Home charging for all: Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of multi-unit dwelling electric vehicle charging hubs


Ubiquitous electric vehicle adoption can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) but will require equitable home charging infrastructure for all residences. Unlike single-family homes, Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUD) currently lack market share and access to nearby charging infrastructure partly due to expensive capital costs for reluctant residential property-owners. This work evaluates the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) at MUD community charging hubs through a techno-economic analysis (TEA) that leverages real-world charging data and costs. Three different MUD charging types are investigated for a baseline and optimistic case: 1.9-kW Level 1 (L1), 6.6-kW Level 2 (L2), and 50-kW Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) stations under three different ownership models: resident, utility, and private company. Results demonstrate L1 and L2 chargers to be less expensive than the gasoline equivalent across the United States. Further, utility and private company ownership models, which avoid initial costs for residential property owners, result in a large LCOC premium for L1 and moderate LCOC premium for L2 relative to the resident ownership model. In contrast, DCFC is shown to be expensive for baseline scenarios but economical for optimistic scenarios especially under private company ownership. This work also performs a cradle to grave (C2G) life cycle assessment (LCA) of an average passenger BEV and gasoline conventional vehicle (CV) using yearly (grid mix & vehicle parameters), hourly (grid mix), and state-level (grid mix) resolution. Results show BEVs to have lower GHG emissions (?86% to ?10%) than gasoline CVs in the contiguous U.S. Next, the system boundary of the TEA is extended to the total cost of ownership (TCO) of BEVs. The TCO is then coupled with the C2G GHG emissions to calculate the cost of GHG emissions reduction. Ultimately, the cost of GHG emissions reduction from MUD BEVs relative to gasoline CVs is shown to be negative for every scenario except baseline DCFC, meaning MUD BEV charging infrastructure can be a cost-effective endeavor to reduce GHG emissions.

See publication:
This publication pertains to:
Charging Stations
Publication Authors:
  • Noah Horesh
  • Yan Zhou
  • Jason Quinn
It appeared in:
Peer-reviewed technical journal
Multi-unit dwelling charging hub; Levelized cost of charging; Business model; Charging infrastructure; Electric vehicles; Emissions reduction