Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 1849–1869 | Cite as

Home charge timing choice behaviors of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle users under a dynamic electricity pricing scheme

  • Xiao-Hui Sun
  • Toshiyuki Yamamoto
  • Kazuhiro Takahashi
  • Takayuki Morikawa
Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

This paper examines choice behaviors pertaining to the time at which users of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with 24 km electric range charge their vehicles after arriving at home under a dynamic electricity pricing scheme. The following mutually exclusive alternatives are presented: no charging, charging immediately after arriving at home, charging at the cheapest time, and charging at other times. Four versions of a mixed logit model with unobserved heterogeneity are applied to panel data on vehicle usage from 9 households with 2226 observations in Toyota City. Estimation results suggest that users’ willingness to charge become stronger with increasing driving distance when the driving distance is less than the electric range of 24 km, while tend not to charge when the driving distance is longer than the electric range. Users who return home at the cheapest time or during the day are willing to charge immediately after arriving at home. Electricity prices significantly affect choices to charge at the cheapest time for all users, and stay-at-home mother users and users returning home in the evening tend to charge at the cheapest time. Users returning home in the evening also tend to charge at other times, and being accustomed to charge at a certain time increases the probability of charging at other times. In addition, considerable variations are found across individuals with respect to their preferences for charge timing alternatives as well as for electricity prices.

Keywords

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle Dynamic electricity pricing scheme Home charge timing Choice behavior Mixed logit model Unobserved heterogeneity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper presents results obtained through research activities conducted in collaboration with Toyota Motor Corporation. This study was also supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 25289164) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, as well as Foundation of Xinjiang University (No. BS160252). The authors also would like to thank Mr. Jun Koreishi and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S.: Anticipating plug-in hybrid vehicle energy impacts in California: constructing consumer-informed recharge profiles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 15(4), 212–219 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M., Bolduc, D.: Multinomial probit with a logit kernel and a general parametric specification of the covariance structure. Working Paper, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT (1996)Google Scholar
  3. Bhat, C.R.: Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 35(7), 677–693 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biviji, M., Uckun, C., Bassett, G., Wang, J.: Patterns of electric vehicle charging with time of use rates: case studies in California and Portland. In: Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference, pp. 1–5. IEEE. (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daina, N., Polak, J. W., Sivakumar, A.: Patent and latent predictors of electric vehicle charging behavior. In: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2502, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 116–123Google Scholar
  7. Daina, N., Sivakumar, A., Polak, J.W.: Electric vehicle charging choices: modelling and implications for smart charging services. Transp. Res Part C Emerg. Technol. 81, 36–56 (2017a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daina, N., Sivakumar, A., Polak, J.W.: Modelling electric vehicles use: a survey on the methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 447–460 (2017b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elgowainy, A., Zhou, Y., Vyas, A.D., Mahalik, M., Santini, D., Wang, M.: Impacts of charging choices for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 2030 scenario. Transp. Res. Rec. 2287, 9–17 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fetene, G.M., Kaplan, S., Sebald, A.C., Prato, C.G.: Myopic loss aversion in the response of electric vehicle owners to the scheduling and pricing of vehicle charging. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 50, 345–356 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geweke, J.: Monte Carlo simulation and numerical integration. Staff Report No. 192, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (1995)Google Scholar
  12. ECOtality: How do PEV owners respond to time-of-use rates while charging vehicles? https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/EVProj/125348-714937.pev-driver.pdf (2013)
  13. Hadley, S.W: Impact of plug-in hybrid vehicles on the electric grid. ORNL/TM-2006/554. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Halton, J.H.: On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numer. Math. 2(1), 84–90 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jabeen, F., Olaru, D., Smith, B., Braunl, T., Speidel, S.: Electric vehicle battery charging behaviour: findings from a driver survey. In: Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 36th, 2013, Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunnaly, J.: Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  17. Revelt, D., Train, K.: Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80(4), 647–657 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Revelt, D., Train, K.: Customer-specific taste parameters and Mixed Logit: households’ choice of electricity supplier. Department of Economics, UCB (2000)Google Scholar
  19. Shao, S., Pipattanasomporn, M., Rahman, S.: Challenges of PHEV penetration to the residential distribution network. In: Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2009. PES’09. IEEE, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  20. Sun, X.-H., Yamamoto, T., Morikawa, T.: Charge timing choice behavior of battery electric vehicle users. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 37, 97–107 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tal, G., Nicholas, M.A., Davies, J., Woodjack, J.: Charging behavior impacts on electric vehicle miles traveled: Who is not plugging in? Transp. Res. Rec. 2454, 53–60 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.: Couple similarity for driving style. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 9(3), 185–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O.: From parents to children—similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 8(1), 19–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toyota City Low-carbon Society Verification Project (Smart Melit). http://jscp.nepc.or.jp/en/toyota/index.shtml
  25. Train, K.: Halton sequences for mixed logit. Department of Economics, UCB (2000)Google Scholar
  26. Train, K.E.: Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waraich, R.A., Galus, M.D., Dobler, C., Balmer, M., Andersson, G., Axhausen, K.W.: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and smart grids: investigations based on a microsimulation. Transp. Res Part C Emerg. Technol. 28, 74–86 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zoepf, S., MacKenzie, D., Keith, D., Chernicoff, W.: Charging choices and fuel displacement in a large-Scale demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2385, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureXinjiang UniversityÜrümqiChina
  2. 2.Institute of Materials and Systems for SustainabilityNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Environmental StudiesNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan
  4. 4.Institute of Innovation for Future SocietyNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations