Variability in costs of electrifying passenger cars in Canada (2024)

Author e-mails

bassam.javed@ubc.ca

Author affiliations

¹ Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 429-2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, BC, Canada

Author notes

² Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

ORCID iDs

Bassam Javed https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6759-0006

Amanda Giang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0146-7038

Dates

1. Received 8 July 2023
2. Accepted 2 February 2024
3. Published 21 February 2024

Peer review information

Method:Double-anonymous
Revisions:1
Screened for originality? Yes

We use a total cost of ownership (TCO) model to evaluate the variable costs and benefits of EV adoption in Canada. The TCO, expressed in net present value (NPV), of a vehicle is calculated as the summation of capital and operating expenses. Capital expenses (Net Capital Cost) include the maximum suggested retail price (MSRP) of a vehicle plus federal and provincial taxes, less the value of salvage or resale of the vehicle. For an EV, it also includes the cost of an EV charging station, less the value of purchase rebates. Operating expenses include fuel and maintenance costs, at net present value,

Given the importance of the operational phase in vehicle lifecycle costs, the TCO is strongly a function of vehicle-kilometers travelled (VKT). We focus on an additional metric, the 'breakeven VKT' (VKT_BE), defined as the value of daily VKT at which the difference in NPV between EV and ICEV reaches 0, i.e. the amount of driving an owner must do daily for the total cost of owning an EV to be on par with that of owning the comparator ICEV [15]. VKT_BE thus allows a comparison of the differential costs of EV ownership under varying conditions in capital and operating costs, and salvage value. A lower value of VKT_BE means that an EV is more beneficial at a lower mileage,

Finally, we define another metric that is specific to EVs. 'Charge-ups' are the number of times that an EV would be recharged over its lifetime, assuming that its battery goes from a fully discharged state to a fully charged state. While this does not necessarily mimic real-life behavior of how users charge EVs (and may underestimate the number of charge-ups), we use the metric as a simplified comparison of the implications to charging in different scenarios of EV ownership,

We focus only on direct costs in the TCO which impact households at present day [20]. We exclude indirect, or intangible, costs on account of the uncertainty in how these vary geographically and also because we expect such costs to be secondary to direct costs. However, we recognize that other researchers have attempted to include such considerations into TCO analysis of EVs. For example, given that the impact of range anxiety is typically hidden in the conventional approach to TCO, there have been attempts to incorporate it as an intangible cost into the analysis (see review by [21]). Although range anxiety is a major barrier in the adoption of EVs, evidence suggests that this behavioral consideration declines after the purchase and use of an EV [22, 23]. We also expect that pre-purchase range anxiety will diminish as a factor with increases in the battery capacities of available EV models, the speed of charging technology, and the deployment of and access to charging infrastructure. Thus, we do not include range anxiety as an intangible cost in our analysis and instead use the number of 'charge-ups' metric.

Broadly, conventional TCO studies have focused on demonstrating the long-term superiority of EVs over ICEVs, i.e. the lower operational costs of EVs make them favorable after a certain amount of time [24]. The line of inquiry we probe is precisely the opposite, that is, what makes EVs unfavorable—with the goal of identifying what additional policy interventions are needed to support this transition. To do so, we use TCO as a method to explore variability in costs faced by households that purchase an EV. Other researchers have quantified costs based on different travel patterns emerging from variability observed in geographic data [16, 17, 25] or using abstract categories of consumer behavior [26]. Here, we propose a synthesis of the two, as described in the next section.

We conceptualize variation in TCO to exist along two dimensions, spatial and behavioral (figure 1). In different sub-national jurisdictions in Canada, i.e. provinces and territories, we study the effect of variation in fuel prices, electricity prices, electricity grid emissions intensities, tax rates, and climate. In the behavioral dimension, we consider variation in travel behavior, type of vehicle, and access to charging in different types of dwellings. We also consider different approaches to comparing EVs to ICEVs that represent constraints on how consumers choose which vehicle to purchase, that is, based on function or platform (i.e. consumer decides on the vehicle type), or based on comparable capital expenditure (i.e. consumer decides on price cap).

To operationalize how the TCO relationships might vary for a range of Canadian households, we use household and user archetypes that map onto the model parameters. Although these archetype comparisons are simplifications, their utility lies in generating discussion on the real-world impacts of spatial and behavioral variation.

We map spatial variation parameters wholly onto the archetypes of a Typical Household, one for each province and territory across Canada. We assume that the Typical Household in each jurisdiction drives a daily distance that is equal to the average daily VKT of that same location.

Behavioral variation parameters are mapped onto several archetypes:

• A Budget-Constrained Consumer archetype who has fixed budget constraints for purchasing a vehicle and makes decisions based on price.
• A Wealthy Consumer archetype who has higher disposable income and can purchase any desired vehicle based on function.
• A Superuser archetype who represents rental vehicles, taxis, ride-hailing services, logistics firms, and other commercial users with daily long-distance driving requirements (200 km per day chosen as a reference).
• A member of a Shared Dwelling Household archetype who represents those in shared dwellings and apartments, or renters without permission for electrical upgrades, relying on public charging infrastructure.
• A member of a Single Detached Household archetype whose represents detached single-family dwellings with access to charging on private premises.

2.3.1.Spatial variation

2.3.2.Behavioral variation

2.3.3.Future scenario

To explore the impacts of future policy directions and technological advancements, we compare the base case scenario for the Typical Household in Quebec at present day to a future scenario in 2030 in which both policy and technology changes would have occurred. For policy changes, we assume that the 2030 carbon tax value of $170 per tonne of CO₂e is in effect, affecting both gasoline and electricity prices, and that provincial EV purchase rebates are longer available. For technology changes, we assume a reduction in the price of Hyundai Kona EV by an amount equivalent the cost of batteries dropping from $151 per kWh in 2022 to $100 per kWh [50]. We expect that decline in manufacturing costs may be offset by increases in the price of lithium, thus we assume that BloombergNEF's forecast for 2026 will hold to 2030.

We assume a time horizon of 7 years, to approximate the average ownership life of newly purchased vehicles by Canadian drivers, at 6.4 years [53].

For salvage value of vehicles, we used Schloter (2022) to set a depreciation rate [54]. Schloter (2022) compiled publicly available data from 8576 vehicles in the US, which we assume is as a reasonable approximation of the Canadian used vehicle market. After 7 years, we derived that ICEVs and EVs retain 40% and 35%, respectively, of their original sale prices.

EVs are generally considered to have lower maintenance costs than ICEVs, although there is some evidence to suggest that new EVs can be more expensive to maintain in the first year of operation and then decline relative to ICEVs thereafter [55]. We use constant maintenance costs of USD $0.06 and $0.10 per mile for EV and ICEV, respectively [58].

For NPV, we use 8% discount rate, which is the recommendation by Treasury Board of Canada for cost-benefit analysis calculations [56]. We conduct a sensitivity analysis with 5% discount rate to assess the impact that lower cost capital would have on the TCO.

We evaluate the TCO relationships for Typical Households in all ten provinces and three territories in Canada. The Typical Household in Quebec has the most favorable conditions for EVs, requiring the lowest VKT_BE—or daily distance for the difference in NPV of EV and ICEV to be equivalent—at 46 km per day (VKT_BE = 40 km d⁻¹ at 5% discount rate, or 13% lower). Although none of the Typical Households across Canada drives as much as what would be required for NPV to breakeven with a comparable ICEV, the difference varies markedly across jurisdictions. In Quebec, vehicles are driven 18% less than the distance that is required for VKT_BE, whereas in Nunavut, average VKT is nearly a factor of 12 lower than what is required for VKT_BE (figure 2).

From a financial perspective, the Typical Household in each jurisdiction faces varying costs to own and operate an EV versus an ICEV. Most favorably, the Typical Household in Quebec would over the lifetime of a vehicle pay $2.4 K CAD more for an EV than an ICEV, whereas the Typical Household in Nunavut pays $17.7 K CAD more. The high cost faced by the latter is not only on account of the weakest ΔNPV to VKT relationship, but also the low average VKT at 17 km per day. In addition to costs, each jurisdiction also faces varying impacts in the number of 'charge-ups' that an EV would require over a 7 year lifetime. The Typical Household in Quebec would charge an EV nearly twice as much as the Typical Household in Nunavut, given the low average VKT of the latter (table 5).

To explore what drives the variation of costs across the country, we compare the Typical Household in Quebec with all other jurisdictions to quantify the effects of spatial parameters—i.e. gas price, electricity price, rebate, tax rate, and temperature—on VKT_BE, individually while holding all other parameters equal (figure 3). For example, the contribution to VKT_BE variation due to the difference in rebates between Ontario and Quebec is considered as the hypothetical scenario of Quebec with same rebate amount as that of Ontario. Negative values in this figure indicate that a spatially varying parameter contributes to a higher VKT_BE than in Quebec (i.e. is less advantageous for an EV), and vice versa for positive values. If we take the net of the differences of each of these individually varied spatial parameters, we note that it does not equal the actual difference in VKT_BE that we observe between Quebec and another jurisdiction (represented by the dots in the figure). This is due to the interaction effects that occur between the spatial parameters. Nevertheless, the all-else-equal analysis allows a comparison of the relative impact of individual parameters as well as an estimate of the magnitude that each contributes to variation. Taken individually, the impact of the spatial variation parameters are as follows.

Rebates: Reductions in the capital cost of the EV and charging equipment reduce the net total cost, thus rebates shift the entire TCO relationship to lower VKT_BE. All provinces and territories have a lower total rebate than Quebec, contributing 10.5–28 km more of travel per day to VKT_BE.

Electricity cost: Higher electricity prices increase the operating costs of an EV, resulting in a higher VKT_BE. Electricity prices contribute 5–12 km of travel more per day relative to Quebec.

Gasoline cost: Lower gasoline prices make the cost of operating an EV less favorable, resulting in a higher VKT_BE. Quebec has among the highest gasoline prices in Canada, so in comparison, gas prices across most of the rest of Canada contribute to a higher VKT_BE.

Tax rate: Higher tax rates increase the capital cost of both vehicles. However, in the base case examined here (i.e. Hyundai Kona EV versus ICEV), the EV costs more than its comparator ICEV. As a result, a higher tax rate penalizes the EV more than the ICEV. Quebec has among the highest tax rates in Canada, so in comparison, the lower tax rates across most of the rest of the country contribute to a lower VKT_BE. However, the differences in tax rates between jurisdictions is low (6%–10% of vehicle price), with the exception of Alberta and the three territories, where new vehicles are not subject to a sales tax. This reduces VKT_BE by over 7 km per day relative to Quebec, where the tax rate is 9.975%.

Temperature: Here, we observe that temperature has as negative effect on VKT_BE in jurisdictions with a warmer climate than Quebec. This counter-intuitive result occurs because there are two temperature-dependent effects, one related to EV efficiency and the other to ICEV efficiency. Since electricity is cheaper per energy unit in Quebec than the price of gas, the net differential in the sensitivity calculation for the same reduction in temperature favors EVs, even though the efficiency effect favors ICEVs. (Electricity is cheaper per energy unit than gasoline in all jurisdictions except Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We conducted a similar all-else-equal analysis for the latter and found that, indeed, a comparison to colder temperature would result in higher VKT_BE.) Hence, with all else being equal, jurisdictions that are on average colder than Quebec have a small net benefit, and the provinces that are warmer on average have a small net penalty relative to Quebec. We note that what is most salient here, however, is the relatively minor contribution of temperature to variation in the TCO compared to all other spatial parameters.

Quebec is the most favorable jurisdiction for EVs because rebates are the primary driver of TCO variation observed across the country. The exceptions are Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where high electricity cost—due to heavy reliance on diesel and fuel oil for power generation [59]—is a larger contributor to the difference with Quebec.

Differences in gasoline prices and tax rates generally contribute less to variation across Canada, except in cases where there is a distinguishing feature in these two parameters, such as the absence of sales tax on new vehicles in four jurisdictions. Alberta also has no fuel tax at the provincial level, resulting in the lowest gasoline price in Canada (by 4%–21%). The stark difference in Alberta's gasoline price with the rest of the country (12% cheaper than the average of the rest) amplifies the contribution of this parameter to VKT_BE relative to other jurisdictions.

Finally, the contribution of temperature is the least of all spatial parameters analyzed here. The range of difference between the coldest and warmest jurisdictions in Canada is less than 2.5 km per day in VKT_BE, thus we can conclude that the variation in temperature across Canada is likely not great enough for many households to perceive as an impact to total costs of EV ownership.

3.2.1.Vehicle type and consumer purchase behavior

3.2.2.Charging access

3.2.3.Inter-household variability

In the 2030 scenario, the combined effects of the carbon price at $170 per tonne and a plausible reduction in vehicle price outweigh the lack of purchase rebates: VKT_BE would reduce from 46 to 28 km per day for the Typical Household in Quebec (figure 6), well below the average daily VKT that is driven in the province.

In the long-term time horizon to the 2035 ZEV passenger vehicle sales mandate, the political feasibility of imposing taxation to meet the sales mandate may be limited in under a government that may be less willing to accept EVs as emissions reduction measure. Industrial policy may be one approach that avoids political backlash and helps to ensure the cost competitiveness of EVs with ICEVs.

In applying the TCO approach to Canada, a country with wide geographic variability in factors implicated in vehicle ownership costs, we find that households across the country face varying costs of owning an EV versus an ICEV. These costs vary both spatially, because of differences in gasoline prices, electricity prices, grid carbon intensity, purchase rebates, tax rates, and temperature; and behaviorally, because of differences in charging access, travel patterns and consumer preferences. Less VKT is required for an EV to equal an ICEV in total costs of ownership when gasoline prices are high, electricity prices are low, purchase rebates are available, tax rates are low, and temperature is warmer, and when households have access to private charging and prefer a non-luxury vehicle. Our results are aligned with similar findings in the US which show that there is variability in costs faced by households in different locations and that differ in daily VKT, and that variability of these parameters is in no case sufficient for EVs to cost less than ICEVs [17, 25]. No similar study exists for Canada, but our analysis of archetypes offers insight on why, as other research has suggested, EVs are suitable for only a fraction of Canadian households [60].

Rather than emphasizing the point that EVs are typically more expensive than ICEVs for most consumers, our analysis allows us to identify possibilities for policy interventions. The approach that we take in this study extends the literature that uses TCO to assess variability for different types of consumers to develop policy insights. The archetypes that we use are generalizations of possible households, and thus, provide an approach for policymakers to assess the variability that exists across the country, and thereby identify potential gaps in EV deployment policy. In other words, in exploring exactly who wins or loses in the era of transition to EVs, we can glean insights on where policymakers can look to next for increasing EV adoption.

From a methodological perspective, this study presents an alternative to how TCO analyses are typically framed. Comparing an EV to an ICEV that is equivalent in price, i.e. the 'Budget-Constrained Consumer', may be a more behaviorally realistic comparison for many consumers. Moreover, this framing more clearly demonstrates the advantage of EVs even at low VKT.

As observed in other parts of the world, Canadians who initially adopted EVs had use cases that resulted in cost savings over ICEVs, or attached some non-financial value to EV ownership, such as pro-environmental behavior [61]. Achieving the 2035 mandate of 100% ZEV sales will require moving beyond early adopters and towards Typical Households. This will likely require a cohesive and mutually supportive suite of policies at all three levels of governance, i.e. federal; provincial and territorial; and local. Given that decarbonization of the transportation sector is a key component of Canada's overall climate commitments per the Paris Agreement, the task is even more critical for Canadian policymakers. The following policy implications emerge from our analysis of TCOs for households across Canada. Where possible, we also remark on potential impacts of, and challenges that may arise from, implementation.

EVs can exacerbate transportation inequalities: Passenger vehicle ownership is already inequitable for some social groups in North America [62], and the additional costs of EVs can further the affordability gap [63], create new access barriers related to public charging infrastructure [64], and also perpetuate the 'lock-in' of car-based transportation [65]. As our analysis shows how much more expensive EVs are in some places and for some households, this study adds evidence that the transportation inequalities inherent in a personal transportation-oriented system cannot be alleviated by widespread adoption of EVs. Thus, while there is a significant emissions reduction potential that could be realized by electrification of passenger cars, other pathways to decarbonizing transportation should not be deemphasized—active transport and public transit must also play in deploying clean and affordable transportation for Canadians [66]. Although calls to increase the feasibility of active transportation have historically faced political challenges [67], we are optimistic that the rare circ*mstances of a system-level transition can be leveraged to draw more attention to transportation inequalities.

Incentivizing smaller EVs will reduce total costs for consumers: Policies that are designed to encourage consumers to replace larger ICEVs with smaller EVs would take advantage of the lower ICEV-EV price disparity for smaller, non-luxury vehicle categories. As an increasing number of cheaper EV models enter the market, policymakers could reassess the purchase price cap on rebates as a means of limiting the size of vehicles that are incentivized. Alternatively, as the market moves beyond early adopters, a luxury vehicle tax based on size may also encourage consumers to purchase smaller, non-luxury vehicles. Additional considerations for policymakers include the well-established co-benefit of greater traffic safety from smaller vehicles [68] and the emerging understanding that electric SUVs have less emissions benefit than smaller EVs [69]. However, the increasing consumer preference over the past two decades for light trucks and SUVs in North America [70, 71] could limit the effectiveness of such a policy.

We must also draw attention here to the fact that there are presently no EV alternatives for Budget-Constrained Consumers who are less affluent to make the switch from ICEVs. Given that the current availability in the EV market is barrier for less affluent households, it would therefore be pertinent to track how the price of vehicles is spread across the fleet over time. Otherwise, some households risk having a delayed entry into, or perhaps even being left out of, the transition to EVs.

Cold weather may require more public charging infrastructure deployment: Canada's colder weather requires more energy consumption for climate control by EVs than by ICEVs. While the impact to TCO is minimal, households in colder climates must charge their EV batteries more frequently resulting in greater demand for public charging infrastructure. For example, the Typical Household in Quebec would have to charge an EV a total of 434 times, 5% more than in warmer Alberta, even though the Typical Household in both jurisdictions travels the same average VKT, at 40 km per day. Further analysis is needed on the spatial density requirements that account for greater demand for public charger utilization in colder regions. As Canada's climate is colder than the US, public charging station per vehicle deployment goals for the latter country [72] may not be sufficient in the context of Canada. Naturally, the constraining factor here is the limit on public funding available to invest in public charging infrastructure. However, a thorough identification of charging needs, including consideration of the cold weather penalty, would allow funders to take advantage of emerging practices in reducing charging infrastructure costs, e.g. procurement in large volumes to access discounts [73].

High public charging costs will be faced by households in shared dwellings: Households in shared dwellings (such as apartments) are typically disadvantaged by constraints on charging EVs at home [74]. Such households may have to rely more heavily on public charging infrastructure, and therefore disproportionately face higher costs than households that are able to charge at home. Policymakers should turn their attention to helping offset the additional costs associated with EV costs for those living in dwellings without access to private charging. Such policies may be most appropriately implemented at a local level to complement other policies that are designed to improve access to charging for such households. One approach could be that public chargers adopt differential pricing so that certain households could pay a lower rate. However, such a policy may be difficult to implement given that charging infrastructure is typically operated by firms that set the price to a market rate. Alternatively, TOU pricing in public chargers may be easier to implement and would allow anyone to benefit from lower pricing during off-peak periods. For households reliant on public chargers, this could offset some of the additional operating cost versus households with access to private charging.

Incentivizing superusers is an effective emissions reduction strategy: Superusers, or use cases of high VKT, stand to gain the most TCO benefit from using an EV versus an ICEV [16, 75]. In addition, incentivizing superusers would also minimize the cost of emissions abatement. The first case of such an approach would be a law passed in the US state of Vermont to offer EV purchase incentives to individuals using more than 1000 gallons of fuel annually and to those with low to moderate income [76]. Our analysis supports the notion of shifting incentive availability to behavioral metrics based on VKT, rather than a blanket availability of incentives. In the US, the latter has resulted in EV adoption by mostly wealthy households [77], and although such households typically have higher daily VKT than low-income ones [78, 79], many of those EVs are purchased as a second vehicle [39] and are driven less than ICEVs [80]. We would then expect that a key implementation challenge of such a policy would be to identify which low fuel-efficiency vehicles are driven the most. To go a step further by coupling this with an additional criterion of income threshold could address equity concerns, but nevertheless, the former criterion alone would increase the emissions reduction potential beyond a blanket availability of EV incentives.

In the absence of purchase subsidies, a carbon price may be key to increasing the adoption of EVs: The combined effect of a carbon tax of $170 CAD per tonne (expected by 2030) and plausible purchase price reductions could help adjust the total costs of ownership of an EV versus an ICEV when purchase subsidies end. On the other hand, if the carbon tax were to be repealed by a future change in government, the total costs of EV ownership would be worse off than present day. While 'taxing to adoption' has political consequences, a carbon price does have a utility in adjusting the economics of ICEV versus EV. In regions of Canada where the absence of provincial-level purchase subsidies is a deterring factor, such as in the Atlantic region [81], the carbon price may play a more prominent role in driving adoption of EVs.

Given the 2035 ZEV sales mandate on light-duty vehicles, Canadians seeking to purchase a new vehicle would increasingly face limited choice options for ICEV. In such circ*mstances, it could be expected that some households would defer the purchase of new vehicles to replace current ones, and consequently, the average ownership life of vehicles would increase. The result would be a delay in the stock turnover of light-duty vehicles to ZEV, dampening the emissions reduction potential.

Decarbonization of the electricity grid is critical to maximizing emissions reduction potential but may require additional policy support to reduce consumer costs in affected jurisdictions: Provinces with lower carbon intensity electricity have greater emissions reduction potential with EV adoption than ones with higher carbon intensity [82]. While we focus on consumer costs in this study, the analysis could be extended to assess the variation of emissions abatement costs of EVs across Canada. Given that the ZEV sales mandate affects the entire country, not just the provinces with clean electricity grids, there is a risk that the distribution of EVs across Canada in 2035 may not achieve the maximum emissions reduction potential. Thus, federal policy focusing on decarbonization of the electricity grid will be critical in optimizing emissions reduction potential. Projects such as the Saskatchewan–Manitoba intertie and the Atlantic Loop would distribute the benefits of low-carbon electricity provinces with others that have a less favorable endowment of energy resources [83].

If the capital costs of such projects were borne partly by consumers via higher electricity prices, the result would be a greater disparity in NPV between ICEV and EV. EVs would cost even more for Typical Households in jurisdictions transitioning to lower carbon intensity electricity. Thus, there would be a need to assess whether additional EV adoption policy supports are needed to mitigate this potential trade-off.

While the above policy recommendations could help to advance EV adoption, it should be noted that transport electrification may not full achieve GHG mitigation targets for the transportation sector, as research suggests is the case for the US [84]. This highlights the emerging need for policymakers to couple transport electrification with other measures that could reduce the demand for travel.

Post-pandemic travel patterns: Although we use the most recent data available on VKT variation across Canadian provinces (2009), we note that this data is out of date. In the US, average VKT continued to increase after 2009 [58], so we would expect that Canada may have also experienced a similar pattern of VKT growth. Patterns of travel behavior have changed in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era [85], including less trips as a result of an increased incidence of teleworking [86] and a shift from public transport modes to private ones [87]. Although the long-term impacts are unclear, some evidence suggests that the net effect in the years immediately following the pandemic could be a slight decrease in car traffic from pre-pandemic levels [88]. Following our results, a post-pandemic teleworker who drives less would then have a larger gap towards meeting the required VKT for an EV to breakeven with an ICEV.

Efficiency of EV subsidies: While we note that EV subsidies are critical in achieving decarbonization goals, we must also acknowledge that the implicit subsidies available to fossil fuels [89] are a fundamental issue in necessitating such large-scale subsidization of EVs in the first place. One study estimates that the implicit subsidy on gasoline in Canada is equivalent to $0.20 per liter [90]. Removal of the implicit subsidy would decrease breakeven VKT for the Typical Household in Quebec to 39 km per day (provincial average = 40 km per day). Recognizing the political challenges of fossil fuel subsidy reform as a climate policy measure [91], we nevertheless make note that the economic rationality of EVs is inherently disadvantaged by implicit subsidies on gasoline.

Technology advancements: A limitation of studies on EV costs is that the rapidly changing technologies may render results outdated in the near-term future. For example, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology (and favorable fee structures with local electric utilities) could reduce the operating costs of EVs; smart power distribution could increase the overall number of EVs that could be charged at public stations and dwellings with shared electrical capacity; rapid charging could reduce recharging time; and the introduction of wireless and inductive charging to supplement conventional conduction-based charging infrastructure could help to reduce range anxiety [92, 93]. Although our analysis does not include intangible costs, such as range anxiety and the time to refuel, our results provide insights on which future trends in EV and charging infrastructure technology could be prioritized to reduce tangible costs. The introduction of new technologies may also necessitate other costs. Generally, V2G technology could reduce the operating costs of EVs, but this would have to be weighed against an increase to the capital cost of an EV capable of bidirectional charging. For EV users living in dwellings with shared electrical capacity, the deployment of smart power distribution would have the knock-on benefit of reducing reliance on public charging infrastructure, thereby reducing the costs that such households face. On the other hand, the installation costs of such smart upgrades may be borne by the households themselves, which would increase the initial capital costs. As the value of these costs become clearer, future TCO analyses could incorporate such considerations.

Please wait… references are loading.