[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
A Novel Neuro-Probabilistic Framework for Energy Demand Forecasting in Electric Vehicle Integration
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating a Reference Model for SAV in Urban Areas
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
WEVJ
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/wevj15110492
wevj-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Driving the Future: An Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electrified Vehicles in North America

by
Patrycja Soszynska
,
Huda Saleh
,
Hana Kar
,
Lakshmi Varaha Iyer
*,
Caniggia Viana
and
Narayan C. Kar
Centre of Hybrid Automotive Research and Green Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15(11), 492; https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15110492
Submission received: 16 September 2024 / Revised: 11 October 2024 / Accepted: 22 October 2024 / Published: 28 October 2024
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on North American roads continues to rise, driven by the shift toward sustainable transportation, understanding the economic implications of this transition is crucial. This review paper prioritizes an evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for various types of EVs, providing insights into how different driving profiles align with the financial benefits of EV adoption. It demonstrates that at-home charging and government incentives are pivotal in reducing TCO. The analysis also offers a comprehensive overview of the factors driving EV growth, including declining operating and maintenance costs. Additionally, the paper explores adoption rates, charging infrastructure, and other non-monetary factors that influence consumer decisions in the shift to EVs. Conclusions emphasize that while EVs offer a financial advantage for many drivers, the success of broader adoption depends on decreasing the initial cost of EVs, developing charging infrastructure, and investing in charging networks.

1. Introduction

The North American transportation sector is currently undergoing a rapid shift to more sustainable, electrified options, driven by the fast adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Sources like the Edison Electric Institute, along with many others, predict a significant rise in EV usage across North America (NA) [1]. With this rise in adoption, costs associated with purchasing an EV would be expected to decline with investments and technological advancements, as depicted in this 2013 study [2]. The costs of owning an EV were found to be marginally similar to their internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) counterparts [3]. Research conducted in 2017 found a similar conclusion following EV incentives that the United States government (and later Canada) rolled out to support EV adoption [4].
This paper conducts a total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis of the Kia Niro, incorporating variables such as driver profiles and their impact on TCO. This analysis provides insight into the comparative cost-effectiveness of EVs for different consumers, using up-to-date information on costs, vehicles, and technologies, all specifically within North America. All monetary values are presented in USD. In addition to the economic analysis, externalities, such as charging convenience, comfort, and variety are included.
The four types of passenger electrified vehicles that are being sold in the NA market are battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). This study excludes FCEVs, as North American EV infrastructure is built to mainly support the other three types as of now. While FCEV technology exists in today’s market, it is not as prevalent as the other three available options as there is a lack of supporting infrastructure.
  • BEV: this type of vehicle is fully electric and can be recharged from an external source of power supply. This vehicle does not contain any gas components [5].
  • FCEV: this type of vehicle mainly runs on hydrogen. Hydrogen and oxygen are combined in a fuel cell, generating electricity to power the vehicles’ small motor [6].
  • PHEV: this type of vehicle runs on the energy produced by the internal combustion engine and/or the electric motor. This type of vehicle differs from an HEV as one can recharge the battery by plugging it into an external power supply [5].
  • HEV: this type of vehicle runs on energy that both the internal combustion engine and/or electric motor produce. In this type of vehicle, the engine helps charge the battery of the vehicle in addition to utilizing regenerative braking [7].

2. Consumers’ Views on EVs

Globally, the number of EV models that were available in 2023 went up 15% to almost 590, while the number of ICEV models, excluding hybrids, decreased by about 2% for the fourth year in a row [8]. According to this report, it is predicted that the number of EV models could amount to about 1000 by 2028, given more recent original equipment manufacturer (OEM) announcements and the emergence of EV manufacturing companies. With this prediction, along with the continuing decrease in ICE car models, it is possible that by 2030, there could be as many EV as there are ICE models [8]. Looking at the models that are currently on the market, the report shows that the number of small- and medium-sized EV models is lowering. In 2023, SUVs, pick-up trucks, and large cars made up two-thirds of the BEVs on the market. In the US, only 25% of BEV sales were for small- and medium-sized models [8].

2.1. Concerns About Purchasing EVs

Despite the benefits that come with an EV, there are still performance capabilities that need improvement to address many consumers’ concerns. These issues are unique to EVs, which is why many buyers continue to favour the conventional choice of an ICEV. When purchasing a vehicle, consumers consider a variety of influential factors, many of which go beyond the cost. Although the TCO can provide numerical insight into the vehicle’s affordability, it does not fully capture the reasons behind a consumer’s decision. Externalities such as perceived charging convenience and concerns with range are just some factors that can deter one from purchasing an EV [9].

2.1.1. Affordability

One of the main challenges that has persisted throughout the EV industry’s lifetime is affordability [10]. EVs are usually, on average, priced much higher than the conventional ICEV [11]. Even with the availability of incentives decreasing the price, plenty of consumers still find that EVs are out of their price range. A study revealed that around 40% of respondents’ main reason that they were unwilling to buy an EV was due to the high initial investment cost [12]. Though EV manufacturer suggested retail prices (MSRP) are lowering with the help of decreasing battery prices and carmakers achieving economies of scale, they are still on average more expensive than their ICEV equivalents when it comes to the initial cost [8].

2.1.2. Range

The limited range keeps customers skeptical as well [10]. Since 2020, research and development in the expansion of the average driving range of EVs has been developing at a slower pace than that of other vehicle characteristics. This is due to many reasons, such as changing battery prices, the need to limit extra costs, as well as technical constraints [8]. Though this can be seen as a drawback now, there are new technologies constantly being developed to combat this issue. One of these, flash charging, reduces charging time and can potentially contribute to easing the charging time that contributes to the range anxiety some people may experience [13].

2.1.3. Charging

Charging convenience can be broken into three components: availability, reliability, and speed. When it comes to gas stations, they excel in all three parts; there are gas stations available everywhere, and it would only take a few minutes to fill a tank. However, for EVs, even with Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC), charging can take from 20 to 30 min. And regarding availability, if someone tends to make long drives, they are much less likely to lean toward an EV if the place they live in has a poor charging infrastructure. Poor infrastructure may deter consumers who expect difficulties charging away from home, as the length between charging stations may be a worry, especially when the battery is low [14]. An additional downside is possible charger failures; J.D. Power reported: “Through the end of Q1 2023, 20.8 percent of EV drivers using public charging stations experienced charging failures or equipment malfunctions that left them unable to charge their vehicles” [15]. The main problems are shown to be station connectivity and internal station faults/errors [16].

2.1.4. EV Survey on Citizens’ Opinions

An online study was conducted to better understand consumers’ perspectives on EVs, with a total number of 791 participants [12,17]. When asked what their main reason was for not purchasing an EV, the most frequent reason was the high initial cost, followed by a lack of infrastructure, and lower driving range. Additionally, with the question of how much more they would be willing to pay for an EV, almost 40% of respondents answered with up to 25% more, more than 30% answered up to 10%, more than 15% answered 0%, and less than 10% answered up to 50% [12,17]. This displays how much affordability plays a part in purchasing, along with the upfront cost of an EV. However, 83% of respondents agreed that they would be willing to buy an EV if assured that comfort would remain the same, and 88% agreed that they would be willing if assured the transition would be seamless in regard to infrastructure and driving habits [12,17]. This response gives insight into how qualitative factors are usually considered when deciding whether to purchase an EV and how the cost of the vehicle is not the only major influence.

3. Charging Protocols

As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, financial aspects are not the only part a customer considers when purchasing an EV. Understanding the type and development of charging infrastructure allows a deeper insight into whether a customer will switch to EV transportation. Charging infrastructure for EVs has undergone significant transformations in recent years and continues to develop rapidly. There has been a push to establish uniformity amongst the charging standards, such as with the development of the SAE J3400 protocol (NACS), and to create more accessible charging stations available to the public [18]. These efforts aim to create a more seamless transition to EVs as the world shifts toward sustainable transportation options. This section will explore the current state of EV standardization guidelines and the state of charging infrastructure around NA. Table 1 refers to the technical specifics of each type of charging found in NA. All monetary values are presented in USD.

3.1. Charging Methods

In NA, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has a major role in classifying charging modes, specifying charging rules and restrictions, and establishing uniform and safer systems for all EV chargers [23]. According to SAE classifications, there are three common charging modes used in NA: Level 1, Level 2, and Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) [23]. Each charging method serves different user needs as they vary in speed, cost, and accessibility.

3.1.1. Level 1 Charging

This method of charging is most the most accessible type of charging in residential settings, as it only requires a standard 120 V outlet [22]. This makes it a convenient option for EV owners who have the time to charge their vehicle slowly over many hours, such as overnight, and reduces the charging cost as it does not require complex installation [24]. Although it is the slowest charging method, its simplicity and low cost make it a more accessible option for those who do not require frequent or rapid recharging and drivers with shorter daily commutes.

3.1.2. Level 2 Charging

This method of charging is one of the most common charging methods available in residential and public areas, due to its faster charging capabilities compared to Level 1. It typically requires the professional installation of a 240 V outlet [19], making it more expensive than using Level 1 charging. However, this method is more efficient for EV owners who need to recharge their vehicles quickly, whether at home or at public charging stations. It strikes a balance between charging speed and cost, benefiting users who drive longer distances and need to replenish their battery within a few hours.

3.1.3. Direct Current Fast Charging

This method of charging stands out as the fastest charging option available, designed primarily for public use to support long-distance travel, as these chargers are typically found near or at highways and major travel hubs [24]. This method can provide EV owners a substantial amount of range in a short amount of time. While the installation and usage costs are significantly higher, the speed and efficiency of DCFC make it indispensable for reducing downtime during extended journeys.

3.2. Current Availability

When EVs were still new technology, NA lacked the charging stations and EV-friendly infrastructure necessary to support the increase in electricity usage caused by EVs [25]. In the last decade, Canada and the US have been expanding their charging infrastructure, and with this, have both established infrastructure expansion milestones to reach by 2030.

3.2.1. Canadian EV Charger Population

The current landscape of EV charging in Canada consists of Level 1, Level 2, and DCFC stations located across the country. As of April 2024, there are around 11,403 charging stations publicly available for all EV users across Canada [26]. There are greater concentrations of chargers in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver, specifically in high-traffic areas such as garages, work offices, and shopping centers, to ensure EV chargers can be conveniently used by as many users as possible. Due to this focus on prioritizing high-population regions, rural areas tend to have significantly fewer charging stations compared to urban areas. Despite this, the country has taken the initiative to bridge the gap between popular routes, specifically those that connect major cities and remote locations. Already, Canada’s charging infrastructure has grown by 33% since March of 2023 [27]. According to the Canadian Government, Canada plans to have 52,000 public charging ports available by 2025, and 195,000 by 2030 [21]. In addition to these private-sector-provided chargers, the federal government also claims it will contribute to these initiatives by building an additional 84,500 ports by 2029. These goals are on pace to be met, as the number of public EV charging ports in Canada has tripled since 2018 [28], keeping up with the growing EV industry. As of 2024, several privately owned companies control most of the chargers in Canada. As these companies as well as the government continue to expand and improve the charging infrastructure within the community, the anxiety surrounding the lack of charging stations will begin to dissipate [29].

3.2.2. US EV Charger Population

In the US, charging infrastructure consists of Level 1, Level 2, and DCFC stations found in both urban and rural areas of the country. As of April 2024, there are around 64,273 charging stations available across the US [26]; from 2019 to 2021, the availability of charging stations doubled, and the number of EV charging ports increased from 15,000 to over 140,000 between 2011 and 2021 [10]. Just like in Canada, major cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have a dense the network of charging systems that are available all over the city. According to the Pew Research Center, 60% of US urban residents live less than a mile from the nearest public EV charger, compared to 41% of suburban US residents [30].

3.3. Grid Integration

With the coming increase in EV charging stations, the power grid, which supplies the energy necessary for this infrastructure to be used, must be considered in detail. Unmanaged charging can lead to the grid being overloaded, as it might not be developed enough to support an unprecedented amount of strain. To mitigate these concerns, technologies have been developed that benefit both the EV user and the grid simultaneously while preventing any overload on the overall system. The main technologies are Smart Charging and Vehicle-2-Grid (V2G) technology. Each of these technologies provides a financial benefit to users.

Smart Charging

Smart Charging technologies optimize EV charging, thus allowing EV owners to charge at the lowest cost. This method of charging is based on the time of day when electricity costs are at their lowest point. This is usually referred to as Time-of-Use (TOU) charging [31]. Not only can this benefit the EV user by allowing them to charge at low electricity rates, but it also promotes a balanced power grid, as these low energy costs occur during off-peak times. Many chargers are equipped with technology that allows users to set specific times to charge their vehicle during off-peak hours to ensure optimal energy use. Table 2 demonstrates an example to display just how much charging at different times during the day can have an impact on charging cost. This analysis uses electricity rates specific to the Windsor, Ontario region (cite source of ENWIN), with the charging cost calculated based on an assumed battery capacity of 64.8 kWh [32].

4. Costs and Incentives

The vehicle’s initial price is a big roadblock for new customers considering EV purchases [10], as the price difference between an EV and an ICEV is typically quite large. To combat this challenge, many countries, such as Canada and the US, have set incentives to encourage the switch to EVs. In this section, the comparison between ICEVs and EVs will be analyzed, and factors that influence the total cost of ownership of each type of vehicle will be brought to attention.

4.1. Retail Cost of EVs

Table 3 presents the differences in the pricing of the same car brand and model, but with varying degrees of EV capabilities. The EV models of the car have a higher initial cost. This is a significant issue, deterring consumers from entering the EV market, as expressed earlier. Because of this, several factors are currently in place to reduce this model difference. These factors consist of incentives, tax cuts, and competitive pricing. Along with this, used EVs are becoming significantly cheaper, with prices falling almost as much as 30% in a year [33]. According to Recurrent, the price of a 2-year-old Tesla Model Y has fallen 31% in a year [33]. Considering that similar models offer the same downward trend in price, it seems that EVs are becoming more affordable with time.

4.2. Fuel Cost

While the initial costs of an EV tend to be higher than those of an ICEV, there are long-term savings an EV can provide with the money saved by charging. Currently, charging costs less than fueling an ICEV with fuel.
Higher fuel efficiency, along with decreased costs of maintenance, permits fuel cost savings for EVs, which in turn decreases the total cost of ownership (TCO). This is even more true when it comes to periods when fuel prices are increased in places where the prices of electricity do not correlate much with fossil fuel prices [8].
A study took 40 model year 2023 EVs that had equivalent models and compared them, assuming an average drive of 25,000 km/year over a five-year period. The results showed that every single EV ended up having lower fuel costs than their respective ICEV. As can be seen in Table 3, over the five years, the fuel cost savings spanned from USD13,306 (Hyundai Kona EV) to USD 31,697 (Tesla Model X); an average of USD19,353 was calculated in fuel cost savings for EVs [30].

4.3. Maintenance Cost

EVs do not require as much regular maintenance as ICEVs due to containing fewer parts and having regenerative braking systems in place, reducing the amount of wear the car brakes sustain. Additionally, EVs do not require yearly oil changes, which significantly amplifies the difference between the maintenance costs of an EV and ICEV. Some of the factors that impact the maintenance cost are as follows:
Oiling System: All ICEVs require a routine change of oil, filters, and parts. Regular oil changes are needed about every 5000–7500 miles and can cost around USD 75 [45]. EVs do not have this system, therefore there is no expense that the vehicle owner must spend.
Braking System: Both types of vehicles have a braking system that needs changing during the lifetime of the car. Despite this, EVs need fewer changes to this system due to the presence of regenerative braking, which is a system that uses kinetic energy gained from slowing down, converting it to electrical energy to charge the battery.
Charging System: Both BEVs and PHEVs need a charging system to be able to charge their vehicle. Specifically, homeowners who want to use anything other than a Level 1 charger are required to purchase a charging system that supports a Level 2 charger or DCFC. The charger, including installation, can be expensive and can range on average from USD 800 to USD 2500 [46]. ICEV owners do not need this system and therefore do not need to spend money on it.
Tire changes: While there are significant savings associated with using an EV, EVs require more frequent tire changes due to their heavier drivetrains (due to the electric motor, inverter, and battery) and higher torque/speeds. These tire changes typically occur every 20,000 to 40,000 miles [47], depending on the vehicle’s usage and distance driven. To keep EV tires operational, drivers must drive cautiously and reduce the number of harsh accelerations to prolong the longevity of the tires [47].
The average maintenance cost for an EV is lower compared to an ICEV when considering the period of time before needing to replace the battery. The cost of maintenance for an EV can grow significantly if one considers the replacement of the battery of the vehicle, which can occur after 10–12 years of usage [48]. Additionally, EVs may need extra maintenance such as electrical part repair and replacements that require specialized and certified technicians to work on the vehicle, further increasing the cost of ownership. This not only decreases the availability of the places a person is able to service their vehicle, but it can also drive up the cost.

4.4. Incentives

With some of the public being reluctant to purchase EVs, given their newer technology and high cost, most countries have set incentives to encourage the switch to greener vehicles. These incentives differ depending on the country, as well as by province or state, and they can range from monetary gains to various accesses and exemptions.

4.4.1. Incentives in Canada

To decarbonize the transportation sector and achieve their goal of 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, multiple federal, provincial, and territorial decisions include restrictions, purchase incentives, as well as investments into charging infrastructure [49]. The Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles (iZEV) Program was launched in Canada by the Government of Canada in May 2019 [50]. It defines a ZEV to be any vehicle that has no tailpipe emissions, including BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs. The iZEV Program provides point-of-sale incentives for those who are eligible to either buy or lease an eligible ZEV. There are two types of purchase incentives: BEVs, FCEVs, and longer-range (electric range of at least 31.07 miles) PHEVs can receive up to USD 3647.42; shorter-range (electric range under 31.07 miles) PHEVs can receive up to USD 1824.30. These two incentives are offered by the federal government, and certain provinces offer their own incentives that can be added to them, as can be seen in Table 4 [51].

4.4.2. Incentives in the United States

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided on its Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles for MY 2027 and later, with the goal of 44% of new vehicle sales to be electric vehicles by 2030 and 56% by 2032. They also projected that gas-powered vehicles, which include PHEVs and HEVs, will reduce from the current 92.9% to 29% in the market by 2032 [52].
To encourage sales, there are federal tax credits that are offered for new purchases of BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs. This credit can go up to USD 7500, depending on a few factors such as the vehicle’s MSRP, the location of its final assembly, battery components and sourcing of critical minerals, and the modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of the customer. Some states also offer their own incentive which can be added to the federal one, as can be seen in Table 5 [53].
Table 5. States with EV purchase tax credits in the US [54].
Table 5. States with EV purchase tax credits in the US [54].
StateTotal Available Credit (State Only; USD)StateTotal Available Credit (State Only; USD)
Alaska1000Massachusetts3500
California7500New Jersey4000 *
Colorado5000New York2000
Connecticut7500Oklahoma5500
Delaware2500 *Oregon5000 *
Illinois4000 *Pennsylvania3000
Kansas2400Rhode Island2500
Maine7500Vermont4000
Maryland3000Virginia2500
* Rebate, not credit.

4.5. Kia Niro’s Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis

The Kia Niro is a vehicle that comes with three different electrified versions. These consist of a fully electric model, a plug-in hybrid model, and a hybrid model. An analysis was conducted using these three models to decide which type of driver profile each of these vehicles would be best fit for. This involved looking at the TCO of the vehicles as well as the categories that each model performs best in. TCO is an estimate that provides insight into the cost of owning, in this case, a vehicle. This includes the purchase price of the vehicle, cost of operation throughout its lifetime, and its resell value. In this analysis, factors such as the initial cost, maintenance, range, cost of electricity, cost of fuel, insurance, and other cost factors have been covered.
Looking at the different Kia Niro models in Table 6, it is evident that there is a significant price difference between the initial cost. This follows the typical market trend of having BEVs priced higher than PHEV, HEV, or ICEV versions of the model. Despite this difference, each vehicle has distinct factors that drastically change the total cost of the vehicle and ownership.
A TCO analysis was conducted on the three different models of the Kia Niro. These include the Kia Niro EV Wind, Kia Niro PHEV EX, and the Kia Niro HEV LX. The next section displays the results and conclusions gained from this analysis.

4.5.1. Methodology

The analysis is based on data relevant to Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Estimated costs were derived from the Kia website, considering the average consumption rates and a specific driving distance of 12,400 miles per year. This distance was chosen as it represents a profile of an individual that would drive an annual distance of slightly more than Canada’s average of 10,400 miles [55]. Gas prices were obtained from Windsor-specific data to ensure accurate fuel cost calculations for the PHEV and HEV models. Electricity costs were calculated based on Windsor’s mid-peak hour rates, and pricing is segmented into low-peak, mid-peak, and high-peak hours, which can be found in Table 2.
The analysis spans a 5-year ownership period, with depreciation rates estimated to be 42.7% after 5 years for all three models [56]. Additionally, it is assumed that the EV owner will sell their vehicle in a private sale, where HST does not come into effect [56]. Insurance costs are sourced from Belairdirect [57], based on the profile of the specific Kia Niro models, no vehicle security, ~20 miles every one-way usage to work/school, a yearly driving average of 12,400 miles, and an experienced driver aged 30~40. To calculate the cost of electricity for BEV and PHEV models, mid-peak pricing, shown in Table 2, was used to allow for a balance of at-home charging (cheaper) and at-work charging (higher cost). The TCO components considered include the initial cost, maintenance costs, range and efficiency, cost of fuel/electricity, insurance, depreciation, and other associated costs. These components are crucial for understanding the financial implications of owning each vehicle over the specified period. A value extrapolation was needed to find an approximate maintenance cost [58].
By considering these factors, the TCO analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of each Kia Niro model. This detailed comparison helps potential buyers understand the long-term costs associated with different electrification options, guiding them in making informed decisions based on their driving profiles and financial considerations.

4.5.2. TCO Analysis

Fuel, maintenance, and charger costs can vary for the different models, and Table 6 displays that. The MSRP values represent the price that the manufacturers list for the vehicle. Considering these, the BEV ranks as the highest cost and the HEV costs the least. The BEV differs from the HEV by more than USD 10,000, with the PHEV sitting in the middle. The resell value takes depreciation rates into account, and after 5 years, the values vary by type of vehicle, with, again, the BEV selling for the highest price and the HEV selling for the lowest. Both the BEV and the PHEV qualify for a government incentive, and thus, their total cost of ownership is lowered by the same amount; for the HEV, there is no financial incentive offered. A big financial impact of the BEV is the initial cost of purchasing a home charger and its installation. When looking at Table 6, this brings an entire additional USD 2000 expenditure. Alternatively, BEV or PHEV owners can choose to use Level 1 charging, which does not require purchasing a charger, or can make use of public charging stations. This method is much slower in charging as compared to a Level 2. Overall, BEVs require less maintenance due to their simpler design and the absence of ICEV components. There are higher maintenance costs for the PHEV and HEV, as they contain both electric and gas components, but they do not differ much from each other. Insurance costs are similar across all three models, with the EV being slightly less expensive than the PHEV and HEV. Both the EV and PHEV benefit from incentives and incur additional costs for home chargers, which are not applicable to the HEV. The lower cost of electricity reduces the expenditure on fuel by a great amount. In the current analysis, the cheapest option for charging was not considered. This means that, assuming the energy was being used during off-peak hours, there would be an even greater difference between the electricity and fuel cost for the owner, saving money in the long term. The insurance cost for each vehicle did not show a significant difference between the models and did not have a large impact on varying the TCO between the models.
Table 6. Kia Niro 2024 TCO analysis in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Table 6. Kia Niro 2024 TCO analysis in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Independent Variables
Drive distance/Year12,400 miles
Total Owning Years5
Electricity Cost (USD) [32]0.09/kWh
Gas Cost (USD) (as of July 2024)1.13/L
ModelKia Niro BEV (USD)Kia Niro PHEV (USD)Kia Niro HEV (USD)
MSRP [44]33,284.3528,174.3522,334.35
Price with Taxes and Fees * (HST 13%)40,070.1434,048.3727,449.17
Resale Value at End of 5 years [56]19,970.6116,904.6114,400.61
Incentives [49]3800.003800.000.00
Level 2 Charger Cost and Installation [44,59]2044.00 **0.000.00
Maintenance [58]3123.005782.006112.00
Electricity Cost/Year [44]440.23166.450.00
Fuel Cost/Year [60]0.00542.761088.00
Insurance Cost/Year [60]1246.811324.951262.93
TCO for 5 years30,800.4130,057.2732,522.88
Cost/Year6160.086011.456504.58
* Fees include delivery and destination, dealer charges, regulatory, and environmental fees [37]. ** Installation included in price; based on Windsor-Essex County cost estimations (~USD 1500) [59].

4.5.3. Driver Profiles

Understanding the different needs and preferences of a driver is crucial to determining what is most suitable for their lifestyle [61]. In this section, we present a variety of profiles to display how the different vehicle types can cater to different driving requirements. By examining the commute lengths and driving conditions of each profile, we can determine which vehicle—whether the BEV, PHEV, or HEV—offers the best utility based on general vehicle characteristics and the TCO analysis. These five profiles were chosen as they are all distinct enough to cover a wide range of driving habits and lifestyles based on the driver and typical area of travel, as well as distance and performance requirements. The conclusion made for each driver profile fits the following criteria: cost-effectiveness, range, usage patterns, and technological advancements.
Driver Profile 1: This driver profile is based on a person who lives in an urban area and mostly uses their vehicle to travel from home to work and back. This route is estimated to be 20 miles to and from work, driving through city roads. For this driver profile, it was found that the vehicle that would best suit this lifestyle would be the BEV version of the Kia Niro. If the number of miles is reduced to less than 35, a PHEV could also be a contender. Just taking cost of driving into account, for the additional 5 miles to cover 40 miles, the user would have to spend approximately 100 USD/year more using a PHEV compared to a BEV considering a 1 USD/L gas cost.
When looking at the financial aspects, the BEV has the second most significant savings in the long term. This is because the maintenance, fuel/charging cost, and the aid of the government incentive all contribute to a lower cost of owning and using the vehicle. Firstly, the maintenance of the vehicle is significantly lower than the other two models as the BEV contains only electric components, while the PHEV and HEV both contain ICEVs and other components to run the vehicles. These additional parts require annual maintenance which can increase the TCO of the vehicle significantly. As seen in the TCO performed earlier, the maintenance cost for the EV was the lowest out of the three by a significant margin. Another factor that substantially impacts the total cost of owning a vehicle is the fuel/charging cost of the vehicle. Given that this car is fully electric, the cost to charge is much cheaper compared to the PHEV and HEV, as seen Table 6. The cost of BEV charging was USD 255 per year, while the other vehicles had to consider electricity and fuel, which caused the cost to range from USD 500 to USD 900. Finally, government incentives aid in reducing the price of the EV, as it qualifies for the regional incentives that were based on the chosen region. One aspect of BEVs that may deter individuals from purchasing an all-electric vehicle is the charger cost and installation. Realistically, BEV owners do not want to charge their vehicles for days using the normal residential 120 V outlet [62]. A certified electrician is required to install a Level 2 charger, which can cost an average of USD 1500 in Canada [46].
Beyond the financial aspects, the BEV best suits this profile for other technical reasons. Firstly, the trip to work is well within the range of the BEV, even if it is not charged for a few days, eliminating the range anxiety that BEV owners may have when going on longer trips. In cases where charging is needed outside of the home, urban areas have many accessible charging stations that can be used. Furthermore, when observing the performance of the vehicle, it was found that, in the city, the BEV could travel 4.3 miles/kWh, whereas on the highway this number decreased to 3.7 miles/kWh [44]. Given how significant the difference is between the efficiencies of these trips, using this vehicle for city driving is the most efficient option. Additionally, due to the city having stop-and-go traffic, the BEV feature of regenerative braking can significantly improve the efficiency of these predictable and short trips to work. Finally, the BEV is a vehicle that does not just benefit the driver, but also the people residing in the urban areas the vehicle drives in. It does not contribute to air pollution in the urban area, as the vehicle releases zero emissions.
Driver Profile 2: This driver profile is based on a person who lives in a town but must travel to work in another area. The length of the drive is estimated to be around 100 miles to and from work. Most of the journey is driven on the highway. Because this is a longer commute, it would be better to select a PHEV for this driver profile. The longer commute can potentially exceed the BEV charge (not always charged to 100%), therefore a PHEV makes more sense in this scenario. They are more flexible because they switch to gasoline when the electric range is depleted.
As seen in the TCO of the Kia Niro, the PHEV had the lowest cost of ownership after 5 years overall when compared to the other two options. The PHEV was found to not differ much in price for maintenance than an HEV model, as it contains both electric and gas components. Despite this, the PHEV contains a regenerative braking system which reduces the maintenance needed for the brakes of the vehicle, therefore reducing maintenance expenditures. Another financial benefit of the PHEV is that it utilizes the battery for transportation, which reduces the money that would be spent on fuel alone. From the TCO, it is evident how much of a difference this makes, as the fuel expenditures between the PHEV and HEV differ by over USD 500. Finally, this vehicle qualifies for incentives in the Ontario region, which decreases the cost of ownership. As seen in the Table 6, there was a reduction of almost USD 4000, significantly lowering the price of the vehicle.
Looking at the technical aspects, it can be seen why the PHEV matches this profile more than the other two models. Firstly, when looking at the distance, this vehicle can easily travel the path to and from the destination. This eliminates the range anxiety one might feel when driving an electric vehicle. The PHEV is a flexible vehicle, which allows for both electric and gasoline use depending on what best fits the driving situation. For example, the driver can use electricity in the city, where electric vehicles are most efficient, and gas for the highway, allowing for great distances to be travelled. Additionally, in the chance of freezing temperatures, the driver will not experience the large decrease in performance quality that one who is driving a BEV would. This is because, during cold weather, the battery’s range shortens, due to the additional stress of the heating in the car and the freezing temperature’s effect on the battery.
Overall, the PHEV is the vehicle that applies the best to this situation due to its low cost of ownership, ability to travel long distances, and reliability.
Driver Profile 3: This driver profile is based on a person who uses their car for towing and transporting heavy loads, such as a construction worker. This person’s commute is estimated to mostly be short distances but also includes travelling on off-road types of paths. The priority for this profile is to have a vehicle that can handle off-road conditions, carry heavy loads, and has a high towing capacity and large cargo space. Based on these priorities, an ICEV, specifically a truck, would deliver the best performance. Firstly, an appropriately selected ICEV would provide a robust build, high towing capacity, large cargo space, and the ability to drive off-road. In these areas, an EV or HEV would not be able to perform as well, due to the weight factors affecting the efficiency of battery performance. Although a possible option, EVs cannot perform nearly as well as the ICEVs. Towing heavy loads with an EV drastically reduces the range of the battery and increases the frequency of charging. This is impractical for this profile as they require a reliable and efficient vehicle throughout the day. Overall, diesel-powered trucks are usually preferred due to their torque and fuel efficiency performance under heavy loads. This makes them capable, durable, and cost-effective, which is exactly what this driver profile sees as a priority. Diesel trucks also tend to have longer lifespans and can withstand the rigorous demands of construction work, making them a practical investment for those who rely on their vehicles for daily heavy-duty tasks. For a driver profile centred around towing and transporting heavy loads, an ICEV is the most suitable option.
Driver Profile 4: This driver profile is based on a person who uses their car much more frequently than the average person, such as an Uber driver. It is assumed that most of the trips this person takes would be within city limits, transporting people throughout their workday. Given this usage pattern, a BEV is deemed the most suitable option for this driver profile. Firstly, providing rides within city limits suggests that the trips will be short, and therefore will not require the vehicle to have a far driving range on a single charge. This driving pattern is ideal for EVs, as these types of vehicles perform well in stop-and-go traffic and can efficiently manage frequent stopping. Spending most of their time within the city limits allows the driver to have access to many charging stations present throughout the city. This is very beneficial, as the driver can easily find a place to charge their vehicle, eliminating any worry about running low on energy. Considering this driver profile, it is assumed that the driver would need to charge their vehicle at some point during the day. By using a DCFC charger, the driver would be able to obtain enough charge in their vehicle while taking a short break, such as to have lunch. Doing so would minimize any downtime that this driver would experience, allowing them to continue working without any major interruptions. However, DCFC could be expensive compared to home charging and AC charging outside of the home [62]. Additionally, many people can take breaks when they please, as they choose the hours of their work, allowing drivers to choose the most convenient times to recharge. Also, with this driving profile, an EV would bring significant cost savings for the driver. Both ICEVs and EVs need refueling, but the cost of charging an EV is generally lower than the cost of gasoline, even when accounting for the frequency of needing to do so. Over time, the driver would experience savings that would benefit the driver, improving the overall profitability of their work. These cost savings can be seen in Table 6, where the money spent on fuel for a BEV as compared to an HEV was significantly different for a distance of 12,400 miles. Beyond the benefits to the driver, the citizens of the city also benefit from the switch to an EV. Overall, the EV would produce less emissions and lower pollution levels within the city, benefiting all residents. The combination of short trips, abundant charging infrastructure, efficient break times for charging, cost savings, and environmental benefits make EVs a superior option for this driver profile.

5. Conclusions

Through a literature review, this paper analyzed various factors that consumers consider before deciding on which vehicle to purchase. Consumer views were first looked at, along with their concerns about electrified vehicles and how they may be addressed in the future. Then, the current state of charging was examined, which gave further insight into charging methodologies, infrastructures, and smart charging. Monetary values such as retail, fuel, and maintenance costs, as well as incentives for purchasing electrified vehicles, were shown. This evaluation demonstrated both quantitative and qualitative factors that are brought into consideration for the TCO analysis, all of which are also majorly considered when a consumer is deciding which car to purchase.
This paper has provided an analysis of the TCO for various types of electrified vehicles in North America, highlighting how different driver profiles can influence the financial viability of EV adoption. The first driver profile, focused on drivers who live in an urban area and only travel between home and work, was found to work best with a BEV. The second driver profile, for someone who must travel to work in a town/city different from home, was found to have the best compatibility with a PHEV. The third driver profile, who uses their vehicle for towing and transporting heavy loads, would work best with an ICEV. The fourth driver profile, someone who uses their car much more frequently than the average driver, would be best served using a BEV. Finally, for the fifth driver profile, with the vehicle being used for performance, a BEV would also work best. All of these conclusions were brought by taking trip length, driver requirements, and overall cost into account.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S., H.S., H.K., and L.V.I.; Methodology, P.S., H.S., and H.K.; Validation, P.S., H.S., H.K., L.V.I., C.V., and N.C.K.; Formal Analysis, P.S., H.S., and H.K.; Investigation, P.S., H.S., and H.K.; Data Curation, P.S., H.S., and H.K.; Writing—original draft preparation, P.S., H.S., and H.K.; Writing—review and editing, P.S., H.S., H.K., L.V.I., C.V., and N.C.K.; Visualization, P.S., H.S., H.K., and L.V.I.; Supervision, L.V.I., C.V., and N.C.K.; Project Administration, L.V.I., C.V., and N.C.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. RGPIN-2020-05818.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations were used within the manuscript.
ACAlternating Current
AI Artificial Intelligence
API Application Programming Interface
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CANController Area Network
CCSCombined Charging System
CDIO Conceive–Design–Implement–Operate
CHAdeMOCHArge de Move
CHARGECentre for Hybrid Automotive Research and Green Energy
DC Direct Current
DCFCDirect Current Fast Charging
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
FCEVFuel Cell Electric Vehicle
HEVHybrid Electric Vehicle
HSTHarmonized Sales Tax
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
IRA Inflation Reduction Act
iZEV Incentives for Zero Emission Vehicles
LDVLight Duty Vehicle
MSRP Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price
NA North America
NACSNorth American Charging Standard
OEMOriginal Equipment Manufacturer
PHEVPlug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
SAESociety of Automotive Engineers
TCOTotal Cost of Ownership
TOUTime Of Use
US United States
USDUnited States Dollar
V2GVehicle-2-Grid
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

References

  1. Satterfield, C.; Schefter, K. Electric Vehicle Sales and the Charging Infrastructure Required Through 2030; Status Report; Edison Electric Institute (EEI): Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lebeau, K.; Lebeau, P.; Macharis, C.; Mierlo, J.V. How expensive are electric vehicles? A total cost of ownership analysis. World Electr. Veh. J. 2013, 6, 996–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Orvis, R. Most Electric Vehicles are Cheaper to Own Off the Lot Than Gas Cars; Report; Energy Innovation: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. Palmer, K.; Tate, J.E.; Wadud, Z.; Nellthorp, J. Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Appl. Energy 2018, 209, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alanazi, F. Electric Vehicles: Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Solutions for Widespread Adaptation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fang, T.; Vairin, C.; von Jouanne, A.; Agamloh, E.; Yokochi, A. Review of Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles. Energies 2024, 17, 2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. León, R.; Montaleza, C.; Maldonado, J.L.; Tostado-Véliz, M.; Jurado, F. Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A Review of Existing Configurations and Thermodynamic Cycles. Thermo 2021, 1, 134–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. IEA. Trends in Electric Cars; Report; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shabanpour, R.; Mousavi, S.N.D.; Golshani, N.; Auld, J.; Mohammadian, A. Consumer preferences of electric and automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Naples, Italy, 26–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Javadnejad, F.; Jahanbakh, M.; Pinto, C.A.; Saeidi, A. Analyzing incentives and barriers to electric vehicle adoption in the United States. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2023, 44, 575–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Peter, W.; Patrick, M.; O’Mahony, M. Long-term cost of ownership comparative analysis between electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. Sustain. Cites Soc. 2018, 39, 578–591. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bobanac, V.; Pandzic, H.; Capuder, T. Survey on electric vehicles and battery swapping stations: Expectations of existing and future EV owners. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), Limassol, Cyprus, 3–7 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pugi, L.; Alessandrini, A.; Barbieri, R.; Berzi, L.; Pierini, M.; Cignini, F.; Genovese, A.; Ortenzi, F. Design and testing of a supercapacitor storage system for the flash recharge of electric buses. Int. J. Electr. Hybrid Veh. 2021, 13, 57–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pevec, D.; Babic, J.; Carvalho, A.; Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, Y.; Ketter, W. Electric Vehicle Range Anxiety: An Obstacle for the Personal Transportation (R)evolution? In Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech), Split, Croatia, 18–21 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  15. EV Leasing Volumes Poised to Surge as Tax Rule Makes It Cheaper to Lease than Buy. Available online: https://www.jdpower.com/business/resources/ev-leasing-volumes-poised-surge-tax-rule-makes-it-cheaper-lease-buy (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  16. Metais, M.O.; Jouini, O.; Perez, Y.; Berrada, J.; Suomalainen, E. Too much or not enough? Planning electric vehicle charging infrastructure: A review of modeling options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bühler, F.; Cocron, P.; Neumann, I.; Franke, T.; Krems, J.F. Is EV experience related to EV acceptance? Results from a German field study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 25, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kempton, W.; McGee, R.T.; Ejzak, G.A. A Universal Electric Vehicle Outlet and Portable Cable for North America. World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Raff, R.; Golub, V.; Pelin, D.; Topić, D. Overview of charging modes and connectors for the electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Youth Conference on Energy (IYCE), Bled, Slovenia, 3–6 July 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  20. Murat, Y.; Philip, T.K. Review of Battery Charger Topologies, Charging Power Levels, and Infrastructure for Plug-In Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 2151–2169. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors. Canada’s Public Charging Infrastructure Needs; Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/energy/cpcin/2022-ev-charging-assesment-report-eng.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  22. Khalid, M.R.; Khan, I.A.; Hameed, S.; Asghar, M.S.J.; Ro, J. A Comprehensive Review on Structural Topologies, Power Levels, Energy Storage Systems, and Standards for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Their Impacts on Grid. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 128069–128094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. SAE Mobilus. SAE International Announces Standard for NACS Connector, Charging PKI and Infrastructure Reliability. Available online: https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2023/06/sae-international-announces-standard-for-nacs-connector (accessed on 13 May 2024).
  24. Wu, Y.; Ribberink, H. Methodology to Estimate the Need for Direct-Current Fast-Charging Stations along Highways in Canada. J. Transp. Eng. Part A Syst. 2020, 146, 04020108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gordon, B.; Chih-Wei, H.; Mike, N.; Nic, L. Charging Up America: Assessing the Growing Need For U.S. Charging Infrastructure Through 2030; White Paper; The International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 21 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  26. Natural Resources of Canada. Electric Charging and Alternative Fuelling Stations Locator. Available online: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/electric-charging-alternative-fuelling-stationslocator-map/20487#/analyze (accessed on 18 April 2024).
  27. Faran, R.; Ibrahim, D. A review of the current state, challenges, opportunities and future directions for implementation of sustainable electric vehicle infrastructure in Canada. J. Energy Storage 2022, 56, 106048. [Google Scholar]
  28. Loveday, S. A Comprehensive Guide to U.S. EV Charging Networks. Available online: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/ev-charging-stations (accessed on 21 May 2024).
  29. Mlindelwa, S.; Chowdhury, S.D.; Lencwe, M.J. Overview of the challenges, developments, and solutions for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2024 32nd Southern African Universities Power Engineering Conference (SAUPEC), Stellenbosch, South Africa, 24–25 January 2024. [Google Scholar]
  30. Samuel Bestvater, S.S. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dean, M.D.; Kockelman, K.M. Americans’ opinions and interests in plug-in electric vehicle smart charging programs. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2024, 129, 104129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. ENWIN. Rates. Available online: https://enwin.com/rates-and-payments/rates (accessed on 20 June 2024).
  33. Recurrent Motors. Used Electric Car Prices & Market Report—Q2 2024. 2024. Available online: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/used-electric-vehicle-buying-report (accessed on 20 June 2024).
  34. Volvo. Volvo XC40. Available online: https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/xc40/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  35. Volvo. Volvo XC40 Electric. Available online: https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/xc40-electric/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  36. Toyota. Toyota 2024 Corolla—Hybrid. Available online: https://www.toyota.com/corolla/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  37. Hyundai. Hyundai 2024 Kona. Available online: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/kona (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  38. Hyundai. Hyundai 2024 Kona EV. Available online: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/kona-electric (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  39. Kia. Kia 2024 Sorento ICE. Available online: https://www.kia.com/us/en/sorento (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  40. Kia. Kia 2024 Sorento HEV. Available online: https://www.northyorkkia.ca/en/new-catalog/kia/2024-kia-sorento-hev-id27394 (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  41. Kia. 2024 Kia Sorento PHEV. Available online: https://www.northyorkkia.ca/en/new-catalog/kia/2024-kia-sorento-phev-id27397 (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  42. Kia. Kia 2024 Niro HEV. Available online: https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  43. Kia. Kia 2024 Niro PHEV. Available online: https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro-plug-in-hybrid (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  44. Kia. Kia 2024 Niro EV. Available online: https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro-ev (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  45. Ceppos, R. How Much Does an Oil Change Cost? Available online: https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a27380975/how-much-is-oil-change/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  46. Qmerit. Understanding Your EV Home Charging Station Costs for Installation. Available online: https://qmerit.com/blog/understanding-your-ev-home-charging-station-costs-for-installation/ (accessed on 29 May 2024).
  47. Caliber. Why Do Electric Vehicle Tires Wear Out So Quickly? Available online: https://www.caliber.com/services/auto-care/tires/why-do-electric-vehicle-tires-wear-out-so-quickly (accessed on 28 June 2024).
  48. Dong, Q.; Liang, S.; Li, J.; Kim, H.C.; Shen, W.; Wallington, T.J. Cost, energy, and carbon footprint benefits of second-life electric vehicle battery use. iScience 2023, 26, 107195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Government of Canada. Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Sales Targets. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/canada-s-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-targets (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  50. Government of Canada. Eligible Vehicles. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/medium-heavy-duty-zero-emission-vehicles/eligible-vehicles (accessed on 14 May 2024).
  51. Government of Canada. Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles (iZEV). Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/incentives-zero-emission-vehicles-izev?utm_campaign=tc-zev-hub-ongoing&utm_medium=doormat-link&utm_source=zev-hub-incentives-page-en&utm_content=izev-program-light- (accessed on 14 May 2024).
  52. NADA. EPA’s De Facto Electric Vehicle Mandate: Too Far, Too Fast. Available online: https://www.nada.org/legislative/epas-de-facto-electric-vehicle-mandate-too-far-too-fast#:~:text=ISSUE,to%20be%20electric%20by%202032 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  53. US. Tax Incentives. Available online: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/taxcenter.shtml (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  54. Jaros, B.; Hoffer, A. How Are Electric Vehicles Taxed in Your State? Available online: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/electric-vehicles-ev-taxes-state/#:~:text=Residents%20of%20all%20states%20are,California%2C%20Connecticut%2C%20and%20Maine (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  55. Government of Canada. Transportation Sector Ontario Table 21: Car Explanatory Variables. Available online: https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=CP&sector=tran&juris=on&rn=21&year=2021&page=2 (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  56. Schloter, L. Empirical analysis of the depreciation of electric vehicles compared to gasoline vehicles. Transp. Policy 2022, 126, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Belairdirect. Get a Quote Online in just a Few Easy Steps! Available online: https://www.belairdirect.com/promo/landing/en/pageo1.html?organization_source=TARGETMARKETWBSEx0001&p=on&bl=yes&h1=40&cta=1&link=2&l=2&btn=1&k=13&bar1=card1u2q3s&bar2=hist&b=4&ph=pDyn&cs=1&phb=no&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwsuSzBhCLARIsAIcdLm6KbRWGqLNC_K9 (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  58. Avicenne Energy. North American Automotive EV vs ICE Total Cost of Ownership; Report; Nickel Institute: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  59. TCA Electric. Cost to Install EV Charger at Home Canada. Available online: https://tcaelectric.ca/cost-to-install-ev-charger-at-home-canada/ (accessed on 29 June 2024).
  60. Government of Canada. Fuel Consumption Ratings Search Tool. Available online: https://fcr-ccc.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/en (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  61. Payyanadan, R.P.; Angell, L.S. A Framework for Building Comprehensive Driver Profiles. Information 2022, 13, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Alternative Fuels Data Center. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-stations (accessed on 20 April 2024).
Table 1. Charging protocols found in North America.
Table 1. Charging protocols found in North America.
Charging MethodLevel 1Level 2DCFC
Connector TypeJ1772J1772, NACSCCS, CHAdeMO, NACS
Voltage (V) [19]120208–240400–1000
Current TypeACACDC
Typical Power Output (kW) [19]1.93.1–19.250–350
Electric Range/Hour of Charging (Miles) [20]2–510–20180–240
Installation Costs USD [21]145–10801450–723036,130–72,250
Type of Usage * [22]DomesticDomestic/PublicPublic
* “Domestic” implies residential/home use (single family, apartment, etc.), while “Public” implies commercial use (highways, travel hubs, etc.).
Table 2. Cost of charging during different TOUs (based on Windsor, Ontario prices).
Table 2. Cost of charging during different TOUs (based on Windsor, Ontario prices).
Peak TypeTimeCost (¢/kWh) (USD)Charge Cost
Low19:00–7:006.44.15
Mid11:00–17:008.95.77
High7:00–11:00
17:00–19:00		138.42
Table 3. Comparison of cost (USD)—between different categories of vehicles.
Table 3. Comparison of cost (USD)—between different categories of vehicles.
Make/Model (2024)ICEV CostHEV CostPHEV CostBEV Cost
Volvo XC4040,500 [34]--52,450 [35]
Toyota Corolla22,050 [36]23,500 [36]--
Hyundai Kona24,250 [37]--32,734 [38]
Kia Sorento31,990 [39]28,710 [40]35,651 [41]-
Kia Niro-22,334.35 [42]28,174.35 [43]33,284.35 [44]
Table 4. Available rebates (USD) in Canada (federal plus provincial) [50].
Table 4. Available rebates (USD) in Canada (federal plus provincial) [50].
Province/TerritoryTotal Available Rebate (Provincial + Federal)
Alberta3647.42
British Columbia5835.88
Manitoba6565.36
New Brunswick7294.85
Newfoundland and Labrador5471.14
Northwest Territories3647.42
Nova Scotia3647.42
Nunavut3647.42
Ontario3647.42
Prince Edward Island7294.85
Québec8753.82
Saskatchewan3647.42
Yukon3647.42
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Soszynska, P.; Saleh, H.; Kar, H.; Iyer, L.V.; Viana, C.; Kar, N.C. Driving the Future: An Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electrified Vehicles in North America. World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15110492

AMA Style

Soszynska P, Saleh H, Kar H, Iyer LV, Viana C, Kar NC. Driving the Future: An Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electrified Vehicles in North America. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2024; 15(11):492. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15110492

Chicago/Turabian Style

Soszynska, Patrycja, Huda Saleh, Hana Kar, Lakshmi Varaha Iyer, Caniggia Viana, and Narayan C. Kar. 2024. "Driving the Future: An Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electrified Vehicles in North America" World Electric Vehicle Journal 15, no. 11: 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15110492

APA Style

Soszynska, P., Saleh, H., Kar, H., Iyer, L. V., Viana, C., & Kar, N. C. (2024). Driving the Future: An Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electrified Vehicles in North America. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 15(11), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15110492

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop