Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost ... · MJB&A estimated the costs and benefits of increased use of light duty plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) in five mid-Atlantic

December 2016

Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology & Assumptions

December 2016

Acknowledgements

Authors: Dana Lowell, Brian Jones, and David Seamonds

M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC

Prepared by: M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC

47 Junction Square Drive

Concord, MA 01742

Contact: Dana Lowell

(978) 405-1275

[email protected]

For Submission to:

Natural Resources Defense Council

40 W 20th Street, New York, NY 10011

Contact: Luke Tonachel

(212) 727-4607

[email protected]

About M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC

M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC (MJB&A) provides strategic and technical advisory services to address

critical energy and environmental matters including: energy policy, regulatory compliance, emission

markets, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced technologies.

Our multi-national client base includes electric and natural gas utilities, major transportation fleet

operators, clean technology firms, environmental groups and government agencies.

We bring insights to executives, operating managers, and advocates. We help you find opportunity in

environmental markets, anticipate and respond smartly to changes in administrative law and policy at

federal and state levels. We emphasize both vision and implementation, and offer timely access to

information along with ideas for using it to the best advantage.

© M.J. Bradley & Associates 2016

Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analysis

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Utility Net Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 PEV Owner Net Benefits .............................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Societal Net Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 6

2 Assumptions & Sources ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 PEV Penetration Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 7

2.2 PEV Charging Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Vehicle Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 9

2.3.1 Vehicle Type ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Vehicle Purchase Cost ......................................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Vehicle Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................ 12

2.3.4 Average Vehicle Energy Use .............................................................................................. 13

2.3.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled ....................................................................................................... 13

2.5 Energy Costs ............................................................................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Gasoline .............................................................................................................................. 15

2.5.2 Electricity ............................................................................................................................ 15

2.6 Utility Costs ................................................................................................................................ 16

2.6.1 Generating & Distribution Costs ......................................................................................... 16

2.6.2 Peak Capacity Costs ............................................................................................................ 17

2.6.3 Infrastructure Upgrade Costs .............................................................................................. 17

2.7 GHG Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 18

2.7.1 Gasoline .............................................................................................................................. 18

2.7.2 Electricity ............................................................................................................................ 18

References ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 23


4

List of Figures

Figure 1 Distribution of Assumed PEV Charge Start Times in Massachusetts ............................................ 8

Figure 2 Projected PEV Battery Costs ........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3 Assumed Purchase Costs of Cars (2015$) .................................................................................... 11

Figure 4 Assumed Purchase Cost of Light Trucks (2015$) ........................................................................ 11

List of Tables

Table 1 Projected Vehicle Maintenance Costs ($/mi, nominal$)............................................................... 12

Table 2 Projected Average In-use Vehicle Energy Use .............................................................................. 13

Table 3 Projected Growth in Annual Light-Duty Vehicles and VMT, compared to 2015…………………….….. 14

Table 4 Projected Gasoline Costs ($/gallon, nominal $) ............................................................................. 15

Table 5 Average Residential Electricity Rates ($/kWh, nominal $) ........................................................... 16

Table 6 Generating & Distribution Costs (% of residential electricity price) ............................................. 16

Table 7 Peak Generating Capacity Rates ($/kW-month, nominal $) .......................................................... 17

Table 8 Electricity Generation CO2 Emissions (g/kWh) ............................................................................ 18


5

Executive Summary

MJB&A estimated the costs and benefits of increased use of light duty plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) in

five mid-Atlantic and northeast states including Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and

Pennsylvania.1 This document summarizes the methodology, assumptions, and data sources used by

MJB&A to conduct these analyses. The results of the analysis for each state are reported in separate

documents.

The analyses include costs and benefits to PEV owners, costs and benefits to electric utilities that deliver

the energy required to charge PEVs and to their customers, and net economic and environmental benefits

(GHG reductions) from greater use of PEVs instead of gasoline vehicles. For each state MJB&A

developed two different scenarios of PEV penetration for 2030, 2040, and 2050 which bracket the states’

short and long-term goals for PEV adoption and economy-wide GHG reduction. In addition, for each

PEV penetration scenario the analysis includes two different vehicle charging scenarios, representing

“business as usual” charging and “off-peak” charging. Costs and benefits are estimated at the county

level, but are summarized at the state level, and by the service territory of each major electric utility in the

state.

1 Methodology This analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of various levels of PEV penetration through 2050 in each

of five states, compared to a baseline scenario with very little PEV penetration. The baseline scenario for

each state is based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet characteristics (i.e. cars versus light trucks,

average fuel economy) as projected by the relevant State Department of Transportation and/or the U.S.

Energy Information Administration (EIA), in their 2016 Annual Energy Outlook.

For each level of PEV penetration the analysis projects potential net benefits to the state’s utilities and

their customers, net benefits to PEV owners, and net benefits to society as a whole.

1.1 Utility and Rate Payer Net Benefits

Based on assumed future PEV characteristics and usage, the analysis projects annual electricity use for

PEV charging (megawatt-hours, MWh) in 2030, 2040, and 2050 at each level of penetration , as well as

the average load by time of day (megawatts, MW) from PEV charging. The analysis then projects the

total revenue that the electric distribution utilities would realize from sale of this electricity, their costs of

providing the electricity to their customers, and the potential net revenue (revenue minus costs).

The utilities’ costs of electricity production include the cost of generation ($/kWh); the cost of

transmission ($/kWh); incremental peak generation capacity costs ($/kW-month) for the additional peak

load resulting from PEV charging; and annual distribution infrastructure upgrade costs ($/kW) for

increasing the capacity of the secondary distribution system to handle the additional load resulting from

PEV charging.

1 Light-duty PEVs include battery-electric (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV) cars and light trucks.


6

For each PEV penetration scenario this analysis calculates utility revenue, costs, and net revenue for two

different PEV charging scenarios: 1) a baseline scenario in which all PEVs are plugged in and start to

charge as soon as they arrive at home each day, and 2) an off-peak charging scenario in which a

significant portion of PEVs that arrive home between noon and 11 PM each day delay the start of

charging until after midnight.

1.2 PEV Owner Net Benefits

For each PEV penetration scenario this analysis calculates the total incremental annual cost of purchase

and operation for all PEVs in the state, compared to “baseline” purchase and operation of gasoline cars

and light trucks. For both PEVS and baseline vehicles annual costs include the amortized cost of

purchasing a vehicle, annual costs for gasoline and electricity, and annual maintenance costs. For PEVS

it also includes the amortized annual cost of the necessary home charger.

For each PEV penetration scenario net annual benefits to PEV owners are calculated as baseline vehicle

costs minus PEV vehicle costs.

1.3 Societal Net Benefits

For each PEV penetration scenario this analysis calculates annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from

electricity generation for PEV charging, and compares that to baseline emissions from operation of

gasoline vehicles. For the baseline and PEV penetration scenarios GHG emissions are expressed as

carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2-e) in metric tons (MT). GHG emissions from gasoline

vehicles include direct tailpipe emissions as well as “upstream” emissions from production and transport

of gasoline.

For each PEV penetration scenario GHGs from PEV charging are calculated based on a baseline

electricity scenario and a “low carbon electricity” scenario. The baseline scenario is consistent with the

latest EIA projections for future average grid emissions (g CO2-e/kWh) in the relevant region in which

the state is located. The low carbon electricity scenario is based on the state reducing average GHG

emissions from the electric grid to 80% below 1990, 2001, or 2006 levels by 2050, in accordance with

adopted policy goals in most of these states.

Net annual GHG reductions from the use of PEVS are calculated as baseline GHGs (gasoline vehicles)

minus GHGs from each PEV penetration scenario. The monetary “social value” of these GHG

reductions from PEV use are calculated using the Social Cost of Carbon ($/MT), as calculated by the U.S.

government’s Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.


7

2 Assumptions & Sources This section discusses the major assumptions used in the analysis, and their sources.

2.1 PEV Penetration Scenarios

This analysis includes projections for two levels of PEV penetration in each state:

1. LOW: Penetration of PEVS equivalent to state-level commitments under the 8-state ZEV

Memorandum of Understanding, which contemplates at least 3.3 million zero emission

vehicles (ZEV) in the eight participating states by 2025. [1]

Compliance with this commitment will require 6 – 8 percent of in-use light duty vehicles in

each participating state to be ZEV by 2025 (% of registered light duty vehicles) 2. Assuming

the same annual increase in percent PEV penetration after 2025, PEV penetration in the

different states is 7 – 11 percent in 2030, 12 – 18 percent in 2040, and 17 – 25 percent in

2050.

2. HIGH: The level of PEV penetration required to reduce total light-duty GHG emissions in

the state in 2050 by 80% from 1990, 2001, or 2006 levels under the low carbon electricity

scenario, to reflect state level goals for long-term economy-wide GHG reduction3. This level

of PEV penetration varies by state, but is in the range of 25 – 27 percent in 2030, 52 – 60

percent in 2040 and 80 – 97 percent in 2050.

The above noted PEV penetration rates are the assumed state-wide average for each state. However, the

model assumes that the actual PEV penetration rate in each county within the state will vary from the

state-wide average, based on current county level hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) penetration rates; i.e.

counties with higher than average rates of HEV penetration today are assumed to have higher than

average rates of future PEV penetration, and vice-versa.

PEVs are assumed to be both battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).

For each county the ratio of BEV to PHEV in the PEV fleet is based on current PEV registrations in the

county, and this ratio is assumed to be constant over time.

Current BEV, PHEV, and HEV penetration rates were taken from vehicle registration data maintained by

R.L. Polk & Company. [3]

2.2 PEV Charging Scenarios

This analysis assumes that 80% of PEVs will be charged exclusively at home, and that 20% will be

charged both at home and at work. For vehicles charged at home and at work it assumes that 50% of

2 Of the five states included in this analysis all except Pennsylvania are signatories to the ZEV MOU. While the 8-

state MOU counts fuel cell vehicles and PEVs as zero emission vehicles, this scenario assumes that all ZEVs will be

PEV. The 2025 percentage PEV penetration varies by state depending on their adopted PEV goal under the 8-state

ZEV MOU, and projected VMT growth through 2025. The highest percentage is New York (8 percent) and the

lowest is Connecticut (5 percent). The 2025 PEV penetration percentage is 6 percent for the other three states. 3 New York and Massachusetts goals for economy-wide GHG reduction require an 80 percent reduction from 1990

levels in 2050. Connecticut has adopted a 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 2001 levels, and Maryland has

adopted a 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 2006 levels. Pennsylvania has not adopted state level goals for

economy wide GHG reduction. For this analysis we used a 1990 baseline for Pennsylvania.


8

total charging energy will be added at home and 50% at work, consistent with using vehicles primarily for

daily commuting. This assumed charging behavior is broadly consistent with data collected by the EV

Project4. [4] The average charging rate is assumed to be 2.7 kilowatts (kW) for home charging and 2.0

kW for work charging. [5]

The “baseline” charging scenario assumes that all PEVs will be plugged in and start charging as soon as

they arrive at home or at work (as applicable), and that charging will proceed at the average charge rate

until the battery is full. For each state, assumed home and work arrival times (and charge start times) are

based on responses to the Department of Transportation’s 2009 Annual Household Travel Survey from

residents of that state; the percentage of vehicles starting charge each hour of the day will therefore vary

slightly by state. [6]

Figure 1 shows the distribution of assumed PEV charge start times in Massachusetts, as an example.

The “off peak” charging scenario assumes that 65% of PEV owners who arrive at home between noon

and 11 PM will delay the start of home PEV charging until after midnight each day, based on price

signals or other off-peak charging incentives provided by their electric utility. There is evidence that EV-

specific time of use rates can achieve this level of off-peak charging behavior. [7] The analysis assumes

that the start of off-peak charging will be distributed between midnight and 2 AM to avoid a midnight

4 The EV Project is a public/private partnership partially funded by the Department of Energy which has collected

and analyzed operating and charging data from more than 8,300 enrolled plug-in electric vehicles and approximately

12,000 public and residential charging stations over a two year period

Figure 1 Distribution of Assumed PEV Charge Start Times in Massachusetts


9

peak surge; this could be accomplished by various methods in the design of off-peak charging incentives

and programs. The off-peak charging scenario assumes no change in charge start times for work place

charging compared to the baseline charging scenario.

2.3 Vehicle Characteristics

This section discusses modeling assumptions related to PEV and baseline gasoline vehicle characteristics

used for each PEV penetration scenario. These vehicle characteristics include vehicle type (car, light

truck), purchase cost, maintenance cost, average energy use, and annual vehicle mileage. The values

included in the model are also summarized in Appendix A.

2.3.1 Vehicle Type For each PEV penetration scenario this analysis assumes that PEVs will be a combination of BEVs and

PHEVS, and that both BEVs and PHEVs could be cars or light trucks.

For the low penetration scenario 100% of BEVs are assumed to be cars in 2030, 2040, and 2050, while

95% of PHEVS are assumed to be cars and 5% light trucks in 2030. The percentage of PHEVs that are

light trucks is assumed to increase to 20% by 2050.

For the high penetration scenario 95% of BEVs are assumed to be cars in 2030, falling to 50% in 2050,

while 90% of PHEVs are assumed to be cars in 2030, falling to 50% in 2050. The remainder of BEVs

and PHEVs each year are assumed to be light trucks.

The emphasis on BEV cars and BEV and PHEV light trucks in the near term (2030) is consistent with

currently available BEV and PHEV models. However, the current light duty vehicle fleet in all five target

states is approximately 50% cars and 50% light trucks; as such an increasing percentage of both BEVs

and PHEVs will need to be light trucks by 2050 in order to achieve the PEV penetration rates in the high

penetration scenario. [3] In particular, to achieve the 2050 PEV penetration rate of the high penetration

scenario the percentage of both BEVs and PHEVs that is light trucks will need to approach 50%. This

analysis does not assume a change in consumer behavior to increase the percentage of cars in the light

duty fleet, relative to the perentage of light trucks, even under the high PEV penetration scenarios.

When comparing the PEV scenarios to the “baseline” the analysis assumes that all PEVs will replace a

like vehicle – i.e. a PEV car (both BEVs and PHEVs) will replace a baseline gasoline car and a PEV light

truck (both BEVs and PHEVs) will replace a gasoline light truck.

2.3.2 Vehicle Purchase Cost For this analysis future vehicle purchase costs were modeled based on the cost of current vehicles, but

assuming that future PEVS will have lower costs for both batteries and electric drive trains. For all

vehicles total projected costs are composed of the cost of a non-powered “glider”5 plus the cost of a

gasoline powertrain (baseline and PHEV) and the cost of an electric powertrain and batteries (PHEV and

BEV). This analysis assumes that by 2030 there will be no State or Federal tax credits or rebates

available to PEV owners in any of the analyzed states.

5 Vehicle without engine and drive train; this analysis assumes that the cost of the glider will be the same for

baseline gasoline vehicles and PEVs.


10

Gasoline powertrain costs ($/kW) are assumed to be constant at $41/kWh (2015$). [8] Future electric

drive costs are based on the Department of Energy’s EVs Everywhere technical goals to reduce electric

drive costs from $30 per kilowatt today to $8/kW by 2022. [9]

Projected future battery costs are based on DOE’s EVs Everywhere technical goals, as well as recent

projections of future battery costs from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. [10] See Figure 2, which shows

Bloomberg’s assessment of actual and projected PEV battery costs (2015$ per kilowatt-hour, $/kWh).

As shown, in the last five years battery costs have fallen from $1,000/kWh to less than $400/kWh.

Bloomberg predicts that they will continue to fall through 2030, when they will be less than $100/kWh.

This projection is in line with DOE’s goals ($125/kWh by 2022), as well as predictions made by General

Motors ($100/kWh by 2022) and Tesla ($100/kWh by 2020). [11]

For this analysis future baseline gasoline and PEV cars are modeled on a mid-sized sedan platform (i.e.

Ford Fusion) and future baseline gasoline and PEV light trucks are modeled on a full-sized sport utility

vehicle platform (i.e. Jeep Grand Cherokee). The assumed size of the electric powertrain (kW) for BEVs

and PHEVs, and the gas powertrain (kW) for PHEVs and baseline vehicles, is based on current gasoline

and PEV models. [12] All BEVs are assumed to have a large enough battery (kWh) to achieve 200 mile

range per charge, while all PHEVs are assumed to have a large enough battery to achieve 50 miles all-

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Figure 2 Projected PEV Battery Costs

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Actual

Estimated Range

Cost for lithium-ion battery packs

($/kWh)


11

electric range. Actual battery sizes in the model are based on assumed average energy use (see section

2.3.4).

Figure 3 Assumed Purchase Costs of Cars (2015$)

Figure 4 Assumed Purchase Cost of Light Trucks (2015$)


12

See Figures 3 and 4 for a summary of the assumed purchase costs for BEV and PHEV cars and light

trucks used in the model, in comparison to assumed purchase costs for conventional gasoline vehicles

(baseline). All costs in these figures are in constant 2015$. See appendix A for more detail on how these

costs were calculated. For each year the analysis escalates the costs shown in Figures 3 and 4 based on

EIA inflation assumptions.

For each vehicle type (both baseline gasoline vehicles and PEVs) the model calculates an amortized

annual cost of purchase ($/year) assuming that the vehicle owner purchases a new vehicle with a 60-

month new car loan. The financed amount is assumed to be 60% of the projected purchase price, based

on trade-in of a similar 5-year old car, plus state sales tax. [13] The interest rate on the new car loan is

assumed to be 4.7%. [14]

We assume that every PEV owner will have a charger at home. Home chargers are assumed to cost

$1,053/vehicle in 2030, rising to $1,597/vehicle in 2050 based on EIA inflation assumptions. [15] In the

model these costs are amortized over 20 years. This analysis assumes no Federal or state tax credits or

rebates for installation of home chargers.

2.3.3 Vehicle Maintenance Costs For this analysis vehicle maintenance costs are based on the manufacturer’s recommended service

schedule for the Ford Focus and Ford Fusion (baseline gasoline), the Ford Fusion Energi (PHEV) and the

Ford Focus Electric (BEV). [16] For the Focus, Fusion and Fusion Energi recommended scheduled

maintenance through 60,000 miles includes tire rotations, engine oil and oil filter changes, engine air

filter changes, inspection of brakes and chassis components, lubrication of chassis components, and cabin

air filter changes. The recommended oil/filter change interval is twice as long for the Fusion Energi as

for the Fusion (20,000 miles versus 10,000 miles); all other recommended maintenance intervals are the

same.

The Ford Focus Electric does not require any engine oil or oil filter changes, but all other recommended

scheduled maintenance tasks and intervals are the same as for the gasoline Focus.

See Table 1 for a summary of the maintenance costs used in the analysis ($/mi) for each type of vehicle,

based on the recommended scheduled maintenance tasks, parts costs per Ford and a service labor rate of

$85/hour in 2015 [17] [18]. PHEVs are assumed to have 19% - 22% lower maintenance costs than

conventional gasoline vehicles, while BEVs are assumed to have 47% - 51% lower maintenance costs.

Scheduled Maintenance ($/mi)

2030 2040 2050

Car LT Car LT Car LT

Conventional $0.023 $0.024 $0.028 $0.030 $0.034 $0.037

PHEV $0.018 $0.019 $0.023 $0.024 $0.028 $0.029

BEV $0.012 $0.012 $0.015 $0.015 $0.018 $0.018

Table 1 Projected Vehicle Maintenance Costs ($/mi, nominal$)


13

2.3.4 Average Vehicle Energy Use

The assumptions used in this analysis for the average energy use of in-use vehicles each year are shown in

Table 2. These values were calculated based on the projected average energy use for new vehicles that

was used by the Electric Power Research Institure (EPRI) in 2015 national PEV modeling conducted in

conjunction with NRDC, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assumptions about the

percentage of annual fleet miles operated by vehicles of different ages. [18] [19]

Note that the average fuel economy (MPG) of the baseline in-use gasoline fleet is projected to increase

significantly over time as the fleet turns over to more efficient vehicles mandated by the U.S. Department

of Transportation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. [20] Similarly the fuel

economy of PHEVs when operating on their gasoline engines is also projected to increase, and the

average electricity use (kWh/mi) for BEVs, and PHEVs when operating on electricity, is projected to

decrease as these vehicles become more efficient in response to regulatory pressure and/or based on

technology maturity.

The average in-use energy (kWh/mi) shown in Table 2 for BEVs and PHEVs is intended to cover not just

the propulsion energy required for normal year-round driving; since this analysis is specific to Northeast

states it includes additional energy use to account for the winter cabin heating load for PEVs.

Vehicle Type Unit 2030 2040 2050

CARS

Baseline (gasoline) MPG 38.6 45.2 48.4

BEV kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24

PHEV (gasoline) MPG 53.0 60.9 64.7

PHEV (electric) kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24

LIGHT TRUCKS

Baseline (gasoline) MPG 27.4 31.5 33.6

BEV kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29

PHEV (gasoline) MPG 38.9 45.1 48.2

PHEV (electric) kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29

Based on data collected by Fleet Karma this cabin heating load (kWh/mi) is assumed to be 40% of the

baseline energy required for vehicle propulsion. [21] For each state this additional cabin heating load is

added to a percentage of days per year, based on historical data on the average daily temperature in each

state. [22] The percentage of annual days for which cabin heating will be required varies by state, from

20 percent in Maryland (low) to 35 percent in New York (high). Compared to baseline propulsion

energy, this cabin heating load increases total annual PEV electrical energy requirements by 10% - 15%

for the states analyzed.

2.3.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled The number of currently registered vehicles, and State Department of Transportation estimates of total

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2015, were used to calculate current average annual miles per vehicle in

each state. [3] [23] Based on modeling by EPA, light trucks are assumed to average 4.7% more miles per

year than cars. [24]

Table 2 Projected Average In-use Vehicle Energy Use


14

The calculated annual VMT/vehicle for each state is assumed to be constant throughout the analysis

period, and State DOT and/or EIA projections for growth of total VMT in future years was used to

estimate the growth in the state vehicle fleet. VMT and vehicle fleet growth projections for each state, as

a percentage change from 2015, are shown in Table 3. The projected growth in VMT varies by

state/region based primarily on differences in projected population growth. The various PEV penetration

scenarios (section 2.1) were then applied to the estimated vehicle fleet population to calculate the number

of PEVs of each type in each state each year.

State 2030 2040 2050

Connecticut +10.5% +16.8% +19.9%

Maryland6 +18.8% +28.0% +37.2%

Massachusetts +3.0% +5.5% +7.9%

New York7 +5.5% +6.1% +6.7%

Pennsylvania8 +5.5% +6.1% +6.7%

This analysis assumes that PEVS, whether BEV or PHEV, cannot replace 100% of the miles traveled

annually by a baseline gasoline vehicle with miles driven on electricity.

The percentage of baseline vehicle miles that can be replaced by a PEV is sometimes referred to as the

vehicle’s “utility factor”. This analysis uses the same utility factors used by EPRI in their 2015 national

PEV modeling. [25] All BEVs are assumed to have 200 mile range/charge and a utility factor of 87%

(i.e. 87% of annual miles that would be driven by a baseline vehicle can be replaced with a BEV).

PHEVs are assumed to have a utility factor of 72% in 2030, rising to 79% in 2050 as their all-electric

range increases due to technology maturity.

6 Maryland Department of Transportation projections for VMT growth are low, estimated at 3% growth from 2015

through 2020 and 2.5% from 2020 to 2030. Comparatively, population is projected to grow 10% from 2015 to

2030. For consistency with the other state analyses, EIA VMT growth assumptions for the South Atlantic region

(Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and

Florida) were used, which reflect significantly higher projections for VMT growth (18% from 2016 to 2030 and

28% from 2016 to 2040), consistent with projections of population growth in the region. 7 New York State Department of Transportation projections for VMT growth are higher, mirroring national level

VMT growth projections from the Federal Highway Administration (+24 percent through 2040). For conservatism

this analysis uses EIA VMT growth assumptions for the Mid-Atlantic region (New York, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania), which reflect significantly lower projections for population growth in this region (2 percent through

2040) compared to the national average (18 percent through 2040). According to the US Census Bureau, the

majority of US population growth through 2040 will occur in the south and west, with low growth in the northeast

and mid-Atlantic states. 8 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation did not have projections for VMT growth. For consistency with the

other states, this analysis uses EIA VMT growth assumptions for the Mid-Atlantic region (New York, New Jersey,

and Pennsylvania).

Table 3 Projected Growth in Annual Light-Duty Vehicles and Vehicle Miles Traveled, compared to 2015


15

2.5 Energy Costs

2.5.1 Gasoline

This analysis uses the latest regional projections from the Energy Information Administration to estimate

future gasoline costs in each state. [26] The values used are shown in Table 4.

State 2030 2040 2050

Connecticut $4.37 $6.47 $8.57

Maryland $4.15 $6.19 $8.22

Massachusetts $4.37 $6.47 $8.57

New York $4.29 $6.37 $8.45

Pennsylvania $4.29 $6.37 $8.45

2.5.2 Electricity To calculate PEV owner annual energy costs, and to project annual utility revenue from PEV charging,

this analysis uses projected electricity rates ($/kWh) specific to each major utility in each state. For each

utility, future residential electricity rates in 2030, 2040, and 2050 were estimated based on 2015 tariff

rates, escalated to future years using EIA projections for escalation of average regional electricity costs.

[27] [28]

For each PEV penetration scenario the model estimates the number of PEVs at the county level. The

model also estimates the percentage of PEVs in each county served by each major utility, based on the

percentage of total county population served by the utility. [29] In each year utility-specific estimated

electricity rates are applied to the energy consumed by the PEVs served by each utility, then summed at

the county and state level to get county-average and state-average costs.

For example, based on published tariffs, 2015 residential electricity rates in Massachusetts range from

$0.156/kWh to $0.206/kWh depending on the utility. Compared to 2015, EIA projects that in New

England residential electricity rates will, on average, be 30% higher in 2030, 54% higher in 2040, and

77% higher in 2050. Therefore this analysis uses projected electricity costs in Massachusetts of $0.203 -

$0.295/kWh in 2030, of $0.239 - $0.348/kWh in 2040, and of $0.276 - $0.401/kWh in 2050. EIA

assumptions about the increase in future electricity costs vary by market region.

See Table 5 for a summary of the average residential electricity rates used for each state in each year.

Table 4 Projected Gasoline Costs ($/gallon, nominal $)


16

State Market Region 2030 2040 2050

Connecticut Northeast Power Coordinating Council $0.242 $0.285 $0.328

Maryland Reliability First Corporation (East) $0.180 $0.218 $0.257

Massachusetts Northeast Power Coordinating Council $0.242 $0.285 $0.328

New York

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

(NYC-Westchester)9 $0.295 $0.372 $0.450

Northeast Power Coordinating Council (Long Island) 10

$0.262 $0.330 $0.399

Northeast Power Coordinating Council (Upstate New York) 11

$0.175 $0.211 $0.248

Pennsylvania Reliability First Corporation (East) $0.290 $0.354 $0.419

2.6 Utility Costs

This section discusses assumptions related to utility costs to provide electricity for PEV charging. These

costs include generating costs, transmission costs, peak capacity costs, and costs to upgrade distribution

infrastructure to handle the incremental PEV charging load.

2.6.1 Generating & Transmission Costs This analysis uses EIA projections for the cost of electricity generation and transmission by market

region. [30] The values used, as a percentage of residential electricity costs, are shown in Table 6.


Connecticut Northeast Power Coordinating Council Generation 47% 46% 46%

Transmission 16% 18% 18%

Maryland Reliability First Corporation (East) Generation 64% 60% 60%


Massachusetts Northeast Power Coordinating Council Generation 47% 46% 46%


New York


(NYC-Westchester)

Generation 37% 36% 36%


Northeast Power Coordinating Council (Long Island)



Northeast Power Coordinating Council (Upstate New York)



Pennsylvania Reliability First Corporation (East) Generation 64% 60% 60%


9 Per EIA New York has three different market regions which cover different parts of the state: Northeast Power

Coordinating Council / NYC-Westchester, Northeast Power Coordinating Council / Long Island, Northeast Power

Coordinating Council / Upstate New York. 10 Ibid 11 Ibid

Table 6 Generating & Distribution Costs (% of residential electricity price)

Table 5 Average Residential Electricity Rates ($/kWh, nominal $)


17

2.6.2 Peak Capacity Costs For this analysis projected 2030 peak capacity rates ($/kW-month), incurred by utilities to secure

additional peak generating capacity to accommodate PEV charging, are based on modeling conducted by

MJB&A in 2016 using EPA’s Integrated Planning Module (IPM) [31]. This modeling was conducted to

evaluate the effect of EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan on regional electricity markets. For 2040 and

2050, the 2030 values were escalated based on EIA assumptions for regional electricity cost inflation.

[32] The values used for each state are shown in Table 7.


Connecticut Northeast Power Coordinating Council $6.27 $7.39 $8.52

Maryland Reliability First Corporation (East) $7.63 $9.24 $10.85

Massachusetts Northeast Power Coordinating Council $6.27 $7.39 $8.52

New York Northeast Power Coordinating Council $6.16 $7.77 $9.39

Pennsylvania Reliability First Corporation (East) $6.63 $8.11 $9.58

To calculate total monthly peak capacity costs for each PEV penetration scenario, these values were

multiplied by the projected incremental afternoon peak hour load (kW) required to accommodate PEV

charging in the state, for both the baseline and off-peak charging scenarios. Annual costs were calculated

by multiplying projected monthly costs by 12. The incremental afternoon peak hour load is the highest

projected hourly load over the time period 2 PM – 8 PM for each scenario.

2.6.3 Infrastructure Upgrade Costs This analysis assumes that the primary transmission system in the five target states has sufficient capacity

to handle the incremental load from PEV charging, even under the high PEV penetration scenario, but

that the secondary distribution system (i.e. neighborhood transformers) may not. High levels of PEV

penetration may require some transformers to be upgraded to a larger size when replaced at their normal

end of life, to account for the growth in daily peak load due to PEV penetration. This is consistent with

modeling and analysis for other states. [33]

To estimate the annual cost to utilities of these transformer upgrades, this analysis uses a value of

$15.84/kW for the average annual amortized cost of secondary transformers in 2030, rising to $23.99/kW

in 2050 due to inflation. These values are based on an installed cost of $352/kW in 2030, a target peak

load of 90% of rated capacity, and an average life of 20 years. [34]

To calculate total annual costs for infrastructure upgrades these values were multiplied by the projected

incremental afternoon peak hour load (kW) required to accommodate PEV charging in the state, for both

the baseline and off-peak charging scenarios. The incremental afternoon peak hour load is the highest

projected hourly load over the time period 2 PM – 8 PM for each scenario.

Table 7 Peak Generating Capacity Rates ($/kW-month, nominal $)


18

2.7 GHG Emissions

This analysis projects total annual GHG emissions from gasoline use by baseline vehicles, as well as total

annual GHGs from gasoline use and electricity generation for PEV charging under the PEV penetration

scenarios.

2.7.1 Gasoline For gasoline the analysis assumes that 10,800 grams of carbon-dioxide equivalent will be emitted per

gallon (g CO2-e/gal) in 2030, falling to 10,447 g CO2-e/gal in 2050 as the average carbon intensity of

transportation fuels falls in response to state and federal regulation. [35] These values represent direct

tailpipe emissions of CO2, as well as “upstream” emissions of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide from

production and transport of gasoline.

2.7.2 Electricity For electricity generated for PEV charging this analysis estimates a “base case” and a “low carbon

electricity” case. GHG emissions under the base case are based on EIA projections of average CO2

emissions (g/kWh) from electricity generation in the region each state is in. [36]

State Market Region Electric Generation

Case 2030 2040 2050

Connecticut Northeast Power

Coordinating Council

Baseline 237 229 222

Low Carbon 234 154 75

Maryland Reliability First Corporation

(East)



Massachusetts Northeast Power

Coordinating Council



New York

Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NYC-Westchester)




(Long Island)



Northeast Power Coordinating Council (Upstate New York)



Pennsylvania Reliability First Corporation

(East)



The low carbon electricity case is based on the emissions intensity (g/kWh) required to reduce total CO2

emissions from electricity generation in each state to 80% below 1990, 2001, or 2006 levels in 2050,

Table 8 Electricity Generation CO2 Emissions Intensity (g/kWh)


19

based on state emission reduction goals12. The values used for emissions intensity of electricity generation

is each state are shown in Table 8.

The analysis compares projected GHG emissions from baseline vehicles (gasoline) to projected total

GHG emissions under each PEV penetration scenario (gasoline and electricity), to calculate annual

reductions in GHG emissions from the use of PEVs. The analysis also estimates the “social value” of

these GHG reductions using values for the social cost of CO2 ($/MT), as calculated by the U.S.

government’s Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. [37] For this analysis

the Working Group’s average values derived from a 3% discount rate13 were updated from 2007$ to

2015$ using the GDP price deflator and then escalated to nominal dollars in each year using EIA inflation

assumptions. [38] The resulting values for social cost of CO2 used in this analysis are $77/MT in 2030,

$115/MT in 2040, and $162/MT in 2050.

12 New York and Massachusetts goals for economy-wide GHG reduction require an 80 percent reduction from 1990

levels in 2050. Connecticut has adopted a 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 2001 levels, and Maryland has

adopted a 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction form 2006 levels. Pennsylvania has not adopted state level goals for

economy wide GHG reduction. For this analysis we used a 1990 baseline for Pennsylvania. 13 The social cost of CO2 is highly dependent on choice of discount rate. The Working group estimated values using

discount rates ranging from 2.5% to 5%. This analysis uses average values derived with a 3% discount rate,

consistent with standard practice by EPA and other government agencies.


20

References

[1] Multi-state ZEV Task Force, State Zero-Emission Vehicle Programs Memorandum of

Understanding, www.nescaum.org/documents/zev-MOU-8-governors-signed-20131024.pdf/

[2] Electric Power Research Institute, Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation

Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 2015

[3] R.L. Polk & Company, Light duty vehicle registrations, by county and state, as of January 2016

[4] ECOtality North America, Idaho National Laboratory, the EV Project, What Kind of Charging

Infrastructure Did Nissan Leaf Drivers in the EV Project Use and When Did They Use it?,

September 2014

[5] Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., California Transportation Electrification Assessment,

Phase 2 Grid Impacts, Oct 23, 2014; Table 1

[6] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2009 National Household

Travel Survey, http://nhts.ornl.gov.

[7] Final Evaluation for San Diego Gas & Electric's Plug-in Electric Vehicle TOU Pricing and

Technology Study. ECOtality North America, Idaho National Laboratory, the EV Project, How do

PEV Owners Respond to Time-of-Use Rates while Charging EV Project Vehicles?, July 2013

[8] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Value Proposition Study, Final

Report, ORNL/TM-2010/46, July 2010

[9] U.S. Department of Energy, EV Everywhere Grand Challenge Blueprint, January 31, 2013

[10] Bloomberg New Energy Finance, New Energy Outlook 2016, Powering a Changing World, June

2016

[11] Berman, Brad, www.plug-incars.com , Battery Supplier Deals Are Key to Lower EV Prices,

February 04, 2016 and Coren, Michael, www.qz.com, Tesla’s Entire Future Depends on The

Gigafactory’s Success, and Elon Musk is Doubling Down, August 3, 2016.

[12] Manufacturer specifications for Ford Fusion, Ford Fusion Energi, Ford Focus EV, Chevrolet Volt,

Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf, and Jeep Grand Cherokee.

[13] MJB&A analysis, based on Kelley Blue Book, Fair Trade-in value of MY2011 vs Fair Purchase

Price MY 2016, 2015 top-10 bestselling vehicles; www.kbb.com

[14] Federal Reserve, Commercial Bank Interest Rates, 60-month New Car Loan, Average 2011-2015


Phase 1: Final Report, Sept 2014

[16] https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/maintenance/maintenance-

schedule.html#/ymm/2016/Ford/Focus/46


21

[17] www.fordparts.com


Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 2015; Table 2-3, Table 2-5

[19] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-

2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel

Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012; Table 4.3-3 and 4.3-4

[20] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE),

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy

[21] www.fleetcarma.com/nissan-leaf-chevrolet-volt-cold-weather-range-loss-electric-vehicle. The 40%

figure is based on range versus ambient temperature for the Nissan Leaf

[22] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Daily Air Temperature Min/Max, Calendar year

2015. For each state the value used is the % of annual days with the average of the minimum and

maximum temperature below 40 degrees F.

[23] VMT data for the individual states was obtained from the following state agencies - Massachusetts:

Massachusetts Department of Transportation - Office of Transportation Planning; New York:

NYSDOT-Policy & Planning Division, Demographic Analysis & Forecasting; Connecticut: CT

DOT- Bureau of Policy & Planning, Travel Demand/Air Quality Modeling Unit, Room 2330;

Pennsylvania: PA DOT – Bureau of Planning and Research; Maryland: MD DOT- AQ & Climate

Change Programs.

[24] MJB&A analysis using new vehicle sales data from the Transportation Energy Data Book and data

on annual VMT by vehicle age and survival fraction from EPA.

Oakridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 34, September 30, 2015;

Table 4.5 and 4.6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-

2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel

Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012; Table 4.3-3 and 4.3-4


Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 2015; Table 2-2

[26] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016 early release, reference case,

Tables 3.1 and 3.2; motor gasoline cost, nominal dollars

[27] Tariff rates retrieved from relevant utility websites.


Tables 3.1 and 3.2; nominal residential electricity price

[29] Percent of County population served by each utility was obtained for each state. For Massachusetts,

data was obtained from MassGIS Data - Public Utility Service Providers


22

(http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-

geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/pubutil.html). For New York data was obtained from

NYS Public Service Commission, NYS Electric Service Territories for Companies Regulated by

NYSDPS (https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=313). For Connecticut,

Pennsylvania and Maryland, data was obtained from territory maps available on the web.


Table 55.5, Electric Power Projections by Electricity Market Module Region, Prices by Service

Category.

[31] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Modeling,

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling


Tables 3.1 and 3.2; nominal residential electricity price


Phase 2 Grid Impacts, Oct 23, 2014

[34] Personal communication with J. Valenzuela of National Grid. Based on National Grid average

installed cost of $260/kW in 2015, for 25 kVA and 50 kVA transformers, which represent 75% of

installations. Target peak capacity and average life are National Grid planning factors for new

installations/upgrade programs.


Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 2015; Table 5-1


Table 55.5, Electric Power Projections by Electricity Market Module Region, Emissions from the

Electric Power Sector

[37] Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse

Gases, United States Government, Appendix A, August 2016.

[38] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPDEF. The GDP Price deflator value is 96.65 for

2007 and 110.45 for 2015.


23

Appendix A

Table A1 PEV Characteristics

unit 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050

Purchase Cost $/veh $33,370 $39,914 $47,272 $33,370 $39,914 $47,272

Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.012 $0.015 $0.018 $0 $0 $0

Avg Energy Use (Base) kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.24

Avg Energy use (total) kWh/mi 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.27

% of BEV % 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 50%



Avg Energy Use (Base) kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.35 0.30 0.29

Avg Energy use kWh/mi 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.40 0.34 0.32

% of BEV % 0% 0% 0% 5% 25% 50%



EV Mode Energy (Base) kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.24

EV Mode Energy (total) kWh/mi 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.27

Gasoline Fuel Economy MPG 53.0 60.9 64.7 53.0 60.9 64.7

% of PHEV % 95% 90% 80% 90% 65% 50%



EV Mode Energy (Base) kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.35 0.30 0.29

EV Mode Energy (total) kWh/mi 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.40 0.34 0.32

Gasoline Fuel Economy MPG 38.9 45.1 48.2 38.9 45.1 48.2

% of PHEV % 5% 10% 20% 10% 35% 50%

BEV day 365 365 365 365 365 365

PHEV day 365 365 365 365 365 365

BEV % 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0%

PHEV % 72.3% 77.1% 78.7% 72.3% 77.1% 78.7%

BEV mi 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.8 27.1 27.3

PHEV mi 22.2 23.7 24.3 22.2 24.0 24.7

BEV $/veh $33,370 $39,914 $47,272 $34,125 $44,334 $57,841

PHEV $/veh $32,376 $40,902 $52,030 $33,225 $46,111 $59,617

BEV kWh/mi 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.30 0.30

PHEV kWh/mi 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.30

PHEV MPG 52.3 59.3 61.4 51.6 55.4 56.4

BEV mi 9,742 9,765 9,811 9,765 9,879 9,948

PHEV mi 8,091 8,649 8,876 8,110 8,750 9,001

FLEET AVG GASOLINE USE

HIGHLOW

BEV

PARAMETER

Car

Light Truck

PHEV

FLEET AVG DAILY ELECTRIC MILES

DAYS PER YEAR

ELECTRIC MILES PER YEAR

Car

Light Truck

FLEET AVG EV MODE ENERGY USE

FLEET AVG PURCHASE COST

UTILITY FACTOR

(% of Baseline Miles Electric)


24

Table A2 Baseline Gasoline Vehicle Parameters

2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050


Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.023 $0.028 $0.034 $0.023 $0.028 $0.034

Fleet AVG MPG MPG 38.6 45.2 48.4 38.6 45.2 48.4

Fleet AVG Annual Miles mi/veh 11,171 11,171 11,171 11,171 11,171 11,171

% of Vehicles % 95% 90% 80% 90% 65% 50%


Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.024 $0.030 $0.037 $0.024 $0.030 $0.037

FLEET AVG MPG MPG 27.4 31.5 33.6 27.4 31.5 33.6

Fleet AVG Annual Miles mi/veh 11,698 11,698 11,698 11,698 11,698 11,698

% of Vehicles % 5% 10% 20% 10% 35% 50%

Fleet Average for Conventional Vehicles Replaced with PEVs

$/veh $29,940 $38,260 $49,114 $30,757 $43,346 $56,552

MPG 38.06 43.80 45.44 37.50 40.39 41.02

mi/yr/veh 11,198 11,224 11,277 11,224 11,356 11,435

gal/yr/veh 294.2 256.3 248.2 299.3 281.1 278.8

$/yr/veh $255 $319 $394 $257 $329 $409

$/yr/veh $1,285 $1,658 $2,126 $1,308 $1,819 $2,389

MT CO 2 -e/yr/veh 3.09 2.68 2.59 3.15 2.94 2.91

FLEET AVG ANNUAL FUEL COST

FLEET AVG GHG EMISSIONS

FLEET AVG ANNUAL GASOLINE USE

FLEET AVG ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

8-State ZEV MOUPARAMETER

FLEET AVG PURCHASE COST

FLEET AVG FUEL ECONOMY

FLEET AVG MILES PER YEAR

Car

Light Truck

80x50


25

Table A3 Vehicle Costs

Vehicle Characteristics CONV PHEV BEV CONV PHEV BEV CONV PHEV BEV

Electric Range [mi] NA 50 200 NA 50 200 NA 50 200

Battery Size [kWh] NA 18.9 75.6 NA 17.2 68.8 NA 16.3 65.1

Gas Powertrain [kW] 130 111 NA 130 111 NA 130 111 NA

Electric Powertrain [kW] NA 88 124 NA 88 124 NA 88 124

Electric Range [mi] NA 50 200 NA 50 200 NA 50 200

Battery Size [kWh] NA 24.1 96.6 NA 20.9 83.8 NA 19.7 78.7

Gas Powertrain [kW] 220 187 NA 220 187 NA 220 187 NA

Electric Powertrain [kW] NA 149.6 209 NA 149.6 209 NA 149.6 209

Vehicle Cost Factors [2015 $] CONV PHEV BEV200 CONV PHEV50 BEV200 CONV PHEV50 BEV200

Glider [$]

Battery [$/kWh] NA $99 $99 NA $95 $95 NA $90 $90

Gas Powertrain [$/kW] $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA

Electric Powertrain [$/kW] NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8

Glider [$]

Battery [$/kWh] NA $99 $99 NA $95 $95 NA $90 $90

Gas Powertrain [$/kW] $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA

Electric Powertrain [$/kW] NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8

Total Vehicle Cost [2015 $] CONV PHEV50 BEV CONV PHEV BEV CONV PHEV BEV

Glider $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 $16,196

Battery $1,870 $7,482 $1,633 $6,534 $1,465 $5,862

Gas Powertrain $5,330 $4,531 $5,330 $4,531 $5,330 $4,531

Electric Powertrain $707 $988 $707 $988 $707 $988

$21,526 $23,305 $24,666 $21,526 $23,068 $23,718 $21,526 $22,900 $23,046

% diff from conventional 108% 115% 107% 110% 106% 107%

$ diff from conventional $1,778 $3,140 $1,541 $2,192 $1,373 $1,520

Glider $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 $24,596

Battery $2,390 $9,562 $1,990 $7,958 $1,771 $7,085

Gas Powertrain $9,020 $7,667 $9,020 $7,667 $9,020 $7,667

Electric Powertrain $1,197 $1,672 $1,197 $1,672 $1,197 $1,672

$33,616 $35,850 $35,830 $33,616 $35,449 $34,226 $33,616 $35,231 $33,353

% diff from conventional 107% 107% 105% 102% 105% 99%

$ diff from conventional $2,234 $2,214 $1,833 $610 $1,615 -$263

Total Vehicle Cost ($ nominal) CONV PHEV BEV CONV PHEV BEV CONV PHEV BEV

CAR $29,122 $31,528 $33,370 $36,225 $38,819 $39,914 $44,155 $46,971 $47,272

LIGHT TRUCK $45,477 $48,500 $48,472 $56,570 $59,655 $57,597 $68,952 $72,265 $68,413

CAR

LIGHT

TRUCK

2030 2040 2050

CAR

LIGHT

TRUCK

TOTAL

2050

CAR

LIGHT

TRUCK

$16,196 $16,196 $16,196

$24,596 $24,596 $24,596

2030 2040

2050

2030 2040 2050

TOTAL

2030 2040

Documents

Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost ... · MJB&A estimated the costs and benefits of increased use of light duty plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) in five mid-Atlantic