Analysis of corporate average fuel economy regulation compliance scenarios inclusive of plug in hybrid vehicles

Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Analysis of corporate average fuel economy regulation compliance scenarios inclusive of plug in hybrid vehicles Baha M. Al-Alawi ⇑, Thomas H. Bradley Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1374, United States

h i g h l i g h t s  Model of US automaker Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) compliance costs.  Different PHEV technologies, incremental costs, automakers and vehicle types.  PHEVs and suite of CVs technologies are compared on the basis of costs of CAFE.  Passenger car PHEVs reduce the costs of CAFE regulation compliance for automakers.  Incentives to PHEV manufacture and sales are present in the future CAFE regulations.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 January 2013 Received in revised form 28 June 2013 Accepted 27 August 2013 Available online 27 September 2013 Keywords: Corporate average fuel economy Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Fuel economy

a b s t r a c t The US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards regulate the fleet fuel economy of automakers that manufacture and sell automobiles in the US. CAFE standards will increase by 24% (for the passenger car fleet) – 35% (for the light-truck fleet) over the period 2011–2025 leading to a renewed interest in the role that advanced technologies will play in enabling CAFE compliance. This study compares the effects of 2 designs of plug in hybrid electric (PHEV) to estimate the cost of CAFE compliance with PHEVs as a component of the domestic passenger car fleet and as a component of the domestic light truck fleet. Results show that for many of the US automakers and for a variety of incremental cost scenarios, the introduction of PHEVs into the vehicle fleet reduces the costs of CAFE compliance relative to baseline scenarios. Overall, results show that PHEVs can contribute to a reduction in the costs of CAFE compliance for domestic automakers and should be more thoroughly considered in near-term regulatory and industrial analyses of CAFE compliance strategies. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The first automobile fuel efficiency standards were passed in 1975 by the US Congress as part of the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA). In 1978, this legislation set the minimum acceptable Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard at 18.0 mi gal1 (mpg) for passenger cars. EPCA sets a penalty of $5 per vehicle for every 0.1 mpg that an automaker’s CAFE is below the standard, and sets up credits that are available when a automaker’s CAFE exceeds the standards [1]. CAFE requirements have been incrementally increased over time to 26.0 mpg by 1985, to 27.5 mpg by 1989, and to 37.8 mpg by 2016 in the passenger car fleet [2,3]. NHTSA has recently developed new footprint-based CAFE standards for both passenger car (PC) and light truck (LT) fleets [4]. These standards are proposed to double the required fleet fuel economy by 2025.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (970) 491 3539; fax: +1 (970) 491 3827. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.M. Al-Alawi), Thomas.Bradley@ ColoState.edu (T.H. Bradley). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.081

Automakers have developed vehicles to meet these increasing CAFE standards by continuously developing and incorporating a suite of technologies including light-weighting, higher efficiency systems, and alternative fuel vehicles. Historically, numerous studies have debated the cost effectiveness of CAFE regulations in effectively improving fleet fuel economy. Whereas some studies found that higher CAFE standards are responsible and effective for improving fleet fuel economy [5–7], others find that the CAFE standard has unintended consequences to fleet makeup [8,9], job displacement [10], increased vehicle purchase price [8], and consumer choice [11] that dilute the regulation’s effectiveness. These techno-economic or econometric studies rely on technology-specific cost and fuel economy estimates. The costs of CAFE compliance have been quantified for technologies including clean diesel engines [12], alternative fuels [13], passenger cars [14], light trucks [14], and other developing light-weighting and efficiency-improving technologies [15]. The debate regarding the effectiveness of CAFE has been reinvigorated due to the recent increases in CAFE requirements [2,3]. Researchers

1324

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

and policy makers seek to understand the cost-effectiveness of regulatory compliance using the emerging suite of fuel economy improvement technologies that will be available in the near future. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are one of these emerging technologies whose impact on a manufacturer’s CAFE compliance costs must be analyzed. PHEVs are hybrid electric vehicles that can draw and store energy from an electric grid. The benefits of PHEVs are that they displace petroleum energy with multisource electrical energy. PHEVs are generally characterized by lower petroleum consumption, lower criteria emissions output, and lower carbon dioxide emissions than conventional vehicles [16]. A variety of studies have quantified PHEV fuel efficiency and incremental costs in order to understand their value to consumers [17– 24]. To date, no studies have considered the value of PHEVs to automakers and policy makers in achieving CAFE compliance [2,3]. Some studies have made low-order assumptions positing a limited role for PHEVs in CAFE compliance. For example, Cheah and Heywood considered only one PHEV design, and lumped PHEV compliance costs with the costs of other HEV technologies [15]. NHTSA includes PHEVs in some vehicle classes of the VOLPE CAFE compliance costs model [2,3], but incremental costs (>$16,215 for the midsized car) and benefits (fuel consumption increase for the midsized car of <48%) are outside of the ranges found in recent reviews [16,25]. Only PHEVs with 20 miles of ZEV range were considered, and NHTSA has used outdated PHEV utility factors to represent weighted fuel consumption. A more rigorous quantification of the value of PHEVs in meeting CAFE regulations would allow consideration of CAFE costs in PHEV retail price equivalence models [17], in automaker CAFE compliance models [26], and in PHEV market diffusion studies [27–33]. Based on this understanding of the field, the goal of this study is to understand whether PHEVs can offer an economic value in allowing an automobile manufacturer to comply with CAFE standards. This study describes a model of the CAFE compliance for all three major US automakers for the model years 2011–2025. Updated models of PHEV fuel economy and incremental costs are used to quantify the relative costs and benefits of these vehicle technologies. Results and discussion sections compare the costs of CAFE compliance among different PHEV technologies, incremental costs scenarios, major US automakers and vehicle types. The results of this work can inform automakers, policy makers and technical analysts about the incentives to PHEV production that are implicit in current CAFE regulations.

PHEV sales between the present and 2025 because the VOLPE model estimates that PHEV technology will not be reachable along the electrification technology branch of the decision tree, and will not be a part of the US vehicle fleet. In fact, limited-production PHEVs have been introduced in 2004 [35] and full-production PHEVs have been introduced for 2011 and 2012 MY (Chevrolet Volt, Toyota Prius PHEV). These indications suggest that PHEVs should be considered in analysis of near-term CAFE costs of compliance. For this study, we have chosen to modify and update the VOLPE input market and technology files to allow PHEVs to be considered as a means for achieving CAFE regulatory compliance. The VOLPE input files were modified to include PHEV technologies with updated PHEV incremental costs, fuel efficiency and technological availability. The VOLPE model’s carline characteristics, sales, fuel economy, technology costs, technology fuel consumption reduction and model assumptions are left unchanged. PHEV technologies were made available to be applied to a set of targeted carlines within Fiat’s, Ford Motor Company’s and General Motors’ (GM) fleets. These carlines do not have HEV or Flexible Fuel variants and their technological compatibility was changed so as not to accept technologies that are not incompatible with PHEV technologies (i.e. belt-alternator starter hybridization technologies). By using the VOLPE CAFE compliance model directly, this study allows for a direct comparison among compliance scenarios inclusive and exclusive of PHEVs, but it also includes many of the limitations of the VOLPE modeling and optimization framework. For example, the modeled vehicle fleet is based on vehicles sold in 2008 MYs and does not account for carlines entering or leaving the market and fleet mix/shift. Each modeled technology can only be applied to all of the vehicles within a carline and technologies cannot be applied to subsets of a carline. In the VOLPE model, technologies are grouped (engine, transmission, accessory and electrification) and technology selection follows a decision tree wherein the electrification technologies branch cannot be reached until all other engine and transmission technologies are exhausted. Finally, the VOLPE model calculates the fuel economy associated with vehicle technologies as an incremental improvement to a baseline vehicle, where the fuel economy increment associated with PHEVs is independent of vehicle class. The following sections describe the modifications made to the VOLPE input market and technology files to address these limitations. These modifications allow for the application of PHEV technology to the vehicle fleet, and allow for baseline and sensitivity analysis of CAFE compliance costs to PHEV performance and market characteristics.

2. Methods In the coming years, automakers will choose among a suite of technologies to devise a portfolio of vehicles which can meet the proposed CAFE regulations. NHTSA, in studies used to develop the CAFE regulations, models the costs of CAFE regulation compliance for each automaker using the VOLPE model [2,3]. The VOLPE model uses a decision tree model of automaker decision making to predict which technologies each automaker might use to meet future CAFE regulations [34]. The decision making within VOLPE is based on a variety of decision criteria including technological readiness, CAFE effectiveness, and cost. A flow chart for the VOLPE decision making process model is shown in Appendix A. The result of the VOLPE analysis is a scenario of technological improvements that the automaker can make to their fleets which allows the automaker to meet CAFE regulations. In its published work, NHTSA has analyzed different fleet CAFE standards scenarios to be achieved by automakers that sell vehicles in the US. The most probable scenario recommended by NHTSA is called the NHTSA preferred alternative CAFE scenario [2,3]. The NHTSA preferred alternative CAFE scenario results includes no

2.1. Vehicle classification modifications NHTSA’s US fleet data [2,3] was slightly modified1 to more accurately represent the present vehicle fleet, and to allow for the representation of PHEV costs as a function of vehicle types. For this study, every vehicle in Fiat’s (Chrysler’s), Ford’s, and GM’s fleet models is allocated to a vehicle fleet, and vehicle class. The two vehicle fleets considered are domestic passenger cars, and domestic light-trucks. The divisions into vehicle classes are shown in Appendix A. Vehicle class categories are based on the US EPA classifications with additional vehicle class categories in the light truck fleet. The light truck fleet is made up of trucks with GVWR at 8500 lb or less. Based on their footprint area, SUVs are classified into small (less than 43 sq ft), mid-size (43–47 sq ft) and large classes (48–55 sq ft).2 1 Modifications made to the NHTSA US model include the transfer of light-trucks from the passenger car fleet and considering only domestic vehicles. Tables A1–A6 in Appendix A show the detailed makeup of the modeled US fleets. 2 Table A1–A5 of Appendix A lists the classification of each carline for the 2008 NHTSA modified models.

1325

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Kalhammer et al., 2007 Nelson et al., 2009 (NCA-G) Nelson et al., 2009 (LMO-TIO) Kromer and Heywood, 2007

Kalhammer et al., 2009 Nelson et al., 2009 (LFP-G) Nelson et al., 2009 (LMO-G)

Table 1 Characteristics and incremental retail price equivalent (Incr. RPE) for PHEVs in 2010$ [17,18].

Cost of one kWh (2010$)

$800

Electric motor power (kW)

Incr. RPE with Li Ion battery (2010$)

Class

PHEV type

Battery rated capacity (kW h)

Compact Car

PHEV 20 PHEV 60

5.1 15.4

37 61

$6487 $10,528

Mid-Size car

PHEV20 PHEV60

5.88 17.9

51 75

$5714 $9791

Mid-Size SUV

PHEV 20 PHEV 60

7.9 23.4

84 89

$8355 $11,616

Full-Size SUV

PHEV 20 PHEV 60

9.3 27.7

98 117

$7487 $12,197

$1,000

$600

$400

$200

$0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Battery Capacity (kWh) Fig. 1. Li Ion Battery costs used in this study (Kalhammer et al., 2007) and estimated by different studies (in 2010US$) [37–39].

Table 2 Utility factor as defined in J2841 [41]. Utility factor

PHEV type

Value

UFU

PHEV 20 PHEV 60

0.54 0.9

UFH

PHEV 20 PHEV 60

0.23 0.55

2.2. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle incremental cost modifications NHTSA’s PHEV incremental cost model was replaced by a model of the incremental cost to the manufacturer of production of PHEVs. The incremental cost for production of each PHEV includes the costs of electric drive, electric accessories, energy storage systems, and charger. The primary references for incremental PHEV costs are the series of PHEV design studies performed by EPRI [17,18]. The component size and incremental cost for all components except the battery is derived from these reports, inflated to 2010$. The retail price equivalents (RPE) reported here are the average of the ‘‘Base’’ and ‘‘ANL’’ methods3 at production levels of 100,000 units per year, inflated to 2010$. Battery costs for modern lithium-ion (Li Ion) batteries are derived from [36] under the production scenario of 100,000 packs per year. This reference is chosen as it is more conservative (in terms of higher cost per kWh and cost per mile of EV range) than other primary information sources on battery production costs shown in Fig. 1 [37–39]. The costs for each Li Ion battery are inflated to 2010$ and added to the incremental component cost to represent the incremental cost of PHEV production in 2011, shown in Table 1. These costs are comparable to other recent studies of PHEV incremental manufacturing costs [40].4 Battery subsidies, vehicles subsidies, and short-term alternative fuel CAFE multipliers are not considered in this study because they are subject to modification, are short-lived, and represent an economic transfer, not an economic efficiency. Infrastructure costs are not included in the MSRP of the vehicle in accordance with current automakers’ policy, none of whom support infrastructure costs.

3 EPRI report uses two methods in the cost analysis. The first one is ‘‘The Base Method’’, which is suggested by an automobile manufacturer representative in the Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group (WG). The second one is ‘‘ANL Method’’, developed by Argonne National Laboratory. In both methods the calculation is performed by adding the costs of individual component, any overheads and mark-up costs. The Base Method assumes component cost to be the cost that a manufacturer would pay to manufacture them. The ANL Method assumes the cost to be what a vehicle manufacturer would pay a supplier for the electric component because they are supplied from outside vendors [17,18]. 4 For example, ANL calculates the incremental cost of a mid-sized PHEV 20 series vehicle (this study considers parallel vehicles) as $4701 in 2015, and $7347 in 2010.

2.3. PHEV fuel economy modifications NHTSA’s incremental PHEV fuel consumption reduction calculation was replaced with a vehicle-class-specific calculation of PHEV fuel economy. The SAE J1711 fuel economy method is the recommended practice for measuring the exhaust emission and fuel economy of HEVs. SAE J1711 defines a number of concepts required for the reporting of a single number for PHEV fuel economy: (i) a series of urban and highway utility factors (UFU and UFH, described in Table 2 which defines the ratio of distance travelled powered by electricity to the total miles traveled for each driving type [41], (ii) fully charged test energy consumption (FCTU and FCTH) in units of kW h mi1, and (iii) partially charged test fuel economy (PCTU and PCTH) in units of mi gal1. The following formulae define the J1711 utility factor weighted petroleum-only fuel economy for ZEV-range capable PHEVs for whom FCTU and FCTH = 0.

1 UF Urban ¼ 1UF

ð9Þ

U

PCT U

1 UF Hwy ¼ 1UF

ð10Þ

H

PCT H

UF Petroleum FE ¼

0:55 UF Urban

1 þ UF0:45 Hwy

ð11Þ

This method places no fuel economy cost on electricity since the petroleum content of marginal electricity is negligible [16] and is the method proposed in current CAFE regulations [2,3]. The fuel economy ratings for the compact car, mid-sized Car, mid-sized SUV and large-sized SUV vehicle classes are calculated using this fuel economy method. The results are listed in Table 3. The values of FCTU, FCTH, PCTU and PCTH for each vehicle class are derived from [17,18]. 2.4. Projected CAFE requirements These modifications to the NHTSA VOLPE model now allow for the VOLPE model constrained optimization and scenario analysis

1326

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Table 3 Passenger car and light truck utility factor weighted petroleum fuel economy (EPA unadjusted mpg). Vehicle class

Compact Car

Vehicle design Fuel Economy

PHEV 20 90

Mid-Size Car PHEV 60 226

FIAT (PC)

PHEV 20 74

FORD (PC)

GM (PC)

34

Mid-Size SUV PHEV 60 186

Large-Size SUV

PHEV 20 59

PHEV 60 146

PHEV 20 50

PHEV 60 123

Table 4 Cumulative costs (negative value) or benefits (positive value) of PHEVs (in constant millions of 2010$) relative to Scenario 1.

Base Fleet CAFE

32

Technology Make

30 28 26 24 22 2024

Model Year

$1757 $1278 $965

$1020 $1904 $1717

PHEV60

Fiat $234 FORD $1575 GM $965

$1692 $2290 $1824

$2891 $665 $849

$425 $1716 $1121

GM (PC)

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

50 45 40 35 30 25 2024

2025

2023

2022

2021

2020

2018

2019

2017

2016

2015

2013

2014

2012

20

Model Year Fig. 3. Modeled CAFE standards proposed for Fiat, Ford and GM fleet models under NHTSA preferred alternative CAFE scenario.

engine to consider PHEVs as a technology for achieving CAFE compliance. In this study we consider three major US automakers: Fiat (Chrysler), Ford and GM. These automakers represent 32% of the US Passenger Car fleet and 60% of the US Light Truck fleet. The CAFE standards for 2011–2025 were applied to Fiat, GM and Ford Motor Company 2008MY fleets using the NHTSA-reported footprintbased CAFE target coefficients [4]. The proposed base CAFE and calculated CAFE requirements for 2011–2025 are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 for Fiat, Ford and GM Motor Company passenger car fleets using the modified NHTSA fleet model under NHTSA’s preferred alternative CAFE scenario.

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

55

Scenario 5: (Revised PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

$2048 $2239 $2128

60

2011

Modeled footprint-based CAFE standards

FORD (PC)

Scenario 4: (revised PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs)

Fiat $853 FORD $1822 GM $1626

Fig. 2. Base CAFE calculated for Fiat, Ford and GM fleet models without applying any technology.

FIAT (PC)

Scenario 3: (revised PHEV FE with Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

PHEV20 2025

2022

2023

2020

2021

2019

2018

2017

2016

2014

2015

2013

2011

2012

20

Scenario 2: (Revised PHEV FE with Revised Costs)

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3

$3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

FIAT PC MY Fig. 4. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV20 technology for the Fiat PC fleet in $M.

ti-criteria decisions which take into account new technologies’ consumer acceptability, mix-shifting, banked credits, historical profitability of products, technology development ramp-up rates, and more. As in other studies of CAFE costs of compliance for a particular technology [1,14] no attempt is made to model these decisions explicitly. Instead, these scenarios are meant to be informative of the decision making process, but not inclusive of all decision making criteria. 3.1. Sensitivity to PHEV fuel economy and cost modeling

3. Results and discussion Using these modifications to the NHTSA VOLPE Model, the total cost of compliance and CAFE can be calculated inclusive of PHEV technologies for the passenger car fleet and light truck fleet between the years 2011–2025. The cost of CAFE compliance for the NHTSA preferred alternative CAFE scenario can then be directly compared to the cost of CAFE compliance for each automaker under various scenarios of PHEV design, and incremental costs. In planning and implementing the introduction of advanced technology vehicles, automakers must make multi-objective, mul-

The VOLPE model was run for each manufacturer and each vehicle fleet to choose the least-cost technologies available to meet the preferred alternative CAFE scenario shows in Fig. 3. The VOLPE model optimization/decision tree process was repeated for each of the following scenarios:  Scenario 1 is the baseline scenario representing the VOLPE model’s default results. It uses NHTSA’s preferred alternative scenario technologies and does not select any PHEV technologies for implementation.

1327

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

$3,500

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

$3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2010

2015

2020

2025

$3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2010

2030

2015

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

Scenario 3

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 2015

2020

2025

$3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000

$0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Fig. 9. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV60 technology for the GM PC fleet in $M.

$2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 2025

2030

FIAT PC MY

Cumulative CAFE Savings Relative to Scenario 1 (2011-2025) in $M

Yearly Costs of CAFE Compliance in $M

$3,000

2020

$500

Scenario 3

$3,500

2015

Scenario 3

GM PC MY

$4,000

$0 2010

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

$4,000

2030

Fig. 6. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV20 technology for the GM PC fleet in $M.

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

2030

$4,500

GM PC MY

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

2025

Fig. 8. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV60 technology for the Ford PC fleet in $M.

$4,500

$0 2010

2020

FORD PC MY

Fig. 5. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV20 technology for the Ford PC fleet in $M.

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3

$3,500

FORD PC MY

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Fiat

FORD

GM

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0 PHEV10 PHEV15 PHEV20 PHEV25 PHEV30 PHEV35 PHEV40

Technology Used in Scenario 5 Fig. 7. Comparison of yearly costs of CAFE compliance (technology costs plus fines) using PHEV60 technology for the Fiat PC fleet in $M.

 Scenario 2 includes all of NHTSA’s preferred alternative scenario technologies with the additional option of selecting a PHEV option with the revised technology costs and fuel economies for the PHEV20 and PHEV60 as presented above.

Fig. 10. Sensitivity Analysis to PHEV technology types (PHEV10–40) under Scenario 5.

 Scenario 3 includes all of NHTSA’s preferred alternative scenario technologies with the additional option of selecting a PHEV option with the revised technology costs and fuel economies for the PHEV20 and PHEV60. This scenario assumes that the

1328

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Table 5 Average costs or benefits of PHEV (in constant 2010$) in terms of reduced costs of CAFE compliance per PHEV sold under Scenarios 2 through 5. Make

Technology

Scenario 2: (Revised HEV/ PHEV FE with Revised Costs)

Scenario 3: (Revised HEV/PHEV FE with Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

Scenario 4: (Revised HEV/ PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs)

Scenario 5: (Revised HEV/PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

FIAT

PHEV20 PHEV60

$1698 ($470)

$4075 $3397

($9332) ($15,747)

$2029 ($853)

FORD

PHEV20 PHEV60

$9869 $8570

$12,061 $12,327

$7012 $7960

$10,301 $9310

GM

PHEV20 PHEV60

$7027 $4170

$9194 $7883

$4172 $4796

$7421 $4844

Table 6 Average incremental costs (in constant 2010$) per PHEV sold under Scenarios 2 through 5. Make

Technology

Scenario 2: (Revised HEV/ PHEV FE with Revised Costs)

Scenario 3: (Revised HEV/PHEV FE with Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

Scenario 4: (Revised HEV/ PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs)

Scenario 5: (Revised HEV/PHEV FE with 150% of Revised Costs and Costs Learning Curve)

FIAT

PHEV20 PHEV60

$5714 $9791

$3778 $6471

$8571 $14,687

$5667 $9707

FORD

PHEV20 PHEV60

$5714 $9791

$3677 $6301

$8571 $14,687

$5516 $9452

GM

PHEV20 PHEV60

$5714 $9791

$3703 $6345

$8571 $14,687

$5555 $9518

Begin

No

No

Force per Vehicle-Specific Override?

Yes

Applicable for this class?

Yes

Skip per Vehicle-Specific Override?

Yes

No

Yes

Yes Unavailable per Engineering Considerations

Unavailable per Engineering Considerations

No

Technology Not Available

Technology Available Fig. A1. VOLPE model flow chart of technology applicability determination.

No

1329

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Begin

No

Fines Required?

Yes

Find Best Next Transmission Modification Find Best Next Engine Modification Select Best Technology Application

Find Best Next Electrical Accessory Modification Find Best Next Hybrid Technology Application

No

Manufacturer Willing to Pay Fines?

Find Best Next Dynamic Load Reduction Yes

Find Best Next Material Substituation Find Best Next Aerodynamic Load Reduction

Yes

Best Tech. “Cheaper” than Fines?

Apply Best Tech.

No

Pay Fines

Repeat for Next Manufacturer Or Proceed to Cost Allocation Model

Fig. A2. VOLPE model compliance simulation algorithm.

Fiat (PC)

Ford (PC)

Fiat (LT)

GM (PC)

1,600,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

800,000

800,000

600,000

600,000

400,000

400,000

200,000

200,000

0 2010

Ford (LT)

GM (LT)

0 2015

2020

2025

Fig. A3. Passenger Car fleet forecasted sales (NHTSA modified models).

incremental costs of the PHEV20 and PHEV60 technologies decline via a learning curve at a 2.7% annual rate (equivalent to VOLPE’s HEV cost learning curve).

2010

2015

2020

2025

Fig. A4. Light Truck fleet forecasted sales (NHTSA modified models).

 Scenario 4 includes all of NHTSA’s preferred alternative scenario technologies with the additional option of selecting a PHEV option with the revised technology costs and fuel economies

1330

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

Scenario 3

$120

$120

$100

$100

$80

$80

$M/mpg

$M/mpg

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

$60

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3

$60 $40

$40

$20 $20 $0 2010

$0 2010 2015

2020

2025

2015

2030

2020

2025

2030

FIAT PC MY

FIAT PC MY Fig. A5. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV20 technology in Fiat PC fleet.

Fig. A8. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV60 technology in Fiat PC fleet.

Scenario 1 Scenario 4 Scenario 1 Scenario 4

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3

$120

$120

$M/mpg

$100

$100

$M/mpg

Scenario 3

$140

$140

$80

$80 $60

$60

$40

$40

$20 $0 2010

$20 $0 2010

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

FORD PC MY 2015

2020

2025

2030

Fig. A9. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV60 technology in Ford PC fleet.

FORD PC MY Fig. A6. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV20 technology in Ford PC fleet.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 3

$250

$M/mpg

Scenario 1 Scenario 4

Scenario 2 Scenario 5

Scenario 3 $200

$200

$150

$M/mpg

$250

$150

$100

$50

$100

$0 2010

$50

2015

2020

2025

2030

GM PC MY $0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

GM PC MY Fig. A7. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV20 technology in GM PC fleet.

for the PHEV20 and PHEV60. To assess the sensitivity of PHEV incremental cost modeling, the incremental costs of PHEVs are increased by 50% over those of Scenario 2.  Scenario 5 includes all of NHTSA’s preferred alternative scenario technologies with the additional option of selecting a PHEV option with the revised technology costs and fuel economies for the PHEV20 and PHEV60. To assess the sensitivity of PHEV

Fig. A10. CAFE compliance costs in $M/mpg using PHEV60 technology in GM PC fleet.

incremental cost modeling, the incremental costs of PHEVs are increased by 50% over those of Scenario 2. This scenario assumes that the incremental costs of the PHEV20 and PHEV60 technologies decline via a learning curve at a 2.7% annual rate. In each scenario assessed, the results of the VOLPE model are the makeup of a CAFE-compliant fleet for each automaker for 2011–2025. Each automaker achieves the required CAFE as shown in Fig. 3. The total savings or costs (expressed as a difference between the costs of compliance of Scenarios 2–5 and the costs of

1331

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Table A1 Fiat Motor Company Passenger Car fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (Fiat) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

Dodge Viper Coupe Chrysler Generic Mini Car Chrysler Sebring Convertible Chrysler PT Cruiser Chrysler Sebring Dodge Avenger Dodge Caliber Dodge Challenger Chrysler 300/SRT-8 Dodge Charger AWD

Two Seaters Minicompact Car Subcompact Cars Compact Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Large Car Large Car

MidsizePerfPC SubcompactPC MidsizePC SubcompactPC MidsizePC MidsizePC CompactPC LargePC LargePC LargePC

Sedan Sedan Convertible Sport Utility Sedan Sedan Hatchback Sedan Sedan Sedan

41.9 40.7 46.7 41.6 46.7 46.7 43.0 50.7 52.5 52.5

3484 2679 3847 3140 3402 3402 3120 4190 3927 4074

20 36 27 27 29 29 33 23 24 24

275 18,228 14,387 747 67,140 105,503 35,725 47,183 45,481 76,611

2 1 4 1 4 4 4 5 6 6

Table A2 Fiat Motor Company Light Truck fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (Fiat) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

Dodge Nitro 4wd Jeep Compass 4WD Jeep Liberty 4WD Jeep Patriot 4WD Jeep Wrangler 4WD Dodge Journey 4wd Jeep Commander 4WD Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 AWD Chrysler Town & Country FWD Dodge Grand Caravan FWD Volkswagen Routan Dodge Dakota Pickup 4wd Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup 4wd 120.5 WB

Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Minivan Minivan Minivan Standard Pickup Standard Pickup

SmallLT SmallLT SmallLT SmallLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MinivanLT MinivanLT MinivanLT MidsizeLT LargeLT

Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Minivan Minivan Minivan Pickup Pickup

46.0 43.0 44.9 43.0 41.0 48.9 47.6 47.1 54.6 54.6 54.6 57.2 56.6

4,098 3147 4116 3147 4064 4093 4941 4563 4580 4580 4580 4752 4948

22 31 23 31 22 24 20 18 25 25 25 20 20

23,185 26,272 57,851 57,603 117,103 53,805 39,889 131,745 97,601 94,385 11,142 12,601 148,530

4 6 2 6 5 3 4 5 3 3 2 5 9

Table A3 Ford Motor Company Passenger Car fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (Ford) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

Ford Generic Mini Car Ford MUSTANG Roush Stage 3 Mustang Ford FOCUS FWD Ford FUSION S FWD Mercury MILAN S FWD Lincoln MKZ FWD Ford FUSION HYDRID FWD Mercury MILAN HYBRID FWD Ford TAURUS FWD Mercury GRAND MARQUIS FFV Ford CROWN VICTORIA FFV Lincoln MKS FWD Lincoln TOWN CAR FFV

Minicompact Car Subcompact Cars Subcompact Cars Compact Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Large Car Large Car Large Car Large Car Large Car

SubcompactPC MidsizePC MidsizePerfPC SubcompactPC MidsizePC MidsizePC MidsizePC MidsizePC MidsizePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC

Sedan Convertible Coupe Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan

40.7 46.5 46.7 41.5 45.8 45.8 46.0 45.8 45.8 51.2 51.4 51.3 51.0 54.1

2679 3533 3924 2664 3358 3308 3542 3674 3308 3930 4135 4139 4270 4345

36 25 22 38 30 33 26 54 54 26 25 25 25 22

57,956 85,627 907 172,648 245,631 35,659 28,069 30,977 2631 93,461 41,894 2711 13,582 12,507

1 7 2 2 8 5 2 1 1 4 1 1 3 2

Scenario 1) for the passenger car fleet over 2011–2025 are shown in Table 4. Each automaker’s total CAFE for each of the PHEV20 technology scenarios are shown in Figs. 4–6. Table 4 shows that the inclusion of PHEV20 technology reduces the costs of PC CAFE compliance relative to the NHTSA preferred alternative technology scenario (Scenario 1) for every automaker under each scenario except for under the most conservative PHEV cost modeling (Scenario 4). Inclusion of the PHEV60 technology robustly reduces the costs of PC CAFE compliance for both GM and Ford, but increases the costs of compliance for Fiat (Chrysler). Figs. 4–9 show the dynamics of the cumulative CAFE costs of compliance for each automaker, for each PHEV technology, and for each scenario considered. It is notable that although the VOLPE optimization/decision tree model attempts to derive minimum cost CAFE compliance scenarios, in some scenarios, the default preferred alternative technology scenario leads to lower CAFE costs of

compliance than does PHEV-inclusive technology scenarios, yet the VOLPE model still chooses to implement PHEV technologies. For example, Fig. 7 shows that the cumulative costs of choosing PHEVs under PHEV cost Scenario 4 is higher than the preferred alternative technology scenario, Scenario 1. In general, these outcomes can be attributed to the function of the VOLPE model’s optimization/decision tree structure which seeks to optimize compliance cost by choosing yearly among equally available technologies, but makes no attempt to construct a globally cost-optimal compliance strategy.5

5 The decision maker in this study and in the default VOLPE software attempts to model the decision making process of US automakers. The decision making in VOLPE is therefore staged annually, uses a ‘‘greedy’’ heuristic, has no knowledge of the future, and has no recourse. For these reasons, the VOLPE decision making may not result in globally optimal CAFE cost of compliance strategies.

1332

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Table A4 Ford Motor Company Light Truck fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (Ford) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

Mercury MARINER HYBRID FWD Ford ESCAPE HYBRID 4WD Ford ESCAPE FWD Mercury MARINER FWD Lincoln MKX FWD Ford EDGE FWD Ford EXPLORER 4WD Mercury MOUNTAINEER AWD Ford FLEX FWD Lincoln MKT FWD Ford EXPEDITION 4WD FFV Lincoln NAVIGATOR 2WD FFV Ford RANGER 4WD Ford EXPLORER SPORT TRAC 4WD Ford F150 FFV 2WD 163.4 WB Ford F150 FFV 4WD 163.4 WB Ford F150 PICKUP 2WD 163.4 WB Ford F150 PICKUP 4WD 163.4 WB Ford TRANSIT CONNECT Ford E150 Club Wagon MDPV Ford E350 Club Wagon MDPV

Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Mid-Size SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Large SUV Small Pickup Standard Pickup Standard Pickup Standard Pickup Standard Pickup Standard Pickup VAN VAN VAN

SmallLT SmallLT SmallLT SmallLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT SmallLT MidsizeLT LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT MidsizeLT LargeLT LargeLT

Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Van Van Van

43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 50.5 50.1 48.4 48.4 53.5 53.6 55.3 55.3 47.5 55.5 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 47.9 65.0 65.0

3749 3749 3430 3439 4295 4180 4565 4697 4640 4857 5563 6009 3514 4705 5048 5365 5048 5365 3360 5859 6342

42 42 29 29 25 25 20 20 24 24 20 20 22 20 21 20 21 20 30 15 14

771 10,209 166,282 25,700 19,069 199,147 6510 643 55,438 8551 43,805 7960 59,214 14,245 65,951 227,414 125,991 64,996 17,350 1977 493

2 2 6 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 1 6 4 5 5 10 10 1 2 4

Table A5 GM Motor Company Passenger Car fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (GM) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

Chevrolet CORVETTE Pontiac G5 XFE Chevrolet COBALT XFE SEDAN Pontiac VIBE Chevrolet CAMARO Pontiac G6 Saturn AURA Saturn AURA HYBRID Chevrolet MALIBU Chevrolet MALIBU HYBRID Buick LACROSSE/ALLURE AWD Cadillac CTS WAGON AWD Cadillac STS AWD Cadillac DTS Cadillac FUNERAL COACH/HEARSE Cadillac LIMOUSINE Chevrolet IMPALA Buick LUCERNE

Two Seaters Subcompact Cars Subcompact Cars Small Station Wagons Compact Car Compact Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Mid-Size Car Large Car Large Car Large Car Large Car Large Car

MidsizePerfPC CompactPC CompactPC CompactPC CompactPC MidsizePC CompactPC CompactPC MidsizePC MidsizePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC LargePC

Coupe Sedan Sedan Wagon Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Wagon Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan Sedan

45.0 41.9 41.8 42.5 47.3 46.6 46.8 46.8 46.6 46.6 47.9 48.7 50.1 49.8 50.0 50.0 47.1 50.3

3341 2840 2802 3065 3840 3443 3447 3557 3493 3539 3990 4185 4118 4049 5700 4700 3673 3837

23 37 39 32 26 32 33 39 32 39 26 26 25 23 18 18 28 26

20,368 6 218,531 26,454 109,156 38,630 24 6 276,672 794 84,301 54,757 3,904 15,180 589 303 212,157 28,960

4 2 7 5 4 7 3 1 7 1 4 12 4 1 1 1 3 3

This analysis shows that PHEVs can be a technological means for reducing the costs of CAFE compliance for US automakers when used in the PC fleet. Between 2011 and 2025, the manufacture and sale of PHEV to meet CAFE regulations can reduce the costs of compliance for our modeled manufacturers’ fleets. Under Scenarios 4 and 5, the cumulative savings in CAFE compliance costs is $1335–$1961 million using PHEV20 technologies, and is $677– $1772 million using PHEV60 technologies for Ford Motor Company’s passenger car fleet. For General Motors’ passenger car fleet the cumulative savings in CAFÉ compliance costs is $965–$1717 million using PHEV20 technologies, and is $849–$1121 million using PHEV60 technologies. Unlike the results for the PC fleet, the VOLPE model did not use any PHEV technologies for the LT fleet because the costs of CAFE compliance for the light-truck fleet are increased by using PHEV technology.

costs. Comparing the CAFE compliance costs for the PHEV20 and PHEV60 technologies shows that the PHEV20 allows for the lowest cost of CAFE compliance for Scenarios 2 through 5. To assess the sensitivity of these results to PHEV technology type, a sensitivity analysis is performed by including PHEVs with between 10 miles and 40 miles of all-electric range. This sensitivity analysis is performed under Scenario 5 with the results shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 10 shows that the PHEV20 has the most CAFE compliance cost savings for Fiat and Ford, whereas the PHEV30 has the most savings for the GM PC fleet. These results are influenced by the suite of differences between each manufacturer’s CAFE compliance positioning, including fleet volume, fleet fuel economy, the performance of the carlines available for hybridization, the timing of refresh/redesign years, and more. 3.3. Per vehicle accounting of reduced CAFE compliance costs

3.2. Sensitivity to PHEV technology type These scenarios have tested the effects of including PHEV20 and PHEV60 technologies on major US automakers CAFE compliance

Previous research has attempted to quantify the value of each PHEV sold in terms of its value to the consumer lifecycle costs savings to the consumer [17–19,22–24,42,43] and its environmental

1333

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Table A6 GM Motor Company Light Truck fleet used in this study (NHTSA modified (GM) model). Nameplate

EPA Class

Technology Class

Style

Footprint

Curb Weight

Fuel Economy

Chevrolet HHR FWD

Small SUV

SmallLT

42.2

3194

33

20,778

10

Saturn VUE FWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

45.5

4080

25

3,525

3

Buick ENCLAVE FWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

55.4

4989

24

58,821

2

Cadillac SRX AWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

48.8

4497

25

34,713

3

Chevrolet EQUINOX AWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

48.5

3990

28

169,527

4

GMC TERRAIN AWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

48.6

4028

28

59,002

4

General Motors Midsize Premium CUV Saturn OUTLOOK FWD

Mid-Size SUV

MidsizeLT

50.1

4311

21

0

4

Large SUV

LargeLT

55.5

4961

24

4446

2

Chevrolet Suburban MDPV

Large SUV

LargeLT

61.0

6179

16

26,984

3

Chevrolet TRAVERSE FWD

Large SUV

LargeLT

55.5

4930

24

101,152

2

GMC ACADIA FWD

Large SUV

LargeLT

55.4

4951

24

69,419

2

GMC C1500 YUKON XL 2WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

57.7

5791

21

52,768

10

Chevrolet K1500 TAHOE 4WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

54.4

5642

22

124,620

3

GMC C1500 YUKON HYBRID 2WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

54.4

5792

27

621

2

Cadillac ESCALADE 2WD HYBRID

Large SUV

LargeLT

54.4

5947

27

452

1

Chevrolet K1500 TAHOE 4WD HYBRID

Large SUV

LargeLT

54.4

5792

27

1230

2

Chevrolet C1500 AVALANCHE 2WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

61.0

5811

22

5210

1

Cadillac ESCALADE ESV 2WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

54.4

5852

21

22,938

3

Hummer H3 4WD

Large SUV

LargeLT

50.6

4876

20

38

3

GMC CANYON 4WD GMC CANYON CREW CAB 4WD Chevrolet COLORADO 4WD Chevrolet COLORADO CREW CAB 4WD Chevrolet C15 SILVERADO 2WD 157 WB GMC C15 SIERRA 2WD 157 WB Chevrolet K15 SILVERADO 4WD HYBRID GMC C15 SIERRA 2WD HYBRID Hummer H3T 4WD GMC H1500 SAVANA AWD CARGO Chevrolet H1500 EXPRESS AWD CARGO GMC H1500 SAVANA AWD PASS

Small Small Small Small

MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT MidsizeLT

Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Sport Utility Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

44.4 50.2 44.3 50.2

3733 4006 3705 4063

25 22 25 23

2554 6153 15,947 14,917

10 6 12 7

Standard Pickup

LargeLT

Pickup

67.2

5177

20

230,631

17

Standard Pickup Standard Pickup

LargeLT LargeLT

Pickup Pickup

67.2 67.2

5190 5694

20 27

77,602 1218

18 2

Standard Pickup Standard Pickup VANS, CARGO TYPE VANS, CARGO TYPE

LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT LargeLT

Pickup Pickup Van Van

67.2 60.7 63.5 63.5

5694 5051 5077 5077

27 20 18 18

335 646 2584 12,623

2 3 5 5

VANS, PASSENGER TYPE VANS, PASSENGER TYPE

LargeLT

Van

63.5

5222

18

415

2

LargeLT

Van

63.5

5367

18

2299

3

Chevrolet H1500 EXPRESS AWD PASS

Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

and social value to society [20,44]. The results of this study have now quantified the direct value to automakers of CAFE compliance costs which can be avoided through development and sales of PHEVs. To consider the total value of each PHEV against its total incremental costs, we must consider the avoided costs of CAFE compliance as a value attributable to PHEV. The methods of this study can be used to calculate the avoided costs of CAFE compliance that are available through the manufacture and sales of PHEVs. These avoided costs can then be normalized by the number of PHEVs sold under each scenario to determine the value attributable to each individual PHEV.

MY2011 Sales

Carlines

The sum (between 2011 and 2025) of the CAFE compliance benefits of the PHEV-inclusive technology scenarios values is presented in constant 2010US$ in Table 5. The average incremental costs of the PHEVs sold under each scenario are shown in Table 6. For the PC fleet, the analyses of both Ford’s and GM’s fleets show that robust benefits are available to the automaker in terms of reduced CAFE costs of compliance. A comparison of these benefits to the incremental costs of the PHEV technologies shows that the automaker’s avoided costs of CAFE compliance can make up for a large portion of the incremental cost of manufacture of

1334

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Table A7 Fuel economy consumption reduction (FC) and costs of NHTSA technology for some vehicle classes used in the model. Compact Car

Mid-Size Car

Costs

Mid-Size SUV

Costs

Large SUV

Costs

Costs

Abbreviation

FC (%)

2009

2025

FC (%)

2009

2025

FC (%)

2009

2025

FC (%)

2009

2025

LUB1 EFR1 LUB2_EFR2 CCPS DVVLS DEACS ICP DCP DVVLD CVVL DEACD SGDI DEACO VVA SGDIO TRBDS1_SD TRBDS1_MD TRBDS1_LD TRBDS2_SD TRBDS2_MD TRBDS2_LD CEGR1_SD CEGR1_MD CEGR1_LD CEGR2_SD CEGR2_MD CEGR2_LD ADSL_SD ADSL_MD ADSL_LD 6MAN HETRANSM IATC NAUTO DCT 8SPD HETRANS SHFTOPT EPS IACC1 IACC2 MHEV ISG SHEV1 SHEV1_2 SHEV2 PHEV1 EV1 EV4 MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4 MR5 ROLL1 ROLL2 LDB SAX AERO1 AERO2

0.50 2.00 1.04 4.15 2.81 0.44 2.18 2.01 2.81 3.57 0.44 1.56 4.66 2.72 1.56 7.20 6.70 6.70 2.92 2.92 2.92 3.63 3.63 3.63 1.04 1.04 1.04 5.53 5.53 5.53 2.02 3.44 2.30 1.89 4.01 3.85 2.17 3.27 1.50 1.22 1.85 1.68 7.45 7.82 10.05 3.01 40.65 68.54 0.00

$4.0 $15.1 $15.7 $54.8 $47.6 $37.8 $54.8 $51.7 $47.6 $76.6 $37.8 $78.1 $242.5 $60.6 $78.1 $564.9 $11.0 $722.9 $13.7 $305.2 $514.5 $351.5 $351.5 $351.5 $610.4 $610.4 $401.2 $1098.8 $1026.2 $1994.8 $329.9 $299.4 $73.5 $51.1 $150.3 $299.4 $299.4 $2.0 $129.3 $105.1 $64.0 $511.3 $1201.1 $2268.3 $1403.9 $2252.5 $14835.7 $4406.8 $12297.4

$3.9 $14.5 $15.1 $38.9 $33.3 $26.5 $38.9 $36.2 $33.3 $53.7 $26.5 $54.8 $169.9 $42.5 $54.8 $397.8 $17.8 $492.8 $4.8 $214.2 $361.1 $246.7 $246.7 $246.7 $428.4 $428.4 $288.9 $702.1 $728.6 $1502.0 $234.3 $201.9 $52.2 $34.1 $102.0 $210.1 $201.9 $1.3 $91.8 $74.7 $45.5 $269.9 $724.5 $1402.8 $989.1 $1394.6 $6571.4 $503.4 $4632.6

0.70 2.60 1.26 5.03 3.64 0.69 2.62 2.47 3.64 4.63 0.69 1.50 5.86 3.45 1.50 8.29 7.49 7.49 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 1.36 1.36 1.36 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.39 4.08 3.00 2.04 4.06 4.57 2.68 4.08 1.30 1.22 2.36 2.10 6.55 5.30 12.46 0.11 40.65 68.54 0.00 0.53 0.70

$4.0 $15.1 $15.7 $56.2 $48.7 $38.7 $56.2 $52.9 $48.7 $78.5 $38.7 $79.9 $248.4 $62.1 $79.9 $576.9 $16.1 $740.1 $11.6 $312.4 $526.6 $359.8 $359.8 $359.8 $624.9 $624.9 $418.2 $1134.2 $1055.0 $2042.7 $338.4 $307.3 $75.4 $53.1 $107.9 $306.5 $307.3 $2.0 $132.6 $107.9 $65.7 $561.4 $1214.5 $2802.7 $1434.1 $2802.7 $18103.2 $6049.6 $15145.0 $0.1 $0.3

$3.9 $14.5 $15.1 $38.9 $33.3 $26.5 $38.9 $36.2 $33.3 $53.7 $26.5 $54.8 $169.9 $42.5 $54.8 $397.8 $17.8 $492.8 $4.8 $214.2 $361.1 $246.7 $246.7 $246.7 $428.4 $428.4 $288.9 $702.1 $728.6 $1502.0 $234.3 $201.9 $52.2 $34.1 $70.0 $210.1 $201.9 $1.3 $91.8 $74.7 $45.5 $296.4 $724.5 $1701.7 $989.1 $1701.7 $8014.9 $1254.5 $5705.2 $0.1 $0.2

0.70 2.60 1.26 5.03 3.53 0.69 2.51 2.58 3.53 4.52 0.69 1.50 5.86 3.34 1.50 8.74 7.94 7.94 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.55 3.55 3.55 1.09 1.09 1.09 3.44 3.44 3.44 2.24 3.71 2.90 2.03

$4.0 $15.1 $15.7 $56.2 $48.7 $38.7 $56.2 $52.9 $48.7 $78.5 $38.7 $79.9 $248.4 $62.1 $79.9 $576.9 $16.1 $740.1 $11.6 $312.4 $526.6 $359.8 $359.8 $359.8 $624.9 $624.9 $418.2 $1134.2 $1055.0 $2042.7 $338.4 $307.3 $75.4 $53.1

$3.9 $14.5 $15.1 $38.9 $33.3 $26.5 $38.9 $36.2 $33.3 $53.7 $26.5 $54.8 $169.9 $42.5 $54.8 $397.8 $17.8 $492.8 $4.8 $214.2 $361.1 $246.7 $246.7 $246.7 $428.4 $428.4 $288.9 $702.1 $728.6 $1502.0 $234.3 $201.9 $52.2 $34.1

0.70 2.40 1.15 4.80 3.40 0.57 2.51 2.36 3.40 4.28 0.57 1.48 5.53 3.20 1.48 7.96 7.30 7.30 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.62 3.62 3.62 1.21 1.21 1.21 3.48 3.48 3.48 2.52 4.45 2.90 2.13

$4.0 $15.1 $15.7 $56.2 $48.7 $38.7 $56.2 $52.9 $48.7 $78.5 $38.7 $79.9 $248.4 $62.1 $79.9 $576.9 $16.1 $740.1 $11.6 $312.4 $526.6 $359.8 $359.8 $359.8 $624.9 $624.9 $418.2 $1134.2 $1055.0 $2042.7 $338.4 $307.3 $75.4 $53.1

$3.9 $14.5 $15.1 $38.9 $33.3 $26.5 $38.9 $36.2 $33.3 $53.7 $26.5 $54.8 $169.9 $42.5 $54.8 $397.8 $17.8 $492.8 $4.8 $214.2 $361.1 $246.7 $246.7 $246.7 $428.4 $428.4 $288.9 $702.1 $728.6 $1502.0 $234.3 $201.9 $52.2 $34.1

4.90 3.14 4.05 1.00 0.91 2.34 2.09 5.65 0.33 17.13 0.33

$95.6 $307.3 $2.0 $132.6 $107.9 $65.7 $617.8 $1214.5 $3281.4 $1766.3 $3281.4

$65.6 $201.9 $1.3 $91.8 $74.7 $45.5 $326.1 $724.5 $1991.8 $1228.6 $1991.8

5.34 3.72 3.86 0.80 1.61 2.15 2.09 2.99 1.06 17.87 1.59

$95.6 $307.3 $2.0 $132.6 $107.9 $65.7 $698.5 $1214.5 $3782.8 $968.9 $3782.8

$65.6 $201.9 $1.3 $91.8 $74.7 $45.5 $368.7 $724.5 $2276.5 $688.3 $2276.5

1.90 2.04 0.80 1.40 2.30 2.46

$6.7 $73.2 $73.8 $118.4 $59.3 $196.6

$6.4 $43.5 $70.8 $82.0 $41.0 $134.5

0.53 3.32 1.33 2.69 2.76 1.90 2.04 0.80 1.30 2.30 2.46

$0.1 $0.6 $1.1 $1.8 $2.5 $6.7 $73.2 $73.8 $118.4 $59.3 $196.6

$0.1 $0.4 $0.8 $1.2 $1.6 $6.4 $43.5 $70.8 $82.0 $41.0 $134.5

0.53 3.32 1.33 2.69 2.76 1.90 2.04 0.80 1.60 2.30 2.46

$0.1 $0.6 $1.1 $1.8 $2.5 $6.7 $73.2 $73.8 $118.4 $59.3 $196.6

$0.1 $0.4 $0.8 $1.2 $1.6 $6.4 $43.5 $70.8 $82.0 $41.0 $134.5

1.90 2.04 0.80 1.40 2.30 2.46

$6.7 $73.2 $73.8 $115.4 $57.8 $192.0

$6.4 $43.5 $70.8 $82.0 $41.0 $134.5

advanced technology PHEVs. For example, under Scenario 2, the incremental cost of production of a PHEV20 is $5714 per vehicle, and the cumulative CAFE compliance cost savings due to the production of PHEV20s is $9869 per vehicle. In this and many of the other scenarios and technologies investigated in this study, the value of PHEVs in reducing CAFE compliance costs fully or partially

compensates the manufacturer for the incremental cost of production of the PHEV20. This type of analysis suggests that the price barriers which are understood to limit the consumer acceptability of passenger car PHEVs can be reduced by accounting for the value of PHEVs as a means to reduce the costs of CAFE compliance. For light trucks,

1335

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 Table A8 Abbreviation list of NHTSA technology used in the model. NHTSA Technology

Abbreviation

Low Friction Lubricants – Level 1 Engine Friction Reduction – Level 1 Low Friction Lubricants and Engine Friction Reduction – Level 2 Variable Valve Timing (VVT) – Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC Variable Valve Timing (VVT) – Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) Variable Valve Timing (VVT) – Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) Cylinder Deactivation on OHV Variable Valve Actuation – CCP and DVVL on OHV Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) on OHV Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 1 (18 bar BMEP) – Small Displacement Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 1 (18 bar BMEP) – Medium Displacement Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 1 (18 bar BMEP) – Large Displacement Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 2 (24 bar BMEP) – Small Displacement Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 2 (24 bar BMEP) – Medium Displacement Turbocharging and Downsizing – Level 2 (24 bar BMEP) – Large Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 1 (24 bar BMEP) – Small Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 1 (24 bar BMEP) – Medium Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 1 (24 bar BMEP) – Large Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 2 (27 bar BMEP) – Small Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 2 (27 bar BMEP) – Medium Displacement Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) – Level 2 (27 bar BMEP) – Large Displacement Advanced Diesel – Small Displacement Advanced Diesel – Medium Displacement Advanced Diesel – Large Displacement 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals High Efficiency Gearbox (Manual) Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals 6-Speed Trans with Improved Internals (Auto) 6-Speed DCT 8-Speed Trans (Auto or DCT) High Efficiency Gearbox (Auto or DCT) Shift Optimizer Electric Power Steering Improved Accessories – Level 1 Improved Accessories – Level 2 (w/ Alternator Regen and 70% efficient alternator) 12 V Micro-Hybrid (Stop-Start) Integrated Starter Generator Strong Hybrid – Level 1 Conversion from SHEV1 to SHEV2 Strong Hybrid – Level 2 Plug-in Hybrid – 30 mi range Electric Vehicle (Early Adopter) – 75 mile range Electric Vehicle (Broad Market) – 150 mile range Mass Reduction – Level 1 Mass Reduction – Level 2 Mass Reduction – Level 3 Mass Reduction – Level 4 Mass Reduction – Level 5 Low Rolling Resistance Tires – Level 1 Low Rolling Resistance Tires – Level 2 Low Drag Brakes Secondary Axle Disconnect Aero Drag Reduction Level 1 Aero Drag Reduction Level 2

LUB1 EFR1 LUB2_EFR2 CCPS DVVLS DEACS ICP DCP DVVLD CVVL DEACD SGDI DEACO VVA SGDIO TRBDS1_SD TRBDS1_MD TRBDS1_LD TRBDS2_SD TRBDS2_MD TRBDS2_LD CEGR1_SD CEGR1_MD CEGR1_LD CEGR2_SD CEGR2_MD CEGR2_LD ADSL_SD ADSL_MD ADSL_LD 6MAN HETRANSM IATC NAUTO DCT 8SPD HETRANS SHFTOPT EPS IACC1 IACC2 MHEV ISG SHEV1 SHEV1_2 SHEV2 PHEV1 EV1 EV4 MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4 MR5 ROLL1 ROLL2 LDB SAX AERO1 AERO2

the conversion to PHEVs is not as cost effective as more conventional technologies for fuel economy improvement, and the above conclusion does not apply. 4. Conclusions This study has calculated the relative value that PHEVs can have in reducing an automaker’s costs of CAFE compliance. To perform that evaluation, we have developed a framework for modeling the effect of PHEV fleet penetration on the automaker’s cost of

compliance with CAFE regulations within the VOLPE CAFE compliance model. The results show that in the passenger car fleet, PHEVs have a lower cost of compliance with CAFE regulations than conventional technologies. The magnitudes of these benefits are shown to be specific to each manufacturer considered, but are shown to be robust to changes in PHEV cost modeling, and PHEV technology types. This type of analysis suggests that the price barriers which have been proposed to limit the consumer acceptability of PHEVs are a function of the inefficient allocation of resources rather than a

1336

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337

Table A9 Passenger Cars vehicles chosen to accept HEV/PHEV technologies the complete list of each vehicle characteristics and volume can be found in VOLPE Model Data. Manufacturer

Nameplate

Technology Class ‘‘NHTSA’’

Footprint

CAFE Fuel Economy

MY2011

MY2012

MY2013

MY2025

Fiat Fiat Ford Ford General General General General General General General

Chrysler PT Cruiser Chrysler Sebring Ford FUSION AWD Lincoln MKZ FWD Chevrolet MALIBU Chevrolet MALIBU Pontiac G5 GT Pontiac G6 Pontiac G6 Pontiac G6 Pontiac G6

Subcompact Midsize Midsize Midsize Midsize Midsize Compact Midsize Midsize Midsize Midsize

41.6 46.7 45.8 46.0 46.6 46.6 41.9 46.6 46.6 46.6 46.6

27.47 29.01 24.83 26.83 28.42 26.49 35.79 28.42 33.30 32.48 23.01

747 3455 2726 21,577 273 26,017 4 790 933 7209 9

1878 2965 2506 27,478 277 26,344 4 800 945 7300 9

7306 2256 2668 35,312 309 29,424 5 893 1055 8153 10

90,899 2526 3,257 36,323 354 33,660 5 1022 1207 9327 12

Motors Motors Motors Motors Motors Motors Motors

Table A10 Technology incremental costs for scenario 2–5 at PC fleet (scenario 2 and 4 has a decline at a rate of 2.74%). Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Vehicle Class

Technology

2010

2025

2010

2025

2010

2025

2010

2025

Compact Car

PHEV20 PHEV60

$6487 $10,528

$6487 $10,528

$6487 $10,528

$3819 $6198

$9731 $15,792

$9731 $15,792

$9731 $15,792

$5729 $9297

Mid-Size Car

PHEV20 PHEV60

$5714 $9791

$5714 $9791

$5714 $9791

$3373 $5780

$8571 $14,687

$8571 $14,687

$8571 $14,687

$5060 $8671

Table A11 Technology incremental costs for scenario 2–5 at LT fleet (scenario 2 and 4 has a decline at a rate of 2.74%). Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Vehicle Class

Technology

2010

2025

2010

2025

2010

2025

2010

2025

Mid-Size SUV

PHEV20 PHEV60

$8355 $11,616

$8355 $11,616

$8355 $11,616

$4927 $6850

$12,533 $17,424

$12,533 $17,424

$12,533 $17,424

$7390 $10,274

Large SUV

PHEV20 PHEV60

$7487 $12,197

$7487 $12,197

$7487 $12,197

$4431 $7219

$11,231 $18,296

$11,231 $18,296

$11,231 $18,296

$6647 $10,828

Acknowledgements

Table A12 PHEV10–40 incremental costs using scenario 5. Vehicle Class

Technology

2010

2025

Compact Car

PHEV10 PHEV15 PHEV20 PHEV25 PHEV30 PHEV35 PHEV40

$7686 $8575 $9464 $10,201 $10,938 $11,674 $12,411

$4436 $4949 $5462 $5887 $6312 $6738 $7163

Mid-Size Car

PHEV10 PHEV15 PHEV20 PHEV25 PHEV30 PHEV35 PHEV40

$7000 $7668 $8337 $9081 $9824 $10,568 $11,311

$4052 $4439 $4826 $5257 $5687 $6117 $6548

broad-basis cost-benefit calculation. The reduction in CAFE compliance costs to the automakers can be used to reduce the incremental cost of PHEV production to the automaker. In part, the development of PHEVs by automakers has come as a response to regulatory pressures from policy makers in the form of increases in CAFE, and increases in ZEV requirements. These results can be used by automakers and regulators to understand the incentives for PHEV production and sales that are preexisting in the CAFE regulations. The methods that will be used to reap these incentives will be specific to each automaker’s market, regulatory, financial and consumer position.

This work is supported by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry for Higher Education, and this material is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DEEE0002627. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Appendix A See Figs. A1–A10 and Tables A1–A12. References [1] Kirby EG. An evaluation of the effectiveness of US CAFE policy. Energy Policy 1995;23:107–9.

B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1323–1337 [2] United States Department of Transportation. Final regulatory impact analysis, corporate average fuel economy for MY 2012-MY 2016 passenger cars and light trucks. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.; 2010. [3] United States Department of Transportation. 2017 and Later model year lightduty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate average fuel economy standards; final rule. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.; 2012. [4] United States Department of Transportation. 2017-2025 Model year light-duty vehicle GHG emissions and CAFE standards: supplemental notice of intent. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.; 2011. [5] Goldberg PK. The effects of the corporate average fuel efficiency standards in the US. J Ind Econ 1998;46:1–33. [6] Greene DL. CAFE or price? An analysis of the effects of federal fuel economy regulations and gasoline price on new car MPG, 1978–89. Energy J 1990;11:37–58. [7] Greene DL. Why CAFE worked. Energy Policy 1998;26:595–613. [8] Bezdek RH, Wendling RM. Potential long-term impacts of changes in US vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Energy Policy 2005;33:407–19. [9] Thorpe SG. Fuel economy standards, new vehicle sales, and average fuel efficiency. J Regul Econ 1997;11:311–26. [10] Dacy DC, Kuenne RE, McCoy P. Employment impacts of achieving automobile efficiency standards in the United States. Appl Econ 1980;12:295–312. [11] Boyd JH, Mellman RE. The effect of fuel economy standards on the US automotive market: an hedonic demand analysis. Transp Res Part A 1980;14:367–78. [12] Teotia A, Vyas A, Cuenca R, Stodolsky F, Eberhardt J. CAFE compliance by light trucks: economic impacts of clean diesel engine. Energy Policy 1999;27:889–900. [13] Krupnick AJ, Walls MA, Collins CT. Global warming and urban smog: costeffectiveness of CAFE standards and alternative fuels. Energy J 1993;14:75–98. [14] Austin D, Dinan T. Clearing the air: the costs and consequences of higher CAFE standards and increased gasoline taxes. J Environ Econ Manage 2005;50:562–82. [15] Cheah L, Heywood J. Meeting US passenger vehicle fuel economy standards in 2016 and beyond. Energy Policy 2011;39:454–66. [16] Bradley TH, Frank AA. Design, demonstrations and sustainability impact assessments for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:115–28. [17] Electric Power Research Institute. Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid electric vehicle options. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA; 2001. [18] Electric Power Research Institute. Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid electric vehicle options for compact sedan and sport utility vehicles, Electric Power Research Institute, P, 2002. [19] Electric Power Research Institute. Advanced batteries for electric drive vehicles: a technology and cost-effectiveness assessment for battery electric vehicles, power assist hybrid electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA; 2004. [20] Lemoine D, Kammen DM, Farrell AE. Effects of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in California energy markets. In: 86th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.; 2006. [21] Plotkin S, Santini D, Vyas A, Anderson J, Wang M, Bharathan D, et al. Hybrid electric vehicle technology assessment: methodology, analytical issues, and interim results. IL, US: Argonne National Lab.; 2002. [22] Shiau CS, Samaras C, Hauffe R, Michalek JJ. Impact of battery weight and charging patterns on the economic and environmental benefits of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Energy Policy 2009;37:2653–63. [23] Simpson A. Cost-benefit analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology. In: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Yokohama, Japan; 2006. [24] Al-Alawi BM, Bradley TH. Total cost of ownership, payback, and consumer preference modeling of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2013;103:488–506.

1337

[25] National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Transitions to alternative transportation technologies – plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Washington, D.C.; 2010. [26] Shiau CS, Michalek JJ, Hendrickson CT. A structural analysis of vehicle design responses to corporate average fuel economy policy. Transport Res A: Policy Pract 2009;43:814–28. [27] Sullivan JL, Salmeen IT, Simon CP. PHEV marketplace penetration: an agent based, simulation, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Report UMTRI-2009-32, 2009. [28] Cui X, Liu C, Kim HK, Kao SC, Tuttle MA, Bhaduri BL. A multi agent-based framework for simulating household PHEV distribution and electric distribution network impact. Submitted to TRB Committee on Transportation, Energy (ADC70); 2010. [29] Santini DJ, Vyas AD. Suggestions for a new vehicle choice model simulating advanced vehicles introduction decisions (AVID): structure and coefficients. Oak Ridge, TN: Argonne National Laboratory; 2005. [30] Sikes K, Gross T, Lin Z, Sullivan J, Cleary T, Ward J. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle market introduction study: final report. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); 2010. [31] Bandivadekar AP. Evaluating the impact of advanced vehicle and fuel technologies in US light-duty vehicle fleet. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2008. [32] McManus W, Senter Jr R. Market models for predicting PHEV adoption and diffusion. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute; 2010. [33] Jeon SY. Hybrid & electric vehicle technology and its market feasibility. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2010. [34] United States Department of Transportation. 2017–2025 Corporate average fuel economy compliance and effects modeling system documentation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.; 2011. [35] Sanna L. Driving the solution, the plug-in hybrid vehicle. EPRI J 2005;3:10–7. [36] Kalhammer FR, Kopf B, Swan D, Roan V, Walsh M. Status and prospects for zero emissions vehicle technology: report of the ARB independent expert panel 2007. Prepared for State of California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA; 2007. [37] Kalhammer FR, Kamath H, Duvall M, Alexander M, Jungers B. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: promise, issues and prospects. In: EVS24 International battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicle symposium. Stavanger, Norway; 2009. [38] Nelson PA, Santini DJ, Barnes J. Factors determining the manufacturing costs of lithium-ion batteries for PHEVs. In: EVS24, The international battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicle, symposium; May, 2009. p. 13–6. [39] Kromer M, Heywood J. Electric power trains: opportunities and challenges in the US light-duty vehicle fleet. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2007. [40] United States Department of Energy. Light-duty vehicle fuel consumption displacement potential up to 2045. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL; 2011. [41] SAE International, Surface Vehicle Information Report SAE J2841. Utility factor definitions for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using 2001 US DOT National Household Travel Survey Data; 2009. [42] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual energy outlook 2008 with projections to 2030. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C.; 2009. [43] National Research Council. Review of the research program of the partnership for a new generation of vehicles: seventh report. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.; 2001. [44] Michalek JJ, Chester M, Jaramillo P, Samaras C, Shiau C-SN, Lave LB. Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits. PNAS 2011;108:16554–8.