Portland State University PDXScholar

Engineering and Technology Faculty Publications and Presentations and Technology Management

9-1-2016 Technology Planning for Emerging Model and Regulatory Integration: The Case of Electric Vehicle Smart Charging

Kelly Cowan Portland State University

Tugrul U. Daim Portland State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/etm_fac

Part of the Operations Research, Systems Engineering and Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Citation Details Cowan, Kelly and Daim, Tugrul U., "Technology Planning for Emerging Business Model and Regulatory Integration: The Case of Electric Vehicle Smart Charging" (2016). Engineering and Technology Management Faculty Publications and Presentations. 104. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/etm_fac/104

This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Engineering and Technology Management Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social

Technology Planning for Emerging Business Model and Regulatory Integration: The Case of Electric Vehicle Smart Charging

Kelly Cowan, Tugrul U Daim Dept. of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, Portland OR - USA

Abstract--Smart grid has been described as the Energy I. LITERATURE REVIEW Internet: Where Energy Technology meets Information Technology. The incorporation of such technology into vast Literature from several key literature streams has been existing utility infrastructures offers many advantages, reviewed and research gaps were identified. The first key including possibilities for new smart appliances, energy area analyzed was the Technology Roadmapping literature. management systems, better integration of renewable energy, value added services, and new business models, both for supply- The following research gaps are summarized on the table 1 and demand-side management. This proposes to build below. upon existing roadmapping processes by considering an The second key area discussed was the Smart Grid and integrated set of factors, including policy issues, that are Electric Vehicle literature. The following research gaps are specifically tuned to the needs of smart grid and have not summarized on the table 2 below. generally been considered in other types of roadmapping efforts. The third key area discussed was the Resource Planning It will also incorporate expert judgment quantification to literature. The following research gaps are summarized on prioritize factors, show the pathways for overcoming barriers the table 3. and achieving benefits, as well as discussing the most promising The following sections summarizes the Research Gaps, strategies for achieving these goals. Research Goals and Research Questions determined after performing all the analysis up to this point in this study.

FIGURE 1 TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING LITERATURE GAPS Research Concept References Research Gaps

Various processes developed for applying [1-5], [6-15], [16-25] TRM in current and emerging industries Method is needed to integrate business modeling, policy, and regulatory factors Several methods integrate aspects of [18, 19], [21, 22], [26-31], [32-36], [37-50], into TRM for the utility industry business modeling with TRM [51, 52]

Few studies consider policy dimensions of [53, 54], [32], [34], [37] TRM goals must align with regional- TRM or regulatory frameworks, particularly factors for utility industry and associated in the utility industry products

TRM generally used at company-, industry-, [55-63] [53, 54, 64-67] and national-level, rather than incorporating regional utility concerns Additional work needed prioritizing R&D, acquisition processes, and barriers in More work also needed prioritizing R&D, [31-43], [68-75] utility related industries acquisition, and barriers

FIGURE 2 SMART GRID & ELECTRIC VEHICLE LITERATURE GAPS Research Concept References Research Gaps

Smart grid roadmap literature typically [76], [77], [78-83], [84, 85], [86-92], [93] Smart grid planning literature could focuses on operational plans for utilities benefit from better alignment with as opposed to regional energy planning technology roadmapping literature

Generally do not consider regional goals [94-103], [104-107], [108, 109], [55, 59-62, Process needed to create roadmaps for and structural barriers to business and 110-112], [64, 65], [113-116] smart grid technologies that integrate market adoption business modeling with regulatory factors and policy factors to meet No current SG roadmaps for Oregon or [95, 96, 98, 99] regional energy planning objectives the Pacific Northwest. and overcome structural barriers

Customization needed to develop Significant planning also needed for [56-58], [117], [9-15], [26], [118-121] technology roadmapping processes for electric EV smart charging roadmap EV smart charging systems

2704 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

FIGURE 3 RESOURCE PLANNING & POLICY LITERATURE GAPS Research Concept References Research Gaps

Strategic alignment of business model [122], [123], [124], [125-131], [84, 85, 94- Need to incorporate an understanding and policy frameworks particularly 97], [101], [88, 89], [55, 59, 110-112], of utility regulation and planning important for regulated industries like [113], [132, 133] processes to create strategic alignment electric utilities between business models and policy frameworks

Unique regional energy policy planning [98-100, 102], [92], [108, 109], [60-62], [32- TRM methods need to be adapted to issues in Pacific Northwest due to 34], [115] unique regulatory frameworks for regulatory frameworks regional utility industries

Strong need for robust, multiple Multiple perspectives view is critical for [1-3], [56-58], [69-74], [134, 135] perspective planning models in the creating robust planning models in the utility industry that create strategic utility industry alignment between business models, policy, and regulatory

Research Research Gaps Research Goal Questions

RQ1: What are the highest priority technologies, gaps & Lack of integration between barriers for creating V2G technology planning, business systems that meet business, modeling, regulatory Develop an integrated regulatory, and regional development, and regional planning process to address energy policy objectives? energy policy technology development, emerging business models, RQ2: Is TRM an appropriate Lack of Comprehensive Plans policy, and regulatory issues tool for understanding for V2G PNW for smart electric vehicle to technology, business, Need to identify and prioritize grid system to meet regional regulatory, and regional requirements for development utility industry needs in the energy policy objectives technology plans to meet PNW RQ3:Can TRM be emerging business, regulatory, and regional combined with business energy policy objectives modeling and prioritization to better understand key requirements for creating a plan for V2G in the PNW that meets business, regulatory, and regional energy policy objectives?

Figure 4: Summary of Research Gaps, Goals, and Questions

II. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Data Collection will be conducted in a series of 5 phases: Phases 1 through 4, as well as a Phase 0 for instrument The following diagram outlines the key steps that are testing. These phases are listed on the table below and then expected to be needed to conduct the research described in described in further detail in this section. The experts were the paper up to this point. asked to participate in up to three workshops, which had a The first step was to establish two expert panels that were duration of approximately 2 hours for the first two workshops required to conduct the initial research. The following and about 4 hours for the final workshop. criteria were used for the selection of experts who will In the first workshop, the stakeholder information was provide judgment data for this study. Experts were generally translated into drivers of value production for products and management-level professionals with at least five years of services for a technology roadmap. Product and service experience and a degree in a relevant discipline to the performance factors necessary to satisfy these drivers will research topic being discussed. The members of each panel then be identified. Current products and services that meet were selected to provide balance and to represent a range of existing performance requirements will be identified, along viewpoints. The goal of the panel is span multiple industries with any gaps or deficiencies in being able to meet these and disciplines to achieve a cross section designed to requirements. eliminate bias.

2705 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Technology Planning for Start-up Business Prioritization & Analysis & Documents Business, Model Industry Analysis Verification Synthesis Regulatory & Development Policy Integration Modified 5 Forces Research Business Concept TRM Constrcution Integrated TRM & Methods (Reg Indus), Profit Diagram Development & Prioritization Analysis Modeling Research Literature, Experts Literature, Email Literature, Email Processes Workshop (12-16) Synthesis, Expert (6-8) Virtual Panel (6-8) Virtual Panel (6-8) Feedback (12-18) Utility Experts, Pol Utility Experts, Pol Utility Execs, Pol Utility Execs, Pol Data Analysis, Anlyts, EV/V2G Anlyts, EV/V2G Description Anlyts, EV/V2G Anlyts, EV/V2G Validation & Bus & Tech Bus & Tech Bus Experts Bus Experts Conclusions Experts Experts Content & Face Content Validity Content Validity Criteria Validity Criteria Validity Validation Validity Tools Tools Tools Tools Tools Complete B&R Stakeholder- Modified 5 Forces Grouped Drivers, Final Integrated Model and Objective Matrix, Model, Business- Impact Matrices, TRM, Analysis or Complete Business Sub- Stakeholder Initial TRM and Alternatives and Prioritized TRM Models, Business Alternatives Prioritization Priorities Summary, Matrix, Industry Examples Stakeholder Factor Alternatives Perspectives, and Matrix, Statics & Business Model Dynamic Business Overview Models

Figure 5 Research Outline

The second workshop analyzed emerging technologies gaps are the most significant to address and which market and and compared them to required technology characteristics policy barriers are the important as well. The end result of that are expected to be important for those technologies. this is an EVSC roadmap which will help stakeholders Potential solutions were examined to see how they may meet understand the most critical elements that are necessary to required characteristics. This information will then be used achieve goals. Potential outcomes can then be analyzed, to determine if gaps exist in technology requirements and the along with prioritization scores to determine the main factors present state of development for these technologies. If gaps necessary for key stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes are identified, then descriptions of R&D programs necessary and the factor dependencies required. More detail on the to fill these gaps will be created. prioritization process will be described in the next section, In the third workshop, the current market environment and along with the information needed to construct the policy environment with respect to EVSC was examined. If technology roadmap. any market or policy elements negatively impacted product or The following tables povide a set of tools designed to service performance in the first workshop, items on the assist with the roadmap development and prioritization Solutions layer show possible ways to address such market or process. A series of data collection instruments, matrixes, policy barriers. Specific mitigation strategies, such as policy and prioritization tools are presented to perform various changes or market incentives may then be considered to stages of roadmap construction and assessment of the various overcome these barriers. input factors. The output of the second and third workshops were then analyzed in order to determine which technology-product

2706 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

# Grouped Market Drivers Priority Notes and Constituent Drivers

DM1 Energy Management / Emissions & Sustainability √√√ Green consumers, carbon footprint, managing fuel costs. Linked to DM3

DM2 Improved EV Battery Performance √√√√ Low battery costs, high capacity / range, fast charge, long life

DM3 Reduced Vehicle Costs √√√√ Linked to DM2

DM4 Consumer EV / Charging Incentives √√√√ Subsidies, benefits, financing

# Grouped Business Drivers Priority Notes and Constituent Drivers

DB1 Transactive Energy Business Standards √√√ Linked to Go8, PC2, S2-6,B5 Development

DB2 Charging Infrastructure Requirements √√ Linked to GP5, Go1, Go6-9, Gp3-4

DB3 Business Partnerships and Policies √√√ Linked to DB1, PC2-3, Go2, S5-6

DB4 Need for grid support services, enhanced stability √√ Linked to DB1, DB3, DR5 DB5 Business Ownership Structures and Financing √√√√ Linked to DP7

Figure 6: Grouped Drivers - Market and Business Source: [2, 31, 38]

# Grouped Policy Drivers Priority Notes and Constituent Drivers

DP1 Reducing Vehicle Emissions √√√√ Linked to DP3-6, DP8

DP2 Vehicle Fuel Economy / Energy Efficiency √√√ Linked to DP3-5

DP3 State / Regional Energy Planning Goals √√√ Linked to DP1-2, DP4-6, DP8

DP4 State / Regional Emissions Policies, Plans √√ Linked to DP1-3, DP4-6

DP5 Electric Vehicle Adoption Goals, plans √√ Linked to DP1-4, DP6-9, DR1-5

DP6 RPS and need for Renewable Energy Integration √√√ Linked to DP1-5, DP7-9,DR 3, DR5

DP7 Business EV / Charging Incentives √√√√ Linked to DR2-5, DB5

DP8 Renewable Energy Integration Needs √√√√ Linked to DP6, DP9

DP9 Charging Infrastructure Upgrades and Investment Needs √√√√ Linked toDP6-8, DP3-5, DR4-5

# Grouped Regulatory Drivers Priority Notes and Constituent Drivers

DR1 Zero Emissions Vehicle Sales Mandate (ZEV / PZEV) √√√ ZEV sales in CA and other states. Linked to DP1, DP4, DP5

DR2 Regulation & Legislation on EV charging rates and processes √√√√ Linked to DP5,DP7,DR4-5

DR3 Transactive Energy Standards Development √√√ Linked to DP6-9, DR4-5

DR4 Charging Hardware / Software Standardization √√√√ Linked to DP5, DP8, DP9

DR5 Plans for Grid Modernization and Stability √√√√ Linked to DP-56, DP8-9

Figure 7: Grouped Drivers - Regulatory and Policy Source: [2, 31, 38]

2707 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Market Business / Regulatory

Column Priorities (1-10) 299226667

Normalized Prioritization

Mk B/R DM1: Energy management / / management Energy DM1: emissionsandsustainability DM2: Improved electric vehicle battery performance Costs Vehicle Reduced DM3: DM4: Consumer Incentives and Finance DB1: Grid Interface and Transactive Energy Business Development Standards Infrastructure Charging DB2: regional meet to Requirements plan emissions & vehicle DB3: Business Partnership GuidelinesPolicies,Structures & DB4: Development of Business Standardized Ownership Structures, and Models DB5: Vision for EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment O1: Development of products, and/or services for emmissions tracking, energy management, and 312 2 163 sustainability awareness for green consumers. O2: Development of support systems and warranty services for advanced 233 2222108 batteries O3: Improved performance EV chargers to quickly recharge batteries with minimal reduction of battery 133123222109 longevity O4: Improved software tools and systems for quantification of transactive energy benefits to a 12233222288 variety of stakeholders Pn1: Charging Infrastructure Plan - Establish policies and practices for

Outputs & Plans & Outputs installing equipment on grid, 11 23322239 interfacing with systems, performing charging, and plan for charging infrastructure investment. Pn2: Utility, Investor, and Aggregator- Owned partnership structures, and 1 22232219 operations. Pn3: Subsidies, credits, financing, and incentives to promote EV 1 222332110 chargers and provide grid support. Figure 8: Market, Business, Regulatory & Policy Drivers vs. Plans and Outputs Source: [2, 31, 38]

Outputs Plans

B/R 313891010 Mk 69107411 hi d ti

ith t f i B/R Mk O1: Development of products, products, of Development O1: emmissions for services and/or management, energy tracking, for awareness sustainability and products, of Development O2: for electrodes silicone as such capacity high of charging faster batteries EV performance Improved O3: recharge to quickly chargers reduction minimal with batteries / warranty longevity battery of i tools software Improved O4: of quantification for systems and a to benefits energy transactive of stakeholders variety Infrastructure Charging Pn1: and policies Explains - Plan installing for practices interfacing grid, on equipment & policies Partnership Pn2: and policies - guidelines regulations business rates, strucutres, partnership subsidies, Promotions, Pn3: to privileges and credits, and use charger EV encourage support. grid provide T1: Lower EV Charger Costs (upfront cost) 133221179

T2: More Efficient EV Charging Systems (operating cost) 2332211710

T3: Improved metering, energy management systems for 32221 48 environmentally conscious consumers. T4: Interface for EV Charging Payment System and TE Support 2 23232107

BE1: Lack of Grid Interface Processes & Utility Reg Stds for TE 1 223284

BE2: Lack of Vision for EVs as Part of Emissions Planning, Grid Support, and 1 332295 Renewables Integration Technologies & Barriers BE3: Lack of Partnership & Generalized Business Model 1 233294 Frameworks BE4: Lack of general framework for Ownersihp Terms and Structures 1 223284

Figure 9: Plans & Outputs vs. Technologies & Barriers Source: [2, 31, 38]

2708 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Technologies Barriers

T/B899105855 P/G55177787

Normalized Prioritization

T/B P/G T1: LowerT1: EV Charger Costs (upfront cost) MoreCharging T2: Efficient EV Systems cost) (operating energy metering, Improved T3: management systemsfor consumers. conscious environmentally Payment Charging EV for Interface T4: Support TE and System & Processes Interface of Grid Lack BE1: TE for Stds Reg Utility Lack ofBE2: Vision EVs as for of Part and Support, Grid Planning, Emissions Integration Renewables Generalized & of Partnership Lack BE3: Frameworks Model Business for framework of general Lack BE4: Structures and Terms Ownersihp RD1: Low Cost Charger Development 322111 86

RD2: Quick Charge & Device Mgt Development 23211 75

RD3:EV Charging HW / SW Std Development 22322111109

Research, Research, BM1: Grid Interface Requiremnts & Utility Reg Std Specifications 1112212178 Development, and BM2: Regional EV Plan for Emiss & Charger Deploymt 11122312910

BM3: Business Partnership Policies, Guidelines 11113257

BM4: Business Ownership Structure, Terms & Models 11112357 Figure 10: Technologies and Barriers vs. R&D and Barrier Mitigation

After finishing the initial data gathering and prioritization (2) Gaps, Goals, and Products; and (3) Product processes, a series of roadmap models were constructed Characteristics and Barriers. Part 2 contains two layers: (1) a incorporating the data. Several types of roadmaps were continuation of Product Characteristics and Barriers; and (2) created to examine different aspects of this research. First, an Solutions, which involve Technology, Business Model, overall roadmap was created that showed the combined effect Market, Regulatory, and Barrier Mitigation. Part 3 has 1 of business, government, consumer, and market factors over layer, which is a continuation of the Solutions layer started in the entire 10-year time span of the roadmap. This roadmap is Part 2. Parts 1, 2, and 3 or the overall roadmap are shown in consists of three parts, representing different set of layers on the following figures. the roadmap. Part 1 is composed of three layers: (1) Drivers;

Now Timeframe: 5-10 Years 

DM3:Reduc Vehicle Cost DM5:Consmr Finance DB5:Bus Finan Mechnsms DP3:Reg Eng Plan DP8:RE Integ

DR1:ZEV Mandate DB1:TE Srvc Dev DB6:Bus Struc Devel DP4:Climate Policy DR2:EV Chrg Rates

Drivers DM3:Impr Batt DB2:EV Chrg Export Mkt DB7:Bus Ownrshp Models DP5:St. Reg EV Pol DR3: EV Stds Dev

DM1:Consmr Eng Mgt DB3:DR (Peak Shaving) DP1:Emiss Reduc D6:RPS DR4:Chrg HW/SW Stdztn

DM4:Consmr Incentives DB4:Grid Supp (ancillary) DP2:Engy Effic Policies DP7:Bus. Incentives DR5/DP9:Grid Moderniz

Gp1: Gp2: Go1: Go2: Reducing Simplifying Charging Charging Accessibility Charging Charging Charging Rates and Infrastructure Go4: Urban Charging Go5: Deployment Station Station Process Go3: Rural Improvement Infrastructure Improvement Plan for Public Costs Installation Restruc (e.g. Charging & Grid & Accessibility Plan (Home, Charging Network (Capital, Demand Infrastructure Support Plan neighborhood multi-family, Adequate for Long Oper Charges) Improvement Integrated workplace upgrades and Range EV Travel. Efficiency) Plan (3-Phase with State access) charging) PC1 and Regional Energy Plan Gaps, Goals, and Products Gp3: Gp4: Improved Improved Go7:Develop 2-way Grid 1-way Gp5: Charging Go8:Transactive Energy Improved to Vehicle Grid to Hardware / Demo Projects and Studies Forecast of Go6:Develop Charger Vehicle Software to Develop Processes and EV Charging Long-term EV Communi- Charger Standards Business Models for Grid Use (Hourly, Adoption cation, Communi Development and Support and Renewable Daily, Forecast & such as cation, Battery Warranty Energy Integration W eekly) Strategy V2G, V2B, such as Issues for V2H EVSC Secondary Uses develop- HW / SW ment, (e.g. process Go9:Development better, develop- P1: Develop of Partnership lower cost ment. Consumer Models, version of Energy Mgt Ownership SCADA). & Tracking Structures for B8 ProductsProduct CharacteristicsCharacteristics PC4 Prod / Srvc emerging EV Charging and Barriers (Carbon Footprint (V2G, PC6 PC5 Dashboard) BM1 V2B, V2H, EVSC) PC2 PC3

Figure 11: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 1

2709 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

As previously mentioned, Part 1 of the overall roadmap starting with a continuation of Product Characteristics and represents the top 3 layers, which consists of Drivers, Gaps, Barriers, and then the initial portion of the Solutions layer. Goals, and Products, as well as Product Characteristics and Part 2 is shown below. Barriers. Part 2 of the roadmap then shows the next 2 layers,

Now Timeframe: 5-10 Years  Gp1-2 P1 Gp5 Go1-5

Loss of Public Trust PC2-6

B1: B2:Loss of B4:Diffic Low Penetration of Trust in Finding B5:TE B6:High B8: Difficulty Public Charging Product Chrg Stns / M&V EVSE Forecasting Stations / Lack of Reliability / Signage Methods Invstmt EV Adoption Consistent Deployment Customer & Grid Cost & & Charging (e.g. ECOtality Scandal) Service Interface Lack of Use Process Finan B5:Ease of Tools Use of Product Characteristics and B3: Non-Standardized Pricing Chrg Stns Barriers & Payment / Access Methods

PC1:Deployment B7:Battery of Improved Warranty Charging Equip Go8-9 Issues for & Infrastructure secondary uses PC2:Standardized TE PC4: Consumer Prod/Srvc Gp4 Energy Mgt & Development & Grid PC5: Tracking Product Interface Processes Standardized (Green Energy, (NARUC Bus Models 1-Way EV- TOU, Usage Ctrl) and Reg Asst Proj) Grid System (EVSC) Gp3

PC3: Renewable Energy PC6: Integration Standardized Solutions: Service / 2-Way EV- Technology, Business Model, Product Grid System BM1 BM4 BM2 BM5 (V2G/B/H) Market, Regulatory, and Development Barrier Mitigation S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 BM3 BM6

Figure 12: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 2

Now Timeframe: 5-10 Years 

Gp5

B7 B3 PC4 PC3 B6

S1: S2: Clear, S3: Investment BM1: Battery BM2: BM3: Consumer Standardized Vision for EVSE & EV Financial Standardization EV Energy Business Deployment Charging Tools for of Payment Mgt Partnership (Public & Private) Development EVSE and Systems / System Policies & Partnership Infrastructure Operating Guidelines for EV (Warranty / Investment Systems for Charging & TE Design for Charging Bus secondary Stations uses) B5

Solutions: Technology, Business Model, B7 Market, Regulatory, and PC2 Barrier Mitigation

S4: Business S5: Clear TE Grid S6: EV-Grid BM4: TE BM5: EV BM6: EV Ownership Interface Interface Business Adoption and Charging Structures, Requirements Technology Process Charging Use Customer Models, and and Standards (V2G/B/H and Development Forecast Tools Outreach & Vision EVSC) and Modeling Education Initiative to Restore Trust after Early B8 Generation Technology and B2 Service Problems.

B4

B5 B1

Figure 13: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 3

2710 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Part 2 of the general roadmap consists of the third and for consumers to opt-out of advertisements; ancillary service fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product fees, which provide essential services to utilities, such as Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial voltage and frequency regulation; or energy efficiency portion of the Solutions layer. Part 3 is shown above. optimization contracts and energy aggregation contracts, Part 3 of the general roadmap consists of the fourth layer, which allow a network operator to manage and optimize which began in Part 2. After showing each of these three energy use over a grid or micro-grid. Other profit mechanism parts, a number of important facts about the overall roadmap or combinations of mechanisms are also possible, but these are discussed below, as well as some ways to improve the were the main mechanisms identified through conversations organization of the roadmap. To make it easier to focus on with experts who participated in data gathering workshops for specific aspects of the roadmap over shorter time horizons, this study. Options for financing and distribution methods the roadmap is further broken into version A and version B related to each business model were also considered that were for each of the of the 3 parts. Version A reorganizes the appropriate for each of these cases. Methods for financing roadmap with a Business and Regulatory Organizational EV charging equipment purchase include rebates and tax Focus, while version B reorganizes the roadmap with a credits for consumers, on-bill financing through utility Consumer and Market focus. Additional details about the companies, and third-party owned equipment with a service organization of the roadmap are provided in the next section. lease, or charging as a service models. Additional details Several key pieces of information can be seen from the about each of these points discussed above are provided in above figures. Key stakeholders include consumers, section 7.3.3, under the discussion of business models and in businesses, government organizations (GO), and non- Appendix 5, where each of the business model specifications government organization (NGO), and regulatory agencies . are described. Decisions can then be made regarding whether to focus first The overall roadmap shown in Parts 1, 2, and 3 on specific user segments among these stakeholders or on a summarizes a great deal of information about the technology, combinations of segments. Further decisions can be made business, and regulatory landscape facing the electric vehicle regarding different options for ownership structure and charging industry. However, because it summarizes so many primary profit mechanisms. Ownership structures include the factors in one place, this can make the roadmap look cluttered possibility of consumers, utilities, or third-parties, such as and difficult to read. Therefore, to make it easier to focus on energy service aggregators owning and/or operating EV specific aspects of the roadmap, the follow sections breaks charging equipment and services. Key profit mechanisms each of the 3 parts into 2 sections. Section A shows a include the following: (1) Direct fees for vehicle charging Business and Regulatory focused version of the roadmap. and/or parking fees; (2) membership fees and fees for other Section B shows Consumer and Market focused version of bundled and premium services, such as internet access or the roadmap. Each of these are show below as parts 1 auxiliary vehicle power hook-up fees; advertiser fees or fees through 3, sections A and B.

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

DM3:Reduc Vehicle Costs DM1:Consmr Eng Mgt DR1:ZEV Mandate DP2:Vehicle EE Policies DP4:Climate Policy DP5:St. Reg EV Pol Drivers DM2:Impr Batteries DP1:Emiss Reduc DR5/DP9:Grid Moderniz DR3: EV Stds Dev DM4:Consmr Incentives DR4:Chrg HW/SW Stdztn DM5:Consmr Finance

Gp6: Develop Charging Accessibility Gp3: Improved Consumer Go5: Deployment 2-way Grid to Energy Mgt Go3: Rural Go4: Urban Charging Plan for Public Vehicle & Tracking Charging Infrastructure Improvement Charging Charger Prod / Srvc Infrastructure & Accessibility Plan (Home, Network Communi- (Carbon Improvement neighborhood multi-family, Adequate for cation, such as Footprint Plan (3-Phase workplace upgrades and Long Range EV V2G, V2B, V2H Dashboard) access) charging) Travel. develop-ment, (e.g. better, lower cost Gaps, Goals, and Products version of PC4 SCADA). Go7:Develop Improved Gp4: Improved Forecast of Go6:Develop 1-way Grid to EV Charging Long-term EV Vehicle Charger PC1 PC6 Use (Hourly, Adoption Communication, Daily, Forecast & such as EVSC HW Weekly) Strategy / SW process development.

PC5 B8 ProductsProduct CharacteristicsCharacteristics and Barriers

Figure 14: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 1a

2711 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Part 1a of the general roadmap consists of the third and Part 1b of the general roadmap consists of the third and fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial portion of the Solutions layer. portion of the Solutions layer.

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

DP2:Engy Effic Policies DB5:Ownrshp Mod & Fin DP8:RE Integ DR3: EV Stds Dev DM2/DR1:ZEV Mandate DP7:Bus. Incentives DP4:Climate Policy DR2:EV Chrg Rates Drivers DP6:RPS DP1:Emiss Reduc DB1:TE Bus Stds DP3:Reg Eng Plan

DR4:Chrg HW/SW Stdztn DB3:Bus Prtnrsp Strucs DR5/DP9:Grid Moderniz DB2:EVDB2:Chrg Chrg Infra Export Reqs Mkt

DP5:St. Reg EV Pol

DB4:Grid Supp Dev Go1: Charging Go2: Gp1: Gp2: Rates Charging Go8:Transactive Energy Reducing Simplifying and Infrastructure Demo Projects and Studies Charging Charging Process Improvement to Develop Processes and Station Station Restruc & Grid Business Models for Grid Go7:Develop Costs Installation (e.g. Support Plan Support and Renewable Improved (Capital, Demand Integrated Energy Integration Forecast of Go6:Develop Oper Charges) with State and Efficiency) Regional EV Charging Long-term EV Energy Plan Use (Hourly, Adoption Gaps, Goals, and Products PC1 Daily, Forecast & Gp3: Weekly) Strategy Improved Gp4: 2-way Grid Improved Gp5: Charging B1 to Vehicle 1-way Hardware / Go9:Dev of Charger Grid to Software Partnership Commun Vehicle Standards Models, such as Charger Development vs. Ownership V2G, V2B, Commun B8 Battery Warranty Structures V2H devel, such as Issues for (e.g. EVSC PC3 emerging better, HW / SW EV lower cost process Charging version of devel. Businesses SCADA). (V2G, V2B, V2H, PC2 ProductsProduct CharacteristicsCharacteristics EVSC) and Barriers PC6 PC5 PC2-6 BD1

Figure 15: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 1b

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

Gp6 Gp1-2 Go1-5 Loss of Public Trust

Gp5 B1: B2:Loss of B4:Diffic Low Penetration of Trust in Finding Public Charging Product Chrg Stns / B8: Difficulty Stations / Lack of Reliability / Signage Forecasting Consistent Deployment Customer EV Adoption (e.g. ECOtality Scandal) Service & Charging B5:Ease Use of Use of B3: Non-Standardized Chrg PC2-6 Stns Product Characteristics and Pricing & Payment / Access Methods Barriers

PC1:Deployment B7:Battery of Improved Warranty Charging Equip Issues for & Infrastructure secondary uses

PC4: Consumer Gp4 Energy Mgt & PC5: Tracking Product Standardized (Green Energy, 1-Way EV- TOU, Usage Ctrl) Grid System (EVSC) S5 Gp3

PC6: Standardized Solutions: 2-Way EV- Technology, Business BD1 Grid System BD5 Development Models, Market, (V2G/B/H) Regulatory, and Barrier Mitigation S1 BD3 BD6 S6

Figure 16: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 2a

2712 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Part 2a of the general roadmap consists of the third and Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product portion of the Solutions layer. Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial Part 3a of the general roadmap consists of the third and portion of the Solutions layer. fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product Part 2b of the general roadmap consists of the third and Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product portion of the Solutions layer.

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

Gp1-2 Gp5 Go1-5

PC2-6

B1: Low Penetration of B9:TE B6:High B8: Difficulty Public Charging M&V EVSE Forecasting Stations / Lack of Methods Invstmt EV Adoption Consistent Deployment & Grid Cost & & Charging (e.g. ECOtality Scandal) Interface Lack of Use Process Finan Tools Product Characteristics and Barriers Go8-9

PC1:Deployment B7:Battery of Improved PC3: Warranty Charging Equip Renewable PC2: Issues for & Infrastructure Energy Stndardized secondary Integration TE uses Service / Prod/Srvc Product Devmnt & Gp4 Development Grid Interface PC5: Processes Standardized (NARUC 1-Way EV- Bus & Reg Grid System Gp3 Asst Proj) (EVSC)

PC6: Standardized Solutions: 2-Way EV- Technology, Business Grid System BD1 BD4 BD2 BD5 Development Models, Market, (V2G/B/H) Regulatory, and Barrier Mitigation S3 S4 S2 S5 S6

Figure 17: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 2b

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

Gp5

B5 B7

B7 BD1: Battery & EV Charging Development S6: EV-Grid Partnership Interface (W arranty / Technology PC4 Design for (V2G/B/H and Solutions: secondary EVSC) Technology, Business uses) Development Models, Market, S1: Regulatory, and Barrier Consumer Mitigation EV Energy Mgt System BD6: EV BD5: EV Charging Adoption and Customer Charging Use Outreach & Forecast Tools Education Initiative to Restore Trust after Early Generation B8 Technology and Service B2 Problems.

B4

B1 B5

Figure 18: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 3a

2713 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

Short: 1-3 Medium: 4-6 Long: 7-10 Years 

Gp5

PC3 B7 B6

S2: Clear, S3: Investment BD1: Battery BD2: Standardized Vision for EVSE & EV Financial Business Deployment Charging Tools for Partnership (Public & Private) Development EVSE and Policies & Partnership Infrastructure Guidelines for EV (Warranty / Investment Charging & TE Design for B3 Bus secondary uses) Solutions: Technology, Business BD3: Standardization of Development Models, Market, Payment Systems / B7 Operating Systems for Regulatory, and Barrier PC2 Charging Stations Mitigation

S4: Business S5: Clear TE Grid S6: EV-Grid BD6: EV BD5: EV Ownership Interface Interface Charging Adoption and Structures, Requirements Technology Customer Charging Use Models, and and Standards (V2G/B/H and Outreach & Forecast Tools Vision EVSC) Education Initiative to Restore Trust BD4: TE after Early B8 Business Generation Process Technology and Development Service B2 and Modeling Problems.

B4

B1 B5

Figure 19: Integrated TRM Model: Electric Vehicle Charging - Part 3b

Part 3b of the general roadmap consists of the third and investing in risky or uncertain new technologies, it has also fourth layers, which starts with a continuation of the Product caused the industry to remain one that is still largely analog Characteristics and Barriers layer and then begins the initial and manual in an age where many if not most other portion of the Solutions layer. technologies are becoming digital and automated. To develop and successfully deploy critical new energy-related III. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS technology in the 21st century, at a time of increasing concern and urgency over rising energy costs and The main outcome of this research is the development of a environmental damage caused by current technology, careful process to help integrate technology roadmapping with planning will be required, and new methods which gracefully business modeling, as well as regulatory and policy planning, integrate technology, business, regulatory, and policy and to thus enable better understanding of opportunities for consideration into a holistic approach may prove extremely emerging technologies in emerging environments. This useful. Creating a framework to assist with such efforts is a process is expected to be especially important for dealing primary aim of this research. with regulated industries, such as the utility sector, which has This research also focuses on the emerging smart grid historically had one of the lowest rates of research and industry, since smart grid technologies appear to have great development investment of any major technology-based potential to drive future innovation in the electrical utility industry, only 0.25% of revenue [128]. The are many reasons sector. However, this framework could be applied to many for this, including common regulatory structures, and various other emerging technology and industry environments as justifications for such regulatory structures, as discussed in well. But, new tools are needed to tailor the development previous sections. However, the result of this investment process to a variety of unique requirements. This research pattern has clearly been a slow, careful deployment of offers one such set of tools and processes to achieve this goal. technology, which has focused on durable, well-understood A number of key conclusions have been described in devices and systems, which have often been deployed and different sections of this study and can now be summarized, operated for decades at a time. While this may have had along with recommendations for next steps. Contributions some favorable effect of protecting utility ratepayers from the research makes to the existing body of knowledge in this

2714 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation field are described in the next section, followed by limitations REFERENCES and assumptions. There was consensus that development of EV charging hardware and software standards (RD3) was [1] O. H. Bray and M. L. Garcia, Technology Roadmapping: The extremely important from technology, business, and Integration of Strategic and Technology Planning for Competitiveness. Portland, OR: PICMET (Portland International regulatory perspectives. Improved DC quick chargers (P3) Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology), 1997. were also important from a technology perspective, and [2] R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, and D. Probert, T-Plan: The Fast-Start to development of clear, consistent standards would help enable Technology Roadmapping - Planning your Route to Success. these efforts, removing a key barrier to more wide-spread Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Institute for , 2001. deployment. Creation of support systems and warranty [3] R. Phaal, C. J. P. Farrukh, and D. R. Probert, "Technology services for advanced batteries (P2) was very important from Roadmapping - A Planning Framework for Evolution and technology, business, and market perspectives. There was Revolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change., vol. 71, consensus that regional planning visions on charger p. 5, 2004. [4] C. Holmes and M. Ferrill, "The application of Operation and deployment should be developed that could help integrate Technology Roadmapping to aid Singaporean SMEs identify and with existing plans to reach environmental goals and select emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social emissions targets. There was a divergence of views on the Change, vol. 72, pp. 349-357, 2005. development of partnership structures (G2) as well as [5] A. Nauda and D. L. Hall, "Strategic technology planning--developing roadmaps for competitive advantage," in Portland International incentives and financing for electric vehicle charging (G3). Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, These were seen as important from the Business and Portland, OR, 1991, pp. 745-748. Regulatory perspective, but less so from the Market [6] R. N. Kostoff, "Systematic Acceleration of Radical Discovery and perspective. Therefore, the recommendations for next steps Innovation in Science and Technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 73, p. 923, 2006. based on this data would be to focus on hardware/software [7] M. Rinne, "Technology Roadmaps: Infrastructure for Innovation," standards (RD3), quick charger development (P2), and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 71, p. 67, 2004. deployment plans (BD2). Once these standards are [8] E. Lopez-Ortega, T. Concepcion, and S. Viloria, "Strategic Planning, developed and deployment plans are implemented, Technology Roadmaps and Technology Intelligence: An Integrated Approach," presented at the PICMET (Portland Internation partnerships (G2) and incentives (G3) would then make sense Conference for Management of Engineering & Technology), to explore. The research then looks at overall a series of Portland, Oregon, 2006. technology roadmaps that incorporate those issues and related [9] S. K. Kassicieh, S. T. Walsh, J. C. Cummings, P. J. M. Whorter, A. D. challenges over an approximately 10 year horizon and looked Romig, and W. D. Williams, "Factors Differentiating the of Disruptive and Sustaining Technologies," IEEE at specific alternatives, such as various business model transactions on /, vol. 49, p. 375, 2002. options, which could be used to address specific challenges at [10] R. N. Kostoff, R. Boylan, and G. R. Simons, "Disruptive Technology different points in that timeline. Roadmaps," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 71, Several types of roadmaps were created to examine p. 141, 2004. [11] S. T. Walsh, "Roadmapping a Disruptive Technology: A Case Study - different aspects of this research. First, an overall roadmap The Emerging Microsystems and Top-Down Nanosystems Industry," was created that showed the combined effect of business, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 71, p. 161, 2004. consumer, regulatory, and market factors over the entire 10- [12] S. T. Walsh and J. D. Linton, "Infrastructure for Emergent Industries year time span of the roadmap. The roadmap showed many Based on Discontinuous ," Engineering Management Journal - Rolla, vol. 12, pp. 23-32, 2000. key elements that relate to ownership structure and primary [13] R. Zurcher and R. N. Kostoff, "Modeling Technology Roadmaps," profit mechanism for stakeholders involved in implementing The Journal of , vol. 22, p. 73, 1997. aspects of the roadmap. These mechanisms included: Direct [14] B. A. Vojak and F. A. Chambers, "Roadmapping Disruptive fees for vehicle charging and/or parking fees; membership Technical Threats and Opportunities in Complex, Technology-Based Subsystems: The SAILS Methodology," Technological Forecasting fees and fees for other bundled and premium services, such as and Social Change, vol. 71, p. 121, 2004. internet access or auxillary vehicle power hook-up fees; [15] J. L. Bower and C. M. Christensen, Disruptive Technologies: advertiser fees or fees for consumers to opt-out of Catching the Wave. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School advertisements; ancillary service fees, which provide Publications, 1995. [16] N. Gerdsri, "An Activity Guide for Technology Roadmapping," essential services to utilities, such as voltage and frequency Technology Analysis and , vol. 22, pp. 229- regulation; or energy efficiency optimization contracts and 242, 2010. energy aggregation contracts, which allow a network operator [17] M. Amer and T. U. Daim, "Application of Technology Roadmaps for to manage and optimize energy use over a grid or micro-grid. Renewable Energy Sector," Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 77, pp. 1355-1370, 2010. The roadmap was then broken into two parts. Section A [18] H. Abe, T. Ashiki, A. Suzuki, F. Jinno, and H. Sakuma, "Integrating shows a Business and Regulatory focused version of the Business Modeling and Roadmapping Methods - The Innovation roadmap. Section B shows Consumer and Market focused Support Technology (IST) Approach," Technological Forecasting version of the roadmap. and Social Change, vol. 76, pp. 80-90, 2009. [19] D. Fenwick, T. U. Daim, and N. Gerdsri, "Value Driven Technology Road Mapping (VTRM) Process Integrating Decision Making and Tools: Case of Internet Security Technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 76, pp. 1055- 1077, 2009.

2715 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

[20] A. M. Lamb, T. U. Daim, and S. Leavengood, "Wood Pellet Roadmapping," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. Technology Roadmap," IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 71, p. 27, 2004. vol. 3, pp. 218-230, 2012. [40] M. Dissel, R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, and D. Probert, "Value [21] I. J. Petrick and A. E. Echols, "Technology Roadmapping in Review: Roadmapping: A Structured Approach for Early Stage Technology A Tool for Making Sustainable New Product Development Investment Decisions," presented at the PICMET 2006: Technology Decisions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 71, p. Management for the Global Future, Istanbul, Turkey, 2006. 81, 2004. [41] R. Phaal, E. O'Sullivan, M. Routley, S. Ford, and D. Probert, "A [22] S. T. Walsh, R. L. Boylan, C. McDermott, and A. Paulson, "The Framework for Mapping Industrial Emergence," Technological Semiconductor Silicon Industry Roadmap: Epochs Driven by the Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 78, pp. 217-230, 2011. Dynamics between Disruptive Technologies and Core Competencies," [42] R. Phaal and G. Muller, "An Architectural Framework for Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 72, pp. 213-236, Roadmapping: Towards Visual Strategy," Technological Forecasting 2005. and Social Change, vol. 76, pp. 39-49, 2009. [23] S. Lee, S. Kang, and Y. Park, "Technology Roadmapping for R&D [43] V. Thorn, F. Hunt, R. Mitchell, D. Probert, and R. Phaal, "Internal Planning: The Case of the Korean Parts and Materials Industry," Technology Valuation: Real World Issues," International Journal of Technovation, vol. 27, pp. 433-445, 2007. Technology Management, vol. 53, pp. 149-160. [24] Y. Kajikawa, O. Usui, K. Hakata, Y. Yasunaga, and K. Matsushima, [44] H. Martin and T. U. Daim, "Technology Roadmap Development "Structure of Knowledge in the Science and Technology Roadmaps," Process (TRDP) for the Service Sector: A Conceptual Framework," Technological Forecasting Social Change Technological Forecasting Technology in Society, vol. 34, pp. 94-105. and Social Change, vol. 75, pp. 1-11, 2008. [45] G. Hamel, Leading the Revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business [25] R. W. Galvin, "A Practitioner's Update to Roadmapping: From School Press, 2000. Sustainable to Disruptive Technologies," Technological Forecasting [46] A. J. Slywotzky, Value Migration: How to Think Several Moves and Social Change, vol. 71, pp. 91-103, 2004. ahead of the Competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School [26] G. L. Huffman, C. C. Lee, S. Rolander, and J. T. White, "A Summary Press, 1996. of the EPA's Fuel Cell Program Dealing with the Environmental Life [47] A. J. Slywotzky, The Art of Profitability. New York, NY: Warner Cycle Assessment," Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning Business Books, 2002. and Policy, vol. 1, pp. 67-74, 2006. [48] H. W. Chesbrough, : The New Imperative for [27] S. Lee and Y. Park, "Customization of Technology Roadmaps Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard According to Roadmapping Purposes: Overall Process and Detailed Business School Press, 2003. Modules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 72, p. [49] M. E. Porter, On Competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School 567, 2005. Pub., 2008. [28] N. Gerdsri, "An Analytical Approach on Building a Technology [50] M. E. Porter, The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Development Envelope (TDE) for Roadmapping of Emerging Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008. Technologies," 2005. [51] H. Abe, T. Hirabayashi, F. Ishida, Y. Oku, M. Kado, and H. Sakuma, [29] N. Gerdsri and D. F. Kocaoglu, "Applying the Analytic Hierarchy "Value Creation Framework of Business Modeling Methods for R&D Process (AHP) to Build a Strategic Framework for Technology Outputs," presented at the PICMET (Portland International Roadmapping," Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, pp. Conference for Management of Engineering and Technology), 2005. 1071-1080, 2007. [52] H. Abe, T. Hirabayashi, M. Kado, and H. Sakuma, "A New [30] N. Gerdsri, R. S. Vatananan, and S. Dansamasatid, "Dealing with the Framework of Business Modeling Methods for R&D Outputs: Dynamics of Technology Roadmapping Implementation: A Case Valuation and Communication Tools for Engineers, Managers, and Study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 76, pp. Investors," presented at the PICMET (Portland International 50-60, 2009. Conference for Management of Engineering and Technology), 2004. [31] R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, and D. Probert, "Customizing Roadmapping," [53] Y. Yasunaga, M. Watanabe, and M. Korenaga, "Application of Research Technology Management, vol. 47, p. 26, 2004. Technology Roadmaps to Governmental Innovation Policy for [32] T. Daim and T. Oliver, "Implementing Technology Roadmapping Promoting Technology Convergence," Technological Forecasting and Process: A Case Study of a Government Agency," Technology Social Change, vol. 76, pp. 61-79, 2009. Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 75, pp. 687-720, 2008. [54] Y. Zhou, "A Policy Dimension Required for Technology [33] K. R. Cowan and T. Daim, "Comparative Technological Roadmapping: Learning from the Development of Emerging Wind Roadmapping for Renewable Energy," Technology in Society, vol. 31, Energy Industry in China," presented at the PICMET 2011 Portland, pp. 333-341, 2009. OR, 2011. [34] T. U. Daim, M. Amer, and R. Brenden, "Technology Roadmapping [55] EEI, A Summary of FERC's Standard Market Design Tariff NOPR. for Wind Energy: Case of the Pacific Northwest," Journal of Cleaner Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute, 2002. Production, vol. 20, pp. 27-37, 2012. [56] NPCC, "Northwest Wind Integration Action Plan," NPCC (Northwest [35] T. Daim, T. Oliver, I. Iskin, and J. Kim, "Technology Roadmapping: Power and Conservation Council), Portland, OR 2007. An Efficient Tool for Driving Regional Technological Changes," in [57] K. Dragoon, "Lowest Cost Balancing Resources," ed. Portland: NPCC Sustainable Systems and Energy Management at the Regional Level, (Northwest Power and Conservation Council), 2011. ed, 2012. [58] B. M. Nickell, "Wind Dispatchability and Storage - Interconnected [36] T. Daim, D. Kocaoglu, N. Gerdsri, and I. Kockan, "Technology Grid Perspective," EERE (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Development Envelope Approach for the Adoption of Future Department) 2009. Powertrain Technologies: A Case Study on Ford Otosan [59] Energy Policy Act of 2005, 2005. Roadmapping Model," Journal of Transportation Systems [60] BPA, What is RTO West? Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 11, pp. 58-69, 2012. Administration, 2000. [37] R. Phaal, N. T. M. H. Shehabuddeen, and P. Assakul, "Technology [61] M. R. Milligan. (2011). Western Interconnection Energy Imbalance Roadmapping: Charting the Route Ahead for UK Road Transport," in Market: Status and Prospects. Available: Engineering Management Conference, 2002. IEMC '02. 2002 IEEE http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo16356 International, 2002, pp. 794-798 vol.2. [62] ColumbiaGrid, "Intra-Hour Transaction Accelerator Platform: I-Tap," [38] R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, R. Mitchell, and D. Probert, "Starting-Up ColumbiaGrid2009. Roadmapping Fast," IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 31, [63] L. Karwoski-Magee and D. Ruben, "The : An pp. 54-60, 2003. Interdisciplinary Academic Tool," Design Principles and Practices: [39] O. Saritas and M. A. Oner, "Systemic Analysis of UK Foresight An International Journal, vol. 4, p. 11, 2010. Results - Joint Application of Integrated Management Model and

2716 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

[64] W. Spencer and T. Seidel, "National Technology Roadmaps: The U.S. [88] A. J. O'Donnell, Soul of the Grid: A Cultural Biography of the Semiconductor Experience " in 4th International Conference on California Independent System Operator. New York: Universe, 2003. Solid-State and Integrated Circuit Technology, 1995. [89] CMU, "Smart Grid Maturity Model: Model Definition: A Framework [65] A. Diebold, "Overview of Metrology Requirements Based on the for Smart Grid Transformation," Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), 1994 National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors," in Fort Belvoir, VA 2010. SEMATECH (IEEE/SEMI 1995 Advanced Semiconductor [90] W. S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA: Manufacturing Conference and Workshop), Austin, TX, 1994. Addison-Wesley, 1989. [66] P. A. Koen, "Technology Maps: Choosing the Right Path," [91] J. R. Persse, Implementing the Capability Maturity Model. New York: Engineering Management Journal - Rolla, vol. 9, pp. 7-11, 1997. John Wiley & Sons, 2001. [67] R. N. Kostoff and R. R. Schaller, "Science and Technology [92] Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978: Report to Accompany Roadmaps," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, S. 2114, 1978. pp. 132-143, 2001. [93] X. Fang, S. Misra, G. Yue, and D. Yang, "Smart Grid - The New and [68] M. G. Kendall and B. B. Smith, "The Problem of Rankings," The Improved Power Grid: A Survey," IEEE Communications, 2011. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 10, pp. 275-287, 1989. [94] CEC. (2010). CERTS Smart Grid Demonstration with Renewable [69] H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Energy Integration. Available: Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-500-2010-FS/CEC- 1975. 500-2010-FS-005.PDF [70] K. Brockhoff, "The Performance of Forcasting Groups in Computer [95] ISSGC, "Illinois Statewide Smart Grid Collaborative: Collaborative Dialogue and Face-to-Face Discussion," in The Delphi Method: Report," Illinois Statewide Smart Grid Collaborative 2010. Techniques and Applications, H. Linstone and M. Turoff, Eds., ed [96] ISGI, "Illinois Smart Grid Initiative: Summary of Smart Grid Bnefits Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1975, pp. 291-321. and Issues," Illinois Smart Grid Initiative (ISGI) 2008. [71] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority [97] M. Olken, "A Smart Grid Partnership: International Efforts in Korea Setting, Resource Allocation. New York; London: McGraw-Hill and Illinois," IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 9, pp. 4-6, International Book Company, 1980. 2012. [72] T. L. Saaty, "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy [98] Staff Recommendation to Use Oregon Electricity Regulators Process," Management Science, vol. 32, pp. 841-855, 1986. Assistance Project Funds from the American Recovery and [73] T. L. Saaty, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory Reinvestment Act of 2009 to Develop Commission Smart Grid with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Objectives for 2010-2014, OPUC Order No. 11-172, 2011. Publications, 2000. [99] A. Brown and R. Satler, "Smart Grid Issues in State Law and [74] J. L. Salmeron and I. Herrero, "An AHP-Based Methodology to Rank Regulation," Galvin Electricity Initiative 2010. Critical Success Factors of Executive Information Systems," [100] FERC, "Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced Metering: Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 28, pp. 1-12, 2005. Docket AD06-2-000," Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [75] E. Geisler, "The Metrics of Technology Evaluation: Where We Stand Washington, D.C. 2008. and Where We Should Go from Here," International Journal of [101] R. W. Galvin, K. E. Yeager, and J. Stuller, Perfect Power: How the Technology Management, vol. 24, pp. 341-374, 2002. Microgrid Revolution Will Unleash Cleaner, Greener, and More [76] D. J. Hammerstrom, J. M. Gephart, and R. W. A. Pacific Northwest Abundant Energy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. National Laboratory, "Smart Technology Brings Power to the [102] NIST, "NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid People," Power Engineering International, 14(10):45-46, vol. 14, Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0," National Institute of 2006. Standards and Technology, Office of the National Coordinator for [77] P. Fox-Penner, "Fix Utilities Before they Need a Rescue," Harvard Smart Grid Interoperability, Gaithersburg, MD2010 2010. Business Review, vol. 87, 2009. [103] Xcel, "Xcel Energy Smart Grid: A White Paper," Xcel Energy, [78] P. Fox-Penner, Smart Power: Climate Change, the Smart Grid, and Boulder, CO 2010. the Future of Electric Utilities: Island Press, 2010. [104] D. James, "Xcel Energy's Smart Grid," Proceeding of the Solar [79] EPRI, "The Green Grid: Energy Savings and Carbon Emissions Conference, vol. 5, pp. 2859-2869, 2008. Reductions Enabled by a Smart Grid," Electric Power Research [105] PSPI, "The Pecan Street Project: Working Group Recommendations," Institute (EPRI) 2009. Pecan Street Project, Inc. (PSPI), Austin, TX2010. [80] R. J. Procter, "Smart Grid Inventory: A Report to the Oregon Public [106] C. A. Smith, "The Pecan Street Project: Developing the Electric Utility Commission," Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Salem, Utility System of the Future," University of Texas, Austin, TX, 2009. OR2011. [107] B. McCracken, K. Rábago, and M. E. Webber, Pecan Street Project [81] T. L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why we Need a Green Smart Grids and Austin's Energy Future. Austin, TX: University of Revolution -- And How it Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Texas at Austin: Environmental Science Institute, 2010. Straus and Giroux, 2008. [108] Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act: [82] EPRI, "Estimating the Costs and Benefts of the Smart Grid: A Report to Accompany S. 885, 1979. Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and the [109] NPCC, Restructuring of the Electric Utility Industry: Implications for Resultant Benefts of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid," Electric Power the Goals of the Northwest Power Act. Portland, OR: Northwest Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA 2011. Power Planning Council (NPCC), 1994. [83] S. M. Amin and B. F. Wollenberg, "Toward a Smart Grid," IEEE [110] D. J. Duann, B. Chen, I. National Regulatory Research, and C. Power & Energy, vol. 4, p. 66, 2006. National Association of Regulatory Utility, A Survey of Recent State [84] M. Rawson and J. Sugar, "Distributed Generation and Cogeneration Initiatives on EPACT and FERC Order 636. Columbus, Ohio: Policy Roadmap for California," California Energy Commission, National Regulatory Research Institute, 1994. Sacramento, CA 2007. [111] K. Rose, R. E. Burns, and R. J. Graniere, Research Report: Summary [85] A. Chuang. (2011). California Utility Vision and Roadmap for the of Key state Issues of FERC orders 888 and 889. Columbus, OH: Smart Grid of 2020: Final Project Report. Available: National Regulatory Research Institute, 1997. http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/45441http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publ [112] K. W. Costello and R. E. Burns, Regional Transmission ications/CEC-500-2011-034/CEC-500-2011-034.pdf Organizations and the Coordination of Regional Electricity Markets: [86] CAISO, "Smart Grid Roadmap and ," California A Review of FERC Order 2000. Columbus, Ohio: National Independent System Operator 2010. Regulatory Research Institute, 2000. [87] J. Houck and W. Rickerson, "The Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) [113] U. S. Congress, Energy Policy Act of 1992: Public Law 102-486-Oct. Model for Energy Service Delivery," The Bulletin of Science, 24, 1992. Washington, DC: US Government Office, 1992. Technology & Society, vol. 29, pp. 95-107, 2009.

2717 2016 Proceedings of PICMET '16: Technology Management for Social Innovation

[114] H. Prem and N. Raghavan, "Building a Technology Roadmap in High [127] S. Insull and W. E. Keily, Central Station Electric Service: Its Performance Computing in the Indian Context," presented at the Commercial Development and Economic Significance. Chicago, PICMET 2005: A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries, 1915. Portland, OR, 2005. [128] NSF, "Funds for Industrial R&D as a Percent of Net Sales of [115] C. Wooster, "Encouraging Technology through Legislation: A Study Companies Performing Industrial R&D in the United States," of the Development of Cogeneration Facilities after the Enactment of National Science Foundation (NSF), Washington, DC 2010. the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act," 1988. [129] L. Fox, Enron: The Rise and Fall. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2003. [116] R. Schaller, "Technological Innovation in the Semiconductor [130] J. Casazza, Understanding Electric Power Systems: An Overview of Industry: A Case Study of the International Technology Roadmap for the Technology, the Marketplace, and Government Regulation: John Semiconductors (ITRS)," 2004. Wiley & Sons, 2010. [117] C. Cleveland and C. Morris, Dictionary of Energy. Amsterdam; [131] S. Coll, The Deal of the Century: The Break Up of AT&T. New York: London: Elsevier, 2005. Atheneum, 1986. [118] L. Karwoski-Magee and D. Ruben, "The Charrette: An [132] A. Nauda and D. Hall, "Strategic Technology Planning - Developing Interdisciplinary Academic Tool," Design Principles and Practices: Roadmaps for Competitive Advantage," presented at the PICMET An International Journal, vol. 4, pp. 11-21, 2010. 1991, Portland, OR, 1991. [119] P. Newman and C. Leverhant, "The Fuzzy Front End - Technology [133] ODOE, "Summary of Oregon's RPS " Oregon Department of Identification, Staging, and Maturation: Where the Battle is Often Energy2007. Lost Without Firing a Shot," presented at the PICMET, Portland, OR, [134] C. Willyard and C. McClees, "Motorola's Technology Roadmap 2001. Process," Research Management, pp. 13-19, 1987. [120] W. Kempton, "Automobiles: Designing the 21st century fleet," [135] C. Holmes and M. Ferrill, "The Application of Operation and presented at the Seattle V2G Technical Symposium, Seattle, WA, Technology Roadmapping to Aid Singaporean SMEs Identify and 2005. Select Emerging Technologies," Technological Forecasting and [121] R. Wells, R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, and D. Probert, "Technology Social Change, vol. 72, p. 349, 2005. Roadmapping for a Service Organization," Research technology [136] E. Bardach, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold management., vol. 47, p. 46, 2004. Path to More Effective Problem Solving, 3rd ed. New York, N.Y.: [122] G. Rouse and J. Kelly, "Electricity Reliability: Problems Progress and Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, 2009. Policy Solutions," Galvin Electricity Initiative2011. [137] V. Elmer and A. Leigland, Infrastructure Planning and Finance: A [123] J. Jenkins, J. Bauman, and J. Bissonette, "Renewable Energy Standard Smart and Sustainable Guide. New York: Routledge, 2013. " Powering Oregon's Future 2007. [138] F. Ishida, H. Sakuma, H. Abe, and B. Fazekas, "Remodeling Method [124] B. Shively and J. Ferrare, Understanding Today's Electricity Business, for Business Models of R&D Outputs," in PICMET (Portland 4.0 ed. San Francisco, CA: Enerdynamics, 2008. International Conference for Management of Engineering and [125] C. Cramer, Thomas Edison. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Technology), Istanbul, Turkey, 2006, pp. 708-714. [126] M. Filippini, "Are Municipal Electricity Distribution Utilities Natural Monopolies?," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, vol. 69, p. 157, 1998.

2718