E.1. Research Report EV Range Testing FINAL 1 9 19 PDF

FEBRUARY 2019
AAA ELECTRIC VEHICLE

H CL
RANGE TESTING
N
AAA proprietary
a research
e earch into
in
nto
to tthe
th
he
h ee
effect
eff
effffect
fffe
ect
ct
of ambient temperature
emmpera
ra
atture a
and
nd
n d HVA
HVAC
HV
HVA ACC use
use
se on
on
driving range
a and
a d MPGe
M
MP PG
P Ge
NewsRoom.AAA.com
(this page intentionally left blank)
© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 2

Abstract
AAA conducted primary research to understand the effects of ambient temperature on the range and
equivalent fuel economy of five (5) battery electric vehicles (BEVs) sold throughout the United States.
Testing was performed according to guidelines established in SAE International1 standard J1634, Battery
Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure. Evaluated ambient temperatures
included 20°F, 75°F and 95°F.
For hot and cold temperatures, the effect of various HVAC systems on battery range and equivalent fuel
economy was evaluated. Additionally, the cost of driving 1000 miles in various environments with and
without the HVAC system engaged was quantified.
Research Questions:
1. How do driving range estimates of the tested BEVs vary with respect to ambient temperature?
a. Evaluated at 20°F
b. Evaluated at 75°F
c. Evaluated at 95°F
2. What effect does heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) have on the driving range of
the tested BEVs?
a. Evaluated at 20°F
b. Evaluated at 95°F
3. Based on real-world driving range estimations, what is the monetary cost of driving in various
environments with and without the HVAC system engaged?
Key Findings:
1. In isolation, hot and cold ambient temperatures resulted in modest reductions of driving range
and equivalent fuel economy. Driving range and equivalent fuel economy reductions slightly
differ due to the temperature dependency of both the recharge allocation factor (RAF) and
battery discharge capacity.
a. On average, an ambient temperature of 20°F resulted in a 12 percent decrease of
combined driving range and a 9 percent decrease of combined equivalent fuel economy
(when compared to testing conducted at 75°F).
b. On average, an ambient temperature of 95°F resulted in a 4 percent decrease of
2. HVAC use results in significant reductions of driving range and equivalent fuel economy.
a. On average, HVAC use at 20°F resulted in a 41 percent decrease of combined driving
range and a 39 percent decrease of combined equivalent fuel economy (when
compared to testing conducted at 75°F).
1
Society of Automotive Engineers

combined driving range and an 18 percent decrease of combined equivalent fuel
economy (when compared to testing conducted at 75°F).
3. Depending on ambient temperature, HVAC use results in a significant monetary cost increase.

Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Battery Technology ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Battery Chemistry ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 EV Driving Range ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 EV Charging ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.4.1 AC Level 1 Charging ............................................................................................................. 11
2.4.2 AC Level 2 Charging ............................................................................................................. 12
2.5 EV Charging Costs........................................................................................................................ 12
2.5.1 Cost Calculation .................................................................................................................. 12
3 Vehicle Selection Methodology .......................................................................................................... 13
4 Test Equipment and Resources........................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Data Logging Equipment ............................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1 Ampere-Hour Meter ........................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2 OBD-II Scan Tool .................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Dynamometer ............................................................................................................................. 14
5 Inquiry #1: How do energy consumption and driving range estimates vary with respect to ambient
temperature? .............................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 14
5.1.1 Dynamometer Drive Sequence ........................................................................................... 14
5.2 Test Procedure and Results ........................................................................................................ 15
5.2.1 2018 BMW i3s ..................................................................................................................... 17
5.2.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt ............................................................................................................ 20
5.2.3 2018 Nissan Leaf ................................................................................................................. 22
5.2.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D ...................................................................................................... 25
5.2.5 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf ..................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Summary of Test Results ............................................................................................................. 30
6 Inquiry #2: What effect do heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems have on the
driving range of tested EVs? ....................................................................................................................... 32
6.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 32

6.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 32
6.3 Test Results ................................................................................................................................. 33
6.3.1 2018 BMW i3s ..................................................................................................................... 33
6.3.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt ............................................................................................................ 37
6.3.3 2018 Nissan Leaf ................................................................................................................. 40
6.3.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D ...................................................................................................... 44
6.4 Summary of Test Results ............................................................................................................. 50
7 Inquiry #3: Based on real-world driving range estimations, what is the cost of driving in various
environments with and without the HVAC system engaged? .................................................................... 52
7.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 52
7.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 52
7.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 53
7.3.1 2018 BMW i3s ..................................................................................................................... 53
7.3.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt ............................................................................................................ 53
7.3.3 2018 Nissan Leaf ................................................................................................................. 54
7.3.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D ...................................................................................................... 55
7.4 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................... 56
8 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 57
9 Summary Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 58
10 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 58
11 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 59
11.1 2018 BMW i3s ............................................................................................................................. 59
11.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt .................................................................................................................... 60
11.3 2018 Nissan Leaf ......................................................................................................................... 62
11.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D .............................................................................................................. 63
11.5 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf ............................................................................................................. 65

1 Introduction
While the commercial use of battery-powered cars can be traced as far back as 1897, when New York
City had electric taxis, the modern era of electric cars arguably began in 2008 with the introduction of
the Tesla Roadster. Today, more than a dozen electric vehicle models are available from a variety of
manufacturers, with more on the way.
Figure 1: Visual representation of typical EV architecture Image Source: AAA

Electric vehicles (EVs) are energy efficient, environmentally friendly and reduce dependence on
imported oil because they use domestically produced energy. In addition, automobiles propelled by
electric motors generally offer smooth operation, good standing-start acceleration, and require less
maintenance than vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs). However, three areas where electric
vehicles currently suffer in comparison to their ICE counterparts are driving range, recharging
infrastructure, and recharging (refueling) time. Fortunately, EVs are constantly improving in terms of
battery capacity, safety, recharge time and public charging infrastructure.
To provide information on real-world driving range and operational costs, AAA evaluated five (5)
commonly available BEVs available for sale throughout the United States. For each vehicle, the driving
range and equivalent fuel economy at three different temperatures was measured; for hot and cold
conditions, the driving range and equivalent fuel economy with and without HVAC use was compared.

2 Background
Most motorists today are familiar with hybrid automobiles that achieve improved fuel efficiency by
using an electric motor to help the ICE propel the car. The motor receives power from a modestly sized
battery that is automatically recharged during vehicle operation using a generator driven by the car’s
ICE.
In contrast, the vehicles evaluated in this research employ larger batteries that can be charged by
plugging the car into an external electrical outlet or charging unit. Energy stored in the battery is then
used to power an electric motor that can propel the car for a number of miles without the use of an ICE.
2.1 Battery Technology

Most discussions of electric vehicle batteries focus on the battery that propels the car down the road.
However, modern EVs normally have two battery systems, a “starter” battery and a “traction” battery,
both of which play important roles in vehicle operation.
The starter battery in an EV is a 12-volt, lead-acid unit similar to that in a conventional car, although it is
generally smaller in both size and capacity. The starter battery powers the car’s keyless entry and
security systems, maintains various electronic “memories”, and provides the energy needed to “wake
up” the EV’s computer control systems when the ignition is turned on. The starter battery also powers a
large relay that connects the traction battery with the vehicle powertrain to enable electric operation.
At the heart of every EV is a high-voltage traction battery pack that powers the electric motor that
propels the car down the road. The traction battery also charges the starter battery and, depending on
the vehicle, powers some or all of the vehicle electrical system, including high-load accessories such as
the air conditioning, headlamps and heater.
Unlike the starter battery, the EV traction battery is a lithium-ion design that has much greater energy
density, albeit at a significantly higher cost. Automakers warranty their EV traction batteries for at least
8 years or 100,000 miles, but after that period, battery replacement is expected to cost from $2,500 to
over $10,000, depending on the vehicle.
Every traction battery pack is made up of dozens of smaller individual cells whose configuration varies
with the automaker and battery supplier. Some are cylindrical like common household “C” or “D” cells,
while others are flat and rectangular – similar in shape to a small notebook computer. The individual
cells are typically combined into assemblies that are then installed in a special housing and connected
using series and/or parallel circuits to supply the high power (up to 500 volts) necessary for efficient EV
operation.
The nominal rating of an EV battery pack, such as 24 kilowatt hour (kWh), represents the amount of
energy available for vehicle use. The total battery capacity is actually somewhat greater, but for
maximum life, a lithium-ion battery pack should not be deeply discharged or charged to its total design
capacity. Modern EVs take these restrictions into account and typically limit the battery’s state of charge
to between 20 and 90 percent of its total capacity under most operating conditions. When discussing EV

battery states of charge, common expressions such as “empty” or “fully charged” refer only to the
portion of a battery’s capacity that is available for normal use, not its entire energy potential.
2.2 Battery Chemistry

In order to facilitate the development and uptake of EVs, traction batteries with high specific energy,
high current capability, long cycling life and low production costs are essential. To meet these
requirements, Li-ion batteries are currently utilized within EVs. This chemistry has an energy density of
about 150 Wh/kg, which currently exceeds any competing chemistries by at least a factor of 2.5 [1]. The
voltage of a Li-ion cell will slightly vary with respect to specific design architecture but is usually on the
order of 4 V. Li-ion batteries utilized for EVs typically contain a graphite anode, a lithium cobalt oxide
cathode and a liquid carbonate electrolyte with a dissolved lithium salt such as lithium
hexaflorophosphate [2]. Nickel and manganese are other cathode materials commonly incorporated by
battery designers.
During discharge, lithium ions move from the anode to the cathode in a reversible intercalation process
that is accompanied by movement of electrons from the anode to the cathode via an external circuit.
During charging, lithium ions at the cathode diffuse back to the anode along with the movement of
electrons from cathode to anode via external circuit.
Current Li-ion batteries contain numerous shortcomings that must be addressed to enable the eventual
transition away from ICE vehicles. These barriers include stability, cycle life, cost and operational
temperature range [2]. To solve these challenges, breakthroughs in anode and cathode materials as well
as electrolyte compositions (such as solid-state materials) are required.
Many avenues of research pertaining to traction batteries are underway. The following descriptions of
selected research topics are intended to provide a general overview of the state of the field. As these
research initiatives are currently in preliminary stages, it is uncertain if tangible results will eventually
lead to feasible deployment within production vehicles.
One of the most promising areas of research involves the utilization of ionic liquids (ILs) as a Li-ion
battery electrolyte [3]. An ionic liquid is a molten salt at low to moderate temperatures. These highly
concentrated electrolytes are typically composed of large organic cations and anions with a high degree
of delocalized charge. The main benefit of ionic liquid electrolytes relates to their non-flammability and
thermal stability up to temperatures of 300-400 °C. Numerous publications describe experimental and
theoretical studies pertaining to ILs and their possible application within advanced Li-ion batteries and
other theoretical battery chemistries.
The long-term development of traction batteries will involve battery chemistries besides Li-ion [4]. Li-air
chemistry is one possible alternative to conventional Li-ion designs. Li-air batteries utilize atmospheric
oxygen as the oxidizing agent; as a result, they can be significantly lighter than Li-ion designs.
Additionally, the theoretical specific energy of a Li-air battery is comparable to gasoline (~46.4 MJ/kg).
Significant obstacles towards the commercialization of Li-air batteries include the insolubility of
discharge products within the pores of electrodes causing premature termination of energy transfer and
the inherent incompatibility of lithium and water vapor within the environment. Lithium-sulfur is

another promising battery chemistry for future traction batteries due to its high theoretical specific
energy of roughly 13.4 MJ/kg. Like Li-air chemistry, there are significant hurdles that continue to impede
development including corrosion of the lithium anode by dissolved polysulphides produced during cell
discharge and low conductivity of the sulfur-based cathode.
Significant investments by governments, academia and industry to support research and development
programs have led to many promising developments within battery chemistries previously described.
Collaboration will be essential for the development of next generation traction batteries that will
ultimately enable the widespread adoption of EVs.
2.3 EV Driving Range

The driving range of any EV is determined by two factors, the capacity of its fully-charged battery pack
and the efficiency of its electric powertrain. With most EVs, one kWh of electrical energy from the
battery pack will provide between two to four miles of driving range. The EPA publishes range estimates
for all EVs, but real world results can, and do, vary based on several factors:
Figure 2: Contributing factors to EV driving range Image Source: AAA

x Battery temperature – for most efficient operation, an EV’s battery pack likes to be kept within a
certain temperature range. Depending on the vehicle, operating conditions and ambient air
temperature, some of the available power may be required to heat or cool the battery when the
car is not plugged into the grid.
x Interior temperature – people prefer to keep the interior of their vehicles within a comfortable
temperature range as well. With an EV, this may mean using electric air conditioning or heating
systems that can draw significant amounts of battery power – with an accompanying reduction
in driving range. To reduce battery loads, the interiors of many EVs can be “pre-conditioned”
using grid power for heating or cooling before the car is placed in service.
x Driving habits – in any car, gasoline or electric, the faster and more aggressively it’s driven, the
quicker the vehicle’s energy supply will become depleted. With EVs, moderate acceleration and
braking will provide maximum operating range.
x Operating conditions – EVs typically get better “mileage” in stop-and-go city driving, where
frequent regenerative braking helps recharge the battery, than they do in sustained freeway

operation. Naturally, the load on the vehicle also influences its range. For example, an EV will
have a much shorter range climbing a mountain than it would coasting down the other side.
EVs operating on battery power use no gasoline, so to help quantify the efficiency of electric vehicles the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a Miles Per Gallon Equivalent (MPGe) rating
system. MPGe is similar to normal mpg, but instead of representing the number of miles a vehicle can
travel per gallon of gasoline, MPGe represents how many miles an EV can travel using the same amount
of energy as that contained in a gallon of gasoline. Currently, the EPA assumes that one gallon of
gasoline contains 33,705 Watt hours for fuel economy labeling purposes. Within this work, the terms
“MPGe” and “equivalent fuel economy” are used interchangeably and refer to the same measurement.
2.4 EV Charging
EV charging is the equivalent of filling the fuel tank on a gasoline-powered car and, from a driver’s
perspective, the process is not all that different. However, instead of a fuel hose with a nozzle that fits
into a fuel filler opening, EV charging employs a power cable with a special connector that plugs into a
matching socket on the vehicle. Similarly, just as a gasoline pump shuts off automatically when the tank
is full, EV charging equipment ends the charging process when the battery reaches its maximum rated
storage capacity.
The hardware used to charge EVs is collectively referred to as Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE).
This includes the charging station, cables, cable connectors and vehicle sockets. All modern EVs can be
charged using alternating current (AC) electricity and some can be charged with direct current (DC)
electricity as well. For brevity, only AC charging will be discussed in this work.
The majority of EVs today are routinely charged using AC from a wall socket (120V or 240V) at home.
However, since batteries can only store direct-current (DC) electricity, household AC must be converted
to DC before it can be used to charge an EV. The component that does this conversion is called an on-
board charger.
2.4.1 AC Level 1 Charging

AC Level 1 charging is the simplest, but slowest, method of charging an EV. Using a standard 120-volt
outlet and a dedicated charging cable that comes with the car, AC Level 1 charging can provide the
battery with 1.4 kW (15-amp circuit) of power per hour – the rough equivalent of three to five miles of
driving range per hour (some level 1 chargers can provide 1.9 kW on a 20-amp circuit). AC Level 1
charging rates are limited by the amount of electrical power available at the wall outlet, not the capacity
of the EV’s on-board charger.
For a typical commuter who travels 40 miles a day, AC Level 1 charging can fully restore the battery
overnight in 8-13 hours, depending on the current rating of the outlet being used. However, higher
levels of battery discharge require proportionately longer charging times, and EV owners who drive
more than 40 miles per day, or need to operate their vehicle over a time span of more than 12 hours
each day, may find AC Level 1 charging is impractical given their driving habits.

2.4.2 AC Level 2 Charging
AC Level 2 charging provides more rapid EV charging, but calls for a dedicated 240-volt circuit similar to
that of an electric clothes dryer, electric stove/oven or arc welder. It also requires a special charging
station in one’s garage, carport or driveway at a cost of $200 to $1,500 plus installation. By doubling
available voltage and increasing current flow to as much as 80 amps (dependent on the vehicle), AC
Level 2 charging can deliver up to 19.2 kW of power per hour to an EV battery. However, this maximum
charge rate is rarely achieved in the real world because the AC-to-DC conversion ability of the EV’s on-
board charger becomes a limiting factor.
The installation cost will vary depending on the configuration of the home, its electrical circuitry, local
code requirements and the type of equipment installed. A licensed electrical contractor should be
consulted for an estimate. Installation expenses may be offset by a federal tax credit equal to 50 percent
of the cost, with a $2,000 maximum per charger installed. Certain states also provide tax benefits, and
some utility companies offer rebates and incentives on EV charging units.
2.5 EV Charging Costs

Just as gasoline prices vary with location, station, season, fuel grade and other factors, the price of
electricity also spans a broad range. General information on electricity costs can be obtained by visiting
the U.S. Energy Information Administration web site and searching for “State Electricity Profiles.” But,
any consumer considering the purchase of an EV should first contact their local utility company and
determine how at-home charging will impact their monthly bill.
In many areas, utilities offer lower rates and encourage EV charging at night when demands on the
power grid are lower and excess generating capability is available. Nighttime EV charging also helps
minimize the need for utilities to purchase power from other areas if peak demand exceeds local
generating capacity during the day.
Regardless of the rate plan available, it is important to understand how it works. Many plans charge a
flat price per kWh, although the rate will often vary with season or time of day. Some plans employ
declining rate blocks – the more electricity you use, the cheaper it gets. Under this type of plan, extra
electricity used for EV charging gets billed at lower rates. However, other plans employ inclining rate
blocks – the more electricity you use the costlier it gets. Under this type of plan, additional energy
consumed for EV charging becomes more expensive.
Where special rate plans are available for EV charging, it is common for the utility company to require
proof of EV ownership. In addition, some special rate programs may require a separate meter to
measure the electricity used for EV charging.
2.5.1 Cost Calculation

Electricity is a very affordable way to power a car, and generally costs quite a bit less than gasoline or
diesel fuel on a Miles Per Gallon Equivalent (MPGe) basis. Total charging costs will vary with the price of
fuel, the amount paid for electricity and the efficiency of the EV as measured in miles per kWh.
Efficiency is affected by differences in vehicle design, driving conditions and driver habits.

Here is a sample calculation of the energy costs to drive 1,000 miles per month in an EV versus a
gasoline-powered conventional car. It is important to note that the following calculations only account
for the base electrical rate; additional taxes and surcharges will vary depending on the municipality and
region. These numbers are based on an EV that can travel 3 miles per kWh, on typical base electrical
rates and on gasoline prices as of mid-2018:
x If electricity is 12.5¢ per kWh (not including taxes/surcharges) and the EV gets 3 miles per kWh…
o 1,000 miles ÷ 3 miles/kWh = 333.33 kWh x 0.125 = $41.66 monthly energy cost
x If gasoline is $2.947 per gallon and the conventional ICE vehicle gets 26 miles per gallon…
o 1,000 miles ÷ 26 mpg = 38.46 gallons x 2.947 = $113.35 monthly energy cost
x The numbers in this example add up to a 63 percent reduction in energy costs and an annual
energy cost savings of $860.28.
It is important to keep in mind that energy costs (regardless of type) are only one component of the
overall cost to own and operate a vehicle. EVs usually have higher initial purchase prices than
comparable ICE vehicles. Even with lower energy costs and reduced maintenance requirements, it can
take years to recover the difference.
3 Vehicle Selection Methodology

To be eligible for testing, prospective EVs had to be available for sale throughout the United States and
have a minimum EPA estimated driving range of 100 miles. Tested EVs featured either resistive or heat-
pump cabin heating systems; both types were included within test vehicles to analyze differences in
efficiency with respect to cabin heating type. Additionally, one (1) vehicle per manufacturer was tested
to prevent overrepresentation of a single brand.
Once eligible EVs were identified, AAA researchers utilized sales data to select the following five (5)
vehicles for testing:
x 2018 BMW i3s

x 2018 Chevrolet Bolt
x 2018 Nissan Leaf
x 2017 Tesla Model S 75D
x 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf
All vehicles were procured and inspected to determine suitability for dynamometer testing according to
the following criteria originating from SAE J1634 [5]:
i. Check that the odometer reading is between 1,000 and 6,200 miles
ii. Verify that the battery ampere-hour capacity is within acceptable limits before and after testing
In addition, it was verified that no warning lights were illuminated at any point before or during testing.
4 Test Equipment and Resources

The Automobile Club of Southern California performed all laboratory testing at the Automotive Research
Center (ARC) located in Los Angeles, California.

4.1 Data Logging Equipment
4.1.1 Ampere-Hour Meter
A Hioki power analyzer (model number PW3390) was used to measure current leaving and entering the
traction battery pack at a sampling frequency of 20 Hertz (Hz). The power analyzer was also utilized to
measure AC recharge energy (kWh) for each vehicle at all tested ambient temperatures.
4.1.2 OBD-II Scan Tool

Both laptop-based and phone app-based OBD-II scan tools were used to capture traction battery voltage
from vehicle network data as specified by SAE J1634 Part 4.6.b. AutoEnginuity, a Windows program, was
used for the VW, the Chevy, and the BMW. Leaf-Spy Pro and ScanMyTesla, both Android apps, were
used for the Nissan and Tesla, respectively.
4.2 Dynamometer
ARC utilizes a pair of AVL 48-inch diameter electric chassis dynamometers in order to test front-, rear-
and all-wheel drive vehicles. The front dynamometer is rated for 150 kW while the rear dynamometer is
rated for 220 kW. The dynamometer is used to simulate the same tractive forces that a vehicle
encounters when it is driven in naturalistic environments.
The dynamometer is located inside of a temperature and humidity-controlled environmental chamber.
The operating range of the chamber is between 20-95°F. All testing was performed on this chassis
dynamometer as specified by SAE J1634.
5 Inquiry #1: How do energy consumption and driving range estimates

vary with respect to ambient temperature?
5.1 Methodology
Energy consumption, driving range and equivalent fuel economy estimates were calculated at 20°F, 75°F
and 95°F to determine the effect of ambient temperature on energy consumption and driving range. All
equipment, vehicles and drivers were provided by ARC.
5.1.1 Dynamometer Drive Sequence

Driving range and MPGe estimates published on the Monroney sticker of all new EVs are typically
calculated with respect to an ambient temperature ranging between 20 to 30 °C (68 to 86 °F). The
standard test procedure utilized by the EPA is derived from SAE J1634 and currently consists of four (4)
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) cycles and two (2) Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (HWFET) cycles in a specified sequence including mid-test and end-of-test constant speed
cycles (CSCs). The CSCs serve as a rapid “depletion phase”; these phases are usually run at 65 mph for a
duration dependent on the vehicle’s battery capacity.
∗
Utilizing equations defined in SAE J1634, energy consumption ( ) , driving range (mi) and MPGe are
calculated for city, highway and aggressive driving. The EPA currently applies a correction factor to
calculated values to more accurately reflect figures consumers can expect in the real world. For most

EVs, the city/highway fuel economy and range values are multiplied by 0.7 and the city/highway energy
consumption values are divided by 0.7 to derive the Monroney sticker estimates [6]. In this work,
provided US06 values have been multiplied or divided by 0.7 for consistency. As such, reported US06
values represent a lower bound of performance that could be reasonably expected in naturalistic
environments.
While these estimations provide objective figures that may be used for vehicle comparisons, the EPA
emphasizes that “actual mileage may vary” depending on a range of factors including ambient
temperature, driving behavior, vehicle maintenance, etc.
To conduct range testing representative of naturalistic driving environments, a custom drive sequence
was constructed with a combination of EPA dynamometer drive schedules as specified in Appendix B of
SAE J1634. The UDDS was performed first, immediately followed by the HWFET and a ten (10) minute
soak period. After the soaking period, the UDDS and US06 Driving Schedule (or Supplemental FTP) were
performed in succession. Immediately following the US06, a mid-test CSC at 65 mph was driven. The
distance of the CSC was specific to each vehicle and was selected such that the end-of-test CSC was
about 20 percent of the distance driven throughout the entirety of the test procedure. After the mid-
test CSC, the UDDS-HWFET-soak-UDDS-US06 test sequence was repeated and an end-of-test CSC at 65
mph was driven until the vehicle was unable to maintain steady-state speed. The constructed drive
sequence was utilized for all test vehicles and ambient temperatures.
5.2 Test Procedure and Results

Test vehicles were evaluated at three (3) temperatures because traction battery packs must operate
under a wide range of ambient temperatures. At low temperatures, Li-ion battery packs are less efficient
due to increased heat generation. As temperature decreases, diffusion, conductivity and reaction rates
decrease; this leads to increased voltage perturbation and heat generation [7]. Additional heat
generation represents a waste of useful energy; at the macro level, this is manifested as reduced driving
range and equivalent fuel economy. Additionally, depending on the ambient temperature and the
specific architecture of the battery thermal management system, energy may be expended to heat the
traction battery via resistive heating.
At elevated temperatures, liquid or passive air-cooling is utilized to keep the traction battery at an
acceptable temperature. This can also result in reduced driving range because liquid cooling requires
energy that could otherwise be used to propel the vehicle. Aggressive driving will result in higher rates
of heat generation, consequently increasing traction battery cooling demands.
Prior to instrumented dynamometer testing, target road-load coefficients were obtained from
manufacturer-supplied EPA certification documentation for each vehicle. Road loads were matched to
the dynamometer by using the target road-load coefficients and the test weight of the vehicle according
to SAE J2264 [8]. This procedure was performed for each vehicle at each tested ambient temperature.
After dynamometer set coefficients were obtained for each ambient test temperature, the vehicle was
preconditioned by driving through a series of standard emissions test cycles (US06, HWFET, UDDS, 65
mph CSC) until the battery was fully depleted. Immediately following the preconditioning drive, the

vehicle was placed on charge and soaked between the allowed 12-36 hours (15-17 hours typically) in the
test cell at the test temperature. The vehicle was on charge for the entirety of the soak period; charging
took place in the dynamometer cell such that no vehicle movement was required at the conclusion of
soaking.
For each vehicle, instrumented dynamometer tests were performed under the following conditions:
1) Ambient temperature of 75°F and climate control switched off
3) Ambient temperature of 95°F and climate control switched on
5) Ambient temperature of 20°F and climate control switched on
The following procedure was used for each instrumented dynamometer test:
Testing was initiated within one hour of the vehicle being removed from charge. The test driver was
provided a screen that displayed the targeted vehicle speed trace; vehicle speed was not allowed to
deviate more than ± 4 mph from the prescribed speed trace at any point during the test.
Figure 3: Sequence of drive cycles for instrumented dynamometer testing Image Source: AAA
A 15-second key-on pause occurred between UDDS/HWFET, UDDS/US06 and US06/CSC drive phases. A
10-minute key-off soak occurred between HWFET/UDDS phases. The end-of-test CSC was terminated
once the vehicle speed fell below the 65 mph target speed by the 4 mph tolerance specified in SAE
J1634 (i.e., 61 mph) and the vehicle was brought to a stop. Within three (3) hours of test completion, the
vehicle was placed on charge within the dynamometer cell at the previously tested ambient
temperature. The Hioki power analyzer was configured to measure voltage and current entering the
charging equipment for each recharge event. To calculate AC recharge energy, the equipment utilized a
measuring frequency of 1 Hz for a minimum of 12 hours as specified in SAE J1634.
Each test vehicle was allowed to fully charge at the tested temperature before moving on to the next
test temperature. Once a vehicle finished charging and it was time to change test temperatures, the
vehicle was soaked for a minimum of 4 hours after the test cell stabilized at the new test temperature
before carrying out a new road-load derivation and running preconditioning cycles until the battery was
depleted.

For all dynamometer tests, the power analyzer captured all current entering and leaving the traction
battery pack at a rate of 20 Hz. Traction battery voltage was obtained from vehicle network data with a
sampling frequency dependent on Controller Area Network (CAN) traffic and architecture. In order to
synchronize current and voltage data, cubic spline interpolation was performed on the captured voltage
dataset to provide interpolated data with a frequency of 20 Hz. Voltage interpolation was time
synchronized and multiplied with current data to calculate traction battery wattage output/input.
For each dynamometer test, the calculated wattage was numerically integrated with respect to time to
calculate total DC discharge watt-hours and DC discharge watt-hours for each drive phase. These values
were utilized to calculate phase scaling factors and DC energy consumption (kWh/mi) per drive phase.
Utilizing equations specified in SAE J1634, DC energy consumption (kWh/mi) and driving range (mi) were
calculated for each drive schedule in addition to combined city/highway values.
To calculate MPGe for each drive schedule, the total AC recharge energy was measured. The AC energy
consumption can be calculated for each drive schedule because this value is effectively proportional to
that drive schedule’s DC discharge energy [5]. The total AC recharge energy was divided by the total DC
discharge energy to derive the dimensionless recharge allocation factor (RAF). The total DC discharge
energy per drive schedule was multiplied by the RAF to determine the AC discharge energy for each
drive schedule. This value was utilized to determine MPGe.
In most cases, the driving range and equivalent fuel economy will exhibit differing percent reductions
relative to 75°F. This is due to the temperature dependency of both the RAF and the maximum
discharge capacity of the traction battery. Specifically, the RAF will only influence the MPGe calculation
whereas the maximum discharge capacity will only influence the driving range calculation as shown by
Equations 1 & 2, respectively:
RAF × × 33.705 = MPGe (1)
= Driving Range mi (2)
The temperature dependency of the RAF and traction battery discharge capacity will vary between
vehicles.
The values calculated for the UDDS test are representative of city driving whereas values calculated for
HWFET and US06 drive schedules are representative of highway and aggressive driving, respectively.
Total DC energy consumption, driving range and MPGe values reported herein have been adjusted via
the EPA correction factor previously discussed in Section 5.1.1.
For each vehicle, detailed test data are provided in the Appendix.
5.2.1 2018 BMW i3s
The traction battery has a rated energy capacity of 33.8 kWh and a gravimetric energy density of 132
Wh/kg.

5.2.1.1 Owner’s Manual Information
The owner’s manual contains the following information and directions regarding operation in hot/cold
environments:
x Page 68 – “Energy Recovery: Charge energy cannot be recovered in the following situations:
o When temperature of the high-voltage battery is very low or very high. In winter, it
might be possible that the energy recovery is temporarily unavailable after startup.”
x Page 69 – “In exceptional cases, it is possible that the high-voltage battery heats up sharply
when the vehicle is stationary. E.g. with extreme external temperatures and direct solar
radiation. With an overheated high-voltage battery, drive readiness cannot be switched on.”
x Page 83 – “The range can be abruptly reduced or increased based on the following factors:
o Climate and terrain conditions
o Driving style”
x Page 164 – “At high temperatures, initially the high-voltage battery is cooled. The charging
process can be started with a delay.”
5.2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Testing
All values provided in this section were obtained with the HVAC system off throughout testing.
Figure 4: DC energy consumption with respect to ambient temperature Image Source: AAA

Figure 5: Driving range with respect to ambient temperature Image Source: AAA
Figure 6: MPGe with respect to ambient temperature Image Source: AAA
The total DC discharge energy was reduced at an ambient temperature of 20°F; this will consequently
result in a reduction of driving range. The RAF was also increased at 20°F and 95°F; this will result in a

reduction of equivalent fuel economy. Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent
fuel economy at 20°F decreased by 26 miles and 16 MPGe, respectively. This equates to a 20 percent
decrease in combined driving range and a 14 percent decrease in combined equivalent fuel economy
relative to 75°F.
At 95°F, the combined equivalent fuel economy decreased by 8 MPGe; this equates to a 7 percent
decrease relative to 75°F.
5.2.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt
The traction battery has a rated energy capacity of 60 kWh and a gravimetric energy density of 140
Wh/kg.
environments:
x Page 30 – “In colder temperatures, while these efficiency tips will help, the electric vehicle
driving range may be lower due to higher energy usage.”
x Page 30 – “Keep the vehicle plugged in, even when fully charged, to keep the battery
temperature ready for the next drive. This is important when outside temperatures are
extremely hot or cold.”
x Page 123 – “Regenerative power may be limited when the high voltage battery is near full
charge or cold. The regen battery icon will appear gray when limited.”
x Page 207 – “Parking the vehicle in extreme cold for several days without the charge cord
connected may cause the vehicle not to start. The vehicle will need to be plugged in to allow the
high voltage battery to be warmed sufficiently.”
x Page 264 – “Propulsion power may be reduced in extremely cold temperatures, or if the high
voltage battery is too cold. BATTERY TOO COLD, PLUG IN TO WARM will display.”


result in a reduction of driving range. The RAF was also increased at 20°F and 95°F; this will result in a
reduction of equivalent fuel economy. Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent
fuel economy at 20°F decreased by 25 miles and 7 MPGe, respectively. This equates to a 10 percent
decrease in combined driving range and a 7 percent decrease in combined equivalent fuel economy
relative to 75°F.
At 95°F, the combined equivalent fuel economy decreased by 7 MPGe; this equates to a 7 percent
decrease relative to 75°F.
5.2.3 2018 Nissan Leaf

Wh/kg.
environments:
x Page 23 (EV-2): “To prevent damage to the Li-ion battery: Do not expose the vehicle to extreme
ambient temperatures for extended periods. Do not store the vehicle in temperatures below
−13°F (−25°C) for more than seven days.”

x Page 24 (EV-3): “NOTE: If the outside temperature is −13°F (−25°C) or less, the Li-ion battery
may freeze and it cannot be charged or provide power to run the vehicle. Move the vehicle to a
warm location.”
x Page 26 (EV-5): “CAUTION: The Li-ion battery warmer does not operate if the available Li-ion
battery charge is less than approximately 15% and the charger is not connected to the vehicle.
To help prevent the Li-ion battery from freezing, do not leave the vehicle in an environment if
temperatures may go below -1°F (-17°C) unless the vehicle is connected to a charger.”
x Page 26 (EV-5): “The Li-ion battery warmer helps to prevent the Li-ion battery from freezing and
helps to prevent significant reductions in the Li-ion battery output when the temperature is
cold. The Li-ion battery warmer automatically turns on when the Li-ion battery temperature is
approximately -1°F (-17°C) or colder. The Li-ion battery warmer automatically turns off when the
Li-ion battery temperature is approximately 14°F (-10°C) or higher.”
x Page 27 (EV-6): “Vehicle driving range is reduced if the Li-ion battery warmer operates (Li-ion
battery temperature approximately -1°F (-17°C) or colder) while driving the vehicle. You may
need to charge the Li-ion battery sooner than in warmer temperatures.”
x Page 40 (EV-19):
x “Vehicle range may be substantially reduced in extremely cold conditions (for example, -4°F
(-20°C)).
x Using the climate control system to heat the cabin when the outside temperature is below
32°F (0°C) uses more electricity and affects vehicle range more than when using the heater
when the temperature is above 32°F (0°C).
x When it is cold, use the steering wheel heater in substitution for the heater/air conditioner.
The steering wheel heater consumes less power than the heater/air conditioner.”
x Page 41 (EV-20): “The Li-ion battery's ability to hold a charge can be affected by how you drive
the vehicle, store the vehicle, how you charge the Li-ion battery and Li-ion battery temperature
during vehicle operation and charging.”
x Page 480 (5-141): “Vehicle range may be substantially reduced in extremely cold conditions (for
example under -4°F (-20°C)).”


result in a reduction of driving range. Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel
economy at 20°F decreased by 15 miles and 6 MPGe, respectively. This equates to a 10 percent decrease
in combined driving range and a 6 percent decrease in equivalent fuel economy relative to 75°F.
At 95°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy decreased by 3 miles and 1 MPGe,
respectively. This equates to a 2 percent decrease in combined driving range and a 1 percent decrease in
equivalent fuel economy relative to 75°F. These differences are largely insignificant; driving range and
equivalent fuel economy is not affected by warm temperatures in isolation.
5.2.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D
Wh/kg.
environments:
x Page 62: “…Energy consumption depends on environmental conditions (such as cold weather
and hilly roads). To get the maximum mileage from a charge: … Limit the use of resources such
as heating, signature lighting, and air conditioning. Using seat heaters to keep warm is more
efficient than heating the cabin. To automatically limit the amount of power that the climate

control system uses to maintain the temperature of the battery and the cabin area, touch
Controls > Driving > Range Mode > ON.”
x Page 62: “The power meter on the instrument panel and the Energy app (described next)
provide feedback on energy usage. With this feedback, you will soon become familiar with how
driving habits and environmental conditions impact how much energy Model S is using.”
x Page 130: “Temperature Limits: For better long-term performance, avoid exposing Model S to
ambient temperatures above 140° F (60° C) or below -22° F (-30° C) for more than 24 hours at a
time.”

result in a reduction of driving range. The RAF was also increased at 20°F; this will result in a reduction of

equivalent fuel economy. Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy
at 20°F decreased by 27 miles and 11 MPGe, respectively. This equates to an 11 percent decrease in
both combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy relative to 75°F.
At 95°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy decreased by 16 miles and 7 MPGe,
respectively. This equates to a 7 percent decrease in both combined driving range and equivalent fuel
economy relative to 75°F.
5.2.5 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf
The traction battery has a rated energy capacity of 35.8 kWh and a gravimetric energy density of 104
Wh/kg.
environments:
x Page 212 – “At very low outside temperatures when the high-voltage battery is consequently
very cold, electrical driving and the vehicle range may be limited.”
x Page 215 – “The limited power availability can be dependent on driving style, like rapid
acceleration. The power availability is also generally limited under the following conditions:
o Very cold or very hot high-voltage battery temperatures”
x Page 249 – “Should the vehicle be parked for longer than 2 days at temperatures of below -13qF,
the high voltage battery could freeze and not be able to provide energy to the electric motor.
Temperatures colder than -13qF can cause the battery to freeze even faster. The battery will
start working again, once it warms up. Should you have to park your vehicle at very low
temperatures for longer than 1 day, make sure that the high-voltage battery does not freeze by
parking the vehicle in a garage that is heated or protected from the outside temperature.”
x Page 249 – “The high-voltage battery can be damaged and the capacity can be decreased when
the vehicle is parked for longer than 24 hours when the ambient temperature is higher than
118qF. Always make sure that the high-voltage battery is not exposed to temperatures above
118qF for a long time.”
x Page 249 – “NOTICE – Always make sure that the high-voltage battery is not exposed to
extremely low and high temperatures as well as to water especially for a longer time. Failure
to protect and care for the high voltage battery can lead to serious damage and/or a decrease
of the capacity void coverage under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.”
x Page 315 – “NOTICE – If the vehicle is left standing in the cold for a long time, protect the
vehicle battery from freezing. A battery will be permanently damaged by freezing.”


result in a reduction of driving range. The RAF was also increased at 20°F; this will result in a reduction of
equivalent fuel economy. Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy
at 20°F decreased by 9 miles and 10 MPGe, respectively. This equates to a 7 percent decrease for both
parameters relative to 75°F.
5.3 Summary of Test Results

When tested at 20°F, each test vehicle reduced the maximum discharge capacity of the traction battery
to prevent damage. This affected the driving range of all drive cycles to varying degrees. For all test
vehicles, it was observed that the UDDS drive cycle (representative of urban driving environments) was
most affected by ambient temperature in terms of driving range and equivalent fuel economy (MPGe).
Specifically, UDDS drive cycles performed at 20°F exhibited larger reductions of driving range and MPGe
than corresponding drive cycles conducted at 95°F.
As a result, combined driving range and combined MPGe values exhibited larger reductions at 20°F.
Combined values are derived from the UDDS and HWFET values according to Equations 3 & 4:
= 0.55 + 0.45 (3)
= 0.55 + 0.45 (4)
Figures 19-20 illustrate the percent change of combined driving range and combined MPGe values
relative to testing conducted at an ambient temperature of 75°F.

Figure 19: Percent change in combined driving range relative to testing conducted at 75°F Image Source: AAA
Figure 20: Percent change in combined MPGe relative to testing conducted at 75°F Image Source: AAA

At 20°F, combined driving range and combined MPGe figures were reduced by an average of 12 percent
and 9 percent, respectively (w/respect to testing at 75°F). At 95°F, combined driving range and
combined MPGe figures were reduced by an average of 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively
(w/respect to testing at 75°F).
In isolation, hot and cold ambient temperatures did not cause dramatic reductions of driving range and
equivalent fuel economy. However, it was observed that ambient temperature influences both
parameters to some degree regardless of driving behavior and HVAC use. Motorists that utilize electric
vehicles should be mindful of ambient temperatures in their area and plan to compensate for decreased
driving range during periods of extreme hot or cold weather.
HWFET (representative of highway driving) and US06 (representative of aggressive driving) drive cycles
also exhibited reductions in terms of driving range and equivalent fuel economy at 20°F and 95°F.
However, the HWFET drive cycle was modestly affected relative to UDDS and US06 drive cycles; this was
especially true at 95°F. This finding suggests that highway driving is not significantly influenced by
ambient temperature alone.
6 Inquiry #2: What effect do heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC) systems have on the driving range of tested EVs?
6.1 Objective
Quantify the impact of the vehicle’s HVAC system on driving range and MPGe. Additionally, determine if
various HVAC system types have differing impacts on driving range and MPGe.
6.2 Methodology
To warm the passenger cabin, resistive heating or heat pumps are utilized. Of the five (5) test vehicles,
the Chevrolet Bolt, Tesla Model S and Volkswagen e-Golf feature resistive heating for cabin heating
whereas the BMW i3s BEV and Nissan Leaf feature a heat pump system for cabin heating with auxiliary
resistive heating for extremely low temperatures.
It is hypothesized that EVs primarily relying on heat pumps for cabin heating will lose significantly less
driving range and equivalent fuel economy than EVs that exclusively employ resistive heating. Heat
pumps within EVs are based on the vapor compression cycle. Heat energy is transferred in the opposite
direction of spontaneous heat transfer via the movement of a refrigerant through an evaporator,
compressor, condenser and expansion valve. These heat pumps are energy efficient because only a
small fraction of electricity is required to run the air compressor in comparison to the overall amount of
transferred thermal energy. In contrast, resistive heating systems route current flow through a high
resistance conductor to produce heat. The amount of heat produced is determined by the Joule-Lenz
law, which states that produced thermal energy is proportional to the square of the current multiplied
by the conductor’s resistance. This requires a significant amount of energy from the traction battery;
typically 2-4 kW depending on the vehicle.

Dynamometer testing was performed at ambient temperatures of 20°F and 95°F with the vehicle’s HVAC
system engaged. Test methodology previously described in Section 5.2 was utilized to evaluate the
impact of HVAC use on driving range and MPGe. For each vehicle and ambient temperature, the HVAC
system was placed in “Auto” mode with a temperature set point of 72°F. If possible, “recirculation”
mode was selected (some vehicles will disable auto mode if any climate control button is depressed). If
the fan speed was user selectable in auto mode, the maximum blower speed was selected. The results
contained herein include reference values measured at 75°F with no HVAC.
For each vehicle, detailed test data are provided in the Appendix.
6.3 Test Results

6.3.1 2018 BMW i3s
Figure 21: DC energy consumption at 20°F Image Source: AAA

Figure 23: Driving range at 20°F Image Source: AAA

Figure 25: Equivalent fuel economy at 20°F Image Source: AAA

With the HVAC engaged, the driving range and equivalent fuel economy were significantly reduced for
all drive types (city, highway, aggressive) at 20°F. Compared to 75°F with HVAC off, the combined driving
range and combined MPGe were reduced by 50 percent and 46 percent, respectively.
At 95°F with the HVAC engaged, the driving range and equivalent fuel economy were reduced for all
drive types. However, reductions were less severe than corresponding reductions exhibited at 20°F.
Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and equivalent fuel economy were reduced by 21
percent and 23 percent, respectively.




all drive types (city, highway, aggressive) at 20°F. Compared to 75°F without HVAC, the combined driving
range and combined MPGe were both reduced by 47 percent.



range and combined MPGe were reduced by 31 percent and 28 percent, respectively.
Compared to 75°F, the combined driving range and combined MPGe were reduced by 11 percent and 12
percent, respectively.




Compared to 75°F, both parameters were reduced by 16 percent.



6.4 Summary of Test Results

For tests conducted at 20°F and 95°F, HVAC use resulted in significant reductions in driving range and
equivalent fuel economy. For all test vehicles, it was observed that the UDDS drive cycle was most
affected in terms of increased energy consumption, reduced driving range and reduced MPGe. This
consequently resulted in reductions of combined driving range and combined MPGe values as previously
discussed in Section 5.3.
Compared to 75°F, HVAC use at 20°F resulted in an average reduction of combined driving range and
combined MPGe by 41 percent and 39 percent, respectively. HVAC use at 95°F resulted in an average
reduction of combined driving range and combined MPGe by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
Figures 51-52 illustrate the percent change of combined driving range and combined MPGe values
relative to testing conducted at an ambient temperature of 75°F.

Figure 51: Percent change in combined driving range relative to testing conducted at 75°F Image Source: AAA
Figure 52: Percent change in combined MPGe relative to testing conducted at 75°F Image Source: AAA

With the HVAC engaged, HWFET and US06 drive cycles also exhibited reductions in terms of driving
range and equivalent fuel economy at 20°F and 95°F. For all test vehicles, reductions were more severe
at 20°F.
Hot or cold ambient temperatures in combination with HVAC use resulted in significant reductions of
driving range and equivalent fuel economy for all test vehicles. It was noted that the cabin heating
mechanism did not significantly affect vehicle performance in terms of energy consumption, driving
range and equivalent fuel economy. Heat pumps are largely ineffective within extremely cold
environments. At 20°F, auxiliary resistive heating was likely utilized to maintain cabin temperature.
Motorists who own electric vehicles should be mindful that regardless of driving behavior, hot and cold
ambient temperatures combined with HVAC use results in significant reductions of driving range and
equivalent fuel economy. Minimizing HVAC use regardless of ambient temperature can mitigate these
impacts.
7 Inquiry #3: Based on real-world driving range estimations, what is

the cost of driving in various environments with and without the
HVAC system engaged?
7.1 Objective
For urban, highway, combined city/highway and aggressive driving behavior, quantify the cost of driving
in hot and cold environments with and without the HVAC system engaged. Additionally, the cost of
driving at 75°F will be quantified.
7.2 Methodology
For each vehicle, the miles traveled per kilowatt-hour was calculated for each drive cycle at all tested
ambient temperatures according to Equation 5:
= ∗ 0.7 (5)
∗
Raw values were multiplied by 0.7 to reflect real-world figures obtained during naturalistic driving. The
energy costs provided in Section 7.3 assume 1000 miles driven per month and an average national base
electricity cost of 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. As discussed in Section 2.5.1, the base electricity rate
utilized herein does not account for additional taxes and surcharges that are dependent on municipality
and region.

7.3 Results
7.3.1 2018 BMW i3s
75°F
Energy Cost per 1000 Miles
UDDS $33.05
HWFET $42.24
US06 $57.58
COMBINED $37.19
Figure 53: Energy cost to drive 1000 miles at 75°F for city, highway, aggressive and combined driving Image
Source: AAA
20°F HVAC OFF 95°F HVAC OFF
Percent Change (w/respect to 75°F) Percent Change (w/respect to 75°F)
Energy Cost per 1000 Miles Energy Cost per 1000 Miles
UDDS $39.64 19.95% UDDS $35.53 7.50%
HWFET $46.23 9.43% HWFET $45.29 7.21%
US06 $64.63 12.25% US06 $62.78 9.04%
COMBINED $42.61 14.57% COMBINED $39.92 7.35%
Figure 54: Energy cost to drive 1000 miles without HVAC for city, highway, aggressive and combined driving
Image Source: AAA
20°F HVAC ON 95°F HVAC ON

UDDS $76.03 130.05% UDDS $46.16 39.66%
HWFET $60.13 42.33% HWFET $49.04 16.08%
US06 $75.94 31.90% US06 $75.80 31.66%
Figure 55: Energy cost to drive 1000 miles with HVAC for city, highway, aggressive and combined driving Image
Source: AAA
75°F
UDDS $31.49
HWFET $39.66
US06 $56.13
COMBINED $35.16
Source: AAA

UDDS $34.35 9.10% UDDS $33.58 6.63%
HWFET $41.17 3.82% HWFET $41.69 5.14%
US06 $58.11 3.53% US06 $60.01 6.91%
Image Source: AAA

UDDS $68.57 117.77% UDDS $43.12 36.94%
HWFET $56.72 43.01% HWFET $45.84 15.58%
US06 $74.14 32.09% US06 $64.47 14.85%
Source: AAA

75°F
UDDS $35.40
HWFET $43.46
US06 $61.24
COMBINED $39.03
Source: AAA
UDDS $38.49 8.71% UDDS $35.77 1.03%
HWFET $44.50 2.39% HWFET $43.84 0.88%
US06 $63.20 3.19% US06 $61.12 -0.20%
Image Source: AAA

UDDS $54.59 54.19% UDDS $41.58 17.47%
HWFET $52.76 21.40% HWFET $46.11 6.09%
US06 $68.05 11.11% US06 $63.68 3.97%
Source: AAA
75°F
UDDS $43.78
HWFET $43.51
US06 $61.61
COMBINED $43.66
Source: AAA

UDDS $50.44 15.21% UDDS $47.60 8.72%
HWFET $47.71 9.66% HWFET $46.38 6.60%
US06 $65.58 6.45% US06 $63.97 3.84%
Image Source: AAA

UDDS $80.59 84.07% UDDS $55.07 25.77%
HWFET $61.33 40.97% HWFET $48.90 12.40%
US06 $75.35 22.30% US06 $67.13 8.97%
Source: AAA

75°F
UDDS $30.11
HWFET $38.46
US06 $51.70
COMBINED $33.87
Source: AAA
UDDS $33.35 10.75% UDDS $31.84 5.73%
HWFET $39.42 2.49% HWFET $38.46 0.00%
US06 $56.21 8.72% US06 $52.41 1.38%
Image Source: AAA
UDDS $57.13 89.72% UDDS $40.08 33.09%
HWFET $46.75 21.54% HWFET $41.93 9.02%
US06 $59.69 15.47% US06 $56.28 8.87%
Source: AAA
7.4 Summary of Results

In cold temperatures, HVAC use comes with a significant cost penalty. In terms of combined
urban/highway driving, HVAC use at 20°F resulted in an average cost increase of 65 percent when
compared to the cost of combined urban/highway driving at 75°F. On average, this equals an extra
$24.27 for every 1000 miles.
HVAC use during hot temperatures resulted in a modest cost increase. At 95°F, the corresponding cost
increase was 21 percent or an extra $7.94 for every 1000 miles.
Without HVAC use, combined urban/highway driving at 20°F resulted in an average cost increase of 9
percent or an extra $3.52 for every 1000 miles when compared to the cost of combined urban/highway
driving at 75°F. At 95°F, the corresponding cost increase was 5 percent or an extra $1.90 for every 1000
miles.

Figure 68: Percent change in cost for 1000 miles of combined urban/highway driving relative to 75°F Image
Source: AAA
8 Key Findings
1. In isolation, hot and cold ambient temperatures resulted in modest reductions of driving range
and equivalent fuel economy. Driving range and equivalent fuel economy reductions slightly
differ due to the temperature dependency of both the recharge allocation factor (RAF) and
battery discharge capacity.
a. On average, an ambient temperature of 20°F resulted in a 12 percent decrease of
2. HVAC use results in significant reductions of driving range and equivalent fuel economy.
a. On average, HVAC use at 20°F resulted in a 41 percent decrease of combined driving
range and a 39 percent decrease of combined equivalent fuel economy (when
compared to testing conducted at 75°F).
combined driving range and an 18 percent decrease of combined equivalent fuel
economy (when compared to testing conducted at 75°F).
3. Depending on ambient temperature, HVAC use results in a significant monetary cost increase.

9 Summary Recommendations
1. Owners of EVs should be aware of environmental conditions in their area and plan for reduced
driving range during periods of hot or cold temperatures.
2. If possible, limit HVAC use to minimize impacts on driving range and equivalent fuel economy.
3. EV owners should understand that HVAC use during periods of cold weather may result in
significantly increased energy costs.
10 Bibliography
[1] B. Scrosati, J. Hassoun and Y.-K. Sun, "Lithium-ion batteries. A look into the future," Energy and
Environmental Science, vol. 4, pp. 3287-3295, 2011.
[2] B. Scrosati and J. Garche, "Lithium batteries: Status, prospects and future," Journal of Power
Sources, vol. 195, pp. 2419-2430, 2009.
[3] K. Ueno, J. Murai, H. Moon, K. Dokko and M. Watanabe, "A Design Approach to Lithium-Ion Battery
Electrolye Based on Diluted Solvate Ionic Liquids," Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 164,
no. 1, pp. A6088-A6094, 2017.
[4] Y. Liu, P. He and H. Zhou, "Rechargeable Solid-State Li-Air and Li-S Batteries: Materials,
Construction, and Challenges," Advanced Energy Materials, vol. 8, p. 1701602, 2018.
[5] SAE International, "Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure,"
J1634_201707.
[6] EPA, "Detailed Test Infomation," 14 November 2017. [Online]. Available:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-
2017.pdf. [Accessed 19 June 2018].
[7] K. Smith and C.-Y. Wang, "Power and thermal characterization of a lithium-ion battery pack for
hybrid-electric vehicles," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 160, pp. 662-673, 2006.
[8] SAE International, "Chassis Dynamometer Simulation of Road Load Using Coastdown Techniques,"
J2264_201401.

11 Appendix
11.1 2018 BMW i3s
75°F
Total DC Discharge Energy (kWh) 32.163 DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi)
Total AC Recharge Energy (kWh) 37.265 UDDS 0.228
DC Energy Consumption per phase (kWh/mi) HWFET 0.292
UDDS 1 0.166 US06 0.398
UDDS 2 0.161 Range (mi)
UDDS 3 0.159 UDDS 141
UDDS 4 0.158 HWFET 110
HWFET 1 0.206 US06 81
HWFET 2 0.202 COMBINED 127
US06 1 0.282 MPGe
US06 2 0.275 UDDS 127
HWFET 100
US06 73
COMBINED 115
Figure 69: 2018 BMW i3s raw DC energy consumption, corrected total DC energy consumption, driving range and
MPGe at 75°F Image Source: AAA
Total DC Discharge Energy (kWh) 28.494 Total DC Discharge Energy (kWh) 32.023
Total AC Recharge Energy (kWh) 34.279 Total AC Recharge Energy (kWh) 38.354
DC Energy Consumption per phase(kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption per phase (kWh/mi)
UDDS 1 0.230 UDDS 1 0.194
UDDS 2 0.201 UDDS 2 0.173
UDDS 3 0.172 UDDS 3 0.160
UDDS 4 0.171 UDDS 4 0.161
HWFET 1 0.222 HWFET 1 0.207
HWFET 2 0.209 HWFET 2 0.216
US06 1 0.318 US06 1 0.290
US06 2 0.283 Percent Change (w/respect to 75°F) US06 2 0.297 Percent Change (w/respect to 75°F)
DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi)
UDDS 0.264 15.50% UDDS 0.237 3.99%
HWFET 0.307 5.40% HWFET 0.302 3.68%
US06 0.430 8.08% US06 0.419 5.47%
Range (mi) Range (mi)
UDDS 108 -23.30% UDDS 135 -4.26%
HWFET 93 -15.95% HWFET 106 -3.97%
US06 66 -18.03% US06 76 -5.60%
COMBINED 101 -20.43% COMBINED 122 -4.15%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 106 -16.62% UDDS 119 -6.98%
HWFET 91 -8.63% HWFET 93 -6.70%
US06 65 -10.89% US06 67 -8.28%
MPGe without HVAC Image Source: AAA

DC Energy Consumption per phase (kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption per phase (kWh/mi)
UDDS 1 0.445 UDDS 1 0.263
UDDS 2 0.353 UDDS 2 0.226
UDDS 3 0.331 UDDS 3 0.204
UDDS 4 0.330 UDDS 4 0.202
HWFET 1 0.285 HWFET 1 0.225
HWFET 2 0.270 HWFET 2 0.229
US06 1 0.357 US06 1 0.313
UDDS 0.501 119.5% UDDS 0.305 33.7%
HWFET 0.396 35.8% HWFET 0.324 11.2%
US06 0.500 25.8% US06 0.501 26.1%
UDDS 56 -59.9% UDDS 103 -26.8%
HWFET 71 -35.2% HWFET 97 -11.9%
US06 57 -30.1% US06 63 -22.3%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 55 -56.5% UDDS 91 -28.4%
HWFET 70 -29.7% HWFET 86 -13.9%
US06 55 -24.2% US06 56 -24.1%
MPGe with HVAC engaged Image Source: AAA
11.2 2018 Chevrolet Bolt
Figure 72: 2018 Chevrolet Bolt raw DC energy consumption, corrected total DC energy consumption, driving
range and MPGe at 75°F Image Source: AAA

UDDS 1 0.177 UDDS 1 0.163
UDDS 2 0.163 UDDS 2 0.160
UDDS 3 0.165 UDDS 3 0.160
UDDS 4 0.161 UDDS 4 0.158
HWFET 1 0.199 HWFET 1 0.199
HWFET 2 0.193 HWFET 2 0.197
US06 1 0.273 US06 1 0.283
UDDS 0.233 4.94% UDDS 0.228 2.33%
HWFET 0.280 -0.15% HWFET 0.282 0.86%
US06 0.395 -0.41% US06 0.407 2.59%
UDDS 235 -11.89% UDDS 260 -2.40%
HWFET 196 -7.40% HWFET 209 -0.98%
US06 139 -7.16% US06 145 -2.65%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 123 -8.34% UDDS 125 -6.23%
HWFET 102 -3.66% HWFET 101 -4.86%
US06 72 -3.41% US06 70 -6.47%
range and MPGe without HVAC Image Source: AAA
UDDS 1 0.380 UDDS 1 0.202
UDDS 2 0.327 UDDS 2 0.199
UDDS 3 0.322 UDDS 3 0.199
UDDS 4 0.320 UDDS 4 0.211
HWFET 1 0.275 HWFET 1 0.217
HWFET 2 0.264 HWFET 2 0.214
US06 1 0.349 US06 1 0.302
UDDS 0.466 109.6% UDDS 0.290 30.4%
HWFET 0.385 37.5% HWFET 0.308 10.0%
US06 0.503 26.9% US06 0.434 9.5%
UDDS 118 -55.7% UDDS 201 -24.5%
HWFET 143 -32.4% HWFET 189 -10.6%
US06 109 -27.0% US06 135 -9.6%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 59 -55.9% UDDS 98 -26.8%
HWFET 72 -32.2% HWFET 92 -13.4%
US06 55 -26.7% US06 65 -13.4%
range and MPGe with HVAC engaged Image Source: AAA

11.3 2018 Nissan Leaf
75°F
UDDS 1 0.191 US06 0.420
UDDS 3 0.165 UDDS 152
HWFET 1 0.213 US06 88
US06 1 0.303 MPGe
US06 2 0.286 UDDS 119
HWFET 97
US06 69
COMBINED 109
Figure 75: 2018 Nissan Leaf raw DC energy consumption, corrected total DC energy consumption, driving range
and MPGe at 75°F Image Source: AAA
UDDS 1 0.243 UDDS 1 0.188
UDDS 2 0.195 UDDS 2 0.180
UDDS 3 0.176 UDDS 3 0.171
UDDS 4 0.177 UDDS 4 0.170
HWFET 1 0.220 HWFET 1 0.215
HWFET 2 0.209 HWFET 2 0.211
US06 1 0.318 US06 1 0.302
UDDS 0.265 9.07% UDDS 0.249 2.24%
HWFET 0.307 2.70% HWFET 0.305 2.06%
US06 0.435 3.57% US06 0.425 1.01%
UDDS 133 -12.44% UDDS 150 -1.74%
HWFET 115 -7.01% HWFET 122 -1.57%
US06 81 -7.79% US06 88 -0.54%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 109 -8.01% UDDS 118 -1.01%
HWFET 95 -2.30% HWFET 96 -0.84%
US06 67 -3.13% US06 69 0.20%
and MPGe without HVAC Image Source: AAA

UDDS 1 0.377 UDDS 1 0.234
UDDS 2 0.270 UDDS 2 0.208
UDDS 3 0.241 UDDS 3 0.196
UDDS 4 0.249 UDDS 4 0.198
HWFET 1 0.255 HWFET 1 0.227
HWFET 2 0.254 HWFET 2 0.221
US06 1 0.337 US06 1 0.314
UDDS 0.376 54.73% UDDS 0.289 18.74%
HWFET 0.364 21.81% HWFET 0.320 7.23%
US06 0.469 11.55% US06 0.442 5.13%
UDDS 94 -38.01% UDDS 128 -15.72%
HWFET 98 -21.26% HWFET 116 -6.67%
US06 76 -14.01% US06 84 -4.81%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 77 -35.14% UDDS 101 -14.87%
HWFET 80 -17.61% HWFET 91 -5.73%
US06 62 -10.03% US06 66 -3.85%
and MPGe with HVAC engaged Image Source: AAA
11.4 2017 Tesla Model S 75D

75°F
UDDS 1 0.238 US06 0.430
UDDS 3 0.216 UDDS 239
HWFET 1 0.215 US06 170
US06 1 0.300 MPGe
US06 2 0.301 UDDS 96
HWFET 97
US06 68
COMBINED 97
Figure 78: 2017 Tesla Model S 75D raw DC energy consumption, corrected total DC energy consumption, driving

UDDS 1 0.371 UDDS 1 0.241
UDDS 2 0.240 UDDS 2 0.234
UDDS 3 0.230 UDDS 3 0.236
UDDS 4 0.231 UDDS 4 0.228
HWFET 1 0.228 HWFET 1 0.223
HWFET 2 0.224 HWFET 2 0.231
US06 1 0.324 US06 1 0.312
DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi) DC Energy Consumption (kWh/mi)
UDDS 0.342 11.91% UDDS 0.333 8.90%
HWFET 0.323 6.54% HWFET 0.324 6.81%
US06 0.444 3.41% US06 0.447 4.03%
Range (mi) Range (mi) Range (mi) Range (mi)
UDDS 207 -13.24% UDDS 220 -7.88%
HWFET 219 -8.86% HWFET 226 -6.07%
US06 159 -6.11% US06 164 -3.55%
MPGe MPGe MPGe MPGe
UDDS 83 -13.24% UDDS 89 -7.88%
HWFET 88 -8.86% HWFET 91 -6.07%
US06 64 -6.11% US06 66 -3.55%
UDDS 1 0.600 UDDS 1 0.307
UDDS 2 0.377 UDDS 2 0.268
UDDS 3 0.378 UDDS 3 0.262
UDDS 4 0.346 UDDS 4 0.267
HWFET 1 0.309 HWFET 1 0.236
HWFET 2 0.272 HWFET 2 0.238
US06 1 0.380 US06 1 0.329
UDDS 0.545 78.5% UDDS 0.382 25.0%
HWFET 0.415 36.7% HWFET 0.339 11.7%
US06 0.510 18.6% US06 0.465 8.3%
UDDS 130 -45.6% UDDS 191 -20.2%
HWFET 171 -29.0% HWFET 215 -10.7%
US06 139 -18.2% US06 156 -7.8%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 52 -45.7% UDDS 77 -20.2%
HWFET 69 -29.1% HWFET 86 -10.7%
US06 56 -18.3% US06 63 -7.8%

11.5 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf
75°F
UDDS 1 0.153 US06 0.361
UDDS 3 0.147 UDDS 137
HWFET 1 0.186 US06 80
US06 1 0.253 MPGe
US06 2 0.253 UDDS 140
HWFET 110
US06 81
COMBINED 127
Figure 81: 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf raw DC energy consumption, corrected total DC energy consumption, driving
UDDS 1 0.201 UDDS 1 0.156
UDDS 2 0.162 UDDS 2 0.151
UDDS 3 0.152 UDDS 3 0.162
UDDS 4 0.152 UDDS 4 0.153
HWFET 1 0.191 HWFET 1 0.188
HWFET 2 0.182 HWFET 2 0.187
US06 1 0.274 US06 1 0.253
UDDS 0.225 7.14% UDDS 0.222 5.71%
HWFET 0.266 -1.12% HWFET 0.268 -0.37%
US06 0.379 4.99% US06 0.365 1.11%
UDDS 124 -9.49% UDDS 130 -5.11%
HWFET 105 -2.78% HWFET 108 0.00%
US06 74 -7.50% US06 79 -1.25%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 126 -10.00% UDDS 132 -5.71%
HWFET 107 -2.73% HWFET 110 0.00%
US06 75 -7.41% US06 80 -1.23%

UDDS 1 0.453 UDDS 1 0.216
UDDS 2 0.272 UDDS 2 0.196
UDDS 3 0.253 UDDS 3 0.197
UDDS 4 0.226 UDDS 4 0.185
HWFET 1 0.245 HWFET 1 0.208
HWFET 2 0.204 HWFET 2 0.198
US06 1 0.298 US06 1 0.278
UDDS 0.392 86.67% UDDS 0.277 31.90%
HWFET 0.321 19.33% HWFET 0.290 7.81%
US06 0.409 13.30% US06 0.389 7.76%
UDDS 72 -47.45% UDDS 103 -24.82%
HWFET 88 -18.52% HWFET 99 -8.33%
US06 69 -13.75% US06 73 -8.75%
MPGe MPGe
UDDS 74 -47.14% UDDS 105 -25.00%
HWFET 90 -18.18% HWFET 100 -9.09%
US06 71 -12.35% US06 75 -7.41%

E.1. Research Report EV Range Testing FINAL 1 9 19 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.1. Research Report EV Range Testing FINAL 1 9 19 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.1. Research Report EV Range Testing FINAL 1 9 19 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEBRUARY 2019

AAA ELECTRIC VEHICLE

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 2

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 3

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 4

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 5

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 6

Figure 1: Visual representation of typical EV architecture Image Source: AAA

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 7

2.1 Battery Technology

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 8

2.2 Battery Chemistry

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 9

2.3 EV Driving Range

Figure 2: Contributing factors to EV driving range Image Source: AAA

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 10

2.4.1 AC Level 1 Charging

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 11

2.5 EV Charging Costs

2.5.1 Cost Calculation

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 12

3 Vehicle Selection Methodology

x 2018 BMW i3s

4 Test Equipment and Resources

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 13

4.1.2 OBD-II Scan Tool

5 Inquiry #1: How do energy consumption and driving range estimates

5.1.1 Dynamometer Drive Sequence

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 14

5.2 Test Procedure and Results

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 15

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 16

RAF × × 33.705 = MPGe (1)

= Driving Range mi (2)

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 17

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 18

Figure 6: MPGe with respect to ambient temperature Image Source: AAA

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 19

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 20

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 21

5.2.3 2018 Nissan Leaf

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 22

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 23

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 24

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 25

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 26

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 27

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 28

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 29

5.3 Summary of Test Results

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 30

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 31

6 Inquiry #2: What effect do heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 32

6.3 Test Results

Figure 21: DC energy consumption at 20°F Image Source: AAA

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 33

Figure 23: Driving range at 20°F Image Source: AAA

© 2019 American Automobile Association, Inc. 34