The result obtained for the long-hauling scenario differs from the studies that have focused on LDVs, where option 2 is the predominant choice -especially for highway applications. This difference can be explained by considering the high asset utilization rate expected for charging stations catering to trucks. A long-haul truck charges for 11 -12 hours each night, therefore there is a minimal reduction in peak power for option 2. It still requires highpower chargers (>50 kW) which have expensive capital investments associated with high power grid connections, and specialized hardware. In the case of LDVs, a 3.3 kW level 2 charger, which is significantly cheaper than the high-power chargers, can be used to trickle charge the intermediate battery as the daily energy demand is considerably lower (< 50 kWh/day). The level 2 chargers are also rated for residential applications and do not require expensive high-voltage connections. These savings compensate for the battery price, thereby leading to a small difference in the initial capital investment and lower payback periods. Furthermore, a high asset utilization rate also reduces the savings on operating costs, as given by equation 15. Increasing asset utilization decreases the difference in peak power between the two options diminishes (reduced demand charge savings) while the total energy loss associated with battery inefficiencies increases (higher energy costs). Given our scenario of 20 charging events per month with 12 hours of daily charging, we have much higher utilization rates than the LDV scenarios, thereby giving option 1 a competitive edge.