7, 28].
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
163

6.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have surveyed the current social and consumer per-
spectives and barriers of V2G. While many consumers appear to be
lukewarm or ambivalent to the technology, a clear and pressing chal-
lenge of V2G is lack of consumer awareness. However, a theoretical
perspective shows that consumers should not only be made aware of
the technology, but also be given an active role in the development of
V2G. With these theories in mind, we then proposed several strategies
and solutions to more actively engage with the consumer, such as tink-
ering, accruing experience, targeted information campaigns, involving
users in pilot projects, and promoting V2G technologies as a conspicu-
ous good. These strategies necessitate that the way central actors in the
V2G system, such a V2G aggregators and government, change the ways
that they currently interact with consumers. These themes all demon-
strate that consumers are more a key actor in accelerating the diffusion
of V2G, rather than a barrier to be overcome. The extent to which they
engage, or ignore, V2G systems will, without understatement, strongly
determine the rate, pace, and scope of its future trajectory.

References
1. Parsons GR, Hidrue MK, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay
for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms. Energy
Econ. 2014;42:313–24.
2. Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: how
much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C Emerg
Technol. 2011;19(6):1171–84.
3. Noel L, Carrone AP, Jensen AF, Zarazua de Rubens G, Kester J, Sovacool
BK. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applica-
tions: a Nordic choice experiment. Review at Energy Eco. 2018.
4. Geske J, Schumann D. Willing to participate in vehicle-to-grid (V2G)?
Why not! Energy Policy. 2018;120:392–401.
164    
L. Noel et al.

5. Franke T, Krems JF. Interacting with limited mobility resources: psycho-

logical range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract.
2013;48:109–22.
6. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.
7. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
p. 551.
8. Rice RE, Rogers EM. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge.
1980;1(4):499–514.
9. Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social con-
struction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol Cult.
1996;37(4):763.
10. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How users matter: the co-construction of
users and technology. MIT Press paperback ed. Cambridge, MA; London:
MIT Press; 2005. 340 p. (Inside technology).
11. Schot J, Kanger L, Verbong G. The roles of users in shaping transitions to
new energy systems. Nat Energy. 2016;1(5):16054.
12. Kanger L, Schot J. User-made immobilities: a transitions perspective.
Mobilities. 2016;11(4):598–613.
13. Geels FW. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigura-
tion processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy.
2002;31(8–9):1257–74.
14. Lüthje C, Herstatt C, von Hippel E. User-innovators and “local” informa-
tion: the case of mountain biking. Res Policy. 2005;34(6):951–65.
15. Franz K. Tinkering: consumers reinvent the early automobile.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2011.
16. Hausman JA. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of
energy-using durables. Bell J Econ. 1979;10(1):33.
17. Wang D, Coignard J, Zeng T, Zhang C, Saxena S. Quantifying electric
vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services. J
Power Sources. 2016;332:193–203.
18. Stern PC, Aronson E. Energy use: the human dimension [Internet].
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1984 [cited 2018 Aug 28].
Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9259.
19. Greenberg MR. Energy policy and research: the underappreciation of
trust. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2014;1:152–60.
 6 Consumers, Society and V2G    
165

20. Kuhn TS, Hacking I. The structure of scientific revolutions, 4th ed.
Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 217 p.
21. Eraut M. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work.
Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70(Pt 1):113–36.
22. Sexton SE, Sexton AL. Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and
willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J Environ Econ Manag.
2014;67(3):303–17.
23. Delgado MS, Harriger JL, Khanna N. The value of environmental status
signaling. Ecol Econ. 2015;111:1–11.
24. Schaefers T. Standing out from the crowd: niche product choice as a form
of conspicuous consumption. Eur J Mark. 2014;48(9/10):1805–827.
25. Noel L, Sovacool BK, Kester J, Zarazua de Rubens G, (2018) Conspicuous
diffusion: Theorizing how status drives innovation in electric mobility.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.
26. Norsk Elbilforening. Så mange elbiler er det i Norge nå [Internet]. 2013 [cited
2018 Jan 24]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160616221430/,
h t t p : / / w w w. e l b i l . n o / n y h e t e r / s t a t i s t i k k / 3 1 0 3 - s a - m a n g e -
elbiler-er-det-i-norge-na.
27. Mathiowetz D. Feeling luxury: invidious political pleasures and the sense
of touch. Theory Event. 2010;13(4)1–26.
28. Heffetz O. A test of conspicuous consumption: visibility and income. Rev
Econ Stat. 2011;93(4):1101–7.
 7
V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy
Recommendations

In the previous chapters, we described the barriers that V2G faces

from a variety of perspectives across different elements of a socio-
technical spectrum. Here, we synthesize these barriers and show
how they need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. As we
described earlier in the book’s introduction, the challenges that V2G
faces in reality are not actually as disconnected as the structure of
our chapters make them out to be. Instead, these barriers circulate
as part of a “seamless web” that weaves together technical, economic,
political, and even sociocultural factors. We first describe how each
of the V2G actors interacts with the previously described socio-
technical barriers. Next, to tackle this seamless web, here we show
a policy mix for a generalized country to accelerate the diffusion of
V2G. Moving beyond a generalized situation, we next describe how
V2G could diffuse differently across the globe and describe potential
global development pathways.

© The Author(s) 2019 167

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_7
168    
L. Noel et al.

7.1 Synthesizing Barriers Across Actors

In the previous four chapters, we attempted to comprehensively
describe the variety of barriers that currently stymie V2G adoption. Of
course, not only are these barriers not as separate and distinct as our
chapter structure implies, they are also distributed among different indi-
vidual and organizational entities, which we label holistically “actors.”
Thus, in this section, we show how these barriers impact six of the
main actors in a V2G system (as defined in Chapter 1). These roles and
impacts are summarized in Table 7.1.
Of course, these barriers may be more important at particular times
for particular actors, impacting their preferences and strategies accord-
ingly. For example, technical barriers largely implicate the aggregator
and the EV industry, as they have the burden of improving battery
technology and minimizing impacts during V2G service provision.
Other actors, like the EV owners and government, have smaller roles
in the technical development of V2G, namely of acceptance and fund-
ing research, respectively. The remaining actors (electricity operators
and producers) have limited to no roles from a technical perspective.
Moreover, the roles from each of the actors are unique from a technical
perspective and require collaboration and complementary action from
each of the actors. That is, while the EV industry and government both
can lead on the issue of battery degradation, electricity grid operators
and aggregators will complement their actions by standardizing secu-
rity and privacy measures of V2G communication. Of course, both of
these need to happen in tandem for the technical barriers to be fully
addressed.
Next, economic and business barriers also impact the roles of the six
main actors in various ways. From an economic perspective, the main
actors are the aggregators, EV owners, and the EV industry. First and
foremost, many of the economic barriers arise from lack of production
in EVs and V2G technologies, and the EV industry has the primary
challenge of decreasing the marginal cost of both, as compared to other
options that consumers may choose, such as gasoline vehicles. Similarly,
based on choice experiment data, EV owners and consumers in general
have been shown to undervalue the economic benefits of V2G [1, 2],
Table 7.1 Impacts and roles of actors in across sociotechnical barriers
Sociotechnical EV owners, Aggregators Electricity grid Government EV industry Electricity
barrier consumers operators producers
7

Technical Acceptance Develop Develop Invest R&D Increased Limited or no

of battery algorithms security and in battery research role
degradation to minimize privacy stand- technology into battery
technical ards of V2G degrada-
impacts and tion, charger
maximize efficiency
privacy
Economic/ Increasing will- Developing Avoid double Reduce regula- Reducing mar- Potentially
business ingness to pay sounds busi- taxation rules, tory barriers ginal cost of contribute
for EVs and ness model; clarify role to business EVs and EVSEs to business
V2G, higher convincing in business model, clarify in general, model as
awareness of consumers models roles of actors as well as partners in
V2G revenues of economic in business marginal V2G electricity
benefits model, incen- costs markets
tivize EVs and
V2G
Regulatory/ Beneficiaries of Need clarifica- Develop fair Authorize and Lobby govern- May play a role
political policies aimed tion before and clear instruct TSOs ment to take as third par-
to increase can partici- regulations and DSOs regulatory ties in elec-
EV adoption pate in certain for the par- to develop action and tricity market
and V2G markets, ticipation of reasonable design mar- participation,
participation removal V2G in various spaces for kets for V2G, such as bal-
of barriers markets V2G to partic- increase poli- ance respon-
like double ipate in their cies favoring sible parties
taxation, markets EVs and V2G (BRPs)
V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    

definition of
169

responsibilities
(continued)
Table 7.1 (continued)
Sociotechnical EV owners, Aggregators Electricity grid Government EV industry Electricity
barrier consumers operators producers
Societal/ Active user Take a more Can play Engage with Allow and Can play
170    

consumer engagement, active role a role in and target encourage a role in

tinkering and in including information user types, users to information
reinvention, research of campaigns provide poli- experiment by campaigns
increasing social barriers with regards cies to target standardizing with regards
L. Noel et al.

consumer during early to electricity consumer, V2X in EVs to electricity

knowl- pilot projects, markets provide grants markets
edge and encourage for social
acceptance user tinkering research
and engage-
ment, target
specific user
types
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
171

and thus to encourage V2G participation, the economic revenues from

V2G need to be clearly enunciated to the EV owners. This feeds into
the business models of the aggregators, who need EV owners for their
business case to be viable. Additionally, from the perspective of business
barriers, other actors like government and electricity grid operators and
producers are needed to clarify the regulations of various markets and
the roles of each actor in the business model.
Relatedly, the regulatory and policy barriers of V2G are highly inter-
connected to the economic and business barriers that V2G faces. For
example, one of the key elements of the market design of V2G par-
ticipation, which is done primarily by the government and electricity
grid operators, is the removal of double taxation, which can severely
inhibit economic revenues and the business case of V2G. In addition,
the other main purpose of V2G market design is that it can help define
the roles and responsibilities of aggregators. From a political perspec-
tive, EV owners and consumers are clear beneficiaries of policies aimed
to increase both EV adoption and V2G participation. Thus, it is in the
best interests of the EV industry to lobby the government to take regu-
latory action and implement aforementioned policies.
Finally, this brings us to the social and consumer barriers of V2G.
Plainly, this of course implicates EV owners and consumers in gen-
eral, as they are currently perceived as one of the main barriers to
V2G implementation (via consumer resistance and lack of awareness).
However, as we described in Chapter 6, this limits the role that consum-
ers can actually play in diffusion of a technology, and instead should be
more actively engaged in the process. Aggregators consequently should
make it their objective to engage certain user types [3] and encourage
user development of their technology through experimentation and
tinkering. This also requires the EV industry to develop EVs that are not
just V2G-capable, but also standardizing their EVs with V2X capabil-
ity, allowing and encouraging users to develop their own meanings, and
embedding them into V2G [4]. The government can also encourage the
engagement of certain user types and also fund social research through
grants. Finally, from an electricity perspective, grid operators and pro-
ducers may play a minor role in the dissemination of information about
electricity markets and V2G’s role in them to the consumers.
172    
L. Noel et al.

Looking at the columns (as opposed to the rows) of Table 7.1, one
can see which actors have the largest roles. It is unsurprising that the
actor with the most roles is the aggregator, having perhaps the most
important role in each of the four types of barriers. On the other hand,
though we described the government as a secondary actor in the V2G
system in Chapter 1, here Table 7.1 shows that they have a much more
central role in the assuaging of the various barriers. Conversely, though
electricity grid operators are a primary actor in the operation of a V2G
system, their role in responding to many of the barriers described thus
far is relatively limited. Other actors, such as EV owners and the EV
industry, are very important within certain types of barriers, but less so
for others. Of course, in sum, this shows that from both a barrier and
an actor perspective, the impediments to V2G need to be dealt with in
a comprehensive fashion. This suggests the need for the orchestration of
policies so that they impact all six actors rather than having a more iso-
lated impact confined to only one or two.

7.2 Toward a Stylized V2G Policy Mix

Though we have attempted to comprehensively describe the seamless
web of barriers that V2G may face, next we focus on how a generalized
government could take action to address the sociotechnical barriers dis-
cussed in the previous four chapters and accelerate V2G diffusion. First,
however, it may be useful to take a step back, and ask: why should gov-
ernment take any action regarding V2G?
Although it is a source of rich debate, there are two cases where
government intervention is necessary: either when markets fail and/or
when public goods are at play. While in an abstract market, consumers
can make informed decisions that maximize consumer utility, there are
several issues when applying economic theory to energy planning [5].
For example, one fundamental problem in relation to V2G is that mar-
kets tend to work best when distributing private goods with unfettered
competition, such as a laptop. In contrast, some aspects of V2G can be
considered public goods (such as mitigating climate change and reduc-
ing public health impacts from fossil fuels), and energy markets tend to
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
173

be less competitive. In addition, the carbon emissions and public health

impacts that V2G would mitigate are costs that are borne outside of the
market and thus can be considered externalities, a type of market fail-
ure. In this case, unfettered economic markets would be ineffective at
distributing the optimal levels of V2G.
This leads to a “market-failure model” of public policy, the argument
runs, one that justifies strong-handed government regulation or inter-
ference to fix broken markets, a theme that crops up in numerous other
chapters when we touch upon themes such as the co-benefits of V2G
(health, climate), the numerous information asymmetries plaguing V2G
and EVs more generally, and the irrational behavior of many consum-
ers. Considering the societal benefits that V2G may have for a country
(as described in Chapter 2), and the severity and extent of the socio-
technical barriers currently interfering with society’s ability to reap those
benefits, the case for policy intervention becomes clearer. With this in
mind, we argue that there are several correcting policy interventions
that governments should take, which we describe below. As one can see
reviewing Table 7.2, many policy actions have their own strengths and
weaknesses across the various types of barriers and can be seen as com-
plementary in many respects.
Of course, before having V2G capability, it is necessary to have
EVs. The transitions to EVs itself has been slow and faces several chal-
lenges on its own [6], and governments can and need to take various
actions to develop the EV environment in which V2G could later
reside. For example, V2G may increase in value when consumers
become more knowledgeable about EVs [5], and EV sales and interest
have been found to be directly related to government incentives and
commitment [7]. As consumers become more familiar with the ele-
ments behind EVs (such as battery, range anxiety, charging), they may
become more comfortable with those elements subsequently being
used in V2G. In addition, economic incentives to purchase EVs may
provide a framework for later incentivizing sales of V2G—for exam-
ple, governments can give a slightly larger incentive if the EV is V2G-
capable. On the other hand, other policies that would help EVs, such
as carbon tax, would also directly help V2G, filling two needs with
one policy.
Table 7.2 Policy solutions aligned to address sociotechnical barriers
Example policy Temporal focus Relevance to tech- Relevance to eco- Relevance to regu- Relevance to
action nical barriers nomic barriers latory barriers social barriers
Incentivize EV Immediate Increasing EV Reduces addi- Additional expe- Increased familiar-
174    

adoption adoption can tional capital rience with EV ity with battery
reduce bat- costs, makes charging pre- technology,
tery costs and business case of pares TSOs and range demands,
improve battery V2G clearer DSOs for V2G charging rou-
L. Noel et al.

degradation tines, higher

concerns V2G valuation
Increase Immediate Further improve Renewables Reduces barriers Enunciates a
Renewable aggregation, increase value to market entry, meaning and
energy, develop communication, of V2G, clearer removes overly vision for V2G
storage markets and metering roles of storage burdensome tax- which consumers
rules capabilities delineates actor ation policies can identify with
roles in business
models, removes
double taxation
Initiate pilot Immediate or Gives an oppor- Gives opportu- Helps define the Increases con-
projects near-term tunity to test nity to reduce role that storage sumer knowl-
algorithms, costs associated and V2G can play edge and
improve charger with V2G, such in the electricity awareness of
efficiency, better as V2G-capable market V2G, opportu-
understand- EVSEs nity to research
ing of battery user behavior
degradation and gender
norms
(continued)
Table 7.2 (continued)
Example policy Temporal focus Relevance to tech- Relevance to eco- Relevance to regu- Relevance to
action nical barriers nomic barriers latory barriers social barriers
7

Targeted informa- Near-term Consumers gain Consumers value Engaging with Engage active
tion and experi- better appreci- V2G revenues user-legitimators user types, legiti-
ence campaign ation of poten- more, making validates and mize technology,
tially limited business case adds pressure decrease con-
impacts on bat- more convincing for TSOs/DSOs sumer resistance
tery degradation to regulate V2G to V2G
seriously
Mandate V2G- Long-term Can increase over- Provides a guaran- Provides enough Users see gov-
capability sales all V2G capacity, teed amount of capacity for V2G ernment is
reducing poten- capacity, making to participate in committed to
tial battery wear business model markets, making technology,
per individual EV more valid rule changes increases societal
worth it profile
V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
175
176    
L. Noel et al.

While it may be beneficial to incentivize EVs as a prerequisite to

V2G, it may be beneficial to tackle both challenges at once. While
increasing EV adoption brings value to V2G at a later point, at the
same time, it makes little sense to diffuse substantial amounts of
EVs which are not V2G-capable if the end goal is V2G-capable EVs.
Therefore, there is somewhat of a tradeoff between developing the EV
ecosystem and developing the V2G ecosystem. This should be clarified
by national EV targets or visions, such that actors in both the EV and
V2G sectors can prepare for when such a transition is expected by the
government. Other elements of the shared EV/V2G ecosystem, such as
public charging infrastructure, can be developed to be future-proofed by
requiring public chargers be compatible with international V2G stand-
ards like ISO 15118.
Likewise, from a more foundational perspective, governments can
indirectly encourage the development of V2G by also incentivizing
renewable energy deployment. In addition, V2G should be made a key
part of national energy plans, in tandem with renewable energy as well
as clarification of the role of storage in the regional electricity market.
From a regulatory perspective, clarification and development of amena-
ble rules for storage technologies like V2G are a key aspect to encour-
age participation in the electricity grid. This in turn can influence the
economic and business barriers that V2G faces, by increasing the value
of V2G and by clarifying the roles of actors in business models. From
a social theory perspective, explicitly connecting V2G to renewable
energy can develop expectations, in turn embedding meaning into V2G
that consumers can identify with and build upon [4].
While these actions can provide a solid foundation for V2G to
develop upon, there certainly are specific actions that governments can
take that specifically focus on V2G. The most intuitive and immediate
action that a hypothetical government can take is to initiate V2G pilot
projects on their own. While a V2G pilot project obviously creates a
protected space for niche development within the region, as we show in
Table 7.2, there is a variety of additional benefits across the other soci-
otechnical barriers that pilot projects can help address. For example, if
combined with social research such as gender norms and user behavior
(research gaps we describe in Chapter 8), pilot projects could provide
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
177

an opportunity to better understand users in V2G systems, while also

allowing users to better understand V2G systems. On the other hand,
it has also been argued that fleets are easier to convert to V2G-capable
EVs, so at the same time, the government may also want to specifically
focus on incentivizing fleets to adopt V2G. Likewise, aggregators who
participate in the pilot project can also experiment with their algorithms
in order to test how they can minimize battery degradation and opti-
mize charger efficiency.
While pilot projects may help develop the niche that V2G is cur-
rently situated in, a longer-term perspective shows that the next step
beyond pilot projects is focusing on user engagement and information
and experience campaigns. As we discussed in Chapter 6, information
on its own underplays the role that users can have, as they are typically
active developers of the transition [3, 4, 8]. Thus, an information cam-
paign should be done in tandem with engaging certain types of users,
such as user-legitimators and user-intermediaries (who can be organi-
zations like automobile associations). Additionally, these campaigns
should focus on giving a variety of users an opportunity to actively
experience V2G, either in tandem with V2G pilot projects or with
public demonstrations. Both experience and information give users the
opportunity to develop and embed meanings and tinker with the tech-
nology, which has been shown to accelerate and stabilize diffusion of an
innovation [8–10]. Thus, if governments want to implement V2G to
capture the environmental and socioeconomic benefits, they may want
to actively encourage environments in which consumers can tinker and
reinvent V2G.
These two V2G-specific policies can provide substantial founda-
tion to the development of a V2G system. On top of these policies,
governments can take a more active approach, such as mandating
V2G-capable EV sales, perhaps in a fashion similar to how certain gov-
ernments require a certain percentage of sales be zero-emission vehicles
[11]. For example, a government could mandate that 5% of all vehicle
sales per automaker need to be V2G-capable. This in turn would have
several benefits, including that each automaker would at least need to
make so-called compliance cars, that is, EVs that are V2G-capable just
to meet with the requirements of this law. While new model availability
178    
L. Noel et al.

in of itself would be a substantial means to increase V2G capability, the

secondary affects of a mandate policy would be to increase the profile
of V2G, increasing consumer awareness and presumably acceptance.
Likewise, guaranteed V2G capacity makes it easier for aggregators and
electricity grid operators to plan business models and potential storage
impact on the electricity market, respectively. Moreover, a mandate on
V2G sales can and should be done in tandem with placing requirements
on V2G-capable EVSEs, such as mandating EVSEs with ISO 15118
capability into building codes. Alternatively, governments could imple-
ment V2G mandates on other vehicle markets, such as city buses or
other similar fleets.
In sum, a hypothetical country can take several immediate steps, such
as developing the EV ecosystem, implementing renewable energy, and
harmonizing energy storage market and regulations. In the near term,
governments can take a more active role in the niche development of
V2G by initiating pilot projects, in their own government fleets and/
or in private consumers (both with their own benefits), and by targeting
user types with information and experience campaigns. Finally, as the
VG system begins to mature, governments can take a more progressive
approach by economically incentivizing or even mandating the sale of
V2G-capable EVs. These steps could help a generalized government to
take V2G as a pre-niche technology to a well-developed niche encroach-
ing on the regime.

7.3 Five Global Development Pathways

and V2G Futures
The generalized policy mix roadmap described above is a good frame-
work for a country to implement, but in reality, it is likely that local
contexts will determine the elements which are most pertinent to V2G
diffusion and development. Since V2G is a bridge between both the
transportation and electricity sector, the current status of vehicle owner-
ship and electricity grid operation are key elements in how V2G may be
implemented and diffuse.
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
179

Given the substantial difference in transportation systems across the

globe, the role of V2G is likely to be different (at least in the short term).
For example, if unforeseeable improvements in conventional vehicles
are made, coupled with advancements in hydrogen or biofuel, EV and
V2G penetration could be much more limited than expected. Or, V2G
may be more based in fleet vehicles in countries with higher focus on
public transportation and less rates of private vehicle ownership. In
other ways, where there is currently a lack of private vehicle ownership,
V2G and EVs may be altered transportation systems such that private
V2G-capable EVs become the dominant mode of transportation. In
short, the transportation systems that V2G will diffuse across are them-
selves evolving artifacts and will likely co-evolve with the transition to
V2G and EV systems.
At the same time, electricity systems across the globe are likely to also
co-evolve with V2G, though perhaps not as much as transportation sys-
tems. Nonetheless, assuming an international commitment to renewa-
ble energy, electricity production systems are expected to substantially
change in the ensuing decades. However, in addition to changing pro-
duction and altering the predictability and flexibility of the grid, elec-
tricity grids may also change along other elements. For example, the
grid of the future may become highly interconnected, or at the same
time, it may become more decentralized, especially in certain regions.
With a varied and evolving global context for transportation and
electricity in mind, here we describe five potential pathways that V2G
may take across different countries. These pathways are dependent on
local contexts and situations, but as described below, certain patterns
become apparent.
With that in mind, here we imagine several different sets of pathways
for V2G shown in Table 7.3, as each future depends on other future
developments, such as the level of renewable energy, the “smartness/
superness” of the grid, as well as the level of V2G capability. In addi-
tion, we believe that these different scenarios can act as baselines for
future academic efforts (such as energy system modeling), since there
has been a lack of research investigation in the potential differences and
costs of the different possible V2G futures.
Table 7.3 Five imagined V2G futures and their characteristics
Scenario Renewable energy Role of conventional Role of V2G Potential drawbacks
level energy
Conservative backlash Low to none Remains the dominant Low to none Return to cars pow-
180    

(or even sole) actor ered by fossil fuels or

in the electricity non-electrical sources
market not suitable to V2G
such as biofuel
L. Noel et al.

V2G remains a niche Low-medium Remains primary actor Largely remains ancil- Electricity grid misses
in the electricity lary service actor out on cheap form of
market storage, potentially
less EV diffusion
High V2G, dirty grid Low Remains primary actor Dominates ancillary V2G storage capacity
in the electricity service market, acts is underutilized,
market as backup storage to could be used for
renewable, but in a more renewable
limited fashion energy
High V2G, renewables Medium-high Backup capacity to Provides ancillary ser- Electricity grid is
in a traditional but renewable energy, vice and frequently highly dependent
decarbonized grid rarely used provides a variety of on V2G and runs the
storage and flexibility risk of interfering
to renewable energy, with EV owner’s
high utilization rates driving demands (or
proves unreliable)
The super-smart grid High Play no or a very lim- Focuses on local V2G system receives
ited role, most elec- ­balancing, ancillary less economic
tricity is renewable services, and emer- benefits, but society
gency backup, one benefits more, super-
of many smart grids smart grid also diffi-
actors cult to implement
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
181

7.3.1 Conservative Backlash

Under this pathway, V2G stagnates and regresses: conventional cars

continue to dominate as the vehicles of choice and other alternatives
such as biofuels and hydrogen substitute for the role that V2G and EVs
would fulfill. In addition, there is also likely to be a degree of political
backlash, from traditional automobile manufacturers (OEMs) or fran-
chise dealers and salespersons, as well as perhaps a more general con-
servative pushback to general climate change mitigation.
Before even reaching backlash, it is important to first consider that
V2G-capable EVs are limited to the reach of electricity networks. This
may sound good in theory, until one realizes that 1.1 billion people
reside in rural areas of the world, mostly in Africa and Asia, which do
not have an electricity grid at all [12]. In some areas of the world, devel-
oped or not, if corrective action is not taken, then a conservative “back-
lash” against V2G-capable EVs might actually be due to the fact that
these regions have no other choice but to continue toward a conven-
tional, fossil-fueled automobile regime.
However, in other regions of the world, there still may be other rea-
sons for a backlash against V2G-capable EVs besides lack of access to
electricity grids. In this thread, it is important to remember that con-
ventional cars will not remain static; they, too, will continue to improve
and may compete with and erode the desirability of EVs, especially in
this pathway. For example, EV critics argue that there are several means
of improving conventional fossil-fueled automobile technology, such as
reducing drag, vehicle weight, as well as other technical improvements
to the gasoline engine’s efficiency [13]. As the engine efficiency of gas-
oline cars is improved, the case for EVs (and thus V2G) is arguably
reduced.
Though these factors may limit V2G-capable EV diffusion, a more
active conservative backlash against from V2G and EVs may come
from actors who are posed to lose substantial revenues from a poten-
tial transition. The most intuitive example would be the loss of business
for repair and maintenance companies. Because the cost of EV main-
tenance is minimal, as EVs do not require oil changes, tune-ups, smog
checks, or mandatory annual emission inspections, it is not surprising
182    
L. Noel et al.

that automobile dealers who make their money on vehicle service (not
new sales) would not want to move away from their current business
model [14]. Automotive maintenance and repair business is estimated
to generate nearly 45% of aftermarket revenues in Europe [15], and
automakers may strongly resist EVs as it represents a substantial loss of
current revenues in their business models.
For instance, resistance to transitioning to EV business models can be
seen within Nordic automotive dealerships specifically, where Zarazua
de Rubens et al. [7] found that salespersons generally articulate that
EVs take a longer time to sell, take more effort to sell, and result in
less revenue for maintenance—which can all result in negative impacts
on profitability for automotive companies and dealerships, and conse-
quently jobs, in the short term. Additionally, independent automotive
and maintenance firms could also be highly resistant to EVs, consider-
ing that they may be at a unique and comparative disadvantage, since
smaller independent shops are less able to cope with the required exper-
tise and investments in infrastructure to handle EVs [16]. In short, a
variety of current transportation actors stand to lose quite a lot and may
actively resist the transition, leading to a pathway with little to no EVs
and practically no V2G.
We found similar viewpoints in our expert interviews as well, sum-
marizing that traditional energy companies stand to lose a lot with the
transition to V2G, as R2 notes:

To me the big losers of the electric mobility transition in the Nordic

region are the energy companies and the automotive dealerships and
repairmen. The losers are the traditional energy firms who will be dis-
placed by V2G and you will also have firms repairing traditional vehicles
or owning gas stations that will suffer.

Finally, it is also important to note that backlash may not be only

directed at V2G or EVs. Remembering that V2G-capable EVs are
only a part of a larger context of climate change mitigation, it is like-
wise important to note that there might be backlash to climate change
policy in general, causing trickle-down impacts to V2G. For exam-
ple, it is well documented that consumers in general have a variety of
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
183

psychological barriers that limit the political will to take action on cli-
mate change [17]. Worse, if mistrust and disbelief become rampant
among individuals, then there is a chance that backlash would lead to
climate change policy regression, erasing the renewable energy and EV
policy environment in which V2G would develop. Worse yet, there
appears to be evidence that politics has become more polarized, which
has limited, and may increasingly limit in the future, the chance of
enacting general climate change policy [18].
With such backlash against V2G-capable EV specifically and renew-
able energy and decarbonization in general, this pathway would be
dominated by fossil fuels, perhaps to a degree even greater than today.
V2G would lose niche status and essentially be removed as an electric-
ity market actor, especially since the lack of renewable electricity would
decrease the value of energy storage. In short, this pathway would lead
to a regression on renewable energy and V2G and come at high social
costs, given the externalities associated with fossil fuel consumption in
both the electricity and transportation sectors.

7.3.2 V2G Remains a Niche

Second, there remains a possibility that because of reasons similar to

the backlash scenario described above or other barriers (such as social
acceptance of V2G, discussed in Chapter 6), private car owners do not
own EVs which are V2G-capable or perhaps do not own EVs at all.
Instead, V2G remains a niche in the context of both the transportation
sector (remaining within some market share of fleets) and the electricity
sector (remaining a niche ancillary service market participant). Most of
the benefits thus are focused within EV fleet owners and aggregators,
who participate in the frequency regulation market. However, because
there is a limited amount of V2G actors, it is likely that prices are not
pushed down by oversupply of V2G. Thus, total revenues to a select EV
owners remains high, but society does not benefit from reduced ancil-
lary service costs.
Such a scenario may be especially likely in regions with other com-
petitive storage, such as Norway and the high levels of hydropower. Not
184    
L. Noel et al.

surprisingly many experts believed that V2G would be essentially val-

ueless in regions with hydropower. For example, R190 pointed out that
V2G could not compete with the existing hydropower capacity:

I don’t see huge benefits simply because we already have so much capac-
ity, you know we have hydroelectric power plants that can be turned on
in fifteen seconds and they can go up to four megawatts in fifteen seconds
in some of our plants…

However, such skepticism of V2G becoming a major actor in elec-

tricity markets was not exclusive to Norway in our interviews. Many
other experts in countries without vast amounts of hydropower were
also skeptical of V2G becoming more than a niche technology, sim-
ply because they would be outperformed by other storage technolo-
gies—often on the basis that they are either more socially acceptable
or cheaper to install. For example, one respondent acknowledged
that V2G could provide several types of ancillary services to the
grid, but more often than not, V2G would be outcompeted by other
technologies:

I’m not so optimistic about it, looked about from a vehicle-to-grid point
of view is that we think we have cheaper and better alternatives and that’s
my simple reasoning…So I believe the vehicle-to-grid is a brilliant idea, I
just think we have better ideas.

However, if other countries do not develop viable storage alternatives,

this scenario of course leaves out the central benefits of V2G’s imagined
future, namely renewable energy integration. While higher renewable
energy would also lead to an increase in ancillary services, given unpre-
dictability and intermittency, the larger flexibility and backup storage
needs could not be met if V2G remained as a niche. Consequently, if
renewable energy became the primary source of electricity ­production,
flexibility and backup storage would have to come from other actors
on the grid. Chapter 2 showed that this leads to suboptimal choices
and technologies as one is forced to either invest in expensive storage
options, such as centralized batteries or compressed air energy storage, or
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
185

rely on current conventional electricity production, such as natural gas,

to fill intermittency and provide flexibility. In short, if V2G remained a
niche, the benefits will accrue in a small number of actors, and the larger
societal benefits described above would remain uncaptured.

7.3.3 High V2G, Dirty Grid

In the second potential pathway, V2G moves beyond the niche and
becomes commonplace with a large set of consumers who own a
V2G-capable EV, in addition to the V2G capacity in private fleets and
public transportation. As such, V2G is capable of providing nearly
all ancillary services, displacing conventional ancillary service mar-
ket participants. This in turns leads to moderate improvements in the
decarbonization of electricity production as well as public health and
concomitantly reduces overall societal spending on ancillary services.
But, in this scenario, it is imagined that there is very limited renewa-
ble energy production on the electricity grid (say 10–20% of genera-
tion at most) due to reasons outside of V2G, e.g., political resistance to
wind and solar. In this case, although there is substantial V2G capacity
to integrate renewable energy and provide flexibility and backup stor-
age, the lack of renewable energy makes the V2G capacity less useful
as a backup service mediating between renewable energy and conven-
tional ramp up. And although V2G would dominate the ancillary ser-
vices and create price pressure on these markets, it would miss many
of the health, environmental, and economic benefits of its use together
with renewable energy. Worse yet, it may also influence the consumer
perception of both V2G and EVs, as they become associated with a grid
that is not environmentally friendly, as one consumer participant in F3
noted:

Another thing about electric vehicles is thinking about is still electricity

is not totally environmentally friendly, but of course more easy to make
environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. Sometime you get to talk about
it as if it’s the grand solution, but you’ll have to turn the production of
electricity into completely renewable until the electricity is environmen-
tally friendly.
186    
L. Noel et al.

Though there is a large V2G capacity available, the lack of renewa-

ble energy generation means that the grid continues to cause substan-
tial environmental and health damages, though perhaps this decreases
as the electricity mix moves away from coal toward gas. Moreover, V2G
loses most of its value as it overwhelms the ancillary service market
and may have limited future markets to participate in—for example, it
is possible, but less advantageous otherwise, for V2G to perform peak
shaving in tandem with a natural gas-based system. Pessimistically, this
could reduce the incentive for consumers to purchase an EV, as V2G
becomes less and less valuable without renewable generation to provide
services for. Beyond economic value, the pro-social motivations for con-
sumers to adopt V2G also dissipate, making the diffusion of V2G more
difficult. Thus, in the worst case, V2G fails to contribute to decarbonize
the electricity sector and reaches a limit in the decarbonization of the
transportation sector. Like the previous scenario, a lot of the benefits of
V2G, especially within the electricity sector, are left unattained.

7.3.4 High V2G, Renewables in a Traditional

but Decarbonized Grid

In this scenario, there are equally high levels of V2G in the near future,
but unlike the previous example, there is also high levels of renewable
energy. In this case, V2G would capture nearly all the benefits described
above (even including some of the other benefits, like V2X) as it pro-
vides most of the ancillary services to the electricity grid and provides
the flexibility and backup storage for an optimal integration of large-
scale renewable energy. Thus, in this optimistic view, V2G would fulfill
its promise of contributing to the decarbonization of both the electric-
ity and transportation sector. Also, as opposed to the previous scenario,
V2G can be explicitly connected to renewable energy, and consumers
can embed pro-environmental and pro-social meanings into the tech-
nology. For example, as R52 noted, the combination of green electricity
in tandem with electrification of transport can increase the green feeling
of both:
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
187

Thanks to the high shares of renewable energy in the Nordic electricity

mix, we know that this electric bus is being fueled with wind power. We
know that it is part of climate neutral transportation and we like it because
of that. Knowing that gives me a green feeling. It’s as clean as it can be.

At the same time, this scenario also puts a lot of pressure on the
V2G system. For example, the V2G would become a dominant force
in the public’s everyday life. In addition to being a means of transport,
their EVs would become the primary means to ensuring the reliability
of the electricity grid, both in the ancillary service market, as well as
demand-response flexibility and peak shaving. While the entire fleet of
vehicles would provide a substantial amount of storage such that this
would likely not be an issue, the underlying point is that the V2G sys-
tem would be providing a variety of services across different markets
and timescales. As a result, and especially compared to the previous
example, EV owners could still receive substantial revenue due to the
fact of the diversity of value provided to the grid. In sum, V2G would
play an integral part of everyday life and assist the decarbonization and
reduction of health impacts of the electricity and transport sector.

7.3.5 The Super-Smart Grid

In the final scenario, there are substantial amounts of V2G and renew-
able energy. However, in addition to this, the grid has also evolved to
become substantially smarter and much larger, resulting in a smart
supergrid. In this case, all of the same benefits discussed above are cap-
tured, as the electricity and transportation systems would greatly reduce
their societal and economic costs. Even more, renewable energy can be
balanced between regions, reducing cost as compared to the traditional
grid in the previous scenario due to improved renewable energy effi-
ciency. From a societal perspective, this represents a best-case scenario,
all the environmental and health benefits at a reduced price of imple-
mentation. On the other hand, from a sociotechnical perspective, this
poses the largest challenge, as it requires several transitions to occur all at
once. Indeed, though it is the most beneficial, it is also the most unlikely.
188    
L. Noel et al.

In this scenario, V2G would not be as vital to the electricity system,

instead playing a more nuanced role of ancillary services and flexibility
with shorter bursts of backup storage and an emergency backup capac-
ity. Indeed, as one of the many smart grids actors, the benefits are likely
more geared to local grids and their local balancing and congestion man-
agement. While this may play into the technical attributes of V2G (i.e.,
highly responsive, low energy capacity, distributed resources), it may also
entail a reduction in revenues to V2G participants as compared to the
traditional grid scenario described above. Consequently, a point to be
studied in future literature is the potential conflict of interest between
smart grid actors, like a V2G system, who would lose value if a grid tran-
sitioned to a supergrid. On the other hand, V2G may provide a bridge
to the supergrid, helping reduce technical and economic uncertainties in
the short term by providing stopgap storage solutions, and the supergrid
may not provide competition but rather provide stabilization that V2G
may not have been able to do anyway. Therefore, the super-smart grid
may be either a conflict of interest, or may be entirely synergistic with
V2G actors, and these interactions should be studied further.

7.4 Conclusion
To conclude, given that the barriers facing V2G are multidimensional
and multitudinous, so must the policies that address them. This under-
scores the necessity of comprehensive policy mixes that address all aspects
of a sociotechnical system, from technology and infrastructure to eco-
nomic incentives and price signals, to policies and regulations, and user
expectations and practices, as well considers the variety of actors impli-
cated by all of the sociotechnical challenges. The promotion of single
instruments, such as a carbon tax or vehicle rebate, is unlikely to suc-
ceed alone in the face of the other barriers at other parts of the system.
We need systematic policy interventions, rather than isolated ones.
That said, even with the inherent promise in V2G policy mixes—the
architecture of which we carefully outline above—its global deployment
pathways, its future potential or vision, will differ considerably. We con-
cluded the chapter by generating five different imagined scenarios of
 7 V2G Deployment Pathways and Policy Recommendations    
189

V2G diffusion, to characterize how these benefits may come to frui-

tion. Additionally, we believe these could be the basis for future mod-
elling and research, as the future pathways of V2G and its relation to
the developments in the electricity grid are only beginning to be under-
stood. V2G is at a pivotal moment in its development where it could
fade away under a backlash from incumbents—where society instead
adopts more efficient conventional cars or other alternative modes
and fuels such as biofuel or hydrogen. Or, V2G can remain trapped as
a niche, an important but by no means dominant system of mobility.
Alternatively, perhaps V2G will reach high penetrations across a dirty
grid, a decarbonized grid, or a super-smart high-tech digitized grid.
Which of these pathways becomes a reality is contingent—which reveals
the promise, but also the peril, of V2G.

References
1. Parsons GR, Hidrue MK, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay
for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms. Energy
Econ. 2014;42:313–24.
2. Noel L, Carrone AP, Jensen AF, Zarazua de Rubens G, Kester J, Sovacool
BK. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applica-
tions: a Nordic choice experiment. Review at Energy Eco. 2018.
3. Schot J, Kanger L, Verbong G. The roles of users in shaping transitions to
new energy systems. Nat Energy. 2016;1(5):16054.
4. Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social con-
struction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol. Cult.
1996;37(4):763.
5. Sovacool BK, Brown MA, Valentine SV. Fact and fiction in global energy
policy: fifteen contentious questions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press; 2016. 370 p.
6. Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bodin J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adop-
tion research: a review and research agenda. Transp Res Part D Transp
Environ. 2015;34:122–36.
7. Zarazua de Rubens G, Noel L, Sovacool BK. Dismissive and deceptive car
dealerships create barriers to electric vehicle adoption at the point of sale.
Nat Energy. 2018;3(6):501–7.
190    
L. Noel et al.

8. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How users matter: the co-construction of

users and technology. MIT Press paperback ed. Cambridge, MA, London:
MIT Press; 2005. 340 p. (Inside technology).
9. Franz K. Tinkering: consumers reinvent the early automobile.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2011.
10. Rice RE, Rogers EM. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge.
1980;1(4):499–514.
11. Collantes G, Sperling D. The origin of California’s zero emission vehicle
mandate. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2008;42(10):1302–13.
12. IEA. Energy Access Outlook 2017: from poverty to prosperity [Internet].
OECD/IEA; 2017. p. 144. (World Energy Outlook). Available from:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2017
SpecialReport_EnergyAccessOutlook.pdf.
13. Bandivadekar A, editor. On the road in 2035: reducing transportation’s
petroleum consumption and GHG emissions, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2008. 12 p.
14. Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF. 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. 2009;37(3):1095–103.
15. Breitschwerdt D, Cornet A, Kempf S, Michor L, Schmidt M. The changing
aftermarket game—and how automotive suppliers can benefit from arrizing
opportunities [Internet]. McKinsey & Company; 2017. p. 33. (Advanced
Industries). Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-
and-assembly/our-insights/the-changing-aftermarket-game-and-how-
automotive-suppliers-can-benefit-from-arising-opportunities.
16. Book M, Ellul E, Ernst C, Frowein B, Kreid E, Rilo R, et al. The
European automotive aftermarket landscape: consumer perspective, mar-
ket dynamics and the outlook to 2020 [Internet]. The Boston Consulting
Group; 2012. p. 21. Available from: https://www.bcg.com/documents/
file111373.pdf.
17. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit cli-
mate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011;66(4):290–302.
18. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH. The political divide on climate
change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ Sci Policy Sustain
Dev. 2016;58(5):4–23.
 8
Realizing and Problematizing
a V2G Future

The V2G concept links two critically important technological sys-

tems—the electric power system and the petroleum-based transporta-
tion system—in ways that may address significant problems in both.
Thus, a V2G transition has the potential to enable countries around
the world to start the process of decarbonizing their transport sectors,
better balance and integrate renewable sources of energy into the grid,
and maximize revenues for electricity companies and create new revenue
streams for automobile owners.
However, this book has indicated a V2G transition will not occur
effortlessly or without dramatic changes in technology, markets, pol-
icy, and user preferences and practices. In this concluding chapter, we
summarize some of the book’s main findings, including a focus on its
three main themes (benefits, barriers, and policies) which all underscore
the value of a sociotechnical approach to understanding V2G evolution
and coevolution. We then take a step back and critically consider the
strengths and weaknesses of a V2G transition, indicating how many
of its promises could become pitfalls if implemented poorly. We lastly
identify a series of six thematic research gaps (carbon and health, user
behavior, visions and narratives, social justice, gender norms, and urban

© The Author(s) 2019 191

L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8_8
192    
L. Noel et al.

resilience) and three methodological gaps (broadening cases, overcom-

ing failures, and promoting interdisciplinary and mixed-methods work)
that we hope will form a promising future research agenda. We end
with some reflections on what the sociotechnical dimensions of V2G
mean for policy, and how these factors may be influenced in a more
progressive and sustainable manner.

8.1 Key Themes and Current Expert

Perspectives: Benefits, Barriers, and Policies
In retrospect, a prime contribution of this book has been to tackle three
interrelated questions: What are the societal and business benefits of
V2G? What sociotechnical barriers prevent a V2G transition from
occurring? Lastly, what public policies and business incentives are well
attuned to overcoming these barriers? These have served as unifying
themes throughout each of the earlier chapters, alongside our (loose)
application of a sociotechnical approach. Here, we take a synthetic look
at such themes and also support and contrast our analysis with original
data from expert interviews.

8.1.1 Compelling Potential Benefits

A V2G configuration means that personal automobiles have the oppor-

tunity to become not only vehicles, but also mobile, self-contained
resources that can manage power flows and displace the need for elec-
tric utility infrastructure. They operate as “vehicles” when drivers need
them but switch to “power sources” during periods when they are not
being used. V2G vehicles can reduce the lifetime cost of electric vehi-
cles (EVs), thereby making them more attractive, and if V2G increases
the market share of EVs, the benefits of EV use increase. Since a typical
vehicle is on the road only 4–5% of the day, and at least 90% of per-
sonal vehicles sit unused (in parking lots or garages) even during peak
traffic hours, the size of a possible V2G resource can be quite large.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
193

Fig. 8.1 The diverse array of 25 V2G benefits identified by expert interviews
(Source Authors)

As shown in Fig. 8.1, the benefits of V2G are pluralistic. When looking
across our research interviews, the experts identified no less than 25 cate-
gories of benefits, highlighting the flexibility of the technology to provide
a variety of different services, both to the electricity grid operators, as well
as more local benefits, such as home emergency backup. Though in this
book we focused on the technical, economic, and environmental benefits
of V2G, clearly, this is not to say that those are the only benefits. Indeed,
there could be a long list of benefits that a V2G system would achieve
that we did not fully discuss, such as improved energy security.
Intuitively, the most primary benefit of V2G is to integrate new
intermittent sources of renewable energy integration and, as such, was
the most commonly discussed benefit by the experts. This mirrors our
narrative in Chapter 2 that one of the largest societal benefits of V2G is
its ability to integrate utility-scale renewable energy, as well established
in the literature [1, 2]. Surprisingly, however, V2G was twice as likely to
be discussed explicitly in terms of solar energy (33 experts) compared
to wind energy (only 15). For most experts, the benefits of V2G were
less focused on utility-scale wind (despite the Nordic region’s rich wind
resources), but rather, the benefits focused on more local solar produc-
tion. For example, R70 overtly preferred connecting solar and V2H:
194    
L. Noel et al.

If you think you’re getting solar and wind but especially solar to store,
you could connect EV to a house and even out the highs and lows in your
house. That’s something that would make more sense in a way.

For many experts, solar PV and V2H was a natural connection and
perhaps more intuitive than the complex services V2G could pro-
vide, such as frequency regulation. On the other hand, the gravitation
of experts toward V2H is quite peculiar given that a recent systematic
review of the V2G literature indicated that the literature focused sub-
stantially more on grid-level services rather than V2H. Indeed, looking
at the top three most commonly discussed topics by the experts, renew-
able (solar) integration, controlled charging, and V2H, there appears to
be a significant disconnect between the prospective benefits of V2G dis-
cussed throughout the book here and among expert perspectives. While
some of the expert views may be moderated by expert ignorance of the
novelty of V2G (especially outside certain fields in academia), other
experts believed these benefits were a stepping stone to V2G, such as
how R137 viewed controlled charging:

Yea, first layer for the benefits comes from small-scale demand response
services, mainly to reduce the charging power, in a cluster of chargers,
locally or in wider clusters. And, the second phase of that is of course
vehicle-to-grid, so moving the electricity both ways.

However, many of the other central benefits of V2G, such as improv-

ing grid efficiency via participation of TSO and DSO markets as well
as individual and societal economic benefits were both disappointingly
secondary to the benefits discussed above. This is quite curious given
that it has been shown that V2G could provide substantial economic
value to individuals, approximately $200–2500 per year [3, 4], or over
the lifetime of a typical vehicle, it could total to $20,000–$45,000,
depending on the regional electricity grid [5]. Moreover, V2G can also
provide substantial cost savings to society overall in both the electricity
and transportation sector, saving society billions of dollars in reduced
electricity grid costs and avoiding investment costs for alternative stor-
age options [2]. But despite these stark benefits, only 8% of the experts
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
195

discussed the economic savings of V2G, and of that, just over 15% dis-
cussed these benefits in the context of societal savings. While this may
be indicative of V2G’s relative immaturity, it may also show the lack of
cognizance, even among transport and electricity experts, of the wider
variety of benefits that V2G could provide (as compared to the many
creative benefits experts discussed for EVs), and is actually currently
providing within the Nordics, in Denmark [6].
With this potential miscommunication of V2G’s primary benefits
in mind, we reiterate here the compelling benefits that V2G can offer:
technical efficiency of the grid, individual and societal economic gains,
and the reduction of environmental and health damages. In this book,
we hope to have offered a better understanding not only of the wide
variety of potential benefits that V2G can offer, but better inform which
of these benefits provide the most overall value. Comprehension of the
highest magnitude benefits is important for all types of transportation
policymakers and researchers to better understand in order to properly
communicate the full and actual benefits of V2G to potential adopters.
At the same time, however, these benefits need not be so limited, and
as we showed in Chapter 6, benefits that engage the user more, such
as V2X, could also provide substantial benefits to the further diffusion
of V2G. In short, the communication of primary benefits V2G could
­provide not only needs to be improved, but also expanded to include
and better define the other various benefits, as described in Fig. 8.1.

8.1.2 Sobering Barriers and Challenges

V2G benefits of course do not exist independently from some dif-

ficulties in attaining them. Just as there are a variety of benefits of
V2G, there are likewise a multitude of V2G barriers, and these barri-
ers include technical, economic, regulatory, and social aspects. As we
showed through the central chapters of the book, V2G must address a
variety of barriers before being capable of diffusing beyond the niche
into the regime level. For example, such concerns include technical
issues such as battery degradation and charging efficiency, or protecting
data and implementing algorithms. Additionally, though V2G provides
196    
L. Noel et al.

substantial economic benefits, there remains a substantial amount of

uncertainty of how these economic costs and benefits can be trans-
lated into a viable business model. Relatedly, there are several regulatory
aspects of V2G that impairs the business model and economic viabil-
ity of V2G, such as double taxation regulations and lack of storage in
regulatory frameworks. Finally, consumers remain passive resistors to
the V2G system, whereas successful diffusion of V2G depends on con-
sumers gaining knowledge and becoming active participants in the
transition.
In contrast to these sociotechnical barriers, the current expert per-
ception of V2G barriers is markedly different. Drawing again from our
same sample of expert interviews, our experts categorized 35 different
challenges to V2G diffusion. While there was little agreement over which
barrier was the single most pressing, many of the categories carried a sim-
ilar theme. As a result, we sorted the nine most discussed into four clus-
ters based on similarity, as shown in Fig. 8.2. Much of the discussion of
experts focused on the skepticism of the benefits V2G could provide, also
pertaining to the economic efficacy of V2G, social barriers including con-
sumer willingness, and technical barriers of whether the technology could

Fig. 8.2 Dendrogram of top 9 most common barriers to V2G. Note Organized
by Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity, colors denote cluster groupings (Italics rep-
resent Percent of Respondents Discussing Barrier ) (Source Authors)
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
197

feasibly be implemented. Overall, the barriers were generally infused with

a cynicism of the proof of concept, and less about the external barriers
inhibiting the technology that the book thus far has focused on.
In general, there could be two reasons for such outright rejection of
V2G: either unique contexts in the Nordics or general skepticism of the
benefits of V2G. First, many of experts immediately made the compar-
ison between V2G and the already-installed hydropower capacity that
dominates much of the Nordic region [7], with 28% of experts con-
cluding that V2G was technically inferior to other storage technolo-
gies. For instance, when asked about the potential role of V2G, R17
responded that its value would be limited as a result of the cheapness of
existing hydropower:

Very little, very little. It is much easier and cheaper to store the power in
the reservoirs.

Similarly, R38 adds that hydropower in northern Sweden is signifi-

cantly cheaper than V2G batteries:

Yes, but I don’t think we are quite there yet. It is very expensive, storage
of a battery… There are huge dams up in northern Sweden which you
can use to regulate. It is a much cheaper way to store energy and to keep
the water before the turbines and let it out.

Of course, such comparisons are limited to electricity regions that

already have substantial amounts of hydropower capacity installed, such
as Norway and Sweden. However, for the rest of the globe where large-
capacity hydropower is not already installed, V2G systems would be
much more cost-competitive. Moreover, such a perspective potentially
undervalues the inherent benefit of V2G if it is assumed that these regions
would switch to EVs either way. Indeed, if V2G storage capacity was
made available to these electricity grids at essentially no (or little) addi-
tional cost due to the advent of EVs as a consequence of transportation
decarbonization, there is little doubt that additional V2G storage capac-
ity could still improve grid conditions. That is, looking at Fig. 8.1, V2G
198    
L. Noel et al.

can provide other benefits such as focusing on DSO services, or saving

hydropower capacity for other more valuable services (such as exporting
energy out of Norway to mainland Europe).
Secondly, many of the experts believed that, despite the potential
technical and economic advantages V2G has as compared to other stor-
age forms (as we described in Chapter 2), V2G would not be able to
outcompete other forms of storage, even when excluding hydropower.
For example, 36% of these experts dismissed the benefits of V2G and
preferred using stationary batteries instead (despite potentially higher
costs). Alternatively, many other experts believed that modulating elec-
tricity power delivered to heating and cooling systems could provide
the same services as V2G, apparently believing that the lack of bidirec-
tionality would not be limiting. In short, a variety of experts were not
convinced of the potential variety of benefits described in the previous
section. As a result of the divide between the potential benefits of V2G
and the perceived benefits, V2G diffusion may face the additional chal-
lenges of expert indifference or dismissiveness.
In sum, there also remains a clear disconnection between the soci-
otechnical barriers discussed in the book and the literature, and the
perceived barriers of V2G by the experts. Noticeably absent from
the barriers discussed by the experts shown in Fig. 8.2 is regulatory
issues, various technical concerns (such as data protection or com-
munication standards), or viewing the consumer as an active partici-
pant in the diffusion process. More importantly, while it is important
to address the barriers we described in the central chapters of this
book, an even more primary challenge may be educating certain
actors (such as policymakers), what are the true barriers that V2G
currently faces. That is, it is difficult to conceive that a policymaker
will champion for a user-engaging V2G pilot project if they currently
believe that V2G systems will be outcompeted by other forms of stor-
age (and don’t understand the potential societal benefits of V2G).
Clearly, an important next step beyond this book is educating certain
actors within the V2G system both on the potential benefits and bar-
riers that they might face.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
199

8.1.3 Calibrating Policy Mixes

Because the barriers facing V2G transcend many different actors and
scales, we have identified a variety of policy strategies that can over-
come them. Taken as a whole, these could form a promising policy
mix. Indeed, in the previous chapters, we have emphasized how a set
of policies are necessary to comprehensively tackle the sociotechnical
aspects of V2G barriers, especially considering how these policies may
coincide and complement each other. We summarize and reflect on
our suggested comprehensive policy mix to address the variety of V2G
barriers across the various actors in Table 8.1. In addition to these spe-
cific and targeted V2G policies, we also have argued for general policies
and commitments to the large-scale decarbonization of the electricity
and transportation sectors, in order to provide the policy ecosystem in
which V2G can thrive.
Interestingly, when comparing these recommendations to the policies
that experts proposed in our interview sets, the experts focused the most
on the regulatory aspects of V2G, including double taxation, dynamic
pricing, the organization of these markets (and the role of aggregators),
as well as a need for technical and regulatory guidelines. It is important
to note that overall, there were far fewer policy recommendations for
diffusing V2G from the experts, and one potential reason is that experts
were not familiar enough with the technology to make informed pol-
icy suggestions. Thus, those who did have policy recommendations were
more likely to be experts with experience in V2G in the Nordics, where
indeed, a paramount barrier to V2G is the lack of regulatory clarity and
double taxation. As a reaction to these details of the local context, many
experts believed there would be a quick policy fix to remedy these hin-
drances, as R179 argues:

I think there is quite an easy solution for that: make an exemption for
these types of flexible storage. At least at the beginning to put the mar-
ket in place, and then start to see how it can be done in better way. That
makes clear that we want this storage and simultaneously uses the taxa-
tion as an incentive to establish the market here.
200    
L. Noel et al.

Table 8.1 Summary of V2G policy suggestions and our reflection

Actor/party
Public authorities (national govern-
ments, energy regulators, TSOs)
V2G companies
Lobby of V2G and other EES
companies
Policy suggestions
– Consider whether V2G capable
chargers are part of the consumer
market or the wholesale market
– Consider the double taxation on
flexible electricity storage (initial
temporary exceptions for pilot
projects)
– Consider further dynamic pricing
options (dynamic pricing with net
metering, dynamic tariffs, dynamic
taxes, more pricing zones)
– Formulate the role and responsibility
of DSOs (how DSOs can actively steer
local storage solutions and how this
is communicated on a system level,
see [8] for other specific suggestions)
– Formulate the role and responsibili-
ties of aggregators
– Expand pilot projects
– Invest in and share information and
data among B2B contacts
– Facilitate engagement with demand
response companies working on
other flexible storage options (to
strengthen lobby of aggregated
market regulation)
– Focus on regions without fast
responsive hydro (although we
strongly believe that there is a role
for V2G in the Nordics as well)
– Focus on regions with stressed local
grids (but at current stage expect
competition from stationary
batteries—deemed “easier”)
– Focus on fleet operators with known
overcapacity and downtime (postal
services, neighborhood nurses,
shared car services, and so on)
– Lobby for fitting ancillary service
markets
– After standardization agreements,
generate technical guidelines and
share them

(continued)
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
201

Table 8.1 (continued)

Actor/party Policy suggestions
Research and academia – Continue/expand research on flexible
storage options across disciplines
– Participate in pilot projects
Governments – Support pilot projects/start-up
companies on V2G and other flexible
storage solutions (financially, but
also by temporarily absconding regu-
latory conditions)
– Create energy strategy
– Support the sector in generating
appropriate aggregation frameworks
– Consider building regulations
– Help set up technical/pragmatic
guidelines
– Directly/indirectly support research
on these topics
– Support the sector by supporting EV
and RES uptake
DSOs – Generate institutional capacity
about V2G and flexible local storage
options
– Rethink investment strategies
EV and charging infrastructure – Incorporate bidirectionality and
companies payment systems in software and
hardware of chargers and cars
– Consider V2G as an additional selling
point
General – Clearly differentiate between con-
trolled charging and V2G

Reprinted from [9] under CC BY 4.0 license

In addition, these experts also discussed similar policy strategies as

we have discussed in this book, namely pilot projects, information cam-
paigns, and direct V2G subsidies. For example, some experts believed
that there were limited barriers in the future of V2G, and instead should
focus on development of the technology through pilot projects, like R99
in Denmark who confidently remarked that: “the technology is there, the
vehicles are there. So, I think the goal is to encourage and support heavy field
pilots.” Experts also discussed the need for more information and aware-
ness about V2G, as it remains a newly developing and little-known
202    
L. Noel et al.

technology among consumers, experts, and companies alike. As R126

in Denmark reflects “if you say vehicle-to-grid, less than one percent of the
world population would understand what it is about.” This sentiment is
shared by R171 in Finland, who also argues that training and informa-
tion sharing are critical at this stage of development in conjunction with
the above-mentioned concomitant implementation of pilot projects:

But of course, there is also always somebody who is reluctant about these
developments: “What about my battery?”, “What happens to my car?”
“Will my car battery suffer from it some way?”, “Or who is going to com-
pensate me if that is case?” And definitely somebody will ask those ques-
tions! So, training and information exchange definitely would be highly
needed at that point of experiments and implementations.

Lastly, R85 brings up an interesting argument in favor of Danish

public support for V2G that is, the main benefit of an incentive would
not be its monetary value, but rather increasing consumer knowledge
and provide further marketing opportunities for Danish V2G innova-
tion. Or as R85 puts it: to “get this attention to what it is, and that it
is something that the government wants.” The need for information from
and for both companies and consumers should thus be a focal point for
potential policy support and the sector itself.
Unlike the discord between the literature and expert perceptions in
the discussion of V2G benefits and barriers, the expert perspectives
and literature on V2G policies, more often than not, were aligned with
one another. Clearly, policymakers (and other actors) can provide sta-
bility by offering planning and policies on both a national and local
level. To put it bluntly, devising a policy mix is one of the most impor-
tant elements in the diffusion of V2G, as they can reduce the myr-
iad of sociotechnical barriers V2G faces. Though we found that most
of the expert perspectives matched the policy strategies that we have
reflected upon in this book, it may be due to a bias related to other
experts lacking knowledge to comment on V2G policies. Tying these
three sections together, there must be more work done (and hopefully
partially started by this book) to educate all types of experts in the
electricity and transportation regime about the benefits, barriers, and
policy strategies of V2G.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
203

8.2 Problematizing V2G in the Context

of Energy Transitions
Although throughout the book we have presented numerous argu-
ments in favor of a V2G transition, and in many ways proselytized its
potential, there are downsides of a V2G transition. We readily recog-
nize the degree to which V2G benefits or harms society, or different
societies that adopt it, will depend. There is a degree of normativity as
to whether V2G is good or bad—whether it is sustainable, or not, will
depend on how it interacts with other transport systems, modalities,
and practices [10].
For example, as Table 8.2 depicts, there may be situations, practices,
or socio-material configurations where V2G-capable EVs meet princi-
ples of justice, sustainability, or sustainable development, but also areas
where they may not (such as when a V2G-capable EV merely repre-
sents an additional car, and thus becomes a net environmental burden,
or increases the demand for motorized mobility at the expense of more
active walking, cycling, or public transportation). This feature under-
scores the relational dimension of V2G mobility. The answer to the
question “is V2G good” will invariably be “it depends.”
Indeed, synthesizing the last column of Table 8.2 and our expert
interviews, our data suggest at least four potentially problematic ways
in which a V2G transition could unfold. These four concerns need to be
addressed to ensure that if or when society does transition to V2G, the
benefits are equally distributed to all parts of society.

8.2.1 Elitism and Inequitable Access

First, this remains an important concern with regard to the issue of

elitism, equity, and access, particularly as it relates to the adoption of
passenger EVs. In general, EVs are perceived as expensive, luxury goods
that only the rich and highest class of society will be able to afford
access to and, in our quotes, was often connected to a specific brand
(Tesla). For example, R137 remarked that EVs in the Nordics were
highly exclusionary:
Table 8.2 The interactive and potential positive and negative impacts of a V2G transition
Interacting developments Dimension
Transport related Intermodality
Desire for motorized
transport
Organized car sharing
Increases in mobility
Non-transport related Zero-carbon and low-carbon
electricity
Smart grids
Critical materials scarcity
Employment, competitive-
ness, and growth
Source Modified from [10]
Positive impacts
Use of EV within systems of
intermodality, in combi-
nation with measures to
discourage car use
Substitution of cars and
scooters
Use of EVs in car sharing/ride
sharing schemes
Implemented in tandem with
active transport planning
(walking, cycling)
Use of EV in countries with
de-carbonized electricity
grids
Charging at off-peak times
and storage for peak
demand
Efficient manufacturing
techniques with an appreci-
ation for externalities with
battery recycling
Designed and promoted by
sustainable firms with a
focus on innovation and
entrepreneurship
Negative impacts
Use of EV in systems that
204    
encourage excessive driving
and EVs as second or third
(luxury) cars
Increase in car-based mobility
L. Noel et al.
Increase in preferences for
private, single-occupancy
driving practices
Extra car trips, multiple car
ownership, displaces enthu-
siasm for cycling
Use of EV in countries with
coal-based electricity
Charging at peak times with
no storage
Inefficient and polluting
manufacturing techniques
with no battery recycling
Coopted and marginalized
by transnational conglom-
erates with little desire for
social change
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
205

The most common EV in the Nordic Region is a Tesla. That’s only for
rich people and companies. It is not a mainstream car, it is not for every-
one. It is a beautiful car, cool to have. But almost nobody can afford to.

Thus, while V2G offers substantial benefits to both society in general

and individuals, if EVs remain high-cost luxury good, then the individ-
ual benefits will be distributed inequitably only to those who can afford
it (and probably need the economic benefits of V2G the least). Putting
aside the unequal adoption of EVs, the widespread adoption of EVs,
especially when contributing to a V2G system, could erode democratic
processes and undermine people’s autonomy or liberty. R29 illustrated
part of the logic of this vision when noting the impacts of EV batteries
on society:

An electric mobility future all sounds great until you ask the question of
who will control the batteries. Because people are afraid that the batter-
ies will not last long enough and it is very costly to get new ones. You
become dependent on battery providers. And once that happens, they can
charge extreme prices and reap extreme profits.

In addition, the equity concerns of passenger (V2G-capable) EVs also

implicate the discussion of private vehicles versus public transportation.
For example, R187 noted that in Norway, incentivizing EVs came at a
high and unjust cost to those who use public transportation:

Tesla to me signifies the equity and justice challenge with electric mobil-
ity. Tesla owners in Norway on average have a quite high income. The
Tesla is not their only car, they can have it as maybe their second or
third or fourth or fifth car. It’s the wealthy getting in front of the com-
mon people so they can just pass them in the queue in the morning, and
that’s irritating. But it’s more than that. The typical, single Tesla Model X
owner received credits or subsidies in 2016 worth the same amount you
can hand out to provide 30,000 trips on public transport. It’s the same
price as 30,000 free cards on the buses and the subway system into the
city center of Oslo. Such policy privileges one elite over 30,000 common
people.
206    
L. Noel et al.

Such a statement underscores the potential energy justice conse-

quences of placing a single EV adopter above the needs of thousands
of public transport users. Clearly, while developing the EV ecosystem is
absolutely essential to the development of V2G and the benefits that it
would bring to society, the means of doing so can still bring substantial
costs to society. To avoid the potential energy injustices of a V2G-EV
transition, policies that incentivize EV deployment must take into con-
sideration the impact that policies such as subsidies would have. But
that said, we should emphasize at this point that our interviewees are
speaking about their perceptions, not necessarily mirroring factual dif-
fusion patterns in the Nordic region. For instance, while it may be the
most visible brand of EVs, Tesla continues to be outsold by Renault,
BMW, Mitsubishi, and Nissan across Europe, and by VW and Nissan
in the Nordic region. Nonetheless, policymakers can ensure a more
equitable V2G transition, for example, by having an EV subsidy scheme
that specifically targets “average consumer” EV adopters, in tandem
with electrifying public transportation (which can also participate and
reap the benefits of V2G).

8.2.2 Loss of Privacy and Cybersecurity

The second concern touches on the aspect of burdens and costs unfairly
distributed to society with regard to the data security of the V2G sys-
tem. As established in Chapter 3, a widespread V2G system requires
huge amounts of data storage, and a litany of security measures to
ensure consumer’s private data is not hacked, or worse, that V2G sys-
tems become an opening for third parties to launch cyberattacks against
the electricity grid. These themes that connect to loss of privacy and/
or the enhanced risk of cybersecurity breaches or even terrorism were
also readily recognized by experts. For instance, first, R57 captured the
thrust of this vision by noting that a V2G transition could completely
transform how people are connected to the web and the potential fear
of mass surveillance abuse:
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
207

I have major concerns over privacy and how future digital citizens will
interact in a V2G society. I imagine a world where companies can mon-
itor and track your every move. Everyone could see where you are and
stuff like that, if you’re a one-person household people could see that the
car is away. They could come into your house. It’s a problem—and it
opens up intimately private lives not only to companies but to others who
could use or misuse the system as mass surveillance.

On the other hand, other experts, such as R62, were more concerned
that the V2G system could lead to a new type of terrorism, underscor-
ing that the V2G system may open up new areas for terrorists to operate
in:

To me the connection between V2G and the increased potential for ter-
rorism is not that far off. Tomorrow’s terrorism is probably completely
different from yesterday’s and we need to think about that when we are
working with these systems. Imagine a terrorist taking control of people’s
vehicles or trucks. Would it be possible to get into these computers and
make the cars do things they shouldn’t do? Yeah. How will cyber security
be protected or maintained in a world full of future terrorists and hack-
ers? If anyone can hack the computers and find out which car I’m driving
and what stores I’m shopping at and what kind of products I’m shopping
and what kind of advertisement should be sent to my home, whether I
like it or not, then the privacy of people is severely infringed … Such a
system may give many the opportunity to do the evil things.

In short, these two statements reveal a fearful, potentially dark side

to EV and V2G adoption. Additionally, the data security issues of V2G
can create distributive burdens even on those who do not adopt them,
as a cyberterrorism would impact those who do not even own a pri-
vate vehicle. There is a social responsibility to owning a V2G-capable
EV, and in particular, governments, electricity grid operators, and V2G
aggregators need to work together in order to ensure that data storage
and communication flows are securely maintained to avoid these poten-
tial negative outcomes.
208    
L. Noel et al.

8.2.3 Affirming Conventional Automobility

Next, EVs still promote an automobility paradigm where trans-

portation is private, rather than public, and motorized rather than
human-powered. Of course, while V2G brings additional benefits to
such a paradigm, there are inherent costs associated with the current
private transportation regime. For example, high volumes of EVs still
contribute to traffic jams that make reaching even nearby destinations
time-consuming, and can reduce access to community services, employ-
ment opportunities, and social support networks. As R90 indicated:

When they aren’t in bus lanes or special parking garages, EVs still don’t
save you time compared to rapid transit or the metro. They still get stuck
in traffic jams.

More seriously, EVs are prone to life-endangering accidents every

year. The World Health Organization estimates that every year 1.2
million people are killed and 50 million injured in traffic road crashes
involving cars or motorcycles [11]. Of course, making these vehicles
V2G-capable EVs would do essentially nothing to reduce these mor-
tality and morbidity consequences of vehicle ownership. Furthermore,
in the social domain, any type of motorized vehicles (whether electric
or combustion based) requires less physical activity than walking or
cycling, or even than mass transit, which usually involves a walking
component as R202 expanded this argument when noting:

The reason I don’t want an EV is because I like to cycle and walk. I don’t
get the same level of exercise if I were to switch over.

A transition to V2G-capable EVs could thus continue to contribute

to public health problems. Physical inactivity is responsible for 3.3% of
worldwide deaths and 19 million disability-adjusted life years annually,
and those that rely on private transport have higher rates of diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and obesity than those that walk or take public
transport [11]. To the extent that electric mobility diffusion trades off
with walking, cycling, or public transportation (which often requires
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
209

walking), the overall public health benefits of a V2G system could be

significantly reduced. Such concerns reiterate the importance of policy-
makers focusing on more than just the electrification of private vehi-
cles. Indeed, V2G and EV policy should be inclusive of electrifying and
incentivizing the use of public transportation to avoid the negative costs
of the conventional automobility paradigm.

8.2.4 Vulnerable Groups and Pollution

As a final concern, EV adoption under a V2G transition could alter

both the provision of mobility services and pollution flows across
urban and rural areas. To illustrate, R176 warned that promoting V2G-
capable electrification of transport was a wonderful idea with many
benefits, but could exclude the most vulnerable groups of society:

V2G seems wonderful until you consider some of the more marginal or
vulnerable segments of the population, such as those in rural areas. For
instance, I will have to accept that there are going to be diesel trucks tak-
ing food to the northern most corner of Finland because that is what
makes sense. Forcing a transition to electrification in such places could do
more harm than good—in fact it could be very discriminative to exactly
the most marginalized or vulnerable elements of society. I have a problem
accepting such a system. That just because it makes more economic or
environmental sense, that we marginalize people even more.

While electrifying urban areas would bring a host of benefits, there

must also be specific focus on bringing electrification to rural areas, as
well as other vulnerable areas. To make matters worse, some research has
suggested that urban EVs shift pollution away from cities to rural areas
where power plants exist, and could actually increase overall air pollu-
tion damages, depending on the country [12]. Thus, an EV transition
could do more than just excluding rural and vulnerable groups; it can
also pass all the burdens into the lungs of the rural population.
Furthermore, a shift from internal combustion engines to electric
power for mobility (accelerated under the more aggressive scenarios for
V2G systems) will increase consumption of electricity and, if dependent
210    
L. Noel et al.

on conventional power plants, will contribute to water scarcity. Looking

at the USA, King and Webber projected that the increased water cool-
ing of thermoelectric power plants providing energy to EVs could
increase aggregate water consumption by a multitude of 3 and water
withdrawals by a multitude of 17 [13]. This sheer water intensity of EVs
makes it difficult to electrify transport where water is scarce—some-
thing that matters given projections of water stress. As R40 noted:

We had heat waves across Europe a few years back, resulting in power
outages across the region. I’m worried that if it happens again, could it be
too hot or dry to generate electricity for our cars?

EVs can make a bad situation worse, considering that most of the
world’s water sources are already under stress, with one assessment cal-
culating that global groundwater needs are 3.5 times in excess of the
actual area of aquifers, and warning that 1.7 billion people live in areas
“where groundwater resources and/or groundwater-dependent ecosys-
tems are under threat” [14].
The concerns discussed in this section underscore the need for more
comprehensive policy planning and action. That is, EVs, and V2G sys-
tems, need to be more than just urban benefits that worsen conditions
for vulnerable groups, and instead, EV policy should specifically con-
sider the electrification of rural areas and related vulnerable groups. At
the same time, concerns about air pollution and water scarcity show that
V2G-EV transitions rely on the integration of renewable energy in the
electricity sector to avoid further degrading air and water quality issues.

8.2.5 Toward a Just and Sustainable V2G Policy

While stark, none of these particular four collections of challeng-

es—equity, privacy, automobility, and vulnerability—are uncon-
querable. Instead, they merely force planners and V2G advocates to
seriously consider the possible downsides of a transition and prepare to
adjust accordingly. Likewise, we argue that these concerns only require
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
211

foresight and more inclusive energy and transportation planning. For

example, as Table 8.3 indicates, each of the challenges we identified does
have possible solutions. These solutions typically are less focused on
V2G specifically, but rather the elements to which V2G connects to,
such as EV policy and renewable energy integration. Combining these
recommendations with our policy suggestions specific to V2G, policy-
makers who wish to diffuse V2G must act in a comprehensive manner
that brings the focus beyond V2G, but should include electricity and
transportation planning and energy justice policy. But still, the key is
ensuring that such concerns are recognized so that the more sustainable
forms of V2G systems are adopted, rather than the least sustainable or
equitable forms.

Table 8.3 Policy mechanisms to minimize problematic V2G pathways

Dimension Example(s) Policy response
Equity EVs only accessible by higher Avoid regressive EV subsi-
socioeconomic consumers dies, encourage lower-cost
EV development, increase
consumer knowledge of
cheaper EVs
Privacy Risk of privacy invasions, Enact strong data protec-
cyberterrorism tion and privacy standards,
develop strong protocols for
security
Automobility EVs exacerbate other exter- Deployment of EVs requires
nalities (congestion, electrici- deployment of other renew-
ty-related externalities) able electricity, transpor-
tation planning policies,
internalizing externalities
Vulnerability EVs threaten marginalization Craft coherent rural EV or
or pollution in rural areas, energy and transport poli-
water consumption cies alongside urban ones,
explicitly acknowledge water
scarcity and stress in V2G
deployment patterns and
policies
Source Authors
212    
L. Noel et al.

8.3 Thematic Social Research Gaps

Although not as serious as the potential downsides of a V2G transi-
tion identified above, there are also some compelling research gaps that
remain within the community of transport, energy, electricity, and sus-
tainability scholars examining V2G topics and projects. While social
barriers may end up becoming the most pertinent impediments to the
diffusion of V2G, at the same time, they are also the most understud-
ied by the literature currently. As a result, there are a variety of topics
within V2G that remain undefined and may risk a problematic V2G
transition. Instead, the literature tends to focus more on the modeling
of V2G and its interaction with renewable energy and other TSO ser-
vices, as shown in Fig. 8.3c and d.
Indeed, the typical research in regard to V2G is from a male
researcher from a Science and Engineering department modeling the
renewable energy aspects of V2G. While this research is certainly valu-
able and helps define the technical and societal benefits and limitations
of V2G, noticeably absent from recent V2G research is everything else,
especially societal dimensions. Many of the challenges discussed in the
previous chapters, such as business models, legal, and policy dimensions
of V2G, also go under researched. Troublingly, social and consumer bar-
riers may pose the most substantial challenge to V2G, yet go the least
represented in recent studies. With this in mind, we argue that in this
section that there are six topics that specifically deserve broadening of
focus in future research: (1) carbon and health impacts of V2G, (2) user
behavior, (3) vision and narratives, (4) social justice, (5) gender norms,
and (6) urban resilience and disaster and emergency capacity.

8.3.1 Carbon and Health Impacts of V2G

Despite arguably being two of the most impactful societal benefits of

V2G (as we described in Chapter 2), recent research has only started
to investigate the climate and health impacts of V2G. For example, as
Fig. 8.3d shows, only 10% of recent articles explicitly discuss climate
change impacts of V2G. And of those, only a select few discuss the
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
213

Fig. 8.3 Recent publishing trends in V2G research, January 2015–April 2017.
Note: n = 197 peer-reviewed articles (Reprinted from [15])

carbon benefits in a contextual manner [2, 16], comparing additional

carbon benefits from a net perspective, i.e., including additional carbon
emitted due to electricity consumption as well as avoided gasoline-re-
lated carbon emissions. But there remains a variety of research gaps even
within V2G carbon emissions, such as the carbon net benefits per type
of service V2G can provide, especially ancillary services, and as opposed
to other potential future storage actors. For example, one of the few car-
bon emission V2G studies [16] focuses on the carbon implications of
using V2G to peak shave, as opposed to more lucrative ancillary ser-
vice markets. In addition, there are only a handful of studies that gauge
future carbon benefits specific to V2G in integrating renewable energy.
Even worse, the health implications of V2G are even more under-
studied. V2G could provide a central means to decrease air pollution
from both the electricity and transportation sectors, but only five out
of the 197 V2G studies discuss air pollution at all. While these find
214    
L. Noel et al.

that V2G can reduce health-damaging emissions, the air pollution and
health implications of V2G are peripheral in these analyses, and many
only discuss health emissions from the transportation sector (and ignor-
ing potential electricity-related health emissions). None of these papers
focused primarily or exclusively on the health impacts from the perspec-
tive of V2G-capable EVs. Consequently, from a societal perspective, the
benefits of V2G are not fully known. We emphasize that such research
should be developed in order to give society a better understanding of
the value of V2G beyond economic remuneration and grid efficiency.

8.3.2 User Behavior

Next, though consumer acceptance and attitudes of V2G are seen as

major social challenges to the diffusion of V2G [17], there have been
very few studies investigating how user behavior influences V2G per-
spectives, and many of those only peripherally connected through driv-
ing patterns or range demands. This may prove especially pertinent as
V2G practices and routines could become intertwined with range anx-
iety, a major barrier to EV adoption [18, 19]. And while user behavior
with respect to EVs and range anxiety has been well studied, it is sur-
prising that practically none of this has been translated to V2G studies
and their implications on use. This is especially true when considering
that both our focus groups and the current literature accentuate that
a primary consumer barrier will likely be the inconvenience posed to
the V2G participant and the V2G system’s ease of use. In some ways,
understanding user behavior and practices may be more important to
the successful diffusion of V2G than other barriers, such as battery deg-
radation. But, while there are dozens of studies on V2G’s impact on
battery health, there are no studies that focus exclusively on comprehen-
sively describing potential user behavior in a V2G system.
While there are many behavioral theories to draw from [20], here we
provide the illustrative examples of Axsen and Kurani’s framework that
was first developed to categorize consumer perceptions of EVs according
to two dimensions [21, 22]. First is functional and symbolic, where EVs
and V2G technology can provide functional benefits such as cost savings
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
215

as well as symbolic benefits, such as communicating that the consumer

is “green” conscious. Second is the private versus societal dimension; pri-
vate benefits are realized by the consumer only (as with the previous two
examples), whereas societal benefits are realized by society more generally,
e.g., through reductions in carbon emissions, air pollution, or oil reli-
ance. They distinguish between two types of societal frames summarized
in Table 8.4. Functional-societal frames relate the vehicle’s direct impacts
on the environment, energy security, or land use patterns. In contrast,
symbolic-societal frames relate the vehicle’s ability to inspire other users,
companies and governments to engage in activities that in turn impact
society more broadly, which could maintain or strengthen existing nega-
tive impacts (e.g., supporting current gasoline use), or reverse them (e.g.,
transition to low-carbon fuels) [22, 23]. Due to these complex dynamics,
passenger vehicles can be perceived as “mixed goods” that have aspects of
private and public dimensions, especially for alternative fuel vehicles and
transportation practices where reduced environmental impact is often the
primary motivation [24]. Frameworks such as this one are a useful way
to characterize potential user behavior in relation to V2G—rather than
assuming that all EV owners are optimizing their behavior solely based on
functional-private motivation (e.g., cost savings).
Nonetheless, by currently ignoring the actual use of consumers, it is
impossible to know actual consumer preferences about V2G, leading to
the risk that current research on consumers is actually inflating expec-
tations and hype about V2G rather than informing preferences via use.

Table 8.4 Functional-symbolic and private-societal dimension of driver behavior

Functional
Private What it does for you, e.g.,
• save money
• reliable
• fun to drive (experiential)
Societal What it does for society, e.g.,
•Reduce air pollution
• Reduce global warming
• Reduce oil use
Source Reprinted from [25]
Symbolic
What it represents, e.g.,
• Expression of self-identity
• Convey personal status
• Attain group membership
What it says to society, e.g.,
• Inspire other consumers
• Send message to automakers
• government, oil companies
216    
L. Noel et al.

Of course, one explanation for the lack of user behavior research is that
the lack of V2G diffusion makes it difficult to elicit consumer perspec-
tives on, as there are only a few pilot projects around the world, and
mostly within private fleet settings. Here it may be especially important
to connect our suggestion of increasing consumer experience through
government-sanctioned pilot projects to further academic research
about those consumers’ behaviors and practices. Such a pilot project can
achieve multiple objectives at once, including giving consumer experi-
ence and an opportunity to become an active participant in the system,
and also will enrichen a current research gap to further understand one
of V2G’s most pressing barriers.

8.3.3 Visions and Narratives

Third, moving beyond the individual user, visions, narratives, and rhet-
oric of V2G can help articulate the role that V2G can play in the future,
clarify expectations of the technology, give impetus to initiate pilot pro-
jects, and raise interest across the various actors of the V2G system. But
despite the slew of benefits that studying the visions and narratives of
V2G would convey, there has only been one study that explored the
sociotechnical imaginaries of grid-integrated EVs in Germany [26].
These imaginaries sketched out potential V2G futures, such as highly
decentralized in tandem with distributed renewable energy, or for indi-
viduals to enhance their autonomy in relation to both their vehicle and
homes through emission mitigation, self-sufficiency, and economic
remuneration [26]. However, this study is limited to only Germany nar-
ratives, which may vary substantially regionally, as well as temporally.
Thus, in order to establish expectations and give consumers meaning to
embed into technologies [27], future research should be conducted to
more comprehensively describe novel visions and narratives of V2G.
Though these visions have thus far gone unstudied, we found in our
interview material that there was no shortage of potential visions
related to V2G. Table 8.5 offers an overview of how the most popular
8 visions within our material differ by type, promises and requirements,
Table 8.5 Summary of visions, promises, and ideographs of EVs and V2G in the Nordics
Vision Frequency (N = 257) Description Promises and Ideograph(s)
requirements
Rapid electric society N = 216 Electricity will come to Rapid charging, elec- Progress, convenience
meet all passenger tric highways, ade-
transport needs or quate vehicle range,
even all transport electrification
needs
8

Innovation nirvana N = 110 Electric mobility is the Bigger batteries, Progress, profit
first in a cascade of automated vehicles,
innovations leading shared vehicles,
to further technical mobility as a service,
breakthroughs and modality of types of
progress vehicles, flying vehi-
cles, robot-assisted
mobility, hydrogen
fuel cells, coupling of
innovations
Ubiquitous and clean N = 167 Automobility will Zero-emission vehicles, Environmental sus-
automobility expand to include avoidance of inclem- tainability, physical
mobility within ent weather, new shelter, urbanization
buildings production options,
new urbanization
options

(continued)
Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
217
Table 8.5 (continued)
Vision Frequency (N = 257) Description Promises and Ideograph(s)
requirements
Energy autarky A transition to electric Self-sufficiency, com- Liberty, autonomy
218    

N = 75
mobility will coincide munity ownership,
with a transforma- independence from
tion to decentral- energy companies,
ized, local sources of free energy
L. Noel et al.

energy
Frozen families N = 180 EVs will run out Range anxiety, Safety, love, status
of power during stranded vehicles,
snowstorms, on traffic accidents
mountains, or during
emergencies, and lack
sex appeal
Broken and bankrupt N = 143 EVs are currently an Bankruptcy of compa- Employment, eco-
businesses inferior product that nies, collapse of EV nomic growth
on its own will be markets
confined to small
niche markets
Hacked and vulnerable N = 33 A smarter, vehi- Monitoring and Privacy, security
grids cle-grid-integrated, surveillance, data
interconnected breaches, terrorist
economy would raise attacks, blackouts
serious risks of loss
of privacy, terrorism,
and the collapse of
local grids

(continued)
Table 8.5 (continued)
Vision Frequency (N = 257) Description Promises and Ideograph(s)
requirements
Captive consumers N = 29 EVs will create or Unfair tariffs, massive Liberty
deepen dependen- profits for companies
cies on electricity
suppliers, charging
companies, or battery
8

manufacturers

Source Authors
Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
219
220    
L. Noel et al.

and ideographs. Interestingly, many respondents articulated multiple

visions—we see 953 distinct instances of a respondent making statements
that support a particular vision, or a mean of 3.7 visions per respondent.
Related to the notion of a vision is the idea of a “hype cycle,” that
technologies follow an up and down pattern of expectations, as based
on R&D funding and media coverage. These hype cycles may play an
important part of an innovation’s diffusion by accelerating dispersion of
information and the diffusion process, and during the troughs of the
hype cycle, show at what points policy support is necessary. However,
to-date there have been no studies that have explored the hype cycles of
V2G and their implications on the diffusion process. A study in V2G
hype cycles would help elucidate where along the process V2G currently
is, and at what points policy intervention would be the most impact-
ful to avoid extended down periods. In short, describing and developing
visions and hype cycles would provide several benefits to our under-
standing of V2G, but much of this remains uncertain.

8.3.4 Social Justice

Of the practically 200 studies reviewed by [15], none of them discussed

social justice or the related energy justice, which discusses how the ben-
efits and costs are distributed across society, despite the potential dire
consequences a V2G transition may have on energy justice, as already
mentioned above in Sect. 8.2. In addition, other elements of social jus-
tice would include procedures to ensure V2G systems do not exacer-
bate existing injustices by ensuring representation and recognition of all
stakeholder, but especially those that are considered vulnerable.
On its face, it seems intuitive to assume that V2G would ameliorate
energy justice aspects of electricity production and transport demand.
That is, V2G could benefit groups that are vulnerable to health-dam-
aging emissions from local electricity power plants by displacing these
power plants on the electricity grid (either from ancillary market par-
ticipation or renewable energy integration). Similarly, V2G can make
transportation cleaner by incentivizing EV adoption and also cheaper,
perhaps opening up novel transportation solutions to groups that
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
221

previously could not afford it. On the other hand, EVs in general may
exacerbate access and cost issues with transportation equality, as V2G
largely exists and endorses private vehicle ownership (though pub-
lic transportation such as buses could become V2G-capable). If not
addressed, it is possible that, because EVs are associated with higher
income groups, V2G is only accessible to the wealthy and elite classes.
In order to avoid the potential negative impacts that V2G may have
on social justice, it is obviously necessary to first understand what the
actual impacts are. Assuming governments are keen to develop V2G as a
technology that can benefit society as a whole, they should also be sure
to invest in research that maps out the potential justice implications of
V2G, as well as explore solutions to reduce negative impacts and max-
imize potential benefits. This can in turn inform V2G aggregator com-
panies in best practices to implement to avoid social justice impacts.

8.3.5 Gender Norms

Another topic that went unexplored in the V2G literature was the role
of gender norms in V2G diffusion. Gender identity has been found to
influence adoption of EVs, with the overwhelming majority of current
adopters being male [28], so there is little reason to think that gender
would not affect V2G as well. However, there has been no research to
explore the ways gender norms may structure V2G use, even though
there is a good chance that current gender divisions in EV adoption
would continue in V2G adoption. In addition, as Fig. 8.3b shows,
there has been significant under-representation of women in the current
V2G literature, underscoring that any gendered perspectives are being
ignored.
It is likely that societal gender norms will moderate the diffusion
of V2G among consumers, and as such, it is imperative to under-
stand and further research this topic. Of course, as with many of these
under-researched topics, it is equally probable that one reason for this
lack of research is lack of opportunity. Nonetheless, surveys of Nordic
users have found that men have more access to and experience with
EVs, effectively cutting women out from capturing possible benefits
222    
L. Noel et al.

[29], and logically, this trend is likely to continue to V2G. Continuing

the thread of connecting pilot projects with social research, gender
norms is another topic that should be included in the first consum-
er-based V2G pilot projects. In the future as V2G transitions to private
users, there may be increasing opportunities to investigate consumer’s
interaction with V2G, and gender norms is just one of many topics that
require more rigorous researching.

8.3.6 Urban Resilience, Disasters, and Emergency

Capacity

Finally, the sixth thematic research gap relates to how V2G systems
interact with urban resilience and how urban areas are capable of react-
ing and adapting to various disasters and emergencies, such as floods
or hurricanes. On the one hand, disasters may be exacerbated if they
cause blackouts on the electricity grid, reducing the capacity of urban
residents to use their EVs to evacuate. On the other hand, V2G also can
provide backup generation to the grid in times of blackouts, providing
a temporary source of power [30, 31]. However, the tradeoff between
decreasing individual mobility and backup electricity, particularly in
emergency situations, has not been previously studied.
At the same time, V2G may also improve urban resiliency by reduc-
ing climate change impacts from electricity and transportation carbon
emissions, but may also impact grid resilience by displacing traditional
electricity capacity. If V2G capacity is removed from the grid due to dis-
aster evacuations, it may cause upstream impacts on the electricity grid
by also removing an important storage and backup capacity. On the
other hand, because V2G can help integrate wind energy, V2G could
usher in wind energy near urban areas, which have been found to limit
impacts of hurricane-related disasters [32]. Nonetheless, while these
upstream effects of grid resiliency and potential disaster impacts reduc-
tions are interesting, they have likewise not been studied.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
223

8.4 Methodological Research Gaps

Research gaps need not be only thematic or topical. Although we did
not conduct any sort of systematic review, previous research [33]—and
our knowledge of the general energy, mobility, and transport literature
so far—suggests that three methodological gaps of V2G exist as well.
In order to fully understand V2G, it is important to not tackle the cur-
rent thematic research gaps, but also the methods implemented in V2G
research, even when not in one of the six research gaps described above,
as limited methodologies can create “blind spots” even within well-re-
search topics.

8.4.1 Broadening the Set of V2G “Cases”

For example, first, future V2G research could improve by exploring a

broader variety of “cases,” that is, arrangements of vehicles, users and
system characteristics that could transition to a V2G system. As noted
in Sect. 8.3, V2G literature tends to focus on the modeling of pri-
vately owned, light-duty passenger vehicles. However, even within this
wealth of literature, there is still a need for more comprehensive, com-
parative work that could explore and model the different benefits and
drawbacks that would include different vehicle types (light-duty versus
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles), different owner groups (passenger
vehicle owners versus fleet operators), different ownership arrangements
(private versus car sharing), different technology types (PHEV versus
BEV, as well as degree of automation), different degrees of vehicle-grid
integration (different types of smart charging and V2G), and different
methods of engagement (TOU pricing, controlled charging programs
or voluntary enrollment). Such comparative work could help research-
ers, policymakers and other stakeholders to better prioritize efforts for
V2G development toward opportunities that are more feasible in differ-
ent time frames, and more likely to yield societal or financial benefits.
224    
L. Noel et al.

8.4.2 Overcoming Transformative Failures

Another substantial methodological or conceptual gap in the literature

is how a large-scale transition to V2G can be achieved, overcoming the
long-history of hypes, disappointments and failed transitions to alter-
native fuels and low-carbon technologies [34]. This type of method is
essential to showing how a perspective that only examines individual
barriers can still fail to lead to a transition to V2G. Aligning the various
elements to avoid transformative failure is thus of vital importance, but
yet there is no V2G research using such a method.
Future research could draw from Weber and Rohracher’s framework
of 12 different failures that prevent transformative change, divided
into three different categories [35]. First are “market failures,” which
include knowledge spillover effects and investor short-sightedness that
together lead to under-investment in V2G innovations, which by nature
are likely to take a long time to mature and produce revenue (due to
the delayed turnover of vehicle stock and electricity infrastructure).
Second are structural system failures, which include a lack of the infra-
structure and institutions needed to support a large-scale transition to
V2G. Third are transformative system failures such as a lack of shared
vision among key stakeholder or “directionality failure,” where different
electric utilities and automakers may have very different visions about
V2G, and different ideas about the likelihood of a V2G future being
successful.
A related gap and line of inquiry is explicit exploration of the pol-
icies needed to overcome these transformative barriers. For example,
with the goal of climate change emissions reduction, a strong carbon
tax might provide incentive for the transportation and electricity sec-
tors to innovate in a low-carbon direction, potentially including V2G
development. However, the transformative barriers noted above indi-
cate that a carbon tax alone might not be enough [36]. Many regions
instead rely on a patchwork of sector-specific climate policies, including
California’s low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and zero-emission vehi-
cle (ZEV) mandate for the transportation sector, and a renewable port-
folio standard for the electricity sector. Although such policies can be
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
225

complementary, they are rarely planned out in a deliberate way across

sectors. For example, it is not clear if California’s LCFS would pro-
vide credit for the potential carbon reductions that could result from
V2G storage in comparison with a “convenience charging” approach
to EVs—thus there is less incentive for stakeholders to innovate in this
direction. Future research can better explore the suite of policies that are
needed to incentive the innovations and efforts that would inevitably be
part of a full transition to V2G.

8.4.3 Toward Interdisciplinary, Multi-method

Approaches

Another third and final priority is for future V2G research to move
toward interdisciplinary and multi-method efforts. The most common
linkages are between technical and financial dimensions, or techno-eco-
nomic assessments of V2G. Almost no studies explicitly include both
sophisticated behavioral models as well as techno-economic or environ-
mental models. To illustrate this point, Table 8.6 summarizes six exist-
ing V2G modeling studies that all make exogenous assumptions about
EV adoption rates, EV usage patterns, and EV owner participation
rates in V2G—usually with little or no empirical data to support these
assumptions.
Further, the few studies that focus on consumer aspects of V2G
tend to rely on surveys techniques including stated choice experiments,
as well as a few cases that utilize interviews or focus groups. In such
studies, it is important to consider the nature of the participant sam-
ple, including the representativeness of the sample, the country of
focus, and whether the target population is current owners of EVs or
“Pioneers” or more “Mainstream” car buyers. On the latter point, EV
pioneers have been found to have largely different motivations and
preferences from larger population of new vehicle buying households
including the potential “next” or “early mainstream” EV buyers [28].
Thus, it seems wise for future research of potential large-scale V2G sys-
tems to include data collection from “Mainstream” car buyers.
Table 8.6 Illustrative summary and comparison of V2G model qualities
Lund and Sioshansi and Lyon et al. Druitt and Dallinger et al. Weis et al. Wolinetz et al.
Kempton [1] Denholm [38] Früh [39] [40] [41] [42]
[37]
226    

PEV adoption Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Endogenous:

100% PEV 0–15% PEV 0–60% PEV 0–30% PEV 25% PEV 1–15% PEV PEV adoption
market share market share market share market share market share market share is simulated
by scenario by scenario by scenario by scenario
PEV usage Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous:
L. Noel et al.

(driving and Hourly Hourly Hourly Stochastic Stochastic Hourly Driving diary
recharging) statistics with statistics with statistics with inputs based inputs based statistics with data for
% parked/ % parked/ % parked/ on survey on survey % parked/ individual
driving driving driving data data driving vehicles
PEV Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Exogenous: Endogenous:
participation PEVs charge Utility uses PEVs charge PEV owners PEV owners PEV owners UCC partic-
with V2G at night, or V2G to mini- at night, minimize minimize minimize ipation is
utility min- mize system or utility min- charging cost charging cost charging cost simulated
imizes costs costs imizes costs in response in response in response
with UCC or with UCC to real-time to real-time to real-time
V2G pricing pricing pricing
Electricity Exogenous: Exogenous: Optimized Optimized Exogenous: Optimized Optimized
capacity Fixed capac- Based on capacity capacity addi- Fixed capac- capacity addi-
ity, wind capacity in additions tions with ity, wind and tions with
capacity Texas in 2005 scenarios solar capacity scenarios
ranges from (10% wind) exploring produces exploring
0 to 100% by impact of 50% of impact of
scenario greater wind electricity greater wind
capacity capacity

(continued)
Table 8.6 (continued)
Lund and Sioshansi and Lyon et al. Druitt and Dallinger et al. Weis et al. Wolinetz et al.
Kempton [1] Denholm [38] Früh [39] [40] [41] [42]
[37]
Hourly gen- Optimized Optimized Optimized Optimized Optimized Optimized Optimized
eration (i.e.,
utilization)
Time dimension Hourly in 2020 Hourly in 2005 Hourly with 15 minute with Hourly in 2030 Hourly with Hourly with
and resolution time steps to time steps to time steps to time steps to
8

2030 2020 2025 2050

Region and scale National grid, Regional grid, Regional grids, National grid, Regional and Regional grid, Connected
Denmark Texas eastern USA UK national grid, New York regional
California grids, Alberta
and Germany and British
Columbia,
Canada
V2G impact Reduces excess V2G avoids Savings with Savings of V2G Reduces excess Savings of V2G Savings of V2G
wind gen- 20–30% of V2G have a are $75–$225 wind and are $70–$120 are $50–$125
eration by the GHG net-present per vehicle solar gen- per vehicle per vehicle
roughly one emissions value of per year, eration by per year, per year,
third resulting $50–$450 per higher with roughly two higher with higher with
from PEV vehicle per more wind thirds more wind more wind
electricity year, higher capacity capacity and solar
demand where new capacity
capacity must
be added

Reprinted from [42]

Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
227
228    
L. Noel et al.

In part, greater integration across insights could occur through

multi-method approaches. In particular, V2G modeling efforts are
dominated by optimization models, whereas “simulation” ener-
gy-economy models can instead be used to represent what consum-
ers and stakeholders may actually do in a given policy context, given
their preferences and perceptions. Even more novel is to develop stud-
ies that directly integrate empirical data from surveys and interviews
with models of V2G participation that in turn simulate the techni-
cal, economic and environmental impacts of such systems. For exam-
ple, the seventh study in Table 8.3 includes consumer-informed and
endogenous representations of EV purchase behavior and V2G partic-
ipation, in tandem with an optimization model to represent the elec-
trical grid.

8.5 Conclusion
To conclude, a V2G transition has much to offer society. It compel-
lingly transforms vehicles from the heart of transport problems to part
of the solution in the twin dilemmas of environmental pollution and
sustainable transitions. The transition could empower vehicles to simul-
taneously improve the efficiency (and profitability) of electricity grids,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, accommodate low-carbon sources
of energy, and reap cost savings for owners, drivers, and other users.
However, such a transition is not easy or seamless—it must confront an
array of obstacles cutting across technical dimensions such as batteries
and communication systems, financial ones such as purchase price and
capital cost, negative environmental externalities, behavioral challenges
including notions of inconvenience, trust, confusion, and range anxiety.
Also, the net impacts of a V2G system may depend on which objectives
are prioritized; for example, there is no guarantee that a cost-minimiz-
ing V2G system will lower environmental impacts—especially if nega-
tive environmental externalities are still unaddressed by policy.
Therefore, when we think about the future promise of a V2G tran-
sition, we need to focus beyond batteries, vehicles and power plants
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
229

to the whole sociotechnical system. A system focus is both as a unit

of analysis and analytical tool, and also a practical matter of design-
ing policy or behavioral change. For only an alignment of technical,
economic, political and social conditions resulted in the acceptance of
the gasoline car. This implies that efforts to alter modern modes of
transportation must not only respond to technical challenges, but also
create proper economic incentives, engender political support, and
shape social and cultural attitudes. It also offers a subtle but strong
critique to much of the techno-economic work done so far, since this
paradigm presumes that individuals will make the same rational deci-
sions as the modeled optimizing agents [43]. History implies that
policies attempting to overcome technical or social barriers in isola-
tion—such as merely developing a better engine or educating auto-
mobile drivers about other options—will not work alone. Changes in
consumption choices may be required to best prepare society for its
future energy-related challenges. Research on a broader range of car-
bon and health impacts, visions and narratives, social justice issues,
gender norms, and urban resilience is also sorely needed. Moreover,
we must come to broaden the research agenda for V2G so that we
explore a greater number of cases, overcome transformative failures,
appreciate the complexity of users, and embrace interdisciplinary and
mixed-methods approaches.
For if one accepts that automobiles are chosen for reasons extend-
ing beyond the “rational” or “technical,” then transportation as well as
research pathways aimed at V2G must drastically change. Consumer
perceptions, emerging norms, policy visions and the strength or weak-
ness of regulation will all determine the extent to which V2G unfolds,
and the degree to which it is sustainable. These factors are just as
salient as longer lasting batteries, improved vehicle-grid communi-
cation, and innovations in renewable energy in why people embrace
some modes of transport and energy usage. The future of V2G may
very well hinge on the social, economic and political, as much as the
technical.
230    
L. Noel et al.

References
1. Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport
and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy. 2008;36(9):3578–87.
2. Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimiza-
tion of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and with-
out externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.
3. Knezovic K, Marinelli M, Codani P, Perez Y. Distribution grid services and
flexibility provision by electric vehicles: a review of options. In IEEE; 2015
[cited 2017 Aug 18]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/7339931/.
4. Kempton W, Tomić J. Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: from stabi-
lizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. J Power Sources.
2005;144(1):280–94.
5. Noori M, Zhao Y, Onat NC, Gardner S, Tatari O. Light-duty electric
vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through vehicle-to-
grid technology: analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings.
Appl Energy. 2016;168:146–58.
6. Pentland W. Nissan pilots vehicle-to-grid technology in Denmark
[Internet]. Forbes Energy. 2015 [cited 2017 Aug 18]. Available from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/12/08/nissan-pilots-
vehicle-to-grid-technology-in-denmark/#23202f9525ab.
7. IEA. Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: cities, flexibility and
pathways to carbon-neutrality. IEA; 2016. p. 269.
8. Knezović K, Marinelli M, Zecchino A, Andersen PB, Traeholt C.
Supporting involvement of electric vehicles in distribution grids: lower-
ing the barriers for a proactive integration. Energy. 2017;134(Suppl C):
458–68.
9. Kester J, Noel L, Zarazua de Rubens G, Sovacool BK. Promoting vehicle
to grid (V2G) in the Nordic region: expert advice on policy mechanisms
for accelerated diffusion. Energy Policy. 2018;116:422–32.
10. Sovacool BK. Experts, theories, and electric mobility transitions: toward
an integrated conceptual framework for the adoption of electric vehicles.
Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;27:78–95.
11. Woodcock J, Banister D, Edwards P, Prentice AM, Roberts I. Energy and
transport. Lancet. 2007;370(9592):1078–88.
12. Buekers J, Van Holderbeke M, Bierkens J, Int Panis L. Health and envi-
ronmental benefits related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries.
Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2014;33:26–38.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
231

13. King CW, Webber ME. The water intensity of the plugged-in automotive
economy. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(12):4305–11.
14. Gleeson T, Wada Y, Bierkens MFP, van Beek LPH. Water balance of global
aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature. 2012;488:197.
15. Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimen-
sions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.
16. Hoehne CG, Chester MV. Optimizing plug-in electric vehicle and vehi-
cle-to-grid charge scheduling to minimize carbon emissions. Energy.
2016;115:646–57.
17. Parsons GR, Hidrue MK, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay
for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms. Energy
Econ. 2014;42:313–24.
18. Graham-Rowe E, Gardner B, Abraham C, Skippon S, Dittmar H,
Hutchins R, et al. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric
and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and
evaluations. Transp Res Part Policy Pract. 2012;46(1):140–53.
19. Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bodin J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle
adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp Res Part Transp
Environ. 2015;34:122–36.
20. Jackson T. Motivating Sustainable Conusmption: a review of evidence on
consumer behavior and behavioral change [Internet]. Guildford Surrey:
Sustainable Development Research Network. 2005 Jan. p. 170. Available
from: http://research3.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/922/
Jackson.%202005.%20Motivating%20Sustainable%20Consumption.pdf.
21. Axsen J, Kurani KS. Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid
market: observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method
approach. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2011;16(2):150–59.
22. Axsen J, Orlebar C, Skippon S. Social influence and consumer preference
formation for pro-environmental technology: the case of a U.K. workplace
electric-vehicle study. Ecol Econ. 2013;95:96–107.
23. Noppers EH, Keizer K, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. The adoption of sustain-
able innovations: driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Glob
Environ Change. 2014;25:52–62.
24. Brown MB. The civic shaping of technology: California’s electric vehicle
program. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2001;26(1):56–81.
25. Axsen J, Kurani KS. Interpersonal influence within car buyers’ social net-
works: applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environ
Plan A. 2012;44(5):1047–65.
232    
L. Noel et al.

26. Wentland A. Imagining and enacting the future of the German energy
transition: electric vehicles as grid infrastructure. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res.
2016;29(3):285–302.
27. Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social con-
struction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol Cult.
1996;37(4):763.
28. Axsen J, Goldberg S, Bailey J. How might potential future plug-in elec-
tric vehicle buyers differ from current “Pioneer” owners? Transp Res Part
Transp Environ. 2016;47:357–70.
29. Sovacool BK, Kester J, Noel L, de Rubens GZ. The demographics of
decarbonizing transport: the influence of gender, education, occupation,
age, and household size on electric mobility preferences in the Nordic
region. Glob Environ Change. 2018;52:86–100.
30. Nguyen HK, Song JB. Optimal charging and discharging for multiple
PHEVs with demand side management in vehicle-to-building. J Commun
Netw. 2012;14(6):662–71.
31. Ioakimidis CS, Thomas D, Rycerski P, Genikomsakis KN. Peak shaving
and valley filling of power consumption profile in non-residential build-
ings using an electric vehicle parking lot. Energy. 2018;148:148–58.
32. Jacobson MZ, Archer CL, Kempton W. Taming hurricanes with arrays of
offshore wind turbines. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:195.
33. Sovacool BK, Axsen J, Kempton W. Tempering the promise of electric
mobility? A sociotechnical review and research agenda for vehicle-grid
integration (VGI) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G). Annu Rev Environ Resour
[Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 24]. Available from: http://www.annual-
reviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-030117-020220.
34. Melton N, Axsen J, Sperling D. Moving beyond alternative fuel hype to
decarbonize transportation. Nat Energy. 2016;1:16013.
35. Weber KM, Rohracher H. Legitimizing research, technology and innova-
tion policies for transformative change. Res Policy. 2012;41(6):1037–47.
36. Azar C, Sandén BA. The elusive quest for technology-neutral policies.
Environ Innov Soc Transit. 2011;1(1):135–39.
37. Sioshansi R, Denholm P. The value of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as
grid resources. Energy J. 2010;31:1–23.
38. Lyon TP, Michelin M, Jongejan A, Leahy T. Is “smart charging” policy for
electric vehicles worthwhile? Energy Policy. 2012;41:259–268.
39. Druitt J, Früh W-G. Simulation of demand management and grid balanc-
ing with electric vehicles. J. Power Sources. 2012;216:104–116.
 8 Realizing and Problematizing a V2G Future    
233

40. Dallinger D, Gerda S, Wietschel M. Integration of intermittent renewa-

ble power supply using grid-connected vehicles: a 2030 case study for
California and Germany. Appl. Energy. 2013;104:666–682.
41. Weis A, Jaramillo P, Michalek J. Estimating the potential of controlled
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging to reduce operational and capac-
ity expansion costs for electric power systems with high wind penetration.
Appl. Energy. 2014;115:190–204.
42. Wolinetz M, Axsen J, Peters J, Crawford C. Simulating the value of elec-
tric-vehicle–grid integration using a behaviourally realistic model. Nat
Energy. 2018;3(2):132–39.
43. Foulds C, Christensen TH. Funding pathways to a low-carbon transition.
Nat Energy. 2016;1:16087.
 Index

A Ancillary services xxvi, 5, 8–10,

Actors xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxiv, xxxv,
1, 21–26, 33, 34, 37, 38, 46,
47, 50, 55, 56, 83, 100, 102,
104–108, 111, 113, 118, 119,
121, 122, 124, 127, 129, 131,
134, 152, 156, 158, 159, 163,
167–169, 171, 172, 174, 176,
180–185, 188, 198, 199, 202,
213, 216
Aggregation, aggregator xxxiv, 1–7,
9, 10, 13, 22–24, 37, 39, 65,
71, 72, 75–79, 82–84, 91,
94, 96–101, 103–109, 113,
118–121, 123, 125, 127–129,
134, 143, 145, 149, 150, 152,
155, 159, 161–163, 168, 169,
171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 183,
199–201, 207, 221
12–14, 16, 23–25, 36, 38, 42,
43, 46, 47, 51, 54, 82, 104,
109, 117, 122–124, 134, 180,
183–188, 200, 213
Auditing 1, 2, 7–9, 117, 128, 129
B
Balance responsible party (BRP) 99,
127, 128, 134, 169
Batteries xxx, 3, 12, 35, 37, 48, 59,
68, 69, 71, 111, 120, 129,
157, 184, 197, 198, 200, 205,
217, 228, 229
Battery degradation xxvii, xxx, xxxiv,
xxxv, 36, 65–68, 70–72, 75,
76, 81, 84, 91, 95–97, 100,
117, 128, 129, 145, 157, 168,
169, 174, 175, 177, 195, 214

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 235
Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019
L. Noel et al., Vehicle-to-Grid, Energy, Climate and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04864-8
236   Index
Business case 58, 66, 91, 102, 112,
113, 126, 134, 171, 174, 175
Business models xxx, xxxiv, 41, 58,
91, 101, 105, 109, 111, 162,
169, 171, 174–176, 178, 182,
196, 212
C (EVSE) 3, 4, 6, 9, 23, 25, 72,
Charger efficiency xxxiv, 37, 72, 81,
84, 85, 91, 97, 169, 174, 177
Climate change xxv, xxxi, xxxvii,
43–46, 51, 53, 54, 126, 131,
132, 134, 155, 172, 181–183,
212, 222
Communication standards 4, 78, 80,
81, 198
D 13, 17, 20, 23, 33, 36, 37,
Distribution system operator (DSO)
23, 24, 42, 119–122, 132,
133, 169, 174, 175, 194, 198,
200, 201
Double taxation xxxiv, 91, 97, 99,
100, 113, 117, 124, 126, 132,
169, 171, 174, 196, 199, 200
E
Electricity grid xxv, xxvi, xxx, xxxiii,
1–3, 5–8, 12–18, 20, 21,
23–25, 34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43,
47, 48, 50, 54–56, 58, 59,
69, 72, 75, 76, 81, 82, 107,
110, 117–119, 122, 125, 127,
130, 131, 133, 134, 168, 169,
171, 172, 176, 178, 180, 181,
185–187, 189, 193, 194, 206,
207, 220, 222
Electricity markets xxxiv, 7, 10–13,
23–25, 46, 54, 76, 96, 99,
104, 109, 112, 113, 118–121,
127, 130, 133–135, 169–171,
176, 178, 180, 183, 184
Electric vehicle supply equipment
74, 78, 83, 84, 92, 94–97, 99,
100, 102, 104–106, 108, 112,
113, 117, 128, 129, 157, 162,
169, 174, 178
Energy justice 206, 211, 220
Equity 203, 205, 210, 211
F
Fleets xxvi, xxvii, xxxiii, 2, 3, 6, 9,
40–42, 51, 53, 54, 59, 69, 70,
76, 78, 83, 101, 104–111,
145, 149, 177–179, 183, 185,
187, 200, 216, 223
Frequency regulation xxv, 5, 6,
12–14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 34,
38–42, 46, 47, 54, 69–71, 76,
94–96, 98, 99, 104, 109, 121,
123, 125, 157, 183, 194
G
Gender norms 174, 176, 191, 212,
221, 222, 229
I
ISO 15118 4, 78–82, 128, 176, 178
 Index   237

N 43, 65, 84, 112, 152, 159,

Net metering xxxiv, 125, 200 188, 229

P T
Policy xxvii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxix, 9,
19, 24, 55, 91, 117, 130–135,
156, 159, 167, 169–174, 177,
178, 182, 183, 188, 191, 192,
199–202, 205, 206, 209–212,
220, 224, 225, 228, 229
Pollution xxx, 209–211, 213–215,
228
Privacy xxxiv, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84,
128, 130, 132, 134, 162, 168,
169, 206, 207, 210, 211, 218
R 206, 212, 214–216, 221–223,
Range anxiety xxx, 66, 145, 173,
214, 218, 228
Regulatory framework 14, 24, 96,
99, 118, 130, 133, 134, 196
Renewable energy xxvi, xxvii, xxxiii,
13–16, 18, 24, 25, 36–38, 42,
43, 47–50, 52–58, 77, 101,
108–111, 122, 126, 130, 131,
141, 157, 174, 176, 178–180,
183–187, 193, 210–213, 216,
220, 229
Research gaps xxvi, xxxv, 176, 191,
212, 213, 216, 222, 223
Tinkering xxxv, 148, 152–156, 163,
170, 171, 177
Transmission system operator (TSO)
23, 24, 119, 121–123, 129,
132, 133, 169, 174, 194, 200,
212
U
Users, user behavior xxx, xxxv, 41,
52, 59, 66, 81, 95, 103, 104,
146–153, 155, 156, 158, 159,
163, 170, 171, 174–177, 191,
228, 229
V
Vehicle-to-Building (V2B) xxxiii,
15–20, 26, 110, 111, 113
Vehicle-to-home (V2H) xxxiii, 15,
16, 18, 19, 26, 34, 51, 53, 69,
110, 193, 194
Vehicle-to-X (V2X) 15, 17–19, 26,
34, 51–53, 58, 108, 110, 111,
113, 153–156, 170, 171, 186,
195

S W
Smart grid xxxiii, 55, 56, 58, 59, 70, Willingness-to-pay (WTP) 142, 143,
80–83, 109, 110, 122, 180, 160
187, 188, 204
Sociotechnical system xxviii, xxix,
xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxv, 33, 34,