DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. © M.J. Bradley & Associates 2016 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 3 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 4 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix E Descriptions of Glider Vehicles by Industry Participants
    Comment on EPA Proposed Glider Vehicles Rule, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, submitted January 5, 2018 Appendix E Descriptions of Glider Vehicles by Industry Participants Description of Glider Vehicles by Glider Manufacturer Fitzgerald Glider Kits, “What is a Glider Kit” https://www.fitzgeraldgliderkits.com/what-is-a-glider-kit (accessed Jan. 3, 2018) Description of Glider Vehicles by Glider Manufacturer Harrison Truck Centers, “Glider Kits” http://www.htctrucks.com/index.php/sales-1/harrison-truck-centers- glider-kits (accessed Jan. 3, 2018) Description of Glider Vehicles by Glider Manufacturer Freightliner, “Glider: The Truck You Always Wanted” Brochure www.dtnaglider.com THE TRUCK YOU ALWayS WaNTED WHICH ONE IS THE GLIDER? IT’S HARD TO TELL Rolling down the road, it’s difficult to spot any differences between a Freightliner Glider and a new Freightliner truck. A Glider kit comes to you as a brand-new, complete assembly that includes the frame, cab, steer axle and wheels, plus a long list of standard equipment. Every Glider also comes with a loose parts box containing up to 160 parts — everything you need to get rolling. YOU PROVIDE WE PROVIDE COMPLETE ASSEMBLY 1 THE NEXT BEST THING TO A NEW TRUCK Designed, engineered and assembled alongside new Freightliner trucks, a Glider gives you everything a new truck offers except for two of the three main driveline components (engine, transmission and rear axle). You can either recapitalize any of these from your existing unit, or spec a factory-installed remanufactured engine or rear axle. BACKED BY A NEW TRUCK WARRANTY Unlike a used truck, every factory-installed component on a Glider is covered by Freightliner’s Warranty.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV) Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future Direction of Development
    Review A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV) Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future Direction of Development Fuad Un-Noor 1, Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban 2,*, Lucian Mihet-Popa 3, Mohammad Nurunnabi Mollah 1 and Eklas Hossain 4,* 1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna 9203, Bangladesh; [email protected] (F.U.-N.); [email protected] (M.N.M.) 2 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa 3 Faculty of Engineering, Østfold University College, Kobberslagerstredet 5, 1671 Kråkeroy-Fredrikstad, Norway; [email protected] 4 Department of Electrical Engineering & Renewable Energy, Oregon Tech, Klamath Falls, OR 97601, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (E.H.); Tel.: +27-79-219-9845 (S.P.); +1-541-885-1516 (E.H.) Academic Editor: Sergio Saponara Received: 8 May 2017; Accepted: 21 July 2017; Published: 17 August 2017 Abstract: Electric vehicles (EV), including Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV), Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), are becoming more commonplace in the transportation sector in recent times. As the present trend suggests, this mode of transport is likely to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in the near future. Each of the main EV components has a number of technologies that are currently in use or can become prominent in the future. EVs can cause significant impacts on the environment, power system, and other related sectors. The present power system could face huge instabilities with enough EV penetration, but with proper management and coordination, EVs can be turned into a major contributor to the successful implementation of the smart grid concept.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Minimum Glider Truck Specifications for One (1
    MINIMUM GLIDER TRUCK SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) 2016 TANDEM AXLE CONVENTIONAL CAB & CHASSIS 53,000 L.B. GVW MINIMUM 6 X 4 WHEEL BASE------- 212” Maximum – Set forward front axle OVERHANG---------- 65” from centerline of tandem axles to end of rear frame 24” front overhang BEFORE CAB TO AXLE (B.B.C.) ------------------ 110” Minimum ENGINE--------------- PrepKit C15-435-550 ELEC98 EPA CARB TRANSMISSION---- Automatic - PrepKit for Allison HD4560P RDS Generation 3 Controller AXLES------------------ Front 20,000 Lb. Rated capacity Rear 46,000 Lb. Rated capacity Pump Type Differential GEAR RATIO--------- Gear Ratio 4.88 DIFFERENTIAL------ Locking Power Divider, Divider Controlled Full Locking Mains Differential, Pump Type Lubrication REAR SUSPENSION- Neway AD246 Air Ride 54” TT or Equivalent Level valve with dash-mounted pressure gauge SPRINGS---------------- Axle capacity or more. State capacity. Capacity must be appropriate to meet GVW STEERING------------- Dual power. State make & model. Tilt wheel BRAKES---------------- Full Air S Cam with Auto Slack Adjusters – Gunite AIR COMPRESSOR- Tank inside frame, spin on air drier cartridge, mounted on outside of frame with guard, low pressure warning device and pressure gauge 1 RADIATOR------------ The radiator must have an opening for a front mounted hydraulic Pump with a minimum 4” clearance from center of crank shaft Hub. The fan must clear the drive shaft for a hydraulic pump ELECTRICAL--------- 12 Volt Electrical System with a battery box to hold four (4) Heavy Duty 12 volt batteries, mounted
    [Show full text]
  • SAB Testimony ICCT V2
    1225 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20005 +1 202.534.1600 www.theicct.org Testimony of Rachel Muncrief and John German on behalf of the International Council on Clean Transportation Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board May 31, 2018 Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Cir NW, Washington, DC A. Oral Testimony My name is Rachel Muncrief, and I direct the heavy-duty vehicles program and compliance and enforcement program of the International Council on Clean Transportation. I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering and have been working on vehicle emissions and efficiency policy in the United States for 15 years — 5 years at the ICCT and 10 years at the University of Houston, concluding my time in Houston as a research faculty and director of the university's diesel vehicle testing and research lab. John German is a Senior Fellow at ICCT, with primary focus on vehicle policy and powertrain technology. He started working on these issues in 1976 in response to the original CAFE standards, addressing these issues for about a decade each for Chrysler, EPA, Honda, and ICCT. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to briefly address a few key technical issues raised in the SAB workgroup memo from May 18, 2018 concerning the 2025 light-duty vehicles GHG standards and the emission requirements for glider vehicles. We would like to state up front that we fully support the workgroup’s recommendations to move forward with an SAB review of these proposed actions. On the 2025 GHG standards: The agencies’ 2016 Technical Assessment updated their analyses, but still failed to consider a number of technology advances that are already in production or close to production, overestimated the cost of other technologies, and ignored benefits from features associated with efficiency technology that are desired by consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Value Proposition Study
    DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge: Web site: http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD: 703-487-4639 Fax: 703-605-6900 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: 865-576-8401 Fax: 865-576-5728 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 104/Tuesday, May 31, 2011/Notices
    31354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices Estimated time per Response: 5 assembled in the United States from body, axles, and wheels. The TCE is then minutes. parts made in the United States, Turkey, assembled in the U.S. from both imported Estimated Total Annual Burden Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Germany, and U.S.-origin components. Hours: 35,939. Canada, the United Kingdom, and A Bill of Materials was submitted with the request. Apart from the glider, parts for the Dated: May 24, 2011. various other countries is substantially TCE are also imported from Switzerland, Tracey Denning, transformed in the United States, such Hungary, Japan, Germany, Canada, the that the United States is the country of Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and United Kingdom, and various other Border Protection. origin of the finished article for countries. According to the submission, the purposes of U.S. Government TCE vehicle is composed of 31 components, [FR Doc. 2011–13302 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] procurement. of which 14 are of U.S.-origin. For purposes BILLING CODE 9111–14–P Section 177.29, Customs Regulations of this decision, we assume that the (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of components of U.S. origin are produced in final determinations shall be published the U.S. or are substantially transformed in DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND the U.S. and considered products of the U.S. SECURITY in the Federal Register within 60 days The U.S. assembly occurs at various of the date the final determination is stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Emissions Trucks
    Zero emissions trucks An overview of state-of-the-art technologies and their potential Report Delft, July 2013 Author(s): Eelco den Boer (CE Delft) Sanne Aarnink (CE Delft) Florian Kleiner (DLR) Johannes Pagenkopf (DLR) Publication Data Bibliographical data: Eelco den Boer (CE Delft), Sanne Aarnink (CE Delft), Florian Kleiner (DLR), Johannes Pagenkopf (DLR) Zero emissions trucks An overview of state-of-the-art technologies and their potential Delft, CE Delft, July 2013 Publication code: 13.4841.21 CE publications are available from www.cedelft.eu Commissioned by: The International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT). Further information on this study can be obtained from the contact person, Eelco den Boer. © copyright, CE Delft, Delft CE Delft Committed to the Environment CE Delft is an independent research and consultancy organisation specialised in developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. CE Delft’s solutions are characterised in being politically feasible, technologically sound, economically prudent and socially equitable. Subcontractor information German Aerospace Center Institute of Vehicle Concepts Prof. Dr. Ing. H.E. Friedrich Pfaffenwaldring 38-40 D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany http://www.dlr.de 2 July 2013 4.841.1 – Zero emissions trucks Preface This report has been developed to contribute to the discussion on future road freight transport and the role on non-conventional drivetrains. The primary objective of the report is to assess zero emission drivetrain technologies for on-road heavy-duty freight vehicles. More specifically, their CO2 reduction potential, the state of these technologies, their expected costs in case of a technology shift, the role of policies to promote these technologies, and greenhouse reduction scenarios for the European Union have been studied.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Year Warranty
    FITZGERALDGLIDERKITS.COM SILVER GOLD Fitzgerald Truck Sales In-House Engine Warranty (04/14) 5 year/500,000 miles (whichever comes first) 5 year/500,000 miles (whichever comes first) 3yr/300k miles 100% parts and labor. 4yr & 5yr 3yr/300k miles 100% parts and labor. 4yr & 5yr 80%/20% 80%/20% Parts and Labor: Air Compressor; Cam; Cam Parts and Labor: Air Compressor; Cam; Cam Seal; Seal; Crankshaft; Cylinder Block; Cylinder Head; Cylinder Crankshaft; Cylinder Block; Cylinder Head; Cylinder Liners; Liners; Engine Harness; Exhaust Manifold; Flywheel Engine Harness; Exhaust Manifold; Flywheel Housing; Front Housing; Front Engine Covers; Front Crank Seal; Fuel Front Crank Seal; Injectors; Pump; Injector Harness; Oil Cooler; Oil Pan; Oil Pump; Rear Engine Covers; Fuel Pump; Crank Seal; Rocker Cover; Starter; Thrust Plate. Injector Harness; Oil Cooler; Oil Pan; Oil Pump; Rear Crank Seal; Rocker Cover; Starter; Thrust Plate; Turbo. 3 year/300,000 miles (whichever comes first) 3 year/300,000 miles (whichever comes first) 100% Parts and Labor: ECM; Injectors; Turbo. 100% Parts and Labor: Alternator; ECM; Gear Train; Rockers; Thermostats; Water Pump. *2 year/200,000 miles (whichever comes first) 1st yr/100k miles 100% Parts and Labor: Gear (whichever comes first) *2 year/200,000 miles Train; Head Gasket. 1st yr/100k miles 100% Parts and Labor: Head Gasket. *2nd year Parts Only: Gear Train; Head Gasket. * 2nd year Parts Only: Head Gasket. 1 year/100,000 miles (whichever comes first) 1 year/100,000 miles (whichever comes first) 100% Parts and Labor: Fan Blades; Exhaust Pipes; Fittings; 100% Parts and Labor: Alternator; Exhaust Pipes; Fan Hoses; Jakes; Metal Coolant Pipes; Pulleys; Workmanship Blades; Front Crank Seal; Metal Coolant Pipes; Pulleys; issues with FGK.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Glider Truck Specifications for One (1) 2012 Tandem Axle Conventional Cab & Chassis 53,000 L.B
    MINIMUM GLIDER TRUCK SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) 2012 TANDEM AXLE CONVENTIONAL CAB & CHASSIS 53,000 L.B. GVW MINIMUM 6 X 4 WHEEL BASE------- 206” Maximum – Set forward front axle CAB TO AXLE------- 116” B.B.C. ------------------ 110” Minimum ENGINE--------------- PrepKit C15-435-550 ELEC98 EPA CARB TRANSMISSION---- Automatic - PrepKit for Allison HD4560P RDS Generation 3 Controller AXLES------------------ Front 18,000 Lb. Rated capacity Rear 46,000 Lb. Rated capacity Pump Type Differential GEAR RATIO--------- Gear Ratio to provide a top speed of 65 MPH at governed RPM (4.88 Ratio) DIFFERENTIAL------ Locking Power Divider, Divider Controlled Full Locking Mains Differential, Pump Type Lubrication REAR SUSPENSION- Neway AD246 Air Ride 54” TT or Equivalent Level valve with dash-mounted pressure gauge SPRINGS---------------- Axle capacity or more. State capacity. Capacity must be appropriate to meet GVW STEERING------------- Dual power. State make & model. Tilt wheel BRAKES---------------- Full Air S Cam with Auto Slack Adjusters – Gunite AIR COMPRESSOR- 16.5 Cu. Ft. Water Cooled Air Compressor. Tank inside frame, Spin on Air Drier Cartridge, mounted on outside of frame with Guard, Low Pressure Warning Device and Pressure Gauge RADIATOR------------ The radiator must have an opening for a front mounted hydraulic Pump with a minimum 4” clearance from center of crank shaft Hub. The fan must clear the drive shaft for a hydraulic pump ELECTRICAL--------- 12 Volt Electrical System with a 130 Amp. Alternator and four (4) Heavy Duty 12 volt batteries, mounted on driver’s side w/battery disconnect switch, breaking the ground side, Flaming River Model #FR1005 FRAME------------------ Straight full length super single frame starting at front spring Hangers, State type of steel, section modulus, and dimension WHEELS---------------- Front 8.25 “Dayton” cast steel spoke Rear 8.25 “Dayton” cast steel spoke FR.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Options to Develop Low-Cost Evs, Using Rebates For
    CASH-FOR-CONVERSION: POLICY OPTIONS TO DEVELOP LOW-COST EVS, USING REBATES FOR RETROFITTING CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES. by Francisco Jose Matiella A capstone submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Energy Policy and Climate Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 © 2021 Francisco Matiella All Rights Reserved !"#$%&'$( The transportation sector currently accounts for the largest portion of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, composed of passenger vehicles and light- duty trucks, makes up the largest source of emissions within the transportation sector. Reducing emissions from the transportation sector requires rapid decarbonization of LDVs. One strategy for rapid decarbonization requires electrification of the LDV fleet. High costs of new electric vehicles and the increasing age of vehicles on the road provide obstacles to rapid electrification. This problem is of greater significance among lower-income groups, who can not afford the cost of EVs, and whose budgets have them purchasing used vehicles, keeping older vehicles on the road longer. This project explores the feasibility and impact of using existing internal combustion vehicle stock and converting them to battery electric vehicles. The first part of this research explores the challenge of transforming the LDV fleet to electric, the impact on low-income consumers, and the role of policy in enabling vehicle electrification. The second part covers the technical challenges and costs of vehicle conversion. Costs of conversions are then compared to the current electric vehicle market. A comparative analysis, with considered policy options, is conducted and benefits quantified. The results of the analysis show that there is a large amount of variability in vehicle retrofitting costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Supplemental Comment
    June 12, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Attn: EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0827 RE: Supplemental Comment of Environmental Defense Fund on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule, Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits, 82 Fed. Reg. 53,442 (November 16, 2017) The Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”) respectfully submits this supplemental comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Proposed Rule, Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits, 82 Fed. Reg. 53,442 (November 16, 2017) (“Proposed Rule”), addressing provisions contained in the agency’s 2016 final rule, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy- Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478 (October 25, 2016) (“Phase 2 Standards”). Additional concerns regarding the Proposed Rule and its incomplete underlying analysis further demonstrate the problematic nature of this rulemaking. According to news reports, the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has properly called on the EPA to perform a regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) for the agency’s proposed repeal of pollution limits for glider vehicles.1 And more recently, the EPA Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) voted to review the Proposed Rule, based on a recommendation by the SAB Work Group that the Board should assess “the adequacy of the supporting science”
    [Show full text]
  • Glider Kit, Engine, and Vehicle Regulations
    Glider Kit, Engine, and Vehicle Regulations Richard K. Lattanzio Specialist in Environmental Policy Sean Lowry Analyst in Public Finance Updated September 10, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45286 Glider Kit, Engine, and Vehicle Regulations Summary On October 25, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly published the second phase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The rule affects commercial long-haul tractor-trailers, vocational vehicles, and heavy- duty pickup trucks and vans. It phases in between model years 2018 and 2027. Under the rulemaking, EPA proposed a number of changes and clarifications for standards respecting “glider kits” and “glider vehicles.” A glider kit is a chassis for a tractor-trailer with a frame, front axle, interior and exterior cab, and brakes. It becomes a glider vehicle when an engine, transmission, and rear axle are added. Engines are often salvaged from earlier model year vehicles, remanufactured, and installed in the glider kit. The final manufacturer of the glider vehicle (i.e., the entity that assembles the parts) is typically a different entity than the original manufacturer of the glider kit. Glider kits and glider vehicles are produced arguably for purposes such as allowing the reuse of relatively new powertrains from damaged vehicles. The Phase 2 rule contains GHG and criteria air pollution emission standards for glider vehicles. The rule sets limits for glider vehicles similar to those for new trucks, with some exemptions. Under the rulemaking, EPA and various commentators argued that glider vehicles should be considered “new motor vehicles” under the Clean Air Act (CAA) because of recent changes in the glider market.
    [Show full text]