IEEE Energy2030
Atlanta, GA USA
17-18 November, 2008
Power System Level Impacts of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Using Simulation
Data
Curtis Roe
Georgia Institute of Technology
777 Atlantic Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332
Dr. A.P. Meliopoulos
Georgia Institute of Technology
777 Atlantic Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332
Abstract This paper presents an investigation into an aspect of
how plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) could impact the
electric power system. The investigation is focused on the impact
of the additional electrical load PHEV charging will have on
primary energy source utilization and subsequent environmental
air pollution (EAP) as emissions are transferred from vehicle
tailpipes to powerplants. A methodology is presented for
evaluating the impact on primary energy source utilization,
considering all the operating constraints of an electric power
system, as well as, the realistic operation of PHEVs. Examples of
energy source utilization impacts are presented for various levels
of PHEV penetration on a specific power system. In general,
PHEVs cause a shift of fuel utilization from gasoline to, a more
diversified fuel source, utilized by electric power utilities. The
results are particularly sensitive to the generation mix of the
specific power system simulated.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are a vehicle
designed similar to a traditional hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)
with more dependence on the electric drive system, in
addition to the added ability to recharge from the electric
power system. Aftermarket conversions of currently
available HEVs are possible today [1], which suggests PHEV
technology is feasible for significant levels of market
penetration in the near future. This paper investigates how a
10% and 20% penetration of PHEVs into a specific vehicle
fleet would affect the power system the vehicles employ for
recharging. Here we define penetration as the percentage of
the entire vehicle fleet that are PHEV.
The major reason for the introduction of PHEVs is to
reduce our societys dependence on petroleum, particularly
imported petroleum, as the prime source of automotive fuels.
A further advantage involves the much lower cost of electric
energy as an automotive fuel relative to gasoline. At present
gasoline prices ($4.00 per gallon), the energy cost is $0.109
per kWh (using the energy density of gasoline as 36.65 kWh
per gallon). This value is similar to the cost of electric
energy at $0.10 per kWh. However, on average, IC vehicles
operate at 12.6% efficiency; i.e., only 12.6% of the fuel
Dr. Jerome Meisel
Georgia Institute of Technology
777 Atlantic Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332
Dr. Thomas Overbye
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1406 W. Green
Urbana, Illinois 61801
energy actually drives the wheels [2]. In contrast, electric
drivetrains are nearly 70% efficient, in that, 70% of the
electric energy received from the grid at a wall plug arrives at
the driven wheels. Therefore, an electric powertrain reduces
the cost of driving by a factor of approximately 16.5%
(computed from (10/10.9) x (12.6/70)). Thus the cost of
powering an electric drivetrain is equivalent to buying
gasoline at $0.66 per gallon (16.5% x $4.00). Considering
that electric energy can be produced with an efficiency of
about 33%, in typical electric utility systems, the overall
efficiency of PHEVs is 23.1% as compared to the typical
12.6% of conventional vehicles not including the energy
required to provide gasoline in a vehicles fuel tank.
Also of great importance, electric energy is produced
from a wide variety of fuel sources; whereas, conventional
transportation energy is predominantly derived from a single
energy source, petroleum. Thus, utilizing electric energy to
replace some transportation energy has an additional
advantage being from diverse sources. Further, increasing
the demand for electric energy is a great proposal for the
power industry, particularly as this demand will be
concentrated in off-peak time periods and requires no
additional generation for the vehicle penetration levels
simulated.
This paper first presents the methodology used to
calculate the required energy for a fleet of PHEVs and the
resulting fuel utilization in a particular power system. Also
calculated is the resulting environmental air pollution (EAP)
generated by both the vehicles and power system. The
methodology compares two scenarios, where scenario one is
the electric power system operating independently from light
duty vehicles (no PHEVs), and scenario two is the electric
power system replacing a portion of the transportation energy
with a specific level of PHEV penetration. Scenario one has
EAP from the power system with the base-case electric load
and the full population of conventional vehicles. Scenario
two has an increase in EAP from the power system and less
EAP from vehicles, due to PHEVs lower emissions than light
duty vehicles. Comparing the total emissions under these
scenarios provides a comprehensive comparison
methodology.
 II. PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE UTILIZATION represent in the total population of light duty vehicles (pi)
(Table 1).
This project required developing realistic simulations of Four vehicle classes were arbitrarily selected to provide a
vehicle operation, both internal combustion and PHEV, and diverse vehicle fleet representative of what a real PHEV fleet
power system energy source utilization. The PHEV could look like in the future. Average vehicle characteristics
simulation was done with two methods, first analytically and including curb mass, payload mass, drag coefficient, frontal
second using the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) area, rolling coefficient, and wheel rolling radius were used
v.6.2 developed by DOEs Argonne National Labs [3]. The for each of the following vehicles to model four vehicle
power system simulation utilized was based on a probabilistic classes:
simulation technique [4]. The developed methodology Class 1: Honda Civic and Ford Focus
significantly depends on the test power systems generating Class 2: Honda Accord and Ford Taurus
mix; the power system modeled was derived based on the Class 3: Ford Explorer and Ford F-150
IEEE 1979 reliability test system (RTS) [5]. First, the Class 4: Chevrolet Suburban and Chevrolet
analytic PHEV model is described. Second, the vehicle Silverado
simulation is described. Third, the power system simulation Based on the above definitions the energy input per mile
procedure is described. Finally, the simulation results are [kWh/mile] driven from the fuel tank for a conventional
compared. vehicle, in class-i was calculated:
fuel
A. Analytic PHEV model Einput i = (1)
mpgi
The analytic PHEV model was used as an initial method Next, the recharging energy per mile [kWh/mile] that would
to estimate how much electric energy a fleet of PHEVs would be required from the grid for each vehicle in class-i was
require. First, the number of cars in the power system area calculated:
was derived. k PHEV conv E int put i
The number of vehicles in the RTS area was estimated E grid i = (2)
ch arg er bat control motor
based on a number of assumptions, as follows. The number
of customers was calculated from an average electric monthly Finally, the total recharge energy required per day [kWh/day]
demand of 1500 kWh. Based on an average month of 30 for the entire system was calculated:
4
days, the average power demand per customer was calculated mpy
to be [1,500 / (30 x 24)] = 2.083 kW. The RTS peak E grid = N T
365 i ==1
p i E grid i (3)
generating capacity was 2850 MW, assuming 30% of this
generation is devoted entirely to residential customers; the The last step was to divide by the average length of time
number of customers in the RTS area was calculated to be needed to charge the vehicles, 8 hours, to convert the required
(2,850,000 x 30% / 2.083) = 410,400. Further, the number of energy into required power. The described method calculated
vehicles per electric customer was assumed to be two, which an additional load on the RTS of 83 MW per day and 166
resulted in a total number of vehicles in the RTS area of MW per day for the 10% and 20% PHEV penetration
820,800 (NT). scenarios, respectively. Next, the vehicle simulation
Next, we estimated how many miles each vehicle was methodology is introduced.
driven each day. A simple approach for this was to assume
Table 1. Average EPA mpg for each vehicle class and percentage of
12,000 miles driven per car per year (mpy) and divide by the vehicle class in each distribution for both PHEV penetration cases
number of days in a year to have an average number of miles
driven per day per car equal to 32.9 miles. Vehicle Class: 1 2 3 4
Finally, to calculate the total additional load due to PHEVs EPA [miles/gal] 29.72 24.84 17.11 16.7
a number of vehicle parameters were assumed. The
10% PHEV (pi) 2% 3% 3% 2%
efficiency of a conventional powertrain, i.e. the amount of
fuel energy transferred to the driven wheels, was 12.6% 20% PHEV (pi) 4% 6% 6% 4%
(conv) [2]. The efficiency of the power electronic controller,
inverter, was 92% (control). The efficiency of the drive motor B. Vehicle simulation methodology
was 90% (motor). The fraction of conventional fuel input
energy per mile supplied by the electric drive was 70% In addition to the analytic method, vehicle simulations
(kPHEV). The turn-around efficiency of the battery was 85% were utilized to generate operational data for traditional IC
(bat). The efficiency of the battery charger was 90% vehicles, and PHEVs. The vehicle simulation used the
(charger), and finally an energy density of gasoline of 36.65 vehicle simulation package, PSAT. PSATs
kWh per gallon (fuel). The last two parameters needed were Matlab/Simulink/State-Flow models, of conventional vehicle
the EPA rating of miles per gallon average for each vehicle and hybrid powertrain components, of various architectures,
class-i (mpgi) and the percentage each vehicle class would were assembled and simulated to generate operational data
for PHEVs in each vehicle class. Once the complete vehicle
models had been selected, PSAT allowed for the simulated
operation of the developed vehicles over a specified driving
schedule with a variable amount of driving energy supplied
from the batteries; effectively varying the design parameter
kPHEV. The final implementation of the PSAT models created
rate data for the required grid energy, NOx and CO2 generated
by IC vehicles (kPHEV = 0) and PHEVs (kPHEV = 0.70).
Specifically, the four vehicles classes were simulated
over three drive schedules. The three driving schedules used
were the US06, UDDS, and the HWFET.
Data from the simulations for each vehicle class over
each of the three driving schedules was averaged and
normalized by the length of the drive cycle. Results for the
IC vehicles (Table 2) are the amount of NOx and CO2
generated per mile driven. Results for the PHEVs (Table 3)
are the electric energy required per mile driven, and NOx and
CO2 generated per mile driven.
Table 2. Simulated IC vehicles EAP rate data
Vehicle Class: 1 2 3 4
NOx Per Mile [g/mi] 0.137 0.156 0.224 0.259
CO2 Per Mile [g/mi] 203.3 298.4 374.0 436.6
Table 5. Total NOx and CO2 generated over one year from 10% and
20% PHEV fleet
EAP Produced [kg]: NOx CO2
10% Penetration 6,717 15,903,992
20% Penetration 13,435 31,807,983
The total NOx produced over the simulated year reduced
from 190,570 kg, generated by 10% of the IC vehicle fleet, to
6,717 kg generated by the same number of PHEVs, a
reduction of 96.48%. Similarly, the total CO2 produced over
the simulated year reduced from 324,762,114 kg, generated
by 10% of the IC vehicle fleet, to 15,903,992 kg, with
PHEVs, a reduction of 95.10%. The 20% penetration
scenarios showed a similar percent reduction in EAP.
We have developed two independent calculations of the
required grid power per day needed by a fleet of PHEVs
(Table 6). The independent calculations show 43.87% and
30.51% increase from the analytic to simulated methods for
the 10% and 20% penetration of PHEV respectively. This
discrepancy highlights the conservativeness of the analytic
method. The key issue now, is to estimate the power system
emission increases required to recharge these PHEVs in order
to see the net EAP results.

Table 3. Simulated PHEV (kPHEV = 0.7) EAP rate data Table 6. Comparison of the calculated grid power requirement for the
10% and 20% PHEV fleet
Vehicle Class: 1 2 3 4 Power Per Day
Energy Per Mile Analytical Method Simulated Method
0.238 0.282 0.397 0.518 [MW/day]
[kWh/mi] 10% PHEV 83.2 119.7
NOx Per Mile
0.013 0.014 0.018 0.033 20% PHEV 166.3 239.3
[g/mi]
CO2 Per Mile
30.80 33.29 42.68 68.02 C. Power system simulations
[g/mi]

Using the calculated rate data quantities (Table 2 and
Table 3), the aforementioned number of vehicles (820,800),
the distribution of vehicles in each class (Table 1) for each
penetration level, and the total annual number of miles driven
per vehicle (12,000 miles) simulation results were calculated.
The amount of additional power required per day was
calculated to be 119.7 and 239.2 MW per day for the 10%
and 20% PHEV penetration scenarios respectively, the
amount of NOx and CO2 generated by 10% and 20% of the
conventional vehicles (Table 4) with no PHEVs, and the
amount of NOx and CO2 generated by 10% and 20%
penetration of PHEVs (Table 5).
Table 4. Total NOx and CO2 generated over one year from 10% and
20% of the RTS IC vehicle fleet
EAP Produced [kg]: NOx CO2
IC Vehicles (10%) 190,570 324,762,114
IC Vehicles (20%) 381,140 649,524,229
The power system simulations estimate the required
amounts of primary energy sources for a projected economic
environment and projected energy demand [4]. Specifically,
given power system data including load data, generation data
and fuel cost data, (each will be described further below);
each generating units expected operation time, expected
energy production, expected fuel cost, and expected
maintenance cost are calculated.
Utilizing the power system simulation the effects on
primary energy source utilization and the corresponding EAP
caused by PHEV charging were calculated. Three power
system scenarios were developed. The first (1) scenario was
the case with no additional electric load due to PHEVs, called
the Base Case. The next two cases add electric load on top
of the Base Case load, representing additional load due to
PHEV charging. The first PHEV (2) scenario represented
10% penetration of PHEVs, called 10% PHEV. Similarly
the second PHEV (3) scenario represented 20% penetration
of PHEVs, called 20% PHEV. We next consider how the
additional load due to PHEVs was added on top of the base
case load.
 The additional peak load, representing PHEV charging, Table 7. RTS fuel data [5]
was distributed over the base case chronological load demand Fuel Data Costs [$/kg] Energy Density [kcal/kg]
curve by scaling a developed PHEV charging distribution that
modeled typical consumer driving behavior. The resulting Coal 0.05 6,000
additional load for the 10% PHEV scenario (Figure 1), using Natural Gas 0.35 12,800 [6]
the 10% PHEV simulated additional power per day (Table 6). #6 Oil 0.6 11,200
The system chronological load demand was the hour-by-hour
sum of the base case load demand data series and the #2 Oil 0.65 12,000
additional load due to PHEV repeated every 24 hours. The Nuclear 60,000 2001019
resulting chronological load demand data series were
converted into normalized inverted load duration curves. In Table 8. RTS generator data; unit size (maximum and minimum
general, a normalized inverted load duration curve describes capacity), number of units, and forced outage rate (FOR) [5]
the length of time for which the load was greater than a Size [MW]
specified value, which has a range from the system minimum Num.
Fuel Max. Min. FOR
load to the maximum load [4]. Units
Cap. Cap.
#6 Oil 12 2.4 5 0.02
#2 Oil 20 16 4 0.10
#6 Oil 50 15.2 4 0.04
Coal 76 12.5 3 0.02
Nat. Gas 125 31.25 4 0.08
Nuclear 155 54.25 3 0.10
Coal 197 68.95 1 0.05
Coal 350 140 2 0.08
Nuclear 400 100 1 0.12
Fig. 1. 10% PHEV additional power demand

Table 9. RTS generator data; heat rate coefficients [5]

The PHEV charging distribution used significantly
weighted the time of day where typically the power system Size [MW] ah bh ch
load was lowest, the early morning hours and the late evening 12 3,330,369 2,550,425 15,047
hours. The effect of the increased load due to PHEVs caused
20 10,080,000 3,150,000 0
the systems yearly peak to increase by 0% and 0.58%, and
the yearly minimum to increase by 9.62% and 19.24% for the 50 21,092,334 2,550,425 2,376
10% and 20% PHEV penetration scenarios respectively. This 76 31,362,044 1,963,834 2,413
load leveling is a potential benefit of the semi-controllable
load that PHEVs present. Also, the fact that the peak load is 100 26,227,189 2,257,130 2,395
not increased is very significant as no increase in the peak 155 43,407,948 1,946,828 1,401
load indicates no added generation would be needed to satisfy 197 33,003,505 2,193,793 329
PHEV charging requirements.
Additional input to the simulation program included 350 81,532,894 1,873,123 822
generator data and fuel data (Table 7). The generator data 400 90,962,133 2,244,962 116
included generator sizes (maximum and minimum capacity),
number of units, and forced outage rates (FOR) (Table 8) [5], Due to the lack of emission data for the RTS generators
generator heat-rate coefficients (Table 9) [5], and generator realistic data was found in [6]. However, the accuracy of the
emission-rate coefficients (Table 10). The heat rate [kcal/h] rate coefficients is subject to question, having been obtained
coefficients (Table 9) ah, bh, and ch were defined as: via normalizing emission statistics by the total energy
h(P ) = a h + bh P + c h P 2 (4) produced over one year for eight different TVA generators.
which calculates the required plant energy input per hour to These eight averages were then applied to the eight RTS
generate P [MW] output power. The EAP rate [kg/h] generators. Linear emission rate curves were then developed
coefficients (Table 10) ap, and bp were defined as: by scaling the TVA averages by the RTS average capacity
output and assuming 20% increase in pollution output would
EAP(P ) = a p + b p P (5)
occur from minimum power to maximum power output for
which calculates the EAP per hour generated at output power each of the eight RTS generators.
level P [MW].
 Table 10. RTS generator data; emission rate coefficients D. Results
NOx CO2
This simulation methodology has shown that a 10%
Size [MW] ap bp ap bp
penetration of PHEVs into the vehicle fleet significantly
12 20 0.5 6,459 158 reduces the amount of regulated emissions created by the
20 8 3.8 1,252 626 light duty vehicle fleet. Specifically, a reduction of 96.48%
of NOx and 95.10% of CO2 was achieved by operating a
50 46 0.2 4,733 151 PHEV as opposed to a traditional IC vehicle. The price to
76 180 0.7 37,417 145 pay for this reduction is an increase in the EAP generated by
100 283 0.9 52 0.2 the power system.
The power system simulations showed an increase of
155 548 1.1 92,849 183 1.77% of NOx and of 1.59% of CO2 for the 10% PHEV
197 374 0.9 123,204 309 penetration scenario and an increase of 3.36% of NOx and of
350 1,604 3.2 270,004 335 2.98% of CO2 for the 20% PHEV penetration scenario.
Comparing the total EAP generated, which is the sum of the
400 0 0 0 0 EAP from the vehicles and from the power system is a bit
more complicated to compare due to the increase in energy
Based on the simulation methodology and specific power generated for the PHEV penetration scenarios. Comparing
system data the expected energy generation per fuel type for the initial results showed an increase in total NOx (Table 14)
the three simulated scenarios (Table 11) showed a slight and CO2 (Table 15) EAP for each penetration level compared
increase in #6 oil, #2 oil, nuclear, and natural gas; coal usage to the base case. Specifically, 1.33% and 2.48% increase in
picked up the additional load increasing 3.11% and 5.85% for NOx for 10% and 20% PHEV penetration scenarios
the 10% PHEV and 20% PHEV penetration scenarios respectively, and 1.65% and 3.44% decrease in CO2 for 10%
respectively. The percent change was calculated normalized and 20% PHEV penetration scenarios, respectively.
by the total energy generated in the Base Case (12,990 GWh),
thus highlighting the bulk change in energy source utilization. III. CONCLUSIONS
Power system statistics including average cost of electric
energy, loss of load probability, total generated energy and This project was designed to investigate the impact of
unserviced energy were also calculated for each PHEV PHEVs charging on the utility power system. Specifically,
penetration scenario (Table 12). These figures of merit show the impact on primary energy source utilization and the
changes comparable to an increase in electric load without corresponding EAP impacts were investigated. This
added generation capacity. investigation made a comparison between two simulated
The total power system NOx and CO2 EAP generated scenarios. The first scenario is the business as usual scenario,
show slightly less percent increase for the 20% PHEV with no PHEVs. The second scenario included PHEVs,
penetration scenario then the 10% PHEV penetration scenario which increased the electric load and subsequent power
(Table 13).

Table 11. PHEV penetration primary energy source utilization results

Primary Energy Source: #6 Oil #2 Oil Coal Nuclear Natural Gas

Base Case 62.81 8.14 9171.00 3083.00 665.40
Total Energy [GWh/year] 10% PHEV 72.08 9.51 9591.00 3083.00 736.80
20% PHEV 84.56 11.42 9990.00 3084.00 824.00
10% PHEV 0.07% 0.01% 3.11% 0.00% 0.53%
Percent Change
20% PHEV 0.16% 0.02% 5.85% 0.01% 1.13%

Table 12. PHEV penetration effects on power system statistics (figures of merit)
Ave. Cost Loss of Load Probability Generated Energy Unserviced Energy
Figure of Merit:
[/kWh] (LOLP) [MWh] [MWh]
Base Case 1.27 0.011 12,990,000 15,180
Test
10% PHEV 1.31 0.013 13,490,000 17,960
System
20% PHEV 1.35 0.015 13,990,000 22,050
Percent 10% PHEV 3.15% 16.98% 3.85% 18.31%
Change 20% PHEV 6.30% 41.09% 7.70% 45.26%
system EAP. The tradeoff between lowering total EAP levels Further additional work will focus on developing
generated by traditional vehicles and increasing power plants additional PHEV charging distributions that will model
EAP was the focus of the investigation. potential PHEV charging policies. An additional
characteristic that will be calculated is the amount of
Table 13. PHEV penetration effects on total system EAP created petroleum not used with the penetration of PHEVs.
Air Pollutant: NOx CO2 Finally, validation of the developed methodology could be
achieved by utilizing a real world power system, as opposed
Base
47,269,504 7,878,934,800 to using the RTS. Conclusions could then be drawn for a real
Case
Power generation mix and the impact of PHEV penetration into a
10%
System EAP 48,105,359 8,004,246,500 real world traditional vehicle fleet.
PHEV
[kg]
20%
48,856,866 8,113,374,100 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PHEV
10%
1.77% 1.59% The work reported in this paper has been partially
Percent PHEV
supported by the PSERC project T-34, Power System Level
Change 20%
3.36% 2.98% Impacts of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles. This support is
PHEV gratefully acknowledged.
The deployment of PHEVs has the potential to have REFERENCES
substantial positive impact on the electric power system from
the point of view of increased electric energy consumption, [1] John Voelcker, Plugging Away in a Prius, IEEE Spectrum,
offsetting energy derived from petroleum to other fuels. It vol. 45, issue 5, pp. 30- 48, May 2008.IEEE Reference
was found that replacing a portion of the vehicles in the [2] www.fueleconomy.gov, Where does the Energy go?
power system area with PHEVs would increase total NOx http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml, July 2008.IEEE
production and decrease total CO2 production. Further, when Reference
the output EAP was normalized by the amount of energy [3] Argonne National Lab, Powertrains System Analysis Toolbox
generated the results showed a decrease in both EAP. (PSAT), http://www.anl.gov/techtransfer/pdf/PSAT.pdf, July
2008.IEEE Reference
Specifically, these results show a reduction of 2.430% of NOx
[4] A. P. Meliopoulos, "Computer Aided Instruction of Energy
and 5.295% of CO2 per unit energy for the 10% PHEV Source Utilization Problems," IEEE Transactions on Education,
penetration scenario, and a reduction of 4.845% of NOx and a vol. E-24, no. 3, pp. 204-209, August 1981.
decrease of 10.346% of CO2 per unit energy for the 20% [5] P.M. Subcommittee, IEEE Reliability Test System, IEEE
PHEV penetration scenario. Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-98,
no. 6, pp. 2047-2054, November/December 1979.
IV. FUTURE WORK [6] http://www.tva.gov/ TVA Reservoirs and Power Plants,
http://www.tva.gov/sites/sites_ie2.htm, July 2008.
[7] http://www.natural-gas.com.au, About Natural Gas Reference
The next step in this project is to expand on a number of
Guide, http://www.natural-gas.com.au/about/reference.html,
the vehicle assumptions made. Random variable distributions July 2008.
will be generated for vehicle parameters. Multiple
simulations will provide a more rigorous statistical analysis
of the results.

Table 14. Total NOx generated for each PHEV penetration level
Total Total Generated
NOx [kg] IC Vehicles PHEVs Power System Total
Vehicles Energy [MWh]
Base Case 1,905,700 0 1,905,700 4.727E+07 4.918E+07 12,990,000
90% IC Vehicles, 10% PHEV 1,715,130 6,717 1,721,847 4.811E+07 4.983E+07 13,490,000
80% IC Vehicles, 20% PHEV 1,524,560 13,435 1,537,995 4.886E+07 5.039E+07 13,990,000

Table 15. Total CO2 generated for each PHEV penetration level
Total Total Generated
CO2 [kg] IC Vehicles PHEVs Power System Total
Vehicles Energy [MWh]
Base Case 3.248E+09 0 3.248E+09 7.879E+09 1.113E+10 12,990,000
90% IC Vehicles, 10% PHEV 2.923E+09 1.590E+07 2.939E+09 8.004E+09 1.094E+10 13,490,000
80% IC Vehicles, 20% PHEV 2.598E+09 3.181E+07 2.630E+09 8.113E+09 1.074E+10 13,990,000