How Total is a Total Cost of Ownership?

Abstract

In this paper a segmented Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model is presented for alternative vehicle technologies as well as its extension with external costs related to vehicle ownership and use. Adding external costs to the TCO extends the interpretation of individual ownership to a societal perspective by describing the effect of the technologies on the costs for the society. This extension, called "Total Cost for Society", suggests that battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles have a lower societal cost than petrol, diesel and compressed natural gas vehicles.

Full text

EVS29 Symposium
Montr´
eal, Qu´
ebec, Canada, June 19 - 22, 2016
How Total is a Total Cost of Ownership?
Quentin De Clerck1, Tom van Lier1, Philippe Lebeau1, Maarten Messagie1
Lieselot Vanhaverbeke1, Cathy Macharis1, Joeri Van Mierlo1
1Quentin De Clerck (corresponding author), Research Group MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, Quentin.De.Clerck@vub.ac.be
Abstract
In this paper a segmented Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model is presented for alternative vehicle
technologies as well as its extension with external costs related to vehicle ownership and use. Adding
external costs to the TCO extends the interpretation of individual ownership to a societal perspective by
describing the effect of the technologies on the costs for the society. This extension, called “Total Cost
for Society”, suggests that battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric
vehicles have a lower societal cost than petrol, diesel and compressed natural gas vehicles.
Keywords: passenger car, electric vehicle, cost.
1 Introduction
One of the most important barriers for battery electric vehicle (BEVs) adoption is the high purchase cost
of the vehicles. Consumer mostly consider the substantial initial cost of BEVs above the many other
costs involved in car ownership [1]. Since some of these other cost, i.e. fuel, can be quite substantial
depending on the car technology, choosing a new car based solely on its purchase price is therefore an
incorrect approach for selecting the less expensive option. This is the m§Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
methodology [2] is often used to analyze the competitiveness of BEVs [3]. A TCO aims at describing
the full cost of vehicles during the ownership and inform the consumer which vehicle costs less.
[3] review in their article many other articles related to “Vehicle Cost Analysis”. They cite a total of
29 articles, published since 2010, related to this topic. From these 29 articles, 13 articles apply the TCO
methodology for analyzing the difference in cost between different vehicle technologies. This clearly
indicates that the TCO is a suitable method for comparing different vehicle technologies.
[4] identifies two distinct types of TCO studies, namely, consumer-oriented TCO studies and society-
oriented TCO studies. The difference between the two approaches resides in the author’s focus. Consumer-
oriented TCO analyses focus mainly on the difference in cost the consumer should pay depending on the
various vehicle technologies at his disposal. Examples of such studies are [4, 5]. The particularity of
society-oriented TCO studies are the extra relation between the cost of the different vehicle technologies
and their societal impact. [6, 7] are two examples of society-oriented TCO studies.
In this paper, a society-oriented segmented-TCO model, developed in the context of the Brussels Capital
Region, is presented. The model we present is called a Total Cost for Society (TCS), where a TCO anal-
ysis is used as tool for discussing the internalization of external costs. Therefore, the amount of taxation
in the TCO analysis is calculated and used in combination with the external costs. The combined value
enables to extends the interpretation of individual ownership to societal perspectives.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, the different methodologies used in this paper are is de-
tailed in section 2. These methodologies comprise a segmented-TCO, an external cost analysis and the
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 1
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0742

formulation of a TCO-based tax model. Secondly, the results from the TCO, external costs and Total
Cost for Society are discussed. Finally, this paper ends with the main conclusions.
2 Methodology
Firstly, the assumptions upon which the analysis is based are presented. Secondly, the complete TCO
methodology is detailed. The TCO-methodology is based on the work of [4] . Finally, the details of the
TCO-based tax model are explained.
2.1 General assumptions
A TCO analysis relies heavily on different kind of assumptions. All the assumptions of the TCO pre-
sented in this paper are based on characteristics of the Belgian’s and Brussels’ fleet, since the scope of
this research is the Brussels Capital Region in 2015. The main assumptions of these analyses are sum-
marized in Table 1. The average Belgian owns a car for 8 years and 45 days and drives 15.284 kilometers
a year [8, 9]. This results in a total mileage of 124.156 km during the ownership of the vehicle. A real
discount rate of 0,33% is used for calculating the present value of future costs. This percentage corre-
sponds to the 8-year interest rate for European government bonds [10] . The real discount rate dates from
May 4 2015.
Table 1: General assumption TCO
Assumption Value Reference
Duration ownership vehicle 8 years and 45 days [9]
Yearly mileage 15.284 km / year [8]
Total mileage 124.156 km /
Real discount rate 0.33% [10]
Various different vehicle technologies are assumed in this TCO analysis. Conventional petrol (P) and
diesel (D) vehicles are assumed as well as alternative vehicle technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles
(HEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), battery electric vehicles (BEV) and compressed natural
gas vehicle (CNG). In total 45 vehicles are selected: 9 petrol vehicles, 9 diesel vehicles, 6 CNG vehicles,
3 PHEVs, 7 HEVs and 12 BEVs.
These vehicles are divided into three segments, namely, the city car segment, the medium segment and
the premium segment. Those segments are defined based on the vehicle’s size, the boot space and the
power of the motor. The results of the TCO will be presented for each of the three segments. In total
there are 13 vehicles in the city car segment, 22 vehicles in the medium car segment and 10 vehicles in
the premium segment.
When constructing a TCO analysis, different costs at different points in time are assumed. Therefore,
future costs need to be calculated using a discounted formula approximating the value of money in time,
namely, the present value formula [4]. Following formula is applied when facing future one-time costs
[11]:
P V =At∗1
(1 + r)t(1)
and in the case of recurring costs, following formula is applied instead:
P V =A0∗(1 + r)t−1
r∗(1 + r)t(2)
Where,
•P V : Is the present value
•At: Is a one-time cost at time t
•A0: Is a recurring cost
•r: Is the real discount rate presented in 1
•t:Is time expressed in years
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 2
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0743

2.2 TCO Calculations
There are three distinct cost categories in a TCO analysis for passenger car, namely, costs at the time of
purchase, operational costs and non-operational costs [4]. These costs will be detailed in next subsec-
tions.
2.2.1 Purchase Costs
The initial purchase cost that are considered in this TCO include VAT but exclude any kind of reduction
or promotion and also exclude extra vehicle options. The costs were retrieved on the dealers’ websites.
Table 2: Depreciation rates per vehicles technology
Technology Depreciation rate
P 84,5%
D 82,7%
HEV 83,4%
BEV 78,6%
PHEV 82,4%
CNG 78,1%
Since the vehicles depreciate over time, it is important to consider their depreciation rate in the analysis.
The percentages in Table 2 represent the residual values of the different vehicle technologies after one
year. The percentages of the petrol, diesel and HEV are retrieved from [4] , while the other depreciation
rates are determined using the same methodology (via exponential regression). The data used in this
exponential regression comes from [12]. The values for CNG vehicles and some BEV vehicles are only
available for the first three years, therefore their depreciation rate is less certain. Table 2 summarizes the
depreciation rates per vehicle technology.
The registration tax is a one-time tax due at the time the vehicle is bought. This tax is determined for
vehicles registered in the Brussels Capital Region based on the engine’s power, the fiscal horsepower,
and the engine’s displacement [13].
The charging infrastructure is another one-time cost that can be spent when buying a new BEV or
PHEV. In this analysis we use the prices of Electrabel’s ”CarPlug” charging pole [14]. The pole itself
costs ¤999 and a standard installation costs ¤351 for a total of ¤1.300.
2.2.2 Operational Costs
The fuel costs for petrol (1,5959 ¤/l) and diesel (1,4158 ¤/l) correspond to the average maximum prices
from 2014 according to the Belgian Federation of Petroleum [15]. The electricity costs are calculated
based on trimestrial reports from Brugel in 2014 [16]. The subscription we consider is the standard
subscription for households in the Brussels Capital Region, namely, Electrabel Customer Solutions Easy
Index´
e. For an average Brussels household (consumption of 3.500 kWh per year), the cost of electricity
is equal to 0,1809 ¤/kWh. The reference price for CNG that is considered in this paper is equal to 0,87
¤/kg. This was the price for one kilogram CNG on May 25th 2015 [17].
2.3 Non-operational Costs
The road tax is a yearly recurring cost that depends on the vehicle’s fiscal horsepower [18].
In Belgium it is required that every vehicle is at least insured with the civil liability insurance in order to
insure any damage done to another vehicle. For new cars an omnium insurance, which is complementary
to the civil liability insurance, is preferred. This omnium insurance also insures the driver’s vehicle. The
cost of an omnium insurance depends on various characteristics, such as age, type of car and mileage per
year. The insurances were retrieved using the Touring Insurances website [19]. In this analysis an om-
nium insurance is considered for the first three years and afterwards a civil liability insurance is preferred.
Lebeau et.al. [4] assume a battery life of 6 years for the battery packs of BEVs. This implies a life-
time equal to 91.704 km given the assumption of 15.284 km driven per year. The battery pack must be
replaced after those 6 years or 91.704 km. If the battery pack is still under the warranty of the manu-
facturer, then no costs are charged. Otherwise the cost of replacing the battery pack is approximated by
charging ¤160 per kWh. This value of ¤160 is based on the article of Nykvist et.al. [20] that determines
that market-leading manufacturers sold one kWh of battery for approximately $300 in 2014 and that the
cost of one kWh showed an annual decrease of 8% since 2007. We assume that $300 was still the cost of
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 3
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0744

one kWh at the beginning of 2015 and that this cost will evolve to approximately $180 ( ¤160) in 2021
given the annual decrease of 8%. PHEV battery packs are also considered for battery replacement. The
residual value of the vehicle increases linearly when the battery is replaced.
The battery leasing option is offered by some manufacturer. In exchange of a recurring monthly leasing
cost, the manufacturer takes care of the battery replacement for free when the battery’s capacity drops
below a predefined percentage, usually 80%.
Maintenance are crucial costs during the lifetime of the vehicle. They include the replacement of worn
out components such as brakes, filters or oil. Two kind of maintenances are identified depending on
the vehicle’s mileage, namely, small and large maintenances. Small maintenances are performed after
20.000 km and large maintenances after 40.000 km as in [4]. The maintenance prices are specific to each
model and are retrieved online from [21]. [22] suggests that the cost of maintaining an BEV is 35 %
cheaper than conventional vehicles. Therefore, the maintenance costs of BEVs are 35% lower than the
mean of the maintenance costs of conventional cars. The maintenance cost of CNG vehicles and hybrid
vehicles is assumed to be equal to the maintenance costs of conventional vehicles [23].
Another aspect of the maintenance is the replacement of tires. The tires need to be replaced every
40.000 km. The tires and their cost are determined using the websites [24, 25]. A total of ¤56 is added
for the replacement and balancing of the tires [4].
After four years of lifetime, the vehicles must pass an annual technical control. This annual inspection
costs ¤33,80 [26].
Finally, this TCO also comprises less obvious costs, namely, fines and parking fees. According to the
Household Budget Survey from 2014 [27], Belgian households spent on average ¤69 for fines and
¤31 for parking fees. Since 76,78% of all infractions committed by Belgians during 2013 are related
to violations of the traffic code [28], the average amount of fines a Belgian pays per year for traffic
violations are estimated to be ¤52,98 with the assumption the percentage of infractions concerning
traffic are equivalent in 2014.
2.4 External Cost Calculations
In this paper, the impact calculations for external cost comprise a non-exhaustive list of externalities:
climate change, air pollution, noise, accidents, congestion and infrastructure. The total external cost
is thus a summation of these externalities. In order to calculate the impact of each above mentioned
externalities, a scenario representing a typical driving pattern needs to be defined.
2.4.1 External Cost Scenario
The scenario that is defined for the calculation of the external costs is based on the driving motives of
Belgian drivers, since the scope of this study is the Brussels Capital Region. Several travel motives are
identified in the BELDAM study [29]. The average amount of traveled km per trip is given for each
motive. Those mean distances are based on different modes of transport but since the car has the biggest
share for almost every motive, it is assumed that these average travel distances are representative for car
drivers. In this paper the different travel motives are grouped into three main categories: Commuting
and work-related trips, recreative trips and other trips (comprising shopping, services such as the doctor,
picking up people,...). Those three categories represent the three behaviors that define the scenario that
is presented below. The share of the total km driven for each behavior is reported in Table 3 and is
determined based on the average distances per trip for each motive belonging to the specific category.
Table 3: Share of the total km driven per behavior
Behavior Average distance per trip Share of total driven kilometers
Commuting and work-related 24,17 km 54,6%
Recreative 11,61 km 26,2%
Others 8,51 km 19,2%
Total 44,29 km 100%
The scenario upon which the calculations are based is defined is the follows:
•Commuting and work-related trips:
–During daytime
–Share metropolitan motorway and main roads: 80% and 20%
–Share peak and off-peak: 20% and 80%
•Recreative trips:
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 4
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0745

–During daytime
–Share metropolitan motorway, main roads and small roads: 20%, 30% and 50%
–Share peak and off-peak: 5% and 95%
•Other trips:
–During daytime
–Share metropolitan motorway and main roads: 30% and 70%
–Share peak and off-peak: 10% and 90%
2.4.2 Climate change
The external climate change costs are determined based on the fuel and electricity consumption using a
well-to-tank approach. Table 4 summarizes the well-to-tank emissions of CO2per unit of fuel/electricity.
A total amount of kilograms CO2emissions are derived using these emissions and the NEDC-based
consumption values of fuel and electricity for each vehicle. Finally the external climate change costs
are determined by multiplying the total emissions with the external climate cost per kg CO2(0,09 ¤/kg
according to [30]).
Table 4: Well-to-tank emissions
Fuel/electricity CO2emissions Reference
Diesel 3,200 kg CO2/liter [31]
Petrol 2,800 kg CO2/liter [31]
CNG 3,070 kg CO2/kg [31]
Electricity (BE mix) 0,187 kg CO2/kWh [32]
2.4.3 Air pollution
As opposed to the external climate change cost, the up- and down-stream costs are not considered for air
pollution, since those are hard to isolate for electric vehicles. The external air pollution costs are thus
calculated based on the total mileage of the vehicles during the ownership period (see Table 1). The
values (in ¤/km) for the marginal external air pollution costs per km are referenced in Table 5. The
marginal external costs depends on vehicle technology, the engine displacement, the EURO-class and
the type of road.
Table 5: Marginal external air pollution costs in ¤/vkm for Belgium. Based on [30]
Vehicle Engine EURO-Class Urban Motorway
Diesel 1,4-2,0l EUR 5 0,0084 0,0041
Diesel >2,0l EUR 6 0,0061 0,0022
Petrol <1,4l EUR 5 0,0034 0,0008
Petrol 1,4-2,0l EUR 5 0,0033 0,0008
Petrol 1,4-2,0l EUR 6 0,0033 0,0008
Petrol >2,0l EUR 6 0,0033 0,0008
2.4.4 Noise
Analogous to external air pollution costs, external noise costs are determined based on the total mileage
of the vehicle and the marginal external noise costs. The marginal external noise costs are determined
by the time of day, the area and traffic density type. In the above described scenario, the time of day
and the area are always defined as daytime and urban. Therefore, the main difference in external noise
cost is determined by the traffic density. This cost is equal to ¤0,0105/vkm for dense traffic and to
¤0,0255/vkm for thin traffic [30]. For BEV and CNG vehicles different values are assumed. BEVs are
assumed to emit no noise and CNG vehicles to emit only 50% of the noise generated by conventional
vehicles because those vehicles have significant lower noise levels.
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 5
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0746

2.4.5 Accidents
The marginal external accident costs are defined solely on the type of road. Since the scenario takes place
in an metropolitan setting, only motorways and urban roads are of importance. The marginal external
accident costs for motorways is ¤0,003/vkm and ¤0,004/vkm for urban roads.
2.4.6 Congestion
The marginal external congestion costs depend on the area (metropolitan in the Brussels’ case), the road
type and the type of traffic. Free flow is assumed when the traffic is off-peak. When in rush hours,
the average of near flow capacity and over capacity is assumed. The total external congestion cost is
calculated by multiplying the marginal cost per km with the total mileage of the vehicles.
Table 6: Marginal external congestion costs in ¤/vkm for Belgium. Based on [30]
Road type Free flow Near capacity Over capacity
Motorway 0,0000 0,3192 0,7338
Main roads 0,0111 1,6853 2,1617
Other roads 0,0297 1,9019 2,8930
2.4.7 Infrastructure
The calculation of the external infrastructure costs are similar to the calculation of the other externalities
(except for climate change). The marginal external infrastructure costs depend on the type of road. The
cost per vkm is equal to ¤0,0024 for motorways, ¤0,0033 for other trunk roads and ¤0,0082 for other
roads [30].
2.5 From TCO to Tax Model
By calculating the extend of the vehicle taxes it is possible to combine them with the external costs cal-
culations and thus internalize the external costs given the TCO results. This TCO-based tax model is an
important building stone for extension from TCO to TCS.
There are three kind of taxes that are incorporated in this assessment: the vehicle specific taxes, the
VAT and the excises.
The vehicles specific taxes such as the registration tax, the road tax, the fines and the parking fees are
completely integrated without any reduction.
In Belgium the VAT is usually equal to 21%. Some goods or services have a VAT inferior to 21%, for
example electricity had a VAT of 6% in 2015. The VAT of the installation of the charging pole has also a
VAT of 6% if it is installed in a private house that is older than 5 years [14]. Thus all components of the
TCO are subjected to a VAT of 21% except for electricity and for the charging pole installation.It is also
important to observe that the initial purchase cost is taxed instead and not the depreciation of the vehicle.
The excise, special excise and energy taxes of fuels and electricity in transport applications are summa-
rized in Table 7. Those excises are fully integrated in the tax model derived from the TCO results.
Table 7: Excise, special excise and energy taxes in Belgium in ¤/l [33]
Energy Excise Special excise Energy taxes
Petrol 0,2454146 0,360191 0,0286317
Diesel 0,1983148 0,2183561 0,0148736
Electricity 0 0 0,001914
CNG 0 0 0
3 Results
In this section the results of the TCO, external cost calculations and the internalization of the external
costs to the TCO are presented.
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 6
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0747

3.1 Results TCO
Figure 1: TCO results for the city car segment
The TCO results for the city car segment are depicted in Figure 1. The TCO value is denoted by the
left y-axis and the cost per km in ¤is indicated by the right y-axis. Petrol vehicles are clearly the most
competitive vehicles in this segment (0,20 ¤/km), although the TCO of CNG vehicles is rather close
to the TCO for petrol vehicles (0,22 ¤/km). BEVs, both with and without leasing of battery, are not
competitive in this car segment (respectively 0,33 and 0,32 ¤/km). The big difference resides in the
depreciation cost that is much higher for BEVs even if their operational costs are lower.
The error-bars show the deviation in cost per km when driving 10.000 km or 20.000 km per year instead
of 15.284 km. It is clear that the BEV technology shows the most variance in costs depending on the
distance driven. This means that BEVs will become more competitive when used more intensively.
Figure 2: TCO results for the medium car segment
Figure 2 illustrates the results for the medium car segment. In this segment, the difference between BEVs
and conventional vehicle technologies such as petrol and diesel is smaller than for the city car segment.
The difference between these technologies is of 0,09 - 0,10 ¤/km since BEVs have a cost per km equal to
0,37 ¤/km and petrol and diesel vehicles have a cost per km of respectively 0,28 ¤/km and 0,27 ¤/km.
This difference was equal to 0,12 - 0,13 ¤/km in the city car segment. The medium car segment is thus
more interesting for buying a BEV than the city car segment when comparing with the alternatives in
the same segment. CNG vehicles are still competitive (0,31 ¤/km) in this segment but less than in the
city car segment (a difference of 0,03 - 0,04 ¤/km instead of 0,02 ¤/km with respect to conventional
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 7
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0748

vehicle technologies). HEV vehicles are an interesting option that is a little bit more expensive than CNG
vehicles, while PHEVs are the most expensive cars with a cost per km equal to 0,41 ¤/km. PHEVs and
BEVs have still too much depreciation costs to compete with the other alternatives.
The conclusion is slightly different in the premium car segment (Figure 3). The HEVs are the most
competitive cars with a cost per km of 0,63 ¤/km. Diesel and petrol vehicles are close with costs per km
of 0,64 ¤/km and 0,67 ¤/km respectively. It is also in this segment that BEVs are the most competitive
with a cost per km equal to 0,73 ¤/km. This is partly due to the fact that BEVs do not have costly road
taxes, that the battery replacement is covered by their warranty and that the depreciation cost is not as
bad as in the other segments. An important observation is that if the vehicles would drive more than
20.000 km, the cost per km would be almost equal for all technologies.
Figure 3: TCO results for the premium car segment
3.2 Result External Costs
Since the conclusions of the results for the different segments are similar, only the medium car segment
will be detailed. The analysis is split in two parts, an analysis including congestion costs and an analysis
excluding congestion costs. It is clear from Figure 4a that the congestion cost are quite high (approxi-
mately ¤19.000). This is typical for the setting of Brussels. Brussels is a city with a huge amount of
congestion, therefore it is not unusual to have such high external congestion costs. It is thus easier to
exclude congestion costs from the analysis in order to generalize the results and notice differences in the
external costs between several vehicle technologies.
The main differences in external costs reside in the climate change, air pollution and noise costs. It is
clear that BEVs have the less significant external costs, approximately ¤1.250 when excluding conges-
tion costs. This is almost five times smaller than the external costs for diesel and petrol vehicles (around
¤6.000 without congestion costs). Notice that air pollution and noise are equal to zero in this analysis.
This is an underestimation since the up- and down-stream costs are not taken into account for air pollu-
tion and that even if electric vehicles have a silent motor, they emit a little bit of noise as well when they
are on the road.
The reasons why PHEVs and CNG vehicles have lower external cost are different, even if both tech-
nologies have lower external costs than petrol, diesel and HEVs. PHEVs have less impact on the climate
change cost due to reduced CO2emissions, but have the same impact as diesel petrol and HEV vehicles
on the external noise cost due to the combustion engine. On the other hand, CNG vehicles have a much
higher climate change cost and a much lower noise cost than PHEV vehicles. Diesel, petrol and HEV
are the vehicle technologies with the highest external costs, namely, between ¤5.000 and ¤6.000 when
excluding congestion costs and almost ¤25.000 when including congestion costs.
3.3 Internalization of External Costs with the TCO-based Tax Model
As in previous subsection, only the medium car segment is considered. Given the TCO-based tax model
depicted in Figure 5 and the previously discussed external costs, a number of observations can be formu-
lated. Combining the tax incomes and the external costs enables to compare the different societal impacts
of the various vehicle technologies. In this analysis the congestion costs are included such that a more
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 8
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0749

(a) Including congestion costs (b) Excluding congestion costs
Figure 4: External costs results for the medium car segment
Figure 5: TCO-based tax model results for the medium car segment.
realistic Total Cost for Society (TCS) can be obtained. It is important to mention that it is assumed that
the tax incomes from the TCO reduce directly the external cost generated by the vehicle, even though
normally tax incomes are grouped and redistributed where needed. Nevertheless, this direct comparison
enables to investigate which technology has a bigger impact on the society.
First, the two most taxed vehicles are the HEV and PHEV. Those two vehicle technologies are heav-
ily taxed mainly due to the higher initial purchase price. The taxation of fuel does also play a part in the
high taxation of the HEV technology. When taking Figure 4b into account it is noticeable that PHEV ve-
hicles are also vehicles that do not generate the most external costs. This means that buying a PHEV has
in fact a good impact on the society by on one hand generating a great amount of tax incomes and on the
other hand having a moderate impact on the external costs. The TCS for PHEVs is around ¤7.700. The
HEV vehicles have a smaller societal impact (TCS of ¤8.900) than PHEV vehicles since their external
cost is one of the biggest.
Secondly, BEVs have also a great societal impact with a TCS of ¤8.350. Even though those vehicles are
not heavily taxed, besides the VAT on the higher initial purchase price, their external cost is so low in
comparison with the other vehicle technologies that it has still a big societal impact. CNG vehicles look
like they are in the same situation as BEVs (smaller tax incomes and moderate external costs), but in fact
the TCS is much bigger than expected with a TCS of approximately ¤12.500.
Finally, petrol and diesel vehicles have big TCS values, ¤10.600 and ¤12.600 respectively, which indi-
cates that both technologies have worse societal impacts than in example BEVs or PHEVs .
4 Conclusion
Several analyses have been conducted in this paper. Firstly, a segmented-TCO has been presented. Three
car segments are defined, namely, the city, the medium and the premium car segments. The main con-
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 9
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0750

clusion of this segmented-TCO analysis is that BEV and HEV become more competitive in higher cost
segments. The cost per kilometer is reduced from 0,12 ¤/km to 0,07 - 0.09 ¤/km between the city car
segment and the premium car segment for BEVs.
Secondly, an external cost analysis is conducted. A first observation is that the congestion costs are in-
credibly large. This is the result of the scope of this analysis being the Brussels Capital Region, a region
known for its high congestion degree. The results show that the BEV technology generates the lowest
amount of external costs.
Finally the different analyses are combined. A TCO-based tax model is formulated and combined with
the external costs analysis, in one methodology that assesses the societal impact of buying a car depend-
ing on its technology. This methodology, called Total Cost of Society, indicates that the BEV, PHEV and
HEV technologies are more profitable for the society since they generate less costs (¤7.700 - ¤8.900)
than petrol, CNG and diesel vehicles (¤10.600 ¤12.600).
References
[1] K. Lebeau, J. Van Mierlo, P. Lebeau, O. Mairesse, and C. Macharis, The market potential for plug-in hybrid
and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: A choice-based conjoint analysis, Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, ISSN 1361-9209, 17(2012), 592–597.
[2] R.J. Brown, A new marketing tool: Lifecycle costing, Industrial Marketing Management, ISSN 0019-8501,
8(1979), 109–113.
[3] J. Roosen, W. Marneffe and L. Vereeck., A review of comparative vehicle cost analysis, Transport Reviews,
ISSN 0144-1647, 35(2015), 720–748.
[4] K. Lebeau, P. Lebeau, C. Macharis and J. Van Mierlo, How expensive are electric vehicles? A
total cost of ownership analysis, 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27),
ISBN 978-1-4799-3833-9, 4(2013), 2213–2224.
[5] B. Al-Alawi and T. H. Bradley, Total cost of ownership, payback, and consumer preference modeling of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Applied Energy, ISSN 0306-2619, 103(2013), 488–506.
[6] M. Messagie, K. Lebeau, T. Coosemans, C. Macharis and J. Van Mierlo, Environmental and financial
evaluation of passenger vehicle technologies in Belgium, Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, 5(2013), 5020–
5033.
[7] C. Thiel, A. Perujo, and A. Mercier, Cost and CO2aspects of future vehicle options in Europe under new
energy policy scenarios, Energy Policy, ISSN 0301-4215, 38(2010), 7142–7151.
[8] FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer, http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/digibib/verkeer vervoer/1974 kilometres
parcourus par les vehicules belges durant l annee 2013.jsp, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[9] FEBIAC, http://www.febiac.be/documents febiac/2014/rapportannuel2014-FR/, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[10] European Central Bank, http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/quickview.do?SERIES KEY¯
165.YC.B.U2.EUR.4F.G N
A.SV C YM.SR 8Y, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[11] T. Mearig, N. Coffee, and M. Morgan, Life Cycle Cost Analysis Handbook, State of Alaska, Department of
Education and Early Development, 1999.
[12] Eurotax, http://www.eurotax.nl/N/fzgratis/index.php, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[13] FOD Financi¨
en, http://financien.belgium.be/nl/particulieren/vervoer/inschrijving en belastingen/belasting
op de inverkeerstelling, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[14] Electrabel, https://www.electrabel.be/en/residential/price-gas-electricity-supplier/carplug#EN, accessed on
2016-03-24.
[15] Belgian Federation of Petroleum, http://www.petrolfed.be/nl/maximumprijzen/databank, accessed on 2016-
03-24.
[16] Brugel, http://www.brugel.be/nl/officiele-documenten, accessed on 2016-03-24.
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 10
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0751

[17] DATS24, https://customer.dats24.be/nl/station-zoeker, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[18] FOD Financi¨
en, http://financien.belgium.be/nl/particulieren/vervoer/inschrijving en belastingen/
verkeersbelasting, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[19] Touring, https://simulatie.touring-verzekeringen.be/verzekering/auto/simulatie-autoverzekering-
touring.htm, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[20] B. Nykvist and M. Nilsson, Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles, Nature Climate
Change, ISSN 1758-678X, 5(2015), 329–332.
[21] Autogids, http://www.autogids.be/prijs-nieuwe-wagens.cfm, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[22] Cars21, http://www.cars21.com/news/view/5046, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[23] M. Goedecke, S. Therdthianwonga and S.H. Gheewalab, Life cycle cost analysis of alternative vehicles and
fuels in Thailand, Energy Policy, ISSN 0301-4215, 35(2007), 3236–3246.
[24] Michelin, http://www.michelin.be/nl, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[25] Popgom, http://www.banden-popgom.be/, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[26] GOCA, http://www.goca.be/nl/p/ak-tarieven, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[27] Statbel, http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/publications/statistiques/arbeidsmarkt levensomstandigheden
/huishoudbudgetonderzoek 2014.jsp, accessed on 2016-03-24.
[28] Juridat, http://www.juridat.be/statistique dsb/inhoud/nl/nl rapport 00054 main.htm, accessed on 2016-03-
24.
[29] E. Cornelis, M. Hubert, P. Huynen, K. Lebrun, G. Patriarche, A. De Witte, L. Creemers, K. Declerq, D.
Janssens, M. Castaigne, L. Hollaert and F. Walle, Mobiliteit in Belgi¨
e in 2010: resultaten van de BELDAM-
enquˆ
ete, 2012.
[30] G. Gibson, A. Varma, V. Cox (Ricardo-AEA), A. Korzhenevych, N. Dehnen (DIW econ), J. Br¨
ocker, M.
Holtkamp, and H. Meier (CAU), Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, London, DG
Mobility and Transport, 2014.
[31] NEN-EN 16258, Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy consumption and GHG emissions
of transport services (freight and passengers), 2012.
[32] M. Messagie , J. Mertens, L. Oliveira, S. Rangaraju, J. Sanfelix, T. Coosemans, J. Van Mierlo, C.Macharis,
The hourly life cycle carbon footprint of electricity generation in Belgium, bringing a temporal resolution in
life cycle assessment, Applied Energy, ISSN 0306-2619, 134(2014), 469–476.
[33] Belgisch Staatsblad, http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi loi/change lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2004122730
&table name=wet, accessed on 2016-03-24.
Authors
Ir. Quentin De Clerck graduated in 2014 of a Master of Science in Applied Sciences and Engineer-
ing: Computer Science at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and is since 2014 a Research Associate,
under the supervision of Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, for the research group MOBI (Mobility, Logis-
tics and Automotive Technology). His fields of expertise are electric vehicles, location analysis for
charging infrastructure and Total Cost of Ownership.
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 11
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0752

Dr. Tom Van Lier is a postdoctoral research associate in the research group MOBI led by Prof. Dr.
Cathy Macharis at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His work focuses on evaluating the sustainability
of transport solutions by means of external transport cost calculations. He has been involved in
several research projects dealing with topics such as social cost-benefit analysis of transport options,
external cost savings of freight bundling, carbon footprint calculations and life-cycle assessment of
transport services. Within MOBI, he is also involved in the carbon emission reducing Lean & Green
project of the Flemish Institute for Logistics as neutral assessor.
Dr. Philippe Lebeau graduated in 2011 of a Master in Management Sciences at the Louvain School
of Management and became a Research Associate at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He also achieved
a Master in Transport Management in 2013. Since 2011, he belongs to the research group MOBI
(Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology), an interdisciplinary group focusing on sustain-
able logistics, electric and hybrid vehicles and travel behaviour. In that context, he is conducting
a Prospective Research for Brussels under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Cathy Macharis and Prof.
Dr. Joeri Van Mierlo. The project is called PULSE and is investigating an innovative distribution
network for the Brussels-Capital Region. His expertise fields are in sustainable logistics, electric
vehicles, urban freight transport in Brussels, Discrete Event Simulation, Total Cost of Ownership,
Conjoint Based Choice and Multi-Criteria Multi-Actor analysis.
Dr. Maarten Messagie is a full-time post-doc researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, where
he leads the LCA team of MOBI (Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology). In 2013 he
received his PhD in engineering from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel with the greatest distinction.
His expertise and research focus is on uncertainty propagation in Life Cycle Assessment, vehicle-
LCA, sustainable energy systems, mineral and metal depletion, electric vehicles, energy storage
technologies, transition pathways, sustainability concepts, consequential LCA, ecodesign, life cycle
management, environmental business model generation, market driven environmental consequences
of consumption and cleantech developments.
Prof. Dr. Lieselot Vanhaverbeke is Assistant Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, at the de-
partment of Business Technology and Operations (BUTO) and the research group Mobility, Logis-
tics and Automotive Technology (MOBI). She teaches Operations Research and Research Methods.
Her research on location analysis, consumer mobility and economic aspects of electric vehicles is
published in academic ISI journals. She is member of the Belgian Operational Research Society
(ORBEL) and The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS).
Prof. Dr. Cathy Macharis is Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. She teaches courses in
operations and logistics management, as well as in transport and sustainable mobility. She has been
involved in several national and European research projects dealing with topics such as the location
of intermodal terminals, assessment of policy measures in the field of logistics and sustainable mo-
bility, electric and hybrid vehicles, etc. She is the chairwoman of the Brussels Mobility Commission.
Prof. Dr. Ir. Joeri Van Mierlo is currently a Full-Time Professor at this university, where he leads the
MOBI (Mobility and Automotive Technology Research) Centre. He is expert in the field of Electric
and Hybrid vehicles (batteries, power converters, energy management simulations) as well as to the
environmental and economical comparison of vehicles with different drive trains and fuels (LCA,
TCO). Prof. Van Mierlo was Vice-president of AVERE (2011-2014) the European Electric Vehicle
Association and board member its Belgian section ASBE. He chairs the EPE chapter “Hybrid and
electric vehicles”. He is an active member of EARPA (European Automotive Research Partner
Association) and member of EGVIA (European Green Vehicle Initiative Association). He is member
of the board of Environmental & Energy Technology Innovation Platform (MIP) and chairman of the
steering committee of the sustainable mobility platform of ENERGIK. He is IEEE Senior Member
and member of IEEE Power Electronics Society (PELS), IEEE Vehicular Technology Society (VTS)
and IEEE Transportation Electrification Community.
EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 12
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 8 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2016 WEVA
Page WEVJ8-0753