The lowest emissions at the least cost

The Lowest Emissions at the Least Cost A Comparative Study of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Applied Policy Project, UCLA Department of Public Policy Faculty Advisor: Professor Robert Jensen April 25, 2011

Jenneille Hsu Vahagn Karapetyan Romรกn Lopez Jasmine Tilley

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of Gladstein, Neandross & Associates as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UCLA School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank our faculty advisor, Professor Robert Jensen, for his excellent guidance, expert suggestions, and insightful feedback. We would also like to thank our other faculty advisors, Mark Peterson and Mark Kleiman, for their constructive criticism and feedback.

We would like to thank the Gladstein, Neandross & Associates staff that worked with us during this project. We are incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to work on such an intriguing and crucial issue. We are especially thankful for the assistance provided by Erik Neandross, who was our primary contact at GNA for this project. We are also grateful for the time and resources granted to us by Cliff Gladstein and Kristen Rockwell.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE ....................................................... 2 Brief History of Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 2 Relevant Policy Organizations .................................................................................................... 2 Current Attainment Status ........................................................................................................... 3 Sources of Emissions.................................................................................................................. 3 Health Effects of Specific Emission Types ................................................................................. 3 The Client's Request ................................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: CRITERIA AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 5 Consumer Appeal........................................................................................................................ 5 Monetary Costs ........................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 3: GASOLINE VEHICLES—A BASELINE FOR COMPARISON ................................ 7 Consumer Appeal........................................................................................................................ 7 Monetary Costs ........................................................................................................................... 7 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 4: HYBRID ELECTRIC/ PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES ........................... 9 Consumer Appeal........................................................................................................................ 9 Monetary Costs ........................................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 5: BATTERY-POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLES..................................................... 12 Consumer Appeal...................................................................................................................... 12 Monetary Costs ......................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER 6: NATURAL GAS VEHICLES ................................................................................... 14 Consumer Appeal...................................................................................................................... 14 Monetary Costs ......................................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 7: HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES ................................................................... 16 Consumer Appeal...................................................................................................................... 16 Monetary Costs ......................................................................................................................... 16 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 8: DATA & FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 19 Consumer Appeal...................................................................................................................... 19 Monetary Costs ......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 8-1: Vehicle Comparison Chart .......................................................................................... 20 Table 8-2: Vehicle Cost Chart ...................................................................................................... 21 Environmental Damage............................................................................................................. 21 Table 8-3: Infrastructure Cost Chart ............................................................................................. 22 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 22

Further Considerations.............................................................................................................. 23 “Clunkers” .............................................................................................................................. 23 Consumer Appeal .................................................................................................................. 24 Rebound Effect ...................................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 9: POLICY PATHS ..................................................................................................... 25 Path to Electric .......................................................................................................................... 25 Path to Hydrogen ...................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 10: POLICY OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 27 Why the Public Sector? ............................................................................................................. 27 Market-based Incentives ........................................................................................................... 27 Regulation ................................................................................................................................. 28 Carbon pricing ........................................................................................................................... 29 Research and Development ..................................................................................................... 30 Partnerships .............................................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 11: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 32 Policy #1: Vehicle cost tax credits and partnerships to boost the market ................................ 32 Policy #2: R&D and partnerships to encourage the use of renewable energy ........................ 32 CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................i Table A-1: Vehicle Data ................................................................................................................i Table A-2: Average Fuel Economy Vehicle ................................................................................. ii Table A-3: High Gasoline Price.................................................................................................... ii Table A-4: High Infrastructure Cost ............................................................................................. ii Table A-5: Low Infrastructure Cost ............................................................................................. iii Table A-6: High Station Availability ............................................................................................. iii Abbreviations Used ..................................................................................................................... iv REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report compares the relative costs and environmental performance of alternative fuel light-duty vehicles, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric, natural gas, and hydrogen fuel cell. It is tailored to the South Coast Air Basin as appropriate, though many findings apply generally. Our analysis provides an answer the question of which alternative vehicles or combination of vehicles can most effectively help the region meet mandated air quality standards.

The evaluative criteria used are grouped into three categories. Consumer appeal is the first category and includes safety, range, and existing refueling availability. Second, we consider monetary costs, including the purchase and ownership costs of the vehicles as well as the cost to build necessary refueling infrastructure. Last, we consider environmental damage from both tailpipe emissions and lifecycle perspective, which includes fuel extraction, production, and distribution.

We find no major differences in safety. Among range and existing infrastructure we find the shorter range of electric vehicles as compared to natural gas and hydrogen is somewhat offset by a greater recharging infrastructure, though the current appeal of hybrids is obvious with their great range and use of the existing gasoline network.

All alternatives have a substantial cost premium above a comparable gasoline vehicle.

However, each alternative also realizes fuel and maintenance savings compared to gasoline vehicles.

Whether this stream of savings offsets the purchase price premium is sensitive to assumptions and explored in the report. On this measure, the expense of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles sets them far above the rest in terms of cost and likely makes them an infeasible option for the near term.

In terms of infrastructure costs, hybrids and plug-in hybrids are the best option, requiring little to no new infrastructure, followed closely by electric vehicles. The cost of natural gas infrastructure is somewhere in between that of electric and the more expensive hydrogen infrastructure. More importantly, at the point of ―critical mass‖ - where there are enough filling stations to support drivers and enough alternative vehicles to make these stations economically viable -the relative cost of infrastructure compared to the cost of vehicles is quite small. We test this finding with various cost estimates and find that the same basic result holds.

On environmental performance both fuel cell and electric vehicles offer zero emissions at the tailpipe. However, electric and to a lesser extent plug-hybrid actually perform worse than baseline on a lifecycle comparison, mainly because electricity is currently generated at coal-fired power plants, though this may change over time. Natural gas and hybrid offer reduction across the board in lifecycle pollutants. Fuel cell and electric have the potential to become near-zero emission lifecycle with the development of renewable energy production.

We identify two development paths for alternative vehicles. In one path hybrid vehicles prepare the way for plug-in hybrids and eventually all-electric vehicles as renewable energy production improves their environmental profile. In the other scenario the infrastructure put in place to distribute natural gas to refueling stations can also be used to produce hydrogen and build a market for fuel cell vehicles, if and when the cost of these vehicles becomes reasonable. We find that technological uncertainties make choosing one path over another difficult, although these paths are certainly not mutually exclusive. Rather than recommending one path as the ―right‖ one, we evaluate and recommend policies that will have near-term effects and emphasize co-benefits, so the success of the policy will not be tied solely to the pattern of technology development.

1

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Brief History of Air Quality The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside, has a long history of air quality problems. Sunny weather and other factors allow smog to form more easily in the basin while the surrounding mountains serve to trap pollutants as stagnant air hangs over the area. Ozone, or ―smog,‖ is one of the major pollutants in the basin. Ozone is created when nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon vapors interact with heat and sunlight.1 The first recognized episode of smog in Los Angeles occurred in the summer of 1943.2 Once the problem was identified, the region experienced remarkable success in fighting air pollution while still managing to accommodate growth. When accurate measurements of ozone were first recorded in 1965, the highest single-hour ozone concentration in the SCAB was 580 ppb (parts per billion).3 By 2000 this figure was 180 ppb, and the region had completely eliminated ―Stage 1 Smog Alerts‖ (200 ppb), which occurred on 118 days in 1975. 4 This success was achieved despite seeing population triple, vehicles increase four-fold and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase six-fold in the roughly half century since the effort to regulate air pollution coalesced.5 Although considerable progress has been made in fighting air pollution in the SCAB, significant air quality problems remain. The basin contains 28 percent of California's total air pollution6 and the counties in the basin consistently receive a grade of ―F‖ from the ―State of The Air‖ report card for having the highest levels of ozone pollution in the United States. 7 Poor air quality has tangible and serious costs. Individuals with asthma have an elevated risk of attacks while those with lung diseases may require hospitalization or medical treatment. 8 In the worst cases, children in areas with heavy levels of smog might not develop the same levels of lung capacity as children in areas with cleaner air.9 Studies also show higher rates of early death in heavily polluted areas.10 It is estimated that poor air quality is involved in nearly 6,500 early deaths, 4,100 hospitalizations, over 100,000 respiratory illness cases, 660,000 lost working days, and over 5,000,000 ―restricted activity days.‖ 11 Relevant Policy Organizations South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) The AQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. It is responsible primarily for controlling emissions from stationary sources of air pollution.12 This includes power plants and refineries down to gas stations and consumer products including paint, varnish, and other products containing solvents that evaporate into the air. AQMD adopts rules to reduce emissions from various sources including equipment, industrial processes, and products as well as continuously monitoring air quality throughout the area.13 California Air Resources Board (CARB) CARB is the statewide air quality agency established by the California Legislature in 1967. It was established to improve air quality, research air pollution, and ―systematically attack 2

the serious problems caused by motor vehicles,‖14 meaning it has the authority to set emissions standards for most mobile sources of air pollution. CARB also oversees and assists local air quality districts. Representatives from the regional air pollution control agencies make up half its governing board.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The EPA is a federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment.

The agency creates and enforces regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA is involved in air quality primarily via the Clean Air Act. The law authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.15 Compliance and specific regulations to meet these standards are typically implemented by the states with the oversight and assistance of the EPA. In 2008, the EPA announced an ozone standard of 75 ppb. However, this standard was challenged by the American Lung Association and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). CASAC unanimously advised the EPA to impose a stricter standard of 60-70 ppb.16 The new standard was supposed to be formally announced on August 2010 but has been delayed six times as the EPA seeks additional scientific advice. The final decision is expected to come in July 2011,17 and the attainment deadline will be 2023.18 Current Attainment Status The SCAB will initially be in non-attainment regardless of which standard the EPA ultimately adopts because the current ground-level ozone particulates average 120 ppb.19 The natural background ozone alone, which originates from vegetation, lightning, and the movement of ozone from the stratosphere to the ground level, is 48 ppb. Locomotives, oceangoing ships, and aircraft add another 24 ppb.20 Ships, aircraft and freight trains are generally outside of California's control because they are regulated under federal and international authority. Thus, the primary area in which California can make a significant difference is in automobile transportation, the single largest source of air pollution.21 Sources of Emissions22 Around 25% of the region’s ozone-creating air pollution originates from stationary sources. The remaining 75% stems from mobile sources including cars, trucks, buses, construction equipment, ships, airplanes and trains.

On-Road Vehicles: 42% Other Mobile Sources: 33% Paints & Solvents: 13% Stationary Fuel Burning Sources: 5% Industrial & Miscellaneous Process: 4% Petroleum Process, Storage and Transfer: 3% Health Effects of Specific Emission Types In our analysis, we consider eight different emission types: carbon monoxide (CO), nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHCs), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NOx), sulfur oxide (SOx), particulate matter (PM) 2.5 and 10, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). CO, NOx, SOx, and PM 2.5 and 10 are all associated with various breathing problems such as loss of oxygen-carrying capacity,23 increased asthma symptoms, lung irritation,24 and the worsening of 3

lung and heart disease.25 Furthermore, NOx can cause acid rain. VOCs can cause eye and nose irritation, dizziness, headaches, and memory loss. 26 NMHCs and CO2 do not have direct health effects, but they do play a key role in accelerating global warming through their role in creating ozone.27 The Client's Request Our client—Gladstein, Neandross, and Associates—asked us to conduct a review of nextgeneration propulsion for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) including hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric, natural gas, and hydrogen vehicles. The focus is to assess the comprehensive emission profile and environmental impact of each alternative to better inform potential policy approaches to meeting forthcoming EPA regulations for ozone concentration. We compare the level of environmental benefits that each vehicle type can provide over the status quo and which type can provide the benefits most cost-effectively. For instance, if Vehicle A is considerably more expensive than Vehicle B, it would have to provide significantly reduced emissions to justify the investment over a Vehicle B, which may offer slightly less reduction but at much lower cost.

Scope of the Report This report offers an analytical strategy for answering the question of which nextgeneration LDV should be promoted as the most effective at reducing air pollution in the SCAB and meeting forthcoming EPA regulations. We incorporate the capital and operating costs, technological barriers, and environmental impacts of various alternative vehicles. We attempt to do this is in a comprehensive way that captures the cost and environmental impact of production and distribution, in addition to vehicle operation. Where appropriate, the analysis is targeted to the four-county region containing the SCAB. The various environmental impacts of each vehicle type are not priced. Though some estimates exist,28 the objective of this report is to support the effort to meet EPA air quality guidelines in the SCAB. Because we take these standards as given, we focus only on identifying the most effective technologies and accompanying policies to meet these targets. Future decision makers may adjust environmental cost estimates to the region if such information is necessary.

This report compares only alternative propulsion systems for passenger vehicles and thus we do not incorporate other costs of vehicle use such as congestion, accidents, and road wear.

Each alternative vehicle is of comparable size and weight to the comparable gasoline model.

Potentially lower operating costs are not expected to greatly increase travel (see Chapter 8).

Therefore, the variation of these other costs among the options evaluated can safely be considered to be negligible for the purpose of this study. We do not attempt to incorporate the economic or security costs of dependence on foreign oil. The methodology by which researchers attempt to calculate these costs varies significantly. However, one assessment of this cost in the U.S. put the external cost of oil dependence at only a few cents per gallon of gasoline. 29 We recognize throughout this report the importance renewable energy plays in reducing emissions in the transportation sector and recommend policies that take advantage of and will be enhanced by the development of renewable energy. While acknowledging the significant technological and political hurdles involved in moving away from fossil fuel-generated electricity, this report does not address energy policy directly.

4

CHAPTER 2: CRITERIA AND METHODS We evaluate each alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) based on the criteria described below.

The goal of this analysis is to find the fuel type with the most environmental benefit for the least investment. In addition, each fuel type had to pass an initial test of having better environmental performance than that of gasoline LDVs. This approach does not mean that emissions do not play a role in the final analysis—rather, the analysis of emissions was the only factor in the initial test and is a contributing factor in the final analysis.

We evaluate all criteria in terms of comparing to a baseline of gasoline LDVs. Wherever it was difficult to find averages for fuel types, we took numbers from specific models that were the best representation of that alternative, as explained in each individual section.

Consumer Appeal Consumer appeal includes safety, range, and refueling availability. These three criteria are essential for determining whether or not each alternative would be a feasible replacement for gasoline LDVs. If a fuel type creates safety hazards that are much greater than those of gasoline LDVs, it is unlikely to gain widespread adoption. Range, measured as the number of miles the vehicle can travel on one tank of fuel (or fully charged battery) is a big factor in which vehicles consumers will choose30. Another measure of convenience is existing refueling availability—if refueling stations are not easily and widely accessible, consumers will be less likely to choose that fuel type.

These last two criteria are complementary. If a particular fuel type has a limited number of recharging stations but a very large range or a shorter range and plentiful refueling availability, it could still be attractive.

Monetary Costs Monetary costs include the sum of the initial cost of the vehicle to the consumer, maintenance costs, and the cost of fuel, as well as the cost to build refueling infrastructure. We take into account both the cost to the consumer and the cost to build the refueling infrastructure to determine the likelihood of a successful market in a particular fuel type. We calculated the cost of each AFV by taking the current estimates of cost premiums over gasoline LDVs and adding those estimates to a baseline cost range of gasoline LDVs, as listed in Table 8-1. The cost to build the refueling structure is a calculated cost to build one station. It is based on whether or not the station can be created from simply upgrading a gasoline station, as well as whether stations are needed at all.

For each vehicle type, these data are combined with demographic, car ownership, and existing refueling infrastructure data from the SCAB to estimate the total cost of both vehicles and infrastructure at the point of ―critical mass‖ or ―equilibrium,‖ the minimum level wherein there is sufficient infrastructure to support drivers of AFVs and, conversely, enough drivers of AFVs to support the investment in infrastructure. These results, reported in the Data and Findings chapter, use the most optimistic of the reasonable range of estimates. However, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis.

5

Environmental Damage The core of this analysis is the environmental damage caused by each fuel type, which includes both tailpipe and lifecycle emissions. Tailpipe emissions include the different pollutants that the car emits into the air while driving, such as smog-forming pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Lifecycle emissions include other processes, such as ―the manufacture of vehicles, the extraction and refining of fuels, and the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure.‖31 Our data on lifecycle emissions are in terms of the percent reductions in pollution each fuel type is predicted to cause when compared to gasoline LDVs. The data are reported in percent change rather than absolute change. Because our data on both tailpipe and lifecycle emissions cannot be added together, we consider each separately.

6

CHAPTER 3: GASOLINE VEHICLES—A BASELINE FOR COMPARISON We chose the KIA Forte as a model because it is among the lowest-emitting gasolinepowered vehicles in the U.S., according to the EPA.32 AFVs would compare more favorably to many other gasoline vehicles; however, we wanted to set a challenging baseline to justify any potential public investment.

Consumer Appeal Safety According to the National Fire Protection Association, gasoline use results in about 150,000 fires in the U.S. every year, causing nearly 500 deaths. 33 Gasoline is also harmful when inhaled in large quantities or over long periods of time.

Range The KIA Forte has an estimated range of 342 to 465 miles.

Refueling Availability There are an estimated 4,538 gas stations within the four counties of the SCAB. However, this number has been on a decreasing trend in recent years. 34 Monetary Costs Vehicle price, maintenance costs, and cost of fuel The cost of gasoline-powered cars to consumers has an extremely wide range, but most cost somewhere between $15,000 and $40,000. The KIA Forte currently costs about $15,000.

Maintenance for gasoline-powered vehicles can range between $500 and $5,000 per year, depending on various factors, such as the quality of the car, how old the car is, how much the car is used, and how well the car is taken care of.

As of February, 2011, the cost of fuel in California was $3.346 per gallon and is expected to increase. According to the EPA, fueling the KIA Forte costs about $1371 per year.35 Environmental Damage Tailpipe Emissions Current EPA ―intermediate useful-life (50,000 miles) standards‖ for Level II Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, the category in which the KIA Forte falls, are as follows (in grams per mile):36 NOx CO NMOG PM NMHC CO2

0.2 1 0.01 0.01 N/A N/A

7

According to the DOT, 97 percent of the energy used by U.S. transportation is from petroleum-based fuels, and ―U.S. transportation lifecycle greenhouse gases account for about 8 percent of global GHG emissions‖. 37 The KIA Forte’s emissions are listed in Table 8-1.38 Lifecycle Emissions According to the DOT, benefits for more environmentally-friendly conventional gasoline vehicles could range anywhere from an 8 to 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions per vehicle.39 Current lifecycle emissions are listed as follows (in grams per mile):40 GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

N/A 0.379 3.817 0.083 0.036 0.316 N/A

8

CHAPTER 4: HYBRID ELECTRIC/ PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a hybrid is ―any vehicle that uses two or more sources of power.‖41 Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) use both gasoline and electricity.

Batteries are charged from power generated by the wheels of the vehicle.42 HEVs have become increasingly popular in North America--in 2000, 9,350 HEVs were sold.43 This number increased to almost 350,000 in 2007.44 By 2012, the HEV market share may increase to 15%.45 Because the Toyota Prius has been the leading HEV model in the North American market since its debut in 2000, we chose it as our model for evaluating HEVs. 46 In this section, we also evaluate plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which differ from HEVs in that they can be charged externally from a power outlet.47 We selected the Chevrolet Volt as our model of PHEVs because it is the first mass production PHEV model in the U.S. Consumer Appeal Safety According to the U.S. Department of Energy, HEVs are ―just as safe as any comparable gasoline-powered cars.‖48 Some consumers question that the batteries in HEVs and PHEVs have elevated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and may increase drivers’ blood pressure and cause other diseases. Cell phones and other electric products also produce EMFs, however, and the claim that HEVs and PHEVs have excessive EMFs has not yet been scientifically proven. 49 Range HEVs have a range similar to or surpassing current gasoline vehicles.50 The maximum range a Prius can reach is 571 miles on highways and 607 miles in cities.51 The ideal miles-pergallon (MPG) are 48 highway/51 city,52 but the actual MPG may fluctuate because of tire pressure, weather, drivers’ habits, and so on. The range of PHEVs on electric power falls between 10 and 60 miles with a full battery, 53 with the Chevy Volt’s range falling somewhere around 35 miles.54 This is long enough for most Americans’ daily drive, as the average vehicle traveled about 25 miles per day in 2001.55 When the battery is depleted, with a tank of gasoline the Volt can travel up to 310 miles.56 Refueling Availability Refueling availability is the same for HEVs as it is for gasoline. PHEVs may be less convenient, as they are expected to be recharged more often than refueled, since the electricity is cheaper than gasoline.

Monetary Costs Vehicle price, maintenance costs, and cost of fuel Because hybrid technology is still somewhat new, Toyota customers currently pay a premium of $7,000 - $11,000 for an HEV over a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle.

The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of the Prius 2011 Model ranges from $23,050 to $28,320,57 while the Toyota Corolla, a technically comparable model, costs from $15,600 to $17,300. Critics claim that both the HEV Prius and PHEV Volt are uneconomical because the cost premium the technology adds to the vehicle cannot be recovered through fuel 9

savings.58 The Volt’s MSRP starts at $32,780.59 Even with a federal tax credit of $7,500, buyers may not be willing to pay this premium.60 The ability to recover the added cost through fuel savings is sensitive to fuel price, and we analyze it in the Sensitivity Analysis section of Data and Findings chapter for all alternatives.

Hybrid vehicles do not require any more maintenance than conventional gasoline vehicles. Batteries may cost drivers $3,200-$3,500 to replace, but automobile manufacturers warrant hybrid batteries. With stringent emissions standards, California has regulated hybrid components to be covered for either 10 years or 150,000 miles.61 The EPA estimated that the annual fuel cost of a Prius is $888. 62 The annual fuel cost for PHEVs is estimated to be around $594,63 and the amount of electricity required to travel the same distance as with a gallon of gasoline may cost as low as $0.38. 64 Refueling Infrastructure HEVs and PHEVs are refueled at existing gasoline stations and require no further investment in refueling stations. However, as stated above, PHEVs are expected to be recharged primarily, not refueled, either at charging stations or drivers’ homes, and thereby increase demand for electricity. It is estimated that the current electricity infrastructure can support about 73% of the light duty fleet for an average daily drive of 33 miles.65 Kintner-Meyer et. al (2007) found that in Southern California, under certain conditions, San Diego Gas and Electric may need to build a natural gas-fired power plant (with a fixed cost of $350 million) in order to meet higher off-peak demand for PHEVs.66 However, Lemoine et. al (2008) conclude that if most PHEVs are recharged off-peak, California can accommodate several million PHEVs without additional generation capacity. 67 Environmental Damage Tailpipe Emissions HEVs and PHEVs offer emissions benefits because of the different operations from conventional gasoline vehicles.68 According to an experimental evaluation of the hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions conducted by Fontaras, et. al (2008), the Prius has the best fuel economy benefit when driving in urban areas, where CO2 is reduced by 60%. 69 The Volt offers zero tailpipe emissions when it is driving in electricity mode. The tailpipe emissions of the Prius are as follows (in grams per mile, gasoline in parentheses): NOx CO NMOG PM NMHC CO2

0.018 (0.02) 1.046 (1) 0.002 (0.01) N/A 0.045 201

Lifecycle Emissions Both HEVs and PHEVs contain batteries which will be disposed or recycled after use.

However, the material use and toxic discharge of batteries are relatively small, compared to the environmental impacts of production and driving.70 The lifecycle emissions reductions of HEVs, compared to gasoline vehicles, are as follows: 71

10

GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

26-54% 25% 1% 6% N/A 20% 29%

Compared to conventional gasoline vehicles, PHEVs reduce total GHG, NOx, and CO emissions through mainly recharging by electricity and using less gasoline. However, both the sources of electricity generation and the time of day drivers charge their PHEVs are crucial to the level of emission reduction. Currently, California can sustain several million PHEVs recharged off-peak without additional generation capacity,72 but if the number of PHEVs in California continuously grows, and new coal-fired plants are built to meet the electricity demand, total particulate emissions and SOx will increase.

The percent reduction in lifecycle emissions of PHEVs, compared to gasoline vehicles, are as follows:73 GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

46-70% 31% 98% -18% N/A 93% -125%

11

CHAPTER 5: BATTERY-POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLES We chose the Nissan Leaf as a model because it is currently the only purely electric vehicle available in the U.S. Consumer Appeal Safety There is some risk of electric shock with battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs), but safety features are incorporated to prevent this. The reduced noise of a BEV might create safety issues for pedestrians crossing the street, but it is extremely difficult to predict how much of an issue this might become if BEVs were adopted widely.

In contrast to gasoline cars, BEVs have less potential for major fires or explosions, and their ―lower center of gravity‖ makes them ―less likely to roll over.‖74 In addition, the body of a BEV tends to be more durable, making it safer in a collision.75 Range Most BEVs have a range of less than 200 miles.76 The Nissan Leaf has a range of about 100 miles. It may be possible to increase BEV range by increasing battery capacity, but this increases vehicle costs more than linearly. Doubling BEV range might result in a 130% cost increase to compensate for the associated weight increase.77 Recharging Currently, there are 420 recharging stations in California, with 221 in the South Coast 78 region. BEVs can also be charged at home. Some BEVs have on-board chargers that can plug into a standard 120V outlet. Those that do not may require an off-board charging unit. In either case, home charging may take a long time, depending on the type of charger used, and would usually be done overnight. The possible clustering effect of home charging may clog the electric grid. However, battery swapping stations might be able to mitigate both long charging times and clustering effects.79 Unfortunately, while the electricity to power vehicles is readily available, the corresponding vehicle technology is not yet advanced enough to match.80 BEVs are currently unavailable for widespread use.81 Most mechanics are not familiar with BEVs and how they work, making maintenance more difficult for early adopters.82 Monetary Costs Vehicle price, maintenance costs, and cost of fuel The cost premium of a BEV is estimated to be $6,000 to $10,000, even in the long term as technology advances.83 As of 2010, the U.S. government estimates that a car with a battery with a 100-mile range will cost around $33,000.84 The Nissan Leaf, once released, will cost somewhere around $32,780, including all necessary charging equipment.

Nissan estimates that the operating cost for the Leaf’s first five years will be $1,800, in contrast to $6,000 for a gasoline-powered car85--averaging out to about $360 per year and about 2 cents per mile (compared to 8 cents per mile for conventional gasoline LDVs). 86, 87 There should be no refueling maintenance costs aside from changing the batteries, which are supposed to last at least a few years.

12

The cost of electricity, in theory, should be less than the cost of gasoline, as low nighttime charging rates could result in 75% lower operation costs per mile.88 However, the installation of an off-board charger could cost anywhere between $880 and $2100.89 Recharging Infrastructure Compared to other alternative fuels, the electrical grid already exists, so BEVs would not require ―an entirely new production and distribution infrastructure.‖90 Public access charging stations, however, are more difficult to build and expensive because of a variety of regulations and codes that must be adhered to. A 10-space public recharging station is estimated to cost somewhere around $18,500, including labor, materials, and permits.91 Battery swapping stations and increasing the capacity of the electrical grid, as discussed above, might also be included in infrastructure costs.

Environmental Damage Tailpipe Emissions As BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions, they have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 33% in comparison to gasoline-powered vehicles.92 And according to the DOT, if electricity generation starts to come from more renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, or hydrogen-electric, ―per-vehicle benefits could be as high as 78 to 87 percent in 2050, providing a total reduction in transportation emissions of 26 to 30 percent.‖93 Lifecycle Emissions If electricity keeps coming from coal-fired plants, however, the use of BEVs might actually increase net GHG emissions. There are fairly high emissions associated with the ―extraction, processing, and combustion of fuels used to generate the electricity at power plants.‖94 According to the Academy of Sciences Report on the hidden costs of the use of different vehicles, BEVs actually have the potential to result in higher damages than many other fuel types in the long term, as far as 2030, if electricity continues to come mostly from coal-fired plants. The same report also predicts that electricity production will still come primarily from fossil fuels at that time, although they will probably at least be lower-emission fossil fuels.95 Although emissions will depend on the time of day vehicles are charged and the region of the country in which they are charged,96 lifecycle emissions can still be estimated based on fuel type: ―Using the current national electricity grid mix assumed in the GREET model, and assuming 0.4 kWh/mi, current BEVs are estimated to provide a 33 percent decrease in lifecycle GHG emissions per VMT [vehicle mile traveled] compared to conventional gasoline vehicles.

Fuel-specific lifecycle emission estimates include a six percent increase in GHGs (relative to conventional gasoline LDVs) for coal-fired utilities, a 45 percent decrease for natural gas, and a 99 percent reduction for nuclear generation.‖97 More specific lifecycle emissions reductions percentages are as follows:98 GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

68-87% 11% 98% -416% -220% 91% -494%

13

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL GAS VEHICLES Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG). Even though the use of NGVs has grown globally by nearly 30% during the past decade, there is still only one commercial passenger NGV offered in the U.S., the Honda Civic GX—the vehicle chosen for comparative purposes.

Consumer Appeal Safety Since NGVs use a combustible gas stored at very high pressure as a fuel source, there have been fears over safety. However, these fears are mostly unfounded. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NGVs are as safe as gasoline vehicles (if not safer).99 To ensure safety, the gas storage cylinders need to be inspected every 3 years or 36,000 miles.100 The chance of an accident in the home refueling system is 1 in 7 million.101 Even in the accident category, NGVs have a 37 percent lower injury rate than gasoline vehicles.102 Range NGVs have limited fuel tank capacities and have driving ranges that are shorter than gasoline vehicles.103 On average, NGV tanks can store enough fuel to drive up to 220 miles.104 The gas tanks in NGVs weigh 4-5 times the weight of equivalent range gasoline tanks and have volumes that are 2-3 times greater than their gasoline counterparts. 105 Refueling Availability Refueling times of NGVs depend on the type of fill systems used. ―Fast-fill‖ options at NGV stations are as convenient as current gasoline stations and offer similar refueling times. 106 A ―slow-fill‖ option can take 4-12 hours to fill up a tank, depending on how empty the tank initially was.107 Such an option is practical only for home-fueling or fleet vehicles.

Monetary Costs Vehicle price, maintenance costs, and cost of fuel On average, NGVs are $6,000 more expensive than comparable gasoline vehicles.108 However, the 2011 Honda Civic GX currently costs $26,240 and the comparable Honda Civic EX (gasoline-fueled) costs $21,155.109 This difference of only $5,085 indicates that the price gap is narrowing.

One of the primary benefits of NGVs is the low price of natural gas compared to other fuels, especially gasoline. During the past decade, natural gas prices have been 20%-40% lower than gasoline and consistently lower than alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, propane, and diesel.110 Additional estimates put the price difference at 48.6%.111 An NGV owner can save upwards of $800 per year on fuel costs.112 These savings are not uniform around the country however and price differences can vary between 24%-53% depending on the region.113 Of the 3,683,438 million cubic feet of gas imported into the U.S. in 2010, 3,252,428 originated from Canada.114 In contrast, the top 5 exporters of petroleum include potentially volatile Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela.115 From an energy security standpoint, the U.S. can expect more stability and from a country such as Canada than Nigeria or Saudi Arabia.

Further, the U.S. is estimated to have 244.7 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves.116 14

NGVs have lower maintenance costs than gasoline vehicles because they are more ―knock resistant.‖117 Natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline and allows the engine to run comparatively more efficiently, increasing the life of the automobile. 118 This also leads NGVs to require less frequent oil changes.119 Refueling Infrastructure Research shows that consumers are unlikely to adopt NGVs unless at least 10-20% of current conventional gas stations are capable refueling NGVs.120 Once the 10-20% threshold is reached, the lack of an infrastructure should not be a major disincentive for NGV demand.

However, estimates show that there must be at least 1000 automobiles per station to make an investment profitable.121 We use these assumptions to calculate the minimum self-sustaining ―equilibrium‖ for each AFV in Chapter 8 of the report.

NGV station upgrades can range from $250,000 to $500,000 per station122 or as high as $400,000 to $1,700,000 per new station.123 Additionally, NGV stations can either be built as ―slow-fill‖ or ―fast-fill.‖ Because a commercial vehicle stations must be convenient and quick, only the more expensive ―fast-fill‖ option is practical for public stations.124 Many NGVs may be refueled at home since over 50 percent of households rely on natural gas as their main heating fuel.125 These households can buy a compressor and use their home's supply of natural gas.126 An NGV owner can install a slow-fill system which costs between $3,900 and $4,900, including installation.127 Environmental Damage Tailpipe Emissions

The use of NGVs, compared to gasoline, can potentially reduce CO emissions by 90%, CO2 emissions by 25%, NO emissions by 35%, and non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions by up to 75%. NGVs also emit significantly reduced levels of particulate matter.128 Other sources put the emissions reductions at even higher numbers. 129 The Honda Civic GX has the following emissions (in grams per mile, gasoline in parentheses):130 NOx CO NMOG PM NMHC CO2

0.02 (0.2) 0.16 (1) N/A N/A 0.003 219.25

Lifecycle Emissions In terms of life-cycle emissions compared to gasoline, NGVs have the following emissions reductions:131 GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

N/A 20% 0 9% 20% 45% N/A

Additionally, there are environmental costs associated with extracting the fuel used in natural gas vehicles. The extraction of natural gas (via ―fracking‖) can cause groundwater contamination.132 15

CHAPTER 7: HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES Hydrogen (H2), like electricity, is not an energy source but rather an energy medium, meaning that it stores and delivers energy in a usable form. Thus, its long-run potential to reduce emissions from the transportation sector is tied to the development of renewable energy sources to produce and distribute it. Although hydrogen can be burned in an internal combustion engine, major automakers are utilizing H2 through fuel cell vehicles (FCV), thus technology will be the focus of this section of the report. Honda’s FCX Clarity is used as the representative model because it is the only currently available model in the U.S., though in extremely limited numbers as a demonstration fleet in the Los Angeles area.

Consumer Appeal Safety Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, extremely light gas and thus comes with a different set of safety concerns than gasoline. Generally, however, hydrogen can be used as safely as other common fuels. Fire risk is typically low because H2 rises and disperses quickly when released. If ignited, there is less risk of secondary fires than there is with gasoline as H2 flames have low radiant heat. H2 is non-toxic, non-poisonous and will not contribute to air or water pollution if released.133 The FCX Clarity has sensors located throughout the vehicle and automatic ventilation and shut off of valves in the event of a hydrogen leak. During a collision, the system controller is programmed to cut off the hydrogen flow and electric current. According to Honda, ―repeated flood and fire testing have confirmed a very high level of safety and reliability.‖ 134 New regulations and procedures will need to be developed to account for hydrogen’s unique properties. This includes standardizing codes to ensure the safe construction, operation, and maintenance of hydrogen facilities and fuel cell systems as well as educating the public about simple hydrogen safety practices. However, nine million tons of hydrogen (enough to fuel 34 million cars) are safely produced and used in industrial applications each year in the U.S. 135 Range Hydrogen vehicles have similar range to current gasoline vehicles—the FCX Clarity can travel up to 240 miles before refueling. However, the onboard storage tank is significantly bulkier than a comparable gasoline tank, occupying most of the trunk of an average car.

Refueling Availability There are currently 16 hydrogen filling stations in the Los Angeles area. Refueling at stations takes between 6 to 8 minutes with current technology. 136 Honda is developing home refueling technology that would generate hydrogen from natural gas while also providing heat and electricity for the home.

Monetary Costs Vehicle Price The FCX Clarity is available through a $600 per month lease agreement which includes maintenance.137 However, estimates of the true cost of production are up to $300,000 per vehicle.

In general, incremental costs for LDVs continue to decline. Recently, Toyota predicted it would be able to sell its first retail hydrogen car at an MSRP of $50,000 in 2015. Toyota has 16

managed to cut production costs about 90% since the early 2000s when estimates ran as high as $1 million per vehicle. Through further materials efficiencies and mass production the company expects to be able to cover production costs at the $50,000 price.138 Academic estimates place the current incremental cost of a fuel cell engine at $25,000 over a conventional gasoline engine. 139 By 2035 the incremental cost is expected to be around $5,300, and perhaps lower with a higherproduction volume.140 These costs mean large-scale benefits are likely to occur only around 2030 and beyond. The maximum market-penetration estimates reported in the literature are only 18% by 2030 and 60% by 2050.141 Maintenance FCVs typically have lower maintenance costs than internal combustion engines because they have fewer moving parts. Like BEVs, they use an electric motor to power the vehicle (using a fuel cell stack in place of a battery). Although quantitative estimates are difficult to find, researchers describe the savings as ―substantial.‖142 Fuel H2 is priced per kilogram. One kilogram of H2 has roughly the same energy as one gallon of gasoline. However, a fuel cell uses energy more efficiently than a combustion engine. The FCX Clarity is rated at 60 miles/kg. Using the dynamic estimates of infrastructure cost described below, the single price to breakeven during the planning horizon (2010 – 2060) is $1.89/kg, assuming a 10% rate of return. If a 10-year breakeven is desired, H2 must be sold at $4.59/kg.143 Assuming FCVs have twice the fuel economy of a gasoline vehicle, this suggests a comparable price range of $0.95-$2.30. Considering an average gasoline price of $3.37 in California in February 2011, H2 has the potential to be extremely competitive on this measure. Other studies put the cost of H2 per mile driven 27% to 52% lower than gasoline, a similar range.144 Most studies conclude that H2 will be produced via natural gas steam reforming (SMR) over the medium term. Hydrogen production for vehicles is not projected to have a significant impact on natural gas demand over the next 25 years, though a faster than expected adoption of FCVs could place upward pressure on natural gas prices and increase the need for hydrogen production through other sources.145 Refueling Infrastructure Estimating the cost of the infrastructure required to support H2-fueled vehicles is complicated by the various options for production and distribution. The most thorough and targeted estimate used a dynamic programming approach to identify the optimal strategy for supplying H2 to Southern California from 2010-2060. The study found that from 2010-2014 industrial H2 delivered by truck could serve all the demand. From 2015-2019 increased industrial H2 by truck along with on-site SMR should efficiently meet growing demand. From 2020 on, central production should begin to dominate, although industrial H2 and SMR will continue to meet some of the demand for several years. This study calculates a non-discounted total of $24.43 billion of capital expenditures needed to build up H2 infrastructure.146 On the other hand, industry experts such as Charlie Freese, head of the fuel cell program at GM, suggest the region could be served by as few as 50 stations at a total capital cost of $200 million.147 This cost per station figure is on par with estimates in the literature that estimate hydrogen fueling stations will cost between $500,000 and $5 million, depending on capacity. 148 However, our estimates, based on a percentage of existing gasoline stations, predict that more than 50 stations will be required to adequately serve the region. Complete methodology is detailed in the following chapter.

17

Environmental Damage Tailpipe Emissions Hydrogen fuel cells combine stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity to power the vehicle. Water vapor and heat are the only byproducts from vehicle operation and thus all negative environmental impacts result from the production and distribution of the fuel.

Lifecycle Emissions Distributed steam methane reforming is the most probable scenario for hydrogen production for the foreseeable future. This process reacts methane with steam at high temperature to produce hydrogen. Though carbon is released, the process is more efficient than burning the fuel in a combustion engine. Using lifecycle analysis modeling of emissions under this scenario (see Table 8-1), VOC, CO, NOx are expected to decrease by a substantial amount.

PM10 is expected to increase somewhat, although the absolute amount of these pollutants remains quite small.149 Lifecycle emissions reductions compared to gasoline are as follows:150 GHG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

40-84% 59% 98% -23% -36% 92% N/A

H2 produced through electrolysis of water (splitting water molecules into pure hydrogen and oxygen) could greatly reduce emissions if the electricity came from renewable sources.151 However, the technological, economic, and political feasibility of mass-producing hydrogen via renewable energy sources is highly uncertain. Complementary technologies, such as carbon capture & storage (which could mitigate GHGs from non-renewable energy production), are also still unrefined. However, significant per-vehicle emissions reductions can be achieved even if hydrogen is produced through natural gas reforming, rather than renewable sources.

18

CHAPTER 8: DATA & FINDINGS Our data and findings are presented below. Table 8-1 summarizes the main criteria for each vehicle type, including the emissions profiles for all the AFVs relative to the gasoline baseline. More detailed data can be found in Table A-1 of the Appendix.

Consumer Appeal 1.

Safety No AFV stands out as being significantly safer than gasoline LDVs, although none seem to be more dangerous. BEVs reduce the risk of fires or explosions the most, but they still carry their own risks, such as electric shock.

2.

Range HEVs are the only alternative that has a range greater than gasoline LDVs. PHEVs, NGVs, and FCVs have a somewhat smaller range, while BEVs have a significantly smaller range.

3.

Refueling Availability As HEVs and PHEVs both use gasoline, the number of stations is comparable to that of gasoline LDVs. BEVs, NGVs, and FCVs each have few existing refueling stations, though home refueling is possible for each.

Monetary Costs 4.

Vehicle price + Maintenance costs + Cost of fuel All AFVs considered cost more than gasoline LDVs, but FCV stands out with significantly higher costs. These costs are expected to decrease in the long run but make FCVs infeasible for the present. The lower maintenance and fuel costs of HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and NGVs when compared with gasoline LDVs could offset their higher vehicle costs in the medium term as gasoline prices rise. The same could be true of FCVs in the long term if technical achievements and mass production reduce their cost premium to a similar level as other alternatives.

All AFVs are expected to have lower fuel and maintenance costs. The significance of this in comparison to its initial cost premium varies widely. Because quantitative estimates of maintenance savings are not available for all vehicle types, we calculated the years to break even using only fuel savings for each type below using current technology and current gasoline prices, absent any government subsidies or tax breaks. In this scenario only FCVs appear completely uneconomical, although the 11+ years for a HEV may well be beyond its useful life, given the 15,000 miles per year assumption. As the cost of gasoline rises relative to other energy sources, as is expected, these figures would shrink. However, we did the calculation with no discount rate. Even a small discount rate would extend the break-even period substantially. See Table 8-2.

Sensitivity analysis on gas prices and fuel efficiency is done in the next section.

Years to Break-even: Hybrid Electric Vehicle 11.3 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 7.7 Battery Electric Vehicle 4.7 Natural Gas Vehicle 9.1 Fuel Cell Vehicle 51.7 19

Table 8-1: Vehicle Comparison Chart

Safety Range Number of stations Home refueling Cost of vehicle to consumer Cost to build refueling infrastructure

Gasoline (baseline) fires and explosions up to 500

Hybrid Electric as safe as gasoline car 571-607

Plug-in Hybrid as safe as gasoline car 35-310

Electric some risk of electric shock < 200

Natural Gas safer than gasoline up to 280

Hydrogen less risk of fires and explosions up to 240

4538 no $15,000$40,000

4538 no $22,000$51,000

4759 yes $23,000$51,000

221 yes $21,000$50,000

140 yes

16 yes

0

0 less than gasoline 888 0.018 1.046 0.002 0.045 201 26-54% 25%

0 less than gasoline 594 46-70% 31%

18500 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 68-87% 11%

$20,000-$46,000 $250,000$1,700,000 25% lower than gasoline about $571 0.02 0.16 0.003 219.25 20%

$40,000-$65,000 $500,000 $5,000,000 less than gasoline $378 - 918 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-84% 59%

1%

98%

98%

0%

98%

6%

-18%

-416%

9%

-23%

-

-

-220%

20%

-36%

20%

93%

91%

45%

92%

29%

-125%

-494%

-

-

Maintenance Cost Cost of Fuel Tailpipe NOx Tailpipe CO Tailpipe NMOG Tailpipe PM Tailpipe NMHC Tailpipe CO2 Lifecycle Reductions, GHG Lifecycle Reductions, NOx

$500-$5,000 about $1371 0.02 1 0.01 0.01 .379 g/mi

Lifecycle Reductions, CO Lifecycle Reductions, PM10 Lifecycle Reductions, PM2.5

3.817 g/mi .083 g/mi

Lifecycle Reductions, VOC Lifecycle Reductions, SOx

.316 g/mi -

.036 g/mi

20

Winner electric, natural gas, & hydrogen hybrid electric plug-hybrid & hybrid electric all but hybrid electric all but hydrogen all but natural gas and hydrogen electric electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric & hydrogen electric hydrogen plug-in hybrid, electric & hydrogen natural gas natural gas plug-in hybrid, electric & hydrogen hybrid

Table 8-2: Vehicle Cost Chart Vehicle Fuel Price per gallon or equivalent Miles per gallon or equivalent Miles driven/year Fuel cost/year Fuel savings/year Cost/vehicle Vehicle cost premium Years to breakeven (0% discount)

Gasoline

HEV

3.37

3.37

31

50

15,000

PHEV

BEV

3.37

NGV

FCV

2.022

4.59

28

60

n/a

n/a

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

1630.65

1011.00

594.00

360.00

1083.21

1147.50

0.00

619.65

1036.65

1270.65

547.43

483.15

15,000

22,000

23,000

21,000

20,000

40,000

0

7,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

25,000

0.0

11.3

7.7

4.7

9.1

51.7

5.

Cost to build refueling infrastructure Because HEVs and PHEVs use gasoline, there would be no additional infrastructure costs. BEV charging stations are the least expensive and cost a small fraction of natural gas or hydrogen refueling stations. However, we wanted to determine the scale of infrastructure necessary and how that cost compared to the cost of the vehicles required to support such infrastructure.

In the optimistic scenario, we assume that refueling infrastructure for a particular alternative needs to match at least 10 percent of existing gas stations to induce drivers to purchase the vehicle. In the South Coast region this would be about 454 stations. The cost to build the necessary infrastructure is: (required stations - existing stations) * estimated cost per station. We further assume (based on the research of Melaina & Bremson) that at least 1,000 vehicles per station (454,000 vehicles in this scenario) are required to make the investment economically viable.152 At current estimates of car ownership in the region, that equals around 4.5% market penetration. Cost estimates for each alternative are reported in Table 8-3.

While BEVs clearly have significantly lower infrastructure costs, the more interesting result is that for each of the three alternatives that require new infrastructure, the infrastructure investment pales in comparison to the cost of replacing 4.5% of the vehicles in the region.

Hydrogen infrastructure represents the high mark at 4.6% of total cost, while natural gas is 3.3%, and electric a mere 0.05%. See Table 8-3. Sensitivity analysis for cost estimates and minimum number of filling stations is conducted below.

Environmental Damage 6.

Tailpipe emissions There are major differences in the tailpipe emissions of the different AFVs. HEVs, PHEVs, and NGVs are all slightly less than gasoline LDVs, while BEVs and FCVs have zero tailpipe emissions.

7.

Lifecycle emissions Lifecycle emissions reductions for each AFV are significant but have large ranges depending on a variety of factors; for example, where the electricity used to charge them comes from. All of them reduce nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, while all of them except natural gas actually increase both particulate matter and sulfur oxide. Lifecycle BEV emissions, however, significantly increase both pollutants.

21

Table 8-3: Infrastructure Cost Chart Infrastructure

Gas

HEV

PHEV

Cost per fueling station ($)

n/a

n/a

n/a

18,500

1,000,000

2,000,000

Existing stations Pct of existing gas stations req'd

4538

4538

4759

221

140

16

100%

100%

100%

10%

10%

10%

0

0

-221

233

314

438

Required stations Infrastructure cost ($)

0

BEV

NGV

FCV

0

0

4,306,800

313,800,000

875,600,000

Minimum vehicles*

n/a

453,800

453,800

453,800

453,800

453,800

Minimum market penetration

n/a

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

Minimum vehicle cost ($)

0

9,983,600,000

10,437,400,000

9,529,800,000

9,076,000,000

18,152,000,000

Premium above baseline ($)

0

3,176,600,000

3,630,400,000

2,722,800,000

2,269,000,000

11,345,000,000

n/a

n/a

9

691

1,929

Infrastructure Cost/Vehicle ($)

n/a

Infrastructure/Vehicle cost ratio n/a n/a n/a 0.05% 3.34% 4.60% *No new infrastructure required for HEV or PHEV but similar market penetration is assumed for the purposes of calculating total vehicle costs

Sensitivity Analysis Average Vehicle To be conservative we chose as our representative gasoline vehicle a high-mpg Kia. However, in reality the gasoline vehicles people are comparing these alternatives to may not be as efficient.

Overall fuel economy for cars and light trucks was 25 mpg in 2003. 153 See Table A-2. Compared to a 25 mpg vehicle the years to break-even are as follows: Hybrid Electric Vehicle 6.9 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 5.6 Battery Electric Vehicle 3.6 Natural Gas Vehicle 5.3 Fuel Cell Vehicle 28.6 High gas price At a gasoline price (Table A-3) of $6 per gallon the break-even of each alternative is as follows: Hybrid Electric Vehicle 6.3 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 3.5 Battery Electric Vehicle 2.4 Natural Gas Vehicle 5.1 Fuel Cell Vehicle 14.2 Although these numbers are still not discounted, at a high gas price or compared to a less efficient gasoline model, all alternatives recoup their cost premium within seven years except for FCV. Original Parameters, 3% discount Hybrid Electric Vehicle 13.5 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 8.6 Battery Electric Vehicle 5.0 Natural Gas Vehicle 10.5 Fuel Cell Vehicle never 22

A small discount rate of 3%, using original efficiency and gas price values and compounded annually, extends the breakeven point by several years. Again, FCV is the only alternative that does not recoup its cost, though the breakeven period for HEV and NGV may be longer than most people own their cars.

Cost of Infrastructure/Total Cost The following parameters were varied to test a wider range of assumptions. As before, these costs vary only among BEV, NGV, and FCV alternatives, as hybrids do not require additional infrastructure.

Station Cost At the high end (Table A-4) of per station cost estimates infrastructure costs still represent less than 10% of total costs for all alternatives. At the low end (Table A-5), FCVs represent the highest proportion of total costs at just 1.19%.

Station Penetration In this case, the assumption that alternatives must match 10% of existing gas stations in an area to support their users increases to 20% for NGV and FCV, and 25% for BEV, due to their shorter range. Results are in Table A-6. This change does not affect the relative infrastructure costs among these three alternatives nor does it have significant effect on the percent of total costs (including vehicles) that infrastructure represents, still below 5% for each alternative.

Overall, the finding that infrastructure cost is small compared to the cost of vehicles is robust. Although the alternatives are compared using simplified criteria and assumptions here, there are some possible wrinkles. First, BEVs’ range and longer recharging time may call for an even greater number of stations, though this is offset by the ability to recharge them at home, so the combined effect is unknown. Second, a careful sequencing of hydrogen supply, including using excess industrial H2 to satisfy initial demand, may significantly reduce infrastructure costs as compared to our calculations. However, FCVs themselves remain very expensive. Inexpensive, convenient, and widespread home refueling for any alternative may further alter the landscape. The key point that infrastructure cost is a small portion of total costs remains robust to these considerations.

Further Considerations “Clunkers” A disproportionate amount of air pollution comes not from new gasoline vehicles but older cars that have very high emissions. This raises the question of whether retiring these ―clunkers‖ is actually the way to get the most environmental benefit for the least cost. There are co-benefits to encouraging the use of AFVs, such as increased health benefits, above even efficient gasoline vehicles. Improving the technology and lowering the cost of alternative-fuel vehicles through incentives, regulation, research, etc., would ideally result in consumers choosing to retire their clunkers and replace them with these better vehicles. However, one must consider how consumers make this decision. If alternatives remain expensive and are simply mandated or regulated into the marketplace, people may hold onto their more polluting older vehicles for a longer time, actually causing a negative environmental impact. A clunker policy might be better sequenced after development and mass production of alternative vehicles lowers their cost premium and establishes a market.

23

Consumer Appeal The consumer appeal of AFVs could be negatively affected by the fact that consumers might not be able to service their own vehicles, as well as the fact that most mechanics are not yet trained to service these vehicles. Even gasoline LDVs, however, are becoming more and more complicated as manufacturers attempt to satisfy ever-stricter emissions and efficiency requirements. We argue throughout this report that creating an initial market for any alternative is one of the most important barriers to try to overcome. If a market for any of these AFVs is successfully created, mechanics and consumers would both be forced to begin learning the technical aspects of these vehicles.

Consumer appeal could also be affected by accessibility of fueling stations. There are few natural gas fueling stations and electricity charging stations both within the SCAB and outside it.

Furthermore, the ranges of NGVs and BEVs are shorter than those of conventional gasoline vehicles, resulting in the need for more frequent refueling. If finding a fueling station is difficult, drivers are less likely to switch to AFVs. However, some agencies have been working on the deployment of fueling stations in California. For example, the California Energy Commission set up a $3.4 million grant to add 1,600 electric vehicle charging stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and from San Francisco south to San Jose areas.154 The California Natural Gas Vehicle Partnership and the EV Project have also been promoting low-emission vehicles throughout California155.

Rebound Effect Some of the air quality benefits from alternative fuels might be cancelled out due to a phenomenon known as the ―rebound effect‖. If alternative fuels are cheaper, fuel cost and emissions savings may be offset by increased travel because less expensive fuel makes travel cheaper.156 The short run rebound effect has been estimated at between 3.1% and 4.5% while the long run estimates are between 15.3% and 22.2%.157 This means that a 10% increase in fuel efficiency would be expected to result in only a 7.78-8.47% drop in fuel use in the long run. As real incomes (and congestion) continue to rise, the relative importance of the value of time versus the cost of fuel will continue to increase in traveler’s decision making. Thus, the rebound effect is worth noting, but its effects are marginal and expected to decrease over time.

24

CHAPTER 9: POLICY PATHS Taking into consideration feasibility and cost in relation to environmental benefit, we found that there are essentially two paths the SCAB could take to try to meet the new EPA standards--one towards purely electric vehicles, and one towards hydrogen. Both paths and possible policies to get them going are outlined below.

Path to Electric One possible path is a gradual change from HEVs to PHEVs and finally to BEVs, which have the least emissions and environmental impact in the long term. BEVsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; short range (less than 200 miles), long recharging hours, and lack of public recharging infrastructure will hinder the popularity of BEVs. Therefore, in the short term, it is expected that with the advantages of longer range and accessible gasoline stations nationwide, HEVs and PHEVs will have stronger consumer appeal than BEVs. Furthermore, the switch from HEVs to PHEVs is a good adaptive process for drivers to learn how and when to charge their vehicles and help them ultimately change to BEVs. In the long run, however, more generation capacity will be needed to sustain a large market penetration of BEVs. In the short term, Lemoine et al (2008) estimate that current California generation capacity can support several million PHEVs if they are charged during off-peak hours.158 But once more PHEVs or BEVs run on the roads, building new generators may be a solution for the increasing electricity demand. To achieve the lowest emissions, the generators should not be coal-fired, which would increase SOx and particulate emissions, but should be higher-efficiency and sourced with renewable energy. Collectively, with investment in renewable energy and substantial technological improvements in range, BEVs could appeal to consumers and prevail in the vehicle market.

Path to Hydrogen One sensible way to build toward a hydrogen-powered vehicle fleet in the future is to expand the use of CNG in transportation in the short run. Although only a small amount of natural gas is currently used for transportation, it accounts for fully one-quarter of total energy consumption in the United States through other uses and the infrastructure is largely in place to distribute CNG for transportation on a much larger scale. Many new CNG fueling stations would still need to be built to support a substantial market penetration. However, the South Coast region already has nearly a third of the stations required to support significant market penetration, based on a requirement of 10% of existing gasoline stations, although some of these are private access only. At current gasoline prices CNG vehicles recover the price premium paid for the vehicle through fuel and maintenance savings and may also be supported by tax credits.

The ownership cost of CNG vehicles is expected to separate even further from gasoline in the next twenty years as the cost of CNG is projected to rise 16% while gasoline prices are expected to increase 80% over this time frame. In the short to medium term, CNG can provide somewhat improved environmental performance at a competitive cost.

At the same time, natural gas infrastructure can be used to start building toward the zero emissions offered by FCVs, if and when the technology improves enough to make them economically viable. Natural gas is currently the top source of commercial hydrogen in the 25

United States and likely to remain the most viable input for creating hydrogen for a long time.

Natural gas distribution lines could be used to bring natural gas to refueling stations where it could be converted to hydrogen to help build a market for FCVs. This path could also capitalize on the infrastructure that brings natural gas to private homes (approximately 55 percent of households have natural gas hookups) as the technology for producing/refueling hydrogen at home becomes economical. While FCVs remain prohibitively expensive in the present, laying the framework through the development of a CNG refueling network would be a wise investment whether FCVs ever become economical or not.

26

CHAPTER 10: POLICY OPTIONS There are issues that would need to be addressed for both paths described above, as well as for any other path toward lower emissions in the region--the need for more renewable sources of energy, creating a market for alternative fuel types, etc. Many different policy options, ranging from taxes and subsidies to regulations and standards, could address these issues. Still, some may question the necessity of public sector intervention to help develop AFVs rather than leaving it to the market.

Why the Public Sector?

There are several justifications for public sector involvement, including: external benefits of research and development, network effects, difficulty in meeting current standards, and external costs of air pollution.

External Benefits ● The research & development (R&D) of alternative fuels, systems, and related technology for cars would have positive spillover effects in other sectors which may not be fully captured by the firms that make the large initial investment in R&D. ● The chicken-and-egg problem, also known as a network-effect externality: each person that purchases an alternative fuel vehicle creates more value for other drivers of this vehicle type by supporting the further expansion of refueling infrastructure until the point of critical mass.

External Costs ● The health (and other) costs of air pollution are only partially borne by those who create them. As a result, people will not fully take into account the benefits to others of reducing emissions by driving an AFV and fewer of these vehicles will be purchased than would be optimal for society.

As mentioned previously, the current ground-level measure of ozone particulates in the SCAB is 120 ppb, and the federal standard is likely to be set as low as 60-70 ppb for 2023. In addition, NOx emissions in SCAB need to be reduced by 75-90% to meet the proposed standard. As a result of the significant external costs and benefits involved in air quality management, without public sector involvement it would be extremely difficult to meet these targets on time. The rest of this chapter explores ways public policy can help the SCAB achieve the proposed air quality standards.

Market-based Incentives One way to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles is by making them less expensive for the consumer to adopt. These rebates can offset either the cost of owning the vehicle or the initial purchase cost of the vehicle. The rebates (or tax credits) could also be aimed at businesses and agencies that are considering upgrading their fueling infrastructure.

Fuel Excise Tax Credits The federal government currently provides several programs that lower the cost of owning an AFV by reducing fuel costs. For instance, the ―Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit‖ is an incentive available from the federal government that gives consumers a tax credit of $.50 for 27

each gallon of alternative fuel purchased.159 A public commitment to maintain this credit could change help long-term vehicle purchasing decisions. These tax credits are currently available for CNG and hydrogen.

Purchase Cost Tax Credits Tax credits can also be offered to offset the initial purchase price of AFVs. For instance, the ―Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit,‖ which expired on December 31, 2010, lowered the purchase cost of an AFV by $4,000. 160 The federal government also offers a $7,500 tax credit for EVs and PHEVs, such as Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt.161 By decreasing the cost difference, consumers will be more likely to purchase AFVs. Whereas the previous credit is expired, there is a ―Fuel Cell Motor Vehicle Tax Credit‖ that is still currently available. A credit of up to $4,000 is available for the purchase of a fuel cell vehicle. This tax credit is set to expire on December 31, 2014.162 Given that CNGs and EVs are more realistic options in the near-term compared to FCVs, it would make more sense to extend this incentive to current market-ready AFVs. Infrastructure Credits Tax credits are also available for the installation of alternative fuel equipment by both consumers and fueling infrastructure owners. For infrastructure upgrades, the credit is ―up to 30% of the cost, not to exceed $30,000 for equipment placed into service in 2011.‖163 AFV owners who purchase accredited home fueling equipment are able to receive rebates up to $1,000. Finally, station owners that upgrade with hydrogen fueling equipment may claim up to $200,000 in credits. All of these benefits expire on December 31, 2011.164 Rebates In California, Farmers Insurance offers insurance discounts of up to 10 percent for owners of AFVs.165 Additionally, public utility companies offer lower rates for AFV owners. For instance, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District offers lower electricity rates for EV owners that charge at night. The LADWP provides a $0.025 per kilowatt rebate for using electricity to charge an EV during off-peak hours. Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Company offer natural gas at a discount to residential customers who own CNG vehicles and home fueling stations.166 Feasibility and Cost Effectiveness of Market-based Incentives Although Republicans and Democrats disagree on climate change legislation and lowering GHG emissions, there has been bipartisan support for subsidizing AFVs. 167 Polls show public support for AFV tax credits and promoting alternative fuels and energy sources. 168 Critics might oppose incentives on cost-effectiveness grounds and argue for implementing only the most cost-effective incentives. However, to overcome the chicken and egg problem, market incentives must address the problem from several fronts, which means that both consumers and infrastructure operators must be targeted. Additionally, ―most states lack clearly quantifiable information on AFV program goals and progress,‖ 169 making it difficult to evaluate program effectiveness and identify a clearly superior incentive.

Regulation According to the DOT, efficiency standards include: ―fuel economy standards, low carbon fuel standards, and GHG emission standards.‖170 These standards reduce carbon emissions by decreasing the amount of carbon released for every mile traveled. 171 They also result in net cost savings for consumers over the vehicle’s lifespan, as well as encourage further research and development.172 The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 28

(NHTSA) and the EPA are already working together to develop a national program geared toward improving fuel economy and GHG emissions for LDVs. Vehicle Standards Vehicle standards for increased fuel efficiency can reduce emissions ―in the near- to midterm, as the vehicle fleet turns over.‖173 These standards are especially important because evidence indicates that consumers do not fully take fuel savings into account when purchasing a vehicle.174 Fuel Standards A more technology-neutral approach to efficiency standards would be to regulate the specific carbon emissions of fuel, rather than regulating the vehicles themselves. Low-carbon fuel standards allow fuel suppliers to decide how to meet those standards in a way that is costeffective for them.175 These standards also address the issue of creating a market for certain types of fuels because they ensure future demand for them and stimulate the creation of vehicles that use those fuels.176 However, there are many issues that must be considered if a low-carbon fuel standard is to be adopted—overlap with existing federal standards, the extra cost of low-carbon fuels to manufacturers, uncertainty in quantifying lifecycle emissions in deciding whether a fuel is ―low-carbon,‖ difficulties in deciding whether other modes of transportation should be included, and the possibility that manufacturers may simply trade high-carbon fuels for lowcarbon fuels with other countries that do not have low-carbon requirements.177 Feasibility Any type of regulation policy could be almost impossible to both pass and implement at the regional level and would most likely need to be passed statewide. Because California is able to set its own vehicle, fuel, and emissions standards apart from the EPA, however, passing any of the above regulations should be much less difficult than in any other state.

Carbon pricing Increasing the cost of emissions through either a tax or a cap-and-trade system would provide an economic incentive to both consumers and business to reduce emissions in the most efficient way possible. This system has almost always been advanced as a way to reduce carbon emissions and control climate change. In the SCAB there is heightened concern about other pollutants, particularly ozone. Theoretically an ozone cap-and-trade or tax could be applied as well. Such a pricing system, if implemented, would have effects across all stages of the transportation process. It would encourage the use of alternative fuels, more efficient vehicles, more efficient transportation systems and exert downward pressure on travel demand. This strategy is particularly valuable in that it allows market forces to determine the lowest-cost ways to reduce pollutants.

While it has a weaker correlation to other external costs of driving such as congestion and road damage, the motor fuels tax is a reasonable approximation of an emission pricing system in the transportation sector. Due to a combination of inflation and increased vehicle fuel efficiency the relative impact of the per-gallon levy on gasoline has diminished significantly. In California, the gasoline tax has roughly half the real purchasing power it did fifty years ago. 178 Increasing the tax on gasoline can have many of the same effects as pricing emissions directly in reducing emissions throughout the lifecycle of transportation. By exerting downward pressure on the quantity of gasoline demanded, increasing the tax encourages drivers to drive less, buy more efficient vehicles, and/or switch to alternative fuels, all of which will reduce emissions.

29

Feasibility In practice a cap-and-trade or pollutant tax would have to be done economy-wide to work properly. Despite its benefits there does not appear to be political will to implement something like this at the national level. The Obama administration has backed away from the cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions that was a part of the campaign platform in 2008.179 The gas tax is both highly visible and a victim of its own success as the more it encourages the switch to alternative fuels, the less revenue it actually provides to construct and maintain transportation infrastructure. For these reasons, among others, the trend nationwide has been toward bonding and general taxation instruments, such as the sales tax, to finance transportation systems while allowing the gasoline tax to languish. 180 Still, such a tax is a viable if incomplete tool to manage emissions at either the regional or state level, even if its value as a source of revenue is diminishing.

Research and Development Many of the technologies used in the alternative-fuel vehicles discussed in this report are currently underdeveloped. Consequently, formal research and development could make a huge impact on emissions both in the short and long term. For example, developing a battery with a range comparable to that of PHEVs that costs the same or less than current batteries would help BEVs be phased in sooner. Developing technologies that could take advantage of renewable energy in the lifecycles of all vehicle types would also have a major impact on emissions.

Formal research should be technology-neutral—not choosing winners and losers but instead focusing on outcomes—and address improvements in both the short and long term.181 In addition, this research must include not only the specific technologies themselves but also how to implement them and generate a demand for them in the market.182 The DOT identifies some key research areas that should be included in any transportation R&D program that aims to reduce emissions: alternative fuels and their corresponding vehicles; ―break-through‖ technological advances; tools for transportation planning and investment; climate change and its relation to transportation emissions; information technology; and policy analysis, including considerations of equity impacts.183 Feasibility An R&D program for the SCAB would be most efficient in partnership with other R&D programs, including and especially federal ones. Further research would need to be done on the technological capabilities within the SCAB to produce such a formal and advanced program.

Political feasibility is directly dependent on how much funding would be necessary to get a program such as this up and running—there are typically no other political barriers to implementing an R&D program.

Partnerships To appeal to drivers in Southern California to consider AFVs, the local authorities could seek partnerships with government entities in other areas and of other levels to involve them in building fueling stations and promoting low-emission vehicles (see Chapter 11 for more details).

Involvement of other counties, states, and the federal government would facilitate a welldesigned and well-integrated plan, standardized safety codes for new types of refueling infrastructure, and relevant incentives to encourage the Southern California residents to buy certain types of vehicles. If fueling stations can also be easily found outside of the Southern 30

California, drivers would be less hesitant to buy that kind of car. This is the so-called network effectâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;that the more people that use a certain kind of product or service, the higher the value of that product or service.

Transportation planning and investment decisions can also help to â&#x20AC;&#x2022;reduce travel distances, fund low carbon alternatives and improve the operating efficiency of the multimodal transportation network.â&#x20AC;&#x2013;184 A large part of these decisions is coordinating transportation planning with land-use decisions in order to improve both and make spending more efficient. For example, increasing the use of mixed-use development, mixed-income communities and multiple transportation options can greatly reduce the number of trips people need to take as well as the distances of those trips.185 Besides partnerships in planning, cooperation resulting from inter-industry partnerships would enhance new vehicle technologies. For example, the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles or Clean Cities Program have taken steps in this direction. In addition, automobile manufacturers, such as Honda and Nissan, are significant players in the AFV market and have incentives to partner with the SCAB to invest in building fueling stations and R&D. Feasibility With the rising consensus of cutting emissions in California, it is likely that government entities would be willing to partner with each other and with private organizations to plan alternative fueling stations. Given the tight California state budget, partnership is also a good strategy for the California government to create more funding to promote AFVs. For example, the California Energy Commission set up a $3.4 million grant, partially funded by the federal government, to add 1,600 electric vehicle charging stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and from the San Francisco to the San Jose areas.186 Existing alliances, such as the California Natural Gas Vehicle Partnership and the EV Project, have been working on increasing the deployment of low-emission vehicles throughout California. Partnerships are happening, and the political feasibility of partnerships is likely to continue to grow.

31

CHAPTER 11: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Of the policies listed above, the two we strongly recommend for the time being are tax credits and R&D, both in combination with partnerships. Our recommendations are based on several factors--the relative costs and environmental benefits for each fuel type we found, the potential of the policy to overcome some of the problems we have identified as being worthy of public-sector intervention, and feasibility. These policies can set in motion a process that will overcome the chicken-and-egg problem and create a successful market for alternative-fuel vehicles.

Policy #1: Vehicle cost tax credits and partnerships to boost the market Costs, benefits, and efficiency A targeted tax credit, if tailored to the approximate societal value of emissions reduction, is more or less efficient as it indirectly prices a previously unpriced externality. Subsidizing 100% of the cost premium to build an AFV market to critical mass may cost between $2 billion and $3 billion depending on the vehicle. However, the credit may not necessarily have to equal 100% of the premium to be effective and may be reduced as the cost premium shrinks and the vehicle gains wider adoption. Benefits include overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem and the significant health benefits associated with reducing harmful emissions.

Effectiveness Overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem is the largest and most immediate hurdle for any AFV. The profit motive thus far seems sufficient for automakers to research and develop these alternatives. The development of infrastructure is happening, (the number of H2 filling stations in California is set to expand to 46 by 2014) if more slowly and with the help of government incentives.187 In each case the interests are concentrated and profit-driven. Drivers are a much more dispersed, heterogeneous, and less cohesive group. While the cost premium they pay for AFVs is visible and immediate, the benefits occur in the future (reduced operation cost) and are dispersed among millions of others in the region (health benefits). Reducing cost, especially for early adopters, will be crucial in building a market.

Feasibility Tax credits and economic incentives are a clear possibility even in the current economic environment due to the widespread support they can garner. The president has gone on record numerous times supporting alternative energy and fuels. Although Republicans and Democrats have been deeply divided on climate change legislation and controlling GHG emissions, there has been bipartisan support for subsidizing alternative vehicles and refueling stations. 188 On the public side, polls conducted by various organizations show support for tax credits and supporting alternative fuels and energy sources. 189 Policy #2: R&D and partnerships to encourage the use of renewable energy Costs, benefits, and efficiency As R&D programs already exist, the way for the SCAB to get the most benefits out of such a program would be to partner with those other programs, including and especially federal R&D programs. These partnerships should only incur somewhat low administrative costs and produce high benefits for the SCAB. 32

Effectiveness As emphasized throughout this report, the use of renewable energy in the different lifecycle stages of the vehicle and fuel markets is currently relatively low. Further innovation is necessary to determine how to eliminate coal-fired plants and replace them with more sustainable forms of energy--not just in terms of technology but also how to implement them and generate market demand for them. These strategies would ideally lead to increased sustainable energy use in the future, lowering emissions and increasing demand for AFVs. Feasibility As mentioned previously, political feasibility is directly dependent on how much funding would be necessary to get a program such as this up and runningâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;we do not expect any other concentrated political opposition to implementing an R&D program. If the program is not created from scratch but is instead a branch of existing R&D programs, which is what we are recommending, costs would most likely be administrative, increasing political feasibility.

33

CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION The SCAB must manage emissions from a wide range of sources in order to meet its air quality goals. Passenger vehicles are a major source of pollution, however, and one over which state and regional authorities can exert control. Our study has found that each alternative has strengths and weaknesses. Hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles offer zero tailpipe emissions.

Yet the fuel cell remains too expensive to be expected to be a major factor by the 2023 attainment deadline, while on lifecycle analysis electric vehicles are environmentally unappealing as long as electricity is generated in coal-fired plants. Although hybrids are the dominant alternative and the one with which people are most familiar, natural gas vehicles offer very good environmental performance at a competitive price, if only a market can be built for them.

Due to the stringency of the EPA standards, the region will need to nearly zero out emissions and so move in the long-term toward either electric, hydrogen, or both through the paths we have identified above. The technological uncertainty present in both paths means that it is unclear what kind of vehicles we will be driving in the long-term. We believe, though, that public policy has a role to play in clarifying that picture sooner rather than later and promoting the alternatives that are viable today.

34

APPENDIX Table A-1: Vehicle Data Description of Criteria Safety Range Refueling availability Refueling availability Cost of vehicle to consumer Cost to build refueling infrastructure

miles per tank/ charge number of stations in the 4 counties home refueling/ recharging?

Gasoline causes fires and explosions up to 500

Hybrid Electric as safe as gasoline car 571-607

Plug-in Hybrid as safe as gasoline car 35-310

Electric some risk of electric shock < 200

Natural Gas safer than gasoline up to 280

Hydrogen less risk of fires and explosions up to 240

4538

4538

4759

221

140

16

no $15,000$40,000

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

$22,000-$51,000

$23,000-$51,000

$21,000-$50,000

0 less than gasoline

$18,500

$20,000-$46,000 $250,000$1,700,000

$40,000-$65,000 $500,000 $5,000,000 less than gasoline

for one station

0

per year

$500-$5,000

0 less than gasoline

3.346 about $1371* 11.4

3.346 888 5.9

3.346 594 4.0 - 9.0

360 2

0.99* 5.1* 0.02* 1* 0.01* 0.01* -

0.018 1.046 0.002 0.045 201

-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

.02* .16* .003* 219.25*

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions Lifecycle Emissions

per gallon or equivalent per year cents per mile smog-forming pollution, pounds per year GHG, tons per year NOx, grams per mile CO, grams per mile NMOG, grams per mile PM, grams per mile NMHC, grams per mile CO2, grams per mile percent GHG reductions, compared to gasoline percent reduction- NOx percent reduction- CO percent reduction- PM10 percent reduction- PM2.5 percent reduction- VOC percent reduction- SOx

25% less than gas.

20-40% cheaper than gasoline $860 - 1147 7.1 - 9.5

.379 g/mi 3.817 g/mi .083 g/mi .036 g/mi .316 g/mi -

26-54% 25% 1% 6% 20% 29%

46-70% 31% 98% -18% 93% -125%

68-87% 11% 98% -416% -220% 91% -494%

40-84% 59% 98% -23% -36% 92% -

Lifecycle Emissions

other

-

-

-

-

0.15 20% 0% 9% 20% 45% groundwater pollution

Maintenance Cost Cost of Fuel Cost of Fuel Cost of Fuel Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions Tailpipe Emissions

0

$0.95 - $2.30 $378 - 918 3.2 - 7.7

-

*Models: Gasoline- KIA Forte; Hybrid Electric- Toyota Prius; Plug-in Hybrid- Chevy Volt; Electric- Nissan Leaf; Natural Gas- Honda Civic GX; Hydrogen- Honda FCX Clarity

i

Table A-2: Average Fuel Economy Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Price per gallon or equivalent Miles per gallon or equivalent Miles driven/year Fuel cost/year Fuel savings/year Cost/vehicle Vehicle cost premium Years to breakeven (0% discount)

Gasoline HEV PHEV BEV NGV FCV 3.37 3.37 3.37 2.022 4.59 25 50 n/a n/a 28 60 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 2022.00 1011.00 594.00 360.00 1083.21 1147.50 0.00 1011.00 1428.00 1662.00 938.79 874.50 15,000 22,000 23,000 21,000 20,000 40,000 0 7,000 8,000 6,000 5,000 25,000 0.0 6.9 5.6 3.6 5.3 28.6

Table A-3: High Gasoline Price Vehicle Fuel Price per gallon or equivalent Miles per gallon or equivalent Miles driven/year Fuel cost/year Fuel savings/year Cost/vehicle Vehicle cost premium Years to breakeven (0% discount)

Gasoline HEV PHEV BEV NGV FCV 6 6 6 3.6 4.59 31 50 n/a n/a 28 60 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 2903.23 1800.00 594.00 360.00 1928.57 1147.50 0.00 1103.23 2309.23 2543.23 974.65 1755.73 15,000 22,000 23,000 21,000 20,000 40,000 0 7,000 8,000 6,000 5,000 25,000 0.0 6.3 3.5 2.4 5.1 14.2

Table A-4: High Infrastructure Cost Infrastructure Cost per fueling station ($) Existing stations Pct of existing gas stations req'd Required stations Infrastructure cost ($) Minimum vehicles* Minimum market penetration Minimum vehicle cost ($) Premium above baseline ($) Infrastructure Cost/Vehicle ($) Infrastructure/Vehicle cost ratio

Gas

HEV

n/a 4538

n/a

PHEV

BEV

FCV

4538

4759

37,000 221

1,700,000 140

4,000,000 16

100% 0 0 453,800

100% -221 0 453,800

10% 233 8,613,600 453,800

10% 314 533,460,000 453,800

10% 438 1,751,200,000 453,800

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

0

9,983,600,000

10,437,400,000

9,529,800,000

9,076,000,000

18,152,000,000

0

3,176,600,000

3,630,400,000

2,722,800,000

2,269,000,000

11,345,000,000

19

1,176

3,859

0.09%

5.55%

8.80%

100% 0 0 n/a n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

NGV

n/a

ii

Table A-5: Low Infrastructure Cost Infrastructure Cost per fueling station ($) Existing stations Pct of existing gas stations req'd Required stations Infrastructure cost ($) Minimum vehicles* Minimum market penetration Minimum vehicle cost ($) Premium above baseline ($) Infrastructure Cost/Vehicle ($) Infrastructure/Vehicle cost ratio

Gas

HEV

n/a 4538

n/a

PHEV

BEV

FCV

4538

4759

18,500 221

250,000 140

500,000 16

100% 0 0 453,800

100% -221 0 453,800

10% 233 4,306,800 453,800

10% 314 78,450,000 453,800

10% 438 218,900,000 453,800

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

4.51%

0

9,983,600,000

10,437,400,000

9,529,800,000

9,076,000,000

18,152,000,000

0

3,176,600,000

3,630,400,000

2,722,800,000

2,269,000,000

11,345,000,000

9

173

482

0.05%

0.86%

1.19%

NGV

FCV

100% 0 0 n/a n/a

n/a

n/a

NGV

n/a

n/a

Table A-6: High Station Availability Infrastructure Cost per fueling station ($) Existing stations Pct of existing gas stations req'd Required stations Infrastructure cost ($) Minimum vehicles* Minimum market penetration Minimum vehicle cost ($) Premium above baseline ($) Infrastructure Cost/Vehicle ($) Infrastructure/Vehicle cost ratio

Gas

HEV

n/a 4538

n/a 4538

4759

18,500 221

1,000,000 140

2,000,000 16

100% 0 0 n/a

100% 0 0 1,134,500

100% -221 0 1,134,500

25% 914 16,899,750 1,134,500

20% 768 767,600,000 907,600

20% 892 1,783,200,000 907,600

11.26%

11.26%

11.26%

9.01%

9.01%

0

24,959,000,000

26,093,500,000

23,824,500,000

18,152,000,000

36,304,000,000

0

7,941,500,000

9,076,000,000

6,807,000,000

4,538,000,000

22,690,000,000

15

846

1,965

0.07%

4.06%

4.68%

n/a

n/a

n/a

PHEV

BEV

n/a

n/a

iii

Abbreviations Used AFV – alternative fuel vehicle AQMD – South Coast Air Quality Management District BEV – battery electric vehicle CO – carbon monoxide CO2 – carbon dioxide CARB – California Air Resources Board CASAC – Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee CNG – compressed natural gas DOT – U.S. Department of Transportation EMF – electromagnetic field EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EV – electric vehicle (includes BEV and hybrids) FCV – fuel cell vehicle GHG – greenhouse gas H2 - hydrogen HEV – hybrid electric vehicle LDV – light-duty vehicle MSRP – manufacturer’s suggested retail price NGV – natural gas vehicle NOX – nitrogen oxides NHTSA – National Highway Transportation Safety Administration PHEV – plug-in hybrid electric vehicle PM – particulate matter ppb – parts per billion SCAB – South Coast Air Basin SMR – steam methane reforming SOX – sulfur oxides VMT – vehicle miles traveled VOC – volatile organic compounds

iv

REFERENCES 1

2

3

4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

EPA. ―Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants.‖ February 28, 2006. Accessed February 16, 2011. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923.

California Air Resources Board. "Key Events in the History of Air Quality in California." January 13, 2011.

Accessed March 6, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm California Air Resource Board. ―Key Events in the History of Air Quality in California‖ January 13, 2011.

Accessed March 6, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm ibid ibid American Lung Association. ―South Coast Fact Sheet.‖ Accessed February 15, 2011. http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/california/assets/pdfs/sota/south-coast-fact-sheet.pdf.

American Lung Association. ―Report Card: California.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/states/california/.

American Lung Association. ―EPA Reconsiders the Ozone Air Quality Standard: Will They Get It Right?‖ January 2010. Accessed February 17, 2011. http://www.cleanairstandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/ozone-air-quality-standard.pdf.

Kunzli N, Lurmann F, Segal M, Ngo L, Balmes J, Tager IB. ―Association Between Lifetime Ambient Ozone Exposure and Pulmonary Function in College Freshmen Results of a Pilot Study.‖ Environmental Research 72 (1997): 8-23.

FuturePorts. ―MATES III and Other Indicators of the Air Quality Challenge.‖ May 16, 2008. Accessed February 10, 2011. http://www.futureports.org/events/airquality/aq-greenwald-ppt.pdf. ibid South Coast Air Quality Management District. ―What AQMD Does.‖ Accessed April 16, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/index.html#What_AQMD_does South Coast Air Quality Managment District: ―How AQMD Controls Pollution.‖ Accessed April 16, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/index.html#how California Air Resources Board. ―Introduction to the Air Resources Board.‖ Accessed April 16, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/arb.htm Environmental Protection Agency. ―National Ambient Air Quality Standards.‖ Accessed April 19, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html American Lung Association. ―EPA Reconsiders the Ozone Air Quality Standard: Will They Get It Right?‖ January 2010. Accessed February 17, 2011. http://www.cleanairstandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/ozone-air-quality-standard.pdf.

Pilconis Leah. ―EPA Delays Ozone Standard Reconsideration Until Summer 2011.‖ AGC News. January 25, 2011. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://news.agc.org/2011/01/25/epa-delays-ozone-standard-reconsiderationuntil-summer-2011/.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. ―Southland Air Quality Officials Call on Federal Government to Adopt its Fair Share of Pollution Measures.‖ October 16, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2008/EPAdisapproves1hrplan.html.

FuturePorts. ―MATES III and Other Indicators of the Air Quality Challenge.‖ May 16, 2008. Accessed February 10, 2011. http://www.futureports.org/events/airquality/aq-greenwald-ppt.pdf. ibid Williams J. Carol. ―Local agencies can't limit train emissions, court rules.‖ LA Times, September 16, 2010.

Accessed February 9, 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/16/local/la-me-air-pollution-railroads20100916.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. ―About South Coast AQMD‖ August 26, 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/index.html Bailey, Regina. ―Carbon Monoxide.‖ Accessed April 22, 2011. http://biology.about.com/od/molecularbiology/a/carbon_monoxide.htm.

EPA. ―Health-Sulfur Dioxide.‖ Last updated on March 30, 2011. Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.html.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 33

34

35 36 37

38 39

40 41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

California Air Resources Board. ―Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.‖ Last updated on November 24, 2009. Accessed April 23, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/pm/pm.htm.

EPA. ―Volatile Organic Compounds.‖ Last updated on March 22, 2011. Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html#Health Effects.

Baker K. Angela Et. al. ―Measurement of nonmethane hydrocarbons in 28 U.S. cities.‖ Atmospheric Envrionment 42 (2008): 170-182.

Federal Highway Administration. ―1997 Federal highway cost allocation study.‖ August 1997. Accessed February 20, 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/summary/index.htm.

Leiby, Paul N.; Jones, Donald W.; Curlee, T. Randall and Lee, Russell. ―Oil Imports: An assessment of benefits and costs.‖ Oak Ridge, TN: Oakridge National Laboratory, November 1,1997. Accessed February 13, 2011. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/eess/energy_analysis/files/ORNL6851.pdf.

Poyer, D.A. & D.J. Santini. ―Cost and value of Vehicle Range: Roles in Estimation of Market Penetration of Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles.‖ December, 1999. Accessed April 20, 2011. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/97.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation.―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. P. ES-2.

EPA. ―Green Vehicle Guide.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do.

Schleifer, J. ―Fuel for Thought: How to Handle Gasoline Safely.‖ February 1, 2008. http://safetydailyadvisor.blr.com/archive/2008/02/01/gasoline_safety_fumes_storage_handling.aspx Since only statewide data were available, we assumed gas stations were distributed more or less by population.

The regional figure was calculated using the proportion of population in the four-county region multiplied by the number of gas stations statewide to get the number of gas stations in the four-county region. The population numbers were taken from the 2009 Population Estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau. ibid EPA. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ld-hwy/lev-nlev/subpt-r.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation.―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. ES-3.

EPA. ―Green Vehicle Guide.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do.

U.S. Department of Transportation.―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. ES-5. ibid. 3-28.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―U.S. Department of Energy Technology Snapshot—Featuring the Toyota Prius.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/techsnapprius1_5_01b.pdf.

Maynard Michelle. ―Toyota Will Offer a Plug-In Hybrid by 2010.‖ The New York Times, January 14, 2008.

Accessed February 15, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14plug.html.

Lisa Graham, Martha Christenson and Deniz Karman. ―Light Duty Hybrid Vehicles – Influence of Driving Cycle and Operating Temperature on Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions.‖ EIC Climate Change Technology (2006): 1-6.

O'dell John. ―2009 Hybrid Sales: Toyota Slows as Competition Gains; Ford Is Big Winner.‖ Edmunds. January 7, 2010. Accessed February 17, 2011. http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/01/2009-hybrid-salestoyota-slows-as-competition-gains-ford-is-big-winner.html.

Georgios Fontaras, Panayotis Pistikopoulos, Zissis Samaras. ―Experimental evaluation of hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions over real-world simulation driving cycles.‖ Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 4023–4035.

Jones A. Kimberly. ―The Environmental and Human Health Impact of the Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Lifecycle: Emissions from the Tailpipe and the Nickel Metal-Hydride Battery.‖ Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2007.

Maynard Michelle. ―Toyota Will Offer a Plug-In Hybrid by 2010.‖ The New York Times, January 14, 2008.

Accessed February 15, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14plug.html.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―U.S. Department of Energy Technology Snapshot—Featuring the Toyota Prius.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/techsnapprius1_5_01b.pdf.

Jim Motavalli, ―Fear, but Few Facts, on Hybrid Risk,‖ New York Times, Accessed March 15, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/automobiles/27EMF.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles.

50

51 52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59 60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

U.S. Department of Energy. ―U.S. Department of Energy Technology Snapshot—Featuring the Toyota Prius.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/techsnapprius1_5_01b.pdf.

Based on 11.9 gallon fuel tank and 48 mpg highway/51 mpg city.

Toyota. ―The 3rd Generation Toyota Prius Hybrid models and prices.‖Accessed February 16, 2011. http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/trims-prices.html.

Simpson Andrew. ―Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology.‖ Presented at the 22nd International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS-22) Yokohama, Japan October 23–28, 2006.

General Motors. ―Fuel Economy and Environmental Comparisons.‖ November 2010. Accessed February 20, 2011. http://gm-volt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/volt-label.png.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Transportation Energy Data Book.‖ Chapter 8: Table 8.12. Accessed February 16, 2011. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Spreadsheets/Table8_12.xls.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―2011 Chevy Volt.‖ Last modified March 4, 2011. Accessed February 21, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/phevsbs.shtml Toyota. ―The 3rd Generation Toyota Prius Hybrid models and prices.‖Accessed February 16, 2011. http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/trims-prices.html.

Taylor Alex. ―The Birth of the Prius.‖ CNN, February 24, 2006. Accessed February 21, 2006. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/03/06/8370702/ Chevrolet. ―2011 Chevy Volt.‖ Accessed February 18, 2011. www.chevrolet.com/volt/. ―Chevrolet Volt – What the Auto Press Says.‖ U.S. News. Accessed February 18, 2011. http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/.

Yvkoff Liane, ―Will hybrid batteries leave you high and dry?‖ AutoUSA. Accessed February 17, 2011. http://www.autousa.com/content/green-cars-reliable.jsp.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Fuel Economy Guide Model Year 2011.‖ Accessed February 20, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2011.pdf.

Based on 15,000 miles annual driving and an electricity cost of $0.11/kw-hr and a g gasoline price of $3.31/gallon.

Jared Fox, ―Five Birds with One Stone: Electric Vehicles Policy for California‖ (Applied Policy Project, Department of Public Policy, UCLA, 2009).

Kintner-Meyer, Michael, Kevin Schneider, and Robert Pratt. ―Impacts Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles on Electric Utilities and Regional U.S. Power Grids, Part 1: Technical Analysis.‖ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. November 2007. Accessed February 23, 2011. http://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/wellinghoff/524-07-technical-analy-wellinghoff.pdf Kintner-Meyer, Michael, Kevin Schneider, and Robert Pratt. ―Impacts Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles on Electric Utilities and Regional U.S. Power Grids, Part 2: Economic Assessment.‖ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. November 2007. Accessed February 23, 2011. http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf Lemoine, D. M. D. M. Kammen and A. E. Farrell. ―An Innovation and Policy Agenda for Commercially Competitive Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.‖ Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008).

U.S. Department of Energy. ―U.S. Department of Energy Technology Snapshot—Featuring the Toyota Prius.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/techsnapprius1_5_01b.pdf.

Georgios Fontaras, Panayotis Pistikopoulos, Zissis Samaras. ―Experimental evaluation of hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions over real-world simulation driving cycles.‖ Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 4023–4035.

Jones A. Kimberly. ―The Environmental and Human Health Impact of the Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Lifecycle: Emissions from the Tailpipe and the Nickel Metal-Hydride Battery.‖ Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2007.

Sherry Boschert, ―Well-to-Wheels Emissions Data for Plug-In Hybrids and Electric Vehicles: An Overview. http://www.sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.

Lemoine, D. M. D. M. Kammen and A. E. Farrell. ―An Innovation and Policy Agenda for Commercially Competitive Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.‖ Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008).

Lemoine, D. M. D. M. Kammen and A. E. Farrell. ―An Innovation and Policy Agenda for Commercially Competitive Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.‖ Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008) PG&E. ―Electric Vehicle (EV) Safety.‖ 2011. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/electricvehicles/safety/index.shtml. ibid.

76

77 78

79

80 81 82 83 84

85

86

87

88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95

96

97 98 99

100

101 102

103

104 105 106

U.S. Department of Transportation. ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 2-13. ibid. 2-66.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―U.S. Alternative Fueling Station Data.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/infrastructure.html.

U.S. Department of Transportation. ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 2-75 ibid. 2-12 ibid. 2-66 ibid. 2-75 ibid. 2-71 Wikipedia. ―Electric Car.‖ Accessed February 12, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Running_costs_and_Maintenance.

Carpenter, Susan (2010-03-30). "Nissan Leaf's promise: An affordable electric." LA Times, March 30, 2010.

Accessed February 12, 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/30/business/la-fi-nissan-leaf31-2010mar31 ―The average cost of residential electricity in 2010 is estimated at 9.8 cents per kWh, projected to increase to 11.8 cents per kWh by 2030. Assuming 10 cents per kWh, and a 0.26 kWh/mi efficiency, BEV operation costs would be approximately 2 cents per mile, compared to a conventional gasoline LDV in 2010 at about 8 cents per mile (or 12.2 cents per mile in 2030 pretax, using AEO Reference case assumptions).‖ U.S. Department of Transportation. ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 2-72 ibid. 2-13 ibid. 2-71 U.S. Department of Transportation. ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 3-6 ibid 2-71 ibid. 2-68 ibid. 3-7 ibid. 2-65 National Academy of Sciences. ―Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use.‖ 2009. P. 146.

U.S. Department of Transportation. ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 3-28 ibid. 2-68 ibid. 2-74 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ―Natural Gas Fact Sheet.‖ October 2008. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/42946.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―White Paper on Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities.‖ September 2009. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/clean_cities_workshop_natural_gas.pdf. ibid Clean Vehicle Education Foundations. ―How Safe are Natural Gas Vehicles?‖ September 17, 2010. Accessed February 13, 2011. http://www.cleanvehicle.org/committee/technical/PDFs/Web-TC-TechBul2-Safety.pdf.

Kragha, Oghenerume Christopher. ―Economic Implications of Natural Gas Vehicle Technology in U.S. Private Automobile Transportation.‖ Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. ibid ibid U.S. Department of Energy. ―White Paper on Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities.‖ September 2009. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/clean_cities_workshop_natural_gas.pdf.

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119 120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

U.S. Department of Energy. ―White Paper on Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities.‖ September 2009. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/clean_cities_workshop_natural_gas.pdf.

Kragha, Oghenerume Christopher. ―Economic Implications of Natural Gas Vehicle Technology in U.S. Private Automobile Transportation.‖ Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.

Honda, ―Compare Your Honda.‖ Accessed February 22, 2011. http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/compare/resultsoverview.aspx?ModelName=Civic+GX&ModelYear=2011&AICGroupNum=5094&AICNum1=29988&LastSta te=/tools/compare/select-competitor-hondachange.aspx%3FModelName%3DCivic%2BGX%26ModelYear%3D2011%26AICGroupNum%3D5094%26AI CNum1%3D29988%26LastState%3D%26AICNum2%3D27706%26Step%3Dselect_competitor_honda_change %26Change%3D1&AICNum2=27706&Step=select_competitor_honda_change&Change=&Filter=&Mode=&P hoto=.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Data Analysis and Trends.‖ Accessed February 23, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/.

Energy Management Institute. ―Alternative Fuels Index: A Weekly Price Benchmark for Alternative Fuels.‖ Accessed February 13, 2011. http://www.energyinstitution.org/publication/pub-detail.php?id=24.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―White Paper on Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities.‖ September 2009. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/clean_cities_workshop_natural_gas.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Data Analysis and Trends.‖ Accessed February 23, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. ―U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country.‖ Last modified February 28, 2011. Accessed March 13, 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm U.S. Energy Information Administration. ―Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries .‖ Last modified February 25, 2011. Accessed march 14, 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html British Petroleum. ―BP Statistical Review of World Energy.‖ June 2010. Accessed March 14, 2011. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_en ergy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2010_downloads/natural_gas_section_2010.pdf.

Kragha, Oghenerume Christopher. ―Economic Implications of Natural Gas Vehicle Technology in U.S. Private Automobile Transportation.‖ Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 U.S. Department of Energy. ―Clean Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas.‖ Accessed February 9, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/epa_cng.pdf. ibid U.S. Department of Energy. ―Issues Affecting Adoption of Natural Gas Fuel in Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.‖ September 2010. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19745.pdf ibid Kragha, Oghenerume Christopher. ―Economic Implications of Natural Gas Vehicle Technology in U.S. Private Automobile Transportation.‖ Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Issues Affecting Adoption of Natural Gas Fuel in Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.‖ September 2010. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19745.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. ―White Paper on Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities.‖ September 2009. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/clean_cities_workshop_natural_gas.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. ―Natural Gas Monthly.‖ February 28, 2011. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html U.S. Department of Energy. ―Issues Affecting Adoption of Natural Gas Fuel in Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.‖ September 2010. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19745.pdf PlumbersStock. ―Fuelmaker Phill.‖ Accessed February 19, 2011. https://www.plumbersstock.com/product/38974; U.S. Department of Energy. ―Issues Affecting Adoption of

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141 142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149 150

151

152

Natural Gas Fuel in Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.‖ September 2010. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19745.pdf Melaina, Marc W. and Joel Bremson. ―Refueling Availability for Alternative Fuel Vehicle Markets: Sufficient Urban Station Coverage.‖ Energy Policy 36 (2008): 3223 – 3231.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Issues Affecting Adoption of Natural Gas Fuel in Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.‖ September 2010. Accessed February 27, 2011. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19745.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. ―Honda Civic: Dedicated CNG Sedan.‖ Accessed February 17, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/civic.pdf.

Daniel J. Jason, and Rosen A. Marc. ―Exergetic envrionmental assessment of lifecycle emissions for various automobiles and fuels.‖ Exergy Journal 2 (2002): 283-294.

National Conference of State Legislatures. ―Hydraulic Fracturing: What’s the Big Fracking Deal?‖ December 2010. Accessed February 22, 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/energy/FrackingPub1210.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy. ―Hydrogen Safety‖ October 2006. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_safety.pdf Honda. ―FCX Clarity: About Fuel Cells FCEV‖ Accessed March 6, 2011. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcxclarity/hydrogen-safety.aspx U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program. "Hydrogen Safety." October 2006. Accessed April 24, 2011. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_safety.pdf Honda. ―FCX Clarity: Refueling‖ Accessed March 6, 2011. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcxclarity/refueling.aspx Honda. ―FCX Clarity: Drive FCX Clarity FCEV‖ Accessed March 6, 2011. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcxclarity/drive-fcx-clarity.aspx Ohnsman, Alan. ―Toyota Targets $50,000 Price for First Hydrogen Car.‖ Bloomberg Businessweek. May 6, 2010.

Yacobucci, B. ―Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues‖ Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. January 7, 2005.

Bandivadekar, A. et. al. ―On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions‖ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Report No. LFEE 2008-05 RP. 2008. ibid U.S. Department of Transportation, ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf Lin, Zhenhong et. al. ―The least-cost hydrogen for Southern California‖ Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Davis. March 14, 2008.

National Research Council. ―Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use‖ October 19, 2009.

National Academy of Sciences. ―Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use.‖ 2009. p. 151 Lin, Zhenhong et. al. ―The least-cost hydrogen for Southern California‖ Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Davis. March 14, 2008.

Tollefson, Jeff. ―Hydrogen Vehicles: Fuel of the Future?‖ Nature News. April 29, 2010. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100428/full/4641262a.html Lipman, T.E., and J.X. Weinert. ―An Assessment of the Near-Term Costs of Hydrogen Refueling Stations and Station Components‖ UCD-ITS-RR-06-03, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=itsdavis. ibid U.S. Department of Transportation.―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.‖ April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. ES-3.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "New Horizons for Hydrogen: Producing Hydrogen from Renewable Resources." 2003. Accessed April 24, 2011. http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2003/36178b.pdf Melaina, Marc W. and Joel Bremson. ―Refueling Availability for Alternative Fuel Vehicle Markets: Sufficient Urban Station Coverage.‖ Energy Policy 36 (2008): 3223 – 3231.

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164 165

166 167

168

169

170

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

179

180

181

182

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "Automotive Fuel Economy Program: Annual update calendar year 2003". http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/2003/index.htm Wesley Zhao, ―California Moves Towards Zero-Emissions Adding 1,600 EV Charging Stations,‖ Green Growth Cascadia, July 22, 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.greengrowthcc.com/2010/07/22/californiamoves-towards-zero-emissions-adding-1600-ev-charging-stations/.

California Natural Gas Vehicle Partnership. Accessed April 22, 2011. http://www.cngvp.org/; EV Project.

Accessed April 22, 2011. http://www.theevproject.com/.

U.S. Department of Transportation, ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 2-13-2-14.

Small, Kenneth A. & Kurt Van Dender. ―Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect‖ UC Irvine Economics Working Paper #05-06-03. August 18, 2007.

Lemoine, D. M. D. M. Kammen and A. E. Farrell. ―An Innovation and Policy Agenda for Commercially Competitive Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.‖ Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008) U.S. Department of Energy, ―Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit,‖ accessed March 5, 2011, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/law/U.S./319.

Internal Revenue Service, ―American Honda Motor Company, Inc. – Qualified Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicles,‖ accessed March 5, 2011,http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=201018,00.html. ―Chevrolet Volt – What the Auto Press Says.‖ U.S. News. Accessed February 18, 2011. http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/.

U.S. Department of Energy, ―Fuel Cell Motor Vehicle Tax Credit,‖ accessed March 5, 2011, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/law/U.S./350.

U.S. Department of Energy, ―Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit,‖ accessed March 5, 2011, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/law/U.S./351. ibid U.S. Department of Energy, ―California Incentives and Laws for Other,‖ accessed March 5, 2011, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/laws/CA/incentive/3841. ibid Zeller, Shawn. "Electric Cars Get a Boost From Both Parties." CQ Weekly (June 7, 2010): 1377. http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/weeklyreport111-000003677628 Cambridge Reports National Omnibus Survey, Jun, 2009. Retrieved Mar-7-2011 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.htm Rubin Jonathan, and Leiby Paul. ―Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policies to Promote Alternative Fuel Vehicles.‖ Transportation Research Record 1750 (2007): 84-91.

U.S. Department of Transportation, ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 5-1. ibid ibid ibid. 5-4. ibid ibid. 5-5. ibid. 5-6. ibid Wachs, Martin. ―Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance.‖ The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform. April 2003.

Condon, Stephanie. ―White House:’Cap and Trade’ is Out.‖ CBS News. March 31, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001508-503544.html Wachs, Martin. ―Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance.‖ The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform. April 2003.

U.S. Department of Transportation, ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 5-15. ibid

183 184

185 186

187

188

189

ibid. 5-14.

U.S. Department of Transportation, ―Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, April, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2011, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report__April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. ES-7. ibid Wesley Zhao, ―California Moves Towards Zero-Emissions Adding 1,600 EV Charging Stations,‖ Green Growth Cascadia, July 22, 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011,http://www.greengrowthcc.com/2010/07/22/california-movestowards-zero-emissions-adding-1600-ev-charging-stations/.

Yvkoff, Liane. ―California to get 46 retail hydrogen stations by 2014.‖ CNET. March 25, 2009. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10204075-48.html Zeller, Shawn. "Electric Cars Get a Boost From Both Parties." CQ Weekly (June 7, 2010): 1377. http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/weeklyreport111-000003677628 Cambridge Reports National Omnibus Survey, Jun, 2009. Retrieved Mar-7-2011 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.htm