United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology,

House of Representatives

December 1994 ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Likely Consequences

of U.S. and Other

Nations’ Programs and

Policies

GAO/PEMD-95-7

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Program Evaluation and

Methodology Division

B-250142 

December 30, 1994

The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on Science,

 Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report responds to your request that we examine international electric vehicle

development and commercialization programs. Our study encompassed a review of current

barriers to widespread electric vehicle implementation, field visits in seven nations and the

United States to examine electric vehicle programs and policies, and analyses of electric vehicle

effects on economics, energy, and the environment. Our purpose in providing this review is to

assist the Committee as it considers policies for an effective federal role in researching,

developing, testing, and deploying electric vehicles.

We will be sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, and we will also make

copies available to others upon request. If you have any questions or would like additional

information, please call me at (202) 512-3092. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Kwai-Cheung Chan

Director for Program Evaluation

 in Physical Systems Areas
Executive Summary

Purpose California and several northeastern states have adopted or are considering

legislation that would require automobile manufacturers—both foreign

and domestic—to supply some 70,000 electric vehicles in 1998 and nearly a

million by 2003. Uncertainties about the readiness of electric vehicle

technology led the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

to ask GAO to compare electric vehicle development and commercialization

programs internationally. In particular, the Committee asked GAO to review

other nations’ programs that might inform current and proposed U.S.

policies and programs to support electric vehicles. Reviewing programs in

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United

Kingdom, as well as the United States, GAO sought to answer the following

questions: (1) What are the current barriers to the widespread introduction

of electric vehicles? (2) What are the nature and extent of other nations’

policies and programs for developing, producing, and promoting electric

vehicles? (3) What are the likely effects of introducing electric vehicles in

terms of costs to the individual, national energy savings, and effects on the

environment?

Background The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires states to alleviate

regional air pollution. Electric vehicles emit no direct air pollutants and

are therefore seen as an environmentally friendly substitute for internal

combustion engine vehicles, particularly in urban areas where poor

ambient air quality is believed to pose a serious health threat. Thus, some

states are including electric vehicles in their efforts to reduce air pollution.

The largest government initiative anywhere to support the widespread

introduction of electric vehicles is in California legislation that requires

that 2 percent of vehicles marketed in that state be zero-emission vehicles

by 1998, with increases to 10 percent by 2003. Eleven northeastern and

mid-Atlantic states have adopted or are considering similar legislation. At

the federal level, electric vehicle programs with various funding levels and

scopes have been initiated through the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the National

Defense Authorization Act of 1993. In the most ambitious federal effort,

the Department of Energy (DOE) is in a $262 million partnership with the

U.S. automobile industry to develop advanced batteries for electric

vehicles.

Results in Brief The ultimate viability of electric vehicles for widespread transportation

cannot now be predicted or ensured. Five major barriers to the immediate

Page 2 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Executive Summary

introduction of electric vehicles are limitations of current battery

technology, gaps in required infrastructure, uncertain safety, uncertain

market potential, and high initial purchase price. Extensive efforts to

eliminate these barriers are inherently risky and will require substantial

money, time, and attention.

The U.S. policy toward electric vehicles is fragmented in two ways. First,

already limited funds are divided into several small programs across three

different federal departments. Second and more importantly, the lack of

emphasis on the barriers that can be addressed before a battery

breakthrough and that ultimately must be resolved to market a viable

vehicle—namely, issues of infrastructure support, market development,

and production—leaves a gap between state policies mandating electric

vehicle markets and federal policies supporting battery technology

initiatives.

The fragmented U.S. approach, when coupled with other nations’ more

comprehensive focus on infrastructure, marketing, and production, raises

the specter of past U.S. technological successes better commercialized by

foreign competitors. The United States may fund the successful

development of an advanced battery that other countries could quickly

incorporate into marketable, low-cost, performance-tested vehicles. The

case of electric vehicles, moreover, could pose a unique risk because of

the artificial U.S. market created by state mandates.

The potential benefits of introducing electric vehicles are not uniform

across all nations. The range and diversity of electric vehicles’ economic,

energy, and environmental effects suggest that they could not solve all

transportation and environmental problems even if they were available

immediately. Yet, without comprehensive support, they are not likely to

achieve enough success to contribute at all to increasing energy security

and decreasing air pollution.

Principal Findings

Barriers State-of-the-art batteries typically have a range of about 80 to 100 miles,

acceleration power that is somewhat less than that of a traditional vehicle,

and a maximum operating life of 500 to 2,000 charges. Current battery

types vary in performance and other criteria important to their ultimate

Page 3 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Executive Summary

success, such as servicing and maintenance, recharging efficiency, mass

production feasibility, and price.

Infrastructure requirements can be met, but most major components of

recharging, service, and toxic battery recycling support are not in place.

Electric vehicles also present some unique safety hazards from the

chemical constituents and high voltages and operating temperatures of

some batteries. Battery mass may also affect vehicle maneuverability and

crashworthiness.

Electric vehicles face an uncertain market potential until consumers

adjust to their unfamiliar performance characteristics. However, corporate

and government fleets typically travel within narrow daily ranges and

return to a central garage, suggesting that electric vehicles could be first

introduced into such fleets. Currently quoted initial purchase prices and

production costs vary widely, from under $20,000 to more than $350,000

for an electric van. However, the initial purchase price of vehicles that

meet the reasonable demands of consumers will most likely remain at

least two to three times higher than comparable internal combustion

engine vehicle prices in the near term.

International Programs International approaches to eliminating these barriers vary. Japan

addresses current battery technology and market barriers by funding

government and industry research consortia and targeting government and

commercial fleets for an initial market. Swiss manufacturers are

developing high-performance, lightweight vehicles to meet international

crash test standards. France, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland assess

infrastructure needs and market characteristics through large national and

local demonstration projects that include public recharging stations and

maintenance facilities as well as through public education and

familiarization programs.

The United States has focused on two ends of the commercialization

process: research and development and market establishment. In contrast,

efforts to pilot, demonstrate, and develop empirically based assessments

of how best to introduce electric vehicles have been rather limited,

particularly in comparison with the emphasis placed on these processes in

other countries. Funds have not been appropriated for two major

authorized electric vehicle programs in the Energy Policy Act, and

demonstration programs funded by defense appropriations are located

primarily on military bases. Demonstration program officials cite

Page 4 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Executive Summary

considerable difficulty obtaining electric vehicles in sufficient numbers for

adequate field testing.

Several foreign manufacturers potentially subject to California-type

legislation are now producing and testing electric vehicles using

limited-performance batteries, in part to avoid duplicating the work and

expected products of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. If successful,

some may well have low-cost, performance-tested vehicles ready to be

fitted with the advanced batteries now being developed by the consortium.

National and Regional

Effects

The high initial costs of electric vehicles and batteries produced at low

volumes outweigh any benefits from their reduced maintenance and

fueling costs. When electric vehicles and batteries are produced in high

volume, however, consumers in all nations except the United States could

expect to pay less to own and operate an electric vehicle than they would

pay for a comparable gasoline vehicle. Consumers in the United States pay

less for gasoline than those in any other nation. Thus, the United States

has the least favorable electricity-to-gasoline price ratio for reducing

operating costs.

While currently available electric vehicles use 20 to 35 percent more

primary energy than gasoline vehicles, advanced technology electric

vehicles are anticipated to reduce U.S. primary energy consumption by 30

to 35 percent in 2010. The United States would save more annually ($2.5

billion) by replacing 10 percent of its vehicle numbers with electric

vehicles than any other nation GAO reviewed, while Italy would save the

least (approximately $300 million).

Electric vehicles eliminate the direct emissions of hydrocarbons and

carbon monoxide associated with urban smog. However, nations that rely

heavily on coal and oil for electricity production, including the United

States, could see substantial increases in sulfur dioxide emissions (a major

component of soot, smoke, and acid deposits) and no change or even

moderate increases in carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The feasibility

and costs of monitoring and containing these added emissions would have

to be considered in the implementation of effective electric vehicle

programs.

Electric vehicles—or any single technology—will not solve the world’s

assorted transportation-related problems. This nation’s fuel-neutral energy

policy divides funding among many fuel types, in part to ensure that viable

Page 5 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Executive Summary

alternative fuels will be developed and commercialized. Electric vehicles

receive disproportionately less funding compared to other alternatives.

They are not fully developed on any dimension and will likely remain so

without a balanced national policy that supports all aspects of EV

development and infrastructure. While inherent risks are associated with

sizable investments in a nascent technology, a more tentative U.S.

approach carries another risk: investing the millions of dollars in battery

research and then losing early market share in mandated state markets.

Recommendations GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments DOE took issue with some points in GAO’s report but generally concurred

with its findings and conclusions. Points of disagreement included

estimates of likely vehicle costs and energy efficiency as well as the effect

of U.S. power plant emission regulations (see appendix I). DOE also

provided a number of technical and editorial comments, which GAO

incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Page 6 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Page 7 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

Introduction 12

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 13

Limitations of Our Study 16

Organization of This Report 17

Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to

the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

18

Current Limitations of EV Batteries 18

Current EV Infrastructure Barriers 21

Safety Considerations 25

Uncertain Market Potential 30

High Initial Purchase Prices 34

Summary and Conclusions 35

Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle

Policies and Programs

38

Status of Diffusion and Promotion Policies 41

Major Production Efforts 49

Infrastructure Development and Demonstration 60

Vehicle and Battery Research and Development 68

Summary and Conclusions 72

Chapter 4 

National and Regional

Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the

Environment

74

Introduction 74

Costs to Own and Operate EVs in Different Nations 74

EV Effects on Energy Independence 85

EV Effects on Air Quality 93

Environmental Effects of EVs in Four U.S. Cities 106

Summary and Conclusions 111

Chapter 5 

Summary and

Conclusions

113

Current Barriers to Widespread EV Use 113

National Electric Vehicle Programs 114

National and Regional Concerns 115

Conclusions 116

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Energy 120

Page 8 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Contents

Appendix II: Adopted State Legislative Initiatives Regarding

Alternative Fuels

130

Appendix III: Advanced Battery Consortium Technical Criteria 136

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 137

Tables Table 1.1: Projected EV Sales 13

Table 2.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Current EV Batteries 20

Table 3.1: Key Elements of Electric Vehicle Programs 39

Table 3.2: Japan’s Electric Vehicle Production Goals 46

Table 4.1: Initial Purchase Price of Electric Citistromers as a

Function of Annual Production Level

75

Table 4.2: Battery Cost Per Driving Distance 77

Table 4.3: Transportation Statistics for Eight Nations, 1990 86

Table 4.4: Changes in Primary Energy Consumption by EVs

Relative to ICEV Energy Consumption

88

Table 4.5: Nations’ Oil Use Statistics and Projected Annual

Savings in Oil If EVs Replace 10 Percent of ICEVs

90

Table 4.6: Health Problems Commonly Associated With Air

Pollutants

93

Table 4.7: Percentage Share of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Per Capita Emissions With Greenhouse Index Rankings, 1989

95

Table 4.8: Percentage of Emissions Attributable to Various End

Use Sectors

96

Table 4.9: Projected Electricity Generation Mixes in Eight

Nations in 2005

97

Table 4.10: Projected Marginal Power Plant Mix for EV

Recharging

107

Table 4.11: Attainment of EPA’s Ambient Air Quality Standards in

Four Cities

109

Table 4.12: Estimated Avoided Pollution Costs of EVs in Four

U.S. Cities

110

Table 5.1: Battery Issues to Be Resolved 113

Table III.1: Primary Criteria With Mid-Term and Long-Term Goals 136

Table III.2: Secondary Criteria With Mid-Term and Long-Term

Goals

136

Figures Figure 2.1: Charging Station 23

Figure 2.2: Crash Testing 29

Figure 3.1: Energy Efficiency 51

Figure 3.2: Composite Body Platform 57

Page 9 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Contents

Figure 3.3: Off-the-Shelf Components 59

Figure 4.1: Total Lifetime Purchase Costs to Travel 100,000 Miles

in a Citistromer by Battery Type and Production Volume

81

Figure 4.2: Near-Term Life-Cycle Costs of EVs and ICEVs 83

Figure 4.3: Final Life-Cycle Costs of EVs and ICEVs 84

Figure 4.4: Percent Change in Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:

Low-Efficiency EV Versus High-Fuel-Economy ICEV

99

Figure 4.5: Percent Change in Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:

High-Efficiency EV Versus Low-Fuel-Economy ICEV

100

Figure 4.6: Percent Change in Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:

Low-Efficiency EV Versus High-Fuel-Economy ICEV

102

Figure 4.7: Percent Change in Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:

High-Efficiency EV Versus Low-Fuel-Economy ICEV

103

Figure 4.8: Percent Change in Emissions If an EV Replaces an

ICEV

108

Abbreviations

ABB Asea Brown Boveri Hochenergiebatterie, GmbH (German

high energy battery company)

ADEME Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie

(French Agency for Environment and Energy Management)

AFV Alternative fuel vehicle

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency

AVERE Association Europeenne des Vehicules Electriques Routiers

(European Association of Electric Road Vehicles)

BMFT Bundesministerium für Forschjung und Technologie

(German Ministry for Research and Technology)

CARB California Air Resources Board

CAT Clean Air Transport, Inc.

CITELEC European Association of Cities Interested in Electric

Vehicles

CNG Compressed natural gas

CNR Italian National Council of Research

DAUG Deutschen Automobilgesellschaft mbH (German

Automobile Society)

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EDF Electricité de France (French national utility)

ENEA Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, L’Energia e l’Ambiente

(Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy, and the

Environment)

ENEL Italian Public Electricity Board

Page 10 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Contents

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EV Electric vehicle

EVOC Japanese Electric Vehicle Community System

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office

GSA General Services Administration

ICEV Internal combustion engine vehicle

IEA International Energy Association

JEVA Japan Electric Vehicle Association

LEV Low-emission vehicle

MITI Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry

NEDO Japanese New Energy and Industrial Technology

Development Organization

NHTSA U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NUTEK Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical

Development

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PNGV Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

SEER French Société Européenne des Electromobiles Rochelaises

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District

USABC U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium

Page 11 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Introduction In many respects, electric vehicles (EVs) have the potential to reduce the

transportation sector’s adverse effect on environmental quality and

petroleum independence. Experts widely agree that EVs could be a cleaner

alternative to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs),

particularly in highly polluted and congested urban areas where poor

ambient air quality poses a serious health threat. Electricity can be

produced by many fuels, including some that are nonpolluting, and

renewable resources, such as geothermal energy and hydropower.

Moreover, the energy efficiency of ICEVs is severely reduced in the typical

stop-and-go traffic of urban areas, whereas EVs are less hampered by such

real world driving conditions. Further, EVs are nearly silent when running,

an attribute that could greatly alleviate the noise pollution that lowers the

quality of life in many urban and suburban places.

Thus, EVs are playing a vital role in some regional responses to the federal

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which requires the states to alleviate

air pollution. Although EVs are not yet being widely produced, there is

already a legislative requirement in California that in 1998 a total of

2 percent of vehicles marketed in that state must be zero-emission

vehicles, with percentage increases in subsequent years up to 10 percent

by 2003. This timetable has understandably fueled a race among the

world’s largest automobile manufacturers to become the first to introduce

a viable EV in the California marketplace.1

 Even greater incentives have

recently arisen as 11 northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have adopted or

are considering similar legislation.

The potential effect of these imposed mandates can be seen in table 1.1,

which presents projected EV sales from 1998 through 2003 as calculated by

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) based on total 1990 car and

light truck sales. If all 11 states and the District of Columbia adopt

California-type legislation, 70,600 EVs would be required in 1998; in 2003,

when 10 percent of all new cars in California must be zero-emission, that

figure rises to 353,600.

1

The mandate currently applies only to manufacturers with sales of 35,000 or more vehicles in

California. Smaller manufacturers are exempt but can produce EVs and sell zero-emission credits to

larger manufacturers, which can then use them in lieu of actual vehicles.

Page 12 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Table 1.1: Projected EV Salesa

State

Total new cars

and light trucks

registered in 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

California 1,221,800 24,400 24,400 24,400 61,100 61,100 122,200

Delaware 47,100 900 900 900 2,400 2,400 4,700

Maine 44,300 900 900 900 2,200 2,200 4,400

Maryland 290,000 5,800 5,800 5,800 14,500 14,500 29,000

Massachusetts 255,800 5,100 5,100 5,100 12,800 12,800 25,600

New Hampshire 55,800 1,100 1,100 1,100 2,800 2,800 5,600

New Jersey 405,600 8,100 8,100 8,100 20,300 20,300 40,600

New York 644,700 12,900 12,900 12,900 32,200 32,200 64,500

Pennsylvania 490,400 9,800 9,800 9,800 24,500 24,500 49,000

Rhode Island 37,400 700 700 700 1,900 1,900 3,700

Vermont 24,300 500 500 500 1,200 1,200 2,400

Washington, D.C. 19,200 400 400 400 1,000 1,000 1,900

Total 3,536,400 70,600 70,600 70,600 176,900 176,900 353,600

aBased on 1990 new vehicle registrations and California Air Resources Board yearly targeted

zero-emission vehicles requirements. By 1998-2000, zero-emission vehicles must constitute

2 percent of the new car and light truck market; by 2001-2002, 5 percent of the market; by 2003,

10 percent of the market.

Source: The Electric Power Research Institute.

Whether these EVs are merely supplied by the manufacturer (as the current

California legislation reads) or whether EVs are actually purchased will

ultimately be determined by consumers. But it is generally believed that

many barriers must be overcome before EVs are a viable transportation

option.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Uncertainties about the readiness of EV technology led the House

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to ask us to undertake a

study of international EV development and commercialization programs.

The Committee was particularly interested in the aspects of other

industrialized nations’ electric vehicle programs that might inform current

and proposed U.S. policies and programs to support electric vehicles.

Thus, our overall objective in this report was to examine international

efforts to identify and resolve barriers to widespread EV use, so that the

accumulated experience and lessons learned could help the United States

identify both electric vehicle goals that are achievable and the means for

Page 13 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

achieving them. In consultation with committee staff, we agreed on the

following evaluation questions to guide our work:

1. What are the main current barriers to the widespread introduction of

EVs?

2. What are the nature and extent of industrialized nations’ policies and

programs to develop, produce, and promote EVs?

3. What are the likely effects of introducing EVs in a nation or region in

terms of costs to the individual, national energy savings, and

environmental effects?

We used several methods to obtain our primary data. These included

interviews with experts in the field of electric vehicles, literature reviews

of technical reports and government documents, field studies in the seven

foreign nations and the United States, and analysis of data concerning the

effect of electric vehicles on consumer costs, energy consumption, and

pollution.

Interviews With Experts In order to understand the general issues that surround EV research and

development, we conducted interviews with government officials who

manage or otherwise influence EV programs. These typically included

officials in the ministries of environment, energy, transportation, and

industry. We also met with scientists, researchers, and managers from

private corporations with an interest in EVs, including persons

representing electric utility companies, automobile manufacturers, and

battery companies. We attended the eleventh international electric vehicle

symposium in Florence, Italy, in September 1992, where we gathered

additional information and interviewed experts.

Literature Reviews We reviewed the technical literature on EVs, including articles published in

journals, government research reports, and proceedings from EV

conferences and symposia. From these studies, we identified additional

sources of relevant information on EVs. These often went beyond technical

issues surrounding the vehicle itself to include, for example, market

studies and infrastructure development. We also gathered government

documents relating to national and local EV policies and programs.

Page 14 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Field Studies We conducted site visits in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden,

Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States.

Although EV activities exist in other nations, we determined that the efforts

in the seven foreign industrialized nations were among the largest and

most comprehensive and, therefore, could best inform current

understanding and activities in the United States. We also identified

several supranational organizations that play an active role in EV

development. The Association Europeenne des Vehicules Electriques

Routiers (AVERE) supports efforts to use electric road vehicles throughout

Europe. The European Association of Cities Interested in Electric Vehicles

(CITELEC) is an association of European cities interested in promoting EVs

in urban areas. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) and the International Energy Association (IEA)

continue to support research and collect information in the area.

Whenever possible, we visited active EV production and demonstration

sites and reviewed official documents provided by a nation’s officials.

Before making each site visit, we contacted staff working in Washington,

D.C., embassies of these nations in order to obtain the names of agencies

and staff responsible for EV programs. When we notified them of our

impending visit, they often provided additional contacts or sources of

information about public and private EV programs. The goal of the

international site visits was to obtain a better understanding of

environmental, energy, transportation, and industrial policies and

programs abroad, including the extent of interagency and international

cooperation and coordination regarding EVs.

Data Analysis In several instances, we were able to obtain data that helped answer

questions regarding the potential effect of introducing EVs: in particular,

(1) the likely costs to individuals of owning and operating EVs in different

nations, (2) the likely effects of introducing EVs on a nation’s energy

savings, (3) the likely effects of introducing EVs on a nation’s dependence

on imported petroleum, and (4) the likely effects of introducing EVs on a

nation’s air pollution environment. The major sources of information we

used were government documents, published academic and government

research articles, and interviews with experts.

With respect to cost, we considered likely purchase prices in both the near

term and the more distant future, as well as costs to operate and maintain

an EV. To do this, we reanalyzed and synthesized data from three distinct

sources: the first proposed likely vehicle costs as anticipated by a major

Page 15 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

automobile manufacturer, the second projected likely costs of different EV

batteries, and the third presented electricity and gasoline costs in the

nations under study. Our analysis of energy savings to be gained by

introducing EVs compared the energy use of an EV in the form of electricity

to the energy use of a comparable ICEV in the form of petroleum. We

posited likely reductions in imported petroleum for the eight nations

under study, based on their reliance on imported petroleum and the

proportion of the nation’s electricity generated by oil. We analyzed

environmental effects as a function of each nation’s electricity generation

mix: coal, oil, gas, hydropower, geothermal power, and nuclear power. We

also considered a number of studies of the potential environmental effects

of introducing EVs into specific regions that vary in terms of the fuel used

to generate electricity. For example, we analyzed published statistics on

each nation’s electricity generation sources and oil imports to infer the

likely effects of EVs on pollution reduction and energy independence.

We gathered our program data between September 1992 and July 1994 and

updated our information wherever possible through December 1994, in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Limitations of Our

Study

Given the proprietary nature of many EV research efforts, we were not

always able to obtain information on all aspects of a program. For

example, we cannot present cost estimates for all prototypes nor can we

discuss the number of planned or actual vehicles produced for some

programs. For similar reasons, we were not able to verify independently

all the information we obtained on these proprietary efforts. Currently

quoted initial purchase prices and production costs vary so widely as to

make them essentially meaningless for either comparative or predictive

purposes. To maximize the usefulness of our report, we present such

information only where it was provided and when we were reasonably

confident of its accuracy.

Although this report can contribute to a discussion of the broad issues

surrounding EVs, many aspects of these issues are sufficiently complex

that a full understanding cannot be achieved in any one report. For

example, we do not consider the potential effect of state and federal tax

losses resulting from reduced gasoline sales nor do we make projections

of the economic effect of shifting demands from the petroleum industry to

the electricity industry. We do not compare electric vehicles to other

alternatively fueled vehicles. The multifaceted nature of this study led us

to use a broad, descriptive approach to present the technical and

Page 16 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 1 

Introduction

programmatic aspects of introducing a widespread system of EVs. Yet, the

field of electric vehicles is constantly changing, and although we include

recent developments wherever possible, the fast pace of EV development

should be considered when using the information contained in this report.

Organization of This

Report

In chapter 2, we discuss current barriers to widespread EV use. In chapter

3, we describe what we learned about the policies and programs that the

United States and other nations use to develop, produce, and promote EVs.

In chapter 4, we consider the likely economic, energy, and environmental

effects of introducing EVs into a nation or region. Chapter 5 contains our

general summary and conclusions.

Page 17 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

We identified five major activities that must be completed before EVs

become a viable transportation option: overcoming limitations of battery

technology, building EV infrastructure, ensuring EV safety, identifying and

developing a market, and reducing purchase costs. In this chapter, we

present major issues and questions that have been identified for each of

them.

Current Limitations of

EV Batteries

Limitations in the range, power, recharging capabilities, and life of

batteries remain the largest technical obstacles for the commercialization

of EVs.1

 The typical range of prototype and limited production EVs is

approximately 60 to 150 miles on a single battery charge but depends

greatly on variations in driving speed and the use of heating and air

conditioning. However, most of the EVs that are commercially available

have substantially lower ranges—from 30 to 50 miles under city driving

conditions.

Current EV batteries are technically unable to store enough energy in a unit

of reasonable size and weight. Their size—as large as 20 cubic

feet—makes them hard to fit into a vehicle without severely limiting cargo

or passenger space, and their weight—as much as 2,800 lbs for a one-ton

cargo van—requires ample energy to accelerate the vehicle. Thus,

increasing the energy held in the battery without substantially increasing

its weight and volume is a significant challenge that must be met before

the range and sustainable power of EVs can compete with those of

conventional ICEVs.

A battery’s range relates directly to its specific energy, the ratio of its

energy capacity to its weight, usually expressed in watt hours per kilogram

(Wh/kg). Range is also affected by a battery’s energy density, the ratio of

its energy capacity to its volume, usually expressed in watt hours per liter

(Wh/l).

The specific energy of gasoline is more than 350 times, and its energy

density about 120 times, that of a lead acid battery. For example, gas

provides 10,000 units of energy (watt hours) per kilogram while the most

efficient electrochemical cell provides 81 units of energy per kilogram—a

proportion of 123 to 1. Traveling 100 miles in the General Motors Impact

would require 5.67 liters of gasoline weighing 10 lbs and containing 50.1

kilowatt hours of energy or 880 lbs of a lead acid battery occupying 172

1

Cost is also considered a technical obstacle. We address cost separately in the final section of this

chapter and again in chapter 4.

Page 18 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

liters (or 6 cubic feet) of space and containing 13.6 kilowatt hours of

energy.2

 However, an electric motor is three to four times more efficient

than the internal combustion engine, so the system can make better use of

the smaller amounts of energy onboard in terms of actual power output.3

Yet, even under the best development scenarios, EVs may always be

inferior to ICEVs in specific energy and energy density. That is, they will

require more space and more weight to store energy. Department of

Energy (DOE) goals for maximum battery volume for a lightweight,

aerodynamic van that could travel 75 to 100 miles between charges range

from 400 to 550 liters (14 to 20 cubic feet) and for maximum battery

weight from about 970 lbs to 1,550 lbs, depending on battery type.4

EVs currently require a long time to recharge batteries, especially when

compared to the 5-minute refueling of ICEVs. Most recharging systems take

at least 5 to 7 hours to recharge, using standard 120 or 220 volt outlets. A

“quick” recharge system that takes 6 to 12 minutes has been developed,

but the safety of using such high-powered systems is still uncertain.

Today’s EV batteries can be recharged a finite number of times. Nickel

cadmium and nickel iron batteries can be expected to tolerate 2,000

recharges, whereas sodium sulfur and lead acid batteries last for about 500

cycles. For example, sodium sulfur batteries currently require replacement

as often as every 1-1/2 years at estimated costs of $60,000 to $80,000.

As table 2.1 indicates, each battery type has its individual positive and

negative attributes. For example, lead acid’s low price, abundant raw

materials, and well-established production and recycling technology are

offset by its less than desirable range, service life, and acceleration power.

The nickel cadmium battery has a high power ratio for acceleration and a

long cycle life that would reduce the high cost of repeatedly replacing

worn batteries. However, both nickel and cadmium are expensive, thus

making the initial cost of the battery relatively high. Moreover, cadmium is

2

See R. J. Nichols, “The United States Advanced Battery Consortium: Making Longer Life Batteries

Affordable,” and J. Dabels, “Environmental Requirements and the Impact Prototype Vehicle,” in

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Urban Electric Vehicle: Policy Options,

Technology Trends, and Market Prospects (Paris, France: 1992), and J. P. Cornu, “Nickel-Cadmium, a

Major Advantage for Cities,” in EVs-11 Florence: The 11th International Electric Vehicle Symposium

(Florence, Italy: 1992).

3

The overall fuel efficiency—from primary energy extraction through vehicle end use—is projected to

be about 10 percent for gasoline ICEVs and 14-20 percent for EVs in 2001. J. J. Brogan and S. R.

Venkateswaran, “Diverse Choices for Electric and Hybrid Motor Vehicles: Implications for National

Planners,” in The Urban Electric Vehicle.

4

U.S. Department of Energy, Mission Directed Goals for Electric Vehicle Battery Research and

Development (Washington, D.C.: 1987).

Page 19 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

quite toxic, and nickel cadmium battery recycling facilities have not been

established.

Table 2.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Current EV Batteries

Type Advantage Disadvantage

Lead acid Low price

Based on established technology

Abundant raw materials

Adequate cycle life

Maintenance free, sealed versions

 available

Recycling system

Low specific energy and energy density

 increases weight and volume and

 decreases range

Power decreases as battery discharges

Decreased capacity at low atmospheric

 temperatures

Limited possibility of fast charging

Nickel cadmium High cycle life

High power even after partial discharge

Very good performance at low

 atmospheric temperatures

Fast charge technology developed

Expensive

Cadmium is rare and highly toxic

Poor chargeability at high atmospheric

 temperatures

Charging memory effect can

 systematically reduce capacity

No recycling system

Nickel metal hydrides Very high specific energy and energy

 density decreases weight and volume

 and increases range

High power

Good performance at low atmospheric

 temperatures

Expensive

Use of rare metals in some instances

Very sensitive to high temperatures

 (thermal management required)

No recycling system

Sodium sulfur,

sodium nickel chloride

Very high specific energy and energy

 density decreases weight and volume

 and increases range

High power

Abundant raw materials

Expensive

Premature failures and self-discharges

Must maintain permanently high

 temperatures

High internal resistance reduces specific

 power

Safety issues regarding chemical

 composition and high temperatures

No recycling system

Metal air High specific energy decreases weight

 and increases range

Consistently high power

Fast mechanical recharge

High safety potential

Manufacturing ease

Abundant and low-cost raw materials

Currently high cost

Hydrogen build up with overcharge

Poor performance at low

 temperatures

Low cell efficiency

Requires carbon dioxide scrubber

Ambient temperature lithium High specific energy decreases weight

 and increases range

High power

Abundant lithium supply

Low maintenance

Carbon version expensive

Solid version has low power at room

 temperature 

Questionable safety of recharge 

Limitations in quick charging

No recycling system

Page 20 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

The nickel metal hydride battery appears promising, but battery

development has only recently reached the full-system level and its

capability in an integrated cell system is currently being evaluated. The

sodium sulfur battery has relatively high energy and power ratios for

maximum range and acceleration, yet it requires a constant maintenance

temperature of 540o to 600o Fahrenheit and its active ingredients are both

corrosive and explosive.5

 Metal air batteries have the potential for very

high performance and quick rechargeability. These batteries create energy

by reacting a metal (aluminum, zinc, or iron) with atmospheric oxygen.

The safety and environmental benefits of such a system are clear, but their

successful development is very uncertain. The lithium battery is

considered by experts to be the best candidate to meet the long-term goals

of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) from both technical and

cost viewpoints. Still, much research and development are required to

make the lithium battery a viable power source for EVs. Most experts do

not anticipate this development before 2010.

Current EV

Infrastructure

Barriers

The second barrier to widespread EV use that we identified is

infrastructure development and standardization. Some proponents of EVs

argue that infrastructure will develop smoothly as EVs are marketed.

However, others point to the need to convince potential customers that

EVs will not impose major operating and travel inconveniences. We see it

as a major barrier because so many issues remain unresolved concerning

the various components of EV infrastructure and implementing them will

require ample time, attention, and effort. These include recharging

equipment; residential, commercial, and public charging facilities;

maintenance, service, and battery recycling; and electricity service and

supply.

Recharging Equipment Current recharging technology includes traditional plug-in systems and an

innovative inductive charger. The plug-in systems vary in the type of plug

they employ and the level of charge they can transmit (120 volts, 240 volts,

or 480-plus volts). Recharging equipment may be permanently attached to

the vehicle, permanently attached to the area where the vehicle is typically

parked, or completely removable to either stay behind or travel with the

5

The molten sodium and sulfur are capable of generating large quantities of heat, explosive and toxic

gases, and other caustic chemical compounds. Two fires have occurred when the thermal management

system failed as a battery was being heated prior to shipping or installation in a vehicle. The extent to

which such a hazard could occur under real operating conditions is not currently known. Current U.S.

regulations consider both liquid sodium and sulfur as hazardous cargo and their transport currently

requires special exemptions.

Page 21 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

vehicle. The inductive charger uses a paddle-shaped inductive coupler to

transfer electricity to an EV’s charging port by means of a magnetic

induction. One benefit of inductive charging is that it can be accomplished

with fewer safety concerns in wet weather. Regardless of the technology

used to recharge EVs, key issues in developing connector technology

include whether or not to standardize plugs and outlets, as well as

establishing the environmental ruggedness, safety, and human factors

considerations of recharging.

Charging Facilities EVs will most likely need the ability to refuel away from home at retail or

commercial charging stations, especially to achieve consumer acceptance.

Charging stations will probably be configured one of two ways—that is,

slow and fast—depending on the rate of recharge and consequent voltages

involved. Low-voltage (120 to 240 volts) charging stations will be much the

same as the home charging station and will probably use the

battery-charging electronics already on board the EV. Standard charging

should also be available and practical in parking lots or garages where

multiple-hour parking is typical. (See figure 2.1.) Key issues for

low-voltage stations include equipment safety and reliability, low capital

and maintenance costs to encourage widespread installation, and

establishing convenient and accurate methods of revenue collection.

Page 22 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

Figure 2.1: Charging Station

Note: Government officials in Osaka, Japan, insert the EVOC identification card to access the

recharging cord. The charging connector has an electronic sensor to automatically activate the

correct charging voltage.

Page 23 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

Fast charging stations represent a different challenge. According to recent

claims, some batteries can now receive a 40-percent recharge (equivalent

to 50 to 90 miles of range extension) in 6 to 12 minutes. Such rapid

recharging rates will require at least 480-plus volts of power. Primarily for

safety reasons, the electronics will most likely not be in the vehicle, thus

increasing capital and operating costs for charging stations. It is not now

known how different battery types will react to high-energy charging. For

example, rapid recharging of some batteries may cause overheating,

emission of gases, or shortened lifetimes. Without answers to these

questions, the technology to monitor and deliver rapid recharging cannot

be established. Nor is it known whether additional rapid recharge

monitoring or control equipment will be needed on board the vehicle and

how that might affect cost, weight, and range.

EVs use large amounts of electricity from the outlet and their batteries

produce large amounts of electrochemical energy, both of which could

have dangerous health and safety effects. Thus, research must

demonstrate that EVs and recharging equipment are effectively benign

electrically and electrochemically in any areas in which they are likely to

operate. Such demonstration would include testing for power quality and

electromagnetic field effects, as well as compliance with both electric and

building codes.

Maintenance, Service, and

Recycling

The maintenance and service—both routine and emergency—of EVs may

pose unique circumstances, considering that most advanced EV batteries

contain large amounts of electrochemical energy captured in highly toxic

and reactive substances. For similar reasons, their ultimate effect on the

environment throughout their life cycles has yet to be determined. The

type and amount of infrastructure that would be required to recycle these

large batteries is a serious outstanding concern. Also not yet considered is

the environmental effect of additional radioactive waste if EVs are powered

by nuclear power plants.

Electricity Service and

Supply

Electric utilities can justify expansion and achieve more efficient use of

current capacity if substantial numbers of EVs recharge during off-peak

hours. Understandably, then, they have exhibited marked interest in EV

developments. Utility roles in consumer familiarization and education

could contribute substantially to the public acceptance of EVs. Toward this

end, electricity utilities are striving to determine the best mechanism for

introducing them. Currently, utilities are the primary users of EVs with the

Page 24 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

dual intention of assessing vehicle and infrastructure performance and

promoting the viability of EVs to their customers.

In the future, utilities may provide incentives to speed EV acceptance by

consumers. These will almost certainly include lower residential night

rates if EVs acquire a sizable market. Utilities are also considering the

leasing of vehicles or batteries to private citizens, as well as possible

installation, ownership, and operation of charging, servicing, and recycling

stations. Reports from EPRI suggest that the extent to which utilities

provide such incentives will probably depend, at least in part, on whether

state and federal regulators allow them to recover costs associated with

utility-sponsored EV subsidies or programs.

The minimal number of EVs expected in the near future is not considered

likely to create excessive burdens on utility loads. Utility companies plan

to provide customers with incentives and devices to manage their

recharging activities in ways that promote efficient use of current

capacity. That is, utilities want the bulk of standard recharging to be done

during off-peak periods.

Fast charging, however, represents a significant utility load management

challenge as it is designed to be used primarily during daytime commercial

hours. Several practical concerns can be raised about fast-charging effects

on utility load management and systems. For example, storage facilities

may be needed at service stations to manage large short-duration demand

surges (for example, load leveling batteries that store excess nighttime

electricity). The total utility peak power requirements that will be needed

to recharge a reasonable number of vehicles and how this might vary over

the course of the day, season, and year have yet to be determined. Even

very basic questions remain unanswered, such as the number of charging

stations needed now and in the future.

Safety Considerations EVs present several unique hazards that are not present or do not occur to

the same degree in ICEVs. Moreover, ICEVs have benefitted from decades of

development and refinement, whereas EVs are developmentally still a new

technology. We previously noted hazards pertaining to battery recharging

and the general safety concerns relating to battery recycling in our

discussion of infrastructure supports. The special hazards associated with

Page 25 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

EVs can be classified into one of two main types: (1) electrical, chemical,

and thermal hazards and (2) mechanical and operational hazards.6

Electrical, Chemical, and

Thermal Hazards

All EV batteries present some safety hazards. Of the major battery types,

the sodium sulfur battery appears to present the most serious hazard and

thus receives more attention and concern. The typical sodium sulfur

battery operates at between 200 and 300 volts. In contrast to the typical

12-volt ICEV starter battery, this poses a potentially lethal shock hazard,

particularly during charging and maintenance and in the event of a severe

collision. A related electrochemical hazard is that of fire resulting from

short-circuiting, overheating, or cell rupture. Short-circuiting could be

caused by a poor connection during charging or operation as well as the

failure of connectors or damage to the battery pack during collision.

Overheating might result from overcharging, cell failure, or a failure of the

thermal management system. Cell ruptures can be caused by an

overvoltage supplied to a cell during charging, which could rupture the

ceramic electrolyte and allow the sodium and sulfur to mix directly.

Through a variety of potential reactions, the molten sodium and sulfur are

capable of generating large quantities of heat, explosive and toxic gases,

and other caustic chemical compounds.

Maintaining optimal battery temperature requires a sophisticated thermal

management system that provides initial heatup of the battery, controls

waste heat buildup, and insulates the system. Two fires recently occurred

in sodium sulfur batteries when the thermal management system failed as

the batteries were being heated. Fortunately, neither battery was actually

in a vehicle; one fire took place at the battery manufacturing plant and the

other at the vehicle production plant. The battery manufacturer

recognized the potential problems and stopped all scheduled deliveries

and is currently working to improve the thermal management system.

However, the problem is potentially serious, and the extent to which this

particular failure could occur in real-world operating conditions is not

known. In June 1994, Ford reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) that two fires had occurred in the sodium sulfur

batteries that power their EV vans. As a result, Ford has ordered all the

vans parked until the cause of the fire can be determined.

Mechanical and

Operational Hazards

The replacement of the typical internal combustion engine with an electric

propulsion system has several important mechanical and operational

6

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues of Sodium-Sulfur

Batteries for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, vol. 4, In-Vehicle Safety (Golden, Colo.: November 1992).

Page 26 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

ramifications. For example, some EVs may not have the acceleration

performance needed to merge effectively onto a highway at high speeds.

However, since most EVs are generally considered to be within the range of

performance of today’s ICEVs, we do not consider performance deficits to

be a major safety concern at this time.

Vehicle accessories, such as windshield wipers, defoggers, lights, and

indicators, are driven by electricity in both ICEVs and EVs. If an ICEV runs

out of fuel, these accessories continue to function; if an EV runs out of

electricity, it must have a secondary source of electricity to drive

accessories. Most EVs have such a source. However, some designs run

accessories off the primary, propulsion battery.

From a safety perspective, the conversion of an ICEV to an EV can add

substantial mass to a vehicle; batteries can weigh as much as a fourth to

half of the total unladen vehicle weight. This added weight could affect a

converted EV’s maneuverability as well as increase its inertial force, which

would hamper its ability to make sudden stops or avoid a collision. Some

EV batteries are placed lengthwise under the car. This configuration is

considered less of a safety concern than others in which the batteries are

placed in the trunk or behind the rear seat of cars or on the cargo floor of

vans. This is because excessive movement of the battery pack into the

passenger compartment could be fatal in the event of a collision. The

effect of converting ICEVs to EVs on crashworthiness has not been

thoroughly examined.

Future EVs will likely be purpose-built—rather than converted from

ICEVs—using lightweight, nonpropulsion components to increase range. It

is possible that these lighter-weight components will lower an EV’s crash

energy management capacity. That is, the vehicle will be less able to

absorb and direct the energy of a collision. A lower capacity (which is not

necessarily related to vehicle weight alone) would result in more

deformation of the vehicle and less protection of the occupants. In the

early 1980’s, DOE conducted some crash testing of two EVs: one designed

with some lighter-weight components (ETV-1) and the other with a

fiber-reinforced plastic for maximum strength-to-weight ratio (ETV-2).

ETV-1 was tested on a “mule” vehicle derived from a 1977 Chrysler

Omni-Horizon; ETV-2 was tested on a half-scale model. Both were

reported to demonstrate crashworthiness.

In 1993, NHTSA crash tested two converted EVs equipped with lead acid

batteries located in both the front and rear vehicle compartments. In both

Page 27 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

30 mph frontal crashes, the front batteries sustained substantial damage.

One EV leaked 10.4 liters of electrolyte; the other leaked 17.7 liters of

electrolyte. Several electrical arcs were observed under the hood of one

vehicle during the crash. In November 1994, NHTSA tested the

crashworthiness of five batteries that were not in vehicles, and it plans to

crash test a Chevy S-10 converted pick-up truck in December 1994. Final

results were not available for inclusion in this report.

Swiss manufacturers are conducting extensive EV safety research on

lightweight vehicles.7

 The Swiss effort to design crashworthy EVs is quite

different from conventional approaches. Current efforts to improve

crashworthiness of ICEVs focus on increasing the energy absorption

potential of vehicles while ensuring passenger protection—for example,

by incorporating “crumple zones” into the front hood, nonpenetrable

passenger zones, and passenger restraint systems that decelerate the

occupant within established injury tolerance limits.

Swiss officials believe that the EV of the future will incorporate many

lightweight components and, thus, requires a different approach to

crashworthiness to compensate for its low mass and the reduced length of

its car front. The Swiss are designing very rigid, “nondeformable” EV car

bodies made of high-strength, lightweight composite materials such as

fiberglass and resins. Following an impact, the stiffness of these materials

reduces the ability of the EV’s outer structure to absorb energy. The force

is therefore transferred to the passenger compartment, which decelerates

at a much higher rate than is common in an ICEV. This implies that the

occupants will need a much larger space in which to move forward and

then backward without hitting the dashboard or windshield. Passenger

restraint systems will require modifications, and steering column airbags

may be a necessity.

The Swiss have conducted several crash tests with lightweight EVs

reinforced in various ways. (See figure 2.2.) These include frontal

collisions with a solid wall at a top speed of 25 mph, frontal collisions at a

speed of 32 mph with an Audi 100 weighing twice as much and traveling at

16 mph, and side collisions with stationary barriers at 31 mph. Although

we were told that data were collected on both vehicle damage and injury

to a dummy in the driver’s position, we were unable to obtain data that

were comparable to U.S. crashworthiness standards and therefore cannot

7

R. Kaeser, Institute for Lightweight Structures, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, “Safety

Potential of Urban Electric Vehicles in Collisions,” in The Urban Electric Vehicle: Policy Options,

Technology Trends, and Market Prospects (Paris, France: 1992).

Page 28 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

speak at all to the crashworthiness of such vehicles.8 Although more tests

are needed to demonstrate EV crashworthiness, the existence of this

research certainly shows the feasibility of conducting early safety

assessments of EVs in order to improve designs for crashworthiness.

Figure 2.2: Crash Testing

Note: Swiss manufacturers crash test small, lightweight EVs such as the one pictured here.

Results are used to improve designs for safety and crashworthiness.

In the United States, the NHTSA granted exemptions for four 1989 Chrysler

TEVans that were converted from Dodge Caravans and Plymouth

Voyagers. The ICEV versions complied with all standards that apply to

multipurpose passenger vehicles; however, the manufacturer argued, and

NHTSA agreed, that once the vehicles were converted to battery power,

certain standards were no longer relevant. These included regulations

governing the transmission, braking system, seating systems, seat belt

assembly anchorages, windshield mounting, windshield zone intrusion,

and fuel system integrity. Again in September 1992, NHTSA granted 2-year

exemptions for 1991-94 TEVans on some of but not all these regulations.

8

One Swiss manufacturer, Horlacher, Inc., is reportedly developing a light cargo van to meet U.S.

crash-test standards.

Page 29 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

Whether these or any future exemptions might compromise vehicle

integrity or passenger safety is uncertain without systematic testing. EVs

and ICEVs are dissimilar on many dimensions. In all likelihood, new or

revised regulations will be necessary to ensure EV crashworthiness. For

example, fasteners and enclosures for batteries are likely to require

special attention to minimize the hazards and risks associated with high

voltages and reactive chemicals. In September 1994, NHTSA requested

public comments on safety issues surrounding EV fuel systems, such as

battery shock hazards and electrolyte spillage. NHTSA had previously

published an advanced notice of proposed rule making on these issues in

1991. After reviewing the 46 public comments, NHTSA had concluded that it

was premature to initiate rulemaking for EV safety standards at that time.

A decision on the current initiative will probably not be made until 1995.

The experts we interviewed universally stated that EVs can be designed to

meet current U.S. vehicle safety standards and thus should not be granted

special exemptions from vehicle crashworthiness standards.

Uncertain Market

Potential

Efforts to forecast potential EV markets continue to multiply and expand

as the California 1998 deadline nears. Two major approaches have been

tried and each reaches widely different conclusions. In this section, we

discuss the methods used to assess the private EV market, summarize

major findings from these market studies, and consider the characteristics

of commercial and government fleets in terms of potential EV penetration.

Technical constraint studies have looked at how current limitations in EV

technology (for example, short range and long recharge times) fashion the

EV market and have found a large potential market for EVs. Deshpande

estimated that 60 percent of U.S. households drive fewer than 96 miles on

348 days of the year, a range within the limits of current EV technology.9

Nesbitt and colleagues further constrained this estimate by adding the

assumption that only home owners were likely to have a safe and reliable

recharging site for an EV.

10 They also included only households with two or

more cars and only those whose members drive at least one car fewer than

70 miles per day (which would leave a “range buffer” for emergencies).

They found that 28 million households in the United States could

9

G. K. Deshpande, “Development of Driving Schedules for Advanced Vehicle Assessment,” SAE

Technical Paper Series 840360, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 1984.

10K. Nesbitt, K. Kurani, and M. DeLuchi, “Home Recharging and the Household Electric Vehicle Market:

A Constraints Analysis,” Transportation Research Record (1992). In Nesbitt’s model, the constraints

analysis defines the potential market to be surveyed about attitudes and beliefs surrounding the

purchase of EVs.

Page 30 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

substitute an EV for one of the vehicles held by their household. Thus, even

the most conservative technical constraint study concludes that a

substantial percentage of U.S. households could find an EV useful in their

daily travels.

Opponents of EVs often counter the promising market potentials derived

from technical constraint studies with estimates of the nature and extent

of the EV market based on consumer preferences. Market researchers

argue that because consumers will not be willing to pay more for an EV

that forfeits the unlimited driving range and fast refueling of ICEVs, the EV

market will be considerably smaller than even the most conservative

estimate of technical constraint studies. The results of two recent

consumer surveys support such claims.

In a 1993 automotive consumer profile study, only 6 percent of 4,512

respondents indicated they definitely would consider purchasing an EV

with a stated range of 100 miles and a top speed of 65 mph for their next

car purchase.11 The median price respondents expected to pay for an EV

with a 100-mile range and top speed of 65 mph was $14,200—$2,200 less

than the median price they expected to pay for a new ICEV. Only 10 percent

of respondents expected to pay between $20,000 and $24,999 for an

electric four-door sedan. While no high-performance electric four-door

sedans are on the market, the Japanese Cedric and Gloria sedans have

anticipated near-term prices of between $179,000 and $269,000, or more

than ten times the cost consumers would be willing to pay. The study

authors concluded further that early EV purchasers will likely be younger,

more educated, and higher paid and more likely to own a foreign-made

vehicle than the average car owner.

In another survey that assessed consumers’ knowledge, opinions, and

attitudes about EVs, three factors emerged as important purchasing

considerations: initial cost, performance and range, and recharging

convenience.12 The initial cost of an EV was the most frequently cited

purchase consideration. Two out of five consumers said that total

ownership costs would have to be 30 cents or less per mile—compared to

stated ownership costs of 33.5 cents per mile for a four-door

gasoline-powered sedan—before they would consider purchasing an

electric four-door sedan. Only 8 percent would be willing to pay the 40

11J. D. Power and Associates, Automotive Consumer Profile Study, The Power Report (May 1993).

12Based on a national consumer and public opinion telephone survey conducted by Cambridge

Reports/Research International in April 1993. Survey respondents (n = 1,250) were selected to

represent the U.S. population 18 years old or older. See Automotive News, June 7, 1993, p. 1.

Page 31 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

cents or more per mile that EVs could cost in the near to midterm.

Assuming that some EV costs (such as maintenance) would be lower and

some incentives would be applied (such as reduced license and

registration fees), Automotive News calculates that the EV market price

underlying a consumer response of 28.5 cents per mile was $11,900, or

$500 more than a 1993 Ford Escort four-door hatchback. While it is likely

that most automobile consumers do not think in terms of costs per mile

when considering various alternative automobiles, this finding is

nonetheless discouraging from a market perspective.

With respect to performance, the median expectation for an EV’s range was

186 miles on a single battery charge, with 23 percent stating that EVs

should at least match an ICEV’s range of 300 miles.13 Finally, the

convenience of recharging appears crucial to the EV market: 76 percent of

respondents said that they would not buy an EV until quick recharging

stations became widely and publicly available.

We believe that neither the relatively optimistic market estimates reported

by technical constraint studies nor the relatively pessimistic market

estimates reported by consumer preference studies provide much insight

into the likely size and characteristics of the near-term EV market.

Technical constraint studies are only the first step in pinpointing the

relatively small “niche” markets commonly associated with new

technologies. Consumer preference studies about such an unfamiliar

technology as EVs probably measure little more than consumers’

underlying uncertainties about the reliability and stability of EV technology

itself and the relative importance of certain attributes of current ICEV

technology that have previously received little consideration (for example,

the value of a 300-mile range on a single tank of gas).

Better identification of potential EV markets will probably require some

combination of both methods: sampling consumers who meet the

technical constraint assumptions and then modeling those consumers’

transportation needs and automobile purchase decisions to determine

who will be likely to purchase an EV and why. Studies that use this

approach generally conclude that consumers know relatively little about

EV technology.14 Using such an approach, Turrentine and colleagues found

13Despite their assertion that an EV should match an ICEV’s range, other studies have demonstrated

that consumers often do not actually know the range of their current ICEV.

14For example, see T. Turrentine et al., “Household Decision Behavior and Demand for Limited Range

Vehicles: Results of PIREG, a Diary Based, Interview Game for the Evaluation of the Electric Vehicle

Market,” Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Calif., 1992.

Page 32 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

that consumers who had no previous experience with EVs reported that a

test drive greatly improved their opinions about EVs. Travel logs of daily

driving habits coupled with a simulation game demonstrated how

participants can make knowledgeable tradeoffs to accommodate EVs into

their daily schedules. Thus, the development of information and the

accumulation of experience are two key processes underlying the

emergence of a private EV market. Until EVs have been integrated—at least

at some basic level—into mainstream traffic and the public has become

familiarized with their different performance characteristics, a sizable

personal consumer EV market is not likely.

Limited range and long recharging times may be significant drawbacks for

personally owned EVs but not necessarily for commercial and

government-owned EVs. The average daily range of most commercial and

government fleets is well within the capability of current battery

technology. For example, Cohen and Commoner report that the 1988

average daily mileage of federal government light-duty vehicles ranged

from 25 to 50 miles.15 Mader and Bevilaqua surveyed commercial fleet

operators representing 50 percent of the total U.S. market, and they

determined that EVs with a 90-mile range could replace up to 283,000, or

80 percent, of fleet vans.16 Most commercial and government fleets are

centrally garaged overnight so that recharging would be both convenient

and inexpensive. The limitation of high initial costs remains, but these

costs can be depreciated over a shorter interval than private consumer

costs. Moreover, from an environmental perspective, replacing

gasoline-powered delivery and service vehicles with EVs would reduce the

amount of pollution emitted by these vehicles as they stand idle in traffic

or while making deliveries.

In Japan, the national government estimates that 5 percent of the

72 million vehicles expected to be in operation in 2000 would be

replaceable by EVs. Light trucks and vans are predicted to constitute most

of these vehicles with as much as 25 percent replaceable by EVs; EVs are

expected to replace only 1 percent of passenger cars. Estimates from the

Ministry of Environment in France suggest that replacing 10 percent of

vehicles in that country with EVs would be an ambitious effort. The goal in

15M. Cohen and B. Commoner, “How Government Purchase Programs Can Get Electric Vehicles on the

Road,” Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University of New York,

Flushing, New York, 1993.

16G. H. Mader and O. Bevilaqua, “Strategies for EV Commercialization,” Electric Vehicle Development

Corp., Cupertino, Calif., 1989.

Page 33 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

Germany is to have 1 million EVs in operation by 2003, or 2 percent to

3 percent of the total vehicle inventory.

High Initial Purchase

Prices

The development-through-production cycle of a successful new

technological commodity is typically characterized by economies of scale

and economies of learning. Economies of scale are factors that enable a

company or industry to produce large volumes of goods at lower prices

than small volumes. These economies arise as production volume for a

given time period increases—a situation that is usually the outcome of

production and design standardization or high market demand or both.

Three types of factors may affect economies of scale: (1) fixed cost

factors, (2) factors of external economies, and (3) technological factors.17

With respect to EVs, economies of scale would arise and prices would be

reduced as (1) production startup costs and research and development

costs are diffused over more vehicles, (2) manufacturers obtain lower

prices on larger volumes of parts and supplies, and (3) factory and

personnel efficiency are maximized. For example, in interviews with Swiss

manufacturers of EVs composed of plastic resin composite materials, we

learned that the molds used to form the body of the EV are very expensive.

Thus, the more EV bodies that are molded, the greater the diffusion of the

original cost of the mold and, ultimately, the lower the cost to the

consumer of the finished EV. With respect to research and development

costs, many of today’s new EV models are presumed to subsume

substantial research and development costs into their prices: a General

Motors Impact is currently priced at more than $500,000, but its ultimate

price is expected to be about $25,000.

EV prices may also be affected by economies from learning or cost

reductions as cumulative output increases. That is, as the total number of

units a firm manufactures increases, the number of direct labor hours

required to produce a single unit decreases at a uniform rate.18 Learning

economies are the result of gains in knowledge about the flexibility and

constraints of the manufacturing process itself. In the Swiss example, as

more EV bodies are molded, the manufacturer gains experience in how

long the process takes, thus avoiding bottlenecks in the manufacturing

process. Learning economies arise only with time and experience, and

17T. R. Howell et al., The Microelectronics Race: The Impact of Government Policy on International

Competition (London: Westview Press, 1988).

18Frank J. Andress, “The Learning Curve as a Production Tool,” Harvard Business Review,

January-February 1954, pp. 87-97.

Page 34 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

they can be a primary factor in competitively pricing a product. For this

reason, a firm that acquires an early market share (cumulative volume) of

a new commodity is often at a significant advantage relative to its

competitors.

The automobile industry has historically achieved cost reductions as a

result of these factors. A price comparison, using 1989 dollars, is

illustrative. In 1907, when a total of 43,000 passenger cars were produced,

their average wholesale price was $30,000; in 1914, when 550,000 cars

were built, that price dropped to $10,000; in 1917, when annual production

reached 1,750,000, the price stabilized at $5,500.19

Currently quoted initial purchase prices and production costs for EVs vary

so widely as to make them essentially meaningless for either comparative

or predictive purposes. In general terms, today’s EVs cost two to three

times more than comparable ICEVs; future costs are expected to be about

20 percent higher.

Because vehicle and battery technology are still under development and

most EVs are constructed by hand, high cost is the largest obstacle for

consumers willing to purchase EVs. EV designs and production technology

will continue to evolve over the next few decades. Neither standardization

(design or production) nor high market demand has been achieved. This

implies that EV production and price will most likely follow the path of

other technology-intensive commodities, such as semiconductors and

integrated circuits, which are characterized by significant economies of

scale and learning.

Summary and

Conclusions

We opened our discussion of barriers to widespread EV use with the

limitations of current battery technology. EV performance is limited today

by the inability to incorporate sufficient energy into a battery of

reasonable weight and size. Research continues to improve upon this

condition, but EVs powered by batteries will most likely always have

shorter ranges and longer refueling times than comparable ICEVs.

Major infrastructure support currently not in place includes residential

and commercial fleet charging facilities, public charging stations, battery

recycling facilities, emergency road service, and electric service and

supply. The level and type of infrastructure that is sufficient is unknown,

19M. Cohen and B. Commoner, “How Government Purchase Programs Can Get Electric Vehicles on the

Road”; U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).

Page 35 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

but it is clear that some additional support is necessary for consumer

acceptance of EVs. Gaps in EV infrastructure support can be overcome

technically but will require considerable thought, time, and attention.

Many safety issues remain unresolved. Assurances of the crashworthiness

of EVs converted from ICEVs and purpose-built EVs are likely to require

different design solutions, testing procedures, and safety regulations. For

example, fasteners and enclosures for batteries are likely to require

special attention to minimize the hazards and risks associated with high

voltages and reactive chemicals. The experts we interviewed universally

stated that EVs should not be exempted from vehicle crashworthiness

standards.

The extent of the personal consumer EV market remains uncertain.

Technical constraint studies offer optimistic EV market estimates that

suggest that as many as 60 percent of U.S. households could substitute an

EV for their current vehicle. Consumer preference studies predict that

current limitations in EV technology will restrict the private EV market to as

few as 6 percent of automobile consumers. But we believe that both of

these types of studies have limited validity as forecasts of new technology

markets because the constraint forecasts ignore the normal small-market

development of new technological commodities and the consumer

preference forecasts queried consumers who appeared to know relatively

little about EV technology. Methods that use a constraints analysis to

identify the potential market to be surveyed about attitudes and beliefs

surrounding EVs are more appropriate in this context. Such studies find

that the development of information and the accumulation of experience

are two key processes underlying the emergence of a private EV market.

Until EVs are integrated—at least at some basic level—into mainstream

traffic, consumers will remain unaccustomed to EVs and a sizable personal

consumer EV market is unlikely in the near future. However, many vehicles

in corporate and government fleets travel within narrow daily ranges and

are centrally garaged overnight, two facts that would accommodate

current limitations in EV range and recharging.

Initial purchase costs two to three times higher than comparable ICEVs will

remain the largest obstacle to consumers willing to purchase EVs. EV

designs and production technology will continue to evolve over the next

few decades. Neither standardization (design or production) nor high

market demand has been achieved. However, if production volumes do

increase, purchase prices can be expected to decline depending on the

economies of scale and learning that are typical in developing and

Page 36 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 2 

Current Barriers to the Widespread Use of

Electric Vehicles

producing successful new technology. Nevertheless, EV purchase prices

will likely remain 20-percent higher—and could be substantially

higher—than those of comparable ICEVs.

Page 37 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

In this chapter, we answer our second evaluation question: What are the

nature and extent of industrialized nations’ policies and programs to

develop, produce, and promote EVs? We include programs that are

conducted both nationally and locally. We found that EV programs

generally encompass four main areas that we discuss in separate sections

of the report. Diffusion and promotion policies include tax credits,

purchase incentives, rebates, fleet purchase commitments, and other

mechanisms to encourage the widespread introduction of EVs. Production

efforts include industry efforts and plans as well as government goals to

produce EVs. Vehicle and infrastructure demonstrations focus on field

tests of EV performance, recharging stations, and consumer

characteristics. We identified efforts ranging from multicity public

demonstrations to EV rental agencies. The vehicle and battery research and

development programs we discuss are primarily those sponsored by

national governments.

Generally, the nations we reviewed had one or more programs that

specifically addressed EVs. In some instances, particularly in the United

States, programs addressed EVs within the broader context of alternatively

fueled vehicles. We include these programs where appropriate but caution

the reader that although such “fuel-neutral” programs are broad in scope,

their ultimate effect may be affected by economic and technical issues

particular to different alternative fuels.1

 We begin our presentation of EV

programs with table 3.1, depicting key elements of these programs:

estimates of the number of EVs on the road, major initiatives for

encouraging or subsidizing EV purchases, production efforts, EV and

infrastructure demonstrations, and vehicle and battery research and

development. Table 3.1 is followed by detailed descriptions of these key

elements in each of the eight nations.

1

For a more thorough discussion of alternative fuel vehicle programs, see U.S. General Accounting

Office, Alternative-Fueled Vehicles: Progress Made in Accelerating Federal Purchases, but Benefits

and Costs Remain Uncertain, GAO/RCED-94-161 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1994).

Page 38 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Table 3.1: Key Elements of Electric Vehicle Programs

Nation

Number of

vehicles

Purchase programs

and incentives Production efforts

Vehicle and

infrastructure

demonstrations

Vehicle and battery

research and

development

France 500 Federal purchase

subsidy averages

$3,030

2 major auto

manufacturers

producing commercial

and prototype EVS

(total planned

production by 1995 =

51,750 vehicles)

10-city public

demonstration

program with 20-50

EVs at each site

Federally sponsored

battery and fuel cell

research

Germany 1,000-

2,000

Free from tax for 5

years; no federal

purchase incentives

identified; some

state subsidies (up

to 30%)

2 major auto

manufacturers

beginning pilot

production of 100 each

Public demonstration

of infrastructure and

vehicles in Rügen

includes 60 vehicles

Federally sponsored

lithium battery

research

Italy 400 Free from circulation

tax for 5 years; 50%

discount on

insurance tariffs

Major auto

manufacturer has

produced 400 EVs (no

public production

plans)

Some small urban

demonstrations of

buses

Federally sponsored

battery research

Japan 1,600 50% federal cost

subsidy;

some municipal cost

subsidies (up to

50%); reduced

purchase and

possession taxes;

7% business tax

credit; subsidized

leasing programs

National production

goals of 200,000 EVs

by 2000; 6 major auto

manufacturers and 3

utility companies

producing commercial

or prototype EVs (total

scheduled to be

produced by 1995 =

10,680)

National Ecostation

2000 Program; several

nationally and locally

sponsored

demonstrations

Lithium battery project

Sweden 380 $500 purchase

rebate;

significantly reduced

municipal parking

fees

1 major auto

manufacturer has

produced prototype

gas turbine hybrid

vehicle (no public

production goals)

3-city public

demonstration

program; Gothenberg

the largest with

short-term goal of 200

EVs and long-term

goal of 1,000 EVs

Primary funding focus

is electric drive

systems and

quick-charge

infrastructure

Switzerland 1,000 No federal purchase

incentives identified

2 small auto

manufacturers

producing unique,

lightweight EVs (no

public production

goals)

Urban EV rental and

repair shops; annual

Tour de Sol EV races

and exhibit

Small federal budget

to support safety and

crash testing of

Swiss-manufactured

lightweight EVs

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Nation

Number of

vehicles

Purchase programs

and incentives Production efforts

Vehicle and

infrastructure

demonstrations

Vehicle and battery

research and

development

United Kingdom 25,000 Exemption from road

tax ($150)

Major auto

manufacturer has

produced 475 EVs (no

public production

plans)

No demonstration

programs identified

No federally funded

research and

development identified

United States 1,000 $4,000 federal tax

credit for fleets;

some state programs

with incentives or

alternative fuel fleet

requirements;

California-type

mandates (6 states)

3 major auto

manufacturers

produce small

numbers of EVs (total

planned production =

180 vehicles)

Small fleet

demonstrations; some

small public

demonstrations with

commuter cars or

buses

U.S. Advanced

Battery Consortium

Several points are to be considered when reviewing these elements. Data

on the number of vehicles on the road can be difficult to obtain and

validate. We present estimates gathered from three general sources:

national ministries of environment, energy, or the like; supranational

organizations such as OECD; and EV advocacy and support groups such as

CITELEC. We note the instances in which we found discrepancies. No

precise or standard definition has been established for “electric vehicle.”

Therefore, national estimates of the number of EVs on the road may vary

depending on the types of vehicles included. For example, the total

number of EVs can include vehicles that are converted from ICEVs at

relatively low prices or very small golf-cart-like EVs used in resort areas.

For example, most of the 25,000 EVs in the United Kingdom are

slow-moving milk delivery vans.

We reiterate that production and price details are proprietary; often, little

support for such information exists publicly. In particular, the paucity of

data on manufacturer costs and consumer prices inhibits any meaningful

comparison of different EVs. That is, while costs may range from $19,000 to

more than $350,000 for an EV van, we are unable to speak directly and

conclusively to the reasons behind these differences. Generally, EV prices

vary as a result of their level of technological sophistication and whether

and how much they include research and development costs. Many

manufacturers are developing EVs, and our review of production efforts is

not meant to be comprehensive. We present information on some of the

larger and more unique programs; however, we do not include a large

number of small entrepreneurs, particularly in the United States, who are

producing converted EVs.

Page 40 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Status of Diffusion

and Promotion

Policies

Here we discuss initiatives at both the national and regional levels to

support the purchase of EVs. Typically, these might include tax exemptions

and credits, purchase rebates, fleet purchase commitments, and laws

mandating production.

United States The United States has about 1,000 EVs on the road. The federal government

offers a tax credit of up to $4,000 for the purchase of EVs, and some states

also have tax credits and purchase incentives. Most EVs in the United

States today are conversions in which the traditional internal combustion

engine has been removed and replaced by a battery. Approximately 200

limited-production vehicles are expected to undergo field testing in 1994.

At present, the primary force for developing lower-emission vehicles in the

United States and abroad stems from the California Low Emission Vehicle

Program, which prescribes the maximum emissions permitted from new

vehicles sold in that state. Lower vehicle emission requirements are part of

California’s overall strategy for reducing regional air pollution—a general

goal of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The legislation

requires that, in 1998, 2 percent of all new cars marketed in that state by

large-volume manufacturers be zero-emission vehicles; the percentage

increases in subsequent years to 10 percent in 2003. The legislation does

not specifically mandate that these zero-emission vehicles be electric. In

practical terms, however, the EV is the only current transportation

technology that emits no source pollutants.2

This mandate has been weakened from its original form in which

manufacturers were required to sell, not simply supply, zero-emission

vehicles. The California mandate in its new form has been adopted in

some form by five other states in the Northeast: Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Other northeastern states may

follow shortly. It is estimated that 20 percent of the entire U.S. new car

market is presently covered by these mandates, a figure that could rise to

33 percent as states that have announced their intention to adopt such

standards pass the necessary legislation.3

 In 1998, as many as 70,600 EVs

may be required; in 2003, that figure rises to 353,600 with a total

accumulation of 919,200 EVs.

2

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would also emit no source pollutants since their primary byproduct is

water. However, fuel cell vehicles will not be available by 1998.

3

Vehicle sales in these states are a disproportionately large portion of all vehicle sales in the United

States.

Page 41 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

In general, the state programs and policies we identified can be divided

into four distinct categories: (1) laws mandating that automobile

manufacturers produce a certain percentage of EVs for sale (as in

California); (2) laws providing financial incentives for purchasers of

alternatively fueled vehicles, including EVs; (3) laws that require that new

state fleet purchases be alternatively fueled vehicles, including EVs; and

(4) demonstration programs to develop and assess vehicles and

infrastructure.4

 See appendix II for additional information on these state

programs.

State officials indicated that mandated fleet conversion legislation often

did not have sufficient power to ensure the purchase of alternatively

fueled vehicles, especially EVs. In particular, it was noted that legislation

authorizing incentives sometimes remains unfunded, and laws may

identify reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuels as “alternative”

fuels that can power current vehicles without any conversions.

At the national level, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the federal

government to purchase 22,500 alternatively fueled vehicles between 1993

and 1995. Beginning in 1996, requirements to purchase a certain number of

alternatively fueled vehicles are replaced by requirements to purchase a

certain percentage of these vehicles: from 25 percent of new federal fleet

purchases in 1996 to 75 percent in 1999 and thereafter.

The act also mandates alternatively fueled vehicle purchase percentages

beginning in 1996 for state fleets and fleets operated by organizations that

make and sell alternative fuels. The secretary of DOE will then determine

by December 1996 and again by January 2000 whether additional fleet

requirement programs for municipal and private fleets are necessary to

achieve the motor fuel displacement goals of the act—10 percent by 2000

and 30 percent by 2010. Fleets that wait until the later DOE rulings will be

required to purchase alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) at a more accelerated

pace than those that begin purchasing AFVs following the first ruling.

Currently, 11 cities and 12,000 vehicles are participating voluntarily in the

Clean Cities program; a total of 25 cities and 70,000 vehicles is anticipated

by the end of 1994.

The other primary considerations for the rulemakings as outlined in the

Energy Policy Act include whether there exist sufficient fuel supplies and

needed infrastructure in fleet areas subject to the rule as well as whether

4

These legislative initiatives were identified and reported by the Electric Transportation Coalition

through October 11, 1993.

Page 42 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

there will be sufficient number of new AFVs from original equipment

manufacturers. Fleet owners will not be required to purchase converted

vehicles, even if there are no purpose-built vehicles yet available.

Moreover, the possibility still remains that DOE may determine during its

rulemaking that reformulated gasoline should be treated as an alternative

fuel for municipal and private fleet vehicles. If so, it is likely that many of

these fleets would opt to use reformulated gasoline in lieu of more costly

alternatives that require conversion equipment.

In April 1993, an executive order (E.O. 12844) committed the federal

government to a 50-percent increase in purchases of alternatively fueled

vehicles for a total of 33,750 from 1993 to 1995. Appropriations for the

incremental costs associated with purchasing AFVs for the federal fleet

program for 1994 were $18 million; DOE requested $30 million for 1995 but

will receive only $20 million. The 10,200 AFVs in the federal fleet are

currently divided fairly evenly between natural gas and alcohol-based fuels

(ethanol and methanol). The 1995 goal for federal fleet purchases is 15,000

alternatively fueled vehicles. GSA will purchase 9,000 vehicles; plans

include 6,400 natural gas vehicles, 1,600 methanol vehicles, 1,000 ethanol

vehicles, 100 liquid petroleum gas vehicles, and no electric vehicles.

Federal officials overseeing the program advised that the varying levels of

commercialization of these AFVs are the primary reasons for the balance of

vehicle types planned for the federal fleet. Thus, as in the state programs

we reviewed, the lower availability and higher costs to convert to EVs limit

the likelihood that fleets will choose electricity from a broader array of

less expensive and more convenient alternatives.5

 Moreover, these

findings suggest that the fuel-neutral intent of congressional legislation as

demonstrated in the Energy Policy Act may be limited by the inability of

its programs to provide equitable support or cost-sharing for all alternative

fuels.

Furthermore, the future of state-legislated mandates remains uncertain.

U.S. automobile manufacturers generally oppose such mandates because

they believe that EV technology is not sufficiently mature for widespread

implementation. The industry agreed in October 1993 to a Partnership for

a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) with the federal government to

5

The life-cycle prices to own and operate different AFVs appear to cover a wide range. For example,

the break-even price of gasoline (the retail gasoline price that equates the full life-cycle cost per mile of

the AFV with that of a gasoline ICEV) could be as high as $4.80 for EVs. That is, gasoline would need to

cost $4.80 per gallon before an EV could be competitive with a gasoline ICEV. It could be as low as

$1.70-$1.90 for methanol and compressed or liquid natural gas vehicles. (Sperling, Deluchi, and Wang,

1991).

Page 43 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

develop the “clean car of the future.”6 Reports suggest that industry is

prepared to accelerate its production of alternatively fueled vehicles if the

northeastern states abandon versions of the California mandate.

The technical goal of PNGV is to develop a range of technologies that will

improve the efficiency and reduce emissions of standard vehicles, such as

technologies that reduce vehicle weight, improve aerodynamics, or

improve the efficiency of accessories such as air conditioning. Its

economic goal is to promote competitiveness by developing and

introducing manufacturing technologies and practices that will reduce the

time and cost associated with designing a new vehicle and bringing it to

the marketplace. PNGV’s long-term goal is the development of a vehicle that

will be up to three times more fuel efficient than today’s vehicles (up to 80

mpg) but that (1) costs no more to own and operate; (2) offers comparable

characteristics relating to performance, spaciousness, and utility; and

(3) meets or exceeds all safety and emissions requirements.

The initiative will pursue simultaneously the development of a number of

possible technologies. The five primary areas of focus are advanced

lightweight materials; energy conversion, such as gas turbines, fuel cells,

and advanced diesel engines; energy storage devices, such as batteries,

flywheels, and ultracapacitors; more efficient electrical systems; and

exhaust recovery systems.7

The concept vehicle is planned for development before 2001 and a

production prototype is planned for development during 2002-2004. While

it is too early to know if and how EVs will be included in PNGV, they will

again be competing with a broad array of alternative fuels and energy

conversion devices.

In short, while EVs are included in broader AFV initiatives, no federal plan

has been implemented in the United States that is specifically designed to

diffuse and promote EVs. Actions are limited to state legislation of various

6

PNGV is headed by the Department of Commerce and includes government officials from the

Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the

Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science

Foundation. Industry participation is coordinated through the vice presidents for research,

development, and testing at the three major U.S. automobile manufacturers and the U.S. Council for

Automotive Research. The program plans to include initiatives targeted to independent contributors,

such as universities and private inventors.

7

Fuel cells combine hydrogen from fuel with oxygen from air to produce energy, heat, and water.

Flywheels provide energy by means of momentum. Ultracapacitors are electrical devices that could

serve as peak-power sources for EVs.

Page 44 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

prescriptive types, some limited financial incentives, and, especially,

research on new battery development funded partially by DOE.

Japan At the end of March 1993, Japan had 1,600 EVs on the road, an increase

from about 1,285 in March 1992. During fiscal year 1991, 357 units were

produced, and during fiscal year 1992, between 500 and 600 EVs were

produced. Japanese officials cite current technical limitations and high

cost as reasons why they do not foresee a large, immediate personal

consumer EV market in their own country since (unlike the United States)

most Japanese families own only one car that they use for both short trips

and long-range driving. The Japanese automobile manufacturers do,

however, plan to market in the United States.

However, in October 1991, the Electric Vehicle Council of Japan

announced its Long-Term Program for Market Expansion of Electric

Vehicles, with a target of 200,000 EVs on the road in Japan by 2000. This

plan is the third EV market expansion program developed by the council.

The council’s first plan was devised in 1977 and revised in 1983 with a

target date of 1990. The current plan has expanded the goals and extended

the time.

In its third plan, the council aims not only to have 200,000 EVs on the road

by 2000 but also plans a progressive increase in production to achieve a

100,000 annual production rate by 2000. To promote expansion, the

program is divided into four phases. The aim of the first phase

(1991-93) was to introduce EVs into national and municipal government

agencies and, in parallel, to enhance technological improvements of EVs in

terms of performance and quality. Promotion measures include financial

supports such as subsidies, tax incentives, or financial assistance, as well

as the construction of an extensive recharging and maintenance

infrastructure to enhance public acceptance of EVs.

The second phase (1994-97) focuses on the public utilities for water, gas,

and electricity and other private delivery and service companies that can

use them for most applications and that are expected to take a leading role

in environmental protection efforts. Such large-scale introduction of EVs is

expected to create broad public demand for EVs as well as drive down

production prices.

The third phase (1998-2000) targets ordinary consumers as EV purchasers

with heavy emphasis on mass production to reduce costs and on

Page 45 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

development of the infrastructure needed to make EVs more attractive to

those consumers. The fourth phase of the program extends beyond 2001,

when the government’s goal is to have an autonomous demand for EVs.

Planned production for the next 8 years is shown in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Japan’s Electric Vehicle

Production Goals Year Number of units produced

1993 1,400

1994 4,000

1995 7,000

1996 10,000

1997 14,000

1998 25,000

1999 55,000

2000 100,000

Source: Machinery and Information Industries Bureau, Japanese Ministry of International Trade

and Industry.

However, according to one Ministry of International Trade and Industry

(MITI) official we interviewed, the more important intent of the council’s

current plan is not to have produced a targeted number of EVs by 2000 but

to have developed a consensus that allows the identification of desirable

research and development activities for industry to pursue. The plan

assumes that if certain technological targets were met, the demand for EVs

in Japan would expand. Technical goals include a range of about 155 miles

at 25 mph (current performance is 75 miles), a top speed of 75 mph

(current speed is 50 mph), a battery life of 4 years (current life is 1-1/2 to

2), and a cost 1.2 times a comparable ICEV’s (current cost is three times an

ICEV’s).

Municipal governments throughout Japan have committed to fleet

purchases in a move toward both popularizing EVs and reducing

production costs. At the national level, MITI subsidizes 50 percent of the

price of EVs with a budget limit of $910,000 per year. In its 5-year plan

(1992-96) to popularize EVs, MITI has also given 23 EVs to three companies

as a way to develop vehicles for road use. MITI has asked the New Energy

and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) to conduct

the program (budgeted at $29,090 for fiscal year 1993), which will monitor

EV use.8 The plan also includes quick-recharging stations for each company

for use both day and night. MITI will incorporate results from the project

8

NEDO is a public corporation under MITI’s Agency of Natural Resources and Energy.

Page 46 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

into its Ecostation 2000 plan, which we discuss below. Japan’s

Environment Agency also provided subsidies to local governments to buy

low-emission vehicles with a $645,000 budget in fiscal year 1992. Tax

incentives include reduced taxes when the vehicle is purchased and

reduced annual possession taxes. Businesses may receive a 7-percent tax

credit or a 30-percent depreciation allowance on EV purchases. However,

officials from the Japan Electric Vehicle Association (JEVA) noted that tax

credits are not a major incentive because EV batteries are heavy and some

taxes are based on vehicle weight. Consequently, the taxes on EVs are

typically higher than those on a lighter ICEV and the tax credit brings the

ultimate cost close to that of an ICEV.

MITI established JEVA in 1976 to promote the research and development of

EVs. Partially funded by MITI, it consists of 110 private businesses and

organizations, including automobile manufacturers, public utilities, and

battery companies. JEVA’s fiscal year 1990 budget was $348 million with

$130 million of that total received in the form of subsidies from public

organizations. One of JEVA’s primary activities is its EV leasing project.

Since the project began in 1978, JEVA has leased more than 400 EVs to local

governments and private organizations throughout Japan. Currently, JEVA

counts about 300 units in its program. The Environment Agency also

leases EVs to businesses free of charge to identify areas for which EVs are

best suited.

Locally, the Tokyo metropolitan government leases EVs to businesses as a

way to popularize them. As of May 1993, 123 vehicles had been leased. The

government also subsidizes 50 percent of the cost of EV purchases; 5 EVs

have been bought through the program. In total, Tokyo has 462 AFVs,

including 279 EVs and 12 hybrids. Tokyo’s fiscal year 1993 budget allocated

$1.5 million in EV purchase subsidies. Saitama prefecture has a 3-year plan

(1993-95) to purchase 15 Diahatsu EV vans, provide EVs free of charge to its

92 cities and towns, and subsidize EV leases for private corporations. Aichi

prefecture, at the center of Japan’s automobile industry, has a similar plan

to increase its EVs from the present 26 to 100.

Germany Officials representing the German government reported that between

1,000 and 2,000 EVs are on the road in Germany today. EVs are free from

taxes for 5 years. The federal government offers no financial purchase

support for EVs. Officials from the environment and transport ministries

stated that the federal government is not actively supporting EVs. Some

local regions in Germany are actively promoting EVs. Hamburg has 70

Page 47 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

registered EVs and at least one public charging station and some German

states (Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg) provide financial support up to

30 percent of an EV’s purchase price. RWE Energie AG, a battery company

located in Essen, has provided 20 EV vans through a leasing program to

city authorities in which an EV van can be leased for the same price as a

conventional vehicle.

France OECD estimates that France has 500 EVs on the road today. In 1991, the

French Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME) created

a special fund to subsidize the purchase of the first 1,000 EVs by local

communities. Total funds amounted to $3 million, or an average of $3,030

per vehicle. However, the program has not been as successful as expected.

The agency earmarked only $404,000 for the program and, as of

September 1992, had spent only $242,000. It is not clear whether this is the

result of a lack of available funds, a lack of consumer interest, or an

inability to locate EVs in sufficient numbers.

Switzerland Today, approximately 1,000 EVs are in use in Switzerland, which has the

largest number of EVs per capita in Europe. In addition, 8 resort areas are

closed to all traffic except EVs, where approximately 500 low-speed

vehicles are in use. The Swiss government does not offer EV purchase

incentives. The original impetus for EVs came from the Ministry of the

Interior, which declared a goal of 200,000 EVs in Switzerland by 2010. The

Tour de Sol, an internationally recognized race for solar and lightweight

EVs, and the Electric Vehicle Grand Prix are held every year in Switzerland

and contribute substantially to the promotion of EVs.

Sweden Sweden has approximately 380 EVs on the road today. In an effort to

reduce transportation-related pollution, Sweden has instituted a

three-tiered rebate program for new cars: purchasers of class I cars

(equivalent to California 1996 emissions standards) receive about $550 in

rebates, purchasers of class II cars (equivalent to U.S. federal 1994

standards) receive no rebate, and purchasers of class III cars (equivalent

to current U.S. federal standards) must pay an additional $275. EVs are

considered class I vehicles.

United Kingdom For over 50 years, the United Kingdom employed nearly 28,000 slow-speed

milk “floats” for at-home deliveries. Their numbers are systematically

Page 48 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

falling, however, as supermarket purchases encroach on home milk

deliveries. In 1989, approximately 25,000 EVs were in use: 33 were electric

buses, 25,138 were goods and delivery vans, and 79 were passenger

automobiles. EVs receive a road tax exemption of about $150.

Italy Officials in Italy estimated that about 400 EVs were registered in 1993. Most

of these vehicles are converted ICEVs. EVs in Italy are free from circulation

(transportation or traffic) tax for the first 5 years and discounted

50 percent on insurance tariffs. The Lombardia region of Northern Italy

has proposed legislation to contribute 30 percent of the total cost of EVs

with the intention to subsidize a yearly market of 1,000 EVs.

Major Production

Efforts

In this section, we discuss what we learned about major international EV

production efforts. Since production plans are often proprietary, limited

information was available in some instances on these efforts.

United States Chrysler delivered five Dodge Caravan EVs to utilities on the East Coast in

April 1993, making Chrysler the first of the major U.S. auto manufacturers

to reach the market in 1993. In prototype, the car is officially known as the

Chrysler TEVan, but all 50 EVs planned for 1993 were to be based on the

Dodge Caravan and sold through Dodge dealers who were also to provide

service. Priced at $120,000, the car is powered by a nickel-iron battery and

a 65-horsepower DC motor with a range of 80 miles on a charge and a top

speed of 70 mph. (Chrysler announced in March 1994 that 1994 prices for

the TEVan would be reduced by 15 percent to $100,000.) Chrysler’s cost is

estimated at $250,000 to $300,000 per vehicle.

As late as April 1993, Ford still planned to deliver 81 Ecostar minivans to

U.S., Mexican, and European utilities in August of that year. However,

Ford announced shortly thereafter that foreign manufacturers (in

Germany and the United Kingdom) were unable to supply sufficient

numbers of sodium sulfur batteries. Thus, delivery of the complete

vehicles would be delayed indefinitely. In November 1993, the first six

demonstration Ecostars were delivered to fleets in six U.S. cities. Nine of

the 81 vans—all for the California Air Resources Board (CARB)—are

planned to be hybrid vehicles. That is, they will be fitted with small

gasoline engines to drive the generator that will increase the range of a

van. The 72 others will be pure EVs. Prototype Ecostars have a range of 95

miles and a top speed of 70 mph. In the past, Ford leased the Ecostar for

Page 49 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

$100,000 for 30 months. Ford reports that the Ecostar costs approximately

$350,000, of which $60,000 to $80,000 is for the battery.9

In 1990, General Motors unveiled the Impact, a sports car purpose-built

prototype slated for large-scale production in 1993. The Impact uses lead

acid batteries and has a range of 50 to 70 urban and 70 to 90 highway

miles, has a top speed of 75 miles per hour, and accelerates to 60 mph in

8.0 seconds. It will cost the equivalent of about $3.00 per gallon of gasoline

to own and operate the Impact, and its retail price when it finally reaches

the showroom is expected to be $25,000 or more. The car features several

innovations to offset the considerable weight of its battery (1,100 lbs),

such as an aluminum body structure 40-percent lighter than steel, and

magnesium seats that reduce mass by 64 percent. In addition, its

aerodynamic drag coefficient (.19) is 30-percent better than that of current

cars; its tires roll with a resistance 25-percent lower than current tires; and

its heat pump both heats and cools, using an environmentally benign

refrigerant. (See figure 3.1.)

9

In June 1994, Ford reported to NHTSA that two fires had occurred in Ecostar EVs during recharging

of their sodium sulfur batteries. As a result, Ford has ordered all Ecostars parked until the cause of the

fires can be determined.

Page 50 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Figure 3.1: Energy Efficiency

Note: The GM Impact is aerodynamically designed to improve energy efficiency.

However, citing market and profit concerns, General Motors determined

about 18 months later, in December 1992, that it would not mass produce

the Impact. Recently, General Motors modified this decision with the

announcement of the $30 million PrEView Drive Program to produce 50

test Impacts. Early plans suggest that the vehicles will be deployed for 2

years in 12 U.S. regions where more than 1,000 private motorists will have

the opportunity to drive the cars for 1 to 2 weeks. While the project

appears to focus mostly on assessing market potential, performance data

will also be collected by onboard data collection systems. The $30 million

price for the 50 EVs includes the cost of installing (and removing)

recharging capabilities at the proposed test sites. DOE officials stated that

one of General Motors’ major interests is in the capability of its own

Hughes inductive coupler, a recently introduced recharging technology

that will most likely vie for market acceptance along with more traditional

plug-in rechargers.

Page 51 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Japan JEVA officials reported that all EVs produced in Japan were based on actual

customer orders. Suzuki, Toyota, Daihatsu, and Isuzu have all produced

models for sale, and Nissan and Mitsubishi soon plan mass production

based on orders from government agencies and private corporations.

Electric utilities and research organizations have also developed their own

prototypes.

Nissan has introduced its prototype two-door coupe, the Future Electric

Vehicle, powered by nickel cadmium batteries with a range of 155 miles at

25 mph (100 at 45 mph), a top speed of 80 mph, and an acceleration with

two occupants of 0 to 25 mph in 3.6 seconds. This EV is highly aerodynamic

with a drag coefficient matching the Impact’s 0.19. Nissan states that the

vehicle can receive a rapid recharge to 40 percent of battery capacity in 6

minutes. It was developed in consortium with Japan Storage Battery over

18 months at an estimated cost of $897,000.

Nissan also produces the Cedric EV and the Gloria EV. Both are powered

with sealed lead acid batteries developed by Japan Storage Battery and

have a range of 75 miles at 25 mph, a top speed of about 60 mph, and a

recharging time of 5 hours. Nissan began leasing the sedans to central

government agencies in February 1993 and plans to sell 50 in

December 1993 to the Environment Agency; local governments in Tokyo,

Osaka, and Nagoya; electric power companies; and other large

corporations. Planned prices are between $179,000 and $269,000 for each

EV.

Toyota has sold 42 Townace passenger vans to Chiba and Osaka

prefectures, Hirakata City, Sumida ward, Tokyo, and Kawasaki City. The

vans sold for $71,700 without recharging equipment, and all purchases

were subsidized by the Environment Agency. The Townace is powered by

lead acid batteries with a range of about 100 miles at 25 mph, a top speed

of 68 mph, and an acceleration of 0 to 25 mph in 6.5 seconds. Toyota is

also developing the Crown Majesta passenger van, to be powered by a

sealed lead acid battery with performance characteristics similar to the

Townace. Two test vans were due in 1993, and Toyota plans to lease the

vans to municipal governments.

The Daihatsu Hijet, a light van, appears to be the most widely used EV by

businesses and government. Daihatsu is the only known manufacturer

with a production line dedicated to EVs. (However, Daihatsu currently

produces the EVs by hand, since the relatively low volume of cars does not

warrant using the production line.) Daihatsu has developed its own

Page 52 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

production schedule and expected to produce 400 EVs in fiscal year 1993.

The Hijet is powered by a lead acid battery with a range of about 80 miles

at 25 mph and a top speed of about 50 mph. In past years, Daihatsu has

produced about 300 vans per year for local governments, utility

companies, and large corporations. OECD reports that Daihatsu sells the

vans for $19,730 and has announced plans for annual production of 10,000

by 1995. MITI officials quoted a consumer price of about $36,400, and

Daihatsu officials told us they sell the van for about $27,300. We were

unable to reconcile these different price quotes but assume that they

reflect, in part, the inclusion (or exclusion) of government purchase

subsidies discussed in the previous section.

Mitsubishi produces the Libero EV, a light cargo van powered by either

lead acid or nickel cadmium batteries. Its range is 100 miles at 25 mph

with lead acid and 155 miles at 25 mph with nickel cadmium; top speed is

about 80 mph, and recharging time is 8 hours. Mitsubishi delivered 28

vehicles to TEPCO power company in the first half of 1993 and plans mass

production based on government orders of 40 to 50 vehicles in the first

year and annual production of 100 shortly after. The Libero is priced at

$89,700 for the lead acid version and $161,500 with a nickel cadmium

battery.

Mazda has unveiled the Roadster EV based on the U.S. two-seater MX-5

model. The Roadster EV uses nickel cadmium batteries and has a range of

112 miles at 25 mph, a top speed of 80 mph, and an acceleration of 0 to 25

in 4.2 seconds. The company has produced three vehicles for a 2-year road

test in cooperation with its development partner, Chugoku Electric Power

Company.

Several electric utility companies in Japan have developed their own EVs.

The most notable example is the TEPCO IZA, a two-door coupe that uses

nickel cadmium batteries, which holds the reported world records for

range (340 miles at 25 mph) and top speed (109 mph). The IZA can

accelerate to a distance of one fourth mile in 18 seconds. MITI has chosen

the IZA as its own EV test car.

Germany Volkswagen has produced 70 Citistromers, electric Jettas powered by lead

acid batteries. The Citistromer’s top speed is about 65 mph with a range of

75 miles and a price of $42,700. Volkswagen is working with ASEA Brown

Boveri (ABB), one of Germany’s large battery manufacturers, to develop a

sodium sulfur version for additional range. Citistromers have been

Page 53 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

purchased and delivered to Sweden for its three-city demonstration

program. The Citistromer II is also priced at $42,700 and is based on the

Golf model. With lead acid batteries, the car has a range of 35 to 50 miles

and a top speed of 62 mph. Volkswagen is also working on a parallel

hybrid, nickel cadmium version of the Golf.

Citing the California market, BMW recently announced its E-1 and E-2

models, which will have the option of being delivered with a sodium sulfur

battery that accelerates from 0 to 30 mph in 6 seconds, travels for 135

miles at 30 mph, and has a top speed of 75 mph.

Mercedes Benz has electrified its 190E four seater with sodium nickel

chloride batteries that recharge in 12 hours. Its range is about 110 miles at

a constant speed of 30 mph and a top speed of 75 mph. In March 1994,

Mercedes Benz announced that it would manufacture the Swatchmobile, a

concept car developed by Swatch, a leading Swiss watch manufacturer.

The two-seater vehicle is expected to be ready for testing by 1996 and is

anticipated to be less than 10 feet in length, demonstrate crashworthiness,

and cost under $10,000.

France PSA group (Peugeot and Citroën) recently unveiled a purpose-built city

car, the CITELA, which it hopes to launch by the end of the decade.

According to expectations, the CITELA’s engine will last 620,000 miles and

its nickel cadmium battery life is 10 years. The car’s maximum speed is 68

mph (continuous maximum speed is about 55 mph), and it can travel

about 130 miles between charges when operated continuously at 25 mph,

about 70 miles under regular urban driving conditions. The CITELA’s price

has not been announced, but PSA expects that at mass production levels,

its price would be about 10 percent more than equivalent ICEVs. The

company’s president has stated publicly that mass production would be

possible only with financial assistance from the French government.

PSA has also announced production goals of the electric series—which

are vans retrofitted with lead acid batteries—of 10,000 in 1997 at a cost

$3,500 more than an equivalent ICEV. PSA has the only production line that

can accommodate both ICEVs and EVs. They estimate that they would need

to sell a series of 50,000 EVs to break even on the project. Although

officials in France noted that Peugeot would produce these vehicles only if

they have a viable market, we were informed that the company has taken

the initial steps to production, including preliminary negotiations with

battery and engine suppliers. PSA’s long-term objective is to produce and

Page 54 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

market 50,000 urban fleet EVs with advanced batteries at sales prices

equivalent to and operating costs lower than those of ICEVs.

To date, about 600 vehicles have been produced; customers include 17

French cities, 8 other European countries, and Hong Kong. Beginning in

1995, PSA plans to commercialize several thousand EVs for fleets and

private consumers. PSA is also developing a coupe model for French

demonstration projects beginning in 1995. Long-term development

projects include generating electric energy by a gas turbine driving a

turbogenerator at high speed.

Renault’s strategy for EVs is based on three types of goals: (1) marketing

utility EVs derived from existing fleet vehicles, (2) developing partnerships

with other European industries and research firms, and

(3) commercializing passenger vehicles in 1994 followed in 1995-96 with

purpose-built EVs.10

Renault has produced 50 to 100 Master and Express vans with either lead

acid or nickel cadmium batteries. Renault recently delivered some of these

EVs to Sweden for its three-city demonstration project. Swedish EV

program officials reported that they purchased Renault vans powered by

nickel cadmium batteries at the price of about $40,000, or about a third of

the selling price of the least expensive U.S.-produced electric van.

Renault is also preparing an electric version of the Clio for production in

1995 and general sale in 1996 with an annual production volume of 1,000.

The Zoom, a purpose-built EV in prototype, is currently under development

with the manufacturing firm, Matra. Its nickel cadmium battery provides

about 90 miles of range and a top speed of 75 mph. The batteries require 8

hours for a complete recharge but can be charged to 80 percent of

capacity in 2 hours.

SEER, a component manufacturer, has produced more than 50 Volta vans

powered by lead acid batteries and sold at a reported price of $22,700 to

municipal corporations, which receive a subsidy of $2,730.

Switzerland Although there are no large automobile manufacturers in Switzerland,

officials estimate that 20 small manufacturers and importers offer two-seat

10Renault cooperates with battery manufacturers (Italy’s CEAC and FIAMM, France’s SAFT, and

Germany’s ABB), engine and electronics manufacturers (Germany’s ABB, Siemens, and Magnet

Motor), and research laboratories and institutes (EUREKA programs and the National Polytechnic

Institute in Grenoble, France).

Page 55 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

compact EVs on the Swiss market. The prices for these vehicles are

between $12,580 and $24,820, or 50-percent to 100-percent higher than

prices for corresponding ICEVs. The Swiss cars are unique in that a large

majority are specially designed as EVs and are made primarily from

lightweight, high-strength plastic resins.

Horlacher produces two EV models and has several others in development.

The Horlacher Sport is a purpose-built, two-door coupe powered by

sodium sulfur batteries.11 The Sport is reported to have a range of 185 to

310 miles, depending on driving conditions and speed, a top speed of 77

mph, an acceleration of 0 to 50 mph in 14.5 seconds, and a 4-to-5-hour

recharge time. This company also produces the purpose-built Horlacher

City for urban use. The City is powered by lead acid batteries with a range

of about 40 to 90 miles and a top speed of 56 mph. Horlacher is looking for

production partners, including some in California.

Esoro produces the E301, a purpose-built EV powered by nickel cadmium

batteries. The E301 has a range of 60 to 90 miles, depending on driving

conditions and speed, a top speed of 75 mph, and an acceleration of 0 to 30

mph in 7.5 seconds. The frameless composite body platform allows

modular changes to create a coupe, a four-seater, or a small service

vehicle. (See figure 3.2.)

11When Horlacher brought this car to the United States, lead acid batteries replaced the sodium sulfur

batteries. While the reasons for this are not certain, it may have been the result of U.S. restrictions

regarding transport of sodium and sulfur on roadways.

Page 56 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Figure 3.2: Composite Body Platform

Note: The Swiss-manufactured Esoro E301 uses a frameless composite body platform that allows

modular changes to create a coupe, a four-seater, or a small service vehicle.

Page 57 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Sweden Sweden is primarily interested in developing hybrid models. Two main

reasons have been cited: (1) most Swedish households own only one

vehicle, thus making replacement with pure EVs impractical, and

(2) Swedes generally travel within relatively long ranges and only hybrids

can accommodate this pattern.

Volvo has unveiled its prototype, the Environmental Concept Car, a series

hybrid, four-seater sedan. The car is powered by both nickel cadmium

batteries and a gasoline turbine engine. When powered by batteries, it has

a range of about 100 miles at 30 mph, a top speed of 109 mph, and

acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 22 seconds. Using its gasoline engine, the

car’s range is extended to 418 miles at 55 mph. Volvo has made the point

that the car’s gasoline engine meets California’s ultra low emission vehicle

standards. Volvo has not announced its production plans.

Sweden’s Clean Air Transport Inc. (CAT) received the contract to develop

Los Angeles’s LA301 car, a series hybrid sedan, along with United

Kingdom’s International Automotive Design. The LA301 is designed to be

powered by lead acid batteries with a range of between 40 and 60 miles, a

top speed of 75 mph, and an acceleration of 0-30 in 7 seconds. The LA301

can accommodate nickel cadmium or sodium sulfur batteries when they

are commercially available. When we interviewed CAT officials in October

1992, they had reportedly spent $12 million to develop two prototypes.

Representatives of Los Angeles Water and Power Company reported to us

in March 1993 that they had committed $7 million to the project but to date

had disbursed $4.5 million. They also confirmed that CAT would require an

estimated $30 million to establish mass production of the LA301. CAT was

unable to raise the required funds. In January 1994, CAT declared

bankruptcy and owes millions to the city of Los Angeles for

noncompliance.

Solon Corporation in Uddevalla, Sweden, has developed a prototype

sportscar powered by a series of new lead acid starter batteries that bind

the acid to a thin fiberglass-floss separator material. The battery is unique

in that it provides a large active surface area and much lower internal

resistance than current lead acid batteries. Solon’s cars are manufactured

from readily available “off-the-shelf” materials. According to the

manufacturers, this greatly increases manufacturing flexibility and reduces

the cost of the vehicle. The car is currently a prototype, but the

manufacturers state that they have 20 purchase orders at a price of about

$28,000. (See figure 3.3.)

Page 58 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Figure 3.3: Off-the-Shelf Components

Note: Solon Corporation of Sweden uses off-the-shelf components to reduce costs and increase

manufacturing flexibility. The hinged doors allow easier access to tight parking spaces.

United Kingdom Between 1982 and 1986, Bedford and Freight Rover produced 475 electric

vans, the former tested in the United States as the General Motors Griffon.

However, this program was suspended in 1986 as a result of corporate

finance problems. The United Kingdom also recently suspended one of the

largest and longest-running electric passenger car programs, the Enfield

car project, in which electric utilities employed 70 purpose-built electric

cars over a period of 14 years.

Italy Fiat has produced more than 400 Panda Elettras and Cinquecentos for

utilities, government agencies, and personal consumers. With a lead acid

battery, the vehicles have a top speed between 40 and 50 mph and a range

of about 45 miles in urban driving. The Cinquecento has the option of a

nickel cadmium battery that increases the range by about half but the

speed only marginally.

Page 59 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

The Fiat EVs have not been well received by the public or the government

agencies that have purchased the vehicles and supported EV programs. The

status of Fiat’s EV program is not very clear today.

Infrastructure

Development and

Demonstration

Programs to develop and demonstrate infrastructure encompass efforts to

create a critical mass of vehicles and recharging stations so that

systematic evaluations of vehicle performance and requirements can be

conducted. These efforts are often supported by a mix of funds from

national and regional programs.

United States At the federal level, we were able to identify 13 EV demonstrations

participating in DOE’s Site Operators Users Task Force funded in fiscal year

1994 at $1.9 million. In all, these programs include 119 vehicles. Yet 7 of

the 13 programs had 5 or fewer vehicles. The large majority of site

operators were electric utility companies or local municipal authorities.

The site operator program began in the late 1970’s with approximately

1,000 converted vehicles. By 1986, only 500 vehicles remained in the

program. A lack of technical support for the fleet operators was cited as

the major reason for the dramatic decrease in vehicles.

We were also able to identify EV demonstration projects in 20 states with a

total of about 150 cars, vans, or buses.12 As in the federal program, these

projects are sponsored primarily by utility companies, which are the main

participants, and are located mostly on the East Coast and in three

western states. However, with a few exceptions, most demonstration

projects have fewer than 10 vehicles. The Sacramento Municipal Utility

District (SMUD) has the largest EV fleet with 30 vehicles, over 70 EV charging

stations, and an EV loan program for local companies.

Also in California, the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District

operates eight electric shuttle buses on a downtown circuit. Officials state

that ridership has increased from 100,000 to 1 million in the past 2 years.

The electric shuttles are inexpensive to operate, costing 2.5 cents per mile

compared to 16 cents per mile for a diesel-powered bus.

The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources has begun implementing

one of the more ambitious demonstration projects with a total of

$2.6 million in funds from private sources and the Federal Highway

12We did not conduct a complete survey of the states. We did survey the states that the Electric

Transportation Coalition identified as having passed legislation regarding AFVs by January 1993.

Page 60 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Adminstration’s Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991. The

program is part of a congestion mitigation and air quality improvement

plan that will use electrically powered commuter vehicles. Beginning in

the summer of 1993 and extending for 5 years, commuters in the Greater

Boston area will drive between their homes and a parking area near

transportation stations where public transit to Boston is available. Data

will be gathered from the vehicles and participants to evaluate efficiency

and performance. All vehicles will have recharging capability at home, and

half will have recharging capabilities at the public parking lot. The

project’s overall goal is 50 EVs; 20 EVs have been procured in its first phase.

Generally, EV demonstration officials report that it is very difficult to

obtain a sufficient number of EVs for a meaningful demonstration project.

Indeed, some federal U.S. demonstration funding currently requires a

minimum of 50 vehicles per program. Several officials we interviewed

stated that they simply cannot find 50 vehicles.

The Energy Policy Act created two programs under the responsibility of

DOE that specifically target EVs. The act authorized a $40 million 5-year

program to develop and demonstrate EV infrastructure. Grants were

scheduled to be awarded in 1994 to no more than 10 projects representing

geographically and climatically diverse regions of the United States with

individual project budgets capped at $4 million.

Projects may focus on five aims: serviceability of EVs; installation of

charging facilities; rates and cost recovery for utilities investing in

infrastructure capital-related expenditures; development of safety and

health procedures, such as guidelines for battery charging, watering, and

emissions; and the conduct of information dissemination programs.

DOE’s commercial demonstration project is authorized to solicit proposals

from U.S. metropolitan areas with a 10-year budget of $50 million. Each

project must include at least 50 EVs and DOE will provide a maximum

discount of $10,000 per vehicle. A limit of 10 projects will be funded and

no one project may be awarded more than 25 percent of the total funds

authorized for the program.

The program is designed to accelerate the development and use of EVs and

is structured to evaluate the performance of EVs in field operation.

Consequently, selection criteria include the manufacturer’s ability to

develop and assist in the demonstration of the proposed EVs, the

geographic and climatic diversity of the eligible metropolitan areas, the

Page 61 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

long-term technical and competitive viability of the EVs, the suitability of

the EVs for their intended uses, the environmental effects of the EVs’ use,

the price differential between EVs and ICEVs and any proposed discounts,

the extent of state or local government financial involvement, the

proportion of domestic content of the EVs, and the safety of the EVs.

However, as of May 1994, no funds had been appropriated for either

program. Instead, $2.73 million has been authorized to expand the Site

Operator Users Task Force program with the planned purchase of a total

of 40 to 45 additional EVs.

More to the point, it is possible that—even with full funding—these

programs will encounter the same problem as those currently under

way—namely, a paucity of commercially available EVs for participation in

the programs. The three major U.S. automobile manufacturers together are

thus far committed to producing fewer than 250 EVs—less than half of the

vehicles needed for the commercial demonstration project alone.

In the area of technology development, the Advanced Research Projects

Agency (ARPA) announced in July 1993 its selection of six regional

consortia to participate in its ongoing hybrid and EV program funded at

$25 million in fiscal year 1993. The ARPA program is funded at

$46.25 million in fiscal year 1994 and solicited new proposals through

July 1994. In an effort to foster technology transfer, the agency’s programs

are designed for technologies that have both military and commercial

applications.

The Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium received $4 million to

conduct EV infrastructure demonstrations in eight northeastern states,

including commuter vehicle pilot projects for each state, four technology

projects, and a multivehicle project (buses, trucks, vans, and cars) at

Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts.

The Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation will use $4 million in

the southeastern United States to evaluate high-efficiency climate controls

and rapid battery recharging with pick-up trucks at Patrick Air Force Base,

Florida, manufacture electric buses for Chattanooga, Tennessee, and

Atlanta, Georgia, and conduct research on flywheel technologies.13

13Flywheel energy storage is based on the storage of rotational kinetic energy in a spinning mass.

Energy added to the flywheel increases its speed of rotation. When no energy is added or removed

from the flywheel, it continues to spin at a constant speed (in the absence of frictional losses), and

when energy is removed from the flywheel, its speed decreases.

Page 62 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

The Mid-America Electric Vehicle consortium received $4 million to test

electrified Chevrolet S-10 trucks and buses in Chattanooga, Tennessee,

Indianapolis, Indiana, and Warren, Michigan.

CALSTART was awarded $4 million to establish new programs to develop

EV technology and infrastructure. These include operating station cars

around San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, building three

military and two commercial hybrid electric buses to be managed by the

Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, and building light-duty

military trucks and commercial vehicles for use on and around California

military bases.

Finally, SMUD received $2.5 million and Hawaii Electric Vehicle

Demonstration Project Consortium received $5 million to conduct EV

technology development and infrastructure programs.

Japan Japan has devised a plan to build recharging stations. MITI’s Ecostation

2000 plan is a two-phase project to add recharging and alternative fuel

stations to some of Japan’s approximately 60,000 service stations. In phase

one (1993-95), MITI will promote the medium-range use of EVs by

subsidizing the conversion of 100 service stations (13 in fiscal year 1993).

In phase two (1996-2000), MITI will offer low-interest loans to build 2,000

“ecostations” along major highways and in cities.

Local governments, such as Osaka and Tokyo, are actively involved in

promoting EVs. By the end of fiscal year 1993, Osaka had built 10 public

quick-charging stations that would allow citizens to charge their batteries

in daytime. The aims of the program are to demonstrate techniques for

recharging 50 percent of battery capacity in 30 minutes and to show that

users can recharge on a self-service basis. To build the stations, Osaka

formed the Electric Vehicle Community System (EVOC) in cooperation with

the private sector, including the automobile company Daihatsu and Japan

Storage Battery Company. Through membership fees, the system rents out

EVs and provides battery maintenance and free use of the charging

stations. EVOC reportedly spent $3.59 million in 1993 to build Osaka’s

charging stations and place 100 EVs on the road.

Germany Germany plans a 5-year 60-vehicle demonstration and evaluation on the

Baltic island of Rügen with a budget of about $12.8 million. As of early

September 1993, 23 of the vehicles had been delivered. Participants

Page 63 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

include five vehicle manufacturers, four battery companies, the Federal

Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT), the German Automobile

Society (DAUG), and Dresden College engineers. Both public citizens and

local authorities will drive the cars at least the minimum mileage

established to yield valuable test results. Research activities comprise

evaluations of performance and reliability of different mixes of battery

types and drive systems, suitability for the routine driving needs of several

different applications, infrastructure needs, and vehicle crash testing to

assess safety. Automobile manufacturers and battery makers were

persuaded to join the project by the variety of testing combinations of

vehicles, batteries, and users. The ultimate goal of this project is to

demonstrate the applicability and suitability of each manufacturer’s

product rather than to identify the single best vehicle or battery.

The Federal Ministry for Research and Technology selected Rügen as its

test site both because its size (25 miles by 25 miles) corresponds to the

distance electric vehicles can travel without recharging and because it is

widely recognized as an environmentally sensitive refuge for wild birds.

Moreover, both its small size and pristine environment offer a better

opportunity to monitor the environmental benefits of a small number of

EVs than would be possible in a congested city. The range of users includes

postal and utility workers, service and delivery companies, and community

organizations. Specialized service and repair are available at the test

center, and some local mechanics have been trained for routine

maintenance. In addition to overnight recharging stations at each user’s

site, a public charging station can be used by authorized cardholders.

However, demonstration project officials have found that the public

charging station has not been used much if at all as users are content to

recharge on-site.

Two other demonstrations are also under way. Project Telekom will

demonstrate 40 electric and hybrid vehicles for 3 years and the Postal

Service began a 2-year test in 1993 of a zinc-air battery system and

infrastructure support with 20 to 25 vans. In December 1994, the Postal

Service announced the extension of its program through 1996 with the

purchase of more than 50 Mercedes Benz vans and light trucks powered

by the zinc-air batteries manufactured by the Electric Fuel Corporation.

The manufacturer claims that the batteries store enough energy to travel

for a week without recharging, which is accomplished by removing the

zinc and sending it to the factory for reprocessing. The total budget for the

test is $14.8 million. The Postal Service and Telekom have signed letters of

Page 64 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

intent to purchase as many as 40,000 EVs and batteries if the test is

successful.

France France has selected 10 cities to stage demonstrations of 20 to 50 electric

cars and vans, complete with recharging and service stations, financing for

purchase, and driver education. One of these cities, La Rochelle, has been

cited as the first EV experiment under real conditions. In phase I, which

began mid-1993, sponsors were to provide 50 Peugeot Citroën EVs to local

citizens who agreed to participate for 1 year as data were collected

regarding driver attitudes and behavior, battery function, cost and patterns

of electricity consumption, maintenance, and effect on the urban

environment. If phase I is successful, phase II will add 300 EVs.

In July 1992, French officials from the ministries of the environment,

industry, and foreign commerce signed an important EV agreement with

the French national electricity company, French automobile

manufacturers (Renault and Peugeot Citroën), and G.I.V.E., an

interministerial group for EVs. The major objectives of the agreement are

to (1) develop a standard system of battery charging and equip at least 10

test sites by 1995, (2) design and create a system to disperse batteries

(such as by leasing them) and guarantee their recycling at the end of their

usefulness, (3) establish a viable EV maintenance system, and (4) conduct

education and training.

Switzerland The city of Basel has one EV rental agency and one EV repair shop. The

rental agency leases 10 cars from different companies and countries. All

use conventional lead acid batteries with a top speed of about 45 mph and

a range of 50 miles. They recharge with a conventional Swiss plug at a

regular outlet. The rental agency has several coin-operated recharging

stations outside its office where owners receive free parking while they

recharge for about $1.70 per day. Recently, the rental agency added a

courier service to further promote EVs.

The EV repair shop services all types of EVs and has trained mechanics in

10 area conventional repair shops. The service manager reported that the

most typical repair problems are the result of owners overcharging

batteries or neglecting to add water to the lead acid batteries. The owner

reported that he has sold 600 EVs but estimates that only 300 are still in the

Basel area. For example, Czechoslovakian-produced Penguin Skodas are

available at a price of $14,700, including the $2,000 battery. He has

Page 65 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

replaced several batteries at considerable expense to keep customers

satisfied. He also noted that, in his opinion, more advanced batteries, such

as nickel cadmium, offer few advantages over current lead acid batteries

at six times the price. For example, a newly purchased taxi with nickel

cadmium batteries costs $60,000, of which $25,000 was for the batteries.

Sweden Sweden’s three largest cities, Stockholm, Malmo, and Gothenberg, have EV

demonstration projects under way in which the ultimate goal is to create

an initial market for EVs.14 Gothenberg has the lead in this effort and the

most ambitious goals of 1,000 EVs by 1995 and 10,000 by 2000. Gothenberg

officials initiated this program hoping to break the “vicious circle” in

which there are no products because they are waiting for a market and

there is no market because it is waiting for the products. Toward this end,

the short-term goal is to test 200 electric cars using a systems approach, in

which a large number of cars are tested in a commercial transport

environment. Tests will evaluate the performance of the cars,

infrastructure needs, and local market incentives. In addition, a

monitoring system in each car will record information about driving,

traffic, and recharging patterns.

Sponsors of the project include Renault and Volvo, Vattenfall (the area

electricity producer), Gothenburg Energie (the area electricity

distributor), and the Swedish national government.15 The first 10 Renault

Express vans powered by French SAFT’s nickel cadmium batteries were

delivered by Renault’s partner, Volvo, in August 1993. Program officials are

particularly interested in testing a new type of recharging connector

manufactured by the French and German company Marechal. This

connector uses springs to create varying amounts of pressure contact,

which then determines recharging voltage and speed. Thus, the same

contact mechanism can be used for three different charging speeds from

very quick to overnight. For example, drivers can use an electronic money

card to gain an additional 31-mile range with a 30-minute charge at the

local public recharging station.

Users are primarily private companies and municipal offices that will lease

cars for 3 years with the requirement that 50 percent of the initial purchase

price of $37,500 will be repaid. Officials noted that the nickel cadmium

14We did not visit Malmo, but the characteristics of that city’s program are similar to those of

Gothenberg and Stockholm.

15Vattenfall is owned primarily by the Swedish national government, and Gothenberg Energie is owned

primarily by Gothenberg City.

Page 66 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

battery is expected to last 1,500 cycles (about 5 years) and that the

electricity companies are currently considering the option of leasing the

batteries to customers.16

Gothenberg has also instituted significant reductions in municipal parking

fees for EVs (from $750 to $6 for 3 years) and will decide sometime in the

next year whether to allow EVs to travel in public transport lanes and

whether to create environmental zones in which only EVs could drive.

The Stockholm demonstration project is managed by Stockholm Materiel

Procurement, a service organization for the city government, that recently

purchased 12 EVs, mostly Volkswagen Citistromers with lead acid batteries

at a cost of about $41,100. These are leased to private companies and city

offices for $1,370 per month, or about three times the lease price of $400

for a comparable ICEV. Based on fleet operating statistics, Stockholm

estimates that about 300 of its 1,500-car inventory should be EVs, and it

hopes to purchase more at an estimated future cost of about $24,700.

Sweden’s National Board for Industrial and Technical Development

(NUTEK) is planning a large-scale demonstration program for 1993-97 that

will use municipal and commercial fleets to test EVs, assess infrastructure

needs, and conduct market surveys. The budget is not yet final and could

range anywhere from $6.8 million to $27 million. The government hopes to

offset consumer costs for batteries by about 50 percent.

United Kingdom The 25,000 electric milk vans currently in operation in the United Kingdom

constitute a credible demonstration of the use of electrically propelled,

slow speed service vehicles. However, their numbers are dwindling and

their technology is dated. The government officials we interviewed did not

anticipate any new EV demonstrations in the near future.

Italy Small demonstrations (from a few up to 20 EVs) have been conducted by

municipal governments and public organizations. Italian officials

representing the nonministerial Agency for New Technology, Energy, and

the Environment (ENEA) reported that some of these demonstrations have

been less than successful. For example, ENEA had demonstrated 6 Fiat

16Nickel cadmium batteries replaced Gothenberg’s initial choice of sodium sulfur batteries when

officials considered the much shorter life cycle of sodium sulfur batteries as less cost-effective than

the nickel cadmium batteries. While the longer range of sodium sulfur batteries can be useful, those

benefits are offset by its short life cycle only if the car is driven often and far. This is because the

corrosive nature of sodium sulfur batteries also reduces their life.

Page 67 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

Panda EVs that it described as very expensive with poor performance and

reliability. ENEA staff eventually refused to drive them.

Two public EV bus demonstrations are conducted in Rome (8 minibuses)

and Trento (3 to 6 buses) by local Municipal Transport Authorities. Rome

Transport Authority plans to introduce a larger fleet of 50 minibuses with

the financial support of the regional government. Fiat has sponsored a

rental program in Livorno Township with 5 passenger EVs.

Vehicle and Battery

Research and

Development

In this section, we discuss what we learned about major international

vehicle and battery research and development programs. In addition to

these nationally sponsored programs, many individual battery and vehicle

manufacturers conduct their own research. Because they are proprietary,

little information is available about these efforts.

United States In an effort to improve upon current battery technology, USABC was formed

in 1991 as a cooperative venture between industry and government. The

major partners include Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, the Electric Power

Research Institute, and DOE. Funding for a 5-year period is $262 million

divided evenly between government and industry.

To date, six of an anticipated seven research contracts have been made

final for the development of nickel metal hydride, sodium sulfur, and two

types of lithium batteries. Total funding amounts to date for the six

contracts are $40.6 million for the two nickel metal hydride contracts,

$12.1 million for the one sodium sulfur contract, and $77.6 million for the

three lithium contracts. In addition, eight cooperative research and

development agreements funded at $18.9 million guide efforts at five U.S.

national laboratories. USABC has both mid-term and long-term objectives to

be met by the end of fiscal year 1995. The intent of USABC is to develop by

1995 an advanced battery to meet mid-term performance criteria with pilot

prototype production capability by 1996 and full-scale production by 2000

and to demonstrate the technical feasibility of an advanced battery that

meets the long-term criteria by 1996. The technical criteria for battery

development specify required power-to-weight ratios for acceleration,

energy-to-weight and energy-to-volume ratios for range, overall battery

lifetime, and cost. (See appendix III.) Other criteria, such as safety and

recyclability, are also considered. USABC funds advanced batteries, and

many experts believe that none of the three currently funded battery types

Page 68 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

will be ready for large-scale commercial use before 2000 and that lithium

batteries may take until 2010 or longer.

Japan Japan is the only country that appears to have a national battery research

and development budget on a par with U.S. efforts. With an aim to upgrade

the performance and lower the cost of EV batteries, MITI’s Agency of

Industrial Science and Technology has two research projects to improve

battery energy storage technology. In fiscal year 1992, the agency launched

a 10-year, $125.6 million project to develop lithium batteries for EV and

consumer electronics use. Administered by NEDO, the project brings

together 11 companies in a lithium battery research and development

consortium similar to USABC. MITI allocated $6.2 million in fiscal year 1993

for research and development on battery technology. In addition, several

Agency of Industrial Science and Technology laboratories are conducting

research and development in support of corporate participants. In tandem

with its lithium research goals, NEDO also administers a 4-year

(1992-95) project to develop a polymer electrolytic fuel cell for use with

durable lithium batteries. Funds are reported to be $8.9 million, with

$359,000 for fiscal year 1992. MITI aims to have the resulting

high-performance batteries mass produced at low cost within 3 years of

their development.

Germany In November 1993, USABC awarded a $12.1 million contract to Germany’s

Silent Power GmbH to develop and produce sodium sulfur batteries. Silent

Power has research and development facilities in Pennsylvania, Utah, and

the United Kingdom. The contract obliges Silent Power to locate

production facilities in the United States as a market develops for the

battery technology. Until 1992, BMFT subsidized the development of sodium

sulfur batteries by ABB, which is developing mass production techniques

for EV batteries, and the German government has refocused its efforts to EV

demonstration and evaluation programs.

France At the national level, ADEME supports battery and fuel cell research. The

French battery company SAFT is one of the foremost manufacturers of

nickel cadmium batteries; it plans to mass produce its vented-type nickel

cadmium batteries so as to reduce manufacturing costs. SAFT has

received two USABC contracts. A midterm nickel metal hydride project is

funded at $18.1 million and a long-term lithium iron disulfide project is

funded at $17.3 million. Research continues on sealed-type nickel

Page 69 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

cadmium batteries, nickel zinc batteries, aluminum air batteries, hydrogen

air fuel cells, and methanol air fuel cells.

Switzerland Switzerland does not provide research and development funding at the

level of many other countries. Rather, the Ministry of the Environment’s

technology support program DIANE provides financial support to selected

technologies that are sufficiently developed that small incremental funding

can have a large effect. EVs are identified as one such technology and are

funded at $1.4 million per year. Each project can be subsidized by the

national government at 30 percent of costs, with the regional cantons

supplying an additional 20 percent maximum and private industry the

remaining 50 percent of costs. The Swiss Federal Office for Energy

Economy provided $2.8 million for 1991-94 for safety and crash test

research in the types of lightweight, plastic resin EVs for which Swiss

producers are well known.

While funding amounts are relatively small compared to the United States

and Japan, small Swiss manufacturers are considered by many to hold

much promise in the development of purpose-built EVs. These EVs are

constructed from lightweight, high-strength plastic resins that are

expected to eliminate some of the weight problems associated with

converting ICEVs into EVs.

Sweden NUTEK has funded EV-related research and development at about $1 million

per year since the 1970’s. Most grants are provided to universities that

work in conjunction with Volvo. In prior years, most of the funding went

to battery research, but interest has shifted to electric drive systems and

infrastructure, especially quick-charge technologies.

We interviewed engineers at Cattella Generics, an independent battery

testing company based in Stockholm. These experts reiterated Sweden’s

interest in quick-charging capabilities. From extensive experience with

batteries, it is their opinion that the prohibitive cost (and substantially

increased weight) of a battery with enough energy to increase range

significantly is not justified when one considers how infrequently the

additional range is actually needed or used. Quick-charge technology

would extend range only when needed. These experts also noted that

although all batteries deteriorate slightly as a result of normal recharging,

and extensively with improper recharging, comparatively little money and

attention are devoted to the charging apparatus itself.

Page 70 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

United Kingdom The United Kingdom once had a longstanding commitment to EVs.

However, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of

Transport subsidies began to fall when large off-shore oil reserves were

discovered. By 1989, no funds were devoted to EVs. Officials spoke of a

waning interest in marketing EVs at home after many years of substantial

research and development investment. Today, all funding for EVs comes

from private sources, which hope to introduce products into the U.S.

market in the near future.

Several companies based in the United Kingdom have forged relationships

with other foreign corporations. For example, International Automotive

Design joined with Sweden’s CAT to develop the hybrid LA301 car,

scheduled for production in the Los Angeles EV program. Beta R&D has

developed a sodium nickel chloride battery that will be commercialized

with help from partners in Germany’s AEG, a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz.

Chloride Ltd. and its subsidiaries will produce and market (including to

Ford) a sodium sulfur battery in a joint venture with Germany’s electric

power company, RWE. The United Kingdom’s research and development

division of Silent Power received a joint USABC sodium sulfur contract with

the German Silent Power GmbH in November 1993.

Italy The Italian EV program is managed cooperatively by Fiat, the ministries of

environment and industry, and the national electric power company

(ENEL). The goals of the program are to (1) retrofit existing gasoline cars

with batteries and (2) conduct research devoted to a battery breakthrough.

Primary funding for EV development comes from ENEA. Between 1980 and

1987, this agency and the National Council of Research (CNR) provided

about $11.2 million to support both near-term battery research (lead acid,

nickel cadmium, and nickel iron) and advanced battery research (sodium

sulfur, lithium, and supercapacitors). Each year since 1986, the agency has

provided an additional $700,000 in a parallel effort in cooperation with

industry, research centers, and fleet users for field and bench testing of

EVs and batteries. In September 1992, its proposed EV budget for the next 3

years totaled more than $35 million; however, some doubt exists that full

funding will be available.

Italy’s transportation sector has devoted about $3.5 million to vehicles and

$7 million to hybrid vehicle development and EV applications in urban

areas. Italy’s 3-year environment plan reserves about $9.8 million for local

public authorities to monitor EVs and the environment. In 1992, ENEL was

Page 71 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

scheduled to begin a $42 million program for the development of

stationary and mobile electrical energy storage systems. The program

costs are shared with battery and vehicle manufacturers, and about

$7 million is devoted to EV development. The battery program focuses on

sodium sulfur, lithium aluminum, and iron sulfur batteries. The aim is to

introduce and adopt the latest overseas manufacturing technologies in

Italy.

Summary and

Conclusions

The foreign EV efforts we reviewed varied in terms of the scope and

maturity of their major EV production efforts as well as in the type and

amount of national funding for EV research and development and

promotion and demonstration programs. Of the countries we reviewed, we

found that EV programs in Japan, Germany, France, and Switzerland have

elements that are different from those in the United States. Officials in all

nations except Japan noted the difficulty in obtaining EVs in sufficient

numbers for tests and demonstrations.

Japanese officials do not foresee a large personal consumer EV market in

their country in the near future. Japanese automobile manufacturers do,

however, plan to market in the U.S.-mandated markets. Toward that end,

the Japanese national government provides research and development

funding to major automobile and battery manufacturers, and large-scale

demonstration projects are funded at both the national and local levels.

Municipal governments throughout Japan have committed to fleet

purchases and cost subsidies in a move toward both popularizing EVs and

reducing production costs.

Germany and France, in contrast, have greatly reduced or eliminated their

research and development budgets and are moving toward national

funding of large-scale demonstration projects. France has initiated a

10-city project with 20 to 50 EVs per city, recharging stations, purchase

incentives, and driver education programs. Germany recently began a

60-vehicle demonstration on Rügen, a tourist island on the Baltic coast.

The program highlights extensive data collection and evaluation of

different combinations of drive systems and batteries as well as actual

vehicle crash testing. Switzerland also has some pilot EV infrastructure in

place. But more importantly, Swiss automobile manufacturers are

advancing the design of purpose-built, lightweight EVs that eliminate many

of the problems associated with simply converting ICEVs into EVs.

Page 72 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 3 

Electric Vehicle Policies and Programs

These substantial efforts notwithstanding, the international EV industry is

looking toward the United States as manufacturers await a battery

breakthrough from USABC. However, the progress of developing EV

batteries—or any new technology—cannot be predicted with great

certainty. Although a technical breakthrough could occur at any time, we

believe from our literature review and interviews with experts that none of

the three USABC advanced battery types are likely to be ready for

large-scale commercial use for the 1998 state mandates. In particular,

sodium sulfur and nickel metal hydride batteries are unlikely to be fully

developed technically before 2000, and lithium batteries may take until

2010 or longer.

From a policy perspective, foreign governments are also looking toward

the United States as they await the 1998 California and northeastern state

mandates. Yet, in the United States, federal and state EV program managers

are experiencing difficulties finding EVs in sufficient numbers for

meaningful demonstrations, and technical and program supports appear to

be less than what would be required for success. Within the U.S. federal

fleet, only 10 of 15,000 planned AFV purchases will be EVs.

In sum, in direct contrast to many of the countries we visited, the United

States has devoted proportionately less of its money and attention to

comprehensive EV demonstration and promotion programs or

infrastructure needs assessment and development.

Page 73 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Introduction While industrial policy appears to influence the level and type of EV

funding, officials indicated that national and regional distinctions in

energy and environmental issues often underlie a nation’s interest in EVs as

a solution to its own energy security and air quality problems. Thus, in this

chapter, we address our third evaluation question: What are the likely

effects of introducing EVs in a nation or region in terms of costs to the

individual, national energy savings, and environmental effects? We

considered costs likely to arise from owning and operating an EV in

different nations. As for effectiveness, we looked at potential effects on

energy savings and on pollution reductions at the national level. We also

examined the potential range of regional environmental effects using the

few region-specific studies we obtained.

We begin our discussion with an analysis of likely EV purchase costs in the

near term and the more distant future. We present data that estimate the

total consumer costs to own and operate an EV in the nations we reviewed.

Next, we focus on the potential effect of EVs on energy consumption and

imported oil dependence in the nations we reviewed, providing

transportation and petroleum use statistics for each nation and then

analyzing how EVs might produce total energy savings, petroleum savings,

and petroleum independence if they replace gasoline-powered ICEVs. This

is followed by a discussion of each nation’s pollution statistics and fuel

mixes for electricity generation and how these factors might influence the

potential effect of EV use on air pollution. Finally, we use data from four

U.S. cities with different electricity fuel mixes and air pollution problems

to demonstrate the potential range and magnitude of the effects of EVs for

urban areas in the United States.

Costs to Own and

Operate EVs in

Different Nations

High cost is the greatest obstacle for private consumers who want to

purchase EVs. EV costs can be considered in two ways: the price to

purchase an EV (initial cost) and the cost to purchase, fuel, and maintain

an EV over its lifetime (life-cycle cost).

Initial Costs Data showing the effects of production volume on initial purchase price do

exist, but they are difficult to obtain and validate because they are

proprietary to manufacturers. Even when sympathetic manufacturers

volunteer such data, they often contain large information gaps. We did find

one price-volume analysis that used data provided by an EV manufacturer

who has relatively extensive experience producing EVs.

Page 74 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

In a report prepared for the German parliament, the Ministry of

Transportation calculated initial purchase price changes as annual

production increases to 100,000 vehicles for a midsized, four-seater

electric Volkswagen Citistromer equipped with a lead gel battery.1

 The

Citistromer is currently produced by hand in annual volumes of fewer than

100 vehicles at a consumer cost of $42,700, or nearly three times more

than the ICEV version, which sells for $15,500. As table 4.1 illustrates, the

manufacturer expects initial prices to fall steadily until production reaches

100,000, when the EVs are predicted to reach their ultimate price. The

largest cost reductions are realized as production moves from handbuilt

vehicles to annual production rates of 5,000 vehicles. However, even at a

production volume of 100,000 vehicles, the EV’s initial cost would remain

about 18 percent higher than that of the ICEV, or $18,250.

Table 4.1: Initial Purchase Price of

Electric Citistromers as a Function of

Annual Production Level Annual production rate

Initial price

reduction

Comparison to

ICEV cost

Hand built 0 280%

1,000 –15% 238

5,000 –34 185

10,000 –38 174

50,000 –45 154

100,000 –58 118

Source: “Unterrichtung durch die Bundersregierung: Vierte Fortschreibung des Berichtes über die

Förderung des Einsatzes von Elektrofahrzeugen,” publication 12.3222, German Federal

Parliament, session 12, Bonn, September 7, 1992.

These data are specific to the Volkswagen Citistromer with a lead gel

battery. Since lead-based batteries are the least expensive of the various

battery technologies, Citistromer purchase prices would be considerably

higher if equipped with different batteries. This fact hampered our ability

to generalize Citistromer cost projections to those for other EVs using

different batteries.

We did, however, find a Japanese analysis of the effects of economies of

scale on the costs to manufacture different batteries.2

 The research was

sponsored by MITI and conducted jointly by the Institute of Applied Energy

and NEDO. The cost projections considered both economies of scale (for

1

Costs include lead gel batteries estimated to cost about $5,570 currently and decrease to about $3,900

at higher production volumes.

2

H. Hasuike et al., “Economic Study on Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles,” in The 11th

International Vehicle Symposium Proceedings, vol. 2 (Florence, Italy: September 1992).

Page 75 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

example, by calculating changes in prices of raw materials and overhead

costs at higher purchase volumes) and learning economies (for example,

by factoring in projected improvements in manufacturing processes). The

analysis also considered two important operational factors that influence

battery cost: energy capacity and cycle life. As we noted in our discussion

of battery technology in chapter 2, energy capacity (the total number of

energy units in a battery) reflects range, and cycle life reflects the total

number of times that a battery can be recharged before it must be

replaced. Together, energy capacity and cycle life affect the total lifetime

driving distance of a battery. Table 4.2 shows how differences in both

costs per unit of energy and battery specifications affect consumers’ initial

battery costs and the costs to travel a specified distance (in our example,

100,000 total miles).

Page 76 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.2: Battery Cost Per Driving

Distancea Sodium

sulfur

Nickel

cadmium

Nickel

iron

Lead

acid

1. Cost per kWh

Producing 1,000

Producing 100,000

$875

$172

$529

$345

$624

$332

$119

$ 89

2.Battery capacity (kWh) 44.0 41.6 41.9 28.1

3.Total battery costb

Producing 1,000

Producing 100,000

$38,500

$7,568

$22,006

$14,352

$26,146

$13,911

$3,344

$2,501

4.Operating range (urban miles)

Cycle life

Driving distancec

100

500

50,000

75

2,000

150,000

75

2,000

150,000

55

500

26,500

5.Number of batteriesd 2.00 0.67 0.67 3.64

6.Cost for 100,000 milese

Producing 1,000

Producing 100,000

$77,000

$15,136

$14,671

$9,568

$17,430

$9,274

$12,160

$ 9,094

aBattery capacity is a function of specific energy (measured in Wh/kg) and a reflection of the

amount of energy per unit of weight and battery size (kg). Battery capacity is specified by the

manufacturer and varies as a function of vehicle type or required range. Range is a function of

battery capacity and vehicle efficiency, as well as other variable factors, such as use of climate

controls and type and speed of driving. The vehicle efficiency (in kWh/km) varies in this analysis

from .365 for lead acid to .387 for nickel iron batteries and is based on a compact van with

gasoline mileage of 22 mpg driving in an urban environment without air-conditioning or heat.

The values for this table were derived directly from the Japanese analysis except for the

correction based on DOE’s technical comments, in which it noted an unrealistic battery capacity

for sodium sulfur. This battery’s capacity was originally reported as 85.7 kWh, which is not

consistent with the requirements for a compact van with a reasonable operating range of 100

urban miles. We believe the original analyses failed to consider that the high specific energy of

sodium sulfur batteries allows for substantial weight reduction for these batteries compared to the

others. Because the battery capacity ultimately affects price, we reduced the Japanese estimate

by almost half. Our estimate is roughly consistent with the energy capacity of the Ford Ecostar’s

sodium sulfur battery (40 kWh).

bTotal battery cost = battery capacity x cost per kilowatt hour.

cDriving distance = range x cycle life.

dAssumes purchaser could return the unused remainder of a battery at 100,000 miles.

eCost for 100,000 miles = (100,000 miles/driving distance) x total cost.

At a low production rate of 1,000 sets per year, the consumer cost per unit

of energy (kWh) of sodium sulfur batteries is expected to be more than

seven times higher than that of lead acid; the costs of nickel cadmium and

nickel iron batteries should be between four and five times higher than

Page 77 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

lead acid.3 At a high production rate of 100,000 sets per year, the costs per

unit of energy of the four batteries would all be reduced. Lead acid

batteries would incur a 25-percent reduction; sodium sulfur batteries, an

80-percent reduction; nickel iron batteries, a 47-percent reduction; and

nickel cadmium batteries, a 35-percent reduction. In relative terms, costs

per unit of energy of sodium sulfur batteries would be about twice those of

lead acid batteries and the nickel based batteries about quadruple.

As for economies of scale, the Japanese expect that increasing production

rates of sodium sulfur batteries would introduce significant cost

reductions in raw materials and manufacturing. Nickel cadmium and

nickel iron batteries would benefit most from decreased manufacturing

costs. Lead acid batteries would not gain much from increased production

rates as they use low-cost, abundant materials and would be manufactured

by an already established technology.

Thus, when price per unit of energy is considered, the sealed lead acid

battery is by far the least expensive alternative. However, price per unit of

energy is not the only contributor to the ultimate price of batteries. The

four battery types vary considerably in terms of energy capacity. The

amount of energy that is contained in the battery sets varies from 44

kilowatt hours for sodium sulfur batteries to about 28 kilowatt hours for

lead acid batteries. The cost to purchase a complete battery set depends

upon the cost per unit of energy and the battery capacity, or the total

number of energy units contained in the battery set (see table 4.2, row 1).

The cost to purchase a complete battery set varies considerably for the

four batteries (row 3). At production volumes of 1,000 annually, sodium

sulfur batteries are anticipated to cost $77,000 each. The nickel-based

batteries would cost between about 60 and 70 percent and lead acid

batteries would cost about 9 percent of the price of a sodium sulfur

battery. However, these price ratios change radically at production

volumes of 100,000 annually: the nickel batteries would cost most at

between $13,900 and $14,350. Sodium sulfur batteries would cost about

50 percent ($7,600) and lead acid about 20 percent ($2,500) of the cost of

nickel batteries.

3

As a point of comparison, current EV lead acid batteries (vented type PbA) are produced at a rate of

100 sets per year in Japan at a cost of 18 cents per watt hour (Wh). Total price per set is calculated by

multiplying cost per unit of energy in watt hours ($/Wh) by battery capacity in kilowatt hours

(kWh/set). A kilowatt hour is 1,000 watt hours. Thus, at 18 cents per watt hour and a capacity of 28.14

kWh per set, the cost of current vented PbA batteries is $5,116 per set (.18 x 28.14 x 1,000 = 5,116).

Page 78 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

One final factor affects the true price of a battery: the total driving

distance before the battery requires replacement. The total driving

distance of the battery takes into account its range on a single charge and

cycle life, or the number of times it can be recharged (row 4). The total

driving distances range from about 150,000 miles for nickel cadmium and

nickel iron batteries to about 26,500 miles for lead acid batteries. A sodium

sulfur battery has a total driving distance of about 50,000 miles. When

these factors are considered, the relative costs of the four batteries are

much different than when purchase prices are compared.

We calculated the total number of batteries (row 5) and the total costs of

those batteries that would be required to travel a total of 100,000 miles

(row 6). We prorated battery costs. For example, the driving distance for

the lead acid battery was estimated at 26,500 miles; thus, we included

costs for only 3-2/3 lead acid batteries with the assumption that the

purchaser could recover the full value for the 1/3 of the fourth battery’s life

that remained after 100,000 miles.4

In general, it will always cost more initially to purchase a battery with

extended range because extended range requires more energy capacity

(energy units) within the battery. But overall operating costs can be offset

considerably by how many times the battery can be recharged in its

lifetime. For example, at production volumes of 100,000 batteries annually,

the initial costs of nickel cadmium and nickel iron batteries are nearly six

times higher than the cost of a lead acid battery (row 3), but these are

offset by total lifetime driving distances, which are also nearly six times

longer than the lead acid battery (row 4). In other words, while nickel

cadmium and nickel iron batteries will cost more to purchase, they will

last longer than the lead acid batteries. This offset is less good for the

sodium sulfur battery: its initial cost is three times more than lead acid’s,

but its total driving life is only 1.9 times as long as lead acid’s. Thus, a

sodium sulfur battery’s cost per driving distance is about 65-percent more

than that of a lead acid battery’s cost. If only 1,000 lead acid and sodium

sulfur batteries are produced annually, the costs to travel 100,000 miles

with sodium sulfur batteries would be about $77,000, or six times more

than the lead acid batteries’ costs of $12,160.

The final step in our analysis combined the German Citistromer cost

analysis with the Japanese battery analysis. From this synthesis emerged a

more general picture of likely purchase costs for a wider range of EVs than

4

We did the same for the nickel-based batteries by including the costs of only 2/3 of either a nickel

cadmium or nickel iron battery.

Page 79 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

has typically been available publicly. Our analysis is based on several

assumptions. First, we considered only two production volumes for the

base vehicles and batteries: 1,000 and 100,000 per year. Second, we

subtracted the cost of the Citistromer battery from the total purchase

price and assumed that the vehicle could accommodate the four different

advanced battery types. The current Citistromer battery contains only 18

kilowatt hours of power. Because energy capacity affects range, we

assumed that the Citistromer would incorporate advanced batteries when

they become available. Using the battery prices from the Japanese analysis

and the vehicle prices from the German analysis, we calculated the total

current cost to purchase the Citistromer and enough batteries to drive

100,000 miles. Figure 4.1 compares our estimates of the costs of the EV

Citistromer with the different battery types at production volumes of 1,000

and 100,000 per year with the costs of a comparable ICEV Citistromer. From

our calculations, we found that ICEV costs will remain lower than EV

costs—even at high-volume production.

Page 80 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.1: Total Lifetime Purchase

Costs to Travel 100,000 Miles in a

Citistromer by Battery Type and

Production Volumea

Lifetime $ costs for 100,000 miles (in thousands)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

NaS

1,000

NaS

100,000

NiFe

1,000

NiFe

100,000

NiCd

1,000

NiCd

100,000

PbA

1,000

PbA

100,000

Current

ICEV

Production volume by battery type

Battery

Vehicle

aNaS = sodium sulfur; NiFe = nickel iron; NiCd = nickel cadmium; PbA = lead acid.

The cost of the vehicle without a battery at low production volumes is

estimated to be $33,000, compared to $15,500 for a complete ICEV. At low

production volumes, the cost to travel 100,000 miles in a vehicle equipped

with sodium sulfur batteries would be extraordinarily high at $110,000.5

With nickel iron batteries, the cost would be about $50,400; with nickel

cadmium batteries, about $47,700; and with lead acid batteries, about

$45,200.

At annual production volumes of 100,000, the vehicle without a battery is

expected to be $14,000, making total costs with sodium sulfur batteries

$29,100; with nickel iron batteries, $23,300; with nickel cadmium batteries,

$23,700; and with lead acid batteries, $23,100.

5

These estimates are derived from tables 4.1 and 4.2 but may not match exactly because of rounding.

Page 81 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Life-Cycle Costs Life-cycle costs consider both the initial costs to the consumer and the

costs to operate and maintain the vehicle. While initial purchase costs are

regarded as a universal barrier to the consumer, many of the experts we

interviewed expect the costs to maintain and fuel an EV to be considerably

less than comparable costs for an ICEV. However, the costs to fuel EVs and

ICEVs vary considerably depending on a nation’s gasoline and electricity

costs.

We used actual electricity and gasoline prices in the eight nations when we

compared the estimated life-cycle costs of the EV and ICEV. From our

review of the literature and interviews with electricity utility officials, we

assumed an electricity price reduction of a third for off-peak recharging to

reflect likely incentives as EVs create a sizable market for alternative uses

of electricity.6

 Maintenance costs are expected to be less for EVs; the

Citistromer is estimated to cost approximately 4 cents per mile for the EV

and 6 cents per mile for the ICEV. We reasoned that maintenance costs

would be comparable across the eight nations we reviewed. Similarly, we

reasoned that initial costs to purchase the Citistromer and batteries would

be the same in these nations.7

 We used the least expensive battery (lead

acid) at production volumes of 1,000 to model likely near-term conditions

and 100,000 to model likely final conditions.

Thus, in our analyses, differences in the costs to own and operate an EV or

an ICEV in a given nation stem from differences in initial costs,

maintenance costs, and operating costs. However, any differences across

nations in the costs to own and operate an EV or an ICEV stem solely from

the costs of electricity and gasoline in these nations.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the likely near-term life-cycle costs of the EV and ICEV

in each of the eight nations. Life-cycle costs for EVs at low production

volumes would be considerably higher than those of ICEVs in all nations

and would range from more than twice the cost in the United States to

about a third higher in Sweden and Italy. Generally, the high initial

purchase costs that could be expected at low production volumes greatly

offset any benefits that might be realized by lower EV operating costs.

6

Costs of daytime “opportunity” charging may be substantially higher than nighttime rates and could be

as high as $0.50 per kWh in the United States to discourage high use during peak daytime hours.

7

As we noted in chapter 3, financial purchase or tax incentives differ across nations; we did not include

these in this analysis.

Page 82 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.2: Near-Term Life-Cycle Costs

of EVs and ICEVsa U.S. dollars per mile

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

United States

Sweden

Switzerland

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Germany

Japan

EV with lead acid battery

ICEV

aAnnual production volume is 1,000.

In contrast, figure 4.3 presents likely final conditions at high production

volumes. In this analysis, the initial purchase cost is assumed to be

considerably lower than it is at low production volumes and begins to

approach that of the ICEV. Thus, the benefits of lower fueling costs are

realized for nations with high ratios of gasoline to electricity costs. These

would include all nations except the United States, where gasoline costs

less and the ratio of gasoline to electricity costs is lower. Indeed, the

United States is the only nation of the eight where the life-cycle costs of

EVs would likely remain higher than those of comparable ICEVs. These

findings correspond well with estimates suggesting that gasoline would

have to cost more than $4.00 per gallon before the costs of owning and

operating an EV powered by batteries meeting the USABC midterm criteria

Page 83 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

would approach those of an ICEV.

8

 The break-even gasoline price for EVs

powered by batteries meeting the USABC long-term criteria (such as lithium

batteries) is estimated at about $1.70 per gallon.

Figure 4.3: Final Life-Cycle Costs of

EVs and ICEVsa U.S. dollars per mile

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

United States

Sweden

Switzerland

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Germany

Japan

EV with lead acid battery

ICEV

aAnnual production volume is 100,000.

Conclusions Our analyses assumed that the costs of EVs—either the entire vehicle or

the battery alone—would decrease as production levels increase, because

of the effects of economies of scale and learning on the manufacturing

process. While battery costs would remain the greatest contributor to the

total costs of EVs, we estimate that different types of batteries would

8

See International Energy Agency, Electric Vehicles: Technology, Performance and Potential (Paris,

France: 1993) for an economic analysis that models additional factors that may affect the ultimate

purchase and operating costs of EVs and ICEVs (for example, insurance, taxes, registration, and home

recharging stations).

Page 84 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

command widely different prices that could, in part, be offset by

differences in their overall lifetime. It appears that total purchase costs of

the vehicle and its batteries for all battery types will be substantially

higher than comparable ICEV costs at low production volumes, but as

production volumes increase the costs of EVs equipped with all but sodium

sulfur batteries will begin to approach those of ICEVs.

As a result of high purchase costs, near-term costs to own and operate an

EV are likely to be significantly higher than those of ICEVs in every nation

we reviewed. However, assuming that EV purchase prices will decrease

substantially and that electricity utilities will institute widespread

residential off-peak rates, the costs to own and operate an EV would be

lower than the costs of a comparable ICEV in every nation except the

United States, where gasoline costs less and the ratio of gasoline to

electricity prices is lower.

EV Effects on Energy

Independence

OECD estimates that in 1990 the net imports of oil for the nations we

reviewed were nearly 930 million tons, with the United States importing

more than a third of the total, or 369 million tons.9

 In this section, we

examine the potential effects of introducing EVs on a nation’s energy use

and energy independence. We collected and analyzed transportation and

energy data compiled by supranational organizations, such as OECD and

IEA. We combined these data with statistics concerning the energy effects

of introducing EVs in the nations we reviewed (except Switzerland, for

which no EV energy effect data were available). Specifically, we calculate

the probable savings in energy consumption generally and oil consumption

specifically as a result of introducing EVs in each nation based on the

amount of oil currently used in both road transport and electricity

generation.

Nations’ Transportation

Statistics

As table 4.3 illustrates, the United States leads the world in total number of

automobiles registered, population per vehicle, and percentage of total

petroleum consumed by its road transportation sector (56 percent). In

absolute terms, the U.S. road transportation sector consumed 368 million

metric tons of petroleum products in 1990.

9

OECD actually provides energy statistics in million metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) so that

comparisons can be made among different primary energy sources and energy generation processes.

One Mtoe of oil equals, within a few percent, the net heat content of one million tons of crude oil. One

Mtoe is equal to 7.35 million barrels of oil.

Page 85 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.3: Transportation Statistics for

Eight Nations, 1990

Nation

Passenger and

commercial

vehicle

registration

Population per

vehicle

Percent of total

petroleum

consumption

used by road

transport

Switzerland 3,297,237 2.0 37%

Sweden 3,924,633 2.1 44

United Kingdom 26,301,748 2.2 54

France 28,460,000 2.0 46

Italy 29,727,000 1.9 48

Germanya

Federal Republic 32,684,490 1.9 42

Democratic Republic 5,591,784 2.9 b

Japan 57,697,669 2.1 35

United States 188,655,462 1.3 56

aStatistics are presented in the literature separately for the two Germanys; thus combining them

might be misleading.

bNot available.

Source: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, World Motor Vehicle Data

(1992); International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics of OECD Countries, 1989-1990 (Paris,

France: 1992).

Japan had the second highest number of cars registered in 1990, yet,

relative to the United States, Japan registered less than one third the

number of automobiles, and its road transport sector consumed only 35

percent of its total oil supply. In absolute terms, Japan’s road transport

sector consumed more petroleum than any other nation’s except the

United States. However, its consumption of 57 million metric tons was

only 15 percent of the amount consumed by the U.S. transport sector.

The number of persons per vehicle in the seven other nations is much

higher than that in the United States. Many households in Europe and

Japan own only one car. Most of the nations we reviewed have

well-developed intra- and intercity public transportation systems that

make the personal automobile less necessary for mobility than it is in

some U.S. cities. The dominant trend in U.S. road transportation over the

last century has been the rise of the automobile as the principal form of

travel. While many metropolitan areas have extensive public

transportation systems, the preferred form of transportation for most

Americans is still their own automobile. In 1990, total personal passenger

Page 86 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

vehicle miles traveled in the United States exceeded 1.5 trillion miles and

consumed nearly 73 billion gallons of fuel, or 54 percent of the total road

transportation sector’s motor fuel consumption.

Estimates of EV Effects on

Energy Consumption and

Independence

EVs would reduce energy consumption if they consumed less energy in the

form of electricity than ICEVs consumed in the form of gasoline. EVs would

reduce petroleum consumption if they were recharged by electricity

produced by sources other than petroleum. EVs would increase petroleum

independence if their use resulted in decreases in net oil imports.

Energy Consumption With regard to energy consumption, OECD compared the total amount of

primary energy (that is, petroleum in oil fields, coal in coal mines, or

natural gas in gas fields) required to travel a kilometer in either an EV or an

ICEV.

10 Primary energy consumption considers the fuel efficiencies of

vehicles themselves as well as the energy efficiencies of converting

primary fuels into usable end products (gasoline and electricity). For ICEVs,

this would include energy losses associated with extracting, refining, and

transporting petroleum as well as the major energy loss that occurs during

gasoline combustion in the engine. For EVs, the major energy loss occurs

during electricity generation at power plants, but losses through power

transmission, the charger, battery, controller, motor, and transmission also

contribute.

Three different electricity fuel sources are considered: coal, natural gas,

and oil. Results of the analyses for small vans are shown in table 4.4 for

two different compact vans: low-performance EVs (for example, sodium

sulfur batteries using .65 kWh per mile that meet the USABC midterm

criteria) compared to high fuel economy ICEVs (28 mpg) and

high-performance EVs (for example, lithium batteries using .41 kWh per

mile that meet the USABC long-term criteria) and low fuel economy ICEVs

(21 mpg).11 OECD made these comparisons to illustrate the likely best and

worst case scenarios.

10OECD’s work is based in part on D. Sperling and M. D. DeLuchi, “Alternative Fuels and Air Pollution

Impacts,” prepared for OECD by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California,

Davis, California, 1991, and Q. Wang and M. A. DeLuchi, “Impacts of Electric Vehicles on Primary

Energy Consumption and Petroleum Displacement,” Energy, 17 (1992), 351-66.

11A fuel economy of 21 mpg for the low-performance ICEV may be somewhat misleading, given that

the average fuel economy for 1994 model minivans as reported by Consumer Reports (April 1994) was

only 17.4 mpg.

Page 87 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.4: Changes in Primary Energy Consumption by EVs Relative to ICEV Energy Consumptiona

Low-performance EVs and

high-performance ICEVs

High-performance EVs and

low-performance ICEVs

Nation Coal Natural gas Oil Coal Natural gas Oil

France 27.3% –14.4% 51.5% –40.2% –59.8% –28.8%

Germany 27.3 37.5 10.9 –40.2 –35.4 –47.9

Italy 20.1 26.0 29.9 –43.6 –40.8 –39.0

Japan 2.5 10.6 8.2 –51.8 –48.0 –49.1

Sweden 121.2 126.8 89.4 3.9 6.6 –11.0

United Kingdom 31.3 74.5 42.1 –38.3 –18.0 –33.3

United States 27.3 33.4 33.7 –40.2 –37.3 –37.2

aA negative percentage indicates that EVs decrease primary energy consumption. A positive

percentage indicates that EVs increase primary energy consumption. These calculations are

based on a model developed by Q. Wang and M. A. DeLuchi (“Impacts of Electric Vehicles on

Primary Energy Consumption and Petroleum Displacement,” Energy, 17 (1992), 351-66) that

predicts EV electricity consumption based on the fuel economy of a comparable ICEV, EV power

train efficiency relative to ICEV power train efficiency, EV battery and charger efficiencies, and the

energy efficiency penalty of added EV weight. Power plant conversion and distribution

efficiencies are from D. Sperling and M. D. DeLuchi (“Alternative Fuels and Air Pollution Impacts,”

prepared for OECD by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis

California, 1991) and range from a low of 19 percent for coal-fired plants in Sweden to a high of

53 percent for gas-fired plants in France.

Source: OECD, Electric Vehicles: Technology, Performance and Potential (Paris, France: 1993).

Thus, EVs that meet the USABC midterm criteria may fare poorly in terms of

the amount of primary energy they would consume in the form of

electricity compared to the amount of primary energy that would be

consumed in the form of gasoline by an ICEV with high fuel economy.

Sweden could be expected to incur the largest increases in primary energy

consumption, and only France might reduce primary energy consumption

with EVs, providing they are powered by electricity produced from natural

gas.

If EVs achieve the high performance goals set by the USABC and ICEVs do not

achieve a markedly better fuel economy than they have today, then EVs

will significantly reduce primary energy consumption relative to ICEVs in

all nations using all electricity generation sources except for those EVs

powered by coal- or natural gas-generated electricity in Sweden.

Thus, reductions in primary energy consumption are based primarily on EV

technology, ICEV fuel economy, and power-plant efficiency. While it is not

known at this time the extent to which EVs or ICEVs will achieve their

Page 88 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

respective performance goals, it appears reasonable to assume that EVs

would be more likely to realize greater improvements than ICEVs simply

because EVs are less advanced technically than ICEVs and thus have greater

room for improvement. The power trains of EVs (from the battery to the

tires) are already more energy efficient than those of ICEVs (from the gas

tank to the tires). Wang and DeLuchi project that the propulsion efficiency

of a 1995 EV (from the electricity outlet to the tires) will be more than

twice that of an ICEV’s efficiency (from the gas tank to the tires). In 2010,

the ratio should double to 4:1, mainly because of improved batteries with

higher energy densities that allow reduced battery weights.

Petroleum Consumption Projected savings in petroleum consumption are estimated by comparing

the amount of petroleum consumed by EVs to charge their batteries with

the amount of petroleum consumed by ICEVs in the form of gasoline.12

Primary energy consumption is one factor that must be considered. The

others are the actual amounts of oil used in road transport and electricity

generation in each nation.13

Table 4.5 presents our analysis of the projected savings in total oil

consumption and imported oil consumption if EVs were to replace

10 percent of ICEVs in each nation. The analysis assumes the current state

of both EV and ICEV technology and would have to be modified if the energy

efficiency of either were to change.

12The EV fuel cycle may use petroleum to generate electricity as well as smaller amounts of petroleum

to process other forms of energy (natural gas, coal, uranium, and so on) for electricity. The ICEV fuel

cycle uses petroleum in the form of gasoline as its primary fuel source, but petroleum is also used to

process crude oil into gasoline. Both the direct and indirect uses of petroleum are considered for EVs

and ICEVs.

13More realistic estimates of EV petroleum consumption would require an examination of the marginal,

or off-peak, sources of electricity generation when EVs will most likely recharge. However, such

information is typically unavailable.

Page 89 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.5: Nations’ Oil Use Statistics

and Projected Annual Savings in Oil If

EVs Replace 10 Percent of ICEVs

Nation

Amount oil in road

transporta (% of total

supply)

Amount oil in

electricity generationa

(% of total supply)

A

France 36.94 (41%) 1.56 (2%)

Germany 45.14 (40) 2.64 (2)

Italy 30.84 (34) 21.67 (24)

Japan 60.59 (24) 34.57 (14)

Sweden 6.23 (42) 0.14 (1)

Switzerlandc 4.86 (36) 0.10 (1)

United Kingdom 37.04 (45) 7.65 (9)

United States 391.53 (52) 29.19 (4)

Page 90 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

n

a

)

Amount oil used by

EV as % used by

ICEV

Total amount of oil

saved with 10% EVsa

(% of totals)

Proportion of oil

supply imported

Amount of imported

oil saved with 10%

EVsa (% of total)

Savings in

imported oil

($ million)b Savings as % of GDP

) 2.6% 3.6 (9.7%) 0.99 3.55 (4.0%) $496 .050%

) 2.7 4.39 (9.7) 0.97 4.25 (3.9) $593 .045

) 27.7 2.23 (7.2) 1.00 2.23 (2.4) $311 .032

) 14.6 5.18 (8.5) 1.00 5.17 (2.0) $723 .031

) 8.5 0.57 (9.2) 1.00 0.57 (3.7) $80 .054

) d 0.99 d

) 14.9 3.15 (8.5) –0.13e –0.41 ($57) (.006)

) 6.8 36.5 (9.3) 0.49 17.80 (4.8) $2,488 .044

aAmounts in million metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe). One Mtoe is equal to 7.35 million barrels

of oil.

bThe 12-month average price of a barrel of oil was $19.00 for the period ending June 27, 1994.

cInformation about petroleum displacement was unavailable. Therefore, savings in petroleum and

imported oil could not be calculated.

dNot available.

eUnited Kingdom realized a net export of oil in 1990.

Source: International Energy Agency, Energy Balances of OECD Countries (1989-90) (Paris,

France: 1992), and Electric Vehicles: Technical, Performance, and Potential (Paris, France: 1993).

In absolute terms, the United States would realize the largest savings in oil

(36.5 Mtoe, or 9.3 percent of the total currently consumed by its road

transportation sector). Japan would save 5.18 Mtoe of oil, but in relative

terms it would save only 8.5 percent of its current total road transport

consumption. Italy would save the least in relative terms—only

7.2 percent.

These statistics imply that nations, such as Japan and Italy, that use large

proportions of their total oil supply to generate electricity will not see

savings in oil as large as those in other nations that rely very little on oil to

generate electricity. To the extent that such nations turn to other sources

of electricity, such as nuclear power, their savings would increase.

Petroleum Independence The final issue we considered was the probable effect of introducing EVs

on petroleum independence. Most of the nations we reviewed imported

nearly all their oil in 1990. The exceptions were the United Kingdom,

which realized a net export of oil, and the United States, which imported

about half of its oil. For nations that import most of their oil, savings in

Page 91 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

imported oil are roughly equal to savings in total oil. For the United States,

savings in imported oil are half the total oil savings, or 17.8 Mtoe. The

United Kingdom would presumably realize a surplus of oil for export of

0.41 Mtoe annually. Italy and Japan would realize a smaller reduction in

total oil imports with the introduction of EVs than the other nations we

reviewed.

In monetary terms, all nations would save substantial sums with the

introduction of EVs. Savings in total oil consumed would range from

$80 million in Sweden to $5.1 billion in the United States. All nations

except the United States and the United Kingdom import virtually all their

oil and therefore would save approximately the same amount in the total

imported oil consumed. The United States imports nearly half of its oil and

would save $2.5 billion with the introduction of EVs.14 The United Kingdom

might stand to profit $57 million annually from its surplus oil for export.

We examine the relative effect of these savings by presenting them as a

percentage of gross domestic product in each nation. In relative terms,

Sweden would save more (.054 percent of GDP) than any other nation, and

France and Germany would save more than the United States. Italy and

Japan would realize smaller relative savings than any other nation.

Conclusions From our review of the literature, it appears that near-term EVs may

consume more energy than conventional gas vehicles, but projections of

the amount of petroleum that will be used to generate future electricity in

the United States are so low that EVs would still save significant amounts

of petroleum. On a per-mile basis, it is estimated that EVs could reduce U.S.

transportation petroleum use by over 90 percent in 1995 and 96 percent in

2010. Of the nations we reviewed, only Italy and Japan rely heavily on

imported oil to generate electricity (49 percent and 32 percent,

respectively) and therefore could not be expected to decrease their

reliance on imported oil as a result of EV use as much as other countries.

The United States imported 1-1/2 to 370 times more oil than any other

nation we reviewed and consumed 5 to 70 times more energy in the forms

of coal, petroleum, gas, and electricity. Thus, in terms of decreasing

petroleum fuel consumption and producing long-term energy savings, the

United States clearly stands to gain significantly from replacing its ICEVs

with EVs. Moreover, because U.S. households tend to own more than one

14The extent to which EVs would displace imported oil or domestic oil would, in fact, depend upon the

relative end prices of these two sources. If domestic oil costs exceed imported oil costs, then it is

possible that the United States could choose to displace domestic oil.

Page 92 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

car, they may be in a better position to incorporate the current

limited-range EV into household schedules.

EV Effects on Air

Quality

We begin our discussion of the estimated effects of EVs on pollution

reduction with a discussion of the primary sources and health effects of a

variety of air pollutants. We follow this with data on each nation’s

pollution status and current fuel mixes for electricity generation and a

discussion of how these factors might influence the potential effect of EV

use on air pollution. Following this section, we present data from four U.S.

cities with different electricity fuel mixes and air pollution problems to

demonstrate the potential range and magnitude of the effects of EVs for

urban areas in the United States.

Sources and Health Effects

of Air Pollutants

The effect of air pollution on health is a relatively new field of inquiry and

direct causal relationships are difficult to measure. We did not review

research that attempts to uncover the causal health effects of air pollution.

The information in table 4.6 presents an overview of the sources of

common air pollutants and potential health effects that have been

discussed in the literature we reviewed.

Table 4.6: Health Problems Commonly Associated With Air Pollutants

Pollutant Source Problem

Carbon monoxide Vehicle exhaust, fossil fuel electricity

generation, agricultural land clearing

Interferes with blood’s ability to absorb

oxygen, which impairs perception and

thinking, slows reflexes, causes

drowsiness, and can cause

unconsciousness and death; if inhaled by

pregnant women, may threaten growth and

mental development of fetus

Carbon dioxide Vehicle exhaust, fossil fuel electricity

generation, agricultural land clearing

As the major component of greenhouse

gas emissions, has an indirect effect on

increased possibility of skin cancersa

Airborne lead Fuel additives, metal smelters, batteries Affects circulatory, reproductive, nervous,

and kidney systems; suspected of causing

hyperactivity and lowered learning ability in

children; accumulates in bone and other

tissues and, therefore, hazardous even

after exposure ends

Nitrogen oxides Vehicle exhaust, fossil fuel electricity

generation, industrial boilers

Can increase susceptibility to viral

infections such as influenza, irritate lungs,

and lead to bronchitis and pneumonia

(continued)

Page 93 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Pollutant Source Problem

Sulfur dioxide Fossil fuel electricity generation, metal

smelting, vehicle exhaust

Potent respiratory irritant; can impair lung

function by constricting airways and

damaging lung tissue; can aggravate

asthma and emphysema

Volatile organic compoundsb Vehicle exhaust, refineries, gas stations,

industry, solvents

Depending on the compound, effects

include eye irritation, respiratory irritation,

and cancer

Ozonec Fossil-fuel electricity generation, vehicle

exhaust, paints and solvents

An oxidizing agent that attacks cells and

breaks down body tissues, even at low

concentrations; irritates mucous

membranes of respiratory system; causes

coughing, choking, damaged lung tissue,

and impaired lung function; reduces

resistance to colds and pneumonia; can

aggravate chronic heart disease, asthma,

bronchitis, and emphysema

Toxic emissionsd Industry, vehicle exhaust, coal-source

electricity generation

A broad category including many different

compounds that are suspected or known to

cause cancer, reproductive problems, and

birth defects

aCarbon dioxide accounts for the largest share of radiative forcing from increased greenhouse

gas emissions, but other contributors are methane (from solid waste, livestock, coal mining, rice

cultivation, and natural gas production), chlorofluorocarbons (industry), and nitrous oxide.

bThe most abundant are hydrocarbons. Condensation of volatile organic compounds and sulfur

dioxide creates particulates, including smoke, soot, and dust.

cOzone (the primary component of urban smog) is a reactive gas formed when energy from

sunlight causes hydrocarbons (a byproduct of many industrial processes and engines) to react

with nitrogen oxides (produced by both cars and power plants).

dThese include toxic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylene dibromide.

Source: Adapted from Environmental Protection Agency, World Watch Institute, International

Energy Association, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development sources.

Motor vehicle use causes more air pollution than any other human activity,

contributing nearly half of the human-caused nitrous oxides, two thirds of

carbon monoxide, and about half of the hydrocarbons in industrialized

countries around the world. EVs emit no direct pollutants. However,

electricity power plants pollute if they use fossil fuels (coal, oil, or gas) to

generate electricity.

Nations’ Pollution

Statistics

While industry and electric power generation contribute substantially to

pollution, addressing vehicle emissions is an essential element in reducing

both local and regional air pollution. As table 4.7 illustrates, the extent of

Page 94 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

pollution problems varied greatly among the nations we reviewed in terms

of their 1989 percentage shares of global emissions and per capita

emission estimates (and world rank among the 50 highest polluting

nations) for the major greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane, and

chlorofluorocarbons. The United States ranked number 1 in the world in

terms of its contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions in 1989 and

number 6 for per capita emissions.15 At the other end of the spectrum,

Sweden and Switzerland did not emit enough greenhouse gases to rank

among the top 50 polluting nations, although their respective rankings

were 46 and 49 for per capita emissions.

Table 4.7: Percentage Share of Global

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Per

Capita Emissions With Greenhouse

Index Rankings, 1989

Nation

Percent

share Rank

Per capita

emissions Rank

United States 18.4% 1 9.8 6

Japan 5.6 4 6.0 19

Germanya 3.6 7 6.1 16

United Kingdom 2.4 8 5.5 27

Italy 1.8 10 4.2 41

France 1.7 11 4.1 43

Sweden b b 3.9 46

Switzerland b b 3.7 49

aIncludes both the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of Germany.

bNot ranked among the 50 highest-polluting nations.

Source: The World Resources Institute, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the

United Nations Development Program, World Resources: 1992-93 (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford

University Press, 1992).

While the carbon dioxide resulting from burning fossil fuels is widely

considered to be the most potent greenhouse gas, all emissions contribute

to global pollution problems. Table 4.8 shows that transportation

contributes substantially to emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon

monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Transportation-related emissions of sulfur

dioxide are quite low; most sulfur dioxide is emitted by coal-burning

electricity generators.

15Nations ranked numbers 1-5 for per capita emissions are United Arab Emirates (15.7), Qatar (12.4),

Luxembourg (10.5), Ivory Coast (10.4), and Bahrain (10.2).

Page 95 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.8: Percentage of Emissions

Attributable to Various End Use

Sectors Sector

Nitrogen

oxide

Carbon

monoxide

Carbon

dioxide

Sulfur

dioxide

Transport 54% 89% 28% 6%

Industry 22 1 34 65

Other 24 10 38 29

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Energy

Association, Energy Efficiency and the Environment (Paris, France: 1991).

Estimates of EV Effects on

Pollution Emissions

In many respects, EVs have the potential to reduce the transportation

sector’s adverse consequences on environmental quality. From both our

literature review and interviews with experts, we found wide agreement

that EVs could be a cleaner alternative to ICEVs, particularly in highly

polluted and congested urban areas where poor ambient air quality poses

a serious health threat. EVs produce virtually no tailpipe emissions and the

net effect on air quality—the savings from reducing tailpipe emissions

minus the additional smokestack emissions associated with increased

electricity generation—is generally considered to be significantly less than

that of ICEVs.

Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from EVs are typically

estimated to be 10 to 20 times lower than those from ICEVs. If EVs are

charged by electric utilities employing hydropower, nuclear power, or

other renewable resources, they contribute almost no nitrogen oxides,

sulfur dioxide, or carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, electricity

generation from coal, oil, or gas does emit these pollutants. The central

factor determining the effect of EVs on pollution emissions, then, is the

source of fuel used to generate electricity.16

Electricity Fuel Mixes As table 4.9 illustrates, the projected mix of fuels that will be used to

produce electricity in 2005 is expected to vary greatly in the nations we

reviewed. Because nuclear and hydropower plants emit the least amount

of pollutants, France, Sweden, and Switzerland will benefit most from

replacing ICEVs with EVs. However, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United

Kingdom, and the United States will have more “carbon-intensive”

electricity generation mixes.17 That is, they will obtain substantial portions

of their electricity from less clean fuel sources, such as solid fuels (mainly

coal), gas, and oil, which emit significant amounts of pollutants. While

16Our analysis of pollution considers only air pollution. We recognize that fuel chains can also result in

the destruction of natural habitat and other forms of environmental damage.

17In the United States, the regional variations in power generation sources are large. Thus, the regional

distribution of EVs in the United States will have a large influence on the environment.

Page 96 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

nations that produce electricity from coal, gas, and oil fuels may still

reduce pollution emissions using EVs, the overall effect will be less than

that of nations using more nuclear and hydropower plants.

Table 4.9: Projected Electricity

Generation Mixes in Eight Nations in

2005a

Nation Nuclear

Hydro- and

geothermal

powerb Gas Oil Coal

France 77% 11% 3% 2% 7%

Swedenc 46 45 3 5 1

Switzerlandd 43 54 1 1 1

Japan 36 12 20 15 17

Germany 25 6 15 1 53

United States 16 15 14 5 50

United Kingdom 11 3 33 11 42

Italyb 0 20 26 24 30

aPercentages within nations may not add to 100 because of rounding.

bOECD did not include projected hydropower or geothermal power for 2005. We estimated these

for each nation by subtracting the sum of the other sources from 100 percent. We confirmed the

validity of our results by comparing them with 1990 statistics for actual hydropower and

geothermal electricity generation in these nations.

cFuel mix in 2000 is used for 2005.

dOECD did not include Switzerland in these projections; we used actual 1990 electricity

generation mixes.

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Energy

Association, Electric Vehicles: Technology, Performance and Potential (Paris, France: 1993).

More specifically, replacing gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles with EVs

would decrease the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and

sulfur dioxide in nations with less carbon-intensive electricity but might

actually increase emissions of sulfur dioxide and produce either increases

or almost no net change in nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide in nations

with more carbon-intensive electricity.

Estimated Emission Effects of

Electric Vehicles

From these projected electricity fuel mixes, OECD calculated the estimated

effect on emissions of replacing a small gasoline-powered van with an

electric version in each nation.18 ICEV emissions were assumed to adhere to

model year 2000 U.S. standards in Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the

United States, and model year 2000 ICEVs sold in France, Italy, and the

18Switzerland was not included in the OECD analyses. Switzerland’s electricity generation mix is

similar to that of Sweden. Thus, the effects of introducing EVs in Switzerland may be inferred from

estimates for Sweden.

Page 97 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

United Kingdom would be subject to somewhat less stringent standards,

as they are today. ICEV emissions include both exhaust and evaporative

emissions as well as those from crude oil refining. Calculations of power

plant emissions were based on the relevant emission standards for each

nation, fuel, and pollutant wherever possible.19 Finally, emissions per unit

of electricity delivered to end users were derived from each nation’s

power plant conversion and electricity distribution efficiencies.20

In sum, although actual emissions from EVs and ICEVs will not be exactly

equal to their respective estimated emissions standards, no more exact

measure exists. Equating actual emissions with emission standards favors

ICEVs because their actual tailpipe emissions are typically higher than

applicable standards, yet actual emissions from power plants are generally

very close to applicable standards because of frequent monitoring.

Two scenarios were employed in OECD’s emissions estimates. The first

assumed a high-fuel-economy ICEV (28 miles per gallon) and a

low-performance EV (based on USABC midterm performance goals, such as

with a sodium sulfur battery). The second assumed a low-fuel-economy

ICEV (21 miles per gallon) and a high-performance EV (based on USABC

long-term performance goals, such as with a lithium polymer battery).21

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the estimated effects on greenhouse gas

emissions under two scenarios of introducing an EV in seven nations.22 The

model estimates emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide from the

entire fuel-production and use cycle: materials production and assembly of

the vehicles, feedstock recovery, feedstock transport, fuel production, fuel

distribution, and end use by ICEVs and power plants.23

19This was not the case for estimates of sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas-fired plants and

hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from all power plant types. These were all assumed to

be equal to the average uncontrolled emission rate in the United States.

20Power plant conversion and distribution efficiencies ranged from 53 percent for natural gas-fired

plants in France to 19 percent for coal-fired plants in Sweden.

21Low-performance EVs were assumed to have a range of 124 miles and an energy consumption of 0.65

kWh/mile; high-performance EVs were assumed to have a range of 200 miles and an energy

consumption of 0.41 kWh/mile.

22Data for Switzerland may be inferred from those for Sweden.

23Each pollutant is converted into units of “carbon dioxide equivalents.” That is, 1 gram of the

noncarbon dioxide gases is equated to the warming effect of 1 gram of carbon dioxide gas over a given

period.

Page 98 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.4: Percent Change in

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:

Low-Efficiency EV Versus

High-Fuel-Economy ICEVa

Percent change

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Sweden

United Kingdom

United States

-74

5 2

-37

-73

28

5

aNumbers shown equal 1 − (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100. Emissions are in grams per

mile carbon dioxide equivalent emissions over the entire fuel production and use cycle.

Page 99 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.5: Percent Change in

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:

High-Efficiency EV Versus

Low-Fuel-Economy ICEVa

Percent change

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Sweden

United Kingdom

United States

-83

-45 -46

-65

-83

-34

-45

aNumbers shown equal 1 − (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100. Emissions are in grams per

mile carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions over the entire fuel production and use cycle.

Relative to a high-fuel-economy ICEV, a low-performance EV would result in

higher emissions in nations that rely heavily on coal-generated electricity.

Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States would be

among these. However, even low-performance EVs might reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in nations that rely on low-carbon, nonfossil

fuels for electricity, such as France, Japan, and Sweden.

If a high-performance battery is developed and ICEVs do not achieve

markedly higher fuel economy (figure 4.5), then all nations could expect to

achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions with the introduction of

EVs. However, those reductions would depend on the carbon intensity of

the electricity generation mix: Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and

the United States would gain fewer emissions benefits by substituting

electricity for gasoline.

Page 100 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Fossil-fuel-fired power plants emit sulfur dioxide, as do gasoline and diesel

ICEVs. Emissions of sulfur dioxide from ICEVs are not regulated. However,

the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuels is regulated. OECD assumed

that the emission of sulfur from ICEVs is equal to the sulfur content of

unburned fuel. In the United States, the sulfur content of gasoline is about

0.03 percent by weight and will decrease to 0.005 percent for reformulated

gasoline available in 2005. France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden regulate

the sulfur content of gasoline at 0.1 percent; gasoline in the United

Kingdom contains 0.2 percent sulfur. These European nations are

expected to reduce the sulfur content of gasoline by half by 2005. Data on

the sulfur content of gasoline in Japan are not available; OECD assumed

regulations as stringent as those in the United States, as they have been

historically. Again, applicable regulations and standards governing power

plants were used to estimate sulfur dioxide emissions.

Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the likely effect on sulfur dioxide emissions of

introducing EVs into the seven nations. Substituting a low-performance EV

for a high-fuel-efficiency ICEV would result in substantial increases in sulfur

dioxide emissions in nations with high-carbon intensity electricity sources.

For example, the United States might expect to increase sulfur dioxide

emissions by 760 percent with a low-performance EV. Only France and

Sweden (and most likely Switzerland) would reduce sulfur dioxide

emissions with low-performance EVs.

Page 101 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.6: Percent Change in

Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:

Low-Efficiency EV Versus

High-Fuel-Economy ICEVa

Percent change

-150

-75

0

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

750

825

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Sweden

United Kingdom

United States

-51

219

182

41

-82

277

763

aNumbers shown equal 1 − (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100. Emissions are in grams/km

over the entire fuel production and use cycle.

Page 102 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.7: Percent Change in

Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:

High-Efficiency EV Versus

Low-Fuel-Economy ICEVa

Percent change

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Sweden

United Kingdom

United States

-77

50

32

-34

-92

76

304

aNumbers shown equal 1 − (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100. Emissions are in grams/km

over the entire fuel production and use cycle.

Substituting a high-performance EV for a low-fuel-economy ICEV would

lessen sulfur dioxide emissions in all nations, but the United States might

still increase sulfur dioxide emissions by 300 percent, and only Japan

would switch from “more” to “less” emissions if EVs improved in

performance relative to ICEVs. However, gasoline vehicles are a minor

source of sulfur dioxide emissions, which means that in the aggregate, EV

use will not greatly alter these emissions.

The Clean Air Act Amendments require power plants to significantly

reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. Yet, costs will

increase if additional emissions must be monitored at the power plant.

Moreover, other nations we reviewed do not all have air quality

restrictions as stringent as those in the United States. Thus, the

introduction of EVs in these nations could contribute to increased global

emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Page 103 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

In sum, the extent to which EVs might reduce air pollution in a given nation

is highly dependent on the source of fuel used to generate electricity.

Ideally, EVs would be recharged overnight using excess electricity. The fuel

used at these off-peak times can be just one of a nation’s entire mix. Few

analyses consider this “marginal electricity mix.” Nor do analyses often

generalize beyond the estimated effects of introducing a single EV for an

ICEV to the estimated effects of a larger proportion of EVs in the total fleet

(for example, 10 percent as California has mandated for 2003). Finally,

although power plant smokestacks pollute, they do not move and are thus

easier to monitor and control. The overall effectiveness of introducing EVs

should consider the likely costs of monitoring such stationary pollution.

Tailpipes Versus Smokestacks Comparing emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons is

straightforward and unambiguous. EVs have a great advantage over ICEVs

as they “emit” virtually none of either pollutant directly or at the power

plant, regardless of the electricity fuel source.24 However, comparisons of

emissions of the other major pollutants are less clear cut. For example,

nitrogen oxides emissions of fossil-fuel electricity power plants with

varying levels of emissions control could range from 93 percent less than

to 95 percent more than emissions from gasoline vehicles.25 Several

examples illustrate the complexity of determining changes in emissions if

EVs replace ICEVs.

Researchers at the Federal Environment Agency of the Federal Republic

of Germany used two models to compare pollution emissions for ICEVs and

EVs.26 The first model used emissions data from the different types of

power plants in the Federal Republic of Germany, which was then

weighted by the proportion of the total electricity generated by that type

of fuel. For example, 38 percent of electricity in 1989 was generated by

nuclear power and hydropower, which emit no pollutants; therefore, their

contribution to the composite emissions model was zero. The composite

emissions scores for each pollutant were used to calculate the emissions

of an EV charged by this mix of fuels, and these emission rates were

compared to the known emission rates of a comparable catalyst-equipped

ICEV.

24EVs do not “emit” pollutants in the traditional sense of tailpipe exhaust. We use the term “emit” here

to mean the emissions associated with electricity power plants used to charge EV batteries.

25M. DeLuchi et al., “Electric Vehicles: Performance, Life-Cycle Costs, Emissions, and Recharging

Requirements,” Transportation Research A, 23A:3 (1989), 255-78.

26H. Blumel, “CO2 and Pollutant Emissions of Catalyst-Equipped, Battery-Powered and Hybrid Cars: A

Comparison,” in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Urban Electric

Vehicle: Policy Options, Technology Trends, and Market Prospects (Paris, France: 1992).

Page 104 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Results suggested that operating an EV about 30 miles a day using the

current electricity generation mix would result in about the same amount

of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions and ten times more sulfur

dioxide than a catalyst-equipped ICEV. Shorter daily operating ranges

substantially increased EV emissions relative to those of ICEVs.

EVs are expected to cause additional electricity demand in Germany, and

nearly all surge capacity in Germany is generated by coal-fired plants.

Thus, a second emissions model used pollution data from only coal-fired

plants (49 percent of total capacity in 1989). Attributing the electricity

used to charge batteries to coal-fired power plants dramatically increased

the estimated emission-related disadvantages of EVs. At a 30-mile-per-day

range, a “coal-charged” EV would result in about 1-1/2 times more carbon

dioxide, 2-1/4 times more nitrogen oxides, and 24 times more sulfur

dioxide entering the atmosphere than a catalyst-equipped ICEV would emit

by its tailpipe. Again, shorter driving ranges increased relative EV

emissions.

Thus, the Federal Environment Agency researchers concluded that the

discernible increases in global emissions and only minor reductions in

local pollution levels imply that the broad-scale introduction of EVs into

the Federal Republic of Germany is justifiable only if the zero emission at

the place of use is considered more important than the increased

emissions at the power plant. Of higher priority in that nation is the

introduction of fuel-efficient, catalyst-equipped petroleum vehicles that

meet the California requirements for ultra-low emissions—or cleaner

power plants.

In direct contrast, French researchers from ADEME found that an EV

powered by the French electricity mix would substantially reduce

pollution both globally and locally.27 France generated 75 percent of its

electricity from nuclear power in 1990. Electricity generated by nuclear

energy produces virtually no pollutants. Thus, in France charging an EV is

predicted to result in nearly 10 times less carbon dioxide, 50 times less

carbon monoxide, 5 times less hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, and 3

times less sulfur dioxide than a comparable ICEV emits from its tailpipe.

Despite these encouraging predictions for individual EV emissions, the

French researchers concluded that the net emissions reductions in France

that could be achieved by replacing 10 percent of ICEVs with EVs would be

27A. Morcheoine and G. Chaumain, “Energy Efficiency, Emissions, and Costs: What Are the Advantages

of Electric Vehicles?” in The Urban Electric Vehicle.

Page 105 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

less substantial: 8-percent reductions of carbon dioxide, 10-percent

reductions of carbon monoxide, 6-percent reductions of hydrocarbons and

nitrogen oxides, and 4-percent reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions. If

the current European electricity generation mix (which uses substantial

amounts of coal and oil) replaced the French mix in the model’s

calculations, the model predicted slightly lower emissions reductions of

carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide with emissions of hydrocarbons,

nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide actually increasing.

Environmental Effects

of EVs in Four U.S.

Cities

We regard the effect of unique, regional characteristics as central to the

debate about whether EVs can substantially reduce air pollution. In the

United States, both air pollution problems and fuel mixes vary

substantially from region to region. EVs are promoted for urban areas

where pollution is typically more of a problem than in rural areas. Yet, our

review uncovered few studies that have analyzed the effect of introducing

EVs into U.S. urban areas that differ along the critical dimensions

discussed above. Wang and Santini analyzed the effect of introducing EVs

in 2000 into Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City, whose

electricity fuel mixes and air quality problems differ from one another.28

Table 4.10 presents the marginal power plant mix for EV recharging as

projected by utility companies in about the year 2000 in each of the four

cities. Chicago plans to generate all its off-peak electricity from

nonpolluting fuels, whereas Denver and New York will receive more than

half of their off-peak electricity from highly polluting coal and oil. Los

Angeles expects to import much of its off-peak power from natural gas

generating plants. However, it is important to note that as of 1990, Denver,

New York, and Los Angeles used coal as their primary high-demand

off-peak fuel source.29

28Q. Wang and D. Santini, “Magnitude and Value of Electric Vehicle Emissions Reductions for Six

Driving Cycles in Four U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems,” presented at the 72nd annual

meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 10-14, 1993.

29The timeline for converting to these cleaner electricity sources may be somewhat optimistic. For

example, the North American Electric Reliability Council reported that as of 1990, 63 percent of

planned capacity additions for 1998 were not yet under construction. (U.S. General Accounting Office,

Energy Policy: Developing Strategies for Energy Policies in the 1990s, GAO/RCED-90-85 (Washington,

D.C.: June 16, 1990), and Argonne National Laboratory, Three Scenarios for Electric and Hybrid

Vehicle Commercialization (Argonne, Ill.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1990).

Page 106 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Table 4.10: Projected Marginal Power

Plant Mix for EV Recharging

Fuel Chicago Denver

Los

Angeles New York

Coal 0 52.6% 7.5% 24.0%

Gas 0 35.2 85.0 28.0

Oil 0 3.3 0 48.0

Nuclear, hydro, and other a 100.0% 8.9 7.5 0

aWang and Santini assumed that power plants fueled by these sources have zero emissions.

Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, “Magnitude and Value of Electric Vehicle Emissions

Reduction for Six Driving Cycles in Four U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems,” presented

at the 72 annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 10-14,

1993.

Figure 4.8 presents Wang and Santini’s estimates of per-mile emission

reductions of an EV relative to emissions of an ICEV for each pollutant in

each of the four cities using the Simplified Federal Urban Driving Cycle, a

model that estimates emissions for vehicles traveling at an average speed

of 18.5 mph. As in the German study we discussed above, emissions data

from the different types of power plants in the different cities were

weighted by the proportion of the total electricity generated by that type

of fuel to create composite emissions scores. The composite emissions

scores for each pollutant were then used to calculate the emissions of an

EV charged by this mix of fuels, and these emission rates were compared

to the known emission rates of a comparable ICEV.

Page 107 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

Figure 4.8: Percent Change in

Emissions If an EV Replaces an ICEVa Percent

-100

-50

0

50

100

Chicago Denver Los Angeles New York

Hydrocarbons

Carbon monoxide

Nitrogen oxides

Sulfur dioxideb

Carbon dioxide

aChanges in per-mile passenger car emissions because of EV use were calculated based on an

ICEV with 50,000 accumulated miles and a fuel economy of 26.1 miles per gallon and a

four-passenger EV similar to the Ford Ecostar with a fuel economy of 0.37 kWh/mile.

bSulfur dioxide for New York x 10.

As figure 4.8 illustrates, emissions reductions estimates vary considerably

by city. In Chicago, where nuclear power is expected to supply EV

electricity, emissions reductions for all pollutants are estimated at

100 percent. Electricity generation—regardless of the fuel source—emits

virtually no carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons. In all four cities, the

operation of an EV is expected to result in 99-percent less carbon

monoxide and more than 97-percent less hydrocarbons than the operation

of an ICEV.

In Denver, Los Angeles, and New York, differences in electricity

generation mixes would affect potential emissions reductions. With

respect to nitrogen oxides, an EV in Denver (where coal is expected to be

Page 108 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

the primary electricity source) would result in only 8-percent less

pollution than an ICEV; in New York, an EV would result in about 75-percent

less nitrogen oxides; and an EV in Los Angeles would result in 90-percent

less nitrogen oxides. The scenario with sulfur dioxide is expected to be

mixed. The sulfur dioxide emitted by an ICEV would be reduced by

approximately 90 percent when an EV replaced it in Los Angeles. But an EV

would emit 100-percent more sulfur dioxide in Denver and 1,000-percent

more in New York, where coal and oil are expected to produce the

majority of electricity for EV recharging. Some reduction in carbon dioxide

emissions is predicted; this varies from about 28 to 35 percent, depending

on the carbon intensities of the fuel used to generate electricity.

How much an EV is worth in terms of predicted emissions reduction

depends, in part, upon each city’s emissions reductions needs and

estimated avoided costs per pollutant.30 Table 4.11 shows the recent status

of the four cities in terms of meeting Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) ambient air quality standards. Emissions of hydrocarbons and

nitrogen oxides combine to create ozone (photochemical smog) for which

Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York currently fail to meet air quality

standards. Denver, Los Angeles, and New York have not attained air

quality standards for carbon monoxide. And Los Angeles is not in

compliance with nitrogen oxides standards. All four cities meet attainment

levels for sulfur dioxide.

Table 4.11: Attainment of EPA’s Ambient Air Quality Standards in Four Cities

City Ozone Nitrogen oxides Carbon monoxide Sulfur dioxide

Chicago No Yes Yes Yes

Denver Yes Yes No Yes

Los Angeles No No No Yes

New York No Yes No Yes

Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, “Magnitude and Value of Electric Vehicle Emissions

Reduction for Six Driving Cycles in Four U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems,” presented

at the 72nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 10-14,

1993.

30Wang and Santini judgmentally correlated estimated costs of pollution reduction (from California

Energy Commission) with the seriousness of pollution violations (from the Environmental Protection

Agency, EPA). Included are the costs to stay in attainment for each pollutant as well as the costs to

offset sulfur dioxide emissions at electricity generation plants. The estimated costs of pollution

emissions reductions (on a dollar per ton per year basis) were spread over a 10-year vehicle lifetime

assuming 11,000 driving miles per year.

Page 109 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

As table 4.12 suggests, EVs would be particularly valuable in reducing

carbon monoxide air pollution problems in Denver, Los Angeles, and New

York. Reductions in hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in Chicago, Los

Angeles, and New York would decrease ozone levels. And even

considering the costs of sulfur dioxide control at coal and oil power plants

in Denver and New York, an EV’s overall value is still positive.

Table 4.12: Estimated Avoided

Pollution Costs of EVs in Four U.S.

Citiesa Pollutant Chicago Denver

Los

Angeles New York

Hydrocarbons $2,383 0 $2,062 $2,549

Carbon monoxide 0 $8,314 13,637 8,203

Nitrogen oxide 2,008 0 2,113 1,582

Sulfur dioxide 50 –52 303 –506

Total $4,446 $8,262 $18,115 $11,828

aOver 13 years if driven 1.6 hours per day, equivalent to 209,853 total urban miles traveled.

Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, “Magnitude and Value of Electric Vehicle Emissions

Reductions for Six Driving Cycles in Four U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems,” presented

at the 72nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 10-14,

1993.

Note: Table has been revised since first printing to reflect updated data provided by Wang and

Santini.

In sum, regional electricity fuel mixes affected results in all the

environmental impact studies we reviewed. But important distinctions in

analytical methods contributed to differences among findings. For

example, calculations of pollution reduction benefits produced by EVs

often used projected electricity fuel mixes for 2000 and beyond. In many

cases, calculations based on current (and often less clean) fuel sources

would result in less promising estimates. The wide range of pollution

reduction predictions is also partly the result of the physical and

operational characteristics of the EV and ICEV used in the comparison. That

is, some studies compared EV emissions to those of new catalyst-equipped

ICEVs while others used ICEV emission rates after 5 years and 50,000

accumulated miles. Other differences of note included daily miles

operated, level of emissions control at the electricity generating plant,

vehicle operating speed, and comparisons to gasoline- or diesel-fueled

ICEVs. Thus, the findings and conclusions of any one study must be

considered within the context of the assumptions used in the

comparisons. We also found that while each EV may significantly reduce

emissions of most pollutants relative to what a comparable ICEV emits

Page 110 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

from its tailpipe, the net air quality benefits that could be achieved by

substituting large numbers of EVs for ICEVs may be substantially less

optimistic.

Summary and

Conclusions

To examine costs to own and operate an EV as well as likely effects on

energy savings and pollution reduction, we reviewed the literature,

interviewed experts, and made a number of international site visits. We

found that costs to purchase an EV are likely to be substantially higher than

those of a comparable ICEV in the near term, when production volumes of

EVs are expected to be low. As economies of scale and learning take place,

the costs to purchase an EV will begin to approach those of an ICEV.

However, purchase costs of different types of EVs will depend heavily on

the type of battery used. The costs of different batteries will vary widely,

but this variation may be offset somewhat by the number of miles a

battery can be used before it must be replaced.

The likely near-term costs to own and operate an EV in the eight nations is

expected to be substantially higher than those of an ICEV. As initial

purchase prices decrease, the benefits of lower EV fueling costs would be

realized in all the nations except the United States, where the ratio of

gasoline to electricity costs is lower. In the United States, the cost to own

and operate an EV is expected to remain higher than the cost of an ICEV,

even at high volumes of production.

Petroleum-based transportation contributes substantially to overall

pollution problems and petroleum dependence around the world. We

concluded that EVs have the potential to increase energy security, produce

energy savings, reduce petroleum consumption, and reduce pollution.

However, the likelihood and magnitude of these effects are highly

dependent on national and regional variations.

Whether and to what extent a nation reduces reliance on imported oil and

petroleum consumption as a result of introducing EVs depends both on the

proportion of the total energy supply derived from imported oil and the

proportion of electricity generated by oil. Of the eight nations we

reviewed, only Italy and Japan may fail to see substantial decreases in the

amount of imported oil that would be required by the transportation sector

if EVs were to replace ICEVs. Even these nations would save over

$300 million and $700 million, respectively, worth of imported oil annually

through replacing 10 percent of their ICEVs with EVs.

Page 111 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 4 

National and Regional Effects: Economics,

Energy, and the Environment

We also concluded from our review of the literature that, at least in the

United States, EVs using current technology may consume more primary

energy in the form of electricity than ICEVs consume in the form of

petroleum, but future advances should result in EVs using 30 to 35 percent

less energy than ICEVs. Moreover, an EV could immediately displace

90 percent or more of the petroleum consumed by an ICEV.

Local and regional pollution is a serious problem in many of the nations

we reviewed, including the United States. EVs would eliminate almost

entirely the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions associated

with ICEV tailpipes. Reductions in hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides would

decrease ozone, otherwise known as urban smog. However, because many

countries and regions of the United States still rely heavily on coal and oil

for electricity production, some areas could see substantial increases in

sulfur dioxide emissions and no change or moderate increases in carbon

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Yet, the costs—at least in the United

States—associated with controlling sulfur dioxide emissions at power

plants may be offset by the cost savings realized by reducing the emissions

of other pollutants.

Page 112 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

Current Barriers to

Widespread EV Use

Current barriers to the widespread introduction of EVs are five: battery

technology, infrastructure support, safety, market prospects, and price.

Current battery technologies vary in their ability to overcome these and

other barriers, which are important to their success. Table 5.1 indicates

the outstanding issues that must be resolved for the specific battery types

that appear to be the most promising.

Table 5.1: Battery Issues to Be Resolved

Issue Lead acid Nickel cadmium Nickel hydride Nickel iron

Sodium sulfur and

sodium chloride

Range X a X

Power X a X X

Cycle life X a X

Self-discharge X

Temperature control X X X

Safety X X X

Recycling X X X X

Service and

maintenance

X X X

Production technology X X X

Raw materials cost X X X X

Raw materials supply X X X

Initial price X X X X

aWhile cell-level results appear to be promising, full system performance is not yet known.

Major EV infrastructure supports that are currently not in place include

residential and commercial fleet charging facilities, public charging

stations, battery replacement and recycling, emergency road service, and

electrical generating capacity. The type and amount of infrastructure

support that must be in place when EVs are introduced is not yet certain,

but some early infrastructure availability is necessary for consumer

acceptance.

EVs exhibit operational and maintenance hazards that are not experienced

or do not occur to the same degree in current ICEVs. In particular, risks are

associated with the considerable mass and volatile nature of EV batteries,

but the available data are scarce and inconclusive about the severity of

these risks. Nevertheless, EVs should not be granted special exemptions

from vehicle crashworthiness standards.

Page 113 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

The nature and extent of the private EV market are not yet well defined.

Estimates of the potential consumer EV market range from 60 percent of

U.S. households to as few as 6 percent of U.S. automobile consumers. The

typical methods used to produce these estimates have limited validity as

forecasts of the likely market for this new technology.

Most corporate and government fleets make up a “niche” market that

would not be hampered by current limitations in EV range and recharging.

These fleets represent the most feasible opportunity to put EVs on the road

today.

The initial costs of EVs will likely remain the largest obstacle to their

purchase. Notwithstanding national and regional purchase incentives, the

incremental costs of buying an EV will most likely be borne primarily by

consumers. Standardization and high demand are two prerequisites to

achieving the economies of scale and learning that reduce production

costs. To date, EVs have achieved neither. When they do, production costs

should decrease, as will consumer costs.

National Electric

Vehicle Programs

Among other nations’ policies and programs to develop, produce, and

promote EVs, those in France, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland offer

elements that may contribute to a more comprehensive U.S. EV program.

While other nations focus efforts on demonstration programs,

infrastructure support, and production economics, they await a battery

breakthrough from the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. In direct

contrast to many of the countries we visited, the United States devotes

proportionately less money to public EV demonstration and promotion

programs or infrastructure needs assessment and development. EVs are

not available in sufficient numbers to satisfy the mandatory requirements

of some U.S. demonstration programs.

Several foreign officials cite the California-type legislation as a major

stimulus for increased interest in EVs in their countries. Five automobile

manufacturers with large volumes of sales in the United States—three in

Japan, one in Germany, and one in Sweden—are producing and testing EVs

using current-generation, limited-performance batteries. If production and

demonstration goals succeed, some foreign manufacturers will most likely

have low-cost, performance-tested vehicles ready to receive advanced

batteries developed by the United States.

Page 114 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

National and Regional

Concerns

Battery costs would remain the largest contributor to the initial costs of

EVs. Different types of batteries would command widely different prices,

which could, in part, be offset by differences in overall driving life. High

initial purchase costs mean that near-term EV life-cycle costs are likely to

be significantly higher than comparable costs of ICEVs. If EV purchase

prices decrease substantially as production volume increases and

electricity utilities institute widespread residential off-peak rates, then EV

life-cycle costs in every nation except the United States would be lower

than the life-cycle costs of comparable ICEVs. Among the nations we

reviewed, the United States has the least favorable ratio of gasoline to

electricity prices for reducing consumer automobile operating costs with

EVs.

EVs have the potential to increase energy security and reduce pollution.

However, net gains in either would be highly dependent upon future

advances in EV and ICEV technologies as well as the fuel sources and

processes used to generate electricity. Of the eight nations we reviewed,

the U.S. current electricity fuel mix is among the most conducive to

achieving petroleum savings and the least conducive to achieving pollution

reduction goals.

EVs meeting the USABC midterm criteria may fare poorly compared to ICEVs

in terms of the amount of primary energy consumed. If EVs achieve the

USABC long-term goals and ICEVs do not achieve substantially improved fuel

economy, then EVs will significantly reduce primary energy consumption

under nearly all conditions.

Introducing EVs would increase independence from imported oil in all

eight nations. The United States would save more annually ($2.5 billion) by

replacing 10 percent of ICEVs with EVs than any other nation. Although Italy

and Japan generate substantial amounts of electricity from oil and

therefore would save less imported oil than the other nations, they would

still save annually $300 million and $700 million, respectively.

Local and regional pollution is a serious problem in many nations,

including the United States. EVs would almost entirely eliminate the

hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions associated with ICEV

tailpipes, thus reducing ozone, or urban smog. However, because many

countries and regions of the United States still rely heavily on coal and oil

for electricity production, some areas could see substantial increases in

sulfur dioxide emissions and no change or moderate increases in carbon

dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Page 115 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions associated with electricity

generation are regulated in the United States by the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. However, costs will increase if additional emissions

must be monitored and controlled at the power plant. Moreover, other

nations do not all have air quality restrictions as stringent as those in the

United States; the introduction of EVs in these nations could contribute to

increased global emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Conclusions The ultimate viability of EVs as a widespread transportation option cannot

now be ensured. The lack of conveniences, such as longer-range batteries

or public quick-recharging stations, and assurances, such as verification

and publicity of EV safety and crashworthiness, hinder consumer

acceptance. Current tax and purchase incentives are not adequate to ease

the considerable financial burden for those now desiring to purchase EVs.

No firm commitments for larger government or corporate fleet purchases

currently exist to encourage higher production rates that might reduce

consumer costs.

Industry and government officials in the eight nations we visited

emphasized the perceived significance of USABC and the California

mandate in the reemergence of EVs. Some nations are not anticipating

large domestic EV markets, yet their automobile manufacturers are

preparing for the mandated U.S. markets.

The dual role the United States is playing in the worldwide support of EV

development, both by investing in advanced battery research at the

national level and by mandating zero-emission vehicles at the state level,

may be prerequisite to successful commercialization. However, U.S. policy

toward EVs is fragmented in two ways. First, already limited federal funds

for field testing are divided among programs in the departments of energy,

defense, and transportation. Consequently, no single program has

sufficient funds to purchase adequate numbers of EVs or to conduct

rigorous field demonstrations and evaluations. Second, the lack of

emphasis on the barriers that can be addressed before a battery

breakthrough and that ultimately must be resolved to market a viable

vehicle—namely, issues of infrastructure support, market development,

and production economics—has created a void between state policies

mandating EV markets and federal policies supporting battery technology

initiatives.

Page 116 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

Meanwhile, other nations are focusing more directly on the elimination of

these barriers by funding public demonstrations to field test vehicles and

infrastructure, to assess consumer market characteristics, and to create an

immediate market that increases production economies of scale. As a

result, the possibility exists that the United States may introduce a critical

technology—a high performance battery—that other countries can more

easily adapt to performance-tested vehicles that are ready for the 1998 U.S.

marketplace created by state legislation.

The aim of the current U.S. fuel-neutral energy policy is to diversify this

nation’s energy and transportation options by focusing on desirable end

results—such as cleaner air—without prescribing the means for achieving

them. Similarly, U.S. transportation program funding is divided among

many fuel types, in part to maximize the likelihood that viable alternative

fuels will be developed and commercialized.

One consequence of fuel neutrality may be fragmentation of funding and

support. Full funding of currently legislated U.S. EV programs will not

guarantee the commercial viability of EVs produced in the United States.

Nevertheless, without the full implementation of a comprehensive national

energy plan that includes some threshold level of support for EVs, it is

highly unlikely that EV technology will achieve commercial success. Such a

program would be best designed with the interest, cooperation, and

consolidation of resources from federal, state, local, and private

partnership sources. In particular, common goals and resources, better

coordinated and directed, would eliminate many of the fragmented

policies and duplicated efforts that characterize U.S. EV efforts.

A fuel-neutral policy also recognizes that no single strategy or fuel could

solve this nation’s assorted transportation-related problems. Indeed, the

diversity and range of economic, energy, and pollution effects associated

with alternatively fueled vehicles generally, and electric vehicles in

particular, suggest the need for a well-developed, clear consensus

concerning the optimal mix of strategies by which the transportation

sector can contribute to achieving this nation’s stated goals for reducing

energy dependence and global and regional pollution problems. Additional

emphasis on environmentally and geographically sensitive criteria for the

selection of AFVs would help underscore the ultimate goals of fuel

neutrality.

The federal policy stance toward the development of EVs is incongruent

with state initiatives and, in some instances, with itself. EPA has given

Page 117 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Chapter 5 

Summary and Conclusions

approval to state plans to reduce air pollution that imitate the California

plan by creating an EV market through mandate. DOE continues to fund

USABC. And small-scale EV demonstrations have been funded through DOD

appropriations. Yet, the field testing and demonstration provisions of the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 have not been fully funded.

The tentativeness of U.S. policy toward EVs may reflect the inherent

riskiness of supporting a nascent technology. Yet, its currently fragmented

state raises the additional risk of spending millions of dollars on advanced

battery research only to lose early market share in state mandated

markets.

Page 118 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Page 119 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 120 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Page 121 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

Page 122 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 7.

See comment 8.

Page 123 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.

Page 124 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 125 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

The following are GAO’s comments on the September 9, 1994, DOE letter.

GAO Comments Most of the Department of Energy’s comments reflect a basic agreement

with us over the wide range of assumptions that can be adopted regarding

the ultimate performance of electric vehicles relative to those of future

internal combustion engine vehicles. DOE also provided us under separate

cover with a number of technical and editorial comments. We have not

reprinted these, but we have made changes in the body of the report as

appropriate. We address DOE’s more general comments below.

Comment 1 We agree with DOE that electric vehicle battery technology is evolving

rapidly and that a breakthrough could occur at any time. However, our

objective in this report was to evaluate the current status of electric

vehicle development. For this reason, we believe that the comparison of

the advantages and disadvantages of batteries at various stages of

technical development was both proper and unavoidable. Such a

presentation in no way implies that these limitations are insurmountable

with further research and development.

Comment 2 We recognize the efforts of DOE and other interested groups to identify and

address gaps in required electric vehicle infrastructure. Nevertheless, we

believe that many outstanding issues remain to be resolved before the

infrastructure support for electric vehicles could be considered adequate

to sustain a substantial number of electric vehicles in the private and

commercial marketplace.

We note in our report that GSA plans to purchase 10 to 15 electric vehicles

to add to the 10,200 alternatively fueled vehicles that were in the federal

fleet in July 1994. According to GSA officials in September 1994, current

plans for 1995 include no electric vehicles among the 9,000 planned

alternatively fueled vehicle purchases. Nevertheless, DOE continues to

foresee sufficient 1995 appropriations to provide GSA with incremental

funding for the purchase of 100 to 150 electric vehicles. Yet, even if these

1995 goals are met, electric vehicles would, on balance, continue to

constitute a very small proportion of GSA’s 1995 plans to purchase 9,000

alternatively fueled vehicle purchases for the federal fleet.

Page 126 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Comment 3 We believe that the activities DOE cited to address electric vehicle safety

issues are an implicit acknowledgment that these issues are some distance

from final resolution. We continue to believe that the safety of electric

vehicles remains a critical issue for their ultimate viability.

Comment 4 We have acknowledged these and other efforts to evaluate the potential

market for electric vehicles throughout our report. However, we suggest

that neither dispersing small numbers of electric vehicles throughout U.S.

utility fleets nor providing limited production electric vehicles to 1,000

consumers for 2 to 4 weeks will have a marked effect on the awareness

and acceptance of electric vehicles by the estimated 170 million licensed

drivers in the United States.

Comment 5 We reviewed the assumptions DOE used to estimate the life-cycle costs of

electric vehicles. Generally, DOE projects that certain electric vehicle

batteries will demonstrate substantial performance and cost

improvements by 1998 and 2005. We are less optimistic that, within these

periods, these batteries can achieve such performance, commercial

production, and cost goals. Based in part on this reasoning, our cost

models include different batteries with less advanced performance

characteristics and produced in smaller quantities in 1998.

Comment 6 While we accept the automobile industry’s position in 1991 that battery

research was a more critical need than electric drive train development,

we continue to believe that other important aspects of electric vehicle

development receive disproportionately less attention than battery

research. We concur with DOE that appropriated funding for the electric

vehicle sections of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 have fallen short of

authorization.

Comment 7 The EV America program is in the early development stages, and we were

unable to evaluate its potential effect on electric vehicle demonstration.

The introduction of 5,000 roadworthy vehicles would constitute a positive

step toward addressing the current barriers that impede the widespread

introduction of electric vehicles. However, doubts must remain whether

such a goal can be achieved in the near term. As we noted in the report,

current electric vehicle demonstration programs of much smaller scale are

experiencing difficulty finding a sufficient number of electric vehicles to

Page 127 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

form demonstration programs of the size mandated by the Energy Policy

Act. Given that the three large U.S. automobile manufacturers are

currently planning to produce 250 electric vehicles, the EV America

program’s success depends, in part, upon substantially greater

commitments from these manufacturers.

Comment 8 Our purpose in comparing the amount of public funds dedicated to battery

research and development in different nations was not to evaluate the

level of funding of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium nor to suggest

that battery research and development is not progressing in foreign

countries (particularly in Japan). Rather, our intent was to contrast the

balance of governmental support between battery research and

development and infrastructure development in different nations.

Comment 9 As noted earlier, we reviewed the assumptions DOE used to project likely

electric vehicle economics. Given the current status of battery

development, we believe the assumptions we used in our report are more

realistic projections of electric vehicle performance and costs.

Comment 10 Our analysis of the primary energy use of electric vehicles and

conventional vehicles uses a range of assumptions about the likely

performance of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles. Our

model analyzes conditions both favorable and unfavorable to electric

vehicles and highlights the likely consequences of focusing research and

development efforts on either improving electric vehicle fuel economy or

improving gasoline vehicle fuel economy. We evaluated the assumptions

used in the energy analysis DOE sponsored and cited in its technical

comments on our report. We found three major differences between the

assumptions in our models and those in DOE’s model.

1. DOE’s base case analysis assumes that the electricity for the electric

vehicle is generated only by advanced natural gas facilities with fuel

conversion efficiencies higher than most currently in operation. High

electricity conversion efficiencies substantially reduce the primary energy

requirements of electric vehicles. Advanced natural gas facilities are

projected to account for 6 percent of the U.S. fuel mix in 2001. We use the

conversion efficiencies of the current average fuel mix in each nation in

our analysis.

Page 128 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

2. The internal combustion engine van in DOE’s analysis has a projected

fuel economy of 25 mpg in 2001. The projected fuel economies in our

analysis range from 21 mpg (low performance) to 28 mpg (high

performance).

3. DOE assumes that the energy consumption from the plug to the wheels of

a van with a battery meeting the USABC midterm criteria (for example,

sodium sulfur) will be 0.30 kWh per kilometer in 2001. We assume an

energy consumption of 0.40 kWh per kilometer for this battery and 0.25

kWh per kilometer for a battery meeting the USABC long-term criteria.

These and other minor differences in the two analyses explain why DOE

concurs with our findings when we model conditions favorable to electric

vehicles (high-performance electric vehicles versus low-performance

internal combustion engine vehicles) but disagrees with our findings when

we model conditions unfavorable to electric vehicles (low-performance

electric vehicles versus high-performance internal combustion engine

vehicles).

Comment 11 We recognize that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions associated

with electricity generation are regulated in the United States by the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990. However, costs will increase if additional

emissions must be monitored and controlled at the power plant. Moreover,

other nations we reviewed do not all have air quality restrictions as

stringent as those in the United States. Thus, the introduction of electric

vehicles in these nations could contribute to increased global emissions of

nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Page 129 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

Arizona Discounted annual license tax rate to EVs ($4 per $100)

Income tax credit (25 percent or $5,000) over 3 years to alternative fuel

vehicles (AFVs)

Conversion tax credit (up to $3,000) over 3 years

Private refueling stations qualify for $5,000 credit (50 percent of interest

for tax credits can also be a tax credit)

Arkansas $8.7 million in 1993-94 and 1994-95 to convert and provide AFVs and

infrastructure for schools and state agencies

California Air Resources Board low-emissions vehicle program mandating

zero-emission vehicles adopted September 1990

Tax credit (15 percent or $1,000)

75 percent of Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Funds defense

conversion initiatives

$1 million state matching of funds from National Energy Policy Act of 1992

for energy conversion and development programs

$1 vehicle registration fee (total $9 million per year) for clean fuel projects

$100,000 tax deduction for clean-fuel refueling property

$2,000 tax deduction to AFVs excludes EVs

$1,000 state income tax credit limited to 750 LEVs per year (expires

December 1994)

Partial sales tax exemption for LEVs (expires December 1994)

$2 million for EV development consortium

$224,000 for EV and AFV infrastructure master plan

Page 130 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

$5 million from state Employment Training Panel for EV development and

clean fuel vehicle industry

Requires state agency plan by 1994 to support consumer recharging and

refueling of AFVs

Colorado $200 rebate for clean-fuel vehicles

5-percent tax credit for EVs (not to exceed 50 percent of cost of electric

fuel system) through 1998

Rebate for certain AFVs (up to $1,000)

Mechanics certification program for AFV conversion

Connecticut Requires that 10 percent of new cars and light trucks purchased by the

state in 1993 and 1994 be powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) or

electricity (can be suspended if refueling is not available or sufficient

numbers of EVs are not available or not cost competitive)

$200,000 per year for loans and credit lines for businesses that convert to

CNG or diesel fuel and a clean alternative fuel

10-percent corporate business tax credit for purchase of EV recharging

equipment, conversion equipment for natural gas and electricity, and the

incremental cost of vehicles run exclusively on CNG or electricity

Business tax exemptions for research, design, manufacture, sale, or

installation of vehicles powered in whole or in part by electricity, natural

gas, or solar power

Sales tax exemption for purchase of clean-fueled vehicle or conversion

equipment

10-percent tax credit for individuals and corporations on the incremental

cost of purchasing an EV

Mandated discounts for state purchases of clean-fueled vehicles

Study commissioned on adoption of California program

Page 131 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

District of Columbia Requires government and private owners of fleets of 10 or more to convert

5 percent to operate on clean alternative fuels each year 1995-2000

Florida Mandates AFVs in state agencies

Alternative fuels in all possible vehicles by 2000.

Iowa Beginning in 1992, 5 percent of new state vehicles to be equipped for

alternative fuels; increases to 10 percent by 1994

Louisiana Requires 30 percent of new state vehicles to have clean-fuel capability by

September 1994; increases to 50 percent in 1996

Maine Adopted California LEV program

Maryland Requires adoption of California LEV standards by 2000; contingent on

similar legislation by four of the following five states by 2000: Delaware,

District of Columbia, New Jersey, Virginia, or Pennsylvania

Motor fuel tax reduced for alternative fuels (from 24.25 cents to 23.5 cents

per gasoline-equivalent gallon)

Exempts from property tax certain refueling equipment and machinery

(20 percent of assessed value in tax year 1998, 40 percent in 1999,

60 percent in 2000, 80 percent in 2001, and 100 percent thereafter)

Exempts from sales and use taxes for conversion machinery or equipment

for certain fuels

State agencies and university required to purchase AFVs in accordance with

Energy Policy Act of 1992

Established an evaluation of use of AFVs in state fleet

Massachusetts Adopted California LEV program

Page 132 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

Minnesota Requires Public Utilities Commission to develop alternative fuels

infrastructure

Missouri Requires conversion to AFVs of government fleets of 15 or more: 10 percent

in mid-1996, 30 percent in mid-1998, 50 percent by mid-2000. By mid-2002,

30 percent of government fleet must operate solely on alternative fuels

Nevada Requires public hearings and report of use of alternative fuels; requires

adoption of conversion regulations for state and municipal fleets

New Hampshire Established a study of feasibility of introducing AFVs

New Jersey Adopted California LEV program providing that similar legislation is passed

in surrounding states (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and

Pennsylvania)

New Mexico Mandates the conversion of 30 percent of new state vehicles beginning

mid-1993; percentage increases to 60 percent in 1994 and 100 percent in

1995. Postsecondary institutions required to convert to AFVs

$5 million loan fund for conversions

New York Adopted California LEV program

Exemption from retail sales tax for incremental costs of an EV and the

refueling infrastructure

New York City ordinance requires city to purchase 385 AFVs by mid-1992

and establishes purchase schedule of alternative fuel buses

North Carolina Requires study of use of clean fuels in state vehicles and development of a

natural gas demonstration project for state-owned vehicles

Oklahoma $5 million loan fund for conversions (up to $5,000 for AFVs and $100,000 for

refueling stations)

Page 133 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

10-percent discount of the entire vehicle cost (up to $1,500)

$1.5 million conversion fund for state, county, municipal, and school

district vehicles ($3,500 per conversion and $100,000 per refueling station)

Oregon 35-percent business tax credit on purchase price of AFVs

Pennsylvania Exemption from retail sales tax for incremental costs of an EV

$3.5 million grant fund for school districts, municipalities, and

corporations for conversion or purchase of AFVs; grants cover 60 percent

of eligible costs, decreasing biannually to 20 percent

Exemption from annual registration fee

Rhode Island Authority to regulate tailpipe emissions and promulgate regulations for LEV

program in 1994 if such a program is shown necessary to attain and

maintain air quality standards in the state

South Carolina Established a study of clean alternative fuels

Tennessee Resolution urging the development and use of environmentally sensitive

domestic alternative fuels

Texas Created a council to develop state AFV policy and a fund for conversion

and purchase of AFVs

Virginia Beginning in 1998, a certain percentage of new fleet purchases in certain

regions must be AFVs

Income or gross receipts tax credit of 10 percent of the amount allowed as

a deduction by the federal government for clean-fuel vehicles and certain

refueling property

Reduced fuel tax rate (from 16 cents to 10 cents per gallon)

Page 134 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix II 

Adopted State Legislative Initiatives

Regarding Alternative Fuels

Annual tax on vehicles that “fuel” at home and do not pay the special fuels

tax

Reductions (from 3 percent to 1.5 percent) of the tax on the sales price of

vehicles using natural gas, liquified natural and petroleum gases,

hydrogen, or electricity

Washington Requires that 50 percent of vehicles purchased in 1992 use alternative

fuels

License fee waived from 1991-96 for taxicabs and for-hire vehicles using

alternative fuels

$132,500 fund to implement alternative fuels pilot program

Requires 30 percent of state vehicles purchased to use clean fuels after

mid-1992, increasing 5 percent each year

West Virginia Provides for the purchase and use of AFVs in fleets owned by political

subdivisions and states. Specifies minimum purchase requirements for

1995-97 and continuation thereafter subject to review of 3-year program

Wisconsin 2-year program to assist municipalities in fleet conversions with up to

$30,000, or a maximum of $2,000 per vehicle

Established a task force to monitor state fleet pilot program and to

develop state policy on alternative fuels

Page 135 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix III 

Advanced Battery Consortium Technical

Criteria

Table III.1: Primary Criteria With Mid-Term and Long-Term Goals

Primary criteria Mid-term goals Long-term goals

Power density W/L 250 600

Specific power W/kg (80% DOD/30 sec) 150a 400

Energy density Wh/L (C/3 discharge rate) 135 300

Specific energy Wh/kg (C/3 discharge rate) 80b 200

Life (years) 5 10

Cycle life (cycles)

(80% DOD) 600 1,000

Power and capacity degradation

(% of rate spec) 20% 20%

Ultimate price ($/kWh) (10,000 units at 40 kWh) < 150 < $100

Operating environment –30 to 65o C –40 to 85o C

Recharge time < 6 hours 3 to 6 hours

Continuous discharge in 1 hour (no failure) 75%c 75%c

a200 desired.

b100% desired.

cOf rated energy capacity.

Table III.2: Secondary Criteria With Mid-Term and Long-Term Goalsa

Secondary criteria Mid-term goals Long-term goals

Efficiency: C/3 discharge, 6-hour charge 75% 80%

Self-discharge < 15% in 48 hours < 15% per month

Maintenance No maintenance;

service by qualified

personnel only

No maintenance;

service by qualified

personnel only

Thermal loss (for high temperature batteries) 3.2 W/Wh

15% of capacity

48-hour period

3.2 W/Kwhr

15% of capacity

48-hour period

Abuse resistance Tolerant; minimized

by on-board controls

Tolerant minimized by

on board controls

aCriteria specified by contractor: Packaging constraints, recyclability, environmental, impact,

reliability, safety overcharge and overdischarge, tolerance.

Page 136 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

Program Evaluation

and Methodology

Division

Robert E. White, Assistant Director

Jacqueline D’Alessio, Project Manager

Barbara A. Chapman, Adviser

Penny Pickett, Communications Analyst

Far East Regional

Office

Patricia K. Yamane, Senior Evaluator

Joyce L. Akins, Evaluator

Denver Regional

Office

Arthur Gallegos, Senior Evalutor

Alan J. Dominicci, Evaluator

Detroit Regional

Office

Anthony A. Krukowski, Senior Evaluator

Javier J. Garza, Evaluator

(973387) Page 137 GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/PEMD-95-7 Electric Vehicles