Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment: Interim Report (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 Introduction Reducing U.S. dependence on imported petroleum is an important step toward improving the nation’s energy and economic security. Electric vehicles that derive all or some of their propulsion from an external electricity source have received critical attention in recent years because they have the potential to reduce petroleum consumption substantially given that light-duty vehicles account for nearly half the petroleum consumption in the United States today and that electricity is typically not generated from petroleum (EIA, 2012). Globally, the demand for electric vehicles is growing, and some countries see electric vehicles as an important element of their long-term strategy to meet environmental, economic, and energy-security goals. Although the electric vehicle holds many promises, there are also many barriers to its penetration into the mainstream market today. Some are technologic, such as the capabilities of current battery technologies that restrict driving range and increase purchase price compared with conventional vehicles; others are related to consumer behavior and attitudes; and still others are related to the need to develop a charging network to support the vehicles and to address the possible effects of the new charging network on the electric grid. Given the growing concerns surrounding the potential barriers, Congress in its 2012 appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) requested that DOE commission a study by the National Academies to identify market barriers that are slowing the purchase of electric vehicles and hindering the deployment of supporting infrastructure. As a result of the request, the National Research Council (NRC)—part of the National Academies—appointed the Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment, which prepared this interim report. HISTORICAL AND POLICY CONTEXT The electric vehicle is not a new invention of the 21st century. In 1900, 28 percent of the passenger cars sold in the United States were electric, and about one-third of the cars on the road in New York City, Boston, and Chicago were electric (Schiffer et al., 1994). Mass production of an inexpensive gasoline-powered vehicle (the Model T), the invention of the electric starter for the gasoline vehicle (which eliminated the necessity of the hand-crank), a supply of readily affordable gasoline, and the development of the national highway system (which allowed long-distance travel), however, led to its demise (Schiffer et al., 1994). In the 1970s, interest in electric vehicles resurfaced with the Arab oil embargo and the emerging environmental and energy-security concerns, but interest over the next few decades waxed and waned as gasoline prices remained roughly constant. In the 1990s, interest in electric vehicles was revived by California’s zero-emission-vehicle policies, but battery technology was not as advanced as it is today, the automobile industry did not support the initiative, and the program was delayed. The current administration’s goal of putting millions of electric vehicles on the road, new federal carbon dioxide-emission and fuel-economy standards, and recent advances in battery and other technologies have refocused attention on electric vehicles. The current movement to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road was initially spurred by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which provided a $2,500 to $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles (Public Law 110-343, §205). The American Recovery and 7 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, §1141) increased incentives for electric vehicles by increasing the types of vehicles that are eligible for a tax credit. It also appropriated $2 billion in grants for development of electric-vehicle batteries and related components (DOE, 2009) and $2.4 billion in loans for electric-vehicle manufacturing facilities (DOE, 2011). DOE has invested $400 million, along with private funds, to support infrastructure development, including demonstration projects involving 13,000 electric vehicles and 22,000 public and private charging points in 20 U.S. cities (DOE, 2011). The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE, 2013a) and several national laboratories, including Argonne National Laboratory (ANL, 2011, 2012, 2013) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL, 2013), are conducting substantial research and development on electric-drive technologies for electric vehicles (NRC, 2013). Various state-level efforts are aimed at increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road— such as customer incentives that include tax credits for vehicle purchase, access to carpool lanes, free public parking, and inspection exemptions—and at building the charging infrastructure, such as reimbursements and tax incentives for purchasing or leasing charging equipment and low-cost loans for projects (DOE, 2013b). California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) requirements constitute a particularly important incentive because of the size of the California motor-vehicle market. Each motor-vehicle manufacturer’s sales in the state are required to include at least a minimum percentage of ZEVs (vehicles that produce zero exhaust emissions of any criteria pollutant) and transitional ZEVs (vehicles that are capable of traveling some minimum distance solely on a ZEV fuel, such as electricity) (13 CCR § 1962.1 [2013]). The policies that promote early electric-vehicle deployment are aimed at benefits beyond near- term reductions in petroleum consumption and pollutant emissions. The strategy is to speed the long-term process of conversion of the motor-vehicle fleet to alternative energy sources by exposing consumers now to electric vehicles, encouraging governments and service providers to plan for infrastructure, and encouraging the motor-vehicle industry to experiment with product design and marketing. Gaining a major market share for electric vehicles probably will require advances in technology to reduce cost and improve performance, but the premise of the early deployment efforts is that market development and technologic development that proceed in parallel will lead to earlier mass adoption than if we wait for technologic advances before beginning market development. The early deployment efforts also might speed technologic progress by maintaining visibility and interest in electric vehicles. The risk entailed by this strategy is that the benefits of electric vehicle promotion might be diminished if the timing of promotion efforts is premature relative to the development of the technology. THE PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND ITS ECOSYSTEM This report focuses on the light-duty fleet (passenger cars and light-duty trucks) in the United States and restricts its discussion of electric vehicles to plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which include battery electric vehicles (BEVs) 1 and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). 2 The common feature of these vehicles is that they charge their batteries by plugging into the electric grid. The distinction between them is that BEVs operate solely on electricity stored in the battery (there is no other power source), and PHEVs have an internal combustion engine that can supplement the electric power train. 3,4 1 The term all-electric vehicle (AEV) is sometimes used instead of BEV. 2 BEVs and PHEVs need to be distinguished from conventional hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), such as the Toyota Prius that was introduced in the late 1990s. HEVs do not plug into the electric grid but power their batteries from regenerative braking and an internal combustion engine. They are not included in the PEV category and are not considered further in this report. 3 Several design architectures are available for PHEVs, and, depending on the design, the engine may be used to drive the vehicle directly or act as a generator to recharge the battery or both. 4 PHEVs can use engines powered by various fuels. This report, however, focuses on PHEV engines that are powered by gasoline because they are the ones currently available in the U.S. market. 8 

9000 0.7% Battery Electric Vehicle Sales 8000 0.6% Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Sales 7000 PEV Share of New Vehicle Sales 0.5% 6000 Monthly Vehicle Sales Share of New Vehicle Sales 0.4% 5000 4000 0.3% 3000 0.2% 2000 0.1% 1000 0 0.0% Dec-10 Nov-11 Dec-11 Nov-12 Dec-12 Feb-11 May-11 Sep-11 Feb-12 May-12 Sep-12 Feb-13 Mar-11 Oct-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Mar-12 Oct-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Mar-13 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jan-13 Jun-11 Jun-12 FIGURE 1-1 Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) sales from December 2010 to March 2013 as monthly sales (left) and as a percentage of all new vehicle sales (right). SOURCE: Data from HybridCars.com, see http://www.hybridcars.com/. PEVs are often defined by the number of electric miles that they can drive. A BEV that can drive 100 miles on one battery charge is designated as a BEV100; likewise, a PHEV that can drive 40 miles on one battery charge is designated as a PHEV40. Figure 1-1 shows sales of PEVs since they were introduced into the U.S. market. As of March 2013, almost 90,000 PEVs had been sold. The committee notes that PEV models tend to be introduced initially in a few regions (such as California and Oregon) before being deployed nationally. Although comprehensive demographic data do not appear to be available, some data suggest that PEVs are not yet appealing to the broad market of automobile consumers (Thompson, 2012). Current PEV owners appear to be predominantly well-educated men in an upper income bracket (EVIX, 2012; Thompson, 2012) who were motivated to purchase a PEV primarily by concerns about the environment (40 percent), oil independence (40 percent), and fuel costs (20 percent) (Thompson, 2012). Some (Heffner et al., 2008; Axsen and Kurani, 2012) have noted that PEV purchasers see the vehicles as status symbols that communicate their concern for the environment and their position as early adopters of leading-edge technology. To identify and understand the needs of and barriers to PEV deployment, one can consider the PEV ecosystem illustrated in Figure 1-2 as a conceptual model for evaluation. It includes the car manufacturer, which supplies the vehicles to a car dealer, and the customer, who potentially becomes the PEV owner. The customer and the owner are distinguished because they have separate needs, and not all 9 

FIGURE 1-2 The ecosystem of the plug-in electric vehicle, which includes the automobile manufacturer, the car dealer, the customer, the owner, the electric vehicle, the charger, and the electricity system. customers will become owners. 1 The PEV must have access to a charger that allows the car to connect to the electric grid and recharge its battery. Typically, a charger is in an owner’s garage or next to the driveway so that the battery can be recharged at home after use. Those in single-family or multifamily dwellings that lack access to a garage or driveway might not have convenient access to a charger and therefore to the electricity needed to power the vehicle. There is considerable interest, therefore, in chargers at workplaces and in public spaces, particularly those at which the vehicle will spend at least several hours, such as parking lots for malls, movie theaters, and airports. The chargers and their network are considered the charging infrastructure. The last component of the PEV ecosystem is the electricity system through which the electricity for charging the vehicle battery is obtained. Those various components are discussed more fully in the later chapters of this report. 1 No distinction is made here between people who own, rent, or lease a vehicle because they will have similar needs—most important, the need to charge the vehicle. 10 

POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ADOPTION OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES PEVs offer several advantages over conventional vehicles. The most obvious for the owner are lower operating cost, less interior noise and vibration from the power train, often better low-speed acceleration, the ability to fuel up at home, and zero tailpipe emissions when the vehicle operates solely on its battery. BEVs have no conventional transmissions or fuel-injection systems to maintain and no spark plugs to change, and the regenerative braking system greatly prolongs the life of conventional brakes and thus reduces brake repair and replacement costs. On a larger scale, PEVs offer the potential for decreasing U.S. dependence on petroleum imports, increasing U.S. energy security, and creating employment opportunities. Relative to internal combustion engine vehicles, they have the ability to decrease on a well-to-wheels basis 1 emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and pollutants that affect public health; however, their use could result in a slight increase in emissions of some pollutants (EPRI/NRDC, 2007; Kammen et al., 2009; Elgowainy et al., 2010). The degree to which PEVs affect pollutant emissions will depend on how the electricity that fuels a vehicle is generated, the degree to which charging of the vehicle is managed, and the degree to which emissions from power-generation sources are controlled (Peterson et al., 2011). Given that passenger cars and light-duty trucks—a category that includes sport-utility vehicles, pickups, and minivans—were responsible for about 16 percent of U.S. GHG emissions in 2010 (EPA, 2012), PEV adoption has the potential to reduce GHG emissions substantially as the electric grid shifts from coal plants to power-generation sources with lower life-cycle emissions. PEVs might also act as an enabler for renewable power generation by providing storage through smart-grid applications. PEVs, however, also have important disadvantages. Current limitations in battery technology result in restricted electric-driving range, high battery cost, long battery-charging time, and uncertain battery life. Concerns about battery safety, depending on the chemistry and energy density of the battery, have also arisen. PEVs have higher upfront costs than their conventional-vehicle counterparts, and there is a need to create a charging infrastructure to support PEVs, whether at home, at work, or in a public space. Beyond the technical and economic barriers, people are not familiar with the capabilities of PEVs, are uncertain about their costs and benefits, and have diverse needs that current PEVs might not meet. If the goal is widespread deployment of PEVs, it is critical to identify and evaluate the barriers to their adoption. One possible disadvantage that has been raised in the context of widespread PEV deployment concerns funding for transportation infrastructure. Motor-fuel taxes generated $70 billion in revenue for federal and state governments in 2010, nearly all of which was dedicated by law to transportation uses (APTA, 2012, Table 56; FHWA, 2012, Tables HF-10, SDF, FE-210). Regardless of PEV purchases, the share of highway funding derived from fuel taxes and other user taxes has been declining as a result of improved fuel economy, political resistance to tax-rate increases, and the 2007-2009 recession. States recognize that new arrangements for transportation finance will be essential in the future, and experimentation with alternative revenue sources for transportation over the next decade appears likely. At least two states (Washington and Virginia) have imposed special registration fees on PEVs (DOE, 2013b) to make up for lost fuel-tax revenue, and such fees might deter PEV purchases, although they are small compared with current subsidies to PEV buyers. The final report of this committee will consider the effect of PEV promotion on fuel-tax revenue and on proposals for reform of transportation-funding arrangements, including proposals of a 2006 committee of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB, 2006). 1 The term well-to-wheels refers to greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle’s tailpipe (tank-to-wheels) and upstream emissions from the energy source used to power a vehicle (well-to-tank). 11 

THE COMMITTEE AND ITS TASK The committee includes experts on vehicle technology, utilities, business and financial models, economics, public policy, and consumer behavior and response (see Appendix A for biographic information). As noted above, the committee was asked to identify market barriers that are slowing the purchase of PEVs and hindering the deployment of supporting infrastructure in the United States and to recommend ways to mitigate the barriers. The committee’s analysis is to be documented in two reports: an interim report and a final comprehensive report. The present report fulfills the request for the interim report and addresses specifically the following issues: infrastructure needs for electric vehicles, barriers to deploying that infrastructure, and optional roles for the federal government in overcoming the barriers with initial discussion of the pros and cons of the options. This report does not address the committee’s full statement of task and does not make any recommendations because the committee is in its initial stages of data-gathering. The committee will continue to gather and review information and to conduct analyses through late spring 2014 and will issue its final report in late summer 2014. To be consistent with NRC policy, the committee has avoided making any premature recommendations that could be contrary to what might emerge in its final report. (See Appendix B for the full statement of task, which describes the complete list of issues that the committee will address in its final report.) THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH TO ITS TASK Three meetings were held to accomplish the task of drafting the interim report. The first two meetings included open sessions during which the committee heard from the sponsor, DOE, and invited speakers representing automobile manufacturers, electric utilities, charging providers, local governments, and PEV demonstration projects (see Appendix C). On the basis of information received at the meetings, a preliminary literature review, and its own expertise, the committee prepared this interim report. The committee notes that it accepted its charge and is not debating the merits of promoting, enabling, or increasing PEV adoption. This report focuses on infrastructure and near-term options that can help to extend PEV adoption from first adopters to the next segment of PEV owners who are more risk- averse and require greater reliability. Options that can alleviate barriers in the near term might help to broaden and extend the adoption of PEVs into the mainstream market. Such a focus is consistent with the task statement for this interim report and with the time allotted for its completion. Battery costs and capability are major factors that hinder PEV deployment. As noted earlier in this chapter, batteries are a focus of vehicle-technology programs of DOE and other laboratories, and continued federal involvement through research and development might help to lower costs and improve battery performance of PEVs. However, the statement of task for the interim report focuses solely on barriers related to the deployment of infrastructure for PEVs and the possible roles that the federal government could play in mitigating these barriers. In its final report, the committee will consider a broader array of issues facing PEV deployment, including technologic and economic barriers. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This interim report is organized into four chapters and four appendixes. Because the need for infrastructure depends ultimately on PEV sales, Chapter 2 focuses on the barriers to PEV adoption from the customer perspective. Chapter 3 describes various charging options and the infrastructure needed for them. Chapter 4 discusses the electric grid and what might be needed in the future to ensure a stable electricity distribution system. Each chapter discusses possible roles of the federal government and the pros and cons of the various options. Appendix A provides the committee’s biographic information, Appendix B provides the statement of task for the full study that will be addressed in the committee’s 12 

final report, Appendix C lists the meetings and presentations made in open sessions, and Appendix D provides information on technical specifications of PEV charging components. REFERENCES ANL (Argonne National Laboratory). 2011. “Hybrid Vehicle Technology.”. Available at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/hev/index.html, accessed March 14, 2013. ANL. 2012. “Advanced Battery Research, Development, and Testing.” Available at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/batteries/index.html, accessed March 14, 2013. ANL. 2013. “Argonne Leads DOE’s Effort to Evaluate Plug-in Hybrid Technology.” Available at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/phev/index.html, accessed March 14, 2013. APTA (American Public Transportation Association). 2012. “Appendix A: Historical Tables” in 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book. March. Available at http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2012-Fact-Book-Appendix-A.pdf. Axsen, J., and K.S. Kurani. 2012. Interpersonal influence within car buyers’ social networks: Applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environ. Plann. A 44(5):1047-1065. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2009. Recovery Act—Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative. Funding Opportunity No. DE-FOA-0000026. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/de-foa-0000026-000001.pdf, accessed January 11, 2013. DOE. 2011. One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015: February 2011 Status Report. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_vehicles_rpt.pdf. DOE. 2013a. “Vehicles Technologies Office: Hybrid and Vehicle Systems.” Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/systems/index.html, accessed March 14, 2013. DOE. 2013b. “Alternative Fuels Data Center: State Laws and Incentives. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” Available at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/state, accessed January 29, 2013. EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2012. “Table A1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Demand” and “Table A2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source” in Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release Overview. December 5. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm, accessed March 14, 2013. Elgowainy, A., J. Han, L. Poch, M. Wang, A. Vyas, M. Mahalik, and A. Rousseau. 2010. Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. ANL/ESD/10-01. Argonne National Laboratory. June. Available at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_report.pdf, accessed April 18, 2013. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010. EPA 430-R-12-001. Washington, D.C. April 15. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2012-Main- Text.pdf. EPRI/ NRDC (Electric Power Research Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council). 2007. Environmental Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Volume 1: National Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Report. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. July. Available at http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/id/27936, accessed April 18, 2013. EVIX (Electric Vehicle Information Exchange). 2012. Electronic Vehicle Survey Panel: A National Study of Consumer Attitudes toward and Usage of EVs. Oceanus Automotive, Inc., Austin, Tex. November. Available at https://evix.com/files/EVIX%20Survey%20Panel%20- %20Topline%20Report%20November%202012.pdf, accessed on January 28, 2013. 13 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2012. “Highway Statistics 2010.” Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/ , accessed on January 28, 2013. Heffner, R.K., K.S. Kurani, and T.S. Turrentine. 2008. Symbolism in California's early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transport. Res. D 12(6):396-413. Kammen, D.M., S.M. Arons, D.M. Lemoine, and H. Hummel. 2009. Cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas emission reductions from plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Pp. 170-191 in Plug-in Electric Vehicles: What Role for Washington? Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C. NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2013. “Vehicle Systems Analysis: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.” Available at http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/vsa/plugin_hybrid.html, accessed March 14, 2013. Peterson, S.B., J.F. Whitacre, and J. Apt. 2011. Net air emissions from electric vehicles: The effect of carbon price and charging strategies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(5):1792-1797. Schiffer, M.B., T.C. Butts, and K.K. Grimm. 1994. Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Thompson, J. 2012. “Overcoming Barriers to Electric Vehicle Deployment: Barriers to Deployment. An OEM Perspective.” Presentation by Joseph Thompson, Nissan, to the Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment, December 17. National Research Council,Washington, D.C. TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2006. The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding. Special Report 285. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 14