August 18, 2026

A new national analysis from Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) finds that bidirectional charging could provide substantially greater grid value than one-way managed charging, particularly in regions facing capacity constraints, transmission and distribution needs, and periods of high electricity prices.

The March 2026 report, Vehicle-Grid Integration Valuation Studies, was produced by E3 and funded by GM Energy. The sponsorship is worth keeping in mind when interpreting the results, particularly because several modeling assumptions reflect GM vehicle characteristics. At the same time, the analysis uses E3’s established modeling tools and examines VGI economics across multiple U.S. regions and utility rate structures rather than focusing solely on GM-specific programs.

The report’s central conclusion is significant: V1G and V2G together could represent roughly $7 billion in annual U.S. grid value by 2030, with V2G providing five to 15 times more value per vehicle than V1G in many markets.

What the Study Set Out to Measure

E3 divided the work into two projects.

The first evaluates the grid and customer value of managed charging and V2G across U.S. electricity markets. It asks how unmanaged charging, time-of-use managed charging, V1G and V2G compare in their ability to reduce energy, capacity, and transmission and distribution costs.

The second examines the customer economics of EV flexibility when combined with other distributed energy resources, including rooftop solar and stationary battery storage. This portion focuses primarily on a representative PG&E residential customer and compares EV-only configurations with combinations of EVs, solar, and storage.

Together, the studies address an increasingly important VGI question: not simply whether EV flexibility has value, but where that value comes from, how large it may become, and whether current utility tariffs and programs allow customers to capture it.

How E3 Modeled VGI

For the national analysis, E3 used its RESHAPE-EV model to generate charging profiles based on driving patterns, vehicle types, charging access, charger power, and charging costs. The model creates unmanaged charging profiles and then optimizes charging under different strategies.

V1G vehicles are allowed to shift charging in response to wholesale electricity prices while still meeting mobility requirements. V2G vehicles can both shift charging and discharge energy back to the grid.

E3 then combined these profiles with its forecasts for energy prices, resource adequacy or capacity value, and transmission and distribution value in 2030. The resulting per-vehicle values were paired with regional EV adoption forecasts from E3’s PATHWAYS model to estimate the national market opportunity.

The vehicle assumptions are notable. E3 modeled a mix of 100-kWh crossover batteries and 200-kWh large-vehicle or truck batteries, weighted 60/40, reflecting GM’s EV portfolio. Home Level 2 charging was modeled at either 11.5 or 19.2 kW.

The national market calculation assumes 23% of BEVs remain unmanaged, 23% use time-of-use charging, 30% participate in V1G, and 25% participate in V2G by 2030.

V2G Produces Significantly More Grid Value

The headline finding is the difference between V1G and V2G.

E3 estimates that V1G produces roughly $100 to $450 per vehicle per year in grid value in 2030, depending on region.

For V2G, the modeled value increases to approximately $680 to $2,750 per vehicle per year.

The difference comes primarily from V2G’s ability to discharge during the relatively small number of hours when grid capacity is most valuable. Managed charging can avoid adding load during those hours, but V2G can go further by becoming a source of supply.

This distinction becomes especially important for capacity and distribution planning.

E3 finds that resource adequacy and transmission and distribution deferral account for most of V2G’s potential value, rather than simple energy arbitrage. Energy value varies considerably by market. ERCOT, CAISO and several western markets offer stronger arbitrage opportunities because of large or predictable differences between low- and high-priced hours.

But in many regions, avoiding generation capacity requirements or distribution upgrades is potentially much more valuable.

That leads to one of the report’s most important findings: many of the highest-value V2G services currently have no straightforward pathway for compensation.

A $7 Billion Market — But Much of It Cannot Yet Be Monetized

E3 estimates the combined V1G and V2G opportunity at approximately $7 billion annually by 2030 under its lower EV-adoption forecast.

The largest overall opportunities are projected in California, ERCOT, PJM and MISO, where relatively large EV populations intersect with significant grid value.

Some markets produce particularly high value on a per-vehicle basis. Constrained markets such as CAISO, MISO, NYISO Downstate and PJM East show V2G values in the range of approximately $2,200 to $2,750 per vehicle annually.

The problem is that much of this value remains theoretical from the customer’s perspective.

E3 specifically notes that T&D deferral is generally not monetizable through today’s VGI programs. Likewise, many customers have no direct pathway to receive compensation for capacity value.

The report therefore identifies a substantial gap between the value EVs can potentially create for the power system and the revenue available to EV owners today.

Customer Economics Depend on Program Design

The customer analysis reinforces this point.

Across PG&E, DTE and Florida Power & Light, managed charging consistently lowers customer electricity costs. V2G, however, produces very different outcomes depending on rate design and export compensation.

Under the PG&E pilot structure modeled by E3, V2G customer savings reach approximately $1,725 per vehicle annually, compared with $365 for V1G. Under modeled future program structures for DTE and FPL, the value also increases considerably when a portion of the incremental grid benefits is shared with the customer.

E3 cautions, however, that generous pilot compensation may not necessarily scale. The report argues that future programs should align customer incentives with the actual grid value delivered.

Its proposed direction is relatively straightforward: customers could remain on retail time-of-use rates for normal consumption while utilities compensate V2G separately for grid dispatch through monthly payments, hourly adders, or other mechanisms that share avoided system costs.

Implications for the Bidirectional Charging Industry

For the V2G industry, the study provides both validation and a warning.

The validation is substantial. The results suggest that bidirectional vehicles can provide grid value comparable to residential stationary batteries. E3 estimates V2G at roughly $680 to $2,750 per EV per year, compared with approximately $450 to $3,000 for residential battery storage.

Stationary batteries have one important advantage: they remain connected and available continuously. EVs must satisfy customer mobility needs and may not be plugged in during every high-value hour.

But the EV has a different economic advantage. The customer is already buying the battery for transportation. Grid services represent an additional use of an asset that already exists.

That distinction may ultimately be one of V2G’s most important competitive advantages.

The warning is that technology alone will not unlock this value. If E3’s estimates are even directionally correct, the next bottleneck is increasingly market design rather than battery capability.

Utilities and regulators will need programs that recognize capacity value, enable locational distribution services, compensate performance appropriately, and allow aggregators to coordinate large numbers of vehicles. Interconnection and aggregation rules will also need to accommodate V2G at meaningful scale.

The report therefore adds to a growing body of evidence that the V2G opportunity extends well beyond energy arbitrage. The largest prize may be using millions of EV batteries to provide capacity and relieve localized grid constraints.

The technology is beginning to arrive. The larger question is whether utility programs and regulatory frameworks can evolve quickly enough to capture the value the vehicles can provide.