DECEMBER 13-14, 2011 PEVWG: CODES AND STANDARDS/INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 DECEMBER 13-14, 2011 PEVWG: CODES AND STANDARDS/INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY MEETING AGENDA 1:00 pm 5:00 pm: December 13, Wednesday (Day 1) Topic Speaker/Leader 1:00 1:10 Welcome and Introductions Mark Duvall/Frank Lambert 1:10 1:15 Review Minutes and Action Items Jorge Emmanuel, EPRI 1:15 2:00 EV Rollout and Workplace Charging (not presented) Kevin Morrow, ECOtality 2:00 2:30 Real World Data on PEVs Jim Francfort, INL 2:30 3:00 PEV Readiness Mike Ligett, NC State Break 3:30 4:00 Multi-unit Dwelling Service Options Joel Pointon, SDG&E 4:00 4:30 Installing EVSE at Multi-Unit Dwellings in the Bay Area Vivek Narayanan, PG&E 4:30 4:45 EV Metering Survey Results Seth Gerber, Consumers Energy 4:45 5:00 NEC Article 625 Revisions Gery Kissel, GM 8:00am 3:00pm: December 14 Thursday (Day 2) 8:00 9:30 Managed and Unmanaged Utility Charging Programs Utility Perspective Dwight McCurdy, SMUD Utility Perspective Seth Gerber, Consumers Energy Utility Perspective Jessica Bishop, Duke Energy Auto Perspective Cliff Fietzek, BMW Auto Perspective George Bellino, GM Government Lab Perspective Mike Simpson, NREL Optimized Charging Standards J2847/5 Rich Scholer, Chrysler 9:30 10:00 EVSE Performance with Different PEVs George Bellino, GM Break 10:30-11:00 Combined Charging DC Charging Jeanette Clute, Ford 11:00-12:00 Plug-in Electric Vehicle PLC Based Communications Slav Berezin, General Motors Lunch 1:00-1:25 NEC TF / IEC Updates Greg Nieminski 1:25 1:50 PLC Testing Progress Tim Godfrey, EPRI 1:50-2:20 SAE J2836/J2847/J2931 Update Rich Scholer, Chrysler 2:20 2:40 SAE J1772 Updates Gery Kissel, GM 2:40 2:50 Update On NEIS EVSE Installation Standard & EVITP Rob Colgan, NECA 2:50 3:00 Wrap-up, Items for Next Meeting Frank Lambert Adjourn PERA Club, Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona 1

2 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Codes and Standards/Infrastructure Technology Meeting Minutes (#11-4) DAY 1: December 13-14, 2011 Tempe, Arizona Welcome and Introductions Frank Lambert, chair, and Karen Smith, SRP, welcomed the participants (see Attachments). Arindam Maitra, EPRI, thanked Salt River Project for hosting the meeting and encouraged the participants to raise any issues of concern related to PEVs during the meeting. Review and Approval of Past Minutes and Action Items The minutes (#11-3) of the previous meeting (August 30-31, 2011) in Montreal, Canada were approved. The status of action items from the previous meeting is shown below. Action Items: August 30-31, 2011 (Montreal) Meeting # ACTION ITEM Carried over an earlier meeting 1 David Packard will send an to Greg Nieminski and Gery Kissel on specific concerns he has regarding the proposed changes to the cord and plug requirements. Action Item from the last meeting 2 The ISC will develop a strategy to begin work on charging infrastructure for on road and off road heavy duty vehicles. 3 The ISC will investigate which organizations would be appropriate to raise John Halliwell s various standardization issues. 4 Eloi Taha will present on Nissan s power conversion device at the December IWC meeting. Completed See below ongoing Carry over to the next meeting Note: #2: Members suggested inviting Caterpillar, Smith Electric, Freightliner, and Daimler Trucks to participate in the IWC. Real World Data on PEVs Jim Francfort, INL, presented on real world data from DOE s Advanced Vehicle Testing Activities (see Attachments). He gave a background on the AVTA project, INL s testing experience, and their vehicle data management process for the largest PEV and EVSE data collection activity worldwide. He reviewed the residential and commercial charging infrastructure, and presented examples of usage reports for the Nissan Leaf, EVSE infrastructure summary reports, as well as data from the following projects: Chevrolet Volt DOE ARRA, Ford Escape Advanced Research Vehicle, Chrysler RAM PHEV, ChargePoint America (Coulomb), High Motion Prius PHEV conversion, PHEV Ford Escape Quantum Conversion, and several federal fleet data collection projects. Ongoing studies include impact of mass on fuel efficiency, and wireless and conductive charging infrastructure tests. Among the summary points based on earlier data are that: most Level 2 EV charging occurs off peak, EV project vehicles are connected five times longer than needed, significant charge-starts occur at midnight in San Diego when the super off peak rates begin, and that today s gridconnected EV technologies result in 35%-100% reduction in petroleum consumption. The EV project accumulates half a million test miles per week. 2

3 During discussion, Mr. Francfort explained that many San Diego EV dealers programmed the chargers to charge after midnight. He also pointed out that data per charge event is not equal to per day. He suggested waiting longer until they have a year of data to answer questions like seasonal impacts. He explained their basic test approach for comparing the impact of fast charging and Level 2 charging on the battery. Even though all their EVSEs are J1772-compliant, not all respond the same to what the users do and some issues need to be addressed. INL has information on life cycle costs comparisons. PEV Readiness Mike Ligett, NC State University, presented the contents of The Utility Guide to Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness (see Attachments). The report was published by Edison Electric Institute in November. The purpose of the guide is to help utilities get ready for EVs. Under the section on Getting Your Company Up to Speed, the guide discusses the role of a PEV organization, customer information and IT systems, market penetration and impact studies, work flow, rates strategies, and fleet plans. The guide also provides information on PEV education, communications, and other strategies to enhance the customer experience. Other chapters list key stake holders, issues relating to distribution and a checklist. The plan is to provide frequent updates through EEI PEV workroom teams and to update the guide for municipal utilities and cooperatives. The report can be found at: Multi-unit Dwelling Service Options Joel Pointon, SDG&E, presented on plug-in ready multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) for the San Diego Gas & Electric service area (see Attachments). He explained that MUDs are also referred to as common interest developments, multi-dwelling units (MDUs), multifamily units, or residential communities. In 2005, MUDs comprised 51% of housing units in San Diego County. He showed a typical plot illustrating system-wide impacts of charging time on the grid during a summer day, presented the PEV market potential for the San Diego region, and described their EV project with ECOtality and Nissan. As of October 1, there were >800 PEVs in the region, of which more than 500 signed up for experimental PEV rates. A higher percentage of PEV owners are in the higher income bracket compared to their entire customer base. 22% have panels of less than 100A and 35% of the early adapters also have solar PVs. Mr. Pointon explained their PEV metering and billing, and provided a list of suggested steps for PEV readiness relative to the multi-unit dwellings. Installing EVSE at Multi-Unit Dwellings in the Bay Area Vivek Narayanan, PG&E, provided lessons learned from installing EV charging stations at multi-unit dwellings in the San Francisco Bay Area (see Attachments). Like San Diego, the majority of residents in the Bay Area live in widely varying multifamily dwellings. Physical challenges, legal issues, financial constraints, and property management affect the installations at MUDs. Complexity increases as the number of units increase from duplexes to high rise condominiums. Physical challenges include lack of dedicated parking spaces and lack of capacity in the electrical panel. Some of the cost issues involve allocation of capital costs and monthly electrical costs as well as costs of maintenance and repair. Legal issues such as differences in ownership structure and property management issues are major factors. 3

4 Mr. Narayanan gave examples of solutions to some charging issues and suggested steps for plug-in readiness. He described MultiChargeSF, a field project to help MUDs become EV ready. During discussion, he reported that Coulomb Technologies has a list of certified contractors and is working with property managers under the MultiChargeSF project. John Shipman, ConEd, mentioned that they have completed an installation in a cooperative. EV Metering Survey Results Seth Gerber, Consumers Energy, presented the results of the online survey questionnaire on metering that he and Dan Gabel developed (see Attachments). He stressed that the survey was intended to look at second meter installation (i.e., splitting the load) and not submetering, which may have resulted in some confusion. The results show that some utilities provide the meter sockets at no cost, that some utilities offer both EV only and whole house TOU rates, and that only two utilities require a second meter among those that offer an EV charging rate. Five utilities have a process in place to split the load. Some utilities allow electricians to physically disconnect service, but the majority of utilities do the reconnect. A majority of utilities require inspection before reconnection, but some only do spot checks. Many utilities allow electricians to modify the load side of the meter socket, depending in part on who owns the socket. The key drivers for EV charging rates are the reduction of the risk of added load, minimization of grid impacts, increased reliability, and support of EV adoption. ACTION ITEM: Seth Gerber will provide the Excel sheet with a compilation of the responses to the survey. [Completed; Excel sheet distributed with the presentations]. NEC Article 625 Revisions Gery Kissel, GM, presented the Temporary Interim Amendments (TIAs) related to NEC Sections and (see Attachments). He also reviewed the proposed changes to the following Sections using the revised numbers and headings: (Scope), (Definitions), (Voltages), (Listed), (Electric Vehicle Coupler), (Rating), (Cords and Cables), (Personnel Protection System), (Branch Circuit Markings) (Over Current Protection), (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Connection), (Loss of Primary Source), (Interactive Systems), (Location), and (Ventilation). Mr. Kissel mentioned that he had submitted a separate proposal for Section , proposing a change in the maximum distance of the interrupting device in a cord-and-plug connection to 2 meters (6 feet) from the plug. During discussion, Mr. Nieminski, added that changes were also made to Article 220. Some participants wondered whether the NEMA outlets would work well for this application and suggested the possibility of recommending better plugs and receptacles. The NEC meetings will take place in January to discuss the code proposals, after which a report will be released around June/July. The IWC will have until mid-october to respond. ACTION ITEM: Gery Kissel will provide a copy of the additional proposal submitted by General Motors for Article (Completed; distributed with the presentations). 4

5 DAY 2: December 14, 2011 Tempe, Arizona Managed and Unmanaged Utility Charging Programs Arindam Maitra, EPRI, prepared a slide (see Attachments) as a framework for the panel topic and discussions. Local PEV load management programs will be at a disadvantage without a viable utility communications pathway. Among the key issues are where and how to manage charge levels, managing time to charge, and how high should Level 2 charge levels go. PEV Charging Where is the win-win? Dwight McCurdy, SMUD, noted that Sacramento is a summer peaking area with airconditioning loads until 2 AM during a heat wave. He described what the Sacramento market would look like, based on three different forecasts, for a medium penetration case in relation to PHEVs and BEVs to the year He then showed what the annual system upgrade costs would be for different residential charge levels, showing that annualized upgrade costs amount to $50 million per year at residential charging levels of 6.6 kw per EV when EV TOU rates start at 8pm. The annualized costs are only slightly reduced to $40 million per year even when the EV TOU rates are shifted to 2 AM. However, the cost impact is drastically lessened at 2.0 kw and 3.3 kw per EV. He then reviewed various approaches to reduce the charging impacts and EV rate options. He compared the costs per mile for the customer according to different EVSE options. For example, Level 1 charging is about 3 cents a mile compared 27 a mile for 7.2 kw Level 2 public charging including demand charges. Mr. McCurdy asked how to support PEVs while avoiding costly grid impacts. Managed and Unmanaged Utility Programs Seth Gerber, Consumers Energy, pointed out that utilities, car companies and EVSE manufacturers all share the same customer (see Attachments). Consumers Energy, a summer peaking utility, conducted about 65 investigations and found that, for 3.3 kw charging, roughly 12% of customers need to have transformers replaced. For 6.6 kw, more than twice as many would require an upgrade. A distribution analysis based on AMI data at the customer level showed infrequent voltage issues, but they have to design for the worst case. He described their energy rate options and noted that they see behavior change with TOU rates. Upgrade costs depend on whether they have to put in a transformer underground or overhead. With a rural utility, the price to upgrade the distribution system will fall on the shared customer. He suggested capping DC Level 1 charging to 40A and removing 19.2 kw from AC Level 2 charging and capping it to a 40A maximum. Duke Energy PEV Power Delivery Impact Analysis Jessica Bishop, Duke Energy, described a PEV impact analysis conducted on two circuits: a medium adoption area with about 3% penetration and a high adoption area with 10% penetration, each having about 2,000 customers (see Attachments). The analysis showed that larger PEV charging demand will cause major failures such as low voltage, transformer overloads, and cable overloads. The costs are about $150 per PEV at 3.3 kw and $350 per PEV at 6.6 kw. In addition, some substations will require early upgrade costs. She showed a summary of the total PEV cost impacts compared to their revenues, showing that at 6.6 kw their estimated 3 year revenue is exceeded. Mark Duvall, EPRI, added that because Duke 5

6 Energy is a vertically integrated company, the cost impact on them is not as severe compared to other utilities. Managed and Unmanaged OEM Perspective Cliff Fietzek, BMW, presented some basic assumptions for PHEV and BEV charging in the US (see Attachment) suggesting, for example, that 10 kw DC Level 2 might be in a neighborhood site like a Starbucks and 80 kw would be at a gas station. While unmanaged charging will be cost effective for the OEM, he thinks that managed charging will be needed to support the existing grid and enable home-load management. In Europe, it would also support green energy, in which charging would take place when the utility is using renewable energy. Mr. Fietzek then asked open questions including what the communication path would be, if needed, and who would pay for the managed charging capability. Some participants raised issues regarding the connectors. Managed or Unmanaged Utility Charging George Bellino, GM, emphasized that the focus should be on what would make it easy for the customer implementing load control, management methods, and technologies that positively affect customer adoption of PEVs (see Attachments). Control is central to the PEV customer who requires information and choices. Mr. Bellino described a sample scenario showing how tedious it could be for the customer. He argued that each load management event has implications of convenience and cost for the customer and that information interfaces to the customer should be automated and consolidated in the vehicle. 3.3 kw to 6.6 kw should be sufficient for the majority of customers with near to midterm PEVs. He asked whether intelligent EMS, energy storage, and renewable technologies could allow home charging greater than 6.6 kw. How will utilities plan to meet the higher power charging demands of longer range PEVs in the future? Some participants commented that the costs for fast charging infrastructure would be a shared cost and a decision by the PUCs. Managed Charging of PEVs Modeling and Demonstrations Mike Simpson, NREL, described the concept of Electric Vehicle Grid Integration (EVGI) and green signaling (see Attachments). Green signaling, which involves leveraging charge management for renewable energy, was replicated with a Prius PHEV and a solar inverter. NREL s analysis showed that the daily energy cost to the aggregator with PV support is not much more per vehicle. He presented data of commuters using charge management at a parking garage showing that all vehicles were charged by 4 PM, matching the solar array. He also showed an analysis of vehicle-to-microgrid at a military base with five Smith Newton PEVs showing a savings of 2-3 thousand dollars per month. He presented stochastic predictions comparing one-way and two-way communication schemes for grid regulation using charge management. NREL is developing a vehicle testing and integration facility to test and demonstrate vehicle grid integration. Managed and Unmanaged Utility Charging Programs: OEM Perspective Rich Scholer, Chrysler, reminded attendees of the use cases developed in SAE J2836 TM and J2847, with U1 to U4 covering time-of-use and other utility programs and U5 involving optimized charging. In J2836/1 the EV can send a message of how much energy it needs and the utility responds or sends information on what is available. SAE J2836/5 TM and J2847/5 6

7 cover telematics for customer-specific messages. These need to be managed at the consumer level and not the back office. The consumer can pre-set preferences such that when he or she plugs in and there are no exceptions, all is fine, but if there are exceptions, he or she can decide on various options. With regards to the EVSE, there is little difference between a 20 and 30 kw EVSE, so if one has an AC Level 2 EVSE and adds an off-board charger, it will not be much bigger in size. Moreover, DC Level 1 and AC Level 2 use the same connector. There are advantages to DC charging. Off-board DC charging can decrease cost by 20%. DC-to-DC converters (e.g., solar PV to battery) are more efficient. In a gas station, the customer only has to make three decisions. When the customer goes to a public charging station, they only have to manage what they need and it must be made simple for them. Managed and Unmanaged Utility Charging Programs: Discussion The following key points were made: We need to help make the customer understand the benefits and costs, including hidden costs, to manage expectations. One of the reasons why some utilities provide special rates and incentives is to get the customers to contact the utility to inform them of their EV load. Some utilities have conducted pilot studies to determine if they should own the EVSE so they can have some level of load control. It was estimated that 10-25% of total car sales will be EVs by 2020, with 70% of those being hybrids and most of those being plug-in hybrids. PEVs will need 3.3 kw, but some BEVs may need 6.6 kw. More managed charging is needed at 6.6 kw than 3.3 kw. At the higher power, more tools would be needed to mitigate problems. Some customers may demand high power even if they may not really need it. Other issues include reverse power flow, ancillary service, V2G, etc., but we need to prioritize. Clear standards for charging and a cap on residential loads are a high priority. Priorities can also be set according to the market. Although commercial and industrial markets are more conservative, commercial vehicle fleets can be a priority. OEMs asked if one solution could be made to work for all utilities. Some OEMs see telematics (e.g. OnStar) as today s solution, but PLC could be more holistic. OEMs need at least three years to incorporate the technology so they need to know basic attributes to be able to get it in the car by 2014 or Mr. Duvall commented that utilities can adapt as long as all the OEMs agree on the same thing but different manufacturers have their own telematics, which makes it difficult for utilities to work with. The system needs to work for a whole service territory. One purpose for EPRI is to coalesce utility requirements in light of diversity among utilities. Mr. Scholer said that the reason for the standards and identifying the basics and options is that there are thousands of utilities. There is much focus now on DC charging and utility messages, but these needs to be resolved quickly due to the time it takes to put anything into the vehicle. In this struggle to find a common solution whether AC or DC, EPRI staff has been assigned to continue to be involved in the standards process with the OEMs. 7

8 EVSE Performance with Different PEVs George Bellino, GM, explained why compatibility testing is necessary to ensure a positive experience for the customer (see Attachments). Implementation of SAE J1772 TM not only impacts electrical safety and efficiency, but also affects diagnostics and vehicle specific features. He presented some compatibility issues such as intermittent cancelling of Departure Based Charge Mode when plugged, GFCI fault on initial plug in, and improper implementation of user authentication and explained the solutions. GM cannot officially endorse third-party charging hardware. An independent test house to conduct EVSE compatibility testing would be beneficial. During discussion, Mr. Kissel added that a test procedure for EVSEs has been developed. Ms. Bishop asked if there was a test procedure for the vehicle side of J1772 TM, but no OEM has developed one. Mr. Nieminski added his concern that some OEMs may not follow the recommended practice. He mentioned that in Munich, BMW demonstrated a computerized circuit that simulated car performance when connected to the charger. ACTION ITEM: Jorge Emmanuel will disseminate GM s EVSE compatibility testing file that describes the steps used for testing (Completed, distributed with the presentations). Combined Charging DC Charging Jeanette Clute (Ford), Cliff Fietzek (BMW) and George Bellino (GM) presented the status of the combined charging system for global AC and DC charging and the benefits of harmonization (see Attachments). Seven OEMs (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, GM, Porsche, and Volkswagen) have agreed to implement the combined charging system, which uses one connector and one communication for AC/DC charging as well as HomePlug GreenPhy PLC communication between EV and EVSE to control DC charging. They highlighted the benefits of DC fast charging and described the US Type 1 Combo connector, which allows AC and DC fast charging with one inlet. The Combo inlet serves as a universal plug for AC Level 1, AC Level 2, and DC Level 2. Sample chargers for the combined charging system are ready and were demonstrated by German OEMs at an international conference last October. Production vehicles with a combined charging system will be available in During discussion, Mr. Fietzek noted that the CHAdeMO is convertible to the Combo connector. Mr. Nieminski added that the standards are still being developed. Plug-in Electric Vehicle PLC Based Communications Slav Berezin, GM, described the PEV side of communications (see Attachments). OEMs need to streamline potential on-board communication interfaces. Wired link is required for PEV communications for DC off-board charging. He explained the increasing complexity of DC charging and the many implementation options. Major OEMs have agreed to come up with a common, single PLC communication solution for both AC and DC charging, and HomePlug GreenPhy has been accepted as a working assumption. He described the EVSE PEV link architecture and PLC-based system set up. The EVSE plays an important role in completing the PEV to HAN/utility communications path. 8

9 NEC TF / IEC Updates Greg Nieminski, EPRI Consultant, noted that the IWC NEC Task Force did not submit separate proposals, since all the issues discussed in the Task Force were incorporated by the CP12 Task Group (see his summary of proposed changes to Article 625 in Attachments). He also gave an update on IEC Sub-Committee SC23H, which has already published IEC and IEC (see Attachments). However, Maintenance Team 8 is already calling for a revision of the standards due to the rapid developments, in particular an amendment to Part 2 to add the unique coupler used in China. Project Team continues to work on the standard for dedicated DC and combined AC/DC couplers. Some issues have to be resolved with IEC TC69 to ensure safety under fault conditions. The TC69 WG4 meeting is scheduled in January. Revisions to IEC start in 2012 to include improvements and consideration of coupler constructions. IEC will be split into an IEC standard addressing charging equipment and a new ISO standard (please note the typo in the Attachments) to address vehicle requirements. A proposal was made for common requirements in IEC Parts 22 and 23 to be consolidated in Part 1. The committee draft for IEC on DC charging stations was issued in December and comments are due in March 2012 for discussion in May. A committee draft for IEC , dealing with communications for off-board DC charging, is planned for early PLC Testing Progress Tim Godfrey, EPRI, presented the SAE J2931 test plan and PLC test results (see Attachments). The objective is to test PLC communication technologies for the cord set based on requirements in J2931. Technologies under test are HomePlug GreenPHY (HPGP), Maxim 2992 G3-FCC, and TI Concerto G3-FCC. He described the test setup and results for bandwidth and latency tests, HPGP association tests, and interference tests. The bandwidth results indicate that Maxim G3 does not meet the requirements. For latency, HPGP has constant latency below 5mS. The association test results show that HPGP on pilot can do association without problems. However, Mr. Scholer suggested conducting the tests with two EVs plugged in. Interference tests used white noise and wideband FM, with arc lamp and DC charger noise also used. In the tests conducted for HPGP on mains, there was no impairment of TCP throughput or Ping latency. For G3 on pilot, an increase in latency and a decrease in throughput were observed. During discussion, Mr. Godfrey stated that interference, cross talk, and coexistence tests will be completed in January and all testing will be done by the end of February. Tests will be repeated with QCA7000 platform for HPGP and TI Concerto G3 platform if available with IPv6. Mr. Maitra noted that EPRI can continue to test but a decision on one solution should be made soon. Although EPRI is only testing communications technologies at particular layers, some suggested testing the whole system end to end. Serge Roy, CHAdeMO, was interested in synchronizing with ISO/IEC efforts. After there are enough test results with real products, the standard can be balloted and harmonization with ISO/IEC could be addressed. SAE J2836/J2847/J2931 Update Rich Scholer, Chrysler, presented the status of the work of the SAE PEV Communication Task Force (see Attachments). He reviewed the balloting procedure and showed how the 21 documents interrelate. He illustrated examples of the interaction for DC charging, reverse 9

10 power flow/on-board conversion, and wireless power flow. With regards to PLC, J2836/1 & /2 and J2847/1 & /2 are on ballot step 2. Ballot step 1 has been completed for J2931/1 on communication requirements. J2931/7 on security was kicked off in October and is being coordinated with SEP 2.0 and NIST. The new items are: J2836/6 on wireless charging use cases led by Mark Klerer, J2847/6 on wireless charging requirements, J2931/6 on wireless charging protocol, and J2931/5 on telematics protocol. SAE J1772 Updates Gery Kissel, GM, gave an update on J1772 TM (see Attachments). He reviewed the plan for revision, which included charging configurations and rating definitions, the Combo coupler illustration, and reference to PLC communications for DC charging. After the document is formatted, it will undergo a 28-day comment period by the Motor Vehicle Council. Revisions have been made related to DC fast charging and additional clarifications on the control pilot for balloting in the first quarter He gave a status on the Combo Type 1 charge couplers, which will be available around December - January. Mr. Kissel expressed interest in conducting drive-over, environmental, and other tests under UL Work groups have been formed to harmonize standards with Canada and Mexico. China has two draft standards for AC charging but they are incompatible; one of them is similar to the SAE / IEC standard and the other is unique. It appears that the next draft of the Chinese standard will only have one AC standard and may be somewhat similar to the SAE / IEC. Update on NEIS EVSE Installation Standard & EVITP Rob Colgan, NECA, gave a brief update on NECA 413 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program or EVITP (see Attachments). He described the contents of NECA 413, which is currently in the ANSI approval process. It is undergoing second circulation for balloting due to the fast evolution in technology, especially for DC fast charging. Approval is expected in the first quarter of He noted that the EVITP now has instructors in 36 states and should expand to all states by the first quarter of He also described the Phase 2 curriculum development. During discussion, he stated that the TIAs related to Article 625 have been included. Members interested in the program should contact Mr. Colgan at rob.colgan@necanet.org. Wrap-up, Items for Next Meeting For the meeting in March, Mr. Kissel recommended continuing the discussion with utilities to define requirements with communication to the vehicle and the timeline of when these are needed. Frank Wong, AeroVironment, suggested getting the perspective of the CPUC on sub-metering. During discussion, Mr. Maitra and Mr. Halliwell asked that comments on how the meeting is structured be sent to them. Frank Lambert thanked Karen Smith and SRP for hosting the meeting. ACTION ITEMS: Frank Lambert will arrange another discussion session focusing on communication requirements. Efrain Ornelas will invite a CPUC representative to give an update on submetering. 10

11 Announcements The Plug-In 2012 conference and exposition will take place July 23-26, 2012 in San Antonio. Joel Pointon announced that ECOtality s Blink network is online at: Next Meeting The next meetings of the IWC are scheduled for: Meeting 1: Week of March 27, 2011 in Atlanta, GA Meeting 2: Week of June 25, 2012; in Chicago or Detroit (TBD) Meeting 3: Week of October 15, 2012, location TBD Summary of Action Items ACTION ITEM Carried over from previous meeting The ISC will investigate which organizations would be appropriate to raise John Halliwell s various standardization issues. Eloi Taha will present on Nissan s power conversion device at the December IWC meeting. New action items Seth Gerber will provide the Excel sheet with a compilation of the responses to the survey (Completed; Excel sheet distributed with the presentations). Gery Kissel will provide a copy of the additional proposal submitted by General Motors for Article (Completed; distributed with the presentations). Jorge Emmanuel will disseminate GM s EVSE compatibility testing file that describes the steps used for testing (Completed; distributed with the presentations). Frank Lambert will arrange another discussion session focusing on communication requirements. Efrain Ornelas will invite a CPUC representative to give an update on sub-metering. Adjournment With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 11

12 Attachments PHEVWG Attendance List Last Name First Name Company Anthony Tom Oncor Electric Delivery Co. Bellino George General Motors Company Berezin (via webcast) Slav GM Global Technology Engineering Bilodeau Gaetan Bombardier Transportation North America Bishop Jessica Duke Energy Corp. Bowermaster Dan Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Clute Jeanette Ford Motor Co. Colgan Robert National Electrical Contractors Assoc. Collins (via webcast) Watson Northeast Utilities Conway Brian Navistar International Transportation Corp. Cun David Honda R&D North America, Inc. Daniels Cedric Alabama Power Co. Duvall Mark Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Dwyer (via webcast) Michael Echols Ben Georgia Power Co. Emmanuel Jorge E&ER Group Engle John CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Farley Kathleen Southern Company Services, Inc. Fietzek Cliff BMW of North America, LLC Fournier Jean-Pierre Ariane Controls Francfort James Idaho National Laboratory Fraser Alan Eugene Water & Electric Board Garcia (via webcast) Josephine EPRI Gerber Seth Consumers Energy Gibson (via webcast) Michael Godfrey Tim Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Grauer Diana Idaho National Laboratory Guimaraes (via webcast) Antonio EFACEC Hall (via webcast) Edmund Dominion Resources, Inc. Halliwell John Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Harper (via webcast) Jason Hawkins Robert Ultimate Business Solutions Hodson Richard Southern California Edison Co. Hubbard Tim Intertek Ivanic (via webcast) Ziga Energetics, Inc. Johnson Stephen ITRON, Inc. Kissel Gery General Motors Company Koch Fred J & B Aviation Services Lambert Frank Georgia Tech/NEETRAC 12

13 Last Name First Name Company Ligett Mike North Carolina State University MacCurdy Dwight Sacramento Municipal Util. Dist. Macotte Chris APS Maitra Arindam EPRI Melhorn Christopher Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Menig Jeffrey General Motors Company Mikat Dan Toyota Technical Center USA, Inc. Momeni Massoud Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America (TEMA) Narayanan Vivek PG&E Nichols Ruben Southern Company Nieminski Greg DBA Greg Nieminski Oliver (via webcast) Doug Ford Motor Co. Ornelas Efrain Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Owen David CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Packard David ClipperCreek, Inc. Pointon Joel San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Pusateri Vincent GS Battery USA Rajagopalan Satish Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Rogers Andra Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Roy (via webcast) Serge CHAdeMO Association Schlotzhauer (via webcast) Craig General Motors of Canada Scholer Rich Chrysler Group, LLC Shimura Yuichiro Mitsubishi Research Institute Shipman John Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. Simpson Mike NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory Sisco Brian DBA Brian Sisco Smith Karen Salt River Project Soyster David PPL Electric Utilities Corp. Spross Lance Oncor Electric Delivery Co. Tbohn (via webcast) Thompson Ron Eaton Corporation Ugajin Dan GS Battery USA, Inc. Uyeki Robert Honda R&D North America, Inc. Waters Mike Progress Energy, Inc. Windover Paul New West Technologies, LLC Wong Frank AeroVironment, Inc. Yokoyama Akihisa Toyota InfoTechnology Center 13