Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

FleetWise Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot by oaw14128

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 34

									FleetWise:
Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle pilot



Prepared by: Toronto Atmospheric Fund
In collaboration with A123Systems and University of Toronto

                                                              June 2009
    Acknowledgements
    The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Pilot was a joint project of A123Systems and the Toronto Atmospheric
    Fund, supported by a collaborative effort among many parties.

    We would like to thank those who helped provide data and other key information and support:

    Ricardo Bazzarella, A123Systems
    Nicole Arsenault, York University
    Renzo Cacciotti, Toronto Hydro
    Andre Cheong, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
    Alan Cooper, University of Toronto
    Brian Denney, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
    Kai-Chuen Fung, University of Toronto
    Sarah Gingrich, Toronto Fleet Services
    Huang-Yee Iu, A123Systems
    Philip Jessup, The Climate Group
    Shaf Khan, Ministry of Transportation Ontario
    Greg Kiessling, Bullfrog Power
    Wen Jie Li, University of Toronto
    Kevin McLaughlin, AutoShare
    Ben Marans, Toronto Atmospheric Fund
    Gerry Pietschmann, Toronto Fleet Services
    Jennifer Reynolds, Toronto Hydro
    Dr. Beth Savan, University of Toronto
    Smita Saxena, University of Toronto
    Drew Shintani, Toronto Fleet Services
    Stan Szwagiel, University of Toronto
    Ashley Taylor, University of Toronto
    Akos Toth, A123Systems
    Jim Tucker, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
    Dr. J.S. Wallace, University of Toronto

    Core project team:
    Kai-Chuen Fung, University of Toronto
    Huang-Yee Iu, A123Systems
    Ben Marans, Toronto Atmospheric Fund
    Ashley Taylor, University of Toronto




2 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Executive Summary
In 2007-2009, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund’s FleetWise program organized an on-street pilot test of Plug-
in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) technology. The test involved ten1 standard hybrid vehicles that were
modified with an additional after-market battery pack and controls to allow for greater use of the vehicle’s
electric motor and to enable plug-in charging.

Recharging of the battery pack of a standard hybrid vehicle is accomplished through regenerative braking
(batteries receive charge when brakes are applied). This system provides a limited amount of power to
the manufacturer-supplied battery pack. When a PHEV battery pack and controls are added, the electric
motor can produce more horsepower, allowing the electric engine to handle acceleration up to 55 km/h,
for example, rather than the usual 15 km/h. The greater power available to the electric motor also allows
for all-electric cruising (car at a constant speed on a relatively level road) up to 100 km/h. The additional
battery system can also be recharged using any regular electric outlet.

Overall, the larger PHEV battery system and greater recharging ability means the hybrid vehicle is less
reliant on its internal combustion engine, resulting in lower emissions even after factoring in emissions
from electricity generation.

The FleetWise pilot was designed to test the performance of PHEV technology in fleet use. Nine different
fleets cooperated in the pilot, thereby providing a wide range of fleet conditions and usages for testing.
Each organization tested one2 vehicle over a 12-month period. Uses ranged from one driver making
a regular commute to multiple drivers in a car sharing service using the vehicle for a wide array of
trips. Data collection and analysis was handled by engineering students from the University of Toronto,
coordinated via the Sustainability Office. The PHEV conversion kit was supplied by A123Systems, which
also handled the actual vehicle conversions.

Given that transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Toronto
— and one of the fastest growing sources nationwide — we wanted to see if PHEVs could reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants associated with fleet vehicle use.

The results of the pilot test were quite mixed. Overall, the vehicles produced only a marginal increase in
fuel efficiency (10%), which resulted in greenhouse gas emissions being reduced by 6%. However, when
the vehicles were actually in a position to use the PHEV system (e.g., there was sufficient charge in the
PHEV battery pack to run the electric motor), the vehicles delivered excellent fuel efficiency improvements
of 36% with a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Probably the largest factor influencing the overall results was that the test vehicles were charged and ready
to run in PHEV mode for only 50% of the total trip kilometres covered in the pilot. The vehicles actually
operated in true PHEV mode (enhanced electric mode) for only 30% of the total trip kilometres recorded.
During other periods, there was insufficient charge in the PHEV battery system either due to the length
of the trip (the power in the PHEV unit had been used up before the trip was completed) or because the
vehicle had not been re-charged between trips.


1
    One vehicle, a Ford Escape Hybrid, was withdrawn before the completion of the pilot when the conversion kit manufacturer,
    A123Systems, withdrew support for this vehicle mode
2
    With the exception of the City of Toronto, which tested two.


                                                                                 FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 1
    Another factor that affected the outcomes was driving style. Quick acceleration from a standstill position
    and high-speed accelerations require greater use of the internal combustion engine (ICE) and quickly drain
    the PHEV unit batteries. More gentle acceleration and shorter trips allow the vehicle to make more use of
    the electric motor. The pilot test used a sensor set to a 40% depression point on the accelerator pedal as
    a threshold for identifying whether the driving style was positive or negative for PHEV usage. We found
    that, on average, fuel economy performance decreased by over 80% when the trips were characterized by a
    driving style that had negative implications for PHEV usage.

    Finally, the PHEV unit also was very sensitive to cold weather conditions and fuel economy decreased
    significantly when the vehicle was operating in PHEV mode at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius.
    This was due to a number of factors, including the need for the internal combustion engine to run
    to provide heat for passengers and to warm engine oil. It is also a result of built-in low temperature
    protection system that limits the overall rate of electrical power output from both the PCM battery and the
    original battery to protect the electrical system, thus making less electric power available in cold weather.
    This is obviously an area where further technical work could improve future performance.

    General Results

        Total number of trips                           6861
        Total distance traveled                         122,165 km
        Total distance traveled in HEV mode             88,958 km
        Total distance traveled in PHEV mode            33,208 km
        Overall fuel economy                            5.71 L/100km
        PHEV fuel economy                               4.10 L/100km
        Overall GHG reductions                          6%
        PHEV GHG reductions                             20%
        Number of charging events                       1,615
        Total energy drawn from the grid                3.4 DC MWh3
        Potential distance per charge                   50km


    What we learned
    Given the strong emission reduction advantages delivered when the vehicles were in PHEV mode, to
    maximize the potential advantages of PHEVs we must strive to maximize the use of this mode during each
    trip. A few factors come into play in achieving this objective:
           •	   Type of trip: PHEV mode is best suited to shorter, lower speed trips or short highway trips with
                steady speeds where the ability of the PHEV unit to assist the ICE even at highway speeds can be
                useful.
           •	   Driving style: A smoother, less aggressive driving style maximizes the potential use of the PHEV
                unit.
           •	   Charging: More frequent plug-in charging of the PHEV unit ensures maximum availability.
           •	   Temperature: The vehicles achieved the best fuel economy during warm weather. Parking the
                vehicles indoors in winter if possible could improve winter performance.

    3
           Actual energy consumed by the vehicles was less due to energy conversion and efficiency losses.


2 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
For fleet managers, these findings can help to identify an appropriate fleet niche for PHEVs:

City or short-trip highway usage: Vehicles that will be used for frequent short City trips are probably best
suited for replacement by PHEVs. After this, vehicles that are used for short highway trips (less than 50
kilometres) or used occasionally for highway trips would be the next best usage. Vehicles frequently used
for longer highway trips are not well suited to PHEV replacement.

Educate and incent drivers: Drivers need to understand the relation between driving style and fuel
efficiency for all vehicles, but this is particularly important for PHEVs. Drivers need to also understand
when to switch in and out of PHEV mode and require regular feedback and reminders on the link between
their driving style and PHEV performance. Organizations may even want to investigate a rewards structure
to compensate for the lack of a direct incentive (personal out of pocket costs) for good driving.

Keep it charged: The vehicle can only maximize the advantages of PHEV operation if there is charge in the
batteries. Otherwise, the additional equipment represents little more than dead weight for the ICE. The
amount of time the vehicles in the pilot program operated without a usefully charged PHEV unit speaks
volumes about the need for better access to charging infrastructure. The development of this infrastructure
will have to address issues such as access to charging points while on the road; methods of paying for
electricity used to charge batteries while away from the fleet base; technology for faster charging; and
attention to charge timing to lessen grid loads or to take advantage of time-of-use pricing.

What’s ahead
When TAF began work on developing the PHEV pilot, full electric vehicles were still seen as being many
years away. A lot has changed in just a few years. The turmoil in the auto industry has sparked a new
focus on true electric vehicles and we now have the promise of all-electric vehicles being commercially
available as early as 2010. Purpose built PHEVs are also on their way and these vehicles, simply as a result
of having been engineered from the ground up to maximize performance, are likely to produce significantly
better results than what we saw in our pilot with retrofitted vehicles.

But whether the next generation of vehicles is PHEV or EV, the issue of infrastructure will remain
critically important. Without good charging infrastructure and advanced information systems (for billing,
determining optimum charging windows, managing grid impact constraints, etc.), we risk having electric
vehicles on our streets with nowhere to go in terms of usage or emission reductions.

To address this, as part of our follow-up to the PHEV pilot, TAF is working with Project Get Ready to
ensure Toronto is a hospitable home for electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Building on the model of the
PHEV pilot, TAF will work with fleet managers in the public and private sector to jointly procure, maintain
and evaluate EVs. TAF will also convene and engage key stakeholders to advocate for EV incentives and
financing tools, secure dedicated charging infrastructure and gain a clear understanding of grid connection
issues associated with plug-ins, including pricing mechanisms, peak demand management and green power
purchase contracts.




                                                                   FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 3
4 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Table of Contents
1.0   Background Information                                                                              6
      1.1 Definition of PHEV mode, HEV mode and trip types                                                7
      1.2 Data Collection Methodology                                                                     8

2.0 Travel Profiles of the PHEVs                                                                         10
3.0 Fuel Economy Comparison                                                                              12
4.0 Temperature VS. Fuel Economy                                                                         14
5.0 Driving Style and Fuel Economy                                                                       17
6.0 Electric Vehicle (EV) Mode                                                                           19
7.0   PCM Battery Discharge Rate and Fuel Economy                                                        20
8.0 Distances Between a Recharging Events VS PHEV Fuel Economy                                           22
9.0 Adapting to a Plug-in                                                                                23
10.0 Demand Management of Recharging Events                                                              25
11.0 Electricity Consumption                                                                             27
12.0 PHEV Fuel Costs & GHG Emissions Impact                                                              28
13.0 Conclusion & Recommendations                                                                        31




                                                             FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 5
    1.0 Background Information
    The Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) is an agency of the City of Toronto dedicated to supporting innovative
    strategies and technologies to help Toronto meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In 2007,
    TAF worked with the City of Toronto to develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (June 2007). This
    identified personal vehicles (e.g. cars and light trucks) as the source for more than a quarter of the City
    of Toronto’s GHG emissions while trucks accounted for just under 10%. In terms of NOx emissions, these
    numbers were 27% and 36%, respectively.

    This highlighted the need to address these sources of emissions through sustainable transportation
    initiatives such as transportation demand management planning, active transportation solutions and
    improving the performance of internal combustion engines (ICEs). For the latter, hybrid-electric vehicles
    (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and all-electric vehicles (EVs) provide a solution.

    Globally, there has been increased activity on the part of vehicle manufacturers (large and small) to
    produce hybrid, plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. On a local level, federal and provincial governments
    are now developing policies in support of electric vehicles (e.g. allowing low-speed electric vehicles on
    public roads) and fleet managers are learning to implement ‘green fleet plans’ to offset the growing costs of
    fuel.

    The Canadian market for vehicles is estimated to be one tenth of that in the United States. Thus, if we want
    to see new vehicle technologies north of the border, we have to demonstrate to the vehicle manufacturers
    that there is local demand and fleets willing to purchase, test and promote plug-ins.

    Towards this goal, TAF developed the FleetWise program with the objective to accelerate hybrid and electric
    vehicle solutions for Toronto’s public and private fleets. In 2007, TAF launched the first FleetWise project:
    the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) pilot. The goal of this project was to assess the performance of a
    PHEV conversion kit in terms of fuel efficiency, electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

    TAF worked with a number of different fleet partners, both public and private, to test the performance of
    the vehicles in real, on-road situations during a full year of climatic conditions in the Greater Toronto Area.
    To capture the true performance of these vehicles, they were driven by a diverse group of drivers each with
    different driving habits.

    For this pilot, ten vehicles were chosen for conversion from hybrid to plug-in hybrid: nine Toyota Prius
    hybrids (second generation) and one Ford Escape Hybrid4. Each Prius was converted to a PHEV utilizing
    A123 Systems’ Hymotion L5 Plug-in Conversion Module (PCM).




    4
        The Ford Escape PHEV was taken out of this pilot in August 2008 by A123Systems as there were no plans to commercialize the
        product and all prototypes were removed from service.


6 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Table 1: Plug-in Conversion Module Specifications

 Battery System       A123Systems Hymotion L5 Plug-In Conversion Module
 Chemistry            A123Systems Lithium Ion NanophosphateTM
 Nominal Voltage      ~190V
 Battery Capacity     25Ahr/5.0kWhr
 Weight               85kg (included cells, on-board electronics, & chassis
 Recharging           Charge by plugging into any regular 120V outlet, charges in ~5.5 hours


1.1 Definition of PHEV mode, HEV mode and trip types
A standard Toyota Prius operates as a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), with an internal combustion engine
(ICE) that is supported by a nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery-powered electric motor. These two engines
work together to propel the vehicle and run the internal systems (e.g. climate control), thus reducing the
amount of gasoline required to operate the vehicle. The NiMH battery is charged through regenerative
breaking, whereby the kinetic energy of the vehicle is converted into electric energy stored in the battery.

With the installation of the Hymotion Plug-in Conversion Module (PCM) battery, each vehicle was
converted to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). The PCM battery pack provides additional energy for
the vehicle’s electric motor and is recharged by plugging into a standard electrical outlet. Once the PCM
battery is drained, the vehicle returns to the stock configuration as described above.

The PHEVs in this study operated in two different driving modes: HEV mode and PHEV mode.

When running in HEV mode, which is the same operating mode as the stock configuration of the Prius,
the vehicle uses both the internal combustion engine as well as the electric motor to propel the vehicle. At
speeds up to 15km/hr, the vehicle can accelerate using only the electric motor. If more power is required
under heavier acceleration or load, the gas engine becomes activated. Working together, the gas engine
is frequently used to provide steady state power while the electric motor is used to assist acceleration and
maintain speed during high load conditions.

When the PCM battery has been charged, the vehicle can operate in PHEV mode whereby a larger amount
of electrical energy is made available to the vehicle, allowing all-electric moderate acceleration up to 55km/
hr. In addition, steady state loads can be handled by the electric motor allowing for high-speed, all-electric
cruising. When power demand exceeds the maximum output of the electric motor, the gas engine becomes
active to provide additional power. Therefore, at speeds beyond 55km/hr or at higher acceleration rates,
both the gas engine and the electric motor are working to propel the vehicle. When the PCM battery is
completely depleted, the vehicle reverts back to HEV mode.

For this analysis, different ‘trip types’ were used to categorize the percentage of PHEV mode utilization (i.e.
the amount of time during one trip that the PCM battery was used). This was done to help differentiate
between complete trips and partial trips, where the PCM battery is active during only a portion of the travel
time.




                                                                       FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 7
    HEV trips were recorded when the vehicle travelled 5% or less of its total trip distance using the PCM
    battery. Conversely, when 95% or more of the total trip distance used the PCM battery, it was considered
    a PHEV trip. Trips with PCM battery usage between 5% and 95% of its total trip distance were labelled as
    combined trips, where the vehicles operated in both modes interchangeably. The cumulative results of all
    trips regardless of trip category were labelled as overall trips (i.e. total distance traveled divided by total
    fuel consumption).

    Table 2: Categorization of Trip Types

        Trip Type       Portion of Trip Using                   Description
                        Plug-in Conversion Module
        HEV             0-5%                                    Stock configuration of Toyota Prius.
                                                                Vehicle acts exclusively in HEV mode.
        Combined        5-95%                                   PCM was active during a portion of the trip. Vehicle operated in
                                                                both HEV and PHEV modes.
        PHEV            95-100%                                 PCM was active for most of the trip.
                                                                Vehicle operates exclusively in PHEV mode.
        Overall         0-100%                                  Actual performance of the vehicle during the study period (i.e.
                                                                total distance traveled divided by total fuel consumed).

    This categorization method provided a clear sense of each vehicle’s performance in a given trip. It also
    provided information about the performance potential for each vehicle were they to operate exclusively as
    an HEV or PHEV as well as information about overall performance. Lastly, this methodology corresponds
    with that used in other PHEV studies, such as the Idaho National Laboratory’s reports.

    1.2 Data Collection Methodology
    The data collection period for this project was from August 2007 to December 20085, with vehicles travelling
    more than 122,000 km collectively in different climate conditions in Toronto.

    Table 3: Overall Fleet Statistics

        Total Number of Vehicles                        9
        Data Collection Period                          August 2007 to December 2008
        Number of Driving Operations                    6,861
        Total Fleet Distance Traveled                   122,165 km
        Ambient Temperature Range                       -15°C to 37°C

        Number of PCM Recharge Operations               1,615
        Total Energy Drawn from the Grid                3.4 DC MWh6




    5
          Most vehicle conversions took place between August and November 2007.
    6
          Actual energy consumed by the vehicles was less due to energy conversion and efficiency losses.


8 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Participating Vehicles and their Codes:
AutoShare – AUTO                            Ontario Min. of the Environment – MOE
Bullfrog Power – BULL                       Ministry of Transportation Ontario – MTO
City of Toronto 1 - COT1                    Toronto and Region Conservation Authority – TRCA
City of Toronto 2 – COT2                    Toronto Hydro – HYDRO
                                            York University – YORK

When each vehicle was converted to a plug-in hybrid, a Kvaser Memorator data logger was installed to
collect information for analysis. This data logger collected predefined data parameters from the vehicle as
well as from the PCM battery. The data collected from each driving event was later processed and grouped
together to form an overall trip record for each vehicle.

Table 4: Trip Parameters Collected for Analysis

 Driving Operation      Distance traveled [km] (HEV, PHEV, Combined, Overall)
                        Vehicle mean speed [km/hr] (PHEV, Overall)
                        Fuel economy [L/100km] (PHEV, HEV, Overall)
                        Fuel Volume [L] (PHEV, HEV, Overall)
                        EV mode travel [%]
                        Ambient temperature [°C]
                        Electrical energy consumed [Watt-hour]
                        PCM discharge rate [Wh/km]
                        Aggressiveness factor [%]
 Battery Operation      Recharging time [hr]
                        Electrical energy consumed [kWh]
                        State of charge at beginning & end of trip [%]

In contrast to laboratory tests, this study assessed the performance of the PHEVs in real, on-road
conditions. Thus, there were many uncontrollable factors influencing the vehicles’ performance: ambient
temperature, climate control operations, driving conditions (e.g. traffic congestion, road incline, city vs.
highway driving), indoor vs. outdoor parking and, of course, driver behaviour. This analysis was unable to
completely assess these factors’ impacts on fuel consumption since they were difficult to isolate from each
other and there were no data parameters designed to account for these factors. While the specific impact of
each driving condition is unknown, the results presented in this analysis reflected their general influences
as a whole.

As well, in order to best capture data that reflected relevant characteristics of both PHEV and HEV modes,
trips with a total distance of less than one kilometre were discarded. Data from these trips often represented
errors or extreme outliers when compared to other data points. For example, the engine start up sequence
of the Toyota Prius always activates the internal combustion engine, thus consuming gasoline whether
the vehicle is moving or not. Therefore, trips with a distance less than one kilometre did not accurately
represent the drive cycle and were removed from the data set.




                                                                         FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 9
         2.0 Travel Profiles of the PHEVs
         A detailed distance profile of each participating vehicle was assessed using two measures: the distance
         traveled by each individual vehicle as a percentage of the total distance traveled by the entire fleet and
         the portion of that distance where the vehicle was operating in PHEV mode. For example, the AutoShare
         (AUTO) vehicle travelled more than 36,880km, representing more than 30% of the total fleet distance.
         However, it only traveled in PHEV mode for about 15% of the total distance. In contrast, the Toronto and
         Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) vehicle contributed just over 10% of the total travel distance but
         operated in PHEV mode for 60% of its individual distance.

         These travel profiles were affected by the number of drivers using the vehicle, the length of the trips and
         the vehicle use requirements. For example, the AutoShare vehicle was driven by more than 30 people each
         month for longer distance trips as part of a car sharing service. In contrast, the TRCA vehicle was driven by
         one person and was used largely to commute from home to work and back.

         Figure 2.0 Distance Profile of Each Project Participant
                                                     Vehicle contribution to total fleet distance traveled [%]
          35%

          30%

          25%

          20%

          15%

          10%

                        5%

                        0%
                                            AUTO      BULL       COT1      COT2     HYDRO       MOE       MTO     TRCA      YORK
                                                                             Project Participants


                                                                  Portion of distance traveled in PHEV mode [%]
                                      70%

                                      60% Fig. 2 a
   Percentage Of Total Distance [%]




                                      50%

                                      40%

                                      30%

                                      20%

                                      10%

                                       0%
                                              AUTO        BULL      COT1      COT2     HYDRO        MOE     MTO      TRCA      YORK
                                                                               Project Participants



10 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
                                              Fig 2. b
As a fleet, 90% of the total distance traveled occurred between September 2007 and October 2008 and
the total distance covered in PHEV mode accounted for less than 30% of the total distance traveled. The
majority of these vehicles were taking advantage of the PCM battery in less than 50% of their total travelled
distances. Thus, the data suggests that drivers were not exercising the full potential of the PHEVs during
operation.

This observation can be a result of two major factors. First, trip distance can range from one kilometre to
hundreds of kilometres. The capacity of the PCM can only hold limited quantity of energy and can thus be
drained before the trip is completed.

Second, PCM battery recharging durations and opportunities may be limited due to driver awareness
about the PCM battery charge levels as well as the availability (or lack thereof) of recharging facilities near
parking locations. A specific example is the AutoShare vehicle, which showed large time and distance gaps
between recharging events thus leading to a higher proportion of trips in HEV mode.




                                                                   FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 11
       3.0 Fuel Economy Comparison
       The fuel economy performance of the vehicles varied between trip categories as well as other driving
       conditions.

       Figure 3.0 Monthly Fuel Economy Performance
                                                                            Fig. 3 Monthly Fuel Economy Performance
                                                                            HEV               Combine             PHEV              Overall
                                    8


                                    7


                                    6
   Monthly Fuel Economy [L/100km]




                                    5


                                    4


                                    3


                                    2


                                    1


                                    0
                                        Aug‐07   Sep‐07   Oct‐07   Nov‐07   Dec‐07   Jan‐08    Feb‐08   Mar‐08    Apr‐08   May‐08    Jun‐08   Jul‐08   Aug‐08   Sep‐08   Oct‐08   Nov‐08   Dec‐08
                                                                                                                 Time



       Table 5: Average Fuel Economy Results

                        Trip Type                                       Average Fuel Economy (l/100km)                              Improvement from HEV
                        HEV (0-5% PCM)                                                          6.38                                                   -
                        Combined (5-95% PCM)                                                    5.01                                               21%
                        PHEV (95-100% PCM)                                                      4.10                                               36%
                        Overall (0-100% PCM)                                                    5.71                                               10%


       The baseline fuel economy performance for this study was assessed by taking the average performance
       of the fleet vehicles during HEV trips where the PCM battery was not in use (i.e. it carried no charge). At
       6.4L/100km, this represented a difference of over 50% to those published by Natural Resources Canada for
       Toyota Prius model years 2004 to 2006 (4.0L/100km city, 4.2L/100km highway)7. This variance is likely due
       to the difference between lab testing results and the real world driving conditions experienced during the
       field tests (e.g. vehicle loads, traffic congestion, ambient temperature, driver behaviour, etc.).




       7
                                    Natural Resources Canada, Fuel Consumption Ratings – Vehicle Details, May 2, 2009 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/
                                    fuelratings/ratings-details.cfm?id=62717


12 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
During PHEV trips (when the PCM battery was used for 95% or more of the travel distance), the
vehicles consumed an average of 36% less fuel for every kilometre when compared to the baseline fuel
consumption. Combined trips (5-95% PCM battery use) had an average 21% fuel efficiency improvement in
comparison with HEV trips. Overall, the fuel economy for this fleet was 5.71L/100km, an improvement of
10% when compared to HEV trips.

In addition, the data showed that the vehicles achieved better fuel economy in the summer months than
the winter months. For example, the best fuel economy performances were recorded in July 2008 at
2.0L/100km and 2.6L/100km. This will be discussed further in the next section.




                                                              FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 13
          4.0 Temperature vs. Fuel Economy
          During the study period, temperatures of the driving environment varied between -15°C and 37°C and
          the data collected showed that the fuel economy of the vehicles fluctuated along with the temperature
          changes. Fuel economy performance was directly correlated to temperature with higher performance levels
          at increased temperatures and lower performance levels at lower temperatures.

          Figure 4.0 Monthly Fuel Economy Performance Improvements
                   Fig. 4 ‐ Monthly Fuel Economy Improvement
                                                Combine   PHEV   Overall
                                          60%
   Monthly Fuel Economy Improvement [%]




                                          50%


                                          40%


                                          30%


                                          20%


                                          10%


                                          0%




                                                                  Month


          In cold climate conditions, vehicle fuel economy was affected by several factors. First, the climate control
          system of the Toyota Prius required the gas engine to be activated in order to generate heat inside the
          vehicle. Second, the control system of the Toyota Prius limited the overall rate of electrical power output
          from both the PCM battery and the original battery to protect the electrical system at low temperatures.
          Third, when the engine was cold, the engine oil was more viscous, thus reducing the vehicle’s fuel
          efficiency. All of these factors increased the vehicles’ dependence on the gas engine and led to decreased
          fuel economy results in colder temperatures.

          The overall fuel economy performance of this fleet improved approximately 14% when comparing low
          temperatures to high. For PHEV trips, this increased to 30% due to the sensitivity of the equipment. In
          contrast, the fuel economy of HEV and combined trips were more stable with less discernable variations
          relative to temperature changes.

          Based on these results, the ideal operating temperature for these vehicles was greater than 5°C with the
          best results in the range of 20-25°C.




14 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
                                                    Fig. 4.1
       Figure 4.1 Temperature VS. Fuel Economy
                                                                    Combine       PHEV           Overall
                               50%
Fuel Economy Improvement [%]




                               40%


                               30%


                               20%


                               10%


                               0%
                                     ‐10°C ‐ ‐5°C      ‐5°C ‐ 0°C     0°C ‐ 5°C   5°C ‐ 10°C   10°C ‐ 15°C       15°C ‐ 20°C       20°C ‐ 25°C   25°C ‐ 30°C
                                                                                    Temperature


       Table 6: The Effect of Temperature Variations on Fuel Economy

                   Trip type              Fuel economy (L/100km) Fuel economy                      Improvement in fuel                    Fuel economy
                                          at less than 5°C (Low) (l/100km)                         economy compared to                    difference
                                                                 at more than 5°C                  HEV mode                               between low &
                                                                 (High)                            Low temp.           High temp.         high temperatures

                   HEV                                  6.89                       6.10                      -                 -                 11%
                   Combined                             5.49                       4.75                 20%                22%                   13%
                   PHEV                                 5.09                       3.54                 26%                42%                   30%
                   Overall                              6.29                       5.39                    9%              12%                   14%


       Finally, there was insufficient data to discern any fuel economy difference between trip types when
       temperatures were below -10°C and above 30°C. The sum of data samples recorded in these two distinctive
       temperature conditions was only 4% of the total driving operation data samples size. As well, HEV trips
       accounted for 90% of the total distance with temperatures above 30°C.




                                                                                                      FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 15
                                                       4.2 ‐ Fuel Economy Improvement VS. Temperature
         Figure 4.2 Fuel Economy Improvement vs. Temperature
                                                  Combine           PHEV     Overall
                                  50%



                                  40%
   Fuel Economy Improvement [%]




                                  30%



                                  20%



                                  10%



                                  0%
                                        ‐10°C ‐ ‐5°C        ‐5°C ‐ 0°C     0°C ‐ 5°C   5°C ‐ 10°C       10°C ‐ 15°C   15°C ‐ 20°C   20°C ‐ 25°C   25°C ‐ 30°C
                                                                                          Temperature




16 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
5.0 Driving Style and Fuel Economy
The degree to which a driver quickly accelerates from a stopped position can affect the fuel economy
performance for all vehicles, regardless of whether they are hybrids, plug-in hybrids or conventional gas-
powered cars.

A123Systems developed an aggressiveness factor in order to link the effects of driver behaviour and fuel
economy, The aggressiveness factor is based on the portion of driving time where the accelerator pedal is
pressed beyond 40% of its overall range. The 40% threshold comes from qualitative observations which
indicated the gas engine turned on when the pedal was pressed beyond 40% in order to meet driver power
demand. For example, a trip with an aggressiveness factor of 50 indicates that the driver was pressing on
the accelerator pedal over 40% of its overall range for more than half the trip.

In Figure 5.0, trips with similar driving behaviours were grouped into one set and then the average fuel
economy for that particular set was calculated. Based on the data collected, aggressive drivers experienced
poor fuel economy results, regardless of trip type.

                  Fig. 5 Fuel Economy VS. Aggressiveness Factor
Figure 5.0 Fuel Economy vs. Aggressiveness Factor
                            HEV     Combine       PHEV       Overall 
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
            0 to 20 (Low)                    21 to 40                    41 to 60 (High)


During HEV trips, drivers with a more relaxed driving style achieved an average of 42% improvement in
fuel economy when compared to aggressive drivers. This was also evident during both combined and PHEV
trips, where drivers saw a 55% and 81% improvement in fuel economy, respectively. This demonstrates
that the PHEV trips were far more sensitive to driver behaviour than HEV trips. As well, aggressive drivers
were far more likely to require the assistance of the internal combustion engine and largely failed to keep
the vehicle operating in electric-only mode.

Overall, drivers with low aggressiveness factors achieved an average of 50% savings in fuel consumption as
fuel economy performance decreased for all categories as aggressiveness factors increased.
          Fig
          Fig. 5




                                                                 FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 17
   Table 7: Aggressiveness Factor and Fuel Economy
     Trip Type    Average fuel economy               Improvement in fuel economy   Difference between high and
                  (l/100km) vs. aggressiveness       compared to HEV mode          low aggressiveness factors
                  factor
                    0-20        21-40     41-60        0-20     21-40      41-60
     HEV            6.13        7.15       8.72         -          -         -                 42%
     Combined       4.82        5.63       7.45        21%       21%       15%                 55%
     PHEV           3.64        4.84       6.59        41%       32%       25%                 81%
     Overall        5.46        6.33       8.21        11%       11%        6%                 50%




18 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
  6.0 Electric Vehicle (EV) Mode
  Under certain driving conditions, the PHEVs in this fleet operated as all-electric vehicles where, for a
  portion of the trip, only the electric motor was used to propel the vehicle. This occurred only in PHEV
  mode during either the PHEV trips (95-100% PCM) or the combined trips (5-95% PCM). It should be noted
  that during the study period, this situation happened infrequently as PHEV mode made up only a small
  portion of the total distance traveled.

  Figure 6 illustrates a data set from the PHEV trips only. PHEV trips with similar average trip speeds were
  grouped to illustrate the availability of EV mode in trips with different average speeds. PHEV trips with low
  average trip speeds often had a higher proportion of the distance traveled in EV mode. These vehicles were
  likely driving on city streets or congested highways. From the PHEV trip data set, 26% of the total distance
  traveled was in EV mode.

  Again, EV mode operation is constrained when the vehicle reaches the maximum power output of the
  electric motor. When this threshold is reached, the ICE must come on to supplement power.

                        Fig. 6: EV Mode VS. PHEV Trip Speed
  Figure 6.0. EV Mode vs. PHEV Trip Speed
                                 45%
                                        39%
Avg. Percentage of EV mode [%]




                                 40%
                                 35%
                                 30%
                                 25%                        22%
                                 20%
                                                                             14%
                                 15%
                                 10%
                                  5%
                                  0%
                                       0 to 30             31 to 60        Above 60
                                                 PHEV Trip Speed [km/hr]




                                                 fig. 6




                                                                               FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 19
   7.0 PCM Battery Discharge Rate and Fuel Economy
   The Plug-in Conversion Module (PCM) battery is the key factor allowing the PHEVs to be more independent
   from the internal combustion engine (ICE) and thus achieve superior fuel economy results. To reduce
   reliance on the gas engine, the PCM battery supplements the vehicle’s standard NiMH battery, providing
   more power to the electric motor.

   The data collected suggested that the performance of the PCM battery was most noticeable when the
   vehicle was accelerating from a standstill. During acceleration, the vehicle required a significant amount of
   power from the electric motor and, if the power demand was beyond what the electric motor could supply,
   the gas engine would supplement power. During “aggressive” accelerations, an even larger amount of
   overall power was required to propel the vehicle.

   The PCM battery discharge rate is a measure of how much electrical energy is used for every kilometre
   travelled. This is measured in Watt-hours per kilometre (Wh/km), in contrast to litres per 100 km
   (L/100km), a measure of gas consumption. When the PCM battery is drained, the vehicle returns to its
   stock configuration and operates in HEV mode until the PCM battery is recharged through an external
   outlet. Thus, the PCM discharge rate determines the overall range that can be travelled in PHEV mode.

   When the vehicles accelerated rapidly, the discharge rate of the PCM battery increased. Therefore, if a
   vehicle is constantly accelerating and decelerating throughout a trip, the PCM will be discharged quickly.
   This can occur during driving conditions such as traffic congestion or on city streets. In these conditions,
   the average vehicle trip speed can be assumed to be less than 40 km/hr.

   During trips where the vehicles’ average trip speeds were below 40km/hr, the PCM discharge rate was
   higher and decreased the reliance on the ICE for acceleration. This suggests that vehicles in PHEV mode
   can achieve excellent fuel economy in city driving environments where the PHEV travels at low speeds and
   depends more on the electric motor. Although fuel economy improves, the PCM battery is also discharged
   more quickly to power the electrical motor and thus decreases the amount of time the vehicle can operate
   in PHEV mode.

   In contrast, when the vehicles were operating at higher speeds, the overall power demand was greater
   which required greater use of the gas engine. While at these higher speeds, the PCM battery was discharged
   slowly as the gas engine was the main vehicle power source (the control system in the vehicle determines
   the main power source to optimize fuel economy of trips).

   Thus, the PCM battery pack was used most during slower, urban trips than in higher-speed, highway trips.
   If the discharge rate of the battery remained constant at 87Wh/km (the average result from this study),
   then the PHEVs can travel approximately 50km in PHEV mode before recharging of the PCM is required.




20 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
                             Fig. 7 ‐ PCM Discharge Rate VS. Average Vehicle 
                                                Trip Speed
     Figure 7.0 PCM Discharge Rate vs. Average Vehicle Trip Speed
           160
                        144
                              140
PCM Discharge Rate [Wh/km]




                              120

                              100                    94

                               80                                        74
                                                                                               67
                               60

                               40

                               20

                                0
                                     0 to 20      21 to 40            41 to 60             Above 60
                                               Average Vehicle Trip Speed [km/hr]




                                                                                 FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 21
       8.0 Distances Between Recharging Events and Impact
       on PHEV Fuel Economy
       Since there is only a fixed amount of energy available in the PCM battery, the frequency of recharging
       events can also impact the fuel economy of the PHEVs. At the beginning of each recharging event, the
       distance travelled since the last recharging event and the fuel consumed over this distance were calculated
       and stored as a record. Records with similar distance data points were grouped into together and the
       average fuel economy was calculated for each set.

       The data collected suggests that shorter distances between recharging events lead to better fuel economy.
       As the distance between recharging events increased, the overall fuel economy performance decreased as a
       greater proportion of the trip was spent in standard HEV mode rather than PHEV mode.

       As discussed in the previous section, if the discharge rate of the battery remained constant at 87Wh/km
       (the average result from this study), then the PHEVs could travel approximately 50km in PHEV mode before
       recharging the PCM. Thus, the ideal distance between recharging events would be less than 50km.

       Figure 8.0 Fuel Economy vs. Distance Between Recharging Events
           7.0             Fig. 8 ‐ Fuel Economy VS. Distance Between Recharging Events
                                                                                                                              5.9
                            6.0
                                                                                                  4.9      4.7       4.8
                            5.0    4.4                                                   4.5
                                            4.2
   Fuel Economy [L/100km]




                                                     4.1                        4.1
                                                              3.8      3.7
                            4.0

                            3.0

                            2.0

                            1.0

                            0.0
                                  3 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90   91 to    Above 
                                                              Distance Between Recharging Events [km]                100      100




                                                            Fig. 8
22 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
            9.0 Adapting to a Plug-in
            Recharging the battery in a car is a new concept for most drivers. In order to take advantage of the fuel
            economy performance improvements of the PHEVs, drivers needed to ensure that there was power available
            in the PCM battery pack. The frequency and duration of recharging events can serve as an indicator of the
            drivers’ adaptation to this new technology.

            The frequency and duration of recharging events (i.e. when the vehicle is plugged into an external outlet)
            directly influenced the fuel economy performance of the PHEV. Thus, the pilot study looked at both the
            distance traveled and the number of trips between recharging events.

            The data collected showed that 48% of the time drivers would recharge their vehicles after travelling at
            most 40km, a distance less than the capable travel distance of a converted vehicle with a fully charged PCM
            battery. Drivers were also most likely to recharge the PCM after four trips.

        The frequency of recharging events is a reflection of both driver behaviour as well as opportunities to
tances Traveled Before a Recharging Event locations.
        recharge the PCM based on available time and recharge

                   Figure 9.0 Distances Traveled Before a Recharging Event
                                                        40%
                                                                                  32%
            Portion of The Total Recharging Event [%]




                                                        30%    28%

                                                                         20%                19%
                                                        20%


                                                        10%


                                                        0%
                                                              0 to 20  20 to 40  40 to 100  Greater 
                                                                km       km         km Than 100 
                                                                                              km




                                                                                                       FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 23
                               Fig. 9.1 Number of Trips Before A Recharging Event
         Figure 9.1 Number of Trips Before a Recharging Event
                                         50%
      Portion of The Total Recharging 

                                                              42%
                                         40%
                                                                                                        31%
                                         30%                                       28%
                   Event 




                                         20%

                                         10%

                                             0%
                                                         1 to 2 Trips         3 to 4 Trips       More than 5 Trips

         The duration of recharging time can serve as an indicator of whether or not the PCM battery was being
         fully depleted between recharges. With an energy capacity of 4.7 kWh and a recharging rate of 780Wh/hr,
         the PCM battery takes approximately six hours to recharge from empty to full. If there was energy in the
                                        fig. 9.1
         PCM battery prior to the recharging event, a shorter recharging time would be sufficient (the PCM battery
         would stop the recharging operation automatically upon reaching full capacity).

         Based on the data collected, most of the recharging events were between three and six hours in duration,
         with only a quarter of the recharging events at six hours. The average duration was 3.5 hours and the
         median was 3.77 hours. These results suggested that drivers were restoring at least half of the energy in the
         PCM battery during each charge event, thus indicating that the PCM battery packs were not, for the most
         part, being fully depleted.

         Overall, the results suggested that drivers adapted well to the habit of recharging the vehicle’s PCM,
         which was critical to achieving the full potential of the converted vehicle. Limiting factors on the PHEV
         performance were more likely to be from driving style, trip distances and the availability (or lack thereof) of
         recharging spots outside of the usual parking location.
                                                                Fig. 9.2 ‐ Duration of PCM Recharging Events
         Figure 9.2 Duration of PCM Recharging Events
            30%
                                                         Average Recharge Duration: 3.5 hours
                                                                                                                 25%
                                       25%
   Percentage of the Sample Size [%]




                                                                                                       20%
                                       20%                          19%
                                                                                         16%
                                       15%
                                                                             12%
                                       10%          8%

                                       5%
                                                                                                                            1%
                                       0%
                                                  1 or Less          2        3           4             5            6   7 or More
                                                                            Recharging Duration [hr]


24 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
10.0 Demand Management of Recharging Events
In light of the electricity demand management concerns voiced about plug-in vehicles, this analysis also
considered the time of day that the plug-in hybrids were being recharged and the associated impact on the
Ontario electricity grid.

In Ontario, “peak” demand for electricity occurs during the hours of 6am to 9pm on weekdays while “off-
peak” demand is from 9pm to 6am on weekdays and all weekend hours. On average, electricity prices and
demand are higher during peak hours. Thus, the ideal time to charge a plug-in vehicle is during off-peak
hours.

From the data collected, 44% of the fleet’s total electricity was consumed during off-peak hours with 56%
of electricity consumed during peak hours. This situation could be improved through the use of timers as
well as educational outreach and pricing mechanisms to encourage off-peak recharging.

Figure 10.0 Peak VS. Off-peak Recharging Events

              Attribute of Consumed Electricity



                        PEAK                      OFF-PEAK
                        56%                         46%




                    Peak: 6am to 9pm, M-F
                    Off Peak: 9pm to 6am, M-F; weekends.

It should be noted that drivers were not given any directives on when to recharge the plug-in hybrids. In
addition, drivers may not have had any choice about when to recharge these vehicles, given work schedules
or available charge stations. For example, if the vehicles were driven for business purposes during the week
instead of on weekends, than the vehicles would likely be recharged during peak hours. This was supported
by the data collected, demonstrating that 88% of the recharging events occurred during weekdays with only
20% of the recharging events initiated during off-peak hours.




                                                                FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 25
                                 Day When Recharging Events Were Initiated
             Figure 10.1 Time ofFig. 10.1 Time of Day When Recharging Events Were Initiated
                                                         Peak Hour        Off‐Peak Hour
                                       12%
                                             11%


                                       10%
                                                                                                                                                9%
   Percentage of the Sample Size [%]




                                                                                                             8%
                                       8%
                                                                     7%                                           7%   7%
                                                                                                     7%
                                                                            6%
                                       6%                                         5%      6%   6%

                                                                                                                            5%
                                                             4%                                                                  4%
                                       4%                                                                                                  4%

                                                                                                                                      3%
                                                        2%
                                       2%


                                                   0%
                                       0%




                                                                                               Time of day




26 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
  11.0 Electricity Consumption
  The participating plug-in hybrids consumed more than 3.6 MWh of electricity during the study period,
  with 0.73 MWh in 2007 and 2.9 MWh in 20088. Based on the data collected, the TRCA vehicle consumed
  the most electricity and operated in PHEV mode the most frequently compared to any other project
  participants. However, while the AutoShare PHEV also consumed a significant amount of electricity, it
                 Fig. 11 ‐ PHEV Energy Consumption 
  travelled the least in PHEV mode relative to other participants as it was used for many long distance trips.

  Figure 11.0 PHEV Fleet Electricity Consumption
                           800


                                                                                                                        24%
                           700


                           600
Energy Consumption [MWh]




                                   18%
                           500                                                      17%


                           400

                                               10%
                           300                                                                   10%
                                                            8%                                              9%

                           200


                           100
                                                                                                                                 3%
                                                                        2%

                             0
                                   AUTO         BULL        COT1        COT2       HYDRO         MOE        MTO         TRCA     YORK

                                                                                  Participants



  While 60% of this energy was sourced during peak hours, the electricity consumption of the entire PHEV
  fleet had a minimal impact on the Ontario electricity system. Assuming all nine PHEVs consumed equal
  amounts of electricity, each vehicle consumed less energy than an Energy Star refrigerator with an average
  annual consumption of 400kWh.

  In order to have a greater understanding of the impacts of plug-ins on the electricity grid, there needs to
  be a greater concentration of plug-ins within Toronto. As well, with the development of charge station
  infrastructure, allowing for more opportunities to charge, frequency of recharging will increase – increasing
  overall fleet fuel economy, but also increasing the impact on the electricity grid.




  8
                           Most vehicles were converted towards the end of 2007, resulting in fewer driving/charging events.


                                                                                                       FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 27
                     Table 8: PHEV Fuel Costs

                                                                                                           Operating Costs
                                        HEV trips                          Combined Trips                                     PHEV Trips                                   Overall Performance
                                        Gasoline                  Electricity             Gasoline              Electricity                Gasoline              Electricity               Gasoline




28 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
                                 Total distance     77,429      Total       893        Total      22,059      Total       2,010       Total                     Total        2,903     Total       122,166
                                 traveled [km]               electricity             distance              electricity              distance        22,678   electricity             distance
                                                             consumed                traveled              consumed                 traveled                 consumed                traveled
                                                               [kWh]                   [km]                  [kWh]                    [km]                     [kWh]                   [km]
                                   Total gas        4,936       Total       1,051     Total gas   1,106        Total      2,365      Total gas       929        Total        3,416    Total gas     6,972
                                 consumed [L]                electricity             consumed               electricity             consumed                 electricity             consumed
                                                               drawn                     [L]                  drawn                     [L]                    drawn                     [L]
                                                                from                                           from                                             from
                                                              the grid                                       the grid                                         the grid
                                                              [kWh]*                                         [kWh]*                                           [kWh]*
                                 Average gas         0.95     Average       0.10      Average                Average          0.1    Average         0.95     Average          0.1    Average         0.95
                                price [$CAD/L]               electricity             gas price     0.95     electricity             gas price                electricity             gas price
                                                                price                [$CAD/L]                  price                [$CAD/L]                    price                [$CAD/L]
                                                              [$CAD/                                         [$CAD/                                           [$CAD/
                                                               kWh]                                           kWh]                                             kWh]
                                Total cost of gas   4,689       Total       105      Total cost   1,051       Total       236       Total cost        883       Total        342     Total cost     6,623
                                    [$CAD]                   electricity               of gas              electricity                of gas                 electricity               of gas
                                                             cost [CAD]               [$CAD]               cost [CAD]                [$CAD]                  cost [CAD]               [$CAD]
                                 Fuel economy        6.38    Discharge          98      Fuel       5.01     Discharge     105          Fuel           4.10   Discharge       103        Fuel          5.71
                                   [L/100km]                    rate                  economy                  rate                 economy                     rate                  economy
                                                             [Wh/km]                 [L/100km]              [Wh/km]                 [l/100km]                [Wh/km]                 [L/100km]
                                Total operating      6.06      Total operating            Gas: 4.76          Total operating                Gas: 3.89         Total operating              Gas: 5.42
                                cost per vehicle               cost per vehicle          Elec.: 0.48         cost per vehicle              Elec.: 1.04        cost per vehicle            Elec.: 0.28
                                 [CAD/100km]                    [CAD/100km]              Total: 5.24          [CAD/100km]                  Total: 4.93         [CAD/100km]                Total: 5.70
                                                                                                                                                                                                             12.0 PHEV Fuel Costs & GHG Emissions Impact




                                                             Operational savings            14%                Operational                    19%               Operational                   6%
                                                                                                                 savings                                          savings

                     *Electricity drawn from the grid is more than that consumed by the PCM due to transmission losses of 15% (A123Systems)
                                                        Table 9: PHEV GHG Emissions

                                                                                                                                           Emission
                                                                   HEV                             Combined Trips                                        PHEV Trips                                    Overall Performance

                                                                Gasoline                 Electricity               Gasoline                Electricity                Gasoline               Electricity              Gasoline
                                                             Total       77,429        Total       893          Total       22,059       Total      2,010        Total         22,678       Total       2,903      Total       122,166
                                                           distance                 electricity               distance                electricity              distance                  electricity             distance
                                                           traveled                 consumed                  traveled                consumed                 traveled                  consumed                traveled
                                                             [km]                     [kWh]                     [km]                    [kWh]                    [km]                      [kWh]                   [km]
                                                           Total gas       4,936       Total      1,051      Total gas        1,106      Total      2,365      Total gas         929        Total       3,416     Total gas      6,972
                                                         consumption                electricity            consumption                electricity            consumption                 electricity            consumption
                                                              [L]                     drawn                     [L]                     drawn                     [L]                      drawn                     [L]
                                                                                       from                                              from                                               from
                                                                                     the grid                                          the grid                                           the grid
                                                                                     [kWh]*                                            [kWh]*                                             [kWh]*
                                                              GHG          2.52     GHG emis-     0.242         GHG           2.52       GHG        0.242        GHG             2.52       GHG         0.242       GHG          2.52
                                                           emissions                sions fac-               emissions                emissions               emissions                  emissions               emissions
                                                             factor                     tor                    factor                   factor                  factor                     factor                  factor
                                                           [kg eCO2/                [kg eCO2/                [kg eCO2/                [kg eCO2/               [kg eCO2/                  [kg eCO2/               [kg eCO2/
                                                              litre]                  kWh]                      litre]                  kWh]                     litre]                    kWh]                     litre]
                                                          Total GHG      12,439     Total GHG      254       Total GHG        2,788   Total GHG      572      Total GHG          2,341   Total GHG      827      Total GHG     17,568
                                                          emissions                 emissions                emissions                emissions               emissions                  emissions               emissions
                                                          [kg eCO2]                 [kg eCO2]                [kg eCO2]                [kg eCO2]               [kg eCO2]                  [kg eCO2]               [kg eCO2]

                                                             GHG           16.1     GHG emissions per                13.8               GHG emissions                   12.9              GHG emissions                 15.1
                                                          emissions                      100km                                           per 100km                                         per 100km
                                                          per 100km                     [kg eCO2]                                         [kg eCO2]                                         [kg eCO2]
                                                           [kg eCO2]
                                                                                      GHG emissions                  14%                GHG emissions                   20%               GHG emissions                 6%
                                                                                        reduction                                         reduction                                         reduction

                                                        *Electricity drawn from the grid is more than that consumed by the PCM due to transmission losses of 15% (A123Systems)




FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 29
   Three assumptions were made in the calculations outlined in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. First, the average
   electricity price was estimated to be $0.10 per kWh, including transmission costs, debt retirement charge,
   the unit cost of electricity under the regulated price plan and other regulatory charges.

   Second, the average price of gasoline was estimated to be $0.95 per litre9, despite the substantial volatility
   over the past few years, especially during this project’s study period. Vehicles participating in this project
   travelled the most from August 2007 to September 2008. During this period, the minimum average price
   was $0.88 per litre and the maximum average retail price was $1.356 cents per litre. In January 2009,
   gasoline retail price was approximately $0.80 per litre.

   Figure 12.0 Average Price of Gasoline in Toronto




   Third, the greenhouse gas emission factors for both electricity and gasoline were obtained from the Toronto
   Atmospheric Fund’s Emissions Quantification Policy10.

   It should be noted that the prices for gas and electricity as well as emissions factors for fuel were used for
   illustration purpose only and will change over time.

   Based on the collected data, the PHEV conversion led to both operational savings as well as GHG emission
   reductions. PHEV trip fuel expenditures and emissions output were both 20% less than HEV trips. This was
   lowered to 14% and 6% for combined and overall trips, respectively, due to the reduced amount of time
   that the vehicles operated in PHEV mode.




   9
        TorontoGasPrices.com, 18 Month Average Retail Price Chart, Feb 14th, 2009, http://www.torontogasprices.com/Retail_Price_Chart.
        aspx.
   10
        http://www.toronto.ca/taf/quant_policy_approach.htm


30 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund
13.0 Conclusion & Recommendations
The TAF Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Pilot was the first opportunity for Toronto to take a leading role
in acquiring and assessing plug-in technologies in terms of fuel economy performance and greenhouse
gas emission reductions. Working with both public and private fleet managers as well as the technology
manufacturer and a third-party academic institution, TAF was able to test and validate a model for
assessing such technologies using a consortium of key stakeholders.

The installation of the A123Systems’ Hymotion Plug-in Conversion Module (PCM) demonstrated the
potential for achieving significant fuel and emission savings while also illustrating the practical challenges
of reaching this potential. On average, when operating in PHEV mode, the vehicles achieved average fuel
economy improvements of 36% and emission reductions of 20%.

However, these advantages were minimized by a variety of external factors: the energy capacity of the plug-
in module, ambient temperature, and driver behaviour as it relates to recharging frequency and driving
style.

Operating the vehicle in PHEV mode required sufficient energy to be available in the plug-in module. When
electrical power was not available, the vehicles reverted to the stock configuration (i.e. HEV mode). As
seen in the data, the vehicles operated in PHEV mode for only 30% of the total distance traveled. This was
likely due to a combination of long distance trips and a lack of recharging events due to drivers not acting
promptly to recharge the PCM and/or the availability of recharge facilities.

Ambient temperature impacted fuel economy in a positive correlation: the higher the temperature, the
better the fuel economy performance and vice-versa. Based on the data collected, the ideal operating
temperature for these vehicles was greater than 5°C with the best results in the 20-25°C range. Fuel
economy performance improved by over 40% when comparing low temperatures to high for PHEV
trips. Overall fuel economy performance of this fleet improved approximately 14% when comparing low
temperatures to high. In contrast, the fuel economy of HEV and combined trips were stable with less
discernable variations relative to temperature changes.

Driver aggressiveness, indicated by the amount of time during a trip that the accelerator pedal was pushed
past the 40% threshold where the gas engine would engage, was perhaps the most significant factor
that affected fuel economy. For PHEV trips, the data showed that fuel consumption could be reduced by
81% from the most to least aggressive driving style with an overall improvement potential of 50%. This
highlights the need for training and a feedback mechanism to help drivers achieve the fuel performance
potential of the PHEV.

Regarding the driver’s willingness to recharge the plug-in modules, the data collected demonstrated that
the PHEV drivers adapted well to recharging their vehicles’ PCM with room for improvement on when
they chose to plug in. While most of the electricity was consumed during peak hours, it was noted that no
guidance was provided to the drivers on when to charge. As fleet vehicles, the time when drivers left the
vehicle to recharge was usually before 9PM on a weekday. Off-peak hours were ‘off-work hours’ and these
vehicles were not often operated during this period and thus not likely to be recharged in these hours as
well.




                                                                   FleetWise: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot | 31
   Recharging behaviour could easily be improved through education, regular prompts and even timers at
   static recharge locations.

   If PHEVs replaced conventional ICE vehicles on a large scale, their energy demands would be a more
   significant load on Ontario’s electricity system. However, when we extrapolate the levels of electricity use
   seen in the pilot to, for example, a PHEV market share of 15% of Toronto vehicles, overall usage remains
   very modest at 61,200 MWh/year, an amount that is equivalent to 4/100ths of 1% of Ontario’s annual
   electricity use.

   Recharge timers and/or demand management software would help manage this load and ensure that peak
   resources are not strained further through vehicle electrification. In addition, time-of-use pricing would
   provide an incentive for drivers to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours, thus reducing financial costs
   and emissions. The latter will be evident as current off-peak sources of electricity are low-emission (e.g.
   nuclear, low-impact hydro). Renewable energy will also help to bring down the emissions associated with
   plugging in, both during peak hours (e.g. solar) and off-peak hours (e.g. wind).

   In terms of emission reductions, if 15% of Toronto vehicles were equipped with PHEV units and produced
   similar levels of emission reductions as were seen in the pilot, the total CO2e emission reduction would be
   around 110,000 tonnes per year. A modest improvement in driver training that brought PHEV use levels up
   to 50% of distance driven, would increase this to 183,000 tonnes per year.11

   The Toronto Atmospheric Fund will continue to pursue vehicle electrification as part of a suite of options
   for reducing transportation-related emissions. As we transition away from fossil fuels, there will be
   countless learning opportunities for ensuring that these new transportation options are best serviced and
   integrated into the current system. Charging infrastructure and demand management tools will be vital
   components to further expansion and joint procurement amongst fleet managers can also help to ensure
   that these vehicles make it to the Toronto market.




   11
        Based on an average driving distance of 24,000 km. per year and average conventional vehicle fuel economy of 9L/100 km.


32 | Toronto Atmospheric Fund

								
To top