EVE Charging Station Prototype Design

Electric Vehicle Enterprises “A charge a day keeps anxiety away”

Ross Simons: Chief Innovation Officer Mike Bergeron: Chief Production Officer

Amanda Chin Yee: Chief Technology Officer Emily Loufik: Chief Information Officer

Tanya Soman: Chief Ethics Officer Russ Braithwaite: Chief Commerce Officer

Introduction

Electric Vehicle Enterprises (EVE) is a business that arose out of humble beginnings; our Executive Board of six Babson students hoping to help the proliferation of electric vehicles. Through research, we found that a concept called range anxiety was a key culprit limiting EV expansion (CEA, 2010). Leveraging our diverse backgrounds and expertise, we looked at the weaknesses of the market in addressing this issue and created a solution – single-vehicle electric vehicle charging stations. After hours upon hours of brainstorming sessions and market analysis, we came up with some key differentiators to allow us to succeed in a growing industry. Thus, EVE was hatched.

Product Overview

Range anxiety simply means that consumers are afraid that they will be driving their car and run out of battery, leaving them stranded (Almasy, 2010). This is a key problem, among other, limiting the expansion of electric vehicles. The Consumer Electronics Association performed a survey in 2010 and they cite some of the key concerns consumers have:

• 71% fear running out of battery on the road • 66% fear the lack of charging stations and/or not being able to recharge • 59% fear the limited mileage of electric vehicles

The same study also reports that 51% of consumers see need to install special home charging equipment as a disincentive to purchasing an electric vehicle. Chris Ely, CEA’s Manager of Industry Analysis said: “concerns regarding battery life, charging stations and limited mileage may keep some consumers away until a comprehensive infrastructure is in place (CEA, 2010). Armed with this data about a clear market need, we created a solution centered about small electric vehicle charging stations.

There are companies already operating in this space, and charging stations do exist. After all, electric vehicles have been around for 150+ years (Davidson, 2011). Our true innovation will lie not in creation of innovative charging technology, but in a combination of charging technology, station housing design, proprietary user-interface design, secondary usages of the charging station, location, ease of use, and a proven business model.

EVE’s success as a business will take a multi-tiered approach. The keys to success for EVE (and key differentiators over competitors) will be:

1. A high-quality, well-designed charging station. 2. Location of Infrastructure

3. Engagement of Consumers Through Gamification 4. Proprietary User Interface 5. Differentiation of Product 6. Integration into Consumers’ Lives 7. Government Support 8. Innovative Business Model

EVE will address a clear market need. As we explained before using the CEA survey, people are afraid that the electric engine has too many downsides for them to purchase. Most electric cars can drive about 100 miles or less, with a few that have a few outliers that have more range such as the Tesla Roadster EV, Tesla Model S, and Chrysler Dodge Circuit

This is what scares consumers. Insufficient range makes consumers anxious that they will not be able to do the same things they could do with a gasoline-powered vehicle, or worse, that they become stranded. EVE is meant to quell this fear. By making EVE chargers widespread across America, people won’t have to ever worry about being stranded in their electric vehicle. We’ll achieve this by creating an infrastructure of level 2 (AC 240V, 40 amp power source) and level 3 (DC 480v,85 amp power source) charging stations that are placed at locations that consumers already visit.

In addition to the simple charging technology, we will be creating a very attractive high-tech aesthetic external housing, we will outfit the stations with capacitive touchscreens, tablet functionality, proprietary software and user interface design.

Another key reason that EVE will succeed will be the invention and implementation of our innovative business model.

Technology

The History of Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Electric Vehicle technology has had an interesting journey. Several different inventors have been given credit for inventing the electric vehicle, but the first practical electric vehicle was invented by Thomas Davenport, an American. In 1835 he “built a small-scale electric car” and he was the “inventor of the first American-built DC motor” (Davidson, 2011). However, these vehicles were not very useful due to the lack of a rechargeable battery. This problem was fixed in 1859 when French physicist, Gaston Planté, invented the first rechargeable battery. It was able to be recharged “by reversing the normal negative-to-positive flow of electrons (achieved by another outside source of electric current)” (Florida State University, 2012). The battery that was derived from Planté’s lead acid battery was the 12V automobile battery.

In 1881 batteries became more portable and this started the turnaround for electric vehicles. In the early 1900s the electric vehicle outsold any other type of vehicle because it was perfect for the short range drives people made in their towns and there was no need for gear shifting (Davidson, 2011). Around the 1920s, the national highway system was expanding, so longer range vehicles were needed (Davidson, 2011). Also, the price of gasoline was reduced and Henry Ford began to sell internal combustion engine vehicles for about half the price of electric vehicles (Davidson, 2011). This made electric vehicles obsolete around 1935. The simple technology of charging stations could have prevented the disappearance of the electric vehicle. Around the 1960s- 1970s, people saw the need for alternative fuel sources in order to reduce the exhaust emissions from gas vehicles, so companies started to re-vamp the electric vehicle (Davidson, 2011). One example of this was in 1975, the United States Postal Services “purchased 350 electric delivery jeeps from the American Motor Company to be used in a test program” (Davidson, 2011). One of the reasons the electric vehicle came back in to play in the 1990s was because of the U.S. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment and the U.S. 1992 Energy Policy Act. The U.S. government was willing to put aside money in order to advance the technology of the electric vehicle and the charging stations because it would not only reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil, but would be better for the environment and the citizen’s wallet.

The technology of the electric vehicles’ charging stations advanced greatly in 1992 with a company that was called Park & Charge, in Switzerland. It was an initiative started by the government. The concept of this company was that with a membership, “EV drivers can access locked charge stations at reserved parking spaces. Charge is not metered and low organizational costs provide the user with low, flat rates” (EVs Roll, 2012). They offer a free-standing charging device and also a wall-mounted charging device in the station. According to the website of the company the technology used was “a power outlet in the form of a simple, standardized electric power supply box, available off the shelf. It typically consists of a metal housing containing essentially 3 - 6 sockets, fed by 230 V tension, 10 or 16 A protected, with a FI-leakage protective switch” (Park & Charge, 2012). In the start of this company, electric vehicles could only charge in their specific parking garages, but that was not very convenient for the consumer. Now Park & Charge has over 120 locations in Switzerland, at hotels and different types of parking stations. This company’s charging stations has been a proven success, so they began to move the stations into Germany and Austria to expand their company.

Since the first known big initiative was started by Park & Charge, many countries have emulated their idea, which has caused much advancement in the electric vehicle charging station network. Very similar renditions of this technology can be found in Australia, China, Europe (Czech Republic, Denmark/Norway, Estonia, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland,

Standing Charger and a Wall Mounted Charger from Park & Charge

Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom), Israel, Japan, Singapore, and the United States of America. Not only has this product expanded to many different countries around the world, the technology has also improved since Park & Charge began in 1992.

The main reasons that electric vehicles were invented consist of both economic and environmental factors. It provided consumers an alternative to vehicles that ran on gasoline, propane, and diesel. Even though the electric vehicle usually has a higher initial price than a combustion-powered vehicle, electric vehicles “generally cost less in total to own, operate, and maintain” (Sempra Energy, 2010) than other vehicles do. An example of this is electric vehicles do not need certain maintenance procedures like oil changes on a regular basis. This example shows how they save on cost, but also that they were made in order to be a more reliable technology because they have fewer moving parts which means they are far less likely to have maintenance check-ups. Electric vehicles were invented in order to “emit no pollutant from the tailpipe, so they’re cleaner for the environment and better for everyone’s respiratory health” (Sempra Energy, 2010). Another benefit of the electric vehicles was to reduce “dumping of engine oils into the environment and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil” (Sempra Energy, 2010). One of the other reasons electric vehicles were originally invented was because it was a vehicle that was quieter than the original combustion-powered vehicle.

Despite all the benefits of electric vehicles, they too need an infrastructure like the combustion engine needed. Without a way to consistently charge electric vehicles nationwide, it will be a long road for EVs to drive down before they can be clear replacements to gasoline-powered vehicles. This is where EVE comes into play.

The Basic Charging Process

The above diagram (Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, 2011) shows a pretty standard setup for Level 1 (~140v) & Level 2 (~240v) charging. The Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) interfaces with the public utility grid through the control device that is the actual charger. A cord comes out of the control device and on the end there is a connector attached. The connector, the SAE J1722, is a standard connector that works with all electric vehicles in North America. This connector then attaches to the car through a part called the inlet. When they are connected together, they are referred to as a coupler. This creates an electrical connection that allows both charging and information exchange (e.g. charge levels) (Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, 2011). With level 1 and level 2 charging, the electricity that flows through this connection is alternating current. Upon entering the vehicle, this electricity then enters the charger that is located within the vehicle; this is referred to as an onboard charger (Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, 2011). The on-board charger is used to convert the AC current to DC current which can be used by the battery. After the charger does this conversion, the battery accepts the current and regenerates its energy levels.

Source: Oregon.gov EV Deployment Guide

The above table (Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, 2011) shows the charging times for all levels. When you look at the right of this table, you’ll find some terms we haven’t explained before.

• PHEV-10: This is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that has an engine that can run off battery power as well as gas. The number to the right of the dash refers to the range of the vehicle (Axsen, Burke, Kurani, & University of California, 2008). The PHEV-10 can go 10 miles on battery power alone. As you can see it has a small battery, thus it has comparatively low charge times vs. some of the other types of EVs.

• PHEV-20: Same as above, but with a range of 20 miles • PHEV-40: Same as above, but with a range of 40 miles. • BEV (24 kWh): This is a completely battery operated electric vehicle that cannot use gas.

It has a 24 kWh battery that powers the car. • BEV (35 kWh): Same as above, but with a 35 kWh battery. • PHEV Bus: This is a bus that is operates on a mixture of battery power and gasoline.

Across the top of the table, there is a variety of power levels for the EVSEs.

• 120 VAC, 15 amp, 1.2 kW & 120 VAC, 20 amp, 1.6 kW: These are the power inputs for a level 1 charging station.

• 240 VAC, 40 amp 6.5 kW: This is the power input for a level 2 charging station. • 480 VAC, 85 amp, 60 kW: This is the power input for a level 3 charging station.

Level 3 Charging Process

The level 3 charging stations, as you can see from the table, charge significantly faster. It’s easy to think that it’s because of the power supply. While the large increase in power input certainly plays a factor in the decreased charging times, the technology is actually quite a bit different in terms of the charging process. The key difference in the level 3 charging systems is

the presence of an off-board charger (as opposed to the on-board charger in level 1 and level 2) (Morrow, Karner, & Francfort, 2008, p. 19). This off-board charger is much more effective at converting AC to DC. The 480 volts of AC goes through the off-board charger, is quickly converted into DC and pumped into the car battery through a separate inlet (that accepts DC) forming a coupler and drastically speeding up charge time.

J1772 Standard

The creation of the J1772 standard plug (Kissel, 2010, p. xx-xx) was a great accomplishment for electric vehicles. Prior to that, there were many types of connections used – from different plug configurations to using inductive charging and conductive charging (i.e. the J1772). Beyond creating an industry standard connection, it also helped establish a number of safety measures to prevent electric shocks to the users (Kissel, 2010, p. xx-xx):

• The plug does not have a current until plugged into the inlet • Pins are enveloped in the inlet, thus, having no exposure of metal pins while electrified • Has a feature that does not allow the car to be started while plugged in • Will automatically de-energize the plug when it is removed from the inlet

SAE is providing further innovation with their J1772 standard by pushing forward with a connection standard (Kissel, 2010). They are creating a new version of the J1722 standard coupling system that allows for a single connector and inlet to achieve either an AC or DC coupling (SAE International, 2011). This differs from before when there would need to be two separate inlets on a vehicle. This new standard is called the J1772 Combo-Coupler (SAE International, 2011). The approval time should come before, or coincide, with our rollout schedule of EVE.

Other Technology Features

With EVE, we’re trying to create something different. Electric Vehicles have been around since 1800’s. You charge them with a plug. An electric vehicle charging station runs the risk of being seen as a commodity. We will be implementing other technology features in our stations in order to engage consumers.

Commerce

Our stations will have commerce features built into the station. EVE stations will have the ability to accept credit card and debit card payments. Thus, each station will need a credit card swiper as well as access to the internet to authorize payments. This will provide a key piece of differentiation. Many of the competitors currently in the industry require the usage of their own proprietary access cards, tags, RFID cards, barcode scanners, electronic keyfobs, and

access keys in order to actually use the charging stations (Gordon-Bloomfield, 2012). This is, at best, an inconvenience and a frustration for consumers. You actually need their specific card to access their specific network of charging station (Gordon-Bloomfield, 2012). That is just annoying for users and if they are driving around and are low on battery, they may find themselves at risk of not being able to charge just because they don’t have the necessary cards to access a specific infrastructure network (Gordon-Bloomfield, 2012). We think this is a failing strategy [for Aerovironment, Coulomb Technologies, etc.], and we are adapting our own charging stations accordingly. Remember, our key strategy is to integrate seamlessly into consumer’s lives, not make life more difficult.

User-Interface

We will also be differentiating ourselves from competitors with our user interface design. Many companies focus on screens and software that is purely functional (e.g. display charging time, battery levels, etc.) We will be installing touch screens in the housing for our stations. These screens will employ capacitive touchscreen technology and will be 5.9” x 3.54” for a 7” screen size. This is a screen size that many people will be comfortable with due to 7” tablets. It also is a size that is suited for our purposes for it. We will be using the screen not only to display battery levels and charging time, but for further interaction with our stations. These screens will be especially helpful for our alternative revenue streams (such as advertising, apps, location-based games, etc.) In the early stages of production of our stations, we will be purchasing and using Amazon Kindle Fires for our screens. This is because even though Amazon has significant economies of scale and scope, as well as significant buying power, they take a loss on every Kindle Fire sold (Gallagher, 2011). The tablet costs approximate $202 (sells for $199) to manufacture, with $185 of that coming from cost of materials alone (Gallagher, 2011). It’s safe to assume that we will not have the buying power of Amazon, so our costs would be even higher. It makes financial sense to purchase these high quality pre-packaged tablet devices at significant cost savings for our stations and install proprietary software to complete our user interface design.

Proprietary Software

Our software will be a key differentiator and growth opportunity for us. While other competitors use simple, functional screens, we will be using proprietary software meant to engage consumers. We will use an app-based approach to allow for flexibility in our software. Each station will have its own unique identifying number and location with its own tablet that can be controlled remotely by the EVE Software Hub®. Through the Hub, we will be able to:

• Update the software using OTA updates. OTA stands for over-the-air and it’s a method to update software without complicated connections (BBGeeks, 2008). These OTA

updates will allow us to very effectively update our software across our entire infrastructure without complicated update procedures.

• Be notified when a screen is acting incorrectly and allow us to restart the software remotely.

• Install and execute specific applications. We have decided to use an app-based software ecosystem due to its immense flexibility. For example, the primary EVE interface would operate through the EVE app. This app would include access to any specific features for the user (potential ideas: an opt-in “rewards” account for consumers, prior spending history, any relevant news (e.g. feature recalls, updates) to their specific make and model of car, etc.). This app will also provide access to promotions, location-based games, etc.

• Will allow us to collect usage data in test markets to create a list of key locations as we begin expansions. If consumers opt-in to our EVE Rewards program or make an account, we will also be able to collect user data (e.g. driving patterns, typical location visits, etc.) This collection of user data is why we would make these programs opt-in and we would make it very clear that EVE would collect this data to better serve them.

• Will allow us to record the availability of our stations and notify consumers of that availability through our mobile app.

This software has a few key benefits:

• Our software will be easily allow us to created “brand apps”. We want to protect the integrity and image of EVE so we are unwilling to allow brands to adapt our housing for their own needs. However, because of the app-based approach, brands can very easily create apps for their specific stations. They would create these apps through a software developer’s kit (SDK) that EVE releases to brands. This SDK is meant to maintain the functionality and core processes of the EVE software, but will allow brands to add on extra features for their apps. For example, the Whole Foods EVE app will have all of the same functionality of the core EVE app, but it could be “skinned” (i.e. it will have the same aesthetics, brand colors, and logos of Whole Foods), it could provide promotional materials (e.g. “use the phrase ‘remember the milk’ at the register for $1.00 off), store news, new products, etc.

o Of course, brands will need to pay for this feature. In the initial stages, we will look for brands to pay installation costs and agree to a non-revenue sharing agreement. This is because the stations should not only draw in target consumers due to the presence of the station, but will allow them to shift portions of their marketing budget towards EVE stations.

o Again, the Hub will help in this situation as well. If a brand releases an updated app with new functionality, it’s simply a matter of updating all of the branded stations through our OTA update system. So if Whole Foods releases an app update, it’s a simple matter for the Hub to update the Whole Foods app through their stations unique identifier through a quick OTA update.

o In the future, after initial rollout and clear ROI on our stations, we can then leverage any insights we’ve gained to turn the branded stations into a future revenue stream instead of an expense-cutting feature, meaning we can start charging extra for branded stations.

• Flexibility – again, the app-based system will allow for immense flexibility • Growth – this type of approach will give EVE the ability to grow with technology in a

very cost-effective way. As technology increases or EVE continues to innovate and expand its software approach, it’s extremely simple to shift our charging stations without an expensive update process. This will allow EVE to maintain current with the times while limiting maintenance costs.

• This will allow us to create and implement EVE Engagement Events (EVE-EE) ©. The EVE-EE strategy will provide an opportunity to run events with our infrastructure. The EVE-EE strategy will represent a great opportunity. It will allow us to provide incentives for consumers to use our infrastructure even when they are not concerned with their current battery levels. A consumer that still has 75% battery life would most likely not use our infrastructure under a normal scenario. But through the EVE-EE strategy, we will be able to create incentives for them to plug in to the EVE ecosystem. The underlying idea of these events is of one called “gamification” which simply means using game play mechanics for non-game applications (Grove, 2011).

o Location-Based Events: These are events that will primarily be characterized by having a location-based component (i.e. special events for specific stations at specific locations). There are companies operating in the location-based services, the most noteworthy being Foursquare.

o Foursquare grew to 10,000,000 members in ~2 years (Foursquare, 2011, p. xx-xx). The biggest feature of Foursquare are “check-ins” in which people visit locations and, through Foursquare, check-in to the location (Gunelius, 2012). These check-ins get logged into the account and the user will start being awarded badges that they display on their profile. The users who have checked in the most at a location receive “Mayorships”, meaning they are the Mayor of that specific location (Gunelius, 2012). Foursquare provides a game-based approach to everyday life in which your day-to-day activities have associated rewards. On a micro-level, groups of friends will stiffly compete with each other

for the mayorships of locations (Lindqvist, Cranshaw, Wiese, Hong, & Zimmerman,2011). Businesses have begun to pick up on the value of Foursquare, offering incentives (such as discounts) for the mayors of their business (Lindqvist, Cranshaw, Wiese, Hong, & Zimmerman,2011). A study done by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in 2011 revealed that badges/mayorships, social connection, and location discovery are key factors for consumer usage of Foursquare (Lindqvist, Cranshaw, Wiese, Hong, & Zimmerman,2011).

o We can use Foursquare as a case study (or partner with them) to provide these same key benefits to our charging stations in order to engage consumers and increase usage of our stations, even when consumers are not concerned about running out of batter.

o We can create city-wide scavenger hunts. A consumer would sign up for the scavenger hunt and be given five potential options (to have flexibility). They would choose one of these options and drive to the associated charging station. Upon arriving, they would plug-in, access their rewards account, and then the scavenger tab. They would then receive their clue for that location. An example event for Whole Foods would be “take a thumbs-up picture with a Whole Foods employee and sent it to the Whole Foods Twitter Account”. They would be given their completion code which they would input back at the charging station to receive their next set of hunt options.

o This type of event will also provide a revenue stream. Whole Foods could use the EVE infrastructure as a way to market themselves. In the example above, Whole Foods would be looking to increase their online interaction with consumers as well as putting together a “picture-book” of employees and customers. They would create their scavenger hunt idea (i.e. take a picture with an employee and tweet @WholeFoods), come to EVE, and purchase their spot as a stop option on the next scavenger hunt.

These ideas are just the tip-of-the-iceberg for EVE. Still in our infancy, further

innovations will occur that will provide very significant differentiation from other operators in this industry. EVE will not be a commodity. We will use technology to create a hybrid product-based and service-based business that seamlessly integrates into consumer’s lives and improves it where possible.

Market Analysis

To bring this product to market we expect it to take about one to five years; completion within the years 2012-2017. The technology for electrical vehicle charging is already in existence and in current use. However, the market lacks an immediate presence of these electrical vehicle chargers in places that electric vehicle owners already visit. We strongly believe that in order to proceed we would need a prototype developed. Once the prototype has been developed, there will be an approval process for obtaining certification for such a product by the National Electric Code in the US. All electrical equipment is required to pass electrical safety by an Occupational Safety and Health Administration recognized testing laboratory (Miller, 2011, p. xx-xx) Then in order to install these chargers in certain states, they must pass each states/city’s respective laws.

Now that we are in the beginning stages, we have decided that outsourcing the manufacturing process will best benefit us financially. The engineers our team of engineers and designers will create the product prototypes and we will partner with a manufacturing partner to handle the manufacturing of our stations

While creating prototypes and gaining regulatory approval, we will be performing extensive market research. The information received from our market research will be used to identify our potential customers, expected usage rates, prime locations, competitor strategies, new technologies, interface design testing, and consumer insights.

One of our key company innovations will be our business model. It will be characterized by:

• Flexibility of installation: Due to EVEs small size, it will have flexibility to be installed in a multitude of different locations.

• Location, location, location. We will be installing EVE in key locations that consumers regularly visit already. This means that consumers will not have to adapt their life or change their day-to-day activities to use EVE.

• Installation and maintenance: EVE will handle all of the installation and maintenance • Revenue-sharing: EVE will offer revenue-sharing agreements with our business partners. • Consumer attraction: We will provide a way to further attract consumers to our

business partners.

These characteristics will provide a compelling reason for businesses to seek out the installation of EVE and help to increase a strong expansion rate.

EVE Stations Rollout Plan – Level 2 & Level 3

We will be rolling out a combination of both level 2 and level 3 stations. We will use a heavier percentage of Level 2 stations in the early stages due to their significant cost advantages as well as giving level 3 technology time to develop. Nissan expressed a concern with level 3 stations when they said that constant Level 3 charging of the Leaf would lower the range while consistent Level 2 charging would maintain maximum capacity” (“Electric Car Charging Stations”, 2012) Our goal as a company is to have consumers plug in during their normal every day activities. Level 2 charging stations can fully charge BEVs in 4 to 6 hours and PHEVs in 35 minutes to 2.5 hours. For the average BEV with ~100 miles, a one hour charge while eating at a restaurant could provide 25 miles of range, or more. Comparatively, a 10-30 minute charge could provide 5-15 miles of range. The idea behind this rollout plan is that consumers will plug in at every location they visit that has an EVE station, thus maintaining a consistent level of charge vs. charging a battery to full from a really low-level. This strategy should increase utilization of our stations and provide a more consistent, stable cash flow.

Our target installation market for our rollout plan consists of parking garages, replacement of parking meters, installation in commercial businesses (coffee shops, restaurants, theaters, bars, grocery stores, etc.) and airports on the East Coast of the United States. We are choosing the east coast for its population density as well as to avoid competing with already established competitors in the western markets in the early stages. For example, the Department of Energy granted the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation the right to install 2,500 charging stations in markets surrounding Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington (Danigelis, 2010). In the beginning, we’re going to avoid going head-to-head with a competitor such as ETEC until we’re established on the east coast ourselves. We also chose this area because EV infrastructure is undeveloped in these areas.

As you can see, Massachusetts has 11-20 stations, New York has from 21-50 stations, and Pennsylvania has 10 or less stations (Hamilton). Because of the density in these areas, the EV station per 10,000 people will be extremely low.

We will also be rolling out Level 3 stations as soon as a plug standard is established. Level 3 stations, due to their very fast charging, can be treated more like a gas station. Our initial rollout will place these stations at defined intervals (e.g. every 50 miles) along highways that consumer frequently make long drives. In the Northeast (our test market), these locations would be placed along the route from Boston to NYC, NYC to Philadelphia, etc.

Our initial rollout will be 300 Level 2 stations in the Northeast, most likely centering on Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia. There are 711 EVs in Massachusetts (Massachusetts RMV, 2008) as of 2008 (the most recent data we could find) and though we could not find data, we expect a similar number in NYC and Philadelphia, if not more.

Startup Costs

Our costs of goods sold of $514,020 reflects the purchasing of our stations from our manufacturing partner. As we explained before, we will be creating the design and software, but we will be using outsourcing our manufacturing to an established manufacturing partner that will have the competencies developed. Using material costs from the US Department of Energy Infrastructure Review, we found that the material costs for a level 2 charging station is $1,318 per station (Morrow, Karner, & Francfort, 2008, p. 32). We made an assumption that manufacturing costs would be equal to 30% of the materials cost. This gave us a cost-of-goods sold of $1,713 per station. We multiplied by 300 stations to get a total cost-of-goods sold of $514,020. Using the same report, we found labor costs for installation for all 300 stations to be $81,600 (Morrow, Karner, & Francfort, 2008, p. 32).

Our initial team will be comprised of 2 electrical engineers, 2 software/application designers, and 1 commercial/industrial designer. Using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, we found expected wage costs (Hamilton). We then factored in $500,000 for Selling, General, and Administrative expenses which includes both marketing and selling. These costs combined with our COGS gave us a startup cost of 1,527,600.

We calculated our expected revenue as well. We expect to charge a price tied to the electricity costs per kWh in each city. We intend to charge a 50% premium over the electricity expenses. This is a price level that we will maintain and it will be tied to any electricity price changes

Startup Costs(COGS) $514,020

GM Item CostWages (installation) $81,600 Material (1) 1,318.00$

Wages (2 electrical engineers)* $174,000 Production (2) 395.40$ Wages (2 Software/Application Developers)* $190,000 COGS/station 1,713.40$

Wages (1 Commercial/Industrial Designer)* $68,000 Note (1)SG&A (includes marketing) $500,000 EV Infrastructure review

Expenses $1,013,600 Note (2) Production costs areTotal Costs $1,527,620 equal to 30% of materials

*Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: US Department of Energy

COGS

City Cost per kWhBoston* $0.152NYC** $0.186

Philadelphia*** $0.162*(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012, p. xx-xx) Level 2 Cost of Electricity Price Charged (50% premium)**(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012, p. xx-xx) $0.99***(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012, p. xx-xx) $1.21

$1.05

$1.48$1.81$1.58

Level 2 Consumption (kWh)6.56.56.5

We will be installing 100 chargers in each city. In the typical 24 hour day, we would not expect to have utilization of the chargers for a 8-hour period during the night time. This limits our selling opportunity from 24 hours to 16 hours. Of these 16 hours, we assume a utilization of 50% or an overall 33% utilization of 8 hours.

We then multiplied the price charged by the number of stations by 8 hours a day by 365 days a year to come up with a first year revenue amount of $1.42 million. It’s clear from the above financial analysis that this business is viable if our assumptions hold true.

Ethics

EVE expects to receive pushback from one main source – the oil companies. The oil companies clearly have an incentive to insure the failure of EVE or any similar companies. The proliferation of electric vehicles would represent a severe financial hit to the purchase of oil in the US. We expect the oil companies, over the next decade, will attempt to force EVs and EVSE manufacturers out of the market by lobbying congress to implement more lax environmental standards. Another key strategy for oil companies could be to end tax subsidies and grants for EV and EVSE manufacturers, as well as tax subsidies for consumers who purchase EVs. While this represents a future risk, EVE management does not see it as a problem that cannot be overcame. Environmental standards (California is a shining example) have been on the increase. Under the Obama administration, new fuel economy standards were released that require all cars and light trucks to have a fuel economy of 54.5 MPG (Curtis, 2011).

X 8 hours X 365 days$1,185.60 $432,744.00$1,450.80 $529,542.00$1,263.60 $461,214.00

$1,423,500.00Total Revenue Year 1:

Price Charged (50% premium) X 100 stations$148.20$181.35$157.95

$1.48$1.81$1.58

Also, due to years of oil subsidies, we think the oil companies are not in a position to end EV subsidies. The oil companies could also implement a misinformation campaign that seeks to limit the perceived benefits of EVs in order to decrease their purchase rates. To combat this, our website would not only have company information, but extensive thought leadership on electric vehicles including surveys and studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we believe that EVE is a perfect mix of technology, innovation creativity, and business savvy. In a growing market, EVE should meet great success and provide the infrastructure needed to allow for the increased proliferation of Electric Vehicles.

Works Cited

1. Almasy, S. (2010, October 20). The new fear: Electric car 'range anxiety'. CNN US.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/18/ev.charging.stations/index.html

2. Axsen, J., Burke, A., Kurani, K., & University of California (2008, May). Batteries for

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs): Goals and the State of Technology circa

2008. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://tinyurl.com/bpcfynf

3. BBGeeks (2008, October 29). What does OTA mean and how does it work?. BBGeeks.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://www.bbgeeks.com/quick-tips/what-does-ota-mean-

and-how-does-it-work-881170/

4. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012, February). AVERAGE ENERGY PRICES IN NEW

YORK-NORTHERN NEW JERSEY – FEBRUARY 2012 . Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf

5. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012, March). AVERAGE ENERGY PRICES IN THE

PHILADELPHIA AREA – MARCH 2012. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved April

27, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apphl.pdf

6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012, February). Average Energy Prices in Boston-Brockton-

Nashua – February 2012. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.bls.gov/ro1/cpibosap.htm

7. CEA (2010, August 23). Americans Want to Give Electric Vehicles a Test Drive, New

CEA Study Reports. Consumers Electronic Assosication. Retrieved April 24, 2012, from

http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2010-Press-Releases/20100823-

AMERICANS-WANT-TO-GIVE-ELECTRIC-VEHICLES.aspx

8. Curtis, C. (2011, July 29). President Obama Announces New Fuel Economy

Standards.Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/president-obama-announces-new-fuel-

economy-standards

9. Danigelis, A. (2010, January 29). ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATIONS EN

ROUTE.Discovery News. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://news.discovery.com/autos/electric-car-charging-stations-en-route.html

10. Davidson, T. (2011, November). Three phases of the Electric driven vehicle - Part

I.Automotive Industries Online. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://www.ai-

online.com/Adv/Previous/show_issue.php?id=4441

11. EV Project, The (2010, May). Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment

Guidelines for the State of Tennessee. The EV Project. Retrieved April 24, 2012, from

http://www.theevproject.com/downloads/documents/Electric%20Vehicle%20Charging%

20Infrastructure%20Deployment%20Guidelines%20for%20Tennessee%20Ver%203.2.p

df

12. EVs Roll (2012). The Electric Car Charging Station: Types of EV chargers. EVs Roll.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.evsroll.com/Electric_Car_Charging_Station.html

13. Florida State University (n.d.). Planté Battery. Florida State University. Retrieved April

27, 2012, from

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/museum/plantebattery.html

14. Foursquare (2011, June 20). Wow! The foursquare community has over 10,000,000

members!.Foursquare. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://blog.foursquare.com/2011/06/20/holysmokes10millionpeople/

15. Gallagher, D. (2011, November 18). Amazon takes small loss on Kindle Fire -

study.MarketWatch | The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-11-18/industries/30688921_1_tablet-market-

amazon-device

16. Gordon-Bloomfield, N. (2012, April 20). Will Electric Car Charging Stations Get

'Roaming' or Stay Proprietary?. Green Car Reports. Retrieved April 24, 2012, from

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075557_will-electric-car-charging-stations-get-

roaming-or-stay-proprietary

17. Grove, J. V. (2011, July 28). Gamification: How Competition Is Reinventing Business,

Marketing & Everyday Life. Mashable. Retrieved April 26, 2012, from

http://mashable.com/2011/07/28/gamification/

18. Gunelius, S. (2012, February 29). 25 Foursquare Terms and Definitions You Need to

Know.sproutinsights. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://sproutsocial.com/insights/2012/02/foursquare-terms-definitions/

19. Hamilton, J. (n.d.). Careers in Electric Vehicles. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved

April 27, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/green/electric_vehicles/

20. Kissel, G. (2010, February 18). SAE J1772 update for IEEE standard 1809 guide for

electric-sourced transportation infrastructure meeting. IEEE Standards Association.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/earthobservationsSCC/IEEE_SAE_J1772_Update_10_02_

08_Gery_Kissel.pdf

21. Lindqvist, J., Cranshaw, J., Wiese, J., Hong, J., & Zimmerman, J. (2011, May 7). I’m the

Mayor of My House: Examining Why People Use foursquare - a Social-Driven Location

Sharing Application. Carnegie Mellon University | School of Computer Science.

Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jasonh/publications/chi2011-

foursquare-final.pdf

22. Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (2011, March). Installation Guide for

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). mass.gov. Retrieved April 22, 2012, from

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/alternative-fuels/ev-manual-mass-32011.pdf

23. Massachusetts RMV (2008, April). RMV EARTH DAY NEWS YOU CAN

USE.Massachusetts RMV. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.mass.gov/rmv/rmvnews/earthdays.htm

24. Miller, K. (2011, January 25). Don’t be Shocked, But EV Charging is Very

Safe. Autosavant. Retrieved April 27, 2012, from

http://www.autosavant.com/2011/01/25/dont-be-shocked-but-ev-charging-is-very-safe/

25. Morrow, K., Karner, D., & Francfort, J. (2008, November). Plug-in Hybrid Electric

Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Review. Idaho National Laboratory. Retrieved April 27,

2012, from http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/phev/phevInfrastructureReport08.pdf

26. Park & Charge (n.d.). Park & Charge: Introduction. Park & Charge. Retrieved April 27,

2012, from http://www.park-charge.ch/e/index.htm

27. SAE International (2011, August 4). New SAE International Quick-Charge EV

Connector Standard Gaining Momentum. SAE International. Retrieved April 23, 2012,

from

http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showR

elease&RELEASE_ID=1587

28. Seeking Alpha (2012, April 27). McDonald's Description Page. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved

April 27, 2012, from http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/mcd/description

29. Sempra Energy (n.d.). Benefits Of Electric Vehicles (EVs). Sempra Energy. Retrieved

April 27, 2012, from http://regarchive.sdge.com/environment/evBenefits.shtml