Comprehensive scenario analysis of household use of battery electric vehicles

Abstract

This study assesses the potential use of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) in place of conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs) at the household level. The assumption is that travelers will change their travel pattern and behaviors to overcome the limitations of BEVs, such as limited range and long charging times. We generate four scenarios representing different levels of traveler adaptation and apply them to sample households from the California Statewide Travel Survey. These scenarios are defined to assess the effect of changes when one of household vehicles is replaced with a BEV, in particular scheduling flexibilities and intra-household interactions on activity and vehicle allocation. These changes in their travel behavior are simulated by the Household Activity Pattern Problem with Electric vehicle (HAPPEV) model which is a variant of the well-known Household Activity Pattern Problem (HAPP). A sequential activity allocation and insertion heuristic is developed to solve the HAPPEV. In addition to testing different levels of scheduling flexibility and travel behavior, we conduct a scenario analysis on activity-travel pattern flexibility, fuel/electricity prices, BEV range and charging location availability. The results show that (1) BEVs when used as household secondary vehicles provide better environmental/economic benefits, (2) work place charging improves activity-travel pattern feasibility and travel disutility (3) electricity/fuel price impact is not significant, (4) current BEV incentives should be continued, and (5) BEV range is still a significant factor.

Keywords:

• Battery electric vehicle
• Household activity pattern problem
• scenario analysis

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Karwan for his input on this article.

Funding

This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the National Science Foundation Award CMMI 1536918. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

1 We note that this section can be omitted without loss of generality.

2 Calculation of the extreme maximum flexibility test is shown in Appendix B.

3 For example, to check the insertion gap condition, parameters $L_1(1),R_1(1)$ and $\mathit{\text{detou}}{r}_1(1)$ are calculated as in Appendix C. Since $\mathit{\text{detou}}{r}_1(1)\ge L_1(1)+R_1(1)$ this insertion is feasible.