IEEE Electrification Magazine - June 2014 - 67

80
70
Mean = 37.3 mi
Median = 37.5 mi 60
Std = 17.4 mi
50
Number of
40
Daily Drives = 111
30

6
4

10
0

40 50 60
Distance (mi)

70,000

50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000

PHEV40
BEV
PHEV14.3
CV

10,000

Years After Purchase
(a)

Result from EPA Daily Drive
Result from NHTS

60,000
Cumulative Cost (US$)

Figure 9. The daily driving distance distribution.

displacement the vehicle provides, the lower the energy cost
incurred. in this sense, the BeV shows the lowest energy cost,
followed by the pheV40, the pheV14.3, and the CV.
When analyzing the average annual gasoline consumption, it was found that the gasoline displacement capability
of an eV can lead to a significant reduction in the cost of
gasoline consumed. table 2 summarizes the gasoline consumption, gasoline displacement, and miles driven in electric and fuel modes by the different vehicles considered in
our study. the average annual distance traveled by a user is
13,820 mi. results show a BeV's ability of full gasoline displacement (100%) leads to an obvious null annual cost of
gasoline. a pheV40 can provide 84.78% of gasoline displacement leading to a savings of up to us$2,155 in the annual
cost of gasoline consumption compared to a CV. Finally, the
pheV14.3 achieves a gasoline displacement of 37.05%, with
an annual savings of up to us$1,649. the average annual
cost in gasoline consumption registered for different gasoline price trends is shown in table 3.

50,000
40,000
30,000

PHEV40
BEV
PHEV14.3
CV

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

20,000

Years After Purchase
(b)

Cumulative Cost (US$)

50,000

Impact of Different Electricity Pricing Schemes

40,000

30,000

20,000

PHEV40
BEV
PHEV14.3
CV

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

tables 4 and 5 summarize the annual electricity cost (us$) and
the cost per mile driven, respectively, for a vehicle owner
under three different electricity pricing scenarios. From the
results, it can be seen that tou represents the most expensive
option for a user, while rtp and the flat rate seem to be more
economical compared with tou. on average, tou is 24% more
expensive than rtp and 19% more expensive than flat rate for
any eV. the main reason that tou is the most expensive
option is the high price it sets for the electricity at evening
hours (us$0.2788/kWh between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.; see
Figure 6) when a user plugs his/her vehicle into the grid immediately when arriving at home after work, as assumed in this
analysis. if the user postpones the charging of his/her vehicle
until after 9 p.m. under tou when the off-peak time begins, a
significant reduction in the cost of electricity consumption can
be achieved. this could make tou a cheaper option.

60,000

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

NHTS

Cumulative Cost (US$)

80,000

100
90

Cummulative Distance (%)

Number of Occurences (%)

Years After Purchase
(c)
Figure 10. The cumulative vehicle plus energy (fuel and electricity)
costs for (a) an upward-trending fuel price, (b) a flat-trending fuel
price, and (c) a downward-trending fuel price.

the impact of tou for a user can be quantified as an
increase of 1 or 2 cents in the cost per mile driven of an eV,
when compared with other electricity pricing schemes,
depending on the trend of fuel price, as shown in table 5. it
was found that the higher the gasoline displacement a vehicle can achieve, the lower the associated cost per mile driven
for all fuel price trends. in this sense, a CV shows the highest

IEEE Electrific ation Magazine / j une 2 0 1 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Electrification Magazine - June 2014