
 
The Aggregator Role in V2G 
Assessing central aspects of the aggregator role in a 
Swedish V2G network 
Bachelor Thesis at the Department of Technology Management and Economics 
 

ELISE BONNIER EKLUND WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGAMRK 
LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND 
ANDREAS PERSSON  ANTON THORSLUND 
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 
DIVISION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY 

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
Gothenburg, Sweden 2023 

www.chalmers.se 

  
ii


Bachelor thesis TEKX18-23-01

The Aggregator Role in V2G

Assessing central aspects of the aggregator role in a Swedish V2G network

Aggregatorrollen i V2G

En utredning av centrala aspekter för aggregatorrollen i ett V2G nätverk

ELISE BONNIER EKLUND WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGMARK

LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND

ANDREAS PERSSON ANTON THORSLUND

Department of Technology Management and Economics

Division of Entrepreneurship and Strategy

Chalmers University of Technology

Gothenburg, Sweden 2023

iii


The Aggregator Role in V2G

Assessing central aspects of the aggregator role in a Swedish V2G network

ELISE BONNIER EKLUND WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGMARK

LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND

ANDREAS PERSSON ANTON THORSLUND

© ELISE BONNIER EKLUND, 2023 © WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGMARK, 2023

© LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN, 2023 © ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND, 2023

© ANDREAS PERSSON, 2023 © ANTON THORSLUND, 2023

Bachelor Thesis 2023

Department of Technology Management and Economics

Chalmers University of Technology

SE-412 96 Gothenburg

Telephone +46 31 772 1000

Gothenburg, Sweden 2023

iv


The Aggregator Role in V2G

Assessing central aspects of the aggregator role in a Swedish V2G network

ELISE BONNIER EKLUND WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGMARK

LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND

ANDREAS PERSSON ANTON THORSLUND

Department of Technology Management and Economics

Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract

The electrification of society and increasing use of unpredictable renewable energy sources present

significant challenges to the electrical grids. To assist in the transition towards a more renewable

society, innovative technologies such as vehicle-to-grid can help flatten the energy demand curve and

support the grid. Vehicle-to-grid can leverage the battery in electric vehicles to store electricity that

can be used to power the grid when necessary. Although the technology exists, the economic landscape

is relatively unexplored and needs to be understood in order to diffuse the technology. This thesis

aims to identify the central aspects and structures required for the aggregator role in a Swedish

vehicle-to-grid network and explore how an electric vehicle manufacturer could pursue this role. The

area has been analyzed through interviews and a survey. The interviews explored different actors’

perception of the subject using a semi-structured interview method, whilst the survey complemented

this by focusing on the views of electric vehicle users. The findings suggest that current actors have

different competencies but only in their respective operations. To adopt an aggregator role, one

must have a broader knowledge of the electricity system, aggregation, and customers. Collaboration

and communication between electric vehicle users, aggregators, and grid operators will be essential

for the network to operate efficiently. Preferences for compensation, ease of use, state of charge

control, and transparency should be taken into consideration by aggregators in developing a compelling

value proposition to acquire customers. Once analyzed, the results are placed in the context of real-

world operations to provide a foundation for OEMs that wish to adopt an aggregator role in a V2G

setting.

Keywords: V2G, vehicle-to-grid, electricity market, aggregator, aggregation, car manufacturer.

v


Aggregatorrollen i V2G

En utredning av centrala aspekter för aggregatorrollen i ett V2G nätverk

ELISE BONNIER EKLUND WILHELM JOHNSON SWEGMARK

LUKAS LILLIEROTH GAN ALEXANDER NIHLSTRAND

ANDREAS PERSSON ANTON THORSLUND

Institutionen för Teknikens Ekonomi och Organisation

Chalmers Tekniska Högskola

Sammanfattning

Elektrifieringen av samhället och den ökande användningen av oförutsägbara förnybara energikällor

utgör betydande utmaningar för elnäten. För att hjälpa till i överg̊angen till ett mer förnybart samhälle

kan innovativa tekniker som vehicle-to-grid hjälpa till att jämna ut efterfr̊agan av energi och stödja

elnätet. Vehicle-to-grid utnyttjar batteriet i elfordon för att lagra el som kan användas för att stötta

nätet vid behov. Trots att tekniken existerar är det ekonomiska landskapet relativt outforskat och

m̊aste först̊as för att sprida tekniken. Detta kandidatarbete syftar till att identifiera de centrala as-

pekter och strukturer som krävs för rollen som aggregator i ett svenskt vehicle-to-grid nätverk och

utforska hur en elbilstillverkare skulle kunna ta denna roll. Omr̊adet har analyserats genom inter-

vjuer och en enkät. Intervjuerna utforskade olika aktörers uppfattning om ämnet med hjälp av en

semistrukturerad metod, medan enkäten kompletterade detta genom att fokusera p̊a elbilstillverkare

åsikter. Resultaten antyder att befintliga aktörer har olika kompetenser, men endast inom sina re-

spektive verksamhetsomr̊aden. För att anta en aggregatorroll m̊aste man ha en bredare kunskap om

b̊ade elsystemet, aggregation och kunder. Samarbete och kommunikation mellan elbilsanvändare,

aggregatorer och nätoperatörer kommer att vara avgörande för att nätverket ska fungera effektivt.

Önskem̊al om ersättning, användarvänlighet, kostnadskontroll och transparens bör beaktas av aggre-

gatorer när de utvecklar en affärsmodell för att attrahera kunder. Efter analysen appliceras resultaten

i en verklig kontext för att tillhandah̊alla underlag för OEM-företag som vill anta en aggregatorroll i

en V2G-miljö.

Nyckelord: V2G, vehicle-to-grid, elmarknaden, aggregator, aggregation, biltillverkare.

vi


Acknowledgements

This bachelor thesis has been written at the Department of Technology Management and Economics

during the spring semester of 2023. The thesis was written by six students in the Industrial Engineer-

ing and Management program at Chalmers University of Technology. The work has been supervised

by Kamilla Kohn R̊adberg, a researcher at the Division of Entrepreneurship and Strategy.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank our supervisor Kamilla for all the guidance and

constructive feedback we’ve received during the course of this work. Without her help, we wouldn’t

have gotten the report to where it is today.

Additionally, we would like to extend a huge thank you to the companies and individuals that have

participated in interviews. Your answers and experiences contributed greatly to giving us a deeper

insight into the Swedish electricity market and vehicle-to-grid value chain.

vii


Acronyms

Below is the list of acronyms that have been used throughout this thesis listed in alphabetical order:

BEV Battery electric vehicle

BRP Balance responsible party

BSP Balance service provider

DSO Distribution system operators

EV Electric vehicle

OEM Original equipment manufacturer

Prosumer An individual that both consumes and produces

PHEV Plug-in hybrid vehicle

SoC State of Charge

Svk Svenska kraftnät

TSO Transmission system operator

V2G Vehicle-to-grid

ix


Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Problem Analysis & Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Background to EVs in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Introduction to The Swedish Electricity System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Theory 8

2.1 Frequency Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Flexibility Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3 Vehicle-to-Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.1 V2G Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3.2 V2G Value Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3.3 V2G Prosumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4 The Aggregator Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4.1 Aggregation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4.2 Independent Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.4.3 V2G Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Method 19

3.1 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1.2 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Results and Analysis 24

4.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.1.1 The Aggregator Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.1.2 Barriers for V2G Aggregators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1.3 Central Aspects for V2G Aggregators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1.4 Differences Between Possible Aggregator Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1.5 Actors Suitable for an Aggregator Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.1.6 Suitability of an EV Manufacturer as an Aggregator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


4.1.7 Aggregators and EV Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.2 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Discussion 40

5.1 The Aggregator Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.2 V2G Aggregator Market Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.3 V2G Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.4 EV Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Managerial Implications 46

6.1 OEM as Technical Aggregator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.2 OEM as Independent Aggregator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

7 Conclusion 50

References 53


1 Introduction

The electrification of society has presented a significant challenge to the electrical grid, and may lead

to power fluctuations and even blackouts. As renewable energy sources increasingly replace fossil

fuels, the grid is further strained due to the unpredictability of weather-dependent renewable energy

resources, which limits the ability to manually adjust energy supply to meet demand (Kungliga In-

genjörsVetenskapsAkademien, 2019). To enable a complete transition from fossil fuels towards a more

renewable society, solutions for supporting the grid and flattening the demand-supply energy curve

must be implemented. Investments in new transformers, larger cables, and research are required to

handle peaks in the grid (Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2023). To spread out and delay these invest-

ments, new technologies to support the grid such as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) must be diffused to ensure

a more economically sustainable transformation.

Kempton and Letendre (1997) introduced the concept of V2G as a technology that uses the battery

in electric vehicles (EV) to store electricity that can be used to power the grid. For this technology to

be viable in practice, bidirectional charging, control of charging and discharging, and service auditing

capabilities are necessary (Noel et al., 2019). Also, a business model that satisfies stakeholders is

essential for the technology to become economically feasible and adopted by vehicle owners and users.

Although the technology exists, and many vehicle manufacturers are improving it, identifying value

flows and incentives for stakeholders is crucial for its diffusion.

In recent years, there has been a notable surge in the adoption of EVs in Sweden, resulting in a

more than twofold increase in their numbers (Elbilsstatistik, 2023). This growing popularity could be

attributed to the compelling advantages of EVs, including their low environmental impact and high

efficiency. In addition, the emerging concept of V2G technology presents further opportunities by

enabling EVs to not only draw energy from the grid but also return it during periods of inactivity.

This has the potential to increase the flexibility and stability of the grid, reduce the reliance on fossil

fuels, and provide a source of revenue for EV users. Given the growing EV population, it is critical

to effectively harness their potential in a resource-efficient manner. Today, V2G is being tested in

pilot projects. One such project is PEPP, Public EV Power Pilots, in which multiple actors, including

Chalmers University of Technology, are testing the use of EVs in order to support the electrical grid

(Chalmers University of Technology, 2023).

1


V2G is a suitable tool for providing the grid with resilience and frequency stability during changes

in electricity demand or supply. However, the V2G network quickly becomes complex, and a large

number of vehicles must be charged and discharged collectively. There are financial, physical, and

contractual flows throughout the stakeholder network, making it a complicated network. Several key

actors, including the aggregator role, have been identified within these flows (Energimarknadsinspek-

tionen, 2017). The aggregator role involves aggregating several energy resources to be used as one, but

in a V2G situation, the aggregator may need to perform additional tasks, such as predicting charging

patterns and communicating with the EV user.

Due to the untapped potential of the electricity markets, several established actors are becoming

interested in leveraging the aggregator role. One such actor is EV manufacturers, who already have

a deep technical understanding of EVs and a relationship with their users. In light of this, the aim of

this thesis is to identify the central aspects and structures required for the aggregator role to function

in a Swedish V2G network and explore how an EV manufacturer could pursue this role.

1.1 Problem Analysis & Scope

One of the challenges in implementing V2G is the need for an aggregator to manage the flow of

electricity between EVs and the grid. The aggregator acts as an intermediary between EVs and grid

operators, coordinating the charging and discharging of the vehicles to ensure that they are available

when needed and that they meet the requirements of the grid (Sovacool et al., 2020). This role can

be embodied by a third-party aggregator or other actors, and the original equipment manufacturer

(OEM), in this case the vehicle manufacturers, have the potential to leverage their position to become

aggregators themselves. Against this backdrop, the research question for this thesis is: ”How could a

vehicle manufacturer adopt the aggregator role in a V2G solution?”

There are several factors to consider when entering a new market such as costs, legal issues, capabilities,

and so forth. For a vehicle manufacturer considering adopting an aggregator role, these aspects

become very relevant when assessing whether the market is profitable. There is currently no clear

model outlining which factors should be taken into account in this situation, nor is there a framework

for how these factors can be translated into something practically applicable. Therefore, the research

question can be broken down into the following sub-questions:

2


• What are the primary factors influencing actors in a future aggregator role?

• What factors relate to, and can be leveraged by, an OEM?

• How is the aggregator role affected by differences between energy markets?

• What do EV users value when choosing an aggregator?

In order to address these questions, this thesis will review the current state of energy markets, V2G,

and the aggregator role. The analysis is limited to the Swedish market only in order to limit the area

to a contained system with one transmission system operator (TSO). However, the goal is for the

conclusions to be somewhat applicable to similar markets. The thesis focuses on the aggregation of

private vehicles. In certain situations the vehicle might be owned and used by separate parties, this

is the case in car fleets. These cases are not discussed in the thesis, as the aggregation process may

vary when there is a different ownership structure involved.

There are several connections between the investigated V2G technology and sustainability, which could

be analyzed further. However, the scope of the study does not include analyzing the sustainability

aspects of V2G. A brief description of the sustainable implications of V2G is instead given in Appendix

1, where it is linked to the UN 2030 agenda and its sustainability goals.

1.2 Background to EVs in Sweden

EVs can be divided into two main types, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs).

BEVs operate fully on electricity and PHEVs are powered by both electricity and internal combustion

engines. Sweden is transitioning towards a fossil-free society with the aim of achieving net-zero

emissions by 2045. The electrification of the transport sector, including personal cars, has been

identified as an important factor to reach this goal. Sweden is involved in the project “Accelerating

to Zero Coalition”, with the ambition of a 100% sales share of BEVs in 2035 on leading markets, and

2040 globally (Regeringskansliet, 2022). One of the focuses of the project is to overcome barriers in

order to accelerate the production of zero-emission vehicles, i.e., BEVs. In a report from Stockholms

Handelskammare (2020), the mid-scenario for the number of electrified cars by 2030 is set to 2,6

million.

3


Figure 1: Registered cars in Sweden, with % EV on the right-hand axis (SCB, 2023)

PHEVs had an earlier penetration of the market, but the total number of BEVs exceeded the number

of PHEVs in 2022. The share of BEVs among registered cars was a third in 2022, while it was less

than a fifth in 2021. During 2022, 96 000 new BEVs were registered, which is why there currently

are around 200 000 BEVs in Sweden (SCB, 2023). In total, there were at the end of 2022 a total

of 370 000 electrified cars in Sweden. Although the current share of electrified cars is low, the trend

is exponentially increasing, especially for BEVs, which can be seen in Figure 1. V2G is possible for

battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. These two types of vehicles are jointly

referred to as electric vehicles (EVs).

1.3 Introduction to The Swedish Electricity System

The Swedish electrical grid is an alternating current (AC) system consisting of approximately 17,000

km of power lines that connects to the other Nordic countries (Svenska kraftnät, 2021c). The Swedish

grid consists of the national grid, regional grid, and local grids. The national grid is a transmission grid

that connects large electricity producers to the grid and transfers electricity over long distances with

low power loss. Svenska kraftnät (Svk) is Sweden’s responsible authority for the power system and

manages the transmission grid, and is referred to as the transmission system operator (TSO). The local

4


grid transfers electricity to most end users such as private consumers and companies. Micro-producers,

such as owners of roof-mounted solar panels, can be connected to the local grid. Local network op-

erators own and manage the local grids, and are called distribution system operators (DSOs). The

regional grid connects the national transmission grid with the local grids. It also directly connects

smaller electricity producers and large electricity consumers, e.g., large factories, to the grid (Svenska

kraftnät, 2022). Each local grid has a contracted level of power that is allowed to be drawn from the

regional grid, and uniformly, the regional grid has a contracted power level with the transmission grid,

operated by the TSO. As explained by Etherden et al. (2022) the subscription limits are not equal to,

but lower, than the physical constraints of the network’s components. The limit is the threshold for

power that can be fed into the grid without prior notification.

The physical flow of electricity is thus through the electrical grid. For trading, Sweden’s electricity

market is part of the Nord Pool Spot electricity market, and the Swedish market is divided into four

different bidding areas. Most of the electricity produced in Sweden is traded on the Nord Pool spot

market. Svenska kraftnät (2021b) explains that electricity suppliers and large energy consumers are

the most common actors on the electricity market apart from electricity producers. Figure 2 depicts

the relationship between the actors on the Swedish electricity market as well as the flow of electricity.

Energimarknadsinspektionen (Ei) is the supervisory authority of the Swedish energy market, including

the electricity market.

5


Figure 2: Actors in the Swedish electricity system. Blue marking around BRP and electricity supplier
specifies that these could be the same actor (Energiföretagen & Svenska kraftnät, 2022)

For the electric system to function properly, energy supply must be exactly equal to energy demand at

all times. Svk has the overall responsibility for the balance between supply and demand on the Swedish

grid, but this responsibility is delegated further down the chain to balance responsible parties (BRP)

(Färeg̊ard & Miletic, 2021). To become a BRP a contract must be established with Svk and eSett Oy,

the actor responsible for Svk’s financial settlements. A BRP is responsible for balancing supply and

demand within a certain amount of outlet or inlet points, that is, any point from which electricity

can be withdrawn or produced. As such, the BRP has to ensure that the electricity withdrawn from

their respective outlet points is matched with supply from their inlet points, or by buying electricity

on, for example, Nord Pool. For imbalances the BRP is accountable for, as shown in Figure 3, it has

to take the economic consequences for Svk to physically manage these imbalances.

6


Figure 3: Overview of the balancing process upon a mismatch between supply and consumption
(Färeg̊ard & Miletic, 2021)

According to Kungliga IngenjörsVetenskapsAkademien (2019), measurement values and other control

signals are used in long-term forecasts to plan the production in advance so balance is maintained. In

the short-term perspective, frequency is used as an indicator of significant changes in the momentary

balance and should always lie between 49.9 - 50.1 Hz. When the frequency diverges from these levels,

frequency-regulating measures need to be taken.

7


2 Theory

The integration of renewable energy sources and the rapid growth of EVs have brought about new

challenges and opportunities in the field of energy management. One of the key challenges is maintain-

ing grid stability and frequency balancing in the presence of intermittent renewable energy generation.

To address this, the concept of flexibility markets and the utilization of V2G technology have emerged

as promising solutions.

By studying literature related to the subject, theoretical foundations and concepts related to frequency

balancing, flexibility markets, V2G technology, and the role of aggregators in this context can be

explored. This chapter presents the underlying principles and mechanisms of these concepts.

2.1 Frequency Balancing

The momentary balance of the grid must be kept between 49.9 - 50.1 Hz. The Swedish grid is closely

connected to the rest of the Nordic countries and the balancing responsibility is shared between the

different TSOs who are all working to balance the frequency to 50 Hz. The balancing process is

designed to tackle different stages of imbalance. The BRP is responsible for creating a plan to ensure

equilibrium between the production of energy and consumption. This is done for every hour of every

day. However, deviations from these plans occur due to uncertainties in both production and con-

sumption. To handle these deviations, Svk is responsible for monitoring and maintaining the balance

in real-time with the help of balancing services, a type of ancillary service (Svenska kraftnät, 2021a).

Svenska kraftnät (2023e) portrays a transition of the energy system to include more renewable elec-

tricity production, resulting in greater challenges balancing supply and demand and due to renewable

energy source’s unpredictability. This causes an increase in the future demand of power reserves to

provide balancing services. The reserves consist of production units that can adapt their electricity

production or energy storage by being temporarily drawn upon or released when the balance of the

grid fluctuates (Svenska kraftnät, 2023e). The fluctuations occur when the momentary power usage

doesn’t match the power produced, power being the rate at which energy is being transferred. Power

reserves can be used to adjust both the power production and the power usage. Up steering is used

when the frequency drops below 50 Hz, which is a result of the consumption being higher than the

production of electricity. In order to restore the frequency, power reserves are used to increase power

production. Down steering is used when the frequency goes above 50 Hz, where either power produc-

tion is decreased, or power usage is increased. The power reserves are provided by external partners

8


contracted by Svk.

After every operating hour, the cost of the power services activated by Svk is divided among the

BRPs responsible for the imbalance. Svenska kraftnät (2023e) highlights a total of four reserve types

with different requirements. The requirements partly consist of different endurances and response

times in order to handle frequency deviations at different stages. Amongst these four reserves, one

type is Frequency Containment Reserves (FCR). In order to enter any of the FCR markets one must

have a contract concerning balance responsibility with a BRP and an approved prequalification, in

which it is checked that all technical specifications for the market are met. FCR has the task of

stabilizing the frequency for any deviation and is crucial in maintaining the balance. FCR are divided

into three different types, more specifically, Frequency Containment Reserve - Normal (FCR-N), Fre-

quency Containment Reserve - Disturbance upward (FCR-D up) and Frequency Containment Reserve

- Disturbance downward (FCR-D down).

FCR-N is essential for stabilizing the frequency during time of deviation by up or down steering (Sven-

ska kraftnät, 2023b) and is automatically activated during frequency deviation ranging from 49.9 -

50.1 Hz. The reserve is procured symmetrically for upward and downward regulation and is activated

within 3 minutes with an endurance of 1 hour. FCR-N is used during normal operation, where nor-

mal entails deviation in frequency not considered a disturbance resulting in longer activation times

compared to FCR-D. Minimum bids for FCR-N are 0.1 MW where trades for up and down steering

are made one and two days before operations respectively (Svenska kraftnät, 2023b).

FCR-D is an additional Frequency Containment Reserve activated during disruptions (Svenska kraftnät,

2023d). Similar to FCR-N, the reserve’s minimum bids are 0.1 MW, but in comparison, activated

within 30 seconds with an endurance of 20 minutes. It consists of two different reserves, one used

for up steering and one for down steering. FCR-D up is automatically activated linearly within a

frequency interval between 49.9-49.5 Hz with up steering to reach an ideal level of 50 Hz. FCR-D

down has an activation interval between 50.1-50.5 Hz with the same activation time as FCR-D up,

hence utilized for down steering (Svenska kraftnät, 2023c).

2.2 Flexibility Market

Electricity consumers are to an increasingly greater extent charged for their momentary power strain

on the grid in addition to their actual energy consumption (Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2023). That

is because the power supply is not only limited by the total power produced, but also by the subscrip-

9


tion levels between transmission, regional, and local grids. This means that additional power could

be produced nationally or regionally, but the local grids wouldn’t be able to access it. Network oper-

ators have historically dimensioned the regional and local grids based on the highest expected peak

load (Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2020). That is no longer a rational approach with the ongoing

electrification of society and the shift towards more renewable energy sources because of the costs

associated with meeting the theoretical peak loads.

If the power usage was less volatile, or to some extent could be controlled, the capacity requirements

and risk of grid congestion would be reduced. This can be accomplished by reducing power usage

during peak hours, or by increasing power supply within the local grid, which can be achieved by local

flexibility markets (Vattenfall Eldistribution, n.d.). Flexibility is in this case the ability to meet power

variations originating from both supply- and demand-sides, which can be provided through demand-

side flexibility and supply-side flexibility (Ahmadiahangar et al., 2020). Demand side flexibility refers

to the act of reducing the use of electricity, lowering the needed power, while supply-side flexibility

refers to increasing the produced power. As explained by Svenska kraftnät (2021b), this means that

an energy consumer either temporarily reduces its power withdrawal or increases its electricity pro-

duction, an act that can be sold as a flexibility service.

The purpose of a flexibility market is to create a marketplace for electricity consumers, electricity

producers, and the DSO to trade flexibility. When power demand is expected to reach straining lev-

els, flexibility services can flatten the demand curve by postponing power usage to a time with lower

power demand. A flexibility market is parallel to the wholesale electricity market and does not require

large additional investments (Liu et al., 2021).

An important element of flexibility markets is the value of flexibility (Noel et al., 2019). The true value

of flexibility depends on the investments in the electrical grid that can be avoided by the use of local

flexibility. Validating that the procured flexibility is actually delivered is done against a consumption

baseline, which marks what the power usage would have been if the flexibility of the actor was not

used. A problem arises if actors don’t accept the calculations of these baselines as actors will dispute

the settlements, causing clear settlement rules and well-defined pricing models to be important in

order to make flexibility markets attractive.

Local flexibility markets have recently been introduced in Sweden, of which SthlmFlex and Effek-

thandel Väst are two examples. Both markets are constructed as open markets where flexibility

10


service providers located within the local grid can participate and bid their flexibility. Effekthandel

Väst covers two local grids with separate DSOs, while SthlmFlex covers four DSOs, enabling flexibility

providers to sell flexibility to respective DSOs.

The market operator for both Effekthandel Väst and SthlmFlex is NODES, an independent market

operator providing a marketplace for trading decentralized flexibility and energy. Flexibility is traded

in terms of power (MW) on an hourly basis, where the minimum bid size is 0.1 MW (Nodes, 2022).

Multiple resources can be aggregated into a trading portfolio to reach the minimum bid size. Flexi-

bility is traded in the two products ShortFlex and LongFlex, where Shortflex is flexibility traded in

close to real-time on a continuous market, and LongFlex is contracts that ensure the DSOs submit

ShortFlex bids during the contract hours. Compensation for ShortFlex is of a pay-as-bid structure,

while compensation for LongFlex consists of both an availability pay and an activation pay.

2.3 Vehicle-to-Grid

Described by Willett Kempton and Steven E. Letendre as early as 1997, electric vehicles have the

capability to act as a power source for electric utilities (Kempton & Letendre, 1997). Although a

vague definition, this stated the concept of V2G, to use the battery inside of an EV to store electricity

for the benefit of the electrical grid. The stored electricity can be used by the grid when necessary,

supporting the electrical grid as a whole. The concept of V2G, together with the underlying technol-

ogy, applications, and value network must be described in order to fully understand what V2G can

offer the Swedish electricity system.

In terms of how the V2G technology functions, Noel et al. (2019) highlights the need for an EV with

V2G capability and a compatible bidirectional charger. Bidirectional chargers are two-way chargers

capable of not only charging the battery, but also discharging it, which is essential in order to provide

electricity back to the grid. Noel also demonstrates that a total of 6–9 EVs may be combined to

provide a total power of 100kW, whereas bidirectional chargers for household usage have a maximum

capacity of roughly 10kW.

Noel et al. (2019) define three key elements of a V2G system. These are a power connection to the

electrical grid, communication that regulates charging and discharging, and a means to audit the

services rendered to the grid which in turn will regulate the level of compensation. Noel et al. further

emphasize the importance of a communication pathway to direct the power flows.

11


2.3.1 V2G Applications

In line with the description of Kempton and Letendre, V2G is equivalent to a battery acting as a

power source for the grid, providing it with power and electricity. The limitations of the ability to

provide power are the batteries’ state of charge (SoC), constraints imposed by the vehicle owner, and

the potential power flow, limited by the charger (Mkhize & Dorrell, 2019). Noel et al. (2019) explain

that although electrical systems differ over the globe, one can identify three general markets for V2G

available in most electricity systems. These are baseload power, peak load, and ancillary services,

which are all applicable to the Swedish electricity system.

The baseload power concept refers to the production of wholesale energy, typically by large hydro-,

coal-, or nuclear power plants, that meet the constant energy demand of the market. These power

plants benefit from economies of scale, low production costs, and limited requirements on flexibility

due to long timeframes of market participation (Noel et al., 2019). Conversely, the characteristics of

V2G technology make it unsuitable for the baseload market, as the limited energy storage capacity of

EV batteries cannot provide energy at a competitive price when compared to large-scale power plants.

During periods of high power demand, baseload power sources may not be sufficient to meet demand.

On these occasions, peak production plants are used, such as gas turbines running on fossil fuels.

Actors providing peak load energy are more flexible but have higher production costs due to the less

frequent occurrence of peak demand, which can be daily, weekly, or even less frequent. As the price of

electricity is higher during demand side peaks, energy arbitrage can be performed during these peaks.

Kocer et al. (2021) refer to energy arbitrage as selling electricity stored in the EV during times of

high demand, for higher prices, and charging the vehicle when the electricity price is at normal levels.

This is also sometimes referred to as peak shaving or peak shifting. Although a possible application

and revenue stream for the EV user, Noel et al. (2019) state that this kind of service is not optimal

nor the best use case for V2G. That is because peak power is energy-intensive, peak frequency differs

and can be low, and peaks can be hard to predict.

Instead, Noel et al. (2019) claim that the best-suited market for V2G is ancillary services, in par-

ticular frequency regulation, which in Sweden is handled by Svk. The need for frequency regulation

is continuous, and the duration time of frequency containment reserves (FCR) ranges between 20 to

60 minutes with bid sizes starting at 0.1 MW. This implies, as described by Noel et al. (2019), that

frequency containment reserves require high power capacity but limited amount of energy at short

response times. Also, the service is remunerated based on the provided available power and not the

12


exchanged energy. This service represents a good match with the characteristics of V2G technology

as the EV battery is a limited energy resource but is capable of providing high instantaneous power

(Zecchino et al., 2019).

V2G is also a suitable technology to be used in local flexibility markets, e.g. Effekthandel Väst in

Gothenburg. Flexibility sold on a flexibility market consists of both reduction of power outages as

well as increased electricity production. This means that V2G could contribute both as demand-side

flexibility, where charging is temporarily ceased during the delivered period, and as a supply-side

flexibility where power is provided to the grid (Noel et al., 2019). Flexibility is sold on an hourly

basis, making it as energy intensive as FCR and a fair match for V2G.

2.3.2 V2G Value Network

The concept of prosumers is gaining traction in the energy sector. According to Ahmed and Etherden

(2021), prosumers are referred to as individuals both consuming and producing energy. The authors

further explain that flexibility solutions from prosumers provide stability to the power system, and

in combination with renewable energy, it may offer the lowest cost power solution in the future. The

emergence of prosumers is highly relevant in the context of V2G where individual EVs can be used

for battery storage, and where the EV users both consume and produce electricity by providing it

back to the grid. This makes the EV users a key actor in the V2G value network, as this is the actor

receiving and delivering value in the form of electricity with bidirectional charging.

Noel et al. (2019) illustrates two additional actors within the V2G value network besides the EV

user; aggregators and grid operators. Aggregators are intermediaries that collect multiple EVs and

subsequently offer their collective capacity to the grid. A single EV cannot meet the minimum bid of

the balancing market due to its limited capacity. Hence, the aggregator enables EV users to establish

a connection with the grid, manages charging and discharging, and ensures that the energy provided

meets the requirements of different markets.

Noel et al. (2019) describe the grid operators as the actors responsible for managing the electrical

grid and ensuring that the supply of electricity matches the demand. These operators include TSOs

responsible for the national grid, and DSOs responsible for the local grid. The TSO buys balancing

services in order to match demand with the consumption of electricity, making the TSO a customer

of ancillary services. In the context of a V2G network, the TSO can be seen as a customer buying

balancing services from an aggregator that accumulates multiple EVs’ capacity. On a local level, such

13


as local flexibility markets, the DSO becomes the customer buying flexibility.

The issue of the unpredictable and fluctuating nature of EV charging and discharging could cause

instability in the electrical grid due to actors such as the aggregator not being able to deliver the

promised capacity in time (Sovacool et al., 2018). Therefore, actors in the V2G value network need to

collaborate and communicate. This is highlighted by Noel et al. (2019), stating that the performance

of a V2G system is a result of its design and implementation. Also, if all stakeholders are benefited

appropriately, the likelihood of it becoming a successful system increases.

Sovacool et al. (2018) illustrate that the initial step in V2G involves the EV user plugging in a charging

cable into the vehicle after it is parked. The willingness of EV users to participate is highly dependent

on the presence of appropriate incentives that take into account factors such as battery degradation,

flexibility and inconvenience. The incentives can be in the form of monetary compensation, reduced

energy costs, or other benefits. The author further highlights the unpredictable and variable nature of

individual EV charging and discharging patterns causes an increased instability of aggregating such

resources. To address this challenge, the aggregator needs to ensure adequate capacity to meet the

needs of the grid, either through securing additional resources in the form of more EVs, or by using

forecasting techniques and developing effective communication and control strategies with EV users

to ensure that they are able to adjust their charging and discharging patterns in response to grid

demand.

2.3.3 V2G Prosumers

Though the primary concern of an EV is ensuring mobility, it has been shown that the majority of

EVs’ are utilized only for about 5% of their lifetime (Sommerset Busengdal et al., 2022). In addition

to this, a study carried out in Denmark found that the majority of EV users prioritize charging their

vehicles at home and consider the cost of home charging to be important (Visaria et al., 2022). There

is potential value for the individual EV owner in adopting a V2G solution where the EV could be

utilized profitably instead of being left unused 95% of the time.

An essential part of commercializing the V2G technology is the implementation of smart charging.

Smart charging refers to controlling and optimizing charging based on electricity price and availability.

An important aspect of this technology is the prosumerss’ willingness to adapt their charging behavior.

Today, a majority of EV users are positive about the adoption of smart charging, however, due to lack

of insight into how the technology works, there is a barrier to overcome (Sommerset Busengdal et al.,

14


2022). The users require three features; uncomplicated usage, transparency and control of charging

sessions when necessary. Additionally, they fear their cars won’t be sufficiently charged upon using

them, resulting in a reluctance to take part in supporting the grid.

Another study demonstrated that range anxiety and minimum range are crucial factors when it comes

to adopting V2G technology, which further reinforces the aforementioned claim (Geske & Schumann,

2018). Furthermore, the authors argue that there is a difference in how EV users who travel long

distances perceive the technology compared to those who travel shorter distances, with the latter

being more willing to adopt V2G. Monetary incentives will hardly change the reluctance to adopt for

long-distance EV users. The study also suggests that high adoption rates can be achieved without

monetary incentives as long as there is a reasonable and transparent V2G solution that accommodates

both foreseeable and unforeseeable mobility demand.

In a study where potential V2G users were given the opportunity to test the technology, the results in-

dicated that acceptance primarily depended on four key factors (Ghotge et al., 2022). One such factor

was that the effects of using V2G was clearly communicated to the users. This included the economic

benefits of using the technology, the effects on the battery, and the societal and environmental value of

V2G. Additionally, the users wanted financial compensation covering the battery degradation of V2G

charging. A third aspect was transparent information on battery charging in real-time, and finally,

the ability for the users to opt out of V2G charging and set their own parameters when participating.

The work of Ghotge et al. (2022) also demonstrates, in contrast to prior research, the significance

of financial compensation for consumers who provide flexibility. Additionally, the study reinforces

that being in control of the charging process is essential. However, it asserts that for prosumers, the

focus is more on setting minimal range and SoC rather than actively managing the charging process

themselves.

EV users may have different reasons for adopting V2G, and different incentives need to be identified

for each customer segment (Langenhuizen et al., 2022). Langenhuizen et al. outline three main types

of individual prosumers; financially, environmentally, and socially motivated ones. The financially

motivated prosumers are looking to pay as little as possible for electricity and being financially com-

pensated for losing flexibility whereas the environmentally motivated ones are driven by their desire

to contribute to a more sustainable society. Socially conscious prosumers are mainly incentivized by

avoiding grid congestion and fair use of the grid overall.

15


2.4 The Aggregator Role

Aggregators serve as intermediaries between consumers, such as individual EV users, and the general

electricity market (Färeg̊ard & Miletic, 2021). They establish agreements with flexible resources and

are then able to control their power loads according to these agreements, freeing up power that can

be used when needed. The requirements for trading on electricity markets often consist of larger

capacities than what a single household can provide, thereby highlighting the need for aggregators on

the electricity market.

Färeg̊ard and Miletic (2021) further emphasize the importance of aggregators by pointing out that

they possess valuable knowledge about the complex process of commercing and coordinating flexibility.

Private consumers may not carry this awareness, limiting their ability to trade flexibility individually.

Nonetheless, aggregators working with smaller prosumers are relatively new in the Swedish electricity

system. With the ongoing shift towards an increasingly flexible electricity system, increased emphasis

has been brought on the aggregator role, which according to Färeg̊ard and Miletic (2021), is gaining

momentum. As the Swedish electricity system continues to grow, aggregators will have an essential

role in enabling its development.

2.4.1 Aggregation Models

Färeg̊ard and Miletic (2021) further suggest that the aggregator role can be divided into three types

of models that operate on different levels. The first model is described as a market aggregator (MA),

which conceptually is a portfolio of assets. These assets consist of other aggregators, specifically

technical aggregators (TA). While technical aggregators possess the technical product, they may lack

market requirements or viable business models that cover the whole value chain. The MA gathers

several TAs as sub-contractors and can then take over the balancing responsibility from each TA,

either by making agreements with the BRP or by becoming BRP themselves. An MA can be seen as

a market integrator for sub-aggregators who in turn are technologically equipped, creating a symbiotic

relationship between the two.

The third aggregator model can be seen as an integrated model of the other two and is called an

independent aggregator (IA) (Färeg̊ard & Miletic, 2021). IAs should be able to operate independently

from other aggregators, which in practice means they can acquire new flexible resources without

involving any other actor. Subsequently, the IA should, independently of other actors, be able to

acquire new resources that have different electricity suppliers. Currently, the Swedish electricity

market doesn’t allow independent aggregators.

16


2.4.2 Independent Aggregation

To ensure equal conditions for all aggregators on the market, the EU has decided on a set of com-

mon rules for how aggregators should act on the electricity market (Energimarknadsinspektionen,

2021). These rules state that aggregators should have access to all markets without consent from the

customer’s existing electricity supplier or BRP. This concept is known as independent aggregation

and means, in addition to promoting IAs, that a customer should be able to choose an aggregator

independent of their current electricity supplier or BRP.

(Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2021) highlights that in addition to aggregation, aggregators are cur-

rently responsible for balancing. This means that an actor may only deliver electricity if it also takes

responsibility for supplying the same amount of electricity as is being consumed at each outlet point.

In practice, this means that an aggregator would need to be responsible for the EV users’ entire elec-

tricity supply in order to acquire the flexibility offered by the user. Alternatively, this responsibility

can be delegated to a BRP but this requires consent from the BRP, making it difficult to grant aggre-

gators independence and goes against the goal of independent aggregation. Svenska kraftnät (2023a)

states that the role of a BRP will be divided into two roles, consisting of balance service providers

(BSPs) and BRPs, where the BSP would be responsible only for delivering balance services while the

responsibility of a BRP concerns preventing imbalances from other market actors. The goal of this

reconstruction is to remove barriers from the market and create opportunities for additional actors to

provide balancing services by becoming BSPs.

2.4.3 V2G Aggregation

Noel et al. (2019) reason that in a V2G system, the aggregator can be seen as the principal actor as it

is the entity that enables the bidirectional interaction between EVs and the electrical grid. When the

V2G market reaches personal vehicles and individual EV users, established organizations can embody

the aggregator role. This could, for example, be actors such as electricity suppliers or providers of

charging stations. Such companies can easily enter agreements with EV users for their household and

EV power services. Although important for V2G, the aggregator role is far from fully explored which is

further complicated by the relatively dynamic and fast-paced V2G environment (Sovacool et al., 2020).

A V2G aggregator, as explained by Sovacool et al. (2020), has to fulfill technical, business-related, reg-

ulatory, and societal dimensions. Technical aspects include algorithms to minimize technical impacts

and maximize privacy, while business-related dimensions involve developing sound business models.

The regulatory dimensions mean understanding and handling regulatory barriers, and societal factors

17


revolve around encouraging EV users to use V2G as well as educating them of its benefits. The

perspective of Färeg̊ard and Miletic (2021) is however that different aggregation models can be used

in order to focus on just some of these dimensions.

Sovacool et al. (2020) further describe that aggregators can offer stability as market participants

through the implementation of predictive- and control algorithms. Aggregators can obtain data from

previous charging behavior which in turn can be used in order to estimate the available aggregated

resources for future market participation. The business model, and which markets to participate in,

will vary between geographical regions depending on local contexts, but also need to be flexibly de-

signed to match the evolving benefits of V2G. Noel et al. (2019) note that as the V2G market evolves,

the business models and aggregator models will increase in complexity. The aggregator will have to

handle various types of transactions involving different actors depending on the market, each with its

unique pricing structure. Simultaneously EV users want information about what transactions, both

financial and physical, are taking place.

V2G has the potential to both challenge and innovate the current electricity- and transport busi-

ness landscape. At the same time, as reasoned by Sovacool et al. (2020), this opens new business

opportunities for established organizations in these sectors. EVs are expected to reduce the mainte-

nance revenues of OEMs, threatening their business case. However, OEMs can create new revenue

streams by embodying new roles within the V2G environment. One such role could be the aggregator

role.

18


3 Method

There are primarily two different methodological approaches, qualitative and quantitative methodol-

ogy (Blomqvist & Hallin, 2014). Since the report deals with a relatively new and unexplored topic and

has an exploratory nature, the investigation has been conducted with a strong qualitative character,

where data collection and analysis methods prioritize the use of words rather than numbers. The

purpose is to provide a contextual understanding, leading to the qualitative methodological approach

being the most suitable, as it focuses on rich and nuanced data.

3.1 Data Collection

The data collection was done partially using the interview method, which Blomqvist and Hallin (2014)

consider appropriate when seeking to develop a deeper understanding, discover new dimensions, or

find ambiguities in a phenomenon which is in line with the purpose of this study. The interviews con-

ducted were semi-structured. Semi-structured interviews are organized around a set of predetermined

topics or questions that the interviewer seeks insights into, which are listed in an interview guide

(Blomqvist & Hallin, 2014). This type of interview is flexible as the interviewer can deviate from the

guide if they identify something interesting during the interview, but overall, the same types of ques-

tions and phrases are used for all interview subjects (Bell et al., 2019). The reason for choosing this

approach was that flexibility, in the form of follow-up questions, and comparability can be leveraged

to collect rich data and personal reflections. This is important in an explorative study, especially since

the research topic is relatively unexplored.

The second part of the data collection process involved conducting a survey to gather information

about EV users’ perspectives. The survey was qualitative, which means that the focus was on drawing

conclusions from the results and the qualitative aspects of the responses. Consequently, no importance

was given to statistical accuracy in the survey so, the survey is not statistically representative of the

entire population, as a random sample was not used. However, there is value in gaining insights into

various opinions and perspectives from those who participated in the survey.

3.1.1 Interviews

At the beginning of the data collection, six semi-structured interviews with a low level of structure

were conducted, which is a useful approach to explore a research topic without knowing specifically

what to investigate (Blomqvist & Hallin, 2014). The interviews were conducted without pre-defining

an interview framework, except for a general topic that the interview aimed to provide insight into. In

19


advance, the topic ”The Value Chain for V2G” was sent to the respondent. Based on the respondent’s

role and knowledge, they were given the freedom to reflect on the topic and were provided with space

to develop their thoughts and ideas. These interviews primarily served as a foundation for further

work on the report and to provide an increased understanding of the research topic. All group mem-

bers participated in these sessions to establish common knowledge and they were conducted digitally.

The sampling for the first six interviews was made using an opportunistic sampling method, which

means that respondents were selected based on their connection to the research group (Cassell, 2015).

In addition, a snowball sampling method was used, where some of the respondents were selected based

on recommendations from previous respondents. Table 1 below illustrates the respondents for the first

interviews.

Table 1: Interviewees of the initial interviews

Actor Role
Car Manufacturer Product Owner
Car Manufacturer Senior Director
Car Manufacturer Attribute Owner
Car Manufacturer Strategy & Business Developer
Energy Supplier Development Strategist
Energy Supplier Balancing Market Analyst

Following these interviews, 13 semi-structured interviews with a higher level of structure were con-

ducted with different types of actors in the V2G value chain. Prior to conducting these interviews, an

interview guide was created, in which areas of interest were identified as a basis for the questions that

were posed during the interviews. These areas were determined based on the reviewed theory and the

interviews that had been conducted previously. The focus during the interviews was on understand-

ing the respondent’s perspectives on the topics, and they were given the opportunity to explain their

views, which is important for a qualitative study (Bell et al., 2019). The interviews were conducted

digitally, and three members participated during each interview, with two focused on leading the

interview and asking follow-up questions and the third taking notes and identifying key segments.

The types of actors that were deemed interesting to interview were selected based on the reviewed

literature and the first six interviews. Actors within the electricity sector, OEMs, and aggregators were

identified as interesting due to their influence on the market. Individuals with relevant roles in the

development of V2G or aggregator services within these organizations were identified and contacted

via email, and meetings were scheduled. The sampling was limited to actors operating on or intending

to enter the Swedish market. Table 2 below illustrates the respondents from the semi-structured

20


interviews.

Table 2: Interviewees of the second round of interviews

Code Block Actor Role
ES1 Electricity Sector Electricity Supplier R&D Strategist
ES2 Electricity Sector Electricity Supplier Development Strategist
ES3 Electricity Sector Electricity Supplier R&D Portfolio Manager
ES4 Electricity Sector Network Operator Manager Flexibility Market
ES5 Electricity Sector Electricity Market Senior Advisor on Market Design
ES6 Electricity Sector Electricity Market Market Manager
OEM1 OEM Car Manufacturer Product Owner
OEM2 OEM Car Manufacturer Product Owner
A1 Aggregator Aggregator Product Manager
A2 Aggregator Aggregator Innovation Project Manager
A3 Aggregator Aggregator Business Developer
A4 Aggregator Aggregator CEO
A5 Aggregator Housing Association Chairman of the Board

3.1.2 Survey

In addition to the interviews, a survey method was employed as part of the data collection process.

The objective of the survey was to complement the interviews with data related to EV users’ prefer-

ences when choosing an aggregator.

The distributed survey included a set of structured questions based on the theory and the early inter-

views. These questions were designed to collect data on what factors were important for private EV

users in the choice of an aggregator. Additionally, the survey included questions about the respon-

dents’ car brand and ownership status.

The survey was distributed in three social groups on Facebook, illustrated in Table 3. These groups

were selected based on their relevance to electric vehicles and their location in Sweden. The reason for

choosing to distribute the survey in these groups is that their members are active, well-informed, and

interested in the topic, which is essential for receiving meaningful responses to the survey. Another

consideration that was made when selecting the groups was the assumption that most individuals in

these groups have access to and drive an electric vehicle, which is also reflected in the results. All

members of the groups had access to and were eligible to participate in the survey, which was open

for one week between 2023-04-19 and 2023-04-26 and yielded 234 answers.

21


Table 3: The social network groups of the survey

Name Number of members
Elbil och laddhybridbil i Sverige 15 500
Elbilsladdning Sverige 12 100
Elbil Sverige Forum och Diskussion 2 300

3.2 Data Analysis

Once conducted, the interviews were transcribed partially through word-for-word transcription of the

parts deemed relevant during the review of the recordings. Notes taken during the interviews were

helpful in this process. Since the interviews were conducted in Swedish and the report is written

in English, the quotes have been manually translated into English by the authors. Once all the in-

terviews were transcribed, a qualitative data analysis was conducted in the form of a thematic analysis.

Blomqvist and Hallin (2014) describe a thematic analysis as a relevant and commonly used method

for analyzing qualitative studies. The method involves categorizing the empirical data into different

themes, which can either emerge during the process of reading through the data or be predeter-

mined.Bell et al. (2019) suggest that a useful approach for identifying themes is to look for repetition,

similarities, and differences in the data.

The thematic analysis in this study consisted of 4 steps, which are described below.

1. An overall understanding of the empirical data was formed by becoming familiar with the ma-

terial. The transcripts were read multiple times to gain a deep understanding of the content of

each interview.

2. The data were coded using descriptive codes such as ”Barrier”, ”Potential aggregator”, and

”Capabilities” to identify relevant and interesting sections in the transcripts.

3. Codes of similar nature were grouped together to form common themes. These themes were

reviewed and revised to create themes that were as clear as possible. The themes are the

headings in the result chapter and can be seen in Table 4.

4. The content of the categories was analyzed to understand the implications of the themes and

the material in relation to the research questions. This was done separately for each theme, and

then a comparison was made to identify relationships or patterns between the themes.

Even though the data collected from the survey is quantitative, the results have been analyzed using

a qualitative approach. This means that factors such as standard deviation or similar statistical

22


measures have not been given much importance. Instead, the data has been interpreted from the

perspective of EV users, taking into account their perceptions and perspectives and using the data

to complement the interviews. The aim has been to understand what factors influence the choice of

aggregator.

23


4 Results and Analysis

The findings from the interviews have been organized into themes, shedding light on various aspects

related to the role of aggregators in V2G networks. The results from the survey are presented and

analyzed separately.

4.1 Interviews

Based on the analysis of the interview material, seven themes were determined with the aim of

summarizing the key topics and differences raised during the interviews to address the study’s research

questions. The seven themes are displayed in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Themes for analyzing the interview data

Themes of the Result and Analysis
The Aggregator Role
Barriers for V2G Aggregators
Central aspects for V2G Aggregators
Differences Between Possible Aggregator Markets
Actors Suitable for an Aggregator Service
Suitability of an EV Manufacturer as an Aggregator
Aggregators and EV Users

4.1.1 The Aggregator Role

The respondents’ explanations of an aggregator was generally concordant. According to them, an

aggregator is an actor that collects a number of resources to facilitate a process that is complicated to

do on an individual level. Respondents from the electricity sector provided a description to highlight

that aggregation isn’t anything new. ES1 exemplified this by saying “I would say that already today

the electricity industry works with aggregates, so to speak. I mean, they don’t take the electricity con-

sumption of each individual house and put it on the market, but rather the electricity supplier gathers

it together like an aggregate and puts it on the market.” ES5 also defined electricity suppliers as a sort

of aggregator and dated it back to the deregulation of the Swedish electricity market in 1996.

In regards to aggregating resources such as EVs, the respondents also had a similar definition. As

described by respondent A4, and similarly by others, an aggregator monitors and controls distributed

energy resources, which collectively can deliver some type of value to someone. It is also possible

to say that the aggregator creates and controls decentralized battery storage. ES1 emphasized that

when aggregating and selling power or capacity from EVs, the vehicle’s batteries actually have to be

24


controlled. Although aggregation of customers has been done before, as in the example of electricity

suppliers aggregating customers’ demand, controlling something owned by the aggregators has not

yet been done.

ES2 further defined the aggregator as an actor that technologically and administratively creates the

possibility to provide an aggregated service. OEM1 raises the perspective of aggregating in order to

control multiple assets uniformly, it is also important to be able to control the resources individually.

Although most respondents seem to have a homogenous view of the aggregator role, the area is new.

OEM2 expressed a perception that the terminology within the subject is ambiguous which can make

dialogues complicated.

Some respondents described the aggregator role on a more practical level. ES6 explained that larger

organizations, e.g., Vattenfall, can act as an aggregator of minor aggregators, which would allow for

the participation of smaller aggregators in some markets. According to A2, TAs solve the technical

integration of energy resources, meaning that they don’t need to have knowledge of how to act on

different markets and the regulatory requirements that follow.

4.1.2 Barriers for V2G Aggregators

The respondents acknowledged that several agreements have to be in place in order to make V2G

available for an aggregator. In the current Swedish V2G landscape, all aggregators must cooperate

with a BRP. A4 highlighted that ”In order to earn any money or generate revenue, you need to have

the right electricity retailer who has an agreement with someone who has balance responsibility.” Alter-

natively, the aggregator could take this responsibility and become a BRP. Some involvement from the

car manufacturer is also required, as specified by ES3 ”But if you really start to make it bi-directional,

then the car manufacturer will detect that you are drawing power from the battery, and then the car

manufacturer will need to approve it in some way.” Beyond this, the electricity is transferred using

the electrical grid, owned by the respective network owner.

The majority of the energy suppliers and aggregators agreed that the Swedish electricity market has

tough requirements as it stands today. As for independent aggregation, the market climate is not

currently applicable for the concept, which becomes especially problematic when aggregating smaller

flexible resources like individual EVs. Taking this into consideration, A4 highlighted that ”The min-

imum bid size is 100 kW. Then you need at least 30 households with 11 kW chargers if you are to

guarantee 100 kW. Then you need to have 30 customers who preferably have the same electricity

25


supplier and thus the same balancing responsible party.” This could become problematic for smaller

aggregators who may have a problem aggregating enough capacity within these limiting conditions.

Most respondents were uncertain yet curious about the effects following a separation of the BRP and

BSP roles, and agreed that the effect largely depends on how the legislation is formulated. There were

some differences in opinion about the expected effects of this proposed change. Some respondents were

skeptical about the formulation of the legislation and thus the impact of the separation. They believed

that it might not achieve the expected independence among aggregators. A4 expressed ”It does not

look entirely optimal in any case to realize the BSP role”, and ES2 went on to state “Much will depend

on legislation. The Electricity Act can’t even spell ’aggregator’ today”. Some respondents went further

and highlighted potential effects to the uncertainties brought up by the ongoing legislative proposal.

ES3 explained: ”As there is an awareness that there will be a change, there is uncertainty about how

to act now, and whether to act at all, without knowing how it will turn out.” The uncertainty of such

future decisions that extensively influence V2G profitability can become a barrier for individual V2G

aggregators as well as for the V2G network, as several stakeholders may refrain from taking action.

Some respondents had a more positive attitude and argued that if legislation is drafted correctly,

it can facilitate V2G and enable independent aggregation. This not only makes it easier for new

aggregators to enter the market but also benefits smaller established aggregators as they can avoid

the challenges listed above in finding EV users with the same BRP. A few respondents also described

that independent aggregation reduces complexity by involving fewer actors, ultimately leading to

increased profitability as funds are distributed among fewer parties, ES4 ”Perhaps it is also easier to

make it profitable if there are fewer people to share the cake with.” OEM2 brings up a possible backside

with independent aggregation, though. ”Independence sounds great. It’s simpler, fewer steps, super

good, but how will it work in practice? If any of you own a house or a business or a warehouse,

will you then have two different contracts instead of one electricity retail contract? It becomes very

complex for the customer.”

4.1.3 Central Aspects for V2G Aggregators

One of the most fundamental characteristics highlighted was the technical ability to aggregate and

control the vehicles. It was argued that the aggregator could outsource this or develop it in-house,

but A2 stated that competence in how to use the software is equally crucial to having it. ”It’s not

enough to just pay for a platform. You need to know how to operate it.” It may be costly to have

another party develop the platform, but even if this investment is made, the aggregator must be able

26


to run the platform for its purposes.

Aggregating enough capacity and flexibility was equally critical according to respondents. It was noted

that the aggregator’s energy resources could be further aggregated into a larger portfolio of energy

resources controlled by another aggregator. This actor could potentially be a market aggregator that

would need technical abilities to control the portfolio. Besides having to reach the minimum bid size,

ES2 brought up the fact that EVs aren’t constantly plugged in, and the aggregator may need a larger

fleet size to guarantee to reach the promised capacity. “EVs have a meaningful battery capacity, but

the disadvantage is that they’re not standing still all the time. This is why an aggregator of EVs is

different from an aggregator of other resources. Because of that reason, you need more cars to get up

to and guarantee capacity.”

Respondents from the aggregator block expressed the importance of demonstrating aggregating capa-

bilities to convince larger aggregators of becoming a part of their portfolio. However, several intervie-

wees pointed out that it is not the aggregator that will ultimately decide whether an EV is connected.

This decision instead lies among each EV user, implying that an aggregator trying to measure its

aggregated capacity might not be as straightforward as just counting the EVs aggregated. A2 agreed

with this and highlighted another important fact: “It’s important to build trust with the customer by

demonstrating that you have a successful project and know what you’re doing.” A2 further explained

that by achieving partnerships with established aggregators, one can also achieve results faster with

less investment and risk, ”If there are companies that are already doing it, you have a higher chance

of demonstrating it faster with less investment. Because if you want to do everything yourself, it’s

gonna take you years to develop all the capabilities and a lot of money. But you will not have tested

that this works for the customers.”

Besides aggregating vehicles, the energy block states that V2G aggregators must be able to deag-

gregate earnings. This was emphasized by ES1, who reasoned, ”Many cannot deaggregate, how will

you distribute the profit to customers?” ES1 further explained that this could quickly become quite

complex: ”It becomes more complex if you have multiple products in the same portfolio. We have

some electricity trading, some flexibility, some peak shaving. It’s like a stock portfolio that gives you

a share of the profit. And who contributed to what? It becomes almost impossible to keep track of.

Who gets what from the total earnings?” As such, an essential aspect of deaggregation is the ability

to divide and segment EV users and markets, and to understand which resources have contributed to

what earnings.

27


Another type of segmentation was emphasized by A2, who expressed: ”Not all the cars are equally

flexible. If there’s a car that’s moving around all day, it’s not flexible” and continued with “I think

maybe you also need to segment your portfolio and say, I’m gonna start with the most flexible ones.

Because this one is kind of a quick win. If you look at it without segmenting, you might end up with

some cars that don’t give you almost any flexibility and then it’s a waste of time.” This reasoning

indicates that the resources needed for aggregating each car are similar. By segmenting the EVs

based on use patterns, EVs with low availability can be filtered out. Such segmentation would likely

increase profitability, indicating that effective segmentation becomes an essential aspect of becoming

a successful aggregator.

Respondents suggested that a difficulty with using EVs as a flexible resource is that these resources

aren’t continually plugged into the grid. Several respondents agreed that in order to bid accurately,

aggregators must be able to forecast when each EV will be plugged in and how much energy it can

contribute to the grid. This requires reliable predictions based on data and statistical knowledge. Bids

exceeding what the aggregator actually can contribute may result in expensive penalties and could

ultimately cause the aggregator to be prohibited from participating in market activities. However,

bidding significantly lower than the aggregator’s actual capacity could result in unprofitability, and

may cause the aggregator to lose its market share to more lucrative competitors who can offer better

incentives to prosumers, as was explained by ES1. “There will be some type of elimination. The one

who is good at forecasting will outcompete the one who is bad.”

Several respondents acknowledged that most actors in the network are only experienced within their

own operations. However, in order for an aggregator service to apply to a market, a broader compe-

tence that extends further than the internal expertise is needed. A2 exemplified it by saying “Markets

are basically like super regulated, completely different from operating a car” and further explained

that ”if you want to add this expertise to your company, you have to buy someone.” Similarly, several

other respondents believed that cooperation by separating tasks or sharing knowledge is crucial for an

aggregator to become successful, one of which is ES4. ”We want to listen and learn from the car man-

ufacturers but at the same time they need to understand the challenges with the power grid, because

it is like this, nothing is just black and white. Here we need to understand each other’s conditions.”

Some kind of partnership, collaboration, or network has to be in place since almost no actor has

the knowledge, nor the capacity to aggregate an entire market successfully on their own. A2 further

emphasized the importance of cooperation. “What I see in the market is there’s a lot of sophisti, like

underestimation of what the effort to go to market” and ”it’s not only doing a technical integration,

28


then you need to know how to operate in the market, you need to know how to put the prices, how are

you putting the bids” which is in accordance with what the other respondents answered. Depending

on whether the aggregator chooses to act on the market independently or not, the extent of market

knowledge may vary.

The perceived need for cooperation and networks among the respondents implies that several actors

will have to share the same revenue stream. “There’s one cake and we need to share it,” according

to A2. However, with multiple actors involved, one interesting point most respondents shared was

that the more actors involved in the solution the less profitable it’s going to be. It can be difficult to

find a business model that is accepted by all parties whilst economically viable. A4 added that ”Even

though it could be quite a lot of money on a larger volume, it is still very little, for each individual it

is not very much money.” This indicates that getting a business model approved by all actors and

attractive enough to get prosumers to connect might be a limiting factor for aggregators.

Finally, several respondents stated that one of the main differentiating strategies between aggregators

will be the simplicity of the service and having an intuitive user interface. With several aggregators

offering similar services and incentives, what will make actors stand out from the rest will be the ability

to create a seamless user experience for EV owners. ES6 pointed out another aspect, stating that

“The simplicity of the service is important, preferably with an intuitive app. Branding also becomes

significant, as many choose an aggregator because it is trendy.” ES1 agreed and made it clear that

creating a strong brand that customers trust will be important to win market shares.

4.1.4 Differences Between Possible Aggregator Markets

During the interviews, some respondents noted that individuals cannot independently engage in any

of the three markets due to lack of infrastructure and volume required. ES3 highlighted that the

frequency balancing market requires a minimum of 0.1 MW of combined power. ES4 did not provide

a lower limit for flexibility markets in general as most are in an early stage but concluded that a

pronounced volume was needed within a smaller geographical area. Both respondents added that at

the moment the Swedish frequency balancing market does not allow independent aggregators since

contracts need to be in place with BRP in order to produce electricity. This is not the case with local

flexibility markets, and as emphasized by ES4, one can participate in these markets without a con-

tract with a BRP. Moreover, A4 pointed out that the frequency balancing market in Sweden is more

mature which could further explain why it’s more regulated than the other markets. ES6 explained

that to be able to act on the spot-price market, a trading license is needed which incurs high fixed costs.

29


Other respondents discussed various characteristics of the three markets. Both ES4 and A4 high-

lighted one difference between the markets to be their response and activation time. For instance, the

frequency balancing market requires a rapid response within seconds, with a relatively short duration,

depending on the service. A4 added that this makes frequency balancing more predictable and that

an EV user probably wouldn’t even notice a change of SoC when contributing power to the grid. A4

further explained that a flexibility market would likely employ a longer duration and response time

and could shut off or power down non-essential electrical equipment. A2 explained that ”In arbitrage

aggregation it’s the machines that are making the trading whereas in the balancing markets, you don’t

really need that. It’s more straightforward, the bids happen a day or two before. Wholesale markets

need more technical capabilities.” This indicates the different aspects that aggregators must handle to

participate in these distinct markets.

Two interviewees, A2 and ES4, held similar views on the future of the frequency balancing market. A2

expressed that “The main issue that’s happening right now is that balancing markets are getting quite

saturated in the countries that are open, mainly because now there’s a lot of new energy storage capacity

coming in.” A2 elaborated that this is likely due to the high profitability that frequency balancing

services have experienced in recent years. Similarly, ES4 predicted a saturation in the frequency

balancing market, but also highlighted the future significance of the flexibility market in the local

grid. ES4 anticipated that around 50% of the local capacity requirement could be met through a

local flexibility market in the coming years. Both ES3 and A2 anticipated that energy arbitrage will

become more profitable in the future due to increased spreads on the spot-price market. ES5 claimed

that this is becoming increasingly popular particularly with traditional electricity suppliers.

4.1.5 Actors Suitable for an Aggregator Service

A trend emerging from the interviews was that a majority of the respondents identified electricity

suppliers as being interested and capable in pursuing an aggregator role. Having a large customer

base, being well-established and being knowledgeable within the electricity sector results in electricity

suppliers being suitable actors for aggregating electricity. A4 illustrated why electricity suppliers are

eager to pursue an aggregator role by stating the following: “Electricity suppliers are very keen to be

able to use the staff and the people they currently have who are working with balance, various forecasts

and so on.” A4 elaborated with: “Using your existing employees for delivering another service to

create a new or increased revenue stream is understandably very interesting for electricity suppliers.”

Respondent ES1 also determined electricity suppliers as being a suitable actor for creating an aggrega-

30


tor service. When asked what advantages an electricity supplier possesses for creating an aggregator

service compared to other actors, ES1 responded with: “Advantages with bundling up [electricity sup-

plier and aggregator] is the fact that the customer gets one contact, an electricity suppliers can sell

both electricity and flex concurrent and offer everything on one invoice which is positive from a cus-

tomer’s perspective.” Hence, using the electricity supplier as an aggregator increases the convenience

for prosumers. ES1 further explains how an energy supplier’s brand might positively influence an EV

user’s willingness to join an aggregator service because of brand loyalty and being well-known. OEM2

emphasized electricity suppliers as being suitable actors likewise, by expressing the following: “Elec-

tricity suppliers possess a different precondition that is more to their advantage to actually aggregate

on these markets. They already have direct contact with customers, they own the electricity contract

with customers, one can see that the electricity supplier retains a finished financial mechanism for

repaying customers.”

Respondents emphasized a high possibility of new actors establishing themselves as aggregators, partly

following the separation between the BRP and BSP roles. It’s a new market with great potential rev-

enue leading to emerging actors looking to create an aggregator role. However, there are several key

success factors in doing so and the suitability for different new actors diverges. OEM1 illustrated

how this emerging market could turn out by stating the following: “I believe there will exist different

types of aggregators focusing on different markets and end customers, some towards private customers,

some towards corporations or housing associations, in order to create the right preconditions for the

different markets and finally actors who aggregate towards a bigger portfolio.”

ES4 highlighted manufacturers of different products as suitable actors for aggregating such resources

by expressing the following: “It could be a battery supplier, a heat pump manufacturer in the same

theme that a car manufacturer can be an aggregator. Everyone who delivers some type of flex solu-

tion or resource could potentially also be an aggregator for that type of product.” This goes to show

that OEM1’s justification for many potential actors’ possibility to establish an aggregator role goes

conjointly with ES4’s illustration of manufacturers’ suitability of aggregating their produced products.

ES5 portrayed the current customer base of a company as a significant factor for becoming a profitable

aggregator by illustrating the following: “An idea is to work actively towards your larger industrial

customers, then you can potentially have greater aggregation volumes. Don’t you have that? Well,

then it might be harder, especially if you have to process customers possessing full-scale contracts.”

ES5’s statement also argues for Electricity Supplier’s suitability since they are the ones possessing the

31


contracts with electricity customers as earlier stated by OEM2.

4.1.6 Suitability of an EV Manufacturer as an Aggregator

In the majority of the interviews, respondents believed that car manufacturers have the potential to

play a role as aggregators in the V2G value chain. However, respondent A4 expressed slight skep-

ticism, stating, ”I’m not sure if electric vehicle companies can be seen as aggregators in themselves.

Maybe in the future, but there are quite a few steps that need to be fulfilled before the entire value

chain can be realized.”

A pattern that emerged from all the interviews was that respondents agreed on two strengths of car

manufacturers: technical expertise and a large customer base. ES5 articulated it as follows: ”They

have the technical know-how and they have the customer contacts.” One aspect put forward by re-

spondents was that car manufacturers have access to a lot of user data that can be leveraged when

becoming an aggregator and OEM1 described it as follows: ”We have direct contact with the car

owner and can obtain data in a different way.” Furthermore, ES6 highlighted that car manufacturers

also can offer simplicity, stating, ”The strength is, to some extent, this simplicity. You buy the car

and you get the charging infrastructure, or whatever it is that you consider most important, included.”

A topic that often arose was the expertise of the OEM when it came to warranty and the health

of the car battery. OEM2 talked about how as a customer, one may prefer an actor with a good

understanding of this to aggregate the car and expressed it as ”Who do I trust the most to take care

of my electric vehicle’s battery? ... It may be the one who actually manufactured the car.” To further

elaborate, it is worth noting that a significant number of the respondents indicated that the OEMs

potentially possess considerable bargaining power in this matter, and consequently, they can exert a

significant influence on the evolution of the market. As an illustration, ES3 highlighted that car man-

ufacturers have the potential to shape the market, as they hold the power to approve or disapprove

new technologies or services. Specifically, ES3 said: “Then we have the car manufacturers who are

not obliged to approve it [meaning discharging], but they might need to if they intend to maintain their

warranties on the vehicle.”

There are various ways in which a car manufacturer can assume a role in this value chain, and it is

noteworthy that respondents have differing perspectives on how a car manufacturer could function

as an aggregator. A4 explained that considering one of the strengths of car manufacturers is their

technical expertise, it seems more plausible for them to act as a technical aggregator rather than an

32


independent aggregator. Respondent A2 agreed with this and stated: ”I think in my opinion, a lot of

the mobility companies should become only a technical aggregator and not get into market aggregation.”

What many of the respondents expressed was that a car manufacturer may not have the necessary

knowledge about the electricity market to act as an independent aggregator, and instead should focus

on their core business and/or consider partnerships. A1, A2, A4, and ES3 all highlighted that they

currently have well-functioning partnerships that enable them to operate in the market. A2 provided

an example of why partnerships are beneficial by stating, ”It’s good to have partners that can bring a

lot of resources without our salespeople having to knock on every door”, and further pointed out that

a potential partnership between them and an OEM is a win-win as they can access a lot of resources,

and the OEM can have a trusted partner to go to market with.

4.1.7 Aggregators and EV Users

The interviewees expressed varying views on the most important factors for EV users when adopting

V2G technology. There were a number of factors commonly expressed as significant by several actors

during the interviews. One of the frequently suggested factors concerns simplicity for the prosumers,

specifically that it should be little to no burden for the EV user to adopt V2G. Several respondents

from different sectors highlighted the same argument, one of which is ES4. ”I think today’s customers

want complete solutions, yes, if I buy this, then I get this package.”

Several respondents suggested that EV users are insufficiently informed about the V2G concept as

well as its impact on battery health for the car, which consequently was believed to create concerns

among most EV users. OEM2 described this as two barriers: ”One, to get customers to understand

what it is” and continued with ”To reassure customers that the battery will actually last.” Several

respondents agreed with this and believed there’s an informational gap that needs to be bridged in

order to increase EV users’ willingness to adopt V2G.

Several interviewees from all blocks emphasized that compensation is of high importance in getting

EV users to connect. In order to outweigh the risks of degradation on the battery, lowered SoC when

departing, and additional administrative work most respondents agreed that adequate compensation

is a necessity. A4 explained that ”You don’t want anyone to be tinkering with the batteries so that you

suddenly lose range or lose lifespan, and get less money when you sell it” and continued with ”My

sense of compensation would be that I would need quite a few hundred per month for it to be worth

it.”

33


Another aspect that several respondents mentioned is the influence of brand and reputation. ES1

emphasized that ”brand and trust are often linked, if you have managed your cards well, you have

good trust.” Generally, it is believed among the respondents that EV users place great emphasis on

previous interactions with a company in other contexts, such as how well the electricity billing and

customer support has been with an energy supplier, when choosing an aggregator.

Lastly, there were several perceptions on which type of actor the EV user would primarily choose as

an aggregator for their EV. However, it’s interesting to note that there is no clear theme between the

respondents of any block on this question, among the interviewees all possible aggregators listed are

to some extent believed to be desired by EV users.

4.2 Survey

The survey resulted in 234 responses. In response to the question ”Do you own, lease, or have access

to an electric or hybrid vehicle today, and if so, how?”, a majority of 55% indicated that they own

an electric/hybrid vehicle, 27% lease privately, 20% have a company car, 7% do not have access to

one, and 1% drive an electric/hybrid vehicle that they do not own themselves. The question was a

multiple-choice question, which is why the percentages do not add up to 100%. The result from this

question shows that more than 90% of the respondents in some way control an EV. This is illustrated

in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Survey results for the first question

34


In response to the question ”Would you be interested in using V2G if you were compensated?”, as illus-

trated in Figure 5 below, 70% answered “Yes”, 22% answered “No”, and 8% answered “Maybe”.

Figure 5: Survey results for the third question

In response to the question “Would you be interested in using V2G even if you did not receive any

compensation?” 27% answered ”Yes”, 45% answered ”No” and 28% answered ”Maybe” as illustrated

in Figure 6 below. The previous question indicates that there is a high willingness to participate in

V2G while being compensated, with only 8% of the respondents explicitly saying no. The willingness to

participate drops without compensation, making compensation an important factor in V2G diffusion

and a key aspect in competing for aggregation capacity. However, it is notable that the majority

still doesn’t close the door to V2G even without compensation, as 55% answered “Yes” or “Maybe”,

implying that a large share of the respondents are curious about V2G.

35


Figure 6: Survey results for fourth question

Based on the results of the question ”How would you prefer to be compensated for selling electric-

ity/flexibility through V2G?”, visualized in Figure 7 below, it can be deduced that ”Lower electricity

costs for your household” ”Free or cheaper charging”, and ”Direct payout” are the dominant options.

It is interesting to note that the two alternatives that affect the customer’s electricity bill are the

most popular and options that can be considered as financial compensation are the most favored.

Concerning the battery, around 35% of the respondents prefer compensation through battery war-

ranty or discounted battery replacements. Also over 15% would like feedback on the change of their

environmental impact, which is the only non-monetary choice apart from “Other”.

36


Figure 7: Survey results for fifth question

In the section of the survey where respondents were asked to rate the importance of various factors

in their choice of aggregator, it was found that respondents ranked ”Compensation” as only the fifth

most important factor. Instead, respondents considered ”Transparent terms”, ”Control over charging

permits and hours of vehicle activity in V2G”, and ”Ease of use” to be the most important factors

based on the mean score. However, it should be noted that the ”Don’t know” responses were not in-

cluded in the mean score and since more respondents answered ”Don’t know” to ”Transparent terms”,

this raises the mean score of the factor. As can be seen in Figures 10, 13, and 18 in Appendix 3,

the results can be interpreted as indicating that ”Control over charging permits and hours of vehicle

activity in V2G” and ”Ease of use” are the most important factors. One thing to note about the

results is that the total mean score is 3.88 and the range is only 0.8, as can be seen in Figure 8 below,

indicating that all factors are relatively equal in importance. Given that V2G is a new technology

on an immature market, the low spread between the different aspects can be said to show that the

respondents haven’t had much exposure to the service. Thus, they don’t surely know what to expect

of the service, and how it should function, making the factors relatively equal.

It is also noteworthy that 15% of respondents answered ”Don’t know” to ”Type of grid support offered”

illustrated in Table 5 below. This could indicate some sort of insufficient knowledge among the EV

37


owners concerning the differences between the various services that an aggregator can provide.

Table 5: Survey results for each of the aspects treated in the sixth question of the survey

Aspect Average rating “Don’t know”
A. Control over charging permits and hours of vehicle activity in V2G 4.2 6%
B. Ease of use 4.2 3%
C. Transparent terms 4.2 9%
D. Compatibility with your other flexible resources 4.1 6%
E. Compensation 4.0 3%
F. Customer support 3.9 7%
G. Easy installation 3.8 6%
H. Type of grid support offered 3.8 15%
I. Environmental impact 3.6 6%
J. Data privacy and security 3.5 7%
K. Reputation & Reviews 3.4 7%

Figure 8: Survey results for question six plotted with average as dotted line

In response to the last question ”Which type of actor offering an aggregator service would you prefer to

connect to?”, as illustrated in Figure 9 below, the respondents clearly indicated that “Your electricity

supplier” was the most attractive option with 34% of the responses. The third largest share regards to

the “Electricity grid owner”, meaning that “Your electricity suppliers” and “Electricity grid owner”

in total received almost 50% of the responses. Notable is that 18% of the respondents did not have

a preference. Four categories received 10% or less of the responses, including “External partner” at

10% and “Your car manufacturer”, hence the OEM, at 7%.

38


Figure 9: Survey results for seventh question.

39


5 Discussion

In this section, the aggregator role is discussed based on how it is portrayed in the theory compared

to how it is perceived in the results and analysis. The themes identified in the previous chapter and

the results from the survey are discussed in four chapters.

5.1 The Aggregator Role

Few respondents were familiar with two of the subcategories of aggregators proposed by Färeg̊ard

and Miletic (2021), market aggregator (MA) and technical aggregator (TA). This is not surprising, as

categorization of different types of aggregators is rare in literature, and Färeg̊ard & Miletic constitutes

one of very few, if any other, literature mentioning the MA and the TA. Some respondents mentioned

TAs without being familiar with MAs, which can be explained by awareness of the technical aspect of

V2G. Almost all respondents emphasized the need for the aggregator to possess the technical ability

to aggregate and control vehicles. From this reasoning, technical aggregator becomes a natural term

for an aggregator that practically focuses on solving the technical integration in order to provide its

portfolio to another aggregator. The TA thus incorporates only one of the four dimensions of an

aggregator defined by Sovacool et al.