Introduction

  • Unmanaged BEV charging generates \(CO_2\) and other pollution.
  • Managed charging is cheaper and environmentally friendly.
  • Smart charging: Supplier-Managed Charging (SMC) and Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G).

SMC - Supplier Managed Charging

  • SMC smooths out overnight EV charging demand.
  • Electricity demand is controlled below capacity threshold.
  • It saves money and reduces pollution.

SMC - Supplier Managed Charging

  • SMC smooths out overnight EV charging demand.
  • Electricity demand is controlled below capacity threshold.
  • It saves money and reduces pollution.

V2G - Vehicle-to-Grid

Literature Review

  1. A study by Wong et al. (2023) examined incentives affect the EV owners’ acceptance, but EV ownership is only 19%.
  2. A study by Philip and Whitehead (2024) found range anxiety matters, but EV ownership is only 1.28%.
  3. Another study by Huang et al. (2021) indicates the importance of fast charging, but the sample size is only 157.

None of them have demographics data to study heterogeneity.

We need high EV ownership & large sample size, and consider heterogeneity.

Research Questions

  1. Sensitivity: How do changes in smart charging program features influence BEV owners’ willingness to opt in?

  2. Market Share: Under what conditions will BEV owners be more willing to opt in to smart charging programs?


Conjoint survey to collect BEV owners’ willingness.

Multinomial logit model for utility simulations.

Survey Design with formr

Survey Components

  1. Conjoint Questions:
    1. Monetary Incentives
    2. Charging Limitations
    3. Flexibility
  2. Demographic Questions:
    1. BEV Ownership & Usage
    2. Personal & Household Info

Conjoint Attributes Sample

No. Attributes Range
1 Enrollment Cash $50 to $300
2 Monthly Cash $2 to $20
3 Monthly Override 0 to 5
4 Min Battery 20% to 40%
5 Guaranteed Battery 60% to 80%

Conjoint Question Explained

A Sample Conjoint Question

  1. You are provided with different sets of attributes.
  2. You choose one set instead of one attribute.

SMC Programs

Attributes

No. Attributes Range
1 Enrollment Cash $50 to $300
2 Monthly Cash $2 to $20
3 Monthly Override 0 to 5
4 Min Battery 20% to 40%
5 Guaranteed Battery 60% to 80%

Sample Program

Attributes Values
Enrollment Cash $300
Monthly Cash $20
Monthly Override 5

V2G Programs

Attributes

No. Attributes Range
1 Enrollment Cash $50 to $300
2 Occurrence Cash $2 to $20
3 Monthly Occurrence 1 to 4
4 Lower Bound 20% to 40%
5 Guaranteed Battery 60% to 80%

Sample Program

Attributes Values
Enrollment Cash $300
Occurrence Cash $20
Monthly Occurrence 1

Sample SMC Question

Sample V2G Question

Survey Fielding - 1356 in Total

Meta: Facebook, Messenger, Instagram - Voluntary

  • Fielding from March to July in 2024
  • 803 results after filtering

Dynata: Survey Panel - Payment to real BEV owners only

  • Fielding from September to November in 2024
  • 553 results after filtering

Survey Results - Top 10 BEV

Survey Results - Demographics

Survey Results - Willingness to Participate

Multinomial Logit Models

\[ \begin{align*} u_j = v_j + \epsilon_j = \beta' x + \epsilon_j \qquad P_j = \frac{e^{v_j}}{\sum_{k=1}^{J} e^{v_k}} \end{align*} \]

SMC Estimates

V2G Estimates

Without compensation, users will not participate.

Enrollment Sensitivity

Enrollment Sensitivity

  1. Steeper slope indicates higher sensitivity.
  2. Diminishing returns exist.

Equivalencies of 5% Enrollment Increase


SMC

Attribute Equivalence Value Unit
Enrollment Cash 64.7 $
Monthly Cash 3.2 $
Override Days 2.0 Days
Minimum Threshold 54.8 %
Guaranteed Threshold 5.5 %

V2G

Attribute Equivalence Value Unit
Enrollment Cash 45.0 $
Occurrence Cash 2.3 $
Monthly Occurrence 1.5 Times
Lower Bound 8.5 %
Guaranteed Threshold 7.2 %


  1. Smaller value indicates higher efficiency.
  2. Recurring incentives are more important than one-time.
  3. In SMC, Guaranteed threshold is more important than V2G, indicating range anxiety.
  4. In V2G, Monetary incentives are valued more than SMC.

SMC Scenario Analysis

  1. Flexibility is highly valued.
  2. Recurring incentives are more important than one-time.
  3. Payment alone is not enough.

V2G Scenario Analysis

  1. Still, recurring incentives are more important than one-time.
  2. But flexibility is not as important compared with SMC.
  3. Owners are willing to leverage BEV as a source of income.

Smart Charging Enrollment Simulator

Reference List

Huang, Bing, Aart Gerard Meijssen, Jan Anne Annema, and Zofia Lukszo. 2021. “Are Electric Vehicle Drivers Willing to Participate in Vehicle-to-Grid Contracts? A Context-Dependent Stated Choice Experiment.” Energy Policy 156 (September): 112410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112410.
Philip, Thara, and Jake Whitehead. 2024. “Consumer Preferences Towards Electric Vehicle Smart Charging Program Attributes: A Stated Preference Study.” Rochester, NY. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4812923.
Wong, Stephen D., Susan A. Shaheen, Elliot Martin, and Robert Uyeki. 2023. “Do Incentives Make a Difference? Understanding Smart Charging Program Adoption for Electric Vehicles.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 151 (June): 104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2023.104123.