Electric Vehicles in The United States V2

TECHNICAL REPORT
Electric Vehicles in the United States
Jianhao Pu Cristina Vala Ciara Ward Andrew Miller
July 2018
Version: 1
Santa Cruz de Marcenado, 26. 28015 Madrid (Spain). Tel +34 91 542 28 00. Fax +34 91 542 31 76
www.iit.comillas.edu
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
2. Overview of Electric Vehicle Market in United States.............................................. 4
2.1 EV Models in the Market ........................................................................................... 4
2.2 Automakers’ Roadmaps for PHEVs, BEVs & FCVs ............................................ 7
3. Electric Vehicle Market in the United States ............................................................ 11
3.1 Electric Vehicle Sales ...............................................................................................12
3.2 Stock Portfolio of Electric Car Companies ........................................................14
3.3 Business Models ........................................................................................................16
3.3.1 Tesla’s Direct-to-Consumer Retail Model ................................................................................................. 16
3.3.2 Dismissive and Disruptive Dealerships ..................................................................................................... 20
3.3.4 Electric Vehicle in Car Sharing ....................................................................................................................... 20
4. Battery Introduction ........................................................................................................ 22

5. Battery Terms and Qualities ......................................................................................... 22
5.1 Energy ...........................................................................................................................22
5.1.1 Energy Density ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
5.1.2 Specific Energy ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Power.............................................................................................................................23
5.2.1 Power Density ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.2.2 Specific Power ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.3 Depth of Discharge(DOD) (%) ..............................................................................24

5.4 Life Cycle/Cycle Life .................................................................................................24
5.5 Memory Effect.............................................................................................................25
5.5.1 Causes of Memory Effect ................................................................................................................................... 26
6. Various Types of Batteries Implemented .................................................................. 28

6.1 Lead-Acid Batteries ..................................................................................................28
6.2 UltraBattery ................................................................................................................29
6.3 Nickel-Metal Hydride Battery ...............................................................................30
6.4 Lithium-Variety Batteries ......................................................................................31
6.4.1 Lithium Ion batteries .......................................................................................................................................... 31
6.4.2-Lithium-Polymer................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.4.3 Lithium Iron-Phosphate (LFP) ....................................................................................................................... 32
6.4.4 Lithium-Manganese ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Technical report: "Electric Vehicles in the United States"
6.4.5 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) .................................................................................... 34
6.5 Charts of Comparison Between the Batteries Discussed ............................36

7. The Future of Batteries ................................................................................................... 38
7.1 Lithium-Air ..................................................................................................................38
7.1.1 Comparative Chemistry of Lithium Air Batteries.................................................................................. 38
7.1.2 Drawbacks of the Lithium Air battery ........................................................................................................ 38
7.2 Nanolithia Batteries MIT Innovations (2016) ................................................39

7.2.1 Nanolithia Chemistry .......................................................................................................................................... 40
7.2.2 Benefits in the Newest Battery Technology ............................................................................................. 40
7.3 Future Costs ................................................................................................................40

8. Fuel Cell ................................................................................................................................ 41
8.1 What Is Fuel Cell ........................................................................................................41
8.2 Companies involved in Fuel Cells ........................................................................42
8.3 Advantages of Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Fuel .........................................................43
8.3.1 More Energy Diversity........................................................................................................................................ 43
8.3.2 Better Driving Experience ................................................................................................................................ 43
8.3.3 Zero Direct Emission ........................................................................................................................................... 43
8.3.4 Long Range............................................................................................................................................................... 43
8.3.5 Short Refueling Time........................................................................................................................................... 44
8.3.6 Extra Usage .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
8.4 Cost of Hydrogen Fuel ..............................................................................................44

9. Charging Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 45
9.1 Current Charging Standards..................................................................................45
9.1.1 J1772 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45
9.1.2 CHAdeMO.................................................................................................................................................................. 48
9.1.3 Tesla Supercharger .............................................................................................................................................. 49
9.2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) ......................................................50

9.2.1 Standards..................................................................................................................50
9.2.2 Level 1 (AC charging)......................................................................................................................................... 51
9.2.3 Level 2 (AC Charging) ......................................................................................................................................... 52
9.2.4 Maps of EVSEs [21] .............................................................................................................................................. 53
9.3 Hydrogen Station Operation .................................................................................55

9.4 Possible Alternative – Swapping Battery .........................................................57
9.5 Charging Vehicle Capabilities ...............................................................................58
9.5.1 Battery........................................................................................................................................................................ 58
9.5.2 Thermal Management......................................................................................................................................... 58
July 2018
9.6 Future of Charging ....................................................................................................62

9.6.1 Extreme Fast Charging (XFC).............................................................................62
9.6.2 Inductive Charging ................................................................................................66
9.6.3 Coordinated Charging Networks ......................................................................67
10. Maintenance Cost Comparison between EVs and Traditional Vehicles ........ 70
10.1 Five-Year Owning Cost of Audi S7 & Tesla Model S 75D ...........................70
10.2 Five-Year Owning Cost of BMW 330e iPerformance & 330i Gran
Turismo xDrive .................................................................................................................71
10.3 Saving Analysis ........................................................................................................71
11. Social Acceptance ........................................................................................................... 72
11.1 Scope ...........................................................................................................................72
11.2 Programs Regarding Consumer Education ...................................................73
11.2.1 The Advanced Electric Drive Vehicle Education (AEDVE) Program ......................................... 74
11.2.2 Tesla’s Technician Program .......................................................................................................................... 74
11.2.3 National Drive Week......................................................................................................................................... 76
11.2.4 Social Media Platforms and Awards ......................................................................................................... 77
11.3.2 Dismissive and Disruptive Dealerships ................................................................................................... 79
11.3.3 Electric Vehicle in Car Sharing..................................................................................................................... 80
12. Tax Incentives and Government Policies ................................................................ 80

12.1 Tax Incentives ..........................................................................................................81
12.2 State Charging Incentives ....................................................................................82
12.3 Federal Policies .......................................................................................................85
12.3.1 Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI) ................................................................................................................. 85
12.3.2 The EV30@30 campaign ................................................................................................................................ 86
12.3.3 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act....................................................................................... 86
12.4 State and Local Incentives ...................................................................................87

13. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 88
References ............................................................................................................................... 91
3
July 2018
1. Introduction
Electric vehicle infiltration in the US market has seen some promising results and has
become a hot topic. With new players entering the market all the time, newer
technologies have led to a boom in electric vehicle adoption. Battery technology, which
has been a significant hinderance in electric vehicle adoption, has been rapidly
improving with more energy packed into smaller spaces. Additionally, tax incentives
from the government have made consumers more willing to buy higher priced electric
vehicles.
In the long run, as more infrastructure for electric vehicles is built, there may be even
more widespread adoption of electric vehicles. The marketplace is very reliant on both
consumers and manufactures to work together to make sure the technology created is
most efficient and effective. As more people buy electric vehicles, manufacturers will be
able to produce more cars at a cheaper cost, which ultimately allows more people to
buy these cars.
There are certainly many issues that still prevent mass adoption of electric vehicles at
this time. Issues ranging from different charging standards offered by companies, such
as Tesla’s proprietary Superchargers, and also expenses associated with electric vehicles
are making it difficult for consumers to adopt electrical vehicles.
This report will address the current technologies available in the market and how newer
technologies, infrastructure, business models, and incentives will influence the future of
the electric vehicle market in the United States.
2. Overview of Electric Vehicle Market in United States
2.1 EV Models in the Market

Discussing the EV market is impossible without knowing the current electric models on
the market. There are different types of naming method that automakers use for EVs.
The first method and the one that is easiest to distinguish an electric car is by adding
abbreviations like “e”, EV, PHEV and FCV after the its name. The second method is by
giving it some names that are related to electricity such as Tesla and Volt. Lastly,
another way to distinguish EVs is their appearance. EVs usually adopt blue as a color to
demonstrate identity. If a car’s logo is decorated with blue ribbon, it is very likely that
the vehicle is electric. EVs will also have nameplates with abbreviations on the side or
the backdoor of the vehicle. The following table list all the models in U.S. market and
July 2018
their distinctive characteristics including their type, starting price, range and charging
time.
Price
Range Battery Charging at Charging at DC Fast
Model Type From MPG /MPGe
(Miles) (kWh) 110/120V 220/240V Charging
($)
Chevolet
Bolt EV BEV 37495 238 119 60 N. I. 10 hr. 90mi./30min
Volt PHEV 33220 53/420(E) 42/106 18.4 13 hr. 4.5 hr. N/A
Mercedes-Benz
C 350e PHEV 47900 9/410(E) 61 6.2 N. I. N. I. N/A
GLC 350e PHEV 49990 10/350(E) 56 8.7 N. I. N. I. N/A
GLE 550e PHEV 66700 10/460(E) TBD 8.7 N. I. N. I. N/A
Tesla
Model S 75D BEV 82800 259 103 75 54 hr. 9.5 hr. 80%/56min.
Model S 100D BEV 102300 335 102 100 71 hr. 13 hr. 80%/75min.
Model S P100D BEV 135000 315 98 100 71 hr. 13 hr. 80%/75min.
Model X 75D BEV 88800 237 93 75 54 hr. 9.5 hr. 80%/52min
Model X 100D BEV 105300 295 87 100 71 hr. 13 hr. 80%/75min.
Model X P100D BEV 140000 289 85 100 71 hr. 13 hr. 80%/75min.
Model 3 BEV 35000 220 126 50 36 hr. 6.5 hr. 80%/56min.
Toyota
Prius Prime PHEV 27100 25/640(E) 54/133 8.8 5 hr. 30 min. 2 hr. 10 min N/A
Mirai FCV Lease 312 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Honda
Fit EV BEV Lease 82 118 20 <15 hr. 3 hr. N/A
Clarity Fuel Cell FCV Lease 366 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clarity Electric BEV Lease 89 114 25.5 <19 hr. 3.1 hr. 80%/30min.
Clarity Plug-in PHEV 33400 340(E) 42/110 17 <12 hr. 2.5 hr. N/A
Hyundai
Ioniq PHEV 24950 58/690(E) 52/119 8.9 <9 hr. 2 hr. 18 min.
Ioniq BEV 29500 124 136 28 N. I. 4 hr. 25 min. 23min.
5
July 2018
Sonata PHEV 31100 54/590(E) 39/99 9.8 <9 hr. 2 hr. 42 min.
BMW
i3 BEV 45000 114 118 33 28 hr. 8 hr. 4 hr.
i3 with RE PHEV 48850 180(E) 35/109 33 28 hr. 8 hr. 4 hr.
i8 PHEV 147500 TBD 27/69 11.6 7 hr. 2 hr. 2 hr.
i8 Roadster PHEV 163300 TBD 27/69 11.6 7 hr. 2 hr. 2 hr.
X5 xDrive40e PHEV 63750 540(E) 24/56 9.2 8 hr. 3 hr. 3 hr.
330e PHEV 45600 350(E) 30/71 7.6 7 hr. 2 hr. 2 hr.
530e PHEV 52650 370(E) 29/72 9.2 8 hr. 3 hr. 3 hr.
530e xDrive PHEV 54950 360(E) 28/67 9.2 8 hr. 3 hr. 3 hr.
740e PHEV 90700 340(E) 27/64 9.2 8 hr. 3 hr. 3 hr.
Audi A3
Sportback e-tron PHEV 39500 31/518(E) 25/83 8.8 8 hr. 2 hr. 15 min. N/A
Cadillec
CT-6 Plug-in PHEV 75095 31/430(E) 25/62 18.4 12.5 hr. 4 hr. 30 min. N/A
Volkswagon
e-Golf BEV 30495 125 119 35.8 26 hr. 5 hr. 20 min. 80%/45min.
Volvo
XC90 T8 PHEV 64950 19/350 27/62 10.4 7 hr. 3 hr. N/A
Ford
Fusion Hybrid SE PHEV 25340 21/588(E) 42/97 7.6 7 hr. 2.5 hr. N/A
C-MAX Energi PHEV 21120 20/550(E) 39/95 7.6 7 hr. 2.5 hr. N/A
Focus Electric BEV 29120 115 107 33.5 30 hr. 5.5 hr. 80%/33min.
Fusion Energi SE PHEV 31400 21/610(E) 42/97 7.6 7 hr. 2.5 hr. N/A
Jaguar
I-PACE BEV 69500 240 87 90 N. I. 12.9 hr. 80%/85min.
Nissan
Leaf BEV 29990 151 112 40 20 hr. 7.5 hr. 90mi./30min.
July 2018
Mitsubishi
Outlander PHEV PHEV 34595 22/310(E) 25/74 12 8 hr. 3.5 hr. 80%/25min
Figure 2-1: Specifications of available electric vehicles models in U.S. market.
• “E” stands for “Extended with Gas”; “N.I.” stands for “No Information”.
• Since Tesla does not provide the official charging time, the charging time for
Tesla models comes from leccy.net.
• MPG and MPGe values are under highway/city combined condition and
collected from EPA database.
• All additional information is collected from the brochures of each module.
2.2 Automakers’ Roadmaps for PHEVs, BEVs & FCVs

The Figure 2-1 provides one angle of the EV market. However, the electric vehicle
market is quickly evolving since automakers invest huge amounts of resources into
R&D of EVs in order to comply with the tightening environmental restrictions from the
government and acquire a bigger share in this rapidly expanding market. To gain a
better perspective of the whole market, a table including the roadmaps for PHEVs,
BEVs & FCVs of major automakers is provided below.
Company Future Plans
Although new electric cars are in the plan, Audi still believes that internal
combustions engines are “unbeatable” for their convenience and blend of
Audi
power and efficiency. It is expected that these engines will keep being a
major part of the company’s powertrain.
BMW plans to have 25 electrified models on sale by 2025, with 12 of those

to be fully electric. They expect the sales of electrified cars to reach 25%. To
achieve the goal, BMW is developing new architecture that is expected to
BMW be launched in 2021 with 3 different capacities of batteries: 50 kWh (450km
range), 99 kWh (660km range) and 120 kWh (700km+ range) that paired
with motors of 100 kW, 190 kW, 250kW and over 300 kW for different
classes and types of vehicles.
7
July 2018
Different from most of the automakers, FCA did not believe fully-electric
car is the ultimate solution for lowering CO 2 emission. Its CEO Sergio
Marchionne believed that, as long as fossil fuel was the main source of
electricity, electric cars did not save the world. As a result, Ferrari did not
have any public plan to make electric cars and FCA did not favor electric
cars as well. Although the Fiat 500e was being sold, the company had little
expectation for it. Things has changed since then. (Ferris, 2017) According
Fiat Chrysler
to FCA’s newest plan, FCA will invest 9 billion euros in electrification
Automobiles
through 2022. Jeep will introduce four fully-electric models. It will also offer
an electrification option for each vehicle by 2021. Maserati will develop a
full-electric sports car that reaches 186 miles per hour to confront Tesla Inc.
The powertrain for this car will be supplied by Ferrari. In general, Maserati
will have 8 PHEVs and 4 BEVs by 2021. Alfa Romeo will have 7 new launches
by 2021 and they will all be electrified, which means that all the new models
will have either fully electric or plug-in electric versions.
F-150, the most best-selling car in United States, is going to have a hybrid
Ford version in 2020. Starting with this, 12 more electrified vehicle will come the
market by 2021, including a fully electric SUV.
General Motors is committed to offering 20 electric vehicles by 2023. The

General
company values FCV as important as BEV as approaches to electrification of
Motors
cars.
The whole group, including Opel, Peugeot, DS, Vauxhall and Citroen, will
Groupe PSA have 4 fully electric models and 7 plug-in models. By 2023, 80% of the
powertrain of Citroen will be electrified.
July 2018
In 2017, Honda unveiled its Vision 2030 strategy plan suggesting that the
company is stepping up on electric and self-driving cars. CEO Takahiro
Hachigo said, “We are going to place utmost priority on electrification and
advanced safety technology going forward.” (Tajitsu, 2017) So far, Honda
has a full spectrum of electric vehicles including HEV, PHEV, BEV and FCV. It
expects that two-thirds of the sales would be done by selling these vehicles
Honda
by 2030. To achieve this goal, Honda teamed up with Hitachi to build
electric motors. Regarding the BEV, Honda hopes its fully electric models
have the ability to be recharged completely in 15 minutes. The company
recently introduced its Urban EV car in Europe but the company has no plan
of selling it in the U.S. market yet. Regarding the FCV, Honda cooperates
with General Motor to develop fuel cell stack and hydrogen tanks.
38 vehicles, including electrified and fuel-cell models, will be in the market

by 2025, according to Hyundai. Its fuel-cell SUV, NEXO, will arrive at
Hyundai American market in 2019 equipped with the company’s 4th generation of
fuel-cell technology which takes 20 years to develop. The car will have
range of 370 miles and the MPGe of 60 in combined situation.
Recently, Jaguar has launched I-Pace with intentions to target Tesla Model
Jaguar Land X; they have high hopes for this model. Jaguar’s future plan heavily relies
Rover on the sales performance of this model. On the other hand, Land Rover is
expected to have an electric vehicle in 2019.
Although Mazda is developing electric-car technology with Toyota and

Denso, it has not given up its love for internal combustion engines. The
company believes that better combustion engines equipped with better
technology can compete with mild hybrid cars in terms of efficiency. The
Mazda company claims that its newest SkyActiv-X engine with Homogeneous
Charge Compression Ignition has unprecedented air-fuel ratio up to 36.8
and efficiency of over 50%. (Mazda Motor Corporation) However, for the
variety of powertrain, the company is still expected to introduce its electric
model starting from 2019.
9
July 2018
Daimler rearranged the target date for launching 10 fully electric models,
which was 2025, to 2022. The company showcased its concept car
Mercedes-
Generation EQ which guided the design of following electric vehicles at
Benz
2016 Paris Motor Show. The company will also develop a new architecture
to facilitate the production of all its electric cars.
Renault– With early movement of selling the Leaf, the alliance is stepping up for a
Nissan– bigger plan – with the intent of getting 12 electric cars into the market. The
Mitsubishi plug-in hybrid technology owned by Mitsubishi will be shared with the
Alliance other two allies.
According to its official website, an improved replacement hybrid vehicle is

Subaru under development. No additional new information is available on this
topic.
“New Vehicle Zero CO2 Challenge”, a project started by Toyota, aims to

reduce vehicle CO2 emissions by 90 percent in comparison with 2010 levels,
by 2050. The company will put more resources on hybrid vehicles (HVs),
Toyota
plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHVs), electric vehicles (EVs), and fuel cell vehicles
(FCVs). According to Toyota’s roadmap, they will launch six hybrid system
with 10 variations within 5-year period starting from 2017.
Volkswagen is going to build its electric cars on its newly developed

platform MEB. I.D and I.D Crozz, priced similarly to Golf hatch and Tiguan
crossover. They are expected to launch in 2020. It is also suggested that the
Volkswagen new Beetle will be launched as an electric car. The executives want to sell
three million electric cars per year by the end of 2025. As a group, it will
introduce 80 models with electric motors, including 50 fully electric models
and 30 plug-in models. (Porsche AG, 2017)
July 2018
Volvo is one of most aggressive automaker, if not the most, in terms of its
plan to electrify its products. Starting from 2019, every new vehicle
released will provide consumers with an electrified option which could be
Volvo a plug-in or light hybrid system. The company target is 1 million electrified
cars by 2025. Its high-end performance sub brand Polestar just introduced
its plug-in hybrid Polestar 1 whose powertrain delivers 1000 Nm of torque
and an electric range of 150 km (NEDC).
3. Electric Vehicle Market in the United States

Electric vehicles have the potential to be a leading means of transportation. The United
States and China are the principal electric vehicle markets. In 2016, China had 336,000
new EV registrations and the United States had 160,000 after a small decrease in 2015.
Presently, policy backing is acting as a key role in evolving and implementing EVs in both
countries since EVs are still at a shortcoming compared to conventional vehicles. The
large initial cost of EVs is one influence discouraging buyers. In 2016, EVs cost about
$15,000 more than conventional vehicles on average and are not predicted to price-
match conventional vehicles until 2025. Other shortcomings such as restricted
availability to charging stations, fairly slow charging, and an restricted travel range make
EVs less appealing to buyers (Lu, 2018).
In addition, the relatively larger fees associated with PEVs has delayed the market from
being completely competitive with conventional vehicles. The price of batteries is the
forefront reason for these vehicles higher costs. Due to battery deterioration, PEV resale
worth is also drastically lessened from initial asking price. On the contrary, users save
extreme amounts in the day to day operational fees. The price to charge an electric
vehicle is around a quarter of what it costs to fuel a conventional vehicle that gets 30
miles per gallon. The decreased operational expense of electric vehicles is a comparative
advantage that is further illuminated by ever-changing gas prices. Moving forward,
battery costs and fuel costs will together determine how quickly PEVs become the
demonstrably cheaper option for personal transportation and, thus, how rapidly this
market expands. The outlook for these costs will be discussed below.
11
July 2018
3.1 Electric Vehicle Sales

The EV market is becoming incredibly competitive now that many conventional car
manufacturers are producing and selling EV’s. However, since Tesla is catered
specifically to electric vehicles it has the advantage in being the leading automobile
manufacture in the EV market. The Model S, currently in its sixth year of sales, continues
to be the nation's best-selling EV with 27,060 sold last year, which certainly possess its
difficulties for a vehicle that begins being sold at $74,500. Also, the Model X SUV had a
profitable year as well, gathering over 21,000 shoppers to hold the title of the third-
best-selling EV. Chevrolet's Bolt EV was a strong second. The Bolt obtained over 23,000
sales in 2017, which is no easy feat seeing it only went on sale in all 50 states halfway
through the year. It's the only non-Tesla BEV to surpass the 200-mile range hurdle; note
this was achieved at a drastically cheaper cost than the Model S or Model X
(EVObsession, 2018).
However, 2017 was not a great year for the world's best-selling BEV, the Nissan Leaf.
Although this can be justified—2017 was the final year for the old model, which has just
been substituted by a less expensive, improved, longer-range Leaf. Unfortunately for
Nissan USA, the firm failed to get the 2018 Leaf on the market until January 2018. Supply
of the discontinued model ran out in the fourth quarter of 2017.
No other BEV or PHEV was able to sell more than 10,000 units in 2017. The finest firms
and models was Ford's Fusion Energi, as well as BMW and Chrysler have been logging
high sales with their 530e and Pacifica Hybrid PHEVs during the last few months.
As you can see in Figure 14-1, the trends of 2017 continue to roll into 2018’s first quarter
electric vehicle market sales.
July 2018
United States EV Sales

20,000
17,980
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
EV Sales
10,000
7,853
8,000 6,468
5,442
6,000
4,000 2,977 2,8912,545
2,000 1,408 1,305 996 915 837 730 714
558 540 483
0
Automobile Manufactuer
Figure 3-1 US 2018 First Quarter EV Sales By Manufacturer (EVAdoption, 2018)
Although, in 2018, GM (Chevrolet Bolt and Volt) and Nissan (Leaf) get a fair amount of
attention around their commitment to producing EVs, the number of their US electric
vehicle sales is actually pretty small- 0.6% and 1.7% of their total sales respectively.. It
indicates that there is still a lot of potential for the companies to increase the sales of
electric vehicles. BMW, among all the classic companies, is the most aggressive in
electric car sales. Its 6 electric models account for 7.4% of its total vehicle sales. On the
other hand, there are still some companies that have not stepped foot in the market -
17 of the 37 U.S. automobiles brands (46%) have sold zero EVs in the US through Q1
2018.
13
July 2018
3.2 Stock Portfolio of Electric Car Companies

Commonly, investors consider a company's price-to-book ratio (PB) or price-to-earnings
ratio (PE) to gain a grasp of the overall value in investing in shares for a specific firm. This
is important to investors because a foundational belief is that if the firm is being traded
at a significantly low PB and PE, the investors have low expectation for the future of this
company. On the other hand, if the PB and PE are high, the company might have
promising product that investors think are going to secure the company’s robust sales
and revenues. In this chapter, we will compare these automakers with financial
indicators to provide a comprehensive understanding of the expectations to these firms
from the investors. Since Tesla is a relatively new company and is a major player within
the EV sector, it will be the highlight of this chapter comparing with other traditional
automakers. However, Tesla Motors Inc. has 0 PE for a long time due to its deficit in
operation making PE a bad indicator for our purpose. Therefore, we choose PB as an
indicator to provide a better picture of the overall auto market.
Figure 3-2 Figure depicting the capital value of top 10 automakers and their PB ratio
(GuruFocus.com, LLC., n.d.)
July 2018
Figure 3-3 Comparison in Annual Sales between Tesla, BMW & Toyota
The sales numbers are from their annual reports.
According to the graph above, the Tesla Motors Inc., among all the major companies in
the world, has the highest PB ratio around 12.5. There are a couple reasons why
investors favor this company despite the fact that it is producing much fewer cars per
year – slightly over 100,000 cars in 2017. First of all, its CEO Elon Musk is a person with
charming character and huge fame – his ambitious plan in SpaceX, Hyperloop, SolarCity
and has a successful venture with PayPal. Having him as CEO draws public attention and
adds to the brand value. Other than its CEO, the company is known for pioneering
autonomous driving and aggressively promoting it among its customers. With the
enormous investment in battery technology and production, it is a company that has
the ability to produce massive scale of batteries and the highest energy intensity. Tesla
is building Gigafactory in Nevada with production capacity of 35 gigawatt-hours (GWh)
– more than the production of the entire world combined at this moment. (Tesla Motors
Inc., n.d.) All of these factors make Tesla a well-known brand for EV and autonomous
driving. Additionally, governments around the world are trying to reduce CO 2 emission
and electric car could be a good way to achieve that along with improving air quality and
lowering dependency on gasoline. Therefore, investors believe that Tesla will sell much
more models than what is it now.
15
July 2018
With such high expectations come concerns about this company. The paramount
problem that Tesla faces right now is that the company is still not profitable. The
company has such ambitious plans as Gigafactory and using robots for most of the
assembly work that burn their cash at an astonishing speed. According to its regulatory
filing, the company has used over $1.1 billion dollars in the first quarter of 2018. Amid
the spending problem, production capacity is also the conundrum Tesla has to deal with.
To lower the cost and make more revenue, Tesla has to sell as many cars as possible.
Nevertheless, Tesla is often frustrated by unexpected problems within its production in
parts like assembly and battery production. Small production, along with burning cash
flow, could drag the company into more debts and higher interest which are devastating
to the company.
3.3 Business Models

Selling electric cars is different than selling conventional cars but that doesn’t mean it
can’t be accomplished. It does mean that vendors must be pre-emptive by containing
an adequate inventory, gathering an experienced sales team, informing consumers
about existing selections, and establishing unions with others in the corporate realm
such as utility firms and home charging equipment wholesalers. Though some car
manufactures, such as Tesla, are adapting new sales ideas other dealers are being
dismissive and disruptive to these changes hindering their electric vehicle sales in the
long run.
3.3.1 Tesla’s Direct-to-Consumer Retail Model

Many startups nowadays are embracing the direct-to-consumer sales model and it has
proven to be a victorious in regards of fulfilling quality and regulating expenses. Tesla’s
development due to the Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) model offers key teachings for
novel companies and those that are aspiring for improved service delivery and cost
reduction.
July 2018
Figure 3-4 Illustrates the benefits that the Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) model offers
(Khuntia, 2017).
Tesla trusts that they could gain a competitive lead in the pace of its automobile
growth by maintaining the sales channel. Furthermore, it also generates a more
enjoyable customer purchase experience. Contrasting car dealerships, Tesla
showrooms have zero conflict of interest. Plus, consumers solely interact with Tesla-
employed sales and service technicians. Tesla has utilized Internet sales to allow
customers to tailor their vehicles and buy a personalized Tesla online.
Tesla has merged several sales hubs with service hubs. They deem that operating
service centers in fresh locations is directly related with boosted customer demand. As
an outcome, they have joined their direct sales tactic with service centers in their
recently extended retail model called “Service Plus.”
17
July 2018
Figure 3-5 Tesla’s Service, Charging and Store Network (Tesla, 2018) .
Consumers can charge or service their automobiles at the Service Plus locations.
Moreover, in specific locations, Tesla hires expertise technicities, commonly referred
to as Tesla Rangers. They are travelling mechanics who can service cars from your
home. At times, repairs can be done with no onsite mechanic. For example, the Model
S, can wirelessly upload records so mechanics can examine and solve issues online
without being in the presence of the physical vehicle. As of July 11, 2017, there are 150
Tesla service locations and due to forthcoming mass-produced Model 3 the number
surges to 250 (Khuntia, 2017).
In a report by Consumer reports, USA’s leading shopper approval evaluation group, it

discovered that Tesla Car owners encountered the smallest amount of after-sales
service trouble and were by far the most pleased automobile owners. This is a direct
outcome of Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales model.
To review, the Direct-to-Consumer sales model poses numerous benefits over the
Traditional model. A concise summary of the variances are as follows:
Attributes Direct-to-Consumer Model Traditional Sales Model

Channel conflict may arise
Uniform product branding message due to difference in strategic
Channel Dynamics across distribution network; No goals, profit-optimization
channel conflict strategies, and channel
cannibalization
July 2018
Third party customer data

Customer data is collected directly,
Customer Data collection; could lead to
hence stays within the company
errors or privacy concerns
Limited control over prices,
Complete control over pricing
Pricing resulting in price variation
decisions
and fragmentation
Feedback can be gathered quickly,
Slow feedback loop; may be
leading to faster testing of new
Customer Feedback too late to implement
products, and optimization of service
changes
delivery and product quality
Varied consumer experience
Uniform customer experience across
Customer due to multiple channel
channels; Greater brand recognition
Experience stakeholders; Little brand
and affiliation
recognition and affiliation
Distribution network already
Takes time and money to set up a
Product exists; Freedom to pick and
wide direct distribution network;
Distribution choose intermediaries in the
Requires large upfront fixed-cost
Network network at little or no fixed
investment
costs
Need for development of assets & Benefit of using
Competency competencies suitable for product intermediaries’ core
distribution competencies in distribution
Figure 3-6 A comparison of the Direct-to-Consumer Model vs Traditional Sales Model
(Khuntia, 2017)
While many American states resist Tesla’s direct sales model, the purchaser is the one
who truly benefits from this strategy. Franchisee vendors surge the expenses up due to
margins and commissions, which is ultimately swallowed by the customer. In addition
to the customer, the manufactures profit from accepting the sales model. They gain
additional regulation over the operations which indirectly helps preserve quality
standards.
While the Direct-To-Customer Model proves to be successful in increasing EV sales it is

not the only way. Many skeptic manufacturers are saying buyers aren’t interested in
purchasing electric vehicles, however this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. John Sullivan of
Sullivan Chevrolet believes there is a way to turn thousands of EV sales into millions.
The major hurdles to better approval rates are social rather than technological.
19
July 2018
3.3.2 Dismissive and Disruptive Dealerships

It is important to note that buyers who have questions rarely become consumers. There
is great misperception about the distinctions between hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully
electric cars. Countless individuals do not know how to locate electric car chargers or
how they operate. The Sierra Club just recruited the help of 308 individuals to visit
franchises across the country in search for an electric vehicle. One third of the dealer
representatives neglected to discuss obtainable federal and state rebates or extra
existing enticements. One vendor in Massachusetts argued that range anxiety was not
a concern because there were wires buried under the asphalt on every main highway
that recharged the vehicles as they drove. At 14% of the showrooms visited, consumers
were told they could not test drive an EV because the vehicles available failed to have
their batteries charged (Hanley, 2017). These inconsistencies and misconceptions are a
huge barrier to increase the EV market.
At Sullivan Chevrolet, the representatives and supervisors have discovered that

providing a representative collection of electric vehicles in several colors with a range of
purchase packages assists in sales. Also, many Chevrolet dealerships keep their vehicles
stationed outside near the front of the store. This is a tactic to engage the public’s
attention immediately. The company’s website has a page devoted to electric vehicles
with various fundamental information and a comprehensive catalog of models in stock.
It is crucial to ensure representatives have sufficient guidance so they can properly
respond to basic inquiries regarding the different types of electric cars, incentives, and
charging infrastructure. A common vendor challenge with electric vehicles is that it’s a
very dissimilar sales model than promoting a gas car. When you’re selling a gas car, its
uncommon to rationalize the technology behind the vehicle. However, with EVs you do.
Brian Maragno, executive of EV sales and marketing for Nissan, says “The single biggest
thing that separates dealers who actively engage in selling EVs from those who don’t is
having a dedicated person, an EV specialist. These people are advocates, passionate
about the product.” They are familiar with the technology and can communicate with
the buyer on the specifics of the vehicle. Educating clients about EV’s involves additional
time and talent and sales delegates ought to be reimbursed additionally for their efforts.
A bill in the Oregon legislature now pays a bonus to those who sell electric vehicles.
3.3.4 Electric Vehicle in Car Sharing

Electric Vehicle is deemed as a powerful weapon against global warming by lowering
the emission of CO2. However, the impact brought by EVs is still small because not
July 2018
many people own an EV. This is where sharing economy comes in and change the
picture. Sharing economy, trending around the globe from Airbnb to Mobike, is an idea
that aims to share the use of property to reach maximized efficiency and profits. This
idea works amazingly with EVs – people do not have to buy an EV to enjoy the smooth
and agile driving experience it offers and to contribute to a greener world. Usually,
companies operating sharing car service without EVs will face parking problems –
customers have to park the cars at certain locations. However, many city governments
favor the idea of having EVs around the city and offer cheap or even free parking
access to the public. EV car sharing is very popular among some European countries
such as France, Germany and Spain. As time goes, this business model is brought to
U.S. as well. The following table is going to introduce the companies and organizations
that are operating or will operate electric car sharing service in U.S.
BlueIndy operates in Indianapolis having 500 planned cars and over

200 stations. The benefits of BlueIndy is that customers can park the
car at any public parking space for free during their trip. They only
have to plug in the charger at the charging station when they end
their trips. It has become an alternative way to commute between
BlueIndy the city airport and downtown area. For its 1 year plan, the
membership fee is $9.99 per month. The usage fee is made up of
fixed $4 rate for the first 20 minutes and $0.20 for every minute after
that which translates to $12 per hour. It also has a plan for youth and
students whose membership fee is $30 per year. Youth and students
have to pay $3 for the first 20 minutes and $0.15 for every minute
after that which translates to $9 per hour.
WE is a platform designed and operated by Volkswagen that

provides innovative and smart solutions for customers. Volkswagen
unveiled its plan in July 2018 to expand the platform so that it will
WE provide electric car sharing service to the public. According to its
press release, the plan will start in Germany in 2019 and expand to
other international markets including U.S. in 2020. (Volkswagen,
2018)
Car Sharing
Unlike the companies mentioned above, this is a project proposed
and Mobility
and directly funded by the California State government. The project
Options Pilot
is administered by Air Resources Board and supported by Los Angeles
Project
Department of Water and Power for the infrastructure needed. The
21
July 2018
sponsors determines that the program is very different from other

companies. It is operated in low-income communities in Los Angeles
designed to offer alternative transportation and bring clean air and
good jobs to the people there. The project is also part of the plan of
having 1.5 million EVs by 2025 and reducing the gasoline use by 50%
by 2030. It is known as BlueLA by the public since it is the brand
painted on the EVs. The membership fee is $10 per month and can
be waived partly or fully based on their income status. The usage fee
is $0.20 per minute while qualified low-income members only have
to pay $0.15 per minute. The program is also open to nonmembers
but at a higher rate. (Air Resources Board, 2016)
4. Battery Introduction
With the advancements of electric vehicles into the markets, it is important to look
beyond the facade of the vehicle and into the heart of the machine. While the battery
is hidden from view, the details and inner workings of the battery play a key role in
determining the overall performance of the vehicle. In this following section, properties
of both new and old battery chemistries will be discussed, as well as the future of
batteries which are projected to alter the EV industry completely.
5. Battery Terms and Qualities

There are many characteristics that contribute to the overall quality and functioning of
the battery. Throughout the paper and especially in the topic of batteries, these terms
will be repeated and referred to continually. This section on battery terms and qualities
will give insight and initial knowledge on these topics so that the complex topics
discussed further in this research will be better understood.
5.1 Energy
Each of the energy qualities listed below are representative characteristics of the battery
chemistry and packaging.
5.1.1 Energy Density

The amount of energy that can be stored in a given volume of a system. The greater the
energy density, the greater the amount of energy stored. (Jordan Hanania, 2018)
July 2018
• Volumetric energy density-the amount of energy a system contains in

comparison to its volume. Expressed in either Watts per Liter (Wh/L) or
Megajoules per Liter (MJ/L).
5.1.2 Specific Energy

Nominal battery energy per unit mass. Specific energy is not only a determining factor
for the energy consumption of the vehicle, but also the battery weight necessary to
reach a specific electric range. (MIT Vehicle Drive Team, 2008)
• Gravimetric Energy Density-The amount of energy a system contains in
comparison to its mass. Expressed in Watts per kilogram (Wh/kg) or Megajoules
per kilogram (MJ/kg).
• With relation to car batteries, a higher energy density is important. A high energy
density means it is able to store more energy in a smaller volume/mass. This
smaller mass and volume will allow the car to travel for more distance and allow
for more space in the vehicle for other parts.
5.2 Power
Each of the power qualities listed below are representative characteristics of the battery
chemistry and packaging.
5.2.1 Power Density

Measure of power output per unit volume. With a large power density, a system can
output large amounts of energy based on its volume. For example, a small capacitor and
a large battery can have the same power output, but because the capacitor is smaller in
volume, its power density is much higher. Since it releases its energy quickly, high power
density systems can also recharge quickly. (Jordan Hanania, 2018)
5.2.2 Specific Power

Maximum available power per unit mass. Determines the battery weight required to
achieve a given electric range. (MIT Vehicle Drive Team, 2008)
• With relation to car batteries, power deals with the propulsion and
acceleration of the car. The benefits to a high-power density is optimal
acceleration with minimal weight and a quicker recharge time, a pressing issue
in the developing electrical vehicle market.
23
July 2018
5.3 Depth of Discharge(DOD) (%)

Percentage of the discharged portion of the battery expressed as a percentage of the
maximum capacity. A discharge of 80% or higher is considered a deep discharge. (MIT
Vehicle Drive Team, 2008)
Figure 5-1 Depth of Discharge Diagram, ideally 80% DOD or less is recommended.
(Global World Logistics, 2012)
5.4 Life Cycle/Cycle Life

Number for a specific DOD. Represents the number of discharge-charge cycles that a
battery can endure before failing to meet the specific performance criteria. Life Cycle is
estimated based upon specific charge and discharge conditions. Actual operating life of
a battery is affected by the rate and depth of cycles and by other conditions such as
temperature and humidity. In simple terms, the higher the DOD, the lower the life cycle.
(Jordan Hanania, 2018)
July 2018
5.5 Memory Effect

Occurs in rechargeable batteries when they are not sufficiently discharged before being
recharged. As a result, the batteries have a tampered “memory” of their maximum
charge in previous charging/discharging cycles and therefore do not fully recharge. (Dr
Anand Bhatt, 2017)
• It is caused by the metal and electrolyte reaction that produces a salt. This salt
dissolves and the metal is replaced with electrodes when recharged. The
imperfections in the cycle are dependent factors of initial charge state,
temperature, charge voltage, and charging current. Imperfections formed in one
charging cycle can carry over and create lasting effects on the battery’s
maximum charge. Each successive minor memory effect change sums up to
create a much larger effect. This summation leads to an error in estimations of
the current state of the battery.
Figure 5-2 Illustration of how memory effects are created. The memory effect is
transcribed in a cycle in which the battery is charged to 50% of the battery’s maximum
capacity, and then fully discharged. The memory effect is prominent in the following
cycle, seen as an overvoltage (small bump) at the exact point at which the partial
25
July 2018
charging cycle finishes. The normal voltage curve is shown for comparison on the far
right. (Leonid Leiva, 2013)
5.5.1 Causes of Memory Effect

Researchers have determined that the ultimate cause of the appearance of memory
effect in Lithium Ion batteries is the microscopic processes of charging and discharging.
The electrode material is composed of many small, micrometer scale particles that are
charged and discharged individually, one after another. This is referred to by researchers
as the “many particles model”. The charging process is one that continues through
particle individually and is the release of lithium ions, therefore a fully charged particle
is one that is lithium free. In comparison, the discharging process requires the inclusion
of the lithium atoms into the electrode particles. The quantity variation of lithium
associated in the cycle of charging and discharging stimulates a shift in the chemical
potential of the individual particles, which in effect alters the voltage of the battery. It
is important to note that neither the charging or discharging process is linear. Due to
the progressive release of lithium ions, charging causes an initial increase in chemical
potential. During that process the particles reach their critical lithium-content value as
well as chemical potential. It is at this point where there is an immediate transition in
which the particles rapidly relinquish any remaining lithium ions, but are unable to alter
their chemical potential. (Leonid Leiva, 2013)
July 2018
Figure 5-3 Illustration of the “Many Particles Model”. In the beginning as the
particles give off lithium ions, the chemical potential of the particles steadily
increases (Figure B). Point B is the indicator of the chemical potential barrier, here
the particles release their remaining lithium ions and as a result become fully
charged (Figure C). Individually, each particle crosses over the barrier (Figure D). In
the action of restoring the thermodynamic equilibrium, the particles descend the
slope. The particles are then divided into two separate groups of particles filled with
lithium, and those lacking. This separation process will continue even after the
battery is completely discharged (Figures E and F). The separate group of particles
27
July 2018
lacking lithium will cross the barrier during the following charging cycle. For this
“delayed group” to cross the border, an additional amount of work is required. This
extra work manifested in the form of an overvoltage, which is the indicator of
memory effect. (Leonid Leiva, 2013)
6. Various Types of Batteries Implemented

The concept and ideas of electric vehicles have been present in technology and
automobiles for longer than many people think. From the very first battery
implemented into an electric vehicle to the newest EV model, batteries have evolved
greatly over time. There are many different varieties and sub-divisions of batteries, and
each one has their own benefits and drawbacks.
6.1 Lead-Acid Batteries

The Lead-Acid battery is one of the oldest and widely commercialized battery used in
card today. It is known to be the oldest rechargeable battery. (University of Colorado
Boulder-ECEN 4517/5517, 2018)
• Used in SLI- Starter Lighting Ignition
• Designed to provide short bursts of high current
• Cannot handle deep discharge functions
o Typical Lifetime remains at 500 cycles at 20% depth
July 2018
Figure 6-1 Illustration of the deep life cycle of the lead acid battery, there is a formatting
period between 20 and 50 cycles in which the capacity will increase until it hits the peak
capacity. The capacity of the battery remains relatively steady while in its peak phase.
Once reaching the range of 200 or more cycles, the capacity of the battery will decline.
(Electricruz, 2018)
6.2 UltraBattery
A stem of innovation from the Lead Acid battery developed by CSIRO that acts as a more
efficient way to store energy. Combines the Lead-Acid battery with a super capacitor. In
comparison to alternate renewable energy battery options, the UltraBattery is lower
cost, durable, has quicker discharge/charge rates, and a 2-3 longer life cycle than the
Lead-Acid battery alone. (CSIRO, 2017)
• Delivers and absorbs charge faster
• Further expansion of UltraBatteries is Complex and expensive
• Requires lengthy algorithms
Figure 6-2 Illustration of the UltraBattery which combines the advantages of two energy
storage technologies, the Lead-Acid Battery cell and the Ultracapacitor into one single
cell. (UltraBattery, 2018)
29
July 2018
Figure 6-3 Visualizations of the tests conducted by the Sandia National Laboratories in
the United States that demonstrate that the UltraBattery performs for an extended time
period and at higher capacity than the traditional VRLA batteries in utility cycling and
photovoltaic hybrid energy applications. (UltraBattery, 2017)
In a recent case study named the "ALABC Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Demonstration
Project" researchers from the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC)
retrofitted an HEV with an UltraBattery. The HEV in this study surpassed more than
100,000 miles (160,000 kilometers) of driving. Throughout this two-year project, the
UltraBattery has provided significant illustration of its durability. Implemented in the
operation of a Honda Civic HEV, this car was one in a fleet of vehicles that drove around
Phoenix, Arizona daily. In this timer period, the UltraBattery Civic demonstrated little to
no loss in its battery capacity and achieved an equal fuel efficiency in comparison to the
same model of car powered by a Nickel-Metal Hydride battery, but a much lower cost.
(UltraBattery, 2017)
6.3 Nickel-Metal Hydride Battery

These batteries have a much longer life cycle than lead-acid batteries and are safe and
abuse tolerant. These batteries have been used successfully in all-electric vehicles and
are widely used in hybrid electric vehicles. The main challenges with nickel-metal
hydride batteries are their high cost, high self-discharge and heat generation at high
temperatures, and the need to control hydrogen loss.
• Used routinely in computers and medical equipment
• Lower Specific energy than Li-ion
July 2018
6.4 Lithium-Variety Batteries

Since the implementation of lead-acid batteries in the first electric vehicles, there has
been a storm of new technology and advancements. This storm comes in the form of
the Lithium variety batteries; they have casted a shadow over the outdated lead-acid
batteries, and shone light onto a promising future ahead for the EV industry. This
following section will go into the details of these batteries and make comparisons
between each chemical variation. (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018)
6.4.1 Lithium Ion batteries

Lithium Ion (Li-ion) batteries have one of the highest energy densities in comparison to
other developed battery technology today. It can deliver up to three times the amount
of voltage than other batteries like NiCd or NiMH, which means that it delivers higher
amounts of current for greater power applications. (Clean Energy Institute, 2018)
• Little to no memory effect
• Low self-discharge rate.
• Low Maintenance
• Tendency to Overheat (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018)
31
July 2018
Figure 6-4 Specific Energy Density comparisons, illustrating that the newer
technology of the Lithium-Ion battery surpasses that of other batteries.
(Clean Energy Institute, 2018)
6.4.2-Lithium-Polymer
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has created a lithium metal battery with
additional polymer electrolytes. They have found that these have a higher energy
density than the traditional Lithium Ion battery, but have poor ionic conductivity. (Chong,
2018)
• Longer life
• Improved Safety
6.4.3 Lithium Iron-Phosphate (LFP)

Lithium Iron Phosphate, often noted as LiFePO4 or LFP, has a nominal voltage of 3.2V
per cell. Lead Acid, in comparison has 2V per cell. Accordingly, a 12.8V LFP battery is
comprised of 4 cells connected in series. The LFP battery is the safest of the mainstream
lithium ion batteries. (Victron Energy B.V, 2018)
July 2018
LFP batteries do not require a full charge, improvements in the service life improves
slightly in the case of a partial charge. This feature presents a major advantage over the
lead-acid battery. This list continues into other features: wider operating temperature
range, improved cycling performance, low internal resistance, and increased efficiency.
6.4.4 Lithium-Manganese
Lithium Manganese Dioxide cells present many advantages, with reference to the other
Lithium based batteries, it has some of the highest energy density and performance
characteristics. This lithium chemistry presents benign temperature characteristics, a
flat discharge curve, as well as a hermetically, completely air tight, sealed nickel-plated
capsule that ensures a longer shelf life. Unlike other batteries, the Lithium Manganese
Dioxide cells have no formation of a passivation layer, which allows for deliverance of
large current immediately after a long storage period. (Ultralife Corporation, 2011)
This battery has a high cell voltage of 3.3V, low self-discharge, high energy density, non-
pressurized system and a solid cathode. This low resistance battery also allows for fast
charging. Although this battery presents many advantages, it has one third the battery
capacity of a Lithium Cobalt battery.
33
July 2018
Figure 6-5 Data graphs of representing the characteristics of a Lithium Manganese

battery, CR17450 A, rated at 2500mAh. It is important to take note of the "Storage
Characteristics" graph. This illustration demonstrated the effective technology and
chemistry of the battery which allows for a long shelf life that leaves the batteries
virtually unaffected by long non-usage periods. (Maxell, 2013)
6.4.5 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC)

The NMC battery is one of the most successful Lithium-Ion chemistries and has similar
characteristics to that of the Lithium Manganese battery in that they are both
constructed and fitted to be energy or power cells. Like Li-Manganese, the NCM battery
has the ability to be tailored towards a higher specific energy or higher specific power,
but not both at the same time.
• In an 18650 cell, moderate load condition, the capacity is roughly 2,800mAh and
can deliver 4-5A. This same cell can be modified for specific power optimization
wherein the capacity is only 2,000mAh, but delivers a continuous discharge
current of 20A. (Incell, 2016)
July 2018
Figure 6-6 NCM characteristics and values. (Incell, 2016)
Figure 6-7 An illustrative comparison between the variety of Lithium-Ion chemistries

implemented in electric vehicles. It is important to note that the nature of the chart
implies that the further the web extends along its axis, the more superior the battery is
within that specific dimension. (i.e. Increased specific energy and power, better safety,
higher performance, longer lifespan, and lower cost.) (MIller, 2013)
35
July 2018
6.5 Charts of Comparison Between the Batteries Discussed

This section features multiple charts and graphs used in order to illustrate and compare
the strengths and weaknesses of each battery,
Figure 6-8 Depiction of the ranges of specific energy and power levels that can be
achieved with the current technology in battery cells in the form of a Ragone chart. It is
important to note that the specific energy and power of the last assembled battery pack
will demonstrate values lower than the values shown in the constitutive cells. This chart
creates an important illustration between the Lead-Acid Battery and the Lithium-Ion
battery. Lead Acid batteries were implemented and used frequently in early models of
hybrid and electric vehicles, scientists and researchers are now looking towards Lithium-
Ion technology. It has been a trend in batteries where specific energy and specific power
have an inverse relationship. This illustration demonstrates that even though the
Lithium-Ion battery has a significantly higher energy density, it still maintains a higher
power density. (MIller, 2013)
July 2018
Figure 6-9 Illustration of the adjustment and reversal of NiMH, Li-Ion, and NiCd battery
cells from 1999 to 2012 in 2012 dollars. The graph is representative of the data gathered
from a production survey. While the survey/data is representative of prices six years ago,
it illustrates the concept wherein, the initial cost of new technology is high, but
throughout time and continual implementation, it will prove to be more efficient and
cheaper. (National Academy of Sciences, 2015)
37
July 2018
Figure 6-10 Comparison summary between the representative old and new battery
technologies. (SAE Group, 2015)
7. The Future of Batteries

While the technology of Lithium-ion and other chemical variations have proven to be
sufficient in advancing the capabilities of EVs, researchers have already begun to look
for new innovations to surpass expectations and drive premium EVs with superior
capabilities to the market. This following section will highlight the future plans and
potential of EV batteries.
7.1 Lithium-Air
It is believed to hold up to five times more energy than Lithium-Ion. This new technology
uses a combination between the lithium on the anode with the oxygen in the air, thus
producing lithium peroxide. Recent findings have indicated that these batteries cannot
operate in natural air conditions as a result of the oxidation of the lithium anode and
production of unwanted byproduct. (University of Ilinois at Chicago, 2018)
7.1.1 Comparative Chemistry of Lithium Air Batteries

In comparison to other batteries, Lithium Air replaces liquid electrolytes, which
decompose easily, with a solid Li-ion conductor which functions as both the cathode and
Li-ion protector. Solid air cathodes are replaced with a gel cathode that creates direct
contact with the solid catholyte (portion of electrolyte on the cathode side of
electrochemical cell). This forms a closed and sustainable interface. Conventional
Lithium-Air Batteries take in oxygen from surrounding, air to create and push a chemical
reaction with the lithium inside the battery in the discharging cycle, this oxygen is
released back into the atmosphere.
7.1.2 Drawbacks of the Lithium Air battery

● A large portion of the injected energy is wasted due to heat and rapid
degradation.
● They require extra, costly components in order to pump oxygen gas in and out,
this open cell configuration is very different from the conventionally sealed
batteries
● In the charging and discharging process, there is a mismatch between the
involved voltages. Output voltage is 1.2 volts lower than the voltage used to
charge. This is an indication of a significant power loss during each charging cycle.
July 2018
“You waste 30% of the electrical energy as heat in charging… It can actually burn
if you charge it too fast” (Ju Li, MIT)
● This is new technology and is therefore underdeveloped (Chandler, 2016)
Figure 7-1 Chart including Lithium-Air into the gravimetric energy density comparison.
The Lithium-Air battery, pictured at the top, has both the highest theoretical and
practical recorded values in compared to other batteries that include Lead-Acid, Nickel
Metal-Hydride, Sodium-Air, and Lithium-Sulfur. It is important to note that the values of
Lithium-Air are almost 10x higher than that of Lithium-Ion, the leading battery
technology implemented in cars today. (Hruska, 2015)
7.2 Nanolithia Batteries MIT Innovations (2016)

MIT has developed/studied a new battery concept under the title “nanolithia cathode
battery” under the professor Ju Li and others from MIT, Argonne National Laboratory,
and Peking University. This technology utilizes miniscule particles at the nanometer
scale, that contain the lithium and oxygen creates in a glass form. These are tightly
confined in a cobalt-oxide matrix. These particles are referred to as nanolithia.
39
July 2018
7.2.1 Nanolithia Chemistry

These particles remain stable because researchers embedded them within the matrix, a
sponge-like material with nanometer sized pores. This acts as both a stabilizer and a
catalyst for transformation Includes a variation of the battery chemistry which would
allow for use in a conventional and fully sealed battery with comparable theoretical
performance to that if lithium-air, with less drawbacks. Similar chemical reaction
between the lithium and oxygen, but during the process, the oxygen never reverts into
a gaseous form. Alternatively, the oxygen remains inside the solid and transforms
directly in its three redox states (𝐿𝑖2 𝑂, 𝐿𝑖𝑂2, 𝐿𝑖2 𝑂2) (Chandler, 2016)
7.2.2 Benefits in the Newest Battery Technology

This process reduces the voltage loss by a factor of five, originally 1.2 volts to .24 volts,
therefore only 8% of the electrical energy is turned to heat. The approach of non-state
changing chemicals also decreases the amount of huge volume changes that may disrupt
electrical conduction paths. This allows for faster charging cars due to the fact that heat
removal from the battery pack is a decreased concern. Due to the natural process of the
chemical reaction, the battery is inherently protected from overcharging. If overcharged
the reaction shifts to a different form that prevents further activity. Conventional
batteries may incur irreversible structural damage or even explode upon overcharging.
In comparison, this nanolithia battery has been overcharged in experiments for 15 days,
100 times its capacity, but incurred no damage at all. (Chandler, 2016)During cycling
tests, lab models of the battery went through 120 charge-discharge cycles and
demonstrates less than a 2% loss of capacity, thus indicating longevity in the life span of
these batteries.
7.3 Future Costs

A large expense of an EV is attributed to the cost to produce the battery. The battery
packs used today attribute to the cost gap between EVs and traditional gasoline vehicles
which stands at 1.5 to 2.5 times costlier to produce an EV. As the price of the battery
declines, so will the total price tag of the EV. (UCUSA, 2017)
July 2018
Figure 7-2 – Illustration of the historical manufacturing costs of batteries and their future
projections. This chart demonstrates the falling battery prices that are projected to be
below the battery cost goal within the next 5-10 years. This dramatic decrease in cost
will bring down the overall cost of the vehicle to where an EV will be cost competitive
with the conventional gasoline vehicle. (UCUSA, 2017)
8. Fuel Cell
Although using batteries seems to be the most popular energy storage solution for
electric vehicles, automakers do not want to put all their eggs into one basket.
Opposing batteries, fuel cell and its supplementary hydrogen fuel is a good alternative.
Fuel cell technology overcomes the biggest shortcoming of BEV – long recharging time.
Refueling an FCV only takes a couple minutes which is very similar to refueling
traditional vehicles. This chapter is going to introduce what fuel cell is and why some
automakers favor this technology.
8.1 What Is Fuel Cell

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert the chemical energy of a reaction
directly into electrical energy. The basic physical structure or building block of a fuel cell
consists of an electrolyte layer in contact with a porous anode and cathode on either
side. A schematic representation of a fuel cell with the reactant/product gases and the
ion conduction flow directions through the cell is shown in the Figure below. There are
five major types of fuel cells, differentiated from one another by their electrolyte:
41
July 2018
phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC), polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC),
alkaline fuel cell (AFC), molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC), solid-oxide fuel cell (SOFC).
Nowadays, proton exchange membrane fuel cell is most common choice in auto industry
among all types of fuel cell. Therefore, this report will mainly focus on PEM. PEM fuel
cells separate the anode and cathode sides of the fuel cell with a proton-conducting
polymer membrane (the electrolyte). Platinum based catalysts are coated on both sides
of the polymer membrane to form the anode and cathode.
Figure 8-1 A graph that depicts the chemical reaction within the fuel cell (J.H.
Hirschenhofer, 1998).
8.2 Companies involved in Fuel Cells

Although battery electric car pioneer Tesla regard Fuel Cell Vehicle as a bad idea since it
has lower efficiency (energy is lost more during the process of making hydrogen fuel),
higher cost of fuel, few supporting facilities (gas station and gas factories) and concern
about compressed air, other major car makers show interest in such technology. They
believe that, disregarding the current shortcomings, fuel cell technology can have a
July 2018
future simply because its refueling time is unbeatable - around 3 minutes which is similar
to gasoline.
Honda is leasing its 2018 Clarity Fuel Cell. Toyota is leasing its 2018 Mirai. Hyundai has a
fuel cell version of Tuscan and its luxury brand Genesis unveiled a FCV at the New York
Auto Show earlier in 2017. Plug Power, a company invested by Amazon, is focusing on
providing fuel cell power to electric handling material handling equipment.
Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation Corp. (“AFCC”), a joint venture of Daimler AG and
Ford Motor Company developing fuel cell modules for automotive applications, has
developed their Gen 4 module which has power of 87 kW, active power density of 10
kW/Liter, platinum loading of 19 grams/stack (0.25 mg/cm^2), durability of 200,000
km and can start up at the temperature as low as -25 degree Celsius.
8.3 Advantages of Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Fuel
8.3.1 More Energy Diversity

Hydrogen can be sourced from a wide variety of primary energy such as nuclear energy
and hydro energy. No matter what type of energy is preferred in the future, hydrogen
could always be made with them. In this way, hydrogen is the ideal energy medium for
vehicles.
8.3.2 Better Driving Experience

Since the output of Fuel Cell is electricity, FCV is driven by electric motors. Compared
with traditional internal combustion engines, electric motors enable smooth, quiet
driving and excellent acceleration at start to low/mid speed.
8.3.3 Zero Direct Emission

Since the hydrogen fuel cell provides electricity based on the reaction between
hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, the only byproduct of the whole process is water.
8.3.4 Long Range

The range is equivalent to gasoline vehicles. For example, the ranges for Toyota’s Mirai
and Honda’s Fuel Cell Clarity are 312 and 366 miles.
43
July 2018
8.3.5 Short Refueling Time

Fuel cell only takes about three minutes to refuel while the fastest large-scale
commercial electric car charging deployed - Tesla’s Superchargers - only charge the
vehicle 80% in about 30 minutes.
8.3.6 Extra Usage

The fairly high energy density of hydrogen and its fairly stable chemical property make
a lot of other applications possible. For example, Toyota’s FCV Mirai offers power outlet
for 12V electric appliance. Plug Power offers their GenSure fuel cell power for backup
power applications. The company claims that their fuel-cell supported power solution
has the benefits of high flexibility (easily adjustable battery packs), low maintenance
cost (saving up to 84%), high reliability of 99.6% and additional feature of remote
monitoring over the traditional combustion backup generators.
8.4 Cost of Hydrogen Fuel

Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram, But the most
common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of
gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile. Automakers are
including three years of hydrogen fuel with their initial sales and lease offerings, which
will shield early market adopters from this initially high fuel price. While future price is
uncertain, NREL estimates that hydrogen fuel prices may fall to the $10 to $8 per kg (in
the graph, the estimated price by that time is the median of the range which is $9) range
in the 2020 to 2025 period whereas crude oil price is projected to reach $79 by 2020
and $111 by 2030 (the WPI crude oil price by 06/26/2018 is around $68). (International
Energy Agency, 2016) FCEVs are about twice as efficient as gasoline-powered vehicles:
an FCEV travels about twice as far as a conventional vehicle given the same amount of
fuel energy. At $3.63 per gallon gasoline (the average gasoline price by 06/25/2018,
according to U.S. Energy Information Administration), a conventional vehicle costs
about $0.135 per mile to operate, while an FCEV using $8 per kg hydrogen fuel would
cost about $0.12 per mile. (California Energy Commission, 2015)
July 2018
Figure 8-2 Current and Projected Price and Cost per Mile of Gasoline and Hydrogen Fuel
9. Charging Infrastructure
The charging infrastructure is the equipment and standards that EV owners interact with
when charging a vehicle, as well as the current state of charging accessibility in the U.S.
The equipment includes the connector and Electric Vehicle Service Station (EVSE), and
also alternatives such as battery swapping or hydrogen refueling stations.
9.1 Current Charging Standards

In the U.S., there are three main competing standards: J1772, CHAdeMO, and Tesla.
Each has its own connecting port and protocol of communication between the vehicle
and charging station.
9.1.1 J1772
The J1772 is a standard created by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) that outlines
standards for charging electric vehicles. It includes the physical, electrical, and process
recommendations. It defines the basics of charging such as what is commonly known as
Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging. Levels 1 and 2 are AC, meaning the charging station
charges the car’s on board charger which then charges the car’s battery. DC fast charging
45
July 2018
is DC and directly charges the car’s battery. Level 1 is defined to be at 120V (AC) and at
a current of 16A. Level 2 is 208 - 240V (AC) and at a current of 80A. For DC fast charging,
there are two levels. Both operate at 200 - 500V (DC), with Level 1 DC at 80A and Level
2 DC at 200A. Thus, off board charging operates at a higher power and reduces the
weight of the EV but at the same time requires a much more complex EVSE (Electric
Vehicle Service Equipment) station and can create concerns about battery heating
(Vehicle Charging, n.d.).
In the charging process, communication is critical between the EVSE and the EV. J1772
operates as follows
Charging Process (Finen, 2008)

1. driver plugs in
2. one pin indicates EVSE a car is connected (no power delivered yet)
3. EV checks that is connected to an EVSE
4. EVSE tells EV how much current can be drawn (available line current)
5. EV’s battery manager checks to see max current for battery, and picking lesser
of two for obvious safety reasons
6. charging begins
In order to achieve this communication, J1772 defines that a +12V to -12V 1khz pilot
signal (square wave) be used. The possible states are listed below.
Figure 9-1 Table of J1772 connection states, and the pilot signal indicating it (Howell C. ,
2018).
In the process described above, the EVSE is able to deliver a particular max current based
on the limitations of the vehicle. In order to adjust current output, the duty cycle of the
square wave is changed. For operating between 6 and 51A, duty cycle is calculated as:
Duty Cycle = Amps/.6. In the range of 51A to 80A, the equation is: Duty Cycle =
July 2018
(Amps/2.5) + 64. Thus, delivering 80A (the max) requires a duty cycle of 96% rather than
100%.
An important feature of the J1772 is the proximity detection. Using a voltage divider
circuit (displayed below), 3 different states with 3 distinct voltages can be achieved: 4.5V
for “Not Connected,” 3V for “Button Pressed,” and 1.5V for “Connected.” This ensures
that current only flows when the EV is ready (as outlined in the process). “Not Connected”
happens when R6 and R7 are cut off from the circuit, “Button Pressed” occurs when R6
and R7 have current and are in series, and “Connected” is achieved when R7 is short
circuited, leaving only R6 on the J1772 Handle having current.
Figure 9-2 Proximity detection circuit consisting of J1772 side (left) and plug in vehicle
side (right) (Howell C. , 2018).
Pictured below is the physical diagram of the J1772 AC Level 1 and 2 connector. This is
the Type 1 connection which is the standard for the U.S. The J1772 DC connector, known
as the J1772 combo, has this identical connector as part of it, with an additional two
pins for DC negative and positive inlets below it. This newer connector is used by mainly
Chevrolet and BMW.
47
July 2018
Figure 9-3 J1772 connector diagram with labeled pins (Finen, 2008).
The table below lists the approximate times to charge BEVs currently at 20% (since a
user will likely charge before the battery completely dies) battery level for all the types
of charging.
Type of Charging Time to Charge BEV (from 20% to full)

AC Level 1 17 hours
AC Level 2 (assume 3.3kW on board charger) 7 hours
DC Level 1 (for 20 kW off board charger) 1.2 hours
DC Level 2 (for 45 kW off board charger) 20 minutes
9.1.2 CHAdeMO
CHAdeMO (abbreviation of “charge de move,” or “move by charge”) is a name given to
a charging method created by the companies: Nissan, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Fuji Heavy
Industries, and Tokyo Electric Power Company. It was originally promoted by Nissan and
currently many Japanese car manufacturers utilize the connection, including Nissan,
Mitsubishi, and Toyota.
The process for CHAdeMO charging is a bit different from J1772. Pins referenced can be
seen in the “Connector Interface” Diagram.
Charging Process (Chademo Interface, 2013)

1. User plugs in
1. User plugs in
2. Recognize charger is plugged in (charger putspPin 2 at 12V)
3. Compatibility tested by vehicle sending battery information over CAN wires
4. Compatibility tested by charger sending station parameters
5. Vehicle calculates max current for charging session
6. Car signals to charger permission to charge (car grounds pin 4)
7. Charger locks. Charger signals to car that it is ready to charge (charger puts Pin
10 to ground)
8. Charging begins. Car communicates every 100ms current requirements and
charger adjusts.
--Charging ends or user removes charger--
9. Car communicates current requirement of 0A (over CAN)
10. Stop charging signal is sent from vehicle (car removes pin 4 from ground)
11. Charger disconnects (unlock and stop controlling pins 2 and 10)
July 2018
Figure 9-4 Diagram of CHAdeMO designated pins on connector (Chademo Interface,

2013).
9.1.3 Tesla Supercharger

The Tesla Supercharger is currently the best charger available because of its ability to ,
deliver 145 kW of power. However,they are limited to 120 kW (because of restrictions).
In Europe, the connector is no different than the AC Type 2 plug that is the standard
across Europe. The difference is that 2 of the pins are used to charge with DC current.
However, Supercharger stations only work with Teslas and will not charge any other
vehicle with the type 2 plug. In the U.S., an entirely unique plug is used. Although unique,
Tesla does sell an adapter so that their vehicles are able to be charged with the J1772
plug. Shown below is the American plug on the left, and the European plug on the right.
49
July 2018
Figure 9-5 Diagram comparing Tesla charging port in the U.S. (left) and in Europe
(right) (Tesla Motors Inc., n.d.).
9.2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment is what the user interacts with when charging a
vehicle and includes the charging connector, cable, and interface (if available). They can
be installed in sets such as for businesses or individually for residential use in a home.
9.2.1 Standards
Before installing EVSE equipment, it is important that companies comply with standards
of installation and maintenance of these systems. The National Electric Code Article 625
outlines these standards (ARTICLE 625 Electric Vehicle Charging and Supply Equipment
Systems, 2008). A brief outline of some important compliances are listed below.
Electric Vehicle Couplers
• Polarization - must have a positive and negative terminal
• Non-Interchangeability - grounding type couplers cannot be swappable with
non-grounding types
• Installation - live parts must not be exposed so that users don’t accidentally
touch them
• Connection - system must include some way of preventing unintentional
disconnection
• Grounding - must include a grounding pole such that it is the first and last thing
to contact vehicle
• Coupler cannot be located below 18in indoors or 24in outdoors
July 2018
Cabling
• Must comply with NEC flexibility and ampacity ratings (all listed in article 625)
• Length of cord cannot exceed 7.5m
General Safety Measures

• For outlets greater than 125V (15-20A), an interlocking safety mechanism is
required that de-energizes when not connected to vehicle
• For outlets greater than 125V (15-20A), cable rupture from strain must result in
automatic de-energization
• Personal protection is required to be built into charging system or located within
1 ft away
• Overload protection must exist for greater than 125% of the maximum rating of
the EVSE
• Power supply cord length less than 1.8m
• EVSE must meet appropriate ventilation requirements for power rating (listed in
article 625)
9.2.2 Level 1 (AC charging)

Level 1 EVSEs are the most basic forms of equipment for charging. They utilize a standard
110 - 120V outlet (in the U.S) and are very practical for home or basic workplace charging.
They are the slowest form of charging, delivering approximately 2 - 5 miles of use per
hour (Pratt, 2014). However, they are also the cheapest. In most cases, additional
installation is minimal to none. Cords for level 1 charging will have a NEMA (National
Electrical Manufacturers Association) plug on one end and a J1772 plug on the other.
NEMA plugs come in a couple forms:
51
July 2018
Figure 9-6 Standard NEMA Outlets (Smith, 2016).
Assuming an overnight charge of 8 hours, a PEV will charge about 40 miles. Although
slow, one advantage is that because of the low power output, the strain on transformers
during peak hours is less of a concern and this solution is the most practical for ease of
use. For workplace charging, if a new outlet must be installed it may cost around $1500
per new unit. However, installing an outlet into an existing wall with wires inside can be
$250 to $1000. For the charging cable, most EVs come with one so people could use
their own at home and bring it work for use as well. Although the simplest option, there
are a number of disadvantages with level 1 charging. One is that because of the
prolonged period of charging, a dangling charger puts strain on the outlet it is plugged
into, which can create a safety hazard. Therefore, periodic outlet maintenance should
include receptacle tension tests. For a 120V/20A outlet, UL 498 details safety tests to be
performed. Another is that because these stations are most likely outside, they are
exposed to the elements and can wear down or have issues charging during inclement
weather. To combat this, outlet covers should be sufficient. Additionally, these outdoor
outlets must have a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) in the case that the charger
gets wet.
9.2.3 Level 2 (AC Charging)

Level 2 EVSEs are able to use the same charging receptacle (J1772) but charge at a higher
power rate. Level 2 is defined as up to 80A and 19.2 kW rating. However, many EVSEs
operate at 30A, with a power of 7.2 kW. In an hour of charge at the 7.2 kW rating, the
charger can deliver 10 -20 miles of charge (Pratt, 2014). Like the level 1 method of
July 2018
charging, a standard J1772 cable will work. Although Tesla is incompatible, they do sell
their own adapter to work with J1772 outlets.
This method of charging implemented at a workplace could require electrical service
upgrades of 10 to 25 thousand dollars, including an additional transformer and cabling.
Because most businesses have peak power ratings, they will not be able to install as
many Level 2 EVSEs for their workers. Home installation for level 2 EVSEs has become
cheaper over the last couple years. Typically, it will cost between $500 and $2000 to buy
an EVSE (Smith, 2016). The installation costs are relatively inexpensive, assuming that
the house already has a 240V connection, which is very common as it is needed for
washers, dryers, etc. Installation of an EVSE needs to be coordinated with an electrical
contractor and may require additional permits depending on living situations. Charging
at home is relatively inexpensive. Currently, the average cost per kwh of charge is 12.6
cents (Smith, 2016). Thus, fully charging a battery meant to drive for 100 miles would
cost about as much as operating an air conditioner for 6 hours.
Level 2 systems offer more features that make charging more practical and beneficial.
For example, many utilities have been enrolling Time of Use incentive programs to
reduce peak power on transformers. Many level 2 EVSEs offer delay functions to
cooperate with these incentives, so that a user may plug in his vehicle at 6pm, for
example, but charging won’t begin until 12am, when there is less strain on the grid.
Additionally, they can include safety lights, smartphone capabilities, interactive displays,
and safety mechanisms such as automatically shutting off when the vehicle is unplugged.
9.2.4 Maps of EVSEs [21]

The maps below are updated as of April 9th, 2018
The first map shown below points out every US CCS station. The CCS (Combined
Charging System) includes the classic Type 1 J1772 plug and Combo connectors used by
most electric vehicles in the U.S., other than Teslas. The West Coast Electric Highway
Project is evident on the west coast, with a highway stretching from Washington to
southern California having these types of stations available. Similarly, stations appear to
be clustered around major cities, but areas like the central U.S. and the rural South are
almost barren of charging stations.
53
July 2018
Figure 9-7 CCS stations in U.S. (Field, 2018).
The second map displays every CHAdeMO station available. It is evident that
states such as Washington, Oregon, and North Carolina have invested more
heavily in these stations rather than CCS types. There are over 10 times as many
CHAdeMO stations as there are CCS.
Figure 9-8 Map of CHAdeMO compatible stations in the U.S. (Field, 2018).
The final map shows all of the Tesla stations in the U.S. It is clear that intentional
planning was done by Tesla in building the stations along major highways spaced
July 2018
out, rather than concentrate them in urban areas alone. Also note that the
number of connectors far out numbers the locations, meaning that each site has
more EVSE stations for use.
Figure 9-9 Map of Tesla Supercharging stations in U.S. (Field, 2018).
9.3 Hydrogen Station Operation

Just like PHEVs and BCV requiring charging facilities, FCVs also need hydrogen refueling
station to support its operation. Building a hydrogen station is costly. According to a
report, building one such station costs “from $2.1 million to more than $3 million”. It is
certainly more expensive than building a gasoline station. The extra costs are “due to
the low production volumes of specialized equipment required for the high pressure,
temperature controlled fueling standards”. To lower the operation cost, corporates
form alliance seeking a larger scale. Toyota, Nissan, Honda started cooperative
promotion of supporting hydrogen station operation until around 2020. Toyota also
partnered with a company called Air Liquide to build a network of hydrogen fuel stations
throughout the Northeastern U.S. Some universities and government departments are
actively participating as well. H2USA,a public-private partnership of partners such as U.S.
Department of Energy, California Fuel Cell Partnership, Berkeley Lab, General Motor,
Toyota and Honda, is dedicated to establishing hydrogen fueling infrastructure and
enabling large scale of adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles. To support the industry,
some state governments also draw up plans for hydrogen refueling network and start
subsidizing. Among these states, California is the only state that has a sizeable
55
July 2018
commercial network. So far, there are 27 refueling stations throughout California and
the state plans to get it to 100 by 2020.
State Refueling Stations

• There are 27 refueling station across the state with a
California network capacity of a little more than 19,500 kg/day
• Plan to get to 100 by 2020
• 170 MW fuel cell electric generation capacity
• 591 FCEVs (548 passenger vehicles and 43
Connecticut transit/paratransit buses)
• Six to seven hydrogen refueling stations (to support
FCEV/FCEB deployment)
Maine
transit/paratransit buses)
• One to two hydrogen refueling stations
Massachusetts
• Seven to nine hydrogen refueling stations
New Hampshire
• Seven to nine hydrogen refueling stations
New Jersey
• 31 to 34 hydrogen refueling stations
New York
• 18 to 23 hydrogen refueling stations
Rhode Island
Vermont • 58 MW fuel cell electric generation capacity
Figure 9-10 State Plans for Hydrogen Fuel Industry (Northeast Electrochemical Energy
Storage Cluster, 2018)
July 2018
9.4 Possible Alternative – Swapping Battery

Although charging time is decreasing with the advancement in charging technology, it
still could not compete with the refueling time of gasoline. In order to change this
situation, some automakers look into another way to replenish the mileage – swapping
battery. Swapping battery could be a solution with great potential because it bypass
most of the problems that charging method is facing – the heat caused by high current
and the unbalanced load to the power grid. Swapping battery has following advantages:
short waiting time, better battery life with slower charging, more maintenance
opportunity for batteries and less area of ground needed. (Feng, 2011) (T, 2011) (Jian,
2011)
Since there are such many advantages in swapping battery, automakers are actively
exploring this option. As early as 2013, Tesla has introduced their Battery Swap Pilot
Program for Model S. According to its CEO during the presentation in Hawthorne, CA in
2013, the whole process took only 90 seconds. (Muller, 2013) Although this service is
later shut down to give way to superchargers, Tesla does not stop developing this
method. In 2017, Tesla patented its new design for battery swap which could be
deployed in service station or with a mobile rig. This new patent trade a little bit of time
to lower the cost of the method and the widen possible applications – it takes about 15
minutes to finish the process. (Burns, 2017) Swapping battery sparked hope for people
who had mileage anxiety and inspired NIO, a newborn Chinese EV automakers that
chooses to capitalize on this technology. According to their introduction video, their NIO
Power station, taking space of only three parking spots, can replace a battery within 3
minutes with their patented RGV Swapping Platform and Bayobolt mechanism. (NIO,
n.d.)
However, this method also has several shortcomings. So far, there is no universal
protocol for battery swap. Companies develop their own batteries, swapping stations
and swapping techniques with their own technology, which are usually patented. This
situation blocks automakers with limited resource and lead to repeated construction of
facilities for different models. Additionally, the construction and the operation costs are
higher since complicated mechanism is involved for swapping and charging batteries. It
does not mean this method does not have a future. It only suggests that the government
needs to regulate this field and expand the convergence of interests with all the parties.
According to a research, swapping battery works more efficiently for public
transportation, warehouse or park operation and sanitation vehicles in big cities since
57
July 2018
the vehicles in these environments travel long mileage, have routine rally points and
require constant high availability. (Chenggang, 2009)
In general, though swapping battery in not popular in the market yet, it is possible that
it could be one of the major way to replenish mileage for electric cars with universal
standards introduced and advancement in swapping technology.
9.5 Charging Vehicle Capabilities

As companies work to improve range of electric vehicles, improve EVSEs, and charge
vehicles faster, there are considerations to take into account based on the existing
structure and systems within a vehicle. Two of the main ones specific to charging are
current electric vehicle batteries and thermal management systems.
9.5.1 Battery
With increasing the range of vehicles, it will most likely draw upon increasing the
capacity of batteries. The challenge is that increasing the capacity increases the weight.
Below is a list of some the most popular electric vehicles and their corresponding battery
capacities and weights.
Vehicle Battery Battery Weight (kg) Range (km)
Capacity (kWh)
BMW i3 22 kWh 204 kg 130 – 160 km
Tesla S 90 kWh 540 kg 424 km
Chevy Volt (PHEV) 16 kWh 181 kg 64 km
Chevy Bolt 60 kWh 440 kg 383 km
Nissan Leaf 30 kWh 272 kg 250 km
Figure 9-11 Comparison of popular EV (or PHEV) vehicles and their battery capacity vs.
battery weight vs. range (“BU-1003: Electric Vehicle (EV).”).
9.5.2 Thermal Management

An important part of the charging process is the thermal management system, as it is
critical to ensure the safety of the battery, vehicle, and the user during a charging session.
The BTMS (Battery Thermal Management System) therefore needs to be equipped with
4 essential processes (Li & Zhen, 2014).
Cooling
July 2018
This is essential due to the inefficiency of energy conversion in batteries. Instead of

generating electricity, part of the battery will produce heat. Thus, when temperatures
are too high for the battery pack, the there needs to be a cooling system.
Heating
In cold climates, a heating system is necessary when the battery pack temperature is
below operable range.
Insulation
In varying climates, insulation is important to keep help regulate the changes in
temperature between the inside of the battery and the outside.
Ventilation
Batteries produce hazardous gases and thus air flow is necessary to remove these fumes.
This can be combined in conjunction with heating and/or cooling system.
As charging processes become faster, it will necessitate better cooling systems in order
to ensure the longevity of the infrastructure and to protect the user. Below are some
proposed improvements this system.
Forced Air System

One solution to the heating/cooling problem is to utilize a forced air system. This system
blows outside air onto the battery pack directly in order to regulate temperature. A
passive system involves just blowing outside air onto the battery, while an active system
incorporates an additional AC or heating element to modify the temperature of the
intake air. This is what is currently used by a lot of EVs but in the future this system may
not hold up at higher power charging. An improvement to the existing air system is to
use a thermoelectric module. It consists of two fans that, when on, will provide better
convection for cooling. The module converts voltage into cooling. The module can also
be switched into heating mode by swapping the electrode positions. One pitfall of this
device is that hot and cold sides are rather close together, and so keeping temperature
difference can become difficult at high temperatures.
59
July 2018
Figure 9-12 Forced Air system cross section of cooling a module using ambient air (Li &
Zhen, 2014).
Heat Pipe
An additional improvement to the air system is the utilization of a heat pipe. In the figure
below, it is worth noting some aspects of the diagram. The condenser side is full of fins
for increased cooling. The heat source (battery) is assumed to be on the bottom half of
the pipe touching the evaporator. The heat pipe contains water and basically what
happens is that the battery heats the water which then evaporates at a temperature
lower than 100C because of lower pressure inside. After evaporating, water on the
condenser top will lose heat into the ambient environment and then become liquid
again. This solution is nice because of the lack of moving parts. However, heating with
this addition is impossible due to the nature of water.
Figure 9-13 Heat pipe cross section showing the condenser vs. evaporator structure (Li
& Zhen, 2014).
Liquid Cooled System

Thinking into the future, EVs may start incorporating liquid cooled systems into their
vehicles. The system can be implemented in 2 ways: direct or indirect contact. Direct
contact is a system of submerging the battery in a safe, non-reactive liquid such as
mineral oil. Indirect contact would involve tubing around a battery pack full of a cooling
mixture such as ethylene glycol and water. Like the air cooling method, this can be
categorized into passive and active cooling/heating. In the passive form, liquid is
circulated in a closed system that runs over the battery pack, absorbing heat, and then
through a radiator exposed to the air that can cool. A fan is needed in the case that the
ambient air temperature isn’t much different than the hot liquid. Unfortunately, in the
cases of extreme weather this system would not work. The active system is similar to
the passive except that instead of a radiator, a second loop is added that has an
evaporator loop to cool (A/C loop) and can be switched valves to turn the evaporator
into a condenser loop to heat (heat pump loop). A possible improvement to an active
July 2018
liquid cooling system would be to use a refrigerant to directly cool the battery. It would
run in A/C loop that runs over the battery. Compared to an air system, the liquid system
may be more beneficial in the long run since liquids such as water have a high heat
transfer coefficient compared to air. For this reason, without switching to liquid cooling
systems, current air systems need to be modified to allow for quite large air flow in
order to continue thermal management.
Phase Change Material (PCM)

For either an air or liquid system, a thermal management improvement could be made
by incorporating a Phase Change material into the process. When matter experiences a
phase change, its temperature stays constant. For example, when water is evaporating,
it stays at a relatively constant temperature and energy is stored as latent heat until its
maximum. Therefore, the temperature increase is delayed during the boiling process.
This same idea could be applied to a cooling system to help regulate temperature. The
figure below shows how a temperature increase is delayed because of the phase change
of a PCM (phase change material).
Figure 9-14 Effect of using a PCM to delay a rise in temperature (Li & Zhen, 2014).
Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) Thermistors

Another way of keeping temperature constant would be through using a Positive
Temperature Coefficient (PTC) Thermistor. These devices respond to temperature with
a change in their resistance. As temperature decreases, resistance increases, thus
allowing it heat up, and as temperature increases, resistance increases, causing it to cool
down. Thus, the temperature of the thermistor can be held constant by varying the
resistance automatically. In addition to regulating temperature, they could also be used
as fuses (known as a polyfuse) in a sense because past a certain temperature threshold,
the resistance drastically increases, bringing the current down to 0, which could stop the
charging process as a safety measure.
61
July 2018
A combination of multiple solutions and specific heat transferring materials/liquids will

be the actual solution to the increasing demands of thermal management that are
approaching as EVs begin to charge at high power rates.
9.6 Future of Charging

The future of charging will be faster, coordinated, and standardized, making the Electric
Vehicle market more accessible and easier to use for future car owners. Developments
include Extreme Fast Charging (XFC), coordinated charging networks, and the formation
of organizations like CharIN that are working toward unifying charging processes and
connectors.
9.6.1 Extreme Fast Charging (XFC)

Looking into the future, a major upgrade from DC fast charging is a new type of charging
called XFC (Extreme Fast Charging). One major problem that still persists among the
public is something called “range anxiety,” or the fear that drivers have of not being able
to find a convenient, fast, charging station before the EV’s battery runs out. Despite
decreasing costs of BEVs, they only account for 1% of new light-duty vehicles sold.
Having fast charging available could reduce “range anxiety.” The figure shown below
surveyed Nissan Leaf owners. Those who used fast chargers tended to report more miles
driven annually. What is impressive is that those who reported just 1 to 5% of their
charges being fast charges showed a 25% increase in their miles driven annually.
Unfortunately, the figure also shows that the vast majority haven't been using fast
charging, possibly because of it not being readily available near them. Currently, the
Nissan Leaf and BMW i3 all operate at 50 kW (DCFC). Chevy Bolt plans to extend this to
55 kW capability in the near future. Tesla has their own charger and its highest power
rating is 120 kW (BU-1003: Electric Vehicle (EV), 2018).
July 2018
Figure 9-15 Nissan Leaf Owners % of DC Charge Events in relation to amount of miles
driven per year (Howell D. , 2017).
With the trend above in mind, the creation of XFC would even more increase EV usage
annually. The table below defines the proposed XFC to be at 800 - 1000V, running at a
power of 400 kW, and compares it to the four existing charging ratings. Note that the
Tesla Supercharger is incompatible with EVs other than Teslas.
Figure 9-16 Comparison of major charging methods available in the U.S. showing times
of charge (Howell D. , 2017).
Implementing XFC
One key difference between this new standard of charging and the previous is how it
implemented. It is important that stakeholders coordinate to create standards, not
63
July 2018
separate solutions. The competition between SAE J1772, CHAdeMO, Tesla, and others
creates confusion among users, the necessity of adapters, and charging stations tailored
to specific vehicles while being incompatible with others. Additionally, the initial trial of
XFC charging needs to be done in an appropriate location. First and foremost, the grid
must be capable of handling multiple 400 kW rated charging ports. Furthermore, XFC
needs to be primarily installed into areas that can service the most people to promote
its usage. Continuing with the awareness factor, consumer education about locations of
XFCs needs to be emphasized to further reduce range anxiety. The comparisons in
frequency and length of charging/refueling are shown below. With XFC charging, EVs
may become just as practical for long distance driving as traditional ICEVs (Internal
Combustion Engine Vehicles). The difference even between DC fast charging and XFC is
apparent, with 160 minutes spent charging vs 23 minutes for a sample trip from Salt
Lake City, UT to Denver, CO.
Figure 9-17 A sample trip from Salt Lake City, UT to Denver, CO and how the current
charging methods compare for a 200 or 300 mile BEV (Howell, David).
Cybersecurity
July 2018
XFC will necessitate constant communication between EVSE and the car’s battery
management system. This communication will most likely be wireless, and thus creates
vulnerabilities for hacking. An exploitation of the charger could involve unlocking the
vehicle during a charging session, potentially electrocuting the user. An endangerment
of the EVSE may be a hacker forcing an EVSE to give more power to a vehicle than it is
capable, resulting in both damage to the charging infrastructure, the thermal
management system, and the battery itself. Especially at such a high power level, if
hackers were able to control enough EVSEs, they could significantly affect the power
grid.
Battery Configuration
XFC uses very high power rating of 400 kW. This will likely be achieved with 1000V at
40A. Currently, cars use a 500V battery. One of the main limit is that high voltage
exceeding standard for battery results in solvent oxidation that can pressurize the cell.
Additionally, a balancing circuit needs to be able to handle higher current levels (400A)
and to handle more cells in series.
Thus, designing a 1000V battery system can be done in a few ways (Howell D. , 2017).
1. Upgrade all existing equipment to accommodate for a 1000V battery (standard
is currently 500V for BEV)
2. Configure 2 500V batteries in such a way that allows for 1000V charging (series)
but operable by the vehicle at 500V (parallel). This is tricky because impedance
and thermal conditions can change, causing imbalances.
3. Use existing 400V battery and a DC/DC converter between charger and battery
to allow for XFC 400 kWh charging. Cost of converter would decrease benefits of
XFC with the incurred cost, mass, and volume, solely used for charging. Also,
converter needs to be rated for 400kW
4. Use a 1000V battery and a DC/DC converter between the battery and the 400V
bus to prevent the need for upgrades to existing car equipment. Converter needs
to be only rated to 150 - 200 kW appx.
In addition to designing the voltage level, XFC industry leaders were in agreement that
one, two hour minimum between stops is acceptable, which means a battery pack of
over 60 kW is required (Pokrzywa, 2011).
Thermal Management
Existing thermal management systems will not be sufficient for XFC, and so upgrades
will be needed. The best temperature range for a battery is between 20 and 40 degrees
65
July 2018
Celsius. Below 10 degrees anode plating occurs and above 60 degrees, electrodes
breakdown and fail rather quickly (Li & Zhen, 2014). In a study of thermal management,
3D simulations were performed on differently designed battery packs during a 350kw
charge. The simulation showed that 3 factors: energy density, number of cells, and cell
efficiency were key in determining the behavior of battery pack during charging. The
Department of Energy's rating of max temperature during charging is 52 degrees, and in
order to achieve this, the battery needs to utilize a large number of cells, low energy
density, and high cell efficiency. In the study, the only combination that met the DOE’s
max temperature rating was a battery consisting of 484 cells, with an energy density of
175 Wh k^-1, and cell efficiency of 90% (Li & Zhen, 2014). The current cooling process
found in most vehicles is a vapor compression cycle with a water/ethylene glycol loop.
One possible alternative is liquid cooling around the cables, which does exist in CCS
(Combined Charging System) - 2 developed by ITT Cannon. The cable, connector, and
contacts are all cooled with a dielectric hydrofluoroether (Liquid Cooled CCS1 & CCS2
High Power Charging Stations, 2017).
9.6.2 Inductive Charging

Inductive Charging is an alternative charging method with many potential benefits.
These include the development of standard charging, cost savings potential, and safety.
The general approach to inductive charging for an electric vehicle is to have a charging
pad beneath the vehicle. The pad has a 240V AC generator that goes through an Analog
Front End (AFE) circuit which then goes through a High Frequency Inverter (HF INV) to a
transformer for magnetic wireless charging. Then within the vehicle, it is able to be
charged because of wound coils that generate current due to the electromagnetic field
and going through a rectifier is able to charge the car's battery. With inductive charging,
there are concerns though because of its possible interference with other electronics or
systems within the vehicle and creating a strong electromagnetic field puts the user
within it as well. Some limitations to charging by this method include the field
diminishing proportional to 1/(radius)^3 and that most research and development has
been to use inductive charging as a method of heating, including microwaves and
inductive heaters (Onar, 2015).
July 2018
Figure 9-18 An implementation of inductive charging by a charging pad to a battery

management system (Onar, 2015).
9.6.3 Coordinated Charging Networks

Because of the increasing usage of EVs by the general public, upgrades to existing power
grids will be needed, especially with the future implementation of XFC charging. To help
curb these costs, coordinated charging networks could be implemented among systems
of EVSEs. In short, they allow for EVSEs to time their peak power usage at different times
to limit max power loads on the grid as a whole. One such example is that it may be
typical for EV owners to all charge their electric vehicles right when they get home from
work. The proposed solutions below will address this scenario specifically.
Self - Reporting
In this coordinated network, homes with EVs would report value placed on each hour of
charging and at what time. Then the online system allocates power respectively to those
homes with greatest value during specific hours. The pricing system also incentivizes
homes to not misreport what they need and benefits those that can use lower wattage
more often. For example, a user may save money by allowing for a slower overnight
charge rather than a faster one after getting home from work (Gerding, 2011).
Peak Power Flattening

An online system that optimizes a household’s power usage to be more consistently flat.
In a study done on 150 homes with this method, the peak demand of a group homes
was 1.62 times the average. With this optimization, that factor was reduced down to
1.19 (Mets, 2010).
Control Load System
67
July 2018
A control load system could be implemented on street transformers that service a

number of devices. Depending on the instantaneous demand and supply of power, the
system will allocate energy accordingly. Smart devices that draw a lot of power will be
able to send signals to the transformer reporting their priority per time increment. With
this, the device is able to allocate power appropriately, giving high priority chargers
more power at the times they need it. This priority could be calculated on factors such
as the operating duration (time of charging required) and the enabled duration (time
left to finish the charging session) (Albrecht, 2013).
Charging Station Dynamic Response

On the diagram below, a few things will be highlighted. This system utilizes messages of
changing power consumption from the possibility of numerous sources. Specifically, the
charging station [130] could receive a message from the utility [135], the network server
[125] or perhaps another charging station that triggers a demand response [170]. In
addition, the demand response module could be used to send messages to the power
grid [130], affecting the load on other charging stations in a particular network. Demand
responses could include many factors such as the vehicle’s current held charge, whether
the vehicle is fully electric or partially, how long the vehicle has been plugged in, how
much power has been allocated to the car previously, and others. In a larger setting,
these individual charging stations can be integrated into radio groups, meaning they
have a single connection to the network server, and so respond in unison. This allows
administrators to work with large numbers of charging stations collectively as well as
have the option to individually tailor the power allocated to a particular station if needed
(Kothavale, 2012).
July 2018
Figure 9-19 patent for a coordinate charging network involving the communication
between a charging station network server, utility, charging station, and vehicle
(Kothavale, 2012).
9.6.4 Future Standardization

Recently in 2015 an organization called CharIN has been founded whose mission is to
standardize the future of charging for electric vehicles. They mainly promote CCS related
interests to governments both local and national for standardization and organize
conferences and workshops with its members to engage in working together. They have
created a design guide which details 8 defined sequence phases of the charging process.
It includes how pulse width modulation is to be used as communication between the
charging station and EV. It also explains procedures programmed into the infrastructure
during when a malfunction occurs, such as the EVSE not ramping down voltage, a tear
in the insulation cable, locking mechanism failure, etc. Many major automobile
companies have joined CharIN including Ford, Tesla, BMW, GM, Hyundai, Volkswagen,
Subaru, Toyota, and more (CCS Specification, 2018).
69
July 2018
10. Maintenance Cost Comparison between EVs and

Traditional Vehicles
There are a couple concerns that consumers consider when they want to buy a car –
appearance, class, price, size, etc. If one knows the class and the budget is set, one
practical element that one considers the most is the cost of owing the car. This chapter
provides information of 5-year owning cost of four specific vehicles of different
categories to offer insight into the question whether BEV and PHEV actually save money.
10.1 Five-Year Owning Cost of Audi S7 & Tesla Model S 75D

In this subchapter, comparison is made between fully electric vehicle (BEV) and
traditional vehicle. There are several reasons of comparing these two specific vehicles.
First of all, Tesla Model S 75D being one of the most popular electric car in U.S. makes
itself a good choice for a representative of electric cars. Secondly, these two vehicles are
both luxury mid-size sedans with emphasis on performance and have similar prices of
around $82,000.
Figure 10-1 The fuel cost is calculated based on the assumption that the car is driven
for 50,000 miles per year. The price is calculated based on the ZIP code 61820.
(Edmunds.com, Inc., 2018)
As the figure above shows, owning a Model S 75D for five years cost much less than an
Audi S7. The major savings come from fuel and tax credit. Lower price in electricity and
July 2018
higher efficiency in electric motor contribute hugely when saving money for the car
owner.
10.2 Five-Year Owning Cost of BMW 330e iPerformance & 330i

Gran Turismo xDrive
This subchapter focus on the comparison between PHEV and traditional vehicle. These
two vehicles are selected because they come from the same manufacturer with same
positioning and have similar price range of $38,000-$42,000.
Figure 10-2 The fuel cost is calculated based on the assumption that the car is driven
for 50,000 miles per year. The price is calculated based on the ZIP code 61820.
(Edmunds.com, Inc., 2018)
According to the figure above, 330e, a PHEV, saves owner about around $17,481 in total
over five years. Other than the savings from tax incentives and fuel, 330e also saves
considerable money in insurance and depreciation. The gap of owner’s cost between
these two models are smaller with the data from Kelly Blue Book – about $6,504.
10.3 Saving Analysis

First of all, it should be noted that these numbers are all estimations. However, through
data from several reputable websites including Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book, it can be
71
July 2018
concluded that PHEV and BEV ussually save money for car owner over a five-year period
compared with traditional vehicles. There are several factors that lead to the savings.
First of all, the mechanical structure of EVs are simpler than the one of traditional
vehicles. Traditional vehicles usually have these following maintenance: replacing spark
plug, cleaning throttle, cleaning combustor, cleaning three-way catalytic converter,
changing engine oil and changing engine oil filter. On the other hand, EVs save all these
mechanical maintenance for internal combustion engine. Apart from changing the
consumables such as tires and windshield wipers, not much additional cares is given to
EVs. In the routine maintenance, a majority of time is spent examining electrical systems
and ensuring the insulation of the electrical wires. Additionally, to mitigate consumers’
concerns towards EVs, automakers tend to offer longer warranty to their electric models
which again lowers the cost for EV owners. In general, lower maintenance and repair
cost and tax incentives given by the government make up most of the savings for EV
owners.
11. Social Acceptance

The development of electric vehicle markets is fundamentally tied to prospective
consumers’ general awareness and understanding of the potential benefits of electric
vehicles. An apprehension many consumers face in regards to EV's is commonly referred
to as range anxiety. In this chapter we will discuss how range anxiety impacts consumers
purchase decisions as well as some of the awareness campaigns governments involve
themselves with to lessen the stress among buyers.
11.1 Scope
Range anxiety is a possible barrier for the widespread endorsement of EV’s. It is defined
as stressful experience of a present or anticipated range situation, whereby the range
resources and personal resources available to effectively manage the situation (e.g.,
increase available range) are perceived to be insufficient.
Reasons for range differences:

(a) individual differences (e.g., personality traits, trust in the EV and its
functions)
(b) system features (e.g., support through advanced information
technology and assistant systems, availability of fast charging stations in route)
(c) environmental factors, like daytime (day vs. night) or regional
structure (urban area vs. rural area).
July 2018
Variables related to range anxiety are positively influenced by EV driving experience,

such as reduction in range safety buffers over the first 3 months (Thomas Franke, 2012),
increase of traveled distance between charging events over the first 6 months (Burgess,
2013), and considering range anxiety no longer as a major concern after 3 weeks (Nilsson,
2011).
11.2 Programs Regarding Consumer Education

Numerous reports have discovered that there is a universal lack of education and
familiarity in regards to electric vehicles. For example, less than half of U.S. consumers
are able to name a specific plug-in electric vehicle make and model (Singer, 2016) and
less than 35% of California households are aware of incentives offered for the purchase
of electric vehicles (Kurani & Tal, 2014). In a survey of 21 U.S. cities (Krause, 2013), about
two-thirds of the respondents had misunderstandings about the basic characteristics of
plug-in electric vehicles, and about 95% of them were not aware of available incentives.
An IBM consumer survey (Gyimesi & Viswanathan, 2011)similarly found that 45% of the
surveyed drivers had little to no understanding of electric vehicles. The progression of
electric vehicle markets and consumption is directly related to consumers consciousness
of the value entering this market can bring to their lives. (Williams & Johnson, EV
Consumer Characteristics, Awareness, Information Channels & Motivations, 2016)
Consumers who have exposure to electric vehicles are more likely to value them more
highly and consider them as a choice for future purchases (Larson, 2014). A survey by
Consumer Federation of America (CFA, 2016) revealed that greater consumer
knowledge about electric vehicles and their desire to purchase one are correlated. Thus,
it is pivotal that individuals acknowledge the need for consumer education to lessen
their fears and increase the EV market.
Governments at federal and state levels, car manufacturers and wholesalers, electric
utilities, and other factions are involved in many undertakings to help overcome
obstacles to consumer perception about electric vehicles. For example, some
communication efforts involve developing print and online materials, arranging public
events and seminars, increasing exposure to electric vehicles from fleet and car sharing
services, creating action plans for electric vehicle readiness, implementing highly visible
technology demonstration projects, managing social media marketing campaigns, and
more. These movements are vital because many prospective consumers typically lack a
73
July 2018
sound understanding of what electric vehicles are, what benefits they present, and what
models exist. Now we will discuss several specific programs that both national and local
governments, as well as manufactures, take part in to boost consumer perceptions of
electric vehicles.
11.2.1 The Advanced Electric Drive Vehicle Education (AEDVE) Program

The Advanced Electric Drive Vehicle Education (AEDVE) Program is a program of the
National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC) at West Virginia University and
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The AEDVE program offers learning
opportunities and outreach events for a variety of stakeholders to educate America on
the future of transportation and EV’s role in this. These stakeholders include: mechanics,
consumers, first responders, secondary school educators and scholars, charging
infrastructure engineers and installers, and fleet operators.
The AEDVE Program comprises of:
• Concentrated core curriculum and teaching, including simulations, recordings,
and a vehicle imitation, on the subsequent specialties:
o First Responder Safety Training
o Electric Drive Vehicle Automotive Technician Training
o Electric Drive Vehicle Career & Technical Education
o Electric Drive Vehicle Infrastructure Training
• Consumer-friendly educational supplies, including the Electric Drive Toolkit.
• Support of National Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Day Odyssey, where the
community can thoroughly examine electric drive vehicles.
• Several education and outreach events including trade shows, exhibits, and
other opportunities concentrating on electric vehicles.
11.2.2 Tesla’s Technician Program

Several regions have backing for formal youth education and professional development
in their campaign, and certain universities grant specific degrees in electric vehicle
expertise. Tesla is an example of one company which has partnered with various
colleges to launch a new automotive training program to certify technicians to be
specific to their makes and models.
Until now, Tesla has mostly been hiring mechanics who have been employed with other
automakers or graduated training programs where they specialized on internal
combustion engines. While EV’s have several similar gears with gas-powered cars, the
powertrains are entirely dissimilar and it involves a substantial amount of training to
July 2018
service them even for an proficient mechanic. Tesla has been piloting that training
within their facilities for all new hires. However, now the automaker is connecting with
colleges, through their Tesla START program, to offer the training to students before
beginning to work at Tesla.
The 12-week long training program is already underway at Central Piedmont Community
College in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the first class of 13 students recently
graduated, and at Rio Hondo College in Whitter, California. After the program, Tesla
helps place graduates at service locations across North America. The automaker
currently has over 150 service technician jobs opened on its website – many are for
“mobile technician” jobs as part of Tesla's growing mobile service program.
Listed is Tesla’s conditions to be eligible for Tesla START program:

• Valid driver’s license, clean driving record with at least 2 years of driving
experience and insurable
• Great work ethic & team player
• Capability to lift 50 – 60 pounds
• High School Diploma or GED and post-secondary automotive education level
acceptable to Tesla
• Retained a minimum of 3.5 GPA in post-secondary education
• Documentation proof of minimum 95% attendance of their post-secondary
education
• Be willing to relocate
• Agree to work at a Tesla Service Center within 30 days of graduation from the
program for at least 2 years
• Pass a written general automotive exam not specific to Tesla vehicles
• Some professional experience of working in the automotive service environment
required
• Minimum 40 hours a week devoted to training and service center support
• Maintain a 100% attendance percentage throughout the 12 week program
Programs such as Tesla’s START series helps pave the future for the next generation of
vehicles and helps inform youth of electric automobiles and the specifics of how they
operate. However, there are more broad forms of electric vehicle promotion that cater
to a larger, less informed audience. Commonly occurring public events such as ride-and-
drives and electric vehicle showcases are valuable methods to engage media attention
and allow consumers to experience electric vehicles. In fact, one survey advocates that
75
July 2018
first-hand experience shared by electric vehicle specialists is one of the most helpful
resources of information (Williams & Johnson, EV Consumer Characteristics, Awareness,
Information Channels & Motivations, 2016).
11.2.3 National Drive Week

National Drive Electric Week is a nationwide event to spread awareness and underscore
advantages of electric vehicles across U.S. cities. Three nongovernmental
establishments (Plug-In America, the Sierra Club, and the Electric Auto Association) act
as the countrywide group that sponsors the several events around United States. Also,
numerous local companies and residents work jointly in their specialties to bring
together organized events that glorify EV’s. National Drive Week continues to grow and
develop each year. Each local occasion is run by electric vehicle users and promoters,
and consists of some mixture of parades, ride-and-drives, tailgate parties, press
conferences, award ceremonies, informational booths, and more. Most of the
automobiles displayed at exhibits either belong to local drivers or showcased by
dealerships. Individuals have the opportunity to view and experience the cars, converse
with owners and vendors, and study driving experience, range, pricing, and model
availability. Companies or individuals can additionally volunteer to arrange an event in
their district.
Public events allow for immediate involvement with the vehicles and can surge buying
appeal. For example, about 15% of the partakers in the 2015 Best.Ride.EVer! Ride-and
Drive sequence in California bought or leased a PEV three to six months after attending
a ride-and-drive, and 94% shared their experience with others (Paauwe, 2016).
Correspondingly, members in the Drive Electric Northern Colorado’s test drive
movement declared that they were more probable to buy an electric automobile after
test drives (Freyschlag, 2016). Other notable state-sponsored ride and-drive campaigns
include those by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York. Drive Oregon
was the receiver of a $1 million U.S. Department of Energy scholarship to launch and
advance a regional electric vehicle showcase. Over the three-year project, Drive Oregon
will create a permanent storefront to promote electric vehicles as well as various “pop-
up” showcases throughout Oregon and Washington. The program also includes
showcases of charging arrangement, knowledgeable employees on site, ride-and-drive
events, a multimedia marketing campaign, and affiliations with utilities and other
stakeholders (Drive Oregon, 2016). Many Northeast U.S. states have showcased electric
vehicles in recent auto shows (Balestriere, 2016). Government officials in Connecticut
and Massachusetts used such events as an opportunity to announce additional funding
for their state purchase incentive programs (Courant, 2015).
July 2018
Separate from routine events, there are some unique prominent events every year,
varying from government declarations of fresh electric vehicle-related developments to
manufacturer product debuts to celebrity meetings. For example, in 2015, National
Drive Electric Week introduced the unveiling of the 2016 Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Bolt
electric vehicle model on the West Coast. These cars were driven for approximately
1,000 ride-and-drives at the Los Angeles event. Some events introduce first-time
discussions on matters such as refining cities’ charging structure. In addition, in 2017,
the mayor of Salt Lake City announced new funding for EV rebates and reduced costs of
EV’s. These events grasped some 6.5 million viewers on social media and obtained
nearly 250 pieces of news coverage in 2015, and more than 400 articles in 2016 (Plug in
America, 2016). National Drive Electric Week started in 2011 as National Plug-In Day and
expanded to an entire week of events due to its popularity. In 2011, there were events
in 29 cities; in 2017, there were 277 events across 50 states, 7 Canadian provinces, Hong
Kong, New Zealand, Denmark, Croatia, and Italy (Plug in America, 2016). More than 250
cities participated in the 2017 event. One city with particularly high participant turnout
is San Diego, where over 1,900 people attended and 243 electric vehicles spanning
across 24 models were available on display (National Drive Electric Week , 2017). 2018’s
National Drive Electric Week holds a lot of promise and is projected to have greater
attendance as well as impact. Charted below are the beginning stats for this upcoming
year’s National Drive Electric Week which will be taking place September 8-16th of this
year. National Drive Electric Week events have been associated to amplified plug-in
vehicle sales, which have jumped by as much as 23% the month after the events (Plug
in America, 2016).
11.2.4 Social Media Platforms and Awards

A smaller-scale campaign in the U.S. is managed by Drive Electric Vermont. The social
media platform has a $5,000 yearly financial plan and incorporates outreach via
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (U.S. DOE, 2016). Olympic snowboarding gold medalist
Ross Powers, a Vermont native, showcased in a 2015 video magnifying the paybacks of
electric vehicles (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015). Connecticut and New York have also
created videos to alleviate some of the allegories about electric vehicles and share some
of the advantages they pose.
Honors distinguishing sellers who actively endorse electric vehicles are rising in
recognition. Two Vermont dealerships that participated notably in endorsing plug-in
electric vehicles were receivers of the Governor’s Awards for Environmental Excellence
77
July 2018
in 2014. While Massachusetts lacks such a honor system, its rebate program website
highlights data on dealers that sold the most electric vehicles in terms of rebates
received (MOR-EV Program, 2016), which has a comparable motivational influence on
dealers. Examples of awards that focus mainly on dealers are the Automobile Dealer
Zero Emission Vehicle Promotion category under the annual California Governor’s
Environmental Economic Leadership Awards (CalEPA, 2016) and the Connecticut
Revolutionary Dealer Award (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, 2016). Some of these programs have noteworthy qualities, including
evolving partnerships with industry relations to gain further impact and extensively
advertising the award to entice dealer involvement and help rise media footage.
Attributes Direct-to-Consumer Model Traditional Sales Model
Channel conflict may arise
Uniform product branding message due to difference in strategic
Channel Dynamics across distribution network; No goals, profit-optimization
channel conflict strategies, and channel
cannibalization
Third party customer data
Customer data is collected directly,
Customer Data collection; could lead to
hence stays within the company
errors or privacy concerns
Limited control over prices,
Complete control over pricing
Pricing resulting in price variation
decisions
and fragmentation
Feedback can be gathered quickly,
Slow feedback loop; may be
leading to faster testing of new
Customer Feedback too late to implement
products, and optimization of service
changes
delivery and product quality
Varied consumer experience
Uniform customer experience across
Customer due to multiple channel
channels; Greater brand recognition
Experience stakeholders; Little brand
and affiliation
recognition and affiliation
Distribution network already
Takes time and money to set up a
Product exists; Freedom to pick and
wide direct distribution network;
Distribution choose intermediaries in the
Requires large upfront fixed-cost
Network network at little or no fixed
investment
costs
Need for development of assets & Benefit of using
Competency competencies suitable for product intermediaries’ core
distribution competencies in distribution
Figure 11-1 A comparison of the Direct-to-Consumer Model vs Traditional Sales Model
(Khuntia, 2017)
July 2018
While many American states resist Tesla’s direct sales model, the purchaser is the one
who truly benefits from this strategy. Franchisee vendors surge the expenses up due to
margins and commissions, which is ultimately swallowed by the customer. In addition
to the customer, the manufactures profit from accepting the sales model. They gain
additional regulation over the operations which indirectly helps preserve quality
standards.
While the Direct-To-Customer Model proves to be successful in increasing EV sales it is

not the only way. Many skeptic manufacturers are saying buyers aren’t interested in
purchasing electric vehicles, however this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. John Sullivan of
Sullivan Chevrolet believes there is a way to turn thousands of EV sales into millions.
The major hurdles to better approval rates are social rather than technological.
11.3.2 Dismissive and Disruptive Dealerships

It is important to note that buyers who have questions rarely become consumers. There
is great misperception about the distinctions between hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully
electric cars. Countless individuals do not know how to locate electric car chargers or
how they operate. The Sierra Club just recruited the help of 308 individuals to visit
franchises across the country in search for an electric vehicle. One third of the dealer
representatives neglected to discuss obtainable federal and state rebates or extra
existing enticements. One vendor in Massachusetts argued that range anxiety was not
a concern because there were wires buried under the asphalt on every main highway
that recharged the vehicles as they drove. At 14% of the showrooms visited, consumers
were told they could not test drive an EV because the vehicles available failed to have
their batteries charged (Hanley, 2017). These inconsistencies and misconceptions are a
huge barrier to increase the EV market.
At Sullivan Chevrolet, the representatives and supervisors have discovered that

providing a representative collection of electric vehicles in several colors with a range of
purchase packages assists in sales. Also, many Chevrolet dealerships keep their vehicles
stationed outside near the front of the store. This is a tactic to engage the public’s
attention immediately. The company’s website has a page devoted to electric vehicles
with various fundamental information and a comprehensive catalog of models in stock.
It is crucial to ensure representatives have sufficient guidance so they can properly
respond to basic inquiries regarding the different types of electric cars, incentives, and
charging infrastructure. A common vendor challenge with electric vehicles is that it’s a
79
July 2018
very dissimilar sales model than promoting a gas car. When you’re selling a gas car, its
uncommon to rationalize the technology behind the vehicle. However, with EVs you do.
Brian Maragno, executive of EV sales and marketing for Nissan, says “The single biggest
thing that separates dealers who actively engage in selling EVs from those who don’t is
having a dedicated person, an EV specialist. These people are advocates, passionate
about the product.” They are familiar with the technology and can communicate with
the buyer on the specifics of the vehicle. Educating clients about EV’s involves additional
time and talent and sales delegates ought to be reimbursed additionally for their efforts.
A bill in the Oregon legislature now pays a bonus to those who sell electric vehicles.
11.3.3 Electric Vehicle in Car Sharing

Electric Vehicle is deemed as a powerful weapon against global warming by lowering
the emission of CO2. However, the impact brought by EVs is still small because not
many people own an EV. This is where sharing economy comes in and change the
picture. Sharing economy, trending around the globe from Airbnb to Mobike, is an idea
that aims to share the use of property to reach maximized efficiency and profits. This
idea works amazingly with EVs – people do not have to buy an EV to enjoy the smooth
and agile driving experience it offers and to contribute to a greener world. Usually,
companies operating sharing car service without EVs will face parking problems –
customers have to park the cars at certain locations. However, many city governments
favor the idea of having EVs around the city and offer cheap or even free parking
access to the public. EV car sharing is very popular among some European countries
such as France, Germany and Spain. As time goes, this business model is brought to
U.S. as well. The following table is going to introduce the companies and organizations
that are operating or will operate electric car sharing service in U.S.
12. Tax Incentives and Government Policies

At this phase of electric car market implementation, policy backing is still crucial for
lessening apprehensions to approval. A supportive policy atmosphere permits market
growth by making automobiles attractive for consumers and decreases threats for
investors. Considering the benefits EV's pose economically, socially and environmentally
many governments on state and local levels have been hands-on in redefining their
vehicles polices in hopes of boosting the electric vehicles market. Discussed below one
can see how the United States is acting very proactive to become a competitive in the
electric vehicle market.
July 2018
12.1 Tax Incentives

Economic enticements aimed at electric car consumers are vital for decreasing the
buying price and total cost of ownership (TCO) gap between electric and traditional cars.
They are important to a variety of stakeholders ranging from private consumers to
company owners using business vehicles.
Despite fast falling battery costs since 2009, electric car battery packs are nonetheless a
main expense constituent and raise vendor prices. Economic incentives are significant
in the present stage of electric car technology advancements because they introduce
and emphasize a positive feedback loop that, through increasing sales, production scale-
ups and technology learning, will support cost cutbacks for batteries and other
components. Electric Vehicle tax credit is considerably the most influential incentive in
the market.
How does it work? Most announcements will argue the “automobile is entitled to a tax
credit of up to $7,500,” but in actuality that is not always the case. The national electric
car tax credit is only obtainable on specific electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and the
full quantity obtainable on any car is centered on the size of its battery pack. Though all
battery-electric vehicles currently offered for sale are worthy for the full amount, not all
plug-in hybrids are.
The following are additional requirements for eligibility:

● The credit is only accessible for electric vehicles that can be charged from an
exterior source, regardless of the size of its battery.
● The credit is only accessible on new automobiles that come from the
manufactures as electric vehicles, and that are mainly driven in the United States.
Pre-owned or cars that have been transformed from gasoline to electricity are
not suitable for the tax credit.
● All credit that is offered is given to the first name on the title. If you purchase the
vehicle, the credit goes to you. If you lease, it goes to the leasing company who
truly owns the vehicle.
● The federal electric car tax credit is only offered in the year that you put the car
in service, and you may not roll over the credit to the following year. The tax only
covers as much as you owe. Thus, for example if you are required to pay $3,000
during the year you purchased the car that is how much tax credit will be offered
even if you qualify for a higher tax reimbursement.
81
July 2018
● The electric car tax initiative is arranged to phase out for every car maker after
they sell 200,000 plug-in electric vehicles. Two quarters after a manufacturer hits
200,000 units, the tax credit available to their customers is cut in half. Two
quarters later it is cut to 25 percent, and at the start of the sixth quarter after
the limit is reached, the credit disappears completely.
Presently only a few of companies are at risk of hitting their tax credit limit. Tesla might
hit their limit before they distribute a large portion of their upcoming Model 3 electric
car, thus only a portion of the customers who have pre-purchased the vehicle will
receive the complete credit. It is said Tesla has nearly 373,000 deposits for their
affordable entry in to the EV market. Although there has been sporadic discussion about
prolonging the credit to better enhance the electric vehicle market, the country's
existing political sense makes such an extension far-fetched.
However, many believe incentives, to be most effective, should be applied at the time
of purchase. The federal tax credit is pending until the consumer files a tax return on
April 15 of the succeeding year. The federal incentive would be considerably more
valuable if it were accessible immediately following the purchase. For this reason,
California plans to experiment with just such a point of sale approach later this year. In
addition, The CHEAPR program in Connecticut extends rebates of $750 to $3,000 at the
time of purchase and incorporates up to $300 in bonuses to the retailer. These funds
may be utilized to repay salespeople for selling electric vehicles.
12.2 State Charging Incentives

Below are the major charging incentives by state as of September 2017. This does NOT
include incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, tax incentives, etc. This only
highlights those that relate to home charging and EVSE installation (Hartman, 2017).
State Charging Incentives
Alabama • Alabama Power offers Time of Use incentive for PEV charging
between 9pm and 5am
Arizona • tax credit of $75 for installation of charging outlet at home
Arkansas • rebate for refueling stations, between $900 and $400000
California • Advanced Transportation Tax Exclusion - provides vehicles
transporting emissions reducing equipment with sales and
use tax exemption
• AFV and Fueling Infrastructure Grants
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) offers $599 or
a free level 2 EVSE to new PEV purchasers
July 2018
• Sonoma Clean Power customers receive Juicenet enabled

EVSE for PEV purchase
• SJVAPCD provides $5000 per single port EVSE unit to
businesses ($6000 if double port)
• Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) give
businesses $500 per wall mounted EVSE or $4000 per level 2
EVSE
Colorado • Colorado Energy Office and Regional Air Quality Council

provide 80% of cost of EVSE, up to $6260
Connecticut • Funding to municipalities and state agencies for EVSE
installation, up to $10000 per site depending on public
availability and criteria
Delaware • retail electric customers may qualify to get kwh credit
Florida • local governments can use money from the infrastructure
surtax to help pay for residential EVSE installations (and thus
property owners may apply for this)
Georgia • For 2017, residents who installed EVSEs could get a $250
rebate
Hawaii • Hawaiian Electric Company offers Time of Use Incentives
Idaho • Yellowstone - Teton Green Cities offers rebate of $5000
toward purchase of publicly owned EVSEs by businesses
Illinois • Illinois Electric Cooperative offers time of use programs for
PEV owners
Indiana • NIPSCO's IN-Charge Electric Vehicle Program offers time of
use programs until end of 2018
• Indianapolis Power and Light offers special EV charging rates
on that electricity
Iowa • In 2017, Alliant Energy offered $500 to residents who
installed EVSEs
• Alliant Energy currently offers $1000 to businesses who
purchase single port EVSEs and $1500 for double port
Louisiana • income tax credit of 36% of constructing EVSE
Maryland • rebates from $700 to $5000 for 4-0 percent of costs of EVSEs
• Baltimore Gas and Electric Company offers time of use rate
• Pepco offers time of use rate to its customers
Massachusetts • Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Incentive Program
(MassEVIP) provides certain public institutions or
governments with up to $13500 for level 2 EVSE installation
• MassEVIP offers to pay 50% of costs of Level 1 or 2 EVSE
installation (up to $25000) in businesses with 15 or more
employees
83
July 2018
Michigan • Indiana Michigan Power offers up to $2500 to residents who

purchase new PEVs and install level 2 EVSEs
• Indiana Michigan Power, Consumers Energy, and DTE Energy
offer time of use plans
Minnesota • Dakota Electric offers residents $500 for level 1 or 2 EVSE
installation
• Dakota Electric offers time of use incentive
Missouri • offers income tax credit of up to $1500 to residents and
20%/$20000 (whichever is lesser) to businesses for installing
EVSEs
Nevada • NV Energy offers TOU incentive
New York • Con Edison offers TOU incentive
Ohio • Ohio Development Services Agency runs the Alternative Fuel
Transportation Program which provides financial assistance
to government, non profit, and school facilities to build
alternative fueling stations
Oklahoma • Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Systems
may build alternative fueling stations for commercial or
residential use in areas where it is not readily accessible
Oregon • Businesses are eligible for a tax credit of 35% of costs
associated with alternative fueling facilities. Residents are
eligible for 25%, up to $750.
• electric utilities must provide TOU (time of use) programs or
a flat rate for PEV owners
Rhode Island • state and municipal agencies are eligible for up to $60000 to
install EVSEs and can receive an additional $15000 toward a
new PEV after installation
South Carolina • public utilities may obtain compensation for costs associated
with PEV charging
Texas • The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
runs the Alternative Fueling Facilities Program which offers
to pay 50%, up to $600000 for costs associated with
alternative fuel dispensing and construction in Texas air
quality nonattainment areas
• Austin Energy Customers can receive a 50% rebate, up to
$1500 for the installation of a level 2 EVSE
Utah • Utah Clean Fuels and Vehicle Technology Grant and Loan
Program offers to pay for 50% of cost of alternative fueling
equipment by businesses
Vermont • all state agencies must displace 10% of their gasoline use by
2020 through the installation of EVSEs for use by EVs
July 2018
Virginia • Virginia State Corporation Commission works with utilities to

offer TOU programs and offers financial assistance in
implementing them.
Washington • public land with EV charging infrastructure are exempt from
leasehold excise tax
• state sales and use taxes don’t apply to many EV related
transactions, including EVSE installation
• any transportation organization in charge of a county of
more than one million residents must collaborate with state
and local governments to encourage and implement EV use,
including investing in PEV charging infrastructure
Wisconsin • alternative fuel tax exemption
• In 2017, Alliant Energy offered $500 to residents who
installed EVSEs
• Alliant Energy currently offers $1000 to businesses who
purchase single port EVSEs and $1500 for double port
Wyoming • Yellowstone - Teton Green Cities offers rebate of $5000 for
companies who buy publicly accessible EVSE
District of • tax credit available for 50% of cost for alternative fuel
Columbia infrastructure installation (including EVSE). The credit is
capped at $1000 for residential installation and $10000 for a
public fueling station
12.3 Federal Policies

The federal electric car tax credit may not be the only government incentive that is
offered to consumer as a plug-in vehicle buyer. In addition to financial benefits, there
are other polices and incentives that make being a EV user worthwhile.
12.3.1 Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI)

The Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI) is a multi-government policy conference established
in 2009 under the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), devoted to fast-tracking the
distribution of EVs globally (CEM, 2017).
As of May 2017, the EVI totaled ten-member governments (Canada, China, France,
Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United
States). China and the United States are presently co-leading the EVI, and the IEA is the
co-coordinator of the initiative.
85
July 2018
Jointly, the EVI affiliates makes up a majority of the international EV market and stock
(95% of all electric car registrations and 95% of the total stock).
12.3.2 The EV30@30 campaign

The EV30@30 campaign, commenced at the Eighth Clean Energy Ministerial in 2017,
redefined the EVI drive by establishing the mutual ambitious objective for all EVI
members of a 30% market share for electric vehicles in the total of all passenger cars,
light commercial vehicles, buses and trucks by 2030.
The campaign is comprised of numerous proactive measures intended to help attain this
ambition in accordance with the priorities set forth in each EVI country. These actions
involve:
• Assisting in the arrangement of chargers and tracking progress

• Stimulating public and private sector obligations for EV endorsement in company
and supplier fleets
• The emergence of policy research, including policy efficacy analysis, information
and experience sharing, and capacity building
• Establishing the Global EV Pilot City program, a global co-operative program
designed to facilitate the exchange of experiences and the replication of best
practices for the promotion of EVs in cities.
12.3.3 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST) into rule—the first federal law in over a decade to stipulate
long-term financial support for surface transportation infrastructure development and
investment. The FAST Act sanctions $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for
highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety,
hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology, and statistics programs. The
FAST Act upholds our attention on safety, sees through the existing organization of the
various highway-related programs we direct, generates efforts to modernize project
delivery and, for the first time, delivers a devoted foundation of federal dollars for
freight schemes. With the passing of the FAST Act, states and local governments are now
progressing with important transportation plans with the self-assurance that they will
have a federal partner throughout the process.
July 2018
12.4 State and Local Incentives

Several states and certain regional areas provide a variety of motivations to entice
consumers to gravitate to electric vehicles. This analysis will cover benefits ranging from
tax credits, discounted registration fees, and even admission to HOV and toll lanes on
the highway. Colorado is said to be the most giving state in terms of policy benefits,
delivering a maximum of $5,000 on top of the $7,500 federal credit one might be already
eligible for. On top of that, if you invest in an electric vehicle charger at your residence,
you might be able to declare nearly 30 percent of its cost as a credit on your federal
taxes. In addition to California, a few other states, such as Maryland, New York, and
Pennsylvania states, offer extra enticements to install EV charging hardware. For tax
benefits regarding charging stations pay-backs usually range from $100-$300.
Furthermore, over half of the states in the United States are using rebates, tax
exemptions, and tax credits to motivate EV purchases. For example, California deals
rebates to light-duty zero emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs);
on top of this low-income families are entitled for an extra $2,000. Washington and New
Jersey exempt EVs from motor vehicle sales and user taxes. Louisiana and Maryland
provide tax credits of up to $2,500 and $3,000 per vehicle, respectively. Electric vehicle
users in New Jersey reap a 10 percent discount on off-peak New Jersey Turnpike and toll
road prices.
Separate from economic benefits, incentives such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane
immunities and accelerated license plate acquisitions have been presented. More than
10 American states have permitted EVs to drive on HOV lanes, including California,
Colorado, Florida, and New York. Hawaii also gives PEVs a waiver from parking dues.
However, while these initiatives help lessen the expenses that come with EV’s some
states are not fully merciful. A downfall to being an electric vehicle owner is some states
charge an additional annual fee of $100-$500 to offset the losses in gas tax revenues.
87
July 2018
Figure 12-1 Battery electric vehicle consumer benefits and new vehicle share for 25 most
populous U.S. metropolitan areas. (Lutsey, 2015)
Lastly, another EV benefit is that they provide economic benefits to the state by
lessening fuel costs and reallocating consumption away from imported oil to more
locally created electricity sources. These fuel savings become a bonus disposable income
that will be disbursed mainly in the local economy, generating surplus jobs in the state.
At larger stages of market penetration, the fuel savings from EVs could generate
thousands of jobs in future years. Nevada electric vehicle drivers, for example, can
expect to save between $1,000 and $1,300 annually on fuel costs, totaling between
$11,600 and $17,100 over the life of the vehicle, depending on the price of gasoline.
With this being said, the total economic benefit to the state of Nevada in reduced fuel
costs could reach $138 million per year by 2030. As shown, electric vehicles pose
advantages to every sector involved ranging from the consumer, vendor, and
government.
13. Conclusion
As the population slowly accepts the idea of having an electric car at home, the electric
car market in United States is expanding. There is a magnitude of models sold in the
market with different types such as PHEV and BEV. However, there are many difficulties
July 2018
that electric cars are facing; a major one being excessive charging time. To deal with
these shortcomings, automakers pursue different routes to approach the problems.
EV charging is becoming faster and more accessible. States have started providing
incentives for EVSE installation and the development of XFC will make long distance EV
driving more feasible. With XFC’s implementation, it involves major upgrades to EVSEs
including coordinated charging networks, cyber security, and better thermal
management systems. As these advancements are developed, companies have started
working together. The formation of CharIN is an example of cooperation to develop
standards for the future. As the technology improves and standards develop, it will
become more feasible for more people to own EVs and charge them around the country.
However, this is not enough to make the become a leading force in the automobile
market. Some innovative solutions are brought to the world to provide customers with
gasoline-like refueling experience. One of them is Fuel Cell Vehicles which uses
hydrogen fuel as medium to store energy and fuel cell to convert the hydrogen into
electricity. Although the hydrogen refueling network is not as popular as the electric
charging network, some states, especially California, is pushing it forward. The other one
is battery swap which replace the used battery with a fully charged battery in a
specifically designed station.
From the specific energy to the chance of memory effect, each intricacy of the car
battery plays an important role in the overall performance of the vehicle. Great strides
in improving these intricacies have been made, even in recent years alone. The most
important transitions in this timeline of batteries are between the Lead-Acid battery and
the Lithium Ion, as well as the predicted transformation of the Lithium Air battery. The
former being representative of the first EV battery to the newly implemented battery
with little memory effect and the highest specific energy yet of all previously
implemented batteries. The Lithium Air battery is a true representation of the future
advancements of the battery industry. With predictive laboratory outcomes of at least
5 times the specific energy of the current Lithium Ion and even less memory effect, range
anxiety and frequent battery replacements will simply be a thing of the past.
With charging and battery technology developments on their way, policy support is
another large contributor that continues to reduce the total cost of owning and
operating a battery electric vehicle. Policies that decrease electric vehicle ownership
expenses are priming the early market. The prominent electric vehicle markets tend to
89
July 2018
have buyer subsidies, public charging infrastructure, and other incentives that make
electric vehicles more appealing to possible consumers. Expanding electric vehicle policy
incentives through 2025 is likely to be crucial to upholding market growth. Technology
developments and evolving policy proceeding could advance the worth of electric
vehicles for buyers. Many next-generation electric vehicle publications from retailors
assure better range and reduced vehicle costs in the 2020–2050 timeframe. Broadening
of federal, state, local, and public utility electric vehicle endorsement policies through
the next-generation of plug-in electric vehicle launches is likely to be key to success. The
market is moving towards mainstream consumers justifying the case to purchase a
battery electric vehicle on basic household economics grounds; with current policies,
advanced technology, and improved education programs intact that time is already here
for some individuals.
July 2018
References
Air Resources Board. (2016). Summary of the Car Sharing and Mobility Options Pilot
Project. Air Resources Board.
Albrecht, A. (2013, December). Coordinated Charging of Electric Vehicles. Retrieved
from Mssanz: www.mssanz.org.au/modsim2013/G1/albrecht.pdf.
ARTICLE 625 Electric Vehicle Charging and Supply Equipment Systems. (2008).
Retrieved from National Electric Code Handbook:
mydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/1112/PDNNSH5Q3Z2/Day 1
PlugIn Electric Vehicle Codes Standards/D1_7C G Kissel Article 625 Restructure
Proposal.pdf
Balestriere, V. (2016). Automakers highlight move to ‘Green’ cars at New York show.
Retrieved from http:// www.newsweek.com/hold-3-most-important-green-
cars-ny-auto-show-440741
BU-1003: Electric Vehicle (EV). (2018, February). Retrieved from Cadex Electronics:
batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/electric_vehicle_ev
Burgess, M. (2013, November 17). A longitudinal assessment of the viability of electric
vehicles for daily use. Retrieved June 5, 2018
Burns, M. (2017, 09 15). Tesla files patent for mobile battery swapping rig. Retrieved
07 02, 2017, from https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/tesla-files-patent-for-
mobile-battery-swapping-rig/
CalEPA. (2016). Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Awards. Retrieved
from California Environmental Protection Agency:
https://calepa.ca.gov/awards/geela/
California Energy Commission. (2015). Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8:
Assessment of Time and Cost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations
in California.
CCS Specification. (2018, June). Retrieved from CharIN: www.charinev.org/ccs-at-a-
glance/ccs-specification/.
CFA. (2016). New Data Shows Consumer Interests in Electric Vehicles is Growing.
Retrieved from Consumer Federation of America.
Chademo Interface. (2013). Retrieved from CHAdeMO:
www.chademo.com/pdf/interface.pdf.
Chandler, D. L. (2016, July 25). New lithium-oxygen battery greatly improves energy
efficiency, longevity. Retrieved from MIT News Office:
http://news.mit.edu/2016/new-lithium-oxygen-battery-greatly-improves-
energy-efficiency-longevity-0725
91
July 2018
Charging at Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy:

www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/charging-home.
Charging Plug-In Vehicles at Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy:
www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_home.html.
Chenggang, T. L. (2009). Power supply modes for electrical vehicles and their impacts
on grid operation[J].
Chong, L. (2018, January 18). Coupling Experiments to Theory to Build a Better Battery.
Retrieved from Berkeley Lab: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2018/01/18/building-
a-better-lithium-sulfur-battery/
Clean Energy Institute. (2018). Lithium Ion Battery. Retrieved from Clean Energy
Institute: https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-
technology/
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. (2016). Retrieved
from Dealer Award: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.
asp?A=2684&Q=539780
Courant, H. (2015). Connecticut International Auto Show Opens With Focus on Electric
Cars. Retrieved from http://www.courant.com/business/hc-conn-auto- show-
20151119-story.html
CSIRO. (2017, May 24). Case Study-UltraBattery. Retrieved from CSIRO.AU:
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Energy-storage/UltraBattery
Domitrovich, T. A. (2014, July 10). A Journey Back to Basics with Receptacles. Retrieved
from IAEI Magazine: www.iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2013/09/16/a-journey-
back-to-basics-with-receptacles/.
Dr Anand Bhatt, P. M. (2017, November 1). The memory effect of rechargeable
batteries. Retrieved from Australian Academy of Science:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/memory-effect-
rechargeable-batteries
Drive Oregon. (2016). Drive Oregon Awarded Nearly $1 Million for Regional Electric
Vehicle Showcase. Retrieved from http://driveoregon.org/author/drive-
oregon/
Edmunds.com, Inc. (2018). True Cost to Own | Edmunds. Retrieved 07 02, 2018
Electric Vehicle Corridor Planning in the Western U.S. (2018, January 22). Retrieved
from U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration:
altfueltoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01-
22_webinar_slides.pdf.
Electricruz. (2018). Electric Scooter And Bike Battery Life Cycle Chart. Retrieved from
Electric Scooter Parts:
July 2018
https://support.electricscooterparts.com/support/solutions/articles/10001623
78-electric-scooter-and-bike-battery-life-cycle-chart
EVAdoption. (2018). Analyzing Key Factors That Will Drive Mass Adoption of Electric
Vehicles. Retrieved from EVAdoption: http://evadoption.com/ev-sales/evs-
percent-of-vehicle-sales-by-brand/
EVObsession. (2018, February 30). Electric Car Sales (Monthly Reports). Retrieved June
4, 2018
FengLiangliang，Zhang Hao，NiChen. (2011). Present situation and development
trend for construction of electric vehicle energy supply infrastructure.
Ferris, R. (2017, 10 9). Ferrari CEO says electric cars may not be as clean as they seem.
Retrieved 06 20, 2018, from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/09/ferrari-
ceo-says-electric-cars-may-not-be-as-clean-as-they-seem.html
Field, K. (2018, April 9). Evolution & Current State of Public EV Charging in the USA.
Retrieved from CleanTechnica: cleantechnica.com/2018/04/09/evolution-
current-state-of-public-ev-charging-in-usa/.
Finen, C. (2008). Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Basics Review. Retrieved from
EATON: ewh.ieee.org/r3/nashville/events/2011/Electric Vehicles -
Review_of_Basics - IEEE - MCPQG Meeting4.pdf.
Freyschlag, A. (2016). Drive Electric Northern Colorado – A community-wide approach
to EV adoption. Retrieved from
http://evroadmapconference.com/program/pre-
sentations16/AnnieFreyschlag.pdf
Gerding, E. (2011). Online mechanism design for electric vehicle charging.
Global World Logistics. (2012, July 7). Installation Diagrams. Retrieved from GWL
POWER LTD>: https://www.ev-power.eu/blog/Installation-diagrams/Depth-of-
discharge-DOD.html
GuruFocus.com, LLC. (n.d.). Toyota Motor Corp PB Ratio. Retrieved 06 23, 2018, from
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/pb/TM/PB-Ratio/Toyota-Motor-Corp
Gyimesi, K., & Viswanathan, R. (2011). The shift to electric vehicles: putting consumers
in the driver’s seat. Retrieved from IBM: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/
cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=XB&infotype=PM&appname=G
BSE_GB_TI_USEN&html d=GBE03454USEN&attachme nt=GBE03454USEN.PDF
Hanley, S. (2017, May 20). Selling Electric Cars Sort of Important to...Selling Electric
Cars . Retrieved June 28, 2018
Hartman, K. (2017, September). State Efforts to Promote Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.
Retrieved from National Conference of State Legislature:
93
July 2018
www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-electric-vehicle-incentives-state-
chart.aspx.
Howell, C. (2018). Electric Vehicle Charging. Retrieved from OpenEVSE:
openevse.dozuki.com/User/Contributions/2/Christopher Howell.
Howell, D. (2017, October). Enabling Fast Charging. Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Energy: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/10/f38/XFC Technology Gap
Assessment Report_FINAL_10202017.pdf.
Hruska, J. (2015, October 30). New lithium-air battery could drive huge performance
gains. Retrieved from Extreme Tech:
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/217191-new-lithium-air-battery-could-
drive-huge-performance-gains
Incell. (2016). Comparison. Retrieved from Incell.
International Energy Agency. (2016). World Energy Outlook.
J.H. Hirschenhofer, D. S. (1998). Fuel Cell Handbook Fourth Edition. Parsons
Corporation.
JianLiu. (2011). A preliminary study on charging infrastructure development and
business operation models[J].
Jordan Hanania, B. H. (2018, June 25). Energy Education. Retrieved from University of
Calgary: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density
Khuntia, M. (2017, October 16). Tesla’s Direct-to-Consumer Retail Model. Retrieved
June 28, 2018
Kothavale, S. (2012, March 15). Electric Vehicle Charging Station Dynamically
Responding to Power Limit Messages Based on a Recent History of Power
Provided. Retrieved from Google Patents:
patents.google.com/patent/US20180001779A1/en?q=j1772&after=filing:20170
101.
Krause, R. M. (2013, December 11). Perception and reality: Public knowledge of plug-in
electric vehicles in 21 U.S. cities. Retrieved from Science Direct :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009427
Kurani, K. S., & Tal, G. (2014, December 11). Growing PEV markets? . Retrieved from
Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways (STEPS).:
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/ PublicDocuments/Migration-12-22-
2015/IEPR/2014%20 IEPR/14-IEP-1B/TN%2074178%2012-11-14%20Kurano%20
and%20Tal%20Presentation%20-%20Sustainable%20 Trasportation.pdf
Larson, P. D. (2014, November 14). Consumer attitudes about electric cars: Pricing
analysis and policy implications. Retrieved June 15, 2018
July 2018
Leonid Leiva, P. S. (2013, April 15). Memory effect now also found in lithium-ion
batteries. Retrieved from Physics.org: https://phys.org/news/2013-04-memory-
effect-lithium-ion-batteries.html
Li, J., & Zhen, Z. (2014). Battery Thermal Management Systems of Electric Vehicles.
Retrieved from Chalmers University of Technology:
www.publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/200046/200046.pdf.
Liquid Cooled CCS1 & CCS2 High Power Charging Stations. (2017). Retrieved from ITT
Cannon:
www.ittcannon.com/Core/medialibrary/ITTCannon/website/Literature/Catalog
s-Brochures/ITT-Cannon-EVC-DC-Liquid-Cooled-Brochure.pdf?ext=.pdf.
Lu, J. (2018, February 28). Environmental and Energy Study Institue. Retrieved May 30,
2018
Lutsey, N. (2015, October 7). Supporting the electric vehicle market in the U.S. cities.
Retrieved June 13, 2018
Maxell. (2013). LITHIUM MANGANESE DIOXIDE BATTERY. Retrieved from Maxell:
http://www.maxell.com.tw/images/uploads/2014/10/Cy_CR_13e.pdf
Mazda Motor Corporation. (n.d.). MAZDA: SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY. Retrieved 06 26,
2018, from http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/
Mets, K. (2010). Optimizing smart energy control strategies for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle charging. In Network Operations and Management Symposium
Workshops (pp. 293-299).
MIller, A. (2013, June). Electric Vehicles in New Zealand: Technologically Challenged?
Retrieved from Research Gate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319162842_Electric_Vehicles_in_N
ew_Zealand_Technologically_Challenged
MIT Vehicle Drive Team. (2008, December). A Guide to Understanding Battery
Specifications. Retrieved from Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf
MOR-EV Program. (2016). Retrieved from https://mor-ev. org/program-statistics
Muller, J. (2013, 06 21). Tesla And Nissan: EV Battery Swap Replaces Anxiety With
Peace Of Mind. Retrieved 07 01, 2018, from Tesla And Nissan: EV Battery Swap
Replaces Anxiety With Peace Of Mind
National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Plug-in Electric Vehicles and Charging
Technologies. Retrieved from National Academy of Sciences:
https://www.nap.edu/read/21725/chapter/4
National Drive Electric Week . (2017). Retrieved from National Drive Electric Week
2017 Stats: https://driveelectricweek.org/stats.php?year=2017
95
July 2018
Nilsson, M. (2011, March 23). An interview study investigating the phenomenon of

range anxiety. Retrieved June 6, 2018
NIO. (n.d.). NIO Power. Retrieved 07 01, 2018, from https://www.nio.io/nio-power
Northeast Electrochemical Energy Storage Cluster. (2018). Northeast Electrochemical
Energy Storage Cluster - Working together to help business provide energy
storage solutions. Retrieved 06 18, 2018, from Northeast Electrochemical
Energy Storage Cluster: http://neesc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/
Onar, O. (2015, June 10). Wireless Charging of Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Energy:
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss103_onar_2015_o.pdf.
Paauwe, G. (2016). California PEV Collaborative Statewide Ride-and-Drive Series.
Retrieved from http://evroadmapconference.com/program/presentations16/
GennetPaauwe.pdf
Plug in America. (2016). National Drive Electric Week 2015 Breaks Attendance Record
for Second Consecutive Year. Retrieved from https://pluginamerica.org/press-
release/ national-drive-electric-week-2015-breaks-attendance- record-for-2nd-
consecutive-year/
Pokrzywa, J. (2011). SAE International Standards Work, Including Communications
Protocols and Connectors, Fast Charge Batteries. Retrieved from SAE
International: share.ansi.org/Shared Documents/Meetings and Events/EDV
Workshop/Presentations/Pokrzywa-ANSI-EDV-0411.pdf.
Porsche AG. (2017). Porsche AG - Chinese Annual and Sustainability Report 2017.
Porsche AG.
Pratt, R. (2014). Vehicle Charging Communications and Charging Control. Retrieved
from U.S. Department of Energy:
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p.pdf.
SAE Group. (2015, December 2). Deep Cycle Batteries Compared > Lead Acid vs.
Lithium-ion. Retrieved from SAE Group: https://saegroup.com.au/deep-cycle-
batteries/
Singer, M. (2016, January 11). Consumer Views on Plug-in Electric Vehicles – National
Benchmark Report. Retrieved June 15, 2018
Smith, M. (2016, July). Level 1 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at the Workplace.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy:
www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/WPCC_L1ChargingAtTheWorkplace
_0716.pdf.
T, L. Y. (2011). Investigation on the construction mode of the charging station and
battery-swap station[C]//2011 International Conference on Electric Information
and Control Engineering (ICEICE). Wuhan : IEEE Beijing Section ED Chapter.
July 2018
Tesla. (2018, June 27). Tesla-Find Us. Retrieved June 27, 2018
Tesla Motors Inc. (n.d.). Tesla Gigafactory. Retrieved 06 23, 2018, from
https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory?redirect=no
Thomas Franke, P. C. (2012, February 15). Adapting to the range of the electric vehicle:
The relation of experience to subjectiely available mobility resources. .
Retrieved June 6, 2018
U.S. Department of Energy. (2015). Drive Electric Vermont Case Study. Retrieved from
http://www.energy.gov/ sites/prod/ les/2016/06/f32/Vermont%20Case%20
Study.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy. (2018, June 20). Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric
Vehicles. Retrieved from Alternative Fuels Data Center:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_batteries.html
U.S. DOE. (2016). About EV everywhere. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy:
http://energy.gov/eere/eveverywhere/ about-ev-everywhere
UCUSA. (2017, August). Accelerating US Leadership. Retrieved from UCUSA:
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/09/cv-factsheets-ev-
incentives.pdf?_ga=2.108452610.1630188791.1517413160-
1434713090.1436805699
UltraBattery. (2017). Case Studies: Automotive. Retrieved from UltraBattery:
http://ultrabattery.com/case-studies/case-studies-automotive/
UltraBattery. (2018). UltraBattery Technology. Retrieved from UltraBattery:
http://ultrabattery.com/technology/ultrabattery-technology/
Ultralife Corporation. (2011, October 6). Lithium Manganese Dioxide. Retrieved from
Ultralife:
https://www.ultralifecorporation.com/PrivateDocuments/BR_CR_Design_App_
Doc.pdf
University of Colorado Boulder-ECEN 4517/5517. (2018, May 3). Lecture: Lead-acid
batteries . Retrieved from ECEE.Colorado.edu:
https://ecee.colorado.edu/ecen4517/materials/Battery.pdf
University of Ilinois at Chicago. (2018, March 21). New design produces true lithium-air
battery. Retrieved from Today.UIC: https://today.uic.edu/new-design-
produces-true-lithium-air-battery
Vehicle Charging. (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy:
www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/vehicle-charging.
Victron Energy B.V. (2018). 12,8 Volt Lithium-Iron-Phosphate Batteries. Retrieved from
Victron Energy :
97
July 2018
https://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/Datasheet-12,8-Volt-
lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries-EN.pdf
Volkswagen. (2018, 07 04). Volkswagen to offer “zero-emission” car sharing services in
future. Retrieved from Volkswagen: https://www.volkswagen-media-
services.com/en/detailpage/-/detail/Volkswagen-to-offer-zero-emission-car-
sharing-services-in-
future/view/7232015/7a5bbec13158edd433c6630f5ac445da?p_auth=RCSwxn
Qt
Williams, B., & Johnson, C. (2016). EV Consumer Characteristics, Awareness,
Information Channels & Motivations. Retrieved from Center for Sustainable
Energy: https://energycenter.org/sites/default/ les/
docs/ext/transportation/2016-07-20%20EVR9-CSE-
PEVmarkets%20handout.pdf
Williams, B., & Johnson, C. (2016). EV Consumer Characteristics, Awareness,
Information Channels & Motivations. Retrieved from Center for Sustainable
Energy: https://energycenter.org/sites/default/ les/
docs/ext/transportation/2016-07-20%20EVR9-CSE-
PEVmarkets%20handout.pdf
July 2018
99
July 2018

Electric Vehicles in The United States V2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Electric Vehicles in The United States V2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electric Vehicles in The United States V2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT

Electric Vehicles in the United States

Jianhao Pu Cristina Vala Ciara Ward Andrew Miller

4. Battery Introduction ........................................................................................................ 22

5.3 Depth of Discharge(DOD) (%) ..............................................................................24

6. Various Types of Batteries Implemented .................................................................. 28

6.4.5 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) .................................................................................... 34

6.5 Charts of Comparison Between the Batteries Discussed ............................36

7.2 Nanolithia Batteries MIT Innovations (2016) ................................................39

7.3 Future Costs ................................................................................................................40

8.4 Cost of Hydrogen Fuel ..............................................................................................44

9.2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) ......................................................50

9.3 Hydrogen Station Operation .................................................................................55

9.6 Future of Charging ....................................................................................................62

12. Tax Incentives and Government Policies ................................................................ 80

12.4 State and Local Incentives ...................................................................................87

2. Overview of Electric Vehicle Market in United States

2.1 EV Models in the Market

2.2 Automakers’ Roadmaps for PHEVs, BEVs & FCVs

Company Future Plans

BMW plans to have 25 electrified models on sale by 2025, with 12 of those

General Motors is committed to offering 20 electric vehicles by 2023. The

38 vehicles, including electrified and fuel-cell models, will be in the market

Although Mazda is developing electric-car technology with Toyota and

According to its official website, an improved replacement hybrid vehicle is

“New Vehicle Zero CO2 Challenge”, a project started by Toyota, aims to

Volkswagen is going to build its electric cars on its newly developed

3. Electric Vehicle Market in the United States

3.1 Electric Vehicle Sales

United States EV Sales

Figure 3-1 US 2018 First Quarter EV Sales By Manufacturer (EVAdoption, 2018)

3.2 Stock Portfolio of Electric Car Companies

indicator to provide a better picture of the overall auto market.

3.3 Business Models

3.3.1 Tesla’s Direct-to-Consumer Retail Model

In a report by Consumer reports, USA’s leading shopper approval evaluation group, it

Attributes Direct-to-Consumer Model Traditional Sales Model

Third party customer data

While the Direct-To-Customer Model proves to be successful in increasing EV sales it is

3.3.2 Dismissive and Disruptive Dealerships

At Sullivan Chevrolet, the representatives and supervisors have discovered that

3.3.4 Electric Vehicle in Car Sharing

BlueIndy operates in Indianapolis having 500 planned cars and over

WE is a platform designed and operated by Volkswagen that

sponsors determines that the program is very different from other

5. Battery Terms and Qualities

5.1.1 Energy Density

• Volumetric energy density-the amount of energy a system contains in

5.1.2 Specific Energy

5.2.1 Power Density

5.2.2 Specific Power

5.3 Depth of Discharge(DOD) (%)

5.4 Life Cycle/Cycle Life

5.5 Memory Effect

5.5.1 Causes of Memory Effect

6. Various Types of Batteries Implemented

6.1 Lead-Acid Batteries

6.3 Nickel-Metal Hydride Battery