Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

Developing a business model for bidirectional smart charging

how legitimization tactics can serve as input for business model design choices

Willemse, E.I.D.J.

Award date:
2019

Link to publication

Disclaimer
This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student
theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document
as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required
minimum study period may vary in duration.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 Eindhoven University of Technology

Developing a business model for

bidirectional smart charging
HOW LEGITIMIZATION TACTICS CAN SERVE AS INPUT FOR
BUSINESS MODEL DESIGN CHOICES

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
Innovation Management

Student name: E.I.D.J. (Esteban) Willemse

Student number: 0746359
Course: 1ZM96 / Master Thesis
Program: Masters in Innovation Management
Faculty: Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences
Department: Innovation Technology Entrepreneurship & Marketing

TU/e supervisors: dr. ir. J.C.C.M. (Boukje) Huijben (1st)

prof. dr. A.G.L. (Sjoerd) Romme (2nd)
dr. A.S.A. (Annelies) Bobelyn (3d)
Avans supervisor: A. Breukel

Date of submission: 12-03-2019

Technical University Eindhoven
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences

Keywords: Niche Development, Business Model Development, Transition Studies, Strategic Niche
Management, Legitimacy, Legitimization Strategies, Legitimization Tactics, Vehicle-to-Grid,
Vehicle-to-Business, Vehicle-to-Event, Vehicle-to-Anything

II
Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor dr. ir. J.C.C.M. Huijben who performed
as first assessor and provided me with a lot of support during the complete process starting with writing a
research proposal to finishing this thesis.

Secondly, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to my company supervisor A. Breukel who provided me
with a lot of support. Besides the provision of contact information of some key experts within the field, A.
Breukel also provided me with highly relevant feedback during my master thesis period.

Thirdly, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to dr. ir. J.E.M.J. Doomernik for the provision of contact
information of some key experts and for the provision of some interesting readings which have helped me to
better understand the energy and mobility regimes.

Fourthly, I would like to thank all the interviewees that contributed to my thesis. Their knowledge and
experience helped me to collect a lot of interesting results and to write a proper master thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends, family and, in special, my girlfriend for supporting me during master
thesis project. Their support allowed me to focus on what is important and to remain emotionally stable over
time.

III
Executive Summary

Preventing climate change requires a transition to a more sustainable energy and transportation system.
For this transition to happen, requires innovative solutions that allow for the increase of renewable energy
generation and for the electrification of mobility. However, the more weather dependent sources are used to
generate electricity, the higher the variance in electricity supply. Furthermore, a significant increase in the
amount of electric vehicles will lead to a significant increase in electricity demand. Fortunately, these two key
challenges can be can be (partially) tackled through a single solution, namely vehicle-to-grid.
Vehicle-to-grid refers to the use of electric vehicles to support the electricity grid. Through means of
bidirectional smart charging, vehicle-to-grid allows electric vehicles to temporarily store electricity in case too
much is produced and provide it back when too little is produced. As such, vehicle-to-grid helps with (a)
stabilizing the grid by means of balancing and (b) reduces the impact of electric vehicles on peak demand.
However, for such new technologies to be able to breakthrough and drive a sustainable transition, they
to be perceived as legitimate. A technology’s legitimacy is defined as the perceived alignment of the
technology with institutional structures in its context. Yet, little is known about the means available to niche
actors to gain legitimacy during the pre-competitive stage of a technology and what roles key stakeholders can
play within the legitimization process. Therefore, within this thesis, we try to increase our understanding about
the strategies and tactics to gain legitimacy.
Furthermore, even if a technology is perceived as legitimate, it still requires a proper business model
to allow for a successful commercialization. A business model could be defined as a system of interdependent
activities conducted by an organization and its partners to create value for its customers, deliver this value to
its customers, and capture a portion of the value for the organization and its stakeholders. As discussed in
previous research, a business model might help to enhance a venture’s legitimacy. However, after a global
search for legitimization tactics, one may also think that a business model may enhance a technology’s
legitimacy. Therefore, within this thesis, we try to develop some propositions about the possibility to
strengthen some of the legitimization tactics with certain business model design choices regarding vehicle-to-
grid.

Methodology
In order to be able to develop some relevant propositions for the design of a business model for vehicle-
to-grid and to ensure these propositions are based on the tactics applied by relevant stakeholders to legitimize
vehicle-to-grid, a multiple-case study has been conducted. To collect the necessary data, semi-structured
interviews were held with a total of 14 experts who are involved within 8 projects within the Netherlands that
explore vehicle-to-grid or other related concepts.

IV
Results
Firstly, the results within this thesis have provided a categorization of five business model archetypes
which are: (1) vehicle-to-grid, (2) vehicle-to-business, (3) vehicle-to-home, (4) vehicle-to-event, and (5)
vehicle-to-anything. According to the results, vehicle-to-grid represent the business models that utilize
bidirectional charging in order to help grid managers with ensuring a reliable electricity grid. Vehicle-to-
business represents the business models that utilize bidirectional smart charging to lower the total costs of
energy of company buildings. Vehicle-to-home represents the business models that utilize bidirectional smart
charging to lower the total costs of energy of households. Vehicle-to-event represents the business models that
utilize discharging to provide electricity to events. And vehicle-to-anything combines vehicle-to-grid, vehicle-
to-business and vehicle-to-home to realize a sustainable microgrid.
Secondly, the tactics used by niche actors to increase the legitimacy of bidirectional smart charging
and it possible uses cases can be categorized into the following four strategies: (1) Gaining legitimacy through
framing, (2) gaining legitimacy through alliances, (3) gaining legitimacy through conforming, and (4) gaining
legitimacy through manipulation.
Thirdly, by reviewing these tactics, this thesis allowed for some preliminary propositions towards
certain business model design choices. It basically comes down to the notion that some business model design
choices can be adapted to the legitimization tactics that are being used by the relevant niche entrepreneurs. In
turn, this will increase the impact of the legitimization strategies on a technology’s legitimacy.

Conclusions
In total five business model archetypes have been identified during this research. Regardless of the
choice of business model archetype, several business model design choices will positively affect the legitimacy
of the corresponding niche development which, in turn, will increase its change on commercialization.
However, there are two strategies that can be followed in this regard. The first strategy considers the one-to-
one adaption of legitimization tactics to business model design choices while the other strategy considers the
need to develop a future business model first for the allowance to determine how an initial business model
could help to pave the way for the desired future business model to become a reality.

Implications
First of all, this thesis is the first scientific paper that provides an overview of the different business
models related to bidirectional smart charging that are being explored within the Netherlands. Secondly, this
thesis helped to increase our understanding about the means available to niche actors to gain legitimacy during
the pre-competitive stage of a technology and what roles key stakeholders can play within the legitimization
process. Thirdly, this thesis presented some propositions that will help with developing a business model for
bidirectional smart charging. Fourthly, with the findings presented within this thesis, we hope to encourage
practitioners and policymakers to reach consensus about the future integration of the energy and mobility
regimes and to determine how cross-boundary technologies like bidirectional smart charging will fulfill its
purpose within this future system.

V
Table of contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. V2G .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4
1.3. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4. REPORT STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical Background .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITIONS ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2. LEGITIMACY ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3. BUSINESS MODEL CONCEPT ......................................................................................................... 8
2.4. GAP ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................10
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................11
3.1. DESIGN SCIENCE .........................................................................................................................11
3.2. DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PROCESS MODEL ...................................................11
3.3. CASE SELECTION .........................................................................................................................12
3.4. DATA COLLECTION AND CODING ................................................................................................14
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................15
4. V2G Business Models ........................................................................................................................16
4.1. THE FOUR CONCEPTUAL USE CASES OF BIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING ...........................................16
4.2. VEHICLE-TO-GRID (V2G) ............................................................................................................17
4.2.1. V2G As A Service .................................................................................................................18
4.2.2. V2G As A Product................................................................................................................23
4.3. VEHICLE-TO-BUSINESS (V2B) .....................................................................................................26
4.4. VEHICLE-TO-HOME (V2H) ..........................................................................................................30
4.5. VEHICLE-TO-EVENT (V2E) ..........................................................................................................33
4.6. VEHICLE-TO-ANYTHING (V2X) ...................................................................................................36
4.7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...............................................................................................................39
5. Gaining Legitimacy ...........................................................................................................................41
5.1. LEGITIMIZATION TACTICS ...........................................................................................................41
5.1.1. Amsterdam V2G...................................................................................................................41
5.1.2. Charging EVs From Solar Energy........................................................................................42
5.1.3. Newmotion V2G...................................................................................................................45
5.1.4. City-Zen V2G.......................................................................................................................45
5.1.5. Johan Cruijf Arena V2B .......................................................................................................47
5.1.6. The Power Recycling Car ....................................................................................................49
5.1.7. EV Energy ...........................................................................................................................52
5.1.8. AirQon.................................................................................................................................54
5.2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...............................................................................................................56
6. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................59
6.1. V2G BUSINESS MODELS ..............................................................................................................59
6.2. GAINING LEGITIMACY .................................................................................................................60
6.3. BUSINESS MODEL DESIGN CHOICES.............................................................................................62
7. Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................64
7.1. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................................66
7.1.1. V2g Business Models ...........................................................................................................66
7.1.2. Gaining Legitimacy..............................................................................................................67
7.1.3. Limitations And Future Research Directions ........................................................................69
7.2. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................................69

1
References .................................................................................................................................................71
Appendix A ...............................................................................................................................................79
Appendix B ...............................................................................................................................................80
Appendix C ...............................................................................................................................................83
Appendix D ...............................................................................................................................................86

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: DSRM PROCESS MODEL (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007). .......................................................................11

FIGURE 2: RESEARCH PROCESS....................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 3: BIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING USE CASE SCENARIOS. ......................................................................16
FIGURE 4: V2G. ..........................................................................................................................................18
FIGURE 5: BUSINESS MODEL: V2G AS A SERVICE. ........................................................................................19
FIGURE 6: BUSINESS MODEL: V2G AS A PRODUCT. ......................................................................................24
FIGURE 7: V2B............................................................................................................................................26
FIGURE 8: BUSINESS MODEL: V2B AS A PRODUCT. ......................................................................................27
FIGURE 9: V2H. ..........................................................................................................................................31
FIGURE 10 BUSINESS MODEL: V2H AS A PRODUCT. .....................................................................................32
FIGURE 11: V2E. .........................................................................................................................................34
FIGURE 12: BUSINESS MODEL: V2E AS A SERVICE. ......................................................................................35
FIGURE 13: V2X. ........................................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 14: V2X AS A SERVICE. ...................................................................................................................39

List of Tables

TABLE 1: RESEARCH GAPS. .........................................................................................................................10

TABLE 2: BUSINESS MODELS THAT ARE BEING EXPLORED WITHIN THE NETHERLANDS. ...............................14
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF BUSINESS MODELS. ................................................................................................40
TABLE 4: SUMMARY LEGITIMIZATION TACTICS. ..........................................................................................56

2
 1. Introduction
Avoiding anthropogenic climate change—and its corresponding risks to the world’s ecosystems and
human health—requires a transformation towards a more sustainable energy system (Creutzig et al., 2014).
Therefore, policy makers aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the share of renewables for the
production of energy (Nilsen, 2017). Within the European Union, this is translated into a strategy to increase
the share of renewables to 27 percent by the year 2030 (Newbery, Pollitt, Ritz, & Strielkowski, 2018; Nilsen,
2017; Söder et al., 2018).

1.1. V2G
As the European Union aims at increasing the share of renewables for the production of energy
(Newbery et al., 2018; Nilsen, 2017; Söder et al., 2018) and popular sources like solar and wind are weather
depended, both the variability and the volatility of electricity supply will increase. This presents challenges to
the balancing of supply and demand of electricity (Schlachtberger, Brown, Schramm, & Greiner, 2017).
According to Söder et al., (2018), a major threat of the increased share of renewables is the increased
probability of a power outage. Possible solutions to this threat include the flexibilization of energy demand
(Söder et al., 2018). As a response, different demand response solutions are being developed aiming to shift
energy consumption to the most appropriate time (Conchado, Linares, Lago, & Santamaría, 2016). One of
these potential solutions uses the vehicle-to-grid (V2G) concept (Ahmadian, Sedghi, Elkamel, Fowler, &
Aliakbar Golkar, 2018; Niesten & Alkemade, 2016). The V2G concept refers to the use of electric vehicles
(EVs) to support the electricity grid (Ahmadian et al., 2018).
Utilizing the batteries of EVs for the purpose of balancing the supply and demand of electricity has a
major advantage; Batteries could function as a buffer by temporarily storing energy from the grid when too
much is produced and releasing it back to the grid when too little is produced (Ioakimidis, Thomas, Rycerski,
& Genikomsakis, 2018; Oldenbroek, Verhoef, & van Wijk, 2017). Currently, balancing the supply and demand
of electricity is increasingly done by shutting down and turning on gas turbines of gas-fired power plants
(Keyaerts, Delarue, Rombauts, & D’haeseleer, 2014). However, operating a gas-fired power plant is both
unsustainable and expensive. Thus, one may conclude that utilizing the batteries of electric vehicles is an
opportunity to make the energy system more sustainable, especially when the energy that is stored in those
batteries is produced through renewable sources.
Another possible application for the V2G technology considers using the energy of an electric vehicle
for oneself. For example, when connected to the house, one may choose to charge its car during off-peak hours
and use the energy during peak hours. By doing so, V2G technology offers the possibility to lower one’s
electricity bill (Robledo, Oldenbroek, Abbruzzese, & van Wijk, 2018). This could also be applied on a larger
scale when, for example, multiple electric vehicles are connected to an office building (Ioakimidis et al., 2018).
Furthermore, the temporary storage of self-generated electricity through renewable sources, like photovoltaics
(PV) panels, could increase people’s self-consumption which, in turn, lowers the dependency on the grid (van
der Kam & van Sark, 2015). self-consumption refers to the amount of self-generated energy that is consumed
by oneself (Herbes, Brummer, Rognli, Blazejewski, & Gericke, 2017).

3
 These possible use cases show that V2G could reduce peak demand for electricity. Reducing peak
demand flattens the electricity demand curve which could lead to savings in the energy system (Conchado et
al., 2016). As one could see, these additional use cases for car batteries add different types of value to the main
value of a battery—which is providing energy for transportation.
Since V2G could offer flexibility to the electricity grid and the increasing amount of electricity
generation through renewable sources requires more flexibility, V2G may have the potential to foster a
transition towards a more sustainable energy regime. Furthermore, by adding value to the batteries of EVs,
one may think that V2G could increase the attractiveness of EVs which, in turn, may stimulate electric
mobility. Therefore, V2G may also have the potential to foster a transition towards a more sustainable mobility
regime.
However, new technologies, like V2G, often experience high uncertainty as there is little known about
their user requirements, technical performance, price, and demand (Geels & Verhees, 2011). As such, it is
difficult to make objective cost-benefit analysis and, therefore, justify investments in such novel technologies
(Geels & Verhees, 2011). Consequently, instead of economic viability—which is based on a cost-benefit
analysis—another factor is considered to be of crucial importance to consider when reviewing technologies
that are still in their precompetitive stage. This factor is called legitimacy (Geels & Verhees, 2011; Zimmerman
& Zeitz, 2002) and will be discussed in further detail in section 2.2.

1.2. Research Questions

As seen above, V2G can serve different purposes. However, for a technology to be able to
breakthrough requires a properly designed business model (Bidmon & Knab, 2018; Busch, Roelich, Bale, &
Knoeri, 2017; Niesten & Alkemade, 2016). Although the previously discussed use cases may provide some
information about the possible purposes of V2G and the value V2G can offer, more information is required to
be able to design a proper business model that is able to successfully commercialize V2G. Therefore, in
commission of A. Breukel—a teacher working at Avans Hogeschool—a multiple-case study has been
conducted to collect information that could help with the development of such a business model. As the end
goal of the design research will be to develop a business model maximizes the change on adoption, the main
research question for this part of the research has been formulated as follows:

RQ: Which business model design choices will positively affect the change on the successful
commercialization of V2G?

To answer this question, several sub goals were determined in cooperation with the first assessor of
this thesis. To get a better understanding about the possible use cases for V2G within the Netherlands, the first
sub-goal was to collect information about the business models that are explored, tested and/or validated during
V2G pilot studies within the Netherlands. Because a technology’s legitimacy is key to increase the change on
adoption, the second sub-goal was to explore how niche actors gain legitimacy for V2G. Finally, because some
of the possible tactics used for gaining legitimacy can be translated into business model design choices, the

4
third sub-goal was to find out which business model design choices may impact the legitimacy of V2G. Hence,
the following sub-questions were developed:

SQ1: What business model configurations are explored, tested and/or validated during V2G pilot studies
within the Netherlands?
SQ2: What strategies and tactics are utilized by niche actors to enhance the legitimacy of V2G?
SQ3: Can the impact of these strategies and tactics on the legitimacy of V2G be influenced by certain
business model design choices?

To be able to answer these research questions, a multiple-case study has been conducted within the
Netherlands during which actors—who are involved in the development of V2G—were interviewed. The exact
methodologies used to conduct this research will be discussed in chapter 3.

1.3. Research contributions

The first major contribution of this research will be the provision of an overview of V2G business
models that are being explored, tested and/or validated within the Netherlands. This will not only help
practitioners to better understand V2G and its various purposes, it will also fill a literature gap as, up till now,
no scientific research has provided such an overview.
Furthermore, as legitimacy is key to the diffusion of novel technologies and novel technologies are
required to drive the transition towards a more sustainable economy (Mossberg, Söderholm, Hellsmark, &
Nordqvist, 2018), this thesis contributes to the field of transition studies. After all, we not only explain how
niche actors can actively gain legitimacy for their niche developments, we also show how certain business
model design choices can support their attempts to increase legitimacy. A more detailed overview of the
research contributions can be found in section 7.1.

1.4. Report structure

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 provides an overview of important
theories as well as a gap analysis, chapter 3 provides an overview of the methodologies that have been used
for this study and discusses how these methodologies have been applied, chapter 4 discusses the results related
to the V2G business models, chapter 5 presents the results related to the strategies and tactics used by niche
actors to gain legitimacy, chapter 6 provides a detailed discussion on the results, and chapter 7 presents the
conclusions, theoretical implications and practical implications.

5
 2. Theoretical Background
Within this chapter, the theory will be discussed that has been reviewed in order to (1) gain our
understanding about some key theoretical concepts and (2) formulate the research gaps that are addressed
within this thesis. It will start with discussing the literature on sustainable transitions, then the concept
legitimacy will be discussed, thereafter some theory on the business model will be presented, and at last the
literature gaps that were identified throughout this chapter will be summarized.

2.1. Sustainability transitions

As stated before, the current energy system needs to transform into a more sustainable system to avoid
climate change. “The literature on sustainable transitions aims to analyze and support the long-term,
multidimensional and fundamental transformation processes that shift the established socio-technical systems
into more sustainable modes of production and consumption” (Mossberg et al., 2018, p. 84). This research
field mainly consists of the following four core strands of conceptual approaches: Technological Innovation
Systems (TIS), Transitions Management (TM), Strategic Niche Management (SNM), and Multi-Level
Perspective (MLP) (e.g. Bergek, Jacobsson, Carlsson, Lindmark, & Rickne, 2008; Bidmon & Knab, 2018;
Binz, Harris-Lovett, Kiparsky, Sedlak, & Truffer, 2016; Diaz, Darnhofer, Darrot, & Beuret, 2013; Geels &
Raven, 2006; Markard, Stadelmann, & Truffer, 2009; Mossberg et al., 2018; Raven, Kern, Verhees, & Smith,
2016; van Waes, Farla, Frenken, de Jong, & Raven, 2018).
One of the key concepts within transition studies is the niche—i.e. a protected space like a specific
market or application domain in which a radical innovation could be developed without being subject to
mainstream market selection (Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012). To study the development of such niches
over time, SNM arose as a conceptual approach claiming that deliberate creation and support of niches could
trigger regime shifts (Markard et al., 2012).
Another central concept within transition studies is the socio-technical regime—i.e. a configuration
consisting of technologies, policies, industries, supply chains, infrastructures, and consumption patterns, which
are stabilized by all kinds of actors as their perceptions and actions are shaped by shared rules and institutions
(Geels & Schot, 2007; Geels, Schwanen, Sorrell, Jenkins, & Sovacool, 2018; Markard et al., 2012). To study
the broader systemic change within a socio-technical regime, MLP arose as a conceptual approach which helps
to understand technological transitions through analyzing “the interplay of dynamics at three different levels:
niches, regimes, and landscape” (Markard et al., 2012, p. 958).
By combining research on transitions with insights from complex systems theory, TM introduced a
framework for influencing ongoing sustainability transitions (Kemp & Loorbach, 2006; Loorbach, 2010;
Markard et al., 2012). While TM has been used in various regional and national policy projects, drawbacks in
actual policy-making processes resulted in a depleting role of TM and related approaches in practice (Markard
et al., 2012).
Research on TIS has emerged as a fourth main strand within transition studies. Although TIS used to
focus on rather generic technologies, recent contributions (e.g. Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann, & Smits,
2007) shifted its focus towards more radical “innovations in an early stage of development with a potential to

6
challenge established socio-technical systems” (Markard et al., 2012, p. 959). Therefore, nowadays, the TIS is
used as an analytical approach to (1) study the development of novel technologies and the related institutional
changes, and (2) to develop technology-specific policies (Markard et al., 2012).
A shared feature of the four “approaches is an emphasis on initial protection for path-breaking
innovations that will otherwise fail to compete within the incumbent socio-technical systems” (Mossberg et
al., 2018, p. 85). Therefore, this Master thesis will build upon this shared feature by focusing on transition
dynamics during the pre-competitive stage of a novel technology.
As can been seen above, the focus of transition studies has been on the dynamics and governance of
sustainability transitions (Bork, Schoormans, Silvester, & Joore, 2015; Mossberg et al., 2018). However, while
the important role of actors has been acknowledged (e.g. Geels & Schot, 2007; Grin, Rotmans, & Schot, 2011),
this field so far tended to ignore the roles of agency and actors, as well as the management of joint action and
the organization of actor networks within sustainable transitions (Bork et al., 2015; Mossberg et al., 2018;
Wittmayer, Avelino, van Steenbergen, & Loorbach, 2017). Yet, without this knowledge, it is very difficult to
sufficiently analyze and understand the dynamic interplay and relations between actors and their role within
socio-technical transitions (Mossberg et al., 2018).
Actors can be in the form of organizations (e.g. business entities, research institutions and public
authorities) or they can be individuals (e.g. angel investors and experts) (Mossberg et al., 2018). Some of these
actors may be concerned with addressing the more technical challenges, while others may be concerned with
challenging existing institutions as well as creating new ones (Huguenin & Jeannerat, 2017; Mossberg et al.,
2018). “Depending on the type of transition pathway, one or more new technologies or technological changes
can be introduced by actors from inside or outside the regime” (Bork et al., 2015, p. 39).
Unfortunately, these new technologies experience high uncertainty as little is known about their user
requirements, technical performance, price, and demand (Geels & Verhees, 2011). As such, it is difficult to
make objective cost-benefit analysis and, therefore, justify investments in new technologies (Geels & Verhees,
2011). Consequently, instead of economic viability, a novel technology’s legitimacy is a more important factor
to consider for early investments ( Geels & Verhees, 2011; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). According to Bork et
al. (2015), to better understand how different actors could contribute to the (de)legitimization of new
technologies and what their exact role is within the (de)legitimization process, it is important to determine the
factors that “form the foundation of legitimacy” as well as “the means available to actors to influence these
factors” (p. 39).

2.2. Legitimacy
Scholars have agreed upon the general conceptualization of legitimacy as the perceived compliance of
an entity with a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and practices in its context (Deephouse
& Suchman, 2008; Markard, Wirth, & Truffer, 2016; Suchman, 1995). Different types of legitimacy have been
distinguished by scholars, including regulatory legitimacy (i.e. the extent to which an entity complies with
formal rules, laws and regulation), cognitive legitimacy (i.e. the degree to which an entity is known, understood
and accepted by the wider public) and normative legitimacy (i.e. the extent to which an entity complies with

7
societal values, norms and beliefs) (Aldrich & Fiol, 2007; Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Markard et al., 2016;
Suchman, 1995). As cognitive and normative legitimacy both refer to the wider society, some scholars
combined the two, as seen above, and decided to use one term; cultural legitimacy (e.g. Geels & Verhees,
2011).
Within institutional theory, legitimacy is a central concept which highlights the importance of an
entity’s conformance with established institutional structures (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; DiMaggio &
Powell, 2000; Markard et al., 2016). The entities can be of different kind, including organizations, industries,
policies, individuals, business models and technologies. (Aldrich & Fiol, 2007; Markard et al., 2016). As the
adoption of new technologies is of crucial importance for transitions to occur, this Master thesis focusses on
the legitimacy of technologies.
Following the definition of Markard et al. (2016), technology legitimacy is defined “as a commonly
perceived alignment (or misalignment) of a focal technology with institutional structures in its context”
(pp.333). Given that a context is heterogenous, there may be institutional alignment as well as misalignment
at the same time (Markard et al., 2016). Therefore, technology legitimacy is regarded as an overall perception
of how well a certain technology is aligned to its context, or not (Markard et al., 2016). Assuming that all three
dimensions of legitimacy (i.e. regulatory, cognitive, and normative legitimacy) could be influenced by niche
entrepreneurs, this Master thesis includes them all.
Indeed scholars recognize legitimacy as a key factor for gaining access to critical resources (Aldrich
& Fiol, 2007; Bork et al., 2015; Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Kanda, Sakao, & Hjelm, 2016; Kishna, Niesten,
Negro, & Hekkert, 2017; Markard et al., 2016; Van Oers, Boon, & Moors, 2018; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002).
However, legitimation processes have “so far mainly been analyzed at a macro-level” (Binz et al., 2016, p.
250). Although these studies provide useful macro-indicators for the legitimacy of new technologies, they tend
to ignore how legitimacy is actively built up by the interplay of different actors during the pre-competitive
stage of novel technologies (Binz et al., 2016).

2.3. Business model concept

In parallel to the studying of sustainable transitions, a growing body of literature is concerned with
business models and sustainable development—“examining how the development and implementation of
novel business models can create and capture value from sustainable innovations” (Bolton & Hannon, 2016,
p. 1731). As these sustainable innovations may be either technical or non-technical in nature and both require
carefully designed business models to breakthrough, researchers have pointed towards the explicit importance
of business models for realizing socio-technical transitions (e.g. Bidmon & Knab, 2018; Huijben, Verbong, &
Podoynitsyna, 2016; Sarasini & Linder, 2018; Walrave, Talmar, Podoynitsyna, Romme, & Verbong, 2018).
A business model could be defined as a system of interdependent activities conducted by an
organization and its partners to create value for its customers, deliver this value to its customers, and capture
a portion of the value for the organization and its stakeholders (Chesbrough, 2010; Olofsson, Hoveskog, &
Halila, 2018). However, as this definition of a business model incorporates a rather profit driven logic of
conducting business, a new type of business model has emerged that incorporates the environment and society

8
as key stakeholders in order to ensure the creation of sustainable value (Karlsson, Hoveskog, Halila, &
Mattsson, 2016; Rossignoli & Lionzo, 2018). This new type of business model is referred to in literature as
the sustainable business model (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014; Karlsson et al., 2016; Rossignoli &
Lionzo, 2018). A sustainable business model ensures that sustainable value is created as both firm and system
level activities—aimed to create, deliver and capture value—need to be aligned with the interests of all
stakeholders, including the environment and society (Bocken et al., 2014). Moreover, a sustainable business
model protects both the current needs as well as the future needs of these stakeholders (Bocken et al., 2014;
Rauter, Jonker, & Baumgartner, 2017; Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). According to Schaltegger, Hansen, and
Lüdeke-Freund (2016), a sustainable business model “helps describing, analyzing, managing, and
communicating; (1) a company’s sustainable value proposition to its customers, and all other stakeholders, (2)
how it creates and delivers this value, (3) and how it captures economic value while maintaining or
regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational boundaries” (p.6).
Within Bidmon and Knab’s framework about the business model’s role within socio-technical
transition, it is mentioned that business models help to increase a technology’s legitimacy and attract funding
for it (Bidmon & Knab, 2018). According to Doganova and Eyquem-Renault (2009), explaining a business
model through an understandable narrative helps to make the unfamiliar familiar by framing the new venture
in terms that are clear and thus legitimate. Narratives have the ability to overcome the need for external
validation by rooting the narrative’s validity in the consistency of the story itself and in the absence of
contradictions in it (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009). Moreover, the consistency of the business model’s
narrative is ensured by its plot, which lies in the figurative tension between an opportunity and the new
business’ ability to exploit it (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009). As such, the business model concept may
serve as a means to render a new venture more reliably for investors which, in turn, helps entrepreneurs to get
access to external resources—like funding and other types of support (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009).
However, “entrepreneurial ventures depend on resources and support from a diverse range of
audiences including individual supporters, venture capitalists, government agencies and corporations” (Fisher,
Kuratko, Bloodgood, & Hornsby, 2017). Since different audiences assess ventures using differing norms, rules,
and procedures, and legitimacy assessment involves social judgements of the ones assessing the new venture,
legitimacy assessments are audience dependent (Fisher et al., 2017). Unfortunately, previous research
repeatedly ignored the differences between different type of audiences leading to a lack in understanding about
how entrepreneurs could establish new venture legitimacy among different type of audiences when seeking
external support and resources for their new venture (Fisher et al., 2017). Fisher et al. (2017) addressed this
gap and linked different types of audiences to different legitimacy mechanisms. However, the mechanisms
they describe are related to enhancing venture legitimacy (Fisher et al., 2017) and not so much to influencing
technology legitimacy. Therefore, the means available to niche actors to legitimize a new technology, and for
what type of audience these means should apply, remains unexplored.
Furthermore, besides the possible use of a business model to render a new venture more reliably and,
by doing so, enhancing the venture’s legitimacy, one may also question if some other strategies and tactics to
legitimize a new technology may serve as input for the design of a business model. After all, one may think

9
that different legitimization strategies and tactics may lead to different business models. For example, an often
used tactic to attain technology legitimacy is by framing a technology as a solution to prominent issues within
a regime (Markard et al., 2009; R. Raven et al., 2016). As this requires the identification of prominent issues,
it may help to find the problem owners which may be chosen to be the target customers. Furthermore, as the
technology is framed as providing a solution to the customer problem, this frame may serve as direct input for
a value proposition. After all, the value proposition communicates how the business’ offering tends to solve a
customer problem (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Another example of an often used tactic is when technology
legitimacy is enhanced by creating strategic alliances (Kishna et al., 2017; Mossberg et al., 2018). Obviously,
these alliances may serve as direct input for defining a new venture’s key partners.

2.4. Gap analysis

As seen above, several research gaps have been identified. These research gaps are summarized in
Table 1. As shown within this table, a research gap involves one or more theories. Although the second research
gap (i.e. the dynamic interplay and relations between actors and their role within socio-technical transitions)
does not necessarily involve theories about legitimacy dynamics, they can be approached by studying
legitimization dynamics as legitimacy is key to socio-technical transitions. After all, sustainable transitions
require sustainable technologies to be adopted (Mossberg et al., 2018), and novel technologies require
legitimacy to overcome their liability of newness (Binz et al., 2016; Markard et al., 2016). Therefore, within
this Master thesis, legitimacy is chosen as a figurative theoretical lens to address the research gaps as identified
earlier and summarized in Table 1.

Research gap Involved theories

The dynamic interplay and relations between actors and their - Transition studies
role within socio-technical transitions (See section 2.1).

How different actors could contribute to the (de)legitimization - Legitimacy dynamics

of new technologies and what their exact role is within the - Transition studies (in particular SNM)
(de)legitimization process (See section 2.1).

How legitimacy is actively built up by the interplay of different - Legitimacy dynamics

actors during the pre-competitive stage of novel technologies - Transition studies (in particular SNM)
(See section 2.2).

The means available to niche actors to legitimize a new - Legitimacy dynamics

technology, and for what type of audience these means should - Transition studies (in particular SNM)
apply (See section 2.3).

If certain means to legitimize a new technology may serve as - Legitimacy dynamics

input for the design of a business model (See section 2.3). - Transition studies (in particular SNM)
- Business model innovation
Table 1: Research gaps.

10
 3. Methodology

3.1. Design Science

The general methodology used in this thesis is called design science. Although it was almost driven
away by natural science in the past century, design science research made its comeback in 1969 with the help
of Simon (1996). Simon (1996) argued that, instead of studying “how things are”—as is done in natural
science—design “is concerned with how things ought to be” (Simon, 1996, p. 114). As a result, design science
research is focused on improving the present (van Aken, Chandrasekaran, & Halman, 2016). Besides, it takes
the perspectives of the actors seeking opportunities for improvement into account (van Aken et al., 2016). The
core outcome of design science research is a generic design—or artifact (Simon, 1996)—which is justified on
basis of pragmatic validity—i.e. whether the solution results in desired outcomes (van Aken et al., 2016).

3.2. Design Science Research Methodology Process Model

The Design Science Research Methodology Process Model is developed by using influential prior
research to determine the appropriate elements of a proper design science research methodology (Peffers,
Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, 2007). The result of their synthesis is visualized in Figure 1.

Figure 1: DSRM Process Model (Peffers et al., 2007).

As can be seen in this figure, a design science research project is initiated by one of the four possible
entry points—i.e. problem centered initiation, objective centered solution, design and development centered
initiation, or client/context initiation. After initiation, the first step is to define the research problem and justify
the value of providing a solution to that problem. The next step is to derive the objectives of a design from the
problem definition. The third step is to design the artifact. The fourth step is to demonstrate the design. The
fifth step is to observe and measure how well the design offers a solution to the problem. At the end of this
activity, one may decide to iterate back to try to improve the effectiveness of the design or to continue with
the process and leave further improvement to subsequent projects. The sixth and last step is to report and share

11
one’s findings about the problem and its importance, the design’s utility and novelty, the rigor of the design,
and its effectiveness (Peffers et al., 2007).
The above description of the process is structured in a nominally sequential order. However,
researchers are not bound to follow this nominally sequential order. As said earlier, design research may be
initiated by a different entry point. Each of these entry points may require a researcher to start with another
activity and after each activity researchers may find the need to iterate to one of the previous activities for
reasons of refinement or improvement (Peffers et al., 2007).
This thesis is initiated by the objective to formulate proper design propositions that serve as input for
the design of a business model for V2G. Therefore, the entry point of the research performed for this thesis is
the ‘objective centered solution’. As the goal is to provide some propositions for the development of a V2G
business model, the research is focused on theory building—the second phase of the DSRM Process Model—
which will help to develop some theoretical and practical implications. The following figure shows the actual
research process that has been taken to complete this phase.

Figure 2: Research process.

As can be seen in Figure 2, the research started with exploring existing literature. Several key papers
were collected by the help of the first assessor at the Eindhoven University of Technology and by the help of
the company supervisor at Avans Den Bosch. The goal of reading these key papers was to identify important
research gaps and develop a sound theoretical framework. In addition, both backward reference searching as
well as forward reference searching was done. Backward reference searching was deemed necessary as it
helped to learn more about the development of knowledge on relevant topics, and it helped to understand the
origins of relevant theories. Forward reference searching, on the other hand, was done to explore follow-up
studies and identify possible new findings on specific topics. This first step in the research process helped to
write the theoretical background and develop a theoretical framework.

3.3. Case selection

The second step within the research process consisted of selecting relevant pilot cases where V2G is
being developed and tested. Within this step, both experts in the field as well as the internet was utilized to
find initial information about V2G pilot cases or similar projects. As one can see in Figure 2, this step has an
incoming arrow from the subsequent step. This is the case, because some projects were mentioned by experts
during the interviews. The completed case selection process resulted in the overview presented in Table 2.

12
 Project Project
Location BM type Protocol Partners Funding
name leader
Resourcefully
EnergyGO
Green Choice
REloadIT Imtech
European
2011- Zaanstad G2V - Gemeente Zaanstad Vito
Commission
2014 Truckland
Qpark
BeAligned
Alliander
Liander
FlexPower
Nuon
2017- Amsterdam G2V - ElaadNL -
Heijmans
2017
City of Amsterdam
General Electric
Utrecht Sustainability Institute
Hogeschool Utrecht
Universiteit Utrecht
Last Mile Solutions
Smart
We Drive Solar
Solar
New Solar European
Charging Utrecht G2V ISO 15118 LomboXnet
Vidyn Commission
2016-
Jedlix
2020
Stedin
The People Group
ElaadNL
Renault
Triodos
POLIS
LIST
Clean
CELCFCT
Mobil
Gemeente Transport for London European
Energy Europe G2V -
Arnhem EIIT Commission
2017-
Nottingham City Council
2021
Walvoorzieningen B.V.
IAUL
GreenFLux
NTNU
Smart Innovation Ostfold
VIT
Invade V2H UPC
European
2017- Europe V2B CHAdeMO ElaadNL Lyse
Commission
2020 V2G eSmart Systems
New EN
Schneider Electric
Estabanell
Energia
ElaadNL
TNO
Croonwolter&dros
Interflex
Jedlix European
2018- Eindhoven V2G CHAdeMO Enexis
Sympower Commission
2020
TU/e
Park Strijp Beheer
Gemeente Eindhoven
Amsterdam
V2G Liander
Amsterdam V2H Tailor made Resourcefully Liander
2014- MasterVolt
2017
Charging
Rijksdienst
Electric
Delft University of Technology voor
Vehicles
Power Last Mile Solutions Ondernemend
From CHAdeMO
Breda V2G Research Nissan Nederland:
Solar CCS/COMBO
Electronics ABB TKI
Energy
UT Austin Urban
2017-
Energy
2017
NewMotion Mitsubishi Motors
V2G TenneT
Amsterdam V2G CHAdeMO NewMotion -
2017- Enel
2018 Nuvve
City-Zen
NewMotion
V2G V2B European
Amsterdam OCPP Alliander Enervalis
2014- V2G Commission
MagnumCap
2019
Johan V2B Liander European
Amsterdam CHAdeMO Resourcefully
Cruijff V2G EV-Tech Commission

13
 Arena Eaton
V2B TMH
2016-
2020
V2G:
The
OCPP Smart Solar Charging
Power Utrecht
OSCP Interflex
Recycling & V2X ElaadNL -
OCPI Invade
Car Eindhoven
ADR NKL
2016-
2020
Provincie Flevoland
EV Barcelona Official Chamber of Commerce
Energy Stockholm County Council European
Europe V2B - GreenIT
2017- Kaunas University of Technology Commission
2021 Regional Association of Lazio Municipalities
EUR S.p.A.
Gemeente Breda
Ihomer
Atlantic Green
Faraday Keys
AirQon
Zap Concepts European
2018- Breda V2E OCPP SBPF
Leendert van den Born Commission
…
Buurauto
Lairos Events
Breda Barst
The Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences
Table 2: Business models that are being explored within the Netherlands.

As can be seen in Table 2, there are three different colors used for the rows. The green rows represent
the cases that were included in this research, the red rows represent the cases that were excluded from this
research, and the orange rows represent the cases that were not included specifically but—as those cases
support the case ‘V2G: The Power Recycling Car’—were partially discussed during the interviews. The reason
why the red cases were excluded is because those projects are concerned with delayed charging a type of smart
charging which does not require EVs to discharge. Instead, this research is focused on the cases where EVs
are seen as temporary energy storage units that can both store and release electricity. The reason for including
all the remaining projects is because the total number of cases is very limited. Excluding cases would have led
to a sample that was not representative enough and may have led to less variation on the dimensions of the
theoretical interest of this research. Yet, obtaining a representative sample and ensuring useful variation are
the main objectives of case selection (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). Thus, for this research, all pilot projects
that were deemed relevant were included.
As can be seen, six projects explored the V2G concept, two projects explored the vehicle-to-home
(V2H) concept, three projects explored the vehicle-to-business (V2B) concept, and one project explored the
vehicle-to-event (V2E) concept.

3.4. Data collection and coding

To collect the data necessary for answering the research questions presented in section 1.2, a total of
eleven semi-structured interviews were held ranging from one hour to one hour and three quarters. These
eleven interviews covered eight research projects of which seven are actual research projects concerning
V2G—or similar concepts. The remaining one—EV Energy—is a research project that explores EV related
sustainable solutions in different cities in Europe. The goal of the former seven is to develop V2G and/or
similar concepts while the goal of the latter one is to determine policies that (a) support the sustainable

14
transitions of the mobility and the electricity regimes and (b) support the integration of those regimes. The
interview questions were developed on basis of the conceptual framework and with the help of corresponding
literature. A complete overview of the interview questions can be found in Appendix B.
In total 14 field experts participated to the interviews. As indicated with the blue color in Table 2,
these experts work for 12 different companies. More information about these field experts and the companies
they work for can be found in Appendix A. Most of the companies are the managing partner within the projects.
These parties were deliberately selected as it was assumed that managing partners are capable of providing the
most appropriate information regarding strategic and tactical choices. However, NewMotion did not respond,
so for their project, two other parties were chosen. A logical choice was to involve TenneT as they are the
Dutch TSO and, as such, a potential customer of V2G. In addition, it was chosen to include Nissan and
Mitsubishi as they are manufacturers of EVs and, as such, may have additional information regarding the
automotive sector. Furthermore, a consultant working for Nationaal Kennisplatform Laadinfrastructuur (NKL)
has been asked for an interview as this independent researcher might have more general information. ElaadNL
was deliberately chosen as they participated within many of the projects which would help to validate
information provided by other interviewees. At last, Enexis was included, but the interviewee was not directly
involved in the corresponding project. Instead, like TenneT, Enexis was involved as a potential customer party
who is interested in V2G and similar concepts.
In addition to the interviews, secondary data was sourced from project papers and relevant websites.
The purpose of using secondary data in this research is threefold. Firstly, the data helped me to prepare myself
for the interviews. Secondly, the data allowed me to skip some questions which, in turn, allowed me to spend
more time on other (more) important questions. Thirdly, the secondary data helped me to validate some of the
information provided during the interviews.
The third step of the research process was to transcribe and code the interviews. An initial codebook
was made on basis of the interview questions. This codebook can be seen in Appendix C. However, during
coding, additional codes were added on basis of the answers from the interviewees. The complete codebook
can be seen in Appendix D. The actual coding process was inductive and iterative as proposed by Corbin and
Strauss (2008). So, after an initial coding of all transcripts, the transcripts were analyzed again to allow for a
revision of coding on basis of the codes that emerged later.

3.5. Data analysis

After coding, the coded segments were exported and analyzed both quantitively as well as
qualitatively. The multiple case approach allowed for a cross-case analysis and for the determination of both
differences and similarities. The quantitative information was used to find similarities between statements from
the interviewees while the qualitative information was used to explain the findings. As a result, it was possible
to identify certain themes and ascribe the codes to these themes. The themes can be seen in the codebooks in
Appendix C and Appendix D. The following sections present the results obtained by conducting this research.

15
 4. V2G Business Models
Within this chapter the results are presented about the business models for bidirectional charging that
are being explored, tested and/or validated during pilot studies within the Netherland. It will start with
presenting the four conceptual use cases and their corresponding business models as explored, tested and/or
validated during these Dutch pilot studies. Then, and additional use case will be presented based on additional
claims of some interviewees. And finally, will end with a summarized overview of the results.

4.1. The four conceptual use cases of bidirectional charging

Bidirectional charging could serve different purposes and these different purposes could benefit different
customers. During the interviews, four distinct concepts related to bidirectional charging were identified. These
concepts are: V2G, V2B, V2H and V2E. The following figure provides a visual overview of these four
concepts.

Figure 3: Bidirectional charging use case scenarios.

16
 As explaining the actual technical components required for each concept is not within the scope of this
thesis, the four concepts are represented by black boxes. In case of V2G, EVs are (dis)charged through public
bidirectional chargers. As public chargers are directly connected to the grid, the main idea of the V2G concept
is that it contributes to the grid’s stability. In case of V2B, EVs are (dis)charged through bidirectional chargers
that are connected to a company’s building. By using EVs to temporarily store electricity, V2B could benefit
businesses in various ways. In case of V2H, EVs are (dis)charged through bidirectional chargers that are
connected to a house. By using EVs to temporarily store electricity, V2H has the potential to benefit households
in various ways. In case of V2E, EVs are utilized to provide energy to events that, due to their nature, have no
fixed grid connection. Because V2E requires no bidirectional charging stations, some might think it is less
relevant. However, before being able to provide electricity to events, EVs should be (partially) charged.
Furthermore, Interviewee DSO2 explained the relevancy of the V2E concept by sketching the following future
scenario:

“If EVs are able to drive autonomously in the future, they may be able to charge on one location and
provide electricity to another. For example, in the case of events, autonomous EVs might be charged at
a location where surplus electricity is produced and then drive to an off-grid location to provide its
energy.”

As such, one may think the concept is not only relevant, but also particularly interesting. After all,
V2E is the only concept that requires mobile storage capacity. In the other cases, the EV could be replaced by
stationary storage solutions.
As each identified concept has a different use case and its own set of potential customers, each concept
could be seen as a business model archetype. To provide useful insights for the design of suitable business
models regarding these different business model archetypes, the remainder of this chapter discusses each
archetype in more detail. In addition, a section is added that shows how different business model archetypes
may be combined.

4.2. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G)

As discussed above, the idea of V2G is that it contributes to the stability of the electricity grid.
Although one may think that the obvious customers in case of V2G are grid managers, different interviewees
mentioned some other potential customer segments as well. The following figure may help one to distinguish
V2G from the other business model archetypes.

17
Figure 4: V2G.

As could be seen, the technology required for V2G allows a vehicle to charge by drawing electricity
directly from the grid and discharge by feeding the electricity back into the grid. V2G could help to stabilize
the grid by charging EVs when excess electricity is produced and discharging EVs when there is a lack in
electricity production. Regarding V2G, different possible business models were discussed during the
interviews. These business models could be further divided into (a) business models that consider V2G as a
service, and (b) business models that consider V2G as a product.

4.2.1. V2G as a service

During eight interviews, grid managers were mentioned as main customer segment. Within the
Netherlands, this customer segment consists of one TSO and multiple DSOs. According to Interviewee TSO:

“The TSO is responsible for transportation of electricity via the high voltage power lines and for
connecting electricity producers to this high voltage network.”

18
 According to Interviewee DSO2:

“The DSOs are responsible for the regional distribution of electricity via low voltage power lines, the
regional distribution of gas, and for connecting consumers to the energy system.”

The interviewees further explained that, in order to ensure appropriate transportation and distribution
of electricity, grid managers are responsible for the reliability of the grid. To optimize the grid’s reliability,
electricity supply and demand should be balanced on a continuous basis, and congestion must be prevented to
minimize the chance on power outages. Within the Netherlands, the TSO is responsible for balancing
electricity supply and demand, and preventing congestion on the high voltage power lines while the DSOs are
responsible for preventing congestion on the low voltage power lines. According to Interviewee TSO:

“Congestion is the phenomenon where electricity supply exceeds the capacity of the network.”

During the interviews, it became clear that V2G could be provided as a service to grid managers. Four
out of the eight projects, that were discussed during the interviews, considered V2G as a service. Analyzing
the relevant interview data resulted in the development of a business model. A visual representation of this
business model is depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Business model: V2G as a service.

19
 As indicated by arrows 9 and 11 in Figure 5, the focal organization can provide services to the TSO
and to DSOs. In case of option 1—i.e. providing services to the TSO—by charging EVs when electricity
supply tends to exceed demand and discharging EVs when demand tends to exceed supply, V2G could help
the TSO with balancing the supply and demand of electricity. In case of option 2—i.e. providing services to
DSOs—EVs could be utilized to temporarily store locally generated electricity when local production tends to
exceed local demand. By doing so, V2G helps DSOs to prevent congestion on a local level. In turn, these grid
managers might be willing to pay for these services as indicated by arrows 10 and 12 in Figure 5.
Arrows 5, 6, 7 and 8 indicate that the electricity used for V2G as a service is either bought from the
energy supplier or from the EV owner. This is the case because in case of charging, electricity is drawn from
the grid and fed into the EV via the bidirectional charging station. Thus electricity is bought from an energy
supplier and sold to the EV owner. In case of discharging, electricity is drawn from the EV and fed back into
the grid via the same bidirectional charger. In that case, electricity is bought from the EV owner and sold back
to the energy supplier.
To be able to provide V2G as a service, both hard- and software need to be acquired. Hence arrows 3
and 4 in Figure 5. The hardware required to build the bidirectional charging stations may be (partially) acquired
from manufacturing partners which is indicated by arrows 1 and 2 in Figure 5.
The remainder of this section discusses the results of each of the five projects that are relevant to V2G
as a service.

NewMotion V2G
In October 2017, NewMotion announced a pilot in which V2G technology would be deployed to test
the ability to use EVs for balancing electricity supply and demand (The New Motion B.V., 2017). According
to Interviewee TSO:

“As volatility of energy supply increases due to the increasing amount of energy produced from
renewable sources, it is important to search for innovative decentralized solutions that provide
flexibility.”

Therefore, within this pilot, a system was tested in which semi-EVs from Mitsubishi were (dis)charged
to regulate the frequency of the grid based on requests from the grid operator. The goal of the pilot was to
show that V2G (a) could easily be implemented and (b) has the potential to benefit both the electricity grid as
well as EV owners’ wallets (The New Motion B.V., 2017).
During the pilot, multiple Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs were connected to the grid either via home
chargers from Enel or via NewMotion’s plug-in EV charging stations (The New Motion B.V., 2017). Via
Nuvve’s Grid Integrated Vehicle (GIVe) platform, NewMotion received signals from TenneT about the need
to either charge or discharge the EVs.
Regarding V2G as a service, Interviewee TSO mentioned:

20
 “V2G offers a sustainable alternative to the current spinning reserve and has the potential to
significantly reduce the costs of maintaining power plants that currently provide reserve capacity.”
[AND] “V2G is interesting to TenneT if it provides less costly access to reserve capacity than gas-fired
power plants.”

This implies that a TSO is willing to pay for V2G as a service—arrow 10 in Figure 5—if it proves to
be less costly than current alternatives. Besides the benefit to TenneT, the pilot also showed that EV owners
could benefit from V2G. According to Interviewee TSO:

“We have calculated that each EV has a value of approximately €500,- per year which is equivalent to
10.000 free kilometers.” [AND] “We are already looking into V2G related schemes that offer free
kilometers to EV owners.”

To summarize, during the pilot, NewMotion took the role as provider of flexibility services towards
the TSO which supports arrow 9 in Figure 5. Based on TenneT’s needs, EVs charged by drawing electricity
from the grid and discharged by feeding electricity back into the grid which supports arrows 6 and 7 in Figure
5. The pilot validated that V2G could be an interesting solution to provide TenneT with access to flexible
capacity which supports arrow 9 in Figure 5. In addition, the pilot showed that V2G has the potential to reduce
charging costs which may support arrow 8 in Figure 5. Finally, as NewMotion is a supplier of charging stations
including the required software, the pilot supports arrows 3 and 4 in Figure 5.

City-Zen V2G
In 2014, the City-Zen project was launched to conduct research about how cities could be made more
sustainable. Within this project, a pilot was initiated to demonstrate V2G (Bierman, 2016). Within this pilot,
the batteries of EVs and bidirectional chargers were used to determine how V2G can influence and support the
stability of the grid. Via this pilot they also wanted to define social and regulatory barriers as well as new
services that could be delivered by market parties such as aggregators (Bierman, 2016).
According to Interviewee DSO1:

“Two bidirectional smart chargers were connected to the electricity grid within a public area.” [AND]
“V2G could support the electricity grid by preventing local congestion. In this way, V2G could reduce
the need for costly grid improvements.”

As preventing local congestion is a main task of DSOs, the City-Zen V2G pilot project considered
V2G as a service to DSOs which supports arrow 11 in Figure 5. Furthermore, EVs were (dis)charged using
public V2G chargers which supports arrows 6 and 7 in Figure 5. To conduct the pilot, NewMotion took the

21
role of the V2G provider by operating the charging stations using their GIVe platform. Furthermore,
Interviewee DSO1 mentioned:

“Enervalis programmed the algorithms of the chargers, and Magnum Cap supplied the chargers.”

Thus, the pilot also showed that the actual hard- and software required to provide V2G as a service is
acquired from various partners. This supports arrows 3 and 4 in Figure 5.

Johan Cruijff ArenA V2B

As part of the European North Sea Region SEEV4-City project of Interreg, a pilot was initiated at the
Johan Cruijff ArenA in Amsterdam to test V2B and V2G. According to interviewee C2:

“The ArenA already produces around 12% of the electricity it consumes with its PV installation.
However, many of the events are in the evening. Thus, the ArenA has a very high power consumption
when solar production is little to non. As the ArenA consumes as much energy as approximately 270
households, they were very interested in innovative solutions to temporarily store surplus energy.”

Besides testing the ability to temporarily store surplus energy from a PV installation and releasing it
to a company’s building when solar production is little to non, the pilot also showed how bidirectional charging
could help to prevent congestion on the local grid. After all, by temporarily storing excess energy from solar
production instead of feeding it into the grid, the system reduces the change that more energy is put on the grid
than drawn from it. In this sense, V2G is able to support DSOs in preventing local congestion which supports
arrow 11 in Figure 5.
Besides DSOs, V2G could also help a TSO with balancing the supply and demand of electricity which
supports arrow 9 in Figure 5. According to interviewee C2:

“When offering flexibility services, you will get paid for being available and for being able to either
provide electricity to or take electricity from the grid within seconds of time.”

Thus, a TSO will pay for the services offered by V2G which supports arrow 10 in Figure 5. As
electricity is taken from the grid and stored on EV batteries when supply tends to exceed demand, and this
electricity is fed back into the grid when demand tends to exceed supply, the pilot case also supports arrows 6
and 7 in Figure 5. Interviewee C2 further explains that also EV owners could benefit from V2G by the
following example:

“If you allow one to use your vehicle for V2G you may be compensated be receiving discount on parking
costs.”

22
 So, when you park your EV within an area where you have to pay for it, you may receive a financial
compensation when allowing one to use your EV for V2G. This partially supports arrow 8 in Figure 5.

The Power Recycling Car

The Power Recycling Car is a research project initiated by ElaadNL whit the aim to develop
standardized protocols for bidirectional charging stations. To develop these international industry standards,
ElaadNL collaborates with multiple companies within various projects. For example, within the Interflex
project, ElaadNL collaborates with lead partner Enexis to (1) explore the capability of EVs to support the local
grid by offering flexibility services, and (2) develop the required communication protocols. According to
interviewees KF1:

“By offering flexibility services, EVs can help DSO’s with local congestion management.”

Thus, V2G as a service could help DSOs with preventing local congestion which supports arrow 11
in Figure 5. However, to be able to provide such a service, other stakeholders are important as well. According
to interviewees KF1:

“Other important stakeholders are EV owners as V2G may lower the total cost of ownership of EVs.”

This implies that EV owners may be compensated for allowing their EVs to be used for flexibility
services which partially supports arrow 8 in Figure 5. Furthermore, Interviewee DSO2 mentioned:

“One of the most important key partners is the party that will actually supply the V2G hard- and
software.”

So, to be able to provide V2G as a service, relevant hard- and software need to be developed and
supplied which supports arrows 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 5.

4.2.2. V2G as a product

Related to V2G, some other customer segments were named as well, namely Charge Point Operators
(CPOs) and parking lot managers. According to interviewee PT:

“CPOs monitor public charging stations and take care of appropriate billing after an EV driver charged
it’s EV using the CPO’s charging station”

As V2G enables CPOs to both charge and discharge EVs, it could offer additional opportunity to make
profit. After all, by enabling EVs to not only take electricity from the grid, but also provide it back to the grid,

23
V2G allows CPOs to benefit from price arbitrage or from providing flexibility services to grid managers. This
also holds for parking lot managers. According to interviewee C2:

“By having the ability to use a significant amount of EVs for a significant amount of time, parking lot
managers are able to make money with V2G.”

However, as the customer segment, in this case, is enabled to make money by using V2G hard- and
software, V2G is provided as a product instead of a service. Therefore, as shown in Figure 6, the corresponding
business model is slightly different.

Figure 6: Business model: V2G as a product.

As could be seen, this figure is almost identical to Figure 5. However, the focal company in Figure 5
is the V2G service provider, while the focal company in Figure 6 is the supplier of the actual product that
allows the V2G service provider to provide services to a TSO and/or DSO.

Charging Electric Vehicles From Solar Energy

In 2017, a PhD student from Delft University of Technology teamed up with Power Research
Electronics and Last Mile Solutions to develop a solar-powered bidirectional EV charging station. The goal of
the research was to “develop a highly efficient, V2G–enabled smart charging system for electric vehicles at

24
workplaces, that is powered by solar energy” (Chandra Mouli, 2018, p. 4). The research included the following
main topics: (a) the development of an optimal system design, (b) the development of a suitable power
converter, and (c) the development of various smart charging algorithms (Chandra Mouli, 2018).
The project was performed at the facility of Power Research Electronics in Breda where a 10kWP
installation was connected to both an EV charger as well as the electricity grid via a converter. The converter
included a PV converter, a grid inverter and a charger. To develop an optimal charging profile, the system also
considered EV user preferences and energy prices (Chandra Mouli, 2018).
Besides lowering charging costs, the research also provided insight into the possibility of using V2G
to provide services to both DSOs and the TSO. Regarding DSOs, interviewee PT mentioned:

“By providing electricity when there would usually be a peak in demand, EVs are able to contribute to
the electricity infrastructure as they reduce possible overload.”

Thus, a V2G provider could help DSOs with preventing local congestion which supports arrow 11 in
Figure 6. Furthermore, as the charging costs lowered due to benefiting from price arbitrage, the research
showed how V2G could help a TSO with balancing supply and demand of electricity on the demand side which
supports arrow 9 in Figure 6.
The research resulted in the development of a V2G power convertor that could be offered to
organizations that are interested in lowering charging costs and/or contributing to the stability of the local grid
which supports arrows 3, 6, 9 and 11 in Figure 6.
This business model is supported by other interviewees as well. For example, interviewee C2
mentioned:

“If you have 200 EVs on a public parking lot, it is possible to make money with those EVs by trading on
the imbalance market or by charging when electricity is cheap and discharging when electricity is
expensive. In both cases you contribute to balancing the supply and demand of electricity and, as such,
to the stability of the grid”

Thus, both parking lot/garage managers as well as CPOs could deploy V2G to make additional profit;
they could trade on the imbalance market by providing reserve capacity—which supports arrows 9 and 10 in
Figure 6—or they can benefit from price arbitrage by charging EVs when electricity prices are relatively low
and discharging when prices are relatively high—which supports arrows 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Figure 6.
To be able to conduct the research, Last Mile Solutions provided the charge controllers but the rest of
the hardware was developed by PRE itself. However, according to interviewee PT:

“We are a manufacturer of converters and sell them to companies that build the actual chargers.”

25
 Thus, in case of market adoption, the bidirectional charging stations will be build and programmed by
customers of PRE and sold to the organizations that desire to provide V2G as a service. This supports arrows
1, 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 6.

4.3. Vehicle-to-business (V2B)

When bidirectional charging stations are not directly connected to the grid, but instead connected to
a company’s building, EVs could be used in ways that benefit a company. As benefiting businesses in general
is the main purpose in this use case scenario, the corresponding business model archetype could be referred to
as V2B. To allow for a better understanding, the following figure may help to distinguish V2B from the other
business model archetypes.

Figure 7: V2B.

As could be seen, the technology required for V2B is slightly different from the technology required
for V2G. After all, EVs are charged by either drawing electricity from the grid or by using a business’ self-
generated electricity, and EVs are discharged by either providing electricity to the company’s building or by

26
feeding it back into the grid. However, the electricity will always flow through the company’s grid connection.
Therefore, Figure 7 shows no direct arrows between the V2B black box and the electricity grid.
Regarding V2B, two customer segments were mentioned during the interviews. First of all, business
in general were mentioned as a customer segment. According to interviewees CM1:

“People arrive at work around 8 o’clock in the morning and leave again around 5 in the afternoon.
Within that timeframe, different things could be done with their EVs that may benefit the company.”

The other customer segment that might be interested in V2B are energy suppliers. According to
interviewees CM1:

“Energy suppliers may be interested in bidirectional charging as it enables them to buy energy as cheap
as possible. With bidirectional charging they are able to charge EVs when energy prices are low and
provide the energy from the EVs to their customers when prices are high.”

Thus, V2B allows the energy suppliers of businesses to benefit from price arbitrage. As both type of
customers could be served by one and the same V2B supplier, they were integrated into one business model
which is depicted in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Business model: V2B as a product.

27
 As indicated by arrows 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Figure 8, V2B chargers can be sold to both businesses in general
as well as energy suppliers. In both cases, EVs are connected to the grid via the company’s grid connection.
Therefore, regardless of who the actual customer is and whether or not the company owns a PV installation or
some other system to produce energy by itself, EVs will either be charged by electricity obtained from the
company or discharged by providing it back to the company, which is indicated by arrow 9 in Figure 8. In turn,
people may pay for charging and be compensated for allowing their EVs to provide electricity back if needed
which is indicated by arrow 10 in Figure 8.
In case EVs are charged and a company does not produces electricity itself or produces too little of it,
electricity is bought from the energy supplier. However, the company may also sell electricity back to the
energy supplier. Hence arrows 7 and 8 in Figure 8. Selling electricity back to the energy supplier may be done
to benefit from price arbitrage or when the company produces more energy than it consumes.
To be able to produce and sell the bidirectional charging stations , the focal organization will need to
buy some components they cannot produce themselves. Hence arrows 1 and 2 in Figure 8. As the focal
organization may choose to sell V2B as a product to both energy suppliers as well as businesses in general and
the interviews did not provide information about a distinct business model for each customer segment, they
were included into one figure. The remainder of this section discusses the relevant projects that were discussed
during the interviews.

City-Zen V2G
Besides exploring V2G, the City-Zen project—which has been introduced in section 4.2.1—also
explored how bidirectional charging may benefit companies. To explore V2B, one bidirectional charging
station was installed at the parking garage of PwC in Amsterdam and another one near Sportpark de Eendracht
in Amsterdam. According to interviewees CM1:

“Bidirectional charging at private properties of companies enable those companies to lower their
electricity costs and increase their self-sufficiency.”

This is the case, as V2B allows EVs to temporarily store surplus electricity from solar production or
electricity bought from an energy supplier when prices are relatively low. The electricity that has been stored
in the EVs can be consumed later when the company’s demand exceeds solar production or when electricity
prices are relatively high. This supports arrows 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Figure 8. According to Interviewee DSO1:

“As V2B lowers the electricity costs, businesses may be willing to pay for the bidirectional charging
stations.”

So, businesses may be interested in acquiring V2B as a product which supports arrows 5 and 6 in
Figure 8. Furthermore, interviewees CM1 mentioned:

28
 “On the other hand, you have energy suppliers. For them, V2B could be interesting as it allows them to
benefit from price arbitrage.”

Thus, also energy suppliers might be interested in acquiring V2B as a product which supports arrows
3 and 4 in Figure 8. In this case, the energy supplier is the one that operates the bidirectional charging stations
rather than a company itself. Although this might affect the choice of algorithm for bidirectional charging, the
electricity is still sold to and/or bought back from the company at which the bidirectional charging stations are
placed.

Johan Cruijff ArenA V2B

Although V2G has been explored during the pilot at the Johan Cruijf ArenA in Amsterdam, as
discussed above, the project’s main goal was actually to explore how bidirectional charging may help the
ArenA to reduce its electricity costs and increase its self-sufficiency. According to interviewee C2:

“The ArenA consumes a lot of electricity. Within our project we explore the possibility of utilizing the
storage capacities of EVs to prevent the ArenA from exceeding its maximum electricity demand as
agreed upon with its energy supplier. After all, if a business exceeds its agreed peak demand it may
receive a fine.”

During the pilot it became clear that V2B could decrease the electricity costs and increase the self-
sufficiency of businesses. The electricity costs could decrease by charging EVs when solar production exceeds
electricity demand or when electricity prices are relatively low while discharging those EVs when demand
exceeds solar production or when electricity prices are relatively high. This supports arrows 7, 8, 9 and 10 in
Figure 8.

The Power Recycling Car

Besides exploring the capabilities of EVs to support the local grid, ElaadNL also explores other use
case scenarios to develop relevant open communication protocols for bidirectional charging. One of these use
cases considers bidirectional charging stations at business locations. According to Interviewee DSO2:

“By allowing EVs to provide electricity to a company’s building when there would normally be a peak
in demand, bidirectional charging may have the potential to lower the company’s connection category.”

A lower grid connection category directly leads to reduced electricity costs. Hence, companies may
be interested to invest in V2B which supports arrows 5 and 6 in Figure 8.

29
EV Energy
In 2017, GreenIT initiated the EV Energy project to improve the policy landscape for renewable
energy and electric mobility, and improve our understanding about how the related infrastructures and related
IT components could help to catalyze the development of electric vehicles and sustainable energy solutions.
According to interviewee KF2:

“During a previous project we not only learned that IT could be made sustainable, but that you also
could reach sustainability by the help of IT. As a result, the project evolved into improving knowledge
about how to tackle sustainability goals with the help of IT by learning from and sharing best practices
amongst different regions within Europe. During a V2G conference hosted by Resourcefully, different
stakeholders were brought together and best practices were shared. Afterwards we decided to develop
a project proposal in 2016 for the EV Energy project under the flag of Interreg Europe. Within Interreg
Europe you can choose four different objectives of which one was The Low Carbon Economy. And in
January 2017 we started with the EV Energy project.”

Within the Province of Flevoland they want to develop an airport and a nearby business park. To
maximize the sustainability of these developments, GreenIT collaborates with the Province of Flevoland to
explore the possibilities of integrating the electricity and mobility regime. According to interviewee KF2:

“From a business point of view, EVs could be used to temporarily store self-generated electricity when
production exceeds demand. By doing so, a company’s self-consumption will increase which may lead
to reduced electricity costs and an improved image.”

Furthermore, bidirectional charging enables one to benefit from price arbitrage. According to
interviewee KF2:

“By choosing a charging scheme that allows EVs to charge only when electricity prices are low or when
self-generation exceeds one’s demand, and discharging them when electricity prices are high and
demand exceeds one’s self-generation, EVs could help to reduce one’s energy bill.”

As such, the EV Energy project supports arrows 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Figure 8.

4.4. Vehicle-to-home (V2H)

Like in the case of V2B, bidirectional charging stations are placed on private territory and not directly
connected to the grid. In case of V2H, bidirectional charging stations are connected to a house. Therefore,
electricity from and to the grid flows through a household’s grid connection. Figure 9 may help to distinguish
V2H from the other business model archetypes.

30
Figure 9: V2H.

Like in the case of V2B, the interviews helped to identify two possible customer segments, namely
households and energy suppliers. As both type of customers could be served by one and the same V2H supplier,
they were integrated into one business model which is depicted in Figure 10.

31
Figure 10 Business model: V2H as a product.

As indicated by arrows 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Figure 10, V2H can be sold as a product to both households as
well as energy suppliers. In both cases, V2H allows the customer to benefit from price arbitrage as EVs can
temporarily store electricity when prices are relatively low and provide it back to the grid when prices are
relatively high. Hence arrows 7 and 8 in Figure 10. As in the case of V2B, the findings indicate that the V2H
supplier (partially) buys its components at one or more manufacturers, which is indicated by arrows 1 and 2 in
Figure 10. The remainder of this section discusses the pilot discussed during the interviews that explored V2H.

Amsterdam V2G
In 2014 a pilot project was started in Amsterdam to explore how mobile storage capacity could
improve one’s self-consumption. To reduce the need for grid investments—which may be needed to prevent
possible overloads/outages due to the increasing amount of PV systems and EVs—several European countries
implemented policies to stimulate self-consumption of locally generated electricity (van der Kam & van Sark,
2015).
The pilot was performed at a private houseboat in the city of Amsterdam with an approximate
electricity consumption of 3350kWh per year. The houseboat had a 4kW P PV system—producing
approximately 3780kWh per year—on its roof which was connected to the house, to the electricity grid and to
a secondary boat with a 10kWh battery of which 7kWh was available for bidirectional charging. The hardware
that connected the components took care of optimizing the households self-consumption. In practice this meant
that the battery only charged when the PV system produced more energy than was consumed by the household
and that the electricity from the battery was fed to the household in case the PV system produced less electricity
than the household needed for consumption. Furthermore, if the battery was full, the excess electricity
produced by the PV system was fed into the electricity grid which supports arrows 7 and 8 in Figure 10.
However, if the battery was empty and the PV system did not produce enough electricity to meet the
household’s demand, the deficit in electricity supply was taken from the electricity grid which also supports
arrows 7 and 8 in Figure 10.

32
 According to interviewee C2 the pilot showed that:

“When smart bidirectional charging is combined with PV generation, a household’s self-sufficiency will
increase. This will not only reduce their electricity costs, but also makes them less dependent on the
currently unsustainable energy system.”

Furthermore, interviewee C2 mentioned:

“V2H becomes increasingly interesting if net metering is discarded as an incentive to invest in PV,
because it then becomes pointless to feed self-generated electricity into the grid.”

Instead, it is better to temporarily store an excess in self-generated electricity into the battery of an EV
and provide it to the household when demand exceeds self-production. Therefore, households could be willing
to invest in V2H which supports arrows 5 and 6 in Figure 10.
Besides the interviewee that provided information regarding the Amsterdam V2G pilot, some other
interviewees also gave insight into the V2H business model. For instance, interviewee PT mentioned:

“Using bidirectional charging, home owners may benefit from price arbitrage when they charge only
when electricity is relatively inexpensive and discharging—either by selling electricity back to the
energy supplier or by providing it to one’s household—when electricity is relatively expensive.”

This supports arrows 7 and 8 in Figure 10. Furthermore, instead of households, also energy suppliers
could be targeted by V2H. According to Interviewee DSO1:

“Energy suppliers may add parking prices to their offer that discourage charging during certain periods
while encouraging charging during other periods.”

Like in the case of V2B, the bidirectional charging stations are then bought and operated by energy
suppliers who desire to lower their costs and/or increase their profit. This supports arrows 3 and 4 in Figure
10.
To be able to conduct this pilot, a company called Mastervolt developed the required hard- and
software. However, Mastervolt does not produce and sell actual charging stations, but only manufacture the
required converters. This supports arrows 1 and 2 in Figure 10.

4.5. Vehicle-to-event (V2E)

Besides entities that are connected to the electricity grid like the above mentioned companies and
households, there are also entities that lack a grid connection due to their temporary nature. Despite the absence
of a grid connection, these entities may still require energy to power all sorts of things. In such a case, the

33
possibility to provide electricity with EVs may prove useful. During one of the pilots included in this study,
this use case was explored for events. The corresponding business model archetype is called V2E. The
following figure may help to distinguish V2E from the other business model archetypes.

Figure 11: V2E.

As could be seen, V2E allows EVs to provide electricity to events. Because it does not involve a grid
connection or whatsoever, V2E is not aimed at stabilizing the grid but solely on providing energy to events.
V2E forms a sustainable alternative to the diesel generator which is often used by event managers as a low
cost power solution. The business model as discussed during the interviews is depicted in Figure 10.

34
Figure 12: Business model: V2E as a service.

AirQon
In September 2017, a meeting between Gemeente Breda, local car dealers, one of the largest battery
suppliers in Europe, and SBPF resulted in the idea to use EVs to supply events with electricity. Currently,
events are supplied with energy using temporary power lines and/or diesel generators. As laying temporary
power lines is not always possible and diesel generators negatively impact air quality, the project tended to
make those solutions redundant by developing a device that allows EVs to provide electricity to all sorts of
events.
During the subsequent pilot, the consortium wanted to demonstrate their concept at Kings day to create
awareness and interest amongst people, and gather useful information for further development. To be able to
do so, they installed a kiddy ride, a coffee machine and an electric wire loop game, powered them by an EV,
and spoke with visitors. According to interviewee MB & interviewee PS:

“After a whole day, we found that only 0,3kWh was used to provide energy to the three objects, EV
owners would like to be compensated in some way, more than enough energy should remain in the EV
to drive back home, and the batteries should not degrade by discharging.”

Thus, during the pilot, a prototype of the end product was tested and people were interviewed to
determine the viability of the concept. To explain the concept, interviewee MB & interviewee PS stated:

“We want to provide a platform like Airbnb on which supply (EV owners willing to provide power) and
demand (event managers in need of power) are linked. We will help the organization to clearly formulate
their demand, because Breda Barst might need something else than a food truck event. We will advise
the organization about the required amount of power needed from EVs. Then, the organization can
upload their request to our platform, and visitors with an EV can sign up as providers by specifying how

35
 much kWh they can supply. In turn, the visitor may receive a free ticket, a discount on a ticket,
consumptions, etc.”

So, the organization behind AirQon wants to develop not only the product, but also a platform that
links event managers in need of power to visitors with an EV who are willing to provide that power. This
supports arrows 5 and 7 in Figure 12. Furthermore, the people that provide electricity that is stored on their
EV should be compensated accordingly which supports arrows 8 and 9 in Figure 12.
To be able to develop the hardware and software, the organization behind AirQon collaborated with
various partners. According to interviewee MB & interviewee PS:

“IHomer developed the software required to operate the system and PRE developed the convertor
required to draw electricity from the EVs.” [AND] “Although we are closely involved in the
development of the required hard- and software, if it is finished it would be nice if it could serve different
purposes. So, we will not develop the device by ourselves. Instead, we will just buy it from such a party.”

Thus, the required hard-and software will be supplied to AirQon which supports arrows 3 and 4 in
Figure 12. Interviewee PT added:

“We are a manufacturer of converters and sell them to companies that build the actual chargers.”

So, PRE is a company that manufacturers converters. In turn, these convertors are bought by
organizations that create (bi)directional charging stations or, in the case of AirQon, a device that enables EVs
to provide electricity to events. This supports arrows 1 and 2 in Figure 12.
Furthermore, interviewee MB & interviewee PS mentioned:

“Although the system is developed with events in mind, it may also serve other entities that lack a grid
connection, like temporary facilities or remote locations that are not connected to the grid. Thus, one
may also define the system as vehicle-to-off-grid.”

4.6. Vehicle-to-anything (V2X)

In addition to the above discussed business model archetypes, some interviewees provided information
about the possibility to combine some of the use cases into one business model referred to as vehicle-to-
anything (V2X). However, no one mentioned the possibility to include V2E in a combined business model.
To allow for better understanding Figure 13 may help to distinguish V2X from the other business model
archetypes.

36
Figure 13: V2X.

As can be seen in Figure 13, the possible business model archetypes that can be combined are V2B,
V2H and V2G. Although no actual business model was explored during the pilot cases, the information
provided by some interviewees indicated that, in case of V2X, an aggregator will operate the charging stations
at both commercial as well as private locations to realize a situation that is beneficial to mainly four
stakeholders; the grid managers (both the TSO as well as the DSO), companies that own buildings with nearby
parking spots, households, and EV owners. According to interviewees CM1:

“If you aggregate a significant amount of bidirectional chargers of businesses and/or households in a
certain area, you could also provide flexibility services to grid managers.”

This is supported by several other interviewees as well. For example, interviewee CM2 mentioned:

“An aggregator is able to connect many EVs together and offer grid managers the possibility to make
use of the resulting combined storage capacity.”

37
 In addition, interviewee PT mentioned:

“By aggregating, you combine several values together and offer them in the form of a virtual power
plant.”

Finally, Interviewee TSO explained:

“The aggregator has a significant amount of batteries available. With those batteries, an aggregator
can provide services to grid managers. It is up to the aggregator to decide how the earnings are shared
through the value chain. However, which parties could be included in the value chain is currently
explored..” [AND] “We have calculated that each EV has a value of 500 euros per year, but the market
should find out how this amount is shared amongst relevant stakeholders.”

The above results imply that aggregators—who provide V2X as a service—do the following: (1) They
operate a significant amount of bidirectional charging stations, (2) they are able to provide flexibility services
to grid managers, (3) they may help to reduce the costs of charging at commercial bidirectional charging
stations, and (4) they may reduce the electricity costs of both companies as well as households at which
bidirectional charging stations are installed. Notions 3 and 4 are based on the claim that each EV has a value
of 500 euros per year and that this value can be shared amongst the stakeholders involved in V2X. Therefore,
a corresponding preliminary business model has been developed which is depicted in Figure 14.

38
Figure 14: V2X as a service.

As can be seen in Figure 14, V2X hard- and software is acquired at a V2X supplier who, most likely,
buys some components at one or more manufacturers. Hence arrows 1, 2, 3 and 4. Arrow 5 represents the
exchange of electricity between the aggregator and EV owners in case of public (dis)charging. As indicated
by arrow 6, when electricity is taken from the EV, an EV owner receives money, and if electricity is put back
into the EV, the EV owner will pay for this electricity. Arrows 7 and 8 represent the exchange of electricity
and money between the aggregator and one or more energy suppliers. Arrows 9 and 10 represent the exchange
of electricity and money between the aggregator and various households. Arrows 13 and 14 represent the
exchange of electricity and money between the aggregator and various company buildings. Arrow 11
represents the provision of flexibility services to grid managers. And arrow 12 represents the money grid
managers will pay for receiving those services.

4.7. Summary of results

To summarize, a total of five business model archetypes were identified during the interviews, namely:
V2G, V2B, V2H, V2E, and V2X. Regarding V2G, interviewees further made a distinction between offering
V2G as or service or as a product. Both V2B and V2H were considered as products while V2E and V2X were
only considered as a service. Table 3 provides a summarized overview of the above findings.

39
 V2G V2G V2B V2H V2E V2X
(service) (product) (product) (product) (service) (service)
Customer • TSO • V2G provider • Businesses in • Households / • Event managers • TSO
segment • DSOs general / Energy • EV owners • DSOs
Energy suppliers
suppliers
Product • Access to • V2G hard- and • V2B hard- and • V2H hard- and • Platform that • Access to
reserve software software software connects event reserve capacity
capacity managers in
need of power
to EV owners
willing to
provide power
Value • Increased grid • Additional way • Reduced • Reduced • Sustainable • Increased grid
stability to make profit energy costs energy costs electricity stability
Core • Offering • Selling V2G • Selling V2B • Selling V2H • Helping event • Offering
activity flexibility hard- and hard- and hard- and managers to flexibility
services to software software software acquire services to grid
of focal grid managers electricity from managers
company EVs
• Maintaining a
platform that
connects event
managers in
need of power
to EV owners
willing to
provide power
Suppliers • V2G hard- and • Manufacturers • Manufacturers • Manufacturers • V2E hard- and • V2X hard- and
software of required of required of required software software
supplier components components components supplier suppliers
• Energy • Energy
suppliers suppliers
• EV owners • Businesses with
bidirectional
chargers
• Households
with
bidirectional
chargers
• EV owners
Table 3: Summary of business models.

40
 5. Gaining Legitimacy
As discussed in Section 2.2, for a technology to be able to breakthrough, it is of crucial importance
that the technology is seen as legitimate by various stakeholders. Within this chapter, the strategies and tactics
will be presented that—according to the interviewees—are used by niche actors to increase the legitimacy of
bidirectional charging and its various purposes.
During the interviews, four main strategies were identified that are used by niche actors to actively
built up legitimacy for bidirectional charging and its possible purposes. these four strategies are: Gaining
legitimacy through (1) framing, (2) conforming, (3) alliances, and (4) manipulation. The remainder of this
chapter presents the exact tactics used during each pilot case as explained by the interviewees, and will end
with a summary of the results.

5.1. Legitimization tactics

To learn more about the possible tactics used by niche actors to gain legitimacy for the technology
they are developing, this section discusses how niche actors involved in the development of V2G, V2B, V2H,
and V2E tend to actively gain legitimacy for the corresponding technology and its purpose according to the
interviewees.

5.1.1. Amsterdam V2G

As mentioned before, during the first pilot bidirectional charging was tested to validate the added value
of V2H. However, interviewee C2 stated that Liander initiated the pilot and asked him if they may test V2H
at his home. As no external funding was required and no one had to be convinced about V2H before the pilot,
no legitimacy had to be gained. Yet, the pilot results helped to validate the appropriateness and value of V2H
which helped to convince other actors to become involved in the development of bidirectional charging and
corresponding products and/or services. According to interviewee C2:

“As of now, the results of our first pilot are still rock solid. We have shown that one’s self-consumption
can increase from 30% to 65% on average over the year. Within the summer, my PV installation
produces 35% surplus electricity which is fed to the grid and during the winter I need to buy 35% of
what we consume from the grid. These results helped to convince others about the value of V2G.”

Thus, as the results of a pilot can help to inform and convince others about the added value of a
technology, communicating them to or sharing them with the public can help to gain legitimacy for a
technology and its purpose. After all, as explained in section 2.2, the degree to which an entity is known,
understood and accepted by the wider public corresponds to the entity’s cognitive legitimacy.
Furthermore, legitimacy can also be actively gained amongst specific stakeholders. For example,
potential customers perception of legitimacy towards a technology may increase by framing the technology as
a solution to a problem that they acknowledge. According to interviewee C2:

41
 “If you inform potential buyers about the reduced need to feed the grid with coal fired power plants due
to the use of their EV, a part of the society will say yes and that part is growing.”

This implies that, by explaining how a technology may solve pressing issues as recognized by the
society, potential customers’ perception about a technology’s legitimacy may increase. After all, as mentioned
before, normative legitimacy represents the extent to which an entity complies with societal values, norms and
beliefs.
To summarize, the interviewee involved in the Amsterdam V2G pilot explained two tactics to improve
the legitimacy of V2H.
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulating to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained how niche actors
try to educate relevant stakeholders which increases cognitive legitimacy, and
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained that niche actors might
frame a technology in terms of a solution to a societal problem which may enhance normative
legitimacy and, in turn, may increase the likelihood of adoption.

5.1.2. Charging EVs from solar energy

During the pilot at PRE for which a solar powered bidirectional charging station was developed and
tested, they framed V2G as a solution that supports the energy transition. The interviewee explained that in
order to obtain a subsidy from the Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, it was important to link the
project to a pressing issue. Interviewee PT said the following:

“Yes, that was an important part of our project plan. We explained how our product supports the energy
transition. The energy transition is the development in which we reduce the use of gas as main source
of heating, in which more and more renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity, and in
which there is an increase in electric mobility. What we showed is that, besides transportation, EVs can
serve another purpose which is providing a buffer to temporarily store a surplus in electricity
production. This is important if more and more electricity is generated through weather dependent
sources like wind and PV.”

This shows that in order to increase the likelihood of obtaining funding from the government, one may
frame its technology in terms of a solution to a pressing issue which is experienced or has been acknowledged
by the government. After all, if you explain how you solve an important problem acknowledged by a specific
group, both understanding and acceptance—two key aspects of cognitive legitimacy—will increase amongst
the members of that group.
Besides financiers, the government also consists of policymakers. As policymakers have direct
influence on the policy landscape, they may be capable of changing policies in favor of the technology you are
developing. Therefore, niche actors also conduct deliberate actions to increase the perception of legitimacy
amongst policymakers. As mentioned by interviewee PT:

42
 “Different stakeholders conduct lobbies to convince policymakers to adjust policies in favor of V2G.”

Thus, niche actors involved in the development of V2G may also try to influence the decisions of
policymakers by lobbying for policy change in favor of V2G. This manipulative act may lead to changes in
V2G’s regulatory framework which, in turn, may further increase the technology’s legitimacy. After all, as
mentioned in section 2.2, an entity’s regulatory legitimacy refers to the extent to which that entity complies
with formal rules, laws and regulation.
Besides influencing the context to improve a technology’s alignment with its context, one may also
choose to simply design the technology in such a way that it conforms to the institutional structures within its
context. For example, interviewee PT stated:

“We develop de V2G convertors which will be placed inside of V2G charging stations. We want to
develop our converter in such a way that all type of EVs can be (dis)charged with it.”

By developing V2G in such a way that it conforms to already existing EVs, V2G can be deployed
regardless of the EV brand which, in turn, increases its legitimacy. After all, conforming to institutional
structures in a technologies context, directly results in increased alignment.
Regarding the strategies ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ and ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’, some
interviews pointed towards the possibility of combining these tactics. For example, interviewee PT mentioned:

“I think V2G does not have to adapt to the current practices in the energy sector. Up till now, there is
no clear frame for V2G. I’m convinced that a new market should be created where the price of electricity
is based on supply and demand. But policies should change accordingly. As a new player, I would not
look at what others are doing, but at how can we affect policymaking in favor of our product.”

This implies that one may also manipulate stakeholders to change the current institutional structures
of the context so that a technology may conform to the context in the near future.
Furthermore, the results of the interviews show that legitimacy may also increase due to the presence
of certain alliances. For example, most of the interviewees believe that external financiers are more willing to
invest in the development of a technology if the combination of partners is seen as trustworthy. According to
interviewee PT:

“On the one hand, financiers consider opportunities. The idea behind a partnership is that the sum of
parts should be more than the individual parts. On the other hand, financiers consider risk. If certain
partners bring additional risk with them, financiers will be less willing to invest.”

43
 Although interviewee PT may indicate that the perception of legitimacy towards V2G may increase
due to the combined trustworthiness of partners involved, it may also indicate that the perception of legitimacy
towards the consortium itself increases due to the combined trustworthiness of the members.
Alliances may also influence the perception of legitimacy amongst potential customers. As mentioned
by interviewee PT:

“The choice of partners will also influence the attractiveness of our offering towards potential
customers. Our company is just a tiny piece of a puzzle. Customers want to see the whole puzzle but they
want only one point of contact.” [AND] “Earlier you mentioned Innogy. Innogy started as a spinoff
from RWE to get rid of its unsustainable image and start with a clean slate. I can image that having
unsustainable partners on board hampers customers to buy your offering. This all comes down to your
trustworthiness.”

Thus, the presence of certain partners may impact the trustworthiness of the focal company and its
alliance network which, in turn, may impact the perception of legitimacy amongst potential customers. In this
case, the interviewee mentions that the attractiveness of their product and/or service increases due to
trustworthiness. This implies that strategic alliances may also help to gain legitimacy for what you want to
offer to the market. After all, increased attractiveness might lead to an increase in acceptance which is key to
cognitive legitimacy.
To summarize, the following five tactics were used by niche actors involved within the project Solar
Powered Bidirectional Charging Station:
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned that, in order to obtain
funding from the government, they explained how their technology solves an important issue as
acknowledged by the government. This leads to an increase in understanding as well as acceptance—
two key aspects of cognitive legitimacy,
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned how lobbies are
conducted to ultimately influence the policy landscape. By influencing the regulatory framework in
favor of a technology, institutional structures actually adapt to the technology which increases
alignment between the technology and the institutional structures within its context,
(3) Regarding the strategy ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned how they desire to
develop their technology in a way that it conforms to already existing technology. By doing so,
alignment will be enhanced between the technology and the institutional structures within its context,
(4) Regarding both ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ and ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee
further added that certain institutional structures should change in order to be able to conform in the
near future, and
(5) Regarding the strategy ‘gaining legitimacy through alliances’ the interviewee stated that choosing the
right alliances may help to obtain funding and it may help to increase the attractiveness of your
offering. Although the former might not be necessary linked to technology legitimacy, the latter is.

44
 5.1.3. NewMotion V2G
During the NewMotion V2G project, the possibility of deploying V2G to help TenneT with balancing
the supply and demand of electricity was explored. Unfortunately, the corresponding interview revealed only
little information regarding the legitimacy tactics used by the relevant niche actors. The main reason for this
lays in the fact that the interviewee was not directly involved in the pilot case and, therefore, was unable to
provide such detailed information. However, regarding the strategies ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ and
‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ Interviewee TSO mentioned the following:

“The rules of the game have to change between current market parties. For example, when we deployed
EVs to help balance supply and demand, regional grid managers started to claim that we were providing
services to their customer. However, their customers were serving us by providing flexibility. Yet, the
regional grid managers should receive information about what happens on their grid. The whole playing
field will be turned around by developments like V2G. This requires new agreements and even changes
in the policy landscape.”

Thus, instead of conforming to current practices within the energy regime, the interviewee claims that
these practices should change to allow V2G to be deployed successfully. Like previous findings, this implies
that niche actors should manipulate relevant stakeholders to cause change within institutional structures before
full alignment is possible.
To summarize, the interviewee mentioned one tactic to gain legitimacy, namely: Regarding the
strategies ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ and ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained
how manipulation should first cause change to institutional structures within the context of V2G before V2G
and its purpose can fully align to the institutional structures its context.

5.1.4. City-Zen V2G

As clarified before, during the City-Zen V2G project, not only V2G but also V2B was explored. Half
of the investment to finance the City-Zen project came from the European Commission. Also in this case, the
interviewee explained that it was important to frame the technology as a solution to sustainability issues.
According to Interviewee DSO1:

“V2G is only a minor part within the City-Zen project. However, sustainability is the unifying theme
that allowed for obtaining the subsidy.”

So, even though the subsidy was not granted to the City-Zen V2G project in particular but to the City-
Zen project as a whole, this statement does imply that linking one’s development to sustainability issues is key
to obtain funding from the government. This corresponds to the earlier finding about the ability to gain

45
legitimacy for a technology by framing it as a solution to one or more issues that are acknowledged by the
funding party.
Also Interviewee DSO1 implies that customers’ perception of legitimacy regarding V2G/V2B may
increase. After asking what information would be necessary to include in a selling pitch, Interviewee DSO1
answered:

“Figures about the added value compared to alternative charging techniques, figures about the impact
on the batteries of EVs, and figures about cost and revenue structures; so how you can earn money by
selling the electricity that you have charged and stored on your EV. That would certainly be part of the
brochure.”

This indicates that niche actors could educate the public about the appropriateness and value of a
technology which, in turn, may affect the technology’s legitimacy as perceived by potential customers, because
cognitive legitimacy increases if the extent to which an entity is known, understood and accepted by the wider
public increases.
Furthermore, legitimacy amongst potential customers may also increase by choosing the right partners.
According to Interviewee DSO1:

“I don’t think potential customers will review your partners. However, if one of your partners has
recently been slandered by the press, it may harm your credibility.”

So, carefully choosing one’s alliance partners affects one’s credibility or trustworthiness which, in
turn, may affect legitimacy. However, it is not clear if it affects the legitimacy of a partnership or the legitimacy
of one’s offering.
The above also holds for external financiers. As Interviewee DSO1 mentioned:

“The more trust you create by choosing the right partners and by explaining your choices, the more
external financiers are willing to invest. The less risk, the better.”

This implies that also external financiers will review either your organization and/or the technology
you are developing as more legitimate if they think the partnership is trustworthy.
Furthermore, Interviewee DSO1 explained that V2G should not conform to the practices of
organizations that currently dominate the electricity regime. Instead, he thinks that these organizations have to
adapt to new technologies like V2G. According to Interviewee DSO1:

“I think that the players that currently dominate the relevant markets should adapt to the new
technologies that are introduced. The technologies will be developed and will come to the market. It is
up to us as grid managers to make sure we can properly handle these new techniques.”

46
 This corresponds to the earlier findings that niche actors may try to manipulate relevant stakeholders
to change the current context in order to obtain alignment in the near future.
To summarize, Interviewee DSO1 mentioned four tactics to enhance the legitimacy of bidirectional
charging:
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned that linking your
development to a pressing issue as acknowledged by the government may help to obtain funding.
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained how they educate
the public about the appropriateness and value of V2G which, in turn, enhances legitimacy,
(3) Regarding the strategy ‘gaining legitimacy through alliances’ the interviewee explains that certain
alliance partners may increase the credibility of your company which, in turn, may lead to a higher
legitimacy towards both potential customer as well as funding agencies,
(4) Regarding both ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ and ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee
mentioned that certain institutional structures should change in order to be able to conform in the near
future.

5.1.5. Johan Cruijf ArenA V2B

Besides the Amsterdam V2G pilot, interviewee C2 was also involved in the ArenA V2B project during
which both V2B as well as V2G was tested. In this case, the solution provided by bidirectional charging was
aimed at the potential customer of V2G and B2B. Regarding V2G interviewee C2 mentioned:

“Traditionally, TenneT conducted business with mainly gas fired power plants to provide primary spare
capacity—i.e. the capacity that should be available for the duration of a week and can be accessed
within 30 seconds of time in case of imbalance. As these power plants are up and running, they produce
a significant amount of CO2. Therefore, using EVs as spinning reserve could lead to significant
reductions in CO2 emissions.” [AND] “EVs can supply electricity to or take electricity from the grid
on within a very short time frame.”

This shows that niche actors tend to affect the perception of legitimacy amongst potential customers
regarding a technology by framing the technology in terms of a solution to a customer problem. The same
tactic was applied in case of V2B. According to interviewee C2:

“Storing electricity in EVs when your PV installation produces more electricity than is consumed allows
you to use that electricity when demand exceeds self-generated electricity. This may prevent a situation
in which you exceed a certain maximum demand which is undesirable because you may be fined for
that.”

47
 According to the interviewee, such stories help to convince potential customers about the
appropriateness and added value of bidirectional charging by explaining how it solves their customers’
problem(s) which, in case of a successful outcome, may lead to an increase legitimacy. After all, if potential
customers are convinced about the appropriateness and value of a technology, product and/or service,
acceptance will be higher which is key to cognitive legitimacy.
Besides proper framing, interviewee C2 explained that also other tactics are used to increase the
change of adoption of a technology. One of these tactics is to make sure that the technology you are developing
is compatible with the technology already being used. According to interviewee C2:

“Just like conventional charging stations, V2G chargers should adapt to the electricity system.”

Thus, the interviewee claims that V2G chargers should be designed in such a way that they conform
to the already existing technologies within the electricity system. However, he further explained that, although
you could adapt on a technical level, the public still needs to be convinced about the value of V2G. Otherwise,
no one will invest in it. Convincing the public is done through conferences. According to interviewee C2:

“If you have a street where 30 to 50% of the car owners own an EV and come home around 5 pm, plugin
their EV to start charging, and turn on their stove to start cooking, the peak demand of electricity will
increase significantly. The current grid’s capacity is not large enough to handle such scenario’s. These
kind of stories is what we tell to relevant stakeholders during conferences.”

So, during these conferences, relevant stakeholders are educated about the appropriateness and value
of V2G which may affect legitimacy. After all, as explained in section 2.2, on a cognitive level, legitimacy
corresponds to the degree to which an entity is known, understood and accepted by the wider public.
Besides influencing the general public, also politicians are targeted with legitimization strategies.
According to interviewee C2, lobbies are initiated to influence the policy landscape in favor of V2G. He further
explained:

“Via lobbying, actors try to influence bad policies. Parties from the automotive industry, parties that
would like to offer V2G services, and parties like Liander and TenneT—the grid managers—are all
trying to lobby for policy changes in favor of V2G. The grid managers desire a market that is more open
and which is easily accessible. They want a market in which parties are able to quickly supply spare
capacity and, in turn, receive some benefits.”

This clearly shows that during lobbies niche actors try to influence policymakers into changing the
regulatory framework in favor of V2G and its purpose. Manipulating policymakers to change the policy
landscape in favor of a technology may affect legitimacy. After all, as discussed in section 2.2, regulatory
legitimacy corresponds to the extent to which an entity complies with formal rules, laws and regulation.

48
 To summarize, interviewee C2 discussed four tactics that can be used by niche actors to gain
legitimacy:
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned that explaining how
your offering tends to solve customers’ problem(s) helps to convince them about the appropriateness
and value of your offering,
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explains how they aim to
develop their technology in such a way that it is compatible to already existing technologies,
(3) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained:
a. how they educate the public about the appropriateness and value of V2G, and
b. how lobbies aimed towards influencing policymakers are conducted to cause change to the
policy landscape in favor of the technology that is being developed.

5.1.6. The Power Recycling Car

During the research project The Power Recycling Car, ElaadNL collaborates with various partners
within different projects with the goal to develop open source communication protocols for bidirectional
charging stations. According to ElaadNL:

“Standardization is needed if you want it to become common.” [AND] “We develop protocols to, for
example, control charging stations. If such a protocol is fully developed it is provided to the whole world
so that everyone can use it. The advantage of developing open protocols is that every manufacturer of
charging stations can download it and use it to make V2G chargers. If there is no party that develops
these open protocols, there might be companies like Philips who develop it and hold it for themselves.
In such a case, everyone who wants to do something with V2G has to go to Philips. If more companies
are developing protocols that are not released to the open, you may end up in a situation where you
drive from Amsterdam to Rotterdam and in one city you can provide electricity with your EV but in the
other you can’t. That is a situation we want to prevent.”

This may imply that standardizing may also be a tactic to gain legitimacy. After all, if something
becomes common or mainstream, it is taken for granted and if something is taken for granted it is accepted by
the wider public which is key to cognitive legitimacy. Besides, also regulatory legitimacy is directly influenced
as standardized protocols become part of the new regulatory framework.
Also some of the earlier discussed tactics are applied during The Power Recycling Car project. For
example, interviewees KF1 mentioned:

“Besides DC V2G, there is also AC V2G. In Utrecht we are exploring AC V2G and we are one of the
few. We think that AC V2G has a lot of potential, because the current charging infrastructure in the
Netherlands consists for 95 percent out of AC chargers. Those chargers may only need some minor
adjustments to enable them to facilitate bidirectional charging.”

49
 Thus, instead of developing a technique that requires completely new charging stations, ElaadNL
looks into the possibility to conform to the charging stations that are already installed across the Netherlands.
However, they do acknowledge the fact that conforming to the already existing charging infrastructure may
lead to misalignment with institutional structures within the automotive sector. According to interviewees KF1:

“On the other hand, some parties claim that it is never interesting to require car manufacturers to add
components to their EVs which is necessary in case of AC V2G.”

Thus, conforming to the current charging infrastructure may lead to alignment with institutional
structure withint the electricity regime, but to misalignment within the automotive regime. However,
interviewees KF1 did not expect it to lead to significant problems related to the development of V2G in general.
As mentioned by interviewees KF1:

“Although DC chargers are larger and more expensive compared to AC chargers. On street, you want
the chargers as small as possible. So, possibly both technologies will exist next to each other or even
compete within the same market.”

Thus, while some might be in favor of DC V2G, others may be in favor of AC V2G. Each has its own
advantages and disadvantages; DC V2G is currently more expensive and requires more space which, therefore,
may be less attractive to actors within the energy regime, but AC V2G requires car manufacturers to add a
converter into their EVs which, therefore, may be less attractive to actors within the mobility regime. This
clearly shows how conforming can lead to inter-regime conflicts.
Besides conforming to gain legitimacy, interviewees KF1 also explained how you may change the
institutional framework by manipulating relevant stakeholders. Firstly, pilots itself may help to convince the
public about the value of the technology you are developing. According to interviewees KF1:

“Pilots play an important role. With a pilot you can show if something is technically feasible and if you
can make money with it. For example, the pilot Park Project in Denmark showed that with 10 EVs
plugged in during the night you can already earn money.”

Thus, conducting pilots may help to explain how a technology works and what purpose it may serve.
As discusses earlier, this may positively affect cognitive legitimacy which is the degree to which an entity is
known, understood and accepted.
Besides the general public, also specific stakeholders might be targeted by deliberate attempts to
increase legitimacy. In case of policymakers, niche actors may conduct lobbies to convince them to change
policies in favor of V2G. According to interviewees KF1:

50
 “What we try is to influence policymakers to change or develop policies in favor of energy storage
technologies. We do that, for example, by providing a report in which we show how crucial energy
storage is for successfully reaching the climate goals of our government.”

For lobbies to succeed, interviewees KF1 further explains the importance of explaining how V2G
helps to solve environmental problems:

“Since sustainable energy sources have a high variance, energy storage is needed. EVs have a
significant amount of storage capacity and more and more EVs will drive around. Thus, the potential to
have available storage capacity scattered over your electricity network is enormous. If you can utilize
that, the integration of renewables could speed up.”

These findings show how framing can also be used to manipulate relevant stakeholders with the goal
of changing institutional structures. However, besides manipulating policymakers to influence the policy
landscape, one may also try to conform to current practices within relevant industries to ensure a technology
can be scaled up as soon as possible. According to interviewees KF1:

“A flex market is now developing as a result of successfully finished pilots. So, energy companies are
changing. However, energy companies are way bigger than companies that offer V2G. So, much
resistance can be expected. Therefore, I think it is a combination. It is better to look at what we can do
now with V2G and develop V2G in such a way that it can be deployed now, and at the same time look
at what purpose V2G could fulfill in the future to find ways to realize such a future sooner.”

So, a combination of conforming and manipulation can be used to ensure alignment over time which
supports earlier findings about the possible need to cause change within a technologies context before
alignment can be reached.
Also interviewees KF1 validated that legitimacy can be gained through strategic alliances. As he
explains:

“Commissions that grant funding to projects are impressed if you have a large automotive company
within your consortium. If you work with a few small startups, they perceive it as risky, but if you work
with a large car manufacturer they perceive it as stable which may help when you need funding.” [AND]
“It was noticed by many stakeholders when Renault came aboard. Automotive companies are followed
by everyone and work with shareholders. So, if something happens it will be noticed by everyone.
Therefore, if you could get such a party to make the step to collaborate, a lot of attention will be shifted
towards your project.”

51
 However, this statements does not specifically clarify if a partnership’s legitimacy or if the legitimacy
of the technology which is being developed is affected through certain alliances.
To summarize, interviewees KF1 discussed the following tactics that help to gain legitimacy:
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulating to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained:
a. How standardizing can help to make a technology available to the mass which is necessary if
you want something to become common,
b. How educating helps to explain the purpose of the technology that is being developed,
c. How lobbies can help to influence policymakers to improve or develop policies in favor of the
technology that is being developed, and
d. How framing a technology in terms of a solution to one or more important problems may help
to convince others about the appropriateness of the considered technology which is important
when you educate the public and/or perform lobbies towards policymakers.
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee explained how conforming
can increase acceptance in one regime while reducing acceptance in another,
(3) Regarding the strategies ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ and ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the
interviewee further added that certain institutional structures may require change in order to be able to
conform to them, and
(4) Regarding the strategy ‘gaining legitimacy through alliances’ the interviewee explained that it may be
beneficial to collaborate with large firms as they help to increase the trustworthiness of the alliance
network and to shift attention to your project.

5.1.7. EV Energy
The research project EV Energy is a project directly aimed at changing institutional structures by
influencing policymakers to develop policies in favor of the integration of the energy system and the mobility
system. According to interviewee KF2:

“What we do is explore the current policy landscape and determine how the policy landscape can be
improved to realize the climate goals of the European Government. Since EVs require electricity to
move, and more and more EVs are produced and sold, our energy system has to change. So, how can
we maximize the share of renewables while at the same time the need for energy will increase due to the
increasing amount of EVs? We can either choose to be responsive and wait how things will evolve or
we can choose to anticipate likely future scenarios to ensure a smooth transition towards a more
sustainable world. As we believe in the latter, and because it is known that the sectors will collide due
to the energy needs of EVs, we aim to find ways to develop a favorable framework for a smooth
integration of the both.” [AND] “Policymakers come to our project meetings to see what is possible.
During these meetings, where different kind of stakeholders are involved, we discuss how policies can
be improved.”

52
 Thus, by exploring the current policy landscape, determining policies that hamper the integration of
the mobility and electricity system, and defining improved policies, the actors involved within the EV Energy
project aim to influence policymakers to alter the current policy landscape. These so-called lobbying efforts
may positively affect the legitimacy of technologies that cross the boundaries of the mobility and electricity
regimes like bidirectional charging.
Besides lobbying, also other tactics are applied by the actors involved within the EV Energy project
to increase the legitimacy of technological developments that cross the boundaries of the mobility and
electricity systems. According to interviewee KF2:

“To enable the integration of mobility and electricity, we facilitate the transfer of knowledge,
experience, best practices, etc. between partners and other stakeholders within the European Union by
sharing reports and organizing conferences.”

Thus, not only partners, but also the wider public is informed about the project results and advised
accordingly. This confirms earlier findings about the use of tactics to increase people’s awareness of and
understanding about certain developments.
Furthermore, besides making people understand certain issues, one may even go a step further and
convincing them about the importance of these issues. According to interviewee KF2:

“We also cooperate with university and high school students to prepare the work force of tomorrow by
making them aware of relevant issues regarding sustainable development and allowing them to
contribute to sustainable and innovative projects.”

Preparing the workforce of tomorrow by cooperating with students may affect the students’ values,
norms and beliefs as they become more aware of prevailing issues discussed and/or tackled during the projects.
Thus, working with students may not only positively affect the cognitive but also the normative legitimacy of
certain developments.
To summarize, the goal of the EV Energy project is to influence policymakers to change the policy
landscape in such a way that the mobility regime and energy regime can be integrated and that this process of
integration runs smoothly. Thus, in this case, the whole project focusses on the strategy ‘manipulating to gain
legitimacy’. Regarding this strategy, the interviewee explained the use of the following tactics:
(1) To change the formal rules and regulations, lobbies are conducted towards policymakers which, in
turn, may enhance the regulatory legitimacy of certain technologies,
(2) To convince others about the need to integrate the mobility and electricity systems, different
stakeholders are educated by sharing knowledge and experience through reports and conferences
which, in turn, may enhance the cognitive legitimacy of certain technologies, and

53
 (3) To ensure the workforce of tomorrow is more aware of relevant issues, projects are conducted in
collaboration with students which, in turn, may enhance both cognitive as well as normative legitimacy
of certain technologies.

5.1.8. AirQon
As for most of the projects above, the AirQon project successfully attained funding from the
government. For the subsidy to be granted, the technology developed during the AirQon project was framed
as a solution that improves the air quality within urban areas. According to interviewee MB & interviewee PS:

“In our subsidy request, we described how our solution will positively affect air quality. This is a specific
topic within a subsidy program called Urban Innovative Actions from the RVO.”

To increase awareness for the product and to validate and show the appropriateness of AirQon’s
concept, the project managers decided to conduct a pilot during an event. According to interviewee MB &
interviewee PS:

“What we did within our pilot is presenting our product in a way that stands out. By doing so, people
came to us and we had the opportunity to explain our concept.”

So, the pilot allowed the niche actors to inform the public which increases the extent to which AirQon’s
concept is known and understood—two key aspects of cognitive legitimacy.
Another tactic mentioned by the interviewees which affected legitimacy was the inclusion of certain
partners in the consortium. According to interviewee Gemeente Breda:

“This morning, I spoke with the alderman of the municipality of Breda and he acknowledged to be
pleased to see some specific parties within the consortium, because they create trust.”

This implies that strategic alliances may affect the trustworthiness of alliance networks which, in turn,
may enhance legitimacy either for the partnership or for the technology they are developing.
Furthermore, such alliances may also affect the perception of legitimacy amongst potential customers.
As mentioned by interviewee MB & interviewee PS:

“Also trust amongst event managers increases due to the parties involved in the consortium. For
example, they all know Zepp Concepts and Nissan, and they all know Breda Barst and Ploegendienst.”

However, to affect legitimacy more directly, the niche actors involved in the AirQon project tried to
design their device in a way that it conforms as much as possible to existing institutional structures. For
example, interviewee MB & interviewee PS mentioned:

54
 “To ensure AirQon could be integrated in the mobility regime we tend to establish a connection via
Modbus to receive information about the battery status et cetera. After all, EV producers won’t allow
their EVs to provide energy if it may harm the battery. So, our solution should communicate with the
battery management systems of EVs.” [AND] “We deliberately chose for OCCP and Modbus as these
are quite universal. We want our device to be able to work with all type of EVs.” [AND] “We want to
adapt to the automotive sector and follow them blindly. So, all the APIs we build is done using standard
language.”

This implies that they deliberately choose to conform to already existing techniques which, in turn,
ensures alignment between AirQon’s power converter and the institutional structures within its context.
However, conforming to already existing techniques might not be sufficient. Currently, only a limited
amount of EVs allow the discharge of their batteries. Because of that, interviewee MB & interviewee PS
explained:

“We hope that AirQon provokes the European Union to start lobbies towards the automotive sector
wherein car manufacturers are advised to produce EVs that incorporate the required technology for
bidirectional charging.”

So, although the niche actors aim to conform to the mobility regime as much as possible, they are
convinced that the results could help the government to advise car manufacturers to build EVs that are capable
of providing electricity to events or other off-grid entities.
To summarize, the interviewees discussed the following tactics that can be performed to potentially
gain legitimacy:
(1) Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ the interviewees mentioned that, in order to obtain
funding from the government, they explained how their technology contributes to the quality of air
within urban areas,
(2) Regarding the strategy ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned that:
a. Their pilot helps to educate people about the value of the device that is being developed, and
b. They desire to provoke the government to start lobbies towards the automotive industry to
produce EVs that are capable of providing electricity to events or other off-grid entities.
(3) Regarding the strategy ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ the interviewee mentioned how they desire to
develop their technology in a way that it conforms to EVs that are being produced and other related
technologies,
(4) Regarding the strategy ‘gaining legitimacy through alliances’ the interviewee stated that choosing the
right alliances may help to help to boost the trustworthiness of an organization.

55
 5.2. Summary of results
Within this chapter various tactics were discussed that niche actors can use to gain legitimacy. Table
4 presents a summary of the corresponding results.

Tactics mentioned by Reasons mentioned by Type of legitimacy

Strategies
interviewees interviewees affected
Obtain funding &
Framing as solution to
convince others about Cognitive & Normative.
societal problem.
added value.
Framing
Obtain funding &
Framing as solution to
convince others about Cognitive.
customer problem.
added value.
Maximize compatibility
Conforming to existing
& increase acceptance Cognitive.
technologies.
amongst users.
Conforming Increase acceptance
Conforming to common amongst relevant
Cognitive.
practices. organizations & allow
rapid scale up.
Create awareness, inform
and convince others
Educating the public. about added value, & Cognitive & Normative.
prepare workforce of
tomorrow.
Lobbying for policy Cause change in policy
Manipulating Regulatory.
change. landscape.
Allow deployment by any
Standardizing. organization & increase Cognitive & Regulatory.
usability.
Framing as solution to Convince others about
Cognitive.
acknowledged problem. added value.
Alliance with trustworthy Gain trust & obtain
Cognitive.
firm(s). funding.
Strategic alliances * Alliance with potential Gain trust & increase
Cognitive.
customer(s). likelihood of adoption.
Alliance with large firm. Gain trust. Cognitive.
* Only one claim referred to the possibility of gaining attractiveness for one’s offering through strategic alliances.
Table 4: Summary legitimization tactics.

As can be seen in Table 4, a total of eleven tactics were discussed during the interviews that may help
to gain legitimacy for a technology and its purpose. Regarding the strategy ‘framing to gain legitimacy’,
interviewees explained how it helped to explain your offering in terms of a solution to societal and/or customer
problems. The main reasons mentioned for using these tactics are (1) to obtain funding for the development of
niche development and (2) to convince others about the added value of the niche development. By explaining
how a niche development may solve one or more societal problems, both the development’s cognitive as well

56
as normative legitimacy increases. After all, framing a niche development in terms of a solution to a societal
problem increases understanding—which is key to cognitive legitimacy—and it helps people to understand
how it complies with their norms, values and beliefs—which is key to normative legitimacy. Explaining how
a niche development may solve one or more customer problems allows for better understanding which is key
to cognitive legitimacy.
Regarding the strategy ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’, interviewees explained that, when developing
a technology, product and/or service, you might chose to conform to already existing technologies or to
common practices of players that dominate the relevant market(s). The main reasons for conforming to existing
technologies are to (1) maximize compatibility and (2) increase acceptance amongst potential users. The main
reasons mentioned by the interviewees to conform to common practices are to (1) increase acceptance amongst
relevant organizations and (2) allow for a niche development to scale up more easily. Both tactics increase the
legitimacy of a niche development as they increase acceptance amongst the public which is key to cognitive
legitimacy.
Regarding the strategy ‘manipulating to gain legitimacy’, interviewees explained that you can
influence the environment in which a niche development will operate after market introduction. The tactics
they mentioned are best referred to as educating the public, lobbying for policy change, standardizing, and
framing a niche development as solution to one or more acknowledged problems. The main reasons for
educating the public are to (1) create awareness, (2) inform and convince other about the value/appropriateness
of one’s niche development, and (3) prepare the workforce of tomorrow accordingly. The main reason to lobby
for policy change is to influence policy makers to change the policy landscape in favor of one’s niche
development. Obviously, successful lobbying efforts lead to an increase in regulatory legitimacy regarding the
one’s niche development. The main reasons for developing open and standardized protocols, as mentioned by
one interviewee, lays in the fact that these norms and protocols (1) allow a niche development to be deployed
by any organization and (2) increase usability. Developing norm and protocols for a niche development directly
results in enhanced regulatory legitimacy as it changes formal rules and regulations in favor of the niche
development. Furthermore, as open and standardized protocols increase the usability of a development, one
may also think that acceptance amongst users will increase which is key to a niche development’s cognitive
legitimacy. In addition, within the strategy ‘manipulating to gain legitimacy’, one interviewee clearly
mentioned how framing is used to convince relevant actors to take actions in favor of your development. For
example, framing can be used in lobbies to convince policymakers about the appropriateness of a niche
development which, in turn, helps to bring lobbying efforts to a success. Again, framing directly enhances
cognitive legitimacy but, when used as sort of supporting mechanisms during lobbies, it may also indirectly
enhance the regulatory legitimacy of one’s niche development.
Regarding the strategy ‘gaining legitimacy through strategic alliances’, interviewees explained how
forming alliances may help your firm to (1) gain trust, (2) enhance the change to obtain funding, and (3)
increase the likelihood of adoption. However, important to note is that only one interviewee linked this tactic
to the actual niche development. The remaining claims seem to imply that strategic alliances lead to an increase
in legitimacy towards the alliance network which is involved into the niche development. Yet, in both cases,

57
the type of legitimacy that may be influenced by forming alliances is cognitive legitimacy. After all, one ma
think that the increase in trustworthiness might lead to an increase in acceptance amongst the public which is
key to cognitive legitimacy.

58
 6. Discussion
Within this thesis, a multiple-case study was conducted to increase our understanding about (1) the
possible purposes of bidirectional charging and (2) how niche actors involved in the development of the
required techniques—and corresponding business models—tend to increase the legitimacy of their niche
developments. Within this chapter, we will reflect back on the results by comparing them with relevant findings
from literature. The first section discusses the results of chapter 4—i.e. V2G Business Models—the second
section discusses the results of chapter 5—i.e. Gaining Legitimacy—and the third and last section will link the
results of both chapters to allow for a better understanding about how the legitimacy of a niche development
may be influenced by certain business model design choices.

6.1. V2G business models

Within this thesis, a total of five business model archetypes were identified that are being explored,
tested and/or validated within niche settings in the Netherlands. These business model archetypes are: V2G,
V2B, V2H, V2E, and V2X. The V2G business model archetype considers the utilization of public bidirectional
charging stations to contribute to grid stability. During the interviews it became clear that some entrepreneurs
consider V2G as a service towards grid managers while others consider V2G as a product that can be sold to
different kind of companies that might be interested in providing such services. This corresponds to earlier
findings about the difference between Product Service Systems and make-and-sell (Brehmer, Podoynitsyna,
& Langerak, 2018). However, in both case, the services interviewees refer to are often called flexibility
services. On the one hand, these flexibility services can help the TSO in balancing the supply and demand of
electricity. This corresponds to earlier findings which describe how the batteries of EVs can function as a
buffer by temporarily storing electricity from the grid when electricity demand tends to exceed supply while
feeding it back into the grid when supply tends to exceed demand (Ioakimidis et al., 2018; Oldenbroek et al.,
2017). On the other hand, these flexibility services might help DSOs with preventing local congestion. This
corresponds to earlier findings about the possibility of EVs to either charge or discharge in response to
electricity flow and voltage levels (Romero-Ruiz, Pérez-Ruiz, Martin, Aguado, & De la Torre, 2016).
The V2B business model archetype considers the utilization of bidirectional charging stations to
contribute to the energy management of grid-connected company buildings. During the interviews it became
clear that V2B could help with reducing peak demand which, in turn, results in a decrease in total energy costs,
and it could help with improving a company’s self-sufficiency. Both use cases are mentioned before in
literature. For example, Ioakimidis et al. (2018) explain how EVs can reduce the total energy costs of a building
by lowering the peak power consumption while van der Kam and van Sark (2015) explain how smart
bidirectional charging in combination with a PV system can increase one’s self-consumption. The interviewees
that discussed the deployment of V2B saw it as a product which can be sold to either companies that own one
or more buildings with nearby parking facilities or to the energy suppliers of those companies. Although
companies in general seem like the obvious customer segment in case of V2B, the interviewees explained that
energy suppliers may also be interested in buying V2B chargers because if they own and operate the chargers,
they will be able to capture a portion of the value that is offered by V2B.

59
 The V2H business model archetype considers the utilization of bidirectional charging stations to
contribute to the energy management of households. According to the results within this research, V2H could
help with reducing the electricity costs as it allows household to benefit from price arbitrage and/or from an
increase in self-consumption. Both use cases have been reported before. For example, Weiller and Neely
(2014) and Robledo et al. (2018) explain how charging during off-peak hours and discharging during peak
hours offers the possibility to lower one’s electricity bill while Lombardi and Schwabe (2017) have shown that
batteries can help to increase one’s self-consumption. Although the obvious customer segment in case of V2H
seem to be households, the results showed that also energy suppliers may be interested in acquiring V2H hard-
and software. After all, if energy suppliers own and operate the V2H chargers, they will be able to capture a
portion of the value that is offered by V2H.
The V2E business model archetype considers the deployment of power converters to allow EVs to
provide electricity to events. By doing so, the need for diesel generators will reduce which, in turn, increases
the sustainability of events. According to the results within this thesis, V2E is provided as a service in the form
of a platform that connects event managers in need of power to EV owners willing to provide power. So far,
researchers have ignored the possibility of allowing EVs to provide electricity to events. The results further
suggest that the technique that enables V2E could also be used in other off-grid scenarios. However, no
possible business models for such scenarios were discussed.
The V2X business model archetype considers the ability to combine V2G, V2B and V2H by
aggregating both public as well as private charging points within a certain area. By doing so, an aggregator is
able to optimize the energy system on a local scale. It could help with maintaining a balance between local
supply and demand, it could help with preventing local congestion and it may even help to lower the costs of
charging EVs. This corresponds to earlier findings about the possibility to deploy smart (dis)charging within
microgrids (e.g. Hirsch, Parag, & Guerrero, 2018; Thomas, Deblecker, & Ioakimidis, 2018; van der Kam &
van Sark, 2015).

6.2. Gaining legitimacy

As presented by the results in section 5, the tactics used to gain legitimacy for niche developments can
be divided into four categories, namely obtaining legitimacy through (1) framing, (2) strategic alliances, (3)
conforming, and (4) manipulation. Within this thesis, these categories are referred to as four strategies to gain
legitimacy. The four strategies correspond to previous findings in literature. For instance, Geels and Verhees
(2011) explain that technologies can be framed in different ways, and these frames compete to influence the
general discourse of a technology. Furthermore, they explain how positive frames stimulate innovation
journeys while negative frames could hinder those journeys (Geels & Verhees, 2011). Their findings are
supported by other researchers as well (e.g. Markard et al., 2016; Raven et al., 2016). The results in chapter 5
support these findings as we have shown that niche actors use different frames for different groups. More
precisely we have shown that niche developments are often framed in terms of a solution to a societal problem
in case funding is requested from governmental agencies while they are framed in terms of a solution to a

60
customer problem when potential customers need to be convinced about the appropriateness of the technology
and its purpose.
Furthermore, Kishna et al. (2017) confirmed that, in addition to stimulating the legitimacy of
organizations, alliances may also stimulate the legitimacy of technologies. They propose that the legitimacy
of a technology can be enhanced due to the facts that (1) alliances could lead to positive externalities, (2)
alliances may promote the technology via positive signals, and (3) alliances can function as institutional
entrepreneurs. That alliances could lead to positive externalities is not confirmed within this thesis nor is it
disproved. When examining the interview questions, it is obvious that no specific questions were asked
regarding this specific theory. However, the other two theories are supported within this thesis. First of all, the
signaling role of alliances is supported as the results show that both financiers and customers can be convinced
more easily if the right partners are chosen. For example, the results show that having a large car manufacturer
on board helps when requesting for external financing. That alliances can function as institutional
entrepreneurs is also supported by our findings. After all, ElaadNL aims to establish new institutions by
developing open communication protocols for bidirectional charging stations. As such, they can be seen as a
partner who acts as an institutional entrepreneur.
The third strategy—conforming to institutional structures—is a known strategy as well and is
mentioned by different authors. For example, Bento and Fontes (2019) highlighted that “technology legitimacy
is also a matter of conformity with the institutional structures of the context” (p.68). Furthermore, Van Oers et
al. (2018) mentioned that “conforming to existing environments is the easiest and least strategic way to acquire
legitimacy” (p. 4). After all, “in its most general form, legitimacy is the social acceptance resulting from
adherence to existing norms, values, expectations and definitions” (Van Oers et al., 2018, p. 4).
The last strategy used to enhance the legitimacy of bidirectional charging is referred to as manipulating
the environment. According to Van Oers et al. (2018), “rules and regulations can be manipulated through
(collective) lobbying efforts” (p. 4) but also by persuading audiences to value a particular offering and
demonstrating the success of a technology. The results in this thesis support those findings. Furthermore, Van
Oers et al. (2018) also mention that standardizing enhances cognitive legitimacy as it may lead to the
phenomenon were people take a technology for granted. The results within this thesis show that standardization
not only increase cognitive legitimacy, but also regulatory legitimacy as standardization can lead to a favorable
regulatory environment around a technology.
The results further showed that most niche actors agree upon the notion that products and services
around bidirectional charging should be designed in such a way that they conform to the future energy and
mobility systems. They further explained how lobbies can help to realize this future more rapidly. This
indicates that legitimization can be seen as a continuous process during which different tactics are used to
either conform to certain aspects of the relevant institutional structures or to manipulate relevant stakeholders
to change certain aspects of the relevant institutional structures. This corresponds to earlier findings of Huijben
et al. (2016) who explain how niche actors can anticipate changes in the regulatory regime (future-fit) but also
can change mainstream conditions in favor of a niche development (stretch and transform).

61
 At last, the results also showed that gaining legitimacy for a technology in one regime may lead to a
reduction in legitimacy in another. This is shown by the fact that some actors in the energy regime are in favor
of AC bidirectional charging while most actors in the mobility regime are in favor of DC bidirectional
charging. Studies so far suggest that if the value of a niche technology can be linked to solutions to problems
within multiple regimes, the cross-boundary nature of the technology may be beneficial (Raven & Verbong,
2009)but if the cross-boundary nature of the technology leads to inter-regime conflicts and institutional
misalignment, the development of the technology may be hampered (Schot & Geels, 2008; Van Oers et al.,
2018). The results in this thesis indicate that even though bidirectional charging provides value in both the
energy as well as the mobility regime, certain development choices may lead to inter-regime conflicts.
However, this does not necessarily have to cause delay in the development of bidirectional charging because
AC and DC bidirectional charging could both be commercialized and compete in the same market place.

6.3. Business model design choices

As discussed before, the goal of this study was to obtain knowledge about which business model design
choices could positively affect the change on successful commercialization of V2G. Because legitimacy is
seen as key concept that increases the change on adoption, this research was aimed on exploring the tactics
that are being utilized by actors to legitimize V2G and related niche developments—i.e. V2B, V2H, V2E and
V2X.
What is interesting to see is that two of the four identified strategies to gain legitimacy for a niche
development are directly linked to business model design choices. These are ‘framing to gain legitimacy’ and
‘gaining legitimacy through strategic alliances’. As the results show how framing a technology in terms of a
solution to a customer problem increases the change on adoption, one may decide to apply this tactic to the
formulation of a proper value proposition. This corresponds to earlier findings that claim that a value
proposition should communicate how a business’ offering tends to solve a customer problem (Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010).
Furthermore, the results have shown that choosing the right alliance partners may increase legitimacy
for a niche development. By choosing a trustworthy partner, for instance, both change on funding as well as
adoption may increase as such partners exercise a signaling role. This corresponds to the findings of Kishna et
al. (2017) who claim that alliances promote the desirability and appropriateness of a technology by exercising
their signaling role. Therefore, when developing a business model and if collaboration is needed due to missing
capabilities, one should aim to choose those firms that exercise a positive signal to both potential investors as
well as potential customers.
Also the strategies ‘conforming to gain legitimacy’ and ‘manipulation to gain legitimacy’ might be
applied to the business model design process. The results have shown that most actors think that bidirectional
charging and its purpose should be developed in such a way that it conforms to the future energy and mobility
regimes. However, they also claim that it is possible to manipulate relevant stakeholders to change institutional
structures in favor of a niche development and that this might help to drive the transitions of both the energy
and mobility regimes. Huijben et al. (2016) already have shown that a business model could be designed in

62
such a way that it conforms to future institutional structures but also in such a way that it helps to provoke
other stakeholders to change institutional structures. However, the results in this thesis also show that
conforming is the best strategy to choose if one desires market diffusion within the short term. But if a business
model confirms to current institutional structures can it also provoke stakeholders to change institutional
structures in favor of a desired future business model? Can the value offered by a first business model convince
relevant stakeholder about the potential value of a future business model?
According to the results within this thesis, providing flexibility services whit V2G is still not possible.
The reason for that is twofold. Firstly, the current regulatory framework does not allow EVs to be used for the
provision of ancillary services, and secondly V2G requires at least 100 EVs. However, for households it is
already possible to temporarily store an excess of electricity from PV into batteries for later usage. Only one
EV is required and the regulatory framework already allows households to feed electricity back into the grid
that is produced through PV. As an increase in self-sufficiency of households leads to less congestion,
providing V2H may convince others about the potential to deploy V2G to prevent congestion on the local grid.
Therefore, to allow for a rapid market introduction bidirectional charging while at the same time convincing
relevant stakeholders about the future value of it, it may be best to start with providing V2H. These findings
corresponds to some extent to the findings of (San Román, Momber, Abbad, & Sánchez Miralles, 2011) who
explain that installing V2G technology at home or a private areas such as shopping malls and office parking
spaces are the most probable scenarios as they require a relatively low penetration of EVs. However, they
consider the use of these bidirectional charging stations to provide services to grid managers which still
requires some key regulatory changes (San Román et al., 2011) and corresponds more to the V2X business
model archetype as identified within this thesis.
Yet, there is another concept which can be realized even sooner, namely V2E. Since V2E requires no
grid connection at all, it is less affected by the regulatory framework within the energy regime. Although the
deployment of V2E might not convince stakeholders within the energy regime about the appropriateness of
bidirectional charging, it might convince key stakeholders within the mobility regime about the
appropriateness of the ability to discharge EVs. In turn, this may result in an increase in production of EVs
that are ready for V2G, V2B, V2H and V2X.

63
 7. Conclusion and Recommendations
Although some might think that bidirectional charging is still far from becoming a common practice,
the opposite might be possible. Currently, some of the larger organizations are actively involved into scaling
up the required technology to allow EVs to temporarily store energy via bidirectional charging. Especially
Nissan, Mitsubishi and Renault cooperate with companies to find suitable business models that add value to
their EVs through the utilization of bidirectional charging. Furthermore, TenneT is also actively searching for
parties that are ready to scale up and introduce bidirectional charging to the market.
Within the research for this thesis, ley actors were interviewed who are involved into the development
of bidirectional charging and its possible use cases. The goal of the research was to improve our understanding
of the possible business model design choices that may positively impact the legitimacy of a niche development
and, in turn, increase its change on successful commercialization. For that matter, one main research question
was developed and three sub questions. The remainder of this section will start by discussing the answers of
the research questions. Then, in section 7.1, the theoretical contributions as well as limitations and future
research directions will be discussed. And finally, in section 7.2, the managerial implications will be discussed.

SQ1: What business model configurations are explored, tested and/or validated during V2G pilot studies within
the Netherlands?
As shown within this thesis, the business model configurations related to V2G that were explored
during the pilot projects—and are still being developed—can be categorized into four categories: V2G, V2B,
V2H, and V2E. In addition, a fifth category was identified which is V2X. Within this theses we refer to these
categories as business model archetypes as each of them consider a different use case related to bidirectional
charging.
V2G refers to the business model archetype that considers the utilization of EV batteries to provide
ancillary services to grid managers. Within the Netherlands, there are two types of grid managers that may
benefit from bidirectional smart charging, these are the TSO and the DSOs. For the TSO, V2G could help to
balance electricity supply and demand, and ensure a reliable electricity transportation system at significantly
lower costs compared to the traditional spinning reserve. For the DSOs, V2G could help to reduce congestion
and ensure a reliable distribution of electricity while lowering the need for costly grid updates.
V2B refers to the business model archetype that considers the utilization of EV batteries to lower the
total energy costs of company buildings. For businesses that own one or more buildings like office buildings
or factories, V2B may help to reduce their electricity costs as it allows EVs to provide electricity during times
of peak demand. Reducing peak demand could degrade the building’s grid connection category—the lower
the category, the lower the bill. More generalized we could say that V2B helps businesses to reduce their
electricity costs by allowing EVs to charge and discharge at the most appropriate times. In case a company
also produces electricity by itself, V2B may also help to increase a company’s self-sufficiency.
V2H is comparable to V2B, but instead of targeting businesses, the concept targets households. Like
businesses, households benefit from V2H as it lowers their electricity costs. However, instead of peak shaving,
V2H allows households to benefit from price arbitrage. After all, during daytime, electricity is more expensive

64
than at night. Yet, the value proposition is similar, namely: V2H helps households to lower their electricity
costs as it allows EVs to charge and discharge at the most appropriate time.
V2E refers to the business model archetype were EVs provide electricity to events. Since Events often
rely on diesel generators to provide power, V2E offers a sustainable alternative which helps to reduce events’
negative impact on the quality of air.
V2X refers to the business model archetype in which V2G, V2B and V2H are combined to allow EVs
to contribute to the energy management of local grids, businesses and households. As EV batteries could
provide the storage capacity needed to increase the share of renewables, V2X helps to obtain a more sustainable
energy system. Moreover, by reducing the need for conventional reserve capacity and reducing the need for
costly gird updates, V2X also offers a cost effective solution to improve the sustainability of our energy system.

SQ2: What strategies and tactics are utilized by niche actors to enhance the legitimacy of V2G?
As shown by the results within this thesis, four main strategies are used by niche actors to enhance the
legitimacy of bidirectional charging and its corresponding use cases. These four strategies are: (1) gaining
legitimacy through framing, (2) gaining legitimacy through alliances, (3) gaining legitimacy through
confirming, and (4) gaining legitimacy through manipulation.
Regarding framing to gain legitimacy, niche actors highlighted the importance of explaining their
concept in terms of as a solution to a salient problem acknowledged by the relevant stakeholder. This strategy
is used to convince others about the value and appropriateness of a niche development. As such, it helps to
gain cognitive legitimacy which, in turn, may improve the change to obtain funding and the change on
adoption.
Furthermore, carefully selecting alliance partners may also help to enhance the legitimacy of niche
developments because trustworthy partners may send out positive signals. Like the previous strategy, having
proper alliance partners may improve the change to obtain funding and the change on adoption.
Regarding conforming to gain legitimacy, the results within this theses showed how actors confirm to
some institutional structures to (1) maximize compatibility between their development and other technologies,
(2) increase the acceptance amongst key stakeholders, and (3) allow for a rapid upscaling.
Manipulating relevant actors to change institutional structures is another strategy used by niche actors
to gain legitimacy. The results showed that many actors involved in the development of bidirectional charging
and its possible use cases conduct lobbies to convince policymakers to change the policy landscape in favor of
their niche developments. These lobbying efforts affect both cognitive and regulatory legitimacy.
The results further showed that most actors develop future scenarios and adapt their niche
developments to this future scenarios which adds a temporal factor to the strategy ‘confirming to gain
legitimacy’. Furthermore, the interviewees explained how lobbies could help to influence policymakers into
altering the regulatory framework in favor of these future scenarios.

SQ3: Can the impact of legitimization strategies and tactics on the legitimacy of V2G be influenced by certain
business model design choices?

65
 As we have seen in section 6.3, the strategies used to legitimize niche developments can be translated
into business model design choices. As such, we propose that ensuring one’s business model design choices
are in line with the use of tactics to legitimize one’s niche development strengthens the positive impact of
successful legitimization strategies/tactics on the legitimacy of that niche development. In turn, this will
increase the change of a successful commercialization of one’s niche development.

RQ: Which business model design choices will positively affect the change on the successful
commercialization of V2G?
As stated before, during the interviews, five business model archetypes have been identified.
Regardless of the choice of business model archetype, several business model design choices will positively
affect the legitimacy of the corresponding niche development which, in turn, will increase its change on
commercialization. These are: (1) developing a value proposition in terms of a solution to your customers’
problem, (2) choosing alliance partners who increase the trustworthiness of your offering and alliance network,
(3) conform as much as possible to the current practices of players that dominate the energy and mobility
regimes, and (4) manipulate key stake holders to change misaligned institutional structures in such a way that
they align in the near future. Applying these tactics will positively impact the rate of diffusion of one’s niche
development. However, it might not result in a desired future outcome as the development will partly follow
the desired path of the current market dominators. As these players reap the benefits from the current system,
they might hamper a transition towards a socially desired one.
Fortunately, another strategy has been identified during the interviews which is: First, develop a future
business model that conforms to a desired future scenario in which the energy and mobility regimes are
integrated and 100% sustainable. Then, develop a business model that (a) confirms to the practices of players
that currently dominate the energy and mobility regimes while at the same time (b) provokes key actors to
change institutional structures in favor of the desired future business model. This follows the strategy of
conforming to future institutional structures while manipulating key stakeholders to adapt the current
institutional structures to the future institutional structures. However, this latter more strategic way to
commercialize one’s niche development may cause some more resistance from the players that currently
dominate the market.

7.1. Theoretical implications

Within this section some key theoretical contributions will be discussed as well as some research
limitations and several enquiries for further research.

7.1.1. V2G Business models

By providing an overview of the business models that are being explored, tested and/or validated
during pilot studies within the Netherlands, this paper aimed to increase our understanding about the possible
purposes of bidirectional charging. Although some papers have mentioned some possible business models (e.g.
Brandt, Wagner, & Neumann, 2017; Hidrue, Parsons, Kempton, & Gardner, 2011; Hill, Agarwal, & Ayello,

66
2012; Niesten & Alkemade, 2016; Romero-Ruiz et al., 2016; San Román et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2018;
van der Kam & van Sark, 2015) they mostly focused on only one business model and tried to give insight in
the viability of the business model through simulation studies. Therefore, the first major contribution of this
paper is the provision of a review about business models explored within niche settings in the Netherlands.
Moreover, this review allowed for the identification of five business model archetypes related to
bidirectional charging, which are V2G (i.e. vehicle-to-grid), V2B (i.e. vehicle-to-business), V2H (i.e. vehicle-
to-home), V2E (i.e. vehicle-to-event) and V2X (i.e. vehicle-to-anything). Although V2G, V2B and V2H were
identified before, there is still no consensus about these terminologies. For example Ioakimidis et al. (2018)
and Thomas et al. (2018) mention that vehicle-to-building can be used for both company buildings as well as
households. However, in this thesis we clearly showed that the business models regarding company buildings
are different from the business models regarding households. This is the case, because companies do not
necessarily own the EVs that are being used for V2B, while households do. So, in case of V2B, EV owners
are a distinct group of stakeholders which may or may not be compensated for allowing its EVs to be used for
V2B. Therefore, it is important to make the distinction between V2B (i.e. vehicle-to-business) and V2H (i.e.
vehicle-to-home). Other research about bidirectional charging and it possible use cases tends to focus solely
on V2G (Niesten & Alkemade, 2016).
Furthermore, an additional business model archetype has been identified which has not been reported
yet within previous papers, namely the V2E business model archetype. Although this finding adds to our
knowledge of possible use cases and business models related to bidirectional charging, one may criticize the
fact that this thesis refers to V2E as a business model archetype. After all, the use of a converter to provide
energy to events can be applied in other off-grid contexts as well. For instance, EVs might be used to provide
power to temporary facilities or off-grid camp sites. Therefore, it might be better to reframe the business model
archetype into vehicle-to-off-grid (V2OG). However, no corresponding projects or pilot studies were found
within the Netherlands which makes V2OG assumption-based instead of evidence-based.

7.1.2. Gaining legitimacy

Within this thesis, several strategies and their corresponding tactics to gain technology legitimacy were
identified. Although these strategies and tactics are mostly in line with previous findings, some literature gaps
that were identified in section 2 and summarized in section 2.4 can now be filled to some extent.
Firstly, the field of transition studies so far did acknowledge the important role of different actors
(Geels & Schot, 2007; Grin et al., 2011) but tended to ignore the roles of agency and actors, as well as the
management of joint action and the organization of actor networks within sustainable transitions (Bork et al.,
2015; Mossberg et al., 2018; Wittmayer et al., 2017). The results within this paper clearly showed that actors—
who are involved within pilot studies to explore, test and/or validate their niche developments—have an
important role when it comes to actively gain legitimacy for their innovations. More precisely, niche actors
utilize all kinds of means to convince others about the value and appropriateness of their innovation. In turn,
these means to legitimize a niche development help to (1) obtain necessary funding, (2) influence policymakers
into developing policies in favor of one’s innovation, and (3) increase the change on adoption. Since the

67
adoption of new sustainable technologies is key to sustainable transition (Mossberg et al., 2018) and these
novel technologies need to gain legitimacy, the results within this thesis provide a good example of how actors
play an active role within the development and diffusion of technologies that support a transition towards a
more sustainable economy.
Secondly, previous research tended to overlook the way in which legitimacy is actively built up by the
interplay of different actors during the pre-competitive stage of novel technologies (Binz et al., 2016). Within
this thesis we have clearly shown how different type of actors collaborate to gain legitimacy for niche
developments. For example, commercial companies may collaborate with specific foundations that may act as
institutional entrepreneurs. As shown by the results within this thesis, these institutional entrepreneurs could
help to develop institutional structures in favor of niche developments by means of developing standardized
protocols. Furthermore, niche actors often invite policymakers to meetings or conferences to allow themselves
to conduct lobbies. In turn, these lobbying efforts may help to convince policymakers into developing policies
in favor of one’s innovation. At last, the results also showed how niche entrepreneurs can form strategic
alliances with to gain awareness, trustworthiness and acceptance. These are just some examples of the tactics
used by niche actors as presented within this thesis.
Thirdly, the results also showed that gaining legitimacy for a technology in one regime may lead to a
reduction in legitimacy in another but this does not necessarily have to mean that development of a technology
will be hampered. Studies so far suggest that if the value of a niche technology can be linked to solutions to
problems within multiple regimes, the cross-boundary nature of the technology may be beneficial (Raven &
Verbong, 2009) but if the cross-boundary nature of the technology leads to inter-regime conflicts and
institutional misalignment, the development of the technology may be hampered (Schot & Geels, 2008; Van
Oers et al., 2018). Although our results propose that the development of niche innovations might not be
hampered in case of inter-regime conflict, our findings are too limited to provide an overall conclusion on this
topic.
Fourthly, the results within this thesis showed how legitimization tactics may differ in case legitimacy
is gained within specific audiences. Previous research repeatedly ignored the differences between different
type of audiences leading to a lack in understanding about how entrepreneurs could establish legitimacy among
different type of audiences (Fisher et al., 2017). Therefore, our research helped to gain our understanding about
the generation of legitimacy among different stakeholders.
Lastly, our research helped to define some preliminary propositions on how legitimization tactics can
be strengthened by certain business model design choices. Although previous research has identified the
possibility to empower niche design spaces through business model innovation (e.g. Huijben et al., 2016), no
paper has ever provided such detail about the possibility to gain legitimacy by adapting a business model to
the legitimization tactics applied by niche entrepreneurs. Yet, the findings in this thesis were only sufficient to
provide some propositions regarding business model design choices. Therefore, future research is needed to
validate the propositions that are presented in section 6.3.

68
 7.1.3. Limitations and future research directions
First of all, the pilot studies tend to focus on the feasibility and added value of the relevant niche
developments. Therefore, the business models visualized within this thesis are just preliminary business
models that were development by interviewing the relevant niche actors. Although this allowed to present
some basic business models and to identify some business model archetypes, future research might help to
develop more extensive business models and test them in experimental settings.
Secondly, this research helped to identify a global overview of the possible strategies and tactics to
gain legitimacy for a niche development. However, this choice of a maybe complete but global review might
have overlooked some minor but relevant details about the legitimization strategies and tactics. Therefore,
future research might help to gain a more detailed understanding about the legitimization strategies and tactics
by choosing to research each strategy and its corresponding tactics separately.
Thirdly, although some specific type of audiences (i.e. governmental funding agencies, external
financiers, potential customers, policymakers, alliance partners and the general public) were identified during
this study, there might be other type of stakeholders which could be key to the legitimization of niche
developments. Therefore, when performing the previous research direction, it will be helpful to consider the
different types of audiences that are key to gain legitimacy for one’s niche development.
Fourthly, too little information is gained about the implications of the cross-boundary nature of
bidirectional charging on the strategy and tactics to gain legitimacy for the technology and its possible use
cases. Therefore, future research might take the cross-boundary nature of bidirectional charging, or other
relevant technologies, into special consideration.
Fifthly, the propositions that are presented within this thesis, about the ability to strengthen some
legitimization strategies through certain business model design choices, are not yet validated. Therefore, future
research could help to validate these propositions by means of experimentations.

7.2. Managerial implications

The findings presented within this research helped to identify the different purposes for which
bidirectional charging could be deployed. By categorizing these possible use cases into some business model
archetypes, this research tended to provide a clear overview of these different purposes of bidirectional smart
charging. This may help practitioners when developing their own business model that utilizes bidirectional
smart charging.
Furthermore, the findings within this thesis may encourage niche entrepreneurs to critically asses
which legitimization tactics they will apply to gain legitimacy for their innovation and how they might
strengthen their tactics through certain business model design choices. After all, as proposed within this thesis,
adapting business model design choices to one’s legitimization tactics may spur the commercialization of one’s
offering.
Lastly, to ensure a smooth transition towards a sustainable economy and to ensure this transition will
happen soon enough, we hope to encourage practitioners and policymakers to reach consensus about the future

69
integration of the energy and mobility regimes and to determine how cross-boundary technologies like
bidirectional smart charging will fulfill its purpose within this future system.

70
References

Ahmadian, A., Sedghi, M., Elkamel, A., Fowler, M., & Aliakbar Golkar, M. (2018). Plug-in electric vehicle
batteries degradation modeling for smart grid studies: Review, assessment and conceptual framework.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2609–2624. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.067

Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (2007). Fools rush in? the institutional context of industry creation. In
Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Theory and Perspective (pp. 105–127). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48543-8_5

Bento, N., & Fontes, M. (2019). Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: Technology and industry.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 99, 66–82. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.035

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional
dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37(3), 407–429.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003

Bidmon, C. M., & Knab, S. F. (2018). The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New
linkages between business model and transition research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 903–
916. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.198

Bierman, P. (2016). Key Innovation Form. Integration of Electric Vehicles and Vehicle to Grid (V2G).
Retrieved from http://www.cityzen-smartcity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cityzen-kif-lian-
integration-v2g.pdf

Binz, C., Harris-Lovett, S., Kiparsky, M., Sedlak, D. L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The thorny road to technology
legitimation - Institutional work for potable water reuse in California. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 103, 249–263. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.005

Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation:
Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy, 45(9), 1731–1742.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.003

Bork, S., Schoormans, J. P. L., Silvester, S., & Joore, P. (2015). How actors can influence the legitimation of
new consumer product categories: A theoretical framework. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 16, 38–50. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.002

Brandt, T., Wagner, S., & Neumann, D. (2017). Evaluating a business model for vehicle-grid integration:

71
 Evidence from Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 50, 488–504.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.017

Brehmer, M., Podoynitsyna, K., & Langerak, F. (2018). Sustainable business models as boundary-spanning
systems of value transfers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4514–4531.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.083

Busch, J., Roelich, K., Bale, C. S. E., & Knoeri, C. (2017). Scaling up local energy infrastructure; An agent-
based model of the emergence of district heating networks. Energy Policy, 100, 170–180.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.011

Chandra Mouli, G. R. (2018). Charging electric vehicles from solar energy: Power converter, charging
algorithm and system design. TU Delft University. Delft University of Technology.
http://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:dec62be4-d7cb-4345-a8ae-65152c78b80f

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–
3), 354–363. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010

Conchado, A., Linares, P., Lago, O., & Santamaría, A. (2016). An estimation of the economic and
environmental benefits of a demand-response electricity program for Spain. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, 8, 108–119. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.09.004

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United
States: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

Creutzig, F., Goldschmidt, J. C., Lehmann, P., Schmid, E., Von Blücher, F., Breyer, C., … Wiegandt, K.
(2014). Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: Mitigating climate change and
Eurozone crisis by an energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 1015–1028.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.028

Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. In The SAGE
Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 49–77). 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London
EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2

Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., & Beuret, J. E. (2013). Green tides in Brittany: What can we learn about
niche-regime interactions? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 8, 62–75.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.04.002

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. Advances in Strategic Management, 17(2), 143–166.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1

72
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do?. Innovation devices in
technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.08.002

Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge
of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.005

Geels, F.W., & Raven, R. (2006). Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and
downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
18(3–4), 375–392. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777143

Geels, F.W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3),
399–417. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

Geels, F. W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Reducing energy demand
through low carbon innovation: A sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates.
Energy Research and Social Science, 40, 23–35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.003

Geels, F. W., & Verhees, B. (2011). Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A
cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945-1986). Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 910–930. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.004

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2011). On patterns and agency in transition dynamics: Some key insights
from the KSI programme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 76–81.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.008

Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of
innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002

Herbes, C., Brummer, V., Rognli, J., Blazejewski, S., & Gericke, N. (2017). Responding to policy change:
New business models for renewable energy cooperatives – Barriers perceived by cooperatives’
members. Energy Policy, 109, 82–95. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.051

Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. P. (2011). Willingness to pay for electric
vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686–705.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.02.002

Hill, D. M., Agarwal, A. S., & Ayello, F. (2012). Fleet operator risks for using fleets for V2G regulation.
Energy Policy, 41, 221–231. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.040

Hirsch, A., Parag, Y., & Guerrero, J. (2018). Microgrids: A review of technologies, key drivers, and

73
 outstanding issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90, 402–411.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.040

Huguenin, A., & Jeannerat, H. (2017). Creating change through pilot and demonstration projects: Towards a
valuation policy approach. Research Policy, 46(3), 624–635.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.008

Huijben, J. C. C. M., Verbong, G. P. J., & Podoynitsyna, K. S. (2016). Mainstreaming solar: Stretching the
regulatory regime through business model innovation. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 20, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.12.002

Ioakimidis, C. S., Thomas, D., Rycerski, P., & Genikomsakis, K. N. (2018). Peak shaving and valley filling
of power consumption profile in non-residential buildings using an electric vehicle parking lot. Energy,
148, 148–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.128

Kanda, W., Sakao, T., & Hjelm, O. (2016). Components of business concepts for the diffusion of large
scaled environmental technology systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128, 156–167.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.040

Karlsson, N. P. E., Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., & Mattsson, M. (2016). Early phases of the business model
innovation process for sustainability: Addressing the status quo of a Swedish biogas-producing farm
cooperative. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2759–2772.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.136

Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition Management: A Reflexive Governance Approach. In J.-P.
Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development (pp. 103–
130). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. http://doi.org/10.4337/9781847200266.00015

Keyaerts, N., Delarue, E., Rombauts, Y., & D’haeseleer, W. (2014). Impact of unpredictable renewables on
gas-balancing design in Europe. Applied Energy, 119, 266–277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.011

Kishna, M., Niesten, E., Negro, S., & Hekkert, M. P. (2017). The role of alliances in creating legitimacy of
sustainable technologies: A study on the field of bio-plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 7–
16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.089

Lombardi, P., & Schwabe, F. (2017). Sharing economy as a new business model for energy storage systems.
Applied Energy, 188, 485–496. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.016

Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based

governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x

74
Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its
prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013

Markard, J., Stadelmann, M., & Truffer, B. (2009). Prospective analysis of technological innovation systems:
Identifying technological and organizational development options for biogas in Switzerland. Research
Policy, 38(4), 655–667. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.013

Markard, J., Wirth, S., & Truffer, B. (2016). Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy - A
framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45(1), 330–344.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.009

Mossberg, J., Söderholm, P., Hellsmark, H., & Nordqvist, S. (2018). Crossing the biorefinery valley of
death? Actor roles and networks in overcoming barriers to a sustainability transition. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 83–101. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.008

Newbery, D., Pollitt, M. G., Ritz, R. A., & Strielkowski, W. (2018). Market design for a high-renewables
European electricity system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91, 695–707.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.025

Niesten, E., & Alkemade, F. (2016). How is value created and captured in smart grids? A review of the
literature and an analysis of pilot projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 629–638.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.069

Nilsen, T. (2017). Innovation from the inside out: Contrasting fossil and renewable energy pathways at
Statoil. Energy Research & Social Science, 28, 50–57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.03.015

Oldenbroek, V., Verhoef, L. A., & van Wijk, A. J. M. (2017). Fuel cell electric vehicle as a power plant:
Fully renewable integrated transport and energy system design and analysis for smart city areas.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(12), 8166–8196.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.155

Olofsson, S., Hoveskog, M., & Halila, F. (2018). Journey and impact of business model innovation: The case
of a social enterprise in the Scandinavian electricity retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175,
70–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.081

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challangers (Vol. 30). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0307-10.2010

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3),
45–77. http://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

75
Rauter, R., Jonker, J., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Going one’s own way: drivers in developing business
models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.104

Raven, R., Kern, F., Verhees, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Niche construction and empowerment through socio-
political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, 18, 164–180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.02.002

Raven, R. P. J. M., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2009). Boundary crossing innovations: Case studies from the energy
domain. Technology in Society, 31(1), 85–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.006

Robledo, C. B., Oldenbroek, V., Abbruzzese, F., & van Wijk, A. J. M. (2018). Integrating a hydrogen fuel
cell electric vehicle with vehicle-to-grid technology, photovoltaic power and a residential building.
Applied Energy, 215, 615–629. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.038

Romero-Ruiz, J., Pérez-Ruiz, J., Martin, S., Aguado, J. A., & De la Torre, S. (2016). Probabilistic congestion
management using EVs in a smart grid with intermittent renewable generation. Electric Power Systems
Research, 137, 155–162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.03.015

Rossignoli, F., & Lionzo, A. (2018). Network impact on business models for sustainability: Case study in the
energy sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 694–704.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.015

San Román, T. G., Momber, I., Abbad, M. R., & Sánchez Miralles, Á. (2011). Regulatory framework and
business models for charging plug-in electric vehicles: Infrastructure, agents, and commercial
relationships. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6360–6375. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.037

Sarasini, S., & Linder, M. (2018). Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: The
example of new mobility services. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 16–31.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.004

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability.
Organization & Environment, 29(1), 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806

Schlachtberger, D. P., Brown, T., Schramm, S., & Greiner, M. (2017). The benefits of cooperation in a
highly renewable European electricity network. Energy, 134, 469–481.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.004

Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory,
findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–
554. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research. Political Research

76
 Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077

Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). London, England: The MIT Press.

Söder, L., Lund, P. D., Koduvere, H., Bolkesjø, T. F., Rossebø, G. H., Rosenlund-Soysal, E., … Blumberga,
D. (2018). A review of demand side flexibility potential in Northern Europe. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91, 654–664. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.104

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model.” Organization &
Environment, 21(2), 103–127. http://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of

Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331

The New Motion B.V. (2017). NewMotion, Mitsubishi Motors, TenneT and Enel implement Vehicle-to-Grid
pilot on Dutch market. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from https://newmotion.com/en_GB/newmotion-
mitsubishi-motors-tennet-and-enel-implement-vehicle-to-grid-pilot

Thomas, D., Deblecker, O., & Ioakimidis, C. S. (2018). Optimal operation of an energy management system
for a grid-connected smart building considering photovoltaics’ uncertainty and stochastic electric
vehicles’ driving schedule. Applied Energy, 210, 1188–1206.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.035

van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A., & Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research.
Journal of Operations Management, 47–48(1), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.06.004

van der Kam, M., & van Sark, W. (2015). Smart charging of electric vehicles with photovoltaic power and
vehicle-to-grid technology in a microgrid; a case study. Applied Energy, 152, 20–30.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.092

Van Oers, L. M., Boon, W. P. C., & Moors, E. H. M. (2018). The creation of legitimacy in grassroots
organisations: A study of Dutch community-supported agriculture. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, 29, 55–67. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.04.002

van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J. P. J., & Raven, R. (2018). Business model innovation and
socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application to bike sharing. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 195, 1300–1312. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.223

Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2018). A multi-level
perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 136, 103–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011

Weiller, C., & Neely, A. (2014). Using electric vehicles for energy services: Industry perspectives. Energy,

77
 77, 194–200. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.066

Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., & Loorbach, D. (2017). Actor roles in transition: Insights
from sociological perspectives. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 45–56.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003

Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building
legitimacy. Academy of Management Review. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.7389921

78
Appendix A
Overview of type of actors involved in research

Code Organization Type Function Sector Reason of Involvement

Interviewee
NAMES Car Manufacturer PR Manager Automotive V2G market potential
CM1.1
AVAILABLE
Interviewee UPON Car Manufacturer Manager After Sales Automotive V2G market potential
CM1.2 REQUEST
Interviewee
Car Manufacturer EV Network Specialist Automotive V2G market potential
CM2
Interviewee Transmission Program Manager Grid Management
Anticipating energy transition
TSO System Operator Digital Transformation National
Interviewee Distribution Strategic Project and Grid Management
Anticipating energy transition
DSO1 System Operator Program Manager Regional
Interviewee Distribution Grid Management
Innovation Manager Anticipating energy transition
DSO2 System Operator Regional
Interviewee Improving air quality within
Municipality Policymaker Government
MB urban areas
Interviewee Power
Power Supplier Director Improving air quality
PS Technologies
Interviewee ODM Power Power
Director V2G market potential
PT Technologies Technologies
Reducing impact of EVs on
Interviewee Knowledge Project Manager at Smart Charging
electricity system, and need for
KF1.1 Foundation Knowledge Foundation Infrastructure
standardization
Research Employee at Reducing impact of EVs on
Interviewee Knowledge Smart Charging
Knowledge Foundation electricity system, and need for
KF1.2 Foundation Infrastructure
1 standardization
Interviewee Knowledge Information
Project manager Helping climate ambitions
KF2 Foundation Technology
Sustainable
Interviewee
Consultancy firm Independent Contractor Energy & Helping climate ambitions
C1
Mobility
Sustainable
Interviewee
Consultancy firm Director Energy & Helping climate ambitions
C2
Mobility

79
Appendix B
Interview questions

General questions
1. Which company do you represent within the EV Energy project?
2. In which industry/sector is [company name] active?
3. What does [company name] provide to the market?
4. What is the name of your position within [company name]?
5. Why is [company name] involved in the development of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or related policies?
6. What is the name of the V2G project which will be the subject of this interview?
7. What was the start date of this project?
8. What is/was the end date of this project?
9. Where is/is the project carried out?
10. What is/was your role within this project?
11. How many hours per week do you contribute or did you contribute to this project?

V2G niche
12. Which organizations are involved in [name V2G project] and what is the role of each of these organizations?
a. Who is the owner of the facility where the V2G project takes place?
b. Who manages the project and the cooperation between the project partners?
c. Who develops the technology that is necessary for V2G?
d. Who finances the project?
e. Who builds networks around the project with the purpose to obtain resources like skills and knowledge?
f. Who informs policy makers and the public about V2G to promote the concept?

V2G Business model

13. Who is the potential customers of V2G?
14. What value does V2G offers to these customers
15. How will these customers pay?
16. What are the key components of V2G as a product/service?
17. What type of company will provide V2G?
18. What type of companies are important to have as a partner and how will these companies add value?

Legitimization strategies/tactics
The following questions are more theoretical in nature and will help me to translate strategic choices made within the niche into design
propositions for the business model.
Framing to obtain legitimacy:
19. In case you approached organizations to obtain funding for this project, what information did you consider necessary to be
included within your pitch/request?
a. Which problems can be solved by means of V2G and by which organizations are these problems
experienced/acknowledged?
b. Did you explain how V2G can solve these problems during your attempt to get funding from these organizations?
20. In case the government has been approached to obtain funding (e.g. subsidy) for this project, which information did you
consider necessary to be included within your pitch/request?
a. Which problems acknowledged by the government can be solved by means of V2G?
b. Did you explain how V2G can solve these problems during your attempt to obtain financing from the government?

80
 21. If you would going to sell V2G, what information do you think would be vital to include in your pitch and why?
a. Which customer problem will be solved by V2G?
b. Would you explain (in your selling pitch) how V2G tends to solve this customer problem? If yes, why? If not, why
not?
22. Which societal problems can be solved by integrating mobility and electricity regime?
23. Do you think that explaining such problems may help to increase the attractiveness of V2G? If yes, why? If not, why not?
24. Which environmental problems can be solved by integrating mobility and electricity regime?
25. Do you think that explaining such problems may help to increase the attractiveness of V2G? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Develop alliances to gain legitimacy:

26. Did you or others, when selecting the project partners, first assess the possible partners using certain criteria? If so, what
criteria and why these criteria?
27. Do you think that the selection of partners helped with obtaining the required external finance or funding? If yes, why? If
not, why not?
28. If you need partners to be able to sell your product and/or service, to which criteria should these future partners comply and
why?
29. Do you think that the selection of partners would help with obtaining additional external finance or funding if needed? If yes,
why? If not, why not?
30. Do you think that the selection of partners could help to make your company more attractive to customers? If yes, why? If
not, why not?

Conform to institutions to obtain legitimacy:

31. What have you (or others) done to ensure that V2G can be integrated into the electricity system? (e.g. adapt to current players
who dominate the energy sector, adapt to existing techniques in the energy world, adapt to the markets within the energy
world, adapt to current policies, etc.)
32. What have you (or others) done to ensure that V2G can be integrated into the mobility system? (e.g. adapt to current players
who dominate the mobility sector, adapt to existing techniques in the world of mobility, adapt to the markets related to
mobility, adapt to current policies, etc.)
33. Regarding the main practices of current players in the energy sector, do you think it is necessary for the V2G provider to
adapt to these practices? If so, how and why? If not, why not?
If the respondent does not automatically distinguish between current and future practices:
a. Do you think that V2G should adapt to the current energy system or that the energy system must first change, so
that V2G fits seamlessly within the energy system in a future scenario? Can you explain this further?
34. Regarding the main practices of current players within the mobility sector, do you think it is necessary for the provider of
V2G to adapt to these practices? If so, how and why? If not, why not?
If the respondent does not automatically distinguish between current and future practices:
a. Do you think that V2G should adapt to the current mobility system or should the mobility system first change, so
that V2G seamlessly fits into the mobility system in a future scenario? Can you explain this further?

Manipulation to obtain legitimacy:

35. Could you name some alternative solutions to V2G?
36. Have you, or other project partners, ever tried to convince the public that V2G is superior to these alternatives? If so, how?
If not, why not?
37. Do you (or others) conduct activities to change certain aspects of the electricity system? (e.g. convincing others to change
important practices, lobbying for policy change, etc.) If so, please elaborate.
38. Do you (or others) conduct activities to change certain aspects of the mobility system? (e.g. convincing others to change
important practices, lobbying for policy change, etc.) If so, please elaborate.

81
 39. Which formal rules, laws and/or regulations have (or had) a negative impact on the development of V2G?
40. How and why did you (or others) attempt to reduce the impact of each of these formal rules, laws and/or regulations?
41. Which formal rules, laws and/or regulations have (or had) a positive impact on the development of V2G?
42. How and why did you (or others) attempt to strengthen the impact of each of these formal rules, laws and/or regulations?

Remaining questions:
Most of the above questions are concerned with the legitimacy of V2G. Legitimacy can be defined as the extent to which stakeholders
are convinced about the extent to which an entity provides a solution to a specific problem. In this case you have formulated V2G as a
solution to [insert customer problem and important environmental problem].
43. Could you, in view of this definition, recall some other obstacles that influence the legitimacy of V2G?
44. How could these obstacles be addressed?
45. Do you have any other information that could contribute to my research?
46. If I need additional information later, can I contact you again?

82
Appendix C
Preliminary codebook

Question Codes Category Theme/Concept Theory

Which company do you represent within
Organization General - -
the EV Energy project?
In which industry/sector is [company
Industry General - -
name] active?
What does [company name] provide to the
Core product General - -
market?
What is the name of your position within
Interviewee_Function General - -
[company name]?
Why is [company name] involved in the
development of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or Reason Involvement General - -
related policies?
What is the name of the V2G project which
Project_Name General - -
will be the subject of this interview?
What was the start date of this project? Project_Start General - -
What is/was the end date of this project? Project_End General - -
Where is/is the project carried out? Project_Place General - -
What is/was your role within this project? Interviewee__Project_Role General - -
How many hours per week do you
contribute or did you contribute to this Interviewee_Project_FTE General - -
project?
Facility owner, Infrastructure manager,
Which organizations are involved in [name Roles pilot and
Technology Developer, Sponsor, Market Niche
V2G project] and what is the role of each demonstration TS
representative, Salesperson, Campaigner, partners
of these organizations? plants
Advocate
Value
Who are the potential customers of V2G? Customer segment BM BM
delivery
What value does V2G offers to these Value
Value proposition BM BM
customers proposition
Value
How will these customers pay? Revenue structure BM BM
capturing
What are the key components of V2G as a Value
Product BM BM
product/service? proposition
Value
What type of company will provide V2G? Focal company BM BM
network
What type of companies are important to
Value
have as a partner and how will these Key partners BM BM
network
companies add value?
In case you had to obtain funding from an
organization for the V2G pilot project,
what necessary information did you include
in your pitch?
Sub questions: Legitimacy
Legitimization SNM
(a) Which problem, that this organization Framing as solution for organization. through
strategies & TS
or these organizations experience, could be framing
solved by V2G?
(b) While obtaining the fund, did you
explain how V2G could help to solve that
problem?
In case you had to obtain funding from the
Framing as solution for society / Legitimacy
government for the V2G pilot project, what Legitimization SNM
Framing as solution for environmental through
necessary information did you include in strategies & TS
issues framing
your pitch?

83
Sub questions:
(a) Which problem, that the government
acknowledges, could be solved by V2G?
(b) While obtaining the fund, did you
explain how V2G could help to solve that
problem?
In case you are going to sell V2G to a
potential customer, what information do
you think is necessary to include in your
selling pitch?
Legitimacy
Sub questions: Legitimization SNM
Framing as solution for customer through
(a) Which problem of potential customers strategies & TS
framing
is solved by V2G?
(b) While obtaining the fund, did you
explain how V2G could help to solve that
problem?
Which societal problems could be solved
Legitimacy
by V2G, how does V2G solve these Legitimization SNM
Framing as solution for society through
problems, and how could this information strategies & TS
framing
help to increase the attractiveness of V2G?
Which environmental problems could be
Legitimacy
solved by V2G, how does V2G solve these Framing as solution for environmental Legitimization SNM
through
problems, and how could this information issues strategies & TS
framing
help to increase the attractiveness of V2G?
When you selected the project partners, did
Legitimacy
you assess these project partners on basis Legitimization SNM
Reputation through
of certain factors/criteria? If yes, which strategies & TS
alliances
factors and why these factors?
Do you think that the selection of project
Legitimacy
partners may have contributed to the Legitimization SNM
Reputation through
successful attainment of funding? If yes, strategies & TS
alliances
could you elaborate?
Imagine yourself the scenario in which you
will introduce V2G to the market and need Legitimacy SNM ,
Legitimization
to collaborate with others to do so, how Reputation through TS &
strategies
would you assess and select these potential alliances BM
partners?
Do you think that the selection of partners
Legitimacy SNM ,
would help with obtaining additional Legitimization
Reputation through TS &
external finance or funding if needed? If strategies
alliances BM
yes, why? If not, why not?
Do you think that the selection of partners
Legitimacy SNM ,
could help to make your company more Legitimization
Reputation through TS &
attractive to customers? If yes, why? If not, strategies
alliances BM
why not?
Conforming to key practices / Legitimacy
What is done to ensure that V2G could be Legitimization SNM
Conforming to existing technologies / through
integrated in the electricity system? strategies & TS
Conforming to relevant markets conforming
Conforming to key practices / Legitimacy
What is done to ensure that V2G could be Legitimization SNM
Conforming to existing technologies / through
integrated in the mobility system? strategies & TS
Conforming to relevant markets conforming
Regarding the main practices of current
Fit and conform Legitimacy
players in the energy sector, do you think it SNM ,
Stretch and transform through Legitimization
is necessary for the V2G provider to adapt TS &
Future fit conforming / strategies
to these practices? If so, how and why? If BM
Future stretch manipulation
not, why not?
Regarding the main practices of current
Fit and conform Legitimacy
players within the mobility sector, do you SNM ,
Stretch and transform through Legitimization
think it is necessary for the provider of TS &
Future fit conforming / strategies
V2G to adapt to these practices? If so, how BM
Future stretch manipulation
and why? If not, why not?

84
Considering the alternatives to V2G, have
Legitimacy
you ever tried to convince others of the Legitimization SNM
Convincing about superiority through
superiority of V2G? If yes, how? If not, strategies & TS
manipulation
why not?
Do you (or others) conduct activities to
change certain aspects of the electricity Legitimacy
Lobbying for policy change Legitimization SNM
system? (e.g. convincing others to change through
Standardization strategies & TS
important practices, lobbying for policy manipulation
change, etc.) If so, please elaborate.
Do you (or others) conduct activities to
change certain aspects of the mobility Legitimacy
Lobbying for policy change Legitimization SNM
system? (e.g. convincing others to change through
Standardization strategies & TS
important practices, lobbying for policy manipulation
change, etc.) If so, please elaborate.
Which formal rules, laws and/or
regulations have (or had) a negative impact
Legitimacy
on the development of V2G? Legitimization SNM
Lobbying for policy change through
How and why did you (or others) attempt strategies & TS
manipulation
to reduce the impact of each of these
formal rules, laws and/or regulations?
Which formal rules, laws and/or
regulations have (or had) a positive impact
Legitimacy
on the development of V2G? Legitimization SNM
Conforming to regulatory framework through
How and why did you (or others) attempt strategies & TS
conforming
to strengthen the impact of each of these
formal rules, laws and/or regulations?
Could you, in view of this definition, recall
some other obstacles that influence the Remaining obstacles Other - -
legitimacy of V2G?
How could these obstacles be addressed? Overcoming obstacles Other - -
Do you have any other information that
Additional remarks Other - -
could contribute to my research?
If I need additional information later, can I
Keep in touch Other - -
contact you again?

85
Appendix D
Final codebook

Codes Category Theme/Concept Theory

Organization General - -
Industry General - -
Core product General - -
Interviewee_Function General - -
Reason Involvement General - -
Project_Name General - -
Project_Start General - -
Project_End General - -
Project_Place General - -
Interviewee__Project_Role General - -
Interviewee_Project_FTE General - -
Roles pilot and demonstration
Facility owner Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Infrastructure manager Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Technology Developer Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Sponsor Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Market representative Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Salesperson Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Campaigner Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Advocate Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Researcher Niche partners TS
plants
Roles pilot and demonstration
Institutional Entrepreneur Niche partners TS
plants
Customer segment Value delivery BM BM
Value proposition Value proposition BM BM
Revenue structure Value capturing BM BM
Product Value proposition BM BM
Focal company Value network BM BM
Key partners Value network BM BM
Solution to societal issues Legitimacy through framing Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Solution for environmental issues Legitimacy through framing Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Solution for customer Legitimacy through framing Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Innovative solution Legitimacy through framing Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Supporting energy transition Legitimacy through framing Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Trustworthiness Legitimacy through alliances Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Reputation Legitimacy through alliances Legitimization strategies SNM & TS

86

Image
Conforming to key practice
Conforming to existing technologies Legitimacy through conforming
Conforming to relevant markets
Conforming to regulatory
framework
Fit and conform
Future fit
Stretch and transform
Convincing about superiority
Lobbying for policy change
Standardization
SNM , TS &
Legitimacy through alliances Legitimization strategies
BM
Legitimacy through conforming Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Legitimacy through conforming Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Legitimacy through conforming Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
SNM , TS &
Legitimacy through conforming Legitimization strategies
BM
Legitimacy through future SNM , TS &
Legitimization strategies
conforming BM
SNM , TS &
Legitimacy through manipulation Legitimization strategies
BM
Legitimacy through manipulation Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Legitimacy through manipulation Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
Legitimacy through manipulation Legitimization strategies SNM & TS
87