• Mar 24th 2010 at 6:01PM
  • 35
As much as we like plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), the fact is there just aren't that many of them on the roads, yet. Well the IRC, a group of power grid operators from the United States and Canada, are predicting that 1,000,000 new PEVs could be on North American roads by the end of the decade. The group has released the results of a study they conducted on what the future effect of that many electric vehicles sucking on the nations' electric teets might look like.
The study is entitled "Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Integration with ISO/RTO Systems" – ISO stands for "Independent Service Operator" and RTO is "Regional Transmission Organization." The study concludes that by the end of the decade not only could there be as many as 1,000,000 PEVs on the road, but they will mostly be concentrated in urban areas on the West Coast and in the North East of the United States.

"Plug-in electric vehicles represent a significant new set of power users that grid operators must prepare to serve. PEVs also might lead to game-changing innovations in energy distribution and smart grid technology that could enhance grid management and electric system reliability," said Stephen G. Whitley, 2010 IRC chairman and president & CEO of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)

The Los Angeles metropolitan area is predicted to see the largest growth of PEVs, a total 119,069 by 2019. If all 119,069 PEVs plugged in at the same time they could add an electric load of 658 MW, that's a medium-sized power plant's worth. However, If PEV charging were staggered over an eight-hour period, electric load would increase by only 147 MW. Over a 12-hour period, PEV charging would spike at only 98 MW.

The IRC concludes that increased development of smart grid technologies would go a long way to leveling out the demand spikes. So would new pricing incentives and penalties for peak and off-peak charging.

One of the coolest ideas mentioned has to do with using smart grid tools to remotely connect to charging PEVs and use them as mobile storage devices. The grid operator could then utilize the power stored in the PEV for the grid and then replace it when system conditions improve.

A copy of the report, "Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Integration with ISO/RTO Systems," is available for download if you scroll down to the bottom of the home page of the IRC website.

[Source: Business Wire]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      """This is such a non issue. Just offer reduced pricing for off-peak power usage and upgrade a few transformers in neighborhoods that get a few EVs. The EVs will be charging at night mostly."""

      Spec got it exactly right! Just charge EV's at nite, and re-install the smart meters we had for a year in some WA cities. But you do have to lower the price more at nite, 1/2 or one cent discount doesn't seem enough.

      I'd also like to suggest stronger sliding-scale uitlity fees for the poor and middle-class (who many are now 'poor'), such that the first 200Kwhrs month are 4cents each, the next 200Kwhr are 5cents each and when you get to around 3000kwhrs, you would pay 12cents ea for the increment. But, this won't help the EV movement unfortunately.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The LA area is going to have 119,069 PEVS by 2019. Now there is a prediction! Not 120,000 mind you, but 119,069! Whoever made that prediction must be the smartest dude ever. I might add, I don't know where very many of those are even for sale.
      • 5 Years Ago
      When are we going to cure the coal to electricity? Sure the EV car will be clean but it will still be fueled by dirty electricity...
        • 5 Years Ago
        No, I am open to capitalism...but it is prejudice to pick on one industry and say "they getting all of our money from our oil addiction" and then use that as a tool to push a agenda a reason why we should seek renewable energy to keep the money here...when It is a complete oxymoron when the same analogy is not applied to the rest of the industry....So you must be discriminating the "middle east" and hating on them getting rich from how much oil we purchase or you are seeking renewable energy to reduce pollution...Every single person using the term we should become independent is being a hypocrite and is being driven by the same human trait of greed, envy and vanity and not seeking the greater good...

        • 5 Years Ago
        We are not only concentrating on cars. However, cars have been described as the "low hanging fruit" because it is easiest to get to. Replacing the coal plants with the equivalent MW of alternative power requires a lot of capital funds and time to implement. And guess what, it is happening slowly. But that 18% can happen much quicker because of the scale of each factor. Each car has a much shorter replacement average than each power plant. A single power plants cannot be replaced gradually. It takes 20 years or more. Because it is financial folly to shut down a perfectly good coal plant. Conversely, an automobile has a shorter replacement life cycle. 7 to 10 years is normal (although some last much longer).

        Since this is Autoblog green and not powerplant green, it is expected that you will hear mostly about money being thrown at car makers and not utility companies.

        Also, the money involved with greening up the grid is generally talked about only in congress and boardrooms. But since consumers like you and I have purchase power in the automotive market, greening up the roadways is more of a frontline concern.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Sorry Level, I did not explain the context of that percentage. I should have in my post because it doesn't really make sense without knowing.

        44.7% is not exactly low. But just a few years ago, the common EV bashing quote was that we get most of our electricity from coal. It WAS true, now it is less. And getting better each year.

        True, as demand goes up again, coal powered electricity production will increase. But Natural Gas increases it's production just as much (if not more). So the overall percentage of coal remains below half.

        Also, building (and increases in capacity) of non-coal power plants out paces that of coal fired plants on a per MW basis.

        Bottomline, the U.S. electricity grid is progressively getting cleaner.

        All this can be verified by going to http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html


        And it DOES matter where you live. Or better yet, where you plan to plug in your EV. When you plug in an EV, that draws additional power that you would have otherwise not be drawing.


        Don't get me started on the whole "we should buy American-made products". Are you one of those people who advocate buying American products to help the economy but then also advocate how capitalism is a good system?

        You cannot have both. Capitalism means you must compete with other countries like China for goods and services. If Americans cannot make them cheaper and/or better, then nobody should buy them. Stop subsidizing the U.S. products and stop with foreign tariffs and see how many U.S. businesses fail because they cannot compete.

        Too many people want to have capitalism only when it suits their needs... then they call foul when competing on the global market.
        /end rant
        • 5 Years Ago
        When people go to the DOE website and look up their state's electricity generation by source.

        In state's that actually give a damn about the environment, natural gas and nuclear are the main producers of electricity.

        Right now, Coal produces 44.7% of the nations electricity. And that is concentrated only around coal producing states such as West Virginia, Tennessee, etc.

        Hawaii gets it's electricity from petroleum because that is the cheapest to import. And they need to import almost all of their energy.

        *Also note that many utilities will provide you with cleaner energy such as renewable sources if you are willing to pay a few cents more per kwh.

        In Tampa for instance, you could pay 2.5 cents to be paid toward solar power.

        So where do you live?
        • 5 Years Ago

        I don't buy the whole speech about "Consider also the hundreds of billions of dollars of our currency that we are exporting every year to pay for our oil addiction. We will lose 5 to 7 trillion over the next ten years. With electric cars we get to keep that money here."

        Set aside Fuel, do you know how many billions go into out source goods cars, jobs, cloths supplies you name it..The same argument can be applied to that...You either start buying 100% American Grown & American made or you become a hypocrite for being partial and singling out one industry over the other thats doing the exact same thing, which is taking money out of this country.....
        • 5 Years Ago
        As for the Coal, 40% of pollution in the US comes from Coal and 18% comes from the car, yet we are devoting more time to the lesser of the 2, whats wrong here???.....all these millions spent on making the car cleaner when we should of concentrated our efforts on eliminating coal to begin with which further more would of cost substantially less $$ since we already have the technology to substitute coal to energy...yet we are taking the costly route of trying to advance car technology at a substantial rate then the natural due process, because of the fanatics in the "green movement" that want to see the technology that will eventually become the norm 20 years from now; Today! regardless if we go broke doing it.....
        • 5 Years Ago
        The oil refineries are are also powered by that same dirty coal. The power that they use to refine a gallon of gas can make my electric car go 25 miles.

        So, while you are driving your gasoline powered car you still have the same issue with the pollution from the dirty coal plants. Then you are burning gasoline on top of that.

        Yes, we do need to shut down all the coal plants. There are enough alternatives with sun, wind, and natural gas for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

        Consider also the hundreds of billions of dollars of our currency that we are exporting every year to pay for our oil addiction. We will lose 5 to 7 trillion over the next ten years. With electric cars we get to keep that money here. That cash would pay for a heck of a lot of alternative energy production and grid upgrades.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Are you trying to justify 44.7% as being low? and when more demand comes into play it will likely raise output of coal electricity productions not lower them....Are you aware of coal ash....I am not questioning the other 55.3%...It does not matter where I live if the output of coal to electricity is still being produced..
      • 5 Years Ago
      Super Vehicle to Grid (Super V2G) Cars as Powerful Power Plants!

      Although a Vehicle to Grid (V2G) Toyota Scion hybrid was demonstrated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting February 19th. It was equipped with a 2 way plug and could sell 10 kW of electricity, to power aggregator PJM for the local utility, at the rate of $30 per hour. PJM stated the car could earn up to $1,800 per year for its owner.

      A Chava Energy development called SPICE™ (Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine) utilized in hybrid cars and trucks is expected to run when parked, spinning a generator. Fueled by very small quantities of demineralized water, an ECHO™ (Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits) fueled SPICE is potentially another 10 kW V2G system.

      Second generation V2G automobiles, with better batteries, might be able to provide as much as 25 kW using a two way plug. It has been estimated that owners of such vehicles might earn as much as $3,000 per year.

      We are also developing what could become Third generation V2G vehicles. Steven Letendre, a V2G analyst at Green Mountain College, has termed our work Super V2G. Future cars and trucks may be able to provide up to 150 kW with a wireless connection to suitably equipped parking spaces. Payments to owners might very well be sufficient to pay for the vehicle.

      These breakthroughs could make possible the gradual elimination of the need for batteries of every variety. As a harbinger of the future, an early MagGen™ is expected to first demonstrate the ability to replace the need to plug-in a plug-in hybrid. Two kilowatts is all the power that can be taken from a typical wall socket. A pair of one kilowatt MagGens might demonstrate a compact, inexpensive, capability to end the need to plug-in. This will relieve the concern that plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles would depend on power generated using fossil fuel.

      MagGen powered cars are expected to be capable of initially generating at least 75 kW and later 100 kW. In the case of luxury cars, trucks and buses 150 kW could prove practical. MagGen is potentially a Chava Super V2G system.

      A substantial number of vehicles powered by MagGen, or its water sipping counterpart, an ECHO fueled SPICE, in a parking area or garage - might transform the array of parked vehicles into a multi-megawatt power plant. The average vehicle is parked 90% of the time.

      These breakthroughs will be greeted with understandable skepticism by anyone with science training. However, fractional Hydrogen, trademarked as ECHO, has had some initial validation at Rowan University and GEN3 Partners - advisors to Fortune 100 firms. More is needed. National laboratories would be excellent venues for definitive evaluations of both fractional Hydrogen and even harder to believe magnetic generators.

      The economics are likely to prove compelling. Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Vehicle to Grid power will change that dramatically. Doubtless, when millions of cars and trucks are selling power to the grid, the price per kilowatt paid will gradually decline. However, it still seems possible that the cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities. The parked cars, trucks and buses, each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective alternative to the many tough and costly environmental challenges of constructing new coal burning and nuclear power generation facilities.

      Utilities and vehicle manufacturers will have a unique opportunity to lead the nation and the world into a dramatic reduction in the need for oil. Imagine a 24/7 development program.

      The positive economic impact can hardly be exaggerated.

        • 5 Years Ago

        Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source, R.L. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, X. Hu, G. Wu, J. Lotoski, G. Chu -Using absolute water-flow calorimetry, the energy balance for representative power and regeneration reactions of four classes of hydrino catalyst systems was determined wherein the formation of hydrinos has 200 times the energy release relative to combustion. The thermal cycle of reactants to products thermally reversed to reactants in a closed system is energy neutral, and the thermal losses (~3%) and energy to replace hydrogen converted to hydrinos (2%) are small compared to the large energy released in forming hydrinos.

        Typical parameters measured by absolute water-flow calorimetry were 2-5 times energy gain relative to regeneration chemistry and 7 W cm-3. The predicted molecular hydrino and hydrino hydride products H2(1/4) and H-(1/4) corresponding to 50 MJ/mole H2 consumed were confirmed by the solution 1H NMR peak at 1.2 ppm and XPS peak at 11 eV, respectively. The results indicate that continuous generation of power liberated by forming hydrinos is commercially feasible using simplistic and efficient systems that concurrently maintain regeneration as part of the thermal energy balance.

        Most scientists will not believe fractional Hydrogen exists, the Rowan experiment and the above indicate otherwise.

        We do not expect anyone to believe you can run an engine on water until it can be demonstrated and confirmed by independent laboratory tests.

        However, our work is based on an engine that opened the door to this research 30 years ago. At that time, fractional Hydrogen was unknown. That excellent R&D provides good reason to believe it will be possible to run engines on water.

        It is not perpetual motion, but might well open a perpetual commotion, as it will change the energy ballgame. Perhaps, just in time to avoid the harmful effects of a sharp increase in the price of oil.

        Let alone, the impact cars as power plants could have in helping to rapidly wind down the use of fossil fuels.

        • 5 Years Ago

        ""The problem that I have with Mills theory, as I've stated in another thread, is that even after years of study no one other then Mills can use the theory to produce results! I've yet to find a single person who understands the theory well enough to explain the free electron, or the hydrogen atom in Mills theory to me (these being the simplest cases).""

        ""To convince me that Blacklight Power's claims have validity, any one of a number of things can happen.

        * Multiple independent validation duplicating Blacklight Power's significant energy generation (much more than 1 million joules). Independent means not paid by Blacklight Power and by credible oganizations.

        * A fully functioning demonstation plant that generates energy continuously for multiple days. The plant must be subject to detailed examination by credible independent organizations.

        * Multiple independent analyses confirming the existence of hydrinos from samples provided by Blacklight Power.

        * An actual functioning commercial plant producing energy would be a slam-dunk validation.

        Something that wouldn't convince me at all are patents. I'm co-holder of two patents. I know how easy it is to get them and how unimpressive they are. You just need a remotely credible idea, a good patent lawyer and money. It helps not to break the laws of Physics with your patent application. ""

        ""I think it exceedingly unlikely that any experimental data can convince me that the underlying Mills theory is true. There are quite simply far too many mathematical errors from page one onwards to permit anybody reasonably skilled in physics to believe that the hydrino theory makes sense. I started shooting holes in the theory almost 10 years ago; so did Aaron Barth, John Connett, and many others. Mills didn't even deign to engage back then except to repeat ad nauseum that there was no self-energy in the hydrino -- a position he reached by blatant disregard of Coulomb's Law and in conflict with Maxwell's Equations (which aren't sacred, but which have held up over the decades very well, thank you).""

        • 5 Years Ago
        We could go back and forth forever. And with you quoting bad science there is no way to convince you.

        You disregard the vast majority of science because it doesn't fit your preconceptions that you should be able to find a source of inexhaustible free energy.

        All you have is anecdotes, bad math producing speculation, and misunderstood laws of physics. Overly zealous scientists looking to make a name for themselves.


        This wastes precious time and resources that could better be used to find REAL solutions to the worlds problems, not some fantasy.

        I'm done with you. Good-day sir.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The quintessential argument of bees. I am tired of debunking that one.

        Since bees came before man... no scientist could ever make a law that bees could violate. Science simply could not "explain" how bees flew for a time. Just like for a time, science did not know how stars shine. But nobody creates a law that says it could not be done.

        Same with the way you people claim that so many people did not believe a heavier than air flight could be achieved. Birds can do it. Di Vinci knew that way back when.

        You failed to link a website for you claim of "independent verification". And I suspect they are crackpot free energy websites such as PESwiki or some other site.

        And just CLAIMING that something doesn't violate the laws of physics does not make it true.

        Scientific illiteracy in this country is astounding. And you should be the poster child.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Tests by independent laboratories will verify that nothing involved violates the laws of thermodynamics.

        These are energy conversion systems.

        The sources of energy have not previously been commercialized.

        For many years it was thought that bees violated the laws that govern flight. Recently it was discovered, as might have been suspected, that they had not.

        When products are in the market such questions will look as foolish as they in fact happen to be.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The Rowan and GEN3 experiments producing excess heat suggest why experiments need to be designed and done by other laboratories. Enough has been published to design experiments that may prove more productive.

        Conventional wisdom supports skepticism. However, beginning with the work of the late mathematical physicist Dr. Robert Carroll in his 1975 book and his paper on Inverse Quantum States in 1990, it would appear conventional wisdom is wrong.

        Ronald Bourgoin, a former student of Carroll's, published a paper a few years ago indicating the wave equation predicts exactly the 137 fractional Hydrogen steps discovered by Mills.

        The European Patent Application by the late inventor Arie De Geus, claimed practical energy production from fractional Hydrogen. He stated this was confirmed by independent laboratory tests.

        The first strong evidence of a “hot hydrogen” energy anomaly was Irving Langmuir’s “torch” still in use for certain types of welding. Hydrogen gas is dissociated by an electric arc with resulting properties that have never been adequately explained.

        One of the early leaders in thermodynamic technologies for aerospace invented and documented a gainful hot Hydrogen device in work done for the military.

        A modified diesel engine was the subject of R&D 30 years ago and achieved 70% efficiency. We have been building experiments on this excellent work. It appears that fractional Hydrogen may have played an important, unrecognized, role. Time will tell if it is possible to run engines entirely on water. So far, it appears that is likely to prove possible.

        An industrial product running on fractional Hydrogen is under development. If it proves practical, it will help to gain acceptance for this new science and the resulting technology.
        • 5 Years Ago
        You "perpetual motion" guys are so predictable.

        Your link of REAL science involves Hydrogen extract that is much more efficient than current means. That is great. But the pdf you linked still falls in the realm of possibility because they only talk about efficiency approaching 98% under the best conditions.

        But since getting above 100% efficiency violates the laws of physics... this means that you still get LESS ENERGY OUT THAN YOU PUT IN. At that point you cannot run a car on water, or any of your other hair brained schemes.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Anything there that DIDN'T claim to break the laws of thermodynamics?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Since in my opinion solutions to our energy problems have been pregnant at least as far back as the work of Hans Coler, which our research has discovered had originally been discovered by Von Unruh in Germany even earlier, the tragedy is that so much unnecessary burning of fossil fuel has taken place.

        Life on earth is in danger. The recent comments by James Lovelock in the Guardian newspaper (UK) and those of James Hansen are indicative of how profound a threat to human life exists.

        There is no realistic way without profound breakthroughs in science and technology that solutions will be found in time.

        What you so arrogantly dismiss, are openings to new science that might allow human life to not merely survive bur flourish.

        But the time has come to end a pointless dialogue.

        For those who might enjoy reading more, see the articles at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

        The Brooklyn Project on that site might provide a broader perspective.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Swing and a miss!


        ""One could of course argue that this is all theoretical and it is experiment that determines what is true and what isn’t. And that is certainly the case, and experiment clearly shows that hydrogen does have a ground state, and that the energy of this ground state is in fact equal to the theoretically predicted value. Any further argument by Mills amounts to the same types of arguments held by supporters of perpetual motion machines and their ilk.""

        ""Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al , it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.""

        ""Earlier this year, however, Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency published a paper in which he argued that the theory for the hydrino state put forward by Mills was "the result of a mathematical mistake" (New J. Phys. 7 127)""


        Apparently Randell Mills, MD and a handful of others are the only supporters of this unproven theory.

        The rest of the scientific community regards "hydrinos" as bunk pseudoscience.

        And the only positive news about hydrinos comes from Mills' company BLP and the research BLP funds at nearby Rowan University.

        • 5 Years Ago
        Here is the URL for Rowan University's validation of a fractional Hydrogen experiment:

        That experiment was done by GEN3 Partners shortly afterwards with the same finding of excess heat that could not be otherwise explained.

        Let the National laboratories repeat the experiment and design a few of their own.

        New science needs many labs to repeat the experiments. We do not expect anyone to believe fractional Hydrogen is real until they do so.
      • 5 Years Ago
      @kballs, don't worry, the auto manufacturers don't want to warrant a battery with extra load on it either, so they won't make the cars V2G capable until something gets worked out. The utilities I have heard from think V2G is a very cool idea, but also very far away.

      The most likely scenario will probably go something like this: the manufacturers will make cars that are both V2G capable and not; and the V2G ones will cost more to cover battery wear (even though it may well be the same hardware; just a bit of software that can be switched on or off). Consumers will therefore avoid the V2G ones unless local utilities provide a rebate (like many do now for EnergyStar appliances) that more than makes up the difference. Utilities in CA that have a tough peak will probably provide big ones; other areas may not.
      • 5 Years Ago
      So who's willing to take bets as to when the new "Road Tax" will be applied to everyones electricity bills? In canada i'm willing to bet we'll have a nice 25-30% tax slapped onto electricity once Electric cars become mainstream. Gov's gotta get their tax money somehow, especially when old school gasoline's tax revenues drop like a stone.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Welcome to Holland where electricity is 50% taxed. But relax our gasoline taxes are the highest in the world as well. And they are working on electronic road tax per mile. 0.04€ per kilometer for EV's.
      • 5 Years Ago
      658MW divided by 119,000 plug-ins is only 5KW per car. So I guess that's a lot of plug-in hybrids and few BEVs, because pure BEVs would be a lot higher. The big charger for the Tesla is 17KW.

      Lots of people have electric stoves. An 8" burner element is about 2500 watts, a 6" about 1500. So this load is only slightly more than 119,000 people all cooking dinner at the same time, say about 6 PM. If a few of them use the broiler, then the cooking could easily use more power than the charging.

      Then again, we're talking about LA, where hardly anyone cooks at home, most everyone eats out. Restaurants probably use a lot more power to cook food.

      The point is, this is not something that is way out of proportion with the kind of load variations the power companies see today.

        • 5 Years Ago
        Both BEVs with large Li-ion batteries and PHEVs with small Li-ion batteries will draw pretty much the same power. Measured in KW not KWh.

        True, the 1 million PHEVs could be spread out more over the day with a smart grid since they can be done quicker. But generally speaking, the PHEV will draw just as much power.
      • 5 Years Ago
      It takes about 7 KWh to refine and distill a gallon of gas. This amount would propel the average EV around 28 miles. Refineries are the single largest users of electricity in California.

      • 5 Years Ago
      It already takes 12 kWh to create a gallon of gas anyways. If you do the calculations that could drive the tesla roadster 44 miles. So unless your car gets better than 44mpg, then you are using more electricity than an EV anyways...
        • 5 Years Ago
        ***To clarify... A gas vehicle uses more electricity than an EV...
        While Still Using Gas!
      • 5 Years Ago
      Enough about using my EV battery for grid leveling! Don't push the cost of leveling on to my EXPENSIVE battery with FINITE charge cycles, and don't leave me with an empty EV battery at the end of the day because peak business usage needed to TAKE power from it before it was time to drive home! It only makes sense for drawing from the battery in the early evening hours and recharging it in the late evening hours IF the battery is capable of 50,000+ charge cycles. That battery is far off in the future. By then they will have cheap stationary batteries (and flywheels, hydraulic, etc.) for grid leveling and not need to use vehicles for leveling.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "It only makes sense for drawing from the battery in the early evening hours and recharging it in the late evening hours IF the battery is capable of 50,000+ charge cycles."

        I disagree. V2G makes financial sense when the payment (or energy cost discount) to the vehicle owner is greater than the value of one cycle of the battery. That point depends on three things A) the value of the service, B) the cost of the battery, and C) the cycle life of the battery. If A is greater than B/C, you're in the black. If not, don't offer the service.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Chill the fuck out, dude.
        V2G has always been proposed as an option, nobody will force you to participate if you're so concerned about your precious battery.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is such a non issue. Just offer reduced pricing for off-peak power usage and upgrade a few transformers in neighborhoods that get a few EVs.

      The EVs will be charging at night mostly.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X