Uncertainty in quantitative risk management used for decision support in EV Charging
Stations
Student ID:
Student Name:
ABSTRACT
Despite the fact that twenty years ago no one heard about electric
vehicles and they were pricey reserved for the industrial elite, they
have lately been popular and available everywhere, and that
growth of electric vehicles has raised the demand of electric
charging stations. To fulfill this demand most of the companies
and businesses started to expand the available gasoline station by
installing Electric charging stations as part of that, to accelerate
the process and save the land and the expenses. While others
started to establish standalone charging stations to serve the
electric vehicles only. But both processes are not always a safe
choice, from the other hand the companies have to choose between
the different types of charging (AC or DC) where each type has its
own advantages and disadvantages in terms of installing cost and
charging speed.
This paper analyzes the different types of charging stations, and
then explains the risk of the EV charging and gasoline filling
integrated station, such as national policy risk, management risk,
market risk and technology risk. And finally it discusses and
evaluate the different alternatives of the charging types in terms
of pay off and select the best option.
Index Terms
Electric Vehicles, Breakfast, Electric cars, Charging stations,
Integrated Station, Risk analysis of charging stations.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Demand and Growth of Charging stations
As signs and threats presented by global-warming have become
clearer, global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has
steadily increased, and one of these actions is supporting and
encouraging the industry of the Electric cars, as transport
contributes about 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Based on that, and according to Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, Marklines, the Electric [1] Thirty-five percent of
new cars worldwide will have a plug. And that would
explain the growth of the global electric vehicle charging
station market from $1.646 billion in 2015 to 2.502 billion in
2016 as per P&S Market Research [2].
To discuss the details of the charging stations and their types,
first we need to know the different types of the Electric vehicles
There are now four types of electric cars: battery electric
vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV),
conventional hybrids and hydrogen fuel-cell powered. Each of
which has its advantages and disadvantages, but all save on fuel
and emit fewer greenhouse gases. But the most economic and
eco-friendly one is the battery electric vehicle (BEV), as it runs
entirely on a battery and electric drive train, without a
conventional internal combustion engine.
An Electric car driver could save nearly $13,000 on fuel costs
and use 6,100 fewer gallons of gasoline over the life of the
vehicle relative to todays average compact gasoline car.
But these cars need more charging stations to be available to
make the drivers feel more secure and comfortable whenever
they are driving.
B. Gasoline Stations & Charging Stations
Since that the Electric vehicles are new to the market, and more
than 90% of the people are using the gasoline cars, then
gasoline stations are available everywhere, thats why most of
the companies decided to use the existing infrastructure and
expand it to adopt the new charging system as part of the
gasoline stations to get the new integrated stations that serve
both gasoline and electric vehicles. And that will need new
safety protocols and rules and will change the risk levels as we
will see later.
On the other side some companies preferred to establish
standalone stations for electric vehicles only like Tesla stations.
Here we need to give a simple comparison between the Gas
station and the Charging station
Gas Stations Charging stations
-High installation cost -Lower installation cost
-Expensive service -Cheap Service
-Diesel vehicles' users have -EV users have many options
a few prices to select like during off-peak hours to
-Leaking problems reduce the cost.
-High risk of fire. -Lower risk of fire in case of
-We cannot fill diesel standalone.
vehicles with household -EV can recharge regularly at
fuel tank. a household outlet or
charging station
Table 1: Some differences between Gasoline stations & Charging Stations
II. CHARGING MODES
To study the different types of risk, first we need to have an idea
about the available charging modes or levels in the market.
In North America, only three are currently used for electric
vehicles (as in table 2). Level 1 operates at 120 V A C, while
Level 2 uses 208 or 240 V A C and fast charging requires 200
to 450 V D C. Although it is fairly common to refer to direct
current fast-charge stations as Level 3.
In Table 2, we need to notice that 1) Charging time of a
completely discharged 16-kWh battery at useful power.
1
 2). Charging time to 80% charge, i.e., 12 kWh. Fast charging Home users commonly use 240 V power for electric clothes
cannot be sustained to a full charge. dryer appliances and many commercial customers have 3
Level 1 Level 2 Fast Charging phase electric service with 208 V power. Either voltage works
Voltage 12 V 208 or 240 V 200 to 450 V well for Level 2 charging. The J1772 standard connector
Current type AC AC DC used by most EVs can theoretically provide up to 80 amps of
Useful power 1.4 kW 7.2 kW 50 current (19.2 kW), although most vehicles presently available
Maximum output 1.9 kW 19.2 kW 150 only use up to 30 amps for 3.3 to 6.6 kW6 charging [3].
Charging time 12 h 3h 20 AEVs with 60-80 miles of range will usually require 3-7 hours
Connector J 1772 J 1772 1772 Combo, for a full charge using Level 2 equipment, depending on the
CHAdeMO & capacity of the EVSE and the vehicle charging system. EVs with
Supercharger smaller batteries, such as a PHEV with 10 miles of range (e.g.
Table 2: Summary comparison of charging levels Toyota Prius Plug-in) may require less than an hour to reach a
full charge.
A. Level 1 (120 V)
Advantages
This simplest form of charging uses a 120V AC connection to -Charge time is significantly faster than Level 1. EVs will get
a standard residential/commercial electrical outlet capable of between 10 and 20 miles of range per hour of charge
supplying 15-20 amps of current, for a power draw usually -More energy efficient than Level 1 for short duration charge
around 1.4 kW when charging. events less than one hour
All EV s are equipped with an on-board Level 1 charger that -Variety of manufacturers provides differentiated products for
can be plugged into an ordinary power outlet [3]. distinct markets and requirements
Advantages Disadvantages
-Low installation cost. -Installation costs are higher than Level 1 and are highly
-Not requiring any electrical work variable depending on equipment and installation issues
-Low impact on electric utility peak demand charges which are -Potentially higher impact on electric utility peak demand
often applied to commercial accounts charges
Disadvantages Type of Distance Estimated Charging Approx.
-Charging is slow - around 3 or 5 miles of range added per hour station traveled energy station charging
of charging (km) consumption power time (h)
Table 3 shows charging time using a Level 1 charger based on (kWh) (kW)
distance driven. The charging times are for reference only. They 15-A station 25 5.2 1.5
(240-V, 20-A
are based on the average consumption of the most popular E V 50 10.4 3.6 3
two-pole circuit
s in Qubec in 2015. Power consumption and, by extension, breaker) 100 20.7 6
distance traveled per kilowatt-hour (kWh) vary according to 30-A station 25 5.2 0.75
vehicle, road conditions and amount of heating or air (240-V,40-A
50 10.4 7.2 1.5
conditioning used two-pole circuit
breaker) 100 20.7 3
Distance Estimated Charging Approx. Table 4 Level 2: Charging time based on distance driven and charging station
traveled energy station charging power rating
(km) consumption power time (h)
(kWh) (kW) C. DC fast charging
12-A 25 5.2 4 Sometimes referred to as Level 3, DC fast charging equipment
charging 50 10.4 8 delivers high power directly into an EVs battery system,
cable 1.4 enabling rapid charging. Typically, an 80% charge can be
provided in 30 minutes or less for many all electric vehicles. DC
120-V 100 20.7 15
fast charging is governed by the North American SAE J1772
outlet
Combo standard and the Japanese JEVS G105-1993 standard.
Table 3: Level 1: Charging time based on distance driven
DC fast-charge stations generally support both standards. All
B. Level 2 (208 V or 240 V) carmakers adhere to one of these standards, except Tesla, which
Level 2 charging requires a 208/240V AC power connection has developed a higher-performance charging station, but offers
and significantly reduces charging time. a CHAdeMO adapter as an option. The maximum charging
Charging time at Level 2 charging stations can be limited by the power specified by the CHAdeMO standard is 62 kW (125 A at
specifications of the on-board charger and the state of the 500 V DC), while the J 1772 Combo standard sets the maximum
battery, irrespective of the charging stations rated power. In the power at 100 kW (200 A at 500 V DC). In practice, very few
future, charger capacity is expected to increase. For example, batteries support 500 V, and charging stations are commonly
Tesla already offers on-board 10-k W and 20-k W chargers. equipped with both standard connectors and limit the rated
Conversely, E V charge time can also be limited by the power power to 50 kW. In contrast, Tesla Supercharger stations are
rating of the charging station (see Table 4). rated 120 kW and the automaker has announced even higher
output levels in the near future [4].

2
Operating costs for fast charging are highly variable as many EV charging socket and communication has been established
electric utilities charge demand fees based on peak electric use between the vehicle and the charging station. In addition, the
(kW) in addition to kWh rates most residential consumers are connector is sealed to protect the live components from the
familiar with. If the charging station use coincides with the peak weather. Lastly, a locking mechanism (latch) prevents
usage for other uses on the same utility meter, then demand fees accidental disconnection resulting from a tug on the cable.
may be assessed. Some charging stations are equipped with an emergency shut-
Advantages off, but this is not required by the Code since it cannot replace
-Charge time is reduced drastically typically 30 minutes for an a disconnect switch, which can also serve as a reset in the case
80% charge of a problem. The output power of the charging station dictates
Disadvantages whether a disconnect switch is required [4].
-Equipment and installation costs are higher than level 1 and 2. Certification of electrical equipment
level 2 charging, $20,000-$100,000 depending on equipment Like all electrical equipment, charging stations are subject to
and power availability at site safety standards, such as
-Potential for increased peak power demand charges from ANSI/UL 2202 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging System
electric utility Equipment and CSA-C22.2 No. 107.1 General Use Power
-Competing standards are confusing to EV buyers and charging Supplies. In addition, the cable, connector, ground fault
station operators detector and charging station as a whole must comply with all
-Potential issues with cold weather operation requiring increased Technical Information Letters (TIL) published by the CSA,
charging time including: [4].
Since most EV batteries have a rated voltage of around 350 V,
they cannot take full advantage of fast-charge stations. TIL J-39 EV cord sets.
Consequently, for comparison it is more useful to establish TIL A-35 EV cord sets and power supply cords.
charging times using a feasible output of about 40 kW. Table 5 TIL A-34 EV connectors/couplers.
shows the time to charge a battery with a 100-km range to 80% TIL D-33 Ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI).
of its full capacity [4]. TIL I-44 EV supply equipment certification.
Distance Estimated energy Charging Approx.
traveled consumption station power charging 3. Code-compliant installation [4].
(km) (kWh) (kW) time (min)
Various sections of the Code set out minimum requirements for
25 5.2 8 the installation of EV charging equipment. The following list
50 10.4 40 16 summarizes the main rules referred to in this Guide.
75 15.6 25 86-300 Branch circuits: Electric vehicle charging equipment
Table 5: Charging time to 80% charge based on distance traveled since the last shall be supplied by a dedicated branch circuit that supplies no
80% charge
other loads except ventilation equipment intended for use with
the EV charging equipment.
86-302 Connected load: The total connected load of a branch
circuit supplying electric vehicle charging equipment and the
ventilation equipment permitted by 86-300 shall be considered
continuous for the purposes of Rule 8-104.
86-304 Disconnecting means: A separate disconnecting means
shall be provided for each installation of charging equipment
rated at 60 A or more or more than 150 volts-to-ground. It shall
be located within sight of and accessible to the charging station.
It shall be capable of being locked in the open position.
Figure 1. The three types of charging
14-106 and 36-208 Protection devices: Protection devices are
used to open an electrical circuit in the case of the adverse effects
III. RISK ANALYSIS of over-currents and short-circuits. Where possible, they shall be
grouped together and easily accessible.
In this phase we will present the Risk analysis of this project,
86-306 Plugs for A C Level 1 charging: Single-phase 120-V
by discussing the National Risk policies, Safety standards and
outlets dedicated to slow charging must be CSA configuration
the main rules with govern codes that manage and control such
5-20 R (20A) even if the SAE J 1772 standard allows a
a project.
connection to a CSA 5-15 R (15A) outlet. If it the outlet is
installed outdoors, it must be protected with a Class A ground
A. Safety standards
fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) or located at least 2.5 m above
1. Charging station safety devices: the ground. In cases where a GFCI is built into the charging
For user safety, all charging stations are equipped with a ground cable, to prevent unwanted trips due to interaction between the
fault detector to reduce the risk of electrocution. Users are never two GFCIs, it is preferable to opt for a fixed installation.
exposed to dangerous voltages or currents, since connector pins
are not energized until the connector is inserted properly in the

3
86-102 Hazardous locations: Where EV charging equipment or
wiring is installed in hazardous locations as specified in Sections
18 and 20 of the Code, it shall comply with the applicable Rules
of those Sections.
4. Stations located in flood zones
Permits for construction of facilities, including EV charging
stations, include reviews to determine whether the site is located
in a flood prone area. For EVSE components, the two primary
ways to minimize flood damage are elevation and component
protection. These methods prevent water from entering or
accumulating by the equipment. Elevation refers to the location
of a component above the Design Flood Elevation (DFE). That
is the primary protection for EVSE. All locations approved for
EVSE installation should be above the DFE. It may mean that
an EVSE is located outside a parking garage if locating it inside
would put it below the DFE. It may mean that certain areas of a
parking garage would not contain any EVSE, if that elevation is
not achievable. It may require EVSE charging stations on the
third level of a parking garage instead of the first. Component
Protection refers to the implementation of design techniques that
protect a component from flood damage when they are located
below the DFE. Wet flood proofing refers to the elimination or
minimization of the potential of flood damage by implementing
waterproofing techniques designed to keep floodwaters away
from utility equipment. In this case, the rest of the structure may
receive damage but the EVSE is protected by barriers or other
methods. Dry flood proofing refers to the elimination or
minimization of the potential for flood damage by implementing
a combination of waterproofing features designed to keep
floodwaters completely outside of a structure 8. If the entire
building is protected from flood water, the EVSE is also
protected [5].
5. Stations located in snow zones
Snow may cover charging equipment making it invisible to
snow plows operators. Clearing snow around EVSEs may be
made more difficult. Cords may also be covered in a snow fall
and become iced in during freeze-thaw cycles. Cords that cross
sidewalks or walkways should be mounted overhead to prevent
a tripping hazard or being cut with snow shovels [6]. There is no
standard for where on a vehicle the charging outlet may be. As
such the cord must be able to reach to any corner of the space.
B. Risk decision problems
Almost every activity will include risk, and even though striving
to reduce it, it will be impossible to achieve a complete
elimination of risk. Hence we will always face the problem of
what is acceptable risk [7]. In such business like charging
stations, we use risk assessment as a tool to analyze risk, to
increase the understanding of risk of choosing the most suitable
type of charging level and to provide a clear analysis to the
market of each type.
C. Uncertainty
Uncertainty the fact that there are things that we do not know
is a prerequisite for risk, and should be kept in mind throughout
risk assessment and decision making. Like risk, the term
uncertainty is used with different interpretations in the risk
analysis society. In some contexts a distinction is made between
decision made under uncertainty (meaning decision situations
with unknown probability distributions), and decision made
under risk (meaning decision situations with known probability
distributions).
D. Risk management
Risk Management is in general the way of defining the risk
exists in a project or an activity then investigates to reduce it by
taking the proper decisions. In risk management a decision
makers are the ones who help the managers to take the proper
decision using specific tools. In such a project like this one,
finding the data was the major issue. Profit companies dont
provide their data to any external outside their company region.
E. Quantitative Risk Analysis
Quantitative analysis is a tool that is based on statistical data
and computed numerical value of risk. By using this method,
we can make a decision of what are the benefits of spending
money on a specific project. The quantitative risk can be found
by: Risk = risk impact X risk probability
By finding the quantitative risk for this project, we can find out
the best decision to take based on the different types of stations.
IV. ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
This section involves description of the methods used for
showing the uncertainty of the different types of charging
stations and the recommended decision. The decision is based
on a quantitative risk assessment model rather than qualitative
risk assessment model
A. Problem Description
Charging Stations usually provide different types of charging
and services, in order to meet all customers requirements. The
demand on charging stations in North America is increasing
rapidly because of the growth of EV market. Choosing the best
option of charging station to invest, will encourage the
companies to satisfy the demand, and how important is that to
save our planet.
B. Numerical input to the risk modeling
Finding or calculating the profit and the pay-off of each type of
charging station or even the charger type itself, its kind of
impossible, because that will be different based on many factors
such as; the country, regulations, demands, prices, locations,
governmental support, number of EV in that area,
infrastructure, etc.
In addition, the idea of calculating the profit of charging stations
its not that feasible, but it is, for the near future, because right
now most of the stations are getting their profit from the
government funding or the third parties funding such as Nissan.
C. Influence Diagram
The influence diagram is a diagram used to represent the
relationship between the decisions, the chance events and the
consequences
Market
Demand
Charging
station type Profit
Figure 2: Influence Diagram
4
 3. The minimax regret approach:
D. Payoff table Standalone Charging Station - Regret Table -
To prepare this table we used the global revenue of this business Low Medium High Max
as per PS market research [2], and we assumed that the share of Level 1 100.08 140.11 203.47 193.47
Canada is about 10% of that, and then since the most popular Level 2 0 0 13.3 13.3
charger in stations is Level 2 and then DC fast charging, we DC Fast 25.02 35.03 0 35.05
assumed that the demand of them will be almost the same, taking Charging
inconsideration the cost of each one. Based on that we got the In this case, the best option will be Level 2.
following:
Canada share = 0.1 * 2.502 Billions = 250,200,000$ Integrated Charging Station - Regret Table -
DC Fast Charging = 0.4*250,200,000$ = 100,080,000$ Low Medium High Max
Level 2 AC = 0.5*250,200,000$ = 125,100,000$ Level 1 92.58 137.64 199.7 199.7
Level 1 AC = 0.1*250,200,000$ = 25,020,000$ Level 2 2.49 47.49 99.55 99.55
All those calculations for the lowest demand in market and for DC Fast 0 0 0 0
the standalone stations, to consider the integrated stations will Charging
add only 10% more on each result to add the benefit of being The best option in case of the Integrated charging station
with an existing gasoline station, also the companies will prefer will be DC Fast Charging.
Installing the DC fast charging because of the limited space
available. 4. Decision tree analysis: A decision tree provides a graphical
Standalone Charging Station representation of the decision-making process. Figure 3 presents
Market Demands (Millions of $) a decision tree for the station options problem. Note that the
Low Medium High decision tree shows the natural or logical progression that will
Level 1 25.02 35.03 35.03 occur over time
Level 2 125.1 175.14 225.2
DC Fast Charging 100.08 140.11 238.5
Probability 0.1 0.3 0.6
Integrated Charging Station
Market Demands (Millions of $)
Low Medium High
Level 1 27.52 30.5 30.5
Level 2 117.61 120.65 130.65
DC Fast Charging 120.1 168.14 230.2
Probability 0.1 0.3 0.6
Table 6: Pay-off table

E. Decision Analysis Approaches

In this section we consider approaches to decision making that
do not require knowledge of the probabilities of the states of
nature. These approaches are appropriate in situations in which
the decision maker has little confidence in his or her ability to
assess the probabilities, or in which a simple best-case and
worst-case analysis is desirable. Because different approaches
sometimes lead to different decision recommendations, the
decision maker should understand the approaches available and
then select the specific approach that, according to the decision Figure 3: Decision Tree
makers judgment, is the most appropriate [7].
The analysis will be based on different scenarios: 5. Decision Making with Probabilities EV
1. The Optimistic: The best option in case of the standalone Expected Value Approach: Since the probability data for the
charging station will be DC fast charging station since it has the states of nature is available, so we can use the expected value
highest of the highest pay-off among the rest. While in the case approach to identify the best decision alternative. The expected
of Integrated Charging station will be the DC fast charging since value (EV) of decision alternative di is defined as follows:
it has the highest pay-off among the rest. ( ) = =1 ( ) Where:
2. The Conservative: The best option in case of the standalone N= the number of States of nature that can occur.
charging station will be Level 2 charging station since it has the ( )= the probability of state of nature
best of the worst possible payoffs. While in the case of = the payoff of decision alternative i and state of nature j.
Integrated Charging station will be the DC fast charging since it
has the best of the worst possible payoffs.

5
 The expected value of a decision alternative is the sum of

weighted payoffs for the decision alternative. The decision EVW PI = ( )

yielding the best expected decision is chosen. =1
Based on that, the Expected Value of each node can be computed Using the above equation, we can observe that:
as follows: EVW PI(for standalone) = 0.1*125.1+ 0.3*175.14 + 0.6*238.5
Expected Value of each node = $208.15 Million
EV4=0.1*25.02+0.3*35.03+0.6*35.03= 34.03 Million (for Integrated station)=
EV5=0.1*125.1+0.3*175.14+0.6*225.2= 200.17 Million 0.1*120.1+0.3*168.14+0.6*230.2= $200.57 Million
EV6=0.1*100.08+0.3*140.11+0.6*238.5= 195.14 Million Therefore, we can find the value of EVPI which:
EV7=0.1*27.02+0.3*30.5+0.6*30.5= 30.15 Million ( ) = 208.15 200.17
EV8=0.1*117.61+0.3*120.65+0.6*130.65= 126.35 Million = $.
EV9=0.1*120.1+0.3*168.14+0.6*230.2= 200.57 Million (for integrated station)= = 200.57 200.57 =
From these calculations we can recommend Level 2 charging
for the Standalone charging station since it has the highest EV G. Risk profile for the recommended decision
which is (200.17 Million), and the DC Fast charging for the For the Standalone charging station:
integrated station since it has the highest EV which is (200.57
Million).
Also we can see that choosing between the standalone and
integrated stations its easy here since the EV for the Integrated
station is more than the standalone station, but doesnt mean it
would be the accurate decision, because the other types of risk
like fire is higher with the integrated stations in addition to the
environmental risk and as a result the governmental support for
the standalone stations is much higher than the integrated one.

F. Value of information
Value of information may be described as the maximum price For the Integrated charging station:
one should pay knowing the actual value of an uncertainty
before deciding on a course of action. In other words,
Information should help a decision maker make decisions that
are better than decisions without information.
The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is the increase
in the expected profit that would occur if one knew with
certainty which state of nature would occur:
=

EVPI = Expected value of perfect information.

EVW PI = Expected value with perfect information about the
states of nature.
EVWO PI = Expected value without perfect information about the
states of nature.
EVPI Calculation:
Step 1: Determine the optimal return corresponding to each state
of nature.
Step 2: Compute the expected value of these optimal returns.
Step 3: Subtract the EV of the optimal decision from the amount
determined in step (2).
The expected value without perfect information EVWO PI is the
best of the EVs as we found from the decision tree, which was
Level 2 in case of standalone station and DC fast in case of
integrated. And we can go with the integrated charging station
with EV of (200.57 Million) if we dont take the other risk
factors in our consideration.
The expected value with perfect information of a decision
alternative (EVW PI) is the sum of weighted payoffs
corresponding to the best decision alternative for
Figure 4: a- The risk profile of Standalone charging station b- The risk profile
of Integrated charging station
H. Risk Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analysis helps the decision maker describing how
changes in the state-of-nature probabilities and/or changes in the
payoffs affect the recommended decision alternative. In this
approach, we select different values for the probabilities of the
states of nature and then resolve the decision analysis problem.
If the recommended decision alternative changes, we know that
the solution is sensitive to the change made [8].
In this project to make our calculations easier will ignore the
medium state of nature and consider only the two cases of Low
and High states on nature.
In order to see how sensitive this recommendation is to changing
the probability values, we will let p equal the probability of low
demand. Thus (1-p) is the probability of high demand [7].

6
Based on that we got the following equations:
For standalone charging station:
EVlevel1 = 35.03 10.01P
EVlevel2 = 225.2 100.1P
EVDC = 238.5 138.42P
For Integrated charging station:
EVlevel1 = 35.5 2.98P
EVlevel2 = 130.65 13.04P
EVDC = 230.2 110.1P
Figure 5: Sensitivity Analysis
It can be clearly seen that different ranges and values of
probability will lead to different alternatives i.e. the probability
between (0-0.288) will lead to DC fast charging for both types
of stations, for probability between (0.288 0.44) the decision
will be DC fast charging for the integrated station and Level 2
for the standalone station, for probability between (0.44-0.54)
the decision will be DC fast charging for both types of stations,
while any probability more than 0.54 will lead to Level 2 for the
standalone station and DC fast charging for the integrated
station.
I. Evaluation of the initial results
The project initial results have been evaluated based on
management process of leading to the maximum profit for the
company by finding its demand and the profit that returns to the
company for each type of charging. The demand was divided
into three categories, High, Medium and low. From a
management point view, the higher value was for the demand,
the better profit for the company.
J. Risk Utility
Risk utility or risk tolerance is the amount of satisfaction or
pleasure received from a potential payoff. Although using
expected Values to make decision means that the decision
maker is considering only the average payoff, we are going to
use utility function which helps decision maker choose from
among alternatives that have uncertain payoffs [9].
The following figure shows the three types of utility function:
Figure 6: Three Types of Utility Functions
In this project we are going to implement the exponential utility
function to calculate the CE, the utility function U(CE) is:
() = 1 for R>0
R: risk tolerance, that will affect the shape of the exponential
curve, making it more or less concave more or less risk
averse. In this project we assumed the value of R=150 million.
CE (certainty equivalent): Amount of money that is equivalent
in your mind to a given situation that involves uncertainty.
Certainty equivalent is a dollar amount [10].
N N N
EU = p(s1 )U(Vi1 ) + p(s2 )U(Vi2 ) + p(s3 )U(Vi3 )
i=1 i=1 i=1
Where p(s1 ), p(s2 ), and p(s3 ) are the probabilities of Low,
Medium and High demands.
U(Vi1 ), U(Vi2 ), and U(Vi3 ) are the expected utility (EU) of the
uncertain events (Decision Alternative Payoffs) that calculated
by () = 1
Then, for Level 2 (standalone charging station):
EU = 0.1U(125.1) + 0.3U(175.14) + 0.6U(225.2)
EU = 0.1 0.566 + 0.3 0.689 + 0.6 0.777
EU = 0.73
Now to find CE:
0.73 = 1 150 Then by solving that CE = $196.4million.
Now to calculated Risk Premium which is the difference
between the EV and the CE (the amount you would pay to avoid
the risk) [9].
Risk Premium=|CE-EV| = 3.77 million.
And now we will repeat the same for DC fast charging station:
EU = 0.1U(120.1) + 0.3U(168.14) + 0.6U(230.2)
EU = 0.1 0.55 + 0.3 0.674 + 0.6 0.785
EU = 0.73
Now to find CE:
0.73 = 1 150 Then by solving that CE = $196.4million.
And Risk Premium=|CE-EV| = 4.17 million.
Although the value of CE is less than the value of EV, we can
observe that our risk attitude is RiskAverse. Figure 7
demonstrates the utility function of Risk-Averse and the other
terms (Expected Utility, Certainty Equivalent, and Risk
Premium).
7

Figure 7: Graphical Representation of Expected Utility, Certainty Equivalent,
and Risk Premium
K. Comments to the case
This case was done based on a quantitative analysis form on
risk management aspects. The input of the data was taken and
used to implement the risk analysis in addition to the
uncertainty level. The purpose of performing such analyses
should be to provide the decision maker with information
concerning the robustness of his or her risk analysis results. It
should also be emphasized that the risk analyses will provide
indicative rather than absolute answers as illustrated by the
results from the case. The risk analysis results should further be
brought into a decision making process, where other aspects
such as cost, reputational impact, location number of EV in that
area, available space, etc. should also be included. The
uncertainty in the risk analysis results should also be taken into
account in the final decision making process.
References
[1] Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-
oil-crisis/
[2] P&S Market, https://www.psmarketresearch.com/market-
analysis/electric-vehicle-charging-station-market.
[3] Vermont energy Investment Corporation, 2014, Electric
Vehicle Charging Station Guidebook Planning for Installation
and Operation.
[4] Hydro-Qubec, 2015, Electric vehicle charging stations
technical installation guide, 2nd edition.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1999, Principles
and Practices for the Design and Construction of Flood
Resistant Building Utility Systems, 1ST Edition.
[6] BC Hydro Power smart, 2013, Canadian EV infrastructure
deployment guidelines.
[7] David R. Anderson, Dennis J. Sweeney, 2011, An
Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches
to Decision Making, Revised, Cengage Learning.
[8] Jeffrey D. Camm, James J. Cochran & David R. Anderson,
2014, Essentials of Business Analytics, Cengage Learning.
[9] Efstratios Nikolaidis, Zissimos P. Mourelatos & Vijitashwa
Pandey, 2010, Design Decisions under Uncertainty with
Limited Information, CRC Press.
[10] Robert T. Clemen, & Terence Reilly, 2013, Making Hard
Decisions with Decision Tools, Cengage Learning.

V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion many factors will affect the decision of choosing
which type of station, such as the location and the number of
EV in that area, and as a result will affect the decision of
choosing which type of charging to be installed in that station,
at least for the next 10 years, however, most of the companies
would invest in the integrated stations with DC fast charging,
to use the existing infrastructure and to serve both types of cars
in addition to use their successful experience in construction
and operation of the gasoline station, especially in service and
security management. All risks can never be fully avoided or
mitigated simply because of financial and practical limitations.
Therefore all organizations have to accept some level of
residual risks thats why a careful consideration will be required
for the certain risks of the integrated charging stations by
following the path of development and applying all the related
national policies, in addition to use a high quality of technical
level, perfect management system and safety norms, all that
will make the integrated charging station a feasible choice for
the current time.