Article

Techno-Economic Analysis and Feasibility Studies of Electric

Vehicle Charging Station
Muhammad Danial, Fatin Amanina Azis and Pg Emeroylariffion Abas *

Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku Link BE1410, Brunei;
[email protected] (M.D.); [email protected] (F.A.A.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Recent United Nations high-level dialogue on energy, which had emphasized on energy
usage and environmental protection, has renewed commitments by different countries on the adop-
tion of electric vehicle (EVs). This paper aims to analyze the economic feasibility of establishing
electrical charging stations, which is an important factor for the wide adoption of EVs, using life
cycle cost analysis. Although local data have been used, the method can be easily adopted to analyze
economic feasibility at different markets. The findings have revealed that an electrical charging
station is only feasible when the acquisition cost is kept to a minimum to return 1.47 times the initial
investment in terms of life cycle cost. An acquisition cost of BND 29,725 on the electrical charging
station represents the threshold below which an electrical charging station is more attractive. In
order to promote these charging stations, the government needs to provide multiple incentives,
including a subsidy to reduce the acquisition cost, relaxing control on the electric selling price, taxing
the establishment of conventional filling stations, and minimally reducing the profit margin on the



selling price of fossil fuel. It has been shown that a 40% initial subsidy on the purchase of electrical


charging stations, coupled with a slight subsidy of BND 0.018/kWh on electricity, would make
Citation: Danial, M.; Azis, F.A.;
electrical charging stations economically competitive. To reach its target of 60% electrification of the
Abas, P.E. Techno-Economic Analysis
transportation sector, Brunei would need to implement a structure program to establish between 646
and Feasibility Studies of Electric
and 3300 electrical charging stations by the year 2035, to cater for its expected number of EVs.
Vehicle Charging Station. World Electr.
Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264. https://doi.org/
Keywords: electric vehicle; electrical charging station; electrical charging infrastructure; life cycle
10.3390/wevj12040264
cost analysis; economic feasibility; techno-economic feasibility; sensitivity analysis; vehicle projection;
Academic Editors: Hui Zhao and Brunei Darussalam; Southeast Asia
Hongbo Li

Received: 28 November 2021

Accepted: 13 December 2021 1. Introduction
Published: 15 December 2021 Coupled with a general increase in the standard of living and urbanization, the ever-
increasing world population has resulted in an overall increase in energy demand, with
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral the energy sector primarily relying on fossil fuel to satisfy these needs. Naturally, the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in consumptions of these fossil fuels tax the environment. Pollution, contamination of water
published maps and institutional affil- sources, an increase in water levels, and greenhouse effects are some of the environmental
iations.
problems associated with the burning of fossil fuel for energy purposes. With the latest
United Nations 2019 report, a further increase in the world’s population has been projected,
from the current 7.7 billion in 2019 to 8.5 billion in 2030, and to 10.9 billion at the end of
the century [1]. If no meaningful action is taken by all parties, including governments and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. companies, as well as individuals, exacerbation of the problems would be inevitable, and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the world would be set to follow a downward spiral.
This article is an open access article Fortunately, many efforts have been made by all parties to reduce and, hopefully,
distributed under the terms and reverse the environmental problems, which have resulted from the prolonged abuse of
conditions of the Creative Commons
nature. Just recently, more than 130 global leaders, including heads of state and leaders
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
of large companies, joined a high-level dialogue to discuss energy access, and the associ-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
ated environmental problems [2]. Subsequently, ambitious targets were set, which had
4.0/).

World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12040264 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/wevj

World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 2 of 21

culminated in the first-ever global roadmap, enunciating strategies of reaching universal

energy access and transition towards renewable energy generations by the year 2030. In
fact, many studies have been carried out on renewable energies as alternatives to fossil
fuel, and the roadmap merely showed commitments by the different parties to traverse the
path towards renewable energy.
Different researchers have suggested different renewable energy sources, including
solar, wind [3], biodiesel [4], and geothermal energy [5]. Of course, the practicality and
feasibility of using these sources of renewable energy rely on their availability as well as
their technological advancement. The use of geothermal energy may be feasible in the
volcanic regions of Indonesia, but not in the cold European countries, and harvesting
energy from the wind may be possible in the windy Drumderg region of Scotland but not
in the foothills of Arizona. In the tropical region, researchers have explored the use of
solar energy, due to its strategic geographical location with plenty of sunshine. Recently,
the use of biodiesel using different feedstocks [6,7] has also been extensively discussed
and researched.
Other than exploring alternative energy sources, researchers have also attempted
to understand the demand side of things, by suggesting the use of standards [8] and
labeling [9] to increase efficiencies during usage of the scarce energy. These include its
implementation in power generation plants [8], which convert fossil fuel into electricity,
and common household products and appliances [9,10], such as washing machines, refrig-
erators, and air-conditioning systems, as well as in the transportation sector [11], such as in
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs). Standards and
labeling systematically remove inefficient products from the ecosystem, whilst at the same
time encourage informed decisions on the part of the consumers, by providing them clear
information on efficient energy usage and prices.
The transportation sector has traditionally been one of biggest environmental polluters.
Whilst necessary, the use of land, air, and sea transports contributes a big proportion of
CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and as the number of vehicles worldwide is expected
to increase even further, so does the impact on the environment. Numerous efforts have
been made to reduce the environmental effect from the transportation sector, such as by
introducing standards and labeling [11], encouraging the use of public transportation [12],
and the use of alternative energy sources [13,14].
Among these efforts, studies on the use of hydrogen [13] and electric vehicles [14]
deserve special mentions due to the fast development of these technologies, as well as their
potentials in solving the energy–environmental quagmires [15]. As its name suggests, a
hydrogen vehicle uses hydrogen as fuel, which, when combined with oxygen in the air,
produces electricity to power the vehicle, as well as harmless H2 O as a by-product. Hence,
similar to an EV, a hydrogen vehicle has zero tailpipe emissions. As a hydrogen vehicle can
be filled up with hydrogen relatively quickly, very similar to how ICEVs can be filled up at
a conventional filling station, it has a substantial edge over EVs [16]. However, not all is
green with hydrogen vehicle technology. Conversion of hydrogen gas into liquid hydrogen,
to facilitate transportation to a fuel station, requires lots of energy, which commonly comes
from fossil fuel. On the other hand, EVs consume battery-stored electricity, and depending
on the energy sources, can be an extremely green technology.
Between hydrogen and electric vehicles, an EV is more mainstream, has been more
extensively researched, and was introduced as early as the 19th century [17]. Strong interest
in EVs, however, only started in the 1990s due to the introduction of the Zero Emission
Mandate in the US. China and the US are at the forefront of the adoption of EVs, with
the number of EVs worldwide expected to shoot up as battery technologies progress even
further, and the effect of economies of scale kicks in [18]. Many research works have studied
the economic viability and environmental effect of EVs to compete in markets dominated
by ICEVs. References [19,20] have demonstrated that EVs are still relatively expensive, and
are unable to compete against ICEVs in an open market. Other works [21,22], on the other
hand, have indicated that EVs are already able to penetrate and compete with the ICEV-
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 3 of 21

dominated car market. In fact, the ability of EVs to economically compete with existing
technologies is dependent on many global and local factors [23–25], including prices and
development of the technologies, assumed distance traveled, and local prices of gasoline
and electric commodities. The government can play an important role in promoting the use
of EVs by putting in place different incentives, such as the introduction of a subsidy for the
acquisition cost of EVs, more attractive pricing of electricity, or taxing on the acquisition
cost of ICEVs and selling price of fossil fuel.
Transition of the transportation sector from ICEVs to EVs requires a stable increase,
and equal attention to the infrastructure requirement of EVs, with the existence of public
charging stations acting as one of the keys for the growth of the EV market [26]. Refer-
ences [27,28] reported that a competitive market of EVs needs many forms of support
policies, with policies on the provision of charging stations being one of the most important.
A limited number of publicly accessible electrical charging stations would restrict drivers
from using their EVs for longer trips, and hence virtually limit the usefulness and appeal
of EVs. Indeed, China’s success in the public adoption of EVs (more than 300 k EVs sold
in 2016 alone) has been attributed to, among other things, its large number of electrical
charging stations, with almost half of the global electrical vehicle charging stations located
in China [29].
There are several factors that need to be taken into consideration when discussing the
provisions of public electrical charging stations, among them the use of different types of
charging stations [26] and their costs [30], the ratio of EVs to public charging stations [31,32],
charging stations’ placements [33–35], and their effect on the existing power supply [36].
Economic feasibility plays an important role when discussing the establishment of an
electrical charging station, especially from the perspective of an investor, whose primary
objective is commonly to derive economic benefit. Reference [37] describes a planning
model method to site and size electrical charging stations, by taking into consideration
life cycle cost and net present value of the project. Life cycle cost associated with the
operation of an electrical charging station and its impact on commercial building electricity
cost have been analyzed in reference [38], where it has been concluded that AC Level 1
and 2 workplace charging have a similar or even lower cost than home-based charging.
Considering workplace charging, public AC Level 2 charging, and Level 3 DC fast charging
stations, capital costs associated with the these three types of charging stations have been
discussed [39], within the context of the US EV market. This study can be used as a
reference for further studies.
Despite the importance of life cycle cost in determining the economic feasibility of
establishing an electrical charging station, not a lot of studies have been performed on the
topic, with a few exceptions [37–39]. Furthermore, our previous works on life cycle cost of
EVs [20,40] have indicated the need to perform analysis using specific parameters derived
from the market, to determine their competitiveness in a particular market. This paper
attempts to analyze the feasibility of implementing an electrical charging station in the
Bruneian market by performing life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and comparing it with the
LCCA of a conventional filling station which serves ICEVs. Important parameters, which
strongly influence LCCs of both technologies, are also identified. Furthermore, the required
number of electrical charging stations, in order for Brunei to achieve 60% electrification
of its transportation sector, is also calculated. Although the analysis uses local data, the
methods used can be easily adapted to analyze the competitiveness of establishing electrical
charging stations in other markets, as well.
Geographically, Brunei is one of the producers of oil and gas in the Southeast Asian
region and has one of the highest rates of vehicle ownership, with more than two vehicles
per licensed driver [41]. Consequently, it also one of the highest emitters of CO2 from the
transportation sector, with 12.3% of the country’s CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions
coming from its transportation sector. In its recent Brunei National Climate Change Policy
(BNCCP) [42], it has outlined a target of 60% EVs on Brunei roads by the year 2035. Due to
the close association of the provision of electrical charging stations with this objective, LCC
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 4 of 21

analysis of the charging station would undoubtedly be beneficial, to identify focus areas to
make this noble target more achievable.

2. Methodology
2.1. Vehicle and Infrastructure Selection
It is incontestable that the provision of infrastructure plays an important role in the
adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Other than homes, workplaces/universities and parking
lots appear as the second most preferred locations for electric vehicle charging facilities,
from an online survey conducted [43] on the topic. This is expected as most people spend
a big portion of their days out of the home, mostly at work or study, and the provision
of affordable charging facilities at these locations would be most convenient for them.
Consequently, this would facilitate the adoption of electric vehicles specifically, in Brunei.
As such, this study analyzes the economic feasibility of providing electric vehicle charging
facilities at these locations, and this would be compared against the existing conventional
filling stations dotted around the country serving the conventional internal combustion
engine vehicles (ICEVs).
As the time spent at these locations may be relatively short, the fast Level 3 direct
circuit fast charging (DCFC) is considered. The Level 3 DCFC charger is advantageous in
terms of charging speed; it is typically able to bring most electric vehicles to 80% charged
within 30 min. However, the Level 3 DCFC charger is relatively more expensive than
Level 1 or Level 2 electric chargers.
The Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Toyota Vios have been selected to represent EVs and
ICEVs, respectively. Similar representative vehicles of both EVs and ICEVs have been
chosen in reference [20]; the i-MiEV is affordable as compared to other EVs and had been
previously introduced to the general Brunei public through exhibitions, whilst the Toyota
Vios is the best-selling model in Brunei. Both the i-MiEV and Vios are used to calculate the
demand side, in terms of the amount electricity and fossil fuel required from the electric
charging and fuel-filling stations.

2.2. Techno-Economic Analysis

Life cycle cost (LCC) [44] reflects the current cost of a technology over its lifetime. It is
commonly used to determine the feasibility of a new technology, by comparing it against
the current implementation, and in this study, LCC is used to analyze the feasibility of
EVs. Specifically, this study focuses on the provision of infrastructure required for the
adoption of EVs and studies its economic feasibility through comparison with conventional
filling stations, which dispense fossil fuel for ICEVs. Additionally, LCC is also used to
identify components which dominate the overall cost, and hence highly affect feasibility.
This allows manufacturers, researchers, and government agencies to focus on the identified
areas to improve feasibility, and allow the introduction of effective policy to encourage
EV usage.
Four main components are considered for the analysis: acquisition cost (AC), operating
cost (OCi ), maintenance cost (MCi ), and the selling revenue (SRi ) from the sales of either
electricity or fossil fuel, in different years i throughout its assumed n effective years. Time
value of money is taken into consideration through discounting. The process converts
the costs and benefits encountered at different points in time into the present time, by
employing an appropriate discount interest rate that denotes the change in the value of
money over a given time period. Given a discount interest rate r, the present value (PVi ) of
cost incurred in year i, with future value (FVi ), can be presented as:

FVi
PVi = (1)
(1 + r ) i
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 5 of 21

Total present values of all future and current costs associated with the stations can be
encompassed in the cumulative present value (CPV):

n FVi
CPV = ∑ i =1 (2)
(1 + r ) i

2.2.1. Acquisition Cost

The acquisition cost (AC) consists of the cost of equipment, as well as installation costs,
including labor, materials, permits, and taxes [39]. It is assumed that all acquisition costs
are paid for through a lump sum direct payment without any borrowings, and are levied
at the start of the project only. A lump sum payment frees the acquisition costs from the
effect of varying interest rates.

2.2.2. Operation Cost

Operation costs (OCtotal ) for electric charging and conventional fuel-filling stations
differ. The cost associated with providing Level 3 DCFC during operation includes fuel cost,
specifically the cost of electricity supplied to charge the EVs, and the usage monitoring and
point of sale systems, which are additional equipment to measure the amount of energy
used, charging time, number of events, and other important measures. Fuel cost FCEV,i for
charging the EV in year i is dependent on the number of EVs charged n EV,i , their capacity
CEV , and the per unit electricity cost Celec .

FCEV,i = EEV × Celec × n EV,i (3)

The amount of energy required EEV for a one-time charge of the CEV -capacity battery
from SOCinit and SOC f inal , with charger efficiency ηc .

CEV  
EEV = SOC f inal − SOCinit (4)
ηc

Common EV charging stations utilize a monitoring system. Given that MSi is the cost
of the monitoring system in year i, then the discounted total operation cost OCtotal, EV of
operating an electric charging station for EVs over its useful life is given by
n FCEV,i + MSi
OCtotal, EV = ∑ (5)
i =1 (1 + r ) i

On the other hand, the operation cost of a conventional fuel-filling station also consists
of fuel cost, however, it comes from the purchase cost of fossil fuels bought, which are to be
sold to its customers. As the conventional filling station in Brunei still primarily requires
a labor force to fill the tank of the customer, labor cost is also included in our calculation.
Similar to EVs, the fuel cost FC ICEV,i for filling ICEVs in year i is dependent on the number
of ICEVs served n ICEV,i , their fuel capacity C ICEV , and the per unit fuel cost C f ossil , and is
given by
FC ICEV,i = C ICEV × n ICEV,i × C f ossil (6)
For labor cost in year i represented as LCi , the discounted total operation cost OCtotal, ICEV
of operating a conventional filling station for ICEVs over its useful life is given by
n FC ICEV,i + LCi
OCtotal, ICEV = ∑ (7)
i =1 (1 + r ) i

2.2.3. Maintenance Cost

Maintenance costs (MC) for both electric charging and conventional filling stations
have been speculated in several studies. Given that MCi represents the annual maintenance
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 6 of 21

cost in year i, the discounted total maintenance cost MCtotal over the useful life of the
stations is simply given by
n
MCi
MCtotal = ∑ i
(8)
i =1 (1 + r )

2.2.4. Fuel Revenue

Revenue is generated from sales; sales of electricity in the case of electric charging
station, and of fossil fuel in the case of the conventional fuel-filling station. For both
conventional filling and electric charging stations, revenues are dependent on the number
of vehicles (n EV,i or n ICEV,i ), capacity of the vehicles (CEV or C ICEV ), and selling price of
the fuel. Given that the per unit selling prices of fossil fuel and electricity are PICEV and
PEV , respectively, the fuel revenue generated by the electric charging and conventional
filling stations in year i can be represented as R ICEV,i and R EV,i , respectively.

R ICEV,i = C ICEV × PICEV × n ICEV,i (9)

R EV,i = EEV × PEV × n EV,i (10)

Subsequently, the discounted total revenue Rtotal generated by both the electric charg-
ing and conventional filling stations is simply
n
Ri
Rtotal = ∑ i
i =1 (1+r ) (11)
Ri ∈ { R EV,i , R ICEV,i }

2.2.5. Total Life Cycle Cost

Life cycle cost (LCC) of the stations is the total of the discounted values of the acqui-
sition, operation, and maintenance, less the revenue generated from the sales of either
electricity or fossil fuel. From a business perspective, it simply does not make sense to
invest in a business venture with positive LCC values, as the investor would want some
returns from their investment and effort. A lower LCC value indicates a more attractive
business proposition. In the case of deciding whether to invest in establishing an electric
charging station for EVs or a conventional filling station for ICEVs, an investor would aim
for the one with the lower LCC value.

LCC = AC + OCtotal + MCtotal − Rtotal (12)

2.2.6. Payback Period

Other than LCC, the payback period (PP) can also be used to evaluate the feasibility
and viability of implementing the electrical charging station. The payback period (PP)
may be defined as the time required to recoup the initial investment of the station. This
can be defined as the ratio of acquisition cost to net annual income composed of the total
revenue generated less the operation and maintenance cost. A discounted payback period
(DPP) can also be obtained by considering the discount interest rate. These are given by
the following equations:
AC
PP = n (13)
∑i=1 ( Ri − OCi − MCi )
AC
DPP = (14)
Rtotal − OCtotal − MCtotal

2.3. Sensitivity Analysis

Economic feasibility of the electrical charging station has been assessed and compared
against the existing conventional filling station, by using LCCs. These values have been
calculated based on assumptions, market knowledge, and projections. The electrical vehicle
is a relatively new technology, and in Brunei, it has only made an appearance in expos and
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 7 of 21

has not been sold locally. As such, the cost associated with an electrical charging station may
be more speculative, and based on estimations from non-local market information which
has implemented the electrical charging stations. Despite the presence of conventional
filling stations, their operations and financial information are shrouded in relative secrecy,
such that nobody can be 100% certain the estimations used in the LCC calculations are
correct. This is natural in such a competitive market, due to possible competitive and
financial implications of divulging this sensitive information. Market uncertainty due to
supply and demand of raw materials and the technology itself, technological advancements,
the existence of different competing manufacturers, government interventions, and others
may cause some of these key input parameters to considerably vary, such that they affect
the LCCs and other key financial parameters of the electrical charging and conventional
filling stations.
Sensitivity analysis is commonly used to assess the effect of variations in key input
parameters, on LCCs and other key financial parameters. It divulges important parameters
that affect LCCs of electrical charging and conventional filling stations, which potential
investors, manufacturers, and government agencies need to be wary of, to make the
implementation of the technologies have greater chances of success.
Five (5) key important input parameters are included in sensitivity analysis: acqui-
sition costs of both electrical charging and conventional filling stations, interest rate, and
selling price of electricity and fossil fuel at the electrical charging and conventional filling
stations, respectively.
Acquisition cost is the initial investment required for implementation, and is composed
of equipment and installation costs. It is the only cost component in the LCC calculations
that is not affected by variations in discount interest rate. As the EV is a new technology in
Brunei, the acquisition cost is estimated based on reported acquisition costs in the US, which
has been one of the countries at the forefront of the development and implementation of EV
technology. Naturally, the acquisition costs reported were influenced by geographical and
economical environments and determined by many factors, including taxation, labor costs,
comparatively higher volume of sales, vicinity of the station to electrical connections, and
locations. Although there is an abundance of conventional filling station, information on the
acquisition cost associated with conventional filling stations is also limited and dependent
on many factors. As such, sensitivity analysis on acquisition costs of both electrical charging
and conventional filling stations would give important insights into the unavailability of
complete data. Additionally, the effect of tax or subsidies on equipment may be analyzed
by varying the acquisition cost, with subsidies commonly used to encourage usage and tax
to penalize usage. All other cost and revenue components of the LCC, including operating
and maintenance costs, as well as the revenue, are affected by the interest rate. A higher
interest rate generally reduces the effect of future costs or revenues.
Finally, selling prices of both electricity and fossil fuel are also expected to affect LCCs.
These analyses are particularly interesting, as both commodities are heavily controlled in
Brunei in terms of buying price as well as selling price. This is due to the abundance of oil
and natural gas in Brunei, with fossil fuel (gasoline) being a processed product of oil, and
electricity being produced primarily from natural gas, allowing the government to heavily
subsidize both commodities for its population. Of course, varying the selling price of fossil
fuel at the conventional filling station would not directly affect the LCC of the electrical
charging station, but being direct substitutes of one another, it will somehow determine the
attractiveness of the electrical charging station. A higher selling price of fossil fuel would
make the LCC of the conventional filling station lower, and hence, making the electrical
charging station comparatively less attractive.

2.4. Projection on the Number of Electrical Charging Stations

In this paper, the number of electrical charging stations that are needed for Brunei to
achieve its 60% electrification target of transportation is studied. This requires estimations
of the number of vehicles by the year 2035 from historical trends in the number of vehicles.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 8 of 21

Given a replacement rate rrate,i and total number of vehicles ntotal,i in year i, the total
number of EVs in the year is given by

n EV,i = rrate,i × ntotal,i (15)

Taking the annual distance traveled and efficiency of the EV as di and ηEV , respectively,
the number of electrical charging stations n EC,i required in year i is given by

ηEV × di
n EC,i = ×ρ (16)
CEV × n EV,i

where ρ represents percentage usage or the proportion of the total EVs that are using the
electrical charging stations for charging.

3. Results and Discussion

Methods given in the previous section have been used as the basis for analysis on
the feasibility of EVs, specifically in determining the feasibility of providing charging
infrastructure in Brunei, using local data obtained from the literature, technical notes, and
reports from current service providers.

3.1. Data Requirement

The economic feasibility of establishing electric charging stations for EVs has been
assessed by considering the LCC and comparing it against the LCC of conventional filling
stations. Brunei dollars (B$) have been used and, where applicable, the prevailing currency
conversion rates to US dollars (US$1: B$1.36) have been used. Currency fluctuations have
been conveniently excluded from the analysis. A discount interest rate r is taken to be 5.5%,
as per the stable historical local interest rate. Lifetime n of the project is taken to be 10 years.
Important parameters used in the calculation are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Important parameters used for the life cycle cost analysis.

Input Data Electric Charging Station Conventional Filling Station

Technology Type EV ICEV
Lifetime, n (years) 10
min Avg max
Acquisition Cost (US$) $14,000 $52,500 $91,000 $125,000
(B$) $19,040 $71,400 $123,760 $170,000
No. of Vehicles Served per Day (n EV,i or n ICEV,i ) 38 50
(kWh) 16 kWh -
Engine Capacity, CEV or C ICEV
(L) - 42 L

Energy Cost, Celec or C f ossil (B$/kWh) $0.05/kWh -

(B$/L) - $0.477/L
(US$/yr) $500 -
Monitoring System, MSi
(B$/yr) $680 -
Labor Cost (B$/yr) - $6000
(US$/yr) $400
Annual Maintenance Cost, MCi
(B$/yr) $544 $200
Profit Margin (%) 100% 10%
(B$/kWh) $0.10/kWh -
Selling Price PEV or PICEV
(B$/L) - $0.53/L
Charging Efficiency ηc [40] (%) 97% -
EV Efficiency ηEV (kWh/km) 0.185 -
Average Distance Traveled, di (km) 14,235 14,235
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 9 of 21

Like most countries around the world, Brunei still predominantly uses ICEVs as a
means of transportation. In fact, the country has one of the highest ownership rates of
private vehicles per capita. For the acquisition cost of conventional filling stations, US
market data [45] have been used, which specify an average cost of a new gas station with
four dispensers and associated petroleum equipment to be approximately USD 500,000.
This amount has been proportioned for a single dispenser, to give an acquisition cost of
BND 170,000. The annual maintenance cost is taken at BND 200 per annum [46]. As EV
technologies are relatively new in Brunei and have not made it into the mainstream market,
the acquisition and maintenance costs for the electric charging station have been taken
from the U.S. Department of Energy [30]. The maintenance cost is taken to be BND 544 per
annum, whilst three cases of acquisition cost have been considered [30]:
1. Minimum acquisition cost of BND 19,040; composed of BND 7353 equipment and
BND 5440 installation costs,
2. average acquisition cost of BND 71,400; composed of BND 34,000 equipment and
BND 37,400 installation costs, and
3. maximum acquisition cost of BND 98,772; composed of BND 29,412 equipment and
BND 69,360 installation costs.
The prices of both fossil fuel and electricity are heavily subsidized by the government.
The per liter price of fuel is fixed at B$0.53/L. The buying price CEV of electricity for
commercial buildings in Brunei follows a tiered tariff system, ranging from an initial rate
of B$0.20/kWh for the first 10 units to B$0.05/kWh for high-energy users. For this study,
CEV is set at B$0.05/kWh [40] as electrical charging stations are highly energy intensive
businesses. The heavily regulated fossil fuel market specifies a profit margin of 10% for
conventional fuel-filling stations, to give the cost price of one liter of fuel at B$0.477/L. The
selling price PEV is taken to be similar to the selling electricity price of domestic buildings
at B$0.10/kWh [20] to ensure the electrical charging station is competitive. For comparison
purposes, the profit margin of electricity charging stations is also fixed at 10%, to give a
selling price of 1 kWh of electricity at B$0.22/kWh. Vehicles considered in this study are
private use vehicles; the Mitsubishi i-MiEV for EVs, and Toyota Vios for ICEVs. Capacities
for the i-MiEV and Vios are 16 kWh and 22 L, respectively [20]. State of charge (SOC) usage
for LFP batteries is assumed to be 10–90% [47], with charging efficiency ηc of 97% [40]. The
number of vehicles charged up or filled up by either the electrical charging or conventional
filling stations are estimated based on the common operating time of filling station, as well
as the length of time required to fill up or charge the considered vehicles, approximately
30 vehicles per day in the case of electrical charging stations, and approximately 50 vehicles
per day in the case of conventional filling stations. For the conventional filling station,
this assumes 80% occupancy rate, a 12 h operating period per day, with 12 min per fill,
including dwelling time [48]. On the other hand, a longer 18 h operating period and 30 min
charging time per vehicle, with 80% occupancy rate, are assumed for the electrical charging
station. The longer operating time is due to the fact that an automatic monitoring system
is used. The operating cost of electric charging stations also includes the annual cost for
the monitoring system, which gives access to the software and network system, which
costs approximately BND 680 annually. On the other hand, as the conventional filling
station is still labor intensive, a minimal labor cost of BND 6000 per annum is added to its
operating cost.

3.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Life cycle cost calculations and comparisons between conventional filling and electrical
charging stations, with minimum, average, and maximum acquisition costs, are given
in Figure 1 and Table 2. It can be seen that the LCC of electric charging stations is only
profitable over a 10 years lifetime with the minimum acquisition cost. However, it is
less profitable than the LCC of a conventional filling station. The LCC is only (BND
27,968) for electrical charging stations with the minimum acquisition cost, as compared to
a conventional filling station with an LCC of (BND 98,880).
 electrical charging stations, with minimum, average, and maximum acquisition costs, are
given in Figure 1 and Table 2. It can be seen that the LCC of electric charging stations is
only profitable over a 10 years lifetime with the minimum acquisition cost. However, it is
less profitable than the LCC of a conventional filling station. The LCC is only (BND 27,968)
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 for electrical charging stations with the minimum acquisition cost, as compared10to a
of 21
conventional filling station with an LCC of (BND 98,880).

Figure 1. Breakdown of life cycle cost of electrical charging stations with minimum, average, and
Figure
maximum1. Breakdown
acquisitionof life cycle
costs, cost
as well of electrical
as those charging filling
of conventional stations with minimum, average, and
stations.
maximum acquisition costs, as well as those of conventional filling stations.
Table 2. Life cycle cost of electrical charging against conventional filling stations.
Table 2. Life cycle cost of electrical charging against conventional filling stations.
Electrical Charging Station Conventional Filling Station
Conventional
Min AvgElectricalMax
Charging Station
Filling Station
Life Cycle Cost—LCC (B$) ($27,968) $24,392 $76,752 ($98,880)
Min Avg Max
Acquisition Cost—AC (B$) $19,040 $71,400 $123,760 $170,000
Operating Cost—OCtotal Life Cycle Cost—𝐿𝐶𝐶
(B$) (B$) $27,968
$61,729 $24,392 $76,752$2,902,035
$98,880
Acquisition Cost—𝐴𝐶
Maintenance Cost—MCtotal (B$) (B$) $19,040
$4100 $71,400 $123,760 $1508 $170,000
Revenue—Rtotal (B$)
Operating Cost— $112,838 $3,172,421
Payback Period—PP 𝑂𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙yr 0.318 (B$)
yrs 1.190 yrs $61,729
2.062 yrs $2,902,035
0.494 yrs
Discounted Payback Period—DPP yr 0.405 yrs 1.519 yrs 2.633 yrs 0.632 yrs
Maintenance Cost—
(B$) $4100 $1508
𝑀𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Revenue— 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
The operating cost represents
(B$) the biggest outflow for all cases. In the case$3,172,421
$112,838 of an electric
charging station
Payback Period—PP with the minimum
(yr) acquisition cost, BND 61,729
0.318 yrs 1.190 yrs 2.062 yrs or 72.7% of the
0.494 yrstotal
outflow comes from
Discounted Payback the operating cost, which is followed by the initial acquisition cost
of BND 19,040. The (yr) is only
maintenance 0.405BND
yrs 4100
1.519 yrs the
during 2.633 yrs of the
lifetime 0.632 yrs In
project.
Period—DPP
the case of a conventional filling station, the operating cost represents an even bigger
proportion of total outflow, with 94.4% of the total cost. In real discounted terms, however,
this equates to BND 2.9 M. This is followed by the initial acquisition cost of BND 170,000
(5.53%) and then a maintenance cost of only BND 1508 (0.05%).
Total revenue expected from the sales of fossil fuel is more than BND 3.17 M, as
compared to the relatively meager amount of BND 112,838 from the sales of electricity from
the electrical charging station. It is noted that with the minimum acquisition cost of BND
19,040 for the electrical charging station, discounted revenue of more than 5.9 times can be
expected throughout the expected lifetime of the project, whilst for the conventional filling
station, the amount is proportionately lower at 18.7 times the initial acquisition cost of
BND 170,000. To put it simply, for a given fixed initial investment of BND X, the electrical
charging station would give an expected revenue of 5.9 times the initial investment, in
contrast to the 18.7 times the initial investment of a conventional filling station.
Payback periods for the electrical charging station with the minimum acquisition cost
and the conventional filling station are 0.318 and 0.494 years, respectively. Taking into
consideration the discounted amount, discounted payback periods are 0.405 and 0.632 years
for the electrical charging station with the minimum acquisition cost and conventional
filling station, respectively.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 11 of 21

It can be seen that out of the three assumptions of acquisition costs, only an electrical
charging station with the minimum acquisition cost makes economic sense, to give an
overall negative LCC of (BND 27,968). Average and even worse maximum acquisition costs
give positive LCCs of BND 24,392 and BND 76,752, respectively, and hence are economically
infeasible. However, even an electrical charging station with the minimum acquisition cost
gives a much lower negative LCC of (BND 27,968) as compared to that of a conventional
filling station, with an LCC of (BND 98,880). However, taking the initial acquisition cost
into consideration, the electrical charging station with the minimum acquisition cost of
BND 19,040 gives an LCC which is −1.47 times the initial investment; this is much higher
than the conventional filling station, which gives only −0.58 times the initial investment of
BND 170,000. As such, for a given fixed initial investment of BND X, the electrical charging
station gives a better proposition than the conventional filling station, in terms of LCCs.
Additionally, the conventional filling station has a relatively high initial investment, which
is a barrier to entry for a new company, thereby making the electrical charging station,
which requires comparatively less investment, even more attractive. It is noted, however,
that this is only true with the assumption of minimum acquisition cost.

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

To investigate the effect of variations of different parameters, and hence feasibility of
the electrical charging station to compete, sensitivity analysis has been performed. The key
parameters chosen are acquisition costs (AC) of both electrical charging and conventional
filling stations, interest rate, and per unit selling prices of electricity (PEV ) and fossil fuel
(PICEV ) at the electrical charging and conventional filling stations, respectively. These key
parameters have been varied to analyze their effects on LCCs of both stations. Varying
the acquisition cost of an electrical charging station and per unit selling price of electricity
directly affects the LCC of the electrical charging station only. On the other hand, varying
the acquisition cost of a conventional filling station and per unit selling price of fossil fuel
directly affects the LCC of the conventional filling station only. Nevertheless, these changes
affect the feasibility, as the two are direct substitutes of one another. Varying the interest
rate affects both electrical charging and conventional filling stations.
Acquisition cost (AC) represents the initial investment, consisting of equipment and
installation costs. As EV technology is very new in Brunei, currently, there are no local
data available, but rather data from the U.S. Department of Energy [30] have been used as
estimates of the acquisition cost of electrical charging stations. Minimum, average, and
maximum acquisition costs have been used in the LCC calculation, with only minimum
acquisitions giving a negative LCC value. For the sensitivity analysis, acquisition cost
is varied around the minimum acquisition cost, with results given in Figure 2. It can
be seen that an acquisition cost of approximately BND 47,050 represents the threshold
whereby the electrical charging station would make economic sense, in terms of LCC. An
acquisition cost of less than BND 47,050 would give a negative LCC value over its lifetime,
with reducing the AC even lower making the electrical charging station more attractive.
With zero acquisition cost, the LCC of the electrical charging station is approximately
(BND 47,000), which is still comparatively higher than the LCC of the conventional filling
station of (BND 98,880). A reduction in AC may result from a reduction in the equipment
and installation cost from the manufacturers and contractors, or through subsidy by the
government, to encourage the adoption of EV technology.
It is noted that the acquisition cost of an electrical charging station is much lower than
the acquisition cost of a conventional filling station. Previous discussion has indicated
that whilst an electrical charging station gives a better proposition in terms of the ratio of
LCC against AC (−0.58 times for conventional filling stations, against −1.47 for electrical
charging stations with minimum acquisition cost), a higher AC of the electrical charging
station may tip the balance towards the conventional filling station. A higher AC is likely
given that the AC of the electrical charging station ranges from the minimum of BND
19,040 to BND 123,760. The ratio of LCCs to acquisition costs of electrical charging and
 installation costs. As EV technology is very new in Brunei, currently, there are no local
data available, but rather data from the U.S. Department of Energy [30] have been used as
estimates of the acquisition cost of electrical charging stations. Minimum, average, and
maximum acquisition costs have been used in the LCC calculation, with only minimum
acquisitions giving a negative LCC value. For the sensitivity analysis, acquisition cost is
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 varied around the minimum acquisition cost, with results given in Figure 2. It can be seen12 of 21
that an acquisition cost of approximately BND 47,050 represents the threshold whereby
the electrical charging station would make economic sense, in terms of LCC. An
acquisition cost of less than BND 47,050 would give a negative LCC value over its lifetime,
conventional
with reducing filling
the ACstations,
even lowerfor different
making theacquisition
electricalcosts of the
charging electrical
station morecharging station,
attractive.
is given in Figure 3. Generally, the lower the acquisition cost of the
With zero acquisition cost, the LCC of the electrical charging station is approximately electrical charging
station,
(BND the higher
47,000), which the negative
is still ratio of higher
comparatively LCC tothanAC.the
Lowering theconventional
LCC of the acquisition cost to less
filling
than BND 29,725 gives a higher negative LCC/AC ratio for the electrical
station of (BND 98,880). A reduction in AC may result from a reduction in the equipment charging station
as compared
and installationtocost
thefrom
conventional filling station.
the manufacturers To put it simply,
and contractors, or throughfor asubsidy
given fixed
by theinitial
investment of
government, BND X, thethe
to encourage electrical
adoptioncharging station would be a better proposition provided
of EV technology.
its acquisition cost is lower than BND 29,725.

World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

initial investment of BND X, the electrical charging station would be a bette

provided
Figure
Figure2.2.Effect
its changing
acquisition
Effectofof thethe
changing
cost iscostlower
acquisition
acquisition of the
cost
than
of the
BND
electrical 29,725.
charging
electrical station
charging on itson
station LCC, as
its LCC, as
compared to the LCC of the conventional filling station.
compared to the LCC of the conventional filling station.

It is noted that the acquisition cost of an electrical charging station is much lower
than the acquisition cost of a conventional filling station. Previous discussion has
indicated that whilst an electrical charging station gives a better proposition in terms of
the ratio of LCC against AC (−0.58 times for conventional filling stations, against −1.47 for
electrical charging stations with minimum acquisition cost), a higher AC of the electrical
charging station may tip the balance towards the conventional filling station. A higher AC
is likely given that the AC of the electrical charging station ranges from the minimum of
BND 19,040 to BND 123,760. The ratio of LCCs to acquisition costs of electrical charging
and conventional filling stations, for different acquisition costs of the electrical charging
station, is given in Figure 3. Generally, the lower the acquisition cost of the electrical
charging station, the higher the negative ratio of LCC to AC. Lowering the acquisition cost
to less than BND 29,725 gives a higher negative LCC/AC ratio for the electrical charging
station as compared to the conventional filling station. To put it simply, for a given fixed

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Effect
Effect of changing
of changing the acquisition
the acquisition cost ofcharging
cost of the electrical the electrical
station oncharging
the ratio of station
LCC on t
to AC.
to AC.
Although the conventional filling station is already established in Brunei, and is
locallyAlthough
abundant, thethe conventional
acquisition filling station
cost of a conventional is already
filing station established
is difficult to obtain. in B
Subsequently, sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the acquisition cost of the
locally abundant, the acquisition cost of a conventional filing station is diffi
conventional filling station, as given in Figure 4. Increasing the acquisition cost results in
Subsequently,
an increase in LCC,sensitivity analysis
with the acquisition costwas
havingperformed
to increase tobyapproximately
varying the acquisiti
BND
conventional
241 K to give an filling station,
equivalent LCC toas thegiven
LCC of inanFigure 4. charging
electrical Increasing the
station of acquisition
(BND
27,968). This is equivalent to an approximately 52% increase in acquisition cost, from the
an increase in LCC, with the acquisition cost having to increase to approx
241 K to give an equivalent LCC to the LCC of an electrical charging sta
27,968). This is equivalent to an approximately 52% increase in acquisition
initial amount of BND 170 K. However, an electrical charging station with
 241 K to give an equivalent LCC to the LCC of an electrical charging sta
27,968). This is equivalent to an approximately 52% increase in acquisition
initial amount of BND 170 K. However, an electrical charging station with t
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 acquisition cost gives a better proposition in terms of the ratio of LCC 13 of 21 agains

words, the electrical charging station would be a better proposition for a give
investment of BND X. It would be interesting to estimate the AC of a conve
initial amount
station which of BND
would 170 make
K. However, an electrical
it more charging
attractive than station with the minimum
an electrical charging sta
acquisition cost gives a better proposition in terms of the ratio of LCC against AC; in other
of return
words, of initial
the electrical investment.
charging Theberatio
station would of proposition
a better LCCs to acquisition
for a given fixedcosts
initialof elect
and conventional
investment of BND X. filling
It wouldstations, fortodifferent
be interesting estimate the acquisition costs offilling
AC of a conventional the conve
station which would make it more attractive than an electrical
station, is given in Figure 5. Generally, the lower the acquisition cost charging station, in terms of of the
return of initial investment. The ratio of LCCs to acquisition costs of electrical charging
filling station, filling
and conventional the lower the
stations, fornegative ratio ofcosts
different acquisition LCCofto theAC. Decreasing
conventional filling the ac
to less isthan
station, givenBND 1095.KGenerally,
in Figure gives athe higher negative
lower the LCC/AC
acquisition ratio
cost of the for the conve
conventional
filling station, the lower the negative ratio of LCC to AC.
station as compared to the electrical charging station, making the Decreasing the acquisition cost conven
to less than BND 109 K gives a higher negative LCC/AC ratio for the conventional filling
station
station asa compared
better proposition
to the electrical forcharging
a given investment.
station, making theThis is a variation
conventional filling of a
36% from
station theproposition
a better original estimated acquisition
for a given investment. Thiscost.
is a variation of approximately
36% from the original estimated acquisition cost.

World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Figure 4. Effect of changing the acquisition cost of the conventional filling station on its LCC, as
Figure 4. Effect of changing the acquisition cost of the conventional filling station on its LCC, as
compared to the LCC of the electrical charging station.
compared to the LCC of the electrical charging station.

Figure
Figure5.5.Effect
Effectof
ofchanging
changing the acquisition cost
the acquisition costofofthe
theconventional
conventional filling
filling station
station on on
thethe ratio
ratio of
of LCC
LCC to
to AC. AC.

The effect of variation in interest rate r on the life cycle costs are given in Figure 6, by
assuming an identical initial investment of BND 170 K for both technologies. An initial
investment of BND 170 K in the electrical charging station would give approximately 8.9
electrical charging stations, with a total LCC of (BND 357 K). The LCC of an electrical
charging station is noticeably lower than that of the conventional filling station over the
 Figure 5. Effect of changing the acquisition cost of the conventional filling station on the ratio of
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 14 of 21
LCC to AC.

The effect of variation in interest rate r on the life cycle costs are given in Figure 6, by
assumingThe an identical
effect initialininvestment
of variation interest rate ofr BND
on the170lifeKcycle
for both
coststechnologies.
are given in FigureAn initial
6, by
investment
assuming an of BND
identical170 K in the
initial electrical charging
investment of BND 170 station
K forwould
both give approximately
technologies. 8.9
An initial
electrical
investment charging
of BND stations,
170 K with
in thea electrical
total LCCcharging
of (BNDstation
357 K).would
The LCC giveofapproximately
an electrical
charging station
8.9 electrical is noticeably
charging stations,lower
withthan that
a total LCC of the conventional
of (BND filling
357 K). The LCC station
of an over the
electrical
whole
chargingrange of interest
station rates considered.
is noticeably lower than It that
can be seenconventional
of the that, generally, the station
filling LCC increases
over the
with
whole an range
increase in interest
of interest rate.
rates A higher Itdiscounting
considered. can be seeninterest rate reduces
that, generally, the effect
the LCC of
increases
future
with an expected
increase costs as well rate.
in interest as revenue,
A higher with no effect on
discounting the current
interest initial acquisition
rate reduces the effect of
future
cost. expected
However, costs
since as wellRas
revenue revenue,
i is generally with no effect
larger on the current
than operation OCi and initial acquisition
maintenance
cost.
MC However,
i costs in yearsincei, therevenue
LCC also Ri subsequently
is generally larger than operation
increases, as can be seenOCi andfrommaintenance
the figure.
MCelectrical
The i costs in year i, the LCC
charging alsoissubsequently
station more sensitive increases, as can be
to variations in seen fromrate
interest the due
figure.
to The
its
electrical charging station is more sensitive to variations in interest
higher profit margin, composed of future revenue Ri and operation OCi and maintenance rate due to its higher
profit
MC margin,
i costs, all of composed interestRrate.
of futurebyrevenue
which are affected i and operation OCi and maintenance MCi
costs, all of which are affected by interest rate.

Figure 6. Effect of changing the interest rate on LCCs of both electrical charging and conventional
filling stations.

It is highlighted that the assumed selling price of fossil fuel PICEV is B$0.53/L, which is
the current selling price at the existing filling stations. This price as well as the buying price
C ICEV of fossil fuel has been set by the government, with CPICEV = 0.9. The buying price
ICEV
CEV of electricity is set at B$0.05/kWh, whilst the selling price PEV is taken to be similar to
the selling electricity price of domestic buildings at B$0.10/kWh [20]. This ensures that
the use of the electrical charging station is attractive and comparable to home charging.
The relationships between LCCs of the electrical charging and conventional filling stations,
and the selling prices of electricity PEV at the electrical charging station and fossil fuel
PICEV at the conventional filling station, are given in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Similar
to the above figures, an identical initial investment of BND 170 K for both technologies
is assumed.
Increasing the selling price of electricity PEV increases revenue and, subsequently,
reduces the LCC of the electrical charging station, and vice versa, as can be seen in Figure 7.
Decreasing the per unit selling price below B$0.085/kWh whilst keeping the per unit
selling price of fossil fuel at B$0.53/L gives a higher LCC as compared to the LCC of
the conventional filling station. Decreasing the per unit selling price even further to
below B$0.075/kWh or 25% above the buying price would make investing in an electri-
cal charging station not to have any financial sense as it has a positive LCC value. At
PEV = B$0.10/kWh, which is the average price of electricity for domestic buildings, the
LCC of an electrical charging station is (BND 27,968) per electrical charging station or (BND
249,716) by assuming an initial investment of BND 170 K. This is in comparison to the LCC
 It is
is the highlighted
current sellingthat the at
price assumed sellingfilling
the existing price stations. This𝑃price
of fossil fuel 𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉 isasB$0.53/L,
well as which
the buying
isprice
the current selling price at the existing filling stations. This price as𝐶well
𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉 as the buying
𝐶𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉 of fossil fuel has been set by the government, with 𝐶
= 0.9. The buying
price 𝐶𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉 of fossil fuel has been set by the government, with 𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉𝑃= 𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉
0.9. The buying
price 𝐶𝐸𝑉 of electricity is set at B$0.05/kWh, whilst the selling price 𝑃𝐸𝑉 is taken to be
𝑃𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉
price
similar𝐶𝐸𝑉toofthe
electricity
selling iselectricity
set at B$0.05/kWh, whilst thebuildings
price of domestic selling price 𝑃𝐸𝑉 is taken to
at B$0.10/kWh be This
[20].
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 similar
ensurestothatthethe
selling
use ofelectricity pricecharging
the electrical of domestic buildings
station at B$0.10/kWh
is attractive [20]. This
and comparable
15 of 21
to home
ensures that the use of the electrical charging station is attractive and comparable to home
charging. The relationships between LCCs of the electrical charging and conventional
charging. The relationships between LCCs of the electrical charging and conventional
filling stations, and the selling prices of electricity 𝑃𝐸𝑉 at the electrical charging station
filling stations, and the selling prices of electricity 𝑃𝐸𝑉 at the electrical charging station
and
of afossil fuel 𝑃𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉
conventional at station
filling the conventional filling
of (BND 98,880). station,
This are given
is definitely good innewsFigures 7 and 8,
for electrical
and fossil fuel 𝑃𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑉 at the conventional filling station, are given in Figures 7 and 8,
charging stations,
respectively. Similarastothe
theselling
aboveprice of electricity
figures, caninitial
an identical be varied betweenof
investment B$0.085/kWh
BND 170 K for
respectively. Similar to the above figures, an identical initial investment of BND 170 K for
andtechnologies
both B$0.10/kWh, and it would still be more attractive than a conventional filling station as
both technologies is is assumed.
assumed.
well as home charging.

Figure 7. Effect of changing the selling price of electricity on the LCCs of the electrical charging and
Figure
Figure7.7.Effect
Effect of changing
changingthethe selling price of
of electricity
electricityon
onthe
theLCCs
LCCsofof the electrical charging
andand
conventional fillingofstations. selling price the electrical charging
conventional filling stations.
conventional filling stations.

Figure 8. Effect
Figure of changing
8. Effect thethe
of changing selling price
selling of fossil
price fuelfuel
of fossil on on
thethe
LCCs of the
LCCs electrical
of the charging
electrical and
charging and
conventional filling stations.
conventional filling stations.
Figure 8. Effect of changing the selling price of fossil fuel on the LCCs of the electrical charging and
conventional filling stations.
Increasing the selling
From Figure 8, it canprice of electricity
be seen 𝑃𝐸𝑉 of
that the LCC increases revenuefilling
a conventional and, subsequently,
station becomes
reduces
highertheasLCC of the electrical
the selling charging
price of fossil fuelstation,
PICEV isand vice versa,
reduced. as can be
Although seen the
selling in Figure
fossil 7.
fuel
Increasing the selling price of electricity 𝑃 increases revenue and, subsequently,
PICEV at the current price of B$0.53/L favors an 𝐸𝑉 electrical charging station, increasing it
reduces
by justthe LCC of the
B$0.025/L electrical charging
to B$0.555/L station,the
would switch and vice versa,
balance, and as can the
make be seen in Figure 7.
conventional
filling station better. At PICEV = B$0.555/L, the LCC of a conventional filling station is
(BND 249 K), just above the LCC of an electrical charging station, by assuming an initial
investment of BND 170 K.
As can be seen, acquisition costs of both electrical charging and conventional filling
stations, and the selling price of electricity and fossil fuel, play important roles in the
competitiveness of an electrical charging station. Analysis in the paper, thus far, has been
based on a minimum acquisition cost for the electrical charging station. Figure 9 shows the
life cycle cost comparison for the electrical charging station with an average acquisition
cost of BND 71,400 as well as with 20% and 40% reductions in acquisition cost, against
 of BND 170 K.
As can be seen, acquisition costs of both electrical charging and conventional filling
stations, and the selling price of electricity and fossil fuel, play important roles in the
competitiveness of an electrical charging station. Analysis in the paper, thus far, has been
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 based on a minimum acquisition cost for the electrical charging station. Figure 9 shows 16 of 21
the life cycle cost comparison for the electrical charging station with an average
acquisition cost of BND 71,400 as well as with 20% and 40% reductions in acquisition cost,
against variation in the per unit electricity price. This is compared with the life cycle cost
of variation in thefilling
a conventional per unit electricity
station. price. This
An identical initialisinvestment
compared ofwith
BNDthe170
lifeKcycle cost of a
is assumed
for all cases. It can be seen that the selling price of electricity would need to be increasedfor
conventional filling station. An identical initial investment of BND 170 K is assumed
to all cases. It can
B$0.16/kWh for be
theseen that the
electrical selling station
charging price oftoelectricity would
compete with theneed to be increased
conventional filling to
B$0.16/kWh for the electrical charging station to compete with the conventional
station. This represents a price increase of B$0.06/kWh over the assumed selling price filling
of
B$0.10/kWh. However, the selling price of electricity would only need to be increased to of
station. This represents a price increase of B$0.06/kWh over the assumed selling price
B$0.10/kWh. However, the selling price of electricity would only need to be increased to
B$0.138/kWh and B$0.118/kWh with reductions of 20% and 40% of the acquisition cost of
B$0.138/kWh and B$0.118/kWh with reductions of 20% and 40% of the acquisition cost of
the electrical charging station, respectively.
the electrical charging station, respectively.

Figure 9. Effect
Figure of changing
9. Effect thethe
of changing selling price
selling of fossil
price fuel
of fossil onon
fuel thethe
LCCs of the
LCCs electrical
of the charging
electrical and
charging and
conventional filling stations, with subsidies on acquisition cost.
conventional filling stations, with subsidies on acquisition cost.

Whilst
Whilstthetheselling price
selling of of
price electricity at at
electricity thethe
electricity charging
electricity station
charging stationneeds to to
needs bebe
maintained
maintained at at
B$0.10/kWh
B$0.10/kWh forfor
it toit be
to competitive
be competitive against home
against charging,
home thethe
charging, government
government
may intervene by providing subsidies on the selling price, in order to encourage the growth
of the electrical charging stations. Additionally, the government may also provide a one-off
subsidy to reduce the purchase cost of an electrical charging station, thereby reducing
the running cost from the electric subsidy. For one-off 20% and 40% subsidies on the
acquisition cost, subsidies of B$0.038/kWh and B$0.018/kWh are required for the electrical
charging station to compete.

3.4. Number of Electrical Charging Stations Required

Analysis on the number electrical charging stations required, in order for Brunei to
achieve its commitment to electrify its means of transportation to 60% electric vehicles [42]
by the year 2035, is given in this section. Brunei has one of the highest numbers of private
vehicles per capita in the region. The historical numbers of vehicles from 2009–2016 have
been linearly interpolated and are shown in Figure 10, to give estimates on the number
of vehicles in 2035. It has been estimated that the number of vehicles in the year 2035
will be 453,583 vehicles; more than 1.75 times the number of vehicles in the year 2016.
The expected growth in population by the year 2035 is also shown in Figure 10 based on
the historical data from 2009–2016, and the population is expected to grow slower due to
the reduction in the number of children per family. The population is expected to reach
546,750 people by 2035. With the 2016 average of approximately 0.6 vehicles per capita, the
number of vehicles is expected to be around 325,973 vehicles; lower than the interpolation
based on the number of vehicles. However, in order to ensure that Brunei achieves its 60%
transport electrification target and to err on the side of caution, the higher prediction of
453,583 vehicles is used. Additionally, the aging population of Brunei indicates an increase
in the average number of vehicles per person.
At the moment, 99% of the vehicles are ICEVs, with 77% and 22.9% of the vehicles
running on gasoline and diesel, respectively. Hybrid vehicles only account for the remain-
 may intervene by providing subsidies on the selling price, in order to encourage the
growth of the electrical charging stations. Additionally, the government may also provide
a one-off subsidy to reduce the purchase cost of an electrical charging station, thereby
reducing the running cost from the electric subsidy. For one-off 20% and 40% subsidies
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 on the acquisition cost, subsidies of B$0.038/kWh and B$0.018/kWh are required for17theof 21
electrical charging station to compete.

3.4. Number of Electrical Charging Stations Required

ing 0.1% of total vehicles. To achieve its target, a linear replacement rate of its vehicles from
Analysis on the number electrical charging stations required, in order for Brunei to
ICEVs to EVs is assumed, with 60% of the vehicles being EVs by the year 2035. Table 3
achieve its commitment to electrify its means of transportation to 60% electric vehicles [42]
estimates the number of electrical charging stations required between the year 2022 and
by the year 2035, is given in this section. Brunei has one of the highest numbers of private
2035, with different assumptions on the percentage of EVs using the public electrical charg-
vehicles per capita in the region. The historical numbers of vehicles from 2009–2016 have
ing stations analyzed in this study. A 60% usage indicates 60% of the total EVs present at
been linearly interpolated and are shown in Figure 10, to give estimates on the number of
the time are using the public electrical charging stations, with the remainder relying on
vehicles in 2035. It has been estimated that the number of vehicles in the year 2035 will be
private Level 1 and Level 2 charging ports. It can be seen that the number of EVs increases
453,583 vehicles;due
exponentially, more than
to the 1.75 increase
natural times the in number
the number of vehicles in over
of vehicles the year 2016.asThe
the years, well
expected growth in population by the year 2035 is also shown in Figure
as the increased replacement rate. In the year 2035, it is expected that 272,150 vehicles 10 based on the
historical data from
of the 453,583 2009–2016,
vehicles on the and
roadthe population
would be of theis expected to grow
electric type. Theslower
numbers dueoftopublic
the
reduction in the number of children per family. The population is expected
electrical charging stations required by the year 2035, to cater for the expected EVs on the to reach
546,750 people
road, are 1938,by 2035.
2584, andWith
3230the 2016 average
electrical chargingof stations
approximately
for 60%,0.6
80%,vehicles per expected
and 100% capita,
the number
usage of theofpublic
vehicles is expected
charging stations. toThisbeequates
aroundto325,973 vehicles;
an investment lower36.9
of BND than the
M, BND
interpolation based on the number of vehicles. However, in order to ensure
49.2 M, and BND 61.5 M for acquiring and installing the electrical charging stations around that Brunei
achieves its 60%
the country transport
between 2022electrification target and
and 2035, assuming to err on the
a minimum side of caution,
acquisition the higher
cost of BND 19,040.
prediction of 453,583 vehicles is used. Additionally, the aging
In discounted terms, the values of the acquisition costs over the 13 years are BND population of Brunei
25.6 M,
indicates
BND 34.1 anM,increase
and BNDin the average
42.7 M. number of vehicles per person.

Figure 10.10.
Figure Expected number
Expected of of
number vehicles in in
vehicles Brunei Darussalam
Brunei inin
Darussalam the year
the 2035.
year 2035.

Table 3.AtEstimates
the moment,
on the 99% of the
number vehiclescharging
of electrical are ICEVs, with
stations 77% and 22.9% of the vehicles
required.
running on gasoline and diesel, respectively. Hybrid vehicles only account for the
remaining 0.1% of Vehicles
total vehicles. Elect. Charging
To achieve Station
its target, Req. replacement
a linear for Different Usage
rate of its
Year Rep. Rate rrate,i (%) Electrical nEV,i
vehicles from ICEVs to EVs is assumed, 20% with 60% 40%of the vehicles
60% being80% EVs by the year
100%
2022 4.29 2035. Table 3 estimates
13,579 the number of
32 electrical charging
64 stations
97 required
129 between 161the
2023 8.57 year 2022 and 2035, with
28,060 different assumptions
67 on
133the percentage
200 of EVs using
266 the public
333
2024 12.86 electrical charging43,442
stations analyzed in 103this study. 206A 60% usage 309 indicates 60% of the516
412 total
2025 17.14 EVs present at the 59,726
time are using 142 the public284 electrical 425 567
charging stations, with709the
2026 21.43 remainder relying76,911 on private Level 1183 and Level 365 548
2 charging ports. It can730
be seen that913the
2027 25.71 94,998 225 451 676 902 1127
2028 30.00
number of EVs increases
113,986
exponentially,
271
due to541 the natural812 increase in the number
1082 1353
of
2029 34.29 vehicles over the years,
133,876 as well as the
318increased replacement
635 953rate. In the
1271year 2035,
1589 is
it
2030 38.57 154,668 367 734 1101 1468 1835
2031 42.86 176,361 419 837 1256 1674 2093
2032 47.14 198,956 472 944 1417 1889 2361
2033 51.43 222,452 528 1056 1584 2112 2640
2034 55.71 246,850 586 1172 1758 2343 2929
2035 60.00 272,150 646 1292 1938 2584 3230
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 18 of 21

4. Conclusions
A method of calculating and estimating LCC of a public electrical charging station
for charging EVs has been presented in this paper, and has been used to analyze the
economic feasibility of establishing stations by comparing them against conventional filling
stations. The method has also been used to analyze the dominant component, which largely
influences the feasibility of the electrical charging station.
Due to uncertainty in the acquisition cost of establishing an electrical charging station,
which depends on many factors, including the type of chargers, locations, and availability of
a suitable electrical connection for the charging station, minimum, average, and maximum
charging acquisition costs have been assumed. As the EV is a relatively new technology in
Brunei, these estimates of acquisition costs are at best rough ball-park figures, obtained from
a more developed EV market, with a different market structure than the local context. LCCs
of the electrical charging stations are (BND 27,968), BND 24,392, and BND 76,752, with
minimum, average, and maximum acquisition costs, respectively, illustrating that with the
assumptions, only an electrical charging station with the minimum acquisition cost would
make economic sense. This LCC of (BND 27,968) for the electrical charging station with a
minimum acquisition cost is far less attractive than that of a conventional filling station with
an LCC of (BND 98,880). However, if ones look into the initial investment, the comparisons
do not look so bleak; the electrical charging station with a minimum acquisition cost
gives an LCC of −1.47 times the initial investment as compared to −0.58 times for the
conventional filling station. In other words, for a given fixed initial investment of BND X,
the electrical charging station is a much better proposition than the conventional filling
station, returning 1.47 times the investment, whilst requiring comparatively less investment.
This is only true, however, with a low acquisition cost.
Looking into the components of the LCCs, it can be seen that operating cost represents
the majority of outflows, at 72.73%. This is lower compared to a conventional filling station
with 94.4% of the outflow coming from its operating cost. This is very much expected
due to government interventions, which control both the buying and selling prices of the
commodities. The acquisition costs represent 22.43% and 5.53% of the outflows from the
electrical charging station with a minimum acquisition cost and the conventional filling
station, respectively.
Sensitivity analysis has also been performed by varying five parameters: acquisition
costs of both electrical charging and conventional filling stations, interest rate, and selling
prices of both electricity and fossil fuel. An acquisition cost of an electrical charging
station of BND 29,725 represents the threshold beyond which the electrical charging station
would become less attractive as compared to a conventional filling station. In terms of the
acquisition cost of a conventional filling station, it needs to be more than BND 109 K to
make the establishment of electrical charging stations more financially attractive. These
reductions in acquisition cost of an electrical charging station or increase in acquisition
cost of a conventional filling station can come in the form of an initial subsidy for the
electrical charging station or a tax on the conventional filling station. Varying the selling
prices of electricity and fossil fuel has also been shown to affect the competitiveness of
an electrical charging station. At the current selling price of fossil fuel of B$0.53/L, and
assumed selling price of electricity of B$0.10/kWh, an electrical charging station with a
minimum acquisition cost remains attractive. However, reducing the price of electricity
to B$0.075/kWh or increasing the price of fossil fuel to B$0.55/L would make electrical
charging stations with the minimum acquisition cost comparably less attractive. This
suggests sensitivity of the life cycle costs to minimal price changes in the two commodities.
These results indicate that the government needs to look into the introduction of
multiple incentives, including subsidies to lower the acquisition cost of electrical charging
stations, relaxing the control of the selling price of electricity, and taxation on conventional
filling stations. Our result has shown that the government would only need to provide
a running subsidy of the B$0.018/kWh on the cost of electricity, with an initial subsidy
of 40% on the acquisition cost. On the investor’s side, efforts must be expended on
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 19 of 21

finding a suitable site for the electrical charging station, such that acquisition cost, which
includes equipment and installations costs, can be minimized. Finally, the manufacturers
of equipment and contractors for the installation of electrical charging stations need to
focus their efforts on reducing equipment and installation costs, to make it more affordable.
Additionally, the study has also provided estimates on the number of public electrical
charging stations required for Brunei to be able to serve the expected EVs by the year
2035. It is expected that Brunei would have approximately 454 K vehicles on its roads by
2035, with 60% or approximately 273 K being EVs. This would require between 646 and
3300 electrical charging stations. Brunei needs to start a program to gradually put in the
necessary infrastructure, in anticipation of the year 2035.
Based on the study, it can be concluded that the establishment of plentiful electrical
charging stations, which are the backbone for the wide adoption of EVs in Brunei, has
the potential to become a reality, with assistance from government agencies by providing
different incentives. Economies of scale and skillful contractors may also help in making
electrical charging stations more affordable. They are necessary for Brunei to be able to
fulfill its commitments of 60% electrification of the transportation sector by 2035.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.D. and P.E.A.; methodology, M.D. and P.E.A.; software,
M.D. and P.E.A.; validation, F.A.A. and P.E.A.; formal analysis, M.D. and P.E.A.; investigation,
M.D. and P.E.A.; resources, M.D. and P.E.A.; data curation, M.D. and P.E.A.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.D. and P.E.A.; writing—review and editing, F.A.A. and P.E.A.; visualization, M.D.,
F.A.A., and P.E.A.; supervision, P.E.A.; project administration, P.E.A.; funding acquisition, P.E.A. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by UBD Research Grant No: UBD/RSCH/1.3/FICBF(b)/2018/001.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019: Ten Key Findings; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
2. United Nations. New Commitments at UN Energy Summit a Major Stride towards Affordable and Clean Energy, but Much Work
Ahead to Halve Energy Access Gap by 2025. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/hlde-2021/page/new-commitments-un-
energy-summit (accessed on 28 November 2021).
3. Lowe, R.J.; Drummond, P. Solar, wind and logistic substitution in global energy supply to 2050—Barriers and implications, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111720. [CrossRef]
4. Mahlia, T.; Syazmi, Z.; Mofijur, M.; Abas, A.P.; Bilad, M.; Ong, H.C.; Silitonga, A. Patent landscape review on biodiesel production:
Technology updates. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 118, 109526. [CrossRef]
5. Duggal, R.; Rayudu, R.; Hinkley, J.; Burnell, J.; Wieland, C.; Keim, M. A comprehensive review of energy extraction from
low-temperature geothermal resources in hydrocarbon fields. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 154, 111865. [CrossRef]
6. Preethi, M.G.; Kumar, G.; Karthikeyan, O.P.; Varjani, S. Lignocellulosic biomass as an optimistic feedstock for the production of
biofuels as valuable energy source: Techno-economic analysis, Environmental Impact Analysis, Breakthrough and Perspectives.
Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 102080. [CrossRef]
7. Jung, S.; Shetti, N.P.; Reddy, K.R.; Nadagouda, M.N.; Park, Y.-K.; Aminabhavi, T.M.; Kwon, E.E. Synthesis of different biofuels
from livestock waste materials and their potential as sustainable feedstocks—A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 236, 114038.
[CrossRef]
8. Mahlia, T.M.I.; Lim, J.Y.; Aditya, L.; Riayatsyah, T.; Abas, A.E.P. Methodology for implementing power plant efficiency standards
for power generation: Potential emission reduction. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 20, 309–327. [CrossRef]
9. Abas, A.E.; Mahlia, T. Development of energy labels based on consumer perspective: Room air conditioners as a case study in
Brunei Darussalam. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 671–681. [CrossRef]
10. Schleich, J.; Durand, A.; Brugger, H. How effective are EU minimum energy performance standards and energy labels for cold
appliances? Energy Policy 2020, 149, 112069. [CrossRef]
11. Galarraga, I.; Kallbekken, S.; Silvestri, A. Consumer purchases of energy-efficient cars: How different labelling schemes could
affect consumer response to price changes. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111181. [CrossRef]
12. Azcuy, I.; Agatz, N.; Giesen, R. Designing integrated urban delivery systems using public transport. Transp. Res. Part E Logist.
Transp. Rev. 2021, 156, 102525. [CrossRef]
13. Li, Y.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. The economic feasibility of green hydrogen and fuel cell electric vehicles for road transport in China.
Energy Policy 2021, 160, 112703. [CrossRef]
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 20 of 21

14. Verma, S.; Mishra, S.; Gaur, A.; Chowdhury, S.; Mohapatra, S.; Dwivedi, G.; Verma, P. A comprehensive review on energy storage
in hybrid electric vehicle. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. Engl. Ed. 2021, 8, 621–637. [CrossRef]
15. AlHajri, I.; Ahmadian, A.; Elkamel, A. Techno-economic-environmental assessment of an integrated electricity and gas network
in the presence of electric and hydrogen vehicles: A mixed-integer linear programming approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128578.
[CrossRef]
16. Fan, L.; Tu, Z.; Chan, S.H. Recent development of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies: A review. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 8421–8446.
[CrossRef]
17. Chan, C.C. The Rise & Fall of Electric Vehicles in 1828–1930: Lessons Learned; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013.
18. Yan, S. The economic and environmental impacts of tax incentives for battery electric vehicles in Europe. Energy Policy 2018, 123,
53–63. [CrossRef]
19. Kara, S.; Li, W.; Sadjiva, N. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Electrical Vehicles in Australia. Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 767–772. [CrossRef]
20. Abas, A.E.P.; Yong, J.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Hannan, M.A. Techno-Economic Analysis and Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicle.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 98565–98578. [CrossRef]
21. Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M.; Aboushaqrah, N.N.; Jabbar, R. How sustainable is electric mobility? A comprehensive sustainability
assessment approach for the case of Qatar. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 461–477. [CrossRef]
22. Palmer, K.; Tate, J.E.; Wadud, Z.; Nellthorp, J. Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK,
US and Japan. Appl. Energy 2018, 209, 108–119. [CrossRef]
23. Mitropoulos, L.K.; Prevedouros, P.D.; Kopelias, P. Total cost of ownership and externalities of conventional, hybrid and electric
vehicle. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 24, 267–274. [CrossRef]
24. Breetz, H.; Salon, D. Do electric vehicles need subsidies? Ownership costs for conventional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in 14 U.S.
cities. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 238–249. [CrossRef]
25. Parker, N.; Breetz, H.L.; Salon, D.; Conway, M.W.; Williams, J.; Patterson, M. Who saves money buying electric vehicles?
Heterogeneity in total cost of ownership. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 96, 102893. [CrossRef]
26. Hall, D.; Lutsey, N. Emerging Best Pratices for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure; ICCT White Paper; The International Council
on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
27. Sierzchula, W.; Bakker, S.; Maat, K.; Van Wee, B. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric
vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 183–194. [CrossRef]
28. Harrison, G.; Thiel, C. An exploratory policy analysis of electric vehicle sales competition and sensitivity to infrastructure in
Europe. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 114, 165–178. [CrossRef]
29. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Medium- and Long-Term Development Plan for the Auto Industry. Available
online: http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146290/n4388791/c5600433/content.html (accessed on 1 April 2021).
30. Smith, M.; Castellano, J. Costs Associated with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment; US Department of Energy:
Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
31. Van den Bossche, P. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Electr. Hybrid Veh. 2010, 20, 517–543.
32. Global EV Outlook 2016 Electric Vehicles Initiative; International EV Outlook Report; International Energy Agency: Paris, Fraance,
2016. Available online: https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/Global_EV_Outlook_
2016.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2021).
33. Vazifeh, M.M.; Zhang, H.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. Optimizing the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations using pervasive
mobility data. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 121, 75–91. [CrossRef]
34. Cai, H.; Jia, X.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Hu, X.; Xu, M. Siting public electric vehicle charging stations in Beijing using big-data informed
travel patterns of the taxi fleet. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014, 33, 39–46. [CrossRef]
35. Ji, W.; Nicholas, M.; Tal, G. Electric vehicle fast charger planning for metropolitan planning organizations: Adapting to changing
markets and vehicle technology. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 1, 134–143. [CrossRef]
36. Hall, D.; Lutsey, N. Literature Review on Power Utility Best Practices Regarding Electric Vehicles; ICCT White Paper; The International
Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
37. Huang, X.; Chen, J.; Yang, H.; Cao, Y.; Guan, W.; Huang, B. Economic planning approach for electric vehicle charging stations
integrating traffic and power grid constraints. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2018, 12, 3925–3934. [CrossRef]
38. Raustad, R. Cost Analysis of Workplace Charging for Electric Vehicles; Electrical Vehicle Transportation Centre: Washington, DC,
USA, 2016; p. 17.
39. Nicholas, M. Estimating electric vehicle charging infrastructure costs across major U.S. metropolitan areas. Int. Counc. Clean
Transp. 2019, 14, 11.
40. Yusof, N.; Abas, P.; Mahlia, T.; Hannan, M. Techno-Economic Analysis and Environmental Impact of Electric Buses. World Electr.
Veh. J. 2021, 12, 31. [CrossRef]
41. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Peer Review on Energy Report for the APEC Energy Working Group; APEC: Singapore, 2013. Avail-
able online: https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/Groups/EWG/PREE_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2021).
42. Brunei Darussalam National Council on Climate Change. Brunei Darussalam National Climate Change Policy (BNCCP).
2020. Available online: https://www.climate-laws.org/geographies/brunei-darussalam/policies/brunei-darussalam-national-
climate-change-policy-2020 (accessed on 6 December 2021).
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 264 21 of 21

43. Danial, M. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Brunei; Internal Report; University Brunei Darussala: Bandar
Seri Begawan, Brunei, 2020.
44. Abas, P.E.; Mahlia, T. Techno-Economic and Sensitivity Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting System as Alternative Water Source.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2365. [CrossRef]
45. Tank, C. CommTank Website. Available online: https://www.commtank.com/tank-articles/ (accessed on 6 December 2021).
46. Savsar, M. Analysis and Scheduling of Maintenance Operations for a Chain of Gas Stations. J. Ind. Eng. 2013, 2013, 1–7. [CrossRef]
47. LiFePO4 -Lithium Iron Phosphate Technical Specification. Available online: https://power.tenergy.com/battery-packs/lifep04-
packs/ (accessed on 6 December 2021).
48. Voelcker, J. Gas, Electricity, Hydrogen: How Many Cars Can ‘Fuel’ and What Will It Cost, Green Car Reports. 2015. Available
online: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099548_gas-electricity-hydrogen-how-many-cars-can-fuel-and-what-will-
it-cost (accessed on 6 December 2021).