NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Retail Infrastructure Costs 

Comparison for Hydrogen and 

Electricity for Light-Duty 

Vehicles

Preprint

M. Melaina, Y. Sun, and B. Bush

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Presented at the SAE 2014 World Congress and Exhibition

Detroit, Michigan

April 8–10, 2014

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-5400-60944

August 2014
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, 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

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
1 

Retail Infrastructure Costs Comparison for Hydrogen and Electricity 

for Light-duty Vehicles 

Abstract

Both hydrogen and plug-in electric vehicles offer 

significant social and environmental benefits to 

enhance energy security and reduce criteria and 

greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation 

sector. However, the rollout of electric vehicle supply 

equipment (EVSE) and hydrogen retail stations (HRS) 

requires substantial investments with high risks due to 

many uncertainties. We compare retail infrastructure 

costs on a common basis – cost per mile, assuming 

fueling service to 10% of all light-duty vehicles in a 

typical 1.5 million person city in 2025. Our analysis 

considers three HRS sizes, four distinct types of 

EVSE and two distinct EVSE scenarios. EVSE station 

costs, including equipment and installation, are 

assumed to be 15% less than today’s costs. We find 

that levelized retail capital costs per mile are 

essentially indistinguishable given the uncertainty and 

variability around input assumptions. Total fuel costs

per mile for battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in 

hybrid vehicle (PHEV) are, respectively, 21% lower 

and 13% lower than that for hydrogen fuel cell electric 

vehicle (FCEV) under the home-dominant scenario. 

Including fuel economies and vehicle costs makes 

FCEVs and BEVs comparable in terms of costs per 

mile, and PHEVs are about 10% less than FCEVs 

and BEVs. To account for geographic variability in 

energy prices and hydrogen delivery costs, we use

the Scenario Evaluation, Regionalization and Analysis 

(SERA) model and confirm the aforementioned 

estimate of cost per mile, nationally averaged, and 

estimate a 15% variability in regional costs of FCEVs 

and a 5% variability in regional costs for BEVs. 

Introduction

Research efforts on electrification of the 

transportation sector have been driven by growing 

environmental concerns and interest in energy 

security. Both hydrogen and electric vehicles have the 

potential to “remove the vehicle from the 

environmental equation.”[1] Urban areas benefit from 

zero tailpipe emissions from hydrogen fuel cell electric 

vehicles (FCEVs) and plug-in vehicles (PEVs) with 

electric miles. PEVs include both battery electric 

vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

(PHEVs). Hydrogen and electricity increase the 

diversity of low-carbon energy resources that can be 

relied upon to meet long-term greenhouse gas 

reduction goals. Hydrogen and electricity supply 

pathways require very low volumes of petroleumbased fuels, offering a long-term and domestic 

alternative to gasoline and diesel fuels. 

Both government agencies and the auto industry have 

promoted EV and FCEV deployments for a more 

sustainable transportation future. In 2011, President 

Obama set an ambitious goal of putting one million 

EVs on the road by 2015 and proposed incentive 

programs to accelerate EV deployment [2]. According 

to the December 2010 OEM survey by California 

Energy Commission [3], OEMs committed to supply 

over 50,000 FCEVs in California by 2015-2017, an 

11% increase over the number in the 2009 survey. 

However, high initial vehicle costs (full performance 

BEVs can cost more than $40,000) and lack of 

consumer acceptance, partly due to limited retail 

stations, could prove to be major market barriers. 

Many insightful studies have compared vehicle costs, 

fuel costs and ownership costs [4-6], while few have 

focused on retail infrastructure costs [7]. 

While deploying HRS and EVSE retail stations 

involves substantial and high-risk investments, as of 

the end of 2011, there were 215 HRS in operation 

around the world with a further 122 in the final 

planning stage [8]. According to Navigant Research 

[9], there are more than 48,000 publicly accessible 

EVSE stations installed globally as of the first quarter 

this year. Increasing volumes have been seen for 

both HRS and EVSE systems, and additional data is 

starting to become available for more reliable 

“current” cost estimates. Considering the uncertainty 

associated with future cost estimates, we apply broad 

ranges for our cost estimates based on recent publicly 

available data. We do not estimate upstream 

electricity distribution system costs (e.g., 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
2 

transformers) and therefore underestimate full EVSE 

costs to some degree. 

Hydrogen and electricity supply pathways have highly 

variable costs and social and environmental benefits. 

This paper focuses on retail infrastructure, which has 

a lesser degree of variability than full pathway 

comparisons. We adopt a common transportation 

energy service basis – per vehicle mile traveled – to 

compare retail infrastructure, fuel, and vehicle costs 

for hydrogen and electricity in 2025. A generic 1.5 

million person city is assumed for our analysis. We 

focus on light-duty vehicles (LDVs) only, assuming 

10% of LDVs in the city are PEVs or FCEVs with fuel 

economy estimates from DOE [9] and HRS costs from 

the Hydrogen Station Cost Calculator (HSCC) [10].

This level of market adoption is relatively aggressive

for 2025, and is chosen to avoid many of the 

transitional costs and dynamics associated with very 

early infrastructure development and vehicle rollout, 

which have been examined elsewhere. The HSCC 

incorporates expert stakeholders’ estimates and a 

select number of other cost estimates. In general, the 

HSCC results reflect cost reduction trends that could 

be achieved over the next 5 to 10 years. To estimate 

EVSE station costs, we compile EVSE cost data 

based on a variety of sources and assume a 

moderate cost reduction for 2025, due to learning and 

experience. For total capital cost estimates per city, 

we make further assumptions regarding station size, 

capacity and PEVs mix under home and robust PEV 

charging scenarios. Our results indicate that city-wide 

capital costs per mile are within ten percentage points

between FCEVs, BEVs and PHEVs, though EVSE 

level 2 home (L2H) chargers carry a relatively high 

capital costs (and faster charging times) compared to 

level 1 home (L1H) chargers. The difference in total 

costs between the home and robust scenarios is not 

substantial. When one considers fuel economies and 

vehicle costs, FCEV and BEV costs per mile are 

comparable and PHEVs are about 10% less on a cost 

per mile basis.

Methods

We assume a generic 1.5 million person city in 2025 

as our comparison basis, which corresponds to a 

typical large urban area according to data from U.S. 

Census, and adopt assumptions about the city and 

financing shown in Table 1. The PEV mix is 20% BEV 

and 80% PHEV. We levelize station capital and 

operating costs on a gallon gasoline equivalent (gge) 

basis and then calculated costs per mile: 

CPM =

C∙CRF+OM

Q +F

FE , (1)

where CPM refers to total fuel cost per mile in $/mi, C

to station capital cost, CRF to capital recovery factor, 

OM to annual station operating cost, Q to annual fuel 

demand in gge, F to fuel cost in $/gge, and FE to fuel 

economy in miles/gge. City service cost in $/city was 

calculated as a secondary cost metric, based on 

percentage share of LDVs and miles per LDV: 

CS = N ∙ S ∙ VMT ∙ CCM , (2)

where CS refers to city-wide service or total capital 

cost (sum of C over all stations), N to total number of 

LDVs in the city, S to market share of FCEVs or PEVs 

(10% in this analysis), VMT to annual miles per LDV 

(miles per vehicle-year) and CCM to the station 

capital cost per mile. 

Table 1. General assumption for the comparison basis

Description Value Unit

City 

parameters

Population 1.5 million

Population density 2900 Persons/mi2

Vehicle ownership 0.8 LDVs/person

Market share of 

PEVs/FCEVs

10% -

Financial 

parameters

Interest rate 10% -

Capital lifetime 12 Years

Fuel costs in 2025 National 

average

$/gge

Note: this is a quasi-steady state analysis. It is assumed that many 

early market growth risks have been overcome by the time 10% of 

the on-road vehicle is FCEVs or BEVs and PHEVs. 

To estimate capital costs per mile traveled, we made 

input assumptions regarding vehicle efficiency, 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicles per station and 

total station capacity, shown in Table 2. The battery 

charging efficiency was assumed to be 85% [9]. Other 

parameters are explained in sections below. Figure 1 

shows average daily miles driven for FCEV, BEV and 

PHEV under two scenarios, and conventional ICE 

(internal combustion engine)/hybrid electric vehicles. 

For PHEVs, the percent of VMT on electricity (46.4%) 

is computed by using the Fleet Utility Factor equation 

from SAE J2841 [11]. The J2841 daily distance utility 

factor is the fraction of miles travelled in charge 

depletion mode at a fleet level. In the Robust 

Scenario, it is assumed PHEVs have greater access 

to public charging and therefore drive a greater 

number of e-miles, on average; this is a back-of-theenvelope input assumption. For BEV miles, we 

estimate a daily average of 31.6 e-miles. This is 

consistent with the 2007 Traffic Choices Study [13] in 

the Seattle urban area, which suggests that 2% of 

conventional vehicle driving could achieve this level of 

average daily travel without exceeding the BEV’s 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
3 

limited range, especially given the high public EVSE 

availability in the Robust Public scenario. This 

suggests that the BEVs are purchased into select

households able to achieve high annual electric miles 

despite limited battery size or range. Moreover, we 

assume that hydrogen refueling is available outside 

the city to allow for infrequent, long-distance trips

along interstates and to distant urban areas.

Table 2. Input assumptions for cost-per-mile calculation 

FCEV PHEV BEV Note

Fuel 

economy

(mpgge)

59 46/114

(g/ea) 

104 (321 

Wh/mi)

See ref.6

Battery size 

(CDb range)

- 25 100 Unit: miles

Average 

Daily VMT

(robust)

33.2 33.2 26.6 

(31.6) 

VISION 

model [12]

Station size

(kg/day for 

hydrogen 

stations)

1500 (L) 

500 (M) 

250 (S) 

L1H: 1.4kW

L2H: 3.3kW

L2W: 7.7kW

DCFC: 50kW

Annual 

average 75% 

utilization rate

for HRS

Vehicles 

per station

L: 1989

M: 663

S: 331

Two scenarios.

(see Table 3)

FCEVs use

0.57 kg H2 

per day

Notes: a. g/e=gasoline/electricity; b. CD=charge-depleting (EV 

mode); L=large; M=medium; S=small; L1H=level 1home, L2H=level 2 

home, L2W=level 2 work, DCFC=direct current fast charge

Figure 1. Average miles driven per day for each vehicle

Number of hydrogen stations by size

The three HRS sizes considered in the analysis, 250, 

500, and 1,500 kg/day, are intended to capture 

economies of scale while maintaining sufficient station 

availability. For estimating the number of HRS for 

each size, we employ the distribution of gasoline 

station sizes described in a 2006 study [14], where 

relative station sizes in a given urban area follow a 

fixed gamma distribution. The study [14] concludes 

that normalized station size distribution is largely 

uniform across U.S. cities, varying only slightly with 

size or population density. Based on this general

distribution, we estimate 33 large, 56 medium and 51

small HRS serving the generic city. 

Number of EVSE stations by type

For PEVs, we consider four types of EVSE charging 

under two distinct EVSE scenarios, as shown in Table 

3. Both L1H and L2H are for residential use, with L2H 

providing a faster charge than L1H. L1H usually 

provides up to 1.44 kW (120 VAC, 12 amp), and L2H 

up to 3.3 kW (240 VAC, 15 amp). L2W provides 

charging at work with a maximum power of 7.7 kW. 

DCFC is for commercial and public applications with a 

charging rate as high as 50 kW. 

All PEVs have home chargers (one per PEV). Under 

the Home Dominant scenario, 76% of PHEVs rely on 

L1H EVSE and the rest are charged by L2H. Some 

43% of BEVs rely primarily upon L1H and the rest by 

L2H. Each home charger has one port. Under the 

Robust Public scenario, L1H chargers serve 80% of 

PHEVs and 65% of BEVs. In sum, for the Home 

Dominant and Robust Public scenarios, respectively, 

there are 83,280 and 92,400 L1H chargers, and 

36,720 and 27,600 L2H chargers. 

Table 3. Primary chargers in each EVSE scenario

EVSE type Home Dominant Robust Public

Level 1 – home

(L1H)

76% PHEVs/43% 

BEVs

80% PHEVs/65% 

BEVs

Level 2 – home 

(L2H)

24% PHEVs/57% 

BEVs

20% PHEVs/35% 

BEVs

Level 2 – work 

(L2W)

120 PHEVs or 74 

BEVs/L2-W

84 PHEVs or 46

BEVs/L2-W

Fast charge 

(DCFC)

600 PHEVsa or 320 

BEVs/DCFC

400 PHEVs or 220 

BEVs/DCFC

a. Future PHEV batteries may not be able to accept fast charging

For L2W and DCFC, we simulated charging demand 

profiles for a typical workday derived from two 

vehicle-charging scenarios in a 2007 NREL study

[15]. For each charging scenario, we assume the 

demand distributions among all EVSE types for 

PHEVs and BEVs shown in Table 4. The vehicle-toEVSE ratios for L2W and DCFC are estimated based 

upon peak hourly demand constraints where we 

assume a 50% margin for both L2W and DCFC. As 

shown in Figure 2, each EVSE capacity satisfies 

average daily fluctuations in the two PEV charging 

scenarios, with some capacity buffer for variability in 

hourly demand. Given our assumptions, under the 

Home Dominant scenario, home charging provides 

92% of all demand from PEVs, the vehicle-to-L2W 

ratio is 120 for PHEVs and 74 for BEVs, and there are 

1,124 L2W and 235 DCFC stations. Under the Robust 

Public scenario, L2W and DCFC provide 10% of all 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
4 

demand from PEVs with 84 PHEVs/46 BEVs per L2W 

and 400 PHEVs/220 BEVs per DCFC, and there are 

1,665 L2W and 349 DCFC stations. 

Table 4. Demand (kWh) distribution among all EVSE for 

PHEVs and BEVs

Type Home Dominant Robust Public

PHEV BEV PHEV BEV

L1H 70% 33% 68% 55%

L2H 22% 58% 22% 33.5%

L2W 5% 5.7% 6.3% 8.5%

DCFC 3% 3.3% 3.7% 3%

Hydrogen station costs 

Small, medium and large HRS costs are estimated 

based upon the Hydrogen Station Cost Calculator [10] 

(HSCC). The HSCC was developed with inputs from 

expert stakeholders through the Hydrogen 

Infrastructure Market Readiness project [16]. These 

costs are comparable to other cost estimate sources

[10]. The results from the HSCC convey station cost 

reduction potential over the next 5-10 years, 

accounting for reductions due to experience and the 

economies of scale of larger stations. Four types of 

HRS are defined within the HSCC to represent 

different stages of station technology development 

over time. A general cost function estimates station 

capital cost with station size and cumulative installed 

station capacity (an indicator for industry experience) 

as inputs, shown in eq.3. 

CC = CC0 �

Q′

Q0�

α

�

V′

V0�

β

 (3)

where CC refers to Station Capital Cost in $ per 

station, CC0 to base station capital cost ($2.8M), Qꞌ to 

station capacity in kg per day, Q0 to base station 

capacity (450 kg/d), Vꞌ to cumulative capacity, V0 to 

cumulative capacity (25,000 kg/d) corresponding to 

the base station, and α (0.707) and β (-0.106) are 

scaling and learning factors respectively, estimated by 

fitting HSCC aggregated station costs. 

EVSE station costs 

For each type of EVSE, current cost estimate ranges 

are based on a variety of sources (see appendix). No 

attempt was made to differentiate costs for specific 

EVSE attributes within each type category. We 

assume a 15% reduction from today’s EVSE costs 

due to mass production, streamlined installation, and 

learning. This is a relatively conservative assumption, 

which could be interpreted as an experience curve 

with a progress ratio of 98.5% (assuming, for the sake 

of example, approximately 40 MW of installed EVSE 

capacity by 2013, and 53,000 MW cumulative

installed nationally by the analysis year, 2025. See 

[10] for a discussion of the HRS progress ratios.). 

Figure 2. Total EVSE capacity and typical hourly demands 

under home charging and robust charging scenarios 

For each EVSE type, we aggregated data for

equipment and installation costs, and estimate the 

median of both costs as our central, or medium cost

case, as indicated in Figure 3. Installation costs vary 

greatly. The central installation cost is handled in a 

slightly different way, which could be average or 

adjusted average depending on data sources (see

appendix for details). High and low costs were the 

central value plus and minus 33% of the difference 

between the central value and the highest and lowest 

values for equipment and installation (approximating 

standard deviations), except for DCFC. High and low 

cost values for DCFC were the highest and lowest 

values of both equipment and installation costs

resulting in a broad range of variability (see details in 

Appendix A4). Figure 3 presents the estimated total 

capital cost (equipment plus installation) per unit for 

each type of EVSE. We do not include upstream 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
5 

electricity system distribution costs (e.g., 

transformers) and therefore underestimate full EVSE 

costs to some degree.

Figure 3. Total capital cost by EVSE type 

Results

Total capital costs per city and capital 

costs per mile traveled

With the estimated number of HRS for each station 

size and station capital costs from the HSCC within 

the city, we calculate the total capital costs for HRS to 

meet hydrogen fuel demand for the 10% market 

penetration in the generic city. Similarly, we calculate 

the citywide total EVSE capital cost for each charging 

scenario. HRS capital costs are about twice EVSE 

capital costs, on a citywide basis, largely due to 

limited economies of scale for HRS. There is a small 

difference in citywide capital costs between the Home 

and Robust scenarios, as shown in Figure 4 (top). 

The bottom of Figure 4 indicates total VMT fueled by 

hydrogen in FCEVs, electricity in BEVs and PHEVs, 

and gasoline in PHEVs (bars, left-hand vertical axis). 

The figure also shows total capital costs per mile for 

HRS and EVSE (lines and marks, right-hand vertical 

axis). The gasoline cost of 7.5 cents per mile is shown 

for reference. Capital costs per mile are essentially 

indistinguishable between the HRS (3.1 c/mi) and 

EVSE (3.0 c/mi) in the Home Dominant scenario, 

especially when considering the uncertainty and 

variability around input assumptions. The Robust 

Public scenario has a 19% lower capital cost per mile

(2.5 c/mi) due to more L1H and less L2H relative to 

the Home Dominant scenario; the greater number of 

L2W and DCFC stations does not exceed the capital 

cost savings from this shift to more L1H charging. 

Figure 4. Citywide total capital costs (top) and total VMT by 

fuel type and capital costs per mile traveled (bottom) 

These cost results are sensitive to a number of key 

input assumptions, some of which are highly 

speculative and simple “back-of-the-envelope” 

assumptions. Additional empirical cost data, more 

explicit station logistics and rollout dynamics, various 

sensitivity analyses, and an optimization routine (see 

the SERA model discussion below) would all improve 

this analytic approach. In particular, the relative EVSE 

cost result between the Home Dominant and Robust 

Public scenarios is very dependent upon our input 

assumptions. It is not based upon a thorough 

evaluation of the tradeoffs between public and home 

charging, which is beyond the scope of this analysis.

The levelized cost per mile is shown as a function of 

the distribution of e-miles supported by EVSE type in 

Figure 5 for the two charging scenarios. Electricity 

use per week under the two scenarios is shown in 

Figure 6. Levelized capital cost per mile analysis

suggest that to reduce overall costs, increased public 

EVSE infrastructure must be accompanied by a shift 

from Level 2 to Level 1 Home charging. This is 

consistent with an assumption of rational economic 

behavior and preference or convenience tradeoffs on

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
6 

the part of consumers. However, consumer 

preferences, responsiveness to price signals, 

charging patterns, and induced electric VMT will all 

play an important role in determining the future mix of 

EVSE types. The total electricity use per week under 

the robust scenario is just above 1M kWh.

Figure 5. Distribution of VMT by EVSE type (Top: Home 

Dominant scenario. Bottom: Robust Public scenario) 

Our capital cost estimates involve significant 

variability and uncertainty, but of different types for 

HRS and EVSE. We assume high and low capital 

costs for sensitivity analysis of capital cost per mile. 

As shown in Figure 7, the result is a large range, on 

the order of 2-3 cents per mile. For HRS, the cost 

range is primarily due to assumptions about 

reductions achieved through experience and learning. 

EVSE cost ranges are primarily due to uncertainty 

and variability in equipment and installation costs. 

Given our assumptions, a Robust EVSE infrastructure

reduces capital cost per mile for BEVs by 22% and for 

PHEV by 13% (medium case) due to increased L1H 

charging. This relative cost result was not the focus of 

the present study, but rather indicates the degree to 

which EVSE costs vary based upon assumptions.

Figure 6. Electricity use per week by PEV/EVSE type 

Total fuel costs per vehicle mile

Based on the assumptions shown in Table 5, we 

calculate the total fuel costs per mile for each vehicle 

type, shown for the Home Dominant scenario in 

Figure 8. FCEVs, BEVs and PHEVs all have 

advantages over conventional ICE vehicle fuel costs, 

and PEV fuel costs are comparable to HEV fuel costs. 

Central values for total fuel costs under the Home 

Dominant scenario suggest BEV and PHEV costs 21-

13% lower than FCEV costs. Sensitivities on capital 

costs show that FCEVs generally have higher total 

fuel cost than BEVs and PHEVs, and total fuel cost 

for BEVs has a greater uncertainty range than that for 

PHEVs because PHEVs operate with about 46% emiles. For the Robust Public scenario (not shown in 

Figure 8), the total fuel cost relative to the Home 

Dominant costs for BEVs is 9% lower, and only 

slightly lower for PHEVs. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
7 

Figure 7. Sensitivity of capital cost per mile 

With vehicle fuel economy and vehicle cost ranges 

from DOE (2012) [6], we determine the sensitivity to 

fuel economy and corresponding vehicle cost as 

shown in Figure 9. Including fuel economies and 

vehicle costs, FCEV and BEV costs per mile are 

comparable, and PHEVs are about 10% less per mile. 

We assume average electricity costs in 2025 from 

AEO (2013), hydrogen from central natural gas, and 

conventional gasoline. Including a $150/tonne CO2eq

carbon price signal tends to level out cost 

comparisons, as indicated by the orange diamonds in 

Figure 9. 

Table 5. Assumptions for hydrogen fuel cost, electricity cost, 

gasoline fuel cost and fuel economies 

Value Reference/note

Hydrogen 

fuel cost

$3/kg This is intended to be 

generic, with $2/kg for 

production at a central 

natural gas SMR unit and 

$1/kg for multiple delivery

modes.

Electricity 

cost

$0.116/kWh for 

home scenario

$0.097/kWh for 

robust scenario

EIA AEO 2013 reference 

case [17] 

Use residential rate for 

home scenario and 

commercial rate for robust 

scenario

Gasoline fuel 

cost

$3.50/gal EIA AEO 2013 reference 

case [17]

Fuel 

economy

FCEV: 58.75 mpgge

BEV: 104.07 mpgge

PHEV: 46.35/113.91 

mpgge (g/e)

HEV: 49.30 mpg

ICE: 33.20 mpg

mpgge= miles per gallon of 

gasoline equivalent

US DOE RFI [9]

Average values from 2020 

and 2030

Values for PHEV shown 

here are for gasoline and 

electric fuel efficiencies

Figure 8. Total fuel costs per vehicle mile, Home Scenario 

results only (¢/mile)

Figure 9. Sensitivity to fuel economy and corresponding 

vehicles cost 

Discussion: variability of results

Substantial spatial variability exists in energy prices 

and infrastructure costs, and these can result in 

significant differences in levelized costs per distance 

traveled, depending on the vehicle and fuel type. To 

explore the magnitude of these variations, we use a 

regional infrastructure build-out scenario for 

hydrogen-production infrastructure and HRS

constructed using the SERA model [18]. The SERA 

scenario estimates the cost of hydrogen delivered to 

FCEV refueling stations, the number of such stations 

in each urban area in the continental United States, 

and the capacity distribution of those stations. Note, 

however, that many alternative scenarios for the 

build-out of regional hydrogen production and delivery 

infrastructure components are possible and that the 

scenario presented here is solely chosen to illustrate 

the magnitude of geographic variability that might be 

exhibited. The fundamental sources of regional 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
8 

differences in the cost of hydrogen are the geographic 

unevenness in hydrogen demand, different urban 

characteristics (e.g., population density), the 

significant cost of transporting hydrogen long 

distances, local niches for the use of particular 

feedstocks and production technologies, and varied 

opportunities for economies of scale [18]. Also note 

that the regional hydrogen prices used in the analysis 

represent local levelized costs (e.g., not averaged 

over large multi-state regions or the service territories 

of hydrogen production and delivery companies) and 

may not be realistic depictions of plausible regional 

hydrogen prices, since it is likely that market forces 

would regularize prices geographically. We 

supplement this information on regional hydrogen 

prices with price estimates for gasoline and electricity 

from the “reference case” in the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration’s 2013 Annual Energy 

Outlook [17]. EVSE and vehicle costs, VMT 

assumptions, fuel economies, and vehicle 

usage/charging/refueling patterns remain the same as 

in the results discussed in the previous section of this 

paper.

Figure 10 shows the resulting nationally weighted 

average cost-per-mile for different vehicle types and 

charging assumptions using this scenario, which 

involves alternative vehicle introductions in the 55 

largest urban areas [19] by the year 2025. The bar 

chart illustrates that station, fuel, and vehicle costs 

are roughly commensurate for the different vehicles, 

but that alternative-fuel vehicles (FCEV, EV, PHEV) 

have higher average cost than conventionally fueled 

vehicles (HEV, ICE). In all cases, vehicle costs are 

much larger than fuel and station costs, and station 

costs are smaller than fuel costs. 

Figure 10. Nationally weighted average cost-per-mile for 

vehicle types and charging patterns using regional energy 

prices and FCEV-related infrastructure costs. 

We also examine variations in vehicle costs (low, 

medium, and high), fuel economy (pessimistic, 

neutral, and optimistic), and refueling station costs 

(low, medium, high) on a regional basis. The top 

panel of Figure 11 shows that the $0.05-0.15/mile 

variability in overall cost per mile tends to be greater 

for FCEVs and BEVs and that there is a substantial 

overlap between the overall costs when this variability 

is considered. Vehicle costs tend to make the largest 

contributions to the variability, followed by

approximately equal variability contributions from fuel 

economy and station costs.

Figure 11. Variability due to cost assumptions (top) and 

geographic location (bottom) for the weighted average costper-mile for vehicle types and charging patterns using 

regional energy prices and FCEV-related infrastructure 

costs, and a variety of cost and fuel economy scenarios. 

The bottom of Figure 11 illustrates the geographic 

variability (among the 55 largest urban areas) in 

overall cost per mile: for FCEVs this is due to differing 

fuel supply and station costs, whereas for the other 

vehicle types this is only due to differing fuel costs. In 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
9 

future analyses we will extend our models of EVSE 

costs to include geographic influences, but those are 

not included in the analyses presented here: we 

expect their geographic variation to be much smaller 

than the geographic variation in HRS costs because 

supplying hydrogen to large numbers of FCEVs 

requires the substantial development of new 

production facilities and delivery infrastructure, 

whereas in the case of EVs the existing electrical 

power generation infrastructure supplies the fuel. 

Comparing the top and bottom of Figure 11, one sees 

that the largest variability lies in the geographic 

influence on FCEV cost per mile, but that cost 

assumptions also imply substantial uncertainty. In 

sum, ranges in total costs per mile overlap 

significantly due to variability in cost input 

assumptions and geographic location.

Conclusion

Retail infrastructure costs for FCEVs and PEVs are 

compared on a cost-per-mile basis for a generic 

urban city in 2025. Using recently collected cost data 

and projection estimates, we analyze two distinct 

EVSE scenarios and consider three HRS sizes. Given 

our input assumptions, analysis results suggest that

levelized retail EVSE and HRS capital costs per mile 

are essentially indistinguishable between FCEVs and 

BEVs in the Home Dominant scenario. Total fuel 

costs per mile, including levelized retail capital and 

fuel costs, are about 13-21% lower for PEVs than for 

FCEVs. Including vehicle costs and fuel economy,

FCEV and BEV central costs per mile are 

comparable, and PHEVs are about 10% less per mile. 

In an examination of variability across all major U.S. 

cities, the national weighted average cost-per-mile is 

generally consistent with the simple generic city 

comparison, though HRS costs are slightly lower on a 

national average basis due to economies of scale 

achieved in large cities.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Fuel Cell 

Technologies Office with input from the Vehicle 

Technologies Office, within the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. The authors also thank Michael Chan of 

Tetra Tech for analysis assistance, and feedback and 

comments received from three SAE reviewers. 

Contact Information 

For additional information contact Marc Melaina at 

marc.melaina@nrel.gov.

References

1. Botti, J. J. and Miller, C. E., “Powertrains of the 

Future: Reducing the Impact of Transportation on 

the Environment,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 

1999-01-0991, doi: 10.4271/1999-01-0991. 

2. Obama, B., State of the Union Address, 

Washington D.C., available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union2011, Jan. 2011.

3. California Energy Commission, “2011-2012 

Investment Plan for the Alternative and 

Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology 

Program,” available 

at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CE

C-600-2011-006/CEC-600-2011-006-SD.PDF, 

Feb. 2011.

4. Ogden, J. M., Willians, R. H., and Larson, E. D., 

“Societal lifecycle costs of cars with alternative 

fuels/engines,” Energy Policy 32 (2004) 7-27, 

doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00246-X. 

5. McKinsey & Company. A portfolio of power-trains 

for Europe: a fact-based analysis – The role of 

Battery Electric Vehicles, Plus-in Hybrids and 

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, http://www.fchju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Power_trains_f

or_Europe.pdf, 2010.

6. DOE (2012). Total Costs of Ownership of Future 

Light-Duty Vehicles. U.S. Department of Energy, 

DE-FOA-0000592. Retrieved February 17, 2012, 

available 

at https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect/?doc=

DE-FOA-0000592&agency=DOE

7. Melaina, M. W., Heath, G., Sandor, D., Steward, 

D. et al., “Alternative Fuel Infrastructure 

Expansion: Costs, Resources, Production 

Capacity, and Retail Availability for Low-Carbon 

Scenarios,” National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, DOE/GO-102013-3710. Available at: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55640.pdf 

8. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/newsarchive/2012/february/new-hydrogen-stationsadded-globally-in-2011, Feb.2012. 

9. http://www.navigantresearch.com/research/electri

c-vehicle-supply-equipment-tracker-1q13, 

1Q.2013.

10. Melaina, M. and Penev, M., “Hydrogen Station 

Cost Estimates: Comparing Hydrogen Station 

Cost Calculator Results with other Recent 

Estimates,” National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory NREL/TP-5400-56412, Sept. 2013. 

11. Society of Automotive Engineers, “Utility Factor 

Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 

Using Travel Survey Data,” Hybrid – Ev 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
10 

Committee, SAE Standard J2841, Rev. Sep. 

2010.

12. VISION 2011 

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simul

ation/VISION

13. Puget Sound Regional Council, “Traffic Choices 

Study – Summary Report,” April 2008. 

14. Melaina, M.; Bremson, J. “Regularities in Early 

Hydrogen Station Size Distributions.” Presented 

at the 26th USAEE/IAEE North American 

Conference, September 24–27, 2006, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan. http://www.usaee.org/USAEE2006/pap

ers/marcmelaina.pdf

15. Parks, K., Denholm, P. and Markel, T., “Costs 

and Emissions Associated with Plug-In Hybrid 

Electric Vehicle Charging in the Xcel Energy 

Colorado Service Territory,” National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. NREL Report 

No. TP-640-41410, May 2007. 

16. Melaina, M.W., Steward, D., Penev, M. 

McQueen, S. et al., “Hydrogen Infrastructure 

Market Readiness: Opportunities and Potential 

for Near-term Cost Reductions,” National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report 

NREL/BK-5600-55961, August, 2012, available 

at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55961.pdf

17. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual 

Energy Outlook (EIA AEO2103) Reference Case, 

available 

at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data.cfm

accessed on September 16 2013.

18. Bush, B., Melaina, M., Penev, M., and Daniel, W., 

“SERA Scenarios of Early Market Fuel Cell 

Electric Vehicle Introductions: Modeling 

Framework, Regional Markets, and Station 

Clustering,” Technical Report. Golden, Colorado: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

September 2013. 

19. U.S. Census Bureau, "Urban and Rural 

Classification," [Online]. 

Available: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/u

rban-rural.html. 

Appendix. EVSE station cost

A1. Cost estimates for Level 1 Residential EVSE

Figure A1 Costs for Level 1 Residential EVSE

Table A1 Summary of Level 1 Residential EVSE costs

Table A2 Level 1 Residential EVSE cost data sources

Central equipment costs are the median of all 

equipment types shown in Figure A1 and central 

installation costs are the average of MRW, SLZK-H 

and NHTSA. High and low costs are equal to the 

central value plus and minus 33% of the difference 

between the central value and the highest and lowest 

values for equipment and installation.

Value Type Equipment Installation Total

Central $495 $493 $988

Low $332 $330 $662

High $582 $537 $1,120

Symbol Reference Notes

LEVEL 1 - Residential

SLZK DOE 2011 L: Low; H: High.

MRW Morrow 2008 1R: Level 1 Residential

PSNC PIA 2013 Panasonic; Standard for Leaf

CC-15 PIA 2013 Clipper Creek; 15 A

VLT PIA 2013 Standard with Volt

LvtnG120 PIA 2013 Comes wit carrying case.

Legrand PIA 2013 Legrand. Selects rate charge.

CC-ACS20 PIA 2013 Wall-mountable cordset.

NHTSA NHTSA 2010 Cost range for equipment and intallation

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
11 

A2. Cost estimates for Level 2 Residential EVSE

Figure A2 Costs for Level 2 Residential EVSE

Table A3 Summary of Level 1 Residential EVSE costs

Table A4 Level 2 Residential EVSE cost data sources

Central equipment costs are the median of all values 

shown in Figure A2. Central installation costs are 

derived from estimates of median values from CFCI’s 

average East/West coast historical costs, assuming 

median values are 13% less than average values. 

High and low costs are equal to the central value plus 

and minus 33% of the difference between the central 

value and the highest and lowest values for 

equipment and installation.

A3. Cost estimates for Level 2 Commercial

Figure A3 Costs for Level 2 Commercial

Table A5 Summary of Level 2 Commercial EVSE 

costs 

Table A6 Level 2 Commercial EVSE cost data 

sources

Central equipment costs are the median of all values 

shown in Figure A3. Central installation costs are 

equal to CFCI-L2-Ave, which is the average for L2 

public installations. High and low costs are the central 

value plus and minus 33% of the difference between 

the central value and the highest and lowest values 

for equipment and installation.

Value Type Equipment Installation Total

Central $925 $1,320 $2,245

Low $771 $989 $1,760

High $1,534 $2,260 $3,794

Symbol Reference Notes

LEVEL 2 - Residential

MRW Morrow 2008 2R: Level 2 Residential

CC-LCS PIA 2013 Clipper Creek; LCS: model

ECO-BLNK PIA 2013 Ecotality Blink

GE-Behar PIA 2013 General Electric WattStation. Designed by Yves Behar.

SCHDR-Evlnk PIA 2013 Schneider Electric EVlink Outdoor model

SPX-Xprs PIA 2013 SPX Power Xpress. Plugs into 240V outlet 

CFCI Joffe 2010 Clean Fuels Connection; L: Low; H: High; 

Med: Median; EC: East Coast; WC: West Coast

LvtnGrn160 PIA 2013 Leviton Evr-Green 160

LvtnGrn320 PIA 2013 Leviton Evr-Green 320

GM-Vltc PIA 2013 SPX and GM, made for Volt.

GoSmrt-RF PIA 2013 Go Smart ChargeSpot RF

Aero PIA 2013 Estimated value (not official). 

Smns Versi PIA 2013 Siemens VersiCharge

EV2100 PIA 2013 EV-Charge America, EV2100

SLZK DOE 2011 L: Low; H: High.

INL-Ave Francfort 2013 Average US residential installations

Value Type Equipment Installation Total

Central $2,861 $3,457 $6,318

Low $2,478 $2,977 $5,455

High $3,402 $3,914 $7,316

Symbol Reference Notes

LEVEL 2 - Commercial

MRW-2C Morrow 2008 2R: Level 2 Residential

SLZK DOE 2011 L: Low; H: High.

CLOMB-2 Stewart 2010 Coulomb

Shrp ePump PIA 2012 Shorepower, multi-head 

SCHDR-Evlnk PIA 2013 Schneider Electric EVlink Outdoor model

GG-JB PIA 2012 Green Garage Assoc. Juice Bar. BMW Group.

GE-Dura PIA 2013 General Electric DuraStation. 100 yrs experience.

GoSmrt-PS PIA 2013 Go Smart ChargeSpot. Can set fee collection.

CC-CS40 ClipperCreek 2013 ClipperCreek CS-40 Public Infrastructure 

CFCI Joffe 2011 Clean Fuels Connection; L: Low; H: High; 

Med: Median; EC: East Coast; WC: West Coast

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
12 

A4. Cost estimates for DC Fast Charge (DCFC)

Figure A4 Costs for DCFC

Table A7 Summary of DCFC costs

Table A8 DCFC cost data sources

Central equipment costs are the median of values 

shown in Figure A4. Central installation costs are the 

average of SLZK and BC3. High and low costs are 

the highest and lowest values of both equipment and 

installation costs.

Value Type Equipment Installation Total

Central $24,990 $30,000 $54,990

Low $10,000 $10,000 $20,000

High $60,000 $60,000 $120,000

Symbol Reference Notes

DC FAST CHARGE

SLZK DOE 2011 L: Low; H: High.

ADRMDA PIA 2013 Andromeda Power ORCA-Mobile

EVTEC PIA 2013 EVTEC MobileFastCharger. 20kW portable charger 

Aero-Fleet PIA 2013 Aerovironment Fleet Fast Charging Station Line

Nssn-44 PIA 2013 Nissan NSQC-44. Quick charger for Nissan dealers 

Nssn-Qk PIA 2012 Smaller, lower-cost. Nissan.

BC3 L: Low; H: High. 

STWT-3 Stewart 2010 L: Low; H: High. Coulomb reference. 20 min charge

Business Council on 

Climate Change 2011

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.