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

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.

December 2016 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analysis

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Figure 1 Distribution of Assumed PEV Charge Start Times in Massachusetts

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

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

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

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).

Figure 2 Projected PEV Battery Costs

$1,000 Cost for lithium-ion battery packs ($/kWh)

$800 Actual

$600

$400 Estimated Range $200

$0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

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-

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Table 2 Projected Average In-use Vehicle Energy Use

Vehicle Type Unit 2030 2040 2050 Baseline (gasoline) MPG 38.6 45.2 48.4 BEV kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24 CARS PHEV (gasoline) MPG 53.0 60.9 64.7 PHEV (electric) kWh/mi 0.27 0.25 0.24 Baseline (gasoline) MPG 27.4 31.5 33.6

LIGHT BEV kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29 TRUCKS 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]

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

Table 5 Average Residential Electricity Rates ($/kWh, nominal $) 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 Northeast Power Coordinating Council $0.295 $0.372 $0.450 (NYC-Westchester)9 Northeast Power Coordinating Council New York $0.262 $0.330 $0.399 (Long Island) 10 Northeast Power Coordinating Council $0.175 $0.211 $0.248 (Upstate New York) 11 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.

Table 6 Generating & Distribution Costs (% of residential electricity price) State Market Region 2030 2040 2050 Generation 47% 46% 46% Connecticut Northeast Power Coordinating Council Transmission 16% 18% 18% Generation 64% 60% 60% Maryland Reliability First Corporation (East) Transmission 9% 10% 10% Generation 47% 46% 46% Massachusetts Northeast Power Coordinating Council Transmission 16% 18% 18% Northeast Power Coordinating Council Generation 37% 36% 36% (NYC-Westchester) Transmission 16% 17% 17% Northeast Power Coordinating Council Generation 35% 34% 34% New York (Long Island) Transmission 22% 23% 23% Northeast Power Coordinating Council Generation 43% 42% 42% (Upstate New York) Transmission 13% 14% 14% Generation 64% 60% 60% Pennsylvania Reliability First Corporation (East) Transmission 9% 10% 10%

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

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

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.

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

State Market Region 2030 2040 2050 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.

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

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]

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

Electric Generation State Market Region 2030 2040 2050 Case

Northeast Power Baseline 237 229 222 Connecticut Coordinating Council Low Carbon 234 154 75

Reliability First Corporation Baseline 454 435 415 Maryland (East) Low Carbon 486 291 97

Northeast Power Baseline 237 230 222 Massachusetts Coordinating Council Low Carbon 234 154 75 Northeast Power Baseline 285 260 235 Coordinating Council (NYC-Westchester) Low Carbon 251 165 78 Northeast Power Baseline 407 356 305 New York Coordinating Council (Long Island) Low Carbon 253 167 78 Northeast Power Baseline 193 177 161 Coordinating Council (Upstate New York) Low Carbon 218 144 68

Reliability First Corporation Baseline 315 302 288 Pennsylvania (East) Low Carbon 334 234 93

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,

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

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

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

[15] Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., California Transportation Electrification Assessment, Phase 1: Final Report, Sept 2014

[16] https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/maintenance/maintenance- schedule.html#/ymm/2016/Ford/Focus/46

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

[17] www.fordparts.com

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

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

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

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

(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.

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

[32] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016 early release, reference case, Tables 3.1 and 3.2; nominal residential electricity price

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

[35] Electric Power Research Institute, Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 2015; Table 5-1

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

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

Appendix A Table A1 PEV Characteristics LOW HIGH PARAMETER 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 Car 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% BEV Purchase Cost $/veh $48,472 $57,597 $68,413 $48,472 $57,597 $68,413 Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.012 $0.015 $0.018 $0 $0 $0 Light Truck 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% Purchase Cost $/veh $31,528 $38,819 $46,971 $31,528 $38,819 $46,971 Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.018 $0.023 $0.028 $0 $0 $0 Car 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% PHEV Purchase Cost $/veh $48,500 $59,655 $72,265 $48,500 $59,655 $72,265 Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.019 $0.024 $0.029 $0 $0 $0 EV Mode Energy (Base) kWh/mi 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.35 0.30 0.29 Light Truck 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 DAYS PER YEAR PHEV day 365 365 365 365 365 365 UTILITY FACTOR BEV % 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% (% of Baseline Miles Electric) 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 FLEET AVG DAILY ELECTRIC MILES 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 FLEET AVG PURCHASE COST 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 FLEET AVG EV MODE ENERGY USE PHEV kWh/mi 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.30 FLEET AVG GASOLINE USE 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 ELECTRIC MILES PER YEAR PHEV mi 8,091 8,649 8,876 8,110 8,750 9,001

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

Table A2 Baseline Gasoline Vehicle Parameters 8-State ZEV MOU 80x50 PARAMETER 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 Purchase Cost $/veh $29,122 $36,225 $44,155 $29,122 $36,225 $44,155 Car 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% Purchase Cost $/veh $45,477 $56,570 $68,952 $45,477 $56,570 $68,952 Annual Maint Cost $/mi $0.024 $0.030 $0.037 $0.024 $0.030 $0.037 Light Truck 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 FLEET AVG PURCHASE COST $/veh $29,940 $38,260 $49,114 $30,757 $43,346 $56,552 FLEET AVG FUEL ECONOMY MPG 38.06 43.80 45.44 37.50 40.39 41.02 FLEET AVG MILES PER YEAR mi/yr/veh 11,198 11,224 11,277 11,224 11,356 11,435 FLEET AVG ANNUAL GASOLINE USE gal/yr/veh 294.2 256.3 248.2 299.3 281.1 278.8 FLEET AVG ANNUAL MAINTENANCE $/yr/veh $255 $319 $394 $257 $329 $409 FLEET AVG ANNUAL FUEL COST $/yr/veh $1,285 $1,658 $2,126 $1,308 $1,819 $2,389 FLEET AVG GHG EMISSIONS MT CO 2 -e/yr/veh 3.09 2.68 2.59 3.15 2.94 2.91

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

Table A3 Vehicle Costs 2030 2040 2050 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 CAR 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 LIGHT Battery Size [kWh] NA 24.1 96.6 NA 20.9 83.8 NA 19.7 78.7 TRUCK 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

2030 2040 2050 Vehicle Cost Factors [2015 $] CONV PHEV BEV200 CONV PHEV50 BEV200 CONV PHEV50 BEV200 Glider [$] $16,196 $16,196 $16,196 Battery [$/kWh] NA $99 $99 NA $95 $95 NA $90 $90 CAR Gas Powertrain [$/kW] $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA Electric Powertrain [$/kW] NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8 Glider [$] $24,596 $24,596 $24,596 LIGHT Battery [$/kWh] NA $99 $99 NA $95 $95 NA $90 $90 TRUCK Gas Powertrain [$/kW] $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA $41 $41 NA Electric Powertrain [$/kW] NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8 NA $8 $8

2030 2040 2050 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 CAR Electric Powertrain $707 $988 $707 $988 $707 $988 TOTAL $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 LIGHT Electric Powertrain $1,197 $1,672 $1,197 $1,672 $1,197 $1,672 TRUCK TOTAL $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

2030 2040 2050 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