# Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle Characterization and Scenario Analyses ANL/ESD/09-5



# Main Text and Appendices A, B, C, D, and F

Energy Systems DivisionAvailability of This Report This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bridge. It is also available on paper to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P .O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone (865) 576-8401
fax (865) 576-5728
reports@adonis.osti.gov

Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy , completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer , or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC. About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov.

# Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle Characterization and Scenario Analyses ANL/ESD/09-5

by Steve Plotkin and Margaret Singh, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory

with Phil Patterson and Jake Ward, U.S. Department of Energy

Frances Wood, Niko Kydes, and John Holte, OnLocation

Jim Moore and Grant Miller, TA Engineering, Inc.

Sujit Das and David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

and Analysis support provided by Aymeric Rousseau, Phil Sharer, and Sylvain Pagerit, Argonne Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) Team

prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Offices of Vehicle Technologies Program, Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program, and Planning, Budget, and Analysis

Argonne National Laboratory’s work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Offices of Vehicle Technologies Program; Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program; and Planning, Budget, and Analysis under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.

July 22, 2009 

# Main Text and Appendices A, B, C, D, and F

### iii 

### CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ xx

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................ xxi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9

2 SCENARIOS .................................................................................................................... .. 11

2.1 Background................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 General Conditions Applicable to All Scenarios ............................................ 11 2.1.2 Global Warming.............................................................................................. 11
2.1.3 Policies............................................................................................................ 11

2.1.4 Vehicle-related Technologies ......................................................................... 12 2.2 Three Scenarios of Technology Mix .......................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Mixed Scenario ............................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Hydrogen Success Scenario............................................................................ 14 2.2.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario........................................................................... 15

3 VEHICLE CHARACTERIZATION.................................................................................. 17

3.1 Basic Approach .......................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Fuel Economy Analysis.............................................................................................. 19 3.2.1 Modeling System ............................................................................................ 19 3.2.2 Vehicle Types Examined ................................................................................ 19 3.2.3 Basic Component Assumptions for the Three Vehicle Types........................ 22 3.2.4 Assumptions Regarding Midsize Cars............................................................ 24 3.2.5 Crossover SUV Assumptions ......................................................................... 27 3.2.6 Midsize SUV Assumptions............................................................................. 28 3.2.7 PSAT Modeling Concerns .............................................................................. 28 3.2.8 Fuel Economy Results for Leading Edge Vehicles ........................................ 33 3.2.9 Rules for Estimating Average Vehicle MPG by Class, Technology,
and Year.......................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Vehicle Cost Analysis ................................................................................................ 40
3.3.1 General Discussion ......................................................................................... 40 3.3.2 Automotive System Cost Model..................................................................... 41
3.3.3 Glider Costs .................................................................................................... 42
3.3.4 Drivetrain Costs .............................................................................................. 43
3.3.5 Vehicle Cost Results....................................................................................... 50 3.3.6 Scaling Cost Estimates to Mu ltiple Vehicle Classes ...................................... 60 3.3.7 Rules for Estimating Vehicle Prices by Class, Technology, and Year........... 63
3.4 Other Vehicle Attributes............................................................................................. 63

### iv 

### CONTENTS (Cont.)

3.5 Trading Off Vehicle “First Cost” Vs. Fuel Savings ................................................... 66 3.5.1 Description of the Analysis............................................................................. 66 3.5.2 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Cars,
Literature Review Costs.................................................................................. 69 3.5.3 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Cars, Program Goal Costs ........................................................................................ 72
3.5.4 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2030 SI Advanced Conventional ............................... 75
3.5.5 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Cars ................................ 76
3.5.6 Transition Costs — Cost Effectiveness in 2015 ............................................. 78 3.5.7 Summary and Conclusions about the Cost Effectiveness of
Advanced Vehicles ......................................................................................... 80 3.6 Costs of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................... 83
3.7 References for Chapter 3 ............................................................................................ 86 3.8 Tables for Figures 3-8 through 3-17........................................................................... 88 3.8.1 Tables for Figures 3-8a through 3-8d ............................................................. 88 3.8.2 Tables for Figures 3-9a through 3-9d ............................................................. 90 3.8.3 Table for Figure 3-10...................................................................................... 92 3.8.4 Table for Figure 3-11...................................................................................... 93 3.8.5 Table for Figure 3-12...................................................................................... 93 3.8.6 Table for Figure 3-13...................................................................................... 94 3.8.7 Table for Figure 3-14...................................................................................... 94 3.8.8 Table for Figure 3-15...................................................................................... 95 3.8.9 Tables for Figures 3-16 and 3-17.................................................................... 95

4 OVERVIEW OF USE OF THE NEMS-MP MODEL FOR MP ANALYSIS................... 97

4.1 NEMS-MP Model ...................................................................................................... 97 4.2 NEMS-Transportation St and-Alone Model ............................................................... 97 4.3 Interrelationship of the Models .................................................................................. 98

5 BASE CASE AS MODELED IN NEMS-MP.................................................................... 99

5.1 Development of the Base Case................................................................................... 99
5.2 Selected Base Case Results ........................................................................................ 101
5.3 The EISA Renewable Fuels Standard ........................................................................ 103
5.4 Oil Price in the Base Case .......................................................................................... 104

6 SCENARIOS AS MODELED IN NEMS-MP: GENERAL ................................................ 105

6.1 Fuel Prices ................................................................................................................ .. 105 6.2 Vehicle Technologies ................................................................................................. 108 6.2.1 Unique PHEV Attributes ................................................................................ 110
6.2.2 Flexible Fuel Vehicles .................................................................................... 110

### v 

### CONTENTS (Cont.)

6.3 Commercial Light Truck Fuel Economy.................................................................... 110
6.4 Sales to Fleets ............................................................................................................ . 111
6.5 Vehicle Constant ........................................................................................................ 11 1
6.6 Vehicle Make and M odel Availability ....................................................................... 111
6.7 Combined Effect of the Vehicl e Constant and Vehicle MMA................................... 112 6.8 Fuel Availability......................................................................................................... 114 6.8.1 Hydrogen......................................................................................................... 114

6.8.2 E85 .................................................................................................................. 115

7 KEY NEMS-MP RESULTS FOR THE BASE CASE AND SCENARIOS...................... 117

7.1 Scenarios with “Literature Review” Ve hicle Prices and No Subsidies...................... 118
7.1.1 Vehicle Market Penetration ............................................................................ 118 7.1.2 LV Energy Use and Oil Use ........................................................................... 123 7.1.3 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions ............................................................... 125
7.1.4 Ethanol Use..................................................................................................... 126 7.1.5 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol) .............................................. 128 7.1.6 Net Import Share of Product Supplied............................................................ 129
7.1.7 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions............................................................................... 130
7.1.8 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 130 7.1.9 Concluding Remarks about Impact s of Scenarios with “Literature
Review” Vehicle Prices and No Subsidies ..................................................... 131 7.2 Scenarios with “Program Goals” Ve hicle Prices and No Subsidies........................... 131
7.2.1 Vehicle Market Penetration ............................................................................ 131 7.2.2 LV Energy Use and Oil Use ........................................................................... 136 7.2.3 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions ............................................................... 138
7.2.4 Ethanol Use..................................................................................................... 138 7.2.5 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol) .............................................. 139 7.2.6 Net Import Share of Product Supplied............................................................ 139
7.2.7 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions............................................................................... 142
7.2.8 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 142 7.2.9 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Program Goals” Vehicle Pri ces and No Subsidies........................................ 143
7.3 Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to “Literature Review”

Vehicle Pr ices............................................................................................................. 143
7.3.1 Subsidies Used................................................................................................ 143
7.3.2 Vehicle Market Penetration ............................................................................ 146 7.3.3 LV Energy Use and Oil Use ........................................................................... 152 7.3.4 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions ............................................................... 152
7.3.5 Ethanol Use..................................................................................................... 155 7.3.6 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol) .............................................. 155 7.3.7 Net Import Share of Product Supplied............................................................ 155
7.3.8 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions............................................................................... 155

### vi 

### CONTENTS (Cont.)

7.3.9 Gasoline Prices................................................................................................ 158
7.3.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies .............................................................................. 158 7.3.11 Concluding Remarks about Impact s of Scenarios with “Literature
Review” Vehicle Prices Plus Subsidies .......................................................... 160
7.4 Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Add ition to “Program Goals”

Vehicle Pr ices............................................................................................................. 161
7.4.1 Subsidies Used................................................................................................ 161
7.4.2 Vehicle Market Penetration ............................................................................ 161 7.4.3 LV Energy Use and Oil Use ........................................................................... 164 7.4.4 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions ............................................................... 168
7.4.5 Ethanol Use..................................................................................................... 171 7.4.6 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol) .............................................. 171 7.4.7 Net Import Share of Product Supplied............................................................ 171
7.4.8 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions............................................................................... 171
7.4.9 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 174
7.4.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies .............................................................................. 174 7.4.11 Concluding Remarks about Impact s of Scenarios with “Program
Goals” Vehicle Prices Plus Subsidies............................................................. 176 7.5 Concluding Remarks: General ................................................................................... 177 Attachment to Chapter 7: Adjustments Made to Direct NEMS-MP Outputs..................... 178

8 ENERGY SECURITY BENEFITS AS MODELED IN OSMM....................................... 181

8.1 Background................................................................................................................. 181 8.2 Estimated Scenario Impacts ....................................................................................... 182
8.3 Estimated Oil Securi ty Benefits ................................................................................. 184 8.4 Impacts on the Variability of Oil Dependence Costs Over Time............................... 187
8.5 References for Chapter 8 ............................................................................................ 196

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 197

9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... . 197
9.2 Vehicle Characterization ............................................................................................ 198
9.2.1 Overview......................................................................................................... 198 9.2.2 Fuel Economy Analysis .................................................................................. 199 9.2.3 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................. 203
9.2.4 Cost Effectiveness........................................................................................... 207 9.2.5 Costs of Reducing GHG Emissions................................................................ 213 9.3 Scenario Analysis ....................................................................................................... 21 5 9.3.1 Scenario Development.................................................................................... 215 9.3.2 NEMS Modeling Results ................................................................................ 218
9.3.3 Limitations of NEMS-MP Results.................................................................. 228
9.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 230

### vii 

### CONTENTS (Cont.)

Appendix A: Vehicle Attributes Us ed in NEMS-MP Model Runs.......................................... 235

Appendix B: Preliminary Estimate of the Cost of Jump Starting

H 2 

### Stations in the H2 Success Scenario.............................................................. 253

Appendix C: Basis for Estimates of Full-Fuel-Cycle Co 2 

### Emissions from Light Vehicles........................................................................... 257

Appendix D: Selected Sensitivity Runs with the NEMS-MP Vehicle Choice Model ............. 263

Appendix E: Other NEMS-MP Resu lts for the Base Case and Scenarios (issued separately as part of the MP Study) ....................................... 277

Appendix F: Key Lessons Learne d from and Side Benefits of the MP Study....................................................................................................... 279

FIGURES

ES-1 Cost Effectiveness of a 2030 Midsize Car, at Literature Review Costs ....................... 3

ES-2 Cost Effectiveness of a 2030 Mids ize Car, at Program Goal Costs.............................. 3

ES-3 Sensitivity of Cost Effectiveness to Fuel Price, 2030 Midsize Car SI HEV,
Literature Review Costs................................................................................................ 4

ES-4 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions Assuming
Literature Review Vehicle Costs a nd No Government Subsidies ................................ 5

ES-5 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions Assuming Program Goals Vehicle Costs and No Government Subsidies ..................................... 5

ES-6 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, Assuming
Literature Review Vehicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies ...................... 6

ES-7 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, Assuming Program Goals Vehicle Costs Plus Se lected Government Subsidies ........................... 6

B1-1 Graphical User Interf ace with Drag & Drop................................................................. 21

B1-2 Example of Powertrain Model...................................................................................... 21

### viii 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

3-1 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG; PHEVs in CS/gaso line or hydrogen-only mode)............................ 34

3-2 Average Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG; PHEVs in CS/gaso line or hydrogen-only mode)............................ 36

3-3 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Ec onomy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (where 17.4% of miles for PHEV10s are electric, and 50.9% of miles fo r PHEV40s are electric) ......................................... 37

3-4 Average Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Economy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (whe re 17.4% of miles for PHEV10s are electric, and 50.9% of miles fo r PHEV40s are electric)............................................... 37

3-5a Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Literature Review Costs Case, High Fuel Economy ...................................................................................................... 51

3-5b Midsize Car Retail Prices (i n 2008$), Program Goals Costs Case, High Fuel Economy ...................................................................................................... 51

3-6a Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs (i n 2008$), Literature Re view Costs Case, High Fuel Economy ...................................................................................................... 51

3-6b Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs Case, High Fuel Economy ...................................................................................................... 52

3-7 Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs (i n 2008$), LR Costs Case, Average Fuel Economy ....................................................................................................................... 59

3-8a Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Co sts) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $4.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 69

3-8b Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Co sts) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 70

3-8c Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Co sts) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 70

### ix 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

3-8d Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Co sts) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.00/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 71

3-9a Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Cost s) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $4.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 72

3-9b Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Cost s) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 73

3-9c Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Cost s) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 73

3-9d Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Cost s) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.00/gallon Gasoline Price Case............................... 74

3-10 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a
2030 Advanced Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car................................................. 75

3-11 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a
2030 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car.................................................................. 76

3-12 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a
2030 Full HEV Drivetrain Midsize Car........................................................................ 77

3-13 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, Gasoline Price Point is $3.15/gallon) Compared to a 2030 Full HEV Drivetrain Midsize Car ............................................... 78

3-14 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2015 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Cost s, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case) Compared to a 2007 Conventi onal Drivetrain Midsize Car ............................... 79

3-15 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2015 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case) Compared to a 2007 Conventi onal Drivetrain Midsize Car ............................... 79

### x 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

3-16 Cost of GHG Reduction for 2030 Drivetrain Technologies in a Leading Edge Midsize Car, LR Vehicle Costs, $/ton of CO 2 

### Equivalent .................................. 84

3-17 Cost of GHG Reduction for 2030 Drivetrain Technologies in a Leading Edge Midsize Car, PG Vehicle Costs, $/ton of CO 2 

### Equivalent .................................. 85

4-1 Using NEMS-TSA and NEMS-H2............................................................................... 98

7-1 2030 Sales Shares (Literature Re view, No Subsidies Cases) ....................................... 121

7-2 2050 Sales Shares (Literature Re view, No Subsidies Cases) ....................................... 121

7-3 LV Energy Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)...................................................... 125

7-4 LV Oil Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)............................................................ 126

7-5 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies) ..................... 126

7-6 Ethanol Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)........................................................... 128

7-7 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Literature Review, No Subsidies)....... 129

7-8 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Literature Review, No Subsidies).................. 129

7-9 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies) .............................................. 130

7-10 Gasoline Price Reduction fro m Base Case (Literature Review, No Subsidies) ........... 131

7-11 2030 Sales Shares (Program Go als, No Subsidies Cases) ............................................ 133

7-12 2050 Sales Shares (Program Go als, No Subsidies Cases) ............................................ 134

7-13 LV Energy Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies) .......................................................... 138

7-14 LV Oil Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies)................................................................. 138

7-15 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies) .......................... 139

7-16 Ethanol Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies)................................................................ 141

7-17 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Etha nol (Program Goals, No Subsidies)............ 141

7-18 Net Import Share of Product Supplie d (Program Goals, No Subsidies)....................... 141

### xi 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

7-19 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies) ................................................... 142

7-20 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Program Goals, No Subsidies) ................ 142

7-21 2030 Sales Shares (Lite rature Review with S ubsidies Scenarios)................................ 150

7-22 2050 Sales Shares (Lite rature Review with S ubsidies Scenarios)................................ 150

7-23 LV Energy Use (Literature Review with Subsidies) .................................................... 154

7-24 LV Oil Use (Literature Re view with Subsidies)........................................................... 154

7-25 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies) .................... 154

7-26 Ethanol Use (Literature Re view with Subsidies).......................................................... 157

7-27 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Literature Review with Subsidies)...... 157

7-28 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Literature Review with Subsidies)................. 157

7-29 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies)............................................. 158

7-30 Gasoline Price Reduction fro m Base Case (Literature Re view with Subsidies) .......... 158

7-31 2050 LV Sales Versus Mixed Scenario Goals.............................................................. 166

7-32 2050 LV Sales Versus (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario Goals.......................................... 166

7-33 2050 LV Sales Versus H2 Success Scenario Goals...................................................... 166

7-34 LV Energy Use (Program Goals with Subsidies) ......................................................... 170

7-35 LV Oil Use (Program Goals with Subsidies)................................................................ 170

7-36 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies) ......................... 170

7-37 Ethanol Use (Program Goals with Subsidies)............................................................... 173

7-38 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Etha nol (Program Goals with Subsidies)........... 173

7-39 Net Import Share of Product Supplie d (Program Goals with Subsidies) ..................... 173

7-40 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies).................................................. 174

### xii 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

7-41 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Program Goals with Subsidies) ............... 175

8-1 AEO 2008 World Oil Price Cases Extr apolated to 2050 by the OSMM...................... 182

8-2 Base Case Distribution of Oil Dependence Costs......................................................... 188

8-3 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies: OPEC
Maintains Price ............................................................................................................. 190

8-4 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Etha nol, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price .................................................................................................. 190

8-5 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price .................................................................................................. 191

8-6 Oil Dependence Costs as a Per cent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 191

8-7 Oil Dependence Costs as a Per cent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol, No
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production ....................................................................... 192

8-8 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 192

8-9 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percen t of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price .................................................................................................. 193

8-10 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percen t of GDP (P)HEV & Ethanol with
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Price................................................................................. 193

8-11 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price .................................................................................................. 194

8-12 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percen t of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 194

8-13 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percen t of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol with
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production ....................................................................... 195

8-14 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 195

### xiii 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

9-1 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (Unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Ec onomy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (For PHEV10s, 17.4% of miles are electric, and PHEV40s are 50.9% electric based on SAE J1711 utility factors).......... 201

9-2 Leading Edge Midsize Car Retail Pr ices (in 2008$), Literature Review Costs, High Fuel Economy ........................................................................................... 205

9-3 Leading Edge Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs, High Fuel Economy ........................................................................................... 205

9-4 Incremental Prices of 2030 A dvanced Technology Midsize Cars, Compared to a 2007 Midsize Car with a Conventional Drivetrain .............................. 206

9-5 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Literature Review Vehicle Co sts, $3.15/gallon Gasoline Fuel Cost Scenario) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car......................... 209

9-6 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Program Goals Vehicle Cost s, $3.15/gallon Gasoline Fuel Price Scenario) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car......................... 209

9-7 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Pr ice Differential (2007 Conventional Drivetrain Reference Vehicle) for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Literature Review Costs) at Different Fuel Costs ....................................................... 210

9-8a Costs of GHG Reductions for 2030 A dvanced Drivetrain Vehicles, with and without Subsidies (LR technolog y costs, 20% discount rates for future fuel savings and carbon redu ctions for vehicle purchaser with no subsidy, 4% discount rate fo r future carbon reductions for government subsidy case, referenced to 2030 conventional drivetrain vehicle) .......... 214

9-8b Costs of GHG Reductions for 2030 Adva nced Drivetrain Vehicles, with and without Subsidies (Program Go als technology costs, 20% discount rates for future fuel savings and carbon reductions for vehicle purchaser with no subsidy, 4% discount rate for future carbon reductions for government subsidy case, referenced to 2030 conventional drivetrain vehicle) .......... 215

9-9 Vehicle Market Shares for 2050, Assu ming “Literature Review” Prices..................... 219

9-10 Vehicle Market Shares for 2050, A ssuming “Program Goals” Prices.......................... 220

9-11 Ethanol Sales Volumes (“Literature Review” Vehicle Price Case).............................. 220

### xiv 

### FIGURES (Cont.)

9-12 Light Vehicle Oil Use (“Literature Review” Vehicle Price Case) ............................... 221

9-13 Light Vehicle Oil Use (“Program Goals” Vehicle Price Case) .................................... 222

9-14 LV Fuel Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, “Literature Review” and “Program
Goals” Cases ................................................................................................................. 2 23

9-15 LV Oil Use for Both Subsidy Cases ............................................................................. 223

TABLES

2-1 Potential Scenarios (in % of Sales)............................................................................... 13

3-1 Component Assumptions for Leading Edge Vehicles.................................................. 22

3-2 Performance Requirements for Leading Edge Vehicles, 2010–2045........................... 23

3-3 Midsize Car (Leading Edge) Characteristics ................................................................ 25

3-4 Crossover SUV (Leading Edge) Characteristics........................................................... 27

3-5 Midsize SUV (Leading Edge) Characteristics.............................................................. 28

B2-1 Translating Assumed Engine/Trans mission Efficiency Boost into Revised MPG Values for PSAT Output — “High Fuel Economy” Case .................................. 30

B2-2 Translating Assumed Engine/Trans mission Efficiency Boost into Revised MPG Values for PSAT Output — “Average Fuel Economy” Case............................. 31

3-6 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted combined MPG, SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results reflect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation)....................... 34

3-7 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted combined MPG), with PHEV Results Reflecting Both Fuel and Electricity Use........................................................................................................ 36

3-8 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Leading Edge Crossover SUVs (unadjusted combined MPG; SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results reflect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation).............................................. 38

### xv 

### TABLES (Cont.)

3-9 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Leading Edge SUVs (unadjusted combined MPG; SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results reflect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation).............................................. 38

3-10 Major Assumptions for Advanced Technology Vehicle Cost Estimation: Vehicle Component Cost Targets (Factory Gate Price, 2008$) ................................... 44

3-11a Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2015) ............................... 53

3-11b Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2015) ............................... 54

3-11c Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2030) ............................... 55

3-11d Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2030) ............................... 56

3-11e Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2045) ............................... 57

3-11f Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2045) ............................... 58

3-12 Average Horsepower and Curb Weight for 12 Vehicle Classes, New U.S. 2007 Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Fleet ................................................................. 60

3-13 Assumed Vehicle Attributes for Advan ced Drivetrain Vehicles: Midsize Car, Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario s (Note: values < 1 mean “worse” for range, top speed, and luggage spac e and “better” for maintenance cost

and accelera tion.) .......................................................................................................... 64

3-14 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 88

3-15 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 89

3-16 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 89

3-17 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 90

3-18 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 90

### xvi 

### TABLES (Cont.)

3-19 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 91

3-20 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 91

3-21 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 92

3-22 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Conventional Midsize Car).................................................................................................................. 92

3-23 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Conventional Midsize Car).................................................................................................................. 93

3-24 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car).................................................................................................................. 93

3-25 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car).................................................................................................................. 94

3-26 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehi cle Price (2015) (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Car)........................................................................................... 94

3-27 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Ve hicle Price (2015) (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Car)........................................................................................... 95

3-28 Literature Review Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case ................................................... 95

3-29 Program Goal Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case.......................................................... 96

5-1 World Oil Price (of imported crude oil) in MP Base Case (in 2005$) ......................... 99

5-2 Modifications Made to AEO 2007 Referenc e Case to Develop MP Base Case........... 100

5-3 Selected “Base Cas e” Estimates in 2030 ...................................................................... 102

### xvii 

### TABLES (Cont.)

6-1 Key Technical and Modeling Assumptions for the Base Case and Scenarios ............. 106

6-2 Incremental Vehicle Price and Fuel Ec onomy X Factors for Advanced Drivetrain Vehicles: Medium Car, Mixed, and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios (in 2005$)............ 109

6-3 VCM Equation Constant in MP Base Case and Scenarios........................................... 112

6-4 Sales Projection of MP Base Case and Base Case Endogenous................................... 113

7-1 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios Using
Literature Review Vehicle Pr ices without Subsidies.................................................... 119

7-2 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stoc k in Base Case and Scenarios Using
Literature Review Vehicle Pr ices without Subsidies.................................................... 122

7-3 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case and Scenarios Using Literature Review Ve hicle Prices without Subsidies......................... 124

7-4 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base Case and Scenarios Using Lite rature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies ......... 127

7-5 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies......................................................... 132

7-6 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stoc k in Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies......................................................... 135

7-7 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies.............. 137

7-8 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies.............. 140

7-9 Market Penetration of Key Technologies in Scenarios Using the Literature
Review Vehicle Prices with and without Subsidies...................................................... 144

7-10 Market Penetration of Key Technologies in Scenarios Using the Literature
Review Vehicle Prices with a nd without Subsidies: Additional
NEMS-TSA Model Runs.............................................................................................. 145

7-11 Incremental Vehicle Prices Used in Scenarios Assuming Literature Review Vehicle Prices including Prices with Subsidies: Medium Car (in 2005$).................... 147

### xviii 

### TABLES (Cont.)

7-12 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Lite rature Review Vehicle Prices ............................ 149

7-13 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Lite rature Review Vehicle Prices ............................ 151

7-14 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case
and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Literature
Review Vehicle Prices .................................................................................................. 153

7-15 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base
Case and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to
Literature Review Vehicle Prices ................................................................................. 156

7-16 Effectiveness of Subsidies in Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies
in Addition to Literature Review Vehicle Prices.......................................................... 159

7-17 New Vehicle Sales Shares in Progra m Goals Cases vs. Scenario Goals...................... 162

7-18 Vehicle Subsidies in Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices
Plus Subsidies ............................................................................................................... 1 62

7-19 Incremental Vehicle Prices Used in Scenarios Assuming Program Goals Vehicle Prices including Prices with Subsidies: Medium Car (in 2005$).................... 163

7-20 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios with
Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices .................. 165

7-21 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stoc k in Base Case and Scenarios with
Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices .................. 167

7-22 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base
Case and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices ...................................................................................... 169

7-23 United States Total Energy Use, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results
for Base Case and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices................................................................... 172

7-24 Effectiveness of Subsides in Scenar ios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices................................................................... 176

### xix 

### TABLES (Cont.)

7-25 LV Oil Use Savings and LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emission Reductions in “Literature Review with Subsidies” and “Program Goals with Subsidies”
Versions of Scenarios ................................................................................................... 178

8-1 Estimated Scenario Oil Savings Over MP Base Case (in mbpd) (Scenarios and Cases Use “Literature Review” Vehicle Prices) .................................. 183

8-2 Estimated Changes in Ethanol Use Over MP Base Case (mbpd on a GGE basis) (Scenarios and Cases Use “L iterature Review” Vehicle Prices)............... 184

8-3 Estimated Changes in Hydrogen Fuel Use Over MP Base Case (mbpd on a GGE basis) (Scenarios and Cases Use “L iterature Review” Vehicle Prices)............... 184

8-4 Estimated Oil Security Benefits of MP Scenarios without Subsidies, 2010–2050....... 186

8-5 Estimated Oil Security Be nefits of MP Scenarios with Subsidies, 2010–2050............ 186

8-6 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percentage of GDP (%)..................................................... 189

9-1 Drivetrain Characteristics for Leading Edge Vehicles ................................................. 200

9-2 Key Glider Characteristics for Leading Edge Midsize Cars......................................... 200

9-3 MP Base Case ............................................................................................................... 217

9-4 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using
Literature Review Vehicle Prices ................................................................................. 224

9-5 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices ...................................................................................... 225

9-6 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Incorporating Selected Subsidies along with Literature Review Vehicle Prices.......... 226

9-7 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Incorporating Selected Subsidies along with Program Goals Vehicle Prices............... 227

### xx 

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The principal investigators gratefully acknowledge the contributions of their sponsors, reviewers, and the multiple contributors to this study.

Philip Patterson of the U.S. De partment of Energy’s (DOE’s ) Vehicle Technologies Program sponsored this study, with additional fina ncial support from the Hy drogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Program and the Office of Planning , Budget and Analysis, all under the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Dr. Patterson also played a major role in the study design and was a key advisor during the entire analysis and report writing process. Mr. Jacob Ward of DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program also provided constant guidance and review during much of the study.

Frances Wood, Niko Kydes, and John Holte of OnLocation developed the National Energy Modeling System–Multi-Path (NEMS-MP) model and the stand-alone transportation module, and conducted all of the NEMS-MP model runs for the scenario analysis.

Grant Miller of TA Engineering, Inc. (TAE) conducted the model runs of the stand-alone transportation module, with guidance from James Moore of TAE.

Sujit Das of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) developed ORNL’s Automotive System Cost Model and, with David Greene of ORNL a nd K.G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., assisted the study team in deve loping technology cost equations; Dr. Das also used the model to develop vehicle cost estimates for the study. Dr. Greene and Paul Leiby of ORNL developed the Oil Security Metrics Model used in the study; Dr. Greene also ran the model to estimate oil security costs for the study.

Dr. Leiby and Dr. Jonathan Rubin of the Universi ty of Maine gave valuable advice to the study team about estimating carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG) costs.

Aymeric Rousseau, Phil Sharer, and Sylvain Page rit of Argonne National Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research conducted the ve hicle fuel economy analyses using Argonne’s Powertrain Systems Analysis Toolkit (PSAT).

We are grateful to the many valuable comments from the following reviewers:

• Peter Reilly Roe, Ottawa, Canada • Keith Sargent, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency • Aaron Brooker, National Renewable Energy Laboratory • Andreas Schäfer, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom • Alicia Birky, TA Engineering • John German, American Honda (now w ith the International Council on Clean Transportation)

Margaret Singh and Steve Plotkin Center for Transportation Research , Argonne National Laboratory

### xxi 

### ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

A/C air conditioning Acc accessory ACV advanced conventional (gasoline) vehicle AER all-electric range AEO Annual Energy Outlook (EIA annual report) Argonne Argonne National Laboratory ARCRP Alternate Refrigerant Cooperative Research Project ASCM Automotive System Cost Model

AT automatic transmission ATV advanced technology vehicle AVL An international automotive development and analysis company

Bbl barrel BCEndogenous Base Case Endogenous BEV battery electric vehicle
BTU British thermal unit

C/E cost effectiveness CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAFE Standards Federal standards for fuel economy (in miles per gallon [MPG]) that light vehicle manufacturers are required to me et. In 2007, the standards were raised such that MPG targets will improve by 40% by 2020. CNG compressed natural gas CI compression ignited (diesel)

CO 2 

### carbon dioxide CS charge sustaining
CV conventional vehicle

CVT continuously variable transmission

DHEV diesel HEV
DI direct injection

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE) EIA Energy Information Administration
EIA-NEMS The EIA version of the NEMS model

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETOH ethanol
EV electric vehicle

E85 A blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline on a volume basis

### xxii 

### FC fuel cell
FC HEV fuel cell HEV
FC PHEV fuel cell PHEV

FCV fuel cell vehicle

FFV flex fuel vehicle

GDP gross domestic product GGE gasoline gallon equivalent GHEV gasoline HEV GHG greenhouse gas GPRA Government Perfor mance and Results Act

GUI graphical user interface

H 2 

### hydrogen H2A Database for the Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) technologies HCCI homogenous charge compression ignition HEV hybrid electric vehicle HMM Hydrogen Market Module (part of the NEMS-MP model) HWFET Highway Fuel Economy Test

ICE internal combustion engine

kg kilogram

km kilometer
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour

L liter LCD liquid crystal display LDV light-duty vehicle

Li Lithium LPG liquid petroleum gas
LR literature review LT light truck LV light vehicle (can be cars and light trucks)

m meter(s)
MARKAL Market Allocation Model mbpd million barrels per day

MIT Massachusetts Ins titute of Technology MMA make and model availability

MMTCO 2 

### e million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent MP Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study MPG miles per gallon MPGGE miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent

### xxiii 

### mph miles per hour
MSRP manufacturers su ggested retail price

NEMS National Energy Modeling System
NEMS-H2 The NEMS model that has been extended to 2050 and which includes a hydrogen submodel NEMS-MP The integrated NEMS version used for this MP Study NEMS-PDS The Program Deci sion Support (or EERE) version of the NEMS model NEMS-TSA NEMS Transpor tation Stand-Alone model NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation)

OEM original equipment manufacturer ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory OSMM Oil Security Metrics Model

PFCV plug-in FCV

PG program goals PHEV plug-in HEV PHEVXX A PHEV with an all-electric range of XX miles. For example, a PHEV40 has an all-electric range of 40 miles. (P)HEV Part of the name of a s cenario with both HEVs and PHEVs PSAT Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (developed by Argonne)

R&D research and development

RFS renewable fuels standard
RPE retail price equivalent

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SI spark ignited (gasoline)

SOC state of charge

SUV sport utility vehicle

TAE TA Engineering, Inc.

TDI turbocharged direct injection

UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule USABC U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium

VCM Vehicle Choice Model (a component of NEMS-TSA) VISION A light vehicle stock model developed by Argonne that estimates fuel use and

GHGs

VMT vehicle miles traveled VVTL variable valve timing and lift

W watt(s)

### xxiv 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Projecting the future role of advanced drivetrains and fuels in the light vehicle market is inherently difficult, given the uncertainty (and likely volatility) of future oil prices, inadequate understanding of likely consumer response to new technologies, the relati ve infancy of several important new technologies with inevitable future changes in their performance and costs, and the importance — and uncertainty — of future government marketplace interventions (e.g., new regulatory standards or vehicle purchase incentives).

This Multi-Path Transportation Futures (MP) Study has attempte d to improve our understanding of this future role by examining several scenarios of vehicle costs, fuel prices, government subsidies, and other key factors. These are projecti ons, not forecasts, in that they try to answer a series of “what if” questions without assignin g probabilities to most of the basic assumptions. Some key conclusions are:

1. For a Reference Case that assumes no further government intervention in the marketplace, light-duty vehicle oil use — currently about 8.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) — will likely hold relatively steady through the early 2020s but should increase substantially thereafter, reaching about 12 mbpd by 2050. Two key assumptions for this case are that future oil prices return to hi gh levels (~$100/barrel [bbl] in 2030) and that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards passed in December 2007 are fully enforced.

2. The Reference Case projection is highly de pendent on assumptions about future vehicle sales and stock, driving intensity, on-road vs . test fuel economy, and other determinants of fleet energy use – especially considerin g the 40+-year interval to the year 2050. For example, an alternative “Base Case” proj ection to the year 2050 using Argonne National Laboratory’s VISION 2008 model (http: //www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_ simulation/VISION/index.html) projects light -duty vehicle energy use to be about 9 mbpd in 2050 – a sharply different estimate ba sed on assumed lower total vehicle stock, lower miles driven per vehicle, and higher stock fuel economy in 2050. VISION 2008 is based on AEO 2008, while this study used AEO 2007. AEO 2009 has even lower vehicle miles traveled (vmt)/vehicle and higher st ock fuel economy levels than AEO 2008. Given the uncertainty associated with such projections, we consider results expressed as percentage reductions from the baseline to be more robust than those expressed as
absolute values.

3. Gauging the potential for the future market success of new drivetrain technologies — and their effect on fleet fuel economy and greenhouse gas e missions — requires recognizing some basic relationships:

a. Since about 1987, virtually all technical im provements to U.S. light-duty vehicles have been directed to compensating for larger vehicle size, greater engine power, more vehicle features (four wheel drive, air conditioning, etc.), and improved structural stiffness — with essentially no improvement in fleet fuel economy.

### 2 

### Unless these trends are impeded, future fuel economy improvements are likely to be disappointing. This assessment has assumed that, in all but the baseline scenario, the technical potential of new technologies will be directed to improving fuel economy rather than to improving acceleration perfo rmance or other vehicle attributes — but this assumption is in defiance of trends ov er the past two decades and deserves some healthy skepticism.

b. The attractiveness of new technologies will hinge in large part on how future fuel savings are valued, and different actors will gauge these savings differently. An average consumer today will value future savings far less than society would; and a technology that appears highly cost effective to society might appear too costly to that

consumer.

c. With multiple fuel-efficiency options to choose from, vehicle purchasers will judge each option based on its marg inal attractiveness compared to its competitors – not on its absolute adva ntage over a lowest-common-denominator
reference vehicle. With cost curves of increasing slope, “good” technologies (e.g., hybrid electric vehicles [HEVs]) may be more attractive than “better” technologies (e.g., long-range, plug-in hybrid s [PHEVs] or fuel cell vehicles [FCVs]) because the marginal benefits of moving beyond the “already-good” efficiency of a hybrid may be insufficient to compensate for the added cost – even if the more advanced technology vehicle is cost effe ctive compared to today’s conventional
vehicles.

4. By using relatively optimistic cost estimates obtained by literature review (LR) and assuming gasoline prices of $3.15/gallon (and corresponding prices of competing fuels), an analysis of a 2030 midsize car shows that both advanced conven tional and full hybrid spark-ignited (SI) (gasoline) drivetrains are highly cost effective, but that going beyond the hybrid drivetrain will not yield incremental benefits that exceed the added costs, regardless of how one values future fuel savings . For example, in Figure ES-1, note that the cost effectiveness 1 

### of the SI Full HEV is as high or higher than any of the more advanced drivetrain vehicles at all three discount ra tes. This relationship holds for a broad range of fu el prices. On the other hand, at technology cost levels based on U.S. Department of En ergy (DOE) program goals (i.e., the PG level) — which we judge to be very optimistic — it is cost effective to move well beyond an SI full hybrid drivetrain. As shown in Figure ES-2, fuel cell vehicles with either hybrid or short-range (10-mile) plug-in hybrid drivetrain s look especially attractive, although this finding is primarily because DOE goals fo r these drivetrains are quite aggressive.

1 

### Lifetime fuel savings minus the differential in vehicle sales price, referenced to t oday’s SI conventional vehicle
or other reference vehicle.

### 3 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000 10000

S I C o nv
CI C on

v

SI

F ull

HE

V

S I PHEV10 SI PHE V 40

CI

F ull

H E V CI PHEV 1 0

C I PH

EV

40 FC HE V

F C PH EV

1 0 FC PHEV4 0 E VLifetime Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $ 4%

10%

20% Discount rates for

future fuel savings



### FIGURE ES-1 Cost Effectiveness of a 2030 Midsize Car, at
Literature Review Costs

Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-5000 0 5000 10000 15000

S I C

o n v

C I C

o n v

S I F u l l H E V

S I P H E V 1 0

S I P H E V 4 0

C I F u l l H E V

C I P H E V 1 0

C I P H E V 4 0

F C

H E V

F C

P H E V 1 0

F C

P H E V 4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE ES-2 Cost Effectiveness of a 2030 Midsize Car, at Program Goal Costs



### 5. Fuel price is a crucial determinant of vehicle cost-effectiveness. As shown in Figure ES-3, for model year 2030, advanced ve hicles with hybrid powertrains are not cost-effective for an average individual pur chaser (20% discount rate) when gasoline prices are at or below $2.50/gallon. In other words, low fuel prices can severely damage prospects for advanced drivetrain vehicles.

6. Moving high-technology vehicles into the marketplace will be challenging because of high initial costs. Whatever the potential cost effectiveness of advanced drivetrains in 2030 — even with mass production and years of design and production experience — their high costs in the years immediately following their introduction are likely to demand strong purchase incentives by vehicl e manufacturers or government (or both) to
overcome their initial lack of cost-effectiveness.

### 4 2030 Midsize Car SI HEV Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Fuel Price
Literature Review Costs

-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

4.50 3.15 2.50 2.00
Gasoline Price, $/gallonFuel Savings - VehiclePrice Difference 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE ES-3 Sensitivity of Cost Effectiveness to Fuel Price, 2030 Midsize Car SI HEV, Literature Review Costs



### 7. The above conclusions about the cost effec tiveness of individual vehicles imply that, without strong government intervention, successful technology development would
tend to favor “lower-level” drivetrain tec hnologies — and thus yield moderate but limited reductions in fleet oil use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — unless
radical cost reductions are obtained . Modeling with the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) bears this conclusion out. Us ing the “literature review” technology costs and assuming relatively high oil prices (about $100/bbl in 2030), reduced prices for ethanol and hydrogen, and esse ntially no change in consumer behavior regarding future fuel savings (but an easing of consum er concerns about “new” technologies), advanced vehicle technologies do widely penetrate the fleet — but these technologies are dominated by advanced conventional and HEV drivetrains, with little or no penetration of PHEV40s 2 

### or FCVs. For three different vehicle technology scenarios (“Mixed,” “(P)HEV & Ethanol,” and “Hydro gen [H2] Success”), these fleet changes reduce projected 2050 levels of light-vehic le (LV) oil use by about 2–3 mbpd (to 9– 10 mbpd) (see Figure ES-4), a reduction of about 17–25%, and LV fuel cycle carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions by 13–19% compared to the baseline (which assumes less progress in technology costs and performance).

8. Greater success in reducing technology co sts – reaching the ambitious cost goals established by DOE, yielding “program goals” cost estimates – could result in substantial penetration of FCVs and, to a lesser extent, PHEV40s, yielding about a 4-mpbd (31–34%) reduction in LV oil use by 2050 and in reductions of CO 2 

### emissions of about 25% (Figure ES-5). Reductions in CO 2 

### emissions could be greater still in this case if the carbon intensity of the electricity and hydrogen used to fuel plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles were reduced. In the scenarios examined, substantial “greening” of the grid was

2 

### PHEV10s, which appear to be relatively cost effective at hi gher fuel prices, were not incorporated in the scenario analyses because the version of the NEMS model used in th is analysis allows consideration of only one type of

PHEV.

### 5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE ES-4 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions Assuming
Literature Review Vehicle Costs and No Government Subsidies

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0

2 0 3 5

2 0 4 0

2 0 4 5

2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE ES-5 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions Assuming Program Goals Vehicl e Costs and No Government Subsidies



### not considered, and hydrogen production feedstock sources in 2050 include substantial quantities of natural ga s and coal (although some coal-based CO 2 

### emissions are sequestered), along with biomass (about a quarter of the feedstock).

9. Strong government intervention in the form of vehicle purchase subsidies could make a significant difference in the fleet results. Assuming that “literature review” costs are achieved, long-term government purchase subsidies of $7,500/vehicle would allow significantly higher penetration of ad vanced drivetrain vehicles, with 2050 LV oil use reduced (when compared to the Base Ca se) by about 5 mbpd (42–45%), and LV fuel cycle CO 2 

### emissions reduced by about 22% for th e (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario, 29% for the Mixed Scenario, and 43% for the H2 Success Scenario (see Figure ES-6). 3 

### If the “program goals” costs are achieved, considerab ly smaller subsidies than those needed in
the “literature review” cost case — a max imum of $4,000/vehicle by 2050, depending on the scenario — would drive 2050 LV oil use down (as compared to the Base Case) by 4–6 mbpd (35–49%). Similarly, these smaller subsidies would drive LV fuel cycle CO 2 

### emissions down by 23–25% for the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios and by more
than 46% for the H2 Success Scenario (see Figure ES-7). However, the costs of the

3 

### Here again, the CO 2 

### reduction could be greater with greener electricity and hydrogen production.

### 6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0

2 0 3 5

2 0 4 0

2 0 4 5

2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE ES-6 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, Assuming
Literature Review Vehicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5

2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE ES-7 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, Assuming Program Goals Ve hicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies



### subsidies, in $/bbl of oil saved and $/ton of CO 2 

### reduced, would be high. With many caveats, we estimate these costs to be $56–$136/bbl if all the costs are assigned to saving oil and $96–$5,000/ton CO 2 

### if the costs are attributed to reducing CO 2 

### only. 4



### 10. The above results were derived by using a Vehicle Choice Model (V CM) in NEMS that is based on our current understanding of consumer behavior. Future changes in consumer behavior — especially in how th ey value future fuel savings – could have a dramatic impact on technology penetr ation and thus on future oil use and CO 2 

### emissions. For example, with “literature review” costs, changing “payback” requirements in the Vehicle Choice Model from 3 to 4 years (i.e., its current value, which is reflective of today’s consumers) to 15 years would ca use a “jump” in the 2050 passenger car share of SI PHEV40s and FCVs from neglig ible levels to about 10% each.

11. The results of the scenarios, especially thos e with strong vehicle subsidies, may appear quite disappointing compared to scenario resu lts from recent studies showing much more substantial reductions in oil use and GHG emissions — in some studies, reaching levels

4 

### Note that the subsidy will yield multiple benefits – as well as some costs. Benefits include the energy security benefits of reduced oil use (as well as the private cost savings of the reduction); reduced emissions of greenhouse gases; and (probably) reduced emissions of criteria po llutants. A cost might be the increased congestion and additional road accidents associated with increased driving caused by lower fuel cost/mile. Were the costs distributed among multiple benefits (and costs), they would change from those presented here.

### 7 

### that are 80% below current levels by 2050, and possibly lower. The reasons for these differences include the following:

• Model-driven vs. assump tions-driven results. Many studies have assumed high levels of technolog y penetration at extremely rapid rates without subjecting these assumptions to vehicle choice modeling or other constraints. The NEMS vehicle choice model was used for this study.

• Consumer behavior. As noted above, the NEMS VCM has current consumer valuations of future fuel savings em bedded within it. Many other studies evaluate technology cost effectiveness by considering lifetime fuel savings at zero or very low discount rates — implicitly assuming that future consumers value fuel economy much more than current consumers do (or that government regulations or subsidies push advanced technologies into the marketplace in spite of high costs). Fu ture changes in consumer behavior are certainly possible.

• Feedstock sources for alternative fuels. Several studies ha ve assumed that, by 2050, the electricity for PHEVs an d the hydrogen for FCVs are both supplied solely by renewable sources, so that GHG emissions for these vehicles are zero or are greatly reduce d. This study did not consider radical changes to the electric grid, and hydr ogen feedstock supply sources are a combination of natural ga s, coal, and biomass.

### 8 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 9 

### 1 INTRODUCTION

The Multi-Path Transportation Futures (MP) Study is aimed at comparing alternative ways to make significant reductions in oil use and carbon emissions from U.S. light vehicles from now to 2050. A key goal of the study is to make these comparisons on common ground as much as is possible and with analytic robustness. Phase 1 of the study was basically a scoping study, aimed at identifying key analytic issues and construc ting a study design (see http://www1.eere.energy. gov/ba/pba/multi_path.html). The Phase 1 analysis included an evaluation of several pathways (single-technology vehicles and th eir associated fuels and fuel production systems, with changes over time as technologies develop) and scenarios (visions of subs tantial market penetration of one or multiple pathways, tracked over time); however, these analyses were limited in number and scope and were designed to be preliminary. Phase 2, which is described in this report, examines the full range of pathways of interest to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), with multiple scenarios aimed at illuminating the issues and impacts associated with a national effort to reduce U.S. dependence on oil use in transportation. The Phase 2 analysis expands the scope of the analysis: it examines the interactive effects of multiple pathways on each other and on oil and feedstock prices; focuses far more on costs; and substantially increases the number of metrics used to compare pathways and scenarios.

The report that follows contains discussions of:

• The scenarios (a qualitative discussion);

• Vehicle fuel economy and cost estimates;

• The version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model that is used;

• The projected levels of energy use, oil use, carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions, and related characteristics of the scenarios as modeled in NEMS; and

• The energy security benefits of the scenarios as modeled in the Oil Security

Metrics model.

### 10 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 11 

### 2 SCENARIOS

2.1 BACKGROUND

Scenario analysis is undertaken in the MP Study to help illuminate the issues and impacts
associated with a national effort to reduce U.S. dependence on oil use in transportation. In this section, the underlying rationale of the scenarios is described.

2.1.1 General Conditions App licable to All Scenarios

The MP study postulates a world in which oil supply instability and high prices have created a societal compact that places a high value on reducing the use of oil and providing substitutes for supporting the transportation system. Although actions taken in this world include vigorous efforts aimed at replacing automotive travel w ith other modes (e.g., non-motorized [walking and bicycling]) and mass transit, the effect on tr avel demand in the United States amounts to a change of only a few percentage points (it is of note that a doubling of transit use in the United States would reduce light vehicle travel by perhaps 2%, counting induced travel).

European and Japanese technolog y trends generally track those in the United States, although Europe has a greater focus on diesel-based drivet rains. Efforts to increase mass transit and nonmotorized travel generally are stro nger outside of the United States.

2.1.2 Global Warming

The perceived certainty of global warming increases in all scenarios, as does public recognition that the overall net effect of warming will be highly deleterious despite some climate “winners.”

2.1.3 Policies

Energy system responses to oil supply instab ility and global warming vary across scenarios depending on both varying outcomes of energy re search and development (R&D) and different policy choices. Some scenarios envision large shifts to renewable fuels or hydrogen while others assume more restrained responses or a primary focus on efficiency rather than fuel shifting. However, all scenarios incorporate the vehicle fuel economy standards approved by Congress in December 2007 (i.e., the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [EISA]). The EISA renewable fuels standard (RFS) is not explic itly modeled (see discussion in Chapter 6).

### 12 

### 2.1.4 Vehicle-related Technologies

Each of the advanced technology vehicles (ATVs) has reduced cost and improved performance over time. To avoid excessive complexity in th e model simulations, each technology attains the same level of technological success in each sc enario. The advances anticipated are described briefly below and discussed further in Chapter 3.

Gasoline engines. Gasoline engines evolve s ubstantially toward the efficiency of diesels, with enabling technologies such as camless valves, dir ect injection, expansion of computer power and in-cylinder measuring capability, turbocharging, and multi-cycle capability (especially via homogenous charge compression ignition [HCCI] operation).

Diesel engines. Diesels attain ultra-low levels of e missions based primarily on fuel quality and improvement in fuel injection systems and cyli nder design, with tailpipe controls required at levels that do not unduly escalate costs.

Battery technology. Substantial improvements in lithium (Li) batteries occur, yielding enhanced safety and longevity, higher specific weight and power, and higher energy and power density at reduced cost. These batteries reduce the cost and improve the performance of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and electric vehicles (EVs).

Fuel cell drivetrains. Breakthroughs in fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage have occurred.

Vehicle load reduction. Sharp improvements occur in all scenarios in achieving reductions in weight and tire rolling resistance and in the efficiency levels of accessory systems and aerodynamics. Ultimately, in scenarios incorporating the most optimistic assumptions concerning vehicle technologies, the aerodynamic coefficient CD is reduced to 0.20 for leadingedge passenger cars by 2045, compared to about 0.30 as an overall fleet average today. Tire rolling resistance is reduced to 0.006 for leading-edge cars by 2030. The mass of the vehicle glider for both leading-edge cars and light trucks (LTs) is reduced by 30% by 2030.

2.2 THREE SCENARIOS OF TECHNOLOGY MIX

The study team first developed three hypothetical scenarios with different mixes of technology penetration, which are described below. These mixes , shown in Table 2-1, serve as goals for the actual modeling of scenarios using the NEMS m odel; the modeled scenar ios attain technology mixes that are somewhat different from those of the hypothetical scenarios.

2.2.1 Mixed Scenario

In this scenario, government policy avoids pick ing “winners,” vehicle technology has advanced along a broad front, and no particular technology has become dominant. After some vehicle
manufacturers introduce diesel ve hicles meeting Tier 2/Bin 5 emissions standards without

### 13 TABLE 2-1 Potential Scenarios (in % of Sales)

2030 2040 2050
Mixed Cars/LTs Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs)?
ACV Yes 30.00 15.00 10.00
Diesel No 16.00 14.00 14.00Diesel (compressionignited [CI]) HEV No 4.00 6.00 6.00

SI HEV Yes 30.00 20.00 15.00

SI PHEV40 Yes 16.80 34.50 25.00
FCV No 0.027 7.35 21.00 Plug-in FCV No 0.003 3.15 9.00

EV No 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conventional vehicles (CVs) No 3.17 0.00 0.00
E-85 FFV Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total ethanol (billion gallons) 40 or more
H2 Success
Cars/LTs FFVs?

ACV No 20.00 14.00 5.00
Diesel No 10.00 6.00 3.00 Diesel (CI) HEV No 0.00 0.00 0.00
SI HEV No 40.00 30.00 16.00

SI PHEV40 No 0.00 0.00 0.00
FCV No 10.30 50.00 76.00 Plug-in FCV No 0.00 0.00 0.00

EV No 0.00 0.00 0.00

CVs No 19.70 0.00 0.00
E-85 FFV Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total ethanol (billion gallons) No goal (P)HEV & Ethanol
Cars/LTs FFVs?
ACV Yes 20.00 14.00 7.00
Diesel No 5.00 5.00 3.00 Diesel (CI) HEV No 0.00 0.00 0.00
SI HEV Yes 40.00 40.00 40.00
SI PHEV40 Yes 25.00 41.00 50.00
FCV No 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plug-in FCV No 0.00 0.00 0.00

EV No 0.00 0.00 0.00
CVs No 10.00 0.00 0.00
E-85 FFV Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total ethanol (billion gallons) 60 or more

### 14 

### requiring selective catalytic reduc tion controls in 2009, diesels quick ly become a standard engine option across virtually all models. They do not dominate the market, however, because advances in gasoline engines allow spark-ignited (SI) engines to achieve considerably improved levels of efficiency while remaining substantially less expensive than diesels. Hybrid drivetrains, both grid-independent and plug-in, quickly attain nearly half of the light vehicle market as their price premiums drop because of a combination of mass production, sharp drops in battery costs, and new designs that sharply reduce transmission co sts. Ethanol volumes continue to grow, and cellulosic ethanol begins to penetrate the market. Essentially all hybrids, plug-ins, and advanced conventional vehicles sold after 2015 are fully fuel flexible. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) enter the market in 2020 and, while they establis h a strong presence in larger cities, market penetration is less ex tensive in rural areas and smalle r urban areas. Hydrogen supply infrastructure establishes a reasonable presence along interstates but does not penetrate much beyond this outside of urban areas.

Table 2-1 presents a likely mix of vehicle technol ogies and ethanol use for the Mixed Scenario in the long term. The advanced tec hnology vehicles in this scenario include advanced conventional gasoline vehicles (ACVs), diesel vehicles, hybrids (gasoline and hybrid), plug-ins, and fuel cell vehicles. Neither EVs (although they are characteri zed in this study) nor vehicles operating on such alternative fuels as methanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), or liquid petroleum gas (LPG) are included in the scenario because they do not appear to have the capability to penetrate the light vehicle (LV) market significantly out to the year 2050.

2.2.2 Hydrogen Success Scenario

In this scenario, the federal government exerts significant influence in order to reduce the transport sector’s dependence on oil. Accordingly, it moves swiftly to increase overall light vehicle efficiency and to push hydrogen into the LV market. To that end, it puts policies into place that include:

• Requiring that 50% of the vehicles in all government LV fleets are FCVs by 2030;

• Requiring that Federal agencies build hydrogen refueling stations at all fleet parking locations, with public access;

• Requiring hydrogen refueling stations to be built along all interstate highways, providing funds in the annual highway bill;

• Providing subsidies and loan guarantees for the building of hydrogen refueling stations elsewhere;

• Providing loan guarantees for hydrogen production facilities; and

• Providing tax deductions for the purch ase of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

### 15 

### FCVs enter the market in 2020 in designs that provide high performance and added features beyond those offered by competing internal co mbustion engine (ICE)-based vehicles, and they experience no major product failures, quickly obta ining a high degree of consumer confidence. This early success causes all major auto companies to introduce FCVs into most of their market segments such that FCVs comprise 10% of ne w LV sales by 2030, eventually reaching 76% by

2050.

Table 2-1 presents what we consider to be a lik ely mix of vehicle technologies for the Hydrogen (H2) Success Scenario over the long term. Fewer types of advanced vehicle technologies are included here as compared to the Mixed Scenario because of the scenario’s focus on FCVs.

2.2.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario

Strong pressure from farm states, coupled with ea rly successes in reducing the cost of cellulosic ethanol, enable the country to come close to me eting the aggressive RFS passed by Congress in December 2007. Ethanol use rises quickly. At the sa me time, such factors as rapid improvement in lithium batteries, introduction of a variety of new hybrid drivetrain designs, and incentives provided by electric utilities (driven by benefits to utilities’ load curves and regulation capacity delivered by PHEV use) lead to substantial increases in the production and sales of both HEV and PHEV vehicles. The rapid increase in etha nol availability convinces automakers to produce more flex-fuel vehicles, and by 2020 virtually 10 0% of new light vehicles have this capability. This combination essentially stifles attempts to introduce hydrogen into the LV market as it becomes increasingly clear that ethanol and electricity might be able to back virtually all petroleum-based fuels out of the market.

Table 2-1 presents a likely mix of vehicle t echnologies and ethanol use for the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario over the long term. Fewer adva nced vehicle technologies are included here as compared to the Mixed Scenario because of the scenario’s focus on PHEVs and ethanol.

### 16 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 17 

### 3 VEHICLE CHARACTERIZATION

This chapter evaluates a set of vehicle charact eristics — with the primary focus on fuel economy performance and cost — that will be used to compare and contrast a range of alternative vehicle/fuel pathways. The vehi cle fuel economy, cost, and othe r characteristics are useful by themselves in evaluating vehicl e/fuel pathways and also serv e as key inputs to integrated modeling of scenarios of the future of U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet and multiple vehicle/fuel pathways when using the NEMS.

3.1 BASIC APPROACH

The goal of this study is to compare multiple fuel and vehicle pathways in as balanced a fashion as possible. However, realizing this goal is not straightforward and unambiguous. One approach to comparing alternative vehicles, for example, might be to optimize each pathway’s vehicle design for the specific fuel and vehicle technol ogy combination embodied by the pathway. This approach may lead to “competing” vehicles be ing quite different from one another. Pathways with low energy density fuels (hydrogen or elect ricity) have onboard energy storage challenges because high pressure storage tanks (or cryogenic tanks or adsorption tanks) and batteries are heavy and expensive; vehicles in these pathways will gain higher benefits (in terms of increased range or reduced storage system costs) from lo ad reduction than would vehicles using energydense liquid fuels. This implies that an “optimal” electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle would be more likely to use expensive weight reduction (and other load reduction) technologies than would vehicles powered by liquid fuels. Similarly, the cost of attaining acceleration goals or other vehicle performance goals — in terms of th e financial costs of more powerful drivetrain components as well as the effect s of volumetric requirements for larger fuel tanks and other components — may vary sharply be tween alternative pathways; this result might yield different minimum range requirements or minimum requi red acceleration times of 0–60 miles per hour (mph) for different vehicles. For example, an “optimum” electric vehicle might have a range substantially lower than that of a gasoline-powered vehicle in order to avoid the weight, volume, and cost penalties associated with a battery large enough to attain an extended range. In essence, this approach would explicitly recognize that some of the alternative vehicle/fuel pathways are unlikely to satisfy the needs of all vehicle purchasers and are, to a certain extent, niche vehicles — although for the pathways explored in this study, these niches represent a significant proportion of the fleet.

Trying to compare optimized pathways, however reflective they may be of what might actually occur in the marketplace, would create substan tial analytical difficulties because of large uncertainties in the estimated costs, specific levels of power (or energy), and power (or energy)
densities of future drivetrain t echnologies and in the complex tradeoffs that would have to be made in designing these future vehicles. Also, these variables and their tradeoffs will change over time, further complicating this approach.

To avoid these difficulties, we have chosen instea d to design the vehicles in each pathway to be as similar as possible consistent with the differences in their fuels and drivetrains. The vehicles

### 18 

### must satisfy the same core set of performance standards (with one exception: the EV range is set
at 150 miles 5 

### ), and they will have virtually identical “gliders” (a “glider” is a vehicle minus its powertrain and fuel storage system). Consequently, these vehicles will appear to their drivers and passengers to be virtually identical to each other, except where differences become inevitable as a result of the different pathway (e.g., differences in the time spent refueling or in refueling locations, small performance differe nces caused by the high low-end torque of electric motors and diesel engines, and so forth). The performance standards are kept constant over time, but the gliders do change as aerodynamic performance, ma terials development, an d other factors change.

The vehicles modeled are considered “leading edge” vehicles — vehicles that are “best in class” for fuel economy and use technology newly in troduced or newly updated — and which are
assumed to be introduced to the fleet in limited numbers 6 

### at the modeled date. The overall vehicle designs, technology performance, and cost assumptions are based on technological optimism and an assumed strong design prefer ence for fuel economy ov er performance. This preference flows from the assumed political context, which is one of urgency resulting from the failure at some point in the near future of world oil production to keep pace with continued growth in transportation demand. It is assumed that there is st rong government and consumer demand for increased vehicle efficiency and perhaps alternative fuels, as well as general acceptance of the idea that vehicle acceleration performance will no longer increase with every new model redesign.

It is important to note that the fuel economy valu es needed to forecast fleetwide effects over time must be those of average rather than leading edge vehicles, so it will be necessary to translate the fuel economy values derived in this analysis in to “average” values. The choice to evaluate leading edge vehicles was made because it is easier to imagine the design of a vehicle with a full
set of the best-available technol ogies — and easier to elicit expe rt opinions on such vehicles — than it is to try to imagine instead what an average vehicle might be at some point in the future.

The underlying vehicle performan ce assumptions used were deri ved from available literature on future vehicle performance, with considerable weight given to the following: studies by the Energy Laboratory of the Massachusetts Ins titute of Technology (e.g., Weiss 2000 and various updates to that study, such as Kromer a nd Heywood 2007) and Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (e.g., EEA 2006 and updates); advice given by industry advisers to the modelers who conducted the vehicle fuel economy analysis (u sing the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit [PSAT] model discussed be low); and talks and papers delivered at recent Society of Automotive Engineers conferences. We chose to pursue selection of these assumptions somewhat independently of EERE program goals (PGs) for vehicle performance and cost because we were seeking a comparison of technologies based on engineering assessments of their cost and performance. In contrast, many of the program goals are normative in nature, that is, they represent cost and performance levels required to allow them to compete directly with conventional ICE powertrains. As such, their use for comparative analysis would tend to hide differences among the technologies, since the go als were designed to minimize these differences.

5 

### On the urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) (city) driving cycle.

6 

### But they will be introduced in large enough numbers (i.e., at least a few tens of thousands of vehicles) to attain many of the cost benefits associated with mass production.

### 19 

### It is important to note that, for every vehicle/t echnology/date combination, we designate two sets of component performance and fuel economy re sults — “high,” which implies a successful development of the technology with most or all of the benefit devoted to improving fuel economy, and “medium” or “average,” which im plies some pullback from the full efficiency benefit due to tradeoffs with competing priorities or somewhat less successful development. For the most part, we focus on the “high” values in our analysis.

3.2 FUEL ECONOMY ANALYSIS

3.2.1 Modeling System

The fuel economy evaluations were conducted by using the PSAT vehicle simulation model described further in Box 1. The model first “builds” the vehicle (sizing its drivetrain components) by incorporating specified perform ance goals and assumptions about vehicle load and drivetrain component characteristics and then calculates the vehicle’s fuel economy on different driving cycles.

3.2.2 Vehicle Types Examined

For the evaluation of leading edge vehicles, three vehicle classes are examined: midsize cars, midsize sport utility vehicles (SUVs, which are based on truck frames), and crossover SUVs (based on car frames, e.g., with unibody construction). However, performance and cost results of
the crossover SUVs were not used for extrapolating performance and cost results to the whole vehicle fleet for data entry for integrated scenario modeling using NEMS.

Six drivetrain configurations are examined:

• Advanced conventional gasoline;

• Advanced conventional diesel;

• Full hybrid gasoline — no all-electric range (AER), a 10-mile AER, and a 40-mile AER;

• Full hybrid diesel — no AER, 10-mile AER, and 40–mile AER;

• Fuel cell hybrid — no AER, 10- mile AER, and 40–mile AER; and

• Electric vehicle.

### 20 Box 1 Powertrain Systems Analysis Toolkit

The PSAT is a vehicle simulation package developed by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. PSAT was designed to be a single tool that can be used to meet the requirements of automotive engineering throughout the development process, from modeling to control. PSAT can be used to optimi ze a vehicle and its components with regard to:



### • Fuel consumption for any driving cycle or profile;



### • Vehicle performance, including acceleration and grade;



### • Drivetrain configuration;



### • Realistic control strategy;



### • Component technologies;



### • Component sizing; and



### • Transmission ratios.

PSAT is DOE’s primary vehicle simulation tool to support its FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership activities. PSAT is also used within major automo tive companies and suppliers to support advanced vehicle development programs. As part of the ChallengeX Competition, organized by General Motors and DOE, 17 universities are using PSAT to design powertrain configurations and develop control strategies.

PSAT is a forward-looking simulation package (also called driver-driven). A driver model follows any standard or custom driving cycle, calculati ng vehicle loads based on input data about the vehicle’s aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance coefficients, weight, and accessory requirements and sending a power demand to the vehicle controller, which, in turn, sends a demand to the propulsion components. Models of the engine, transmission, and other components react to the demand and feed back their status to the vehicle controller, and the process iterates at low frequency to allow the vehicle to closely track the driving cycle.

PSAT enables automated powertrain configuration building . Based on the user’s selection from the Graphical User Interface (GUI), the entire vehicle model is built on the basis of the powertrain, component models, initialization file, and control strategy choices (Figures B1-1 and B1-2). Several hundred pre-defined configurations can be compared quickly, including conventional, electric, fuel cell, and hybrids (parallel, series, power split, series-parallel). Light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles can be simulated by using a large library of component data. PSAT also allows the users to implement proprietary component models, data sets, control strategies, or drive cycles through the interactive GUI. Component compatibilities are managed through a database.

PSAT uses a wide range of analysis tools includ ing component operating points and Sankey diagrams (energy flow diagrams with the width of flow lines proportional to flow quantity). In addition, a simulation can be replayed through animation. By using test data from Argonne’s Advanced Powertrain Research Facility, conventional and mild-hybrid vehicles have been validated within 2% and full hybrid vehicles within 5% for both fuel economy and battery state-of-charge on several driving cycles.

### 21 Box 1 (Cont.)

FIGURE B1-1 Graphical User Interface with Drag & Drop

FIGURE B1-2 Example of Powertrain Model

### 22 

### The fuel economy analysis examines performan ce on the two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) driving cycles used to establis h compliance with CAFE Standards — the city cycle (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule [UDDS]) and highway cycle (Highway Fuel Economy Test [HWFET]). While it would be desi rable to examine fuel economy performance on the new EPA battery of five driving cycles, these cycles had not been incorporated into PSAT at the time this study was conducted.

3.2.3 Basic Component Assumptions for the Three Vehicle Types

Table 3-1 provides the basic drivetrain component assumptions used for the three vehicle classes, from the present time to 2045. Table 3-2 provides th e performance requirements, which are also applied to all vehicle types.

TABLE 3-1 Component Assumptions for Leading Edge Vehicles



## Med Hi g h Med Hi g h Med Hi g h Med Hi g h

Specific Power (1) (W/kg) 850 875 900 880 920 920 950 940 980

Peak Efficiency (2) (%) 37 37.5 38 38 39 38.5 40 39 41

Specific Power (1) (W/kg) 420 440 460 460 480 470 500 480 520

Peak Efficiency (2) (%) 41 41 42 42 43 43 45 44 45

Aftertreatm't Ther. Eff. (3) Penalty (%) 2 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Specific Power FC system (W/kg) 500 550 600 600 650 650 700 700 750
Power Density (W/L) 500 550 600 600 650 650 700 700 750 Peak Fuel Cell System Efficiency (%) 60 60 60 60 60 62 65 65 70

Motor Specific Power (W/kg) 1110 1200 1300 1250 1600 1400 1800 1500 2000
Power Electronic Sp Power (W/kg) 3680 6000 12000 10000 13000 12000 14000 13000 15000 Motor+Controller Peak Efficiency 90 90 92 91 95 92 95 94 96

Gear Number 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 Gearbox Peak Efficiency (%) 95 96 97 97 98 97 98 97 98

Gearbox Peak Efficiency (%) 97 97 98 97.5 98 98 98.5 98 98.5

Final Drive Peak Efficiency (%) 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 98 98 98 98 98 

## AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS

PLANETARY GEARSET TRANSMISSIONS

S I NG LE G EAR ( FI N AL DRI V E ...) 2010 2015 2030 2045

DI DIESEL OR OTHER HC FUEL DI GASOLINE Parameter Current



## FUEL CELL

ELECTRIC MOTO R

1 

### Engine power density represents the engine, as installed in the vehicle, with intake, exhaust systems, cooling pumps, fans, alternator, etc.

2 

### All efficiencies on the engine maps are scaled by using the same ratio.

3 

### Fuel economy penalty is applied to diesel because of aftertreatment losses.

### 23 TABLE 3-2 Performance Requirements for Leading Edge Vehicles, 2010–2045

Parameter Unit Value

0–60 mph second 9 +/– 0.1 0–30 mph second 3 30–60 mph second 6 50–80 mph second 9 Grade at 65 mph for 20 minutes % 6 Maximum Speed mph > 110



### 3.2.3.1 ICE Engine Efficiency

From a reference peak of 37% for direct-injected SI engine efficiency, peak efficiency increases to 38% by 2010 and 41% by 2045. The 2010 efficiency values will likely require direct injection coupled with advanced valve control. The 41% ef ficiency level will likely also require advances in in-cylinder monitoring and control, possibl y with camless valve actuation, to allow some use of more efficient thermodynamic cycles (e.g., HCCI operation) other than the conventional Otto cycle.

CI engine peak efficiency is assumed to be 42% in 2010, with a continued gradual increase thereafter, implying continuation of recent improvements in ultra-high-pressure fuel injection and valve control and substantial success in reducing engine friction.

3.2.3.2 Peak Fuel Cell Sy stem Efficiency

Current fuel cell systems achieve a peak effici ency of about 55%, generally at low load conditions. The 2010 peak efficiency of 60% matc hes the FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership goal for 2010 (U.S. Department of Energy 2006), with the High cases reaching 65% by 2030 and 70% by 2045. Achieving these rates of efficiency now appears to be very optimistic. A recent redrawing of DOE assumptions about future fuel ce ll efficiency for its benefits analysis projects a 2045 peak efficiency rate of 60%. Achieving th e higher efficiencies in the later years (e.g., 65–70% in 2045) will require ve ry substantial progress in reduc ing auxiliary loads, as well as continuing progress in stack efficiency. Although an earlier Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study (Heywood et al. 2003) pr ojected a 71% system efficiency for an “advanced” fuel cell vehicle in 2020, more rece nt work by the same authors (Kromer and Heywood 2007) uses much lower peak efficiency values — 47% (conservative) to 52% (optimistic). The implication here is that the fuel economy values for fuel cell vehicles estimated in this analysis may be based on overly optimistic values for maximum fuel cell efficiency, even for a scenario deliberately designed to be optimistic about fuel cell progress.

### 24 

### 3.2.3.3 Performance Requirements

Table 3-2 shows the performance requirements for the three vehicle types and all powertrains. Applying the same performance requirements to all powertrains is not standard practice, as analyses of fuel cell and battery electric vehicles often apply less rigorous performance requirements than are demanded of vehicles with ICE powertrains . As discussed above, to the extent that performance requirements normally ap plied to conventional ve hicles would seriously compromise other consumer values (e.g., cost, space) when applied to an alternative drivetrain vehicle, there would be strong pressure to re lax these requirements. On the other hand, vehicle performance clearly is an important determinant of value to customers. In this analysis, all vehicles satisfy the same minimum performance requirements (and, to the extent practical, the power of the prime mover [i.e., the engine or fuel cell], battery power, etc., are chosen to meet these requirements precisely).

The performance requirements, being constant ov er a 35-year period, reflect a sharp change from the trend witnessed from 1987 to 2007 of utilizing ever-increasing horsepower/weight ratios and reductions in 0-to-60 mph acceleration times. This sharp change from the trends of the past two decades is likely to be sustained only when there is some combination of high fuel prices, changes in consumer attitudes about performance, and the performance restrictions inherent in stringent new fuel economy standards. Until quite recently, this assumption would have been considered quite optimistic from the point of vi ew of projecting potential future fuel economy levels, although the “constant performance” assu mption is widely used in such analyses. However, recent market conditions characteriz ed by higher (and volatile) gasoline prices, stringent new fuel economy standards, and some market shifts away from lower-efficiency vehicles may signal that the assumption is somewhat more realistic than it may previously have appeared.

3.2.4 Assumptions Rega rding Midsize Cars

Table 3-3 provides values for the basic vehicle characteristics of the midsize car, projecting out from today to the year 2045. While the values for the current-year car are for an average vehicle, the characteristics in later years are those of “leading edge” vehicles. The following discussion
addresses some of these characteristics in more detail.

### 25 TABLE 3-3 Midsize Car (Leading Edge) Characteristics

2010 2015 2030 2045

Parameter Current Medium High Medium High Medium High Medium High

Midsize Car (Current -> Glider Mass = 990 kilograms (kg), Frontal Area = 2.2 square meters [m 2 ],

Tire = P195_65_R15)

Glider mass reduction (%) 0 5 10 10 20 15 30 15 30

Frontal area (m 2 ) 2.2 2.222 2.2 2.233 2.2 2.266 2.244 2.288 2.244 Drag coefficient (1) 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.2 Rolling resistance (2) 0.008 0.0078 0.0075 0.0075 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.0066 0.006 Electrical accessory (Acc) load,
conventional configuration (watts [W]) (3) 240 220 200 240 220 260 240 280 260

Electrical Acc load,
all other configurations (W) (4) 220 210 200 230 220 250 240 270 260

Conventional air conditioning (A/C) (W) (5) 1,780 1,700 1,650 1,530 1,360 1,280 960 1,120 840

Electrical A/C (W) (5) 1,513 1,445 1,403 1,301 1,156 1,088 816 952 714

1 The ICE HEV will have an increase of 5% for the low case only. The fuel cell HEV will have an increase of 10% for the low

case and 1% for the high case.

2 Additional term of 0.00012 × vehicle speed (in mph) will be used, but this term will remain constant over time.

3 Includes controllers, measured on the UDDS driving cycle.

4 Includes controllers and battery fans, measured on the UDDS driving cycle.

5 Data provided by John Rugh (NREL), where it is assumed that for 50% of the time when the air conditioning (A/C) is on, the vehicle is undergoing a cooldown from a solar soak when the initial interior air and mass will be 60–80°C. The other 50% of the time, the vehicle is assumed to be in steady state operation. The humidity was 65% during the Alternate Refrigerant Cooperative Research Project (ARCRP) tests.



### 3.2.4.1 Glider Mass Reduction

Reductions in the leading edge vehicle’s projec ted mass for the glider are quite aggressive, reaching 20% for the “high” case in 2015 and 30% for the high case in 2030. This level is considerably below the 50% level previously ta rgeted by DOE for glider weight reduction, 7 

### but nevertheless reflects a sharp shift from a 20-year trend of gradual weight increase for both the car and light truck fleet. This level of weight re duction reflects the assump tion of a flattening of
the trend toward increased structural stiffness in new vehicle introductions and vehicle redesigns, as well as the increasing use of higher-strength steels, aluminum, and plastics; significant focus on structural design for weight reduction; and re ductions in the use of four-wheel and all-wheel drive (for vehicles not designed for off-road tr avel) as universal adopti on of electronic traction and stability control reduces the perceived value of these expensive and weight-adding features. Although the glider does not include the drivetra in, vehicle weights will be reduced further by

7 

### DOE recently has redefined its weight goals and now appears to be focusing on a weight reduction of 50% for the body-in-white (i.e., the vehicle structure and “skin” without the drivetrain, windows, interior furnishings and seats, dashboard, etc.); the target percentage reductions for the glider and the complete vehicle are likely to be considerably lower.

### 26 

### the lower engine power required by the reduced gl ider mass, coupled with continued increases in engine-specific power and the cessation of the trend toward increased performance. We consider the assumed (“high”) level of weight reduction as extremely aggressive, especially for the 2015 case, and credible only for a leading edge vehicle and for a vehicle that is designed in a market environment that will strongly re ward increased fuel economy.

3.2.4.2 Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient

Although the EPA does not publish data on the aerody namic drag coefficient of the U.S. fleet, a drag coefficient of 0.3 is thought to be represen tative of the current fleet average for passenger cars. There are, however, several examples of s ubstantially lower coefficients in the fleet for midsized or slightly larger models. For exampl e, full-sized Lexus LS430 sedans, which retain conventional styling, have a drag coefficient of 0.26 (Carfolio 2008). The 2015 drag coefficient for the leading edge midsized sedan is 0.25. The co efficient is assumed to decrease gradually to 0.20 by 2045, which implies drag-reduction measur es such as the elimination of side-view mirrors (replaced with cameras) and the smoothing of the vehicle underbody with some styling changes (but probably not radical ones). The less optimistic 2045 value of 0.24 reflects the possibility that customer resistance emerges to the styling changes needed to produce large reductions in drag.

3.2.4.3 Tire Rolling Resistance

The reference 2007 midsize sedan has tires with a 0.008 rolling resistance coefficient (C RR 

### ), and the future coefficients are assumed to be reduced gradually to 0.006 by 2030. Although the 2010 “high” value of 0.0075 may appear quite modest, th is value reflects recent consumer resistance to some low rolling-resistance tires because of perceived wear and handling problems. Note that MIT projects 2020 values of 0.006 for “a dvanced” tires (Heywood et al. 2003). There is little open literature on tire efficiency, so the projected values must be considered somewhat speculative.

3.2.4.4 Accessories

The accessory loads reflect two countervailing tr ends — the significant ongoing increase in vehicle electrification and features and the improvement in certain accessory efficiencies, especially for air conditioning . Coupled with improved window films and other insulation improvements, energy use for A/C could declin e sharply over time. In addition, accessory loads from lighting will decline with the use of liquid cr ystal display (LCD) lighting, if costs for this type of lighting can be sharply reduced. Ot her accessory loads, however, may increase.

### 27 

### 3.2.5 Crossover SUV Assumptions

Crossover SUVs are adapted from passenger ca r models and have unibody construction, in contrast to truck-based SUVs (usually adap ted from pickup models) that have body-on-frame construction. In essence, they are similar to stat ion wagons and can have vehicle characteristics similar to those of passenger cars. Table 3-4 provides values for the basic vehicle characteristics of the crossover SUV; projections are from today to the year 2045.

The primary difference in vehicle characteristics between crossovers and midsize passenger cars is the drag coefficient, which in current crossove r models is considerably higher than those for midsize cars (i.e., an average of about 0.39 vs . about 0.3 for midsize cars). A search of manufacturer Web sites reveals the following aerodynamic drag coefficients for recent (primarily 2007) crossover SUVs:

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 2006 0.39 Hyundai Santa Fe 2007 0.37 (reduced from previous 0.39)
Nissan X-Trail 0.37 Audi Q7 0.34 BMW X5 3.0Si 0.34 (down from previous 0.35 for 2004)
Saab 9000 Aero 0.32

TABLE 3-4 Crossover SUV (Leading Edge) Characteristics

2010 2015 2030 

### 2045

Parameter Current Medium High Medium High Medium High 

### Medium High

Crossover SUV (Current -> Glider Mass = 1,160 kg, Frontal Area = 2.68 m 2 , Tire = P235_65_R16)

Glider mass reduction (%) 0 5 10 10 20 15 30 15 30

Frontal area (m 2 ) 2.68 2.7068 2.68 2.7202 2.68 2.7604 2.7336 2.7872 2.7336 Drag coefficient (1) 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.3 0.32 0.3 Rolling resistance (2) 0.0084 0.0078 0.0075 0.0075 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.0076 0.006 Electrical Acc load,
conventional configuration (W) (3) 240 220 200 240 220 260 240 280 260

Electrical Acc load,
all other configurations (W) (4) 220 210 200 230 220 250 240 270 260

Conventional A/C (W) (5) 1,780 1,700 1,650 1,530 1,360 1,280 960 1,120 840

Electrical A/C (W) (5) 1,513 1,445 1,403 1,301 1,156 1,088 816 952 714

1 The ICE HEV will have an increase of 5% for the low case onl y. The fuel cell HEV will have an increase of 10% for the low

case and 1% for the high case.

2 Additional term of 0.00012 × vehicle speed will be us ed, but this term will remain constant over time.

3 Includes controllers, measured on UDDS driving cycle.

4 Includes controllers and battery fans, measured on UDDS driving cycle.

5 Data provided by John Rugh (NREL), where it is assumed that for 50% of the time when the A/C is on, the vehicle is

undergoing a cooldown from a solar soak when the initial interior air and mass will be 60–80°C. The other 50% of the time, the vehicle is assumed to be in steady state operation. The humidity was 65% during the ARCRP tests.

### 28 

### These values show that the 2010 C D 

### value of 0.34 is conservative, because it has already been met by the Audi Q7 and BMW X5. However, this value was selected as a 2010 target because the Audi and BMW are luxury vehicles that may not be fully representative of the fleet. While the Saab’s value of 0.32 may i ndicate further downside potential, it was unclear whether this vehicle should be considered a true crossover SUV, and its C D 

### value was therefore disregarded in the projection.

3.2.6 Midsize SUV Assumptions

This vehicle type is built on a robust truck fram e with substantial ground clearance, and its construction adds substantially to its weight and causes higher aerodynamic drag. In addition, its service characteristics (e.g., towing and off road capabilities) affects tire tread design and tends to add to rolling resistance. Consequently, the glider characteristics in Table 3-5 are inherently less efficient than those for the midsize passenge r car and crossover SUV, although the potential
for improvement from baseline levels is quite similar to the improvement potential for the other two vehicle types.

TABLE 3-5 Midsize SUV (Leading Edge) Characteristics

2010 2015 2030 2045

Parameter Current Medium High Medium High Medium High Medium High

Midsize SUV (Current -> Glider Mass = 1,260 kg, Frontal Area = 2.88 m 2 , Tire = P235_70_R16) Glider mass reduction (%) 0 5 10 10 20 15 30 15 30 Frontal area (m 2 ) 2.88 2.9088 2.88 2.9088 2.88 2.9664 2.9376 2.9952 2.9376 Drag coefficient (1) 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.33 Rolling resistance (2) 0.0084 0.0082 0.008 0.0078 0.0075 0.0078 0.007 0.0074 0.007 Electrical Acc load,
conventional configuration (W) (3) 240 220 200 240 220 260 240 280 260

Electrical Acc load, all other configurations (W) (4) 220 210 200 230 220 250 240 270 260

Conventional A/C (W) (5) 2,200 2,100 2,000 1,890 1,680 1,581 1,186 1,384 1,038

Electrical A/C (W) (5) 1,870 1,785 1,700 1,607 1,428 1,344 1,008 1,176 882

1 The ICE HEV will have an increase of 5% for the low case onl y. The fuel cell HEV will have an increase of 10% for the low

case and 1% for the high case.

2 Additional term of 0.00012 × vehicle speed will be us ed, but this term will remain constant over time.

3 Includes controllers, measured on UDDS driving cycle.

4 Includes controllers and battery fans, measured on UDDS driving cycle.

5 Data provided by John Rugh of NREL, where it is assumed that for 50% of the time when the A/C is on, the vehicle is

undergoing a cooldown from a solar soak when the initial interior air and mass will be 60–80°C. The other 50% of the time, the vehicle is assumed to be in steady state operation. The humidity was 65% during the ARCRP tests.



### 3.2.7 PSAT Modeling Concerns

The use of a vehicle simulation m odel to project the fuel economy of future advanced vehicles represents an opportunity to evaluate and co mpare these vehicles with improved accuracy. However, there are significant sources of uncer tainty involved with this modeling, and these sources should be understood in gauging the accuracy of the results.

### 29 

### Input assumptions. The most obvious source of uncertainty is the set of input assumptions about key variables associated w ith vehicle efficiency — the vari ables describing vehicle loads (e.g., coefficients of aerodynamic drag and rolli ng resistance, weight reduction) and drivetrain efficiency (e.g., maximum engine and motor efficiency, engine specific power). Future changes
in these variables involve difficult tradeoffs among cost, efficiency, durability, and other variables, as well as the inherently uncertain progress in technical advancement. The Multi-Path team specified many of the input variables for th e modeling, particularly those associated with vehicle loads (C D 

### , C R 

### , and percentage of weig ht reduction), but had to rely on the PSAT team for most drivetrain variables. One remaining source of concern is the maximum efficiencies of the ICE engines. The PSAT team, with advice from industr y, originally set SI (direct injection [DI] gasoline) engine efficiency to improve by 3 percentage points over the time frame (Table 3-1) and CI (DI diesel) efficiency to improve by 4 percentage points. This assumption appears to contradict widely shared industr y predictions that SI engines w ill become more “diesel-like” in the future, with converging efficiencies betwee n the two engine types. As shown in Table 3.1,
the final value for the current-to-2045 increase in SI engine efficiency was raised to 4% to align more closely with recent industry projections.

Availability of engine maps. Another area of uncertainty is the process of translating projected levels of technical advancement into the mathematical format required by the simulation model. This is primarily a problem with drivetrain advances. For example, future spark-ignited engines are projected to have several technologies that will change the shape of engine maps (of torque vs. fuel consumption at varying engine speeds), as well as increase maximum engine efficiency. However, engine maps that show the individual effect of each of these technologies, or the combined effects of multiple technologies, generally are not available to the PSAT modeling team. In the absence of such maps, the PSAT team has been forced to adjust available maps from existing engines, shifting the fuel consumption surfaces uniformly downward (toward lower fuel consumption at each torque/speed combination) to capture the effect(s) of higher levels of maximum efficiency. This procedure inherently misses subtle but important effects of the technologies, such as in “flattening” the surf aces of the map’s constant-fuel consumption contours so that engine operation away from th e maximum efficiency point may not lose as much efficiency as would have occurred in less- advanced engines. This simplification of the modeling process — again, made necessary by the lack of data — reduces the ability of the model to capture interactive effects among and between multiple drivetrain improvements. 8


### Examining the PSAT model run results for conve ntional SI drivetrains indicates that the estimated average increases in engine efficiency over the combined EPA driving cycles are considerably lower than projected by industry so urces. In response, we decided to “correct” the fuel economy results for these drivetrains by estimating the effects of boosting cycle-average engine efficiency in accord with these industry projections. Box 2 describes these corrections.

8 

### For example, transmission improvements that allow en gines to operate closer to maximum efficiency over a wider range of operating conditions may lose some of their benefits if a simultaneous engine improvement “flattens” the fuel consumption map. In other words, the engine improvement captures some of the losses that would otherwise have been captured by the transmission improvement.

### 30 Box 2 “Correcting” PSAT Fuel Economy Results for SI Conventional Drivetrain Vehicles

The PSAT fuel economy values for vehicles with conventional SI drivetrains are considerably lower than those projected for similar vehicles (with virtua lly identical load characteristics) by MIT (e.g., in Kromer and Heywood 2007). Examining the PSAT-generated values for engine efficiency shows that these efficiencies — which are determined for the EPA driving cycles by both the engine map and the modeled transmission characteristics — are quite lo w when compared to recent industry claims about both current transmissions (e.g., 6- to 8-speed tr ansmissions from Mercedes, Toyota) and future advanced SI engines that will have improved valve control and the ability to shift away from the Otto cycle during part of engine operations, etc. The problem appears largely to be the result of the lack of engine maps for advanced engines, though perhaps there are some issues with the modeling of the transmissions as well. In any case, the PSAT fuel economy results for these vehicles have been adjusted by adjusting the engine cycle efficiencies upward to conform more closely to recent industry estimates of the efficiency increases associated with engine and transmission advances.

Table B2-1 shows how this adjustment was made for the “high fuel economy” case vehicles. The second column shows the assumed engine efficiency boosts, which are based on recent literature and industry statements. Column 3 shows the actual PSAT engine efficiencies (the model printout gives these efficiencies separately for each cycle; thes e were combined into a single efficiency for the combined cycle because most industry estimates of efficiency increases are based on the combined cycle). Column 4 shows the incremental efficiency boost over the reference for comparison to the value in column 2. And column 5 simply shows the increase to the PSAT incremental boost that would be necessary to match the value in column 2; this factor can be applied to the PSAT-modeled fuel economy (in column 6) to “correct” it to the value implied by the efficiency boost in column 2.

TABLE B2-1 Translating Assumed Engine/Transmission Efficiency Boost into Revised MPG Values for PSAT Output — “High Fuel Economy” Case

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Year of
introduction for leading edge
vehicle Assumed engine efficiency boost, as %
over reference
vehicle 1 PSAT engine efficiency

over combined driving cycle (%) PSAT engine efficiency
boost as %
over reference
vehicle Incremental
increase to PSAT boost required to
match assumed efficiency boost (%) PSAT unadjusted fuel economy

(miles per

gallon [MPG]) New fuel

economy assuming more efficient engine/

transmission (MPG)

Midsize Car
Reference – 20.6 – – 28.9 –

2010 10 21.6 4.85 4.91 34.1 35.8

2015 18 22.7 10.19 7.09 35.2 37.7

2030 25 23.0 11.65 11.96 39.6 44.3

2045 30 23.4 13.59 14.45 41.1 47.0

Midsize SUV

Reference – 22.1 – – 22.7 –

2010 10 22.9 3.62 6.16 26.2 27.8

2015 18 24.7 11.76 5.58 27.8 29.4

2030 25 25.6 15.84 7.91 30.8 33.2

2045 30 26.0 17.65 10.50 32.0 35.4

Crossover SUV

Reference – 22.0 – – 24.3 –

2010 10 22.8 3.64 8.06 29.2 31.6

2015 18 24.0 9.09 8.17 30.5 33.0

2030 25 24.5 11.36 12.25 33.9 38.1

2045 30 25.2 14.55 13.49 34.8 39.5

1 Engine efficiency boost over cycle is caused both by improved engine and improved transmission.

### 31 Box 2 (Cont.)

Assumptions:



### • 2010: stoichiometric direct injection (DI), improved valvetrain, 6-speed automatic

transmission.



### • 2015: lean-burn DI, 6-speed automated manual transmission or 7-/8-speed automatic, leanburn DISI.



### • 2030: lean-burn direct injection, camless valves, 7-/8-speed automatic or continuously variable transmission (CVT), with some HCCI at low loads.



### • 2045: same as 2030 but with greater range for HCCI operation.



### • All dates: naturally aspirated engines; turbocharging would increase MPG boost.

Although the same engine maps were used by PSAT for vehicles with hybrid SI drivetrains, the derived fuel economy values appear to agree reasonably well with other results (e.g., MIT). A possible reason is that the primary problem with the engine maps — that they do not reflect improvements in off-peak engine operations — is minimized by hybridization, which keeps the engine quite close to peak efficiency. No correction was attempted for these hybrid drivetrain
vehicles.

Table B2-2 repeats the adjustment process for th e set of “Average Fuel Economy” vehicles, which represent somewhat lower expectations for improvemen ts in the SI drivetrain but also in the glider, that is, there will be higher aerodynamic and drag coefficients, slightly less efficient tires, and a lower percentage of weight reduction.

Table B2-2 Translating Assumed Engine/Trans mission Efficiency Boost into Revised MPG Values for PSAT Output — “Average Fuel Economy” Case

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Year of
introduction for leading edge
vehicle Assumed engine efficiency boost, as %
over reference
vehicle 1 PSAT engine efficiency

over combined driving cycle (%) PSAT engine efficiency
boost as %
over reference
vehicle Incremental
increase to PSAT boost required to
match assumed efficiency boost (%) PSAT unadjusted fuel economy (MPG) New fuel

economy assuming more efficient engine/

transmission (MPG)

Midsize Car
Reference – 20.6 – – 28.9 –

2010 8 21.4 3.88 3.97 31.6 32.9

2015 15 21.8 5.83 8.66 34.0 36.9

2030 20 22.5 9.22 9.87 33.61 36.9

2045 25 22.8 10.68 12.94 35.1 39.6

Midsize SUV

Reference – 22.1 – – 22.7 –

2010 8 22.9 3.62 4.23 24.7 25.7

2015 15 23.1 4.52 10.03 26.4 29.0

2030 20 24.5 10.86 8.24 26.11 28.3

2045 25 24.7 11.76 11.85 27.6 30.9

Crossover SUV

Reference – 22.0 – – 24.3 –

2010 8 22.4 1.82 6.07 27.2 28.9

2015 15 22.8 3.64 10.96 29.2 32.4

2030 20 23.7 7.73 11.39 28.61 31.9

2045 25 24.4 10.91 12.70 29.6 33.4

1 The values for 2030 appear to be incorrect. It is likely that an input error was made in ru nning the PSAT model for this

year.

### 32 Box 2 (Cont.)

At the time this report was written, the PSAT team had just introduced new engine maps based on a recent paper by AVL (Bandel et al. 2006) into model runs made for DOE’s R&D benefits calculations; these maps significantly raised the estimated fuel economy increases expected for future SI conventional drivetrains. Comparisons of the percentages in fuel economy increases over the Reference Case values for the “high” cases for the midsize car show the following:

Year 2010 (%) 2015 (%) 2030 (%) 2045 (%) Original PSAT results 18 22 37 42
Corrected results 24 30 53 63
New AVL-based results 27 32 51 53

It appears that the AVL-based PSAT analysis pr ovides a good way of improving the fuel economy analysis for conventional SI drivetrains at least until 2030, but does not capture potential longer-term improvements projected by industry analysts.



### Multiplicity of hybrid designs. A source of uncertainty particularly associated with hybrid vehicles is the effect of different hybrid de signs and control strategies on fuel economy. In designing a hybrid vehicle, considerable choice is available in the balance between the ICE and the electric part of the drivetra in, both in selecting power leve ls of the individual components (engine, battery, and motor) and in balancing use of the engine, battery, and motor in providingenergy and powering the wheels. The task becomes even more complex when designing a plugin hybrid, because concerns about battery longevi ty strongly enter the design process. For the Multi-Path Study, singular solutions to design ing the vehicle components and the drivetrain control strategy are selected; the effect of diffe rent solutions on fuel economy (as well as cost and other factors) is an area well worth further in vestigation. The result of using singular design solutions has led to some odd fuel economy resu lts among the various hybrid vehicles, and clearly it would be advantageous — although ex pensive — to perform some iteration in the designs to avoid anomalous results.

PHEVs and blended or EV operation. The PSAT analyses of PHEVs illuminated some difficult issues for the MP Study, as well as for other analyses that depend on PSAT and other
vehicle simulation models for their PHEV ener gy consumption analyses. In PSAT runs for Phase 1 of this study, our concept of a PHEV was a vehicle that operated in pure EV mode until the battery was depleted and then shifted to ch arge sustaining mode, operating as a conventional hybrid vehicle until the vehicle could be recharged. Evaluating this type of PHEV is relatively straightforward because battery and motor po wer will be unambiguously defined by the performance requirements in EV mode, and this definition will determine engine power based on the performance requirements in HEV mode. On th e basis of the advice of analysts who have examined PHEVs, however, our concept of PH EV design and operation has changed. For the latest set of PSAT runs, the concept has shifted to a vehicle that would operate first in chargedepleting mode with both engine and battery/motor engaged to varying degrees (the motor and battery would be the primary driver, but the engi ne would occasionally assist the electric drive during periods when a high level of power was demanded); as with the earlier concept, when the battery reached a predetermined depth of discha rge, vehicle operation would shift to normal

### 33 

### hybrid charge-sustaining mode. This “blended” concept has gained favor because it reduces the power requirements (and costs) for the electric motor (since it need not satisfy performance requirements without help from the engine) a nd battery (i.e., for a fixed energy storage requirement, demanding high pow er raises battery cost).

This blended concept introduces considerable vari ability into the analysis, because critical values such as the distance to full battery discharge — and thus the percent of miles “electrified,” a crucial outcome of the analysis — will depend on how much the engine is used, which is determined by the control strategy adopted. For example, to keep engine efficiency at high levels, the control strategy might cause the engi ne to be operated at higher power levels than required merely to satisfy load requirements, whic h would cause engine recharging of the battery — extending the range to full battery discharge. In fact, the previous set of PSAT runs for these blended PHEVs yielded “distances to discharge” that, in so me cases, were double the rated distance, with a PHEV40, for example, requiring 80 miles or more to full discharge. To avoid such results, we asked for a new set of runs with vehicle control strategies designed to maintain “distance to full discharge” (on the UDDS cycle) at no more than 20% higher than the rated distance (in other words, a ble nded mode PHEV40 would reach full discharge at no longer than 48 miles).

Accuracy of corrections for on-road operation. It has been shown that the EPA fuel economy values, which are based on the UDDS and HWFET city and highway cycles, are quite unrepresentative of values obtained by most drivers. This issue is strongly exacerbated when using the existing two-cycle procedure on adva nced vehicles, because the original method (including adjustments) was ba sed on data on conventional vehi cles. The EPA has designed a new calculation procedure for on-road fuel economy based on five driving cycles, including the original two. The added cycles will take some account of the e ffects that use of accessories (especially air conditioning) and aggressive driv ing have on on-road fuel economy. However, the accuracy of the new procedure has not been established. While the Multi-Path Study had hoped to report fuel economy based on both the old tw o-cycle method and the new five-cycle method, the PSAT team was unable to add the new cycles to their calculations in time for these runs.

3.2.8 Fuel Economy Results fo r Leading Edge Vehicles

Tables 3-6 through 3-9 and Figures 3-1 through 3-4 show the average/medium and high fuel economy results from the PSAT analysis (with th e results for the SI conventional drivetrain corrected to account for engine improvements not fu lly accounted for in the PSAT analysis). It is

of note that the results for the PHEVs in Tables 3-6, 3-8, and 3-9 and Figures 3-1 and 3-2 reflect their efficiency in normal hybrid opera tion (charge sustaining or CS mode), not their benefits when drawing down their batteries and recharging from the electricity grid. Table 3-7 shows the fuel economy results for the leading-edge mid size passenger car from combined fuel and electricity usage, for the sake of comparison. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 grap hically illustrate these results for the High and Average cases. Key conclusions from these results are:

• By 2030, it may be possible to achieve improvements to fuel economy of upwards of 50% without resorting to hybr id drivetrains or diesel (compression

### 34 TABLE 3-6 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Lead ing Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted combined MPG, SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results reflect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation)

DRIVETRAIN 2007
Ref avg high avg high avg high avg high

SI Conv 28.9 32.9 35.8 36.9 37.7 36.9 44.3 39.6 47.0

CI Conv 37.5 40.9 44.4 44.2 46.4 44.9 53.8 47.4 54.6

SI Full HEV 46.0 50.6 62.0 60.2 72.2 66.4 83.1 70.9 88.6

SI PHEV10 46.4 49.9 61.2 60.0 72.3 66.3 81.6 71.1 86.7

SI PHEV40 45.3 48.7 60.8 58.7 71.0 65.4 80.3 70.3 85.8

CI Full HEV 48.5 53.0 66.6 64.5 75.8 71.8 89.0 76.9 91.3

CI PHEV10 49.5 52.8 66.5 64.1 78.1 73.1 92.0 78.9 95.7

CI PHEV40 48.0 51.3 64.8 62.6 76.8 71.3 90.5 77.8 94.4

FC HEV 57.7 64.5 76.0 73.4 87.6 83.6 107.1 94.2 120.8

FC PHEV10 60.3 67.6 79.3 76.7 91.3 87.5 111.8 98.1 126.1

FC PHEV40 57.4 64.4 76.2 73.8 88.1 84.1 108.3 95.1 122.2 2010 2015 2030 2045



### 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2007 2010 2015 2030 2045Fuel Economy, MPG(Comb, Unadj) 

### MIDSIZE CAR FUEL ECONOMY (HIGH) (PHEV in CS mode only)

SI Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40



### FIGURE 3-1 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG; PHEVs in CS/gasoline or hydrogen-only mode)



### ignition) engines. This result reflects sharp reductions in vehicle loads (aerodynamic, rolling resistance, and inertia/weight), improved transmissions that are already entering the fleet, and SI engine improvements that will move gasoline engines closer to diesels in efficiency.

• With more modest (although, given pa st trends, still optimistic) assumptions about engine improvements and the exte nt to which higher fuel economy will be preferred over other vehicle attri butes, fuel economy improvements of 25% to 30% might be expected for non-hybrid ized SI drivetrains. This level of improvement would fall short of that needed to satisfy the new CAFE

### 35 

### standards (35 MPG for the combined ca r and light truck fleet by 2020, or an improvement of about 40%), implying that shifts toward use of more hybrid and diesel drivetrains would be necessary to comply with the standards. The recent new target of 35.5 MPG by 2016 may increase the need for such shifts.

• In this time frame, a shift to diesel engines would allow fuel economy improvements of 55% to upwards of 80% (if the same vehicle load reductions were adopted).

• The addition of full hybrid drivetrains could allow fuel economy levels to approach 2.3 to 3 times that of current levels in this time frame if the efficiency of hybrid com ponents continues to improve.

• Fuel cell drivetrains can improve efficiency still more on a miles-per-gallonof-gasoline-equivalent (MPGGE) basis, although future fuel cell efficiencies are quite difficult to predict because the pace of continued technological progress and tradeoffs between efficiency and cost or performance are unclear. As noted above, the assumed ma ximum fuel cell system efficiencies adopted for these analyses appear to be more optimistic than projected in recent assessments, so the fuel economy results may not reflect our current understanding of fuel cell system effi ciency. However, new PSAT runs that reflect lower maximum fuel cell efficiencies yielded similar high fuel economies; the lower fuel cell efficiencies were balanced in the newly modeled vehicles by lower drivetrain weight, improved regenerative braking, and improvements in control strategy.

• Plug-in hybrid drivetrains can yield fuel economy improvements similar to more conventional hybrid drivetrains when they are operating in chargesustaining operation. Further, they can allow grid electricity to substitute for liquid fuels during a substantial porti on of daily operation. In gasolineequivalent terms (i.e., valuing each k ilowatt-hour [kWh] of electricity as 3,413 British thermal units [BTUs], or a bout 34 kWh per gallon of gasoline equivalent [GGE]), PHEV40s can a ttain fuel economy levels above 100 MPGGE by 2030. In liquid fuel terms, for the “high” case, an SI PHEV40 in 2030 would use, on average, a gallon of gasoline every 150 or more miles, 9


### yielding a five-fold or higher reducti on in gasoline use compared to today’s gasoline vehicles.

9 

### It is expected that a PHEV40 will “electrify” about half of its miles, on average. With a fuel economy of about 80 MPG during charge-sustaining operation (and little if any gasoline use during charge-depleting operation), a PHEV40 in 2030 would use about 1 gallon of liquid fuel for each 160 miles traveled. Assuming nightly recharging of its battery, the PHEV40 would also use about 14 kWh of electricity from the grid for each 160 miles (in average operation), based on charge-depleting electricity use of about 160 watt-hours (wh)/mile without accounting for charger losses.

### 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2007 2010 2015 2030 2045Fuel Economy, MPG(Comb, Unadj) 

### MIDSIZE CAR FUEL ECONOMY (AVERAGE) (PHEV in CS mode only)

SI Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40



### FIGURE 3-2 Average Fuel Economy Values for Le ading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG; PHEVs in CS/gasoline or hydrogen-only mode)

TABLE 3-7 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Lead ing Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted combined MPG), with PHEV Results Reflecting Both Fuel and Electricity Use

DRIVETRAIN 2007 2010 2010 2015 2015 2030 2030 2045 2045

Ref avg high avg high avg high avg high

SI Conv 28.9 32.9 35.8 36.9 37.7 36.9 44.3 39.6 47.0

CI Conv 37.5 40.9 44.4 44.2 46.4 44.9 53.8 47.4 54.6

SI Full HEV 46.0 50.6 62.0 60.2 72.2 66.4 83.1 70.9 88.6

SI PHEV10 52.3 56.2 68.6 67.2 80.8 74.2 90.9 79.6 96.6

SI PHEV40 67.2 72.4 89.4 86.3 103.5 95.5 116.2 102.5 123.4

CI Full HEV 48.5 53.0 66.6 64.5 75.8 71.8 89.0 76.9 91.3

CI PHEV10 55.5 59.3 74.2 71.5 86.7 81.4 101.7 87.5 105.8

CI PHEV40 70.3 75.1 93.4 90.4 110.1 101.5 126.0 110.8 131.1

FC HEV 57.7 64.5 76.0 73.4 87.6 83.6 107.1 94.2 120.8

FC PHEV10 65.9 73.7 86.0 83.3 99.0 94.6 120.2 105.5 134.3

FC PHEV40 77.3 85.7 99.9 97.1 115.9 108.8 138.0 121.6 150.7

EV 97.0 119.5 122.0 129.5 142.0 144.3 163.0 155.8 171.0

### 37 MIDSIZE CAR FUEL ECONOMY (HIGH) (liquid fuel + electricity)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2007 2010 2015 2030 2045Fuel Economy, MPG (Comb, Unadj)

SI Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40



### FIGURE 3-3 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Economy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (where 17.4% of miles for PHEV10s are electric, and 50.9% of miles for PHEV40s are electric)

MIDSIZE CAR FUEL ECONOMY (AVERAGE) (liquid fuel + electricity)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2007 2010 2015 2030 2045Fuel Economy, MPG (Comb, Unadj)

SI Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40



### FIGURE 3-4 Average Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Economy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (where 17.4% of miles for PHEV10s are electric, and 50.9% of miles for PHEV40s are electric)

### 38 TABLE 3-8 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Lead ing Edge Crossover SUVs (unadjusted combined MPG; SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results reflect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation)

DRIVETRAIN 2007
Ref avg high avg high avg high avg high
SI Conv 24.3 28.9 31.6 32.4 33.0 31.9 38.1 33.4 39.5

SI Full HEV 36.5 42.5 49.9 49.2 57.9 53.5 65.6 55.0 67.5

SI PHEV10 36.7 42.4 50.5 49.7 58.3 53.4 65.3 55.1 67.5

SI PHEV40 35.7 41.4 49.2 48.4 57.2 52.4 64.2 54.2 66.3

CI Full HEV 37.4 43.5 53.5 52.6 61.0 56.8 70.3 58.7 70.8

CI PHEV10 38.5 43.8 52.7 51.6 62.6 57.7 71.6 60.2 72.4

CI PHEV40 37.9 42.9 51.9 50.7 61.8 56.8 70.8 59.2 71.6

FC HEV 45.1 52.3 60.4 59.1 69.9 66.2 83.9 71.9 91.9

FC PHEV10 46.4 54.1 62.3 61.1 72.1 68.3 86.5 73.8 94.7

FC PHEV40 44.5 51.9 59.9 58.9 69.6 65.7 83.6 71.0 91.6 2010 2015 2030 2045



### TABLE 3-9 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Lead ing Edge SUVs (unadjusted combined MPG; SI Conventional results corrected; PHEV results refl ect charge-sustaining/gasoline or hydrogen-only operation)

DRIVETRAIN 2007
Ref avg high avg high avg high avg high

SI Conv 22.7 25.7 27.8 29.0 29.4 28.3 33.2 30.9 35.4

SI Full HEV 34.0 37.7 44.3 43.7 50.6 46.7 56.1 50.3 58.9

SI PHEV10 34.3 38.3 44.8 43.8 51.0 46.5 55.9 50.6 59.4

SI PHEV40 33.5 37.2 43.8 42.8 50.0 45.4 55.0 49.4 58.3

CI Full HEV 34.9 38.4 46.1 44.8 52.7 48.5 59.5 53.4 61.7

CI PHEV10 36.2 39.1 46.6 45.6 54.3 49.8 60.7 54.9 63.1

CI PHEV40 35.5 38.3 45.9 44.8 53.5 49.0 59.9 54.1 62.3

FC HEV 42.1 45.6 53.0 51.7 60.4 56.8 70.9 64.8 79.6

FC PHEV10 43.2 46.9 54.5 53.1 62.0 58.3 72.6 66.5 81.7

FC PHEV40 41.0 45.1 52.3 50.9 60.0 56.2 70.1 64.4 79.2 2010 2015 2030 2045



### 3.2.9 Rules for Estimating Average Vehicl e MPG by Class, Technology, and Year

The discussion up to this point focuses on estimating the fuel economies of leading edge midsize passenger cars and midsize SUVs using a variety of drivetrain technolog ies in several target years. For the study’s economic analyses, which us e the NEMS model, it is necessary to translate

this limited set of results into the format demanded by the model: fu el economy estimates for

average vehicles that use that technology in each of 12 vehicle classes for the year of introduction and every five years afterwards, as well as 2040 and 2050. Box 3 describes a set of
rules that were followed to estimate the fuel economy values for these average vehicles. The rules are meant to conform roughly to how the process of technology introduction and gradual improvement will play out — na mely, after technologies are introduced into the fleet, the segment of each class using that technology will evolve as improved versions of the technology are introduced; new leading edge designs will be introduced and rolled into the segment, gradually replacing older designs. The final valu es developed for each of the 12 vehicle classes are presented in Appendix A.

### 39 Box 3 Rules for Estimating Fuel Economy of Average Vehicles Using Different Drivetrain Technologies



### 1. “ Leading edge” vehicle fuel economies for midsize passenger cars and midsize SUVs with each of the 11 drivetrain types are obtained for 2010, 2015, 2030, and 2045 from the PSAT analysis. 2. To obtain leading edge fuel economy values for th e intervening years, linear interpolation is used. 3. Leading edge “X” factors are defined as the ratios of the leading edge MPG to a reference (gasoline ICE) MPG, where the reference MPG is the new vehicle MPG for that vehicle class in the NEMS-MP Base Case (in that year). The NEMS-MP Base Case is further discussed in Chapter 6. The Base Case incorporates CAFE requirements passed in December 2007. 4. Average “X” factors are estimated that define the MPG multiple representing all of the new vehicles with specific drivetrain types in each class: a. When a drivetrain technology is first introduced to a vehicle class, all vehicles using that technology are leading edge vehicles, so the aver age X factor in that introductory year is the same as the leading edge X factor. b. As more advanced versions of these vehicles are introduced, they are rolled into the new vehicle fleet gradually. To estimate what the average X factor is in later years, a linear interpolation is made between the average X factor in the year of introduction and the average X factor in the year 2050, the latter defined as: 2050 average X factor = (2030 leading edge X factor + 2×2045 leading edge factor)/3. c. When examples of an advanced drivetrain alr eady exist in the fleet, the above procedure must be modified; this applies to diesels and SI HEVs in some vehicle classes. 2 

### For these classes, in any year following introduction of advanced technology vehicles, the average fuel economy of the vehicles in such classes will be lower than that of the leading edge vehicle because the average will combine the fuel economies of both the leading edge and the less-advanced vehicles. To address this issue, we assume that: i. The years 2010 through 2019 are the only years in which both types of vehicles will be produced; ii. By 2020, the average X factor of the vehicles in these classes will be the same as that of a 2020 advanced vehicle first introduced in 2010; iii. For these vehicles, the average X factors for the years 2010 through 2019 will be estimated by linear interpolation between the Base Case 2009 X factors and the 2020 X factor described in “ii” above; iv. Post-2020, the average X factors will be the same as those that would apply to an
advanced vehicle first introduced in 2010. 5. The average X factors calculated for the midsize car and midsize SUV are applied to the six categories of cars and six of light trucks, respectively.

1 

### Underlying this calculation is the assumption that the 2030 leading edge X factor will become the 2040

average X factor and that the 2045 leading edge X factor will become the 2055 average X factor (i.e., we have applied a “10 year roll-in” rule to each class and techno logy (and the formula uses linear interpolation to calculate the 2050 average X factor). In retrospect, this assumption of a 10-year roll-in seems pessimistic. Although 10 years is an optimistic timeline for a new technology to penetrate the light vehicle fleet, the “penetration” here occurs in one class only and in later years stands for improvements to technologies, not new technologies. This type of penetration should be capable of happening more quickly.

2 

### The “advanced SI conventional” drivetrain is treated here as sufficiently different from current SI drivetrains

to be considered a separate technology.

### 40 

### 3.3 VEHICLE COST ANALYSIS

3.3.1 General Discussion

Vehicle costs obviously will be a crucial determining factor for commercializing the vehicle/fuel pathways examined in this study, and we have developed estimates of vehicle costs for each leading edge midsize car and midsize SUV examined in the study. The discussion here focuses

on the results for midsize cars.

It should be recognized that cost estimates for ve hicles with technologies that have yet to be commercialized and are undergoing rapid design changes are highly uncertain and controversial. Further, even currently availa ble technologies may undergo substa ntial design or manufacturing changes over the time scale — four decades — examined in this study.

The primary sources of uncertainty in estimating vehicle costs are:

• Uncertain design evolution, including potential for radical changes for some new technologies (fuel cells, batteries, hydrogen storage). For example, the costs of fuel cells, which have already been reduced by an order of magnitude over the past several years, will require approximately another order of magnitude decrease — beyond cost reductions expected from mass production — to achieve levels suffici ently low to allow commercialization.

• Effects of learning and scale in mass production . Although “learning curves” have been developed that fore cast cost reductions for each doubling of production, these curves are based on data from a subset of successful products rather than from the full rang e of products undergoing development (some of which may never achieve commercial success). There is no guarantee that the costs of fuel cells, batteries, and other ne w technologies will follow the same path.

• Unpredictable changes in material costs. Such materials could include platinum catalyst mate rial, aluminum, etc.

The cost equations used in this analysis were developed with the underlying assumption of “technology success”

—in other words, it is assumed that each of the technologies under examination has undergone a successful development process, is pushed into the marketplace relatively soon, and experiences cost reductions from learning and increased production scale quite quickly. Consequently, for those technolog ies that have not yet been commercialized (e.g., fuel cells, plug-in hybrids), there remains some risk that development will stall, costs will remain high, and full market success cannot be achieved; this risk is not incorporated into our analysis but should be recognized as a possibility for any of the advanced technologies. Further, for those development scenarios that assume considerable delay in market entry for some technologies, even the more conservative of the two cost scenarios may appear extremely optimistic.

### 41 

### As noted earlier, the scale of production will affectcosts significantly. This analysis does not attempt to directly capture this effect excep t in the general sense that the components are assumed to be produced on a scale of at least tens of thousands, and estimated costs are lowered over time on the basis of the assumption that produc tion will increase over time and that learning and increasing the scale of production will force continuing cost reductions. A more nuanced estimation procedure would adopt co st equations that include sc ale factors and use feedback loops that tie cost reductions directly to th e projected volume of production. This level of sophistication is not used here. Instead, two co st cases — literature review (LR) and program goals (PG) — are developed that tie costs to specific dates (2010, 2015, 2030, and 2045) and do not vary when assumptions change about when the technologies enter the marketplace and how quickly their numbers grow. The LR case is base d on a literature review of recent publications and discussion with analysts familiar with the t echnologies. The PG case assumes that DOE cost goals for advanced technologies are met (we interpret this as meaning that prototypes achieve these goals on the schedule dictated by DOE’s Program Plans, with the first production models achieving the goals 5 years later). Some of these goals were derived in a normative fashion — their achievement was deemed necessary to a llow technology commercialization — rather than being derived by examining engineering potentials. As a result, the probability of attaining the goals is quite unclear.

3.3.2 Automotive System Cost Model

Cost estimates were developed using the Automotive System Cost Model (ASCM), which was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and calculates cost at a level of five major vehicle subsystems, consisting of more than 35 components based on the aggregation of several components under the definition of Unifor m Parts Grouping (UPG) generally used by the automotive industry. The model uses measures of component “size” — weight, power, energy stored, or other measures — from PSAT runs to estimate cost and has been used in several studies for comparative cost assessments of di fferent powertrain and body-in-white options for advanced technology vehicles (D as 2004, 2005; Rousseau et al. 2005).

In the cost calculation, the costs of glider and drivetrain components disc ussed here are vehicle manufacturing costs, which include the price of components purchased directly from suppliers and costs of assembly performed at the original equipment manufacturing (OEM) facility. Translating these costs into a manufacturer’s suggested retail price equivalent (RPE) requires adding the costs of manufacturing overhead (res earch, design, development, and engineering costs plus division and corporate overheads and corporate profit) and dealer cost (dealer’s invoice discount, holdback, and dealer incentives, distribution, advertising and dealer support costs, and dealer profits). In this analysis, it is assumed that that RPE is 1.5 times vehicle manufacturing costs.

There are differences among alternative cost analyses in defining the relationship between and definitions of “costs” and RPEs; these differences can lead to difficulties in interpreting cost results and comparing them to those developed in other analyses. As noted above, this analysis uses a factor of 1.5 to go from costs to RPEs. Ot her references may define the precise stage at which costs are estimated slightly differently, and they may use different multiplication factors to

### 42 

### obtain retail prices. Unfortunately, because defin itions are often quite vague, comparisons among alternative cost analyses can be difficult. And since many of the component cost assumptions used here were derived from the literature, it is not certain that all of the “translations” of these estimates were accurate. An additional complication for comparisons to European estimates is that the value of the euro in relation to the dollar has escalated dramatically over the past few years, such that 100 euros valued at a 2005 es timate of approx imately US$120 would, by late May 2009, be valued at nearly US$138; it is not cl ear what the most appr opriate cost comparison
will be under such circumstances.

3.3.3 Glider Costs

In the Multi-Path cost analysis, vehicle costs are calculated by first estimating a cost for the glider — the vehicle minus its drivetrain — that can be used for all drivetrain variations for each of two vehicle classes (midsize passenger car a nd SUV) in a given year, and adding drivetrain component costs for each drivetrain type.

Glider costs are derived by estimating glider costs in the baseline year and adjusting these costs for weight reduction measures (based on drivetra in component and vehicl e curb weight estimates from PSAT), aerodynamic improvements (including items such as camera replacements for outside mirrors for large reductions in C D 

### ), and improved accessories and other measures to reduce accessory loads (e.g., window coatings). As a simplification, however, it is assumed that weight reduction measures are the primary source of changes in glider costs; other glider changes are assumed to be of sufficiently low cost — or pa rt of the normal improve ment cycle that occurs when models are updated — that their costs can be neglected.

The cost of reducing glider mass was estimated by considering different lightweight material options starting with major components of the bo dy and then the chassis as defined in ASCM, coupled with extensive structural redesign. Se condary mass reductions associated with the primary mass reduction (e.g., a lower brake mass resulting from reduced braking requirements because of the lighter-weight glider), as well as any costs savings from these weight reductions,
were accounted for in the estimates. The cost estimates are based on an assumption that the design changes and material substitution are used primarily for weight reduction rather than frame stiffening, increases in vehicle size (e. g., track width) at constant weight, or other
alternative uses.

Under most vehicle weight-reduction scenarios considered, there were alternative lightweight material options sufficient to achieve the desi red glider mass. Assumin g a conventional steel unibody as the baseline vehicle body-in-white, ligh tweight material options, such as ultralight steel, aluminum, and carbon fibe r-reinforced polymer composites, were used to obtain the desired 5%–30% glider mass weight reduction range. For weight reductions of up to about 15%, structural redesign and material substitution fo r the body-in-white and closure panels, coupled with secondary mass savings, were sufficient to achieve target weights for the glider. For larger weight reductions, lightweight material substitutions for other glider components were added (e.g., front and rear bumpers, suspension com ponents, and instrument panel). The cost relationships included in ASCM for different lightweight body options are based on a detailed

### 43 

### cost analysis by Ibis Associates, Inc. (2004). In most cases, reducing the gl ider weight resulted in a price increase in the range of $4.26–$6.61/kg of weight removed from the baseline glider.

In the ASCM analysis, for the high fuel economy case, the 2030 midsize passenger car achieves a glider mass reduction of 30% (for the conventional SI engine drivetrain, this result translates into a vehicle curb weight reduction of 21%), at a cost of about $1,300 ($4.41/kg of glider mass reduced). In comparison, the King Review of Low-Carbon Cars (King 2007) cites a 10% efficiency gain, which is equi valent to about a 15% weight reduction, as costing about 250 to 500 pounds sterling, or about $500 to $1,000 at 2008 c onversion rates; these costs are stated to be production costs. Cheah et al. (2007) concludes that a 20% vehicle weight reduction through

first-tier material substitution a nd a combination of vehicle rede sign and component downsizing can be achieved at an overall cost of $2.00/kg, or less than half of the ASCM cost. However, the less-optimistic ASCM estimates appear reasonable in light of the difficult tradeoffs between weight reduction and competing a ttributes (e.g., structural sti ffness) and recent increases in
material costs for aluminum.

3.3.4 Drivetrain Costs

As noted above, drivetrain costs are estimated by using component cost equations with input variables (i.e., measures of component characte ristics such as power, energy storage capacity, etc.) obtained from the PSAT model runs. Th e PSAT model produces extensive reports on drivetrain component sizes, such as, for example, engine kW (power [in kilowatts]) ratings, HEV battery kW ratings, PHEV and battery electric vehicle (BEV) battery kWh (energy) ratings, and
so forth.

Table 3-10 provides the primary component cost equations used in the analysis. The table was provided in draft form by Sujit Das of ORNL and revised after discussions with Das, K.G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., David Greene of ORNL, and others.

A simplification used in both the cost and fuel economy analyses is that the vehicle fleet is represented by singular examples of a few driv etrain technologies, that is, “hybrid electric vehicles” are represented by a single design rather than the multiple examples that exist in the marketplace even today (e.g., the Toyota “serie s/parallel” system found in the Prius; the twomode hybrid designed jointly by General Motors, BMW, and DaimlerChrysler; the Integrated Motor Assist system found in the Honda Civic Hybrid; and so forth). Further, all vehicles regardless of drivetrain technology have the same performance requirements dictating minimum power capabilities. In the actual marketplace, there is a broad spectrum of vehicle performance, and different drivetrain technologies may compet e somewhat differently at the upper and lower ends of this spectrum.

As shown in Table 3-10, the time progression of estimated costs for relatively conventional technologies — spark-ignited and compression-ignited internal combustion engines and automatic transmissions — is quite different from the progression of estimated costs for technologies recently introduced to the marketpl ace (e.g., hybrid drivetrains) or those not yet

### 44TABLE 3-10 Major Assumptions for Advanced Technology Vehicle Cost Estimation: Vehicle Component Cost Targets (Factory GatePrice, 2008$)Notes: The LR estimate reflects an optimistic outlook based on literature review and interviews with experts; PG estimate is still more optimisticand reflects LR estimates plus DOE and Advanced Battery Consortium goals, assuming that achievement of cost goals is reflectedinmanufactured products 5 years later. Some of these goals reflect perceived market requirements rather than engineering judgments, so PG valuesmay not reflect engineering projections.All cost targets are in factory gate prices; a factor of 1.5 should be used to convert to the RPE (Vyas et al. 2000).20102015 2030 2045Parameter/Cost CaseCurrentLR PGFC Goal LR PG FC Goal LR PG LR PGSI Engine1($)300+275×n+3×kW315+290×n+3× kW300+275×n+3× kW345+315×n+2.75× kW330+300×n+2.75× kW375+345×n+2.7× kW360+330×n+2.7× kW375+345×n+2.7× kW360+330×n+2.7× kWCI Engine2($/kW)600+550×n+3× kW630+575×n+3×kW600+550×n+3×kW660+605×n+2.75× kW600+550×n+2.75× kW690+630×n+2.75× kW600+550×n+2.7× kW690+630×n+2.75× kW600+550×n+2.7× kWFuel Cell3($/kW)108 108 67 45 67 45 45 52 30 52 30HydrogenStorage4($/kWh)15 15 10 4 14 4 2 13 2 10 2SI EmissionsControl5($/kW)4 4 4 4 4 4.5 4 4.25 4CI EmissionsControl6($)7 9 7 8 6 6 5 5 4High VoltageBattery7:HEV($/kW max.power)60 55 40 25 50 25 25 38 20 35 18PHEV10($/rated kWh)1,100 1,000 587 350 587 367 440 180 367 180

### 45TABLE 3-10 (Cont.)2010 2015 2030 2045Parameter/Cost Case CurrentLR PGFC Goal LR PG FC Goal LR PG LR PGPHEV40($/rated kWh)900 800 480 350 500 300 375 160 300 160BEV($/rated kWh)750 675 400 450 250 325 150 250 150Motor8($/kW) 13 13 11.1 11.1 8.07.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 3.3Electronics9($/kW)12 12 7.9 7.9 5.75 5.05.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0Transmission(above 5-speedautomatictransmission[AT])Assume $100 incremental cost for advanced transmissions (assuming cost reductions over time will allow moving from 6- to 7- to8-speedtransmissions at no additional costexcept for the first $100 increment)1,2Engine cost estimates based on meeting of December 19, 2008 and e-mail communication of January 7, 2008 with K.G. Duleep, L. Cheah, C. Evans, A. Bandivadekar, and J.Heywood, (2007),Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA. In the cost equations, n =number of cylinders, kW = rated engine power.Program Goals (PG) case denotes a “best case” technology scenario. Although DOE has no formal goals for SI engines, it is assumed that substantial improvements will beadded in in-cylinder monitoring and valve control, moving toward multiple cycle operation (ultimately toward HCCI operation under low- and moderate-load conditions). CIengines will be improved by the addition of higher pressure fuel injection and possibly sequential turbocharging; long-term costs are perhaps more uncertain with CI engines,and this uncertainty is reflected in the larger ranges of costs between the LR and PG cases with these engines.There are no changes in costs under both scenarios beyond 2030 as no additional cost is assumed for HCCI operation in 2045.3Fuel cell is defined as the system consisting of the fuel cell stack and the fuel cell stack’s auxiliary subsystems (e.g., sub-systems for air supply, fuel supply, thermalmanagement, and other necessary functions, such as water management).The current fuel cell system is based on $108/kW for fuel cell stack and auxiliaries (TIAX estimate)as per Kromer and Heywood (2007).FreedomCAR cost targets have been assumed under the PG scenario, but actual commercialization is assumed to begin 5 years afterthe target date. No cost reduction isassumed in the future after the FreedomCAR goal has been met. There are no changes in costs under both scenarios beyond 2030.For 2010, the LR scenario is based on the latest estimate of $67/kW by TIAX (Kromer and Heywood 2007).For 2030, LR estimate is based on the baseline assumption of $52/kWh by Kromer and Heywood (2007).4PG scenario denotes meeting the FreedomCAR goal, but is delayed by 5 years for actual implementation as assumed in the case ofa complete fuel cell system.The LR scenario denotes that no significant reduction in hydrogen storage cost is anticipated until 2030 as indicated by Kalhammer (2007) and Kromer and Heywood (2007).5Exhaust system includes emissions control electronics and estimates based on e-mail communication with K.G. Duleep on January 7, 2008. Cost targets under both scenariosdo not change until 2030, when additional costs of aftertreatment systems for lean-burn engines have been included. The PG scenario assumed that there will not be anychange in cost as HCCI engines will be used.6Estimates provided by K.G. Duleep on January 7, 2008. The cost differential between the gasoline and diesel exhaust systems isassumed to decrease with time in the future.

### 46TABLE 3-10 (Cont.)7Includes battery auxiliaries (i.e., box, accessories, wiring, and cooling system) andassembly cost. Li-ion batteries are assumed to be used, and PHEV cost estimates are basedon applying approximately the same multiplicative factors to the current BEV cost estimate. Battery cost increases with a reduction in cell size because of increasingcontributions of inactive cell materials and manufacturing to total cell costs. Additional $400 for battery charger cost for PHEVs to be included.The current cost of HEV batteries is based on Kromer and Heywood (2007).The 2015 PG estimate for the BEV is based on the EPRI (2005) projection at a low annual production volume of 20K batteries. ThePG scenario assumes that the cost targetsof $25/kW for HEVs and $150/kWh for BEVs will not be met until 2015 and 2030, respectively, thereafter remaining constant.The 2015 LR estimates for HEV correspond to Kalhammer (2007) near-term (5- to10-year) projections at high production volume, and estimates for BEV are assumed to besame as those assumed under the 2010 PG scenario. The 2030 LR estimates for HEV are based on “Baseline” scenario assumptions byKromer and Heywood (2007), whereasthe estimates for BEV are based on e-mail communication with M. Anderman on January 7, 2008.8,9Based on communication with Mitch Olszewski, Powertrain Electronics Tech Team member for future scenarios.The current plant gate cost of traction motor and power electronics is assumed to be $25/kW per communication with K.G. Duleepon January 4, 2008. The PG scenarioassumes that FreedomCAR goals are met and do not lag by 5 years for mass production (as was assumed for the fuel cell system).The LR case indicates cost increases possibly resulting from technological challenges to be met in the following areas (Olszewski 2007):-Rise in coolant temperature,-Permanent magnet price and copper price increase, and-Alternative motor designs (not using permanent magnets) having a lower power density.LR motor and electronics costs are assumed not to fall below the DOE target combined motor/electronics cost of $12/kW (as per asuggestion by K.G. Duleep duringconference call on January 4, 2008).

### 47 

### introduced (plug-in hybrids, fuel cell drivetrains). Costs for the conventional technologies are assumed to be relatively stable over time, with some continued learning balanced by the addition of progressively more sophisticat ed electronic controls, valve cont rol systems, and so forth. In contrast, costs for new technologies are assume d to decline over time, in some cases quite dramatically. We stress again that we consider this outcome to be optimistic but plausible, especially for the LR cost projections — but they are by no means inevitable. Indeed, the projection of relatively stable costs for the conve ntional drivetrains should also be considered optimistic, since industry has assert ed that attainment of the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) suggested CAFE targets for 2015 of 35.7 MPG for passenger cars and 28.6 MPG for light trucks will cause s ubstantial drivetrain cost increases.

3.3.4.1 Spark-ignition and Compression Ig nition Internal Combustion Engines

Costs for these engines vary strongly with cyli nder count — a key determinant of the number of highly machined and high-value engine compon ents — and (to a lesser degree) with engine power as long as the number of cylinders is unchanged. While the cost equations for sparkignited engines reflect moderate increases in costs with sophisticated injection systems associated with direct injection engines, in-cylinder monitoring, more complex valve control systems, and so forth, it is also assumed that some aspects of these advances are associated with normal year-by-year engine improvements and will not raise costs. The equations for compression ignition engines reflect fewer likely changes resulting in a lower percentage increase in cost in the future compared to spark-ignited engines, with the program goals value reflecting some potential for avoiding cost increases even with higher pressure injectors and
other advances. The LR cost va lue for diesels assumes sequential turbocharging to improve driving characteristics and somewhat less success in holding down the costs for improved injection systems.

SI engine costs for both LR and PG cases are somewhat optimistic compared to some alternative estimates, partly because of the assumption that some “normal” level of technology improvements will conti nue without cost increases. For the 2030 SI engine drivetrains for midsize passenger cars, engine costs increase by $181 (PG) to $256 (LR) compared to the 2007 reference costs. In comparison, Kromer and He ywood (2007) estimate that, for a similar midsize car, a 2030 advanced gasoline engine (with dire ct injection and variable valve timing and lift [VVTL]) will cost $700 more than a reference-case 2006 SI engine. On the other hand, EEA (2007) estimates that a naturally aspirated stoich iometric I4 DI gasoline engine with VVTL will have an RPE of $450, or a cost of about $265 (with a 1.7 multiplier) over its more conventional counterpart (note that these are current costs, not 2030 costs); EEA’s costs are more aligned with
those estimated here.

For CI engines, the LR cost estimate for 2010 is $4,200 for the engine plus the exhaust treatment system. UBS projects that the cost (engine plus exhaust treatment) for a U.S.-compliant diesel for a midsize passenger car will be about $3,000 to $4,000 (Warburton et al. 2007). EEA (2007) estimates that a similar engine plus exhaust aftertreatment will cost $2,200 (or $1,290 over a baseline SI I4 engine costing $1,100). The implication of these comparisons is that the MP Study’s cost estimate for the CI engine may be pessimistic.

### 48 

### 3.3.4.2 Fuel Cells

There currently are no fuel cells in mass production, so even the “current” cost value of $105/kW is uncertain — the assigned value is associat ed with a recent estimate from TIAX Corporation for one possible design. The short-term DOE goal is $45/kW, and the 2015 goal is $30/kW for a fuel cell system (i.e., the stack and all auxiliaries), and the PG estimates reflect the assumption that these values are achieved in commercial production 5 years afterward. In the LR scenario, the cost of hydrogen storage is not anticipated to be reduced significantly until 2030.

The 2030 fuel cell cost is estimated at $52/kW for the LR case and at $30/kW for the PG case, the latter reflecting the DOE goal. Kromer and Heywood (2007) use an estimate of $50–$75/kW

for a 2030 fuel cell. CONCAWE and EU CAR (2005) has estimated a fuel cell price for “2010+” at 105 euros/kW, which translates into a cost of about $100/kW at the June 2009 euro/dollar exchange rate, or about $84/kW at the 2005 exchange rate ($1.20 per euro).

3.3.4.3 SI and CI Emissions Controls

The long-term costs of SI and CI emissions controls are affected by both technological progress and the evolution of emissions reduction requirements. If the future resembles the recent past, emission requirements will tighten with further progress in controls. SI emissions controls seem unlikely to escalate significantly over time, alt hough a shift to lean-burn operation (to achieve further reductions in fuel use) will require added NO

x 

### controls. This possibility is reflected in the
small cost increases for 2030 a nd 2045, although progress in NO

x 

### emissions controls for CI engines should be transferable and thereby allow these increases to be minimal. While the cost increases for CI emissions controls in the LR case reflect the need to satisfy new 50-state requirements, it seems likely that further impro vements in engine design and reductions in engine-out emissions will eventually drive co sts below today’s levels — although further tightening of emissions requirements as technol ogy advances may limit cost reduction or could
even increase costs.

3.3.4.4 Batteries

Although batteries for HEVs have now been mass produced for about a decade, a shift to lithium-ion from nickel metal hydride can comp licate cost projections. In addition, there currently are no mass-produced battery systems for battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, making even current cost estimates controversial.

For this study, the battery cost estimates were based on a literature review and the cost goals of DOE and the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC). However, some new goals have been set, especially for plug-in hybrids (which are a relatively new priority for these organizations).

The long-term (2030 and beyond) PG costs were based on Advanced Battery Consortium goals for EVs of “<$150/kWh” for “minimum goals for long-term commercializa tion”; a “long-term

### 49 

### goal” of $100/kWh has also been set (USABC 2008). In the shorter term (2010), the PHEV $350/kWh goal was adapted from an early DOE goal of $500/ available kWh; that is, available energy is the energy that can actually be removed from the battery without significantly shortening its lifetime. For 2010, we assumed that about 70% of total rated energy is available (e.g., State of Charge [SOC] ranging from 95% to 25%); some may consider this value optimistic for this time frame. For the PG cost case for 2015, we assumed that a somewhat higher percentage of rated energy can be obtained; that the small PHEV10 battery will cost more per kWh than the PHEV40 battery; and that the large BEV battery will cost somewhat less per kWh than the PHEV40 battery. The difference in cost (as a percentage) between BEV and PHEV batteries was assumed to decrease in the future. As with other PG cost estimates, these values
should be viewed as extremel y optimistic for this time frame.

New goals have now been set by DOE for PHEVs. For a PHEV with a 10-mile range, the goal is a cost of $1,700 for 3.4 kWh of available energy, or $500/kWh. For a PHEV with a 40-mile range, the goal is $3,400 for 11.6 kWh of available energy, or $293/kWh (Howell 2008).

For the 2030 midsize car, the lithium ion battery for a parallel hybrid SI driv etrain is estimated to cost $480 (in the PG scenario) or $910 (in the LR scenario). This result compares to the MIT study’s cost of $750 to $900 (Kromer and He ywood 2007). The high-energy battery for a PHEV40 is estimated to cost about $1,600–$3,700, or $160–$375/kWh, versus the MIT study’s cost for a PHEV30 battery of $2,200–$2,800, or $260–$320/kWh. Finally, a long-distance battery for a BEV was estimated to cost $5,900–$12,800 or $150–$325/kWh as compared to the MIT study’s cost of $6,900–$10,200, or $200–$250/kWh.

It is important to note that a major goal of current battery R&D is to extend battery lifetime. Although current experience with battery longevity in HEVs is very positive, the charging requirements for PHEVs and EVs appear likely to place substantial stress on their batteries and may significantly shorten battery lifetimes. If PHEV and EV batteries do not last for the lifetime of the vehicles, lifecycle costs for these vehicles will rise significantly. The vehicle cost estimates developed in this section do not include costs for battery replacement.

3.3.4.5 Traction Motor and Power Electronics

The short-term prospects for achie ving cost reductions in tracti on motors and power electronics appear to be excellent, particularly for power electronics as costs for electronic components continue to decline. Materials cost increases could limit cost decreases in the longer term, as reflected in the LR cost values. For 2030, the moto r/electronics combination is assumed to cost $7–$12/kW. In comparison, the MIT study uses a value of $15/kW + $200.

3.3.4.6 Comparison of Cost Increases for Hybrid Drivetrains

Since several cost estimates exist for the incremental cost or RPE of full hybrid drivetrains, it is useful to compare the MP Study results directly to these estimates. For the midsize passenger car, the incremental cost of a full hybrid dr ivetrain is $2,230 (LR scenario)/$1,480 (PG scenario)

### 50 

### for the 2010 cost, while the 2010 incremen tal RPE is $3,345 (LR scenario)/$2,220 (PG scenario); for 2030, costs for key hybrid components are assumed to be sharply reduced, with an incremental drivetrain cost of $1,380 (LR scen ario)/$710 (PG scenario) and an RPE of $2,070 (LR scenario)/$1,065 (PG scenario). As noted, the PG 2030 cost is based on ambitious DOE goals and may be viewed as highly optimistic.

Kromer and Heywood (2007) estimate that a similar hy brid midsize car will have an incremental drivetrain cost of $2,400–$2,600 as compared to a 2006 SI drivetrain. The CONCAWE and EUCAR (2005) study projects an incremental price of 1,500 euros for a “2010+” hybrid drivetrain; this figure might translate into a cost of about $1,400 (1,500/1.5 = 1,000 cost in euros, or approximately $1,400 at a dollars-to-euros exchange rate of 1.4). For a 2010 full hybrid, EEA (2007) projects an RPE increase of $3,900, or a cost increase of $2,300 (at EEA’s conversion factor of 1.7). Costs for the LR case in this study are somewhat in the middle of this group: a bit more optimistic than Kromer and Heyw ood (2007), more pessimistic than the CONCAWE/EUCAR estimate, and quite similar to the EEA estimate.

3.3.5 Vehicle Cost Results

The results discussed here are for the case of a le ading edge midsize car with high fuel economy;

this case best reflects the basic context of the study: a future in which fuel economy is highly
valued.

Figure 3-5a shows the estimated retail prices for midsize passenger cars with varying drivetrains for the LR costs case, while Figure 3-5b shows the PG costs case, which represents full attainment of DOE cost goals for the advanced drivetrains. Figures 3-6a and 3-6b show the drivetrain costs for each of these cases in order to provide a finer scale to examine the differences among the different drivetrain ty pes. Tables 3-11a through 3-11f display the complete LR and PG costs case results fo r midsize cars/high fuel economy case for 2015, 2030,
and 2045.

Examination of the figures and tables yields several insights about the estimated costs of these
vehicles:

1. Even for the PG cost case — which we consider very optimistic, particularly in the early years — costs for the most advanced drivet rains (those not yet introduced except for a few demonstration vehicles) will be hi gh enough at their introduction that commercialization can proceed only if the manufacturers or the U.S. government subsidize their purchase. It is important to note that these prices reflect an assumption that mass production is occurring — vehi cles manufactured in numbers of a few
hundreds or even a few thousands will cost c onsiderably more, with the implication that such subsidies will be expensive (i.e., for the PG cost case, the subsidy cost will be perhaps $7,000 to $30,000 per vehicle multiplied by at least a few tens of thousands of vehicles per year, for several years, amounting to probably more than $1 billion dollars and possibly much more — and double th is amount for the LR cost case).

### 51 Midsize Car Retail Prices -- "Literature Review" Case

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000

R e f 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 5Retail Price, $ Reference SI SI Conv CI Conv SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC PHEV10 FC PHEV40 EV



### FIGURE 3-5a Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Literature Review Costs Case, High Fuel Economy

Midsize Car Retail Prices -- "Program Goals" Case

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

Ref 2010 2015 2030 2045Retail Price, $ Reference SI
SI Conv
CI Conv
SI HEV SI PHEV10
SI PHEV40
CI HEV
CI PHEV10
CI PHEV40
FC HEV FC PHEV10
FC PHEV40
EV



### FIGURE 3-5b Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs Case, High Fuel Economy



### Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs, "Literature Review" Case

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000

2010 2015 2030 2045Manufacturing Costs, $ SI Conv

CI Conv

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV



### FIGURE 3-6a Midsize Car Drivetrain Cost s (in 2008$), Literature Review Costs Case, High Fuel Economy

### 52 

### Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs, "Program Goals" Case

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

2010 2015 2030 2045Manufacturing Costs, $ SI Conv

CI Conv

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV



### FIGURE 3-6b Midsize Car Drivetrain Cost s (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs Case, High Fuel Economy



### 2. Comparing the two advanced technologies, fuel cell vehicles and battery-electric drivetrain vehicles with long electric ranges (i.e., PHEV40s and EVs), the fuel cell vehicles are expected to have more rapid declines in cost and price. While this is an assumption, it is based on the recent devel opment history of both technologies. The difference between the two technologies coul d be greater still if the problem of limited battery lifetimes is not solved: under the 2030 LR cost case, the battery in a PHEV40 could cost the consumer more than $5,000 to replace, with an EV battery costing more than $15,000. On the other hand, only moderate in frastructure development is needed for battery recharging, particularly for PHEVs, whereas massive infrastructure development will be needed to support the refueling of hydrogen fuel cells. In other words, both technology pathways present difficult commercialization prospects, albeit for different

reasons.

3. As noted earlier, an underlying assumption of this analysis is that costs for SI and CI conventional drivetrains will be relatively stable over time (though these will improve substantially in efficiency with the addition of a number of advanced components), while battery- and FC -based drivetrains will decline substantially in cost. The result, which is pre-ordained by this assumption, is that both the estimated drivetrain costs and the estimated retail prices of the range of vehicles examined here will tend to even out over time, as clearly shown by the figures. For the most optimistic PG cost case, it is projected that the retail price of fuel cell hybrids and short-range PHEVs will basically match the price of advanced SI conventional drivetrain vehicles by 2030; in the LR case, these advanced technology vehicles get to within about $6,000 of the advanced SI vehicle. The former result, the eventual disappearance of cost differences among the vehicles in the very low case, was essentially dictated by use of the DOE cost goals for these vehicles — the goals were explicitly derived to allow advanced vehicles to compete with
conventional vehicles in retail price.

### 53TABLE 3-11a Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2015)LITERATURE REVIEWCOST CASE FOR 20152007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $1,892 $3,360 $1,806 $1,806 $1,817 $3,271 $3,286 $3,292 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,527 $4,414 $4,576 $0Generator$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Motor$0 $0 $0 $208 $490 $504 $209 $338 $351 $827 $825 $853 $890Controller Inverter$0 $0 $0 $149 $352 $362 $150 $243 $253 $595 $593 $613 $640Transmission$1,200 $1,277 $1,273 $1,269 $1,325 $1,330 $1,263 $1,296 $1,301 $686 $669 $675 $611High Voltage Energy Storage$0 $0 $0 $1,309 $1,666 $5,526 $1,309 $1,714 $5,645 $1,224 $2,155 $7,423 $20,226Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $1,220 $1,090 $890 $0Exhaust$481 $418 $814 $293 $300 $300 $555 $599 $599 $0 $0 $0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 $4,761 $6,621 $6,208 $7,113 $11,013 $7,931 $8,650 $12,615 $10,877 $10,544 $15,828 $23,165Glider Cost$9,955 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799Vehicle Cost$14,571 $15,560 $17,420 $17,007 $17,912 $21,812 $18,730 $19,449 $23,414 $21,676 $21,343 $26,627 $33,964Vehicle Retail Price$21,857$23,340 $26,130 $25,511 $26,868 $32,718 $28,095 $29,174 $35,121 $32,514 $32,015 $39,941 $49,800VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 104,454 101,700 73,225 75,100 77,122 69,362 74,908 77,036 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,491 65,884 68,294 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 25,968 61,302 62,955 26,153 42,257 43,934 103,393 103,126 106,687 111,294High Voltage Energy Storage C W or Wh0 0 0 839 2,838 11,053 839 2,920 11,290 784 3,671 14,846 44,947Vehicle Masskg1474 1,267 1,307 1,288 1,329 1,389 1,334 1,355 1,416 1,350 1,339 1,426 1,479Glider Masskg990 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792*Includes final drivetrain, 12-volt (V) battery, wheels, and tires.

### 54TABLE 3-11b Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2015)PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 20152007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $1,817 $3,080 $1,731 $1,737 $1,742 $2,991 $3,006 $3,012 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $2,965 $3,073 $0Generator$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Motor$0 $0 $0 $182 $429 $441 $183 $296 $308 $724 $722 $747 $779Controller Inverter$0 $0 $0 $130 $307 $315 $131 $211 $220 $517 $516 $533 $556Transmission$1,200 $1,277 $1,273 $1,269 $1,325 $1,330 $1,263 $1,296 $1,301 $686 $669 $675 $611High Voltage Energy Storage$0 $0 $0 $654 $1,041 $3,316 $654 $1,072 $3,387 $612 $1,347 $4,454 $11,237Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $488 $436 $356 $0Exhaust$481 $418 $610 $418 $300 $308 $416 $416 $416 $0 $0 $0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 $4,686 $6,137 $5,558 $6,313 $8,626 $6,812 $7,471 $9,818 $7,537 $7,453 $10,636 $13,981Glider Cost$9,955 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799Vehicle Cost$14,571 $15,485 $16,936 $16,357 $17,112 $19,425 $17,611 $18,270 $20,617 $18,336 $18,252 $21,435 $24,780Vehicle Retail Price$21,857$23,228 $25,404 $24,536 $25,668 $29,138 $26,417 $27,405 $30,926 $27,504 $27,378 $32,153 $37,170VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 104,454 101,700 73,225 75,100 77,122 69,362 74,908 77,036 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,491 65,884 68,294 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 25,968 61,302 62,955 26,153 42,257 43,934 103,393 103,126 106,687 111,294High Voltage Energy Storage C W or Wh0 0 0 839 2,838 11,053 839 2,920 11,290 784 3,671 14,846 44,947Vehicle Masskg1474 1,267 1,307 1,288 1,329 1,389 1,334 1,355 1,416 1,350 1,339 1,426 1,479Glider Masskg990 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires.

### 55TABLE 3-11c Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2030)LITERATURE REVIEW COST CASE FOR 20302007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $2,017 $3,462 $1,937 $1,942 $1,947 $3,382 $3,396 $3,401 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$000 0 000 00 3925 3135 3242 0Generator$000 0 000 000000Motor$000 167 401 415 170 275 285 698 696 716 703Controller Inverter$0$0 $0 $119 $287 $296 $122 $196 $204 $498 $497 $512 $502Transmission$1,200 $1,266 $1,266 $1,257 $1,310 $1,315 $1,252 $1,252 $1,287 $675 $660 $665 $675High Voltage Energy Storage$0$0 $0 $908 $1,111 $3,677 $930 $1,146 $3,774 $843 $1,434 $4,941 $12,798Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $1,300 $1,300 $936 $0Exhaust$481 $437 $560 $437 $437 $437 $383 $414 $425 $0$0$0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 $4,894 $6,462 $5,999 $6,662 $9,261 $7,413 $7,853 $10,550 $8,737 $8,520 $11,810 $15,476Glider Cost$9,955 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266Vehicle Cost$14,571 $16,160 $17,728 $17,265 $17,928 $20,527 $18,679 $19,119 $21,816 $20,003 $19,786 $23,076 $26,742Vehicle Retail Price$21,857 $24,240 $26,592 $25,898 $26,892 $30,791 $28,019 $28,679 $32,724 $30,005 $29,679 $34,614 $40,113VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 97102 93302 67393 69209 70986 63870 69000 70891 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75476 60280 62355 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 23902 57343 59220 24471 39259 40737 99678 99484 102351 100492High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh0 0 0 766 2526 9806 784 2604 10064 22195 3258 13176 39380Vehicle Masskg1474 1163 1204 1178 1215 1269 1228 1245 1300 1217 1210 1286 1318Glider Masskg990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires.

### 56TABLE 3-11d Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2030)PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 20302007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $1,942 $3,052 $1,862 $1,867 $1,867 $2,972 $2,986 $2,991 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2264 1808 1871 0Generator$000 0 000 000000Motor$00 0 96 229 237 97 157 163 399 398 409 402Controller Inverter$0$0 $0 $72 $172 $178 $73 $118 $122 $299 $298 $307 $301Transmission$1,200 $1,266 $1,260 $1,257 $1,310 $1,315 $1,252 $1,282 $1,287 $675 $675 $665 $675High Voltage Energy Storage$0$0 $0 $478 $455 $1,569 $489 $469 $1,610 $444 $586 $2,108 $5,907Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $200 $200 $200 $0Exhaust$481 $388 $467 $388 $388 $388 $319 $345 $354 $0$0$0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 $4,770 $5,953 $5,327 $5,595 $6,728 $6,376 $6,531 $7,701 $5,079 $4,763 $6,358 $8,083Glider Cost$9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955Vehicle Cost$14,571 $14,725 $15,908 $15,282 $15,550 $16,683 $16,331 $16,486 $17,656 $15,034 $14,718 $16,313 $18,038Vehicle Retail Price$21,857$24,054 $25,829 $24,890 $25,292 $26,991 $26,463 $25,992 $28,451 $24,518 $24,044 $26,436 $29,024VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 97102 93302 67393 69209 70986 63870 69000 70891 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75476 60280 62355 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 23902 57343 59220 24471 39259 40737 99678 99484 102351 100492High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh0 0 0 766 2526 9806 784 2604 10064 22195 3258 13176 39380Vehicle Masskg1474 1163 1204 1178 1215 1269 1228 1245 1300 1217 1210 1286 1318Glider Masskg990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires.

### 57TABLE 3-11e Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, LR Cost Case for 2045)LITERATURE REVIEW COST CASE FOR 20452007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $2,016 $3,462 $1,937 $1,938 $1,943 $3,379 $3,393 $3,398 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,751 $3,033 $3,134 $0Generator$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Motor$0 $0 $0 $168 $396 $412 $169 $274 $284 $694 $693 $714 $685Controller Inverter$0 $0 $0 $120 $283 $294 $121 $195 $203 $496 $495 $510 $489Transmission$1,200 $1,265 $1,260 $1,257 $1,307 $1,307 $1,250 $1,250 $1,285 $671 $657 $662 $598High Voltage Energy Storage$0 $0 $0 $857 $894 $2,830 $857 $919 $2,912 $777 $1,162 $3,805 $9,484Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $890 $790 $376 $0Exhaust$481 $411 $467 $286 $289 $296 $314 $339 $348 $0 $0 $0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 4866 6363 5799 6281 8256 7264 7544 9604 8077 7628 9999 12054Glider Cost$9,955 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266Vehicle Cost$14,571 $16,132 $17,629 $17,065 $17,547 $19,522 $18,530 $18,810 $20,870 $19,343 $18,894 $21,265 $23,320Vehicle Retail Price$21,857$24,198 $26,444 $25,598 $26,321 $29,283 $27,795 $28,215 $31,305 $29,015 $28,341 $31,898 $34,980VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 96659 93302 67260 67901 69644 62735 67831 69619 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72126 58327 60277 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 24471 56592 58875 24471 39076 40508 22195 99066 101947 97862High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh0 0 0 784 2435 9432 784 2504 9708 711 3167 12685 37935Vehicle Masskg1474 1163 1204 1178 1208 1261 1225 1242 1294 1200 1195 1267 1296Glider Masskg990 693 693 693 693693 693 693 693 693 693693 693* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires.

### 58TABLE 3-11f Midsize Car (High Fuel Economy Case, PG Cost Case for 2045)PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 20452007COSTS Reference SIAdv SIAdv CISI HEVSI PHEV10SI PHEV40CI HEVCI PHEV10CI PHEV40FC HEVFC PHEV10FC PHEV40EVEngine$1,761 $1,941 $3,052 $1,862 $1,863 $1,868 $2,969 $2,983 $2,988 $0 $0 $0 $0Fuel Cell$0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,164 $1,750 $1,808 $0Generator$0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0Motor$0 $0 $0 $79 $187 $194 $80 $129 $134 $327 $327 $336 $323Controller Inverter$0 $0 $0 $72 $170 $177 $72 $117 $122 $298 $297 $306 $294Transmission$1,200 $1,265 $1,260 $1,257 $1,307 $1,313 $1,250 $1,280 $1,280 $671 $657 $662 $598High Voltage Energy Storage$0 $0 $0 $440 $438 $1,509 $440 $451 $1,553 $400 $570 $2,030 $5,690Fuel System$376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $178 $158 $128 $0Exhaust$481 $387 $373 $269 $272 $279 $251 $271 $278 $0 $0$0 $0Drivetrain*$4,616 4767 5859 5153 5411 6514 6236 6405 7529 4836 4557 6068 7703Glider Cost$9,955 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266Vehicle Cost$14,571 $16,033 $17,125 $16,419 $16,677 $17,780 $17,502 $17,671 $18,795 $16,102 $15,823 $17,334 $18,969Vehicle Retail Price$21,857$24,050 $25,688 $24,629 $25,016 $26,670 $26,253 $26,507 $28,193 $24,153 $23,735 $26,001 $28,454VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSEngine Power Max W120267 96659 93302 67260 67901 69644 62735 67831 69619 0 0 0 0Fuel Cell Power Max W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72126 58327 60277 0Motor Power Max W0 0 0 24471 56592 58875 24471 39076 40508 22195 99066 101947 97862High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh0 0 0 784 2435 9432 784 2504 9708 711 3167 12685 37935Vehicle Masskg1474 1163 1204 1178 1208 1261 1225 1242 1294 1200 1195 1267 1296Glider Masskg990 693 693 693 693693 693 693 693 693 693693 693* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires.

### 59 

### Values for the high fuel economy case are stre ssed here because they are viewed as more plausible in the context of the future conditions postulated in this study, that is, a future in which fuel economy is very highly valued. Figure 3-7 shows the drivetrain costs for the “average” fuel economy case, where tradeoffs among competing attributes have yiel ded less-optimistic fuel economy results. Although this case yields consis tently cheaper gliders (from about $300 to $700 cheaper depending on year), the drivetrains are more expensive — in some cases substantially so. This result occurs because the significantly greater loads (higher weight, increased tire rolling resistance, and aerodynamic drag) demand cons iderably more power output for identical performance. In 2015 for the LR cost case, the lowe r fuel economy raises costs for the SI hybrid by about $200; for the SI 40-mile range plug-in hybrid by $1,300; for the fuel cell vehicle by $2,300; and for the EV by $5,000. In 2045, the cost differentials are $400 for the SI hybrid; $700 for the 40-mile plug-in hybrid; $1,000 for the fuel cell vehicle; and $2,000 for the EV. In contrast, the average fuel economy case increases the cost of conventional SI drivetrains by only about $100 because engine costs vary substantially with power only when attaining higher power requires a significant change in engine design, such as increasing cylinder count or adding a turbocharger or supercharger. The net effect of th ese differential cost effects is that attaining only the average fuel economy levels not only reduces th e fuel economy of each type of vehicle, but also — by increasing the cost penalty of purchasing advanced drivetrain vehicles — likely reduces the market penetration of these vehicles and thus may substantially increase fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the fleet as a whole. In other words, attaining maximum fuel economy levels

—especially reducing vehicle loads so that drivetrain power demands

are reduced

—may be crucial to stimulating mark ets for advanced te chnology vehicles.

It is worthwhile to reiterate that these insights reflect a series of assumptions about how technology costs could plausibly be reduced over time, given an underlying optimism regarding the likelihood of technology success.



## Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs

"Literature Review" Cost, Average Fuel Economy

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Ref 201 201 203 204Manufacturing Costs, $ Reference SI SI Conv
CI Conv SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC PHEV10
FC PHEV40 EV



### FIGURE 3-7 Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs (in 2008$), LR Costs Case, Average Fuel Economy

### 60 

### 3.3.6 Scaling Cost Estimates to Multiple Vehicle Classes

As discussed above, cost estimate s were developed for a midsize passenger car and midsize SUV with multiple drivetrain technolog ies based on PSAT vehicle simula tions that defined drivetrain
characteristics for these vehicles . The light-duty vehicle fleet is composed of hundreds of vehicle types grouped into multiple classes. In the NEMS model used in this study, the fleet is subdivided into 12 vehicle categories (six classes for cars and six for light trucks). To provide input data for NEMS analyses, the cost estimates for the two vehicle types must be scaled to the 12 vehicle classes in each of the years for which cost estimates were derived (2010, 2015, 2030, and 2045). Table 3-12 shows the 12 vehicle classe s and their average horsepower ratings and average curb weights for 2007 new vehicles. The 2007 midsize passenger car and light truck evaluated in the PSAT and cost analyses do not match any of these vehicles exactly; they weigh 3,250 and 3,876 pounds, respectively, and their engine power ratings are 161 and 192 horsepower, respectively.

For the midsize cars and SUVs evaluated in this study, data are available from PSAT on fuel economy, power, and weight (and other physical variables) and from ORNL on drivetrain cost for each drivetrain technology based on these physical values. For the six classes of passenger car and six of light trucks, data on the followi ng variables — but for conventional drivetrain vehicles only — are available for multiple years:

• Average fuel economy, • Average weight, • Average horsepower, and • Average manufacturer’s sugg ested retail price (MSRP).

TABLE 3-12 Average Horsepower and Curb Weight for 12 Vehicle Classes, New U.S. 2007 Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Fleet

Power (horsepower) Curb Weight (pounds)

Conventional Cars Minicompact 255 3,572 Subcompact 185 3,080 Compact 147 2,964

Midsize 194 3,447 Large 212 3,761

Two-seater 264 3,278 Average new car 180 3,283

Conventional Light Trucks Small pickup 164 3,892 Large pickup 226 5,275

Small van 191 4,420 Large van 206 4,849 Small utility 196 4,181 Large utility 239 5,442 Average new light truck 213 4,823

### 61 

### Scaling the cost estimates to the 12 vehicle categor ies is made more diffic ult because the midsize car and SUV have fairly similar-sized powertrai ns of 161 and 192 horsepower, which does not afford the possibility of obtaining a rough linear relationship between power and cost that might be scaled to other powertrains. Also, scaling fact ors that are appropriate for a single year may not be appropriate for other years, because the costs and physical attributes (e.g., specific power) of different powertrain technologies and different components of each powertrain change over time at different rates. Given these difficulties and a scarcity of data, a number of simplifications are made, a primary one being that scaling factors are derived from the 2007 relationships among the multiple vehicle types and applied in all years.

As noted above, only two categories of costs – glid er weight reduction and changes in drivetrain technology – are estimated, ignoring possible costs from changes in aerodynamics, tires and

accessories.

3.3.6.1 Cost of Glider Weig ht Reduction in Year Y

The cost of glider weight reduction is assumed to scale linearly with glider weight. Knowing the glider weight reduction cost for the midsize car evaluated with PSAT, we can calculate:

COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTION car class x, year y 

### = [COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTION midsize car, y 

### ] × [GLIDER WEIGHT x,y 

### ]/[GLIDER WEIGHT midsize,y 

### ]

For this estimate, glider weight includes the weight of wheels and tires (in PSAT analyses, wheels and tires are considered part of the driv etrain). An underlying assumption is that the glider weight reductions as percentages of the original glider weights are the same across vehicle class; thus, the ratios of glider weights across classes do not change over time. Because only the curb weight for each of the 12 vehicle classes is given, their glider weights must be estimated.

Assuming that SI drivetrain weight = K × power, then

K = [drivetrain weight midsize car 

### ]/[power midsize car 

### ] for 2007, which we know from PSAT.

This result gives the glider weight for any vehicle class X in 2007 as:

Glider weight

x 

### = curb weight – drivetrain weight = curb weight

x 

### – k × power

x



### For year y , COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTION car class x 

### = COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTION midsize,y 

### × [2007 CURB WEIGHT
x 

### – K x power
x 

### ]/2007 GLIDER WT midsize

### 62 

### 3.3.6.2 Cost of Drivetrains (For Va rious Technologies) in Year Y

As discussed above, drivetrain costs have been calculated for midsize cars and SUVs in each year y and for multiple drivetrain technologies, a nd they must be scaled to 12 vehicle classes. Drivetrain costs will not scale well with any one factor. According to the cost equations used in the ORNL analysis (Table 3-1):

• Engine costs scale with number of cy linders, and somewhat with power; also, the number of cylinders scales roughly with power, although this relationship is strongly affected by the type of air injection system used (naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged).

• Fuel cell costs scale with power.

• Hydrogen storage costs scale with volume of fuel required for a rated range, so they scale inversely with fuel ec onomy (or directly, if fuel economy is stated in fuel consumption terms, e.g., liters [L]/100 kilometers [km]).

• HEV battery costs scale with power.

• PHEV and BEV battery costs scale inversely with fuel economy (actually with kWh, which are determined by how much energy is needed to obtain a constant stated range).

• Motor/controllers scale with power.

Also, there are substantial fixed costs in drivetrain s, so costs should not be expected to vary with simple multiples of attributes like weight and power.

The following simple scaling rules are followed, where W is the 2007 ratio of the curb weights of the passenger car class to the PSAT midsize car (w ith conventional SI drivetrain) or of the light truck class to the PSAT midsize SUV, and P is the 2007 ratio of engine powers for the same vehicles. It is important to note that these scalin g factors are recognized to be inaccurate; without further analysis, they are designed only to allow some logical differentiation between the way different drivetrain types are likely to vary with weight and power:

a The conventional drivetrain costs scale with (1 + P)/2; that is, the costs scale with power, but more slowly than by its simple direct ratio.

b For hybrids, PHEV10s, and fuel cells HEVs and PHEV10s , cost scales with (1 + 2P)/3; that is, costs s cale a bit more directly with power than for conventional drivetrains. This scaling factor was chosen because the costs of high-power batteries, fuel cells, and electric motors scale more linearly with power than does the cost of engines

and transmissions.

### 63 

### c For PHEV40s , costs scale with (1 + P + W)/3; the weight factor W is added because it roughly tracks with fuel efficiency (in consumption terms), and because high-energy battery costs vary roughly with energy storage capacity, which, in turn, depends on fuel efficiency (in consumption terms).

d For battery EVs , costs scale with (1 + P + 2W)/4; this scaling factor gives added emphasis to weight in scaling to recognize the added battery energy storage requirements

for an EV.

3.3.7 Rules for Estimating Vehicle Pri ces by Class, Technology, and Year

As in the discussion of fuel economy, the analysis thus far has focused on leading edge vehicles rather than average vehicles in each class. To examine fleet eff ects, it is necessary to estimate how the technologies embodied in these leading ed ge vehicles penetrate the new vehicle fleet. The methodology used to translate the leading ed ge vehicle price estimates into estimates for all
new vehicles in each class is identical to the method used for the fuel economy analysis (described in Box 3), except that the factors operated on in the methodology shift from leading edge X factors in the fuel economy analysis to incremental vehicle costs in the vehicle cost analysis. Incremental costs are estimated relative to the gasoline ICE costs of the NEMS-MP Base Case, which are estimated to increase over time almost completely as a result of added technologies associated with fuel economy improvement. 10 

### The final values developed for each of the 12 vehicle classes are presented in Appendix A.

3.4 OTHER VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES

A key purpose of the analysis of vehicle fuel economy and vehicle purchase price has been to assist in estimating the likely role each of the different types of vehicles will play in the future given different assumptions about future fuel prices and government policies. The Vehicle Choice Model (VCM) embedded in the NEMS model is used to estimate each vehicle type’s penetration into the light duty fleet. The model bases its estimates of future vehicle sales on estimates of the value consumers place on fuel ec onomy and first cost, as well as other vehicle attributes (though these are of considerably less importance). The other attributes are range, maintenance cost, acceleration capability, top speed, and luggage space. Table 3-13 shows attribute values assumed for midsize cars in the Mixed and (P)HEV& Ethanol Scenarios (see Chapter 6), presented as ratios referenced to the attributes exhibited by reference vehicles with conventional SI drivetrains in each analysis year. The attributes can vary by vehicle class. The full set of attributes used for all 12 vehicle classes are presented in Appendix A. The years of
introduction for FCVs and FCV PHEV40s are earlie r in the H2 Success Scenario; the other attributes are modified slightly to account for the earlier introduction.

10 

### We made very small adjustments to these costs to account for some expected safety improvements in the near

term.

### 64 TABLE 3-13 Assumed Vehicle Attributes for Advanced Drivetrain Vehicles: Midsize Car, Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios (Note: values < 1 mean “worse” for range, top speed, and luggage space and “better” for maintenance cost and acceleration.)

Attributes

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03

Acceleration 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.03

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 Year of:

Market

Intro. Price

Success Price

Mature 2040 2050

### 65 

### Of the five attributes shown, three — range, acceleration, and top speed — are actually calculated for each individual vehicle evaluated by the PSAT model; however, PSAT was not used to evaluate the reference vehicles (i.e., the average vehicles in the NEMS Reference Case). Consequently, because it was not possible to estimate the ratios in Table 3-13 directly, they are
“assumed” values.

The five attributes vary as follows:

Range. It was assumed that vehicle manufacturers would use the Advanced Conventional SI
vehicles as baselines and install fuel tanks ad equate to obtain the required range, keeping the same volume tanks for diesel and hybrid versi ons — which would increase range — but possibly reducing tank size for plug-in hybrids because of space considerations. Because hydrogen storage is expected to be quite expensive, manufacturers are expected to minimize tank size (i.e., provide just enough storage volume fo r minimum range requirements). It is quite conceivable that optional (larger) tanks might be o ffered in some models, especially larger and/or more expensive models.

Maintenance cost. Diesels are expected to require less ma intenance cost than conventional SI drivetrains, whereas the hybridization of drivetrains is expected to add to lifetime maintenance costs somewhat (although maintenance costs for the mechanical brakes should decrease because of the use of regenerative braking), and early fuel cell drivetrains are expected to further add to costs. These differences are reflected in the Table 3-13 values, with incremental costs declining over time as learning occurs. For those drivet rain technologies that have not yet been commercialized or that are likely to undergo substantial further development, estimates of maintenance costs must be considered speculative.

Acceleration. Acceleration capability has been assu med to be uniform across vehicle technologies. The PSAT analysis included vehi cle powertrain “sizing” based on an assumed uniform acceleration capability; thus, assuming a uniform factor of 1.00 appears reasonable.

Top speed. Although there is a “top speed” requirement in the PSAT vehicle sizing analysis, this attribute is a minimum rather than a target (unlike the acceleration requirement), and the acceleration requirement will yield a higher top speed for some types of drivetrains. In particular, the hybrid drivetrains likely will have lower top speeds than conventional drivetrains because the acceleration requirement can be met with boost from the battery and motor, whereas the top speed requirement must obtain power only from th e engine (i.e., the requirement is assumed to be a top cruising speed rather than an instantaneous value.

Luggage space. Especially in the early years of mark et penetration, hybr ids’ battery volume requirements and fuel cells’ hydrogen storage requirements will subtract from luggage space area(s), with the penalty reduced over time.

### 66 

### 3.5 TRADING OFF VEHICLE “FIRST COST” VS. FUEL SAVINGS

3.5.1 Description of the Analysis

Although consumers will choose among competin g vehicles by considering a number of

different attributes — and the NE MS vehicle choice model considers five attributes in addition to vehicle price and fuel economy — many analyses have estimated “cost-e ffective” levels of technology improvement by examin ing the simple tradeoff between technology retail price and the fuel savings associated with the technology, with fuel savings discounted over the vehicle’s lifetime. This tradeoff can be quite illumina ting as long as its limitations are understood.

In this section, we examine this tradeoff in a simplified manner. Within the NEMS model analysis, a vehicle’s annual and lifetime miles and fuel prices change over time, and the fuel economies and prices of advanced drivetrain vehicles in any given year are compared to reference vehicles that evolve over time. In contrast, the analysis described in this section will
hold the lifetime miles of new vehicles constant over time, w ill evaluate discounted fuel costs based on the simplifying assumption that fuel prices will stay constant over the vehicle’s lifetime, and will compare all new vehicles to a 2007 reference vehicle.

Basic assumptions are as follows:

• Vehicle lifetime = 15 years and 165,000 miles

• For each new vehicle, annual reduction in miles driven/year = 4%

• For a midsize passenger car, the reference vehicle — a 2007 model year vehicle with a conventional SI drivetrain — has a 24.7-MPG (adjusted) combined city/highway fuel economy and costs $21,867 at retail.

There is considerable controversy over the most appropriate way to calculate the value of the fuel savings associated with efficiency tec hnology. Vehicle manufacturer s have claimed that consumers behave, in their purchase decisions, as if they valued only about 3 years’ worth of fuel savings, whereas others have computed fuel savings over the lifetime of the vehicle in evaluating
cost tradeoffs. With the calculation of fuel use over the vehicle’s lif etime, it is necessary to select an appropriate discount rate for comparing future fuel savings to current vehicle costs. Typically, analysts interested in weighing societal choi ces choose a low discount rate (4% is common) to simulate the high value society is thought to place on future benefits. In contrast, weighing business decisions may demand a considerably hi gher discount rate, as much as 15% or 20%. Individual vehicle purchasers are likely to demand a much higher discount rate than they would require from safe investments such as bank CDs, because the return on an investment in future fuel savings is made more risky by uncertainties regarding such factors as future fuel prices, the amount of time before the vehicle is sold, actu al fuel economy obtained, and annual miles driven. And a key element in the consumer decision is simply whether or not potential vehicle purchasers view fuel efficiency as especially important and whether they believe that, when they choose to sell into the used vehicle market, fu el economy will be an important element of the

### 67 

### vehicle’s resale value. In this analysis, future fuel savings are discounted by 4%, 10%, and 20%
to show how vehicle valuations can shift with changing discount rates. The 4% rate will be treated in the discussion that follows as the “societal” rate, and the 20% rate will be treated as the “individual” rate. However, it shoul d be recognized that these rate s can change as conditions and attitudes change. In addition, the individual rate should be viewed as representing an average vehicle purchaser, and there is a wide distribution of attitudes about future fuel savings — thus a wide range of appropriate discount rates — in the population of vehicle purchasers.

As an aside, it is important to note that the “societal” 4% discount rate would normally be applied to fuel savings valued net of taxes , since taxes are simply a transfer from consumer to government. However, society may also add “ext ernality costs” to the value of fuel, and the value of externality costs is quite controversial. (Externality costs are costs [or benefits] to society that are not included in market price, e.g., damage from pollution.) This analysis values fuel savings at market price and includes taxes but does not include externality costs.

There is substantial uncertainty associated with all elements of the vehicle cost/fuel savings tradeoff. For example, future t echnology costs are highly uncertai n. As discussed in Section 3.3, this analysis examines the tradeoff by using two groups of technology cost estimates, labeled “literature review” (LR) and “program goals” (PG). The PG technology costs are assumed to attain DOE FreedomCar cost targets, many of which are normative — that is, rather than being created on the basis of engineering evaluations of what could be possible with mass production and design changes, they were created as goals on the basis of what values would be needed to make advanced vehicles fully cost-competitive with conventional vehicles. The LR technology costs are based on a review of the literature and reflect our best judgment at the time the
estimates were made of the likely outcome of successful progress in technology advancement

and cost reduction. It is important to note that they are not an estimate of “most likely” costs, because they ignore the very real possibility that research, development, and demonstration efforts for one or more technologies may not be fully successful.

Future fuel prices are also uncertain, and the vehicles examined use a number of fuels — gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, elect ricity, and ethanol (although etha nol costs are not considered here) — that may vary in ways that may be some what independent of each other. Four differing fuel price cases ar e examined for 2030:

• $4.50/gallon gasoline price case: gasoline price is $4.50/gallon; diesel is $4.50/gallon of gasoline equivale nt, or GGE (about $5.00/gallon 11 

### ); hydrogen price is $3.75/kg (1 kg is approximately equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline in energy content); and electricity is $.08/kWh (for nighttime recharging).

11 

### By assuming that diesel fuel will be priced about 12% higher, on a volumetric basis, than gasoline, the analysis may be overly pessimistic about the cost effectiveness of compression-ignition engine-based systems. Over the past few years, diesel prices have tended to be substantially higher than gasoline prices, although prior to that, diesel was often less expensive than gasoline on a volumetric basis. It is difficult to predict how gasoline/diesel price relationships will evolve in the future.

### 68 

### • $3.15/gallon gasoline price case: gasoline price is $3.15/gallon (approximately the 2030 price in the NEMS scenario with high oil prices); diesel is $3.15/GGE; hydrogen is $2.75/ kg; and electricity is $.08/kWh.

• $2.50/gallon gasoline price case: gasoline price is $2.50/gallon; diesel is $2.50/GGE; hydrogen is $2.75/kg; and electricity is $.08/kWh.

• $2.00/gallon gasoline price case: gasoline price is $2.00/gallon; diesel is $2.00/GGE; hydrogen is $2.50/kg; and electricity is $.08/kWh.

These four cases may not capture the potential range of energy prices possible in 2030, and they do not capture the possibility that hydrogen prices may not rise and fall in the same manner as might oil prices (however, although hydrogen prices will depend somewhat on production and delivery technology, which may be fairly indepe ndent of oil prices, they will also depend on overall energy and feedstock prices).

Ideally, an examination of the vehicle cost/fuel savings tradeoff would evaluate a continuum of technology advances by searching for an optimum point at which the net benefit is maximized and the incremental costs of adding further technology outweigh any further benefits in fuel savings. This analysis has instead evaluated vehicles incorporating a series of technology packages , each incorporating multiple drivetrain improvements. Each package is associated with a specific drivetrain (e.g., advanced conventional SI, SI HEV, FCV, etc.). Within each vehicle class, gliders are identical and incorporate a group of technology advances, including weight reduction, improved tires and aerodynamics, and improved accessories.

This section first presents a series of charts that compare the cost effectiveness — lifetime fuel savings minus the difference in vehicle price — for leading edge midsize cars in 2030 with the different drivetrain technology packages for each of the four fuel price scenarios and for both of the technology cost cases. The re ference vehicle is a 2007 midsize car with a conventional SI
drivetrain. A key to interpreting each graph is to recognize that the appropriate way to evaluate a vehicle with a partic ular technology package is to examine its cost effectiveness compared to all other options , not just to the reference vehicle. Even if a vehicle is cost effective when compared to the reference vehicle, there may be another, less-expensive option with a higher net benefit even though it offers less fuel savings. In that case, the marginal cost effectiveness of the first option is negative, and it is not an economically
efficient choice. In other words, if a simpler, less-expensive option can capture much of the potential fuel savings benefit at a relatively low cost/gallon saved, it may not make economic sense to try to capture the remaining available savings. In viewing the graphs, once the
maximum level of cost effectiv eness is reached, further tec hnology additions or improvements — for example, larger batteries or a shift to a different (and more expensive) drivetrain technology — may save more fuel but at a cost that exceeds the value of the added savings.

### 69 

### 3.5.2 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Cars, Literature Review Costs

Figures 3-8a through 3-8d show the net benefits of the full range of advanced vehicles when compared to the 2007 conventional drivetrain vehi cle for leading edge midsize passenger cars (model year 2030) and LR costs for the four fuel price cases. (Tables with supporting values for Figures 3-8a–d through Figure 3- 17 can be found in Section 3.8.)

The results show clearly the powerful effect of discount rates on the perceived cost effectiveness
of the various advanced vehicl es. For example, for the $4.50/gall on gasoline price case, at the “societal” (4%) discount rate, all advanced vehicles in 2030 are cost effective — that is, they have positive net benefits (lifetime fuel savings minus vehicle price difference). At the 20% discount rate, which better reflects (average) co nsumer decision-making, many of the options have little net benefit, and four have slipped into negative territory.

In the cases with the two highest fuel prices, th e figures show that it makes sense to purchase the
advanced conventional SI drivetra in car and the SI HEV at all three discount rates. The HEV, however, has the maximum cost effectiveness of the full range of drivetrain types. In other words, moving to still more advanced vehicles — for example, the PHEV10s — reduces net benefits (except at the 4% discount rate) even though the SI PHEV10 is a more cost-effective
choice than the reference vehicle. This resu lt does not mean that the SI PHEV10 is a poor investment — vehicle purchasers may value the PHEV’s substitution of electricity for gasoline at a higher value than represented simply by the pric e of the fuels — but it is important to recognize that purchasers of vehicles with advanced drivetrains will be comparing them to the other options



### Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-10000

-5000 0 5000 10000 15000

SI Con v CI Con v SI F ull HE V SI P HEV1 0 SI P HEV 40 CI F ull H E V CI P HEV 10 CI P HEV 40 FC HEV

FC

PHEV 10

FC

PHEV 40 EVLifetime Savings - Vehicle Price,$ 

### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-8a Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $4.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case

### 70 

## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000 10000

S

I C

onv CI Con v

S

I Full HEV

S

I P

HEV10 SI P HE

V

4 0 CI Full HEV

C

I PHE V

1 0 CI P HE

V

4 0

F C HE V FC PHE V

10 FC PHEV4 0 EVLifetime Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 3-8b Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000

SI Conv

C

I C

o n v SI Full HEV

S I P H E V

1 0 SI PHEV40

C

I F

u ll H

E V

C

I P H

E V

1 0 CI PHEV40

F C

H

E V

FC

P H

E V10

F C

PHE V 40 E VLifetime Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $



### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-8c Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case

### 71 

### Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000

SI Conv
CI Conv

SI

Ful

l H

E V SI PHEV10

SI

PHE V40

CI Full HE V CI PHEV10

CI

PH

EV40 FC H

EV

FC

PH

EV10

FC PHEV40 EVLifetime Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $



### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-8d Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.00/gallon Gasoline Price Case



### available for their consideration at the time. If an advanced conventional vehicle or HEV captures enough of the potentially available fuel savings, the additional cost of moving to PHEVs or FCVs may not appear attractiv e to the average vehicle purchaser.

Moving from individual (20%) discount rates to societal (4%) discount rates leads to an important shift in the relative attractiveness of the various vehicle/drivetrain options. While the fuel cell vehicles and the SI PHEV10 are substantially less attractive than the SI HEV at individual discount rates, they are virtually equal or only slightly le ss attractive at societal rates. This finding is not surprising, because the higher discount rates give more weight to first costs, and FCVs in particular are expected to be quite expensive.

At the lower fuel prices, cost effectiveness is reduced sharply across the board, and even the
advanced conventional vehicles s lide into negative cost-effectiveness territory at gasoline prices of $2.50/gallon and below for the “individual” 20% discount rate. Although again this result is not surprising, it has disturbing implications for the U.S. auto industry, which must comply with the new fuel economy standards even if fuel prices are low.

It must be noted here and in the analysis of PG costs considered below that the compressionignition (diesel) vehicles suffer somewhat from a relatively high (assumed) diesel fuel price and comparatively pessimistic technology cost estimates. 12

12 

### Discovered when we compared our estimates to others; see Section 3.3.4.

### 72 

### 3.5.3 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2007 SI Convention al Midsize Cars, Program Goal Costs

Figures 3-9a through 3-9d duplicate the format of Figures 3-8a through 3-8d but substitute the program goals technology costs fo r the literature review costs.

These results are very different from the literature review case, with all advanced vehicles in positive cost-effectiveness territory for both the 4% and 10% discount rates at gasoline prices as low as $2.50/gallon and with marginal cost effectiveness remaining positive well beyond the SI HEV. In other words, if program goal cost s are achieved, it will make economic sense to all actors (that is, at all three discount rates) to purchase advanced drivetrain technologies well beyond HEV drivetrains, especially fuel cell-ba sed drivetrains. Even at a 20% discount rate, most vehicles remain in positive territory; the fuel cell vehicles have extremely high net lifetime benefits, primarily because the DOE cost ta rgets for these vehicles are very low.

In other words, at these costs, the SI HEV no longe r represents the “best” ve hicle. For at least the cases with the two highest fuel prices, the SI PHEV10 has similar net be nefits at all discount rates, so moving beyond the HEV to a PHEV10 is at least neutral (approximately) in terms of marginal cost effectiveness. And the FCVs represent the most cost-effective vehicles, especially the FCV PHEV10. Of course, these results hinge on the validity of the PG costs for FCVs, given
the nature of their derivation.



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

S

I C

o

n v

C

I C

o

n v

S

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

S

I

P

H

E

V

1 0

S

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

C

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

C

I

P

H

E

V

1 0

C

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

F

C

H

E

V

F

C

P

H

E

V

1 0

F

C

P

H

E

V

4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-9a Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $4.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case

### 73 

## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-5000 0 5000 10000 15000

S

I

C

o

n

v

C

I

C

o

n

v

S

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

S

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

S

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

C

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

C

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

C

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

F

C

H

E

V

F

C

P

H

E

V

1 0

F

C

P

H

E

V

4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 3-9b Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-5000 0 5000 10000

S

I

C

o

n

v

C

I

C

o

n

v

S

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

S

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

S

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

C

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

C

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

C

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

F

C

H

E

V

F

C

P

H

E

V

1 0

F

C

P

H

E

V

4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 3-9c Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.50/gallon Gasoline Price Case

### 74 

### Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-5000 0 5000

S

I C

o

n v

C

I C

o

n v

S

I

F

u l l H

E

V

S

I

P

H

E

V

1 0

S

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

C

I

F

u l l H

E

V

C

I

P

H

E

V

1 0

C

I

P

H

E

V

4 0

F

C

H

E

V

F

C

P

H

E

V

1 0

F

C

P

H

E

V

4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-9d Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car, for the $2.00/gallon Gasoline Price Case



### For the $4.50/gallon gasoline price case, all of the evaluated vehicles are cost effective compared
to the 2007 reference vehicle at all discount rate s; however, for the most part, the longer-range electric drivetrain vehicles, the EVs and PH EV40s, have negative ma rginal net benefits compared to their shorter-range competitors (HEVs and PHEV10s). The primary difference between this case and the $3.15/gallon gasoline case is that, for both engine-driven and fuel cell drivetrains, the “best” vehicle becomes the PH EV10 for the higher-priced fuels case, as opposed to the HEV being the “best” vehicle for the $3.1 5 gasoline price case. However, the differences
in net benefits are sm all enough such that, given the uncer tainties in technology costs, the purchase decision between the two is relatively neutral.

At the lower fuel prices, the co st effectiveness of the ICE-base d vehicles (compared to the 2007 reference vehicle) is marginal at the 20% di scount rate. For the $2.50/gallon gasoline price case, the SI PHEV10 is positive, but it slips into negative territory for the $2.00/gallon gasoline price case, and even the SI HEV is barely positive at this fuel price level. Of more interest, the SI
advanced conventional vehicle is not cost effective in either of th e low fuel price cases (for the 20% discount rate). In both cases, however, the FC Vs remain cost effective, and their marginal cost effectiveness as compared to the SI HEV is positive. In other words, if the average individual vehicle purchaser co mpares the SI HEV to the FCV or FCV PHEV10, she would prefer the fuel cell vehicles.

### 75 

### 3.5.4 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2030 SI Advanced Conv entional

The analyses of cost effectiveness above, by using the 2007 conventional SI vehicle as the reference vehicle, show that the 2030 advan ced drivetrains often will not be attractive economically despite their positive net benefits — because their marginal benefits as compared
to the 2030 advanced conventional SI or SI HEV ve hicles are negative. This finding can be more explicitly demonstrated by re-evaluating the cost effectiveness of the range of vehicles using the
2030 advanced conventional SI or SI HEV vehicles as the reference vehicles. We perform this comparison for the $3.15/gallon gasoline price case.

In other words, the 2030 advanced drivetrain vehicles are first compared to advanced versions of
SI conventional drivetrain vehicl es available in that year, with the idea that these “advanced conventional” vehicles represent the “first tier” of efficiency-focused technology and possibly the minimum acceptable level of technology if societ al goals for oil security and climate change mitigation are very strong. These reference vehicles might be considered the “low-hanging fruit” for that year, and this comparison basically addr esses the question of wh ether it makes financial sense to purchase anything more than this minimum level of efficiency-focused technology.

Figure 3-10 shows the cost-effectiveness graphs for the 2030 midsize car with the LR technology costs for the $3.15/gallon gasoline price case.

Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2030 SI Advanced Conventional Midsize

Car

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000

C

I C

on

v SI Full HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV 4 0

C

I Ful l H

E V

C

I P

H

E V

10

C

I P

H

E V

40 FC HEV

FC PHE V10

FC PHE V

40 EV



### 4%

10%

20%Fuel Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference,$



### FIGURE 3-10 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a 2030 Advanced
Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car

### 76 

### This graph makes the earlier poi nt about marginal cost effectiveness a bit more clearly. Compared to the SI advanced conventional vehicle, only the SI HEV is unambiguously cost
effective for all three discount rate s. For the 20% “individual” rate, all of the more advanced (and more expensive) drivetrain types have negative net benefits — and even the SI HEV is just barely positive. In other words, for the average vehicle purchaser, there is little economic incentive to buy anything beyond an “advanced conventional” vehicle.

Figure 3-11 duplicates the above analysis with the PG vehicle costs, which reflect the achievement of DOE goals.

These results are very different, with all advanced vehicles except the diesel in positive costeffectiveness territory for both the 4% and 10% discount rates. Even at a 20% discount rate, most vehicles remain in positive territory; the fuel cell vehicles remain above a net $2,000 in net lifetime benefits, primarily because the DOE cost targets for these vehicles are very low.



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2030 SI Advanced Conventional Midsize

Car

-5000 0 5000 10000

CI

Con v

S

I F

u ll H

EV

S

I P

HEV10

SI

P

HEV40 CI Full HEV

CI

P

HE

V1

0

CI

P

HE

V4

0

F C

H

EV

F C

P

H

EV

1

0

F C

PHEV 4

0 E V 

### 4%

10%

20%Fuel Savngs - Vehicle PriceDifference, $



### FIGURE 3-11 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a 2030 Conventional
Drivetrain Midsize Car



### 3.5.5 2030 Midsize Cars vs. 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Cars

This analysis examines the cost effectivene ss of moving beyond SI full hybrids, under the assumption that such vehicles may easily become the baseline technology for the 2030 model year if cost reductions for batteries, motors, and electronic controls continue and fuel efficiency is a dominant factor in vehicle purchase decisions. Figure 3-12 shows the results of this analysis, assuming LR vehicle costs for the $3.15/gallon gasoline price.

### 77 

### Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car



### -14000 -12000 -10000

-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0

SI

C

o

n

v

CI

Con v SI PHEV10

S

I

PH EV

4

0 CI Ful l HEV

C

I P

H

EV 1 0

CI

P

H

EV

4

0

F

C HEV

F

C

PHEV10 FC P H

E

V40 E VFuel Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $



### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-12 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs, High Fuel Costs) Compared to a 2030 Full HEV
Drivetrain Midsize Car



### These results are sharply negative, indicating th at moving beyond full hybrids to more complex
drivetrains is not cost effective unless costs can be reduced below LR levels — even at societal

discount rates.

Figure 3-13 shows the effects of achieving the lower PG costs.

Even with the PG costs (and high fuel prices), only the fuel cell vehicles (FCVs and FC PHEV10s) are cost effective. The implication is that, in the strict sense of a private decision regarding cost effectiveness, the case for moving beyond full hybrid drivetrains is negative for engine-driven plug-in vehicles and moderate for fuel cell vehi cles. Although there are other (non-private) reasons for moving to these altern atives, including strong energy security and climate change considerations, it is hard to argu e that consumers will be eager to adopt advanced
vehicles without additional fina ncial incentives. Fuel cell vehi cles may constitute a possible exception, although even the case for these should be treated w ith caution because the assumed costs for the PG case are very low indeed.

### 78 

## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goal" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car



### -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000

S

I C

onv

C I Con v

S

I PH

EV1 0

S

I PH

EV

40

CI

Fu l l H

E V

C

I PHE V

10

C

I PHE V

40

F C

H

EV FC P H

EV10

FC P H

EV40 EVFuel Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-13 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, Gasoline Price Point is $3.15/gallon) Compared to a

2030 Full HEV Drivetrain Midsize Car



### 3.5.6 Transition Costs — Cost Effectiveness in 2015

As noted earlier, the 2030 results discussed up to this point represent long-term results — what can be expected after substantial reductions in vehicle costs can be obt ained by learning and mass production. Many of the advanced drivetrain technologies are likely to be very expensive when introduced; while cost reductions will be pursued vigorously in the laboratory and during development efforts, most new t echnologies experience further dr amatic cost reductions in the years following their introduction. Consequently, th e right-hand term of the cost-effectiveness
measure — the incremental vehicle price — is likely to be much larger in 2015 than it will be in 2030. To get a sense for cost effectiveness during th is transitional period, a final analysis focuses on net benefits in 2015, before many of the hoped-for cost reductions are achieved.

Figures 3-14 and 3-15 show the net benefits (ref erenced to a 2007 SI conventional midsize car) for a 2015 midsize car at both LR and PG vehicle costs for the $3.15/gallon gasoline price case. Hydrogen is still assumed to be $2.75/kg in the case as discussed in Section 3.5.1 (for 2030). However, it in fact might be higher than that in 2015, given that the potential cost-reduction effects of larger-scale centralized production, tran sport by pipelines, and learning will not have had a chance to take effect by 2015.

### 79 

## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2015 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI Conventional Vehicle

-25000 -20000 -15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000 10000

S I C

o n v

C I C

o n v

S I F

u l l H E V

S I P H E V 1 0

S I P H E V 4 0

C

I F

u l l H E V

C

I P H E V 1 0

C

I P H E V 4 0

F C

H E V

F C

P H E V

1 0

F C

P H E V 4 0 E VFuel Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $



### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-14 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2015 Midsize Passenger Car (“Literature Review” Vehicle Costs, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2015 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI Conventional Vehicle

-10000

-5000 0 5000 10000

S I Con v

C I Conv SI Fu l l HEV

S I P HEV 10

S I PHEV 4 0

CI

Full H E V CI PHEV10

CI

PHE V 40 FC HEV

FC

P HEV10

F C

P HEV 40 E VFuel Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%



### FIGURE 3-15 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2015 Midsize Passenger Car (“Program Goals” Vehicle Costs, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price Case) Compared

to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car

### 80 

### For the LR vehicle costs, net benefits are qu ite similar to the 2030 case (see Figure 3-8b) for SI full hybrids and PHEV10s. For these vehicles , the vehicle prices are actually moderately lower than in 2030, because their higher drivetrain costs are more than balanced by lower glider costs; and the lower vehicle prices are balanced by reduced fuel savings. For the PHEV40s, fuel cell vehicles, and EVs, fuel savings are somewhat lower, and there are large increases in vehicle costs; net benefits are thus c onsiderably lower (or more negativ e). For example, at 20% discount rates for fuel savings, the 2030 SI PHEV40 has a net benefit of about –$3,200; the 2015 SI has a net benefit of about –$5,300. Similarly, the 2030 EV has a net benefit of about –$11,800, compared to –$21,700 for the 2015 EV.

For the PG vehicle cost case, the patterns are ba sically the same. In the 2030 case, net benefits are positive for virtually every technology an d discount rate combination, except for the CI conventional, CI PHEV40, 13 

### and EV drivetrains at the 20% discount rate — and the “negative” values are only about –$700 for each . For 2015, the net benefits are similar for the full HEVs and PHEV10s, but much lower for the fuel cell vehicles, PHEV40s, and EVs. For the EVs, for example, whereas net benefits in 2030 are positive for two of the three discount rates (+$6,600 for 4%, +$2,900 for 10%, and –$700 for 20%), in 2015 the net benefits are strongly negative for all three discount rates, ranging from –$1,900 for the 4% discount rate to –$9,000 for the 20% rate. In other words, a uniformly po sitive picture of cost effectiveness in 2030 is preceded by a very mixed picture in 2015, with a likely requirement for sharp subsidies for the more advanced drivetrains unless potential vehicle purchasers place much higher value on future fuel savings than they currently do, which wo uld be equivalent to accepting a 10% or less discount rate in valuing these savings.

3.5.7 Summary and Conclusions about the Cost Effectiveness of Advanced Vehicles

An evaluation of whether or not advanced technology vehicles are seen as “cost effective” depends crucially on both the assu mptions and methodology, includi ng the choice of the discount rate to apply to future fuel savings, the degree of optimism applied to estimating future technology costs, and projected future fuel prices.

The choice of the discount rate to apply to future fuel savings should depend on who the “actor” is (whether society, industry, or a vehicle purchas er) and how high a priority that actor gives to such savings. A range of 4% to 20% is not too broad in examining actors ranging from society to individuals, especially with uncertainty about ho w future actors will value future fuel savings. This range yields very large differences in perceived cost effectiveness, sometimes pushing net benefits from strongly positive (a t 4% “societal” discount rates) to solidly negative (at 20% rates for individuals). Of course, it must be noted that each category of actors incorporates a wide range of attitudes about future fu el savings, and thus a wide ra nge of possible discount rates. Further, by focusing solely on vehicle price and fuel costs, a host of other variables in purchase decision are ignored, including different valuations of alternative fuels, which may vary widely among individuals, businesses, and governments.

13 

### As noted earlier, our cost estimates for diesels now seem somewhat pessimistic compared to those used in other analyses.

### 81 

### The high level of uncertainty associated with fu ture technology costs and fuel prices yields a wide range of potential cost-effectiveness values for alternative technology vehicles. Even if technology cost estimates are held to a range in corporating only relatively optimistic values, the shift from considering estimates based on the current (optimistic) literature to estimates based on attaining DOE cost goals can cause the cost-effectiveness estimates to change dramatically.

In evaluating technology options, it is crucial to focus on the marginal cost effectiveness of the technologies compared to one another, unless one is simply trying to ascertain whether these technologies are less costly than current technol ogy vehicles. For example, an SI PHEV40 might have a positive cost effectiveness compared to a current vehicle, but intermediate levels of technology —for example, advanced conventi onal drivetrains or hybrids without plug-in capability —might have higher values of net benefits (fuel savings minus vehicle price difference). An examination of marginal costs a nd benefits could potentially reveal that going beyond the intermediate technolog ies might not be attractive.

This analysis focuses on the cost effectivene ss of advanced technology vehicles in 2030, a time frame that allows for substantial cost reductions from the effects of learning and mass production to have occurred. The analysis has estimated the net benefits — lifetime fuel savings minus the difference in vehicle price associ ated with advanced technologies — at three discount rates (4%, 10%, and 20%) that are applied to future fuel savings and four fuel price cases (associated with gasoline prices at $4.50, $3.15, $2.50, and $2.00 per gallon). As noted above, two sets of technology cost estimates — literature review an d program goals — were used. The reference vehicle from which to estimate fuel savings an d vehicle price differe nces was a 2007 vehicle
with a conventional SI drivetrain.

Key conclusions are as follows:

1. When assuming LR technology costs, the SI HEV drivetrain vehicles generally have the highest cost effectiveness (net benefits), meaning that moving to vehicles with more advanced drivetrains will yield negative marginal costs — even though these more advanced vehicles might have positive net benefits (compared to current vehicles) at some discount rates for some fuel price cases.

2. When assuming PG technology costs, the purchase of vehicles with drivetrain technologies that are well beyond the SI HEV drivetrain can usually make sense. In particular, the fuel cell hybrid s and PHEV10s have uniformly hi gher net benefits than the SI HEVs for all discount rates and fuel prices. For the combination of higher fuel prices and lower discount rates, the SI and CI PHEV10s and occasionally the PHEV40s also have higher net benefits, although in no cases are they higher than the fuel cell vehicles. Because the DOE cost goals for fuel cell systems appear to be normative — that is, the goals are based on what is thought to be n eeded for successful commercialization rather than on engineering estimates of what is achievable — it is important to examine the realism of these goals before accepting this potential for positive net benefits.

3. The effect of fuel prices on both the magnitude of the net benefits and the relative competitiveness of alternative drivetrain vehicles is profound. For example, for

### 82 

### technology costs at the LR level, at the high est fuel prices evaluated (when gasoline is $4.50/gallon), all technologies except the longes t-range electric drivet rain vehicles have positive cost effectiveness (net benefits) co mpared to current conventional drivetrain
vehicles at all discount rates. At the lower fuel prices (e.g., when gasoline is $2.50/gallon and below), virtually no advanced technologies — including SI advanced conventional drivetrain vehicles and HEVs — have positive net benefits at the 20% discount rate, and none beyond the SI PHEV10 are positive at the 10% discount rate. In other words, low fuel prices will severely compromise the prospects for advanced vehicles unless governments provide strong economic incentives or vehicle purchasers radically change their preferences for fuel savings (and thus their perceived discount rates for future savings).

4. When technology costs are at PG levels, cost effectiveness (at the highest fuel prices evaluated when gasoline is $4.50/gallon) is robustly positive for all technologies including EVs for all discount rates. At the lowest fuel prices (gasoline at $2.00/gallon), however, cost effectiveness is weak to negativ e at the 20% discount rate, even for the SI advanced conventional vehicle. (Fuel cell vehicles are the only exception — and this result must be interpreted in light of the aggressive cost goals for these vehicles.) In other words, even cost breakthroughs in many technology areas may not overcome the economic disincentives that low fuel prices pose for advanced efficiency technologies.

5. Whatever the long-term prospects for the advanced tec hnologies may be, for successful commercialization to take place, the technol ogies must gain early market acceptance before the majority of their cost reductions (from the effects of learning and mass production) can occur. Examining the same vehicle types in 2015 (using the $3.15/gallon gasoline price case), for the LR technology costs, the “lower-level” technologies (e.g., advanced conventional vehicles, full hybr ids) are about as cost effective as their 2030 counterparts; reduced glider costs are balanced by the combination of higher drivetrain costs and lower fuel savings. Fo r the technologies beyond these, however, net benefits are strongly reduced, primarily becau se drivetrain costs are sharply higher. And for the PG costs, the 2030 picture of uniformly positive cost effectiveness is transformed to a mixed picture for 2015, with the “higher-tec h” vehicles with larger batteries looking robustly cost effective only for the two lower discount rates and the EVs having positive net benefits only at the 4% rate. This result confirms the widely held belief that these technologies will have to be st rongly subsidized — either by their manufacturers or the government — for several years before commercial success can be realized.

In summary, this analysis generally confirms that there will need to be a combination of factors in place for future advanced vehicle technologies to succeed — high oil prices, with consumers believing that prices will remain high over a substantial time period; significant reductions in technology costs; high consumer valuations of future fuel savings; and, in the early years following the advanced technology vehicles’ in troduction, strong economic incentives for their purchase. These factors are especially important for fuel cell vehicles a nd vehicles with large batteries (PHEV40s, EVs); advanc ed conventional vehicles, full hybrids, and possibly PHEV10s
could be successful with somewh at lesser attainment of these f actors. Finally, the long-term success of EVs and PHEV40s appear s especially tied to dramatic reductions in battery costs at

### 83 

### levels beyond those generally predicted by most optimistic analysts. However, the fact of fuel cell vehicles being left out of this last group depends on the realism of DOE cost goals for fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage. The “program goals” technology cost assumptions assume these goals are met and, as noted before, the goals appear to be normative rather than actually having been derived from engineering analysis. It would be useful to re-examine these goals to obtain a better grasp of their realism.

3.6 COSTS OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Policymakers have been interested in compar ing alternative policie s and technologies by evaluating their “carbon costs” or “GHG costs” — the dollar amount required to reduce carbon emissions by one ton of CO 2 

### or its equivalent in total gr eenhouse gases. In addition, the GHG costs of individual technologies may be compared to the average GHG costs in various sectors ofthe economy or to the average charges incurred by auctioning off carbon or GHG credits in socalled carbon trading programs.

This analysis derives the GHG costs, measur ed in U.S. dollars per metric ton of CO 2 

### (or its equivalent in total GHGs) for most of the drivet rain technologies examined in this report for the 2030 model year. The analysis measures two types of costs:

• “Private” GHG costs are those paid by individual vehicle purchasers and are

defined as the net of initial technol ogy cost and lifetime fuel savings (referenced to advanced conventional vehicles of the same model year) divided by the lifetime reduced GHG e missions. Both fuel savings and GHG

emissions reductions are discounted at the “individual” rate of 20%/year. Although this value may appear high, th e recent behavior of average vehicle purchasers in valuing fuel economy transl ates into an apparent discount rate for future fuel savings of above 20%.

• “Social” GHG costs are those paid by governments in subsidizing vehicle purchases and are defined as the subsidy divided by the lifetime GHG

reduction discounted at a “s ocietal” rate of 4%.

For both private and social GHG costs, no account wa s taken of other extern al costs and benefits associated with using the technologies (e.g., reduced criteria emissions, congestion, and other societal costs associated with any rebound in drivin g caused by reduced fuel costs, etc.). In other words, this method essentially assigns the entire subsidy cost to GHG emissions reduction. It is important to note that some may argue that subsidy costs should be split among the multiple societal benefits (e.g., reduced greenhouse gases and improved energy security [associated with reducing oil imports]) — thus reducing the estimated costs for each benefit.

In the scenario analyses (using the National Energy Modeling System) described in Chapters 6 and 7 in the report, there was minimal market penetra tion of some key technologies — plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles — when “literature review” costs were assumed and no vehicle purchase incentives were offered. A second scen ario was run with the same costs but with

### 84 

### purchase subsidies of $7,500/vehicle (selected vehicl es only). The private (no subsidy) and social (subsidy) GHG costs for these two cases are shown in Figure 3-16. A similar set of analyses was conducted for the “program goals” cost case, a lthough penetration of advanced drivetrains was much higher in the “no subsidy” scenario run for this case. A separate subsidy scenario case was run, however (with smaller, variable subsidies) , to provide a scenario with even higher penetration of advanced drivetra ins. The results for these two cases are shown in Figure 3-17.

Underlying assumptions of the GHG cost calculations are as follows:

• Hydrogen production is assumed to be 100% at the refueling stations, using natural gas as a feedstock; a sensitivity case assumes that 50% of hydrogen production is from central coal-based plants.

• Assumptions concerning the sources of the electricity for nighttime recharging of plug-in hybrids and EVs are as fo llows: 30% is provided by natural gasbased power plants, 62% by coal-based plants, and 8% by nuclear plants. Available renewable electricity — prima rily hydro and wind power — is thus assumed to be fully utilized whether or not more electric drivetrain vehicles are added to the fleet, so that it would not be considered a source for recharge electricity. 14



### Costs of GHG Emissions Reductions
2030 Midsize Car, Referenced to 2030 Advanced Conventional SI Drivetrain

"Lit Review" costs, 4%/20% social/private discount rate, $3.15/gal gasoline case

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

CI D

I SI HE

V

SI PHEV10 SIP H

E V4

0

C I HEV

CI PH EV1 0

CI PHEV40

F C

H

EV FC HEV w/5 0 % coal H2GHG Reduction Cost, $/tonCO2eq Private costs, without subsidies

Social costs of a $7500/vehicle subsidy



### FIGURE 3-16 Cost of GHG Reduction for 2030 Drivetrain Technologies in a Leading Edge Midsize Car, LR Vehicle Costs, $/ton of CO 2 

### Equivalent

14 

### This assumption would break down if electric vehicles provided grid services (regulation, rolling reserves) that stimulated additional construction of renewable electric capacity.

### 85 

### Costs of GHG Emissions Reductions
2030 Midsize Car, Referenced to 2030 Advanced Conventional SI Drivetrain

"Program Goals" costs, 4%/20% social/private discount rate, $3.15 gasoline case

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

CI D

I SI HE

V

SI PHEV10 SIP H

E V4

0

C I HEV

CI PH EV1 0

CI PHEV40

F C

H

EV FC HEV w/5 0 % coal H2GHG Reduction Cost, $/tonCO2eq Private costs, without subsidies

Social costs of subsidy



### FIGURE 3-17 Cost of GHG Reduction for 2030 Drivetrain Technologies in a Leading Edge Midsize Car, PG Vehicle Costs, $/ton of CO 2 

### Equivalent



### • For natural gas-based electricity, 58% is from combined-cycle gas turbines and 28% is from simple-cycle turbines (vs. expected total generation of 48%/38%).

• In the calculation of private costs, gasoline prices are assumed to be a constant $3.15/gallon over the vehicle lifetime.

• The fuel cycle GHG emissions of the fu els (on a “per gallon,” “per kWh, ” or “per kg” basis) are obtained from Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model. Gasoline GHG content is based on current reformulated gasoline; future changes in ethanol content or source (e.g., cellulosic) are not

considered.

As shown in Figure 3-16, private GHG costs fo r the more advanced drivetrain vehicles — beyond the PHEV10s — will tend to be quite high unless technology costs are driven to levels
well below LR levels. The SI HEVs are cost eff ective even at high private discount rates, and thus they have zero private GHG reduction co sts; the SI PHEV10s have only modest GHG reduction costs of about $12/ton. Ho wever, all of the other vehi cles have private GHG costs above $100/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent, which is a very high va lue compared to carbon or GHG costs in other sectors. The EVs, which are very expe nsive at LR costs, have GHG costs of $2,800/ton.

The $7,500/vehicle subsidy used to boost market penetration (and thus yield large GHG reductions) from technologies beyond simple hybrid s translates into a high social GHG cost — $400–$600 per ton of CO 2 

### equivalent, values that are far hi gher than GHG reductions available

### 86 

### from more conventional technologie s and from other sectors. It is important to note, however, that only PHEV40s were included in the scenario analysis; PHEV10s would have been expected to do considerably better, because they are relatively cost effective at LR costs and when fuel prices are high.

Attaining the PG-level technology costs drives down both the private and social GHG costs of the alternative drivetrains. As shown in Figure 3-17, virtually all of the drivetrains are cost effective at the $3.15/gallon gasoline energy price case. The excep tions are the CIDI conventional drivetrain, which suffers because it yi elds only modest fuel savings compared to the SI conventional reference vehicle, at significantly higher cost; 15 

### the CI PHEV40; and the EV (not shown in the figure), which has a private cost of about $270/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent.

The scenario analyses using PG vehicle prices awarded subsidies of about $1,000 to SI HEVs, $4,000 to SI PHEV40s, and $700 to FCVs (the latter subsidy was small because the PG costs for fuel cells are quite low) to boost market penetra tion of these drivetrains. The social GHG costs for the SI HEVs and FCVs are moderate — about $40–$60/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent. The social costs for the SI PHEV40s, however, are high — about $270/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent, reflecting the high costs of the longer-range electric drivetrain vehicles.

3.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3

Anderman, M., 2008. E-mail communication, January 7.

Bandel, B., et al., 2006. The Turbocharged GDI Engine: B oosted Synergies for High Fuel Economy Plus Ultra-Low Emissions , SAE 2006-01-1266, April.

Carfolio.com, 2008. Available at: http://www. carfolio.com/specifi cations/models/car/ ?car=77627#a_aerodynamics ( accessed August 2009).

Cheah, L., C. Evans, A. Bandivadekar, and J. Heywood, 2007. Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035, MIT-LFEE, 2007-04-RP, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.

CONCAWE (CONservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe) and EUCAR, 2005. Well-toWheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuel s and Powertrains in the European Context, Version 2a, December , WTW Appendix 2: Cost Calculations.

Das, S., 2004. “A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Powertrains and Body-in-White Materials for Advanced Technology Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0573, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Das, S., 2005. “Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2005-01- 0007, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

15 

### Again, our CI technology cost estimates appear pessimistic.

### 87 

### EEA (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.), 2006. Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light Duty Trucks to 2015 , prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Transportation, May.

EEA, 2007. Update for Advanced Technologies to Improve Fuel Economy of Light Duty Vehicles; Draft Final Report , August.

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2005. “Batteries for Electric Dr ive Vehicles – Status 2005: Performance, Durability, and Cost of Advanced Batteries for Electric , Hybrid Electric, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” Report No. 1010201, Nov.

Heywood, J., et al., 2003. The Performance of Future ICE and Fuel Cell Powered Vehicles and Their Potential Fleet Impact , Massachusetts Institute of Tec hnology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MIT LFEE 2003-004 RP, December.

Howell, D., 2008. Progress Report for Energy St orage Research and Development

, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, January.

Ibis Associates, Inc., 2004. “Data Document: Au tomotive System Cost Model,” prepared for Oak Ridge National Laborato ry, Oak Ridge, TN, Oct.

Kalhammer, F.R., et al., 2007. Status and Prospects for Zero Emissions Vehicle Technology: Report of the ARB Independent Expert Panel 2007 , California Air Resource Board.

King, J., 2007. The King Review of Low-Carbon Cars; Part 1: The Potential for CO 2 

### Reduction

, October. Available at ht tp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/king (accessed August 2009).

Kromer, M.A., and J.B. Heywood, 2007. Electric Powertrains: Oppor tunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet , Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, LFEE-2007-03 RP, May.

Olszewski, M., 2007. Personal communication, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Rousseau, A., P. Sharer, and S. Das, 2005. “Trade-off between Fuel Economy and Cost for Advanced Vehicle Configurations,” presente d and published at EVS21conference, held in Monaco, Apr. 2–5.

USABC (U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium), 2008. “USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs.” Available at: http://www.uscar.org/gu est/article_view.php?artic les_id=85 (accessed August 2009).

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006. Partnership Pl an, FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa ndfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf (accessed September 2009).

### 88 

### Vyas, A., D. Santini, and R. Cuenca, 2000. “Compa rison of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Vehicle Manufacturing,” Technical memorandum in support of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Cost Estimation Studies, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Apr.

Warburton, M., et al., Global Equity, and Parker, S., et al., Ricardo, 2007. Is diesel set to boom in
the US? , UBS Investment Research, QSeries®: Global Autos Research Report, May 24.

Weiss, M.A., et al., 2000. On the Road in 2020; A Lifecycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies , MIT EL-00-003, October.

3.8 TABLES FOR FIGURES 3-8 THROUGH 3-17

3.8.1 Tables for Figures 3-8a through 3-8d

TABLE 3-14 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $4.50

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

5707 3500 1399

6033 3096 299
SI Full HEV 11134 6995 3054
SI PHEV10 11042 4666 2481
SI PHEV40 9137 4209 -485
CI Full HEV 9556 5269 1186
CI PHEV10 10040 5441 1061
CI PHEV40 7659 2606 -2206

9891 4971 286
FC PHEV10 10903 5796 932
FC PHEV40 6787 1457 -3620

2540 -3132 -8534 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 89 TABLE 3-15 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

3280 1735 264

2802 746 -1212
SI Full HEV 6581 3684 925
SI PHEV10 6103 3065 172
SI PHEV40 3388 28 -3173
CI Full HEV 4840 1840 -1018
CI PHEV10 4869 1681 -1356
CI PHEV40 1771 -1676 -4959

4305 908 -2326
FC PHEV10 5025 1521 -1816
FC PHEV40 483 -3129 -6568

-4442 -8210 -11798 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV



### TABLE 3-16 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $2.50

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

2111 885 -282

1247 -385 -1939
SI Full HEV 4389 2090 -100
SI PHEV10 3725 1336 -940
SI PHEV40 620 -1985 -4467
CI Full HEV 2570 188 -2080
CI PHEV10 2380 -130 -2520
CI PHEV40 -1064 -3738 -6284

943 -2552 -3898
FC PHEV10 1663 -1727 -3388
FC PHEV40 -2879 -6066 -8139

-7804 -10655 -13370 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 90 TABLE 3-17 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $2.00

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

1212 231 -703

50 -1255 -2498
SI Full HEV 2703 864 -888
SI PHEV10 1896 5 -1795
SI PHEV40 -1509 -3534 -5463
CI Full HEV 823 -1082 -2896
CI PHEV10 464 -1523 -3416
CI PHEV40 -3245 -5324 -7304

-1294 -3417 -4944
FC PHEV10 -647 -2805 -4468
FC PHEV40 -5296 -7454 -9269

-10390 -12535 -14579 EV SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV



### 3.8.2 Tables for Figures 3-9a through 3-9d

TABLE 3-18 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

5893 3686 1585

6796 3859 1062
SI Full HEV 12142 8003 4062
SI PHEV10 12643 8258 4082
SI PHEV40 12937 8008 3314
CI Full HEV 11111 6824 2742
CI PHEV10 12727 8128 3748
CI PHEV40 11932 6880 2067

15378 10458 5773
FC PHEV10 16538 11431 6568
FC PHEV40 14965 9635 4558

13630 7958 2556 EV SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

### 91 TABLE 3-19 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

3466 1921 450

3566 1510 -448
SI Full HEV 7589 4692 1933
SI PHEV10 7704 4666 1773
SI PHEV40 7188 3827 626
CI Full HEV 6396 3395 537
CI PHEV10 7556 4367 1330
CI PHEV40 6044 2597 -685

9792 6395 3161
FC PHEV10 10661 7157 3819
FC PHEV40 8661 5049 1610

6647 2880 -709 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV



### TABLE 3-20 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

2297 1071 -96

2010 379 -1175
SI Full HEV 5397 3098 908
SI PHEV10 5326 2936 661
SI PHEV40 4420 1814 -668
CI Full HEV 4125 1744 -524
CI PHEV10 5066 2556 166
CI PHEV40 3210 536 -2011

6430 2935 1589
FC PHEV10 7299 3908 2248
FC PHEV40 5299 2112 39

3286 435 -2280 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 92 TABLE 3-21 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

1398 417 -517

814 -492 -1735
SI Full HEV 3711 1872 120
SI PHEV10 3496 1606 -195
SI PHEV40 2291 266 -1663
CI Full HEV 2379 474 -1341
CI PHEV10 3151 1164 -729
CI PHEV40 1029 -1050 -3030

4193 2070 543
FC PHEV10 4989 2831 1168
FC PHEV40 2882 724 -1091

700 -1446 -3489 EV SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV



### 3.8.3 Table for Figure 3-10

TABLE 3-22 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Conventional Midsize Car)

4% 10% 20%

-478 -989 -1607
SI Full HEV 3301 1949 313
SI PHEV10 2823 1330 -476
SI PHEV40 108 -1708 -3904
CI Full HEV 1560 104 -1657
CI PHEV10 1589 -55 -2043
CI PHEV40 -1509 -3411 -5712

1025 -827 -3067
FC PHEV10 1745 -214 -2584
FC PHEV40 -2797 -4864 -7363

-7722 -9945 -12536 Disc. Rate
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 93 

### 3.8.4 Table for Figure 3-11

TABLE 3-23 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline

Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Conventional Midsize Car)

Disc. Rate 4% 10% 20%

100 -412 -898
SI Full HEV 4123 2771 1483
SI PHEV10 4238 2744 1322
SI PHEV40 3722 1906 176
CI Full HEV 2930 1474 87
CI PHEV10 4090 2446 880
CI PHEV40 2578 676 -1136

6326 4474 2711
FC PHEV10 7195 5235 3369
FC PHEV40 5195 3128 1160

3181 958 -1159 CI Conv

FC HEV

EV



### 3.8.5 Table for Figure 3-12

TABLE 3-24 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

-3302 -1949 -661

-3779 -2938 -2137
SI PHEV10 -478 -619 -753
SI PHEV40 -3193 -3657 -4098
CI Full HEV -1741 -1845 -1943
CI PHEV10 -1712 -2004 -2281
CI PHEV40 -4810 -5360 -5884

-2277 -2776 -3251
FC PHEV10 -1556 -2163 -2741
FC PHEV40 -6099 -6813 -7493

-11024 -11894 -12723 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 94 

### 3.8.6 Table for Figure 3-13

TABLE 3-25 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline

Price Case Referenced to a 2030 SI Full HEV Midsize Car)

Disc Rate 4% 10% 20%

-4124 -2771 -1483

-4024 -3182 -2381
SI PHEV10 114 -26 -161
SI PHEV40 -401 -865 -1307
CI Full HEV -1194 -1297 -1396
CI PHEV10 -34 -325 -603
CI PHEV40 -1545 -2095 -2618

2202 1703 1228
FC PHEV10 3071 2464 1886
FC PHEV40 1071 357 -323

-942 -1813 -2642 SI Conv
CI Conv

FC HEV

EV



### 3.8.7 Table for Figure 3-14

TABLE 3-26 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (2015) (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

2320 1283 295

1870 194 -1401
SI Full HEV 6120 3455 916
SI PHEV10 5488 2624 -103
SI PHEV40 973 -2254 -5328
CI Full HEV 3846 1096 -1523
CI PHEV10 3578 607 -2223
CI PHEV40 -1159 -4460 -7604

942 -2221 -5234
FC PHEV10 1955 -1348 -4494
FC PHEV40 -5421 -8874 -12163

-14494 -18162 -21655 CI Conv SI Conv

FC HEV

EV

### 95 

### 3.8.8 Table for Figure 3-15

TABLE 3-27 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (2015) (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 SI Conventional Midsize Car)

Disc rate 4% 10% 20%

2432 1395 407

2596 920 -675
SI Full HEV 7095 4430 1891
SI PHEV10 6688 3824 1097
SI PHEV40 4553 1326 -1748
CI Full HEV 5524 2774 155
CI PHEV10 5347 2376 -454
CI PHEV40 3037 -265 -3409

5952 2789 -224
FC PHEV10 6592 3288 142
FC PHEV40 2367 -1086 -4375

-1864 -5532 -9025 FC HEV

EV SI Conv
CI Conv



### 3.8.9 Tables for Figures 3-16 and 3-17

TABLE 3-28 Literature Review Costs, $3.15

Gasoline Price Case , $

DRIVETRAIN

W/O SUBSIDY W/SUBSIDY



### CIDI 540
SI HE V -10
SI PHEV10 12
SIPHEV40 499 509
CI HE V 151
CI PHEV10 195
CI PHEV40 715 480
FC HE V 295 399
FC HEV w/50% coal H2 464 628

E V 2820 GHG COST, $/TON

### 96 TABLE 3-29 Program Goal Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case , $

DRIVETRAIN GHG COST, $/TON

W/O SUBSIDY W/SUBSIDY



### 329
0 58 1000
SI PHEV10 0
SIPHEV40 0 271 4000

0
CI PHEV10 0
CI PHEV40 0

0 37 700
FC HEV w/50% coal H2 0 59 700

271 SUBSIDY, $

CI HEV

FC HEV

EV CIDI
SI HEV

### 97 

### 4 OVERVIEW OF USE OF THE NEMS-MP MODEL FOR MP ANALYSIS

Phase 1 of the MP Study evaluated the oil sa vings and GHG emission reductions of various scenarios of advanced technology vehicles (ATV s) and fuels by “assuming” specific rates of market penetration of these technologies. Th e analysis was criticized because it did not (a) explicitly consider vehicle a nd fuel prices in developing t hose scenarios or (b) account for feedback effects between ATV penetration and fuel prices (i.e., advanced vehicles will reduce the volume and perhaps lead to changes in the types of fuels used). These concerns are addressed in Phase 2 through use of a version of the En ergy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) NEMS
model to evaluate several scenarios. The NE MS model includes a vehi cle choice model (VCM, which officially is called the “consumer vehicle choi ce submodule”) that uses vehicle and fuel prices (along with a number of other variable s) to estimate vehicle ma rket penetration. NEMS also provides an integrated analysis of the scenarios: that is, feedback effects are incorporated in

the results.

4.1 NEMS-MP MODEL

EIA uses the NEMS model (EIA-NEMS) to develop projections of U.S. energy use to the year 2030. The results are reported each year in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). Several projections are reported, one of which — the Reference Case — can be characterized as “business-as-usual,” although it includes commer cialization of some advances in energy technologies. Another projection, the High Oil Pri ce Case, is the same as the Reference Case but has more pessimistic assumptions about worldw ide crude oil and natural gas resources and therefore incorporates higher oil and energy prices.

Each year, EERE uses the EIA-NEMS model an d another model called MARKAL (for Market Allocation Model) to estimate the benefits of the EERE R&D programs in the context of EIA’s projections. OnLocation runs a version of the NEMS model (NEMS-PDS, for Program Decision Support) for EERE to generate the benefit es timates through 2030. On-Location has also extended the NEMS model to 2050 for use in analyzing hydrogen energy futures (NEMS-H2).
This version of the model has c onsiderable detail about hydroge n, which is not yet included in the EIA-NEMS model but is being added. The NE MS-H2 model was chosen for Phase 2 of the Multi-Path Study because of that detail and the fact that we wanted to analyze scenarios out to 2050. More specifically, the model we are actua lly using is a variant of NEMS-H2 called NEMS-MP, which does not incorporate all of th e updates made to NEMS-H2 since the inception of this Multi-Path Study. NEMS-MP is very specifically based on the EIA-NEMS model used to generate the AEO 2007 estimates, while NEMS-H2 has been updated to the NEMS model used to generate the AEO 2008 estimates.

4.2 NEMS-TRANSPORTATIO N STAND-ALONE MODEL

Because a run of the NEMS model (the original , NEMS-H2, NEMS-MP, others) can take as long as a day or more and because of our desire to evaluate the impact of varying numerous vehicle-

### 98 

### and fuel-related variables more quickly than that in order to develop our scenarios, OnLocation developed a stand-alone version of the transportation model of NEMS (NEMS-TSA) for use in the MP Study. With NEMS-TSA, all of the vari ables included in the ve hicle choice component of the NEMS model (e.g., vehicle prices, vehicle fuel economy, fuel availability) as well as other closely related variables (e.g., the percentage of miles that PHEVs operate on electricity, hydrogen [H 2 

### ] station availability) can be varied to generate initial vehicle market penetrations and fuel use estimates for a scenario relatively quickly. When satisfied with these initial scenarios of market penetration, the scenario valu es for the vehicle and related variables are then input to the full NEMS-MP model to develop fina l market penetration and fuel use estimates for the scenario, taking into account, in particular, feedback effects on fuel prices. (The NEMS-TSA model generates the same vehicle market penetration estimates as the full NEMS-MP model when the final fuel prices of the scenario are used as input to the NEMS-TSA model. Appendix D contains selected sensitivity runs conducted with the NEMS-TSA model.)

4.3 INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE MODELS

In sum, this analysis first uses a stand-alone version of the transportation model of NEMS-MP
that has been extended to 2050 to generate initial ATV and fuel -related market penetration estimates for a given scenario. Those same vehicle and related assumptions are subsequently input to the full NEMS-MP model extended to 2050 to generate the final results for the scenario. Figure 4-1 illustrates the inter-relationships.

USING NEMS-TSA AND NEMS-H2

User-specified
Vehicle Attributes

NEMS-TSA

Preliminary Transportation
Results (market shares, energy consumption) Transportation Sector Final User-specified
Vehicle Attributes

Integrated
NEMS-H2

Other Modules

Fuel Supply Assumptions Final Results:

 Vehicle market
shares

 Energy prices

 Energy consumption Preliminary

Energy
Prices



### FIGURE 4-1 Using NEMS-TSA and NEMS-H2

### 99 

### 5 BASE CASE AS MODELED IN NEMS-MP

5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASE CASE

In general, the Base Case for the MP Study is the AEO 2007 Reference Case, which has been:

• Modified by the oil prices of the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case;

• Updated with EIA’s summer 2007 analysis of biomass supply curves, cellulosic conversion costs, and corn costs;

• Updated with hydrogen cost estimates developed by the H2A effort;

• Extended to 2050; and

• Updated to incorporate the CAFE requi rements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)

.

While the MP Base Case uses the world oil prices of AEO’s High Oil Price Case extended to 2050 (see Table 5-1), it does not assume the same restriction on oil and natural gas supplies as the AEO case does. (The reason for this is concern that the extension of the AEO resource
constraints to 2050 would “destabilize” the model: i. e., it might not run.) The higher oil prices used in the Base Case in turn affect other fuel prices (e.g., electricity). The ethanol and hydrogen updates make use of more current and/or better documented info rmation. The extension of the AEO case from 2030 to 2050 is generally based on ex trapolations of the input assumptions for the years 2020 to 2030. However, some values ar e left flat post-2030 (i .e., interest rates). 16



### TABLE 5-1 World Oil Price (of imported crude oil) in MP Base Case (in 2005$)

Year $/barrel Source 2010 63 AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case 2020 83 AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case 2030 93 AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case 2040 104 Extension of AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case 2050 116 Extension of AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case

16 

### NEMS-MP was not run with the macroeconomic model, so the macroeconomic inputs are by assumption. The EIA-NEMS is linked to a macro model developed by Global Insight, Inc., which is a proprietary model and
therefore not available for extension to 2050.

### 100 

### The Base Case was initially deve loped before the passage of th e EISA in late 2007. Given the significance of the CAFE requirements and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) of that law, we attempted to incorporate these two requirements into the Base Case. The CAFE requirement that new light vehicles achieve a fuel economy of 35 MPG by 2020 has been incorporated. The standard is then held flat post-2020 to 2050. In c ontrast, we were uncomfort able with the results we were getting with the RFS and so left it out. (See Section 5.3 for further explanation.)

Besides the fuel prices and CAFE requirements, some other modifications are made to the
AEO 2007 Reference Case. These modifications a nd the reasons for them are summarized in
Table 5-2.

TABLE 5-2 Modifications Made to AEO 2007 Reference Case to Develop MP Base Case

Variable AEO 2007 Reference

Case MP Base Case Reason for Modification (Selected)

End Year 2030 2050 MP needs to extend to 2050 to
see the full effect of some technologies.

Fuel Prices

General Oil prices of AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case (see Table 6-1) The major changes implied by
the MP scenarios are more likely at the higher oil prices.

H 2 

### H2A production and delivery cost estimates (August 2006) plus
taxes. H2A values for “current” technology.
Taxes similar to those for gasoline on a GGE basis (state and Federal). (Also includes updated biomass supply curves developed by EIA.) H2A estimates are better documented. (For biomass supply curves, see below.)

Ethanol Updated (July 2007) biomass supply curves,
cellulosic ethanol conversion costs, and
corn cost from EIA. EIA updated its AEO 2007 estimates in an analysis of a Congressional proposal (S. 280) released July 2007.

Electricity for PHEVs Transportation sector off-peak prices Now tied to off-peak residential electricity prices. We assume PHEVs will generally be charged off-peak at
home. Vehicle Technologies

PHEV10s Range/% of operation on electricity 10 miles/13% 10 miles/17.4% Uses the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1711 utility
factor.

MPG Assumes the same fuel economy as HEVs EIA estimates are too high.

Ratio of MPGGE on electricity to MPG on gasoline From PSAT 11/2007

runs. Uses near-term average PHEV10. Updates EIA estimates (EIA
value is 2.5 whereas the new value is 2.7).

### 101 TABLE 5-2 (Cont.)

Variable AEO 2007 Reference Case MP Base Case Reason for Modification (Selected)

Price Assumes that initially, the PHEVs cost $2K more than HEVs but that by 2030, they only cost $0.5K more. EIA estimates are too high

% of customers who can plug-in at
home 50% 35% to 2020, then rising to 50% by 2030, and then remaining flat. We believe that 50% is too high in the nearterm and therefore have chosen a phase-in
to the 50% level.

Vehicle fuel economy standards CAFE standards preEISA of 2007 CAFE standards set by EISA of 2007 and held flat post- 2020.

Commercial LTs (all gasoline) Fuel economy of
these vehicles
increases as the fuel economy of personal
conventional gasoline LTs
increases. Increases proportionally as the fuel economy of
conventional gasoline, advanced
conventional gasoline, and gasoline HEV LTs
increases. It seems appropriate to tie the fuel economy of commercial light trucks to that of all LTs using gasoline, so that higher penetrations of high-efficiency gasoline vehicles, such as ACVs and HEVs, are also reflected in
commercial LTs.

Sales to fleets ~ 20% of new cars
and ~ 13% of new
LTs are sold to
fleets. Reduced to 0.1%. NEMS fleet module excludes key ATVs; rolling fleets into general vehicle population allows ATVs to be properly represented in
the whole fleet.

E85 fuel availability Station size is used
to estimate fuel availability
unless/until E85 prices drop below gasoline, in which
case E85 fuel availability increases by a total of 1%. Station size is used
to estimate fuel availability
unless/until E85 prices drop below gasoline, in which
case E85 fuel availability increases 0.5% per year. We think the EIA estimate is too limiting. It is important to note that the NEMS model only provides for one station size per fuel type throughout time.



### 5.2 SELECTED BASE CASE RESULTS

Table 5-3 presents some key estimates for three “base case” scenarios in the year 2030: (1) the AEO 2007 High Oil Price case, (2) a base case with all the modifications we made to the AEO
2007 Reference case to deve lop the MP Base Case except for the incorporation of the EISA CAFE standards (i.e., the MP Base Case without EISA CAFE), a nd (3) the final MP Base Case, which incorporates those standards. The focu s is on 2030 since the AEO estimates do not go beyond that year. The key points to draw from Table 5-3 are as follows:

### 102 

### 1. The MP Base Case without EISA CAFE is quite similar in total liquid fuels use to the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case except for relatively small differences in the use of ethanol (both total volume and amount used in blends vs. E85) and in import share.

TABLE 5-3 Selected “Base Case” Estimates in 2030

AEO 2007 High

Oil Price Case MP Base Case
without EISA
CAFE standards MP Base Case
with EISA
CAFE standards Estimated oil savings
due to EISA CAFE (million barrels per day [mbpd])

Liquid Fuels Use (mbpd)

Motor Gasoline (including blends) 10.47 10.78 9.99 0.79

Distillate Fuel Oil 5.85 5.96 5.88 0.08

E85 0.21 0.03 0.10 – Total (includes other liquids) 24.60 24.52 23.68 0.84 Net Import Share (%) 49.2 45.7 44.5

– Transportation Sector Energy Use (Quads) 1



### Motor Gasoline (including blends) 19.04 19.51 18.04 0.77

Distillate Fuel Oil 9.54 9.77 9.60 0.08

E85 0.30 0.04 0.14 – Liquids Fuels Subtotal (includes other liquids) 34.35 34.66 33.10 –

Ethanol Consumed in Gasoline and E85 Quads 1.30 1.37 1.33 –

Billion Gallons 15.4 16.2 15.8

– LV Oil Use 2 

### (ethanol in

blends and E85 excluded) (Quads) NA 3 

### 19.05 17.59 0.77

New LV MPG NA 32.0 35.4 – Diesel and gasoline HEV (GHEV) Share of New LVs (%)

Cars NA 14.8 14.8

– LTs NA 30.0 33.0

– LT Share of New LVs (%) NA 48.4 48.6 – Oil Prices (2005$) World Oil Price (by assumption) ($/barrel) $93 $93 $93 Gasoline ($/GGE) 4 

### $3.30 $3.26 $3.15 Diesel in transportation sector ($/GGE) $2.78 $2.81 $2.79

1 

### 1 Quad = 1 quadrillion (10 15 

### ) BTU.

2 

### LV Oil Use includes Class 2B trucks.

3 

### NA = Not available in AEO 2007 report altho ugh the amounts may be available in other AEO 2007

documentation.

4 

### Price per gallon computed from price per million BTU and assumes 125,000 BTU/gal.

### 103 

### 2. The EISA CAFE standards lead to a saving s of approximately 0.85 mbpd of oil in 2030
in the final MP Base Case relative to a case without the standards. The savings are largely
attributable to an increase in the fuel econom y of all vehicles as opposed to any switch to vehicle technologies with high er fuel economies (e.g., diesels and gasoline HEVs) or a

reduction in the LT share.

The oil savings may seem low if one compares them to the approximately 4 mbpd liquid fuel savings of the AEO 2008 Reference Case (which accounts for the CAFE standard) relative to the AEO 2007 Reference Case. But, the AEO 2008 Refere nce Case also accounts for the RFS. More important, the final MP Base Case uses the o il prices of the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case — and the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case saves ap proximately 2.3 mbpd relative to the AEO 2007
Reference Case.

More detailed characterization of the final MP Base Case will be presented in the following sections of the report when the results of the various scenarios are presented.

5.3 THE EISA RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD

The EISA RFS requires that 36 billion gallons (or comparative gallon-based equivalent for gaseous fuels or electricity) of renewable fuel s (e.g., conventional biofue ls; cellulosic biofuel,
which includes ethanol made from cellulosic biomass; biomass-base d diesel; and other “advanced” biofuels) must be part of the a nnual U.S. transportation fuel supply by 2022, although the standard provides flexibility to reduce the volume required. In the AEO 2008, EIA estimated 32 billion gallons in 2022, consisting predominantly of ethanol from several feedstocks. We attempted to match EIA’s estimate for the MP Base Case and in fact came close in one model run. We did so by modifying th e growth rates of cellu losic ethanol production plants, modifying cellulosic ethanol conversion learning curves, and adjusting the model to provide extra credit for cellulosic ethanol production because of the RFS requirement. 17


### However, while EIA projects the volume to remain at 32 billion gallons from 2022 through 2030, our preliminary base case did not. In our anal ysis, renewable fuel use continued to grow from the 32-billion-gallons and, in particular, took off after 2030: for example, in the model run in which we came closest to EIA’s 2022 estimate, we found that 56 billion gallons of renewable
fuel would be used in 2050.

Such high volumes would be inconsistent with and cause difficulties for some of our scenarios. For example, some of the assumptions that would have to be made to ach ieve the standard might
not be consistent with the H2 Success scenario. Therefore, the RFS is not included in the Base Case. However, the Base Case still incorporates considerable use of renewable fuels: 23 billion gallons by 2030 (15.8 billion gallons of which is ethanol) and 32 billion gallons by 2050, although very little of this amount is cellulosic ethanol.

17 

### NEMS-MP does not include explicit constraints for the vari ous EISA-specified fuel types that were developed by EIA for the AEO 2008. It also does not contain biomass-to-liquids technology as an option to meet the cellulosic requirements.

### 104 

### 5.4 OIL PRICE IN THE BASE CASE

The world oil price has obviously increased sin ce the beginning of Phase 2 of the MP Study (January 2007). The MP Base Case world oil pr ice is $93/barrel (in 2005$) in 2030 (as in the AEO High Oil Price Case) and $116/barrel in 2050. Prices in 2008 have been higher. However, the AEO 2008 Reference Case, which was issued in early 2008, projects oil at $59/barrel (in 2006$) by 2030. The MP Base Case oil price is s till above that level. We try specifically to consider the implications of higher oil prices than used in the model in our conclusions (Chapter 9).

The price of diesel fuel (on a GGE basis) is lower than that of gasoline in the MP Base Case, which is consistent with the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case. However, many analysts believe that in the future, diesel fuel prices will be higher than those of gasoline. (Worldwide demand for diesel is projected to increase substantially.) If the diesel prices are higher, this will have a negative effect on the diesel vehicle penetration estimated in the MP scenarios. Again, we try specifically to consider the implications of these hi gher diesel fuel oil prices than used in the model in Chapter 9 in our conclusions.

### 105 

### 6 SCENARIOS AS MODELED IN NEMS-MP: GENERAL

Chapter 2 provides a general description of each of the scenarios, and Table 2-1 provides likely market penetration estimates for various technologies in each of those scenarios. In order to model these scenarios in NEMS-MP and, in partic ular, to try to match the market penetration estimates (“goals”) of Table 2-1, we went through an iterative process in which we first developed a set of specific a ssumptions about vehicle technolog ies and fuels that we thought were appropriate for each scenario. These assump tions were input to NEMS-TSA, and the results were reviewed. Not surprisingly, the market penetration estimates thus estimated generally did

not match those of Table 2-1. We then added policies designed to encourage the market penetration of the vehicles of interest in each scenario (e.g., vehicle subsidies). We thus were able to come closer to our “goals.” As a result of this approach and the fact that we have two separate sets of vehicle price es timates, we present four sets of results for each scenario in the following sections, as follows:

• Results assuming the vehicle prices developed by “literature review” as discussed in Chapter 3;

• Results assuming vehicle prices based on DOE “program goals,” also discussed in Chapter 3;

• Results assuming “literature review” vehicle prices plus subsidies; and

• Results assuming “program goals” vehicle prices plus subsidies.

Table 6-1 presents an overview of the assu mptions about vehicle technologies and fuels appropriate for each scenario. The table also summarizes variations in modeling assumptions between the Base Case and the scenarios. Some of these variations are significant and are
discussed below.

6.1 FUEL PRICES

Several of the non-petroleum fuel production costs and resulting reta il prices vary by scenario. Hydrogen production and delivery costs are more optimistic in the scenarios than in the Base Case but vary across scenarios, with the most optimistic costs being assumed in the H2 Success scenario. Similarly, ethanol prices are more optimistic in the scenarios than in the Base Case, with the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios incorporating the most optimistic costs. Electricity prices are tied to residential electricity prices in the Base Case and the scenarios. This assumption represents a change from the method used in EIA-NEMS, which ties EV and PHEV prices to transportation sector electricity prices.

### 106 TABLE 6-1 Key Technical and Modeling Assu mptions for the Base Case and Scenarios

FINAL MP BASE
CASE MIXED H2 SUCCESS (P)HEV &
ETHANOL

Fuel Prices

General Oil prices of AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case.

H 2 

### H2A production and delivery cost estimates (August 2006) plus
taxes. H2A values for “current” technology (also includes updated biomass supply curves developed by EIA).
Includes state and
Federal taxes similar to gasoline. H2A production and delivery cost estimates (August 2006) plus taxes, but this scenario uses the “projected” cost estimates, where “Projected” estimates assume improvements in technology. Uses the most optimistic H 2 

### costs: DOE H2 program goals. Same as Mixed.

Ethanol Supply curves, etc. Updated (August 2007) biomass supply curves developed by EIA. Updated (August 2007)
cellulosic ethanol
conversion costs from EIA. Updated (August 2007) corn
costs from EIA. Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 09
Base Case cellulosic
ethanol conversion costs, which are more optimistic than EIA’s
Reference Case costs. Same as Mixed. Uses the most optimistic ethanol costs: Biomass program goals for cellulosic
ethanol conversion
costs. Reduced
cellulosic ethanol growth constraints developed by EIA (August 2007). Tax credit/import tariff Both expire 2010. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Electricity for PHEVs OnLocation has modified the method by which electricity prices for PHEVs (and EVs) are estimated. They are
now tied to residential electricity prices. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case.

Vehicle Technologies

Advanced
Conventional Gasoline Vehicles (ACVs) Assumes that all technologies that might be used to improve conventional gasoline vehicle (CV) fuel economy will be used
in conventional gasoline vehicles to

meet CAFE. No distinct ACV category
is included. Advanced CVs superior
to the CVs used to meet
CAFE will be available
in the Mixed scenario. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

### 107 TABLE 6-1 (Cont.)

FINAL MP BASE
CASE MIXED H2 SUCCESS (P)HEV &
ETHANOL

PHEVs Range (miles)/% operation on electricity 10 miles/17.4% 40 miles/50.9% Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

MPG when operating on gasoline Assumes the same fuel economy as that of

HEVs. From PSAT 11/07 runs. Use leading edge
PHEV40 over time Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Ratio of MPGGE on electricity to MPG on gasoline From PSAT 11/07 runs. Uses near-term average PHEV10 (2.7X). From PSAT 11/07 runs. Uses leading edge
PHEV40 over time. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Cost Assumes that initially the PHEVs cost $2K

more than HEVs but that by 2030, they only cost $0.5K more. See “Vehicle costs” (for all technologies)
below. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

% Customers can plugin at home 35% to 2020, then rising to 50% by 2030
and then flat. 35% in 2020, 50% in 2030, 55% in 2040, and
65% in 2050. 38% in 2020, 55% in 2030, 65% in 2040, and
75% in 2050. 40% in 2020, 65% in 2030, 75% in 2040, and
85% in 2050.
Do ACVs, PHEVs, and
GHEVs have flex fuel capability? No Yes. All ACVs and PHEVs when produced are flex fuel. By 2020, all HEVs produced are
flex fuel. No. Same as Mixed.

Vehicle fuel economy
standards CAFE standards of EISA 2007; heldessentially flat post2020. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case.

Vehicle fuel economies Same as AEO 2007, except as affected by

EISA CAFE. From PSAT 11/07 runs. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Vehicle prices Same as AEO 2007, except as affected by

EISA CAFE. From ORNL’s vehicle
cost model. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Years of introduction
for advanced vehicles Same as AEO 2007. Based on GPRA 09 inputs, with revisions. FCVs and plug-in
FCVs are introduced
earlier than in Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Other vehicle attributes Same as AEO 2007. Based on GPRA 09 inputs, with revisions. Same as Mixed, except
for small revisions due to change in year of
introduction. Same as Mixed.

Commercial LT (all gasoline) Fuel Economy Increases proportionally with
increases in the fuel economy of conventional gasoline,
advanced conventional gasoline, and gasoline

HEV LTs. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case.

Sales to Fleets ~ to 0.1%. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Final Base

Case.

### 108 TABLE 6-1 (Cont.)

FINAL MP BASE
CASE MIXED H2 SUCCESS (P)HEV &
ETHANOL Vehicle Make and Model Availability Conventional gasoline vehicles (CVs) Same as AEO 2007:
available in 100% of all
makes and models in all years. Estimated endogenously (an option in the NEMS model). Therefore, can drop below 100% as
other vehicles enter the
market. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

All other technologies Same as AEO 2007:
not available in all makes and models; hard-wired except that
GHEVs and diesels
increase with increases in oil price and FFVs increase if E85 price drops below gasoline price. Estimated endogenously. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

Vehicle
Constant Same as AEO 2007:
Hard-wired. Advanced technologies are generally negative. All advanced technologies as well as

FFVs are set at “0.” Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.

H 2 

### Fuel Availability Same as NEMS-H2 default value: 1,500
FCVs/station. Station size is reduced to 750 FCVs/station,
which increases H 2 

### availability. Same as Mixed, except

H 2 

### stations are “jumpstarted.“ Same as Mixed.

E85 Fuel Availability Station size is used to
estimate fuel availability unless/until E85 prices drop below gasoline, in which case E85 fuel availability increases 0.5% per

year. Same as Final Base

Case. Same as Mixed. Same as Mixed.



### 6.2 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The scenarios all use the same set of assumpti ons about fuel economies and vehicle prices for advanced technology vehicles. These estimates ar e different from the Base Case estimates. The bases for the scenarios’ fuel economy and vehicl e price estimates are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. Appendix A provides the fuel economy multipliers and incremental price estimates for the advanced technology vehicles as actually input into the NEMS-MP model for the scenario analysis. Table 6-2 provides an example of those inputs: fuel economy multipliers and incremental prices for a medium car in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios. (As discussed in Chapter 3, the inputs for the diesels and GHEVs reflect a mix of baseline diesels and
GHEVs with more advanced versions of those technologies.) The relationships for the medium car are representative of the other 11 vehicle classes.

### 109 TABLE 6-2 Incremental Vehicle Price and Fuel Economy X Factors for Advanced Drivetrain Vehicles: Medium Car, Mixed, and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios (in 2005$)

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597 Fuel economy X factor 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.47 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695 Fuel economy X factor 2.24 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.45 Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926 Fuel economy X factor 1.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.34

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $531 $471 $410 $168 $47 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 Fuel economy X factor 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.24 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $7,640 $7,273 $6,906 $6,393 $5,660 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,115 $1,787 $1,458 $997 $340 Fuel economy X factor 2.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.14

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $12,240 $11,512 $10,783 $10,055 $8,598 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,145 $3,696 $3,248 $2,799 $1,902 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel) 2.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18 Fuel economy X factor (electricity) 4.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Literature Review" Incremental Price ($) $8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel) 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.27 Fuel economy X factor (electricity) 5.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.69 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

Price

Success Price

Mature 2040 Year of:

Market

Intro.



### Other attributes (i.e., ma intenance cost, acceleration, luggage space, and range) of the advanced technology vehicles were also discussed in Chap ter 3. The scenarios all assume the same values for these attributes. Again, these values are di fferent from the Base Case. Appendix A provides
the ratios for these attributes for the advanced technology vehicles in the scenarios relative to
those of the Base Case vehicles. Table 3-13 in Chapter 3 provides the attributes for the same
vehicle whose fuel economies and prices are shown in Table 6-2.

### 110 

### 6.2.1 Unique PHEV Attributes

The PHEVs in the scenarios vary substantially from those in the Base Case. Part of the reason for this variation is that the NEMS-MP model can handle only one PHEV range at a time. The Base Case PHEVs are assumed to have a 10–mile all-electric range, which translates into operating 17% of total travel on electricity. PHEVs in the scenarios have a 40-mile all-electric range and operate 50% on electricity. In the Base Case, it is assumed that potentially up to 50% of U.S. households would be able to plug their PHEVs in at home. As shown in Table 6-1, while
there are differences between the scenarios with re spect to the percentage of households that can recharge PHEVs, all end up with high er percentages than the Base Case.

6.2.2 Flexible Fuel Vehicles

When estimating vehicle sales in the NEMS model, only one type of vehicle technology is classified as a flex fuel vehicle (i.e., capable of operating on gasoline and E85). That vehicle is today’s FFV. We know that for some of our scenarios — with goals of as much as 60 billion gallons of ethanol use annuall y and introduction of advanced technology vehicles — other vehicles will also have to have flex fuel capability. OnLocation modified the NEMS-MP model to allow gasoline HEVs (GHEVs), ACVs, and PHEVs to operate as flex fuel vehicles. The specific modification allows us to input the percentage of these technologies’ stock that we estimate will be flex fuel; that percentage can vary over time. (Given that stock, the price of E85 relative to gasoline and E85 fuel availability together determine the percentage of miles that these vehicles actually operate on E85.)

So, the percentage of stock that is flex fuel was estimated separately and then used to adjust the model results. We assumed no change was needed in the Base Case or in the H2 Success scenario. For the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios, we assumed that all PHEVs and
ACVs will be flex fuel from the start of thei r production, and thus, 100% of their stock will be flex fuel. None of these vehicles is being pr oduced yet, and manufacturers are discussing the possibility of adding fuel flexibility to many vehicle lines. It would seem easiest to add flex fuel capability to a new line of vehicles. For GHEVs, the estimate was not so easy to make. But, again because manufacturers are committing to flex fuel vehicles and because of the Renewable Fuel Standard, we believe the production of flex-fuel HEVs will ramp up quickly. For these two scenarios, we assume that by 2020, all HEVs produ ced will be flex fuel. We also estimate that this assumption translates to flex fuel capabilit y in about 70% of the GHEV stock by 2020 and in more than 95% of the stock by 2030 in these two scenarios.

6.3 COMMERCIAL LIGHT TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY

As indicated in Table 5-1 in the Base Case, we modified the manner in which the fuel economy of commercial light trucks (all of which NEMS assumes to be gasoline) is estimated in NEMS. In NEMS-MP, it increases in direct proportion to the increase in the fuel economy of all LTs using gasoline. We use this same method in the scenarios.

### 111 

### 6.4 SALES TO FLEETS

As indicated in Table 5-1 in the Base Case, the share of vehicle sales to fleets assumed in NEMS was changed. Because key advanced technology ve hicles are not included in the NEMS fleet module, we reduced the share to 0.1% in NEMS -MP. The same approach is used in the

scenarios.

6.5 VEHICLE CONSTANT

The NEMS-MP vehicle choice model equation attempts to estimate the total “utility” of a particular vehicle type to the consumer. The equation includes seve ral specific variables (vehicle price, fuel price, and other attributes) that infl uence consumer purchase behavior. It also includes a constant that is meant to capture variables th at have been left out of the equation (e.g., how “green” a technology appears to the consumer) or are immeasurable. This constant varies by technology. For gasoline, the constant is “0.” A negative constant imp lies that consumers are wary of the technology, which tends to reduce its market penetration: the larger the negative constant, the greater the reduction. Alternatively, a positive constant tends to increase the market penetration of a technology.

Table 6-3 presents constants used for various te chnologies in the Base Case and the scenarios.
The Base Case constants are the same as thos e used in the AEO 2007 Reference Case. They are invariant throughout time. In all of the scenarios, we have reduced the negative constant to “0” for the advanced technologies of interest in the MP Study over a period of 10 years beginning in
2007 to simulate the effect of a market environmen t in which consumers are highly interested in fuel economy and welcoming toward new fuel-sav ing technologies. This approach is very similar to that used in EERE’s Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) analysis, although the start year is different in GPRA for different technologies.

For those technologies included in NEMS that are of little interest in this analysis, we assign a large negative constant. These are largely ve hicles operating on methanol, CNG, and LPG — technologies that do not appear to have the capab ility to penetrate the LV market significantly out to the year 2050.

6.6 VEHICLE MAKE AND MODEL AVAILABILITY

In the AEO 2007 Reference Case, conventional gasolin e vehicles are assumed to be available for production in 100% of all vehicle ma kes and models to the year 2030. In other words, even if the manufacturers were to increase production of hybrids and diesels significantly, the model assumes that conventional gasolin e vehicles would be produced in all makes and models. The
make and model availab ility (MMA) of all other technologies is assumed to be less than 100% and is essentially hard-wired. Two exceptions exist: (1) the MMA of HEVs and diesels is allowed to increase with increases in oil price, and (2) the MMA of FFVs increases if the price of E85 drops below gasoline prices. The MP Base Case makes the same assumptions as the AEO Reference Case, extending those assumptions to 2050.

### 112 TABLE 6-3 VCM Equation Constant in MP Base Case
and Scenarios

MP Base Case Technology Cars LTs

CV 0 0

FFV –1 –0.5

ACV 0 0

Diesel –3.5 –0.6

GHEV –2 –2

PHEV –2 –2 Plug-in FCV 0.057 0.331

FCV 0.057 0.331

EV –5 –5

Other Negative Negative

Scenarios Technology Cars LTs

CV 0 0

FFV 0 0

ACV 0 0

Diesel 0 0

GHEV 0 0

PHEV 0 0

FCV 0 0 Plug-in FCV 0 0

EV 0 0

Other –50 –50



### We modified these assumptions for the scenarios. Instead of using the hard-wired MMAs, the MMA for all technologies, including CVs, is estimated endogenously (an option in the NEMS model). This modification mean s that we allow the CV MMA to drop below 100% as other technologies enter the market in large numbers.

6.7 COMBINED EFFECT OF THE VE HICLE CONSTANT AND VEHICLE MMA

The impact of using two different approaches to estimating MMA and the vehicle constant assumptions is significant. Table 6-4 compares the market penetration shares of the MP Base Case with those of a base case in which every assumption is the same except that the MMA of all technologies is estimated endogenously and th e constant for all the advanced vehicle technologies drops to “0” (Base Case Endo genous, or BCEndogenous). (Almost every assumption is the same: BCEndogenous includes a dvanced conventional ga soline vehicles, while the MP Base Case does not.) Th e sales mix between the two cases is quite different. By 2050,
70% of car sales are still of conve ntional gasoline vehicles in the MP Base Case, while the share is 34% (adding the CVs and ACVs together) in BCEndogenous. In the MP Base Case in 2050,

### 113 TABLE 6-4 Sales Projection of MP Base Case and Base Case Endogenous

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Final MP Base Case

New Car Sales 1/

Conventional Gasoline ICE 88.6% 83.0% 77.9% 72.3% 70.0%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 5.4% 5.1% 4.9% 5.9% 7.4%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 1.7% 1.7%

Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 5.3% 9.4% 12.8% 17.9% 18.6%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

New LT Sales 1/

Conventional Gasoline ICE 73.9% 58.7% 51.8% 39.8% 36.8%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 6.7% 10.5% 16.7% 26.9% 27.4%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 16.2% 15.0% 13.7% 13.7% 16.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 1.2% 1.3%

Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 3.1% 14.9% 16.0% 18.3% 17.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base Case with e ndogenous MMA and "0" constant

New Car Sales 1/

Conventional Gasoline ICE 59.1% 24.9% 27.4% 26.4% 26.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 15.5% 16.2% 7.1% 6.8% 6.9%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.3% 16.5% 17.9% 18.7% 17.5%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.4% 7.3% 7.9% 7.6% 7.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 1.7% 6.2% 6.5% 6.8%

Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 14.7% 14.3% 14.9% 14.4%

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 14.8% 18.7% 19.1% 18.9% 19.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

New LT Sales 1/

Conventional Gasoline ICE 44.3% 25.0% 27.7% 26.2% 26.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 5.8% 15.1% 2.9% 2.6% 2.6%

TDI Diesel ICE 17.4% 18.2% 19.4% 21.0% 19.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 24.7% 14.5% 16.5% 16.0% 16.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 2.3% 6.0% 6.2% 6.4%

Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 2.7% 7.5% 8.0% 7.9%

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 7.7% 22.3% 20.0% 20.0% 20.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

To tal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: TDI = turbocharged direct injection.

### 114 

### diesel car sales are 2%, and diesel LT sales ar e 27%. In contrast, in BCEndogenous diesel car and LT sales are very similar to one another: 18% and 20%, respectively. There are additional examples in which considerable differ ences emerge starting as early as 2010.

The main point here is that, when reviewing the sales estimates of the scenarios in the following sections, the reader should realize that not all th e differences between the MP Base Case and the scenarios are attributable to superior vehicle technology and/or lower-cost fuels. Rather, some of

the differences are attributable to differences in the methodology used to estimate vehicle technology penetration.

(We continued to use the MMA methodology and th e constants of the AEO Reference Case in
the MP Base Case because we wanted our Base Ca se projections to be as consistent as possible with the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case for energy use and oil use projections. We achieved that consistency, as shown in Table 5-2.)

6.8 FUEL AVAILABILITY

Fuel availability affects vehicle choice in the NEMS-MP model: the lower the availability of stations providing a speci fic fuel, the lower the market penetr ation of vehicles using that fuel.
The NEMS model uses station size (the number of vehicles served per station by fuel type) to determine how many stations are “built.” If the size is 100, then the model builds a station for every 100 vehicles in the vehicle stock. If the size is 1,000, then a station is built for every 1,000 vehicles in the stock. As more stations ar e built, fuel availability becomes greater. Fuel availability is a ratio of from 0 to 1.

6.8.1 Hydrogen

Unfortunately, the NEMS-MP model only provides for one such station size per fuel type throughout time. This constraint can depress the market penetration of technologies needing new fuels if the station size is set too high. We believe the station size of 1,500 vehicles for H 2 

### stations (which is similar to the typical station being evaluated by DOE’s hydrogen program) unrealistically depresses the projected market penetration of FCVs in the early years. However, we left it that way in the MP Base Case since we knew that very few FCVs would penetrate the market even if we changed it.

For all of our scenarios, we took a more moderate view of the average H 2 

### station size and set it at 750 vehicles/station. For the H2 Success Scenario, we also “jump-start” (o r “kick-start”) station build-up. Consistent with other scenarios analyzed by DOE’s hydrogen program, we assume that a policy is implemented that will ensure that 10% of all stations in large cities offer H 2 

### by 2024 and that 2% of all stations in small cities will offer it by 2029. This policy increases the number
of stations over those that would be built with just the assumption of 750 FCVs/station. (The precise form of the policy has not been specified nor have its costs been estimated. Appendix B provides a very preliminary cost estimate of this policy.)

### 115 

### 6.8.2 E85

The size of E85 stations is not much of a constraint as for H 2 

### stations: it is lower at 400 vehicles/station. In addition, the NEMS model used in the AEO Reference Case allows the fuel availability calculations for E85 to be overridden once the price of E85 drops below that of gasoline. In that case, the AEO 2007 allows fuel availability to increase by a total of 1% over what would otherwise be estimated. We believe that approach is too limiting and have modified that calculation for both the MP Base Case and the scenarios. Instead, we assume that if the price of E85 drops below that of gasoline, fuel ava ilability will increase 0.5% per year. (Note that in the AEO 2008 version of NEMS, fuel suppliers are assumed to invest in new E85 fueling stations in order to sell the EISA required amoun ts of biofuels, and they are no longer tied to a specific number of flex -fueled vehicles.)

### 116 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 117 

### 7 KEY NEMS-MP RESULTS FOR THE BASE CASE AND SCENARIOS

The NEMS-MP model generates numerous results for each run of a scenario. This section starts with what we believe are the results of greatest interest to most readers. These include the following:

• The market penetration of advanced vehicle technologies; • LV energy use, oil use, and CO 2 

### emissions; • Ethanol use; • U.S. liquid fuels supply and net imports;
• U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### ; • World oil prices; and • The cost effectiveness of the subsidies (where applicable).

These results are compared and contrasted across scenarios. The results are discussed in the following order:

• Scenario results when assuming the “literature review” vehicle prices;

• Scenario results when assuming the “program goals“ vehicle prices;

• Scenario results assuming the “literature review” vehicle prices plus vehicle subsidies; and

• Scenario results assuming the “program goals” vehicle prices plus vehicle

subsidies.

Where appropriate, we refer to the four versions or cases of each scenario as follows:

• “Literature Review No Subsidies” or “LR”; • “Program Goals No Subsidies” or “PG”;
• “Literature Review With Subsidies” or “LRwS”; and • “Program Goals With Subsidies” or “PGwS.”

In reviewing the results discussed below, th e reader should keep in mind the following comparisons among the scenarios (previously discussed in Chapter 6):

1. All the scenarios (and the Base Case) assu me the high oil price of AEO 2007 extended (Table 5-1);

2. The vehicle fuel economies are the same across all scenarios, and those for ACVs, diesels, HEVs (gasoline and diesel), FCVs, a nd plug-ins (both gasoline and fuel cell) are higher than in the Base Case;

### 118 

### 3. While the Mixed scenario has the most conservative assumptions with respect to ethanol and hydrogen fuel prices, the fuel prices in the Mixed scenario are lower than in the Base Case;

4. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario assumes both the most optimistic cellulosic ethanol prices and the most optimistic share of households that are able to plug in their vehicles;

5. The H2 Success scenario assumes the most optimistic H 2 

### prices, the earliest introduction of FCVs and plug-in FCVs, and “jump starting” of H 2 

### stations; and

6. ACVs, PHEVs, and GHEVS have flex fuel capability in the Mixed and (P)HEV &
Ethanol scenarios.

NEMS-MP does not directly generate all the results of interest: some must be computed from the standard report variables. A brief attachment to this chapter discusses these computations. Finally, additional NEMS-MP results for each scen ario and case can be found in Appendix E.

7.1 SCENARIOS WITH “LITERATURE REVIEW” VEHICLE PRICES AND NO
SUBSIDIES

As a reminder, the scenarios with “literature review” vehicle prices use vehicle price estimates that have been developed through literature review. These prices do not necessarily meet DOE vehicle program goals (whereas the scenarios with “program goals” vehicle prices do assume these goals are met). The vehicle price estimates are the same across the three scenarios.

7.1.1 Vehicle Market Penetration

Table 7-1 presents sales shares for the Base Case and three scenarios. The estimates are weighted: they represent the combined car and LT sales totals of each technology as a percentage of total LV sales. The LT share varies over time and by scenario, but total LV sales are the same in all scenarios. (The drop-in LT share between 2005 and 2010 followed by a rebound is
consistent with the LT share estimates of the AEO 2007.) Figures 7-1 and 7-2 compare the weighted shares in the years 2030 and 2050. Table 7- 2 presents vehicle technology shares for the on-road (stock) fleet in the Base Case and three scenarios.

Some key points are as follows:

1. While 91% of new LV sales in 2005 are of c onventional gasoline vehicles, these vehicles will represent just over 50% of sales by 2050 in the Base Case. By 2050, 46% of sales in the Base Case will be HEVs, diesels, and conventional flex fuel vehicles.

### 119 TABLE 7-1 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios Using Literature
Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 82.2% 72.1% 65.3% 56.2% 52.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 3.3% 5.6% 9.5% 15.1% 16.1%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 10.0% 9.5% 8.9% 9.1% 11.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 4.4% 11.6% 14.2% 18.0% 18.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 24.5% 21.6% 18.1% 15.0%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 26.7% 26.5% 24.4% 22.6%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 7.2% 7.2% 8.4% 9.3%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 11.6% 10.9% 10.6% 8.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 5.8% 6.5% 7.1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 24.2% 27.6% 31.5% 36.1%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 24.0% 21.4% 18.1% 15.3%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 26.1% 26.2% 24.3% 22.8%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 6.1% 6.7% 8.2% 8.3%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.2% 14.7% 12.4% 11.2% 10.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 5.6% 6.4% 6.6% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 23.7% 27.3% 31.2% 35.6%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 120 TABLE 7-1 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 24.5% 21.2% 16.1% 13.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 26.7% 26.1% 22.6% 20.7%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 7.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.5%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 11.6% 10.9% 15.1% 13.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 1.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 5.8% 6.2% 6.9% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 24.1% 27.3% 30.2% 34.4%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 1.6% 2.3%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H2 without Jump Start Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 24.5% 21.4% 16.4% 13.3%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 26.7% 26.4% 23.0% 21.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 7.1% 7.3% 7.8% 8.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 11.6% 11.0% 15.3% 13.3%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 1.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 5.9% 6.3% 7.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 24.2% 27.6% 30.7% 35.2%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LT Share of Total Sales

Base Case 50.1% 43.2% 44.9% 48.6% 51.4% 54.0%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.0% 48.9% 51.8% 54.6% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 50.1% 43.6% 46.0% 49.0% 51.9% 54.8%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.0% 48.8% 51.8% 54.6% H2 without Jump Start Lit. Review Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.0% 48.8% 51.8% 54.6%

Total LV sales (millions) 16.2 16.6 18.2 20.2 21.9 23.5



### 2. The Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario s have very similar rates of technology penetration. For example, in each, conve ntional gasoline vehicles (CVs) are approximately 21% of LV sa les in 2030, advanced gasoline vehicles (ACVs) are 26%, HEVs are 27%, diesels are 7%, and conven tional flex fuel vehicles are 11%–12%. By 2050, CVs are 15% of sales in each scenario, ACVs are 23%, HEVs are 36%, diesels are 8%–9%, etc. In neither scenario do plug-ins or FCVs achieve much market penetration. (In fact, the penetration of PHEVs is higher in the Base Case; however, the PHEVs in the Base Case are PHEV10s, while those in the scenarios are PHEV40s. 18 

### )

18 

### It is important to note that the version of NEMS used for both the Base Case and MP scenarios allows only one PHEV range; for the Base Case, the range chosen was 10 miles, and for the MP scenarios, 40 miles.

### 121 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-1 2030 Sales Shares (Literature Review, No Subsidies Cases)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-2 2050 Sales Shares (Literature Review, No Subsidies Cases)



### 3. The market penetration of the H2 Success scenario is similar to the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios, with the exception that a few more FCVs are sold. However, the sales are not large: FCVs make up 1.1% of sales in 2030 and 2.3% in 2050. (There are also a few more conventional flex fuel vehicles, alt hough there are not more vehicles capable of using E85 because in the other two scenario s, HEVs, ACVs, and PHEVs are assumed to be flex fuel vehicles.)

4. The market penetration of the H2 Success scenario would be even more similar to that of the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenar ios if we had not assumed that H 2 

### stations were “jump-started” in the scenario (as discus sed in Section 6.8.1). The impact of the jump start can be seen when the H2 Success scenario is compared with a scenario called “H 2 

### without jump starting” as shown in Table 7- 1. The FCV sales in the latter scenario (0.1% in 2030 and 0.2% in 2050) are the same as in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol

scenarios.

5. By 2050, in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios, CVs will represent 19% of the total LV stock, while 24% will be ACVs, 31–32% will be gasoline HEVs, 8% will be diesels, 6% will be diesel HEVs, 10–11% will be conventional flex fuel vehicles, and less than 1% will be plug-ins or FCVs. The stoc k of the H2 Success scenario will be very similar except that 2.2% of the vehicles on the road will be FCVs or plug-ins. That share would be lower without jump-starting the H 2 

### stations.

### 122 TABLE 7-2 Weighted Shares of Vehicle St ock in Base Case and Scenarios Using
Literature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 92.1% 83.0% 73.6% 65.1% 57.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 2.2% 3.6% 6.0% 10.0% 13.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 3.9% 7.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 1.2% 5.0% 10.1% 14.1% 16.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 53.1% 31.7% 23.2% 18.5%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.1% 23.6% 25.3% 24.3%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.3% 6.9% 7.4% 8.4%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.1% 11.1% 10.9% 10.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% 5.7% 6.5% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.3% 22.0% 27.3% 31.7%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 53.1% 31.6% 23.1% 18.7%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.1% 23.3% 25.0% 24.3%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.0% 6.4% 6.9% 7.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.6% 12.6% 12.2% 11.1%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 4.2% 5.4% 6.1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.2% 21.7% 27.0% 31.3%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 123 TABLE 7-2 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 53.1% 31.6% 22.4% 16.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.1% 23.4% 24.5% 22.7%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.2% 6.9% 7.2% 7.9%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.1% 11.1% 12.3% 13.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% 5.6% 6.3% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.3% 21.9% 26.7% 30.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.1% 1.7%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H2 without Jump Start Lit. Review Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.7% 88.6% 53.3% 31.7% 22.6% 17.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.1% 23.5% 24.7% 23.1%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.2% 6.9% 7.3% 8.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.1% 11.1% 12.4% 13.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 4.5% 5.7% 6.4% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.2% 22.0% 27.0% 31.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



### What do these numerical results mean? There are substantial differences in market penetration rates of advanced vehicle technologies between th e Base Case and the scenarios. However, in spite of differences in assumptions about fuel pr ices between the scenarios, the scenarios show very little difference from one another in terms of advanced vehicl e technology penetration. Thisillustrates well the point that vehicle price is the key determinant of vehicle choice in the NEMSMP model (reflecting historic consum er preferences). It also indicates that for many, but not all, of the other results presented below, the scen ario results should be similar to one another.

7.1.2 LV Energy Use and Oil Use

Table 7-3 presents LV energy use and oil use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. LV energy use will increase by 50% between now and 2050; most of that growth occurs after 2030. The scenarios save 2%–3% of that energy by 2030 and 9%–10% by 2050 (also see Figure 7-3).

Greater reductions are achieved in LV oil use. (The attachment to this chapter describes how LV oil use is estimated: i.e., the estimate does not include ethanol in blends.) In the Base Case, LV

### 124 TABLE 7-3 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case and Scenarios Using Literature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### LV Specific Results

Annual
LV Energy Use (quads)

Base Case 16.95 17.15 17.38 18.90 21.70 25.01

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 16.95 17.09 17.27 18.33 20.30 22.45 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 16.95 17.09 17.31 18.49 20.51 22.82

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 16.95 17.09 17.28 18.28 20.27 22.53 Savings (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 3.0% 6.4% 10.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 2.1% 5.5% 8.7%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 3.2% 6.6% 9.9%

LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.35 8.58 8.75 9.53 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.02 7.86 8.25 9.01

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.41 8.78 9.26 10.05 Savings

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.8 2.5 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.3 3.0
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.3 2.0

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 1419 1433 1513 1543 1652 1809 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 1419 1432 1424 1394 1557 1728

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 1419 1433 1502 1570 1689 1853 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.4% -0.1% 4.8% 12.7% 14.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.6% 5.8% 14.0% 17.7% 18.6%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 3.1% 10.8% 12.7%

Cumulative
Cumulative Oil Savings

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 1,657 12,642 14,299 0.2 1.7 0.9 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 4,117 16,782 20,899 0.4 2.3 1.2
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 1,130 9,436 10,567 0.1 1.3 0.6

Cumulative LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductio n
2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Lit. Review Prices 297 4,507 4,805 0.8% 11.9% 6.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 1,962 6,514 8,476 5.0% 17.2% 11.0%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 319 3,807 4,126 0.8% 10.0% 5.4% Million Barrels Average MBPD

MMTCO2E Percent

### 125 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Quads Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-3 LV Energy Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)



### oil use essentially remains steady through 2025 a nd then increases. LV oil use is now 8.7 mbpd and does not exceed that level until 2030, when it is estimated to be 9.2 mbpd — primarily because of the new CAFE rules. But by 2050, with no further increase in vehicle fuel economy standards, LV oil use has risen to 12 mbpd. As show n in the tables as well as in Figure 7-4, LV
oil use does not rise above its current level until about 2045 in the Mixed scenario and 2050 in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario. The H2 Success s cenario has the highest level of LV oil use of the three scenarios, but even then it saves 2 mbpd relative to the Base Case in 2050. As further results will show, not as much ethanol is used in the H2 Success scenario as in the other two.

Cumulative oil savings are also presented in Table 7-3. The cumulative savings are all under 0.5 mbpd through 2030 — but then rise substantially. In the post-2030 period, the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative LV oil savings (2.3 mbpd).

7.1.3 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions

While the NEMS-MP model does not provide es timates of all GHG emis sions, it does provide
estimates of CO 2 

### emissions. It also does not provide full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions for LVs; however, we developed a method that allows us to estimate what the full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions for LVs would be in each scenario. Please see the attachment to this chapter for an explanation of this method.

Table 7-3 and Figure 7-5 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the Base Case and the three scenarios. The trajectory of these emissions is similar to LV energy use in the Base Case, increasing by 50% between now and 2050 and with most of the growth occurring after 2030.

While the Mixed and H2 Success scenarios are similar to the Base Case through 2025, by 2050
the CO 2 

### emissions are lower by approximately 15%. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario lowers the LV full-fuel-cycle emissions compared to the Base Case right from the beginning of the
scenario. It does not exceed the 2005 Base Case emissions until after 2030. Nevertheless, in 2050, it is only 19% below the Base Case emissions.

### 126 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-4 LV Oil Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-5 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies)



### Cumulative CO 2 

### reductions are also presented in Tabl e 7-3. As with the oil savings, the CO 2 

### reductions increase substantially after 2030. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### reductions (11% for the complete 2005–2050 time period).

7.1.4 Ethanol Use

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-6 present total ethanol use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. The total renewable fuel volume required by the RFS by 2022 is also shown. For this analysis, the RFS is assumed to hold steady to 2050. We compare the two even though the RFS includes other fuels because ethanol is expected to pl ay a major role in meeting the RFS.

There is growth in ethanol use in the Base Case: 16 billion gallons/year by 2030 and 24 billion gallons by 2050. It is not higher because cellulo sic ethanol does not exceed 1 billion gallons per

### 127 TABLE 7-4 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base Case and Scenarios Using Literature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

### 128 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Billion gallons Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

RFS Extended



### FIGURE 7-6 Ethanol Use (Literature Review, No Subsidies)



### year until 2050 in spite of the fact that the Ba se Case incorporates many of EIA’s updated biomass supply curves and cellulosic conversio n costs (August 2007). (The feedstocks for ethanol for each scenario are discussed in Appendix E.)

The Mixed and H2 Success scenarios use so mewhat more optimistic assumptions about cellulosic ethanol conversion costs and, conseque ntly, are estimated to use substantially more ethanol, including cellulosic, than in the Base Case: 51 billion gallons and 38 billion gallons total, respectively, by 2050. The volume in the Mi xed scenario is higher because there are many more vehicles capable of using E85 than in the H2 Success scenario.

Using the most optimistic assumptions concerning cellulosic ethanol, ethanol demand in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario will reach 42 billion gallons by 2030 and 67 billion gallons by 2050.
The scenario would meet the total volume of re newable fuels required by the RFS solely with ethanol by 2030. Like the Mixed scenario, this s cenario presumes the us e of many flex fuel vehicles. Although this result is not shown in the ta ble, half of the travel by flex-fuel vehicles is on E85 by 2050.

7.1.5 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol)

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-7 present U.S. liquid fu els supply estimates for the Base Case and three scenarios. These estimates might be viewed as surrogates for petroleum supply since we have excluded the ethanol supply that is included in the direct NEMS-MP output. (The attachment to this chapter discusses other ex clusions.) However, liquids fro m coal are included and are not insignificant in the later years in the Base Case and all the scenarios (i.e., more than 3 mbpd by 2050 in all cases).

U.S. liquid fuels (less ethanol) will grow by ab out 8 mbpd from today to 2050 in the Base Case. The scenarios reduce that growth by 2–3 mbpd by 2050, which amounts to almost the same
reductions as are achieved for LV oil use alone.

### 129 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-7 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Literature Review, No Subsidies)



### 7.1.6 Net Import Share of Product Supplied

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-8 present the percent of liquid fuel products imported. All possible sources of liquid fuel are included (i.e., ethanol is included in the calculations). In the Base Case, imports are projected to decline from a rate of 60% imported today to 44.5% in 2030 and then increase again to 53% by 2050. In the scenarios, the decline in import share is greater. The greatest reduction is achieved in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario: imports drop to as low as 38% in 2035. Nevertheless, in that scenario import levels are 46% by 2050, while the Mixed and H2 Success scenarios have import levels of 47% and 50%, respectively, by 2050.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5 2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0 2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0% Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-8 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Literature Review, No Subsidies)

### 130 

### 7.1.7 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-9 presen t total U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### for the Base Case and the three scenarios. (These are the total CO 2 

### emissions for the U.S. economy; other greenhouse gas emissions are not included.) The Base Case CO 2 

### emissions are estimated to be 60% higher in 2050 than in 2005. That finding is consistent with th e projected increase in U.S. energy use in the Base Case (not shown). The scenarios reduce the total CO 2 

### emissions in that year by about 3%–
4%.

7.1.8 Gasoline Price

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-10 present the gasoline prices estimated for the Base Case and the reductions that occur in these prices with the scen arios. The gasoline prices of the Base Case are consistent with the world oil price of the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case extended to 2050. As discussed in Section 5.4, oil prices in 2008 were higher than those of the Base Case and, by extension, gasoline prices in 2008 were higher than those shown here for the Base Case. However, the relative prices of the scenarios are important. From that perspective, gasoline prices are lower in all the scenarios, with those of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario being the lowest (about 12% lower than the Base Case in 2050).

These gasoline price reductions cannot be applied di rectly to the Base Case world oil price to estimate the world oil prices of the scenarios. The reduced gasoline demand of the scenarios will alter the refinery mix and potentially the markup currently used for gasoline. However, the gasoline price reductions estimated for the scenarios imply that the scenarios may also lead to reductions in world oil price.

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-9 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies)

### 131 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0 Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 7-10 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Literature Review, No Subsidies)



### 7.1.9 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Litera ture Review” Vehicle
Prices and No Subsidies

These scenarios with “literature review” vehicle prices lead to only modest reductions in U.S. and LV oil use, U.S. liquid fuel imports, U.S. and full-fuel-cycle LV CO 2 

### emissions, and gasoline prices. These reductions are limited by the relatively modest market penetration of advanced vehicles, which is directly related to (or caused by) the high estimated prices for these
vehicles in the scenarios.

7.2 SCENARIOS WITH “PROGRAM GOALS” VEHICLE PRICES AND NO
SUBSIDIES

The scenarios with vehicle prices at the “program goals” level use vehicle price estimates that reflect achievement of DOE vehicle program goals. The vehicle price estimates are the same

across the three scenarios.

7.2.1 Vehicle Market Penetration

Table 7-5 presents shares of vehicle sales for the Base Case and three scenarios. As with the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios, the estimates are weighted: they represent the combined car and LT sales totals of each technology as a percentage of total LV sales. Figures 7-11 and 7-12 compare the weighted shares of total sales in the years 2030 and 2050. Table 7-6 presents shares of vehicle stock by vehicle technology for the Base Case and

three scenarios.

### 132 TABLE 7-5 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios Using Program
Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 82.2% 72.1% 65.3% 56.2% 52.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 3.3% 5.6% 9.5% 15.1% 16.1%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 10.0% 9.5% 8.9% 9.1% 11.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 4.4% 11.6% 14.2% 18.0% 18.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.6% 15.5% 13.3% 9.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.8% 21.5% 19.0% 13.5%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.0% 9.0% 9.2% 8.1% 7.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 8.9% 8.0% 8.7% 5.2%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.2% 3.0% 4.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 11.2% 9.9% 7.9% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.2% 31.4% 32.6% 27.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 3.2% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 4.7% 22.4%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.7% 16.6% 14.0% 9.6%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.7% 21.9% 19.4% 14.1%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.1% 8.3% 7.3% 7.8% 6.4%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 10.1% 10.1% 8.2% 6.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.9% 4.6% 6.1% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 11.7% 9.5% 9.2% 7.2% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.1% 30.8% 31.7% 26.9%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 3.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 4.5% 20.7%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 133 TABLE 7-5 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 H2 Success Program Goals Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.5% 14.2% 10.5% 7.5%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.6% 19.3% 14.3% 10.4%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.1% 8.7% 8.4% 6.5% 5.2%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 8.7% 7.4% 9.3% 6.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.2% 3.0% 4.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 10.1% 7.9% 6.2% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.0% 28.4% 25.6% 21.6%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 6.5% 5.7% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 8.8% 16.6% 32.5%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H2 without Jump Start Program Goals Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.6% 15.5% 12.6% 9.3%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.8% 21.4% 18.5% 14.1%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.1% 8.8% 9.2% 8.3% 6.7%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 8.9% 8.1% 11.0% 8.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.5% 3.9% 5.3% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 11.2% 10.0% 7.9% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.3% 31.2% 32.1% 28.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 2.2% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 17.2%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LT Share of Total Sales
Base Case 50.1% 43.2% 44.9% 48.6% 51.4% 54.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.3% 49.0% 52.3% 55.1% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.9% 50.0% 52.5% 55.2% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.3% 49.0% 52.3% 55.2% H2 without Jump Start Program Goals Prices 50.1% 43.6% 45.3% 49.0% 52.3% 55.2%

Total LV sales (millions) 16.2 16.6 18.2 20.2 21.9 23.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-11 2030 Sales Shares (Program Goals, No Subsidies Cases)

### 134 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE *



### FIGURE 7-12 2050 Sales Shares (Program Goals, No Subsidies Cases)



### A few key points are as follows:

1. As before, the market penetration of th e various technologies is very similar when comparing the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios. Although the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario might have a few more plug-ins and conventional FFVs and correspondingly fewer diesels, the differences are small, both in sales and vehicle stock. In both scenarios, about 1% of sales in 2030 are of FCVs; ho wever, by 2050, FCVs make up 21% of sales and 7%–8% of the stock. FCVs, gasoline HEVs, and ACVs make up 50% of sales by 2050. Gasoline plug-ins (PHEV40s) achieve no higher than 6% of sales by 2050 in these

scenarios.

2. In the H2 Success scenario, more FCVs are sold: FCVs are 9% of sales in 2030 and 32% of sales in 2050. By 2050, FCVs are 20% of the LV stock. These percentages would be quite a bit lower if it were not for the “jump start” given to H 2 

### stations discussed in Section 6.7. (In fact, Table 7-5 indicates that the share of FCV sales without the “jump start” would be slightly lower than in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios.)

3. All the scenarios include plug-in FCVs: these vehicles did not penetrate the market in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” version of this scenario. While the share is not high, it is there: 3% of sales by 2050 in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios and 6% in the H2 Success scenario (which is higher than the gasoline PHEVs in that scenario).

As discussed in Section 7.1.1, in spite of differen ces in assumptions about fuel prices between the scenarios, the Mixed, (P)HEV & Ethanol , and H2 Success “with no jump start of H 2 

### stations” scenarios show little difference from one another in terms of the market penetration of advanced vehicle technologies. This result again illustra tes the point that vehicle price is the key
determinant of vehicle choice in the NEMS-MP m odel. However, providing a “jump start” to H 2 

### stations does increase market penetr ation of FCVs and plug-in FCVs.

Because of the greater market penetration of ad vanced vehicle technologies with vehicle price estimates based on “program goals,” we s hould expect greater energy, oil, and CO 2 

### impacts than estimated with the “literature review” vehicle price assumptions. These impacts are discussed

next.

### 135 TABLE 7-6 Weighted Shares of Vehicle St ock in Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 92.1% 83.0% 73.6% 65.1% 57.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 2.2% 3.6% 6.0% 10.0% 13.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 3.9% 7.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 1.2% 5.0% 10.1% 14.1% 16.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices
Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.5% 26.8% 17.8% 13.4%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 20.2% 20.7% 18.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 7.0% 8.4% 8.7% 8.2%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.0% 8.9% 8.5% 7.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.1% 3.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 9.1% 10.3% 9.6% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 25.3% 30.3% 31.1%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.4% 7.7%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.6% 27.0% 18.6% 14.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 20.2% 20.9% 18.7%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.1% 6.9% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.3% 10.3% 9.6% 8.1%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.9% 4.6% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 8.4% 9.3% 8.8% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 25.1% 29.7% 30.3%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.3% 6.8%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 136 TABLE 7-6 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 H2 Success Program Goals Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.5% 26.2% 16.1% 11.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 19.4% 17.9% 14.3%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.1% 7.0% 8.1% 7.7% 6.4%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.0% 8.6% 8.6% 8.3%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.1% 3.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 8.7% 9.1% 7.7% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 24.3% 26.5% 24.7%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2.7% 4.9% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 3.5% 9.4% 19.7%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H2 without Jump Start Program Goals Prices

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.7% 88.6% 50.7% 26.8% 17.5% 13.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.1% 20.2% 20.4% 17.9%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 7.0% 8.4% 8.7% 7.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 4.9% 9.0% 8.8% 9.4% 9.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.5% 3.9% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 9.1% 10.3% 9.4% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.7% 25.2% 30.0% 30.6%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% 6.6%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



### 7.2.2 LV Energy Use and Oil Use

Table 7-7 presents LV energy use and oil use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. All three scenarios save energy compared to the Base Case. Nevertheless, the savings seem modest: that is, just 14%–19% less than the 2050 Base Ca se levels (also see Figure 7-13).

Substantial reductions are achieved in LV oil use (also see Figure 7-14). LV oil use in the scenarios never exceeds the year 2005 Base Case LV oil use of 8.7 mbpd; it remains essentially at approximately 8 mbpd through 2050. By 203 0, the Mixed and H2 Success scenarios save approximately 1 mbpd relative to the Base Case, while the (P)H EV & Ethanol scenario saves 1.5 mbpd. By 2050, the range in savings is 3.7–4.1 mbpd for all three scenarios, with the H2 Success scenario having the greatest savings in that year. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative savings in LV oil use through 2050 (1.4 mbpd for the full 2005–2050 time period), although savings realized in the other two scenarios are close behind.

### 137 TABLE 7-7 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### LV Specific Results

Annual
LV Energy Use (quads)

Base Case 16.95 17.15 17.38 18.90 21.70 25.01 Mixed Program Goals Prices 16.95 17.09 17.01 17.52 18.89 20.79 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 16.95 17.08 17.02 17.92 19.78 21.46 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 16.95 17.09 17.01 17.42 18.82 20.25 Savings (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.3% 2.1% 7.3% 13.0% 16.9% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.4% 2.1% 5.2% 8.9% 14.2% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.4% 2.1% 7.8% 13.3% 19.0%

LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06 Mixed Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.24 8.27 8.13 8.33 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.07 7.73 8.10 8.15 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.30 8.32 8.27 7.98 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.4 3.7 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.4 3.9 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.3 4.1

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123 Mixed Program Goals Prices 1419 1431 1477 1486 1538 1611 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 1419 1438 1434 1356 1516 1594 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 1419 1429 1489 1510 1568 1535 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.6% 2.3% 8.3% 18.7% 24.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.2% 5.1% 16.3% 19.9% 25.0% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 6.8% 17.2% 27.7%

Cumulative
Cumulative Oil Savings

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Program Goals Prices 2,619 17,638 20,257 0.3 2.4 1.2 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 4,343 19,093 23,436 0.5 2.6 1.4 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 2,358 17,742 20,099 0.2 2.4 1.2

Cumulative LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductio n
2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Program Goals Prices 968 6,909 7,877 2.5% 18.2% 10.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 2,043 7,796 9,840 5.2% 20.5% 12.8% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 809 6,954 7,763 2.1% 18.3% 10.1% Million Barrels Average MBPD

MMTCO2E Percent

### 138 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Quads Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-13 LV Energy Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-14 LV Oil Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies)



### 7.2.3 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-7 and Figure 7-15 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the Base Case and the
three scenarios. Substantial reductions are achie ved: emissions are 24%–28% lower than Base Case levels by 2050. Still, the 2050 emissions are at best 8% high er (in the H2 Success scenario) than 2005 emissions. As with oil use, the (P )HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative reduction in LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions through 2050, although once again, reductions achieved in the other two scenarios are close behind the (P)HEV & Ethanol results.

7.2.4 Ethanol Use

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-16 present total ethanol us e in the Base Case and the three scenarios.
Ethanol volumes are lower than in the “Literatu re Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios, in part because of the substantiall y increased market penetration of FCVs, which do
not use ethanol. Ethanol use in the H2 Success scenario is now similar to that of the Base Case.

### 139 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-15 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies)



### Both the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios still eventually exceed the total volumes required under the RFS by relying on ethanol alone. The latter scenario ultimately uses close to 60 billion gallons of ethanol/year.

7.2.5 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol)

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-17 present U.S. liquid fu els supply estimates for the Base Case and three scenarios. It bears repeating that these estimates might be viewed as surrogates for petroleum supply as we have excluded the ethanol supply th at is included in the direct NEMS-MP output. However, liquids from coal are included and are not insignificant in the later years in the Base
Case and all the scenarios.

U.S. liquid fuels (less ethanol) use will grow by about 8 mbpd from today to 2050 in the Base Case. The scenarios reduce that growth by about 4 mbpd by 2050 — almost the same reductions
as are achieved for LV oil use alone.

7.2.6 Net Import Share of Product Supplied

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-18 present the percentage s of liquid fuel products that are imported. All possible sources of liquid fuel ar e included: that is, ethanol is included in the calculations. The shares of imported liquid fuels are only just slightly lower than those estimated for the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios: that is, instead of imports ranging
from 45.8% to 50.2% in 2050 in the “Literature Re view, No Subsidies” cases, imports range from 44.6% to 49% in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” cases.

### 140 TABLE 7-8 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### U.S. Total Results

Ethanol Use (Billion gallons)

Base Case 4.0 12.6 14.3 15.8 19.2 24.0 Mixed Program Goals Prices 4.0 13.8 15.2 20.4 38.1 46.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 4.0 13.8 19.3 37.3 49.3 59.0 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 4.0 13.8 13.9 14.8 22.2 26.8 RFS Standard (includes other fuels besides ethanol) 4.0 13.0 30.0 36.0 36.0 36.0

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4 Mixed Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.6 21.2 22.4 24.6 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.4 20.7 22.3 24.5 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.3 22.6 24.3 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.6 3.8 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 2.6 3.9 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.4 4.1

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1% Mixed Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.5% 46.1% 42.3% 45.3% 46.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.6% 44.8% 38.9% 43.9% 44.6% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.4% 46.7% 42.7% 46.8% 49.0%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546 Mixed Program Goals Prices 5945 6176 6666 7335 8175 9033 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 5945 6182 6623 7205 8153 9016 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 5945 6174 6677 7359 8205 8958 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 1.8% 4.2% 5.4% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 3.5% 4.4% 5.6% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.5% 3.8% 6.2%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93 Mixed Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.99 2.99 3.28 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.79 2.82 3.00 3.22 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.99 3.06 3.23 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.2% 2.3% 5.1% 15.3% 16.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.2% 4.3% 10.7% 15.1% 18.3% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.4% 2.3% 5.1% 13.4% 18.0%

### 141 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Billion gallons Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG

RFS Extended



### FIGURE 7-16 Ethanol Use (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-17 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0% Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-18 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

### 142 

### 7.2.7 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-19 present total U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### for the Base Case and the three
scenarios. The scenarios reduce the total CO 2 

### emissions by about 5%–6% from the Base Case by

2050.

7.2.8 Gasoline Price

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-20 present the gasoline prices estimated for the Base Case and scenarios. Not unexpectedly, gasoline prices are lower than the Base Case prices and lower than those in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The gasoline prices of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are the lowest over time of all the scenarios; however, by 2050, the gasoline price of the H2 Success scenario matches it, and both are 18% lower than the Base

Case.

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-19 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0 Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 7-20 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Program Goals, No Subsidies)

### 143 

### 7.2.9 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Progr am Goals” Vehicle
Prices and No Subsidies

As with the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of these scenarios, the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” cases clearly lead to reductions in total U.S. and LV oil use, U.S. imports of liquid fuels, total U.S. and full-fuel-cycle LV emissions of CO 2 

### , and gasoline prices. The reductions aregreater than with the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” cases. The fact that LV oil use and fullfuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions might be held close to 2005 levels is significant. The fact that these results can be achieved with several technolog y mixes (i.e., each scenario being a mix of technologies) is also important . Nevertheless, it is clear that these “Program Goals, No
Subsidies” versions of the scenarios ar e not doing much to reduce total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions.

7.3 SCENARIOS WITH SELECTED VEHICLE SUBSIDIES IN ADDITION TO
“LITERATURE REVIEW” VEHICLE PRICES

7.3.1 Subsidies Used

One focus of this study is an evaluation of the impacts of reaching the vehicle market penetration goals set for the scenarios (first shown in Chapte r 2, Table 2-1). Table 7-9 presents the goals for selected ATVs in the three scenarios and contrasts them with the market penetration levels actually achieved when the scenarios assume vehicle prices are at the “literature review” levels. As is obvious from Table 7-9, the “literature review” vehicle prices alone do not lead to achievement of the scenario market penetration goals. While Gasoline HEV market penetrationis substantial for all three scenarios, the market penetration of PHEVs, FCVs, and fuel cell plugins is much lower than desired in all of the scenarios.

Therefore, using the NEMS-TSA model, we tested many subsidies in an effort to match the goals shown in the table. All the subsidies reduce the retail price of the targeted vehicles well below the “literature review” vehicle pr ice estimates. All of the subsidie s were assumed to start in 2015. The results of two sets of subsidy runs are also shown in Table 7-9; others are presented in
Table 7-10. Our review of all of these runs i ndicates that substantial subsidies (e.g., $10,000 in 2015 that drops to $6,000 in 2030, a flat $7,500 subsidy throughout) for PHEVs and FCVs will be required for long periods of time if the scenario goals are to be achieved.

The first set of subsidies shown in Table 7-9 start with a $7,500 subsidy from 2015 to 2030,which then declines to $0 by 2050 for the key ATVs (i.e., PHEVs, FCVs, and/or fuel cell plugins) in each scenario. While market penetra tion for the key ATVs initially rises above the penetration with vehicle prices at the "literature review" level without subsidie s, penetration backslides when the subsidies are slowly removed:

• In the Mixed scenario, PHEVs are 24% of sales by 2030 but are less than 1% by 2050, and FCVs are only 2% of sales by 2050 vs. a goal of 21%;

### 144 TABLE 7-9 Market Penetration of Key Techno logies in Scenarios Using the Literature
Review Vehicle Prices with and without Subsidies

Mixed scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050
Subsidies
Gasoline HEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Diesel HEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PHEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500

FCVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500

FC PHEVS NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Sales %
Gasoline HEVs - 30.0% 15.0% 20.9% 27.6% 36.1% 21.02% 27.93% 35.31% 21.02% 28.29% 14.98%
Diesel HEVs - 4.0% 6.0% 2.6% 5.8% 7.1% 2.58% 5.96% 7.18% 2.58% 6.04% 3.07%

PHEVs - 16.8% 25.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 0.00% 23.63% 0.91% 0.00% 25.58% 27.89%
FCVs - 0.0% 21.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.02% 1.22% 1.76% 0.02% 1.31% 38.62%
FC PHEVS - 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% 0.00% 0.01% 1.28%

FCVs & FC PHEVs

combined 0.0% 30.0% 0.02% 0.1% 0.2% 0.02% 1.2% 1.8% 0.0% 1.3% 39.9% PHEVs, FCVs & FC PHEVs

combined 16.8% 55.0% 0.02% 0.3% 1.0% 0.02% 24.9% 2.7% 0.0% 26.9% 67.8%

(P)HEV & Ethanol

scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050
Subsidies
Gasoline HEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PHEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Sales %
Gasoline HEVs - 40.0% 40.0% 20.9% 27.3% 35.6% 21.01% 21.97% 35.57% 21.01% 21.92% 12.50%
PHEVs - 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.00% 31.69% 1.34% 0.00% 34.26% 62.75%

Gasoline HEVs and PHEVs

combined 65.0% 90.0% 20.94% 27.6% 36.7% 21.01% 53.7% 36.9% 21.0% 56.2% 75.2% A ll flex fuel vehicles (includes GHEVs, PHEVs,
ACVs and conventional FFs) 85.0% 97.0% 60.9% 66.2% 69.5% 60.99% 77.23% 69.54% 60.99% 78.30% 87.28%

H2 Success scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050
Subsidies
FCVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500

FC PHEVS NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Sales %
FCVs - 10.3% 76.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 0.02% 27.97% 8.15% 0.02% 32.23% 63.63%
FC PHEVS - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FCVs and FC PHEVs

combined 10.3% 76.0% 0.02% 1.1% 2.4% 0.02% 28.0% 8.4% 0.0% 32.2% 63.6%

NA = Not applicable
- = don't have NEMS-TSA model runs

MPMixH2.20 Goals

Goals MPMixH2.19 H2 Success without subsidies

(P)HEV & ETOH without

subsidies MPEthPHEV25 MPEthPHEV26 $7,500/vehicle subsidies continu e through 2050

Goals $7,500/vehicle subsidies through 2030 and then decline to $0 by

2050 Results of full NEMS model run

with NO subsidies

MPMixed42 Mixed without Subsidies MPMixed41145



### 145TABLE 7-10 Market Penetration of Key Technologies in Scenarios Using the Literature Review Vehicle Prices with and withoutSubsidies: Additional NEMS-TSA Model RunsMixed scenario2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 20302050 2015 2030 2050SubsidiesGasoline HEVsNA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $1,000 $700 $500Diesel HEVsNA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $1,000 $700 $500PHEVsNA NA NA $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $4,000 $5,000 $4,000 $2,000FCVsNA NA NA $10,000 $7,000 $7,000 $10,000 $6,500 $6,500 $10,000 $6,250 $6,250 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $4,000 $8,000 $6,000 $2,000FC PHEVSNA NA NA $10,000 $7,000 $7,000 $10,000 $6,500 $6,500 $10,000 $6,250 $6,250 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000 $4,000 $8,000 $6,000 $2,000Sales %Gasoline HEVs- 30.0% 15.0%- 26.9% 13.5%- 27.0% 15.2%- 27.0% 16.7% - 27.1% 20.1%- 27.0% 26.2% - 32.3% 37.6%Diesel HEVs- 4.0% 6.0%- 5.7% 2.8%- 5.7% 3.2%- 5.7% 3.4% - 5.7% 4.1%- 5.7%5.3% - 6.6% 7.6%PHEVs- 16.8% 25.0%- 18.6% 18.9%- 18.6% 21.6%- 18.7% 23.9% - 18.7% 29.1%- 18.2% 17.3% - 4.9% 3.7%FCVs- 0.0% 21.0%- 1.6% 44.6%- 1.3% 38.0%- 1.1% 32.5% - 1.0% 19.7%- 1.0%8.8% - 1.0% 3.2%FC PHEVS- 0.0% 9.0%- 0.0% 1.5%- 0.0% 1.3%- 0.0% 1.1% - 0.0% 0.7%- 0.0%0.3% - 0.0% 0.1%FCVs & FC PHEVscombined0.0% 30.0%1.6% 46.1%1.3% 39.3%1.1% 33.6%1.0% 20.4%1.0%9.1%1.1% 3.3%PHEVs, FCVs & FC PHEVscombined16.8% 55.0%20.2% 65.0%19.9% 60.9%19.8% 57.5%19.7% 49.5%19.2% 26.4%6.0% 7.0%(P)HEV & Ethanolscenario2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 20302050 2015 2030 2050SubsidiesGasoline HEVsNA NA NA $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0PHEVsNA NA NA $10,000 $9,000 $9,000 $10,000 $8,500 $8,500 $10,000 $8,125 $8,125 $10,000 $8,125 $7,500 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $8,000 $6,000 $5,000Sales %Gasoline HEVs- 40.0% 40.0%- 36.4% 18.9%- 37.9% 20.9%- 39.2% 22.9% - 49.6% 33.2%- 22.1% 14.7% - 22.3% 18.0%PHEVs- 25.0% 50.0%- 37.4% 66.6%- 33.6% 62.5%- 30.6% 58.9% - 24.1% 46.8%- 38.2% 50.0% - 23.7% 38.6%Gasoline HEVs and PHEVscombined65.0% 90.0%73.8% 85.5%71.5% 83.4%69.8% 81.8%73.7% 79.9%60.3% 64.7%46.1% 56.6%All flex fuel vehicles(includes GHEVs, PHEVs,ACVs and conventionalFFs)85.0% 97.0% 87.8% 92.7% 86.9% 91.8% 86.2% 91.1% 88.0% 90.4% 79.9% 82.7% 74.2% 79.0%H2 Success scenario2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 20302050 2015 2030 2050SubsidiesFCVsNA NA NA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000FC PHEVSNA NA NA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000Sales %FCVs- 10.3% 76.0%- 65.9% 78.6%- 48.6% 48.9%- 57.3% 72.9% - 40.9% 65.8%- 14.2% 16.6% - 8.6% 78.4%FC PHEVS- 0.0% 0.0%- 0.4% 2.4%- 0.4% 1.6%- 0.4% 2.3% - 0.8% 2.1%- 1.0%0.6% - 0.1% 2.4%FCVs and FC PHEVscombined10.3% 76.0%66.3% 81.1%49.0% 50.5%57.8% 75.2%41.6% 67.9%15.2% 17.2%8.8% 80.9%NA = Not applicable- = don't haveGoalsMPMixed39MPMixed40Selected runs in which subsidies continue through 2050MPEthPHEV17MPMixH2.16MPMixed37MPMixed38MPMixH2.15GoalsMPEthPHEV22MPEthPHEV23MPEthPHEV24GoalsMPMixH2.18MPMixH2.11MPMixH2.17MPMixH2.10MPEthPHEV13MPEthPHEV14MPMixed26MPMixed27

### 146 

### • In the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, PHEVs are 32% of sales by 2030 but drop to 1.3% by 2050;

• In the H2 Success scenario, FCVs are 28% of sales in 2030 but drop to 8% by

2050.

The second set of subsidies shown in Table 7-9 maintains the $7,500 per vehicle subsidy from 2015 through 2050 for the key ATVs in each scenari o. In these runs, the market penetration of PHEVs, FCVs, and fuel cell plug-ins continues to grow through 2050. By 2050:

• In the Mixed scenario, PHEVs, FCVs, and plug-in fuel cell vehicles are 68% of sales, which is greater than the 55% goal;

• In the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, PHEV S are 63% of sales, which is greater than the 50% goal; and

• In the H2 Success scenario, FCVs are 64% of sales, which is a little lower than the goal of 76%.

We use the second set of subsidies in the followi ng analysis because (1) the market penetration results are similar to what we hoped to obtain (tho ugh they change slightly in the full NEMS-MP runs) and (2) they are “fair” (i.e., all the technol ogies of greatest interest receive the same dollarper-vehicle subsidy). Nevertheless, we need to reiterate that the vehicle subsidies are just “examples.” Clearly, no one envisions mainta ining significant subsidies on the order of thousands of dollars per vehicle for 35 years. However, the subsidies are indicative of the vehicle price reductions that the NEMS-MP model suggests will need to be achieved in order to reach the high market penetration of advanced vehicl e technologies desired in the scenarios (all else being equal).

Table 7-11 illustrates the effect of the subsidie s on the incremental prices input to NEMS-MP when using the medium car as an example. (The in cremental prices of the subsidized vehicles are presented in italics in Table 7-11.)

7.3.2 Vehicle Market Penetration

Table 7-12 presents the sales shares for the Base Case and the three scenarios. Figures 7-21 and 7-22 show the shares for 2030 and 2050. There are slig ht differences in market penetration rates of the key ATVs between what is presented in Table 7-12 and what was projected by the NEMSTSA model, as shown in Table 7- 9. For example, instead of a 63.6% penetration rate for FCVs in the H2 Success scenario as projected by NEMS-TSA, the full NEMS-MP model run projects a rate of 59.3%. The bottom line, however, is that (1 ) the subsidies result in far greater penetration
of ATVs in the three scenarios with subsidies than the same scenarios without subsidies and (2) as anticipated, the ATV penetration rates vary across scenarios.

### 147 TABLE 7-11 Incremental Vehicle Prices Used in Scenarios Assuming Literature Review Vehicle Prices including Prices with Subsidies: Medium Car (in 2005$) 1



### Mixed

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205 Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $531 $471 $410 $168 $47 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $7,640 $7,273 $6,906 $6,393 $5,660 "LR with Subsidy"Incremental Price ($) $140 -$227 -$594 -$1,107 -$1,840

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $12,240 $11,512 $10,783 $10,055 $8,598 "LR with Subsidy"Incremental Price ($) $4,740 $4,012 $3,283 $2,555 $1,098
SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563 "LR with Subsidy"Incremental Price ($) $1,011 $551 $90 -$1,016 -$1,937 Year of:

Market

Intro. 5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR



### (P)HEV & Ethanol

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370
Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205 Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $531 $471 $410 $168 $47
Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $7,640 $7,273 $6,906 $6,393 $5,660

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $12,240 $11,512 $10,783 $10,055 $8,598 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563 "LR with Subsidy"Incremental Price ($) $1,011 $551 $90 -$1,016 -$1,937 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 Year of:

Market

Intro.

1 

### The incremental prices of the subsidi zed vehicles are presented in italics.

### 148 TABLE 7-11 (Cont.)



### H2 Success

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370
Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205
Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $531 $471 $410 $168 $47 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $9,211 $8,673 $8,135 $6,736 $5,660 "LR with Subsidy"Incremental Price ($) $1,711 $1,173 $635 -$764 -$1,840

FCV PHEV 40 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $14,572 $13,608 $12,645 $10,525 $8,598
SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Lit. Review"Incremental Price ($) $8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 Year of:

Market

Intro.

1 

### The incremental prices of the subsidi zed vehicles are presented in italics.



### Some key points are as follows:

1. In the Mixed scenario, PHEVs and GHEVs ma ke up more than 50% of sales by 2030. By 2050, these ATVs and FCVs account for nearly 80% of sales.

2. In the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, PHEVs and GHEVs again comprise 50% of sales by 2030, although there are more PHEVs than there are in the Mixed scenario. By 2050, PHEVs alone make up 60% of sales. Nearly 90% of all vehicles have flex fuel capability, which is important in this scenario if the et hanol goals of the scenario are to be met.

3. In the H2 Success scenario, FCVs account fo r one-third of sales by 2030 and for 60% by

2050.

As a result of the significant differences in sales by vehicle technology among the scenarios with subsidies, there are also significant differences in vehicle stock among the scenarios. Table 7-13 presents vehicle stock technolog y shares for the Base Case and the three scenarios with subsidies. By 2050, in the H2 Success scenario, a bout 50% of all vehicles on the road are FCVs. In the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, nearly one -half of the stock consists of PHEVs by 2050. There is more of a mix of technologies in the Mi xed scenario: 24% of vehicles on the road are GHEVs, 28% are PHEVs, and 14% are FCVs.

### 149 TABLE 7-12 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Li terature Review Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 82.2% 72.1% 65.3% 56.2% 52.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 3.3% 5.6% 9.5% 15.1% 16.1%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 10.0% 9.5% 8.9% 9.1% 11.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 4.4% 11.6% 14.2% 18.0% 18.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 23.0% 13.6% 11.0% 6.5%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 25.0% 13.5% 10.3% 5.8%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 6.5% 4.0% 2.7% 1.5%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 10.5% 7.8% 6.6% 3.5%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 25.5% 29.3% 28.4% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 4.3% 2.3% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 25.2% 28.3% 26.1% 16.3%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 9.4% 34.6%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 22.7% 14.3% 12.0% 8.5%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 24.3% 13.6% 11.2% 8.5%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 5.6% 3.2% 2.7% 2.5%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 13.6% 9.6% 7.5% 5.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 33.2% 45.5% 60.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 4.1% 2.9% 2.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 24.2% 21.9% 18.2% 12.7%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 150 TABLE 7-12 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies
Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 57.3% 24.0% 15.5% 11.0% 8.4%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.1% 26.1% 16.8% 10.4% 8.1%
TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 8.9% 7.0% 4.8% 2.4% 1.9%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.1% 11.2% 8.7% 8.5% 6.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 3.7% 2.2% 1.9% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.5% 23.6% 18.7% 14.3% 13.3%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 31.6% 51.0% 59.3%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LT Share of Total Sales

Base Case 50.1% 43.2% 44.9% 48.6% 51.4% 54.0%
Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 50.1% 43.6% 45.0% 48.9% 52.5% 55.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Sub s 50.1% 43.6% 46.0% 49.8% 52.6% 55.4%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 50.1% 43.6% 45.0% 49.0% 52.7% 55.7%

Total LV sales (millions) 16.2 16.6 18.2 20.2 21.9 23.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-21 2030 Sales Shares (Literature Review with Subsidies Scenarios)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE *



### FIGURE 7-22 2050 Sales Shares (Literature Review with Subsidies Scenarios)

### 151 TABLE 7-13 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Li terature Review Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 92.1% 83.0% 73.6% 65.1% 57.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 2.2% 3.6% 6.0% 10.0% 13.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 3.9% 7.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 1.2% 5.0% 10.1% 14.1% 16.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 52.9% 27.4% 16.6% 11.1%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.0% 17.0% 13.8% 10.1%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.2% 5.3% 4.0% 2.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.0% 9.6% 8.1% 6.1%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 11.5% 22.6% 28.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 5.0% 5.3% 4.1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.4% 23.7% 26.8% 23.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 2.7% 13.6%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 52.9% 27.4% 17.1% 12.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.9% 16.7% 14.0% 11.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.0% 4.9% 3.5% 2.9%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.5% 11.0% 9.4% 7.5%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 14.5% 31.0% 45.7% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 4.1% 3.8% 2.9% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.3% 21.2% 21.0% 17.5%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 152 TABLE 7-13 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 53.0% 29.7% 17.5% 12.0%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 15.1% 20.5% 15.5% 11.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.0% 6.2% 6.1% 4.3% 2.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 10.1% 10.4% 9.2% 8.2%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 3.8% 3.2% 2.5% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 13.2% 19.3% 17.1% 14.9%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 10.1% 33.0% 48.3%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



### These increases in total ATV stock from the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios imply that employing the subsidies will lead to further reductions in energy, oil use,
and CO 2 

### emissions. How the two sets of scenarios compare is discussed where appropriate
below.

7.3.3 LV Energy Use and Oil Use

Table 7-14 presents LV energy use and oil use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. The savings in energy use achieved by the three scenarios are fairly similar to one another (also see Figure 7-23) and are greater than savings achieved in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies”
versions of the scenarios.

Savings in LV oil use are also greater than savings achieved in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” cases, ranging from 5.1 to 5.4 mbpd by 2050 (also see Figure 7-24). The H2 Success scenario has the highest savings in 2050, using near ly one-half the levels of Base Case LV oil use. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative savings in LV oil use over time: it averages savings of 1.8 mbpd for the 2005–2050 time period. Nevertheless, the average savings for the (P)HEV & Ethanol and H2 Su ccess scenarios are very similar for the post-2030 time period.

7.3.4 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-14 and Figure 7-25 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the Base Case and the three scenarios. All three scenarios achieve higher CO 2 

### reductions than those achieved in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The H2 Success scenario achieves higher reductions (as compared to the Base Ca se) than the other two: 43% in 2050 vs. 22%–29%

### 153 TABLE 7-14 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case and
Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in A ddition to Literature Review Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### LV Specific Results

Annual
LV Energy Use (quads)

Base Case 16.95 17.15 17.38 18.90 21.70 25.01

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 16.95 17.09 17.24 17.27 18.15 19.15 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 16.95 17.09 17.30 17.53 18.47 19.42

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 16.95 17.09 17.27 17.90 18.81 20.06 Savings (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 8.6% 16.4% 23.4% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 7.2% 14.9% 22.3%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 5.3% 13.3% 19.8%

LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.33 7.96 7.51 6.97 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 8.67 8.33 8.02 7.30 7.17 6.97

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.39 8.24 7.27 6.63 Savings

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 3.0 5.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.4 5.1

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 3.3 5.4

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 1419 1430 1511 1498 1554 1501 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 1419 1430 1425 1354 1511 1659

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 1419 1421 1509 1484 1354 1205 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 7.6% 17.9% 29.3% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0% 0.6% 5.7% 16.4% 20.2% 21.9%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.3% 0.2% 8.4% 28.5% 43.3%

Cumulative
Cumulative Oil Savings

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 2,847 23,154 26,002 0.3 3.2 1.5 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 5,140 25,667 30,807 0.5 3.5 1.8 H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 2,052 24,539 26,591 0.2 3.4 1.6

Cumulative LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 639 7,028 7,667 1.6% 18.5% 10.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 2,142 7,522 9,664 5.5% 19.8% 12.6% H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 691 10,949 11,640 1.8% 28.8% 15.1% Million Barrels Average MBPD

MMTCO2E Percent

### 154 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Quads Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-23 LV Energy Use (Literature Review with Subsidies)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-24 LV Oil Use (Literature Review with Subsidies)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-25 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies)

### 155 

### for the other two, as well as higher cumulative reductions over time. However, in the near term (to 2030), the LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### reductions of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are the highest. It is not until after 2030 when emission levels in the H2 Success scenario begin to experience dramatic reductions. By 2050, the LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the
H2 Success scenario are estimated to be 15% lower than 2005 Base Case levels.

7.3.5 Ethanol Use

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-26 present total ethanol use in the Base Case and the three scenarios.
Ethanol volumes are lower than in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” cases. However, the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios still ultimately use more ethanol than the total volume of renewables required by the RFS. In 2050, the Mixed scenario uses 41 billion gallons/year and the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario uses 57 billion gallons/year (an amount that is close to the 60 billion gallons/year goal of the scenario). Th e H2 Success scenario uses a volume that is
similar to the Base Case.

7.3.6 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol)

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-27 present estimates of the U.S. liquid fuels supply for the Base Case and the three scenarios. As stated previously, U.S. liquid fuels will grow by a total of about 8 mbpd from today to 2050 in the Base Case. The scenarios reduce that amount by about 5 mbpd by 2050, the same reductions as are achieved for LV oil use alone.

7.3.7 Net Import Share of Product Supplied

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-28 present the percenta ges of liquid fuel products that are imported. After 2020, the import level remain s above 40%, even in the H2 Success scenario. (There is one exception: in 2030 in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scen ario, the import share dips a little below 40%.)

7.3.8 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-29 present total U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### for the Base Case and the three scenarios. As with the LV full-fuel-cycle emissions, the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario reduces

CO 2 

### emissions the most in the early (to 2030) time period, while the H2 Success scenario achieves the highest reductions later. By 2050, total U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### are reduced by 10%
in the H2 Success scenario.

### 156 TABLE 7-15 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base
Case and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Literature Review
Vehicle Prices

U.S. Total Results

Ethanol Use (Billion gallons)

Base Case 4.0 12.6 14.3 15.8 19.2 24.0

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 4.0 13.8 15.8 21.9 35.9 40.9 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 4.0 13.8 23.8 39.5 47.8 56.7

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 4.0 13.8 14.7 17.0 21.9 24.5 RFS Standard (includes other fuels besides ethanol) 4.0 13.0 30.0 36.0 36.0 36.0

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.0 21.8 23.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.3 21.5 23.3

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.8 21.3 21.6 23.0 Savings

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 3.1 5.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 3.4 5.1

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 3.3 5.4

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.6% 46.7% 41.9% 44.9% 46.6% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 60.5% 53.4% 44.4% 38.4% 43.1% 47.3%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.6% 46.4% 42.6% 45.1% 49.1%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 5945 6174 6699 7347 8191 8924 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 5945 6175 6614 7203 8148 9082

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 5945 6165 6698 7333 7991 8628 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.6% 4.0% 6.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 3.6% 4.5% 4.9%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.8% 6.3% 9.6%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.59 2.88 3.00 2.98 3.08 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 2.33 2.59 2.78 2.84 2.93 3.14
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.60 2.88 2.99 2.87 2.99 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 4.8% 15.7% 21.6% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices with Subsidi e 0.0% 1.3% 4.6% 10.0% 17.2% 20.2%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 5.1% 18.7% 24.0%

### 157 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Billion gallons Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS

RFS Extended



### FIGURE 7-26 Ethanol Use (Literature Review with Subsidies)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-27 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Literature Review with Subsidies)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0% Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-28 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Literature Review with Subsidies)

### 158 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-29 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies)



### 7.3.9 Gasoline Prices

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-30 present the gasoline prices estimated for the Base Case and scenarios. Not unexpectedly, gasoline prices are lower than in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The gasolin e prices of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are the lowest through 2030, but by 2050 are the highest.

7.3.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies

Table 7-16 presents, for each scenario, (1) an es timate of the cumulative vehicle subsidies from 2015 through 2050 and (2) the cumulative oil savings and reductions in CO 2 

### emission achieved with those subsidies in that time period and beyond to 2075. The oil savings and reductions in

CO 2 

### emission achieved by the subsidies extend be yond 2050 because vehicles brought into the market by the subsidies will continue to ope rate until well after 2050. The year 2075 was chosen as an end point to ensure that both the potential oil savings and CO 2 

### reductions of these subsidized vehicles were fully accounted for.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0 Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS



### FIGURE 7-30 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Literature Review with Subsidies)

### 159 TABLE 7-16 Effectiveness of Subsidies in Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in
Addition to Literature Review Vehicle Prices

Effectiveness of subsidies (undiscounted)

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Cumulative Cumulative
Mixed 2015-2050 2015-2075

Annual subsidies (billion) $40.6 $49.2 $63.8 $83.7 $112.7 $1,694 $1,694
LV oil savings (Quads)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.1 4.8
Mixed Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 2.4 4.1 5.8 7.5 9.7 Additional savings with subsidies 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.5 4.9 61.2 102.3
Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 11.7 19.5 Subsidy/barrel saved $145 $87
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) 0.24 0.27 LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 77.3 159.3 240.9 281.6 314.5
Mixed Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 122.6 226.7 338.9 417.6 622.5
Additional savings with subsidies 45.3 67.3 98.0 136.0 308.0 2,824.1 5,173.6
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced $600 $327
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e) 4.1 3.8

(P)HEV & Ethanol

Annual subsidies (billion) $50.3 $61.3 $74.6 $89.6 $105.9 $1,898 $1,898
LV oil savings (Quads)
(P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 2.6 3.5 4.4 5.1 5.8
(P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 3.7 5.1 6.4 8.1 9.7
Additional savings with subsidies 1.1 1.5 2.1 2.9 3.9 51.8 83.2
Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 9.9 15.8 Subsidy/barrel saved $192 $120
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) 0.12 0.11

LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e)
(P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 226.4 279.8 335.4 359.7 395.4
(P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 266.4 330.8 381.6 407.1 464.1
Additional savings with subsidies 40.0 50.9 46.2 47.4 68.7 1,192.3 1,701.6
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced $1,592 $1,116
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e) 8.3 9.3

H2 Success

Annual subsidies (billion) $48.0 $76.7 $83.7 $92.6 $104.3 $1,934 $1,934
LV oil savings (Quads)

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.8 1.5 2.4 3.3 3.8 H2 Success Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 1.9 4.1 6.2 8.3 10.4
Additional savings with subsidies 1.0 2.6 3.8 5.1 6.5 83.9 136.5
Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 16.0 26.0 Subsidy/barrel saved $121 $74
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) 0.47 0.48

LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e)

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 50.9 129.9 203.9 245.0 270.4
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices plus Subsidies 136.9 326.5 538.7 718.8 918.5
Additional savings with subsidies 86.0 196.6 334.8 473.8 648.1 7,453.4 12,466.6
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced $260 $155
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e) 2.1 2.1 From NEMS-MP

Note: Only the cumulative $/bbl or $/metric ton CO2 is shown because the subsidy expended during any year is "purchasing" future oil savings over the lifetime of vehicles purchased during that year. Note too that the $/bbl or $/metric ton estimates for the period 2015-2050 are overestimates because additional oil savings and CO2 reductions
will accrue in the years following 2050 from vehicles purchased with pre-2051 subsidies. These additional savings and reductions are accounted for in the column presenting $/barrel and $/metric tion CO2 for the period 2015-2075. Oil
savings and CO2 reductions for the years 2051-2075 were developed with the VISION model.



### The estimates of oil savings and CO 2 

### reductions occurring after 2050 were generated by using the VISION model, not NEMS-MP. The VISION m odel generates estimate s of fuel use and GHG emissions by LVs to 2100. The vehicle sale s shares and vehicle fuel economies as estimated by the NEMS-MP model for the various scenarios and cases were input to VISION. So
too were the NEMS-MP estima tes (shares) of fuels used to produce ethanol, H 2 

### , and electricity:
we hold the 2050 shares constant after 2050. In the estimates of oil use and CO 2 

### emissions to 2075, only the oil use and CO 2 

### emissions of vehicles sold through 2050 are included.

The two models have substantially different as sumptions about vehicle travel (e.g., VISION assumes newer vehicles travel more miles while NEMS-MP does not) and total LV stock by

### 160 

### 2050 (i.e., NEMS estimates that there will be a bout 50 million more LVs than VISION does in that year). As a result, the 2050 fuel use estima tes generated by the tw o models do not match; however, we developed ratios that allowed us to derive the post-2050 oil use estimates for the
scenarios. For the CO 2 

### emissions estimates, there is an additional problem in that VISION provides GHG estimates, while NEMS-MP provides CO 2 

### estimates only. Further, the CO 2 

### factors vary somewhat between the two models. Despite these differences, we made some simplifying assumptions and de veloped post-2050 lifecycle CO 2 

### estimates for the scenarios.

As would be expected, the total cumulative subsidies of the three scenarios are substantial. The total for the (P)HEV & Ethanol and H2 Success scenarios are quite similar: nearly $2 trillion (undiscounted). The total for the Mixed s cenario is not much lower at $1.7 trillion.

The table presents the subsidy per barrel of oil saved and pe r metric ton of CO 2 

### reduced for the three scenarios for both the time periods of 2015 to 2050 and 2015 to 2075. The discussion below focuses on the 2015–2075 time period. The calcu lations in Table 7-16 assign the total subsidy for each scenario to both barrels of oil saved and metric ton of CO 2 

### reduced (but also report the corresponding CO 2 

### reduced/barrel saved a nd barrel saved/ton of CO 2 

### reduced). Alternatively, another approach could be to cons ider apportioning the total subsidy between the two benefits (perhaps 50-50).

On either basis, the subsidies used to encourage additional market penetration of FCVs in the H2 Success scenario are the lowest and/or most effective of the three scenarios: specifically, $74/barrel and $155/metric ton for the 2015–2075 time period (without apportionment). The cost effectiveness (C/E) of the subsidies used in the Mixed scenario in terms of reducing LV oil use is similar to that of the H2 Success scenario: $87/ba rrel. However, the C/E of subsidies in the Mixed scenario to reduce LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions is considerably higher: $327/metric ton. The subsidies of the (P)HEV & Ethanol sc enario are the highest of all: $120/barrel and $1,116/metric ton. None of these options is inexpensive.

(Note that the estimates of the C/E for LV oil re duction are more “robust” than those for LV fullfuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions reduction. More assumptions are made to estimate the latter.)

Finally, the (undiscounted) cumulative vehicle su bsidy for the H2 Success scenario as estimated in the table is nearly $2 trillion. This scenario assumes a “jump start” of H 2 

### stations in the early years of the scenario. That jump start is not wit hout cost: for this case; we estimate the costs to range from $6 billion to $12 billion (see Appendix B). That subsidy should be added to the cumulative vehicle subsidy. However, it will not alter the relative effectiveness of the
H2 Success scenario.

7.3.11 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Litera ture Review” Vehicle
Prices Plus Subsidies

The subsidies examined lead to significant increases in ATV market penetration and reductions in U.S. and LV oil use, U.S. and full-fuel-cycle LV CO 2 

### emissions, and gasoline prices relative
to the both the Base Case and the “Literature Revi ew, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios.

### 161 

### Even so, LV oil use is reduced from the Base Case by just 1–2 mbpd by 2030 and by approximately 5 mbpd by 2050. While these reductions are not insignificant, it means that there will still be many vehicles on the road relying on gasoline or diesel fuel. For example, in the H2 Success scenario, more than 40% of the ve hicle stock in 2050 would still use one of these two fuels as their only energy source.

7.4 SCENARIOS WITH SELECTED VEHICLE SUBSIDIES IN ADDITION TO
“PROGRAM GOALS” VEHICLE PRICES

7.4.1 Subsidies Used

Even use of the “program goals” vehicle price estimates did not result in achievement of the ATV market penetration goals set for the scenarios. Table 7-17 illustrates the difference between the 2050 market penetration achieved with the “pr ogram goals” vehicle prices and the scenario goals.

As described in Section 7.3.1, we used the NEMS -TSA model to estimate the amounts of vehicle subsidies required in each scenario that would result in market penetration estimates similar to the goals of the scenarios. However, for these runs, we only assumed subsidies would be available for the 2030–2050 time frame. Table 7-18 pr esents the subsidies used in the model runs. These subsidies reduce the retail price of th e targeted vehicles below the “program goals” vehicle price estimates. Table 7-19 illustrates the effect of the subsidies on the incremental prices input to NEMS-MP by using the medium car as an example. (The incr emental prices of the subsidized vehicles are presen ted in italics in Table 7-19.)

We need to reiterate that these vehicle subsidies are just “examples.” No one envisions maintaining significant subsidies for 20+ years or setting up subsidies that actually increase over time (i.e., as is provided to FCVs in the H2 Success scenario). However, the subsidies indicate the levels of vehicle price reductions that, acco rding to the NEMS-MP model, will need to be achieved in order to reach the high market pene tration goals for advanced vehicle technologies
desired in the scenarios (all else being equal).

In addition, we did not try to match the scenario goals exactly. Instead we focused on subsidizing the technologies of greatest interest: gasoline HEVs, gasoline plug-ins, and FCVs (including plug-in FCVs).

7.4.2 Vehicle Market Penetration

Table 7-20 presents the sales shares for the Base Case and the three scenarios. As expected, given that the subsidies vary considerably across the scenarios, the rates of market penetration of various technologies also vary considerably ac ross the scenarios. The scenario goals for 2050 were not matched exactly, as shown in Figure s 7-31 through 7-33 (which also compare the vehicle sales shares for the “literature review,” “literature review with subsidies,” and “program

### 162 TABLE 7-17 New Vehicle Sales Shares in Program Goals Cases vs. Scenario Goals

Weighted car and LT 2050

sales Mixed PG Mixed Goal (P)HEV &

Etoh PG (P)HEV &

Etoh Goal H2 Succes

PG H2 Success

Goal

Conventional Gasoline ICE 9.1% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0%

Adv Conv Gasoline 13.5% 10.0% 14.1% 7.0% 10.4% 5.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 7.0% 14.0% 6.4% 3.0% 5.2% 3.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 5.2% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 40 4.2% 25.0% 6.1% 50.0% 4.0% 0.0% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 7.9% 6.0% 7.2% 0.0% 6.2% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 27.5% 15.0% 26.9% 40.0% 21.6% 16.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 3.2% 9.0% 3.0% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 22.4% 21.0% 20.7% 0.0% 32.5% 76.0%

All other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



### TABLE 7-18 Vehicle Subsidies in Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices Plus
Subsidies

Vehicle Year 1 

### Mixed (P)HEV & Ethanol H2 Success

SI PHEV40 2030 $4,000 $5,000

- 2050 $3,000 $4,000 - FCV 2030 $700 - $500 2050 $700 - $4,000 FC Plug-in 2030 $2,000

- - 2050 $2,000 - -

SI HEV 2030
- $1,000

- 2050 - $1,000 -

1 

### Linear interpolation is used for years between 2030 and 2050. These subsidies are applied to the “program goals” vehicle price estimates.



### goals” versions of each scenario with the scenario goals). However, the market penetration achieved is fairly close to the goals, at least fo r the technologies of greatest interest. In the Mixed scenario, gasoline PHEV sales are now close to the 2050 goal of 25%, while total sales of FCVs (including plug-ins FCVs) remain flat (although mo re plug-in FCVs are sold). In the H2 Success scenario, FCVs are 73% of sales by 2050, a level that is very close to the 76% goal. In the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, PHEVs almost reach the goal of 50% of vehicle sales. Fewer HEVs are sold in that scenario than desired: we found that if we increased the subsidy for HEVs, then PHEV sales dropped. Therefore, we allowed HEV sales to be lo wer than originally intended.

As a result of the significant differences in sales by vehicle technology among the scenarios with subsidies, there are also significant differences in vehicle stock shares. Table 7-21 presents vehicle technology shares of stock for the Base Case and the three scenarios. By 2050, in the H2 Success scenario, about 50% of all vehicles on the road are FCVs: in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” case, FCVs were just 20%. In the (P )HEV & Ethanol scenario, more than one-third (38%) of the stock consists of PHEVs by 2050, a re sult that is a major change from the “Program

### 163 TABLE 7-19 Incremental Vehicle Prices Used in Scenarios Assuming Program Goals Vehicle Prices including Prices with Subsidies: Medium Car (in 2005$) 1



### Mixed

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695
Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,115 $1,787 $1,458 $997 $340 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $2,115 $1,787 $758 $297 -$360

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,145 $3,696 $3,248 $2,799 $1,902 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $4,145 $1,696 $1,248 $799 -$98 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 -$165 -$361 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 Year of:

Market

Intro.



### (P)HEV & Ethanol

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597
Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695
Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $427 -$74

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,115 $1,787 $1,458 $997 $340

FCV PHEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,145 $3,696 $3,248 $2,799 $1,902 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 -$1,165 -$1,361 Year of:

Market

Intro. 5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

1 

### The incremental prices of the subsidi zed vehicles are presented in italics.

### 164 TABLE 7-19 (Cont.)



### H2 Success

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597
Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695
Gasoline Hybrid 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926

Advanced Gasoline 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $3,887 $3,350 $2,812 $1,415 $340 "PG with Subsidy" Incremental Price ($) $3,887 $3,350 $2,812 -$835 -$3,660

FCV PHEV 40 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $6,633 $5,870 $5,107 $3,428 $1,902 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 "Program Goals" Incremental Price ($) $4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639 Year of:

Market

Intro. 5 years

later 10 years

later 2040 2050 Mid-size (Medium) CAR

1 

### The incremental prices of the subsidi zed vehicles are presented in italics.



### Goals, No Subsidies” case, in which just 5% of the stock consists of PHEVs. Another 25% are GHEVs. There is more of a mix of technologie s in the Mixed scenario: 26% are GHEVs, 22% are PHEVs, and 8% are FCVs (including plug-in FCVs). The stock of PHEVs in particular has increased over its share in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” case (3%).

These increases in the stock levels of total ATVs from the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios imply that the energy, oil use, and CO 2 

### impacts of the scenarios with subsidies would be greater. We discuss how they compare below where appropriate.

7.4.3 LV Energy Use and Oil Use

Table 7-22 presents LV energy use and oil use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. The levels of savings in energy use for the three scenarios are fairly similar to one another (see also Figure 7-34) and greater than achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” cases.

LV oil use savings are also greater than achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” cases, ranging from 4.2 to 5.9 mbpd by 2050 (see also Fi gure 7-35). The H2 Success scenario achieves the highest level of savings in 2050, using half of the Base Case levels. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest cumulative LV oil use savings over time: 1.8 mbpd for the 2005–2050 time period versus 1.5 mbpd for the H2 Success scenario. The Mixed scenario with subsidies experiences only modest reductions in oil use as compared to those achieved in its “Program Goals, No Subsidies” case.

### 165 TABLE 7-20 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Sales in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 82.2% 72.1% 65.3% 56.2% 52.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 3.3% 5.6% 9.5% 15.1% 16.1%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 10.0% 9.5% 8.9% 9.1% 11.9%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 4.4% 11.6% 14.2% 18.0% 18.0%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.6% 13.0% 11.5% 7.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.8% 16.3% 13.2% 9.5%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.0% 9.0% 6.9% 4.5% 3.9%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 8.9% 7.1% 6.2% 4.0%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 17.0% 24.2% 23.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 9.9% 7.2% 5.1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.2% 28.8% 28.1% 20.4%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.4% 8.3% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 3.7% 17.6%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.4% 11.3% 9.4% 7.5%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.4% 13.3% 10.1% 8.8%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.1% 7.9% 4.7% 3.5% 3.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 15.9% 11.6% 7.3% 5.3% 4.3%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 26.4% 41.7% 47.6% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 4.8% 2.5% 2.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 28.0% 31.5% 26.4% 20.9%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 4.5%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 91.3% 56.9% 18.4% 14.0% 7.9% 4.8%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.3% 6.4% 22.5% 19.0% 9.2% 4.6%

TDI Diesel ICE 2.1% 9.1% 8.8% 8.2% 3.5% 1.6%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 3.8% 16.0% 8.7% 7.4% 5.9% 3.2%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 9.9% 4.4% 2.1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 1.4% 11.6% 27.9% 27.9% 16.2% 9.2%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 10.4% 50.5% 72.9%

All other 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LT Share of Total Sales

Base Case 50.1% 43.2% 44.9% 48.6% 51.4% 54.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 50.1% 43.6% 45.3% 49.1% 53.3% 55.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 50.1% 43.5% 46.1% 50.1% 53.6% 55.6% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 50.1% 43.6% 45.3% 49.0% 52.7% 56.6%

Total LV sales (millions) 16.2 16.6 18.2 20.2 21.9 23.5

### 166 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 40

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-31 2050 LV Sales Versus Mixed Scenario Goals

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 40

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-32 2050 LV Sales Versus (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenario Goals

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 40

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 7-33 2050 LV Sales Versus H2 Success Scenario Goals

### 167 TABLE 7-21 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected
Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 92.1% 83.0% 73.6% 65.1% 57.9%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 2.2% 3.6% 6.0% 10.0% 13.8%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 3.9% 7.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 1.2% 5.0% 10.1% 14.1% 16.8%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.5% 26.6% 16.0% 11.6%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 19.9% 16.5% 13.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.1% 7.0% 8.3% 6.6% 5.1%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.0% 8.8% 7.2% 5.8%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 15.1% 22.2% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 9.1% 9.1% 7.4% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 25.2% 28.0% 26.2%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 2.5% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 5.9%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.6% 26.7% 15.1% 10.3%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 19.7% 14.6% 11.0%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.1% 6.8% 7.4% 5.1% 4.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.5% 10.3% 7.6% 5.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 24.0% 38.4% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 8.1% 5.4% 3.2% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 25.0% 27.7% 25.3%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 1.9%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

### 168 TABLE 7-21 (Cont.)

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies

Conventional Gasoline ICE 95.6% 88.4% 50.5% 26.2% 15.4% 9.2%

Adv Conv Gasoline 0.1% 0.7% 14.2% 19.4% 16.5% 10.2%

TDI Diesel ICE 1.7% 3.1% 7.0% 8.1% 6.9% 4.0%

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 1.8% 5.0% 9.0% 8.6% 7.7% 5.6%

Electric Vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 1.7% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 8.7% 8.2% 5.0% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 0.2% 2.2% 14.8% 24.2% 24.0% 16.7%

Fuel Cell PHEV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 0.8% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 3.6% 18.3% 46.7%

All other 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



### 7.4.4 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-22 and Figure 7-36 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the Base Case and the three scenarios. The emissions reduction achieved in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario is almost the same as that achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” version of the scenario: 25% less than Base Case levels by 2050. The Mixed scen ario actually has slightly higher full-fuelcycle CO 2 

### emissions than were achieved in the “Progr am Goals, No Subsidies” version of the scenario, although it still achieves a 23% reduction from the Base Case. Th e emission levels in the H2 Success scenario are the same or slightly higher than those of the Mixed and (P)HEV &
Ethanol scenarios until after 2030 when dramatic reductions in emissions begin to occur. By 2050, the LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in the H2 Success scenario are estimated to be 20%
lower than 2005 Base Case levels. The H2 Succ ess scenario achieves the greatest cumulative reduction in LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions through 2050 (14% for the 2005-to-2050 time period), although reductions ach ieved in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are not far behind.

For the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios, we expected greater reductions in LV full-fuelcycle CO 2 

### emissions from the totals for the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. While we are not certain why so little change occurred, we speculate that this result is attributable to the following:

1. The stock of PHEVs increases considerably in both scenarios;

### 169 TABLE 7-22 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions of Base Case
and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### LV Specific Results

Annual
LV Energy Use (quads)

Base Case 16.95 17.15 17.38 18.90 21.70 25.01 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 16.95 17.09 17.01 17.78 18.61 20.40 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 16.95 17.08 17.07 17.80 18.31 19.15 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 16.95 17.08 17.01 17.42 18.51 19.16 Savings (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 2.2% 5.9% 14.3% 18.4% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0% 0.4% 1.8% 5.8% 15.6% 23.4% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 2.1% 7.8% 14.7% 23.4%

LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.24 8.38 7.78 7.85 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 8.67 8.33 7.97 7.62 7.21 6.88 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.30 8.31 7.81 6.19 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.8 4.2 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 3.3 5.2 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.7 5.9

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 1419 1434 1487 1508 1552 1642 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 1419 1438 1420 1362 1488 1597 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 1419 1427 1492 1497 1454 1137 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 1.6% 7.0% 18.0% 22.7% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0% 0.1% 6.1% 16.0% 21.4% 24.8% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 7.6% 23.2% 46.5%

Cumulative
Cumulative Oil Savings

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 2,500 19,354 21,854 0.3 2.7 1.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 4,709 25,177 29,887 0.5 3.4 1.8 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 2,374 22,709 25,083 0.3 3.1 1.5

Cumulative LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions

2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 2005-2030 2031-2050 2005-2050 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 725 6,233 6,958 1.9% 16.4% 9.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 2,123 8,066 10,189 5.5% 21.3% 13.2% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 802 9,975 10,777 2.1% 26.3% 14.0% Million Barrels Average MBPD

MMTCO2E Percent

### 170 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Quads Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-34 LV Energy Use (Program Goals with Subsidies)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-35 LV Oil Use (Program Goals with Subsidies)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-36 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies)

### 171 

### 2. Analysis of the model run results indicates that the marginal fuel used to generate electricity for PHEVs is coal. The PHEVs are assumed to be charged in the off-peak hours and, absent any additiona l policies, the general resu lt in the NEMS-MP model is that coal will be used predominantly in those off-peak hours for additional electricity generation 19 

### ; and

3. Ethanol use declines somewhat in each of the two scenarios (see Section 7.4.5). Whether from corn or cellulose, ethanol has lower full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions than gasoline. (The decline in ethanol use is pr esumed to be a minor factor.)

7.4.5 Ethanol Use

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-37 present total ethanol use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. Ethanol volumes are lower than in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. However, the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios still ultimately use more ethanol than the total volume of renewables required by the RFS. Respectively, they use 46 billion gallons/year and 55 billion gallons/year in 2050. The H2 Success scenario uses less ethanol than the Base

Case.

7.4.6 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply (Excluding Ethanol)

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-38 present U.S. liquid fuels supply estimates for the Base Case and three scenarios. As stated previously, U.S. liquid fuels use will grow by about 8 mbpd from today to 2050 in the Base Case. The scenarios reduce that by 4–6 mbpd by 2050, an amount that represents almost the same reductions as are achieved for LV oil use alone.

7.4.7 Net Import Share of Product Supplied

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-39 present the percenta ges of imported liquid fu el products. After 2020, imports remain above 40% even in the H2 Success scenario. (There is one exception: in 2030 in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, the import share dips a little below 40%.)

7.4.8 Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-40 present total U.S. emission levels of CO 2 

### for the Base Case and the
three scenarios. The total CO 2 

### emissions of the Mixed and (P)H EV scenarios have not changed significantly from the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios, while those of

19 

### It is important to note that the scenarios did not incorporate measures to reduce GHG emissions from the electricity sector; with such measures, penetration of PHEVs would have led to greater reductions on CO 2 

### emissions.

### 172 TABLE 7-23 United States Total Energy Use, Oil, CO 2 

### , and Gasoline Price Results for Base Case and Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle
Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

### U.S. Total Results

Ethanol Use (Billion gallons)

Base Case 4.0 12.6 14.3 15.8 19.2 24.0 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 4.0 13.8 15.2 21.0 38.8 45.6 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 4.0 13.8 22.2 38.2 46.3 54.9 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 4.0 13.8 13.9 14.8 19.7 19.5 RFS Standard (includes other fuels besides ethanol) 4.0 13.0 30.0 36.0 36.0 36.0

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.6 21.2 22.1 24.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 20.5 20.3 20.3 20.6 21.5 23.2 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.3 22.1 22.5 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.9 4.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.7 3.5 5.3 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.9 5.9

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1% Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.5% 46.1% 42.1% 44.7% 47.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 60.5% 53.6% 44.5% 38.8% 43.3% 45.8% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.4% 46.3% 42.7% 46.4% 45.3%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 5945 6179 6675 7357 8189 9064 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 5945 6183 6608 7211 8124 9020 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 5945 6171 6681 7346 8091 8560 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 1.5% 4.0% 5.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.5% 4.7% 5.5% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.7% 5.1% 10.3%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93 Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.96 2.85 3.15 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 2.33 2.60 2.77 2.80 2.80 3.05 H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.60 2.84 2.99 2.88 2.80 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.3% 2.4% 6.1% 19.3% 20.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices with Subs i 0.0% 1.1% 4.8% 11.3% 20.9% 22.5% H2 Success Program Goals Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 5.2% 18.4% 28.8%

### 173 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Billion gallons Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

RFS Extended



### FIGURE 7-37 Ethanol Use (Program Goals with Subsidies)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-38 U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply Excluding Ethanol (Program Goals with Subsidies)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0% Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-39 Net Import Share of Product Supplied (Program Goals with Subsidies)

### 174 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-40 U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies)



### the H2 Success scenario have achieved a substa ntial reduction. By 2050, tota l U.S. emissions of

CO 2 

### are reduced by 10% in this version of the scenario versus 6% in the “Program Goals, No
Subsidies” version of the scenario.

7.4.9 Gasoline Price

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-41 present the gasoline prices estimated for the Base Case and scenarios. As expected, gasoline prices are lowe r than those found in th e “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The gasolin e prices of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are the lowest over time of all of the scenarios; by 2050, however, the gasoline price of the H2 Success scenario is considerably lower.

7.4.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies

Table 7-24 presents, for each scenario, an estima te of the cumulative vehicle subsidies from 2030 through 2050 and the cumulative oil savings and CO 2 

### emission reductions achieved with those subsidies in that time period and be yond to 2075. The oil savings and CO 2 

### emission reductions achieved by the subsidies extend beyond 2050 because vehicles brought into the market by the subsidies will continue to ope rate beyond 2050. The year 2075 was chosen as an end point to ensure that the potential oil savings and CO 2 

### reductions of these subsid ized vehicles were fully

accounted for.

The estimates of post- 2050 oil savings and CO 2 

### reductions were generated by using the VISION model and not NEMS-MP. Section 7.3.10 briefly de scribes how the VISION model was used to generate such estimates and addresses differences between the two models. That discussion will not be repeated here.

### 175 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0 Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 7-41 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Program Goals with Subsidies)



### The total cumulative subsidies of the three scen arios are substantial (although not on the same scale as for the “Literature Review, With Subsidies” versions of the scenarios). The (undiscounted) totals range from approximately $400 billion for the Mixed scenario to nearly $1 trillion for the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario.

Table 7-24 also presents the subsidy per barr el of oil saved and per metric ton of CO 2 

### reduced for the three scenarios for both of the following time periods: 2030 to 2050 and 2030 to 2075. In the discussion below, we focus on the time period of 2030 to 2075. The calculations in Table 7-24 assign the total subsidy for each scenario to both barrels of oil saved and metric tons of CO 2 

### reduced. Alternatively, it may be worthwhile to consider apportioning the total subsidy between
the two.

On either basis, the subsidies used to encourage additional market penetration of FCVs in the
H2 Success scenario are the lowest and/or most effective; even without apportionment, the oil
and CO 2 

### emission reduction costs are only $56/ba rrel and $96/metric ton, respectively. The cumulative total subsidy for the Mixed scenario, while the lowest, leads to the highest $/barrel subsidy of the three scenarios and no reduction in CO 2 

### emissions compared to the “no subsidy” case. The subsidies of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are “in the middle,” but in particular are very high for CO 2 

### emissions reduction.

The (undiscounted) cumulative vehicle subsidy for the H2 Success scenario as estimated in the table is $586 billion. The H2 Success scen ario assumes a “jump start” of H 2 

### stations in the early years of the scenario. That jump start is not without cost: for this case, we estimate the cost to be $8–11 billion (see Appendix B). That subsidy should be added to the cumulative vehicle subsidy. However, it will not alter the relative effectiveness of the H2 Success scenario.

### 176 TABLE 7-24 Effectiveness of Subsides in Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Program Goals Vehicle Prices

Effectiveness of subsidies (undiscounted)

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Cumulative Cumulative
Mixed 2030-2050 2030-2075

Annual subsidies (billion) $13.9 $20.0 $19.7 $21.1 $23.3 $416 $416
LV oil savings (Quads)
Mixed Program Goals Prices 1.8 3.0 4.6 5.8 7.1 Mixed Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 1.6 3.0 5.3 6.6 8.0
Additional savings with subsidies -0.2 -0.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 8.8 16.1
Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 1.7 3.1 Subsidy/barrel saved $248 $136
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) -0.42 -0.31 LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e)
Mixed Program Goals Prices 134.6 237.9 354.6 427.7 512.9
Mixed Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 112.8 190.2 340.5 381.7 481.9
Additional savings with subsidies -21.9 -47.7 -14.0 -45.9 -31.1 -697.3 -959.9
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e)

(P)HEV & Ethanol

Annual subsidies (billion) $33.0 $44.6 $46.8 $48.2 $49.6 $946 $946
LV oil savings (Quads)
(P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 2.8 3.8 4.7 5.9 7.5
(P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 3.0 4.7 6.4 8.1 9.9
Additional savings with subsidies 0.2 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.4 32.1 49.6 Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 6.1 9.5 Subsidy/barrel saved $155 $100
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) 0.04 0.02

LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e) (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 264.7 325.8 376.9 432.8 529.9
(P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 259.0 350.5 405.1 438.0 526.7
Additional savings with subsidies -5.8 24.7 28.2 5.1 -3.2 263.4 188.6
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced $3,592 $5,016
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e) 23.2 50.1

H2 Success

Annual subsidies (billion) $1.1 $6.1 $24.9 $44.5 $68.4 $586 $586
LV oil savings (Quads)
H2 Success Program Goals Prices 1.7 2.9 4.3 6.0 7.8
H2 Success Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 1.7 3.1 5.2 8.0 11.2
Additional savings with subsidies 0.0 0.2 0.9 2.1 3.4 26.0 55.0
Additional savings with subsidies (billion barrels) 5.0 10.5 Subsidy/barrel saved $118 $56
which also saves CO2 (MTCO2e/barrel) 0.61 0.58

LV full fuel cycle CO2 reductions (MMTCO2e)
H2 Success Program Goals Prices 110.5 223.5 324.8 445.0 588.7 H2 Success Program Goals Prices plus Subsidies 124.0 243.3 438.8 671.5 986.4
Additional savings with subsidies 13.5 19.7 114.0 226.5 397.8 3,035.3 6,115.0
Subsidy/metric ton CO2e reduced $193 $96
which also saves oil (barrel/MTCO2e) 1.6 1.7 From NEMS-MP

Note: Only the cumulative $/bbl or $/metric ton CO2 is shown because the subsidy expended during any year is "purchasing" future oil savings over the lifetime of vehicles purchased during that year. Note too that the $/bbl or $/metric ton
estimates for the period 2030-2050 are overestimates because additional oil savings and CO2 reductions will accrue in the
years following 2050 from vehicles purchased with pre-2051 subsidies. These additional savings and reductions are accounted for in the column presenting $/barrel and $/metric tion CO2 for the period 2030-2075. Oil savings and CO2
reductions for the years 2051-2075 were developed with the VISION model. No CO2 reduction achieved with subsidy



### 7.4.11 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Progr am Goals” Vehicle
Prices Plus Subsidies

The subsidies examined lead to significant increases in ATV market penetration and to reductions in overall U.S. and LV oil use and gasoline prices relative to both the Base Case and the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. However, only the H2 Success scenario further reduces LV full-fuel-cycle and total U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### from the levels achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidie s” cases. Further review is needed of how electricity sources for PHEV charging are estimated in NEMS-MP and how the results might change with different underlying assumptions (including policies inte nded to reduce the carbon

### 177 

### intensity of electricity generation) before we conclude that the increased use of PHEVs in these
scenarios will not reduce CO 2 

### emissions by significant amounts.

7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS: GENERAL

The scenario results using the four sets of vehicle prices (“Literature Review, No Subsidies,” “Program Goals, No Subsidies,” “Literature Review, With Subsidies,” and “Program Goals, With Subsidies”) should not be regarded as be ing equally probable. The “literature review” prices are just that and are the most likely of the four to be achieved (although even the LR estimates may be considered optimistic). The “program goals” prices are less likely to be realized than the “literature review” prices. The specific subsidies used in conjunction with both the “literature review” and “program goals” vehicle prices are quite substantial and required for long periods of time; these specific subsidies are thus unlikely.

Nevertheless, the LV oil savings and CO 2 

### emission reductions of the scenarios which use only the “literature review” vehicle prices are quite modest. If substantial oil savings are to be achieved by advanced technology LVs (and lower ethanol and H2 fuel prices), then some combination of lower vehicle pr ices and/or vehicle subsidie s may be required. Table 7-25 compares the oil savings (and CO 2 

### reduction) results of the “Literature Review, With Subsidies” and “Program Goals, With Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The levels of oil savings and

CO 2 

### reductions realized are quite similar across versions. In other words, there are numerous combinations of vehicle prices and subsidies that could result in oil savi ngs of approximately 1–2 mbpd by 2030 and 4–6 mbpd by 2050 (from the Base Case).

In addition, while the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” results might be regarded as the most likely, we would like to test the market penetr ation rates of advanced technology vehicles by using these vehicle price assumptions in a scenario with higher oil prices than we have used. As discussed, we used the AEO 2007 High World O il Price estimates extende d (i.e., to $93 in 2030 and $116 in 2050). Oil prices in 2008 were higher than these. Clearly, with significantly higher oil prices, the market penetrati on rates would be stronger, but it is not known by how much. The Mixed scenario would seem to be the most appropriate of the three scenarios to use for such a

run.

Finally, we would also like to modify the PH EV technology assumptions and input the modified assumptions into another NEMS-M P model run. Without subsidies, PHEV40s achieved at most 1.2% of sales by 2050 with the “ literature review” vehicle price assumptions and 6% of sales with the “program goals” assumptions. PHEV10s and PHEV20s will cost substantially less and should capture greater market share; however, again how much more is not known. Another sensitivity case using the NEMS-MP mode l could help answer that question.

### 178 TABLE 7-25 LV Oil Use Savings and LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emission Reductions in “Literature Review with Subsidies” and “Program Goals with Subsidies” Versions of
Scenarios

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case LV Oil Use (mbpd) 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06 Oil Savings of Scenarios using Literature Re view Vehicle Prices plus Subsidies (mbpd)

Mixed 0.1 0.1 1.3 3.0 5.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.4 5.1

H2 Success 0.1 0.1 1.0 3.3 5.4 Oil Savings of Scenarios using Program Goals Vehicle Prices plus Subsidies (mbpd)

Mixed 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.8 4.2 (P)HEV & Ethanol 0.1 0.5 1.6 3.3 5.2

H2 Success 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.7 5.9

Base Case LV FullFuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions (MMTCO 2 

### e) 1 

### 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123

CO 2 

### Reductions of Scenarios using Literature Review Vehicle Prices plus Subsidies (%)

Mixed 0.7% 0.0% 7.6% 17.9% 29.3% (P)HEV & Ethanol 0.6% 5.7% 16.4% 20.2% 21.9%

H2 Success 1.3% 0.2% 8.4% 28.5% 43.3%

CO 2 

### Reductions of Scenarios using Program Goals Vehicle Prices plus Subsidies (%)

Mixed 0.4% 1.6% 7.0% 18.0% 22.7% (P)HEV & Ethanol 0.1% 6.1% 16.0% 21.4% 24.8%
H2 Success 0.9% 1.3% 7.6% 23.2% 46.5%

1 

### MMTCO 2 

### e = million metric tones of carbon dioxide equivalent.



### ATTACHMENT TO CHAPTER 7: ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO DIRECT NEMS-MP
OUTPUTS

LV Oil Use. NEMS-MP provides total levels of gasolin e, diesel fuel, and E85 used by LVs (including commercial LTs [Class 2B]); these ar e summed. The gasoline includes ethanol blends, and the E85 includes gasoline, and we need to s ubtract out these ethanol volumes to determine LV oil use. NEMS-MP provides direct estimates of ethanol used in E85 (all by LVs). NEMS-MP also provides estimates of the total ethanol used in gasoline blends. However, some of these gasoline blends are used by medium trucks, schoo l buses, and other vehicles, as well as in other economic sectors. We estimate the LV share of total gasoline consumption (e.g., 96% in the MP Base Case in 2005) and apply that to the total ethanol used in gasoline blends to estimate the volume of ethanol used in gasoline blends by LVs. That total is combined with the ethanol used in E85 by LVs, and the combined total is s ubtracted from the previously mentioned sum of gasoline, diesel fuel, and E85 to obtain LV oil use estimates.

Also, we convert all quads to milli on barrels per day at the gasoline conversion rate, even though

some of the oil is in the form of diesel fuel.

### 179 

### LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions. For the most part, NEMS-MP reports energy-related CO 2 

### emissions based on the sector in which they are emitted, rather than allocating emissions to the point of end-use. The exception is for the electricity sector, where emissions are allocated to the

end-use sectors on the basis of re lative electricity purchases. This approach makes it difficult to trace the full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions for light vehicles (LVs).

Because of this complexity, we adopted a two= step process for determining LV fuel cycle emissions in our scenarios. First, we estimated the full-fuel-cycle LV emissions (including Class 2B commercial trucks) from a base case without CAFE by using information from several EPA reports on U.S. GHG emissions. Next, we assumed that all changes in U.S. CO 2 

### emissions in our other scenarios, including the Base Case with CA FE, were attributable to the LV sector because virtually all of the assumptions that we altered in these other scenarios relative to the Base Case
without CAFE are LV-related. These deri vations are described in Appendix C.

U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply. The U.S. liquid fuels supply reported by NEMS-MP includes H 2 

### . H 2 

### probably has been included because its relative vol ume is very low and its use is for vehicles. However, with the potential for increased use of H 2 

### by LVs, it should be excluded from the liquid fuel supply calculations. This is the approach we have taken.

Net Import Share of Product Supplied. The net import share of liquid fuel product supplied reported by NEMS-MP includes H 2 

### . We have taken H 2 

### out of the calculation because it is not a liquid fuel.

### 180 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 181 

### 8 ENERGY SECURITY BENEFITS AS MODELED IN OSMM

8.1 BACKGROUND

Strengthening America’s energy security is on e of three fundamental missions of the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The first of EERE’s portfolio priorities is to “dramatically reduce or even end dependence on fo reign oil.” To be able to measure the potential impacts of its research and development progra ms on U.S. oil dependenc e, EERE developed the Oil Security Metrics Model (OSMM) (Greene and Leiby 2006). Given estimates of program impacts on technology performance and on U.S. oil use, the OSMM simulates their effects on the costs of U.S. oil dependence, taking into consid eration a multiplicity of uncertainties about future oil market conditions. Following the recomme nded approach of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (NRC 2005), security benefits are estima ted to be the difference between expected program benefits during disrupted market conditions and those during normal market conditions.
Normal market conditions are represented by the 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference Case (EIA 2008).

This section of the report discusses the expected oil security benefits of the three alternative technology scenarios (as opposed to the DOE R&D program) that are being analyzed in the MP Study. The MP Study considers various degrees of R&D success but only the cases using the “literature review” (LR) vehicle price estimates (as opposed to “program goals” price estimates) are evaluated here. Each scenario is analyzed w ith and without policies that subsidize petroleumdisplacing, potentially low-emitting GHG tec hnologies, for a total of six cases:

1. Mixed without subsidies
2. H2 Success without subsidies 3. (P)HEV & Ethanol without subsidies
4. Mixed with subsidies
5. H2 Success with subsidies 6. (P)HEV & Ethanol with subsidies.

As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, the MP Base Case and scenarios were developed by using the high oil prices of the High Oil Price case of the AEO 2007. Recognizing the high degree of uncertainty associated with future oil prices, the oil security benefits below are estimated using three oil price cases from the 2008 AEO:

1. Reference Case — representing normal, undisr upted market conditions; prices are just under $60/bbl in 2030 and remain near that level to 2050.

2. High Oil Price Case — representing smaller global resources of conventional oil and a more constrained Organization of the Petr oleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production schedule; prices are just over $95/bbl in 2030 and continue increasing to $110/bbl by 2050. (These prices are very similar to those used in the development of the scenarios. See Section 8.2 below.)

### 182 

### 3. Low Oil Price Case — representing more abundant global oil resources, a greater willingness of OPEC to produce, and su ccess in producing petroleum fuels from unconventional resources; prices fall to $35/bbl by 2030 and decline further to $15/bbl by

2050.

The oil price cases span a very wide range of possible futures (Figure 8-1). In the high oil price case, oil savings will be much more valuable than in the reference case; in the low oil price case, oil savings will be much less valuable. Characterizing the uncertainty about future states of the world oil market is critical to estimating the potential energy security benefits of advanced, energy-efficient technologies.

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20502007 $ per Barrel

High

Reference

Low



### Figure 8-1 AEO 2008 World Oil Price Cases Extrapolated to 2050 by the OSMM



### In each of these cases, oil supply disruptions may occur. Supply disruptions induce oil price shocks. Disruptions may last one or several years. In each succeeding year of a disruption, OPEC supply may increase or decrease. The stochas tic model used to simu late disruptions was calibrated to historical disrupti ons as described in Greene and Le iby (2006). Thus, as a general rule, future oil prices will not follow the relatively smooth paths shown in Figure 8-1. Instead, future prices will generally be erratic and appear more like hist orical prices from 1970 to today.

8.2 ESTIMATED SCENARIO IMPACTS

Estimated impacts for the three scenarios in the context of the MP Base Case are shown in Table 8-1. These impacts have been discussed prev iously in Chapter 7. While the MP Base Case is based on the AEO 2007 Reference case, it assumes high oil prices similar to those of the AEO 2008 High Oil Price Case (i.e., $93/barrel in 2030 and $116 in 2050 [in 2005$]) and incorporates

the latest CAFE standards. The three scenarios achieve petroleum reductio ns of 2 to 3 mbpd by

### 183 

### 2050 in the cases without subsidies and 5 mbpd in the cases with subsidies. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario is expected to produce the most immediate and largest reductions in petroleum
use over time in the cases both with and without subsidies. The H2 Success scenario with subsidies achieves the greatest annual reduction by 2050: — 5.4 mbpd.

It is important to note that if these scenarios had been developed with lower oil prices (i.e., like the Low and Reference oil price cases used in this analysis), the impacts shown likely would not have been as great. Lower impacts would re sult in smaller oil security benefits.

TABLE 8-1 Estimated Scenario Oil Savings Over MP Base Case (in mbpd) (Scenarios and Cases Use “Literature Review” Vehicle Prices)

Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mixed w/o subsidies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.5

PHEV & Ethanol w/o
subsidies 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.0

Hydrogen Success w/o
subsidies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.7 2.0

Mixed with subsidies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.2 3.0 4.0 5.1

PHEV & Ethanol with
subsidies 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.1

Hydrogen Success with
subsidies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.4



### Energy technology programs can enhance oil security not only by displacing oil use, but also by increasing the price elasticity of petroleum de mand. All three scenarios are likely to impact the price elasticity of U.S. petroleum demand. Advanced automotive technologies extend the envelope of what is achievable and shift the s upply curve for fuel economy to the right; thus, more fuel economy is available at a lower initial cost. This changes the fuel price elasticity of automotive fuel economy, which affects the long-run price elasticity of gasoline demand and, hence, the price elasticity of oil demand. Increased market penetration of biofuels and hydrogen (see Tables 8-2 and 8-3) can also increase the price elasticity of demand for petroleum fuels, depending on the relative prices of the fuels. A si gnificant market penetrat ion of hydrogen-fueled vehicles should also increase the price elasticity of demand for oil. However, the current version of the OSMM is not able to estimate the change in price elasticity that can be specifically attributed to hydrogen-powered vehicles. In addition, a methodology for estimating the elasticity impacts of PHEVs has not yet been incorporated in the model. For the sake of consistency and in order to err on the side of underestimating oil security benefits, the estimates presented below do not attempt to account for elasticity impacts excep t for increased non-petroleum fuel use, as
shown in Table 8-2. PHEV benefits are based solely on petroleum displacement.

### 184 TABLE 8-2 Estimated Changes in Ethanol Use Over MP Base Case (mbpd on a GGE basis) (Scenarios and Cases Use “Literature Review” Vehicle Prices)

Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mixed w/o subsidies 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.34 0.70 1.07 1.15 1.19

PHEV & Ethanol w/o
subsidies 0.06 0.02 0.42 0.77 1.15 1.45 1.67 1.82 1.92 Hydrogen Success w/o
subsidies 0.06 -0.00 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.24 0.49 0.63 0.63 Mixed Optimistic with
subsidies 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.27 0.52 0.74 0.83 0.75

PHEV & Ethanol with
subsidies 0.06 0.02 0.42 0.73 1.05 1.21 1.27 1.39 1.45 Hydrogen Success with
subsidies 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.12 1.12 0.12 0.02

TABLE 8-3 Estimated Changes in Hydrogen Fuel Use Over MP Base Case (mbpd on a GGE basis) (Scenarios and Cases Use “Literature Review” Vehicle Prices)

Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mixed w/o subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PHEV & Ethanol
w/o subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hydrogen Success
w/o subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 Mixed Optimistic
with subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.34 0.82

PHEV & Ethanol
with subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hydrogen Success
with subsidies 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.41 0.99 1.64 2.25 2.82



### 8.3 ESTIMATED OIL SECURITY BENEFITS

Oil security benefits are estimated as the difference between normal market benefits in normal, undisrupted oil markets and benef its in oil markets that assume occasional disruptions. Normal

market benefits are assumed to be those obt ained in the AEO 2008 Reference Case with no supply disruptions. Disrupted benefits allow fo r the possibility of supply reductions from the AEO’s predicted OPEC oil output and include the High and Low World Oil Price Cases in addition to the Reference Case. Uncertainty about which price path is correct is represented by assigning a 40% probability to the Reference Case and a 30% probability to both the High and
Low Oil Price Cases.

Stochastic supply shocks are generated by us ing the model described in Greene and Leiby (2006). In each year, if no shock is in progress, there is a 10% probability that a price shock will occur. If one occurs, its duration in years is also determined stochastically. For each year of the shock, supply may increase or decrease (although the probability of decrease is greater) by an

### 185 

### amount chosen from a probability distribution calib rated to past OPEC su pply reductions. There is also uncertainty about how OPEC might respon d to reduced U.S. oil demand as a consequence of the success of EERE’s technology programs. Two alternative strategies are simulated: (1) OPEC ignores the change, maintaining the pr oduction schedule of the or iginal scenario, or (2) OPEC reduces production enough to restore the pr ice of oil to that of the original scenario. These strategies are applied after supply disruptio ns have been incorporated in the scenario.

Reducing U.S. oil use and increasing the price elasticity of U.S. oil demand reduces the three costs of oil dependence:

1. Transfer of wealth, 2. Loss of potential gross do mestic product (GDP), and 3. Price shock disruption costs.

The sum of the reductions in each of the thr ee components is the estimated total oil market benefits. The difference between the total oil market benefits in disrupted markets and the total oil market benefits in an undisrupted market (Und isrupted Reference Case) is the energy security benefit. Oil security benefits are summarized in Tables 8-4 and 8-5. The rows in each table labeled “Disrupted Oil Market Benefits” contain the expected reduction in the sum of the three oil dependence costs based on 10,000 simulation runs that include the possibility of oil market disruptions and that switch among the three AEO oil price cases. These numbers include both the

normal market reductions in oil dependence costs and the disrupted market benefits. The rows labeled “Undisrupted Market Benef its” contain the expected reduction in the sum of the three oil dependence costs in the absence of any supply disruptions and using only the Reference Case price projections. The first two columns show benefits assuming that OPEC maintains the original oil production path of the (disrupted or undisrupted) AEO Case. The third and fourth columns present cost estimates assuming OPEC adjusts output to maintain the oil price level of the disrupted AEO Case. The fifth and sixth colu mns are a simple average of the benefits under the two alternative assumptions about OPEC behavior. These estimates include the key oil security uncertainties not reflected in the usual DOE GPRA oil benefits analysis:

1. The potential for oil supply disruptions, 2. Uncertainty about the extent of conventional oil resources, and 3. Uncertainty about OPEC’s w illingness to expand oil production.

Future benefits are discounted to the pr esent value at the rate of 3% per year.

Undisrupted market benefits are greatest when OPEC maintains its production schedule regardless of the change in U.S. oil demand. Ener gy security benefits are greatest when OPEC maintains the oil price trajectory that would have prevailed in the absence of a reduction in U.S. petroleum demand. Since OPEC’s reaction to changes in U.S. oil demand are uncertain but likely to lie between one of these two strategies, the average of energy security benefits under the two alternative OPEC strategies is an appropriate measure of expected energy security benefits.

### 186 TABLE 8-4 Estimated Oil Security Benefits of MP Scenarios without Subsidies, 2010–2050

Oil Market Benefits (Billions of 2007$, Presen t Value Discounted at 3%/Year)

Scenario Supply
Shocks? Oil Price
Cases OPEC
Maintains OPEC
Maintains Average
of OPEC Response

Production Price Strategies Mixed (LR Vehicle Prices without Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All three $496 $455 $476 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $359 $271 $315 Security Benefit $137 $184 $161 PHEV & Ethanol (LR Vehicle Prices without Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All three $925 $860 $893 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $615 $476 $546 Security Benefit $310 $384 $347 H2 Success (LR Vehicle Prices without Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All three $345 $316 $331 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $266 $201 $234 Security Benefit $79 $115 $97



### TABLE 8-5 Estimated Oil Security Benefits of MP Scenarios with Subsidies, 2010–2050

Oil Market Benefits (Billions of 2007 $, Present Value Discounted at 3%/Year)

Scenario Supply
Shocks? Oil Price
Cases OPEC
Maintains OPEC
Maintains Average
of OPEC Response

Production Price Strategies Mixed (LR Vehicle Prices with Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All Three $836 $780 $808 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $632 $493 $563 Security Benefit $204 $287 $246 PHEV & Ethanol (LT=R Vehicle Prices with Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All Three $1,180 $1,108 $1,144 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $820 $648 $734 Security Benefit $360 $460 $410 H2 Success (LR Vehicle Prices with Subsidies) Disrupted Market Benefits Yes All Three $863 $808 $836 Undisrupted Market Benefits No Reference $642 $500 $571 Security Benefit $221 $308 $265

### 187 

### The MP scenario results are as follows:

• Expected energy security benefits range from just under $100 billion in present-value 2007 dollars in the Hydrogen Success scenario without subsidies to just over $400 billion in the PHEV & Ethanol scenario with

subsidies.

• In general, total oil market benefits are smaller when OPEC attempts to respond to reduced U.S. oil demand by defe nding the price of oil. Oil security benefits, however, are larger in that case.

• For all three scenarios, expected energy security benefits are greater in the
cases with subsidies than in those without subsidies.

• The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario (with and without subsidies) generates the greatest energy security benefits.

• The Mixed scenario is second best of the no-subsidies cases, while the
H2 Success scenario is second best of the cases with subsidies.

• As most of the savings occur in the out years, present values are less than half

of the undiscounted sum of annual benefits.

• Because the benefit estimates are disc ounted to present value and because they are economic only, they can be directly compared with current GDP or with other reference points. The security benefits shown in the tables range
from 0.6% to 3.3% of current GDP.

The security benefits thus estimated are additional to direct fuel cost savings from reduced petroleum use. The military and strategic benefits of reduced dependence on petroleum are probably equal or greater in va lue, although no attempt has been made to estimate them here.

8.4 IMPACTS ON THE VARIABILIT Y OF OIL DEPENDENCE COSTS
OVER TIME

The energy security benefits of reducing oil demand and increasing its price elasticity are a consequence of reducing both the expected co sts of oil dependence and their variance. Oil dependence costs as a percentage of GDP for the Base Case are shown in Figure 8-2. The variability of oil dependence costs in the Base Case as simulated by the OSMM is represented by the probability distribution of costs illustrated in Figure 8-2. Expected costs are shown by the yellow line. The area shaded brown represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean. The area shaded green extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded. Of course, th e entire time-varying probability distribution is dependent on the assumptions incorporated into the OSMM.

### 188 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP Base Case: No EERE Impacts

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050



### FIGURE 8-2 Base Case Distribution of Oil Dependence Costs 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### In the Base Case with no additi onal impacts over and above what may already be reflected in the AEO Reference, High Oil Price, and Low Oil Pr ice cases, the expected costs of oil dependence fall rapidly from the current level of 6% of GDP to approximately 1.5% from 2020 to 2050. This drop reflects clearly the EIA’s belief that current high oil prices will not be sustained. The 95 th


### percentile remains in the vicinity of 3% of GDP. With GDP projected to exceed $20 trillion in 2030, annual expected oil dependence costs are almost $300 billion with a 5% probability of exceeding $550 billion.

Reducing oil dependence costs to less than 1% of GDP by 2030 with 95% probability has been proposed as a rigorous definition of “oil independ ence” (Greene et. al. 2007). By this standard,
the United States will not achieve “oil independence” by 2030 or thereafter with the Base Case.

The impacts of the MP scenarios with and with out subsidies on both expected costs and the variability of costs over time and on progress toward achieving “oil independence” are presented in Table 8-6 and Figures 8-3 through 8-14. (Table 8-6 simply contains selected data points from the figures.) The impacts, some of which ar e obvious but bear stating, are as follows:

• The scenarios, both with and without subsidies, lower the oil dependence costs as a percentage of GDP from those of the Base Case;

• Greater reductions are achieved in the 95 th 

### percentile than in the mean (expected) costs;

• Nevertheless, the scenarios alone do not achieve the goal of “oil independence,” nor do they even come close;

### 189 TABLE 8-6 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percentage of GDP (%)

Scenario/Case Current 2030 2050 Goal with 95% Probability

– <1 <1

Base Case

Mean 6 ~1.5 ~1.5

95 th 

### Percentile ~2.8 ~3

No Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Price

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.2

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.6 2.4
(P)HEV & ETOH 1 

### : Mean 1.3 1.1

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.3 2.0

H2 Success: Mean 1.5 1.3

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.6 2.6

No Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Production

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.2

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.6 2.4
(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.3 1.1

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.3 2.1

H2 Success: Mean 1.5 1.3

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.6 2.6

With Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Price

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.0

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.4 2.0
(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.3 0.9

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.2 1.7

H2 Success: Mean 1.4 0.9

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.5 1.9

With Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Production

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.0

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.4 2.0
(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.2 0.9

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.2 1.8

H2 Success: Mean 1.4 0.9

: 95 th 

### Percentile 2.5 1.9

1 

### ETOH = ethanol.

### 190 

### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-3 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-4 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol, No
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 191 

### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-5 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-6 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 192 FIGURE 8-7 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol, No
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-8 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 193 

### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-9 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-10 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP (P)HEV & Ethanol with
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 194 

### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-11 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with Subsidies: OPEC
Maintains Price 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-12 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies:
OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 195 

### Production

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-13 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol with
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.



### 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Percent



### FIGURE 8-14 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with
Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production 1

1 

### Yellow line = expected costs. Brown area represents an interval of +/– one standard deviation around the mean.
Green area extends this to a 90% confidence interval. There is a 95% probability that costs will exceed the lower edge of the green area and only a 5% probability that the upper edge would be exceeded.

### 196 

### • The scenarios with subsidies achieve greater reductions than those without subsidies;

• There is very little difference in the results (whether the mean or 95 th


### percentile results), regardless of whet her OPEC chooses to maintain its original production schedu le or maintain price;

• The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario is best at lowering oil dependence costs as a percentage of GDP in all cases; and

• The Mixed scenario is generally next be st in terms of lowering oil dependence costs, except that by 2050 in the subsidies cases, the H2 Success scenario is marginally better.

8.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8

EIA (Energy Information Administration) , 2008. “Annual Energy Outlook 2008,” DOE/EIA0383(2008), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June.

Greene, D.L., and P.N. Leiby, 2006. “The Oil Security Metrics Model,” ORNL/TM-2006/505, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May.

Greene, D.L., P.N. Leiby, P.D. Patterson, S.E. Plotkin, and M. Singh, 2007. “Oil Independence: Achievable National Goal or Empty Slogan?, ” Transportation Research Record, No. 2017, pp. 47–53, Washington, D.C.

NRC (National Res earch Council), 2005. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One) , National Academies Pr ess, Washington, D.C.

### 197 

### 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The Multi-Pathways Transportation Futures Study is aimed at comparing alternative vehicle and fuel technologies that can make significant reductions in oil use and GHG emissions from U.S. light vehicles from now to 2050. A key goal of the MP Study is to make these comparisons on “common ground” as much as is possible and with analytic robustness. The MP Study originated from requests for an analysis of techni cal alternatives to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as a request by senior management of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for an integrated analysis of its research portfolio of vehicle- and fuel-related technologies.

The MP Study has focused on a limited set of fuels and vehicle technologies that appear able to reduce oil use and GHG emissions by a significant fr action if they could achieve a large share of
new vehicle sales over the next few decades. Th e MP Study assumes a future where oil supply instability and high prices have created in the United States a societal compact that places a high value on reducing the use of oil and providi ng substitutes for supporting the transportation system. The vehicle technologies examined are:

• Advanced conventional vehicles (A CVs) with spark-ignited (SI) and compression-ignited (CI) engines, fueled by gasoline and diesel fuel from
conventional and unconven tional resources, with flex-fuel capability (using ethanol from corn and biomass);

• Hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), bot h grid-independent and plug-in (PHEVs) with 10- and 40-mile all-electric range 20 

### ;

• Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) w ith hybrid drivetrains (including plugins); and

• Battery-electric vehicles (EVs). 21



### In addition to advanced drivetra ins, all of the vehicles incorporate a range of technologies to reduce their loads — including improved tires and aerodynamic design and weight reduction through improved materials and design.

The overall study examines vehicles and fuels at th e level of individual vehicles and single fuel cycles and then integrates these analyses into scenario analyses encompassing multiple

20 

### While PHEV10s were examined in the fuel economy and cost analyses, they were not considered in the scenario analysis because the scenario model (NEMS; see discussion below) can accommodate only one PHEV, and PHEV40s were chosen as the representative PHEV.

21 

### EVs were examined in the fuel economy and cost analyses; however, they play little role in the scenario analyses because of their high projected costs.

### 198 

### technologies and fuels introduced into the U.S. light-duty fleet over the time frame of 2010 to 2050. The vehicle analyses incorporate fuel ec onomy evaluations by using Argonne’s PSAT (Powertrain Systems Analysis Toolkit) simulation model and cost analyses by using literature reviews and Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Au tomotive System Cost Model (ASCM) as an organizing tool. The scenario analyses use a version of DOE’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS-MP) to obtain an integrated analysis of the e ffect of introducing multiple new technologies into the fleet — including the effect of reduced oil use on U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel prices. 22



### 9.2 VEHICLE CHARACTERIZATION

9.2.1 Overview

The MP Study first evaluates a limited set of vehicles that can serve as building blocks for a set of scenario analyses examining the evolution of the whole U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Specifically, the MP Study has conducted fuel economy and cost analyses of three classes (midsize car, midsize SUV, crossover SUV) of “leading edge” vehicles with multiple drivetrain technologies and fuel types for the years 2010, 2015, 2030, and 2045 (leading edge vehicles are vehicles that are “best in class” for fuel economy and that use newly introduced or newly updated technologies; they are introduced to the fleet in limited numbers 23 

### at the modeled date, with the assumption that the technologies, if succ essful, would then gradually be rolled into the overall new vehicle fleet). Because the scenar io analyses using the NEMS model require
identification of the vehicle characteristics of average new vehicles in 12 separate vehicle classes (six passenger cars and six light trucks) in increments between 2010 and 2050, the results of these limited leading edge vehicle characterizations are used to extrapolate to the required characterizations of average vehicles in the 12 classes for each target year.

Although the leading edge vehicles use a va riety of different drivetrain technologies, the vehicles in each vehicle class (e.g., midsize car) are designed to be as similar as possible,
consistent with the differences in their fuels and drivetrains . The vehicles satisfy the same core set of performance standards (for example, 9-second 0–60 mph acceleration time, gradeability of 65 mph at a 6% grade for 20 minutes) and, for each model year, have virtually identical “gliders” (a “glider” is a vehicle minus its powertrain and fuel storage system). Consequently, the vehicles in each class appear to their drivers and passengers to be virtually identical to each other, except where differences are made inevitable by the differences in fuel and drivetrain technology (e.g., differences in the time spent refueling or in the location of

22 

### As discussed later, the model considered only those fuel price effects caused by refinery demand shifts; effects on global oil prices, and their subsequent impact s on U.S. fuel prices, were not considered.

23 

### However, production volumes are large enough — at least a few tens of thousands of vehicles — to attain many of the cost benefits associated with mass production.

### 199 

### refueling, small performance differences caused by the unique torque characteristics of electric motors and diesel engines, and so forth). 24



### This analytical approach ignores potential niche markets (e.g., for limited performance or limited-range electric vehicles). Vehicles designed for niche markets could be important both for introducing new technologies into the wider ma rketplace (by allowing cost reductions and performance improvements through learning) and, for the longer term, for dense urban areas. Although niche vehicles deserve careful investigation, they are not considered in the study.

9.2.2 Fuel Economy Analysis

Evaluating the fuel economy of the various vehi cles required (1) identifying key physical and drivetrain characteristics of the vehicles for each analysis year, (2) “building” the vehicles by sizing drivetrain components to satisfy key pe rformance requirements, and (3) simulating the vehicle’s operation on the EPA UDDS (city) and HWFET (highway) driving cycles. Identifying key physical and drivetrain characteristics involved both conducting a literature review and relying on the advice of industry experts. The PSAT model was used to size the drivetrain components and simulate the vehicle operations.

Identifying key physical and drivetrain characteristics is difficult because it demands projecting technology development over several decades, which is a function of progress in research and development as well as changes in market trends. This projection is especially problematic for those technologies — fuel cell vehi cles, plug-in hybrids — that have not yet entered the market, at least not in mass-produced form. The MP Study used literature review and consultation with industry experts to project key technology charact eristics for both the gliders (coefficients of aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance, we ight reduction) and the drivetrain technologies (engine efficiency, battery-specific power, fuel cell maximum efficiency, etc.). Although two levels of drivetrain and glider characteristics — “high” and “medium” — were identified, the higher level reflects our best judgme nt of future vehicle characteristics assuming that the future world evolves as the MP Study postulates, that is, that vehicle efficiency assumes a very high priority in both public policy and the marketplace. Table 9-1 presents key drivetrain characteristics for leading edge vehicles. Table 9-2 presents key glider characteristics for leading edge midsize passenger cars. Note that these tables do not fully describe the character of these vehicles; for example, a primary efficiency characteristic of the advanced DI gasoline engines postulated in the MP Study is their ability to maintain engine efficiencies near their maximum over a wide range of operating conditions. Also , recent developments (the assumptions about technology characteristics were made in 2007 at the beginning of the Phase 2 analysis) have

24 

### An alternative way to compare competing drivetrain/fue l pathways is to optimize each pathway’s vehicle design for the specific fuel and vehicle technology combination embodied by the pathway. This might yield, for example, conventional drivetrain vehicles with steel bodies competing with electric or hydrogen vehicles with more expensive aluminum or carbon fiber bodies
, because the latter have fuel storage issues that justify spending more on lightweighting. We did not choose this type of comparison because it presents severe analytic difficulties. For example, the optimum choices would likely change over time with changing fuel prices and technology and material costs and would be sensitive to assumptions about the evolution of these costs and prices.

### 200 

### changed our view about some of these characteristics (for example, we now believe the maximum efficiency values postulated for fuel ce lls are about 5 percentage points too high). To the best of our knowledge, redoing the fu el economy analyses with updated vehicle characteristics would not significantly change the results.

TABLE 9-1 Drivetrain Characteristics for Leading Edge Vehicles



### Med Hi g h Med Hi g h Med Hi g h Med Hi g h

Specific Power (1) (W/kg) 850 875 900 880 920 920 950 940 980

Peak Efficiency (2) (%) 37 37.5 38 38 39 38.5 40 39 41

Specific Power (1) (W/kg) 420 440 460 460 480 470 500 480 520

Peak Efficiency (2) (%) 41 41 42 42 43 43 45 44 45

Aftertreatm't Ther. Eff. (3) Penalty (%) 2 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Specific Power FC system (W/kg) 500 550 600 600 650 650 700 700 750
Power Density (W/L) 500 550 600 600 650 650 700 700 750 Peak Fuel Cell System Efficiency (%) 60 60 60 60 60 62 65 65 70

Motor Specific Power (W/kg) 1110 1200 1300 1250 1600 1400 1800 1500 2000
Power Electronic Sp Power (W/kg) 3680 6000 12000 10000 13000 12000 14000 13000 15000 Motor+Controller Peak Efficiency 90 90 92 91 95 92 95 94 96 

### 2010 2015 2030 2045

DI DIESEL OR OTHER HC FUEL DI GASOLINE Parameter Current



### FUEL CELL

ELECTRIC MOTOR

TABLE 9-2 Key Glider Characteristics for Leading Edge Midsize Cars



### Me d Hi g

h Me d Hi g

h Me d Hi g

h Me d Hi g

h

Glider mass reduction (%) 0 5 10 10 20 15 30 15 30
Frontal Area (m2) 2.2 2.222 2.2 2.233 2.2 2.266 2.244 2.288 2.244

Drag Coefficient (5) 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.2

Rolling resistance (6) 0.008 0.0078 0.0075 0.0075 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.0066 0.006 

### MIDSIZE CAR (Current -> Glider Mass = 990 kg, Frontal Area = 2.2, Tire = P195_65_R15) Parameter Current 

### 2010 2015 203 0 2045



### The PSAT model was used to translate these assu mptions about the physical characteristics of the vehicles into estimates of their fuel economy on the EPA fuel economy test procedure. Figure 9-1 shows a sample of th e “high” results — the “all fuels” fuel economy (measured on the combined EPA cycle and without making adjustments to simulate “on-road” driving), in gasoline equivalent terms, for midsize cars operating on gasoline, diesel, electricity, and hydrogen.

### 201 MIDSIZE CAR FUEL ECONOMY (HIGH) (liquid fuel + electricity)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2007 2010 2015 2030 2045Fuel Economy, MPG (Comb, Unadj) SI Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV



### FIGURE 9-1 High Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (Unadjusted MPG), with Fuel Economy Values for PHEVs Reflecting Both Gasoline and Electricity Use (For PHEV10s, 17.4% of miles are electric, and PHEV40s are 50.9% electric based on SAE J1711 utility factors)



### Key conclusions of this analysis are as follows:

• By 2030, it may be possible to achieve fuel economy improvements of upwards of 50% (compared to the 2007 SI conventional vehicle) without resorting to hybrid drivetrains or dies el (compression ignition) engines. This result reflects sharp reductions in ve hicle loads (aerodynamic, rolling resistance, and inertia/weight), improved transmissions that are already entering the fleet, and SI engine improvements that will move gasoline engines closer to diesels in efficiency.

• In this time frame, a shift to diesel engines would allow fuel economy improvements of 55% to upwards of 80%.

• The addition of full hybrid drivetrain s could allow fuel economy to approach
2.3 to 3 times current levels in this time frame if the efficiency of hybrid components continues to improve.

### 202 

### • Fuel cell drivetrains can improve efficiency, on a MPGGE basis, still more, although future fuel cell e fficiencies are quite diffic ult to predict because the likely rate of continuing technology pr ogress and tradeoffs between efficiency and cost or performance are unclear. 25



### • Plug-in hybrid drivetrains can yield fuel economy improvements similar to more conventional hybrid drivetrains when they are operating in chargesustaining operation (i.e., after the elect ric portion of their daily driving is completed). Further, they can allow grid electricity to substitute for liquid fuels during a substantial portion of da ily operation. In gasoline-equivalent terms (valuing each kWh of electricity as 3,413 BTUs, 26 

### or about 34 kWh per gallon of gasoline equivalent, or GGE) , PHEV40s can attain fuel economy levels above 100 MPGGE by 2030. In liquid fuel terms, for the “high” case, an SI PHEV40 in 2030 would use, on average, a gallon of gasoline every 150 or more miles, 27 

### yielding a five-fold or higher reduction in gasoline use compared to today’s conventional gasoline vehicles.

• Battery-electric vehicles, or EVs, provide the highest fuel economy (on a gasoline-equivalent basis) among the competing vehicles, although the fuel cycle energy use (and GHG emissions) depend, of course, on the electricity feedstock and the efficiency of elec tricity generation. For example, with electricity generated by a conventi onal coal-fueled power plant at 35% efficiency and taking transmission lo sses into account, the full-fuel-cycle (“well-to-wheels”) energy use of an EV would be more than three times its “tank-to-wheels,” or “vehicle only” energy use. In contrast, the fuel cycle energy use of a gasoline-fueled vehi cle would be only about one quarter greater than its tank-to-wheels energy use.

• With more modest assumptions about engine and other improvements and the extent to which higher fuel economy will be preferred over other vehicle attributes (the “medium” values in Tables 9-1 and 9-2), fuel economy improvements of 25% to 30% might be expected by 2030 for SI nonhybridized drivetrains, and the level of improvements for other drivetrain types would decrease as well. With the new CAFE standards requiring

25 

### As noted above, the assumed maximum fuel cell system efficiencies adopted for these analyses appear to be more optimistic than projected in recent assessments, so the fuel economy results may not reflect our current understanding of fuel cell system efficiency. However, new PSAT runs that reflect lower maximum fuel cell efficiencies yielded similar high fuel economies; the lower fuel cell efficiencies were balanced by lower drivetrain weight, improved regenerative braking, and improvements in control strategy in the newly modeled
vehicles.

26 

### This valuation ignores conversion losses at the power station and transmission losses.

27 

### It is expected that a PHEV40 will “electrify” about half of its miles on average. With a fuel economy of about 80 MPG during charge-sustaining operation (and little if any gasoline use during charge-depleting operation), the year 2030 PHEV40 would use about 1 gallon of liquid fuel every 160 miles. Assuming nightly recharging of its battery, the PHEV40 would also use about 14 kWh of elect ricity from the grid every 160 miles (in average operation), based on charge-depleting electricity use of about 160 wh/mile and without accounting for charger
losses.

### 203 

### 35 MPG for the combined car and light truck fleet (about a 40% improvement) 10 years earlier, shifts toward more hybrid and diesel drivetrains would clearly be necessary to comply with the standards.

9.2.3 Cost Analysis

The MP Study next evaluated future vehicle cost s on the basis of the drivetrain component sizes (developed by the PSAT model in the fuel economy analysis) coupled with estimates of technology costs derived from literature reviews and consultation with experts. The analysis used ORNL’s ASCM as an organizing tool, using a factor of 1.5 to go fro m costs to Retail Price Equivalents, or RPEs, which are used in the Ve hicle Choice Model in NEMS. As with the fuel economy estimates, cost estimates for future vehicle technologies depend on uncertain technological progress, as well as on strong uncer tainties concerning material costs. The cost equations used in the analysis were develope d with the underlying assumption of “technology success,” that is, that each technology undergoes a successful development process, is pushed into the marketplace relatively soon, and experien ces cost reductions from learning and growing scale quite quickly. In other words, the analysis does not incorporate the risk that development will stall, costs will remain high, and full market success cannot be achieved — a possibility for any of the advanced technologies. Another important source of uncertainty is that cost (and fuel economy) estimates are based on a singular repr esentation of technolog ies that have many variations. For example, “hybrid electric vehicles” are represented by a single design rather than the multiple examples that exist in the marketplace even today (e.g., the Toyota “series/parallel” system found in the Prius; the two-mode hybrid designed jointly by General Motors, BMW, and DaimlerChrysler; the Integrated Motor Assist sy stem found in the Honda Civic Hybrid; and so forth). Further, all vehicles — regardless of dr ivetrain technology — have the same performance requirements dictating minimum pow er capabilities. In the actual marketplace, there is a broad spectrum of vehicle performance, and different drivetrain technologies may compete somewhat differently at the upper and lower ends of this spectrum.

It is important to note that this analysis holds performance essentially constant over time and

does not account for the so-called “hedonic” costs of foregone future increases in performance. This assumption ignores the market reality that over the past few decades, increases in vehicle technical efficiency — which can be used either to improve fuel economy or to increase performance (or some combination of both) — have been used largely in a manner that emphasizes increasing performance. Vehicle designers believe that many potential buyers value performance more highly than fuel economy. By ignoring this market value for performance, our analysis may understate the cost of improving fuel economy.

There are two cost estimates for each technology (the cost equations for key drivetrain components are given in Table 3-10 and are not reproduced here). A relatively optimistic “Literature Review” (LR) estimate is based on the literatu re review and expert consultation, with the above outlook of technology success. A still more optimistic “Program Goals” (PG) estimate assumes that DOE cost goals for advanced technologies are met (prototypes are assumed to achieve these goals on the schedul e dictated by DOE’s Program Pl ans, with the first production models achieving the goals 5 years later). Some of these goals were derived in a normative

### 204 

### fashion — they were set at a level deemed n ecessary to allow technol ogy commercialization — rather than being derived by examining engineering potentials. As a result, the probability of attaining the goals is quite unclear. Also, we unde rstand that DOE is re-examining the cost goals, and it is expected that some of them may incr ease. Although both estimates should be considered optimistic, the LR estimates are a better representation of our best analytical judgment.

Although details (across multiple years and the three vehicle cla sses) of the component cost estimates are given in the full report, some key highlights are as follows:

• In 2030, a glider mass reduction of 30% in a midsize passenger car (from extensive use of high-strength steel, aluminum, and other lightweight materials as well as computer-driven st ructural redesign) would cost about $1,300. For the conventional SI engine drivetrain, this reduction in glider weight would translate into a vehicle curb weight reduction of about 21%.

• Costs for the conventional technolog ies (spark-ignited and compressionignited internal combustion engines and automatic transmissions) are relatively stable over time, with the addition of progressively more sophisticated electronic controls, va lve control systems, and so forth moderated by some continued learning.

• In contrast, with substa ntial opportunities for learning still remaining, costs for new technologies are assumed to dec line over time, in so me cases quite dramatically. Fuel cell costs are lowered from $67–$108/kW in 2010 to $30–$52/kW in 2030; HEV batteries from $40–$55/kW in 2010 to $20–$38/kW in 2030; and EV batteries from $400–$675/rated kWh in 2010 to $150–$325/rated kWh in 2030 (where the higher values are the LR values, the lower ones the PG values).

• Costs for advanced vehicles with rechargeable batteries do not include possible costs for replacing batteries, assuming instead that the lifetimes of batteries requiring full charge and discharge cycles will be lengthened to match the lifetime of the vehicles. If this degree of improvement is not achieved, the cost effectiveness of these vehicles will be seriously degraded.

### 205 

### Figures 9-2 and 9-3 show the estimated retail prices for leading edge midsize cars for both cost cases, assuming that the “high” fuel economy levels are achieved. Figure 9-4 shows the incremental price in 2030 of these cars over an d above the price of a 2007 midsize car with a
conventional SI drivetrain.

Midsize Car Retail Prices -- "Literature Review" Case

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000

R e f 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 5Retail Price, $ Reference SI SI Conv CI Conv SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC PHEV10 FC PHEV40 EV



### FIGURE 9-2 Leading Edge Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Literature Review Costs, High Fuel Economy

Midsize Car Retail Prices -- "Program Goals" Case

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

Ref 2010 2015 2030 2045Retail Price, $ Reference SI
SI Conv
CI Conv
SI HEV SI PHEV10
SI PHEV40
CI HEV
CI PHEV10
CI PHEV40
FC HEV FC PHEV10
FC PHEV40
EV



### FIGURE 9-3 Leading Edge Midsize Car Retail Prices (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs, High Fuel Economy

### 206 

### Incremental Prices of 2030 Advanced Midsize Cars (Compared to 2007 Reference)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

A

dv

S I
A dv

C

I

S I HEV

SI

PH

EV1 0

SI

PH

EV4 0
C I HEV

CI

P H

EV10

CI

PHEV40 FC H

EV

FC

PHEV10

FC

PH EV

40 EVRetail Price Difference, $ Literature Review Costs

Program Goals Costs



### FIGURE 9-4 Incremental Prices of 2030 Advanced Technology Midsize Cars, Compared to a 2007 Midsize Car with a Conventional Drivetrain



### The figures yield a number of insights:

1. Even in the Program Goals case, costs for the most advanced drivetrains (those not yet introduced except for a few demonstration vehicles) will be high enough at their

introduction that commercializ ation can proceed only if the manufacturers or the government subsidize the purchase of these vehicles. Such subsidies will be expensive, although their affordability will depend on how qu ickly and dramatically costs and prices fall. The 2015 price differentials between PHEV40s, FCVs, and EVs and their primary competition — advanced c onventional vehicles — range from $6,000 to $14,000 per vehicle for the PG cost case and from $9,000 to $26,000 for the LR cost case.

2. Two of the more advanced technologies — fuel cells and battery-electric drivetrains with long electric ranges (i.e., drivetrains for PHEV40s and EVs) — are expected to have rapid cost declines. While this is an assumption, it is based on the recent development history of both technologies. In the LR co st case, by 2030 fuel cell vehicles and SI PHEV40s would cost only about $6,000 more th an advanced SI vehicles; EVs would remain much more expensive than advanced SI vehicles, with a differential of about $16,000 (both measured as retail price equivalent s). For the PG cost case, 2030 fuel cell vehicles would compete well in price with th e advanced SI vehicles, with SI PHEV40s within $3,000 of their price and EVs within $6,000. The battery-dependent vehicles will suffer considerably, however, if the problem of limited battery lifetimes is not solved: under the 2030 LR cost case, the battery in a PHEV40 could cost the consumer at least $5,000 to replace, while a battery in an EV could cost nearly $20,000.

### 207 

### What happens to the cost tradeoffs if efforts to improve fuel economy are less successful? For the “medium” fuel economy case, there are considerably greater cost disadvantages associated with the advanced technologies (beyond the “advan ced conventional”). For this case, the greater vehicle loads (because of higher weight, increased tire rolling resistance, and more aerodynamic drag) demand considerably more power output for identical performance. In 2015, for the low LR cost case, the higher power requirements rais e costs for the SI hybrid drivetrain by about $200 28 

### ; for the SI 40-mile range plug-in hybrid driv etrain by $1,300; for the fuel cell drivetrain by $2,300; and for the EV drivetrain by $5,000. In 2045, the cost differentials are $400 for the SI hybrid; $700 for the 40-mile plug-in hybrid; $1,000 for the fuel cell; and $2,000 for the EV. In contrast, the conventional SI drivetrains see a cost increase of only about $100, because engine costs vary substantially with power only when higher power demands a significant change in engine design — increasing cylinder count or a dding a turbocharger or supercharger. The net

effect of these differential cost effects is that if the industry experiences more limited success in boosting fuel economy levels, the cost penalty of purchasing advanced drivetrains (beyond the “advanced conventional” drivetrain) will increase, which likely will reduce their market penetration and thus may substa ntially increase fuel use and GHG emissions for the fleet as a whole. In other words, sharply reducing vehicle loads so th at drivetrain power demands are reduced may be crucial to stimulating ma rkets for advanced technology vehicles.

9.2.4 Cost Effectiveness

An evaluation of whether or not advanced technology vehicles are seen as “cost effective” depends crucially on both the assu mptions made and the methodology used, including the choice of the discount rate to apply to future fuel sa vings, the degree of optimism applied to estimating future technology costs, projected future fuel prices (which are highly uncertain), and the baseline level of technolog y to which advanced technologies are compared.

By using the fuel economy and cost analyses di scussed above, the MP Study examined a simple
measure of the cost effectiveness of the various drivetrain technologies — lifetime fuel savings minus the differential in vehicle sales price a ssociated with technology improvements — while making the following basic assumptions:

• Fuel savings and vehicle cost estimates are based on the “high” values of fuel economy from the PSAT analysis.

• Fuel prices are assumed to remain constant over the lifetime of the vehicles. With high uncertainty about future fuel prices, four fuel price scenarios are used for 2030, ranging from moderate to relatively high prices. The higher-price scenario has gasoline at $4.50/gallon and hydrogen at $3.75/kg; the lowest-price scenario has gasoline at

28 

### That is, the cost differential between the SI hybrid driv etrains in the “high” and “average” fuel economy cases is $200, assuming “low” LR costs for both cases.

### 208 

### $2.00/gallon 29 

### and hydrogen at $2.50/kg; in add ition, scenarios with $3.15/gallon and $2.50/gallon gasoline are examined (all assume electricity for nighttime recharging is $.08/kWh).

• Each vehicle is compared to three reference vehicles with increasing levels of fuel economy technology (for 2030, the reference vehicles are a 2007 conventional vehicle, a 2030 advanced SI conventional vehicle, and a 2030 advanced SI full HEV) to capture the marginal benefits of moving beyond differen t levels of improvement s. In this summary, results are shown for the 2007 reference vehicle; results for the other reference vehicles can be inferred by examining the values in the figures for each technology relative to the
value for the 2030 advanced conventional and SI HEV vehicles.

• Three discount rates (4%, 10%, and 20%) are used to examine the effects of the following: different points of view (society, individuals, businesses), different views of the likelihood that fuel economy will play a role in the vehicle resale market, and different valuations of the impor tance of future fuel savings. A discount rate of 4% is a commonly used value for a societal viewpoint; on average, individuals appear to use high discount rates — greater than 20% — in valuin g future benefits of efficiency measures (although early adopters of a technology may appear to use zero or even negative discount rates).

The complete set of calculations is quite la rge, and Figures 9-5 through 9-7 display only a sampling of the results. Figures 9-5 and 9-6 show the cost eff ectiveness for 2030 midsize cars by using the LR and PG technology costs and relativel y high fuel costs (for example, gasoline price of $3.15/gallon), with the 2007 conventional SI drivetrain vehicl e as the reference vehicle. Figure 9-7 shows how the cost effectiveness of the 2030 SI hybrid drivetrain vehicle varies strongly with fuel prices.

Figure 9-5 shows the powerful effect of discount rates on the perceived cost effectiveness of the
various advanced vehicles. At th e “societal” (4%) rate, all advanced vehicles except for the EV are cost effective compared to the 2007 SI conv entional vehicle. At a high (20%) discount rate
that better reflects consumer valua tion of future fuel savings, a ll of the options have little or negative net benefit. Figure 9-6 shows the ef fect of achieving the DOE cost goals (the assumption behind the “Program Goals” cost values ), which move most advanced vehicles into positive cost-effectiveness territo ry for all discount rates.

29 

### The gasoline prices are not tied to any specific worl d oil price but are used for illustrative purposes. Although there is no precise formula matching world oil price to U.S. gasoline price (the latter also depends on U.S. demand for different oil products, worldwide product export availability, and other factors), a 2030 gasoline price of $3.15/gallon matches the 2030 Base Case gasoline price. The 2030 world oil price for this Case is $93/bbl (in 2005$). A gasoline price of $4.50/gallon would imply a world oil price on the order of $150/bbl if other factors affecting the gasoline price/crude price relationship have not changed substantially.

### 209 

## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Literature Review" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-15000 -10000

-5000 0 5000 10000

S

I C

o

n v

CI Conv SI Full HE

V

S

I P

H

E V10

S

I P

HEV40 CI Fu ll HEV

CI P HE

V

1 0 CI P HE

V

4 0

F C HE V

F C P HE

V10

F C P HE

V40 E VLifetime Savings - Vehicle PriceDifference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 9-5 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Literature Review Vehicle Costs, $3.15/gallon Gasoline Fuel Cost Scenario) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car



## Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference

2030 MIDSIZE CAR "Program Goals" Vehicle Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Case

Referenced to 2007 SI conventional vehicle

-5000 0 5000 10000 15000

S

I

C

o

n

v

C

I

C

o

n

v

S

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

S

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

S

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

C

I

F

u l l

H

E

V

C

I

P

H

E

V

1

0

C

I

P

H

E

V

4

0

F

C

H

E

V

F

C

P

H

E

V

1 0

F

C

P

H

E

V

4 0 E VLifetime Savings - VehiclePrice Difference, $ 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 9-6 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price Difference for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Program Goals Vehicle Costs, $3.15/gallon Gasoline Fuel Price Scenario) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car

### 210 

### A vehicle purchaser contemplating whether to buy a car with an advanced drivetrain — for example, a plug-in with a 40-mile range or a fuel cell vehicle — has multiple options at a lower level of technology, including a s imple advanced conventional vehicl e, a hybrid without recharge capability, or a plug-in with a lower range (e.g., a PHEV10). To that purchaser, a positive level of cost effectiveness (fuel savings minus vehicle price difference) compared to a 2007
conventional drivetrain vehicle is not especially relevant; however, how the advanced technology vehicle compares to its competitors (e.g., its marginal cost effectiveness) is relevant. In Figure 9-5, with LR costs, no vehicles with t echnologies at above the level of the SI full HEV achieve positive marginal cost effectiveness, even at societal discount ra tes. In other words, maximum benefit is attained by purchasing the SI full HEV, whereas purchasing a more advanced vehicle will cause total benefit to decline. With the more optimistic PG costs (Figure 9-6), marginal benefits continue to be positive at technologies well past the level of the SI full HEV. For example, the PHEV10 has slightly higher net benefits at the 4% discount rate (but not at the higher rates), and the FCV and FCV PHEV10 have substantially higher net
benefits at all discount rates. On the other hand, even though the FCV PHEV40 has higher net benefits than the SI full HEV, it would not be wise to purchase the FCV PHEV40 on the basis of
cost effectiveness because the FCV and FCV PH EV10 have significantly higher net benefits.

As noted above, Figure 9-7 shows how cost effectiveness varies with fuel price. With LR costs, at high fuel prices — for example, with gasoline prices at $4.50/gallon and hydrogen prices at $3.75/kg — the cost effectiveness of a 2030 SI HEV is extremely high — about $3,000 for the 20% discount rate and much higher for the lowe r rates. At the other end, a gasoline price of $2.00/gallon would greatly damage prospects for an SI HEV, as there would be negative cost
effectiveness at the 20% discount rate.



## 2030 Midsize Car SI HEV Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Fuel Price
Literature Review Costs

-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

4.50 3.15 2.50 2.00
Gasoline Price, $/gallonFuel Savings - VehiclePrice Difference 

### 4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 9-7 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicl e Price Differential (2007 Conventional Drivetrain Reference Vehicle) for a 2030 Midsize Passenger Car (Literature Review Costs) at Different Fuel Costs

### 211 

### The cost-effectiveness analyses are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The general conclusions of the analyses are as follows:

1. The perceived cost effectiveness of new vehicle technologies depends critically on
how one values future fuel savi ngs; society is likely to l ook far more favorably on a new fuel-saving technology than would an average consumer. A 4% to 20% range in discount rates applied to future fuel savings yields very large differences in perceived cost effectiveness, sometimes pushing net benefits from strongly positive (at 4%) to solidly negative (at 20%). A range of 4% to 20% is not too broad in examining actors ranging from society to consumers, especially considering uncertainties in how future vehicle purchasers of both new and used vehicles will value fuel economy.

2. The high level of uncertainty associated wi th future technology costs and fuel prices also strongly affects perceived cost effectiveness. Even though the technology cost estimates are held to a range incorporating only relatively optimistic values, moving from the “optimistic” (Literature Review) estimate s to “very optimistic” (Program Goals) estimates can shift cost-effectiveness outcomes dramatically.

3. Using advanced SI conventi onal and SI full hybrid vehicles as baselines

—that is, examining the marginal cost effectiveness of moving beyond these midrange technologies

—reveals that moving much beyo nd the technology level of full hybrids may not be especially attractive unless there are also major cost reduction breakthroughs. In 2030, when using the Literature Review cost estimates and with the
advanced conventional SI vehicle as the baselin e, only the HEVs and (for the highest fuel prices) PHEV10s and, with lower discount rates on future fuel savings, the FC HEVs and FC PHEV10s have generally positive net benefits. The longer-range electric drivetrain vehicles — PHEV40s and EVs — do not appear to be cost effective (except for the SI and CI PHEV40s at the societal discount rate). With the full hybrid vehicle as a baseline, again with the LR cost estimates, the marginal net benefits (vehicle cost minus lifetime fuel savings) are negative for all of the more advanced vehicles, even at 4% (societal) discount rates applied to future fuel savings and high assumed fuel prices. And, with the hybrid as a baseline, even when achieving true breakthroughs in cost reduction (i.e., meeting all DOE cost goals), many of these technologies will be left with negative net benefits for at least the higher discount rates; the only exception would be the fuel cell hybrids (including plug-ins). Because the DOE cost goals for fuel cell systems appear to be normative — that is, the goals are based on wh at is thought to be needed for successful commercialization rather than on engineering estimates of what is achievable — it is important to examine how realistic these goals are before accepting the potential for positive net benefits.

4. At lower fuel prices (e.g., gasoline prices of $2.50/gallon and below), even the SI HEVs will fail a cost-effectiveness test at the high “individual” discount rates and
Literature Review costs. And, although achieving Program Goals costs would allow SI HEVs and FCVs to achieve positive cost effectiveness, in reality, achieving these goals will require high production volum es to attain the necessary cost reductions from learning and mass production — volumes that are exceedi ngly unlikely to be obtained in the

### 212 

### absence of high fuel prices. In other words, low fuel prices will severely damage prospects for advanced drivetrain vehicles.

5. Most advanced vehicles will at least be more cost effective than today’s vehicles. If we do not consider achieving true economic efficiency and just explore whether the advanced technologies would at least leave us better off economically than today’s average vehicles, taking a position of modera te optimism about technology costs (i.e., the LR cost case) yields a “yes” answer, except in the case of EVs and, at the highest (20%) discount rate, of the PHEV40s at the high er fuel prices. And achieving the more ambitious DOE cost goals (the PG case) would yield a strong “yes” answer for all of the technologies.

6. Although many advanced technologies will be cost effective in the long term, their initial costs will be quite high, and some may require subsidies from the vehicle manufacturers or the government for a considerable time after introduction. Whatever their long-term prospects, the advanc ed technology vehicles, to be successfully commercialized, must gain early market acceptance before most cost reductions from learning and mass production can occur. In th ese early years, the advanced technology vehicles will suffer from higher differences in cost as compared to competing conventional vehicles; on the other hand, the pot ential fuel savings of the ATVs may be higher than in later years because the conve ntional vehicles may become substantially more efficient over time. When examining th e same vehicle types in 2015 with the LR technology costs and with the 2015 advanced conventional SI vehicle as the reference vehicle, the net benefits for the lower-le vel technologies (e.g., advanced conventional diesel vehicles, full hybrids) are actually a b it higher than they will be in 2030; higher technology costs are more than balanced by higher fuel savings. For the technologies beyond PHEV10s, however, net benefits are st rongly reduced at the higher discount rates — for these cases, the higher vehicle costs outweigh the greater fuel savings. And for the PG costs, the 2030 picture of uniformly positiv e cost effectiveness is transformed to a mixed picture in 2015, with the higher-tech vehi cles with larger batteries looking robustly cost effective only for the lowest discount rates and the EVs a ttaining negative net benefits except at the 4% discount rate, where its benefits are slightly positive. In other words, the competitive position of the advanced technology vehicles looks considerably worse in 2015 than it does in 2030, and subsidies may be required before the results of the 2030 case — which demands high sales to ca pture scale and learning benefits — can ever actually occur.

To sum up, this analysis generally confirms that future advanced vehicle technologies will need a combination of factors to succeed: high oil prices, with consumers believing that prices will remain high over a substantial time period; significant reductions in technology costs; high
consumer valuations of future fuel savings; and, in the early years following the introduction of ATVs, strong economic incentives for their purchas e. These factors are especially important for fuel cell vehicles and vehicles with large batte ries (e.g., PHEV40s, EVs). Advanced conventional vehicles, full hybrids, and possibly PHEV10s c ould be successful even with somewhat less favorable conditions. Finally, the long-term suc cess of EVs and PHEV40s appears especially tied to dramatic reductions in battery costs — beyond those generally predicted by most optimistic

### 213 

### analysts. However, fuel cell vehicles have been le ft out of this last “difficult prospects” group for the time being only as a function of the realism of DOE cost goals for fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage. The “very optimistic” PG tec hnology cost assumptions assume that these goals are met and, as noted before, the goals a ppear more normative than having been derived from an actual engineering analysis. It would be useful to re-examine these goals to obtain a better grasp of how realistic they are.

9.2.5 Costs of Reducing GHG Emissions

The estimates of future fuel savings and technology costs can be translated into “GHG costs” — the dollar amounts required to redu ce GHG emissions by one ton of CO 2 

### or its equivalent. However, the literature has not defined what these costs represent very well. For this study, we estimate costs from the perspective of a vehicle purchaser and from a societal perspective.

Consumers purchasing advanced vehi cles that save fuel compared to some reference vehicle may be said to be paying for GHG emissions reductions, especially if the value of lifetime fuel savings is lower than the vehicle price premiu m associated with the advanced technology. The net costs — differential vehicle price minus lif etime fuel savings — were estimated for 2030 drivetrain technologies by assuming the following : LR and PG technology costs, the fuel price case associated with $3.15/gallon of gasoline, and a 20% discount rate for future fuel savings;
the lifetime GHG emissions reducti ons were also discounted at a 20% rate. This discount rate may be controversial: although it is moderate for an average vehicle purchaser, it can be argued that a purchaser concerned about GHG emissions may value future GHG emissions reductions (and fuel savings) more highly, thereby justifying a lower discount rate. The reference vehicle is
the 2030 advanced conventional vehicle.

In the MP Study’s scenario analysis (Chapter 7), the market penetration rates of fuel cell vehicles and longer-range electric drivetrain vehicles were minimal at the LR vehicle prices, although the high market penetration rate of advanced conven tional vehicles yielded su bstantial reductions in
oil use and GHG emissions from a reference cas e resembling the 2007 Annual Energy Outlook’s high oil price case. An additional scenario was evaluated by assuming that subsidies of $7,500/vehicle were awarded to boost the market pene tration rates of fuel cell hybrid vehicles and SI and CI PHEV40s. For this subsidy scenario, the societal GHG cost can be said to be the subsidy divided by each vehicle’s lifetime GHG e missions reduction. A “soc ietal” discount rate
of 4% was used in this case.

With the PG vehicle prices, the non-subsidy scenar ios attained substantial penetration of both the longer-range plug-in vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, and signifi cant reductions in oil use and GHG emissions from the reference scenario. A sepa rate subsidy case — with smaller vehicle
subsidies — was run to attain stil l higher levels of oil and GHG re ductions than could be attained with the technology cost reductions alone. Although subsidies varied over time, the ones examined here are $1,000 for the SI HEV, $4,000 for PHEV40s, and $700 for the FC HEV.

Figures 9-8a and 9-8b show the GHG costs given for the LR and PG vehicle prices, for the vehicle purchaser, and for the subsidy case, for society. Because fuel cycle emissions for

### 214 

### hydrogen fuel cell vehicles depend heavily on the hydrogen feedstock, two feedstock cases — 100% natural gas and 50% natural gas/50% coal — were examined. GHG emissions estimates were obtained from Argonne’s GREET model. Althoug h the scenario analyses included fuel cell PHEVs, these vehicles are not included he re because GREET does not evaluate them.

At the LR vehicle prices , vehicle purchasers would view GHG co sts as negative or low for the SI HEV and SI PHEV10, because these vehicles save enough fuel to compensate for their added cost, even at a 20% discount rate for future fuel savings. All other drivetrain options exceed $100/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent, which is a high value compar ed to carbon costs in other sectors.

Societal costs for the subsidized technologies ar e high because of the magnitude of the subsidy required; carbon GHG cost values range from about $400–$600/ton of CO 2 

### equivalent.

At PG vehicle prices, most of the advanced techno logy vehicles have fuel savings that exceed the vehicle price differential even at a 20% discount rate for futu re fuel savings and emissions reductions, so GHG costs are viewed by vehicle purchasers as zero. An exception, not shown in Figure 9-8b, is the EV, which will have GHG costs of more than $200/ton CO 2eq 

### . Subsidy costs are relatively high, ranging from $40–$60/ton for FCVs and SI HEVs to $270/ton for the SI

PHEV40.

Costs of GHG Emissions Reductions
2030 Midsize Car, Referenced to 2030 Conventional Drivetrain "Lit Review" costs, 4%/20% social/private discount rate, $3.15/gal gasoline case

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

C IDI

S I H

E V

S I P

HE

V 1 0

S IPH

E V 4 0 CI H E V CI PHEV10

C I P

H EV40

F C

HEV

FC

H EV w/50% c o a l H2GHG Reduction Cost, $/tonCO2eq Private costs, without subsidies

Social costs of a $7500/vehicle subsidy



### FIGURE 9-8a Costs of GHG Reductions for 2030 Advanced Drivetrain Vehicles, with and without Subsidies (LR technology costs, 20% discount rates for future fuel savings and carbon reductions for vehicle purchaser with no subsidy, 4% discount rate for future carbon reductions for government subsidy case, referenced to 2030 conventional drivetrain vehicle)

### 215 

### Costs of GHG Emissions Reductions
2030 Midsize Car, Referenced to 2030 Conventional Drivetrain "Program Goals" costs, 4%/20% social/private discount rate, $3.15 gasoline case

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

C IDI

S I H

E V

S I P

HE

V 1 0

S IPH

E V 4 0 CI H E V CI PHEV10

C I P

H EV40

F C

HEV

FC

H EV w/50% c o a l H2GHG Reduction Cost, $/tonCO2eq Private costs, without subsidies

Social costs of subsidy



### FIGURE 9-8b Costs of GHG Reductions for 2030 Advanced Drivetrain Vehicles, with and without Subsidies (Program Goals technology costs, 20% discount rates for future fuel savings and carbon reductions for vehicle purchaser with no subsidy, 4% discount
rate for future carbon reductions for government subsidy case, referenced to 2030 conventional drivetrain vehicle)



### 9.3 SCENARIO ANALYSIS

9.3.1 Scenario Development

The scenario analysis translates the results of the vehicle characterizations into projections of future shifts in the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet and the impacts of these shifts on U.S. oil use, GHG emissions, penetration of adva nced vehicles and fuels, gasoline prices, and other factors. The analysis uses a version of EIA’s NEMS model (called NEMS-MP) that differs from the basic NEMS model largely by being extended to 2050 and adding a detailed hydrogen module. The MP Study developed a Base Case to serve as a reference for comparison’s sake, as well as
several alternative scenarios that incorporate more optimistic assumptions about advanced technology performance and vehicle pr ices as well as policies to pr omote the penetration of these technologies.

The development of the scenarios required a numbe r of iterative steps, because the NEMS model allows the analyst only to specify the conditions that will affect vehicle markets; it does not allow the analyst to specify actual market penetration rates of advanced vehicles, but instead
derives these penetration rates by using a vehicl e choice model (VCM). The study team first developed general ideas about a range of future scenarios, including goals for the market penetration rates of various ATVs. The scenar ios were then run in NEMS-MP with both the “literature review” and “program goals” vehicle prices; in both sets of runs, market penetration
rates of the more advanced tec hnologies fell well short of scenario goals. The team then used

### 216 

### iterative runs of a stand-alone version of the NEMS transportation module (NEMS-TSA), including the vehicle choice model, to estimate the vehicle subsidies required to achieve the approximate market penetration rates initially specified for the scenarios. The new set of scenarios, with the estimated subsidies, was then run in NEMS-MP. In all cases, the “high” fuel economy values for the advanced technologies were used.

The Base Case against which the scenarios are compared is a modified version of the AEO 2007 Reference Case; key modifications of the Base Case are that it:

• Uses the oil prices of the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case;

• Has been updated with EIA’s summer 2007 analysis of biomass supply curves, cellulosic conversion costs, and corn co sts, as well as with hydrogen cost estimates developed by DOE’s H2A effort (August 2006);

• Incorporates the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (or CAFE) requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Chapter 6 describes the basis for the Base Case.

The Base Case is essentially a business-as-usual ca se, although one with relatively high oil prices at $93/bbl (gasoline price of $3.15/gallon) in 2030 and $116/bbl ($3.93/gallon) in 2050 (in 2005$). Table 9-3 presents some of its key charac teristics. From 2005, total U.S. energy use and

CO 2 

### emissions both grow by 25% in 2030 and by 60% in 2050. Total liquid fuel consumption grows from 21 mbpd to 23 mbpd in 2030 and to 30 mbpd by 2050. While this amount includes substantial growth in ethanol use, it is not to the level required by EISA.

The LV levels of energy use and oil use grow at low rates through 2030 primarily because of the EISA CAFE standards. But after 2030, with no fu rther increases in CAFE standards and with increasing numbers of vehicles on the road and incr easing levels of travel per vehicle, LV energy and oil use soar. By 2050, LV oil use increases by 3 mbpd over the 2030 level to 12 mbpd. LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions follow a similar pattern, w ith growth accelerating after 2030.

The diesel and gasoline HEV shares of the market grow substantially. By 2050, they make up one-third of the new vehicle sales; however, sales of other advanced technology vehicles (PHEVS, FCVs, etc.) are negligible.

As noted above, the Base Case is a modified version of the AEO 2007 Reference Case, which is
extended to 2050. More recent versions of the AEO have lower projections of future light-duty vehicle energy use on the basis of lower projected miles traveled per vehicle (vmt) and higher levels of fuel economy for the vehicle stock. In addition, other projections to 2050 (those of Argonne’s VISION model [http://www.transpor tation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/VISION/ index.html]) have adopted more conservative assumptions about vmt/vehicle and vehicles sales from 2030 to 2050, yielding lower projections of vehi cle stock and energy us e. For example, an alternative “Base Case” projection to the year 2050 using VISION2008 projects light-duty

### 217 TABLE 9-3 MP Base Case

2005 2010 2030 2050

U.S. Totals Energy Use (Quads) 100.2 106.1 125.8 160.9

CO 2 

### Emissions (MMTCO 2 

### e) 5,945 6,184 7,470 9,546 Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding H 2 

### but including ethanol) (mbpd) 20.8 21.2 23.3 30.0

Ethanol Demand (Billion gallons) 4 12.6 15.8 24.0 LVs (results include commercial light trucks) Energy Use (Quads) 16.95 17.15 18.90 25.01 Oil Use (excludes ethanol; mbpd at gasoline conversion rate) 8.67 8.42 9.21 12.06

CO 2 

### Emissions (MMTCO 2 

### e) 1,419 1,440 1,621 2,123 LVs (results exclude commercial light trucks)

New LV MPG 1 

### 25.2 28 35.4 35.7

Diesel and GHEVs share of new LV sales (%) 3.5 7.7 23.7 34.1

Other ATVs sales share (%) 0 0 2.1 1.5 VMT (trillion miles) 2,655 2,766 4,069 5,584 Vehicle stock (millions) 220 242 320 386

VMT/vehicle 12,066 11,428 12,715 14,466

1 

### Unadjusted EPA test values; on-road values ar e expected to be approximately 20% lower.



### vehicle energy use to be about 9 mbpd in 2050 — a sharply lower estimate than that used here. Given the uncertainty associated with projections of energy use more than 40 years into the future, we recommend that readers of this report focus primarily on results expressed as percentage reductions from the baseline, as th ese are more likely to be robust than results expressed as absolute values.

It is against this backdrop that the alternative scenarios are evaluated. Three scenarios were developed in detail:

• Mixed • (P)HEV & Ethanol

• H2 Success

The key technical and modeling differences between the Base Case and the scenarios are discussed in Chapter 6.

The major differences are:

• The advanced technology vehicles are “better” vehicles (with higher fuel economy and generally lower costs) in th e scenarios than in the Base Case;

• The price of ethanol and H 2 

### differs between the scenarios and the Base Case:

### 218 

### – The Base Case has the highest prices.

– The Mixed, (P)HEV & Ethanol, and H2 Success scenarios have the same prices except:

 The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the most optimistic ethanol price estimates (derived from DOE Biomass program goals), and

 The H2 Success scenario has the most optimistic hydrogen prices (derived from DOE H2 program goals).

• The percentage of households assumed to be able to recharge PHEVs varies across the scenarios, but it is higher in the alternative scenarios than in the Base Case;

• The H2 Success scenario assumes that H 2 

### stations are jump-started in the early years of the scenario in large and small cities (the scenario was also run through NEMS without station jump starts to examine the effects of the jump starts separately);

• All ACVs, SI HEVs, and SI PHEVs are flex fuel capable in both the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios; and

• NEMS model assumptions that act as barriers to the penetration of advanced technology vehicles are lifted in the s cenarios (i.e., wherever possible, we have eliminated hard-wired assumptions that restrict ATV market penetration). We believe that this change is consistent with the market changes postulated in the MP Study.

9.3.2 NEMS Modeling Results

Key results of the NEMS-MP runs are discussed in Chapter 7. The key parameters developed by the model runs include the following:

• The market penetration of advanced vehicle technologies; • LV energy use, oil use, and CO 2 

### emissions; • Ethanol use; • U.S. liquid fuels supply and net imports;
• U.S. emissions of CO 2 

### ; • Gasoline prices; and • The cost effectiveness of vehicle subsidies (where applicable).

Other results (e.g., LV energy use by fuel type, ethanol production by feedstock, H2 production by central vs. distributed facilities, etc.) are presented in Appendix E. Tables 9-4 through 9-7 at the end of this section provide detailed quantitativ e results of the scenarios (LV oil use and full-

### 219 

### fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions, U.S. liquid fuels supply, net import share of liquid fuels, total

U.S. CO 2 

### emissions, and gasoline prices).

The results presented in Chapter 7 are driven largely by the underlying vehicle price assumptions. In Chapter 7, we first discuss the key results of the scenarios that use the “literature review” vehicle price assumptions; next, we discuss the results of the scenarios that use the “program goals” vehicle price assumptions; and finally, we discuss the results of the scenarios that incorporate vehicle subsidies with both sets of vehicle price assumptions. The reader can turn to Chapter 7 to see the results displayed in detail in that manner. Our emphasis here will be to highlight some of the overarching results, as follows:

1. Market penetration of advanced technology vehicles can be significant in all
scenarios. For example, as shown in Figure 9-9, approximately 36% of the vehicles sold in the Base Case in 2050 are ATVs (although these vehicles do not have the same fuel economies and prices as those assumed for the alternate scenarios). 30 

### In the Mixed scenario, when assuming “literature review” vehicle prices, that share increases to 76%.

2. The lower the cost of the ATVs, the higher the market penetration. In the Mixed scenario and with the “program goals” vehicle prices (Figure 9-10), the share of ATV
sales reaches 84% in 2050.

3. With either th e “literature review” or “program goals” vehicle price assumptions, the market penetration of the various ATVs is very similar across the Mixed, (P)HEV & Ethanol, and H2 Success (without station jump starts) scenarios. This similarity exists in spite of the fact that there are substantial differences among the scenarios both in fuel prices and in the per centage of households assumed to be able to recharge PHEVs.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE



### FIGURE 9-9 Vehicle Market Shares for 2050, Assuming “Literature Review” Prices

30 

### ATVs include all technologies shown in the figure except “Conventional Gasoline ICE” and “Ethanol Flex Fuel

ICE.”

### 220 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base Case Mixed (P)HEV H2 Fuel Cell Hydrogen

Fuel Cell PHEV

Electric-Gasoline Hybrid

Electric-Diesel Hybrid

Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid

Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE

TDI Diesel ICE

Adv Conv Gasoline

Conventional Gasoline ICE *



### FIGURE 9-10 Vehicle Market Shares for 2050, Assuming “Program Goals” Prices



### 4. Jump-starting H 2 

### station development is important. FCV market penetration (sales) by 2050 rises from 17% in the H2 Success scen ario without station jump starts (assuming “program goal” vehicle prices) to 32% in the H2 Success scenario with the jump starts and the same vehicle price assumptions. Because of the jump start of H 2 

### stations, the final H2 Success scenario (with jump starts) has greater FCV market penetration (and lower market penetration of other ATVs) than th e Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios.

5. The lower ethanol prices in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario do lead to substantially greater ethanol use in this scenario (see Figure 9-11), even though the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios have very simila r rates of ATV market penetration. This higher ethanol use contribut es to greater cumulative reductions in oil use and CO 2 

### emissions in the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario.

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0Billion gallons Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

RFS Extended



### FIGURE 9-11 Ethanol Sales Volumes (“Literature Review” Vehicle Price Case)

### 221 

### 6. The scenarios with “literature review” vehicle prices lead to only moderate
reductions from the Base Case in all of the following: U.S. and LV oil use (2 to 3 mbpd by 2050, i.e., 17% to 25% reductions from the Base Case; see Figure 9-12), U.S. liquid fuel imports, U.S. total CO 2 

### emissions (3%–4%), LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions (13%–19%), and gasoline prices (~ 10%) (see Table 9-4 for full details, in 10-year increments). These reductions are limited by the relatively modest penetration of advanced vehicles other than SI hybrids, whic h is caused by the high estimated prices for these vehicles relative to the price of conve ntional gasoline vehicles in the scenarios.

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR



### FIGURE 9-12 Light Vehicle Oil Use (“Literature Review” Vehicle Price Case)



### 7. The scenarios with “program goals” vehi cle prices lead to greater — but not
dramatic — reductions in U.S. and LV oil use (4 mbpd, or reductions of 31%–34%, by 2050; see Figure 9-13), U.S. liquid fuel imports, U.S. total CO 2 

### emissions (5%–6%), LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions (~25%), and gasoline prices (~18%) (Table 9-5). LV oil use and full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions might be held close to 2005 levels: that finding is significant. In addition, it is also important th at these results can be achieved with several technology mixes (each scenario being a mix of technologies).

8. If there’s a winner among the three scenarios without subsidies with respect to reducing cumulative LV oil use, it is the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario. However, the other two scenarios are not far behind its results when the “program goals” vehicle prices are assumed. Most of the savings occur after 2030.

### 222 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2

0

0

5

2

0

1 0

2

0

1 5

2

0

2

0

2

0

2

5

2

0

3

0

2

0

3

5

2

0

4

0

2

0

4

5

2

0

5

0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 9-13 Light Vehicle Oil Use (“Program Goals” Vehicle Price Case)



### 9. If there’s a winner among the three scenarios without subsidies with respect to reducing cumulative LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions, it is again the (P)HEV &
Ethanol scenario. This scenario clearly provides the greatest cumulative reductions through 2030 and has the greatest cumulative reductions when assuming both the “literature review” and “program goals” vehicle prices (Figure 9-14).

10. Adding vehicle subsidies does change which ATVs penetrate the market. However, if only “literature review” prices are achieved, the subsidies required to achieve the market penetration goals for the more ad vanced technologies (i.e., plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles) envisioned for the three scenarios were both substantial and of unusual longevity: they essentially had to last forever to prevent the market shares
for advanced vehicles from dropping significantly ( assuming that both the assumptions underlying the ve hicle choice model and the pr ojected trajectories of technology costs are correct ). For example, achieving scenario goals for the “literature review” price cases required providing subs idies of $7,500/vehicle for PHEVs and FCVs from 2015 through 2050. In the Mixed scenario, allowing subsidies to begin dropping off in 2030 and to reach zero in 2050 caused PHEVs to drop from 24% of the market share in 2030 to less than 1% in 2050; similarly, in the H2 Success scenario, the same subsidy drop-off caused FCV shares to decline from 28% in 2030 to 8% in 2050 (Table 7-9). The total subsidies range from $400 billion to near ly $2 trillion for the various scenarios and vehicle price cases.

11. Most of the subsidy cases examined lead to oil savings of approximately 5 mbpd by 2050 (a more than 40% reduction from the Base Case) , as shown in Figure 9-15. (There is some variation among the cases in terms of the cumulative oil savings over time; see Tables 9-6 and 9-7 for details on oil use, CO 2 

### emissions, etc.) The subsidy/barrel required to achieve this savings level ranges from $56/barrel to $136/barrel , if neither CO 2 

### reduction nor other be nefits associated with the subsidies are

considered.

### 223 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0

2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0

2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MMMTCO2e Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH
PG

H2 Success PG



### FIGURE 9-14 LV Fuel Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions, “Literature Review” and “Program Goals” Cases

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0

2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
LRwS

H2 Success
LRwS

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 5 2 0 5 0MBPD Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH
PGwS

H2 Success PGwS



### FIGURE 9-15 LV Oil Use for Both Subsidy Cases



### 12. Excluding a single case in which subsidies yielded increased CO 2 

### emissions, the subsidy per metric ton of CO 2 

### reduced ranges from $96/metric ton CO 2 

### (H2 Success, Program Goals with Subsidies) to $5,016/metric ton CO 2 

### ([P]HEV & Ethanol, Program Goals with Subsidies), again assuming that all the subsidy costs are attributed

to CO 2 

### reductions. There is much greater variability among the cases in terms of achieving CO 2 

### reductions than there is for oil savings.

13. All the scenarios resulted in energy securi ty benefits, as estimated by the Oil Security Metrics Model developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In the model, energy security benefits are defined as the difference between the total market benefits of reducing U.S. oil use and increasing the price elasticity of U.S. oil demand in disrupted markets and in an undisrupted market. The bene fits are reductions in the transfer of wealth to foreign countries, in the loss of pot ential GDP, and in disruption costs of a price

shock. The model uses a distribution of three oil market forecasts (AEO 2008 Reference, High Oil Price, and Low Oil Price cases) fo r its “undisrupted market” and generates some supply disruptions for its “disrupted” market. Further details of the methodology are discussed in Chapter 8. Only the cases using the “literature review” vehicle prices were evaluated. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, w ith and without subsidies, has the greatest energy security benefits of all the scenario s. Without subsidies, the Mixed scenario is second best; with subsidies, the H2 Success scenario is second best. Total cumulative benefits from 2010 to 2050 (in 2007$) range from just under $100 billion for the H2 Success scenario without subsidies to just over $400 billion for the PHEV & Ethanol

scenario with subsidies. These benefits are in addition to direct fuel cost savings from reduced petroleum use, as well as strategic and military benefits from reduced oil dependence.

### 224 TABLE 9-4 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using
Literature Review Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.35 8.58 8.75 9.53 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.02 7.86 8.25 9.01

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 8.67 8.33 8.41 8.78 9.26 10.05 Savings

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.8 2.5 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.3 3.0

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.3 2.0

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 1419 1433 1513 1543 1652 1809 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 1419 1432 1424 1394 1557 1728

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 1419 1433 1502 1570 1689 1853 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.4% -0.1% 4.8% 12.7% 14.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.6% 5.8% 14.0% 17.7% 18.6%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 3.1% 10.8% 12.7%

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 20.5 20.3 20.8 21.6 23.1 25.9 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.8 22.6 25.4

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 20.5 20.3 20.8 21.8 23.6 26.4 Savings

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.9 2.5 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.4 3.0

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.4 2.0

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1%

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 60.5% 53.6% 46.4% 42.5% 45.0% 47.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 60.5% 53.4% 44.4% 39.2% 43.4% 45.8%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 60.5% 53.6% 46.5% 43.4% 47.1% 50.2%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 5945 6178 6702 7393 8289 9232 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 5945 6176 6613 7243 8194 9151
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 5945 6177 6690 7419 8326 9276 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 2.8% 3.3% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% 3.0% 3.9% 4.1%
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 2.4% 2.8%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 2.33 2.59 2.88 3.02 3.29 3.59 (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 2.33 2.59 2.78 2.98 3.26 3.49
H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 2.33 2.60 2.88 3.04 3.29 3.60 Reductions (%)

Mixed Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 4.2% 6.9% 8.7% (P)HEV & Ethanol Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 1.2% 4.5% 5.6% 7.8% 11.3%

H2 Success Lit. Review Prices 0.0% 1.2% 1.1% 3.6% 7.0% 8.5%

### 225 TABLE 9-5 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using Program
Goals Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06 Mixed Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.24 8.27 8.13 8.33 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.07 7.73 8.10 8.15 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 8.67 8.33 8.30 8.32 8.27 7.98 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.4 3.7 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.4 3.9 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.3 4.1

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123 Mixed Program Goals Prices 1419 1431 1477 1486 1538 1611 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 1419 1438 1434 1356 1516 1594 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 1419 1429 1489 1510 1568 1535 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.6% 2.3% 8.3% 18.7% 24.2% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.2% 5.1% 16.3% 19.9% 25.0% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 6.8% 17.2% 27.7%

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4 Mixed Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.6 21.2 22.4 24.6 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.4 20.7 22.3 24.5 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.3 22.6 24.3 Savings Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.6 3.8 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 2.6 3.9 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.4 4.1

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1% Mixed Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.5% 46.1% 42.3% 45.3% 46.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.6% 44.8% 38.9% 43.9% 44.6% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 60.5% 53.4% 46.7% 42.7% 46.8% 49.0%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546 Mixed Program Goals Prices 5945 6176 6666 7335 8175 9033 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 5945 6182 6623 7205 8153 9016 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 5945 6174 6677 7359 8205 8958 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 1.8% 4.2% 5.4% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 3.5% 4.4% 5.6% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.5% 3.8% 6.2%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93 Mixed Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.99 2.99 3.28 (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.79 2.82 3.00 3.22 H2 Success Program Goals Prices 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.99 3.06 3.23 Reductions (%) Mixed Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.2% 2.3% 5.1% 15.3% 16.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.2% 4.3% 10.7% 15.1% 18.3% H2 Success Program Goals Prices 0.0% 1.4% 2.3% 5.1% 13.4% 18.0%

### 226 TABLE 9-6 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Incorporating Selected Subsidies along with Literature Review Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.33 7.96 7.51 6.97 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.02 7.30 7.17 6.97

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.39 8.24 7.27 6.63 Savings

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 3.0 5.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.4 5.1

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 3.3 5.4

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 1419 1430 1511 1498 1554 1501 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 1419 1430 1425 1354 1511 1659

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 1419 1421 1509 1484 1354 1205 Reductions (%)

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 7.6% 17.9% 29.3% (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.6% 5.7% 16.4% 20.2% 21.9%

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.3% 0.2% 8.4% 28.5% 43.3%

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.0 21.8 23.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.3 21.5 23.3

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.8 21.3 21.6 23.0 Savings

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 3.1 5.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 3.4 5.1

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 3.3 5.4

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1%

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.6% 46.7% 41.9% 44.9% 46.6% (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.4% 44.4% 38.4% 43.1% 47.3%

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.6% 46.4% 42.6% 45.1% 49.1%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 5945 6174 6699 7347 8191 8924 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 5945 6175 6614 7203 8148 9082

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 5945 6165 6698 7333 7991 8628 Reductions (%)

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.6% 4.0% 6.5% (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 3.6% 4.5% 4.9%

H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.8% 6.3% 9.6%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.59 2.88 3.00 2.98 3.08 (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.59 2.78 2.84 2.93 3.14
H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.60 2.88 2.99 2.87 2.99 Reductions (%)

Mixed LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 4.8% 15.7% 21.6% (P)HEV & Ethanol LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.3% 4.6% 10.0% 17.2% 20.2%
H2 Success LR Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 5.1% 18.7% 24.0%

### 227 TABLE 9-7 U.S. Oil Use, CO 2 

### Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Incorporating Selected Subsidies along with Program Goals Vehicle Prices

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 LV Oil Use (excludes ethanol blends; MBPD at gasoline conversion rate)

Base Case 8.67 8.42 8.48 9.21 10.53 12.06
Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.24 8.38 7.78 7.85 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 7.97 7.62 7.21 6.88

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 8.67 8.33 8.30 8.31 7.81 6.19 Savings

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.8 4.2 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 3.3 5.2

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.7 5.9

LV Full Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 1419 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123
Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 1419 1434 1487 1508 1552 1642 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 1419 1438 1420 1362 1488 1597

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 1419 1427 1492 1497 1454 1137 Reductions (%)

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.4% 1.6% 7.0% 18.0% 22.7% (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.1% 6.1% 16.0% 21.4% 24.8%

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 7.6% 23.2% 46.5%

Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding ethanol and H2) (MBPD)

Base Case 20.5 20.4 20.9 22.3 25.0 28.4

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.6 21.2 22.1 24.1 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.3 20.6 21.5 23.2

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 20.5 20.3 20.7 21.3 22.1 22.5 Savings

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.9 4.3 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.7 3.5 5.3

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.9 5.9

Net Import Share of Liqud Fuels Product Supplied (includes ethanol)

Base Case 60.5% 54.0% 46.8% 44.5% 50.5% 53.1%

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.5% 46.1% 42.1% 44.7% 47.8% (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.6% 44.5% 38.8% 43.3% 45.8%

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 60.5% 53.4% 46.3% 42.7% 46.4% 45.3%

Total CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Base Case 5945 6184 6700 7470 8530 9546

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 5945 6179 6675 7357 8189 9064 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 5945 6183 6608 7211 8124 9020

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 5945 6171 6681 7346 8091 8560 Reductions (%)

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 1.5% 4.0% 5.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.5% 4.7% 5.5%

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.7% 5.1% 10.3%

Gasoline Price ($/gallon)

Base Case 2.33 2.63 2.91 3.15 3.54 3.93

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.59 2.84 2.96 2.85 3.15 (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.60 2.77 2.80 2.80 3.05

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 2.33 2.60 2.84 2.99 2.88 2.80 Reductions (%)

Mixed PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.3% 2.4% 6.1% 19.3% 20.0% (P)HEV & Ethanol PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.1% 4.8% 11.3% 20.9% 22.5%

H2 Success PG Prices with Subsidies 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 5.2% 18.4% 28.8%

### 228 

### 9.3.3 Limitations of NEMS-MP Results

Every model has its limitations, and the NEMS-M P model is no exception. In this section, key
limitations of the NEMS-MP model are discussed to help the reader evaluate the robustness of the results reported. The uncertainty in the Base Case projections , discussed in Section 9.3.1, is a general limitation of all projections over such a long time frame.

1. Macroeconomic analysis. Large-scale changes in vehicle technology a nd a resulting major reduction in U.S. oil
demand could have wi de-ranging impacts on world oil pr ice, vehicle sales, GDP, and
other economic indicators — es pecially if these changes took place on a global scale. Although the EIA-NEMS model is linked to a macroeconomic model developed by Global Insight, Inc., NEMS-MP is not run with this model, because it extends only to 2030 and is proprietary and therefore not available for extension to 2050. Thus, the macroeconomic inputs in NEMS-MP are by assumption, and there are no differences between the scenarios in total vehicle sales, GDP, interest rates, or other macroeconomic projections. In addition, the world oil price is an input assumption in this version of the model (while U.S. gasoline prices vary across the scenarios, this result is because of changes in gasoline consumption and the resulting impact on refineries and gasoline imports). Thus, differential effects of the scenarios on the overall U.S. and world economy cannot be examined. It is important to note, however, that even with a global model, estimating impacts on world oil prices and other important variables would
demand an evaluation of how the rest of the major world economies altered their transportation systems in response to devel opment of the advanced vehicle technologies — a daunting task.

2. Vehicle Choice Model.

a. The VCM equations are based on recent cons umer behavior, which appears to apply a high discount rate to future fuel savings. As a result, vehicle price is the key driver of vehicle choice in the model. While vehicle price is crucially important to a consumer’s vehicle purchase decision, its precise role compared to other factors remains controversial, especial ly for vehicles with radical ly new drivetrains. We do know that if the vehicle payback period is substantially lengthened in the NEMS VCM, then the market penetration rates of more expensive ATVs increase (see Appendix D). The payback currently used in the NEMS VCM is 3 to4 years (the value is not a precise input). The Multi-Path Study postulates a future in which increased fuel economy is highly prized (e .g., used vehicles would be more valuable if they were more efficient); given this a ssumption, the default payback period in the model is probably too low.

b. Fuel availability affects vehicle choice in the NEMS-MP model: when the availability of stations providing a specifi c fuel is low, the market pe netration of vehicles using that fuel is reduced. The NEMS-MP model pr ovides for only one station size per fuel type throughout time, thus limiting the ability of the model to accurately portray fuel availability. We are hopeful that concerns about this limitation have been reduced by

### 229 

### incorporating jump-starting of H 2 

### stations in the H2 Success scenario and increasing the availability of stations selling E85, but the handling of fuel availability for these
two fuels merits review.

3. Vehicle incremental prices. The incremental prices for average vehicles in the 12 car and LT classes in NEMS-MP were derived by extrapolating from detailed cost, and subsequently price, estimates for only two types of leading edge vehicles. The actual prices of the vehicles depend on parameters that change substantially over time, and costs for different types of drivetrains change at different rates; in contrast, the method of extrapolating the costs is invariant over time. Given the importance of vehicle prices in determining market penetration rates, the method we used to extrapol ate these values should be evaluated.

4. Fuel prices.

a. There have been wild swings in world oil prices recently (e.g., 2008). As indicated previously, we assume a price of $93/barrel (a price of $3.15/gallon for U.S. gasoline in the Base Case) in 2030 and of $116/barre l ($3.93/gallon) in 2050. If the world oil price is substantially higher or lower in thos e years, the market penetrations we have
estimated would need to be revised. At the very least, it would be useful to conduct a sensitivity analysis with varying world oil prices.

b. H2A has recently revised its hydrogen production estimates. However, given the primacy of vehicle prices in driving the VCM, we believe that unless the H 2 

### prices are substantially changed, they would have minimal effects on the estimated FCV market penetrations.

5. Rebound effect and impact on travel and fuel use estimates. In the model, the rebound effect 31 

### is applied to the fleet as a whole, not to vehicle classes based on drivetrain technology. In other words, all vehicles in any analysis year have the same annual VMT regardless of their types of drivetrain technology, levels of fuel economy, and fuel price. With the correct application of the rebound effect, the model
would have vehicles of diffe rent technologies and types of fuel being driven over differing annual vehicle miles on the basis of their differences in fuel cost/mile. The NEMS-MP approach thus distorts fuel use totals to some degree.

6. PHEVs. Only one slot for PHEVs is available in NE MS-MP; thus, only one price, fuel economy level, and value for percentage of travel on electricity can be input to NEMS-MP. While PHEV40s — plug-ins with a 40-mile range — were selected, it would have been more realistic to include PHEVs with shorter “all-electric” ranges as well as a better representation of the likely development of th is market. In addition, the share of PHEVs’ travel on electricity is not generated internal ly by the model but instead must be input.

31 

### Increase in vmt caused by a decreased driving cost/mile. The assumed elasticity of vmt with respect to the cost of driving is –0.05 in the short term (1 year) and –0.19 in the long term (after 10 years).

### 230 

### 9.4 CONCLUSIONS

Projecting the future role of advanced drivetrains and fuels in the light vehicle market is inherently difficult given the following factors: the volatility and uncertainty of oil prices, our inadequate understanding of cons umer response to technologies notyet in the marketplace, the relative infancy of several impor tant new technologies from which many changes are yet to come in their performance levels and costs, and th e importance — and uncertainty — of future government interference in the marketplace in the form of new regulatory standards and economic incentives for adop tion of new technologies.

This MP Study has taken a stab at understanding this future role by examining a few limited scenarios that contemplate the effects of varying vehicle prices, fuel prices, government subsidies, and other key factors. These are projecti ons, not forecasts, in that they try to answer a series of “what-if” questions without assigning probabilities to most of the basic assumptions. Some key conclusions that may be drawn from our analyses are as follows:

1. Taking account of new CAFE standards and assuming that future oil prices return to high levels (~$100/bbl in 2030) even without a st rong emphasis on developing new drivetrain technologies, light-duty vehicle oil use — currently about 8.5 mbpd — will hold relatively steady through the early 2020s but will increase substantially thereafter, reaching 12 mbpd by 2050.

2. Even if optimistic progress is assumed in bringing down the costs and improving the performance of new drivetrain technologies, gauging the potential for future success of these drivetrain technologies requires recognizing some basic relationships: a. The attractiveness of new technologies w ill hinge in large part on how one values future fuel savings, and different actors will value these savings differently. An average consumer today will value future savings far less than society would; and a technology that appeared highly cost effec tive to society might appear too costly to

that consumer. b. With a range of available technologie s with increasing performance but also increasing price, technologies will be judged on their marginal attractiveness compared to competing technologies. With cost curves of increasing slope, “good” technologies (e.g., hybrids) may be more attractive than “best” technologies (e.g., long-range plug-in hybrids or fuel ce ll vehicles) because the marginal benefits of moving beyond the already-good efficien cy of a hybrid may be insufficient to compensate for the added cost — even if the more advanced technology vehicle is cost effective compared to today’s conventional vehicles.

3. Using relatively optimistic assumptions about future technology costs and performance and assuming high oil prices, reduced prices for ethanol and hydrogen, and the jumpstarting of H2 stations, advanced vehicle technologies could reduce 2050 LV oil use by about 2–3 mbpd to 9–10 mbpd; in addition, LV fuel cycle CO 2 

### emissions would be reduced by 13%–19%. These results assume esse ntially no change in consumer behavior regarding future fuel savings (but an easing of consumer concerns about “new” technologies) and no further g overnment market intervention.

### 231 

### 4. Assuming the “literature review” vehicle price assumptions, long-term government subsidies of $7,500/vehicle would allow signif icantly higher penetr ation of advanced drivetrain vehicles, with LV oil use reduced (as compared to the Base Case) by about 5 mbpd and LV fuel cycle CO 2 

### emissions reduced by about 22% for the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario, 29% for th e Mixed scenario, and 43% for the H2 Success scenario.

5. Alternatively, more success in reducing t echnology costs — reaching the ambitious cost goals established by DOE, thus yielding the “program goals” vehicle price estimates —
could result in about a 4-m pbd reduction in LV oil use by 2050 and in reduced CO 2 

### emissions of about 25%. Furthermore, subs idies for these lower-cost vehicles — considerably smaller than the subsidies need ed in the “literature review” cases at a maximum of $4,000/vehicle by 2050, dependi ng on scenario — could drive down (1) 2050 LV oil use (compared to the Base Case) by 4–6 mbpd and (2) LV fuel cycle CO 2 

### emissions by 23%–25% for the Mixed and (P )HEV & Ethanol scenarios and more than
46% for the H2 Success scenario.

6. Changes in how consumers value future fu el savings could have a dramatic impact on technology penetration — and t hus on future oil use and CO 2 

### emissions. For example, with “literature review” vehicle prices, changing the “payback” requirements in the Vehicle Choice Model from 3 to 4 years (its current value) to 15 years would jump the 2050 passenger car share of SI PHEV40s and FC Vs from negligible levels to about 10%

each.

Appendix F contains additional discussion on lessons learned through the MP Study.

### 232 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 233 

### APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES USED IN NEMS-MP MODEL RUNS

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF JUMP STARTING

H 2 

### STATIONS IN THE H2 SUCCESS SCENARIO

APPENDIX C: BASIS FOR ESTIMATES OF FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO 2 

### EMISSIONS
FROM LIGHT VEHICLES

APPENDIX D: SELECTED SENSITIVITY RUNS WITH THE NEMS-MP VEHICLE
CHOICE MODEL

APPENDIX E: OTHER NEMS-MP RESULTS FOR THE BASE CASE AND SCENARIOS (ISSUED SEPARATELY)

APPENDIX F: KEY LESSONS LEARNED FROM AND SIDE BENEFITS OF THE MP
STUDY

### 234 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 235 

### APPENDIX A: VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES USED IN NEMS-MP MODEL RUNS

The basis for the vehicle fuel economy and price estimates used in this study is discussed in Chapter 3 of the report. The fuel economy multip liers and incremental prices (over a baseline conventional gasoline vehicle) that reflect the discussion in Chapter 3 and that are input to the NEMS-MP model for the scenario analysis are provided in this appendix, as are the
characterizations of the other ve hicle attributes (range, maintena nce cost, acceleration, top speed, and luggage space) that also are used in the model (Tables A-1 through A-4).

Two sets of estimates are provided reflecting the two sets of vehicle price estimates discussed in Chapter 3: “literature review” and “program goals.” For both sets, the inputs for the Mixed scenario and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario are th e same. The inputs for the H2 Success scenario are similar to those of the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios except that fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and plug-in FCVs are assumed to be introduced earlier than they are in the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios.

In sum, the following tables show:

• Vehicle attributes assuming “literature review” vehicle prices for the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios (6 cars and 6 light trucks [LTs] for each technology);

• Vehicle attributes assuming “literature review” vehicle prices for the H2 Success scenario (6 cars and 6 LTs for each technology);

• Vehicle attributes assuming “program goals” vehicle prices for the Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol scenarios (6 cars and 6 LTs for each technology); and

• Vehicle attributes assuming “program goals” vehicle prices for the H2 Success scenario (6 cars and 6 LTs for each technology).

The vehicle attributes are presented generally as ratios relative to the attributes exhibited by MP Base Case conventional (gasoline) vehicles (C Vs) in each analysis year. The only exception is the vehicle price attribute, which is presented as the incremental price of the advanced technology vehicle relative to the CV. The pri ces are in 2005 dollars. The fuel economy ratios and incremental prices of some diesel and gasoline HEV classes are weighted in the early years of the scenarios to account for fact that some models are already being produced in these classes.
These models do not have the same attributes (specifically fuel econom y and price) as those
estimated for models with more advanced drivetra in and glider technologies, yet they must be accounted for because they will continue to be produced for a while.

### 236 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 237TABLE A-1 “Literature Review” Vehicle Input Assumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2015 2020 2025 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,396 $3,307 $3,218 $2,951 $2,774$3,014 $3,010 $3,006 $2,998 $2,991$2,960 2,891$ 2,823$ 2,603$ $2,466Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.4671.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.4671.37 1.39 1.40 1.44 1.467Diesel Hybrid2020 2025 2030 204020502021 2026 2031 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,219 $6,123 $6,028 $5,838 $5,647$6,200 $6,120 $6,040 $5,895 $5,735$4,814 4,702$ 4,590$ 4,299$ $4,075Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.4462.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.4462.208 2.24 2.28 2.37 2.446Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,950 $4,692 $4,377 $3,325 $2,668$3,857 $3,715 $3,572 $3,116 $2,831$3,071 2,896$ 2,721$ 2,127$ $1,778Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.3432.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.3432.10 2.13 2.16 2.28 2.343Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$139 $119 $99 $31 -$9$232 $236 $241 $257 $266$276256$ 236$ 169$ $129Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2032 2037 2042 204020502032 2037 2042 204020502028 2033 2038 20402050Incremental Price ($)$8,179 $7,983 $7,787 $7,866 $7,474$8,200 $8,010 $7,820 $7,896 $7,516$6,521 6,285$ 6,050$ 5,955$ $5,484Range0.90 0.990.981.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.00Maintenance Cost1.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.06 1.011.001.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.980.961.000.90 0.980.961.000.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.90 0.950.951.000.90 0.950.951.000.901.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.142.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.142.82 2.90 2.97 3.00 3.14FCV PHEV 402034 2039 2044 204020502034 2039 2044 204020502030 2035 2040 20402050Incremental Price ($)$10,175 $9,792 $9,410 $9,716 $8,951$10,822 $10,435 $10,049 $10,358 $9,586$9,752 9,318$ 8,884$ 8,884$ $8,017Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.06 1.011.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.183.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.182.93 2.99 3.05 3.05 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.195.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.195.07 5.10 5.13 5.13 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$7,524 $7,131 $6,738 $6,345 $5,558$8,267 $7,861 $7,456 $6,970 $6,160$7,010 6,663$ 6,316$ 5,830$ $5,136Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.06 1.051.05 1.031.07 1.051.05 1.041.08 1.051.05 1.04Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.001.00 1.000.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.272.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.272.05 2.09 2.13 2.19 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.695.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.695.27 5.35 5.42 5.53 5.692-SEATERMINI-COMPACTSUB-COMPACTYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 238TABLE A-1 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2012 2017 2022 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,491 $2,199 $2,568 $2,055 $1,770$1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370$2,157 $2,798 $3,438 $2,991 $2,767Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.37 1.45 1.46 1.467Diesel Hybrid2015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,962 $3,812 $3,661 $3,210 $2,909$5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205$5,961 $5,805 $5,648 $5,179 $4,867Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.45Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,316 $2,497 $2,495 $1,498 $944$2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833$3,763 $3,928 $4,002 $2,913 $2,340Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.3431.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.3431.53 1.85 2.11 2.26 2.343Advanced Gasoline2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$353 $276 $200 -$92 -$245$531 $471 $410 $168 $47$616 $579 $542 $401 $328Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.17 1.18 1.191.22 1.241.16 1.17 1.18 1.221.241.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502023 2028 2033 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$5,157 $4,930 $4,703 $4,567 $4,114$7,640 $7,273 $6,906 $6,393 $5,660$8,511 $8,123 $7,735 $7,192 $6,416Range0.90 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.001.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.001.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.001.001.000.85 0.900.97 1.001.000.85 0.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.901.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.79 2.86 2.942.99 3.142.65 2.74 2.83 2.963.142.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.14FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 2040205020252030 2035 2040205020252030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$9,041 $8,587 $8,132 $8,042 $7,133$12,240 $11,512 $10,783 $10,055 $8,598$13,385 $12,612 $11,840 $11,067 $9,522Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.89 2.96 3.03 3.04 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.03 5.07 5.11 5.11 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502018 2023 2028 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,457 $6,121 $5,785 $5,180 $4,508$8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563$8,784 $8,369 $7,954 $7,123 $6,293Range1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.08 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.272.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.272.00 2.04 2.09 2.18 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.695.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.695.17 5.25 5.34 5.52 5.69COMPACTLARGE CARMid-size (Medium) CARYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 239TABLE A-1 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,939 $3,038 $3,087 $2,519 $2,219$1,645 $2,873 $4,100 $3,901 $3,801$3,828 $3,675 $3,522 $2,909 $2,603Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.41 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,783 $4,594 $4,405 $3,802 $3,425$6,398 6,302$ 6,206$ 5,917$ $5,725$6,877 $6,530 $6,182 $4,863 $4,168Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.0591.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.0591.893 1.91 1.94 2.02 2.059Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,458 $2,319 $2,180 $1,736 $1,458$3,629 3,580$ 3,531$ 3,383$ $3,285$4,279 $3,993 $3,708 $2,567 $1,996Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.9581.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.9581.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$427 $402 $376 $290 $239$811892$ 972$ 1,231$ $1,392$1,052 $979 $907 $617 $472Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502030 2035 2040 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$8,034 $7,721 $7,407 $7,219 $6,593$10,594 10,359$ 10,124$ 10,124$ $9,653$10,307 $9,818 $9,329 $8,644 $7,666Range0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.001.001.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.951.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.592.40 2.45 2.49 2.49 2.592.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.59FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 204020502032 2037 2042 204020502025 2030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$15,237 $14,666 $14,095 $13,981 $12,840$19,291 18,757$ 18,224$ 18,438$ $17,371$19,041 $18,119 $17,196 $16,274 $14,429Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.572.41 2.46 2.50 2.48 2.572.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.394.17 4.23 4.29 4.27 4.394.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502019 2024 2029 20402050Incremental Price ($)$8,605 $8,229 $7,853 $7,252 $6,500$12,039 11,589$ 11,139$ 10,419$ $9,520$11,037 $10,462 $9,887 $8,623 $7,474Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.101.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84SMALL TRUCK(PICKUP)CARGO (INCL. 2b)TRUCK (PICKUP)SMALL VAN(MINIVAN)Year of:Year of:Year of:

### 240TABLE A-1 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,078 $3,022 $3,751 $3,245 $2,978$2,167 $2,834 $3,338 $2,770 $2,471$1,745 $2,972 $4,199 $3,887 $3,732Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.3821.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,971 $6,677 $6,383 $5,325 $4,738$7,181 $6,796 $6,411 $4,870 $4,099$7,191 $7,017 $6,843 $6,285 $5,936Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.06Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,062 $3,851 $3,639 $2,878 $2,455$2,963 $3,279 $3,596 $2,459 $1,891$4,313 $4,726 $4,620 $3,869 $3,399Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.9581.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.9581.58 1.81 1.87 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502012 2017 2022 20402050Incremental Price ($)$816 $809 $803 $780 $766$856 $788 $721 $450 $314$1,069 $1,104 $1,139 $1,263 $1,333Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.171.11 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502023 2028 2033 204020502025 2030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$10,060 $9,702 $9,345 $9,130 $8,414$10,354 $9,855 $9,355 $8,655 $7,655$12,451 $11,966 $11,480 $10,994 $10,022Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.95 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 0.95 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.592.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.592.28 2.34 2.40 2.47 2.59FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 2040205020252030 2035 2040205020272032 2037 20402050Incremental Price ($)$18,475 $17,814 $17,154 $17,022 $15,701$18,506 $17,593 $16,680 $15,767 $13,941$22,057 $21,140 $20,224 $19,674 $17,841Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.572.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.572.30 2.36 2.42 2.45 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.394.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.394.10 4.16 4.22 4.26 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502021 2026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$11,094 $10,618 $10,141 $9,284 $8,331$10,577 $10,011 $9,445 $8,200 $7,068$12,810 $12,281 $11,753 $10,802 $9,745Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.844.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84LARGE VANLARGE SUVSMALL SUVYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 241TABLE A-2 “Literature Review” Vehicle Input Assumptions for the MP H2 Success Scenario"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2015 2020 2025 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,396 $3,307 $3,218 $2,951 $2,774$3,014 $3,010 $3,006 $2,998 $2,991$2,960 2,891$ 2,823$ 2,603$ $2,466Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.4671.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.4671.37 1.39 1.40 1.44 1.467Diesel Hybrid2020 2025 2030 204020502021 2026 2031 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,219 $6,123 $6,028 $5,838 $5,647$6,200 $6,120 $6,040 $5,895 $5,735$4,814 4,702$ 4,590$ 4,299$ $4,075Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.4462.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.4462.208 2.24 2.28 2.37 2.446Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,950 $4,692 $4,377 $3,325 $2,668$3,857 $3,715 $3,572 $3,116 $2,831$3,071 2,896$ 2,721$ 2,127$ $1,778Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.3432.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.3432.10 2.13 2.16 2.28 2.343Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$139 $119 $99 $31 -$9$232 $236 $241 $257 $266$276256$ 236$ 169$ $129Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$10,357 $9,842 $9,327 $8,504 $7,474$10,255 $9,766 $9,277 $8,494 $7,516$7,601 7,223$ 6,845$ 6,240$ $5,484Range0.90 0.990.991.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.00Maintenance Cost1.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.06 1.011.001.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.990.991.000.90 0.990.991.000.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.90 0.950.951.000.90 0.950.951.000.901.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14FCV PHEV 402026 2031 2036 204020502025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 20402050Incremental Price ($)$12,677 $11,901 $11,124 $10,503 $8,951$13,735 $12,905 $12,075 $11,245 $9,586$11,828 11,095$ 10,362$9,483$ $8,017Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.06 1.011.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.78 2.86 2.95 3.01 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.182.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.90 4.96 5.02 5.07 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.194.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$7,524 $7,131 $6,738 $6,345 $5,558$8,267 $7,861 $7,456 $6,970 $6,160$7,010 6,663$ 6,316$ 5,830$ $5,136Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.06 1.051.05 1.031.07 1.051.05 1.041.08 1.051.05 1.04Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.001.00 1.000.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.272.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.272.05 2.09 2.13 2.19 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.695.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.695.27 5.35 5.42 5.53 5.692-SEATERMINI-COMPACTSUB-COMPACTYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 242TABLE A-2 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2012 2017 2022 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,491 $2,199 $2,568 $2,055 $1,770$1,951 $2,595 $3,086 $2,617 $2,370$2,157 $2,798 $3,438 $2,991 $2,767Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.37 1.45 1.46 1.467Diesel Hybrid2015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,962 $3,812 $3,661 $3,210 $2,909$5,257 $5,107 $4,956 $4,506 $4,205$5,961 $5,805 $5,648 $5,179 $4,867Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.45Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,316 $2,497 $2,495 $1,498 $944$2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833$3,763 $3,928 $4,002 $2,913 $2,340Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.3431.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.3431.53 1.85 2.11 2.26 2.343Advanced Gasoline2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$353 $276 $200 -$92 -$245$531 $471 $410 $168 $47$616 $579 $542 $401 $328Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.241.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.241.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2022 2027 2032 204020502017 2022 2027 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$5,913 $5,591 $5,270 $4,756 $4,114$9,211 $8,673 $8,135 $6,736 $5,660$10,175 $9,605 $9,036 $7,555 $6,416Range0.90 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.001.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.001.001.000.85 0.900.97 1.001.000.85 0.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.901.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.142.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.14FCV PHEV 402024 2029 2034 2040205020192024 2029 2040205020212026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$10,611 $9,943 $9,274 $8,471 $7,133$14,572 $13,608 $12,645 $10,525 $8,598$14,916 $13,986 $13,056 $11,382 $9,522Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.182.57 2.67 2.76 2.98 3.182.60 2.70 2.80 2.98 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.194.71 4.79 4.87 5.04 5.194.71 4.79 4.87 5.02 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502018 2023 2028 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,457 $6,121 $5,785 $5,180 $4,508$8,511 $8,051 $7,590 $6,484 $5,563$8,784 $8,369 $7,954 $7,123 $6,293Range1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.08 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.272.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.272.00 2.04 2.09 2.18 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.695.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.695.17 5.25 5.34 5.52 5.69COMPACTLARGE CARMid-size (Medium) CARYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 243TABLE A-2 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,939 $3,038 $3,087 $2,519 $2,219$1,645 $2,873 $4,100 $3,901 $3,801$3,828 $3,675 $3,522 $2,909 $2,603Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.41 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,783 $4,594 $4,405 $3,802 $3,425$6,398 6,302$ 6,206$ 5,917$ $5,725$6,877 $6,530 $6,182 $4,863 $4,168Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.0591.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.0591.893 1.91 1.94 2.02 2.059Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,458 $2,319 $2,180 $1,736 $1,458$3,629 3,580$ 3,531$ 3,383$ $3,285$4,279 $3,993 $3,708 $2,567 $1,996Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.9581.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.9581.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$427 $402 $376 $290 $239$811892$ 972$ 1,231$ $1,392$1,052 $979 $907 $617 $472Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2020 2025 2030 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$9,661 $9,150 $8,638 $7,615 $6,593$12,234 11,738$ 11,241$ 10,646$ $9,653$11,145 $10,565 $9,986 $8,826 $7,666Range0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.001.001.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.951.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.592.25 2.32 2.38 2.46 2.592.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59FCV PHEV 402023 2028 2033 204020502026 2031 2036 204020502022 2027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$17,980 $17,028 $16,076 $14,744 $12,840$21,993 21,030$ 20,067$ 19,297$ $17,371$20,624 $19,518 $18,412 $16,642 $14,429Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.21 2.28 2.34 2.44 2.572.28 2.34 2.40 2.45 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.06 4.12 4.18 4.27 4.394.09 4.15 4.21 4.26 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502019 2024 2029 20402050Incremental Price ($)$8,605 $8,229 $7,853 $7,252 $6,500$12,039 11,589$ 11,139$ 10,419$ $9,520$11,037 $10,462 $9,887 $8,623 $7,474Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.101.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84Year of:Year of:SMALL VAN(MINIVAN)SMALL TRUCK(PICKUP)CARGO (INCL. 2b)TRUCK (PICKUP)Year of:

### 244TABLE A-2 (Cont.)"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,078 $3,022 $3,751 $3,245 $2,978$2,167 $2,834 $3,338 $2,770 $2,471$1,745 $2,972 $4,199 $3,887 $3,732Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.3821.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,971 $6,677 $6,383 $5,325 $4,738$7,181 $6,796 $6,411 $4,870 $4,099$7,191 $7,017 $6,843 $6,285 $5,936Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.06Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,062 $3,851 $3,639 $2,878 $2,455$2,963 $3,279 $3,596 $2,459 $1,891$4,313 $4,726 $4,620 $3,869 $3,399Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.9581.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.9581.58 1.81 1.87 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502012 2017 2022 20402050Incremental Price ($)$816 $809 $803 $780 $766$856 $788 $721 $450 $314$1,069 $1,104 $1,139 $1,263 $1,333Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.171.11 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2017 2022 2027 204020502020 2025 2030 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$13,239 $12,508 $11,777 $9,877 $8,414$11,207 $10,615 $10,023 $8,839 $7,655$15,217 $14,430 $13,643 $11,596 $10,022Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.95 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 0.95 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.592.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.592.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.59FCV PHEV 402022 2027 2032 2040205020222027 2032 2040205020222027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$22,179 $21,022 $19,865 $18,014 $15,701$20,068 $18,974 $17,880 $16,129 $13,941$24,988 $23,712 $22,436 $20,394 $17,841Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502021 2026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$11,094 $10,618 $10,141 $9,284 $8,331$10,577 $10,011 $9,445 $8,200 $7,068$12,810 $12,281 $11,753 $10,802 $9,745Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.844.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84Year of:Year of:Year of:LARGE SUVSMALL SUVLARGE VAN

### 245TABLE A-3 Program Goals Vehicle Input Assumptions for the MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2015 2020 2025 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,510 $2,415 $2,321 $2,037 $1,848$2,135 $2,127 $2,119 $2,101 $2,085$2,281 2,202$ 2,122$ 1,867$ $1,707Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.4671.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.4671.37 1.39 1.40 1.44 1.467Diesel Hybrid2020 2025 2030 204020502021 2026 2031 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,041 $3,993 $3,944 $3,847 $3,750$4,085 $4,051 $4,017 $3,955 $3,886$3,119 3,042$ 2,966$ 2,766$ $2,612Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.4462.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.4462.208 2.24 2.28 2.37 2.446Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,307 $3,406 $2,999 $2,094 $1,529$2,562 $2,445 $2,328 $1,955 $1,721$2,012 1,861$ 1,711$ 1,200$ $899Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.3432.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.3432.10 2.13 2.16 2.28 2.343Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2 -$26 -$54 -$149 -$205$97 $94 $91 $80 $74$164135$ 105$4$ -$56Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2032 2037 2042 204020502032 2037 2042 204020502028 2033 2038 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,057 $983 $910 $939 $792$1,259 $1,188 $1,117 $1,146 $1,003$1,009 855$ 701$ 640$ $331Range0.90 0.990.981.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.00Maintenance Cost1.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.06 1.011.001.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.980.961.000.90 0.980.961.000.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.90 0.950.951.000.90 0.950.951.000.901.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.142.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.142.82 2.90 2.97 3.00 3.14FCV PHEV 402034 2039 2044 204020502034 2039 2044 204020502030 2035 2040 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,665 $1,603 $1,541 $1,591 $1,467$2,228 $2,165 $2,103 $2,153 $2,028$1,946 1,875$ 1,804$ 1,804$ $1,662Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.06 1.011.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.183.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.182.93 2.99 3.05 3.05 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.195.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.195.07 5.10 5.13 5.13 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,335 $3,126 $2,917 $2,708 $2,291$4,052 $3,823 $3,594 $3,319 $2,860$3,481 3,274$ 3,066$ 2,776$ $2,362Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.06 1.051.05 1.031.07 1.051.05 1.041.08 1.051.05 1.04Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.001.00 1.000.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.272.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.272.05 2.09 2.13 2.19 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.695.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.695.27 5.35 5.42 5.53 5.692-SEATERMINI-COMPACTSUB-COMPACTYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 246TABLE A-3 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2012 2017 2022 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,353 $1,831 $2,050 $1,439 $1,100$1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597$2,102 $2,463 $2,825 $2,246 $1,956Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.37 1.45 1.46 1.467Diesel Hybrid2015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,504 $2,383 $2,262 $1,900 $1,658$3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695$4,085 $3,967 $3,849 $3,494 $3,258Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.45Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,062 $1,819 $1,574 $686 $193$2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926$3,545 $3,164 $2,811 $1,870 $1,374Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.3431.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.3431.53 1.85 2.11 2.26 2.343Advanced Gasoline2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$254 $171 $89 -$223 -$387$417 $350 $283 $17 -$117$495 $452 $408 $243 $155Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.241.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.241.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502023 2028 2033 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$470 $304 $139 $39 -$293$2,115 $1,787 $1,458 $997 $340$2,627 $2,279 $1,931 $1,445 $750Range0.90 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.001.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.001.001.000.85 0.900.97 1.001.000.85 0.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.901.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.79 2.86 2.94 2.99 3.142.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.142.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.14FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 2040205020252030 2035 2040205020252030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,948 $1,804 $1,660 $1,631 $1,342$4,145 $3,696 $3,248 $2,799 $1,902$4,775 $4,300 $3,824 $3,349 $2,399Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.89 2.96 3.03 3.04 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.03 5.07 5.11 5.11 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502018 2023 2028 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,266 $3,044 $2,822 $2,423 $1,979$4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639$4,875 $4,593 $4,311 $3,747 $3,183Range1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.08 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.272.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.272.00 2.04 2.09 2.18 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.695.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.695.17 5.25 5.34 5.52 5.69COMPACTLARGE CARMid-size (Medium) CARYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 247TABLE A-3 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,843 $2,700 $2,551 $1,897 $1,552$1,589 $2,532 $3,475 $3,170 $3,017$3,304 $3,127 $2,950 $2,240 $1,885Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.41 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,229 $3,059 $2,889 $2,346 $2,006$4,399 4,337$ 4,275$ 4,089$ $3,965$5,353 $5,000 $4,647 $3,307 $2,602Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.0591.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.0591.893 1.91 1.94 2.02 2.059Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,335 $1,228 $1,121 $777 $563$2,178 2,177$ 2,177$ 2,176$ $2,176$3,247 $2,967 $2,687 $1,567 $1,008Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.9581.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.9581.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$310 $281 $252 $153 $95$665738$ 812$ 1,047$ $1,195$948 $869 $790 $475 $317Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502030 2035 2040 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,943 $1,752 $1,561 $1,446 $1,064$3,105 3,028$ 2,951$ 2,951$ $2,797$3,506 $3,146 $2,786 $2,282 $1,561Range0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.001.001.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.951.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.592.40 2.45 2.49 2.49 2.592.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.59FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 204020502032 2037 2042 204020502025 2030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,981 $4,808 $4,634 $4,600 $4,254$6,996 6,924$ 6,852$ 6,881$ $6,737$7,810 $7,250 $6,689 $6,129 $5,009Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.572.41 2.46 2.50 2.48 2.572.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.394.17 4.23 4.29 4.27 4.394.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502019 2024 2029 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,763 $4,505 $4,248 $3,836 $3,322$7,280 6,977$ 6,674$ 6,189$ $5,583$6,614 $6,191 $5,767 $4,834 $3,987Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.101.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84Year of:Year of:SMALL VAN(MINIVAN)SMALL TRUCK(PICKUP)CARGO (INCL. 2b)TRUCK (PICKUP)Year of:

### 248TABLE A-3 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol ScenariosAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,970 $2,644 $3,152 $2,550 $2,233$2,062 $2,466 $2,754 $2,093 $1,745$1,687 $2,620 $3,554 $3,134 $2,924Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.3821.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$5,302 $5,011 $4,720 $3,673 $3,091$5,697 $5,298 $4,899 $3,304 $2,507$5,187 $5,037 $4,887 $4,407 $4,107Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.06Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,868 $2,677 $2,486 $1,798 $1,416$2,869 $2,713 $2,558 $1,444 $887$3,771 $3,641 $3,433 $2,702 $2,245Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.9581.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.9581.58 1.81 1.87 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502012 2017 2022 20402050Incremental Price ($)$685 $674 $663 $627 $605$751 $677 $603 $305 $157$936 $965 $994 $1,099 $1,158Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.171.11 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2027 2032 2037 204020502023 2028 2033 204020502025 2030 2035 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,991 $2,775 $2,559 $2,430 $1,998$3,442 $3,073 $2,704 $2,187 $1,449$4,552 $4,220 $3,888 $3,556 $2,892Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.95 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 0.95 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.592.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.592.28 2.34 2.40 2.47 2.59FCV PHEV 402029 2034 2039 2040205020252030 2035 2040205020272032 2037 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,552 $6,353 $6,155 $6,116 $5,719$7,407 $6,852 $6,297 $5,742 $4,632$8,969 $8,514 $8,059 $7,786 $6,875Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.572.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.572.30 2.36 2.42 2.45 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.394.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.394.10 4.16 4.22 4.26 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502021 2026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,554 $6,224 $5,893 $5,297 $4,636$6,207 $5,790 $5,373 $4,456 $3,622$7,822 $7,453 $7,085 $6,422 $5,685Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.844.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84Year of:Year of:Year of:LARGE SUVSMALL SUVLARGE VAN

### 249TABLE A-4 “Program Goals” Vehicle Input Assumptions for the MP H2 Success Scenario"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2015 2020 2025 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,510 $2,415 $2,321 $2,037 $1,848$2,135 $2,127 $2,119 $2,101 $2,085$2,281 2,202$ 2,122$ 1,867$ $1,707Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.4671.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.4671.37 1.39 1.40 1.44 1.467Diesel Hybrid2020 2025 2030 204020502021 2026 2031 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,041 $3,993 $3,944 $3,847 $3,750$4,085 $4,051 $4,017 $3,955 $3,886$3,119 3,042$ 2,966$ 2,766$ $2,612Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.4462.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.4462.208 2.24 2.28 2.37 2.446Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,307 $3,406 $2,999 $2,094 $1,529$2,562 $2,445 $2,328 $1,955 $1,721$2,012 1,861$ 1,711$ 1,200$ $899Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.3432.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.3432.10 2.13 2.16 2.28 2.343Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 204020502013 2018 2023 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2 -$26 -$54 -$149 -$205$97 $94 $91 $80 $74$164135$ 105$4$ -$56Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.241.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,460 $2,984 $2,507 $1,745 $792$3,534 $3,082 $2,630 $1,907 $1,003$2,283 1,934$ 1,586$ 1,028$ $331Range0.90 0.990.991.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.00Maintenance Cost1.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.02 1.00 1.001.001.001.06 1.011.001.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.990.991.000.90 0.990.991.000.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.90 0.950.951.000.90 0.950.951.000.901.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14FCV PHEV 402026 2031 2036 204020502025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,600 $3,156 $2,711 $2,356 $1,467$4,598 $4,084 $3,570 $3,056 $2,028$4,170 3,688$ 3,206$ 2,627$ $1,662Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.021.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.06 1.011.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.85 0.850.86 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.78 2.86 2.95 3.01 3.182.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.182.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.90 4.96 5.02 5.07 5.194.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.194.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402025 2030 2035 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502023 2028 2033 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,335 $3,126 $2,917 $2,708 $2,291$4,052 $3,823 $3,594 $3,319 $2,860$3,481 3,274$ 3,066$ 2,776$ $2,362Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.06 1.051.05 1.031.07 1.051.05 1.041.08 1.051.05 1.04Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.001.00 1.000.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.272.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.272.05 2.09 2.13 2.19 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.695.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.695.27 5.35 5.42 5.53 5.69Year of:Year of:SUB-COMPACT2-SEATERMINI-COMPACTYear of:

### 250TABLE A-4 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2012 2017 2022 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,353 $1,831 $2,050 $1,439 $1,100$1,845 $2,224 $2,496 $1,907 $1,597$2,102 $2,463 $2,825 $2,246 $1,956Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.4671.30 1.37 1.45 1.46 1.467Diesel Hybrid2015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502015 2020 2025 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,504 $2,383 $2,262 $1,900 $1,658$3,496 $3,381 $3,267 $2,924 $2,695$4,085 $3,967 $3,849 $3,494 $3,258Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.4462.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.45Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,062 $1,819 $1,574 $686 $193$2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926$3,545 $3,164 $2,811 $1,870 $1,374Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.3431.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.3431.53 1.85 2.11 2.26 2.343Advanced Gasoline2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$254 $171 $89 -$223 -$387$417 $350 $283 $17 -$117$495 $452 $408 $243 $155Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.241.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.241.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2022 2027 2032 204020502017 2022 2027 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,364 $1,069 $773 $299 -$293$3,887 $3,350 $2,812 $1,415 $340$4,504 $3,935 $3,366 $1,887 $750Range0.90 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.001.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.001.001.000.85 0.900.97 1.001.000.85 0.90 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.901.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.142.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.142.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.14FCV PHEV 402024 2029 2034 2040205020192024 2029 2040205020212026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,632 $3,192 $2,751 $2,223 $1,342$6,633 $5,870 $5,107 $3,428 $1,902$6,417 $5,724 $5,032 $3,785 $2,399Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.001.10 1.06 1.011.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.900.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.930.800.90 0.900.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.182.57 2.67 2.76 2.98 3.182.60 2.70 2.80 2.98 3.18Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.194.71 4.79 4.87 5.04 5.194.71 4.79 4.87 5.02 5.19SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502018 2023 2028 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,266 $3,044 $2,822 $2,423 $1,979$4,866 $4,518 $4,170 $3,335 $2,639$4,875 $4,593 $4,311 $3,747 $3,183Range1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.08 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.900.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.930.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.272.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.272.00 2.04 2.09 2.18 2.27Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.695.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.695.17 5.25 5.34 5.52 5.69Year of:Year of:Year of:LARGE CARMid-size (Medium) CARCOMPACT

### 251TABLE A-4 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,843 $2,700 $2,551 $1,897 $1,552$1,589 $2,532 $3,475 $3,170 $3,017$3,304 $3,127 $2,950 $2,240 $1,885Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.41 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502011 2016 2021 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,229 $3,059 $2,889 $2,346 $2,006$4,399 4,337$ 4,275$ 4,089$ $3,965$5,353 $5,000 $4,647 $3,307 $2,602Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.0591.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.0591.893 1.91 1.94 2.02 2.059Gasoline Hybrid2014 2019 2024 204020502015 2020 2025 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,335 $1,228 $1,121 $777 $563$2,178 2,177$ 2,177$ 2,176$ $2,176$3,247 $2,967 $2,687 $1,567 $1,008Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.981.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.9581.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.9581.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502014 2019 2024 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$310 $281 $252 $153 $95$665738$ 812$ 1,047$ $1,195$948 $869 $790 $475 $317Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2020 2025 2030 204020502024 2029 2034 204020502020 2025 2030 20402050Incremental Price ($)$3,452 $3,054 $2,656 $1,860 $1,064$4,619 4,268$ 3,918$ 3,498$ $2,797$4,289 $3,834 $3,380 $2,470 $1,561Range0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.001.001.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.951.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.592.25 2.32 2.38 2.46 2.592.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59FCV PHEV 402023 2028 2033 204020502026 2031 2036 204020502022 2027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$7,752 $7,104 $6,456 $5,549 $4,254$9,307 8,772$ 8,236$ 7,808$ $6,737$9,409 $8,623 $7,837 $6,580 $5,009Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.041.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.101.061.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.21 2.28 2.34 2.44 2.572.28 2.34 2.40 2.45 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.06 4.12 4.18 4.27 4.394.09 4.15 4.21 4.26 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402022 2027 2032 204020502022 2027 2032 204020502019 2024 2029 20402050Incremental Price ($)$4,763 $4,505 $4,248 $3,836 $3,322$7,280 6,977$ 6,674$ 6,189$ $5,583$6,614 $6,191 $5,767 $4,834 $3,987Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.101.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84SMALL TRUCK(PICKUP)CARGO (INCL. 2b)TRUCK (PICKUP)SMALL VAN(MINIVAN)Year of:Year of:Year of:

### 252TABLE A-4 (Cont.)"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success ScenarioAdvanced Diesel2011 2016 2021 204020502011 2016 2021 204020502010 2015 2020 20402050Incremental Price ($)$1,970 $2,644 $3,152 $2,550 $2,233$2,062 $2,466 $2,754 $2,093 $1,745$1,687 $2,620 $3,554 $3,134 $2,924Range1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.201.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Maintenance Cost0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.3821.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.3821.31 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382Diesel Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$5,302 $5,011 $4,720 $3,673 $3,091$5,697 $5,298 $4,899 $3,304 $2,507$5,187 $5,037 $4,887 $4,407 $4,107Range1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.351.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35Maintenance Cost0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.930.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.0591.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.06Gasoline Hybrid2012 2017 2022 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502014 2019 2024 20402050Incremental Price ($)$2,868 $2,677 $2,486 $1,798 $1,416$2,869 $2,713 $2,558 $1,444 $887$3,771 $3,641 $3,433 $2,702 $2,245Range1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.251.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Maintenance Cost1.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.031.05 1.05 1.051.04 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.901.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.971.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.9581.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.9581.58 1.81 1.87 1.92 1.958Advanced Gasoline2013 2018 2023 204020502010 2015 2020 204020502012 2017 2022 20402050Incremental Price ($)$685 $674 $663 $627 $605$751 $677 $603 $305 $157$936 $965 $994 $1,099 $1,158Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Luggage Space1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.171.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.171.11 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.17Fuel Cell (hydrogen)2017 2022 2027 204020502020 2025 2030 204020502017 2022 2027 20402050Incremental Price ($)$5,974 $5,372 $4,769 $3,203 $1,998$4,237 $3,772 $3,308 $2,379 $1,449$7,143 $6,499 $5,855 $4,180 $2,892Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.95 1.001.001.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.90 0.95 1.001.001.00Luggage Space0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.90 1.00 1.001.001.000.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted)2.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.592.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.592.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.59FCV PHEV 402022 2027 2032 2040205020222027 2032 2040205020222027 2032 20402050Incremental Price ($)$10,295 $9,478 $8,661 $7,353 $5,719$8,984 $8,207 $7,430 $6,187 $4,632$11,931 $11,028 $10,125 $8,681 $6,875Range1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Maintenance Cost1.08 1.021.00 1.00 1.001.101.06 1.011.00 1.001.091.041.00 1.00 1.00Acceleration1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.572.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.394.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39SI Plug-in HEV 402021 2026 2031 204020502019 2024 2029 204020502021 2026 2031 20402050Incremental Price ($)$6,554 $6,224 $5,893 $5,297 $4,636$6,207 $5,790 $5,373 $4,456 $3,622$7,822 $7,453 $7,085 $6,422 $5,685Range1.10 1.101.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10Maintenance Cost1.10 1.051.05 1.031.101.07 1.051.05 1.031.10 1.051.051.05 1.03Acceleration1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Top Speed0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Luggage Space0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.970.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel,unadjusted)1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.931.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93Fuel economy X factor (electricity,unadjusted)4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.844.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.844.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84LARGE VANLARGE SUVSMALL SUVYear of:Year of:Year of:

### 253 

### APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF JUMP STARTING

H 2 

### STATIONS IN THE H2 SUCCESS SCENARIO

As discussed in Chapter 7, vehicle subsidies are n eeded to meet the vehicle penetration goals of
the various scenarios. The H2 Success scenario assu mes that there is an additional policy to jump start the availability of stations selling H 2 

### . This policy is likely to incorporate some form of subsidy. The cost of that subsidy should be adde d to the cost of the vehicle subsidies in the H2 Success scenario in order to obtain a fair comparison of scenario costs.

The particular jump start policy that was assumed is consistent with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) program analyses of potential transition policies. The scenario modeled ensures that 10% of all stations in large cities offer H 2 

### by 2024 and 2% of all stations in small cities offer it by 2029. Table B-1 presents the number of H2 stations thus estimated for each of the four versions
of the H2 Success scenario. When contrasted w ith the number of stations estimated without the jump start policy, as presented in Table B-2, it is obvious that the jump start policy dramatically increases the projected number of H 2 

### stations.

For the Multi-Path (MP) Study analysis, we developed a preliminary estimate of the cost of subsidizing these stations. We used the following assumptions:

• The stations to be subsidized will be built to serve 750 fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) per day.

• The cost of these stations will be $1.13 million (2005$) in 2015 and $0.75 million in 2030 (i.e., the costs to build the stations will decline over time).

• The full station cost will be subsidized.

• Subsidies for stations built in larg e cities will begin in 2010 and will be provided through 2024.

• Subsidies for stations built in sma ll cities will begin in 2019 and will be provided through 2029.

The cumulative cost of subsidizing the jump starting of these stations is presented in Table B-3

under three conditions:

• All stations built will be fully subsidized.

• All stations built will be fully subsidized, except those that would have been built without the jump start.

### 254 

### • All stations built will be fully subsidized except those that would have been built to meet the greater demand resulting from the increased use of FCVs created by the jump start.

The latter two conditions attempt to minimize free riders (i.e., paying only as much subsidy as is needed to create additional stations). The thre e different conditions provide possible total costs that range from $6.3 billion to $12 billion. The total co st would be lower if we assumed that an amount less than a subsidy of the full station cost would generate the H 2 

### station totals estimated
in Table B-1.

### 255TABLE B-1 Total Number of H2Stations in the Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario Assuming the Jump Starting of StationsStations Offering H2 in Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario Assuming Jump Starting of StationsLarge City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural)2015 9306 936 9296 935 9335 938 9396 9452020 5,655 148 5,806 5,518 145 5,679 5,661 149 5,843 5,612 147 5,7762024 9,604 755 10,371 9,121 721 9,915 9,403 751 10,331 9,295 736 10,1062029 9,958 1,566 11,556 10,052 1,444 11,704 23,503 3,490 28,048 10,100 1,476 11,7982030 10,045 1,579 11,660 11,969 1,446 13,643 27,890 5,443 34,946 11,886 1,479 13,608H2 Success Literature Review H2 Success Program GoalsH2 Success Literature ReviewWith SubsidiesH2 Success Program Goals WithSubsidiesTABLE B-2 Total H2Stations in the Early Years of the H2 Success ScenarioWITHOUT Assuming the Jump Starting of StationsStations Offering H2 in Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario WITHOUT Jump Starting of StationsLarge City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural) Large City Small CityTotal(includesrural)2015 137 21 137 21 137 21 137 212020 32 20 59 56 44 120 103 80 220 56 44 1202024 62 44 123 212 164 451 458 355 975 211 164 4502029 108 78 218 557 428 1,180 1,720 1,291 3,590 556 428 1,1782030 117 86 238 649 498 1,373 2,228 1,645 4,601 648 497 1,372H2 Success Literature Review H2 Success Program GoalsH2 Success Literature ReviewWith SubsidiesH2 Success Program Goals WithSubsidies

### 256 TABLE B-3 Cumulative Costs through 2030 of Jump Starting H 2 

### Stations (in Billions of 2005$)

Stations Subsidized Cost for All Cost for All Except Those Built without Jump Start Cost for All Except Those Built in response

to New FCV Demand Created by Jump Start

H2 Literature Review $11.2 $11.0 $10.7 H2 Program Goals $10.6 $10.0 $7.5 H2 Literature Review with Subsidies $12.5 $11.0 $6.3 H2 Program Goals with Subsidies $10.8 $10.2 $7.7

### 257 

### APPENDIX C: BASIS FOR ESTIMATES OF FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO 2 

### EMISSIONS
FROM LIGHT VEHICLES

For the most part, the National Energy Modeling System used for the Multi-Path Study (NEMSMP) reports energy-related CO 2 

### emissions on the basis of the sector in which they are emitted, rather than allocating emissions to the point of end use. The exception is for the electricity sector, where emissions are allocated to the end-use sectors on the basis of relative electricity purchases. This makes it difficult to trace the full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions from light vehicles (LVs). For example, CO 2 

### emissions associated with fuel use in the petroleum-refining process and in biofuels production are reported as part of industrial sector e missions, as are emissions from hydrogen production. In theory, some of these e missions could be directly attributed to LVs because most or all of the product (e.g., ethanol or hydrogen) is consumed by these vehicles, while other emissions (e.g., emissions associat ed with refining of petroleum products) would have to be allocated among other uses.

Because of this complexity, we adopted a two- step process for determining LV fuel-cycle emissions in our scenarios. First, we estimated the full-fuel-cycle LV emissions (including those from Class 2B commercial trucks) from a Base Case without Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by using information from several U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) reports on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissi ons. Then we assumed that all changes in

U.S. CO 2 

### emissions in our other scenarios, incl uding the Base Case with CAFE, were attributable to the LV sector, because virtually all the assumptions that we altered in these other
scenarios relative to the Base Case without CAFE are LV-related. These derivations are
described in more detail below.

This method is not perfect in that some of the fuel supply assumptions that we modified in the scenarios could potentially impact markets other than the LV market. The impact of our modifications regarding H 2 

### and ethanol deserve some discussion.

• Currently, the only end user of H 2 

### in the NEMS-MP model is LVs. So any
reduction in H 2 

### prices in the scenarios will only increase LV hydrogen use.

• We varied the conversion costs of ce llulosic ethanol, but even at reduced prices, ethanol is used predominantly by LVs, either in blends (LVs use 96% of the total gasoline blends) or in E 85. The medium trucks, school buses, etc., that make up the remaining 4% of the gasoline market can only use ethanol in blends, and blend levels in the Base Case without CAFE are already 9.5% by 2015, which is the maximum blend level used in the model. Only total gasoline growth in these markets could in crease their use of ethanol in blends. The NEMS-MP model growth projections for these markets, however, are very small. Therefore, we ignore the pot ential for increased ethanol use by this very small market.

• Finally, we do not vary biomass suppl y curves that would affect the power

sector.

### 258 

### C.1 ESTIMATE OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO 2 

### EMISSIONS AS A SHARE OF
TOTAL U.S. CO 2 

### EMISSIONS IN A BASE CASE WITHOUT CAFE

EPA prepared an inventory of U.S. GHGs and estimates of GHG emissions from the transportation sector (EPA 2005, 2006). The latter re port in particular in cluded estimates of the

CO 2 

### emissions from various components of the tr ansportation life cycle (proportion relative to direct emissions). (One of th e sources for the indirect emi ssions was Argonne’s GREET model (Argonne 2001).) We used those two reports to deri ve an estimate of the LV full-fuel-cycle share
of total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions for the year 2003, as presented in Table C-1. (Emissions from vehicle manufacturing are excluded.)

For the MP estimates, we assumed that the 2003 share (23.9%) was also applicable in 2005 (the first year of the MP estimates). That assumption may not be applicable in future years because of changes in economic activity or potential changes in ethanol use. With respect to changes in economic activity, we examined both the projected share of LV energy consumption in the Base
Case without CAFE and the CO 2 

### emissions of the entire transportation sector relative to total U.S. emissions as potential indicators of change in activity. We found that the shares of each were quite stable through 2050. Because of that st ability, we initially made no adjustments to the LV full-fuel-cycle share of total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions in the future.

With respect to ethanol, we did adjust the future LV full-fuel-cycle share of total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions to account for (a) the expectation that ethanol use by LVs will change over time and (b) the fact that ethanol has lo wer GHG emissions than does the gasoline it replaces. In the Base Case without CAFE, ethanol is 2% of total LV energy use in 2005; that share rises to 7.8% by 2050. While 97% of the ethanol is from corn in 2005, that share is down to 74% by 2050. We
used the GREET model to estimate that the CO 2 

### -emissions from ethanol made from corn is
15.2 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalent (MMTCO 2 

### ) per quad versus 25.9 MMTCO 2 

### /quad for gasoline (where 1 quad = 1 quadrillion [10 15 

### ] BTU). Cellulosic ethanol is assumed to have no

CO 2 

### emissions. Applying all these factors to th e initial 23.9% share result s in a small reduction in the share over time, as can be seen in Ta ble C-2 (second row). By 2050, the share is 23.0%.

C.2 FINAL ESTIMATES OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO 2 

### EMISSIONS IN THE MP
BASE CASE WITH CAFE

Table C-2 presents the estimates of LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in both the Base Case
without CAFE and the final MP Base Case with CAFE. The shar e estimates devel oped above for
the Base Case without CAFE ar e applied to the total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions for that case (from a NEMS-MP run), and LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions in MMTCO 2 

### e are derived for the Base
Case without CAFE. Between 2005 and 2 050, these emissions rise from 1,419 to 2,219 MMTCO 2 

### e.

The total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions for the Base Case with CAFE (from another NEMS-MP run) are presented. They are lower than the Base Case without CAFE. As discussed above, all of these

reductions are assumed to be LV-related. Therefor e, these reductions are applied to the LV full-

### 259 

### fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions of the Base Case without CAFE to derive LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions for the MP Base Case w ith CAFE. The reduction is small.

C.3 ESTIMATES OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO 2 

### EMISSIONS IN THE MP
SCENARIOS/CASES

For any scenario/case, the total U.S. CO 2 

### emissions of that case are compared with the total

U.S. CO 2 

### emissions shown in Table C-2 for the Base Case with CAFE. The reductions achievedare all assumed to be LV-related. Therefore, these reductions are applied to the LV full-fuelcycle CO 2 

### emissions of the Base Case with CAFE to derive LV full-fuel-cycle CO 2 

### emissions of

the scenario.

C.4 REFERENCES

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2003 , EPA-430-R-05-003, April 15.

EPA, 2006, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the U.S. Transportation Sector , EPA-420-R-06-003,
March.

Argonne (Argonne National Laboratory), 2001, Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) 1.6 Model

, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne, IL, June.

### 260 TABLE C-1 Estimate of LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions as a Share of Total U.S. CO 2 

### Emissions in a
Base Case without CAFE in 2003

2003

GHG

EPA LV GHG Direct 1112.5

Multiplier for Indirect LV GHG Emissions (GREET, from EPA report) 1.268
Total LV GHGs (Direct x Multiplier) 1410.7
Factor in 2Bs (EIA 2005) 1.036

Total LV GHGs 1461.4

EPA Total U.S. GHG 6900.2
LV total GHG share (no 2Bs) 20.4%
LV total GHG share (with 2Bs) 21.2%

CO2

EPA estimate of GHG that is CO2

Shares:

T o t a l U

. S

. (I nven t ory repor t

, T a bl e ES

- 2) 0.847
Transportation (Table 13) 0.954
EPA total CO2 emissions (derived from estimates EPA provided above)

Total U.S. 5842
LVs (including 2Bs) 1394

LV share of total U.S. CO2 (with 2Bs) 23.9%

### 261 TABLE C-2 Final Estimates of LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO 2 

### Emissions in MP Base Case with CAFE

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case without CAFE

Total US CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2) 5945 6185 6756 7617 8636 9641

LV full fuel cycle CO2 emissions share of US

total 23.9% 23.3% 23.2% 23.2% 23.2% 23.0%

LV full fuel cycle CO2 emissions (MMTCO2) 1419 1441 1567 1768 2000 2219

Base Case with CAFE

Total US CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2) 5945 6182 6705 7480 8538 9561

Reduction in Total US CO2 Emissions from Base case without CAFE (MMTCO2) 0 3 51 138 98 81

LV full fuel cycle CO2 emissions (MMTCO2) 1419 1438 1516 1630 1901 2138

### 262 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 263 

### APPENDIX D: SELECTED SENSITIVITY RUNS WITH THE NEMS-MP VEHICLE
CHOICE MODEL

D.1 INTRODUCTION

The vehicle choice model (VCM) used in the ve rsion of the National Energy Modeling System used for the Multi-Path Study (NEMS-MP) is the same as the Consumer Vehicle Choice Submodule used in NEMS and described in EIA ( 2006). The model uses various vehicle and fuel attributes and their coefficients (which reflect the consumer weighting of each of these attributes) to estimate the market penetra tion of conventional vehicles (CVs) and advanced technology vehicles (ATVs) into the future. The attributes include vehicle price, cost of driving per mile (fuel price divided by fuel effi ciency), vehicle range, accelera tion, maintenance costs, luggage space, home refueling capability, fuel availab ility, and vehicle make and model availability (MMA).

In this document, two sets of sensitivity runs made with the VCM are discussed:

• The effect of lengthening the vehicle payback implicitly used in the VCM,
and

• A disaggregation of the impact of change s to the various variables used in the VCM on the market penetration of ATVs.

Other sensitivity runs may be added later. The analysis was conducted with the NEMSTransportation Stand- Alone (TSA) model.

D.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN THE VEHICLE PAYBACK
ASSUMPTIONS IMPLICIT IN NEMS-MP

This section describes how we estimated the implicit vehicle payback period used in the NEMSMP VCM (because it is not an explicit input), analyzes how that payback period in the VCM might be lengthened, and provides an example of how lengthening it considerably affects vehicle market penetration results. The analysis was perf ormed because in a future world of sustained high fuel prices, consumers may change the level of importance that they give to future fuel savings when purchasing new vehicles. Such a change would result in different ATV market penetration rates than those estimated to date in the MP Study.

D.2.1 Implicit Vehicle Payb ack Period Used in VCM

The VCM computes the “utility” value of each vehicl e type on the basis of the vehicle attributes and the consumer weighting of each of them. The coefficients for the attributes reveal the assumed relative importance of each attribute. Table D-1 presents an example of these utilities for a large car as characterized in MP.

### 264 

### For these large cars, the vehicle price (in dollars ) has a coefficient of –0.00082, while the cost of driving (in cents per mile) has a coefficient of –0.3898. One can use these values to compute the (simple) payback period a consumer is assumed to employ when valuing an increase in fuel economy relative to an increase in the price of th e vehicle. Assuming that the vehicle is driven 12,000 miles per year, the annua l equivalent utility w ould be –0.3898 × 100/12,000, which equals –0.00325. This result implies that the equivale nce between the initial vehicle price and the cost of driving is similar to a payback of 4 (3.96) years: –0.00325/–0.00082. (If the vehicle is driven 15,000 miles annually, the payback is a little more than 3 years [i.e., 3.17 years]).

A specific numerical illustration might be useful . Suppose there are two vehicles, one of which costs $1,000 more but has higher fuel economy. Th e coefficients can be used to compute the point of equivalence or, in other words, the annu al fuel cost savings that would be needed to make the second vehicle as attractive as the first. The extra $1,000 adds 1000 × –0.00082 = –0.82 to the utility of the vehicle (i.e., makes the utility more negative and the vehicle less attractive). The increase in equivalent cost per mile required to offset that disadvantage is equal to –0.82/–0.3898 or 2.1 cents per mile. This result is e quivalent to a fuel savings of $252 per year if the vehicle is driven 12,000 miles per year . The simple payback period is $1,000/$252 or 3.96.

(For perspective on the amount of annual travel to assume, it is important to consider that in the MP Base Case, the average or stock LV tr avels 11,430 miles per year in 2010, 12,715 miles/year in 2030, and 14,466 miles/year in 2050.)

D.2.2 How to Increase the Payback Period in the VCM: General

To simulate a higher payback period, the coeffici ent for vehicle price can be decreased, or the cost of driving can be increased. But when either coefficient is changed, the relative importance of each of the other attributes in the VCM changes as well. If the coefficient for vehicle price is decreased, the overall weights of both the vehicl e price and driving cost are reduced, and the importance of each of the other attributes is increased. If the coefficient for driving cost is increased, the importance of each of the other attributes shrinks.

For some of the new ATVs, these other attributes (especially fuel availability and MMA) can be significant in the vehicle’s total utility. We believe it is important to try to keep the importance of these other attributes relatively stable while changing the relationship of driving cost to vehicle cost. Because vehicle price has the highest weighting of all the utilities, the effect of its reduction distorts the weights of the other attributes more than does increasing the coefficient for driving cost. Therefore, we recommend increasing the coefficient of the driving cost instead.

Table D-2 presents some of the analysis that was conducted to examine the impact of changing either the vehicle price coefficient (case 16) or the driving cost coefficient (case 15). Changing the driving cost coefficient clearly has less impact on the relative weight of the other attributes in the total utility of the vehicles than does changing the vehicle price coefficient. (Note: We are not saying “no impact,” just less.) In this analysis, we changed the coefficients by a factor of four in an attempt to simulate a simple 15-year payback.

### 265 

### D.2.3 Example Results of Increasing the Vehicle Payback Period

We used the approach just discussed (increasing the driving cost coefficient by four times) to estimate the impact of an approximately 15-year payback on ATV penetration for two versions of the Mixed scenario: one using the MP “literature review” (LR) vehicle prices, and another using the “program goals” (PG) vehicle prices. The two sets of market penetration results for cars are shown in Tables D-3 (LR prices) and D-4 (PG prices). For each t echnology in the tables, four market penetration estimates are shown:

a. Results with the default NEMS payback assumptions;

b. Results with payback assumptions chan ged in the Manufacturer Technology Choice Submodule (MTCS) (that is what the Energy Information Administration [EIA] calls the submodule);

c. Results with payback assumptions changed in the VCM as well as in the MTCS; and

d. The goals for the scenario.

The MTCS is another component of NEMS in which the selection of individual technology components for each vehicle type determines the vehicle’s price, fuel economy, and other attributes. In the MP scenarios, the MTCS is used only for conventional gasoline and flex fuel vehicles. The attributes for the ATVs are overwritten by user assumptions. In the MCTS, the present value of fuel savings over a 3-year peri od using a 15% discount rate is compared to each technology cost. We changed the parameters for these test runs to a 12-year period (the longest time period possible in the model) and a 3% di scount rate. These changes generally had little effect on the market penetration results because they only impact the price and fuel economy of conventional vehicles, which is why we do not discuss the use of the MTCS more in this appendix.

However, the effect of increasing the weight consumers give to fuel savings in the VCM, where the competition among vehicle types occurs, is considerable. As shown in Table D-3 and Figure D-1, with the increased consumer valuat ion of fuel savings and assuming LR vehicle prices, by 2050, gasoline internal combustion engi nes (ICEs) and advanced gasoline ICEs are virtually driven out of the market, replaced by hybrid electric vehicles or HEVs (65%, including both gasoline and diesel) and approximately 10% each for diesels, plug-in HEVs (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). With the PG vehicle pr ices, as shown in Table D-4 and Figure D-2, the gasoline ICEs (conventional and advanced) are ag ain driven from the market, but the dominant vehicles sold are FCVs (56%).

D.2.4 How to Increase the Payback Period in the VCM: Specific Recommendations

In undertaking the above analysis, when we changed the VCM payback assumption, we assumed that the change applied throughout time (i.e., from 2005 forward). We did so because the process of varying the payback assumption over time is cumb ersome and we were just trying to get an

### 266 

### idea of the impact of such a change. However, Table D-3 provides evidence that the payback assumption, if it is to be modified, should be modified over time. With a 15-year payback assumption, the sales of conve ntional gasoline, advanced conventional gasoline, and conventional flex fuel vehicles in 2010 represent 55% of all car sales versus 84% with the default payback assumption. This dramatic drop occurs ev en though very few of the advanced vehicles characterized in this study are assumed to be introduced by 2010. The result for 2010 is unreasonable. It could be corrected by keeping th e default payback assumption in effect through 2010 and then gradually increasing the payback period in future years.

The driving cost coefficient that we used to simulate a 15-year payback might also be modified. In the analysis presented in Tables D-2 through D-4, we multiplied the NEMS driving cost coefficient by a factor of four to increase the implicit NEMS simple payback value of approximately 4 years to 15 years. We chose the fa irly extreme test value of four in order to gauge its impact. To mimic the effect of a “socia l discount rate,” a 3% di scount factor might be applied, and the net present value of fuel saving s might be calculated over 15 years. Assuming a car travels 12,000 miles/year, this step would mean multiplying the driving cost coefficient by 3.

Finally, the 4-year payback implicitly used in NEMS may well be too short for a study evaluating market penetration to 2050, a period over which time consumer attitudes may change; however, a 15-year payback may be too long. The average length of a new car loan is now 5 years and 4 months, which suggests consumers may begin to use this longer evaluation period. It may be appropriate to gradually increase the payback period to 6 years as a sensitivity test. For a 6-year period, the driving cost coefficient w ould be multiplied by 1.5, assuming that vehicles will travel 12,000 miles/year on average and th at consumers will use simple payback.

D.2.5 Reference

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2006, The Transportation Sector Model of the National Energy Modeling System: Model Documentation, DOE/EIA-M070(2006), July.

D.3 DISAGGREGATION OF THE IMP ACT FROM CHANGES TO THE VARIABLES
USED IN THE VCM ON ATV MARKET PENETRATION

Table D-5 illustrates the individual impacts on ATV market penetration (sales) from changes to
various variables used in the NEMS-MP VCM. The reasons that we changed some of the values
for these variables from the default values used in NEMS are discussed in Chapter 6.

The analysis was conducted in October 2007 and uses older versions of the NEMS-MP Base Case and Mixed scenario vehicle fuel economy and price estimates than are discussed in the current report. Even the market penetration goal s for several of the technologies are different from those discussed in the current report. Howeve r, this disaggregation is just meant to be
illustrative.

### 267 

### For each vehicle technology, the table presents the impact of changing individual variables on market penetration. The runs are as follows:

1. Fully Integrated Base: The market penetra tion of each technology in the Base Case as
estimated in a full NEMS model run.

2. NEMSA Base: The market penetration of each technology in the Base Case from the NEMS-MP TSA model run. (The results of Runs #1 and #2 are virtually the same.)

3. Fleet Shares to 1%: The Base Case from Run #2 with the fleet share dropped to 1%.

4. Endogenous MMA: The results from Run #3 w ith vehicle Make a nd Model Availability (MMA) estimated endogenously (instead of being hard-wired in).

5. Mixed Vehicle Attributes: The results of Run #4 with all the improved vehicle characteristics of the Mixed scenario (i.e ., vehicle fuel economies, prices, and other attributes) and with other Mixed scenario PHEV-related inputs (% operation on electricity and share of consumers who can pl ug-in their PHEVs). (Again, the values used in this run are not those of the final Mixed scenario.)

6. Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs: The results of Run #5 with the Mixed Scenario flex fuel share of advanced conventional vehicle (ACV), PHEV s, and gasoline HEV (GHEV) stock added
in.

7. H2 Station Increase: The result of Run #6 with the Mixed Scenario change in H 2 

### station size (from 1,500 to 750 vehicles/station).

8. Mixed Fuel Prices: The result of Run #7 with the Mixed scenario fuel price assumptions (lower than those of the Base Case).

9. Mixed Alternate Constants: The results of Run #8 with changes to the “constants” used in the VCM for the various technologies. (The defa ult values for ATVs in the Base Case are negative, which depresses ATV market penetration. In “Mixed Alternate Constants,” they are revised to be the same as gasoline. See Section 6.5.)

10. NEMSA Mixed: The market penetration re sults when all the above changes made individually are made at one time. The results are exactly the same as those at the end of

Run #9.

11. 40% Reduced Elec.: The results of Run #10 w ith the electricity price for PHEVs reduced by 40%.

12. Plug-in Avail (65%): The results of Run #11 w ith the share of households that can plugin a PHEV raised from the flat 50% by 2030 and beyond (assumed in Run #5) to 65% by 2040 and then held steady.

### 268 

### 13. Mixed Goal: The last row provides the market penetration goals for that technology in the Mixed scenario (as of October 2007).

Market penetration was affected by changes in all of these variables except for those in Run #6 (the Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs). As stated in Chapter 6, we estimated the share of ACVs, GHEVs, and PHEVs that would be flex fuel outside the VCM. Ideally, estimations of this share would be
included in the VCM. The factors that had the greatest impact on ATV market penetration are:

• The “constant” in the VCM equation, • Estimating MMA endogenously, • Vehicle attributes, and

• H 2 

### station size.

The impact of changing the first two factors (changing the constants and estimating MMA endogenously) is further illustrated in Section 6.7. Th at section compares the market penetration results of the MP Base Case with a case in which all else is held equal except for these two changes. The ATV market penetration results are substantially different.

### 269 TABLE D-1 Example of Utilities: Conventional Gasoline Car, Large Class

Attribute Coefficient Attribute Value Resulting “Utility” 1



### Vehicle Price –0.00082 28,902.4 –23.72

Fuel Cost –0.3898 6.284 –2.45 Range –97.45 696.3 –0.14
Acceleration –0.2408 7.9 –1.9 Maintenance –.00249 1,274.83 –3.18 Luggage 1.7232 1 1.72 Home Refueling 0.3909 0 0 Fuel Availability 1 –20.149 1 0 Fuel Availability 2 –6.154 0 0

MMA 0.3 0.1 –0.69

Constant 0 0 0

Total –30.36

1 

### In most, but not all cases, the “resulting utility” for a specific attribute is the result of multiplying the

attribute value by the coefficient. We do not discuss the other calculations here because this table is meant simply to be illustrative.

### 270TABLE D-2 Example of Utilities Using Alternative Coefficients for Vehicle Price and Driving Cost

### 271 TABLE D-3 Sales Shares Using Different P ayback Assumptions for the Mixed Scenario with Literature Review (LR) Vehicle Prices 1



### Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

MPMixed25 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.24% 7.66% 6.66% 5.85% 4.51%

MPMixed43 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.39% 4.56% 3.38% 2.70% 1.77%

MPMixed44 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 4.62% 0.24% 0.13% 0.07% 0.03%

MP Mixed Goal E-85 FFV 5.70% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MPMixed25 TDI Diesel ICE 0.88% 7.82% 7.65% 8.99% 10.06%
MPMixed43 TDI Diesel ICE 0.95% 9.92% 9.51% 10.75% 11.57%
MPMixed44 TDI Diesel ICE 13.98% 21.26% 16.73% 14.20% 8.95%

MP Mixed Goal Diesel 0.44% 9.20% 16.00% 14.00% 14.00%

MPMixed25 Adv Conv Gasoline 7.53% 31.74% 32.63% 30.68% 28.41%
MPMixed43 Adv Conv Gasoline 10.42% 41.96% 41.91% 37.95% 33.85%
MPMixed44 Adv Conv Gasoline 15.98% 6.82% 6.49% 4.64% 3.33%

MP Mixed Goal ACVs 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 15.00% 10.00%

MPMixed25 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 14.84% 22.89% 27.32% 32.41% 38.21% MPMixed43 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.48% 24.54% 28.89% 33.73% 39.18% MPMixed44 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 30.68% 36.85% 47.28% 51.80% 49.90%

MP Mixed Goal SI HEV on Gasoline & SI HEV on E85/H2 3.57% 25.00% 30.00% 20.00% 15.00%

MPMixed25 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 7.39% 6.93% 6.98% 6.59% MPMixed43 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 7.77% 7.21% 7.17% 6.68% MPMixed44 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.79% 32.77% 25.23% 22.21% 14.61%

MP Mixed Goal Diesel HEV 0.02% 0.07% 4.00% 6.00% 6.00%

MPMixed25 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.09% 0.30% 0.57% 1.28% MPMixed43 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.06% 0.31% 0.59% 1.29% MPMixed44 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.26% 2.35% 4.85% 10.03%

MP Mixed Goal SI PHEV & Diesel PHEV 0.00% 0.31% 16.80% 34.50% 25.00%

MPMixed25 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MPMixed43 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MPMixed44 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MP Mixed Goal EV 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MPMixed25 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02%
MPMixed43 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02%
MPMixed44 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.55% MP Mixed Goal Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.15% 9.00%

MPMixed25 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.13% 0.18% 0.24% MPMixed43 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.14% 0.19% 0.25% MPMixed44 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.04% 0.49% 1.52% 12.20%

MP Mixed Goal Fuel Cell 0.00% 0.01% 0.03% 7.35% 21.00%

MPMixed25 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 67.50% 22.36% 18.38% 14.32% 10.69%
MPMixed43 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 63.75% 11.14% 8.64% 6.91% 5.40%
MPMixed44 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 33.94% 1.75% 1.29% 0.69% 0.39%

MP Mixed Goal Conventional 90.24% 39.98% 3.17% 0.00% 0.00%

MPMixed25 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MPMixed43 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MP Mixed Goal Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MP Mixed Goal Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CARS MARKET PENETRATION

1 MPMixed25 is the NEMS-TSA run with the default vehicle payback assumptions. MPMixed43 is the NEMS-TSA run with the payback changed in just the Manufacturer Technology Choice Submodule

(MTCS). MPMixed44 includes the payback change in the MTCS plus a change to the payback in the VCM (extending it to about

15 years).

### 272 TABLE D-4 Sales Shares Using Different P ayback Assumptions for the Mixed Scenario with Program Goals (PG) Vehicle Prices 1



### Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

SA6 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.14% 6.03% 4.81% 4.99% 2.98%
SA14 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.28% 3.19% 2.10% 1.99% 1.03%

SA15 Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 4.54% 0.13% 0.07% 0.07% 0.02%
MP Mixed Goal E-85 FFV 5.70% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SA6 TDI Diesel ICE 0.85% 9.47% 9.40% 9.31% 9.51%
SA14 TDI Diesel ICE 0.92% 11.53% 11.09% 11.02% 10.93%
SA15 TDI Diesel ICE 13.48% 16.58% 11.03% 5.08% 1.81%
MP Mixed Goal Diesel 0.44% 9.20% 16.00% 14.00% 14.00%

SA6 Adv Conv Gasoline 7.85% 26.81% 25.05% 24.03% 20.32%
SA14 Adv Conv Gasoline 10.82% 33.99% 30.55% 29.02% 23.83%
SA15 Adv Conv Gasoline 16.39% 4.22% 3.18% 3.08% 1.33%
MP Mixed Goal ACVs 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 15.00% 10.00% SA6 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 14.96% 25.07% 29.41% 33.14% 34.02% SA14 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.59% 26.42% 30.45% 34.12% 34.78% SA15 Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 30.89% 29.93% 34.50% 31.59% 15.90%
MP Mixed Goal SI HEV on Gasoline & SI HEV on E85/H2 3.57% 25.00% 30.00% 20.00% 15.00% SA6 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 15.44% 13.00% 10.98% 8.82% SA14 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 15.94% 13.29% 11.26% 9.02% SA15 Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.71% 46.47% 30.39% 12.75% 4.27%
MP Mixed Goal Diesel HEV 0.02% 0.07% 4.00% 6.00% 6.00% SA6 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.37% 5.01% 5.08% 7.48% SA14 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.37% 5.15% 5.13% 7.49% SA15 Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 1.45% 17.23% 15.25% 11.58%
MP Mixed Goal SI PHEV & Diesel PHEV 0.00% 0.31% 16.80% 34.50% 25.00%

SA6 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SA14 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SA15 Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MP Mixed Goal EV 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SA6 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.31% 1.89%
SA14 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.34% 1.86%
SA15 Fuel Cell PHEV 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 2.65% 8.92% MP Mixed Goal Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.15% 9.00% SA6 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.73% 1.51% 7.32% SA14 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.04% 0.76% 1.61% 7.05% SA15 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.04% 2.62% 28.98% 55.91%
MP Mixed Goal Fuel Cell 0.00% 0.01% 0.03% 7.35% 21.00%

SA6 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 67.18% 16.77% 12.49% 10.66% 7.65%
SA14 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 63.39% 8.50% 6.50% 5.50% 4.02%
SA15 Gasoline ICE Vehicles 33.98% 1.18% 0.82% 0.56% 0.25%
MP Mixed Goal Conventional 90.24% 39.98% 3.17% 0.00% 0.00%

SA6 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SA14 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SA15 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MP Mixed Goal Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CARS MARKET PENETRATION

1 SA6 is the NEMS-TSA run with the default vehicle payback assumptions. SA14 is the NEMS-TSA run with the payback changed in just the Manufacturer Technology Choice Submodule

(MTCS). SA15 includes the payback change in the MTCS plus a change to the payback in the VCM (extending it to about

15 years).

### 273 TABLE D-5 Disaggregation of the Impact of Changes to VCM Variables



### Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fully Integrated Base Electric Vehicle 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%
NEMSA Base Electric Vehicle 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%
Fleet Shares to 1% Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Endogenous MM A Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

H2 Station Increase Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Mixed Fuel Prices Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Mixed Alternate Constants Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
NEMSA Mixed Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
40% Reduced Elec Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plug-in Avail (65%) Electric Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Mixed Goal EV 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fully Integrated Base Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 4.84% 4.83% 4.90% 5.96% 8.13%
NEMSA Base Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 4.85% 4.82% 4.77% 6.68% 8.20%
Fleet Shares to 1% Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 4.92% 4.90% 4.82% 7.04% 8.92% Endogenous MM A Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 7.41% 5.63% 6.58% 9.73% 10.59%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.13% 4.00% 3.34% 5.21% 4.49% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.13% 4.00% 3.34% 5.21% 4.49%

H2 Station Increase Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.13% 4.00% 3.30% 3.80% 2.40%
Mixed Fuel Prices Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 8.19% 4.10% 3.87% 9.32% 4.62%
Mixed Alternate Constants Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.16% 4.06% 3.36% 3.91% 2.88%
NEMSA Mixed Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.16% 4.06% 3.36% 3.91% 2.88%
40% Reduced Elec Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.16% 4.06% 3.33% 3.84% 2.84% Plug-in Avail (65%) Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE 9.16% 4.06% 3.33% 3.84% 2.82%
Mixed Goal E-85 FFV 5.70% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fully Integrated Base TDI Diesel ICE 0.45% 0.88% 1.76% 1.84% 1.73%
NEMSA Base TDI Diesel ICE 0.45% 0.89% 1.73% 1.81% 1.74%
Fleet Shares to 1% TDI Diesel ICE 0.58% 1.14% 2.16% 2.24% 2.17% Endogenous MM A TDI Diesel ICE 0.14% 0.10% 0.18% 0.22% 0.21%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes TDI Diesel ICE 0.18% 0.41% 0.54% 0.68% 0.67% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs TDI Diesel ICE 0.18% 0.41% 0.54% 0.68% 0.67%

H2 Station Increase TDI Diesel ICE 0.18% 0.41% 0.54% 0.52% 0.36%
Mixed Fuel Prices TDI Diesel ICE 0.16% 0.35% 0.37% 0.28% 0.21%
Mixed Alternate Constants TDI Diesel ICE 1.09% 23.24% 22.03% 20.87% 22.21%
NEMSA Mixed TDI Diesel ICE 1.09% 23.24% 22.03% 20.87% 22.21%
40% Reduced Elec TDI Diesel ICE 1.09% 23.24% 21.77% 20.42% 21.79% Plug-in Avail (65%) TDI Diesel ICE 1.09% 23.24% 21.77% 20.42% 21.62%
Mixed Goal Diesel 0.44% 9.20% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% Fully Integrated Base Adv Conventional Gasoline 6.02% 4.27% 2.20% 2.08% 1.96%
NEMSA Base Adv Conventional Gasoline 6.02% 4.25% 2.18% 2.03% 1.96%
Fleet Shares to 1% Adv Conventional Gasoline 7.38% 5.22% 2.68% 2.50% 2.41% Endogenous MM A Adv Conventional Gasoline 16.57% 24.77% 12.20% 11.32% 10.90%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.99% 28.57% 27.45% 26.06% 21.57% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.99% 28.57% 27.45% 26.06% 21.57%

H2 Station Increase Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.99% 28.57% 27.31% 19.96% 11.78%
Mixed Fuel Prices Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.98% 28.63% 27.41% 21.84% 13.44%
Mixed Alternate Constants Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.69% 12.80% 11.12% 11.03% 9.70%
NEMSA Mixed Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.69% 12.80% 11.12% 11.03% 9.70%
40% Reduced Elec Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.69% 12.80% 10.99% 10.80% 9.52% Plug-in Avail (65%) Adv Conventional Gasoline 1.69% 12.80% 10.99% 10.80% 9.44%
Mixed Goal ACVs 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 15.00% 10.00% CARS MARKET PENETRATION

### 274 TABLE D-5 (Cont.)



### Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fully Integrated Base Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 3.84% 6.62% 10.03% 14.05% 14.63% NEMSA Base Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 3.85% 6.93% 10.70% 14.67% 14.61% Fleet Shares to 1% Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 5.01% 8.62% 13.25% 18.21% 18.13% Endogenous MM A Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 9.87% 5.44% 6.38% 6.02% 5.98% Mixed Vehicle Attributes Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.33% 9.47% 7.13% 6.77% 5.73% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.33% 9.47% 7.13% 6.77% 5.73%

H2 Station Increase Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.33% 9.47% 7.09% 5.25% 3.34% Mixed Fuel Prices Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 16.24% 9.64% 7.52% 6.59% 4.22% Mixed Alternate Constants Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 22.52% 36.47% 32.80% 31.87% 29.72% NEMSA Mixed Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 22.52% 36.47% 32.80% 31.87% 29.72% 40% Reduced Elec Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 22.52% 36.47% 32.73% 31.80% 29.80% Plug-in Avail (65%) Electric-Gasoline Hybrid 22.52% 36.47% 32.73% 28.53% 26.04%
Mixed Goal SI HEV on Gasoline & SI HEV on E85/H2 3.57% 25.00% 30.00% 20.00% 15.00% Fully Integrated Base Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 0.09% 0.07% 0.04% 0.03% NEMSA Base Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 0.08% 0.06% 0.03% 0.03% Fleet Shares to 1% Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.02% 0.14% 0.10% 0.05% 0.05% Endogenous MM A Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.01% 10.60% 12.73% 13.56% 13.62% Mixed Vehicle Attributes Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 17.97% 22.00% 22.52% 19.01% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 17.97% 22.00% 22.52% 19.01%

H2 Station Increase Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 17.97% 21.90% 17.41% 10.99% Mixed Fuel Prices Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 16.65% 18.66% 14.74% 9.48% Mixed Alternate Constants Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NEMSA Mixed Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40% Reduced Elec Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plug-in Avail (65%) Electric-Diesel Hybrid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Mixed Goal Diesel HEV 0.02% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fully Integrated Base Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 1.24% 1.22% 0.89% 0.84% NEMSA Base Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 1.19% 1.14% 0.83% 0.84% Fleet Shares to 1% Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 1.46% 1.39% 1.01% 1.02% Endogenous MM A Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 1.41% 2.44% 2.40% 2.42% Mixed Vehicle Attributes Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.02% 3.15% 3.54% 3.15% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.02% 3.15% 3.54% 3.15%

H2 Station Increase Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.02% 3.14% 2.73% 1.80% Mixed Fuel Prices Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.02% 3.09% 2.80% 1.80% Mixed Alternate Constants Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.06% 9.74% 9.69% 9.22% NEMSA Mixed Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.06% 9.74% 9.69% 9.22% 40% Reduced Elec Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.06% 10.41% 10.89% 10.53% Plug-in Avail (65%) Plug-in Gasoline Hybrid 0.00% 0.06% 10.41% 14.15% 14.78%
Mixed Goal SI PHEV & Diesel PHEV 0.00% 0.31% 16.80% 34.50% 25.00% Fully Integrated Base Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NEMSA Base Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fleet Shares to 1% Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Endogenous MM A Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mixed Vehicle Attributes Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.44% 1.34% 7.11% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.44% 1.34% 7.11%

H2 Station Increase Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.58% 8.23% 18.04% Mixed Fuel Prices Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.48% 3.46% 13.21% Mixed Alternate Constants Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NEMSA Mixed Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40% Reduced Elec Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plug-in Avail (65%) Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mixed Goal Plug-in Fuel Cell Vehicle 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CARS MARKET PENETRATION

### 275 TABLE D-5 (Cont.)



### Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fully Integrated Base Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% NEMSA Base Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% Fleet Shares to 1% Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% Endogenous MM A Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% Mixed Vehicle Attributes Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 1.06% 2.58% 12.85% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 1.06% 2.58% 12.85%

H2 Station Increase Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 1.39% 16.67% 34.15% Mixed Fuel Prices Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 1.28% 8.50% 31.55% Mixed Alternate Constants Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.78% 2.37% 9.37% NEMSA Mixed Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.78% 2.37% 9.37% 40% Reduced Elec Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.77% 2.27% 8.81% Plug-in Avail (65%) Fuel Cell Hydrogen 0.00% 0.05% 0.77% 2.27% 8.68%
Mixed Goal Fuel Cell 0.00% 0.01% 0.03% 10.50% 30.00% Fully Integrated Base Gasoline ICE Vehicles 84.07% 81.25% 79.01% 74.29% 71.79%
NEMSA Base Gasoline ICE Vehicles 84.07% 81.02% 78.59% 73.09% 71.73%
Fleet Shares to 1% Gasoline ICE Vehicles 82.03% 78.40% 75.46% 68.77% 67.09% Endogenous MM A Gasoline ICE Vehicles 65.93% 51.69% 58.69% 55.61% 54.88%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes Gasoline ICE Vehicles 73.29% 39.28% 34.62% 30.82% 24.80% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Gasoline ICE Vehicles 73.29% 39.28% 34.62% 30.82% 24.80%

H2 Station Increase Gasoline ICE Vehicles 73.29% 39.28% 34.48% 25.07% 16.78%
Mixed Fuel Prices Gasoline ICE Vehicles 73.34% 40.33% 36.99% 31.74% 20.92%
Mixed Alternate Constants Gasoline ICE Vehicles 65.50% 23.29% 20.13% 20.22% 16.87%
NEMSA Mixed Gasoline ICE Vehicles 65.50% 23.29% 20.13% 20.22% 16.87%
40% Reduced Elec Gasoline ICE Vehicles 65.50% 23.29% 19.96% 19.94% 16.67% Plug-in Avail (65%) Gasoline ICE Vehicles 65.50% 23.29% 19.96% 19.94% 16.58%
Mixed Goal Conventional 90.24% 39.98% 3.17% 0.00% 0.00% Fully Integrated Base Other 0.72% 0.74% 0.75% 0.78% 0.82%
NEMSA Base Other 0.72% 0.74% 0.75% 0.78% 0.82%
Fleet Shares to 1% Other 0.06% 0.08% 0.09% 0.13% 0.18% Endogenous MM A Other 0.08% 0.31% 0.75% 1.10% 1.34%
Mixed Vehicle Attributes Other 0.08% 0.21% 0.27% 0.48% 0.61% Mixed Flex Fuel Inputs Other 0.08% 0.21% 0.27% 0.48% 0.61%

H2 Station Increase Other 0.08% 0.21% 0.27% 0.36% 0.35%
Mixed Fuel Prices Other 0.08% 0.23% 0.33% 0.72% 0.56%
Mixed Alternate Constants Other 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
NEMSA Mixed Other 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
40% Reduced Elec Other 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% Plug-in Avail (65%) Other 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Mixed Goal Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CARS MARKET PENETRATION

### 276 

### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

(A)CVs Diesel GHEV DHEV PHEV FC PFCV% Sales



### NEMS Default ~15years

FIGURE D-1 Market Penetration by Vehicle Payback Period: Example (Cars, Mixed Scenario, Literature Review Prices, 2050)



### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

(A)CVs Diesel GHEV DHEV PHEV FC PFCV% Sales



### NEMS Default ~15years

FIGURE D-2 Market Penetration by Vehicle Payback Period: Example (Cars, Mixed Scenario, Program Goals Prices, 2050)

### 277 

### APPENDIX E: OTHER NEMS-MP RESULTS FOR THE BASE CASE AND
SCENARIOS

ISSUED SEPARATELY AS PART OF THE MP STUDY.

### 278 

### This page is intentionally blank.

### 279 

### APPENDIX F: KEY LESSONS LEARNED FROM AND SIDE BENEFITS OF THE
MP STUDY

The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brie f statement of the key lessons learned from and side benefits of the Multi-Path Study.

F.1 LESSONS LEARNED

1. In developing sets of input assumptions (technology costs, vehicl e improvements, etc.) for futures analysis, it is very difficult to guarantee that the assumptions have a common basis. For example, when “expert teams” develop cost and performance assumptions for future vehicles and fuels, it is difficult to get every team member to understand the precise context for the assumptions (e.g., the level of optimism to be applied, the degree of government assistance that will likely be available, the amount of public support there will be for environmental goal s, the level of consumer en thusiasm about environmental performance, and so forth). It is equally difficult for each team member to then apply this “context” to the development of the assumpti ons. In addition, althoug h a literature review is a key source of information on which to base judgments about the assumptions, the
available literature ofte n does not provide sufficient detail about key factors affecting cost and performance estimates to allow good comp arisons to be made among competing estimates. For example, it is often not clear what level of optimism underlies the cost and performance estimates, what interest rate was used to develop annualized plant costs, and

so forth.

2. Vehicle price is the key determinant of vehi cle market penetration estimates in the NEMS model; thus, developing good vehicle price estim ates for input to the model is essential. Without such estimates, the market penetra tion estimates of a model like NEMS are of little value. Yet estimating future vehicle prices, particularly for advanced technologies, is very difficult (see 1 above). The vehicles must be characterized in detail, and component costs must be estimated as a f unction of time, research success, production volume, etc. Developing such estimates for all the technologies of interest to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (i.e., a dvanced gasoline vehicles, diesels, hybrids [both gasoline and diesel], fuel cell vehicles [FCVs], and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEVs] of various ranges) is likely to be time-consuming, and the estimates will inevitably be quite uncertain, especially those associated with technologies that have not yet been commercialized.

3. Even with the best vehicle price estimates possible, the market penetration estimates developed by NEMS should be regarded with great care. The default vehicle payback period in the NEMS Vehicle Choice Model (VCM) is short: 3–4 years. This payback period may well reflect recent consumer behavior, but it is not compatible with a future in which consumers highly value reduced oil use. A longer payback period would result in greater penetration of higher-priced ad vanced technology vehicles (ATVs).

### 280 

### In addition, changing the assumptions a bout two other components of the VCM in particular can cause great changes in market penetration estimates. First, NEMS provides
three methods to estimate the make and model availa bility of various vehicle technologies. These methods lead to differe nt market penetration estimates. Second, the value assigned to the “constant” (which is meant to capture the effects of variables that are left out of the vehicle choice equation or that are immeasurable) has great impact. Third, the default values in NEMS for ATVs are typically negative, which reduces their market penetration.

4. It takes a long time to conduct a technically sound study, particularly when NEMS is used. Phase 2 of the MP Study was started in January 2007; while progress reports were issued in the interim, a complete draft report on the vehicle characterization and scenario analysis was not completed until March 2009. There are many reasons, but these should be noted in particular:

• It took months to get PSAT results th at satisfied us and some months to develop credible vehicle cost (and subsequently price) estimates. These are key inputs to the NEMS model.

• The NEMS model had to be modified to address items we felt were necessary (i.e., the addition of fuel flexibility to various technologies, the charging of PHEVs at night and the assumption of residential electricity rates, and the incorporation of the new CAFE and RFS laws enacted in December 2007).
These modifications took effort and time.

• It took many runs of the NEMS-TSA model to develop the specific vehicle subsidies needed to generate the ATV market penetration in NEMS that we
wanted for our scenarios.

Unfortunately, the length of time required may lead to disinterest in the study on the part of those who want more “immediate” answers. Further, the delays create problems of
data “freshness.”

5. The large uncertainties associated with projections of future vehicle and fuel prices and performance imply that a considerable degree of sensitivity analysis should be conducted to allow information to be developed about how differences in the underlying assumptions about these prices and perform ance will change study results about the
overall costs and benefits of competing policies and technologies. Unfortunately, the use of complex and time-consuming models such as NEMS make s it very difficult to conduct adequate sensitivity analysis. Also, the complexity of NEMS makes it difficult to evaluate the robustness of study results (i.e., to determine the extent to which results may arise from quirks or weaknesses in the model rather than from robust analysis).

### 281 

### F.2 SIDE BENEFITS

1. The PSAT modelers are now paying more attention to having uniform performance requirements for the vehicles being evaluated.

2. The MP vehicle cost equati ons have been incorporated into PSAT so that PSAT can provide (and has provided) vehicle price estimates as well as miles-per-gallon (MPG) estimates for Program Decision Support (PDS)/Risk.

3. The method used in MP for allocating these co sts across six cars and six light truck (LT) categories was implemented for PDS10/Risk.

4. Some of the MP vehicle characteristics and other results were indirectly used in the McKinsey carbon abatement cost analysis. (McKinsey incorporated the PSD10/Risk vehicle price estimates into its analysis; the PDS10/Risk price estimates were largely based on MP.)

5. At least one change made to the embe dded NEMS assumptions for MP has been incorporated into the model runs for PDS/ Risk. Fleet vehicle c hoices are now being ignored because the NEMS fleet submodule does not include all the ATVs of interest to DOE; this aspect of the NEMS fleet s ubmodel was discovered by the MP team.

6. The stand-alone NEMS transpor t sector model developed for MP allows fast analysis of ATV market penetration with changing variab les (vehicle fuel economy, vehicle price, recharge availability, etc.). (Unfortuna tely, the model is tied to AEO 2007 inputs.)

7. We have an increased appreciation of the limitations of the NEMS model.

8. In response to MP concerns, PSAT modelers have improved the modeling of blended mode operation of plug-in hybrids, developing operating modes that reduce the distance needed to achieve battery depletion and that thus allow more daily miles to be

“electrified.”

### 282 

### This page is intentionally blank.Argonne National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC 

## Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 362 Argonne, IL 60439-4815

www.anl.gov