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 Division
Availability 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 Multiple 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 Stand-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 ........................................................................................................ 111 

6.6 Vehicle Make and Model Availability ....................................................................... 111 

6.7 Combined Effect of the Vehicle 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” Vehicle 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 CO2 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. CO2 Emissions............................................................................... 130 

7.1.8 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 130 

7.1.9 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Literature 

Review” Vehicle Prices and No Subsidies ..................................................... 131 

7.2 Scenarios with “Program Goals” Vehicle 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 CO2 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. CO2 Emissions............................................................................... 142 

7.2.8 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 142 

7.2.9 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with 

“Program Goals” Vehicle Prices and No Subsidies........................................ 143 

7.3 Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to “Literature Review” 

Vehicle Prices............................................................................................................. 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 CO2 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. CO2 Emissions............................................................................... 155 
vi 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

7.3.9 Gasoline Prices................................................................................................ 158 

7.3.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies .............................................................................. 158 

7.3.11 Concluding Remarks about Impacts of Scenarios with “Literature 

Review” Vehicle Prices Plus Subsidies .......................................................... 160 

7.4 Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to “Program Goals” 

Vehicle Prices............................................................................................................. 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 CO2 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. CO2 Emissions............................................................................... 171 

7.4.9 Gasoline Price ................................................................................................. 174 

7.4.10 Effectiveness of Subsidies .............................................................................. 174 

7.4.11 Concluding Remarks about Impacts 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 Security 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 ....................................................................................................... 215 

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 Used in NEMS-MP Model Runs.......................................... 235 

Appendix B: Preliminary Estimate of the Cost of Jump Starting 

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

Appendix C: Basis for Estimates of Full-Fuel-Cycle Co2

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

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

Appendix E: Other NEMS-MP Results for the Base Case and 

Scenarios (issued separately as part of the MP Study) ....................................... 277 

Appendix F: Key Lessons Learned 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 Midsize 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 CO2 Emissions Assuming 

Literature Review Vehicle Costs and No Government Subsidies ................................ 5 

ES-5 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions Assuming 

Program Goals Vehicle Costs and No Government Subsidies ..................................... 5 

ES-6 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions, Assuming 

Literature Review Vehicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies ...................... 6 

ES-7 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions, Assuming 

Program Goals Vehicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies ........................... 6 

B1-1 Graphical User Interface 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/gasoline or hydrogen-only mode)............................ 34 

3-2 Average Fuel Economy Values for Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars 

(unadjusted MPG; PHEVs in CS/gasoline or hydrogen-only mode)............................ 36 

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) ......................................... 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 (where 17.4% of miles for PHEV10s are 

electric, and 50.9% of miles for 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 (in 2008$), Program Goals Costs Case, 

High Fuel Economy ...................................................................................................... 51 

3-6a Midsize Car Drivetrain Costs (in 2008$), Literature Review 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 (in 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs) 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 Costs, for the $3.15/gallon Gasoline Price 

Case) Compared to a 2007 Conventional 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 Conventional 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 CO2 Equivalent .................................. 84 

3-17 Cost of GHG Reduction for 2030 Drivetrain Technologies in a Leading 

Edge Midsize Car, PG Vehicle Costs, $/ton of CO2 Equivalent .................................. 85 

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

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

7-2 2050 Sales Shares (Literature Review, 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 CO2 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. CO2 Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies) .............................................. 130 

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

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

7-12 2050 Sales Shares (Program Goals, 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 CO2 Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies) .......................... 139 

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

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

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

FIGURES (Cont.) 

7-19 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies) ................................................... 142 

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

7-21 2030 Sales Shares (Literature Review with Subsidies Scenarios)................................ 150 

7-22 2050 Sales Shares (Literature Review with Subsidies Scenarios)................................ 150 

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

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

7-25 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies) .................... 154 

7-26 Ethanol Use (Literature Review 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. CO2 Emissions (Literature Review with Subsidies)............................................. 158 

7-30 Gasoline Price Reduction from Base Case (Literature Review 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 CO2 Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies) ......................... 170 

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

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

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

7-40 U.S. CO2 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 Extrapolated 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 & Ethanol, 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 Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 191 

8-7 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent 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 Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Price .................................................................................................. 193 

8-10 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent 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 Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Production......................................................................................... 194 

8-13 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent 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 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).......... 201 

9-2 Leading Edge Midsize Car Retail Prices (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 Advanced 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 Costs, $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 Costs, $3.15/gallon Gasoline Fuel Price 

Scenario) Compared to a 2007 Conventional Drivetrain Midsize Car......................... 209 

9-7 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle Price 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 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) .......... 214 

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) .......... 215 

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

9-10 Vehicle Market Shares for 2050, Assuming “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 CO2 Emissions, “Literature Review” and “Program 

Goals” Cases ................................................................................................................. 223 

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/Transmission Efficiency Boost into Revised 

MPG Values for PSAT Output — “High Fuel Economy” Case .................................. 30 

B2-2 Translating Assumed Engine/Transmission 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 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.) .......................................................................................................... 64

3-14 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle 

Costs, $4.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 88 

3-15 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle 

Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 89 

3-16 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle 

Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 89 

3-17 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Literature Review Vehicle 

Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 90 

3-18 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle 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 Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle 

Costs, $3.15 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 91 

3-20 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle 

Costs, $2.50 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 91 

3-21 Fuel Savings Minus Change in Vehicle Price (Program Goals Vehicle 

Costs, $2.00 Gasoline Price Case Referenced to a 2007 Midsize Car) ........................ 92 

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).................................................................................................................. 92 

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).................................................................................................................. 93 

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).................................................................................................................. 93 

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).................................................................................................................. 94 

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)........................................................................................... 94 

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)........................................................................................... 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 Reference Case to Develop MP Base Case........... 100 

5-3 Selected “Base Case” 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 Economy 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 Prices without Subsidies.................................................... 119 

7-2 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock in Base Case and Scenarios Using 

Literature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies.................................................... 122 

7-3 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions of Base Case and 

Scenarios Using Literature Review Vehicle Prices without Subsidies......................... 124 

7-4 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO2, and Gasoline Price Results for Base 

Case and Scenarios Using Literature 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 Stock in Base Case and Scenarios Using 

Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies......................................................... 135 

7-7 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions of Base 

Case and Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices without Subsidies.............. 137 

7-8 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO2, 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 and 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 Literature Review Vehicle Prices ............................ 149 

7-13 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock in Base Case and Scenarios with Selected 

Vehicle Subsidies in Addition to Literature Review Vehicle Prices ............................ 151 

7-14 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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, CO2, 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 Program Goals Cases vs. Scenario Goals...................... 162 

7-18 Vehicle Subsidies in Scenarios Using Program Goals Vehicle Prices 

Plus Subsidies ............................................................................................................... 162 

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 Stock 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 CO2 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, CO2, 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 Scenarios 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 CO2 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 “Literature 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 “Literature Review” Vehicle Prices)............... 184 

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

8-5 Estimated Oil Security Benefits 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, CO2 Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using 

Literature Review Vehicle Prices ................................................................................. 224 

9-5 U.S. Oil Use, CO2 Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios Using 

Program Goals Vehicle Prices ...................................................................................... 225 

9-6 U.S. Oil Use, CO2 Emissions, and Gasoline Price for Scenarios 

Incorporating Selected Subsidies along with Literature Review Vehicle Prices.......... 226 

9-7 U.S. Oil Use, CO2 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. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Vehicle Technologies Program 

sponsored this study, with additional financial support from the Hydrogen, 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 and K.G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental 

Analysis, Inc., assisted the study team in developing 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 University of Maine gave valuable advice to the study 

team about estimating carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG) costs. 

Aymeric Rousseau, Phil Sharer, and Sylvain Pagerit of Argonne National Laboratory’s Center 

for Transportation Research conducted the vehicle 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. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Aaron Brooker, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

• Andreas Schäfer, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom 

• Alicia Birky, TA Engineering 

• John German, American Honda (now with 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 meet. In 2007, the standards were raised 

such that MPG targets will improve by 40% by 2020. 

CNG compressed natural gas 

CI compression ignited (diesel) 

CO2 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 Performance and Results Act 

GUI graphical user interface 

H2 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 Institute of Technology 

MMA make and model availability 

MMTCO2e 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 suggested 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 Decision Support (or EERE) version of the NEMS model 

NEMS-TSA NEMS Transportation 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 scenario 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 relative 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 attempted 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 projections, 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 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 high 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 dependent on assumptions about future vehicle 

sales and stock, driving intensity, on-road vs. test fuel economy, and other determinants 

of fleet energy use – especially considering the 40+-year interval to the year 2050. For 

example, an alternative “Base Case” projection 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 based 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 stock 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 emissions — requires recognizing 

some basic relationships: 

a. Since about 1987, virtually all technical improvements 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 performance or other vehicle attributes — but 

this assumption is in defiance of trends over 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 marginal attractiveness compared to its 

competitors – not on its absolute advantage 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 hybrids [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 effective 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 conventional 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 effectiveness1

 of the SI Full HEV is as high or higher than 

any of the more advanced drivetrain vehicles at all three discount rates. This relationship 

holds for a broad range of fuel prices. On the other hand, at technology cost levels based 

on U.S. Department of Energy (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 drivetrains look especially attractive, although this 

finding is primarily because DOE goals for these drivetrains are quite aggressive. 

 

1

 Lifetime fuel savings minus the differential in vehicle sales price, referenced to today’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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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 vehicles with hybrid powertrains are not 

cost-effective for an average individual purchaser (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 vehicle 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, $/gallon

Fuel Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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 effectiveness of individual vehicles imply that, 

without strong government intervention, successful technology development would 

tend to favor “lower-level” drivetrain technologies — 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. Using the “literature review” technology costs 

and assuming relatively high oil prices (about $100/bbl in 2030), reduced prices for 

ethanol and hydrogen, and essentially no change in consumer behavior regarding future 

fuel savings (but an easing of consumer 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 PHEV40s2

 or FCVs. For three different vehicle technology scenarios 

(“Mixed,” “(P)HEV & Ethanol,” and “Hydrogen [H2] Success”), these fleet changes 

reduce projected 2050 levels of light-vehicle (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 (CO2) emissions by 13–19% compared to the baseline (which assumes less 

progress in technology costs and performance). 

8. Greater success in reducing technology costs – 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 CO2 emissions of about 

25% (Figure ES-5). Reductions in CO2 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 higher fuel prices, were not incorporated in the scenario 

analyses because the version of the NEMS model used in this 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

FIGURE ES-4 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH

PG

H2 Success PG

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH

PG

H2 Success PG

FIGURE ES-5 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions Assuming 

Program Goals Vehicle Costs and No Government Subsidies 

not considered, and hydrogen production feedstock sources in 2050 include substantial 

quantities of natural gas and coal (although some coal-based CO2 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 advanced drivetrain vehicles, with 2050 LV oil 

use reduced (when compared to the Base Case) by about 5 mbpd (42–45%), and LV fuel 

cycle CO2 emissions reduced by about 22% for the (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, considerably smaller subsidies than those needed in 

the “literature review” cost case — a maximum 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 CO2

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 CO2 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

LRwS

H2 Success

LRwS

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

LRwS

H2 Success

LRwS

FIGURE ES-6 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

FIGURE ES-7 Light Vehicle Oil Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions, Assuming 

Program Goals Vehicle Costs Plus Selected Government Subsidies 

subsidies, in $/bbl of oil saved and $/ton of CO2 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 CO2 if the costs are attributed to reducing CO2 only.4

10. The above results were derived by using a Vehicle Choice Model (VCM) in NEMS that 

is based on our current understanding of consumer behavior. Future changes in 

consumer behavior — especially in how they value future fuel savings – could have 

a dramatic impact on technology penetration and thus on future oil use and CO2

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 cause a “jump” in the 2050 passenger car share 

of SI PHEV40s and FCVs from negligible levels to about 10% each. 

11. The results of the scenarios, especially those with strong vehicle subsidies, may appear 

quite disappointing compared to scenario results 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 pollutants. 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. assumptions-driven results. Many studies have assumed 

high levels of technology 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 embedded 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). Future changes in consumer behavior are 

certainly possible. 

• Feedstock sources for alternative fuels. Several studies have assumed that, 

by 2050, the electricity for PHEVs and the hydrogen for FCVs are both 

supplied solely by renewable sources, so that GHG emissions for these 

vehicles are zero or are greatly reduced. This study did not consider radical 

changes to the electric grid, and hydrogen feedstock supply sources are a 

combination of natural gas, 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 constructing 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 their associated fuels and fuel production systems, with changes 

over time as technologies develop) and scenarios (visions of substantial 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 (CO2) 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 Applicable 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 with other modes (e.g., non-motorized [walking and 

bicycling]) and mass transit, the effect on travel 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 technology trends generally track those in the United States, although 

Europe has a greater focus on diesel-based drivetrains. Efforts to increase mass transit and nonmotorized travel generally are stronger 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 instability and global warming vary across scenarios 

depending on both varying outcomes of energy research 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 explicitly 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 the model simulations, each technology attains the 

same level of technological success in each scenario. The advances anticipated are described 

briefly below and discussed further in Chapter 3. 

Gasoline engines. Gasoline engines evolve substantially toward the efficiency of diesels, with 

enabling technologies such as camless valves, direct 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 emissions based primarily on fuel quality and 

improvement in fuel injection systems and cylinder 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 model; the modeled scenarios attain technology 

mixes that are somewhat different from those of the hypothetical scenarios. 

2.2.1 Mixed Scenario 

In this scenario, government policy avoids picking “winners,” vehicle technology has advanced 

along a broad front, and no particular technology has become dominant. After some vehicle 

manufacturers introduce diesel vehicles 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 14.00 

Diesel (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 reduction controls in 2009, diesels quickly 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 costs. 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 establish a strong presence in larger cities, market 

penetration is less extensive in rural areas and smaller 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 technologies and ethanol use for the Mixed Scenario in 

the long term. The advanced technology 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 characterized 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 purchase 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 combustion engine (ICE)-based vehicles, and they 

experience no major product failures, quickly obtaining 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 new LV sales by 2030, eventually reaching 76% by 

2050. 

Table 2-1 presents what we consider to be a likely 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 early successes in reducing the cost of cellulosic 

ethanol, enable the country to come close to meeting the aggressive RFS passed by Congress in 

December 2007. Ethanol use rises quickly. At the same 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 ethanol availability convinces automakers to produce 

more flex-fuel vehicles, and by 2020 virtually 100% 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 technologies and ethanol use for the (P)HEV & 

Ethanol scenario over the long term. Fewer advanced 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 characteristics — 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 vehicle fuel economy, cost, and other characteristics are useful by 

themselves in evaluating vehicle/fuel pathways and also serve 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 technology combination embodied by the pathway. This 

approach may lead to “competing” vehicles being quite different from one another. Pathways 

with low energy density fuels (hydrogen or electricity) 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 load 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 the financial costs of more powerful drivetrain 

components as well as the effects of volumetric requirements for larger fuel tanks and other 

components — may vary sharply between alternative pathways; this result might yield different 

minimum range requirements or minimum required 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 substantial analytical difficulties because of large 

uncertainties in the estimated costs, specific levels of power (or energy), and power (or energy) 

densities of future drivetrain technologies 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 instead 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 miles5), 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 differences 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, materials development, and other factors change. 

The vehicles modeled are considered “leading edge” vehicles — vehicles that are “best in class” 

for fuel economy and use technology newly introduced or newly updated — and which are 

assumed to be introduced to the fleet in limited numbers6 at the modeled date. The overall 

vehicle designs, technology performance, and cost assumptions are based on technological 

optimism and an assumed strong design preference for fuel economy over 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 strong 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 values 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 into “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 technologies — and easier to elicit expert 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 performance assumptions used were derived from available literature on 

future vehicle performance, with considerable weight given to the following: studies by the 

Energy Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (e.g., Weiss 2000 and various 

updates to that study, such as Kromer and 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 (using the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit 

[PSAT] model discussed below); 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 goals 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/technology/date combination, we designate two sets 

of component performance and fuel economy results — “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 implies 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 performance 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 optimize 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 automotive 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, calculating 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 including 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 performance on the two U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) driving cycles used to establish compliance with CAFE Standards — the city 

cycle (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule [UDDS]) and highway cycle (Highway Fuel 

Economy Test [HWFET]). While it would be desirable 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 the performance requirements, which are also 

applied to all vehicle types. 

TABLE 3-1 Component Assumptions for Leading Edge Vehicles 

Med High Med High Med High Med High

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

SINGLE GEAR (FINAL DRIVE...)

2010 2015 2030 2045

DI DIESEL OR OTHER HC FUEL

DI GASOLINE

Parameter Current

FUEL CELL

ELECTRIC MOTOR

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% efficiency level will likely also require advances 

in in-cylinder monitoring and control, possibly 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 System Efficiency 

Current fuel cell systems achieve a peak efficiency of about 55%, generally at low load 

conditions. The 2010 peak efficiency of 60% matches 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 cell efficiency for its benefits analysis projects 

a 2045 peak efficiency rate of 60%. Achieving the higher efficiencies in the later years 

(e.g., 65–70% in 2045) will require very substantial progress in reducing auxiliary loads, as well 

as continuing progress in stack efficiency. Although an earlier Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT) study (Heywood et al. 2003) projected a 71% system efficiency for an 

“advanced” fuel cell vehicle in 2020, more recent 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 applied to conventional vehicles would seriously 

compromise other consumer values (e.g., cost, space) when applied to an alternative drivetrain 

vehicle, there would be strong pressure to relax 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 over 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 view of projecting potential future fuel economy 

levels, although the “constant performance” assumption is widely used in such analyses. 

However, recent market conditions characterized 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 Regarding 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 [m2], 

Tire = P195_65_R15) 

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(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 projected 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 targeted 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 reduction reflects the assumption 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 reductions in the use of four-wheel and all-wheel 

drive (for vehicles not designed for off-road travel) as universal adoption of electronic traction 

and stability control reduces the perceived value of these expensive and weight-adding features. 

Although the glider does not include the drivetrain, 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 glider 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 reward increased fuel economy. 

3.2.4.2 Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient 

Although the EPA does not publish data on the aerodynamic drag coefficient of the U.S. fleet, a 

drag coefficient of 0.3 is thought to be representative of the current fleet average for passenger 

cars. There are, however, several examples of substantially lower coefficients in the fleet for 

midsized or slightly larger models. For example, 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 coefficient is assumed to decrease gradually to 

0.20 by 2045, which implies drag-reduction measures 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 (CRR), 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, this 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 “advanced” 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 trends — 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 decline sharply over time. In addition, accessory loads 

from lighting will decline with the use of liquid crystal display (LCD) lighting, if costs for this 

type of lighting can be sharply reduced. Other accessory loads, however, may increase. 
27 

3.2.5 Crossover SUV Assumptions 

Crossover SUVs are adapted from passenger car models and have unibody construction, in 

contrast to truck-based SUVs (usually adapted from pickup models) that have body-on-frame 

construction. In essence, they are similar to station 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 crossover 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 m2, Tire = P235_65_R16) 

Glider mass 

reduction (%) 

0 5 10 10 20 15 30 15 30 

Frontal area (m2) 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 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 will be used, 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 CD 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 indicate further downside potential, it was unclear whether this 

vehicle should be considered a true crossover SUV, and its CD value was therefore disregarded in 

the projection. 

3.2.6 Midsize SUV Assumptions 

This vehicle type is built on a robust truck frame 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 passenger 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 m2, Tire = P235_70_R16) 

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

Frontal area (m2) 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 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 will be used, 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 model to project the fuel economy of future advanced vehicles 

represents an opportunity to evaluate and compare these vehicles with improved accuracy. 

However, there are significant sources of uncertainty 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 with vehicle efficiency — the variables describing vehicle loads 

(e.g., coefficients of aerodynamic drag and rolling 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 the modeling, particularly those associated with 

vehicle loads (CD, CR, and percentage of weight 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 industry, 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 industry predictions that SI engines will become more “diesel-like” in 

the future, with converging efficiencies between 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 surfaces of the map’s constant-fuel consumption 

contours so that engine operation away from the 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 conventional SI drivetrains indicates that the 

estimated average increases in engine efficiency over the combined EPA driving cycles are 

considerably lower than projected by industry sources. 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 engines 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 virtually 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 low when compared to recent industry claims about 

both current transmissions (e.g., 6- to 8-speed transmissions 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; these 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 

vehicle1

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 the set of “Average Fuel Economy” vehicles, which 

represent somewhat lower expectations for improvements 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/Transmission 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 

vehicle1 

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 running 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 provides 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 designs 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 drivetrain, both in selecting power levels of the individual components 

(engine, battery, and motor) and in balancing use of the engine, battery, and motor in providing 

energy and powering the wheels. The task becomes even more complex when designing a plugin hybrid, because concerns about battery longevity strongly enter the design process. For the 

Multi-Path Study, singular solutions to designing the vehicle components and the drivetrain 

control strategy are selected; the effect of different solutions on fuel economy (as well as cost 

and other factors) is an area well worth further investigation. The result of using singular design 

solutions has led to some odd fuel economy results among the various hybrid vehicles, and 

clearly it would be advantageous — although expensive — 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 energy 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 charge 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 power 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 the basis of the advice of analysts who have 

examined PHEVs, however, our concept of PHEV 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 engine 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 discharge, 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) and battery (i.e., for a fixed energy storage 

requirement, demanding high power raises battery cost). 

This blended concept introduces considerable variability 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 engine to be operated at higher power levels than 

required merely to satisfy load requirements, which 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 some 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 blended 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 advanced vehicles, because the original method 

(including adjustments) was based on data on conventional vehicles. 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 effects that use of accessories 

(especially air conditioning) and aggressive driving 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 two-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 for 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 the results for the SI conventional drivetrain 

corrected to account for engine improvements not fully 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 operation (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 midsize passenger car from combined fuel and 

electricity usage, for the sake of comparison. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 graphically 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 hybrid drivetrains or diesel (compression 
34 

TABLE 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) 

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 2045

Fuel 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 past trends, still optimistic) assumptions 

about engine improvements and the extent to which higher fuel economy will 

be preferred over other vehicle attributes, fuel economy improvements of 25% 

to 30% might be expected for non-hybridized SI drivetrains. This level of 

improvement would fall short of that needed to satisfy the new CAFE 
35 

standards (35 MPG for the combined car 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 components 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 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 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 portion of daily operation. In gasolineequivalent terms (i.e., valuing each kilowatt-hour [kWh] of electricity as 

3,413 British thermal units [BTUs], or about 34 kWh per gallon of gasoline 

equivalent [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,9

yielding a five-fold or higher reduction 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 2045

Fuel 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 Leading Edge Midsize Passenger Cars (unadjusted 

MPG; PHEVs in CS/gasoline or hydrogen-only mode) 

TABLE 3-7 PSAT Fuel Economy Results for Leading 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 2045

Fuel 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 2045

Fuel 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 Leading 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 Leading Edge 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 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 Vehicle 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 technologies in several target 

years. For the study’s economic analyses, which use the NEMS model, it is necessary to translate 

this limited set of results into the format demanded by the model: fuel 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 — namely, 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 values 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 the 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 average 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 already 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 technology (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 vehicles with technologies that have yet to be 

commercialized and are undergoing rapid design changes are highly uncertain and controversial. 

Further, even currently available technologies may undergo substantial 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 sufficiently low to allow commercialization. 

• Effects of learning and scale in mass production. Although “learning 

curves” have been developed that forecast cost reductions for each doubling 

of production, these curves are based on data from a subset of successful 

products rather than from the full range 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 new technologies will 

follow the same path. 

• Unpredictable changes in material costs. Such materials could include 

platinum catalyst material, 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 technologies 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 affect costs significantly. This analysis does not 

attempt to directly capture this effect except 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 production 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 cost equations that include scale factors and use feedback 

loops that tie cost reductions directly to the projected volume of production. This level of 

sophistication is not used here. Instead, two cost 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 based on a literature review of recent publications 

and discussion with analysts familiar with the technologies. 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 allow 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 Uniform 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 different powertrain and body-in-white options for 

advanced technology vehicles (Das 2004, 2005; Rousseau et al. 2005). 

In the cost calculation, the costs of glider and drivetrain components discussed 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 (research, 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. Other 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 definitions 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 estimate of approximately US$120 would, by late 

May 2009, be valued at nearly US$138; it is not clear what the most appropriate 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 and 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 drivetrain component and vehicle curb weight estimates 

from PSAT), aerodynamic improvements (including items such as camera replacements for 

outside mirrors for large reductions in CD), 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 part of the normal improvement 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 body and then the chassis as defined in ASCM, 

coupled with extensive structural redesign. Secondary 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 desired glider mass. Assuming a conventional steel 

unibody as the baseline vehicle body-in-white, lightweight material options, such as ultralight 

steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber-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 for 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 components, 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 glider 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 equivalent to about a 15% weight reduction, as costing about 250 to 

500 pounds sterling, or about $500 to $1,000 at 2008 conversion 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 and a combination of vehicle redesign 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 attributes (e.g., structural stiffness) 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 characteristics such as power, energy storage capacity, 

etc.) obtained from the PSAT model runs. The 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 drivetrain 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 “series/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 compete 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 marketplace (e.g., hybrid drivetrains) or those not yet 
44 

TABLE 3-10 Major Assumptions for Advanced Technology Vehicle Cost Estimation: Vehicle Component Cost TarPrice, 2008$) Notes: The LR estimate reflects an optimistic outlook based on literature review and interviews with experts; PG estimatand reflects LR estimates plus DOE and Advanced Battery Consortium goals, assuming that achievement of cos

manufactured products 5 years later. Some of these goals reflect perceived market requirements rather than engineering jmay 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).

2010 2015 2030 

Parameter/ 

Cost Case Current LR PG FC Goal LR PG FC Goal LR PG 

SI Engine1 ($) 

300+275×n+

3×kW 

315+290×n+

3× kW 

300+275×n+

3× kW 

 345+315×n+

2.75× kW 

330+300×n+

2.75× kW 

 375+345×n+

2.7× kW 

360+330×n+

2.7× kW 

CI Engine2

($/kW) 

600+550×n+

3× kW 

630+575×n+

3×kW 

600+550×n+

3×kW 

 660+605×n+

2.75× kW 

600+550×n+

2.75× kW 

 690+630×n+

2.75× kW 

600+550×n+

2.7× kW 

Fuel Cell3

($/kW) 

108 108 67 45 67 45 45 52 30 

Hydrogen Storage4

($/kWh) 

15 15 10 4 14 4 2 13 2 

SI Emissions Control5 ($/kW) 

4 4 4 4 4 4.5 4 

CI Emissions Control6 ($) 

7 9 7 8 6 6 5 

High Voltage Battery7: HEV ($/kW max. power) 

60 55 40 25 50 25 25 38 20 

PHEV10 ($/rated kWh) 

1,100 1,000 587 350 587 367 440 180 
45 

TABLE 3-10 (Cont.) 

2010 2015 2030 

Parameter/ 

Cost Case Current LR PG FC Goal LR PG FC Goal LR PG 

PHEV40 ($/rated kWh) 

900 800 480 350 500 300 375 160 

BEV ($/rated kWh) 

750 675 400 450 250 325 150 

Motor 8($/kW) 13 13 11.1 11.1 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 Electronics9

($/kW) 

12 12 7.9 7.9 5.75 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 

Transmission (above 5-speed automatic transmission [AT]) 

Assume $100 incremental cost for advanced transmissions (assuming cost reductions over time will allow moving 

transmissions at no additional cost except for the first $100 increment) 

1,2 Engine cost estimates based on meeting of December 19, 2008 and e-mail communication of January 7, 2008 with K.G. Duleep, L. Cheah, C. E

Heywood, (2007), Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M

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 subadded in in-cylinder monitoring and valve control, moving toward multiple cycle operation (ultimately toward HCCI operation under low- and 

engines will be improved by the addition of higher pressure fuel injection and possibly sequential turbocharging; long-term costs are perhaps moand 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. 

3 Fuel 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 

management, and other necessary functions, such as water management). The current fuel cell system is based on $108/kW for fuel cell stack an

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 after the targ

assumed 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). 

4 PG scenario denotes meeting the FreedomCAR goal, but is delayed by 5 years for actual implementation as assumed in the case of a complete fue

The LR scenario denotes that no significant reduction in hydrogen storage cost is anticipated until 2030 as indicated by Kalhammer (2007) and K

5 Exhaust system includes emissions control electronics and estimates based on e-mail communication with K.G. Duleep on January 7, 2008. Cos

do not change until 2030, when additional costs of aftertreatment systems for lean-burn engines have been included. The PG scenario assum

change in cost as HCCI engines will be used. 

6 Estimates provided by K.G. Duleep on January 7, 2008. The cost differential between the gasoline and diesel exhaust systems is assumed to decr
46 

TABLE 3-10 (Cont.) 

7 Includes battery auxiliaries (i.e., box, accessories, wiring, and cooling system) and assembly cost. Li-ion batteries are assumed to be used, and P

on applying approximately the same multiplicative factors to the current BEV cost estimate. Battery cost increases with a reduction in cecontributions 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. The PG scenario of $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 estimatsame as those assumed under the 2010 PG scenario. The 2030 LR estimates for HEV are based on “Baseline” scenario assumptions by Kromer athe estimates for BEV are based on e-mail communication with M. Anderman on January 7, 2008. 

8,9 Based 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. Duleep on Janua

assumes 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 a sugge

conference 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 sophisticated electronic controls, valve control systems, and so forth. In 

contrast, costs for new technologies are assumed 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 conventional drivetrains should also be considered 

optimistic, since industry has asserted that attainment of the National 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 substantial drivetrain cost increases. 

3.3.4.1 Spark-ignition and Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 

Costs for these engines vary strongly with cylinder count — a key determinant of the number of 

highly machined and high-value engine components — 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 value 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 continue 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 Heywood (2007) estimate that, for a similar midsize 

car, a 2030 advanced gasoline engine (with direct 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 stoichiometric 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 associated 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 EUCAR (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, although a shift to lean-burn operation (to achieve 

further reductions in fuel use) will require added NOx controls. This possibility is reflected in the 

small cost increases for 2030 and 2045, although progress in NOx 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 improvements in engine design and reductions in 

engine-out emissions will eventually drive costs below today’s levels — although further 

tightening of emissions requirements as technology 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 complicate 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 commercialization”; 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 extremely 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 drivetrain 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 Heywood 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 achieving cost reductions in traction 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 motor/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 drivetrain is $2,230 (LR scenario)/$1,480 (PG scenario) 
50 

for the 2010 cost, while the 2010 incremental 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 scenario)/$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 hybrid 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 Heywood (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 leading 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 types. Tables 3-11a through 3-11f display the 

complete LR and PG costs case results for 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 drivetrains (those not yet introduced except for a 

few demonstration vehicles) will be high 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 — vehicles manufactured in numbers of a few 

hundreds or even a few thousands will cost considerably 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 this 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

Ref 2010 2015 2030 2045

Retail 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 2045

Retail 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 2045

Manufacturing 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 Costs (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 2045

Manufacturing 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 Costs (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 development history of both technologies. The 

difference between the two technologies could 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 infrastructure 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. 
53 

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

LITERATURE REVIEW COST CASE FOR 2015

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC P

Engine $1,761 $1,892 $3,360 $1,806 $1,806 $1,817 $3,271 $3,286 $3,292 $0 Fuel Cell $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,527 $Generator $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Motor $0 $0 $0 $208 $490 $504 $209 $338 $351 $827 $Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $149 $352 $362 $150 $243 $253 $595 $Transmission $1,200 $1,277 $1,273 $1,269 $1,325 $1,330 $1,263 $1,296 $1,301 $686 $High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $1,309 $1,666 $5,526 $1,309 $1,714 $5,645 $1,224 $Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $1,220 $Exhaust $481 $418 $814 $293 $300 $300 $555 $599 $599 $0 Drivetrain* $4,616 $4,761 $6,621 $6,208 $7,113 $11,013 $7,931 $8,650 $12,615 $10,877 $1Glider Cost $9,955 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $1Vehicle Cost $14,571 $15,560 $17,420 $17,007 $17,912 $21,812 $18,730 $19,449 $23,414 $21,676 $2Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $23,340 $26,130 $25,511 $26,868 $32,718 $28,095 $29,174 $35,121 $32,514 $3VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 104,454 101,700 73,225 75,100 77,122 69,362 74,908 77,036 0 

Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,491 6Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 25,968 61,302 62,955 26,153 42,257 43,934 103,393 10High Voltage Energy Storage C W or Wh 0 0 0 839 2,838 11,053 839 2,920 11,290 784 3

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1,267 1,307 1,288 1,329 1,389 1,334 1,355 1,416 1,350 1

Glider Mass kg 990 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-volt (V) battery, wheels, and tires. 
54 

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

PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 2015

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC P

Engine $1,761 $1,817 $3,080 $1,731 $1,737 $1,742 $2,991 $3,006 $3,012 $0 Fuel Cell $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $Generator $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Motor $0 $0 $0 $182 $429 $441 $183 $296 $308 $724 $Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $130 $307 $315 $131 $211 $220 $517 $Transmission $1,200 $1,277 $1,273 $1,269 $1,325 $1,330 $1,263 $1,296 $1,301 $686 $High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $654 $1,041 $3,316 $654 $1,072 $3,387 $612 $Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $488 $Exhaust $481 $418 $610 $418 $300 $308 $416 $416 $416 $0 Drivetrain* $4,616 $4,686 $6,137 $5,558 $6,313 $8,626 $6,812 $7,471 $9,818 $7,537 $Glider Cost $9,955 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $10,799 $1Vehicle Cost $14,571 $15,485 $16,936 $16,357 $17,112 $19,425 $17,611 $18,270 $20,617 $18,336 $1Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $23,228 $25,404 $24,536 $25,668 $29,138 $26,417 $27,405 $30,926 $27,504 $2VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 104,454 101,700 73,225 75,100 77,122 69,362 74,908 77,036 0 

Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,491 6Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 25,968 61,302 62,955 26,153 42,257 43,934 103,393 10High Voltage Energy Storage C W or Wh 0 0 0 839 2,838 11,053 839 2,920 11,290 784 3

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1,267 1,307 1,288 1,329 1,389 1,334 1,355 1,416 1,350 1

Glider Mass kg 990 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 792 

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires. 
55 

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

LITERATURE REVIEW COST CASE FOR 2030

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC 

Engine $1,761 $2,017 $3,462 $1,937 $1,942 $1,947 $3,382 $3,396 $3,401 $0 Fuel Cell $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3925 Generator $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motor $0 0 0 167 401 415 170 275 285 698 Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $119 $287 $296 $122 $196 $204 $498 

Transmission $1,200 $1,266 $1,266 $1,257 $1,310 $1,315 $1,252 $1,252 $1,287 $675 High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $908 $1,111 $3,677 $930 $1,146 $3,774 $843 $

Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $1,300 $Exhaust $481 $437 $560 $437 $437 $437 $383 $414 $425 $0 

Drivetrain* $4,616 $4,894 $6,462 $5,999 $6,662 $9,261 $7,413 $7,853 $10,550 $8,737 $Glider Cost $9,955 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $11,266 $Vehicle Cost $14,571 $16,160 $17,728 $17,265 $17,928 $20,527 $18,679 $19,119 $21,816 $20,003 $1Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $24,240 $26,592 $25,898 $26,892 $30,791 $28,019 $28,679 $32,724 $30,005 $VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 97102 93302 67393 69209 70986 63870 69000 70891 0 Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75476 6Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 23902 57343 59220 24471 39259 40737 99678 9High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh 0 0 0 766 2526 9806 784 2604 10064 22195 

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1163 1204 1178 1215 1269 1228 1245 1300 1217 

Glider Mass kg 990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires. 
56 

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

PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 2030

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC 

Engine $1,761 $1,942 $3,052 $1,862 $1,867 $1,867 $2,972 $2,986 $2,991 $0 Fuel Cell $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2264 Generator $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Motor $0 0 0 96 229 237 97 157 163 399 

Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $72 $172 $178 $73 $118 $122 $299 

Transmission $1,200 $1,266 $1,260 $1,257 $1,310 $1,315 $1,252 $1,282 $1,287 $675 High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $478 $455 $1,569 $489 $469 $1,610 $444 Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $200 Exhaust $481 $388 $467 $388 $388 $388 $319 $345 $354 $0 

Drivetrain* $4,616 $4,770 $5,953 $5,327 $5,595 $6,728 $6,376 $6,531 $7,701 $5,079 $Glider Cost $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $9,955 $

Vehicle Cost $14,571 $14,725 $15,908 $15,282 $15,550 $16,683 $16,331 $16,486 $17,656 $15,034 $1Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $24,054 $25,829 $24,890 $25,292 $26,991 $26,463 $25,992 $28,451 $24,518 $VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 97102 93302 67393 69209 70986 63870 69000 70891 0 Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75476 6Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 23902 57343 59220 24471 39259 40737 99678 9High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh 0 0 0 766 2526 9806 784 2604 10064 22195 

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1163 1204 1178 1215 1269 1228 1245 1300 1217 

Glider Mass kg 990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires. 
57 

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

LITERATURE REVIEW COST CASE FOR 2045

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC P

Engine $1,761 $2,016 $3,462 $1,937 $1,938 $1,943 $3,379 $3,393 $3,398 $0 Fuel Cell $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,751 $3Generator $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Motor $0 $0 $0 $168 $396 $412 $169 $274 $284 $694 $Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $120 $283 $294 $121 $195 $203 $496 $Transmission $1,200 $1,265 $1,260 $1,257 $1,307 $1,307 $1,250 $1,250 $1,285 $671 $High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $857 $894 $2,830 $857 $919 $2,912 $777 $1Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $890 $Exhaust $481 $411 $467 $286 $289 $296 $314 $339 $348 $0 Drivetrain* $4,616 4866 6363 5799 6281 8256 7264 7544 9604 8077 7Glider Cost $9,955 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11Vehicle Cost $14,571 $16,132 $17,629 $17,065 $17,547 $19,522 $18,530 $18,810 $20,870 $19,343 $18Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $24,198 $26,444 $25,598 $26,321 $29,283 $27,795 $28,215 $31,305 $29,015 $28VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 96659 93302 67260 67901 69644 62735 67831 69619 0 Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72126 58Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 24471 56592 58875 24471 39076 40508 22195 99High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh 0 0 0 784 2435 9432 784 2504 9708 711 3

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1163 1204 1178 1208 1261 1225 1242 1294 1200 1

Glider Mass kg 990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 6

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires. 
58 

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

PROGRAM GOALS COST CASE FOR 2045

2007

COSTS Reference SI Adv SI Adv CI SI HEV SI PHEV10 SI PHEV40 CI HEV CI PHEV10 CI PHEV40 FC HEV FC P

Engine $1,761 $1,941 $3,052 $1,862 $1,863 $1,868 $2,969 $2,983 $2,988 $0 Fuel Cell $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,164 $1

Generator $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Motor $0 $0 $0 $79 $187 $194 $80 $129 $134 $327 $Controller Inverter $0 $0 $0 $72 $170 $177 $72 $117 $122 $298 $Transmission $1,200 $1,265 $1,260 $1,257 $1,307 $1,313 $1,250 $1,280 $1,280 $671 $High Voltage Energy Storage $0 $0 $0 $440 $438 $1,509 $440 $451 $1,553 $400 $Fuel System $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $178 $Exhaust $481 $387 $373 $269 $272 $279 $251 $271 $278 $0 

Drivetrain* $4,616 4767 5859 5153 5411 6514 6236 6405 7529 4836 4Glider Cost $9,955 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11266 11Vehicle Cost $14,571 $16,033 $17,125 $16,419 $16,677 $17,780 $17,502 $17,671 $18,795 $16,102 $15Vehicle Retail Price $21,857 $24,050 $25,688 $24,629 $25,016 $26,670 $26,253 $26,507 $28,193 $24,153 $23VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Power Max W 120267 96659 93302 67260 67901 69644 62735 67831 69619 0 Fuel Cell Power Max W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72126 58Motor Power Max W 0 0 0 24471 56592 58875 24471 39076 40508 22195 99High Voltage Energy Storage CaW or Wh 0 0 0 784 2435 9432 784 2504 9708 711 3

Vehicle Mass kg 1474 1163 1204 1178 1208 1261 1225 1242 1294 1200 1

Glider Mass kg 990 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 6

* Includes final drivetrain, 12-V battery, wheels, and tires. 
59 

Values for the high fuel economy case are stressed 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 yielded less-optimistic fuel 

economy results. Although this case yields consistently 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 considerably more power output for identical 

performance. In 2015 for the LR cost case, the lower 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 these differential cost effects is that attaining only 

the average fuel economy levels not only reduces the 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 markets for advanced technology 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 201 201 203 204

Manufacturing 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 estimates were developed for a midsize passenger car and midsize SUV 

with multiple drivetrain technologies based on PSAT vehicle simulations 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 classes 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 following variables — but for conventional drivetrain 

vehicles only — are available for multiple years: 

• Average fuel economy, 

• Average weight, 

• Average horsepower, and 

• Average manufacturer’s suggested 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 categories is made more difficult because the midsize 

car and SUV have fairly similar-sized powertrains 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 factors 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 – glider 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 Weight 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 REDUCTIONcar class x, year y 

= [COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTIONmidsize car, y] × 

[GLIDER WEIGHTx,y]/[GLIDER WEIGHTmidsize,y] 

For this estimate, glider weight includes the weight of wheels and tires (in PSAT analyses, 

wheels and tires are considered part of the drivetrain). 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 weightmidsize car]/[powermidsize car] for 2007, which we know from PSAT. 

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

Glider weightx = curb weight – drivetrain weight = curb weightx – k × powerx 

For year y, 

COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTIONcar class x

= COST OF GLIDER WEIGHT REDUCTIONmidsize,y × 

[2007 CURB WEIGHTx – K x powerx]/2007 GLIDER WTmidsize 
62 

3.3.6.2 Cost of Drivetrains (For Various 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, and 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 cylinders, 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 economy (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 drivetrains, 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 (with 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 scaling 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 scale 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 Prices 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 effects, it is necessary to estimate 

how the technologies embodied in these leading edge vehicles penetrate the new vehicle fleet. 

The methodology used to translate the leading edge 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 economy 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 earlier 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 adequate to obtain the required range, keeping the 

same volume tanks for diesel and hybrid versions — 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 for minimum range requirements). It is quite 

conceivable that optional (larger) tanks might be offered in some models, especially larger and/or 

more expensive models. 

Maintenance cost. Diesels are expected to require less maintenance 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 drivetrain 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 assumed to be uniform across vehicle 

technologies. The PSAT analysis included vehicle 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 the 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 market penetration, hybrids’ 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 competing vehicles by considering a number of 

different attributes — and the NEMS vehicle choice model considers five attributes in addition to 

vehicle price and fuel economy — many analyses have estimated “cost-effective” levels of 

technology improvement by examining 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 illuminating 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, will 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 technology. Vehicle manufacturers 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 lifetime, it is necessary to select 

an appropriate discount rate for comparing future fuel savings to current vehicle costs. Typically, 

analysts interested in weighing societal choices 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 higher 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, actual 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, fuel 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 should be recognized that these rates 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 “externality 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 technology costs are highly uncertain. 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, electricity, and ethanol (although ethanol costs are not considered 

here) — that may vary in ways that may be somewhat independent of each other. Four differing 

fuel price cases are examined for 2030: 

• $4.50/gallon gasoline price case: gasoline price is $4.50/gallon; diesel is 

$4.50/gallon of gasoline equivalent, or GGE (about $5.00/gallon11); 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 independent 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 reference 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 particular 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 effectiveness is reached, further technology 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 vehicle 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 vehicles. For example, for the $4.50/gallon 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) consumer 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, the figures show that it makes sense to purchase the 

advanced conventional SI drivetrain 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 result 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 price 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 Conv

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Lifetime 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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 Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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 attractive 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 less 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 slide 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 Conventional 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 for 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 costs 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-based 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 targets for these vehicles are very low. 

In other words, at these costs, the SI HEV no longer represents the “best” vehicle. For at least the 

cases with the two highest fuel prices, the SI PHEV10 has similar net benefits 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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 rates; however, for the most part, the longer-range 

electric drivetrain vehicles, the EVs and PHEV40s, have negative marginal 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 PHEV10 for the higher-priced fuels case, as opposed 

to the HEV being the “best” vehicle for the $3.15 gasoline price case. However, the differences 

in net benefits are small enough such that, given the uncertainties in technology costs, the 

purchase decision between the two is relatively neutral. 

At the lower fuel prices, the cost effectiveness of the ICE-based vehicles (compared to the 2007 

reference vehicle) is marginal at the 20% discount 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 the low fuel price cases (for the 

20% discount rate). In both cases, however, the FCVs 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 compares 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 Conventional 

The analyses of cost effectiveness above, by using the 2007 conventional SI vehicle as the 

reference vehicle, show that the 2030 advanced 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 vehicles 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 vehicles 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 societal 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 addresses the question of whether 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

CI Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

4%

10%

20%

Fuel Savings - Vehicle Price 

Diff

ere

nce,

$

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 point 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 rates. 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 Conv

SI Full HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

4%

10%

20%

Fuel Savngs - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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 effectiveness 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 Conv

CI Conv

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Fuel Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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 that 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 vehicles. Although there are other 

(non-private) reasons for moving to these alternatives, including strong energy security and 

climate change considerations, it is hard to argue that consumers will be eager to adopt advanced 

vehicles without additional financial incentives. Fuel cell vehicles may constitute a possible 

exception, although even the case for these should be treated with 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

SI Conv

CI Conv

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

CI Full HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Fuel Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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 obtained 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 technologies experience further dramatic cost reductions in the 

years following their introduction. Consequently, the 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 this 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 (referenced 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, transport 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

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

Fuel Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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

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

Fuel Savings - Vehicl

e

Price 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 quite 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 considerably lower (or more negative). 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 basically the same. In the 2030 case, net benefits 

are positive for virtually every technology and 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 positive 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 would 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 assumptions and methodology, including 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 purchaser) 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 how future actors will value future fuel savings. 

This range yields very large differences in perceived cost effectiveness, sometimes pushing net 

benefits from strongly positive (at 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 fuel savings, and thus a wide range 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 future 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 incorporating 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 technology 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 conventional 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 and benefits could potentially reveal that going 

beyond the intermediate technologies might not be attractive. 

This analysis focuses on the cost effectiveness 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 associated 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 and program goals — were used. The reference 

vehicle from which to estimate fuel savings and vehicle price differences 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 hybrids and PHEV10s have uniformly higher 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 needed 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 highest fuel prices evaluated (when gasoline is 

$4.50/gallon), all technologies except the longest-range electric drivetrain vehicles have 

positive cost effectiveness (net benefits) compared 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 negative 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 technologies may be, for successful 

commercialization to take place, the technologies 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 hybrids) 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. For the technologies beyond these, however, net 

benefits are strongly reduced, primarily because 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-tech” 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 strongly 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’ introduction, strong economic incentives for their 

purchase. These factors are especially important for fuel cell vehicles and vehicles with large 

batteries (PHEV40s, EVs); advanced conventional vehicles, full hybrids, and possibly PHEV10s 

could be successful with somewhat lesser attainment of these factors. Finally, the long-term 

success of EVs and PHEV40s appears 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 comparing alternative policies and technologies by 

evaluating their “carbon costs” or “GHG costs” — the dollar amount required to reduce carbon 

emissions by one ton of CO2 or its equivalent in total greenhouse gases. In addition, the GHG 

costs of individual technologies may be compared to the average GHG costs in various sectors of 

the 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, measured in U.S. dollars per metric ton of CO2 (or its 

equivalent in total GHGs) for most of the drivetrain 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 technology cost and lifetime fuel savings 

(referenced to advanced conventional vehicles of the same model year) 

divided by the lifetime reduced GHG emissions. Both fuel savings and GHG 

emissions reductions are discounted at the “individual” rate of 20%/year. 

Although this value may appear high, the recent behavior of average vehicle 

purchasers in valuing fuel economy translates 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 “societal” rate of 4%. 

For both private and social GHG costs, no account was taken of other external costs and benefits 

associated with using the technologies (e.g., reduced criteria emissions, congestion, and other 

societal costs associated with any rebound in driving 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 penetration 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 scenario was run with the same costs but with 
84 

purchase subsidies of $7,500/vehicle (selected vehicles 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, although 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 drivetrains. 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 follows: 30% is provided by natural gasbased power plants, 62% by coal-based plants, and 8% by nuclear plants. 

Available renewable electricity — primarily 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

CIDI

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SIPHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC HEV w/5

GHG Reduction Cost, $/ton 

0% coal H2

CO2eq

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 CO2 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

CIDI

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SIPHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC HEV w/5

GHG Reduction Cost, $/ton 

0% coal H2

CO2eq

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 CO2 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 fuels (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 for 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 effective even at high private discount rates, and 

thus they have zero private GHG reduction costs; the SI PHEV10s have only modest GHG 

reduction costs of about $12/ton. However, all of the other vehicles have private GHG costs 

above $100/ton of CO2 equivalent, which is a very high value compared to carbon or GHG costs 

in other sectors. The EVs, which are very expensive 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 hybrids translates into a high social GHG cost — 

$400–$600 per ton of CO2 equivalent, values that are far higher than GHG reductions available 
86 

from more conventional technologies 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 exceptions are the CIDI 

conventional drivetrain, which suffers because it yields 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 CO2 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 penetration of these drivetrains. The social GHG costs 

for the SI HEVs and FCVs are moderate — about $40–$60/ton of CO2equivalent. The social 

costs for the SI PHEV40s, however, are high — about $270/ton of CO2equivalent, 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: Boosted Synergies for High Fuel 

Economy Plus Ultra-Low Emissions, SAE 2006-01-1266, April. 

Carfolio.com, 2008. Available at: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/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 Fuels 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 Drive 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 Technology, Laboratory for Energy and 

the Environment, MIT LFEE 2003-004 RP, December. 

Howell, D., 2008. Progress Report for Energy Storage Research and Development, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, January. 

Ibis Associates, Inc., 2004. “Data Document: Automotive System Cost Model,” prepared for 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 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 CO2 Reduction, 

October. Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/king (accessed August 2009). 

Kromer, M.A., and J.B. Heywood, 2007. Electric Powertrains: Opportunities 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,” presented 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/guest/article_view.php?articles_id=85 (accessed 

August 2009). 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006. Partnership Plan, FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf 

(accessed September 2009). 
88 

Vyas, A., D. Santini, and R. Cuenca, 2000. “Comparison 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

EV -10390 -12535 -14579

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

EV 13630 7958 2556

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

EV 700 -1446 -3489

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 HEV -10

SI PHEV10 12

SIPHEV40 499 509

CI HEV 151

CI PHEV10 195

CI PHEV40 715 480

FC HEV 295 399

FC HEV w/50% coal H2 464 628

EV 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 savings and GHG emission reductions of various 

scenarios of advanced technology vehicles (ATVs) and fuels by “assuming” specific rates of 

market penetration of these technologies. The analysis was criticized because it did not 

(a) explicitly consider vehicle and fuel prices in developing those 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 Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) NEMS 

model to evaluate several scenarios. The NEMS model includes a vehicle choice model (VCM, 

which officially is called the “consumer vehicle choice submodule”) that uses vehicle and fuel 

prices (along with a number of other variables) to estimate vehicle market 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 commercialization of some advances in energy 

technologies. Another projection, the High Oil Price Case, is the same as the Reference Case but 

has more pessimistic assumptions about worldwide crude oil and natural gas resources and 

therefore incorporates higher oil and energy prices. 

Each year, EERE uses the EIA-NEMS model and 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 estimates 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 considerable detail about hydrogen, which is not yet included in 

the EIA-NEMS model but is being added. The NEMS-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 actually using is a variant of NEMS-H2 called 

NEMS-MP, which does not incorporate all of the 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-TRANSPORTATION 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 variables included in the vehicle 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 [H2] 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 values for the vehicle and related variables are then 

input to the full NEMS-MP model to develop final 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 requirements 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 information. The extension of the 

AEO case from 2030 to 2050 is generally based on extrapolations of the input assumptions for 

the years 2020 to 2030. However, some values are 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 developed before the passage of the 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 contrast, we were uncomfortable 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 and 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. 

H2 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 develop the MP Base Case except for the incorporation of the EISA 

CAFE standards (i.e., the MP Base Case without EISA CAFE), and (3) the final MP Base Case, 

which incorporates those standards. The focus 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 Use2 (ethanol in 

blends and E85 

excluded) (Quads) NA3

 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 (1015) BTU. 2

 LV Oil Use includes Class 2B trucks. 

3

 NA = Not available in AEO 2007 report although 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 savings 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 economy of all vehicles as opposed to any switch to 

vehicle technologies with higher 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 Reference Case also accounts for the RFS. More 

important, the final MP Base Case uses the oil prices of the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case — 

and the AEO 2007 High Oil Price Case saves approximately 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 fuels (e.g., conventional biofuels; cellulosic biofuel, 

which includes ethanol made from cellulosic biomass; biomass-based diesel; and other 

“advanced” biofuels) must be part of the annual 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 the growth rates of cellulosic 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 analysis, 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 achieve 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 various 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 since the beginning of Phase 2 of the MP Study 

(January 2007). The MP Base Case world oil price 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 still 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 higher 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 particular, 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 assumptions about vehicle technologies and fuels that we thought 

were appropriate for each scenario. These assumptions 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 estimates, 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 assumptions 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 retail 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 Assumptions 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. 

H2 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 H2 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; held 

essentially 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. 

H2 Fuel Availability Same as NEMS-H2 

default value: 1,500 

FCVs/station. 

Station size is reduced 

to 750 FCVs/station, 

which increases H2

availability. 

Same as Mixed, except 

H2 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 assumptions about fuel economies and vehicle prices for 

advanced technology vehicles. These estimates are different from the Base Case estimates. The 

bases for the scenarios’ fuel economy and vehicle 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., maintenance cost, acceleration, luggage space, and range) of the advanced 

technology vehicles were also discussed in Chapter 3. The scenarios all assume the same values 

for these attributes. Again, these values are different 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 respect to the percentage of households that can 

recharge PHEVs, all end up with higher 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 annually 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 their production, and thus, 100% of their stock will be 

flex fuel. None of these vehicles is being produced 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 produced will be flex fuel. We also estimate that 

this assumption translates to flex fuel capability 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 vehicles 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 several specific variables (vehicle 

price, fuel price, and other attributes) that influence consumer purchase behavior. It also includes 

a constant that is meant to capture variables that 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 implies 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 technologies in the Base Case and the scenarios. 

The Base Case constants are the same as those 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 environment in which consumers are highly interested in 

fuel economy and welcoming toward new fuel-saving 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 vehicles operating on methanol, CNG, and LPG — 

technologies that do not appear to have the capability 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 gasoline vehicles are assumed to be available for 

production in 100% of all vehicle makes 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 gasoline vehicles would be produced in all makes and models. The 

make and model availability (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 means 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 VEHICLE 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 the constant for all the advanced vehicle 

technologies drops to “0” (Base Case Endogenous, or BCEndogenous). (Almost every 

assumption is the same: BCEndogenous includes advanced conventional gasoline vehicles, while 

the MP Base Case does not.) The sales mix between the two cases is quite different. By 2050, 

70% of car sales are still of conventional 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 endogenous 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%

 Total 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 are 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 differences 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 the 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 the constants of the AEO Reference Case in 

the MP Base Case because we wanted our Base Case 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 specific fuel, the lower the market penetration 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 are 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 H2

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 H2 station size and set it at 

750 vehicles/station. For the H2 Success Scenario, we also “jump-start” (or “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 H2 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 H2 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 availability 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 amounts 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 CO2 emissions; 

• Ethanol use; 

• U.S. liquid fuels supply and net imports; 

• U.S. emissions of CO2; 

• 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, the reader should keep in mind the following 

comparisons among the scenarios (previously discussed in Chapter 6): 

1. All the scenarios (and the Base Case) assume 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, and 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 H2 prices, the earliest introduction 

of FCVs and plug-in FCVs, and “jump starting” of H2 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 scenario 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 conventional 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 scenarios have very similar rates of technology 

penetration. For example, in each, conventional gasoline vehicles (CVs) are 

approximately 21% of LV sales in 2030, advanced gasoline vehicles (ACVs) are 26%, 

HEVs are 27%, diesels are 7%, and conventional 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, although there are not more vehicles capable of 

using E85 because in the other two scenarios, 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 scenarios if we had not assumed that H2 stations were 

“jump-started” in the scenario (as discussed 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 “H2

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 stock 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 H2 stations. 
122 

TABLE 7-2 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock 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 the Base Case and the scenarios. However, in 

spite of differences in assumptions about fuel prices between the scenarios, the scenarios show 

very little difference from one another in terms of advanced vehicle technology penetration. This 

illustrates well the point that vehicle price is the key determinant of vehicle choice in the NEMSMP model (reflecting historic consumer preferences). It also indicates that for many, but not all, 

of the other results presented below, the scenario 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 CO2 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 reduction

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Quads

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 and 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 shown 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 scenario 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 CO2 Emissions 

While the NEMS-MP model does not provide estimates of all GHG emissions, it does provide 

estimates of CO2 emissions. It also does not provide full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions for LVs; 

however, we developed a method that allows us to estimate what the full-fuel-cycle CO2

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 CO2 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 CO2 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

FIGURE 7-5 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions (Literature Review, No 

Subsidies) 

Cumulative CO2 reductions are also presented in Table 7-3. As with the oil savings, the CO2

reductions increase substantially after 2030. The (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario has the greatest 

cumulative LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 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 play 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 cellulosic ethanol does not exceed 1 billion gallons per 
127 

TABLE 7-4 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO2, 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Billion 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 Base Case incorporates many of EIA’s updated 

biomass supply curves and cellulosic conversion costs (August 2007). (The feedstocks for 

ethanol for each scenario are discussed in Appendix E.) 

The Mixed and H2 Success scenarios use somewhat more optimistic assumptions about 

cellulosic ethanol conversion costs and, consequently, 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 Mixed 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 renewable fuels required by the RFS solely with 

ethanol by 2030. Like the Mixed scenario, this scenario presumes the use of many flex fuel 

vehicles. Although this result is not shown in the table, 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 fuels 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 exclusions.) However, liquids from 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 about 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

%

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. CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-4 and Figure 7-9 present total U.S. emissions of CO2for the Base Case and the three 

scenarios. (These are the total CO2 emissions for the U.S. economy; other greenhouse gas 

emissions are not included.) The Base Case CO2 emissions are estimated to be 60% higher in 

2050 than in 2005. That finding is consistent with the projected increase in U.S. energy use in the 

Base Case (not shown). The scenarios reduce the total CO2 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 scenarios. 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 directly 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

FIGURE 7-9 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Literature Review, No Subsidies) 
131 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

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 “Literature 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 CO2 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 the 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; however, 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 H2 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 differences in assumptions about fuel prices between 

the scenarios, the Mixed, (P)HEV & Ethanol, and H2 Success “with no jump start of H2 stations” 

scenarios show little difference from one another in terms of the market penetration of advanced 

vehicle technologies. This result again illustrates the point that vehicle price is the key 

determinant of vehicle choice in the NEMS-MP model. However, providing a “jump start” to H2

stations does increase market penetration of FCVs and plug-in FCVs. 

Because of the greater market penetration of advanced vehicle technologies with vehicle price 

estimates based on “program goals,” we should expect greater energy, oil, and CO2 impacts than 

estimated with the “literature review” vehicle price assumptions. These impacts are discussed 

next. 
135 

TABLE 7-6 Weighted Shares of Vehicle Stock 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 Case 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 2030, the Mixed and H2 Success scenarios save 

approximately 1 mbpd relative to the Base Case, while the (P)HEV & 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 CO2 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 reduction

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Quads

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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 CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-7 and Figure 7-15 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions in the Base Case and the 

three scenarios. Substantial reductions are achieved: emissions are 24%–28% lower than Base 

Case levels by 2050. Still, the 2050 emissions are at best 8% higher (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 CO2 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 use in the Base Case and the three scenarios. 

Ethanol volumes are lower than in the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” versions of the 

scenarios, in part because of the substantially 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH

PG

H2 Success PG

FIGURE 7-15 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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 fuels 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 that 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 percentages of liquid fuel products that are imported. All 

possible sources of liquid fuel are 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 Review, 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, CO2, 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Billion 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

%

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. CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-8 and Figure 7-19 present total U.S. emissions of CO2 for the Base Case and the three 

scenarios. The scenarios reduce the total CO2 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH

PG

H2 Success PG

FIGURE 7-19 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Program Goals, No Subsidies) 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

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 “Program 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 CO2, and gasoline prices. The reductions are 

greater than with the “Literature Review, No Subsidies” cases. The fact that LV oil use and fullfuel-cycle CO2 emissions might be held close to 2005 levels is significant. The fact that these 

results can be achieved with several technology 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 are not doing much to reduce total U.S. CO2 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 Chapter 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 penetration 

is 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 price estimates. All of the subsidies 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 indicates 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 penetration for the key ATVs initially rises above the 

penetration with vehicle prices at the "literature review" level without subsidies, 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 Technologies 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%

All 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 H2 Success without subsidies MPMixH2.19

(P)HEV & ETOH without 

subsidies MPEthPHEV25 MPEthPHEV26

$7,500/vehicle subsidies continue

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

Mixed without Subsidies MPMixed41 MPMixed42
145 

145 

TABLE 7-10 Market Penetration of Key Technologies in Scenarios Using the Literature Review Vehicle Prices with Subsidies: Additional NEMS-TSA Model Runs 

Mixed scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 

SubsidiesGasoline HEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Diesel HEVs NA NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

PHEVs NA 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 FCVs NA 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 FC PHEVS NA 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 Sales %Gasoline HEVs - 30.0% 15.0% - 26.9% 13.5% - 27.0% 15.2% - 27.0% 16.7% - 27.1% 20.1% - 27.0% 

Diesel HEVs - 4.0% 6.0% - 5.7% 2.8% - 5.7% 3.2% - 5.7% 3.4% - 5.7% 4.1% - 5.7% 

PHEVs - 16.8% 25.0% - 18.6% 18.9% - 18.6% 21.6% - 18.7% 23.9% - 18.7% 29.1% - 18.2% FCVs - 0.0% 21.0% - 1.6% 44.6% - 1.3% 38.0% - 1.1% 32.5% - 1.0% 19.7% - 1.0% 

FC PHEVS - 0.0% 9.0% - 0.0% 1.5% - 0.0% 1.3% - 0.0% 1.1% - 0.0% 0.7% - 0.0% FCVs & FC PHEVs combined 0.0% 30.0% 1.6% 46.1% 1.3% 39.3% 1.1% 33.6% 1.0% 20.4% 1.0% 

PHEVs, FCVs & FC PHEVs combined 16.8% 55.0% 20.2% 65.0% 19.9% 60.9% 19.8% 57.5% 19.7% 49.5% 19.2% 

(P)HEV & Ethanol scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 

SubsidiesGasoline HEVs NA 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 

PHEVs NA 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 Sales %Gasoline HEVs - 40.0% 40.0% - 36.4% 18.9% - 37.9% 20.9% - 39.2% 22.9% - 49.6% 33.2% - 22.1% 

PHEVs - 25.0% 50.0% - 37.4% 66.6% - 33.6% 62.5% - 30.6% 58.9% - 24.1% 46.8% - 38.2% 

Gasoline HEVs and PHEVs combined 65.0% 90.0% 73.8% 85.5% 71.5% 83.4% 69.8% 81.8% 73.7% 79.9% 60.3% 

All flex fuel vehicles 

(includes GHEVs, PHEVs, ACVs and conventional FFs) 85.0% 97.0% 87.8% 92.7% 86.9% 91.8% 86.2% 91.1% 88.0% 90.4% 79.9% 

H2 Success scenario

2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 

SubsidiesFCVs NA 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 FC PHEVS NA 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 Sales %FCVs - 10.3% 76.0% - 65.9% 78.6% - 48.6% 48.9% - 57.3% 72.9% - 40.9% 65.8% - 14.2% 

FC PHEVS - 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 2.4% - 0.4% 1.6% - 0.4% 2.3% - 0.8% 2.1% - 1.0% 

FCVs and FC PHEVs combined 10.3% 76.0% 66.3% 81.1% 49.0% 50.5% 57.8% 75.2% 41.6% 67.9% 15.2% 

NA = Not applicable- = don't have

Goals MPMixed39 MPMixed40

Selected runs in which subsidies continue through 2050

MPEthPHEV17

MPMixH2.16

MPMixed38 MPMixed37

Goals MPEthPHEV22 MPEthPHEV23 MPEthPHEV24

Goals MPMixH2.18 MPMixH2.11 MPMixH2.17 MPMixH2.10

MPEthPHEV1

MPMixed27 
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 scenario. 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, PHEVS 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 following analysis because (1) the market penetration 

results are similar to what we hoped to obtain (though they change slightly in the full NEMS-MP 

runs) and (2) they are “fair” (i.e., all the technologies 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 maintaining 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 vehicle technologies desired in the scenarios (all else 

being equal). 

Table 7-11 illustrates the effect of the subsidies on the incremental prices input to NEMS-MP 

when using the medium car as an example. (The incremental 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 slight 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 subsidized 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 subsidized vehicles are presented in italics. 

Some key points are as follows: 

1. In the Mixed scenario, PHEVs and GHEVs make 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 ethanol goals of the scenario are to be met. 

3. In the H2 Success scenario, FCVs account for 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 technology shares for the Base Case and the three scenarios with 

subsidies. By 2050, in the H2 Success scenario, about 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 Mixed 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 Literature 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 Subs 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 Literature 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 CO2 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 nearly 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 Success scenarios are very similar for the post-2030 

time period. 

7.3.4 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-14 and Figure 7-25 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions in the Base Case and the 

three scenarios. All three scenarios achieve higher CO2 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 Case) than the other two: 43% in 2050 vs. 22%–29% 
153 

TABLE 7-14 LV Energy Use, Oil Use, and Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 Emissions of Base Case and 

Scenarios with Selected Vehicle Subsidies in Addition 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Quads

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

LRwS

H2 Success

LRwS

FIGURE 7-25 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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). The 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 percentages of liquid fuel products that are imported. 

After 2020, the import level remains 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%.) 

7.3.8 Total U.S. CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-15 and Figure 7-29 present total U.S. emissions of CO2 for the Base Case and the three 

scenarios. As with the LV full-fuel-cycle emissions, the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario reduces 

CO2 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 CO2 are reduced by 10% 

in the H2 Success scenario. 
156 

TABLE 7-15 United States Total Energy, Oil, CO2, 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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 Subsidie 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Billion 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

%

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LRwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

LRwS

H2 Success

LRwS

FIGURE 7-29 U.S. CO2 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 gasoline 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 estimate of the cumulative vehicle subsidies from 

2015 through 2050 and (2) the cumulative oil savings and reductions in CO2 emission achieved 

with those subsidies in that time period and beyond to 2075. The oil savings and reductions in 

CO2 emission achieved by the subsidies extend beyond 2050 because vehicles brought into the 

market by the subsidies will continue to operate until well after 2050. The year 2075 was chosen 

as an end point to ensure that both the potential oil savings and CO2 reductions of these 

subsidized vehicles were fully accounted for. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

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 CO2 reductions occurring after 2050 were generated by using 

the VISION model, not NEMS-MP. The VISION model generates estimates of fuel use and 

GHG emissions by LVs to 2100. The vehicle sales 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 estimates (shares) of fuels used to produce ethanol, H2, and electricity: 

we hold the 2050 shares constant after 2050. In the estimates of oil use and CO2 emissions to 

2075, only the oil use and CO2 emissions of vehicles sold through 2050 are included. 

The two models have substantially different assumptions 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 about 50 million more LVs than VISION does in 

that year). As a result, the 2050 fuel use estimates generated by the two models do not match; 

however, we developed ratios that allowed us to derive the post-2050 oil use estimates for the 

scenarios. For the CO2 emissions estimates, there is an additional problem in that VISION 

provides GHG estimates, while NEMS-MP provides CO2 estimates only. Further, the CO2

factors vary somewhat between the two models. Despite these differences, we made some 

simplifying assumptions and developed post-2050 lifecycle CO2 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 scenario is not much lower at $1.7 trillion. 

The table presents the subsidy per barrel of oil saved and per metric ton of CO2 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 calculations in Table 7-16 assign the total 

subsidy for each scenario to both barrels of oil saved and metric ton of CO2 reduced (but also 

report the corresponding CO2 reduced/barrel saved and barrel saved/ton of CO2 reduced). 

Alternatively, another approach could be to consider 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/barrel. However, the C/E of subsidies in the 

Mixed scenario to reduce LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions is considerably higher: $327/metric 

ton. The subsidies of the (P)HEV & Ethanol scenario 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 reduction are more “robust” than those for LV fullfuel-cycle CO2 emissions reduction. More assumptions are made to estimate the latter.) 

Finally, the (undiscounted) cumulative vehicle subsidy for the H2 Success scenario as estimated 

in the table is nearly $2 trillion. This scenario assumes a “jump start” of H2 stations in the early 

years of the scenario. That jump start is not without 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 “Literature 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 CO2 emissions, and gasoline prices relative 

to the both the Base Case and the “Literature Review, 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 vehicle 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 “program 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 presents the subsidies used in the model 

runs. These subsidies reduce the retail price of the 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 incremental prices of the 

subsidized vehicles are presented 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, according to the NEMS-MP model, will need to be 

achieved in order to reach the high market penetration 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 across the scenarios. The scenario goals for 2050 

were not matched exactly, as shown in Figures 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 Year1 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 for 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 more 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 lower 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 result 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 subsidized 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 subsidized 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 technologies 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 CO2 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 Figure 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 CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-22 and Figure 7-36 present LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 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 scenario actually has slightly higher full-fuelcycle CO2 emissions than were achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” version of the 

scenario, although it still achieves a 23% reduction from the Base Case. The 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 CO2 emissions in the H2 Success scenario are estimated to be 20% 

lower than 2005 Base Case levels. The H2 Success scenario achieves the greatest cumulative 

reduction in LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions through 2050 (14% for the 2005-to-2050 time 

period), although reductions achieved 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Quads

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

FIGURE 7-36 LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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 additional policies, the general result in the NEMS-MP model is 

that coal will be used predominantly in those off-peak hours for additional electricity 

generation19; 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 CO2 emissions than gasoline. 

(The decline in ethanol use is presumed 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 percentages of imported liquid fuel 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. CO2 Emissions 

Table 7-23 and Figure 7-40 present total U.S. emission levels of CO2 for the Base Case and the 

three scenarios. The total CO2 emissions of the Mixed and (P)HEV 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 CO2

emissions. 
172 

TABLE 7-23 United States Total Energy Use, Oil, CO2, 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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 Subsi 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Billion 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

%

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PGwS

(P)HEV & ETOH

PGwS

H2 Success PGwS

FIGURE 7-40 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Program Goals with Subsidies) 

the H2 Success scenario have achieved a substantial reduction. By 2050, total U.S. emissions of 

CO2 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 lower than those found in the “Program Goals, No 

Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The gasoline 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 estimate of the cumulative vehicle subsidies from 2030 

through 2050 and the cumulative oil savings and CO2 emission reductions achieved with those 

subsidies in that time period and beyond to 2075. The oil savings and CO2 emission reductions 

achieved by the subsidies extend beyond 2050 because vehicles brought into the market by the 

subsidies will continue to operate beyond 2050. The year 2075 was chosen as an end point to 

ensure that the potential oil savings and CO2 reductions of these subsidized vehicles were fully 

accounted for. 

The estimates of post-2050 oil savings and CO2 reductions were generated by using the VISION 

model and not NEMS-MP. Section 7.3.10 briefly describes 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%

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

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 scenarios 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 barrel of oil saved and per metric ton of CO2 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 CO2

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 CO2 emission reduction costs are only $56/barrel 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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions reduction. 

The (undiscounted) cumulative vehicle subsidy for the H2 Success scenario as estimated in the 

table is $586 billion. The H2 Success scenario assumes a “jump start” of H2 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 “Program 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 CO2 from the levels 

achieved in the “Program Goals, No Subsidies” 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 intended to reduce the carbon 
177 

intensity of electricity generation) before we conclude that the increased use of PHEVs in these 

scenarios will not reduce CO2 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 being 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 CO2 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 prices and/or vehicle subsidies may be required. Table 7-25 

compares the oil savings (and CO2 reduction) results of the “Literature Review, With Subsidies” 

and “Program Goals, With Subsidies” versions of the scenarios. The levels of oil savings and 

CO2 reductions realized are quite similar across versions. In other words, there are numerous 

combinations of vehicle prices and subsidies that could result in oil savings 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 penetration 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 Oil Price estimates extended (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 penetration 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 PHEV technology assumptions and input the modified 

assumptions into another NEMS-MP 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 model could help answer that question. 
178 

TABLE 7-25 LV Oil Use Savings and LV Full-Fuel-Cycle CO2 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 Review 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 CO2

Emissions 

(MMTCO2e)1 1440 1511 1621 1893 2123 

CO2 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% 

CO2 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

 MMTCO2e = 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 gasoline, diesel fuel, and E85 used by LVs 

(including commercial LTs [Class 2B]); these are summed. The gasoline includes ethanol blends, 

and the E85 includes gasoline, and we need to subtract 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, school 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 subtracted from the previously mentioned sum of 

gasoline, diesel fuel, and E85 to obtain LV oil use estimates. 

Also, we convert all quads to million 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 CO2 Emissions. For the most part, NEMS-MP reports energy-related CO2

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 relative electricity purchases. This approach makes it difficult to 

trace the full-fuel-cycle CO2 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. CO2 emissions in our 

other scenarios, including the Base Case with CAFE, 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 derivations are described in Appendix C. 

U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply. The U.S. liquid fuels supply reported by NEMS-MP includes H2. H2

probably has been included because its relative volume is very low and its use is for vehicles. 

However, with the potential for increased use of H2 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 H2. We have taken H2 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 one 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 foreign oil.” To be able to measure the potential 

impacts of its research and development programs on U.S. oil dependence, 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 consideration a multiplicity of uncertainties about future 

oil market conditions. Following the recommended 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 estimated 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 with and without policies that subsidize petroleumdisplacing, potentially low-emitting GHG technologies, 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, undisrupted 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 Petroleum 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 success 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 2050

2007 $ 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 stochastic model used to simulate disruptions was 

calibrated to historical disruptions as described in Greene and Leiby (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 historical 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 previously 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 reductions 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 result 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 demand. 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 supply 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 significant market penetration 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 except 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 benefits in oil markets that assume occasional disruptions. Normal 

market benefits are assumed to be those obtained in the AEO 2008 Reference Case with no 

supply disruptions. Disrupted benefits allow for 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 using 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 calibrated to past OPEC supply reductions. There 

is also uncertainty about how OPEC might respond 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 production schedule of the original scenario, or 

(2) OPEC reduces production enough to restore the price of oil to that of the original scenario. 

These strategies are applied after supply disruptions 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 domestic product (GDP), and 

3. Price shock disruption costs. 

The sum of the reductions in each of the three 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 (Undisrupted 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 Benefits” 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 columns 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 willingness to expand oil production. 

Future benefits are discounted to the present 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. Energy 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$, 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 

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 defending 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 discounted 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 value, although no attempt has been made to estimate them here. 

8.4 IMPACTS ON THE VARIABILITY 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 costs 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, the 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 Costs1

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 additional impacts over and above what may already be reflected in the 

AEO Reference, High Oil Price, and Low Oil Price 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 95th

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 independence” (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 without 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 are 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 95th 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 

95th Percentile ~2.8 ~3 

No Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Price 

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.2 

 : 95th Percentile 2.6 2.4 

(P)HEV & ETOH1: Mean 1.3 1.1 

 : 95th Percentile 2.3 2.0 

H2 Success: Mean 1.5 1.3 

 : 95th Percentile 2.6 2.6 

No Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Production

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.2 

 : 95th Percentile 2.6 2.4 

(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.3 1.1 

 : 95th Percentile 2.3 2.1 

H2 Success: Mean 1.5 1.3 

 : 95th Percentile 2.6 2.6 

With Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Price

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.0 

 : 95th Percentile 2.4 2.0 

(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.3 0.9 

 : 95th Percentile 2.2 1.7 

H2 Success: Mean 1.4 0.9 

 : 95th Percentile 2.5 1.9 

With Subsidies – OPEC Maintains Production

Mixed: Mean 1.4 1.0 

 : 95th Percentile 2.4 2.0 

(P)HEV & ETOH: Mean 1.2 0.9 

 : 95th Percentile 2.2 1.8 

H2 Success: Mean 1.4 0.9 

 : 95th 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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-3 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-4 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol, No 

Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-5 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-6 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed, No Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Production1

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 Production1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-8 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success, No Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Production1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-9 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-10 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP (P)HEV & Ethanol with 

Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-11 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with Subsidies: OPEC 

Maintains Price1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-12 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, Mixed with Subsidies: 

OPEC Maintains Production1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-13 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, (P)HEV & Ethanol with 

Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production1

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 2050

Percent

FIGURE 8-14 Oil Dependence Costs as a Percent of GDP, H2 Success with 

Subsidies: OPEC Maintains Production1 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 95th

percentile results), regardless of whether OPEC chooses to maintain its 

original production schedule 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 best 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 Research Council), 2005. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research 

and Development at DOE (Phase One), National Academies Press, 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 technical 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 fraction if they could achieve a large share of 

new vehicle sales over the next few decades. The 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 providing substitutes for supporting the transportation 

system. The vehicle technologies examined are: 

• Advanced conventional vehicles (ACVs) with spark-ignited (SI) and 

compression-ignited (CI) engines, fueled by gasoline and diesel fuel from 

conventional and unconventional resources, with flex-fuel capability (using 

ethanol from corn and biomass); 

• Hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), both grid-independent and plug-in (PHEVs) 

with 10- and 40-mile all-electric range20; 

• Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) with hybrid drivetrains (including plugins); and 

• Battery-electric vehicles (EVs).21

In addition to advanced drivetrains, 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 the 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 economy 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 Automotive 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 effect 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 numbers23 at the modeled date, 

with the assumption that the technologies, if successful, would then gradually be rolled into the 

overall new vehicle fleet). Because the scenario 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 variety 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 impacts 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 marketplace (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 vehicles 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 performance 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 vehicles, 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 characteristics for both the gliders (coefficients of 

aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance, weight 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 judgment 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/fuel 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 cells are about 5 percentage points too high). To 

the best of our knowledge, redoing the fuel economy analyses with updated vehicle 

characteristics would not significantly change the results. 

TABLE 9-1 Drivetrain Characteristics for Leading Edge Vehicles 

Med High Med High Med High Med High

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 

Med High Med High Med High Med High

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 2030 2045

The PSAT model was used to translate these assumptions 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 the “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 2045

Fuel 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 diesel (compression 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. 

• 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 drivetrains could allow fuel economy to approach 

2.3 to 3 times current levels in this timeframe 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 efficiencies are quite difficult to predict because the 

likely rate of continuing technology progress 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 electric portion of their daily driving is 

completed). Further, they can allow grid electricity to substitute for liquid 

fuels during a substantial portion of daily 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 electricity generation. For example, with 

electricity generated by a conventional coal-fueled power plant at 35% 

efficiency and taking transmission losses 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 vehicle 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 electricity 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 costs 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 from costs to Retail Price 

Equivalents, or RPEs, which are used in the Vehicle 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 uncertainties concerning material costs. The cost 

equations used in the analysis were developed 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 experiences 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 representation of technologies 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 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 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 literature 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 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 
204 

fashion — they were set at a level deemed necessary to allow technology commercialization — 

rather than being derived by examining engineering potentials. As a result, the probability of 

attaining the goals is quite unclear. Also, we understand that DOE is re-examining the cost goals, 

and it is expected that some of them may increase. 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 classes) 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 structural 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 technologies (spark-ignited and compressionignited internal combustion engines and automatic transmissions) are 

relatively stable over time, with the addition of progressively more 

sophisticated electronic controls, valve control systems, and so forth 

moderated by some continued learning. 

• In contrast, with substantial opportunities for learning still remaining, costs for 

new technologies are assumed to decline over time, in some 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 and 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

Ref 2010 2015 2030 2045

Retail 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 2045

Retail 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

Adv SI

Adv CI

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SI PHEV40

 CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV 

FC PHEV10

FC PHEV40

EV

Retail 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 commercialization 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 quickly and dramatically costs and prices 

fall. The 2015 price differentials between PHEV40s, FCVs, and EVs and their primary 

competition — advanced conventional 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 cost case, by 2030 fuel cell vehicles and SI 

PHEV40s would cost only about $6,000 more than 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 equivalents). For the PG cost case, 2030 fuel cell 

vehicles would compete well in price with the 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 “advanced 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 raise costs for the SI hybrid drivetrain by about 

$20028; for the SI 40-mile range plug-in hybrid drivetrain 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 adding 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 substantially increase fuel use and GHG emissions for the fleet as a 

whole. In other words, sharply reducing vehicle loads so that drivetrain power demands are 

reduced may be crucial to stimulating markets 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 assumptions made and the methodology used, including the choice 

of the discount rate to apply to future fuel savings, the degree of optimism applied to estimating 

future technology costs, projected future fuel prices (which are highly uncertain), and the 

baseline level of technology to which advanced technologies are compared. 

By using the fuel economy and cost analyses discussed 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 associated 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 drivetrains in the “high” and “average” fuel economy cases is 

$200, assuming “low” LR costs for both cases. 
208 

$2.00/gallon29 and hydrogen at $2.50/kg; in addition, 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 different levels of improvements. 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 importance 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 valuing 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 large, and Figures 9-5 through 9-7 display only a 

sampling of the results. Figures 9-5 and 9-6 show the cost effectiveness for 2030 midsize cars by 

using the LR and PG technology costs and relatively high fuel costs (for example, gasoline price 

of $3.15/gallon), with the 2007 conventional SI drivetrain vehicle 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 the “societal” (4%) rate, all advanced vehicles except for the EV 

are cost effective compared to the 2007 SI conventional vehicle. At a high (20%) discount rate 

that better reflects consumer valuation of future fuel savings, all of the options have little or 

negative net benefit. Figure 9-6 shows the effect of achieving the DOE cost goals (the 

assumption behind the “Program Goals” cost values), which move most advanced vehicles into 

positive cost-effectiveness territory for all discount rates. 

 

29 The gasoline prices are not tied to any specific world 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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle Price 

Difference, $

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

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

Lifetime Savings - Vehicle 

Price 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 simple advanced conventional vehicle, 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 technologies at above the level of the SI full HEV 

achieve positive marginal cost effectiveness, even at societal discount rates. 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 PHEV10 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 lower 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, $/gallon

Fuel Savings - Vehicle 

Price Difference

4%

10%

20%

FIGURE 9-7 Fuel Savings Minus Vehicle 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 savings; society is likely to look 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 with 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) estimates to “very optimistic” (Program Goals) 

estimates can shift cost-effectiveness outcomes dramatically. 

3. Using advanced SI conventional and SI full hybrid vehicles as baselines — that is, 

examining the marginal cost effectiveness of moving beyond these midrange 

technologies — reveals that moving much beyond 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 baseline, 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 what 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 volumes to attain the necessary cost reductions from learning 

and mass production — volumes that are exceedingly 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 moderate 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 higher 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 advanced technology vehicles, to be successfully 

commercialized, must gain early market acceptance before most cost reductions from 

learning and mass production can occur. In these early years, the advanced technology 

vehicles will suffer from higher differences in cost as compared to competing 

conventional vehicles; on the other hand, the potential fuel savings of the ATVs may be 

higher than in later years because the conventional vehicles may become substantially 

more efficient over time. When examining the 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-level technologies (e.g., advanced conventional 

diesel vehicles, full hybrids) are actually a bit 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 strongly 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 positive cost effectiveness is transformed to a 

mixed picture in 2015, with the higher-tech vehicles with larger batteries looking robustly 

cost effective only for the lowest discount rates and the EVs attaining 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 capture 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 purchase. These factors are especially important for 

fuel cell vehicles and vehicles with large batteries (e.g., PHEV40s, EVs). Advanced conventional 

vehicles, full hybrids, and possibly PHEV10s could be successful even with somewhat less 

favorable conditions. Finally, the long-term success 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 left 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 technology cost assumptions assume that these 

goals are met and, as noted before, the goals appear 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 reduce GHG emissions by one ton of CO2 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 vehicles 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 premium associated with the advanced technology. The 

net costs — differential vehicle price minus lifetime 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 reductions 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 conventional vehicles yielded substantial reductions in 

oil use and GHG emissions from a reference case 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 penetration 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 emissions reduction. A “societal” discount rate 

of 4% was used in this case. 

With the PG vehicle prices, the non-subsidy scenarios attained substantial penetration of both the 

longer-range plug-in vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, and significant reductions in oil use and 

GHG emissions from the reference scenario. A separate subsidy case — with smaller vehicle 

subsidies — was run to attain still higher levels of oil and GHG reductions 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. Although the scenario analyses included fuel cell 

PHEVs, these vehicles are not included here because GREET does not evaluate them. 

At the LR vehicle prices, vehicle purchasers would view GHG costs 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 CO2 equivalent, which is a high value compared to carbon costs in other sectors. 

Societal costs for the subsidized technologies are high because of the magnitude of the subsidy 

required; carbon GHG cost values range from about $400–$600/ton of CO2 equivalent. 

At PG vehicle prices, most of the advanced technology vehicles have fuel savings that exceed the 

vehicle price differential even at a 20% discount rate for future 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 CO2eq. 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

CIDI

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SIPHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC HEV w/50% coal H2

GHG Reduction Cost, $/ton 

CO2eq

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

CIDI

SI HEV

SI PHEV10

SIPHEV40

CI HEV

CI PHEV10

CI PHEV40

FC HEV

FC HEV w/50% coal H2

GHG Reduction Cost, $/ton 

CO2eq

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 advanced 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 prices as well as policies to promote the penetration of these 

technologies. 

The development of the scenarios required a number 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 vehicle 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 scenarios 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 technologies 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 costs, 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 case, 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 characteristics. From 2005, total U.S. energy use and 

CO2 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 further increases in CAFE standards and with 

increasing numbers of vehicles on the road and increasing 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 CO2 emissions follow a similar pattern, with 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.transportation.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 vehicle stock and energy use. 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 

 CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e) 5,945 6,184 7,470 9,546 

 Liquid Fuels Supply (excluding H2 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 

 CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2e) 1,419 1,440 1,621 2,123 

LVs (results exclude commercial light trucks) 

 New LV MPG1 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 are 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 these 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 the scenarios than in the Base Case; 

• The price of ethanol and H2 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 H2 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 scenarios (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 CO2 emissions; 

• Ethanol use; 

• U.S. liquid fuels supply and net imports; 

• U.S. emissions of CO2; 

• 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 quantitative results of the scenarios (LV oil use and full-
219 

fuel-cycle CO2 emissions, U.S. liquid fuels supply, net import share of liquid fuels, total 

U.S. CO2 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 the “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 percentage 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 H2 station development is important. FCV market penetration (sales) 

by 2050 rises from 17% in the H2 Success scenario 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 H2 stations, the final 

H2 Success scenario (with jump starts) has greater FCV market penetration (and lower 

market penetration of other ATVs) than the 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 similar rates of ATV market penetration. This 

higher ethanol use contributes to greater cumulative reductions in oil use and CO2

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Billion 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 CO2 emissions (3%–4%), LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 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, which is caused by the high estimated prices for 

these vehicles relative to the price of conventional gasoline vehicles in the scenarios. 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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” vehicle 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 CO2 emissions (5%–6%), LV 

full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions (~25%), and gasoline prices (~18%) (Table 9-5). LV oil 

use and full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions might be held close to 2005 levels: that finding is 

significant. In addition, it is also important that 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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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 CO2 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 advanced 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 vehicle choice model and the projected trajectories of 

technology costs are correct). For example, achieving scenario goals for the “literature 

review” price cases required providing subsidies 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 nearly $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, CO2 emissions, etc.) The 

subsidy/barrel required to achieve this savings level ranges from $56/barrel to 

$136/barrel, if neither CO2 reduction nor other benefits associated with the subsidies are 

considered. 
223 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed LR

(P)HEV & ETOH LR

H2 Success LR

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MMMTCO2e

Base Case

Mixed PG

(P)HEV & ETOH

PG

H2 Success PG

FIGURE 9-14 LV Fuel Cycle CO2 Emissions, “Literature Review” and “Program Goals” Cases 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MBPD

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 CO2 emissions, the 

subsidy per metric ton of CO2 reduced ranges from $96/metric ton CO2 (H2 Success, 

Program Goals with Subsidies) to $5,016/metric ton CO2 ([P]HEV & Ethanol, 

Program Goals with Subsidies), again assuming that all the subsidy costs are attributed 

to CO2 reductions. There is much greater variability among the cases in terms of 

achieving CO2 reductions than there is for oil savings. 

13. All the scenarios resulted in energy security 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 benefits are reductions in the transfer of 

wealth to foreign countries, in the loss of potential 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) for 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, with and without subsidies, has the greatest 

energy security benefits of all the scenarios. 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, CO2 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, CO2 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, CO2 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, CO2 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-MP 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 and a resulting major reduction in U.S. oil 

demand could have wide-ranging impacts on world oil price, vehicle sales, GDP, and 

other economic indicators — especially 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 development of the advanced vehicle technologies 

— a daunting task. 

2. Vehicle Choice Model. 

a. The VCM equations are based on recent consumer 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, especially for vehicles with radically 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 assumption, 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 specific fuel is low, the market penetration of vehicles using 

that fuel is reduced. The NEMS-MP model provides 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 H2 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 extrapolate 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/barrel ($3.93/gallon) in 2050. If the world oil 

price is substantially higher or lower in those 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 H2 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 effect31 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 different 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 NEMS-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 this market. In addition, the share of PHEVs’ 

travel on electricity is not generated internally 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 consumer response to technologies not yet in the marketplace, the 

relative infancy of several important new technologies from which many changes are yet to come 

in their performance levels and costs, and the importance — and uncertainty — of future 

government interference in the marketplace in the form of new regulatory standards and 

economic incentives for adoption 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 projections, 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 strong 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 will 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 effective to society might appear too costly to 

that consumer. 

b. With a range of available technologies 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 cell vehicles) 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 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 CO2 emissions would be 

reduced by 13%–19%. These results assume essentially no change in consumer behavior 

regarding future fuel savings (but an easing of consumer concerns about “new” 

technologies) and no further government market intervention. 
231 

4. Assuming the “literature review” vehicle price assumptions, long-term government 

subsidies of $7,500/vehicle would allow significantly higher penetration of advanced 

drivetrain vehicles, with LV oil use reduced (as compared to the Base Case) by about 

5 mbpd and LV fuel cycle CO2 emissions reduced by about 22% for the (P)HEV & 

Ethanol scenario, 29% for the Mixed scenario, and 43% for the H2 Success scenario. 

5. Alternatively, more success in reducing technology costs — reaching the ambitious cost 

goals established by DOE, thus yielding the “program goals” vehicle price estimates — 

could result in about a 4-mpbd reduction in LV oil use by 2050 and in reduced CO2

emissions of about 25%. Furthermore, subsidies for these lower-cost vehicles — 

considerably smaller than the subsidies needed in the “literature review” cases at a 

maximum of $4,000/vehicle by 2050, depending on scenario — could drive down 

(1) 2050 LV oil use (compared to the Base Case) by 4–6 mbpd and (2) LV fuel cycle CO2

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 fuel savings could have a dramatic impact on 

technology penetration — and thus on future oil use and CO2 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 FCVs 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 

H2 STATIONS IN THE H2 SUCCESS SCENARIO 

APPENDIX C: BASIS FOR ESTIMATES OF FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO2 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 multipliers 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 vehicle attributes (range, maintenance 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 the 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 (CVs) 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 prices 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 economy and price) as those 

estimated for models with more advanced drivetrain 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. 
237 

TABLE 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 Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2014 2019 Incremental Price ($) $3,396 $3,307 $3,218 $2,951 $2,774 $3,014 $3,010 $3,006 $2,998 $2,991 $2,960 2,8

$ 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.467 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.467 1.37 1.39 

Diesel Hybrid 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2017 2022 Incremental Price ($) $6,219 $6,123 $6,028 $5,838 $5,647 $6,200 $6,120 $6,040 $5,895 $5,735 $4,814 4,7

$ 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.446 2.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.446 2.208 2.24 Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2013 2018 

Incremental Price ($) $4,950 $4,692 $4,377 $3,325 $2,668 $3,857 $3,715 $3,572 $3,116 $2,831 $3,071 2,8

$ 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.343 2.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.343 2.10 2.13 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 Incremental Price ($) $139 $119 $99 $31 -$9 $232 $236 $241 $257 $266 $276 $ 

2

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2028 2033 Incremental Price ($) $8,179 $7,983 $7,787 $7,866 $7,474 $8,200 $8,010 $7,820 $7,896 $7,516 $6,521 6,2

$ 

Range 0.90 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.90 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.90 1.00 Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.14 2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.14 2.82 2.90 

FCV PHEV 40 2034 2039 2044 2040 2050 2034 2039 2044 2040 2050 2030 2035 Incremental Price ($) $10,175 $9,792 $9,410 $9,716 $8,951 $10,822 $10,435 $10,049 $10,358 $9,586 $9,752 9,3

$ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.18 3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.18 2.93 2.99 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.19 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.19 5.07 5.10 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2023 2028 Incremental Price ($) $7,524 $7,131 $6,738 $6,345 $5,558 $8,267 $7,861 $7,456 $6,970 $6,160 $7,010 6,6

$ 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.08 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.27 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.27 2.05 2.09 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.69 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.69 5.27 5.35 

2-SEATER MINI-COMPACT SUB-COMPACT

Year of: Year of: Year of
238 

TABLE A-1 (Cont.)

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.37 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 

Incremental 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 Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $2,316 $2,497 $2,495 $1,498 $944 $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833 $3,763 $3,928 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.343 1.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.343 1.53 1.85 

Advanced Gasoline 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $353 $276 $200 -$92 -$245 $531 $471 $410 $168 $47 $616 $579 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.24 1.17 1.18 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental 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 Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.79 2.86 2.94 2.99 3.14 2.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.14 2.65 2.74 

FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2025 2030 

Incremental 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 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 Luggage Space 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.89 2.96 3.03 3.04 3.18 2.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18 2.74 2.83 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.03 5.07 5.11 5.11 5.19 4.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19 4.86 4.93 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 2020 2025 

Incremental 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 Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.27 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.27 2.00 2.04 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.69 5.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.69 5.17 5.25 

COMPACT Mid-size (Medium) CAR LARGE CAR

Year of: Year of: Year of:
239 

TABLE A-1 (Cont.)

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental Price ($) $2,939 $3,038 $3,087 $2,519 $2,219 $1,645 $2,873 $4,100 $3,901 $3,801 $3,828 $3,67

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.41 1.40 

Diesel Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $4,783 $4,594 $4,405 $3,802 $3,425 $6,398 6,302 $ 6,206 $ 5,917$ $5,725 $6,877 $6,53

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.059 1.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.059 1.893 1.91 

Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental Price ($) $2,458 $2,319 $2,180 $1,736 $1,458 $3,629 3,580 $ 3,531 $ 3,383$ $3,285 $4,279 $3,99

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.958 1.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.958 1.82 1.84 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental Price ($) $427 $402 $376 $290 $239 $811 $ 972$ 1,231 892 $ $1,392 $1,052 $979 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2030 2035 2040 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental Price ($) $8,034 $7,721 $7,407 $7,219 $6,593 $10,594 10,359 $ 10,124 $ 10,124$ $9,653 $10,307 $9,81

Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.59 2.40 2.45 2.49 2.49 2.59 2.23 2.30 

FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2025 2030 

Incremental Price ($) $15,237 $14,666 $14,095 $13,981 $12,840 $19,291 18,757 $ 18,224 $ 18,438$ $17,371 $19,041 $18,1Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.57 2.41 2.46 2.50 2.48 2.57 2.26 2.32 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.39 4.17 4.23 4.29 4.27 4.39 4.08 4.14 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2019 2024 

Incremental Price ($) $8,605 $8,229 $7,853 $7,252 $6,500 $12,039 11,589 $ 11,139 $ 10,419$ $9,520 $11,037 $10,4

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 

SMALL TRUCK 

(PICKUP)

CARGO (INCL. 2b) 

TRUCK (PICKUP)

SMALL VAN 

(MINIVAN)

Year of: Year of: Year 
240 

TABLE A-1 (Cont.)

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.36 Diesel Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.923 1.94 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.58 1.81 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2012 2017 

Incremental Price ($) $816 $809 $803 $780 $766 $856 $788 $721 $450 $314 $1,069 $1,104 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.11 1.12 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2025 2030 

Incremental 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 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.95 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.59 2.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.59 2.28 2.34 

FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2027 2032 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.87 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.57 2.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.57 2.30 2.36 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.39 4.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.39 4.10 4.16 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84 4.56 4.61 

LARGE VAN SMALL SUV LARGE SUV

Year of: Year of: Year of:
241 

TABLE A-2 “Literature Review” Vehicle Input Assumptions for the MP H2 Success Scenario 

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.467 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.467 1.37 1.39 

Diesel Hybrid 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2017 2022 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.446 2.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.446 2.208 2.24 Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2013 2018 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.343 2.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.343 2.10 2.13 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 

Incremental Price ($) $139 $119 $99 $31 -$9 $232 $236 $241 $257 $266 $276 $ 

256 $ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.61 2.71 

FCV PHEV 40 2026 2031 2036 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.90 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.01 3.18 2.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18 2.71 2.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.90 4.96 5.02 5.07 5.19 4.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19 4.82 4.89 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.08 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.27 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.27 2.05 2.09 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.69 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.69 5.27 5.35 

2-SEATER MINI-COMPACT SUB-COMPACT

Year of: Year of: Year of:
242 

TABLE A-2 (Cont.) 

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental 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 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.37 

Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 Incremental 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 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 Incremental Price ($) $2,316 $2,497 $2,495 $1,498 $944 $2,343 $2,949 $3,556 $2,407 $1,833 $3,763 $3,928 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

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

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.343 1.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.343 1.53 1.85 

Advanced Gasoline 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 Incremental Price ($) $353 $276 $200 -$92 -$245 $531 $471 $410 $168 $47 $616 $579 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.24 1.17 1.18 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 2017 2022 Incremental 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 Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0

Luggage Space 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.14 2.57 2.65 

FCV PHEV 40 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.18 2.57 2.67 2.76 2.98 3.18 2.60 2.70 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.19 4.71 4.79 4.87 5.04 5.19 4.71 4.79 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 2020 2025 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.27 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.27 2.00 2.04 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.69 5.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.69 5.17 5.25 

COMPACT Mid-size (Medium) CAR LARGE CAR

Year of: Year of: Year of
243 

TABLE A-2 (Cont.) 

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental Price ($) $2,939 $3,038 $3,087 $2,519 $2,219 $1,645 $2,873 $4,100 $3,901 $3,801 $3,828 $3,67

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.41 1.40 

Diesel Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $4,783 $4,594 $4,405 $3,802 $3,425 $6,398 6,302 $ 6,206 $ 5,917 $ $5,725 $6,877 $6,53

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.059 1.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.059 1.893 1.91 

Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental Price ($) $2,458 $2,319 $2,180 $1,736 $1,458 $3,629 3,580 $ 3,531 $ 3,383 $ $3,285 $4,279 $3,99

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.958 1.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.958 1.82 1.84 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental Price ($) $427 $402 $376 $290 $239 $811 $ 972$ 1,231 892 $ $1,392 $1,052 $979 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2020 2025 Incremental Price ($) $9,661 $9,150 $8,638 $7,615 $6,593 $12,234 11,738 $ 11,241 $ 10,646 $ $9,653 $11,145 $10,5

Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59 2.25 2.32 2.38 2.46 2.59 2.19 2.26 

FCV PHEV 40 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2026 2031 2036 2040 2050 2022 2027 Incremental Price ($) $17,980 $17,028 $16,076 $14,744 $12,840 $21,993 21,030 $ 20,067 $ 19,297 $ $17,371 $20,624 $19,5

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.21 2.28 2.34 2.44 2.57 2.28 2.34 2.40 2.45 2.57 2.19 2.26 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.06 4.12 4.18 4.27 4.39 4.09 4.15 4.21 4.26 4.39 4.05 4.11 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2019 2024 

Incremental Price ($) $8,605 $8,229 $7,853 $7,252 $6,500 $12,039 11,589 $ 11,139 $ 10,419 $ $9,520 $11,037 $10,4

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 

Year of: Year 

SMALL VAN 

(MINIVAN)

SMALL TRUCK 

(PICKUP)

CARGO (INCL. 2b) 

TRUCK (PICKUP)

Year of:
244 

TABLE A-2 (Cont.) 

"Literature Review" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental Price ($) $2,078 $3,022 $3,751 $3,245 $2,978 $2,167 $2,834 $3,338 $2,770 $2,471 $1,745 $2,97Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.36 

Diesel Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 Incremental Price ($) $6,971 $6,677 $6,383 $5,325 $4,738 $7,181 $6,796 $6,411 $4,870 $4,099 $7,191 $7,01Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.923 1.94 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 Incremental Price ($) $4,062 $3,851 $3,639 $2,878 $2,455 $2,963 $3,279 $3,596 $2,459 $1,891 $4,313 $4,72Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.58 1.81 Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2012 2017 

Incremental Price ($) $816 $809 $803 $780 $766 $856 $788 $721 $450 $314 $1,069 $1,10

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.11 1.12 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2017 2022 Incremental Price ($) $13,239 $12,508 $11,777 $9,877 $8,414 $11,207 $10,615 $10,023 $8,839 $7,655 $15,217 $14,43

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.95 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.59 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59 2.20 2.26 

FCV PHEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 

Incremental Price ($) $22,179 $21,022 $19,865 $18,014 $15,701 $20,068 $18,974 $17,880 $16,129 $13,941 $24,988 $23,7

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.87 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57 2.19 2.26 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39 4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39 4.05 4.11 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 Incremental Price ($) $11,094 $10,618 $10,141 $9,284 $8,331 $10,577 $10,011 $9,445 $8,200 $7,068 $12,810 $12,2

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84 4.56 4.61 

Year of: Year of: Year o

LARGE VAN SMALL SUV LARGE SUV
245 

TABLE 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 Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2014 2019 Incremental 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 $ 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.467 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.467 1.37 1.39 

Diesel Hybrid 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2017 2022 Incremental 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 $ 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.446 2.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.446 2.208 2.24 Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2013 2018 Incremental 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 $ Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.343 2.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.343 2.10 2.13 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 Incremental Price ($) $2 -$26 -$54 -$149 -$205 $97 $94 $91 $80 $74 $164 $ 

135 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2028 2033 Incremental Price ($) $1,057 $983 $910 $939 $792 $1,259 $1,188 $1,117 $1,146 $1,003 $1,009 855 $ 

Range 0.90 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.90 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.14 2.94 3.00 3.05 3.03 3.14 2.82 2.90 

FCV PHEV 40 2034 2039 2044 2040 2050 2034 2039 2044 2040 2050 2030 2035 

Incremental 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 $ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.18 3.03 3.07 3.12 3.08 3.18 2.93 2.99 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.19 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.15 5.19 5.07 5.10 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental 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 $ 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Maintenance Cost 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.08 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.27 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.27 2.05 2.09 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.69 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.69 5.27 5.35 

2-SEATER MINI-COMPACT SUB-COMPACT

Year of: Year of: Year of:
246 

TABLE A-3 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.37 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 

Incremental 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 Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $2,062 $1,819 $1,574 $686 $193 $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926 $3,545 $3,164 Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.343 1.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.343 1.53 1.85 

Advanced Gasoline 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $254 $171 $89 -$223 -$387 $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 $495 $452 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.24 1.17 1.18 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental Price ($) $470 $304 $139 $39 -$293 $2,115 $1,787 $1,458 $997 $340 $2,627 $2,279 Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.79 2.86 2.94 2.99 3.14 2.65 2.74 2.83 2.96 3.14 2.65 2.74 FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2025 2030 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 Luggage Space 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.89 2.96 3.03 3.04 3.18 2.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18 2.74 2.83 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.03 5.07 5.11 5.11 5.19 4.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19 4.86 4.93 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 2020 2025 

Incremental 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 Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.27 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.27 2.00 2.04 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.69 5.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.69 5.17 5.25 

COMPACT Mid-size (Medium) CAR LARGE CAR

Year of: Year of: Year of:
247 

TABLE A-3 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2010 201Incremental Price ($) $2,843 $2,700 $2,551 $1,897 $1,552 $1,589 $2,532 $3,475 $3,170 $3,017 $3,304 $3,1Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.2

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.9

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.41 1.4

Diesel Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2011 201Incremental Price ($) $3,229 $3,059 $2,889 $2,346 $2,006 $4,399 4,337 $ 4,275 $ 4,089$ $3,965 $5,353 $5,0

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.3

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.9

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.9

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.9

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.059 1.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.059 1.893 1.9

Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2010 201Incremental Price ($) $1,335 $1,228 $1,121 $777 $563 $2,178 2,177 $ 2,177 $ 2,176$ $2,176 $3,247 $2,9

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.2

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.0

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.9

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.9

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.958 1.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.958 1.82 1.8

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2010 201Incremental Price ($) $310 $281 $252 $153 $95 $665 $ 812 738 $ 1,047 $ $1,195 $948 $86

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.1

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2030 2035 2040 2040 2050 2023 202Incremental Price ($) $1,943 $1,752 $1,561 $1,446 $1,064 $3,105 3,028 $ 2,951 $ 2,951$ $2,797 $3,506 $3,1

Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.0

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.0

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.0

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.0

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.59 2.40 2.45 2.49 2.49 2.59 2.23 2.3

FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2032 2037 2042 2040 2050 2025 203Incremental Price ($) $4,981 $4,808 $4,634 $4,600 $4,254 $6,996 6,924 $ 6,852 $ 6,881$ $6,737 $7,810 $7,2

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.0

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.9

Luggage Space 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.9

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.57 2.41 2.46 2.50 2.48 2.57 2.26 2.3

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.39 4.17 4.23 4.29 4.27 4.39 4.08 4.1

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2019 202Incremental Price ($) $4,763 $4,505 $4,248 $3,836 $3,322 $7,280 6,977 $ 6,674 $ 6,189$ $5,583 $6,614 $6,1

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.0

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.9

Luggage Space 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.9

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.8

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.6

Year of: Year 

SMALL VAN 

(MINIVAN)

SMALL TRUCK 

(PICKUP)

CARGO (INCL. 2b) 

TRUCK (PICKUP)

Year of:
248 

TABLE A-3 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP Mixed and (P)HEV & Ethanol Scenarios

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.36 

Diesel Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.923 1.94 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental Price ($) $2,868 $2,677 $2,486 $1,798 $1,416 $2,869 $2,713 $2,558 $1,444 $887 $3,771 $3,641 Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.58 1.81 Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2012 2017 

Incremental Price ($) $685 $674 $663 $627 $605 $751 $677 $603 $305 $157 $936 $965 Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.11 1.12 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2027 2032 2037 2040 2050 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2025 2030 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.95 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.33 2.38 2.44 2.48 2.59 2.23 2.30 2.36 2.46 2.59 2.28 2.34 FCV PHEV 40 2029 2034 2039 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2027 2032 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.87 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.47 2.57 2.26 2.32 2.38 2.45 2.57 2.30 2.36 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.12 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.39 4.08 4.14 4.20 4.26 4.39 4.10 4.16 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84 4.56 4.61 

Year of: Year of: Year of:

LARGE VAN SMALL SUV LARGE SUV
249 

TABLE A-4 “Program Goals” Vehicle Input Assumptions for the MP H2 Success Scenario 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.467 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.467 1.37 1.39 

Diesel Hybrid 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2017 2022 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.166 2.21 2.26 2.35 2.446 2.190 2.23 2.28 2.36 2.446 2.208 2.24 Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2013 2018 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.70 2.03 2.13 2.26 2.343 2.10 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.343 2.10 2.13 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2013 2018 

Incremental Price ($) $2 -$26 -$54 -$149 -$205 $97 $94 $91 $80 $74 $164 $ 

135 $ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.14 1.15 

Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 

Incremental Price ($) $3,460 $2,984 $2,507 $1,745 $792 $3,534 $3,082 $2,630 $1,907 $1,003 $2,283 1,934 $ 

$ 

Range 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.61 2.71 

FCV PHEV 40 2026 2031 2036 2040 2050 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.01 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.01 3.18 2.74 2.83 2.92 3.00 3.18 2.71 2.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.90 4.96 5.02 5.07 5.19 4.86 4.93 4.99 5.06 5.19 4.82 4.89 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2023 2028 

Incremental 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 $ 

$ 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.08 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.09 2.12 2.16 2.19 2.27 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.27 2.05 2.09 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.34 5.41 5.48 5.55 5.69 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.54 5.69 5.27 5.35 

Year of: Year of:

2-SEATER MINI-COMPACT SUB-COMPACT

Year of:
250 

TABLE A-4 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.40 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.467 1.30 1.37 Diesel Hybrid 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2015 2020 

Incremental 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 Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

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

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 2.30 2.39 2.446 2.239 2.27 

Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $2,062 $1,819 $1,574 $686 $193 $2,240 $2,335 $2,429 $1,427 $926 $3,545 $3,164 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.54 1.89 2.11 2.26 2.343 1.41 1.75 2.10 2.26 2.343 1.53 1.85 Advanced Gasoline 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2011 2016 

Incremental Price ($) $254 $171 $89 -$223 -$387 $417 $350 $283 $17 -$117 $495 $452 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.22 1.24 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.24 1.17 1.18 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 2017 2022 

Incremental Price ($) $1,364 $1,069 $773 $299 -$293 $3,887 $3,350 $2,812 $1,415 $340 $4,504 $3,935 

Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.61 2.71 2.80 2.95 3.14 2.57 2.65 2.74 2.97 3.14 2.57 2.65 FCV PHEV 40 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 

Luggage Space 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.71 2.80 2.89 3.00 3.18 2.57 2.67 2.76 2.98 3.18 2.60 2.70 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.82 4.89 4.96 5.05 5.19 4.71 4.79 4.87 5.04 5.19 4.71 4.79 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2018 2023 2028 2040 2050 2020 2025 

Incremental 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 Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.18 2.27 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.19 2.27 2.00 2.04 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 5.20 5.29 5.37 5.52 5.69 5.25 5.32 5.39 5.55 5.69 5.17 5.25 

Year of: Year of: Year of:

COMPACT Mid-size (Medium) CAR LARGE CAR
251 

TABLE A-4 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental 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 Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.30 1.36 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.41 1.40 Diesel Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2011 2016 Incremental 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 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.923 1.94 1.96 2.02 2.059 1.937 1.95 1.97 2.02 2.059 1.893 1.91 

Gasoline Hybrid 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental Price ($) $1,335 $1,228 $1,121 $777 $563 $2,178 2,177 $ 2,177 $ 2,176$ $2,176 $3,247 $2,967 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.958 1.86 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.958 1.82 1.84 

Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2014 2019 2024 2040 2050 2010 2015 Incremental Price ($) $310 $281 $252 $153 $95 $665 $ 812$ 1,047 738 $ $1,195 $948 $869 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2024 2029 2034 2040 2050 2020 2025 Incremental 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 

Range 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59 2.25 2.32 2.38 2.46 2.59 2.19 2.26 

FCV PHEV 40 2023 2028 2033 2040 2050 2026 2031 2036 2040 2050 2022 2027 Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.21 2.28 2.34 2.44 2.57 2.28 2.34 2.40 2.45 2.57 2.19 2.26 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.06 4.12 4.18 4.27 4.39 4.09 4.15 4.21 4.26 4.39 4.05 4.11 

SI Plug-in HEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2019 2024 Incremental 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 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Luggage Space 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 

Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.93 1.77 1.80 

Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 

SMALL TRUCK 

(PICKUP)

CARGO (INCL. 2b) 

TRUCK (PICKUP)

SMALL VAN 

(MINIVAN)

Year of: Year of: Year of:
252 

TABLE A-4 (Cont.) 

"Program Goals" Vehicle Input Asumptions for MP H2 Success Scenario

Advanced Diesel 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2011 2016 2021 2040 2050 2010 2015 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 

Maintenance Cost 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.32 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.39 1.382 1.31 1.36 Diesel Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 Maintenance Cost 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.899 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.897 1.92 1.94 2.02 2.059 1.923 1.94 Gasoline Hybrid 2012 2017 2022 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2014 2019 

Incremental Price ($) $2,868 $2,677 $2,486 $1,798 $1,416 $2,869 $2,713 $2,558 $1,444 $887 $3,771 $3,641 

Range 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 

Maintenance Cost 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.41 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.958 1.58 1.81 Advanced Gasoline 2013 2018 2023 2040 2050 2010 2015 2020 2040 2050 2012 2017 

Incremental Price ($) $685 $674 $663 $627 $605 $751 $677 $603 $305 $157 $936 $965 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Luggage Space 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.11 1.12 Fuel Cell (hydrogen) 2017 2022 2027 2040 2050 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2017 2022 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Top Speed 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.95 

Luggage Space 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Fuel economy X factor (unadjusted) 2.20 2.26 2.32 2.47 2.59 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.46 2.59 2.20 2.26 FCV PHEV 40 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 2032 2040 2050 2022 2027 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maintenance Cost 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.04 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.87 Luggage Space 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.95 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.43 2.57 2.19 2.26 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39 4.05 4.11 4.17 4.27 4.39 4.05 4.11 SI Plug-in HEV 40 2021 2026 2031 2040 2050 2019 2024 2029 2040 2050 2021 2026 

Incremental 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 

Range 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Maintenance Cost 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.05 

Acceleration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Top Speed 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Luggage Space 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fuel economy X factor (liquid fuel, unadjusted) 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.88 1.93 1.77 1.80 Fuel economy X factor (electricity, unadjusted) 4.56 4.61 4.65 4.74 4.84 4.59 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.84 4.56 4.61 

LARGE VAN SMALL SUV LARGE SUV

Year of: Year of: Year of:
253 

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF JUMP STARTING 

H2 STATIONS IN THE H2 SUCCESS SCENARIO 

As discussed in Chapter 7, vehicle subsidies are needed to meet the vehicle penetration goals of 

the various scenarios. The H2 Success scenario assumes that there is an additional policy to jump 

start the availability of stations selling H2. This policy is likely to incorporate some form of 

subsidy. The cost of that subsidy should be added 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 H2 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 with 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 H2 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 large cities will begin in 2010 and will be 

provided through 2024. 

• Subsidies for stations built in small 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 three different conditions provide possible total costs 

that range from $6.3 billion to $12 billion. The total cost would be lower if we assumed that an 

amount less than a subsidy of the full station cost would generate the H2 station totals estimated 

in Table B-1. 
255 

TABLE B-1 Total Number of H2 Stations in the Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario Assuming the Jump Startin

Stations Offering H2 in Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario Assuming Jump Starting of Station

Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City 

2015 930 6 936 929 6 935 933 5 938 93

2020 5,655 148 5,806 5,518 145 5,679 5,661 149 5,843 5,612024 9,604 755 10,371 9,121 721 9,915 9,403 751 10,331 9,292029 9,958 1,566 11,556 10,052 1,444 11,704 23,503 3,490 28,048 10,102030 10,045 1,579 11,660 11,969 1,446 13,643 27,890 5,443 34,946 11,88

H2 Success Literature Review H2 Success Program Goals

H2 Success Literature Review 

With Subsidies

H2 Succe

TABLE B-2 Total H2 Stations in the Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario WITHOUT Assuming the Jump Start

Stations Offering H2 in Early Years of the H2 Success Scenario WITHOUT Jump Starting of Station

Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City Small City

Total 

(includes 

rural) Large City 

2015 13 7 21 13 7 21 13 7 21 1

2020 32 20 59 56 44 120 103 80 220 52024 62 44 123 212 164 451 458 355 975 212029 108 78 218 557 428 1,180 1,720 1,291 3,590 552030 117 86 238 649 498 1,373 2,228 1,645 4,601 64

H2 Success Literature Review H2 Success Program Goals

H2 Success Literature Review 

With Subsidies

H2 Succe
256 

TABLE B-3 Cumulative Costs through 2030 of Jump Starting H2 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 CO2 EMISSIONS 

FROM LIGHT VEHICLES 

For the most part, the National Energy Modeling System used for the Multi-Path Study (NEMSMP) reports energy-related CO2 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 CO2 emissions from light vehicles (LVs). For 

example, CO2 emissions associated with fuel use in the petroleum-refining process and in 

biofuels production are reported as part of industrial sector emissions, as are emissions from 

hydrogen production. In theory, some of these emissions 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 associated 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. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) reports on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Then we assumed that all changes in 

U.S. CO2 emissions in our other scenarios, including 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 H2 and ethanol deserve some discussion. 

• Currently, the only end user of H2 in the NEMS-MP model is LVs. So any 

reduction in H2 prices in the scenarios will only increase LV hydrogen use. 

• We varied the conversion costs of cellulosic 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 E85. 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 increase their use of ethanol in blends. 

The NEMS-MP model growth projections for these markets, however, are 

very small. Therefore, we ignore the potential for increased ethanol use by this 

very small market. 

• Finally, we do not vary biomass supply curves that would affect the power 

sector. 
258 

C.1 ESTIMATE OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO2 EMISSIONS AS A SHARE OF 

TOTAL U.S. CO2 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 report in particular included estimates of the 

CO2 emissions from various components of the transportation life cycle (proportion relative to 

direct emissions). (One of the sources for the indirect emissions was Argonne’s GREET model 

(Argonne 2001).) We used those two reports to derive an estimate of the LV full-fuel-cycle share 

of total U.S. CO2 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 CO2 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 stability, we initially made no adjustments to the 

LV full-fuel-cycle share of total U.S. CO2 emissions in the future. 

With respect to ethanol, we did adjust the future LV full-fuel-cycle share of total U.S. CO2

emissions to account for (a) the expectation that ethanol use by LVs will change over time and 

(b) the fact that ethanol has lower 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 CO2-emissions from ethanol made from corn is 

15.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2) per quad versus 25.9 MMTCO2/quad for 

gasoline (where 1 quad = 1 quadrillion [1015] BTU). Cellulosic ethanol is assumed to have no 

CO2 emissions. Applying all these factors to the initial 23.9% share results in a small reduction 

in the share over time, as can be seen in Table C-2 (second row). By 2050, the share is 23.0%. 

C.2 FINAL ESTIMATES OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE MP 

BASE CASE WITH CAFE 

Table C-2 presents the estimates of LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions in both the Base Case 

without CAFE and the final MP Base Case with CAFE. The share estimates developed above for 

the Base Case without CAFE are applied to the total U.S. CO2 emissions for that case (from a 

NEMS-MP run), and LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 emissions in MMTCO2e are derived for the Base 

Case without CAFE. Between 2005 and 2050, these emissions rise from 1,419 to 

2,219 MMTCO2e. 

The total U.S. CO2 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. Therefore, these reductions are applied to the LV full-
259 

fuel-cycle CO2 emissions of the Base Case without CAFE to derive LV full-fuel-cycle CO2

emissions for the MP Base Case with CAFE. The reduction is small. 

C.3 ESTIMATES OF LV FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE MP 

SCENARIOS/CASES 

For any scenario/case, the total U.S. CO2 emissions of that case are compared with the total 

U.S. CO2 emissions shown in Table C-2 for the Base Case with CAFE. The reductions achieved 

are all assumed to be LV-related. Therefore, these reductions are applied to the LV full-fuelcycle CO2 emissions of the Base Case with CAFE to derive LV full-fuel-cycle CO2 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 CO2

Emissions as a Share of Total U.S. CO2 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:

Total U.S. (Inventory report, Table 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 CO2 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 version 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 penetration 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 efficiency), vehicle range, acceleration, maintenance costs, luggage 

space, home refueling capability, fuel availability, 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 changes 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 performed 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 Payback Period Used in VCM 

The VCM computes the “utility” value of each vehicle 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 the vehicle. Assuming that the vehicle is driven 

12,000 miles per year, the annual equivalent utility would be –0.3898 × 100/12,000, which 

equals –0.00325. This result implies that the equivalence 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. The coefficients can be used to compute the 

point of equivalence or, in other words, the annual 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 equivalent 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 travels 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 coefficient 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 vehicle 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 technology in the tables, 

four market penetration estimates are shown: 

a. Results with the default NEMS payback assumptions; 

b. Results with payback assumptions changed 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 period 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% discount 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 valuation of fuel savings and assuming LR vehicle 

prices, by 2050, gasoline internal combustion engines (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 prices, as shown in Table D-4 and Figure D-2, the 

gasoline ICEs (conventional and advanced) are again 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 cumbersome 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 conventional 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 even 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 the 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 fairly extreme test value of four in order to 

gauge its impact. To mimic the effect of a “social discount rate,” a 3% discount factor might be 

applied, and the net present value of fuel savings 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 would be multiplied by 1.5, assuming that vehicles 

will travel 12,000 miles/year on average and that 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 IMPACT 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 goals for several of the technologies are different 

from those discussed in the current report. However, 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 penetration 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 with vehicle Make and 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 plug-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), PHEVs, and gasoline HEV (GHEV) stock added 

in. 

7. H2 Station Increase: The result of Run #6 with the Mixed Scenario change in H2 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 default 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 results 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 with the electricity price for PHEVs reduced 

by 40%. 

12. Plug-in Avail (65%): The results of Run #11 with 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 

• H2 station size. 

The impact of changing the first two factors (changing the constants and estimating MMA 

endogenously) is further illustrated in Section 6.7. That 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. 
270 

TABLE D-2 Example of Utilities Using Alternative Coefficients for Vehicle Price and Driving Cost 
271 

TABLE D-3 Sales Shares Using Different Payback Assumptions for the Mixed Scenario 

with Literature Review (LR) Vehicle Prices1

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 Payback Assumptions for the Mixed Scenario 

with Program Goals (PG) Vehicle Prices1

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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 MMA 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 brief 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, vehicle 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 goals, the level of consumer enthusiasm about environmental 

performance, and so forth). It is equally difficult for each team member to then apply this 

“context” to the development of the assumptions. In addition, although a literature review 

is a key source of information on which to base judgments about the assumptions, the 

available literature often does not provide sufficient detail about key factors affecting cost 

and performance estimates to allow good comparisons 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 vehicle market penetration estimates in the NEMS 

model; thus, developing good vehicle price estimates for input to the model is essential. 

Without such estimates, the market penetration 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 function 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., advanced 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 advanced technology vehicles (ATVs). 
280 

In addition, changing the assumptions about 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 availability of various vehicle 

technologies. These methods lead to different 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 that 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 performance 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 makes 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 equations 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 costs 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 embedded NEMS assumptions for MP has been 

incorporated into the model runs for PDS/Risk. Fleet vehicle choices 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 submodel was discovered by the MP team. 

6. The stand-alone NEMS transport sector model developed for MP allows fast analysis of 

ATV market penetration with changing variables (vehicle fuel economy, vehicle price, 

recharge availability, etc.). (Unfortunately, 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