WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

June 6, 2018

MEMORANDUM FOR: Ian Mead

Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis

FROM: Jim Turnure

Director, Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Analysis 

SUBJECT: Summary of AEO2019 Transportation Working Group held on Thursday, 

May 31, 2018

The first Transportation Working Group presented the results from the Annual Energy Outlook 2018

(AEO2018) and modeling updates for the AEO2019 Reference case. Afterwards, input was solicited on 

additional model updates in subsequent years. The presentation for this meeting is available in a 

separate document on EIA’s website. 

Model updates (AEO2019)

Highlights from the presentation related to planned updates including model improvements to capture

the addition of crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) and the development of an economic model for fleet

operator adoption of highly automated and autonomous vehicles. 

Discussion

The discussion mainly focused on questions related to AEO2018 results and planned AEO2019 modeling 

updates.

Model results (AEO2018)

Several questions dealt with light-duty vehicles. In particular, these questions focused on obtaining a 

better understanding of why the demand for motor gasoline and the energy demand for light-duty 

vehicles decreases in the short- to mid-term and then increases in the long term. Participants also asked 

for further clarification and explanation on why the car and light truck sales split was significantly 

different between AEO2017 and AEO2018.

Staff explained that the reason light-duty vehicle energy consumption (which is primarily motor 

gasoline) decreases in the near and mid run and increases in the long run is related to fuel economy and 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Over the near horizon, the effects of an increase in light-duty vehicle fuel 

economy outpaces energy demands resulting from increases in VMT. Over the more distant horizon, 

because fuel economy standards are not increasing through the whole projection period, increases in 

consumption related to increases in VMT overtake decreases resulting from fuel economy 

improvements.

The change in the car and light-truck sales split between the AEOs results from a data update. For AEO 

2017, base-year sales data from mid-year 2015 used in the model had significantly more light-trucks 
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

than the final 2015 dataset. Further, AEO2018 received the final model year 2016 data set which 

changed the split further.

Further, participants asked how changes in fuel prices and macroeconomic growth affected the 

projections in AEO2018 and how further changes may affect the results in subsequent AEOs. EIA 

analysts discussed how AEO2019 would include historical data updates that may require updates to 

important model parameters. This discussion also included how EIA models current laws and regulations

and that these effect projections along with fuel price and macroeconomic factors. 

Model updates (AEO2019)

This discussion focused primarily on light-duty vehicles, automated vehicles, and maritime transport.

Light duty vehicles. EIA is proposing to add crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) as four size classes to the 

light-duty vehicle model (small and large CUV in both the car and light-truck vehicle types). In general,

the participants were pleased to hear that EIA is considering adding CUVs because of their large market 

share. Participants asked for further explanation of how the addition of these size classes will affect

modeling and results. EIA staff explained that the CUVs will be added as an option in the consumer 

vehicle choice model. Each category of CUVs will have their own set of vehicle attributes and adopt 

vehicle technology to meet fuel economy standards. Because of differences in vehicle attributes and fuel 

economy, energy consumption may change. 

Related to consumer choice and the shift to CUVs and vehicles with lower fuel economy, participants 

wanted to better understand how often EIA updates its consumer choice coefficients to reflect changing 

market dynamics. EIA staff explained that it updates its consumer choice coefficients yearly to try to 

reflect changes in consumer preference. However, EIA also models current law and regulation which 

may result in model results that do not align with changing trends in consumer preference. Further, EIA 

does not model all state or local laws that could affect light-duty vehicle sales.

For new light-duty vehicle sales, EIA uses the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) definitions of car and light-truck. Based on the NHTSA 

and EPA definition, a vehicle of the same make and model could be classified as a car and a light-truck 

depending on if it is two-wheel or all-wheel drive or based on another specification. However, the stock 

data that EIA uses is based on the traditional definitions of car and light-truck. EIA is proposing to align 

the stock data with NHTSA’s and EPA’s definition of car and light-truck. 

The discussion then turned towards the expected changes from the redefinition of cars and light trucks. 

EIA staff indicated that while the updated stock data has not been added to the model the expectation is 

that there will not be large changes to the total stocks of cars and light-trucks or to energy consumption. 

The reason for this expected outcome is that the last stock update in AEO2018 was for 2014. The 

definitional change did not take effect until model year 2011. This means that only four model years of 

vehicles will need to be redefined. 

There was also a discussion on VMT. Participants asked about how VMT is changing and if there is a 

regional or urbanization change taking place affecting this measure. Staff explained that there are

indeed regional differences—for example, California has a law (SB32) to reduce GHG emissions. The 

targeted reductions in vehicle travel outlined in this law are included in the transportation model,

lowering VMT below the projected levels in Census Division 9 if the law was not in place. To better 
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

reflect these differences and their effect on regional fuel consumption, EIA is considering the addition of

a regional component to the stock fuel economy calculations based on region specific VMT and 

scrappage rates. EIA staff are also beginning to investigate the differences in light-duty vehicle travel 

based on the proportion of Census Divisions that are considered urban, suburban, or rural. 

Automated vehicles. EIA is in the beginning stages of a multi-year model update to better incorporate 

automated and autonomous vehicles and ride-hailing into the transportation model. Because of the 

uncertainties surrounding the development and adoption of autonomous vehicles, EIA plans to host an 

autonomous vehicle and ride-hailing workshop or working group later this year. Participants seemed 

excited about the idea of an autonomous vehicle workshop and were encouraged to reach out to EIA if 

they were interested in participating. 

EIA presented the automated and autonomous vehicle model updates in three sections. The first section 

discussed completed updates, including the addition of levels 1-3 automation to the technology 

adoption menu and the addition of platooning by class 7 and 8 tractors. The second section discussed 

the conceptual concept of the complete model update. The third section discussed proposed updates to 

be completed for AEO2019. 

Participants asked for clarification on how levels 1-3 vehicle automation inclusion would affect model 

results and dynamics, including compliance with Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE). 

Explanation included how these technologies have attributes such as additional cost and weight, how 

changes in weight can affect fuel economy, and a reminder that manufacturer groups in the model 

comply with CAFE standards.

The proposed AEO2019 updates include an economic model for the new taxi/ride-hail fleet category and 

non-economic assumptions of household adoption. EIA is currently assuming that the adoption of 

highly-automated and autonomous vehicles by households will lag that of fleet vehicles. Participants 

asked EIA to clarify this assumption. The reason for this assumption is based on reports by 

manufacturers and technology developers. The manufacturers and technology developers that are 

furthest along in the development of autonomous technology say that the vehicles will enter fleets as 

ride-hailing vehicles. These vehicles may not be for sale but instead owned and managed by the 

developers. However other manufactures and technology developers believe that the vehicles will be 

available for household purchase. 

Participants also wanted to understand how EIA is considering connectivity. Currently EIA is approaching 

highly automated and autonomous vehicles without assuming connectivity is essential to their 

development. While we understand that connectivity could speed up the development of highly 

automated and autonomous vehicles, improve the throughput on roads, change the interaction 

between light-duty vehicle and public transportation use, affect fuel efficiency, and have infrastructure 

implications, this is not something we will be adding to our model in AEO2019. It is something that we 

will look into for future AEOs as the new model is developed. 

Maritime transport. The discussion centered on the demand for heavy (high-sulfur) residual fuel oil by 

the international marine sector, penetration of liquefied natural gas as a fuel in the global marine sector, 

and use of on-board scrubbers by ship operators to comply with global sulfur regulations. Participants 
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

noted that fuel costs range between 40% and 60% of a vessel’s operating total cost, depending on the 

type of vessel. Participants also related discussions on the recent international maritime decarbonization efforts.

As background, about 3 million barrels per day of high-sulfur petroleum product is consumed globally by 

ocean-going vessels, mainly residual or intermediate fuel oil. The current global limit for sulfur content 

of ships’ fuel oil is 3.5% m/m (mass by mass). The new global limit will be 0.5% m/m and will apply on 

and after January 1, 2020, which was the one of two dates adopted in 2008 by member countries of the 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) and subsequently decided upon in October 2016.

IMO monitors the sulfur content of fuel oil used on ships globally. Samples taken of residual fuel oil–the 

“heavy” fuel oil commonly used on ships–estimate sulfur content at 2.45% m/m, based on 2015 IMO 

testing.

Participants generally agreed that the global fleet’s uptake of on-board scrubbers has been negligible

and on the general reasonableness of the AEO2018 projections with respect to international marine fuel 

demands. EIA stated that it plans to maintain an ongoing review of model projections (both supply and 

demand) by the National Energy Modeling System analysts with respect to international maritime 

activity for AEO2019.

Attendees

Guests (in person)

Alicia Birky Energetics

Steve Chalk DOE

Michael Dwyer Energetics

Karl Fails Sunoco

Kelly Fleming DOE

Sarah Garman DOE

Jennifer Li DOE

John Meyer Leidos

Maria Cecilia P. Moura Union of Concerned Scientists

Rachael Nealer DOE

Kara Podkaminer DOE

Clayton Vernon Sunoco

Tom White DOE

Guests (WebEx/phone)

Youngsun Baek Union of Concerned Scientists

Austin Brown UC Davis

Ed Coe EPA

Angela Cullen EPA

John Davies DOT

Dominic DiCicco Ford

David Gohlke DOE
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

Mike Hartick Auto Alliance

Whitney Herndon Rhodium Group

Ken Howden DOE

Aaron Hula EPA

Bryan Just API

Tina Kaarsberg DOE

Ken Katz DOT

Ryan Keefe DOT

Ria Kontou NREL

Nico Kydes OnLocation

Michael Laughlin Energetics

Amanda Levin NRDC

Dana Lowell MJ Bradley

Chris Nevers Auto Alliance

Steve O'Malley Leidos

David Pickeral

Don Pickrell DOT

Hannah Pitt Rhodium Group

Christopher Ramig EPA

Michael Schaal Energy Ventures Analysis

Robert Schutz Leena Labs

Michael Shelby EPA

Thomas Stephens ANL

Wyatt Thompson University of Missouri

John Van Schalkwyk DOT

Jake Ward DOE

Jarrett Whistance University of Missouri

Evelyn Wright Sustainable Energy Economics

Lester Wyborny EPA

Starla Yeh NRDC

Arthur Yip CMU

Yan Zhou ANL

EIA attendees (in person)

Nicholas Chase

Michael Cole

John Conti

David Daniels

Steve Hanson

Melissa Lynes

John Maples

Fred Mayes

Shirley Neff

James Preciado
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

Mark Schipper

David Stone

Russ Tarver

EIA attendees (WebEx/phone)

Mindi Farber-DeAnda

Beth May

Mike Stanley